Topic: First Drive: 2013 Toyota RAV4

[Snowman]

Injecting excitement or not, Toyota din't reach its goal with Scion. Even now Toyota lies on its laurels from 90es. In that context this vehicle here is an wellcome...

   How is Toyota resting on its laurels with recent ground up redesigned Camry, Corolla, Rav4, and Avalon? All are major improvements from the previous generation. The joint venture with Subaru in the FR-S produced an affordable enthusiast sports car.

No doubt all are competent cars, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Aside from its hybrids, Toyota is not an innovator.

True dat. New Corolla isn't even out yet

It will be out soon and sell like hotcakes.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Mike , WTF the wrong with you
U should know by now you need to compare every vehicle against Hydundia or KIA and the rest be damned 

[redman]

The one excellent feature of the old Rav is gone the 6 cyl that trump many competitors 4 cyl in power and fuel economy. Why not the 6 cyl with the new 6 trans ?

The V6 did not beat 4-cylinders in fuel efficiency.  It was thirsty, as it should be being a large V6.  When we tested it against other compact crossovers, it was way behind the 4-bangers in efficiency.

Here are a few examples : The Rav 6cycl either beat many 4 cyl competitors or came very close in mpg while still having a lot more HP and torque

2012 Rav 4 3.5 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 5-spd AWD, 22mpg combined

2012 Suzuki Grand Vitara 4WD  2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 4-sp 20mpg combined

2012 Acura RDX 2.3 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (S5) combined 19mpg

2012 Volkswagen Tiguan 4motion 2.0 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 23mpg combined (close enough)

2012 Chevrolet Equinox AWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 6-spd 23mpg combined (close enough)

2012 Dodge Journey FWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 4-spd 22mpg combined
Source : http://www.fueleconomy.gov

I think Mike is talking about true competitors from the comparo.  An ancient body on frame Suzuki Grand Vitara is not a direct competitor, with low range gearing, the aerodynamics are way different, more truck like than car like.  The RDX was never known for fuel efficiency, which is why the turbo was dropped for the 2013 year.  The Equinox is 8 inches longer, weighs over 200lbs more, is far roomier, and has more cargo room than the Rav4, again not a direct competitor. 

Why not bring up the real competitors?  Like the Sante Fe, the Escape, the CR-4, the Rogue (I think it's the same size)

Real competitors...I like that. This also depends who you ask, but just the same :

2012 Toyota RAV4 4WD 3.5 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 5-spd 22mpg combined
2012 Hyundai Santa Fe 4WD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 6-spd 22mpg combined
2012 Ford Escape AWD 2.5 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 6-spd 23mpg combined
2012 Honda CRV AWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 5-spd  25mpg combined

All 4 cyl but the Rav4. Do you really think these numbers are far off, considering the Rav4's extra power and torque, all on a 5spd auto at the time.

I'd gladly take the mild fuel penalty for the added power and smoothness of the 6 cyl without second thought. This 6 cyl with the new 6 spd transmission would be unmatched.

[Noto]

^^ firstly, the V6 had a 5 speed auto, not a 4 speed...the new 6-speed Auto would likely have helped fuel economy with the V6, but at 15% uptake rate, Toyota had a fair argument. 

Let's also not forget that auto manufacturers think that Canada and the US are synonymous (jerks).  The uptake rate of 2WD Rav4s would be much higher in southern states (sans neige), but I'd expect practically non-existent in Ontario.

When I saw the media unveil on the new Rav4, I nearly cried.  I mean, good on them for trashing the 3rd row seats, but the V6 had potential.  Axing the sliding rear seats for flexibility in legroom/cargo room?  Seriously?! 

To me, the styling became very messy from what was a clean design, however bland.  I am not a fan of how the dash abruptly ends at the doors - there's just no flow.  I, however, care little for style of cars. 

I am a Subaru loyalist.  I am biased.  Toyota is a part-stake owner of Subaru.  It seems like there's a lot of competitive similarities with the new Forester (i.e. memory height rear hatch, close cargo capacities, base engine power, etc).  Toyota has thankfully updated their AWD to actually do something now, but it's still nothing to the Forester's.  The Rav4's ground clearance shows that it is a different functioning vehicle and therein lies their reasoning to get one over the other. 

Many journalists will bash the CVT in the Forester, but the fuel economy gains are staggering, and linear acceleration is nearly on par (8.9 for the FWD Rav4 - surely slower with AWD; 9.3 for the NA 2.5 Forester with CVT and standard AWD). 

For me, it's no contest...where I may have considered a Rav4 in the past because of its V6, remote rear seat folding mechanism (now both cars have it), sliding rear seats, comparatively great fuel economy with a V6 (a 1L/100km city penalty and 0.1L/100km hwy over the base 4cyl), the Rav4 has become so mid-pack, that I see nothing new/exciting about it.  It all comes together for a product that will sell to those who rely on Toyota's reputation (I helped my father purchase his Corolla, and we love it).  Still, the Forester has a high-performance version (and now with updated chassis, brakes, and suspension to match)...I think the Rav4 has become the official grocery-getter.

Without the stand-out features of the previous generation Rav4, I just don't see why this compares favourably over the most direct competitor, the 2014 Forester.

[jpd]

''2012 Honda CRV AWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 5-spd  25mpg combined''

Humm, may be with the mother of all winds fixed to the rear bumber!

[Fobroader]

Injecting excitement or not, Toyota din't reach its goal with Scion. Even now Toyota lies on its laurels from 90es. In that context this vehicle here is an wellcome...

   How is Toyota resting on its laurels with recent ground up redesigned Camry, Corolla, Rav4, and Avalon? All are major improvements from the previous generation. The joint venture with Subaru in the FR-S produced an affordable enthusiast sports car.

No doubt all are competent cars, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Aside from its hybrids, Toyota is not an innovator.

True dat. New Corolla isn't even out yet

It will be out soon and sell like hotcakes.

That doesn't mean it will be a good car. The current one is a last place car that also sells like hotcakes.

Whats your point then, we all know the Corolla isnt an enthusiasts car as has been discussed here ad nauseum, but it sells. You question its quality, pretty damn bulletproof, looks and design, the looks of a car cannot be really questioned, some bought the Aztek because they thought it looked good. Performance?? Well, it will get granny to church and the piggly wiggly with no problems and promise to be trouble free for many years. So again....why do you think its not a good car, its a boring, a-b appliance that satisfies the needs of the vast car buying public.Do I think there should be an FR-S in every garage, sure, is it feasible, hell no, my mom would freak at the mere idea of driving a rwd car in the winter, a Corolla or Rav-4, sure.

[seale]

 This 4 cylinder vs. V6 question really becomes an issue if you live and mostly drive in a hilly area like I do ( Eastern Townships of Que.). I really can't go anywhere in a 4  cylinder without it constantly downshifting one or two gears as it tries to maintain speed up a hill. It will get you there but it 's not much fun. Load it with anything much and you get more of the same. Passing requires patience and a long straight stretch ( don't have alot of these either ).

 I presently have a 2012 V6 AWD Santa Fe-- a powerful, smooth engine.  I'm really glad I didn't wait for the 2013 Santa Fe- I would have bought A Kia Sorento instead-still has the V6 and I think the new 2014 does also.

 

[X-Traction]

The one excellent feature of the old Rav is gone the 6 cyl that trump many competitors 4 cyl in power and fuel economy. Why not the 6 cyl with the new 6 trans ?

The V6 did not beat 4-cylinders in fuel efficiency.  It was thirsty, as it should be being a large V6.  When we tested it against other compact crossovers, it was way behind the 4-bangers in efficiency.

Here are a few examples : The Rav 6cycl either beat many 4 cyl competitors or came very close in mpg while still having a lot more HP and torque

2012 Rav 4 3.5 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 5-spd AWD, 22mpg combined

2012 Suzuki Grand Vitara 4WD  2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 4-sp 20mpg combined

2012 Acura RDX 2.3 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (S5) combined 19mpg

2012 Volkswagen Tiguan 4motion 2.0 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 23mpg combined (close enough)

2012 Chevrolet Equinox AWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 6-spd 23mpg combined (close enough)

2012 Dodge Journey FWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 4-spd 22mpg combined
Source : http://www.fueleconomy.gov

I think Mike is talking about true competitors from the comparo.  An ancient body on frame Suzuki Grand Vitara is not a direct competitor, with low range gearing, the aerodynamics are way different, more truck like than car like. 

The Grand Vitara isn't particularly boxy.  The lower mileage is attributable to its full-time awd and lower gearing.  In fact, it probably gets commendable mileage in that context.  The low range isn't normally a factor except the weight of a few extra bits of metal.  Things such as large mirrors and heavy duty battery have slight mileage penalties.

And if you look underneath, the GV isn't really a body-on-frame.  The "frame" is a more of a 3-sided channel welded to the unibody.  Not all that different from reinforcing under other vans etc.

I've always been annoyed at mileage claims for the Rav4.  It seemed people were using the numbers from the 4-cyl to compare the Rav4 to others like the V6 Grand Vitara, and at the same time applauding the faster acceleration from the V6.  On top of that, I've seen numbers indicating the V6 Grand Vitara used its lower gearing for better 0-70kph numbers than the V6 Rav4.  Of course, the V6 Rav4 would then pull ahead.

[X-Traction]

The speculation about a future Rav4 hybrid is interesting.  Ford's new Escape just dropped the hybrid version, and Ford seems adamant that there will not be another Escape Hybrid.  Backing that up are numbers showing the hybrid version was only a few percent of sales.  Like 3% in 2009.

Here we have Toyota dropping the V6 because it was only 15% of sales.  Given Toyota's momentum with the Prius, they may well do much better with a Rav4 hybrid than Ford can with the Escape hybrid.  But surely not 15%  What's the proportion of Highlander and Camry hybrids?

It may come down to cost.  The Escape hybrid fwd cost about $8,000 more than an equivalently fancy Prius, and surely the bigger body wasn't that much more expensive to put together.  A Rav4 Hybrid may end up being a better deal than an Escape hybrid would.

[PJ]

Reading the article did little, but frustrate me.
I understand looks are subjective, but this vehicle seems to go against any perception of new. It's like it was designed as a new vehicle 5+ years ago.
It's new as it is different but will do nothing to change the perception of Toyota being stylistically boring and mundane.

The one excellent feature of the old Rav is gone the 6 cyl that trump many competitors 4 cyl in power and fuel economy. Why not the 6 cyl with the new 6 trans ?

Comments like "European 2.0L diesel engine in North America, we as North Americans don’t buy diesels in masse." wtf, that's because we don't have the opportunity or are given the premium shaft for diesel options, well beyond what other markets pay for the upgrade, thus negating any savings for the masses.

Tired of being patronized by the media and likes of Toyota and other manufacturers. We are simply being limited on what we can buy then being told we only buy what's available !!!

I agree completely.  I can't remember the number of times I have heard that different car companies don't sell diesels here because we don't buy them.  Some will even try to bring up old Oldsmobiles to show why "we don't like them".

Truth is the opposite and the VW proves it.  The TDi has always been a huge seller, some years it was their top selling engine.  It's hard to find a Jetta wagon that isn't a diesel.

Trith is it's just an excuse for old school thinking.  Old execs don't think it will work so they won't try.

We have a slim chance of seeing the Mazda diesel and maybe a diesel in the Cruze but I'll believe it when I see them on the lot.

[redman]

^^ firstly, the V6 had a 5 speed auto, not a 4 speed...the new 6-speed Auto would likely have helped fuel economy with the V6, but at 15% uptake rate, Toyota had a fair argument. 

Let's also not forget that auto manufacturers think that Canada and the US are synonymous (jerks).  The uptake rate of 2WD Rav4s would be much higher in southern states (sans neige), but I'd expect practically non-existent in Ontario.

When I saw the media unveil on the new Rav4, I nearly cried.  I mean, good on them for trashing the 3rd row seats, but the V6 had potential.  Axing the sliding rear seats for flexibility in legroom/cargo room?  Seriously?! 

To me, the styling became very messy from what was a clean design, however bland.  I am not a fan of how the dash abruptly ends at the doors - there's just no flow.  I, however, care little for style of cars. 

I am a Subaru loyalist.  I am biased.  Toyota is a part-stake owner of Subaru.  It seems like there's a lot of part sharing with the new Forester (i.e. memory height rear hatch, close cargo capacities, base engine power, etc).  Toyota has thankfully updated their AWD to actually do something now, but it's still nothing to the Forester's.  The Rav4's ground clearance shows that it is a different functioning vehicle and therein lies their reasoning to get one over the other. 

Many journalists will bash the CVT in the Forester, but the fuel economy gains are staggering, and linear acceleration is nearly on par (8.9 for the FWD Rav4 - surely slower with AWD; 9.3 for the NA 2.5 Forester with CVT and standard AWD). 

For me, it's no contest...where I may have considered a Rav4 in the past because of its V6, remote rear seat folding mechanism (now both cars have it), sliding rear seats, comparatively great fuel economy with a V6 (a 1L/100km city penalty and 0.1L/100km hwy over the base 4cyl), the Rav4 has become so mid-pack, that I see nothing new/exciting about it.  It all comes together for a product that will sell to those who rely on Toyota's reputation (I helped my father purchase his Corolla, and we love it).  Still, the Forester has a high-performance version (and now with updated chassis, brakes, and suspension to match)...I think the Rav4 has become the official grocery-getter.

Without the stand-out features of the previous generation Rav4, I just don't see why this compares favourably over the most direct competitor, the 2014 Forester.

To some, this may sound like blasphemy, but for once I'd consider a FWD Forester. I know that it does not exist in this market but I find AWD no longer to be a necessity where I live. Single day snow falls that become a non issue the next day. I'm just not liking the new Rav4. In a front crawl swim race, Toyota appears to be doing the back stroke.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Yesterday in Cobourg
Diesel $1.33 per liter, 87 $1.22 per liter 

[PJ]

Yesterday in Cobourg
Diesel $1.33 per liter, 87 $1.22 per liter

In BC diesel is $1.44 and gas is $1.35.  However in the summer it will be the other way around.  Does it every year.

[Spec5]

I agree that it is too bad about not carrying over the V6 option. If the figure really was 15% I would think they would have kept it. I mean really less than 10% of vehicles sold last year (or was that year before last) had a manual transmission and many manfs. still offer them. For the nominal fuel economy hit on the old Rav I would have though they would have kept it - at least in a sport version.

I like the fact that the lower bumper is not painted - much like my 2007 Tucson - I see/know so many people who have vehicles with coloured bumpers and while I personally find they look better the rear bumper behind the trunk/lift gate is always inevitably scratched to rat sh!t. I guess this will stop people from complaining about that. Must have come out in a focus group. Wonder where exterior styling came out in that focus group.

All in all I think its a nice little CUV (Cute Utility Vehicle) and they will undoubtedly sell them by the thousands but I think they could have done a little more.

Oh and I bet the reason Ford doesn't do a Hybrid of the new Escape is because they know NOBODY will buy it. I mean really what would the pricing look like on that?! $45k for a Hybrid Escape or something outrageous. I'm amazed I see as many as I do on the roads - Platinums too!

[Snowman]

Yesterday in Cobourg
Diesel $1.33 per liter, 87 $1.22 per liter

And diesel will remain higher because it is not subsidized by the government like in Europe.
 

[X-Traction]

Oh and I bet the reason Ford doesn't do a Hybrid of the new Escape is because they know NOBODY will buy it. I mean really what would the pricing look like on that?! $45k for a Hybrid Escape or something outrageous. I'm amazed I see as many as I do on the roads - Platinums too!

Do you mean the Escape "Limited"?  The 2008-2012 Limited has chrome on the lower front bumper, a strip on the back hatch, and the side rails of the roofrack.  For an extra $2500 or so, it provided:
* power sun roof
* rack crossbars
* keypad entry
* ambience lights
* SYNC
* heated front leather seats
* backup sensors

Yes, a 2013 Escape Hybrid would be awfully expensive.  A 2012 Escape hybrid with awd, Limited package and navigation had an MSRP around $42,000 (base fwd would be around $37,000).  Probably that's why Ford is steering people to the C-Max and Fusion hybrids.  But neither is really a replacement for the Escape.  I guess we'll have to wait and see if a Rav4 hybrid is offered, and for how much cash.

Ford also claims the new Escape gets mileage comparable to the older Escape Hybrid.  This may be true on the highway, but the city mileage doesn't compare well.

[easyrider]

Injecting excitement or not, Toyota din't reach its goal with Scion. Even now Toyota lies on its laurels from 90es. In that context this vehicle here is an wellcome...

   How is Toyota resting on its laurels with recent ground up redesigned Camry, Corolla, Rav4, and Avalon? All are major improvements from the previous generation. The joint venture with Subaru in the FR-S produced an affordable enthusiast sports car.

No doubt all are competent cars, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Aside from its hybrids, Toyota is not an innovator.

True dat. New Corolla isn't even out yet

It will be out soon and sell like hotcakes.

That doesn't mean it will be a good car. The current one is a last place car that also sells like hotcakes.

Whats your point then, we all know the Corolla isnt an enthusiasts car as has been discussed here ad nauseum, but it sells. You question its quality, pretty damn bulletproof, looks and design, the looks of a car cannot be really questioned, some bought the Aztek because they thought it looked good. Performance?? Well, it will get granny to church and the piggly wiggly with no problems and promise to be trouble free for many years. So again....why do you think its not a good car, its a boring, a-b appliance that satisfies the needs of the vast car buying public.Do I think there should be an FR-S in every garage, sure, is it feasible, hell no, my mom would freak at the mere idea of driving a rwd car in the winter, a Corolla or Rav-4, sure.

If you produce gthe same vehicle for so manhy years it should be reliable.  the Beverly Hillbillies truck was reliable too, perhaps you would like to drive around in that?

[Fobroader]

To some, this may sound like blasphemy, but for once I'd consider a FWD Forester.

That is. 

[Fobroader]

Injecting excitement or not, Toyota din't reach its goal with Scion. Even now Toyota lies on its laurels from 90es. In that context this vehicle here is an wellcome...

   How is Toyota resting on its laurels with recent ground up redesigned Camry, Corolla, Rav4, and Avalon? All are major improvements from the previous generation. The joint venture with Subaru in the FR-S produced an affordable enthusiast sports car.

No doubt all are competent cars, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Aside from its hybrids, Toyota is not an innovator.

True dat. New Corolla isn't even out yet

It will be out soon and sell like hotcakes.

That doesn't mean it will be a good car. The current one is a last place car that also sells like hotcakes.

Whats your point then, we all know the Corolla isnt an enthusiasts car as has been discussed here ad nauseum, but it sells. You question its quality, pretty damn bulletproof, looks and design, the looks of a car cannot be really questioned, some bought the Aztek because they thought it looked good. Performance?? Well, it will get granny to church and the piggly wiggly with no problems and promise to be trouble free for many years. So again....why do you think its not a good car, its a boring, a-b appliance that satisfies the needs of the vast car buying public.Do I think there should be an FR-S in every garage, sure, is it feasible, hell no, my mom would freak at the mere idea of driving a rwd car in the winter, a Corolla or Rav-4, sure.

If you produce gthe same vehicle for so manhy years it should be reliable.  the Beverly Hillbillies truck was reliable too, perhaps you would like to drive around in that?

It sells, the people buying it dont have a problem with it.....sometimes the dont fix it if it aint broken attitude works. Besides, are you in the market for a Corolla, is the fact its not "all new" stopping you from buying it?!?!?

[kavatski]

I'd gladly take the mild fuel penalty for the added power and smoothness of the 6 cyl without second thought. This 6 cyl with the new 6 spd transmission would be unmatched.

Ditto. We're on our third RAV4 and the last two have had the V6. The power is terrific and it's reasonable on gas (we average 11-12 L/100 km around town, depending on the season, and low 8s on the highway). The V6 was also rated to tow 3500 lbs, although that's not going to be a consideration for many.

The RAV4 needed an update (it had been a long seven years), and I'm sure the four-cylinder in the 2013 version is adequate and will continue to suit most buyers, but it's too bad that those of us who want a little more under the hood will have to look elsewhere.