97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

For a 4 cylinder *****-slow car, this thing is a gas hog. My friend's 2010 crv averages 21.8mpg. And does 0-60 in what feels like 20 seconds.

mmarshall

That's more or less normal with low-powered, full-time AWD vehicles. You will find more or less the same thing with similiar vehicles like the 4-cylinder Toyota RAV4 and N/A 2.5L Subarus. The weight and drag of the extra AWD hardware does impact on acceleration and fuel-economy, especially when the small fours have to work hard to keep up with traffic. My own Outback, in suburban driving, usually doesn't do much better than 17-22 MPG, although I can get 30-32 at level freeway-cruise, with the A/C off, at moderate speeds.

The AWD Suzuki SX4, BTW, has a partial-answer, even at its very low price (which undercuts even the Subaru Impreza). It comes with a standard 3-position electronic-switch, which chooses between FWD, AWD, and AWD Lock for tough conditons. FWD, of course, disconnects the rear drive-shafts, freeing some of the drag and helping power and mileage. But, of course, even with less drag, the extra weight of the AWD components is still there.

LexFather

Yet the Rav-4 won the last big comparison and you are comparing a brand new car to one 5-6 years old:egads. Honda is at least getting ugly right but the competition today is so fierce not sure loyal fans are enough anymore. They won't offer a V-6 in it b/c the RDX is going to be now CR-V based with the 3.5 V-6.

Honestly it might be ugly and average but I don't find it having any glaring faults. Will sell fine.

Toys4RJill

Toyota "used" to be notorious for upgrading the powerplants in their cars anytime.

Toyota upped the transmission on the Tundra mid-cycle, upped the transmission on the 2009 Avalon from 5 to 6 speeds, Lexus gets a. 6 speed in the RX but the Highlander gets a 5? They use the same engine.

As a matter of fact, the Highlander 2.7 gets a 6 speed.

The point is, the Rav still comes with a 4 while the CRV has a 5 and the reviewer states that 6 speeds are now the norm?

Dumb review.

spwolf

it is valid criticism, once again, Rav4 is old so it is not the benchmark anymore.

LexFather

I am going to speak in as basic elementary terms as I can to help convey a simple point. The Rav-4 is 5-6 years old yet still wins comparos. It is not the greatest SUV of all time, therefore it has opportunities.

To dismiss an entire review b/c you don't agree with one point, a point explained by others means the post could be interpreted as "dumb" not the review.