2007 Mitsubishi Outlander: And Coming in Fourth Place...

I wonder a lot about those third row seats that come in "compact" SUVs. It's a small SUV, you barely have enough room for five people in the regular sized seats, and you want to cram two more in the trunk?! Why bother with those jump seats? It's like those fold down seats in an extended cab Ford Ranger--who sits in those? Third row seats compromise cargo area because designers have to come up with a way to stow them and create a flat floor, which means raising the floor, most likely. I don't have to mention the amount of cargo space you have when the seats are in use.
 
That space should be used for cargo...you know the Utility part of SUV? If you put 6 people in a small SUV, take the Outlander for example, you compromise the Utility aspect and you compromise the Sport aspect, since it's little V6 will be bogged down with weight. You're just left with a Vehicle....a cramped, underpowered vehicle at that, with a full load.
 
if you need to cram 6 or7 people in a car, get a minivan, or a big SUV. At least there's more room for the people in those, and the vehicle is designed to take the strain and weight of the people and their belongings.
 
Put simply, a third seat is a waste of space, a waste of money, and adds weight to these small SUVs.

Remind me again....why weren't the Saturn VUE, Suzuki XL7 or a Ford Escape included in that comparison? All three are very much compact crossovers too.
 
On a side not I cant believe Honda is selling so many CRVs when it looks like that, ugh.

Daytona - I couldn't agree more about the CR-V. Honda should remake the Passport (1st gen, not that Highlander wannabe), and offer it as their Liberty fighter. The CR-V, to me, compares more to the Compass. Yech!

Ouch, less than a third of the Saturn's sales. It would really hurt to be beat by Suzuki.

I still think that if you're looking for a sporty compact SUV, the Subaru Forester XT is the way to go: 2.5 liter turbocharged H4 (224 horsepower, which is less than the Toyota but more than the Mitsubishi, but the Forester weighs less than either), and standard manual transmission.
 
Yes, the backseat is smaller and there is not torture chamber 3rd seat, and I wouldn't dare compare the Rocksford Fosgate system to anything Subaru has made, but other than that, there aren't too many reasons in my mind to go for the Mitsu over the Forester.

People obviously don't agree with the few nay sayers on the CR-Vs looks. They are flying off the lots. And personally I rather like the look of them. I really like that rear end. I know everyone hates it, but I think it looks nifty.

The Outlander's third-row seat is worse than many. But that aside, there is an argument to be made for having a third row. Families with just one or two small kids won't need a minivan or large SUV, but having a small SUV with a third row does allow one to handle other people's kids -- like taking them all to Gymboree or something.
 
The Forester, often overlooked, is still a very good choice for a small SUV that's fun to drive. -- Brent

For what it's worth, the 224 horsepower of the Forester 2.5 XT is underrated. :o) Many Impreza suspension parts can also be fitted to Foresters as well. FTD (fun-to-drive)? You bet!

The new BMW X5's 3rd row seats are a joke too, so it's not only these cheap small cute utes that are at fault with this option.

The CR-V is the ugliest new car of the year, hands down.
 
Altimadude, you raise an interesting point.
 
I'm living in England for a few months. This morning walking down the street (people actually walk here. Oxford students were surprised to hear that American students commonly own cars) and there was a man peddling his bike with a trailer attached behind it with his kid riding in there. The thought occurred to me, in America, when their first kid is born, people immediately "must" have the full size SUV. How will they ever fit their one kid in its car seat in anything that doesn't have 3 full rows and takes up the space of a European city block. My aunt and uncle did this. Their first child was born, so they bought a minivan. In England, your first kid is born, you buy a baby trailer to tow behind your bike. Your second kids is born, you consider getting a car with a back seat. Three kids? Hope you bought a car that had a middle seat in back.
 
I've come to love many American things I took for granted before coming here, but on many levels the Europeans are way, way smarter than us.

"Europeans are way, way smarter than us."
 
Really, towing a baby in a trailler behind a bike is smart????? That's the most unbelievably dangerous thing you could ever do with a child.
 
I remember when we were young, my Dad would stuff all 4 kids into the backseat of his 74 Austin. It was uncomfortable and dangerous but it was what we could afford.
 
I can afford more for my kids to so I have more. I only have 2 kids so I have a Legacy wagon. If we have a 3rd then we are getting a minivan.
 
Trust me, Euros aren't smarter. They just think they are.

In this context, it wasn't dangerous. The road wasn't busy, weather was fine, bike and trailer were in good condition, etc. The trailer was specifically designed to tow small children behind a bike. It was brightly colored (oh how the Brits love their reflective tape and vests), fully covered, and very stable. Americans have an overdeveloped sense of danger. If we're not in our massive trucks with more airbags than the Mars Rover we're doomed. Judging from your reactions to my posts, you seem to be one of those. You remind me of Ross from "Friends" when he went for a ride in a Porsche: "You're not going to ride in front?" "In the DEATH seat? Are you crazy!?!?!"

I agree that for many people, a 3rd row seat is a great advantage, and it's the biggest reason my parents bought a Pilot over an Outback or Legacy wagon when we needed something with AWD. For me though, a wagon with a rear facing jump seat (ala Volvo V70) would have been perfect, and I still bemoan the fact that Subaru hasn't installed them in the Outback.
 
In reality though, we have carried more than 5 people in the Pilot probably 10 times since we bought it (it's an 05). And we probably used the third row in our 2000 Odyssey even less than that. It's nice to have the Pilot for bringing home bulky items from Circuit City or Home Depot, but a small or midsize wagon with a trailer would accomplish the same task. This is why I dislike SUVs: they cannibalize the market for station wagons that handle better, are more fuel efficient, often have manual transmissions, and are more FTD. 99% of the SUV owning population in America would get along just fine with a midsized wagon.
 
Oh, and the 'Euro's are smarter' thing is somewhat true, but when you realize that France is smaller than Texas in size, the reason the Europeans drive smaller cars is clear. And you can't say that it's all because they are 'environmentally conscious' either. Wrong. It's mostly economics, their gasoline tax is something like $4/gallon compared to our $.70/gallon. A tax is a change in supply costs, which shifts the supply curve to the left, raising the equilibrium price of gas and decreasing the quantity demanded of gasoline. The result? The Europeans buy less gas because mass transit is more effective in a more dense area and their governments make it prohibitively expensive to purchase fuel.

Nah, I just care about my children. My Legacy isn't a truck and being a 91 has no airbags.
 
As for an overdeveloped sense of danger, I was skydiving when I was 16 and and a pilot at 19. I've driven motorcycles and repealed down 300 ft cliffs. I have no problem judging what is safe for me.
 
However I hate those child trailers for bicycles. I see them in traffic driving along the curb with cars, trucks and buses whizzing by inches from your child. Accidents on bikes are common and for the most part, the rider gets a way with scapes and bruises as he goes over the hood of the car. The child in the trailer goes under the car though.
 
I would risk my child in such a stupid way.

I agree that in a situation like that, with traffic and such that towing the kid behind your bike isn't such a good idea. It probably wouldn't work in many places in the states. Here, drivers are very bike and pedestrian cautious, and most people walk or bike around town. A BMW 1 series is about an average sized car. Obviously a lot of things that make conditions here safer for biking than in the states. The point of this is that Europeans tend to be more realistic about what they really need. Do you need three rows of seats if you have one kid? No. It just found it a marked contrast to the states, where the immediate reaction to having more than one person in the car is to get the largest car, SUV, or truck possible.
 
I'm different than most Americans in this way I guess. I love hatchbacks. All the sportiness of a car, plus lots of room for passengers and cargo, all in the most efficient packaging possible. I really wish BMW would bring the 1 series hatchback out here, but I understand that Americans generally just wouldn't like it as much as the awkward looking coupe. I tell you though the 3 door 1 series is a thing of beauty.

jr1m90, as I recall the V70's rear facing jump seats have a narrow size/weight/age range. I think it was something like minimum 40lbs and max 80lbs. Basically, you can only carry kids back there between the ages of 5 and 10 or so.

Looking at those CR-V sales numbers - that's 100% 4-cylinder, none with a third row. And I bet about 70% of the RAV4s are 4 cylinder. I just don't understand why manufacturers feel they need to stick in a 6-cyl in the small SUV segment. I bet 90% of the drivers in this segment have never floored the accelerator. The buyers don't care one bit about performance driving. Yet why does every review of this segment put the V6 RAV4 1st? Sure, the fuel economy is good for a v6, and there is power, but it's at a $2000 premium. Am I missing something?

Back to the blog post - if the CR-V and RAV4 deserve the top two spots, why is the CR-V ranked third?

The CR-V is unsightly at first, until you sit inside the cabin.
Everything feels great. Ultra luxurious in this class.

Not that the results of this comparo matters in any way to me, but just pointing out few things.
 
The 0-60 mph (9.0 sec.) performance in this comparo is bogus. Look at the Edmunds' own Full-Test data and you'll see that Outlander's 0-60 mph is 8.2 sec. This is consistent with MT (8.1 sec) and other publications that tested the Outlander (between 8.1 and 8.3 sec). This would put it about 1 sec behind the RAV4 V6 and 1 sec or more in front of the Rogue and CRV, so clear differentiation. There are other numbers that are worst in his comparo than the Full-Test. The tires could be a culprit (the Outlander perhaps has way more miles than the others), but in this case, the test conditions weren't equal. As nubers (the real ones) are showing, the performance is perfectly fine for the size of its engine and the vehicle type.
 
Few other facts:
1. The Outlander has the biggest MAX cargo space behind the 2nd row - 39 cu.ft. The 36.2 cu. ft. used in the comparo is the MIN cargo space, with the seat all the way to the back (the 2nd row slides for and aft and reclines). The numbers for the RAV4 and CRV at least are for the MAX cargo space.
2. The 3rd row seat only takes away the little under the floor storage. Other than that, the floor is as flat and as low as in the LS model (5-seats). I'm pretty sure that the reason why the 3rd row seat is so skinny is because the engineers had to pack it in such a small space and without affecting the cargo floor height. The Outlander has a very low loading floor thanks to the split tailgate. The RAV4 has a little bit lower cargo floor due to its door. However, that design has major inconveniences IMO which overrides this marginal advantage.
3. The cargo space behind the 3rd row is bigger in the Outlander than the RAV4 -14.9 cu ft. vs. 12.3 cu ft. Interestingly enough, just to put it in the perspective, the 14.9 cu ft cargo space behind the 3rd row in the Outlander is bigger than the 14 cu ft in the rather large 2008 Accord sedan.
4. The awkward 3rd row in the Outlander is better than NONE in the CRV or Rogue and can be had at the $25K price point. Why focus so much on this feature, as a negative, when it's an added bonus that virtually no other vehicle in this class has (save for the more expensive RAV4 trims)? If you don't need it, don't use it (it seamlessly stows under the cargo floor), but that one time when you need to transport two more kids, it's there. If you would have the CRV for instance, you would have to find another solution (less convenient most likely) to haul those 2 extra kids few blocks down the road to the soccer field.
 
Oh... and I was about to forget. The RAV4 scored higher than the Outlander in "Features" evaluation due to the "Lockable" 4WD option. LOL guys, Outlander’s 4WD system is more "lockable" for the lack of a better term than the RAV4's as the "Lock" mode in the RAV4 disengages above 25 mph where in the Outlander it stays on regardless of the speed. The "Lock" mode in the RAV4 is not the traditional 50-50 “locked” either as you may think; the torque distribution is still variable, electronically controlled, same as the one in the Outlander.

Something that I never saw mentioned was that the CX-7 already beat the RAV-4 in an Edmunds comparison.
(http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=116618).
  
Is there any reason that it wasn't invited back?
  
If looks were at issue, I would break my right foot before I'd drive something that looks like the new CRV, and SubyTrojan's definitely right in saying that the Forester 2.5XT is underrated, the last one that I was in caught me completely off guard in how well it performed.

Here in the Southeast, the Mitsu dealers go after the lowest-common-denominator buyer, the underinformed customer shopping on payment alone. How many ads have I seen for a six-year note with a 50% balloon payment at the end? Nobody but Mitsu dealers will stoop this low--not even the Kia, Hyundai, or Chrysler!

Brent, I think we should have Josh (or you and Chris as well) run these types of vehicles on a rallycross course for their off-road capability comparison! :o)

SubyTrojan: Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, but they did according to the write-up:
 
"Though most of our driving occurred on paved roads or at the test track, we did spend a day at a nearby off-road facility to test the effectiveness of various all-wheel-drive systems."
 
However, not too much details to support the conclusion that the RAV4 is the off-road choice.
All we got is this 4WD systems assessment, with the one about the RAV4 being grossly inaccurate:
“The RAV4's all-wheel-drive system switches unobtrusively between front- and all-wheel drive based on various conditions in order to maximize fuel economy or traction. The system can be locked into a split of 50 percent front/50 percent rear below 25 mph. The Nissan Rogue employs a similarly intelligent system, but it cannot be manipulated. The Mitsubishi AWD system is perhaps the most advanced, with three modes of driver-selectable operation, but no locking feature. ("4WD Lock" is actually a sportier, rear-biased AWD setting.)”.
 
I also found very wired that, in Edmunds’ editors view, one of the 9 most important features for this type of vehicle is a “Lockable” 4WD system (???!!!).