Which of these two sport-utility vehicles better describe the anti-thesis of the SUV?
- Published: 2/07/2010 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: Motoring
The sport-utility vehicle is evolving. And it is doing it for the better because drivers usually don't put it to correct use.
That's why the SUV is becoming shorter in height and getting closer to the ground in the interest of better on-road driving dynamics. As well, conventional drive system is now being put into place of 4x4 setup reducing weight and fuel consumption.
But for the SUV to become an outright estate is probably a little too premature since users still like its lofty driving position and relatively sufficient ground clearance, which is for scraping around poor road surface.
And the SUV that clearly defines such needs in the Thai market today is the Honda CR-V, which has become an immensely popular choice among punters who find Toyota's pickup-based Fortuner too common, unnecessarily big, heavy and overstating.
Now, there is another brand that keenly wants to have a slice of action in the CR-V segment: Nissan, with its second-generation X-Trail that has arrived on Thai shores from Indonesia but with honest intentions this time round.
X-Trail’s engine is short on top-end rush.
Despite having a background of muddy credentials, the X-Trail has gone straight down to the bottom of the CR-V class by being available in just one bargain: a humble 136hp 2.0-litre petrol motor, 2WD and a no-frills kit, all for B1.065m.
To put it another way, Nissan wants to vie with the CR-V as to which is the better "high-riding estate" - that is, which has the better combination of practicality, interior comfort, car-like driving manners and a dose of visual appeal to keep the SUV buyers cheerful.
While the good old days saw Honda attracting a good amount of sales in the 4x4 segment, today it is hoping to cash in the growing popularity of faux off-roaders with its 150hp 2.0-litre FWD variation priced at a slightly higher B1.13m.
Head straight down the catwalk and it's quite obvious that the CR-V has the edge over the X-Trail. Despite its rather controversial front end styling, the CR-V feels classier with its richer amount of chrome.
CR-V’s motor is the more frugal unit.
The X-Trail, on the contrary, looks like a workhorse with frumpy angles and lines that could have made the vehicle to be mistaken as a pickup-based SUV of yore. Now, that's only a personal observation.
But jump inside the CR-V and X-Trail and you'll see a similar level of disassociation between the two. Once again, the CR-V has a better degree of car-like feeling and is finished with a higher level of perceptive quality.
True, the cream-coloured upholstery of our CR-V test car helped yield to a better level of opulence and airiness when compared to the pitch black ambience of the X-Trail. But the detailing of the CR-V is what really marks it out against the X-Trail.
The CR-Vs knobs to control the air-conditioning system, for instance, don't feel downmarket and operate without the tackiness of the X-Trail's. Plus, the overall visual effect the fascia has on the eye is clearly more inspiring in the CR-V.
It appears that Nissan has only concentrated to make the X-Trail's cabin work for a rural landowner which, of course, means that there is nothing wrong about how the interior works.
It just simply lacks the CR-V's more upmarket atmosphere, an aspect quite important for a modern-day SUV attempting to convert over to its side buyers of ordinary passenger cars.
Trail’s interior feels dark and bland, although it is straightforward to use.
The X-Trail's utility platform is evident from the way Nissan has designed the rest of the vehicle's interior. There's a vast luggage room behind covered by plastic for easy cleaning, under-trays to stow small items and a completely flat cargo floor when the rear seats fold down.
The CR-V, on the other hand, has lesser boot space and cubbie holes and an uneven floor when you don't need to use the rear seats. In the game of transporting things from points A to B, the X-Trail is the one to go for.
But when it comes to moving people around, the CR-V is better thanks to more legroom for the rear passengers. And this comes in spite of the Honda's fractionally shorter wheelbase length than the Nissan's.
Carefully glance inside both vehicles and you'll know why. While Honda has placed the rear bench as closely as possible to the rear axles, Nissan has done otherwise by placing it ahead of the rear wheels.
Seats are comfortable, but legroom is tight.
This apparently means Nissan wants to prioritise cargo space, although that doesn't mean that people can't sit in the rear seats. Honda seemingly wanted to give peace of mind to occupants first before freeing up the boot.
That said, it would merely depend of your priorities. But if you'd asked us which of the two strikes the better balance, it has got to be the CR-V. Make it like this: the CR-V has got ample rear space and ample boot; the X-Trail has a cramped rear but huge boot.
You won't have much to argue about the way the two vehicles drive as much as how they fare inside. The tasks for Honda and Nissan seemed quite straightforward: equip them with the smallest engine possible and a minimum amount of moving parts to extract the lowest of price advantages which ever way possible.
Ride is comfy.
Let's not forget that there's a 2.0-litre demarcation in excise tax for passenger cars - and other derivatives like these two SUVs based on them.
But Honda seems to be more ambitious in pricing as the CR-V can run on E20 gasohol and thus gains an additional 5% discount at 25%. The X-Trail takes E10 at the most and must be content with the standard 30% rate.
Whatever their intentions, performance from these two engines are very similar within the legal speed limits with sufficient levels of acceleration and overtaking power.
It's just that the two carry out their jobs in slightly different fashion. The X-Trail moves around at low to medium speeds in a more seamless manner, thanks to a CVT automatic gearbox.
The CR-V uses a conventional auto instead, but it is nearly as smooth in putting those ponies to work. Like in the X-Trail, you can lurch off in the CR-V with the front wheels scrubbing the tarmac - good evidence that there is no 4x4 hardware around and why both of them should be treated as tall estates rather than traditional SUVs.
The X-Trail has a huge boot with practical cubbie holes beneath the floor.
But once you drive under heavier loads, go faster than others on the road or get enthusiastic when conditions allow, the CR-V's 14hp advantage becomes clear. Although genuine thrust only comes after 4,000rpm or so, the CR-V feels quicker and more eager. If you really want to make the most out of the X-Trail's lesser powerful motor, you'll need to go into the six-speed manual mode and do the shifting yourself. Such a feature is not available in the CR-V.
So while the CR-V is arguably the better all-round performer, it isn't necessarily better than the X-Trail when it comes to the driving characteristics, that is, the chassis and brakes.
The CR-V seems to have an edge when it comes to which is closer to being like a saloon on the move. The steering is sharper upon turn-in and the ride is flatter.
CR-V has a classy cabin with sophisticated details; ergonomics nearly faultless.
But the X-Trail still suffices, even though it feels that Nissan has left it some room for light off-roading. The rack is marginally vaguer, yet it is not irritating and still feels light and direct enough on the sealed road.
The ride is not as firm as in the CR-V, but it is actually more comfortable by being able to absorb road imperfections in a plusher manner. As well, there doesn't seem to be a significant trade-off in high-speed stability in the X-Trail.
However, the two vehicles suffer the same drawback and that's road noise from underneath, although probably for different reasons.
Despite both Honda and Nissan using the same high-terrain OEMs from Bridgestone, the X-Trail's has a rougher tread design for enhanced traction on unsealed roads. So that means that as speed builds up, you can hear more of it accordingly.
There’s markedly more legroom in the CR-V.
The CR-V comes with more asphalt-friendly rubbers, but it feels harsh at nearly all times - be it at low or high speeds - over B-road surfaces and concrete-paved highways.
Another aspect the X-Trail can boast about is the brakes, which appear to have more bite than in the CR-V. However, some testers thought the CR-V's stoppers have a more progressive feel.
So where does that bring us in the end? First things first. Price-wise, the two are nearly at the same level with similar levels of specification, if you're not going down to petty details. Rationality-wise, neither of them is a rip-off, so to speak.
If you care more about function than style, it's really going to depend on how you end up using these vehicles. As said earlier, the CR-V scores on passenger comfort and the X-Trail on practicality for recreational use.
Handling is taut.
As for the driving part, the CR-V feels more like a car and has a more proper engine to match. There's nothing wrong with the X-Trail's road manners, but it is let down by a rather weak engine.
And just to let you know, the X-Trail's didn't prove more frugal than the CR-V on the average during the test conducted from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi and back. We got between 11-11.5kpl in the Nissan - roughly two notches below the Honda's.
So, you can see how Nissan is trying to transform its X-Trail into an SUV it was not been meant to be in the first place. There's a mixed bag of virtues and flaws. That's the problem with SUVs today because they are still in the process of evolving into another genus.
The CR-V seems to compromise less and looks to be ahead of the X-Trail in becoming less SUV and more estate. And despite some of the foibles that it comes with or are inherent, the CR-V is the more relevant one for the changing usage patterns of buyers.
Boot is smaller than in X-Trail; cargo bay isn’t flat when rear seats fold down.
About the author
- Writer: Richard Leu
- Position: Motoring Editor
