Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999142340359932162
The '06 CR-V EX AWD is compared to a base Forester X and gets whipped, and the Forester X doesn't even have the rear LSD that the X Limited, LL Bean, and XT models get.
The Highlander is compared to the Tribeca, as is the Murano and XC90. Subaru seemed to hand-pick part-time AWD systems (low hanging fruit? LOL) to demonstrate the advantages of their full-time systems. :shades:
I like those ramp tests, you just can't cheat. BMW used those to compare their AWD 330xi to Audi's A4 Quattro a couple of years ago, and the X5 to the Lexus RX330.
The video confirms something I already suspected - Tribeca is one of the few vehicles that can supply enough power to a single wheel to climb that ramp.
Another issue - the systems that are engineered primarily as FWD often have serious difficulties sending enough power to the rear axle to be of significant benefit.
Finally, not all stability control systems are created equal. The video does a good job of showing that some are pretty much useless.
-juice
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=11004&vf=23
And that test was set up by Toyota, so they can't even say Subaru set them up with unfavorable ramp angles.
-juice
So your saying whatever CRV V6 sales there are would come at the expense of CRV 4-cylinder sales?
I highly doubt that. If anything it will bring "new" customers into the Honda showrooms—customers who would have never before considered a CRV.
Bob
For me and my family's safety, this would definitely be a BIG negative and deal breaker for choosing the Forester over them.
- hutch
Under the "lows" listed for the Forester, it states "no available stability control".
In the performance/specifications/safety section for the Forester there is a "no" for stability and traction control.
In addition there are no head protection side curtain air bags available for the Forester. Both the CRV (standard) and RAV4 (optional) offer this safety item with a rollover sensor.
In an SUV which has a higher center of gravity than a sedan and is harder to recover from abrupt emergency manuvers, thus is more prone to rollover, I feel these safety features are critical in choosing this type of vehicle.
Even if your vehicle doesn't rollover, stability control helps you to recover, keep you going straight and avoid a possible collision or going offroad into a ditch.
That's why the government wants to make stability control standard on all vehicles in the future.
But watch the Forester and the CRV go through the slalom test in the video that juice linked to:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999142340359932162
Seems like the Forester acquits itself pretty nicely.
I believe you would have quite a task at hand trying to roll a Forester.
From just reading the spec. sheet alone I can understand why one might think the CRV or RAV a better bet. For safety, handling and performance I'd pick the Forester.
Most sedans are less prone to rollover than SUVs because they have a lower center of gravity.
If the dynamics of a rollover situation are strong enough,(speed, road conditions, sudden turns), ANY vehicle will rollover.
In any case I believe a lot of accidents (not necessarily rollovers) occur because of loss of vehicle control.
Any safety device that can lower the odds of those accidents
happening to me is a good and important thing.
As smittynyc says in his post, stability control is an issue that Subaru needs to address in its entire line. When that happens, the Forester, as stable and good handling as it is, will be a safer vehicle.
Yep, that's pretty much what I'm writing.
I mean, take a look at how many new customers came flocking to the Forester for the turbo model. In the pre-turbo years, they sold 53-55K units each year. With the turbo, they sold 53K units last year. This year doesn't look any better.
Take it for what it's worth, but, in my view, that's not a big spread. Data for the 2007 CR-V (which is supposed to me more stable) is not yet available.
On the subject of Stability Control, it is definitely an advantage. No matter how stable the car is, there are limitations to how effective the contact patch of the tires can be.
AWD is not going to solve any directional issues unless you have your foot planted solidly on the accelerator. It doesn't matter which system you've got driving the wheels. Stability control can work. It works when you're on the gas, when you're coasting, and when you're braking.
As a matter of fact - assuming Juice's video is the same I've seen on other sites - I noticed the Forester is not compared with the CR-V on the wet course or the rollers. Probably because the CR-V's stability control (and traction control) are an asset in those situations.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Toyotas-August-2006-Sales-Report,-Released&id=297588
Do you think the also all-new CRV will have such a sales increase? No way. How about a more realistic 20% increase? I doubt that too. If it had a V6 option it would have a better chance...
Sorry varmint, you're way off base on this. Nuff said...
Bob
It will certainly make life tougher for the Subaru Forester until the all-new '09 model debuts. The RAV4 will be okay, but the next year and a half will be tough for the Forester.
Bob
Have you conveniently forgotten that RAV4 sales were up approx 50% back when the 2001 redesign was released?
When Toyota launched the 2001 RAV4, sales of that model matched sales of the CR-V - for a short time. The prior model had always sold well below the same level as the CR-V. At times, the CR-V outsold the RAV4 2 to 1.
This new RAV4 is more than just a V6. It's a larger vehicle. Ever since the CR-V was launched, only those small CUVs with a decent back seat and good cargo space have made a splash in the market. The ones that have remained small have all posted meager results. That list includes vehicles like the Forester, old RAV4s, Vitaras, the Outlander, etc. And, yes, that list includes models with V6s and turbo fours.
And while sales of the RAV4 have jumped 87%, only 30% of those are being sold with the V6. Obviously, there is plenty of growth coming from the I4 models.
So, we've got 3 factors which contribute to the RAV4's current success... it's new, larger, and got the V6.
Now ask yourself. How many of those RAV4 customers would have bought the I4 if the V6 were not available? Let's be conservative and say 10%? Which would mean the V6 is only contributing 20% to the total number of vehicles sold.
With that in mind, go back and look at my projection for how many sales Honda would gain by adding a V6. You might find the number 20% mentioned.
"Do you think the also all-new CRV will have such a sales increase?"
Heck no. I think Honda will miss their 160K sales target. The new CR-V is way too ugly. It is controversial at best. Being new will probably save it in the first year. It does appear to have some nice upgrades, too. But, in the long run, I expect them to lose sales. Adding a V6 would only make the mistake more expensive!
Not sure where you got the 30% from, but assuming that's correct, that's 30% more sales than without having the V6 available to customers. And assuming that's correct, Honda could also expect a 30% increase in sales over and above the 4-cylinder-only CRV, if they offered a V6 as an option.
Bob
I also agree that Subaru could sell more Foresters if they were bigger. Unfortunately I'm in the minority who prefer it retain its current size. However, there is certainly still a market for smaller vehicles. Look at Honda and Toyota, the Civic and Corolla have both grown from sub-compacts to large compacts so now they're having to come out with the Fit and Yaris respectively to satisfy the demand for smaller, cheaper and more fuel efficient models.
-Frank
I've also read somewhere that Honda may (?) offer another SUV that falls in between the CRV and Pilot. If that's true, it likely will get a V6.
Bob
Toyota. It's been cited in the auto rags and quoted from Toyota PR staff.
"but assuming that's correct, that's 30% more sales than without having the V6 available to customers."
Now ask yourself. How many of those RAV4 customers would have bought the I4 if the V6 were not available? Let's be conservative and say 10%? Which would mean the V6 is only contributing 20% to the total number of vehicles sold.
With that in mind, go back and look at my projection for how many sales Honda would gain by adding a V6. You might find the number 20% mentioned.
So, I'm not writing in a foreign tongue, after all?
I hear you on the Forester. They could gain sales by making it larger. But as more and more manufacturers move upward in size (like the RAV4), that leaves more buyers for Subaru to woo with compact dimensions.
A larger Forester would also intrude a bit on Outback sales.
20% is nothing to sneeze at. So Honda has elected to give up a another 20% of sales because they don't offer a V6 CRV.
BTW, what's the percentage of V6 Accords sold? Whatever that number is, I think you could expect the same number of V6 CRVs sold.
Actually, I would expect more V6 CRVs to be sold than Accord V6s, simply because the CRV is more likely to be used for towing and other "utility-oriented" chores than the Accord, where the V6 power would truly be appreciated.
Bob
40%
The Accord has averaged 387,500 sales each year for the past four years. That means approximately 155,000 units per year for the V6 Accord (more than the total sales of the CR-V).
The CR-V has averaged 147,000 units over the same period. Which (at 30%) would give us a theoretical 44,100 units per year. They earn more customers simply bringing over the 5 year-old Fit.
"Whatever that number is, I think you could expect the same number of V6 CRVs sold."
The percentage of RAV4's sold with a V6 doesn't match the percentage for Camrys.
Short trips... any of these will do.
One critter... any of these will do.
Road trips... any, though I'm hesitant about the Forester. It's the smallest of the lot.
Good ride... that's a tough one. Haven't driven the new CR-V yet. I don't expect it will be a problem based on the reviews I'm reading. I think the only reason why the RAV4 takes a hit for a firm ride is because some are buying the sport package (tighter suspension tuning). Forester is proven to be pretty good in this category.
Good price... CR-V's are too new. Pricing is still at MSRP. The Forester (because it's the oldest design) probably represents the best overall value.
Gas mileage... any will do. Just stay away from the RAV4 with the V6 or the Forester with the turbo.
If the RAV4 makes you all weak in the knees, I say buy it. Were I shopping today, I'd probably work a deal on a 4 cyl RAV4 myself.
So what I'm saying is until the '09 model arrives, life will be tough for the Forester.
Bob
Varmit - I don't know what you're basing that statement on but I've been averaging 24.6 and have gotten as high as 27.6 on the highway. The EPA estm. is 28 highway. ?????
I don't quite agree with that. Under engine braking, I'd much rather have 50/50 AWD so you divide the task between both axles. Coming down Pikes Peak I'd much rather have a full-time AWD system. Any hills, really.
The one thing that impresses me the most about 50/50 AWD is how evenly the tires wear. I have to document when rotations were done because the front and rear tires look the same. In FWD cars the fronts wear out far sooner.
Changing gears a bit....
I'll pre-empt the rant below by saying that Subaru absolutely fell behind in the stability control area and must address this short-coming ASAP.
However, watch the video again. Volvos sliding around all over the place. Proving that electronics can make the best of what handling you have, but it can't make it handle better. This less intrusive setup let the Volvo spin out.
On the opposite side of the threshold spectrum, Toyota's VSC is a bit too quick to act and spoils the fun. In some cases it actually interrupts a hill climb, as in the link I shared earlier.
So, not all stability control are created equal, and the electronics don't actually improve handling limits, they merely try to stop you before you exceed those limits.
Toyota just needs to give us an Off button.
-juice
-juice
- hutch
Why? (looking at AWD basic)
CRV - price Your are going to pay the 21,195 for the CRV and you can get a Forester for 19K if you work it.
Forester - 173 HP 166 HP at 4,000 rpm CRV- 166 HP 161 HP at 4200 rpm, Forester - Real All Wheel Drive system, CRV - Front wheel unless stuff happens. CRV heavier... CRV underpowered but pretty. Forester just a practical quick box that goes and goes...but I digress.
Forester - Extremely highly rated for safety, CRV - unknown but probably very good,
Forester mileage - 24 in town, 29 highway, CRV 23 and 30.
Forester towing - 2400 lbs, CRV - 1500 lbs.
Forester - lumbar support, CRV none
Rav 4, well, nice, but getting bigger and expensive and you will probably realistically pay 23K for the rough equivalent of the basic CRV and Forester.
Oh Forester, if you want to move up you can get the upgrade version with heated seats a sunroof that is huge, heated seats and everything for about what you would pay for the base Rav 4. Oh and if you are really antzy, you can get the Turbo Forester and go from 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds.
It isn't even in the same league as the Rav 4 as that has i.e. move into a larger category.
So the CR-V has remained a small SUV (or CUV or whatever) with close to midsize interior specifications while the RAV4 has moved up in size. Not sure why that's a problem for those acutally shopping for a small SUV (or CUV or whatever).
CRV (sic) - price Your are going to pay the 21,195 for the CRV and you can get a Forester for 19K if you work it.
Are you saying you have to pay MSRP for a CR-V? Maybe you do, but I don't. And neither does any smart vehicle purchaser.
Forester towing - 2400 lbs, CRV - 1500 lbs.
Any one who has even done a bit of research would know the CR-V has a higher towing capacity in other markets. Why is it low in the US? I could guess, but the lawyers might get mad. And if you are actually buying a vehicle to tow anything of significance I don't think either of these are the right choice.
So does the Forester. Mine is rated for 1800kg in the UK, or 3960 lbs!
That's crazy, though, a trailer that weighs significantly more than the tow vehicle could end up being the tail that wags the dog. I'd never try that.
-juice
Look at trucks, from heavy duty pickups right up to tractor-trailers big-rigs. The trailers always weigh more than the tow vehicle.
Bob
Of course, but their couplings are massive compared with anything you'll find on SUVs which, I believe, Juice was referring to. Even then, the big rigs still occasionally succumb to the "tail wagging the dog" effect.
tidester, host
I'm glad to hear that Honda deals on price. Not where I live.
The 2007 CRV does have a more comfortable rear seat I hear, but for MY needs it seems with the exception of looks (and I prefer 06 CRV looks) and a more comfortable rear seat and you do NOT want to move UP in size (ala RAV4), the Forester should definitely be in play.
Oh, I have a 1,900 lb pop up camper (when loaded) I have towed all over the Rockies (10K) that has air conditioning, stove, sink, potti, etc. I consider it pretty substantial and my Forester kicks butt while I pass much more "substantial" large SUV's and HUGE trailers going UP.
I have averaged 21 mpg for 10K miles with it and in this day and age that beats the single digit stuff most "more substantial" tows get. Camping is still affordable for me. And if you go to pop up camping websites, you never see CRV's mentioned as viable tow vehicles while you do see some Forester, Outbacks doing quite nicely with pop ups and small travel trailers. And they are never over-worked.
So, it all comes down to what you need and want. I'm just saying consider a Forester. Oh and Click and Clack call them a great dog vehicle. My dog agrees. He can see out lying down. They are very tough little vehicles and not just pretty boys. If Subaru was as good at marketing and a little better at styling like Honda, who knows... They make one heck of a vehicle. My last one went 147K and sold quick on the dealer's lot.
So with small kids on board, get a Suburban, until they are older. How much more on gas can you spend. They do around 18-20mpg average if you drive properly. I CHOOSE FAMILY SAFETY FIRST!
My Forester is 9+ years old now and my biggest complaint is that it refuses to break so I have no excuse to trade it in.
-juice