4.4 Test drives and reviews - Page 3 - Toyota RAV4 Forums
4.4 General Discuss anything RAV4.4 related that doesn't fit in the categories below.

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 11:02 AM
Member
Country: DenverMR2's Flag is: United States
 
DenverMR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 143
Thanks: 17
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I might be wrong about something. Does the sport appearance rear door open sideways (and the main difference is that there is no spare on it)? My opposition to the side opening door is that you cant leave it open if carrying a long object.
DenverMR2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 11:20 AM
Advanced Member
Country: Carbon's Flag is: United States
 
Carbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NE Illinois
Posts: 4,052
Thanks: 7
Thanked 179 Times in 169 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverMR2 View Post
I might be wrong about something. Does the sport appearance rear door open sideways (and the main difference is that there is no spare on it)? My opposition to the side opening door is that you cant leave it open if carrying a long object.
Yes, for the 4.3s. You are posting into a 4.4 forum. When the 4.4s come to exist (2013 models), they will have a lift-up back door.

2009 V6 4wd Base
Carbon is offline  
post #23 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 12:53 PM
Member
Country: DenverMR2's Flag is: United States
 
DenverMR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 143
Thanks: 17
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbon View Post
Yes, for the 4.3s. You are posting into a 4.4 forum. When the 4.4s come to exist (2013 models), they will have a lift-up back door.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm in the 4.4 forum, because I'm considering a 4.4, or 4.3 V6...
DenverMR2 is offline  
 
post #24 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 02:03 PM
Advanced Member
Country: CanuckRAV4's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: GTA Ontario
Posts: 580
Thanks: 32
Thanked 44 Times in 40 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Essentially all 4.4 are the new 'Sport Appearance' with up-lifting tailgate.

4.3 Sport V6 SAP has side opening tailgate without spare wheel hanging on it.

2010 RAV4 V6 Sport 4WD SAP
CanuckRAV4 is offline  
post #25 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-21-2012, 11:18 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:
Originally Posted by NLRAV View Post
Can we rely on this test? The European SWB 177HP diesel manual transmission takes 9.3 seconds for 0-62 (=100km/h). To knock 0.5 seconds off for getting to 2 miles per hour less in a heavier car with a 4 speed auto seems unlikely. Gear ratios might be a factor.

When you google, you find varying reports but the 8.8 figure (6.3 for V6) seems to be persistent. Edmunds seems to have measured 8.9 for the 2011 2.5 FWD. I guess journalists would do well to check their facts. Unless, in real life the 2013 RAV4 does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds and Toyota turn out to be pessimists.

Just looked up the russian toyota rav4 specs and the LWB with automatic transmission but still the 2.4 i4 engine (170HP) should manage 0-100km/h (0-62mph) in 10.6 seconds. So Toyota claim >10secs and in reality it does it in 8.8/8.9 secs?
Yes, I believe 8.9 seconds is an accurate figure for the 4.3 version. Going from a 4 speed to a 6 speed transmission should translate into about 8.5 seconds. This corresponds not only with the RAV4, but also other compact utility vehicles. I'm really interested in seeing how the Mazda CX 5 performs with its optional 2.5 L engine and an additional 30 hp. My goal is to find a vehicle in this class with all-wheel drive that can achieve 24 miles per gallon in the city and 30 miles per gallon on the highway. The Mazda achieves these mileage figures with all wheel drive. If it can do a 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, I see that as being a winner.
Omega Man is offline  
post #26 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 12:27 AM Thread Starter
Advanced Member
Country: RAV N US's Flag is: Canada
 
RAV N US's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,465
Thanks: 9
Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
(Thread Starter)
RAV N US is offline  
post #27 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 03:13 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)
It'll take almost nine seconds to hit 60 mph--a 2.0-liter Ford or Hyundai will be several car lengths away by that time--but the RAV4 hasn't suffered much bloat. = DEAD TO ME
Omega Man is offline  
post #28 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 03:42 PM
Member
Country: DenverMR2's Flag is: United States
 
DenverMR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 143
Thanks: 17
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Man View Post
Yes, I believe 8.9 seconds is an accurate figure for the 4.3 version. Going from a 4 speed to a 6 speed transmission should translate into about 8.5 seconds. This corresponds not only with the RAV4, but also other compact utility vehicles. I'm really interested in seeing how the Mazda CX 5 performs with its optional 2.5 L engine and an additional 30 hp. My goal is to find a vehicle in this class with all-wheel drive that can achieve 24 miles per gallon in the city and 30 miles per gallon on the highway. The Mazda achieves these mileage figures with all wheel drive. If it can do a 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, I see that as being a winner.
I have the same goal as you; wanting a AWD that gets decent mpg in the city/ hw. I'm sure you and 1000's of others (myself included) were totally disappointed when toyota said the 2013 would only get 22mpg city; especially when compared to the CX5 with the 2.0L.

The question for me is the slightly better mpg of the CX5 w/ the 2.5L (24/30) that much better than the 2013 RAV (22/29) worth jumping brands (I've diven toyotas my whole life; no problems, high resale value)? There is also the debate about direct injection/ high comp engines being less reliable over time.

I've driven a (2.0L) CX5 in Denver, and it is under powered in town. I can only imagine how poorly it does in the mountains. I wish toyota would clarify this "1.3 sec gain in 0-60" statement and if the EPA 22/29 were recorded using "eco" mode. Has it been determined that there is a "normal" default mode when you start the car, or is the default mode "eco"?
DenverMR2 is offline  
post #29 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 03:59 PM
DVS
Advanced Member
Country: DVS's Flag is: United States
 
DVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,452
Thanks: 335
Thanked 230 Times in 198 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Man View Post
It'll take almost nine seconds to hit 60 mph--a 2.0-liter Ford or Hyundai will be several car lengths away by that time--but the RAV4 hasn't suffered much bloat. = DEAD TO ME
I liked that one a lot, but I laughed out loud when I read this:

>There's a Sport mode we encourage you to seek out, since it sharpens the throttle and gearbox responses, but avoid the Eco button at all costs. (It's labeled Eco because "buzzkill" wouldn't fit.)

I still have to wonder if the 0-60 times were done in Sport Mode or Normal Mode.

Silver 2012 RAV4 Limited V6 4WD with Tow Prep (3500 lbs towing capacity!), OEM Hitch, Remote Start and Dashcam.

Long live the RAV4 V6!
Best. Vehicle. Ever.
DVS is offline  
post #30 of 172 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 04:22 PM
Advanced Member
Country: bigbird1's Flag is: Canada
 
bigbird1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,705
Thanks: 40
Thanked 316 Times in 239 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVS View Post
I still have to wonder if the 0-60 times were done in Sport Mode or Normal Mode.
Toyota and any other manufacturer would only publish their best results. You can bet that the 0-60 time was in Sport mode and the fuel consumption rating was done in ECO mode.
bigbird1 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