Funny.....I spent a fair amount of time not only just thinking about it, but driving it, and I still had the contents of the meals I ate that day in my stomach.

 

My quick answer: I haven't seen a vehicle yet that fails in EVERY way...though a few come close (1987 Excel, 1984 Fiero, 1987 Yugo, 1971 Vega, 1981 Cimarron)

 

The 4x4 is very good. Good acceleration and takes turns great.

I like the trunk space and the hidden compartments. Looks wise, I think it's fine. Much better than the Toyota Venza - again, I saw both in person. Anyone who thinks the Crosstour is ugly is comparing it to...what? The Venza? The Venza is an eyesore compared to the Crosstour inside and out.

 

I read somewhere that the 4x4 setup in the Crosstour is one of it's weak points. Unlike a fulltime AWD setup like Subaru, it has the cheap Honda system that is fulltime FWD and only engages the rear wheels after slipping is sensed on the front wheels. The Honda system supposedly saves weight and fuel, but is of limited benefit except for low speed traction.

 

Saw it in person recently took a picture honestly it's not as bad as the Honda offficial pictures, but I don't see myself buying one. The rear cargo hold doesn't seem very useful for my needs.

 

Both, IMO, are somewhat of an eyesore compared to the new Outback (though the Outback headlights are weird)....and the Outback has a better AWD system and far better vision out the back than either the Venza or Crosstour. The Crosstour, however, beats them both for overall build quality....and it shows very little cost-cutting in materials.

 

Toyota and Honda, as I understand it, both use the same AWD systems, except in the AWD Toyota hybrids which have electric motors on the rear wheels. As you note, it's basically a FWD system until the front wheels slip, then it cuts in the rears. One thing I've always liked about the Subaru systems is their simplicity and efficiency. The Subaru boxer engines have a low center of gravity and have an output shaft that comes straight back behind the engine, without the need for the extra bevel-gears used in transverse-engine AWD systems that add weight and complexity. The Subaru AWD systems are also more balanced in weight-distribution. Unfortunately, Subaru, in most of its newest models, while keeping the Symmetrical AWD system, has chosen to do away with the excellent LSD (limited-slip rear differential) and substitute an electronic torque-distributuion system instead. While lighter and cheaper than an LSD, I'm not (yet) convinced it works as well in slick conditions.

 

I agree.............I wouldn't necessarily describe it as ugly. Like the BMW 550i GT, it's more of an awkward look than true ugliness.

 

it's always never that bad in person. sadly people will get used to it. just like people got used to CRV.

 

Please stop posting pics or I'll have to put a NWS warning in the title

 

Come on, Mike. CAR CHAT is filled with pictures of lots-worse looking vehicles than the Crosstour. For one, check out the new Acura TL and ZDX.

 

to fix the front, the grill just need to be 25-30% smaller. it should've stopped at 3rd horizontal bar. that additional 4th one is killing me.

 

The grille actually doesn't look bad as it is, but I agree....3 bars would probably be better.

 

Or the new CT 200h The Crosstour is kinda weird though. They need to tone down the front and give it better wheels.

 

You just named the top 3 . Look I am sure its competent but again I've seen them in person and its simply and sadly another ugly Honda. How does one take a X6 and somehow make it even uglier is truly one of the great mysteries of the world.

On top of that the Venza is as much/cheaper and is faster, more efficient and offers more cargo room while looking A LOT more cohesive in design even with the crazy grill.

FYI the Euro Accord/TSX will debut in NY next month. Not sure what drivetrain/powertrain options it will have but even with the beak it will look better and probably offer more cargo room.