Originally Posted By: SF0059
I certainly understand where you are coming from. I recently switched from a sedan, however, I came to a different conclusion than you and went with a CUV.
In the way of 4WD/AWD I have had a 1999 Dodge Durango, 2006 Jeep Commander, 2006 Subaru Forester, 2004 Audi A4 and a 2000 Audi A6 prior to my RAV4. The conclusion I came to after owning body on frame SUVs, a CUV and AWD sedans is that you need to look at what you want to get out of them and also
how the 4WD/AWD is designed.
For body on frame, the Durango was a 2H/4H/4L setup. To be honest, it was OK in the the snow, but not amazing even in 4L. The Commander was the best in weather by far. It was AWD with optional 4H/4L lock. It could go over just about anything, but I paid the price with an average 13 mpg over its life.
The Audi Quattro systems I had were functional, but limited due to their applications in passenger cars. The Subaru was really decent in the weather, but it came at the expensive of driving a vehicle that felt like a cracker box and rode like a buckboard. Not worth the tradeoff, in my opinion.
When I started shopping for an SUV/CUV, I realized that I didn't need a truck/SUV. It was just more than I needed with the added penalty of lower MPGs and higher cost of entry. I, like you, want to be able to tow a small utility or tent trailer, but I didn't need a full size for that either.
Next up I looked at AWD cars. They had too little ground clearance, not enough tow capacity and were really only available in luxury brands, which meant too much money. Subaru was the loan exception. I drove the Outback and the Forester... didn't like either of them. I didn't like our 2006 Forester and the new models didn't change that. Add to that the dicey oil consumption issues and I wrote them off.
Finally I looked at CUVs. The key with this subset is you need to look at the quality of the AWD and programming. I really good example of poor programming/execution is the
Honda CRV. Just watch the video. While some are really complex systems, some are little more than FWD+.
I finally settled on the Toyota for a multitude of reasons, but one of the main ones being the AWD system. It is "lockable" (not true 4L, but 50/50 distribution below 25mph). It is also torque vectoring so it can send power to the inside or outside wheels depending on the situation. This is a feature not even full-sized SUVs have, since they are typically much more rudimentary setups with the possible exception of Jeep.
No, I'm not saying you should get a RAV4. That is what worked for me... maybe it won't for you. What I am saying, however, is not to write off CUVs because they are "based on cars". Some are little more than an elevated sedan, but there are some that rise above that. I'll be the first to admit my RAV4 is not nearly as cool or masculine as the 4Runner I test drove, but it fits my needs. I wanted to be able to tow light loads, put a bunch of stuff inside and get through a decent snow. It does all that while returning close to 25 mpg. If I really wanted to go off-road, I would get the 4Runner. If I wanted to seriously tow, I would get a Ram. But if my goal is to get the most utility for the highest economy, the CUV provides the most benefits at the lowest price with the fewest compromises.
I agree completely with SF0059. When I read the OP, I was left with the opinion that there wasn't really a need for a body on frame SUV. A well designed AWD system on a crossover would net all the desired benefits, while maintaining a 5-10MPG improvement.
I do agree that a body on frame vehicle does seem a lot more rugged. A used 4Runner for travel and winter use in addition to the Accord might be a good combination.
The benefits that I understand, better off road capability and greater towing capability, seem lost in this application. But, if you just want a BoF truck, I also understand! I've been wanting an older Tacoma, just because... well, I just want it.
Edit, just thought of another benefit of a crossover - interior volume. I believe that Highlander, and even the Rav4 have more interior volume than the 4Runner.
