2014 Rogue ground clearance

[followingnfront]

This probably isn't important enough to be its own thread but I'm going to start one anyway...

The 1st gen Rogue's ground clearance: 8.3" (second in class I believe, only to the 2014 Subaru Forester)

The 2nd gen Rogue's ground clearance: 7.4" (just about 1 whole inch lower which is about class average I think, and now definitely nothing to brag about)

Just wanted to share my frustration with you guys... I know most of you don't share my frustration, but I don't care lol

[ImStricken06]

good info. i will never buy another rogue, so this is more fuel to my fire lol

[sprocket]

The 2014 Rogue IMO is pretty decent for its segment, and I can understand the shift in ground clearance as fuel economy becomes a bigger priority. I don't think the new Rogue has bragged about its ground clearance, its focus is definitely more for on-road with decent (for its segment) off-road capability. Considering that most sedans typically fall around the 5-1/2" ground clearance category although there are some exceptions to that rule, I think the Rogue coming in at almost 2" additional clearance than typical sedans is decent.

How it stacks up.

Ground clearance (highest to lowest):
Forester (2014+) = 8.7 (non turbo) / 8.9 (turbo)
CX-5 (2013+) = 8.5
Escape (2013+) = 7.9 ; reduced -0.5" from previous model 8.4
Rogue (2014+) = 7.4 ; reduced -0.9" from previous model 8.3
Tucson (2010+) = 6.7 ; reduced -1" from previous model 7.7
CR-V (2012+) = 6.3 (FWD) / 6.7 (AWD) ; reduced -0.4" on FWD from previous model 6.7
RAV4 (2013+) = 6.3 ; reduced -1.2" from previous model 7.5


Since this discussion is about ground clearance, I figured it was reasonable to arrange fuel economy rankings by AWD instead of FWD, I also picked only one engine which I thought was both best-case EPA and had HP/TQ ratings close to the segment, which is why I excluded the CX-5 and Tucson 2.0L.

Fuel economy (highest to lowest):
Rogue 25/32 (AWD), 26/33 (FWD)
Forester = 24/32 (non turbo) / 23/28 (turbo)
CX-5 = 24/30 AWD, 25/32 FWD ; w/ 2.5L which has more comparable engine output to competition
Escape = 22/30 (AWD), 23/32 (FWD) ; w/ 1.6L Ecoboost with best EPA MPG (vs 2.5L or 2.0 Ecoboost)
CR-V = 22/30 (AWD), 23/31 (FWD)
RAV4 = 22/29 (AWD), 24/31 (FWD)
Tucson = 22/25 (AWD), 21/28 (FWD) ; w/ 2.4L which has more comparable engine output to competition



It all depends on what is your priority I suppose. I am looking forward to my 2014 Rogue on order.

[followingnfront]

The 2014 Rogue IMO is pretty decent for its segment, and I can understand the shift in ground clearance as fuel economy becomes a bigger priority. I don't think the new Rogue has bragged about its ground clearance, its focus is definitely more for on-road with decent (for its segment) off-road capability. Considering that most sedans typically fall around the 5-1/2" ground clearance category although there are some exceptions to that rule, I think the Rogue coming in at almost 2" additional clearance than typical sedans is decent.

How it stacks up.

Ground clearance (highest to lowest):
Forester (2014+) = 8.7 (non turbo) / 8.9 (turbo)
CX-5 (2013+) = 8.5
Escape (2013+) = 7.9 ; reduced -0.5" from previous model 8.4
Rogue (2014+) = 7.4 ; reduced -0.9" from previous model 8.3
Tucson (2010+) = 6.7 ; reduced -1" from previous model 7.7
CR-V (2012+) = 6.3 (FWD) / 6.7 (AWD) ; reduced -0.4" on FWD from previous model 6.7
RAV4 (2013+) = 6.3 ; reduced -1.2" from previous model 7.5


Since this discussion is about ground clearance, I figured it was reasonable to arrange fuel economy rankings by AWD instead of FWD, I also picked only one engine which I thought was both best-case EPA and had HP/TQ ratings close to the segment, which is why I excluded the CX-5 and Tucson 2.0L.

Fuel economy (highest to lowest):
Rogue 25/32 (AWD), 26/33 (FWD)
Forester = 24/32 (non turbo) / 23/28 (turbo)
CX-5 = 24/30 AWD, 25/32 FWD ; w/ 2.5L which has more comparable engine output to competition
Escape = 22/30 (AWD), 23/32 (FWD) ; w/ 1.6L Ecoboost with best EPA MPG (vs 2.5L or 2.0 Ecoboost)
CR-V = 22/30 (AWD), 23/31 (FWD)
RAV4 = 22/29 (AWD), 24/31 (FWD)
Tucson = 22/25 (AWD), 21/28 (FWD) ; w/ 2.4L which has more comparable engine output to competition



It all depends on what is your priority I suppose. I am looking forward to my 2014 Rogue on order.

That is good info ^... Personally I dont think that 2" over a sedan is all that great. It is just "ok" to me... What I dont get is why Nissan couldnt up the mileage without making this thing so low... The forester is a whole 1.3" taller and has the same sized engine and a cvt WITHOUT all the fancy schmancy underbody plastic and plastic rear hatch door and aluminum hood and "rear muffler spoiler"... And it gets pretty much the exact same mileage as the new Rogue which has all of that stuff....

What is Nissan doing wrong?

[sprocket]

I'm sure there's more to it than just looking at what's under the hood.

2014 Rogue is bigger than the 2014 Forester. Exterior dimensions (Rogue in bold):
Wheelbase 106.5 vs. 103.9
Overall length 182.3 vs. 180.9
Overall width 72.4 vs. 70.7
Overall height 67.5 vs. 66.4

Larger vehicle dimensions translates to more weight, which is why aluminum hood, plastic hatch, etc helps
Curb weight 3,532 vs. 3,366 ; AWD auto compared and using lowest trim available.

Both vehicles have a 0.33cd, and I've read that the Forester also uses underbody covers to reduce its drag.

Forester's BOXER engine has a lower center of gravity than traditional inline engines, so that lets Subaru raise ground clearance without decreasing stability.

I think both vehicles are impressive in their own ways and you can't go wrong with either, just got to go with the one that meets "more" of your needs. No one vehicle will ever excel in every single way since that customer does not exist

[sprocket]

good info. i will never buy another rogue, so this is more fuel to my fire lol

Don't you have a Santa Fe with .... 7.3" of ground clearance? I think I just put out your fire, haha!

[ImStricken06]

good info. i will never buy another rogue, so this is more fuel to my fire lol

Don't you have a Santa Fe with .... 7.3" of ground clearance? I think I just put out your fire, haha!

i'm not on fire about ground clearance. i just said its one more reason to not want the new rogue.
if clearance was really a factor - id get (or make) an SUV more rugged by lifting it. the new rogue has a lot of reasons why not to buy it. 60k warranty on a transmission that scares me. constant brake issues. and just a general all around piss-poor build/fit & finish. i know the new rogue is a step up- but honestly.... the step up is only in looks, until we get the feedback from people.
for now, nissan lost me. unless they actually (finally) come out with a diesel of some sort; im out. between a $40k infiniti that was too, plagued with quality control issues, transmission issues, etc. nissan needs some serious restructuring before i view them in the same light i used too(in the 90's and early 2000's)

:cough - cough:

[sprocket]

Just messing with you ImStricken

Anyone who's serious about offroading would definitely NOT be using a Rogue but would have a dedicated vehicle with better approach/departure angles, different tires and suspension, etc ... things I'm not too familiar with but sure looks like a lot of fun

The new Rogue is now a global vehicle, riding on a new platform, new components and it's tailored to fit different market needs ... you can get a diesel in Europe, Japan only gets a 2.0L direct injection, etc ... grounc clearance in Japan appears to be closer to 8.1" ... changes are more than skin deep and I'm looking forward to seeing how it does

[followingnfront]

Im not a serious off roader and I agree with you for the most part Sprocket... However, I share a similar mindset with Imstricken when it comes to s*** hitting the fan (he is way more in depth in his execution though)... And if I ever need to, I know that the first gen Rogue can hurdle some pretty serious stuff for a compact crossover due to its aporoach angle and ground clearance...

The new one has a long chin and an inch less clearance. Thats like cutting the vehicles capability in half with respect to escape routes/off-road trails, etc. I like my (still only decent) chances Ive got now with the 1st gen... Dont like the idea of less... For that Id rather a sedan and focus on it being fast and handling well and change up my strategy, but then I lose the utility aspect of the vehicle....

[ImStricken06]

put it this way, when i was fixing my car and waiting on payment from the insurance = i research not putting my OEm bumper back on. i wanted this type of bumper; but none was available for our car

[followingnfront]

put it this way, when i was fixing my car and waiting on payment from the insurance = i research not putting my OEm bumper back on. i wanted this type of bumper; but none was available for our car

Yeah from what I've noticed, they don't offer them on crossovers with 1 piece bumpers (basically most crossovers) which is more of a "front fascia".. The trucks and SUVs with a two piece (bottom and top) have them because all you do is swap out the bottom... If you got one for the Rogue you'd need to do a custom one. Cutting the bottom half of the Rogue's fascia off and replacing it with metal.

[ImStricken06]

If you got one for the Rogue you'd need to do a custom one. Cutting the bottom half of the Rogue's fascia off and replacing it with metal.

thats exactly what i was gonna do lol

[followingnfront]

If you got one for the Rogue you'd need to do a custom one. Cutting the bottom half of the Rogue's fascia off and replacing it with metal.

thats exactly what i was gonna do lol

Pioneer it and Ill do it too lol