Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends.
If you want reliability and quality, only established, time proven models will work for you. As in - CR-V and RAV4. With new RAV4 looking very nice after body style change. But outside of that, You have very reliable vehicles, very good gas mileage. And yes, I owned CR-V(in-laws have RAV4) and in 110 000 miles all I had to replace was fuel tank cap and she got me through ANY adverse condition available from AL through Pacific NW. Aced it all.
But I am the guy who does not care about looks, but about function and dependability. You just can't beat those 2.
Older Escape was a decent car to buy, as it was Mazda Tribute. But it's badly outdated on looks. How new, non-Mazda Escape will present itself, is hard to tell now. Knowing Ford, likely not too well.
Subarus are great cars, best AWD system outperformed only by whale like Land Rover. But their mpg sucks, and dependability is questionable. You may need such a vehicle ONLY if you always need reliable, well designed 4WD.
Of course, with that said, you'll turn around and buy a Buick or a Chrysler, or a Dodge... Or, better, a GM. I do not mention the F company. It's beneath me to do so.
FYI the new Forester has better EPA numbers than the CR-V and the Rav4 front wheel drive models.
I too like the CX-5. If the current model was available when we bought my wife's Equinox (which she loves BTW) I would've had her test drive it before making up her mind.
As for our Equinox, it is a nice vehicle too. We have over 10K miles and zero problems, get 21-22 in the city (when she is not idling waiting for the kids after school) and 32+ on the highway at 60. I get 27-28 on my commute with light traffic.
I wouldn't buy anything with a triple diamond attached to it (Mitsubishi).
Why? The redesigned 2014 Outlander has the best crash test scores of any small SUV. I own two 2010 Lancers and they've been completely reliable (nothing but scheduled maintenance so far). I'd trust them farther than a Chrysler product.
We shopped for a small SUV last summer. I found every one of them to have some kind of negatives or compromises in all of them to hit the price point of that segment. Usually the compromises were in different areas depending on the particular SUV. So I would suggest looking and driving as many as you may be interested in before making a decision.
All that said, my wife and I ended up buying an Outback. It didn't cost me any more than the small SUV's we were looking at, in nearly every instance it had a higher/more expensive build quality and feel to the small SUV's, and offered me far more space, hauling, and towing capacity. Fuel mileage was not as good... but I was willing to compromise on that for what I felt was a much nicer vehicle for the same money.
A Ford Transit is not an SUV. It's a cargo van. Because it's cheap, some aftermarket companies convert them into things like campers, but that won't change the basic, bare-bones nature of the vehicle.
The only thing that I don't like about the CX-5 is the front end (from the windshield forward). It looks like the front of a sedan stuck on a SUV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or, better, a GM. I do not mention the F company. It's beneath me to do so.
