The Rogue was among five small SUVs compared in the August 2008 edition of Consumer Reports. It was really six cars if you consider they rated the two engine versions of the Subaru Forester.

As you might expect, the Rogue did well even though CU was unable to determine the reliability because it's still a new model. The rear visibility and modest cargo area were said to be the main shortcomings. (There was no mention of the 'brutal' ride quality claimed by Motor Trend writer St. Antoine.)

Among the group, the Rogue had the best acceleration with economical mileage for a regular-fuel SUV, and best emergency handling.

What was their impression of the CVT? Also I am wondering about their thoughts on the quality of the interior plastics.

"(the engine) only comes mated to the smooth CVT."

"Some drivers disliked how the CVT held engine revs high under acceleration. That resulted in more noise than in the Altima that we tested with the same powertrain."

"Interior quality is very good."

How did it compare to the Toyota Rav4? In cargo/comfort/power/price?We are having a hard time deciding on the Rogue or the Rav4

From CR online edition:

Initial impressions. The Rogue stays true to the definition of a small SUV. It offers a pleasant ride and responsive handling, relatively refined powertrain, and decent space in a right-sized package. Some of us have nicknamed it the "mini Murano."

The 170-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine is adequate to move the Rogue. It emits a typical four-cylinder sound but the sound isn't objectionable. It's relatively civilized and revs smoothly. The continuously variable transmission, which Nissan has been using widely, works well. Our SL had the optional paddle shifters that allow you to mimic a conventional automatic that's manually shifted through six predetermined ratios. Some of us thought it was frivolous, while some thought it added interest and driving involvement. We've been getting about 23 mpg overall so far, according to the trip computer.

Handling is nimble, with a prompt turn-in response and restrained body lean. But the steering feels somewhat vague and overly light at low speed. The ride is compliant and appropriately controlled. The cabin is reasonably quiet.

The Rogue's soft-touch dashboard is well constructed and looks substantial. Most controls are logically placed, but the mirror control is a bit hard to find at first and fussy to operate. Our SL came with luxurious amenities such as keyless ignition, Bluetooth compatibility, and satellite radio.

The front seats are reasonably comfortable. The back seat is decent considering the compact dimensions, but it is too narrow for a comfortable position in the center. Rear visibility is hampered by a small rear quarter window. The rear gate is easy to lift and close. The front passenger seat back folds to facilitate carrying long items.

CR's take: While the Rogue may be a late entry into the car-based small-SUV field, it is nonetheless refreshing with its compact size and cute disposition.

This review didn't include the RAV4. For the best head-to-head comparison of the Rogue to the RAV4, see:

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...ge)/1

Phil’sFrontier wrote:How did it compare to the Toyota Rav4? In cargo/comfort/power/price?We are having a hard time deciding on the Rogue or the Rav4

top

So the Rogue came in dead last??!! And primarily because of the cargo space and rear visibility?! That sounds pretty weak to me. Even the RAV 4-cylinder beat the Rogue, that is ridiculous! The RAV 4-banger can't even come close to competing with the Rogue 2.5. That is a werd review.

kerrton wrote:So the Rogue came in dead last??!! And primarily because of the cargo space and rear visibility?! That sounds pretty weak to me. Even the RAV 4-cylinder beat the Rogue, that is ridiculous! The RAV 4-banger can't even come close to competing with the Rogue 2.5. That is a werd review.

They totaly overlooked the Rogues positives...cvt, bose, zippy & fun to drive, quiet and purely because of rear visiblity and a little less cargo room they didn't like it. I had a RAV4 and it does not compare in daily use to the Rogue. The only thing I miss on the RAV is the extra cargo room a couple of times a year when we go on vacation, the Rogue has enough room, just no extra. I found the review to be out of touch.

Calm down - the Rogue was mid-pack among a field of six, and 8th among all 24 small SUVs recently reviewed by Consumer Reports.

As a entirely new model, the reliability rating won't be determined for some time, and then it could rate even higher.

kerrton wrote:So the Rogue came in dead last??!!

Palmateer wrote:As a entirely new model, the reliability rating won't be determined for some time, and then it could rate even higher.

Agreed! It has already won a few awards...

2008 Rogue Received Highest Side-Impact Safety Rating Rogue awarded Best New Small Crossover by Kiplinger's 2008 Rogue Wins MotorWeek’s “Driver’s Choice Award for Best Small Utility”2008 Rogue Receives Parents Magazine’s “Best Family Cars for 2008” Award

It was also named best SUV under $35K by AJAC