XTRAIL vs. FORESTER vs. ESCAPE vs. MONTERO SPORT - on GAS consumption & RIDE [merged]

**number001** · September 24th, 2006 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by alwayz_yummy

so as the escape 3.0, nice car, may sunroof, at backseat tables pa....tribute ayaw mo? sporty version lang ng escape. no AWD option nga lang..kahit sa 3.0L variant.

This is the Escape V6's 4x4 switch.

**OTEP** · September 24th, 2006 10:43 PM

Yup. Ang haba ng explanation sa Car and Driver niyan kung bakit hindi AWD ang Escape kahit nasa 'ON' mode. Parang mas agressive lang ang engagement ng system.

AFAIK, cost considerations did not allow the Escape to have an AWD capable system. The system it has does perform at par with other cute ute systems.

**HIFI** · September 24th, 2006 10:48 PM

From a technical perspective....Forester.
Sa practical side naman (dealers, options, resale value)....clear winner ang X-trail.
Montero Sport?....if you need the ruggedness....but that's about it.

**yuichi** · September 25th, 2006 01:11 PM

no brainer for me sa 5seater, kung may budget sa forester ka, kung practicalidad pede na xtrail.

**mrpink** · September 25th, 2006 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by yuichi

no brainer for me sa 5seater, kung may budget sa forester ka, kung practicalidad pede na xtrail.

same here .. since you're looking at ride at consumption .. and not necessarily the price tag ... i'd go with the forester ... given the choices i don't think you'll be doing any serious off-roading and all you're looking is a little higher clearance and some wet road handling ...

**oliver1013** · September 25th, 2006 11:12 PM

Bili ka topgear sept 06 issue number 1 yung forester sa comparo against xtrail,crv,rav4 and tucson.

**alwayz_yummy** · September 25th, 2006 11:17 PM

i mean, is walang AWD option ang tribute...

AWD ang 3.0 escape, ung 2.3 hindi.

**kulit** · September 25th, 2006 11:56 PM

FORESTER. low center of gravity, lower ride height, full time AWD would theoretically give the least "matagtag" ride. I have ridden in the 2004 models of forester, xtrail and escape and in my opinion, the forester has the best ride.
Fuel consumption: I average about 11-12 km/L on my 2.0L normally aspirated 2004 Forester (usually 1 occupant, mostly highway driving, 95 octane). The 2.5L Turbo is theoretically expected to be more thirsty. It also requires at least 95 octane unleaded. With spirited driving (once you drive it, the acceleration is exhillirating! You can't help but to speed),gas consumption would be higher.

**niky** · September 26th, 2006 12:10 PM

The only problem with the Forester is the price of the 2.5 Turbo... of course, the RAV4 itself is ridiculously expensive but at least you're paying for an interior. that looks like it costs that much.

The Forester may be entertaining in its car-like-ness and speed, but buyers in the CUV/SUV market are looking for a little more size and height in that price range. I fear the Forester, after initial rush sales slow down, may be relegated to a small niche of the market.

But then again, hopefully more people will realize what a bargain it is for what you pay... it's a nice feeling, knowing we have Subarus here to stay, this time.

Now, how about a modern Subaru 360, ei, Subaru?

**yuichi** · September 26th, 2006 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by kulit

FORESTER. low center of gravity, lower ride height, full time AWD would theoretically give the least "matagtag" ride. I have ridden in the 2004 models of forester, xtrail and escape and in my opinion, the forester has the best ride.
Fuel consumption: I average about 11-12 km/L on my 2.0L normally aspirated 2004 Forester (usually 1 occupant, mostly highway driving, 95 octane). The 2.5L Turbo is theoretically expected to be more thirsty. It also requires at least 95 octane unleaded. With spirited driving (once you drive it, the acceleration is exhillirating! You can't help but to speed),gas consumption would be higher.

, im a quite frustrated i wont be getting this baby...but thats ok.