Like a menu with too many items, the small crossover SUV category serves up so many worthy choices that it’s often difficult to choose which ones to test drive, let alone actually buy. This is a comparison test we’ve been meaning to do for a long time, and as expected, it was a nail biter.
While several of the models in this category feature V6 or turbocharged engines, we wanted the regular four-cylinders that a majority of consumers wind up choosing. As such, the top-selling 2010 Honda CR-V was an easy choice as it only comes with a regular four-cylinder engine — a fact consumers have never seemed to mind. The 2010 Toyota RAV4 was another easy choice, but for a different reason. In V6 form, it has dominated our comparison tests over the years, but this was our first chance to see how its four-cylinder model stacked up.
Those are the veterans, however there are some newer models also worthy of your attention. The redesigned 2010 Chevy Equinox has impressed us since it was introduced last year, and we’ve even added its GMC Terrain twin to our long-term fleet. Another newcomer is the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. It’s smaller than the other vehicles in this test, but its price point and feature content certainly put it within contention. A Subaru Forester and new Kia Sorento were also invited, but four-cylinder test cars were not available.
After our usual gamut of back-to-back driving loops, track testing, debating and number crunching, we found there was no runaway winner or big-time loser. In fact, we’d recommend each of these all-star crossovers — it just depends on who you are, where you’ll be going and who/what is going with you. For the majority of car buyers, however, here’s how they stack up.
4TH PLACE: 2010 TOYOTA RAV4
Base MSRP (with destination): $22,300
Options: Backup camera in rearview mirror ($475); Floor and trunk mats ($199); Extra Value Package ($120 — includes 17-inch steel wheels, daytime running lights, roof rails and crossbars, rear privacy glass); Cargo cover ($90).
As-Tested Price: $23,184
Where it Follows:
The 2010 Toyota RAV4 was the cheapest and least equipped vehicle in this test, but even if you ordered it with leather seats and a navigation system, the popular Toyota would still seem like a less premium product. The ride is comfortable enough, but the suspension seems unsophisticated and unsubstantial. The quality of the interior plastics, switchgear, upholstery and the sound of the doors closing all seem flimsy compared to the others, especially the Chevy, which barely costs more. Which brings us to the next point: the RAV4 is expensive given what you get. A comparably priced Equinox would give you more equipment and a comparably equipped Tucson would be cheaper.
In terms of our evaluation sheets, the RAV4 scored the lowest for front seat comfort and driving position. The steering wheel doesn’t telescope enough, and the seat bottom is pitched too forward. The seats themselves are also less supportive than the others.
Despite the RAV4′s popularity with families, we found it to be the worst when it came to installing a child safety seat. Not only is there less space for a rear-mounted seat than in the Hyundai or Chevy, but the top tether anchor points are buried between the rear seatback and cargo area bulkhead, making access difficult. Once you’ve got the kid seat in, you’ll be reluctant to remove it.
Where it Leads:
If you carry stuff more often than people, the Toyota RAV4 is undeniably the best choice here. Although the CR-V has nearly as much cargo space on paper, the RAV’s fold-flat second row and super-low floor height make it easily the best choice for loading and hauling bulky items.
That low liftover height also helps make the RAV4 a great choice for those with dogs, while those with a few extra kids will appreciate that the RAV is the only vehicle in this test with an optional, usable third row seat. There is one downside, though — the passenger-side-hinged rear cargo door opens toward the curb, making street-side loading tricky.
Outward visibility is excellent, affording the driver a reassuring view of the road. A backup camera built into the rearview mirror further helps parking endeavors. And in general, the Toyota RAV4 is a pleasant enough runabout. Its 2.5-liter engine shines with a punchy power delivery and the least labored noise during hard acceleration. Our subjective and objective scores were remarkably close in this comparison, and indeed, it was hard to fathom putting the RAV4 in last place. Yet, these are all-stars, and sometimes the veteran has to move down the bench.
Best For: Carrying Big Stuff, Dog Owners, Shorter Drivers (tie), Those who occasionally need a third row.
3RD PLACE: 2010 HONDA CR-V 4WD EX-L with Navigation
Base MSRP (with destination): $30,455
Options: None
As-Tested Price: $30,455
Where it Follows:
What was that? We couldn’t hear the question over all this noise. The 2010 Honda CR-V makes every day seem like a windy day, as you’ll find yourself checking out trees for external signs of some sort of blustery atmospheric event. Nope, just the CR-V’s excessive wind noise, which combines with excessive road noise to drown out the stereo and your thoughts.
While all the SUVs in this test were remarkably close in every performance testing category (acceleration, braking, skidpad, slalom), we subjectively found the CR-V’s engine to be lacking in low-end punch. You get used to the CR-V’s lack of grunt, but then you jump into any of the others and realize what you’re missing. Fuel economy is also at the bottom of this test, with or without its optional all-wheel drive.
Another issue with the CR-V is the least amount of room for a rear-facing child seat — it would be difficult for someone to sit in the front passenger seat with a baby on board. The back seat also needs to be tumbled forward to get a low, flat load floor.
The CR-V’s final issue is that it’s rather pricey, and not just because it had the highest as-tested price — a similarly loaded Tucson would be $1,000 cheaper. If you’re interested in getting the most stuff for your buck, the Honda CR-V is not the best choice here.
Where it Leads:
Though the CR-V isn’t quite as cargo-friendly as the RAV4, it’s still leaps and bounds better than the Tucson and Equinox. We love the cargo compartment shelf, as it doubles the number of grocery bags you can carry without accidentally stacking that 24 of Coors atop the Wonderbread. The Toyota may be best for big things, but the CR-V is better for the smaller stuff we carry most of the time. The shelf also stows neatly into the cargo floor if you do need space for something big.
The CR-V’s storage capabilities were also appreciated up front. The dash design and open center console are reminiscent of a minivan’s, providing a large space between the two front seats for a purse. Behind that space, a stand-alone compartment is about the same size as the traditional units found in the Hyundai and Toyota, while the seat-mounted armrests are perfectly placed regardless of where you move the seat (shorter folks often find center armrests are placed too far rearward).
While the Chevy has a better ride and the Hyundai handles better, the Honda strikes the best balance between both spectrums. We also scored the CR-V’s steering to be tops, as its hydraulic set-up (the others are electric) provides the most natural weighting and consistent feedback. The CR-V excels around town thanks to its nimble handling and good outward visibility (tied with the RAV4); indeed the only mom among our editors said this would be the car she would buy.
If it wasn’t for all that noise, it coulda been a better contender.
Best for: Mom, Carrying Smaller Stuff, Around-town driving, Shorter Drivers (tie), The hard of hearing
2ND PLACE: 2010 HYUNDAI TUCSON GLS AWD
Base MSRP (with destination): $22,290
Options: Navigation Package ($2,000 — includes touchscreen navigation system, rearview camera, premium stereo, automatic headlights); Popular Equipment Package ($1,700 — includes 17-inch alloy wheels, auto up/down driver window, telescoping steering wheel, leather-wrapped steering wheel with controls for audio and cruise, leatherette-cloth upholstery, additional body color exterior panels, privacy glass, roof rails and Bluetooth); Floor mats ($100).
As-Tested Price: $26,090
Where It Follows:
This is the anti-RAV4. The 2010 Hyundai Tucson has the least cargo capacity in this test. It is the only one without a back seat that reclines and slides — a feature we’ve grown to love. That back seat was also hard, shapeless and offered the least amount of legroom. Certainly, the new Tucson is the least appealing to families or those who frequently carry bulky stuff.
The Tucson also has the roughest ride. Though it’s actually comfortable enough on the highway, gnarled pavement in the city sends a lot of impact harshness into the cabin. It can grow tiresome if your city has a minuscule road repair budget. Visibility was another issue with the Tucson, as its rear-quarter view from the driver seat is practically non-existent. We certainly appreciated our test vehicle’s back-up camera.
Where It Leads:
If you’re single or married without kids, the little Tucson is a big winner. If a big, versatile back seat or a cavernous cargo area aren’t top priority, you will discover a well-rounded crossover with excellent value, an attractive interior, a responsive driving experience and best-in-test fuel economy*. Three out of the four single editors who participated in this test chose the Tucson as the one they would buy.
Indeed, the Tucson is the vehicle in this test most concerned with the guy or gal behind the wheel. The driver seat received the top score for comfort, support and adjustability even though it was fully manual. We also preferred the Tucson on the winding road portion of our driving loop, finding its steering to be responsive and its body motions well controlled. In the fun to drive category, the Tucson was the runaway favorite.
Inside, the dash is not only attractive to look at, but its controls are easy to use. The touchscreen navigation system doubles as the audio controls (like the Honda) and makes them a bit more complicated, but the menu structure makes sense and its iPod interface is easily best-in-test. The connection speed between car and iPod is especially impressive (unlike the Honda).
All four crossovers here are filled with hard plastic, but like the Chevy, the Hyundai’s are at least nicely textured and look better than they really are. In general, the Hyundai seems like a high-quality product.
Finally, as we’ve touched upon earlier, the Tucson provides excellent value — not exactly a shocker given its Hyundai badge. In the end, only the Tucson’s size held it back in this test. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty significant aspect.
Best for: Singles, DINKs, iPod junkies, Those who live in a city with well-paved roads
* If all SUVs in this test were front-wheel drive, the Tucson would be tied with the Equinox for best combined fuel economy. If all were all-wheel drive, the Tucson would be alone on top.
1ST PLACE: 2010 CHEVROLET EQUINOX 1LT
Base MSRP (with destination): $24,105
Options: Vehicle Interface Package ($495 — Remote ignition, Bluetooth, USB audio interface and a leather-wrapped steering wheel with audio controls).
As-Test MSRP: $24,600
Where It Follows:
The Chevy Equinox may boast the biggest exterior dimensions, but that doesn’t equate to interior girth. With its sliding back seat in its rearmost position, the cargo area is the shallowest in this test. It’s also the narrowest and the Equinox is the only one that couldn’t fit a set of golf clubs width-wise.
The Equinox also isn’t an athlete. It’s the heaviest vehicle in this test and it felt it, and its steering is numb on center and utterly devoid of feel. With a low seating position, thick roof pillars and less glass space than the RAV4 and CR-V, the Equinox can be a bit of a chore to maneuver in tight spaces such as parking lots. Indeed, visibility is a major reason why someone would choose the Honda or Toyota instead of the Chevy.
Finally, while the Equinox’s interior is quite stylish and we like the design direction Chevy has taken recently, its controls are dependant on loads of flush-mounted little buttons that all look alike. There isn’t enough space and differentiation between functions; a problem that is compounded if you order the optional navigation system.
Where It Leads:
While the Equinox may not be the best choice to carry around stuff, it is the best for carrying around people. The back seat is easily the most comfortable and with that back seat slid all the way back, there is a limo-like amount of legroom. As with the RAV4 and CR-V, children in front-facing child seats are within reach of their parents when you move the Chevy’s back seat all the way forward,. With a rear-facing child seat, the Equinox is one of the few vehicles period that doesn’t require the front passenger to scoot his or her seat forward to provide enough space for junior.
The Equinox scored further in the comfort category by boasting the best ride quality. That heavy feeling that’s detrimental around town makes you feel commanding and secure when driving the Chevy on the freeway. This, plus the quietest cabin in the test, made the Equinox the best choice for road trips and highway driving.
In general, you feel like you’re getting so much more for your money, and indeed, it was hard to imagine that our Equinox only cost $1,500 more than the Toyota. The high-quality upholstery, cabin materials and switchgear aided this perception, as did a generous supply of features like an iPod interface, OnStar and alloy wheels. While you can get a loaded four-cylinder Equinox to top $32,000, this well-equipped $24,600 1LT model seems to hit the sweet spot most consumers would settle upon.
So although each of these SUVs makes a strong case for itself, the 2010 Chevy Equinox is the one our editors picked as the SUV they’d most frequently recommend to consumers. Simply put, the Equinox is the well-rounded, value-conscious winner that trades some cargo-carrying capability for all-around civility.
Best for: Dad, Road trips and highway travel, Rear Seat Passengers, Rear-facing baby seats
The manufacturers provided Edmunds with these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
