Little Land Bruisers: 1998 Compact SUVs Compared

From the May 1998 issue of Car and Driver.

“To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” —Sir Isaac Newton

Newton’s 311-year-old law works out­side the physics lab. Consider the President’s job-approval ratings following the Lewinsky, uh, exposure, or the explo­sion of I-Hate-Gates websites in the wake of Microsoft’s runaway marketing suc­cess.

Newton’s law also works in the auto industry. Take, for example, sport-utility vehicles. As they gobble up an ever-larger share of the U.S. market—last year, sport­-utes accounted for a record 16 percent of car and light-truck sales—reaction against them is mounting. Greens have begun railing against their higher carbon-dioxide emissions and their fuel-hungry natures. Now it has been discovered by the insurance industry that in all crashes between pickups or sport-utes and cars, people in cars are four times more likely than people in trucks to wind up dead. (Our favorite stat: If a big pickup plows into your little car from the side, guess what? You are 27 times more likely to meet your maker than they are—surprise, surprise! The real stat: 90 percent of all accidents are caused by driver error.) Some insurance companies are charging more for SUV policies, citing the added damage these trucks inflict on other vehicles.

Car buyers have been responding to these concerns. A market is currently blooming for smaller, less-expensive sport-utility vehicles that combine the advantages of a big SUV—stout-looking wagon bodywork, a high driving position, and trendy four-wheel drive—with the lighter, better-handling, and more fuel-­efficient characteristics of a car.

The 1996 Toyota RAV4 was the first SUV based on a car platform to enjoy widespread sales success on both sides of the Pacific. Its popularity quickly attracted me-too vehicles to the market, like the Civic-based Honda CR-V, the Impreza­-based Subaru Forester, and several more that are still on Big Three drawing boards. Even before Toyota’s RAV4, Korean carmaker Kia turned out a vehicle that had a slightly larger sport-ute body riding on a truck-style frame, which sold at an econocar price. The Jeep Cherokee and the Suzuki Sidekick / Chevy Tracker models are neither car-derived nor carlike in their ride and handling, but they fit the size and price class.

To see which of these little utes struck the best balance between sport and utility, we sounded the call for a roundup. Invited were five-door models (the Jeep, the Kia, and the Toyota are available with three doors), sporting four-wheel drive (all but the Subaru are available in two-wheel­-drive form) and five-speed manual trans­missions. The price cap was set at $21,000, but inopportune optioning caused the Forester, the CR-V, and the RAV4 to creep over that limit. We excused the lame-duck Sidekick/Tracker from our test as an all-­new model is just around the corner.

We drove these utes 1300 miles over all kinds of roads in central and southern California. We maneuvered them through the sometimes steep, always crowded streets of San Francisco and opened them up on the flats and gently rolling hills of Interstate 5. We coaxed them up the breathless climb to Dante’s View a mile above Death Valley and hurled them through the dusty, tight turns of 20 Mule Team Road, which snakes through one of the valley’s many abandoned borax mines.

Off-road, we spent a half-day powering our little sport-utes around Dumont Dunes southeast of Death Valley. This pic­turesque series of arid, dusty flats and tow­ering sand mountains has long been a play­ground for off-roaders and car-advertising photographers.

Finally, we put them all through our standard battery of performance tests. Here’s how these little land bruisers fared.

5th Place: Jeep Cherokee SE

One look at the Cherokee’s narrow, boxy body and tall wheels and tires, and you know this SUV is different. The Cherokee first appeared 14 years ago, and it’s the original compact five-door sport-­ute. Perhaps envisioning this more modest SUV market that indeed thrives today, Chrysler continued to build this Cherokee after its intended replacement—the larger and much grander Grand Cherokee­—appeared in 1992. Last year, the Cherokee’s styling was updated mildly and it was given dual airbags, but the Cherokee is not a custom fit in the tall-car, light-off-roading market that the RAV4 helped create, which might explain its last-­place showing.

HIGHS: Handsome, square­-shouldered body; stout-­feeling driveline with lots of torque for off-roading; slick shifter.
LOWS: Cramped front and rear quarters, mysterious handling in bad weather, annoying engine whine, excessive plastic inside.
VERDICT: A rugged implement for off-roaders, a bit crude for everyone else.

You’re reminded of the Cherokee’s age the moment you climb in. The inte­rior is narrow and confining, and from the front, the view out is curtailed by a relatively small windshield. The back doors are narrow, making entry and egress more difficult. Stark-looking plastic dominates the interior, including the dashboard, which shares many parts with the Cherokee’s spartan Wrangler sibling. The Cherokee feels old when you drive it, too. It takes 12 seconds for the cast-iron, 2.5-liter four-cylinder to summon 60 mph. The four-cylinder revs easily despite its humble pushrods (the other wagons all have double overhead cams), but an annoying engine whine takes most of the fun out of winding it out. At least the five-speed manual trans­mission is satisfyingly precise.

The Cherokee steers and rides better than we expected for a vehicle with rigid front and rear axles. It felt quite maneu­verable and stable in the emergency-lane­-change test. Its steering is vague and uncommunicative, though, in the rain at highway speeds. The Cherokee was unre­markable in the sand, but its high ground clearance, low-range transfer case, and high-torque engine make it an excellent choice in really rough terrain. Jeep expects that a fourth of its Cherokee customers will go off-road, and that’s a higher percentage than the other four manufacturers expect.

The Cherokee’s $18,615 base price includes air conditioning but few other creature comforts. At $19,725, our test truck lacked a tach and power windows and power locks, but it included a limited­-slip differential, skid plates, and a full-size spare in keeping with its true mission as a Rubicon Trail runner.

The Cherokee’s spartan simplicity sug­gested an appealing ruggedness to some editors while to others it just felt crude. More of that appeal might have poked through with the $995 optional six-­cylinder engine. But unless you’re a serious off-roader, one of the four other vehicles would probably make a better choice.

1998 Jeep Cherokee SE
125-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3380 lb
Base/as-tested price: $18,615/$19,725
C/D TEST RESULTS
30 mph: 3.2 sec
60 mph: 12.0 sec
1/4 mile: 18.6 sec @ 71 mph
90 mph: 58.2 sec
Braking, 70­-0 mph: 212 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.70 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg

4th Place: Kia Sportage

If there’s a middle-of-the-road approach to building a small SUV, Kia took it with the Sportage. The exterior­—revised for 1998 with a new grille and headlamps—is cute, but its simple lines border on generic. There is no tricky auto­matic four-wheel-drive system—just a simple two-speed transfer case, although the hubs now lock and unlock themselves automatically. The system is engaged with a lever on the floor, as in the Cherokee. The roomy interior has a new dash for 1998 but still offers few frills—no folding table or reclining rear seat or clever storage compartments or cargo tie-downs—just five comfortable seats, all with a nice view out big windows. This is the Korean approach to car- and truck­-building—get the basics down, and take few risks. The payoff is a rock-bottom base price—$16,845. Our test truck’s $18,554 as-tested price was also the lowest of the pack.

HIGHS: Airy interior, king­-of-the-road eating posi­tion, cute bod, low base price.
LOWS: Syrupy accelera­tion; heavy, numb steering; floppy accelerator pedal; needs more suspension control.
VERDICT: A small­ SUV bargain that too often feels like it.

The Sportage never quite escaped that cost-cutter feel, though. The engine is a modern design with double overhead cams and competitive power and torque ratings, but its acceleration was the slowest of the group’s. “Underpowered,” wrote Webster.

“The engine feels like the flywheel is four sizes too big.” Its fuel economy is only a little better than the low-tech Cherokee’s. The Kia felt nimble and composed on San Francisco’s crowded streets, and the editors all liked the high-up seating posi­tion. More than one driver complained about the Sportage’s heavy, somewhat numb steering on I-5, though. The Kia lacks roll and shock control, and its Uniroyal tires serve up the least amount of grip of the five vehicles here, making the Kia the clumsiest and slowest performer in the emergency lane change. “Sloppy, with little roll control,” wrote the test driver.

Bounding around on the sand at Dumont Dunes, the Kia’s body structure felt the most flexible of the group. Its long wheelbase and lack of a limited-slip differential helped get it stuck atop a sand dune, too.

Other niggles noted in the logbook: The accelerator-pedal spring lacks resistance, so your leg gets tired on long drives. There is also no remote release for the rear hatch, and the radio buttons are about the size of a baby’s toenails. Addressing these short­comings would expand the appeal of this Kia. Still, the Sportage remains a compe­tent little wagon in most respects, and it should satisfy those on a tight budget. It’s just that a couple of grand extra buys a lot more wagon in this group, which would explain the Kia’s fourth-place finish.

1998 Kia Sportage
130-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 3320 lb
Base/as-tested price: $16,845/$18,554
C/D TEST RESULTS
30 mph: 4.2 sec
60 mph: 12.8 sec
1/4 mile: 19.1 sec @ 72 mph
90 mph: 38.7 sec
Braking, 70­-0 mph: 202 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.63 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg