First, Americans decided they didn't like wagons. They bought minivans instead. Then the SUV came along. That was fine until people got tired of paying $80 to fill up on gas every week. So now we're all keen on the crossover. But already automakers are pushing a possible next big thing: wagon/hatchback-like crossovers. Is it a viable new trend, or one automotive niche too far? Finding an answer is something that Face-Off lives for.
The Honda Accord Crosstour is the latest example of the wagon-y crossover. Senior Automotive Editor Brent "Rockin'" Romans takes up its cause. Senior Editor Bryn "Maximum" MacKinnon, however, thinks Brent is drinking too much Honda KoolAid and touts the Nissan Murano as a more traditional yet superior choice. Which one is better for somebody wanting a decent-handling vehicle with utility? Per usual with Face-Off, you vote to decide.
Opening Statements
Brent Romans for the Honda Accord Crosstour
Alright, so let's get this out of the way: the Accord Crosstour has gotten a bad rap for its awkward styling. And I say: so what? Sure, I know bad styling can be a detriment. But the Accord CT also happens to stand out on the road, which is no small thing in today's bland-o-rama crossover market. And in the meantime, you're basically getting an Accord with a bigger trunk. The rear seats fold down easily to give you 51.3 cubic feet of cargo. It's not as much as the Murano's 64-cubic-foot cargo hold, but as Americans, Bryn, shouldn't we be downsizing our worldly possessions rather than buying bigger vehicles to fit it all?
Meanwhile, this is still an Accord V6 we're talking about. Its back seat is huge. It drives in a smooth and relaxed manner, yet the steering is still communicative enough to give you a feeling of responsiveness. The Crosstour also sits lower than a regular crossover, helping to have actual car agility rather than "car-like." Zero-to-60 mph acceleration for both vehicles is in the high seven-second range, and you can get the CT with AWD if you like. It seems weird to say it, Maximized Bryn, but in this case slightly less might actually be more.
Bryn MacKinnon for the Nissan Murano
"Maximized" doesn't necessarily mean "super-sized," Rockin' Romans (is that your new wrestling name, Brent?). The admittedly taller and larger Nissan Murano smashes the Accord Crosstour when it comes to utility (and it isn't really all that much bigger). The Crosstour's ultimate usefulness is hamstrung by that questionable "styling element," the coupe-shaped rear end. Even if the two contenders had equal maximum cargo space, the real-world benefit of the Murano's more traditional box-shaped back end would still allow for bleams more flexibility for cargo-carrying, and that's what people need. Try getting the occasional armchair, collection of tall houseplants, or large square box into the Crosstour with that sloping hatch. Not gonna happen. Not to mention the Murano's superfantastic built-in pop-up grocery organizer, which I wish I could transplant into every car I drive.
And can we just talk about the name for a minute? Murano. It just rolls off the tongue and conjures images of elegant Venetian glasswork (and it also makes me think of a delicate Pepperidge Farm cookie with delightful layers of chocolate and mint). "Crosstour" sounds like something your vindictive personal trainer is going to make you do until you cry. Pretty glass and cookies always win.
Rebuttals
Romans
How many times in your life have you actually transported a lone armchair or dishwasher, Bryn? Few, if any, I reckon. That's because in today's world everything new you buy from the Internet is going to be delivered. And if you're moving house, well, you're going to need something much larger than either of these two vehicles. It's the utility facade -- you think you need it but you really don't. That's why people will be just fine with the crosstraining, hip-hop Crosstour -- for daily life, it's all you need. You just have to think outside the box to realize that people might actually prefer an Accord wagon if they'd just give it a chance.
MacKinnon
The details of my personal life are of none of your beeswax, Brent. Additionally, not everyone buys everything online, sir. And not all online transactions result in the pricy delivery of something. Consider the Craigslist bargain hunter, the Costco shopper, the hand-me-down furniture recipient. What about wicker, Brent! Wicker! You can't buy wicker in a flat box from Ikea. And you can't fit a nice (small) rattan garden bench in the back of a Crosstour, either. After that hatch was done with it, all you'd have left would be toothpicks. Similar footprint and fuel economy yet more utility, right Brent? The Murano has it all over the Honda.
So, who wins?
By DLu
on March 29, 2010
05:49 AM
I think the Murano won. Styling aside (Crosstour has both an ugly face and ugly name), I personally don't see a point in SUV's in general; if you have to sacrifice space, it's usually in the name of "styling." If you are shorter on space AND ugly, then you just lost your reason to exist (again, personal opinion). I only rode in a Murano and I have to say, I'm impressed with the suspension tuning and quietness.
By billt9
on March 29, 2010
06:35 AM
Murano wins. better city MPG of 18 mpg.
bigger passenger seats. Bigger cargo. Taller cargo. Luxury interior.
What does the Crosstour have, better handling? You'd give all that up for better handling? That's all wagons have to offer. Crossovers offer everything else.
By jriz
on March 29, 2010
08:25 AM
Due to the points made about cookies and wicker, Bryn wins.
By cruiserhead1
on March 29, 2010
08:43 AM
Murano wins. Stylish, more practical, more luxurious... I can't think of one area the Murano is worse than the CT.
I don't even consider them in the same category.
Honda, in their relentless quest to become the Japanese GM of the 90s, actually created a modern-day Aztek.
Ugly, boring, poor build quality and cheap.
Murano looks expensive, modern in proportions, and sporty (as a crossover can be).
The CT looks old, bloated and lacking detail... sounds a lot like 90's GM doesn't it?
Murano is no perfect rose, but it's laughable to put the CT against it. Honda wishes it was compared to such vehicles!
By firstwagon
on March 29, 2010
08:54 AM
It's tough to pick either one as the Murano is one of the few vehicles on the road that is uglier then the Crosstour.
I know I'm supposed to pick one or the other but I can't.
By ne1butu2
on March 29, 2010
09:25 AM
Wow... These are both the automotive equivalent of two ugly sisters. But, given the choice, I'd go for the one with the nice body. So the Murano "wins."
By misterfusion
on March 29, 2010
09:49 AM
I'm old enough to remember hatchbacks, so the Crosstour's rear styling does not bother me. However, there is no excuse for that car's FRONT styling. I want hatchbacks to succeed in this market, but I don't want the Crosstour on my side.
Plus, the wicker argument is irrefutable. Murano!
By brn
on March 29, 2010
10:26 AM
I'm not a fan of either. If forced to choose, I'd much rather have a Honda motor than a Nissan motor.
By subaru123
on March 29, 2010
11:35 AM
Both ugly
Murano's interior is incredibly loud (Honda's probably is too)
I'll just take the cheaper one :)
By s4nut
on March 29, 2010
01:56 PM
In the UK Rover used to sell (slightly) restyled Hondas, Look at the similarity between the Crosstour and the Rover SD1. Hope the Honda is better built (see Top Gear).
By revaholic
on March 29, 2010
07:41 PM
I'd take the Crosstour for sure. I'm tired of having to defend the fact that I DO find it good looking. I applaud Honda for taking risks with its styling as of late. It's not like the Murano is exactly handsome. Also, I don't find interiors in any new Nissan attractive. They all have that same boxy control panel in the middle.
By technetium99
on March 30, 2010
06:37 AM
I don't find the Crosstours shape at all unattractive. It is very much like a grownup Chevy Monza/Olds Starfire. The front end is, however, ugly, but not Acura fugly. I would take one in a heartbeat over the Moron-o and its horrid interior and insipid CVT.
By wizard8873
on March 30, 2010
06:58 AM
Murano for me. It looks better than the Crosstour both inside and out, even if the front is a little on the ridiculous side, and the design would make it more useful when carrying larger items, like said in the argument.
If I wanted something with utility but not a CUV or SUV, I'd rather go with a wagon version of a car than something like the Crosstour. I already saw one on the road and just thought wtf when I saw it. Looks huge and ugly in life, just like in the photos.
By langjie
on March 30, 2010
07:26 AM
the crosstour is a lot bigger than it looks...and that's not a good thing. I find it very awkward. I think they would have been better off with a traditional wagon. I'd take the Murano for sure
By chavis10
on March 30, 2010
01:52 PM
Both are hideous vehicles but the Murano still easily wins plus it has more features. The CrossTour is a pointless product and a loaded CT costs way more than a loaded EX-L Accord. Honda basically created an Accord Outback. Who asked for one of those?
PS- if Nissan would've paired the old Murano's styling with the new Murano's interior, you'd have my favorite crossover on the market.