It’s common to hear praises for RAV4 however, when I saw RAV4 interior through the window at the dealer, I didn’t even bother sitting inside. The cheap interior – it’s horrible faux aluminum dashboard design is so revolting..it even exceeds the Corolla & Matrix combined. I can’t imagine anyone enjoying sitting everyday in that thing regardless of how good it’s engine is.

I drove Honda CR-V and found it’s handling and power bland, however it is miles ahead of RAV4 in it’s interior quality.

Here are some the reasons the Rogue and a CUV is at the top of our list?

1. We are in our 50s and we want a higher seating position to make it easier to get in and out of the vehicle, which the SUVs/CUVs do.

2. The Rogue gets the best city gas mileage of all of the SUVs/CUVs, with the exception of hybrids and we live in the city.

3. The Rogue is one of a very few SUVs to get a $1,000 rebate from the Canadian government for fuel economy – which is $1,000 in my pocket.

4. We don’t want or need a larger SUV/CUV because there are usually only 1 or 2 of us in the vehicle. The smaller ones are better for parking and moving around the city.

5. We like the seats and instrument panel and general layout of the Rogue better than the other SUVs we have looked at.

6. Even the position of things like cup holders is better in the Rogue than others we have looked at.

Cheers.

If you want a cute-ute that drives like a car, buy the Rogue. If you want a more serious SUV with plenty of power and off-road prowess, get the Xterra.

BTW, I own a 2006 Xterra and I think the ride quality is suberb for such a vehicle.

Your assumptions regarding gas mileage seem misguided. Since I’ve been shopping CUVs for some time now, I frequent various forums to search for common issues and owner reviews. Although this hardly guarantees anything, many folks have reported low-to-mid 20 MPGs in their “typical” commute on one particular forum.

“Most of its performance is inferior to that of any number of late-80’s or early-90’s compact cars with far less mechanical/electronic complexity.”

Name a few of these late 80s/early 90s compacts that could run 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. At that time, a 10 second run was considered competitive for econo cars. The B13 Sentra (1991-1994) in non SE-R form was considered the sporty alternative in it’s class at the time – I think it was good for 8.5 seconds to 60 with the 5 speed. Also – did any of these compacts offer 58 cubic feet of cargo space or a decently advanced 4 wheel drive system?

I do agree with you – the Rogue doesn’t really excel in any one category. Nor does it offer as much cargo space as many competing CUVs. That’s primarily why it isn’t at the top of my shopping list.

But why did Nissan make the Rogue? That shouldn’t take too much head scratching. CUVs are the fad vehicle right now, and the Murano is just a little too big and expensive for the segment. Sure, I’d rather have an Altima wagon, but it’s easy to see why this vehicle came into existence. It offers (merely) decent cargo capacity in a decently peppy (by CUV standards, of course) package without guzzling too much gas. Remember, most folks buying these things have no intention of off-roading and nor do they expect overly sporty handling.

My wife likes it, so that settles it for me – it is a woman’s car.

A dude would tell the wife we’re getting a minivan – a Mazda 5 is cheaper.

I’m in the market for a new car in the next year, and I need something AWD or 4WD for weather, not off road capability. And this just made my short list, along with the Outlander and Jeep Patriot. I’m going to let the deals available do the talking….

As for the Rogue, it’s made my list of contenders. I’m a Nissan fan, so naturally I was interested in this mini-Murano. This CUV seems to have some decent qualities – C&D made note of both its “sporty” driving dynamics (by CUV standards, of course) and serenely quiet interior. The Rogue is also the fastest of the 4-cyl CUVs, with a decent 0-60 figure of 8.2 seconds (C&D).

My biggest disappointment with the Rogue? Interior space. Folding the rear seats only affords 8 more cubic feet than the Nissan Versa, making it the second smallest CUV in this category (only besting the new Saturn Vue in cargo capacity with seats folded) despite sharing similar exterior dimensions with every other cute ute.

The best sellers in this category don’t interest me – the RAV4’s styling does nothing for me (swinging gate spare tire anyone?) and the CRV’s center stack-mounted shifter (minivan inspired, apparently) and strange dual grille nose are turnoffs as well.

That’s why the Outlander has been elevated to the top of my list. Quiet interior? Check. Refined V6 and decent gas mileage? Check. 15 more cubic feet behind front seats than the Rogue? Check. 100k mile warranty? Check. Leather/Nav/Xenons/Sunroof for under $28k? Check.

But we’ll see. Waiting for the updated Mazda6 wagon seems more tempting day by day. And why did they stop making the Legacy wagon?

I don’t think this is meant to displace the Xterra, as the latter is a genuine, legitimate off-roader.

Really, I can’t see the niche here. Is this supposed to be the ‘cool’ alternative to a Jetta? Is it maybe a more young mommy type of vehicle? If so, how the heck are they going to beat the Toyondas in that department. The trunk area may have a bit of unique practicality to it. But that’s really about it. There’s no real strong edge that it offers versus it’s obvious competition.

Also, is it just me or is the “Murano-esque” styling less convincing on a smaller scale.

Is Nissan keeping both the Rogue and Xterra? I rode in an Xterra recently, and was really disappointed by ride quality and interior materials, but then again, I recall it being a comparatively cheap ride.

I know all reviews are subjective, but I too am confused by the text of the review syncing with the end rating. When I had seen it earned 4 stars, I figured it likely got a quite positive write up. If I first read the review, I would have thought it earned 3 stars… Don’t get me wrong… it was a great review, just a little surprised at the end rating.

As for product placement, I have no issue with it as long as there are no commercials in addition to placement. After all, if the sponsors are paying for placement, I don’t need to see ads, right?

It’s the one thing that absolutely irks me about cable and Directv. What exactly are we paying for if the advertisers market to us on paid content? I should just send Frito-Lay my monthly pay tv bill.

On product placement, some do it well, others not so much so. I’ve never seen Heroes, but it sounds like about the worst job of product placement. Sort of a one hour infomercial. I just saw “I Am Legend” last week, which was set in a post-apocalyptic world where the lone survivor in New York City is evidently a Ford man. Personally, I wouldn’t use a Shelby Ford to drive around a deserted overgrown Manhattan hunting deer, but maybe that’s just me.

Exactly what does this give me that my lighter, more powerful, more car-like-ride-and-handling, less thirsty, comparably spacious, and equally priced Chevy Malibu Maxx doesn’t? AWD, I guess.

Please, someone explain to me the mini-UTE fascination, because I don’t get it. Bring back the freakin’ station wagon, already!

If Nissan offered an Altima wagon at under $25k, that would top my list for my next people-and-stuff-mover.

Personally, I hate CVT’s, and would pass on any vehicle that had one. They drone on acceleration, and always seem to be hunting around for the right ratio.

I have a Honda bias, and having owned a first-gen CR-V, I’d buy the Honda in a heartbeat if a small ute was what I need.

WTF is “Heroes”, anyway? Do people actually watch that drivel?

I met with a company that gets placements, and they are already all over everything.

Jaguar actually tried placements in real life with extraordinarily good looking people who hang out at all the right places. I read about it in the Journal a while back.