From the May 1998 issue of Car and Driver.”To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” —Sir Isaac NewtonNewton’s 311-year-old law works outside the physics lab. Consider the President’s job-approval ratings following the Lewinsky, uh, exposure, or the explosion of I-Hate-Gates websites in the wake of Microsoft’s runaway marketing success. Newton’s law also works in the auto industry. Take, for example, sport-utility vehicles. As they gobble up an ever-larger share of the U.S. market—last year, sport-utes accounted for a record 16 percent of car and light-truck sales—reaction against them is mounting. Greens have begun railing against their higher carbon-dioxide emissions and their fuel-hungry natures. Now it has been discovered by the insurance industry that in all crashes between pickups or sport-utes and cars, people in cars are four times more likely than people in trucks to wind up dead. (Our favorite stat: If a big pickup plows into your little car from the side, guess what? You are 27 times more likely to meet your maker than they are—surprise, surprise! The real stat: 90 percent of all accidents are caused by driver error.) Some insurance companies are charging more for SUV policies, citing the added damage these trucks inflict on other vehicles. David Dewhurst|Car and DriverCar buyers have been responding to these concerns. A market is currently blooming for smaller, less-expensive sport-utility vehicles that combine the advantages of a big SUV—stout-looking wagon bodywork, a high driving position, and trendy four-wheel drive—with the lighter, better-handling, and more fuel-efficient characteristics of a car. The 1996 Toyota RAV4 was the first SUV based on a car platform to enjoy widespread sales success on both sides of the Pacific. Its popularity quickly attracted me-too vehicles to the market, like the Civic-based Honda CR-V, the Impreza-based Subaru Forester, and several more that are still on Big Three drawing boards. Even before Toyota’s RAV4, Korean carmaker Kia turned out a vehicle that had a slightly larger sport-ute body riding on a truck-style frame, which sold at an econocar price. The Jeep Cherokee and the Suzuki Sidekick / Chevy Tracker models are neither car-derived nor carlike in their ride and handling, but they fit the size and price class. To see which of these little utes struck the best balance between sport and utility, we sounded the call for a roundup. Invited were five-door models (the Jeep, the Kia, and the Toyota are available with three doors), sporting four-wheel drive (all but the Subaru are available in two-wheel-drive form) and five-speed manual transmissions. The price cap was set at $21,000, but inopportune optioning caused the Forester, the CR-V, and the RAV4 to creep over that limit. We excused the lame-duck Sidekick/Tracker from our test as an all-new model is just around the corner. We drove these utes 1300 miles over all kinds of roads in central and southern California. We maneuvered them through the sometimes steep, always crowded streets of San Francisco and opened them up on the flats and gently rolling hills of Interstate 5. We coaxed them up the breathless climb to Dante’s View a mile above Death Valley and hurled them through the dusty, tight turns of 20 Mule Team Road, which snakes through one of the valley’s many abandoned borax mines. Off-road, we spent a half-day powering our little sport-utes around Dumont Dunes southeast of Death Valley. This picturesque series of arid, dusty flats and towering sand mountains has long been a playground for off-roaders and car-advertising photographers.Finally, we put them all through our standard battery of performance tests. Here’s how these little land bruisers fared.5th Place: Jeep Cherokee SEOne look at the Cherokee’s narrow, boxy body and tall wheels and tires, and you know this SUV is different. The Cherokee first appeared 14 years ago, and it’s the original compact five-door sport-ute. Perhaps envisioning this more modest SUV market that indeed thrives today, Chrysler continued to build this Cherokee after its intended replacement—the larger and much grander Grand Cherokee—appeared in 1992. Last year, the Cherokee’s styling was updated mildly and it was given dual airbags, but the Cherokee is not a custom fit in the tall-car, light-off-roading market that the RAV4 helped create, which might explain its last-place showing. HIGHS: Handsome, square-shouldered body; stout-feeling driveline with lots of torque for off-roading; slick shifter.LOWS: Cramped front and rear quarters, mysterious handling in bad weather, annoying engine whine, excessive plastic inside. VERDICT: A rugged implement for off-roaders, a bit crude for everyone else.You’re reminded of the Cherokee’s age the moment you climb in. The interior is narrow and confining, and from the front, the view out is curtailed by a relatively small windshield. The back doors are narrow, making entry and egress more difficult. Stark-looking plastic dominates the interior, including the dashboard, which shares many parts with the Cherokee’s spartan Wrangler sibling. The Cherokee feels old when you drive it, too. It takes 12 seconds for the cast-iron, 2.5-liter four-cylinder to summon 60 mph. The four-cylinder revs easily despite its humble pushrods (the other wagons all have double overhead cams), but an annoying engine whine takes most of the fun out of winding it out. At least the five-speed manual transmission is satisfyingly precise. The Cherokee steers and rides better than we expected for a vehicle with rigid front and rear axles. It felt quite maneuverable and stable in the emergency-lane-change test. Its steering is vague and uncommunicative, though, in the rain at highway speeds. The Cherokee was unremarkable in the sand, but its high ground clearance, low-range transfer case, and high-torque engine make it an excellent choice in really rough terrain. Jeep expects that a fourth of its Cherokee customers will go off-road, and that’s a higher percentage than the other four manufacturers expect.The Cherokee’s $18,615 base price includes air conditioning but few other creature comforts. At $19,725, our test truck lacked a tach and power windows and power locks, but it included a limited-slip differential, skid plates, and a full-size spare in keeping with its true mission as a Rubicon Trail runner. The Cherokee’s spartan simplicity suggested an appealing ruggedness to some editors while to others it just felt crude. More of that appeal might have poked through with the $995 optional six-cylinder engine. But unless you’re a serious off-roader, one of the four other vehicles would probably make a better choice. 1998 Jeep Cherokee SE125-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3380 lbBase/as-tested price: $18,615/$19,725C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.2 sec60 mph: 12.0 sec1/4 mile: 18.6 sec @ 71 mph90 mph: 58.2 secBraking, 70-0 mph: 212 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 g C/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg4th Place: Kia Sportage If there’s a middle-of-the-road approach to building a small SUV, Kia took it with the Sportage. The exterior—revised for 1998 with a new grille and headlamps—is cute, but its simple lines border on generic. There is no tricky automatic four-wheel-drive system—just a simple two-speed transfer case, although the hubs now lock and unlock themselves automatically. The system is engaged with a lever on the floor, as in the Cherokee. The roomy interior has a new dash for 1998 but still offers few frills—no folding table or reclining rear seat or clever storage compartments or cargo tie-downs—just five comfortable seats, all with a nice view out big windows. This is the Korean approach to car- and truck-building—get the basics down, and take few risks. The payoff is a rock-bottom base price—$16,845. Our test truck’s $18,554 as-tested price was also the lowest of the pack. HIGHS: Airy interior, king-of-the-road eating position, cute bod, low base price. LOWS: Syrupy acceleration; heavy, numb steering; floppy accelerator pedal; needs more suspension control.VERDICT: A small SUV bargain that too often feels like it.The Sportage never quite escaped that cost-cutter feel, though. The engine is a modern design with double overhead cams and competitive power and torque ratings, but its acceleration was the slowest of the group’s. “Underpowered,” wrote Webster.”The engine feels like the flywheel is four sizes too big.” Its fuel economy is only a little better than the low-tech Cherokee’s. The Kia felt nimble and composed on San Francisco’s crowded streets, and the editors all liked the high-up seating position. More than one driver complained about the Sportage’s heavy, somewhat numb steering on I-5, though. The Kia lacks roll and shock control, and its Uniroyal tires serve up the least amount of grip of the five vehicles here, making the Kia the clumsiest and slowest performer in the emergency lane change. “Sloppy, with little roll control,” wrote the test driver. Bounding around on the sand at Dumont Dunes, the Kia’s body structure felt the most flexible of the group. Its long wheelbase and lack of a limited-slip differential helped get it stuck atop a sand dune, too. Other niggles noted in the logbook: The accelerator-pedal spring lacks resistance, so your leg gets tired on long drives. There is also no remote release for the rear hatch, and the radio buttons are about the size of a baby’s toenails. Addressing these shortcomings would expand the appeal of this Kia. Still, the Sportage remains a competent little wagon in most respects, and it should satisfy those on a tight budget. It’s just that a couple of grand extra buys a lot more wagon in this group, which would explain the Kia’s fourth-place finish. 1998 Kia Sportage130-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3320 lbBase/as-tested price: $16,845/$18,554C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 4.2 sec60 mph: 12.8 sec1/4 mile: 19.1 sec @ 72 mph90 mph: 38.7 secBraking, 70-0 mph: 202 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.63 g C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg3rd Place: Honda CR-V EXThose radical-looking D-pillar-mounted taillamps say a lot about this Honda. It’s loaded with surprises. For example, the tailgate glass flips up separately for easier loading of lightweight items. The front and rear seat cushions can be arranged to form two flat, almost horizontal beds. Once removed, the storage cover of the rear cargo floor turns into a folding table. There’s even a mount for an optional umbrella on the rear door for bad-weather tailgate parties. HIGHS: Swiss Army–knife versatility, earth-friendly efficiency, roomy interior. LOWS: Strange ergonomics, sloppy emergency handling, jerky four-wheel drive. VERDICT: A handy bad-weather family wagon that leaves enthusiasts wanting more.This year the CR-V appeals to enthusiast owners by offering a five-speed manual transmission. Teamed with Honda’s efficient aluminum DOHC 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine, the CR-V now sprints to 60 mph in 10.3 seconds—0.6 second quicker than the automatic. It also averaged a respectable 20 mpg over our 1300-mile test, despite having the most spacious interior in this group. Our CR-V was the only vehicle here with anti-lock brakes, which helped it stop from 70 mph in just 187 feet—the best among these five. The new manual transmission matches the high standards of previous Hondas and Acuras. “Precise, but not rigidly metallic,” wrote Winfield of the shifter. Surprises we didn’t like: The steering wheel is angled uncomfortably outward toward the driver’s A-pillar, and the cruise control on/off switch and power window controls are haphazardly located on the dash behind the steering wheel. Lots of wind and road noise filter into the cabin at highway speeds, too. The CR-V’s nimble steering gets dull with understeer as the pace quickens. The CR-V’s Real Time four-wheel drive uses a clutch pack to distribute power to the rear wheels when it senses front-wheel slip. Its somewhat abrupt engagement reduced the CR-V’s dune-climbing capability. This jerking even disrupted our cornering and lane-change testing on dry pavement. It was also slow to respond. “You can spin the front wheels from rest because it can’t seem to engage the rear wheels quickly enough,” complained Webster. No big deal. Honda expects that just 12 percent of its CR-V drivers will be going off-road anyway. They’ll probably be more impressed with the EX model’s array of standard features, from dual vanity mirrors and map light to keyless entry with an alarm. These goodies make the CR-V an obviously handy vehicle for a small family. From an enthusiast’s perspective, though, it’s a little rough around the edges, and it isn’t as much fun to drive with the manual transmission as we had hoped. 1998 Honda CR-V EX126-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3200 lbBase/as-tested price: $20,645/$21,013C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.1 sec60 mph: 10.3 sec1/4 mile: 17.7 sec @ 76 mph90 mph: 30.1 secBraking, 70-0 mph: 187 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.69 g C/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg2nd Place: Toyota RAV4Toyota helped create the small-SUV market with the RAV4 in 1996. It not only met with critical acclaim, but it’s been a big seller for Toyota, too. Last year, the RAV4 nearly outsold the Avalon sedan. For 1998, its hunky shape has been updated with new front and rear styling and with interior changes that include the addition of seatbelt pretensioners (only the CR-V can match this safety claim).HIGHS: Pumped-up body, tight handling with ample grip, rev-happy engine, tidy proportions. LOWS: Engine runs out of steam when the going gets rough, high price. VERDICT: A delightfully responsive small SUV, but you gotta pay to play.This is the leanest-feeling, most responsive wagon in this group. The RAV4’s steering is sensitive and direct, as are the brakes. There’s some roll, dive, and squat, but it never seems out of proportion. With an optional larger tire-and-wheel package ($1140), our RAV4 led the class in cornering grip at 0.72 g, and it took second place in braking, stopping from 70 mph in 193 feet (without anti-lock control). The Toyota was the quickest through the emergency lane change at 57.9 mph, doing so with the balanced controllability of a sports coupe. Had we not been sitting up so high, we might have thought we were driving a Celica. That’s another thing we like about the RAV4. Its seat height and commanding view out remind us of the Kia, but the windows and fenders seem closer, making the Toyota feel more intimate. The interior lacks the versatility and spaciousness of the CR-V, but the front seats offer good support, and the dashboard ergonomics are excellent. The back seats split and fold forward separately—the better for carrying bikes and a rear-seat passenger—and their seatbacks can recline.The RAV4’s driveline is as deft as the chassis. The shifter’s throws are short and quick. Underhood is a feisty DOHC 2.0-liter four that is happy to rev. The 127 horses propel it to 60 mph in 10.2 seconds, a virtual tie with the Honda. It accelerates more strongly in fifth gear than the Honda, making for less frequent downshifts at high speeds. The transfer case on manual-transmission RAV4s can be locked with a button on the dash. With the optional limited-slip rear differential ($375) controlling rear wheelspin, our RAV4’s dune-climbing capability was hindered only by its engine, which simply ran out of torque when the hills got steep.Costly options like privacy glass and power windows, locks, and sunroof pushed up the tab for our test car to $22,575 and cost it points in the value category. Limiting options to air conditioning, a limited-slip diff, and the fatter tires would save $2000. The RAV4 might have won this contest were it not for the power deficit, relative to the Forester, and the pricey sticker. 1998 Toyota RAV4127-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2980 lbBase/as-tested price: $17,988/$22,575C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 3.0 sec60 mph: 10.2 sec1/4 mile: 17.8 sec @ 76 mph90 mph: 31.7 secBraking, 70-0 mph: 193 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 gC/D observed fuel economy: 20 mpg1st Place: Subaru Forester L Like the Cherokee, the Forester is an oddball in this group, but for a different reason. Technically, it’s the closest of all these vehicles to a car. Tear off its outer skin, and what you’re left with is an Impreza with higher ground clearance. But car buyers seem to be accepting Subaru’s four-wheel-drive wagons as competitors to these little bruisers, so we invited it along. The advantages of the Forester’s car genes are immediately apparent. This is easily the most refined wagon in the group. It is significantly quieter at speed, and it rides more smoothly than the others by a slight margin. HIGHS: Powerful flat-four engine; comfortable, upmarket interior; smooth, refined road manners; quiet inside. LOWS: Dorky body, seating position low and carlike, cramped rear seat. VERDICT: A refined car can still make an excellent small sport-utility wagon.The advantages continue inside. The driver’s seat offers more adjustments than the other wagons’ here, and the ergonomics (including the steering-wheel position) are faultless. The interior also has rich-looking materials and fabrics that the other wagons can’t match. (We could have done without the optional fake-wood accents with their peculiar orange-peel finish, however.) But it’s the running gear that really sets the Forester apart. Its DOHC 2.5-liter flat-four engine makes a rousing 165 horsepower. The Forester tips the scales at just 3120 pounds, so its power-to-weight ratio is 24 percent better than the next-best RAV4’s. As a result, the Forester smokes the others in every acceleration test including the 0-to-60-mph sprint, which it knocks off in 9.5 seconds. The soft suspension lacks the quick reflexes of the RAV4, but the steering is accurate and the tires reach their 0.71-g cornering grip predictably. “Immensely stable,” wrote Winfield. “Can be hurled into big slides, then easily caught on the throttle.” The four-wheel-drive system deserves some credit for this. Its limited-slip center differential seemed to modulate power more smoothly, front to rear, than the CR-V could. This wagon would be the least likely to get stuck in Dumont Dunes. Those car genes aren’t always to the Subaru’s advantage, however. Its approach and departure angles are the shallowest of the group’s, which ironically means the Forester may be the least able to tackle rough forest terrain. In addition, the Forester lacks the commanding seating height of the other vehicles—one of the main reasons folks buy these vehicles in the first place. Tall windows compensate somewhat, but they make the Forester’s body look out of proportion. The rear seat is a tight, uncomfortable fit for three adults. And none of the editors was wild about the Forester’s styling. Styling doesn’t mean much when you’re trying to have fun with a practical wagon. But the RAV4 and the Forester were equally fun to drive, each in its own way. Buyers who expect to do any light off-roading should probably go for the tall-boy RAV4. But our on-road enthusiast editors found the Subaru’s quick and agile chassis and its lower price slightly more appealing, which earned it the nod by a one-point margin. 1998 Subaru Forester L165-hp flat-4, 5-speed manual, 3120 lbBase/as-tested price: $20,490/$21,075C/D TEST RESULTS30 mph: 2.8 sec60 mph: 9.5 sec1/4 mile: 17.0 sec @ 81 mph90 mph: 22.7 secBraking, 70-0 mph: 208 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 gC/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg More
