Apples to Oranges: 2011 Nissan Murano & the 2011 Acura TSX Wagon

Crossovers are the hottest body styles to come along since pillarless hard-top convertibles. Station wagons, by contrast, are as dead as tailfins and wrap-around windshields. For more, see my epitath.

So what are they doing in the same review? Well, they are both utility vehicles of a sort, designed to haul more stuff than a conventional coupe or sedan; both are aimed at moderately affluent buyers; and both are made by Japanese manufacturers who could use a break after the triple threats of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown.

Equally important, both would be on my shopping list for coping with the semi-rural environs of the Litchfield Hills in northwest Connecticut.

Nissan's Murano midsize crossover is the incumbent in this competition. On the market since 2002, it has adopted a more mature look for 2011 and has dropped its jack-o-lantern grille in favor of a slimmer, more sophisticated face.

The challenger is the TSX wagon, the 1st of its kind from Acura. Based on the European Accord wagon, it is a skosh longer and higher than the TSX sedan from which it is derived and exemplifies Honda's philosophy of trying to do a lot with a little.

Acura is testing the wagon market with the TSX and plans to offer buyers just 4,000 wagons this year. The Murano, by contrast, has been around since 2002, and Nissan sold 52,546 last year.

Considering their different segments -- crossover and wagon -- the 2 cars are remarkably similar in length and width. The big difference is found in the height: The Murano has 2 inches more ground clearance and stands a full foot taller than the TSX.

Extra room up top pays off in greater cargo space for the Murano, but less than you'd expect: a total of 64.3 cu. ft. when the rear seat is folded down vs. 60.5 cu. ft. for the Acura.

Space means weight, and the Murano uses some 300 pounds more of the world's limited resources than the Acura. It overcomes the inertia with a brawny engine: a 3.5 liter V-6 that puts out 260 horsepower and achieves a combined fuel economy rating of 20 mpg.

Lighter on its tires, the Acura feels as peppy as the Murano but makes do with a 201-horsepower 2.4 liter 4-cylinder engine. Less weight and a smaller engine mean better fuel economy, and the Acura gets 25 mpg.

Both of my test cars performed flawlessly but nothing is cheap -- especially cars built in Japan with the yen at record strength. The Graphite Blue Murano carried an MSRP of $37,050. All-wheel-drive, a welcome feature in the unrelenting snows of 2011, is standard. But throw in a $1,850 navigation package, $185 for mats, and $800 in destination charges, and you get an as-tested price of $39,885.

In keeping with Acura's pricing policy, all the TSX's options, including the navi system, were rolled into the MSRP of $34,610 for the Vortex Blue Pearl test car. The inevitable $800 destination charge boosted the as-tested price to $35,470. Honda saves its AWD drive systems for is own crossovers like the Acura MDX, and doesn't make it available on the TSX.

Some of that price differential is likely to vanish on the showroom floor, where Nissan dealers are more likely to negotiate, but the TSX holds up better. Edmunds.com figures the TSX will retain 46% in a private owner sale after 5 years versus 41% for the Murano.

So, which to choose? I like the command seating of the Murano, the AWD, and the high roof -- just the ticket for hauling recyleables to the transfer station. But the V-6 is more power than I need, and the Murano's personality is more extroverted than I like.

On the other hand, I'm attracted by the Acura's economical four-cylinder motor and the wagon's tailored looks - more refined than other Acuras I've seen and appropriate for duty on Saturday nights. I'm also impressed by Honda's consistent track record for reliability. The lack of AWD puts me off, though, and the low ground clearance would have kept the TSX in the garage on some wintery days where I live.

I realize it is an unsatisfying conclusion but I can't choose between the crossover and the wagon. The strengths and the weaknesses of each balance out. Guess I'll have to widen my search for a family car.

 

What a cop out. He titles the article Murano vs. Acura TSX sport wagon, and he doesn't choose one over the other. In the real world, you have to make choices.

His article isn't all that interesting or insightful because he doesn't bring any expertise to the discussion. Most of the article is just quoting numbers and data (which we can all get online these days after 5 minutes on Google). I didn't get the sense that he spent much time with the cars to get a sense of the driving experience or minor/major annoyances of living with these cars.

Why did this reviewer compare these two cars? A more valid comparison would be comparing Volvo, Audi, Subaru, BMW, VW, and Acura small wagons, or any combination of these cars.

The Murano vs. RDX would have been a more valid comparison, and the RDX is a lot nicer looking (just my opinion)>

 

Ummm very to different type of vehicle but I choose Nissan murano

 

I think this is just another case of different strokes for different folks.

 

The Murano is ugly.

 

TSX wagon is even more uglier

 

I'd take the TSX sportwagon. The Nissan Manure is just ugly. The TSX probably has much more usable cargo abilities, and driving wise, the TSX would trump the Nissan.


PLUS, CVTs suck

 

Again going to be biased on this site. My wife has a Murano, love the vehicle for going out with the lil one, dog, trips where lots of luggage is needed. I have the tsx for daily driving, love my car 10 times as much. My wife loves driving my car but would not give up her Murano.

 

Wouldn't a better comparison be the Murano vs. the RDX?

 

agreed

 

idk about you guys but i ALWAYS get my car information from fortune magazine

 

Why are these two even being compared...?

 

murano is ugly ... go for the tsx wagon