Howdy, Stranger!

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

Getting a new Outlander, CR-V or RAV4



  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Do you seriously think that Yahoo and MSN are even remotely scientific? People who don't really care about cars post there when they have a gripe about their car.

    To me the real owner's feedback is more important vs. test of brand new car, fresh from dealership by an "expert" who is not always independent: some of them indirectly paid by car manufacturers. You would never read from an "expert" this:

    Over-sized, over-rated and over-priced.
    by Hennie B. from San Francisco (4/27/07)

    Pros: Good power (V6).
    Cons: Please read the review.

    My wife and I decided to test drive the RAV4 to see why Consumer Reports rated it highly. First of all, the 2007 model should not even be classified as a "compact" SUV as it has become quite large (it should be considered a mid-size) and, consequently, so has its price tag. Paying nearly $30K for this is just silly. Yes, it has the most power (V6) in its "class", but it just has that trashy, tin-can feel. The exterior is overdone and rather ugly, while the interior is cheap-looking and toy-like. It has come out that "Tokyotas" have exaggerated gas mileages and, sure enough, we have heard consumers grumble about the RAV4's lower-than-advertised mileage. We feel that the quality and reliability ratings are also quite exaggerated as we've read reports that Japanese manufacturers have not been fully open with their safety recalls and repair reports. All in all, we believe that this SUV has some good points, but it's plain over-rated and over-priced. There are better bang-for-your-buck domestic and European compact SUV's in the market.


    by Gerome Smith from Geauga Ohio (4/11/07)

    Pros: Peppy on the highway. (with extreme loss of fuel economy)
    Cons: Loud interior. Cheap materials, bumpy, can't here poor quality of stereo when driving Overpriced

    Don't waste your money on this overpriced vehicle. We bought a 07 Rav limited V6 loaded six monthes ago. Traded it in for a Honda EXL loaded Pilot. Gets the same gas mileage as the Rav. Why not get the bigger nicer car for a little bit more money, than the compact gas guzzler. Get's about 13 mpg city when 4wd is engaged in lock out mode.


    by Kisnell from NY (3/27/07)

    Pros: I traded it in for JEEP Liberty
    Cons: Ride is rough, engine noisy and not that powerful

    I bought this car it was great for the first month and then the engine became very noisy and less powerful. The car also seemed to hydroplane easily in wet weather. As wel I experinced numerous quality problems; trim falling off and transmission shifting funny. Regretful purchase!

    Sketchy so far
    by Zach Masters from Newport, Maine (11/17/06)

    Pros: the cubby hole undeneath the back floor
    Cons: the quality has been sketchy

    Been to the dealer several times for ongoing problems, they cant seem to either fix it , or by the time its fixed there is another problem. They dont offer a loaner car or hours that work with my schedule. I think in hindsight there are better alternatives on the road than the Rav4, mine also gets way below the MPG on the sticker said and eats oil.


    by Rick from Columbus, Ohio (11/16/06)

    Pros: None
    Cons: Poor quality of vehicle and the toyota 800 3 is a joke and sad

    own new RAV with less thatn 10,000 miles had numerous trips for roof squeks, suspension problems, paint chips, not starting and Toyota's suggestion was "see the dealer" even after I have seen the dealer so much I know every single person there on first name basis.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Although a happy Outlander owner, I don't share the extreme arguments here.
    One thing to note thought - I would take any day 2 ft. less braking distance of the Outlander over 1+ sec. more to 60 mph (@ 8.1-8.2 sec to 60mph, the Outlander is not slow at all). Braking is safety related and Outlander's advantage should not be overlooked. 2 feet is the difference of being into and accident or not.
    I read CRV and RAV4 forums and both cars seemed to have more severe initial quality issues compared to the Outlander (one minor mechanical problem fixed shortly after launch). Outlander's predicted reliability is the main reason the CR did not recommend the Outlander (yet), although Mitsubishi as a manufacturer, is on the 9th place on the 2007 Predicted Reliability Report published by CR few month back (very honorable IMO) only surpassed by Honda/Acura,Toyota/Lexus/Scion,Subaru, Hyundai and Infinity.
    In the US, the price gap between the Outlander and the RAV4 and CRV is smaller, but in Canada is huge ( MANY thousands of dollars more for less equipped vehicles). This makes the Outlander a much better value for the buck. The looks is a factor too, but this is a personal preference. Personally I wouldn't buy the CRV based on the exterior looks, engine, interior design, and I would have to bite my tongue to buy the RAV4 if this would be the only choice (cannot stand the bland in/out design, swing rear door and lack of features for the money).
    In all fairness, Toyota's V6 in the RAV4 is an outstanding engine, perhaps one of the very best out there.
  • cbmortoncbmorton Posts: 252
    What I always find funny about these "my car is better than yours" threads is that a lot of people can't wrap their heads around the concept that what's better for them isn't necessarily better for someone else, who may be looking for different things out of a vehicle. Each of these vehicles is superior in some areas, and part of the buying process is deciding which of those areas are most important to you.

    Yes, the Outlander XLS is sportier overall, looks better outside (but not in, to my eye), is cheaper, has a better warranty and offers more "stuff". On the other hand, the RAV4 is much more powerful (this can also be a safety feature) AND better on gas, larger inside, doesn't make me take a third row I don't need, and comes in a colour combination I prefer. I'm not really into techno gadgets and I don't mind paying more for a vehicle I like better, even if it's not as good a value. Ultimately, the RAV4 is closer to what I'm looking for. Someone else with different priorities might choose the Outlander, or CR-V, or... The perfect car doesn't exist, so it's all about what compromises you're willing to make to get what's closest to what YOU want.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    The only thing I defend is that the Outlander is no longer a second grade vehicle and it's an equal competitor for the CRV and RAV4. Depending on what a person values most in his/her car, any one of them could win. They are all very good vehicles in their own way.
    What I would argue is that most people have the perception that the Outlander's quality and reliability is inferior compared to CRV or RAV4. I say this is a very wrong assumption and I can back up my point if needed. I dare to say that, based on the number and severity of the issues reported so far, surprisingly, the Outlander seems to have better initial quality than both CRV and RAV4.
  • jflorjflor Posts: 20
    Yes, I totally agree with your point of view. Most people have this silly perception that the Outlander can not match CRV or RAV4 in terms of quality and reliability. On a long term basis, the first generation Outlander's quality and reliability has been excellent. My wife uses a 2003 model as her daily commute for the last four years and is totally satisfied of owning one since so far it has not given her any problem at all.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    The main thing for me was that the 4 cylinder CRV has to work MUCH harder to get going. When going up hills, merging onto the freeway, carrying 4 people, the transmission has to kick down more often and the engine gets noisy as it revs higher. It's just nowhere near as refined of a drivetrain as the Outlander and V6 RAV4.

    I own 2 other Hondas, so the CRV was my first choice going in, but the Outlander won because it has a lot more features that fit my needs. Honda needs to put the Accord V6 in both the CRV and Element if they want to get my business.

    RAV4 has a little more real world power, basically the same fuel ecomony, but didn't look as nice to me and is missing a lot of key features for me... Nav, 10 year warranty, 6 speed, Xenon headlights, PZEV engine, 3rd row with leather etc.

    After 4,000 miles I give my Outlander 2 thumbs up.
    by Gerome Smith from Geauga Ohio (4/11/07)

    Pros: Peppy on the highway. (with extreme loss of fuel economy)
    Cons: Loud interior. Cheap materials, bumpy, can't here poor quality of stereo when driving Overpriced

    Don't waste your money on this overpriced vehicle. We bought a 07 Rav limited V6 loaded six monthes ago. Traded it in for a Honda EXL loaded Pilot. Gets the same gas mileage as the Rav. Why not get the bigger nicer car for a little bit more money, than the compact gas guzzler. Get's about 13 mpg city when 4wd is engaged in lock out mode."

    Thanks for finding this to me. I alluded to it the other day in another post but didn't feel like searching for it again. My problem with most of the poor RAV4 reviews on MSN, et al, is that this seems to be the typical intelligence level of the posters. This guy is complaining that he only gets 13mpg with 4WD lock engaged. 4WD lock is a system that's there to get you unstuck should the need arise, it's not for trunding around town on dry pavement. I would expect to get 13 mpg if I were keeping it engaged whenever possible.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Who wrote that post is indeed a bozzo. Personally, I don't take those reviews seriously either. Same goes for the "expert" reviews. Instead, read the dedicated owners forums and you get a pretty good picture of the car.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    Some people are just plain brand loyal and that's fine if it floats your boat. I considered the RAV-4 and the CRV but found the V6 AWD Outlander able to tow my snowmobile trailer and while the RAV-4 could do the towing, the refrigerator door with the tire on the back was a deal buster (gets in the way unloading at curbs). While Toyota and Honda won't deal price and have a lesser warranty(riding on past reputation), they are dealing on Outlanders with price and the 10 yr/100k driveline and 5 yr /60K bumper to bumper with roadside assist warranty is superior. (Mitsubishi willing to give more to gain some market share and prove the reliability). V6 Mileage on the RAV and Outlander are very close and the 166 hp CRV was not enough ooomph for towing. (probably great for good mileage, non -towing vehicle) I do believe the Outlander is the largest interior of the 3 also. I'll give that the interior finish may be nicer on the Honda and Toyota, but I love my Rockford Fosgate sound system. I tend to keep cars for several years and the extended driveline and bumper to bumper warranty was enough to take the chance. No regrets so far. If it wasn't for my AWD winter towing needs I'd probably not be looking any any of these vehicles and just going for FWD economy car. (best compromise under these constraints) Actually the closer match for me was with the Hyundai Santa Fe (Santa Fe is even larger than the Outlander, but personally the scales tipped towards the Mitsubishi for me with things like selectable 2WD/FWD and 6 speed auto.and the sound package. I have gotten 27 mpg in FWD on hwy, but mid 20's is typical.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,006
    Shoot, I was reading the comparison stuff yesterday and thought the drivetrain warranty was 10/60k. 10/100k is pretty impressive.

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • ghostdogghostdog Posts: 1
    well I was looking into the Rav4 because of the V6 rating has more power and better mileage than the Outlander.... I started by visiting the Rav4 forums and sampled what was being discussed by regular users... it seems there are some problems with the latest generation of rav4... tranny slipping, noise in the front hood for v6 when turning that sound like popcorn popping and currently no fix in sight, windows cracking due to design... now I know rav4 outnumber the outlander by a lot so you will get more exposure to people's complaints as compared to a lower volume selling suv like the outlander... however the older outlander gen got really good reliability rating so I hope the newer gen is built the same way or better ... i hope... still looking to see which suv to buy... subaru, honda, toyota or mitsubishi...
  • sm685sm685 Posts: 4
    After owning my 06' Rav4 for 2 years, I can say - it's my last Toyota for a long time. I traded in an 01' Celica for the Rav with the V6 after 70,000 miles of no trouble with the Celica. With the Rav, it's been a continuous string of mysterious problems. I'm on my third stereo, second set of rear window trim, a mysterious "clunk" in the front end that has never been diagnosed and two dealerships that seemingly could care less. For the amount of money paid for this car and the "Toyota" name, I expected a lot more. Buy a Honda -
  • cbmortoncbmorton Posts: 252
    I've also had an '06 RAV4 V6 for almost two years and I've had the opposite experience. Very pleased with the overall quality of the vehicle. Fuel economy has been excellent given the big engine and I've had zero problems with it save the radio, which was replaced a year ago under a Toyota service bulletin (applicable to '06 and early '07s). Still feels as solid as new. For me this one's a keeper.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Here, one more Outlander review from
    "..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    In OCT MT issue Ron Kiino wrote: "Interior quality is premium and design contemporary... 3.0 liter with MIVEC is a refined and robust unit... New Outlander has an air that's all SUV enhanced with such luxury as standard LED tail lamps, available Xenon headlamps and 18" wheels...Outlander can easily hang with the best in it's class...delivers excellent balance through high-speed maneuvers."

    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    From DEC Motor Trend issue:
    " ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" (A.Harwood)

    Mitsubishi got high ratings in performance and safety with rest of them being equal to RAV4. The interior in Mitsu received four stars, RAV4 got three. Both cars can tow 3500 lbs, both using regular fuel.
    Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
    600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
    Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
    MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
  • figtreefigtree Posts: 7
    I looked at the Outlander and CRV and decided to go with the 2008 CRV. I have no idea about the RAV4, I haven't even considered it.
    -I hate the cramped third seat on the Outlander. Is anyone really gonna sit back there? They might as well just sit in the cargo area, they'd be more comfortable.
    -The Mitsubishi salesman put down the back tailgate, sat on it, and described that it would be a great place to sit. Is that a feature? I am not buying a $26,000+ car so I can sit on the tailgate. The CRV's cargo area is low and looks really easy to get stuff in and out of. It has a nice clean look to it without the third seat and tailgate messing it up.
    -CRV has a full spare in the back, Mitsubishi has a donut.
    -Salesman stated how good the Outlander looked compared to the CRV. It's personal opinion, but I think the CRV looks way better.
    -Mitsubishi had remote start, but call me old fashioned, I like a key. Besides, I can get remote start on the CRV if I want.
    -I like the no frills, clean look on the interior of the CRV. I also liked the exterior color choices better. Hey, color matters.
    -I don't think Mitsubishi measures up to Honda Reliability and Safety.

    This is my first SUV and my first Honda. I checked out a ton of reviews, consumer reports, forums, etc...and the CRV looks fantastic to me.

    Granted, I did like the little push out cup holder on the Outlander Driver's Side, but it still didn't convince me to buy it. ;)
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    I considered the new CRV (without the spare on the back) and agree it looks nice and would give better MPG than the Outlander I ended up buying. The swinging door on the RAV gets in the way when unloading at curbs and Honda did well to get rid of it. (RAV really should for 2009)

    A requirement for me was winter towing (can tow 3500 lbs with 4WD V6 Outlander) Too bad the CRV doesn't have a little more "ooomph" on the 4 cyl engine. (if not towing this wouldn't be an obstacle, but it was for me) I also liked the greater warranty on the Outlander (Honda has a good reputation, so they and Toyota aren't competing on warranty or knocking off $$) As for safety, the Outlander gets high marks (5 rating) on everything except rollover and it gets a 4 on that). I agree that you should be happy based on Honda history.
  • figtreefigtree Posts: 7
    Yah, it pretty much is no contest if you need the vehicle for towing. I can't deny that the Outlander has a lot of other excellent features as well.

    I wish the CRV came with a better warranty also. I admit reputation has a lot to do with my purchase, but I would still love a better warranty. I don't think any company wanting to be the best should get by solely on reputation, they should offer a competitive warranty as well.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    -I did not see any advantage of buying CRV over Outlander. I hate how new CRV looks, and I'm not the only one. It looks like its feminine character suits well tastes of many women in the other hand.
    - Low tailgate is a great feature for loading heavy cargo, plus I sit on it when changing my ski boots for example. It is not a car; it is CUV, with "U" for utility.
    -Mitsu has a donut and 5 year road side assistance, so you would not have to worry about getting dirty changing it.
    - Mitsubishi measures up to Honda and anybody else Reliability and Safety. Period.
    We own Accord, we owned another Mitsubishi for 7 yr before. Outlander is made in Japan, and is as solid and reliable as it can be. Recent Toyota (engines) and Honda (transmissions) problems proved - it is just a reputation. We love our Accord, we love the Outlander. I think you will be happy with CRV. Point is it is not any better than Outlander. It is down to personal choice.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    I agree, the CRV is girly looking car. It's a good vehicle, but the Outlander is just better in almost every category: styling, warranty, roadside asst, equipment, interior volume, AWD. According to Consumer Reports, the Outlander has best 2008 predicted reliability in its class, beating both RAV4 and CRV.
This discussion has been closed.