You are here: Forums SUVs Toyota RAV4 RAV4 v Outlander v Vitara - and the winner is...

RAV4 v Outlander v Vitara - and the winner is...

26 messages,  Last post on May 15, 2007 at 9:27 PM

You are in the Toyota RAV4 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Toyota RAV4, Mitsubishi Outlander, Suzuki Grand Vitara, SUV

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#17 of 26 My comparison by bearishly4u Mar 06, 2007 (6:36 pm)
I went with the Outlander over the GV for 3 reasons. 1. Roomier (for me) 2. Since I wasn't getting awd or 4wd...fwd was a better choice than rwd and 3. Power (the primary reason I was trading anyway).
#18 of 26 Re: Moot points for me. [piast] by xostnot Mar 06, 2007 (8:10 pm)
Replying to: piast (Mar 06, 2007 7:28 am) Outlander forum? Hm, this is posted in the Grand Vitara forum. Otherwise, I'd have little reason to find it.   "Rear door mounted tire, underpowered, rough "old school" engine with bad fuel economy and small cargo space are the only things I don't like about GV."   Overall I don't mind the spare on the rear door. Very convenient, and the spare makes a good place to mount a bike rack. (Swings out of the way, with bikes.) The only things I don't like about the hatch are that it can't act as a rain shelter, and the hatch glass doesn't open.   I'm not into the horsepower race, so if I'd wanted a dragster or sportscar, I'd have bought a dragster or sportscar. The engine is noisy when pressed, but I don't often drive it that way. I can and will be adding sound insulation. I don't recall such an indictment of this engine when it was in the XL-7.   Real world fuel economy has been shown to be about the same as rival vehicles, despite the poor and very questionable epa numbers (which are submitted by the manufacturers, btw). The GV's mileage is actually very good when you consider it's always in 4wd, has the weight of a heavier drivetrain and substructure to haul around, and revs higher on the highway.   I thought the cargo space would be a problem, but somehow the very low floor (because there's no spare underneath) means it eats up a lot of stuff before you pile things as high as the seatbacks. We put as much in it as we used to carry in a similar vehicle with 6 cu ft more cargo volume. I don't know why this is so.   "I don't see Outlander with 4wd lock having any problems in those condition"   And we do take the GV to its limits (carefully) offroad. As was suggested, an automatic will suffice for a low range in many situations, but not on disused logging roads up into the mountains in my part of the world. Otherwise, no 4x4 with an automatic would have a low range. Creeping downhill several thousand vertical feet is done with engine braking, rather than destroying the brakes.   "This is the all-new X-Trail I'm talking about"   I like the X-Trail, and was planning to get one. We held off to see if the GV would retain the low range, and when it did, the choice was made for us. The Qashqai(sp) looks like an entirely new vehicle, while the "Geneva" X-Trail seems to be a styling update of the present X-Trail.   As it stands, the GV addresses a niche market, and is at a disadvantage in direct competition with the other cuv's. If Suzuki were to put out a GV model with certain features, it could take sales away from the other cuv's. Those changes: soften the suspension, add 100lb of soundproofing, optional turbo for the V6, lightened drivetrain to go along with no low range and normal use in 2wd, thinner "frame", and power front seats. The new XL7 is supposed to fill this role, but to me, it's too much like a minivan rather than an suv. I'd also like to see an offroad GV with factory raised suspension and skidplates.   It's fair to add that if the new version Xterra had just been modernized, and not a bump up in size and cost over the previous one, we likely would have gotten an Xterra. As it is, it's just too big and too thirsty for our needs. Replies to this message: dodo2 (Mar 07, 2007 8:08 am) steve_ (Mar 07, 2007 8:40 am)
#19 of 26 Im still for the Outalnder by rcpax Mar 07, 2007 (7:58 am)
And we do take the GV to its limits (carefully) offroad. As was suggested, an automatic will suffice for a low range in many situations, but not on disused logging roads up into the mountains in my part of the world. Otherwise, no 4x4 with an automatic would have a low range. Creeping downhill several thousand vertical feet is done with engine braking, rather than destroying the brakes.   If I would need a vehicle in that application I would have bought a Pajero. I would imagine however that perhaps I can try my Outlander in that scenario using 4WD Lock, in manual mode. OUtlander is not automatic but Sportronic. So I still get to do manual shifting if I want to. Replies to this message: xostnot (Mar 07, 2007 9:02 pm) growwise (Mar 08, 2007 7:20 pm) xostnot (Mar 08, 2007 9:29 pm)
#20 of 26 Re: Moot points for me. [xostnot] by dodo2 Mar 07, 2007 (8:08 am)
Replying to: xostnot (Mar 06, 2007 8:10 pm) Outlander forum? Hm, this is posted in the Grand Vitara forum. Otherwise, I'd have little reason to find it.   Sorry, my bad. I just realized that this thread is shared by RAV4, GV and Outlander discussions, which makes sense. Replies to this message: steve_ (Mar 07, 2007 8:40 am)
#21 of 26 Re: Moot points for me. [dodo2] by steve_ HOST Mar 07, 2007 (8:40 am)
Replying to: dodo2 (Mar 07, 2007 8:08 am) This discussion was categorized for all 3 makes, but the linking was just, ahem , updated for all 3 forum groups, so that's probably why you didn't pick up on it before.
#22 of 26 Re: Im still for the Outalnder [rcpax] by xostnot Mar 07, 2007 (9:02 pm)
Replying to: rcpax (Mar 07, 2007 7:58 am) Being able to manually shift an automatic is different from the value of a low range. You can manually shift any automatic, as far as I know. I think the main thing different in some cases for ones specifically marketed as being manually shiftable, is that they'd have a lever position for every gear. Whereas that is usually or often not the case for ones not promoted as manually shiftable.   The GV does not sport a manual mode, but can be shifted manually. I do so all the time. It does not have a position for 2nd gear, but I've found that at the right speed, with just a touch of throttle, it will remain in 2nd for engine braking down hills at a certain speed. It will happily engine brake downhill in 5th, 4th, 3rd and 1st gear in either range.   We frequently encounter situations that are so steep and rough (or slippery) downhill, that engine braking in 1st gear high range, manual or automatic transmission, is too fast. When I used to do this with a car that lacked a low range, I'd have to use the brakes to keep the speed down. But doing this over, say, half an hour, will overheat the brakes.   In fact, below a certain speed, the engine is also working against the brakes. If you want to check this, next time you're braking to a stop, shift into neutral when you're down to a walking speed. The vehicle will brake sharply because the extra push from the engine is gone.   So, if it's steep enough, and prolonged enough, and rough enough, only a low range will give you the engine braking you need to save the brakes. Creeping up the same places in 1st gear high range isn't doing the transmission any good either. Sort of like trailer towing, only much worse.   The combination of these things is exactly why low ranges exist at all, and beyond casual off road use it gives the GV an edge over the other cuv's. Just because the GV is not as capable offroad as an FJ, does not mean it is no more capable than an Outlander. It's also a lot easier to add a lift kit to a GV than a low range to an Outlander, if someone wanted to move up that scale. I agree entirely that very damn few people buying cuv's need a low range. Replies to this message: growwise (Mar 08, 2007 7:20 pm) xostnot (Mar 08, 2007 9:29 pm)
#23 of 26 Re: Im still for the Outalnder [xostnot] by growwise Mar 08, 2007 (7:20 pm)
Replying to: xostnot (Mar 07, 2007 9:02 pm) I agree entirely that very damn few people buying cuv's need a low range.   I think you just about summed it up right. I do like GV though. Its a nice truck but doesnt work well for everyone. For me, its drawbacks include short cargo space, thirsty v6 and no third row kids seat option. Replies to this message: xostnot (Mar 08, 2007 9:29 pm)
#24 of 26 Re: Im still for the Outalnder [growwise] by xostnot Mar 08, 2007 (9:29 pm)
Replying to: growwise (Mar 08, 2007 7:20 pm) Good point. The volume of the cargo area has turned out fine for us, but the length is a problem. A common thing like skis don't go in properly. Sleep in it? Dream on. It should have had any two of: fold-flat front passenger seat, removable back seats, or opening tailgate glass. But then, it's evolved from a much smaller vehicle, and it's cheaper than a Lexus.   I still don't think the engine is inefficient. Real world mileage is indistinguishable from other cuv's, and the GV has the handicaps I mentioned earlier. I don't list the engine as one of those handicaps.   Overall, the Outlander (or Santa Fe, or 3rd row Rav4) sound like they much better meet your needs.
#25 of 26 GV - best all around by pisulino Mar 10, 2007 (8:11 am)
GV best all around small SUV - Price and standard options. Compared and test drove all of them for seven months. Purchased the GV luxury with all the toppings including anchovies for 8k less than a CRV or RAV-4. I never been more happy with the choice.
#26 of 26 from the fleet by steve_ HOST May 15, 2007 (9:27 pm)
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Toyota RAV4

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums SUVs Suzuki Grand Vitara/Vitara RAV4 v Outlander v Vitara - and the winner is...