I haven't seen it mentioned yet but the Grand wagoneer.

I'm not so sure. You know Americans. Most people spending this much want to see a BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Acura, Infiniti or Lexus badge.

I suspect you don't know anyone with a new Land Cruiser.

I'm a pretty big auto geek, and I've never heard that term. It's extremely flawed too:

So 80's.

and Ford Explorer

Yeah, it is pretty damn 'spensive. There are a lot of better cars you could get for $62,000. The ATS-V starts at just $1,000 more, and I think I'd opt for it.

Except the Honda Element didn't suck.

2CV- The name means "two horses" (though wikipedia says the first production version actually had all of nine.)
EDIT: Yes, I know about the tax horsepower thing. I, too, read wikipedia.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting one of these. You should look into it at least. At least test drive one. They're well under budget once you figure in the tax credits, alghough resale is questionable at this point.

Miata

*Ahem*

That's kind of disappointing because I've never driven a Fit and have held out hope that the breathless "you know how Honda used to make great cheap cars? They still do!!!!!1!1!" crowd was at least partly onto something here.

I like my tundra a lot, but on some of the more rutted trails I've been on it isn't fun hearing your dash creak like that. Although I think it was made by fisher price so I'm not surprised. You would be better off with a Tacoma for off road, it will fit on more trails and the frame won't flex like the Tundra's…

Non pro4x are cheaper. Unless you plan on some serious off-roading , you don't really need the pro4x trim. And if you do plan on some serious off-roading and want something capable from the factory, you can't really consider a Colorado.

I'd have expected everything Chevy makes/made.

I just want it to look like this. Why doesn't it look like this?