Last post on Sep 19, 2007 at 7:05 AM
You are in the Subaru B9 Tribeca
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-7, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Car Comparisons, SUV
#224 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [ateixeira]
Sep 14, 2007 (1:00 pm)
...but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.
Or the back end unless you are into big booty.
#225 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [maltb]
Sep 14, 2007 (1:05 pm)
He'd like it:
#226 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [ateixeira]
Sep 14, 2007 (2:02 pm)
The only really good thing about the RAV4 is the V6. It definitely feels faster than my Outlander.
But everything else was better with the Outlander...exterior styling, interior styling, Nav, stereo, 6 speed, warranty, price.
The Outlander has enough power to satisfy my needs, so I chose it over the RAV4.
#227 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [ateixeira]
Sep 14, 2007 (4:40 pm)
Without the engine, the RAV4 sort of falls flat, but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.
I could not agree with you more.
#228 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [ateixeira]
Sep 14, 2007 (6:40 pm)
>> The average Joe will test drive these and can't feel the difference of 2 feet in braking from 60.
2 feet will make a big difference in an average Joe's collision
#230 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [chelentano]
Sep 17, 2007 (10:05 am)
Hee hee, funny, but that's something for the insurance companies to worry about.
It might affect safety is the stopping distances were a lot longer, but a 2ft variance is probably within the margin of error for that test, i.e. not a significant difference.
#231 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [ateixeira]
Sep 17, 2007 (11:06 am)
It seems like many people, including myself, agree that the engine is the only thing that stands out in the RAV4. Is this enough to consider RAV4 the "benchmark" or "the best in class"? Personally, I don't think so.
#232 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [dodo2]
Sep 17, 2007 (11:19 am)
Before I bought the CX-7 and a Santa Fe, I had the 2004 RAV4. What I liked about it was that it was compact, rugged. A might mite, if you will. I drive on the streets in DC and it's a snap to zip in and around traffic and finding a parking spot can be problem, but not for the RAV4!
Granted the swing gate can be a detriment, but you compensate for it and learn to live with it. I'll tell ya, I kind of appreciated the fact that the spare was mounted on the gate. Came in handy one cold dark stormy night when I had to change a flat. That sucker was real easy to dismount!
Now, it's undergone a pretty good styling overhaul and it looks a lot better than the 2004! The only reason I didn't buy the new RAV4 was I think the styling of the CX-7 is a whole lot better!
#233 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [dodo2]
Sep 17, 2007 (11:20 am)
Probably not, but again, the engine is probably the most visible item. It's the first thing that makes impression on a test drive.
Test driver hops in, steps on the gas, "Wow, this thing is peppy". It makes you overlook the cheap-ish interior.
Then they look at the price tag, and the MPG is on the same sticker. So they might justify paying a bit more telling themselves they'll make it up on gas mileage (they will make up a small amount compared to other V6s).
You might say Toyota spent the money where it counts, or at least where the consumer would first notice it.
I have the 2GR engine in my Sienna, and I have to say, the engine is a gem. 266hp makes even this two-ton van feel fast, and I got 30.6mpg on two differnet road trips.
So my minivan did better than my MIATA did on the same trip, holy cow!