CAR Middle East - Compact SUV Mega Test

m i d d l e e a s t e d i t i o n

MEGA TEST: COMPACT SUVS

By definition an sUV is a sports Utility Vehicle, but just about the only thing in common across this group of eight current offerings, is that they are all vehicles. the sUV genre is a confusing one, but it has been a must-have vehicle type for most manufacturers since land Rover

effectively kicked off the Compact sUV class with the freelander back in 1997. 12 years on, there’s a huge field to choose from, but we’ve limited ourselves here to the latest premium models available in the middle east for 2009.

technically, there is greater similarity. each of these participants is a five-door, five-seater, each has a bit of extra ground clearance on the often car-derived base floorpan and each has some degree of off-road ability – as befits the ‘sport’ part of the sUV moniker. engines vary in both size and shape – from the 3.5-litre V6 in the nissan murano and lexus RX350 to the 2.0-litre straight fours in the audi

Q5 and the Volkswagen tiguan. all have automatic gearboxes of one type or another, and all wheel drive components, but none has a transfer case offering low-ratio gears for really tough stuff. all are fitted with ‘mixed use’ tyres, of varying sizes, but none has a true off-road pattern.

there is a school of thought that suggests that if you need an off-roader, you should buy a proper off-roader, and if you need a car, buy a car. the sUV category seems to bridge both the bases, with varying degrees of success, but in terms of outright use, a proper sUV needs to be something that gives you more than a good view over the taxis and plenty of space for a family and its weekend kit. Badge snobbery still plays a part in this sector and it has to be said that in some cases here, the badge carries more weight than what it’s stuck to!

We put all the test cars through their paces on a run through the northern emirates, which included gravel and wadi work, some twisty tarmac and highway driving, and finally, just a smidgeon of sand deep in the wilds of awir.4

MEGA TEST COMPACT SUVS

Premium blendEight of the latest Compact SUVs vie for Fraser Martin’s attention. But which is the best on tarmac and in the soft stuff?

02 COMPACT SUVS CAr MiddlE EAST.COM

COMPACT SUVS 03CAr MiddlE EAST.COM

on the straight and narrow

The sUVs tested aRe all BasiCally car-derived, either through running gear or engines and transmission combinations.

the nearest one to what might be called a ‘proper’ four wheel drive is the land Rover, which, with its heritage is hardly a surprise.

the Volvo XC60 uses the same underpinnings and transmission, but like the Volkswagen tiguan, employs a haldex converter to provide traction to all four wheels when needed.

the nissan and lexus are essentially front-wheel drive cars whilst the mercedes is rear-wheel drive (two-wheel drive models in these configurations are sold in other markets) – all send power to the non-favoured axle through similar systems. audi’s Quattro system does the same job.

in all cases, traction loss will engage drive to the non-favoured axle and with the aid of viscous couplings, share the power around the four wheels. in the Renault you can opt out of the automatic selection mode and have two-wheel drive only, which contributes to general economy. it’s the only car in the group to allow this.

on tarmac, you’ll hardly ever notice these differences until you try a bit too hard and find the traction Control warning light flickering on the dashboard display, signifying that the systems are killing off excess power delivery and keeping you on an even keel.

Ride and handling vary quite considerably in the group. the Renault and nissan have softer setups which promote less crashing over speedbumps and the like, but both need a little bit more reserve when hustling around the twisty stuff or roundabouts.

the audi, Volkswagen, Volvo and mercedes are all much stiffer and really more sports-car like in terms of response and feel – given that they are not sports cars, of course.

Both the lexus and the land Rover provide a better compromise between on-road high speed use and on-road handling. they can be thrown, with some degree of abandon, into a tightening curve, and will hold their respective lines. not with the same response as the German trio, nor the Volvo, but in a more than acceptable manner if you consider that the sUV generally, enjoys a

NoNe of The cars are Neck-BreakiNgly acceleraTive, BuT They are all caPaBle of keePiNg uP wiTh The ThrusT of ciTy Traffic

higher centre of gravity than the equivalent car.first gear in the audi and Volkswagen is quite

short, but both snick up the box with a good degree of smoothness.

the bigger-engined land Rover, Volvo and the lexus, are less prone to the severity of early upshifts.

the mercedes has a longer first gear – possibly to allow for towing starts, where the others rely more on second gear torque to do the pulling.

Both the nissan and Renault have Constant Velocity transmissions (CVt) so the changes through the gears are less obvious, though both have lock-up options to hold on to specific ratios for longer, should you have need of a shorter gear when fully loaded.

all cruise along at or above the posted limits with little fuss. you notice the noise more in the mercedes and in the nissan – the wind noise from the GlK’s bluff exterior makes a surprising contribution for what is otherwise a sophisticated car, and the murano would probably be fine with some extra sound-deadening behind the bulkhead. it has the oldest engine of the bunch.


none of the cars are neck-breakingly accelerative, but they are all capable of keeping up with the day to day thrust of city traffic, and being a bit higher off the ground, you do have the advantage of a better view through and over the traffic than you would in a ‘normal’ car.

When it comes down to picking one of these as a strictly road car, there’s little to choose between them apart from the badges. land Rover – tried and tested with good history; Volvo – safe as houses; audi – sporting pretensions; Volkswagen – reliable if a little dull; Renault – an unknown in the field (the oddball scenic and Kangoo RX4s don’t really count); nissan – solid if a little out of date; mercedes-Benz – best of the badges here, especially on the school run, and lexus – the supreme mum’s taxi.

as sophisticated cars, all these Compact sUVs excel, but none is a proper dual-purpose vehicle. all bristle with systems and acronyms that could double the length of this story just to list, so it will be down to price and what you like the

look of, in the final analysis, for most people. many of the ‘help’ systems, such as automatic

handbrakes, hill descent support, clever lighting and auto everything else are spread, to varying degrees, across the genre.

none will improve your driving, of course, and many are expensive options on lesser models than those supplied for this test, but for a vehicle type that just a few years ago, was the newest

thing in car culture, the sUV category is now both in high demand and comprehensively supplied.

roUghing it UP a LittLe

weR’e maKinG the assUmption, and in the middle east region it is a huge one, that you’re in the market for

a Compact sUV because you need a car to cover a multitude of tasks. therefore, it’s very important that when you are loaded up with the family plus the kitchen sink for a day out in the wadis or mountains of the east Coast, there is a reasonable assurance that you’ll get back home again.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty, pretty much everything that is represented here will do that for you so long as you take the time to learn its idiosyncrasies. some take more work, some a little more finesse and some will need a bit of gung-ho attitude to see you through.

in the gravel and rock of the wadis, we operated on standard tyre pressures throughout – as one should – and given the small amount of sand we planned to tackle, elected not to reduce the pressures when the going got softer, in an attempt to see which of the cars was the easiest to drive.

the test team too, had varying experience of driving off road, so in arranging to swap vehicles around during the course of the day, we were happy that each car was given a fair assessment.

in the gravel, and especially when climbing around some of the less grippy surfaces, it was a case of choosing a gear and staying in it to let the car do most of the work. all the cars have ‘reactive’ systems to transfer grip to wheels that can cope, and so it was imperative that clear concise messages were sent to the systems so that they had time to evaluate what we needed of them,4

UGLY DUCKLINGthe gLK fails to have the looks or ability of its bigger brother. Korean-built renault is spritely and eager. Volvo is overflowing with kit, though not all of it is useful




The lr2 mighT as well have BeeN oN Tarmac for all The differeNce The Poor surface made

and engage accordingly. in this regard, i found the first gears of the VW and audi to be too short, and so forward motion was quickly lost to wheelspin all round as the revs climbed and we went beyond the natural torque peaks.

the mercedes-Benz and Volvo coped well, though the GlK’s lower ground clearance meant that routes had to be chosen with more care.

Both the lexus and the nissan have bigger engines, and at 3.5-litres each, were lazy enough to crawl up the slopes we pointed them at.

the land Rover might as well have been on tarmac for all the difference the poor surface made to its progress.

the audi and Volkswagen are clearly not great at the rough stuff: the Q5’s Quattro four wheel drive system and the tiguan’s hill descent control package are not a patch on the systems employed in their (much bigger) cousins, the Q7 and touareg.

likewise, the GlK is not a baby Gl, which is a bit of a disappointment when you consider that the Gl, whilst a much bigger and more expensive car, is amongst the very best 4x4s around.

Volvo’s XC60 does about the same job as its stablemates, the XC70 and 90 – you need to choose your line of attack carefully if you are not to damage the front of the car.

the lexus and nissan, being bigger, were easier to manoeuvre, but with slightly softer springs, pace has to be watched in defence of the ‘bad bounce’. the land Rover inevitably, was best in the rough stuff.

the surprise package here was the new Renault. i had driven the Koleos at launch in morocco last year in pretty horrific conditions of wet mud and steep slopes, so i was keen to measure the car against both the opposition and on more familiar terrain. With good ground clearance and the optional lock-up to 4x4 engaged, the Koleos

romped up the first of the slopes we tackled with almost no drama at all. a steady 2500rpm in the CVt box sends just enough of a message to overcome gravitational pull, and once on the move, i felt that i could have locked the throttle and stayed out all day.

driving between locations on washboard tracks also shows up the

more car-derived vehicles. the big Japanese cars soaked up the ripples, as did the land Rover and the Renault, all having a softer shock rate and more compliant springs.

GIVE US A PUSHroad-biased audi was the first car to get stuck in the soft sand. a decent drop in tyre pressures and man power got it moving again. tiguan struggled, Lr2 excelled


the German offerings and the Volvo were a lot firmer and whilst nothing rattled off any of them, it was a relief to get back on to some smoother blacktop.

heading for home and the last picture of the day, a degree of trepidation set in. i’d decided that because it was the benchmark car, the lR2 would blaze the trail through the four kilometres or so of sand to the campsite.

the first obstacle was the steep track approaching the link we needed to get in as smoothly as possible. in the end, we had a couple of ‘first refusals’, and eventually had to let the tyres down on the mercedes and the audi. But all got through after a short briefing for the less-experienced drivers on how to get there without needing to get the shovels and tow ropes out.

once in the camp, we had to make decisions on placement for the final shot and with soft conditions under wheel, and down in the bottom of a bowl to boot, the order of positioning was more to do with how we’d get the cars back out again, than anything else!

Given how agile i’d found the Renault out in the mountains, i decided to use it as the point car

and had it cruising around the dunes as the light faded.

even in freshly cut sand, it surprised me with its ability, so it was first choice to be the last car out at the end of the evening. We did get everything back to tarmac without incident – the colder sand and a little bit of moisture in the air helped key the

softer stretches. But it has to be said

that with the right experience and training, all of the eight cars did better than expected in the soft stuff. indeed, i’d have no hesitation in taking any one of them out again for a desert drive.

having said that, if any one of these eight cars is to be given more than the very occasional outing away from tarmac, it would be wise to consider a replacement set of tyres at the time of purchase – ideally on a smaller diameter rim. none of the standard equipment tyres – even those fitted to the land Rover – are really suited to full-time off-roading.4

SLIP AND SLIDELand rover was never troubled no matter what terrain we thew at it. Lexus is much more at home on tarmac, as are the audi and the Murano, though are capable off road


the inside story

ToUGh thoUGh it is, one of the things you find out when driving eight cars in one day is how intuitive a

command position is. When you get into a car for the first time, are the main controls where you would expect to find them, or do you have to search around the cabin to find the switches you need? do the principal controls sit where you’d expect them to? are they ergonomically comfortable to use?

it has to be an instant impression since the luxury of ‘getting used’ to a new car only really happens when you buy it, and there is certainly no time to read all the handbooks.

most of the cars on test here were top-end trim models, so the multi-colour leather in the mercedes, Volvo, Volkswagen and audi were, as you would expect, very attractive places to spend time. the practicality of light-coloured leathers is a separate question – i’m not convinced that an sUV, given that it’s supposed to be able to do some work, should be fitted with light carpets!

Both on- and off-road, the view ahead is important, and in that respect, the Renault matched the land Rover in having the most commanding view. Relatively high seating positions and wide, quite steeply raked screens, compared to the more car-like offerings from Germany and Japan, contribute greatly here.

at the opposite end of the spectrum, the heavy a-posts and largely useless quarter lights in the lexus will have you dodging around inside the car to ensure a clear path ahead.

With the exceptions of the nissan, land Rover and Renault, the test vehicles are based largely on car-type dimensions with a bit of ride height adjustment in the makeup. so, as you would expect, there is little difference in the dash and seating layouts than you would be likely to find in passenger cars from the same company. all have flexible seating configurations – though some of the ‘fold-flat’ rear seats don’t actually fold flat – and there is certainly enough room in each to accommodate five adults and luggage.

VOlVO XC60Price: $40,500 engine: 2953cc 24v six-cylinder, 281bhp @ 5600rpm, 295lb ft @ 1500-4800rpm transMission: Six-speed automatic, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 7.5sec 0-100kph, 210kph, 11.9l/100km weight: 1798kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhhh

rENAUlT KOlEOSPrice: $22,300engine: 2488cc 16v four-cylinder, 169bhp @ 6000rpm, 167lb ft @ 4400rpm transMission: Constant velocity transmission, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 10sec 0-100kph (est), 181kph, 9.6l/100kmweight: 1655kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhhh

VW TiGUANPrice: $28,050engine: 1984cc 16v four-cylinder, 168bhp @ 4300rpm, 207lb ft @ 1700-4200rpm transMission: Six-speed automatic, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 9.9sec 0-100kph, 196kph, 9.9/100kmweight: 1571kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhh

MErCEdES GlK Price: $45,750engine: 3498cc 24v V6, 258bhp @ 6000rpm, 258lb ft @ 2400-5000rpm transMission: Seven-speed automatic, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 6.7sec 0-100kph, 230kph, 10.6l/100kmweight: 1830kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hh


the Volvo and land Rover seats are the most supportive in all conditions, with just the right amount of ‘give’ to stop any jarring. the nissan, lexus and Renault seats are a little softer.

there’s little to choose between the interiors of the audi, Volkswagen and mercedes Benz. all three are of excellent quality and typically efficiency, but all three are much the same. firm seats, as befits their more road-biased targeting are beautifully finished.

the floating instrument panel in the nissan murano is a good idea – it moves with the adjustments of the steering wheel – but the graphics and finish leave a lot to be desired in a car of otherwise good quality.

of the others, the land Rover is the most satisfying – given that it was designed specifically for this type of car, rather than being a vehicle using up other parts-bin availability to meet the category parameters, it works better as a whole.

all cars in the group are comprehensively equipped, though the Renault, as tested, does not have sat-nav. a full compliment of safety and convenience features is generally available – automatic lights and wipers, sunroof, electric everything, decent stereos with big names attached and the ubiquitous push-button starter – so there is no shortage of kit in each car.

the Volvo, however, is so heavily loaded with safety features, and the associated bells and

whistles that announce their presence, that you end up switching a lot of them off, just to get some peace and quiet, which defeats the object.

in the new-kid Renault, the waterfall dash lends greater airiness to the interior and is therefore not as claustrophobic as some of the other cars. materials and finishes are not up to the level of the German or swedish cars, but then neither is the price. however, the split-tailgate – much like what you’d find on a land Rover Range Rover – is a big plus for the Renault.

lower specced models are available across all the ranges of vehicles represented here, so you get pretty much what you’re prepared to pay for, especially if a chunk of it goes on the badge.4

lANd rOVEr lr2Price: $45,000 engine: 3192cc 24v six-cylinder, 230bhp @ 6300rpm, 234lb ft @ 3200rpm transMission: Six-speed automatic, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 8.9sec 0-100kph, 200kph, 11.2l/100kmweight: 1770kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhhhh

lEXUS rX350Price: $60,800 engine: 3456cc 24v V6, 275bhp @ 6200rpm, 257lb ft @ 4700rpm transMission: Six-speed automatic, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 7.5sec 0-100kph, 180kph, 14.1l/100kmweight: 1971kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhhh

AUdi Q5Price: $44,400 engine: 1984cc 16v four-cylinder, 208bhp @ 6000rpm, 258lb ft @ 1500-4200rpm transMission: Seven-speed dSG, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 7.2sec 0-100kph, 220kph, 8.5l/100kmweight: 1695kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hhh

NiSSAN MUrANOPrice: $36,250engine: 3498cc 24v V6, 252bhp @ 6000rpm, 246lb ft @ 4400rpm transMission: Constant velocity transmission, four-wheel drive PerForMance: 8.1sec 0-100kph, 209kph, 10.9l/100kmweight: 1914kg Made FroM: Steel rating: hh



the FinaL recKoning

with sUCh a spRead of aBilities and specifications, it’s not easy to choose a winner. in the final analysis, none of

the contenders quite manages to match the lR2 – it’s still the benchmark car in this category and offers more in terms of outright ability than any of the others. so by taking the land Rover out of the equation we are left with seven vying for the runner-up title.

Between the Volvo and lexus, it’s six and two threes. the lexus has more in the way of rough terrain ability, but it is heavier than the Volvo and so it’s just about even between them.

the mercedes GlK is a bit of a disappointment in this company – the specification suggests it should be up amongst the front runners but it looks and feels too small, and is a bit noisy.

the Q5 and the tiguan have much in common but neither is as good off road as their larger siblings. i expected more, given the family history. Whilst neither was really designed as an off roader, they can’t really justify the sUV moniker – sporting; yes undoubtedly, but utility; not enough, and the compromise is unevenly biased towards roadwork. they are the most car-like offerings here.

the nissan is still a fine looking motor in the futuristic way that it was meant to look when it

was new, but the facelift does it no favours and there’s nothing new to speak of underneath. it’s more show than go, really.

the Renault is the late arrival on this scene and is nearest to the principal of an sUV, in that it offers a sporting enough yet supple ride, reasonable performance and great practicality. Between the split tailgate and all the cubby boxes, there is nothing to touch it in terms of usability, and if you can forgive it the slightly odd face, the package is capable and great value.

the Korean-built Renault Koleos, therefore takes the runner-up prize to the land Rover’s continuing domination of the small sUV class.


iN The fiNal aNalysis, NoNe of The

coNTeNders quiTe maNage To maTch

The aBiliTies of The lr2


Documents

CAR Middle East - Compact SUV Mega Test