Nissan claims the Murano was the first crossover. Subaru claims that "honor" for the Forester. I think the first crossover was probably some variant of the Model T. Ladder frame construction or no, I'm never exactly sure what constitutes a CUV or SUV. Besides, as most truck buyers neither tow nor venture off-road, it's what semanticists call an invidious distinction. In other words, who cares? The more important question is whether or not a particular vehicle has the looks, packaging and performance it needs to survive. The new Nissan Murano must, again, still, stand on its own merits. Does it?
For 2009, Nissan has re-mixed rather than reinvented the Murano. The next gen uni-body trucklet is the same size and basic shape as the previous version. Equally important, the new Murano's turned its back on the industry trend towards bloat; it's only slightly heavier than its predecessor. And despite its generous proportions, Nissan also resisted the urge to add some kind of flip-up rear cushion and claim seven-passenger status.
In terms of artistic expression, Nissan's started to stray. The "old" Murano had more than a few "challenging" design elements. The update takes all these style points and exaggerates them. Some of the mods work. The rear glass now bows out like an astronaut's helmet. The front hood bows in, dune buggy-style, creating sensual fenders. The rear hatch's looks are color dependent; it appears slim and svelte in black, puffy and plump in white.
On the downside, Nissan did nothing to ameliorate the Murano's triangular C-pillar/blind spot. Maybe they didn't see it. But no one will miss the Murano's new, Hannibal Lector-esque front fascia. Love it or hate it, I hate it. It strikes a major discordant note in an otherwise coherent design. The website proclaims "There's no such thing as too much style." Twenty-seven lights, boxes and chevrons say otherwise.
By the same token, the Murano's cabin suffers from what the music industry calls over-production. A superabundance of creases, nooks and 
grooves evokes 80's artists' visions of future airports. The vinyl-record-sized gauges light up inside and around the edges, screaming "look at me." The center console combines vertical controls with a horizontal mini-desk and an LCD monitor. Perhaps after you've read "Nissan Murano for Dummies" it'll all make sense. I never figured out how to redirect the heater's airflow.
The materials are first class though– especially if you opt for double-stitched leather. In fact, the LE serves as a showcase for Nissan's current cache of optional features: a headline grabbing dual-plane moon roof that covers both sets of seats, mood lighting that belongs in a loft-living bachelor's pad, a power lift gate and power-fold rear seats. The optional gizmology count is also high: a 9.3-gig music hard drive, Bluetooth and iPod connectivity and a key you can leave in your pants (or are you just happy to see me?).
Nissan's blessed their crossover's VQ-series V6 power plant with another 25 horses (up to 265hp), hitched-up to Nissan's second-generation Xtronic continuously variable transmission. There's significantly more in-gear urge underfoot, and the transmission no longer feels like a giant rubber band straining to stretch (thanks in part to the more powerful engine). Better yet: the Murano's fuel economy gains one EPA mpg in the city cycle (18/23).
Despite its newfound speed, the Altima-platformed Murano's feather-light steering and body float leave no doubt that corner carvers need to step up to (and stump up for) an Infiniti EX (better platform despite similar size), or consider Mazda's CX-9. The Murano LE's 20" wheels add grip and plenty o' bling, but make for a bouncy ride over big bumps. Shod with standard 18" footwear, I can well believe Nissan's claims for increased chassis rigidity and decreased noise. Listening to the beehive transmission proved the point; I had to strain to hear it, as opposed to work to ignore it.
To verify the Murano's cold weather capabilities, I tested the CUV in both virgin snow and pre-trampled cake. For comparison sake, I ran the course in a 2007 Murano and the fully loaded 2009 tester. While the differences between past and present Muranos are slim, the 2009 is the best choice for slippery stuff. It's superbly balanced and grabbed traction with almost disappointing (for hoons) alacrity.
The Nissan Murano hasn't been doing all that well in the sales charts lately. The company skipped the '08 model year; ‘07 sales were off six percent. With its upgraded engine and interior and raft of new options, the redesigned model is a safe bet to please the Murano's fan base. Strange to say, the big question is whether or not the new nose job will attract or repel style-conscious cross-shoppers. If so, the Murano will easily weather the hard times ahead. If not, not.
Looks like it tried to transform from a car into a robot and got jammed somewhere in between…
I would give credit to the Murano as the first mainstream CUV, but the first CUV was the RX300.
In its first generation, the Murano was very attractive. Nissan rested on their laurels a bit here with the redesign, but who can blame them.
I do think they are pushing it a bit with the pricing — with options, this puppy is pushing 40, and most buyers are looking at the $300/month price point, which doesn’t match.
Good review.
Looks like Lincoln (MKS) and Nissan are sharing grille designs…I don’t know who that’s worse for.
And wasn’t the RAV4 the first CUV?
It’s hard to pinpoint the exact first CUV… I’ll go out on a limb and say mid-80’s Stanza wagon… or was that thing a Sentra? Or perhaps it was the Colt Vista 7 passenger (which I still see a few of running around). I don’t remember when the Eagle Summit (Mitsu Expo?) came out, but that might be it, too.
Then some might argue it was the Eagle… Concorde wagon? The one with 4wd, the Outback wagon 15 years too soon.
Nice review, fugly looking front, rest is okay and even good. I DON’T think it looks worse than the Lincoln MKS, Navigator. I don’t understand why someone would spend that much ugly for something so universally ugly.
Great review. Regarding the first CUV, I’m voting for the Nissan Pulsar NX with the Cammback hatch installed.
Good review of a vehicle I’ve been wondering about. I was quite impressed when I got the last gen Murano as a rental. Impressed within the constraints that it’s a semi-truck and something I’d never buy myself. However, I’m glad to see Nissan knows how to keep it’s models on message, so to say.
Ugly, ugly, ugly. If I had a dog that ugly, I’d make it walk backwards.
Dates of early U.S. market crossovers (from Wikipedia)
AMC Eagle, 1980
Subaru Outback, 1995
Toyota RAV4, 1996
Subaru Forester, 1998
Lexus RX300, 1998
Honda CR-V, 1998
Why does almost every recent Infiniti and Nissan replacement look almost exactly like its predecessor? G35, Altima, Murano…
Is Nissan afraid to take styling risks that made the first Murano a unique vehicle? Would an untrained eye even be able to tell that this one is a 2009?
Also, how about the late 80s/early 90s Honda Civic tall wagon thingy for an early crossover?
My uncle had a ’72 Hornet “Sportabout” wagon; actually a cool vehicle in its day — I believe that the AMC Eagle started with that platform.
My definition of CUV includes the following. 1 and 3 are mainly to differentiate from a station wagon:
1. Must have third row of front-facing seats.
2. Must be unibody construction and be based on another car in the manufacturer’s repertoire.
3. Must have taller suspension than the car upon which it’s based.
IMHO, the Murano is just an expensive Altima wagon.
At least Nissan fixed the dash…the instrument cluster no longer looks like it was an afterthought and was just tacked on.
ash78 said:
My definition of CUV includes the following. 1 and 3 are mainly to differentiate from a station wagon:
1. Must have third row of front-facing seats.
2. Must be unibody construction and be based on another car in the manufacturer’s repertoire.
3. Must have taller suspension than the car upon which it’s based.
1. In your terms, Honda CRV is not a CUV. Then what is it?
2. Why does it have to be based on another car? Let’s say Rav4 is a CUV. If somehow Rav4 cannibalized much of Corolla’s sales, then Toyota’s decision to discontinue Corolla would make Rav4 not a CUV. What is it, again?
3. Same as (2). If there isn’t a car from which it is based, this item does not exist.
Ah, I think you guys are focusing too much on the string, and not the puppets they’re attached to.
I still think the Murano looks like a reincarnation of the AMC Gremlin from the side. You have to squint, but I see it.
Good review.
First CUV in my book was the AMC Concorde/Eagle with 4WD…..once again, AMC was 15 years ahead of its time (the other time was with the Jelly Bean styling of the ?….can’t remember its name but it was the sky blue Wayne’s World hoopdee..)
But for the “modernist”, what about the Suzuki X90…small 2 seater with AWD, leather, hatch or targa roof? Pretty cool, but probably not terribly safe little CUV…..
What great timing! I read this review this morning, and lo and behold, saw a black-coloured copy sitting a few spots away from my car when I came back from lunch. Aesthetically, it’s a big let down from the previous generation. The grille went from “a tad gaudy” to “maybe a car-bra would cover that up some.” And the tail end went from “awkward but still somewhat attractive” to just plain awkward.
Overall (for the exterior at least), Nissan seems to have pulled a Ford Focus.
wsn
The RAV and CR-V are, in my book, just a Corolla wagon and Civic wagon. By not offering a third row, they’re lacking in the one feature that might really set them apart from the utility of the car that begat them. They come pretty close to what I deem CUV (above), but just not quite there. My mom was a two-time RAV owner, and she was in it solely for the ride height/visibility. It also helps to have available AWD, which the car versions didn’t offer.
I’m just a cynic when it comes to the CUV marketing. I want more wagons, and they’re just in the way…
CUV are always share the same platform. like the Mitsu Lancer and Outlander. Definetely should perform like a car especially on sharp curves, The Outlander performs well on those test and including the Subaru’s.
As far as I am concerned, the line between SUV and CUV is simple. If it doesn’t have a frame, it is neither a truck, nor an SUV.
I have a request for RF and team. Perhaps one of you could find out why ALL the new facia are so ugly. A good looking face is now a rarity. There has to be some excuse/reason for this trend.
Landcrusher
As far as I am concerned, the line between SUV and CUV is simple. If it doesn’t have a frame, it is neither a truck, nor an SUV.
How would you classify the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee?
If the criteria for first in North America CUV is 7 passenger seating with the very rears facing forward, then I’m going with the Dodge Colt Vista Wagon… Although very much a car, it was tall, boxy, roomy and fairly high off the ground (at least as high as a Forrester), with the 4wd option. Of course, after 100k miles, the suspension normally was sagging to low-rider status because of the extreme weight of the car. I think this one wins with that criteria. I don’t think the Mazda MPV came until 88 or 89.
You should have taken off three stars for the design of the nose alone. God, what an abomination.
I thought the older cherokee’s had frames, but I stand by where I draw the line.
For one reason, it’s a clear line. I do not believe that a CUV cannot have excellent offroad abilities. It’s likely possible to make a CUV that is better than every way to an SUV.
I have seen nothing that would otherwise make it clear what was the difference. Since no one makes a body on frame vehicle that straddles the line at all, it is a workable differentiation. Body on frame cars aren’t generally pretending to be trucks. At least not today.
I’ve driven one, but haven’t yet written up my impressions. I personally find the exterior styling a case of overproduced incoherence, and not as good as the original. I do prefer the much upgraded interior. From the driver’s seat you’ll no longer think you’re driving a minivan, and the materials are quite a bit better. Best yet in a Nissan, in fact.
The interior is much roomier than that in the EX. Seats are very comfortable. Handling is as described in the review; the previously offered sport suspension is no longer offered. Enthusiasts are being shunted over to Infiniti. The new Murano clearly targets the Lexus RX.
I’ll have pricing up for the new Murano tomorrow. (It’d be up already, but I’m using the Murano as an example to train a new hire.)
Reliability–hard to say. Most new Nissans rate about average. Some are spotty at launch, then improve later. If enough owners get involved soon enough, TrueDelta might have a result in May. August is more likely.
Details on the research:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
I’ve finally been in one (thank you car show and local Nissan dealer) – and I second Michael Karesh’s opinion…this interior and the new G35 interiors are the best Nissan has plopped into a car in quite some time. I’d like to think the 2002-era Nissans (namely the Altima and Maxima) to be the low point in interior material quality.
I’d like to pose a question to some of the engineers out there…or at least those who were better in math than I ever was! We all know that gas prices aren’t going down any time soon (or at all), yet for whatever reason car weight increases and horsepower goes up. Now, the latest trend over the past decade or so was the constant increase in wheel size. While 20 inch wheels normally give a worse ride than the 18 inch wheels, does anyone know what kind of mileage is lost with the larger wheels? If it is in terms of 2-3 mpg due to the extra weight and friction, I say dump the huge wheels and save the money at the pump.
We might be adding this Murano to the family garage, or wait a year or so and see what the next FX looks like. While I’m no fan of this grill (although the Acura MDX takes the ugh factor), the rest of it looks decent. I do like the fenders…
Nissan should hit a homerun with this.
wsn
The RAV and CR-V are, in my book, just a Corolla wagon and Civic wagon. By not offering a third row, they’re lacking in the one feature that might really set them apart from the utility of the car that begat them. They come pretty close to what I deem CUV (above), but just not quite there. My mom was a two-time RAV owner, and she was in it solely for the ride height/visibility. It also helps to have available AWD, which the car versions didn’t offer.
I’m just a cynic when it comes to the CUV marketing. I want more wagons, and they’re just in the way…
Ummmm, IIRC both the Civic Wagon and Corolla Wagons of the late 1980s were avaialble in AWD. The Civic Wagon in its last version was rather nice too with the Si engine and 4 wheel discs. You could spot the AWD Civics by their white painted steel wheels. The AWD Corolla had slightly different styling with heavier bumpers.
These cars hail from a time when people actually drove vehicles that made sense for their actual needed. Both the AWD Civics and Corolla were only available in 5spd manuals.
One other thing –
I agree with some of the posters that it seems like Nissan is playing it safe with the designs. I also think Ford takes the gold medal in terms of the “Are You Sure It Really Was Redesigned?” award.
I personally think that Nissan knows they had a massive hit with the previous Altima and Murano. They knew what had to be changed – some of the bloat in the rear, interior materials, and NVH – and left the good stuff alone. If Honda did that with the Accord, maybe they would be selling a few more!
Heck, if every car followed Toyota’s example, in 10 years, each car would be the size of a Suburban, get 8mpg, and get more and more dull as the years go by. Stop the bloat!!!
I might be 100% wrong with this part since I haven’t seen any spy shots, but I predict that the next Maxima is the car that Nissan might go wild with the redesign. It has seen sales vanish due to the G35 and better competition, so they don’t have much to lose. We’ve had Maximas (and Infiniti clones) in the family for over 20 years and I hope this isn’t the end of the road for it. Nissan – give it 300hp, standard AWD, a stick shift option to the CVT and keep it in the low-30’s. Sold…
Agree about the styling. Way overdone in front, and too much Rogue-like in the rear. Probably intentionally done for that family look. The cabin looks a lot better, however, than the first Murano’s.
Hey, you know what? Looking at it the grill reminds me a bit of the old Tribeca. Squint a bit..you’ll see it.
Why are so many auto manufacturers making a concerted effort to make ugly cars? I don’t buy the “we’re creating a niche by making people either love it or hate it.” Seriously, you have to go out of your way to make something this ugly. The grill/fascia looks like a evil hawk-robot I drew on graph paper at age 10.
Kudos for the lack of third seat. Most third seats are suitable for acrobatic midgets and acrobatic midgets only. No one else can or will get back there.
ash78: If the RAV4 is a Corolla wagon, what the hell is a Matrix? Hell, the official model name is even the Corolla Matrix, although nobody calls it that.
Main difference: AMC did not have Dr. Rapaille on the payroll.
I was glad to see that, “in the metal”, the Murano doesn’t look that bad. That nose somehow doesn’t stand out as much.
In fact, it has a rich, luxurious air to it.
And the interior blew me away in comparison to its contemporaries.
Not ugly at all for me.Unfortunately the only thing I like is the Murano but many have had so many problems with the automotive parts and service centers area. Others hate the idea of having to continue to use Nissan. They want to do a lease because they usually get sick of cars in a few years and now that the warranty is up the Maxima is costing tons of money. I keep reading reviews about squeaky breaks. If you have a Murano what do you think of it?
From those pics, it appears that the previous generation looks much better.
FWIW, the IIHS just gave the Murano the highest safety rating in its class. The Hummer H3 (I believe) scored the lowest.
Now it’s just possible that the front crash rating of the Murano was improved by the fact that the barrier, seeing that front end coming at it, slightly recoiled in horror, thus taking a “G” or so off the impact.
I don’t think it looks too bad for what it is.
CUVs really dont do anything for me, i like the EX35 but would never buy one. you can get alot of car for that price.
on a related nissan note – when are you guys going to get ahold of a GTR? Im tired of reading all the nissan advertisements from the other media outlets. “the interior is purposeful” is really just a nice way of saying “The switch gear is from an Altima”
I don’t care whatever you say about CUV or SUV.
I will never buy one in my life.
why? because of this report. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/26/autos/SUV_safety/index.htm?postversion=2008022603
Beat: the Murano reviewed here earned perfect side and rear impact scores. But you don’t care, as you said. The laws of physics still apply, therefore a larger vehicle will transfer more energy to a smaller vehicle in an impact. That’s why the NHTSA compares vehicles based on weight class. The Murano should, therefore, do pretty well in a real-world accident.
BEAT,
So what you are saying is you will NEVER by an SUV or CUV because of safety concerns you have about today’s models?
Seriously?
This car is plug ugly now and was plug ugly in its first iteration. A blight on the highways of America. The Infinity EX, which is not much better, is, nonetheless, wonderful to drive with very precise steering, flat, well-controlled cornering. I haven’t driven the Murano
My Father drives a huge Ford Truck. He’s not happy driving it because of safety concern like tipping over on high winds,too much gas,hard to park, etc etc but he has no choice because he’s a contractor/construction worker and need a vehicle to load his tools.
He spent almost $80.00 a week for gas. He is planning to take his truck to that kid that converts gas engine to that cooking oil engine (lol).
I think that kid lives in Massachusetts.
My dad is still planning but not sure if he is going to convert his truck to Bio-Fuel.
I bought a Murano when it was introduced in 03. It was a luxury bargain, giving me a supurb Bose stereo, bi-xenon, leather with power and memory, AWD, 18 wheels, etc…All that for an out the door price of under 30k.
Some said it had small cargo area, but I found it to be adequate. I enjoyed the engine but I never got used to that CVT. Almost everyday I would think to myself, this thing is so weird. It performed reliably throughout my lease. And speaking of leasing, I’m sure glad I did, that baby depreciated like crazy.
Comments on the new one…the main idea is still there, “out there” design, up to date features, but the price is no longer a bargain.
I’d like to pose a question to some of the engineers out there…or at least those who were better in math than I ever was! We all know that gas prices aren’t going down any time soon (or at all), yet for whatever reason car weight increases and horsepower goes up.
We only do what the marketing tell’s us to do.
Remember “The Homer”?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/The_Homer_by_Carlos_Bisquertt.jpg
How did that nose make it past quality control?
Nice interior though.