Anyone following along for the last couple of years knows I’ve been thinking about buying a new car for, well, the last couple of years. When last I wrote about the subject, we were considering four-door hatches along the lines of the Fit or the Matrix, in search of better gas mileage and a reasonable price tag. Since then, we’ve actually had the baby and now know how difficult it is to jockey her in and out of the car—especially since we’ve upgraded to a larger car seat.

So the Fit (our previous winner) was out, and we started considering the next larger size of four-door babyhaulin’ vehicles. The CR-V was an obvious candidate, so we looked at the other models in its class—the RAV-4, the Forester and the Rogue. We’re ruling out anything GM makes at the outset; my last experience with Ford was middling, and I haven’t trusted a Hyundai since 1988, when I cracked the door hinge on a one-year-old Excel by rolling down the window. (It wasn’t mine, thankfully). We ruled the Forester out after several different experiences in several different models, all of which made Jen carsick. I don’t trust Nissan anymore, even though one of the best cars I owned was a Sentra wagon; that was twenty years and one almost-bankruptcy ago, and their styling over the last ten years has left me uninspired.

So that left the Toyota and the Honda. We hit the local Carmax and walked through the SUV section until we found a row of CR-V’s in the previous body style, and, lo and behold, there sat a gunmetal gray stick!

Out on the road, the car handled exceptionally well, and I found that everything was engineered exactly the way I would want it to be. The cupholder/tray between the seats folds down out of the way perfectly, the cargo hold is wide, devoid of space-robbing, poorly fitted plastics (I’m looking at you, Chrysler) and there’s a hidden well under the deck where the mini-spare normally would go. I also liked 60/40 fold-and-tumble rear seats. It’s the rare kind of car where form follows function but still manages to be stylish and clean. I was in love.

The RAV4 we drove was also at least one body style behind, and an automatic (I don’t know if they come with manual transmissions, but I doubt it). The car itself was a 2004, and it had low miles, but it didn’t have the same put-together feel that the Honda did. It drove well, it had lots of pep, and it was shiny, but it reminded me more of a down-market Chevy than a serious contender. The plastics were simple, the doors felt thin and cheap (much like other Toyotas I’ve been in) and it lacked the polish and feel of the Honda. Sorry Toyota, if I wanted a Chevy, I’d buy one and save that other $7,000 for a new roof on my house. (Side note: In the showroom there sat a 2005 Ford Taurus with 50K on the odometer for $7,000. I found that kind of depressing).

Just for kicks, we checked out a Pilot to see what the next size up would be like, and were not impressed. Actually, we were turned off the minute we opened the rear hatch to see the back row of seats (they claim it fits 7) and got turned off at how useless they were and how much room they took up. That’s room I need for bikes and cat food and coolers and suitcases and presents and huge boxes and puppies and toys and playmates and second carseats, not thin metal space hogging, puke-inducing jumpseats.

Even though the CR-V had much higher mileage than the Toyota, I think it would be the best choice for our family, and I have no doubt we’d get 200,000 miles out of the engine with careful maintenance.

So for now, it remains a question of when. We’re being very conservative with our available cash, but I’m hoping to drive off the lot sometime before the snow flies (and, optimally, sooner than that, as Finn isn’t getting any smaller).