Subcompact SUVs: they’re increasingly vital to carmakers and represent, to most Americans, a step up from the compact, affordable sedans they’re intended to replace. Is it smarter to get one of these utes over a four-door Golf hatchback? I’d argue no. But Americans have spoken, and the market is oriented toward SUVs and CUVs, even these little guys, big league (as a certain hairdo/entertainer/politician would say). Manufacturers are businesses, and businesses need to make real cash.
So. Are they any good?
We should start off by mentioning that sometimes as a journalist you get the vehicles you get. That is, the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross is probably a size larger than the other two vehicles in this test; the more appropriate entry would probably have been Mitsubishi’s Outlander Sport. Having said that, we’re not sure that would’ve changed the results here, as the Outlander Sport is an older entry than the brand-new Eclipse Cross and, frankly, in previous drives hasn’t been the most impressive little CUV. So consider it a dodged bullet in terms of criticism (or not, really your call J)
On the whole, it’s a class that is increasingly competitive. For this test, we set out to compare three of the newest entrants: the Ford EcoSport, the Hyundai Kona and the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross. They each have their strengths, and each possess a litany of different characteristics to consider when choosing.
So read on to find out which came in ahead.
3rd Place: Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross SEL
The Pros: You can’t beat the content for the money.
The Lows: Novocain steering, unhappy in the corners.
Net/Net: An improvement, but still not a cohesive package.
Let’s get right to it: Mitsubishi’s new entry is an attempt at continued relevancy during a tough time for the brand. Back in my youth (what, you don’t remember the nineties, bro?), Mitsubishi was hot to trot. Their products were seen as slightly more premium, and certainly more daring, than most mainstream Japanese automakers, emphasizing technology and driving pleasure over plain run-of-the-mill competency. Models like the 3000GT, Eclipse GSX (the compact sports coupe, no relation to the vehicle here), Montero and Diamanté were in many ways class leading, and handsome, offerings. The flagship 3000GT VR4, for instance, came stacked with all-wheel drive, all-wheel steering, a 300hp twin turbo V6 (an impressive number in 1990), automatic climate control, a six-speed Getrag manual transmission, and bedroom poster looks (as, it should be noted, did its Dodge Stealth captive import counterpart). The true white whale, if you could find one, was the limited production 3000GT convertible, complete with custom power retractable hardtop – a car I lusted after (though it did take a heavy car and make it much heavier). Around a decade later, after witnessing Subaru’s success importing the WRX rally-inspired sedan to the US, the Lancer Evolution was finally imported to the States, to sighs of relief from rallyboys everywhere, who had hoped against hope that Mitsu would finally see the light. And they did. But soon enough a series of management mistakes and scandals switched the carmaker’s US track, and the last decade or so hasn’t looked so great.
Then, suddenly, a new hope arrived late last year.
That’s when Nissan, already possessing an alliance with French carmaker Renault stemming from the former’s own near-implosion in the late 90s, stepped in and effectively took control of Mitsubishi’s car-making arm with a promised capital infusion – much to the relief of US Mitsu dealers looking for the exits[1]
So here’s the Eclipse Cross, kind of a coupeified CUV thing, the opening shot in what promises to be a slew of new models, mostly S/CUVs and for which, down the road, a hybrid or electric version of each will be offered. No, this vehicle has no relation to the popular Eclipse coupe/Spyder from the 90’s & early 2000s; instead, it’s a coupe-ified CUV aimed squarely at the millennial consumer. I wouldn’t venture to call it handsome, but I wouldn’t call it ugly, either. In fact, it’s likely to serve as something of a style statement for its intended buyer, and Mistu is quick to point out that it won a Good Design Award from the Chicago Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design. So who am I to say that it’s kind of ugly? Well, I’m a person and styling’s subjective. But the Eclipse Cross’s true promise is value – that is, it starts at $23,995 and the version seen here, loaded to the gills with radar-based cruise control, lane keep assist, heated seats front and rear, nav, voice command, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, head up display, touchpad infotainment control… I could go on…stickered at under $32,000. Our loaded SEL tester also had Mitsubishi’s Super All-Wheel Control permanent AWD system, which has its lineage in those great vehicles of Mitsubishi’s yore we miss so much.
But is this second coming of the Eclipse name any good?
Well, yes, but only for the right customer. And that customer isn’t likely a driving enthusiast. Let’s start with the dynamics. It’s not a particularly driver-focused vehicle, and Mitsu’s calculation was clearly more toward luxury than sport. The Eclipse Cross has a comfortable ride, and LA’s third world pavement didn’t much upset it, something that can’t be said of many luxury pretenders. The steering is super light, bordering on Novocain (read: nonexistent) feedback, with lots of slack just off-center. While auto scribes lament the widespread adoption of EPS systems, as this Eclipse trucklet possesses, they’re here to stay. And to their credit, some carmakers have learned how to get them right (Porsche, for one). In this vehicle, at least, Mitsubishi hasn’t.
In fact, the very people who designed this rig seem to be somewhat confused by its intended mission. Is it a sporty CUV for young families? Is it a value-packed, cut-price style statement? For instance, the SEL tester we drove included column-mounted shift paddles, which to Mitsubishi’s credit is the right way to do paddles (you hear that, Lexus?) – but the problem is they’re of limited utility in a vehicle you’d rather just leave in ‘D’. While the tranny claims a dedicated Sport mode, its eight artificial ratios are grafted onto a CVT, the only available transmission. And, yeah, CVTs are good for fuel economy. But for those who like to drive, CVTs are…well, the technical term is “crap.” They drone under hard acceleration, and they don’t function better than a traditional automatic save for the gas mileage aspect. Even though they’ve improved significantly over the past decade, they’re generally still no replacement for a great automatic (let alone manual). The Mitsu’s slushbox isn’t the worst I’ve sampled, but there’s still too much drone at sustained and hard acceleration. It’s mated to a 1.5L turbo four putting out 152hp and 184 lb.-ft of torque, which works well with the tranny to maintain speed once you’ve gotten up to it; it’s less impressive at the whole acceleration thing. But it does make the Eclipse Cross a pretty good freeway cruiser, especially in the SEL model equipped with the semi-autonomous driving features noted above. The overall effect is a vehicle that doesn’t want to be hustled, especially in the curvy stuff, where the Mitsu will lean and wobble like my late grandmother’s Olds Cutless.
So this Mitsubishi is less similar to its enthusiast-oriented ancestors from the 90s, instead displaying much more of a comfort-first ambiance.
And, inside, this takeaway is heavily reinforced. Soft leather lines the cabin, and the eight-way power driver’s seat was supportive and comfortable – likely great on a long haul (our test drives were limited to a couple of hours). The optional Rockford Fosgate audio system is tremendous (and included in our test car’s $2500 Touring Package)…probably better than being there live in many cases. It’s certainly superior to the Bose systems offered in many “premium” pretenders. Unfortunately, the Eclipse Cross lacks a physical volume knob, which can be irritating, distracting and downright dangerous when on the move. (Manufacturers: please remember physical knobs and buttons for basic radio and climate functions…please!). The lane keep assist and adaptive cruise control semiautonomous features were very easy to use – no learning curve at all, something that can’t be said for many competitors. Our SEL model’s Touring Package included a dual-pane moonroof, though the rear portion is fixed in place. On the whole, there are probably still too many grainy, hard plastics on the inside, especially on the center console – but then again, this vehicle starts at less than $24K out the door. I appreciated the oversized rearview mirrors, something that’s becoming more difficult to find these days, and they proved especially handy in this car due to the somewhat obstructed view out the split rear window (a victim of style, my friends). The rear seats proved comfortable, with decent legroom when moved in their tracks to the rearmost position.
Speaking of that tailgate, the Mitsu offers a decent 22.6 cubic feet of space behind the second row and 48.9 cubic feet of space with the rear seats folded, making it fairly practical for a coupeified CUV. The Eclipse Cross is also the first Mitsubishi to offer Mitsubishi Connect, a telematics system, with a gratis 24-month trial (it’s app-based, too). While many manufacturers offer similar systems, most do not include such a lengthy free trial – here’s Mitsubishi again playing that value card quite well, thank you. And you can’t forget what is one of the best warranty packages in the business: 10 years/100K miles for the powertrain, and 5 years/60K miles bumper-to-bumper, something the Ford doesn’t come close to (though Hyundai matches these figures).
Look, for the target buyer, the Eclipse Cross may prove the right mix of style and substance. But it’s less of a cohesive package than a lot of premium bits packaged into a CUV to fill a void in the product lineup. The EC’s competitors were just a bit more thoroughly thought out.
2nd Place: Ford EcoSport SES
The Pros: A real Sport chassis.
The Lows: A real Eco engine.
The Net/Net: The driver’s chassis of the group, saddled with a lackluster powertrain.
Let’s start with the spoiler: the Ford EcoSport ain’t all-new, despite what Ford might have you believe. It’s “all-new” in the US, maybe, but this Gen 2 model has been on sale since 2013 in foreign markets, and was originally introduced by Ford Brazil way back in 2003. The current model is based on Fiesta underpinnings. And if you’ve driven the Fiesta, you know using this great chassis as the basis for a crossover blesses the EcoSport a knack for carving corners – with a composed, settled ride. In fact, this thing pretty fun to fling about, even at “Officer, do we really need the handcuffs?” speeds. So on first impressions, it was impressive.
But in car years, a 2013 redesign is ancient – so it must be pretty long in the tooth, right? Well, actually, no. It’s still surprisingly good, in fact really good when you take its not insignificant age into consideration. The US version comes as either front-wheel-drive with a 1.0L, three-cylinder turbo or AWD with a 2.0L naturally aspirated Duratec 4-cylider, both mated to a six-speed automatic. All US and Canada-bound models are assembled in India. The modern car business is a global one, Mr. President.
Our test model was an upmarket SES model with AWD and the 2.0L, good for 166hp all the way up at 6500 RPM, and 149 lb.-ft of torque at 4500RPM. It’s a revver. And it’s relatively unique in that it employs no turbo, an absolute rarity today. It feels refreshingly good to rev a naturally aspirated engine, especially one this tractable. The engine includes auto stop/start, which can be defeated via a switch mounted low on the center console. Unfortunately, the transmission Ford bolted on is its Achilles’ heel: a 6-speed auto woefully slow at deciding which gear to select and hold, and reluctant to downshift even when driven enthusiastically. I mean, it’s better than a CVT, but only just so. Shifting for yourself, you’re better off keeping the gear selector in “S,” which does hold gears longer than the default “D” mode, and using the steering wheel-mounted paddles. Despite taking manual control, though, you won’t want to hold your breath for the transmission to finally shift in response to your command. It’s all quite slow-witted. And it’s a shame, because the EcoSport has far and away the best chassis in this group. In fact, when it’s in the power, it’s kind of a hoot to drive this thing like a hooligan. But the fun quickly fades as you go to pull the left lever for a downshift prior to a corner. By the time the tranny actually shifts, you’ll be mid-corner, and the car will wiggle a bit before regaining its composure. It’s yet another example of a good engine mated to a medicore transmission (I also noted this about the Infiniti Q50S Red Sport, though that vehicle’s transmission is light years quicker than this Ford’s).
The Ford greets you with a big, blunt version of its corporate crossover face, kind of a squared-off version of the familial look you’ll recognize from the one-size-up Escape. The EcoSport looks cute, I suppose, especially tidy in its backend (no big butts here) – though it gives off the odd optical effect of making the front wheels seem bizarrely small for this application. It’s not the wheels, though; it’s the blocky, pug-like nose giving off that impression. On the whole, however, with its 3:4 scale Escape looks, the Ford is probably the most handsome offering of the three, at least on the outside.
Inside? Well, the Mitsubishi is maybe a bit nicer place to spend time, to say nothing of the Hyundai, but at least this Ford’s a beneficiary of the vastly improved Sync3 infotainment system. If you’ve ever used the previous generations of Ford’s touchscreen interface, and managed not to pull all your hair out or God forbid get into an accident, you’ll be astonished at how quickly Sync now responds to your commands. Like right now. Its menu organization is also more logically thought out than in years past. Our SES tester was finished in black leather seating, but it was also black pretty much everywhere else. The dash. The console. The doors. The lower portions of the pillars. There were some silver-colored plastic bits inserted to offset the drab effect of the blackness, but it didn’t help much. If you go for an EcoSport, you may want to consider the cream-colored seating surfaces to lighten the room up a little bit. Thankfully, in stark contrast to the Mitsu, the Ford includes plenty of physical knobs and buttons, including two properly placed volume and tuning knobs right under the dash-mounted touchscreen (the Ford also included Apple CarPlay and Android Auto), as well as plenty of buttons to work the climate control system.
And regardless, the chassis on this little guy is far superior to any other merit it possesses. It came to play. If only the powertrain did as well.
1st Place: Hyundai Kona Ultimate AWD
The Pros: A well thought-out package with a good blend of sport, luxury and practicality.
The Lows: Take it or leave it face, only one USB port? What is this, 2005?
The Net/Net: The most complete package here.
The Hyundai Kona is named for a district on Hawaii’s big island, but it’s probably not Hawaii’s best-known or most-visited locale. It may be better known by its namesake coffee bean, one of the most coveted and expensive beans in the world. The Kona is a new entry, Hyundai’s first in the rapidly growing subcompact CUV segment, and it’s a compact crossover with an odd face, what with stacked lighting elements (the “eyebrows” up top are LED running lights a la the 2013 Jeep Cherokee), made more remarkably strange by our tester’s Lime Twist paint job and color-matched interior bevel surrounds. It’s kind of an odd face, but it’s not ugly, and overall the Kona cuts a reasonably interesting profile, at least for the type of vehicle that is somewhat limited in that it has to have a two-box shape.
If there were any doubt that Kona is also the name of a premium coffee varietal, one stab at the throttle linked to the optional 1.6L four, producing 175hp and an impressive 195 lb.-ft. of torque may just remind you. Chained to a 7-speed dual clutch, this optional engine will scoot the 3100-lb. trucklet to 60 in just a hair over 6.5 seconds. Buyers should be wary of the base engine, however, which is down nearly 30 hp and over 60 lb.-ft. on the upmarket motor, as well lacking the slick dual-clutch transmission on our test vehicle (the base is paired to a six-speed auto). Going for the base motor will make you wish it actually ran on Kona beans, as it’s said to add about 3 seconds to the 0-60 sprint. Hyundai was quick to point out that the Kona was developed on an all-new platform specifically engineered for compact CUVs, and not a car platform that was modified to fit a taller vehicle (a la Mazda’s CX-3). While we’re skeptical of the benefits of distinguishing a platform that was not intended for off-roading from another that was not intended for off-roading, it isn’t a bad platform – quite the opposite, in fact. The Kona demonstrates athletic moves through the corners and its Sport mode felt notably distinct from the Normal mode default, but really just kept the engine more on boil, skipping the dual clutch’s tendency to find and hold higher gears in non-crazed-person driving. The Kona does possess a torque vectoring function, but it’s brake-based – as is typical for something in this price class, leaving one with the notion that sure, it will move torque, but by slowing you down first. These systems also tend to generate brake fade if taken to, say, a track – though Hyundai is likely quite safe in this regard, as it’s unlikely that many Kona owners will be track day hooligans. The quasi-car even rides like a much more premium product, expertly soaking up rough pavement while transmitting a fair amount of chassis feedback through the
Inside, the Kona Ultimate tester we sampled had leather-lined seats that felt notably premium. Seat inserts are fabric (this will likely help breathability) and they felt all-day comfortable. The seats also reasonable job of holding us in place in the curvy stuff. Black glossy plastic does a reasonable imitation of more expensive burled wood lacquer, though one will know it’s plastic by touch. Compared to the lower-level Konas, there is less of a sea of cheap –looking black plastic in the Ultimate trim model, as the dash is broken up with exterior color-matched inserts around the vents and bevels, and there is soft-touch padding where most hands (and elbows) will spend time. Coupled with a crisp, hi-res infotainment display and in our tester, a color head-up display, proper knob-based automatic climate control, and power driver’s seat and large dual-pane moonroof, the Kona Ultimate had plenty of equipment for its price point, saving for one glaring omission: only one USB port. As in, only one outlet for the whole damn car. That’s a miss, especially for the target buyer of these subcompact CUV thingys (young millennials). Competitors (like the Nissan’s new Kicks) offer at least four. Hopefully it’s rectified next year.
But in all, the Kona is a great car in which to pass the miles. Its ride is supple enough for the rough-and-tumble of a daily commute, its steering and handling sharp enough for some hijinks in the hills, and its interior comfortable, functional and handsome. The Kona is the winner here for now, but this category is changing with the wind – so stay tuned to see if the Kona can stay on top.
[1] http://www.autonews.com/article/20140126/RETAIL06/301279994/mitsubishi-dealers-struggle-through-dearth-of-product