Would you buy 2013 Rav4? - Page 8 - Toyota RAV4 Forums
4.4 General Discuss anything RAV4.4 related that doesn't fit in the categories below.

View Poll Results: Would you buy 2013 Rav4?
Yes, I like it. 89 40.64%
No, I don't like the design. 40 18.26%
No, they dropped the V6. 57 26.03%
I would if it still had the V6. 33 15.07%
Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
#71 (permalink) Old 12-18-2012, 02:16 AM
Member
Country: NLRAV's Flag is: Netherlands
 
NLRAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Well, if you're concerned about safety:
2013 RAV4 gets Toyota back into crossover war

"Toyota says the new RAV4 accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 8.9 seconds, 1.3 seconds faster than the 2012." (applies to 2.5 i4 now with 6-speed auto)

Of course a V6 with a manual gearbox allowing you to shift back a few gears to make yourself HEARD whilst merging would be even better for safety!

And if merging goes horribly wrong you now have a few safety features extra on the new model. Who would have known more powerful cars make safer cars (less accident prone)? I have to tell the insurance companies about this! They will offer discounts on cars with more power/displacement! Or will they?
NLRAV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#72 (permalink) Old 12-18-2012, 05:36 AM
DVS
Advanced Member
Country: DVS's Flag is: United States
 
DVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 753
Thanks: 89
Thanked 105 Times in 90 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Good article. Thanks very much for finding the 0-60 time comparisons!

It looks like the 6-speed transmission and whatever other improvements were made (aerodynamics, etc.) have improved the acceleration performance by about 13%, which is excellent, particularly given the improved mileage for cruising, too.

I was very curious about that. The 4-speed transmission was really, really long in the tooth. And apparantly rather crippling, to boot.

I wonder what the test conditions of both vehicles were for the 0-60 times (2WD/4WD versions? Same driver? Same track? At sea level? etc.).

Thanks again.

Silver 2012 RAV4 Limited V6 4WD with Tow Prep and OEM Hitch.

Long live the RAV4 V6!
DVS is offline  
#73 (permalink) Old 12-18-2012, 05:59 AM
Member
Country: NLRAV's Flag is: Netherlands
 
NLRAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 53
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
There was a RAV4 press event in Scottsdale, Arizona a few days ago. As of today the embargo for the press ends. So expect to see quite a few reviews and first drives to pop up.
2013 Toyota RAV4 Review by Jennifer Geiger
2013 Toyota RAV4 Review: Car Reviews
NLRAV is offline  
#74 (permalink) Old 12-18-2012, 08:41 AM
Senior Member
Country: Willow's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 244
Thanks: 5
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
From reading the recent reviews I will not be buying a 2013+. More car like, reduced ground clearance.....I am not a fan of the big plastic looking front reminds me of Saturn cars or older Tercels. I would look at buying a 2012 when the time comes or mover on to Highlander or anoter company.
Willow is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Willow For This Useful Post:
ROLLTIDE (12-30-2012)
#75 (permalink) Old 12-18-2012, 04:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
"Toyota says the new RAV4 accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 8.9 seconds, 1.3 seconds faster than the 2012." (applies to 2.5 i4 now with 6-speed auto)
This is absolutely incorrect! The 0 to 60 time per car and driver comparison test was 9 seconds flat for the all-wheel-drive model.
After looking at all of the journalist reviews, it appears as though they are avoiding the acceleration issue. Mazda has already updated their CX-5 with a four-cylinder that puts out 30 more foot-pounds of torque, game over
Omega Man is offline  
#76 (permalink) Old 12-26-2012, 09:58 AM
Member
Country: josephis's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 68
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I am on my third RAV, a 2011 LTD w/V6 + 4WD. I've owned two in the 4.3 series and one in the 4.2 series. I find the lack of a V6 option in the 4.4 series a disappointment but I understand most buyers went for the I4 anyway, so this was an economic decision by Toyota. The upgraded transmission (6 speed) is a plus and does make slightly improved mileage possible. The side-opening rear gate never bothered me much but the new top-hinged gate does eliminate a configuration many people found annoying. I like to buy and drive the top-of-the-line vehicle and the thing that may be the most disappointing is that the 4.4 Limited AWD vehicle appears to be the poorest riding of all the trim levels (18-inch wheels) for the most money. Sacrificing ride quality for cosmetic reasons doesn't make sense to me. In my part of the country, the roads are not in great condition so a vehicle that absorbs routine bumps and road divots is important to me. The road tests I've read so far all mention degraded ride quality in the Limited/18-inch wheel choice. This alone may stop me from considering another RAV.

joseph
josephis is offline  
#77 (permalink) Old 12-26-2012, 01:50 PM
Member
Country: Frosty's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 112
Thanks: 19
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Its now a castrated and effeminate wimpmobile......definitely not possessing qualities befitting a real man.

Last edited by Frosty; 12-26-2012 at 06:31 PM.
Frosty is offline  
#78 (permalink) Old 12-27-2012, 12:07 AM
Junior Member
Country: Songdog's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 29
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Toyota has made a big mistake by dropping the V6, IMHO.

The V6, tow prep package, 4wd and spare tire were the main reasons I bought my 2010. No way I would have bought a 4 cyl.

2010 Rav4 Base 6cyl 4WD w/ tow prep and hitch, XM radio
235/65R17 tires
Songdog is offline  
#79 (permalink) Old 01-08-2013, 08:57 AM
Member
Country: pokerstar's Flag is: United States
 
pokerstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: NJ & MA
Posts: 139
Thanks: 5
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I have a 2004 Highlander AWD 4 cyl with tow prep. I used to tow 2 snowmobiles on a trailer about 350 miles at a pop. Not a problem. Slow? Yes. Gas guzzler? Yes. But it was doable.

And after 122,000 miles, I can say I'm glad I had the 4 cyl. That's one of the reasons I'm very excited about the Rav4. The Highlander has gotten too big and the mileage is poor. The specs on the Rav 4 look to be not much smaller than my Highlander. I'm willing to go down a *little* in size to get that mileage.

I can't wait for them to hit the showroom. I'm loving everything I read about them. It's the Rav4 or the CRV, but the Rav4 has a lot of additional features (mostly tech) that are making me wait for it.
pokerstar is offline  
#80 (permalink) Old 01-09-2013, 01:44 PM
Junior Member
Country: supton's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NH
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I don't get it. The 2.5 in our 2011 Camry, albeit with stick shift, has rarely left me wanting more power. Maybe in raw acceleration. But it only needs a downshift if I was lugging it in the first place. Not a bad engine, although, sure, more power is always nicer. On the highway I don't think I've ever needed a downshift from 6th unless if I was going 60 or less. Unfortunately my test drive in the 2012 I4 wasn't long enough, but it seemed just fine, at least with just me in it. Uninspiring, perhaps, but I didn't think it was underpowered. [But I test drive few vehicles.]

I don't plan on buying a 2013. I don't see anything to excite me. Don't care much about the loss of a full size spare, as most of my vehicles haven't had one, or required it. A new transmission, hmm, it's a Toyota but I'd hate to be among the first long term quality tester. 18 inch tires? I don't get the rush to taller rims. Styling is ok, don't mind; but I didn't care for the picture of the center stack with the NAV. Too futuristic. Slight loss of ground clearance doesn't bother me, as I don't off-road.

Personally, I wish they had geared it lower. Well, top gear overall ratio could be the same, but gear it lower in 1st. Then they could have retained a bit of the class leading towing capacity. Just hit 2k, that sounds better than the nominal 1,500lb. For me I'm rather interested in those things, and high geared transmissions I'm not interested in, even if I'm not pushing the towing limits (I have a driveway that slopes a bit, and a small camper). But I'm starting to think that a 1,500lb rating is code for "don't bother with more than 1k" so I don't see any reason for me to pursue this sort of vehicle.

I predict it'll sell well regardless.

2011 Camry 2.5L/6spd manual, 73kmiles
2010 Tundra 4.6L/auto/4x4/DC, 85kmiles
2004 VW Jetta Wagon TDi/5spd manual, 295kmiles
supton is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome