Sign In Join 



Crossover SUV Comparison

7127 messages,  Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM

You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? GMC Acadia, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV


Messages Page 676 of 714
1
...
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
...
714
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#6746 of 7127
Re: rav4 or nissan rogue? [ateixeira] by elizabeth15
Aug 31, 2008 (7:40 pm)
Reply

Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 4:53 pm)

Great suggestion. Did you get the 2009? It looks like the MSRP on the XT is about the same as the base 6 cyl Rav4. The Subaru mileage isn't as good though. I'll investigate a lease and keep you posted.
...and the square cup holders is beyond idiotic.
#6747 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [azerafan] by coldcranker
Sep 01, 2008 (4:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: azerafan (Aug 31, 2008 5:53 pm)

azerafan says: "OK, between the 2008 Santa Fe, 2008 Rav 4 and 2009 Subaru Forester, can anyone suggest pros and cons for all 3? "
 
I'd go for the Rav4 if you want the excellent, high fuel economy, 3.5L V6 with 6-speed automatic, since it has great acceleration and smoothness. If you go 4-cylinder, the Subaru is my choice. There is one thing about the SantaFe that is great: its long warranty period. All good choices, so just get the one that is most economically sensible to you, the cheapest.
#6748 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [coldcranker] by volkov
Sep 02, 2008 (9:39 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 01, 2008 4:18 pm)

I'd go for the Rav4 if you want the excellent, high fuel economy, 3.5L V6 with 6-speed automatic, since it has great acceleration and smoothness. If you go 4-cylinder, the Subaru is my choice.
 
I don't see the big mileage difference
Forester X gets 20/26
Rav4 - 6 gets 19/26
Forester XT 19/24
 
Seems a dead heat really unless you are driving very high mileage. There is no doubt that the V6 and 5EAT in the Toyo are a very smooth combination. If it is only about FE and you don't need AWD then the FWD Rav becomes an even better option. If you really need AWD the Subaru set-up is much smoother in loose traction than the Rav.
Another thing to consider is the Rav's swing gate. Will you be doing much loading of the trunk while parallel parked? If so, I'd avoid it like the plague. Not such a big deal if you are always in a parking lot situation, but it is still heavy, and my boys couldn't reliably close it. We know folks who own the Rav and love the vehicle with the exception of the hatch.
#6749 of 7127
Re: rav4 or nissan rogue? [elizabeth15] by ateixeira
Sep 02, 2008 (10:39 am)
Reply

Replying to: elizabeth15 (Aug 31, 2008 7:40 pm)

Yes, we got a 2009 Limited PZEV, which makes 175hp. EPA says 20/26 mpg but we're getting *much* better than that, more like 22-25 around town and 27-30+ highway.
 
Square front cup holders are very dumb but the vehicle has given me several pleasant surprises:
 
* mileage better than expected
* throttle/engine is responsive with no lag at all
* LED lighting in center bin, console, and even rear cup holders
* both lights and radio fade out rather than cutting off abruptly
* cruise control says "cruise" and "cruise set" so no guessing
* fade the dash lights and the trip computer and radio also fade, nice
* steering wheel has all audio and cruise buttons, even a mute button
* hood struts lift the hood for you
 
We liked it when we bought it but since then every week or so I discover one new feature that I like that I didn't even know about.
 
Dislikes:
 
1. square cup holders are made for another planet, where drinks come in square cups.
 
2. passenger seat is too low, basically matches the driver's seat at the very lowest setting.
 
3. It's not mine. It's my wife's.
 
I'd ask for a 5th ratio but to be brutally honest this transmissions is actually better then the 5EAT in our Sienna, which is the same powertrain the RAV4 gets.
 
Subaru is now selling a diesel Forester in europe with a 6 speed manual - sweeeet!
#6750 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [azerafan] by ateixeira
Sep 02, 2008 (10:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: azerafan (Aug 31, 2008 5:53 pm)

I think those are 3 good choices, each with pros and cons.
 
All the Santa Fe needs is a more fuel efficient drivetrain and it would have made my short list for sure. For us gas mileage was high on our list and that knocked it out, but there's not much else to complain about. Warranty is a plus. In Brazil Hyundai sells these for more than $90,000 USD and people happily pay that much, so it's a great value with USA pricing. Just get a gas card that has rebates.
 
The RAV4 has arguably the best powertrain, at least on paper. I like the 2GR-FE engine enough that I bought a Sienna with that mill. The transmission is only good, though, not great, with no manual controls. I found visibility was poor while backing up. You can get one without the spare on the tailgate, but that forces in to the miserable Run Flats that give Sienna owners nightmares. Plus - that tail gate still opens the wrong way, blocking any curb side loading. This is pure cost cutting because it's the correct way in their home market. Best engine but I was shopping for a complete vehicle, not just a great V6.
 
Forester was our choice. Right away people will say the 4EAT is a con, but honestly, it's better than our Sienna's automatic, plus SportShift gives you manual control. It is smaller than the Santa Fe and RAV4. Visibility is best in class, and so is mileage for the 4 banger. The XT is very quick but prefers premium fuel, and while it's technically not required I think you should just get the base engine if you really want a low fuel bill. PZEV is an option and you gain 5hp, plus you can actually still get a manual transmission, the only 1 of the 3 that offers one, with the base engine.
 
Bottom line - I felt the Forester is the best compact crossover, period. RAV4 and Santa Fe both try to act big, or at least mid-sized, offering tiny little 3rd rows, but in all honestly if you really need 3 rows you'll be better served by the bigger crossovers often discussed here (CX9, Lambdas, etc.)
#6751 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [volkov] by coldcranker
Sep 02, 2008 (11:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: volkov (Sep 02, 2008 9:39 am)

volkov said: "I don't see the big mileage difference
Forester X gets 20/26
Rav4 - 6 gets 19/26
Forester XT 19/24 "

 
The point is that you get the fuel economy with the performance in the V6 Rav4. Getting a 4-banger in the sluggish Forrester makes you feel cheated on fuel economy compared to the V6 Rav4.
#6752 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [coldcranker] by ateixeira
Sep 02, 2008 (11:28 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 02, 2008 11:13 am)

We own a 4 banger Forester (one "r" BTW) and it doesn't feel sluggish at all. It's not fast but actually it's pretty responsive to throttle inputs in normal driving conditions.
 
The RAV4 V6 will have plenty of reserve power, so if the buyer plans to haul a big payload or tow a trailer, it will be the better choice.
 
We have that exact same V6 in our van.
#6753 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [ateixeira] by coldcranker
Sep 02, 2008 (11:33 am)
Reply

Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 02, 2008 11:28 am)

For people who like 0-60 in 6.5 sec, the Rav4 V6 is a fun rocket ship. "Adequate" power is just not good enough for some folks. I like the Rav4 V6 because it sips fuel and drag races like a sports car. The Forester sips fuel about the same, and is not very fast. Also, 4-bangers are not as smoothe.
#6754 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [coldcranker] by ateixeira
Sep 02, 2008 (11:43 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 02, 2008 11:33 am)

Best engine, no doubt. That V6 is both quick and efficient. Amazing. You're preaching to the choir, here. That is what led me to my Sienna.
 
It's other parts of the vehicle that I had issues with.
 
Poor rear visibility. Look at the massive D-pillar, and high rear window.
 
Wrong-way rear gate blocks the curb (duh!).
 
Spare on the rear blocks the view even more, and even for 2009 to get rid of those you have to accept an even bigger problem - run-flats. This poor guy is the latest victim:
 
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ee93e3c/8568
 
The RAV4's interior is also half a step behind the others in its class, and well behind the Sienna IMHO.
 
Plus when you evaluate the handling, body roll, AWD system, etc, that's where Subaru really wins.
 
Who was it, Lotus? One of those exotic brands is building a new car and they are using the 2GR-FE V6 engine. That's no surprise. In the RAV4, it's a great engine looking for a better host vehicle.
#6755 of 7127
Re: Another Comparison [ateixeira] by coldcranker
Sep 02, 2008 (12:24 pm)
Reply

Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 02, 2008 11:43 am)

About the Rav4 not having the best handling, I wonder if Toyota is really deficient in that area in multiple models. I rented an Avalon with the Rav4's 3.5L V6 engine for a few days about a year ago. It was very fast. However, the steering felt loose, and body roll might have been a little excessive. I've read some magazines discussing the deficient handling/steering feel of the Camry and Sienna as well.

Messages Page 676 of 714
1
...
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
...
714
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement