A little behind-curtain action for you: When I finished with the 2008 Nissan Murano, I asked Farago if he was interested in a "Take Two" review. He wasn't. As I had even less interest in writing one ("Ride is softer than butter… no! Softer than veal fat"), I didn't. Why waste time insulting a fat pig when I can be losing hundreds of dollars at online poker? As you can imagine, I wasn't exactly doing cartwheels when the Nissan Rogue showed up. For all I knew it was a half-pint version of its (uglier) big brother. And a CVT, too? I was upset. But was I right?
Certainly not in the looks department. Whereas the Murano has simply gone off the goofy-looking tracks, the Rogue is cute. Look at that face– you know your mother loves it. While not quite as Pokémon as other Japanese cars (hello Miata), the gawking headlights, trapezoidal Nissan badge area and Eli Manning mouth give the compact soft roader a definitive– if not distinctive– face. The Rogue's size helps. Or rather, lack there of. This is the first SUV-ish vehicle in a long time where I could see over the roof (I'm about 6' in heels). Just like kittens, smaller equals cuter. My only real gripe is with the Muranoized rear quarter windows. They ain't cute and do nothing but create irritating blind spots.
I won't lie to you: this is not the nicest interior in the world. But the Rogue won't lie to you either. There's no fake wood or carbon fiber and just one strip of fake aluminum per door. You won't even notice the latter. Starting with the bad, I really disenjoyed the front seats. They reminded me of furniture I used to take from peoples' lawns in college. And a Toyota Corolla.
The switchgear feels typical for the segment, meaning hollow and derived from petroleum. Same holds true for the plastic covering the dash and other surfaces. It's simply not Nissan's finest hour, especially in light of the fact that the Altima Coupe's interior is their finest hour. That said, the steering wheel was lifted from Datsun 280Z — just wonderful.
Everyone knows that few makers can build a V6 as well as Nissan. So color me surprised that the 2.5-liter four-cylinder in the Rogue feels hewn from the same superlative stock. Peppy and potent, the DOHC mill spins-up eagerly to its 6,250 rpm redline where it's generating 170 honest hp. Even better: the twisting grunt (175 lb-ft of torque at 4,400 rpm). Certainly not world beating (or even class-leading)– until you realize that the Rogue weighs just 3,267 pounds. Drop your revisionist protestations; in 2008 that's light for any car. Which means the Rogue is quick.
At this point, you are probably upset about two things: 1) peak torque so high up in the rev range and 2) the Continuously Variable Transmission. To address the first issue, the motor spools-up so fast that you're in the power sweet spot almost instantly. As for the latter, I still experienced the same blue balls-inducing coitus interruptus effect that you get with all CVTs (save the rule-proving exception Lexus LS600hL). It's just not as upsetting. One of the big reasons is that the Rogue is actually powerful enough to avoid rocketing from 1,500 to 6,000 rpm at the slightest hint of incline. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the CVT isn't awful. Unless you're reversing up a hill. Then it is.
We've established the Rogue's quickness, but is it fleet of foot? Why yes, it certainly is. To me, this was the most surprising aspect of my time with the car. However, as I based my pre-conceived notions of Nissan CUVs on nothing but the Murano's grotesque, oafish ways, what was I supposed to think? Regardless, the Rogue feels young. Imagine a nine-month-old Labrador puppy. Forget that it's little more than a Sentra on stilts. It certainly has. When pressed to press-car limits you'll realize the Rogue's ultimate objective is understeer. But driving around most of the corners like most of the people most of the time, the Rogue is neutral, balanced and sporty. I'm as shocked as you.
Unlike the RAV4 and CRV that have become bloated, over-engined caricatures of their former svelte (and practical) selves, the Rogue is a surprisingly fresh little ride. In fact, the last time I recall liking a small trucklette this much was the first generation Honda CRV. Beating on a cliché, less is even more as I averaged more than the advertised 27 highway mpg. Tops in safety tests, too. If sitting high is your main criteria when selecting a vehicle, have I got a smart choice for you.
Nice. My dad wants one of these things, even after i told him it’s a Sentra (Sunny in Japan) on stilts.
Good review Johnny….I always enjoy reading your reviews!
Yuck (the car not the review).
Nice read, Johnny. Thanks.
The review of the Forester XT isn’t a glowing reccomendation, yet this review certainly is.
Johnny, I was wondering how you thought the Rogue compares to a base model Forester?
I really disenjoyed the front seats.
Disenjoyed?
Looks like this is something I can recommend to people I know looking for small SUVs.
I’m surprised by 4 stars, but even more surprised by the characterization of the CR-V as “over-engined.” As far as I know, it has a 2.4L I-4 producing ~170hp. About the same as the Rouge.
If anything, Honda has been praised for keeping the CR-V small and not growing it to the extent the vehicle needs a V-6 to get out of its own way.
Looks like a very attactive vehicle for the price. I think Nissan’s timing is “spot-on”.
I think that as far as CVT’s go, the combo with Nissan’s 2.5 is well-matched for the best of both worlds – superior mileage, and little performance deficit.
I’d also disagree with the statement about the the Gen 3 CR-V. While it lost a little of its practicality (and affordability) compared to the Gen 2 CR-V, after spending 24 hours in a 2009 CR-V, it’s still a right sized runabout (a Compact Runabout Vehicle, in fact – a little acronym trivia for you) with a super silky 4 – no V6 available. And loaded with options, it’s a fine car for the young ‘uns at the country club.
I like the looks of the Rogue. I don’t like the trend mentioned about the useless rear windows which compromise both visibility and usually dictates little cargo space (which also affects the new CR-V, but to a lesser degree).
So what is this car in relation to the Nissan Qashqai that is sold in europe? It’s a pretty successful cute-ute here. Did they change the name because Qashqai sounds like some terrorist cell? Or are the two different enough to have different names?
And if anyone has any info, what are the links to the Renault-Nissan global platforms? Does it share any bits with the Megane?
How about an SE-R version with the VQ V6, huge tailpipes and a blocky bodykit?
…Just kidding.
I like it, the Rogue and your review. Any thoughts on the 2009 Forester?
A cousin of mine recentyl picked up one of these. He’s married with a 1 year old and thinks he has found the perfect vehicle to fit his needs.
I took an extended drive in it and came away very impressed. I thought it nicely appointed inside and out (considering the price and that his was the absolute base model). But the biggest surprise was that I actually found it fun to drive – CUV ride height and CVT tranny notwithstanding. “Eager and responsive” was not the turn of phrase I was expecting to use, but there you have it.
No wonder I am seeing them bloody well everywhere.
The Rogue is a nice little vehicle. I’m sure the anti-SUV crowd still would hate on it, but 27mpg highway is better than what Impreza hatch owners make do with, AND better than what Suzuki SX-4 owners put up with.
What is REALLY surprising is how favorably it is reviewed compared to the Sentra.
I hated this CVT less than the one in the Mitsubishi Lancer, but not by much.
Now can we get them to lower this car 3-4 inches to create a decent Mazda 3s 5-door competitor? I, along with many others, really don’t need the totally useless and unnecessary lift job for an obviously on-road-only ostensibly sporty car.
mx5bob
Me too I hate CVT. just not my style. They said Nissan got the worst CVT.
Mitsubishi CVT is still new but the transmission on the Evo X does not have a reverse gear but it CAN reverse. I am still scratching my head how Mitsu did that on their car.
consumer hasn’t really took a great deal on looking at the Rogue. It looks great when your near it but when you see it on the freeway or motorway. You will have a second opinion. the body style is just not right. it’s too high and narrow body. IT IS REALLY AWKWARD to look at it from afar.
The RAV 4 looks better, TO TELL YOU FRANKLY
I also disagree with the comments on the CR-V being “over-engined” and “bloated”, as it has a smaller engine than the Rogue and is basically the same in dimensions – actually shorter length and wheelbase, while being slightly wider and taller (less than 1″ each).
This marks the return of the good old fashioned mini Jap station wagon.
Dear TTAC Readers: I’m very sorry I said the CR-V is “over-engined.” I was thinking of my brother-in-law’s RAV4 at the time and typed too hastily. If I wasn’t Jewish, I’d have already done 35 Hail Marys. Please forgive me.
If you could please turn your attention to ANY OTHER aspect of my review, I’d appreciate it.
Hugs & Kisses — Jonny –
This car is really loud, not good for road trips, but I guess the nice stereo makes up for that.
Oh Jonny, no need to apologize to anybody that you may have insulted somebody. I do that, unintentionally, all the time and just have to roll with the punches.
Nice review. I’ve always like Nissan/Datsun engines. I wondered a bit about Nissan’s switch to CVT transmissions for all their automatic transmissions. Sounds like they did a pretty good job getting rid of the quirks generally associated with CVTs. As I’m not a big fan of anything-UV, there are people out there who actually need these cars.
I do like the configuration of the Honda CR-V but for some reason, not the Forester (after actually driving one). The Nissan never even entered my mind as something to look at. This review has enlightened me…a bit. But still probably won’t buy one.
BTW..it’s been such a long time since I’ve seen a 280Z, I don’t remember what that steering wheel looked like.
The ride, power and tranny may very well be all Johnny says it is, but this vehicle suffers from the sin of being completely forgettable. Its shaped as yet another jellybean, and how is that a good thing? Yes the Murano is ugly, but it’s forceful and distinctive in its ugliness. You won’t forget that face anytime soon. The Rogue? If I wasn’t such a car nut, I’d have no idea what it was if I saw it on the street. Would I even notice it at all?
Toyotas are bland, but they have a long-lived rep of reliability to underscore their blandness. Nissan, not so much…
Johnny, or maybe Frank, do you know how the Rogue is selling? and how that compares to Nissan’s sales goals?
Somewhere along the way it seems Jonny got bitten by the SUV bug. I couldn’t even get excited about the X6 I finally drove today, so it goes without saying that the Rogue didn’t do a lot for me. Though at least the Rogue doesn’t feel massive, just tall, and–as Jonny notes–not terribly tall. More crossover tall than SUV tall.
If you insist on the stilts, I suppose the Rogue handles with agility, and with less slop and sway than the Subaru Forester. Though I can’t fathom why they positioned the battery so high and forward. Not for balanced handling…
I can attest to the Rogue’s reliability. Some first-year Nissans haven’t been so hot (Altima, G35, Versa). But TrueDelta has a large group of Rogue owners participating in its surveys, and they’ve reported very few repairs.
http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php
akitadog:
I don’t have sales figures in front of me, but I believe the Rogue is selling very well. This whole segment is on fire, and despite a late arrival the Rogue has managed to cut through the clutter.
The lack of rear and rear side visibility of the Rogue kills it for me.
Forester beats this.
Patriot if I want something less expensive.
virages wrote:
Did they change the name because Qashqai sounds like some terrorist cell?
And it sounds too much like “Cash cow”.
My SUV of choice right now is the Rouge’s older sibiling, the X-Trail. The one that was imported to Canada but not to the US for some reason. What attracted me to the X-Trail in the first place was the fact that it looked like a “classic” SUV. Similar boxy lines akin to the Jeep Chereokee, etc. Sure it’s not striking or memorable, but really how many cars out there are these days? If you want something memorable, go for a Koenigsegg.
I have a 2005 LE model of the X-Trail and honestly I love the vehicle. I need to have something that can drive on a construction site, but I really hate driving large vehicles and have no need for a huge beast that can traverse arctic tundra.
While, like the Rogue, the interior isn’t exactly stunning, it’s better than a lot of vehicles out on the market. The 2.5L 175 hp 4-banger is the same, mated to a 4-speed slushbox in this case, is really quite zippy. Definately the little brother of the famous Nissan V6’s. Build quality is excellent. After 108,000km, the only a faulty oxygen sensor required replacement (covered under warranty), other than the usual expendable parts. The all wheel drive system is pretty competent too, it has got me through deep snow and realtively muddy areas in the past.
After sitting in a Rogue, the only thing I can’t believe they didn’t bring over from the X-Trail was the sun roof. The thing is freaking huge. It goes all the way back to the 2nd row of seats. It feels like driving in a convertable.
So what is this car in relation to the Nissan Qashqai that is sold in europe?…Or are the two different enough to have different names?
It’s related, but not the same. They share the Sentra/Megane platform, but the floorplan, chassis and interior are different. The Qashqai is lower, shorter and narrower, but also has an optional third row, oddly.
Did they change the name because Qashqai sounds like some terrorist cell?
North Americans are wusses when it comes to names. You’ll see people in forums whining and complaining about the name of an otherwise totally servicable vehicle because “it’s stupid” and how they’d never buy a var because of the name on the decklid. Yet naming a softly-sprung waste of sheetmetal that has no business racing an “Impala”, “Sebring” or “Bonneville” poses no issue.
Remember the ribbing that VW takes for Routan and Tiguan? Heck, people have trouble with “Yaris”.
It must be about the same as the Qashqai (?!?) that’s sold over here. At first I thought it was identical but now I’ve seen it again I think the front and rear styling is a little bit different.
What is harder to judge however is, is it actually any bigger than the Kwetzal? In Europe this has a 1.6 or 2.0 (CVT) I4 or a 2.2 diesel, and there is also a slightly bigger version with extra seats as of recent…
I thought CR-V stood for Compact Recreational Vehicle, unless Honda changed it since it first came out.
First of all, it would be nice if you post an “as tested” price so we could all get an idea of exactly how much the crate would cost if we bought it as is.
Secondly, I know Nissan makes some zippy rides – even the Armada SE, but they seem to be unrepentently certain of themselves with all that damn plastic inside.
Flashpoint: I did.
$22,630.
Where is the cupholder review? No car in USA should get 4 stars without bitchen cupholders….
*yes, I am bitter*
Jonny Lieberman wears heels?
“Did they change the name because Qashqai sounds like some terrorist cell?”
…
What?
mikeolan :
August 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The Rogue is a nice little vehicle. I’m sure the anti-SUV crowd still would hate on it, but 27mpg highway is better than what Impreza hatch owners make do with
I would have to disagree with that. I drive a 2008 Impreza 5m to work and back (100 miles) and I’m getting 29-30 mph at 70 mph and it only has about 1,500 miles on it.
brapoza
My dad recently picked up a Rogue to replace his 2000 Infiniti QX4. The QX4 wasn’t terribly well-equipped for all its luxury intentions, wasn’t terribly fast, and was quite a pig with fuel. Although the new car cost will out do his fuel savings, he got a nice new vehicle under a warm-fuzzy premice. I still think the final-gen QX4 is one of the most handsome SUVs ever created (and yes, I know they’re a rebadged/cosmetically altered Pathfinder).
But back to the Rogue, it’s a nice ride. When it debuted, I was hung up on the fact that the Rogue offers only 8 cubic feet more cargo space (with rear seats folded) than a Versa (!), but once you get over the fact that a RAV4 and CR-V are far more spacious, the Rogue presents itself as a great CUV contender.
From the short drives I’ve taken, it feels peppy, light, and even tossable. Count me in as a CVT fan, too, so I like how it accelerates. The 2.5L is as refined as Honda’s 2.4L offering, and I didn’t find the interior to be offensive, either. it’s straightforward and functional.
Like another commentor said, though, someone needs to step up and go toe-to-toe with the Mazda3. In my experience, the automaker most likely to be up to that challenge would be Nissan. Completely scrap the disappointing-since-1995 Sentra and start over on what is essentially a low-slung Rogue wagon. It would likely have performance to rival the 3 and might even be more efficient.
Anyway, cheers to Nissan for making such a great CUV.
It’s good for me as a Nissan sales rep to see reviews like this because they are an effective sales tool. Those of us in the reality-based community appreciate honest and thorough appraisals of our products and I thank you for your review.
What I don’t get is where you found a 2008 Nissan Murano- Nissan went directly from the 2007 model year to 2009. What you’re describing does not exist except in the imagination of people who would find Muranos to be “soft as veal fat.” Maybe you mistook the RX series Lexus for a Murano.
In any case, you will have an easier time finding a 1983 Corvette than an ’08 Murano- try the Bowling Green museum.
So is there any talk of them adding a navigation system to this model as an option?
I was at a dealer a few weeks ago and they were putting in your everyday store-bought navigation system into one of these.
Tom Mullikin:
It was the new, horribly deformed Murano — an ’09, I guess.
cute? too cute. it needs to look more like its japanese version (i believe) – the dualis.
much nicer
I want to like this vehicle, I really do want to like it, but I can’t get over plain-ness of it. It’s stark, but not in a purposeful way. I can’t put my finger on it, maybe it’s because everyone else has blinged up their designs. Maybe it’s the soft curves. Maybe it’s the not-so-pretty-sister-of-’03 G35 face. . . . or the rump that looks so Hyundai Santa Fe-ish. A dozen other CUV’s/cars come to mind when I look at it rather than the Murano, which probably isn’t what Nissan had intended.
It’s a better handler and more economical that the Escape/Mariner twins, but somehow their designs seem more appealing to me. The interiors of btoh use similar quality materials, but the Nissan’s seem less artful.
Maybe a prolonged test drive will sway me. . . .
I GOT TO TELL YOU THE ROGUE LOOKS LIKE A CUTE BABY MURANO AND WITH THE PRICE OF GAS GOING UP I THOUGHT I MADE A GOOD DECSION BUT ITS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES I HAVE MADE, I USED TO BE A TECH AND I KNOW WHATS NORMAL AND ABNORMAL VIBRATIONS. IT TOOK ME 6 MONTHS AND HAD TO FILE A CASE WITH THE BBB AND NISSAN STILL CLAIMED IT WAS NORMAL.IT WAS A BINDING AXLE SHAFT, IF YOU FEEL VIBRATIONS AND THE DEALER SAYS ITS NORMAL HAVE THEM PUT IT ON A HOST, OFF THE GROUND AND PUT IT IN DRIVE TO CHECK IT OUT. I HAVE A VIDEO OF WHATS IT SHOULD NOT DO