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 Honda CR-V 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 2 of 7: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; Prev; Next; Last

#8 of 67 Re: The RAV4 comes with a 4-cylinder too... [skw0123] by kdhspyder Sep 16, 2008 (11:32 am)
Replying to: skw0123 (Sep 15, 2008 10:14 pm) The current 4cylinder engine in the RAV ( and Camry and xB ) is on the way out - like next week. The 2AZ 2.4L 166 hp engine is finito at Toyota. It would make no sense to compare a vehicle that can't be bought after next week now would it? The new 2AR 2.5L 179 hp is both more powerful and more fuel efficient than the current 2.4's from T or H. It arrives next week with the 2009's. The V6 option in the RAV as you note is very affordable with WAY more power with only a slight fuel penalty. Great marketing there by Toyota.
#9 of 67 Re: WEAK [zoomzoom22] by kdhspyder Sep 16, 2008 (2:14 pm)
Replying to: zoomzoom22 (Sep 15, 2008 11:01 pm) I agree...this was a weak comparison. The RAV4 should've been equipped with the four cylinder, and this should've included the CX-7 and ESPECIALLY the new Forester and Rogue. Why not compare the Tiguan to ALL of its rivals in its first comparo? Especially when the Forester is rated tops by Consumer Reports? Come on, Edmunds. Perhaps the earlier more extensive comparo by Car and Driver last February would be more representative. The results are the same however Car and Driver tests the Cute Utes
#10 of 67 Re: UHH [cx7lover] by sdc2 Sep 17, 2008 (6:05 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 15, 2008 4:46 pm) $32K??? I would hope so. I got my V6 AWD RAV4 for under $25K... Replies to this message: cx7lover (Sep 17, 2008 1:02 pm) kdhspyder (Sep 17, 2008 8:54 pm) sdc2 (Sep 18, 2008 7:13 am) cx7lover (Sep 18, 2008 7:51 am) jzocc (Sep 22, 2008 8:32 am)
#11 of 67 Re: UHH [sdc2] by cx7lover Sep 17, 2008 (1:02 pm)
Replying to: sdc2 (Sep 17, 2008 6:05 am) It's not comparably equipped, Navi? Leather? Sunroof? Heated Seats? Auto Climate? Painted Door handles/Mirror covers? Alloy wheels? HID's? Keyless start/entry? Bose sound? Bluetooth? Auto dimming rear view? Homelink? Gunmetal wheels? Superior ATS-AWD (Nothing like the reactive AWD on the RAV-4), superior gearbox, Manual override, superior braking system, Electroluminescent gauges, You probably got the sport, which is still sparsely equipped. And when comparably equipped it's still lacking. Not to mention it drives nothing "sporty", not even remotely, it has that backwards door-gate whatever thing. The V6 is overmatched, and the automatic is clunky. Replies to this message: kdhspyder (Sep 17, 2008 8:54 pm) sdc2 (Sep 18, 2008 7:13 am) cx7lover (Sep 18, 2008 7:51 am)
#12 of 67 Re: UHH [cx7lover] by kdhspyder Sep 17, 2008 (8:54 pm)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 17, 2008 1:02 pm) While it may be sporty the CX7 has a HUGE drawback.... Fuel Economy and the requirement to use Premium. In addition even though it's bigger in dimensions the use of the interior space is a waste. As to cost, with the same equipment ( Navi, leather/heated seats, sunroof, gauges, 440 wt JBL w/Bluetooth, wheels ) and better Fuel Economy and more room inside the RAV lists for $33500 while the CX7 lists for $32676. Not much of a difference there. In this day and age promoting a sporty, hot looking ( admittedly ) utility vehicle is like screaming for the wind to stop. The numbers show the results, the public speaks. The RAV outsells the CX7 almost 5 / 1. In the end the only metrics that counts are volume and profit. The one with the most profit wins. Quality, Dependability, Reliability combined with superior Fuel Economy and Utility/Convenience show why the RAV consistently comes out on top in all the comparo's. Car and Driver's comparo... 2008 Toyota RAV4 vs. Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue, Ford Escape, and Five More Compact SUVs Introduction Ninth Place: 2008 Jeep Liberty Limited 4X4 Eighth Place: 2007 Hyundai Tucson Limited 4WD Seventh Place: 2008 Ford Escape XLT AWD Sixth Place: 2008 Saturn Vue XE AWD Fifth Place: 2008 Suzuki Grand Vitara 4WD Fourth Place: 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander SE 4WD Third Place: 2008 Nissan Rogue SL AWD Second Place: 2008 Honda CR-V EX 4WD First Place: 2008 Toyota RAV4 4X4
#13 of 67 Re: UHH [cx7lover] by sdc2 Sep 18, 2008 (7:13 am)
Replying to: cx7lover (Sep 17, 2008 1:02 pm) No it's not comparably equipped, but I wouldn't want any of that crap anyway, certainly not for 8 grand extra. The stuff that is important to me is 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. BTW Bose sound? That doesn't impress me...even back when I sold audio in the 80s Bose was far more about marketing than performance. We carried Bose but as soon as you had the customer compare them to other brands the Bose almost never was the winner. But who knows, maybe they did a good job on the Mazda stereo, I haven't heard it. Replies to this message: cx7lover (Sep 18, 2008 7:51 am)
#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)