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 was in the car market very recently looking at both the Honda and Toyota. I wound-up ordering an 06 Rav4 I4 4x2 Limited with airbags, moonroof, upgraded stereo, and daytime running lights. Here's why I chose the Rav: I needed a vehicle with high reliability, good gas mileage, extra storage and the ability to tow if needed. Both CR-V and Rav have these qualities and have the features that were important to me: alloy wheels, moonroof, tilt-telescopic steering wheel, at least 6 speakers, audio controls on steering wheel, airbags, and a 1500lb towing capacity with the I4. What the CR-v has going for it is that most of those features are standard on the EX, but the Rav 1-up's it in a few catagories. The Rav has more cargo room, in part thanx to it's fold flat seats, rather than CR-V's tumble seats. The Rav has more power, better fuel efficiency, and a larger gas tank. This is very important to me, seeing as how I drive 600 miles a week. Yes, the CR-V has a 5-speed auto trans, but my test drive of the Rav had me doing 80mph at only 2800rpm; only 200rpm more than my 04 Accord I4 with a 5-speed auto. Then there's the looks: The only pretty CR-V is the Special Edition, with it's painted bumpers and hard-cover spare. Both the EX and SE force you to get AWD with the poorer gas mileage. All trims of Rav have painted bumpers and at least a half hard-cover spare. Yes, Toyota forces you to buy options and packages to get the CR-V and Rav4 on a level playing field, but I was able to get the Rav with all the options I wanted at 900 under msrp quite easily, even though quantities are limited right now. | |
|
|
|
We were just in the same decision process. We eliminated the Honda because of the safety/rollover issue. I wanted the RAV4, until we sat in the rear seats. Not the third row, which is unusable, but the second row. They are flat uncomfortable, and would be torture on any trip. The Forester is comfortable, quick, and safe. It has full-time AWD, which neither the Honda nor the Toyota have. We need a snow car, and that gives Forester the edge. Plus, heated windshield wipers and heated mirrors. You won't believe how convenient the heated wipers are when you have bad weather. |
|
|
Replying to: pogs2006 (Feb 02, 2006 9:57 am) |
|
|
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
|
|
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
