Article Comments - 2009 VW Tiguan vs. 2008 Honda CR-V vs. 2008 Toyota RAV4

67 messages, Last post on Oct 20, 2009 at 4:33 AM

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

What is this discussion about? Volkswagen Tiguan, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Car Comparisons, SUV

2009 Volkswagen Tiguan vs. 2008 Honda CR-V vs. 2008 Toyota RAV4 - So what's a utility-lovin' small family to do? Downsize. Full-size SUVs provide unmatched capability but their thirst may make you reassess your needs. Think compact utility vehicle. Think crossover. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 8: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; Prev; Next; Last

#14 of 67 Re: UHH [sdc2] by cx7lover Sep 18, 2008 (7:51 am)
Replying to: sdc2 (Sep 18, 2008 7:13 am) Yeah well that's fine and dandy, you don't wan the extras? Why not compare a CX-7 that's equipped at YOUR trim level. That's why I listed most of the things you get at the 32K mark with a CX-7, and I didn't understand why you insisted on comparing your base/sport RAV-4 to a fully loaded GT CX-7. AWD GT CX-7=28K before the $3000 holdback and other discounts. And it's still got way more features than the RAV4. Oh, you "don't want the extra features"? A touring/sport CX-7 has considerably more features than either the Base or Sport RAV-4 and that's when it starts to dramatically undercut the pricing on a RAV, not even talking about the things that the RAV-4 is deficient in. The 08-09 CX-7 can manage 23mpg on regular in a mixed cycle, also, the AWD on the RAV-4 sucks horribly, not even worth the extra money. The AWD on the CX-7 is far superior. I was surprised to find that an AWD SUV had Torque steer, probably because it only reacts to slip, which is a worthless AWD system when we have TCS/DSC. Heres a better explaination http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=116618
#15 of 67 by sdc2 Sep 18, 2008 (10:00 am)
Look, I don't have anything against the CX-7, it is attractive and seems like a fine vehicle. I could never consider buying one because the headroom is inadequate. Does that make it bad for you? Of course not. These "comparison" discussions are such silly pissing matches at times. FWIW I didn't "insist" on comparing different trim levels, your original post I responded to said nothing about the CX-7 being fully loaded or not. If you want all that stuff, fine with me. I was saying that I got everything I wanted for under $25K, and that for $32K the CX-7 better damn well be better equipped or something is wrong. And you can talk about heated seats etc. all you want, but none of that changes the fundamentals. I repeat: "I've got a 269 hp AWD vehicle with enough headroom for me (which the Mazda does not have) that gets 28 mpg highway on regular gas and can tow 3500 pounds without breaking a sweat. To my knowledge, there simply is not another vehicle out there that can do all that." I used to have a Tahoe, and the RAV4 does 95% of what the Tahoe could do (lacking only some of the towing capacity, which isn't a big deal for me as I don't have any heavy boats/trailers) for about 60% better gas mileage. That's a win in my book. May your CX-7 please you as much as the RAV4 has pleased me. Replies to this message: cx7lover (Sep 20, 2008 8:59 pm) kdhspyder (Sep 21, 2008 2:58 pm) cx7lover (Sep 26, 2008 1:13 am) thegraduate (Sep 24, 2008 6:37 am) sdc2 (Oct 06, 2008 6:21 am) cx7lover (Oct 14, 2008 1:18 am) and 1 more...
#17 of 67 Re: [sdc2] by cx7lover Sep 20, 2008 (8:59 pm)
Replying to: sdc2 (Sep 18, 2008 10:00 am) And you can talk about heated seats etc. all you want, but none of that changes the fundamentals. And it doesn't change you trying to justify what you paid over what I was mentioning for a fully loaded CX-7. Your comment was totally unwarranted. fundamentals? The AWD is worthless. period. The transmission is outdated, it's interior is bland, and uses some lower grade plastics. Wow it has that 269HP V6! Well guess what, I bet you don't use ANY of those horses getting anywhere near good fuel economy. The 2011 CX-7 will manage 22/30MPG. And I already know for a fact that you will not get 26(AWD is 26 if you didn't know)mpg towing 3500lbs. The CX-7 can use regular and even on premium gas, the CX-7 is little more than $500 a year to run, goodness! expensive premium gas! Please. Yeah I can get in a pissing match, because I love them. Replies to this message: kdhspyder (Sep 21, 2008 2:58 pm) cx7lover (Sep 26, 2008 1:13 am) thegraduate (Sep 24, 2008 6:37 am) sdc2 (Oct 06, 2008 6:21 am) cx7lover (Oct 14, 2008 1:18 am) sdc2 (Oct 20, 2008 7:04 am)
#18 of 67 Re: [cx7lover] by kdhspyder Sep 21, 2008 (2:58 pm)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 20, 2008 8:59 pm) The fact remains that the RAV outsells and outperforms the CX7 and costs less to operate. You personally have your opinion. The general market disagrees. Neither vehicle is a heavy duty offroader. When the RAV was compared to all the other cute-utes ( CX7 not included ) it beat them all. Despite your prejudice in favor of the CX7 not very many people are taking it seriously. And thats just the facts. In the end it's not a beauty pagaent, it's a business - where the only valid measures of success are units sold and profit. To succeed thusly the product that's best is the one that best matches the complete needs of the buying public in terms of room, performance, reliability, style and price. The RAV does that better than the CX7 thus it generates more units sold and profit. Replies to this message: cx7lover (Sep 26, 2008 1:13 am)
#19 of 67 Re: UHH [sdc2] by jzocc Sep 22, 2008 (8:32 am)
Replying to: sdc2 (Sep 17, 2008 6:05 am) hi...i am located in pa. what city/state r u from? i am interested in buying a 2009, v6 awd, sports model. i did not think the 2009's were out yet. did u order, or receive and pay? did your price paid included a trade in? thanks...
#20 of 67 okay i guess by myphillyvw Sep 22, 2008 (8:18 pm)
seems like the tiguan is the most fun to drive, has the nicest interior, and has more equipment but it loses because it's cost more??? isn't there a saying you get what you pay for? they didn't even mention the tiguans panoramic sunroof, dynaudio soundsytem, bi-xenon headlights with afs? i think it's a poor review IMO Replies to this message: chiefbongo (Oct 08, 2008 2:57 am) jimdrew (Nov 06, 2008 4:38 pm) dieselbreath (Nov 15, 2008 10:05 am) guillegh (May 01, 2009 5:35 am)
#21 of 67 Why not include the 09 Forester? by phdhusky Sep 23, 2008 (10:35 am)
Why not include the 09 Forester in these comparisons. It is also based off a car platform and has been in numerous comparison tests. I believe a Turbo Forester is much better than the Rav-4
#22 of 67 Re: [cx7lover] by thegraduate Sep 24, 2008 (6:37 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 20, 2008 8:59 pm) Yeah I can get in a pissing match, because I love them. The hosts do not. And I already know for a fact that you will not get 26(AWD is 26 if you didn't know)mpg towing 3500lbs. Well duh, towing its max rating nothing will get what it is rated. That's obvious.
#23 of 67 Re: [kdhspyder] by cx7lover Sep 26, 2008 (1:13 am)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 21, 2008 2:58 pm) The market? Are you sure? MAZDA COULDN'T BUILD THEM 200,000 PEOPLE WANTED THEM! THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE DEALER NETWORK TO SUPPORT SUCH A DEMAND. LOL! THEY ARE NOT MAINSTREAM. GET A GRIP.