-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options

Outback vs Highlander vs RAV4

2

Comments

  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    Hahaha! That's about right! There are at least a couple clubs up here that do group outings and adhere to a "tread lightly" mentality. They have certain trails that they use and require stringent adhesion to their bylaws. As they go out in groups, even when folks do get stuck, there is always somebody there to assist with the extraction. Obviously, each of the rigs have their own strengths and weaknesses depending on the conditions, so the hodge-podge collection of vehicles and drivers comes in handy!

    I have never gone, but I will be bringing up an old '76 F250 Ranger this spring so I hope to maybe get that thing off the road beds now and again.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I used to be fairly active with a bunch of Isuzu guys who would have outtings to the Uwharrie National Forest in NC. The Feds actually have trails setup for offroading and it's great. We had a blast. I may buy back my Trooper from my dad and use it exclusively for offroading.

    -mike
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's not mine, though my dad did own a Cherokee or two back in the day.

    I was just trying to show that off road vehicles are set up quite differently, and that flex/travel is actually a good thing in that scenario.

    Our vehicles are not set up that way. They're meant to handle speed bumps, pot holes, and a foot of snow, sure, but not boulder hopping. Our sway bars remain firmly connected. :)

    Fact is, we would not be happy with the compromises necessary to make our vehicles ideally suited for that sort of task.
  • Options
    herzogtum71herzogtum71 Member Posts: 470
    The salesman doesn't want you to spend 20K when he might convince you to spend 30K. The posts from 4-cylinder owners in this forum indicate that the overwhelming majority of us are happy with the performance, and fuel economy will be on par with the RAV, CRV and Legacy. Try driving one yourself and see what you think.
  • Options
    etbull1etbull1 Member Posts: 15
    I am looking at both vehicles, but have not been able to find a RAV4 w/3rd row locally. I have seen the highlander w/3rd row and would like to know how the RAVs third row compares.
  • Options
    derekgaddyderekgaddy Member Posts: 32
    The Highlander 3rd row is tight - I can't imagine a 3rd row in the RAV4.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    I'm curious how either the Outback or Rav4 will fare in the snow. Can either of these use chains without destroying themselves (subaru warns against chains, the dealer says they will work)? How do the traction controls compare (one forum here claimed the Rav4 will kill most of its engine power if one wheel slips.

    Also:
    The '08 subie 2.5i outback I drove did well handling left wheels on asphalt and right wheels on gravel. But its engine was gutless for passing.
    The 2.5 XT is supposed to be a lot more responsive, but (no samples to drive) I'm concerned it will have the typical Subaru no-torque response (like the WRX I drove a year or two ago which was fine if one likes hi-rev turbo "rush" but sluggish otherwise).
    Any comments on the turbo's characteristics?
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You can use low profile Z-chains on a Subaru, but I would not use regular chains.

    You may not need them - VTD AWD is very capable.

    The original WRX had a 2.0l turbo, they now use a 2.5l which has less lag. Besides the 25% extra displacement there is also AVCS valve control, so it makes more torque sooner.

    I think either one will do fine. OB probably has more clearance but isn't as good on the approach/departure angles. I'd give the nod to Subaru on the AWD system.
  • Options
    cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    This is my second winter with my RAV4. The only circumstance I can imagine it wanting to "kill" engine power would be if one wheel was spinning wildly and had no traction at all. In normal driving it works like just about any other traction control system, reducing power just enough to moderate wheelspin. For those circumstances where you actually do want wheelspin, it can be defeated.
  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    I suppose I have to wonder about your expectation for passing. I have not found my '08 Outback to be gutless in any way. I drove several small, steeply graded, winding roads with it during the first 3000 miles and it did quite well at passing: 199 in Northern California; 101 (coastal highway) in Oregon; 207, 50, and others in the Lake Tahoe area; numerous back roads criss-crossing Oregon and Washington. Never a problem - if I wanted to pass, I did it - even with a big wind block on the roof (lost about 5 mpg because of it) and hauling a full load (at, or maybe *slightly* over the 900# payload capacity :blush: ).

    Then again, were I to spend a few miles in an XT, I might feel otherwise. :D
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    I was comparing the Outback 2.5 i to my current Malibu Maxx, which weighs about the same but generates 30 more HP and mostly in the lower rev ranges. The maxx passes very well as long as the engine stays below 5000 rpm, at which point it "starves" and runs out of pull. The Maxx SS, with more sophisicated valve control, runs hard to the redline.

    The 2.5 i did ok "off the line" (traction was fine), but trying to pass on a moderate hill going 45 or so was sluggish (hard push on the accelerator did very little, and as the trans shifted down there was very little difference in acceleration), and inspired no confidence it will handle mountain grades I deal with on trips.

    I'm not trying to be ultra quick (if so the WTX STI would be the choice, and it isn't), but I definitely don't want to go backwards in terms of vehicle engine responsiveness in return for the nearly $30+ K Subaru is asking for that car.

    Thnx for info on the RAV4: I suspect the Subie will do better wrt traction, but the RAV4 is more efficient in that its AWD appears to be reactive,not full time.
  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    The 2.5 i did ok "off the line" (traction was fine), but trying to pass on a moderate hill going 45 or so was sluggish (hard push on the accelerator did very little, and as the trans shifted down there was very little difference in acceleration), and inspired no confidence it will handle mountain grades I deal with on trips.

    Agreed; especially in the 40-55 mph area, one has to drop the transmission to 2nd in order to get good response. 5000-6000 rpms provides a lot of "ummph" in this car. ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Well, it seems wrt the outback I have three engine choices:

    the 4 cylinder 170 hp that doesn't have enough power for confident passing,

    the 4 cylinder with turbo which has turbo lag and (unless you check a particular bolt with filter frequently) vunerable to oil stavation,

    the 6 cylinder which has little low end torque.

    bummer. :(

    Is it perhaps because of racing emphasis that Subaru engines don't seem to work very well unless the driver is "revving" the engine and using a manual? I really hadn't planned on buying a race car :confuse:
  • Options
    paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    They are fairly small engines with turbos pushing cars that weigh 3300+ lbs. I'm not sure how to really overcome such things w/o a larger engine.

    As for the turbo fliter, if you change your oil and filter there is no need to worry. I have a 94 Legacy Turbo Racecar with 150k street miles and 10k race miles, the drivetrain is 100% stock and never rebuilt. Heck it doesn't even have an intercooler on it.

    My 05 LGT has no issues at 50k miles and I push the turbo hard on and off the track, but I use synthetic oil and change it every 5k miles.

    -mike
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't think the oil starvation issue is common at all.

    They need to replace the 3.0l H6 with the new 3.6l H6, though.
  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    Yeah, it sounds to me like the original poster likes the looks of the XT, but otherwise wants to convince himself not to buy a Subaru. ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The original poster ___likes___ the Outback (the AWD and interior were impressive!), but raised concerns about the available engines.

    Ateixeria's nailed it - the new 3.6I H6 sounds good. Subaru needs to get it into the Outback (perhaps by Outbacks' redesign in '10 :confuse: ).
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's a hot topic. I think they should phase out the 3.0l H6. Other think it should be refined.

    Subaru recommends premium fuel for the 3.0l, and not for the 3.6l, which is better in every way. I'm not sure how much more it costs to produce, though.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Having a slightly more powerful engine with more lower end torque __and__ regular fuel would make the Outback very enticing for me, provided the price was around that of the current model (which is a ___lot___ for a Subaru).

    For the turbos, Suraru __requires__premium fuel __and__ oil changes at 3.8K miles or less. Not very enticing for my circumstances (your mileage may differ :) ).
  • Options
    crashboxcrashbox Member Posts: 2
    I can see you have had a lot of responses to your question and I was leaning toward the Subaru until I drove the RAV. I bought a 2008-Limited V6 4wd. The reasons, first, much more room for passengers. The second row seats move forward and back, I’m six foot three and had plenty of room, also the seats recline a bit with give more room than the Subaru. Mileage was a big factor in my purchase. I drove from Southern California to Bend Or. About 911 miles, and got 27 mpg vs. 19 or 20 for the Subaru. In Oregon we had ice and wet weather, the RAV never missed a beat. My daughters 2wd 4runner could not handle the ice so she used our RAV to get around.
    My suggestion, go out and test drive each one. If you are going to do off roading get the Subaru . If you want an economical., safe all condition vehicle with plenty of power, get the V6 4wd Rav4.

    Crashbox.
    2008 Limited V6 4WD.
  • Options
    crashboxcrashbox Member Posts: 2
    If you do the research, you will see the the Subaru has 173 hp compaired to the RAV V6 at 269 hp. Price wise, the Subaru flat V6 turbo delivers 263 hp at a price of over 32k. I was avle to get the RAV under 29K. The biggest complant that I have is in Calif. you can not order the option you want. Toyota has packages and that all you get. I almost had to go to Oregon to get what I wanted. Again, you should make a list of what you want and go test drive..

    Crashbox
  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    Subaru is offering a turbo on the H6? Are you.... sure? ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Only naturally aspirated 6 in the Outback. And it does not have as much torque as the Turbo-boosted 4 in the XT.

    I will check the v6 RAV 4 out before I make the decision. Hearing that Rav4 works well in Oregon is a + (I live in Portland), as there are two good Toyota dealers near me. Not so for Subaru.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Things to look for:

    Pro:
    * 2GR V6 engine is a gem (a big reason I bought a Sienna)
    * gas mileage is also good
    * transmission is not the 6 speed known for hesitation, so reliability is a +

    Con:
    * fairly basic AWD system
    * rear door opens to the curb side, blocks loading
    * obstructed visibility

    Consider the NAV system with a backup cam, that would resolve the 3rd issue mostly.

    We do a lot of Costco shopping so my wife found the door-opens-the-wrong-way kind of dumb. I can't see why they don't at least reverse the hinges, though you can get a liftgate on the Highlander.
  • Options
    cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    Agreed re the RAV4's rear door - it can be inconvenient. We don't load at the kerb so the way it opens is immaterial to us, but it requires more room behind the vehicle to open than a hatch does. In the real world this translates into a little extra thought required when parking - I don't back in as much as I used to.

    The AWD system, although front-biased, is more sophisticated than it's generally given credit for - there's more to it than "slip-and-grip".

    Like ateixeira, I'm happy with the 3.5 V6. Surprisingly powerful and efficient.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Got to ride (not drive) a Subaru XT turbo this evening - was a manual. In 35 degree weather it took about 6-8 minutes for the windshield to get de-iced (sales rep was idling it in parking lot). Firm ride, and firm seats. Some clunks under the dash on bumps. Smooth idle for a 4. Headlights had very sharp cutoff. Engine needed to be 3K and up in torque band to generate real power, and then car accelerated well. Cover over hatch area kinda chinzy for a $35 K car. Noted the door switch gear and lower door trim had same look and feel (including internal molding ridges) as similar parts in my Malibu - Subaru Indiana must be using parts from the same supplier.

    Hope to drive an auto Subie XT in a week or so - next on deck is RAV4 AWD6
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't think you're going to find Audi-like interior materials in any of these 3. They're pretty basic materials, generally assembled well.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Well the A4 Avant I briefly looked at did have a nicer interior than these 3 (the A3's only slightly better.).

    ...but A4 Avant 2.0T costs more (V6 costs _lots_ more), has less power (only by a little), and no choice of dealers (in my area). The last, given Audis' reliability remains worse than the others here, puts it out of the running. A pity. :sick:
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A friend of mine has a really nice one, but he works for VWVortex and bought it as a press car for cheap. They are very nice. His had nice aftermarket rims and tinted windows, so it looked very nice (not just "for a wagon").

    I would have the same concerns you list.

    Can you wait for the 2009 Forester? It'll be here in March. I think it looks great. The wheelbase will be almost 5" longer, and it's nice and boxy so cargo room should beat the Outback.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    seems odd that Subaru would introduce a 2009 model in March...

    Or is this the Japanese introduction date, with a later USA date to follow?

    If this new Forester has a comfortable seat (with real heigth adjustment), and the WRX engine with a 5-speed auto option, that would be a winner for me.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's in (pre-?) production now. Spy photographers are catching all sorts of photos, even though it has not made an auto show debut, officially.

    They may keep the 4EAT for the first year on the Forester, which IMO is a mistake. Not sure if the XT models will get a 5EAT.

    Shoot, Mitsubishi's Outlander already has 6 speeds.

    Problem is, Subaru is working on a CVT, so they may not want to invest in the auto right now.

    Here's what it looks like:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/10/yet-more-images-of-the-2009-subaru-forester
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    ...the drive train will make or break this one with me.
    Hopefully Subaru will improve it, and not just carry it over from last year.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm gonna guess the base model will get 175hp and a 4EAT or 5MT.

    The turbo will stick with the same powertrains it has now, as the WRX did.

    Again, they're working on a CVT so I'd be surprised if they put in a 5EAT (though I hope I'm wrong).

    One good thing - the automatic has been reliable, so it lessens the risk on a new model.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Finally got to drive one but only on crowded city streets where salesperson and I had to dodge bicyclists, cars, homeless, etc.

    Observations of the Outback XT limited:

    In sport mode, it __definitely__ had turbo lag. Sport took at least 1-2 seconds before the engine decided it wanted to "go". More linear but softer response in Intelligent mode - car didn't feel particularly peppy then. Sport sharp helped the in town responses somewhat but lag still there. Noted some drive line lash (car was brand new). Seats comfortable but get too hot on maximum heat setting. Ride was euro firm but didn't notice any harshness. Seats leather and comfortable. Dash lights had a big step between maximum and the next level down, then stepped in increments. Did not have chance to try manually shifting the trans. Relatively quiet for a high revving 4 cylinder. Didn't tip much in corners.

    I'll have to try the 6 before I'll know if this will work or not. The pretty much on-off turbo is a worry given several other publications have commented on hesitation and lag with this model. A pity Subaru has not addressed it other than the 3-position switch ( how about a dual-tuned intake manifold or some other torque extending technology , Subaru? :confuse: ).
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    anyone had experience with the 6-cyl version of the Outback?

    How does it compare to the 4 cylinder models?
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You may want to try test driving a used one. The transmission is adaptive and will learn your driving habits and adjust its shift map accordingly.

    I just wonder if a used one would already be adjusted, and feel any different?

    No manual for you, I suppose?

    The turbos feel a lot quicker with the manual, a good second or so to 60mph.
  • Options
    2008rav4driver2008rav4driver Member Posts: 1
    Hi everyone. I bought a 2008 RAV4 Limited last Saturday and can't find a clothes bar to fit into the holes provided. Has anybody found a fix? Thanks!
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    thnx for suggestions, ateixeria. I will be doing just that.

    No interest in manuals unless they are clutch-pedal-less, and Subaru does not offer them yet.
    VW/Audi does, but reliability and dealer issues make me very hesitant wrt those.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    apparently the Haldex systems, per wikipedia.com , can be "trapped" if two wheels on either side can't get traction.
    Perhaps this is what the latest HALDEX system emarked for Saab's 9-3 is supposed to fix? But the Saab's out of the running (price, preceived market, etc.).
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Nowadays they pair up AWD with traction/stability control anyway.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    adding, briefly, 1 more model to this discussion:

    Ford Escape Hybrid AWD. This uses the Prius Synergy Hybrid drivetrain but with an additional motor and shaft driving the rear wheels. Ford claims the drive system is intelligent (i.e., it transfers power to the wheels opposite from what are slipping ).

    This one's looking attractive as given the big hills I have to go up and down (which guzzle gas going up, and use up the brakes going down) this SUV may help save a lot of gas and brake wear and none of the other 3 in this discussion can avoid using.

    yes it's less powerful than the other three, but uses way less fuel. I have yet to drive it to see how responsive it is.

    Comments?
  • Options
    xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,862
    I would have seriously considered this vehicle as well except for my sub-arctic location. I cannot see the batteries lasting long enough to make the investment worthwhile. In a more temperate environment like Portland, why not try it?
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    IMHO it really, truly, depends on the price you pay.

    At low-mid 20s, it's fine.

    For a well equipped one, they get near $30k, and then the interior starts to feel cheap.

    See what sort of prices paid people are getting. At $25k or less it makes a good case for itself, higher than that it just feels too low-rent.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Edmunds completed its long term test of a RAV4. Interesting remarks about the V6 engine . It's first time I have heard Emunds saying a vehicle had too __much__ horsepower, but apparently the V6 RAV4 had nasty torque steer.

    By comparison, I have never seen/felt Torque steer on any '08 Subaru outback I have driven, even when two wheels were in gravel and other two on pavement. m On other hand, the Subies don't respond well to the throttle (they have good ultimate power, but you have to wait to get it).
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's the difference between a part-time AWD system and a full-time one, basically.

    All you have to do is manage the throttle carefully. My Sienna has torque steer if you aren't careful, so generally I wait until the it's aimed straight before really punching it.
  • Options
    cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    Note that Edmunds' comments refer to the FWD model. The AWD RAV4 is less prone to torque steer - I only notice it when nailing the pedal at speed, when it's running in mostly FWD mode. In daily driving it's a non-issue.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    this '07 had 48 miles on it, no clunks in the driveline, and less of (but still some) hesitations when accelerating (about a second or so). The salesperson riding shotgun explains the AWD weight was responsible for some of the lag. There was no huge turbo surge. Amazing how two XT's could be so different.
    It felt very substantial, with absolutely no torque steer no matter what I or salesrep did. Although the roads were wet, I noted no brake pulsing or loss of traction on any of the wheels.

    How do the seats differ from H6 to XT? Narrower? Larger bolsters? Subaru only says the XT has "performance" seats.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    ...as it had telescoping steering.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You should buy that exact car. Seriously.

    Some cars just seem to be blueprinted, i.e. built perfectly to specs.
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Drove a RAV4 Limited V6 AWD today. Edmunds was right about this one - the engine almost seems too powerful for the chassis (some torque steer, for sure) and there was some hesitation from the 5 speed auto (about a second or so ..vs.. less from my existing Maxx).

    But:
    It easily out-responded all the Outbacks I have driven - almost felt like it was going to run away with itself at times. The fact that RAV4's V6 engine uses regular gas is another plus. A minus is the RAV4's throttle's hair-triggerish, like the Outback in sportsharp, but all the time.

    You sit higher in the RAV4, and the leather seats are perforated like the LL.BEAN (the XT has solid leather seats). The seats seem a bit firmer. The RAV4 interior trim's not quite as nice as Outback, but ok. There's more interior room for passengers, with a little less for cargo unless seats are folded down. The rear cargo cover was almost a copy of that used in the Subaru. Most glaring cheapness in RAV4 was mouse-fur headliner.

    I couldn't test the AWD (dry weather for a change, but was impressed the RAV4 could be locked on demand, and had various features to help with hills. It's not quite as sophisicated as Subarus, but for slow speeds such as driving on really bad roads I suspect there won't be much noticeable difference.

    A Frankenstein project might be an Outback with a toyota V6 engine... ;)
This discussion has been closed.