I don't see any mention of OP caring about off-roading, and commenting there is no need for 4WD...

duckDecoy:

 

Our budget is ideally between $20-$30k.

 

We are looking for a station wagon style car or SUV…
load up with gear for going on holidays.
The bigger the better.
Reliability is a huge consideration …

 

… we will not be buying new and will be getting them with around 40-60,000kms …
buy and hold for as long as possible …
cheap to own and fix.

 

I do about 7,000 - 10,000kms per year.
…

 

We don't want European as service and parts tend to be more expensive.

 

I think that you’ve pretty well pinned down a good set of options and their are a lot available:

• Just out of new car warranty 2017/18 - most likely to have a complete service history and the best chance of a reliable life.
• SUV/Wagon for space - with the added benefit of very good safety and, if you needed more space, more likely to have roof racks.
  Mazda 6 and the suggested Prius simply don’t have enough head room behind the front seats.
  The suggested Legacy would have space but is more likely to be a reliability problem. Many are imports and Consumer NZ has found that owners report a lot of reliability problems. A Forester could be a good option but it is smaller than the Outback.

You don’t mention number of people but if you did need three rows of seats then Hyundai Palisade and Kia Carnival are likely to have the most space and be the best value over their lifetime.

You don’t mention your views on imports but the service histories are usually patchy or non-existent so I would avoid them.

The Outlander is generally cheapest followed by Outback then RAV4 but I would make sure that I got the best safety options if I plan for my lifetime to continue beyond the vehicle’s.

Reliability stats would put the RAV4 first and the Outlander and Outback close together in second place.

US safety stats put the Outback first:

1. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Subaru/outback-4-door-wagon/2017
2. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Toyota/rav4-4-door-suv/2017
3. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Mitsubishi/outlander-4-door-suv/2017

Kia Sportage.  Love ours.  Plenty around in that price bracket.  Never really looked at Kia's before this one, but super impressed.   

MikeB4:

Batman:

they are all hopeless for offroading.

they are softroaders.

Really??????

I took our X-Trail the entire way around the Tora Coast without issue

duckDecoy:

 

Subaru Outback - likely 2017 based on trademe prices.   We have no real  need for 4wd

 

I don’t think you should write off four wheels being driven without understanding the handling and safety benefits.

I’d choose AWD over two wheel drive (2WD) almost every time because my vehicle will have better grip/traction and stability.

Handle9:

 

If it’s got a transfer case with low range then it’s a 4D. If it doesn’t it’s an AWD and not suitable for more serious off-roading. It’s probably fine for toddling around a bit if mud but I wouldn’t take one on big dunes or slippery tracks.

In the context of the original request there is no stated need for 4WD. But the distinction @Handle9 makes is relevant because this highlights that differences in the drive train / drive system - what transmits power from the engine to the wheels - affect the capabilities of the vehicle.

The most useful distinction for the purposes of this topic is that 4WD is engaged by the driver, normally at low speeds, whereas AWD is automatically engaged by the vehicle and is normally available at any speed.

See https://shift.com/articles/awd-vs-4wd-the-differences-explained

A second distinction is that 4WD typically makes all wheels turn with the same power and speed. AWD typically supplies power to the front and rear wheels unequally so it is not 50:50. My car normally splits the power at something like 60:40 front and rear.

• AWD has clear benefits over 2WD, either FWD (front WD) or RWD (rear WD):
  greater stability with all four wheels being powered and having grip to reduce the risk of slipping and skidding.
  
  
• greater towing capacity - FWD is worst for towing if not done properly and it typically has lower towing limits.

The main reason that it is not the norm is that it costs more:

• All that extra AWD equipment costs more in a new vehicle which is why it is often a more expensive option when it is available.
  
  
• AWD costs more to run because the extra equipment makes the vehicle heavier and the extra traction creates higher rolling resistance.

These costs are why some AWD is only part-time. Subaru AWD, for example, is full-time, i.e. all four wheels are driven all the time, whereas some other AWD systems are only engaged when one of the drive wheels starts slipping. This means that two wheels are driven to save on fuel consumption but the other two wheels are also driven if the vehicle detects unsafe conditions that would benefit from all four wheels being driven.

Another way AWD vehicles can reduce fuel consumption is to use a CVT (continuously variable transmission) which are often smaller, lighter and able to maintain the engine at more efficient speeds by not using fixed gear ratios.

[Edited to add paragraph, link, and failed attempt to fix line spacing issue with using Firefox]

MikeB4:

 

Batman:

 

they are all hopeless for offroading.

 

they are softroaders.

 

 

Really??????

 

I took our X-Trail the entire way around the Tora Coast without issue

 

i sold my xtrail coz it couldn't get up the hill outside my house on a frosty day with new factory A/S tyres when the 15 year old Toyota just drove past like it was nothing. i was that annoyed at both the CVT and the lousy AWD

it's full time FWD and "on demand" AWD up to a max of 25kph, only to a max 50% to the rear, no rear diff lock, hopeless brake axle torque transfer, but otherwise it's a great softroader

anyway this clip shows that of all the SUVs only one or 2 can even drive up ONE rung and it's not the X trail

Of those I'd vouch for the Mazda 6 wagon.  Mazda make a nice vehicle, I have the 3 with the same 2.5L engine and it's a really nice power plant.

Even better if you can get your hands on one of the turbo charged Takami spec at a reasonable price.

Batman:

 

anyway this clip shows that of all the SUVs only one or 2 can even drive up ONE rung and it's not the X trail

 

 

That was actually a really enjoyable and interesting video. Thanks. That was way better than working this afternoon!! 

MikeAqua:

Of those I'd vouch for the Mazda 6 wagon.  Mazda make a nice vehicle, I have the 3 with the same 2.5L engine and it's a really nice power plant.

Even better if you can get your hands on one of the turbo charged Takami spec at a reasonable price.

 

Whatever you decide, stay away from diesel Mazda CX5s, they have an extremely nasty reputation in the motor vehicle industry for blowing engines and reputable dealers won't touch them with a barge pole.

duckDecoy:

 

I have another post about the Mitsi Outlander and that seems recommended so that is an option, but it would really push me outside our budget.  Its still a possibility thought.

 

Although its a stretch I highly reccommend Mitsi Outlander over your other choices.

For $33,990 + ORC you get a brand new car with great legroom, great boot space and an extra 2 seats (in a push).

Mitsubishis are very reliable and the warranty is amazing - 5yr/130k plus 10yr on drivetrain.

As mentioned in the other thread we bought ours about 18 months ago - also the run out model.

There are many reasons its an exceptional deal which is why we took the plunge;

1. Car prices are not getting cheaper - eg the new model Outlander starts at $42K+ORC

2. Newer models are generally smaller eg new Outlander is 5 seats, new Kia Sportage is smaller (which we had and loved) etc

3. Its not fuel hungry for the size - I checked on the weekend and average fuel usage is 7.6L per 100KM - our 2L sportage was always around 10L/100. It dipped down to 7.3L on the way to Levin on the weekend. We mostly do town driving.

4. Its roomy for the money - as per the other thread our family of 4 are all over 1.8m and struggle to find a good leg room for under 40K.

sen8or:

 

Whatever you decide, stay away from diesel Mazda CX5s, they have an extremely nasty reputation in the motor vehicle industry for blowing engines and reputable dealers won't touch them with a barge pole.

 

This was true of the very early Skyctiv diesels which had an oil dilution problem resulting in overflow into the crankcase. This was fixed a long time ago. 

alasta:

sen8or:

Whatever you decide, stay away from diesel Mazda CX5s, they have an extremely nasty reputation in the motor vehicle industry for blowing engines and reputable dealers won't touch them with a barge pole.

This was true of the very early Skyctiv diesels which had an oil dilution problem resulting in overflow into the crankcase. This was fixed a long time ago. 

I had the same powertrain in my Mazda 3 and really liked it.

I switched to petrol when I bought the CX-5 because it was around the time when the VW scandal was attracting attention and I felt that the tide was going out on diesel cars. I see that the CX-5 is no longer available as a diesel so I guess I'll be sticking with petrol from now on.