[CONAN]

...from the Inside Line forum on 2006 RAV4 discussions (post #3634 by wizzobutter):
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef57396/3624

"In case any of you do not get this magazine, here are the results. They tested both the Base I4 and Limited V6 models. They compared them to the Subaru Forester and the Suzuki Grand Vitara. The RAV4 Limited V6 got an "Excellent" rating and a score of 83 out of 100. The base I4 model got a "Very Good" rating and a score of 77. The Forester got a rating of "Very Good" and a score of 71. The Suzuki Grand Vitara got a "Good" rating and score of 56. Tested in another issue, the Honda CRV got a "Very Good" rating and a score of 73. The Jeep Liberty V6 got a rating of "Fair" and a score of 38.
The RAV4 Limited got "Highs" for Agility, fuel economy, rear seat room, access, controls, refined and quick V6 powertrain. The only "Low" listed was "Thigh support for some drivers". In acceleration tests, the V6 RAV4 got a 0 to 60 time of 6.7 seconds, the base I4 was 9.8 seconds. The V6 got 22 MPG and the I4 got 23 MPG. All ratings were "good" or better except for the headlights, which were rated as "fair".
I'm puzzled by some numbers. The ground clearance of the V6 limited is 6.5 inches and the base I4 was at 7.0 inches. Why would there be any difference? Must be the tranny. The Toyota RAV4 booklet from the dealer listed 7.5 inches for both. Also, I thought I read somewhere that the maximum load for the V6 was over 1100 pounds. CR has it at 825 pounds. Also, the booklet has the turning circle at 34.8 feet for both the Limited and Base models. CR had it at 39 feet for the Limited and 37 for the Base. The Base model had the optional 17 inch wheels. and both had the Yokahama Geolander G91 tires.
What I found interesting is that the RAV4 V6 Limited got 4 MPG more than the Suzuki Grand Vitara V6, even though it had 84 more horsepower, 100 pounds more weight, and was faster to 60 MPH by 2.8 seconds (6.7 vs 9.5). The Subaru Forrester got the same MPG as the RAV4 V6 (22) but only had a 4 cylinder 173 HP engine and weighed 500 pounds less. Toyotas's V6 is very economical."

One unusual comment was the following: "traction control brings the vehicle to a crawl in slippery conditions". I assume then that the Base model was a FWD version. So, out of 14 compact SUVs, the RAV4's are 1st and 2nd. "

 

[tiredoffleetvehicles]

CU isn't such a great bench mark

After years and years in consumer goods, I have to take CU with a very skeptical grain of salt. I can't count the number of times they would rate identical equipment radically different.

One example, Stereo equipment manufacturered by company "A" with an identical unit for company "B". Company "B" got a different cosmetic faceplate, but the guts were exactly the same. CU rated the tuner for company "B"'s unit as Excellent and for company "A"'s unit as meerly Good. Everyone in the industry knew the units came off the same assembly line with only cosmetic changes, yet CU would devine through scientific testing that they performed radically different.

Probably the best example is how CU is in love with Kenmore appliances and habitually rates the Kemore unit better than the equivalent unit that the manufacturer markets. Kenmore doesn't make anything, they simply put their badge on GE, Frigidaire, and Whirlpool (Maytag, Amana) products. It is almost comical to watch supposedly objective ratings favour a brand when the equipment is literally the same thing.

 

[YummyPork]

Re: CU isn't such a great bench mark

Doesn't their testing methodology include feedback from actual consumers (like their car data does)? That might result in skewed results.

If they test a single unit of a stereo/washingmachine/toaster etc... isn't it possible that there is some variation in quality of those individual units? That could also account for higher ratings of "identical" equipment.

DevilsAdvocatePork

 

[flyingn]

interesting. But CU are not car people and actually know very little about automobiles.. They were the ones behind the Suzuki Sidekick rollover scandel they RIGGED to prove what they wee right.. And got caught. I would trust NO one on that magazine.. So.. The 4 cylinder rav is a tick slower then the Suzuki 6 0-60? interesting.. and about 5 mpg more better gas mileage

 

[tiredoffleetvehicles]

Doesn't their testing methodology include feedback from actual consumers (like their car data does)? That might result in skewed results.

Yes, Brands with historically poor equipment pay the price for years after upgrading their quality control due to the 'member polls'. There is a specific area in CU where you see the subjective portion of the rating. The brands that give poor performance to their customers deserve the beating they take in this category.

If they test a single unit of a stereo/washingmachine/toaster etc... isn't it possible that there is some variation in quality of those individual units? That could also account for higher ratings of "identical" equipment.

Performance ratings are the results of CU test and should be objective. Kenmore always wins against other brands with identical mechanisms? That just doesn't pass the smell test. I remember CU rating a GE dryer that was manufactured by Frigidaire. There were 4 units rated between these (GE 4th, Frigidaire 9th). They only difference was the badge on the backsplash. A cursory examination of the units side by side would reveal this.

I read their reports, they've at least compared units in person. But experience tells me they either have an agenda or they aren't so expert.

 

[summerwind]

Re: CU isn't such a great bench mark

But experience tells me they either have an agenda or they aren't so expert.

And then there is J.D. Powers....

Haven't found a dealer yet that doesn't state that answering the survey with anything but excellent is not acceptable. Some I have delt with actually had a example of a survey with the answers filled out staring at you as you were finalizing the deal with the finance manager.

Doesn't influence my answers but it probably does with the majority of customers coming through the front door.

I learned a long time ago that Sales and Service are two separate cost centers for a dealership. I shop for the best price when buying and shop for the most experienced service department for service.

 

[OCInsomniac]

I also tend to take Consumer Reports with a grain of salt - for the most part.
Tiredoffleetvehicles wrote:

Probably the best example is how CU is in love with Kenmore appliances and habitually rates the Kemore unit better than the equivalent unit that the manufacturer markets. Kenmore doesn't make anything, they simply put their badge on GE, Frigidaire, and Whirlpool (Maytag, Amana) products. It is almost comical to watch supposedly objective ratings favour a brand when the equipment is literally the same thing.

A few years ago, my wife and I got caught up in CR's rantings and ravings about the new washing machine technology from Whirlpool/Kenmore - "The Calypso" agitatorless, high efficiency, super capacity washers that were selling for 1K+. Turns out these new machines have been a nightmare for homeowners and a boon for repairmen. Although the horror stories are endless, we have been fortunate thus far, but I have a learned lesson not to take their ratings TOO seriously.

Same goes for their auto ratings - although, they justifiably tend to favor the Jap models over the domestic and Euopeans. However I do find their dependability results interesting since they are based on owner surveys with breakdowns in model years and various component systems.

What IS a good auto magazine to read that gives a good unbiased picture of model segments that are truly comparable
:?: :?:

OC

 

[OCInsomniac]

P.S. -

Anyone here wanna buy a used 3 year old Whirlpool Calypso washing machine for a good price?? CR rated it tops in the "top loader" class when it came out a few years ago........ :roll:

OC

 

[hit_the _road]

Full Review

CR Review in full......

http://home.hvc.rr.com/jsganz/RavReview.jpg

 

[Janos]

lol........ i'd like to see the comments about CU if they didn't like the RAV. :shock:

 

[FStephenMasek]

Some of what seem to be identical appliances actually have very different internal components. Unless you have disassembled them, or looked up parts and found the same part numbers throughout, don't be fooled by the exteriors, as many are made by the same manufacturers.

However, all of the comparing numbers and Internet discussions, while useful for sorting possible purchases and researching prices, is certainly no substitute for hands-on examination of products, or for vehicles, good long test drives on a variety of road surfaces. I have found Toyota dealers much more reluctant than others to allow longer test drives, or to have "demo" cars for such purposes. Ford dealers have readily offred to allow us to keep barnd new vehicles overnight. Toyota supposedly has a vehicle rental program, but I tried to enter a reservation for a 2006 RAV4 at the closest Toyota rental dealer, and they ignored it, so the rental program seems to exist on paper, but not in fact.

 

[LarryJenson]

Consumer Reports is the Walmart of product reviews. I would call them jack of all reviews, masters of none. Who ever defined what a SUV was anyway? The RAV4 may be a nice vehicle, but its in the wrong category. Sport to me means lots of cargo space to carry my sports gear and ground clearance. My Tahoe has 50% more ground clearance to go whereever I want to go and lots more cargo space than a RAV4. Utility means able to pull my stuff like my boat. The RAV4 only can pull 1500 pounds. My Tahoe can pull 6000 and my Buick Park Avenue (Car)could pull 3000 with the optional towing package. If you tried to tow my boat with a RAV4 you couldnt see around the boat with the mirrors as the RAV4 isnt wide enough to tow a boat. The boat would also outweigh the RAV4, meaning the boat would be very difficult to control. That is why I upgraded from a Blazer to a Tahoe. As far as stowage area, my Park Avenue has far more area to carry my stuff than a RAV4. Is my Park Avenue a SUV? What about a 3 row of seats? The RAV4 might be okay for soccer moms, but I coach and you couldnt get my coaching gear in the back with a bunch of kids. I am not knocking the RAV4, but to seamingly compare it to a Tahoe is like comparing a dirt bike to a Harley Davidson.

 

[Quickdtoo]

Larry, you need to check your specs, the V6 Rav4 can tow 3500lbs, I tow my 2300lbs of boat just fine. It does what I need of it and in the mean time when I'm not using it as an SUV, it get 19-20mpg in town and 24-26mpg on the road, something my previous Trailblazer didn't come close to, and neither do any other vehicles with the tow capacity and 4WD that the Rav4 offers. :wink:

 

[Janos]

Larry - I think you're slightly confused.... or you have a grudge against CR. Perhaps you should read the article again.

Consumer Reports is the Walmart of product reviews. I would call them jack of all reviews, masters of none.

As with ALL reviews a good deal is subjective. It is just another resource to get base information in an effort to gather as much info as possible to come to an informed decision. I don't agree with some of their points and some I do. I don't take it personally, it's all subjective. As you see in this forum, many people complain about the cup holders. I think they are fine. A much bigger gripe to me is the lack of a cargo light. In general, CR review is much like the other reviews out there....... all of them being generally good with some gripes.

Who ever defined what a SUV was anyway? The RAV4 may be a nice vehicle, but its in the wrong category. Sport to me means lots of cargo space to carry my sports gear and ground clearance. My Tahoe has 50% more ground clearance to go whereever I want to go and lots more cargo space than a RAV4. Utility means able to pull my stuff like my boat.

CR didn't classify the vehicle the manufacturs do. It's classified as a car - based SUV in the small SUV category and in no instance is it compared directly to the Tahoe. They just happen to try to publish similar "segment" vehicles at the same time so their recommendation side bar is all SUV's. Other wise the sidebar would be a mix of cars and SUV's. Not helpful. They would never be able to publish an article if they had to review all exact category vehicles at the same time. Product cycles dictate reviews. That's why they list by category in every issue vehicle results.

The RAV4 only can pull 1500 pounds.

3500 pounds

As far as stowage area, my Park Avenue has far more area to carry my stuff than a RAV4.

And let me understand what you said again about capacity. You said your Park Avenue with 20 cu ft of trunk space holds more than 73 cu ft for RAV4. You're not Larry, your Houdini. Can you get a washing machine in your Park Ave? You may want to restate that comment and a couple others, they make you sound uninformed, foolish and like a troll. :?

 

[Raffor]

The problem with the Tahoe is that you can never feel the real freedom since you have to be close to the fuel stations! But I have to admit, for people that need their living room feel on the road, this is a great truck.

I doubt that a Tahoe is for me since I do actually care about the environment and I do think that we can do better by just changing a little. Also when this means that 7 people have to sit closer and I cannot move my sofa with the trunk shut.

Oh, btw, what is the 0-60 for the Tahoe these days. :wink:

 

[JIMD4]

This is tough crew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[inlets]

P.S. -

Anyone here wanna buy a used 3 year old Whirlpool Calypso washing machine for a good price?? CR rated it tops in the "top loader" class when it came out a few years ago........ :roll:

OC

OC your really starting to hurt my feelings know! Whirlpool has been really good to me. Me and the folks in Benton Harbor Michigan, we're on a first name basis. But they won't gimme a new freaking washer! :wall They come out and rebuild the damn thing top to bottom, three times already. And more coupons for Tide HE than I'll use in a lifetime. What's that gotta cost??? All I can say is thank God for Class Action Lawsuits. I'll get something NEW yet out of em, mark my words. But they never foget to tell me how much they value me as a customer. What a stroke job!

 

[CONAN]

Oh my.
How this thread got turned into a sound board for CU is pretty entertaining.
OK, I'm going to try to steer it back to discussion on the RAV. Here's another interesting bit of news from Inside Line forums:

"Besides the Consumer Reports data, Car and Driver's testing also showed impressive acceleration, stopping, handling, and noise test results for the RAV4:

RAV4: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA, EPA 21 city and 28 highway (V6 4WD), mileage during test 16MPG

The CX-7 was esentially the same, except that it is significantly slower and the fuel usage and cost are worse:

CX-7: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA, EPA 18 city, 24 highway, premium required, mileage during test 14MPG

In the next few months both C&D and CU will surely also test the 2007 Acura RDX, 2007 Ford Edge, 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe, and 2007 Honda CRV. Based on the data available now, it seems that the most formidable competitor for the RAV4 will be the Edge, although if the Santa Fe is not too heavy, it should also do well on the dynamic tests.

I have read that Toyota will start taking orders fo the 2007 RAV4 in a few days, and it seems likely that it will offer some of the features now only offerend outside of North America, such as a navigation system, rain sensing wipers, and mirrors with turn signal repeaters. "

The more I read about the performance of the RAV, the more I am fired up about purchasing one. Hell, I'm going to take a spin in it right now.

 

[sooperedd]

I would just say vehicles come in different sizes. A Geo Metro is a small economy car and a Lincoln Continental is a larger luxury car, but they are both still cars. I own a RAV and a Suburban and they both possess attributes that I like. Tomorrow I am going to pick up two new recliners that will easily fit in my Suburban, both recliners at once, but I could not fit one in my RAV, well maybe one. I love both vehicles, but the RAV a little more because it is faster 8)

 

[RAVMAN]

I have read that Toyota will start taking orders fo the 2007 RAV4 in a few days, and it seems likely that it will offer some of the features now only offerend outside of North America, such as a navigation system, rain sensing wipers, and mirrors with turn signal repeaters. "

Navigation?... Signal Mirrors?... wow... gonna have to track down the source of that rumor 8) I've also heard BLUETOOTH will be on the 2007 RAV4 8)