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
"Help yourself in or out of a tight spot while helping to protect your paint
Four Sensors emit audible beeps into the cabin while you back up, signaling objects as you approach them
Beeps quicken as your vehicle gets closer to objects
Note: Back-up sensor attachment is required for installation
Installation costs not included. "
Still happy with my Forester, but I like to keep up with the latest...
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
I doubt dealers will stock vehicles that already have the feature, so why pay the OE markups if it's not factory installed? $500 sounds high, $2-300 is more like it.
-juice
I always wanted a Forester but ended up with an Impreza.
Anyways, enjoy.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7dVFY5CxT0
Bubaa
I currently own a 2001 Subaru Outback and vaguely remember that the manual transmission version of the Outback had a system that could deliver up to 50% power to the rear when needed while the automatic was slightly less.
If anyone knows more about this power distribution issue and how it applies to the:
CRV
RAV4
Forester
Outback
I'd appreciate the feedback.
Although I am quite please with the all around performance of my Outback I have to admit that my previouly owned AWD Toyota Previa was better (in terms of traction) when it came to driving on snowy roads.
That defaults to 50/50, and when the two axles move at different speeds (i.e. slip) the viscous fluid sheers and lock the two together temporarily. It can therefore send more than 50% of the power to the rear wheels, either actually.
Nice thing about them is that they are full-time, i.e. they act as a center differential so both axles can be engaged the entire time.
Manual transmission Foresters work the same way.
I bet your Previa simply had better tires on it. Toyota moved away from the VC system for the 2006 RAV4, my guess is they did so to obtain better EPA fuel economy numbers, as the new system is part-time and actually less advanced.
RAV4 defaults to pure FWD, and then sends power to the rear wheels when it senses slip. Not sure what % it can send to the rear, but I think it's less than 50%. When the latest generation was launched, information was scarce, leading me to believe they didn't really want a lot of scrutiny for the system.
CR-V works in a similar manner using a fast-acting Rotary Blade Coupling.
That video is interesting but keep in mind Subaru added VDC to some Forester models for MY2007, and Honda came out with a totally new CR-V. The video was used by SoA internally to help train dealership staff on how to "sell" the advantages of Subaru's drivetrain layout.
The ramp test is very tough, and while the VTD and VDC systems manage to climb that ramp, my educated guess is that the Viscous Coupling and auto-AWD systems would fail. Else they would have showed them. Then again, RBC, Haldex, and Torsen systems would also all fail to climb that ramp.
-juice
Bottom line...which car do you think would be better in snowy conditions
Honda CRV
Subaru Outback or Forester
Toyota Rav 4
I would be getting an auto-transmission.
Thanks in advance.
Honda actually lowered the new CR-V, so it has less clearance than the previous model. Still better than regular cars.
RAV4 I think gets 7.1-7.5" depending on the model, though that information may be outdated. Plus, they offer 3 different rim sizes (16", 17", 18") so I'm not sure if that has an effect on clearance.
Forester has the most ground clearance and the only full-time AWD system among those 3. Ground clearance is 7.9" for the turbos, 8.1" for the 2.5l base engine.
I would go with the Forester if that is your criteria. Add snow tires to any one of these and they'd be excellent snow vehicles.
That's why I was interested in the different AWD systems (front/rear power distribution etc) and how well the vehicles would perform in snowy conditions. The fact that the poster had mentioned that the maximum of 30% power distribution to the rear on the CRV made him eliminate that vehicle as an option made me reconsider it as a viable option.
The Forester with a manual defaults to a 50/50 power split front and rear, which is ideal in my mind. Add the ground clearance and I think it would be the ride of choice for snow. I did drive up a forest road in early winter with mine in about 9 inches of snow. About 3 miles. You could hear the underside drag. I am not saying it was a smart idea, but I made the entire drive without a hang up and I knew the road well. Only other vehicle i saw was a tacoma, and they looked at me like I was from another planet.
RAV4 would be next for me. It's system is capable of shifting 45% of the power to the rear, and it also has a switch that allows you to lock that 45% to the back up to around 20 mph or so. Also has hill-descent control and hill assist control; cool features I wouldn't mind Subaru adopting...especially HDC. I would worry about Toyota's typically over-intrusive VDC though.
CR-V is last place for me. Que the said video...
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
Also, Subaru didn't show its own weaknesses. While models with VTD or VDC can climb that now infamous ramp, Foresters without VDC cannot (neither can a RAV4 or CR-V). Only the Forester XT Sports automatic could climb it in this class.
I bet SH-AWD models like the RD-X would also have success on that ramp. BMW had a demo I saw at one of their events where an X5 could climb, so X-Drive probably can, too. And Audi they had on-site could not. Same for a Lexus RX, both failed to climb the same ramp.
Shame about that. That poster is incorrect and ruled out a vehicle based on bogus information. Power distribution to the rear is near 70%. Older CR-Vs went to a 50/50 split, but Honda increased rear torque capacity 20% for 2007.
While we're at it, Juice made a mistake in describing RT4WD in one of his recent posts, too.
"CR-V works in a similar manner using a fast-acting Rotary Blade Coupling."
I suspect he has it confused with the system used on the original Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute. Those two used a rotary blade coupling. (They have since changed to an electric sensor and clutch system.)
No, the CR-V uses a combination of two activation methods. The primary activation of the system comes from a set of hydraulic pumps, which engage a set of wet clutch packs. That's been the basis of the CR-V's AWD since 1996. A few years back, they added a ball-ramp clutch for faster and smoother operation.
First, the ball-ramp clutch engages the main clutch packs. This sends "some" torque to the rear immediately. The hydraulic pumps follow up to reinforce the connection and maximize power distribution.
You can find more details about how RT4WD works at the bottom of this link.
The Forester has the clearance and the AWD to make going forward easiest. However, last I checked only the turbo model had a Stability Control program. So, stopping and maintaining directional control once you do start sliding is going to be more difficult for the average driver.
What you need is a good combination of basic handling traits, good AWD, good clearance for deep snow, and stability control. Weigh those factors based on the kind of snow you most frequently encounter, but do not place too much weight on any one factor.
Not saying I wouldn't want it, because I do, but I would want an off switch, at least.
-juice
PS I stand corrected regarding RT4WD, I guess I'm guilty of grouping the part-time systems together
Most vehicles have an on/off button. The CR-V does. Not sure about the RAV4. In the past, Toyota has not given the driver that option, but they've recently changed their tune on the issue.
p.s. Not a problem. There are so many AWD systems on the market, who can keep up?
The worst part is that manufacturers are making less and less information available about these systems.
Including the CR-V, IIRC we were trying to get specifics about what improvements they had made and information was pretty scarce up until the launch.
Same for Subaru, though we assume since they used the VDC name that it's similar to the systems on the H6 Outback and Tribeca.
Subaru's off switch is shown here:
The blanks are for options like the heated mirrors, wiper de-icers, etc.
Suzuki Grand Vitara...(oops sorry is not in the list)
The engine is a bit buzzy, not just for a V6, and it could use a bit more refinement.
Still, it's nice to see Suzuki offering something different from the car-based crowd.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/acura_awd.htm
Hopefully, most folks aren't pushing their cars that hard on snow-covered public roads.
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
Average driver would go to a snow covered parking lot and learn what the car can and can not do at the beginning of each winter season.
VSC is not the panacea, it is more of a nuisance.
"Sometimes you have to turn left to go right" 1953 Hudson Hornet.
Well, VSC does not let you do that, and having complete control ov the vehicle is atmost important when driving in limited traction condition.
"Sometimes you have to turn left to go right" 1953 Hudson Hornet.
Well, VSC does not let you do that, and having complete control ov the vehicle is atmost important when driving in limited traction condition.
I don't think this is a fair characterization. ESC isn't going to wrest control of the vehicle away from you; on the contrary, it'll read your input and help you direct the car exactly where you want to go.
On the other hand, I think the benefits of ESC are often vastly overstated and overhyped. ESC is of most help to a high-weight, high-center-of-gravity vehicle being driven beyond its limits. Outside of that, the data are pretty murky from what I can tell. I think it's spectacular that lives can be saved by ESC helping to reduce single-vehicle and rollover accidents, but I also think that driver carelessness and impairment lead to a lot of those types of accidents anyway.
I'm happy to see the press evaluating the unique characteristics of an AWD system.
Kudos to Acura for a system that is proactive and send power where it is needed, vs. most others that try to take power away from where it isn't needed (seems backwards, no?).
Acura really needs a better name for the system, though. SH-AWD just isn't catchy, especially from the people that created VTEC.
How much ground clearance does an RD-X have? My concern would be high-centering given the low breakover angle and long-ish wheelbase.
Ditto that.
Ground clearance is the big problem for the RDX. For that reason, it would not be my first recommendation for anyone who frequently treks on unplowed roads. I, myself, had difficulties with the town plows leaving a berm at the end of my street.
While I agree that it is a valid concern, the poster above stated they weren't concerned with that particular problem. That's probably true for many drivers.
CR-V
http://www.healthycar.org/vehicle.details.php?getrecno=75
RAV4
http://www.healthycar.org/vehicle.details.php?getrecno=190
Forester
http://www.healthycar.org/vehicle.details.php?getrecno=169
Any how, it does not surprise me one bit to see the Forester scoring poorly there, when they say "outgassing" they ain't kidding. We call it Subaru New Car Stench. It was hard to bear for the first couple of weeks.
Not sure why but the Tribeca and even the Impreza (made in Gunma, Japan, right along side the Forester) score a lot better.
Solution: if you park in a covered area, crack a window open for the first week or so, let it vent out. :sick:
(The site is a bit irritating - I pasted http://www.healthycar.org/vehicle.details.php into the address bar, skipped the request for info if it flops up, and then pasted ?getrecno=169 or whatever Varmint's last number was for each car to get there).
For anyone else, go to the homepage and select Vehicle Guide near the top. Then you can use any of the search tools.
http://www.healthycar.org/home.php
Juice, I'm not surprised either. It seems that the newer vehicles all score higher than the older models. I've read news announcements from Mazda and Honda promising to combat the dreaded "new car smell". I'm sure every manufacturer is doing the same thing. The change may simply be implemented with the newer models and still in the works for older designs.
I'm trying to find something with decent gas mileage that can handle average to moderately difficult dirt roads.
If it doesn't rain, just about anything with a bit of clearance should work fine. I take my loaded minivan on lots of Forest Service roads here in Idaho but I have a lot of scrapes on my undercarriage and oil pan too.
RAV4 - Reactive awd system but the driver can lock power front and rear at low speed. Has hill descent control and hill assist control, which can be helpful.
CRV - This would be my last choice for any off road application. Reactive awd with no ability to lock the power split. Lowest ground clearance.
I'd give this one to Forester. But it depends on what 'moderately difficult' means. If off road is a real priority, the Suzuki Grand Vitara would be worth a look as it is in this size class but has a true low range.
Better tires would improve all of these little guys.
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
That's a loaded question.
As our host stated, what you consider moderate may not be the same as what I, or anyone else, might consider moderate. Also, there are many reasons why terrain might be considered difficult.
If your "dirt road" is difficult because of slick mud or loose sand, I might recommend the Forester. That vehicle is very good with low traction situations. However, if the road is difficult because of sudden rises and falls, I might not recommend the Sube. It has some of the worst approach and departure angles.
In my experience, any one of these three will handle typical, unimproved dirt roads.
As for clearance: RAV = 7.5; CR-V = 7.3; Forester = 8.1. So Forester seems the best choice from that perspective. Does it really have such poor approach and departure angles that the RAV would be preferable?
A quick check puts the RAV4 at the head of the class, with the CR-V a close second. However, the low clearance pretty much ruins any capability the CR-V once had off the beaten path. (I had some fun with my '99 model.)
RAV4 Approach/Departure = 29.3/25.4
CR-V Approach/Departure = 29/24
Forester Approach/Departure = 22.3/20.7
Given that you may end up traversing over deadfall, rocks, and such, take a close look at the undercarriage of any vehicle you select. "Ground clearance" as measured for publications can be misleading. It is often simply the distance from the ground to the rear differential. However, any of these CUVs may have a chin valance up front that will get ripped off when passing over something only 6" tall. Furthermore, the clearance to the vehicle's sills can be just as important as clearance to the diff.
We went Jeeping near Massanutten, VA, on some of those, and they can get pretty bad.
I was in a Chevy Blazer, the older 2 door models, and that thing bottomed out on the trailer hitch receiver repeatedly. It was a really rough and bouncy ride.
The stock Jeeps were OK.
One lifted Jeep in the group cruised right over all that stuff.
To be honest, for that kind of road I'd be looking at an XTerra, FJ Cruiser, or at least a Suzuki Grand Vitara.
Subaru offers a rear skid plate, so at the very least get one of those. The aftermarket makes front skid plates, too. Be prepared for damage to the front and rear bumpers on any model listed in the thread title of this topic.
True. But true 4x4 vehicle have no significant on-road capabilities.
I think it's a safe assumption the member with the question won't spend all day on the trails. The issue is finding something that meets the daily needs and won't stink the few times it is used on trails. Not an easy task.
Shhh, don't tell the Aussies that.
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
For the same reason, our tow ratings are about half what they are in the UK. :sick:
Before making a test drive: Make a list of what you want in your next vehicle and prioritize them. Likewise, make a list of what you absolutely do not want. Anything not on the two lists would be in the "doesn't matter" category.
After each test drive, review your impressions against the lists. You might also pick up a few more love / hate items to add to your lists after each test drive.
When you get to the end of the test drives, go over the lists one more time and make your choice based on how you felt each vehicle met your criteria. If you find that there's a tie for the best fit, go back for another test drive of the contenders. If you still can't pick between the best two (or three), then don't sweat it, either of your favorites will be a good choice.
Driving in snow: I have an '05 Forester, live on top of a mountain on a dirt road, and have had no problems with getting around with the AWD in the snow.
Driving around in a box: It's great for being able to see what's happening on the road around you. The roll-shade cover for behind the rear seat does a good job of hiding stuff in the back.
You mentioned tires. The stock Geolandars on my Subie lasted 45k miles, no problems with uneven wear due to alignment. Tires were rotated per manufacturer specs.
Too confusing to decide on which one to buy :confuse: ? It's nice having a choice !