Last post on Oct 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM
You are in the SUVs
What is this discussion about?
GMC Acadia, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV
#6933 of 7355 Re: RAV4 v. CRV v. Forester Post Test-Drives [vanman1]
Aug 03, 2009 (7:33 am)
Actually, Toyota built a brand-new plant in Woodstock, Ontario for the RAV4. The Cambridge plant is in a different city and assembles the Corolla, Matrix and RX350.
They've been building RAV4s in Woodstock since November of last year and are having trouble keeping up with Canadian demand for the vehicle, since it's been a hot seller in 2009. I don't know how much production makes it to the US, however - could depend on where in the US you're looking.
Short answer to the original question: yes, the RAV4 is built in North America but as you've already found, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily be able to find one on a lot near you.
#6934 of 7355 Re: SUV comparisons [vanman1]
Aug 03, 2009 (8:32 am)
I think they want to get the attention of Ford Hybrid lookers. People think hybrids get better mileage than regular SUVs but that really only applies in the city. Hybrid highway mileage is usually very similar to non-hybrid models so if that's where you drive a lot, chances are you can save a bundle and get a Equinox instead.
I totally agree with you there. However the print and TV ads don't really state it that way and if you aren't paying attention to the fine print at the bottom you just might be mislead. They do a little play on words that is clever and I give them credit for it, but it can be very misleading.
After I typed that post I found out about the stupid "Eco" button you have to push to get from 31 MPG hwy to 32 MPG hwy. Don't think they mentioned that in the ads either. I still don't totally understand the purpose of that stupid button and I've given up trying to find out about it. I just hope Ford doesn't follow along with Honda, Toyota, and now GM by putting these stupid "Eco" modes in their FE fighters any time soon. They seem like a waste of engineering time and money to me. If you are going to make an FE fighter, whether it be gas or battery powered, then just leave it at that. Don't try to make it normal AND fuel efficient at the push of a button for cripes sake!
#6935 of 7355 Re: SUV comparisons [baggs32]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Aug 03, 2009 (8:39 am)
The Prius has an Eco button too. I couldn't tell much difference on the short test drive I took in one a month ago. It's not as bad as the EV button though - that lets you run on battery power alone. For a full half mile.
#6936 of 7355 Cheap interiors - par for the compact crossover class?
Aug 03, 2009 (12:38 pm)
I guess the one thing that is surprising me about some of the comments here is that these interiors are nicer than some of their competitors. I didn't see it, and I was looking for it.
At the car shows I tend to focus on small crossovers, and you could argue they all have "cheap" interiors now. CR-V, RAV4, Forester, Outlander - all have cardboard headliners with dryer lint coverings. The days of padded headliners with perforated cloth liners, in this price class, seem to have passed.
Same for padded plastics on the dash - all have hard surfaces pretty much everywhere. You might see small variations in texture or color, but nearly all the surfaces are hard plastic.
Am I missing something? Does the RAV4 Limited get better materials than the more basic models? I sit in a RAV4 at every car show I go to, at least one or two per year, and it just doesn't match the interior quality of my Sienna, which itself isn't exactly premium, merely "average". Actually I sort of feel like its interior is among the cheaper designs. Adventurous, sure, but not upscale.
I was in NY for the auto show in April and the CR-V also gets the same cheap peach-fuzz-over-cardboard headliner. Looks like they spent 8 cents on the whole thing. Same exact thing for the Outlander.
Are we focusing on different things? I look at things like the headliner, the A-pillar, the dash, and it's pretty much universal for this class - all cheap and hard surfaces.
Ironically I think the Forester actually does better than average, especially the elbow rests - it definitely has more padding for the elbows on the doors (all 4 also), at least, for its class. Also, the texture of the plastic on the A-pillars is nicely done and matches the rest of the interior, a detail you don't get with most competitors.
My wife got the moonroof, so at least you don't see much of that cheap peach-fuzz headliner, and the perforated leather is actually quite nice, with 4 or 5 settings for the also nice heated seats. A couple of subtle blue LED lights glow over the center console, something you probably won't notice the first time you drive it.
We've owned it for a little over a year and my wife simple adores her Forester, so no regrets here. Try the 175hp PZEV model. It's light so that's adequate among the fuel sippers in this class, only the heavier RAV4 has more base power in a 4 banger and it's heavier.
The OB is nicer but we've not been wanting for more plush, to be honest. Honda left room above the CR-V for the Acura RD-X, and Toyota has approximately 17 SUVs positioned above the RAV4, too.
To be fair, I do have complaints about the Forester, may as well air them out. The cup holders are square. Hello? And the passenger seat is mounted too low, so add a height adjustment or just mount it 2" higher.
I even sat in a VW Tiguan and didn't really see the premium interior VWs are supposed to have. Peach fuzz headliner? You bet. Again they left room for the Audi Q5.
#6938 of 7355 2009 RAV4 versus CR-V...tough choice for us...
Aug 03, 2009 (8:25 pm)
We are debating between the:
2009 RAV4 I4 2WD with:
Base Value Package
2009 CR-V LX 2WD
I probably like the CR-V slightly more overall, but unless we upgrade to a EX we can't get a factory security system installed, and there are no third-row seats, which is a big plus for our young but growing family.
Taking the security system and 3rd-row seats out of the equation, which should we choose?
#6939 of 7355 Consumer Reports reliability ratings: SUVs
Aug 03, 2009 (8:30 pm)
Consumer Reports reliability ratings: no surprises though: Toyota, Honda, Acura, Lexus on top. European and American SUVs - on the bottom.
#6940 of 7355 Re: 2009 RAV4 versus CR-V...tough choice for us... [serving4king]
Aug 04, 2009 (6:07 am)
The answer is simple - choose the one that you prefer.
You'll get plenty of opinions here, but the one that really matters is yours. You should be happy with your purchase, not get something that impresses others.
Buy the one that brings the bigger smile to your face.
Truth is they're pretty similar overall.
#6941 of 7355 Re: Consumer Reports reliability ratings: SUVs [chelentano]
Aug 04, 2009 (9:49 am)
Nice chart. God help the person choosing between a SRX and a Tourareg...
#6942 of 7355 6-speeds and direct injection: American makes
Aug 04, 2009 (12:50 pm)
The thing I find puzzling is why GM puts 6-speed automatics in their Equinox/Terrain/Acadia/Enclave/Outlooks, with direct injection, and the Japanese makes haven't bothered with either advancement. For Pete's sake, Subaru was putting a 4-speed automatic in their 2009 Forester (I think the '10 model has finally caught up), and Toyota/Honda appear to be stuck in the 4-speed or 5-speed-if-you're-lucky world. At least Nissan has wised up and usually offers a CVT. Subaru/Honda/Toyota are pathetic. In addition to GM, Ford has managed to put in 6-speed automatics across the line now. When will those Japanese makes catch up? The only reason I can think of why Sub/Hon/Toy has lagged behind the competition in this area is that they think the consumer is stupid and won't understand the performance benefits of 6-speeds and direct injection.