Ask the Car People.SM


Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?

782 messages,  Last post on Feb 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM

You are in the Honda CR-V Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forester, SUV

Messages Page 3 of 79

#13 of 782 Re: Honda CRV, Toyota Rav 4 or Subaru Forester? [pogs2006] by kumari

Feb 04, 2006 (1:05 am)

Replying to: pogs2006 (Feb 02, 2006 10:57 am)
I cross-test-drove all three of these cars and decided on the Forester XT Limited which comes with a special dark interior, leather seats and the GIGANTIC sunroof (it's practically a convertible!). It also has that extra turbo power for maneuvering out of tight spots when necessary. I was reallly planning on buying a Honda CRV, but thought it was cheaply appointed (especially that tacky fold-down cup-holder "thing" between the two front seats) and drove like a tin can on wheels, but I guess it depends what you're used to. Hated it. I personally thought that the RAV-4 was a much nicer car and it also came with a special dark interior if you get the sport version. Those light-colored carpets and velour seats can get pretty filthy pretty fast with kids and dogs in the car. Someone in a parking lot was showing me her Toyota and it was absolutely filthy inside for a two year old car!
 
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

#14 of 782 CR-V vs. Forester by blueiedgod

Feb 06, 2006 (6:31 am)

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.

#15 of 782 Re: CR-V vs. Forester [blueiedgod] by thecat

Feb 06, 2006 (7:51 am)

Replying to: blueiedgod (Feb 06, 2006 6:31 am)
Maybe if you had done your homework you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. You're comparing apples and oranges. The boxer engine is inherently well balanced and smooth. Turbo charged engines (like the XT) however typically run a little rough at idle. Subaru uses a "tumble generator" to help deal with this problem. It does improve the idle issue but doesn't eliminate it. You can't have everything. Getting 260 hp out of a 2.5 liter engine is pretty impressive. If you had checked out the non turbo version you would have found a very smooth idle + more hp than the honda.

#16 of 782 Re: CR-V vs. Forester [thecat] by stevedebi

Feb 06, 2006 (11:34 am)

Replying to: thecat (Feb 06, 2006 7:51 am)
"Maybe if you had done your homework you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. "
 
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.

#17 of 782 how do I get to the prices paid section for a RAV4? by leo12

Feb 06, 2006 (9:08 pm)

thank you

#18 of 782 Re: how do I get to the prices paid section for a RAV4? [leo12] by steve_ HOST

Feb 06, 2006 (9:58 pm)

Replying to: leo12 (Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm)
Here's the link:
 
Toyota RAV4: Prices Paid & Buying Experience
 
Steve, Host

#19 of 782 Re: CR-V vs. Forester [stevedebi] by kumari

Feb 07, 2006 (12:38 am)

Replying to: stevedebi (Feb 06, 2006 11:34 am)
Thank you for explaining a possible reason for that fold-down tray in between the front seats in the CRV! I truly could not think of a reason for it and just thought it looked so cheesy, plus if one of my dogs jumped on it, it would break immediately! The Highlander is a more expensive car, but you can find nice used ones and the Toyota used car warranty is exceptional. Personally I don't buy new cars unless I absolutely have to - A used auto trans Forester XT Limited is impossible to find - I've been looking for over two months now.
 
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

#20 of 782 Wrong Safety Info by musictaps

Feb 07, 2006 (3:06 am)

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

#21 of 782 Re: CR-V vs. Forester [thecat] by blueiedgod

Feb 07, 2006 (6:08 am)

Replying to: thecat (Feb 06, 2006 7:51 am)
Maybe if you had done your homework you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. You're comparing apples and oranges. The boxer engine is inherently well balanced and smooth. Turbo charged engines (like the XT) however typically run a little rough at idle. Subaru uses a "tumble generator" to help deal with this problem. It does improve the idle issue but doesn't eliminate it. You can't have everything. Getting 260 hp out of a 2.5 liter engine is pretty impressive. If you had checked out the non turbo version you would have found a very smooth idle + more hp than the honda.
 
I did test drive the non-turbo version, and it had the same vibrations transferring through the shifter and the steering column. It was OK at idle, but it got worse as the RPM's went up. But, if I were getting the Forester, I would have gotten the turbo version, because power is addicting.
 
As a matter of fact, I drove the Impreza as well, and it had the same engine vibration. Someone driving automatic may not notice it as they don't grab the shifter as often as someone who shifts his own gears, but at the end of the test drive my right hand felt like it was resting on a vibrating massaging chair. You know you get that feeling of numbness and such. I know I should not be resting my hand on the shifter, but.... ahhh... I like to be connected? lol.

#22 of 782 For the safety fans by varmint

Feb 07, 2006 (10:04 am)

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=58&type=s

Messages Page 3 of 79

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement