I’m a Car Expert: 4 Least Improved SUVs Not Worth Your Money

Mitchell Hubble / Mazda

Commitment to Our Readers

GOBankingRates' editorial team is committed to bringing you unbiased reviews and information. We use data-driven methodologies to evaluate financial products and services - our reviews and ratings are not influenced by advertisers. You can read more about our editorial guidelines and our products and services review methodology.

20 Years
Helping You Live Richer

Reviewed
by Experts

Trusted by
Millions of Readers

SUVs have become a popular choice for families, groups and even single people because of how easy they are to use and practical for everyday use. However, not all models are worth their price tag or even keep up with the latest trends.

Whether it’s the design, technology or overall performance, some SUVs continue to underperform. In this article, we’ll cover the four least improved SUVs that are not worth your money.

Jeep Compass

While the Jeep Compass has kept up in areas such as style and features, there are still many issues with its core features.

For example, it doesn’t have great fuel efficiency, and it’s not great when it comes to power because of its lackluster engine options. Plus, the materials and inside space of the Jeep Compass are not as remarkable as those of its competitors. Overall, the car itself keeps getting more expensive without offering any standout features. 

“In reality, the Compass has been lagging behind,” said Alex Black, chief marketing officer at EpicVIN. “It’s been on the market forever with slight updates, and is still underpowered and outdated in the interior. You’re really just buying the Jeep nameplate, not actual performance or technology.”

Mazda CX-5

The Mazda CX-5 used to be one of the top SUV models, but lately, it’s started to lose its edge. Not only has it been lacking in updates throughout the most recent years, but other rivals now offer better fuel efficiency and technology, making it harder to compete.

Additionally, compared to other SUVs, the interior is quite small in both the cargo and passenger areas. Unfortunately, when it comes to SUVs that are worth purchasing, the Mazda CX-5 is not one of them.

“The CX-5 hasn’t been updated since 2017, so if you buy a brand new one today, it won’t be any different than if you had bought one eight years ago,” said Melanie Musson, auto industry expert with AutoInurance.org. “The fuel economy could be better. The interior is as outdated as something that’s eight years old can be.”

Mitsubishi Outlander Sport

While the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport is a neat car, it has failed to fix any of its long-standing issues that customers continually complain about.

The design feels outdated, and the driving mechanics are really basic. The limited technology options really do not compete with other rivals. This, compared with the uncomfortable interior, makes it a below-average ride experience and not worth the price.

“The Outlander Sport really hasn’t changed in years,” said Black. “Same engine, same interior that feels cheap, and it’s falling far behind in the area of advanced safety features compared to its newer competitors.”

Honda CR-V

Each year, SUVs release new models. However, despite the popularity of the Honda CR-V, it lacks the progress you would expect in such a competitive market. There have not been many updates to the interior design, engine or fixes to the powertrain issues.

This makes the Honda CR-V less impressive when compared to hybrids. Additionally, most SUV owners expect to have features such as driver-assistance programs, which the Honda CR-V severely lacks. Overall, while the Honda CR-V may have been a top choice in the past, it is slowly falling behind its competitors.

“It’s hard not to recommend the C-RV because it’s one of the most reliable vehicles on the market, but it’s time Honda put some effort into updating it,” said Musson. “The next major update isn’t set to happen until 2027. If you want a car that looks new and not exactly the same as an old model, the CR-V is not for you.”

Editor’s note: Photos are for representational purposes.

Share This Article: