Car review: Nissan Rogue

Since I used to do this as part of the day job at one newspaper group, I'm qualified. Not sure why I haven't been blogging reviews of vacation car rentals before, but better late than never.

I've had the option of a Rogue on one previous vacation among mid-sized rentals and ultimately went with a Hyundai Santa Fe.

It turned out to be Rogue vs Jeep Compass this time, and I already knew the Compass was shorter and since my current version of car camping is to turn a mid-sized SUV into a temporary RV, the Compass was going to be too short.

Nissan has shortened the Rogue in the last couple of years.

And, for 2022, dropped a 3-cylinder engine under the hood as the base option. You read that right. I even popped the hood once to see if that's what I had, because I wasn't sure I had a 2022 model. Well, there was so much in the way of heavy metal foil covering various inputs to the engine that I couldn't even find plug wires to count to either "three" or "four." But,  given that the I-3 is paired with an 8-speed tranny, and on mountain roads of the southern Rockies, I was doing a lot of short upshifts in climbing, I venture that's what I had.

Plus? Especially when I found the "Eco" button, gas mileage was good. Between state and US highways on those mountains and some interstates, I was pushing 35mpg. This was an AWD, but I rarely had that turned on.

Minus of sorts? Downsizing. At my height, it was a bit tight on that car camping at times. Related? After you drop the second seat, it rides higher than the back floorboard, and it takes some funky configuration and use of suitcases or backpacks underneath that "floorboard" to even this out.

Definite minuses? Cheapness up front for the driver. 

The rearview mirror does not auto-dim at night.

The rearview mirror does not have a digital compass readout built into a corner.

The driver's seat is totally manual. Yep, nothing on power adjustments. And the manual adjustments are only six-way: forward-back, tilt-nontilt on seat back, and lumbar. And, the lumbar was cheap compared to my 20-year old Camry, which is also power on the other four-way control options PLUS it's eight-way, also having tilt-nontilt on the seat "butt" as well as back. Yes, this was the SE top-line Camry, but also, it's 20 years old, and it also has the other two above options.

So, if you are interested in a 2022 Rogue, on the last list of issues, you'll probably want to look beyond a base version.

Does Scientific American have a ScienceBlogs problem?

Updated at bottom with addition information that, in my opinion, makes Scientific American look even worse.

A few months back, ScienceBlogs was in full revolt over Pepsi being asked, by SciBlogs' top brass, to sponsor a health blog. Well, what's up with SciAm having Chevy Volt sponsor a special section on electric cars?

Add in the fact that the stories linked off the online cover page of the special section are a mix of SciAm-reported stories and Chevy PR, and it really doesn't look good.

Also, not good? SciAm's stories all talk about "electric cars" when the Chevy Volt isn't. It's a hybrid, and Chevy has finally admitted that. In short, it's bad PR, bad journalism, and if we're counting tech as science, bad science, too.

And, no, it's not the deal that this was "sneaky" like the Pepsi/SciBlogs deal. Sorry, @BoraZ. (That said, depending on who in Scientific American's editorial hierarchy knew about this, and who didn't, and when, it may well be sneaky, for all I know.)

That wasn't the only thing wrong with the Pepsi issue at ScienceBlogs, although it was the first problem and the first-visible one. There was also the question about Pepsi, rather than, say, FiberOne, sponsoring a health-related blog.

So, in line with that, if Scientific American was going to sell itself out for sponsorship from an electric car, then why didn't it get an actual electric car, i.e., the Nissan Leaf, and not the Chevy Volt, which is a hybrid? Right there is an indication of how the "sponsorship" has affected the reporting.

Since the Volt isn't a pure electric ... I'd have to say this is a version of greenwash. It also, besides ethics, makes me wonder just how intelligent about auto tech some SciAm editors are.

I hadn't originally intended to name Bora, former ScienceBlogs blogger of "A Blog around the Clock" and now at Scientific American. BUT ... he just either doesn't get it, or is being defensive about Scientific American. An exchange of several Twitters over more than 24 hours leads me to believe that while it may be primarily the former, it could well be in part the latter.

If it is, Bora, you need to talk to other people at Scientific American rather than being defensive.

After all, you left SciBlogs in part over the Pepsi fiasco. I quote from your post about your leaving:

What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.

What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?

Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?

At the end, you said Seed's image is permanently damaged.

Well didn't Volt, in this case, also pay "to have a seat at the table"? Doesn't that affect SciAm's reputation?

Answers? Yes and yes.

Update, Dec. 28:/ Apparently, I've gotten a bit under Bora's skin, as he thinks I am just pot stirring. In his last Tweet on the subject though, he adds one more point that makes SciAm look even worse, in my book.
He notes that the special project from August! I usually don't read the mag stem-to-stern online or off, but for it to be still promoted 4 months later? And, after GM brass officially admitted the Volt is a hybrid, to STILL, with the side-by-side presentation and the content of the articles, to STILL leave standing the implication that SciAm believes the Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid, AND that Volt could buy such favorable coverage in general.

Also, Bora, this is NOT about "investigative journalism." I know, because, I've actually DONE investigative journalism.

And, do you really think knowing the difference between a hybrid-drive vehicle and a truly electric is "too geeky" for Scientific American?

Wowsa.

Methinks thee doth indeed protest too much. Talk to the hand, Bora, on this one. Better yet? Seriously? Talk to some Scientific American editorial management, as I said when I first wrote this post, before updating it.

And, if this is pot stirring, I take that as a compliment.

AND, per the "lifting up" of new media? Or new-type media venues? The medium is NOT the message, contra McLuhan. New media faces the same ethical responsibilities and issues as old media.

In this case, in fact, since this is an easy issue to address, even solve, online, it's arguably worse than in the pre-Internet age. If I'm going to be in for a pot-stirring penny, I'm in for a pot-stirring pound. My forthrightness in not swooning over new media is probably why Jay Rosens and others don't like what I say on the subject either.

UPdate, Oct. 3, 2011:  The Leaf is beating the sales pants off the Volt.

Chevy Volt: An electric lemon

I knew it was priced more than the Nissan Leaf. I knew it was late to market. I knew it was a bit dowdy. What I didn't know, until now (gee, GM, hide this under a bushel basket), is that the miniature gas engine that recharges the battery needs premium fuel. Throw in the fact that the Volt's lease terms compare quite unfavorably to the Leaf, and, you've got problems galore, GM.

Nissan unveils all-electric hybrid car

The all-new Nissan Tilda, scheduled to go on sale in the U.S. next year, is indeed a hybrid-drive car in the sense that it uses regenerative braking for battery recharges, enabling it to go 100 miles, not 50 or so, between charges.

Toyota still pooh-poohs all-electrics right now, but we shall see. Meanwhile, at a price Nissan says will be “competitive” with gasoline-engine vehicles, a 100-mile charge life, and lithium-ion batteries, the Tilda has just kicked massive amounts of sand in the face of the Chevy Volt. (Not that that’s hard to do. And not that that’s not kind of fun to do, either.)

Nissan tells Chrysler no thanks

How the once-mighty have fallen, to get a brush-off like this.

That said, I was reading a story yesterday and forgot to bookmark it, where an American auto analyst blamed Daimler-Benz for allowing poor quality at Chrysler during its ownership period as part of the reason for Chrysler’s current woes.

Yes, the world’s best mass-market carmaker willfully let Chrysler build crap. Where was this same analyst when everybody was lauding the 300D five years ago?

As for a GM takeover? Half of Chrysler’s plants will be shuttered, and the jobs that go with them.

GM wants more fed money pounded down rathole

UAW chief still clueless on formerly-Big Three or nobody

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has joined five other state leaders in asking for federal bailout money to go directly to the U.S. auto industry.

First, it's really credit card companies and banks wanting the money; that's why the governors of Delaware, New York and South Dakota are co-signers of the request.

Second, plenty of questions, and doubt, remain about the prime idea of a GM-Chrysler merger.

If consolidation of the two companies involved selling off all non-Jeep divisions of Chrysler, how well would that help? Especially if gas prices go back up as the country comes out on the far side of recession and SUV sales stay low?

That's just one of many non sequiturs of a possible merger that the article above raises.

Third, the UAW apparently Second, just doeesn't get it. Even if not a GM-Chrysler merger, somebody is likely to buy somebody within the auto world (Nissan has also been a suitor for Chrysler, for example) and more jobs will go away.

Especially when Ron Gettelfinger pins the hope of U.S. auto revival on the sale of more SUVs, it's clear he's a dinosaur, if not quite, or not necessarily, an idiot.

And, I did not link the the Dallas Morning Snooze on this; despite GM having a plant in Arlington, the Snooze ran a wire story.

GM-Chrysler merger?

WTF? Twenty-nine year ago, when Chrysler was about to go down the tubes, no way this would pass antitrust scrutiny. But now? Both companies are too small for that to matter.

But, GM isn’t the only bidder to take Chrysler off the hands of Cerberus Capital. Nissan is also interested.

Meanwhile, Standard & Poor’s analyst Robert Schulz said Friday all three of the formerly-Big Three could be forced into bankruptcy.

Given that GM is so strapped for money, and credit markets are so tight, I don’t get how it could buy Chrysler anyway. But, Nissan, or one of the other two members of the Japanese Big Three? They’re sitting on plenty of capital, but they’d still face some liquidity issues.