CRV or Rav4?

[silver]

A freind of mine is vascillating between a CRV and a RAV4 - any comments on which may be the better vehicle?

[Mitlov]

A freind of mine is vascillating between a CRV and a RAV4 - any comments on which may be the better vehicle?

The RAV4 offers much more interior space and slightly better fuel economy (per EPA ratings).  Based upon having been in both, the RAV4 has better interior materials.  From what I've read, the CRV might be slightly more engaging to drive, but both strike me as dull as oatmeal, so I wouldn't hold that factor as determinative.  If it was me, and I was your typical non-enthusiast, the RAV4 would win by a mile.

[Juke1]

Well having been in both as well I say to the contrary as Honda having far better matrials, the RAV has a lot of road noise.  The RAV I was in was well broken in at 40k and was very rattly, for a vehicle that appears to be bigger it does not give a better ride.  The CRV engine was smooth, the vehicle felt well put together.

[rrocket]

The RAV4...for the AWESOME V6 engine.  It flat out hauls to 60 in a sport-car like 6.3 seconds.  As Mitlov said...SUV are generally a bit dull to drive.  At least you can find some amusement with the great Toyota V6....

[mmorriso]

new or used?

details on intended use may elicite more helpful advice as well as price range.

shopped around in this class in 08, it came down to a RAV4 or SanteFe.  RAV4 won.  08 Limited trim 4 cyl...less expensive than V6 and fit needs (no towing, fully loaded, or spirited driving).  The 09s have 2wd option now that might be good if AWD is not required. 

RAV4 - only gripe is the swing out door in the back, would prefer hatch.  4 speed auto is very smooth.

CRV - could not live with that front end, although not as bad in some colours.

both are very versitile vehicles although neither have manual transmission option.

RAV4 has fold flat 2nd row while CRVs tumble forward.

thoroughly test drive both...finding a winner based on personal preference should be relatively easy.

budget for winter tires.

also, check out a pre-owned Lexus RX330.

happy hunting!

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Neither. Forester, '10 Equinox, or Tiguan 


(between the two in question, prefer the CR-V although the RAV4 V6 engine is killer and Toyota pricing is decent value these days)

[ovr50]

The RAV4...for the AWESOME V6 engine.  It flat out hauls to 60 in a sport-car like 6.3 seconds.  As Mitlov said...SUV are generally a bit dull to drive.  At least you can find some amusement with the great Toyota V6....

+1. The RAV4 for sure.

[tortoise]

Neither. Forester, '10 Equinox, or Tiguan 

What he said.

[overtakeyouintheleftlane]

I'd take the Rav4 as I would prefer a V6 for that kind of vehicle. I've been a passenger in both cars and the CRV seems under-powered in my opinion.

[Trainman]

When I bought my Forester last fall, I cross shopped them all and to be honest, for what I needed, both the CR-V and RAV4 went off my list rather quickly due to their relatively poor AWD system.  i needed something I could count on in the woods and the slip 'n grip systems as used in these do not cut it for me.

However, given only these 2 choices, based on what I saw during my research, I would chose the RAV4 over the CR-V.  Why?  Better value and and better motor, at least in the V6.

But there are other choices, for less money too.  For example the base Forester $25,995, the RAV4 AWD is $26,980 and the CR-V AWD is $29,790 according to the manufactures Canadian web pages.  The RAV4 and CR-V can be had in 2wd versions for less while the Forester is AWD only.

[carcrazy]

Given only the 2 choices (none of them would be my first choice though), I'd go for a RAV4, preferably with the V6.

[TopGun]

Chevy Equinox! 

http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,63346.0/topicseen.html

"Neither of the Japanese-branded cars came close to Equinox in power output or fuel consumption, neither offers a six-speed transmission, nor – standard sunroofs apart – anywhere near the equipment level of Equinox."

"The RAV4's interior was also very plain, and not as well-finished as that of the Equinox. Road noise was more pronounced...The Honda was nicer inside than the Toyota, although not to the luxury level of Equinox."

This from - http://www.wheels.ca/article/764593

[Honda Owner]

I priced a an Escape 4 cylinder 5 speed on the website yesterday and it was $20k and change. That is a fantastic price for such a well equipped car. With that ground clearance and some good snow tires, AWD is unnecessary, for me anyway. The RAV 4 is built in Canada if that affects your buying decisions.

[mmorriso]

^Fusion?

[safristi]

^COLD ?.


     C&D or maybe one of the other rags in a 6/8 car shootout in N Michigan OFF roads and ON......Voted the Rav 4 & CRV tops...............equally i believe.................the super 6 in the Toyota is prolly a few $k's more and Do'h more thirsty BUT lots MORE FUN.............



 try the others suggested ...maybe U LIKE?................Happy Motoring.

[sparky]

RAV4 - only gripe is the swing out door in the back, would prefer hatch. 

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would prefer an overhead hatch to a side-hinged tailgate. The swing-out door can be closed with your butt -- no need to lay down the armload of groceries or gear you've just taken out of the cargo area. The outside-mounted spare tire saves space inside. And if you have to change a tire you don't have to unpack all your stuff and lay it on the road to get at the spare. Having owned both, I can't think of a single signiificant advantage to the overhead hatch. The hatch was one of the few things I didn't like about my X-Trail.

[Shnak]

I've had vehicles with both setups and I prefer the hatch. It gets out of the way quicker when you open it (you don't have to move around the door swinging open), the vehicle looks better without a big ugly tire hanging at the back, and it allows more flexibility to carry big items. I had to keep the hatch open to carry two halves of a king-sized boxspring, there's no way I could have done this with a swing-out door...

For me, the best possible configuration is hatch with flip-up window and spare tire inside under the cargo floor.

That said, I would probably still purchase a vehicle if it had a swing-out door if I liked everything else. But given the choice, no questions about it, I prefer the hatch.

[mmorriso]

+ hatch provides some protection from the elements (rain or snow) when loading or unloading

[sparky]

i ...  prefer the hatch. It gets out of the way quicker when you open it (you don't have to move around the door swinging open), the vehicle looks better without a big ugly tire hanging at the back, and it allows more flexibility to carry big items.

I'll concede that a hatch makes it easier to drive with your tailgate open on the few occasions when that evil becomes necessary. But as for convenience, you have to back away, about the same distance, to let either type of rear door open. And when you park on an upslope, which I do at my camp, you can get a nasty bump on the head, since your "overhead" hatch ceases to be overhead.
As for the "ugly" outside spare, I guess ugly's in the eye of the beholder. I think it looks appropriate on an SUV-style vehicle. And to my eye, the CRV is ugly from its weird grille all the way back to its bizarrely shaped rear side windows.
The first time you have to unload a week's worth of camping gear -- probably in the rain -- to get at your spare, you may rethink your preference for keeping it under the load floor.

[Trainman]

i ...  prefer the hatch. It gets out of the way quicker when you open it (you don't have to move around the door swinging open), the vehicle looks better without a big ugly tire hanging at the back, and it allows more flexibility to carry big items.

I'll concede that a hatch makes it easier to drive with your tailgate open on the few occasions when that evil becomes necessary. But as for convenience, you have to back away, about the same distance, to let either type of rear door open. And when you park on an upslope, which I do at my camp, you can get a nasty bump on the head, since your "overhead" hatch ceases to be overhead.
As for the "ugly" outside spare, I guess ugly's in the eye of the beholder. I think it looks appropriate on an SUV-style vehicle. And to my eye, the CRV is ugly from its weird grille all the way back to its bizarrely shaped rear side windows.
The first time you have to unload a week's worth of camping gear -- probably in the rain -- to get at your spare, you may rethink your preference for keeping it under the load floor.

Actually you can be closer with a swing up hatch than a swing out door.  If you have a swing out rear door, you would have to park nearly the width of the door away; for example on the Forester I can park 18" and get the hatch fully up, if it was a swing out style, it would have to be around 47" to fully open it (the hatch is 56" at its widest, so my measurement assumes some sort of hinge that is interior to the vehicle).  It would be almost unusable in our garage if it was that way.

And I have parked on hills and had no problems with a hatch but lots of problems with doors, side or rear, staying open.

I do agree with having out side access to the spare, the Pathfinder had it underneath the cargo area, accessible from the outside while the Forester has access from the inside.