True.

But I think I could find something that could haul, and not be as overly offensive to the eyes as the new CR-V is.

I think its the ugliest SUV on the road....hands down.

The Subaru Tribeca looks like a work of art in comparison.

 

Infinity FX

 

stating a mazda as "gorgeous" explains how tasteless one can be. im jk.

to me it's like saying a Sedona's gorgeous.

i think the CR-V's look pretty good for wat they are. imho, those utility
type of cars is more about features, room, comfort, interior styling/quality
than anything else. you don't get much of "quality" feel on a Mazda,
i can tell you that much. mazda is cheap cheap cheap! in terms of
quality and dated designs that goes against a lot of lines they put on
the car. it reminds me of mutated DelSols with Supra headlights and
S2000 taillights. i mean come on, look at their current offering.

that's just me.

 

Well let me rephrase.

I dont like either. I think the Rav4 is the best in the class, hands down.

I would never get the CX-7, because I dont like Mazda. They are overstyled and the interiors are lousy (imo).

When I said the CX-7 was gorgeous, I meant it was gorgeous compared to the CR-V.

I prefer it's sister, the Ford Edge, though. Looks more upscale and Euro to me.

 

yah, see, that changes the story quite a bit.

 

Let me just make it easy.

I'd never buy a $25k suv..ever..so my opinion is irrelevant

 

Why specifically an SUV? I highly recommend a Honda Element.

 

Is the element's cargo area about the same as the CR-V? in that case,
that might not be a bad choice. i like how the doors open on the Element
which makes getting things in/out a breeze.

 

Iv'e owned a Rav-3 with stick and loved it, the newer ones are more comfortable and quicker too. I would also look a certified preowned BMW X3, if theres one in your price range. I'm a BMW nut and have an X5 that is one of the best cars Iv'e ever owned.

 

there was a Rav3 before the Rav4? or is that a typo?

 

Just a typo. There's only been 3 generations of the Rav(Rav 4.1(1996-2000), Rav 4.2/4.2.5(2001-2005), Rav 4.3(2006 and on) and they were all called Rav4(Recreational Active vehicle with 4wd). Yes, even the 2wd ones were called Rav4's. I was an active poster on rav4world.com at one point when I got my Rav 4 S, year 2003, so I'm biased towards it for practicality, looks and fun. Years 2001-2005 were the perfect balance of room, driving fun, and looks. The one thing it lacked was power at the high end. It was liveable on flats, but on hills when stuck behind large slow semis and wanting to pass, you really felt you needed more passing power if you were going at 35 mph and fast traffic to the left was at 65mph. Regular city driving though, it was a fun vehicle to drive. Like the Mini Cooper, it had a go kart type feel..to a certain limit, of course, I even took it to a few rally cross events.
Now for the wife who wants a mid size suv. The new gen Rav4 is the best bang for your buck. Its 14 inches longer than the previous generation which it brings it almost to the same size as a Highlander. So, if ur even considering a Highlander, I'd look at the Rav4 for price differance alone. Its supposedly the fastest mini suv with its new v6 power plant so you def won't be lacking in the power dept.

 

I beg to differ somewhat on the performance of the 2003. I traded my 2003 on an 06. When we bought the 03, my wife was not happy with the performance at all. Simply put, it was a dog. However, it was small which she liked. I had no qualms or anything wrong with the 03 whatsoever. It would have run forever, but it was just way too slow and by no means had a go kart feel. It had massive understeer.

The 06, well thats another story. For something weighing 4000 pounds or whatever it is, its a rocket. I am 99% sure it is faster than my JCW (but no one wants to hear that). It is bigger though and not as easy to handle in parking lots and the biggest complaint I got is that everything BEEPS. I sick of the Beeps.

For a price point, it can't be beat.

BTW, someone posted 0 - 60 times of 6.0 secs on Ravworld (but one of those widgets I wouldnt hold much faith in).

 

A couple people I know own the V6 RAV4 and the new CR-V. The decision point for them was towing capacity. The guy who needed to tow went with the RAV4, the guy who chose the CR-V knew he never would tow. I've been in the RAV4 for a 300 mile ride and it was very comfortable, even though I'm a little over 6'10".

 

I just went through this with my GF and the CRV started as the front runner... she stepped up to the Subaru Outback Legacy....

 

We want a mid-size SUV with room for two labs and a (possible) kid. Real 4x4 capability for camping, trips to NC where it will see beach duty, etc. The list is short when it comes to choices with good build quality, resale and performance.

 

I would vote for the CR-V even though it is a bit boring, especially compared to the CX-7. I have owned two Hondas and Two Mazdas over the years and I can say that I did more maintanence on the Mazdas than the Hondas. If you wants the better looks and handling of the Mazda enough to deal with small problems that will require some work ont he car then I say go ahead with it and get the CX-7. If you want trouble free, just change the oil and tires and don't care about the looksand handling then go CR-V. I choose Mazda's twice knowing this but I wanted the handling. I now have a 06 Honda Accord to go with the 06 MINI MCS because the wife would get nervous about the Mazda when something would act up, so we have one car for fun driving and one for reliability, though I am working on it's fun factor.

 

reading everyones high opinon on the Rav4 is making me re-evaluate my stance. THe Mazda CX-7 although nicely designed seems to lack the quality that a lot of people have mentioned.


The wife's final two are the CRV and the Rav4.

 

If you really want an SUV with 4X4 mid size, I love my Xterra lots of power, true 4X4, it is built in a truck chassis etc..... a CRV is an Accord with a down sized "Pacifica" fastened to it... nice for a soccer mom but hardly a true SUV...

 

True....shes really not interested in a "true SUV". Her main requirements are safety, decent storage and a little higher to the ground.

 

Let us know how it goes after the test drives!

 

In that case I like the new CRV.....

 

Huh? a 4 x 4 is not the definition of a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV). SUVs can be 2wd, 4wd, true 4 x 4 with manual locking axles, etc.

SUVs without the lower gearing and locking axles are also 4 x 4s like the H2 or a Jeep Liberty.

SUVS that are AWD are softroaders, not intended for doing the Rubicon Trail (or whatever) usually because they lack the pans under the car to protect them from rocks ... hence softroaders.

Crossovers are the new buzzword for SUVs built on a car chassis, like the Mazda. For example Gen 2, Rav4s were crossovers (although the word wasn't popular a year ago). Today they are not because while not built on a car chassis, they are not built on a truck chassis either ... they are just built as intended (its easier to just use a pre-existing chassis than to design a new one from scratch).

 

so, wat was the final decision?

 

I'll throw my hat in here too. We are looking for something 4WD or AWD for the winter and have found a 2000 Kia Sorrento (manual tranny) with 77K miles for a decent price. Anyone have experience with these cars?? Also found a 99 Subaru Outback 89K for about the same price (automatic).

 

When I read " Looking for a mid size SUV for the Wife ", I thought it read...

"I'm looking for a mid size wife for my SUV". Several thoughts popped right into my head:

1. Okay, some guys like their women with considerable meat on their bones.

2. Trying to match a woman to the SUV is pretty silly.

3. Looking for a wife here on the MINI board is pretty sly.