Best small to mid size suv

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Here's a video about different manufactures AWD systems. It's a little dated but offers some insight on how all AWD vehicles are not created equal. I thought some on here might find it interesting:

 

[Klayfish]

Curious. The link works for me, and I don't think I have any special access to the site. It's at safety research.net.

While it's associated with the unintended acceleration issue, it's really about the software, and describes incredibly poor software engineering practices. The assertion is that the software is too poorly written (spaghetti code) to test properly, and the reason analysts can't point and say that "here's the bug" is that the way it's written, it would take an inordinate amount of time to find the bug.

The article begins, however, by saying that for the lawsuit in question, the jury had already found them at fault and they settled while the jury tried to decide punitive damages.

Could have been my computer...it's old.

Anyway, software certainly isn't perfect. I'm familiar (not on a personal level, but since cars are my living I have working knowledge) with the litigation. Settlement had nothing to do with actual negligence. It's a business/public relations decision. There has never been anything shown to be a problem with the Toyotas, or any other car accused of unintended acceleration. And again, as I said, even if it were to do that, no car...especially a Prius (I've owned one)...can overpower the brakes. Simply stand on the brake pedal and the car comes to a grinding halt. All of the claims made wither either bogus or user error.

Alice Sr., the Grand Cherokee isn't a bad vehicle as far as capability goes. Reliability is sort of so-so. They'll run forever, but are plagued with build quality issues. How heavy do you really need to tow? Most of the smaller SUVs can tow a small camper with no trouble. The 4Runner is going to have a wide turning radius because it's a truck underneath the body (i.e. what's called a body on frame design). They tend to have larger turning circles. Smaller SUVs are just cars on stilts...as I've said before the CR-V is a Honda Civic with different sheetmetal. The Volvo is a nice car. They have a great safety record, reliability is good, not "great".

Unless you're off roading, or you live somewhere that you have to drive while there is actually a foot of snow on the roadways, you don't need 4WD or AWD. Tires are what really make the difference. I would take a FWD car with good snow capable tires over an AWD or 4WD vehicle with regular tires all day long. I love almost my entire life outside of Philly, actually at the foothills of the Pocono Mountains, so I know snow driving. FWD with good tires never let me down, ever. There's nothing wrong with AWD, it's not going to hurt you, you just don't "need" it unless you're doing off road driving. It adds weight to the vehicle, add more mechanical complexity, adds cost, and reduces fuel mileage.

 

[tvguy]

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.

They have some sharp looking cars, and the Quest I rented last year was very very nice. Nissan has stepped up, the CVT now has a 10 year 120,000 mile warranty. But the Nissan dealer near me is soooo swamped with transmission repairs, they are subletting them to local transmission shops.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Just adding my two cents, I love my Acadia.

We love ours as well, though we did have to put $2,300 into a new transmission at 92,000 miles The Acadia though is definitely a full-size (it's bigger inside than a Tahoe) crossover, though the 2017 is a tad smaller & considered a "mid-size" now.

 

[tvguy]

We love ours as well, though we did have to put $2,300 into a new transmission at 92,000 miles The Acadia though is definitely a full-size (it's bigger inside than a Tahoe) crossover, though the 2017 is a tad smaller & considered a "mid-size" now.

Several folks here are spoken highly of the Acadia. It does strike be as odd as I don't know anyone who owns one. Amazingly, for a county with 1.4 million people, we have just 1 GMC dealer anymore. Used to be 4. Don't see many here, or the Chevy version, the Traverse. I'll have to give them a look. California is Toyota country, And my SUVs are a Mountaineer and a Suburban.

 

[tvguy]

We love ours as well, though we did have to put $2,300 into a new transmission at 92,000 miles The Acadia though is definitely a full-size (it's bigger inside than a Tahoe) crossover, though the 2017 is a tad smaller & considered a "mid-size" now.

Do you have bench seats in the second and third row, or bucket seats. Looked at a few on Carmax and they all see to be 6 passengers versions with 3 pairs of bucket seats. I had that issue when I bought my Suburban, the dealers seemed to order all of them with at least front bucket seats, and often second and third row seats too. I wanted 3 3 passenger bench seats. Don't get me started on leather seats. When my wife bought her MOuntaineer, it was almost impossible to find a Mountaineer or Explorer without leather seats since they were a no cost option.

 

[DizBelle]

I LOVE my Audi SQ5.

 

[Stonglock]

Would never buy a dodge/jeep.

If you can up your budget a little, and might like a slightly bigger SUV, look at the Kia Sorrento.
Look at the ratings this vehicle gets. (don't think the Sportage compares at all)
Ours is very nice!

(PS: traded in a Dodge for it... OMG... NO comparison)

I'll second this. Very happy with the Sorrento.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Do you have bench seats in the second and third row, or bucket seats. Looked at a few on Carmax and they all see to be 6 passengers versions with 3 pairs of bucket seats. I had that issue when I bought my Suburban, the dealers seemed to order all of them with at least front bucket seats, and often second and third row seats too. I wanted 3 3 passenger bench seats. Don't get me started on leather seats. When my wife bought her MOuntaineer, it was almost impossible to find a Mountaineer or Explorer without leather seats since they were a no cost option.

We have buckets in the center row. 3rd row bench seats 3, so ours is 7 passenger. The 8 passenger version seems to be more prevalent in the Traverse.

 

[Aimros]

echoing PPs - we love, love, love our new Outback. We've had many Subaru's in the past and loved each one, but the Outback is definitely our favorite so far. (and we've had no major issues with any of them!!!)

 

[Alice Sr.]

Here's a video about different manufactures AWD systems. It's a little dated but offers some insight on how all AWD vehicles are not created equal. I thought some on here might find it interesting:

That's impressive, thanks for sharing. I owned a Legacy back in the day and loved it. I will take a quick look at the Subaru's, the dealer is only a couple of miles away and has a lifetime warranty for the motor and drive train.

 

[Alice Sr.]

Could have been my computer...it's old.

Anyway, software certainly isn't perfect. I'm familiar (not on a personal level, but since cars are my living I have working knowledge) with the litigation. Settlement had nothing to do with actual negligence. It's a business/public relations decision. There has never been anything shown to be a problem with the Toyotas, or any other car accused of unintended acceleration. And again, as I said, even if it were to do that, no car...especially a Prius (I've owned one)...can overpower the brakes. Simply stand on the brake pedal and the car comes to a grinding halt. All of the claims made wither either bogus or user error.

Alice Sr., the Grand Cherokee isn't a bad vehicle as far as capability goes. Reliability is sort of so-so. They'll run forever, but are plagued with build quality issues. How heavy do you really need to tow? Most of the smaller SUVs can tow a small camper with no trouble. The 4Runner is going to have a wide turning radius because it's a truck underneath the body (i.e. what's called a body on frame design). They tend to have larger turning circles. Smaller SUVs are just cars on stilts...as I've said before the CR-V is a Honda Civic with different sheetmetal. The Volvo is a nice car. They have a great safety record, reliability is good, not "great".

Unless you're off roading, or you live somewhere that you have to drive while there is actually a foot of snow on the roadways, you don't need 4WD or AWD. Tires are what really make the difference. I would take a FWD car with good snow capable tires over an AWD or 4WD vehicle with regular tires all day long. I love almost my entire life outside of Philly, actually at the foothills of the Pocono Mountains, so I know snow driving. FWD with good tires never let me down, ever. There's nothing wrong with AWD, it's not going to hurt you, you just don't "need" it unless you're doing off road driving. It adds weight to the vehicle, add more mechanical complexity, adds cost, and reduces fuel mileage.

Thank you for the GC summary. I think I'm trying to keep too many options open that 1) aren't compatible and 2) really aren't the best choice for me right now. I'm not comfortable pulling the boat and not ready to buy a camper, both or which would be outside the midsize SUV's comfortable tow ability. My number one concern is snow on a very long drive that will likely not be cleared 1/2 the time (or at all if we can still get in and out ok), and pulling a pop-up or a couple of snowmobiles or PWC. I think the Subaru would be good in the snow but not confident in the towing, even with just the lighter weights. If I am not in love with the Volvo I'm going to buy GC, before I change my mind again.

Thanks for all of the info, opinions and advise.

 

[Tinijocaro]

First, let me ask you why you're looking for a small SUV? Not saying you shouldn't buy one, but curious if it's a style choice or something else? SUVs aren't as practical as manufacturers want you to believe. For example, they've become the fashionable replacement for minivans. If it's about style, image and fashion, then that's a matter of personal taste and everyone should buy what makes them happy. But SUVs are much less suited to families with young kids than SUVs are. Not trying to get on a soapbox, but cars are my life (both in hobby and profession) so I'm passionate about them. The small to midsize SUV has become a trendy craze, but they're not really great at any one individual thing.

Anyway, if you're heart set on a small to mid-size SUV, the cream of the crop would be the Mazda CX family, Honda family (CR-V or HR-V), Rav4, Kia/Hyundai family. Included in the Kia family would be the Kia Soul (assuming you don't need three rows of seats...which if you do then a small/mid-size SUV is a very poor choice). They're a wonderful blend of practicality, reliability and value.

We are going from a Honda Odyssey van to a Subaru Forester. We need to still be able to take kids to and from college, and we also need the ability to load two string basses in it, and at other times two tympani. We had a Crv, Forester, Outback, and Rav4 all lined up at the dealership. Forester won for cargo size. Also, it is one of the few vehicles we tried that my 6'2" and 6'3" sons can sit in without their heads touching the ceiling (they are all torso) DH is 6'4" and when he was shopping for a car, he had to find one where the top of the windshield didn't cut off his vision-he bought a Prius. If I still had little kids, we would still be driving a van.

I never minded driving a van but just don't feel we need that much space any more. It's a 2001, older than my DD14 and has 205,000 miles-still running fine but will need brakes soon so we decided it was time.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Why do you love it? My dh and I are looking at either the Forester or the Outback but they both look so small to me and I am not sure I want one. The plus side on them is that they get better gas mileage than a mini van or my car.

Read my post near the end of this thread. Forester won out on cargo size. We measured carefully

 

[RC Fan]

Unless you're off roading, or you live somewhere that you have to drive while there is actually a foot of snow on the roadways, you don't need 4WD or AWD. Tires are what really make the difference. I would take a FWD car with good snow capable tires over an AWD or 4WD vehicle with regular tires all day long. I love almost my entire life outside of Philly, actually at the foothills of the Pocono Mountains, so I know snow driving. FWD with good tires never let me down, ever. There's nothing wrong with AWD, it's not going to hurt you, you just don't "need" it unless you're doing off road driving. It adds weight to the vehicle, add more mechanical complexity, adds cost, and reduces fuel mileage.

If you do live somewhere snowy, the AWD is a tremendous asset! They have cut back on snowplowing here, so no AWD or 4WD often means you don't make it up the hill. Go Subaru!

 

[mousefanmichelle]

Read my post near the end of this thread. Forester won out on cargo size. We measured carefully

I was surprised at the cargo space in the Forester. I have a 4 door sedan right now after driving 2 mini vans. I hate the sedan. Hate. It. I want to sit up high again and while I don't have little kids anymore, either, I still want the space. Both the Forester and Outback have space, I will give Subaru that. I will also give them that there are not a lot of used ones in the lots so that must mean something. Consumer Reports always rates them so well. I just have to decide which it will be - Forester or Outback.

 

[Klayfish]

If you do live somewhere snowy, the AWD is a tremendous asset! They have cut back on snowplowing here, so no AWD or 4WD often means you don't make it up the hill. Go Subaru!

No, actually it really isn't all that big of a deal. Like I said, spent over 40 years in a place that routinely saw "Nor'easters" where we'd get 12-18+" of snow in a storm, with a little ice thrown on top. AWD isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong. But if you took an AWD car using standard all seasons and then a FWD car using snow tires, I can tell you which one would get up a snowy/icy hill and which one wouldn't. Unfortunately, people think AWD is THE selling point and a must have for bad climate. It's not. Car companies like Subaru want you to think it is, it's part of their marketing. Good tires will get you through 98% of the on road situations you will ever encounter. Of course, if you have AWD and snow tires at the same time, that's even better. Heck, even RWD will go great in snow with snow tires.

Subaru isn't a bad car, good quality stuff. Not my personal taste...they still haven't mastered the art of a nice interior and they struggle with mpg, but they're fine cars.

 

[RC Fan]

No, actually it really isn't all that big of a deal. Like I said, spent over 40 years in a place that routinely saw "Nor'easters" where we'd get 12-18+" of snow in a storm, with a little ice thrown on top. AWD isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong. But if you took an AWD car using standard all seasons and then a FWD car using snow tires, I can tell you which one would get up a snowy/icy hill and which one wouldn't. Unfortunately, people think AWD is THE selling point and a must have for bad climate. It's not. Car companies like Subaru want you to think it is, it's part of their marketing. Good tires will get you through 98% of the on road situations you will ever encounter. Of course, if you have AWD and snow tires at the same time, that's even better. Heck, even RWD will go great in snow with snow tires.

We will have to agree to disagree. During my 41 years living on the East coast of Canada, I'll take the AWD any day.

All things being equal, as in putting snow tires on both the FWD car and on the AWD car--I believe the AWD car will outperform the FWD car on snow-covered hills.

My only experience with RWD in snow involved a car with studded snow tires--it was absolutely useless.

 

[mousefanmichelle]

Subaru isn't a bad car, good quality stuff. Not my personal taste...they still haven't mastered the art of a nice interior and they struggle with mpg, but they're fine cars.

You are 100% right about snow tires! My dh is a tire freak and I will tell you what - having snow tires every winter the last couple of years in my FWD drive car has saved my butt getting to and from work! I plow through the snow and ice in my 1 hour+ drive to and from work.

On a side note - I don't want to buy a Subaru - they are fugly. I totally think they are the geekiest looking vehicles on the road right now and I keep telling my dh that they are geek mobiles (no offense to anyone who drives one!!!) but the reviews, safety rating, space and the mpg is much better than any other can we are looking at. I put on 30,000 miles per year on a car and I need something that gets good gas mileage. This gets much better than my current car and any others I've compared it to.

 

[xlxo]

looking to buy and wanted Some opinions. Looking at Rouge ..Sportage ..Tuscon...or similar vehicles Any help would be great. Thanks

I love my Rav4! Would absolutely buy it again. My boyfriend loves his Mazda 3 and is looking to trade it in for a CX-5.

@old feller: Thoughts....

• do you drive in places with lots of congestion and traffic lights? If fuel economy is a concern.... check out the new RAV hybrid.
• love the Nissan surround view cameras.... makes parking so much easier and safer.
• if you live in places where there is little snow..... front wheel drive vehicles will be good enough and save your money by skipping the all wheel drive. Personally I got myself a Prius V with lots of cargo space. You are seated a little higher up than most sedans.