Same engine. 3.5L V6. Although I think the Avalon is rated at 268 HP and the RAV4 is rated at 269. The 3.5L engine will also be available in the 07 Camry and LEXUS ES and GS.
I was very much interested in the third row seat because once in a while friends/family may visit us (without car, international). During that time if I don't have a third row seat, I need to rent a minivan. I thought that the third row seat will be completely hidden so that when we don't use it, we can use that space for luggage. But I recently saw the picture of third row seat folded. Even after folding, it is occupying lot of space and it is not completely hidden, it is seen very well above the floor. The space usage significantly decreases with the third seat. My question is, do anybody know whether the third row seat can be completed removed and fitted when it is needed?
Drove an '06 RAV4 Base yesterday. I was not impressed. The CRV feels much larger inside probably since it does not have a center console. The car drove fairly well, absorbing potholes very nicely as expected with a Toyota.
The two tiered dash is silly looking, almost Nissan Quest silly. Toyota should have installed a center mount speedometer on the spaceship dash so the RAV4 could lauch into orbit.
The exterior is gastly looking. It looks like the back of a Subaru Tribeca is welded onto a Highlander. The styling does not flow well. The traditional front end clashes with the modern rear.
I prefer the "truck like" appearance of the CRV rather than a station wagon appearance of the RAV4, Infiniti FX45, etc.
My gut feeling is that when the new '07 Honda CRV arrives, it will reign as the winner again in the small SUV category.
Just curious, you state: "The two tiered dash is silly looking, almost Nissan Quest silly. Toyota should have installed a center mount speedometer on the spaceship dash so the RAV4 could lauch into orbit."
Is that so?! The RAV's dash isnt really two tiered. I'm just curious, have you been inside the new Civic? I'll bet somehow you'll feel that arrangement works, and the Civic shouldnt be launched into orbit?
I'm just curious, have you been inside the new Civic? Yes, I sat in a new Civic the other day and love the dash. Also, don't shoot the messenger. The Toyota salesperson called the dash two-tiered because of the definite seperation line at the center of the dash (two glove boxes also...where did they get that idea from?)
Your opinion is nice, but seeminly unique. Thanks. P.S. I am not a Honda drone or salesman. My last car was a Toyota Camry and like both Hondas & Toyotas.
0 bids, that's funny. His reserve price is probably close to MSRP.
I like the way the 3rd row folds, pretty neat. Like the better vans, basically. Too bad the well isn't juuust a tad bigger, you can't fit much in there.
I'm not sure if they could do that with the Highlander because the spare uses up that space. Maybe they'll go with run-flats?
But then people will complain about expensive tires...you can't win.
Took a couple on a test tonight and then drove it pretty hard myself later. They loved everything about it, but wanted the V6 and 3rd row.
I'm impressed with the price and value.
I have a V6 Highlander 4WD so the I4 RAV vs V6 is not a good comparo.
Nevertheless the I4 is just as good IMO as in the '05 model even with the extra weight. The room is significantly better everywhere and it seems more stable on the road. The ride is not the Highlander tho. The RAV is stiffer and bouncier. The Highlander is much more like its Lexus brother than the RAV.
As opposed to the prior poster I do like the styling, both inside and outside. OK I'm biased, but it does appeal to me.
I was taken aback tho by the electronic shifting - and I drive 'Yotas everyday. When pushed from a rolling start there is a momentary hesitation when nothing happens after which the acceleration is very strong and smooth all the way up to 60 when I let off. I've got to try it again and again then under heavy acceleration at 50 to 70+.
The I4 is not a performance model so the handling is not critical. The value though will make the new I4 RAV more appealing to a much wider audience than the prior model did.
You better go to a dealership and look at it for yourself if you wont believe that its fold flat. Take my word for it. It fold flat like "magic seat" from Honda Odyssey. By the way you said that the third picture are those without 3rd row seat. How come there's seat belts on each sides? What are those for luggages?
By the way you said that the third picture are those without 3rd row seat. How come there's seat belts on each sides? What are those for luggages?
LOL. Yes, those two photos are of the same vehicle with the third row (stored completely, and partially deployed). I guess they wanted to show how the seats come up from their stored position.
I like how they've added that tiny little 3rd row back there for some of us current minivan owners who only occasionally use all that space our vans provide us with.
and took it in Atlanta traffic, up hills and on some pretty good curves. If we buy the new RAv4 it'll be the wife's car, so my test drive was just to assure her that test driving it would be worth her time, and it passed that test just fine.
I was impressed with the power available with the 4 cyl, as compared to the CR-V I'd test driven last summer. I tested the power uphill with the air conditioner going full bore, and I couldn't tell a difference in the power available. The sales guy with me said that's because the A/C isn't driven by a separate belt off the motor. Anybody got some additional information that might help out on this?
It downshifted once when I punched it going uphill, and I suspect it'll need to do that on occasion in normal driving around here. I'm not sure that I'd feel good about going up Monteagle in Tennessee with the 4 cyl, but hey, that happens at most two-three times a year. Should I buy a car based on that criterion? Hmmmmmmm.
Being the base model, the interior wasnt't as well appointed as the spousal unit would require. But I was assured that and LTD with leather seating (a factory option only) would have as nice an appointment as the Highlander LTD I also looked at.
So here's the first tough question for us: Should we get the 4 cyl or the V6? 4 mpg in the city doesn't seem like a lot, but it could add up, especially if the power in the V6 would really be only reserve power, needed only on occasion.
And the second tough question for us is: the V6 LTD Highlander gets 19/25 and is a little bigger, and with discounted pricing on a version without NAV or the DVD player it's comparable in price ($29,650) to what a new V6 RAv4 LTD with everything but the DVD player and third row seating ($28,750 - $29,000) would cost. Hmmmmmmm.
I sat in a couple Friday and found they were very uncomfortable. Either it was odd feeling with the headrest up or jabbed in your back with the headrest down. Legroom front and back was good though.
This is just an assumption, but do you currently own a CRV? It appears you were looking for reasons not to like the new RAV. Heck, you're even predicting the future. Where does the current CRV reign as the winner in any category? Just curious.
My wife and I just came home yesterday with a new 06 RAV4 AWD. The decision between the RAV4 and CRV was tough. In my opinion I felt that the RAV4 had better traction control features (which we really need in our snow and ice) and looked better on the exterior. I think the CRV looked "less cheap" on the inside. Lots of plastic on both but the CRV just looked a little better. The CRV's front passenger seat had more leg room and I also felt was more comfortable. What was the deal killer about the CRV? The stupid way the rear seats fold up. What idiot came up with that? I like to haul stick lumber (8') and other items that are long on occasions. OK, I could have hung things out the back window of the CRV (I wish the RAV's rear window opened) but I still just could not get over how these things folded. I can put 9+ foot items (diagonally) into the RAV by folding back the passenger front seat back with the rear seats down. I can put 8' lumber straight in. The price of the RAV was also better for what you got. The RAV had paint finished front and read bumpers (and below) while the middle line Honda had the black finished plastic.
We got the RAV with the basic option package. Claimed gas mileage seems pretty reasonable for a 4 cyl AWD SUV. I can live with a single CD player (hey, I can hook my IPod into the car and play enough music to get me across country and back. The side curtin airbags were a must. This to me seems like a vehicle designed with safety in mind for a very reasonable price. I hope our decision was the right one!
Well today I was bored and decided to go check out the new Rav4 4cyl.....And to tell you the truth I was somewhat impressed....I thought that the 4cyl was going to be a dog but it turned out to be alright. The interior is allot bigger that the old one and the style on the outside is quite nice as well. If I was to get one I would get the 6cyl Limited model with leather.....if the Rav4 can move pretty good with a 4cyl 166hp motor, just think what a 269hp motor will do! The two things that may or may not stop my purchase is the spare tire on the back and the way the back opens up.....that's something that will need to be thought about.....but in summary....the Rav4 has my attention! And if Toyota does like it normally does....their dealers should be flooded with these things over the next couple of months!!!!!
Beings how you just bought one of the first ones out there am I to assume you had to pay MSRP? Can you let us in on what your price break down was? Thanks
does anybody can provide the price you bought from dealer? right now I quote several dealer, get the lowest one is 21169 with Alloy wheel and side airbag.
don't know this price is fair or not. I am just consider it's too early to buy a new model...
Thanks for your comments on the new RAV. I am interested in a 4*4 with the 4 cylinder, so I hope power is abundant.
I like the sides and rear of the RAV better than the front end. However, I also dislike the spare tire on the back and the way the back opens up.
Finally, another dislike, really has nothing to do with the vehicle, but no dealers I contacted want anything less than MSRP. This is common at this stage, so I can't fault them. Its between this or the Highlander, which has large discounts.
We paid $22500. That may be a little excessive but two things worked against us. First, it is a brand new vehicle with limited availability and second we have no other Toyota dealer within 120 miles. Another thing that helps swallow paying a little more is no state sales tax and very low licensing fees. I was under $22800 when all was said and done.
Personally I am not worried about $500.00 one way or the other with a vehicle purchase. I really feel that for the price you get a lot of safety and a nice vehicle.
I'm so glad I saw your message. I thought I was alone in my opinion on the tail end of both the Rav4(old and new) as well as the CR-V. I tried to make myself think that either one would be alright, but, for what we're bound to use ours for, it would never work. I hate the spare tire on the back. Have you ever seen some suv's after the owners just don't care anymore? No more cover on the tire, while it looks as though the tire is ready to fall off! Just lovely, isn't it? Now Honda is redesigning the CR-V. I'll wait this one out too, but if they don't let the tailgate open "UP", I'm going with my first choice. The Forester by Subaru does everything right. After driving a 2006, I was sold. BUT, (isn't there always a BUT?), it's not quite as reliable as Toyota (we have a 23 year old Corolla), or Honda. But otherwise, they come with practically everything. No need to add on a lot of options. Also, because they haven't come close to achieving the "snob status" of Toyota and Honda, they like to deal and they constantly have rebates and incentives. Now, while we wait this out, can someone tell us which small pick-up truck would be good?
One thing that has attracted me more to Toyota over Honda is that, I've heard ( BUT do not really know to be a fact)is that on many or most Toyota models, if your timing belt breaks, there will be no serious damage to your engine. Does anyone know if this is true for the 2006 Rav4, 6 cylinder?? What about with the Honda CRV? Since I plan to drive my Rav4 or CRV purchase for 150,000 miles plus,and plan to change the timing belt at recommended intervals of mileage, there is always the chance of the timing belt giving out unexpectedly, and I would like to know that my vehicle won't sustain serious damage to the engine if that happens. ">link title
Would appreciate feedback from anyone out there who has seen the new Rav4 in different body colors. I have been to two dealerships. First, I saw a base model in Barcelona Red. Nice and sporty looking inside the showroom- would like to see it outside in direct sunlight to see if that color still appeals to me, i.e. if I like it better than the outdated looking (in my humble opinion) Salsa Red. At the second dealership, I saw one in a color called Savannah. (I did not see "Savannah" listed as a color option for the 2006 Rav4 on the recently updated Toyota web site). It was nearly dark outside then, but it (Savannah) seemed to be an attractive soft gold shade. I am curious about that special shade of white (is it called Blizzard White?) that cost $200 plus as an option. Anyone seen one in that color? :shades:
You are welcome. I don't like the back/tire for three reasons: the tire partially obstructs the rear; if you get hit back there by another vehicle then you are likely to have more damage from the rear end; and it makes opening the lift a chor, especially on an incline is quite heavy to open. Lastly, the front end could be a bit more aggressive looking. These are my initial observations without actually seeing the vehicle in person. I am interested in the rav with the 4 cylinder engine because gas prices are bound to be heading back up in the spring. Several posters have indicated that its dimensions are very similar to the Highlander. Although I also like that vehicle, the six is somewhat dated.
Lastly, I think the Tacoma is the best small pick-up truck out there.
Im pretty sure that neither the 2.4L or the 3.5L in the RAV use timing belts, so that shouldnt be a concern. Timing chains are allegedly much more maintenance free.
The 2006 Rav4 is very close in size to the Highlander. The interior IMO is less refined though. The rear view is not as good as a Highlander as it seems to have a smaller window and then the spare tire issue in view. To me they appear as a cross between the 05 RAV4 and the Highlander. But I have seen the 2006 RAV4 for 16888.00 in the 2@ this price ads already which is the same as the Camry ads. If I remember right, they have the traction control and related package, but not standard side air bags like a Honda. But 30 mpg is pretty nice on an SUV this size. I assume the outside spare tire deal would make it too heavy to be a hatch style door. This seems to be on a lot of peoples minds regarding the purchase of a CRV or RAV4.
I've heard ( BUT do not really know to be a fact)is that on many or most Toyota models, if your timing belt breaks, there will be no serious damage to your engine. Does anyone know if this is true for the 2006 Rav4, 6 cylinder?? What about with the Honda CRV?
For Toyota's with timing belts this is correct. If one breaks then the engine just stalls and you coast to a stop. The belt should be replaced in the 60-75K range.
Toyota is going the timing chain route though.
All 4c Toyota's now employ chains. The new V6 engines which are going into the 4Runner, Tacoma, Tundra, FJ Cruiser, Avalon, RAV, Camry and probably the Highlander next year also use chains. Infact it's the same engine it's just modified for trucks or autos.
I am 5' 10" and I sat in the back seat of a 2006 RAV4 base model today. I found the head rest in the down position striking me between the shoulder blades as I leaned back. Seemed to be a bit short on the seat back. I do not recall this happening when I sat in a X3. Also, the seat material was not as comfortable as my 1998 Sienna LE seats. Anybody have a similar perception?
You're the second person to mention the 2nd row seat comfort. How'd it feel with the head rests up, though? And did they block the driver's view significantly?
The hinged door will be a pain at the grocery store and loading up at the Costco/BJs/Sam's Club because all those places have curb-side loading.
Good darn question! I did not try to raise the headrests. It will be the first thing I try on my next visit. That said, when I sat in the front (which was comfortable) and craned my next around (or used the rear view mirror) to get an idea of visibility, I could easily envision the headrests blocking some vision to rear when in the up position.
Definitely yes! Although looking on consumer reports they have an article about 1st year car problems and the Toyota and Honda do very well. On average the problems between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year cars was very thin. Sorry I don't have the link right now, but if you check their online site the article is there.
Yes. I posted a little earlier about that. It jabs your back a little as it sticks forward of the seat in the down position. But I went for a test drive today and checked one out more thoroughly, and the headrest actually moves up pretty high above the seat making it much more comfortable. Still not the beat rr seats, unlike the Highlander which its rr seats were plush in comparison, but the trade off for the abundant legroom may make it OK afterall.
It was a nice driving vehicle, but the rear view is not good at all especially with the tire sticking up in the window view.
Definitely considering it, if I can rationalize that 30 mpg is good enough for my use. Its like a Highlander for much cheaper that gets better gas mileage.
I saw the blizzard white in daylight. I believe it only comes on the Limited trim. Very nice color. It has a metallic effect (silver floating particles) and in my opinion much nicer than the flat white. Sort of pearly... Also saw the Pacific Blue. This one looks much darker in reality compared to how it looks on the Toyota Rav4 experience mini-site.
Hi - I'm here in Boston waiting, waiting, for the RAV4's now due in January...frustrating! I'm 6-4 and I drove the CR-V yesterday and it was quite comfortable, even with the moonroof which eats into headroom, and leg room was fine. I'm psyched about the RAV from what I've read and seen online, but one of the reviewers - Edmunds or C and D, I forget, who was 6-4 said he just didn't fit in the RAV driver's seat even with the 8-way adjustments. Tbis is hard to believe; any tall guys out there who've tried it comment, please? thanks rs
Yes, juice, that's possible but seems unlikely given the specs. This guy may have been weirdly built. The other issue sometimes with long legs is if the dashboard structure goes down too low and your knees are up against it, but it doesn't look that way in the photos. Passenger's side, maybe, with the much touted two-level glove compartment. Wish the damn cars would arrive! Are they getting distributed widely this week, does anyone know? I'm told with a new model like this they release them in small lots at first to see what bugs show up. I guess we're the guinea pigs.... rs
Also IMO they see the RAV as an 'individual-use' vehicle. It's not so much of a people mover like a Highlander or minivan it's still the entry level SUV for individuals and young couples.
And as you correctly said it has to be different than the Highlander - including the new iteration - which should be significantly bigger next year.
From my own experience in selling them the RAV is the 2nd vehicle in the family mainly used for commutes to work or it's owned by a single individual.
Empty nesters, don't forget empty nesters now that it will be comparable in size to the CRV. I want something that's easy to get in and out of garages and parking lots, easier than let's say an Outback.
Comments
1 - http://pressroom.toyota.com/Images/View?id=TYT2005110259023
2 - http://pressroom.toyota.com/Images/View?id=TYT2005110233189
3- http://pressroom.toyota.com/Images/View?id=TYT2005110216360
$26490 MSRP
I4 4WD, cloth Ltd
EJ 440 watt system w/ 9 speakers
GY All the A/B's
RL running lights
SR Sunroof.
Its about the same price as the 4c Highlander with nothing. Good value here.
The two tiered dash is silly looking, almost Nissan Quest silly. Toyota should have installed a center mount speedometer on the spaceship dash so the RAV4 could lauch into orbit.
The exterior is gastly looking. It looks like the back of a Subaru Tribeca is welded onto a Highlander. The styling does not flow well. The traditional front end clashes with the modern rear.
I prefer the "truck like" appearance of the CRV rather than a station wagon appearance of the RAV4, Infiniti FX45, etc.
My gut feeling is that when the new '07 Honda CRV arrives, it will reign as the winner again in the small SUV category.
Just curious, you state: "The two tiered dash is silly looking, almost Nissan Quest silly. Toyota should have installed a center mount speedometer on the spaceship dash so the RAV4 could lauch into orbit."
Is that so?! The RAV's dash isnt really two tiered. I'm just curious, have you been inside the new Civic? I'll bet somehow you'll feel that arrangement works, and the Civic shouldnt be launched into orbit?
Your opinion is nice, but seeminly unique.
~alpha
Yes, I sat in a new Civic the other day and love the dash. Also, don't shoot the messenger. The Toyota salesperson called the dash two-tiered because of the definite seperation line at the center of the dash (two glove boxes also...where did they get that idea from?)
Your opinion is nice, but seeminly unique.
Thanks. P.S. I am not a Honda drone or salesman. My last car was a Toyota Camry and like both Hondas & Toyotas.
I like the way the 3rd row folds, pretty neat. Like the better vans, basically. Too bad the well isn't juuust a tad bigger, you can't fit much in there.
I'm not sure if they could do that with the Highlander because the spare uses up that space. Maybe they'll go with run-flats?
But then people will complain about expensive tires...you can't win.
-juice
I'm impressed with the price and value.
I have a V6 Highlander 4WD so the I4 RAV vs V6 is not a good comparo.
Nevertheless the I4 is just as good IMO as in the '05 model even with the extra weight. The room is significantly better everywhere and it seems more stable on the road. The ride is not the Highlander tho. The RAV is stiffer and bouncier. The Highlander is much more like its Lexus brother than the RAV.
As opposed to the prior poster I do like the styling, both inside and outside. OK I'm biased, but it does appeal to me.
I was taken aback tho by the electronic shifting - and I drive 'Yotas everyday. When pushed from a rolling start there is a momentary hesitation when nothing happens after which the acceleration is very strong and smooth all the way up to 60 when I let off. I've got to try it again and again then under heavy acceleration at 50 to 70+.
The I4 is not a performance model so the handling is not critical. The value though will make the new I4 RAV more appealing to a much wider audience than the prior model did.
By the way you said that the third picture are those without 3rd row seat. How come there's seat belts on each sides? What are those for luggages?
LOL. Yes, those two photos are of the same vehicle with the third row (stored completely, and partially deployed). I guess they wanted to show how the seats come up from their stored position.
I was impressed with the power available with the 4 cyl, as compared to the CR-V I'd test driven last summer. I tested the power uphill with the air conditioner going full bore, and I couldn't tell a difference in the power available. The sales guy with me said that's because the A/C isn't driven by a separate belt off the motor. Anybody got some additional information that might help out on this?
It downshifted once when I punched it going uphill, and I suspect it'll need to do that on occasion in normal driving around here. I'm not sure that I'd feel good about going up Monteagle in Tennessee with the 4 cyl, but hey, that happens at most two-three times a year. Should I buy a car based on that criterion? Hmmmmmmm.
Being the base model, the interior wasnt't as well appointed as the spousal unit would require. But I was assured that and LTD with leather seating (a factory option only) would have as nice an appointment as the Highlander LTD I also looked at.
So here's the first tough question for us: Should we get the 4 cyl or the V6? 4 mpg in the city doesn't seem like a lot, but it could add up, especially if the power in the V6 would really be only reserve power, needed only on occasion.
And the second tough question for us is: the V6 LTD Highlander gets 19/25 and is a little bigger, and with discounted pricing on a version without NAV or the DVD player it's comparable in price ($29,650) to what a new V6 RAv4 LTD with everything but the DVD player and third row seating ($28,750 - $29,000) would cost. Hmmmmmmm.
Legroom front and back was good though.
We got the RAV with the basic option package. Claimed gas mileage seems pretty reasonable for a 4 cyl AWD SUV. I can live with a single CD player (hey, I can hook my IPod into the car and play enough music to get me across country and back. The side curtin airbags were a must. This to me seems like a vehicle designed with safety in mind for a very reasonable price. I hope our decision was the right one!
Can you let us in on what your price break down was?
Thanks
right now I quote several dealer, get the lowest one is 21169 with Alloy wheel and side airbag.
don't know this price is fair or not. I am just consider it's too early to buy a new model...
I like the sides and rear of the RAV better than the front end. However, I also dislike the spare tire on the back and the way the back opens up.
Finally, another dislike, really has nothing to do with the vehicle, but no dealers I contacted want anything less than MSRP. This is common at this stage, so I can't fault them. Its between this or the Highlander, which has large discounts.
Personally I am not worried about $500.00 one way or the other with a vehicle purchase. I really feel that for the price you get a lot of safety and a nice vehicle.
Since I plan to drive my Rav4 or CRV purchase for 150,000 miles plus,and plan to change the timing belt at recommended intervals of mileage, there is always the chance of the timing belt giving out unexpectedly, and I would like to know that my vehicle won't sustain serious damage to the engine if that happens.
I am curious about that special shade of white (is it called Blizzard White?) that cost $200 plus as an option. Anyone seen one in that color? :shades:
Lastly, I think the Tacoma is the best small pick-up truck out there.
~alpha
The rear view is not as good as a Highlander as it seems to have a smaller window and then the spare tire issue in view.
To me they appear as a cross between the 05 RAV4 and the Highlander.
But I have seen the 2006 RAV4 for 16888.00 in the 2@ this price ads already which is the same as the Camry ads.
If I remember right, they have the traction control and related package, but not standard side air bags like a Honda.
But 30 mpg is pretty nice on an SUV this size.
I assume the outside spare tire deal would make it too heavy to be a hatch style door. This seems to be on a lot of peoples minds regarding the purchase of a CRV or RAV4.
Toyota is a good automaker, but there are bound to be at least a few issues.
For Toyota's with timing belts this is correct. If one breaks then the engine just stalls and you coast to a stop. The belt should be replaced in the 60-75K range.
Toyota is going the timing chain route though.
All 4c Toyota's now employ chains.
The new V6 engines which are going into the 4Runner, Tacoma, Tundra, FJ Cruiser, Avalon, RAV, Camry and probably the Highlander next year also use chains. Infact it's the same engine it's just modified for trucks or autos.
No replacement needed.
The hinged door will be a pain at the grocery store and loading up at the Costco/BJs/Sam's Club because all those places have curb-side loading.
-juice
Although looking on consumer reports they have an article about 1st year car problems and the Toyota and Honda do very well. On average the problems between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year cars was very thin.
Sorry I don't have the link right now, but if you check their online site the article is there.
But I went for a test drive today and checked one out more thoroughly, and the headrest actually moves up pretty high above the seat making it much more comfortable.
Still not the beat rr seats, unlike the Highlander which its rr seats were plush in comparison, but the trade off for the abundant legroom may make it OK afterall.
It was a nice driving vehicle, but the rear view is not good at all especially with the tire sticking up in the window view.
Definitely considering it, if I can rationalize that 30 mpg is good enough for my use. Its like a Highlander for much cheaper that gets better gas mileage.
-BEY
The Highlander is a little more grown up, so older kids and adults will care more about seat comfort on that model.
Just trying to rationalize Toyota's decision. They had to keep the price below the HL's.
-juice
thanks
rs
-juice
Wish the damn cars would arrive! Are they getting distributed widely this week, does anyone know?
I'm told with a new model like this they release them in small lots at first to see what bugs show up. I guess we're the guinea pigs....
rs
-juice
And as you correctly said it has to be different than the Highlander - including the new iteration - which should be significantly bigger next year.
From my own experience in selling them the RAV is the 2nd vehicle in the family mainly used for commutes to work or it's owned by a single individual.