mmarshall

Respect your views, Gents, but to me, it doesn't look any worse than the increasing popularity of the "floating roof" styling.

spwolf

last time i saw the info, around 2% Honda's went to fleets, and >8% of Toyota's, which were the lowest numbers for full lineup manufacturers... everyone else did a lot more.

If you look at it from European perspective, Toyota does not have real fleet program, a big minus for its dealers, while Germans and French sell significant portions of their vehicles at hughe fleet sale discounts (20-30%).

spwolf

by that measure, every large sedan looks exactly the same?

They are very different designs, new CX-5 is incredibly smooth and polished, it looks crazy awesome... where Rav4 looks more robust and chunky, and probably the best Rav4 looking ever (considering different versions).

SW17LS

Yeah, I don't see how they look the same other than they're both crossovers...

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

SUVs looking like SUVs. Sedans looking like sedans. Pickups looking like pickups. What is this world coming to?!

mmarshall

....you mean sedans that will still be in production.

arentz07

Very nice review! I am curious just how this will be compared to the last one - seems like an improvement for sure, based on your review. I have gotten Uber/Lyft rides in a couple of last-gen RAV-4's and wasn't impressed with them - very hollow-sounding doors and hard plastic everywhere. However, they did at least have some nice design elements to look at, at least, on the interior. And I suspect the higher trims didn't suffer as much in terms of quality.

I wonder if the transmission is the same unit as in the Camry... I just had one as a rental for a full week, and it was the best-worst thing about that car. It stumbles sometimes at low speeds and takes a while to downshift - which is obviously just a fact of life when you have 8 speeds. But I thought the Camry definitely had nicer materials than the previous generation, especially the quality of the leather on the steering wheel, as well as the center console area. But back to the engine-transmission combo, I agree with what you said - it seemed adequate but not terribly impressive. Could have been a little more refined at mid-to-high RPM.

mmarshall

Thanks. Wish I could have done it sooner.....it took Toyota a while to get these to D.C.-area dealerships.

In general, compared to the old one, I'd take the new one, hands-down. The base version, though (as Jill also noticed on her inspection) could use some better interior materials inside....the bean counters definitely got to it.

There's a significant difference between the base and top-line-Limited version....IMO it is worth the extra $$$$$.

Modern 8 and 9-speed transmissions, particularly the GM 9-speed used in the transverse FWD models, and the troublesome ZF FWD 9-speed used in Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep and some Honda/Acura products, do have some shifting quirks under some conditions. That's partly because of the dog-clutches (mechanical teeth) and two-way operation of the clutches themselves, which help give so many gear ratios in the compact aluminum cases needed for transverse-mounting. The dog-clutches for some shifts (in the ZF unit, it's usually the 4-5 shift, and the GM unit decides by computer) cannot allow any slip...they have to engage absolutely perfectly so the teeth will mesh, so the computer has to play games with the input and output shaft, sometimes revving the engine some or cutting back the RPM tom perfectly mesh the shift. In addition, the GM unit sometimes (not always)hangs up for a second or so while starting up from rest on a hill, with the nose of the car up....you'll hear the RPM jump a little without the car moving, then feel a small bump. (this is different from the engine start/stop feature. I found I can get around that buy feather-footoing it. The Toyota 8-speed, of course, may have a few quirks of its own, but I am not as familiar with the inner-workings of it as I am the GM and ZF 9-speeds.

The main reason that these complex 8, 9, and 10-speed transmissions (and their quirks) were developed, of course, is that manufacturers are trying to meet CAFE fuel-economy requirements while giving customers both the low-speed acceleration and highway-cruise overdrive quietness they want. CVT transmissions also are efficient, but many customers (me included) don't like the motorboating and rubber-banding type of operation some of them have, though a few of them imitate conventional automatics, wth pre-programmed-ratios on the the belt-drives. With the FWD 8 and 9-speed transverse units, of course, all those gears and hardware have to fit into a small aluminum case, hence the complex hardware and trick-operation of the two-way clutches and dog-teeth. GM, overall, though, did an admirable job on its 9-speed. Although the 4-5 shift sometimes flares, and starting on a hill can have a bump to it, most of the shifts, most of time, especially when warm, are like butter....just like the Buicks and Cadillacs of old.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

mmarshall

Well, for one, I don't agree with the premise of your question. IMO, there isn't much, if anything better about the old one. That's why I said I would take the new one hands-down. There are numerous improvements, but the chief ones, IMO, are the front-end styling, underhood space for working on the engine, D-pillars, outward visibility, and the nice orange touches in the interior of the Adventure version. Of course, the old version (as with all previous-genenration RAV-4s) had proven reliability and a better-then-average reliability record. The new one will probably turn out to be as reliable as the previous versions, but, of course, you have a first-year model this year, with the traditional first-year gamble.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

mmarshall

With all due respect, re-read my post, and you will answer your own question. I explained in detail what the point was.