Which airplane?
My kids are mostly grown so I would like to be able to carry four adults plus minimal baggage. Most trips we might make would be less than 3 to 4 hundred miles i.e. to the beach for the day/weekend. A Mooney would be awesome but a 172 might be more practical.
I realize for the cost efficiency aspect a two place would be better and I could rent a 4 place when needed. I am open to any ideas even a tailwheel (I could do endorsements). Being comfortable is important and IFR capability is a factor as well. Oh, lets keep it under $100K.
I'm guessing the majority of your departures and landings will be on paved runways, and that you don't mind a nosedragger. If that's the case, then I would go for a fixed-gear C182. Here's why...
First of all, choose a 1962E-1986R model because those are the wide-body ones and would be a much more comfortable ride. That extra elbow room is a really nice feature on long trips. Also, starting with the 1965H model, the horizontal stabilizer/elevator was widened ten inches for improved stability and elevator authority, and a one piece windshield replaced the center post, so you may want to consider those factors too if you're looking at 182s. Don't forget the fact that you can open both windows. I'm sure it gets hot and humid during those Alabama summers, and a little ventilation goes a long way in improving comfort and safety.
The Skylane's high-performance 230 hp Continental O-470 has plenty of power to actually take four "real" adults (as opposed to FAA adults) and baggage. There's no tailwheel, but you can give high-performance endorsements. You might never need to use all of the power available, but it's nice to have if you find yourself in a jam and you do need it. Yes, that big engine can burn more fuel than the O-300/320/360 that the C172s have, but it can be managed. I think I used to get 12-15 gph when I flew them. You can reduce power if fuel efficiency is more important to you than speed and get a pretty decent fuel burn. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get it down to 9-10 gph or better.
Speaking of fuel, starting with the 1979Q model, Cessna increased the fuel capacity from 65 gallons to 92 gallons and replaced the bladders with integral fuel tanks (wet wing). That's about twice as much fuel as a Skyhawk holds, and gives an endurance of 6-10 hrs. It's another thing to consider if you decide to get a 182 and are trying to determine which model you'd like to operate. You should NEVER be in a position where you run out of fuel in one of those 182s, even if you take it to remote parts of Canada or Alaska, or over large bodies of water where fuel may be scarce.
It's a really decent IFR bird that cruises at around 140 kts, give or take, depending on power settings. It would be challenging to load a 182 outside the W/B envelope, even after you consider used fuel. It can take pretty much anything you can load into it, and has the power to get you in and out of runways with minimal distance.
I strongly advise against retractable gear though. Retractable gear is a bigger headache than what it's worth for private ownership. It's expensive to maintain and expensive to insure, so stick with fixed-gear. Yes retractables are faster and more streamlined, but it's only like 10 kts or so and any cost savings in fuel efficiency will be spent on insurance and maintenance, and then some.
I don't know if you are an A&P or not, but maintenance costs (annual, etc) on a fixed-gear 182 are relatively low and even if you aren't an A&P, you can still do some simple, limited maintenance yourself if you are mechanically inclined. It's a pretty straight foward, simple airplane. Easy to fly, easy to maintain, lots of them are available, and most are under $100k.
This machine is a true aeronautical marvel. The unobstructed view makes it a real pleasure for sightseeing, and the Continental sounds amazing! I realize that last statement is subjective, but I really liked hearing that engine.
I've been looking at getting an airplane too. My mission is slightly different than yours though. I want an airplane that can carry myself and my wife, and maybe a couple of friends, plus some camping/hunting/fishing gear to remote places. Like you, I looked at LOTS of aircraft before narrowing it down to a C170B with the 180 hp upgrade, a C180, or a C182. I've done lots of research on all of those aircraft.
Right now I think I will probably go with the C180 and get a Sportsman STOL kit because my mission is into off-airport locations. The tailwheel should give me better prop clearance than if I had a 182, and I can put skis or floats on it. I intend to use it in all three configurations (wheels, skis, or floats) at one time or another. I still haven't 100% decided because the 182 is such a nice plane, relatively inexpensive, and they're a lot of bang for the buck, but it has that damned nosewheel! I'm still saving up and won't have the money for a couple/few years, but I think I mostly know what I want to get.
But for you, I think you will have a hard time finding something more fitting than a 182.