Would you buy 2013 Rav4?

[Jaspher]

People are getting smarter and no longer Think bigger is better. I use to be a fan of larger displacement engines but what's the point of wasting money on fuel when the smaller engine with less cylinder is enough. Even if Toyota lost all the buyers who want the v8 in their 4runners and V6 in their Rav4, there will still be the majority of buyers who want smaller more effecient engines. D4D or 2.0L in a Rav4 would be nice if it was available here in North America.

[Bob-blehead]

I went to the Detroit auto show last Friday, and had an opportunity to visit the new Rav4. It is a nice vehicle, and I like some of the items they are making standard on the vehicle now. However, I don't know if I am a fan of how they are lining up the features on the trim levels. There are other vehicles that I will have to give serious consideration to when my lease expires. That said, I was VERY impressed with the new Avalon.

[DVS]

Originally Posted by Jaspher

People are getting smarter and no longer Think bigger is better. I use to be a fan of larger displacement engines but what's the point of wasting money on fuel when the smaller engine with less cylinder is enough. Even if Toyota lost all the buyers who want the v8 in their 4runners and V6 in their Rav4, there will still be the majority of buyers who want smaller more effecient engines. D4D or 2.0L in a Rav4 would be nice if it was available here in North America.

I think it's a matter of perspective. It sounds like you may only be looking within each model.

I didn't want a big old SUV with a big old V8. I wanted a smaller vehicle that was easy to maneuver and park and got better mileage than a big old SUV, but still had some utility and that can tow a couple thousand pounds plus. For me, bigger was definitely not better. The RAV4 is the smallest and best mileage vehicle Toyota makes (errr...made) that met those requirements.

But if, instead, you take a broader perspective than just focusing within each model, by your logic I "got smarter" and went with the RAV 4 V6, which can meet those wants and needs but is still smaller and more fuel efficient than something bigger and heavier and/or with a V8. In fact, it was the most efficient choice available from Toyota. It's the left-most model on their Toyota USA web site for that class.

Now Toyota tells me I don't have that more efficient choice but must buy something bigger, heavier and that gets worse mileage, and oh by the way costs a lot more. By taking away that smaller-and-more-efficient-yet-powerful-enough option, they've burned people like me and are forcing us to go with something that is bigger and less efficient.

Well, if we stay with Toyota, that is.

So if one takes a broader view, I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to say that Toyota is the "bad guy" here, at least when it comes to promoting "bigger is better." They pretty much said exactly that at the 2012 L.A. Auto Show.

Not for me, it isn't.

Toyota is effectively punishing those of us who want to have smaller, lighter and more efficient vehicles that can still meet some needs by taking away this option, and requiring us to Go Bigger (and more expensive), if we want to continue to drive a Toyota.

[JuneBug]

I agree with DVS, Toyota dropped the ball here. There are many, many people who want a small SUV that can tow a boat or camper or utility trailer on the weekend, while still returning great gas mileage on the workplace commute during the week. Toyota never promoted this aspect of the V6 RAV4 in their TV ads as far as I can remember. I believe V6 sales would have increased dramatically if they had.

[Blogson]

Originally Posted by JuneBug

I agree with DVS, Toyota dropped the ball here. There are many, many people who want a small SUV that can tow a boat or camper or utility trailer on the weekend, while still returning great gas mileage on the workplace commute during the week. Toyota never promoted this aspect of the V6 RAV4 in their TV ads as far as I can remember. I believe V6 sales would have increased dramatically if they had.

Did Toyota ever promote the V6 at all? I don't recall it being mentioned in any TV adverts I saw. . . but my wife says that I'm basically blind when there is TV advertising!

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by JuneBug

I agree with DVS, Toyota dropped the ball here. There are many, many people who want a small SUV that can tow a boat or camper or utility trailer on the weekend, while still returning great gas mileage on the workplace commute during the week. Toyota never promoted this aspect of the V6 RAV4 in their TV ads as far as I can remember. I believe V6 sales would have increased dramatically if they had.

Kinda like what they did with the 4Runner. For those who wanted a V8 but didn't want to pay the luxury price of a Lexus, that was perfect. Now Toyota is making those who actually need a V8 to move up to the Sequoia or a Lexus.

I guess they don't want to take sales away from other vehicles in the lineup. Just like how Honda did away with the Prelude I guess since they had the Integra.

[DVS]

Originally Posted by Blogson

Did Toyota ever promote the V6 at all? I don't recall it being mentioned in any TV adverts I saw. . . but my wife says that I'm basically blind when there is TV advertising!

Actually, at least most of the more recent (last year or so) USA commercials I've seen for the RAV4 show one with the V6 emblem. For example, one of the early "Toyota Jan" commercials had her grabbing handfuls of clay from different clay models of vehicles, and it ended up with a V6 RAV4 in the background.

But I don't recall them ever specifically talking about the V6 and things like increased utility/towing capacity or horsepower. From what I recall, they only talked about the RAV4 in a general manner, but usually (not always) showed one with a V6 emblem.

Of course, there's only so much they can cover in 30 seconds.

[jkalis]

2013 RAV does not stand out in any of the specs compared to other cross-overs - undoubtedly there is a lot of other cars to choose from - Toyota thus made the shopping more difficult

I think -Toyota does not want us (current RAV owners) to go with the same car - they want us to either go bigger (Highlander), wider (Venza) or more luxurious (RX). IMHO 2013 RAV primarily targets NEW drivers. So if you don't like it, go elsewhere there is a LOT to choose from these days!!!!

Hyundai's Santa Fe has three engine options, including v4 Turbo and v6 with way SUPERIOR warranty over Toyota, not mentioning the panoramatic sunroof The car rocks!!! Check it out I was so amazed our 06 Sport looked cheap parked next to it!

Ford Escape - many engine options, better fuel economy, HID in the top model and even a sunglasses holder! I know it's Ford but maybe worth a try!

My 2 cents.

[NewRav2013]

Regarding real-world mileage on a 4.4 limited, our first 1/2 tank, 1/3 highway 2/3 local driving was about 24.6; 187 miles at 7.6 gal. This included some on-snow pack roads driving with the 4 wheel mode engaged. This is our first AWD and it's really nice to feel it pull through the snow rather than just drag the rear wheels.

Also I agree with others on the v6. If you need light towing 4.4 will not be your choice. But neither will CR-V or alot of others. CAFE is probably to blame, plus Toyota saved on engineering w/o dealing with a v6 option.

[Bombadil]

I own an '09 RAV4 4-cyl auto. It is a bit on the slow side, Consumer Reports got only a 10.0 in the 0-60 with this same model. Supposedly the 2013 with the same engine gets an 8.9 in Toyota's specs, and one driver test reported getting an 8.4. This is decidedly quicker than my '09. Frankly, if it can do under 9, that is quick enough for my needs. By comparison, the new CR-V with a few more horsepower, got a 9.2 in Consumer Reports testing.

For the most part, I can understand Toyota's reasoning on the V6 and 3rd row seating. These weren't popular options that people were buying. Toyota said 10% of 2012 RAV4 buyers went with the V6. That's 17,000 vehicles. For Toyota that is a pittance of a number. With a total redesign of the vehicle, keeping that engine would have incurred a lot of costs & testing. Would have complicated the production line. The sales numbers just aren't there to justify this.