Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

Would you buy 2013 Rav4?

  • Yes, I like it.

    Votes: 87 40.5%
  • No, I don't like the design.

    Votes: 39 18.1%
  • No, they dropped the V6.

    Votes: 56 26.0%
  • I would if it still had the V6.

    Votes: 33 15.3%

Would you buy 2013 Rav4?

43K views 148 replies 81 participants last post by  Heialak 
#1 ·
After seeing all the videos, and photos of new Rav4 what is your initial reaction to this new generation?
Would you buy 2013 Rav4?

  1. Yes, I like it.
  2. No, I don't like the design.
  3. No, they dropped the V6.
  4. I would if it still had the V6.
 
#124 ·
don't like the ne design: it seems a normal car with higher ground clearance... BLEAAAHHH !!!
But it does NOT have higher ground clearance than a normal sedan.

All of the V6 comments crack me up. Only the Sport model had the suspension to handle the V6, the other model's suspensions were just sad.
The V6 accounted for such a low percent of sales...did every single V6 owner end up on this forum? ;)

The V6 did not impress us, but the Sport suspension did.
It's all of the other design features ťhat are missing in the new version that are the reasons we won't be looking at what Toyota is calling a "RAV" now.
 
#38 ·
us greedy, selfish Americans
I suppose asking for divine favor (blessing) does imply a certain amount of greed. But some of the worst cars you refer to actually tick a lot of boxes for many buyers. The Fiat Multipla worked very well for families looking for 6 seats. Those buyers weren't too worried about the looks of it. When they facelifted the car and made it more mainstream they lost a lot of buyers. Some would argue its strange looks made it attractive.
And what about the pinto. Bad choice of name in some countries but look at the cult status now. If you believe it's hip to be square, this car ticks a lot of boxes. We still talk about this car. Excellent marketing.
Anyway, if a car doesn't work for you, go elsewhere. If the manufacturer did not anticipate losing customers, normally they will react. If they don't, well then they will probably be asking for government financial support soon. But don't be naive. When a company decides to serve a market segment differently (i.e. if you want V6, buy a Highlander), it doesn't make sense to ask them what they were thinking. They were thinking you'd go for a highlander, the competition or accept a 4 cylinder. And they were pretty clear about it too.
From my (Euro) perspective: this car (RAV4) has just grown 20 centimeters (sorry for using metric) which is welcomed by me and my family. Also, it's lost the spare on the back door which I've found not the least bit entertaining when changing a flat tyre on the highway, it's lost its off road looks to an extent but it does promise better fuel economy and therefore I save a few thousand euro's in tax (on the purchase price!) and possibly more during the time I own it. With gasoline at approximately USD 8,85 per gallon over here, every little bit helps. The plastics at the front, back and side take a bit of getting used to but I looked at the competition and they all seem to be doing this (Ford, Peugeot, Hyundai, Kia, Buick (Opel), etc.).
 
#40 ·
I just picked up a 2012 Base V6, 2WD, upgraded aluminum wheels, value package (roof rails, floor mats, bluetooth), tow prep package, factory installed towing hitch, pyrite mica. The V6 is as smooth and quiet as an electric sewing machine and pulls like a mule. The storage under the floor in the rear is great (great spot to store pistols on the way to the target range), like having a full size spare (even though we have not used my wife's on her CRV after 10 years). I looked at the options ... no V6 = no 2013 Rav. Didn't want a Ford Edge or any other mid size. The 2012 V6 Rav4 is one of the BEST small suvs on the planet - power, utility, compact, tows 3500 lbs. Toyota blew it big time by castrating this outstanding machine. Had to buy a 2012. Nothing out there like it. After I drove it and checked out the rear storage it was a no brainer. I wouldn't touch a 2013.
 
#41 ·
It's a good lookin vehicle. We just purchased our 3 rd rav4 and we only purchased it because the wife is happy that we have never had any problems with our Toyotas in the past. We would more than likely purchase one of these new rav's if needed. :thumbs_up:
 
#43 ·
I've got Bridgestone RFs and they don't sound any louder than non RFs on other RAV4s I drove when I was looking to buy this one but they didn't have Yokohama tires. I know that tire brands can vary quite a bit in road noise and it has nothing to do with being RFs
 
#44 ·
I just came back from test driving a 2013 Honda CR-V LX 4WD. Honda really has it together. Their 2.4L 5 spd auto was just fine. It had lots of pep and was very smooth and quiet. Their new version of 4WD is also seamless, unlike their previous version. The fit and finish was definitely better than my '11 RAV LTD V6 4WD. The doors and rear hatch all closed with a solid "thunk", not a bang like my RAV. If the 2013 RAV4 is anything like the CR-V I will be very happy.
 
#45 ·
One would sure hope/expect Toyota to leapfrog the CR-V, and not just clone it or shoot for "as good."

How many people were in the CR-V when you test drove it?

There were 3 grown men (myself included) in the 4-Cyl 2011 RAV4 I test drove first, and it was embarrasingly underpowered. Like, I was questioning whether merging onto the highway would be safe.
 
#47 ·
One would sure hope/expect Toyota to leapfrog the CR-V, and not just clone it or shoot for "as good."

How many people were in the CR-V when you test drove it?

There were 3 grown men (myself included) in the 4-Cyl 2011 RAV4 I test drove first, and it was embarrasingly underpowered. Like, I was questioning whether merging onto the highway would be safe.
Do you drive around with 3 grown men in the vehicle all of the time? If so then you might need a bigger boat Chief Broady! A loaded vehicle always drives differently than a lightly loaded one and it is up to the driver to operate it safely. I have never owned a vehicle that I would deem unsafe to operate loaded.
 
#49 ·
Do you drive around with 3 grown men in the vehicle all of the time?
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.


A loaded vehicle always drives differently than a lightly loaded one and it is up to the driver to operate it safely.
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.
 
#46 ·
We will be looking.

We will certainly look at the new RAV when we are ready to buy in a couple years or sooner, you know how new vehicle bugs bite ya! The 6 speed trans should really make the most of the engine, hopefully a great package. Is there a CVT in the future? Why be locked into a set speed? I have learned that you need to drive a vehicle to know how it fits our needs. An adustable seat and tilt/telescoping wheel are a must! Fuel economy is a major factor and I would like to see better.
 
#50 ·
I'll buy a 4.4

Sadly Toyota dropped the V6, i'm currently an owner of a V6, love the power... for the new one i love the inside of the limited, the outside i like it but in my opinion the new 4.4 is the son between a Honda CRV and a Mazda CX7, just think about it.

but at the end of the road i've been an owner of the 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and possibly a 4.4 limited (missing the power of my 2007 sport V6)
 
#51 ·
I answered no, do not like it. We are both glad we got the '12. Needed the 3rd row seat and we like the looks. The new styling on the '13 looks less like an Suv and more like a car. That's just MHO
 
#53 ·
Wait for the RAV4 hybrid

As I may have mentioned in some other thread, we got a 2012 Camry hybrid in June and we really like it. It's mainly my wife's car. I would love to have a hybrid crossover to replace my '07 RAV4 in the not too distant future. The RAV doesn't even have 45,000 miles on it yet, so from a wear-and-tear standpoint, it wouldn't make much financial sense, but with the RAV4 averaging 22 mpg around town where I mostly drive it, I want one anyway. (I'm 67; what the hell, you only live once.) So I was scoping out the Prius v's the other day when I was at the Toyota dealer for the driver-side window-switch fix. I think they're nice cars but their power is underwhelming and they don't offer power seats or moon roofs. A salesman there asked me if I'd be interested in a hybrid RAV4 Limited. He first claimed Toyota would come out with one in the next six months. But after he checked he said maybe late in 2013. I looked for stories online and found one or two that said the hybrid's introduction would likely come in 2014 or 2015. These reports said the RAV would have the Camry hybrid's drive train, which puts out 200 combined hp. I think I could probably live with that.

So no, I wouldn't recommend buying a RAV4 now; wait a year or two until you can choose between a gas model and a hybrid model. And who knows, maybe there'll even be a nice hybrid Lexus crossover by then, or some other car that fits that bill.

For the time being, I've thrown a set of Michelin Defender tires on my RAV4; they've improved the ride significantly and I think they're also improving the car's gas mileage by as much as 10 percent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRT1947
#56 ·
Yes I would still get one. I'm not interested in the V6 anyway. I know a lot of people here like the V6 but we should all be conserving fuel. I hoping to see D4D option in the future. I think if America learns to be okay with moderation rather than excess it will be in a better situation than it is now. Just a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#57 ·
I know a lot of people here like the V6 but we should all be conserving fuel. I hoping to see D4D option in the future. I think if America learns to be okay with moderation rather than excess it will be in a better situation than it is now. Just a thought.
For me, it's not about consumption or conservation.

It's about driving a vehicle that can get out of it's own way, yet still provide some reasonable room for cargo.

(And get out of the way of others.)

If Toyota could provide a 269 HP RAV4 for half the gas the 4-cyl uses, I'm pretty sure A LOT of people would be all over that.

Instead what we have, errr...had, is that same power for the cost of about 2 MPG.

Quite a number of people like me find that acceptable, but certainly not preferable.

If Toyota made a hybrid RAV4, or better yet a plug-in hybrid RAV4, that could perform the same as the V6 RAV4, I'd drive it in a heartbeat.
 
#59 ·
Big rigs are one of the serious threats on the highways and it's gotten worse since they deregulated the industry. Truckers have a really hard job with long hours, tremendous pressure to get things to places on time and yet not get caught for driving too long.

This from the Department of Transportation and other sources:

A trucking accident occurs when large trailers (10,000+ lbs.) collide with other vehicles or pedestrians. Around 500,000 trucking accidents occur every year in the United States. Of these, approximately 5,000 trucking accidents result in fatalities. In fact, one out of every eight traffic fatalities involves a trucking collision. :eek:
 
#63 ·
People should be better trained on how to drive around big trucks on the road. 4 wheelers should stay away from trucks when possible. Want to pass? Get it done quick as possible and move on down the road, because trucks move around and don't handle or stop like cars. We all just want to get down the road. If you really don't want to move much faster then the truck then stay behind. Do you really want up to 80,000lbs of death right behind you? You only need to use your head to be safe around trucks, overwhelming power is not needed.
 
#60 ·
If you have less power you just need to make sure you have a lot of room before you merge. Less power doesn't necessarily mean unsafe. A lot of people got use to having power on tap so they stop being patient. This about it this way. If everyone obey the speed limit, would really need all that power to accelerate to the posted highway speed limit. This needs to done in a gradual way. There should be a limit in the power to weight ratio of each vehicle. Back in the day people were okay with low hp v6 engines in a big station wagons.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#64 ·
There should be a limit in the power to weight ratio of each vehicle.
I don't believe that's feasible from a realistic perspective of meeting the goal (e.g. all cars perform the same), because the loads in vehicles change. One small driver on an empty tank of fuel vs. one big driver on a full tank with 4 passengers and luggage in the back is a big variance.

Likely some day not too far down the road cars will be more autonomous and will be able to communicate with each other even if there's no visible line of sight between them. Once a high enough percentage of vehicles on the road have more computer control and communications with each other, issues like these will decrease. But we're nowhere near there yet, and won't be for quite some time.


If you have less power you just need to make sure you have a lot of room before you merge.
The presumption here is that you have control over traffic conditions that are on the highway onto which you are merging, particularly how many cars are in the lane in which to merge, how much space exists between each of them, how fast they are going, and that you can even see the spacing between them (e.g. if merging from below on an uphill entrance ramp).

In other words, it presumes you always have a safe choice in which to take what I'll call an underpowered vehicle and merge it into those conditions.

Try doing that with a car load of people merging onto a freeway with a speed limit of 70 MPH while there is a lot of traffic.

In my experience, regardless of existing laws that people often don't know about or conveniently "forget," most people most of the time on the highway leave it up to the helpless merger to find a space to fit in, and are often unwilling to slow down to make extra space until the merging vehicle forces them to. This often leads to closer calls, frustrated drivers, etc. than naturally filling in an existing wide open space.

The lack of control over the situation/road conditions and the lack of control of the other drivers already on the road is what makes what I'll call an underpowered vehicle less safe.

What if the most open and safest space available is in the process of passing you by as you get to the merge point? An underpowered vehicle that's already floored could not speed up to fill in that safest spot.

My point is this: if you have more power available in reserve than is needed for normal operations, you have more choices available from which to choose the safest option available, maximizing your safety and the safety of everyone around you. You can pass those rigs faster (when appropriate), too.
 
#61 ·
my honda civic lease is up in march .I'll buy out the lease which will then allow me to have an asset to trade in or sell privately when I begin shopping in the spring .

for the heck of it I drove to the local toyota dealer yesterday to see what they had on the lot for remaining 2012's and there was only 1 RAV 4 .I couldnt tell what trim level it was because they were snow plowing the lot and I didnt want to get in the way so I left a bit disappointed.

my hope was 4-5 2012's to be on the lot and a salesman come talk me into buying one but I was chased away by the color of the one remaining RAV and the snow plow .

on the toyota canada website they are offering 0% financing over 72 months on the 2012's , which would = approx 450 per month on a base4wd + conveniece pkg (sunroof,prem cloth,alloys etc..)which would have fit my budget nicely .

I'll assume they wont be bringing in anymore 2012's so I'll have to move on to plan B , which is a CRV LX

I fall into the crowd who dont like buying the 1st year of a model refresh ; so unfortunately it looks like I wont be buying a 2013 rav .

however , I will send an email or make a ph call to my local dealership to see if they could still get a few 2012 base4wd .
 
#70 ·
I feel like the only advantage my V6 acceleration has given me in safety is in passing on two lane highways, especially on ascending hills. As far as on ramps, we have several in this area that have very short merge lanes and I had no trouble in my old 2002 getting into heavy traffic. Even that older i4 had enough acceleration to get me into traffic safely, the v6 just makes it easier, as long as you aren't trying to out accelerate some one faster than you. It still comes down to watching for the opportunity and planning on the best way to merge.
 
#71 ·
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?
 
#72 ·
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.
 
#74 ·
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.
 
#75 ·
"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:mad:
 
#76 ·
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.
 
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