" My hands are usually empty when I am closing the door - I have put my packages in the rear cargo area! "
How about when unloading the grocery/goods and taking it inside your house?
" If you haven't purchased your RAV4 yet, you might see if you can find a 2006 CR-V SE at a very good discount. That version includes leather seats, and probably more options than your base RAV4 with aftermarket leather. " 2006 are very hard to find. Besides I think that the prices of older models depreciate faster than usual when a newer and better model (looks wise also) is available. After 5 yrs which one you think will be more desirable as a used car, 2006 CR-V or 2007 CR-V? Same applies to RAV4 as well.
Yes true but it also depends if you paid MSRP or $500.00 under on a 07 . Or under invoiceor up to $3000-$3500 off MSRP on a 06 . This would change things a bit...
very true mnf. Fact of the matter is I really like the 2007 RAV4 as compared to previous years pre-2006 RAV4s and all CR-V models. Also, I am paying $2000 below MSRP (ref: Consumer reports MSRP for car + options) and that includes all fees (not Tax, Title and Regs, they are extra).
"How about when unloading the grocery/goods and taking it inside your house?'
That's the situation I had in mind too. If my hands were empty, why would I be using my head or butt to nudge the door close? Unless I want to impress the ladies with my agility and creativity! LOL :P
Maybe the Camry is safer if you never drive in the snow. I've got all wheel drive (CRV) and I know I drive in the snow and bad conditions more because of it. So probably make me less safe.
The 19" rims are nice, but the smallish sidewall actually makes the wheel gap appear bigger, even though it's lowered. So it doesn't have the sportier stance that it should have.
The blacked-out taillights go a bit too far, also. Make 'em jeweled or just leave them stock.
Put the RDX drivetrain in there while you're at it. That's the ticket.
Interior does look nice.
Oh, and is that a *gasp* dead pedal I see in there? Do all 07s get that? It was sorely missed in the old models.
i debated this in my head for awhile and have finally decided on the CR-V. in order for me to get the RAV4 limited with V-6, buying one of three "option" packages is mandatory! the "option" packages are $1,500, $1,700, and $3,200...all featuring an upgraded audio system and my choice of 3rd row seat or moonroof or moonroof/leather none of which i really want(go to the toyota website and configure & price one for yourself...i'm sure it's different for different areas of the country). also, with toyota, they even nickel-and-dime you for the floormats ($120 extra) but they're included in the CR-V even though it's already cheaper comparably-equipped.
Even so, there are restrictions. To get side air bags early on with a RAV4 you had to order certain models with certain packages on the 3rd Wednesday of a month with less than 31 days and only if your salesman was born before 1968 unless he has more than two tattoos.
Something like that.
I'm trying to sort out the Sienna, you can get CE, LE, XLE, XLE Limited, AWD but not on the CE, 8 passenger seating but only on the XLE, and no AWD for 8 passengers, and each of those by the way has about 3 options package to choose from.
I realize they want to be all things to all people, but c'mon now. 3 models and an a-la-carte options list should be plenty.
Agreed. Honda sort of still adheres to the initial way imports were sold, you wanted this or that, you had to move up in trim line. Lots of people don't like that though, they want to cherry pick their options. But as you point out many times you can't even do that, you must buy this in order to get that. But Honda is in the business to sell vehicles, so they seem to be moving a bit more towards the Toyota type of business model.
i personally think it is disingenuous of toyota to advertise an MSRP price but then make it impossible to buy a car for that price. out of the 11 RAV4 models available, only two (4x4 sport models, 4-cylinder and V6) can be had with no option packages.
after seeing this, i'm voting with my wallet in favor of honda's way of doing business. simple.
yeah, pretty much. try this: go to www.toyota.com and click on RAV4 and then on "build and price your RAV4" and click through. this will tell you what configurations toyota builds for your zip code area. i think you'll find that for most models, you must choose one "option" package or another. a dealership here told me that "that is the only way toyota builds 'em." for example, i was also interested in the base 4x4 V6 but the only way i can get that one is with alloy wheels, upgraded audio system and roof rails, etc. for an additonal $1,200.
i personally think it is disingenuous of toyota to advertise an MSRP price but then make it impossible to buy a car for that price.
I find that practice annoying also. However, Toyota is far from alone in that regard. Lots of manufacturers carry a bare bones model on the books just so they can claim in their advertising that "X" model has a starting price of so-and-so. Of course we all know that’s just a ploy to get buyers into the showroom where it's then the sales person's job to convince them that what they really need is the top of the line model with all the bells and whistles (which naturally carries a much higher profit margin) :P
I believe that the proper term is "bait and switch"
A few years back I tried repeatedly to factory order a vehicle because I wanted one equipped with a manual tranny. Even though all the vehicle brochures listed this particular model as having the 5-MT as an option, it turns out that none were scheduled to be produced. But I guess that since it was at least "theoretically" available as an option, the manufacturer could claim a starting list price that was $1000 cheaper than the AT-equipped cars on the dealer lots. The story has a happy ending though because I couldn’t get what I wanted, it forced me to expand my search and that’s when I discovered the Subaru Forester - which you definitely CAN get with a manual transmission!
As the years go by, you will find it increasingly difficult to obtain a manual tranny....as the industry phases them out except for specialty vehicles.
First the RAV4 dropped that option, now the CR-V has, too. Suzuki and Subaru still offer them. Mazda CX7 also does not. And the RDX. And those are the sporty ones.
After doing some serious shopping for 2006 Siennas, I can say with near-certainty that I'll never buy a Toyota. Between the option nonsense and the dealerships (tend to be megamall, talk-to-fifteen-different people type places), it's too much aggravation for me.
Same for me: no manual tranny, no deal. I just never learned to drive an automatic and I'm not about to learn how now!
As a point of interest, I WAS able to build a base V-6 Rav with no options on the Toyota web-site using my Tacoma, Washington area ZIP code. With a 5-spd manual (which should carry a $800-1000 discount), it would be a pretty sweet ride.
I noticed that one of the big complaints in the comparison article that chief71 linked (thanks chief!) was the jerky auto-tranny in the Rav. No thanks, Toyota!
Nice. Wonder if Nissan is going to dump the Xtrail?
It's got a good four banger, decent passenger space, nice level of equipment... All the boxes are checked.
I'm not in love with the styling, but it's more interesting than the bland sheetmetal of the RAV4 and certainly better than the snout on the new CR-V. In profile (not from the front), it kinda reminds me of the Tribeca, which is not a bad thing.
Re: Bob's take... I'm surprised that he's so positive on the Rogue given that it lacks a V6.
As I write this I'm pretty sure Bob is furiously typing "function over form" in the largest font he can manage.
I just recall him being pretty certain about the CR-V needing the option of a V6 in order to stay competitive in this market. It just seemed odd that he would not note the same omission (and be downright positive) for another vehicle without that same option.
Those Nissan V6's are sure sweet for sure. :shades:
I don't know about Bob, but for purposes of this thread, I'm even willing to overlook the visibility issues of the Rogue, CR-V and the rest of the new breed with the sloping rear windows.
Yeah, I would love to see it happen, as I would love to see it happen in the CRV too. As it stands, the RAV4 V6 is in a class of one for those shopping for a small Japanese CUV V6.
...And as I've said before, I see a lot of RAV4 V6s on the road—and I'd probably see an equal amount of CRV V6s, if offered.
As to design vs. mechanicals? I look at the complete package first. Then I look at the specific areas, be it design/styling and/or mechanicals.
Finally, my blog entry on the Rogue was more of a "news announcement," rather than a "critical review." I will say this: Now that you mention it, a V6 option would certainly be frosting on the cake.
I agree Steve. I think the styling trend of making the side rear-quarter windows small, or hard to see out of, is a bad trend. I was sorry to see CRV follow others in this area.
Frankly, I can't wait for this trend to die. It won't be missed by me one bit.
I dunno that I would consider the CVT a drawback. I'd have to drive it first.
When I took a Murano out for a spin, the CVT itself didn't bother me. The problem was the thrashy V6 running at a constant rpm. If their I4 is smooth enough, then the CVT wouldn't be a problem in my book. If not, then numbers 3 and 1 on your list are the same issue.
"The upward sweep of the Rogue's window line gives it a more dynamic look than most of its competitors."
Hmm... it would appear that Ed Hellwig, Edmunds' Senior Editor, is more in to form over function
Unfortunately I think this trend will be here for a while. The car makers seem to think that poor rearward visibility isn't a problem, they just add on back-up sensors and or a camera. Personally, if I want'd to drive a bus I'd buy a bus :mad:
The only drawback I've been told about the CVT is carbon build up from the rpms staying relatively the same.
Otherwise the Rogue is of interest to me. The cvt, electric power streering, fold flat seats, and no spare on a swing open door sounds just like the right ticket. But then Nissan quality............
yeah, i agree...the 2007 CR-V's C-pillar sweeps down, not up, allowing decent rear side visibility where it's needed most. on the other CUVs with upward-sweeping C-pillars, that view of the road is blocked.
okay, i admit...when i first saw the '07 CR-Vs, i hated the downward sweep of the side glass. but, it's kinda grown on me. my friends say it reminds them of a cross between a volvo XC90 and a mercedes R-class
I would not buy a vehicle that didn't have good visibility rearward. The Forester is very well designed in that regard. It is a danger to everyone on the road not to have a clear sight line.
The blind spot caused by the CR-V's downward-slopping window starts about 4 feet off the ground and extends upward.
If you're merging, changing lanes, or even back up in a parking lot, you are probably not going to be concerned with things floating 4 feet in the air. At least, until hover craft become popular transports on our roads.
Instead, you're going to be looking for cars, poles, people, and such. All of which have substantial links to the ground via gravity. The downward-sloping window grants a view of the ground.
So, if a car is at your 5 o'clock while you are attempting to change lanes, you will see it's tires, fenders, and windows. You probably will not see if they have a Thule rack on their roof, but that information probably won't help you decide whether or not you should complete the lane change.
The upward-sloping windows cause the rear problems. They provide a view of the sky, but obscure things on the ground.
Well I'd have to sit in one to see for myself exactly how badly the view to the rear is compromised but for sure it's a lot worse than the last generation CR-V.
Coincidently, just got this month's CR and while they gave the new CR-V excellent marks overall, they also dinged the more aero-dynamic look for reducing the cargo capacity and rearward visibility :P
I don't see the rear view issue as being a safety problem because you can see those things which might cause accidents. However, looking out a port hole is never as pleasant as looking out a wall-sized sheet of glass.
So, from an aesthetics point of view, the rear glass IS an issue. That didn't seem to be the issue in this discussion, though.
CR...dinged the more aero-dynamic look for reducing the cargo capacity and rearward visibility
interesting, especially since the previously-generation CR-V had 33.5 cu. feet of cargo capacity and the '07 has 35.7...that's 2.2 cu. ft. more.
regarding old vs. new rearward visibility, i find that interesting too. my sister has an '05 and we were comparing them side-by-side over christmas. the tailgate-mounted spare tire in her '05 really blocks the view out the back and to the right. her A pillar is thicker too as is the pillar between the rear seat and the cargo area.
CR has an odd method for measuring cargo space. They essentially measure the volume of the largest, regular-shaped, single box you could fit in the cargo area with the seats folded down.
Of course, not all cargo is rigid and box-shaped, but it is interesting as another data point.
Regarding the cargo capacity, I did a double-take when I saw that CR listed the 07 CR-V as having only 25 cu ft of cargo space :surprise:
Varmint's ref to the rectangular box measurement system is no doubt the culprit. They did specifically blame the sloping rear roof line for reducing the cargo capacity.
Comments
My hands are usually empty when I am closing the door - I have put my packages in the rear cargo area!
"
How about when unloading the grocery/goods and taking it
inside your house?
"
If you haven't purchased your RAV4 yet, you might see if you can find a 2006 CR-V SE at a very good discount. That version includes leather seats, and probably more options than your base RAV4 with aftermarket leather.
"
2006 are very hard to find. Besides I think that
the prices of older models depreciate faster than usual when a newer and better model (looks wise also) is available. After 5 yrs which one you think will be more
desirable as a used car, 2006 CR-V or 2007 CR-V? Same applies to RAV4 as well.
MNF
RAV4 as compared to previous years pre-2006 RAV4s and all
CR-V models. Also, I am paying $2000 below MSRP (ref: Consumer reports MSRP for car + options) and that includes all fees (not Tax, Title and Regs, they are extra).
inside your house?'
That's the situation I had in mind too. If my hands were empty, why would I be using my head or butt to nudge the door close? Unless I want to impress the ladies with my agility and creativity! LOL :P
However, then you have all those home-accident statistics to deal with. :P
The 19" rims are nice, but the smallish sidewall actually makes the wheel gap appear bigger, even though it's lowered. So it doesn't have the sportier stance that it should have.
The blacked-out taillights go a bit too far, also. Make
'em jeweled or just leave them stock.
Put the RDX drivetrain in there while you're at it. That's the ticket.
Interior does look nice.
Oh, and is that a *gasp* dead pedal I see in there? Do all 07s get that? It was sorely missed in the old models.
-juice
Maybe we can find you a good, running, Hudson Hornet somewhere...... :P
Very costly to repaire a smashed rear end with the spare in the back.
You've won ten points and a lovely parting gift. :P
They basically sell you a bare chassis and everything is an option that is linked to your Zodiac sign or the position of the stars, or both.
-juice
You should see their jaws drop, and their eyes bulge! :P
Something like that.
I'm trying to sort out the Sienna, you can get CE, LE, XLE, XLE Limited, AWD but not on the CE, 8 passenger seating but only on the XLE, and no AWD for 8 passengers, and each of those by the way has about 3 options package to choose from.
I realize they want to be all things to all people, but c'mon now. 3 models and an a-la-carte options list should be plenty.
-juice
after seeing this, i'm voting with my wallet in favor of honda's way of doing business. simple.
How do you mean? You mean I cannot order a base 4x4, and prepared to wait for it to come in, even though it is offered in their model lineup?
I may get a CPO Sienna that's loaded up just to make sure I get the things I do want. Overkill, I know.
-juice
I find that practice annoying also. However, Toyota is far from alone in that regard. Lots of manufacturers carry a bare bones model on the books just so they can claim in their advertising that "X" model has a starting price of so-and-so. Of course we all know that’s just a ploy to get buyers into the showroom where it's then the sales person's job to convince them that what they really need is the top of the line model with all the bells and whistles (which naturally carries a much higher profit margin) :P
I believe that the proper term is "bait and switch"
A few years back I tried repeatedly to factory order a vehicle because I wanted one equipped with a manual tranny. Even though all the vehicle brochures listed this particular model as having the 5-MT as an option, it turns out that none were scheduled to be produced. But I guess that since it was at least "theoretically" available as an option, the manufacturer could claim a starting list price that was $1000 cheaper than the AT-equipped cars on the dealer lots. The story has a happy ending though because I couldn’t get what I wanted, it forced me to expand my search and that’s when I discovered the Subaru Forester - which you definitely CAN get with a manual transmission!
-Frank
-juice
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?section=SUV&story=cc_compactSu- v&subject=stories&year=New
As a point of interest, I WAS able to build a base V-6 Rav with no options on the Toyota web-site using my Tacoma, Washington area ZIP code. With a 5-spd manual (which should carry a $800-1000 discount), it would be a pretty sweet ride.
I noticed that one of the big complaints in the comparison article that chief71 linked (thanks chief!) was the jerky auto-tranny in the Rav. No thanks, Toyota!
I guess I'll keep my Taco.
james
Yeah that's it!!! I'll have to remember that next time someone asks me why I don't want to drive an auto
-Frank
I like that qoute. Can I use it?
james
Bob's take.
It's got a good four banger, decent passenger space, nice level of equipment... All the boxes are checked.
I'm not in love with the styling, but it's more interesting than the bland sheetmetal of the RAV4 and certainly better than the snout on the new CR-V. In profile (not from the front), it kinda reminds me of the Tribeca, which is not a bad thing.
Re: Bob's take... I'm surprised that he's so positive on the Rogue given that it lacks a V6.
Doesn't Bob go for design first, then the mechanicals? :shades:
I just recall him being pretty certain about the CR-V needing the option of a V6 in order to stay competitive in this market. It just seemed odd that he would not note the same omission (and be downright positive) for another vehicle without that same option.
Best to let him explain it.
I don't know about Bob, but for purposes of this thread, I'm even willing to overlook the visibility issues of the Rogue, CR-V and the rest of the new breed with the sloping rear windows.
...And as I've said before, I see a lot of RAV4 V6s on the road—and I'd probably see an equal amount of CRV V6s, if offered.
As to design vs. mechanicals? I look at the complete package first. Then I look at the specific areas, be it design/styling and/or mechanicals.
Finally, my blog entry on the Rogue was more of a "news announcement," rather than a "critical review." I will say this: Now that you mention it, a V6 option would certainly be frosting on the cake.
Bob
Frankly, I can't wait for this trend to die. It won't be missed by me one bit.
Bob
2) Corporate Nissan grill treatment (Tribeca?) yuck..
3) CVT transmission.
Otherwise, styling is excellent..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
When I took a Murano out for a spin, the CVT itself didn't bother me. The problem was the thrashy V6 running at a constant rpm. If their I4 is smooth enough, then the CVT wouldn't be a problem in my book. If not, then numbers 3 and 1 on your list are the same issue.
Hmm... it would appear that Ed Hellwig, Edmunds' Senior Editor, is more in to form over function
Unfortunately I think this trend will be here for a while. The car makers seem to think that poor rearward visibility isn't a problem, they just add on back-up sensors and or a camera. Personally, if I want'd to drive a bus I'd buy a bus :mad:
-Frank
Otherwise the Rogue is of interest to me.
The cvt, electric power streering, fold flat seats, and no spare on a swing open door sounds just like the right ticket.
But then Nissan quality............
okay, i admit...when i first saw the '07 CR-Vs, i hated the downward sweep of the side glass. but, it's kinda grown on me. my friends say it reminds them of a cross between a volvo XC90 and a mercedes R-class
I guess I should clarify then: by rearward, I'm also including the left & right rear quarters (aka blind spots).
-Frank
It is a danger to everyone on the road not to have a clear sight line.
The blind spot caused by the CR-V's downward-slopping window starts about 4 feet off the ground and extends upward.
If you're merging, changing lanes, or even back up in a parking lot, you are probably not going to be concerned with things floating 4 feet in the air. At least, until hover craft become popular transports on our roads.
Instead, you're going to be looking for cars, poles, people, and such. All of which have substantial links to the ground via gravity. The downward-sloping window grants a view of the ground.
So, if a car is at your 5 o'clock while you are attempting to change lanes, you will see it's tires, fenders, and windows. You probably will not see if they have a Thule rack on their roof, but that information probably won't help you decide whether or not you should complete the lane change.
The upward-sloping windows cause the rear problems. They provide a view of the sky, but obscure things on the ground.
Is that any more clear?
Coincidently, just got this month's CR and while they gave the new CR-V excellent marks overall, they also dinged the more aero-dynamic look for reducing the cargo capacity and rearward visibility :P
-Frank
I don't see the rear view issue as being a safety problem because you can see those things which might cause accidents. However, looking out a port hole is never as pleasant as looking out a wall-sized sheet of glass.
So, from an aesthetics point of view, the rear glass IS an issue. That didn't seem to be the issue in this discussion, though.
interesting, especially since the previously-generation CR-V had 33.5 cu. feet of cargo capacity and the '07 has 35.7...that's 2.2 cu. ft. more.
regarding old vs. new rearward visibility, i find that interesting too. my sister has an '05 and we were comparing them side-by-side over christmas. the tailgate-mounted spare tire in her '05 really blocks the view out the back and to the right. her A pillar is thicker too as is the pillar between the rear seat and the cargo area.
Of course, not all cargo is rigid and box-shaped, but it is interesting as another data point.
Varmint's ref to the rectangular box measurement system is no doubt the culprit. They did specifically blame the sloping rear roof line for reducing the cargo capacity.
-Frank