Family vehicles for Bill

Non-repair car talk
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

Not sure why this isn't a thread yet. Actually I do know why. Because the selection is not by committee...it's really up to his wife and only his wife.

That said, we can at least log information, statistics and opinions somewhere.

Maybe this will target the heart of the matter.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/co ... yota-rav4/

These were both high trims, costing ~$39k as tested. Not sure how lower trims compare to each other. I suspect the gap widens even further.
2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature AWD
Highs: The best chassis in the class, the best engine in the class, the best interior in the class.
Lows: One of the thirstiest engines in the class, narrow interior, small cargo hold.

2019 Toyota RAV4 Limited
Highs: Humongous interior space, cushy seats, thrifty on fuel.
Lows: Noisy, feels brittle and insubstantial, polarizing styling.
This just in: You already own a crossover. Just because it is probably the least appealing to a car enthusiast is hardly a convincing argument that the segment is stupid. I mean, unless you literally have driven nothing else (which I think is the case - if you think they all drive horribly, I feel bad for you, also, go drive different stuff please).
The word "car" has long been considered a synonym for the more generic "vehicle." Nobody goes "crossover shopping"; they go car shopping. And what people are shopping for today, increasingly, is compact crossovers, such as the Mazda CX-5 and the Toyota RAV4.
It is interesting that they felt the need to state all of this but apparently people still need to hear it.
From Honda to Volkswagen, tall compact hatchbacked SUV-like vehicles often are a brand's best seller. The only exception to this rule is domestic full-size pickups, which are all followed in their respective brands' sales charts by—you guessed it—compact SUVs. (See our rankings for the entire segment here.) Here we have two superlative best sellers: The Toyota RAV4 is not only Toyota's biggest seller, it's the best-selling vehicle in the whole class and the fourth-best-selling vehicle in the United States, period. With Mazda's humbler scale and presence in our market, the CX-5 didn't come close to the RAV4's 427,170 sales in 2018, but it does outsell all the rest of Mazda's lineup combined. How's that for proof of the crossover's dominance?
I think the case for the CX-5 is strong.
Cars in this class run the gamut from affordable to, well, affordable for wealthier people. You can spend as little as $25,395 on a Mazda CX-5, or you can spend about $40,000. All-wheel drive bumps the price up $1400 on the lower trim levels, while it's standard on the upper Grand Touring Reserve and Signature models. It's the same story in the Toyota showroom, where the RAV4 starts at $26,595 and tops $40K all loaded up. There, too, the ability to power the rear wheels adds $1400.
As our current 10Best winner in the segment, the CX-5 is our gold standard for compact crossovers. It's such a standout that, if we want to praise any other similar vehicle, we compare it to the Mazda. And this excellence is apparent from the moment a driver pulls onto the road. The CX-5 has great, rock-solid steering that, in a straight line, feels as though the wheel is fixed. Then you start to turn the wheel, and there's a satisfying buildup in effort. The CX-5 has real body control that doesn't feel as if it was designed to manage more than a driver in this segment is going to do with the Mazda but was designed to deliver outstanding ride comfort no matter what.
Actually the RAV4 has improved substantially. But...
The Bottom Line

The Toyota RAV4 is a spacious and comfortable cruiser and surprisingly engaging. On the one hand, the RAV4 joins the Camry sedan as unlikely indicators of a shift toward enthusiasm at Toyota. But on the other, both are the volume models, and their honing shows that Toyota is serious about modifying its reputation for building reliable yet staid vehicles. There's a competence to the latest RAV4 that has never been there before. All it needs now is a powertrain that doesn't sound and feel like it's two decades old.

Yet while the Toyota is competent, the Mazda is exemplary. It's not the most spacious people hauler in the segment, but for those whose needs track more toward the modest end of the spectrum, the CX-5 is, in the words of one staffer, "a class-above vehicle despite its middle-of-the-pack pricing." Another, considering the Mazda against any other competitor, called it "no contest." In a field full of mainstream nameplates, the CX-5 feels like a full-blown luxury offering. That it drives in a way that will please enthusiasts merely takes what already has broad appeal and further distills it for those who care differently.
Anyway:
- Affordable even with AWD
- Best interior in segment
- Good or even above average reliability (at least at the brand level)
- Best chassis in the segment (probably drives at least as good as your 3, yes really)

Negatives:
- Below average fuel economy (but performance blows away the RAV4 in this test, like 2 seconds faster 0-60)
- Cargo space compromised (but whether it is "sufficient" is something you will only find out by driving one and even taking it home for a bit which you can usually do)

CX-5
Wheelbase: 106.2 in
Length: 179.1 in
Width: 72.5 in
Height: 65.3 in
Passenger volume: 102 cu ft
Cargo volume: 31 cu ft
RAV4
Wheelbase: 105.9 in
Length: 181.5 in
Width: 73.4 in
Height: 70.0 in
Passenger volume: 99 cu ft
Cargo volume: 37 cu ft
I'm not sure those are WORLDS apart....but it is 19% less cargo room in the Mazda. Noticable? Certainly. Show stopping? Doubt it. Both of those numbers are more than twice a typical small sedan. Bill, your 3 is 11.5 based on research. That is a significant difference.

In fact a current gen Impala which is a large sedan only has 18.8. way bigger than the 3 but nowhere near these crossovers and they aren't even large crossovers.

I looked up our SRX: 32.4. Clearly 31 is a very serviceable number.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

Another review article.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a2 ... e-numbers/
The CX-5 is sporty not because it is sharp-edged or stiff—although the turbo is tuned to be slightly stiffer than the base model—or because it has lots of grip (an intrusive stability-control system hampered its performance on our skidpad), but because it exudes sophistication in the way that it moves.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

Or, and I really do say this cautiously, go drive a new RAV4. Apparently it has gotten waaaay better. Not my first recommendation though. I think the CX-5 fits the bill here (get it?) far better.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

I would seriously consider a used CX-5. Now you can probably stay well under $30k and get something good to drive, that also fits your wife's requirements. Amazing. If you want something with some scoot, you can look for a 2.5T. I'll find some candidates.

Here is a 2017 FWD with the base engine.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/
Whether you call them small SUVs or compact crossovers, the broad appeal of these vehicles lies in their size, practicality, price, and elevated seating position. Driving dynamics aren’t nearly as important, likely falling somewhere around the speed of the windshield wipers and the feel of the glovebox latch among the priorities of most buyers. Most of these vehicles go down the road with an inoffensive ride and enough confidence to satisfy the segment’s buyers, but to those of us who enjoy the way steering and suspension play together, this category is about as entertaining as, well, measuring the speed of power windows.

There is an exception. It’s apparent as soon as you begin driving Mazda’s new CX-5 that it has an energy that’s absent from its appliancelike competition. The steering is precise and tuned to provide the feedback of a sports car, and the suspension greets corners with composure instead of reluctance. A six-speed automatic snaps off quick shifts and avoids the monotonous engine noise created by competitors’ continuously variable automatic transmissions at full throttle. There are additional little touches for driving enthusiasts, such as a floor-mounted accelerator pedal. This particular feature isn’t exactly a big deal, but Mazda went to the trouble for the same reason luxury brands do: because it feels better in operation than a hanging pedal.
And here is a 2017 AWD with the base engine.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/

It is only a little slower than the V6 4Runner with 41 to 68% better fuel economy. Plus actual handling.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

So the turbo is new for 2019. Also only comes on the top two trim levels, Grand Touring Reserve and Signature. Just means better buy as used, obviously. Here's one:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... pe=listing

12,856 miles, $30,392. These will most certainly drop further if you just wait a bit. In fact they will be under $30k in a matter of months I'm sure.

Does this work for you:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.4 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph

That puts it somewhere near my STS for performance, or a little faster than our SRX.

C&D is testing one long term (the 2.5T specifically).
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a2 ... intenance/
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

If you want a base model, Flood Ford has this:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... pe=listing

2018 AWD with 6,775 miles. $21,805.

Now I'm saving you some serious cash.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

2018 Grand Touring AWD. 29,680 miles. $23,900. Also local.

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... pe=listing

I'd probably go for the higher trim myself. Check out the interior. Black on black. You'll like this one.
d66f3c512fe44d4f8ef4741496204d42.jpg
By the way, MSRP of that was around $32k if NADA is reporting correctly. Over 8 grand off MSRP for only 30k of miles. So $8,100 for 2 years and 15k/yr and this makes my case on not buying new...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by bill25 »

These are both worth checking out. I'll have to check the width across the back seat. I don't think I need a third row, but 2 adults need to fit with a child seat in the back. That is the biggest problem with the RAV now is that it doesn't fit more than 3 adults and a seat.

This was part of the driver for the 4Runner. It seemed wider so the 3rd row didn't seem mandatory. Unfortunately, they are expensive used, get 17 mpg, etc...
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

Highlander. Pilot. Possibly even a CR-V. Widths do vary.
kevm14
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Family vehicles for Bill

Post by kevm14 »

Here. Look at rear shoulder room. Highlander and especially Pilot seem cavernous. The RAV4, CR-V and CX-5 are about the same. 4Runner is slightly better. It is 2.5" wider than your RAV4 for rear shoulder room. Is that enough to make the difference?

The Blazer seems like the perfect size, if it passes your test. Not as ponderous and stupid as the Pilot/Highlander but keeps most of the interior space minus the third row. In fact I seem to recall that it is specifically positioning itself as a 'tweener, and based on the dimensions below, that bears out. And that may be exactly what you need. Isn't that funny...

And I threw the current and last gen Tahoe in there which seems to dominate for that dimension (it should, it's based on a 1/2 ton truck).

I suspect the Tahoe is a definite yes. Probably the Pilot. Maybe the Highlander. Not sure about anything less - you'd have to actually put two adults next to a seat and see. Actually I think there are YouTube channels that specifically have child seat or 2nd row mixed passenger tests for exactly this reason. Maybe I can find something.

Yes I can. Our buddy Alex on Autos.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... i8E-xolDWJ
Screenshot_20191118-191205.png
Screenshot_20191118-191403.png
Screenshot_20191118-191535.png
Screenshot_20191119-065911.png
Screenshot_20191118-192959.png
So rear seat shoulder room ranked, and relative to 2011 RAV4:
2018 CX-5: 54.8" -0.5"
2011 RAV4: 55.3" +0"
2018 CR-V: 55.6" +0.3"
2020 RAV4: 56.4" +1.1"
2008 SRX: 57.6" +2.3"
2017 4Runner: 57.8" +2.5"
2020 Blazer: 58.6" +3.3"
2018 Highlander: 59.6" +4.3"
2020 Telluride: 59.9" +4.6"
2018 Pilot: 62" +6.7"
2018 Tahoe: 65.1" +9.8"
2014 Tahoe: 65.2" +9.9"

So just relatively speaking, how much extra room do you feel is necessary (without sitting in any of these) to squeeze two adult shoulders next to each other if you cannot quite fit it now? Is it just a couple inches or is it like 9 inches? Can you actually close the door but it's just too tight? Or can you only get like halfway in the car?

Also here is our SRX for fun.
Screenshot_20191119-071134.png
I can't give you a direct comparison because our 2nd row use case would be a large seat on the left, a booster on the right, and an adult in the middle. This is very rare but it is tight even for a small adult. And by tight, I think I really mean, we don't do that...Of course we do have the 3rd row which is also extremely rare...maybe once or twice a year, if that.

Of course the other point I was making is for whatever perception you have about the larger-ness of the 4Runner, it only buys like 2.5" over your current vehicle. I would bet you would have guessed a lot more just looking at exterior dimensions.

Keep in mind you are going to a booster very soon so I think this issue may be a bit overblown.

Throwing minivans in because it shows why people buy them.
Screenshot_20191119-072634.png
Screenshot_20191119-072711.png
Screenshot_20191119-072959.png
In fact, they give you nearly the space of Suburban. A SUBURBAN!

Look at the key dimensions. That Sienna matches front and rear shoulder room which is incredible, as well as another one that's even more surprising: cargo volume behind the third row. That's right. That is how space efficient minivans can be. And it does all that with 1,200 lbs less vehicle, 2 feet less length and even 2.5" less exterior width. Goes without saying that it is cheaper to buy. The numbers don't lie (rhymes).

How about the Grand Cherokee? Surely those are big. Nope.
Screenshot_20191119-073808.png
By the numbers, this is a Blazer with a RAV4 rear cargo area, or slotting between the 4Runner and Blazer for 2nd row shoulder width. Which isn't a bad combination mind you but considering it weighs like 5,000 lbs (Blazer around 4,200, RAV4 around 3,500), I'd say that's not a good use of resources, considering that the Sienna can match a Suburban, is only 1.6" wider, 10.8" longer than a Grand Cherokee, and actually has more room behind the 3rd row than the Grand Cherokee does behind its 2nd row...

This is why SUVs are not efficient family transportation pods and never have been.

B-body and Panther also for fun. Look at that shoulder room in the B-body!! That is a legit 3 adults in the rear seat vehicle, and you can see to make that happen the shoulder room is up in the 63" range. Even the Pilot is less at 62".
Screenshot_20191119-131556.png
Check out the Traverse. Pretty good. But still not as good.
Screenshot_20191119-141632.png
Kia Telluride. Perfect size. That's 21 cu-ft behind the THIRD row. It is 46 behind the 2nd row, exceeding the standard 30-40 of everything else (probably typical of a 3 row though).
Screenshot_20191120-073951.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply