Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Subaru Forester vs Toyota RAV4
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
Comments
Does anybody have any experience with this product and would you recommend it or not?
Thanks,
Chris
Regards,
Kyle
-Frank
IIHS scores Forester a GOOD rating all around and the 2006 RAV4 only was tested for Frontal test which scores a GOOD rating. 2005 model scored GOOD for side impact and MARGINAL for rear impact.
One thing I don't understand is why the Forester doesn't have the side curtain airbags? I noticed there is a couple Subaru models that don't have. The Legacy sedan has them. Why wouldn't they put them on all models? If there were no airbag between your head and the car door wouldn't your head hit the car maybe?
The rear passengers have no side air bag protection, but the B-pillar in the Forester is so thick that Firemen complained they could not cut through them with their "jaws of life" tools. They found Subaru uses exotic Boron steels and a reinforcement bar as thick as ree-bar in the pillar. They brought a wrecked Forester back to the shop and had to use special cutting tools to get through the massive structure.
This safety cage is how they were able to get a Good score even without rear/side air bags.
Here's a pic, the pillar is more sturdy than anything from Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, you name it. See it and believe.
-juice
I don't believe these curtain air bags are meant to protect children, for the most part they're not tall enough that they'd even come in contact with them. They'd probably hit the door panels.
-juice
-juice
-Frank
this will be my vehicle. no young children. i do a lot of highway driving while visiting around the country.
please advise. thanks
Bob
Still, if its just yourself no one questions that it is a quality, safe car.
If you're comparing against a 4-cyl RAV, I think the Toyota's only real advantage is interior space.
Gas mileage is equal between both 4-cyl models.
I personally don't care how I arrive at the bottom line, I just want to know what the bottom line is.
I think it's great that the Subaru is smaller than the RAV4. For years I've had gargantuan vehicles, so getting into a Forester, which is an IIHS safety best pick, and has just enough room for my needs, is great. It's a quick nimble vehicle. I do wish some additional amenities were offered, but hey, my FXT Premium with almost every option except the turbo gauge came in at about $25.5. What can you get in a RAV4 for $25.5?
Granted you could just get the V6 Rav4 which is rated at 3,500, but if you didn't want the V6 and reasonable towing, the Forester has the edge.
Bob
You never know ... one of these days you may get your wish.
Subaru's Indiana Plant Will Build Toyotas (Inside Line)
Steve, Host
subsequently will disappear after driving the car for a few minutes.
Apparently when the car is cold the brakes will squeak until it is driven for a few minutes. This first started at 5,000 miles on the car.
Since I cannot duplicate this noise whenever I take it to the dealer, I am told there is nothing they can do. They did clean the brakes but this had no positive results and their
inspection showed no problems with the brake pads.
I did notice that after driving through very heavy rain and puddles, the problem will not occur for a number of days. Should I therefore, occasionally hose the wheel
areas to help prevent this problem?
Steve, Host
I have owned both. Had a 99 Forester and now a new v6 rav limited. The Forester was a great car. My major complaint was rear leg room. However, the Rav has a higher seating position, which I like a lot, and even with the V6 I'm averaging 24 mpg. IIRC I did about the same with the Forester. Now there's the touchie feelie part ... I think the RAV feels much more refined mechanically and I find it to be much more comfortable. Neither is a head turner but the Forester is a functional box. Subie's (and I have owned 2 and was one of the early members of the "Subaru Crew") have always had quirky looks although of late they are cleaning up that act quite a bit.
As I said, this is a very subjective discussion. Just remember that there were people who bought the Pontiac Aztek. Other than the fact that both of these vehicles are labeled a "small suv" I really don't see much in common. I drove the Forester, CRV, and RAV and the rest is history. Unlike most people, price wasn't a major consideration. I wanted a comfortable small suv that could pull a trailer with my motorcycle in it, had to have heated seats, and get reasonable gas mileage. Wadaya think a used Aztek goes for?
Having said that, I wish it still had full-time AWD, and not the on-demand unit that is found on the current model. Yeah, it's probably a bit more economical, but I still prefer full-time AWD like what Subaru uses. That, the better towing on base models, and the fact that the most powerful Forester is still available with a manual, are the only real advantages that I see the current Forester has over the RAV4.
Now the one I drove was right after driving my WRX, so it wasn't a whole lot of fun in the corners. I feel the same way when I drive my wife's Forester though... You being an ex-WRX owner, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Like I said the V6 I have lot of interest in. Not so the 4-cylinder model, and that's strickly due to the lower tow rating; and as you know I do tow, so that's important to me.
Bob
Here's a link to State Farm rating data on Subaru:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/insure/autorisk.aspx?Make=SUBARU
Forester receives an "A" in their liability rating, a Vehicle Safety Discount of 30%, and a damage/theft rating of "C".
And the same site's rating data for Toyota:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/insure/autorisk.aspx?Make=TOYOTA
RAV receives a "C" in their liability rating, a safety discount of 10%, and a damage/theft rating of "D".
The Forester beats it in every category.
If you're comparing against a RAV 4 cylinder, I think Forester has the advantage, unless interior space is your primary criterium. The 6-cyl. RAV is a different story and is a very compelling package. It offers power in a more practical package, vs. the Forester XT's "fun factor". Most folks go for practical.
These are both exceptional vehicles. It's hard to make a bad decision on a purchase of either one.
I agree. But my definition of practical is different than the next persons. While the RAV4 is slightly roomier, neither car is a great car to take a family of four on a trip loaded to the gills. The last time I did that by car, I had a 7-seater minivan and there was barely enough room for everything and the family. So the extra space in the RAV over the Forester doesn't really buy me anything. YMMV.
So that being said, I still have one decent size SUV if needed.
While the RAV4 is slightly roomier You have got to be kidding. Back seat leg room in the RAV is monstrous by comparison. If you're trying to haul a bunch of kids and all the family equipment for vacation, perhaps you need a bus. Becides, it sounds like you don't have a dog in this fight.
I could probably get the insurance down to $600 but I have every available option at max, except collision and comprehensive with which I have a $500 deductible.
One persons definition of monstrous is tiny to another. I regularly carry 5 tall adults in the car and everybody says the rear legroom is more than adequate. YMMV.
"If you're trying to haul a bunch of kids and all the family equipment for vacation, perhaps you need a bus."
Bingo. I like to rent a Tahoe when necessary. This way I can take my 2 rotties with us in the back.
Yes, but I'm not posting any specifics but YMMV. The tire hanging off the rear door might have something to do with it.
"I think the RAV feels much more refined mechanically and I find it to be much more comfortable."
I somewhat agree, but the Subaru is much, much, much, more agile and fun to drive.
My initial reaction to the RAV was that it's just too big to toss into a corner. However, as I have become more comfortable with it I have found it's handling to be very acceptable. This is from a guy who's previous car was a WRX.
Thanks,
Chintan Talati
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
I'm not in the service dept. at a Toyota dealer but this is the first car I've ever owned that hasn't been back to the dealer for some little squeek, rattle, or widget that didn't exactly work right. I've had the car since April and not even a minor problem has surfaced.
I disagree, with a lot of experience with a RAV4, 330i and Forester, the drive of the RAV4 is certainly acceptable, as the drive of an Expedition is certainly acceptable.
But I stand with my comment on the much, much, more part.
While your experience is a promising indicator of initial quality, it hardly provides much in the way of proof of long term reliability. Still, with Toyota's near bulletproof reputation for quality, I find it hard to believe that the new RAV4's reliability would be significantly different from any one of their other models.
-Frank
On the other hand, there are some great Subaru and Mazda dealers here in Dallas/Fort Worth. I guess being a bit less "in vogue" makes you more customer-centric...
And of course 173hp and full-time AWD, not bad for $19k.
andre: I'm sure you got most of those items, at least the ones you wanted, but you also paid $3 grand more.
Not everyone wants a bigger car. A 350Z costs more than an Altima, and rightly so.
Forester is a tiny bit bigger than the last generation RAV4, or about the same as the euro RAV4, with its shorter wheelbase. Toyota decided to "go big" with this generation and it has paid off for them. Ideally, they would offer both wheelbase sizes for sale here, I can't imagine it would cost them much to do that since the parts are right on the shelf.
Like Bob, I'd opt for the V6, no question. More towing, plenty of power and still uses regular fuel, and only a tiny drop in mileage. I'd give up options to get that V6, but that's me.
Having said that, it's disappointing that they downgraded the AWD system and didn't go for a lift-gate that offers shelter from the rain. Right now the rear gate opens the wrong way, and blocks the curb. That would be a pain at the grocery store, every week!
That's why I'd probably end up with a Sienna, possibly an AWD model. It still has the old AWD system, which I prefer, plus it should get the 3.5l engine next spring.
-juice
-Frank
That's certainly true, but the good (well, sort of good) news is that there aren't many Subaru models that are in such high demand that the dealers can mistreat customers.
That was just a generic statement about the mechanics of supply and demand in the automotive industry.
Although Subaru doesn't have any high demand models, in the snowbelt where Subarus are most popular is where you're most likely to find the less customer oriented Subaru dealerships.
-Frank
-juice
I agree with you though. I had my wife drive a Sienna CE which at the time would have been about a grand less costly than the RAV. She felt it was too big to handle though...and it lacked AWD.
I can not speak to twoing as I never tow.
I just don't like the driving dynamics of big cars, honestly. We thought the Highlander was too big.
So I think if I give that up, may as well go whole-hog and get a van. I would want a backup camera, though.
It would be hard to give up the visibility offered by the Forester. You see all around, 360 degrees, almost unobstructed.
I had a Tribeca for a week and I felt like I had been blindfolded. For 07 they added a backup camera option.
The RAV4 ain't much better, at least backing up. The Sienna might be OK with the headrests down, not sure. 355 Toyota in Rockville actually rents them, so we might rent one for a one-week trip to CT to see how we like it, before we decide.
-juice
I met Petter at an event in Philly, it was cool. I video taped his whole speech, and got to meet him and get an autographed poster. Cool stuff.
-juice
Sal
You're right, but with regard to the V6. The XT has been clocked at 5.3 to 60 with the MT. There are trade-offs however, a better handler for some interior room. I'll take the handling. But to each their own.
forester and RAV4 are not in the same class!
I test drove 7-passenger Tribeca and it was in the same class as the 7-passenger 4WD V6 RAV4. Personally, I liked Tribeca's handling and feeling, but the poor MPG, premium gas requirement, controversial styling, and several $$$$ higher price sticker in tribeca pointed me to RAV4.