The Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet has been a joke in car-enthusiast circles since the oddly-shaped convertible crossover SUV debuted for the 2011 model-year. It wasn’t just the awkward styling, it was the huge doors, the bad rear visibility, the insane curb weight, the Continuously Variable Transmission, the cowl shake, and the price tag. There were so many reasons to hate the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet, which is why, when The Autopian bought our 100,000 mile Merlot model as part of our partnership with Xpel, I wasn’t expecting to fall so hard in love. And yet, here we are, with me typing out these words in a headline: “…the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet Is Such An Excellent Car…” Here, allow me to explain.
Recently I thought I’d pay Autopian cofounder Beau Boeckmann back for allowing me to drive so many of his/Galpin’s cars of the years. — the American Bantam two-door wagon, the Berkley two-stroke convertible, the Shelby Series 1, the Vector M12, his Porsche 911, a Ford GT, the Porsche 969 Turbo, and on and on. Beau has been generous enough to throw me the keys to some of the finest automobiles in history, so I figured I’d return the favor. Enter our 2014 Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet.


“It’s so awkward!” Beau exclaimed when I showed him the car after building it up in much the same way I did in the previous paragraph. At first, I thought he did a great job hiding his disappointment, but then it became obvious that he was at the very least intrigued. A prolific owner of microcars, Beau isn’t just into cool supercars and hotrods — he appreciates weird.
So we hopped in, and I gave Beau the honor of dropping the top for possibly the final time in the car’s 10 year, 100,000 mile life.
I say this because the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet has a chronic roof issue, and I mean chronic. It’s to the point where, if you have a Crosscabriolet with a functioning power roof, you’re on borrowed time. And if you think there’s an easy fix: There isn’t. There’s some kind of computer module that fails, and when it fails in the down position getting the roof back open is borderline impossible. We’ll write a deep-dive on this whole problem, because it’s absurd, but suffice it to say: Beau’s dropping of our Crosscab’s top was one of the last times that’s going to happen for our mighty Merlot steed.
It wasn’t pretty. With the press of the button the windows dropped, the trunk lid flipped back to open a trunk ready to swallow its fabric meal, and then the roof shot up, folding smoothly until….
…it just stopped. The Crosscab was stuck in this configuration:
“Go ahead and hold [the button] again,” I told Beau. The top then started shuttering as it struggled to lower. It dropped a bit, then stopped, then dropped a bit, then stopped; Beau bravely held the switch, forcing that epileptic top into submission. It finally tucked away into its hole aft of the rear seats, but then…
Everything stopped. The lid for the roof was stuck, hovering up above the rear of the Crosscab like some kind of wacky boy-racer wing. Beau hit the switch to move the roof up, then he sent it back down:
Eventually the roof-lid came forward and down to cover the fabric, but one of the roof’s plastic trim pieces kept getting jammed, so I had to risk my phalanges to tuck it in so we could, finally — after an absolute shitshow of a roof-lowering operation – drive this machine.
Of course, as soon as the roof was down, the skies opened up. Between this and the top-lowering nightmare, I thought for sure Beau would think he got a raw deal here. How was this a fair exchange for him letting me driving a Lotus Emira? And yet, Beau seemed to enjoy it!:
Here’s Beau putting his foot to the floor, letting that mighty 265 horsepower VQ engine roar a nearly 5,000 pound SUV to 60 mph in probably around 8 seconds. It’s not quick.
And to be honest, it’s not nimble. Nor does it sound particularly great. In fact, when I told Beau to “hit it” when we drove through a tunnel, he instinctively hit the horn!
I thought Beau was nuts, but then he did hit the pedal, and I realized that, yeah, the horn was the more exciting of the two.
As Beau is admitting in the screenshot below, the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet — which is basically a standard Murano with lots of underbody bracing to handle the floppiness of having lost its roof — is thoroughly floaty. I mean, turning the wheel back and forth yields body roll akin to a 1970s land yacht.
But it is comfortable! That is, unless it just keeps on raining. Then there’s nothing those overstuffed leather seats, that cushy suspension, or that highly-effective heater can do:
You may be wondering where the “excellent” part is going to come in; after all, I just said the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet — a rare vehicle built in quantities of only 6,000 between 2011 and 2014 — has a wallowy ride, that its engine is completely unexciting, and that one of its main components fails with alarming regularity.
But hear me out here. In a way, the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet is the greatest vehicle of its kind, and while you may be thinking it’s the only vehicle of its kind, you should also be wondering why that is. Because a convertible crossover makes perfect sense.
So many of the best convertibles ever have involved a standard sedan platform having its roof chopped off and replaced with fabric. But the reality is that the sedan of yesteryear has been replaced with high-riding crossover SUVs; people don’t want to sit low anymore. So why not continue by lopping the roofs off of normal, everyday commuter cars? Why not offer something comfortable, reliable (sans top issue), relatively efficient, and practical, but with the ability to have the roof come off?
It seems car-tastes have shifted from small cars to SUVs, but the convertible concept has not kept up with the trend. Sure, you can buy a gas-guzzling Ford Bronco or Jeep Wrangler (to be sure, the Crosscabriolet scores similar MPG figures than the basic Broncos, though that’s partly because it’s older), but those are huge compromises. There’s a reason why people are buying unibody crossovers in such high quantities and not just body-on-frame off-roaders — they want comfort, efficiency, and practicality.
And the Murano offers all of those! There’s tons of rear-seat space, the ride is great, the reliability is the same as a regular Murano, parts availability is roughly the same as a regular Murano; it’s just a regular commuter crossover — something that we know people love, based on sales volumes — but with the ability for the roof to come off. It makes perfect sense, and it’s why I find the Crosscab to be a really appealing machine. It’s something the everyperson could happily drive daily; it’s comfy, it’s roomy; it’s safe; it’s easy.
I wouldn’t have spent $50 big-ones on a new one, of course, and now that they’re a decade old $10 grand is still a bit tough given the lack of modern infotainment, but the general concept is great, and I have to say that I really enjoy driving the thing. It turns out that a high-riding droptop that doesn’t break your back over expansion joints and that doesn’t ruin your bank account with each fillup actually does make sense. It’s just the styling and that price that make the Crosscab such a hard sell, but both are aging like a fine wine. Pretty soon, at whatever ironic car-show that ends with “wood,” the Crosscab will reign supreme. It sure rained supreme when Beau and I drove it.
Somebody needs to review a RR evoke drop top…
I have a 70’s land yacht convertible, so I get it. Plush seats, soft ride, and the open air are a hell of a combination. I even kind of like the Evoque convertible (at least with the top down), but this? This does not work. And I’m not just talking about the top.
I need to see someone install a giant wing on one of these. Maybe that should be your next test, how well does XPEL hold up to drilling through it to install a giant wing?
I used to see a seafoam green one when I lived in Florida, and boy you don’t ever forget seeing one of those in person. Living their best life I assume, they probably had the rarest car in the county!
This thing, for me, fits in the same part of the automotive realm as the Cybertruck. It’s something that probably shouldn’t have made it through the corporate hierarchy, but the world is better for this weirdo making it out onto the roads!
I never could have afforded one when they were new, and don’t want to afford one now. However, I am on board with the general thesis here, that this needs to happen more. There absolutely need to be a renewed push for convertibles, and might as well make it with the most common vehicles of the time.
Has anyone made a Cybertruck convertible yet? Imagine how ugly that could be!
(I’d like to make it clear that I’d rather see an ugly car on the roads than an aggressively mediocre one, because at least it’s interesting)
I’m just trying to figure out the origami needed for a CT Convertible top!
I reckon the big problem with the CrossCabrio is that it isn’t cute. The standard Murano is a serious thing, so this mullet’s “party in the back” ends up looking like an office team-building event that you’d really rather not be at.
I get the feeling that most of the economy SUV’s of that era have design languages centered around communicating newness: the light fixtures, trim and surfaces have to look up to date with whatever is rolling out of Ingolstadt to communicate to bystanders that this is NOT a second-hand car. When coupled with a flashy feature like a convertible top, it comes across pretentious, like a poor attempt at imitating a sports car. Even worse when it gets superseded and does, in fact, look like a second-hand car.
If you aren’t starting with the kind of car whose owners might wave at other owners of the same model as they pass by, then the roof needs to stay on.
If I wanted to bring a successful soft-top crossover to market, I’d base the design on known, successful 2-box convertibles like the Rabbit/Beetle/Thing cabrio, Fiat 500 and Mini Moke or timeless drop-top off-roaders like the Bronco, Scout and Wrangler.
With that in mind, I could see some market success (and maybe cult following) for drop-top retro crossovers like the Renegade, Bronco Sport, Countryman, and maybe the Rivian R3. Most of them already have a successful drop-top sibling, so I’m not exactly blazing a trail through uncharted territory, here.
I saw one of these the other day with its top proudly down motoring along I-90. Probably the same one I’ve been seeing around for years during the summer. Good to know it’s being enjoyed.
I remember seeing one in the wild, top down, and I felt the urge to point and laugh, Nelson Muntz-style: the belt line is so high all I could see of the occupants was their heads barely sticking over the door, like a Fisher-Price Playskool car. They were two older ladies though, and they seemed to be having fun, so who was I to mock and make fun?
I think the biggest problem with a convertible Crossover, is it’s really hard to make something tall look elegant with swoopy bodylines…when you cut the roof off.
Once things get to a certain height, we expect boxiness. Otherwise it looks like you’re trying to put a roadster on stilts, with all the
lack ofgrace that comes with that.To make it work, you probably have to keep the ride height low, and add more real estate in the belt line to afford a higher driving position. Making ingress/egress/sightlines better, but VISUALLY keeping the vehicle low.
But I’m not a designer. My design choices would probably have The Bishop, Adrian, and Torch recreate the printer scene from Office Space, with me as the printer.
You’re highlighting the reason the PTCruiser was successful. It was affordable.
Anyone who wanted to have a car with a particular look, could generally afford one.
Retirees and empty-nesters could get their PT convertible without breaking the bank.
Those pictures of you and Beau are gold. That wing! LMAO.
Just no
Do you troll people at stoplights with this thing? I would. Need to lean into it.
I’d be leaning over the waistline when the window’s down, and just tell people in the cars nearby, “If you know… you KNOW” with a wink, thumbs up, and a creepy smile.
I’d also have some hat. I mean a HAT. Something out of a Dr. Seuss book.
I’ve wondered the same thing about why this concept isn’t more popular. Maybe it’s the particular execution of the few CUV convertibles that have been launched, but it really seems like they should have been popular enough to draw in more competent competitors. Maybe it’s just the reason that CUVs are popular to begin with: the practicality and resilience in the face of lifestyle changes over longterm ownership. Adding a top decreases the cargo space, removes the possibility of using the roof to transport stuff, and just isn’t very useful in a lot of climates all for higher cost and maintenance and cowl shake. That’s not even factoring the 2 vs 4 doors. Still, with the popularity of the BOF convertible offroaders, I think it would be a fair idea to think there’d be room in the market for a better riding, better mileage unibody. Maybe it’s the cost. Chopping the roof off a BoF is a lot less problematic for stiffness and expense than a unibody and the latter are already pretty expensive. If they had to charge 30% more for a convertible 2 door version of a CUV, it gets a lot less appealing.
Honestly, the one screenshot that made it look like it has a boy-racer wing… I’m down with the boy-racer wing
Indeed. It’s not like you can make it look worse. A big wing can only add to the design.
I can’t wait for the deep dive on the roof module. Sounds like a challenge…
Chariot. Of. The. Gods.
Didn’t C&D write a review of the CrossCab entirely in reference to Greek Gods?
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15124729/2011-nissan-murano-crosscabriolet-test-review/
That’s amazing! A highly recommended read.
“It is a crossover that crosses over to where form has no relation to function.”
Well, now I have to stay up a little later and read that. But thanks!
Well, that was weird! Nice link.
Faceoff between this thing and the PT Cruiser convertible that inspired it 😛
Came here to post this. How is the CrossCab “one of a kind” when the PT exists? Except that the Nissan cost 50-100% more (too lazy to look it up) when new. They’re both based on “utility vehicles” with 3/5 of the doors removed and the top cut off.
There is also the car that was inspired by the Cross-Cab, the Range Rover Evoque convertible started just shy of $60k in 2017. The cheapest one in good condition I saw for sale now was $20k, so roughly twice the current value of the MCC.
And this might be the one and only time where the Land Rover is the better choice…
it’s incredible how the CrossCab managed to look like a cheap Evoque convertible copy before the Evoque convertible even came out.
I guess it depends on how much of a crossover one considers the PT to be (beyond the EPA classification of course), but they’re pretty different beyond being higher-riding convertibles. Kinda of like the xB and Element would get compared by virtue of being tall and boxy but were very different vehicles.
I consider the Murano CC more of a continuation on the question the Avantime tried to answer: if empty nesters/DINKs aren’t going back to cars after vans/SUV/CUVs, would carlike bodystyles adapted to the utility vehicles have appeal? 0 for 2 for Renault-Nissan…
I was thinking face off with a Land Rover Evoque, which I would have to hope drives better, although at the price of them, I’ll never find out.
And the Range Rover Evoque convertible that copied it.
I had forgotten about all of these. I’m not a convertible guy. A retractable moonroof and rolled down windows is enough breeze and light for me. But I’m pretty fair-skinned.
The scalp/part in my hair got pretty badly sunburned on a trip from Sacramento to San Diego many years ago and I haven’t forgotten it. And with the hair I’ve lost since then, it would only be much worse.
I don’t like convertibles, I don’t like the PT Cruiser, but if I had to choose between the PT and the Cross Cab? PT all day (as long as it’s the 2.4t from the set-4Neon). They were reasonably quick and accepted mods well. Since it’s smaller it doesn’t look quite as odd