Automotive

Fuel Efficient SUVs

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 24th, 2018 4:15 pm
Sr. Member
Dec 19, 2015
524 posts
266 upvotes
Calgary, AB
tebore wrote:
Jul 31st, 2018 6:45 am
I love the oxymoron title of "fuel efficient SUV"
No SUV is fuel efficient. Efficiency is relative. Modern sedans of the same interior space get some 40mpg+ while SUVs might get 30mpg if babied.

So does your dad need the size of of the Sienna (which SUVs won't provide) or is efficiency the game here?
Realistically diesel is the only real option.
I'd love to see some evidence of those claims.

A crossover is going to be slight less fuel efficient sure, but there's not that much in it, especially when you consider one is going to be AWD and the other not.

For example the Civic vs the CRV (on the same platform):

Civic gets 36mpg
CRV gets 29mpg

So while there's a difference it's not as big as you're making out, especially when you start considering things like legroom and cargo space. The Civic is a significantly smaller car (internally), with less legroom (1074/950mm vs 1050/1025mm). Compare it to something like the Accord, which has slightly more legroom (1075/1026) and you get 33mpg, so 3mpg more than the crossover

That's before you consider cargo space:

Civic - 428L
CRV - 1110L
Accord - 473L

And overall size (length/width)

Civic - 4640/2076mm
CRV - 4586/2065mm
Accord - 4882/2137mm

Yes, you read that right, the CRV is shorter and narrower than the Civic, and much more so than the Accord.

So for a loss of 3mpg (~10%) you lose 2.6cm of legroom but gain 600L+ of cargo space in a vehicle that is almost a foot shorter and 4" narrower.

Sure, compared to a Civic you lose 7mpg, but you gain 2.5cm of legroom and almost 700L of cargo space, in a car that is still smaller.

So which modern sedans with the same interior space were you talking about?

That's not to say there aren't any, but just that most modern crossovers are not much less efficient than their Sedan counterparts, while offering little compromise in legroom, but significantly more trunk space. That's usually offered in a vehicle that's physically smaller overall than the sedan. It's one of the reasons sedans have fallen out of fashion over the years. The performance and handling aspect that they usually do benefit from are not major purchasing decisions for most motorists.
Deal Fanatic
Feb 9, 2006
9734 posts
3815 upvotes
Brampton
Andy34 wrote:
Nov 20th, 2018 5:13 pm
I'd love to see some evidence of those claims.

A crossover is going to be slight less fuel efficient sure, but there's not that much in it, especially when you consider one is going to be AWD and the other not.

For example the Civic vs the CRV (on the same platform):

Civic gets 36mpg
CRV gets 29mpg

So while there's a difference it's not as big as you're making out, especially when you start considering things like legroom and cargo space. The Civic is a significantly smaller car (internally), with less legroom (1074/950mm vs 1050/1025mm). Compare it to something like the Accord, which has slightly more legroom (1075/1026) and you get 33mpg, so 3mpg more than the crossover

That's before you consider cargo space:

Civic - 428L
CRV - 1110L
Accord - 473L

And overall size (length/width)

Civic - 4640/2076mm
CRV - 4586/2065mm
Accord - 4882/2137mm

Yes, you read that right, the CRV is shorter and narrower than the Civic, and much more so than the Accord.

So for a loss of 3mpg (~10%) you lose 2.6cm of legroom but gain 600L+ of cargo space in a vehicle that is almost a foot shorter and 4" narrower.

Sure, compared to a Civic you lose 7mpg, but you gain 2.5cm of legroom and almost 700L of cargo space, in a car that is still smaller.

So which modern sedans with the same interior space were you talking about?

That's not to say there aren't any, but just that most modern crossovers are not much less efficient than their Sedan counterparts, while offering little compromise in legroom, but significantly more trunk space. That's usually offered in a vehicle that's physically smaller overall than the sedan. It's one of the reasons sedans have fallen out of fashion over the years. The performance and handling aspect that they usually do benefit from are not major purchasing decisions for most motorists.
You already proved me right. The only part that doesn't seem to add up is the interior volume. But only at first And because north Americans or should I say Americans are stupid.

If you compare a CUV vs it's car counterpart especially their hatch or wagon counterpart and you'll see the CUV loses terribly

HRV vs Fit the Fit utterly destroys the HRV In economy and volume.
The Accord Wagon we don't get here vs CRV as gain same thing.

Also those numbers are loaded. Honda doesn't calculate cargo volume with seats folded down on the Accord.

Also mentioned was INTERIOR space aka head leg and shoulder room.

So are you tired of being wrong yet?
Sr. Member
Dec 19, 2015
524 posts
266 upvotes
Calgary, AB
tebore wrote:
Nov 20th, 2018 6:55 pm
You already proved me right. The only part that doesn't seem to add up is the interior volume. But only at first And because north Americans or should I say Americans are stupid.

If you compare a CUV vs it's car counterpart especially their hatch or wagon counterpart and you'll see the CUV loses terribly

HRV vs Fit the Fit utterly destroys the HRV In economy and volume.
The Accord Wagon we don't get here vs CRV as gain same thing.

Also those numbers are loaded. Honda doesn't calculate cargo volume with seats folded down on the Accord.

Also mentioned was INTERIOR space aka head leg and shoulder room.

So are you tired of being wrong yet?
There's more headroom in a CRV (back and front), there is admittedly more shoulder room in the Accord as it's 4" wider externally. Overall though there's more passenger room in the CRV than the Accord (although they're basically a dead heat). Depending what you want included in your "interior space" claim the CRV is either larger than the Accord (passenger volume) or significantly larger than the Accord (Passenger+cargo volume).

It's also worth pointing out that the direct car equivalent of the CRV is the Civic (where it beats it n every way), not the Accord, although as of this year they do now all share the same platform (Previously the Accord was on a separate platform while the Civic and CRV shared one).

And none of them have the 25/33% (depending on how you want to calculate it) difference in fuel economy you claimed...

Sure, we can start talking about cars that aren't made any more (or at least sold Canada), for example the estate Accord. With it's much smaller luggage capacity it's not a great comparison.
Unfortunately, for an estate, the boot space isn't great. Intrusion from the suspension makes for an odd-shaped space, and while there are 406 litres of space with the back seats in place
https://www.whatcar.com/honda/accord/es ... eview/n368

That volume admittedly doesn't seem quite right, but it's the only volume I can find. That said of the current wagons/estates on the market there is only one that actually has more luggage space than a CRV - and that's the Skoda Superb (which isn't available in Canada). None of the BMW/Audi/MB wagons/estates get anywhere close.

20 years ago you would have been right, but now crossovers are generally small cars that have been raised a couple of inches, squeezed shorter about 6" and had the roofline raised 6". They're cars, using the same platform, manufacturing techniques and engines, which is why there is much smaller fuel consumption penalty but significantly more interior space (as mentioned the CRV is based on the Civic). That doesn't mean all vehicles are the same, but it's a general trend. Buy a crossover and you'll generally get a physically smaller (externally, excluding height) car, with more interior space than it's direct equivalent, all for just a few mpg drop.

It all depends on what you value - the main advantages of a sedan are those few mpg better fuel efficiency (not the massive difference you claim, or the differences there were a decade or more ago), additional performance and better handling. The main advantages of a CUV are the greater interior passenger and cargo space, higher ground clearance, more headroom, increased ease of getting in and out. For an individual doing high miles then the sedan is likely to be a better bet, for the family the CUV is likely to be a better bet, especially if space is more tight and you can't justify the extra few inches of width and the extra foot of length to get anywhere near the same interior space.

P.s. On the Fit/HRV comparison. The HRV has 50% more cargo space, more head room, more shoulder and hip room, more passenger space overall, but the fit does beat it in legroom according to honda, by a whole 3mm. The fuel consumption difference is a whole 5mpg (31vs 36). Tired of being wrong yet? ;)
Newbie
Jun 5, 2017
29 posts
38 upvotes
Grand Caravan and a Rolex. Your father deserves it.
Newbie
Sep 16, 2012
68 posts
27 upvotes
Calgary
dealseaker101 wrote:
Jul 31st, 2018 9:33 pm
No one mentioned the RAV4 Hybrid or RX350h hybrid Or Nissan Rogue Hybrid?
I have a RAV4H and I usually get less than 7L/100Km driving to work and back which is around 17KM each way. Most of the trip is at 95KMPH, but it is the back road part of the trip driving at 50KMPH where I really save fuel by being in EV mode using a light foot on the gas pedal. My best to work and back was 6.1 L/100KM in both directions when it was warmer out this fall. I just drove to Edmonton and back and on the highway I can average 7L/100 KM or less driving at around 110 KMPH, with a best of 6.6 L/100KM on the highway.

With winter tires the RAV4H is very sure footed in the snow, I find it is even better than the 2018 RAV4 gas that I owned prior to the hybrid (my father traded with me as he traded gas version in on a RX350). I find the AWD system is much better than what the roller tests lead people to believe for winter conditions. I wouldn't try taking it off road though.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2009
1142 posts
357 upvotes
Scarborough
I will be checking out this out on the weekend: https://www.infinitidowntown.ca/used/LE ... 8871a5.htm

If its a good car looking to offer around $26k all in. Hopefully thats not too low.

And looks like I got some warranty remaining according to lexus website:
Hybrid-related components

Applies to the battery control module, hybrid vehicle control module, Hybrid High Voltage battery and the inverter/converter.

96 months/160,000 km
Past: 02' Protege5 | 07' Mazda3 GT | 02' BMW M3 | 10' Mazdaspeed3 |03 S2000 |05' S2000 Now: 18' BMW M2
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2009
1142 posts
357 upvotes
Scarborough
Just realized Lexus dealers dont seem to budge with their prices.

Been looking at some NX200's and they are pretty firm. Mostly willing to move $1000 off but thats it. I guess they know their cars will sell eventually
Past: 02' Protege5 | 07' Mazda3 GT | 02' BMW M3 | 10' Mazdaspeed3 |03 S2000 |05' S2000 Now: 18' BMW M2
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 30, 2007
22344 posts
7378 upvotes
Toronto
maybe you should ask them ... "I thought this is a Lexus dealership NOT a Porsche dealership" I don't pay Lexus taxes on a 6 model years old used car Smiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes
Deal Fanatic
Feb 9, 2006
9734 posts
3815 upvotes
Brampton
STCman wrote:
Nov 28th, 2018 10:08 am
Just realized Lexus dealers dont seem to budge with their prices.

Been looking at some NX200's and they are pretty firm. Mostly willing to move $1000 off but thats it. I guess they know their cars will sell eventually
Lexus and Toyota Dealers in the GTA generally operate like that.

Remember ordinary people selling great cars.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 16, 2011
2872 posts
1880 upvotes
The NORTH
So the Q5 diesel is out?
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2009
1142 posts
357 upvotes
Scarborough
kr0zet wrote:
Nov 28th, 2018 10:17 am
So the Q5 diesel is out?
Considered it but didnt feel comfortable with it long term. My dad will want to keep it for at least another 5-10 yrs, and I dont want to deal with any headaches.
Past: 02' Protege5 | 07' Mazda3 GT | 02' BMW M3 | 10' Mazdaspeed3 |03 S2000 |05' S2000 Now: 18' BMW M2
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 16, 2011
2872 posts
1880 upvotes
The NORTH
STCman wrote:
Nov 28th, 2018 11:13 am
Considered it but didnt feel comfortable with it long term. My dad will want to keep it for at least another 5-10 yrs, and I dont want to deal with any headaches.
Didn't realize the Q5's were unreliable, wife and I were looking at one before we bought our Grand Cherokee... What are the headaches you heard about? I was under the impression that the diesel was bulletproof and the chassis was anodized aluminum as opposed to steel which we thought was a plus living in the salt belt...

Just curious if we overlooked something.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 22, 2009
1142 posts
357 upvotes
Scarborough
kr0zet wrote:
Nov 28th, 2018 11:28 am
Didn't realize the Q5's were unreliable, wife and I were looking at one before we bought our Grand Cherokee... What are the headaches you heard about? I was under the impression that the diesel was bulletproof and the chassis was anodized aluminum as opposed to steel which we thought was a plus living in the salt belt...

Just curious if we overlooked something.
there wasnt anything specific. Its just the typical things that come along with a euro car - more expensive maintenance, possible electronic issues ( audi stigma)

Its just when comparing it with a Lexus, you get more peace of mind. If it was a car for myself I wouldnt mind taking the risk, but I dont want to buy something for my dad and give him any hassle.

And i know, things can go wrong with the Lexus too. (Especially carbon buildup since the NX is turbo)
When buying used, nothing is a safe bet. But I personally would take my chances with the Lexus over the Audi.
Past: 02' Protege5 | 07' Mazda3 GT | 02' BMW M3 | 10' Mazdaspeed3 |03 S2000 |05' S2000 Now: 18' BMW M2

Top