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

179111213

Comments

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I'm not the one who compared a RAV4 with a Tribeca. All I did was point out the obvious, which is nothing more than others have pointed out. The cars are different.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "EQUAL: in mpg, acceleration, safety and insurance cost."

    I disagree on three of four counts.

    MPG: Agreed, equal.
    ACCELERATION: Forester 4-cyl beats RAV 4-cyl in acceleration... the Subaru has slightly more horsepower and torque plus it weighs about 250 lbs less. Both are 4-spd autos.
    SAFETY: Forester has the best safety ratings in its class. We've seen this info many times, but I can provide links if necessary.
    INSURANCE COST: Forester rates are cheaper than RAV's, and I have personal experience and data to back that up. See my earlier post here.

    I will say, however, that I think Forester's lead in these three areas is slim.

    That leaves the 4-cyl RAV's only clear advantage as roominess.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Different (hugely) in price. We could compare a Camry to a Lexus...does not mean the Lexus is better because it cost more. I just am not sure the Rav to Forester is an apples to apples comparison anymore.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Well, maybe its faster but we did not feel it. I gues machines can measure these things and prove me wrong. I doubt anyone would be upset with either.

    My insurance made no difference.

    The RAV just tested well in the latest crash test. We can get into the side airbag thing..does the Forester have the side bags or was that the OB?

    Perhaps the F is better for towing. Again, I think we are looking at 2 different class cars now.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Our local Subaru dealer has been advertising them for 19K for months now. They offered us our pick at that price, no gimmics. I intitially thought the price was too low to be true but around here (eastern Pa) thats what they go for. They are a good deal. I'd still rather see Subaru adjust their price downward rather than cheapen their brand with a rebate that last 6 months. The dealer is Becker if interested and have a ton of cars and inventory on-line. We just happened to prefer the RAV this time around.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Actually the Lexus is better and here is why. If someone offered to give you either the Camry or Lexus free of charge and pay the insurance, which would you take? I don't know about you but I would take the Lexus hands down. So I do believe the Lexus is a better car for those who can afford the price differential. That does not mean the Lexus will meet the needs of people cross-shopping the two vehicles and in fact the Camry to some might be the best vehicle for thier needs.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    then by your argument Lexus, Audi, BMW, Acura etc all make better cars than Subaru.

    I disagree. They make cars with more features. The B9 may also have more features than the RAV but I am not so sure it would rate as a better vehicle. I plead ignorance since when we were looking and spotted the B9s the rediculous cost acted like a force field that repelled us to the F and OB. At the time it favored very well against the 05 Rav and other competition. We just decided we wanted a vehicle in a larger class and the 06 RAV filled that need. Its not a knock on Subaru, simply a matter of fact; the cars really are in different classes now, at least in size and price. Now if they drop the rebate then the base models would be similar in price. I doubt that will happen though. If it does I think we will see a large new Forester in the future.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "I just am not sure the Rav to Forester is an apples to apples comparison anymore.

    You're right on the mark, there. They are so different in size now. Still, I imagine folks do go to Honda dealers and try to decide if an Accord is worth the money over a Civic, for example. Both good cars - first, do you want the bigger size; and second, is it worth the price?

    Maybe Toyota thinks the next Matrix will evolve into a Forester competitor. I'd hate to see Honda, Subaru and Toyota all abandon the compact SUV segment. Subaru usually doesn't build its vehicles to be direct competitors with any of the big companies, so perhaps they won't want Forester to grow to 3 rows to try to compete head-on with RAV.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'd like to see Subaru offer two wheelbase sizes on the next Forester. Toyota does this with the new RAV4, even though they only sell the bigger one here (the smaller one is sold in Europe). I'm not sure if any one market gets both, but...

    How 'bout something like this?

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "The RAV just tested well in the latest crash test."

    RAV received the top mark of "Good" in the IIHS's frontal crash test only. The side impact tests have not been done, and it received only a "Marginal" in the rear crash test. That's below both Good and Acceptable, but above Poor. Forester received the top mark of "Good" in all three categories.

    In the NHTSA crash tests, Forester received slightly better frontal ratings than the RAV, and they were equally good performers in the side impact tests. NHTSA does no rear crash testing.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Offering 2 wheelbases would be an ideal solution, but a stretched Forester looks even more like a wagon, and I think many folks buy Forester because it's less "wagon-ey" looking than Legacy/Outback and Impreza. They'd have to do something different, style-wise, to help that.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "then by your argument Lexus, Audi, BMW, Acura etc all make better cars than Subaru."

    It's not that easy unfortunately. You happen to pick a good example of two very similiar products with a $$$$ difference. There is a thing called value that enters into any decision. Forester vs RAV4 the decision is easy, and it's not a knock on the Rav4. Forester vs Forester STI....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Maybe. Have it kick up right at the rear seat, and raise the rear seat while they're at it.

    -juice
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I think many folks buy Forester because it's less "wagon-ey" looking than Legacy/Outback and Impreza

    LOL! That's the first time I've heard anyone refer to the Forester as LESS "wagon-ey looking"! In fact, there are plenty of people who think it looks a little too much like a wagon for comfort. I guess it's really a matter of perspective, compared to traditional SUVs it looks more like a wagon but compared to traditional wagons... it looks more like an SUV (hence the term cross-over) :P

    -Frank
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Yes the decision was easy...allbeit for my wife. She found more value for the extra money in the 06 RAV when she considered lugging kids around, vacationing, long trips, overall looks and yes mpg, safety and acceleration. She'd have paid a bit more for the 3rd seat as well but it was not available at the time. 3rd seat? Why not a mini van? Too big she said. Plus she wanted a truck/SUV looking thing. The mini van and Forester did not fill the bill.

    Here's a thought...how about a Subaru Mini Van about the size of the last generation Sienna or Oddesy. Now that was a size she felt comfortable in and did not seem rediculously large! Maybe Subaru should corner the market on quality cars/SUVs/Vans that are just a tad smaller than the rest!
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    In fact, is there not some sort of Toyota investment / ownership with Subaru. Maybe Toyota should drop the matrix and work something out where Subaru maintains the smaller more conservative car line....or drop the Imprezza and replace with the Matrix...it would then be a real 'crossover' vehicle--a Toyubaru!

    All right enough already.....I'm done!
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "Maybe Subaru should corner the market on quality cars/SUVs/Vans that are just a tad smaller than the rest!"

    Heh heh, seems like they're already there! :)

    There was a rumor of a Subaru minivan a while back, but SOA denied it was coming here, pretty much squelching any more rumors. Sylvia, "Subaru Minivan in 2007?" #1, 29 Jun 2005 3:45 pm
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Eaxctly, and to me, no insult intended, Subaru has always been a niche market. Maybe this is their niche. It will work if the demand is there. If not they'll get bigger...I am seeing A LOT of Foresters on the road now. Maybe the lower price will increase sales enough for them to profit with the lower price.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I agree pay more get more. But even though the RAV4 might be more $$$$, the Forester still beats in insurance costs, safety and acceleration, with equal gas mileage. So I'm assuming the roominess was the deciding factor for your wife.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'd love to see them do that.

    The Mazda5 is on my short list, but it's missing a few key features, like AWD. It's very close to what I want, though - a small but space-efficient car with plenty of interior space.

    Do it Subaru!

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I second that one, juice.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Yes roominess and the cool factor figured in. You keep mentioning insurance costs....I checked again...same cost. Acceleration, again, maybe the stats show the F a bit quicker but when we drove the base F and RAV it was indistinguishable to us. Safety, again perhaps marginally safer; I think the F lacks the side bags though. I think the 2 are fairly EQUAL overal, sans the roominess and cool factor my wife was looking and paying for. You won't go wrong with either.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "You won't go wrong with either."

    Forester is cheaper by a few bucks, think it has to do with spare on the back. I agree in general, but one is a heck of a lot more fun than the other. What the F lacks is rear passenger air bags. Neither are very cool.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Forester named "safety standout" of the last 17 years in world's largest study of vehicle crashes (1.7 million crashes).

    http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_107018/newsarticle.html
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Did you have to share that? And I wanted an excuse to trade in my '98...

    ;)

    -juice
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Well, it's a used car study, so I think that any newer Forester models don't even qualify yet. I bet you'll hold out 'til the next-generation Forester. Maybe something late in the '09 model year?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I meant I'll have to keep my '98.

    I'd like to take a peek at the next gen before I decide what to buy, hope I can wait that long...

    -juice
  • salvisalvi Member Posts: 3
    This should just be a Subaru forum as that is what most people are talking about!! Where is everybody who loves their Ravvy, especially the 06's?? You get a Sport in a 4x4 with a 6 cylinder and sunroof with a 440 watt stereo and a sunroof and 18" wheels with 269 HP and Drive by Wire and it will SMOKE a Forrester.

    Sal
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    I bet it'll be enough to make you jump off the fence. :) How many miles on Sandy now?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    BTW It's spelled Forester.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Not without a manual transmission. The Forester XT manual is easily the quickest choice among all the models these two have to offer.

    Foresters have had drive by wire for a few years now.

    -juice
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Yeah but it doesn't come with a 400+ watt stereo system.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Hey, Sal... sounds like you're still lovin' your new wheels! :) I'll admit the Forester has nothing to touch a 440-watt stereo. The Forester's panoramic sunroof is neater than the RAV's standard one, though.

    I'll bet you never drove a Forester XT, did you? The RAV's 6-cyl would slaughter the Subaru's base 4-cyl., sure, but the XT is another story. XT's turbo vs. RAV's 6-cyl would be a very close race, I think. The RAV's got more horsepower, but the Forester's got less weight to push around. The horsepower-to-dollar ratio would probably favor the Subaru.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Forester drive-by-wire (electronic throttle?) also? edit: confirmed by juice

    If I were looking for an SUV bigger than a Forester with lots of power, the RAV 6-cyl would definitely be one of the top choices. Sounds like you're having tons o' fun with yours!
  • salvisalvi Member Posts: 3
    I am having fun, it's fun to drive. I don't know about the rest of you but besides all the practicla reasons yoou have for purchasing anything is has to look good and be FUN. And this is unusual enough looking to atract attention as well. The Sport is the only version to come in a Flint Mica color which is what I have. When I searched, the whole southeast had TWO. Anyway I'm sure the Suby is fine, and no I haven't driven one, but I'm sure I'd like to drive the manual 6 cylinder. How high does the Suby sit compared to the Rav, or better yet, the ground clearance between the two. And why is it just between the two? are these the two best?? If I could afford I'd love to have the Volvo XC90 built with everything!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    " but the Forester's got less weight to push around"

    The XT makes most use of the torque after 2K to redline and it's a better overall handler. But you choose the trade-offs.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    The Forester sits lower, but actually has more ground clearance.

    I think the RAV, the CRV and the Forester were the best in the compact SUV class, but now the RAV's gotten bigger so it's really moved up a class in size. We'll see later this year how big the CRV gets, but it'll be a year or two before the Forester goes up in size, if it does.

    I think the XC90's a very attractive vehicle, but Subaru & Toyota sure have it beat for reliability. That would be a serious deterrent to me for purchasing a Volvo.
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    Foresters have been fly by wire since 05. I have an 04 but that and my mechanical lifters work fine. I would like those extra 8 horses for towing, but am eyeing my girlfriends new 06 for a hidden hitch. She prefers me using mine to tow...

    Oh (just to keep the Rav part in) and the RAV 4 is not a real all wheel drive. It is front wheel drive and some kind of positrac stabilitrac, whatever, for the rear axle...upon occasion... Sounds very complicated for something that isn't even going to kick in except for every so often...

    >I look forward to the squeals of anger

    But the Forester was made for dogs. Almost all others have the windows about 3 feet above the seat bottoms including Rav 4's. In the Forester, the dog sits where he likes and can see everything. The girlfriend still switches off between her old 98 2 door Jimmy and the new Forester. The dog runs to the Forester every time...and you can tell he doesn't like having to climb into the back of the old Jimmy...
  • subearusubearu Member Posts: 3,613
    at least in '04, the XT has throttle by wire.

    -Brian
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    It may not have much punch but I bet it would have saved my but when I hit that ice storm coming back from Hershey a few years back! I still got the RAV though. As far as where the other RAV owners are,look in the other forums! This is a comparison forum and I'd bet with the new size RAV, many no longer see the need to compare.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I agree, the RAV4 has now moved up in class to bigger, and even less capable handling vehicle. Good inexpensive car for those who need extra room for a new family.

    The Forester XT retains the value/performance standard for those who don't need diminutive size third seats and the slightly extra room the new RAV4 offers. Well have to wait and see what Subaru does with the Forester.
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    at ther very least they should make it longer and a little higher.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'd happily give up that 440 watt stereo if they'd bring back permanent AWD or reverse the rear gate so it opened towards the curb as it should. :P

    positrac - that's one way to say limited-slip differential. I don't think the RAV4 has that. The Forester does have a viscous limited-slip diff on the rear axle.

    stabilitrac - that's Cadillac's stability control system. Toyota has one, Subaru does not.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Forester was lifted slightly for MY2006. The XT has 7.9" of clearance, and the non-turbos have 8.1". I think that's more than enough for the type of duty common to Forester owners.

    Most people just want to get around in the snow and go over speed bumps without bottoming out, like my Miata does! :mad:

    -juice
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Actually... I think most people want to sit up high so they can see over/around all the other over-sized behemoths on the road today. The fact that they're only contributing to the problem (and decreasing the stability of their vehicle) doesn't seem to matter :(

    -Frank
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I drive a Miata, so I see a lot of undercarriages.

    Why does Toyota mount its exhausts so low? They do under the rear diff. Very strange.

    -juice
  • andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Miatta? The Forester must seem like a Mack truck when you sit in that thing. By height I mean about 4" higher. Again, it a perception thing. Seems high next to your car but low in my RAV. Looks like a SUV next to your car but a wagon next my RAV. It has nothing to do with quality of course. I am sure Subaru will figure out if there are enough folks to sustain the the smaller, boxy Forester. If not we'll see a longer taller and hopefully still boxy Forester; likely with a tiny 3rd row seat...(if the 3rd row RAV outsells the competition). My bet is on the larger one but time will tell. I would not be suprised to see the B9 go away as well.

    Personally I still like the looks of that little truck, I am told they hardly see any though...they do seem pricey.....
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    The B9 Tribeca is still selling under their goals, but in my area, I'm seeing at least one a day now when I'm on the road (& I have no real commute, only running errands here & there). We've heard there will be good changes to it in '08, so we'll see it around for at least a couple more years. Hopefully the changes will appeal to a wider set of buyers.

    OK... I'm officially off-topic here. Time to stop. :)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I like the Forester exactly the way it is, except for some complaints about this and that. Making it higher would reduce the handling capabilities, not a good thing. A welcome change to Forester would be to bring on the Forester STI. I would be first in line.

    /OT - The B9 does not really compete with the RAV4, as the six seater RAV4 does not really compete with the Forester. The space it does compete in is crowded, only time will tell how well it fares.
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    Yes, the 04 XT's had the fly by wire and the new lifter system. I think they were trying it out first???
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Member Posts: 1,110
    "stabilitrac - that's Cadillac's stability control system. Toyota has one, Subaru does not."

    How is Subaru's VDC different?
This discussion has been closed.