![]() ![]() The Corolla Cross is an affordable RAV4 alternative, with similar ground clearance but with a little less cargo space. The dashboard is nearly identical to what's found in the Corolla sedan or hatchback, and we were able to fit two more carry-on suitcases in the back with the seats up than what we stuffed into the C-HR. The Corolla Cross is a mix of those successes. Toyota sells two of the three bestselling cars in the U.S., as well as the bestselling SUV, the RAV4. Rear Cargo Space: 24 cubic feet (FWD), 23 (AWD).EPA Fuel Economy combined/city/highway: 30/28/34 mpg (FWD).We expect a redesigned HR-V later this year, similar to the Euro-spec version revealed recently. Unfortunately, the HR-V suffers from a choppy ride, especially on uneven roads. We were able to fit 22 carry-ons in the cargo area during our test. The bottom cushion of the rear seat can also be flipped up, providing a deep well between the front and rear seatbacks for taller items. When released, the rear seatback folds flat, leaving extra room for stacking luggage or for hauling bigger stuff. The HR-V's party trick is its second-row Magic Seat. It achieved 30 mpg on the highway in our test. The HR-V shines as a fuel-efficient alternative to other choices. It's powered exclusively by a 141-hp four-cylinder engine with a continuously variable automatic transmission and is available with either front- or all-wheel drive. EPA Fuel Economy combined/city/highway: 27/24/30 mpg (FWD 2.0L)Īgainst its many competitors, the plucky Honda HR-V does its best.Mitsubishi is offering a 100,000-mile warranty on all new Outlander Sports in hopes of boosting sales, but it'll have to do a lot more than that to compete in this segment. Inside, an 8.0-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto appears on most models and is optional on the ES trim with the Convenience package. ![]() The all-wheel-drive Outlander Sport with a 2.0-liter engine returned 28 mpg on our 200-mile real-world fuel-economy test, while the 2.4-liter version we tested managed only 26 mpg. A 168-hp 2.4-liter engine is optional, and both engines use a continuously variable automatic transmission. Base models are powered by a 148-hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder. Sadly, the diet version-the Outlander Sport-didn't receive any of those updates. It’s great on 33.The three-row Mitsubishi Outlander received major updates that greatly improved its ride, fuel economy, and interior. But it was easy to sneak off to Southern California’s famed Route 33 and let this twerp tweak. Of course, there are driving modes that tweak things for sporty driving or off-road work, but it’s tough to evaluate those in the confined context of a press drive. Or whatever Audi crossover is top-dog this month.Īll this despite the CX-50’s simple suspension: struts up front and a torsion beam in back. Let’s put some real tires on the CX-50 (does Michelin make a Pilot Sport in 255/40R-20 size?) and see how it compares to Porsche’s best. It’s not the best handling crossover ever-that honor goes to the much pricier Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT-but the fact that this relatively affordable machine is reminiscent of Porsche's standard-setting beast is astonishing. The all-wheel drive system pulls cleanly through corners and it takes determined effort to do anything so stupid it would upset the vehicle. Ick.ĭespite the modest tires, on the open road the CX-50’s steering is immediate and responsive. ![]() The guesstimate here is that the CX-50 in top turbo spec will run 0-60 in just under six seconds, nose-to-nose with the Outback. So the Mazda is down on horsepower but up on grunt. While the Outback’s available 2.4-liter turbocharged flat-four is rated at 260 horsepower, its torque peaks at 277 lb-ft at 2000 rpm. The second result is an ad Mazda bought for the CX-50. Type in "Subaru Outback," and the first result is an ad for the Outback itself. But the most telling indication that Mazda is aiming at the Outback comes from Google. They offer similar accommodations inside and standard all-wheel drive. ![]() Both automakers like to brag about generous ground clearance (8.6 inches for the Mazda, a tenth more for the Subie) and approach angles (18 degrees for the CX-50, 18.6 for the Outback). The Outback is longer at 191.3 inches, but runs a 2.7 inch shorter wheelbase. Mazda has aimed the CX-50 squarely at the Subaru Outback. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |