Which SUV ?

[Thermo1223]

Subaru's do not need headgaskets every 50-100k, that is way off. That is one myth that really needs to stop.

The older gen needs it done once mostly around the 100k mark, some sooner. After that if it is done right it should be the last think to touch on the engine.

I wouldn't hold onto timing chains anymore than belts both can break. Chains just require more cost & maintenance when & if they do, tensioners/belts/chains fail with age and use no matter what you buy.

In that range I'd look into a Tribeca if you can get passed the looks.

 

[measureman]

Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: measureman
To answer a few questions-mid size means to me no monster suv.My wife will drive this around town-gas mileage not really important-yes there will be some snow. Probably no off roading.
No towing-really just a grocery getter.
Just looking for the model with the best chance of holding up with miles on it.
Did not think about timing belts! Been there and they are expensive. Which ones have chains?
I hate not being able to buy a new one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How about something from the domestics, like a Explorer, Mountaineer, or Aviator? Full body on frame so if you need to tow in the future you're set, and one in the 2006-2008 range around 100k miles will be under $10k. Yes, I'm a bit biased, but the only fault I've found with ours is that I'm 6'2" and the driver's seat is barely big enough for me to be comfortable on a long ride.

Parts are super cheap, the 4.0 V6 and 4.6 V8 are both rock solid, and neither one has a timing belt. The rest of the drivetrain is pretty good, too. Expect 15MPG in town and 19MPG on the highway. They also have a third seat, but it's really only good for children.


My wife is 5'1" LOL. I knew someone that had an '04 Explorer that the trans went bad at 40K and found out they had a reputation for this. Would this be true of the later ones?

 

[fireman32]

i love my 06 trailblazer, the later years 06-09 seem to have a lot of the kinks worked out in them that the earlier ones had, mine has 100k on it and not a single problem other than the front hub assembly which was an easy fix, i had a 97 blazer with a 4.3 before this and it was a beast as well, the 4.2 inline 6 in the trailblazer is so smooth i cant even tell its running though, not as much low end as the 4.3 but it would smoke it in a race.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: fireman32
i love my 06 trailblazer, the later years 06-09 seem to have a lot of the kinks worked out in them that the earlier ones had, mine has 100k on it and not a single problem other than the front hub assembly which was an easy fix, i had a 97 blazer with a 4.3 before this and it was a beast as well, the 4.2 inline 6 in the trailblazer is so smooth i cant even tell its running though, not as much low end as the 4.3 but it would smoke it in a race.

The interior is [censored] but that 4.2 I6 is indeed a very nice engine.

 

[95busa]

Later explorers and mountys like mine have five speed autos with the v6 and six speeds with the 4.6. V8. I really like mine, but the loaded late models are still pretty high. Mine ran 14k loaded with everything and 68k on the clock.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: fireman32
i love my 06 trailblazer, the later years 06-09 seem to have a lot of the kinks worked out in them that the earlier ones had, mine has 100k on it and not a single problem other than the front hub assembly which was an easy fix, i had a 97 blazer with a 4.3 before this and it was a beast as well, the 4.2 inline 6 in the trailblazer is so smooth i cant even tell its running though, not as much low end as the 4.3 but it would smoke it in a race.

The interior is [censored] but that 4.2 I6 is indeed a very nice engine.


You could probably get an Isuzu Ascender for less than an Envoy or TrailBlazer. It's kind of an orphan brand but you can still get all the mechanicals. It's the same truck as the TrailBlazer.

The Ascender has that weird orange fake wood in the interior like an early Kia Optima. Minus for me but somebody has to like it.

I like the Atlas just fine. My primary problem is that it only gets a mpg or two more than a 5.3 Tahoe.

 

[addyguy]

Escape/Tribute with a V-6.

You get a LOT of vehicle for the $$$, and there are a LOT to choose from.

By far your best value choice....

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: measureman
Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: measureman
To answer a few questions-mid size means to me no monster suv.My wife will drive this around town-gas mileage not really important-yes there will be some snow. Probably no off roading.
No towing-really just a grocery getter.
Just looking for the model with the best chance of holding up with miles on it.
Did not think about timing belts! Been there and they are expensive. Which ones have chains?
I hate not being able to buy a new one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How about something from the domestics, like a Explorer, Mountaineer, or Aviator? Full body on frame so if you need to tow in the future you're set, and one in the 2006-2008 range around 100k miles will be under $10k. Yes, I'm a bit biased, but the only fault I've found with ours is that I'm 6'2" and the driver's seat is barely big enough for me to be comfortable on a long ride.

Parts are super cheap, the 4.0 V6 and 4.6 V8 are both rock solid, and neither one has a timing belt. The rest of the drivetrain is pretty good, too. Expect 15MPG in town and 19MPG on the highway. They also have a third seat, but it's really only good for children.


My wife is 5'1" LOL. I knew someone that had an '04 Explorer that the trans went bad at 40K and found out they had a reputation for this. Would this be true of the later ones?


Not so much. The 5R55W and 5R55S were sketchy around 2002-2005. These transmissions only came with the 4.0 though. If you get the 4.6, early ones use the 4R70W. No problems there.

If you don't mind going a little older, the 1995-2001 generation of Explorer is more reliable and has fewer quality problems (for example, plastic panel on split liftgate that cracks on '02-'05 models). With the OHV 4.0 and M5OD manual, you could pretty much keep it going indefinitely if it doesn't rust. The 5.0 is also super reliable. Expect fuel economy to be in the teens though in any '95-'01 Explorer.

You said no monster SUVs, but it's worth noting that for reliability above all else, it's hard to beat Expeditions and Tahoes. If you can deal with the fuel economy and size, the 1/2 ton pickup drivetrains in these are very reliable. There are lots of examples of both with over 300K miles on them. Resale isn't very good on them either, so you can pick up a decent one for around $5K. They tend to be much less expensive than their pickup counterparts.

Really though, I think any mainstream SUV you come across will fit the bill for what you describe. None of them had really bad reliability that I am aware of. You mostly run into issues on older luxury models when their features start to break...for example, air suspensions. Avoid anything with an air suspension regardless of brand...that would include a lot of Lincolns and things like the Saab 97X Trailblazer clone.

 

[rjundi]

Given your requirements I have yet to meet a woman who has not liked or loved their 2003+ crv. I know at least 10 women with them. The earlier ones were pretty loud and had valve issues etc. The 2002 and prior definitely I would avoid especially given you can spend $10k.

 

[SuzukiGoat]

I stand by my Subaru comment. The naturally aspirated Subaru boxer motors are structurally a joke around the cylinders... if you will drop some coin pinning them, fine, if not, headgaskets WILL fail. If it hasn't failed on you, you are religious on maintenance and pulling oil before fuel dilution or you drive every single day, highway miles.

They do not cope with sitting.


From a reliability standpoint, nothing mentioned tops a 4runner...sorry



Another hidden gem is the original xb, they have incredible amounts of room inside (I disassembled a Yamaha big bear 400 on 27s and put it in there). Fuel mileage is 35+ all day long. The 1.5 is nigh unkillable, and they are incredibly safe in an accident...I took a hit from a full-size sedan at 40 in the front right tire...and drove away after everything was said and done.

Why not a landcruiser? You can snag a 97-2004 for that price if you shop around...and they are a little reliable

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: SuzukiGoat

From a reliability standpoint, nothing mentioned tops a 4runner...sorry

4Runners are good, but plenty of other traditional SUVs can last just as long. I would not put my money on a crossover doing the same. Most that have a frame are pretty good though. 4Runners aren't the only SUVs to rack up 500K+ miles.

Quote:

Why not a landcruiser? You can snag a 97-2004 for that price if you shop around...and they are a little reliable

FJ80 > all later Cruisers. That was the last of the REALLY tough ones in the US. The I6 does get the same or worse fuel economy as the 4.7L V8, but FJ80s are stupid tough though. One of my neighbors has one closing in on 300K with all of the original major components and only very minor repairs. It's driven daily, and the only thing he doesn't like about it is the fuel economy. He says someone leaves a note offering to buy it about once a week.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: SuzukiGoat
I stand by my Subaru comment. The naturally aspirated Subaru boxer motors are structurally a joke around the cylinders... if you will drop some coin pinning them, fine, if not, headgaskets WILL fail. If it hasn't failed on you, you are religious on maintenance and pulling oil before fuel dilution or you drive every single day, highway miles.

They do not cope with sitting.


My family has 10 Subaru's built 1996-2007 with the same "trouble-motor". None get religious maintenance but get their oil changed and basic maintenance done at longer than prescribed intervals. Only one of them has had a failed head gasket at 240,000 miles. They moved onto another Subaru since the AC had also failed that past winter too.

With regards to "sitting comment". Their is a 1998 Forester(63k) and 1996 Outback(100k) both sitting in my now deceased grandparents barn since 2005. They are used maybe 6weeks per year otherwise sit. Our family only changes the engine oil once per year. No head gasket issues.

Not sure where your experience comes from(backend?) but that is not ours.

That all being said I don't really like the 2.5L non-turbo motor much anyway. I love their turbo engines.

 

[measureman]

Well it's done.
I was trying all along to get a car that was newer and lower mileage.
She wound up with a 2010 Elantra.48k miles and certified.
So we get the balance of the 5/60 and the balance of the 10/100k power train warranty plus 2 years roadside assistance.
They put brand new Kumho tires on the car and its as clean as any 3 year old car could be.
I paid 13k so it was close to the target price.
But as you married men will agree the best part is she picked it out and loves it.
And it really is a nice little car.

 

[Lyman]

My Sister has one. It's been a good car for her. Hers is also a 2010. Im 6'2" and 260 lbs. I was comfortable riding in it.

 

[Zako2]

If you're going to seek some off-road fun, it's certainly nice to have full-time all wheel drive and locking center differential (normally enabled by hand). Most SUVs on the market are meant to be kept on paved ground and don't have this. I believe some editions of Toyota RAV4 had this feature as well as many Jeeps.

 

[Clevy]

My first 4x4 was a chev. Had a push button and had the automatic 4x4 mode where it would stay in 2wd til it felt slip then engage 4wd.
Utter garbage. The transfer cases wore out fast because of that stupid feature,the push button was 400 to replace.
Never again.
My last 3 4x4s have had a lever on the floor. And not one transfer case fix nor dumb button.
I've found in the 4wd world that simpler is better,and the less you depend on a button,the better off you are