Author Topic: new model RAV4 V6 fuel economy seems too good to believe (Read 27798 times)

jonl · « **on:** December 30, 2005, 01:59:26 pm »

The new model Toyota RAV4 V6 AWD fuel economy data seems too good to believe. How can a 268 HP 4x4 sport utility, enlarged nearly to the size of a Highlander, and capable of accelerating to the speed limit in under 7 seconds possibly get 11.1 / 7.8 mileage? My 2004, 4-cylinder Impreza TS (auto) has averaged 10.35L/100 km in mixed but mostly city driving over 28 months. I recognize that unlike my Subaru's average, the RAV4 figures are not real world fuel economy, but still...

Is it that the 4 cylinder is working so hard to move the new, larger vehicle that the V6 moves without much effort?

I always thought that vehicles which normally operate in FWD, with on-demand 4WD, rather than full-time AWD to be at a disadvantage in perforamnce & handling, but I've never driven one more than a short distance, and only under ideal conditions. Or my impression of on-demand 4WD just proof that Subaru's marketing has worked on me?

Craig · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2005, 07:51:49 pm »

Know what confuses me? My dad's 4Runner V6 gets under 12L/100km. Most of the cars I've driven average about the rated city fuel economy, which would be 11L in the case of the new Rav4 - exactly where I would have expected it.

Subaru, as much as I like them, have never been a fuel economy leader. Toyota and Honda in particular have worked some real wonders in fuel economy. Some Nissan models are in the same category.

dedemo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2005, 10:27:19 pm »

Well, if its like the Sienna, Toyota announce 12.4L/100km in city and peoples cannot get better than 15L/100km even 16 and 17... go visit this Sienna forums 2 minutes to feel the frustration of the owners of Sienna 2004 and up there.

You will read lot of complaints about fuel consumption especially in the city. Some of you will say it depends how you drive... lot of owners tried everything and are still enoid about their consumption in city. These are not rumors, it come directly from owners. So let me be sceptical with what the announce with the RAV-4.

http://www.siennaclub.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=702&st=250

FrostyCarbon · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:17:08 am »

Our Sienna gets 13L/100 km city driving @ usually 60-80 km/h.
I was surprised @ the RAV4 fuel numbers as well. Time will tell.

dedemo · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2005, 01:51:06 pm »

Good for you Frosty if you succeed to get 13L/100km in city. Maybe you should go to this forum and give some advice to owners whom cannot reach this kind of fuel consumption.

swishguy · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2005, 04:34:20 pm »

My 05 Saturn Vue AWD with the honda 255 hp 3.5 V6 gets about 32-33 mpg hi-way at 100 kmh. At 110 it drops to 28-30 mpg. I can believe those figures from Toyota alltho I had a 97 rav 4 with Auto that got 23 mpg hiway in the winter.

articsteve · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2006, 03:06:18 pm »

New generation of engine components. Oil will be dino 0W20 special order.

Trainman · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2006, 11:48:29 pm »

Quote from: dedemo on December 30, 2005, 10:27:19 pm

Well, if its like the Sienna, Toyota announce 12.4L/100km in city and peoples cannot get better than 15L/100km even 16 and 17... go visit this Sienna forums 2 minutes to feel the frustration of the owners of Sienna 2004 and up there.

You will read lot of complaints about fuel consumption especially in the city. Some of you will say it depends how you drive... lot of owners tried everything and are still enoid about their consumption in city. These are not rumors, it come directly from owners. So let me be sceptical with what the announce with the RAV-4.

http://www.siennaclub.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=702&st=250

Our 04 Sienna CE averages 34 MPG (about 8-9 l/100 km) on the highway (Coquihalla at 110 km/hr), has gotten as high as 36 MPG. Lowest on the highway has been 29 (full load of family and camping gear going over Rogers Pass). I have been on that Sienna board and know some have issues, but not us.

I had good economy with my only other Toyota, a 1985 Corolla. Got 60 MPG on one tank on a trip to the US in 85, averaged 51 MPG for a 3,000 km trip.

I also get good fuel mileage on my Pathfinder (25 MPG highway over 1,300 km), so must be the way I drive.

random006 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2006, 11:56:24 pm »

It looks like the new RAV 4 will have the same engine as the newly redesigned Avalon. The engine is an all aluminum block with dual variable valve timing, ...

According to one reviewer on a show I saw today (sorry can't remember the name) the new engine is quite a performer. I agree that the numbers posted by the various organizations and the car makers themselves leave something to be desired but they are in the right ball park.

The Toyota web site has the following numbers:

Engine:
3.5 Litre 6-Cylinder Aluminum Alloy Block VVT-i Sequential Multiport Electronic Fuel Injection Heavy Duty Battery Starter Alternator and Heater Stainless Steel Exhaust System Compression Ratio - 10.8:1 Horsepower [kW] - 269 [201] @ 6200 rpm Torque [N.m] - 246 [333] lb.ft. @ 4700 rpm

sirAQUAMAN64 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2006, 05:46:13 pm »

I'm waiting for some real-world figures as well.

The numbers from that engine are mighty impressive indeed.

is300sportcross · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2006, 08:41:18 pm »

Toyota's fuel economy ratings seem very exagerated to me.

We have a 2005 Highlander, I had a 2002 IS300 and now a 2006 IS250 and they all get the same fuel economy. For a 60l tank I am hard pressed to get more than 450kms to a tank in each of them despite the ratings.

The HL is rated at 12.7/9.0
The IS300 was a paltry 13.1/9.3
and the true offender is the new IS 10.5/7.4, it only has 1700kms on it so it may get better, but I always complained about how bad the IS300 was...I was very surprised to see this.

In short...I would say the RAV ratings are WAY off.

ericthejet · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2006, 08:33:29 am »

Perhaps we all suffer from data overload.
Seems just too easy to compare apples with apples these days.

dedemo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2006, 01:34:02 pm »

Trainman, since the beginning, I am talking about complaints for fuel consumption from Sienna's owners in the city. You mentionned all your ratings except those in city???

I know Toyota are doing good on highway. The difference comes from what happened in the city!!! This is why I am very sceptical about Toyota rating in city.

UmroAyyar · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2006, 02:34:50 pm »

MY 2002 Corolla is rated at 9/6.7. In the city I never got below 10L/100. 50/50 Highway/City usually comes about 7.5L/100km.

I second dedemo.

Trainman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:09:11 pm »

Quote from: dedemo on January 06, 2006, 01:34:02 pm

Trainman, since the beginning, I am talking about complaints for fuel consumption from Sienna's owners in the city. You mentionned all your ratings except those in city???

I know Toyota are doing good on highway. The difference comes from what happened in the city!!! This is why I am very sceptical about Toyota rating in city.

We live in a small town in the southern interior of BC (pop of 6,500), "city" is foreign to us. 3 km is the drive to work, 80 km drive to see a movie in the closest city so we have almost no data on "city" fuel consumption.

On the Sienna web site mentioned, the fuel economy complaints are for both city and highway, so I thought posting our highway numbers might have been informative but I guess not. Sorry, will be better behaved next time.

Benhaze · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2006, 06:07:13 pm »

Quote from: jonl on December 30, 2005, 01:59:26 pm

The new model Toyota RAV4 V6 AWD fuel economy data seems too good to believe. How can a 268 HP 4x4 sport utility, enlarged nearly to the size of a Highlander, and capable of accelerating to the speed limit in under 7 seconds possibly get 11.1 / 7.8 mileage? My 2004, 4-cylinder Impreza TS (auto) has averaged 10.35L/100 km in mixed but mostly city driving over 28 months. I recognize that unlike my Subaru's average, the RAV4 figures are not real world fuel economy, but still...

Is it that the 4 cylinder is working so hard to move the new, larger vehicle that the V6 moves without much effort?

I always thought that vehicles which normally operate in FWD, with on-demand 4WD, rather than full-time AWD to be at a disadvantage in perforamnce & handling, but I've never driven one more than a short distance, and only under ideal conditions. Or my impression of on-demand 4WD just proof that Subaru's marketing has worked on me?

The fuel economy ratings have nothing to do with the 0-100 km/h time. The maximum acceleration rate used to determine the fuel economy ratings translate in about a 0-100 km/h of 18 seconds!!! That is one of the reason why the official numbers are way off from real life experience.

mp3butt · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:06:07 pm »

Car and Driver reports 16 MPG on mountain roads for V6 limited. Go figure. I can't wait for the result from CR.

Watchdog · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2006, 01:39:16 am »

I'm thinking of buting a RAV4 and I also have a hard time believing the fuel consumption figures. Can't wait to hear actual results from owner's.

Arctic_White · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2006, 02:34:47 am »

Quote from: UmroAyyar on January 06, 2006, 02:34:50 pm

MY 2002 Corolla is rated at 9/6.7. In the city I never got below 10L/100. 50/50 Highway/City usually comes about 7.5L/100km.

I second dedemo.

Perhaps it's the way you drive? Toyotas, from my experience, have had stellar fuel economy.

I drove mostly city when I used to drive our 2000 Corolla (same VVT-i engine as your 2002 Model Year), and I consistently got 7.8/L100 km's.

On highways (speed being 90 - 100km/h), got around 6.2L/100 km's.

My all-time average was 7.5xL/100 km's, and about 75% of it was pure city driving.

UmroAyyar · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2006, 08:52:26 am »

Quote from: PWP_6MT on November 20, 2006, 02:34:47 am

Quote from: UmroAyyar on January 06, 2006, 02:34:50 pm
MY 2002 Corolla is rated at 9/6.7. In the city I never got below 10L/100. 50/50 Highway/City usually comes about 7.5L/100km.

I second dedemo.

Perhaps it's the way you drive? Toyotas, from my experience, have had stellar fuel economy.

I drove mostly city when I used to drive our 2000 Corolla (same VVT-i engine as your 2002 Model Year), and I consistently got 7.8/L100 km's.

On highways (speed being 90 - 100km/h), got around 6.2L/100 km's.

My all-time average was 7.5xL/100 km's, and about 75% of it was pure city driving.

Yes, it turned out to be that, mostly my driving. My commute was horrible as well, one hour in rush hour going through 45 traffic signals, a lot of idling and slow moving traffic as well. I moved to downtown core now, less driving, changed the car to 2007 Camry, spend less time driving in rush hour now.