4.4 Tested Against It's Rivals By Autocar

[dave.m]

Compact SUV mega-test

The Ford Kuga, Mitsubishi Outlander and Toyota
RAV 4 are recently-launched family 4x4s designed to take on the like of
the Land Rover Freelander. Here's how they fare against their toughest
rivals.

There may never have been a greater need for an Autocar group
test than there is right here, right now. Six cars stand before us in a
Surrey car park. They are all what the industry calls ‘compact SUVs’,
but to an increasing proportion of the British car-buying public, they
simply represent a breed that has become the default choice for
all-purpose, all-weather, all-encompassing point-to-point convenience:
the family 4x4.

To a road tester, this is an intimidating bunch.
In a growing segment as important as this one, the arrival of one model
can be enough to trigger a big comparison test. In this case, there are
three cars among the band new enough to have beaten the dealer
demonstrators to UK roads: the Ford Kuga, Toyota RAV4 and Mitsubishi Outlander.

The
Honda CR-V is slightly older, but not much. It has yet to pass its
first birthday as a showroom model, and the Hyundai Santa Fe has yet to
pass its second. In this company, our sixth inclusion – the bookies’
favourite – looks decidedly long in the tooth. It’s the Land Rover
Freelander, appearing in 2013-model-year form but really tracing its
roots back as far as 2006.

Regular readers may have already read
full road tests on some of these cars, but remember that all were done
week by week, in isolation. There’s nothing like lining up six cars like
this side by side and systematically sorting the winners from the
losers. There will be surprises – plenty of unexpected relative
shortcomings mixed in among the predictable strengths. There may even be
a revelation or two – a new class champion, perhaps.

We’ve gone
as far as we can to ensure a level playing field. These cars all line up
with sticker prices as close to £30,000 as we could achieve, with
four-cylinder diesel engines of broadly similar power and torque output,
and – with one exception – with manual gearboxes. They will be road
tested, performance tested,measured and thoroughly inspected both on the
specification sheet and out in the real world. So by the time we reach a
verdict, you can be sure that it’s the right one.

PRACTICALITY

You
don’t need us to tell you which of these cars you particularly like the
look of, or which of their badges you desire the most. The road
tester’s job starts where ‘styling’ and ‘brand’ ends and tangible,
measurable, discernible substance begins. Often, with a tape measure.

Usable
space is one of the best reasons to trade up to an SUV. If you have a
big family – or an active, paraphernalia-packed life – it might be the
only reason you need. Just 190mm separates the shortest car (the
Freelander) from the longest here (the Santa Fe). But which car can you
get the most gear into?

Manufacturers’ claims on boot space are to
be treated with a heaped teaspoon of salt. Some measure up to the
window line, others up to the roof; some even include space under the
boot floor. We measure boot space more simply: load length along the
boot floor up to the second-row seatback, boot height from the floor to
the roof, and boot width between the narrowest points of the boot
opening.

Do that and you’ll find that the smallest boot here in
volume terms is that of the Kuga. The largest is a less easy guess; it
actually belongs to the CR-V, by a gnat’s wing. The numbers don’t tell
the whole story, though. The Santa Fe’s load bay is the moral victor,
being both the longest and the widest of all six, and it loses out only
narrowly to the Honda’s on volume because of the loading height eaten up
by the Hyundai’s third row of seats. The Toyota deserves an honourable
mention in this department, but the Land Rover certainly doesn’t and
languishes second from last.

Where passengers are concerned, the
tale of the tape measure makes even more uncomfortable reading for Land
Rover. Being the shortest car on test, this would make sense, but it’s
no less surprising that the Freelander – Autocar’s class favourite,
remember – offers the least front-row headroom and second-row legroom.
Getting into the Land Rover is very easy, thanks to the highest ride
height and resultant hip point of the entire group. But once you’re in,
there’s no mistaking it: the Freelander does feel like a slightly
smaller car than the rest of the group. And ‘small’ isn’t what customers
in this class are looking for.

This time, it’s the Toyota that
ties with the Hyundai as overall passenger space champion. And lower
down the order, credit’s due to Ford for offering the most second-row
headroom overall.

The over-arching message is plain. Want the most practical 4x4 you can afford? Buy a Hyundai Santa Fe.

CAPABILITY

Owning
a 4x4 is a bit like having a St Bernard. Most people don’t actually
treat them any differently from any other household pet. But you like to
think that, if by some random act of God the need arose, ‘Beethoven’
could rescue you from flood, field, snow or mountain. It’s also quite
amusing that he makes the Labradoodle (read M Sport BMW 1-series) over
the road look like a Pomeranian (or Isetta bubble car).

‘Beethoven’
types will naturally be drawn towards two members of our group. The
lure of the Land Rover brand is clearly not to be underestimated, but
only because it’s based on a genuine dual-purpose remit. The Freelander
has 15mm more ground clearance than the next best car. Relative to the
rest, it looks like you could drive a go-kart between the axles. Its
off-road angles are, by an equally generous margin, the highest here.
And it’s one of only two cars supplied on ‘mud and sand’ (M+S) tyres. If
you really do have anything that even approaches serious off-roading to
do, it’s the only car to choose.

But you should note that the
Land Rover is beaten on towing capacity and outright pulling power by
the same car that makes it look like a five-door supermini on interior
space: the Santa Fe. The Hyundai will tow 2.5 tonnes on a braked
trailer. It’s beaten on ground clearance by everything but the CR-V, so
it can’t be cracked up as the ultimate rugged 4x4 workhorse. But with
that exception, the Korean contender seems strong where it matters.

But
so does the surprise package in this ‘go anywhere, do anything’
section: the Kuga. It has the second-heaviest rating for towing. It also
has the second-highest ground clearance. Once again, the Ford is
punching above its weight.

Before we move on, a quick real-world
test of torque and traction– two of the things that matter most in an
SUV. We’ve got a 100-yard, one-in-four-graded test hill at our disposal.
It’s dry asphalt, so not the most slippery test that a 4x4 might face,
but a tough one all the same. How quickly can they go from a standing
start to 30mph on that kind of a climb?

With the timing gear in place, the Land Rover Freelander,
RAV4 and Outlander all do it in precisely 6.0sec – roughly twice as
long as it would have taken on a level surface. The Honda takes only a
tenth of a second longer. The Ford is slowest all, taking 6.3sec; with
no lockable centre diff, it’s subject to a touch of initial wheelspin
and then has the least torquey engine of the bunch to haul it onwards.

Biggest
disappointment here is the Toyota, which throws up electronic
complaints about an overheating four-wheel drive system after its second
attempt at the climb. It’s a sign that perhaps this car isn’t as rough
and ready as it wants you to believe.

Fastest of all? It’s that
Hyundai again: 5.2sec to 30mph up a one-in-four gradient. It’s big, it’s
heavy – but it’s got the powertrain to carry that bulk without breaking
a sweat.

ON THE ROAD

If it goes well up a
steep hill, it’ll go well anywhere. But good everyday performance is
about much more than pulling power. Flexibility, response and refinement
are equally important hallmarks of a class-leading 4x4, which will
offer a convincing balance of all four.

The fastest-accelerating
car here, according to the claims, should be the automatic Freelander.
It isn’t. The Land Rover is not under-endowed – far from it – but like
everything else gathered, it can’t match the sheer grunt of that
Hyundai.

When we road tested the Santa Fe in 2011, it hit 60mph in
9.0sec dead – and this one feels every bit as brisk. That puts it
closer on performance to a 2.0-litre diesel BMW X3
than the rest of this group. Hyundai’s diesel engine is quiet, smooth,
attentive to your right foot and so gutsy. If it’s got a failing, it’s
fuel economy. But we’ll come to that.

The next most impressive powertrain belongs not to the Land Rover, but to the cheaper, less powerful, manual Honda CR-V.
You could let your granny drive this car; it’s that easy to get on
with. The engine is muted and unimposing, the gearshift short, light and
positive of action.

Below that, the Freelander’s powertrain just
about manages to distinguish itself, being above average for potency and
slickness and seemingly well insulated under the bonnet. For their
engines, neither the Kuga nor the Outlander has much that merits praise.
The Ford feels a little bit short on low and mid-range urge at times
and the Mitsubishi hates being revved hard. The RAV4, meanwhile, is the
only car whose engine is worthy of serious criticism. Perhaps the pace
of improvement in this class has surprised Toyota. Whatever the excuse,
its engine is noisy and breathless beyond 3000rpm and isn’t particularly
hard-working lower in the range.

The RAV4’s handling is equally
rough hewn. M+S tyres account for some of the stodgy imprecision, but
not all of it. The car’s steering is heavy and cumbersome off centre,
and levels of grip and body control on the road seem surprisingly low
once you bother to plumb their depths. All in all, it’s a car that
reminds you how SUVs used to feel. And in this class, reminiscence is no
recommendation.

The same charge can be levelled at the Outlander.
It feels soft and slightly wayward when push comes to shove. Both it
and the Toyota are functional, secure, largely inoffensive cars to drive
most of the time, but neither has the dynamic sophistication to improve
the breed.

By contrast, there’s unmistakable polish and class to
the way that the CR-V and Santa Fe flow calmly down the road. Neither is
athletic or involving; their trick is in mixing compliance with
fleet-footedness and effectively disguising their mass. Of the two, the
Honda is marginally the better at that trick, but both pull it off. Both
are good-handling 4x4s in the modern sense.

And yet Freelander
and Kuga still go one better. The Land Rover is a fine-handling 4x4 in
spite of its limitations. It has the highest centre of gravity here and,
like the Toyota, grips the road via M+S rubber only. But neither fact
has prevented Land Rover from dialling in remarkable consistency of
weight, clarity of response and general precision to the car’s steering
system. The Freelander rolls generously when you turn in, but it remains
easy to guide towards the apex and balanced even under plenty of power.
It doesn’t ever seem to pitch or squat on its long-travel springs.
Damping is supple but effective. It was, and remains, the traditional
high-rise 4x4 perfectly house-trained for the road.

The Kuga is
something else entirely. After the Land Rover, it feels like a hot
hatchback: hunkered down, agile, ready to engage. Changes of direction
come easily and instinctively. There’s very little roll steer to contend
with and never any temptation to wind on steering angle without
altering the path of the car in reliable proportion. The trade-off? The
Kuga is a little firmer riding, and a bit more bodily reactive, than the
comfort-oriented class norm – but it’s far from uncomfortable. It’s a
different take: a truly sporting drive, in a class where utility still
predominates. Here’s your revelation, folks.

COSTS OF OWNERSHIP

There
is only one car here that qualifies for a ￡120 tax disc; only one
capable of busting through the 50mpg barrier, according to manufacturer
claims. It hasn’t been achieved by a fluke; the Outlander is also the
lightest car here and deserves its moment of recognition. In the cold
light of day, it won’t deliver an average of 52.3mpg, but as our test is
drawing to a close, the 41.3mpg return that its trip computer shows is
unbeatable fuel economy for this kind of car.

The Honda’s return
is closest to it (40.6mpg) and the Ford’s isn’t too far behind
(38.6mpg). Thereafter, the stragglers’ returns are much closer to our
expectations for this class. The Land Rover’s 33.6mpg is poorest – but
then it was penalised by that torque-converter automatic ’box.

There
isn’t a great deal to choose between like-for-like examples of these
cars on CO2-derived company car tax. In that respect, the Mitsubishi Outlander and the Toyota are the smart buys. In terms of retained value, the Ford tops the list and the Toyota props it up.

The
surprising disparity is between the cheapest and more expensive options
on the cost of insurance – something that has always taken SUV owners
slightly unawares. Qualifying for group 29E, the RAV4 will cost the
average Brit driver £790 a year. The Ford (group 21) will cost the same
driver £618 and the Hyundai (group 19) just £580.

CONCLUSION

At
the end of two days of driving, measuring, testing and number
crunching, our long, hard look at this increasingly enticing segment of
the new car market has thrown up surprises in abundance. It has also
made the new class hierarchy abundantly clear.

It’s hard to
separate the Mitsubishi Outlander and Toyota RAV4. Both are practical
choices in their own way, and neither passes for much more than
‘adequate’ when you’re actually driving it. With your back against the
wall, you’d pick the Outlander if you had to have either, mainly because
it would be cheaper to own.

But that’s only assuming that you
couldn’t pick the CR-V. This Honda is the kind of car that’ll spend
years and years quietly impressing the pants off you – just being easy
to use and pleasant to own, with its big boot, clever back seats,
economical engine and unimposing drive. Keep your order simple – small
wheels, manual ’box, no factory sat-nav – and the results will repay
you. It should be cheaper to insure, and it could do with a bit more
ground clearance. A bit of styling pizazz wouldn’t go amiss, either.

That
brings us on to the podium – and to a deposed former class champion. If
you want a marker of how much compact SUVs have changed in the past
decade, look no further than the current Land Rover Freelander. This car
was designed before it became obvious how little genuine off-road
ability matters to 4x4 buyers compared with carrying capacity, towing
capacity, fuel efficiency and cabin space. It takes a test like this to
realise it, but the class has moved beyond this car. And yet the
Freelander’s finely tuned, premium-brand ride and handling remain
appealing enough to earn it a ranking berth.

Which leaves two
cars: the one with all the space, utility and value for money, not to
mention a cracking powertrain, and the winner. You’re wondering how a
car that has so completely dominated almost every facet of this test
isn’t getting the credit it has so evidently earned. Hyundai has never
come closer to the sharp end of such an important Autocar group test
verdict. But the truth is that, great as the Santa Fe undoubtedly is,
it’s a car that you have to have a need for. It’s not a Freelander rival
as much as a cut-price Discovery – engineered to tow double-axle
caravans and horseboxes, to transport big families, to move student
teenagers off to university. And if you don’t have needs like that, you
might end up wishing you’d plumped not for ‘big’, but for ‘big enough’.

‘Big
enough’ is what the Ford Kuga does brilliantly, and it brings a whole
lot else into the equation. This car offers more than you’d expect to
get, either for the price or the size – on space, when towing, off road
and as an ownership prospect. On top of that, Ford’s typically taut,
instinctive handling remains the unique selling point – and it really is
a supreme one next to this kind of competition.

Ford gets the nod, by the slimmest of margins. But Seoul sticks one to Solihull. It’s been a long time coming.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/compact-suv-mega-test

[Plutus]

Reliability and long term cost of ownership not mentioned.

Toyota is suffering from using an old engine.

Freelander is always given a high ranking by UK automags.

But, the inescapable fact is that the new Rav is not there yet. Roll on the facelift and those new engines.

[Merseyshark]

• The RAV4, meanwhile, is the only car whose engine is worthy of serious criticism
• The RAV4’s handling is equally rough hewn
• In terms of retained value, the Ford tops the list and the Toyota props it up
• Qualifying for group 29E, the RAV4 will cost the average Brit driver £790 a year.

Oh dear

[Len7]

Be interesting to hear from 4.4 owners on the point made about overheating 4wd after 2runs in their test

Perhaps this is not representatitive?

[CharlieFarlie]

Reliability and long term cost of ownership not mentioned.

Toyota is suffering from using an old engine.

Freelander is always given a high ranking by UK automags.

But, the inescapable fact is that the new Rav is not there yet. Roll on the facelift and those new engines.

Agree totally ! The engine is the Achilles heel of the latest Rav4.... Congratulations to those astute enough to buy one of the last of the older but equal to the new car 4.3s... That is where the smart money went cos from where Im sat the difference in cots between the 4.3 and the brand new car simply cannot be justified !!

[benxt5]

Reliability and long term cost of ownership not mentioned.

Toyota is suffering from using an old engine.

Freelander is always given a high ranking by UK automags.

But, the inescapable fact is that the new Rav is not there yet. Roll on the facelift and those new engines.

Agree totally ! The engine is the Achilles heel of the latest Rav4.... Congratulations to those astute enough to buy one of the last of the older but equal to the new car 4.3s... That is where the smart money went cos from where Im sat the difference in cots between the 4.3 and the brand new car simply cannot be justified !!

Thank you! (Smug face)

Have I misread this or does it also not mention the Rav in the fuel economy part either?

The Rav use to be praised for its "car like" ride and handling. Where has this gone? The new one is bigger yes, but I thought I had read that it was no heavier...

The CRV to me is a tall estate car, albeit a good one.

We are going to be a smidge biased though ay fellas!

[benxt5]

...and also, when did the quote system get all screwed up!?!

[anchorman]

Its funny but when they all reviewed the RAV at launch it was a revalation. Then they all test it and it is a dissappointing nail. I'm not saying which is best as these cars will all have some pro's and cons but do these journalists all drink in the same pub?

Its almost like they are frightened of upsetting each other.

[firemac]

Its funny but when they all reviewed the RAV at launch it was a revalation. Then they all test it and it is a dissappointing nail. I'm not saying which is best as these cars will all have some pro's and cons but do these journalists all drink in the same pub?

Its almost like they are frightened of upsetting each other.

Maybe not the same pub but they all certainly snort from the same advertising trough! Why do you think that UK mags all get orgasmic over the LR excrement? JLR has one of the biggest ad budgets in Europe, that's why. In the US, Far East & Mid East, the !Removed! & Americans dwarf JLR so the green oval rubbish doesn't get a free ride. It's the same with bikes: Triumph always gets a prize in every group test irrespective of the context (or the extent of the breakdown - one of the first 675 Daytonas blew up in a Bike test a couple of years back but it still got rated).

On top of that you need to bear in mind that Matt Saunders, who penned the article, isn't the brightest bulb in the box. Nevertheless Mr.T seems to have lost the plot with the 4.4 and we can only assume, as Charlie suggests, that this is a stop-gap model until the real BMW-engined stuff is available.

At the end of the day, people are swayed by their own prejudices more than road tests & advertising. However the age of the internet is great because it means that we can access road tests from overseas and not have to rely on JLR-groupies in the UK press. Barring eqpt variations/model designations, the underlying dynamics are the same.

[Jagst]

I would agree there is no point in buying the New Rav until the 2.2D engine is updated, the 2.0 litre Diesel roadtested in this months What Car does not do well.

[CharlieFarlie]

There is far to much back scratching politics involved in magazine car testing...

There is one ingredient that only the end user can decide.. The good old feel good factor..

There are those who love Honda's and even if the rav blew the socks off the CRV they would still buy a Honda....

In reality all the cars tested are really good motors and each and every person who buys one will have a smug grin on their faces.. Choose with the heart as well as the head..