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

1…457910…13

Comments

  • chrisl22chrisl22 Member Posts: 24
    I just bought a new outback and am considering getting a "protection package" for the paint and interior (carpet and leather fabric) since I'm in the mountains alot with dust and tree sap, etc. I got a price of $495 for all interior and paint from a local autodealer: 7 year warranty with a product called Perma Plate. This is two years longer and $100 cheaper than what my local Subaru dealers are offering.

    Does anybody have any experience with this product and would you recommend it or not?

    Thanks,

    Chris
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    get your self a can of scotchguard and leather protectant and follow the instructions on the container. Those mop and glo packages are pretty much pure profit for the dealer or whoever is selling it. Save the money and go for a long weekend somewhere.

    Regards,
    Kyle
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Same is true for the paint... all they're going to do is put on a coat of wax (if you're lucky)!

    -Frank
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Member Posts: 271
    Gov. test show they are close except for front passenger for RAV4 scores 4 stars and Forester scores 5.

    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? :(
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The side air bag that comes standard in the Forester is shaped to protect the torso and the head. So the front driver and passenger have full protection. The excellent results in the test reflect that.

    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
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Member Posts: 271
    Thanks! Great info but what would keep rear passengers head from hitting the side door?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Certain sized passengers will. I think IIHS tests with a fairly tall dummy:

    image

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    These are pretty high up, and would not protect kids:

    image

    -juice
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Member Posts: 271
    Thank again, juice! You are the man! :shades:
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Oh don't tell him that, his head is big enough already :P

    -Frank
  • ktyronektyrone Member Posts: 5
    i have read a lot of the posts. should i assume that it is just a matter of preference, and that one is not better than the other??? i keep vehicles a long time, thus i am in sticker shock and want to make the right decision.
    this will be my vehicle. no young children. i do a lot of highway driving while visiting around the country.
    please advise. thanks
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    The choice here is very subjective. I've owned both vehicles and they each have their merit. The 2 points on the Subies side are full time all wheel drive and nimble handling. IMHO the Rav wins in any other comparison.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Also, you can get a manual tranny with the Forester XT (turbo), whereas the RAV4 V6 only comes with an automatic.

    Bob
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    I'll take the improved gas milage and PT AWD that RAV offers thank you. How often do you really need FT AWD unless you live in a very specific area. I drove both and really wanted to take advantage of the Forester 2K rebate. But...Its just a too small for the 4 of us; it feels claustrophobic compared to the RAv and CRV. Personally I think they should just drop the rebate and lower the MSRP by $2K---I think the rebate cheapens a quality branded car; one that is simply overpriced based in the latest competition line-up(IMO). Without the $2k rebate I do not see Subaru selling any Foresters over Ravs, CRVs or anything else....UNLESS their are more folks out there who want tiny SUVs than I am aware of. In that case Subaru will have the market cornered! Personally I am willing to bet they start to overhaul their vehicles for the 1st time in many many years. I do not mean new noses and tails but more width and leg room. I'd love to see a Legacy the size of my Camry in the next few years. I do like the AWD (PT or FT) but Subarus cars are a bit too small. Lets hope if they do it they do not try to sell the base sucker for $28K or something. That B9 thing they have, allbeit larger is way overpriced!

    Still, if its just yourself no one questions that it is a quality, safe car.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Other Subie advantages include a top-hinged rear hatch (rather than side-hinged), better performance when comparing base engine models, better visibility, the best safety ratings in its class, lower insurance rates, more ground clearance, more standard features on base models, and higher towing capacity on base models.

    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.
  • ktyronektyrone Member Posts: 5
    Thanks to all who responded. I guess it will boil down to whether to take advantage of the Subaru financing or not. I, too, did not like the side hinged rear hatch on the Rav4, but I did the think the seats were a lot more comfortable. THIS is why I go so long between cars. What I really want is a Toyota made Outback! :)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I agree somewhat. The RAV4 is porkier but with the base 4 the gas mileage is equal to the turbo, but not the non-turbo. The XT will still out accelerate and out handle the 6 cylinder model. And it's just as reliable if not more. The Forester has one of the highest reliability rating for a given model and I'm more comfortable in the Forester than in the RAV4.

    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?
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    FYI, I got in my Base 4 cylinder Rav for 21.9K plus tax and tags. That included a roof rack, cargo cover, pole system, side bags, mats and a few other things. I do not believe there is anything in the base F that I do not have in my base RAV at this price. The F would have been 19K + tax and tags. Again, the space issue is the difference. Also, my insurance was no more or less for either vehicle.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    If towing means anything, the 4-cylinder RAV4 is rated at 1,500 pounds, whereas all Foresters are rated at 2,400 pounds. Now that may not mean anything to you, but it does to me.

    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
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    What I really want is a Toyota made Outback!

    You never know ... one of these days you may get your wish.

    Subaru's Indiana Plant Will Build Toyotas (Inside Line)

    Steve, Host
  • arendaarenda Member Posts: 2
    My 2005 Hyundai Sonata brakes will squeak when I first start the car in the morning. After a few minutes driving the squeaking will cease. However, once the car rests for about another 4 hours, this same noise will appear and
    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?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Try the Hyundai Sonata: Problems & Solutions discussion instead (we're comparing Subarus to Toyotas in this one).

    Steve, Host
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    Ahhh .. the brand loyalty monster rears it's head. So far this has been a fairly clean debate. I hope we can keep it that way. Somebody a few messages back made the statement that insurance for the Forester was cheaper than the RAV. Do you have any data to support that? The ground clearance difference is insignificant. And I don't care if one has a bigger antenna than the other. :)

    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?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Steve, if I were to buy that type of vehicle today the V6 RAV4 would definitely be near or at the top of my short list. It can tow 3,500, it runs on regular gas, is very roomy, has a full-size spare, and is pretty darn quick boot. I did drive one a few months back and was impressed. I also like the fact that the V6 can be had in all trim levels, and not just the top trim level—I like that a lot!

    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
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I was the fella who said the Forester's cheaper to insure. When my friends bought their Forester a couple months ago, they checked out insurance costs on the Forester, CRV, and RAV. Forester was cheapest, followed closely by CRV, and farther back was the RAV. I think the RAV's showing is partially due to the cost of repairs and the fact that rear spare tire sticks down into the bumper - if you get rear-ended, some of that impact may get absorbed by the spare and the rear hatch rather than the bumper.

    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.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Most folks go for practical."

    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.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    With a loaded Limited V6 I'm paying $1k yr. for insurance and the car is listed for business use. I'm not sure what the difference would be for the Forester but it can't be that much.

    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.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "With a loaded Limited V6 I'm paying $1k yr. for insurance"

    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. :)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Somebody a few messages back made the statement that insurance for the Forester was cheaper than the RAV. Do you have any data to support that?"

    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.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    I'll buy that the Forester is more agile ... the "much, much, much" part is hyperbole.

    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.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    A large internet Web site is looking to interview consumers who are SUV owners. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Tuesday June 20, 2006 by 2:00 PM PST/5:00 PM EST containing your daytime contact information and the SUV you currently drive.

    Thanks,
    Chintan Talati
    Corporate Communications
    Edmunds.com
  • shopinfulshopinful Member Posts: 47
    We just purchased the Forester and up until the last hour had decided on the Rav 4 6 cylinder. It seemed to ride smoother and had more room and we just liked the new look. The Toyota Dealership was very snooty so we were hesitant to give them our business but loved the SUV. To make a long story short, we called a very good friend who is a service manager of a Toyota Dealership in another state and asked him his opinion of the Rav 4. We told him our 2 choices. He tried to talk us into a 4 Runner versus the Rav 4 for he said they are seeing much more maintenance issues with this vehicle compared to other Toyotas. We love the 4 Runner (had 2) but gas mileage was important to us which is why we did not choose it to begin with. With this added info, we headed to get our new Forester with a premium package. We keep our cars for a very long time and reliability is very important to us. Our insurance agent also told us that insurance was cheaper on the Forester. The gentlemen at the Subaru Dealership went out of his way for us. The rebate at the present time was nice too but was not the main factor. Loved the look and ride of the Rav 4 but went with the reliable Forester this time. When you get the premium package it is much more comparable to the look and feel of the Rav 4:)
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    he said they are seeing much more maintenance issues with this vehicle compared to other Toyotas

    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.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "I'll buy that the Forester is more agile ... the "much, much, much" part is hyperbole."

    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.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I've had the car since April and not even a minor problem has surfaced.

    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
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    One of the big problems with the "Toyota Experience" is the dreadful way a lot (majority?) of their dealers operate. It is especially frustrating to live in an area within the Gulf States or Southeast Toyota distribution areas -- having unnecessary port-installed distributor profit packages (gogo "The Extra Mile"!) on 70-80% of the cars is really annoying to an informed consumer. I'd be a lot happier seeking a Toyota if I lived in range of Maryland (because of Fitzmall and Carmax).

    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...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The base Forester is very well equipped - it has fog lights, roof rack, 2 trip odometers, an outside temperature gauge, interior air filter, cruise, keyless entry, weather band, rear wiper de-icer, floor mats, and a theft deterrant system, all standard.

    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
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Unfortunately, there are also a number of Subaru dealers who won't win any customer service awards. Often times when a dealer has a popular model that's in high demand, they treat the customer like dirt :(

    -Frank
  • prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    Unfortunately, there are also a number of Subaru dealers who won't win any customer service awards. Often times when a dealer has a popular model that's in high demand, they treat the customer like dirt

    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.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Often times when a dealer has a popular model that's in high demand, they treat the customer like dirt

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, remember the no-STI-test-drive policy some dealers have? Subaru dealers score below average, too.

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Hey, Frank, don't forget about us up here in the rainbelt, too! :) On the plus side of living in an area where Subarus are popular, there are generally more dealers to compete with each other, some dealers can offer volume pricing, and you don't have to drive 100 miles to get to the nearest one.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Yes the Subaru (w/2K rebate) was 3K more than the Forester. Ouch, I admit that hurt. But...to be honest the roominess really makes a difference to us. The Subaru is sort of in another (or its own) class at this point. It really should be a cheaper vehicle.

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    We some times wish we had one big car, since there are 3 cars in our fleet. It's just that neither of us wants to be the one to get it! We want the other person to drive a big vehicle.

    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
  • heel2toeheel2toe Member Posts: 149
    The Subaru dealer in Dallas used to have a salesman that gave customers a "special" test ride in the STI (before the test drive). I never experienced it but a friend did, and it was supposedly quite eye-opening. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    At the C&D 50th anniversary event at Indy Speedway, they had Petter Solberg giving people rides in an STI, that was nuts. I saw it on TV.

    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
  • salvisalvi Member Posts: 3
    I went to look at the Forester and wound up admitting I didn't really like the looks so much, being somewhat low riding and car like. I drove a V6 Ravvy Sport and there was no turning back. Unless Subaru's vehicles at least come close to the performance there is no match at all. I was fortunate enough to get mine in 4 wheel drive and in Flint Mica,, no easy task these days. Get out of the way, I'm hooked on this little monster!

    Sal
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Unless Subaru's vehicles at least come close to the performance there is no match at all."

    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.
  • friendly_jacekfriendly_jacek Member Posts: 96
    I think the whole thread has it wrong:
    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.
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner ! You are dead on. No matter what label the media puts on the new RAV it's a mid size SUV and Subaru's competitor would be the Tribeca not the Forester. What turned me off to the Tribeca was, as you said, prim. gas and mileage estimates. The sticker price was not a big deal since big discounts are available.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles