TTAC Subcompact Crossover Equation: Can You Find Good Deal in a Fleet of Bad Deals?

There’s a problem with subcompacts. All sorts of subcompacts.

Subcompact hamburgers. Subcompact basketball players. Subcompact beds. And especially subcompact crossovers.

After years of examining subcompact cars before purchasing a compact, you know the drill. With a subcompact, you save a little bit of money, realize negligible benefits at the fuel pump, and suffer sharp reductions in useable space, not to mention typical losses of power and refinement.

The burgeoning subcompact crossover market is no different. Sure, the base price of a typical all-wheel-drive subcompact crossover is roughly 15-percent lower than the base price of its all-wheel-drive compact sibling, but a handful of subcompacts are just as thirsty as their big brethren and some see catastrophic reductions in cargo capacity.

As a result, and as a general rule, TTAC is no fan of the subcompact crossover genre.

The value simply isn’t there — and we have some math to prove it.

Recognizing that consumers are nevertheless acquiring more than 40,000 of these subcompact crossovers each month, we wanted to know just how bad, or good, the value equation is.

We devised a formula. Incidentally, the vehicle that sells more often than any other subcompact crossover received the highest score in our equation.

THE TEST

Here’s how it works. The issue we have is the poor way in which these urban cute-utes compare with compact crossovers. Thus, the numbers we’ve compiled compare a given subcompact crossover, the Jeep Renegade as an example, with its larger sibling, the Jeep Cherokee.

Chevrolet Trax vs. Chevrolet Equinox.

Honda HR-V vs. Honda CR-V.

Mazda CX-3 vs. Mazda CX-5.

Mitsubishi Outlander Sport vs. Mitsubishi Outlander.

Nissan Juke vs. Nissan Rogue.

Subaru Crosstrek vs. Subaru Forester.

We selected five major categories, including weight-to-power (in which the Renegade, CX-3, and Juke beat the Cherokee, CX-5, and Rogue), passenger volume, cargo volume, fuel economy, and most importantly, price. We’ve used advertised base prices for the least expensive all-wheel-drive versions of all vehicles.

• Price: a subcompact that, in base AWD form, costs 19-percent less than its compact sibling receives 19 points. None of our subcompact entries cost more than their compact siblings, so all gained points in this category.
• Fuel: a subcompact that consumes 4-percent less fuel than its compact sibling receives four points, a subcompact that consumes 4-percent more fuel than its compact sibling would lose four points, but none of our subcompact entries consume more fuel on the EPA combined scale than their compact siblings.
• LBS/BHP: a subcompact with a weight-to-power ratio 13-percent better than its compact sibling receives 13 points, but a subcompact with a weight-to-power ratio 15-percent worse than its compact sibling loses 15 points.
• Cargo Volume: a subcompact that loses 35-percent of its compact sibling’s seats-up cargo capacity loses 35 points.
• Passenger Volume: a subcompact that loses 16-percent of its compact sibling’s passenger volume loses 16 points.
• All categories are given equal weight

CHEATIN’ THE CHEROKEE

The Renegade’s argument is further strengthened by a large price differential. The basic 4×4 Renegade’s base price is $5,000 below the Cherokee’s.

While the Mazda CX-3 and Nissan Juke gain points in the power race — both cart around significantly less weight than their big brothers in base AWD form — they lose out in the space wars and have no advantage in fuel economy compared with the CX-5 and Rogue.

In fact, the Nissan Juke’s combined EPA rating is identical to the Nissan Rogue’s, but Nissan recommends premium fuel to achieve maximum performance. The Chevrolet Trax’s differential, exacerbated by the outgoing Equinox’s (four-cylinder, AWD) worst-in-the-field 23 mpg rating, was the biggest fuel economy advantage of the group.

In the end, the Juke, Outlander Sport, and CX-3 achieved the worst overall scores. Incidentally, they’re the three lowest-volume subcompact crossovers in the test. Only the Mini Countryman and Fiat 500X, vehicles without direct compact siblings, sell less often in the United States. We excluded the Buick Encore because the Envision is now such a significant leap upmarket.

THE RESULTS

Our discoveries merely suggest that some of the credit for the Renegade’s success may be its standing relative to the Jeep Cherokee. Subcompact crossovers are not usually tenderly positioned in the U.S. market. But because of its boxy shape, favourable pricing, and on-paper fuel economy advantages, the Jeep Renegade is a better challenger for its compact sibling than its subcompact rivals are in their own showrooms.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.