So I test drove the Rogue today (and the Rav4)

[BrianV]

Despite my utter disappointment about learning about the lack of auto climate control on the Rogue, we test drove one none the less. We did so after test driving a V6 Limited Rav4.

Despite my initial attraction to the Rav4 after a week long rental with one in Lake Tahoe, I was actually a little disappointed with it. After driving to the Toyota dealer in the MDX, it was apparent the interior bits were pretty cheap. The plastics were bad quality. I had assumed this wouldn't be the case in the limited, but it was (we rented a sport). Also, the V6 wasn't as quiet as I remember it being. None the less it was fast, but it's also around $31k with the options we want and at that price there are other vehicles that offer more.

So we went to the Nissan dealer next and test drove a fully loaded Rogue SL AWD. It had all the packages and then some other stuff like cross bars, etc. It was $27,930 MSRP. Immediately I realized how small the Rogue is. It feels and looks smaller from the inside than the Rav4. I assume I'd have to put the front seat down to get my skis in the car; I don't need to do that with the Rav. Also, the rear visibility is a little weak.

HOWEVER, the interior quality was much higher than the Toyotas. I was really impressed with the comfort and actual space. I had plenty of leg room with the front seats all the way back and I was still fairly comfortable when sitting in the back seat. The arm rests were leather (not plastic like in the Rav) and the steering wheel position felt much better.

Driving it out of the parking lot, I felt the I4 was as quiet as the Rav's V6 and felt generally powerful enough. On the road, I felt it was powerful but not like the Rav. However, I was thrown off by the CVT. I don't think the CVT works as well on this car as it does the Maxima and the Murano, and I think it's because the I4 starts sounding like an I4 past 3k RPM. It seemed the CVT likes to run in the 3000-3500 rpm zone when even very mildly accelerating. I found that slightly annoying. That was easily mitigated by using the manual mode which I found worked very well (surprisingly well in fact). I found I could mildly accelerate in gears 5 and 6 on the road which made me wish that regular auto mode would be a little more conservative. Perhaps I could train my foot to make the CVT operate how I want it to with enough time. I don't recall this sensation of "too high revs" with the Maixima or Murano, and I think that's mainly because at 3k rpm the VQ V6 engine is buttery smooth and quiet.

My girlfriend is the hugest fan of CVT but she also said she preferred the power delivery of the Murano (duh..). However, counting in the economy of the car, she fell in love with the Rogue and said when we left the dealer, "Looks like we found my next car." I said, "Easy there..."

Driving home in the MDX really proved that although Toyota and Nissan are classing up there entry-level utes, they're still not as quiet and solid as the entry-level luxury players. The Rogue had almost all of the luxury features of our MDX (save climate control and memory seats) and actually had many more that the MDX didn't, but the MDX is much quieter, smoother, etc. However, the MDX drives like a boat and gets worse MPG. I found the Rogue felt quieter, more solid, and more luxurious than the more expensive and V6 powered Rav4 (which was the largest shock of the day).

The lack of auto climate control continues to be a bugger for us so we're hoping that it gets rectified in the MY2009 Rogues. We'd also welcome memory seats since they tend to work real well with the intelligent keys (whichever key is on the drivers side gets their seat positioned appropriately).

Anyways, thought I'd post my findings. At the end of the day, the Rogue is pound for pound an absolute incredible offering; especially the SL AWD loaded at only $27,500 or so. That's a lot of vehicle for such little money. I think Nissan did their homework (except the lack of auto climate control) and the Rogue is winner. You all have a great vehicle and maybe one day we will too (almost a definite if 2009 gets auto CC).

On a final note, the turning radius was EXTREMELY impressive; jaw droppingly impressive in fact (short wheelbase I guess???). Also, the steering was very connected and the entire handling response was tight. Great vehicle, I praise Nissan thoroughly for a job well done. It also looks like the 09 Murano is going to be a home run, so it seems like Nissan really is an SUV player now.

[PINODY]

Nice detailed review, for the same $, this sounds more like what you're looking for ... http://automobiles.honda.com/c....aspx plus Dual Climate Control.

[Ticmxman]

Glad to hear you made it to the dealer. Your review was excellent. I fully agree with your Rogue & Rav4 comparision. The RAV does have more cargo room and the interior is not as nice as the Rogue. I traded a 4cyl RAV4 for my Rogue and find the the Rogue acelerates faster, handles much better, is quieter, has more leg room, a better radio. The CVT IMO works very well in the Rogue as you stated it may depend on how you drive the car but short of short intervals of hard aceleration for on ramps, making a pass etc... I never notice any engine drone.

Uh Pinody is trying to send you to a CRV no no if you want a small noisey, weak mini van then I guess the CRV would fit the bill I guess.

[Lightforce18]

great review man.

Hopefully the 09 gives u the AUTO cc so u can join the rogue family

for the price the rogue is awsome. I got my Fully loaded rogue for 25,500. Im sure you can next year also

[BrianV]

I do dig the CRV interior but it's not on my list for a few reasons:

- The AWD system is very weak- It looks retarded, there are several areas of the car that just look wrong- Despite owning an MDX, I'm not a Honda/Acura fan. In fact, the MDX will probably be my last Honda product. Although the MDX is the best one we've owned, there are still transmission issues (not on ours, knock on wood) that were never resolved by Honda. I had real bad luck with a 94 Integra GS-R and an 01 CL Type-S.- Plus my g/f can't stand how it looks.

Thanks for helping out.

[BrianV]

So for giggles, we test drove the CR-V today. We drove an AWD EX-L (no nav). Despite my early complaints about its looks, I actually think it's a great looking SUV.

The interior is the best looking and best constructed of the three major Japanese players. I also enjoyed the dual HVAC controls and felt that the car felt much larger inside than the Rogue. It felt wider, taller, and longer. The trunk space was larger, but I HATED how the rear seats didn't fold flat but folded forwards making loading long things like skis, wood, etc. difficult. I think it has more cargo volume then the Rogue, but the Rogue's more versatile fold flat rear seat and fold flat passenger-front seat would make it more ideal for us.

The car we test drove had only two miles on it and I found the transmission to be extremely solid, precise, and smooth. However, I felt the engine to be lackluster and slow, albeit generally quiet at slower speeds. It also had enough power to casually pickup speed on the highway without dropping down gears. However, flooring it to get it on the freeway proved how slow it was.

I also felt there was more wind noise then in the Rogue (and Rav4). On that topic, I felt the rogue was the quietest of the bunch on the highway.

If Honda brings their diesel CR-V to the states, we'd have to strongly consider it, but at the end of the day we preferred the Rogue, at least I think I did. My g/f absolutely preferred the Rogue. I'm still not convinced about the CVT in the Rogue since it seems like cruising around town spends a lot of time in the higher rev bands. I thought the conventional transmission in the CR-V was better.

On the contrary, the Nissan engine was quieter and much faster.

Both the Rogue and CR-V we test drove were similarly equipped and priced within $500 of each other. Both are great cars, and I'd lean towards to the Rogue. It'd be a no brainer if it had auto climate control (beating a dead horse, I know).

On a final note, it's clear that both the CR-V and the Rogue bring a much better value to the table than Toyota does.

Now I'm just holding out to see the Tiguan when it comes out.

[Ticmxman]

So for giggles, we test drove the CR-V today. We drove an AWD EX-L (no nav). Despite my early complaints about its looks, I actually think it's a great looking SUV.

The interior is the best looking and best constructed of the three major Japanese players. I also enjoyed the dual HVAC controls and felt that the car felt much larger inside than the Rogue. It felt wider, taller, and longer. The trunk space was larger, but I HATED how the rear seats didn't fold flat but folded forwards making loading long things like skis, wood, etc. difficult. I think it has more cargo volume then the Rogue, but the Rogue's more versatile fold flat rear seat and fold flat passenger-front seat would make it more ideal for us.

The car we test drove had only two miles on it and I found the transmission to be extremely solid, precise, and smooth. However, I felt the engine to be lackluster and slow, albeit generally quiet at slower speeds. It also had enough power to casually pickup speed on the highway without dropping down gears. However, flooring it to get it on the freeway proved how slow it was.

I also felt there was more wind noise then in the Rogue (and Rav4). On that topic, I felt the rogue was the quietest of the bunch on the highway.

If Honda brings their diesel CR-V to the states, we'd have to strongly consider it, but at the end of the day we preferred the Rogue, at least I think I did. My g/f absolutely preferred the Rogue. I'm still not convinced about the CVT in the Rogue since it seems like cruising around town spends a lot of time in the higher rev bands. I thought the conventional transmission in the CR-V was better.

On the contrary, the Nissan engine was quieter and much faster.

Both the Rogue and CR-V we test drove were similarly equipped and priced within $500 of each other. Both are great cars, and I'd lean towards to the Rogue. It'd be a no brainer if it had auto climate control (beating a dead horse, I know).

On a final note, it's clear that both the CR-V and the Rogue bring a much better value to the table than Toyota does.

Now I'm just holding out to see the Tiguan when it comes out.

Your thoughts are exactly why after my test drives of CRVs I bought the Rogue. The CRV is slower, noisier, has more cargo height & less usable length than the Rogue. Did you check out the Radios?

[BrianV]

Your thoughts are exactly why after my test drives of CRVs I bought the Rogue. The CRV is slower, noisier, has more cargo height & less usable length than the Rogue. Did you check out the Radios?

No but both radios had XM which is a big plus for us. Is there anything specific about each stereo that we should pay attention to? Generally, Nissan BOSE systems are tolerable for me. They're not great, but they're consistently decent enough for me.

[Ticmxman]

No but both radios had XM which is a big plus for us. Is there anything specific about each stereo that we should pay attention to? Generally, Nissan BOSE systems are tolerable for me. They're not great, but they're consistently decent enough for me.

I thought the CRV stereo was terrible in the EX and EXL, not sure about the NAV stereo. Also note that you have to get the EXL to get XM. Bose system was far far superior.

Stereo evaluation: http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...30065

[Chris92SE]

I have test driven the Element, CRV, Rogue and Rav4 4 cylinder and I preferred the Rogue.

Good reviews. Your price quote seems a bit high, though. I tested out an AWD Rogue SL with everything but leather (premium package + sunroof) and it was about $25k.

I really like the Rogue, but I am going to wait in hopes that Nissan adds some things you mentioned (climate control, memory seats) along with Navigation.

Currently, I have a 2001 QX4 with memory seats, climate control, all four heated seats, but no Navi. I love it, except it gets about 16 mpg. We are going to hold onto it for another year, I guess.

[BrianV]

I have test driven the Element, CRV, Rogue and Rav4 4 cylinder and I preferred the Rogue.

Good reviews. Your price quote seems a bit high, though. I tested out an AWD Rogue SL with everything but leather (premium package + sunroof) and it was about $25k.

I really like the Rogue, but I am going to wait in hopes that Nissan adds some things you mentioned (climate control, memory seats) along with Navigation.

Currently, I have a 2001 QX4 with memory seats, climate control, all four heated seats, but no Navi. I love it, except it gets about 16 mpg. We are going to hold onto it for another year, I guess.

I think a loaded SL AWD is like $27,300 (with leather and premium). The one I looked at had the roof-bar cross rails and mudflaps or something else similar to that sort of option. It drove the price up around $500.

[kerrton]

The RAV4 is WAY overhyped, I've had lots of experience with it and I wouldn't consider buying one. The Rogue is a much better machine and is priced so much better, I couldn't afford the RAV and am so glad I bought the Rogue. I would've bought a CRV before the RAV no questions asked, except I hate the styling, I see tons of old grandmas driving them around.

[Leo2005]

Hehe. One more time I agree:

[Leo2005]

I'm looking at 2010 chevy equinox on youtube right now and I would say Chevy finally started to do a nice job on cars.

[cedman]

In my opinion the Rogue does not compare to the Rav. I have both. 07 sport V6 Rav and 09 Rogue. I wont drive the rogue.The Rogue SL fully equipt with premium package, sunroof, AWD, no leather. 25,500 including the hidden dealer admin fees i wasnt aware of.The 07 Rav was the same price, pretty much fully loaded.The Rav was my wifes car and i purchased for myself the rogue. It only took 2 days to dislike the car. I hated the Rogue so much that my wife said take the Rav and trade it in on what every you want (Mustang/new camaro). Im keeping the Rav.

So you dont all fully hate me. My wife likes the Rogue better than the rav.

[kerrton]

So I didn't really get much detail from your post cedman, you're saying both are loaded vehicles for the same price and the RAV is way better, what is it specifically that is better about the RAV?

[Leo2005]

He says that dealer sells 07 rav4 for the same price as 09 rogue. Must v6 rav4. Can't really compare that to rogue. I don't see a point why do you want a small crossover with v6 if you can get something bigger. If you like toyota over nissan and you want v6 you should go with highlander and not with rav4. The new Venza looks kinda weird in my opinion and stole design of "L-shape" tail lights from maxima.

[cdmuile]

We narrowed our search to the Rav4 and the Rogue last year. Went with the Rogue because of the superior handling and gas sipping CVT. We didn't like the available interior color offerings in the Rav and that stupid 5th door opening in the back. It should lift. TEHO!

[cedman]

So I didn't really get much detail from your post cedman, you're saying both are loaded vehicles for the same price and the RAV is way better, what is it specifically that is better about the RAV?

In 07 I purchased a fully loaded Rav Sport V6 for 25,200In 09 I purchased a fully loaded Rogue 4 cycle for 25,200

I feel slightly Claustrophobic in the rogue, especially looking into the rear view mirror.

I find the front and rear seats uncomfortable in the rogue. The rear seats on the Rav slide foward/back and also recline.

For the autostart you need to turn the car off and then on to drive away(WTF).

The interior door frames scratch very easily. I rubbed my hand on the door sill on the way home from the dealer and marked it with my ring.

If me and my wife are both holding the keyfob the doors dont always work.

My golf clubs dont fit in the rogue. The ravs cargo space is larger than my dads pathfinder (2000 pathfinder). Plus there are alot of additional storage compartments on the RAV that the rogue does not have.

The Nissan dealer said they made the rogue to go against the Rav and I told him after the test ride that there is no comparison. It is probably because im comparing a V6 to a 4 cycl.

Im probably being to hard on the rogue but I consider the Rogue a large station wagon and the Rav a small/mid size Suv if that makes any sense.

[ahhbeebee]

I agree with most that its not exactly a 'fair' comparison.

I personally almost went with an 08 V6 RAV4 and to be honest, if the price had been the same, I may likely have gone with the RAV4.

My biggest beef with the RAV4 was that I found the interior/dash really ugly and boring. The handling was also much softer - since it is a dedicated CUV platform and not modified sedan.

I really wouldn't picture either as anything other than CUV's though. I wouldn't take either Rogue or RAV4 - or any other vehicle in the class (maybe the Outlander - but that's all just marketing hype) into any off road situations.

If you are buying rather than leasing, resale might be a huge factor though - 2 years is a lot of difference.

[takeshi]

I have test driven the Element, CRV, Rogue and Rav4 4 cylinder and I preferred the Rogue.

I think we shopped at the CRV, Rav4, Rogue & some others and felt that the Rogue was more fun to drive.

[jmol]

When I was in the market for a car I was looking at the rogue, the rav4, the subaru forrester and the honda cr-v. I test drove all of them and the rav4 was the first car I ruled out. It rode so hard I feared that my butt would be numb after a long trip! I spoke to 2 friends who both have rav4's and they both said they do not recommend the car and that it is a very bumpy ride and are both looking into replacing their rav4.