New RAV4 V6

I would not characterize the 2006-2007 Rav4 Limited 4WD as a "pile of junk." If you think it is too cheap, start adding some options like leather, heated seats, etc.

The Rav4 has electronic on-demand 4WD with a lockable center differential. The Forester has AWD with a electronic center differential with the automatic trans.

Compared to the Subaru Forester XT, the Rav4 is available with a V6 with

269Hp @ 6200 RPM and 246 Lb-ft of torque @ 4700 RPM, while the Forester has a turbocharger to achieve 224 Hp @ 5600 RPM and 226 Lb-ft of torque at 3,600 RPM.

The Rav4 gets 21/28 MPG with an automatic trans. The Forester gets 20/27 MPG with a manual trans and 21/26 MPG with an automatic trans.

The Rav4 V6 has a 5 speed automatic transmission while the Forester has a 4 speed automatic.

The Rav4 has standard traction control and vehicle stability control, which are not available on the Forester. The traction control can be turned off in the Rav4 if you want to go faster than the traction control system allows in slippery conditions.

You should drive both vehicles to see if the seating positions are comfortable for you and to get an idea of the exterior and interior dimensions.

If you travel, something to consider is that Toyota has a much larger dealer network than Subaru so service may be easier to obtain.

Bottom line: Toyota makes a better vehicle w/ better service

The Subaru Forester lines of AWD have consistently received good reviews. I've driven the Forester on rentals, seem like good, solid AWDs.

Toyota is having problems with the 2007 Camry transmissions skipping gears. According to Toyota's Jan. 2007 TSB, the only fix is to junk it and replace it with a new transmission. That would make me wonder if the Rav4 can be a pile of junk with its tranny/transfer case.

Boris wrote:

IIRC, only some initial production Camrys required replacement transmissions, and that was for the 6 speed automatics. None of the TSB's listed on the NHTSA web site have required replacement transmissions to fix a probloem.

The Rav4 V6 has different 5 speed transmission and the 4 cylinder has a 4 speed transmission.

There are zero TSB's listed on the NHTSA web site for problems with the 2007 Rav4; there is 1 TSB regarding ordering procedures for seat belt extenders and 1 for a repair manual supplement. There are zero TSB's listed for the

2007 Forester.

I have a 2001 Forester (non-turbo version)...it's trouble-free, my only complaint: engine seems not powerful enough, especially when going somewhere at higher elevations. And I'm afraid to buy the turbo version of Forester, because turbo is always a likely cause of problems (at least, this is my impression). For that reason, RAV4 V6 attracted my attention.

Boris

My SO has a 2007 4 cylinder RAV4. I think it is a very nice car, if somewhat over priced compared to competitive vehicles. She has had it for several months (and nearly 7000 miles), and so far it has been flawless. It is a little noisy, and the seats are mediocre but Hers is a base model. According to Consumer Reports, the V-6 model is much quieter and faster. And I am sure the Limited will have nicer seats and a more expensive looking interior.

I can't see why you think it is "way too cheap for a V-6." With a list price of nearly 30k, I'd say a Limited RAV4 is wildly over priced compared to alternatives.

But to answer your question - no, it is not a piece of junk. I would rate the build quality of the RAV4 about the same as a Ford Escape, but the current RAV4 is quite a bit larger than an Escape. In fact, I can't see much difference in size between it and a Highlander, but Toyota is"upsizing" the Highlander as well so that it will be distinctly larger than a RAV4 (still, the new larger Highlander I've seen in pictures looks like a big 2007 RAV4).

Ed

The problem with this is that the NHTSA only requires the manufacturers to lists "safety related" TSBs in the NHTSA database and the manufacturers get to decide what is "safety" related. For some reason, the domestic producers list almost every TSB, while the Japanese manufacturers list only the ones that are directly safety related (and, in my opinion, not all of those). Because my SO has a

2007 RAV4, I paid for access to the Toyota Service Database and found that there are many TSBs that apply to a 2007 RAV4 (can't recall the exact number at the moment - somewhere over 25). This is one of the things that bothers me about Japanese manufacturers - they are hiding their problems or anything that might suggest there is a problem. Nissan does the same thing. I was having a problem with my Nissan Frontier jump seats and heard there was a TSB about it, but it is not listed on any of the "free" databases I could find on the web. When I paid for access to the Nissan Service Information System, I found there were over FORTY TSBs for my new truck!

I actually downloaded PDFs for all the 2007 RAV4 TSBs that were available last October. Like the TSBs from most manufacturers many are just simple repair procedure notices, or informational items. Still it bothers me that Toyota makes it hard to know they exist.

There is a RAV4 site that list many of the older TSBs -

. They don't have any for RAV4s newer than 2005, but I assume eventually they will get them. Ed

Aha, that explains why you're comparing RAV4 to Forester. Outback would be the more logical comparison. I was attracted to the RAV4 due to its good fuel economy. Consumer Reports testing: 15/29 city/highway for the V6 RAV4,

13/28 for the V6 Outback. The 4-cylinder Outback supposedly gets 14/31, but with kayaks on top, we only get mid-20s (at best) on long trips. With better torque, I'm think the RAV4 wouldn't drop off so much.

I learned something new today!

I just checked my files. Back when I check on the Toyota Service Information web site in November 2006, there were 20 TSBs that applied to a 2007 RAV4. Most were trivial - things like pre-delivery instructions / reminders / explainations. Some were more interesting, like the iron contamination in paint, windshiled ticking noise, or front seat squeak noise. None appeared to be addressing serious problems (well unless the squeals and ticks drive you crazy).

Here s the list of TSBs for RAV4s from last November:.

TC013-06 Remanufactured Automatic Transmission Serial Number Location TC012-06 Remanufactured Automatic Transmission Serial Number Location SU007-06 Shock Absorber Replacement Criteria ST005-01 Repair Manual Supplement - Vehicle Pulling to One Side PG009-02 Replacement VIN Plates PG008-02 Replacement Certification Labels PG002-05 Tire Positioning Before New Vehicle Delivery PG001-06 Battery Maintenance for In-Stock Vehicles and Pre-Delivery PD104-06 2007 MY RAV4 Pre-Delivery Service (PDS) PD086-06 Tire Pressure Warning Valve-Sensor Activation PD076-06 Short Pin Installation During PDS PD067-06 Roof Rack Cross Bar Installation During PDS PD065-06 Front License Plate Installation During PDS PD017-04 Wheel Film For Brake Rotor Rust Prevention PA005-04 Iron Particle Rust Contamination Repair NV009-06 Upper-Lower Windshield Tick Noise NV004-06 Front Seat Squeak Noise EG018-06 ILSAC GF-4 Engine Oil Recommendation BO009-06 Seat Belt Extender AU001-06 Audio Quick Reference Guide

Without paying for access, I can't tell if there any new TSBs added in the last 4 months.

Ed

Thanks for the info!

Premium fuel?

Regular fuel?

The recommended fuel for the Rav4 is 87 octane (regular).

The recommended fuel for the Forester 2.5 XT (turbo) is 91 octane (premium). The recommended fuel for the Forester 2.5 X (non-turbo) is 87 octane (regular).

The MPG I posted is for the Forester 2.5XT turbo and for the Rav4 V6. The Forester 2.5 X non-turbo is: 22/29 for a manual transmission and 23/28 for the automatic.

The Rav4 4 cylinder 4WD gets 23/27 with an automatic.

"Boris" wrote in news:45cf245b$0$27162$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sonic.net:

Yeah, it's a pile of junk. Don't buy it.

Subaru? No way. Mazda CX-9? Yeah! same price, more seats, more features

The Mazda CX-9 is even bigger than the CX-7, which gets a lousy

12/18/24 city/combo/highway mileage in Consumer Reports testing. This is not in the same class as a Subaru or RAV4, which approach 30 MPG on the highway.

CR rated the 4 cylinder RAV4 29 on the highway, 17 around town, 27 on their

150 loop and 23 overall (the V-6 was 29/15/26/22). When we drove the SO's down I-95 last year, we got no where near 29 on the highway (but we were driving 75 mph most of the time). The RAV4 was definitely better than the CX-7 (12/25/21/18). CR has not tested the CX-9 yet. However, I would not try use the CX-7 results to project the CX-9's fuel mileage. They are completely different vehicles with completely different drive trains. The CX-9 is closely related to the Ford Edge. Unfortunately, CR hasn't tested that yet either. I can't imagine that either will do as well as the RAV4 since they are larger and heavier.

Ed

I agree it looks good in the ads. I do wonder how many people actually need three rows of seats. I can't imagine what the third row of seats in a RAV4 are like. I've looked at my SO's 2007 RAV4 and tried to imagine another row of seats in that car. They must be for midgets.

I assume Ford wants to sell you a Freestyle (soon to be Taurus X) if you want three rows of seats in a "Cross Over" (aka Station Wagon). My Mother has a Freestyle and I have actually made it into the rear row. And amazingly there is room behind the third seat for "stuff" In fact, my Mother prefers to leave the rear seat "up" because she then has a nice big well behind the third row and that works better for groceries.

I would like to go down to the Mazda dealer and see how the second row seats move to allow access to the rear. In the TV commercials it looks easy. I used to have an Expedition with the third row of seats and thought the rear seat access method was poor. The Mazda method looks good - at least in the commercials.

Ed