Rav4 vs Forester

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by philipp10
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted by PPWarrior
the RAV will last 500,000 miles, not the forester. Eat your words.

That's just ridiculous. Though I liked our 2005 Rav 4 AD 5m. It was literally falling apart when driven in the Demanding Northeast weather.
in 3 years 57K miles:

waterpump leaking
rear shocks leaking oil blown seals
rear exhaust rusted through
Engine clacking loudly and burning oil
Clutch slave cylinder leaking

Eat your words.

amazing....it's pretty tough to blow up a RAV4 in 3 years. I have a 2008 and so far, never had a problem other than a couple recalls.

Man, back when I was looking for a CUV in 2015, I checked out the RAV's, and the forums were littered with leaky waterpumps and whining transmission complaints. Then you have the screwed up suspension in them, and that's a whole 'nother class action lawsuit type thing. Screw that. The new RAV? Too new to tell ,really.

 

[Leo99]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by philipp10
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted by PPWarrior
the RAV will last 500,000 miles, not the forester. Eat your words.

That's just ridiculous. Though I liked our 2005 Rav 4 AD 5m. It was literally falling apart when driven in the Demanding Northeast weather.
in 3 years 57K miles:

waterpump leaking
rear shocks leaking oil blown seals
rear exhaust rusted through
Engine clacking loudly and burning oil
Clutch slave cylinder leaking

Eat your words.

amazing....it's pretty tough to blow up a RAV4 in 3 years. I have a 2008 and so far, never had a problem other than a couple recalls.

Man, back when I was looking for a CUV in 2015, I checked out the RAV's, and the forums were littered with leaky waterpumps and whining transmission complaints. Then you have the screwed up suspension in them, and that's a whole 'nother class action lawsuit type thing. Screw that. The new RAV? Too new to tell ,really.



My has come to love the whiny transmission in her Rav4. She can imitate pretty well. LOL. wwwwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted by PPWarrior
the RAV will last 500,000 miles, not the forester. Eat your words.


If you pump money into sure. It's a 150k vehicle with little effort and slowly open the money faucet on repairs and maintenance till 200k range then wider open.

My sisters rear diff coupling went for an estimate of $1500 and also the electric power steering which Toyota later reimbursed.

Not dissing it but your claim is bit out there.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by benjy
as manufacturers strive for more profits while getting more mpg's + keeping in the EPA guidelines todays vehicles are a crap shoot IMO, a VERY EXPENSIVE one at that. the suv AWD crase can be replaced with a better riding + performing sedan + 4 snow tires on a FWD will win over AWD + all season but winter tires. try several + buy what you like + can afford + MAYBE you will get lucky with a good one that all the xtra unneeded JUNK dont malfunction!!

Yeah, but I have yet to find a sedan that my dog fits in comfortably and that has enough ground clearance. Some people actually use our SUV/CUV's for what they were meant for, and not just as "cars with higher seating positions". Also, FWD sucks. I need AWD.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by fdcg27



I have to agree with you on that.
There's a lot to be said for any car that takes you where you need to go and back for many years and miles without drama.
Most of us would trade excitement for durable and reliable performance.
I'll add that not too many folks here have anything especially exciting in their sigs.


My CX5 Turbo isn't super exciting, but it's enough to keep driving relatively interesting. Performance-wise, it's a ringer for a BRZ in everything but lateral adhesion, for obvious reasions.

BRZ:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 164 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 21/29 mpg

CX5 Turbo:
C/D
TEST RESULTS
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 173 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.79 g

*stability-control-inhibited

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 30 mpg
Highway range: 450 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 24/22/27 mpg


It's the only CUV in the price range I was looking at when I traded my 106K mile 2015 CX5 in a few weeks ago that didn't look like a snooze-fest. I've not been disappointed.


Other vehicles for reference:

1996 Mustang GT:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 31.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 10.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 92 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 140 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway (C/D projected): 17/25 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg

1967 350SS Camaro:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.1 @ 86.5 mph
Braking, 80-0 mph: 280 ft
Roadholding, 280-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 13-16 mpg (premium fuel)


So yeah, I'm content with my CX5 I guess. Lotta Boomers out there bragging about the "real muscle" back in their day would get stomped hard by it without some legit mods.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by AZjeff
I laugh about the zoom-zoom hype with the CX-5. My daughter has a '15 CX-5 that's the twin of our '14 RAV equipment wise and there's no difference operationally between the 2 in normal driving. The ALL BLACK interior steered us away otherwise it was a coin toss.


You need to check out the 17+ models, especially the '19 turbo models.

 

[edyvw]

The question is: which one congest left lane better? That is actually true virtue of these two vehicles.

 

[Leo99]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by fdcg27



I have to agree with you on that.
There's a lot to be said for any car that takes you where you need to go and back for many years and miles without drama.
Most of us would trade excitement for durable and reliable performance.
I'll add that not too many folks here have anything especially exciting in their sigs.


My CX5 Turbo isn't super exciting, but it's enough to keep driving relatively interesting. Performance-wise, it's a ringer for a BRZ in everything but lateral adhesion, for obvious reasions.

BRZ:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 164 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 21/29 mpg

CX5 Turbo:
C/D
TEST RESULTS
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 173 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.79 g

*stability-control-inhibited

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 30 mpg
Highway range: 450 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 24/22/27 mpg


It's the only CUV in the price range I was looking at when I traded my 106K mile 2015 CX5 in a few weeks ago that didn't look like a snooze-fest. I've not been disappointed.


Other vehicles for reference:

1996 Mustang GT:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 31.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 10.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 92 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 140 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway (C/D projected): 17/25 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg

1967 350SS Camaro:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.1 @ 86.5 mph
Braking, 80-0 mph: 280 ft
Roadholding, 280-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 13-16 mpg (premium fuel)


So yeah, I'm content with my CX5 I guess. Lotta Boomers out there bragging about the "real muscle" back in their day would get stomped hard by it without some legit mods.



Interestingly, my humdrum Camry 4cyl aligns almost exactly with a 1967 350SS Camaro. Except my Camry gets a lot better fuel economy on regular fuel.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted by benjy
as manufacturers strive for more profits while getting more mpg's + keeping in the EPA guidelines todays vehicles are a crap shoot IMO, a VERY EXPENSIVE one at that. the suv AWD crase can be replaced with a better riding + performing sedan + 4 snow tires on a FWD will win over AWD + all season but winter tires. try several + buy what you like + can afford + MAYBE you will get lucky with a good one that all the xtra unneeded JUNK dont malfunction!!


FWD sedan + winters is better at stopping and turning for sure. However getting going in deeper snow(lack clearance), dead stop from steeper grades, or sheer ice at driving wheels and traction somewhere winter tires help but do not surpass AWD with traction somewhere.

Case in point my MIL has a Mazda 5 with Michelin X-Ice on front. It got stuck pulling out of driving at 10%+ grade climbing over a 3" hump left of ice from snow plow and then melted sheer ice after. My wife's VW Tiguan slipped a tad AWD kicked power to another wheel at back and over it went.

People with winter tires on minivans climbing grades to ski areas struggle still when traffic stop and go. AWD with some traction all-season or winter just moves fine.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by madRiver
People with winter tires on minivans climbing grades to ski areas struggle still when traffic stop and go. AWD with some traction all-season or winter just moves fine.

Yet when I point out having problems with a FWD wagon with snows, people think I'm nuts.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted by edyvw
The question is: which one congest left lane better? That is actually true virtue of these two vehicles.

Oh, come one Edy...
I was ***** while passing on the right, at posted speed a LONG vehicles column hold by a Camry SPORT, driven by an old lady. 2 things in my mind:
-she was completely oblivious to the long vehicles lineup behind her (I saw people in all kinds of cars and ages doing the same)
-I thought what the people at the dealer told her to make her buy the SPORT version

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by pandus13
Originally Posted by edyvw
The question is: which one congest left lane better? That is actually true virtue of these two vehicles.

Oh, come one Edy...
I was ***** while passing on the right, at posted speed a LONG vehicles column hold by a Camry SPORT, driven by an old lady. 2 things in my mind:
-she was completely oblivious to the long vehicles lineup behind her (I saw people in all kinds of cars and ages doing the same)
-I thought what the people at the dealer told her to make her buy the SPORT version

Is that a joke?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by benjy
as manufacturers strive for more profits while getting more mpg's + keeping in the EPA guidelines todays vehicles are a crap shoot IMO, a VERY EXPENSIVE one at that. the suv AWD crase can be replaced with a better riding + performing sedan + 4 snow tires on a FWD will win over AWD + all season but winter tires. try several + buy what you like + can afford + MAYBE you will get lucky with a good one that all the xtra unneeded JUNK dont malfunction!!


FWD sedan + winters is better at stopping and turning for sure. However getting going in deeper snow(lack clearance), dead stop from steeper grades, or sheer ice at driving wheels and traction somewhere winter tires help but do not surpass AWD with traction somewhere.

Case in point my MIL has a Mazda 5 with Michelin X-Ice on front. It got stuck pulling out of driving at 10%+ grade climbing over a 3" hump left of ice from snow plow and then melted sheer ice after. My wife's VW Tiguan slipped a tad AWD kicked power to another wheel at back and over it went.

People with winter tires on minivans climbing grades to ski areas struggle still when traffic stop and go. AWD with some traction all-season or winter just moves fine.


My driveway is 27% grade. AWD or don't visit me.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted by edyvw
...
RE: Camry SPORT

Is that a joke? [/quote]
[off-topic] unfortunately no, BIG factory letters on the trunk. Brand new road. also Clear road. and I'm passing them while in a Yaris....

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by benjy
as manufacturers strive for more profits while getting more mpg's + keeping in the EPA guidelines todays vehicles are a crap shoot IMO, a VERY EXPENSIVE one at that. the suv AWD crase can be replaced with a better riding + performing sedan + 4 snow tires on a FWD will win over AWD + all season but winter tires. try several + buy what you like + can afford + MAYBE you will get lucky with a good one that all the xtra unneeded JUNK dont malfunction!!


FWD sedan + winters is better at stopping and turning for sure. However getting going in deeper snow(lack clearance), dead stop from steeper grades, or sheer ice at driving wheels and traction somewhere winter tires help but do not surpass AWD with traction somewhere.

Case in point my MIL has a Mazda 5 with Michelin X-Ice on front. It got stuck pulling out of driving at 10%+ grade climbing over a 3" hump left of ice from snow plow and then melted sheer ice after. My wife's VW Tiguan slipped a tad AWD kicked power to another wheel at back and over it went.

People with winter tires on minivans climbing grades to ski areas struggle still when traffic stop and go. AWD with some traction all-season or winter just moves fine.


Here is the problem with AWD and all seasons:
No one died from not being able to move forward fast enough. But people regularly die from not being able to stop.
By the way, if you were in Tiguan with all seasons two weeks ago here on the roads, you would either walk home or spend the night in the car. Or I would get you with my Tiguan and Nokian's R2's to pick you up, like I did other people that got stuck around my neighborhood, with far more potent AWD or 4WD.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Ws6

My driveway is 27% grade. AWD or don't visit me.


The first 30ft or so is a similar grade on mine. If you plan it just right with enough ramming speed, you can make it with our minivan with snow tires. With all-seasons it will not make it. I've had my new Subarus with factory all-seasons make it with some effort.

Like said above, getting going from a stop and getting up hills is where AWD / 4x4 is nice to have. You can obviously live without it. Most of us did for decades, but once you get spoiled by it, it's tough to not have it.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by JTK
Originally Posted by Ws6

My driveway is 27% grade. AWD or don't visit me.


The first 30ft or so is a similar grade on mine. If you plan it just right with enough ramming speed, you can make it with our minivan with snow tires. With all-seasons it will not make it. I've had my new Subarus with factory all-seasons make it with some effort.

Like said above, getting going from a stop and getting up hills is where AWD / 4x4 is nice to have. You can obviously live without it. Most of us did for decades, but once you get spoiled by it, it's tough to not have it.

My drive-way is about 600ft long. The sloped portion is 350ft. Good luck with FWD. My CX5's (a 2015 2.5 Touring, and a 2019 GTR that replaced it) both made it on all-seasons. No sense buying snows when AWD and all-seasons will get it done for the few days every other year where it snows.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by JTK
Originally Posted by Ws6

My driveway is 27% grade. AWD or don't visit me.


The first 30ft or so is a similar grade on mine. If you plan it just right with enough ramming speed, you can make it with our minivan with snow tires. With all-seasons it will not make it. I've had my new Subarus with factory all-seasons make it with some effort.

Like said above, getting going from a stop and getting up hills is where AWD / 4x4 is nice to have. You can obviously live without it. Most of us did for decades, but once you get spoiled by it, it's tough to not have it.

My drive-way is about 600ft long. The sloped portion is 350ft. Good luck with FWD. My CX5's (a 2015 2.5 Touring, and a 2019 GTR that replaced it) both made it on all-seasons. No sense buying snows when AWD and all-seasons will get it done for the few days every other year where it snows.

FWD with snows will do that.
I do this twice a week, during snow storms, and did it with VW CC that is FWD and snow tires:
https://retro-skiing.com/2012/03/loveland-pass/
The thing is, if you slide here, they might find you sometimes in summer, maybe.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by JTK
Originally Posted by Ws6

My driveway is 27% grade. AWD or don't visit me.


The first 30ft or so is a similar grade on mine. If you plan it just right with enough ramming speed, you can make it with our minivan with snow tires. With all-seasons it will not make it. I've had my new Subarus with factory all-seasons make it with some effort.

Like said above, getting going from a stop and getting up hills is where AWD / 4x4 is nice to have. You can obviously live without it. Most of us did for decades, but once you get spoiled by it, it's tough to not have it.

My drive-way is about 600ft long. The sloped portion is 350ft. Good luck with FWD. My CX5's (a 2015 2.5 Touring, and a 2019 GTR that replaced it) both made it on all-seasons. No sense buying snows when AWD and all-seasons will get it done for the few days every other year where it snows.

FWD with snows will do that.
I do this twice a week, during snow storms, and did it with VW CC that is FWD and snow tires:
https://retro-skiing.com/2012/03/loveland-pass/
The thing is, if you slide here, they might find you sometimes in summer, maybe.

It may, but it wont do it on a nice day. I can push a car down that gravel hill hy hand with you in it standing on the brakes.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
It may, but it wont do it on a nice day. I can push a car down that gravel hill hy hand with you in it standing on the brakes.

Either you need to lay off steroids or brakes need to be checked

In Colorado that is called: plain field, and we do have cars with FWD, and ice too.