Suzuki Grand Vitara vs Toyota RAV4
Which one do you like and why?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
I personally think Toyota has rather ugly exterior styling ( in any size vehicle) but feel the Sienna, Camry, and Avalon have attractive interiors. I do NOT like the interior appearance of the 06 RAV4.
BTW, why would you go with a RAV4 instead of a Sienna if you currently own an Odyssey? :confuse:
Also the MPG it will be better than any minivan out there and anything smaller than a minivan will fit better in the garage...
We go on 3 long trips a year and take 1 grandchild or 1 daughter, son-in-law, and their 2 children.
If we did not go on long trips, a RAV4 or CR-V would be ideal since we do not like the low seating in modern sedans or station wagons.
As you well stated, the RAV4 gets better gas mileage and will fit better in a garage than the Sienna or Ody.
Question - and sorry if I've missed a previous post about this - we've been reading a lot on edmunds about both vehicles - does anyone know what the engine size will be in the '07 GVs? My '00 GV is a 2.5l engine (I think), and the new ones are 2.7l. I've never had a problem with the engine size in my current gv, but it seems to be a serious topic among new gv owners. Any answers appreciated.
Height on Suzuki - 66.7 in.
Height on Rav - 66.3 in.
Length on Suzuki - 176 in.
Length on Rav - 181.1 in.
Width on Suzuki - 71.3 in.
Width on Rav - 71.5 in.
Ground clearance on Suzuki - 7.9 in.
Ground clearance on Rav - 7.5 in.
Given all these similar dimensions, it is amazing that the Rav has a much bigger cargo capacity. It is longer, though, and their seats do fold down better.
Well, the other day I was driving on a flat, straight road, with no traffic to draft, and no wind. I waited until I was holding the speed steady, with the mileage indicator varying by no more than plus or minus .1 l/100km. At 110 kph, the GV was getting 9.8 l/100km, and at 100kph it was getting 9.0 l/100km. So I was thinking that the epa rating probably is for more like a simulated speed of 80kph, not 100. I slowed to 80, waited for the throttle to settle out, and checked the reading. 8 l/100km. That's 36mpg using the Canadian/Imperial gallon. It would be 15% less for the US gallon.
It has just over 5000 km on it now. When it had 200km on it, driving at 110kph, on flat and level, with no wind, but in winter and with the roof rack crossbars and 5 pairs of skis on the rack, and the tires underinflated, it settled at 11.8 l/100km.
So it appears to me that these results are consistent, and better than the epa rating now that it's nominally broken in, in warm air, with nothing on the roof, and with the tires inflated to the spec 32lb. pressure.
AND, if this turns out to be typical, then it means all the criticism the GV has been getting, much of it credited to a crude engine, is simply wrong. And given the GV is always in AWD, it means it's actually doing better than Toyota's much-vaunted sophisticated engine and superior engineering.
This is definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Well the implication here is that if you bought a RAV you don't have a brain. I take ubbrage at that suggestion.
I'm glad you like your GV and you're intitled to your opinion. My experience wasn't the same as yours. I found the GV's engine to be unrefined by comparison to the V6 RAV. Gas mileage was another consideration ... and then there is the resale value issue. So, as it turns out it is a "brainer" after all.
For me. That statement was made by me and applied to me only. That you took it as "ubbrage" (did you mean "umbrage"?) was your choice.
As for resale - yes, the resale on the Rav should be worth more (then again, who knows how the new GVs will be on resale - should be interesting and hope it's more than past models) - but the thousands I saved on the purchase price of the GV (compared to what I would have paid for a Rav) may make up for it. Mileage is also a consideration, but from what I've read on various forums, including ravs, some people haven't been getting the mileage they should. Haven't tested the mileage on my new GV yet.
Check the title again.
I think it's very fair to say, given my post above, and others, that the relative mileage advantage of the Rav4 is being seriously challenged.
I'd also say that if the GV had more soundproofing, and softer suspension, it would seem just as "refined" as the Rav. It's very simple and cheap to achieve that impression. I thoroughly sound insulated an old cheap car, and afterward it seemed vastly more "refined".
Suzuki should put out a version that matches the Rav4 for off-road incompetence and interior decibel levels, and get the mileage ratings corrected. Maybe then a few of those Rav4 buyers would be smart enough to pass on the Rav4's Toyota cachet, and pocket up to $10,000.
I say all this without taking cabbage at anyone.
I went to the NHTSA's vehicle consumer complaints site and looked up the 2006 GV and the 2006 Rav4. You can do this yourself, here:
Yes, the Rav4 outsells the GV by 4 or 5-to-1, but the GV has been on the roads 4-6 months longer. The GV has three complaints, of which one is a duplicate, while the Rav4 has 10. Some of those ten are, frankly, frightening. Like the claims of uncontrolled acceleration. We won't know for sure for years which is designed and built better, but comparing the data collected so far on that site does not support claims of Rav4 superiority, at any price.
Excuse me, I wasn't a statistics major but if we multiply the # of complaints of the GV by the factor (4-5) of RAV sales over the GV we then arrive at a statistical "level playing field" of 12-15 complaints. That would be a 20-50% increase over the complaints of the RAV ... right?
At the same time, the GV has had more time to reveal problems, so I thought it fair to let the two considerations cancel each other out and not get into all that. But now I've had to:-)
By no means is this scientific, since it's a small sample, and there is no control over anything. Perhaps RAv4 owners are fussier, or treat their vehicles more roughly. Who knows? It's a good place to apply Occam's Razor.
Unfortunately, even Occam is stymied when the statistics are invalid - i.e. insufficient data.
Which SUV has more quiet interior?
Consumer report indicated the new GV has noisier engine and poor sound insulation compare to RAV 4 V6 model.
Can anyone confirm Consumer report results?
I would not choose a new car based on the interior noise level. However, if I follow your idea, that you consider a RAV4, then you don't really need a true 4x4, so I would go with the Santa Fee, which is the most confortable and quieter of all of them, based on all the comparaision I read about all the new SUV since last year.
I have to test drive all 3 models to make decision. I just want more feedback from everyone so I have more info.