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.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
-juice
It would be a good thing to add to the Forester (or any non-luxury car).
I think it was in MY04 that Toyota made Vehicle Stability Control standard on the RAV4 (along with the larger 4-cyl [2.4L], 4-wheel disc brakes, and ABS). A very nice "freshening" of the Gen 2 model. I considered trading my 01 for an 05 at year-end, but did not go thru with it.
The MY06 RAV4 (Generation 3) is nice in a lot of ways, but I would miss the removable rear seats - a feature on the Gen 2 that is very convenient for me. Utility.
And no, the rear door does not swing the wrong way for me. In fact, I find it is more convenient - fewer steps when I'm just tossing in the usual everyday items. YMMV.
At 73k miles, 5.5 years in, still happy with the RAV4.
-ss4
I like your claim that it is quicker to get to the hatch and open it the way it is mounted. Technically you are correct. It is quicker to get out the drivers side, take a few steps to the rear and pull the handle from the drivers side of the rear door.....as opposed to doing the same but walking to the passenger side of the rear door (1 extra step) and pulling the door open. I think you will have trouble selling that one to Forester owners though. If Toyota was determined to keep a rear swing out door, they really should have had it open towards the curb, and if that meant hinges on different sides in on different continents; so be it!
As far as the AWD knocks, all I can say is that on all the known areas where my Camry usually spins its tires, the RAV had not yet done so nor have I felt any indication that the AWD is kicking in..or not. I won't claim its as **effective** as the Forester until after I have been thru some snow. Full time AWD may be inherently **better** but not necesarily more effective. The Forester guys are quick to mention their safety record but the car lacks **side bags**. I agree, its likely as **effectively** safe witthout them, but having them would make it **better** in much the same way as having full time awd does. Put another way, Full time AWD may turn out to be just as much overkill as side bags....Just my opinion...let the rantining continue!
Now, if we really want to pick on the poor ole 2006 RAV...and I still think the vehicle is no longer in comparable class with the Forester...here are some minor rants I have discovered...
1) Rear door opening, 2) Hatch light mounted in rear door fails to illuminate hatch area when rear door is opened...OOOps!, 3) no body side molding unless added as an accessory - just plain dumb!, 4) no auto door lock feature when car is started or put in gear, 5) cup holders in front waaaaay to big, 6) cheapie external antena, 7)Dash is lit during day UNLESS you dim it off--pain.
Hey I said I was being nitpicky and I am sure the Forester has some quirks too. Toyota could likely take care of all these if they wanted to.
It was metioned that the Rav does not compete with the B9....why not? I think the Rav blows it away personally...and costs a lot less. Did the poster mean that B9 sales are so bad that is not really competing with anything? Or did he mean it completes more with Lexus or something. If it is meant to be a luxury model Subaru should invent a Luxury line name because I know of no one who would think luxury when they hear **SUBARU**.....just like you do not think luxury when you hear Ford, Honda or Toyota...you do when you here BMW, Luxus or Acura. I think Subaru needs a bit of assistance in the marketing arena. How about a high end Subaru line?
That's like saying the Sante Fe blows away the RAV4 and it costs a whole lot less, but you have to *test drive* the B9 to see where it dusts the RAV4. The AWD on the Subaru adjusts as the car accelerates, may not be better, but probably is *more effective* on slippery surfaces. As the Forester is an IIHS best pick, it may not have side air bags, but it does have Front seat-mounted head/chest side-impact air bags. Is this the same thing? http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?year=2006&model=FORESTER&trim=25_X- T_LIMITED&category=SAFETY%20FEATURES
I test drove the B9 when I was shopping. I wanted to buy another Subie. I've had 2 and liked them both very much. I wasn't thrilled with the B9. Although inside it looks more upscale than the RAV, it felt sluggish by comparison to the RAV V6, the front seat felt a little cramped to me because of the dash (cockpit) design, interior room was about the same maybe less, but the real deal breaker was the fuel mileage.
The Gen 2 RAV, with the rear seats removed, has more top-to-bottom room inside (enough for 2 bicycles) than the Gen 3 with the seats down.
"I like your claim that it is quicker to get to the hatch and open it the way it is mounted. Technically you are correct. It is quicker to get out the drivers side, take a few steps to the rear and pull the handle from the drivers side of the rear door.....as opposed to doing the same but walking to the passenger side of the rear door (1 extra step)" Technically you are correct too, sir - if you are a giant.
Oh yeah, and I like that the Gen 2 is full-time AWD. Thanks for reminding me.
As far as dusting the RAV, well those extra .5 seconds are nice to quote but most folks won't notice that on a test drive. The Forester is a tad quicker than the RAV I am told but we found one no better than the other. I recently saw an Outlander and was in Tuscon. To me these are more comparable to the current size Forester. BTW, the Forester (obviously) is better choice in terms of quality, safetly etc.
FT AWD vs PT AWD. Sure its likely better on paper. We'll see though if its more effective than the RAVS PT AWD this winter I guess. I admit I have some concern as my 96 FT AWD RAV never had an issue in the snow--even with bald tires at one point. I am hopefull the PT AWD is just as effective since the CRV has had it for some time and I have seen few complaints. Milk use to come in glass bottles. Glass may be better than platic but its just as effective to sell me my milk in a plastic conatiner.
Volkswagon is a luxury car? Around here they have a rep of being fun to drive but mechanically challeged. I would not consider them above a Toyota, Subura, Honda or Nissan.
I think I am done posting here as I have not really seen anything new added to the discuusion nor do I really have anything ew to add. Sorry to those I offended. For those shopping these models just do yourself a favor and drive both one right after the other. I'd even wait a few months and try out the new CRV. The 2006 Forester and 2006 RAV are both refined, safe and offer adaquate acceleration. You likely won't go wrong with either. The determining factor will likely come down to size and price. Good luck!
We're talking about cars, everybody has a viewpoint. Agree or disagree we can still talk about cars. I don't believe I offended anyone talking about my perceived strengths of the Forester vs the RAV4, why would you believe you offended anyone talking about the RAV4 perceived strengths?
Each car has the edge in some areas and lags in other areas. You get to pick your best compromise and prioritize what is important to you and ignore what isn't important.
The Forester though has the overall edge in performance and handling (my priority), the RAV4 has it in space (your priority). Everything else is a toss-up.
Even for VW, it hasn't been a clear-cut success. The VW Rabbit starts at just $15k now, probably being sold at a loss. And VW is working to find a way to make the next generation even cheaper to produce.
andre: no offense taken, but I know how you feel, I got the same response in the RAV4 thread when I said the rear gate opens the wrong way. :sick:
-juice
I wish the Legacy would get a bit longer....wider...I really want AWD but would prefer a car over a SUV....the Camry stinks in the snow and rain....
As far as cheaper Subarus, they're coming out right now! Nearly every '07 Legacy and Outback has a substantially lower invoice than '06. There's even a new Outback Basic which is about $2500 less than last year's cheapest Outback - that's quite a price difference, and should allow a few more folks to get in to the brand who otherwise wouldn't. It'll also be good for folks who use their Outbacks in rough conditions and don't want to beat up a more expensive car.
My sister was choosing between a Forester and a Camry, and on the day she test drove them it was raining.
I don't have to tell you which one she bought. She thought the Camry just felt loose, less in control.
-juice
Try 19K for 06's.
Good luck with your Outback. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
Funny thing is Toyota does sell a Corolla wagon - it's called the Corolla Fielder in Brazil. The D-pillar is way farther back than in the Matrix, and there is a lot more cargo room, nearly double.
Found a pic:
Toyota can make more money selling SUVs, that's the real reason!
-juice
Since I wanted reliable, I limited myself to Japanese vehicles. I ruled out the Hondas quickly - the Element was too truck like for long distance comfort. The Honda CRV's back seats fold forward in such a way that they block loading from the side doors into the back bed. (I keep the back seats folded down most of the time, making my car a two seater with a long wagon bed.)
That left the Rav 4 and the Subaru Forester. I drove both. The reviews almost all gave the edge to the Rav 4. It was bigger and had VERY comfortable back seats. But I wanted a sunroof and heated seats (my idea of luxury), and to get that the Rav 4 started to get pricy. ALso, we felt that the Rav 4 cylander engine was a little weak on the hills we have around here. I shudder to think how much that engine would whine hauling 4 people up Mt Ranier. The 6 cylander started to get pricey as well. Everyway I looked at it, the Rav 4 kept coming to an MSRP of 25K +, 28K+ if I got everything I wanted on it. My budget was 23K. And the local Toyota dealers were not intersted in dealing - they can't keep Rav 4's on their lots.
Enter the Forester XS. It was smaller inside, but was very sporty and agile - and it's little 4 cyl engine seemed very powerful. The Forester blew away the steep hill that the Rav 4 had labored to climb. It had a great huge sunroof, heated seats (for my arthiric lower back), and visibility out the back that won't quit. (The Rav 4 had a lot of low blind spots - I hated to think about parallel parking it on crowded city streets.)
The Subaru Forester XS cost 23.5K (invoice price minus $1K rebate). It fit my budget! Besides, I know 5 friends and coworkes who own them, and not ONE person I know is unhappy with their Forester.
I pick my new Forester up on Tuesday! :shades:
If I had to haul kids around the burbs, I would have gotten the Rav 4. But hauling people into the mountains or into the narrow streets of Seattle - the Forester won out.
I found these forums very handy in my data gathering - thanks all!
- Slipjig
People do haul kids around the burbs in them. The selling point of the Foresters is the safety, reliability and agility. With the RAV4 some space is traded off for some agility.
You're actually talking about an X Premium model, though, right? XS was from MY03-05.
I love the equipment level on those, you get all the goodies (heated seats, huge moonroof) but it's still cloth, rather than slippery leather. I have leather in my Miata, and don't particularly like it. It's hot in summer, cold in winter, and slippery all the time.
-juice
I am new to the forum, but got lots of good info reading all your posts. I have a question that I did not see addressed yet:
I do a fair bit of towing and my current car (Saab 9-5, 4cyl turbo, 185hp) is a) too low to the ground, b) sluggish in the hills (only when towing), c) front wheel drive only, d) terrible qualityhttp://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/web- xicons/emotorcons/emo_lemon.gif
lemon. Now I am looking for a new car that can do it all. I like the Forester in terms of safety and price, but I looked at the numbers for the Forester and they seem to be very similar to my Saab. Does anyone have experience towing (tent trailer)with either the Forester or the Rav4?
Thanks for the feedback
I think in the size/class of automobile as they are, you might be expecting too much. They will be sluggish uphill and passing, with two+ adults, their gear and the trailer.
Perhaps you need to think about a larger V-6 or V-8 to remedy your problem....
I've towed with our Forester. One load was two yards of shredded mulch, and that weighed a lot. The car handled it okay, but I only drove about 4 miles.
If I were you, and towing was the main issue, I'd opt for the V6 (not 4-cylinder) RAV4, as it's rated to tow 3500 with trailer brakes. The Forester is rated for 2400, and the RAV 4-cylinder (and CRV) is rated for 1500 pounds.
All these vehicles are rated only for 1000 if you don't have trailer brakes.
Bob
Liability concerns? In other countries, if someone tries to tow an excessive amount and gets into a crash he'll blame himself. In America, he'll sue Subaru. Therefore, Subaru deliberately understates towing capacities.
As someone noted, Foresters are rated much higher in other countries e.g. Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand where in each country over the last three or four years they have been rated as best tow vehicles.
In the U.S., Subaru minimizes the towing ability. Some think it is because we are litigous in nature... NO!, Not Americans!!! In other countries, they tout it and include things like low range manual transmissions (Australia) and anti-sway hitches. The U.S. LL Bean has load leveling struts which are standard on some foreign ones and you can retrofit on any US Forester.
Anyway, Subaru even has a tow harness and four pin connector hidden in them. You don't do that unless you intended for it to tow something somewhere. My hitch installer was surprised when he installed and said it was a piece of cake and asked me to let him know how it does... I have. They are impressed.
I have towed everywhere with my manual and a 110 lb girlfriend and 65 lb dog and stuff inside. The gearing on them is great and if you aren't afraid to use those gears and look at 4K+ (best torque range) as your upper end and about 2k on your lower, you can really go, including passing much bigger rigs. And I didn't even have to drop into second coming from the west to the Eisenhower tunnel on I70 in Colorado. Third will keep you going at 45 to 50 all day long up 5% grades. Fifth has taken me across the Dakotas at 75 with no problem on many occasions. How fast do you really want to go up and down those mountains???
You do need to change transmission fluids regularly with high quality mixes, and have electric brakes, but the Subaru Forester just goes and goes. It is a little tow beast. And I mean it is amazing. And you can get one for about 19K. Nothing else will touch it for price and capability.
FWIW, I've recently been in touch with someone who test Subie prototypes, and who has had extensive time towing with Subies. He too thinks they're great tow vehicles, as the chassis is very strong and quite capable. I asked him why Subies are rated so much lower here than elsewhere for towing, and the only thing he could come up with is that it may have something to do with engine and tranny cooling. He said they could put larger radiators in them, but that may (?) impact on crash safety, in terms of crumple zones. The domino thing, if you know what I mean... He did say that SOA is very conservative when it comes to anything safety related.
I had mentioned the liability issue, and he said that too could be a possibility, but couldn't confirm that aspect.
Bob
Dogster
My best Forester story is my girlfriend who really didn't like my Forester when I first got it and complained. Then about the third time in it she started looking at things. And then when we put the dog in, he could lay down and look out the windows and then she heard about the safety ratings...and fifteen months later, she got one...
The safety thing was the final kicker with her. She went with an automatic, and is still balking at me offering to have a hitch installed... grinning.
I have a '98 Forester L, 165hp/166 lb-ft. The new ones should be a bit better, but I'd still recommend the XT.
-juice
Like many I've been cross shopping several small-to-mid SUV/wagons, and I'm down to the Forester vs. the RAV4. I've also tested the Impreza Outback, the Legacy Outback, the 2007 CR-V and Toyota Highlander. First a little background to show my biases. I'm a long term Japanese car owner/devotee, a hatchback afficiando (love being able to cart passengers and cargo as my various needs arise) and I haven't driven an automatic since I inherited my dad's hand-my down Oldsmobile in the 80s for a few years. Current car is a 2D '95 Acura Integra 5sp. I'm upgrading because Baby Liniac is on the way and wrestling a car-seat in and our of the Integra's miniscule backseat just ain't gonna happen, and because it's time to upgrade to a safer vehicle. I have a natural affinity toward SUVs as I am an outdoor enthusiast and a gear-addict and love the space and functionality they provide. (I also love to fancy myself in those SUV commercials--kayak strapped to the roof, offroading down in Baja and so forth...heh). That said, I also have a huge bias against them as being big gashogs that are hard to park, bad for the environment and, monstrous to share the road with (speaking as someone who has driven a low hatchback around for the last 10 years--it is horrible to drive behind them as it is impossible to see the road/traffic conditions ahead, can't see a thing when easing out of a driveway or alley with one parked on either side, and I can't tell you how many times I've been BLINDED by oncoming headlamps shining down into my eyes.
I started out looking at the Impreza OB -- knew a very evangelical owner and liked the idea of getting 4dr + storage without becoming a big-bad-SUV owner. Once I saw the teeny cargo area (I can't imagine a stroller and groceries sharing that space well) I decided I'd give the Legacy OB a look. Much better fit, with more cargo area, and, hey, I still wouldn't be an SUV'er. But, when I reseached fuel economy, it really didn't seem the OB was significantly better than modern small-mid SUVs after all. I also was having trouble finding an OB in a 5-speed, which I preferred though it wasn't a dealbreaker. I liked the way the OB drove, responsive and fun, even in an automatic. Some concerns -- I liked the smaller profile of the OB but not the length(I have a very space-challenged garage, and I and also do a lot of street parallel parking... it's hard enough finding a spot for my Integra and the OB is over a foot longer). And minor quibbles -- dislike the available colors on the 2.5i except for silver, and the interior on those is black, which isn't great for sweaty So. Cal).
Then the 2007 CR-V came out aimed squarely at my demo: 30-something new moms, and I was VERY excited to test the new one. It was shorter and smaller than other mid-sized SUV's, decent gas mileage, and an eco-friendly ULEV rating. I liked its new look and Honda touted lots of child-friendly features (conversation mirror, fold-down center console allowing pass-thru access to the rear seats, back doors open to 90-degrees,horizontal dividers in the rear hatch to maximize the vert storage space etc.) and it finally had a lift-gate rear. I was all set to LOVE that car. Well. I test drove it and was just crushed with disappointment. The interior appointing felt so cheap, the drop-down tray was so flimsy and rickety (plus you'd have to remove all the things from the tray to use it or dump them onto the floor), and a circus performer would have a hard time wriggling through the middleinto the back seat. I also didn't like the tip-up (vs. fold-flat) rear seats. Oh and that hatch divider was nice but only rated for 20 pounds. While the CR-V did reasonably well on hills for a 4-cyc, the action of the automatic I can only describe as "soggy and unpleasant." Visibility was poor--there were huge pillers everywhere I looked and the back window felt like a porthole (though side mirrors were great and I might have accomodated to that aspect in due time). The final straw was that the driver's headrest was just incompatible with my head -- made driving very uncomfortable. Man, I had really wanted to love that thing but I just couldn't.
Around the same time, I drove a RAV4 because my hubby and I have owned and had good experience with Toyotas. I was skeptical about it being only avail in an automatic, and about the side-open hatch, and about its larger size... again veering dangerously close to "SUV" territory. I was very surprised at how much I liked the RAV. Much quieter than older model ravs, big but didn't feel behemoth, the automatic was very responsive and pretty fun to drive, and I barely missed my 5-speed manual. I loved the one-touch fold down seats and under floor storage. The interior felt comfortable and plushier than the CR-V by about a mile. The only reservations I still have are the side-open hatch, and the larger size, and the fact that Toyota's options seem so random and ala carte--Each car I looked at had a completely different handful of options. I could see trying to find a car with the specific options I wanted was going to be very difficult, and to get some of them I'd have to jump up to the Limited which I didn't want. On a whim since I was already crossing over to the mid-sized SUV dark side, I tried the Highlander "just for grins" because it seemed very similar to the RAV but with a lift-gate and not SO much bigger. I was actually bracing to love the Highlander but not it's price and have to talk myself out of it. Well, thank goodness I hated driving it. It felt very heavy, the automatic was not nearly as responsive and while the ride was cushier, it just felt like steering a boat. Did not have the same feel of the RAV. So that was a no-brainer.
OK so back to Subaru-ville. I originally passed right on by the Forester because its looks didn't appeal to me (the usual complaints--boxy and mundane styling, and the 2006 redesign didn't do much for the front end, IMHO -- too bubble-y and carlike which made it look like an akward [non-permissible content removed] love child between a car and an SUV. So I was torn between the OB and the RAV and it would have been the OB hands-down if it had just been a little shorter and cheaper with the extra option I liked. Then one day I passed a Forester on the road and thought, you know, it's actually not that bad, kind of has a rugged no-frills appeal. Then it dawned on me that I could get my shorter SUV-but-not-really-an-SUV, my lift-gate, and best of all, my manual transmission, all in o
<<Then it dawned on me that I could get my smaller SUV-but-not-really-an-SUV, my lift-gate, and best of all, my manual transmission, all in one Japanese, reliable, highly safety-rated package. I got more and more enthused about the Forester at that point and grew to find it's looks almost charming (almost :->) . I finally test drove one and I loved the way it drove, smooth as silk handling, incredibly visibility, and I loved all the options that just come with the X Premium. A poster a few dozen pages back mentioned laughing while driving it... I had that same giddy feeling... it was just fun to drive. Maybe it was that GIGANTIC sunroof! On the negative side -- the seats were not as comfortable, the interior felt a bit spartan, and the back seat was more cramped (though keep in mind coming from a 2door integra, the Forester backseat is downright palatial! )
So that brings me to my current status--agonizign between the FX-premium and the RAV4 4cyl (6 is overkill for my needs and I don't want the extra cost (initial, insurance, and fuel). I am pretty torn. Mr. Liniac prefers the RAV4 though my heart is slightly with the FXP though we both agree either would be fine decision. The things still keeping me on the fence is the RAV4 has a more comfortable and roomy interior, a few niceties the Forester lacks, like available steering wheel controls and those cool one-touch folding seats. My husband is big on the RAV4's stability and traction control, side-curtain airbags, and prefers the roominess and the appearance.
BUT -- I have one huge question that I can't seem to find an answer on. Consumer Reports reviewed both a few months back and commented that the Forester owner's manual said not to install a car seat in the center position on the Forester. I can't confirm if this is true or why but this is a concern as the center position is safest in a side-impact collision. I also can't confirm if the RAV4 manual lists any such prohibition though CR didn't mention it and the dealer said the seats could be put in the center. If any owners could check their manuals, or otherwise share their firsthand knowledge of this topic I would be grateful!>>
I guess every mftr' is capable of producing a "bad apple". I think your experience is the exception not the rule. I've owned both a 99' Forester and an 04 Rav. Both are exceptional vehicles, IMHO. Like everything in life, each has it's own strengths and weakness. I loved the Forester but wanted a little more room and the ability to tow a large-ish trailer. I'm very pleased with the RAV V6. I like sitting up higher, it gets remarkable gas mileage (avg. 25.6) and I find it to be quite comfortable. Flip a coin, you can't go wrong with either choice.
To help with your car seat question, I pulled up the full review from Consumer Reports... "Driving with kids: The RAV4 is not particularly friendly to child seat installation. The center rear seat is offset into the left passenger seat, limiting the ability to travel with three across. The ceiling-anchored center belt also allows side-to-side movement of rear-facing seats installed there. Some rear-facing infant bases may also tilt in the rear outboard seats, but choosing alternate models or LATCH installation can provide a secure fit. For front-facing seats, there is a single tether for the center seat on the cargo area ceiling, but the housing that surrounds the anchor requires the tether strap to be twisted upside down as it doesn't allow the hook through. The outboard tethers are mounted low on the seatback and require moving the outboard seats forward to access them. The LATCH anchors in the rear outboard seats are recessed between the cushions and seatback but are easy to access."
Hope that helps on the first question... I'll offer my thoughts on the comparison on the next post...
I think, as many have said, you really can't go wrong with either. My perspective is that safety is basically a wash (both very good), fuel economy is similar, price is probably similar depending on which trims, etc... I think the Forester handles a little "differently" than the RAV and was fun to drive, although interior space (back seat especially) for passengers seemed much smaller than the RAV. The RAV V6 is flat-out fun to drive, although if you're looking at the 4 cyl then it's probably more similar to the Forester as well in that regard...
I think in the end it comes down to which one you feel more "at home" in when you get in and drive it off. I think, as in your case, everything is much compared to what you have been driving for so long (Acura Integra) - so perhaps you tend to prefer the one that drives more similar to the Integra... ?
I own one with 157K miles on it (bought it new 6 yrs ago), and so far it performed flawlessly. Three months ago I've bought a new one (2.5X Forester 2006), and it's running great so far.
We have 2 kids so we only used the center for a short while, but it worked OK on our '98 Forester, which has a relatively flat bench.
There is no perfect rear seat. When it's flat, the middle position is easier to load a car seat into, but the outboard passengers are less comfortable when it's not shaped for them.
Ideally, you'd have it shaped for 3 across, but no compact's rear seat is truly wide enough for that.
-juice
I'm still not sure where that leaves me though in the decision process! Now I'm wondering if it's just an accustomization thing and I'd enjoy driving either equally well after a "break-in" period ... or if that suggests that I'd continue to be happier driving something closer to what I know. Oh well, more food for thought! Many thanks for your kind input.
Inside Line Executive Editor Scott Oldham says:
"In our recent First Drive report on the 2007 Honda CR-V, author Erin Riches quoted Christina Ra, a Honda product planner, who said, "The CR-V is for women in their early 30s who either have a child under 2 or are about to have their first child."
Well, I'm not female. I'm a dude and I've got the hair on my back to prove it. I'm also beyond my early 30s and I have two kids under the age of 4. And yet, I find the new CR-V to be a supremely well-thought-out and well-executed little SUV. From its featherweight tailgate to its two-tier cargo area, to its tight dynamics, Honda really sweated the details on this one. No, it doesn't have the might of a V6 RAV4, but slow it isn't, and its design smokes the Toyota's inside and out. Especially in, where the Honda just looks, feels and functions like an SUV costing much, much more.
Men and women, smart ones anyway, are sure to reap the CR-V's virtues. Honda has just reinvented the class. Again."
is too bad. I test drove RAV4 & CR-V (2007 both) with our
infant seat in it and faced exact same difficulties in
installing it. But like somebody said, you have try out
the best way to fit the child seat and just the child seat
should not be the only reason to reject/select a car that you would keep for at least 5 years.
Forester and CR-V took the honors.
-juice
-Brian
And the Forester is still, I believe, the only "SUV" that doesn't need a tip over sticker ??? And with the Premium, you get front and rear disc brakes (Yes, I know they are standard on Ravs) and a limited slip rear differential and the automatic brake force distribution.
I figured that was enough safety along with the "real" AWD. And for the Mr. the Suby's may not have the side curtain's, but its side air bages that go up are just as effective. Oh and the Rav's are NOT a real all wheel drive. Essentially, they are two wheel and the others kick in occasionally and are very complicated. And apparently, Toyota's quality has dropped as they cannot build them fast enough and have apparently sacrificed a little quality and since they sell like that, they don't deal...at all. Suby's problems are marketing, not quality.
And Suby's don't crush. Fire departments are having to train people because the Forester's side pillars are practically indestructible with some kind of proprietary boron bar in there.
And we got a complete big antique dresser and drawers in the back of my old 04 and while loading at the antique store, had a group of people watching and helping and when we were done and shut the back completely, people were surprised (me too) and asking about it and walking around it more appreciatively than I bet before. They'd probably never considered a Suby.
Oh and that huge sunroof was so nice the last couple of days with our mid 60's weather riding in the country. And the heated mirrors was a pleasant surprise along with the electric and heated seats.
As you can tell, I'm partial to Suby's and am on my fourth. As for quality, mine have had a few problems, but in general, oh I guess specifically, they have exceeded any other vehicles I have had with the exception of a Honda CRX in the mid 80's. But with around 300,000 on mine over time what do you expect. I am a Subaruphile.
OH and you can deal and get a Premium Package somewhere in the 23,500 range if you deal. IT will beat the heck out of the 4 cylinder much heavier Rav 4 with equivalent stuff. Oh, and I tow a 1900 lb trailer with a Forester...all over the country with 13000 miles towing in the last two years (on my 04). Subaru rates them low for towing in the U.S. compared to other country's because we are a sue happy culture. They are built more heavy duty than Subaru of America let's on but Subaru of Australia, for instance touts.