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?

1246716

Comments

  • vivavegas99vivavegas99 Member Posts: 39
    I agree with you Juice. People get really fired up on these boards. If one car was right for everyone, then there wouldn't be so many kinds out there! :)
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    In terms of safety you might be right. Firemen are having a hard time using their jaws of life because they can't get through the side pillars on the Subarus. The laminate steel build makes them relatively impervious.

    But hey, if fate is going to nail you, you can have a hummer H-1 and if you get hit by a Semi you lose. I had a semi (car carrier/low to ground) in a horrible rainstorm in Kansas a few weeks ago blow over into my lane. In all the spray all I could see was about three feet in front of me until I sensed (peripheral vision) a mass very close to me. I looked left and he was literaly 2 inches from my mirror and still coming.

    I went right and across the rumble strip and right on the edge of the grass while he kept coming. I slammed on the brakes so I would be going slower and he would get by and he just barely missed me being about three quarters into my lane by the end of it.

    If I had been in a massive SUV (roll over, size, slow response), I believe it could have been a very different outcome. Maneuverability, quickness and agility saved me... that day and that would be the third time I can firmly say Subaru all wheel drive and other factors kept me safe in the last 9 years with the other two being snow related.

    I literally said, thank you subaru, speaking to my car. I then started cursing the truck driver and shaking.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You might need the momentum of a Semi to break through all this boron steel in the B-pillar of the Forester. (see pic)

    -juice
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    fyi,

    During an extrication seminar I was conducting, several members of an area fire department approached me with a question and a challenge. They had encountered a Subaru Forester involved in a crash and were unable to cut through the B-pillar with any of their extrication tools. Their cutter and their reciprocating saw were both unable to sever the pillar. They actually went back to the junkyard the next day and used a gasoline-powered rotary saw with an abrasive blade to totally remove the B-pillar. They brought it to the seminar to show me.

    When I saw the pillar, it was clear that something was different about the Forester B-pillar construction. It was eight layers thick! One of the layers was a round steel rod that resembled a concrete reinforcement bar (rebar). That B-pillar had more layers of steel than I had ever seen in a vehicle.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I had the perfect opportunity this morning to experience first-hand the difference between my manual transmission Forester's 50/50 AWD setup and that of the front-wheel biased CR-V’s. I was stopped at a light in one of two left-hand turn lanes with the CR-V beside me. When the light turned green, the CR-V squealed its front wheels in the act of accelerating and turning. Meanwhile, even though I made it thru the turn faster, there was nary a moment of slippage as the Forester's full-time AWD powered it effortlessly through the turn. To borrow an old Toyota marketing slogan... Oh what a feeling! :D

    -Frank
  • mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    It could be in tires and the angle of the turn dont but think it would have anyway since the AWD is for all seasons and that you have way more power with that turbo. But there are many of other differences that can go both ways again it all depends what fits your needs as both are not the same and are far apart from each other as some may think this coming from a owner of both.

    .... mnf
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Are you sure the CR-V was an AWD model? They have FWD, too.

    I'd ask if you saw the rear differential (easiest way to tell) but I'm sure your XT wasn't behind him pulling away from a stop. ;)

    I test drove an '02 CR-V, AWD model, and it even had torque steer. It could chirp the tires in 2nd gear. So you can feel that it's FWD by default.

    To be fair we're in the 5% or so of people that would even notice a difference in feel.

    -juice
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Are you sure the CR-V was an AWD model? They have FWD, too.

    You mean not all manufacturers make AWD standard across the entire model line-up? :surprise:

    -Frank
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    I have done it a few times with Foresters and CRV's. By far the Subaru system is more responsive..explaination could take hours..but the mechanical system in the Subaru out performes the electrical system in the CRV, it seems there is too many systems interfering to do the same thing. Also CRV is almost 100% FWD, so you have to spin the front wheels to shift into AWD!
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Also CRV is almost 100% FWD, so you have to spin the front wheels to shift into AWD!"

    Actually, it is entirely FWD, until the wheel slip, which is when AWD becomes extra handy. Some people would say that Subaru wastes energy driving four wheels all the time, when two wheels would do just as well except when those two wheels lose traction. Of course, those "some people" would not own a Subaru anyway.

    The limited time AWD is what gives better MPG. Subaru has made it's name on a niche market of people who desire full time 4WD. But their cars would get better MPG if they were part time 4WD instead. However, they would lose their market niche...
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Obscure and academic corrections.

    The AWD system in the CR-V is purely mechanical.

    IIRC, the Subaru's can be defeated with the removal of a fuse... suggesting that at least part of it is electrical.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Only for the lesser automatic models. Can't do that with any manual tranny, VTD or VDC models.

    You actually insert a fuse, strangely enough, to put it in FWD only mode. This disengages the clutch pack completely. It does not operate in that manner by default, however, so it's never 100% FWD unless the fuse is in.

    Also, the AWD is not designed/engineered to be used like that all the time, it's actually for when you get a flat or need to call a tow truck.

    Funny part is you get an idiot light that says "FWD", like something is inherently wrong with that. :D

    -juice
  • darballman1darballman1 Member Posts: 55
    "Just stay away from the RAV4 with the V6.... "

    Check out the Real MPG strand. You will read that there is not all THAT much different between the 4 and 6 on the RAV 4....maybe 1 or 2 mpg. I have read on different forums that some people who bought the 4 cyln. wish they opted for the 6. I have talked to a couple RAV 4 owners who make the same comment.
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    "Funny part is you get an idiot light that says "FWD", like something is inherently wrong with that."

    Your point?

    All wheel drive user for 15 years...
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    that juice meant it was funny that a light was warning you that you were crossing to the dark side of FWD by disabling the AWD.

    Subaru owner since they had part time AWD/4WD.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yep, it makes me giggle a bit whenever I notice that light.

    Hazards worthy of potential warnings:

    * Service Engine Soon
    * Check Engine light
    * Fuel Level Low
    * FRONT WHEEL DRIVE! AAAAAAAH! :surprise:

    :D

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The V6 is pretty close in fuel efficiency, only a couple of mpg away from the 4.

    And the other thing is that while there are complaints about hesitation when you first hit the gas, the rate of complaints is higher with the 4 banger than it is with the V6.

    Plus all the extra power, torque, and towing capacity.

    IMO the V6 in the RAV4 is a no-brainer. You definitely pay the extra amount and get it. Very small investment for a very large payoff.

    -juice
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    I knew if I didn't get the v6 that somewhere in the future I would find myself 2nd guessing that decission. I have no regrets. It's a smooth, efficient engine.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Member Posts: 1,110
    I'd probably opt for the 2.4L 4-cylinder,
    not the 6, since I have no need to tow.

    The 2.4L in my gf's Solara is an impressive power plant,
    strong, quiet and efficient.

    I'd be saving money up front, in purchase cost,
    and all thru the life of the vehicle, in lower fuel costs.
    The mpg difference adds up.
  • cjosephsoncjosephson Member Posts: 24
    I also got the 2.4L 4-cylinder instead of the V6. I found the accelleration and ride to be just fine in the I4 and, in fact, the I4 seemed a bit more nimbler and easier to turn handling-wise than the V6. I'm not towing anything and if I did,I would have gotten the V6 or a truck. I think it's a waste of money up front $2,000 and at the pump but that's just my opinion.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I do tow, plus I have 2 kids and a nanny, and throw in a dog for good measure.

    I'm certain that I stretch the payload limits for whatever vehicle I drive.

    So V6 for me, no question.

    -juice
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Member Posts: 1,110
    "I do tow, plus I have 2 kids and a nanny, and throw in a dog for good measure.
    I'm certain that I stretch the payload limits for whatever vehicle I drive."

    Is your last name Griswold?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think my wife's packing gets inspiration from them... :sick:

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/31/sema-subaru-unveils-updated-forester-in-2-5-x- t-sports-form/

    VDC (stability control, finally!), 17" rims, and a really nice mesh grille. Nice package, hope it comes in that blue color.

    It's ironic that Subaru was the first in this segment to make ABS standard (1998, from the beginning) yet they were just about the last ones to offer stability control. :sick:

    -juice
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Subaru's results aren't in, just yet

    Toyota sold 11,154 units of the RAV4 including both the I4 and V6 models.

    Honda sold 20,413 of the I4 only CR-V with reactive AWD.

    No one is more shocked than I. Though probably not for the same reasons.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Shocked :confuse:

    If not for that stupid rear door side-swing arrangement, and the spare on it, I would have purchased the CR-V in 2005 instead of my Forester. CR and others have always given it good reliability ratings. The edge went to Subaru for the safety equipment and CR's top ratings of it.

    Now I am very pleased with my Subie, but I have to tell you guys, looking at the new 2007 CR-V, when I am ready to get another car to replace it (probably 2008), I will once again be giving Honda a long look. ;)
  • drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    It's way too early of course, pent up demand for a redesigned model etc. But assuming the new 'V does meet Honda's sales forecasts will there be a serving of humble pie anywhere? ;)
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "Honda sold 20,413 of the I4 only CR-V with reactive AWD."

    That's for the new CR-V only?
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    No way to be certain of the mix, but I doubt it. Don't see how they could have that many new units on hand at launch.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The impression I get from this link I found a short while ago is that they were new ones (and the link quotes Honda as the source):

    "Sales of the all-new 2007 Honda CR-V totaled 20,413, representing an increase of 95.7 percent in its first full month of sales while shattering the previous all-time record by 3,744 units from July 2005."

    Yahoo

    Guess there was a lot of pent up demand to get that tire off the rear door, lol, but the numbers are a bit hard to believe. :shades:

    Ah, just found another link that contradicts the 3,744 number:

    "Import truck sales were indicative of Honda division selling 20,413 CR-V units, an increase of 95.7%, compared to 10,850 units in the same period a year ago." (Note that this blurb doesn't specify "all-new" CR-Vs, but it's still a 95% increase).

    RealTimeTraders
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well, it would be "typical" of them to have 10,000 shipped. Most likely 5,000 units spread around the country at launch, another 5,000 on the boats, or shipping from US plants.
  • patvizinapatvizina Member Posts: 16
    Does anyone have experience using luggage or storage container on the roof of the Forester? HOw do it handle?
    How much does it affect mpg? etc.

    THanks so much, I bought a Subaru yesterday, now having buyers' remorse about the lack of space in the rear for suitcases, etc.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    If it has roof rails, you will need to purchase the cross rails and either a basket or container. It doesn't effect the handling or performance, as weight is limited, but the larger enclosed carrier will hold 4 suitcases and stuff.....
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Honda sold 20,413 of the I4 only CR-V with reactive AWD.

    I'm wondering how many of those were replacements for old gen CR-Vs?

    The next time any of you are driving by a Honda dealer, glance over and see how many used CR-Vs are on the lot. I know this applies to all manufacturers but it has always seemed to me that Honda buyers are quicker to replace their 3-4 year old Honda with the latest and greatest. Anyone else notice this or have some data to back it up or shut me up? :P
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Excellent question. The average length of ownership for all cars in the US is 5.2 years, according to Forbes. It's apparently 4 years in Canada (pdf file) although Canada Trust says it's 8 years.

    Honda is right at the 4 year average in Canada, with the "younger" Kia and Hyundai population trading more often.

    In the U.K. a study says that "CR-V owners are the least likely to change their car, with the model achieving the highest average length of ownership." link
  • patvizinapatvizina Member Posts: 16
    I'm happy to hear it doesn't affect the handling. Is it advisable to buy the roof carrier from the dealer or are there just as good knock off items out there?
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    In the U.K. a study says that "CR-V owners are the least likely to change their car, with the model achieving the highest average length of ownership."

    Good stuff Steve but I'm not so sure that answers my question in any way. The CR-V is more or less a luxury vehicle in Europe so of course people will keep it longer over there. Also, varmint posted U.S. sales which that article has nothing to do with.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Yeah, I know, but I couldn't find any US stuff. Looks like you can't either. :shades:
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    The 95% increase is for 10/06 vs 10/05.

    The remark about shattering an all-time sales record is comparing 10/06 vs 7/05.

    Two different benchmarks.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Shocked :confuse:

    If not for that stupid rear door side-swing arrangement, and the spare on it, I would have purchased the CR-V in 2005 instead of my Forester.


    True enough, but the lack of a full-size spare (and no place to put one), plus the ugly front end are the two reasons why I will not be purchasing this gen CR-V when I need a new vehicle.

    It works both ways.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "...it has always seemed to me that Honda buyers are quicker to replace their 3-4 year old Honda with the latest and greatest."

    I've never seen anything which would support that.

    Actually, if that were true, you'd think that the glut of used vehicles would drop the resale value of Hondas. Yet we know resale isn't a problem. Furthermore, it would be easier to suppose that the domestics are the ones with the quick turn over rate. They offer the most generous and well-publicized loyalty incentives.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Duh! :P

    I totally agree, Varmit, no need to [non-permissible content removed] for tat in forums. My post wasn't refuting you, but merely adding the reason I chose as I did.

    But complaining about donuts is futile, as most cars have gone to them, and soon all will (except for truck-based real off-roaders), to meet mandated weight limits and MPG computations. The number of people who remember full-size spares and care about them is dwindling each month. ;)
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Okay, sorry. I understand now. You can add reasons for your choices, but I can't add my own. Got it. Won't happen again.

    :confuse:
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Yes. Glad you understand, and thanks. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Holy cow, 20k is hard to imagine! :surprise:

    According to Automotive News Honda had a $750 incentive on the '05 CR-V, so maybe clearing out the 06s helped. But it looks like isellhondas is getting the last laugh, he was saying the new one would sell briskly even before they arrived.

    Forester might get 5k on a good month. No way will it challenge those numbers, even the RAV4's.

    -juice
  • d_krautd_kraut Member Posts: 3
    Same thing here. No full-size spare, no manual, so no sale for me. I just love our 2002 CR-V, but am looking at the Nissan Xterra now instead of the new CR-V.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    A new '07 CR-V owner at the chat tonight said he got a full sized spare with his. Didn't think to quiz him on whether it was some sort of option or add-on for the one he purchased.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Since they moved the spare from the back door, I made a point to look when I visited a dealer. It was a full size tire, mounted underneath.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I've never seen anything which would support that.

    I'm just going by what I see on the streets. Before I even saw the current gen Accord (2002 I believe it began?) in a mag or anywhere else I saw a bunch of them on the street. I rarely see an older CR-V, pre-2002, on the road anymore and I have seen two '07s already.

    When we were shopping for our Explorer earlier this year we considered the Pilot and Odyssey. All of the Honda dealers we visited had loads and loads of last gen Odysseys on the lots as well as the pre-refreshed Pilots. Since they had few Odysseys on the lot, but plenty of Pilots, I assumed a lot of replacements were sold.

    Actually, if that were true, you'd think that the glut of used vehicles would drop the resale value of Hondas.

    I'd love to argue with you on this point but this is not the place and we've been over this before I think. ;)

    Furthermore, it would be easier to suppose that the domestics are the ones with the quick turn over rate. They offer the most generous and well-publicized loyalty incentives.

    It would be easier and so would assuming the Honda lots should be full of used domestics. But they're not from what I've seen.

    On a side note varm I finally got that Mustang I was talking about forever back in late August. The "permasmile" hasn't worn off yet. :blush:
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    The OEM spare is full diameter. It has to be or RT4WD would be permanently engaged, resulting in binding. However, it is not a full width tire.

    In other words, it's a skinny donut tire with the same circumference as a stock tire.

    I am told that a full width, real tire will not fit in the same space as the donut spare. I haven't actually tried it myself, but it certainly doesn't look like there's enough clearance.
This discussion has been closed.