Looking for small SUV with AWD...

[cheezmunky]

Another vote for an Outback. Unless you are wanting to go the cheap route and buy a used domestic the Outback is the only option I would consider in the $25k range for a newer SUV. My parents regularly achieve 30+ mpg in theirs, and Subarus have great resell value. I agree with the looks of Subarus, but they are so much more practical than most vehicles that it's easy to get over the looks. Subaru also released the Crosstrek. I haven't looked into it much but it seems to be jacked up, beefier Impreza. Might be an option if you don't need a bigger vehicle but still want ground clearance. [/subaru fanboi]

 

[rsutoratosu]

I looked at the outback/forester and decided not to get it due to the 4spd transmission of the older series. Are the 2013/2014 using 5 or 6 spd ?

 

[sdifox]

I looked at the outback/forester and decided not to get it due to the 4spd transmission of the older series. Are the 2013/2014 using 5 or 6 spd ?

http://www.subaru.com/engineering/transmission.html


There is CVT, 4, 5 and manual 5-6.

 

[JimKiler]

Mazdas for some reason don't stand up to the North all that well.

My Protege5 started to rust in year 2. From the name plate at the back gate no less. Maybe the idiots didn't punch the holes before the galvinised.

My 94 Protege that i delivered pizzas in for several years never rusted in Minnesota even with chipped paint missing on the bottom of the back door. But my 03 Protege5 has rust on the rear wheel wells. I would have put paint protector on the CX-7 my wife got but she wanted the extended warranty and I was not willing to pay for both. With Mazda the extended warranty will be meaningless but she wanted the piece of mind, oh well.

Also unless you see lots of snow i question the need for AWD with today's cars having traction control all that other new fangled technology.

 

[sdifox]

My 94 Protege that i delivered pizzas in for several years never rusted in Minnesota even with chipped paint missing on the bottom of the back door. But my 03 Protege5 has rust on the rear wheel wells. I would have put paint protector on the CX-7 my wife got but she wanted the extended warranty and I was not willing to pay for both. With Mazda the extended warranty will be meaningless but she wanted the piece of mind, oh well.

Also unless you see lots of snow i question the need for AWD with today's cars having traction control all that other new fangled technology.

he has to climb a hill.

 

[JimKiler]

he has to climb a hill.

then AWD makes sense. But for my wife and I AWD was not needed unless driving in snow which is not that many days of the year, even in Minnesota.

 

[Meghan54]

While not small-ish, I'd also look around for a slightly used Lexus RX300-series SUV. Excellent vehicle and quite easy to find a certified one, and should last a very long time.

 

[sdifox]

then AWD makes sense. But for my wife and I AWD was not needed unless driving in snow which is not that many days of the year, even in Minnesota.

he has to climb a hill in the snow too

 

[mvbighead]

he has to climb a hill.

Yep, in the snow.

Further, we often get some thick snow that settles on the driveway. With traction control and all-seasons on the Impala, there's been a time or two where the Impala couldn't crest the incline of the driveway to get to the top of the hill. Snow tires surely would help, but I'm less inclined to think that the larger hill would be as easy.

With a baby due in February, and a wife who will be driving this vehicle from time to time in the snow, I don't want to get that phone call that she can't get up the hill, or that she's stuck somewhere. At this point, there is no debate that this vehicle will be getting AWD. If I lived on the low side of the hill, there'd be less need. But as it is, I have a quarter mile of hill at a 30 degree incline (rough estimate) on rock road where the road slopes to either side for run off. AWD will make things easier for both of us.

 

[sdifox]

Yep, in the snow.

Further, we often get some thick snow that settles on the driveway. With traction control and all-seasons on the Impala, there's been a time or two where the Impala couldn't crest the incline of the driveway to get to the top of the hill. Snow tires surely would help, but I'm less inclined to think that the larger hill would be as easy.

With a baby due in February, and a wife who will be driving this vehicle from time to time in the snow, I don't want to get that phone call that she can't get up the hill, or that she's stuck somewhere. At this point, there is no debate that this vehicle will be getting AWD. If I lived on the low side of the hill, there'd be less need. But as it is, I have a quarter mile of hill at a 30 degree incline (rough estimate) on rock road where the road slopes to either side for run off. AWD will make things easier for both of us.

you actually need 4x4 more than AWD. AWD is mostly for flat surfaces

 

[soulcougher73]

Subaru Forrester hands down.

 

[Viper GTS]

Subaru Forrester hands down.

Yep. Pretty much defines this category.

Is the MT still available on the base Forester? I know you can't get it on the XT any more... Love the 50/50 power distribution of a MT Subaru.

Viper GTS

 

[JimKiler]

Yep, in the snow.

Further, we often get some thick snow that settles on the driveway. With traction control and all-seasons on the Impala, there's been a time or two where the Impala couldn't crest the incline of the driveway to get to the top of the hill. Snow tires surely would help, but I'm less inclined to think that the larger hill would be as easy.

With a baby due in February, and a wife who will be driving this vehicle from time to time in the snow, I don't want to get that phone call that she can't get up the hill, or that she's stuck somewhere. At this point, there is no debate that this vehicle will be getting AWD. If I lived on the low side of the hill, there'd be less need. But as it is, I have a quarter mile of hill at a 30 degree incline (rough estimate) on rock road where the road slopes to either side for run off. AWD will make things easier for both of us.

BTW, if your wife is like mine that will mean she wants AWD but then when it snows it will be too dangerous to drive anywhere with a baby, sigh.

 

[nerp]

Forester. We have one. Great vehicle.

 

[Meghan54]

2014 Forester.

Only if the buyer is a Registered Democrat. They come with Obama/Biden bumper stickers pre-installed, and they check voter registration at the DMV and traffic stops.

I laughed at this until I thought about it and it's almost the truth, at least around here in MA.

 

[mvbighead]

BTW, if your wife is like mine that will mean she wants AWD but then when it snows it will be too dangerous to drive anywhere with a baby, sigh.

Generally, yes, I'd agree. To be honest, the road is generally paved, but the driveway takes some time. We have the 2000 JGC (which we're hoping to replace with whatever we end up going with) and it has AWD and gets around quite well.

Honestly, I figure anything that can spin all four wheels at a given time should provide a much better mode of transportation in the winter. We'd just prefer to have something that gets car-like MPG, as we currently only have one vehicle that does.

 

[mvbighead]

While I don't mind the styling, not sure that the wife would go for this:
http://omaha.craigslist.org/ctd/3293803771.html

$7k, Forester 2.5XS MT 103k miles.

Also, not sure how the wife is going to feel about a manual transmission. We both have driven them, but not sure if she leans one way or the other. My guess is she'd prefer auto.

 

[mvbighead]

you actually need 4x4 more than AWD. AWD is mostly for flat surfaces

I'm not sure that I buy this. Granted, AWD isn't exactly designed for off-road, but it generally is designed with traction in mind. That being said, traveling a steep grade in slick conditions is benefited by having all four wheels compensate for slippage, rather than dragging two wheel around (FWD-WWD).

Heck, I can recall an instance in my old Buick Regal (FWD) where one of the drive tires was on ice. I could not move despite what I did with the wheel. A traction control system would've benefited that situation, but having four tires able to contribute to traction will generally net you the best results.

Obviously, 4wd is more aggressive than AWD, but I simply need better than FWD.

 

[sdifox]

I'm not sure that I buy this. Granted, AWD isn't exactly designed for off-road, but it generally is designed with traction in mind. That being said, traveling a steep grade in slick conditions is benefited by having all four wheels compensate for slippage, rather than dragging two wheel around (FWD-WWD).

Heck, I can recall an instance in my old Buick Regal (FWD) where one of the drive tires was on ice. I could not move despite what I did with the wheel. A traction control system would've benefited that situation, but having four tires able to contribute to traction will generally net you the best results.

Obviously, 4wd is more aggressive than AWD, but I simply need better than FWD.

like I said. 4x4 MORE THAN AWD

 

[mvbighead]

While not small-ish, I'd also look around for a slightly used Lexus RX300-series SUV. Excellent vehicle and quite easy to find a certified one, and should last a very long time.

Now you got me thinking... grrr.

http://www.siddillon.com/2004-Lexus-RX-330-Base-Blair-NE/vd/10526962

2004 RX330 - 14k - 130k miles.

Seems a bit high, but I am nearly positive she'd love something like this. I'd think it'd hold value a bit better than an Equinox, and still be stylish enough that we can hang on to it for while.

Biggest problem is the cost for the miles. Definitely better deals at the lower end of the spectrum. I'd assume Toyota engine reliability with a nicer interior. May have to toss this one up to the wife and see what she thinks. The beauty of it is that the local dealer has it on their lot.

 

[Insomniator]

Can't imagine paying twice the price for that lexus over the forester.

 

[mvbighead]

Can't imagine paying twice the price for that lexus over the forester.

Well, to be honest, I can't either. But at the same time, I'd like to look at everything that could fit in the budget. As it is, one thing I have been wanting to find is a nice luxury cruiser for longer trips. Something more quiet than what I have currently, and more comfortable. As the wife and I commute to work each day, the thought of a reliable luxury vehicle is nice, but the sticker for new is not so much.

Something like the one I posted is new enough, but not necessarily the best $$$/mile. But, if it proves to be a more comfortable/enjoyable ride, we'd be inclined to keep it longer.

Granted, this may not be the car for that, but I figure it may be worth a look.

EDIT: And the truecar value seems to put it at reasonable, as does KBB. So apparently the price is where it should be. I suspect there has to be reason one would pay $14k for something with that kind of mileage. And as my brother just purchased a 2004 Highlander with 82k for $13k, I don't see it as far off.

 

[vi edit]

Sheesh...residual on my 2005 Highlander that I leased for 3 years and 36,000 miles was $16,500 or so. 13k does not seem like a good deal for an '04 with that many miles. But used values are a mess right now.

 

[Nobuo]

spend a little more and get one of these instead:

http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2013/x1/default.aspx

24 MPG city, 34 hwy and 0-60 in 6 seconds

 

[sdifox]

spend a little more and get one of these instead:

http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2013/x1/default.aspx

24 MPG city, 34 hwy and 0-60 in 6 seconds

I got a Lurker!