2020 Nissan Rogue Consumer Reviews

I test drove Honda CRV, Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5 and Subaru Forester and Nissan Rogue 2014. I skipped Toyota Rav4 because their small overlap front test was rated POOR by IIHS. Ford Escape was very sporty and attractive, but it was more expensive. Moreover, I was concerned about reliability. Mazda CX-5 is another nice option for its exterior and sporty driving dynamic, but it was too noisy on the highway, unbearable to me. Subaru Forester is a wonderful car with its visibility, improving driving dynamic (smooth & responsive) great reliability and safety, but the interior was so austere. I felt that I was driving a car made in 90’s. Honda CRV was a strong contender with a well balance between practicality and design. The ride was smooth and soft. The reliability is excellent, but the interior was inferior compare to Nissan Rogue ’14. Here are my opinion and observation of Nissan Rogue ’14 after a month of driving. Positive: • Fuel efficiency: highway 30-35 mpg with light foot, local 13-23 mpg (the farther you drive, the better fuel efficiency). Combined: 27-29 mpg. The fuel economy is excellent on the highway with constant speed around 60-65 mi/hr. For some reason, with multiple stops, the fuel economy can drop significantly. • Super interior and attractive exterior • Large cargo space. Divide-N-Hide system is a great idea & versatile. • Backup camera and bird-eye view. Very useful while parking. • Comfortable seats • A lot of leg and head room for both front and rear. I’m 5’8. • The 2nd row seats can move back and forth. You can also adjust to lean back. • Has a vent for the 2nd row seat • High safety ratings. • Navigation and Bluetooth works well. Has ability to listen and answer text msg without touching a screen (I avoid answering txt msg anyway). Basically, the tech stuff is impressive. • Quiet cabinet Major Negative: • CVT makes acceleration sluggish, but adequate for normal commuting. Merging highway is not an issue yet. • CVT is louder, but tolerable (like a purr). • Only 170 horse power. It’s adequate for driving in flat area like TX, but probably under power if there are a lot of hills. Minor negative: • The button O/D on the stick shift is too easy to be accidently pushed by your forearm while setting up to charge the phone or reaching the front tray (in front of the stick shift and near the charging outlet). A few times, I saw the yellow light O/D lighten up in the speedometer, so I hit it again to turn off the yellow light. • It would be nice to display channel number of the radio station on the memory buttons on the touch screen since they remove the physical buttons to memorize the channels and put them on the touchscreen (1-6). I like the way it is done in Toyota. • Limited visibility b/c of thick pillar in front and curved C pillars (a trade-off for stylish), compensated by the rear camera. I can live with this. • The switch for turning left/right signals is too stiff while the headlight mode is too soft. It should be the other way around. I usually set my headlight in Auto mode, but it was accidently turned to another mode when I turned my signal. Handling: the steering wheel is a little bit heavy. However, it handles well overall, and the car is responsive. The suspension is slightly stiffer compare to Honda CRV. Overall, I feel that it drives smoothly and responsively. I would have picked Nissan Rogue ’14 over Honda CRV ’14 or other cars that I mentioned if I had to do it over. Nissan Rogue will be a serious competition in this segment with its redesigned exterior and interior, decent driving dynamic, practicality and excellent fuel economy.