| Eye Pod |
| I have driven all 3 vehicles at length. If you're just tooling around the Tahoe has the softest, most comfortable ride. The subie is a little light on innovation and I came away feeling it is just a little behind the curve. But the 09 Murano, what innovation and technology. I extensively played with the Nav on all three vehicles and it is incredibly easy to use the Murano Nav compared to the others. The subie and Tahoe did excellent in the snow, haven't driven the Murano in snow yet (I have an AWD MO). |
|
|
| Musky300 |
The Tribeca is the only vehicle out of those two that you should be directly comparing to the Murano as it is a Crossover in similar size and power as the Murano.
The Tahoe is an entirely different vehicle and class, being a truck-based full-sized SUV...comparing Apples and Oranges. |
|
|
| shelland |
quote:
The Tahoe is an entirely different vehicle and class, being a truck-based full-sized SUV...comparing Apples and Oranges.
I agree - you have to decide what "kind" of vehicle you want. The Murano and Tahoe are two completely different vehicles that can't really be compared. You have to decide which one better suits your wants and needs. |
|
|
| Eye Pod |
| Of course they're different vehicles. That's why they compare differently! I find it notable that in some ways the Tahoe is superior, even if that won't be a popular statement on this board. |
|
|
| Kris |
"Tahoe is superior" - hm, an interesting statement......I almost had a few accidents when driving SUV with "plushy" suspention....no steering! Is this what you call "seperior".....
I have nothing against big SUV's, but I would never ever own one. They are such a waste......you want space? Go for minivan. Want to go off road? Go for proper off-road capable SUV......
"Superior".......give me a break! |
|
|
| shelland |
quote:
Originally posted by Eye Pod
Of course they're different vehicles. That's why they compare differently! I find it notable that in some ways the Tahoe is superior, even if that won't be a popular statement on this board.
The problem is, it's a very broad statement. I don't care if anyone likes another vehicle more than the ones I own. I chose my vehicles for my own reasons. A lot of people buy Tahoes because they better fit their needs. When you say the Tahoe is "superior" in some ways, what does that mean?
IMHO, you have to decide what "type" of vehicle you want before you can start comparing individual vehicles. No one can tell you if a full size is better than a cross-over SUV - because that's a personal opinion based on individual needs.
If you want a full size SUV, then compare the Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade, Expedition, Armada, etc. If you want a cross-over then compare the Murano, CRV, MRX, FX35, etc.
Neither is better than the other, they're different. I have no problem with the Tahoe - they're nice looking vehicles, but I'd never want to own one. I have zero interest in something that big. No one is going to take offense on this board if you're looking for a feature set that the Murano doesn't offer. If you're looking to off-road and have seating for 8, then the MO simply isn't for you. That doesn't make the MO a bad vehicle, it just doesn't meet your needs. Now, if you say the Murano is a piece of junk, you might get some grief from this board. :)
You're comparing apples and oranges - you have to decide first whether you'd rather have an apple or an orange. |
|
|
|
