Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?



  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    The Ferrari Enzo is the way to go! In what other vehicle can the passengers survive a 120+ mph crash? :)

    tidester, host
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    That's pretty impressive but luck was still a huge factor. Had the car hit the power pole just a foot or two further forward, the passenger compartment would have been crushed. That's also a pretty bizarre story the un-named owner told the cops. I'm pretty sure he was also the sole occupant of the vehicle.

  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,798
    I actually thought about mentionng the M1 Abrams as the ultimate safe vehicle but decided not to since they aren't readily available for civilian purchase Plus, there's no place to secure a child's car seat


    Bradley assault vehicle somes with 6WD and armored sides :-)

    I hope people saw sarcasm in my original post.
  • kavoomkavoom Posts: 181
    They are all nice. I got my 2004 Forester (five speed) a year ago because the Forester had the best tow capability (2400 lbs)of a small SUV period...until this new RAV4 came out. The old one couldn't tow your hat and has the CRV moved up from 1,500 lbs? Oh and my Forester was an 04 in early 05 so I basically stole it...and apparently I was the only person wanting a five speed.

    This new RAV 4, though has got my attention with a 3500 lb tow capability and inexpensive tow package and the looks have improved substantially over the older RAV4's. I was never sure if they or Sante Fe's were worse looking.. But that new RAV 4 with the six cylinder (only one with higher tow rating than Subaru Forester) ends up costing about 5K + over a Forester. You can get an Outback with the same specs as the RAV 4 and a Turbo if you want.

    So, maybe once they get a few years on this new RAV 4, and make sure that extremely complex AWD works (I hear it is essentially a two wheel drive with an extremely sophisticated four wheel traction control.) Anyone have any facts on that?

    Right now, my Forester kicks booty going up the mountains and then across states at 75 mph getting 22 mpg towing 1,800 lbs of pop up camper passing much bigger TV's along the way.

    Works for me...but That new RAV4 is definitely worth a look.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    I believe the V6 Rav is auto-trans only, so if you prefer a manual shift (as I do) you may have to shop elsewhere. :cry:

  • toycashtoycash Posts: 139
    I assume you must be basing that "5K+" difference on a V6 RAV vs. a base Forester. Horsepower-wise, you would have to get a turbo Forester which is over 27K, while a V6 RAV starts under 25K, and the RAV still has 39 more hp.

    It is interesting that the Forester 4-cyl. only has 7 more hp than the RAV 4-cyl. but has a better tow rating by 900 lbs.!
  • kumarikumari Posts: 72
    I just bought a 2006 Forester XT (turbo) Limited for $25,300 and it comes fully loaded with many extras you have to pay mucho $$$ for at Toyota (leather heated seats, gigantic sunroof, etc.). The RAV was nice (test drove the 4 cyl, the 6 wasn't avail. yet), but still didn't corner as well as the Forester. Higher center of gravity with a rollover warning - and you can feel it. Of couse my XT, which I love, is getting lousy gas mileage (only 13-14 MPG so far) with only 350 miles on the odometer and I'm told it will get better as the engine breaks in, so I'm hoping. Wonder what the 6 cyl RAV would have gotten.

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    The out-the-door price of a Forester XT is roughly the same as that of a comparably equipped V6 RAV4 (Foresters sell at closer to invoice). And while the RAV4's V6 does have a little more oomph, it has to haul around an additional 400 pounds so the Forester XT is quicker. Of course the RAV4 holds more people and or cargo and the V6 can tow more so as usual, it boils down to where your priorities are :)

  • bigredleahbigredleah Posts: 1
    Anyone out there know why Subaru would say the Outback V6 has a towing capacity of 2400 lbs but won't install a hitch on the car to match that capacity? I have recently purchased the V6 model with the understanding it could pull more than my RAV4 with its Class I hitch. But the dealer and Subaru (from what the dealer tells me) won't install anything but a Class I hitch on my V6. To my understanding from everywhere on the web I have reserached hitches... anything over 2000 lbs is a Class II hitch rating. I'm really puzzled and getting mad that I can't rent a 5x10 closed UHAUL trailer (they refuse to rent me any of their trailers that call for larger than a Class I hitch). :mad:
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Actually the H-6 (not a V6) on the new models are rated to tow 3000 pounds. The Outback H-4 and turbos are rated for 2400 pounds.

    That's an excellent question you ask. Yes, Class I towing is up to 2000 pounds, and Class II towing is up to 3500 pounds. Why Subaru doesn't offer a tow hitch that's rated at 3000 pounds is really stupid.

    And, to add to your frustration, if your trailer doesn't have trailer brakes, all you can tow is 1000 pounds. Check your owner's manual, that info is in there.

    I recently had a hitch installed on my '01 Forester from Jiffy Hitch. It's a Class II hitch, even though it's only rated to tow 2000 pounds. It costs a tad over $300.00 fully installed with wiring and hitch ball. The only thing I'm not wild about is the Mickey Mouse wiring set-up, which comes out of the trunk area. That means I have to shut the rear hatch with the wire coming off the side. I'm not happy about that.

  • abcdzxxx2abcdzxxx2 Posts: 1
    Greeting everybody,

    I am in omaha, nebraska. we've ordered 2006 rav4 in march.
    specs: 4 cyl, 4wd, silver, leather int, heated frnt seats, auto start.
    that time dealer said in 3 months they will definately get it. but now it's over 3 mnths and he is saying he don't have any idea when it will be available.

    why it's so hard to get rav4 while any other car is readily available. is there production problem?
    also any hints as to how to deal with this dealer?
    I am thinking of dropping rav4 and get honda crv or so... but i really want rav4 and can't wait any more...

    any suggestions..
  • thecatthecat Posts: 535
    For some reason, leather is in short supply. They just aren't coming in.
  • toycashtoycash Posts: 139
    Unfortunately, this is a common situation with new models. Initial demand for "loaded" versions seems to be very high and causes shortages. Same problem happened with new Avalon and new Camry.

    Your dealer could have ordered one and had it in about three months, but they probably thought they could get you one quicker through their regular allotments of vehicles.
  • driverboydriverboy Posts: 8
    I am in the market for a compact 4WD for the ski season so looking ath 09 Forester, Rav4 and CRV.

    So far I like the styling of the forester and the power of the Rav4 V6 :-)

    The Forester 2.5X does feel quite sluggish to me. I wonder how it will handle in the mountains (Lake Tahoe in my case) during the ski season...

    Does anyone have experience with either of these cars (base 4-cyl models) in mountain + snow conditions and how well they perform.
  • harvey44harvey44 Posts: 178
    None of the vehicles mentioned are among the safest. Measured in deaths per vehile mile - I think Camry's and Accords are at the top. It's not just who get killed when you slam your ten tons into them. Its also - can you avoid accidents, rollovers etc. I'll see if I can find the link.
  • prosaprosa Posts: 280
    None of the vehicles mentioned are among the safest. Measured in deaths per vehile mile - I think Camry's and Accords are at the top. It's not just who get killed when you slam your ten tons into them. Its also - can you avoid accidents, rollovers etc.

    You also have to take into account the sort of people who buy Camrys and Accords.
  • I wouldn't call my 02 Camry safe. Even when new the tires spin on wet pavement and the car is crap in the snow. Some say larger cars are worse in this respect and that the Camry is no worse than the Taurus or Accord...not sure. I previously drove smaller cars and never had a problem with FWD.

    On the other hand my wife's 96 RAV would go thru snow with bald tires with no problem. I hope our new 06 RAV is as good. To me, I'll take the AWD.....safer than FWD.
  • driver56driver56 Posts: 408
    People that own accords and camrys tend to be conservative.
    Consequently, they will take less chances, lessening their risk of being involved in an accident.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    "Even when new the tires spin on wet pavement and the car is crap in the snow."

    How much of that is the fault of the tires?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    How much of that is the fault of the tires?

    As opposed to what? Too much torque? :)

    tidester, host
  • tmc1688tmc1688 Posts: 28
    Hi Everyone!

    Which do you all think would be faster in a straight line acceleration? RAV4 V6 2WD or 4WD?

    However consider this statement from edmunds (The available four-wheel-drive system operates in front-drive mode for optimum fuel-efficiency until a situation (such as quick acceleration from a stop or while driving on slippery roads) demands four-wheel drive, at which point up to 45 percent of the torque is transferred to the rear wheels. A "4WD Lock" switch allows one to manually select that maximum torque output to the rear wheels.)
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Which do you all think would be faster in a straight line acceleration?

    I believe the 4WD weighs about 140 lbs. more than the 2WD - give or take. That will reduce acceleration somewhat.

    tidester, host
  • kavoomkavoom Posts: 181
    "It's a Class II hitch, even though it's only rated to tow 2000 pounds"

    Class II hitches are rated to 3500 lbs. Don't waste your time on the Subaru Hitch if you are interested in towing anything of substance.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Ok, we have the Forester coming back from last year's XT flavor largely unchanged, but the CR-V and RAV4 are fresh for the 2007 model year.

    Who's been waiting for the CR-V to hit the showrooms before deciding? Will the lack of a V-6 send you back to Subaru or Toyota?
  • I for one have been waiting.

    Mileage is and actually always has been for me a deciding factor.
    So I will go with a 4 cylinder model whichever I choose.
    And the new CR-V looks good and has good cargo room to boot.

    I guess I'm showing my age as I hope the car is quiet.
  • lgslgs Posts: 27
    >>but the CR-V and RAV4 are fresh for the 2007 model year.<< -

    The 07 Rav4 does not have any substantial changes from the 06.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Yeah, yeah, so it's bigger for '06 going into '07. It's still sort of fresh in my mind. ;-)
  • Test drove a RAV4 V6 Sport and I gotta say that it is so far the one to beat in the segment. The V6 power delivery is commendable, the handling is tight and the vehicle is quite nimble. This one had only 28 miles on it so there was still a bit of "breaking in" that it needed to do, but Toyota really stepped up with the new model. It feels far more substantial and competent than previous generations.

    Another vehicle that should be compared here is the new Mitsubushi Outlander. Edmunds first drive gave high marks to the new model and it seems every bit as competent as the above mentioned.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Whoa, just saw a pic of the new model in Consumer Reports and have to say that I hate the new look! Too bad to because they fixed two of the major complaints; the rear door no longer opens to the side and the outside spare tire is gone. However, I'm sure a lot of people will like the new style since it follows the current design trend of making cars more rounded looking but I personally prefer the more boxy and utilitarian look.

    -Frank P.
  • there is a whole forum on the subaru board on this topic...not sure why they just do not link it in here. I think I can summarize as follows: The Subaru Forester is an excellent car that has not changed much over it life...why mess with near perfection I guess. It is really no longer in the same class as the RAV or V though due to is smaller size. Its wagon-like look seems to have limited appeal in the looks dept. It is selling much cheaper in its base version right now, 19K plus tax for an automatic. The new RAV is obviously much larger and a bit more expensive (in its base version). The new V is ugly in my opinion. The biggest negative on the new RAV is the way the rear door opens. IMO though, moving the tire off the rear door so it can open vertically would make the RAV and makes similar cars look more wagon - like. Ever mistake a Highlander for a Forester from a distance from the side....I have.

    All are great vehicles. Check out the other forum for a wealth of comparisons.
This discussion has been closed.