Replacing squished rav-4

I have a 2007 rav4. Its a great vehicle. We have the 2wd 4cylinder and get 32mpg on the highway and 26-27mpg around town. back when I bought mine the v6 got more like 20city/24-25highway, but they have made some improvements, the best being an extra gear in the trans. My 4cylinder could use a 5th gear some times.

We have the 3rd row seat so that we can bring some extra little ones along. I've used those seats for adults for very short trips and they work. No issues with mine at all.

If you get one, I highly suggest getting the mud flaps or whatever they call it. I didn't get them and regret it deeply. I went camping and took the sucker down a gravel road and boy are my rockers scarred up.

Ignorant: Does the 4-banger have enough gittyup for you?

kreb wrote: Ignorant: Does the 4-banger have enough gittyup for you?

Yes, It's a family car my wife drives it and quite frankly I don't need her to carting my kids around in something with 250+ horse. Its just not needed for a putting around town car. For example, the car is nearly 4 years old and has 38k miles on it. Sometimes, in the mountains of NC I wished I had a little more, but i recently had the trans re flashed and she kicks down quicker so that issue has taken care of itself. The original trans logic kept the car in 4th gear come hell or high water and an act of god was needed for it to downshift.

But, I've had it loaded down with 4 adults and 2 car seats and the associated gear or jammed with camping gear and I haven't been disappointed. I mean the 4cylinder has 172 horse and 175 lb-ft, much more than the old 3.0 toyota v6.

You just need to realize that its no race car and drive it as such. Again it was purchased as a family car and not race car or tow rig. The 4cylinder 4wd supposedly gets less mpg. I have a 2wd, because I bought it in charleston sc and didn't think I've ever be moving back up north. Ohh well. The stock tires are crap and do crap in the snow. The traction control is also dumb, very poorly done, especially when trying to climb gravel roads on mountains. I assume the 4wd would be better. To be fair, I've only had this issue twice in 4 years, and there is a procedure to defeat the traction control.

is it me or are used honda pilots fairly inexpensive.

ignorant wrote:

kreb wrote: Ignorant: Does the 4-banger have enough gittyup for you?

You just need to realize that its no race car and drive it as such. .

You know, our RAV4 handled extremely well - for a SUV. I think of that vehicle with the V6 and it almost sounds unsafe. Power tempts you to use it, and I'd hate to find myself diving into a corner with a RAV4 at the limit.

Big ego wrote: is it me or are used honda pilots fairly inexpensive.

The pilots that I've driven have been mushburgers. The Acura version is significantly more tight.

kreb wrote:

ignorant wrote:

kreb wrote: Ignorant: Does the 4-banger have enough gittyup for you?

You just need to realize that its no race car and drive it as such. .

You know, our RAV4 handled extremely well - for a SUV. I think of that vehicle with the V6 and it almost sounds unsafe. Power tempts you to use it, and I'd hate to find myself diving into a corner with a RAV4 at the limit.

my friends own a generation rav4 like your old one and ours is significantly bigger when you park them side by side. Much bigger.

That said, the sport package actually lowers the vehicle an inch or so and adds some bigger sway bars. I don't know how it handles. It's my wifes car and I drive it with atleast one car seat in the back at all times. No shenanigans need apply.

As for the pilot, I've never driven one so I wouldn't know how they ride. Our friends in SC had a Cx-7. That vehicle has a quicker steering ratio, better feel, better brakes, faster throttle response, and a turbo. My wife drove it and found the "extra" in all dynamic aspects of the vehicle to be scary. My wife also drove a camry about the same time and remarked how numb it was. To each their own I guess. She loved the subaru's..

Toyota has a pretty aggressive lease on RAV's right now. It's something like $1800 down and $180/mo. I know you're looking for something used, but total lease payments are about in your price range and you won't have to worry about repairs.

If you do the math, it winds up being .1% interest or something ridiculously low. My parent's RAV is almost up on it's lease and they plan on buying it. I believe the buy out is just under $13k.

As far as the car itself. It's all plastic on the interior. Other than that for the times I've driven it, I can't complain about anything else. It's never been in the shop for anything in the time they've had it other than oil changes. I think they get ~30mpg highway, which is great for any SUV. They have the 4cyl 4x2.

miatame wrote: My wife has had a 2010 RAV4 V6 Sport (the one without the spare tire on the back) for about a year now and she loves it. Honestly it is an amazing vehicle for my wife. The steering is very video game feeling but that engine is VERY powerful! It is the same one they use in the Lexus "350" cars. It is smooth, torquey and pulls very well. All that and it gets 25 around town and close to 30 mpg on the highway on 87 octane! It isn't huge inside but roomy for its exterior dimensions.

Also in the Lotus Evora!

That is a nasty nasty motor. It belongs in smaller lighter RWD cars, though.

There's videos of a guy who swapped one into an MR-S, autocrossing it. It's berkeleying fast.

That picture makes me want a lowered rav4

So we tried 5 SUVs today: New: Rav-4, CRV, CX7 old: 2002 Rav-4, 2006 Element

2002 rav4: was just like our old one and provided a baseline. A very nice compact SUV. Jaunty, nimble, slightly cramped in back, but lots of goodness.

2006 Element: I dug it. down on power relative to the others, but tons of space, rubber floors, open greenhouse. A perfect urban rig that can take construction stuff, kayaks, mountain bikes, et cetera. massive rear legroom, taught handling. My wife thought it was cute, but too bulky for her, and the suicide rear doors didn't appeal.

I thought that the new Rav-4 was the best overall vehicle: reasonably powerful (4 cylinder version), smooth, spacious, best ride, quiet. It's got a swiss army knife full of seat and storage options. It was like the older one grown up. My only bitch was that it seems to have sacrificed some handling for ride. It's a bit mushy - more so than the others.

The CRV was very similar to the Rav4. It felt more svelt, and had slightly taughter handling. I don't like the looks as much, but my wife prefered it.

The CX7 was a pleasant surprise. It had the best handling and was the most car-like. It actually had some personality, seats with actual side bolsters and such. It's also a good looker. The main negatives are the rear seat and storage area are noticably smaller than the other new SUVs. They were clearly having the most trouble selling them, and the salesman was ready to deal, whereas the Toyota guy had a "I don't really care if you buy or not. I've got the best E36 M3" attitude.

Sunday we'll get one of these puppies. More to come.

The Element ad two strikes against it for me.

1. Wife hated it cause the rear seats were so far away from the front seats. Hard to reach back and put a binky in the kids mouth.

2. Gas mileage really is pitiful for a 4cylinder vehicle. You'll be lucky to hit 25mpg with it.

Other than that, I wanted one bad vs the rav4 we bought.

I had problems with the not wanting to deal toyota salesmen... Total pain in the ass. Had to go to 3 toyota places to find someone who wanted to deal. I went with the toyota vs the Honda or subaru because the toyota guy wanted to deal the most.

Just a follow up. We got a normally aspirated Mazda CX7. Although in almost every measurable way the Rav-4 is a better car, my wife prefered the Mazda because it just subjectively "felt" better. I think that she also wanted to get away from the association with her old (squished) car.

So to summarize, the Rav-4 is lighter, get's better gas milleage, has a third-row seat option, more rear legroom, more cargo capacity, rides better (non-sport models), has more legible climate and radio controls and a better service history. The only real con to me was that it's a bit mushy handling in non-sport models.

The Mazda looks better from the front (IMO of course), handles better, is more luxurious, and the dealers were more willing to deal. Ultimately we got a $75/month lower payment with a higher trim level to boot. It's the most enjoyable SUV I've ever driven - better handling than many cars. Good ergonomics, decent power-despite the weight. Ultimately I'm happy that my wife chose fun over function (she's a resolutely sensible person, so this is out of character). It should be a good journey.

Is the CX-7 available with a stick now?

good deal. you will be happy.

EvanR wrote: Is the CX-7 available with a stick now?

Not to my knowledge, although it has the sequential faux-manual option which is pretty cool if you want to use the full rev band, and for hills.

what motor comes in the N/A cx-7? im guessing they had trouble moving the turbo ones since they only did one mpg better than the bigger/more powerful cx-9

It's the new 161hp 2.5.

Not to trash your decisions but i hate seeing those n/a CX7s on the road. The crap wheels and exhaust really make it scream 'highly decontented!' even from 100 ft away. The loss of symmetry from the single exhaust, and the proportion of the 18" wheels, really neuters the looks of it, at least from the back. just my .02

Of course, the only people who will notice are the people who liked or were aware of CX7s in the first place.

No offense taken. Aesthetics are personal, and I wouldn't care if you found it an abomination. What I find interesting is that the thing feels pretty quick, althouth a power-to-weight of 24:1 on paper sounds like a first generation VW bug

kreb wrote: So far my A list includes: Rav-4 Mazda6 wagon Honda Insight (Doesn't fit all the parameters, but the wife likes the idea of mega-MPG)

I'd be WAY more distraught over the lost garage--very sorry to see that

...but that said, if you're considering the Insight, then consider the Fit. They have a TON of useable space in them and my wife's 2010 Sport is averaging 37mpg (mostly hwy).

Otherwise, the new RAV4 4-bangers can get 27mpg hwy pretty easily--I borrowed my aunt's for a couple of weeks when my EG Civic got stolen. VERY spacious (with the exception of the pedal footwell) and nice.

What I find interesting is that the thing feels pretty quick,

That IS interesting. I wouldnt have guessed it...

..but that said, if you're considering the Insight, then consider the Fit. They have a TON of useable space in them and my wife's 2010 Sport is averaging 37mpg (mostly hwy).

Ive been wanting to consider the fit for like 4 years now. Ive been waiting this damn long for the hybrid version. It IS finally on the horizon. Coming to europe next year and probly here in '12.

Random Info Bit.

The last guy who bought a car from me towed it home with a cx-7.

Vigo wrote: Ive been wanting to consider the fit for like 4 years now. Ive been waiting this damn long for the hybrid version. It IS finally on the horizon. Coming to europe next year and probly here in '12.

I just read about that Fit hybrid as well--however, in the article I read, they said Honda had no plans to bring it to the States.

That said, the standard version gets stellar mileage and is a BLAST to drive. Handles like an EK Civic w/ a decent aftermarket suspension.