[jake]

My folks are thinking about getting an 08 Rav4 and asked me to do a bit of research for them. Does anyone know of any draw backs? Or are there any other vehicles in this class that they should be looking at as well?

[MSP]

These are the top 3 vehicles in that class:

Toyota Rav4
Subaru Forrester
Honda CR-V

It's a toss up to me which is best, they all have their own strengths. The Forrester gets the best gas mileage, the Toyota has an available V6 and tow package, and the CR-V has a more comfortable back seat. Reliability is a dead heat. Price wise they go in this order in terms of expense - Subaru -> Honda -> Toyota. For me I bought the Honda because the Subaru looks too much like a station wagon and the Toyota was more expensive. Any of the three would make a fine purchase.

For a laugh research the Ford Escape and Chevy Equinox/Pontiac Torrent too.

[smirnoff]

I can't think of any direct competitors that are better looking than the rav4.
Seems like an allround good choice.

Is the faux-truck thing a must?

[jake]

Thanks guys. They live on a Ranch and encounter some really bad roads sometimes, so a AWD is a must. Also they lean towards Toyota because they already own an Avalon and really like it. Price isn't really a concern. I have been reading some reviews and I think I am gonna tell them to stick with the Rav4 choice unless I can find out something bad about them.

[MSP]

Originally Posted by smirnoff

Is the faux-truck thing a must?

I got that from a buddy of mine, hates SUVs and thinks they are all about appearance. Doubly so for unibody based SUVs. But there are actually some very good reasons for going for a vehicle like this:

1) Comfortable seating for 5 - which really can't be matched in a mid-size car.
2) Gas mileage - unlike their full frame-on big brothers they sip gas.
3) 4x4 - you can't take them to Baja, but for driving in snow or the occasional soccer field they are ideal.
4) Cargo storage - again, difficult to match in a mid-size car.
5) Raised seating position - better visibility which adds to safety, and is also nice when touring.
6) Crash safety* - I put an asterisk here as the data is conflicting, but I believe they are safer in a crash.

Safety was a big factor for me. All-wheel-drive, ABS brakes, stability control, tire pressure sensor system... And I chose white because statistically they are in fewer crashes because the of the increased visibility.

[Chainblade]

Good info from MSP. Out of the top 3, I'd go with the Toyota probably. Honda is a close close second though. I personally do not like the looks of the Subaru though.

I hate people that say SUV's are only for appearance or something like that. I just got my first SUV and couldn't be happier. Why did I get it? I'm 6 foot 6 and 280 pounds. I am NOT comfortable in a car at all. It kills my lower back and neck to get in and out of a car. And I feel really cramped being in one. My chiropractor was happy that I got it because my back and neck are screwed up. Even in my Explorer, I have to bend down so either I will lift it in the future or get a bigger SUV in the future. I have seating and cargo room if I need it (which comes in handy more than I thought). It has 4x4 when I need it in the winter here. I catch a couple of naps during my work day and stretch out and sleep in the back (with the seats down). It's quite comfortable. Gas sucks and insurance is a little more but those are really the only bad things. In the far far future when I have money, I'll get into a more reliable SUV like a Honda Pilot or Toyota 4Runner. They just cost way more than getting a Ford so unfortunately a Ford is what I shall have.

[JustinL]

Originally Posted by MSP

I got that from a buddy of mine, hates SUVs and thinks they are all about appearance. Doubly so for unibody based SUVs. But there are actually some very good reasons for going for a vehicle like this:

1) Comfortable seating for 5 - which really can't be matched in a mid-size car.
2) Gas mileage - unlike their full frame-on big brothers they sip gas.
3) 4x4 - you can't take them to Baja, but for driving in snow or the occasional soccer field they are ideal.
4) Cargo storage - again, difficult to match in a mid-size car.
5) Raised seating position - better visibility which adds to safety, and is also nice when touring.
6) Crash safety* - I put an asterisk here as the data is conflicting, but I believe they are safer in a crash.

Safety was a big factor for me. All-wheel-drive, ABS brakes, stability control, tire pressure sensor system... And I chose white because statistically they are in fewer crashes because the of the increased visibility.

I wouldn't say they sip gas....

"2008 Rav4 Limited V6 4x4
19 City (Expected range for most driver 16 to 22)
26 Highway (Epected range for most drivers 22 to 30) "


my dodge gets 21/22-24 (highway depends a lot on the conditions) and it weighs 7k+ lbs


edit: my mom has an older (04) rav4. Its a decent car. It torque steers when you get on the throttle real hard, it doesn't really go any faster just makes some more noise. It's not a junky car, but I am not real impressed with any of it.

[MSP]

Originally Posted by JustinL

my dodge gets 21/22-24 (highway depends a lot on the conditions) and it weighs 7k+ lbs

I get 22ish tooting around town, and 30.2 on the highway. And that highway number was measured driving from Cleveland Ohio to Destin Florida, which is a pretty thorough sample of terrain type. What model Dodge do you have? I have to say that highway mileage isn't bad for a heavy vehicle.

[JustinL]

2000 Ram 2500 Cummins w/ 6spd manual

[smirnoff]

It's a good point msp. Heck, you could argue the people who choose a car over a SUV are the ones concerned with appearance, and they'll sacrifice practicality to have it.

[MSP]

Ha! That's a good one, hadn't thought of that. But no joke, to get the passenger and cargo room of my little SUV the only cars that came close in my price range were the Toyota Avalon and Ford Caprice. And with either car I would have lost AWD, stability control, the tire pressure sensor system, and the elevated seating position, etc. And I wasn't going to buy a fucking mini-van.

But no shit Justin, I didn't realize you had a diesel. No wonder you're getting such great gas mileage. Honda is coming out with diesel Civics, Accords, and CR-Vs starting in 2009 I believe. Can you imagine the gas mileage on those things? I'm predicting north of 45MPG for the Civic. I can't wait.

[sims]

My Diesel isn't as great on gas as I had hoped, I get about 350K out of a 50 Liter tank. granted its a 4000 lbs truck and Gas in my Celica is $1.14 a liter where as diesel is 95 cents, but I still find it shitty considering the fact that it has like 100 HP.

You can't go wrong with a CRV or a Rav4, both are extremely solid versatile cartrucks(as I call them :P) You won't be able to keep up with a real truck in any serious offroad environment and you won't really be able to pull or tow much, but they're better then a real truck in basically every other situation then that.

Their yuppymobiles, but they do a damn good job at it. I actually prefer the CRV, but its basically a lifted civic, the "real time" AWD means its FWD unless the wheels are slipping, and the rear driveshaft is about as thick as my thumb. I would consider it useless for anything more then regular winter driving.

the Rav 4 didn't feel as refined and "nice" as the CRV, IE its less of a soccer mom/yuppy car, but its most definitly the stronger built of the two. Not to say the CRV is unreliable, because its extremely reliable in its element, but its built for the streets, it won't hold up to any really punishment. The Rav 4 dispite looking tiny can hold its own. its pretty limited in what it can do becasue its so small, but I've a fair bit of them lifted on big tires when I'm offroading in the floodway and they can certainly hold up to abuse, true to the Toyota name

[nidex]

The new CRV is very nice, especially if you get it loaded. I drove an '07 Rav4 and I did not like it, felt very cheap.