With all the buzz around small SUV's and Crossover's, why do they get such crappy mileage?

It seems you can't read anything these days in the car business (including at AutoSpies.com) without stumbling upon an article touting the introduction, success, features, flexibilty and downright perfectness of small suv's and crossovers.

You see them everywhere and companies like Ford and GM say that future crossovers are the linchpin of their success or failure, in the future.

It seems you can't read anything these days in the car business (including at AutoSpies.com) without stumbling upon an article touting the introduction, success, features, flexibility and downright perfectness of small suv's and crossovers.

You see them everywhere and companies like Ford and GM say that future crossovers are the linchpin of their success or failure, in the future.

But after testing virtually EVERY one that is either out on the market or coming soon, the Spies have to ask the question...

Why do they get such CRAPPY gas mileage?

Let's take for example one of these new Crossovers...the Ford Edge.

In our tests around town the new Edge got a measly 17MPG.

Just as a comparison, we tested the new Chevy Tahoe and it brought back a respectable 15.5MPG around town.

And, it's TWICE the size and cargo space of an Edge.

Plus, it even has a third row seat!

So if that's the case, why downsize?

Now we're not just picking on the Edge here because many other small SUV's and Crossovers are no better.

Vehicles like the Acura RDX, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Honda Element, GMC Envoy, Dodge Nitro, BMW X3 all do better than their larger brethren, but not much better.

Hardly enough, to get you to walk away from vehicles like X5's, ML's, GX's, Tahoes etc.

And the worst part is that most require premium gas!

We'd love to hear your opinion on this subject.

Especially, since $4.00 per gallon gas is just right around the corner.

mstangpny07 - 3/3/2007 2:42:05 PM

0 Boost

I've been getting about 16-7 mpg in my X5 3.0si. Not bad at all.
I've seen my average mileage go up as I've put on more miles, and I haven't changed my driving style. The engine needs to break in to get optimum mileage.

And you can't expect to get excellent mileage in a heavy 265hp car such as the Edge...did you have any options that increased the weight? (panoramic sunroof) And were you constantly flooring it?

chewy - 3/3/2007 3:37:39 PM

+1 Boost

They get bettter fuel economy in they city and the highway. By 10%-20% percent. The Edge is pretty heavy for its size. There are some crossovers that do quite a bit better.

JRobUSC - 3/3/2007 3:56:57 PM

-1 Boost

I don't think the X3 belongs in your "bad MPG" list. The 2007 X3 is rated at 19/26, that's pretty good for the class if I'm not mistaken. In fact, upon further examination the 2006 330xi (which had basically the same drivetrain) was rated at 20/27. I'd say with a 1 mpg drop the X3 fares pretty well then.

mstangpny07 - 3/3/2007 7:08:22 PM

+1 Boost

06 330xi and 2007 X3 are NOT the same.

330 has 355 hp, X3 has 260.

mstangpny07 - 3/3/2007 7:08:43 PM

0 Boost

aah....I meant 255.

MBKing - 3/4/2007 4:15:22 PM

+1 Boost

lol I was going to say, at 355 hp everyone should have a 330 haha

JRobUSC - 3/6/2007 10:20:01 AM

+1 Boost

gee you're right, a BMW-built 260hp 3.0L I6 w/ 6 speed automatic and xDrive isn't at ALL similar to a BMW-built 255hp 3.0L I6 w/ 6 speed automatic and xDrive. What was I thinking when I said the drivetrains were "basically the same"? I must be a total idiot, those are absolutely nothing alike.

And back here on earth hopefully you're picking up the sarcasm, cause I'm laying it on pretty thick.

S4cabriofoxone - 3/3/2007 6:29:23 PM

+2 Boost

Some are more efficient than others. Look at the Nissan Murano or Highlander Hybrid. Both offer good mileage.

We get about 17mpg in the RX330.

Matthew1 - 3/3/2007 7:02:43 PM

+2 Boost

Like huu76 mentioned,

Most small SUVs and crossovers are just jacked-up sedans, so transmissions and engines designed for small sedans now find themselves pulling heavier vechicles. End result? Average performance and average fuel efficency.

Not to mention VERY average off-roading capabilities!

truckmen - 3/5/2007 1:31:46 AM

+1 Boost

Averag off road ability? Pathetic is a better word! Most of these cross overs couldn't do any better than a toyota corola!

r_driver04 - 3/6/2007 11:10:14 AM

+1 Boost

And the funny thing is, most SUVs never go offroad. And when real SUVs, H2, Rovers, Jeeps, etc do venture offroad, the drivers realize just how fragile their "trucks" are. And driving on gravel or unimproved roads is not offroad driving. So why have the capability at the expense of fuel mileage and safety as well as reliability?

Mark - 3/3/2007 7:10:12 PM

+1 Boost

I get about 18+ in my Escape and it has just over 40K on it.

With these newer and more modern vehicles they advertise such a percentage of better fuel economy over their competitors but they rarely list them or when they do they only count a small number of them.

I for one don't really look at what the manufacturer says you can get. I talk to someone that has that car and lets me know in person.

Until companies care about the evironment and not about making the people inside all dumb and happy you won't find companies putting out efficient products.

And I'm talking about the hydrogen cars and all electric cars. Not hybrids, because they still use gas and resources and have that big huge battery to deal with when it dies or it has to be replaced.

Plus (and lastly), as gas gets higher people won't care. They want their cars and they need their cars. I just don't see paying for premium fuel in an SUV that does just the same as my Escape on regular. Oh yea, it doesn't have leather or a fancy stereo or the "image" of a premium car. Blah!

t_bone - 3/3/2007 7:38:05 PM

0 Boost

Crossovers are yet another stupid idea by the auto industry. This time? Jack up a sub-compact on big faux off-road tires and and add a vestigial hatch. Anything to avoid the stigma of being a sedan, wagon, or minivan. I thought fake wheels and landau covers were bad in the 70's; this is even worse because the entire vehicle design is an inside joke. But probably no worse than full-size SUV's, which are now just an old joke.

Rupert - 3/3/2007 7:51:32 PM

0 Boost

full-size SUVs have the worst of everything and the best of nothing.

r_driver04 - 3/6/2007 11:20:30 AM

+1 Boost

Buyers dictate the trend. Automakers show us concepts all the time and then "we" either bite on it or not. How many concepts never make it to production? I think crossovers a great ideas, alternatives to station wagons, minivans and ridiculously huge SUVs(talk about a waste of space and energy).

TagMan - 3/3/2007 11:21:31 PM

+1 Boost

When the large SUVs get 12 mpg in real life and the smaller ones get 18 mpg in real life, that represents a whopping 50% improvement and advantage for the smaller SUVs. Annually, that is a large and significant difference in the costs of fuel, which is getting more expensive all the time.

finishline - 3/4/2007 9:32:09 AM

0 Boost

Some of you may think the whole segment is a horrible idea, but if they had made the RDX a hybrid, I'd have one already and I'm willing to bet they would have sold as many as they could build.

ElSparquito - 3/4/2007 5:46:48 PM

+1 Boost

If they gave the RDX a hybrid drivetrain then it would be at premium cost over the already overpriced current model. Not so sure that's worth it.

finishline - 3/4/2007 7:56:01 PM

+1 Boost

I never thought of that. It just seems odd that they developed this turbo 4 specifically for the RDX (which had to be expensive, or no?) and it doesn't get any better mileage than the 6 in the RAV-4. I don't get it.

mobiustech - 3/4/2007 5:06:38 PM

+1 Boost

The Saturn OUTLOOK is soooo much larger that most of the vehicles mentioned, but smaller than a Tahoe, and gets the best mpg within the mid size segment. It can be done. The tech is their we just have to continue to hold these companies to it.

ElSparquito - 3/5/2007 9:29:34 AM

+1 Boost

Smaller on the outside. It actually has more cargo area with the seats folded down than the Tahoe.

r_driver04 - 3/6/2007 11:22:38 AM

+1 Boost

Technology has been around for a while but the almighty dollar dictates all.

EvoAudi - 3/4/2007 6:33:08 PM

+1 Boost

the thing is, that the engines in these cars aren't designed to lug around an extra 500+ pounds, if auto manufacturers spent some time developing better engines and finding better gear ratios etc. the mpg would go up possibly another 10-30%.

truckmen - 3/5/2007 1:40:14 AM

0 Boost

Good one! I would like to see a cross over built like a baja buggie! Light weight with good fuel economy with good power to weight ratio and suspension the same as a class 7 or class 8 racer with loads of suspension articulation so it could actually go off road rather than a bunch of stickers and comercials with yuppies gigling splashing through puddles.I hear the race trucks are light! Less weight = better fuel economy!

tincanman99 - 3/5/2007 1:05:49 PM

+3 Boost

If they just made normal old fashioned style station wagons with optional 4 wheel drive the whole problem would go away. An SUV is nothing but a jacked up station wagon anyway.

Just what is the point? Most of these things will never see off road anyway.

Would it be better to build wagons like from years ago that were NORMAL sedans with the glass extended in the back ending with a hatch?

What is the stigma about station wagons anyway?

r_driver04 - 3/6/2007 11:47:10 AM

+1 Boost

Subaru to the rescue...