One of the most impressive three-row SUVs I’ve tested this year is the Kia Telluride, which beat the Volkswagen Atlas in my head-to-head matchup. Despite its higher price tag, the Telluride's confident performance, urban-minimalist design, generous passenger amenities, and stacked feature set proved it’s the mid-size, three-row hauler to beat in the segment.

​Next up, though, it faces another formidable challenger: the Nissan Pathfinder — a well-known model that's been hauling families across American roads for decades. This is an intriguing matchup, especially since the Pathfinder’s $57,275 as-tested price undercuts the Telluride’s $59,580 sticker.

​After living with both for a week to evaluate their driving dynamics, real-world fuel economy, and seating, I’ll break down which mid-size SUV offers the best balance of versatility, rugged styling, and everyday value to claim the class benchmark.

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Specifications

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Design

​When it comes to curb appeal, it largely comes down to personal preference, as both of these family haulers take distinctive approaches to exterior styling.

The Nissan Pathfinder sticks to a cleaner, more traditional three-row profile, anchored by its upright V-Motion grille. With this Platinum trim, I really love how the two-tone paint job makes the red body pop when the sun hits it just right, while the contrasting black roof and dark wheel accents strike the perfect visual balance. Compared to Kia’s approach, Nissan’s styling doesn’t feel forced or overdone. It’s an honest SUV that looks right at home in any driveway.

By contrast, the Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro leans into a modern, urban aesthetic. While some drivers might be intimidated by its blocky, tank-like demeanor, its chiseled geometry and sharper body lines command immediate attention. With a matte finish, vertical LED lighting signatures, flush door handles, and lifted 20-inch wheels, it delivers an imposing road presence that sets it apart from almost every other three-row crossover I've tested this year, except the BMW XM Label.

​I genuinely appreciate both design philosophies because the Pathfinder nails that no-nonsense utility, while the Telluride beams with this high-end, contemporary swagger.

Winner: tie

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Fuel economy

​Since three-row SUVs are built for road trips, school drop-offs, and weekend getaways that prioritize passenger space, it's no surprise they typically have a big appetite for gasoline. After spending a week behind the wheel of each SUV across a mix of highway stretches and local suburban drives, the Nissan Pathfinder took a decisive victory at the pump.

​I logged 151.7 miles in the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum 4WD, achieving an impressive overall average of 23.9 mpg — easily surpassing its EPA combined rating of 22 mpg. By comparison, the heavier 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD averaged a respectable 22.6 mpg over 352.5 miles.

​While the Telluride also beat its EPA estimate, the Pathfinder was the more efficient hauler across the board. The biggest gap emerged on short-distance drives, where I recorded an outstanding 25.6 mpg average on the Pathfinder's best run — a substantial advantage over the Telluride’s 14.1 mpg mark. On the open highway, the gap narrowed, with the Pathfinder hitting a peak long-distance 26.8 mpg and holding a modest edge over the Telluride’s 26 mpg average.

​Even though both crossovers stretch their legs efficiently on the highway, the Pathfinder’s consistent economy gives it the overall edge, saving drivers noticeable cash between fill-ups.

​Winner: Nissan Pathfinder

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Driving performance

Despite their burly looks, these mid-size three-row SUVs are surprisingly easy to drive—far more manageable than full-size haulers I’ve tested, like the GMC Yukon Denali and Infiniti QX80. That means I can easily maneuver them through tight parking spaces and crowded city streets without breaking a sweat.

Under the hood of the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum 4WD sits a naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V6 engine pumping out 284 horsepower and 259 lb-ft of torque. Meanwhile, the 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD makes do with a 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine that puts down 274 horsepower and a stout 311 lb-ft of torque.

While the Telluride delivers ample punch thanks to that extra low-end turbo shove, I still preferred being behind the wheel of the Pathfinder. That comes down to how its V6 delivers buttery-smooth, progressive throttle response the instant I need it. The Telluride handles busy highway merges and two-lane passes with ease, but the Pathfinder simply executes them more naturally—and with less hesitation.

Factor in the Pathfinder’s tighter body control around corners and more communicative steering, and Nissan’s family SUV feels distinctly more agile and confidence-inspiring during daily commutes.

Winner: Nissan Pathfinder

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Comfort

I don’t have a strong preference for their front seats, as both the driver and passenger perches are exceptionally comfortable on long highway stretches. Instead, the deciding factor in this category boils down to passenger space and overall cargo capacity.

The Nissan Pathfinder Platinum delivers a first-class cabin experience in the second row, courtesy of semi-aniline quilted leather-appointed seating, heated and ventilated front seats, and second-row manual sunshades. I’m especially pleased to see second-row captain’s chairs included on this trim, complete with a removable center console between them that makes walking back to the third-row bench effortless. In terms of usable space, the Pathfinder provides 35.5 inches of second-row legroom and 28 inches in the third row. Behind that third row, you get 16.6 cubic feet of trunk space.

The Kia Telluride SX-Prestige, however, offers a level of cabin refinement and stretch-out room that makes it my clear favorite. In addition to heated and ventilated front power seats, its Ergo Motion driver's seat helps combat fatigue on road trips with subtle massaging adjustments.

The Telluride goes a step further with heated and ventilated second-row captain’s chairs, plus a much more expansive 42.4 inches of second-row legroom and 31.4 inches in the third row. That extra third-row legroom matters because it lets me seat adults back there without hesitation, rather than keeping it strictly to small children. That spatial advantage carries right over to the trunk, where the Telluride commands 21 cubic feet of room behind the third row.

While the Pathfinder’s executive-like appointments give it a truly luxurious vibe, the Telluride simply provides more room to breathe across all three rows and holds significantly more gear when traveling with a full crew.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Value

For what they cost, both SUVs deliver features well beyond their entry-level trims—elevating them nearly to the same level of refinement as traditional luxury vehicles.

On the tech front, the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum comes fully equipped with a head-up display, magnetic wireless charging pad, panoramic moonroof, and a 360-degree camera system. Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist suite manages safety and driver assistance, performing smoothly on open highways by keeping the vehicle centered in its lane while maintaining a safe gap from traffic ahead.

However, the 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD makes an overwhelmingly strong case for its $59,580 as-tested price. For the roughly $2,300 premium over the Pathfinder, Kia loads this flagship trim with amenities that often command thousands more in dedicated luxury-brand crossovers.

Up front, you’re greeted by a sweeping dual 12.3-inch Panoramic Display, paired with a head-up display, digital rearview mirror, 115V inverter outlet, panoramic sunroof, blind-spot camera monitors, and a dual wireless phone charger. What sets it apart is the ability to engage lane-centering assist with a single press of a dedicated steering wheel button, which functions on both highways and local roads. Beyond its smooth adaptive cruise control, I really appreciate how the instrument cluster automatically feeds live blind-spot camera angles the second I signal a lane change.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Verdict

This Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride matchup turned out to be a much closer race than I initially expected. In fact, I thought it would be a runaway victory for the Telluride — but after driving the Pathfinder for a week, I was proven wrong.

Ultimately, this head-to-head matchup ends in a dead heat, with each vehicle playing to its own unique strengths. I recommend the Nissan Pathfinder if you prefer a traditional look, better real-world fuel economy, and a naturally aspirated V6 that delivers a genuinely more engaging drive. At $57,275 as-tested, it undercuts the competition while still packing a luxurious interior, generous second-row amenities, and proven family utility.

On the flip side, go with the Kia Telluride if you want maximum passenger utility, modern urban styling, and a cabin overflowing with convenience tech. With its adult-friendly third row, larger cargo hold, dual 12.3-inch panoramic display, second-row ventilated seats, and an unbeatable 10-year warranty, the Telluride effortlessly justifies its $59,580 sticker price.

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

The first fully-electric Range Rover has been a long time coming. Five years after first announcing its EV ambitions, the luxury SUV brand’s entry into electrification is carrying the weight of expectation. Now it’s here, complete with insistence from Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) that it’s more responsive, with better acceleration and more torque than any of the four previous generations since the car was introduced back in 1970.

In fact, the shift to electric pays some serious dividends when it comes to Range Rover’s luxury credentials. The cabin noise is quieter by 7 dB than the 2022 ICE V8 counterpart this car was benchmarked against. It’s also got V8-beating acceleration, 10% less body roll and a 60% quicker active damping system to intercept any infuriating road bumps. On top of that there's the traction management system I'll touch on later that responds 100 times faster than its combustion‑engine equivalent in the (unlikely) event the average Range Rover customer decides to take it off-road.

Speaking of Range Rover customers, this isn’t a vehicle to democratise EV adoption when pricing starts at £154k ($206k) for the standard wheelbase Autobiography trim. Even less so when it rises north of £225k ($301k) for the long wheelbase SV Black edition. But according to Rachel Hogg, Global Product Manager for Range Rover Electric, a lot of interested people are coming to the car for the first time.

“We opened a global waiting list a couple of years ago and to date, 70% of the people on the waiting list are new to the Range Rover brand,” she told me following a day behind the wheel of the new car. "That's a pretty exciting opportunity for us, because these are people who aren't familiar with what Range Rover stands for. They're maybe not familiar with those experiences that you get from owning a Range Rover.

“So I think this is an exciting opportunity to bring new people into the brand, and also to show our loyal customers that we haven't traded on what they know and love, and we have delivered something true to a Range Rover.”

Range Rover first, EV second

Over the course of a day and a half, I took the Range Rover Electric First Edition SWB (the mid-tier trim with a price around £157k ($210k)) on a 500-odd-mile round trip across Scotland, both on road and off. The constant refrain from the team at JLR was that the Electric was a Range Rover first and an EV second. As such, there’s almost no outward difference to speak of between this and the 2022 fifth-gen Range Rover. You’ll see a new grille, different wheels and, of course, the charging ports positioned on either side. But otherwise, it’s a dead ringer for its ICE siblings.

The Range Rover Electric is built on an upgraded version of the Modular Longitudinal Architecture (MLA) platform used by its combustion-engined brother and electric stablemate, the Jaguar Type 01. I’m told this car is expected to be the most-patented in Range Rover’s history, with over 300 filed for just this model alone.

Among those patented components are twin 260kW permanent magnet electric motors forming the core component of the Electric Drive Units (EDU) mounted on the front and rear axels. Because the front EDU sits where the typical combustion engine would sit, there’s no ‘frunk’ to be found on this car. Another indicator that this machine isn’t trying to follow conventional EV flourishes.

Battery and range

Those two motors are powered from a double‑stacked 118.5kWh battery with 800‑volt technology, giving the car a WLTP range of 372 miles. But the folks at Range Rover told me that, based on the extensive amount of virtual and real-world testing, you can expect around 333 miles before having to plug in. That’s roughly equivalent to the range you’d get from a full tank in a V8 ICE Range Rover — during my own drive, the readout was quoting around 300 miles until we started to tackle the off-road tracks

That range is good without being outstanding. BMW’s competing electric iX5 SUV delivers a claimed range of up to 435 miles. Charging via an 800‑volt compatible fast charger will take the Range Rover Electric from 10‑80% in 22 mins. Thankfully for Range Rover, high-powered 300-kilowatt chargers are becoming more prevalent — perhaps a silver lining to the fact we’ve waited a long time for this car.

Range Rover’s team also told me they’ve worked hard to make sure the power levels are consistent for greater than 80% of the state of charge.

“It's no good quoting, I don't know, 5,000 horsepower if you get it for 3 milliseconds when you're at 100% state of charge, and then by the time you get to 80% state of charge, you're down to 200 horsepower,” said Simon Fairbrother, Programme Chief, Range Rover Electric.

“And we've got power by mode as well, so we tune the best power for the mode that you're in from a terrain response perspective.”

Fairbrother also told me about the car’s thermal management system that juggles 300 different settings to keep the battery and the EDU at the optimal operating condition. For example, the system harvests waste heat from the vehicle to keep the cabin temperature or propulsion system warmer in cold conditions.

Interior and technology

This is, after all, a Range Rover and the cabin is spacious and oozing luxury from every pore of the faux leather upholstery. The central cluster is dominated by a 13.1-inch touchscreen running JLR’s Pivi Pro infotainment software.

From that screen, you can control everything from cabin lighting, four-zone climate control and air purification through to individually heated (and massage-capable) seats. If you really want to dial up the opulence, you can trigger the “ambient fragrance diffuser” from the system and waft one of JLR’s curated ‘rejuvenate’, ‘peace’ or ‘restore’ scents through the cabin.

Oh, and don’t forget the refrigerated compartment underneath the central armrest. That’s certainly a new one on me and probably speaks to the fact that a lot of these cars are used as chauffeur-driven transport vehicles.

There’s full compatibility with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto and beneath the screen is an ample compartment for your phone(s) that includes a wireless charging shelf. Sound is provided courtesy of a custom-engineered speaker system from Meridian Audio that fills the near-silent cabin with ease. I appreciate the fact that Range Rover doesn’t use that sound system to deliver fake engine noise or any sci-fi-style whooshes or reverbs that you would easily find in any other EV with an identity crisis.

Finally, the non-obtrusive HUD was extremely useful, with your current speed set against the road limit and navigation elements like your distance to destination called in when necessary.

What’s it like to drive?

All the usual adjectives can all be drafted in to describe the experience of driving the Range Rover Electric on the road: effortless, refined, sublime. Rinse and repeat. Driving this car is more akin to being transported down the road in a whisper-quiet armchair, and the few times I did floor it, the car demonstrated its 542bhp, 0-62-in-4.5-seconds prowess without so much as a stutter. There's a top speed of 124mph, and believe me when I say it barely registers when you start getting up towards it.

The batteries actually lower the car’s center of gravity, so it improves the handling over gas-guzzling versions. I felt it was completely responsive, and turning was graceful without ever pulling uncomfortably to the side of my seat. The air suspension was on point, and tarmac driving meant every bump or pothole barely registered.

And then we went off-road.

The Range Rover Electric utilises a new Integrated Traction Management (ITM) system which Fairbrother told me was his proudest achievement when it came to the car. Utilizing software and the dual motors to lock the differentials, the Range Rover Electric can adjust motor speed within 50 milliseconds and manage slip up to 100 times quicker than its ICE equivalent.

The ITM system works in conjunction with Terrain Response, which I duly engaged when faced with a twisted, muddy track leading up and over a headland next to a loch. The Electric Range Rover pretty much breezed through the process and I counted just a single time throughout the entire drive where I lost a bit of grip and felt a back wheel slide out.

Once my muddy track had been conquered — with the aid of the front-mounted terrain camera guiding my all-wheel drive progress — it was time to experience the Range Rover Electric’s 900mm (35 inch) wading depth. We both forded a river and rolled our way through the aforementioned loch safely cocooned inside the cabin with just the sound of the water slapping against the bodywork.

Once on the other side and crawling back along through mudded ruts with bracken and pine trees either side — on standard road tires the entire way — it occurred to me more than once that 95% of Range Rover’s typical suburban-based ownership will likely never put their own vehicle through anything like this kind of punishment. But just like a $5,000 dive watch that’ll never be worn beyond the shallows, they need to know that it can if it has to.

Final thoughts

Electrification fits the Range Rover brand like an understated tailored velvet glove. It’s more powerful, more responsive, but just as capable when it comes to range and terrain as its V8 brethren. But the extra solitude and acceleration granted by the electric power feel perfectly positioned with the understated luxury Range Rover aspires to provide.

Perhaps part of the reason this car has taken so long to arrive is that it delivers so much whilst seemingly sacrificing very little. It’s taken its time to arrive, but now it’s here; well-heeled Range Rover fans will see it’s been worth the wait.

Over to you — let me know your thoughts on the Range Rover Electric in the comments below, along with any other EVs you’d like us to test drive.

More from Tom's Guide

• You're driving your electric car wrong — here's how to get the best efficiency out of it
• I drove the Kia Sorento and Hyundai Santa Fe for a week — here's the 3-row family SUV I recommend
• I drove over 10,000 miles this year and Google Maps needs to upgrade this feature ASAP — here's why

If there’s one type of vehicle I test more than anything else, it’s three-row SUVs. While three rows have long been tied to full-size options, there’s been a surge of automakers bringing third-row seating to mid-size crossovers — and this Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe matchup is something I’ve been waiting to cover.

I’ve previously put their larger siblings, the Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisade, to the test. While both are fantastic, some families might shy away due to their higher price tags. That’s where their mid-size counterparts step into the spotlight, offering the same family utility at a much more accessible price point.

For this head-to-head test, I drove the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige 2.5T AWD and 2026 Hyundai Santa Fe XRT 2.5T AWD for a week each — with both coming in at under $50,000. After putting each through grocery runs, highway commutes, tight parking spaces, and everyday driving, only one mid-size three-row SUV earns my recommendation.

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Specifications

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Design

I’ll be the first to say that the Santa Fe commands attention on the road, blending a boxy silhouette with a retro-futuristic vibe that instantly evokes memories of the classic Scion xB.

Up front, the bold "H" signature LED daytime running lights give it an unmistakable face, while the optional Ecotronic Gray Matte paint job adds an urban edge that’s tough to overlook. But despite those highlights, the design falls flat at the rear. The slab-sided tailgate looks awkward in person, and the low-mounted taillights sit so close to the rear bumper that they create an oddly disproportionate look.

In contrast, the Kia Sorento delivers a much more cohesive shape that’s simply easier on the eyes. Sure, it leans more conventional than the polarizing Santa Fe, but it borrows style cures from the Telluride and EV9 that make it stylish in its own right.

The Sorento features a broad, upright grille flanked by vertical LED headlights, paired with sculpted body lines on its side that flow more naturally. Around back, high-mounted taillights pushed to the outer edges accentuate its planted stance. Throw in the rugged blacked-out exterior accents and 20-inch gloss-black wheels of the X-Line package, and the Sorento looks purposeful and premium from every angle.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Fuel economy

Three-row haulers naturally demand more power and consume more fuel, but both of these mid-size options prove you can shave down your gas bill compared to full-size options. Better yet, both vehicles largely lived up to their EPA ratings during testing.

Behind the wheel, I logged 113 miles of mixed driving in the 2026 Santa Fe XRT, recording a 23.1 mpg average. Meanwhile, the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line averaged 22.9 mpg across 181.1 miles of mixed driving. That 0.2-mpg difference is negligible and effectively amounts to a dead heat — one that could easily tip either way depending on how heavy your right foot is.

Where the separation occurs is across specific driving cycles. The Santa Fe XRT proved more efficient on short, local errand runs, recording a best short-distance run of 27.3 mpg versus the Sorento's 24.5 mpg. However, the Sorento clawed back an advantage on open highway stretches, posting a best long-distance score of 28.6 mpg compared to the Santa Fe XRT’s 27.7 mpg.

Winner: Hyundai Santa Fe

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Driving performance

One of the most compelling reasons to choose either SUV is everyday drivability. Neither vehicle feels top-heavy or cumbersome when squeezing into tight parking garages or navigating crowded streets, making the Sorento and Santa Fe noticeably more agile than their larger siblings.

Under the hood, both gas contenders pack punchy 2.5-liter turbocharged inline-four engines. The Kia Sorento X-Line holds a slight on-paper edge with 281 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque, compared to the Hyundai Santa Fe XRT’s nearly identical 277 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque.

What surprised me most was how energetic both felt off the line, even in their respective Eco modes. While Eco settings typically feel sluggish, both delivered zippy acceleration that made highway merging and overtaking maneuvers effortless. Whenever I wanted sharper dynamics, toggling into Sport mode delivered immediate throttle response.

Overall, both gas SUVs are composed, responsive, and exceptionally easy to drive, with neither holding a definitive dynamic edge over the other.

Winner: tie

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Comfort

Without question, the Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige takes this category because it comes equipped with heated, reclining second-row captain's chairs that easily offer the best seats in the house for road trips. It also helps that the Sorento offers a more upscale vibe inside, thanks to its genuine leather upholstery and suede headliner.

Matching its exterior styling, the Santa Fe XRT adopts a more utilitarian approach with a standard second-row bench wrapped in synthetic H-Tex upholstery. While that allows the Santa Fe XRT to technically seat seven passengers instead of six, accessing the third row is far more inconvenient because it requires sliding the heavier bench sections forward.

When it comes to stretch-out space, you get a smidge more room across the board in the Santa Fe XRT, but the margins are slim enough that it's difficult to notice in person. Second-row passengers get 42.3 inches of legroom in the Hyundai compared to 41.7 inches in the Kia, while the third row affords 30 inches versus the Sorento’s 29.6 inches. As you can see in my photos above, my knees were brushing the seatbacks in both when seated in the third row.

Due to its upright, boxy frame, Hyundai does maximize rear utility, providing 14.6 cubic feet of cargo room behind the upright third row versus the Sorento’s 12.6 cubic feet. While the Santa Fe wins on pure cargo packaging, the Sorento’s superior cabin refinement and second-row captain’s chairs make it the more comfortable vehicle to live with day-to-day.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Value

When it comes to value, both mid-size SUVs offer premium tech well below the $50,000 mark. What I appreciate most is that both models come equipped with Highway Driving Assist and adaptive cruise control paired with lane centering — complete with dedicated steering wheel buttons so you can toggle lane centering at any time without diving into screen menus.

However, the Sorento holds an advantage with blind-spot view camera monitors that project live video feeds directly into the driver’s instrument cluster, making highway lane changes significantly safer and more intuitive. Screen real estate is a strong suit across the board. Both vehicles feature generous 12.3-inch touchscreens with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

The divergence ultimately comes down to the extra goodies included with the Kia. At $44,525 as tested, the Santa Fe XRT undercuts the Sorento by nearly $4,800. But the $49,310 Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige justifies its higher sticker by packing high-end extras like a digital rearview mirror, 12-speaker Bose premium audio, a panoramic sunroof, blind-spot view cameras, and a 360-degree Surround View Monitor.

For buyers who want genuine near-luxury convenience without crossing $50K, those additions deliver unbeatable value.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Verdict

While the Hyundai Santa Fe XRT puts up a strong fight with its aggressive sub-$45,000 price point, expansive rear cargo space, and slightly superior around-town fuel economy, the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige emerges as the more complete, well-rounded three-row SUV in this comparison. I still can’t get past the Santa Fe’s polarizing exterior styling and utilitarian interior, whereas the Sorento strikes an effortless balance between athletic proportions and genuine near-luxury refinement.

That elevated experience is cemented by the Sorento’s unbeatable feature packaging. Even though it commands a nearly $4,800 premium over the XRT, every dollar is accounted for with high-end equipment that makes driving both safer and significantly more comfortable — all while keeping the final price under $50,000. If you want maximum cargo volume on a strict budget, the Santa Fe XRT delivers. But if you want the best all-around family cruiser that nails design, everyday maneuverability, and cabin comfort, the Kia Sorento takes the crown.

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

This past year alone, I’ve tested more than 70 different vehicles, including many of the best electric cars that natively offer wireless CarPlay and Android Auto. I’ve logged more than 10,000 miles behind the wheel putting them through their paces, but there's one thing I always do before each drive: run Google Maps.

Recently, the popular navigation app received a substantial update that transforms the visual experience with Immersive Navigation. While it’s a tremendous boost, there’s one thing I think Google needs to fix — or at least update — to make its best feature even better. I’m referring to police alerts, which pop up only when you’re actively following directions to a destination.

Don’t get me wrong: it’s a helpful feature that gives me a heads-up about potential speed traps or hazards, but I wish these alerts were available even when I’m not running active turn-by-turn navigation. Here’s why.

Not only does Google Maps provide me with meaningful traffic data, but it also offers a comprehensive reporting tool for crashes, slowdowns, construction, lane closures, and more. I consider myself a power user and do my best to report incidents along my routes — or verify existing ones — to keep the map accurate for everyone. But the feature I rely on most is police alerts.

Whether someone has been pulled over for speeding or an officer is parked monitoring a speed trap, I regularly report sightings so other drivers stay informed. Naturally, I also appreciate seeing those community reports ahead of time to give me a heads-up.

The problem is that I only receive these alerts when I’m actively following turn-by-turn directions. If I just get in my car and drive without setting a destination, Google Maps stays silent. I’d love to see this upgraded so these alerts remain active even when the app is running in standby mode.

Because I frequently use CarPlay and Android Auto, I appreciate how seamlessly Google Maps loads onto my vehicle's infotainment display. However, it would be far more useful if alerts appeared regardless of whether an active route is set. I can’t count how many short-distance trips I take to the grocery store past typical speed-trap spots; when you’re driving somewhere familiar, you rarely think to punch in directions.

Keeping alerts active at all times would ensure drivers always know what lies ahead. That doesn't just benefit speed awareness; it would also warn drivers about debris on the road before they stumble upon it. To be fair, this isn’t unique to Google Maps—Apple Maps operates the exact same way and stays quiet unless an active route is running.

It’s a straightforward update that would make navigation apps significantly more practical. Enabling alerts in standby mode would give drivers crucial extra seconds to anticipate road hazards and adjust safely.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone Duo pre-orders — 7 reasons to buy and 4 reasons to skip
• iPhone Duo has a secret cooling system hiding inside its hinge — and that's another way it beats Galaxy Z Fold 8
• iPhone Duo pre-orders open this week — but there are still 7 things we don't know

You've never seen a Tesla do this. Nine years in the making, Elon Musk just unveiled the new Tesla Roadster at the SpaceX rocket testing facility in Waco, Texas. And the location makes perfect sense, because this electric supercar can fly. Sort of.

The event lasted less than 30 minutes and kicked off with the Roadster driving up a vertical ramp, clinging to the side, and coming to a standstill. Upside down. The car proceeded to reverse back down the ramp, before accelerating up it again, flipping off into mid-air, stabilizing, and flying down to the ground.

Later on in the demonstration, the car launched itself into the air and barrel-rolled over a line of other Tesla cars — including the semi — before landing again. In the words of Tesla's VP for Engineering, Lars Moravy, "We borrowed some technology from SpaceX."

That SpaceX technology Moravy is referring to includes a fan-based suction system on the bottom of the car, capable of pulling up to two Gs of force. Meanwhile, the air-based manoeuvrability comes from two high-pressure air tanks and 10 nozzles placed around the car that act as thrusters. Each tank is 600 liters, containing around 250 kilograms of air — which can be recharged without the need for any chemical propellant.

So, yes. Elon Musk has delivered on his promise of creating a flying car.

"I should say that this is not necessarily a safety-optimized car. But it takes the fun meter to 11 out of 10," the billionaire told the assembled crowd at the launch event.

“The car has obviously attitude control thrusters and main thrusters in the rear,” Musk said. “So, it can basically fly like a rocket and it could do rolls, it could do crazy gymnastics, whatever you want really.”

Musk promised the Roadster will be an "actual car that's on the roads" but later on the company acknowledged that, at least the flying version, won't be road legal. An update posted to the company's website revealed there will be three models of the Roadster when it allegedly goes into production in 2028:

• Performance: This 'road ready' variant seats two passengers and features active aerodynamics and a multi-mode suction system that maximises downforce for next-level performance on and off the track.
• Thrust: This is the 'race ready' version that's set to go on a limited release and pairs the multi-mode suction system with the cold-gas thrusters in the rear that send the car from 0-60mph in under a second.
• Rocket: Tesla's 'air ready' model is strictly invite-only and boasts the suction system paired with the cold-gas thrusters positioned around the vehicle, allowing it to to support: "forward and upward acceleration as well as lateral rotational movement. So yes, it can fly."

Tesla Roadster: Aircraft (and rocket) influenced design

Leaving aside the fact that it can take to the air and "kickflip" over other vehicles, the Roadster is a car that takes inspiration from the Lockheed SR-71 aircraft. “It's a nice clean aesthetic. Like I said, we leaned into a little bit of some of the aerospace aesthetics, said Tesla’s chief designer, Franz von Holzhausen.

The seats inside are part of the chassis as a means of keeping weight down and the car features a steer-by-wire system. It has a steering yoke, electronic brakes and throttle controls.

Tesla's aim was to have it accelerate from 0-60mph in under a second and, during the demo, the car cleared the hurdle at 0.81 seconds. Musk claimed there's more to come: “As you increase force and decrease mass, you get more acceleration,” he said. “So, the production car will actually do better than that – we'll just ride the limit of don't detach the retina of the human in the car.”

All about the ground effect

Jason jumping in here! When there's a new car doing crazy things, you know Tom's Guide's resident racing enthusiast had to get involved and see what's going on.

And I first thought "wait...this looks familiar." Not the flying stuff — that's of course a great sci-fi demo, but rather the physics-bending grip and acceleration.

Then it hit me: the McMurtry Spéirling back at the Goodwood timed shootout in 2022.

This race-spec car and the Tesla Roadster do the same thing, but in different ways. This is called ground effect, and the idea is to cheat the biggest limitation in traditional sports car design: waiting until you're going fast enough for wings and spoilers to push the car into the road.

Both do this by using high-powered underfloor fans to literally vacuum the car down to the tarmac before the wheels turn — gluing the car to the asphalt and allowing their engines to dump instant torque straight into the ground without any wheel spin. It's fascinating stuff to a nerd like me!

Where they're different is what happens after the suction fans do their job. The McMurtry relies entirely on that vacuum seal to carve through tight bends and set lap records.

Tesla's Roadster, on the other hand, pairs that ground effect with high-pressure cold gas rocket thrusters to shove the chassis forward, or even make it fly as you saw.

Flying cars are good demo for sure, but I'm most interested in that shared fan-suction DNA for pure speed and cornering bite.

20 years in the making

The event marked 20 years since the debut of Tesla's original electric roadster and the company has made no secret of its intentions to move into fully autonomous vehicles in the future. This new Roadster, however, is set to be the exception.

"This will actually be long-term the only manually driven car that Tesla makes,” Musk told the audience. “And so if you're going to have only one manually driven car, let's take it to the limits and way past the limits.”

Tesla's achievement is jaw-droppingly impressive but, as ever with the company, take its timeline with a pinch of salt. Originally unveiled as a four-seater in 2017 with deliveries predicted to begin in 2020, we're only really seeing this car now, six years later. And there's been no mention yet of price, maximum range or charging speed.

But really, does that matter right now? Tesla just gave us a flying car.

More from Tom's Guide

• I drove the Chevrolet Trax and Hyundai Venue for a week — here’s the sub-$30K SUV I’d buy with my own money
• Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which Google fitness tracker wins?
• Apple holding event Oct. 28 for first touchscreen MacBook Pro — what we know

​Prices are absurd wherever you look, especially when many of the best electric cars I’ve tested easily start at around $50,000. Sub-$30,000 new cars are few and far between these days, but they still exist — and the Chevrolet Trax and Hyundai Venue are proof.

​Subcompact SUVs remain some of the most affordable options on the market, combining the efficiency of smaller sedans with the utility that makes crossovers so appealing. I spent a week with both the 2026 Chevrolet Trax 1LT and the 2026 Hyundai Venue SEL, which carry as-tested prices of $27,975 and $24,440, respectively.

While I’ve already pitted the Hyundai Venue against the Subaru Crosstrek, it faces an even tougher challenger in the sportier Chevrolet Trax. After putting them both to the test, here’s the subcompact SUV I recommend if you want to spend as little as possible on your next vehicle purchase.

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Specifications

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Design

Thankfully neither of these vehicles look boring, which is a welcome relief because when you get to prices this low, automakers aren’t inclined to focus on them as much. While they’re similar in price, they take drastically different approaches with their aesthetics.

For starters, I really love how the Hyundai Venue takes a page out of Mini Cooper’s playbook by designing the Venue with a bit of flair that makes it look better in my opinion over its sibling in the Hyundai Kona. Even though it has a boxier, more upright proportion, small details like its contrast two-tone roof give it a stylish look that I don’t expect to find in this bracket.

Meanwhile, the Chevrolet Trax goes in the opposite direction with its sleeker roofline and athletic styling that catches my attention. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the larger Chevrolet Blazer with its lower stance and wider body – giving it an almost rugged, outdoor-ready stance. Throw in the sculpted body lines, slim LED daytime running lights, and subtle rear spoiler, the Trax certainly has the more commanding presence on the road.

Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Fuel economy

​As much as I prefer hybrids for their superior gas savings over conventional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles, the Trax and Venue promise sedan-like fuel economy. On paper, it looks like an even matchup, with the Venue rated at 31 mpg combined and the Trax right behind it at 30 mpg.

​However, I’m happy to report that both exceeded those expectations in my real-world driving tests. Over 133.1 miles of mixed driving, the Venue averaged an astonishing 37.8 mpg — nearly 7 mpg above its EPA combined rating. Just as convincing was the Trax’s impressive 34.8 mpg over 161 miles, which is outstanding for a non-hybrid, but still a smidge short of the Venue’s superior efficiency.

​Things get even more interesting when looking at their performance across highway stretches and local trips. Thanks to its lightweight footprint and 1.6-liter inline-four engine, the Venue clocked a staggering short-distance peak of 49.6 mpg, leaving the Trax’s 28.3 mpg in the dust. On longer highway drives, both crossovers excelled, but the Venue still took the crown with a best long-distance run of 40.6 mpg versus 38.4 mpg for the Trax.

​Neither is classified as a hybrid, but the Venue absolutely makes a case for itself with its stellar efficiency.

Winner: Hyundai Venue

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Driving performance

​Although both subcompact SUVs are easy to drive due to their small footprints and tight turning radii, there’s one that delivers a noticeably more engaging experience behind the wheel: the Chevy Trax.

​That’s because the Trax is powered by an Ecotec 1.2-liter turbocharged three-cylinder engine delivering 137 horsepower and a much meatier 162 lb-ft of torque. That turbo makes all the difference, which translates to a zippier drive on the road that gets it moving in a quick manner. Paired with its wider stance and longer wheelbase, the Trax feels far more composed when carving through turns and cruising at highway speeds.

​In contrast, the 2026 Hyundai Venue SEL achieves its superior fuel economy with a smaller-output 1.6-liter inline-four engine producing 121 horsepower and 113 lb-ft of torque. It still drives with confidence during routine neighborhood errands, but it feels lethargic when merging onto fast-moving freeways.

​Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Comfort

​The biggest compromise I tend to see among budget-conscious vehicles is how they shortchange the comforts and features, often omitting anything beyond the absolute basics.

​That compromise is immediately evident in the Venue. Sitting inside feels like a throwback due to the heavy use of hard plastic across the dashboard and a tiny main display that easily washes out in direct sunlight. Unfortunately, its slick exterior styling simply doesn't carry over into the cabin.

​While the denim cloth and leatherette seats in the Venue offer decent support for extended drives, I can’t say the same for anyone riding in the back. With just 34.3 inches of rear legroom, taller adults will struggle to sit comfortably without their knees pressing into the front seats. Cargo capacity is similarly pinched at 18.7 cubic feet of trunk space, requiring careful planning to fit larger packages or bulky luggage.

​The 2026 Chevrolet Trax 1LT, on the other hand, delivers a sportier aesthetic that appeals to me far more, complete with jet engine-inspired air vents and vibrant yellow contrast stitching across the cabin. More importantly, practical passenger comfort is vastly superior thanks to its expansive 38.7 inches of rear legroom and generous 25.6 cubic feet of cargo volume behind the seats. All told, the Trax takes a decisive win by pairing genuine passenger comfort with unmatched day-to-day utility.

​Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Value

​Separated by a little over $3,500, the $24,440 as-tested Venue certainly grabs attention with its lower out-of-pocket cost — but I can’t stress enough just how many essential extras come loaded on the Trax.

​There’s not a whole lot that accompanies the Venue, which is about as basic as they come. You still get standard equipment like a wireless phone charger, heated front seats, blind-spot collision warning, and rear cross-traffic alert. Bolstering all of that is Hyundai's generous 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty, offering long-term coverage that Chevy simply can’t match.

However, Chevrolet packs in more than enough extra equipment to justify its slightly higher price tag. This $27,975 priced Trax 1LT I tested came with options like a power sunroof, heated steering wheel, heated front seats, and, most importantly, adaptive cruise control.

That means the Trax can actively maintain its following distance and manage acceleration and braking in traffic, rather than relying on standard cruise control like the Venue. That driver-assist feature alone adds tremendous everyday value, especially if you face long highway stretches during your daily commute.

Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Verdict

​At a time when new car prices are super high, it’s refreshing to find viable options under $30,000. Both subcompacts make a compelling case for budget-conscious drivers who want to keep out-of-pocket costs low without sacrificing everyday ease of driving. What surprised me most is how both vehicles maximize efficiency without carrying the typical hybrid price premium.

​I give the 2026 Hyundai Venue SEL credit for its lower price tag and for crushing its EPA estimates with an impressive 37.8 mpg average in my testing. But the 2026 Chevrolet Trax 1LT earns my recommendation as the vehicle I’d buy with my own money.

Between its punchier turbocharged acceleration, expansive rear legroom, vastly larger cargo hold, and modern tech the Venue simply lacks, the Trax justifies every cent. Separated by only about $3,500, the Trax delivers the superior blend of space, comfort, and driving refinement.

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

For the past couple of years, the Lucid Air has consistently been one of the most efficient EVs I’ve tested. By reaching that golden 4 mi/kWh average during my testing, Lucid didn’t just set the benchmark for what an electric sedan could achieve — it also proved that range anxiety is a thing of the past. While its all-electric luxury sedan is one of the best electric cars on the market, relying on a single model hasn’t helped the company broaden its brand recognition.

Enter the 2026 Lucid Gravity, a bold electric crossover that reimagines what a 3-row SUV can be. The California-based EV maker is finally stepping into a new category, but with a base price of $79,900 that balloons to a staggering $123,950 as-tested price for the Grand Touring trim I tested for a week, it faces a steep uphill battle to prove it’s worth that kind of money.

In fact, it’s competing against other notable 3-row luxury SUVs I’ve put to the test, like the Rivian R1S and Cadillac Vistiq — in addition to ultra-practical alternatives like the Kia EV9 and Hyundai Ioniq 9. Here are my pros and cons of the 2026 Lucid Gravity Grand Touring.

2026 Lucid Gravity review: Specifications

2026 Lucid Gravity review: Testing summary

I drove a total of 236.8 miles during my week of testing the 2026 Lucid Gravity Grand Touring, achieving an average efficiency of 3.24 mi/kWh. Just like its sedan sibling, the Gravity proves it’s ultra-efficient where it matters most, easily outclassing its key three-row rivals.

This class-leading efficiency stems from its 123-kWh battery, 900V+ electrical architecture, and low-slung, aerodynamic design that significantly cuts drag compared to the blockier, high-riding stances of the Cadillac Vistiq and Rivian R1S.

It pulled ahead in both my short- and long-distance driving tests, returning 3.59 mi/kWh around town and an even more impressive 3.68 mi/kWh on highway stretches. For a crossover with seating for up to seven, these are figures typically reserved for much smaller EVs.

Equipped with a native NACS charge port, it provides direct access to Tesla Superchargers without needing an adapter, while included adapters ensure compatibility with third-party CCS and J1772 stations. On standard Level 1 charging at home, I logged a recharge rate of 2.27 mi/hr. While that edges out competitors like the Escalade IQ (1.88 mi/hr), it remains modest compared to the 3 to 4+ mi/hr rates lighter, smaller EVs can pull from a standard 120V household outlet.

2026 Lucid Gravity review: What I like

Spacious interior

Sit in any seat inside and you’ll immediately notice the sprawling amount of passenger space. The best seats in the house are unquestionably in the second row, offering a generous 42.6 inches of legroom. Making them even better are the flip-out tray tables integrated into the front seatbacks, adding practical utility that makes typing on a laptop or watching videos on a tablet far more comfortable.

While third-row seating in most mid-size SUVs is typically reserved for children, the Gravity manages to deliver a legitimate 33.9 inches of legroom in the rearmost quarters. Removable floor inserts cover the footwells, but taking them out drops the floor and significantly improves thigh support for adults. That said, climbing into the third row requires waiting on the powered second-row seats to slide forward and tilt, which tests your patience when loading passengers in a hurry.

Much improved adaptive cruise control

One of the biggest pain points I experienced with the Lucid Air was how frustratingly unreliable its driver-assistance suite felt, especially for a six-figure luxury vehicle. Simply getting the system to remain active and accessible was part of the struggle. Fortunately, Lucid took note: the upgraded DreamDrive 2 Pro system on the Gravity finally delivers the consistency this price bracket demands.

The adaptive cruise control and hands-free highway assist feel substantially more polished, reading traffic conditions smoothly and applying throttle or braking with measured confidence. During one stretch of highway driving, the Gravity gently applied the brakes when a car abruptly cut into my lane — a composed response that avoids the jarring reactions I frequently encounter in other ADAS suites.

Higher-quality cameras with 360-degree coverage

Part of why its ADAS feels like a much more polished experience comes down to the upgraded camera hardware Lucid equipped this time around.

Unlike the Lucid Air, which suffered from low-resolution feeds that stuttered and looked noisy in low light, the Gravity features high-definition cameras with noticeably wider dynamic range. That upgrade makes the stitched 360-degree surround-view parking system look crystal clear. They’re sharp enough that the blind-spot monitors — which project a live video feed directly onto the 34-inch driver’s display — are far more dependable to lean on during highway lane changes.

A frunk that converts into a useful bench seat

Frunks in EVs are always cool to show off, but Lucid took a distinctly different design approach with the Gravity. Instead of settling for just another deep cargo bin, its cavernous 8.1-cubic-foot compartment does double duty as a functional bench seat — ideal for beach trips, outdoor concerts, and tailgates.

Thanks to the crossover’s low front load height, the power-operated frunk sits at a natural seating level that easily accommodates two adults, complete with integrated cup holders molded into the surround. This trim I tested included the optional plush seat cushion insert, which folds up neatly inside the tub for easy storage. It’s one of those inventive design flourishes I didn't expect to care about.

Breathtaking glass canopy roof

As much as I appreciate panoramic sunroofs, the Lucid Gravity takes the concept to another level with its signature Glass Canopy Roof, which completely erases the boundary between the windshield and the sky. Sitting in either front seat, you're encased in continuous glass — so much so that traditional sun visors have to be mounted directly onto floating posts anchored to the glass.

This architectural choice floods the cabin with natural light and makes the interior feel remarkably dramatic. Passengers in the second and third rows aren't neglected either, as they're treated to an expansive rear glass roof that rarely feels overpowering on sunny days thanks to Lucid's heavy UV- and infrared-blocking coatings.

Accelerates shockingly quick

Don’t let the family-friendly silhouette fool you: the 2026 Lucid Gravity Grand Touring accelerates like a genuine performance machine. Powered by a dual-motor all-wheel-drive powertrain, this electric crossover churns out a staggering 828 horsepower.

I’d recommend sticking with "Smooth" mode if you want to prioritize efficiency, but switching to "Sprint" mode makes a world of difference when you want instant acceleration. It delivers more than enough thrust to overtake slower traffic and tackle highway merges effortlessly, all while keeping interior cabin noise to an absolute minimum.

The most efficient 3-row SUV around

Other luxury automakers frequently overlook efficiency, but Lucid doesn’t — and that’s one of the Gravity’s biggest competitive advantages. Just like the Lucid Air, the Gravity flips the script on what family-sized EVs can deliver by prioritizing powertrain efficiency above all else.

I can’t stress enough how astonishing the 3.24 mi/kWh average was during my real-world driving. Prior to this, the Hyundai Ioniq 9 led the way with its then-impressive 3.0 mi/kWh benchmark — so for the Gravity to exceed that proves that Lucid's 900V+ architecture and aerodynamic engineering can finally dispel range anxiety concerns.

2026 Lucid Gravity review: What I don't like

Design strays minivan-like

While Lucid classifies the Gravity as a sleek luxury crossover, viewing its profile in person tells a slightly different story. In order to maximize interior packaging and reduce aerodynamic drag, Lucid gave the Gravity a cab-forward, steeply sloped nose, an elongated passenger greenhouse, and a low roofline—proportions that make it look less like an authoritative SUV and a lot more like a modern minivan.

In fact, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the Kia Carnival, which also blurs the line between an upscale SUV and an elongated people-mover. The Gravity simply doesn’t command the same head-turning road presence as the striking Lucid Air sedan, and that van-leaning aesthetic may give pause to buyers expecting a traditional, high-riding luxury SUV stance.

Commands top dollar

All that cutting-edge hardware and tech comes at a steep financial cost. With the Gravity Grand Touring carrying an official starting price of $94,900 before destination and options, it commands a massive premium that places it out of reach for most buyers. If you intend to spend six figures on a luxury electric SUV, the Rivian R1S remains my top choice.

At the same time, the Gravity Grand Touring faces a tough challenge steering value-conscious buyers away from mainstream three-row alternatives like the Kia EV9 and Hyundai Ioniq 9, which top out under $75,000 for their highest trims. While those vehicles can't match the Gravity's blistering 828-horsepower acceleration, or its class-leading efficiency, you can purchase them fully loaded for tens of thousands less while enjoying comparable passenger utility and everyday road-trip comfort.

2026 Lucid Gravity review: Bottom line

The 2026 Lucid Gravity Grand Touring fundamentally redefines what a three-row electric crossover can achieve. By translating the Lucid Air’s miniaturized powertrain packaging and aerodynamic philosophy into an SUV format, Lucid has delivered something unprecedented: a full-sized family hauler that comfortably carries up to seven passengers without succumbing to sluggish dynamics or terrible energy consumption. It raises the bar for the entire segment with its class-leading 3.24 mi/kWh overall efficiency.

However, it isn't without compromises. Its styling is an acquired taste, leaning noticeably minivan-like in person. And, of course, its six-figure price tag creates a steep barrier to entry when mainstream alternatives like the Kia EV9 and Hyundai Ioniq 9 offer generous three-row utility for tens of thousands less.

Even so, if you have the budget to splurge on top-tier luxury that refuses to compromise on sports-car acceleration, executive legroom, or range efficiency, the Gravity Grand Touring stands as a top choice for three-row electric crossovers.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

Standing ankle-deep in four inches of murky water inside my video studio, staring at thousands of dollars in damaged furniture and gear, was the exact moment I lost my mind.

Then it happened two more times before I realized this wasn’t just bad weather… my landlord was hiding a major structural plumbing issue from me.

Over the next few weeks, I tore out baseboards, discovered black mold, and lost the space I spent months building into my dream studio.

With a growing backlog of video projects and all my work put on pause, I knew something had to change.

I wasn’t going to risk rebuilding my studio again only for another flood to wipe everything out. So, what if my next studio wasn’t locked down to these four walls?

Better yet, what if I built one that I could take anywhere? That single idea sent me down a massive internet rabbit hole. I wanted a setup that would let me easily film, edit, and publish content from anywhere I could drive.

Full-sized camper vans like a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter were appealing for their massive layout, but living in New York City — where an apartment is basically a studio — a rig that size would be an absolute nightmare to park and navigate.

Modern crossovers, on the other hand, were far too bland and lacked the vertical headroom I needed for a mobile studio workspace. I was starting to think this was just another one of my unrealistic 2 AM pipe dreams — until a video popped up on my YouTube recommended page featuring a Honda Element.

What Makes the Honda Element So Special?

I’d seen these quirky boxy (often colorful) SUVs driving around town before, but I’d never paid much attention, let alone knew what they were called. Several hours of deep dives into Reddit threads later, I learned that despite Honda discontinuing the vehicle over 15 years ago, this unassuming box had become an absolute cult favorite.

The utility inside is unlike anything else on the road. It features a hard, textured vinyl floor that wipes down easily, a center console that’s actually a removable cooler, and even the rear spare tire cover doubles as a tabletop (though the factory table legs were a rare dealer accessory). But what really caught my eye was the modular rear cabin.

The back seats can lay flat to turn into a bed, fold up and clip against the side walls for extra space down the middle, or be removed entirely in seconds, opening up a wide-open floor plan with massive cubic volume that is unheard of for an SUV this size.

As I scrolled through dozens of owners sharing how they converted their Elements into mini campers and overlanders, I could see how one of these could be the perfect blank canvas for my mobile studio on wheels. I just had to find one.

The Hunt Begins

Rumors suggest Honda might revive the Element in 2029, but for now, if you want one, you’re stuck with the ones built between 2003 and 2011.

In 2007, Honda gave the Element key reliability and safety upgrades, including a 5-speed automatic transmission, seat-mounted seatbelts, standard side airbags, and stability control.

In 2009, it received a nice facelift with a restyled front end and squared-off wheel arches. Wanting some of those newer features and seeing what the market was going for, I set out to find a 2009-or-newer model for under $7,000.

But as I’d quickly learn, between nomadic car-campers and buyers just looking for a bulletproof utility box, the used market for these is hyper-competitive.

Adding to the challenge, the Element is sadly very susceptible to severe corrosion. Finding a clean model in the Northeast that wasn't eaten alive by road salt was going to prove very difficult. The first few I inspected were total rust buckets with rotted subframes that the sellers hadn't even noticed… or so they claimed.

Even the ones that were solid underneath were a total mess inside. One had been used as a mobile mechanic’s work truck and had seen better days; another had a dead AC compressor (which, again, was apparently shocking news to the seller) and looked like a glorified dog kennel.

After checking out and passing on roughly a dozen Elements hiding major dealbreakers, the listings were drying up. Even as I expanded my search radius, a few weeks passed without anything within my budget showing up. Just as I was starting to lose hope, a Facebook Marketplace listing popped up right before 4th of July weekend: a two-owner 2010 EX in Sunset Orange with 220,000 miles.

The mileage was definitely on the higher side, but the CarFax showed a solid service history. From what I could tell, the photos looked clean, and after speaking to the dealer on the phone, they swore the underbody was rust-free and sent additional photos promptly to back it up.

I did some quick research on the dealership, Friends N Family Auto Repair, which seemed to have mostly positive reviews online. Although they specialize in repairs, I saw that they had sold a few other Elements in the past, which gave me a bit more trust in them.

This was the most promising lead I'd seen in about a month. The catch? It was 350 miles away in northern Virginia. I knew I’d have to make a decision fast if I didn’t want to let this one slip away.

Luckily, I have family in the area and a father who was also intrigued to see where this crazy idea of mine was headed. I booked a one-way flight for the next morning, landed in Virginia, and together we headed over to inspect it.

First impressions were great. The paint looked terrific, except for a few rock chip spots and some very minor scratches and dings that I didn’t really notice until I got up close. The interior was equally impressive.

Aside from typical driver's seat bolster wear (which is common on these), some minor dash sun spots, and a missing driver-side weatherstrip along the glass, you could tell the previous owners took good care of it.

But the real test was underneath. We put the Element up on a lift, and as it rose into the air, I took a deep breath. Huge sigh of relief: practically zero rust.

For a 16-year-old car, the underbody was remarkably clean. Sure, the tie rod ends and lower control arm bushings will need a refresh soon, but compared to those other cars I’d seen, this was night and day.

The high mileage still wasn’t ideal, but under the hood sits Honda’s legendary K24 engine, which is known for being nearly bulletproof and shared with cars like the Honda CR-V and Accord.

After some quick haggling, I handed over $6,500 and was the proud owner of a 2010 Honda Element EX with exactly 220,306 miles and hopefully taking it well past 500,000!

The Drive Back

I pointed the car north and began my 7-hour drive back. About 30 minutes in, reality hit: the check engine light popped on for an O2 sensor error.

Now, this is something I first identified during my initial test drive before purchasing. The shop actually agreed and installed a new sensor, only it wasn’t until I was deep into DC rush hour traffic that I put two and two together and realized they didn’t install the right OEM part.

Hondas are notoriously picky with sensors, triggering the light again. The shop offered to swap in the correct OEM part if I brought it back, and while I probably won't drive all the way back to Virginia, I respected them for wanting to do right by the fix.

Unfortunately, while it's a relatively simple fix, this issue forces the engine to run heavily rich, leading directly to worse gas mileage and a strong gasoline smell, especially when idling.

Past the point of no return and finally through DC’s traffic, I was hitting highway speeds. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it slow, the Element certainly isn’t as peppy as my previous cars, not to mention pushing a toaster-shaped object through the air at 70 miles per hour doesn't do fuel economy any favors.

Coming from hybrids that easily pushed 45+ MPG, calculating roughly 24 MPG after my first few fill-ups was going to be my new normal.

What I Love about My Honda Element So Far

Even with the persistent dash warning, the rest of the drive home was nothing but smiles.

I passed three other Element owners on the highway, exchanging waves and beeps, even convoying alongside one into Brooklyn before honking goodbye at our exits. I instantly felt part of a great community.

Once in city traffic, the Element’s short length and tight turning radius made sudden lane changes and parking incredibly easy. It's the ultimate NYC cheat code: you get the vault-like cargo capacity of a small van squeezed into the exact footprint of a Honda Civic.

Parallel parking this has no right being this easy, though a backup camera would be a welcome addition as I get used to this new shape.

In my brief time owning this so far, I’ve completely taken out the rear seats and hauled just about everything I can think of inside.

Costco and Home Depot runs, my e-bikes upright without having to remove any wheels, lumber, grills, standing desks, and lots more as I’ve begun moving into a new home that hopefully won’t flood on me.

More importantly, I’ve already begun testing a few mini production setups. I’ve experimented with a few shelves and storage cabinets that allow me to organize some of my camera gear and auto tools to one side, while allowing for easy access to my bike on the other with plenty of open space down the middle.

I’ve already taken this to some incredible spots to remotely work off the grid, and things are only going to ramp up from here.

Welcome to Finding My Element

This project marks the start of my new series, Finding My Element, where I’m stepping way out of my comfort zone to turn this $6,500 gamble into a high-end, off-grid mobile YouTube studio.

I have zero mechanical experience, but I’m documenting this build over time — keeping track of every upgrade, every mistake, and every dollar spent to overhaul this Element.

I’ve already knocked out a few subtle initial upgrades to get the ball rolling.

For an extra pop of color, I’ve added orange Lug Nut covers to hide the missing original chrome ones. I’ve installed $4 small blind spot mirrors to help with lane changes with those thick rear B-pillars in the way.

And since this is New York, I knew I had to quickly install a dash cam. I went with the Rexing R88, which is known for its automatic parking collision recording features and comes with a fairly large 4-inch display. I’ve been using it as a digital rear-view mirror when I’ve got things stacked to the ceiling and can't see out the back too.

At the heart of the studio side of things, I’ve got a DJI 2000Whr powerstation hidden away in one of my shelves. It provides plenty of silent power to keep my cameras, drones, laptop, and my color-matched Urtopia Carbon Fold 2 folding E-Bike charged for days without needing to idle my engine.

I also recently picked up a flexible BougeRV 200W solar panel that I’m experimenting with roof-mounting solutions to keep my power topped off indefinitely.

The Road Ahead

My next priorities are replacing that O2 sensor, which I honestly should have done weeks ago, with the correct OEM one, upgrading the factory stereo to an Apple CarPlay head unit to modernize the cabin and not have to use an AUX cord like a caveman.

Down the road and with your feedback, I want the best suggestions for adding a lift kit and knobby tires to make this more offroad worthy. I was thinking a 2-inch lift kit and all-terrain tires would do the trick for better trail clearance and a more aggressive look.

I still need a name for this orange toaster, so feel free to reach out with your best picks and make sure to vote for which upgrade I should tackle first to get this toaster fired up!

More from Tom's Guide

• I tried the DJI Power 2000 to keep my fans running during an NYC heatwave — here's how long it lasts
• Urtopia Carbon Fold 2: More Refined
• I can’t fly drones in NYC, so I let this camera robot follow me around instead and came away impressed

With sticker prices comfortably sitting under the $40,000 mark, the 2026 Hyundai Elantra N and 2026 Mazda 3 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus are practical compact sedans that remain well within reach for most buyers. Unlike their entry-level siblings, they’re engineered for drivers who refuse to settle for a boring daily commute — and who still crave serious curb appeal without draining their savings accounts.

On the surface, both sedans lean heavily into a sharp aesthetic that commands attention on the road. The Elantra N has everything 20-year-old me would’ve wanted, from its aggressively angular lines to its aerodynamic side skirts and rear wing. Meanwhile, the Mazda 3 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus counters with a more refined, sculpted body, a prominent front grille, and an upscale silhouette that doesn’t shed its sporty heritage.

After spending a week behind the wheel of each, only one gets my vote for where you should actually spend your hard-earned $40,000.

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Specifications

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Design

There’s a lot I love about the styling of both compact sedans, but they approach the concept of a “sporty” four-door from two entirely different angles.

The 2026 Hyundai Elantra N undoubtedly has the bolder, more aggressive design, which is only amplified by its contrasting paint job that blends Hyundai’s signature Performance Blue with sharp black and red accents. With its razor-sharp creases, pronounced front grille, lowered stance, and prominent rear wing spoiler, it looks like a touring race car that wandered onto public roads.

If I were handed the keys two decades ago, younger me would’ve fallen head over heels for its boy-racer energy — and even today, it still manages to bring out my youthful side.

But because my tastes have evolved, the 2026 Mazda 3 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus ultimately wins me over. While it’s nowhere close to matching that track-ready intensity, Mazda instead opts for an upscale, minimalist aesthetic that feels right at home in the entry-luxury segment. Its sleek sheet metal catches the light in a way that genuinely dazzles, complemented by its pronounced front grille and a subtle lip spoiler. It’s undeniably more mature, more refined, and handsome.

Don’t get me wrong: both cars turn heads. But the Mazda 3 delivers a timeless, sophisticated presence that I’d be much prouder to show off.

Winner: Mazda 3

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Fuel economy

Performance and efficiency rarely go hand in hand, but looking at my real-world testing numbers, this round ended up being practically neck-and-neck.

Across my week-long test with each compact sedan, the Mazda 3 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus edged out the Elantra N with an overall average of 25.5 mpg over 166.6 miles — compared to the Elantra N’s 25.3 mpg across 144.9 miles. That 0.2 mpg gap is negligible in my book, but it's a win for the Mazda nonetheless.

In fact, if you look strictly at the best recorded efficiency numbers above, the Elantra N actually overdelivered. I recorded a best short-distance run of 30 mpg (edging out the Mazda’s 29.5 mpg) and an impressive highway cruising average of 33.7 mpg on longer stretches (topping the Mazda’s 31.7 mpg).

However, the Mazda 3 takes the overall win when you factor in long-term operating costs. While the Elantra N’s high-output turbo requires premium fuel to deliver peak performance without pulling timing, the 2.5-liter Skyactiv-G engine in the Mazda 3 happily sips regular unleaded. Paired with its slight overall efficiency advantage, the Mazda will cost noticeably less to keep fueled week in and week out.

Winner: Mazda 3

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Driving performance

While both sedans deliver an engaging experience behind the wheel, there’s clearly one that’s way more fun to drive.

Under the hood, the Mazda 3’s 2.5-liter Skyactiv-G four-cylinder engine produces 191 horsepower and 186 lb-ft of torque routed through a 6-speed automatic transmission. For a sedan bordering on entry-level luxury, it packs a surprisingly strong punch. Throttle response is immediate and caught me off guard for such a sophisticated-looking four-door. Merging onto highways and darting through traffic are effortless, offering more than enough muscle to keep everyday commuting engaging.

The Hyundai Elantra N, however, operates on an entirely different performance tier. Powered by a 2.0-liter turbocharged inline-four engine, it puts down a blistering 276 horsepower and 289 lb-ft of torque.

Whenever I hit the steering wheel's bright red N Grin Shift (NGS) button, it triggers an overboost function that bumps output to 286 horsepower for 20 seconds. It legitimately pins me back into the seat every time, delivering a thrilling rush that remind me of six-figure performance cars like the BMW M2 CS and Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing.

Straight-line speed and acceleration are only half the story, though. The Elantra N is far better at carving up corners without forcing me to lift off the throttle. While the Mazda 3 holds its own with composed steering and great chassis balance, it simply can’t match the razor-sharp agility and track grip that the Elantra N commands.

Winner: Hyundai Elantra N

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Comfort

The Hyundai Elantra N wins the numbers game with 38 inches of rear legroom and a 14.2-cubic-foot trunk, compared to the Mazda 3 sedan’s tighter 35.1 inches of rear legroom and 13.2 cubic feet of cargo volume. But the Elantra N comes with a major cargo compromise: a bright red rear chassis brace spans directly behind the rear seats, obstructing larger pass-through items. That means you can't fully maximize cargo capacity even when folding the rear seats flat.

Their seating materials also differ greatly. While it makes sense for the Elantra N to feature aggressive sport bucket seats with illuminated N logos, they're strictly manually adjustable, and their rigid structure isn’t ideal for long-distance driving.

The Mazda 3's cabin is far more upscale, boasting leather-trimmed seats with power adjustability, power lumbar support, and a two-position memory system. They’re plush, supple, and far more forgiving on your lower back during extended trips. Paired with superior soundproofing and a suspension that absorbs pothole impacts without feeling jarring, the Mazda 3 is comfortably the sedan I’d choose for daily driving.

It’s also worth mentioning that both cars' adaptive cruise control systems work smoothly to maintain a safe gap from traffic ahead while applying progressive braking when needed. However, I especially appreciate that Mazda includes an Active Driving Display (head-up display), keeping my speed and turn-by-turn navigation directly in my line of sight instead of forcing me to look down.

Winner: Mazda 3

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Value

With both compact sedans coming in just under the $40,000 threshold, this round boils down to the extra features each package includes.

The 2026 Hyundai Elantra N stickers at $38,345 as tested and certainly has the driving performance that appeals more to my inner enthusiast. Beyond its track hardware, it includes dual 10.25-inch displays, a Bose premium audio system, a wireless charging pad, a power tilt-and-slide sunroof, and heated front sport bucket seats.

Despite costing just $800 more with an as-tested price of $39,145, the 2026 Mazda 3 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus packs equipment that easily outclasses many entry-luxury sedans. It features that sharp Active Driving Display I've mentioned, a 360-degree view monitor, 12-speaker Bose audio system, moonroof, heated steering wheel, paddle shifters, and adaptive headlights that pivot with the steering wheel.

For that minor price difference, the Mazda simply delivers far more everyday value for your dollar.

Winner: 2026 Mazda 3

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Verdict

Let me be frank: I highly recommend both sedans, despite there being a definitive winner once all the scores are tallied up. Even though the Hyundai Elantra N comes up a smidge short in this matchup, it remains one of the most thrilling rides I’ve had all year — rivaling the rush of high-performance EVs I’ve tested like the Audi RS e-tron GT and Porsche Taycan, but at a far more attainable cost.

Beyond just coming out on top, the Mazda 3 2.5 T Premium Plus is the car I would put my own money down on, especially since its robust package costs just $800 more than its rival. By delivering refined exterior styling, a whisper-quiet cabin, and all the high-end tech I love using without the inflated luxury-badge markup, it easily feels like it should cost far more than its $39,145 as-tested price.

While younger me would have undoubtedly gravitated towards the Elantra N, today I’d gladly spend my own money on the Mazda 3.

Hyundai Elantra N vs. Mazda 3: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

There’s no feeling quite like getting into your car, turning it on, and seeing your phone immediately show up on the infotainment screen through wireless CarPlay or Android Auto. You don’t have to plug anything in or mess with any cords. It just works.

After experiencing wireless Android Auto for myself, I ended up buying the newer, more expensive version of my truck rather than saving money on an older model.

My wife got her SUV right before wireless CarPlay became mainstream, leaving her stuck plugging and unplugging her iPhone every time she got behind the wheel.

While annoying for her, at least her iPhone connected. On my Android phone, the connection was hit-or-miss, and whenever I drove her car, I dreaded trying multiple cables in the hope that one might actually work. To make life easier for both of us, I bought her a wireless CarPlay and Android Auto adapter. It did the trick initially, but before long, my wife’s music started skipping constantly.

I was originally going to replace it with another similar adapter, but then I came across a 2-in-1 gadget that made a lot more sense. The first accessory I ever bought for my truck was one of the best dash cams, and I had been meaning to put one in my wife’s car as well. With the OttoSafe Cam from Ottocast though, I was able to add both front and rear cameras to her car while fixing her wireless CarPlay woes for good.

A dash cam with a wireless twist

Just like with the Rove R2-4K Dual dash cam I installed in my truck, the OttoSafe Cam that Ottocast sent over came with everything needed for a seamless installation. In the box, you get the main dash cam, a rear camera for the back of your vehicle, a wireless CarPlay/Android Auto adapter, and all the cables required to connect them.

Most importantly in my book, it also comes with a pry tool. With it, you can easily tuck the shorter cable for the dash cam and the longer one for the rear camera neatly behind your car’s trim.

Running wires during my first dash cam installation took quite a while, but this time around — since I knew what I was doing — the whole process only took about an hour.

The OttoSafe Cam’s main body is cylindrical and mounts to your front windshield with adhesive. To view its live feeds and browse recordings on your infotainment screen, there’s a small, rectangular wireless CarPlay/Android Auto adapter.

While the adapter in my wife’s car previously plugged directly into her car’s USB port and stuck out, I like that this one is designed to sit flat toward the front of the center console.

On the left side of the OttoSafe Cam, there’s a physical button you can press in the event of an incident to manually save whatever the dash cam is recording. On the right side, you'll find a USB-C port for power, a 3.5mm jack-style port to connect the rear camera, and a microSD slot.

While you can bring your own card, Ottocast also sells this dash cam bundled with a 64GB card included.

Getting the OttoSafe Cam installed was surprisingly easy. I plugged the wireless CarPlay/Android Auto adapter into the main USB port in my wife’s car, then powered the dash cam via the 12V power outlet in the center console using the included adapter.

After positioning the front camera, I tucked its cable under the headliner above the windshield for a clean install. From there, I did the exact same thing with the cable for the rear camera, and I was good to go.

One screen for all

If you’ve used CarPlay or Android Auto before, you know that what you can do on your car’s infotainment screen is intentionally limited — and for good reason. Drivers are distracted enough as it is, but I’ve always felt this display could be used for far more than just navigation, music, or viewing your vehicle’s factory backup camera.

With the OttoSafe Cam installed, you get wireless CarPlay or Android Auto alongside live feeds from the front and rear cameras and direct access to your saved footage.

While I haven’t connected my Android phone to it yet, on my wife’s iPhone, two small buttons appear as overlays in the top corners while CarPlay is running. The button on the left returns you to the OttoSafe Cam’s main menu, while the button on the right jumps straight into the dash cam’s live feeds.

By default, you get an unobstructed view of the camera feed with a timestamp along the bottom and a small camera icon to quickly snap a photo. Tapping the center of the screen brings up another row of controls where you can switch between camera feeds, review past recordings, and tweak settings.

Compared to my Rove dash cam, I like this approach a lot more. Instead of squinting at a tiny screen on the camera body itself, you have a large dashboard display to view your feeds.

I like using the dash cam's rear camera in my truck to check on cargo in the bed, but it’s just as useful for overall situational awareness. Your standard rearview mirror offers a fairly narrow angle, but looking at the feed from the rear dash cam gives you a much wider field of view. There have even been times when my side mirrors fogged up, and I relied on the dash cam feed to see what was behind me.

In my wife’s SUV, I mounted the OttoSafe Cam directly in the top center of her windshield for two practical reasons: I didn’t want the adhesive sticking to the frit matrix (the black dot pattern near the top of the windshield) where it might lose grip, and I wanted to make sure her EZPass didn't block the lens.

Mounting it here also allowed me to route the wires neatly up behind her rearview mirror, making them easy to tuck behind the headliner.

As for the wireless CarPlay/Android Auto adapter, I have it sitting flat right next to the wireless charging pad at the front of her center console.

It keeps the setup looking tidy, and I was even able to tuck the extra cable length into the corner where the dash cam wire runs down to the 12V power outlet.

My wife has been using this wireless CarPlay setup for a week now with zero complaints — and more importantly, zero skipped music.

While she hasn’t needed to pull footage from her dash cam yet, I can rest easy knowing that if someone cuts her off in Houston traffic and causes an accident, she’ll have all the video evidence required for an insurance claim.

A double upgrade with a single install

At $150 full price, the OttoSafe Cam is exactly the upgrade my wife’s car needed. While she was initially hesitant about me installing a dash cam in her vehicle, as soon as I told her it would fix her wireless CarPlay issues at the same time, she came around quite quickly.

With this setup, you’re also paying significantly less than you would if you bought everything separately. Standalone wireless CarPlay or Android Auto adapters typically cost around $50 to $100 on their own, while a quality dual-camera dash cam system ranges between $120 and $180.

If you don’t have a dash cam in your vehicle — or those of your family members — it’s a practical and worthwhile investment. Whether you’re dealing with a reckless driver or an incident where you need clear proof for insurance, one quick check of your dash cam footage can make a massive difference. They can even serve as a great deterrent.

For instance, shortly after I installed the OttoSafe Cam, another driver abruptly cut in front of my wife while she was exiting the highway. When the driver looked back in their rearview mirror and spotted her newly installed dash cam, they instantly slowed down and started driving a whole lot more carefully.

There are plenty of choices when picking out a dash cam, but if your vehicle currently relies on wired CarPlay or Android Auto, Ottocast’s OttoSafe Cam gives you two upgrades for the price of one.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tried a dash cam disguised as a rearview mirror, and it makes practical sense — here’s why
• I finally bought a wireless CarPlay adapter that works, and it's worth every penny
• I’ve tested dozens of Apple CarPlay apps, but I keep coming back to these 3 — and you should too

With sticker prices well past the six-figure mark, the 2026 BMW M2 Coupe CS and 2026 Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing aren’t built for the average commuter. Instead, they’re high-performance machines engineered for driving enthusiasts and hardcore car buffs who want an upscale, ostentatious edge without letting go of their youthful side.

On paper, they share a remarkably similar recipe despite their different body styles. Both start with nearly identical base MSRPs right around $98,000, pairing rear-wheel-drive dynamics with track-focused adaptive suspensions. Inside, both cabins are draped in exposed carbon fiber and anchored by aggressive bucket seats.

Where they diverge, however, is in their execution and underlying philosophies. The M2 CS is a compact coupe powered by a 3.0-liter TwinPower Turbo inline-six, commanding a $108,275 as-tested price tag. In comparison, the CT5-V Blackwing is a full-bodied luxury sedan packing a monstrous 6.2-liter supercharged V8 and loaded with additional comforts that drive its as-tested sticker to a staggering $150,365. After spending a week behind the wheel of each, one clear winner gets my vote.

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Specifications

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Design

The BMW M2 CS doesn’t immediately catch my attention from its side profile, but its low-slung stance and extra-wide front grille make it look a lot more like a stock car stripped down for circuit duty. Its blocky fenders, sculpted roof, and functional aerodynamics give it a muscular silhouette that commands respect on the road — though it still doesn’t draw nearly as many glances as its rival.

That’s because the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing looks like an exotic machine, carrying an upscale presence that stands apart from almost anything else on the road. I would put it in the same caliber as marquee performance cars I’ve tested like the Chevrolet Corvette, Audi RS e-tron GT, and Porsche Taycan. Its elongated silhouette carries the understated confidence of a traditional luxury cruiser, but supercharged with aggressive aero and race-inspired detailing.

Winner: Cadillac CT5

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Fuel economy

When you’re paying six figures, fuel economy isn’t likely top of mind — but it still matters. After spending a week behind the wheel of each, everyday commuting revealed a stark contrast between the two. Unsurprisingly, both demand premium unleaded gasoline that hits your wallet with every fill-up, but the BMW M2 CS will be noticeably lighter at the pump.

Across 216.9 miles of mixed testing, the M2 CS averaged 23.1 mpg while holding to a respectable 16.3 mpg on short local trips. What surprised me most was its highway efficiency, stretching out to 30.9 mpg during one my long-distance testing. By comparison, the CT5-V Blackwing averaged 18 mpg across 205.6 miles, dipping to 15.8 mpg on short sprints and topping out at 26.3 mpg during highway cruising.

Still, those consumption rates directly impact their real-world range. The M2 CS carries a compact 13.7-gallon tank, translating to an estimated range of roughly 316 miles based on my 23.1 mpg average. The CT5-V Blackwing offsets things with a larger 17.4-gallon tank, netting an almost identical 313 miles of range at my 18 mpg testing average. The Cadillac needs that extra fuel capacity just to match distance between stops, giving the BMW an easy win for delivering vastly superior everyday efficiency.

Winner: BMW M2

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Driving performance

When I first slid into the driver’s seat of the 2026 Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing, I knew I was in for a wild ride knowing what lurks under the hood: a 6.2-liter supercharged V8 engine delivering 668 horsepower. While most modern luxury cars tend to sound mute, the Blackwing is loud and in your face. What makes it even more addictive is how quickly it explodes forward with a press of the V-Mode button on the steering wheel, which unlocks its most aggressive driving settings. For a midsize luxury sedan, I didn’t think it’d be this thrilling to drive — but it absolutely is.

Heading into this comparison, I assumed the 2026 BMW M2 Coupe CS wouldn’t come close to matching that supercharged beast, but its lightweight nature immediately proved me wrong. On the road, it feels noticeably lighter on its feet and considerably more agile. Off the line, its twin-turbo inline-six delivers 523 horsepower with instantaneous throttle response, launching forward with more urgency than its larger rival.

More importantly, its shockingly sharp handling and shorter wheelbase let it carve through tight bends with ease and finesse. Where I found myself needing to tap the brakes to settle the heavier CT5-V Blackwing, the M2 CS sliced through corners far cleaner while staying flat and composed. For pure thrills, the BMW takes the crown.

Winner: BMW M2

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Comfort

When everyday commuting begins, the difference between these two performance cockpits is night and day. As much as I adore how the BMW M2 CS drives, ride comfort simply isn't its strong suit — and my back and thighs can certainly attest to that. While its aggressive M Carbon bucket seats look spectacular and lock you firmly in place, they're notoriously stiff on extended highway stretches. Compounding that is rear legroom that is practically nonexistent, leaving the back seats fit for little more than a backpack or jacket. I really wouldn't subject adult passengers to that rear row.

That’s why the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing is my undisputed choice for long hauls, thanks to Cadillac’s executive-level treatment inside. Not only are the front seats heated, ventilated, and massaging, but the sedan's four-door layout provides ample rear legroom that easily accommodates full-sized adults. The ultimate differentiator, too, is General Motors’ Super Cruise system. Not only does it offer hands-free driving that manages distance and keeps the car centered in its lane, it can actively overtake slower vehicles by automatically changing lanes.

Winner: Cadillac CT5

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Value

Both cars start in the same ballpark MSRPs near $98,000, but their as-tested window stickers tell two very different stories: $108,275 for the BMW M2 CS versus a staggering $150,365 for the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing. That $42,000 gap is impossible to ignore, yet calling a clear winner on value is tough.

The M2 CS keeps its as-tested premium relatively lean. You get a massive head-up display that projects driving details right onto the windshield, dynamic adaptive headlights that actively pivot with your steering, an explosive premium sound system, and selectable exhaust flaps to quiet its roar when needed. For just over six figures, it feels like a purpose-built track weapon that didn’t skimp on daily cabin tech.

In contrast, the Blackwing costs significantly more as equipped, but it justifies that executive price tier with tech and luxury the M2 CS simply can’t match. Its sweeping 33-inch panoramic display dominates the cockpit with stunning clarity, backed by an integrated dashcam system that records video without third-party hardware.

Throw in high-resolution 360-degree cameras that make maneuvering tight parking spots a breeze — along with serious track hardware like its Precision Package carbon ceramic brakes — and the Cadillac proves every dollar went toward over-the-top performance luxury.

Winner: tie

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW M2: Verdict

After tallying up all the categories I’m grading them on, this showdown ends up being a dead heat. The Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing blends luxury and performance into one package, giving each the same level of emphasis. It’s also unmatched in rear-seat comfort, loaded with hands-free Super Cruise convenience, and anchored by a headlining 33-inch display that puts most luxury flagships to shame. Meanwhile, the BMW M2 CS claps back with superior real-world fuel economy, a sub-$110,000 price point, and aggressive track-ready styling that turns heads everywhere it goes.

However, if there’s one I truly recommend after putting serious miles on each of them for a week, the nod goes straight to the BMW M2 CS. As impressive as the Cadillac's executive presence and tech showcase are, the M2 CS delivers a level of agility, immediate throttle response, and pure fun behind the wheel that I crave. I can happily live without the executive lounge space and excess luxury features when the driving experience is this addictive.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

Toyota continues to build out its EV portfolio, and I can’t stress enough how the revamped Toyota bZ from earlier this year shattered my expectations. With the company resurrecting the C-HR as a fully electric model, it proves that making EVs remains a priority for the longtime automaker — despite its well-publicized hybrid ambitions.

For me, its compact dimensions hit the sweet spot, making the C-HR nimble on the road, easy to park, and genuinely fun to drive. But don't let this quirky-looking subcompact crossover fool you: it packs a serious dual-motor powertrain that completely blows away the sluggish gas-powered iteration of the past.

In order to win in the sub-$45,000 space, though, the C-HR has to beat out other impressive options I’ve tested like the Subaru Uncharted and Volvo EX30 — both of which are best electric car contenders. Here’s how this $43,429 (as-tested) 2026 Toyota C-HR XSE holds up.

2026 Toyota C-HR review: Specifications

2026 Toyota C-HR review: Testing summary

I drove a total of 172 miles in my week of testing the 2026 Toyota C-HR XSE, reaching an exceptional 4.7 mi/kWh average efficiency. That comfortably outpaces both the Subaru Uncharted and Volvo EX30, with neither rival coming close to that golden 4 mi/kWh mark that so few EVs hit.

It also leads the pack on highway treks, delivering a 4 mi/kWh average during one of my longer road trips. And while it couldn't quite match the wild 7 mi/kWh city-driving efficiency I recorded in the Subaru Uncharted, the C-HR's 6 mi/kWh mark around town is still stellar. Ultimately, Toyota’s subcompact EV proved remarkably consistent no matter the driving conditions.

Back at home, the C-HR also beats out its key rivals with its Level 1 charging speed through a standard 120V outlet. Its 3.51 mi/hr replenishment rate via Tesla's NACs charging port added back 17 miles of range over 4.85 hours of charging — more than enough to top it off overnight for my daily commute.

2026 Toyota C-HR review: What I like

Handles tight city roads with ease

Thanks to its compact footprint and tight turning radius, the C-HR spares me the headaches I usually face driving larger SUVs like the Hyundai Ioniq 9 or Cadillac Optiq. It takes the stress out of navigating congested streets, and more importantly, makes squeezing into tight parking spots an absolute breeze. Much like the Subaru Uncharted, it handles narrow city streets and chaotic stop-and-go traffic with ease.

It also packs plenty of muscle under the skin. Equipped with a dual-motor, electronic all-wheel-drive setup putting out 338 horsepower, the C-HR delivers instant torque that gets you up to cruising speed in no time. While it’s fun and punchy off the line, I still give the Volvo EX30 the edge when it comes to overall driving dynamics and performance.

Extremely efficient, beats out other subcompacts

When I tested the bZ earlier this year, I never expected Toyota to produce the most efficient EV I’d drive all year. So when I finally put the C-HR through its paces, I was skeptical that this zippy EV could beat out the Uncharted — which, interestingly enough, shares the same e-TNGA electric platform jointly developed by Toyota and Subaru.

I’ll be frank: I was blown away by the 4.7 mi/kWh efficiency at the end of my testing. That puts it well ahead of the 4 mi/kWh mark that I consider the gold standard for top-tier EV efficiency. What’s even more impressive is what that means for real-world range. If it can consistently sustain that 4.7 mi/kWh pace, its 74.7 kWh battery translates to an estimated range of roughly 351 miles. That alone is more than enough to put range anxiety completely to rest.

Crisp 360 cameras

From the driver’s seat, the interior cabin can feel a bit claustrophobic — which doesn’t help when the thick rear pillars and sloping roofline create significant blind spots. That’s why I can’t stress enough how much value the Panoramic View Monitor adds, offering true 360-degree coverage for navigating tight spots.

The bird’s-eye view seamlessly stitches together external camera feeds onto the central display, making it easy to gauge distance from curbs, adjacent parked cars, and whether I'm centered between the lines. Even when it gets dark out, the system pulls in impressive detail and clarity without the muddy, noisy artifacting I often see on competing camera setups.

Accessible 120V outlet adds real-world utility

While household-style three-prong plugs are usually reserved for pickup trucks and larger adventure SUVs, having access to a standard 120V AC outlet in the 2026 Toyota C-HR XSE is a genuinely useful addition. Tucked neatly into the side wall of the rear hatch, it taps directly into the 74.7 kWh battery pack to power just about anything on the go.

Not only does it make topping off electronics like my laptop effortless, but it also delivers enough juice to power a portable tire inflator, run smaller coolers during weekend road trips, and more. I’ve even used it to power a set of string lights in my backyard for an evening outing while shooting astrophotography with one of my smart telescopes.

Sprawling panoramic roof

Given the C-HR’s cozy interior footprint, having a panoramic fixed-glass roof is a welcome touch that brings much-needed light into the darker cabin. Stretching across the ceiling above both rows, it makes the interior feel significantly more open and airy — plus, I love the crystal-clear views of the night sky it offers. And when the sun beats down, the power-retractable sunshade keeps the cabin pleasantly cool and comfortable.

2026 Toyota C-HR review: What I don't like

Cramped rear legroom

A common issue with subcompact crossovers is that they don’t offer much rear legroom, and the C-HR is no exception. In fact, it’s the most glaring tradeoff of its tidy footprint.

Legroom is practically nonexistent if the front seats are pushed back, meaning front passengers will need to slide forward to give back-seat riders a chance to fit without feeling cramped. While the second row is fine for pets or small children, adults will quickly feel squeezed on anything longer than a quick commute.

Outdated software holds back the experience

If there’s one major carryover from the bZ that I wish Toyota had left behind, it’s the infotainment system. The software running on the C-HR is virtually identical, and as a result, feels noticeably behind the times.

It’s a menu-heavy interface that looks dated compared to the sleek cockpits of rivals like the Volvo EX30. Yes, it supports wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto without issue, but I wish it had received the updated, much more intuitive software found in the 2026 Toyota RAV4.

Distracting raised driver’s display

Much like other Toyotas I’ve tested in the past year, such as the Prius, the positioning of the digital instrument cluster obstructs the view ahead. Because it sits higher than I’d like, the display housing ends up directly in your lower field of vision at eye level. While it's obviously more of a hassle if you prefer driving with a lower seat height, it remains just as distracting even when the driver's seat is pumped up to its highest setting.

2026 Toyota C-HR review: Bottom line

The 2026 Toyota C-HR is an excellent option for city dwellers, pairing agile handling with a compact footprint that easily tackles the challenges of urban streets. Parking is effortless as a result, especially when squeezing into tighter spots. Backed by outstanding real-world efficiency and fluid acceleration, it delivers everyday practicality without sacrificing driving fun.

However, its pricing makes it a tough sell against the competition. At over $43,000 as tested, it faces intense pressure from rivals — most notably the Volvo EX30, which costs only slightly more but offers a substantially more luxurious cabin, sharper styling, and an even zippier driving experience. If your top priorities are maximum efficiency and agile city handling, the C-HR still makes a strong case.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

On average, I drive about 300 miles a week testing new vehicles. But while I’m constantly switching cars from week to week, one thing has remained constant: Google Maps. I’ve tested Apple Maps, Waze, and even TomTom over the past year alone while reviewing many of the best electric cars, but I always find myself going back to Google.

The arrival of Google Maps Immersive Navigation is further proof that it delivers the most comprehensive navigation experience around — especially now that it’s available on both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. After putting it through my daily commutes for the past two weeks, I can tell you it finally solves one of driving's biggest headaches: making confusing, split-second freeway exits effortless to navigate.

Real depth for tricky exits

Driving rarely stresses me out, but navigating unfamiliar roads during complex traffic conditions certainly puts me on high alert. That's especially true when approaching multi-lane highway splits and sudden off-ramps. Even local freeways I travel regularly, like the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike, can become overwhelming in congested areas — yet Immersive Navigation noticeably cuts through the chaos.

First and foremost, the updated 3D map view renders the surrounding environment with true depth and elevation. I'm not just talking about roadside buildings and trees, either. The roadways themselves now reflect actual depth, making it much easier to distinguish overpasses and elevated flyover ramps. Multi-level highways are notoriously tricky on a flat 2D screen, but Immersive Navigation makes it instantly clear whether I'm traveling above or below an overlapping route.

In the screenshots above that show Google Maps Immersive Navigation with CarPlay, you can clearly see how perpendicular overpasses crossing my path demonstrate the visible separation and depth between the elevated roadway and the lanes below.

Smart zoom dynamically frames the road ahead

The first few times I tested Immersive Navigation on my commute into New York City, I genuinely thought Android Auto was glitching whenever the display shifted unexpectedly. I quickly realized, though, that these dynamic adjustments were deliberate — cleverly engineered to provide me with more immediate context for what's ahead.

Most in-car navigation displays maintain a relatively static view, but Google’s "smart zooms" kick in contextually to deliver the ideal perspective. For instance, when I'm cruising along an open 10-mile stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike, the camera smoothly pulls back to reveal the highway far ahead. That bird's-eye vantage gives me ample warning if a route suddenly flips from blue to red, so I have plenty of time to consider alternate routes.

Just as impressively, the camera punches in close whenever precision matters — such as approaching a multi-lane merge or an intricate off-ramp. That tighter frame takes the panic out of lane positioning, ensuring I don't overshoot an exit. Whether I'm navigating gridlock or fast-moving traffic, smart zoom makes it significantly easier to anticipate my next move.

Comprehensive experience

At this point, I can’t see myself using anything other than Google Maps — Immersive Navigation has been an absolute game-changer. Yet while the visual overhaul is welcome, the visual makeover means very little if the underlying navigation data falls short. That reliable foundation is ultimately why Google Maps remains my default choice for turn-by-turn directions.

Its real-time traffic engine consistently proves its worth on my commutes, actively saving me time by spotting gridlock early and rerouting on the fly. Factor in dependable speed-trap notifications and community-driven hazard alerts, and the driving experience remains second to none.

Best of all, Immersive Navigation isn't restricted to a single ecosystem because it works seamlessly across Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and the standalone Google Maps app. Whether I'm plugging in an iPhone one week or an Android device the next, that cross-platform flexibility guarantees that smarter, stress-free navigation is along for every ride.

More from Tom's Guide

• Android president on Apple's iPhone Duo: 'I'm glad to see more people joining what is now the obvious party'
• Forget iPhone 18 Pro — 9 reasons to wait for the iPhone 20
• I finally unlinked my iPhone alarm from my ringer volume — here is where Apple hid it in iOS 27

Just a month ago, the 2026 GMC Yukon 4WD Denali Ultimate came out on top against the 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe as the definitive full-size SUV winner. While it carried a much heftier price tag, its confident driving performance, ultra-luxurious cabin features, and better fuel economy helped justify the premium.

But this time, it faces an even tougher challenge as the 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Limited Altitude enters the conversation as an undeniably formidable rival. For large families, both full-size SUVs deliver the room and everyday utility to haul everyone in complete comfort — especially when equipped with adult-friendly third-row seating.

After spending a full week behind the wheel of each land cruiser tackling my daily commutes, quick grocery runs, and long highway stretches on the weekend, there’s a clear three-row SUV I recommend.

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Specifications

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Design

While both SUVs share the imposing road presence typical of full-size three-row haulers, I prefer the more athletic aesthetic of the 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer. It mirrors the design language I loved on the smaller Jeep Cherokee hybrid I previously tested, scaled up to a massive full-size package. What really sells it for me is the front fascia: rather than settling for an oversized slab of chrome, the Grand Wagoneer features a sleek, futuristic front grille that neatly tucks away razor-thin LED headlights. It gives the front clip an almost concept-car edge that makes the entire SUV look leaner, sharper, and far more modern.

Meanwhile, the GMC Yukon Denali leans heavily into traditional American luxury styling — and it feels a bit too conventional for my taste. Don’t get me wrong: its towering height and enormous chrome grille easily command presence on the road. But GMC plays it safe, resulting in the textbook definition of what a full-size, truck-based executive SUV should look like.

If you prefer a classic, stately look, the Yukon Denali hits all the familiar notes. However, the Grand Wagoneer’s athletic proportions and forward-looking front end make it the true head-turner on the road.

Winner: Jeep Grand Wagoneer

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Fuel economy

Nobody buys a full-size, three-row luxury SUV expecting hybrid-level efficiency. But between these two heavyweights, every extra mile per gallon counts on long-haul trips. After putting over 200 miles behind the wheel of each, the numbers yielded a clear winner.

Around town on shorter trips, both SUVs performed identically, matching each other with a best short-distance efficiency of 20.5 mpg. However, once they reached cruising speed on highway stretches, the 2026 GMC Yukon 4WD Denali Ultimate pulled ahead. Over the 206.6 miles of driving I logged, the Yukon achieved a best long-distance figure of 23.1 mpg, helping push its total average fuel economy to 19.1 mpg.

By comparison, I covered 223 miles in the 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Limited Altitude. It peaked at 21.3 mpg on longer drives, bringing its overall fuel economy average to an even 18 mpg.

While neither will sip fuel like compact crossovers such as the Mazda CX-5 or Subaru Crosstrek, the Yukon’s superior highway efficiency and slightly better overall average give it the upper hand at the pump.

Winner: GMC Yukon Denali

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Driving performance

Even now, I still get jittery getting behind the wheel of these massive land haulers — it’s never a walk in the park at first. Their wide bodies and tall stances make navigating tight parking lots or crowded drive-thrus extremely nerve-wracking, but those concerns are put at ease after a few drives.

Under the hood of the 2026 GMC Yukon 4WD Denali Ultimate sits a 6.2-liter EcoTec3 V8 engine, generating 420 horsepower and 460 lb-ft of torque. It delivers that classic V8 presence that made driving the Chevrolet Corvette so memorable, pulling with smooth gear changes when merging into fast-moving highway traffic.

The 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Limited Altitude takes a more modern powertrain approach, opting for a 3.0-liter Hurricane Twin-Turbo inline-six engine. On paper, it matches the Yukon’s 420-horsepower output alongside a slightly better 468 lb-ft of torque. Much like its rival, the Grand Wagoneer hits its stride quickly — delivering effortless acceleration and an impressively quiet ride.

Winner: tie

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Comfort

Both contenders come standard with second-row captain’s chairs, which I think are the best seats in the house largely for their ability to recline — complete with a clear walkthrough between them to access the third row. On paper, the Jeep Grand Wagoneer holds a slight edge with a massive 36.6 inches of third-row legroom and 27.4 cubic feet of trunk space, while the GMC Yukon Denali answers back with 34.9 inches of third-row legroom and 25.5 cubic feet of cargo capacity.

Even though the Grand Wagoneer offers marginally more cargo room and rear legroom, the GMC Yukon Denali Ultimate delivers better overall comfort beyond the raw numbers. That’s because the Yukon’s seats are wrapped in richer full-grain leather that makes the interior feel like a true executive lounge. If that’s not enough, front passengers are treated to seats with integrated massage functions — an indulgence you won’t find on this Grand Wagoneer trim.

To seal the deal, the Yukon comes equipped with GM’s Super Cruise hands-free driving technology. Not only is it remarkably responsive to surrounding traffic conditions, but it also takes a proactive approach by executing automatic lane changes whenever the opportunity to pass slower vehicles arises.

Between the upscale upholstery, soothing massage seats, and the effortless relaxation of hands-free highway cruising, the Yukon Denali delivers an undeniably superior level of first-class comfort.

Winner: GMC Yukon Denali

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Value

Considering the 2026 GMC Yukon 4WD Denali Ultimate carries an eye-watering as-tested price tag of $113,785, the $84,135 cost of the 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Limited Altitude is far more appealing. That works out to a difference of nearly $30,000, which is a massive margin.

What makes the Grand Wagoneer's value proposition so strong is just how many high-end amenities it shares with its six-figure rival. Both SUVs feature panoramic sunroofs, retractable running boards, head-up displays, and dedicated second-row entertainment screens to keep kids occupied on road trips. The one glaring omission on the Jeep is the lack of a 360-degree surround-view camera system, leaving drivers with only a standard backup camera.

The Yukon certainly packs on exclusive tech to help warrant its flagship status, offering a 360-degree camera setup, digital rearview mirror camera, night vision thermal camera to see in pitch-black conditions, and headrest-integrated Bose speakers.

Yet, as impressive as those luxuries are, they simply don't justify a $29,650 premium. For delivering virtually identical utility, plenty of upscale comfort, and comparable flagship features at a much more palatable sticker price, the Grand Wagoneer takes the value crown.

Winner: Jeep Grand Wagoneer

Jeep Grand Wagoneer vs. GMC Yukon Denali: Verdict

On paper, this matchup technically ends in a draw. The GMC Yukon Denali clinches victories in fuel economy and interior comfort, while the Jeep Grand Wagoneer counters with its sharper-looking exterior design and overall value.

However, if you’re asking me which one I’d actually spend my own money on, the 2026 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Limited Altitude gets my vote. I have to stress that roughly $30,000 in savings again, because it makes the Jeep without question the smarter, more logical three-row SUV for anyone who refuses to cross into six-figure territory.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful