Putting the S in SUV Comparo

With my father's 1993 Grand Cherokee being reduced to RWD because of transaxle problems that resulted in the teeth of the gears being grinded away my dad is in search of a new ride. After much thought being put into with him even at one point being interested in the WRX and RX-8, not to mention the Legacy 2.5GT and Mazda6. He even looked into the WRX STi at one point, but ended up concluding he wanted something with an automatic. And was once interested in the Ford Escape Hybrid, but figured it was too expensive for what it had. He ended up wanting something that is not only sporty but can he can haul scuba tanks among other things in and maybe a kayak on top, he doesn't kayak now and can still haul your average or perhaps more passengers. This means that he probably wants, you guessed an SUV. But since he wants an SUV that not only emphasizes sport a bit more but also wants it not as Grand Cherokee, Honda Pilot and MDX nor gi-huge like some of the Chevis and Dodges, not to mention not being over 40k. And with my mom owning a Subaru Outback with owning a 1987 Subaru Turbo Touring Wagon before he set his eyes on either owning a 2006 Subaru Forester 2.5 XT or B9 Tribeca. But since he wanted to keep a somewhat open mind on things and with me being a auto enthusiast I was told by him that when I went to the NYC auto show I would take pictures and find info on SUVs he might be interested in.

So here is the list I came up with.

2006 Subaru Forester 2.5 XT.

http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/carcom/05_NYIAS/Day_2_032405/05_Subaru/400/aIMG_0211.jpg
http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/carcom/05_NYIAS/Day_2_032405/05_Subaru/400/aIMG_0255.jpg
http://www.subdriven.com/gallery/albums/Automobiles/Forester/Generation%202/2006%20Forester/003.jpg

Weight: 3168lbs
HP: 230
Tourque: 235

Some of my take.

Pros: 1. Very good power to weight ratio.
2. Power and acceleration that can match or slightly better than a WRX.
3. Good cargo capacity and low enough to put something like a kayak on.
4. Great safety rating.
5. All of this for a bit below or at 30k (my dad will make sure it is below though)

Cons: 1. I personal like the styling, but others might say it is somewhat bland.
2. More refined but still family sedan like interior (except for fridge)
3. Even though with it sitting a bit higher now so it is more comfortable of a ride it is still probably going to have some signs of the stiff and sporty balance of off-roading and road going suspention that it origonated from.

2006 Saturn Vue and Vue Redline.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/news/column/letterstoeditors/03.apr/03.saturn.vue.500.jpg
http://images.autobytel.com/view/aic/SATURN/VUE/spe/usa_2005_SATURN_VUE_spe_4_x_exrrpass75_x.jpg
http://images.autobytel.com/Web/Carpics/NCTD/03-vue-interior-1.jpg
Redline
http://www.autonews.com/images/random/nyshow2003/saturn/vue/redline1.jpg
http://www.roadcompanion.ca/edito/mag/articles/32611/vue_redline.jpg
http://www.autobytel.com/images/carPics/TestDrv/SueMead/500/04SaturnRedline4.jpg

Weight: 3111lbs
HP: Normal: 143 Redline: 250
Torque: Normal 152 Redline: 242

Pros: 1. The normal viewCheaper than most of the others with spitely handling, with the redline being even sporty
2. Both the Ecotec and Honda engine in the redline are proven to be very reliable.
3. With it being a Saturn the price is usually as low as you can go.
Cons: 1. With it being a Saturn the price is usually as low as you can go.
2. Redline may be sporty but still not as sporty as the Forester XT, at a more expensive price too.

Chevrolet HHR

http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/i/nctd/q/06s-hhr.jpg
http://www.autowereld.com/imagesDB/200/51504429134_hhr.jpg
http://www.car-data.com/photos.previews/p.chevrolet.hhr.30.5.jpg

Weight: estimated or more like guesstimated 2800lbs
HP: 140 or 170
Torque: 150 or 170

Pros: 1. Unique 1940s or what my dad said Mafiosa like looks.

Cons: 1. With sporty looks there is not much else known about it if it will have sporty handling but judging by the power to weight and mass figures it probably won't have such sporty acceleration and power. Perhaps Chevi should consider serving up a supercharged option.

2. It will probably be expensive for what it has.

Subaru B9 Tribeca

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/elmundomotor/especiales/2005/01/salondetroit/coches/subaru/tribeca/g/1.jpg
http://subaruklub.racing.hu/kepek/tribeca05/3.jpg
http://estaticos.elmundo.es/elmundomotor/especiales/2005/01/salondetroit/coches/subaru/tribeca/g/3.jpg
http://www.napi.hu/newsimages/photos/online/auto/subaru/Tribeca3_nagy.jpg

Weight: 4000lbs
HP: 250
Torque: 219

Pros: 1. A big SUV but not as big as many people percieved.
2. Very good handling for a large SUV, comparable with Legacy Outback but set up to be even sportier.
3. Dispite sporty set up it is still suppose to have a very smooth ride.
4. Great interior, also has some SVX influence on the center console plus driver side and somewhat on the seats.

Cons: 1. Power to weight ratio is a bit off.
2. Not really ideal for off-road.
3. More Lexus or Infiniti like pricing (but still a bit cheaper).
4. Slower acceleration than what I listed so far. 8.0 seconds, which is still very good for an SUV of that size and power to weight ratio (even though knowing Subaru it is probably more like 7.5).

Volvo XC90 turbocharged T5 or perhaps the twin turbo T6, not the V8 though since it is too expensive.

http://www.autonavigator.ru/autocatalog/volvo/images/volvo-xc90.jpg
http://www.autobytel.com/images/carPics/TestDrv/Lyons/XC90/Volvo_XC90_rear2.jpg
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0209_volvo_xc90_interior.jpg

Weight: 4450lbs
HP: 208 or 268
Torque: 236 or 280

Pros: 1. Volvo safety
2. Volvo reliability
3. Good power and great luxery

Cons: 1. Good power but for the T5 (which is the cheapest once compared to the others here) it is still not as powerful and does not have as good acceleration as the likes of even the B9 Tribeca.
2. Volvo safety, reliability and engeering may be great, if you are willing to pay the Volvo price. And what you can get in the Volvo you can probably get in the Tribeca for less.
3. I bet you like the Volvo wagon this one still can't go up a steep muddy hill without getting itself stuck with its wheels spinning. This is for those who saw the Swedish video comparison of the Subaru Outback against the Volvo V60.

2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor Ralliart Concept. Even though it is currently merely a concept with the fact that a Ralliart Galant will be put into production, so aside from the plasma screen and PS2 with GT4 in the trunk, a Ralliart Endeavor will probably soon follow suite.

http://carreviewsonline.auto123.com/ArtImages/35186/alt08.jpg
http://macleans.auto123.com/ArtImages/35162/07.jpg
http://www.auto-news.autoworld.co.za/SizedPics/news/aw/fp/zoom/zoomart400-8880_Mitsubishi_Endeavor_Ralliart_Concept.jpg
http://www.f1.autoworld.co.za/SizedPics/news/aw/fp/zoom/zoomart400-8883_Mitsubishi_Endeavor_Ralliart_Concept.jpg

Weight: 3500lbs
HP: 260
Torque: 255

Pros: 1. Bold styling, which people say Subaru tried to sought after with the Forester.
3. Larger than the Forester but still smaller than the Tribeca and XC90.
4. More power than the Forester XT and Tribeca.
2. Good road going suspention set-up which is sporty yet still smoother than the Forester.
4. Dispite what is inside the Endeavor Ralliart, a fully loaded one will still probably go for slightly less than a full Tribeca and even a limited XC90.

Cons: 1. Suspention set-up means, like the Tribeca, you can probably never ride it off-road.
2. Will probably be more expensive than the Forester XT.
4. As powerful as it is, it still might not be as fast as the Subaru Forester XT.

Toyota RAV4

http://www.vancouvercarnet.com/rav4.jpg
http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_reviews/toyota/photos/toyota-rav4-2.jpg
http://www.automobilepic.com/images/01.toyota.rav4.r3-4.500.jpg
http://images.autobytel.com/Web/Carpics/NCTD/03-rav4-interior.jpg

Weight: 2897lbs
HP: 148 or 161
Torque 142 or 165

Pros: 1. Lightest and smallest SUV in comparison
2. Almost Scion like pricing
3. Toyota reliability
4. Good package for price, in true Toyota style.
5. Good off-road capability

Cons: 1. Toyota package may prove to be too dull for some (even though I like the looks of the RAV4 with the hood scoop).
2. Even though better than, but still power wise more in competition with baseline Vue with 0-60 times at 8.40, but still can be cheaper than vase and is way cheaper than the Redline. I think this SUV begs for some form of forced induction (I heard there are turbocharged versions sold elsewhere).
3. Smallest SUV in comparison.


2005 Isuzu Axiom, technically 2004 model and last year too.

http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_reviews/isuzu/photos/axiom2.jpg
http://images.autobytel.com/view/aic/ISUZU/AXIOM/spe/usa_2004_ISUZU_AXIOM_spe_4_x_exrrpass75_x.jpg
http://www.dealersinsight.com/images/isuzu_axiom_01.jpg
http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/02805111990004LRG.jpg

Weight: 4180lbs
HP: 250
Torque: 246

Cons: 1. Pretty heavy for mid-sized SUV.
2. Mushy suspention and what others called an old frame (much altered, but still based on the Rodeo chasis) there is plenty of bodyrole.
3. Cheap interior for what can be considered a 30k SUV.
4. In the condition Isuzu is in right now, you can't be sure how well the warranty will hold.

Pros: 1. Dispite the suspention and chasis, the engine is still sporty being rev happy and quite reliable.
2. SUV's handling is still be considered sporty.
3. Was once considered fastest SUV in its class with 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in 15.4. But the Tribeca now can probably match it in at least the 0-60.
4. What use to be as much as 31k fully loaded can now be bought for as little as 21k.


And there we go, I know I am missing the Jeep Liberty (which my dad says is too expensive for his tastes and too high) and Hyundai Tuscon and much qualified for its price Kia Sportage which can be considered an equal to the Toyota RAV4.

2005 nissan xterra
4.0L V6
horsepower: 265
torque: 284
weight: 4290lb

i am not sure of the price, i think its around $20k-$25k

Thanks, I forgot to mention I am open to suggestion of other SUVs that are not listed.

Even though my dad might think it is too high for him. He just had surgery and is currently not feeling too great even though he is looking forward to feeling better some time soon. Also, one of my friend's dad leased an Xtera once, the console, seats and apulstery looked good even though that and the ride quality are a little rugget, even though that is cool with me. But I heard the newer ones are more refined and the chassis is actually tougher so you can take it a bit more off-road.

I voted for the Forester. When it comes to sporty SUVs, it doesn't get any better than the Subaru. With an excellent turbo motor, unbeatable safety and reliability ratings, and lively, car-like driving dynamics, it's the most sensible choice here.

I knew I forgot something great about the Subaru Forester. Even though my dad is indeed compelled to the Forester XT or Tribeca: this comparison and poll will still go on for him, me and anyone else who has taken interest into buying or even knowing sporty SUVs, if some of these can truly be considered SUVs.

With my father's 1993 Grand Cherokee being reduced to RWD because of transaxle problems that resulted in the teeth of the gears being grinded away my dad is in search of a new ride.

Just for future reference tell your dad to change his diff fluid every once in a while, like every 30,000 miles and things like that won't happen.

Thankyou for telling me that, he and I do think it is shame though since the interior is in impeccable condition and the cast iron I6 is just as reliable as when he bought it. Most of the repairs that were done over the years were the (you guessed it) the tranny and once on the rear axle, pipe and the whole rear for that matter when someone collided with him from behind while sitting at a red light.

I will keep that in mind not only when he buys his new 4 wheel drive/AWD vehicle but also considering that I own a car that has AWD too.

I'd have the Volvo simply for it being a class above the others and really hard to fault as good, safe, reliable family transport.


Though a Forester XT is a fantastic car as well.

Voted for the Volvo because it's probably the best vehicle in the bunch, but also most expensive. If I wanted to save a couple bucks I'd go with the Jeep.

Yes, it is true you can't beat Volvo safety, even though Subaru is getting rather close at least when it comes to the way the cookie crumbles so to speak. If you do not get my analogy I am saying they are pretty close when it comes to collision safety in how the chassis and panels handle collisions in a way that prevents the occupants from getting critically injured or worse. Also, I know for a fact that Volvo engines and most of the mechanics for that matter are very reliable since one of my other friend's moms owned a 1989 Volvo wagon (don't know which model) until about three years ago. The car was a bit rusted with the interior being a bit dirty and most of the door handles fell of but the mechanics of the car were still running strong. But I guess she didn't want to have a mostly door handeless car and bought another very reliable car, the Honda Civic. That is 6 years more than my mom's 87 Subaru wagon which started to stall randomly, probably tranny problems. She ended up selling it to some unsuspected Subaru loving father for him to drive then hand down to his son, my mom forgot to mention about the stalling problem (I just hope he is car savvy). But then again my mom drive her wagon for many more miles than my friend's.

But aside from that, what this means is as a manufacture becomes known for something outstanding about their lineup whether it be safety, sportiness of some kind, reliability, comfort for a decade or even a half automobile companies take note of that. And when they do they feel their customers are either so faithful, older and/or now earning a larger salary they feel it is ok to push up the price to bit higher to purchase one of their automobiles and I mentioned before loyal enough to justify increasing the price for the parts needed to repair it, of course they would usually refine the key and even other parts of their lineup. So the fact is companies that are prestigious for certain things such as Volvo you end up paying for their prestige. However you also have other companies that set aside certain models to be upscale and even putting those models under a certain brand names in certain nations. Of course I am not against a brand up scaling itself since Subaru is trying to do that right now, as long as it helps getting the financial and notoriety help among investors to contribute to improving their product. So it pretty much comes down to if you are the type of person that would either only buy prestigious automobiles because you know they have some quality of theirs that they pride themselves on, those who want the cheapest car since they just want something that goes from point A to B, you don't mind buying something as long as it is good at that time with you wanting the most of what you want for your money or you are a fan of that particular brand. My dad is the kind that wants the most out of his money yet does not want to spend too much on it. That is why he bought the Grand Cherokee in 1993 since it was ranked well, but cheaper than most of the imports and some of the domestics at the time, don't forget this was a time that Chevi was getting Jeep to have a brand image (which is an ample off-roader, with a comfortable interior for less than Landrover prices). But as Jeep gained long lasting a brand image of that not to mention now performance to boot, of course the price of their vehicles went up but still less than Landrover and since they are up now my dad lost interest in them. Not to mention the fact he wants something a bit lower and less SUV like, but if there is a bigger SUV to his liking he might get it. Of course Volvos are not as expensive as likes of BMW or Mercedes Benz but that can also be contributed to them trying to recover their notoriety, which can either be from a loss of quality or in Volvo's case a lack of addition perks which they are trying to gain through more performance. Even though I will try to show my dad the attributes of Volvo and the like that would justify their higher price. And I know that Jeep pricing all of their lineup in the 20-35k area.

Btw, I got the gist of the difference between what can be defined as 4wd and AWD.

Well, it's no secret that Japanese reliability wasn't what it is today back in the 80's. Modern Subarus are pretty much bulletproof, and as you said, the chassis design is getting good enough to rival even the likes of Volvo.

Yeah, I must agree with you kman10587, you can't go wrong (in terms of dependability) with a Japanese car. THe B9 Tribeca seems to be a cool SUV. Subaru claims it has BMW X5 beating quality's (I think it is like the interior and handeling). The other SUV I'd say is the Saturn Vue Redline. It's FAST for a Saturn, and fast for an SUV! So I'm really split between the two as to which one's better. But I guess it boils down to weather or not you want an American car.

Then again, you can't go wrong with the safty aspect posted by blindside.AMG about the XC90. And since I own a Jeep Grand Cherokee, I would also suggest the Jeep Liberty. I rented one of those for about 2 weeks in the summer of 2003, and it was nice, but it is quite small on the inside. It's about as much interior space as a Ford Escape (mabey a little less).

I thought I read somewhere that the B9 Tribeca is priced in the mid-$40's. I could be wrong, but the Volvo XC90 cost's about the same. So the B9 and the XC90 could cost you about (and this is a rough estimate) $50k each.


The most bang for your buck would have to be the Saturn Vue Redline.

I voted for the Forester. When it comes to sporty SUVs, it doesn't get any better than the Subaru. With an excellent turbo motor, unbeatable safety and reliability ratings, and lively, car-like driving dynamics, it's the most sensible choice here.
:1: exactly my thoughts.

Yeah, I must agree with you kman10587, you can't go wrong (in terms of dependability) with a Japanese car. THe B9 Tribeca seems to be a cool SUV. Subaru claims it has BMW X5 beating quality's (I think it is like the interior and handeling). The other SUV I'd say is the Saturn Vue Redline. It's FAST for a Saturn, and fast for an SUV! So I'm really split between the two as to which one's better. But I guess it boils down to weather or not you want an American car.

Then again, you can't go wrong with the safty aspect posted by blindside.AMG about the XC90. And since I own a Jeep Grand Cherokee, I would also suggest the Jeep Liberty. I rented one of those for about 2 weeks in the summer of 2003, and it was nice, but it is quite small on the inside. It's about as much interior space as a Ford Escape (mabey a little less).

I thought I read somewhere that the B9 Tribeca is priced in the mid-$40's. I could be wrong, but the Volvo XC90 cost's about the same. So the B9 and the XC90 could cost you about (and this is a rough estimate) $50k each.


The most bang for your buck would have to be the Saturn Vue Redline.


The V8 XC90 is the one that is in the 40s and ends up at max scraping the 50k mark. But my dad does not have or does not want to pay that kind of money so there is the turbo T5 and if you get a basic bare twin turbo T6 for perhaps 39k if you are lucky. The Subaru B9 Tribeca however is aimed squarely at lower end (or lower packaged) luxury SUVs such as the T5 XC90 with power and comparable packaging at 34k, which is just shy of a fully loaded T5 which I might add is FWD, so that one goes out for sure. A fully loaded Subaru Tribeca will probably go for 39k at most. As for a Tribeca that is not fully loaded might go for 30-32k. You can say it is sort of like how the new Hemi powered Cherokee is aiming at the Touareg and X5 at thousands less with comparable performance and what maybe considered as only slightly less of an interior. Plus Jeep is now going to sell the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 to really send the message that they mean performance and luxury. Of course all the prices for the B9 Tribeca are still under speculation but if Subaru was smart they would not have it priced at over 40k, even fully loaded, or it should be at most a little over the 40k mark like how the WRX STi is a little over 30.

I am personally taking notice at the Mitsubishi Endeavor Ralliart since you can say it is something between the Forester XT and Tribeca. Even though out of all of those I listed I still like the Forester XT the most, and so does my dad even though he is torn between that or the Tribeca. And it is too bad the Isuzu not making the Axiom anymore, all it needed was a price fix and less mushy suspention and it would of offered a nice larger alternative to the Sportage, Tuscon plus even Forester, not to mention direct competition to the Santa Fe. I just hope that high reving 250hp and almost equal torque V6, not to mention whatever AWD setup, into something else in the future just in case GM loses support from a certain other auto company for a certain SUV, it did propel a 4 ton into reaching 1/4 times in the 15s. I don't know if it is just me but SUVs as we know it are now ending and turning into what seems to be called a "crossover." What is the true meaning of a crossover anyway, it is just another way of saying lower more car like SUV or is it really something different?

I dont know about autos, but I know forester xt's in stick are mad fast. 13.9 quater mile. 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. thats like, auto c5 vette fast. I really like them. They are built really good and look nice imo. Thats my vote.

The Volvo XC90 is in a whole other league than the Forester and the Rav4, both in terms of pricing, luxury and size. I don't know anything about the rest of the bunch because they aren't sold in Europe. The Saturns looked appaling and had awful interiors so at least I wouldn't pick them.

The Forester looks awful, but the chassis is good. The interior not, though. Rav4? No thanks. Volvo XC90? Yes, please! The Volvo is more comparable to X5/X3, ML, Cayenne, Range Rover etc., and both looks much better than the rest of the cars in this comparo and is safer as well.

There's no doubt that the Volvo XC90 is a better SUV than the Forester, but look at how much more expensive it is. The Forester is also sportier for sure, even with an auto tranny.