-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here

2013 Toyota RAV4 Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited September 2014 in Toyota

image2013 Toyota RAV4 Road Test

Toyota's redesigned RAV4, the original crossover SUV, is all-new for 2013. We test it to see if it's once again a class leader.

Read the full story here



  • Options
    rayzorrayzor Member Posts: 61
    For over $31Gs, it has fake leather seats; fail!, way less mpg than the CRVs even with a modern 6spd auto; fail! And a look only her mother would love; fail!
  • Options
    gpoltgpolt Member Posts: 113
    Compared to the 2012, front and rear head room, visibility and cargo height all reduced due to the new shape of the vehicle with its raked windshield and sloping roofline design. Rear side windows are smaller too. RAV loses an inch of ground clearance and overall height. Seat is more supportive, front leg room appears increased and interior is a little wider than the 2012. Have not driven.
  • Options
    emajoremajor Member Posts: 332
    rayzor, I'd wait for a standardized test or a simultaneous comparison with other CUVs before jumping to any fuel economy conclusions. Toyotas almost universally meet or exceed EPA ratings, and this isn't a new engine that would be expected to buck that trend.

    I still think the current RAV4 is the best CUV around for my particular wants & needs. If they simply would have upgraded the interior materials, added a bit more thigh support to the front seats, and slapped that 6-spd auto in there, it would be nearly perfect. This new one seems like more of a lateral move than a clear improvement.
  • Options
    morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    Looks like a fine appliance. You just can't sit this vehicle next to an Escape or Santa Fe and say it has any real style. Inside or out.
  • Options
    etanretlaetanretla Member Posts: 1
    the exterior now looks similar to the outlander in my opinion.
  • Options
    kam327kam327 Member Posts: 115
    What an unfair comparison - complaining about the Escape's fuel economy but failing to mention that engine is their V6 equivalent. At least they mentioned the Escape 2.0L blows the doors off the competition.

    All Toyotas are boring appliances and this will likely be no different. I expect to see it near the bottom of the next small SUV comparo like the Camry was near the bottom of a recent midsize sedan comparo.
  • Options
    stovt001_stovt001_ Member Posts: 799
    "The top-hinged gate replaces the previous RAV4's swing-out gate."

    I'm glad they finally realized that people drive on different sides of the road in different places. That side-hinged rear door made curb-side loading a real pain.
  • Options
    ANT14ANT14 Member Posts: 2,687
    This just made the Escape a much better buy...
  • Options
    kburgkburg Member Posts: 9
    fake leather. 9 sec 0-60. It's OK, but in what ways is this better than the previous rav4? Oh yeah, no runflats and you can actually see out the back. Any word on visibility improvements? You guys should add that to the article.
  • Options
    kburgkburg Member Posts: 9
    This is crazy. Why can't I read comments without first posting?
  • Options
    kburgkburg Member Posts: 9
    fake leather. 9 sec 0-60. It's OK, but in what ways is this better than the previous rav4? Oh yeah, no runflats and you can actually see out the back. Any word on visibility improvements? You guys should add that to the article.
  • Options
    wizard__wizard__ Member Posts: 10
    Test drove one yesterday.

    Shocked at the cost cutting on the inside materials. The thin carpeting, the seating materials.

    Ride also seemed noisy, and the center console is not very useful. When compared to the CR-V center console, it would be difficult to compromise all that storage the CR-V gives.
  • Options
    lostcommalostcomma Member Posts: 13
    The interior is a huge improvement, then again it would not be hard to improves as the previous version was so old. If it aint broke don't fix it. Same old led clock and mirror actuator that I had in my 85 corolla. The exterior I could take or leave. As far as the newly produced competition the forester beats the cr-v and rav4 for front end looks. The aint broke thing appears again with the motor. No direct injection and that is why it suffers so economy. The went for reliability over efficiency.
    Not a bad remake, still good competition for the other cuv's. I would probably buy the manufacturer that offers a six speed manual.
  • Options
    lucien4lucien4 Member Posts: 68
    No review on interior? From pictures looks pretty minimal and cheap.
  • Options
    phillyfrontierphillyfrontier Member Posts: 17
    Dumb mistake to get rid of the V6. 0-60 in 6.3 AND get 24 MPG. What were they thinking? I have a 2007 limited and it has served my family well. But I will be crossing the 2013 Rav 4 off the list, unless they bring the V6 back in 2014 hopefully with a 6 spd auto.
  • Options
    empoweredbcempoweredbc Member Posts: 50
    I believe it has 24/31 EPA MPG vs the CRVs 23/31 MPG, so it can claim better fuel economy (the Honda can claim more power).

    The Rav4 also has the most airbags and cargo room in the class, so I expect that to come up when a dealer shows you the car.

    The old rear door cost it some sales, I'm sure. And no one was buying the V6 anyway, and a V6 never slowed the CRV sales train down one iota.

    Toyota may not take over the class with this, but it will take market share back. Don't even think about it.
  • Options
    g35bufg35buf Member Posts: 89
    That is simply not good enough in this segment. 23.6 mpg is poor in a slow, small CUV/SUV. You get that mpg or better in 2.0T Tiguan that is far quicker and gives you better materials (albeit more expensive for the same equipment).

    I've driven ALL the competitors and the CR-V is decent, but still 'Honda-noisy' and the CX-5 is not even a consideration until it gets the new SkyActiv 2.5L later in the year. It gets worse mileage than it should because you are always wooding the accelerator pedal.

    We ended up buying a Tiguan SEL as it was simply a class up from the CR-Vs etc from a couple grand more in the real world market value.
  • Options
    maxxlibertymaxxliberty Member Posts: 82
    Don't care for the look of the 2013, with the unattractive lower black trim. That trim doesn't belong on this price-level vehicle.

    So glad I purchased a new 2012 Limited V6. It's fast, agile, rides comfortably, does well on fuel and I've not found any defects in the manufacturing. A plus is the P225/65R17 tires - makes a lot more sense than the faddish, impractical 18's.

    It's actually fun to drive with a 6,400rpm redline. It's so engaging I wish it had a heads-up display and paddle shifters!

    One thing I don't like is the constant bonging/warning noises for everything, and that the customer can't disable same. The dealer, for a charge, can disable only some of the annoyances. I need a wiring diagram to disable all I don't like.
  • Options
    luvcars6luvcars6 Member Posts: 1
    No rear seat vents! BIG FAIL. How could Toyota over look this. Too bad.
  • Options
    toyotalover9toyotalover9 Member Posts: 1
    I love Toyotas. I have 1994 MR2 and 2005 4Runner. Now... This 2013 RAV-4... it is nice inside, but Gosh what a boring car. It is designed for house-wifes to drive to grocery stores 2 miles away from home. That's it. But! it is very nice for that purpose. Vey nice! So, my wife wants to buy it and we will buy it soon. I will stick to my 94MR2 turbo for spirited driving and to the 4Runner for off-road and hunting and other gun-n-bible activities. But the RAV-4 has everything a wife needs: most important rear view camera; convenient back door; good view of the road; nice ride; wonderful sound system; elegant inside; handling that matches her skills and doesn't make driving difficult. By the way, if you put an average driving person into a sports-handling car, she will most likely end-up in a ditch. So, 2013 RAV4 is perfect from that point of view. And it is a very nice looking car too. XLE is the best choice. The Limited gives you a choppy ride. Its 18" wheels will produce hydroplaning on wet roads. They will not improve neither handling nor acceleration. AWD is also not needed South of Boston. FWD is lighter and will behave better. It will not affect the so-called off-road capability since it will be limited to grass parking in local markets and tree-nurceries anyway. For those who want a real hot driving in a compact cross-over, go buy 2012 3.5L RAV4 while they are still available.
    But if you are dreaming about a real off-road, get the Rubicon.
    But for my wife, we are getting the 2013 one :-) 3rd Toyota in the house. By the way. I had to repare my 94MR2 only once in 18 years and the 4Runner also once in 8 years. Both under $1k. Think about it. Everyone, have a nice day.
  • Options
    drjjjjdrjjjj Member Posts: 25
    The 3.5 liter V6 from Toyota in the old Rav and Camry is an Engineering gem and fast as a musle car. Cracked 100mph in the quarter mile in the Camry while getting 30mpg at 75mph. It smokes any 2.0 turbo The Rav is a fine choice, no CVT, no direct injection, no premium required turbo etc-CRV is great too for the same reasons!
  • Options
    jackfrappartjackfrappart Member Posts: 1
    I don't understand all of the "RAV4 looks like an appliance" remarks when a lot of vehicles in this class (yeah, Honda CRV and Ford Escape, I'm talking to YOU) have obviously changed their design to look more like the RAV4.

    The new RAV4 looks radically better than the last generation. Between the wheel hanging off the back door and the rear squareness of an '80s Volvo, my wife's 2009 RAV4 looks like something your 60+ Aunt Clara would drive when viewed from the rear. It looks a LOT more classy and refined from the side, giving it a weird duality depending on the angle that you're looking at it. My wife's 2009 RAV is a great vehicle, fun as heck to drive, and hasn't had the slightest hint of any mechanical or electrical problems, it just looks funny from the back.

    I think Toyota really did well by abandoning the side-opening rear door. And if you are going to have a side-opening rear door, why on earth would you make it open toward the street instead of the curb? That's nutty. The side opening hatch was a a good experiment and scores points for somebody looking sor something different, but the vertical gate is a lot better and the side-opener became a good example of what not to do. Good on Toyota for putting it out of its misery.

    For the guy complaining about the cost of $31K, I challenge you to find a vehicle with the RAV4 Limited's features for under $35K. OK, I found ONE: the Kia Soul !, fully loaded. Nice vehicle on the inside, downright embarrassing on the outside. I'm 43 years old, married, and have a kid. I've been nowhere near cool and happenin' for 15 years, and I wouldn't be caught dead in a Soul (a.k.a. The Witch Car).

    As for the reviewer that claims that head room in the front in back is worse: it's lower by an inch and I can't believe it would make a difference unless you're in the NBA. My sitting height is 95th percentile at least. When I'm on an airplane, I can look cleanly over everybody's head. I can't just lean my head back and relax in the airplane chair like 99% of the population, my head flops back on top of the seat. I have to have a neck pillow. My point? I've never had problems with head room in the 2009 RAV4 or the 2013 RAV4, period, end of story. And I'm the guy who was really interested in the Nissan Xterra, attempted to test drive one, and couldn't even get out of the parking lot because the bottom of the raised sunshade was 2 inches BELOW my eye-level with the seat fully lowered. I have that problem with a lot of vehicles.

    My only gripe: the got rid of the V6. The 4 cylinder is great around town but it's not my friend on a road trip. When I'm at highway speed on cruise control, the slightest up-slope causes the engine to kick down a gear and rev like you pounded your foot into it. It's jarring. I'd rather lose 5 MPH than hear what sounds like a lawnmower being red-lined to destruction. Going up a mountain pass or doing rolling hills would get real old real fast. The V6 purrs like a kitten when you're going up a 12% grade, I'll take the 2 MPG penalty (considering what you're paying for the car itself, the license, the insurance, the maintenance, etc., people get WAY too wrapped around the axle when it comes to gas mileage; if you're being socially conscious, alright, whatever; from the standpoint of cost, get a grip). Getting rid of the V6 was a mistake.
  • Options
    jackfrappartjackfrappart Member Posts: 1
    I agree, drjjjj. I have a 2001 Camry with a V6. When it comes to speed and acceleration, I can hang with anybody except some of the high-end, no-kidding muscle-cars or the once in a blue moon 300-hp BMW that you see once a year. Toyota screwed up when they discontinued the V6. I think they grossly underestimated that impact. For anybody that has a V6 now, they're not coming back to a 4-banger that sounds like a lawnmower on any decent hill and, when you get into the land of the 10% grade, will horribly decelerate no matter how much foot you put in it.
Sign In or Register to comment.