Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Honda CR-V Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
782 messages, Last post on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM
You are in the Honda CR-V Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
I've owned 2 of the 3 and am getting ready to purchase the 3rd. These 3 vehicles are frequently cross shopped and I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. Each has it's high points and trade offs. The Forester is a very nimble, has a low center of gravity and is a solid feeling car. You can get an amazing amount of cargo in the back with the seats folded. It has always scored at the top in crash test safety .. in particular frontal and side impact. All time AWD which is helpful in all driving conditions. I put 200k on it .. never had a moment of trouble and my ex is still driving it. The down side is that the back seat is not as roomy as the others and although it's looks grew on me it isn't a head turner. The CRV is very roomy but IMHO feels a little cheap. It has Honda resale value and reliability. The V also possesses excellent versatility. The side impact tests have not been as good as the Forester. The bottom line for me was .. it's boring and the rear end is butt ugly although that's very subjective. The RAV has yet to be safety tested so any opinion would be just that. The Limited is very nice inside and quite comfortable. To me it feels more "up scale". The v6 raises the bar in this class. However, the limited is 2k more than the EX-CRV. Drive all 3 and pick one and don't look back. |
|
|
Replying to: pogs2006 (Feb 02, 2006 9:57 am) Ride:Toyota builds vehicles that emphasize ride over handling. Honda builds vehicles that emphasize handling over ride quality. I prefer Honda engineering myself. Ergomonics: The CR-V has the capability of moving between the front and rear seats without exiting the vehicle, which can be handy in incliment weather if one needs to get back to the rug-rats in the rear seat. I also like the CR-V rear legroom - 39 inches with the rear seat slid backwards. Once can get almost 40 cu feet of stuff behind the rear seats if you slide the rear seat all the way forward (36 inches of legroom in that configuration). As for AWD, if that is critical, the Subaru is the best system in my opinion. However I have used the Honda RT4WD in many bad road conditions, including deep mud, 4" of fording water, and snow, without any problems. The bottom line is to take the baby seat to the dealer and do a test drive, then pick the one that fits your budget and preferrences. When pricing, I would add all available safety features to the vehicle (Honda already includes everything, but you will need to add to the RAV-4 to get to the same standard - not sure about the Subie). |
|
|
Replying to: pogs2006 (Feb 02, 2006 9:57 am) The back seat room in the Forester is supposed to be non-existant, but that's not a problem for me. Personally, if I were in your shoes, I'd get the Toyota Highlander - you can get one that is "certified" pre-owned from a Toyota dealership and it comes with a great warranty and will still be cheaper than a brand new RAV-4 or CR-V. If I had a baby to consider, it would be my first choice. Rides nicely, beautifully appointed and has PLENTY of back seat and cargo space! I could have bought the deluxe version with leather and everything for $21,000 and it was a 2004, I think. Just a beautiful small SUV and the mileage is not that much less than the RAV-4. They make it in a 4 and 6 cylinder. I drove both and if power's not your thing, the 4 would suffice. The Honda Pilot is probably a similar model, but after seeing the CR-V, I was really not impressed with the Honda product. I thought it was very pricey for what you get. I liked the Toyota cars much better, but that's just me. There are other wagons available - I think VW makes one, so if you don't care about the 4WD or AWD, you may want to consider them as well. I need the height in the cargo area to accomodate dog crates. I'm coming down from a standard size (and gas guzzling) SUV that I've owned for over 10 years. If you don't already know, Consumer Reports Magazine rated all the small SUVs and the Subaru Forester came in as #1, the Honda CR-V was #2. The Forester was also the #1 rated small SUV in Car &Driver Magazine as well. And, I read somewhere that it's the only vehicle in it's class to get a 5-star safety rating. Of course, the Highlander and Pilot are in a different size class. It really sounds to me like you need a larger SUV. With a baby and dog, there won't be a lot of room for cargo if you take a trip somewhere. Funny, the only reason I even WENT to the Subaru dealership was because I saw it while driving to the Honda dealership. The Forester was the first car I test drove and it spoiled me. I wanted a small SUV crossed with a sports car, but I didn't think it existed, so the Subaru Forester Turbo fits the bill for me. It's like a convertible, sports car and SUV all rolled into one. Good luck with whichever car you choose. They are all good cars. Samantha |
|
|
|
|
Back in 2002 I considered a Subaru, but the engine was too rough. Last year, I looked at Forester again, but the vibrations that transfer through the shifter and the steering wheel are unacceptable to me. There was a video someone on the internet of a guy balancing a quater on a running K24 engine (CR-V engine). That would not work in the Forester. I maybe a perfectionist, but I gave up the 260 HP Forester XT over 160 HP CR-V, but with an engine that you don't know even on, unless you stab the throttle. I like the sophistication Honda gives you over Subaru. Forester has longer shift throws, even in the sporty XT, than the CR-V, and the shifter is a little bit rougher going into the gears on the Forester. I am sure the 260 HP would have been nice, but not in a car that drives you crazy with terrible engine vibration. |
|
|
Replying to: blueiedgod (Feb 06, 2006 5:31 am) |
|
|
Replying to: thecat (Feb 06, 2006 6:51 am) They didn't have the Turbo when I cross shopped the Forester, but I wouldn't have bought it anyway. The base engine had plenty of power, but that backseat just seemed too small for me in the Subie. Turbo requires premium fuel, right? Oddly enough, the "little tray" between the front seats was a selling point for me in the CR-V - the wife could move to the rear seats without exiting the vehicle. Toyota Highlander was too expensive for me, and I prefer a taught ride to the Toyota soft ride.
|
|
thank you
|
|
|
Replying to: leo12 (Feb 06, 2006 8:08 pm) Toyota RAV4: Prices Paid & Buying Experience Steve, Host |
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Feb 06, 2006 10:34 am) It's important to note that I'm getting the auto trans, not the 5 speed. I didn't think the base model in the Forester with the automatic had enough power for me, it would have been fine in the 5-speed. That's why I'm getting the Turbo even though it uses premium fuel (which SUCKS). I think the rest of you are driving 5-speeds which really makes a difference. I also only drive about 3000 miles per year. Also, that side opening door in the Honda and Toyota gives me pause. At least the Honda has a rear window which opens up, but I can still imagine problems loading cargo if someone parks too close to you at the curb. I'm used to a hatch that opens up - it just seems inconvenient to have to walk around the rear door every time you want to load something. It opens the wrong way - it should be hinged on the opposite side. Anyway, I've put in my 2 cents now. I'm thinkin' the orginal posters have enough info now to make their decision. Samantha
|
|
|
Some people have posted wrong or misleading safety info. 1. Someone said the CRV did not do well in the side impact tests. That's not correct. In fact the CRV is one of the very few cars that has been tested and received the highest scores (either 5 stars or good rating) in both the NHTSA's fornt and side impact tests, and the IIHS's front and side impact tests (and done well in all the subcategories of the IIHS test). Furthermore if you look at the details of the Forester's test, you'll find that for a side impact, the results for the drivers pelvis and leg were only acceptable. I know I'm a bit of a safety freak, but I wouldn't want to take a chance with my wife's pelvis being crushed in an accident, especially if she were pregnant. Also the rear seat passenger only scored acceptable for head protection. I'm sorry but for me if I had 2 kids, acceptable just wouldn't cut it for head protection for my children. Needless to say you have to be really careful with the IIHS ratings. They will rate a car good, even though it has some bad scores for things like head and pelvis protecion. I know not everyone is as extreme as me, but it's good to at least have the info. here is the we address of the details of the subaru crash test. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=253 Rod
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Honda CR-V Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda CR-V
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
