X-trail 200x vs crv 2.0 AT vs tribute 2.3

**hertzblaster** · February 19th, 2006 01:27 AM

With a budget of 1.2M, I decided to get Nissan x-trail 4x4 200x AT.

Did i made the right decision?
Pros for me
1. Its 4x4
2. Gear is not in the steering column
3. Center meters, pretty unique
4. Got free TV-tuner dvd player in place of stock jvc cd/mp3 player
5. Free backing sensor
6. Innovative front fender
7. Nice water cooler. Good for me nbecause i travel alot in the provinces
8. Smooth suspension
9. Soft steering
10 Very good engine response

I can pinpoint so many details more which make this suv pretty exciting because of so many unique features. I know crv is reliable but is less exciting. Like the interior and moonroof of tribute though.

Can x-trail owners tell me what is that you don't like about it?

**number001** · February 19th, 2006 02:03 PM

You seem to have gotten a good deal (ie. freebies) with your purchase. If you are after an AWD capable vehicle for unpaved detours, then the X-Trial is the best choice between the others you mentioned.

Being a CRV owner, I like the perceived appearance of sturdier materials used for the interior, which seems better than the X-Trail's. I like the optitron on the instrument panel. I dont like the ergonomically erroneous AT shifter and hand brake. Rear Seats dont fold flat like the X-Trail's, which leaves an estimated cargo space similar that of a much smaller vehicle, Jazz. The rear hatch does not open upwards but rather sideways and its in the wrong direction too (suitable for right-hand drive version). Watch out for the 2.0li engine, its a gas guzzler yielding about 5 - 5.5 Km/li. Despite all the gripes, I'd still stick with the CRV when it is being compared with other 4x2's.

**ryan** · February 19th, 2006 08:25 PM

I got both, a 2002 "10-seater" CRV 4x2 and a 2005 X-trail 2.5L .

The CRV is a good car actually if a bit boring but ride is choppy due to the "10-seater" suspension setup. Interior space is also bigger than the X-trail's. I've test drove the newer 2.4L CRVs and it rides way smoother than mine. Not much powerful but its definitely alot more comfortable.

The X-trail feels tighter inside compared to the CRV but is still ok. Engine however is stronger (even when comparing the CRV 2.0 to Xtrail's 2.0) and has more appealing interiors (except for the cheap looking auto climate control).

Bottomline? Since both are SUV's, space will definitely be better than your average sedan. Only advantage for me to get the CRV is the "Honda" brand (& whatever benefits you get from it). So while the CRV is good, for me, the Nissan is better overall.

Just curious, have you considered the 2.5L version? How much is it nowadays? I think you can still opt not to have the extra accessories and price will be near the 2.0L 4x4's. Anyways, that's just my opinion since youre there already. At least you won't feel any regrets later on that power wasnt enough (actually that's how I feel about my CRV during out of town drives) and I think it should be easier to sell later on.

About the Mazda Tribute, I drove the 3.0L version before and although it was very powerful, I felt that the engine was kinda rough. Interior quality seemed so-so too. The only part I liked there was the big sunroof and not much else.

**niky** · February 20th, 2006 12:15 PM

The 3.0 V6 of the Ford-Mazda family is the only "Ford" engine in the Tribute-Escape. The 2.3 is an MZR, thus, it should be smoother.

Acording to the Ford-o-philes, the 2.3 is a much better engine than the previous 2.0. It's decently quick and doesn't have the same drinking problem. The gripe I have with the Tribute is the interior, where some parts look flimsy, but the suspension is nice.

The CRV is a good vehicle, except for those stock tires they had until last year (scary!) and the consumption problem of the 2.0 (AT, don't know any MT owners to verify if they have the same dilemma). A little ubiquitous, but good value. The X-Trail's 4x4 is supposed to be the better system, but I haven't ridden one yet.

*ryan: Haven't you replaced the springs? I've heard you can just get the replacement springs for the newer models and it'll correct the ride... is this true?

**ILuvDetailing** · February 20th, 2006 12:24 PM

- CRV has a more room in the rear passenger seats but the X-trail has the bigger space in the compartment.
- Hands down the X-trail accelerates faster which is perfect for city driving.
- Xtrail tops out at around 180kph because of the electronic speedlimiter and the tires used.
- Interior materials used for the CRV "feels" more solid than the X-trail's plus the X-trail's interior are more prone to scratches.
- Xtrail drinks less fuel compared to the CRV.

**BlueBimmer** · February 20th, 2006 12:30 PM

gen2 crv interior is full of plastics..no more soft touch stuff similar to the Gen1 V dashboard. even my brother who used it first for a few months now hates it hehe

**ryan** · February 20th, 2006 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by niky

The 3.0 V6 of the Ford-Mazda family is the only "Ford" engine in the Tribute-Escape. The 2.3 is an MZR, thus, it should be smoother.

Acording to the Ford-o-philes, the 2.3 is a much better engine than the previous 2.0. It's decently quick and doesn't have the same drinking problem. The gripe I have with the Tribute is the interior, where some parts look flimsy, but the suspension is nice.

The CRV is a good vehicle, except for those stock tires they had until last year (scary!) and the consumption problem of the 2.0 (AT, don't know any MT owners to verify if they have the same dilemma). A little ubiquitous, but good value. The X-Trail's 4x4 is supposed to be the better system, but I haven't ridden one yet.

*ryan: Haven't you replaced the springs? I've heard you can just get the replacement springs for the newer models and it'll correct the ride... is this true?

Oh yeah, I heard from many people na pwede nga. I guess I totally forgot about it but since 4 yrs na sa akin yung car, medyo tinatamad na me pagandahin pa hehe

**niky** · February 21st, 2006 11:21 AM

:lol: lowering springs nalang. :D

**brachamus** · March 1st, 2006 08:17 PM

When I was test driving cars late last year, I also tested some CSUVs. I tried the X-Trail, CRV, Escape and Tribute. The Escape and Tribute had the best ride quality, IMO. The ride's car-like and none of that rugged ride that I felt when I test drove the X-Trail and more so on the CRV. The 2005 CRV's ride definitely got better, we have a 2003 model and it rides like an AUV.

I, personally, am not impressed with the X-Trail's interior, I just hate the centered instrument cluster design. The ride's ok but not as good as the Escape's or Tribute's. Between the two, I'd pick the Tribute because of the huge moonroof, and the exterior design is a little rugged and elegant that you can get off of it wearing a suit and will not look odd or hindi bagay. The Escape is just too rugged, off-roady-looking for me. But I also heard that the Escape and Tribute are guzzlers, so now I'm not sure. Now I'm confused. hahahaha

**niky** · March 2nd, 2006 05:01 PM

The 2.0 are definitely guzzlers for their engine size, but the 2.3 fuel economy is just right if you drive it conservatively... of course, if you tend to drive them like compact cars (pedal to the metal for every traffic opening), they'll return horrible gas mileage.

I think it was TopGear that got 5 km/l or less from the 3.0... of course, knowing the way they drive...

...considering they're the only reviewers who were able to elicit the understeer and tire squeal my cousin complains about on their CRV.