Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Subaru Forester vs Toyota RAV4

1…5681011…13

Comments

  • ktyronektyrone Member Posts: 5
    When I posed 'which is better Rav4 or Subaru' around 2 weeks ago, I thought there would be a clear winner. After reading all the posts, I am still a tad confused. It appears that if you live in the west or where winter travel could be a problem, the Forester is preferred. If you want a more cushy ride and more room, the Rav4 is preferred. Would someone PLEASE make the decision for a 55 year old female????? Hopefully, by the time the incentives end for Subaru, my quest will have ended too...........I can't wait for this to be over! This site has been very informative.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    ktyrone - I'm a 55 y.o. male. I've owned both of these vehicles and they both have their merits. Granted, my RAV is a V6 but IMHO the drivetrain feels more refined than the Forester. I don't know that one vehicles ability to handle deep snow over the other is a serious consideration for the average owner. Unless you're planning on driving in 10" of snow on a regular bases. Even then, I'm not at all sure that one has any real advantage over the other. Also, I don't know that I would say that the RAV's ride is more "cushy" than the Subie. The Forester rides quite nicely. I don't want to assume, but unless you autocross, as a 55 y.o. woman I doubt that any handling difference between the two would be a real factor. I think it comes down to these 5 issues:
    - Equally equipped, the Subaru is going to be less expensive.
    - Do you prefer sitting up high or not?
    - Do you need/want the back seat room of the RAV?
    - Are you planning on towing a 3,500 lb trailer?
    - Which one looks best to you?

    If I didn't want to tow a heavy trailer and want the backseat room, I could be quite happy with either car.
    Happy hunting.
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    I went to look at the Forester and wound up admitting I didn't really like the looks so much, being somewhat low riding and car like. I drove a V6 Ravvy Sport and there was no turning back. Unless Subaru's vehicles at least come close to the performance there is no match at all.

    The low and car-like ride that turned you off of the Forester are bound to make for better handling, and the V6 performance of the RAV4 can easily be had with the XT. But if you didn't like the looks, your decision was that much easier.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    the V6 performance of the RAV4 can easily be had with the XT

    Yep, that's true but the XT suffers by comparison in fuel efficiency and requires prem. fuel.

    The Forester just doesn't stack up well against the new RAV. I've owned both.
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    What kind of mileage are you getting with your RAV4? I'm assuming it's V6 with 4WD?

    And if you don't need/want the extra space, the concensus seems to be that it stacks up pretty well.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Being a staunch Subaru fan, and owner of 3 Subies, I'm sorry to say the RAV4—for MY2007—has the edge for most people, most of the time; at least in my opinion it does. That may change when the all-new Forester debuts late next year...

    Here's Karl's (Karl on Cars) take:

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/241

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Sal must not have driven a Forester XT, they're actually quicker than any RAV4. And you can get a manual tranny, too.

    Hutch: the auto is actually rated at 21/26 mpg, not bad. You do need premium for the turbo, though.

    Forester is smaller and IMO sportier. Different class? Probably, like I said it matches up more closely to the euro RAV4 with its shorter wheelbase.

    Americans like V6s more than turbos, and tons of space, and that explains why the Toyota sells better even at a higher price. Plus, 93% of Americans choose automatics, so the manual transmission on the Subie doesn't have a large effect on sales numbers.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    First off, I'll say these two (and the CR-V) have been at the top of most charts for a while, with any of the 3 winning certain categories. I'd recommend any one of them. But each has trade-offs.

    The Forester is a compact. Originally they all were, it actually has more combined front and rear legroom than the last generation RAV4. But the back seat is small.

    You said you were 55, so if you still have teens they might have to squeeze in that back seat; if they play hoops I'd go with the roomier RAV4.

    Interestingly, both get 23/28 mpg with the base 4 cylinder engines and automatic, and my guess is that's what you will likely get. The Forester has a little more HP, but the RAV4 give you a bit more space, so call it a draw.

    Trade-offs with the RAV4? Check the rear gate, it opens toward the curb. Two issues to consider: first is you need more space behind you to open it all the way. If you parallel park a lot that might matter.

    Even to load groceries, though, if someone pulls up close behind you, you may have to wait until they leave. Or walk around the car. Either way, inconvenient if you go to Costco or the grocery store and have a lot to load. You also don't have any shelter if its raining (we're getting Monsoon-like weather here in DC now).

    Forester sits lower, so it's easy to get in. Subaru won awards from associations for the handicapped for its general ease of use. RAV4 is a bit higher, so you have to step up, but once you're there you have a nice, high vantage point, at least to the front.

    The Forester has much better visibility. Try parking both of them when you test drive them. That matters less if you live out in the 'burbs or in rural areas, as parking spaces tend to be bigger and you don't parallel park often.

    Think about those things, which one fits your lifestyle better? Good luck shopping and you can't go wrong, these are both solid choices.

    -juice
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    That's okay. 5.3 seconds to 60 blows away the RAV4. I don't mind paying the price more for more performance, that's why I got the XT.
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    Try getting a 5.3 out of a Forester XT with an automatic. :)

    Quoting a magazine time that probably involved one of those lovely 5000 RPM clutch drops in the small SUV class is kind of silly, isn't it? I haven't driven an AT FXT, but I have driven the V6 RAV4, and it is scary fast, and I'd be really surprised if the FXT can beat it when comparably (automatic transmission) equipped.

    Not to mention the the fuel (87 octane) and mileage advantages of the Toyota...
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    Why don't we just have a discussion about which makes a better pet a dog or a cat?

    It's summer time and brand loyalty is in the air.

    A.J. - you know I loved my (ex-wifes) Forester but I'm sorry I wouldn't give up the RAV for another. The swing open door at the grocery store isn't much of an issue if you head in park. Visibility is a legitament issue. It has taken me a while to adapt to the poor rear view .. but I have. Whoever asked the question about gas mileage - I have a Limited V6 4x4 and I've averaged 24.6 mgp so far. While on this topic, the epa ratings for the RAV 4wd 4cyl are 23/28 and 4wd v6 21/28 according to Toyota's literature. IIRC, I averaged about 25 with the auto Forester. Not much difference and I have 104 more h.p.

    You are correct, the RAV feels (and is) larger and I like that feeling.

    kdshapiro - I guess if I was 20 that 0-60 time would mean something to me. Then again, if it meant something to me I probably would have bought an STI.
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    Try getting a 5.3 out of a Forester XT with an automatic.

    Quoting a magazine time that probably involved one of those lovely 5000 RPM clutch drops in the small SUV class is kind of silly, isn't it?

    Clutch drop or not, when you're talking about a 5.3 0-60 time it doesn't matter what class of vehicle you're talking about, that's impressive. The fact that it's a small SUV makes it even moreso. Add that it's available in a manual while the RAV isn't, and has plenty of aftermarket modification/tuning support for enthusiasts with a... er... practical side, and you really start seeing a difference in the supporters of the FXT vs. the V6 RAV. Until I see an'06 RAV4 owner with mods that have them running 1/4 mile in the 12 second range, or with suspensions that let them tear around a rally cross course, I wouldn't really call it "brand loyalty". It's just the facts. Obviously these fall under the "extreme usages" category, and 99% of buyers don't care about that stuff, but the ones that do will lean heavily toward Subaru.

    And is the RAV4 really a "small" SUV? Nope - at least no more than the Tacoma or Nissan Frontier are still "compact" pick-ups. It kickstarted the genre but the latest generation is attacking what seems to be a much trendier segment.

    However I realize a lot of people are going to cross-shop these vehicles, but for many of us it's pretty clear cut in either direction. The RAV may be able to meet most buyers' everyday needs just fine, but for the minority of us who like to truly play, or at least dream of playing, and can only own a single vehicle to do it in... it's a pretty easy choice. :)

    Doug
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "I guess if I was 20 that 0-60 time would mean something to me. Then again, if it meant something to me I probably would have bought an STI."

    I'm not 20. But I've had my share of mid-size SUVs. The STI is still on my list, but I can't haul stuff like I can with the Forester. To me the Forester for it's positive traits represents good value, good IIHS ratings, great reliability, is just the right size and has great performance. You won't be driving the V6 RAV4 around with a heavy foot, you'd get 17 mpg or less. The auto Forester will still blow away the V6 RAV4. The only advantage to the RAV4 is in towing, but if I had to tow regularly the RAV4 wouldn't be my first choice either.

    There is no brand loyality as you put it. I've had more Toyotas than Subarus. And as dstew1 pointed out, for those who want them, there is a plethora of aftermarket parts available. That's the fun of the Subaru. Subarus heritage is in small lightweight turbo engines with many variations of full-time AWD. The STI WRC edition puts out 300 horses and 430# torque.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    I don't think you understand. Most people buying this type of vehicle don't care about 0-60 times. I just traded in a WRX if I wanted performance I would have kept it.

    besides - my dog can beat up your dog :P
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "I don't think you understand. Most people buying this type of vehicle don't care about 0-60 times."

    I don't know what *most* people care about. Toyota will sell more RAV4s than Subaru Forester, but that doesn't make it a better car. I didn't care about 0-60 either when I got the car. I cared about the reliability, handling and IIHS ratings. The "T" was an afterthought.

    "besides - my dog can beat up your dog :P"

    Yep, it probably can.
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    I am pretty sure that AT to AT the V6 RAV is faster. The 5.3 0-60 time is just about meaningless in this class of vehicles -- I only commented because someone felt compelled to mention it twice. :)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "The 5.3 0-60 time is just about meaningless in this class of vehicles"

    It's not really meaningless to Subaru owners, especially when V6 RAV4 owners think their vehicles outperform the XT :). One of the things about the Subaru turbos are the performance add-ons and ECU upgrades, which make them darn quick into greased lightning. Add to that the turbos perform almost the same at sea level and 10,000ft.

    Anyway I agree for the most part, most people don't shop 0-60. But it's nice to have a fast, safe, utilitarian vehicle.

    Here's a sample of aftermarket performance upgrades for the Foreseter.

    http://cobbtuning.com/forester/
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    Why mention that the 0-60 time in this class of vehicles is meaningless if you're going to argue that the auto RAV is faster than the auto FXT?

    FWIW, Subaru's Australia website estimates the MY06 XT auto's 0-62mph time to be 7.6 seconds. Suffice it to say I've never timed myself racing to 60 in my XT auto, but I'd estimate that Subaru is being a tad on the modest side. They've got a history of selling the FXT short in an effort to protect the egos of WRX buyers. This seems even more true considering Subaru also estimates that the manual FXT hits 62mph in 6.0 seconds, which we know can be bested with a professional driver (the same C&D drivers that wrought 6.3 from the RAV).

    What's more interesting is that the C&D folks went from 5-60 in 6.5 seconds; 0.2 seconds slower than 0-60. This means, not surprisingly that they likely *gasp* did a torque brake launch. I am pretty sure the FXT auto's acceleration would score reasonably close to the 6.3 figure under the same conditions; probably around 6.5 seconds.

    All this 0-60 talk is mostly irrelevant to real-world "speed", however. If you want to boast about the V6's prowess over Subaru's turbo 4, direct the convo toward highway cruising, where the Subie tends to max out its long-distance comfort level at about 70-75mph, or around 2600-2800 rpms. Any higher and your fuel usage will suffer tremendously. I'm assuming the Toyota's 5 speed V6 is much more at ease in that range.

    Doug
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "If you want to boast about the V6's prowess over Subaru's turbo 4, direct the convo toward highway cruising, where the Subie tends to max out its long-distance comfort level at about 70-75mph"

    That's one of my main negative points. I'm one of the lucky ones that does not live within easy reach of wide open highways so I never have to worry about going that fast.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    It's not really meaningless to Subaru owners, especially when V6 RAV4 owners think their vehicles outperform the XT

    I don't recall anybody making that statement. I certainly am not suffering from that delusion.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    swing open door at the grocery store isn't much of an iissue if you head in park

    Don't you pull up to the front of the store to load up the groceries? We do. I guess it depends on where you shop and how many of you go. I get the car while the wifey waits in line to pay for the groceries.

    0-60 probably is important to a Forester XT buyer, I'm sure. Go drive one, forget the numbers completely, the vehicle is extremely quick, period. It's a hoot to drive.

    The RAV4 V6 is also plenty powerful so I see this as a non-issue for most folks, both have abundant passing power.

    In fact, I think 0-60 in 6.3s for a RAV4 is a bit too fast for something that tall, I just hope the brakes and suspension can keep up!

    -juice
  • nitebreezenitebreeze Member Posts: 1
    5.3 second and you say it is fast for an SUV? Why dont you take a look at the new jeep cherokee... 0-60 in 4.7 second for an SUV that large. Beating the porsche twin turbo SUV...
    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=CW&Dato=20060621&Kategori=PHO- TOS03&Lopenr=606210802&Ref=PH
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Twice the price and twice the gas....

    I'd rather get a Forester XT *and* a RAV4 V6, personally.

    -juice
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Exactly. Porsche costs 90K, Subaru XT $25K. Jeep costs $50K, Subaru XT $25K. Which car would I want price excluded? Which car would I want for the value? Which car costs less and probably has a very low TMV compared to the others?
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Boy, this has been a very busy thread. Are we really helping ktyrone make a decision here?

    Forester:
    Safer, faster 4-cyl, cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, easier to find the one you want.

    RAV4:
    Roomier. Any other clear advantages for the typical driver?

    Everything else is a wash: 4-cyl. economy? Equal. Reliability? Probably equal. 6-cyl vs. XT (turbo)? Take your pick, there are advantages to each. Looks? Subjective. My friends shied away from the RAV4 because it looked "alien" inside, the rear offered poor visibility, and the windows felt short to them. On the other hand, I'm sure many don't like Forester because it's boxy.

    Basically, ktyrone, if it's space you need, go with the RAV. If you don't, go with the Forester. That's my 2¢. Don't put too much pressure on yourself - either decision is a good one. Just let us know how it turns out.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Forester pro:

    Great visibility, costs less, manual trans available, best-in-class safety, more standard towing capacity, enormous moonroof.

    Forester con:

    Tight back seat, low seat height, XT requires premium fuel.

    RAV4 pro:

    More passenger space, optional 3rd row, more cargo capacity, more V6 towing capacity, V6 runs on regular octane, longer options list (DVD).

    RAV4 con:

    Poor visibility to the rear, door hinged towards the curb and offers no rain protection, costs more.
  • growler5growler5 Member Posts: 67
    Come on, guys (and gals!) I hear too many of us defending our own rationale for "why I bought this rather than that".

    Kytrone -

    You're buying the car, so you need to make the final call. How about this: make a list of what features you are looking for (and just as important, NOT looking for) in your next car. Share your list with us.

    Are you looking for best price? reliability? bad-weather performer? auto or stickshift? blazing speed or middle-of-road performance? economy of operation? e-z access to rear ? specific options like fancy sound system? decent dealer network for service? Don't forget to prioritize your list for us, e.g., must have, nice to have, neutral, rather not have, definitely don't want.

    Some things that may influence your decision will be subjective, such as overall appearance or choice of color. Leave 'em off the list since these are really your personal preferences. You'll still need them for your final decision because you want to feel good :D about what you bought

    And when we respond, be wary of those of us with pro-Subie bias or RAV-raver genes. I'm sure you noticed we do have a bunch of fanatics here !

    FWIW - I'm also a 55'er. I've got one of the two candidates you are considering. I think you'll be fine with either one, but again, it's up to you to decide which one you would be happiest with.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Have you test driven these cars, or are you doing information gathering before you go to the dealer? If I had test driven both cars in the configurations I'm looking for, I would be asking different questions. The questions I would be asking the forum would be about what the ownership experience was after 3 to 6 months. Do you still like the car? What did you think was great and is now not so great? How has it been?, etc.

    Asking the question you're asking is like asking if boyfriend A or boyfriend B would be better in the long run without having dated either of them.

    From your original post I would get either the Forester (no XT) or the RAV4 (4 cyl). They would both probably suit your lifestyle, with the Forester having the edge on safety, the RAV4 having the edge on lower cabin noise.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    juice - when you say Forester has low seat height, you're talking about the back seat, right?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yes. The front seat is height-adjustable.

    -juice
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    "It's not really meaningless to Subaru owners, especially when V6 RAV4 owners think their vehicles outperform the XT"

    I don't recall anybody making that statement. I certainly am not suffering from that delusion.

    Check again... the following sure reads like heel2toe believes that the RAV4 can outperform the FXT :)

    "I have driven the V6 RAV4, and it is scary fast, and I'd be really surprised if the FXT can beat it"

    -Frank
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    The XT 5.3 with a short-geared stick shift vs the V6 RAV4 at 6.3 with the AT? Yeah, I'd bet you lose more than a second putting that *four* speed automatic into the XT.

    I've never seen anyone actually test the XT's engine with a slushbox, though, so I don't know for sure.

    I *love* manual transmission cars, but citing performance statistics based on one in this category of vehicles is silly, which was...my...only...intended...point.

    Edit: I guess I was mistaken about a variation of the 2.5 turbo engine never having been tested in AT form. CU has the 0-60 time of the Legacy GT at 7.5sec. (5 speed AT, different gearing, but interesting nevertheless.) In contrast, CU has the V6 RAV4 at 6.7.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    Frank - I can see this is an extremely important issue to you. So, let me say this on behalf of the RAV side of this discussion - I don't think the V6 RAV is as fast 0-60 as the XT 5 speed. Feel better?
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    I've never seen anyone actually test the XT's engine with a slushbox, though, so I don't know for sure.

    0-60 time is largely irrelevant and can vary by as much as half a second (or more) depending on how the car is geared.

    Take this for what it's worth, but there is a completely stock 04 XT 4EAT owner on another Forester forum (sorry, can't link here) with drag receipts showing a 14.91 second 1/4 mile @ 92mph.

    Car and Driver, who ran the 6.3 second run in the V6 RAV, ran it through the 1/4 mile in 14.9 seconds @94mph.

    Both vehicles in stock form have 129mph top speeds.

    If that doesn't tell you that the V6 RAV4 and the 4EAT XT (in stock form) aren't neck and neck as far as measureable quickness, I don't know what will.
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    I've been saying that the FXT AT isn't faster and that the 5.3 MT acceleration time is meaningless to nearly every buyer in this class, so you essentially proved my point, if not dramatically.

    We already know it burns premium and gets lower mileage.

    To better explain why the MT v AT comparison stuff irritates the heck out of me...has anyone else noticed that many automakers now gear the MT variations of their vehicles with a blatant disregard for fuel efficiency? The TSX, IS250, 2006 Civic, and many others all follow this pattern (the MT Civic probably loses 4-5 mpg on the highway because it badly needs another gear), and I am pretty sure it started because of the power of the stupid C&D 0-60 time. So again, IMO, quoting an MT 0-60 time here is the same kind of nonsense and it needs to be discouraged -- especially in this class of vehicle.

    Anyway, have fun -- I am out of here. :shades:
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    I've been saying that the FXT AT isn't faster and that the 5.3 MT acceleration time is meaningless to nearly every buyer in this class, so you essentially proved my point, if not dramatically.

    I'm not sure how I proved your point that MT acceleration time is next to meaningless in this class, but as far as proving your point that the auto FXT isn't any faster than the V6 Rav... if you weren't going to do it yourself, someone had to. :P

    You originally said the RAV4 is scary fast, and you'd be surprised if the auto FXT could beat it - the truth is, if anything they are equally "scary fast" in a straight line, with the Rav getting cheaper gas. To the majority of the public that is a major selling point; nobody can argue that. But not everyone has the same priorities. ;)

    Doug
  • ktyronektyrone Member Posts: 5
    ok, growler5, here is the list. 1)reliability 2)comfort 3)economy of operation 4)automatic i recognize that the rav4 rear entry opens from the side which bothers me a little. i have driven both, kd shapiro. i personally like the size of the forester better, but the rav4 is more comfortable. my kids are gone, so it will be mostly me alone in the vehicle. i do not have to worry about really bad weather conditions, since i live in the south. i have noticed in my camry (4cy)that it is not terribly speedy on the few mountainous interstates that i encounter. i travel a lot on roads that are not high traffic roads and i just want to have a reliable vehicle. my camry has 165,000 on it, and i am becoming uneasy about long trips. i want something that if i see a piece of furniture i want, i can haul it. i have had toyotas forever, and i am just thinking about a change. thank you all for your comments, and i will let you know when i have purchased something...it will be soon.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    and gets lower mileage

    Not really, the XT auto gets 21/26 EPA mpg, about the same as the RAV4 V6 with AWD (better city, worse highway).

    I've made this correction before, so let's hope it sinks in this time. Mileage is roughly equal.

    Plus, you keep quoting the C&D number of 6.3 seconds to 60mph, fine, then let's quote the mileage number they got as well...

    16 MPG! Sixteen!

    You can't have both (fast and efficient). When it's driven hard, fast, to get the 0-60 numbers you are quoting, it guzzles gas at a far quicker rate than the Forester XT. I think C&D got 19 or 20 mpg with their XT which also hit 60mph a full second quicker. In practice, not in a lab or in theory.

    Anyway, for MY2006 Subaru relaxed the gearing on the XT, addressing your complaint above. It still can hit 60 in less than 6 seconds, but mileage is better now.

    But, like I said before, forget all that, go drive one, it's impressively quick. Once you sample one you will understand, I can tell you haven't.

    -juice
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I agree that most potential buyers aren’t overly interested in 0-60 times and are content so long as the vehicle in question gets up to speed in a reasonable amount of time. That being the case, the 4-cyl model of either should be more than adequate. However, for those few drivers who enjoy a healthy dose of performance mixed in with their utility, the V6 RAV4 or the FXT both fit the bill. For the even fewer drivers who really want to maximize performance and handling while still keeping the utility, the manual FXT best fits the bill. Unless of course you have $100k to spare, in which case the Cayenne Turbo is best of breed :P

    -Frank
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    If you go for the Forester, I'd recommend shooting for invoice pricing minus rebates as a minimum goal. Many dealers will also offer up some or all of their factory-to-dealer incentive (maybe even up to an additional $1500 or so?), so you should be able to get a very good deal.

    Good luck & happy hunting, ktyrone! You've got two terrific vehicles to choose from. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The dealer incentive is $2000 for the base X model only. Other models are $1000.

    That makes the X a bargain, and that's how you can get into one for $19k. Hard to beat for value. I just wish I could get a Limited or XT with that sort of incentive, if so there might be one in my driveway....

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    juice - you're talkin' rebates, not factory-to-dealer incentives, right?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's regional, but around here they are dealer incentives, not rebates.

    It's better for the consumer. In MD, at least, you pay sales tax on the full price, then deduct the rebate. If the dealer gets a discount and lowers the price, you do not pay sales tax on the amount.

    Not a big deal? It is if you bought a Phaeton. VW had a $10,000 rebate. In MD, the difference was a whopping $500.

    The only other discount is the holdback, which is 2% of the wholesale value on Subies. So aim for invoice minus the dealer incentive, depending upon the model, as mentioned above.

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Yah, but if you could buy a Phaeton, would you care about a measly 500 bucks? :P I get your point on the tax, though.

    This is not really the right board for this, but... besides rebates to consumers, there must also be non-published factory-to-dealer incentives (besides the holdback), otherwise my dealer's losing money. Folks out here are buying sometimes for an extra $1,000-$1500 below invoice and rebates, but a 2% holdback would only be $300-$500 in most cases. I'm under the impression my dealer is offering the rebates AND a $1000-$1500 factory-to-dealer incentive, depending on model, but not touching the holdback (and I'm not gonna begrudge a small profit to my dealership).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, if we have to ask, we can't afford a Phaeton, right? :D

    There may be end-of-model-year perks, who knows.

    -juice
  • growler5growler5 Member Posts: 67
    You'll be fine with either the Rav4 or the Forester.

    Rav4 is new this year, so reliability is still unknown but since it's a Toyota, I doubt there will be any issues. (My wife has an early edition of the Prius. The fact that Toyota was the manufacturer made it easier to take a chance on waiting 6 months for delivery on a new-fangled hybrid back in July '01)

    Rear side-swinging door - it's a hate-or-don't-mind thing. Opening upward does have an advantage when you're often loading / unloading bulky stuff in a rainstorm.

    Go with your gut feeling about which one you suits you best. And do report back to us what you got!
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    at this point you are comapring two different class cars. Both are goog, for different things. Subaru: smaller, cheaper; RAV: bigger, more expensive, generally agreed it has more *look* appeal. EQUAL: in mpg, acceleration, saftey and insurance cost. Good Luck!

    Now if you want to compare the RAV to the B9...that would be interesting since the B9 is a comparable size but priced like a BMW!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Yeah, but pay more get more. The top of the line B9 is nicer than the top of the line Rav4.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    RAV: generally agreed it has more *look* appeal

    I would have agreed with that statement until this morning when I was behind a RAV4 that was missing its spare tire. I don't know if it was just that the lack of the spare threw the proportions off but from the rear the RAV4 looked like it had HUGE flanks with a smallish greenhouse on top. I'll take my boxy looking "only a mother could love" Forester any day :P

    -Frank
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    The top of the line B9 is nicer than the top of the line Rav4.

    Humm.. yep and the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow is nicer than Mercedes 500S.

    Since the top of the line B9 lists for 7-9 thousand dollars more than a loaded Limited, I think this discussion is getting silly.

    Frank - I have to agree. With the spare removed it looks rediculous.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles