93gsxturbo said:GX460. Gas is cheap. At $2 a gallon, comfort and reliability trumps anything involving economy.
Ah! A radical!
I like it! 
93gsxturbo said:GX460. Gas is cheap. At $2 a gallon, comfort and reliability trumps anything involving economy.
Ah! A radical!
I like it!
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:Nothing that big is going to get that kind of mileage.
Our Pacifica Hybrid does, but its stupid expensive.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:Ford C-Max would be on my short list to check out first.
C-Max is an awesome little workhorse - DD#1 has one - but it is not going to have anything like the kind of interior space he is looking for.
I'll throw a TDi Passat wagon vote out there. We have a 2010 TDi Jetta Sportwagon and it'll do 500 miles on a tank of diesel going 80+ mph which is 34.4 mpg.
1988RedT2 said:93gsxturbo said:GX460. Gas is cheap. At $2 a gallon, comfort and reliability trumps anything involving economy.
Ah! A radical!
I like it!
You know for as big as these things are they suffer the same problem as the Chevy Tahoe.
reslly big outside. Really tiny inside. Not worth it if you need to move stuff around.
I looked at land cruisers recently. Too small.
I just did 1600 miles this last weekend in our 2017 Sienna. 70 mph, 29.5 mpg. Super comfortable and configurable. We had the back full of moving boxes, but also hauled 7 people the day before.
IF the GX, LX, and Tahoe are too small, there is always the V10 Excurstion or Suburban option. V10 Excursion is maybe a bit roomier, sits up higher, rides worse, and the newest ones are close to 15 years old.
A brand new (or new-er) Burb can be optioned out in ways that would surprise you, will ride nice, and if it breaks down any podunk Chevy dealer can work on it. And so much room!
Screw fuel economy. This isnt communist Russia. It is our American Right to drive 90 across the desert in a V8 luxo-barge getting single digit MPG. Embrace it!
Not sure I'd buy a GX again. They're not built like Land Cruisers and mine basically fell apart from 115k-125k miles, which was very disappointing.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
I bought a suburban and am happy with it. The value prop of the smaller vehicles dosent work. Same mileage, maybe easier to park, but more more spacicious inside than a large sedan. My minivan does a better job of carrying stuff.
Ford Flex hits all the points except for gas mileage. Depending on how many miles the vehicle will actually be driven annually the mileage difference may not be a big cost. My son has a Kia Niro that gets over 45 MPG all the time. It's a decent size, but certainly no minivan. Pick your poison.......
Thanks all, this definitely has given some ideas to pitch the wife.
When I said "a BMW wagon isnt big enough, my thought was in 3 or 5 series with overly low rooflines.
A Charger, Avalon, Some Volvos, etc are big enough. Not as practical as a van, but far better handling. A lowered SUV may work too but a Highlander isnt much bigger than a Prius. I'll need to look into it.
My worry about a sedan is that it lacks the "oh ship" cargo ability of a wagon where you can pack stuff up the roof even if it means sacrificing rear visiblity. With a sedan, once the trunk is full, thats it.
That being said, Im not opposed to a rooftop cargo box, if it means getting something fun, efficient, and still powerful.
I can... sheepishly?... confirm that I've had my TL beaten by this Camry Hybrid:
As well as a V6 Avalon. So, with some minimal mods, they can hustle around a track.
If you're looking at those, though, you out to check out a Kia Optima Hybrid as well. It's got an actual 6spd auto in it, vs. the CVT... and does ~40mpg highway. And Kia depreciation means you should be able to find some 2017's in your price range.
pheller said:When I said "a BMW wagon isnt big enough, my thought was in 3 or 5 series with overly low rooflines.
A Charger, Avalon, Some Volvos, etc are big enough. Not as practical as a van, but far better handling. A lowered SUV may work too but a Highlander isnt much bigger than a Prius. I'll need to look into it.
I dunno, I have some family with a Highlander, Avalon, and a friend with a 325 Wagon. The Avalon does not have the cargo space of a 325 Wagon (or even of my Veloster for that matter). The BMW has a bit more space than the Prius for cargo, and both are very versatile.
The Highlander eclipses all of them by a significant margin. Much larger than a Prius. 2nd gen anyway. 1st gen will be closer.
The Avalon has the biggest back seat though.
One thing to consider is that the Highlander (as well as other SUV options) has much better roof rack options as well as 2" reciever available. So easier/more capable when it comes to roof baskets, bike racks, etc.
In reply to pheller :
if the handling and ride is your aim, just find the car you want and add a hitch or roof box to suit... Not much cruises like an avalon down the road.. it's like a japanese buick.. \
Didn't they make a CTS wagon as well? the V will be out of your price range, but this would work.. I'm just not sure on space, reliability etc..
I imagine a 5 series wagon would be better. It seems like the euro brands kept with the wagon body style for some time.. Volvo, merc.. BMW..
How about that recent Buick Regal wagon? A wagon shaped, actual car, with 2.0L turbo (auto only) that probably returns good mpg. German derived Opel so probably good at your western states Autobahn.
Another that is not quite car and not quite truck(suv), the Honda Crosstour
So, over at fueleconomy.gov i searched the Buick TourX. Sad to say its mpg rating is only
21/24/29 but requires Premium!
So, I compared this on the site to a Dodge Grand Caravan which is rated for:
17/20/25 on regular gas
I let the site do its standard calculation and it says the cost for driving 15,000 miles at current fuel prices is:
Buick: $1,800
Caravan: $1,650
The penalty for Premium fuel is high.
A new BMW 3-Series Wagon has 17.6cu ft of cargo space.
2010 Prius is 15.7cu ft.
2012 Honda Fit is 20.6cu ft - which seems almost unrealistic, but those were official numbers "with all seats in use" - ie not folded down.
(As an aside, the problem with the Fit isn't so much its cargo capacity, but it's inability to get the rear-facing car seats far enough away from the front row.)
Avalon is 16cu ft.
Volvo V90 is 19.8cu ft.
Subaru Outback is 32.5cu ft.
2010 Highlander is 42cu ft. - Winner winner chicken dinner.
So there is no match for SUVs in terms of cargo capacity, even big wagons.
But, part of my issue is not just carrying the whole family and the kitchen sink, it's also comfortably having rear facing car seats behind the driver and passenger. In the Fit, our Clek has to be in the middle position for me to drive.
So, rear leg room -
Subaru Outback 39.5"
Honda Fit 41.3"
Wait, this ain't good either. Leg room isn't a good measure of a car seat that's sitting at "eye level" in the back seat. We need a "Distance from Back Seat to Front Seat When Slid The Whole Way Back" measurement.
Car Seat Lady rates the Outback, Legacy, and Avalon all pretty well under the Wagon/Sedan categories, so a longer vehicle must be better than a taller one. Although I don't think they test every car under the sun, either.
Might have to go to a Subaru dealer and see if the Outback is as good for this purpose in reality as it is on paper.
In reply to pheller :
A note on this: Volvo wagons only measure the cubic volume up to the bottom of the windows. What Volvo counts as "cargo volume" assumes no interference with rearward vision.
Ah, interesting. Good to know.
Duke said:In reply to pheller :
A note on this: Volvo wagons only measure the cubic volume up to the bottom of the windows. What Volvo counts as "cargo volume" assumes no interference with rearward vision.
Yeah, its not very standardized. There is a standard (SAE J1100), but it seems that most manufacturers don't publish numbers from that standard and do their own thing instead.
In reply to pheller :
Just get a 12+ Mazda5 with the 2.5 and be done with it.
ProDarwin said:Duke said:In reply to pheller :
A note on this: Volvo wagons only measure the cubic volume up to the bottom of the windows. What Volvo counts as "cargo volume" assumes no interference with rearward vision.
Yeah, its not very standardized. There is a standard (SAE J1100), but it seems that most manufacturers don't publish numbers from that standard and do their own thing instead.
The other thing to keep in mind is that sedan trunks are measured using a different standard... i.e. through variously sized standardized SAE boxes... and the volumes between hatches and sedans aren't comparable.
second thing.
when looking at rear leg room... it's best to add the front and rear leg room together. That'll give you the best idea of how much space is actually available. Sometimes there are benefits for manufacturers to fudge the two numbers one way or the other, depending on what they think the market values.
Just get an Odyssey or Sienna. It'll gobble the miles down, give you the space you need, and get close to that mileage point you're looking for all while driving like a car.
The B6 generation Passat has the room for cargo and weirdly long second row seating. Folding the rear seats down a 6 footer can lay down and sleep. The 2.0 turbo get 30 mpg highway, my 3.6 VR6 with AWD still gets 27 highway and has authority power when cruising at 85+. Bump the speed up to 100 and mileage drops a touch to 22-23 but that's not unexpected.
The R class is a good suggestion, but I have read and been told to avoid the diesel versions. An old neighbor of mine who worked for MBNA said they do not like our fuel here.
What about the C7 generation Audi A6 with the supercharged V6? We routinely saw high 20/low 30 MPG on our ~500 mile trips to see the in-laws. That car was built for highway cruising.
Drivetrain is robust, in the 60,000 miles we owned it, all I had to do was replace an oil pressure sensor. Everything else was routine maintenance. I did install H&R lowering springs to make it look better. Even with the 20" wheels, the car rode nicely.
You'll need to log in to post.
