Is that review online? All I could find was C&D's "Capsule Review." Interesting...Edmunds got a 0-60 time of 7.1 seconds on a V6 Limited edition, and C&D got 6.3 (I am assuming with a Sport edition).
I thought I had read that the 4WD lock could be used up to speeds of 25 MPH.
Maybe never, I am sure. Once Toyota goes auto-only with a model, they never go back.
So you only have true AWD up to 25 mph? Better than nothing, I guess, but I still prefer the old way. The only reason to use the type of AWD they will use in the new model is to improve fuel economy, and just look at it. Still fairly pathetic in the 4-cylinder, considering how well the V-6 does.
On a related note, they shouldn't have cheaped out using the old 4-speed auto on the 4-cyls. They should have put in the 5-speed that the Camry (at the same price point, I might add) uses. That would have helped with the fuel economy too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Saw Motorweek's review on WHUT last night. They liked the new RAV4 overall, but give it a knock for a harsh ride and road noise. OTOH, they did say it was quite nimble. Guess you can't have everything in a small SUV.
I know it has been a while since this thread started, but I think part of the thing, based on the listing of "Euro" features on the original, is that US laws prohibit some of those items. In the days when some people do not want someone to get within fifth feet of a car with a cell phone, well, you know the rest.
I was extremely disappointed in Motorweek's preparation of the RAV4 review. They didn't bring it to their track (weather?), didn't run their 0-60, 60-0, slalom, and avoidance tests. I like watching the slalom video as it gives you an idea of how much body roll there is, and how nimble the vehicle handles. Short of giving it the seat-of-the-pants test yourself.
All they really did was drive the vehicle around some roads. Too bad.
What has me scratching my head is that the Edmunds and USA Today reviews don't mention the same harsh ride and road noise that Motorweek observed. In fact, Healey's USA Today reviews calls it "quiet."
Differences in pre-production units? Someone didn't really drive the vehicle under realistic conditions? Someone was dumb enough to not notice improperly inflated tires?
Though early reviews do seem to agree that the vehicle handles well, and the V6 is awesome if one can afford it.
"... the RAV4 just isn't tuned for the twisties. It's not a vehicle that you'd want to drive too enthusiastically ..."
They didn't drive a Sport Edition. They said the ride is "settled" and the new vehicle is "quieter." Is that the key factor? E.g. did Motorweek drive the Sport Edition, and Edmunds drove the Limited (their pictures are of a Limited)?
The 4WD lock option is only effective until 25mph as another poster noted:
"There's also a 4WD Lock setting that allows a set amount of torque (55/45 front/back) to be sent to all four wheels, up to 25 mph, where the Auto setting overrides it."
I wonder if the torque is truly 45% at all speeds up to 25mph. E.g. the MDX's system has a max of 50% at speeds up to 18mph (and only in 1st, 2nd, and reverse gears); and it progressively reduces the rear torque as the speed increases. Either way, it's clear the lock mode is for "extrication" and cautious maneuvering. E.g. trying to make one's way through a difficult area at relatively lower speeds.
Concerning the V6-equipped Rav4 with towing package....What is the latest on when it is due out, and where will these vehicles be assembled? Also, will some shade of gold be available as a body color on the V6? Also, is there a special shade of white to be available on some grades? And what is the green shade like that is to be offered?
First Ting: The Rav4 was made available at a Press Junket in Santa Barbara. So you get a First Drive, but no instrumented testing.
Not handed over for a true braw-beating in Detroit, or "Parts Unknown".
My #2: I just gots my C&D in da mail, so hot off the presses, the website won't catchup until week's end.
I know ALL! It was a Limited 4X4, weighing 3660, and has 49 cu ft in da back seat .
Top speed of 129! .83 on the skidpad with Bridgestone Dueler H/T's! Get a Sport 2WD with Pirellis and outskid that 350Z no problem!
The only flaws were the radio/AC displays were hard to see, the Automatic A/C was actually colder than the display would indicate (I guess it's 2 cool!), and the car was a little too juicy off the line!
I wouldn't ALWAYS wanna smoke dat X3 at the light. :P
"Toyotas can be so benign, so vanilla, that they’ll slip right through your hands without leaving an impression. Not the new RAV4. This is such a handsome, useful, and startlingly competent driver that it’s hard to imagine a do-it-all vehicle that does more with such aplomb. We still don’t know exactly how to classify the RAV4, except as fairly marvelous."
Initially they are all coming from Japan. Toyota is building new plant in Canada now with the intention to produce 100K RAV's per year. This alone is about 40% more than current sales. They think they have a winner obviously.
I under stand the 4c will hit stores on ~ Dec 16 with the V6's sometine in Jan '06
Well, if you realize they beat the snot out of it and it probably wasnt even broken in, and likely a preproduction model, cut the trucklet some slack. This engine has tested VERY effcient in the Avalon- CR observed 23 MPG overall. Also, consider the other SUVs that can hit 60 in 6.3 seconds- such as the V8 MLs and V8 X5s- their observed are even lower.
Motorweek's review has several errors. Not only the photos, but also the EPA highway mileage number is off. If they complain about the ride, maybe they got a Sport model with the 18" rims? Of course we can't tell because the pics are wrong.
They quote 0-60 in 7.0, but they are using Toyota's numbers, so looks like they have not done a full test yet. Their price must not include freight, because they're lower than what I've read elsewhere.
6.3 from C&D is very impressive, but keep in mind the first Forester XT they tested did it in 5.3, and a later model with taller gearing still managed in the high 5s.
I'm actually more impressed with their rolling start 5-60 of 6.5 seconds, now that is amazing, and tells of the engine's low rpm flexibility.
16mpg is horrible, though. Those guys are lead foots, so I doubt we'll see much of that.
Thinking about the power this new vehicle are putting out it is very high, and up to a point depending on the use of the car is nice. I know We all feel like Mario Andretti some times.`some people will be taken by the dealer selling a v6 to an elderly that only need a l4. The times 0-60 times look very good for the type of car. Some times I would like to buy a car with 100hp but with 50mpg+ than 250+hp and 20mpg.
I read the Car & Driver review - not surprising they were very impressed with just about everything the car offers, especially the V6 power and its handling, even on the non-Sport version with all season tires. It is pretty rare when C&D gives such accolades to SUV's.
One thing that surprised me was that its design will not allow a hybrid option in coming years. I would have thought that all new Toyota's would be designed to offer a hybrid option down the road, as they are clearly moving in this direction...
People talk about the problem with torque steer on the FWD Acura TL...and that's with an adjusted true rating of 258 HP. I can't see how the 269 HP 06 RAV4 FWD 4x2 isn't going to be seeing some MAJOR torque steering issues itself..
I think the RAV4 will be one of the first winners of torque steering elimination via the introduction of EPS (Electronic Power Steering with Power Assistance). I did already drive an 06 Audi A3 and A4 and boy I did not sense a thing of torque steering. Just watch, others will follow soon of this EPS technology...
Depends on the tuning. And it's been around for a while, actually, the 1988 Subaru XT6 has electric power steering FWIW.
Any how, Saturn has that on the Vue and it's the worst steering I've ever felt in any car, over-boosted and completely numb. And I drove the Redline version.
Then again, VW's is not bad.
So it depends on how it's tuned, but I've observed a wild variance from one extreme to the other.
Acura TSX Audi A3 2.0T BMW 3 Series Chevrolet Corvette Chrysler 300/300C Hemi/300C SRT8 Ford Mustang GT Honda Accord Mazda MX-5 Mazda RX-8 Porsche Boxster
(no Rav4 as only cars are eligible, but in a separate article they "RAV" about it)
Saw the pictures of the 4 cylinder and noted Toyota has changed the front to back placement of the engine. For a while the 4 cylinder engines had the exhaust side towards the back supposedly to help the cat heat up faster as it was closer to the action. That's been changed, just curious does anyone know why??
My read overall, fix the rear door to an overhead hatch, hide the spare and heat the steering wheel and we've got a decent ride.
I don't quite understand the direction Toyota is going with the new RAV4. With the V6 and increased size, it's in Highlander terrority now. And I suspect the price will be close as well.
It's like when Hyundai came out with the Tucson and it was so close to the Santa Fe. It made no sense until the new bigger Santa Fe arrives. Maybe a new Highlander is on the way.
But Toyota still needs an affordable, small SUV. Something between the Matrix and the new RAV4.
Pricing has already been released. Do a search on this thread, and you should be able to find details.
Basically, you can still get a well-equipped but frill-free (meaning, no power moonroof, stuff like that) base model AWD auto 4 cyl for about $23.5K including side curtains. The V6 will run another $2200 or so. Quite reasonable in my opinion. A loaded RAV4 V6 Limited AWD with every option including leather, third (trike sized) seat, rear DVD entertainment, side curtains, towing pkg, JBL, etc... is $32K, far less than a loaded HL sans NAV.
A new HL is about a year to a year and a half away.
This new RAV is getting rave reviews basically from every source, I think its a very shwred play by Toyota. And dont forget- its BARELY larger outside than the current CRV.
~alpha
ps- thanks to whomever posted the 10Best list. Naturally, I never agree with one or two selections, but thats a topic for a different forum.
I love my '03 Camry and '99 4Runner, but can't understand what Toyota is doing with its SUVs. Something is always lacking. Why can't the new 4Runner have a fold-in 3rd row? Why can't the highlander's 3rd row be split and its rear window open in some fashion? Must all long objects end up on the roof? Why does the redesigned Rav4 still lack a liftgate and not hide the tire? Why does it overlap in size and power with the Highlander? Toyota makes great vehicles but they are slow to adopt some modern features into its vehicles.
at least the 4 cylinder models. I was told by Sandy Springs Toyota (Atlanta) that the V6s would be there too, but I've also seen some indications that those might not be delivered until Jan/Feb.
Folks here and on other boards must be fearfull the RAV is coming. I keep seeing number in 30's for the new RAV and they use that to justify their brands (Honda, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Ford) have nothing to fear as they are much cheaper. But in reality, how many people will buy the top of the line 32K Rav. Few I bet. If the pricing for the base Rav, 4 cylinder automatic at 22.2K MSPR with delivery fee holds true....I think they better all watch out! If you can get the 3rd row seat for $500 more then its all over! I mean think about it...after the intitial buying spree, say six months from now the base should be selling for maybe 21.K + tax....Now if it does turn out the Toyota is packaging the RAVS so they are costing 24K+ then I think Honda and Subaru in particular will be alright until they roll out their new models but until then I think we'' be seeing rebates.
I will have to agree, The RAV4 should be a very nice but, when you start looking at that price range there are other vehicle to consider, like the size,conford, and if I spend less will I miss the extras? after 24,000 you are looking at many choices from the 4runner/tacoma4d/hilander, and of course the CRV still out there. And if Honda comes up it there new CVR next year for around 19000 and with a good standard list you will see toyota lowering the $. hopefully cus as of right now it is a lil overprice.
THE BACK DOOR IS IS USELESS AT LEAST MAKE THE REAR WINDOW OPEN UP. THE SPARE TIRE BLOCKS YOUR REAR VIEW. WHAT MARKET IS THIS SUV TARGETED FOR? THEY COULD PUT IN A 8 CYL. ENGINE BUT THIS WOULD STILL NOT MAKE THE UTILITY PART OF SUV USEFUL.
I also agree that it is srprising that the RAV4 has grown so much; thus so close to the Highlander and 4-Runner. I mean how many vehicles do you need between 180" and 210" long? Do we need a separte vehicle for every 2" (exaggeration). I would think a gap in size of 10" between vehicles would suffice. This is a general issue with all auto manufacturers. Why spend so many millions and millions to have a vehicle 3" longer than your other model, and then sell 50K of them.
Some thoughts on issues mentioned here:
But since the RAV4 has grown and does have a V-6 it is now on my shopping list. I do like the rear-mounted tire which does look good on this type of vehicle - it is better than being underneath where it gets rusty, or inside where it takes up storage space.
Looking at tire prices and availability, I think at this time I'd want the Limited's 17's er's over the Sport's 18"er's. How many people are enjoying some snow/ice today and wish they had good snowtires?
Stay away from the options if you want to have a decent price. It is true of many vehicles, that there is mucho profit in the options.
The tow package sounds good for an extra reason. You get a higher capacity alternator which is good for all the extra electronic devices that seem to get added these days. I would consider a good aftermarket amplifier and speaker system in the 1000+W range; and would want the "juice" for that.
Likely next weekend for the 4c and Jan sometime for the the V6. Likely there will be a limited supply initially simply from a logistical perspective. 1600 dealerships will likely get a couple each at first.
If Toyota saw fit to include the power rear window in the 4Runner redesign, and they won't take the tire off the back of the Rav4 (because it's looks funky ), then at least put the power rear window on the Rav4! Simple.
Weight isn't a problem, with 270HP to move the thing with. There is no excuse for that.
As for Rav4 vs. Highlander, apparently, Toyota has major plans for the HL. I surmise that the Rav4 will, in effect, replace the HL in form and function, and they will move the HL to the upgraded Avalon platform, and take the HL in a different direction, similar to (but not the same as) Chrysler Pacifica.
The way I see it, a Pacifica without the rather large flaws (sumo-sized staion wagon design, sumo-sized weight, gotta-have-a-V8 performance, confusing interior design) would keep Toyota rockin'!
I expect, essentailly, a 280HP Avalon meets Matrix in Late Winter/Early Spring 2007.
Just an fyi, I picked up a mini-brochure on the new RAV at the SF Auto Show several weeks ago. According to the RAV brochure, V-6s will not be available until "February 2006." Its too bad that they did not have the new model to look at.
alpha: prices can actually get higher than $32k, Edmunds' was $32.7k and lacked the 3rd row, so figure almost $34k just right there, assuming they had every thing else.
Still, MSRP of a Highlander can break the 40s I believe, and the next one will surely grow. And I bet most RAV4s will be priced in the mid 20s on dealer lots.
Now my reply to some issues mentioned above:
Why can't the new 4Runner have a fold-in 3rd row?
Because of the high floor required by all the 4WD hardware below. They need room for the pumpkin to move around.
Why can't the highlander's 3rd row be split and its rear window open in some fashion?
Split should happen for the next gen, no doubt, windows maybe. Would make sense to distinguish it from the RAV4, at least a pop-out.
Why does the redesigned Rav4 still lack a liftgate and not hide the tire?
Highlander does those things, so this is different in styling and appeal, so they won't cannibalize each other as much.
Why does it overlap in size and power with the Highlander?
HL will move up, this is only temporary. The V6 RAV4 arrives only in Feb so they really won't overlap for very long.
Motorweek review says road noise and and ride are poor, even with the V6. I expected the V6 to have a quiet ride at least by crossover SUV/CUV standards, but apparently not.
It won't go according to the engine, the rim size is more likely to affect something like that. Remember, you can get 16", 17", or 18" rims. The difference in ride between a Plus Two is quite big.
Yes, but many get the V6 because the V6 engine runs much more quietly than the 4 only to be disappointed when they hear large amounts of road noise coming in from noisy, hard riding tires and poor sound insulation.
Or it could just be their take on it. Go test drive it yourself some time and see if it effect you or not. Car mags don't reflect the views of all people. Maybe it was noisy for them, but wont be for you. You never know unless you drive it yourself.
Look, if your job were to review products and thus you should be making a list of the good and bad of products, do you think you'd always report only good. Even if you love the product aren't you going to feel some professionalism to point out something that could be improved? Of course, or else your employer, readers, or whomever are going to accuse you of just being a marketer for the manufacturer.
So someone makes note that there seems to be some noise. It sounds pretty trivial. Say its 71 decibels. Would the writer be happy if it were 69 decibels? That's still pretty high combined to 0 decibels!
Personally I like the sounds of driving, and if the engine can sound like a Ferrari great. If it doesn't sound great but some nice music on and turn it up. Live a little, you'll have all the quiet you want when you're dead.
It offers a 3rd row like the Land Cruiser. When they first came out there were many but they sat for a long time. Then for a year or so I saw none suddenly they've started appearing again ..and selling..??? I dont know why?
Comments
Is that review online? All I could find was C&D's "Capsule Review." Interesting...Edmunds got a 0-60 time of 7.1 seconds on a V6 Limited edition, and C&D got 6.3 (I am assuming with a Sport edition).
I thought I had read that the 4WD lock could be used up to speeds of 25 MPH.
Why no manual tranny? Maybe later?
- Greg
So you only have true AWD up to 25 mph? Better than nothing, I guess, but I still prefer the old way. The only reason to use the type of AWD they will use in the new model is to improve fuel economy, and just look at it. Still fairly pathetic in the 4-cylinder, considering how well the V-6 does.
On a related note, they shouldn't have cheaped out using the old 4-speed auto on the 4-cyls. They should have put in the 5-speed that the Camry (at the same price point, I might add) uses. That would have helped with the fuel economy too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All they really did was drive the vehicle around some roads. Too bad.
What has me scratching my head is that the Edmunds and USA Today reviews don't mention the same harsh ride and road noise that Motorweek observed. In fact, Healey's USA Today reviews calls it "quiet."
Differences in pre-production units? Someone didn't really drive the vehicle under realistic conditions? Someone was dumb enough to not notice improperly inflated tires?
Though early reviews do seem to agree that the vehicle handles well, and the V6 is awesome if one can afford it.
Curiously, they said:
"... the RAV4 just isn't tuned for the twisties. It's not a vehicle that you'd want to drive too enthusiastically ..."
They didn't drive a Sport Edition. They said the ride is "settled" and the new vehicle is "quieter." Is that the key factor? E.g. did Motorweek drive the Sport Edition, and Edmunds drove the Limited (their pictures are of a Limited)?
The 4WD lock option is only effective until 25mph as another poster noted:
"There's also a 4WD Lock setting that allows a set amount of torque (55/45 front/back) to be sent to all four wheels, up to 25 mph, where the Auto setting overrides it."
I wonder if the torque is truly 45% at all speeds up to 25mph. E.g. the MDX's system has a max of 50% at speeds up to 18mph (and only in 1st, 2nd, and reverse gears); and it progressively reduces the rear torque as the speed increases. Either way, it's clear the lock mode is for "extrication" and cautious maneuvering. E.g. trying to make one's way through a difficult area at relatively lower speeds.
Not handed over for a true braw-beating in Detroit, or "Parts Unknown".
My #2: I just gots my C&D in da mail, so hot off the presses, the website won't catchup until week's end.
I know ALL! It was a Limited 4X4, weighing 3660, and has 49 cu ft in da back seat
Top speed of 129! .83 on the skidpad with Bridgestone Dueler H/T's! Get a Sport 2WD with Pirellis and outskid that 350Z no problem!
The only flaws were the radio/AC displays were hard to see, the Automatic A/C was actually colder than the display would indicate (I guess it's 2 cool!), and the car was a little too juicy off the line!
I wouldn't ALWAYS wanna smoke dat X3 at the light. :P
DrFill
that they’ll slip right through your hands
without leaving an impression. Not the
new RAV4. This is such a handsome,
useful, and startlingly competent driver
that it’s hard to imagine a do-it-all vehicle
that does more with such aplomb. We still
don’t know exactly how to classify the
RAV4, except as fairly marvelous."
Some stats with Limited model (note more aggressive Sport model will be avail. with firmer suspension and 18" wheels)
:
ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3***
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5
100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0
50–70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8***
Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
Top speed (drag limited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 mph
BRAKING
70–0 mph @ impending lockup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 ft
HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83 g
Understeer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MINIMAL moderate excessive
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 mpg
C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 mpg
INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 dBA
70-mph cruising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 dBA
I under stand the 4c will hit stores on ~ Dec 16 with the V6's sometine in Jan '06
~alpha
They quote 0-60 in 7.0, but they are using Toyota's numbers, so looks like they have not done a full test yet. Their price must not include freight, because they're lower than what I've read elsewhere.
6.3 from C&D is very impressive, but keep in mind the first Forester XT they tested did it in 5.3, and a later model with taller gearing still managed in the high 5s.
I'm actually more impressed with their rolling start 5-60 of 6.5 seconds, now that is amazing, and tells of the engine's low rpm flexibility.
16mpg is horrible, though. Those guys are lead foots, so I doubt we'll see much of that.
-juice
I bet the ones that said it was stiff had the 18"s, Car Connection must've had a 16" rim.
-juice
it is very high, and up to a point depending on the use of the car is nice. I know We all feel like Mario Andretti some times.`some people will be taken by the dealer selling a v6 to an elderly that only need a l4. The times 0-60 times look very good for the type of car. Some times I would like to buy a car with 100hp but with 50mpg+ than 250+hp and 20mpg.
One thing that surprised me was that its design will not allow a hybrid option in coming years. I would have thought that all new Toyota's would be designed to offer a hybrid option down the road, as they are clearly moving in this direction...
Thoughts on this..
Any how, Saturn has that on the Vue and it's the worst steering I've ever felt in any car, over-boosted and completely numb. And I drove the Redline version.
Then again, VW's is not bad.
So it depends on how it's tuned, but I've observed a wild variance from one extreme to the other.
So I'll wait and try it.
-juice
Do you know that the stearing will be unboosted if you try to turn it in the "wrong" direction?
Some times the engineers are just trying too hard.
-juice
Can someone tell me what the 10 Best are this year? Thanks.
~alpha
Audi A3 2.0T
BMW 3 Series
Chevrolet Corvette
Chrysler 300/300C Hemi/300C SRT8
Ford Mustang GT
Honda Accord
Mazda MX-5
Mazda RX-8
Porsche Boxster
(no Rav4 as only cars are eligible, but in a separate article they "RAV" about it)
My read overall, fix the rear door to an overhead hatch, hide the spare and heat the steering wheel and we've got a decent ride.
It's like when Hyundai came out with the Tucson and it was so close to the Santa Fe. It made no sense until the new bigger Santa Fe arrives. Maybe a new Highlander is on the way.
But Toyota still needs an affordable, small SUV. Something between the Matrix and the new RAV4.
Basically, you can still get a well-equipped but frill-free (meaning, no power moonroof, stuff like that) base model AWD auto 4 cyl for about $23.5K including side curtains. The V6 will run another $2200 or so. Quite reasonable in my opinion. A loaded RAV4 V6 Limited AWD with every option including leather, third (trike sized) seat, rear DVD entertainment, side curtains, towing pkg, JBL, etc... is $32K, far less than a loaded HL sans NAV.
A new HL is about a year to a year and a half away.
This new RAV is getting rave reviews basically from every source, I think its a very shwred play by Toyota. And dont forget- its BARELY larger outside than the current CRV.
~alpha
ps- thanks to whomever posted the 10Best list. Naturally, I never agree with one or two selections, but thats a topic for a different forum.
v/r
fig.
WHAT MARKET IS THIS SUV TARGETED FOR? THEY COULD PUT IN A 8 CYL. ENGINE BUT THIS WOULD STILL NOT MAKE THE UTILITY PART OF SUV USEFUL.
Some thoughts on issues mentioned here:
But since the RAV4 has grown and does have a V-6 it is now on my shopping list. I do like the rear-mounted tire which does look good on this type of vehicle - it is better than being underneath where it gets rusty, or inside where it takes up storage space.
Looking at tire prices and availability, I think at this time I'd want the Limited's 17's er's over the Sport's 18"er's. How many people are enjoying some snow/ice today and wish they had good snowtires?
Stay away from the options if you want to have a decent price. It is true of many vehicles, that there is mucho profit in the options.
The tow package sounds good for an extra reason. You get a higher capacity alternator which is good for all the extra electronic devices that seem to get added these days. I would consider a good aftermarket amplifier and speaker system in the 1000+W range; and would want the "juice" for that.
Weight isn't a problem, with 270HP to move the thing with. There is no excuse for that.
As for Rav4 vs. Highlander, apparently, Toyota has major plans for the HL. I surmise that the Rav4 will, in effect, replace the HL in form and function, and they will move the HL to the upgraded Avalon platform, and take the HL in a different direction, similar to (but not the same as) Chrysler Pacifica.
The way I see it, a Pacifica without the rather large flaws (sumo-sized staion wagon design, sumo-sized weight, gotta-have-a-V8 performance, confusing interior design) would keep Toyota rockin'!
I expect, essentailly, a 280HP Avalon meets Matrix
DrFill
Just an fyi, I picked up a mini-brochure on the new RAV at the SF Auto Show several weeks ago. According to the RAV brochure, V-6s will not be available until "February 2006."
Its too bad that they did not have the new model to look at.
Still, MSRP of a Highlander can break the 40s I believe, and the next one will surely grow. And I bet most RAV4s will be priced in the mid 20s on dealer lots.
Now my reply to some issues mentioned above:
Why can't the new 4Runner have a fold-in 3rd row?
Because of the high floor required by all the 4WD hardware below. They need room for the pumpkin to move around.
Why can't the highlander's 3rd row be split and its rear window open in some fashion?
Split should happen for the next gen, no doubt, windows maybe. Would make sense to distinguish it from the RAV4, at least a pop-out.
Why does the redesigned Rav4 still lack a liftgate and not hide the tire?
Highlander does those things, so this is different in styling and appeal, so they won't cannibalize each other as much.
Why does it overlap in size and power with the Highlander?
HL will move up, this is only temporary. The V6 RAV4 arrives only in Feb so they really won't overlap for very long.
-juice
-juice
I think that Motorweek tested the Sport version with the larger wheels and suspension. That will make a difference too.
Larger wheels can cause more noise?
I don't know if they're noiser as a rule, though.
So someone makes note that there seems to be some noise. It sounds pretty trivial. Say its 71 decibels. Would the writer be happy if it were 69 decibels? That's still pretty high combined to 0 decibels!
Personally I like the sounds of driving, and if the engine can sound like a Ferrari great. If it doesn't sound great but some nice music on and turn it up. Live a little, you'll have all the quiet you want when you're dead.
I don't see many 4Runners around here but the few I've seen only have 5 seats.