mmarshall

For a lot of the people buying these vehicles, who have to live with and depend on them on a daily basis, seems like the CR-V would be the no-brainer first choice, hands-down. Certainly would be mine if I had to choose between the four....but I still think the Outback beats all four of them in some areas.

TRDFantasy

I don't see what is such the big deal with the CR-V. It basically can't go off-road, even on light trails (like the Rav 4 and others can) and it seems like everyone skipped by the comment Edmunds made with the pairing of the 4 cyl and transmission. I've driven many Hondas quite extensively and I find a lot of them have transmission hesitation/gear hunting issues. In some Hondas it is so bad that the shifts get rough and harsh especially at WOT all because of calibration for fuel economy.

I'd much rather drive a Toyota, which I know will be much smoother than the Honda while delivering equal or better fuel economy.

In this case, sounds like the Rav V6 is much smoother while getting almost identical fuel economy compared to the CR-V, along with being much faster, having more capability (some off-roading abilities).

The CR-V seems to be a great vehicle for the city only, but if you do a lot of highway travelling, drive on rural roads or in rural areas, or just simply want the best all-around mid-size crossover, then the Rav 4 is that vehicle.

tuan92129

I can't believe they are offering leather in the CRV

mmarshall

According to Consumer Reports, both the CR-V and the RAV-4 four-cylinders have about equal reliability.....at the top of their class. I have casually looked at both but have not done a formal review like Edmunds. Based on Edmunds and other reviews I've seen, it's true that the RAV4 is probably more capable off-road than the CR-V, but few SUV buyers actually GO off-road nowadays, especially in these car-based models. In addition, the CR-V, like most Hondas, appears, to me at least, to have somewhat better fit-and finish and material quality, except of course, for Toyota's traditionally superb paint jobs.

AzNMpower

They actually did that on some first-generation CRVs, discontinued it for awhile, then brought it back a couple years ago.

I think this current CR-V is way too ugly, it'll make your children puke before they get in the car. If it's ugly, at least have something make up for it. Well, the powertrain surely doesn't. So what does?

Allen K

iTrader: (4)

I was very tempted to get the Rav4 when I was car shopping because I liked the cargo room, but I wanted to have an integrated nav just because. I ended up in an IS with practically no space for stuff at all. Go figure

cloudnine

I agree with mmarshall, Outbacks or Foresters would destroy these in every way, especially the ones with the turbo boxers.

xioix

There is the Japanese integrated nav for the rav4

Nextourer

Interesting. That's with the RAV4's stock suspension (Assuming the Sport's suspension is different... although I'm not sure it is. Just larger wheels and other cosmetics, right?)

xioix

Sports suspension is different, from what the Toyota site says

AzNMpower

Yes. With Toyota, "sport suspension" means it's soft as a firm mattress, instead of the "standard suspension", which is as soft as a marshmallow.

My dad had a 2002 Toyota Solara with "sport package and sport suspension" that leaned as much as our '96 ES300.