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?



  • I agree with you Juice. People get really fired up on these boards. If one car was right for everyone, then there wouldn't be so many kinds out there! :)
  • kavoomkavoom Posts: 181
    In terms of safety you might be right. Firemen are having a hard time using their jaws of life because they can't get through the side pillars on the Subarus. The laminate steel build makes them relatively impervious.

    But hey, if fate is going to nail you, you can have a hummer H-1 and if you get hit by a Semi you lose. I had a semi (car carrier/low to ground) in a horrible rainstorm in Kansas a few weeks ago blow over into my lane. In all the spray all I could see was about three feet in front of me until I sensed (peripheral vision) a mass very close to me. I looked left and he was literaly 2 inches from my mirror and still coming.

    I went right and across the rumble strip and right on the edge of the grass while he kept coming. I slammed on the brakes so I would be going slower and he would get by and he just barely missed me being about three quarters into my lane by the end of it.

    If I had been in a massive SUV (roll over, size, slow response), I believe it could have been a very different outcome. Maneuverability, quickness and agility saved me... that day and that would be the third time I can firmly say Subaru all wheel drive and other factors kept me safe in the last 9 years with the other two being snow related.

    I literally said, thank you subaru, speaking to my car. I then started cursing the truck driver and shaking.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You might need the momentum of a Semi to break through all this boron steel in the B-pillar of the Forester. (see pic)

  • kavoomkavoom Posts: 181

    During an extrication seminar I was conducting, several members of an area fire department approached me with a question and a challenge. They had encountered a Subaru Forester involved in a crash and were unable to cut through the B-pillar with any of their extrication tools. Their cutter and their reciprocating saw were both unable to sever the pillar. They actually went back to the junkyard the next day and used a gasoline-powered rotary saw with an abrasive blade to totally remove the B-pillar. They brought it to the seminar to show me.

    When I saw the pillar, it was clear that something was different about the Forester B-pillar construction. It was eight layers thick! One of the layers was a round steel rod that resembled a concrete reinforcement bar (rebar). That B-pillar had more layers of steel than I had ever seen in a vehicle.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I had the perfect opportunity this morning to experience first-hand the difference between my manual transmission Forester's 50/50 AWD setup and that of the front-wheel biased CR-V’s. I was stopped at a light in one of two left-hand turn lanes with the CR-V beside me. When the light turned green, the CR-V squealed its front wheels in the act of accelerating and turning. Meanwhile, even though I made it thru the turn faster, there was nary a moment of slippage as the Forester's full-time AWD powered it effortlessly through the turn. To borrow an old Toyota marketing slogan... Oh what a feeling! :D

  • mnfmnf Spokane WaPosts: 405
    It could be in tires and the angle of the turn dont but think it would have anyway since the AWD is for all seasons and that you have way more power with that turbo. But there are many of other differences that can go both ways again it all depends what fits your needs as both are not the same and are far apart from each other as some may think this coming from a owner of both.

    .... mnf
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Are you sure the CR-V was an AWD model? They have FWD, too.

    I'd ask if you saw the rear differential (easiest way to tell) but I'm sure your XT wasn't behind him pulling away from a stop. ;)

    I test drove an '02 CR-V, AWD model, and it even had torque steer. It could chirp the tires in 2nd gear. So you can feel that it's FWD by default.

    To be fair we're in the 5% or so of people that would even notice a difference in feel.

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Are you sure the CR-V was an AWD model? They have FWD, too.

    You mean not all manufacturers make AWD standard across the entire model line-up? :surprise:

  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    I have done it a few times with Foresters and CRV's. By far the Subaru system is more responsive..explaination could take hours..but the mechanical system in the Subaru out performes the electrical system in the CRV, it seems there is too many systems interfering to do the same thing. Also CRV is almost 100% FWD, so you have to spin the front wheels to shift into AWD!
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    "Also CRV is almost 100% FWD, so you have to spin the front wheels to shift into AWD!"

    Actually, it is entirely FWD, until the wheel slip, which is when AWD becomes extra handy. Some people would say that Subaru wastes energy driving four wheels all the time, when two wheels would do just as well except when those two wheels lose traction. Of course, those "some people" would not own a Subaru anyway.

    The limited time AWD is what gives better MPG. Subaru has made it's name on a niche market of people who desire full time 4WD. But their cars would get better MPG if they were part time 4WD instead. However, they would lose their market niche...
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Obscure and academic corrections.

    The AWD system in the CR-V is purely mechanical.

    IIRC, the Subaru's can be defeated with the removal of a fuse... suggesting that at least part of it is electrical.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Only for the lesser automatic models. Can't do that with any manual tranny, VTD or VDC models.

    You actually insert a fuse, strangely enough, to put it in FWD only mode. This disengages the clutch pack completely. It does not operate in that manner by default, however, so it's never 100% FWD unless the fuse is in.

    Also, the AWD is not designed/engineered to be used like that all the time, it's actually for when you get a flat or need to call a tow truck.

    Funny part is you get an idiot light that says "FWD", like something is inherently wrong with that. :D

  • "Just stay away from the RAV4 with the V6.... "

    Check out the Real MPG strand. You will read that there is not all THAT much different between the 4 and 6 on the RAV 4....maybe 1 or 2 mpg. I have read on different forums that some people who bought the 4 cyln. wish they opted for the 6. I have talked to a couple RAV 4 owners who make the same comment.
  • kavoomkavoom Posts: 181
    "Funny part is you get an idiot light that says "FWD", like something is inherently wrong with that."

    Your point?

    All wheel drive user for 15 years...
  • tazerelitazereli Posts: 241
    that juice meant it was funny that a light was warning you that you were crossing to the dark side of FWD by disabling the AWD.

    Subaru owner since they had part time AWD/4WD.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yep, it makes me giggle a bit whenever I notice that light.

    Hazards worthy of potential warnings:

    * Service Engine Soon
    * Check Engine light
    * Fuel Level Low


  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The V6 is pretty close in fuel efficiency, only a couple of mpg away from the 4.

    And the other thing is that while there are complaints about hesitation when you first hit the gas, the rate of complaints is higher with the 4 banger than it is with the V6.

    Plus all the extra power, torque, and towing capacity.

    IMO the V6 in the RAV4 is a no-brainer. You definitely pay the extra amount and get it. Very small investment for a very large payoff.

  • thecatthecat Posts: 535
    I knew if I didn't get the v6 that somewhere in the future I would find myself 2nd guessing that decission. I have no regrets. It's a smooth, efficient engine.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    I'd probably opt for the 2.4L 4-cylinder,
    not the 6, since I have no need to tow.

    The 2.4L in my gf's Solara is an impressive power plant,
    strong, quiet and efficient.

    I'd be saving money up front, in purchase cost,
    and all thru the life of the vehicle, in lower fuel costs.
    The mpg difference adds up.
  • I also got the 2.4L 4-cylinder instead of the V6. I found the accelleration and ride to be just fine in the I4 and, in fact, the I4 seemed a bit more nimbler and easier to turn handling-wise than the V6. I'm not towing anything and if I did,I would have gotten the V6 or a truck. I think it's a waste of money up front $2,000 and at the pump but that's just my opinion.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I do tow, plus I have 2 kids and a nanny, and throw in a dog for good measure.

    I'm certain that I stretch the payload limits for whatever vehicle I drive.

    So V6 for me, no question.

  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    "I do tow, plus I have 2 kids and a nanny, and throw in a dog for good measure.
    I'm certain that I stretch the payload limits for whatever vehicle I drive."

    Is your last name Griswold?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I think my wife's packing gets inspiration from them... :sick:

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587 t-sports-form/

    VDC (stability control, finally!), 17" rims, and a really nice mesh grille. Nice package, hope it comes in that blue color.

    It's ironic that Subaru was the first in this segment to make ABS standard (1998, from the beginning) yet they were just about the last ones to offer stability control. :sick:

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Subaru's results aren't in, just yet

    Toyota sold 11,154 units of the RAV4 including both the I4 and V6 models.

    Honda sold 20,413 of the I4 only CR-V with reactive AWD.

    No one is more shocked than I. Though probably not for the same reasons.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Shocked :confuse:

    If not for that stupid rear door side-swing arrangement, and the spare on it, I would have purchased the CR-V in 2005 instead of my Forester. CR and others have always given it good reliability ratings. The edge went to Subaru for the safety equipment and CR's top ratings of it.

    Now I am very pleased with my Subie, but I have to tell you guys, looking at the new 2007 CR-V, when I am ready to get another car to replace it (probably 2008), I will once again be giving Honda a long look. ;)
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    It's way too early of course, pent up demand for a redesigned model etc. But assuming the new 'V does meet Honda's sales forecasts will there be a serving of humble pie anywhere? ;)
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "Honda sold 20,413 of the I4 only CR-V with reactive AWD."

    That's for the new CR-V only?
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    No way to be certain of the mix, but I doubt it. Don't see how they could have that many new units on hand at launch.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    The impression I get from this link I found a short while ago is that they were new ones (and the link quotes Honda as the source):

    "Sales of the all-new 2007 Honda CR-V totaled 20,413, representing an increase of 95.7 percent in its first full month of sales while shattering the previous all-time record by 3,744 units from July 2005."


    Guess there was a lot of pent up demand to get that tire off the rear door, lol, but the numbers are a bit hard to believe. :shades:

    Ah, just found another link that contradicts the 3,744 number:

    "Import truck sales were indicative of Honda division selling 20,413 CR-V units, an increase of 95.7%, compared to 10,850 units in the same period a year ago." (Note that this blurb doesn't specify "all-new" CR-Vs, but it's still a 95% increase).

This discussion has been closed.