…and I climbed in back there once, and I’ll be damned if my 6′3″ frame didn’t just fit in there kind of okay. Definitely wouln’t want to be back there for a long trip though.

Interesting…. The previous model Odyssey did come in a v6 version in Australia but no doubt still a smaller size body than the one sold in the US. The current model that I referred to comes as a four cylinder only. I was referring to it mainly because the clever packaging allows adults to sit comfortably in the 3rd row while the car is low enough to look like a ordinary wagon not an SUV. It has good interior space, handles like a sedan and gets excellent fuel economy for its size. It would seem to be just the sort of car that some of the others posting above say they would be interested in.

The lack of a V6 may be a problem in the US – but as you say with current (and no doubt future) oil prices maybe that is changing!

http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/squire.htm#interior

But the ‘59 Chevy wagon we had had rear-facing 3rd row seats….

http://www.adclassix.com/ads/59chevroletbrookwood.htm

…but we digress.

‘57 Chevy could be had with 3 rows, and the last one faced forward.

(does superiority dance)

The Asia/Australia market Odyssey was marketed in the US in the mid-late 1990’s, and didn’t do well as it lacked sliding doors, was smaller, adn less powerful than the majority of US market minivans. A US Odyssey has the 3.5L V6 and is approximately 25cm longer and 18cm wider than the Asia/Australia version. Now that gas prices have gone up, the situation would probably be very different. Rumors are that the JDM Honda Stream, one size smaller than the Odyssey, may someday make it to the US.

and if this doesn’t work just go to honda.com.au and look at the Odyssey in the showroom. (Sorry about the spelling of Odyssey in the previous post – I had “e”s breeding there like rabbits)

This is a sold as a minivan but with clever packaging is more like a wagon with a third row that adults can use. Why does Honda not sell this car in the US?

-John

Dimension………RAV4……….CR-V
Length……….181.1 in………..181 in.
Width………….71.5 in………….70.2 in.
Height ………..66.3 in………….66.2 in.
Weight……….3300 lbs. ……….3318 lbs.
WhlBase ………104.7 in. ………103.3 in.
Grnd Clear……….7.5 in…………8.1 in.
FHead………….40.8 in………….40.9 in.
RHead ……….39.7 in…………..39.1 in.
FShoulder……….57.1 in…………56.9 in.
RShoulder……….55.3 in………..56.5 in.
Front Hip……….53.8 in………..54.5 in.
Rear Hip……….52.4 in………..53.5 in.
Front Leg……….41.8 in………..41.3 in.
Rear Leg ……….38.3 in………..39.4 in.
MaxLuggage……37.2 cu.ft…….33.5 cu.ft.

The ‘57 Chevy had no third row, nor did most of the wagons I rode in. The crawling over the back seat back was not a problem. But the business about the parents having to stick the kids in their safety seats explains the current problem for me. Thanks.

Frank Williams writes:
David, back in the day, wagons had rear-facing seats you could get to via the tailgate. Plus, once you were in there (even if you crawled over the back seat to get there) you just sprawled, sat, piled on each other, or did whatever you had to do to claim your share of the space.

Today the seats face forward, meaning you have to crawl over or around the middle seat (with headrests and shoulder belts getting in the way) to get to them. Add to that the requirement for kids below a certain size to sit in booster seats and it’s dang-nigh impossible to get them back there and belted in properly. Once they’re past booster seat size they’re too big to fit comfortably in the munchkin-sized seats most SUVs have in the wayback.

http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/csedans.htm

The new RAV4 V-6 was one of my recommended test drives. Low enough for the dogs, nice enough inside to meet 80% of their luxury need, probably reliable, quick and relatively nimble, not so thirsty.

I’d also thrown Touregs, XC90’s & wagons from Germany past them for consideration. They tested the RAV4 and a Nissan Murano and decided to limp along a bit longer with what they’ve got.

Other neighbors also have three large dogs, same dilemma: what’s nice enough to drive everyday yet presents the qualities of old family-haulers for the dogs? They have a Mazda MPV for the dogs and an Audi A6 2.8 for “luxury.” They don’t see the right vehicle on the market right now, either.

Neither family has needed AWD more than once every couple of years. I suspect there’s a “sweet spot” in the market for families (with kids, not dogs) that can be hit hard here. Minivans are out of the question for this demographic.

I’m curious to see how upcoming new crossover vehicles might meet this kind of market. That is, if car makers can stop mimicking SUV’s in their next-gen crossovers. You can make a car look good/durable/capable without making it resemble a truck. Think mid-50’s wagons. This RAV4’s not quite there.

Now it looks like an overgrown overweight station wagon. Which of course, it is. If you sliced 6″ of the slab side off and dropped the roof accordingly, it would be, a station wagon.

–chuck

You can certainly criticize ME because we should have bought a minivan, although at the time we didn’t figure on being quite so fertile.

But don’t call my kids fat!
;–)

Nice styling, though the 5-series headlights detracted from an otherwise fresh look for a Toyota. Steering and overall handling was nice. Power was adequate for most, and the AWD will take you to most any campsite in any weather. (I tried) Interior had nice materials all around, and the brushed aluminum trim is better than most “near-luxury” sedans.

JBL stereo was awesome, except for the doors rattling to the bass. Seats had rather hard cushions too. That exposed spare tire (why put so much weight up high on a commuter car?) and useless rear bumper (the tire hits your target before the bumper, and then goes for the back window) was the worst design flaw on the RAV.

I thought that 3rd row was a joke, but I was wrong. Children or supermodels fit, since the 2nd row has movable seat tracks.

The RAV4 is “cooler” than a minivan, almost as practical, and looks about a bazillion times better than the dowdy Highlander.

Kids today are fat. They can’t fit past tight spaces, and they’re too lethargic to climb over seatc.

Claude Dickson: If you need a 3rd seat and can live with the “image”, a wagon is a better choice than the RAV4.

I’d agree, except fewer and fewer wagons are available with a third row. The third row available in the Volvo sits entirely above the floor, with no well for feet.

For the overwhelming majority of “SUVS”, I think WOTTS is a more accurate description of their design/function/actual use.

Buzz L.

Hop into your wayback machines for a minute; remember the first Honda Civic? Toyota Celica? There are more if you think of them (I remember these two cuz I owned ‘em).