mmarshall

The current RAV4 design, though, is several years old. I'm sure we'll see a more flexible automatic on the new one not far down the road.

Automakers often stick more gears on the bigger engines, even though it goes against common sense with the greater torque provided. The main reason seems to be for better MPG with the larger engines to satisfy the EPA.

mmarshall

Sure...anytime.

The RAV-4, even with the inefficient 4-speed auto, has a silkier/more seamless drivetrain, and perhaps a (slightly) smoother ride. Other than that, the 4-cylinder CR-V, IMO, beats it in a number of areas.

mmarshall

Several automakers still use 4-speeds, especially on base and entry-level models. Cadillac and Buick, amazingly, still use them on the high-line DTS and Lucerne, though those cars are admittedly being phased out. It wasn't many years ago, BTW, that Dodge and Chrysler, with the classic junk they were building at that time, phased out the three speed automatic. They were the last automaker that I know of to use 3-speeds in the American market.

mmarshall

I called it like I saw it. I criticized several features on it, including the 4-speed, rear-door hinges, too-bland interior, and spare-tire-mount location (though, to be honest, it was nice to see a REAL spare for a change).

The Sportage, believe it or not, is arguably just as well-built (I consider it, overall, Kia's most solidly-built American-market vehicle). But, IMO, it suffers from some quirky styling, too-small side and rear windows impeding some vision, lack of a V6 option, and, like the RAV-4, a too-bland interior.

mmarshall

If you live in a bad-weather area or need to carry things, there's no question that the RAV-4 is a better daily-driver. The SC's rear-seat is good for a small package-shelf and little else, and its RWD and summer-oriented wheels/tires can be a handful on slick roads.

Perhaps the V6's steering and suspension are a little more buttoned-down (I didn't sample it). The base 4-cylinder model shows noticeable, but not severe, body-roll.

Is yours a V6 FWD? Torque-steer would (probably) be less-noticeable with AWD, especially in slippery conditions when some of the torque is going to the rear wheels. .


One thing nice, though, about the interior, is the simplicity of controls/*****. No screwing around with I-Drive, MMI, or similiar-gadgets while you're trying to keep your eyes on the road.

As you have discovered, Cute-Utes have the enormous popularity they do for a reason. ..........this, despite the fact that the auto-press often pans them as Secretaries' cars.


I hope they go back to something approaching the 1Gen SC300/400 styling. That, IMO, was a gorgeous car.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

no doubt about it. I'm just confused as to why continue on with the 4 and 5 when the 6 was released. My reasoning being they'd probably eek out a few more mpg's across the board as well as help with acceleration. But oh well I guess a new one is around the corner. Seems this whole segment is dropping any V6 variants. I'd be curious (and hopeful) that the Rav4 keeps it as a top of the line

spwolf

they keep it to lower the price, as it is old car by now, they need low price to sell...

ST430

mmarshal - i think your reviews focuses too many of your personal nitpicks, but doesn't address what most people are looking for in this vehicle. Having said that, we bought our 09' RAV4 back in 08 when the 2.5L i4 debut. We were crosshopping between it, the CRV, and the Mitsu outlander. For ~20k out the door (option only with the convenience package with 17" wheels), the RAV4 was a relative bargain compared to the competition since it has much more 1) interior room 2) cargo room 3) power and 4) better gas mileage. The interior room difference between it and the others was tremendous as the the US gets the stretched version (Japanese gets the smaller nubby model) which is almost identical in size to the last gen Highlander! At its introduction, the revamped 2.5L i4 had best in class hp AND mileage as well, even with the old school 4-speed auto (keep in mind the new 600lb heavier highlander with the 2.5L and the 6-speed auto gets 20/25 vs. 22/28mpg for the RAV4 - i suspect they kept the 4 gears to save costs). As for the interior, I don't think it's necessarily cheap, it's just very spartan by today's standards. The seat cloths are way better than the CRV's Hondaesque fuzzy material, which i hate. And although there is an abudnance of plastic, it is complemented by cloth on the door inserts and pillars as well. Combined with the option for a 3rd row rear seat, which is very unconventional for this "small" cute ute class, it gets all the functionality anyone could ever want from an SUV. Note: I've never had a problem with the rear spare tire (actually, i wanted to take it off altogether, but it looks funny without it), but newer V6 sport models have the option of eliminating it altogether in favor of run flats. We've had 0 problems with our RAV4 and it's light years more utility friendly then our previous Mazda CX-5 with gas mileage around 25mpg. The only thing i don't like about it and why we'll move to the either the Venza or a RX is because of the interior road noise and the crappy schizo stereo (you get spoiled when you have an LS). Otherwise, it makes a great family hauler. I can't wait until they update the RAV4, because it is still competitive with today's offering even if it is a 7+ year model now...

mmarshall

Well, of course, I respect your opinion, but I try and be objective for a reason. Too many auto reviewers, IMO, especially those that write for newspapers, have nothing but rose-colored glasses on. They love to praise this and that, and give a glowing report on how "good" everything is on the vehicle, and either don't notice any negatives, or simply don't bother to mention them. I noticed that many years ago, and I determined, back then, that if and when I ever did reviews myself, both sides would be given as fairly and objectively as I saw it. Even as far back as high school, when I first learned to drive, and before that, when I was just riding in cars, I noticed what I thought were good and bad things about car designs, and, of course, what I found pleasant in a car and what I didn't. That's why, for each vehicle I review, you will always find a list of Plusses and Minuses....and detailed explanations below.



Congratulations. I hope you've had good luck with it.


Well, like I said earlier in the thread, I think some simplicity is a good thing......especially in simple, easy-to-use controls when you're trying to keep your eyes on the road. But a number of other manufacturers, in this general price-range, manage to use some trim-materials inside that are a little nicer on the eyes. And the RAV-4 does have a few solid, durable parts inside....I listed them where I felt them.

You may have just been fortunate, though. With that kind of location, though, anything more than just a mild tap (by accident-standards) on the spare-tire can cause anything from minor door sheet-metal buckling to a shattered rear-window with glass all over the place. Like I said in the review, keep that in mind if you have kiddies back there in the 3rd-row seat.

Vehicles in this class, BTW, are considered trucks, not cars, by the EPA and DOT/NHTSA, which, up to now, has exempted most of them from regular passenger-car bumper/impact-safety-standards. That is likely, though, to change in the future.


]

Fizzboy7

I look at this trucklet as a lame duck. New one is around the corner. For anyone to consider this model now would be shooting himself in the foot.

spwolf

Rav4 is generally best reviewed Toyota around the world, and the most exciting one (except for their coupes/convertibles). But sure, it is 7 years old and most of competition is 1-2 years old so it is simply... old.

mmarshall

Yes, I know a new RAV-4 is coming out soon. But my review request was for this one, not the new one, and, wherever possible, I try to honor specific requests.

Toys4RJill

I got no real problem with RAV 4 other than the 4 speed.

I have noticed a lot of RAV4 with a dangling exhaust pipe , always wondered if this was a defect in the design.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rear hatch opening to the right or a hood prop on an entry level Toyota.

Good review and a very good vehicle.

mmarshall

Even the 4-speed, though, is seamless and smooth as silk. Toyota engineers know how to do smooth powertrains, even in the hybrids.

Like many SUVs, they are often driven in the snow, with salt on the roads. Perhaps some owners just don't wash the undersides as often as they should, and salt rusts out part of the pipes and attachments. In my state (VA), a vehicle won't pass the annual safety-inspection if there is a hole in the pipe or part of it is dangling.

The hood on the RAV-4, though, unlike the rest of the sheet metal, feels like it is made out of lead. Older, frail, or weaker persons may simply not be able to handle it with the manual prop-rod. The right-opening hatch, I agree would not be a problem unless, when loading/unloading, it forces you to walk out further into city-traffic, when parked, than is feasible. A number or RAV-4 reviewers, BTW, agree with me on that.
Thanks.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

The Rav4 is one of my favorite Toyota models - I've toyed with the idea of selling my GS and getting one just for the sake of utility (gas mileage and repair costs don't hurt either), but I struggle with finding the right model:

The Sport model is my favorite (and quite a looker, I think) but it's impossible to find one with JBL or any of the other nice features. Toyota seems to build the Sport model as a small step up from the base model with a lot of room between it and the Limited.

The interior and features of the Limited are awesome, but I think the exterior is a bit tame for my tastes.

I'd need Limited features in a Sport exterior to be happy. The other curveball is that a nice used RX350, which is quite similar in size, has the Same V6, and way more lux features, is not far off in price from a new Rav4.