Did you trade your 4.3 for a 4.4? - Page 2 - 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
#11 (permalink) Old 02-17-2013, 06:49 PM
Junior Member
Country: Bombadil's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVS View Post
In my opinion the loss of available power, towing capacity, ground clearance, storage, etc. ("utility") have firmly moved the 2013 RAV4 from "Compact SUV" to "car," and that's not quite enough for me. I went shopping for a Compact SUV, not a car.

To call the 2013 RAV4 any kind of SUV doesn't seem right to me. I think of the 2013 RAV4 more as the Toyota Matrix's bigger brother than the Toyota Highlander's little brother, which is how I think of the 4.3s because of what was available for them.
.
I agree with you. The RAV4 3rd Gen had a lot of SUV spirit. They sapped a lot of that out with the redesign to make what I feel is a tall Corolla wagon with some Camry touches to it. I think what they have is a well executed tall, compact wagon. Hard to fault it on that front. Nice interiors, solid fuel economy, comfortable, very spacious for its size, and a peppy engine/tranny combo which is sufficient for everyday driving.

It is much more like the CR-V than it used to be. Almost like they used the CR-V as a blueprint and then refined it. And that makes sense in terms of sales to the general consumer. I've long thought of the CR-V as a tall Civic wagon with some Accord touches.
Bombadil is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#12 (permalink) Old 02-17-2013, 08:06 PM
Advanced Member
Country: bigbird1's Flag is: Canada
 
bigbird1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 39
Thanked 279 Times in 215 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombadil View Post
It is much more like the CR-V than it used to be. Almost like they used the CR-V as a blueprint and then refined it.
To me that's not a bad thing.
bigbird1 is offline  
#13 (permalink) Old 02-17-2013, 10:09 PM
Junior Member
Country: Bombadil's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
And I'm not saying it is a bad thing. For many, many people it is a good thing. That's what they want to own.
Bombadil is offline  
#14 (permalink) Old 02-18-2013, 10:58 AM
Member
Country: smithe68's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 153
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
No, and not going too. There are a few things missing for me that are important and used in our household. The V6 option which relates to towing capability (2000 lbs difference) and standard payload (121 lbs difference), passenger volume is down (rear headroom and legroom is down), the under floor storage in the rear, adjustable rear seats and the ground clearance, which is now only .2 inches better than a Camry. Like a lot of people, I don't want to go up in size vehicle wise to have the features that the 4.3 has.
I have come to the conclusion that the 4.4 is a good looking rig overall though and if I could take one feature from it and put it on my 4.3, it would be the rear hatch.

'10 RAV4 Sport V6 AWD
'07 Yamaha FJR
'93 Kawasaki KLR650
smithe68 is offline  
#15 (permalink) Old 02-18-2013, 11:48 AM
Junior Member
Country: Jug831's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I stopped by my local dealership on Saturday to check out the 2013. Absolutley hated the front of it. I stopped at the front and left. All that black plastic on the front was terrible. Inside might be beautiful, but couldn't get over how awful the front was.

Very happy with our 2012 Limited V6. Another good decision on my part! Going to have to look at Higlander for future upgrades. Will probably need the additional room anyway.
Jug831 is offline  
#16 (permalink) Old 02-19-2013, 06:08 AM
Member
Country: rob west's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 126
Thanks: 24
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
If I can work the 'right' deal, I am thinking of trading my 2011 red rav with SAP and 23k for a black 2013 Limited.....will see....

Rob West
rob west is offline  
#17 (permalink) Old 02-21-2013, 11:30 PM
Member
Country: NEWRAV4's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LA
Posts: 54
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
(Thread Starter)
4.4 lost a little ground clearance
NEWRAV4 is offline  
#18 (permalink) Old 02-22-2013, 05:20 AM
Junior Member
Country: SwagginWagon's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 43
Thanks: 3
Thanked 24 Times in 8 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
In the past week, my brother bought the 2012 sport i4 and I bought the 2013 limited. Others have already stated the differences and there are enough reviews online for details but it all comes down to how you intend on using the car, lifestyle and the percentage of actual intended uses. I originally shopped for a 12' sport for the v6 but felt the refinements of the newer model far outweighed the v6 and for my 80/20 highway (mostly LA traffic) to street driving the 13' i4 is perfect and has enough power. Also, I'm using it to haul around a baby so the v6 would have been a moot point (don't want her head jerking around). Fortunately for me, I have a sports car when I feel the need for spirited driving. My brother preferred the 12' because it handled like a small truck and he intends to haul his dogs as well as outdoor related gear (fishing, camping, etc) while still having an efficient commuter. For him, the upgraded interior was nice but probably would have worn faster so he was indifferent. While we are both practical and energy (gas) conscious guys, he's the more outdoor-sy type and I come off more as a foul mouthed yuppie even though I'm well intentioned. It's pretty clear Toyota was targeting the greater majority of drivers who have similar driving tendencies and sensibilities with their 4 gen model. Once my wife saw the interior of the new model, the 12' was out of the question. She went as far as to say that if I had bought the V6 she would drive in it with her eyes closed! lol I don't feel any shortcomings from the i4 (which was my main concern) driving in and around LA surface streets and congested freeways. Transmission is really smooth. Overall I'm pleasantly surprised with its power and handling. I'm glad I got the 13' Limited over the 12' Sport V6 as I'm really enjoying the interior (Acura-ish), touch screen (which makes the 12' look ancient), and all the other features that make it convenient (smart key, auto lift gate, climate controls, etc).
SwagginWagon is offline  
#19 (permalink) Old 02-22-2013, 06:32 AM
DVS
Advanced Member
Country: DVS's Flag is: United States
 
DVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 771
Thanks: 97
Thanked 108 Times in 93 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwagginWagon View Post
In the past week, my brother bought the 2012 sport i4 and I bought the 2013 limited....
So, your brother needed a Compact SUV for his camping/fishing and commuting needs so he bought a 4.3 RAV4, and you needed a Car and bought a 4.4 RAV4.

That sounds right on the money to me.

It's awesome that you both got what you wanted!

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

Long live the RAV4 V6!
DVS is offline  
#20 (permalink) Old 02-22-2013, 12:06 PM
Junior Member
Country: amxguy1970's Flag is: United States
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVS View Post
No.

Can't do it. The maximum towing capacity on the (current) 4.4 is only about 40% of what you could get on the 4.3, and what I have on my 4.3. Plus I find the 4.3 notably more functionally versatile than the 4.4 as well.

In my opinion the loss of available power, towing capacity, ground clearance, storage, etc. ("utility") have firmly moved the 2013 RAV4 from "Compact SUV" to "car," and that's not quite enough for me. I went shopping for a Compact SUV, not a car.

To call the 2013 RAV4 any kind of SUV doesn't seem right to me. I think of the 2013 RAV4 more as the Toyota Matrix's bigger brother than the Toyota Highlander's little brother, which is how I think of the 4.3s because of what was available for them.

Maybe someday a future 4.4 model year will return with more utility available, at least a more powerful engine. So I can't say I would never trade my 4.3 in for a "4.4," but I can say I would never trade my 4.3 in for a 2013 RAV4.

.
Not to burst your bubble but the 4.3 and 4.4 Rav's are both CUV's. The astro van was more suv than the 4.3 Rav.

Toyota did exactly what it meant/had to do when it freshened the new rav. Every vehicle on the market that is going to redesigned now and in the future will get a little lower and smaller engine to conform to the strict mpg's that the manufacturer as a whole has to meet. With that everyone is demanding higher quality materials, quieter better handling cars with more technology.

This new rav is just as rugged as the old yet more refined. It just has a softer appearence, yes I am not a fan of the black plastic either... Would I love to see a bigger option engine? Heck ya, and they might in the future to better compete with the others, or atleast offer a turbo top option? If they did that towing would probably be the same as today's... isn't the new one only an inch lower?

@Smith, I don't see how 121lbs of payload can make a purchase difference. Do you really calculate and get that close to where it makes a difference? If you are getting that close to your payload regularly maybe a larger cuv would fit your needs better? That is like the guys who tow right at the max with a 1/2 ton on a regular basis when they should have bought a 3/4 ton to better suit their needs more comfortably.

I think this new Rav better aligns with the competiton it is directed at rather than try to appear to be something else it isn't. They could have easily tried to keep more along the lines of a rugged look but at the espense of mpg and other stuff like wind noise when it would have the same capability as the new one.

Also, isn't there storage next to the spare in the floor of the new one? Maybe half as much as the old though?

Tyler
amxguy1970 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