The Honda CR-V is the best selling small SUV in America; recent time in some of its competitors prompted this round up. All are excellent vehicles and are more than up to the task of handling the role normally filled by more profligate—in size and price—midsize crossovers or traditional body-on-frame SUVs. The myriad ways each can be configured makes comparing them a bit more difficult, so we’ll talk in more generalities than we would normally.

EXTERIOR/INTERIOR DESIGN
While by its very nature a subjective issue, we can comment on how people respond to these crossovers. The Honda CR-V divides opinion like many of the firm’s recent offerings; some find its ‘face’ odd, and its coupe-like window framing sits a bit uneasily with its actual roof shape. In contrast, the Mitsubishi Outlander’s sharply beveled appearance draws universal praise, though it only looks correctly proportioned on the optional larger wheels.

Subaru’s Forester has taken a quantum leap forward in visual appeal; it no longer looks tall and tippy, and its details are pleasantly resolved. For 2009 Toyota freshened the RAV4’s nose a bit; while hardly a dramatic departure, there wasn’t anything wrong to begin with. Like the Honda, it suffers somewhat by its very success; with so many on the road, it doesn’t stand out visually any more.

Inside, the differences aren’t truly significant. All are roomy for four (the optional third rows in the Mitsu and Toyota are useful only for young children and/or dwarves). The Honda and Toyota are typical for their brand: logical controls, usefully arranged. The Outlander has more style, and the most supportive seats and best steering wheel of the bunch. All are decently assembled, though predominantly of hard, scratch-prone plastics.

PERFORMANCE/BRAKES
Everything here but the CR-V is available with more than one engine option. Luckily, the Honda’s 2.4-liter, 166hp four-cylinder is smooth and refined, and has enough torque not to feel flaccid. But it never delivers stellar economy; an average of 21-22mpg in mixed use is nothing spectacular.

It is much better than the Mitsubishi’s four-banger, which—though rated at about the same power—feels lethargic. And, since it only comes hooked to a simply atrocious continuously variable transmission (CVT), it is unacceptably noisy and harsh as well. Though it returns similar fuel economy to the Honda, it is best avoided. A much better bet it the Outlander’s 220hp 3-liter V6. Driving through a responsive six-speed auto with paddle shifts, it boasts much better acceleration while still returning 19-20mpg.

As good as it is though, Toyota’s 3.5-liter six simply blows it away, rocketing the RAV4 to sixty in just over six seconds, while getting the same economy. For ’09 its standard four-cylinder powerplant is enlarged in size, yielding 179hp and 172lb-ft of torque. Despite still having only four speeds in its tranny, it always feels strong, and runs out in the low to mid-20s on economy.

Typically, Subaru goes its own way; all Foresters are propelled by 2.5-liter four-cylinder ‘boxer’ engines, wherein the cylinders are arranged—like Porsche’s Boxster, Cayman, and 911—in a horizontally opposed manner to better integrate with the standard all-wheel drive system and lower the vehicle’s center of gravity.

The normally aspirated version is rated at 170hp—though it never feels it. Whether paired with a 5-sp manual or 4-sp automatic, it runs weakly, and there’s little benefit at the pump, where the Suby returns 22-23mpg consistently when you clutch it yourself, less with the slushbox. The Forester XT solves the power issue by bolting on a turbo, turning this into one seriously quick crossover—equal to the RAV4 at sea level, much quicker as the air thins out at higher altitude. Subaru does need to add a gear or two to its automatic—especially as it’s the only transmission offered with the 244hp XT, exacerbating the mild turbo lag.

All offer decent to strong braking performance and ABS. They also all now come standard with stability control and a raft of airbags.

RIDE/HANDLING
Simply put, the Subaru does it best; the company’s offroad rally racing heritage pays off here, with a supple long-travel setup that soaks up urban blight better than the others. The non-turbo models are a touch soft in response, though accurate, feelsome steering makes placing them in the corners easy once one acclimates to the roll angles. The XT’s stiffer settings give a nigh-on perfect blend of neutral handling acumen and smooth ride.

The CR-V offers only one chassis calibration, that’s right down the middle; never objectionable, but never inspiring either. It does, however, preserve Honda’s notable reputation for accurate and precise steering.

The Mitsubishi helm has good feel too, but suffers from torque steer in V6 guise—more on this in a moment. It suspension tuning is more athletic. On the base model’s 16” wheels it’s fine, while the upper models’ 18” footwear transmit more vibration and harshness into the cabin. Since the Outlander’s structure feels so rigid, it never becomes too bothersome; that said, it is noisier on the highway than the others.

If the Toyota is a Sports model, it feels just like the Outlander: stiff but fun—though quieter at speed. As the company offers many varieties of RAV4, one can always choose the suppler Limited or base versions to take the edge off. All suffer in steering feel due to a reliance on electric assistance.

The Subaru is only available with all-wheel drive, which is part of the company’s brand DNA. The others can be had in front-drive form. The Mitsubishi is alone in allowing one to switch between two or four powered wheels; this allows a 1mpg or so fuel savings on dry roads—though at the price of the aforementioned steering wheel tug.

PRACTICALITY/FEATURES
All four are honest workhorses: enough ground clearance for fire-roads and light-duty offroading (though only the Subaru offers optional skid plates). None are up to hard chargin’ off the black stuff. But that’s not what they’re intended for, anyway. They’re all commodious and comfortable for urban and highway running; getting one to the slopes or trailhead in an efficient manner. The RAV4’s side-opening rear door makes cargo loading easy—but only from one side. It’s sliding second row seats (also available on the Mitsu) make it easy to configure the Toyota’s well-shaped, voluminous cargo area. The Outlander has a hatch and fold-down tailgate, which proves surprisingly useful. The CR-V and Forester have conventional, top-hinged rear hatches; Honda adds a well thought-out cargo management system.

Good audio and nav options are conspicuous in the Mitsubishi and Toyota; while the Subaru’s optional nav is good, it’s stereo is a joke; not only does it sound like rubbish, but the radio has trouble pulling in stations the others manage to grab with ease. Honda’s isn’t much better. Goodies like heated power seats, leather, moonroofs, back up cameras, keyless go, and remote start are pretty much available in all, for a price.

VALUE
Which brings us to the value equation. A loaded, leather-lined V6 Outlander stickers for roughly the same as a four-cylinder RAV4 that lacks such basic niceties as a leather-wrapped wheel or two-stage heated seats. But—like the Honda—the Toyota is almost certain to hold a greater percentage of its resale value than the Mitsubishi.

All four should be very reliable and dependable into high mileages (Mitsubishi has won the world’s toughest race, the Paris-Dakar rally, more times than anyone), so there’s no real risk issue there. Conventional wisdom would have one go with the most established names: Honda CR-V or Toyota RAV4. While there’s no rational reason not to do so, the Mitsubishi Outlander and Subaru Forester—when equipped with their more potent engine options—offer more charming and charismatic drives.

PRICE AS TESTED (AWD):
2009 HONDA CR-V EX-L NAVI: $29,465
2009 MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER 3.0 XLS: $31,705
2009 SUBARU FORESTER XT LIMITED: $30,690
2009 TOYOTA RAV4 SPORT (4-cyl): $30,938

Send article as PDF to