Three to one. Which crossover is better — Opel Antara, Toyota RAV4 or Nissan X-Trail?

By the way, this is not a joke at all. We were joking about SUVs, of course, but crossovers really do suit the city well. You sit high, the view is excellent. You can easily drive onto a curb, and in winter park in a snowdrift where no sedan would dare to go. Their fuel consumption is not much higher, and dynamics with handling are not much worse. And you can also get to the dacha on a broken road if needed. But for many, what matters more is that a crossover is "almost a jeep," only costing significantly less. And in this sense, our compatriots clearly favor the Nissan X-Trail. Rough and angular, it really looks like a true conqueror of mud. By the way, according to statistics, in our country the X-Trail is more often bought by men. Here it is, the most heroically looking crossover for $40,000. What more could you want? The X-Trail also impresses inside. In a Nissan, you feel like if not a Dakar conqueror, then definitely a participant in some trophy raid. You sit high in a square, somewhat rough interior. Before you stretches a huge field, and just as you want to drive onto it, you realize that this field is the hood. In general, everything is very masculine and even slightly heroic. It's also great that the instrument cluster on the new X-Trail has finally stopped being nonconformist and understood that it's better for it to stick out not in the center of the panel, but in the usual place behind the steering column. The Nissan interior has started to look much better, although a certain feeling of ruggedness remains. Neither soft plastic nor quality leather helps—it's more about the design. Mismatched plastic spoils the feel of the interior. But with practicality and equipment—zero problems. There are no problems with equipment. Our test X-Trail turned out to be with a 2.0-liter 141-horsepower engine, a CVT, and in maximum trim: with a huge sunroof, leather interior, power seats, climate control, CD changer, stability control, and Bluetooth. They ask $40,980 for such a car. Distinguishing the new X-Trail from the old one at first glance is a task for an expert. But behind the wheel of the RAV4, imagining yourself as Crocodile Dundee doesn't work. If only because of the appearance—the Toyota looks more like a powder compact than a conqueror of off-road. But hardly anyone can reproach the car for this. On the contrary, it's precisely for this that the fair sex loves it. Of course, next to the others, the RAV4 doesn't look too masculine. But is it needed? Inside—complete harmony with the exterior. The intricate design of the "two-story" front panel and door handles, a bunch of shelves, buttons, and compartments for small items. But "overboard" there's no hint of the hood, and the seating position is rather minivan-like. By the way, the quality of the Toyota's finish didn't blow our minds—quite ordinary plastic that doesn't try to seem more expensive than it really is. But the design saves the situation—the RAV4 has a feeling of coziness. And there are small pleasant touches, like a shelf above the glove box that opens and closes with a button press. A funny thing. The RAV4 probably has the simplest trim materials, but everything is very civilized and solid. And in the various drawers and shelves for small items, it's easy to get lost. The engine starts with a button. Our RAV4 turned out to be in the most loaded version—with a 2.4-liter engine producing 170 hp, a four-speed automatic, leather interior, power driver's seat, dual-zone climate control, and keyless entry system. For all of this—$45,430. An audio system with a CD changer is present, but there's no xenon, just like in the X-Trail. The spare tire hangs at the back—which means a heavy fifth door and the lowest trunk floor. And what about the new one? The Opel Antara against such different competitors is something in between, though it leans more toward the RAV4. From some angles it looks very cute, from others—sporty, but the "face," in our opinion, still lacks expressiveness. And what a beautiful concept the Antara GTC was… Opel is a newcomer in crossover building. Will the first pancake be lumpy? But the interior pleases with both design and quality. The seating position is also wonderful—in a stiff, purely German seat with decent lateral support, you sit as if glued. And although all three cars have steering columns adjustable for height and reach, the best seating position is in the Opel. Typically car-like, we like it. But what we don't like is that in the Antara, like in many other Opels, there's practically nowhere to put small items. Phones, cigarettes, and other necessary and useful (and harmful) things have to be stuffed into pockets. The "ordinary Opel" interior in the Antara is diluted with round air vents and a slightly different architecture. But the materials are undeniably a cut above both the Nissan and the Toyota. Only the steering wheel stands out from the ensemble, which someone for some reason decided not to wrap in leather. And overall, the trim isn't great: fabric interior, manual seat adjustments. Although climate control, "music," and other mandatory things for a car costing $39,900 are present. Among the pleasant things, there are two parking sensors—front and rear. The RAV4 has none. Inside it's very high quality, but you'll have to get used to everything—to the audio system controls, the lack of places for small items. But the steering column switches, which on all other Opels are non-latching, are regular in the Antara. The Antara's gearbox is a five-speed automatic, and the engine is 2.4 liters. But it develops only 140 "horses." After all, this engine is from Chevrolet, and the Antara itself is built on a common platform with the Captiva and is produced at the same plant in Korea. So, it's no surprise that the Antara loses in dynamics to the RAV4. The Opel's dynamics are generally sufficient, but there's no desire to race. Moreover, the automatic doesn't hurry either and does its job with feeling, with deliberation. Probably, the Antara with a 3.2-liter V6 producing 227 hp would be more interesting. But for now, we have what we have. Of all the test participants, the Antara looks the most dynamic. It's a pity that it only looks that way. The handling also doesn't cause delight. The Antara steers easily and understandably, but dives into corners with a slight laziness. So the excellent seats, in which we saw a clear hint of sportiness, actually didn't hint at anything. The Opel doesn't stand out in comfort either—the suspension is moderately stiff, and that's it. But the more you drive the Antara, the clearer it becomes that it drives fine. Yes, the steering is vague, but on a straight line the car stands confidently, and in the cabin there's dead silence compared to competitors. In this regard, the Antara is a real "coffin on wheels." And the suspension, although it thumps over bumps, is quite energy-intensive. The Antara's suspension pleases with energy intensity but disappoints with sluggish reactions. But the RAV4 is much more fun. The 170-horsepower engine invigorates during acceleration, already allowing hooliganism. And what surprised most was the gearbox—the Toyota's automatic has only four speeds, but how much more agile it works! As a result, managing dynamics is very convenient—the car precisely follows the pedal, and driving in the city is pure pleasure. The advantage of three dozen "horses" allows the RAV4 to easily pull away from competitors. Including—in price. The Toyota also handles better than everyone. The RAV4 has the fastest and most precise steering responses, the most natural effort. And although it's still far from the level of a normal car—the large suspension travel and high center of mass take their toll—for the city, the "feel of the car" is more than enough. In terms of comfort, the RAV4 is hardly worse than the Opel. Except perhaps a bit noisier. The suspension is about the same stiffness. The only thing—it slightly lacks energy intensity.