'Bout 2½ hours too late there, spoke-. 
[QUOTE=Sigmagirl]
We didn’t buy an SUV because we neeeeed one. We bought one because we didn’t see any alternatives. I’m asking for alternatives.
Anyone?
[/QUOTE]
I believe they make minivans where the back seats can be folded down to give you room for storage. Also, Subaru makes some really good hatchbacks.
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
'Bout 2½ hours too late there, spoke-. 
[/QUOTE]
Stay tuned for my snappy comeback, about two hours hence.
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
The Hilux has been replaced by the Toyota Tacoma here and the closest thing we have to a Ford Bantam is the Chevrolet SSR.
[/QUOTE]
That is one U-G-L-Y vehicle.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I believe they make minivans where the back seats can be folded down to give you room for storage.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Honda Odyssey is nice. Not much difference in milage between that and a 2001 Santa Fe though.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That is one U-G-L-Y vehicle.
[/QUOTE]
“People, have you ever wanted a hardtop convertible sports car that was also a utilitarian pickup truck… oh and also, styled by a six year old boy and his pet chimpanzee?” asked General Motors.
“No!” the people cried.
“We’re sorry you feel that way,” replied GM, “because we’re building it anyway.”
[QUOTE=Sigmagirl]
We use my “normal” car for joint use. He usually goes to rehearsal straight from work, so whatever we buy will be his sole vehicle; I don’t see how we could make a justification for the two of us to own three vehicles. He doesn’t like the SSRs. So far we have just been looking at what we see on the road and checking out apparent storage capacity, visibility, etc. Murano looks OK, as does Outback. We do not like Fords (bad experience). Our second choice when we bought the Santa Fe was a RAV-4.
[/QUOTE]
2001 Santa Fe: 'bout 20 MPG and 30.5 ft.[sup]3[/sup] cargo space (78 ft.[sup]3[/sup] with the seat down).
2006 Honda Odyssey: 'bout 20 MPG and 38.4 ft.[sup]3[/sup] cargo space (147.4 ft.[sup]3[/sup] with the seats down).
2007 Pontiac Vibe: 'bout 30 MPG and 54.1 ft.[sup]3[/sup] cargo space with the seat down.
Thing is, the on-roader-type SUVs (Murano, CR-V, RAV4, etc.) aren’t really SUVs at all. Most of them have selectable 4WD (which you’ll never turn on), ground clearance that’s not really any greater than a regular car’s, and road tyres.
The Santa Fe is one of those - between it and a similarly sized wagon, there isn’t really all that much difference. The 4WD gear adds a few hundred pounds, but as long as it isn’t switched on it doesn’t affect fuel consumption much.
The Vibe shouldn’t have any problem hauling a couple of tubas. We’ve had two similar-sized objects in spaces not much larger than that.
We use the 4WD now and then in the nasty Ohio winters. If what we’re looking for “isn’t really an SUV at all,” all the better. I don’t think a utility trailer is the way to go for us – for one thing, we don’t have any place to put it, whether it’s hitched or not. We certainly aren’t looking for a Hummer.
If you do actually use 4WD, I say get a Subaru. Not an Outback, though - just the regular Impreza or Legacy wagon. The Outback is just an Impreza with a lift kit and knobbly tires, really.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I believe they make minivans where the back seats can be folded down to give you room for storage. Also, Subaru makes some really good hatchbacks.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t buying a mini-van still mean she was driving a car that messed up sight lines, took up parking space and was more deadly in an accident? Granted, the mini-van definitely wouldn’t meet the “macho” image.
Someone upthread mentioned Volvos. The Volvo cross country wagon is a decent car. Lots of storage area and has the 4wd option. Definitely NOT an SUV.
I don’t think my husband cares too much whether he looks macho. He plays the tuba, dammit. Although I still can’t get him to wear a pink shirt. But I think a mini-van would be overkill.
Great post.
But I also ski and bike. I have a small car (a VW Golf) and this fancy invention called a ski and bike rack. It goes right on the roof and, voila!
[QUOTE=yellowval]
Thank you. I sometimes think “city folks” don’t really have a clue what it’s like to live in a rural area during the winter. Even so, we really do try to only use the Explorer when we need it, and have done so for much longer than there have been high gas prices. We take my New Beetle whenever possible, and my husband has no issues driving that, despite accusations upthread that SUV drivers such as himself do so in order to look cool.
[/QUOTE]
Wow? A Beetle?
Better check under his skirt. That’s a serious chick car.
There we go. New El Camino. That said, yeah, the Matrix got completely redesigned for '07. Looks good. No XRS model yet… looks like my old bird was a one-shot.
http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/toyota/matrix/2007_toyota_matrix
The Subaru’s a good wagon, I’m just not sure you can fit two tubas in it. The Matrix has bizarre amounts of space, because it had such headroom. I once fit 40 computers in one, and had space left over.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
- The Jeep Wagon wasn’t available with 4WD until 1949.
- The Land Rover Series I was launched in 1948, and did have 4WD.
I suppose the Land Rover would be disqualified as “first SUV” by your criteria because it had an aluminium body instead of a steel one. On the other hand, the Audi A8 has an aluminum body but it’s still a sedan.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. My criteria for the steel body was based only on the station wagons – the Willys wagons had paint schemes meant to mimic the “woody” wagons of other manufacturers. In theory, you could have the look of wood without the maintenance (though I’m pretty sure the interior bed was wood).
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
If you do actually use 4WD, I say get a Subaru.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t watch their “Subaru Heaven” commercial. 
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
If you do actually use 4WD, I say get a Subaru. Not an Outback, though - just the regular Impreza or Legacy wagon. The Outback is just an Impreza with a lift kit and knobbly tires, really.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that Subarus use fulltime AWD as opposed to selectable 4WD.
The Forrester is a fine wagon, my brother and sister in law have a newish one, and they need it to haul tons of cooking equipment, chafing dishes, etc and they get along fine.
[QUOTE=Sigmagirl]
We use the 4WD now and then in the nasty Ohio winters. If what we’re looking for “isn’t really an SUV at all,” all the better. I don’t think a utility trailer is the way to go for us – for one thing, we don’t have any place to put it, whether it’s hitched or not. We certainly aren’t looking for a Hummer.
[/QUOTE]
While a trailer is an idea, it certainly doesn’t seem to fit what you need. Trailers are basically a pain in the ass.
I’m not saying they are not useful. I have a two axle trailer that I use to haul my tractor around, or construction debris to the dump.
Sounds to me that you already have the right vehicle in the Hyundai Santa Fe. Don’t fix it if it’s not broke. A few mpg better (if you can get it), is not going to help enough to offset the cost of getting a new vehicle.
[QUOTE=Oredigger77]
The only thing that I fit in (and by that I mean not touch the steering wheel with my knees, able to see stop lights with out ducking or able to close the door without opening a window and pullingon the outside) are trucks and large SUVs.
[/QUOTE]
Have you tried an xBox?
I can fit two relatives over 6 feet in the back seat. The newer version (I have one of the original model clown cars) have a bit less space, but are much nicer. I guess they finally realized they completely missed their target market, and modified the car to their actual market.
Check one it; it’s got a hell of a lot of room.