Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
What do you guys think about the 2006 Toyota Limited Rav 4, 2006 XS Subaru Forester and the 2006 EX Honda CRV?
I am debating the extra size of the CRV and Rav4, but the Rav4 has been redesigned for 2006. However, I like the power of the Forester and the fact that it has a real bumper on the back. Also, I don't think it has the side curtain air bags like the CRV. The Toyota for some reason forces you to upgrade to the top engine for the side-curtain airbags.
I have a 70 lb dog and a baby on the way. Do you think the extra room in the CRV or Rav 4 wins over the Forester?
How about the safety factor of the side-curtain air bags in the CRV or the best AWD system in the Forester?
Geez, so many choices. Lets hear from drivers of all vehicles.
cheers,
pogs
I am debating the extra size of the CRV and Rav4, but the Rav4 has been redesigned for 2006. However, I like the power of the Forester and the fact that it has a real bumper on the back. Also, I don't think it has the side curtain air bags like the CRV. The Toyota for some reason forces you to upgrade to the top engine for the side-curtain airbags.
I have a 70 lb dog and a baby on the way. Do you think the extra room in the CRV or Rav 4 wins over the Forester?
How about the safety factor of the side-curtain air bags in the CRV or the best AWD system in the Forester?
Geez, so many choices. Lets hear from drivers of all vehicles.
cheers,
pogs
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Honda just felt better.
Philip :shades:
Good Luck!
This is from the prices paid section by hazletone:
we got a BASE RAV4 with and MSRP of 22,851(side curtiain bags, tint, alarm and some other stuff we didn't care about) for $21400
My suggestion is to hold off making a decision until you've test-driven all three.
The Forester is comfortable, quick, and safe. It has full-time AWD, which neither the Honda nor the Toyota have. We need a snow car, and that gives Forester the edge.
Plus, heated windshield wipers and heated mirrors. You won't believe how convenient the heated wipers are when you have bad weather.
The Forester is a very nimble, has a low center of gravity and is a solid feeling car. You can get an amazing amount of cargo in the back with the seats folded. It has always scored at the top in crash test safety .. in particular frontal and side impact. All time AWD which is helpful in all driving conditions. I put 200k on it .. never had a moment of trouble and my ex is still driving it. The down side is that the back seat is not as roomy as the others and although it's looks grew on me it isn't a head turner.
The CRV is very roomy but IMHO feels a little cheap. It has Honda resale value and reliability. The V also possesses excellent versatility. The side impact tests have not been as good as the Forester. The bottom line for me was .. it's boring and the rear end is butt ugly although that's very subjective.
The RAV has yet to be safety tested so any opinion would be just that. The Limited is very nice inside and quite comfortable. To me it feels more "up scale". The v6 raises the bar in this class. However, the limited is 2k more than the EX-CRV.
Drive all 3 and pick one and don't look back.
Ride:Toyota builds vehicles that emphasize ride over handling. Honda builds vehicles that emphasize handling over ride quality. I prefer Honda engineering myself.
Ergomonics: The CR-V has the capability of moving between the front and rear seats without exiting the vehicle, which can be handy in incliment weather if one needs to get back to the rug-rats in the rear seat.
I also like the CR-V rear legroom - 39 inches with the rear seat slid backwards. Once can get almost 40 cu feet of stuff behind the rear seats if you slide the rear seat all the way forward (36 inches of legroom in that configuration).
As for AWD, if that is critical, the Subaru is the best system in my opinion. However I have used the Honda RT4WD in many bad road conditions, including deep mud, 4" of fording water, and snow, without any problems.
The bottom line is to take the baby seat to the dealer and do a test drive, then pick the one that fits your budget and preferrences. When pricing, I would add all available safety features to the vehicle (Honda already includes everything, but you will need to add to the RAV-4 to get to the same standard - not sure about the Subie).
The back seat room in the Forester is supposed to be non-existant, but that's not a problem for me.
Personally, if I were in your shoes, I'd get the Toyota Highlander - you can get one that is "certified" pre-owned from a Toyota dealership and it comes with a great warranty and will still be cheaper than a brand new RAV-4 or CR-V. If I had a baby to consider, it would be my first choice. Rides nicely, beautifully appointed and has PLENTY of back seat and cargo space! I could have bought the deluxe version with leather and everything for $21,000 and it was a 2004, I think. Just a beautiful small SUV and the mileage is not that much less than the RAV-4. They make it in a 4 and 6 cylinder. I drove both and if power's not your thing, the 4 would suffice.
The Honda Pilot is probably a similar model, but after seeing the CR-V, I was really not impressed with the Honda product. I thought it was very pricey for what you get. I liked the Toyota cars much better, but that's just me. There are other wagons available - I think VW makes one, so if you don't care about the 4WD or AWD, you may want to consider them as well. I need the height in the cargo area to accomodate dog crates. I'm coming down from a standard size (and gas guzzling) SUV that I've owned for over 10 years.
If you don't already know, Consumer Reports Magazine rated all the small SUVs and the Subaru Forester came in as #1, the Honda CR-V was #2. The Forester was also the #1 rated small SUV in Car &Driver Magazine as well. And, I read somewhere that it's the only vehicle in it's class to get a 5-star safety rating. Of course, the Highlander and Pilot are in a different size class. It really sounds to me like you need a larger SUV. With a baby and dog, there won't be a lot of room for cargo if you take a trip somewhere.
Funny, the only reason I even WENT to the Subaru dealership was because I saw it while driving to the Honda dealership. The Forester was the first car I test drove and it spoiled me. I wanted a small SUV crossed with a sports car, but I didn't think it existed, so the Subaru Forester Turbo fits the bill for me. It's like a convertible, sports car and SUV all rolled into one.
Good luck with whichever car you choose. They are all good cars.
Samantha
There was a video someone on the internet of a guy balancing a quater on a running K24 engine (CR-V engine). That would not work in the Forester.
I maybe a perfectionist, but I gave up the 260 HP Forester XT over 160 HP CR-V, but with an engine that you don't know even on, unless you stab the throttle. I like the sophistication Honda gives you over Subaru.
Forester has longer shift throws, even in the sporty XT, than the CR-V, and the shifter is a little bit rougher going into the gears on the Forester. I am sure the 260 HP would have been nice, but not in a car that drives you crazy with terrible engine vibration.
They didn't have the Turbo when I cross shopped the Forester, but I wouldn't have bought it anyway. The base engine had plenty of power, but that backseat just seemed too small for me in the Subie.
Turbo requires premium fuel, right?
Oddly enough, the "little tray" between the front seats was a selling point for me in the CR-V - the wife could move to the rear seats without exiting the vehicle.
Toyota Highlander was too expensive for me, and I prefer a taught ride to the Toyota soft ride.
Toyota RAV4: Prices Paid & Buying Experience
Steve, Host
It's important to note that I'm getting the auto trans, not the 5 speed. I didn't think the base model in the Forester with the automatic had enough power for me, it would have been fine in the 5-speed. That's why I'm getting the Turbo even though it uses premium fuel (which SUCKS). I think the rest of you are driving 5-speeds which really makes a difference.
I also only drive about 3000 miles per year. Also, that side opening door in the Honda and Toyota gives me pause. At least the Honda has a rear window which opens up, but I can still imagine problems loading cargo if someone parks too close to you at the curb. I'm used to a hatch that opens up - it just seems inconvenient to have to walk around the rear door every time you want to load something. It opens the wrong way - it should be hinged on the opposite side.
Anyway, I've put in my 2 cents now. I'm thinkin' the orginal posters have enough info now to make their decision.
Samantha
1. Someone said the CRV did not do well in the side impact tests. That's not correct. In fact the CRV is one of the very few cars that has been tested and received the highest scores (either 5 stars or good rating) in both the NHTSA's fornt and side impact tests, and the IIHS's front and side impact tests (and done well in all the subcategories of the IIHS test). Furthermore if you look at the details of the Forester's test, you'll find that for a side impact, the results for the drivers pelvis and leg were only acceptable. I know I'm a bit of a safety freak, but I wouldn't want to take a chance with my wife's pelvis being crushed in an accident, especially if she were pregnant. Also the rear seat passenger only scored acceptable for head protection. I'm sorry but for me if I had 2 kids, acceptable just wouldn't cut it for head protection for my children.
Needless to say you have to be really careful with the IIHS ratings. They will rate a car good, even though it has some bad scores for things like head and pelvis protecion.
I know not everyone is as extreme as me, but it's good to at least have the info.
here is the we address of the details of the subaru crash test. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=253
Rod
I did test drive the non-turbo version, and it had the same vibrations transferring through the shifter and the steering column. It was OK at idle, but it got worse as the RPM's went up. But, if I were getting the Forester, I would have gotten the turbo version, because power is addicting.
As a matter of fact, I drove the Impreza as well, and it had the same engine vibration. Someone driving automatic may not notice it as they don't grab the shifter as often as someone who shifts his own gears, but at the end of the test drive my right hand felt like it was resting on a vibrating massaging chair. You know you get that feeling of numbness and such. I know I should not be resting my hand on the shifter, but.... ahhh... I like to be connected? lol.
I suppose if you consider Subaru's press packet valid research material. Subaru has never been known for having smooth engines. Lots of things to like about Subies (safety, handling, AWD, features, etc.). I like the 2.5 for it's flexible powerband and it's low center of gravity. But smoothness would have to be a very recent development.
Bob
Also, how exactly do you have to "walk around the rear door every time you wan to load something"? You exit the driver's door, you walk to the back of the vehicle and the handle is on the driver's side. Can't figure out what you mean unless you are exiting from the passenger seat.
You get used to it. I think it has to do with the spare tire being on the door - difficult to lift up.
Did you know there is a water tight large wheel well under the cargo floor?
The only other cars in this price range that I liked were the RAV-4 and the Mitsubishi Outlander, but the Mitsubishi dealership shows signs of closing down in my area, so that's a deal breaker for me as well. I also hated the double-decker dashboard of the RAV-4, it was just too busy for me. And, it also has the side-opening rear door.
The only things I didn't like about the Subaru was the ugly (but necessary) hood scoop on the hood of the Forester XT and the wells of the rear wheels intruding into the cargo area. I loved the interior, handling, appointments, etc. I thought I was all set to buy, then I started reading (on these boards) about wind and engine noise and problems with brake rotors and warping sunroofs, and a bunch of other stuff. To me, the Subaru was the quietest car I've EVER driven! They let me take a demo out by myself for an hour. I couldn't even tell it was turned on! Yet, everyone here complains about the noise. I can't imagine!
Samantha
I am considering the Rav4 now, but the first years kinks need to be worked out. I would like to hear of all the issues from new Rav4 drivers.
That is the reason I may end up going with the CRV.
Decisions, decisions,
pogs
You pop the hatch window and let it stick out the window, while the rest fo your cargo is secured behind the locked door. Seems like a better solution than having the whole tailgate open, and let the lose items roll out of the vehicle as you accelerate.
I know because I brought a 26 foot ladder from Home depot in the CR-V.
But now that I have a roof rack, I just tie things to the roof rack. Like replacement windows that did not fit in the car (106x54)
Did the CRV you test drove have rails on the roof? If not, that may be one factor in why it sounded quieter.
The wind noise seemed to be coming more from the front cabin part of the car as my passenger and I were test driving the car. We test drove both cars back to back. The dealerships were less than a minute away from each other. So our test drives would give us the best impression.
Recently we test drove the 06 Rav4 and the 06 CRV on the same day and we noticed that the engin seemed a bit noisier in the RAV4. However, I can't be certain, as both engines were a bit noisy. I guess this class of vehicle isn't expected to be luxury quiet like a lexus or bmw. There were some positives in the new Rav4, being the sliding back seats, heated front lower portion of the wind shield where the wipers sit with a push of a button and floor storage compartments in the back.
However, the first year model and some other things I would have changed, such as the spare on the back. Speaking of which, I don't understand why they couldn't store the spare underneath in the back. The styling is nice, except for that ugly tire on the back.
CR-V has sliding (and reclining) rear seats and under floor storage in the cargo area. Can't match that windshield wiper heater, though the defrosters work well...
I am, and continue to be, impressed with the CRV though. It was my choice, even in the face of the very nice '06 RAV4. The RAV4 is a great car, but for being a 5 year old model, the 2nd generation CRV still holds its own. I can only imagine how good the redesign (3rd generation) will be. The Saturn VUE was also nice, especially with that Honda V6 engine. We dont need that much power, but with that engine, the Saturn made its way into our Final 4.
You can tell a difference with that extra 10 hp's the RAV4 currently has over the CRV (166 vs 156). However, the SAFETY features of the CRV really stood out to me. It was like a Volvo, in my mind, with just about every safety feature standard, whereas side airbags are an option on the RAV4 and the VUE. The RAV4, IMO, drove more "carlike" than the CRV - it was like driving an elevated Camry. Very smooth.
Pound for pound, and feature for feature, I still feel the CRV is a better "value" than the new RAV4.
I also like the fact that Honda still manages a manual transmission option. The RAV4 does not. If we had bought the CRV, we would have gotten the 5 speed manual.
I do wish Honda would allow a bit more flexibility with the exterior/interior color combinations. If I want black exterior, I like to be able to get tan interior, and not be forced into an interior color based on exterior color.
We bought the Honda Element because that's the car my wife really wanted. However, if anyone is looking for a compact/mid sized SUV, you couldnt go wrong with the CRV or RAV4, with the CRV having the best "value" ratio, in my opinion.
You are SO funny! Of course, the window is a bonus - which the RAV-4 doesn't even have. But, I'm still going for the Forester XT. The CRV was more "truck-like" and I've been driving a truck-based SUV for 11 years and I really want a sports car - none of the other small SUVs drove like the Forester - maybe it was the lower center of gravity?
Oh, if performance is your main criteria, the Subie is the way to go, no question.
Enjoy your new wheels! (When you get them)
"when cornering hard, I *felt* much more secure in the Forester"
obviously steevedebi and manamal have never driven the RAV4 sport.
"when cornering hard, I *felt* much more secure in the Forester"
obviously steevedebi and manamal have never driven the RAV4 sport.
Does RAV4 sport come with a manual shifter? If not, then it is not perfomance. No matter what engine you stick in there, if there is no clutch, it ain't no performance car, but a grocery getter.
I traded in a Beemer 525i (after 118k miles) for an XS 15 months ago. I don't drive up to the limits of the handling of a car - probably up to 95% on occasion - and I'd rate the two equal in dry weather handling. In wet weather or icy weather, I always had this little voice in the back of my mind saying "don't do anything stupid" when driving the Beemer fast in the snow. I have yet to hear that voice after 24k miles and two winters in the XS.
I would agree the Forester is much more nimble than the CRV due to it's lower center of grav. and AWD.
Welllll, I don't know about much more nimble, but more nimble, certainly. Note that I purchased the CR-V myself after driving both, so that vehicle is my preferrence.
Nope, wasn't available when I was test driving.
Nope, wasn't available when I was test driving.
I drove the RAV4-sport and it was very nice, but still NO CONTEST when compared to the Forester - just didn't have the cornering ability. Felt like it was going to tip when I took a hard right. Other than that, though, it was a VERY nice vehicle. I didn't care for the double-decker dashboard and center console - it was just too busy for me, but some people might find it nice.
I'm probably getting my Forester XT in March - after all of this shopping I hope I am happy with it! So far, my only issue with it are the armrest (too far back, even with the adjustment) and I feel like the steering wheel is too close to my lap (I raise the seat up cuz I like to ride high - it's a trade off). The HUGE sunroof, top opening hatch and handling ability really made the deal for me, though.
Samantha
I've said it before .. some people don't like chocolate ice cream that's why they make different flavors. You find what tickles your fancy and that's what you buy.
BTW - if you don't like chocolate ice cream there is something wrong with you.:)
I believe the AWD on the new Rav is a locking system, which is different from the RTAWD on the CR-V.
I use the flip window in the V fairly often, as I can pop it up to load and unload items, without having to swing open the door. In going from front to rear, I think I hear more owners who have kids, pass through there. But the flip up tray is very nice - leave it down, put some items there, pop it up for beverages, etc. Arm rests are standard on the AT, but not on the MT (available in EX model only). This is the last yr for the 2nd generation of the cr-v - will be changes for MY2007.
I wouldn't call it essential hardware, but it's a nice convenience.