Anyway, back to the subject at hand. '16 Honda CR-V No dice. The current generation CR-V has the same ergonomic problem as the Accord and the Rav-4. The seat travels just far enough back for me but I'm left reaching in front of me for the wheel. It's a shame because it's an otherwise likeable car. Not too fancy but not lacking anything I'd want (EX trim) and generally a nice place to be. I didn't spend a whole lot of time poking around, though, because it would have been pointless. On the other hand, the sales guy told me that he's expecting the next generation to show up sometime in the fall. I told him I'd be back. Jeep Cherokee Yeah, I went there. I've never been a fan of Chrysler products but what the hell, right? I actually test drove a 3.2L V6 4x4 Limited with the "altitude pack" (I think) which adds...less chrome? If I'm being really, brutally honest I found things to like about it. The driving position was good for me and I found nothing to complain about in the seating department. I might have liked a little more rearward steering wheel travel but it was comfortable enough. The only points deduction in the front is headroom, which was a little tight with the panoramic sunroof. I had to sit with the seat all the way down in order to clear, yet somehow I felt like I was too low relative to the instrument cluster. I'm not sure what that's about? There's just something funky about the dash layout. I forgot about it immediately after setting off, though. Rear legroom was a little tight for me with the front seat adjusted for my driving position, but most people would have been fine back there. I found nothing to complain about in terms of rear cargo space. It's nice and rectangular, just as it should be. I've always wanted to try the much-discussed ZF 9-speed transmission so I was pretty excited to take it for a spin. Bottom line, I didn't find anything truly objectionable on my short loop but it is a little different. The first few gear changes were absolutely buttery smooth, then there was a pause for a dog clutch to couple or uncouple, then it went back to smooth shifting on up the gears toward the other dog clutch. The only time it might be annoying is when kicking-down across the dog clutch to pass. In normal driving I can't see it being a problem. Plus the little truck moves just fine without being pushed. I found the 6-cylinder smooth, unobtrusive, and more than up to its task. At this point I think I'm supposed to moan about 6-cylinder fuel economy, but its EPA rating is surprisingly close to the 2.4L I-4: 21/28 for the 2.4L vs. 20/28 for the 3.2L when equipped with the basic AWD system. Behold the miracle of many gears, I guess? Or perhaps the horror of a vehicle that can't be made efficient no matter what's under the hood? Call it what you want. At least it rode and drove well. It was compliant but I didn't get that isolated "marshmallow" feeling that the NX200t gave me. Next question: Would I actually spend my own money on one? Having sat for a while and thought about it, I don't think so. While the Cherokee would be a mostly adequate car I'd have a hard time placing it ahead of some of the other options. For example I'd have a very hard time taking a Cherokee over the spacious, more efficient, historically reliable, and very capable Outback (though I have yet to actually drive one). I don't even think I'd take it over an RDX, which would be in the same sad fuel economy class but offer a somewhat better driving position, headroom, and rear seat space. But as my wife once pointed out, the Cherokee is fashionable. I might want one more if I cared.