2013-2014 Compact Crossover Shootout

Compact crossovers are quickly becoming America’s one-size-fits-all automotive solution.

These practical, efficient, all-weather vehicles can haul a small family and their gear nearly anywhere. Customers are flocking to showrooms and snatching these high riding hatchbacks up; last year, sales totaled over 1.7 million units.

With a segment this big, manufacturers are locked in a constant battle to outdo one another with a barrage of new products vying for a piece of this profitable pie. Last year Honda brought out a new CR-V while Mazda created the CX-5; the manufacturer’s first in-house, completely independent compact crossover. Hyundai was also hard at work splitting the Santa Fe into two, creating the compact, five-seat Santa Fe Sport and the mid-size, six or seven seat Santa Fe.

THE NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK

Taking on this trio of sophomores are three new offerings from Subaru, Toyota and Mitsubishi. The Forester is the latest evolution of the compact crossover that helped define the segment over 15 years ago. Its four-speed automatic has been replaced by a continuously variable transmission (CVT) and there still is the turbocharged XT edition. The Toyota RAV4 has received a more drastic overhaul this year, dropping its V6 engine and third row seats while gaining much more aggressive styling inside and out.

And then there is the Outlander. Yes, Mitsubishi still makes this crossover, but with fewer than 8,000 units sold last year, you can be excused if you forgot about it. For 2014 it is all new and, unlike the RAV4, retains the third row of seating and V6 engine option

To round out this grouping, we invited two old timers of the compact crossover segment that push the size boundaries on both sides. First, there is the diminutive Jeep Compass that this year has dropped its noisy CVT in favor of a six-speed automatic. On the large side of things is the Chevrolet Equinox. Which continues to be a strong seller for the General despite needing an update.

Unfortunately two key competitors could not make this comparison test. With our price focus set around $31,000 as tested, the only Ford Escape we could acquire was a fully loaded 2.0T Titanium AWD model that pushed the price envelope through the stratosphere at over $37,000. The other no show is the Nissan Rogue. With an all-new Rogue just introduced, including last year’s model seemed pointless, even if Nissan plans to continue selling it beside the new model.

But we did gather eight key products to do battle in an all-out comparison emphasizing price, content, fuel economy and style.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

This is the oldest and smallest vehicle in this comparison. With a new six-speed automatic replacing the much hated CVT, and the baby Grand Cherokee front end looks, we hoped to be surprised.

While the six-speed improves the driving experience, noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) hold it back. In fact, it was ranked worst in the test and ride comfort tied for last with the bucking bronco Toyota RAV4.

See Also: Five-Point Inspection: 2012 Jeep Compass Latitude 4X4

Abundant hard plastics, a dated-looking gauge cluster and poor-quality stereo system make things worse. At least the seat upholstery is nice. Covered in rich-looking caramel leather, they’re both comfortable and attractive.

SMALL BUT NOT EFFICIENT

Observed fuel economy was the worst of the naturally aspirated four cylinder vehicles, achieving a mere 24 MPG average. This wouldn’t be too bad if the engine was throwing out obscene amounts of power, but with only 172 ponies and a slow reacting transmission, the Compass never felt swift.

The Limited 4X4 is priced competitively for this shootout at $31,770. However, features like a rear view camera, telescopic steering wheel and full power driver’s seat are absent. Rear seat comfort isn’t great either. The back seats are cramped and there isn’t a center armrest.

It’s the same story with cargo capacity. Not only does the Compass have the shallowest and narrowest cargo hold, but it also has a very high load floor height; a side-effect of enabling the Compass to achieve moderate levels of off-roading ability.

Safe to say, this little crossover can no longer compete with newer, bigger offerings in this class. But, Jeep has an all new compact crossover on the horizon; the Cherokee. Do we smell a rematch?

Fast Facts:

Imagine our surprise when Chevrolet sent us a stripper. Before you get excited, a stripper is a vehicle in base form “stripped” of most upgradable options. In this case it was the Chevrolet Equinox. It was the only vehicle lacking all-wheel drive and was one of two vehicles missing a sunroof, navigation and leather seats. The upside is that the Equinox comes in with cheapest as-tested price in our comparison at just $27,630.

Powered by the base 182 hp 2.4L four-cylinder engine, the large Equinox always felt a bit underpowered similar to the Jeep Compass and Toyota RAV4. Combined with a somewhat lethargic six-speed automatic, and the four-cylinder Equinox yearns for the 301 hp V6 upgrade. That said, the front-wheel drive Chevy proved to be efficient and achieved the third-best fuel economy rating: 26.1 MPG.

SOFT – IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY

It offers a comfortable ride, but sacrifices handling to do so and the artificial steering feel was the second worst behind the Hyundai Santa Fe Sport. The engine is noisy under hard acceleration, but otherwise NVH is minimal.

As one of the older designs here, the Equinox cabin is beginning to show its age. Out-of-date, cheap plastics dominate the interior. At least it’s a very ergonomic space. A ledge covering the touchscreen is also a nice touch.

The cloth front seats are comfortable and the driver position totally acceptable. Poor rear three-quarter visibility is this vehicle’s biggest flaw. Large pillars block your view; a negative trait shares with far too many vehicles in this segment.

See Also: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox 1LT AWD Review

On paper, the rear cargo area offers a spacious 31.4 cu-ft despite its great length, intruding rear wheel wells make the space much less useful.
The exterior of the Equinox is boring and bland, but at least it is not offensive like the Outlander or, to a lesser extent the CR-V. And this may best sum up the Equinox as a whole. It is a bland, dated design that can get the job done and won’t offend. You can do better. Much better.

Fast Facts:

Looking for something quirky and different? The Outlander GT V6 might be a good bet. It is one of few vehicles in this class still offering V6 power, a third row seat, and the only one with a 710-watt Rockford Fosgate stereo. Its looks are one-of-a-kind, too, but in a less positive sense. With exterior looks this bad, the Outlander can’t possibly be any good, right? Wrong!

THE MOST TRADITIONAL CROSSOVER

The Outlander is one of the most comfortable vehicles in this comparison. It was ranked second only to the Forester in both NVH and ride comfort. It also has a surprisingly attractive interior.

Aluminum paddle shifters are lifted straight from the rally-ready Evo and the stereo is great. It turns the vehicle into a mobile dance club threatening to deafen eardrums with every earth shaking bass drop.

See Also: 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Review – Video

With such a glowing endorsement, how is it still in sixth place? Aside from looks, there are some troubling faults. It is the most expensive vehicle here, achieved the worst observed fuel economy, and, despite considerable size, has an archaic second row seat folding mechanism. The 3.0-liter V6, the only six-cylinder in this comparo, has its drawbacks and its benefits. At 224 hp it is underpowered for what it is. Still, competing in a segment against 4-cylinders it gives the Outlander and authoritative amount of power right off the line – unlike the Hyundai Santa Fe’s turbocharged 4-cylinder. The Santa Fe makes more power, but only feels faster when your foot is hard into it.

Finally, there’s the rear cargo area that is troublesome as the hatch opening is very narrow and wider items won’t always fit.

Fast Facts:

What is last year’s top-selling compact crossover doing in fifth place? Fact is, it missed third place by less than two points and three of the vehicles that beat it did not exist last year; the bar keeps rising higher.

The CR-V remains one of the user-friendliest crossovers on the market. We love the large center storage bin between the front seats and the dual center console screens that show navigation and audio information to be displayed simultaneously. The sophisticated gauge cluster and unique fake marble interior trim also drew praise. Our only real issue inside the CR-V had to do with the driver’s seat that some testers found to have too much built in lumbar support.

GREAT, BUT NOISY ENGINE

The 185 hp 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine is rev happy and feels powerful. It is very flexible, but lacks grunt at higher speeds. The engine is also unrelentingly noisy. In fact the only car we found to be louder in this test was the compass. Fuel economy for the CR-V turned out to he 25.9 mpg, tying the RAV4.

The CR-V is one of the easiest vehicles to drive in the test. It handles rather well and has responsive, but over-boosted steering. All of the CR-V’s actions are predictable and ride comfort was ranked as average. NVH on the other hand is below average on this crossover as it is not just the noisy engine spoiling the serenity behind the wheel, but wind noise as well.

See Also: 2012 Honda CR-V Review – Video

Honda needs to give the CR-V a shot in the arm by spicing up its body style. Then again, styling for the rear hatch is bang-on and a low load floor height combined with a wide opening and hatch-mounted rear seatback releases makes loading this crossover easy.

It should come as no surprise that the three of the most mainstream compact crossovers here, the RAV4, CR-V and Santa Fe Sport, all ended up in a mid-pack deadlock. With more pros than cons, these vehicles will continue to be big sellers and justifiably so.

Fast Facts:

Sporting new levels of style inside and out and losing both V6 and third row seat options, Toyota has positioned the RAV4 more in-line with its archrival, the Honda CR-V.

Although it may not be everyone’s taste, the RAV4’s interior was voted as most stylish of the bunch with its funky dashboard ledge and multitude of materials and textures. However, this style does lead to some poor ergonomics like a row of hard to see (and reach) buttons below that dashboard shelf. The RAV4 only achieved a mid-pack ranking in this category as some of the materials, like the overly fake carbon fiber, detracted from the generally appealing interior.

EASY TO DRIVE, BUT ONE ROUGH RIDE

The RAV4 is easy to drive, although finding an optimal seating position can be tricky. With adequate power, OK handling and a transmission set up to maximize fuel economy, it is far from sporty. With that in mind, the suspension feels awfully stiff. Every bump is transmitted through the chassis, into the seats. It almost ruins an otherwise competent vehicle; scoring was so tight, a better ride would have netted the RAV4 a third place finish.

The RAV4 has the most available cargo room out of any vehicle in this test when the second row seats are folded flat. Despite this, the actual cargo hold is not as wide or deep as the Santa Fe Sport’s. Toyota achieves class leading cubic feet through height as the RAV4 has a nice low loading floor that not only allows for taller items to be transported, but also makes loading and unloading easier for shorter drivers.

See Also: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Review – Video

Like the CR-V, the new RAV4 is a competent vehicle. But every other manufacturer has had the RAV4 in the cross-hairs for some time now and unfortunately for Toyota, some hit the mark.

Fast Facts:

With the second row seats folded down, the Sport has the most width and depth by far in this test. Adding in a little cargo flexibility, the 40/20/40 rear seats allow the center portion to be folded down independently so long narrow items can be transported along with two rear passengers. All the base Santa Fe Sport 2.0T is missing are hatch mounted rear-seat releases.

Speaking of rear seats, the Sport has the most spacious, comfortable rear quarters in the test. The driver’s seat is also pleasant. Unfortunately, the Santa Fe Sport’s swoopy style creates poor sightlines and the vehicle lost points commensurately.

TURBO POWER

With 264 hp on tap, the Santa Fe Sport is the most powerful vehicle in the test by far. There is a little bit of turbo lag, but it takes off like a rocket once boost builds up. The transmission is smooth and quick. Handling is better than average, but Hyundai’s steering still doesn’t feel very good. Expect a quiet, pleasant ride except at stoplights where you might notice the engine vibrating through the cabin slightly.

See Also: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Review – Video

To achieve so much performance for so little money, Hyundai had to cut back on content. On top of not being equipped with leather seats or a touchscreen, the Santa Fe Sport is missing a backup camera, sunroof, navigation and a power lift gate.

Instead, you get a big, relatively refined, powerful, albeit basic people hauler. If a compact crossover possessing the power to haul around four full-sized people and their gear at a relatively decent price are the most important factors in your compact crossover purchasing decision; here is your vehicle.

Fast Facts:

After nearly four months as our long term test car the AutoGuide staff is pretty familiar with this particular CX-5. Heading into the competition we figured it would fare pretty well and Mazda didn’t disappoint, scoring a solid second place finish.

See Also: 2014 Mazda CX-5 vs 2013 Toyota RAV4

The handling, steering and grip are stupendous. Of course, this handling prowess comes at the expense of ride comfort and the CX-5 ranked third worst in this category.

More than just a solid chassis, the 184 hp 2.5L four-cylinder engine is a gem as well. The six-speed automatic transmission is designed to return good mileage over speed, so the transmission spends a lot of time in lower rpms, which can be frustrating at times. But it works. The CX-5 returned the second-best observed fuel economy.

AN ALL-AROUND PACKAGE

But sportiness and efficiency are only a few of the factors that make a compact crossover great. If this is all the CX-5 had going for it, it would have finished much lower. But the CX-5 is not a one (or two) trick pony. Inside the CX-5 really is an all-around package. The front seats are very comfortable and the steering wheel feels great. The Mazda ranked second in both driver comfort and interior style thanks to great materials throughout. The HVAC system looks upscale, and although small, the Tom Tom GPS system is a snap to use.

Despite a small exterior appearance, the CX-5 is actually bigger inside than you might think. Rear seat comfort tied for third place and cargo usability actually tied the Santa Fe Sport for first place. Not as deep as the Hyundai, the CX-5’s hatch opening offers good width and a low loading floor. The second row seats split 40/20/40 and there are remote latches for all three sections in the cargo area.

See Also: 2014 Mazda CX-5 Long-Term Update 1: The Road Trip

The CX-5 is also quite the looker. Even after four months in the fleet, its exterior design still impresses us, which is perhaps the most telling detail of all.

Fast Facts:

How did an old, out-of-date Forester win this comparison? We’ll let you in on a secret, it’s not old. Despite still wearing a familiar boxy shape that swaggers into the room shouting, “I’m a Subaru,” the Forester is actually all-new for 2014. Many of us like the easily identifiable shape for both its aesthetics and practicality. The square rear end gives it usable rear side windows; the only vehicle in the comparison we can say that about. As well, the Forester has a nearly vertical, flush rear hatch that allows for greater usability of the cargo area.

See Also: 2014 Subaru Forester Review

The 170 hp 2.5L may be the least powerful engine here, but it feels so much punchier than it is thanks to a decent 174 lb-ft of torque that comes on early, plus a continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT). That CVT is one of the reasons the Forester placed so high. Those who think CVTs are a passing fad, or an automotive anomaly that will hopefully disappear from vehicular landscape need to think again. They are here to stay and like any automotive technology, they keep improving.

Subaru’s CVT doesn’t try to mimic gears like some others do, but is constantly changing ratios to avoid any hanging rpms that cause the dreaded CVT drone. It is also fairly quiet and incredible responsive. The point of a CVT is return good fuel economy and at an observed 28 MPG, the Forester did exactly that.

THE ALL AROUND CHOICE

Aside from being efficient and responsive, the Forester scored top marks for driving position, ride comfort and having low NVH. Its sound system is also actually decent. Yes, after years of producing some of the world’s worst audio systems, it seems Subaru finally listened and gave the new Forester a respectable stereo. If only it weren’t confusing to use.

But value is the real ace up this crossover’s sleeve. It may have been the second most expensive vehicle here, but it nearly matches the pricier Outlander option for option and those features are effective and easy to use. Plus, you don’t have to option it out, and you’ll still get the majority of what makes this Subaru a winner. Add efficiency and usable space and it’s easy to see why the 2014 Forester is the best choice.

Fast Facts:

Mike Schlee: Subaru Forester

When it comes time to buy our next family vehicle, it will most likely come from the compact crossover segment. When I brought home the Mazda CX-5 a year or so ago during a review, my wife and I were both highly impressed with it and deemed it would be our next vehicle.

Then my wife got some seat time behind the wheel of the 2013 Toyota RAV4 and it suddenly became a two horse race. But after a drive in the 2014 Forester, we have both been converted; this will be our next vehicle (until the next latest and greatest crossover arrives of course).

Luke Vandezande: Hyundai Santa Fe Sport

Hyundai’s electric steering drives me nuts. It feels inconsistent and twitchy like a muscle you’ve exercised too rigorously. That’s still not enough to keep me from naming the turbocharged Santa Fe Sport as my top pick. Humor me for a minute if you think I’m wrong.

Compact crossovers aren’t really about putting handling first. For me, it’s more like fourth place behind style, power and space. The Santa Fe Sport isn’t the best, but it’s competent. I would choose the Hyundai’s entrant because it’s a stripped-down, no-frills vehicle with affordable horsepower. I’ll take that over a touch screen every time.

Sami Haj-Assaad: Mazda CX-5

It’s fun to drive, practical and good looking – what isn’t there to like about the Mazda CX-5? The transmission is its biggest letdown, feeling a bit lazy and rough around the edges. Otherwise, the CX-5 checklist reads a lot like what was right about the Mazda6.

The 2.5-liter engine is responsive and the steering and suspension are engaging and enjoyable. Even the interior, a sore spot for Mazda in the past, reminds me of the conservative, sporty and focused design of an entry level BMW. While comfort isn’t its strong point, the CX-5 hits all the emotional checkmarks and a few practical ones too.

Colum Wood: Honda CR-V

Who wants to drive fifth place? When it’s the CR-V: I do.

The Honda cute ute’s placement in our comparison has as much to do with our ranking structure as it does the car’s shortcomings. We put a lot of weight on looks as we believe most consumers, particularly in this segment, value a vehicle’s style highly.

If you’re neutral on its styling, or the importance of a car’s design in general, take a look at our results sheet, give every car a middling 5 out of 10 and suddenly CR-V moves up two spots for a podium finish.

Add in a responsive transmission, peppy engine, good handling, lots of passenger and cargo room and what will presumably be superior reliability and I can look past the less-than-ideal cabin noise.