Sheila's next vehicle

While I am not a fan of crossover SUV's, they do fit the bill for what you are looking for as far as SUV traits combined with the need for mileage. Most larger truck based SUV's tend to get very poor mileage. The only semi-rugged looking compact SUV's that I can think of that also gets decent mileage is the Subaru Forester or the Jeep Patriot/Renegade. Unfortunately Jeep's aren't known for their reliability.

You can jump up to the midsize SUV class and you are looking at more space and some more truck like options, but highway mileage in the mid-low 20's. Thinking about options like the Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Jeep Grand Cherokee etc..... True truck based SUV's like a Nissan Xterra, Toyota 4Runner, etc.... tend to be heavier and get mileage of around 20mpg highway. Also as you move into these more expensive SUV's your budget will get you older cars with less reliability. Truck based models also tend to have higher floors in the cargo area and may hold less totes.

I guess my overall thought is that Rugged and SUV looking vehicles tend not to have traits that lend themselves to getting great mileage.

Get a minvan. best for cargo sapce unless you need AWD.

A 2013-2014 Mazda CX-5 would be my top recommendation. With AWD, you'll get 26-27mpg overall, which is better than almost any competing models. They're also good looking, well made and a pleasure to drive. They have been very reliable since their introduction in late 2012. For $15k, you can easily find a 2013-2014 with AWD and under 80k miles. FYI, the 2013 CX-5 was only availble with a 2.0L engine while most 2014 models were upgraded to a 2.5L. The 2.0L is slightly more efficient, the 2.5L is significantly more powerful.

An alternative, although not as efficient, is a 2011-2012 Toyota RAV4.

That $400-600 every 95,000 miles or so for timing belt and water pump can add up as most other use timing chain that requires zero maintenance.

There are actually a lot of cars that use belts still, so it is a mixed bag and probably not worth chosing a car over. Also, while they are less likely to fail catastrophicaly, they do stretch over time and the tensioners can also be a failure point, especially if you have oil pressure issues or use the wrong oil. If/when the chains or tensioners do need replaced, they can cost far more than belts.

Excellent point. How many new cars have I asked, "is your timing belt a linked that needs zero maintenance?"
None ! I'll do that in the future but overall I like the room and other features in the Sienna. I doubt a new car
salesman will know what the timing belt is made of. Info like this is why I love this site. It's where the rubber meets the road. Not a lot of hype. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Good point. Rubber and chain timing belts allhave problems eventually but if it comes down to the timing belt I would go with the chain/link type with positive tensioning device like the Audi and Volkswagen golf Alltrack have.

Lot of pros and cons when buying a car. Only you can decide what is most important for you.

Good info on this site. I like it.

For my first 16 years of driving, I always owned Honda/Acura products. Paying for a timing belt and water pump replacement every 60k/90k miles was 'programmed' into me and I was hypervigilant about doing it slightly early just to be safe. I knew that some cars had timing chains, but I was such a Honda-phile that other car brands were irrelevant to me.

When I bought my first Mazda in 2005, I was excited to learn that the timing chain required no maintenance or scheduled replacement. On balance, I did have some issues like A/C system repairs and a premature clutch failure on the Mazda that never happened on any of my Hondas or Acuras. So, at least in my case, the maintenance and repair expenses were about the same in the end.