Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 6, 2009 05:05 PM

  The fuel economy and space comparo the author should have written

  A number of you have challenged the letter writers to find a vehicle with similar dimensions and better fuel economy. I am in the market for a new car and I was interested in what I could find. So, I did a little research. (Really, the author should have written this article, not the one he did.)

  The reality of today’s car market is that if you must have a smallish third row, the Outlander isn’t a bad choice. This vehicle is in a category called “small SUV.” With the exception of the Escape Hybrid (much more expensive), it has fuel economy that is typical of that class. For example, the Forester, RAV4, and CRV all have about the same economy and space.

  A number of you suggested that minivans are a better choice. Sadly, most of today’s minivans don’t do any better on fuel economy. However, they do have much more passenger and cargo space. So, they haul more stuff per gallon than a small SUV. Of course, this only matters if you are always hauling around a lot of people and/or stuff. There are also a few smallish crossover/minivan in disguise vehicles out there (Mazda 5 and Kia Rondo). They don’t really do any better in economy and space than the small SUVs. I've included the Odyssey, Mazda 5, and Rondo below for comparison.

  The class with better fuel economy and a little less cargo space is the small hatchback category. Admittedly, they don’t have third row seating, but the third row in the Outlander is pretty tiny anyway.

  In any case, here is what I found that seems to compete well with the Outlander. In my opinion, the Honda Fits seems like the best choice for economy, space, price, and reliability. Note that fuel economy is listed as city/highway for the most efficient engine and transmission combination. Passenger volume is listed first. For vehicles with back seats that fold down, the cargo volume from the back of the front seat is listed second. For vehicles with back seats that do not fold down (e.g. Prius, Camry), the luggage volume is listed second. Keep in mind that the cargo volumes listed for the vehicles that have fold down rear seats are only available if you fold down the rear seats, which limits you to one passenger!

  Mitsubishi Outlander – (4 cyl, 2wd) 21/25 MPG, 100/73 cu ft

  Third Row Seating:

  Mazda 5 – 22/28 MPG, 98/44 cu ft (44 from the back of the 2nd row, which doesn’t fold down)

  Kia Rondo – 20/27 MPG, 108/32 cu ft (32 from the back of the 2nd row, which doesn’t fold down)

  Honda Odyssey – 17/25 MPG, 171/147/91 cu ft (147 behind 1st row, 91 behind 2nd row)

  Vehicles with fold down rear seats:

  Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe - 26/32 MPG, 94/48 cu ft

  Honda Fit - 28/35 MPG, 91/57 cu ft

  Nissan Versa Hatchback- 27/33 MPG, 95/50 cu ft

  Suzuki SX4 Crossover 2WD – 22/30, 99/54 cu ft

  Kia Rio5 – 27/32 MPG, 92/50 cu ft

  Ford Focus Hatchback – this car is no longer available in 2009

  Vehicles with partially-folding rear seats

  Hyundai Accent (3 door) – 27/33, 92/16 cu ft

  Kia Spectra5 – 24/32 MPG, 98/18 cu ft

  VW Rabbit – 21/30 MPG, 94/15 cu ft

  Dodge Caliber – 24/30 MPG, 95/19 cu ft

  Toyota Prius – 48/45 MPG, 96/14 cu ft

  Vehicles without fold down rear seats

  Toyota Camry Hybrid – 33/34 MPG, 101/11 cu ft

  Toyota Corolla – 27/35 MPG, 92/12 cu ft

  Civic Hybrid – 40/45 MPG, 91/10 cu ft

  Civic Sedan – 26/34, 91/12 cu ft

  —Mike_in_New_Mexico Read Mike_in_New_Mexico's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel