2014 Rogue "off-road"

[followingnfront]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-r3zy5EvQ[/youtube]

[ImStricken06]

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-r3zy5EvQ[/youtube]

i fixed your MOBILE link into the appropriate PC link, you tool lolololol/jk

[ImStricken06]

id like to see the rogue handle tests like this video below. i KNOW the rogue is very capable. its amazing in the snow- so why make videos of it performing test most sedans could pass?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNmKsjxBcGo[/youtube]

[Rogue One]

id like to see the rogue handle tests like this video below. i KNOW the rogue is very capable. its amazing in the snow- so why make videos of it performing test most sedans could pass?

Ok, I thought it was me. I watched it and found it dull as dishwater. And no disrespect intended, but every time I referenced the Quashqai, I'd be "politely" reminded they're not the same. As this is an X-Trail wouldn't that also hold true?

[followingnfront]

id like to see the rogue handle tests like this video below. i KNOW the rogue is very capable. its amazing in the snow- so why make videos of it performing test most sedans could pass?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNmKsjxBcGo[/youtube]

Because it has the same rideheight as a sedan for 2014

[followingnfront]

And no disrespect intended, but every time I referenced the Quashqai, I'd be "politely" reminded they're not the same. As this is an X-Trail wouldn't that also hold true?

The first gen Rogue and respective X-Trail were two totalky different vehicles with different engines, drivetrains, suspensions, etc... The 2nd gen Rogue and new X-Trail are the EXACT same car inside and out. The new X-Trail is a rebadged 2014 Rogue. The new Qashqai is slightly different though.

[Rogue One]

The first gen Rogue and respective X-Trail were two totalky different vehicles with different engines, drivetrains, suspensions, etc... The 2nd gen Rogue and new X-Trail are the EXACT same car inside and out. The new X-Trail is a rebadged 2014 Rogue. The new Qashqai is slightly different though.

Thanks. Despite being called a know-it-all (amongst other things), I did not know that. Nonetheless, still not impressed.

[followingnfront]

The first gen Rogue and respective X-Trail were two totalky different vehicles with different engines, drivetrains, suspensions, etc... The 2nd gen Rogue and new X-Trail are the EXACT same car inside and out. The new X-Trail is a rebadged 2014 Rogue. The new Qashqai is slightly different though.

Thanks. Despite being called a know-it-all (amongst other things), I did not know that. Nonetheless, still not impressed.

Yeah Im not impressed either. I wouldnt really call that "off-road"

[SlimSlammedRogue]

even with my rogue slammed it still out performed an evo in the snow on bald tires and i even pulled the evo out of the snow. I think itll outperform all the competitors in its class

[followingnfront]

I think itll outperform all the competitors in its class

Those are some strong words. Especially considering the Forester is in this class. I am waiting to see what time tells.

Still I want to see what it can do in an actual off-road environment, not this little course like in the vid. Snow is easy considering how well the 1st gen performs in it.

[RyleyinSTL]

An "off road" review by the guys at TFL Car. Not that anyone would buy this car for use off road.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9WFfAYJ9rI[/youtube]

[Leonard1818]

Thanks for the post! I watched their other review (non-offroad) of the Rogue. They seemed to cover a lot of the same stuff (interior and features) in this segment as the last. I wish they had done more snow/ice performance testing but hey, whatever. It looks like the Rogue can handle snow/ice, probably mud, and grassy fields just fine. That's about all I'd need anyway!

[mag318]

My 2008 AWD SL Rogue was actually fun to drive in the snow. When I bought my 2013 Altima 3.5 SL, which is a great car, but nowhere near the Rogues capabilities in the snow. I'm looking forward to buying a 2014 AWD SL Rogue when my dealer gets the right one in. I suspect that the new Rogue will handle snow just fine.

[followingnfront]

I was about to post that vid... The 1st gen is clearly better for off-road type situations. And on unplowed roads, you have to think about whether you may hit a scenario where you could use that extra 1" of ground clearance.

[Leonard1818]

I was about to post that vid... The 1st gen is clearly better for off-road type situations. And on unplowed roads, you have to think about whether you may hit a scenario where you could use that extra 1" of ground clearance.

While I don't own either first or second gen Rogue, and I mean no hostility when I ask this, pure curiosity; how is it that the first gen is better for off-road type situations? The ground clearance I can certainly. What else makes it a clear leader in terms of offroad capabilities?

[followingnfront]

Check out my thread showing where these guys took a 2013 off road to note the differences.

But namely, Ground clearance, shorter wheelbase, shorter overhangs front and rear.... Other than that, I assume there isnt much difference in AWD systems between the 1st and 2nd gen, but the reasons Ive stated are big reasons... They are the same reasons why a G37X or even EX35 cant tackle the same terrains as a Rav 4.

I took my 1st gen Rogue up my dads driveway which had over a foot of snow on it seems like it would be harder in a 2nd gen.

[Rockhound2.0]

Caveat lector: this overly lengthy post contains copious sarcasm with a few facts sprinkled in; proceed with caution.

All this talk of how Nissan’s hapless engineers squandered the 1st-gen Rogue’s legendary off-road prowess (while working incessantly to over-engineer the aerodynamics of a breadbox) piqued my curiosity – what is a typical midsize sedan’s ground clearance? How does the Rogue, old and new, compare to the segment average?

Figure 1 is a quick look at the ground clearance (henceforth: GC) for selected popular sedans, and a comparison of previous gen versions in some cases (sedan GC measurements can be difficult to find published and occasionally I found conflicting measurements). The average of just the current-gen sedans is 5.8” and all grouped together they average 5.7”. Of note is the surprising baja-buggy of the segment, the 2014 Mazda6. Zoom-zoom?

Figure 1.


Figure 2 provides a look at the GC of several popular CUVs. Of note is that all but the CR-V (only a refresh) experienced decreased GC with the latest versions, most likely in pursuit of increased fuel efficiency. The 2nd-gen Rogue has 0.3” greater GC than this truncated list’s average of current models (7.1”). But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Note that the Mazda CX-5 surprises with only 0.3” less GC than a Wrangler Sport.

Figure 2.


Figure 3 provides a little more information, including wheelbase, overall vehicle length and approach and departure angles (where published). Although highly flawed (like the 2nd-gen Rogue’s windshield wipers) I also took the overall length minus wheelbase and divided by two to see the average overhang length. This would assume equal overhangs front and back, which is clearly stupid, and would also require that bumpers jut out flat to the full overhang length (they don’t). I only included this column because I didn’t want to take another screenshot. I included the base Wrangler Sport for comparison with a real sport utility. I didn’t include breakover angles because I’m lazy.

Figure 3.


Part of the point Followingnfront is making becomes clear – the 2014 Rogue’s approach angle is only 1° greater than the RWD EX35, which is partially a testament to how short the front overhang is on the EX35. Strangely, the 2nd-gen Rogue’s departure angle is a gigantic 3° greater than the 1st-gen Rogue’s approach and departure angles. Clearly, this means you should only offroad the 2014 Rogue backwards, as Nissan’s fussy engineers envisioned, hence the 7" rearview camera display.

Also worth noting is that the CX-5 squanders its impressive GC and suffers from disappointing approach and departure angles, with what I can only assume was Nissan’s engineering assistance.

On a serious note, I think the 2014 Rogue’s tucked tailpipe might offer the explanation to the departure angle increase, otherwise the rear overhangs appear close to identical and the 1st-gen clearly has better GC. It’s also worth noting that the 1st-gen Rogue also can’t tackle the same terrains as either the current or last gen RAV4.

The moral of the story? The Kia Sportage, with a sub-average GC of 6.8” offers the best approach & departure angle combination due to its short overhangs. The other moral? Don’t buy a CUV for offroading!

[RyleyinSTL]

New or old model the Rogue is no off road machine. Departure/approach angles are more than adiquate for any on road conditions you might encounter. Saying that, with AWD lock (which is only a software thing mind you), you should be able to pull yourself through slightly more snow than a similar CRV (which lacks such a feature).

[followingnfront]

It’s also worth noting that the 1st-gen Rogue also can’t tackle the same terrains as either the current or last gen RAV4.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uskl_USim18[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMg1hCKCmI[/youtube]

Before you say that the running boards are what did it, know that the exhaust system is also at 6.5 inches (I believe at the muffler) on the Rav4

[followingnfront]

The other moral? Don’t buy a CUV for offroading!

I disagree with this (sort of). In todays economy, there are many people who cannot afford 2 cars. So they need to find 1 car that can take care of all of their needs. An XTerra/Wrangler/4Runner is not the most practical choice in (again) today's economy, and therefore something better on gas (a crossover) is the best compromise for a DD that can take you where a car can't and has a bunch of space to boot....

If someone only has 1 vehicle, a crossover and goes fishing or hunting or WHATEVER and decides to take it down a trail or something, then yes.... Off-road-ability SHOULD be of interest to them.

[followingnfront]

When we get down to it, it is less of an issue of the vehicle being a "crossover"- which essentially means it is a unibody SUV- because the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Range Rover are both considered "crossovers" and are both very off-road worthy.... It is mostly about approach/departure angles, ground clearance, and they AWD system.

[Rockhound2.0]

Look – as is par for the course on every automotive forum, when a new model comes out, owners of the previous generation look for ways to nitpick the new version in order to mollify their bruised egos. ‘Sour grapes’ is just a default response. Not every new version is better, of course, or at the very least better for everyone’s needs – and there’s nothing wrong with preferring what you have…

…but you act as if the 1st-gen Rogue was just a notch below a Wrangler Rubicon in off-road capability, whereas at 0.9" lower, the ’14 Rogue is now on par with a sedan, which is just laughable hyperbole.

Here's my point: Popular Mechanics took 7 three-row CUVs (Pilot, Sorento, Highlander, Explorer, Traverse, CX-9 and Durango) out to the Silver Lake Sand Dunes in Michigan to test offroad capabilities in 2011. The Explorer, Sorento and Traverse all got stuck because their AWD systems overheated. The CUV rated as the ‘most offroad capable’? The RWD-biased Durango, which happens to have a 'lowly' 16.3° approach angle. Clearly, the robustness of the AWD system is far more important than the clearance dimensions, as you rarely encounter that kind of slope/obstacle unless you're rock-crawling.

Here's a chart of the Popular Mechanics tested AWD 3-row CUVs:


It's notable that the 8” ground clearance, 16° approach angle CX-9 didn’t get stuck, either – this despite having similar clearance dimensions to the ’14 Rogue which you have suggested seriously diminish its capability.

If the 2nd-gen Rogue’s lesser approach angle and lower ground clearance is a deal breaker for you because you go extreme rock-crawling in your 1st-gen, then more power to you - Nissan clearly doesn't care as that isn't the target demographic. However, I would like to see your ‘fishing trail’ that has a >17° incline and 8” high rocks, as that’s an extremely steep grade that I would wager you haven't encountered in your Rogue.

The bottom line is that you’ve likely never pushed the approach capability or ground clearance of your Rogue, and likely never will, but that doesn’t stop you from reaching for straws to diminish a car you haven’t even driven. As others have mentioned, both Rogues are more than capable for the terrain they're designed for.

TL;DR - When you take a '14 AWD Rogue out and get it stuck where a 1st-gen can get through - let us all know.

[followingnfront]

Such hostility... Let me correct you on a few things there bub.

nitpick the new version in order to mollify their bruised egos. ‘Sour grapes’ is just a default response.

Firstly, if you're going to accuse me of having a "bruised ego" simply because I have a 1st gen, then I can just as easily accuse you of looking at the 2nd gen through rosy-colored glasses simply because you have one. Second, your point is moot, because my car is a lease and I am trading it in at the end of this year for most likely, a 2nd gen Rogue. So your argument is invalid.

Clearly, the robustness of the AWD system is far more important than the clearance dimensions

In your example, you are citing bigger, heavier vehicles with much more power and torque... The CX-9 and Durango have roughly 100+ hp and torque over the Rogue and mass and weight to boot. That all plays a big role. A heavier, more powerful vehicle with 7" of ground clearance driving through 10" of snow has an advantage over a lighter vehicle with 100hp/torque less, and 7" of ground clearance. The AWD system is only half of it.

Nissan clearly doesn't care as that isn't the target demographic.

Considering the 2nd gen Rogue is also known as the X-Trail (a once dedicatedly off-road capable CUV which it replaces) across the pond, I am not nearly the only one who isn't impressed with its car-like design and lack of sensible touches of ruggedness a' la Forester, and judging by the new X-Trail "X-Tremer" concept which utilizes Nissan's "New World of Customization" marketing lingo (RogueOne made a thread about it either yesterday or the day before) Nissan clearly DOES care... This concept vehicle is higher than the stock Rogue/X-Trail, has bigger and beefier tires, "bold fender flares", and more rugged cladding, etc...

reaching for straws to diminish a car you haven’t even driven.

Uh.... I have driven the 2014 Rogue. In fact, I was the second person on this site to write a review of it. And in that review, I posted pics of my 1st gen and the 2nd gen I test drove side by side for comparison purposes. There are many things I like about the second gen, and while I don't think, nor have I ever said that the 1st gen is "just under a Wrangler Rubicon", I do believe that with its long, low chin the 2nd gen cannot go some places that the 1st gen can without scraping the front lip. In NYC with all of the potholes/speedbumps/deep ruts/steep gas station entrances there are even some places on the street where that lip can scrape... And I'm not exaggerating. Take it down a road with a lot of ruts and drop one tire down into a 6+" rut and tell me which one's front bumper will hit the ground... The designs of the 1st gen and 2nd gen's front bumpers are both very different. It is not all about overall ground clearance.

So while my opinions on the capabilities of the car may not coincide with yours, me being a paying Nissan customer and 1st gen owner and potential 2nd gen owner, my opinion matters and I do fit into a demographic of the new platform.

Kirk out.

[RyleyinSTL]

"X-Trail (a once dedicatedly off-road capable CUV which it replaces)"

I lived in Canada back when the X-trail was for sale there (prior to the Rogues launch). It was/is no more capable (at least in Canadian trim) than the Rogue. The name was the only off road thing about it.

[Rockhound2.0]

Such hostility... Let me correct you on a few things there bub.

Hostility? I'm sorry it came across that way, none is intended. My first post in this thread was a (failed) attempt at some humor. I'm just offering reasoned responses to what appears to be mostly wishful conjecture.

Firstly, if you're going to accuse me of having a "bruised ego" simply because I have a 1st gen, then I can just as easily accuse you of looking at the 2nd gen through rosy-colored glasses simply because you have one. Second, your point is moot, because my car is a lease and I am trading it in at the end of this year for most likely, a 2nd gen Rogue. So your argument is invalid.

Fair enough. I've never claimed that the 2nd-gen Rogue is the penultimate CUV, however. I am surprised you would knowingly purchase a car you've determined to be so off-road incapable.

In your example, you are citing bigger, heavier vehicles with much more power and torque...

I'm well aware. There's always a caveat. You still seem to be side-stepping the real issue here, though, and that's the fact that the metrics you've based your conjecture on for the '14 Rogue are not solely indicative of capability. Sure, the 1st-gen can approach a steeper incline without scraping the bumper, but I'll ask again - have you ever scaled a 17-20° incline in your Rogue?

...judging by the new X-Trail "X-Tremer" concept which utilizes Nissan's "New World of Customization" marketing lingo ...Nissan clearly DOES care... This concept vehicle is higher than the stock Rogue/X-Trail, has bigger and beefier tires, "bold fender flares", and more rugged cladding, etc...

I'm sorry, but you've really inferred a lot from a concept car photo. I do agree, it looks great! But also consider that the Rogue has the second-highest female purchase rate (2nd only to the VW Beetle) of any car/truck and the RAV4 and CR-V aren't far behind - the demographic for compact CUVs just doesn't care about offroading, period. The industry estimate is that 15% of SUVs go offroad. JD Power's own survey result was 5%. These are wagons on stilts - the modern extension of the wagon and minivan. Even Jeep's own Wrangler Unlimited has turned into a family hauler poser SUV (based on purchasing demographic, it still is a capable offroader).

Bold fender flares and rugged cladding are aesthetic items, usually, just like a spoiler on a Sentra implies sportiness.

Uh.... I have driven the 2014 Rogue. In fact, I was the second person on this site to write a review of it. And in that review, I posted pics of my 1st gen and the 2nd gen I test drove side by side for comparison purposes. There are many things I like about the second gen, and while I don't think, nor have I ever said that the 1st gen is "just under a Wrangler Rubicon", I do believe that with its long, low chin the 2nd gen cannot go some places that the 1st gen can without scraping the front lip. In NYC with all of the potholes/speedbumps/deep ruts/steep gas station entrances there are even some places on the street where that lip can scrape... And I'm not exaggerating. Take it down a road with a lot of ruts and drop one tire down into a 6+" rut and tell me which one's front bumper will hit the ground... The designs of the 1st gen and 2nd gen's front bumpers are both very different. It is not all about overall ground clearance.

So while my opinions on the capabilities of the car may not coincide with yours, me being a paying Nissan customer and 1st gen owner and potential 2nd gen owner, my opinion matters and I do fit into a demographic of the new platform.

My mistake, I'll have to read your review. I'm not aware of roads with 6" deep ruts in my area - I drive solely on pavement. The '14 Rogue's ground clearance is what it is: 7.4" and the approach angle is greater than a typical sedan - so I'm sorry, but I your argument still remains a gross over exaggeration. All my driving life I've had sedans and compacts with 5-6" of ground clearance and never scraped a bumper in potholes or on speedbumps. Somehow millions of other sedan drivers have managed to never experience this (except grandmas who scrape their Camry's bumper on the curb at the grocery store). Now my Z on the other hand, I have to treat nearly flat driveways as if I'm scaling a steep hill, but my little Mazda3? Not an issue with less ride height and worse overhangs than the Rogue.

You've even said it yourself, these are your opinions and conjectures of the '14's capabilities, not real-world proven examples. The '14 Rogue just isn't going to be scraping it's chin unless we're talking about some seriously broken up terrain.

Your opinion is that Nissan made a mistake in lowering the 2nd-gen Rogue, and you're entitled to that opinion - but I'm trying to convey that the target market for compact CUVs, and hence Nissan, just doesn't care. Almost every compact CUV has been lowered in the latest versions, presumably to improve gas mileage - and people keep buying RAV4s, CR-Vs and Rogues (and others) in droves, it's the hottest growing segment right now. Plenty of other compact CUVs (Terrain/Equinox, Sorento) have lower ride heights and worse approach angles than the Rogue - and yet miraculously they continue to sell well. From a socioeconomic standpoint, yes, you fit in the target demographic - but from an intended use demographic, your opinion doesn't align with what this segment of vehicles is targeting.

That doesn't make you wrong in wanting that capability, it just means this might not be the best vehicle for your needs.

[followingnfront]

"X-Trail (a once dedicatedly off-road capable CUV which it replaces)"

I lived in Canada back when the X-trail was for sale there (prior to the Rogues launch). It was/is no more capable (at least in Canadian trim) than the Rogue. The name was the only off road thing about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cPRDA3Bil0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfuYxQs_kFA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7DQYNOq3us[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJHlKSXPiLs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e74dqJDlOAI[/youtube]

[followingnfront]

Hostility? I'm sorry it came across that way, none is intended.

No problem.

Bold fender flares and rugged cladding are aesthetic items, usually, just like a spoiler on a Sentra implies sportiness.

This concept vehicle is higher than the stock Rogue/X-Trail, has bigger and beefier tires, "bold fender flares", and more rugged cladding, etc...

My mistake, I'll have to read your review. I'm not aware of roads with 6" deep ruts in my area - I drive solely on pavement. The '14 Rogue's ground clearance is what it is: 7.4" and the approach angle is greater than a typical sedan - so I'm sorry, but I your argument still remains a gross over exaggeration. All my driving life I've had sedans and compacts with 5-6" of ground clearance and never scraped a bumper in potholes or on speedbumps. Somehow millions of other sedan drivers have managed to never experience this (except grandmas who scrape their Camry's bumper on the curb at the grocery store). Now my Z on the other hand, I have to treat nearly flat driveways as if I'm scaling a steep hill, but my little Mazda3? Not an issue with less ride height and worse overhangs than the Rogue.

Welcome to NYC
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_W_GZzYuDU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJyuB7gEUbY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuMPxvhHx30[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4XDVJMvBM8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtks531EOo[/youtube]

[Barak99]

Hello, I guess I'm going to step right in it here. I was looking for some offroad opinions and I guess I see them here, ony not exactly what I expected.

I have decided I need to give up my Toyota FJ and was looking for an AWD crossover that could deliver better gas mileage while allowing me to continue to enjoy outdoor Arizona where I live. For that, I think ground clearance + AT tires+AWD would suffice.

I was originally looking at the Forester for it's awesome AWD system or the new Mitsubishi Outlander. Both have pluses (like accident mitigation systems) but significant minuses as well.

I was hoping that the new Rogue could be the compromise vehicle for me, even with its low ground clearance and basic/unsophisticated AWD system.

I am hoping to lift the new Rogue 2-3 inches, add some AT tires and some aluminum skid plates. I was hoping some people here have done this already, even with a 2013? But from your discussions, I gather there aren't many people here who have taken their rogues off road at all? Even with the bumpers, I'm betting these little guys can do more than you think! On you tube there are some great European videos of AWD crossovers i snow, offroad etc. I recommend you to take a look!

The video that started this thread was just embarrassing! If anyone here can point me in the direction of lifted or offroad Rogues that would be great! If not I guess I will be the guinea pig for the group

[followingnfront]

No lifted Rogues that I know of. Please be the first! I will say that the only thing you said that I disagree with is about the AWD system. The AWD system in the Rogue is pretty damn good.

[Leonard1818]

somewhat relevant:

I wonder if anyone has any good resources for comparing AWD systems in these vehicles. I always hear that the forester has the best AWD system. What makes it "the best"?

I also heard that the new CR-V has an upgraded, really good AWD system. What makes it so good?

I know the Rav4 you can lock the center diff which makes their system "good" but what else makes an AWD system good/bad?