From the March 2001 issue of Car and Driver.
Every Michigander—hell, even the Michigoslings—knows perfectly well what happens in December, and it was happening good and hard as 11 ute-lets single-filed out of C/D‘s parking lot onto Hogback Road. With heaters roaring and wipers whapping and good sense left back at the office where it couldn’t interfere with the mission, we turned north, directly into the promise of eight inches…by lunch time. “More tonight,” said the weatherman, “and more tomorrow.”
Our destination? Boyne Mountain, where more and more and more snow makes the cash registers ring and the ski lifts groan with loads of happy downhillers. That’s why others go to Boyne Mountain in winter. But not us. There wasn’t a ski, or a board, or even a single-seater washtub on our equipment list. Instead, we had shovels. And snatch straps. We were going to Boyne Mountain in December to see if we could get stuck. Go anywhere, any time—that’s the SUV promise. Too often, it comes with a window sticker north of 30 grand, attached to a truck weighing more than two tons. But not this time. Can you get all-weather traction for typical sedan prices, say $22,000 to $24,000? We rounded up every compact four-door sport-ute on the market for this adventure. The choices range from the senior-citizen Jeep Cherokee, which will be gone by this summer, to four models from three continents, so new they’ve yet to show their grilles in a C/D comparo.
The trend in SUVs generally, and in small ones particularly, is away from the class’s off-road heritage and toward on-road traction. The older “part-time” systems require the driver to reach down by the tunnel and pull a lever to engage four-wheel drive. “Shift on the fly” is as good as it gets with part-timers, which means that you needn’t come to a stop before pulling the stick. Such systems also provide a low range for creeping along in deep muck or when careful maneuvering is required. You must stop, or nearly stop, to engage that gear set. The newer entries in this class have “full-time” four-wheel drive. They’re front-drive vehicles that automatically route torque to the rear wheels when the fronts begin to slip. There are no levers to pull, and no low range.
These full-time four-wheelers are intended for on-road use, although they have very reasonable off-road capability as we confirmed in our last comparison of bigger SUVs (“Designer-Ute Smackdown,” December 2000); the full-time Lexus RX300 propelled itself through the same holes and hazards as the mud-loving Land Rover Discovery. Now let’s meet the players. In addition to the square-edged Jeep Cherokee, the part-timers here are all “legacy” vehicles, which is the politically correct way of saying old-timers. They include the Suzuki-built twins, the Grand Vitara wearing the Japanese label and the Tracker, now badged as a Chevrolet following General Motors’s summary termination of the Geo brand for 1998. The Korean-built Kia Sportage specializes in the one thing most buyers look for in a new car—low price.
If you can imagine a truck shrink-wrapped into bicyclist’s pants before donning cowboy chaps, hiking boots, and a pith helmet, that’s the swagger of the Nissan Xterra. It’s ready for anything! For newer thinking about what an SUV might be, look to the full-timers’ class, which ranges from a barely disguised sedan in the case of the Subaru Forester to the semi-trucky looks and attitude of Dearborn’s new pair, the Ford Escape and the Mazda Tribute. Toyota’s redesigned RAV4 is car-based, but the result is a multipurpose runabout that defies classification, as does Honda’s Civic-based CR-V. Then there’s Hyundai’s first-ever sport-ute, and from the name Santa Fe, you’d expect it to be clad in stucco instead of the swoopiest sheetmetal this side of Pininfarina. Now let’s see how these 11 ute-lets fare when the going gets deep—which are merely teeny…and which are the weenies?
Eleventh Place: Kia Sportage Limited
Just because Kia caters to price-conscious shoppers doesn’t mean it wants to turn away those carrying Rhodium cards, Promethium cards, and other indications of fiscal throw weight. So you can pay more for a Sportage by opting for the EX model, and by adding the Limited leather trim for yet another $800. We said yes to all the frills, thereby hiking the sticker to $21,890 and simultaneously leaving enough space below for the Hyundai to grab the “best price” title. Kia does good frills. The charcoal-leather seats looked sharp and drew huzzahs for their comfort. If you keep your gaze away from the glued-dog-hair headliner, the EX makes a good showroom impression.
HIGHS: Cute-ute styling, leather seats good on the eyes and the butt, panoramic view.
LOWS: Bad noises: metal-to-metal clatter at wide-open throttle, shuddering sheetmetal over chatter bumps, axle whine.
On smooth roads at modest speeds, the Kia behaves reasonably, too. The engine is quiet, and the controls are properly connected. Just don’t try to hurry. First, the Sportage is congenitally unable to comply. At 12.5 seconds from zero to 60, it’s the most lethargic performer here by two full seconds. Second, the accompanying rudeness is impossible to forgive, particularly the grinding-metal contact at full power. Washboard roads excite a chorus of clatters from body sheetmetal, too, more than in any of the others. We were also troubled by the side window’s enthusiasm for popping out of its track in response to air pressure when it’s cranked down at road speed. When the need arises to engage four-wheel drive, the lever is easy to reach and it glides happily to the desired position. In the deep, traction was good and the Sportage was more stable in the ruts through packed snow than several of the others.
As a passenger hauler, the firm, leather-covered rear bench is surprisingly comfortable, although the cushion’s butt pocket is located somewhat forward of the normal position. Knee clearance is more generous than in the Suzuki and Chevy. When making space for cargo, only the backrest folds forward, leaving a big step in the load floor. For now we think the Sportage retains a firm lock on its cheap-ute identity, even though its price has risen above.
THE VERDICT: The price is appealing, all other things being equal—except they aren’t.
2001 Kia Sportage Limited
200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3366 lb
Base/as-tested price: $20,090/$21,890
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time 2-speed; open/limited slip
Ground clearance: 7.9 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 26/55 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 12.5 sec
1/4 mile: 19.1 @ 72 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 190 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg
Tenth Place: Jeep Cherokee Sport
Why pay huge for a Hummer when you can get a similar folded-tin look for just $23,720? This Jeep Cherokee steers through congested mall parking lots with much less anxiety about ripping gashes in Buick hulls, too, for the simple reason that it’s nearly a foot and a half narrower. Call it “average size” for this group, and a bit hefty at 3607 pounds.
HIGHS: Good power, lots of rock clearance below, easy-to-grab low range.
LOWS: High step-up, tight confines within, saggy seats, spare tire gobbles up cargo room.
The Cherokee doesn’t serve up the intimidating bulk of the Hummer, but you can still enjoy some of the big guy’s hardships. You step way up for entry, then crawl in through half-size doors. Watch your head! The rear doors are laughably small for a vehicle this size . . . unless you’re trying to get out. The seats have the sumptuous foam feel of a Kmart sofa, and the materials inside are, let’s say, not suitable for mood enhancement. Rear-seat comfort and space are at the bottom of the charts; don’t go there.
What the Jeep does provide is capital-T torque at very low revs, making it impressive on the snowy slope. Pull the lever down into four low, squeeze on just a feather touch of power, and it goes, crunching up on the loose snow and easing along on top with nary a trace of tire spin. With the other vehicles and their smaller engines, more throttle was necessary, and as soon as their tires slipped, they dug themselves in like determined Jack Russells. The Jeep never got stuck—it acted as though it never would—so we quit our slippery-slope trial before the backing-out distance topped a half-mile.
The 4.0-liter inline six is no slacker on the road, either, clocking zero to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds, thereby splitting the Ford twins. It makes rustic, slow-breathing sounds at idle, rather in the character of trucks it hung out with when it was young. With a solid axle up front, the Jeep is casual about steering accuracy on the interstate. The ride is trucky. “My head never stops bobbing,” wrote one tester. The driving position is confined. There’s no place to rest your left foot. The driver does have a high viewpoint, but the horizon line of the hood is also high, Hummer-style, so you can’t see the road any closer to the front bumper than you can in the low-rider Subaru Forester.
THE VERDICT: As macho as a three-day beard, and every bit as sophisticated.
2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
190-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3607 lb
Base/as-tested price: $22,500/$23,720
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time 2-speed; none/open
Ground clearance: 8.1 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 34/66 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.4 sec
1/4 mile: 16.5 @ 83 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 190 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg
Ninth Place: Suzuki Grand Vitara JLX Limited V-6
This Suzuki fell behind its Chevy sister in the final balloting by the narrowest of margins—one point—but don’t read too much into that. The Suzuki was wearing fancier clothes, raising its price $1263 clear of the Tracker to $23,554. In this neck of the market, price really counts.
HIGHS: Spunky styling, happy interior with its leather trimmings, commanding view of terrain.
LOWS: Tends to hop around on its suspension, steering keeps losing its way on the interstate.
That said, a leather-lined Grand Vitara is a handsome unit. The black hides have just the right satiny sheen to suggest Italian handiwork. The front buckets are narrow, sized for the narrow cockpit and bulky tunnel. Their upright positioning allows good room for drivers of most sizes. Those of girth, however, won’t be able to fold down the center armrest. Space in the rear is tight, more so than in the Chevy, we think because the seats are bigger, crowding the room like overstuffed furniture. Passenger toes are blocked by hardware under the front seats, too, adding to the grumbling. Adults will never be happy back there.
Although the five-door body is a recent addition to the Suzuki/Chevy line, introduced as a 1999 model, the machine itself is resolutely old tech. It has a ladder frame with a strut front suspension and a solid axle in back, located by five links. The 2.5-liter V-6 is also relatively new. With 155 horsepower coupled to a four-speed automatic, the ‘Zuki will get out of its own way, but acceleration is below the average here, meaning that it mostly can’t get out of the way of others. For even mild accelerations from road speed, the automatic shifts down to third, usually abruptly.
The good news is that Suzuki has been diligently refining the NVH, with notable improvements apparent in the short time since our 1999 long-term test car. This machine is much smoother and less raucous than that previous model, and it doesn’t carom and careen from bump to hump as much, either. Still, the chunky-spunky exterior styling is a remarkably lucid harbinger of the coltish demeanor you should expect on the road.
THE VERDICT: Cute, very cute, but never as lovable as it looks.
2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara JLX Limited V-6
155-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3238 lb
Base/as-tested price: $23,479/$23,554
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time 2-speed; open/open
Ground clearance: 7.5 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 21/45 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.2 sec
1/4 mile: 17.7 @ 76 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 193 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg
Eighth Place: Chevrolet Tracker ZR-2
Our test Tracker’s paint was barely dry, less than 400 miles were on the odo when we hit the road—so young it hadn’t learned to rattle yet. It made a solid first impression, except for its interior materials; Chevy knows how to simulate the fleet-car look with shades of industrial gray and a full complement of blanked-off switch holes scattered about the dash. We soon learned that one of the absent switches would provide an intermittent setting for the rear wiper, very handy on a snowy day if it weren’t missing.
HIGHS: Apart from the dimple-cheeked styling and the driver’s high viewpoint, have you checked the price?
LOWS: Taxi-cab materials inside, and relentless skimping on the little details.
We found 4-HI easy to engage on the fly. That setting is usually thought of as an off-road mode, but a placard on the console okayed its use “on slippery roads.” For snow traction, both the Chevy and the Suzuki performed well; they completed all of the informal trials we asked of them. At the same time, their personalities are quite different from the others. They bounce around over ruts. And on the freeway, the steering has no preference for straight ahead. You must keep reminding it. Always you feel vibratory tingles coming up through the pedals and in the steering wheel, and the inside mirror goes fuzzy at some speeds. These two feel like little trucks.
And “little” isn’t just a feeling, either. The Tracker, by a few inches, is the shortest machine of the group. It weighs just 64 pounds more than the lightest, the RAV4. In our cargo-space test—How many beer cases fit?—he ‘Zuki twins tied the Honda and Kia for last place at 10 cases each in the space behind the upright rear seat. With the seat folded, which opened the whole space back there for hauling, the Tracker swallowed only 17 cases, barely half as many as the voluminous Xterra (32). The Tracker also provided the least floor area for cargo, and it ties with the Sportage for second to last on the question “How long a pipe can you carry inside?”
The Tracker pairs below-average acceleration with weak braking, 205 feet to a standstill from 70 mph, poorest of the pack. At a time when trucks are approaching cars in refinement, the Suzukis are still hanging back.
THE VERDICT: Like the ’Zuki, a great costume for college-agers.
2001 Chevrolet Tracker ZR-2
155-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3178 lb
Base/as-tested price: $20,975/$22,291
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time 2-speed; open/open
Ground clearance: 8.0 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 21/45 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.3 sec
1/4 mile: 17.7 @ 77 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 205 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
Seventh Place: Nissan Xterra XE V-6
The Xterra struts its trucky hipness with a cocksure pose that leaves all the others in the stylistic ditch. You may be cruising it to the 7-Eleven for a bag of nachos, but man, you got an active lifestyle.
HIGHS: Well, there’s the step-up to enter, for one, the reach to the roof rack for another.
LOWS: Lots of rattles and quivers, flabby seats, and you’re sitting almost on the floor.
For sure, you’ve got a truck. This is an old-style, part-time four-wheeler with frame-and-body construction. It’s big for the class. It’s heavy, too: 4191 pounds, the only player here over two tons. At 178.0 inches overall, it’s five inches longer than the two new-tech entries from Ford. It has more hauling space inside, and carries 32 cases with the rear seats folded compared with 27 for the Escape/Tribute. Folding the seat, by the way, requires uprooting the cushion and storing it somewhere.
As a people hauler, it falls way behind. The step-up for entry is a big one, and the rear seat is low to the floor, leaving adults with their thighs angled skyward, sitting on the points of their butts. The cushion is mushy (syn., gooshy; see flaccid), leaving passengers hanging on in the corners. There’s no toe space under the front seats, either. If there’s a positive, it’s this: Three people in back are no more uncomfortable than two because of the considerable width. Bottom line: The Xterra is bigger than it is commodious.
The front buckets are also low riders, leaving antler room overhead. As in the rear, the cushions lack basic support. At first, the interior seems quiet; the engine and the drivetrain are muted. Then you notice the rattles and shakes. The empty seats shudder as you drive. The roof rack, too clever by half with its dirty-clothes bin up front, makes sounds like a small factory on the second floor.
The body flexes and drums, even on the freeway. In the snow, the Xterra couldn’t match the Jeep’s trick of creeping along on top; it dug in and gave up relatively early. The rear wiper was similarly unsuccessful at clearing the rear window. On-road performance is below average, outrunning only the Kia in the sprint to 60, albeit by a decisive two-second margin. Braking falls just below the test average of 183, at 188 feet from 70 mph. Still, looking active beats looking, what, torpid?
THE VERDICT: A veteran truck decked out in brand-new extreme-sports duds.
2001 Nissan Xterra XE V-6
170-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 4191 lb
Base/as-tested price: $21,569/$24,725
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time 2-speed; open/open
Ground clearance: 7.9 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 45/66 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.5 sec
1/4 mile: 17.9 @ 75 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 188 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg
Sixth Place: Hyundai Santa Fe V-6
If you didn’t already know that Hyundai is not General Motors, this Santa Fe will slam home the message. At $20,234 as tested, this is the screaming bargain of the bunch, nearly $1700 less than the Kia. With a price like that, Hyundai could have played it cautious and grabbed a big share of market on price alone. But Hyundai is a risk taker. Instead of the proven, rugged-and-outdoorsy look, the Santa Fe went uptown, or maybe to outer space, judging by the brave plastic cocooning of the cockpit. Love it or hate it, it will never bore you.
HIGHS: Hushed powertrain, cushy ride, lots of room, tremendous list of features for the dough.
LOWS: The plastic-spaceship look of the interior, seats don’t slide back far enough for the long of leg.
All the basics are handled well here. The broad front buckets are firm and welcoming. There’s a perfect left-foot rest for the driver. In back, we felt the cushion lacked support, but space is fine, nearly as good as in the best. The rear seat folds easily to produce a flat load floor, and cargo room matches that of the Escape/Tribute. The machinery below is modern, too. The all-aluminum 2.7-liter V-6 makes 181 horsepower, enough to urge the Santa Fe’s 3820 pounds to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 17.6 seconds at 79 mph. The full-time four-wheel-drive system is entirely automatic in its operation. The four-wheel disc brakes have anti-lock.
The uptown styling correctly suggests the mood of this machine in motion. The ride is boulevard soft, with slow ups and downs, very carlike, even Buicklike. The mechanicals are quiet. Impacts up through the all-independent suspension cause some shake in the structure, but the auditory assault is minor. Directional stability lacks sharpness, and the four-speed automatic seems random in its decisions to shift.
The console shifter includes a manumatic feature, allowing the driver to take over as he chooses. In the snow, the Santa Fe’s automatic all-wheel-drive system behaved seamlessly, but traction, as is always the case, was limited by M+S tires intended mostly for road operation. Once you grow accustomed to the festival-of-plastic cockpit, the rest of this Hyundai makes friends easily.
THE VERDICT: Always amusing, maybe even compelling at the price.
2001 Hyundai Santa Fe V-6
181-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3820 lb
Base/as-tested price: $20,234/$20,234
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: full-time with automatic rear-axle engagement; none/open
Ground clearance: 8.1 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 29/78 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.3 sec
1/4 mile: 17.6 @ 79 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 180 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg
Fifth Place: Honda CR-V SE
How important is driver comfort? If quality and useful space and gas mileage and clever details put a smile on your face, and you don’t care much about how you fit behind the controls, then this Honda is a gem. Go for it. But every one of our drivers hates (yes, it’s a strong word) the squareback-chair driving position with no good place for the left foot, and the UPS driver’s reach for the too-horizontal steering wheel. Enough said. The CR-V has none of the trucky ideology typical of SUVs. The flat-floor layout is more like a minivan’s. A drop-table console between the front seats even allows a (constricted) pass-through, unique to this group. The rear bench seat is firm and broad, offering very good room even for three across, and good legroom made even better by the absence of a tunnel.
HIGHS: Surprising room inside, blue-chip quality, flat floor expands passenger space.
LOWS: Not enough engine, and the minibus driving position is really awkward.
Cargo space is good with the rear seats folded down. It holds 26 beer cases, one fewer than the Escape/Tribute. Hardly heroic, however, because the Honda is bigger than it looks, nearly five inches longer than the Ford twins. Also, we soon grew weary of the CR-V’s tailgate ritual: first, tilt up the glass, then unlatch and swing open the side-hinged door. Always the CR-V feels short of engine. The 146-hp, 2.0-liter four labors with its load, although acceleration numbers closely shadow those of the 148-hp RAV4. The Honda is actually 4.5 seconds quicker to 100 mph, a purely academic report for most drivers. Fuel economy on our four-day test trip averaged 21 mpg compared with 22 for the RAV4, best of the bunch.
We found the CR-V to be sure-footed, even in the deepest snow. It was stable through the deep tracks of others. Full power in the slippery sections was enough to break traction, causing the engine to soar in revs, yet we had good directional control. The tail never tried to pass the front.
The rear wiper was best of the group for chasing away slush and scum, effortlessly clearing the largest glass area of the 11 utes. At the same time, the view of the side mirrors was quickly obscured by a thick salt splash in the lee of the A-pillars. This aerodynamic failing—and the driving position—remind that the CR-V is an old design kept in the chase by close attention to quality.
THE VERDICT: The jewel box of the mini-ute class.
2001 Honda CR-V SE
146-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3261 lb
Base/as-tested price: $23,240/$23,240
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: full-time with automatic rear-axle engagement; none/open
Ground clearance: 8.1 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 30/67 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.3 sec
1/4 mile: 17.7 @ 78 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 184 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg
Fourth Place: Subaru Forester S
The Forester fits in this group like a silk slipper at a clogging match. Yes, it has the foul-weather agility of a full-time all-wheel-driver and the roofline towers over most cars’. But you sit down low, eyeball to eyeball with all the other auto pilots, with lots of air overhead, perfect for the chef who wants to dress and then drive to work. What we have here is a Subaru sedan with a backward choptop: Height was added. What we also have is a highly refined machine with the sort of driving position, ride quality, interior sounds, directional accuracy, and maneuvering agility you expect of a car. As a highway cruiser, this is the sweetheart of the bunch. The miles slip underneath and out the back with little fuss as your fingertips enjoy the touch of fine leather on the wheel. (Did Subaru intercept a shipment headed for Rolls-Royce?)
HIGHS: Great ride, silent interior, ritzy leather on the steering wheel, carlike behavior that never lapses.
LOWS: Those expecting the high viewpoint of an SUV will be greatly disappointed.
What’s missing that real SUVs provide? First, there’s no commanding view of traffic, a major disappointment. Hauling space is somewhat less than you’d expect for the Forester’s size. Rear passengers fare worse than average. The seat structure and positioning are fine, but knee clearance is tight and you must pack in as on the rush-hour New York subway to fit three across. In truly deep snow, the low belly would drag before most of the others here. You’d want snow tires for those conditions, on all of these vehicles. The roads in this test were covered with just enough snow to drag occasionally. The Forester charged through. But it was captured by the ruts more than some of the others, leaving no choice but to follow the tracks like a train. Over the rough stuff, the body makes fewer creaks and groans than most of the others.
In all the dry-road performance measures, the Subaru finishes in the top half of the class. Zero to 60 takes 9.7 seconds, 0.2 quicker than the average. Braking was impressive, stopping from 70 mph in only 171 feet. As an SUV, the Forester seems insincere, but it’s a supremely confident all-weather runabout.
THE VERDICT: An all-wheel-drive car wearing a high hat.
2001 Subaru Forester S
165-hp flat-4, 4-speed automatic, 3263 lb
Base/as-tested price: $23,390/$25,412
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: full-time; open with auto lock/limited slip
Ground clearance: 7.5 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 32/59 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.7 sec
1/4 mile: 17.4 @ 78 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 171 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
Third Place: Toyota RAV4
This freshly introduced rascal of a, well, what? It’s definitely not a truck; it’s too lithe and agile and fun to drive. But it’s a bit too sinewy in its ride, and way too tall, to fit the car template. An SUV? Okay, for lack of a category more apt. But the others seem so conventional compared with this Toyota.
Think efficiency? It’s the lightest of the bunch at just over 3100 pounds. Acceleration is about average, combined with the best trip economy of all at 22 mpg. The RAV4 is only 165.1 inches in overall length, barely longer than the Suzuki, but it embarrassed the others in the beer-case haul, 29 cases with the rear seat folded compared with 17 for the Suzuki twins. The 13-inch-longer Xterra swallowed only 32.
HIGHS: Perfect driving position, accurate control responses, great flexibility and easy loading of the cargo hold.
LOWS: Below-average power, overwrought interior style.
If you really have stuff to move, then unplug the rear seats. It takes, oh, four seconds, and the beer-case capacity jumps to 40. The RAV4 continues Toyota’s unique approach to body construction. The rear bumper is an integral part of the one-piece tailgate. It all swings to the side, allowing you to walk right up to the exceptionally low, knee-high load floor. No leaning in with your heavy parcel, trying to keep your pants clear of the crusty bumper as your back strains. Instead, you simply set your burden down and slide it forward. Brilliant!
We gave the RAV4 top marks as a fun-to-drive SUV, along with the Ford twins. The steering is especially predictable in the slushy-crunchy left lane that traffic avoids in bad weather. It puts its power to the pavement with confidence. On our snowy test slope, the RAV4 climbed the highest (but remember, we didn’t press the Jeep to its limit). The full-time four-wheel-drive system seems flawless.
We’ve even grown to like the pug-nosed exterior, which shares not a single gesture with other SUVs. The interior, particularly the instrument panel, could calm down a bit, though; there are too many colors, shades, and textures. The fit of the cockpit is close and sporty, with every control just the right reach away. The engine makes a sewing-machine sound, refined and energetic. This is such a bright, imaginative, happy helper of a car, or SUV, or whatever.
THE VERDICT: Sport-ute capability without the stigma of testosterone styling.
2001 Toyota RAV4
148-hp inline-4, 4-speed automatic, 3114 lb
Base/as-tested price: $19,145/$24,115
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: full-time; open with auto lock/open
Ground clearance: 6.7 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 29/68 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 10.2 sec
1/4 mile: 17.7 @ 77 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 163 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 22 mpg
First Place (tie): Mazda Tribute LX V-6
You will be relieved to hear there was no partisan rancor in the halls when we counted the votes, then swept up the chads and counted again. We evaluated the Tribute and Escape as distinct vehicles, but the fraction of a point between them disappeared in the final rounding. They’re twins from the same assembly plant, and they remain inseparable.
HIGHS: A sharp looker, genuine SUV view of the road ahead, best-of-class space for passengers, quick performance.
LOWS: Depressing sounds from the machinery, distressingly poor snow traction.
These are very capable machines. They score high in every category, be it performance or cargo space or people capacity. The differences are hardly deeper than appearances. That said, the Mazda looks better, we think. The grille and the headlights are more pleasing, and the lower-body cladding—it’s wider than the Ford’s treatment—contrasts nicely with the softly sculpted body. Inside, both had cloth-covered seats—the Mazda with a harder, shinier weave—but we had no preference between them. The Tribute’s black steering wheel seemed odd in an otherwise tan interior.
Conceptually, these two fit Detroit’s SUV pattern. They’re tall, and you sit up high in a trucklike driving position. This new unit body has no tunnel, however, which allows the passengers more footroom, in the style of a minivan.
At the same time, Ford didn’t throw its full enthusiasm behind the go-anywhere expectations folks have for trucks and SUVs, either. When the snow got deep, the twins were the first to quit. The Firestone Wilderness HT 235/70TR-16 tires have the close tread blocks you expect of road-and-rain tires. Through the soft snow they have great resistance. “I’m pushing a bow wake,” wrote one tester, describing the feel of the snow holding him back.
Performance on dry roads is impressive. The Tribute was quickest of all to 60 mph, in 8.2 seconds, while the Escape reached the end of the quarter-mile 0.1 second quicker. Notice the high trap speeds of both—84 mph, which is a very good indication of general swiftness in traffic and for passing. Except for the Jeep, the others all lagged back in the 72-to-78-mph range. The Tribute/Escape twins are quick on their feet.
THE VERDICT: Good at everything but bonding with its driver.
2001 Mazda Tribute LX V-6
200-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3445 lb
Base/as-tested price: $22,535/$23,268
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time and full-time with rear-axle engagement; none/open
Ground clearance: 8.4 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 33/64 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.2 sec
1/4 mile: 16.4 @ 84 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 175 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg
First Place: Ford Escape XLT
As you can see in the Test Results grid, the twins make winning numbers. They also provide a great deal of useful space inside. The rear-seat accommodations are impressive, best of the bunch by far, even for three across. This is very spacious transport for five persons. Cargo loading starts with an awkward unlatching of the rear cushion, which must be tilted up to open a space into which the backrest can be folded. When you’re finished, you have a flat floor with excellent hauling room relative to the size of the vehicle.
HIGHS: Overall competence for every task, impressive passenger capacity, quick on its feet when your foot goes down.
LOWS: Unlovely black plastic “face,” slippery tires in the snow, lacks verve.
At the same time, the twins don’t arouse the affection we would normally feel for cars that left the averages so far behind. Ford has clearly chosen to endow these two with truck personalities. They’re hard to the touch. They feel thinly upholstered, steely, with lots of tiny vibrations. They respond deliberately, without spirit. The powertrains sound dull; instead of zing they groan. Wind roar is prominent, and you hear the road up from the tires.
Over gravel roads, the bodies rattle and chatter more than we would expect. They ride firmly. The driver’s left armrest feels as if it were made of concrete. It’s all in keeping with the truck experience. It’s authentic, but it’s not heartwarming.
Although snow traction was disappointing, the automatic four-wheel-drive system seems to work as intended. We had no sensation of abrupt changes in power transfer and no sense of power failing to go where it’s needed. Indeed, the dash switch that locks the system into four-wheel drive (negating the “on demand” decisions of normal operation) worked instantly in those tests where we could determine what it was doing. We think the standard tires simply weren’t up to the job. Fortunately, they’re easy to replace.
For sure, Ford built a good foundation into these trucks. With the 3.0-liter V-6 option they combine top performance with midpack fuel economy: 19 mpg on our test trip. The big interior earns top marks for utility. With all those core competencies handled, now Ford can get busy on the S deficit. Remember, Dearborn, that the SUV’s first name is “sport.”
THE VERDICT: Like its Mazda twin, the Escape has everything but charisma.
2001 Ford Escape XLT
201-hp V-6, 4-speed automatic, 3491 lb
Base/as-tested price: $21,335/$23,940
Transfer case; center/rear-diff type: part-time and full-time with rear-axle engagement; none/open
Ground clearance: 7.8 in
Cargo, behind front/rear: 33/65 cu ft
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.5 sec
1/4 mile: 16.3 @ 84 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 169 ft
C/D observed fuel economy: 19 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io
Source link
