Car Lust--Toyota RAV4
Submitted by Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame
From its humble beginnings as a Sport-Cute, the Toyota RAV4 has grown into the small-SUV niche originally occupied by the Toyota Highlander, which has itself grown into a near-mid-sized SUV. The current generation RAV4 features decent styling, plenty of room and versatility, power to spare, and does it all with great gas mileage.
It might be more expensive, but you have to get the V-6. Why? Because even with a V-6 engine, the RAV4 gets great gas mileage. The 3.5-liter engine puts out 269 horsepower, 246 pound-feet of torque, and can haul 3,500 pounds with towing modifications. That compares favorably with the Honda Pilot. And with the V-6, its acceleration numbers can embarrass more than just one or two sports sedans--all while getting 22/29 mpg. That’s probably good enough to make this a vehicle worthy of Car Lust.
But wait, there’s more! With an optional third-row seat, you can even seat six! Of course, that works out to a maximum of four full-sized adults plus two kids no older than about age 10. Still, there are mid-sized SUVs that can’t seat those two extra munchkins.
And it drives like a car, nimble and not top-heavy at all. I haven’t actually driven the V-6, but the base four-cylinder model (2.4 liters) had plenty of power to go up long freeway grades at 70 mph with negligible effort. I can only imagine (and lust after!) the pep and power of the V-6. The interior is fine. No materials struck me as obviously cheap, and it has a few extras, like steering wheel-mounted audio controls for a system that puts out excellent sound.
Nearly every vehicle you can buy is some sort of compromise between extreme excellence and everyday utility. The RAV4 is the one car I would pick that requires the owner to make the least number of compromises. The RAV4 has adequate power, room, acceleration, handling, seating, towing, and excellent fuel economy. I think you can’t go wrong if you get one of these babies. A 2008 RAV4 V-6 will cost you a little over $23k. One with the four-cylinder engine is about $2k less; the V-6 is worth it.
--Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame
Steaming Pile on June 09, 2008 at 10:09 AM
You have got to be kidding me. Did Toyota pay you to write that, Nate? It sure sounds like a commercial to me.
Then again, since the Subaru Forester gained a size, something has to take it's place.
Chris Hafner on June 09, 2008 at 10:19 AM
The Toyota RAV4 has always been one of my strongest Car Disgusts; I hate the looks of the first-generation, including the completely heinous two-door. I drove one of the first RAV4s and was stunned by unsafe I felt; it was so soft and tippy that I constantly felt as if I was going to flip over.
Still, with all that said, I'm on board with Nathan's Car Lust here. The current RAV4 is a slicker and more substantial unit, and the idea of a small SUV with some real cajones is a pretty interesting one. I could see using it as a sleeper and and a tool for embarrassing some Mustang drivers.
Steve Lang on June 09, 2008 at 10:25 AM
We all want other cars, but the RAV4 is a great realistic choice for families. Fantastic gas mileage, 3rd row for the toddlers, good reliability AFAIK, reasonable sticker price, great Toyota resale value. Yes that's a boring set of bullet points. But if you don't have the disposable income for more, it's really hard to go wrong here...
Rob the SVX guy on June 09, 2008 at 11:12 AM
If you don't have disposable income, a new car is about the dumbest financial move you can make.
Mochi Mochi on June 09, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Monday morning polarization and controversy - Wow!
Nathan one of the things I appreciate about your articles is that you never cease to enlighten me. You end up looking at cars that I have not really paid too much attention to and find something really interesting and impressive about them.
It was only last week that I found myself thinking about small SUVs like the CRV and the RAV4 (not for buying - mostly as an academic consideration). I had noticed the RAV4 a number of years ago because of its size and somewhat novel styling. I never new too much about the Rav4 except that a lot of people I knew who had owned them really liked them. Newer versions of the CRV and RAV4 seem to have disappeared - they have not actually disappeared - its just that from a styling perspective they have become so anonymous that I don't notice them any more. I started looking for CRVs and started noticing them again. But I haven't noticed any of the newer Rav4s and that made me wonder about them.
These little SUVs are hard to describe as SUVs, but I guess technically they are. I appreciate that they are able to provide some of the things that a lot of people are looking for in a car, and pretty good gas mileage at the same time. The Forester, the CRV, and the RAV4 all seem to provide a lot of utility in a pretty reasonably sized package.
I think the one thing that bothers me about the newer versions of these cars is their anonymity against the SUV backdrop. They fit in and disappear. I liked the way the earlier generations of CRVs and RAV4s stood out. The early CRVs were beautiful light and small. The RAV4s were odd ball and funny. Overall they were friendly and non-aggressive, which was one of the things I liked so much about them. They were an interesting and funny counterpoint to full sized SUVs. The RAV4 V6 sounds like a pretty nice ride. In a couple of years it will make a great used car. But if CRVs are any example, it may be hard to find them. Most owners really don't want to part with their cars.
Anthony Cagle on June 09, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Y'know, for all of my participation in the SUV Wars on either side, I really don't pay too much attention to them. Probably because I've never really felt I wanted or needed one, except for a while when I was doing fieldwork.
I get the smaller SUV's though. They seem like a station wagon with a little extra height. I can see the appeal.
David Colborne on June 09, 2008 at 06:59 PM
I've been in a RAV4 - they're pretty sweet people haulers. The gas mileage/space ratio is pretty favorable. That said, I don't know if I would lust for it. I mean, yeah, it's definitely good at what it does, but I'm not sure I'd lust for it.
The "problem" with a lot of Toyotas these days is that they're a little too good at what they do - they're very efficient, very solid, and extremely uninteresting vehicles. In 20 years, we'll probably lust for them. Right now, though, it's hard to really work up too much emotion for something that runs as flawlessly as your toaster. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that, in order to lust for something, it has to be able to break your heart... and who ever heard of a Toyota breaking anybody's heart?
Shawn on June 09, 2008 at 07:35 PM
Gag. I'll put my Forester XT up against any RAV4 in the performance department. Stock, it embarasses every Mazda RX-8 its met. It's too bad Subaru messed the styling up for '09, the previous body is well worthy of a Car Lust entry.
Rob the SVX guy on June 09, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Your forester also gets complete ass for MPG, thanks to it's AWD and shoebox aerodynamics.
Mochi Mochi on June 09, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Here's a concept that I think might validate the idea of purchasing a new car under limited conditions. This is something that I have considered for myself. While I completely see the incredibly valid case for buying old or used cars and I don't find anything new remotely interesting, there is a case where a new car makes sense. And I'd like to explore it...
You find THE car. You know it is THE car - it embodies EVERYTHING you have ever wanted or will ever want in a vehicle. You live in a place where you don't need to worry about the elements (read road salt and storms) causing it to oxidize into oblivion. You could buy last year's model and save a couple of grand, but you know that the trade off of those couple of grand is balanced by two things. 1) Mileage, wear, and unknown ownership style. and very importantly 2) you want to break it in just right to get maximum life and enjoyment. You want to establish all the right conditions from the beginning - maybe synthetic oil, maybe silicon brake fluid, following strict engine break-in, changing transmission lube, all maintenance to a tee, even regular cleaning. You want to do this because you want to squeeze every ounce of reliability and durability out of this car. You plan to run it for 4 decades and 500,000 miles - or more - unless an SUV falls on it - til death do us part.
I think in those situations - which demographically are in the minority - buying a new car actually makes sense. It does not guarantee anything, but it is kind of an insurance policy. With a few exceptions my family bought new cars. My dad paid as little for them as possible. They were well maintained, and we ran those cars for as long as possible. In the Northeast that meant that after 15-18 years you could see though them, but we extracted every ounce from the car's life. Over the life of the car the costs were not much more than a used vehicle, and since we seldom purchased a vehicle there was minimal contribution to overall resource consumption or carbon. Costs were front loaded in the auto's life span.
With my current car, the Si, I have quite literally spent enough to buy a new car. Now I think this car started out better that most, and is better now than when new (in most ways - minus the rust I need to take care of). In this case the costs of ownership were back loaded. The initial investment was low. But the final costs have been the same or similar within a few grand. They would have been lower if I'd had made sure that all important replacement parts were new OEM parts - but hey, we live and learn.
So I whole heartedly endorse the idea that a used car is the way to go - for a variety of reasons - but I think there are conditions where new cars may be the right choice and where it is not about conspicuous consumption or having more cash than brains. If you have right plan, and treat the car right, you may actually be able to get more out of the car in the very long term and possibly save money and carbon.
On the other hand, if you are just going to buy A car (not THE car), and you are not planning on holding on to it for very long (7yrs or less), then just buy a used one. You'll be wasting money.
In the Northeast car ownership comes with a very certain automotive death sentence. Something else to be factored into the purchase of a vehicle.
Steaming Pile on June 10, 2008 at 09:56 AM
We had a Forester before Katrina when gas shot up from $2.75 to around $3.50 overnight. I was really impressed with the handling in crappy weather - kinda like a Hummer H1 without all the extra weight. Computerized four wheel drive does this for you. The rear seat legroom was a little tight for a vehicle that size. I see Foresters on eBay all the time with upwards of 200,000 miles on them, which indicates that people actually use them for something besides expensive fashion statements. That, and they're tough as nails.
We got around 24 MPG in daily driving, which wasn't terrible for that type of vehicle. My wife disagreed, so we had to get rid of it; that's when I got my little Scion xA. Since it had a stick, it became my car (the Forester was hers), while she got my '99 Accord, nicely broken in at around 105,000 miles, which she smacked against a guard rail within a week. Paid for? Check. Full coverage insurance canceled? Check. Bondo and repaint the beast yourself? Check, check, and recheck.
Steaming Pile on June 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM
@Mochi - Road salt bites the big one, especially in the lake effect zone around Lake Ontario where we get upwards of 100 inches every winter. You can spread all the salt you want, but sometimes it just won't stop snowing, so we tend to consume a lot of salt and sand over the course of a winter. The sand is often recovered and recycled, but the salt goes into the environment. Good thing we have low population density up here in cow country.
My number one rule for winter driving is to avoid doing it whenever possible. It's no fun, it's dangerous, and it's bad for the car in any case.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on June 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I understand it is hard to get passionate about Toyotas.
In my opinion, and from what I've heard from others, the Toyota is just good enough, and that's it.
There is some attempt to do aftermarket race add-ons, but with nowhere near the success of even Nissan, much less Honda Civics and VW Golfs.
Before leaving Hawaii, I had a 98 Corolla stick and a 02 Geo Prizm auto. Both just good enough that I didn't curse while driving them. Yet neither of them good enough to brag about, or to feel proud of. Big enough for 4 adults, or 2 adults, 2 kids + carseat. Enough trunk space for medium purchases.
Just (barely) good enough at everything.
Nowadays, the Yaris is hideously ugly in my opinion. The Corolla looks bloated, and while it seats the same 4-5 (needing at least a couple sub-size humans to get the higher number) as my 01, it doesn't get appreciably better gas mileage.
Enter the RAV-4, which doesn't look as goofy as the old models. If the driver and maybe one passenger are the only full-size humans, 7 people could be possible. Or a decent amount of gear. Get the V-6, and you get plenty of power to tow 3500 pounds, which is enough to drag a small pop-up trailer for camping.
Perhaps it is nothing more than a more powerful, equally economic Corolla with significant more room for stuff or 2 extra munchkins.
Considering how well the Corolla sells, isn't that worth lusting over?
If I told you those stats and put a VW, Honda, or Nissan badge on it, half the readers here would be doing backflips. Or even a Scion (yeah, I know: but Toyota jacks up the prices on the Scions too far beyond their "cool" factor, in my opinion).
But since it's a Toyota...
:)
Here's the thing, kind of a half-response to Mochi-Mochi:
I had an 01 CRV, but the ex- got it.
I loved it. It was a more roomy Civic with only slightly worse fuel economy. It was rated 22/25, but I never got less than 24/28.
Plenty of room.
Never saw the shop once in 80k miles.
Not a single thing to complain about.
Except that that tiny 4 cyl really screamed at me going up freeway mountain slopes. It made it, but sometimes couldn't keep up the full 70 mph. And --sometimes-- I had to feather the brakes on a downslope, because while Honda handling is awesome, they didn't have it down quite perfect for the CRV back in 01. No idea about now.
Now, however, the CRV has actually sacrificed some room for stylishness (trying --and succeeding! from what I hear-- to compete with the Lexus RX 330). But compared with my 01 CRV (which was my small SUV standard), the 4cyl RAV4 blew the CRV away in every single possible category: size, power, handling, fuel economy (okay: just edged on this one), room. And so with only the sacrifice of 1 mpg city and 2 highway (if I recall correctly), the V-6 adds in more power, more torque, more towing (the original CRV was rated for a whopping 500 pounds), with a small 3rd row bench available for two extra kiddies.
What's *not* to love, I ask you?
Okay, appearance. But not because it's ugly, just slightly non-descript.
It might be worth noting: Mitsubishi is trying to keep up with the RAV-4, not the CRV or Forester...
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on June 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM
One other reason to buy new, sometimes:
I'm not financially ready for a RAV-4. It might not ever be the right thing for me.
But if I had the money when I was looking a few months ago, the RAV-4 would have been my choice.
I searched high and low and could not find a single used RAV-4 with the 6 cyl and a 3rd row seat. There was nothing else out there that fit my needs so well. Not even the Pilot (far worse fuel economy, somewhat off-set by increased utility; knowing I would earn Rob the SVX guy's eternal derision/contempt/hatred sealed the no-go for me).
So sometimes, the only way you can get the vehicle you really want with the options/capabilities you really need is to go new.
Mochi Mochi on June 10, 2008 at 03:02 PM
"one thing that bothers me about the newer versions of these cars is their anonymity against the SUV backdrop"
just a clarification. I fault Honda and Toyota for caving in and conforming to "what an SUV should look like". The old CRV and the old RAV4 were different looking from each other and from everything else on the road. I personally liked that creative and odd look - it did not take itself too seriously. But I guess SUVs have to be "serious and tough". Give me something funny that makes me smile. Give me a little SUV that looks like a pug dog.
BTW: Has anyone noticed the new Honda Accord! That's somethin' ugleee. Oh how the great have fallen.
Min-E-Sooo-tah Guy on August 14, 2008 at 08:22 PM
The Rav4 V6 is everything you can ask for from a vehicle. That's why I bought the V6 sport model. I gotta say it's quick enough to out run most cars on the road. And it still gets good gas mileage. With the 4WD, it is also good for all season driving, good for towing, has pleanty of interior space with rear seats that folds down flat and a rear under storage department. It also has that rugged and sporty look to it with the 18 inch five spoke wheels. I don't think you can find all that in any other car. Though some things that can be improved on is the squeaky rear door, the fuel door scratching the body and the noise it makes when cruising 50-55 mph. I'm excited to see how the V6 Sport drives during winter.
Jason Carpp on December 03, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Ugh! You must be joking! Who the hell designed the RAV4?! Another ugly vehicle by Toyota. Both the first edition and this new generation are ugly! I'd be embarrassed to be seen in a RAV4.