Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
About time IMHO. The current sub 100" wheelbase of the Forester is not in line with the rest of the competition.
Santa Fe, RAV4, and Outlander even offer a 3rd row. Some would call them mid-sizers.
CR-V has also grown, and sort of falls between.
Newcomers are filling the void left as those moved up in size - Jeep Patriot and Hyundai Tucson, for instance. They join the Forester, Sportage, and Grand Vitara in the smaller half of the segment.
Subaru's problem will be that if they remain small they'll have to compete with those smaller sized (and budget priced) competitors.
This is part of the reason I think they could have 2 wheelbase sizes and occupy both segments.
But it's true that more buyers have shown a preference for greater passenger space than the Forester offers. How Soob addresses that is up to them.
Chevy did an awful job with packaging. The strut towers are enormous and eat up half the interior space, it seems, at least in the cargo hold.
Honda did a much better job there. They copied the idea of the shelf that can be stored on the floor, but the suspension intrudes far less in to the cargo area.
The XL7 is based on the Equinox and they did better packaging that model. It even has a roomy 3rd row. That's definitely a mid-size though, not even close to being compact any more.
I looked at the Impreza and have high hopes for the 2008 Forester. The new multi-link suspension is ultra-compact, so the shock towers hardly intrude at all. That made the cargo area a lot wider for the WRX.
The current Forester's short wheelbase limited rear leg room, even though cargo space was quite good. They will basically move the rear seat back 4.5" or so (equivalent to the wheelbase stretch).
Normally, that would have cost them cargo space unless they made the entire vehicle a lot longer. But the more compact shock towers should result in better packaging - it might not have to grow too much yet still should have a useful cargo area.
Here is a current WRX, note how the wheel well and strut/shock towers eat up nearly half the potential cargo space:
Look at the new one, they waste almost no width at all:
Think about something - the new WRX hatch is shorter than the old one. Cargo space is still about the same.
The new Forester will not be shorter, in fact it'll likely be longer, so cargo space has some serious potential.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Check out that cargo area, though - much wider. It's not as long, but the Forester isn't going to shrink like the WRX hatch did (no way, no how).
So imagine a cargo area the same width, only a lot deeper and a lot taller.
I just hope Subaru keeps it boxy in the back.
In order to get a roomy 3rd-row, you need to have a fairly long wheelbase. It amazes me that Honda gets so much space out of their 3rd row, considering their WB is so short, relatively speaking.
Bob
That is, all other things being equal, of course.
In the case of the RAV4, which is sold in a long wheelbase in the USA, short wheelbase in Europe, I would expect the US model to ride a little better and of course offer much more room inside. The euro RAV4 surely turns in a smaller radius and would probably have more effective clearance on unpaved trails.
Juice, do you know how the current Euro RAV's wheelbase compares to the 05 and earlier USA model?
- hutch
They look very much the same, you can only tell our wheelbase is longer when you look at the rear door.
Found a small pic:
But with the change over to steel from aluminum on side panels I wonder about the weight thing on the X and XT versions.
Around town, my Forester is more fun than our Legacy because it turns in more quickly. It's just more tossable. Hope they don't lose that trait.
For a long time, smaller minivans (like the regular Caravan) ran 112" for almost every example. Larger vans (like the Grand Caravan) were almost always 120".
With compact SUVs like the ones discussed here, the class hasn't been around long enough for the formula to be standardized. We've discussed this in other threads. Some examples of "small SUVs", like the Liberty, are truckish and heavy (to the tune of 3,800 lbs or more). Others, like the Forester, are car-like and lightweight (nearly 800 lbs lighter).
First Honda, then Ford, and now others (Toyota) seem to have nailed down the general size. However, there are still wide deviations within the class in other respects.
And they live in the ghetto? Suddenly I feel very poor!
"...the reviews which make the CR-V sound as cheap as it looks, the weak engine, rollover issues"
What/where are these reviews to which you referred?
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Subaru managed 3 vehicles on that list, Toyota zero. Not that Toyotas aren't safe, they just didn't top the list.
That is the most ridiculous post ever.
An old person, who happens to be driving Honda plows a bunch of people, and all over sudden, Honda is not safe. What about the guy in a Buick in Hartford, CT? or The guy in Toyota Avalon in Fl? Maybe, just maybe, the common denominator here is "old people"? And not the vehicle?
Just because some people in the ghetto (read hispanics and blacks) drive Honda, does not make it a bad vehicle.
I could just go on the same and say that because Martina Navratilova (lesbian) was the spokes person for the Forester, I would never drive one because it will make me gay. Doesn't that sound just plain stupid?
Care to point to the roll over data on either Honda CR-V, Honda Pilot, Acura RDX, or Acrua MDX?
I fear for my safety knowing that there is an ignorant person like this...
Just to think that these people can multiply, we are doomed!!! Everyone should rent "Idiocracy", this is exactly what we see here.
Kyle
Still, not a significant difference.
We are looking at the CRV and RAV4. Saw the Forester at an Auto Show but didn't like it nearly as much as these two.
I have test driven each several times, and my impressions are:
The RAV4 has more pickup
The RAV4 seats are uncomfortable
The CRV seats are nicer and more comfortable
The CRV ride is way more comfortable, more car-like than truck-like. I prefer car-like riding.
I then drove them again, and again, and again. I sat in the back and had my husband drive so I could see what it would be like for the kids. I liked the ride in the back in the CRV WAY MORE.
Hubby is tired of me obsessing on this, but it's a big decision for me, as we keep our cars a long time, and I am the one who will be living in it.
My hesitation at this point rests on these things:
I like a lot of the way the RAV4 is set up inside, except for the console - no room for my purse with a passenger in the other front seat.
I like the easier mechanism for folding the seats down in the RAV4, and they lay flatter.
I am tired of the hatch on my Sienna, and would be retaining the necessity of lifting up/pushing down with the CRV even though it is lighter.
Is the pickup in the RAV4 really better or am I just not used to Honda engines/trannies? I had an Accord 20 years ago and loved it, didn't have troubling merging onto the highway. The last time I drove the CRV, the one I drove seemed better in merging than the first time I drove one. So is it just my imagination? We are comparing 4 cylinder models, not the V6 in the RAV4. I really don't need a V6.
Honda dealers seem harder to work with, because they have the upper hand in the supply/demand arena. So many times we ended up buying Toyotas instead of Hondas because the dealers wouldn't act nice or couldn't get a car in a reasonable amount of time.
And finally (this is a nit-picky girl thing), I just really really love the RAV4 green color. Waiting to see the CRV green, but I don't think I am going to like it, and I also want gray interior, so I would have to go with my second choice, Glacier Blue.
I am very very close to choosing the CRV, though, because of the more car-like ride and the more comfortable seats.
Anyone have any comments about really tall high schoolers fitting into the driver's seat of the CRV? My son will be starting driver's ed this summer and he's concerned he won't fit. He's 6'2" and growing Haven't been able to get him inside one yet.
Also, my impressions are that the RAV4 has better visibility on the passenger's side; the CRV's little window at the end of the right side is completely obscured when someone is sitting in the right seat of the second row. Anyone have any comments on this or anything else I have said above?
I have appreciated all of the input I have gotten so far, including an affirmation of the way I go about driving cars over and over again before I am sure. So anything else will be appreciated as well.
We are choosing between the base models for each, and the CRV is less expensive, even with Toyota discounting, given that they don't have 'packages' to load onto the cars, most of which I don't want, but some things I would like, if that makes sense.
The Rav4 has a few more useful features, in my opinion -- such as auto-off headlights, hill-start and hill-descent control, and a more robust AWD system. I also find the hand parking brake more intuitive to use than the foot brake on the CR-V (although this would not be an issue for you since you've been driving a Sienna). Styling is, of course, subjective, but I find the Rav4 more pleasing overall. In my opinion, a base Rav4 Sport V6 represents the best value.
My husband is not a car guy, proven by his purchase of a Toyota Matrix with manually operated windows. And, I am not so sure I want to think about my son enjoying a car because of a higher horsepower.
The foot brake is not an issue for me, as I have used both kinds in my life; neither here nor there, in my opinion. The only real hills we encounter are those in Missouri when we travel to Illinois, but that is not often. I will miss the auto off headlights, but oh well.
Thanks for your input!
Anyway, I did what you did, sat in both front and rear seats of each. I liked the red in rav better than CRV but the green better in CRV version. So that was no help.
I could not see visiting my Mom in NYC with ambulance style trunk for idiot speeders to take chunk out of door...lol...Not convenient to driving in busy areas.
What it really boiled down to for me were certain conveniences and the feel of the car. The rav v 6 had some pep (as do most new cars anyway). But I wanted satellite radio built in without addtl wires, I loved the nav system, the conversational mirror in crv was awesome to wave my finger menacingly at kids and finally, this shorty girl liked the fact that the CRV drivers seat cranks upwards so I had command view of the road which the Rav 4 did not.
But seriously, I would have been happy with either car. Not so bad for a car shopper. I did like that I could get top of the line CRV for about the same money as maybe the middle tier Rav.
Good luck....just go for what seems easy and fun to drive. That's what I did. And I found I don't need a V6 because my reaction time is generally faster than most drivers that are not city drivers. That makes up for alot.....lol :shades:
In the end, I think we all go with our best guess!
Car guys like everything Manual. I am just glad that I was able to get a Manually shifter CR-V before Honda decided not sell them in the US. I wish they also offered manual crank windows.
Car guys know that less stuff you have, less stuf you have to fix...
All these choices are good.
In the end, I think we all go with our best guess!
Precisely....get what is very important to you. This car was my once in a lifetime get everything I want car so I went for it...lol...hence the satellite and the nav (whichis almost a necessity because I get lost finding my own bathroom... ).
I also agree with whomever said you can't see the outside color of your car when you drive it. But I think it does provide a nice accessory to show me off
Consider potential fuel and insurance costs. A civic may return higher mileage but can be more to insure. A used Corolla may be a decent car to consider. along with the Camcord. Domestic sedans are usually cheaper than the equivalent year Japanese sedans. If its a temporary car, reliability issues that domestics may have should be minimal. If you're looking long term, newer may be better as well as Japanese. Price budget can also play a large factor.Its a lot to take in so take a deep breath and peruse these boards, they hold a mountain of information.
Kyle
For a teen - call your insurance agent for a quote before you do anything. Ask what the 10 cheapest cars to insure are, and pick from those.
Insurance can be prohibitively expensive for a teen. My neighbor across the street used to pay $3000/year to insure a Mustang Cobra, it was just insane.
I would start there, given it might be your biggest expensive since you're shopping for used models.
FYI - Kate from the Subaru Crew is selling an 01 Forester, well kept and much loved. Check the Subaru Crew - Meet the Members II threads.
Don't remember seeing the Outlander. According the specs on Edmonds, the base model starts higher than the CRV, and has lower gas mileage, probably because of the V6. Also, looks the hip room is lower than the CRV and the RAV4, and the smallness of the RAV4 seats has me leaning toward the CRV.
But it was a good suggestion!! Thanks.
Very very good point!!
But I do want to say how much I appreciate all of the input everyone is providing for me!
I mean, if you get a KBB value for a car, that's fine, but they're not buying it, or making any promises. So if they tell you insurance will be cheap and they are wrong, again, it's a "tough luck" scenario.
Your insurance agent will have to honor that price quote, so call them first.
All these choices are good.
As the cost of fuel keeps rising, I am sure more and more people will start thinking long term rather than short term. A lower cost of entry may come at a higher cost of driving, through lower fuel economy.
So, when basing your decisions on what to buy, think long term. Purchase price may seem like a good spot to focus attention, but 5 and 10 year cost of operation is where the prize is at.
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
I'm a huge Subaru fan, but the Hyundai represents a stellar value by offering quite a bit more "stuff" for less money. Even adding $1500 to that quote for AWD (to make it comparable to a Subaru) only brings the tab to around $23,000.
I think Hyundais are appealing for people who plan to keep their cars forever, that way resale isn't a major concern.