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?

11011121315

Comments

  • rochcomrochcom Member Posts: 247
    With my 1998 Forester S at 134,000 miles, I have been looking for a replacement. I want to see the new Forester before making a decision though, so I am trying to hold out until then. I looked at both the Tucson and the Sante Fe. The big turnoff for me is the fuel economy. The Tucson, with a smaller engine than Forester, gets poorer mileage, even with front wheel drive. Add in 4WD and there is no comparison. The 6 cylinder is worse, and the Santa Fe, even worse. Also, try getting anything other than a base model of any Subaru competitor with a manual transmission. I do like the warranties though: 5yrs/60k overall, 10yrs/100K on the drivetrain.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Sedona/Entourage van is on my list of minivans I'm considering (yeah, I know, I'm all over the place) and the only serious kink in their armor is the fuel mileage. They are thoroughly competent everywhere else.

    I guess resale, too, but it's hard to predict what residuals will be a decade from now, since I plan to keep it a long time.

    The SF tested well in CR (as did all 3 entries in the thread title).
  • stevecarstevecar Member Posts: 148
    Resale isn't really an issue if you're looking 10 years out.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Not a big one, no, but even my 9 year old Forester is getting $5550. I've had 3 callers already and 2 test drivers. Might be sold by the weekend. :shades:

    I kinda doubt I could get that kind of money for, say, a 1998 Kia Sportage. Maybe a grand or two.

    So it matters much less, but it still matters some.
  • stevecarstevecar Member Posts: 148
    Good point. I got 8,000 for my 7year old forrester on a trade-in.
    If that's the case, all Hyundai/Kia products are only worth it if you drive them until the wheels fall off or if you get (as is usually the case)a terrific buy on a new one.
    I guess that's the reason they are worth so much less after a few years. Or at least one of the reasons.
    Then again, I'd hate to see the condition of a 10 year old Sportage.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Always consider resale. You never know when your situation may change. And if you crash the car, most insurance policies will reimburse based on the current value of the car.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah. :D

    To be fair the Santa Fe has made leaps and bounds from that Sportage (it was pre Hyundai ownership, too).
  • stevecarstevecar Member Posts: 148
    The point about the insurance company paying on current value of the car is not publicized enough. This can also cause cars to be "totalled" by the insurance company a lot faster. It still boils down to the fact that certain cars gain a reputation for low or high depreciation and maintain that reputation for years. I test drove the Sante Fe and it was terrific. I wanted better gas mileage so we bought the CRV. However, as Hyundai continues to sell its cars well below sticker, their resale will continue to lag.
    The general public does not take all of these factors into account and happily enjoy driving Hyundais and unless there is a depreciation(total accident, stolen car, having to trade in etc) issue they are perfectly fine.
  • marig0107marig0107 Member Posts: 92
    Always consider resale. You never know when your situation may change. And if you crash the car, most insurance policies will reimburse based on the current value of the car.

    that is a good point. We had not thought about that too hard when we got our CRV. At the time, I was driving a very unreliable caravan so my main concern was having a reliable brand and Honda was it.

    Now I am finding so many more reasons to love my CRV. Thanx one and all :)
  • rochcomrochcom Member Posts: 247
    "However, as Hyundai continues to sell its cars well below sticker, their resale will continue to lag."

    If the original price is low enough, it may make up for the poor resale value at the other end, esprcially if it is kept a long time. The extended warranty (5/60 total, 10/100 drivetrain) makes that more likely. But for me, the gas mileage is the sticking point. It can greatly impact the cost of ownership, particularly if prices keep rising above the inflation rate.
  • drwoodrdrwoodr Member Posts: 88
    My insurance pays for a new car for the first 2 years of ownership, so everyone should check their policy on this.

    While resale value is something to consider, it is just one of many factors. Getting an extra grand at trade in doesn't mean much if you don't enjoy driving your vehicle for the next several years.
  • drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    True. But I also look at it the opposite. If I pay a little more for a vehicle and keep it a long time the extra cost works out to less than a dollar a day (way less based on how long I keep a vehicle). For a reliable vehicle from a proven automaker that doesn't seem so bad.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think we can all agree that the best strategy is simply "buy what you love".

    If you prefer the Hyundai when its new, and pay more for depreciation, so what? You got a vehicle you liked better, and it's worth it. Why would you buy a car you didn't like (unless affordability was an issue)?

    Residuals are often quoted at a % of MSRP. That's fine, but it's misleading.

    For example, let's say you paid $25k for a Mini Cooper when they first came out, to be the first on the block. Retail was $20k. Resale in 2 years might be $18k. Sounds great.

    The books will say it retained 90% of its value. Incredible. But it only retained 72% of the actual price you paid, and that is the *only* thing that matters.

    The converse is also true. If you get a $20k vehicle (list price) for $16k, and residual after 2 years is just 60%, or $12k. Thing is, it only cost you $4k in depreciation. About half what the Mini Cooper cost that first-on-the-block sucker who simply overpaid.

    Doing this sort of math required lots of assumptions, so that's why I say look at residuals, sure, but it's pretty secondary to liking the vehicle more.
  • prndldriverprndldriver Member Posts: 21
    Just had to post that Consumer Reports looks at several 'smaller' SUVs including the Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue. The Forester, in both XT and X versions, came out on top and is a recommended pick. In fact, CR says it is now recommending the Forester over its previous top pick, which was the Toyota Rav 4.

    I am glad that perhaps CR finally realized the rear end on the Rav 4 is not practical for many people.

    The Forester may not be the coolest looking SUV out there, but it is pretty solid and has the kinds of things that CR says it's looking for.

    As for resale value, I would think that the CR article could only help the Forester and probably the Outlander.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    FWIW, I don't think they downgraded the RAV4, it's just that the Forester scored higher (turbo > V6, non-turbo > 4 banger).

    To me the rear visibility and wrong-way opening rear door were turn offs, but if you read the CR review they barely glance over that stuff.
  • richk6richk6 Member Posts: 87
    Here are CR online test videos of the small suvs from the aug 08 issue, including the new Forester.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road-test/small-suvs/videos-small-s- uvs/small-suvs-videos.htm
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Holy cow, man, that's a rave review if I've ever seen one!

    Interesting to hear that the 5 speed manual model was both quicker and more fuel efficient (24mpg is their best in class for a non-hybrid).

    The better 4 bangers get 22mpg, and the automatic matched those, but the manual blew them away.
  • jopopsyjopopsy Member Posts: 65
    Hey Gang,

    I've been reading that the double wishbone suspension in the new 09 Forester handles more 'sloppy' then the outgoing strut design. I took a 09 for a test drive and really couldn't tell a differance in the handling from my old 05.

    Does anybody notice sloppier handling? Does the newer Forester handle more poorly then a CR-V? I always associated Subaru's with handling - this would be a first for me if the Honda does it better.

    ???
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Background - I owned a 1998 L model for 9 years, and we now own a 2009 X Limited.

    I completely disagree with that theory.

    The old one had struts all around, and the biggest difference is that it was softer. It took a while to settle down in a turn. Not bouncy in an SUV sort of way, just more softly sprung.

    The new rear suspension was derived from the Tribeca, and that plus all the other changes resulted in a Forester that rolls a lot less and feels firmer (the opposite of sloppy IMHO). You'll notice the reduced body roll on a test drive, and that's despite the fact that ground clearance is up more than an inch. The whole vehicle sits a bit higher.

    The trade-off is a little bit more impact harshness. If you hit a bump you feel it a bit more than in the '98. An enthusiast might see this as more feedback and even consider that a positive, but we use it as a family car so I wanted to note that you do feel the initial impact of the bumps more. Overall it has more suspension travel, though.

    I think it handles as well as any other compact crossover out there. MT just named it SUV of the year.
  • amiller1amiller1 Member Posts: 13
    Trying to decide between the two which is better in the snow and sleet if both had excellent tires on them. This is important to me in deciding which to buy, I live in the mountains and get a fair amount of snow, sleet and ice. thanks for your help and input
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I would say the Forester is better in the snow since it has a much more sophisticated AWD system, if they both had the same tires.
  • bj02176bj02176 Member Posts: 115
    Actually the 2005 Ford Escape, with Goodyear Tripletreds.

    I had a 2003 Forester, the abs on this thing along with the tires sucked, while good in deep snow the rest of the time I felt unsafe. Slid across a major street from a side st, couldn't stop.

    My first generation CRV (can't remember the year) was good along with my gas hog 2007 Santa Fe which I traded for a 2008 CRV. Got the 2008 CRV last March so don't know how good it will be. Replaced the original tires with some Nokians just recently.

    Contrary to poplular believe there is no pull to the left or right. No rear diff noise at 12,000 miles, maybe at 15, but who knows.

    Traded the Forester for a 2003 Honda Accord, the dealer didn't want to take the Forester.

    However maybe the 2009 is an improvement, still no 5 speed auto though and the gas mileage is better on the 2008 CRV than the 2003 Forester.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Yes, you're correct ---- however good the AWD system is, it won't help you stop better!

    And the 4-speed auto would be an instant deal-breaker for me too. But amiller1 was only asking about the snow-trekking ability.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually the 4 speed auto on our Forester is one of the best things about it. The transmission picks the right gear, shifts quickly and smoothly, and is generally very responsive. Plus it has SportShift if you feel the need to control it manually.

    That 4 speed is ten better than the 5 speed auto in my Toyota. No contest. You can't just count the number of gears, there's so much more to it than that.

    In the snow, between a new Forester and CR-V, I would opt for the Subaru because it has more ground clearance plus a more sophisticated full-time AWD system.

    Tires are absolutely the #1 factor so a set of snow tires would sway the advantage either way.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    No doubt some 4-sp will work perfectly fine. I had a rental RAV4 with the 4-sp auto that I thought was perfectly ok. But there is just something about buying decade-old technology. :(
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Like I said, I'll take decade-old technology that works over newer technology that is better on paper but isn't as good ... in practice.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    But think of how much more efficient the Subie's powertrain would be with a 5, or 6-sp auto. :) I mean, no one's complaining about the 5-sp in auto in the Legacy and Outback.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Kurt did - he compared 09 Forester and Outbacks closely. The trans was one of his beefs with the OB, at least compared to the Forester.

    All things equal, more gears are better, absolutely. I'll take 5, 6, whatever. Just add ratios without losing the shifts and programming that it has now.

    To be honest Subaru will likely go with a CVT instead, like Nissan has done. They share suppliers on a lot of things.

    I'm a fan of manual transmission, but I actually have to admit I *like* the 4EAT in my wife's Forester. I've only said that about one other automatic, ever in my life - my buddy's Porsche Boxster Tiptronic.
  • 10years10years Member Posts: 48
    The OEM Geolander tires on Subarus only have a B traction rating and are especially poor in wet or slick conditions. If you go with Subaru then work with your dealer to swap them out before taking delivery. If you’re just visiting Tahoe then good all-season tires may be okay but you should always carry chains otherwise true snow tires should be used up there. In Tahoe because of traffic or weather conditions extra horsepower is not much of a consideration.

    Speaking from experience in the Reno to Carson City commute I can tell you that my 03 Forester X has saved my butt several times in terms of excellent braking, handling/maneuverability under braking, very good visibility without a camera, and excellent AWD capabilities in fair and foul weather. The car has 90K miles with zero problems and performs as good as new still. I find the power delivery to be good enough and not what I’d call sluggish.

    All three on your short list would be good. Remember that Subaru is full time AWD while the other two are FWD biased with reactive AWD.

    Just my 2 cents.
  • driverboydriverboy Member Posts: 8
    Thanks for your input! I agree that the Subaru AWD is better than the competition. I think I'll go drive the Subaru once more :-)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If you're looking at the V6 RAV4, why not test drive a Forester XT?

    We wanted the best possible mileage and range, so we looked at base 4 cylinder engines. The Forester has the biggest gas tank in this class (16.9 gallons, surprisingly enough the same size as the Tribeca!) combined with good mileage, and before you say Escape Hybrid that interior didn't come close to meeting my standards (we actually looked at the Mercury version).

    Any how, with expectations for that class, I found the Forester very responsive. We did get the 175hp PZEV model, which is $300 or so extra, but you get 5hp plus it's cleaner and greener. In PZEV states the emissions warranty covers your catalytic converter for 150k miles, too.

    That base engine has fairly high compression and AVCS valve timing, plus shorter gearing than the Forester XT, so we actually find it responsive. Specifically you feel it move immediately as you hit the gas pedal. It's not fast, but merely quick and responsive, if I'm explaining it properly.

    I have that V6/5 speed powertrain from the RAV4 in my minivan, and it's the opposite. It takes a bit longer to respond, especially for the transmission to pick the right gear, but once it does, it's quite fast. So not as responsive, but faster once you get going.

    I hope that's clear.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    For me personally, the RAV4 offers a hard-to-beat combination of looks, size, utility, performance, technology, amenities, value and reliability. I'm not saying it stands out in any one particular area, but viewed as a total package, it seems to offer the most appealing compromise.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I think the 2009 XT now takes it in the looks, utility, performance, and reliability. Value and of course looks are in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the RAV4 has more options, but more isn't necessarily better.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I liked the powertrain but the wrong-way rear door pushed me into a Sienna. I actually wanted something bigger anyway.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "I actually wanted something bigger"

    Did you consider the Highlander? That would be essentially a bigger RAV4, without going all the way to a minivan. And you could also have one hybrid with the Highlander.
  • enolienoli Member Posts: 2
    just bought a 09 rav4. went to dealer with subaru and toyotas. drove both forester and rav4 in spokane with a fresh coat of 8' of snow on top of all the other snow and the worst snow conditions in 20 + years. Either vehicle would do you well in the snow. I felt the rav4 performed better. The traction control device works well and the locking 4 wheel drive feature is good when needed. I felt at times the foresters rearend slid out a little more when cornering (tracked 8" powder). we live 40 miles north of spokane in the mountains and our driveway is more than anyone on this forum would dare tackle in the winter. The rav4 climbed up our steep driveway with the undercarage dragging in 10" of snow straight from the dealers.

    Compare the interior look of the forester and rav4 and the forester looks cheaper. lighter thinner material and not as comfortable. good luck. forester or rav4 are both good.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I did. The 3rd row didn't split fold, and it didn't really stand out to me. I also drove a CX9 and a Tribeca.

    Not to mention, the Sienna is cheaper and much bigger than the HL. So you get more for less $, much better value.

    The fact that minivans' image is bad helped me tremendously - you get great deals on them.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Some of the impact harshness comes from the Geolander tires (the Outback's Bridgestones are worse). Switching to all season winter-rated Nokians on my '09 Forester reduced the impact harshness considerably.

    Some reviewers say the XT leans a lot in turns. I've found it less of a leaner than the Outback XT or my former Malibu Maxx. Still, a vehicle sitting that high off the ground is going to lean more than something close to the road! ;)

    As for the topic here:
    I tried all 3 vehicles.
    The CR-V had a nice interior but was sluggish for passing. My experience with an Accord "lemon" and attorney comments that Honda remains a nightmare wrt lemons was final turnoff.
    The RAV4 V6 was peppy and has the highest fuel efficiency, but felt front heavy and made lots of noise on Oregons' badly worn freeways. The rear end door was clumsy, and its AWD system raised some doubts.
    The '09 Forester XT seemed a good compromise of the three and has proven very capable in bad weather, though I now wish Subaru had used better plastics and more durable paint inside.
  • rengawrengaw Member Posts: 22
    My wife and I got it down to the Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4 (4 cyl), Hyundai Sante Fe. We didn't care for the Honda CRV's looks.

    We mapped out a half-hour course of 4 lane highway driving, twisty roads, hill climbs and drove each vehicle an hour apart with no salesmen on board. We split the driving.

    We were quite surprised how different each vehicle was to drive. It was hard to say a bad thing against any of them. But in the final analysis we both, without a doubt, liked the RAV4 the best. The RAV had the most road noise and some would say the roughest ride, but we both preferred the RAV ride to the other vehicles and thought it handled the best.

    We were surprised that the RAV 2.5 I4 motor at 179hp seemed much peppier than the 175 hp Forester. The 2009 2.5 I4 has added 13 hp over the previous year while getting 12.8% improvement in fuel economy. Funny thing though, Toyota not only reworked the I4 motor for 2009 but also the auto tranny too was done over and Toyota decided to stay with the 4 speed auto. You read alot of criticism about the 4 speed autos on both Subaru and Toyota forums but the new RAV 2.5 I4 with the 4 speed auto tranny gets a couple miles per gallon better than the CRV with the 5 speed. Go figure.

    Of course, now that my wife and I have decided to purchase the RAV, there is the temptation to go with the V6 motor which gets close to the I4 in highway miles and has 90 more horsepower.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I have had plenty of wheel-time with rental Corollas and RAV4, and have always been impressed with the amount of usable power that Toyota manages to wring out of its 4-cyl engines, especially with the Corolla.
  • redrose1redrose1 Member Posts: 49
    We have the same list but we also have the Venza on ours - I am so interested in your comments - what did you think about the Santa fe? I am concerned it is too high - I prefer sitting lower and like a lower center of gravity. I too liked the Rav, but am concerned about the rear door opening and the fact that it does not have a rear bumper - if you get hit from behind...

    Please let us know your feelings!
  • rengawrengaw Member Posts: 22
    On the straight somewhat smooth highway, the Sante Fe rode quite nice, a cruiser of sorts. On the curvy undulating roads, I was uncomfortable with how the suspension controlled the ride. The RAV was the opposite. Handled real well in the curves and was a little stiff and noisy on the straights.

    A side note. Since we have decided on the RAV, our next process of decision making involves the engine we want....the 2.5 I4 or the 3.5 V6. We had driven the I4 twice, so today we wanted to try the V6. We will possibly do a little towing with our RAV and we drive alot in the Cascade and Olympic mountains.

    My wife, who is no sissy to power, drove the first leg of our run with the V6. Then I took over and on a straight stretch I punched it a bit and my wife started screaming. It was quite a surprise to both of us. My wife, the MPG freak, sat quietly for a few moments and then said, "I love this RAV with the V6." I liked both the V6 and the I4. So I am going again and drive both RAV's one more time and do some thinking.
  • bigdadi118bigdadi118 Member Posts: 1,207
    thr RAV4 V6 is a bullet... didn't consume much gas either.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The 2GR V6 is a great engine, I have the same one in my Sienna.

    Getting the V6 also gets you a 5 speed auto, but I'm not sure you'll like the transmission as much as you liked the 4 speed auto in the 4 banger, because it hesitates and lags a bit.

    I'm glad they updated the 4 banger because the V6 sort of made the prior 4 cylinder moot.
  • rengawrengaw Member Posts: 22
    I was sure I was going to buy the new 2009 Forester, but I got won over to the 2009 RAV4 primarily because of their power plants. The 2.5L, I4, with more power and better fuel economy than in previous years and the 3.5 V6 with the 5 speed tranny just wouldn't let go of me. I am now torn between the two motors, one day wanting one and the next day the other. I am presently leaning toward the V6, but the fact that the new 2.5L I4 has cut it's fuel consumption by another 2 mpg over the V6 is impressive. I believe in mixed driving you may be talking about a 3 to 4 mile per gallon difference. On the highway, which is how we drive 75% of the time, the margin would be closer.

    I was wondering, Juice, what kind of mpg you are getting with your van? And what would the weight difference be comparing the van to the RAV with the V6. I believe the RAV4 goes something like 3700lbs.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    The Rav has a lot going for it, but it's auto-trannie only, and that's a non-starter for me. Of course, that's a non-issue for most people. :P :sick:
  • kkrtrekkkrtrek Member Posts: 51
    rengaw,

    Seems like our experiences have been identical. We were 99% set on the Forester, and then the new RAV came out. Last year, the four-cylinder just did not do enough for me, either in terms of mileage or "peppiness." I didn't want the 6, so I moved on to the Forester. When the new, larger 4-cylinder came out in the RAV, I just had to try it--and I really liked it. So we got ourselves one last month.

    I'd say there is no "need" for the V6, unless you are towing regularly. If you are doing mostly highway, then the benefit of the I4 is pretty modest, except for the lower upfront cost...But you already know all this. Good luck in your choice.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Sienna has tall gearing so highway mileage can be quite good - I've broken 30mpg but that's with speeds below 60mph or so.

    My average is usually anywhere from 22 to 28 mpg or so. Not bad considering it's always hauling people or cargo or both. Mileage drops considerably if you punch it, but then again it can be a lot higher if you're a hyper-miler. YMMV.

    I'll say this - the V6 has way more than enough power for this van, I can't imagine how it would feel in the lighter RAV4. You may actually complain about substantial torque steer, especially if you get a FWD RAV4. You may even prefer the I-4 if you get FWD.

    My van is about 4300 lbs, a FWD LE 8 passenger model. You sure the RAV4 is that light? AWD V6?

    Our Forester does a bit better, but it's AWD and a 4 cylinder PZEV model. I've seen anywhere from 23mpg up to 33mpg, again that would be keeping speeds down. Overall it gets a couple of mpg better than the van, plus it's AWD, but the van is much bigger, too.
  • rengawrengaw Member Posts: 22
    That is impressive mpg on that Sienna, Juice, considering the weight it is hauling with such good power. We have a 1999 Sienna with the 3.0 V6, which is smaller and lighter than yours, and we can't come up to your numbers even with conservative driving.

    I asked a salesman at the local Toyota dealer last week what the number one complaint on the V6 RAV was. He said torque steer on the FWD model.
This discussion has been closed.