Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Subaru Forester vs Toyota RAV4
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
- Equally equipped, the Subaru is going to be less expensive.
- Do you prefer sitting up high or not?
- Do you need/want the back seat room of the RAV?
- Are you planning on towing a 3,500 lb trailer?
- Which one looks best to you?
If I didn't want to tow a heavy trailer and want the backseat room, I could be quite happy with either car.
Happy hunting.
The low and car-like ride that turned you off of the Forester are bound to make for better handling, and the V6 performance of the RAV4 can easily be had with the XT. But if you didn't like the looks, your decision was that much easier.
Yep, that's true but the XT suffers by comparison in fuel efficiency and requires prem. fuel.
The Forester just doesn't stack up well against the new RAV. I've owned both.
And if you don't need/want the extra space, the concensus seems to be that it stacks up pretty well.
Here's Karl's (Karl on Cars) take:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/241
Bob
Hutch: the auto is actually rated at 21/26 mpg, not bad. You do need premium for the turbo, though.
Forester is smaller and IMO sportier. Different class? Probably, like I said it matches up more closely to the euro RAV4 with its shorter wheelbase.
Americans like V6s more than turbos, and tons of space, and that explains why the Toyota sells better even at a higher price. Plus, 93% of Americans choose automatics, so the manual transmission on the Subie doesn't have a large effect on sales numbers.
-juice
The Forester is a compact. Originally they all were, it actually has more combined front and rear legroom than the last generation RAV4. But the back seat is small.
You said you were 55, so if you still have teens they might have to squeeze in that back seat; if they play hoops I'd go with the roomier RAV4.
Interestingly, both get 23/28 mpg with the base 4 cylinder engines and automatic, and my guess is that's what you will likely get. The Forester has a little more HP, but the RAV4 give you a bit more space, so call it a draw.
Trade-offs with the RAV4? Check the rear gate, it opens toward the curb. Two issues to consider: first is you need more space behind you to open it all the way. If you parallel park a lot that might matter.
Even to load groceries, though, if someone pulls up close behind you, you may have to wait until they leave. Or walk around the car. Either way, inconvenient if you go to Costco or the grocery store and have a lot to load. You also don't have any shelter if its raining (we're getting Monsoon-like weather here in DC now).
Forester sits lower, so it's easy to get in. Subaru won awards from associations for the handicapped for its general ease of use. RAV4 is a bit higher, so you have to step up, but once you're there you have a nice, high vantage point, at least to the front.
The Forester has much better visibility. Try parking both of them when you test drive them. That matters less if you live out in the 'burbs or in rural areas, as parking spaces tend to be bigger and you don't parallel park often.
Think about those things, which one fits your lifestyle better? Good luck shopping and you can't go wrong, these are both solid choices.
-juice
Quoting a magazine time that probably involved one of those lovely 5000 RPM clutch drops in the small SUV class is kind of silly, isn't it? I haven't driven an AT FXT, but I have driven the V6 RAV4, and it is scary fast, and I'd be really surprised if the FXT can beat it when comparably (automatic transmission) equipped.
Not to mention the the fuel (87 octane) and mileage advantages of the Toyota...
It's summer time and brand loyalty is in the air.
A.J. - you know I loved my (ex-wifes) Forester but I'm sorry I wouldn't give up the RAV for another. The swing open door at the grocery store isn't much of an issue if you head in park. Visibility is a legitament issue. It has taken me a while to adapt to the poor rear view .. but I have. Whoever asked the question about gas mileage - I have a Limited V6 4x4 and I've averaged 24.6 mgp so far. While on this topic, the epa ratings for the RAV 4wd 4cyl are 23/28 and 4wd v6 21/28 according to Toyota's literature. IIRC, I averaged about 25 with the auto Forester. Not much difference and I have 104 more h.p.
You are correct, the RAV feels (and is) larger and I like that feeling.
kdshapiro - I guess if I was 20 that 0-60 time would mean something to me. Then again, if it meant something to me I probably would have bought an STI.
Quoting a magazine time that probably involved one of those lovely 5000 RPM clutch drops in the small SUV class is kind of silly, isn't it?
Clutch drop or not, when you're talking about a 5.3 0-60 time it doesn't matter what class of vehicle you're talking about, that's impressive. The fact that it's a small SUV makes it even moreso. Add that it's available in a manual while the RAV isn't, and has plenty of aftermarket modification/tuning support for enthusiasts with a... er... practical side, and you really start seeing a difference in the supporters of the FXT vs. the V6 RAV. Until I see an'06 RAV4 owner with mods that have them running 1/4 mile in the 12 second range, or with suspensions that let them tear around a rally cross course, I wouldn't really call it "brand loyalty". It's just the facts. Obviously these fall under the "extreme usages" category, and 99% of buyers don't care about that stuff, but the ones that do will lean heavily toward Subaru.
And is the RAV4 really a "small" SUV? Nope - at least no more than the Tacoma or Nissan Frontier are still "compact" pick-ups. It kickstarted the genre but the latest generation is attacking what seems to be a much trendier segment.
However I realize a lot of people are going to cross-shop these vehicles, but for many of us it's pretty clear cut in either direction. The RAV may be able to meet most buyers' everyday needs just fine, but for the minority of us who like to truly play, or at least dream of playing, and can only own a single vehicle to do it in... it's a pretty easy choice.
Doug
I'm not 20. But I've had my share of mid-size SUVs. The STI is still on my list, but I can't haul stuff like I can with the Forester. To me the Forester for it's positive traits represents good value, good IIHS ratings, great reliability, is just the right size and has great performance. You won't be driving the V6 RAV4 around with a heavy foot, you'd get 17 mpg or less. The auto Forester will still blow away the V6 RAV4. The only advantage to the RAV4 is in towing, but if I had to tow regularly the RAV4 wouldn't be my first choice either.
There is no brand loyality as you put it. I've had more Toyotas than Subarus. And as dstew1 pointed out, for those who want them, there is a plethora of aftermarket parts available. That's the fun of the Subaru. Subarus heritage is in small lightweight turbo engines with many variations of full-time AWD. The STI WRC edition puts out 300 horses and 430# torque.
besides - my dog can beat up your dog :P
I don't know what *most* people care about. Toyota will sell more RAV4s than Subaru Forester, but that doesn't make it a better car. I didn't care about 0-60 either when I got the car. I cared about the reliability, handling and IIHS ratings. The "T" was an afterthought.
"besides - my dog can beat up your dog :P"
Yep, it probably can.
It's not really meaningless to Subaru owners, especially when V6 RAV4 owners think their vehicles outperform the XT
Anyway I agree for the most part, most people don't shop 0-60. But it's nice to have a fast, safe, utilitarian vehicle.
Here's a sample of aftermarket performance upgrades for the Foreseter.
http://cobbtuning.com/forester/
FWIW, Subaru's Australia website estimates the MY06 XT auto's 0-62mph time to be 7.6 seconds. Suffice it to say I've never timed myself racing to 60 in my XT auto, but I'd estimate that Subaru is being a tad on the modest side. They've got a history of selling the FXT short in an effort to protect the egos of WRX buyers. This seems even more true considering Subaru also estimates that the manual FXT hits 62mph in 6.0 seconds, which we know can be bested with a professional driver (the same C&D drivers that wrought 6.3 from the RAV).
What's more interesting is that the C&D folks went from 5-60 in 6.5 seconds; 0.2 seconds slower than 0-60. This means, not surprisingly that they likely *gasp* did a torque brake launch. I am pretty sure the FXT auto's acceleration would score reasonably close to the 6.3 figure under the same conditions; probably around 6.5 seconds.
All this 0-60 talk is mostly irrelevant to real-world "speed", however. If you want to boast about the V6's prowess over Subaru's turbo 4, direct the convo toward highway cruising, where the Subie tends to max out its long-distance comfort level at about 70-75mph, or around 2600-2800 rpms. Any higher and your fuel usage will suffer tremendously. I'm assuming the Toyota's 5 speed V6 is much more at ease in that range.
Doug
That's one of my main negative points. I'm one of the lucky ones that does not live within easy reach of wide open highways so I never have to worry about going that fast.
I don't recall anybody making that statement. I certainly am not suffering from that delusion.
Don't you pull up to the front of the store to load up the groceries? We do. I guess it depends on where you shop and how many of you go. I get the car while the wifey waits in line to pay for the groceries.
0-60 probably is important to a Forester XT buyer, I'm sure. Go drive one, forget the numbers completely, the vehicle is extremely quick, period. It's a hoot to drive.
The RAV4 V6 is also plenty powerful so I see this as a non-issue for most folks, both have abundant passing power.
In fact, I think 0-60 in 6.3s for a RAV4 is a bit too fast for something that tall, I just hope the brakes and suspension can keep up!
-juice
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=CW&Dato=20060621&Kategori=PHO- TOS03&Lopenr=606210802&Ref=PH
I'd rather get a Forester XT *and* a RAV4 V6, personally.
-juice
Forester:
Safer, faster 4-cyl, cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, easier to find the one you want.
RAV4:
Roomier. Any other clear advantages for the typical driver?
Everything else is a wash: 4-cyl. economy? Equal. Reliability? Probably equal. 6-cyl vs. XT (turbo)? Take your pick, there are advantages to each. Looks? Subjective. My friends shied away from the RAV4 because it looked "alien" inside, the rear offered poor visibility, and the windows felt short to them. On the other hand, I'm sure many don't like Forester because it's boxy.
Basically, ktyrone, if it's space you need, go with the RAV. If you don't, go with the Forester. That's my 2¢. Don't put too much pressure on yourself - either decision is a good one. Just let us know how it turns out.
Great visibility, costs less, manual trans available, best-in-class safety, more standard towing capacity, enormous moonroof.
Forester con:
Tight back seat, low seat height, XT requires premium fuel.
RAV4 pro:
More passenger space, optional 3rd row, more cargo capacity, more V6 towing capacity, V6 runs on regular octane, longer options list (DVD).
RAV4 con:
Poor visibility to the rear, door hinged towards the curb and offers no rain protection, costs more.
Kytrone -
You're buying the car, so you need to make the final call. How about this: make a list of what features you are looking for (and just as important, NOT looking for) in your next car. Share your list with us.
Are you looking for best price? reliability? bad-weather performer? auto or stickshift? blazing speed or middle-of-road performance? economy of operation? e-z access to rear ? specific options like fancy sound system? decent dealer network for service? Don't forget to prioritize your list for us, e.g., must have, nice to have, neutral, rather not have, definitely don't want.
Some things that may influence your decision will be subjective, such as overall appearance or choice of color. Leave 'em off the list since these are really your personal preferences. You'll still need them for your final decision because you want to feel good
And when we respond, be wary of those of us with pro-Subie bias or RAV-raver genes. I'm sure you noticed we do have a bunch of fanatics here !
FWIW - I'm also a 55'er. I've got one of the two candidates you are considering. I think you'll be fine with either one, but again, it's up to you to decide which one you would be happiest with.
Asking the question you're asking is like asking if boyfriend A or boyfriend B would be better in the long run without having dated either of them.
From your original post I would get either the Forester (no XT) or the RAV4 (4 cyl). They would both probably suit your lifestyle, with the Forester having the edge on safety, the RAV4 having the edge on lower cabin noise.
-juice
I don't recall anybody making that statement. I certainly am not suffering from that delusion.
Check again... the following sure reads like heel2toe believes that the RAV4 can outperform the FXT
"I have driven the V6 RAV4, and it is scary fast, and I'd be really surprised if the FXT can beat it"
-Frank
I've never seen anyone actually test the XT's engine with a slushbox, though, so I don't know for sure.
I *love* manual transmission cars, but citing performance statistics based on one in this category of vehicles is silly, which was...my...only...intended...point.
Edit: I guess I was mistaken about a variation of the 2.5 turbo engine never having been tested in AT form. CU has the 0-60 time of the Legacy GT at 7.5sec. (5 speed AT, different gearing, but interesting nevertheless.) In contrast, CU has the V6 RAV4 at 6.7.
0-60 time is largely irrelevant and can vary by as much as half a second (or more) depending on how the car is geared.
Take this for what it's worth, but there is a completely stock 04 XT 4EAT owner on another Forester forum (sorry, can't link here) with drag receipts showing a 14.91 second 1/4 mile @ 92mph.
Car and Driver, who ran the 6.3 second run in the V6 RAV, ran it through the 1/4 mile in 14.9 seconds @94mph.
Both vehicles in stock form have 129mph top speeds.
If that doesn't tell you that the V6 RAV4 and the 4EAT XT (in stock form) aren't neck and neck as far as measureable quickness, I don't know what will.
We already know it burns premium and gets lower mileage.
To better explain why the MT v AT comparison stuff irritates the heck out of me...has anyone else noticed that many automakers now gear the MT variations of their vehicles with a blatant disregard for fuel efficiency? The TSX, IS250, 2006 Civic, and many others all follow this pattern (the MT Civic probably loses 4-5 mpg on the highway because it badly needs another gear), and I am pretty sure it started because of the power of the stupid C&D 0-60 time. So again, IMO, quoting an MT 0-60 time here is the same kind of nonsense and it needs to be discouraged -- especially in this class of vehicle.
Anyway, have fun -- I am out of here. :shades:
I'm not sure how I proved your point that MT acceleration time is next to meaningless in this class, but as far as proving your point that the auto FXT isn't any faster than the V6 Rav... if you weren't going to do it yourself, someone had to. :P
You originally said the RAV4 is scary fast, and you'd be surprised if the auto FXT could beat it - the truth is, if anything they are equally "scary fast" in a straight line, with the Rav getting cheaper gas. To the majority of the public that is a major selling point; nobody can argue that. But not everyone has the same priorities.
Doug
Not really, the XT auto gets 21/26 EPA mpg, about the same as the RAV4 V6 with AWD (better city, worse highway).
I've made this correction before, so let's hope it sinks in this time. Mileage is roughly equal.
Plus, you keep quoting the C&D number of 6.3 seconds to 60mph, fine, then let's quote the mileage number they got as well...
16 MPG! Sixteen!
You can't have both (fast and efficient). When it's driven hard, fast, to get the 0-60 numbers you are quoting, it guzzles gas at a far quicker rate than the Forester XT. I think C&D got 19 or 20 mpg with their XT which also hit 60mph a full second quicker. In practice, not in a lab or in theory.
Anyway, for MY2006 Subaru relaxed the gearing on the XT, addressing your complaint above. It still can hit 60 in less than 6 seconds, but mileage is better now.
But, like I said before, forget all that, go drive one, it's impressively quick. Once you sample one you will understand, I can tell you haven't.
-juice
-Frank
Good luck & happy hunting, ktyrone! You've got two terrific vehicles to choose from.
That makes the X a bargain, and that's how you can get into one for $19k. Hard to beat for value. I just wish I could get a Limited or XT with that sort of incentive, if so there might be one in my driveway....
-juice
It's better for the consumer. In MD, at least, you pay sales tax on the full price, then deduct the rebate. If the dealer gets a discount and lowers the price, you do not pay sales tax on the amount.
Not a big deal? It is if you bought a Phaeton. VW had a $10,000 rebate. In MD, the difference was a whopping $500.
The only other discount is the holdback, which is 2% of the wholesale value on Subies. So aim for invoice minus the dealer incentive, depending upon the model, as mentioned above.
-juice
This is not really the right board for this, but... besides rebates to consumers, there must also be non-published factory-to-dealer incentives (besides the holdback), otherwise my dealer's losing money. Folks out here are buying sometimes for an extra $1,000-$1500 below invoice and rebates, but a 2% holdback would only be $300-$500 in most cases. I'm under the impression my dealer is offering the rebates AND a $1000-$1500 factory-to-dealer incentive, depending on model, but not touching the holdback (and I'm not gonna begrudge a small profit to my dealership).
There may be end-of-model-year perks, who knows.
-juice
Rav4 is new this year, so reliability is still unknown but since it's a Toyota, I doubt there will be any issues. (My wife has an early edition of the Prius. The fact that Toyota was the manufacturer made it easier to take a chance on waiting 6 months for delivery on a new-fangled hybrid back in July '01)
Rear side-swinging door - it's a hate-or-don't-mind thing. Opening upward does have an advantage when you're often loading / unloading bulky stuff in a rainstorm.
Go with your gut feeling about which one you suits you best. And do report back to us what you got!
Now if you want to compare the RAV to the B9...that would be interesting since the B9 is a comparable size but priced like a BMW!
I would have agreed with that statement until this morning when I was behind a RAV4 that was missing its spare tire. I don't know if it was just that the lack of the spare threw the proportions off but from the rear the RAV4 looked like it had HUGE flanks with a smallish greenhouse on top. I'll take my boxy looking "only a mother could love" Forester any day :P
-Frank
Humm.. yep and the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow is nicer than Mercedes 500S.
Since the top of the line B9 lists for 7-9 thousand dollars more than a loaded Limited, I think this discussion is getting silly.
Frank - I have to agree. With the spare removed it looks rediculous.