Would you buy 2013 Rav4?

[raviola4]

I'm torn but will need to see in person, drive etc. Had an 06 Rav4 eventually traded on an Acura TSX which we'll keep (love it). But miss the utility. Looking to buy will need to compare. Rav4? CRV? Mazda CX5 (with larger 2.5 engine) and perhaps the 2014 Subaru Forester coming this spring. Who knows. MPG a factor and all of these similar in the low 30's. Would love to see Rav4 with Hybrid, but then the offsetting higher cost for that probably not worth it . So watching for more online reviews, waiting for 1st one's to hit showroom. Then start the process of deciding what to do. (that can be a royal PITA). Not to mention the PIA salesmen.

[Scoobs]

Toyota has now officially lost a second future sale to my family.

The first one happened when they dropped the V8 in the new 4Runner. When my 4R is done I'll be looking somewhere else for a V8.

The second one happened when they dropped the V6 in the RAV4.

There will be 2 new vehicle sales, and neither will go to Toyota.

[BCguy]

Too bad but it's now just a CR-V with a Toyota badge. I would never buy this vehicle.

[Vladimir]

I tested just about all CUV and SUV out there when I was buying car three years ago. The search ended the moment I tried RAV4 V6.

I can not see me buying another RAV4 now. It became just ordinary CUV like all others.

[Corrupt Politician]

I do like the new design of the RAV4. And honestly, it was a smart business decision by Toyota to remove the V6. I wish it the opposite were the case, but it's not. Complying with increasing CAFE standards and emissions standards is a big issue. Also, V6 sales were probably a small minority of the sales. There are so many V6's on this forum because people on boards tend to be enthusiasts, and enthusiasts tend to prioritize power. Most people, if were only offered the 4-cyl, will just take the 4-cyl, even if they would prefer a V6 if it were available. Also, it's main competitors don't offer V6's (Rouge, CRV, etc) and they're doing just fine.

Yes, it sucks for people who care, but most people don't, and that's the sad reality.

Originally Posted by DVS

No, I don't normally drive around with 3 grown men in the vehicle. Certainly not "all of the time."

But sometimes I do. Heck, sometimes there's even four of us.

Just by having 3 men in the 4-cylinder 4.3 RAV4 during my test drive, some of which was going up a normal freeway entrance ramp from an underpass under dry, daylight (read: ideal) conditions, more than proved to me that the 4-cylinder version didn't have enough power for its weight plus even moderate occupancy to be able to be operated in what I considered to be a manner that was safe enough.

It can be hard enough to merge with traffic even when you do have enough power to achieve the same speed as existing traffic.

But not having enough power to get to traffic speed makes it worse, or at the very least more complicated and thus more dangerous, for everyone in the vicinity.




Agreed. Although if you've got it floored (as I did) and still can't keep up, what could the driver possibly do to operate it more safely? (Heh...toss someone out? ;-) )

That's why I'm thankful my test drive was under more-than-minimal load conditions, and they weren't much more than minimal and were by no means extreme.

It taught me what I needed to know in order avoid picking a vehicle that was clearly underpowered. I belived the 4-cylinder 4.3 RAV4 was borderline dangerously underpowered, at least under some very reasonable conditions. Toyota puts the same basic engine power in other vehicles, but I think at least most (all?) of those vehicles are significantly lighter than the RAV4.

It was (is) unacceptable to me to purchase a vehicle that even, say, 10% of the time would put my safety and the safety of my passengers and even strangers (other drivers) at higher risk due to lack of power to perform adequately on the road.

Maybe the new 6-speed transmission in the 2013 RAV4 4-cylinder will greatly improve that situation. And maybe the 2013 model will be noticeably lighter than the 4.3's, too.

I'd sure love to know what the 0-60 mph time in the 4-cylinder 4.4 is, particularly compared to the 4-cylinder 4.3. It would at least be indicative of improvement, which is what I'm hoping for, and expecting.

They use the 2.5L in the base Camry as well, which weighs about the same as the RAV4, but the Camry has a 6 speed transmission, and a better aerodynamic profile.

I find the achilles heel to the 4-cyl RAV4 4.3 is it's 4-speed transmission, not its engine. At lower speeds around town, it's fine. Nice and torquey for what it is. But when speeds get higher, the lack of suitable gear ratios becomes more of a disadvantage, pushing out of it's increasingly limited power band. Once the speed is over say, 70 MPH, the engine is like, "I think I can I think I can"

[mrodgers]

Thoughts of a recent test drive here. I am in the market.

The CRV was worthless. Just running 50 mph in traffic back up to the dealer I was on a small hill and it had to downshift 2 gears to hold speed.

Drive the 4 cyl Toyota and I didn't jump on the throttle, but I was impressed with it over the Honda. A definite improvement over the CRV power delivery. But....

Earlier I had the V6 out with just my wife (no salesman) from another dealer and I got to tromp on it. I'm use to the low end torque in my VW turbo. Yea! The V6 is definitely how a vehicle is suppose to drive. It definitely goes when you want to go and there was no effort climbing up the fairly steep and looong hill I took it on.

Thus, no, I would definitely not buy a 2013. I am looking at new, but after getting a significant amount more out of our totaled Mazda Tribute, we are steering towards new and I won't do without the V6.

I just wish the 13 was on the lots for better negotiations on the 12, that is if I could find a V6 out there that didn't have every option I dont want taking the price up $3000 more than I want to spend.

[DVS]

Corrupt Politician, agreed on most everything except:

• Not sure about the easy target of CAFE being a priority. Toyota *does* offer the 4 cylinder for the RAV4. The V6 Highlander they pitch as the significantly more expensive (comparably equipped) replacement gets worse mileage, so...they're promoting worse mileage for those customers that need more power for things like towing. Really? If CAFE were the priority I'm having a hard time seeing Toyota promoting worse mileage under any circumstances. I think they're promoting higher profits from those customers that need more power for things like towing. More profits is, after all, what they do.
• Not sure "enthusiasts tend to prioritize power" as a generalization, but definitely for things like towing. I suspect for RAV4 it's more a case of "enthusiasts tend to use 'Recreational Active Vehicle' features more, like towing a boat or softroading" - both of which the 4.4 are worse at. Toyota has now followed pretty much everyone else in Compact Sport Utility Vehicle loss of functionality in favor of what the majority of the CUV moms out there want: cheap, economical transportation with decent cargo room (shopping, soccer gear) and AWD for more safety and better foul weather handling. Towing? Not interested. Camping/Softroading? Not interested. You guys spend a lot more and get a Highlander, but gimme my cheap station wagon. ("SofTex," really?)
  
  I wonder if instead Toyota still made the Camry wagon and killed the Venza altogether (I've never understood where the Venza fits in) whether or not the RAV4 V6 would still exist, as the Venza V6 competes with the RAV4 V6, too, but gets about the same mileage. The Venza is also very significantly more expensive, comparably equipped. A top-end RAV4 V6 Limited is about $32K, a top-end Venza V6 is (like the Highlander) about $40K. Personally, I think they killed the wrong one, but I'd guess the profits are higher on the Venza V6 than the RAV4 V6, and again, that's what they do.
  
  So now Toyota has removed the middle option: now you've either got cheap, low power with some utility or significantly more expensive good power with some utility. I rather liked the middle.
  
• I don't care for the design of the 4.4, specifically the removal of the full-sized, easy to access spare tire, the loss of the cavernous underfloor storage bins and the loss of ground clearance (it snows where I am). I do appreciate improved aerodynamics, improved noise reduction, the dramatically improved transmission and improved safety features (blind spot monitoring, cross traffic alert, backup camera standard, etc.) though. Kudos on those things.
• I'm fairly sure the Camry is at least a few hundred pounds lighter than the RAV4, but you're absolutely right about the better transmission and aerodynamics.

I do agree the worst part of the 4.3 I4 is that 4 speed transmission. When I test drove the I4 and then the V6 I noticed the I4 was noticeably louder, probably because it had to work so much harder. The reduced engine noise I perceived was another reason I chose the V6.

RAV4 V6, you really will be missed.

[DVS]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

Yea! The V6 is definitely how a vehicle is suppose to drive. It definitely goes when you want to go and there was no effort climbing up the fairly steep and looong hill I took it on.

Agreed, and Amen! I had a similar experience on my 4.3 RAV4 I4 test drive. The 4.3 RAV4 V6 destroyed it on an uphill freeway entrance ramp and had no trouble at all merging with traffic.

I find it interesting (and maybe disturbing?) how these days so many people just accept the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for something like a hill to cause noticeable performance issues for a passenger vehicle.

A hill!!!



Someday we'll probably all be stuck driving vehicles that can just barely get out of their own way.

Unless a totally new (and environmentally friendlier) drivetrain/power source comes along (hydrogen? electric? Dilithium crystals?) that provides affordability and plenty of power, and/or that much lighter strong materials (e.g. carbon fiber) are standard, I fear these may be the last of the "good old days."

[Corrupt Politician]

Originally Posted by DVS

Corrupt Politician, agreed on most everything except:[LIST][*]Not sure about the easy target of CAFE being a priority. Toyota *does* offer the 4 cylinder for the RAV4. The V6 Highlander they pitch as the significantly more expensive (comparably equipped) replacement gets worse mileage, so...they're promoting worse mileage for those customers that need more power for things like towing. Really? If CAFE were the priority I'm having a hard time seeing Toyota promoting worse mileage under any circumstances. I think they're promoting higher profits from those customers that need more power for things like towing. More profits is, after all, what they do.[*]Not sure "enthusiasts tend to prioritize power" as a generalization, but definitely for things like towing. I suspect for RAV4 it's more a case of "enthusiasts tend to use 'Recreational Active Vehicle' features more, like towing a boat or softroading" - both of which the 4.4 are worse at. Toyota has now followed pretty much everyone else in Compact Sport Utility Vehicle loss of functionality in favor of what the majority of the CUV moms out there want: cheap, economical transportation with decent cargo room (shopping, soccer gear) and AWD for more safety and better foul weather handling. Towing? Not interested. Camping/Softroading? Not interested. You guys spend a lot more and get a Highlander, but gimme my cheap station wagon. ("SofTex," really?)

I wonder if instead Toyota still made the Camry wagon and killed the Venza altogether (I've never understood where the Venza fits in) whether or not the RAV4 V6 would still exist, as the Venza V6 competes with the RAV4 V6, too, but gets about the same mileage. The Venza is also very significantly more expensive, comparably equipped. A top-end RAV4 V6 Limited is about $32K, a top-end Venza V6 is (like the Highlander) about $40K. Personally, I think they killed the wrong one, but I'd guess the profits are higher on the Venza V6 than the RAV4 V6, and again, that's what they do.

So now Toyota has removed the middle option: now you've either got cheap, low power with some utility or significantly more expensive good power with some utility. I rather liked the middle.

Here's the thing, I suspect that Toyota suspects that most people who own RAV4's and would prefer V6's, would still buy a RAV4 without a V6. In other words, Toyota doesn't seem to believe that most people who would prefer a V6 RAV4 would 'upgrade' to a Highlander V6, rather they think they will simply settle for a RAV4 with a 4-cylinder. Since that is the case, they will be better off removing the V6 to comply with upcoming CAFE standards: they will probably sell almost the same amount of RAV4's if not more without a V6, so it is an easy target to drop. While some may 'upgrade' to a V6 Highlander instead, I believe Toyota expects that those will be a very small minority, and therefore, it will be a net benefit for CAFE standards. And I tend to agree. The reality of the RAV4, as you alluded to, is that most people who buy it do essentially want a smallish snow-worthy station wagon, without having a 'station wagon.' They don't care about towing and all those recreational activities. Again, this sucks for enthusiasts. I'd blame the CAFE standards, a policy that I don't particularly agree with. I also would not be surprised if the Venza loses it's V6 next round.

It's removing choice, I agree it sucks for us as the consumer. But in the end, these CAFE standards are not going anywhere (for now) and they had to start somewhere, and the RAV4 V6 was an easy target, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by DVS

I'm fairly sure the Camry is at least a few hundred pounds lighter than the RAV4, but you're absolutely right about the better transmission and aerodynamics.

RAV4 I4 weight - 3360 lbs.
Camry I4 weight - 3190 lbs, only a 170 pound difference, about the weight of an extra big guy, not that significant. The RAV4 is actually pretty light for what it is.

[NLRAV]

Would you guys be interested in therapy (perhaps group therapy) to help you deal with this recent disappointment? Time to move on..... for at least one model year.