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 7: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; Prev; Next; Last

#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.
#24 of 67 Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? by jefbak Sep 26, 2008 (9:05 am)
Where is the love? Replies to this message: allhorizon (Oct 04, 2008 2:14 am) kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 04, 2008 7:27 am) thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 7:17 am) kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 20, 2008 7:21 am) thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 7:31 am)
#25 of 67 Re: Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? [jefbak] by allhorizon Oct 04, 2008 (2:14 am)
Replying to: jefbak (Sep 26, 2008 9:05 am) Thing is everyone has their own pet favorite, and their own personal circumstances. In my particular and very personal view, there are only three true competitors: The Forester and Tiguan on the side of the extremely well-handling CUVs with an almost perfect package, and the RAV4 on the side of power in a straight line at good fuel economy, over all. You can guess that I would prefer one of the former two, and I am intrigued by the performance and modest real-world fuel economy of the Tiguan versus the known gas-guzzler turbo Forester. Alas, neither are available with manual transmission in this configuration, so strike them for me. Also, the Tiguan has an awful combination of frontal area times C_w for a completely new design, resulting in bad mileage at high speeds. Don't buy it if you tend to do a lot of highway driving. My conclusion? If you can, don't buy a CUV quite yet, not until Diesel models have become available. A TDI Jetta Wagen, or in my case a TDI Golf/Rabbit, will do much better, meanwhile. Replies to this message: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 04, 2008 7:27 am)
#26 of 67 Re: Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? [allhorizon] by kurtamaxxxguy Oct 04, 2008 (7:27 am)
Replying to: allhorizon (Oct 04, 2008 2:14 am) When CU and others tested the AWD Tiguan, they found it used more fuel overall than the '09 Forester XT, and was slower in 0-60 performance. This despite the Tiguan having a 6-speed AT .vs. the Forester's 4-speed AT. For highway cruising, the Tiguan did better, thanks to its 6-speed that lets the engine cruise at very low revs compared to the XT. However, the FWD version of Tiguan may do even better in terms of overall MPG.
#27 of 67 Re: [cx7lover] by sdc2 Oct 06, 2008 (6:21 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 20, 2008 8:59 pm) 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. Unwarranted? Apparently any opinion that disagrees with yours is "unwarranted". I just thought spending $32K on either one was ridiculous, but hey, it's your money. I paid $24K for my V6 AWD model. fundamentals? The AWD is worthless. period. I guess you don't live where it snows. I live in Minnesota. It's not a power and economy robbing full-time AWD system, but it's there when I need it. The transmission is outdated, A five-speed automatic is outdated? Gosh, there are a lot of outdated trannys out there then. it's interior is bland, and uses some lower grade plastics. What you call lower grade plastics actually have less phthalates to poison you. Seriously. People need to wise up about this. Not that I bought the RAV4 for this reason... Wow it has that 269HP V6! Yep, and it has been called one of the best motors in the world by several magazines. Well guess what, I bet you don't use ANY of those horses getting anywhere near good fuel economy. As with ANY vehicle, aggressive use of the skinny pedal will diminish fuel economy...duh. The 2011 CX-7 will manage 22/30MPG. 2011? Come on... And I already know for a fact that you will not get 26(AWD is 26 if you didn't know)mpg towing 3500lbs. Again, duh. And yes, the EPA estimate for the V6 AWD is 26 highway, but I routinely get 28, and more conservative drivers have reported as high as 30. 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. It's true that these days the cost premium for higher octane gas is only about 5% over regular, but most people would be happy to save 20 cents a gallon. And the CX-7 still doesn't have enough headroom, so I never did more than sit in one. I'm sure it's a nice car though. Replies to this message: cx7lover (Oct 14, 2008 1:18 am) sdc2 (Oct 20, 2008 7:04 am)
#28 of 67 in a tie, both place the same by muser Oct 06, 2008 (9:47 pm)
why is the Honda ranked second and the VW third if they tied? Both came in second according to this rather subjective comparison of vehicles. Forester and Escape should have been included, and vehicles should have been comparably equipped.
#29 of 67 Re: okay i guess [myphillyvw] by chiefbongo Oct 08, 2008 (2:57 am)
Replying to: myphillyvw (Sep 22, 2008 8:18 pm) seems like the tiguan is the most fun to drive Say what? "the Tiguan's driving experience is at odds with its test-track results. Its electric steering exhibits a combination of quickness and overly light effort that ends up feeling eerily detached. The brake pedal is squishy in routine driving, but sharpens up when you really stomp on the binders. Likewise, when you roll into the throttle pedal, the power delivery from the torquey 200-horsepower mill is heavily damped in an elastic-band manner due to some combination of transmission syrupiness, throttle tip-in calibration and turbocharger boost response." It put up some impressive numbers, but the actual feel of the steering, braking, and throttle were all singled out for negative comments. Seems the CR-V had the best handling, though it was underpowered. I took it for a test drive, me and the salesman were both big guys (maybe 500 lbs between us) and it got up to freeway speed before running out of onramp with ease. But the thing I liked best was something I can only describe as its "surefootedness". It just held that rainy road like it was on rails. It felt really responsive, without being overly responsive. But I agree with you on the silliness of concentrating on handling at the expense of rating the creature comforts more extensively. When you're creeping along in bumper-to-bumper traffic, seat comfort and cup holder placement will mean a lot more than how fast it does 0 to 60. Replies to this message: jimdrew (Nov 06, 2008 4:38 pm)
#30 of 67 Re: [sdc2] by cx7lover Oct 14, 2008 (1:18 am)
Replying to: sdc2 (Oct 06, 2008 6:21 am) Again, duh. And yes, the EPA estimate for the V6 AWD is 26 highway, but I routinely get 28, and more conservative drivers have reported as high as 30. Again duh, why brag about being able to tow 3500lbs? It's a RAV4 with OK towing capacity, it's not going to set the world of fire, and it's not going to get that MPG you keep bragging about while you bragging about being able to 3500lbs. As with ANY vehicle, aggressive use of the skinny pedal will diminish fuel economy...duh. HA, not in my CX-7. Lowest I can get is 17mpg in the city no matter how much I beat on it. Yep, and it has been called one of the best motors in the world by several magazines. Yeah and it's been called mismatched, and a clunker in the RAV4. Overpowered is the term used. A five-speed automatic is outdated? Gosh, there are a lot of outdated trannys out there then. Yeah it is, Tiguan, 6 speeds, CX-7, 6 speeds, HELL even the Camry with the SAME V6, 6 speeds, can you say cost cutting? I guess you don't live where it snows. I live in Minnesota. It's not a power and economy robbing full-time AWD system, but it's there when I need it. The AWD is as good as worthless, It's not even there "when you need it", it's the bottom of the pits AWD, that only reacts after you need it. I have an AWD CX-7 BTW, paid $18,999 before TTL for a CX-7 with 400 miles on it. The 2011 CX-7 will manage 22/30MPG. 2011? Come on... Right around the corner, 5 year cycles for all Mazda's, the CX-7 is soon to be redesigned and will be introduced in 2010. 26mpg? come on... nothing to brag about when you have to drive around in a vanilla and down right tacky looking car in the cheaper level trim. Unwarranted? Apparently any opinion that disagrees with yours is "unwarranted". I just thought spending $32K on either one was ridiculous, but hey, it's your money. I paid $24K for my V6 AWD model. AGAIN, why would you even try to compare? AT ALL? The both can be had for less with AWD, and with the CX-7 having FAR more content. Replies to this message: sdc2 (Oct 20, 2008 7:04 am)