Automotive Forums

My wife and I want something we carry our dogs in. I want something that has an interior that is easy to clean. Other considerations are that it's not too wide so we can still fit into a normal size parking spot, that it has an mp3 connector and that it has a good service record. We want to spend no more then $35k.
Any ideas?
thanks,
Carlton.  

Hi Carlton,

      I just finished an extensive investigation of crossovers while collaborating with speedracer (a frequent poster on this forum) and settled on a Mitsubishi Outlander. Granted, my budget isn't nearly as high as yours, but you could get a fully loaded Outlander: Navigation, 650 watt Rockford Fosgate stereo system, CDs that are automatically uploaded to a 3 gigabyte hard drive, and other advanced features synonymous with more expensive cars, and yet still have a few thousand dollars to spare. I'd look at the Mazda CX-7, amazing incentive deals and the spare tire cover flips over for dirty cargo. I feel inclined to mention the Element, b/c of its urethane floor covers (intended to facilitate cleaning). Perhaps, take a look at the V6 RAV-4, if you want a dose of power. I'd reckon it's the fastest SUV under 35 grand.

That being said, I can't justify spending 35 grand on an SUV when such perfectly capable ones exist for cheaper. If you're really bent on paying at least 30 grand, the Nissan Murano and Lexus 350 (maybe a little more) seem to be solid bets, although they are ubiquitious, for a reason however.  

qdogg290  makes some good suggestions.  Any SUV will fit your dogs just fine, unless you have 4 mastiffs. So, do you have other considerations?  Does it need to be as big as a Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander or Mazda CX-9?  Do you desire the performance and handling of the Mazda CX-7?  The Mid-largish "crossover" SUV category is saturated with plenty of options.  What are you specific criteria beyond cargo capacity and parkability?  

I would like something that handles well. I want something that isn't too wide. The size of an Outlander or CX-7 would be fine. I don't want a car that takes up an entire parking space, but I do want something that I can throw my two corgis in the back without having to worry about how dirty they get it. I'm also very interested in a car that has a good service record. My wife prefers heated seats, MP3 connection for her Nano and XM radio.
Thanks for the help.
Carlton.  

Good handling is both subjective and relative.  But all of the so-called "small" SUVs like the Toyota RAV 4, Honda CRV, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue, Mazda CX-7, and Subaru Forrester are based on each respective manufacturer's small and midsize car chassis.  As a result, each handles far better than truck-based chassis SUVs like the Toyota 4runner, Nissan Pathfinder, etc.  But all are not equal, and only a few offer sports-sedan-like handling and performance.  

The Subaru Forrester is available with a 2.5 Liter turbocharged flat 4 that gives the otherwise sensible-shoes SUV a big wallop of power.  It'll do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds with a manual, and is more tossable in the corners than most other SUVs.  It's also rather boxy, giving it a tall, upright cargo area that's probably rather nice for a couple of smallish dogs.  Add Subaru's reputation for reliability and longevity, and the Forrester is hard to beat for those wanting an unusually sporty SUV.  

The Mazda CX-7, like the Forrester, comes with a turbo 4 cylinder making, though it makes a bit more power.  It's not available with a manual, and it's a bit heavier, but it's certainly not slow.  I find the CX-7's styling, inside and out, to be better than pretty much anything else available at that price point, and the Mazda3 and 6 suspension components endow it with superior handling.  It's easily the most sporting of the "smallish" SUVs, and without any major handicaps compared to the others, It's my personal favorite.  

I find the Toyota RAV-4 dull.  But that's just me, and there's no denying the inherent quality and functionality of its "toyotaness."  Plus, with the 268HP 3.5 Liter V6, it's pretty darn quick.  It's not as sporting as the Subaru and Mazda, but if power is your sole concern, only a manual transmission-equipped Forrester XT comes close to the Toyota's accelerative abilities.  

The Outlander is an excellent middle-of-the-road choice.  I find it stylish and well-equipped.  Its 220 HP V6 splits the difference between base-model 4 Cylinder options of the Subaru, Toyota, Mazdas and the turbo/V6 options of the same (though the Mazda is only available with the turbo).  Plus, the 6-speed automatic has more ratios than anything else in its category.  It's chassis is nicely tuned for decent handling, and, like most modern Mitsubishis, it's equipped with various "youth" oriented equipment like MP3 compatability.  

As long as $35K is your limit, you might be particularly interested in the new Acura RDX.  It's in the same size and performance class as the CX-7, but comes with enough standard luxury equipment that it starts at around $32K.  I've not driven the Acura, but the automotive press has put the CX-7 and the RDX up against eachother in various comparison tests, and found the RDX to be a bit better in handling verve and accelerative muscle, even though the two have similar power.  The RDX costs more, but still comes in well under $35K well equipped.  I find the styling, and especially the interior to be far too "robocop" for me. But there's no doubt that the RDX, like all Acuras, bundle unusually competent handling, performance, luxury, feature content, and quality into an unusually reasonably priced car.  Take a look.  

And if there are more questions, please ask.  

Also, have you considered a competent wagon?  VW, Audi, Mazda, and Subaru make excellent wagon versions of their superior sedans, and if a bit of dog-friendly cargo area is the primary concern, the handling, space efficiency, and performance of a properly excellent wagon might be more rewarding to drive day in and day out than any SUV.  Let me know.  

Hello, would all of the above do equally well on rutted Colorado dirt roads after a nice blow-out storm? Any preference? Is the Outback the run-away best bet or do any others come close? I've driven the 2007 Outback with a 4 cylinder and sport shift and it gets the job done on highway but not really more than that. Like the mileage. Your thoughts, anyone?  

I have the above mentioned Element and it is great for the 'clean factor' and configuration changes are great for moving larger things.  Have '04 with 45000 on it and haven't had any problems at all.  I am basically happy with this car in the snow too. Cabin in Tahoe and we go often for snowboarding.  I also have a huge dog and two kids, we make it work on family trips. Plenty of power for jumping on and off freeway.  This car does the job I only thought a SUV could do and gets decent mileage.  Downside - its like driving a really BIG VW bug when you get a good crosswind.  Not crazy about the cornering, feels kinda top heavy on the way up to Tahoe (especially with winds). I drive like the perverbial Pasadena Lady on the cliff-side mountain roads but not on the hill-side. Leslie  

None of the SUVs mentioned above are made for heavy offroading.  All will handle rustic roads or a nasty snowstorm, but I wouldn't combine deep snow and rutted rural roads.  If I had to drive one of them in those conditions, I'd take the Forrester (or Outback, as you mention).  The Subaru AWD system is robust and effective, certainly more so than the others for off-road duty.  The Subarus also tend to have a bet more ground clearance, and usually come with tires that are a bit more capable off road.