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 76 of 79

#743 of 782 Re: Sluggishness [ateixeira] by bodble2

Jan 09, 2009 (6:25 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 09, 2009 12:48 pm)
"I actually wanted something bigger"
 
Did you consider the Highlander? That would be essentially a bigger RAV4, without going all the way to a minivan. And you could also have one hybrid with the Highlander.

#744 of 782 Re: Sluggishness [driverboy] by enoli

Jan 09, 2009 (10:28 pm)

Replying to: driverboy (Jun 28, 2006 10:13 pm)
just bought a 09 rav4. went to dealer with subaru and toyotas. drove both forester and rav4 in spokane with a fresh coat of 8' of snow on top of all the other snow and the worst snow conditions in 20 + years. Either vehicle would do you well in the snow. I felt the rav4 performed better. The traction control device works well and the locking 4 wheel drive feature is good when needed. I felt at times the foresters rearend slid out a little more when cornering (tracked 8" powder). we live 40 miles north of spokane in the mountains and our driveway is more than anyone on this forum would dare tackle in the winter. The rav4 climbed up our steep driveway with the undercarage dragging in 10" of snow straight from the dealers.
 
Compare the interior look of the forester and rav4 and the forester looks cheaper. lighter thinner material and not as comfortable. good luck. forester or rav4 are both good.

#745 of 782 Re: Sluggishness [bodble2] by ateixeira

Jan 12, 2009 (11:24 am)

Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 09, 2009 6:25 pm)
Yeah, I did. The 3rd row didn't split fold, and it didn't really stand out to me. I also drove a CX9 and a Tribeca.
 
Not to mention, the Sienna is cheaper and much bigger than the HL. So you get more for less $, much better value.
 
The fact that minivans' image is bad helped me tremendously - you get great deals on them.

#746 of 782 Re: CR-V / Forester [ateixeira] by kurtamaxxxguy

Jan 17, 2009 (1:18 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2008 1:00 pm)
Some of the impact harshness comes from the Geolander tires (the Outback's Bridgestones are worse). Switching to all season winter-rated Nokians on my '09 Forester reduced the impact harshness considerably.
 
Some reviewers say the XT leans a lot in turns. I've found it less of a leaner than the Outback XT or my former Malibu Maxx. Still, a vehicle sitting that high off the ground is going to lean more than something close to the road!
 
As for the topic here:
I tried all 3 vehicles.
The CR-V had a nice interior but was sluggish for passing. My experience with an Accord "lemon" and attorney comments that Honda remains a nightmare wrt lemons was final turnoff.
The RAV4 V6 was peppy and has the highest fuel efficiency, but felt front heavy and made lots of noise on Oregons' badly worn freeways. The rear end door was clumsy, and its AWD system raised some doubts.
The '09 Forester XT seemed a good compromise of the three and has proven very capable in bad weather, though I now wish Subaru had used better plastics and more durable paint inside.

#747 of 782 by rengaw

Feb 06, 2009 (8:15 pm)

Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Jan 17, 2009 1:18 pm)
My wife and I got it down to the Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4 (4 cyl), Hyundai Sante Fe. We didn't care for the Honda CRV's looks.
 
We mapped out a half-hour course of 4 lane highway driving, twisty roads, hill climbs and drove each vehicle an hour apart with no salesmen on board. We split the driving.
 
We were quite surprised how different each vehicle was to drive. It was hard to say a bad thing against any of them. But in the final analysis we both, without a doubt, liked the RAV4 the best. The RAV had the most road noise and some would say the roughest ride, but we both preferred the RAV ride to the other vehicles and thought it handled the best.
 
We were surprised that the RAV 2.5 I4 motor at 179hp seemed much peppier than the 175 hp Forester. The 2009 2.5 I4 has added 13 hp over the previous year while getting 12.8% improvement in fuel economy. Funny thing though, Toyota not only reworked the I4 motor for 2009 but also the auto tranny too was done over and Toyota decided to stay with the 4 speed auto. You read alot of criticism about the 4 speed autos on both Subaru and Toyota forums but the new RAV 2.5 I4 with the 4 speed auto tranny gets a couple miles per gallon better than the CRV with the 5 speed. Go figure.
 
Of course, now that my wife and I have decided to purchase the RAV, there is the temptation to go with the V6 motor which gets close to the I4 in highway miles and has 90 more horsepower.

#748 of 782 Re: [rengaw] by bodble2

Feb 07, 2009 (12:16 pm)

Replying to: rengaw (Feb 06, 2009 8:15 pm)
I have had plenty of wheel-time with rental Corollas and RAV4, and have always been impressed with the amount of usable power that Toyota manages to wring out of its 4-cyl engines, especially with the Corolla.

#749 of 782 Re: [rengaw] by redrose1

Feb 07, 2009 (5:48 pm)

Replying to: rengaw (Feb 06, 2009 8:15 pm)
We have the same list but we also have the Venza on ours - I am so interested in your comments - what did you think about the Santa fe? I am concerned it is too high - I prefer sitting lower and like a lower center of gravity. I too liked the Rav, but am concerned about the rear door opening and the fact that it does not have a rear bumper - if you get hit from behind...
 
Please let us know your feelings!

#750 of 782 Re: [redrose1] by rengaw

Feb 08, 2009 (1:52 am)

Replying to: redrose1 (Feb 07, 2009 5:48 pm)
On the straight somewhat smooth highway, the Sante Fe rode quite nice, a cruiser of sorts. On the curvy undulating roads, I was uncomfortable with how the suspension controlled the ride. The RAV was the opposite. Handled real well in the curves and was a little stiff and noisy on the straights.
 
A side note. Since we have decided on the RAV, our next process of decision making involves the engine we want....the 2.5 I4 or the 3.5 V6. We had driven the I4 twice, so today we wanted to try the V6. We will possibly do a little towing with our RAV and we drive alot in the Cascade and Olympic mountains.
 
My wife, who is no sissy to power, drove the first leg of our run with the V6. Then I took over and on a straight stretch I punched it a bit and my wife started screaming. It was quite a surprise to both of us. My wife, the MPG freak, sat quietly for a few moments and then said, "I love this RAV with the V6." I liked both the V6 and the I4. So I am going again and drive both RAV's one more time and do some thinking.

#751 of 782 Re: [rengaw] by bigdadi118

Feb 08, 2009 (2:19 pm)

Replying to: rengaw (Feb 08, 2009 1:52 am)
thr RAV4 V6 is a bullet... didn't consume much gas either.

#752 of 782 Re: [rengaw] by ateixeira

Feb 09, 2009 (11:09 am)

Replying to: rengaw (Feb 08, 2009 1:52 am)
The 2GR V6 is a great engine, I have the same one in my Sienna.
 
Getting the V6 also gets you a 5 speed auto, but I'm not sure you'll like the transmission as much as you liked the 4 speed auto in the 4 banger, because it hesitates and lags a bit.
 
I'm glad they updated the 4 banger because the V6 sort of made the prior 4 cylinder moot.

Messages Page 76 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