[vanib]

DIY already exists of transmission fluid change on the 4.4 ! Search the forum

 

[mista_chewey]

yea i saw the posts. one was talking about service procedure for a camry. the other users instructions didn't have picture so i didn't really understand what they were referring too....

 

[RobertN]

The 4.4 TSB section of this BB has a bulletin with a very complex procedure for establishing the tranny oil level. There are simpler ways for setting the level. Besides having an awkward plug location for adding oil, the tricky part is determining the transmission temperature. There is a procedure for having the car display the proper temperature, best to become familiar with that procedure before starting a drain and refill. Dropping the pan will replace about twice as much oil, and allows cleaning the magnets plus inspecting -replacing the filter.

 

[SBDFAN]

I use the same tray for my cell phone, I thinking they might have thought that is what people would use it for. Not deal breaker but a covered coin tray that would have been great. LOL.

Again do you think anyone from toyota ever reads these forums. And if they do, do you think they even care what people say on them? Me I do not know?

The Jeep Patriot forum has a customer care representative from Jeep as a member. He is very helpful with vehicle issues.

 

[katekebo]

My issues with the RAV4 are (in order of priority):

- Engine noise
- Stiff ride

Both are at a level you get from a <$15k sub-compact, not what I expect from a vehicle that Toyota is asking ~$25k for. I wouldn't mind the stiff ride if it was the price I had to pay for good off-road capability, but the RAV doesn't offer that either - with short wheel travel (<4") and car-like ground clearance it's basically useless off-road. You get Jeep-like "comfort" with none of Jeep's capabilities. Gen 1 and 2 RAV were also very stiff but at least they were moderately off-road capable. Gen 4 is as off-road capable as a Camry.

- "Poor" rating in small overlap crash test. This is purely Toyota's arrogance. IIHS published the test protocol in 2011 and gave manufacturers two years to react / prepare for the actual tests. Some did (Subaru, Honda, Ford, ...). Toyota (arrogantly) dismissed the warning. The result - all of their vehicles flunked the test. They had to scramble to "protect" the Camry after negative publicity started to appear all over the media and quickly re-designed the front-end for the 2014.5 model. With the RAV, they were the ONLY manufacturer that was given the chance to repeat the test. Their solution - put extra padding in the footwell. As if extra padding would resolve a structural issue. Needless to say, they flunked the second attempt, too. This does not make the RAV a "death trap", but it shows that for Toyota safety is not very high on their priority list, and they will only do as much (or as little) as necessary to avoid bad publicity.

- "Puzzling", "bizzare" or just plain "stupid" shifting performance. If you dig into the tech documentation, the 6-speed auto uses a simple "speed-throttle position" mapping to pick a gear initially and then upshifts in sequence to the highest possible gear without bogging the engine. The algorithm is designed to pick the "optimal" gear for best fuel economy. But it does it via a very primitive "trial-and-error" approach. The result is what many of us have commented on this (and other Toyota) forums. On moderate acceleration after a a stop, the transmission frequently overshoots and has to downshift back. At highway speeds, it frequently "hangs" on 5th gear and "forgets" that a 6th gear is there. And when confronted with even a moderate incline at highway speeds, it downshift abruptly making the engine go from ~2k rpm to nearly ~5k rpm. It's not only annoying, but results in unnecessary wear. Toyota doesn't care because with only 60k miles drivetrain warranty most of the people will have to deal with the problem once the transmission is out-of-warranty. But don't expect the "new" 6-speed to last much beyond 100k miles. For comparison, take a ride in any car equipped with the new ZF 9-speed transmissions (for example the new Jeep Cherokee or Chrysler 200). ZF is the company that supplies transmissions to all Mercedes cars and many models of other luxury brands. With 9 speeds one would expect the transmission to shift even more than the Toyota's 6-speed, but nothing is further from the truth. The 9-speed actually shift less and does not display the annoying "let's try this gear, no, let's try another" behavior of the RAV. This is thanks to a much "smarter" software that not only takes into account speed and throttle pedal position, but actually "talks" with the engine and has torque sensors in the transmission. So instead of going through the 9 gears sequentially, it may decide to go 1-2-3-5-7 upon light acceleration in city traffic. Or 8-4-6-7-9 during passing the highway. Bottom line - no constant (unnecessary) shifting and wide range rpm swings. Compared to the ZF, RAV's transmission feel positively "stupid" and outdated. I took a ~2 miles ride around the neighborhood in the RAV, mu wife's Highlander and a Cherokee. It has a few stop signs and some moderate inclines. Same driving "style". I counted the number of gear shifts. My wife's HL, with a 5-speed auto, made 29 shifts. The Cherokee made 35 shifts (with 9 gears available). The RAV shifted gears 43 times !!! Guess which transmission will be the first one to go?

Toyota "created" the compact SUV category with the first RAV and enjoyed strong market leadership for many years. But over the past several years that just fell asleep and let the competition take over the market. No wonder why CRV and Escape have a 30% sales lead over the RAV, and most likely, this month the Rogue will beat it, too. Even with the recent "redesign" it's not competitive anymore.

 

[javadoo]

My issues with the RAV4 are (in order of priority):

- Engine noise
- Stiff ride

Both are at a level you get from a <$15k sub-compact, not what I expect from a vehicle that Toyota is asking ~$25k for. I wouldn't mind the stiff ride if it was the price I had to pay for good off-road capability, but the RAV doesn't offer that either - with short wheel travel (<4") and car-like ground clearance it's basically useless off-road. You get Jeep-like "comfort" with none of Jeep's capabilities. Gen 1 and 2 RAV were also very stiff but at least they were moderately off-road capable. Gen 4 is as off-road capable as a Camry.

- "Poor" rating in small overlap crash test. This is purely Toyota's arrogance. IIHS published the test protocol in 2011 and gave manufacturers two years to react / prepare for the actual tests. Some did (Subaru, Honda, Ford, ...). Toyota (arrogantly) dismissed the warning. The result - all of their vehicles flunked the test. They had to scramble to "protect" the Camry after negative publicity started to appear all over the media and quickly re-designed the front-end for the 2014.5 model. With the RAV, they were the ONLY manufacturer that was given the chance to repeat the test. Their solution - put extra padding in the footwell. As if extra padding would resolve a structural issue. Needless to say, they flunked the second attempt, too. This does not make the RAV a "death trap", but it shows that for Toyota safety is not very high on their priority list, and they will only do as much (or as little) as necessary to avoid bad publicity.

- "Puzzling", "bizzare" or just plain "stupid" shifting performance. If you dig into the tech documentation, the 6-speed auto uses a simple "speed-throttle position" mapping to pick a gear initially and then upshifts in sequence to the highest possible gear without bogging the engine. The algorithm is designed to pick the "optimal" gear for best fuel economy. But it does it via a very primitive "trial-and-error" approach. The result is what many of us have commented on this (and other Toyota) forums. On moderate acceleration after a a stop, the transmission frequently overshoots and has to downshift back. At highway speeds, it frequently "hangs" on 5th gear and "forgets" that a 6th gear is there. And when confronted with even a moderate incline at highway speeds, it downshift abruptly making the engine go from ~2k rpm to nearly ~5k rpm. It's not only annoying, but results in unnecessary wear. Toyota doesn't care because with only 60k miles drivetrain warranty most of the people will have to deal with the problem once the transmission is out-of-warranty. But don't expect the "new" 6-speed to last much beyond 100k miles. For comparison, take a ride in any car equipped with the new ZF 9-speed transmissions (for example the new Jeep Cherokee or Chrysler 200). ZF is the company that supplies transmissions to all Mercedes cars and many models of other luxury brands. With 9 speeds one would expect the transmission to shift even more than the Toyota's 6-speed, but nothing is further from the truth. The 9-speed actually shift less and does not display the annoying "let's try this gear, no, let's try another" behavior of the RAV. This is thanks to a much "smarter" software that not only takes into account speed and throttle pedal position, but actually "talks" with the engine and has torque sensors in the transmission. So instead of going through the 9 gears sequentially, it may decide to go 1-2-3-5-7 upon light acceleration in city traffic. Or 8-4-6-7-9 during passing the highway. Bottom line - no constant (unnecessary) shifting and wide range rpm swings. Compared to the ZF, RAV's transmission feel positively "stupid" and outdated.

Toyota "created" the compact SUV category with the first RAV and enjoyed strong market leadership for many years. But over the past several years that just fell asleep and let the competition take over the market. No wonder why CRV and Escape have a 30% sales lead over the RAV, and most likely, this month the Rogue will beat it, too. Even with the recent "redesign" it's not competitive anymore.

See, I don't find either problem with my new RAV. No noticeable engine noise and I don't find the ride stiff at all.

I am coming from a 2003 Honda Civic coupe-the overall ride of my RAV is light years better than it ever was in my Honda, even when the Civic was brand new.

I did drive a new Camry for 2 months before deciding that I hated it-it was an XLE. Beautiful, comfortable and quite RIDE, but I hated the way it drove-it drove like **** and was like driving a bus. The steering was ridiculously loose and unresponsive..

I am much, much happier with the RAV than I ever was with either the Civic or the Camry.

So for you, I guess my question is....Why did you buy a RAV then?

 

[katekebo]

.Why did you buy a RAV then?

Because it was cheap. My net out-of-pocket cash was about half of what I would had to pay for a Forester or a CRV (it was one year ago, and the Cherokee wasn't out yet). My dealer gave me a good below-invoice price on the RAV AND a very generous trade-in offer on my previous vehicle, so the net amount I had to pay was very small. With other brands, the gap between new car price and trade-in offer was twice as big.

Many of the issues weren't really noticeable during the test drive (like the shifting performance), and crash test results came out after I bought the car.

But as you probably guessed, the RAV won't be staying at our household for much longer.

 

[dfran1]

I can't wait to get mine back from the dealer to see if all this stuff is true or false, but from the time I spent with it so far, I can't find any of these complaints, but I will investigate more when I actually use it .

It is at the dealer to install all the options I purchased at the time I purchased it . Some they had to order but one the paint protection film I had to wait for their installer to come back from vacation.

 

[javadoo]

Because it was cheap. My net out-of-pocket cash was about half of what I would had to pay for a Forester or a CRV (it was one year ago, and the Cherokee wasn't out yet). My dealer gave me a good below-invoice price on the RAV AND a very generous trade-in offer on my previous vehicle, so the net amount I had to pay was very small. With other brands, the gap between new car price and trade-in offer was twice as big.

Many of the issues weren't really noticeable during the test drive (like the shifting performance), and crash test results came out after I bought the car.

But as you probably guessed, the RAV won't be staying at our household for much longer.

You get what you pay for I guess.

 

[manhog]

Because it was cheap. My net out-of-pocket cash was about half of what I would had to pay for a Forester or a CRV (it was one year ago, and the Cherokee wasn't out yet). My dealer gave me a good below-invoice price on the RAV AND a very generous trade-in offer on my previous vehicle, so the net amount I had to pay was very small. With other brands, the gap between new car price and trade-in offer was twice as big.

Many of the issues weren't really noticeable during the test drive (like the shifting performance), and crash test results came out after I bought the car.

But as you probably guessed, the RAV won't be staying at our household for much longer.

I dont doubt your belief or findings. But I would like to think that toyota will be more reliable in the end than chrysler. I too thought about a 9 gear cherokee and even wanted to for the new 200. But decided to go with the rav4 my first toyo. As I said before I had a 03 accord and luv it still have it has 187,000 on it. There have been minor electrical seat belt warning problems but have gotten them taken care of.

Also there have been reports probably from chrysler haters that the trans in both the cherokee and new 200 have had a slight problem. I know as of April 14 they were still working and correcting the trans in that car. Only saying what I read. Plus its good that they are working on it. I probably will drive the or test drive the new 200. Not trying or have gotten carried away. But do like the new 200 looks. I am sure consumer reports will put the death kell on it for some reason. I do hope it makes a dent in the mid sedan market. More competition the better others will have to be.

 

[schwinnbikebob]

I'm annoyed by the fact that the passenger can't enter anything into the navi while driving. You'd think it would be logical and not too difficult to wire it so that if the passenger sets off the seat sensor, it would work.

That wouldn't have been a deal breaker for the vehicle purchase, but maybe the navi feature.

Just got back from our first road trip with the 14 Limited. The nav thing is the biggest annoyance I have about the vehicle. Not being able to program it while moving really limits it's uses. Having to stop and put it in park to program it is crazy. I guess I will have a nav in the dash and still have to take the Garmin. Nice touch Toyota. Also noticed the flapping hood and buzzy engine but those don't bother me unlike the nav.

 

[katekebo]

You get what you pay for I guess.

Exactly. The RAV is the cheapest car I have bought in many years.

But, some of my complaints have nothing to do with price-point.

Safety should not be related to price.

Toyota should have updated the drivetrain instead of using a 10 year old engine and transmission in a "new" model.

The "new" RAV is a great car - if compared vs. 2003 technology. But in 2013/14, it's outdated.

Stiff suspension shouldn't be the price you have to pay for good handling. A BMW I owned some 10 years ago had superb handling and steering (way better that ANYTHING Toyota's has in its stable), yet was remarkably comfortable.

 

[Nodnerb]

But as you probably guessed, the RAV won't be staying at our household for much longer.

Any idea what you may replace it with?

 

[katekebo]

Any idea what you may replace it with?

Not yet. Last weekend had a look at the Cherokee (liked some things, didn't like many other) and the X1 from BMW. The X1 is not bad, but does not feel as nice as a "real" BMW (I had a series 5 about 10 years ago).

Will wait until the new Lexus NX is out. It is supposed to be the same size as the RAV, but with a new(er) engine (2.0 turbo) and transmission (8-speed). I hope the new(er) powertrain is a significant improvement over what Toyota has been putting into the Camry (and now the RAV) for the past 8 years or so. And the ride, noise and comfort should be better in a Lexus.

Another option is a Highlander. I really like my wife's Highlander, but the problem is that if I buy a new one, guess who will be driving the new one, and who will get stuck with the older one?

A Venza is another possibility, but it's a pretty old model by now.

And finally there is the new 2015 Outback. Haven't seen it yet, but it is another possibility.

 

[RAVN4RED]

...Toyota should have updated the drivetrain instead of using a 10 year old engine and transmission in a "new" model...

I agree with some of your posts, but lately you seem to be mixing some half-truths and opinion as facts. The engine, which I believe is the 2AR-FE first came out in 2009. So do the math, not ten years old. It has proven to be very reliable--enough to make it the standard in the RAV and many Camrys too.
And for some of those cars you mentioned: Escape, Cherokee. Talk about bottom of the barrel for reliability! I would hate to pay the $2-3K more like you said, then on top of that face multitudes of repairs.

For reliability, the Honda is good, but even the Subaru drops off noticeably after about 6 years, per Consumer Reports. I'll take the RAV and know it's not perfect, but it is still near the top in every SUV category, including safety, and IS reliable.

The RAV is on schedule for an upgrade, so see what the 2015 era brings, turbo, etc. They set the bar for best SUV, as you say, circa 2003, and beyond. Now it is Toyota's turn to play catch up. It's kind of nice other manufacturers saw the RAV as the one to copy and try to beat.

 

[RobertN]

We rented a Focus for a couple weeks this winter. It's 6 speed dual clutch transmission was better than the RAV4 6 speed, it didn't shift as much, and ran the engine a bit faster which gave it more torque to pull through rather than down shifting. In general the engine and transmission felt more robust than the Toyota 6 speed. Our Camry has the same engine and transmission as the RAV4, but does not seem to shift so much, maybe because it is quieter and all that shifting is not as noticeable. Even the Sentra CVT we had the year before worked different, but better. The Toyota 6 speed with all it's shiftiness seems fragile by comparison, like they are avoiding running too much torque through it, while trying to grab the highest gear possible.

We paid about the same for the I4 Camry XLE and RAV4 FWD Limited, there is a definite difference in perceived quality between the two. The RAV4 is noisier, tinnier, and shows a mind set towards lower cost. Why they did not put HomeLink in the Limited and a memory seat in the XLE, must be an artifact of corporate group think disfunction and cost targets. If there was a Highlander the size of the RAV4 I'd go for it. Must be something we can get from a local dealer.

 

[katekebo]

I agree with some of your posts, but lately you seem to be mixing some half-truths and opinion as facts. The engine, which I believe is the 2AR-FE first came out in 2009. So do the math, not ten years old. It has proven to be very reliable--enough to make it the standard in the RAV and many Camrys too.

The 1AR came out in 2008. The 2AR is a down-sized version of the 1AR. But the AR technology is hardly revolutionary - it is a modest evolution from the previous AZ engine. Comparing to Ford's small displacement turbo, Mazda SkyActiv and Fiat's MultiAir it is one generation behind. That's why Toyota will start sourcing the Yaris replacement from Mazda, is trying to catch up with the small displacement turbo technology, starting with Lexus NX and IS first, and has signed an agreement with BMW to gain access to BMW's "clean" turbo-diesel technology. They know they are behind, and are throwing tons of money trying to catch-up.

And for some of those cars you mentioned: Escape, Cherokee. Talk about bottom of the barrel for reliability! I would hate to pay the $2-3K more like you said, then on top of that face multitudes of repairs.

I fully agree that Escape's and Jeep's reliability leaves much to desire. But the Escape is a formidable competitor that came to the game after the RAV, yet has beaten the RAV with 30% sales lead for several years in a row. They must be doing something right to be outselling the RAV by such a huge margin.

For reliability, the Honda is good, but even the Subaru drops off noticeably after about 6 years, per Consumer Reports. I'll take the RAV and know it's not perfect, but it is still near the top in every SUV category, including safety, and IS reliable.

Now, if you look at reliability results (# of repair per 100 vehicles), the gap getting smaller and smaller. Toyota's score is 112, vs. industry average of 126. This means that an average Toyota is 11% more reliable than an average Ford or Chevy (which score 127 and 125, respectively). Or, in other words, you will have to fix something in your "reliable" Toyota "only" once every 11 months, but your "unreliable" Ford or Chevy will have to see the mechanic every 10 months. Wow, huge difference.
2013 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) | J.D. Power

Toyota has been the "champion" of recalls for three years in a row. No other manufacturer comes close in terms of number of recalls per vehicles sold. This indicates significant issues in their engineering processes. They are letting way too many safety issues to get into production cars. Now, in my (engineering) world, I am used to "safety is #1 priority".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorz...es/jimgorzelany/2014/03/26/automakers-with-the-lowest-and-highest-recall-rates/

Finally, when it comes to crash test results, the "new" RAV is at the bottom of the pack. Only Wrangler 2-door scores worse. Subaru Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Mazda CX-5, Nissan Rouge, BMW X1, Honda CRV, VW Tiguan - all score higher than the RAV. The "new" RAV is safe - accordingly to 2012 standards. But the world has moved on, and the RAV was already behind - the day it was introduced.
Safety ratings

 

[rv8425]

Just got back from our first road trip with the 14 Limited. The nav thing is the biggest annoyance I have about the vehicle. It really limits it's uses. I guess I will have a nav in the dash and still have to take the Garmin. Nice touch Toyota. Also noticed the flapping hood and buzzy engine but those don't bother me unlike the nav.

What were the problems with the nav?

 

[katekebo]

Toyota has been the "champion" of recalls for three years in a row. No other manufacturer comes close in terms of number of recalls per vehicles sold. This indicates significant issues in their engineering processes. They are letting way too many safety issues to get into production cars. Now, in my (engineering) world, I am used to "safety is #1 priority".

Oops, in order to not offend any Toyota's fans, I must correct myself. Toyota was the 2nd most recalled car in 2011. The honor of being #1 goes to Honda.
But Toyota still scored the #1 position in 2012 and 2013.
And is working hard to be #1 in 2014, although GM is fighting back.

Update: Actually, Honda Was The Most Recalled Of 2011
Biggest Auto Recalls Of 2012 (And Why They Haven't Affected New-Car Sales) - Forbes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/a...4/automobiles/safety-agency-says-22-million-vehicles-recalled-in-2013.html?_r=0

 

[Retired Rav4 Man]

Everyone needs a place to vent their frustrations, I guess and the Rav4 forum is as good a place as any. One thing, however, is that many of the concerns expressed are things that buyers routinely research before they purchase. To buy a vehicle and then complain that the tranny is old technology or that the engine is buzzy or underpowered is something that should be determined beforehand.

There are things that I have discovered about my Rav4 since I purchased that initially annoyed me and maybe I wouldn't have necessarily discovered on a test drive. Radio screen glare is one such concern. Another is lack of adequate cabin storage space. (My wife would like a place to put her purse besides the floor.) I'm sure there will be other things that I will discover as they crop up that I wish Toyota had done differently but, hey, I'm willing to live with these complaints as I generally like my Rav4. As well, it seems strange that Toyota is now recognized as the top car seller in the world. If the vehicles they are selling are so bad, how can this be. Just my 2 cents.