2006 Toyota RAV4

cbmorton · September 2005

Are we talking about safety or repair costs, which are two different issues? I can see the RAV being very safe for its occupants but still expensive to repair once someone nails you in the rear door.

I don't like the rear spare either. It looks odd and adds to the weight of the large rear door, which itself is something I've found to be an awkward design feature. However, the new Suzuki XV6 continues with the tacked-on rear spare on an otherwise modern design, so Toyota isn't alone in deciding that a rear spare is still OK.

petl · September 2005

These are excactly the points I've trying to make in my last few postings. I also can't wait to try one. Use to own a 1998 model (found it too small and underpowered).

petl · September 2005

I agree. Read my previous post.

wheelz4 · September 2005

It's certainly a repair cost issue, but is a safety one too, w.r.t poorer rear visibility, the glass shattering issue etc. etc. Plus it's inconvenient, especially for curbside loading and trailer towing, where you might not even be able to open the rear door fully or access the cargo area. And then there's the matter of looks...check out the optional Euro version without the spare vs. the US version with it.
http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/6247/rav4x11bv.jpg
http://t.wieck.com/PV/2005/09/09/TYT2005090929406_PV.jpg

ecotrklvr · September 2005

The 2005 Highlander is still out there - if you can live with the Auto Trans.

No rear-mount spare, and the 4-cylinder model is rated 27mpg on the Highway. My 2002 4-banger is a great ride, so the '06 RAV4 has got some pretty big shoes to fill. I can live with a size smaller, but need to get the fun-to-drive quotient up. Can hardly wait - anyone out there going to Frankfurt?

wheelz4 · September 2005

"Do you Know the way to Sante Fe
I'm going there 'cause I don't want no rear door mounted spare"

2007 Sante Fe....another leap forward, 7 seats, bet it will even be less expenseive
than a V6 Rav4

cbmorton · September 2005

I really like the short Euro version without the spare. Looks modern and clean. That was the pic I saw first earlier today, then was brought down to reality by the long US version with rear spare. However, overall I think the design is a winner. I suppose Toyota decided to continue the low rear loading floor feature rather than raise the floor to accommodate an underbody spare tire.

I haven't found rear visibility suffers to any real degree with the rear spare on our 2000 RAV4 and it hasn't been in an accident so I can't speak to damage, so my concerns chiefly have to do with looks and the side-opening door that you get as a result. When we bought the RAV last year I had to train myself to pay more attention to how I parked it, since it's easy to get into situations where you can't get the door open wide enough because of a wall, other cars, etc.

canucker · September 2005

I currently have a 02 HL AWD V6 and was considering replacing it with the new RAV seeing has it has similar dimensions, but now that I've seen that it still has that butt ugly spare in the back, it's a no buy!

jchan2 · September 2005

3rd Row Seat I see....

steveayz · September 2005

Look at the 2006 RAV4 specs, it is almost as big as current Highlander and has stronger engine!

ENGINE

3.5-liter V6 with dual VVT-i
Horsepower: 268
Torque: 246 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm

2.4-liter four-cylinder with VVT-i
Horsepower: 166
Torque: 165 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm

MAXIMUM TOWING CAPACITY

V6 (with tow prep package): 3500 lb.
Four-cylinder: 1500 lb.

EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS (inches)

Wheelbase: 105.0
Overall Length: 181
Overall Width (without/with overfenders): 71.5/73
Overall Height (without/with roof rack): 66.1/68
Toyota RAV4 specs page

2005 Highlander specs:

Exterior
Length: 184.6 in. Width: 71.9 in.
Height: 68.3 in. Wheel Base: 106.9 in.

4cyl
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.4 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 160 hp
Max Horsepower: 5700 rpm Torque: 165 ft

6cyl
Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3.3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 230 hp
Max Horsepower: 5800 rpm Torque: 242 ft-lbs.

firouzi · September 2005

Does anyone know for certain if the following technology will be in the new Rav4?

1) Navigation System
2) Bluetooth
3) Push button start

I saw a picture of the interior (a different picture from that on the Toyota website) which had these features all visible.
Thanks for your help!

alpha01 · September 2005

-Side Curtains and Airbags OPTIONAL (for the model debuted in Frankfurt, maybe will be different in the US)
-FOUR SPEED AUTO WITH 4 cylinder

callmedrfill · September 2005

'Yota's got to keep prices down somehow. Did you expect a 166HP four with 6-speed Auto?

This is a very impressive vehicle.

Which begs the question "What's next?"

What does this mean for 4Runner and Highlander?

They certainly need to grow in size and power to justify any premium over the New Rav4. How big do they get? How powerful?

It looks like Toyota has spent some time making the Rav more off-road worthy. What does this mean for the 4Runner's future? :confuse:

Does this mean the next Highlander takes on a new path? More like the Pacifica-esque concept shown in Detroit? Seems that way to me. I'm sure the Rav4 will rival the CR-V in interior space, so what will the Highlander become? A bigger Rav4? I wouldn't bet on it.

With the ascention of the Rav4, the introduction of the back-to-basics LC, and the sales slide (and harsh reviews) of the 4Runner, I see 'Yota paring down to 4 SUV's, Rav4, HL, LC, and Sequioa.

There will always be a warm place in my heart for the 4Runner

, as it was on of the vehicles I learned to drive (Stick) on. Take care, old friend.

DrFill

callmedrfill · September 2005

I'd totally forgotten that I made this forum!

My initial question was where will the Rav4 go with the HL above it.

Silly me! OVER the HL is a nice place to rest!

DrFill

maxellman · September 2005

for Camry 07

ecotrklvr · September 2005

With a big Plus - a stick shift available with the 4-cyl. This is big for me personally. It might allow at least the FWD versions to get over 30mpg highway.

With all the issues discussed in other forums regarding the 5-speed automatic, I'm glad they stuck with the tried-and-true 2.4L with 4-speed automatic. I've got the 2002 version of this powertrain in my Highlander, and it's tough to beat.

I'm a fossil, though - I tend to want to stay with proven technology, and let others be the early adopters. I drove a lot of miles with 2-speed automatics - anyone else remember the GM PowerGlide? Our family had a 55 Chevy BelAir with it, then a 64 BelAir, then a 67 Biscayne. Later came the 67 Malibu. All pretty dang solid transmissions. For years after the TurboHydraMatic 350 came out (1969, I think), with its 3-speeds, the PowerGlide continued to be perceived as the more robust transmission. Even with one fewer gear ratio.

wwest · September 2005

"Horsepower: 268"

Strange.

That's the exact number for the total HP of the RX400h and the Highlander Hybrid.

You don't suppose the MY2006 RAV4 V6 is actually a hybrid??

thegraduate · September 2005

No, this is a neat coincidence, though! The hybrid models you speak of come from the 3.3 liter V-6. This engine is a 3.5 liter, to be found in the new Camry.

chris65amg · September 2005

Nice. I thought that 300 hp for the 3.5L was a stretch.... now all we can hope is that Toyota can keep the price down.

nippononly · September 2005

that they will use the 5-speed automatic from the Camry, and just haven't announced it? It is an existing powertrain, and would improve fuel economy.

First 4Runner got too big, now RAV has done the same. This will be a cute ute no more in about three months. What will Toyota do to fill that void?

And for that matter, the question posed above is a very good one - Toyota is crowding too many SUVs into the midsize, 7-passenger, $30K range. They will all begin to eat each other alive, and there is a genuine use for a small crossover, a "cute ute". Perhaps one of the weird Corolla permutaions sold in Europe will rear up its head stateside in future?

wmquan · September 2005

While Toyota claims improved ride and handling, I wonder if the new RAV4 will have the same nimble handling that the current one does? The current RAV4 has been generally praised in the automotive press and by its owners as being probably the most fun-to-drive small SUV. Hopefully the significant upsizing of the 2006 RAV4 doesn't cause this characteristic to vanish. Sure, the new 268-hp V6 will help make it fun, but it's more than just straight-line acceleration.

I guess (and it's only a guess) that the next Highlander doesn't have to be a Pacifica-style vehicle. It could also be a larger-mid-sized platform, like the Honda Pilot.

I still have the 2006 RAV4 on my short list, but it's going to take some reviews and personal test drives to get an idea of what it's like to drive.

maxellman · September 2005

But what will come from Toyota that is smaller... Next.

Scion xB replacement?

wwest · September 2005

is that they seem to be announcing a new type of AWD, maybe a SAFE rear wheel torque biased one?

And I wonder is we will ever see a Lexus version of the RAV4? Maybe with the stick shift still available?

alpha01 · September 2005

I didnt expect the 4 with a 6 speed (although that would have been awesome), but FOUR speeds is pretty behind the curve, especially with a growing emphasis on fuel efficiency. As someone else stated, the Camry 4 is already mated to the 5A, that the RAV with a more advanced engine ISNT, is lame.

OPTIONAL side curtains in 2006 is just plain absurd.

~alpha

callmedrfill · September 2005

268HP, over a foot bigger, plenty of standard safety equipment, here in time for X-mas, but I'm not feelin' any love, Alpha!

Show some love.

DrFill

wmquan · September 2005

"... plenty of standard safety equipment, here in time for X-mas."

There's plenty of safety equipment, but it's not all standard. Front driver/passenger side airbags are optional, as are side-curtain airbags for the first and second rows (but not the third row for vehicles so equipped, apparently). Manufacturers are starting to make these features standard.

Doesn't look like the V6 will be here in time for Xmas, either!

I'm cautiously optimistic. I like the power, but am concerned about how big the compact RAV4 has become, and what the price will be like on a loaded V6.

callmedrfill · September 2005

But VSC, ABS, BA, EBD, Dual SRS, seatbelt pre-tentioners, that should be enough to keep the pitchforks out of our hands.

Hyundai HAS TO give away every safety item for no extra charge.

Toyota has earned the right to make A COUPLE of items optional.

And they are still well ahead of the curve.

V6/MT?

DrFill

bostnwhalr · September 2005

I was considering an 06 Highlander a while back, mistakenly thinking that they would update it with more power (3.5L out of the Avalon) and a bit more style. Little did I know that the vehicle I was looking for would be the 06 Rav4!

It is only natural that the next Highlander would grow in size to be a medium-large crossover, especially since the nearly unusable 3rd row seat is standard on all current V-6 AWD Highlanders, which is ridiculous. Toyota seems to have a fascination with 3rd row seats for every SUV they make. At least in the Pilot and Explorer, the seats are tolerable for some distance for people over the age of 5.

Hopefully the 3rd row seats will be "less standard" on the new RAV4.

wmquan · September 2005

"But VSC, ABS, BA, EBD, Dual SRS, seatbelt pre-tentioners, that should be enough to keep the pitchforks out of our hands.

"Toyota has earned the right to make A COUPLE of items optional."

"And they are still well ahead of the curve."

You're kidding, right? Those features are pretty common in a lot of sedans in this price range. And Honda CR-V's (not Hyundai's) have VSA, ABS, EBD, Dual SRS, pretensioners, and front side airbags and side curtain airbags as standard equipment. Since the 2006 RAV4 is a new generation, it should at least go this far.

Here's how the old RAV4 did without the optional front side and side-curtain airbags:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=278

Here's how the old RAV4 did with the optional front side and side-curtain airbags:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=258

Shame on Toyota for not making them standard like Honda does.

(Putting pitchfork away.)

i_luv_toyota · September 2005

The new RAV4 is hot. I couldn't believe my eyes when it said that it was getting the Avalon's V6!

That's sweet, no matter what the cost. If you want to keep the cost down then hold back on superfluous (usually useless) items such as leather seats, which usually come with an expensive Toyota option combo package.

Boy, with all the new Toyotas coming out in the next 1-1.5 years, it's going to be a difficult decision for me what to buy!

callmedrfill · September 2005

I'd rather have 268HP V6 option and Side SRS option than NO 268HP option, but side SRS STD.

Toyota and Honda both build vehicles with a finite budget in order to turn a profit.

Putting the Side SRS may have been cost-prohibitive, given the cost of instituting the new V6, and building the vehicle to handle the power.

Honda has always built vehicles with a high features list STD, but a higher base price for these STD. features.

Toyota has a lower base price, but prices rise quickly with more features. They give you the OPTION to have these features if you want.

Side SRS is no dealbreaker for many buyers.

Severe side-impact crashes actually make up a small percentage of total crashes. It would be nice to have them std. But I would use the V6 more.

I'm confident Toyota has seen the crash tests score sof the previous Rav4, and made vast improvements. To go along with their other attributes, Toyotas generally are leaders in crash tests as well, throughout their product line.

DrFill

wmquan · September 2005

The concept of these things being "optional" is something of a myth. Toyota regions usually force bundles of options together. It looks cheaper on the website, until you see what your region bundles together.

E.g. in many regions, it'll probably be very difficult to buy a V6 RAV4 with good options, without front side airbags and side curtain airbags. So it still won't be cheap.

"Side SRS is no dealbreaker for many buyers. Severe side-impact crashes actually make up a small percentage of total crashes. It would be nice to have them std."

That's a false sense of security, and based on last century's designs. In vehicle-against-vehicle collisions, side-impact crashes now make up the majority of deaths.

In crashes with another passenger vehicle, 51 percent of driver deaths in recent model cars during 2000-01 occurred in side impacts, up from 31 percent in 1980-81. During the same time, the proportion of deaths in frontal impacts declined from 61 percent to 43 percent.

These changes are attributable to two effects. There have been significant improvements in frontal crash protection  standard airbags, improved structural designs, and higher belt use rates, for example. At the same time, growing sales of SUVs and pickups have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side. In crashes between cars and other passenger vehicles during 2000-01, almost 60 percent of the driver deaths in the cars struck on the driver side were hit by SUVs or pickups  up from about 30 percent during 1980-81.

Source: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html

"I'm confident Toyota has seen the crash tests score sof the previous Rav4, and made vast improvements. To go along with their other attributes, Toyotas generally are leaders in crash tests as well, throughout their product line."

That's another false sense of security. To date, no vehicle in the IIHS side-impact test has scored well without having front side and head-protection airbags. I'm sure Toyota has improved the RAV4 as well, but you still need the airbags.

sevenseas · September 2005

Three issues I had with my 1999 Rav4 was weak engine, dimensions a little too small and a $300 charge every 15,000 miles due to defective engine design with the iac valve. Thats why I got rid of it.

I like the added dimensions but wouldnt consider purchasing a first year 2006 RAV4 until the bugs are worked out.

I'm a fan of V6 engines over 4-cyclinders. But why put such a powerful engine in this SUV. I would have rather seen a V6 sized like the one for the future 2006 Lexus IS250 sedan (2.5 litre), which is more fuel efficient. Overall, this RAV4 isnt winning me over.

firouzi · September 2005

Is this picture real????? It shows the RAV4 with bluetooth, navi, and push button start.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2859/interior3gq.jpg

nippononly · September 2005

may have fallen prey to the notion that "bigger is always better" with this new RAV.

It is good that Toyota is making ABS and VSC standard in all its SUVs now, but given the crash test results we are seeing, they need to include the side air curtains, ESPECIALLY if all three-row RAVs are going to have them standard. Sheesh.

callmedrfill · September 2005

And, yeah, that must be a Euro-spec Rav4.

I wouldn't expect all that at launch, but it'll get there.

DrFill

sr45 · September 2005

Anyone know what the MPG will be for the new Rav ? ?

biker4 · September 2005

I assume the 4 cyl models will be about the same or 1-2MPG lower (due to the growth in size/weight) and the V6 to be a little lower than the Avalon numbers for FWD and another 2-3MPG lower than that for AWD models.

Toyota has matched the CR-V in terms of size but at the cost of canabalizing the sales within its own SUV lineup? :confuse:

nippononly · September 2005

well it sure does seem that once the V-6 RAV gets to dealers in February, all sales of the last model year run of the Highlander will instantly cease...

I guess when the new Highlander comes next fall, it will also have to get a lot bigger, and then what of the 4Runner? Two vehicles the same size, one truck-based, one not? Maybe they can still sell side-by-side, but I am sure Runner sales will be greatly reduced.

I sure wish they were contemplating selling a shorter wheelbase version of the new RAV - they could call it the "Sport". What is it with this enormous fascination over third row seats the market has these days? Not everyone wants three rows!

toycash · September 2005

I'm not sure the V6 will be less than the Avalon. A FWD RAV4 will probably still weigh less than an Avalon, and the new RAV has a .31 drag coefficient. As for sales, it may temporarily, but the 2007 Highlander is also going up in size.

By the way, the guy that wrote the Frankfurt Auto Show article needs to read the press release. There were a bunch of errors in there, like saying it was a 2.0 liter 4cyl only, with 155 horsepower.

callmedrfill · September 2005

The Rav4 is THE #! selling SUV in Europe, and their product mix of engines and such is much different that in the US. They prefer diesel engines over V6.

The Euro-Rav4 and US-Rav4 look the same, but are sold very differently.

Someone said something about 3rd seats earlier. Ain't no 3rd seat in fittin' in thur!

DrFill

clam · September 2005

Its my opinon that Toyota really dropped the ball with the engine choices, and I say that as someone truly looking forward to purchasing this vehicle.

No one in the market for an entry level sport-ute wants to pay gas prices for a 3.5 litre fuel sucker, especially with the rising fuel costs, and the carryover base 2.4L engine is no longer sufficient to provide good performance for the bigger and heavier Rav4.

The 2.5L v6 from the Is250 would have been absolutely ideal, or barring that, a 3.0 unit. The power spread between the two current engines is ridiculous.

I guess I'll have to wait for the new CR-V.

ecotrklvr · September 2005

You know, you don't HAVE to buy the V-6. I'd probably opt for the 2.4L with manual trans myself, but you might be interested that the Avalon with the 3.5L engine is rated for 31mpg on the Highway. Not really a fuel sucker - that's better than the 2005 RAV4, and only 3 mpg lower than than the 2005 Camry 4-cylinder.

Yeah, I know about the big difference in cd between these vehicles, but it's amazed me to see how much better mileage newer V-6's are getting.

callmedrfill · September 2005

the New Rav4 has gained a couple of hundred pounds, but even with V6 and AWD, would not pass 3500 lbs.

I would also surmise that Toyota is well in tune with feul economy concerns here, and the 4 cyl. economy will be appealing, as in the 2007 Camry.

Seems one version will be efficient, in cost, size, and value. The other will be more for people who want it all. The ease of use of a smaller SUV, with the performance and improved off-road ability of a Mid-size. :shades:

If only the Lexus IS was as well thought out.

DrFill

petl · September 2005

Does anyone know what the gas ratings are with 3.5 and 2.5? Doesn't the 2.5 require premium fuel? Either one has hit the market yet. I'll wait for real life experiences with fuel mileage usage before passing judgement. The Avalon seems to be getting great gas mileage from its owners.

sevenseas · September 2005

ok, if the 3.5 V6's is close to 31mpg highway as with the Avalon then it would be acceptable to me and I wouldnt feel the need to go with the 4 cyclinder.

Definately curious about the price. I checked out a video stream link on a forum on rav4world.com to an auto show in europe (mostly boring) and they stated they were marketing the RAV4 as a premium suv.

Another difference brought to my attention on the other forum was the difference in awd systems between the 2005 and new 2006 model, with many preferring the 2005 awd system. I dont know enough about the different systems involved and would appreciate anybody with a better understanding to post the differences on edmunds.com.

My Mazda6 was recently totalled. Even though I would appreciate a little more space I have been considering the awd 2005 RAV4 as a replacement. Do you believe there will be excellent deals out there within the next two months for remaining 2005 models?

jbollt · September 2005

I wouldn't expect the RAV4 3.5 liter to be acheive the same mpg as the Avalon. Aeordynamics and frontal area are enough to make a big difference alone. Compare the mpg of the Camry SE V6 and the Highlander, same engine and trans, yet Camry SE (3.3 liter) is rated at 21/29 and in the 2wd Highlander 19/25.

Also, I bet the Avalon is much "slippery" than the Camry...Hard to make an SUV slippery.

nippononly · September 2005

in previous year models of the RAV was a simple center viscous coupling, running all four wheels all the time. This is one of the reasons fuel economy wasn't better than it was.

I am not sure which system they will now use, but I imagine it will be one of the electronically managed ones like the Highlander uses, which usually run the power 90% front, 10% rear (or so) unless wheel slip is detected. Not as good IMO, but definitely more sophisticated and will probably improve fuel economy.

navigator89 · September 2005

Here is the new Toyota RAV4 at the Frankfurt Auto Show. I wish they had pictures of the interior. I also heard some weird rumour at a website that Toyota was considering using the 3.5 liter V6 found in the IS350 to power the RAV4. Imagine, 300hp in such a small vehicle!

http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshow/articles/107049/page025.html?tid=edmunds.e.autoshow..- leftnav.26.*

mike_belknap · September 2005

"And Honda CR-V's (not Hyundai's) have VSA, ABS, EBD, Dual SRS, pretensioners, and front side airbags and side curtain airbags as standard equipment."

Just a small item: the Tucson does actually come standard with those safety features (as will all future Hyundai SUVs/crossovers and mid- to upper-market cars; in fact, most Hyundais will also come with active head restraints), though the current-generation Santa Fe does not. "VSA" is a registered trademark, so Hyundai calls their stability control either "ESP" or "ESC," depending on the model.

"Since the 2006 RAV4 is a new generation, it should at least go this far."

I agree 100% - no excuses for this; it's careless, stingy, unnecessary, and very disappointing.

Mike

2006 Toyota RAV4

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles