Cars.com Best Bets for New SUVs

To rank models as first, second and third best, and so on, is to suggest that all people want the same thing in a vehicle, and that's just not the case. That's why these Best Bet recommendations include one or more models that are "best overall," but all other citations center on a particular aspect in which the model excels. To understand the methodology behind the picks, click here.

Excluded from consideration were the following new and redesigned 2005 and 2006 sport utility vehicles. Once tested, they will be removed from this list and, if worthy, added to the commendations above.

• Kia Sportage
• Land Rover LR3
• 2006 Lexus RX 400h
• Nissan Pathfinder
• Nissan Xterra
• Saab 9-7X
• 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
  
  

The following models deserve to be mentioned, but not because they're Best Bets.

Mercedes-Benz G-Class — Dishonorable mention: I've never assigned this citation before, but the G-Class demands it. I understand why Mercedes would doll up this military vehicle and sell it in the United States. We've proven interest in such beasts with the Hummer H1. What I don't understand is why anyone aside from the most hardcore off-roader would buy it. It's not particularly roomy, it lacks independent suspension — and feels like it. It has ponderous trucklike steering and dismal fuel economy for its size: 13/14 mpg city/highway for the G500. Did I mention a sticker price of nearly $78,000 for the base model? I never understood the SUV craze overall, but this German model really takes the torte.

Though new for 2004, a heavy chassis, poor fuel economy and interior seating that's not as functional as others diminish the Volkswagen Touareg's appeal.

Volkswagen Touareg — Most overrated: Once I got past the handsome exterior and interior, I started to part company with the majority of auto reviewers who gushed over Volkswagen's late entry into the SUV class. VW took a unibody platform — other automakers' foundation for lighter, more efficient SUVs — and ruined it by turning it into a 2.5- to 3-ton offroad vehicle. The result is wanting acceleration and pathetic fuel economy of 15/20 mpg city/highway for the V-6 and 14/18 mpg for the V-8. Though it has six speeds, the drivetrain is unresponsive and the handling reflects a higher center of gravity than I've come to expect. There's no third row, and the backseat requires headrest removal and a cushion flip before folding flat. Even the name is a failure: If the manufacturer itself has to make fun of it in commercials, it's not cute; it's just a bad name. The Touareg may have high-tech air suspension and other modern aspects, but overall it screams 1995. I just don't get it.

Best Bet Selection Methodology

In all cars.com Best Bets, practical considerations carry the most weight, and the SUV category probably illustrates this best. The cars.com methodology emphasizes actual use of a vehicle type by the majority of its owners over recreational uses exploited by few. Put simply, how well an SUV performs off-road and how much weight it can tow get little consideration in determining a best overall SUV. As the cars.com staff reviewer, I concentrate on the attributes that call for interpretation or that might benefit from my experience with many vehicles. In short, anything that you can determine easily on your own through the use of this site or other means — such as towing capacities — I will leave to you.

This is why exterior styling comes dead last on my list. Beauty is in the beholder's eye, and there's nothing I can say to influence that. The only reason it's considered at all is because exceptionally well or poorly received designs may have already proven to boost or hamstring a vehicle's success. Interior design/quality gets more attention, not in the sense of design but in terms of ergonomics and what the automotive industry terms perceived quality: materials, the feel of controls and handles and the like, which is not as easy for shoppers to compare from one model to the next.

Safety is highly weighted, as it is in all cars.com Best Bets, and here particularly because families have adopted the SUV as a minivan alternative. To be clear, cars.com cannot designate a vehicle as safe or unsafe. All we can do is provide interpretations of crash-test ratings and audits of safety features. I take crash-test scores conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety much more seriously than those of our federal government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reasons explained in our Guide to Crash Tests and Rollover Ratings.

In the SUV category especially, I do rely on NHTSA's combined rollover resistance rating, which attempts to predict a vehicle's chance of rollover, though this new test has a long way to go before a significant chunk of available vehicles has been tested.

Again, due to the rollover risk in SUVs, rollover avoidance systems, electronic stability systems and side curtain-type airbags that deploy in the event of a rollover are among the most important features considered.

No vehicle with weak crash-test ratings is eligible for any of my Best Bets. A new, untested model may be cited with a caveat.

Ownership cost/reliability is another important consideration because low ownership cost can easily compensate for a higher sale price. Aside from being a drag, repairs are a significant component. For reliability data, I rely on J.D. Power and Associates' Mechanical Reliability Ratings and Consumer Reports magazine's Reliability Histories. Other factors in cost of ownership include fuel economy, required fuel grade (octane) and insurance costs.

New and redesigned models have no reliability data. These entrants will remain innocent until proven guilty and may earn a Best Bet citation along with a caveat. Also considered are J.D. Power's Initial Quality Ratings of the first 90 days of ownership. Though problems encountered in this term make a bad impression and might be a hassle to have repaired, they're covered by warranty and not a factor in the vehicle's long-term affordability. Because of this and the fact that these results are based partly on opinion surveys, their contribution to cars.com Best Bets is significant only in the worst cases.

Infiniti's FX45 ups the handling ante among SUVs by delivering precise steering and minimal body lean.

Ride and handling are important because both differ widely among SUV models — and one can no longer presume that truck-based SUVs will ride like trucks or that car-based ones will ride well. Handling performance is particularly important among SUVs because of their high center of gravity and rollover risk. Because an SUV feels stable doesn't make it so, but a stable feel is something one wants in any vehicle, and is lacking in SUVs and pickup trucks more often than in other vehicle types.

Roominess and comfort are important here because the SUV class, more than any other, tends to mislead. A vehicle that's big outside must be big inside, right? Wrong. Truck-based SUVs, in particular, tend to be space inefficient. The main criterion here is how accommodating the seats are — and how many you get for your money. Actual seat comfort gets less attention, mainly because tastes differ.

I give acceleration less consideration in the SUV category. For sporty cars it gets more weight, but with the exception of the subcategory of sporty SUVs, where seconds count, I tend to characterize SUVs in one of three ways: not quick enough, quick enough and more than quick enough, with consideration given to the issue of load whenever possible. Most vehicles on the road are, at minimum, quick enough if you're not a leadfoot. Transmission performance is also an issue, and I'm never kind to automatics that are unrefined or slow to react.

Choices are important in the battle for an overall Best Bet because we at cars.com know that the right car for you isn't automatically the right one for someone else. A model that comes with multiple engine and transmission choices, for example, has definite advantages. An automaker might give you one large engine for the price of a competitor's vehicle with a smaller standard engine. To some, this is an advantage, but if you want to pay less at the pump, the lack of engine choices is a disadvantage to you. Back to top