Comparison Test: Nissan Murano vs Toyota Venza vs Ford Edge
Even with uncertain economic times and crazily fluctuating gas prices, we're going to bet that the crossover SUV is here to stay. They now come in all shapes and sizes, while seating between five and eight passengers. This test concerns the five-passenger midsize group, the one that effectively replaces those truck-based models from the 1990s that launched the SUV craze. These are the bread-and-butter crossovers, but amongst 2009 Nissan Murano, 2009 Toyota Venza V6 and 2009 Ford Edge which one excels in the most areas?
Each vehicle was similarly priced and equipped. The Murano was all-wheel-drive, while the other two were front drivers. We ran each crossover through our usual gamut of testing and utilized the same comparison scoring system as Inside Line, with the exception of final score weighting, which we adjusted to reflect a more consumer-oriented perspective.
James Riswick, Automotive Editor
3rd Place: 2009 Ford Edge Limited
For a more complete take, please read the 2009 Ford Edge Edmunds Test Drive
Where It Leads:
The 2009 Ford Edge was the quietest in terms of both wind and road noise. It also tied the Nissan for best ride quality, although all three were pretty close in this regard. Its driving position and front seat comfort were enjoyed by our taller drivers. The Sync system and touchscreen stereo/navigation interface were hailed for both their feature content (voice-activation, iPod control, Bluetooth, Sirius Travel Link) and ease of use (well-organized menus). The Edge had the most useful maximum storage capacity and we loved its blind spot warning mirrors.
Where It Follows:
Although Ford has corrected the unacceptable/scary braking performance of the 2007 Edge, the 2009's mushy pedal feel and 134-foot stop from 60 mph are still disappointing in this group. The Edge was also the slowest to 60 mph and felt it out on the open road, although it wasn't too far off the others' pace. The real gap is shown in terms of engine refinement (it's louder and a little rough) and its six-speed automatic transmission, which was slow to downshift. The Edge also has the worst combined fuel economy (barely) and we found it the least pleasurable to drive.
Our shortest driver found the driver seat to be too long in the cushion. It was also the only vehicle here to a have a manually adjustable driver seatback. The back seat was the tightest with three across and the panoramic sunroof impinged upon rear headroom. The stereo was located too far from the driver. We were least impressed by its interior materials. Finally, the Ford had the least equipment, was a bit more expensive than the Venza and came in last in both our Recommended picks (what you should buy) and Personal picks (what we would buy).
The Verdict:
In this group, third place is more like a bronze medal than dead last. While the Edge trailed in most areas, it was never so far behind that we wouldn't feel comfortable recommending it to friends or family. It's just that the Murano and Venza are better.
Best For: Technophiles, Those Attracted to Chrome
2nd Place: 2009 Toyota Venza V6
For a more complete take, please read the Toyota Venza V6 Edmunds Test Drive
Where It Leads:
On our 28-point evaluation sheet, the 2009 Toyota Venza scored a rare 10 from two of our editors for its engine. Its combination of superior power and
fuel economy definitely satisfies the perfect 10's requirement of "best in segment, a benchmark." The electric power steering was the lightest in parking lots and weighted up surprisingly well for more aggressive driving. Its lower stance helped make it feel the most car-like. It stopped from 60 mph the shortest at 122 feet, although the Murano did it in 123. The Venza was deemed to be the best for installing a child seat (in terms of roominess) and for providing innovative and useful storage spaces (particularly the front center console). It was the cheapest car here (barely) and scored one editor's recommended pick.
Where It Follows:
The Venza's front seats were the least comfortable for all our editors -- particularly the tall ones -- lacking both support and sufficient adjustability. Its interior materials were terribly inconsistent in terms of both quality and fit (it looks far nicer in pictures). Our test car was a pre-production vehicle, but production Camry and Highlanders we've tested have shown similar craftsmanship. We weren't fans of its touchscreen audio interface, and found its 13-speaker surround-sound audio system no more impressive than the supposed lesser systems found in the Nissan and Ford. While the Venza's ride felt plush from the driver seat, it was the most bouncy when sitting in the back. One editor complained that the dash-mounted shifter got in the way of reaching the climate controls.
The Verdict:
The Venza feels like half wagon and half crossover. It came in second in most evaluation sheet categories and led the all-important areas of performance, fuel economy and price. It didn't win, but we'd certainly recommend it.
Best For: Families with Younger Children, Fuel Misers, Older Drivers
1st Place: 2009 Nissan Murano LE AWD
For a more complete take, please read the Nissan Murano Edmunds Test Drive
Where It Leads:
The Murano was the most expensive here by about $2,000, but it had the most features (including all-wheel-drive) and boasted the best materials and build quality. In other words, it warranted the price premium -- and there's more. Its continuously variable transmission (CVT) was tops here, being the smoothest and most responsive to throttle inputs. Its steering was both light at lower speeds and well-weighted at higher ones, while being the most communicative. Its brakes were tied with the Venza for top honors. The Murano was by far the most fun to drive, and yet, its ride was just as comfortable as the Ford and Toyota's.
The Murano's seats were rated as the most comfortable here, while the driving position received top billing. Of particular note was the power telescoping steering wheel. The back seat had the most room with three across (barely) and had the most headroom. It was also the only one with a heated rear seat. While visibility could be better in each vehicle here, our editors thought the Murano was tops, which is impressive given the blinding former model. Both stereo and climate controls were the best designed by far, and they consisted of the highest quality switchgear. All editors picked the Murano as the crossover they'd personally buy and all but one would recommend it first to friends and family.
Where it Follows:
There weren't many areas. On our evaluation sheet, the Murano came in last in only one area: It had the least amount of maximum cargo space by 5 cubic feet. It was also the only one that requires premium fuel. Otherwise, in areas where it didn't lead, it was at least close to the better crossover (usually the Venza).
The Verdict:
The Murano is a big improvement over its predecessor and a clear victor here. It is the most expensive by $2,000, but it seems more expensive by a lot more. While the Toyota and Ford are each impressive in particular ways and we'd be perfectly comfortable recommending them, the well-rounded 2009 Nissan Murano would be the five-passenger, midsize crossover we'd be first to suggest.
Best For: Singles, Families WIth Older Kids, Driving Enthusiasts, Everyone Else
The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
- Posted by
- James Riswick December 29, 2008, 6:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Comparison Road Tests
The Murano is still fugly, I can't get over how bad it looks. The interior is OK but it still comes off as cheap looking (because it's so stripped down) and bland in the S trim.
I'll preface this by admitting to being a little bit of a Ford fan.
"Edge also has the worst combined fuel economy"
According to Edmunds.com; the Murano beats the Edge by 1mpg in the City, but the Edge beats the Murano by 1mpg on the highway. Now the kicker. The Murano requires premium fuel. The Edge costs less per mile to operate, even weighing 200lbs more.
I'll hand it to Toyota on the MPG. They win here, but if you're going to put a vehicle at the bottom, it should be the Nissan (your overall winner) and not the Ford.
"The real gap is shown in terms of engine refinement"
I've read this before from Edmunds, but have a hard time believing it. I've driven the Edge and found the engine to be very smooth (Ward's agrees with me). I know others that have chosen the Edge because of this. I'm very confused.
"134-foot stop from 60 mph are still disappointing"
How did the other two vehicles fare?
If you cut the murano's AWD, it would be midpack in pricing. If you add AWD to the other two, it will also be midpack!
And driving enthusiasts please, it felt like it handled worse (way more top heavy feeling) than the CX-9 and my CX-7 and neither one of those would be considered by driving enthusiasts but they handle pretty well for what they are.
Interesting how Edmund's own reviews seem to lack consistency from one article to another. As always, your best bet is to take these reviews with a grain of salt and inspect your own vehicle before purchasing.
From the Venza review that's linked:
"Our tester was a preproduction vehicle, but fit and finish was nonetheless impressive, with consistent panel gaps and no audible squeaks or rattles."
From this article:
"Its interior materials were terribly inconsistent in terms of both quality and fit (it looks far nicer in pictures). Our test car was a pre-production vehicle, but production Camry and Highlanders we've tested have shown similar craftsmanship."
@qs933,
The Venza I tested wasn't the same one we drove for the comparison test. Fit and finish can vary widely between preproduction models, and my earlier test vehicle was one of the select few in Toyota's press event rotation, so they probably took extra care to make sure everything was screwed together tightly. I was impressed with my Venza but underwhelmed by the quality of this one.
In any case, I think the group's overall impressions of the Venza are pretty consistent with mine in the test drive.
-Josh
"Interesting how Edmund's own reviews seem to lack consistency from one article to another."
If Edmunds tested the same exact vehicle then your post would be valid.
"As always, your best bet is to take these reviews with a grain of salt and inspect your own vehicle before purchasing."
I use reviews as a base of what to expect even though reviews probably wont make my decision of what to purchase. I use my own judgement and buy a vehicle based on personal preference, needs and wants among other things.
I havent sat in a Murano or Edge but I have been in a Venza recently. The build quality of this particular Venza was top notch, almost Lexus like. I didnt detect any misaligned panels or find anything that would make me question the craftsmanship. The only thing I didnt like was the texture on the upper dash/doors. It came off very cheap and didnt seem to fit the sticker of this loaded Venza. The texture reminded me of whats found in the MUCH cheaper Scion TC although the material used was better.
From everything I have read the Subaru Forester is most likely the top SUV in these smaller type SUV's and yet this is the second shoot out this year that does not include it. What gives? As someone who is thinking of purchasing one, I would be interested in seeing how it stacks up against it's peers. Consumers Report ranks it tops as well as Motor trend and yet it gets no mention on edmunds other than the regular review. And on a side note can anyone explain why Toyota puts a rear door on the Rav and the Lexus GX which makes it impossible to actually haul anything long. And yes, I would haul stuff in the lexus.
Because of myriad reasons -- especially price point -- the Subaru Forester competes with the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander and other compact-to-midsize SUVs. If we were to do a comparison of those vehicles it would certainly be included.
The Subaru Tribeca "competes" against this comparo's vehicles, and although we could have included it, there's a 99.4-percent chance it would've ended up last.
-James Riswick
Thats intersting because the last comparison of the RAV4 and The CRV was against the Tiquan which I think costs more than any of the SUVs in this test. As far as the Tribeca goes, who cares? Just because I brought up the Forester doesn't mean I am interested in all Subarus. I am just interested in the best of the best and I think someone wrote something similiar wondering why the Forester wasn't included in that small SUV contest. The Murano is similiar in size to the Forester and it is also on my radar so how would it compare to a turbo Forester?
I was really looking forward to reading the results of this comparo. But by comparing FWD vehicles with an AWD, and comparing a pre-production unit with a production unit, I can't form an opinion about the three vehicles. My past experience with Nissan and Toyota is that their vehicles are always highest quality at any price point. And Ford is nearly as good. I agree with the comments that putting some real data (such as stopping distances) would help people compare. Recommendation: please compare apples with apples, and give us the data. Thanks!
I think that these cars are fine. But it would be better to have compared awd vs awd and front wheel drive vs front wheel drive. Also, how can you assume that the Tribeca will come last if you never gave it a chance, jriz? Have you tested both the Tribeca and the forester against the Venza, the Edge and the Murano? Have you tested their awd capabilities against the forester and tribeca? Or is it fear? I think as a current owner of both the Tribeca and the 08 Acura MDX, i bet you that my cars beat the venza, the edge and murano is all aspects. I wish Edmunds could put these cars in a real road tests (mud, normal driving, etc...) and give us real data.
I'm out
I'm surprised the CX-7 didn't make the comparo. Was it because of the TC motor?
The Venza is hot around where I live, sales have really taken off (Which is a comforting sign of returning market) but the Edge and Murano are still quite popular as well. Kinda wonder if the Venza is stealing sales away from Toyotas own Highlander rather than the other makes.
Anyways, I've checked out all three and I agree with the assesment. The Murano is is a smidge nicer inside than the Toyota and the seating is def. more comfy. And I am a huge fan of the VQ. The Ford is a the looker of the three as well, especially in sport trim which looks fantastic. Lags behind the other two on interior styling tho, but the materials and build quality are up there. Reliability-wise and quality-wise, Toyota probably wins the longevity trophy and the 3.5 V6 is a real gem in the Rav4 and Highlander's that I've driven.
It would be a tough choice.