Best small to mid size suv

In Missouri, we only pay tax on the difference - if I buy a $10,000 car & sell one for $9,500, I would pay tax on $500.
Same in Massachusetts, but it has to be on a trade-in. If you sell the old car privately or to a different dealer, you pay the full sales tax on the new car. But if you do a trade-in at the dealer, you only pay tax on the difference.
 
Last edited:
In Missouri, we only pay tax on the difference - if I buy a $10,000 car & sell one for $9,500, I would pay tax on $500.
Sweet. In California, if you buy a car with a rebate, you have to pay tax on the total purchase price BEFORE the rebate.
 


Dodge (FCA) gets a bad rap that I think is well-deserved from the products they were rolling out in previous decades. If we were talking pick-up trucks, the Ram would be LAST on my list of truck manufactures. Only positives about them IMHO are the UCONNECT infotainment system and the HEMI V-8 (but if you TRULY NEED a truck, then you NEED a diesel)

Having said that, wife drives a Durango RT. We both really enjoy driving it and it's been hassle-free. We decided to go with it for a few reasons:

-Best-in-class towing
-Only SUV in our price range that offers V-8 (to be fair, the Explorer sport is no slouch with its 6 cylinder Ecoboost)
-needed 3-row seating so the smaller crossovers never made the list. We went with second row captains chairs so accessing the 3rd row is easy.
-offered a few safety features that were not available on some other models at the time (blind spot detection, forward collision warning, advanced cruise control with brake assist)
-heated and cooled seats (1st row), heated seats (2nd row)
-exterior styling appealed to us more than any other models. (RT with "Blacktop Package")

Only negative that comes to mind right now is the fact that the 2nd row seats do not slide forward/backward.
 
Sweet. In California, if you buy a car with a rebate, you have to pay tax on the total purchase price BEFORE the rebate.

My boss ran into a similar problem with a truck he bought in Ohio to register in MO. The dealer would only provide the MSRP, not the purchase price.
 
Same in Massachusetts, but it has to be on a trade-in. If you sell the old car privately or to a different dealer, you pay the full sales tax on the new car. But if you do a trade-in at the dealer, you only pay tax on the difference.

No such stipulation here. The two transactions just need to occur within a certain timeframe - 60 days IIRC.
 


I suspect (and hope) you are a good wheeler and dealer on buying low and selling high, so you minimize your loss on a sale, but if you live in a state with sales tax, and your auto purchases averaged $10,000, at 8% sales tax, at 70 cars, that's $56,000 you volunteered to give to the state over the last 20 years. If your purchase price averaged $20,000 you gave the state $112,000, and if they averaged $30,000 you donated $168,000.:charac2::rockband::rockband::rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2:rolleyes2
Some of us like to be happy, and have the money to do so.
 
Stay away from Nissan (the CVT transmission is a disaster)
Stay away from Dodge-Jeep-Chrysler (too many issues to list)
Think long and hard before you buy a Subaru. (owners love them, until the head gaskets blow)

KIA, Hyundai. Toyota, all good options. Ford Escape too, we have those as company cars, but avoid the 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine if buying used. I think everything is Ecoboost now, those FLY.


Haha not true at all. I had a Nissan for 13 years and now I have had my Jeep for 4. Both great vehicles.
 
I'm a big fan of the Volvo or perhaps the Renault?

Renault doesn't sell cars here in the US, unless you count Nissan...which is "owned" by Renault.

To answer the comment about taxes. First, a lot of my 70 cars have been fairly cheap ones. Not all, certainly...I've had some really cool toys...but many were cheaper. And yes, I consider myself pretty good at finding the screaming bargains, driving them for a while and then selling them for what I paid, including taxes. So while it's not a profit by any stretch, the money I've spent isn't as much as you'd think.

Minivans have disappeared largely from the market simply because they became in image issue. Sad part is that for a majority of people who buy SUVs, a minivan would be a FAR better choice. I wouldn't trade our minivan for any SUV.

And again, no offense to anyone who owns one, but generally speaking Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep products are woeful in build quality. The fact that they are now owned by Fiat only makes it worse. Some new products are now built on Fiat platforms, specifically the Fiat 500 platform. That car has a horrid reputation for quality. Nissan build quality is better than FCA (Fiat Chrysler), but not what it once was. Nissan has decided to cater to the cheap and basic transportation crowd, and went all in on the CVTs. Their products are showing the results.
 
Haha not true at all. I had a Nissan for 13 years and now I have had my Jeep for 4. Both great vehicles.
Do you have a Nissan with a CVT? THAT is the issue, and most new Nissans have that transmission. It's so bad that the family that owned one of the Nissan dealerships here sold it because of all the CVT lawsuits.
Just Google it. Nissan is a MESS.
 
In Nissans defense, while they have had endless issues with the CVT and many of their products cater to cheap plastic laden basic transportation, they still do have some good cars out there. The Maxima is a fine near-luxury sedan (burdened with the CVT though). The Titan is a great truck, as is the related Armada. The Infiniti Q50 (formerly G37) is a top end sports sedan. And while it's a love it or hate it car, the GT-R is impressive. So there is hope for them.
 
I'm a big fan of the Volvo or perhaps the Renault?
On our 4th Volvo....3 of which were wagons. Bottom line - I'm short so climbing into an SUV can be difficult for me. We have never really needed 3 rows of seats so a wagon has been fine for us, especially when we added AWD for winter driving. Plenty of room for hauling lumber, dirt, TV's, dogs, or 3 people in the back seat.

OP - can you give us an idea of what specific needs you have for the SUV - 2nd row legroom, room behind the seats, handling in snow, etc? And a general price range? That might help narrow some of the options suggested.
 
I have a 2012 Tucson and I am quite happy with it. It has very decent trunk space and is pretty fuel-efficient. However, the leg room in the backseat is nothing to write home about. If anyone with long legs sits there they will become a little uncomfortable. Also, depending on distances, etc., I've been told that the engine is small and thats why its not as powerful as other SUVs. In the 5 and a half years I've had it, I haven't head any real problems. The engine did shut off on me twice though (albeit not on a busy road thank goodness) which is concerning. I've had it looked into and they don't see any problems with it though. There is always a chance it was just my car and not an across the board issue with the Tuscons.
 
I've been in a Hyundai Tucson Limited for going on six years now. Still like it.
 
I'll also be in the market for a small/mid-sized SUV at the end of the year. Is the CVT transmission standard for all smaller SUVs these days or just Nissan? Also, does the CVT actually have a lot of problems or is it more of a power issue that some people don't care for?
 
Is the CVT transmission standard for all smaller SUVs these days or just Nissan? Also, does the CVT actually have a lot of problems or is it more of a power issue that some people don't care for?

The answers are no, yes and yes.

The CVT isn't actually new. It's been around a while, Subaru used them in the late 80's, with disastrous results. Obviously, technology has changed, so they're coming back around. Reliability is one major concern, but one of the other reasons they haven't fully caught on is user experience. CVT means "continuously variable transmission". The best way to think of it is like a bicycle. A 10 speed bike has that set of gears/sprockets near the back wheel. You change gears and it changes how fast you can go. A regular transmission is similar in theory. A CVT, without getting technical, uses pulleys instead of actual gears. Picture a cone/funnel shape, wrap a rubber band around it and slide it up and down the cone and you'll get the idea. In a regular transmission car, just like a bicycle, you start off in gear 1. At some point, your legs on the bike are peddling like mad, so you change gears so you go faster. Same for a regular transmission car. With the CVT, it has endless "gears" (they're not really gears) that it can go through (sliding up and down that cone). So it can...and does...hold the engine at a certain speed to maximize either acceleration or economy. The problem with that is that it can make the car sound like it's "droaning" or "whining". In your regular car, you hear the engine rev, then drop as it changes gears. In a CVT, it'll rev up and stay there as long as you continue to accelerate. It's a unique experience and can be tiresome on the ears. Manufacturers are getting better at it, but it's still quite a different experience. They'll deliver the same power, as that comes from the engine, but it's a very different experience. I don't care for it myself.

Nissan has gone full in on the CVT. It's in a ton of their smaller and midsize products. Another weak point of the CVT is reliability. They've proven to wear out faster than a conventional transmission. I'm sure 10 years from now, they'll figure out how to make them as reliable as other ones. But Nissan has really been struggling with it. Honda is also using CVTs in some of their cars/SUVs, with more success. A few others are using CVTs too.

Unless it's a personal taste/fashion thing, which is perfectly cool, I'd also again suggest at looking at things other than a small SUV...they don't really do any one thing particularly well.
 
Last edited:
The answers are no, yes and yes.

The CVT isn't actually new. It's been around a while, Subaru used them in the late 80's, with disastrous results. Obviously, technology has changed, so they're coming back around. Reliability is one major concern, but one of the other reasons they haven't fully caught on is user experience. CVT means "continuously variable transmission". The best way to think of it is like a bicycle. A 10 speed bike has that set of gears/sprockets near the back wheel. You change gears and it changes how fast you can go. A regular transmission is similar in theory. A CVT, without getting technical, uses pulleys instead of actual gears. Picture a cone/funnel shape, wrap a rubber band around it and slide it up and down the cone and you'll get the idea. In a regular transmission car, just like a bicycle, you start off in gear 1. At some point, your legs on the bike are peddling like mad, so you change gears so you go faster. Same for a regular transmission car. With the CVT, it has endless "gears" (they're not really gears) that it can go through (sliding up and down that cone). So it can...and does...hold the engine at a certain speed to maximize either acceleration or economy. The problem with that is that it can make the car sound like it's "droaning" or "whining". In your regular car, you hear the engine rev, then drop as it changes gears. In a CVT, it'll rev up and stay there as long as you continue to accelerate. It's a unique experience and can be tiresome on the ears. Manufacturers are getting better at it, but it's still quite a different experience. They'll deliver the same power, as that comes from the engine, but it's a very different experience. I don't care for it myself.

Nissan has gone full in on the CVT. It's in a ton of their smaller and midsize products. Another weak point of the CVT is reliability. They've proven to wear out faster than a conventional transmission. I'm sure 10 years from now, they'll figure out how to make them as reliable as other ones. But Nissan has really been struggling with it. Honda is also using CVTs in some of their cars/SUVs, with more success. A few others are using CVTs too.

Unless it's a personal taste/fashion thing, which is perfectly cool, I'd also again suggest at looking at things other than a small SUV...they don't really do any one thing particularly well.

Thanks for the informative response! The reason for the small SUV is because I've been driving a minivan for years and I really don't think I could get used to being down low to the road again. Well, I probably could, but I don't want to. Also, unlike you, I'm not a car person at all -- I drive them into the ground. I also know how much I want to spend on a car payment and a smaller SUV fits the bill. So, I guess I'm just looking for the most reliable, least problematic vehicle that's higher up than a sedan (and I don't want an American vehicle again). I think that leaves me with the Nissan Rogue, Hyundai Tucson, Toyota RAV 4, Honda CRV (I think the HRV might be too small?), Mazda CX-5 or 7. I might be missing a couple. You've definitely turned me off to the CVT, though.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top