sac's SUV-buying saga - finally complete!

Honestly the "third row nearly uninhabitable and storage all but nonexistent with it" is more or less what we are looking for. About 90% of the time we would not be using that third seat. But, very occasionally, we have a group wanting to go somewhere (more or less local) and it is always a pain to have to take two cars. (And significantly more costly for tolls, parking, etc. if the destination is NYC.) With a car like this, we could do that, but most of the time the third row seats would be down and that would be our cargo area. In fact, when we really get out on the road, both the second and third rows would probably be down and we would have room for luggage and that spare tire if we get one and maybe still enough room for one of us to take a nap in the back.

And, if all that works, we would have a vehicle that gets much better mileage (like 25-40% better) than the larger SUVs that are typically in the "3 row" class.

I have a friend who bought a Rogue a few years ago and LOVES it, FWIW

We are very happy with our Santa Fe, and I wish the 3rd row had been an option when we bought. We have a 2012, right before the redesign. We decided the 3rd row was an option we could live without because we didn't want to haul around a huge car (i.e. Highlander) for something that we didn't need most of the time. The space for the Santa Fe has been perfect for us and it can haul a lot. It's a little roomier than the CR-V/Rav4 so it will be great with 2 car seats. But the optional 3rd row would have been icing on the cake!

I just drove a new Hyundai Santa Fe as a rental car on a work trip - it had the worst rear visibility I've ever had to deal with. It was decidedly not a fun car to drive around the narrow streets of Cambridge....

I can be more specific about run flats. They have thick sidewalls to carry the load, hence the stiff ride. They transfer shock through the sidewall as well. We had them on a car and potholes outside the Holland tunnel destroyed three by separating the belts in the sidewall. In addition we lost a rim when one tire died and the rim was bent as well. Not at high speeds. Ended up paying 900 bucks for dealer take off normal rims and tires from a different car, and then had no spare. Never again.

Another thread on this topic (I'm bookmarking it via this post): http://forum.maplewoodonline.com//discussion/93761/

I had runflats as well and did not like them - awful ride.

Replaced with standard tires - no need to replace the wheels (rims).

We don't have a spare, but have one of those emergency inflation kits, which should work fine for minor tire damage. In the event of a blowout however, we'd be forced to call for help.

I wouldn't buy a car with run flats again.

So here's another thread I need to bookmark (and note the comments about type/class of hitch) because we also have a hitch mounted bike rack to use on the new vehicle.

http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/109134/

All these threads have been useful as I attempt to figure out which vehicle I want.

I just eliminated another: the BMW X3. Yes, more expensive than I want to pay, but the killer is that it comes standard with runflat tires. The marketing literature says the suspension is specifically tuned to work with the runflat ones. I almost missed that. Good thing I'm not enamoured with that one.

Another thing I learned when I did a websearch on runflats is that they get poor mileage, often needing replacement at 20,000 miles. I already went through this, and more, when I had a car with Z-rated tires.

I'm pretty sure the Nissan Rogue itself is not tuned for run flats, since they only sell put them on with that one 'package'. But good to note.

Just back from a vacation where we drove a Honda CR/V over 1000 miles. Nice car, but two concerns:

1) Like practically every other car in this class these days, the rear visibility is not great. Why has the small, tapered rear window become so trendy? I really prefer a slightly boxier style (doesn't have to have sharp corners, but happy medium) with the better visibility I'm used to in my ten-year-old minivan.

2) It really didn't have quite enough clearance to manage some of the back roads we were on. They weren't terrible, but there were a few bumpy water crossings and other situation that I don't consider "off road" but still merit good clearance and 4/all-wheel drive. (We never had any traction problem, so I guess that the CR/V AWD was fine for our needs.)

Rethinking ...

I have not driven it yet and I'm not sure if it's been posted here, but I was considering trading in my 2012 Mazda5 (which driving wise I like just fine, but realize I prefer three seats across the back and more storage space..,we almost never need to seat 6) for the Mazda cx5.

If you want to do water crossings and stuff get a Forrester

@sac, maybe you should buy two vehicles, since you're looking for so many attributes to co-exist in a single one.

Tom_Reingold said:

@sac, maybe you should buy two vehicles, since you're looking for so many attributes to co-exist in a single one.

I'll just have to figure out where to compromise.

Another thread of interest: http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/110968/

Darn it, forester has only one r. Now it has spread to two threads...

I edited it (but the link still works.)

You'll have to go to the OP on the other thread for help there, though.

And another http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/111369/

We continue to procrastinate on this. Not happy with the reduced rear visibility on practically all of the newer model SUVs. And we keep trying to get a Hyundai Santa Fe (one of our top choices) as a rental when we go on trips. Each time we make reservations that say "Hyundai Santa Fe or similar", but we haven't succeeded yet after three tries. Another one coming up in three weeks, so we'll see. I'd really like a better test drive than you can get from a dealer with the salesperson riding along with you for 15 minutes, but that may be all we can do.

This might be worth your while: a certified Hertz rental 2012 Santa Fe. You can rent it for three days, and the rental fees are deducted towards the purshase price if you buy it. This one is in Philly. Inventory changes all the time.

https://hertzrent2buy.com/vehicle/details/13977149

@debby the only problem is the Santa Fe has been updated since the 2012 model - I know this because I have a '12 So unfortunately it might not be so helpful, especially since it doesn't have a third row but the current model does.

That's too bad. I know the inventory is always changing, so maybe in a week they'll have a few '13s or '14s.

A quick scan of this thread says Toyota Highlander . While looking to update my 08' Highlander , the dealer said that it would take 11 yrs @ 10K per to make up the price difference between the Hybrid and the non Hybrid in gas savings .

I might believe that with a highlander but I would do the math myself rather than trust them. They probably have no hybrid s to sell.

Actually the dealers math is way off. $47,500 Hybrid / $36,743 6 cyl / 20mpg vs 28mpg 10K @ 28mpg = 357 x 3.00 = 1,071 10K @ 20 mpg = 1,500 . $429 per yr diff. 47,500-36,743 = 10,757 / 429 = 25 yrs

Obviously it depends on the price of gas. But unless that goes up a LOT (AND you drive a LOT of miles) it probably doesn't pay out. I'm now looking at the regular rather than hybrid models as a result. (Also, I believe that the hybrid is only available in the higher end models, so if you don't need those features it's an even bigger premium.)

FilmCarp said:

I might believe that with a highlander but I would do the math myself rather than trust them. They probably have no hybrid s to sell.

We were surprised on how little the gas mileage differed between the hybrid and non-hybrid. We got the non-hybrid, but I would also say 20mpg in local driving is pretty optimistic as well.

Another related thread: http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/112414

and http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/112864/anyone-with-nissan-rogue-experience

Lots of MOLers researching cars recently.

We have a CX5. It has the bad rear visibility especially to the sides of this class vehicle.. We got the midline model, I believe it is called the Touring which has blind spot indicators that pretty much eliminate the problem. Otherwise it is a nice vehicle, although the steering seems not to have much "on center" feel.

I am really quite annoyed by the new designs that screw up the visibility. Yes, those new technologies are nice, but I don't think that justifies sacrificing our use of eyes, ears, etc when driving. The technology should enhance, not replace those capabilities. I suppose this makes me an old fogey.