Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Toyota RAV4 RAV4 - 2009 4-cylinder vs 6 cylinder
24 messages, Last post on Sep 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM
You are in the Toyota RAV4 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: tnboy (Jan 21, 2009 3:51 pm)
|
|
|
We recently purchased a new 09 Rav4 for my wife. She wanted a mid size SUV to replace her 03 CR-V. Did a lot of looking, driving, and comparing before the purchase. Comparing smoothness of drive train, handling, ride, dollar value, resale value, and visibility out the back, she decided on the Rav4. I wanted the 6 because the CR-V's 4 cylinder was always a bit rough compared to my Pilot's V6. Especially when idling with the AC on. I also wanted the 6 because its tranny is 5 or 6 speeds and the 4 cylinder is only 4 speeds like the CR-V was. She liked a particular Rav4 Sport because of the interior and exterior colors, ride, handling, and other items. I checked out the window sticker first thing and said "NO, this is a 4 cylinder". But to satisfy her, I drove it. We bought it. The 4 cylinder engine is peppy and smooth. As it turns out the real world fuel mileage is way better than I expected it would be. She is getting 4-5 mpg better in her commute to work than she got with her CR-V. The tranny shifts like a dream and seems to always be in the perfect gear for conditions. It seems to accelerate to highway speeds just as quick as my V6 Pilot and gets a lot better MPG in the process. She hasn't said, "I told you so", but I couldn't blame her if she did. We have 3 cars and the Rav4 is always the first choice if it is available. For towing or carrying heavy loads the V6 would be a better choice. But so would a bigger heavier vehicle. However the purchase price, which I was willing to pay, the better mileage and most likely the better trade in down the road dictate the 4 to be a better choice for us. Keep in mind this new 2.5 liter simply feels smoother and a lot more capable than the 2.4 did. The 6 cost more going in and will likely bring less trade-in down the road due to gas prices. THE V6 RAV4 IS EXTREMELY QUICK and fun to drive, and it's mileage on the road very close to the 4. However, around town the 4 is a better choice. So I recon we all have to decide how a car is to be driven and go from there. Different strokes for different folks.  Kip |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ohiobob (Aug 13, 2009 4:34 pm) |
|
|
|
|
I'm a RAV freak. I have four (had five, yes five last year), one at my US home, the others given to my immediate family back in the UK, all the two-door version easy to park, good or narrow streets, high down-road vision, cheap to run and own, but no longer sold in the USA. This is a great shame. The 2-door version was the forerunner, much praised model that began the small SUV trend, and indeed the model size to which many are now returning being more conscious of waste of space and resources. In its day, the mid-nineties, the RAV was favourably compared to European hot hatches. It is cited in many automotive design books alongside Jaguar XE-Types and the like as cars that set the trend. I prefer the 2-door version because it is light, fast,extremely manouverable, reliable, and durable, (parts start needing replaced after 100,000 miles) but mainly because anything bigger tends to feel as if driving a bus! If a 2-door RAV is good enough for a Le Mans winning Jaguar driver as his daily drive it's good enough for me. In any event, even the early ones can be upgraded in all respects, from Bi-Zenon headlights to leather interiors, all from the USA's amazing after market service. But to the OP's question: Alas, the V6 is NOT sold in the UK or Europe but if it had been I'd have bought it not only because for long distance travelling the more horsepower the better, but also it suits the weight of the 4-door. That said, the V4 offers better mileage, and, as other owners testify on this thread, the V4 is perfectly adequate. Common weaknesses:That rear door will not open 90 degrees, annoying when negotiating square items, or framed paintings. If anybody hits that spare wheel you will need a whole new rear door skin - a common frailty on SUV's that hang the spare there to look butch. Seat belts begin to lose their efficiency after 50,000 miles. Small bits of non-essential trim come adrift. That upright windshield takes a lot of chips from flying stones - stay well back from trucks! Hope all that helps. Los Angeles
|
|
|
Replying to: losangeles (Aug 16, 2009 8:53 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: tnboy (Jan 21, 2009 3:51 pm) I then tested the 4 cyl to see if it would be a dog in comparison. I was concerned that the 4cyl would be like the smaller 4cyls in the Corollas, etc. I drive a 2008 Matrix with the 1.8L and there are many times I was wishing it had more hp (i drive 150 miles round trip for work so the mileage is why I drive it) I was pleasantly surprised! At a 179hp, the Rav 4cyl had quite a bit of pep off the line and entering the freeway. No comparison to the Matrix at all. While the freeway MPG is only 1 MPG different between the V-6 and the 4cyl, the city rating is significantly better on the 4cyl. In the end, we decided to go with the 4cyl. I have no complaints with the power and pickup, and the wife loves it. |
|
|
Replying to: bdyment (Aug 17, 2009 4:09 am) |
|
|
Replying to: losangeles (Aug 16, 2009 8:53 am) |
|
I hope you're not referring to me, as I know precisely what the 4-cylinder engine is: 2.5-liter, 179-hp 2AR-FE 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Toyota RAV4 RAV4 - 2009 4-cylinder vs 6 cylinder
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Toyota RAV4
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
