Howdy, Stranger!

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





Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca

17891012

Comments

  • >> The average Joe will test drive these and can't feel the difference of 2 feet in braking from 60.

    2 feet will make a big difference in an average Joe's collision
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Hee hee, funny, but that's something for the insurance companies to worry about.

    It might affect safety is the stopping distances were a lot longer, but a 2ft variance is probably within the margin of error for that test, i.e. not a significant difference.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    It seems like many people, including myself, agree that the engine is the only thing that stands out in the RAV4. Is this enough to consider RAV4 the "benchmark" or "the best in class"? Personally, I don't think so.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Before I bought the CX-7 and a Santa Fe, I had the 2004 RAV4. What I liked about it was that it was compact, rugged. A might mite, if you will. I drive on the streets in DC and it's a snap to zip in and around traffic and finding a parking spot can be problem, but not for the RAV4!

    Granted the swing gate can be a detriment, but you compensate for it and learn to live with it. I'll tell ya, I kind of appreciated the fact that the spare was mounted on the gate. Came in handy one cold dark stormy night when I had to change a flat. That sucker was real easy to dismount!

    Now, it's undergone a pretty good styling overhaul and it looks a lot better than the 2004! The only reason I didn't buy the new RAV4 was I think the styling of the CX-7 is a whole lot better!

    Vince.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Probably not, but again, the engine is probably the most visible item. It's the first thing that makes impression on a test drive.

    Test driver hops in, steps on the gas, "Wow, this thing is peppy". It makes you overlook the cheap-ish interior.

    Then they look at the price tag, and the MPG is on the same sticker. So they might justify paying a bit more telling themselves they'll make it up on gas mileage (they will make up a small amount compared to other V6s).

    You might say Toyota spent the money where it counts, or at least where the consumer would first notice it.

    I have the 2GR engine in my Sienna, and I have to say, the engine is a gem. 266hp makes even this two-ton van feel fast, and I got 30.6mpg on two differnet road trips.

    So my minivan did better than my MIATA did on the same trip, holy cow! :surprise:
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    What you said is true for the average Toyota buyer and maybe for the average car buyer; however the comparo we are commenting on is about ranking the vehicles against a set of given criteria, based on HARD DATA. The sales volume, resale value, brand prestige, perceived reliability and other subjective factors should not count at all and they are not included in the scoring system.

    We all know that the emotional component is a big part of the purchase decision and a third-party, OBJECTIVE evaluation is meant to take that emotion out of the equation. This is the reason why the SUBJECTIVE component in this evaluation should theoretically total 5% only (which is not true unfortunately).
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    So my minivan did better than my MIATA did on the same trip, holy cow!

    I bet you still like way better taking the same trip in your Miata than your Sienna. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Actually, it depends.

    For the first hour, I prefer the Miata. Then it starts feeling cramped and I get wind-burned (the top is ALWAYS down). :shades:

    Any longer than that, and I'll take the comfort of the Sienna.
  • Well, OBJECTIVELY, that V-6 in the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    ...while averaging the best MPG, too.

    That's the clincher for a lot of folks, the 2GR engine is both powerful AND efficient.

    It's very, very easy to be ONE of those things.

    The 2GR is both at the same time. That's what is impressive about it. You can be quicker and spend less on gas, too, at the same time.

    It's a huge selling point.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Well, OBJECTIVELY, that V-6 in the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.

    OBJECTIVELY, you are correct. The trouble is that OBJECTIVELY, the Outlander out-brake, out-slalom, out-handle the RAV4. Based on that, I would say the Outlander out-performs the RAV4.
  • Sure, but OBJECTIVLY the engine, is the only a thing the RAV4 has going for it.

    OBJECTIVLY RAV4 has outdated 5-speed transmission, outdated AWD witch can lock all wheels only at up to 25 mph, lousy stereo, no navigation, no MP3 server, no Fast Key, no Bluetooth, no Xenons, inconvenient curbside loading, dull interior, basic warranty, and lower in class owner satisfaction ratings (yahoo, MSN, Edmunds).
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,993
    the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.

    Ferrari vs. Small Ridiculously Overpowered Crossover SUV (keep reading - the RAV4 is in there :shades: )

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Right, but this comparo is not about the selling points.
    The comparo is about which one is the best OVERALL package.
    Many buyers in this segment look for the bang for the buck aside from fuel economy.
    Which factor is more important depends on the buyer.

    On a side note, I think the RAV4 mostly sells because it's a Toyota, and then because of the exceptional V6. I would be curious to see how many RAV4 I4s and how many are V6s were sold. Anyone has any numbers? This would be a good indicator of what drives the RAV4 sales.
  • Actually, the IMPORTANCE of all the features you list, is quite subjective. If people don't like xenons, or need an MP3 server, NAV, or whatever a "fast key" is, then the Outlander sucks wind. Kindof like it does accelerating onto a freeway, compared to a RAV4 V6...
  • Another list of excuses. Sure, if your car does not have all these features, then you don't need them. 20-30 years ago people used to say this kind of excuses about the lack of power windows and auto transmission.

    Outlander is a much better balanced car as a package, and it has more power vs. CRV and Rogue, and it has as much power as Lexus RX330 while it's equipped as well as RX350.
  • Another broken-record response. Sure, if your car has these features, then everybody must want them, and that makes your car better.

    It's okay that the Outlander has more power than the CR-V. The Mitsu probably needs that power to carry around its 300 extra pounds.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I guess 32.5% power increase (166hp vs. 220 hp) and 26.7% torque increase (161 vs. 204 lb. ft.) is enough to move aprox. 8.5% more mass (less than 300lb. more for a fully loaded Outlander) with power to spare.
    The Outlander is anything but underpowered.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The comparo is about which one is the best OVERALL package

    True, but this thread doesn't even list the RAV4, so there aren't any RAV4 owners here to defend their vehicle and list the things they like about it.

    Not really a fair fight, eh?

    I'm sure one of the first things a RAV4 owner might bring up is resale values, ALG gives the RAV4 a best-possible 5 stars, while the Outlander trails substantially with only 2:

    https://www.alg.com/deprratings.aspx

    I looked up Edmunds TCO (Limited AWD for both) and again the RAV4 costs less over 5 years, 55 cents per mile vs. 60 cents per mile on the Mitsu.

    I will say this - this makes a used Outlander appear to be a rather incredible bargain. :shades:
  • >> True, but this thread doesn't even list the RAV4, so there aren't any RAV4 owners here to defend their vehicle and list the things they like about it.
    Not really a fair fight, eh?


    I agree, but HOST is the one in the first place, who brought the comparo article here. This discussion is belong to that thread.


    >> I'm sure one of the first things a RAV4 owner might bring up is resale values, ALG gives the RAV4 a best-possible 5 stars, while the Outlander trails substantially with only 2:

    That rating is based on old RAV and 1st generation Outlander. We can only speculate, what the resale value would be for new RAV and new Outlander. Note, for instance, that the owner satisfaction ratings (MSN, Yahoo, Edmunds) dropped for the new RAV, but increased for the new Outlander.


    >> I will say this - this makes a used Outlander appear to be a rather incredible bargain.

    Sure, but even the new one, equipped as well as RX350, appear to be a rather incredible bargain.
This discussion has been closed.