CR-V versus RAV4

[Carbo]

When it comes to cars, I'm a buy and hold guy. Pay cash, or at least a very large downpayment, and keep the car for many years. For example, my last two cars were both purchased new. I held the '90 Eclipse for 7 years. My '97 Civic is still with me, and only has 68,000 miles after 12 trouble free years. But I'm feeling that itch, and so it's time to scratch myself and buy something new.
That said, in the early stages of my research I find myself looking at small SUV's. For those of you who have one or who have owned one previously, what is your experience with either the Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CR-V? I'm drawn towards the styling of the RAV4, and I like the optional V6 engine. Not that it's needed. I won't be anywhere near off road, and I don't have large cargo loads to carry. Just looking for something fresh, reliable, and gas pump friendly.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

they're both pretty similar vehicles for normal every day driving. more people seem to like the CR-V though, hence why it sells so much better than the rav4 (and any other compact suv in the market)
I've driving the last gen cr-v and still have a 1997 cr-v with 200k miles running fine. as long as you do normal maintenance on these cars they will last you forever. both have among the highest reliability in the compact suv market.

 

[Carbo]

Louisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss, no question about Honda's reliability. As one who owns a Civic for 12 trouble free years, I'm a fan.
But I'm reading that the CR-V is underpowered. The 4 cylinder only cranks out 166HP, while pulling almost 3,600 pounds. This has me concerned.

 

[kalrith]

If you go with the V6 in the RAV4, then I'd go with that hands down. It makes it like a hot rod, while not totally tanking fuel economy. I recommend looking at the '09 Forester as well. It gets great reviews. It won't be a hot rod like the RAV4 (although the turbocharged option will help), but the base 4 cylinder got 17/30 in the Consumer Reports real-world tests. It also aces every crash test out there in case you care about that sort of thing.

 

[sindows]

Personally I think the CR-V drives a bit more refined than the Rav-4. Its hard to describe but it feels more "buckled down" . As far as power is concerned, its not too bad. 4 cylinder engines today are very refined and more than powerful enough for a grocery getter. I haven't driven a V6 Rav-4 but I have driven a V6 camry(same engine) and all I can say is that the extra power is wasted because the traction control keeps on cutting in even at part throttle situations.

As far as reliability is concerned, if you're not keeping a car over 100,000 miles, you can't go wrong with any car maker. Every modern car will easily last 100,000 without major things breaking.

 

[Arkaign]

Well, underpowered is a relative thing. In 1975, the Corvette had 205hp, and was good for a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds, which is pretty much econobox performance these days.

You wouldn't have too much fun pulling a 20 foot boat with one, but for a runabout they're just fine. They have about the same performance as a ~150hp '90s 4-banger midsize car, and they handle surprisingly well (for what it is). Meaning you can comfortably cruise at 75mph, get on freeway ramps, and so on with no problem, though you'll never be dragracing anyone.

As with all Hondas, take particular care of the timing belt and automatic tranny fluid, and you should be golden.

 

[Carbo]

Usage would be almost exclusively as a commuter car around town. I drive around 6,000 miles a year on average. So the four banger might not be such a hindrance.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Carbo
Usage would be almost exclusively as a commuter car around town. I drive around 6,000 miles a year on average. So the four banger might not be such a hindrance.

Yeah you shouldn't have any problems. I actually moved from an E39 M5 (~400hp) to a 140hp Focus, and even though I miss the incredible torque of a nice V8, I have no complaints about being able to jet about town with ease.

That's not to say there aren't some cars that are agonizingly underpowered out there, but a CRV is more than adequately powered for average urban use.

The worst I remember driving was an old Escort station wagon with the 3-speed auto and a motor in the 75hp range. It was horrible going uphill, struggled to do sustained highway speeds without starting to overheat, and if you had a couple passengers, forget about it. The worst thing about it is that it wasn't some ancient worn-out heap, it was a new rental car with like 800 miles on it. Simply horrible.

EDIT : I misremembered, it actually had 88hp out of an I4 motor.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/19...escort/6971/specs.html

Still utter garbage though. What a piece.

EDIT 2 : Looked up the 0-60 of an Escort Wagon from 94, it lists 12.8 seconds! Heh.

 

[SparkyJJO]

My old boss has a CR-V. OK for what it is. It developed some weird rattling in the front driver side fender area that nobody can seem to find, rather annoying considering it was fairly new and only had 20k miles on it.

I thought it was uncomfortable inside, but I don't seem to fit well in import seats. My dad's toyota drives me bats after about 30 minutes and I'm constantly fiddling with the seats.

Oh yeah, it's also pretty ugly IMO.

 

[Carbo]

88 HP?! That's like something out of the Flintstone's!

 

[InflatableBuddha]

You can't go wrong with either the CR-V or RAV4. I would test-drive both, and then it comes down to personal preference (styling, handling, interior, etc.)

I would stick with a 4-banger since you're not doing any towing or serious cargo hauling and you want better gas mileage. The first CR-V was underpowered at only 123 HP, but the new one is fine; same with the CR-V.

Actually, I have to laugh at everyone's conception of "underpowered" these days. I drive an old Accord with only 135 HP (9.8 sec 0-60) and while it's not the fastest thing out there, it only struggles on really steep hills at highway speeds. Highway merging, city driving, and hauling a trunk full of luggage and stuff - no problems.

For comparison, a Fit or Yaris is about 1.5 seconds slower 0-60, and I don't hear too many people complaining about those.

 

[Funyuns101]

one big disparity is the the trunk tailgate. The rav4 opens "sideways" and has a full-size spare whereas the new CR-V has ditched that feature to go to a more traditional opening.
otherwise, yes, the rav4 can get the v6 engine that would help lug it around.
it's worth noting that the v6 only drops fuel economy by roughly 1-2mpg.

they are both at the top of the charts for small CUV/SUV so you can't really go wrong. test drive both and see which one you like best in terms of drivea-bility whatever other things are important to you.

You should definitely take a look at the new Subaru Forester as well. If you really need that much power, take a look at their turbo powered version.

if you're replacing your Civic, you could consider something like the Matrix, Mazda3 or Elantra Touring and still have the versatility of a small SUV~

 

[Vette73]

The 4cyl will be weak. My wife had the older smaller Rav-4 and that thing was SLOW!!! My BiL has a CR-V and it is not that quick.

Both are ok but you really need to test drive to see which will work for you. Zthey are to close IMO.


Also I would look at the Chevrolet Equinox. It has a 6cyl and is actually pretty nice compared to the Rav-4 and CRV.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Carbo
88 HP?! That's like something out of the Flintstone's!

My 1986 Plymouth Reliant wagon was rated at 86 hp from the factory and it wasn't terrible. Not fast, but it was fine for driving around town.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Carbo

EDIT 2 : Looked up the 0-60 of an Escort Wagon from 94, it lists 12.8 seconds! Heh.

Oooohhhh... Competition appears for ZaneJohnson's Thunderbird.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

You may also want to check out the domestics:

I found the Rav 4 interior horrible and their idea off leather was a saran wrap thick sheet of plastic coated hide. Hard plastics were everywhere.

Ford Escape/Mariner - Optional 240HP V6

Chevy Equinox/Pontaic Torrent - Big discounts as an all new Equinox will be released in Sept. and Pontiac is folding - Standard motor is a V6 is 185HP with lots of TQ with an optional 265HP engine. Rear leg-room is enormous.

Suzuki XL7 - this a stretched Chevy Equinox and comes standard with a GM 252HP V6 + 10yr warranty


You may also want to check out the Forester by Subaru.

 

[evident]

CRV is miles ahead of rav 4 in every way IMO. the 4 cyl is kinda weak, but you'll be able to haul your shit ease. The new 4 banger is 166HP which is a hell of a lot better than the 1998 model and should be good enough for a commute. i moved a bunch of furniture in a CRV.

My GF is currently in a similar market but may want something a little more upscale, so in addition to looking at the CRV EX-L theres also a used RX350 to consider

 

[alyarb]

i agree with evident. I valeted for 5 years and have been continuously impressed with each new generation of CR-V. I will never own one but I like the new ones a lot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__kjL...onda+CR-V+interior.jpg

 

[alkemyst]

I think the CRV looks like it has down's...the RAV4 is nicer IMHO. My mom owns own, my wife wants one. It's utilitarian at best though.

 

[krunchykrome]

I have a 2008 CRV EX AWD

It's a bit underpowered (166HP), but it gets the job done. I just drove to South Carolina from MD last weekend and I averaged 25.8 mpg; not bad for a mini suv with AWD carrying 4 adults and luggage. The interior is very nice IMO. I cross shopped other SUVS before I purchased it, including a new Xterra, RAV4, Wrangler, etc. The CRV had the best interior IMO, and I felt the most comfortable driving it.

I paid about $24,500 for it

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: Fmr12B
You may also want to check out the domestics:

I found the Rav 4 interior horrible and their idea off leather was a saran wrap thick sheet of plastic coated hide. Hard plastics were everywhere.

Ford Escape/Mariner - Optional 240HP V6

Chevy Equinox/Pontaic Torrent - Big discounts as an all new Equinox will be released in Sept. and Pontiac is folding - Standard motor is a V6 is 185HP with lots of TQ with an optional 265HP engine. Rear leg-room is enormous.

Suzuki XL7 - this a stretched Chevy Equinox and comes standard with a GM 252HP V6 + 10yr warranty


You may also want to check out the Forester by Subaru.

nah sorry dude, those can't compete with the top two best sellers in the compact SUV market: the CR-V and the Rav4.
hard plastics? hmm the escape and equinox dashes are plastic iirc. better hard than soft plastic.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS

Originally posted by: Fmr12B
You may also want to check out the domestics:

I found the Rav 4 interior horrible and their idea off leather was a saran wrap thick sheet of plastic coated hide. Hard plastics were everywhere.

Ford Escape/Mariner - Optional 240HP V6

Chevy Equinox/Pontaic Torrent - Big discounts as an all new Equinox will be released in Sept. and Pontiac is folding - Standard motor is a V6 is 185HP with lots of TQ with an optional 265HP engine. Rear leg-room is enormous.

Suzuki XL7 - this a stretched Chevy Equinox and comes standard with a GM 252HP V6 + 10yr warranty


You may also want to check out the Forester by Subaru.

nah sorry dude, those can't compete with the top two best sellers in the compact SUV market: the CR-V and the Rav4.
hard plastics? hmm the escape and equinox dashes are plastic iirc. better hard than soft plastic.

I know you're a troll but i must agree that having sat in one at the philly car show, the escape does has a god awful shitacular interior, worse so than the rav4. dont know much about the equinox but i wouldn't be surprised if that was crappy as well.

crv def is a class leader in this segment here.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

In this case Louisssssss has a point. The equinox and escape/mariner have pretty shit interiors. I was in the market for them, awhile back but decided against it.

The CR-V i think was the nicer and more refined of the two both inside and out. Its a bit on the slow side, but the interior trade off is worth it

 

[thomsbrain]

My fiancee's dad bought a new CR-V not too long ago. It hauled five adults to Costco for a big shopping run with lots of heavy buys (bottled water, etc) without any complaints. Not that it was going to win any drag races doing it, but it didn't feel or sound strained in any way, and the suspension stayed responsive instead of getting spongy.

I will chime in on one issue that someone mentioned in error: The CR-V does NOT have a timing belt. It uses a timing CHAIN. That means you don't have the dreaded $800 timing belt job to worry about.

The general consensus in the press is that for a 4-cylinder, you'll want the CR-V, and if you MUST have a V6, the RAV-4 will do fine. But you should also drive the Subaru Forester for comparison, because it has been highly reviewed as well.

And one last point: Given your needs for a vehicle, why do you want an SUV or crossover? Something like a Mazda3 5-door hatch would probably be better suited to your needs and would be less dorky... something to think about.

 

[Carbo]

I will chime in on one issue that someone mentioned in error: The CR-V does NOT have a timing belt. It uses a timing CHAIN. That means you don't have the dreaded $800 timing belt job to worry about.

I wasn't aware of that. Another plus for the CR-V.

And one last point: Given your needs for a vehicle, why do you want an SUV or crossover? Something like a Mazda3 5-door hatch would probably be better suited to your needs and would be less dorky... something to think about.

I took a look at the Mazda 3 yesterday on their website. Nice looking set of wheels and one I am considering. Never had or drove a Mazda before. But I have always heard good things about them.