Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?

drive62

Major things to look forward to are the longer wheelbase (about 104" at least)

About time IMHO. The current sub 100" wheelbase of the Forester is not in line with the rest of the competition.

ateixeira

Correct, and what has happened is this class has segmented by size.

Santa Fe, RAV4, and Outlander even offer a 3rd row. Some would call them mid-sizers.

CR-V has also grown, and sort of falls between.

Newcomers are filling the void left as those moved up in size - Jeep Patriot and Hyundai Tucson, for instance. They join the Forester, Sportage, and Grand Vitara in the smaller half of the segment.

Subaru's problem will be that if they remain small they'll have to compete with those smaller sized (and budget priced) competitors.

This is part of the reason I think they could have 2 wheelbase sizes and occupy both segments.

varmint

Well... No where is it written that Subaru has to follow what the others are doing. I mean, Chevy's Equinox has a wheels of something like 112" (6" more than my MDX). That's just silly.

But it's true that more buyers have shown a preference for greater passenger space than the Forester offers. How Soob addresses that is up to them.

ateixeira

Yeah, I guess you can't just look at the wheelbase alone.

Chevy did an awful job with packaging. The strut towers are enormous and eat up half the interior space, it seems, at least in the cargo hold.

Honda did a much better job there. They copied the idea of the shelf that can be stored on the floor, but the suspension intrudes far less in to the cargo area.

The XL7 is based on the Equinox and they did better packaging that model. It even has a roomy 3rd row. That's definitely a mid-size though, not even close to being compact any more.

I looked at the Impreza and have high hopes for the 2008 Forester. The new multi-link suspension is ultra-compact, so the shock towers hardly intrude at all. That made the cargo area a lot wider for the WRX.

The current Forester's short wheelbase limited rear leg room, even though cargo space was quite good. They will basically move the rear seat back 4.5" or so (equivalent to the wheelbase stretch).

Normally, that would have cost them cargo space unless they made the entire vehicle a lot longer. But the more compact shock towers should result in better packaging - it might not have to grow too much yet still should have a useful cargo area.

Here is a current WRX, note how the wheel well and strut/shock towers eat up nearly half the potential cargo space:



Look at the new one, they waste almost no width at all:



Think about something - the new WRX hatch is shorter than the old one. Cargo space is still about the same.

The new Forester will not be shorter, in fact it'll likely be longer, so cargo space has some serious potential.

kyfdx

Good idea... let's forget the mini-SUV and all get the new WRX wagon!! (really.. tell my wife it is an SUV, and I'm all set.. )

ateixeira

There you go.

Check out that cargo area, though - much wider. It's not as long, but the Forester isn't going to shrink like the WRX hatch did (no way, no how).

So imagine a cargo area the same width, only a lot deeper and a lot taller.

I just hope Subaru keeps it boxy in the back.

rsholland

Most midsize SUVs (Explorers, Pathfinders, etc.) have wheelbases in the 112" – 113" range. The Tahoe, the shortest of any domestic fullsize SUV, has a WB around 115." Most minivans are up around 118" or so.

In order to get a roomy 3rd-row, you need to have a fairly long wheelbase. It amazes me that Honda gets so much space out of their 3rd row, considering their WB is so short, relatively speaking.

Bob

drive62

I believe a longer wheelbase also equates to a nicer ride. Of course it's subjective but I remember reading reviews of shorter wheelbase vehicles and they point out that you can feel the imperfections in the road, tar marks etc.

ateixeira

As with anything there are trade-offs - usually a wider turning circle for starters. Also a lower breakover angle, if that matters to you.

That is, all other things being equal, of course.

In the case of the RAV4, which is sold in a long wheelbase in the USA, short wheelbase in Europe, I would expect the US model to ride a little better and of course offer much more room inside. The euro RAV4 surely turns in a smaller radius and would probably have more effective clearance on unpaved trails.

thecat

I feel like I'm going to the Seer on the mountain ...

Juice, do you know how the current Euro RAV's wheelbase compares to the 05 and earlier USA model?
- hutch

ateixeira

Edmunds did a short take on it when the euro model debuted (a year or so before the US model did).

They look very much the same, you can only tell our wheelbase is longer when you look at the rear door.

Found a small pic:

kavoom

If you look at the new Impreza specs, you can figure out what is going to happen. They actually extended the wheelbase about 3 inches and widened the stance while reducing weight 50 lbs on the WRX including the hatchback version actually shortening it an inch...

But with the change over to steel from aluminum on side panels I wonder about the weight thing on the X and XT versions.

ateixeira

Wheelbase is actually 4.4" longer. Pretty significant jump. I hope it handles as well as before.

Around town, my Forester is more fun than our Legacy because it turns in more quickly. It's just more tossable. Hope they don't lose that trait.

varmint

112-113" probably is typical for three row mid-sizers, but the Equinox is billed as a two row small SUV. It matches up with plenty of two row mid-sizers (Highlander, Murano, Edge, etc.)

For a long time, smaller minivans (like the regular Caravan) ran 112" for almost every example. Larger vans (like the Grand Caravan) were almost always 120".

With compact SUVs like the ones discussed here, the class hasn't been around long enough for the formula to be standardized. We've discussed this in other threads. Some examples of "small SUVs", like the Liberty, are truckish and heavy (to the tune of 3,800 lbs or more). Others, like the Forester, are car-like and lightweight (nearly 800 lbs lighter).

First Honda, then Ford, and now others (Toyota) seem to have nailed down the general size. However, there are still wide deviations within the class in other respects.

mugwomp

Forester (hands down - if you enjoy driving, that is) then the RAV-4. Won't be caught dead/alive in a Honda; they truly scare the living poop out of me. I have one friend with a speech impediment and one friend without a father - both victims of Honda accidents. A Pilot driver's brakes just went out in Belmont, California - forcing his "vehicle" out of control - driving over about a dozen children. Most of the kids in the eastside ghettos from my area in California (Redwood City) drive Hondas, I fear for my safety and wonder how many are even insured. Between the reviews which make the CR-V sound as cheap as it looks, the weak engine, rollover issues and Honda's miserable styling - I don't know how any person could feel good about a Honda purchase. I wouldn't want one if it was given to me for free. Good luck. When I see a Honda in my rearview I get out of the way, fast.

stever

It's apparently too soon to tell what the cause of the Belmont accident was (link).

bodble2

"Most of the kids in the eastside ghettos from my area in California (Redwood City) drive Hondas"

And they live in the ghetto? Suddenly I feel very poor!

"...the reviews which make the CR-V sound as cheap as it looks, the weak engine, rollover issues"

What/where are these reviews to which you referred?

marig0107

thanx for the link. I had not seen that on the news. Sounds like another case of the elderly driving past their time. Remember the market or plaza accident several years back? What a tragedy that was. No one ever said it was the car's fault.

ateixeira

I don't think it's fair to characterize Hondas as unsafe when both the CR-V and Pilot are IIHS "TOP SAFETY PICK 2007 Award Winners":

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Subaru managed 3 vehicles on that list, Toyota zero. Not that Toyotas aren't safe, they just didn't top the list.

blueiedgod

Forester (hands down - if you enjoy driving, that is) then the RAV-4. Won't be caught dead/alive in a Honda; they truly scare the living poop out of me. I have one friend with a speech impediment and one friend without a father - both victims of Honda accidents. A Pilot driver's brakes just went out in Belmont, California - forcing his "vehicle" out of control - driving over about a dozen children. Most of the kids in the eastside ghettos from my area in California (Redwood City) drive Hondas, I fear for my safety and wonder how many are even insured. Between the reviews which make the CR-V sound as cheap as it looks, the weak engine, rollover issues and Honda's miserable styling - I don't know how any person could feel good about a Honda purchase. I wouldn't want one if it was given to me for free. Good luck. When I see a Honda in my rearview I get out of the way, fast.

That is the most ridiculous post ever.

An old person, who happens to be driving Honda plows a bunch of people, and all over sudden, Honda is not safe. What about the guy in a Buick in Hartford, CT? or The guy in Toyota Avalon in Fl? Maybe, just maybe, the common denominator here is "old people"? And not the vehicle?

Just because some people in the ghetto (read hispanics and blacks) drive Honda, does not make it a bad vehicle.

I could just go on the same and say that because Martina Navratilova (lesbian) was the spokes person for the Forester, I would never drive one because it will make me gay. Doesn't that sound just plain stupid?

Care to point to the roll over data on either Honda CR-V, Honda Pilot, Acura RDX, or Acrua MDX?

I fear for my safety knowing that there is an ignorant person like this...

Just to think that these people can multiply, we are doomed!!! Everyone should rent "Idiocracy", this is exactly what we see here.

tazereli

I just saw that movie this past weekend. While not that good it does show how scary it can be when people get dumbed down. Then make it look worse by pulling "facts" out of the air. mouths and behinds can both spew noxious sounds whether they are words or otherwise.
Kyle

ateixeira

I believe all 3 of these vehicles get a 4 star rating for the static rollover measures, though the Forester's detailed score is slightly higher.

Still, not a significant difference.

719b

good post. you said exactly what i was thinking when i read that posting.

farmingrocks

I posted most of this in the general CRV forum and a kind soul suggested I post something in this forum to get a "more diversified" opinion. Here goes...

We are looking at the CRV and RAV4. Saw the Forester at an Auto Show but didn't like it nearly as much as these two.

I have test driven each several times, and my impressions are:

The RAV4 has more pickup
The RAV4 seats are uncomfortable
The CRV seats are nicer and more comfortable
The CRV ride is way more comfortable, more car-like than truck-like. I prefer car-like riding.

I then drove them again, and again, and again. I sat in the back and had my husband drive so I could see what it would be like for the kids. I liked the ride in the back in the CRV WAY MORE.

Hubby is tired of me obsessing on this, but it's a big decision for me, as we keep our cars a long time, and I am the one who will be living in it.

My hesitation at this point rests on these things:

I like a lot of the way the RAV4 is set up inside, except for the console - no room for my purse with a passenger in the other front seat.

I like the easier mechanism for folding the seats down in the RAV4, and they lay flatter.

I am tired of the hatch on my Sienna, and would be retaining the necessity of lifting up/pushing down with the CRV even though it is lighter.

Is the pickup in the RAV4 really better or am I just not used to Honda engines/trannies? I had an Accord 20 years ago and loved it, didn't have troubling merging onto the highway. The last time I drove the CRV, the one I drove seemed better in merging than the first time I drove one. So is it just my imagination? We are comparing 4 cylinder models, not the V6 in the RAV4. I really don't need a V6.

Honda dealers seem harder to work with, because they have the upper hand in the supply/demand arena. So many times we ended up buying Toyotas instead of Hondas because the dealers wouldn't act nice or couldn't get a car in a reasonable amount of time.

And finally (this is a nit-picky girl thing), I just really really love the RAV4 green color. Waiting to see the CRV green, but I don't think I am going to like it, and I also want gray interior, so I would have to go with my second choice, Glacier Blue.

I am very very close to choosing the CRV, though, because of the more car-like ride and the more comfortable seats.

Anyone have any comments about really tall high schoolers fitting into the driver's seat of the CRV? My son will be starting driver's ed this summer and he's concerned he won't fit. He's 6'2" and growing Haven't been able to get him inside one yet.

Also, my impressions are that the RAV4 has better visibility on the passenger's side; the CRV's little window at the end of the right side is completely obscured when someone is sitting in the right seat of the second row. Anyone have any comments on this or anything else I have said above?

I have appreciated all of the input I have gotten so far, including an affirmation of the way I go about driving cars over and over again before I am sure. So anything else will be appreciated as well.

We are choosing between the base models for each, and the CRV is less expensive, even with Toyota discounting, given that they don't have 'packages' to load onto the cars, most of which I don't want, but some things I would like, if that makes sense.

bodble2

I don't own either so regretfully I can't offer too much help. But why wouldn't you consider the V6 Rav4? If you stay away from the Limited model, I don't think the V6 costs much more than the CR-V mid-line model. And I don't think there is a significant mpg penalty for the V6. Your husband and son would no doubt really enjoy the 269hp!! :shades:

The Rav4 has a few more useful features, in my opinion -- such as auto-off headlights, hill-start and hill-descent control, and a more robust AWD system. I also find the hand parking brake more intuitive to use than the foot brake on the CR-V (although this would not be an issue for you since you've been driving a Sienna). Styling is, of course, subjective, but I find the Rav4 more pleasing overall. In my opinion, a base Rav4 Sport V6 represents the best value.

farmingrocks

Cost is an issue for us, and the V6 is more money, as is the mid-line CRV. We kind of have to stick to the base model for both.

My husband is not a car guy, proven by his purchase of a Toyota Matrix with manually operated windows. And, I am not so sure I want to think about my son enjoying a car because of a higher horsepower.

The foot brake is not an issue for me, as I have used both kinds in my life; neither here nor there, in my opinion. The only real hills we encounter are those in Missouri when we travel to Illinois, but that is not often. I will miss the auto off headlights, but oh well.

Thanks for your input!

marig0107

you went thru the same dilemma on my side. I would have been equally happy with either the Rav or the Honda. I wanted the big pep in the V6 model because I drive V6 van, am a New York City driver that wants to haul [non-permissible content removed] when the lights change, even tho I livein TN now

Anyway, I did what you did, sat in both front and rear seats of each. I liked the red in rav better than CRV but the green better in CRV version. So that was no help.

I could not see visiting my Mom in NYC with ambulance style trunk for idiot speeders to take chunk out of door...lol...Not convenient to driving in busy areas.

What it really boiled down to for me were certain conveniences and the feel of the car. The rav v 6 had some pep (as do most new cars anyway). But I wanted satellite radio built in without addtl wires, I loved the nav system, the conversational mirror in crv was awesome to wave my finger menacingly at kids and finally, this shorty girl liked the fact that the CRV drivers seat cranks upwards so I had command view of the road which the Rav 4 did not.

But seriously, I would have been happy with either car. Not so bad for a car shopper. I did like that I could get top of the line CRV for about the same money as maybe the middle tier Rav.

Good luck....just go for what seems easy and fun to drive. That's what I did. And I found I don't need a V6 because my reaction time is generally faster than most drivers that are not city drivers. That makes up for alot.....lol :shades:

farmingrocks

Thanks for all of the input. Some of the things you like are just not that important to me, like a nav system and satellite radio. I'm an NPR listener, so I can do that on regular radio.

In the end, I think we all go with our best guess!

cbmorton

Although I own a RAV4 and would buy one again, my advice would be that you not buy a vehicle you find uncomfortable, regardless of any other benefits it has over the competition. You'd hate to be saying to yourself a few months down the road, "I sure like the colour of my RAV4, but it's too bad I can't ride in it!"

blueiedgod

My husband is not a car guy, proven by his purchase of a Toyota Matrix with manually operated windows. And, I am not so sure I want to think about my son enjoying a car because of a higher horsepower.

Car guys like everything Manual. I am just glad that I was able to get a Manually shifter CR-V before Honda decided not sell them in the US. I wish they also offered manual crank windows.

Car guys know that less stuff you have, less stuf you have to fix...

10years

Take a look at the newly re-engineered Mitsubishi Outlander. It is a serious competitor to the CRV and RAV4. It's getting high marks on user evaluations, is loaded with standard content and has a double the warranty of Honda or Toyota at a lower price.

All these choices are good.

stevecar

If we are talking price/value how about the Sante Fe. great price, lower gas mileage.

bodble2

Yup, the Outlander and Sante Fe would be well worth a look-see, especially since farmingrocks has mentioned that price would be one of her considerations.

marig0107

Thanks for all of the input. Some of the things you like are just not that important to me, like a nav system and satellite radio. I'm an NPR listener, so I can do that on regular radio.

In the end, I think we all go with our best guess!

Precisely....get what is very important to you. This car was my once in a lifetime get everything I want car so I went for it...lol...hence the satellite and the nav (whichis almost a necessity because I get lost finding my own bathroom... ).

I also agree with whomever said you can't see the outside color of your car when you drive it. But I think it does provide a nice accessory to show me off

ajstewart

I'm new to this forum & want your opinions. We're looking in Raleigh, NC area for a used car for our teenage daughter. The usual criteria: safety, handling, fuel economy, reliability. I can find things to like about the CR-V, Forester, & RAV4. To keep purchase price low, we probably need to look at '03 or older. Which one would you pick? Why? How old can we go and still find the desired safety features? How many miles is too many? (Recently had to rebuild tranny on the Mom-mobile--'02 MPV w/100K--not happy.) Or would you go the sedan route--Civic, Corolla, Camry, etc.--although teenagers may find them uncool? Must be automatic & 4-door. AWD or 4WD is a plus. Most driving will be rural/suburbs, w/some interstate. This mom needs advice.

tazereli

If you're looking for AWD and sedan, Subaru is the way to go...Legacy or Impreza and comes in Wagon and sedan flavors. Do your daughter a favor and stay away from SUV's. The potential handling issues with SUV's and teen drivers aren't worth the potential trouble. Also unless she's making the payments, I'd pick the vehicle. I wanted something other than my mom's Subaru wagon to drive but guess what...it got me here and there. Coolness should be the LAST thing to be considered.
Consider potential fuel and insurance costs. A civic may return higher mileage but can be more to insure. A used Corolla may be a decent car to consider. along with the Camcord. Domestic sedans are usually cheaper than the equivalent year Japanese sedans. If its a temporary car, reliability issues that domestics may have should be minimal. If you're looking long term, newer may be better as well as Japanese. Price budget can also play a large factor.Its a lot to take in so take a deep breath and peruse these boards, they hold a mountain of information.

Kyle

stever

You may want to browse the Best Car for a new teenage driver discussion too.

stevecar

There is a good article in Today's Wall Street Journal just about that subject

ateixeira

Both suggestions are very competent, but she wanted something fuel efficient and I think the 3 vehicles named in the title of this thread pretty much lead the pack.

For a teen - call your insurance agent for a quote before you do anything. Ask what the 10 cheapest cars to insure are, and pick from those.

Insurance can be prohibitively expensive for a teen. My neighbor across the street used to pay $3000/year to insure a Mustang Cobra, it was just insane.

I would start there, given it might be your biggest expensive since you're shopping for used models.

FYI - Kate from the Subaru Crew is selling an 01 Forester, well kept and much loved. Check the Subaru Crew - Meet the Members II threads.

ajstewart

Thanks to several of you for pointing out the insurance costs associated with a teen driver. Meant to include that in my criteria list. Is there a website somewhere that would give me some general guidelines? What makes a car expensive to insure--current value? body style? cost of replacement parts? lack of safety equipment? The process of getting insurance info seems unnecessarily obscure and circular: My agent will tell me that he needs a specific model in order to quote me rates. Well, I don't know which models to consider until I find out some rate information!

farmingrocks

I did take a look at the Sante Fe at the auto show, but crossed it off my list, as if felt too small sitting inside.

Don't remember seeing the Outlander. According the specs on Edmonds, the base model starts higher than the CRV, and has lower gas mileage, probably because of the V6. Also, looks the hip room is lower than the CRV and the RAV4, and the smallness of the RAV4 seats has me leaning toward the CRV.

But it was a good suggestion!! Thanks.

farmingrocks

You'd hate to be saying to yourself a few months down the road, "I sure like the colour of my RAV4, but it's too bad I can't ride in it!"

Very very good point!!

farmingrocks

Oops. Meant to say I compared the Tuscson at the Auto Show. The Santa Fe starts out too high for us, and is also a V6.

But I do want to say how much I appreciate all of the input everyone is providing for me!

drwoodr

I assume "starts out too high" refers to price, don't be so fast to eliminate the Santa Fe. CRVs usually go for close to MSRP, and everything is a dealer add on - like a roof rack or other accessories. For less money, you get a lot more with a Santa Fe. I drove a CRV, and liked it for an "around town" car, but it was noisy and had a harsh ride on the highway. I went next door to the Hyundai dealer and drove the Santa Fe - roomier, much smoother and quieter ride on the highway, more pep, much better radio, and loaded up with lots of extras. I've had it for 2 months and can't wait to drive it every day.

stevecar

You bring up some good points. Farmingrocks may want to check out the CRV vs Sante Fe subject for additional info. If resale value is not an issue, a test drive should be a must before a decision is made. With Hyundai, the sticker, and even invoice price, is only a ballpark. The only problem is if you want to sell or trade within a few years, the depreciation is high.

ateixeira

You can get a general idea, but insurance varies by demographics and by geographic location, so the best thing would be to call your current insurance agent for a quote.

I mean, if you get a KBB value for a car, that's fine, but they're not buying it, or making any promises. So if they tell you insurance will be cheap and they are wrong, again, it's a "tough luck" scenario.

Your insurance agent will have to honor that price quote, so call them first.

blueiedgod

Take a look at the newly re-engineered Mitsubishi Outlander. It is a serious competitor to the CRV and RAV4. It's getting high marks on user evaluations, is loaded with standard content and has a double the warranty of Honda or Toyota at a lower price.

All these choices are good.

As the cost of fuel keeps rising, I am sure more and more people will start thinking long term rather than short term. A lower cost of entry may come at a higher cost of driving, through lower fuel economy.

So, when basing your decisions on what to buy, think long term. Purchase price may seem like a good spot to focus attention, but 5 and 10 year cost of operation is where the prize is at.

tifighter

I have to say that the new Outlander is one of those cars that looks uncompetitive on paper but is pretty appealing in person. They look great, have some nice options available and are consistently reviewed well. The depreciation is the big question mark. When it comes time to replace my Forester, I'd be willing to check one out.

bkaiser1

I would suggest at least *looking* at a Santa Fe before crossing it off your list...they seem to be readily available for thousands off of MSRP. I emailed several dealers (via Edmunds) to get a quote for my parents and was surprised to see the quotes come in for around $22K for a FWD mid-level model with a sunroof and a few other options. And this was without any degree of haggling...I just asked for the price of a specific trim level.

I'm a huge Subaru fan, but the Hyundai represents a stellar value by offering quite a bit more "stuff" for less money. Even adding $1500 to that quote for AWD (to make it comparable to a Subaru) only brings the tab to around $23,000.

ateixeira

The SF is a good value, especially when you consider the Tucson is closer to Forester-sized.

I think Hyundais are appealing for people who plan to keep their cars forever, that way resale isn't a major concern.