maybe there will be3 a V6 in 2013

[DVS]

Originally Posted by JerryBaumchen

I am now on my 3rd Toyota pickup with inline 4-cyl engines. They are insanely reliable; and have never burned one quart of oil in between oil changes. Put 200k + miles on the first two & am at 100k miles on the current one.

I should have been clearer (I thought it was implied): From what I've been reading about RAV4 I4 engines, they seem pretty notorious for burning excessive amounts of oil.

Some posters said their I4s were burning a lot of oil from the day they bought the vehicle new.

The RAV4 V6 does not seem to have a reputation for burning oil.

That was the point.

[clearview]

Originally Posted by DVS

Spark plugs are replaced what, every hundred thousand miles or so?

From what I've been reading, the I4 is quite reliable...at burning excessive amounts of oil.

If it's a case of replacing the water pump one time or having to continuously monitor my oil levels, I'd pick the one time inconvenience.

Some I4 engines do burn oil ours does. This does not mean that the new engine will. I heard somewhere that I4 Ravs get flat tires more often than V6 RAVs. Would you like to add that fact to your "I hate I4 RAVs list"?

[DVS]

Originally Posted by clearview

Some I4 engines do burn oil ours does. This does not mean that the new engine will. I heard somewhere that I4 Ravs get flat tires more often than V6 RAVs. Would you like to add that fact to your "I hate I4 RAVs list"?

I don't have an "I hate I4 RAVs list" and I never said I hate I4 RAVs. RAVs are great because, well, they're RAVs. I always smile when I see any RAV4 on the road, regadless of age, style, color, features or engine choice.

I pesonally found, by both research and actual test drive experience, that the I4 powertrain in the third generation RAV4 is simply not for my needs in this vehicle.

I was just responding to bigbird1's complaints about the V6 with a similar complaint that's been lodged by many about the I4, based on my research.

Speaking of favorite engines, I have read countless reviews of the RAV4 and comparisons of the RAV4 vs. other vehicles going back to the beginning of the 3rd generation, the 2006 model.

I can't help but notice that over the years Toyota pretty much ALWAYS sends for review or comparison a V6, unless the reviewer specifically requires a 4-cylinder because, for example, they're comparing only 4-cylinder vehicles against each other, which I've seen a couple of times. I don't remember reading a single review with a "voluntary" 4-cylinder third generation RAV4, but that's not to say it's never happened.

I confess I don't know what the percentages are of "Toyota chooses to send" vs. "the reviewers acquire by their own means," but regardless the V6 is by overwhelming majority the favored engine. I've gotten the impression it is usually a case of "Toyota chooses to send," though. Presuming that's the case, it's a very interesting message from Toyota.

In all those countless reviews I don't remember any reviewers ever complaining about the V6. Quite the opposite, in fact: I only remember them raving about it and touting it as a major advantage compared to the competition.

Obviously everyone has different wants, needs, circumstances and experiences, though.

If the I4 is your favorite engine in the RAV4 and you're driving one, then more power to you.

[flyingn]

not to mention the trans issues with the v6, the water pump issues and all the other issues. And that people are not buying the 6. Thats why Toyota is doing away with em

[DVS]

Originally Posted by flyingn

not to mention the trans issues with the v6, the water pump issues and all the other issues. And that people are not buying the 6. Thats why Toyota is doing away with em

Thanks for that lengthy and detailed list of facts.

I'm surprised Toyota would use such an apparently poor engine in their RAV4s.

And Avalons. And Camrys. And Venzas. And Highlanders. And Siennas. Oh, and let's not forget those Lexus models that use it too (e.g. the 350 series).

Clearly Toyota should have only put 4-bangers in all of those.

What was I thinking when I bought mine?



I've read a mountain of information about the older and newer RAV4s, and I don't recall reading about any transmission issues plaguing only the V6 RAV4s. It's possible, though, I guess, since they have different transmissions, with more gears for the V6 than the I4 had.

However, since we were only talking about engine reliability and ease of maintenance, I really don't see how that applies.

[igorts]

I thought i'll buy new rav4, but no way after I figured out it will be missing 2 cylinders and 93hp.
Long live the RAV6 !!!

[Saskfan]

Hi all:

I'm new here, having bought (2 days ago) what may be the last new 2012 Rav4 sold from my dealer. I bought the Rav partly because of the side-opening gate, since I'm 6'5" tall, and keep smackin' my head on liftgates.

I would have bought the Mazda CX-5 but it's not rated for towing, and I liked the Honda CR-V, but it was too expensive.

I love the interior heater in the Rav, and the sidegate, and the spare outside (I won't have to unload the camping gear to change a flat!). And it'll tow a small utility trailer for when we are REALLY loaded for camping - we're medieval re-enactors, and carry a lot more than I did when I camped in an Austin Mini.

[Meander]

Originally Posted by Saskfan

Hi all:

I'm new here, having bought (2 days ago) what may be the last new 2012 Rav4 sold from my dealer. I bought the Rav partly because of the side-opening gate, since I'm 6'5" tall, and keep smackin' my head on liftgates.

I would have bought the Mazda CX-5 but it's not rated for towing, and I liked the Honda CR-V, but it was too expensive.

I love the interior heater in the Rav, and the sidegate, and the spare outside (I won't have to unload the camping gear to change a flat!). And it'll tow a small utility trailer for when we are REALLY loaded for camping - we're medieval re-enactors, and carry a lot more than I did when I camped in an Austin Mini.

CX-5 is rated for 2000 pound towing . So even it has weaker engine Mazda suggests higher towing rate than I4 Rav.

[Saskfan]

Originally Posted by Meander

CX-5 is rated for 2000 pound towing . So even it has weaker engine Mazda suggests higher towing rate than I4 Rav.

Other companies' sites give the CX-5 a 907 kg towing capacity - Honda, Toyota, Kia, and possibly Subaru. However, Mazda's site does not rate it for towing and doesn't mention towing capacity, according to the salesman, because it doesn't have the transmission cooling capacity. Salesman warned us that tranny damage consisent with pulling too much weight would void the warranty. And on a second look at the vehicles on shopping comparison charts, the CX-5 comes up suspiciously short in power and torque to haul more than a Honda CR-V can. It also doesn't have as muh passenger room in the back seats. So I'm here on a Toyota forum, and not on a Mazda or Honda forum.

The salesman did admit that the CX-5 PROBABLY could tow a light load occsionally; say, a motor scooter home from the Vespa dealership. But it wouldn't do well trying to tow a pair of Harley Davidsons in a covered trailer over the mountains to Vancouver.

[flyingn]

You can *try* to slant it anyway you want but Toyota did not think it was necessary to offer the v6 anymore. Whats that tell you?

Originally Posted by DVS

Thanks for that lengthy and detailed list of facts.

I'm surprised Toyota would use such an apparently poor engine in their RAV4s.

And Avalons. And Camrys. And Venzas. And Highlanders. And Siennas. Oh, and let's not forget those Lexus models that use it too (e.g. the 350 series).

Clearly Toyota should have only put 4-bangers in all of those.

What was I thinking when I bought mine?



I've read a mountain of information about the older and newer RAV4s, and I don't recall reading about any transmission issues plaguing only the V6 RAV4s. It's possible, though, I guess, since they have different transmissions, with more gears for the V6 than the I4 had.

However, since we were only talking about engine reliability and ease of maintenance, I really don't see how that applies.