Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subaru Forester vs Toyota RAV4



  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's smart to offer financing instead of rebates because they draw in consumers but don't necessarily hurt residual values the way rebates do.


  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Financing was a big part of this. 0% plus the safety features plus the gas mileage made the difference, plus the looks. Oh yeah, thanks to Edmunds for providing the facilties to walk in an informed consumer.


    Although not considered in the decision was the reliability. Subaru at this time is not offering 0%. But nonetheless the Forrester came up in conversation. If Toyota hadn't been offering 0% it would have been on to the next one.


    My requirement was a vehicle, 0%; limit 30K OTD, and I was prepared to go from manufacturer to manufacturer until I got something that fit the bill. The fact I got something way under the limit is a big plus.
  • hseaverhseaver Posts: 4
    We bought a new RAV4 in '96. I'd never buy another one. At 65K, just after the warranty was over, it started using a lot of oil. Many other RAV4 owners have had this same problem, which Toyota refuses to fix, some as early as 45K. It's still happening in the 2000-20001 models, or at least I've gotten emails from people with the problem in that vintage.
    Now, at 85K, ours has lost 5th gear. That's another fairly common problem, and still occuring in the 2001 line. Toyota put out a service bulletin on the 5th gear problem but our local stealership tried to tell us that Toyota had never heard of this happening under 200K. One guy reported on the forum that his 5th gear went out in the first 6months and then again at 60K.
    Forget RAV4s, and Toyotas in general.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Oh come now, even the most reliable manufacturers produce the occasional lemon but in the grand scheme, Toyotas are still about as reliable as they make'em (of course I realize that this is no consolation if you happen to have gotten one of the lemons).

    Speaking of reliability... Consumer Reports just named Subaru as the make with the fewest problems for 2004 :-)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Keep in mind people seek out forums to complain about problems.

    So they'll seem more common then they are.

  • hseaverhseaver Posts: 4
    Well, here's the bottom line, and the for sure reason why I'd never, ever consider another RAV4:
    The dealer wants $4,800.00 to fix our tranny -- thats with a new tranny, as he says labor costs would be too high to rebuild the old one -- or $3500 to put in a used one, with no guarantee. The bluebook on our '96 is about $3850 trade-in value.
    I called the tranny shop with the best reputation in our locality -- they said they wouldn't touch a RAV4 because it was just too difficult to work on, said they also refused Saabs for the same reason.
    Replacing the clutch is just as difficult. I'll never buy another car of any make that I can't replace the clutch on myself, without needing a garage hoist, etc.
    You might call the RAV4 just a poor design in this respect -- or maybe Toyota is designing them purposefully so they can make money on the repairs, when no one else will fix them.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I can't imagine a RAV4 is too complex to work on, try another indy tranny shop. They should be able to rebuild for $2 grand.

    Or sell it for a reduced price, "needs tranny work".

    They gotta package the whole drivetrain in a tight space when you're talking AWD compacts.

  • My Aunt has a Rav 4 and it is ok.. I went shopping for a SUV this winter after issues with my Hyundai Elentra GT in the snow, it sucked.. after 12k on the tires.

    I made my mind up on the 2005 Sub Forester X Dark Green with classy Tan Interior. I get them at invoice pricing VIP plus 2k rebate = NO BRAINER. Great gas mileage, handling and fowl weather. Well built and solid, this is much tougher than the RAV4.

    Overall very happy with my green Forester 900 miles. The only things I dislike are the no rear discs on the X, the engine idles alil rough in gear at stops and the Yoko's Geolander G900 tires blow for snow braking.

    You see alot of older Foresters on the road and they usually look like they are holding up well.

    I had trouble dealing with Toyota delaer when I was looking into the 4Runner, I am glad I picked up this great car for 19.2!
  • hseaverhseaver Posts: 4
    Actually we just did talk to another tranny shop, they also refused. Both of them said it just ties up a work bay too long and they can make more money on other brands.
    We were just looking at a Honda CR-V, but it looks like it might be the same scenario -- transverse engines and AWD = big repair bills!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    4Runner costs a bunch more, but they really do hold their value. A different type of vehicle, though, full framed truck!

    Honda's powertrain has been reliable, the only "issue" has been the oil change-related engine fires. See the thread here on Edmunds.

  • c14c14 Posts: 6
    Full Time AWD chews up tires and sucks up too much gas.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Chews up tires? Right. Then how did we get 60+K out of our original Impreza Outback's tires?

    Both our Subies get in the mid 20s, in terms of gas mileage; not exactly gas guzzlers...

  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,432
    Chews up tires? Right. Then how did we get 60+K out of our original Impreza Outback's tires?

    Your car must be hard on tires because I got 70k miles on the origianl tires on my '96 Outback wagon. :-P 60k on the 2nd set and still looked good when I traded the car.

    45+k miles so far on the original RE92 Blotenzas on my '03 Outback wagon.

    Only got 50k though on the tiny 13" tires on my '89 GL-10 5 spd. FT-4WD Turbo Touring wagon.

    Damn cars are really chewing up the tires! :-D

  • I too just bought an 05 Forester X and love everything about it except for the rear drum brakes.

    Do you know he best way to go about upgrading them to discs? Estimated cost? I'm wondering if it would be worth the $$.

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Full Time AWD chews up tires and sucks up too much gas.

    A part time 4WD system like the Jeep Cherokee had will chew up tires when left engaged on dry pavement but Toyota's and Subaru's AWD systems are far more advanced.

    It's true that full-time AWD systems do cause a slight reduction in mpg but only in the 1-2 mpg range.

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Do you know he best way to go about upgrading them to discs? Estimated cost? I'm wondering if it would be worth the $$

    I think you're going to find it to be prohibitively expensive to upgrade to discs. While I agree that discs are better, the difference in performance between rear drum and disc brakes is very slight (fronts do most of the work).

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My tires have actually worn very evenly (unlike FWD, where the fronts wear much faster).

    My current set has 43k miles on them and have not reached their wear bars. Can't complain.

    25.1mpg lifetime average, can't complain there either.

    Now that the troll is gone, let's get back to our regularly scheduled program...

  • manamalmanamal Posts: 434
    Lets see:

    $400/month for 72 months, not good credit. with $3550 down. Figure with your score, you are paying about 10% interest, so you are paying about $25500 out the door for the forester.

    I think that is a good deal!

    About the credit: the difference between good (700 + Beacon) and 620 beacon is about $50/month.

    Or another way:
    I just bought a forester LLBEAN for 24900 out the door, put down 4900, aqnd have a payment of 4900. Beacon is 740.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    refrain from spamming the boards. A single posting in the relevant discussion is adequate.

    tidester, host
This discussion has been closed.