MM Review: 2012 Toyota RAV-4
03-01-12, 03:06 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2012 Toyota RAV-4
By CL-Member request, a Review of the 2012 Toyota RAV-4
http://www.toyota.com/rav4/
IN A NUTSHELL: One of the original car-based "Cute-Ute" SUVs, and still a strong contender in that market.
CLOSEST COMPETITORS: Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Forester, Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, Dodge Journey, Suzuki Vitara, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage
OVERVIEW:
The original First-generation RAV-4, on-sale in Europe and Japan since 1994, was released in the American market in 1996, and became an instant hit. Demand exceeded supply for some time, and, from what I remember, dealerships often charged more than list-price for them. Originally, both a five-door and a somewhat quirky-looking little three-door were offered, but the three-doors, for some reason, were quite rare here on the East Coast (I'm in the D.C. suburbs).....most of the three-doors were sold in California. At the time, I had a 1995 Toyota Celica, and I was interested in the three-door RAV-4 myself as a possible cheap, second-car, snow-vehicle (I didn't like to take my Celica out in sand and salt), but the dealerships said that the three-doors just weren't being sent here, and they were difficult to order (Eventually, of course, I bought a Subaru for winter).
The RAV-4 can, (arguably), be called the first U.S.-market car-based unibody "Cute-Ute" SUV, which, as a class, were designed for better steering/handling/ride/fuel-economy than the larger, traditional, body-on-frame, truck-based SUVs, which drank gas like an Army tank (and often drove like one). The reason I say "arguably" on it being the first Cute-Ute is that Subaru had first introduced the general concept in 1995 with the AWD, Legacy-wagon-based, raised-suspension Outback, And, of course, all the way back in 1981, AMC's Eagle Wagon was the first production vehicle to incorporate the viscous-drive certer-differential with made car-based AWD possible in the first-place. Like the Outback, it combined the car-based AWD with a wagon-body-style and a raised-suspension for deep snow and road-obstacle-clearance. But the Outback and Eagle were essentially AWD, all-weather station-wagons, not real SUVs...nor, IMO, even Cute-Utes. And the small Suzuki RWD/4WD Sidekick and its Chevy/Geo Tracker twins of the time were crude, uncomfortable, and were more truck-based than car-based, being primarily designed for rugged off-roading rather than comfort and convienence on normal paved roads. So, the RAV-4, IMO, can arguably be considered the first real Cute-Ute in the American market.
The RAV-4, of course, along with (at the time) the exploding SUV-market immediately spawned a lot of competitors (including the now-defunct Saturn VUE), many of which I have already listed above at the opening of the review. A lot of carmakers, seeing the demand for these vehicles and the potential profit in them, rushed the competing models to market, and they soon became a daily-trademark on the roads. Many smaller families, who needed all-weather capability and reasonable carrying-capacity, soon discovered they no longer needed Suburbans or Expeditions, or were tired of filling up their 25-gallon tanks with daily gas-mileage in the high-singles and low-teens.
The first-generation RAV-4, IMO, was quite well-built, as were most Toyota products of the period. I was generally impressed with it, and, as I mentioned above, I even considered a cheap 3-door version as a snow car. I myself don't believe in paying over list, and, as I knew a number of Toyota salespeople/managers from prior experience and from shopping with other people, I was pretty confident I at least wouldn't have to pay a mark-up, even if there wasn't much of a discount. But money, though, was not the issue.....Toyota just wasn't sending the 3-doors to the East Coast. The Second-generation model dropped the 3-door version altogether, and (again, like some other Toyota products of the period), I thought its was quite not as well-built as the original model. The reliability-record, according to Consumer Reports, remained above-average (as did future RAV-4s), but some thinning of the sheet-metal and solidness of the interior-trim materials was noticeable. The styling also got a little more quirky, with imitation plastic screw-heads integrated into the silver-plastic interior trim and some of the exterior trim. The slightly larger Third-generation RAV-4 also showed some cheapness in the interior-trim and thin sheet metal, but added some important features that were being increasingly-requested by customers.....an optional third-row seat, optional V6 engine, and more cargo-space.
For 2012, American-market RAV-4s come in quite a number of different versions. Three different trim-levels are offered....Base, Sport, and Limited. All three offer a choice of a in-line 2.5L four with 179 HP and 172 ft-lbs. of torque, or a 3.5L V6 with 269 HP and 246 ft-lbs. of torque. Both the four and V6 offer a choice of FWD or On-Demand AWD. The four comes with a rather dated four-speed automatic; the V6 with a 5-speed automatic....no manual transmissions are offered in the American market. The AWD version has an electronic dash-button to lock the differentials for tough conditions....but, of course, it is not designed for hard-core of-roading. Base prices start at a low $22,650 for a 4-cylinder FWD and run to $28,650 for an AWD Limited V6. An all-new fourth-generation RAV-4 is scheduled for sometime next year...but Toyota, as of now, isn't releasing many details.
With the recent spike in gas-prices as of this writing (with the likelihood of more to come), and the fact that most people, with this type of vehicle want bad-weather traction, I chose a base-model, four-cylinder, AWD model for the review, which, with comparably few options, listed at a quite-reasonable $25,775. However, some of the cost-cutting showed in the trim-quality and materials......more on that later. It was, color-wise, much like my own Outback...a medium-blue-metallic on the outside and a beige/taupe cloth interior. (Subaru calls it Atlantic Blue, Toyota calls it Pacific Blue; they are virtually identical). Read on for the review-details.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2012 Toyota RAV-4 4WD
BASE PRICE: $24,050
OPTIONS:
QV Value-Package: $690
Carpeted Floor and Cargo Mats: $225
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $810 (about average for today)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $25,775
EXTERIOR COLOR: Pacific Blue
INTERIOR: Taupe (Beige) Cloth
DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted 2.5L in-line VVT-i 4, 179 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 172 ft-lbs. @ 4000 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 21 City, 27 Highway, 24 Combined
PLUSSES:
Better-than-average reliability.
Good overall assembly-quality.
Wide choice of trim-levels and powertrains.
2/25 Free factory-maintenance.
Reasonably strong 4-cylinder.
Silky-smooth, quiet, refined 4-speed automatic.
Good wind-noise control.
Firm, reasonably responsive brake pedal.
Good ride comfort.
Short turning radius.
Conservative, squared-off styling helps interior space-efficiency.
Good underhood layout.
Good ground clearance for deep snow and road-obstacles.
Handsome-looking (IMO) 5-spoke stamped-steel wheels.
A REAL spare tire/wheel.
Firm but comfortable front seat-cushions.
Good front and rear headroom for tall persons.
Good front legroom and fairly goor rear legroom for long legs.
Typically well-done Toyota paint-job.
Precise, solid-closing doors despite the thin sheet-metal.
Clever double-opening glove box.
Well-done, clear gauges.
MINUSES:
No standard protective body-side mouldings (they are a dealer-accessory)
Bulky, hard-to-lift, heavy hood uses a manual prop-rod.
Spare tire mounted in damage-prone area.
Rear-cargo-door hinges mounted on wrong side for American-market.
Dull-looking, cheap interior trim.
Unimpressive exterior trim on base model.
Rather thin exterior sheet-metal....except for the hood.
Mediocre (IMO) stereo-sound.
Annoying (IMO) zig-zag transmission shifter.
4-speed automatic on four-cylinder models lacks a few gears compared to some competitors.
No manual Sport-Shift function for the 4-speed automatic.
Saddled (unfairly, IMO) with a Feminine image.
EXTERIOR:
The outside of the present, third-generation RAV-4 is somewhat longer than the older, second-generation model, as it now, unlike its closest-competitor Honda CR-V, offers a small third-row seat and V6 options. It is still basically a traditional two-box SUV design, though, and that, of course, means generally squared-off lines and interior space-efficiency....more on this later. The paint-job is the usual Toyota smoothness/evenness and gloss, with virtually no orange-peel, though I didn't check a black one.....even with Toyota/Lexus, black often has more orange-peel than other colors. There are no standard body-side-mouldings to help ward off parking-lot dings (the bean-counters win again), but door-edge guards and side-mouldings are available as dealer-accessories. Most of the exterior color-choices (eight are offered), are, as usual, a little too morgue-like for my tastes, but the Barcelona-Red and Pacific-Blue are cheerful enough, IMO, to help keep your eyes at least half-open. There is plenty of ground-clearance underneath for deep snow, road-obstacles, and speed bumps/humps. The standard wheels on the low-line versions are silver stamped-steel rather than cast-alloy, but, nevertheless, IMO, were quite handsome with their classic, mag-style 5-spokes, and seemed to be quite solidly-made. Even better, they don't have those cheap thin silver-plastic wheel-covers seen on some other low-line Toyotas and Scions. The twin side-mirrors seemed well-shaped for rear-vision, and snap/swivel/locked smoothly and solidly. But I wasn't impressed with much of the cheap-looking exterior trim, including the flat-black side mirror-housings (upmarket models get body-colored mirror-housings with integrated turn-signals). And there were a few problems with the design of the rear cargo-door...I'll get to those in the Cargo-Compartment section below.
UNDERHOOD:
The worst part of the underhood is just lifting the thick, heavy, all-steel hood itself (which seemingly weighs more than Mama Cass Eliot) with one hand, and fumbling the manual prop-rod with the other hand....an almost perfect scenario, IMO, for not penny-pitching and using some nice struts or springs instead of the cheap rod. Fortunately, my open-heart surgery, and the chest/bone-wounds from it, have long-since-healed...otherwise, I would have had to get one of the stronger Toyota people there raise the hood for me. But, to be honest, I don't think shorter and/or weaker persons are going to be able to handle this one.....strike one up, if needed, for Toyota Roadside-Assistance.
Once the WWE-grade hood is up and properly-braced, however, the underhood layout is quite good.....I was generally pleased wth it. On the underside of the hood is a nice insulation-pad. The transversely-mounted 2.5L four fits in quite nicely (mainly due to the box-shaped engine-compartment) with a fair amount of room to spare around the sides of the block to reach things. There is a black plastic engine cover on top, but it doesn't block too many things.....and the oil filler-cap is easily reached through a hole in it. The alternator is right up front, exposed for easy-access. The battery is on the right, with no cover on it, up front, and easily-reached. Most of the underhood components are reasonably easily-accessed, along with the dipsticks, filler-caps,
and fluid-reservoirs.
INTERIOR:
The interior, while generally simple and functional (I, of course, like simple controls), shows a bit of cost-cutting in both trim-quality and, in some cases, material-solidness. One pleasant exception is the tank-solid door-grips, which, like on the new Buick Verano, feel like the Rock of Gibraltar when you grip and pull them. The dull-looking dark-gray plastic-trim on the lower-dash and console also felt reasonably solid. But much of the rest of the interior plastics, especially on the door-panels, felt thin and unsubstantial, even for this class. The sun-visors were thick and solid, but rock-hard and unpleasant to grip. There was virtually no chrome or bright-metal inside, except for the Toyota logo on the steering-wheel, and no wood-tone, brushed-metal, or carbon-fiber-type trim. In other words, the interior basically looked like an older-generation econobox, before the Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio decided to upgrade their interiors. The three big, center-mounted climate-rotary-***** are the same cheap-feeling flat-black ones found in a number of other Toyota/Scion models. The stereo-sound quality was (maybe) OK for this class, but AC/DC, Alice Cooper, and James Brown probably merit something a
little nicer.
But, dull-looks aside, there are, IMO, a number of good features inside as well. The primary gauges are clear and easy-to-read....the secondary gauges slightly less-so. The basic control/**** layout is intuitive, simple, and easy-to-use (BMW/Mercedes/Audi, are you listening?).....a throwback to the days before MMI and I-Drive, when when more auto dash-controls were like that. The ceiling headliner is a nice fabric-material. The cloth seats had reasonably-durable-feeling fabric on them, and, despite the firm lower-cushions, still felt comfortable. Premium-fabrics and leather are available in the upmarket RAV-4 models. There is excellent front and rear headroom (mainly due to the space-efficient high roofline), and decent legroom as well. And the dual glove-box design is clever....a small upper one opens and shuts automatically with a push-button, while the larger one underneath is more conventional.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
The RAV-4, like some other small Japanese-designed Cute-Utes, uses a sideways-opening door in the rear instead of the more-common lift-hatch. Like Honda did, though, with the first-genration CR-V, the Rav-4 uses the same rear-door and hinges in the left hand-drive American market as in the right-hand-drive British, Australian, and Japanese markets. The hinges are on the right, and the door swings open to the right instead of to the left. Since Americans (usually) drive and park on the right-side of the road, with the curbs/sidewalks on the right, a left-opening door is usually safer and more convienient, since that way, you don't have to walk out closer to traffic to load or unolad.....and the open-door protects you somewhat. I can't think of any reason for not redoing the rear-door for markets like ours, except to save money. It's not a terribly big deal, though, if there isn't much traffic close-by.
Although I am glad that the RAV-4, unlike many other vehicles today, has a REAL spare tire/wheel assembly (and standard at that), instead of an El Cheapo temporary/donut or compressed-air-bottle. There are either hard or soft spare-tire-covers, depending on the model. Another design-goof, IMO (besides the rear-door-hinges) is mounting the spare-tire vertically on the outside of the rear-door. Yes, it's easy to reach if you get a flat, but it is also in a damage-prone-location (Consumer Reports has written extensively about this subject). On vehicles with this type of rear-design (and the RAV-4 isn't the only one), just a mild-to-moderate tap on the spare-tire from a high-riding vehicle behind it can lead to a shattered rear-window, broken glass all over the place, a mangled rear-door, and a hefty repair-bill, even meeting current DOT-standards. That's also something to think about if you have a third-row-seat model with small kids in back. One nice thing about the rear-door, though, is that, even with the thinnish sheet-metal, it still (like the four side-doors) closes with a nice precise thunk.
OK, so much for the rear door and its quirks. Inside, due to the conservative, squared-off rear-roofline, there is a good bit of cargo-space, particularly with the second-row and (if equipped) third-row seats folded down. Nice, convienient levers, built nto the trunk-walls, allow you to drop the second-row seats from the back of the vehicle. The cargo-area is not only roomy but has some reasonably-nice beige carpet on the floor, while regular black-plastic lines the walls. The floor-panel with the beige-carpet lift/folds-up to reveal a nice secondary multi-compartment below. There is no standard cargo-compartment cover to keep prying-eyes from theives off of exposed contents in the rear, but one is available as a dealer-accessory.....along with a LOT of other cargo-area accessories as well (see the web-site for details).
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the ubiquitous Toyota 2.5L four with a conventional ignition key and side-column switch (upmarket models get an engine START/STOP button), and the four comes to life and idles with the usual Toyota smoothness and quietness. On the road, it has a reasonable amount of spunk, considering the size of the vehicle, the extra weight/drag of the automatic transmission, only four gears, and the AWD hardware. Helping to some extent is the fact that the AWD system generally only powers the front wheels until they start to slip, then routes torque to the rear as needed (in automotive-speak, that's referred to as an On-Demand AWD system, as opposed to Full-Time AWD). The engine itself remains smooth and fairly quiet as RPMs build with acceleration, but there is noticeable exhaust noise. The 4-speed automatic teamed with the four (V6s get a five-speed) lacks a gear or two compared to some of the competition, but, otherwise, is silky-smooth, quiet, and virtually seamless. Toyota engineers, like some of those on some Buicks and Cadillacs, know how to do seamless automatics......that seems to be a trademark of a number of Toyota and Lexus products.
The chassis, overall, is generally well-done for a Cute-Ute of this class, but, of course, it is no sports-car. Spirited cornering and sharp steering-input, on this fairly-high center-of-gravity vehicle, brings on mediocre steering response and a fair amount of body-roll. Ride comfort, helped by the nice tall 60-series all-season tires, was generally good on all but sharp bumps. I didn't actually measure the turning-radius, but it seemed quite short for the wheelbase-length....you won't need the entire parking-lot to turn it around. Wind-noise control, as with most Toyota products, was well-controlled, and road-noise, though noticeable, was muted on most surfaces. The brake pedal was quite firm (almost to German standards), and the brakes were generally responsive. The pedal-location, in relation to the gas-pedal, was not quite ideal for my big size-15 clown-shoes to keep from snagging the edge of it when lifting off of the gas, but it was not as bad as in a number of other vehicles I've driven.
THE VERDICT:
Cute-Ute vehicles in this class, if you believe the stuff you read in the auto-press and among some auto enthusiasts, are often refered to as "Chick" or "Secretary" cars. However, I don't believe in automotive stereotypes....never did; never will. Yes, it is true that a goodly-number of women own and drive this type of vehicle (just as with the VW Beetle and Cabrios). But I see no reason why any male, even one who eats steak and drinks beer, especially if a vehicle like this meets his driving-needs, has to go out and get a Corvette or Shelby-Mustang to prove his manhood. IMO, the RAV-4 and many of its competitors (including, of course, many Subarus) are sensible, reliable, reasonably economical vehicles that can carry things and get you through all but the very worst weather and driving conditions. Although more expensive than typical compacts and econoboxes, they still don't cost an arm and a leg, and most have reasonable depreciation and insurance-costs. Even a WWE wrestler or racing-driver could appreciate at least some of that.
Having said that, of course, the RAV-4 generally stacks up pretty well against its competitors, although a new version is due out in the not-distant future. The present model could use another gear or two in the transmission, a little more glitz and material-quality in some of the interior/exterior trim, the spare-tire mounted where it won't contribute to body and glass damage in rear-enders, and some minor changes to some equipment/hardware. But, otherwise, there wasn't much else to complain about. It is a well-done vehicle, generally well-built, IMO worth what it costs (though top-line Limited and V6 models can get pricier), and, in general, I can recommend it.
As always.......Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://www.toyota.com/rav4/
IN A NUTSHELL: One of the original car-based "Cute-Ute" SUVs, and still a strong contender in that market.
CLOSEST COMPETITORS: Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Forester, Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, Dodge Journey, Suzuki Vitara, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage
OVERVIEW:
The original First-generation RAV-4, on-sale in Europe and Japan since 1994, was released in the American market in 1996, and became an instant hit. Demand exceeded supply for some time, and, from what I remember, dealerships often charged more than list-price for them. Originally, both a five-door and a somewhat quirky-looking little three-door were offered, but the three-doors, for some reason, were quite rare here on the East Coast (I'm in the D.C. suburbs).....most of the three-doors were sold in California. At the time, I had a 1995 Toyota Celica, and I was interested in the three-door RAV-4 myself as a possible cheap, second-car, snow-vehicle (I didn't like to take my Celica out in sand and salt), but the dealerships said that the three-doors just weren't being sent here, and they were difficult to order (Eventually, of course, I bought a Subaru for winter).
The RAV-4 can, (arguably), be called the first U.S.-market car-based unibody "Cute-Ute" SUV, which, as a class, were designed for better steering/handling/ride/fuel-economy than the larger, traditional, body-on-frame, truck-based SUVs, which drank gas like an Army tank (and often drove like one). The reason I say "arguably" on it being the first Cute-Ute is that Subaru had first introduced the general concept in 1995 with the AWD, Legacy-wagon-based, raised-suspension Outback, And, of course, all the way back in 1981, AMC's Eagle Wagon was the first production vehicle to incorporate the viscous-drive certer-differential with made car-based AWD possible in the first-place. Like the Outback, it combined the car-based AWD with a wagon-body-style and a raised-suspension for deep snow and road-obstacle-clearance. But the Outback and Eagle were essentially AWD, all-weather station-wagons, not real SUVs...nor, IMO, even Cute-Utes. And the small Suzuki RWD/4WD Sidekick and its Chevy/Geo Tracker twins of the time were crude, uncomfortable, and were more truck-based than car-based, being primarily designed for rugged off-roading rather than comfort and convienence on normal paved roads. So, the RAV-4, IMO, can arguably be considered the first real Cute-Ute in the American market.
The RAV-4, of course, along with (at the time) the exploding SUV-market immediately spawned a lot of competitors (including the now-defunct Saturn VUE), many of which I have already listed above at the opening of the review. A lot of carmakers, seeing the demand for these vehicles and the potential profit in them, rushed the competing models to market, and they soon became a daily-trademark on the roads. Many smaller families, who needed all-weather capability and reasonable carrying-capacity, soon discovered they no longer needed Suburbans or Expeditions, or were tired of filling up their 25-gallon tanks with daily gas-mileage in the high-singles and low-teens.
The first-generation RAV-4, IMO, was quite well-built, as were most Toyota products of the period. I was generally impressed with it, and, as I mentioned above, I even considered a cheap 3-door version as a snow car. I myself don't believe in paying over list, and, as I knew a number of Toyota salespeople/managers from prior experience and from shopping with other people, I was pretty confident I at least wouldn't have to pay a mark-up, even if there wasn't much of a discount. But money, though, was not the issue.....Toyota just wasn't sending the 3-doors to the East Coast. The Second-generation model dropped the 3-door version altogether, and (again, like some other Toyota products of the period), I thought its was quite not as well-built as the original model. The reliability-record, according to Consumer Reports, remained above-average (as did future RAV-4s), but some thinning of the sheet-metal and solidness of the interior-trim materials was noticeable. The styling also got a little more quirky, with imitation plastic screw-heads integrated into the silver-plastic interior trim and some of the exterior trim. The slightly larger Third-generation RAV-4 also showed some cheapness in the interior-trim and thin sheet metal, but added some important features that were being increasingly-requested by customers.....an optional third-row seat, optional V6 engine, and more cargo-space.
For 2012, American-market RAV-4s come in quite a number of different versions. Three different trim-levels are offered....Base, Sport, and Limited. All three offer a choice of a in-line 2.5L four with 179 HP and 172 ft-lbs. of torque, or a 3.5L V6 with 269 HP and 246 ft-lbs. of torque. Both the four and V6 offer a choice of FWD or On-Demand AWD. The four comes with a rather dated four-speed automatic; the V6 with a 5-speed automatic....no manual transmissions are offered in the American market. The AWD version has an electronic dash-button to lock the differentials for tough conditions....but, of course, it is not designed for hard-core of-roading. Base prices start at a low $22,650 for a 4-cylinder FWD and run to $28,650 for an AWD Limited V6. An all-new fourth-generation RAV-4 is scheduled for sometime next year...but Toyota, as of now, isn't releasing many details.
With the recent spike in gas-prices as of this writing (with the likelihood of more to come), and the fact that most people, with this type of vehicle want bad-weather traction, I chose a base-model, four-cylinder, AWD model for the review, which, with comparably few options, listed at a quite-reasonable $25,775. However, some of the cost-cutting showed in the trim-quality and materials......more on that later. It was, color-wise, much like my own Outback...a medium-blue-metallic on the outside and a beige/taupe cloth interior. (Subaru calls it Atlantic Blue, Toyota calls it Pacific Blue; they are virtually identical). Read on for the review-details.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2012 Toyota RAV-4 4WD
BASE PRICE: $24,050
OPTIONS:
QV Value-Package: $690
Carpeted Floor and Cargo Mats: $225
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $810 (about average for today)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $25,775
EXTERIOR COLOR: Pacific Blue
INTERIOR: Taupe (Beige) Cloth
DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted 2.5L in-line VVT-i 4, 179 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 172 ft-lbs. @ 4000 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 21 City, 27 Highway, 24 Combined
PLUSSES:
Better-than-average reliability.
Good overall assembly-quality.
Wide choice of trim-levels and powertrains.
2/25 Free factory-maintenance.
Reasonably strong 4-cylinder.
Silky-smooth, quiet, refined 4-speed automatic.
Good wind-noise control.
Firm, reasonably responsive brake pedal.
Good ride comfort.
Short turning radius.
Conservative, squared-off styling helps interior space-efficiency.
Good underhood layout.
Good ground clearance for deep snow and road-obstacles.
Handsome-looking (IMO) 5-spoke stamped-steel wheels.
A REAL spare tire/wheel.
Firm but comfortable front seat-cushions.
Good front and rear headroom for tall persons.
Good front legroom and fairly goor rear legroom for long legs.
Typically well-done Toyota paint-job.
Precise, solid-closing doors despite the thin sheet-metal.
Clever double-opening glove box.
Well-done, clear gauges.
MINUSES:
No standard protective body-side mouldings (they are a dealer-accessory)
Bulky, hard-to-lift, heavy hood uses a manual prop-rod.
Spare tire mounted in damage-prone area.
Rear-cargo-door hinges mounted on wrong side for American-market.
Dull-looking, cheap interior trim.
Unimpressive exterior trim on base model.
Rather thin exterior sheet-metal....except for the hood.
Mediocre (IMO) stereo-sound.
Annoying (IMO) zig-zag transmission shifter.
4-speed automatic on four-cylinder models lacks a few gears compared to some competitors.
No manual Sport-Shift function for the 4-speed automatic.
Saddled (unfairly, IMO) with a Feminine image.
EXTERIOR:
The outside of the present, third-generation RAV-4 is somewhat longer than the older, second-generation model, as it now, unlike its closest-competitor Honda CR-V, offers a small third-row seat and V6 options. It is still basically a traditional two-box SUV design, though, and that, of course, means generally squared-off lines and interior space-efficiency....more on this later. The paint-job is the usual Toyota smoothness/evenness and gloss, with virtually no orange-peel, though I didn't check a black one.....even with Toyota/Lexus, black often has more orange-peel than other colors. There are no standard body-side-mouldings to help ward off parking-lot dings (the bean-counters win again), but door-edge guards and side-mouldings are available as dealer-accessories. Most of the exterior color-choices (eight are offered), are, as usual, a little too morgue-like for my tastes, but the Barcelona-Red and Pacific-Blue are cheerful enough, IMO, to help keep your eyes at least half-open. There is plenty of ground-clearance underneath for deep snow, road-obstacles, and speed bumps/humps. The standard wheels on the low-line versions are silver stamped-steel rather than cast-alloy, but, nevertheless, IMO, were quite handsome with their classic, mag-style 5-spokes, and seemed to be quite solidly-made. Even better, they don't have those cheap thin silver-plastic wheel-covers seen on some other low-line Toyotas and Scions. The twin side-mirrors seemed well-shaped for rear-vision, and snap/swivel/locked smoothly and solidly. But I wasn't impressed with much of the cheap-looking exterior trim, including the flat-black side mirror-housings (upmarket models get body-colored mirror-housings with integrated turn-signals). And there were a few problems with the design of the rear cargo-door...I'll get to those in the Cargo-Compartment section below.
UNDERHOOD:
The worst part of the underhood is just lifting the thick, heavy, all-steel hood itself (which seemingly weighs more than Mama Cass Eliot) with one hand, and fumbling the manual prop-rod with the other hand....an almost perfect scenario, IMO, for not penny-pitching and using some nice struts or springs instead of the cheap rod. Fortunately, my open-heart surgery, and the chest/bone-wounds from it, have long-since-healed...otherwise, I would have had to get one of the stronger Toyota people there raise the hood for me. But, to be honest, I don't think shorter and/or weaker persons are going to be able to handle this one.....strike one up, if needed, for Toyota Roadside-Assistance.
Once the WWE-grade hood is up and properly-braced, however, the underhood layout is quite good.....I was generally pleased wth it. On the underside of the hood is a nice insulation-pad. The transversely-mounted 2.5L four fits in quite nicely (mainly due to the box-shaped engine-compartment) with a fair amount of room to spare around the sides of the block to reach things. There is a black plastic engine cover on top, but it doesn't block too many things.....and the oil filler-cap is easily reached through a hole in it. The alternator is right up front, exposed for easy-access. The battery is on the right, with no cover on it, up front, and easily-reached. Most of the underhood components are reasonably easily-accessed, along with the dipsticks, filler-caps,
and fluid-reservoirs.
INTERIOR:
The interior, while generally simple and functional (I, of course, like simple controls), shows a bit of cost-cutting in both trim-quality and, in some cases, material-solidness. One pleasant exception is the tank-solid door-grips, which, like on the new Buick Verano, feel like the Rock of Gibraltar when you grip and pull them. The dull-looking dark-gray plastic-trim on the lower-dash and console also felt reasonably solid. But much of the rest of the interior plastics, especially on the door-panels, felt thin and unsubstantial, even for this class. The sun-visors were thick and solid, but rock-hard and unpleasant to grip. There was virtually no chrome or bright-metal inside, except for the Toyota logo on the steering-wheel, and no wood-tone, brushed-metal, or carbon-fiber-type trim. In other words, the interior basically looked like an older-generation econobox, before the Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio decided to upgrade their interiors. The three big, center-mounted climate-rotary-***** are the same cheap-feeling flat-black ones found in a number of other Toyota/Scion models. The stereo-sound quality was (maybe) OK for this class, but AC/DC, Alice Cooper, and James Brown probably merit something a
little nicer.
But, dull-looks aside, there are, IMO, a number of good features inside as well. The primary gauges are clear and easy-to-read....the secondary gauges slightly less-so. The basic control/**** layout is intuitive, simple, and easy-to-use (BMW/Mercedes/Audi, are you listening?).....a throwback to the days before MMI and I-Drive, when when more auto dash-controls were like that. The ceiling headliner is a nice fabric-material. The cloth seats had reasonably-durable-feeling fabric on them, and, despite the firm lower-cushions, still felt comfortable. Premium-fabrics and leather are available in the upmarket RAV-4 models. There is excellent front and rear headroom (mainly due to the space-efficient high roofline), and decent legroom as well. And the dual glove-box design is clever....a small upper one opens and shuts automatically with a push-button, while the larger one underneath is more conventional.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
The RAV-4, like some other small Japanese-designed Cute-Utes, uses a sideways-opening door in the rear instead of the more-common lift-hatch. Like Honda did, though, with the first-genration CR-V, the Rav-4 uses the same rear-door and hinges in the left hand-drive American market as in the right-hand-drive British, Australian, and Japanese markets. The hinges are on the right, and the door swings open to the right instead of to the left. Since Americans (usually) drive and park on the right-side of the road, with the curbs/sidewalks on the right, a left-opening door is usually safer and more convienient, since that way, you don't have to walk out closer to traffic to load or unolad.....and the open-door protects you somewhat. I can't think of any reason for not redoing the rear-door for markets like ours, except to save money. It's not a terribly big deal, though, if there isn't much traffic close-by.
Although I am glad that the RAV-4, unlike many other vehicles today, has a REAL spare tire/wheel assembly (and standard at that), instead of an El Cheapo temporary/donut or compressed-air-bottle. There are either hard or soft spare-tire-covers, depending on the model. Another design-goof, IMO (besides the rear-door-hinges) is mounting the spare-tire vertically on the outside of the rear-door. Yes, it's easy to reach if you get a flat, but it is also in a damage-prone-location (Consumer Reports has written extensively about this subject). On vehicles with this type of rear-design (and the RAV-4 isn't the only one), just a mild-to-moderate tap on the spare-tire from a high-riding vehicle behind it can lead to a shattered rear-window, broken glass all over the place, a mangled rear-door, and a hefty repair-bill, even meeting current DOT-standards. That's also something to think about if you have a third-row-seat model with small kids in back. One nice thing about the rear-door, though, is that, even with the thinnish sheet-metal, it still (like the four side-doors) closes with a nice precise thunk.
OK, so much for the rear door and its quirks. Inside, due to the conservative, squared-off rear-roofline, there is a good bit of cargo-space, particularly with the second-row and (if equipped) third-row seats folded down. Nice, convienient levers, built nto the trunk-walls, allow you to drop the second-row seats from the back of the vehicle. The cargo-area is not only roomy but has some reasonably-nice beige carpet on the floor, while regular black-plastic lines the walls. The floor-panel with the beige-carpet lift/folds-up to reveal a nice secondary multi-compartment below. There is no standard cargo-compartment cover to keep prying-eyes from theives off of exposed contents in the rear, but one is available as a dealer-accessory.....along with a LOT of other cargo-area accessories as well (see the web-site for details).
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the ubiquitous Toyota 2.5L four with a conventional ignition key and side-column switch (upmarket models get an engine START/STOP button), and the four comes to life and idles with the usual Toyota smoothness and quietness. On the road, it has a reasonable amount of spunk, considering the size of the vehicle, the extra weight/drag of the automatic transmission, only four gears, and the AWD hardware. Helping to some extent is the fact that the AWD system generally only powers the front wheels until they start to slip, then routes torque to the rear as needed (in automotive-speak, that's referred to as an On-Demand AWD system, as opposed to Full-Time AWD). The engine itself remains smooth and fairly quiet as RPMs build with acceleration, but there is noticeable exhaust noise. The 4-speed automatic teamed with the four (V6s get a five-speed) lacks a gear or two compared to some of the competition, but, otherwise, is silky-smooth, quiet, and virtually seamless. Toyota engineers, like some of those on some Buicks and Cadillacs, know how to do seamless automatics......that seems to be a trademark of a number of Toyota and Lexus products.
The chassis, overall, is generally well-done for a Cute-Ute of this class, but, of course, it is no sports-car. Spirited cornering and sharp steering-input, on this fairly-high center-of-gravity vehicle, brings on mediocre steering response and a fair amount of body-roll. Ride comfort, helped by the nice tall 60-series all-season tires, was generally good on all but sharp bumps. I didn't actually measure the turning-radius, but it seemed quite short for the wheelbase-length....you won't need the entire parking-lot to turn it around. Wind-noise control, as with most Toyota products, was well-controlled, and road-noise, though noticeable, was muted on most surfaces. The brake pedal was quite firm (almost to German standards), and the brakes were generally responsive. The pedal-location, in relation to the gas-pedal, was not quite ideal for my big size-15 clown-shoes to keep from snagging the edge of it when lifting off of the gas, but it was not as bad as in a number of other vehicles I've driven.
THE VERDICT:
Cute-Ute vehicles in this class, if you believe the stuff you read in the auto-press and among some auto enthusiasts, are often refered to as "Chick" or "Secretary" cars. However, I don't believe in automotive stereotypes....never did; never will. Yes, it is true that a goodly-number of women own and drive this type of vehicle (just as with the VW Beetle and Cabrios). But I see no reason why any male, even one who eats steak and drinks beer, especially if a vehicle like this meets his driving-needs, has to go out and get a Corvette or Shelby-Mustang to prove his manhood. IMO, the RAV-4 and many of its competitors (including, of course, many Subarus) are sensible, reliable, reasonably economical vehicles that can carry things and get you through all but the very worst weather and driving conditions. Although more expensive than typical compacts and econoboxes, they still don't cost an arm and a leg, and most have reasonable depreciation and insurance-costs. Even a WWE wrestler or racing-driver could appreciate at least some of that.
Having said that, of course, the RAV-4 generally stacks up pretty well against its competitors, although a new version is due out in the not-distant future. The present model could use another gear or two in the transmission, a little more glitz and material-quality in some of the interior/exterior trim, the spare-tire mounted where it won't contribute to body and glass damage in rear-enders, and some minor changes to some equipment/hardware. But, otherwise, there wasn't much else to complain about. It is a well-done vehicle, generally well-built, IMO worth what it costs (though top-line Limited and V6 models can get pricier), and, in general, I can recommend it.
As always.......Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-01-12 at 08:17 PM.
03-01-12, 03:09 PM
#2
Nice review,Mike.
Looked at a '11 Limited and the wife and I just felt the CR-V EX-L w/NAV was so much better in every respect except for the lack of a V6.
The Toyota V6 is a great engine.
I have to say the RAV interior is just awful.
The next generation RAV should be a lot nicer.
Looked at a '11 Limited and the wife and I just felt the CR-V EX-L w/NAV was so much better in every respect except for the lack of a V6.
The Toyota V6 is a great engine.
I have to say the RAV interior is just awful.
The next generation RAV should be a lot nicer.
Last edited by Joeb427; 03-01-12 at 03:17 PM.
03-01-12, 03:37 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. 
If you don't drive much in hilly country or don't load it up too much, you probably won't need the V6. Did you actually get a CR-V, or are you still shopping?
Is the higher selling-price and 2-3 MPG EPA mileage-drop (compared to the four) worth it, though, with 87-Octane gas approaching $4 a gallon....and maybe heading towards $5? Opinions, of course, differ on that.
Toyota has realized that cost-cutting on interior trim went too far in recent years, and we're starting to see noticeably better results now with the latest new models...Camry, Yaris, Venza, and a couple of others. But Honda, Toyota's closest rival, has also cheapened their interiors, too, in recent years, and, to date, we're NOT seeing any improvement there. Fortunately, on the new CR-V (I assume you looked at a new one), compared to the 2011, has not suffered too much inside....I checked out a new CR-V at the D.C. Auto Show several weeks ago. But the new 2012 Civic, which I've reviewed, IMO, is very unimpressive inside......it was clearly built to a budget.
Looked at a '11 Limited and the wife and I just felt the CR-V EX-L w/NAV was so much better in every respect except for the lack of a V6.
The Toyota V6 is a great engine.
I have to say the RAV interior is just awful.
The next generation RAV should be a lot nicer.
The next generation RAV should be a lot nicer.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-01-12 at 03:45 PM.
03-01-12, 03:42 PM
#4
Thanks.
If you don't drive much in hilly country or don't load it up too much, you probably won't need the V6. Did you actually get a CR-V, or are you still shopping?
Toyota has realized that cost-cutting on interior trim went too far in recent years, and we're starting to see noticeably better results now with the latest new models...Camry, Yaris, Venza, and a couple of others. But Honda, Toyota's closest rival, has also cheapened their interiors, too, in recent years, and, to date, we're NOT seeing any improvement there. Fortunately, on the new CR-V (I assume you looked at a new one), compared to the 2011, has not suffered too much inside....I checked out a new CR-V at the D.C. Auto Show several weeks ago. But the new 2012 Civic, which I've reviewed, IMO, is very unimpressive inside......it was clearly built to a budget.
If you don't drive much in hilly country or don't load it up too much, you probably won't need the V6. Did you actually get a CR-V, or are you still shopping?
Toyota has realized that cost-cutting on interior trim went too far in recent years, and we're starting to see noticeably better results now with the latest new models...Camry, Yaris, Venza, and a couple of others. But Honda, Toyota's closest rival, has also cheapened their interiors, too, in recent years, and, to date, we're NOT seeing any improvement there. Fortunately, on the new CR-V (I assume you looked at a new one), compared to the 2011, has not suffered too much inside....I checked out a new CR-V at the D.C. Auto Show several weeks ago. But the new 2012 Civic, which I've reviewed, IMO, is very unimpressive inside......it was clearly built to a budget.
Mike,we bought the CR-V last January.The '12 is a bit nicer both in and out and gets better MPGs but we're happy with the '11.
The Civic even with the negative reviews is selling well.We have an '08 with 90+K miles that our son uses.The car has been bulletproof, with great MPGs.Definitely would get another Civic in a heartbeat.
03-01-12, 03:47 PM
#5
DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transversely-mounted 2.5L in-line VVT-i 4, 179 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 172 ft-lbs. @ 4000 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission.
03-01-12, 03:53 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The 3Gen CR-V, which you own, IMO, was, IMO, the best one Honda has done to date. As I mentioned above, I thought the new 2012 4Gen model was bean-counted too much, especially inside. But, like the earlier ones, it still maintained that precise, Honda Swiss-Watch assembly-quality.
The Civic even with the negative reviews is selling well.We have an '08 with 90+K miles that our son uses.The car has been bulletproof, with great MPGs.Definitely would get another Civic in a heartbeat.
03-01-12, 04:15 PM
#7
Pole Position
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: IL
Posts: 2,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the review MM
Checked out one of these beofreI bought my CR-V, but wasn't a big fan of the interior looks and couldn't comfortably leave my hand on the arm rest and hold the wheel. Another thing, i didnt like the rear wheel, and to delete it i would of had to pay for a sport model. $27k+ no way.
Checked out one of these beofreI bought my CR-V, but wasn't a big fan of the interior looks and couldn't comfortably leave my hand on the arm rest and hold the wheel. Another thing, i didnt like the rear wheel, and to delete it i would of had to pay for a sport model. $27k+ no way.
Trending Topics
03-01-12, 04:31 PM
#8
I mirror your thoughts Mike.
I've owned a 2012 Rav4 V6 Sport for a couple of years now, coming from an SC430 (which came as a shock for a lot of fellow CL'ers at the time
). I simply needed more functionality from a daily driver that racks 20k+ miles a year, rather than a heavy long-in-the-tooth four-but-really-two-seater gas-guzzling luxury V8 convertible.
I had to get the V6 since I needed some umphh (it shares the same V6 as the RX350), and the Sport model is actually pretty stable for a tall crossover. Steering ain't sporty, but there isn't too much bodyroll as you'd expect when making confident turns. 18" tires help, and it doesn't compromise ride quality nor road noise. One thing that is very prominent with the V6 is massive torque steer, and it can be a bit alarming when you accelerate fast from a stop or while passing. I do feel confident with the Rav's power and response after racking 45k miles in the past two years, and it has not disappointed me. With gas prices rising, I'm glad that this V6 crossover is getting a respectable combined 23 mpg. Never had to use it to tow anything yet, and it's rated to tow up to 3500 lbs, just in case I need to haul a motorcycle or two out of town.
I agree with all of your thoughts regarding the interior of the car. Too many plastics, not-so-solid ***** and buttons, and the radio simply sucks. My biggest issue with the interior is the lack of ambient lighting (you get the dome light; that's it!), very flimsy center arm rest storage, even flimsier upper glove compartment (well, it's good that there are TWO glove compartments), and the aforementioned 6-speaker radio.
What I am happy to have is excellent functional cargo space. With the second row seats tucked, I get a flat surface that has helped move many items. I've helped many people move. I have been able to fit a full sized mattress (almost flat), up to eight passengers (5 seated, and 3 laying in the cargo area), and once, even a Pilates Reformer table.
As much as I would love to have another convertible or sports sedan, I am basking in the delight of functionality and efficiency. The Rav4 may not be anyone's dream car, but it does one hell of a job taking care of all of your needs.
I'm surely keeping it. I'm just waiting for the next Lexus SC.
I've owned a 2012 Rav4 V6 Sport for a couple of years now, coming from an SC430 (which came as a shock for a lot of fellow CL'ers at the time
). I simply needed more functionality from a daily driver that racks 20k+ miles a year, rather than a heavy long-in-the-tooth four-but-really-two-seater gas-guzzling luxury V8 convertible.I had to get the V6 since I needed some umphh (it shares the same V6 as the RX350), and the Sport model is actually pretty stable for a tall crossover. Steering ain't sporty, but there isn't too much bodyroll as you'd expect when making confident turns. 18" tires help, and it doesn't compromise ride quality nor road noise. One thing that is very prominent with the V6 is massive torque steer, and it can be a bit alarming when you accelerate fast from a stop or while passing. I do feel confident with the Rav's power and response after racking 45k miles in the past two years, and it has not disappointed me. With gas prices rising, I'm glad that this V6 crossover is getting a respectable combined 23 mpg. Never had to use it to tow anything yet, and it's rated to tow up to 3500 lbs, just in case I need to haul a motorcycle or two out of town.
I agree with all of your thoughts regarding the interior of the car. Too many plastics, not-so-solid ***** and buttons, and the radio simply sucks. My biggest issue with the interior is the lack of ambient lighting (you get the dome light; that's it!), very flimsy center arm rest storage, even flimsier upper glove compartment (well, it's good that there are TWO glove compartments), and the aforementioned 6-speaker radio.
What I am happy to have is excellent functional cargo space. With the second row seats tucked, I get a flat surface that has helped move many items. I've helped many people move. I have been able to fit a full sized mattress (almost flat), up to eight passengers (5 seated, and 3 laying in the cargo area), and once, even a Pilates Reformer table.
As much as I would love to have another convertible or sports sedan, I am basking in the delight of functionality and efficiency. The Rav4 may not be anyone's dream car, but it does one hell of a job taking care of all of your needs.
I'm surely keeping it. I'm just waiting for the next Lexus SC.
03-01-12, 04:54 PM
#9
While Rav4 interior in Europe is nicer, better materials and features (and indirect lighting that Philip wants :P), car is simply 6 years old now. New one is coming by the end of the year.
03-01-12, 05:22 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
i don't know why they're using a 5 with the V6 let alone a 4 with the 4cyl. i looked over specs of a highlander and was surprised also the 4cyl has the 6speed and the V6 has the 5.
03-01-12, 05:24 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
about this rav-4 - mike, i think you've been very kind to this bland weak offering with the awful back door and 4 speed auto. bring on the new model!
i think the kia sportage blows this away.
i think the kia sportage blows this away.
03-01-12, 05:35 PM
#13
Pole Position
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprisingly Toyota has five cars in its lineup that still use a 4-speed automatic.
03-01-12, 05:49 PM
#14
I am sure there will be a hybrid model this time around... Rav4 has for long been the pinnacle of Toyota range (in Europe), lets see that continuing with new version.
03-01-12, 07:24 PM
#15
Lexus Champion
Toyota is rather conservative in North America (an understatement I know) with regards to the powertrain technologies it offers. In the rest of the world, the Yaris, Corolla and RAV4 offer single-clutch automated 5-speed manual and CVT transmissions, while here in Canada and the USA, we are stuck with an old 4-speed planetary gearset automatic transmission.
I read somewhere that the reason there is no 5- or 6-speed automatic transmission offered in the 4-cylinder Yaris, Corolla/Matrix and RAV4 models is because Toyota does not have any that would fit in the tight engine bays of these vehicles (the V6 in the RAV4 is likely shorter than the I4, so the larger 5-speed automatic does fit). That does seem to make some sense, since the Camry, Venza and Highlander would have larger engine bays that could allow 4-cylinder engines to be paired with larger 5- and 6-speed automatic transmissions.
Why are we still stuck with ancient 4-speed automatic transmissions in the sub-compact and compact vehicles, and will we see better transmission choices in the new Corolla and RAV4 we are expecting soon? We have not seen a 5- or 6-speed automatic transmission (or even a CVT) in the new Yaris (or even a newer engine). I hope to see more/better powertrain choices in the new 2013+ Corolla and RAV4; even the choice of a CVT would be good. It probably costs too much to offer these better and newer transmissions, which would mean having to raise the price of the Yaris, Corolla and RAV4 in North America, and we here hate paying for small cars.
I read somewhere that the reason there is no 5- or 6-speed automatic transmission offered in the 4-cylinder Yaris, Corolla/Matrix and RAV4 models is because Toyota does not have any that would fit in the tight engine bays of these vehicles (the V6 in the RAV4 is likely shorter than the I4, so the larger 5-speed automatic does fit). That does seem to make some sense, since the Camry, Venza and Highlander would have larger engine bays that could allow 4-cylinder engines to be paired with larger 5- and 6-speed automatic transmissions.
Why are we still stuck with ancient 4-speed automatic transmissions in the sub-compact and compact vehicles, and will we see better transmission choices in the new Corolla and RAV4 we are expecting soon? We have not seen a 5- or 6-speed automatic transmission (or even a CVT) in the new Yaris (or even a newer engine). I hope to see more/better powertrain choices in the new 2013+ Corolla and RAV4; even the choice of a CVT would be good. It probably costs too much to offer these better and newer transmissions, which would mean having to raise the price of the Yaris, Corolla and RAV4 in North America, and we here hate paying for small cars.