Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

maybe there will be3 a V6 in 2013

15K views 68 replies 31 participants last post by  McSwine 
#1 ·
GOOGLE "2013 RAV4" - new stuff came out today - looks like pics and info got released before the auto show in LA on Wednesday - the new stuff is saying optional V6...
 
#2 ·
I googled and found a new(er) artitcle from trucktrend.com, it says: "Toyota's Entry SUV Loses Signature Spare Carrier, V-6 Option

Read more: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Leaked Ahead of Los Angeles Debut - Truck Trend News"

I tak it to mean that both the spare tire carrier & V6 are gone.

A Car & Driver article from April suggests the V6 will remain.

It all makes me want to go get a 2012 V6 now.
 
#3 ·
yeah - I've seen several conflicting things - just have to wait til Wednesday- I'm not giving up hope til then. My 2007 RAV4 V6 was totaled last yr - I've been waiting for the 2013s to be released to buy the new design, but only want a V6 (I've been using one of my parents old cars)- if there is no V6, I'm getting a Acura RDX. That RAV4 V6 was amazing.
 
#7 ·
No V6 means they lost at least one potential buyer...

Well, they made it look more like the Lexus RX series or the Acuara MDX - not a bad thing.
And then proceeded to cut its balls off by not offering the V6...:wall
I'll wait until they realize how stupid that move was.
 
#11 ·
Well, they made it look more like the Lexus RX series or the Acuara MDX - not a bad thing.
And then proceeded to cut its balls off by not offering the V6...:wall
I'll wait until they realize how stupid that move was.
Toyota has no choice; the new CAFE regulations mean that Toyota needs to improve fuel economy across the board, or face penalties. If it was a Lexus, sure, Toyota can pay those penalties without a though because the margins are there. Not so with a RAV4.
 
#8 ·
They basically said, "If you want a V6, buy a Highlander!"
 
#10 ·
To quote Mike Myers in his funny retro style British secret agent movies (the name escapes me right now): "It lost its mojo"
 
#13 ·
Anyone know what percentage the V6 had of their total RAV4 sales in each year? The profits vrs. the restrictions may not have been worth it anymore for them.
 
#15 ·
Last I heard, the V6 only accounted for about 30% of RAV4 sales. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
 
#14 ·
Is there any other compact suv (or crossover that plays in this arena) that has a V6? I am not aware of any. And thus, I agree that this eliminates a big differentiating factor that used to be in favor of the Rav4.

Could it be that they are just eliminating the CURRENT V6 engine for 2013, to be replaced by a different V6, or a turbo 4 cyl in the future? Perhaps something they are working on now, but don't currently have available for the launch? :shrug:

I have read elsewhere that Toyota is working on turbo options. They are going to have to come up with something to compete with the Ford engines, that is for sure. And I know that they have diesel options in other markets. However I sense that most V6 lovers would NOT appreciate the diesel option in place of the current V6.
 
#17 · (Edited)
I would also be interested in looking at demographics for the "typical" Rav4 driver/owner (male vs female). If the females are in the majority, then one has to ask how many of them actually look for a V6. Some do, I'm sure. But if the majority of those who bought V6 variants are male, and they are in the minority of buyers, then perhaps there are numbers that really support the drop of the V6.

This might be supported further by the apparent "feminization" that I have seen other male posters refer to, when discussing the styling. Has this segment become targeted specifically to females? I'm sure that some would say it always was.

Of course, the mentioned CAFE standards are sure to play a huge part as well.
 
#20 ·
I would also be interested in looking at demographics for the "typical" Rav4 driver/owner (male vs female). If the females are in the majority, then one has to ask how many of them actually look for a V6. Some do, I'm sure. But if the majority of those who bought V6 variants are male, and they are in the minority of buyers, then perhaps there are numbers that really support the drop of the V6.

This might be supported further by the apparent "feminization" that I have seen other male posters refer to, when discussing the styling. Has this segment become targeted specifically to females? I'm sure that some would say it always was.
I'm female and I have a V6, but I do agree and think the car has become more "feminised". It just seems to look like a Honda CRV now which I only really see "Mums" driving.
 
#24 ·
Like the rest of the 4.4 RAV4, they'll probably just do what everybody else has already done.

In this case that would be to offer a turbo 4-cylinder as an alternate engine.

Me too, Toyota. Me too.

Hopefully it won't require premium gas, and yet will still have the same life expectancy and be as trouble-free as a naturally aspirated engine. If anyone could pull that off, it would probably be Toyota.

Only time will tell.
 
#25 ·
Toyota basically has joined the Honda CR-V crowd. With CAFE requirements and Toyota's apparent strategy to force V6 buyers to get the pricier Highlander the V6 for the RAV4 is dead and buried. Toyota also quoted low sales figures for the RAV4 V6, but in my area it appears that about half of the RAV4s are V6 models.
 
#26 ·
The low sales retort from Toyota is pure BS. They sold plenty of them. Since the engine is already existing and fully functional, they don't even have to make an investment. They just say " if we sell this many, we need to charge this much more for the V6 " Simple economics. By their logic they shouldn't sell any limited models with tow packages because they represent only 20% of sales.
 
#27 · (Edited)
It seems obvious to me that the lack of a V6 / the inability to tow anything heavier than a Radio Flyer in the 2013 RAV4 is purely an attempt to increase Highlander sales. Toyota representatives practically said exactly that at the 2012 L.A. Auto Show.

Toyota knows full well how to get a good V6 package into a vehicle. They have simply chosen not to offer anything like that for the 2013 RAV4, in addition to the mommy-mobile versions being offered.

However, the Highlander is significantly more expensive than the RAV4. At least on the upper end you'll pay about 30% more for a Highlander than a RAV4 V6.

So...we're supposed to pay a lot more to get back that functionality (power, towing, 3rd row, etc.), and on top of that deal with a vehicle that is bigger, heavier, harder to park and gets noticeably worse mileage?

Really?

As much as I love Toyota, if I were in the market next year, knowing what I know about the 2013 RAV4, I would absolutely check out other manufacturers first, probably starting with Subaru.

For me, brand loyalty does NOT justify the significant purchase cost increase and cost of ownership increase for desired functionality offered by other manufacturers in a package similar to the RAV4 V6 that can be delivered by them at a significantly lower price than for the Highlander, both up front and ongoing.

One would think a high percentage of other future "RAV4 V6" customers would feel the same way. It will be very interesting to see if the configurations of RAV4 V6 competitors (those compact SUV configurations with more power/towing ability similar to the RAV4 V6) increase in numbers of units sold next year more than any increase in Highlander numbers of units sold.

If that happens, it will also be very interesting to see what, if anything, Toyota chooses to do about that.
 
#28 ·
It seems obvious to me that the lack of a V6 / the inability to tow anything heavier than a Radio Flyer in the 2013 RAV4 is purely an attempt to increase Highlander sales. Toyota representatives practically said exactly that at the 2012 L.A. Auto Show.
My thoughts exactly. Cafe standards have less to do with it since a 4 cylinder would still be in the model lineup. The cost to implement two engine choices in a new design that is battling in a segment filled with 4 cylinders is not very practical anymore. I would say the V6 is gone from the RAV4 for good.
 
#30 ·
Toyota "forcing" buyers to go to a Highlander rather than a V6 equipped Rav4 - seems to be missing the "desired product". All Highlanders are "3 row seating", virtual mini-vans. Big, bulky. I wanted a smaller, somewhat powerful (to tow 3500 lbs), 2 row seat "somewhat utility vehicle". So I went with a 2012 V6 Rav4. There were no really attractive alternatives out there. Ford Edge? Subaru Forester /outback won't tow 3500 Lbs. After they confirmed the 2013 is a "CRV copy", I stopped by the local Toyota dealer and picked up a base, with an upgrade package, + tow prep and OEM hitch. Done.
 
#32 ·
Would love to see your facts about ease of maintenance and reliability? This is a straight non-aspirated engine. The only difference between the two engines is the number of cylinders.

As far as MPG, I'll take a V6 SUV that I get 26 MPG consistently on the highway. My Dad has an 11 I4 and only on occasion does he get 30+.

Again, it's all about what people want. It just sucks those of us that enjoy the choices like larger engines, manual transmissions, etc... are getting screwed!
 
#34 ·
People here must like the V6 as much as the I4 since apparently at least half of the RAVs here are V6s. The V6 is almost a must for safe passing on many portions of our roads, which are two lane, mostly hilly and mountainous, and with limited passing opportunities. People with RAVs who tow have the V6.

I also would like a manual gearbox, but apparently that also is dead and buried as is the V6 for 2013 onwards.
 
#36 ·
Spark plugs are replaced what, every hundred thousand miles or so?

From what I've been reading, the I4 is quite reliable...at burning excessive amounts of oil.

If it's a case of replacing the water pump one time or having to continuously monitor my oil levels, I'd pick the one time inconvenience.
 
G
#38 ·
H DVS,

I am now on my 3rd Toyota pickup with inline 4-cyl engines. They are insanely reliable; and have never burned one quart of oil in between oil changes. Put 200k + miles on the first two & am at 100k miles on the current one.

I was reading earlier last year that the engine plants could not keep up with demand for the 4-cyl engines when the gas prices went up last year.

IMO they have made a decision and will not be changing it.

I really like the Toyota I-4 engines; except for the power on the open road. That is why I only looked for a V-6 for my RAV.

Jerry Baumchen
 
#45 ·
Thanks for that lengthy and detailed list of facts.

I'm surprised Toyota would use such an apparently poor engine in their RAV4s.

And Avalons. And Camrys. And Venzas. And Highlanders. And Siennas. Oh, and let's not forget those Lexus models that use it too (e.g. the 350 series).

Clearly Toyota should have only put 4-bangers in all of those.

What was I thinking when I bought mine?

;)

I've read a mountain of information about the older and newer RAV4s, and I don't recall reading about any transmission issues plaguing only the V6 RAV4s. It's possible, though, I guess, since they have different transmissions, with more gears for the V6 than the I4 had.

However, since we were only talking about engine reliability and ease of maintenance, I really don't see how that applies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igorts
#46 ·
Hi all:

I'm new here, having bought (2 days ago) what may be the last new 2012 Rav4 sold from my dealer. I bought the Rav partly because of the side-opening gate, since I'm 6'5" tall, and keep smackin' my head on liftgates.

I would have bought the Mazda CX-5 but it's not rated for towing, and I liked the Honda CR-V, but it was too expensive.

I love the interior heater in the Rav, and the sidegate, and the spare outside (I won't have to unload the camping gear to change a flat!). And it'll tow a small utility trailer for when we are REALLY loaded for camping - we're medieval re-enactors, and carry a lot more than I did when I camped in an Austin Mini. :)
 
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