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

#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)
#31 of 67 Motor Trend compario 2008 by kurtamaxxxguy Oct 16, 2008 (7:21 am)
..did a 13 way compario between a bunch of new SUV models (so some models like Honda CRV and Toyota RAV4 didn't get to compete) and in the end chose the 2008 Forester as the winner. Oddly, the Tiguan they compared only had FWD; it had torque steer and "spooky" handling at the limit. Sounds like AWD's the only way to go with Tiguan. Also, they, like every other reviewer to date, bitched about the Tiguan's MRSP.
#32 of 67 Re: [cx7lover] by sdc2 Oct 20, 2008 (7:04 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Oct 14, 2008 1:18 am) "Yeah and it's been called mismatched, and a clunker in the RAV4. Overpowered is the term used. " I haven't seen that, except from amusing fellows like yourself. Here is what Edmunds said: "Who Should Buy This Vehicle: Savvy consumers. The 2008 Toyota RAV4 represents the smartest choice if you're looking for a roomy compact crossover that provides strong performance, good fuel economy, everyday practicality and a strong reputation for reliability." "The 3.5-liter, 269-horsepower V6 in the 2008 Toyota RAV4 is almost magical in the way it combines acceleration that can shame everything in its segment, along with fuel economy that does the same: sipping fuel more like a four-cylinder. Yes, you can get the RAV4 with a four-cylinder engine, but with the EPA fuel mileage ratings being nearly identical to the V6's, why would you?" Hmmm, not much mention of being "overpowered" there. Hey, it's OK if you have other priorities in a vehicle such as Bluetooth, heated seats, and whatnot. Different strokes for different folks. Me, I'm all about strong performance, good fuel economy, everyday practicality and reliability.
#33 of 67 Re: Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? [jefbak] by thegraduate Oct 20, 2008 (7:17 am)
Replying to: jefbak (Sep 26, 2008 9:05 am) The love obviously isn't in this room. Replies to this message: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 20, 2008 7:21 am) thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 7:31 am)
#34 of 67 Re: Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? [thegraduate] by kurtamaxxxguy Oct 20, 2008 (7:21 am)
Replying to: thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 7:17 am) Yeah, a rematch is needed. Am guessing RAV4's engine and possibly interior would win out over the '09 XT's, but otherwise would be close. My RAV4 V6 drive matched what Edmunds claimed - pretty much plowed over Freeway, felt heavy, squirmy, not all that responsive despite big engine (sluggish transmission). Replies to this message: thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 7:31 am)
#35 of 67 Re: Yeah how about the 09 Forester xt limited? [kurtamaxxxguy] by thegraduate Oct 20, 2008 (7:31 am)
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 20, 2008 7:21 am) Toyota's V6 Camry has LOTS of reserve power, but goes for gentle throttle response and tends to get to top gear quickly, in the name of fuel economy. Works well I guess, because it doesn't take 260+ horses to merge on the freeway safely or go to the drycleaners a mile away. Leave the power there for when you NEED it, but use less of it (and get better economy) when you don't call for it with a deep push of the throttle. Some don't like a responsive throttle, calling it "touchy." Personally, I like the throttle mapping in my Honda, which is much more responsive (or touchy) than any Toyota I've driven. In fact, around town (mostly under 40 MPH), my 2.4L Honda felt quicker than the 3.5L Toyota because of how the throttle is programmed. Looks like the RAV follows suit. I've driven more than one 3.5L Camry but not the 3.5L RAV, which is why I use it to compare; sounds like they use similar programming.
#36 of 67 awd comparison between rav4 and crv by saramaddie Oct 29, 2008 (8:07 pm)
I apologize since I'm sure this has been addressed before but how do the awd systems compare between the rav4 and crv. The toyota sales rep claims that the rav4 always has power to all 4 wheels and redistributes if slippage is detected. The honda sales rep claims that the crv is normally front wheel drive and will send power to the rear wheels if slippage is detected. Honda claims their system is more economical and causes less wear and tear. Is there really a difference when it comes to snow and ice? Intuitively, it seems as though the rav4 would perform better in snow and ice. Replies to this message: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 30, 2008 5:52 am) stevedebi (Oct 31, 2008 12:25 pm) kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 31, 2008 2:15 pm) blueiedgod (Nov 03, 2008 12:15 pm) kurtamaxxxguy (Nov 03, 2008 1:27 pm) stevedebi (Nov 04, 2008 11:27 am) and 3 more... blueiedgod (Nov 06, 2008 10:46 am) and 1 more... saramaddie (Nov 05, 2008 8:29 pm) kurtamaxxxguy (Nov 06, 2008 7:32 am) d07 (Nov 17, 2008 11:32 am) and 2 more... blueiedgod (Nov 06, 2008 10:39 am) stevedebi (Nov 14, 2008 2:11 pm)
#37 of 67 Re: awd comparison between rav4 and crv [saramaddie] by kurtamaxxxguy Oct 30, 2008 (5:52 am)
Replying to: saramaddie (Oct 29, 2008 8:07 pm) Subaru did a comparison of AWD in 2006 and 2007, and the CRV's system, which has not changed much since then, was very weak at handling bad traction situations. When Toyota tested their RAV4 in Australia in 2006, the RAV4, asked to climb a sandy hill, simply parked itself. However, you can control Toyota differential locking and get 4WD up to around 25 mph, at which point it disengages and goes back to its mostly FWD-biased system. Audi , Land Rover, and VW use a Haldex system that is mostly FWD unless slippage is detected, at which point power goes to rear wheels. LR also has AWD presets to change the responsiveness and distribution of power. You can see more examples on Youtube. However, no AWD system will work if all your tires are on glare ice or otherwise no traction surfaces. There are Youtube videos showing Subaru Outbacks merrily sliding along Portland OR roads and crashing into other cars. Replies to this message: stevedebi (Oct 31, 2008 12:25 pm) kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 31, 2008 2:15 pm)
#38 of 67 Re: awd comparison between rav4 and crv [kurtamaxxxguy] by stevedebi Oct 31, 2008 (12:25 pm)
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 30, 2008 5:52 am) "Subaru did a comparison of AWD in 2006 and 2007, and the CRV's system, which has not changed much since then, was very weak at handling bad traction situations." Honda changed the AWD system in 2007 for the Gen 3, I believe, so you are saying they did two different tests? Replies to this message: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 31, 2008 2:15 pm)