Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

Well, what does everyone think????!!!!....

37K views 144 replies 60 participants last post by  bigbird1 
#1 ·
Have at 'er.
 
#73 ·
It looks like there won't be a lot of 4.3 owners changing over any time soon.
It will end up being a whole new generation of RAV4 owners.
Makes it easier to tolerate the little things you don't like when you compare them to the stuff that Toyota missed the mark on the new gen.
Probably the same as the 4.2 owners when the 4.3 came out, they prefer their model.
 
#75 ·
I was having the same thoughts... it does not matter what 4.3 owners think!
I would have preferred better gas mileage with the new 6AT though.
Personally I almost never use the bottom cargo space unless I am doing a road trip.

But only a test drive will tell you if you love it or hate it.
 
#77 ·
I have had all 3 generations of the Rav4. I had a first generation, then purchased a 2005 Manual transmission the last year of the second generation, and my wife got one of the first 3rd-generation V6 models in 2006. We absolutely love the V6 Rav4 which now has 115,000 miles on it.

We were both disappointed to see the V6 dropped in 2013. How disappointed? We went to our dealer yesterday and purchased one of his last two V6 limited AWD models that's due in Dec. We got it for $900 under invoice and 0% interest 60 months financing by Toyota. We're keeping the 2006 V6 and are adding the 2012 V6 to the stable. I believe the V6 Rav4 is destined for cult status like the Supra.

All of you with V6 Rav4's? ....... hang onto them! All the rest of you? ..... Sorry, you'll never know what you're missing. :)
 
#79 ·
I have had all 3 generations of the Rav4. I had a first generation, then purchased a 2005 Manual transmission the last year of the second generation, and my wife got one of the first 3rd-generation V6 models in 2006. We absolutely love the V6 Rav4 which now has 115,000 miles on it.

We were both disappointed to see the V6 dropped in 2013. How disappointed? We went to our dealer yesterday and purchased one of his last two V6 limited AWD models that's due in Dec. We got it for $900 under invoice and 0% interest 60 months financing by Toyota. We're keeping the 2006 V6 and are adding the 2012 V6 to the stable. I believe the V6 Rav4 is destined for cult status like the Supra.

All of you with V6 Rav4's? ....... hang onto them! All the rest of you? ..... Sorry, you'll never know what you're missing. :)
LOL whoa there horsey, I dunno about that but yeah they'll probably hold their value a little bit better. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikkoku
#78 ·
yeah, I said that earlier in some other thread, we're sitting on a good investment and will probably see our 6's depriciate a lot slower and eventually they may even go up in value, you never know. :)
 
#81 ·
Look at that interior color scheme. I really like it but I personally have always liked that color combo. Truthfully it’s very year-2K (dated). And I don’t imagine most folks are going to be too wild about it. Look at the padded stitched” leather” (SofTex) components to the dash. Very odd. The radio cluster sort of bugs me too. The obligatory 10 inch LCD panel to make the interface like a smartpone. Sheesh…It’s all kind of a weird clash of retro and modern. And not in a really good way. they are trying to push some design envelope but it's an odd effort. Sort-of the "sport" ethic of the Subaru Baja in a disjointed high-tech approach.



The exterior continues the quest for impression of speed, with eyes, facial structure and gum-line pulled back resulting from several g-forces. SERIOUSLY swept-back windshield. ( Is there any room for driver’s head in there?) They finally got rid of the swing gate in favor of overhead gate. Still, no stock mudflaps…which I just find very odd. No more rear gate spare tire. Good. Continuing the ineffectual rear visor that everyone is doing. And some very uninspired mag wheels.
Also, and most importantly, there’s officially no more V-6! Which really sucks. Standard old 176 hp I4 with 172 ft/lb of torque, ala CRV and Forester. Pretty uninspired. OK for a base option, but that is NOT a performance machine in any sense of the word-even with “sport” settings. But they did take the stodgy four-speed auto into the 21st century with a six-speed. (and, unfortunately, kept the serpentine shift gate!). Mileage is NOT impressive for a brand-new state-of-the-art vanilla 4-cylinder. You lost performance and you don't gain mileage. Where's the upside?



I don't think it lived up to the hype and expectation. If I was ready to buy I think I would at least be looking at other cars. It's not a cohesive design. Regarding the exterior: It's a trend-follower for the most part. Do what everybody else is doing. Regarding the interior: it's trying to be a trend-setter but it's a disjointed effort. It's gone to the lackluster horsepower of a non-turbo I4 (not that I think turbo is the best way to get added power). I give it 7/10. At least there's a lot of room for improvement. I think I'm going to go out and buy a 2012 V6 and put it in mothballs for a few years until I'm ready for another car.
 
#82 ·
It's a logical progression within it's segment. Thankfully, it's a lot better looking than it's main competitor, the CR-V which is butt-ugly. Too bad about the V6 and I prefer a side swinging rear door for accessing the roof.
 
#83 ·
Yeah- too bad about the CRV too. That WAS a nice no-nonsense well-proportioned vehicle. A gentleman with a well-groomed and reserved style who was not afraid to wear Carrharts and get his boots dirty.. This design trend now is all headed towards marketing to the younger generation. Look at kids sneakers... All the curves and whoops and color bands and flares...good god, man...it's just a sneaker! Maybe it's time to migrate over to a white Buick LaSabre or a nice Crown Victoria or an Edsel...:cool:
 
#84 ·
on 2nd thought, it does look a little like a Lexus RX 350, towards the front.
Overall it's not bad, but the gas mileage could have been better or at least put in more hp/torque for the same gas mileage.

I hope the two-tone dash does not make it here and that there are other colour combinations for the seats.
 
#87 ·
I guess from what I have read here only about 30% of Rav4s were sold with the V6, so the majority were actually happy with the 4 cyl. It is mostly V6 owners commenting here. However I feel as an owner of a V6 with the gas mileage virtually the same for highway driving, quieter engine, and passing power it is totally worth it. If I could get 5 or 10 mpgs with the 4 it might be a different story.

I think Toyota unfortunately has no new engines available at this time. The 2.7l would have been a better compromise for only a one engine option. With no real improvement in mileage over the 4.3 they missed the opportunity for existing owners to consider upgrading.

I am shocked they did not release a hybrid or at least indicate they have one coming down the pipe. The more I think about it the hype did not justify the results.

Too bad.
 
#93 ·
#89 ·
Okay, so I love power and fun :thumbs_up: on my way from A to B & back! And doing it at waaay better mileage than my 1968 Barracuda 340S.

So, what I want to know is w/o the "extra" 100HP what separates the RAV4 from the Honda CRV I almost bought a few years ago and the Subaru Forester I ditched after only a couple years after test driving 269HP?

The complaint the magazines had about the CRV was always "no V6." At least with the Forester you can get the XT turbo if you don't mind a big mileage hit.

Obviously Honda and Toyota want us to buy Pilots or Highlanders, but they're too big and heavy to be fun. And Acura and Lexus V6s are way too pricey to be considered cheap fun like my V6 RAV4 and Accord Hybrid.
 
#92 · (Edited)
The complaint the magazines had about the CRV was always "no V6." At least with the Forester you can get the XT turbo if you don't mind a big mileage hit.
Conversely, one thing I have noticed is that in at least most of the reviews I've read over the last few years comparing the RAV4 to others (most notably the CRV) before (and after) I bought mine, they almost always rave about the 3rd row option and the V6 option as major advantages available on the RAV4.

I have a hard time imagining what they'll have to write about going forward. What...French stitching? Really???

To be fair, they also pretty much all complained about the rear swing-gate, but as I recall most of those complaints were more because it was hinged on the wrong side for the United States when loading from the curb. True, that.

The 4.3 was by no stretch of the imagination perfect, but the reasons why I chose the RAV4 over the competition will no longer exist starting in 2013.

I actually test drove a 4-cylinder RAV4 first. It was just me, my dad and the sales guy. I went to get on the freeway (somewhat uphill ramp) and had it floored. It was so underpowered I was actually wondering how safe it would be if I purchased it. I think we were doing maybe 50 at the top of the ramp.

Then I test drove a V6. Sold! God help anyone who lives or works in the mountains with a 4-Cylinder RAV4. Maybe that new 6-speed gearbox will make a difference? I wouldn't bet much on that, but I haven't test driven one, either.

I've heard several people say that about 30% of RAV4s sold in recent years were V6s. I find it hard to believe Toyota would discard (let's say "nearly") 30% of it's market in the hopes of winning more than 30%. That's a pretty big risk, I think.

So hopefully my V6 RAV4 will last for a very, very long time. I plan to drive it until the wheels fall off, and will enjoy every minute of it.

Especially those minutes that involve merging and passing...safely.
 
#90 ·
Wasn't the 4 cyl parred with a four speed? A 6 speed should be a big advantage in power to the wheels and fuel economy on the 2013, I'm surprised it isn't showing better EPA figures. The `12 was rated at 22/28mpg and the `13 is supposed to get 24/31 mpg for the FWD and 22/29 for the AWD, about the same mileage I got with my older 2002 AWD RAV4 and it was a four speed, but a smaller, lighter model with less power... actually, under powered to a fault in some situations.

I'm still really impressed with the Mazda CX5, hope they up its power next year or offer the super power diesel option.
 
#91 ·
Motor Trend has a good article (click here) and the comments by readers are interesting and entertaining at the bottom.

ie: "Extend those creases on the rear quarter and you'll have a 1959 Impala.Godzilla the designer strikes again." :p

 
  • Like
Reactions: rob west
#95 ·
PSA: There are 5 new V6 Rav4's at my local dealer. If anyone gets desperate for a V6 go to Courtesy Toyota of Orlando.

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
#107 ·
Agreed.

Offering a manual transmission and/or a turbodiesel (which generates 236 lb-ft of torque at 2000 RPM and achieves 39 mpg in the new version for Australia) would have helped this model stand out in ways that the other changes do not.
 
#102 ·
Seems the the current line of 2.2L Diesel in New Zealand is allowed to tow ... 4,400 lbs !!! I suppose they would bring down to 3,500 lbs if marketed to North America.
More likely 1,500 lbs here. We Americans don't know anything about towing. :rolleyes:
And remember trailer brakes over 600 lbs. :shrug:
 
#103 ·
I don't know if you guys are aware but diesel engines usually put out a lot of torque and its usually for pulling/towing, so my guess is a 2.2 turbo diesel would easily pull 3500lbs.

Sent from my HTC ONE X
 
#104 ·
I don't know if you guys are aware but diesel engines usually put out a lot of torque and its usually for pulling/towing, so my guess is a 2.2 turbo diesel would easily pull 3500lbs.
Yep, as listed in my signature, diesels are THE way to tow.
But in the US we'd be lawyer limited.
 
#105 ·
Over on another Toyota related forum I'm being flamed for daring to take issue with the lack of a V-6 or any engine option at all, no more 3rd row seats, and oogly unpainted bumpers on all trims, and what is clearly a down-marketing of the car. The new 4.4 is clearly a huge step forward in every way and anybody who thinks otherwise is just biased or has an axe to grind. :)
 
#108 ·
Some Good Changes

Rear mounted spare looked good at first but it turned out to be; hard to clean around, cover faded to a wonderful purple, cover is tough to get off and back on especially in the winter, steel wheel rusted, never used anyway! I will never buy a vehicle with an externally mounted spare, I like mine inside and clean, easy to get to, easy to maintain and ready to go.
The lift gate is a good move away from the swing gate.
The 4 banger is hopefully not an oil burner/ gas guzzler like ours (did I check the oil this week?) The 4 speed trans in our 07 really kills the vehicle, a 6 speed should be great! One engine and trans combo should make production flawless and very cost effective. And where the heck are you going anyway? There is always someone in front of me with dual exhausts and a wing on the back holding me up anyhow....
 
#109 ·
I will never buy a vehicle with an externally mounted spare, I like mine inside and clean, easy to get to, easy to maintain and ready to go.
How is a spare "easy to get to" when you have to pull everything out of the cargo area to get to the spare?

Maybe I'm an odd person; I use my cargo area often. Years ago I had a typical doughnut spare under the trunk floor in my Grand Prix. I got a flat on the way home from work and had the joy of changing it in a heavy spring downpour. Had I been on my way home from the grocery store, you can bet I would have been even more irritated with having to pull all the groceries (or anything else) out.

I noticed my sister-in-law's Santa Fe has a nice compromise. The spare is mounted under the vehicle with a winch. The crank for the winch is near the hatch opening (the edge of the cargo opening). This lets you use the winch without having to empty the cargo area and it keeps the spare outside (not wasting space inside) with a lift gate rather than a swing door.
 
#110 ·
I had a Toyota pickup years ago with the "chain falls crank" and the wheel stowed under the bed, accessible from under the tailgate. it really sucked. That crank and chain mechanism would get totally gunked up with mud and debris, get rusted, and sometimes frozen. Plus the wheel is just completely filthy- covered in mud and salt and grime. Just really sucked big time. I ended up taking it off and mounting in in the bed, right behind the rear window. Then someone stole it. Nice.

For the number of times that we actually need to use a spare (maybe once or twice in 100,000 miles?), I'd much rather empty my stuff out and have a nice clean well-preserved wheel. Keep a little plastic tarp in the cargo area to cover up possessions if it's raining. Of course, here I am driving a Sport Appearance Package with no spare. Well, solves that whole problem, doesn't it? Actually SAP would not have been my first choice, but it was the "deal" we got so I'm not complaining.
 
#113 ·
I must admit that I'm disappointed with the new design. I bought my 2012 model for roominess in cargo as well as passenger areas. Now the new model loses 1 inch of rear passenger leg room ,another thing is over 1 inch in ground clearance. 2012 already didn't have the highest stance in the segment but this one is a step back.|If anything the ground clearance should be increased. While Rav 4 wasn't designed to be off-roader it was nice to now ,when I was going to my fishing hole, I was coming back home with the muffler.
Although I enjoy sub-floor cargo space the swinging tailgate is a headache so the change is a welcomed feature. Another big disappointments are: Loss of power with no significant increase of fe , acceleration, loss of heated mirrors in the base model and the 6 speed tranny. At least in higher trims Toyota should offer 8 speed gearbox if not for any other reason than to be at least ahead of competition.
Toyota has been accused of being not innovative and producer of boring and outdated cars and I can see now they are working hard for it. To bad since it used to my favorite make.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top