Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Yesterday while making the 55 mile drive over to check on the progress of my daughter's new house I commented to my event coordinator how I like the RAV more now than when we bought it in May '14. She said she felt the same way. It's not perfect but we have no complaints and yesterday's fill-up was best ever at 31.1 mpg calculated with mixed driving. When I read about some of the real problems others are having with other brands of CUVs our no drama RAV4 was the right choice.

That's all. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
Nice. We are ordering the 2016 solely based on feedback here on Rav4World. :)

That's what we did for our 11 Accord coupe and no complaints whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
That's great to learn and yes, my mother's 2014 RAV-4 XLE gets the same highway mileage.

However, I do have a couple of complaints based on my mother's recent experience back in August 23rd, 2015.

These vehicles sustain just too much damage in a light impact and you better have good insurance coverage!

Just take a look at my discussion thread and please read my last post assessment of certain design issues that I have with Toyota.

http://www.rav4world.com/forums/123...or-replacement-during-light-front-damage.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
That's great to learn and yes, my mother's 2014 RAV-4 XLE gets the same highway mileage.

However, I do have a couple of complaints based on my mother's recent experience back in August 23rd, 2015.

These vehicles sustain just too much damage in a light impact and you better have good insurance coverage!

Just take a look at my discussion thread and please read my last post assessment of certain design issues that I have with Toyota.

http://www.rav4world.com/forums/123...or-replacement-during-light-front-damage.html
Not a physics major but doesn't bigger damage to the car (via crumple zones) mean less force / impact transmitted to the occupants?

Old Cars Crashing Into New Cars: Which is Safer? - Core77
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Here, here. I'm more than satisfied with our purchase and have even come to expect a bit of a harsh ride over some roads, though it's not as bad as I once thought. The overall handling, ride and build quality is very impressive. I'd highly recommend it to anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
Yep. Cars are meant to be demolished in a decent accident. Stands to reason that small impact crashes create damage that 20 years ago wouldn't have left a dent.

Here is mine after a fairly low impact crash(probably 5-10 km/hr) where moron in a sunfire hit me straight in the side. $9000 total damage.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
You'd never know it was in an accident. They did a fantastic job. Not even sure how they do it. The frame of the car where the drivers door hinges attach was crumpled and paint flaked off. The pulled that and blended the paint in the repair but I can't even tell it was damaged or find where the paint was blended/feathered to match the factory paint. It's magic I tell ya. Still worried though about rust etc. New drivers door shell, rear door skin and front quarter panel. Going to be keeping my eye open for rust. Also a new front rim and a suspension mount as well as all the plastic bits all around there replaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Not a physics major but doesn't bigger damage to the car (via crumple zones) mean less force / impact transmitted to the occupants?
Oh dear!:serious It is obvious that you didn't visit my discussion thread since I am NOT making any issues of the new Crush Zone technology. In fact to reply to your specific observation and new topic that you are trying to make, the reason many had fatal accidents were that many didn't wear any seat belts (restraining device) in the earlier years "or" those devices were not tested like in today's standards. If you even see those old movies with the older cars, no one is wearing a seat belt (I can't figure out if they even had one).:frown:wink

Anyway, my posting to the Original Poster (OP) had NOTHING to do with trying to make any reference with regard to Crush Zones etc..... instead that the placement of critical Mechanical Components by TOYOTA could have been better to not get damaged in a low impact accident.:laugh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for the derail.:mad:


The least of my worries is what does and doesn't get damaged in an accident due to how Toyota packaged the car. There is no possible way to determine this during the buying process so it's a non-issue. It sucks to have underinsured drivers on the road but that's where a person decides what their own insurance coverage should be. Sorry your mom's new car got hit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Glad your car got fixed so well. You got lucky, usually you can tell what was fixed.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top