CRV, RAV4, RSX or Celica?

[davidI]

I need a new (used) vehicle. Initially I was looking at WRX, G35 Coupe, 350Z etc. but I plan to drive from Calgary to Louise, Fernie, Golden or Revelstoke every weekend this winter, so I want something reliable and economical for highway driving. In the summer I want to be able to toss my bike and camping gear in and don't feel like paying out of the a$$ for gas.

I'm buying a new place to live as well, so since I'm going with an econobox, I'm trying to keep it under $17k.

I've narrowed it down to 02+ RSX, 02+ Celica, 02+ CRV or 04+ Rav4. Which would you choose, and why?

[Eleanor]

RSX if you don't need 4 doors.

CRV if you do.

[adam c]

with the amount of driving you plan on doing, i would consider a corolla..

the celica is for girls or boys who are awaiting their period
rav4, not great on gas
crv better storage
rsx, not the best for throwing your bike in there since it's only 2 doors

[Masked Bandit]

I'm a big fan of the CR-V. The wife drives a 2003 that we bought slightly used in early 2004 with 14,000 KM on it. It now has 92,xxx on the clock and not a penny into it other than regular maintenance. Fuel consumption averages 10 L per 100 KM.

[Mckenzie]

I would say a CRV or Rav. Both the celica and RSX are pretty unimpressive cars and they are also quite small. I do not think the RSX is much more than an rebadged civic that is more expensive.

My dad just bought a CRV and he really likes it.

[calgarygts]

I had a 2000 celica for a while and used it for the same stuff (snowboarding in winter and biking/camping in summer). Bought a hidden hitch for the bike rack and it worked great for everything else (the hatch gives a suprisingly big trunk). You'll take some shit from the odd punk who thinks they're chick cars but most people gave me compliments on it, it was also fun to drive and great on gas.

I would go with one of the cars since they're more fun to drive and I'm guessing better on gas. Before I had the hidden hitch I used to put my bike in the trunk, fit no problem (after taking the front tire off).

My 2 cents.

[a social dsease]

I'd go with the CRV or Rav. The reason I say this is the other two cars are too small for boarding/biking. I have an Integra, and I take it boarding just about every weekend in winter, and mtn biking alot in summer and its really a pain in the ass. I have to fold down the seats to fit the boards in, and then I can only fit 3 people, and its very crowded. Not to mention when jamming boards into such a tight space your bound to scratch up the car a bit. My whole trunk area is totally scratched to shit, its OK because its an old car but I would feel bad about doing it to a new car. Not to mention all the snow/dirt/crap that gets on your board/boots. Wouldn't you just rather throw everything in your car and leave than spend 20 minutes trying to clean and dry everything so it doesn't wreck the car?
Mountain biking is even worse, while I can fit 2 bikes in the trunk with the seats down, it leaves almost no room for stuff and again is very hard on the interior.
Also for long drives, the integra gets pretty damn uncomfortable. Its fine for short drives in the city, but 4-5 hrs in such a small car is never fun. (I'm 6'0).
Gas mileage is awesome however, I get around 7.0L/100km on the highway, sunshine and back is less than $10 per person (if i have 3 guys).
Therefore I would pick either of the trucks, or if you really want a car, get something older because it is gonna get fucked up and you'll have a tough time if you ever want to sell.

[davidI]

Really, the main appeal to a Celica or RSX is 30+mpg and still having a low-profile look to them. I had been planning on spending $25k+ on a vehicle to get something with guts, but with gas prices where they're at and the amount of driving I plan to do I figure something more economical is sensible. I'm also an outdoorsy guy, and although advertisers depict recreational people as driving 12mpg SUVs & trucks, the real nature lovers tend to drive more sensible vehicles.

I haven't driven a CRV or Rav4...has anyone comparison shopped between the 2?

[EM1FTW]

CRV for sure.
lots of storage space, and suprisingly good in deep snow!

[410440]

Celica = Girls car


RSX = Good 2 door fun, K20 for the win

CRV = Reliable, small suv, K24 for the win



Rav4 = Meh, I think they are ugly.

[davidI]

If I picked up an RSX or Celica I'd get a roof rack. Still cheaper than the CRV or Rav4 with similar mileage.

Someone else tossed me the idea of a Matrix XRS. They take premium, but get 26+mpg. I haven't really checked them out before...how would one of them compare to the above?

[Stealth22]

Seeing as how we're on Beyond, you're naturally going to get a moderate number of people recommending the Honda products, and then another bunch recommending the Toyota vehicles. I am part of the latter. :rofl:

I wouldn't recommend an RSX or a Celica for the amount of driving you want to do. The RAV4 is a nice SUV...I'm not a fan of the CRV, but it would also serve the purpose. If you're looking for fuel economy though, I'd consider a Corolla or Matrix. The Corolla has a decent sized trunk, but if you need more room, the Matrix will offer better fuel economy over the RAV4 with a small sacrifice in cargo space, if you don't need the space the RAV4 offers. And the Matrix can be had in AWD too! :thumbsup:

[Sorath]

Original Post Removed. (Please read the Forum Rules and Terms of Use (http://forums.beyond.ca/articles.php?action=data&item=1) before posting again, or risk getting banned).

[Weapon_R]

CR-V. It's bulletproof, good on gas, awd which is nice in winter, and extremely reliable. Only problem is that they hold their value well so they are expensive

[schocker]

I am not going to lie, this is one of the weirdest comparisons i have ever seen, but for what you have described, I am going to say the CR-V would be your best bet.

[rc2002]

Being a Honda fan I would still take the Rav4 over the CRV. The real time AWD of the CRV doesn't kick in until the front wheels detect slip. The 2004+ Rav4 has 50/50 AWD split.

RSX and Celica wouldn't be my first choice for camping/biking.

[topmade]

CRV or Rav4. RSX and Celica are too small and just not suitable for what you are looking for, especially if you are driving out there in winter. But I guess with three CRV's in my family, my opinion is a bit biased.

[mikestypes]

Originally posted by richardchan2002
Being a Honda fan I would still take the Rav4 over the CRV. The real time AWD of the CRV doesn't kick in until the front wheels detect slip. The 2004+ Rav4 has 50/50 AWD split.

No, the RAV is the same. It is FWD until slip is detected and then the center diff is activated to engage the rear wheels. The Rav also has a center diff lock button that locks the center diff for better traction in extreme conditions.

Either the Rav or the CRV are going to be great vehicles. I had an 07 Rav V6 Sport that was awesome and would put any CRV to shame, but you will probably want to go with the 4 cylinder models so they are much more comparable.

[treg50]

Originally posted by Eleanor
RSX if you don't need 4 doors.

CRV if you do.
+1

Especially for the model years you are considering. Only if you're talking '08 does the RAV4 come close to the CRV.

[nj2Type-S]

my parents owns a 2008 cr-v and it's pretty sweet. took it to saskatoon and it was comfy and good on gas.

i owned a 2003 rsx-s and i had a blast driving it around. i still miss it sometimes but the turbo on my rdx makes me forget about the rsx, lol.

my vote goes to the cr-v, though, since it's more versatile. :thumbsup:

[590221010]

Originally posted by treg50

+1

Especially for the model years you are considering. Only if you're talking '08 does the RAV4 come close to the CRV. :werd:

[Kloubek]

I think it all depends on what you want in a vehicle. I mean, the Celica and RSX (though not *particularly* quick) are sporty cars. If you want the great handling, then the SUVs are kinda out the window.

But if you are looking for utility use and extra cargo space over performance, then the SUVs are the obvious choice. With your camping gear, etc, the SUVs are the only way to go.

Given that, your decision lies in the CRV or RAV4. I know a couple of people with CRVs, and (though underpowered) they love them. Personally, however, I have always felt that Toyota makes the best trucks in the world. On the other hand, in general, I feel Honda makes the best CARS in the world. They both have very similar fuel mileage, so I guess it just comes down to which you prefer the "feel" and look of.

In the later years, I've been impressed with the engine of the RAV4. The V6 (though not what you're likely to get) is quite a powerhouse.

Good luck with your purchase!

[rc2002]

Originally posted by mikestypes


No, the RAV is the same. It is FWD until slip is detected and then the center diff is activated to engage the rear wheels. The Rav also has a center diff lock button that locks the center diff for better traction in extreme conditions.


What's the difference between driving the Rav4 with a center diff lock and a car that has full time AWD?

[InLoveWitRSX]

If you fold the seats down in the back of the rsx, you can fit around 6-8 dead bodies in there.... its pretty spacious, which also means you can fit your bikes nicely.
+good on gas
+looks nice
+fun car to drive :)




....but I also have a biased opinion since I own one.

[seany99119]

If you plan on doing traveling like that i would honestly recommend an element (awd) version my dad owns one and its very practical a crv would only be better if you just want to look more classy... JUST MY OPINION :nut:

[Godfuader]

Matrix seems like the best blend for you. The winning feature is the trunk, which turns into a LARGE plastic washable storage bed, with the seats folded.

[mowglee]

id go with crv

celica = vag/douchebag thinking ur cool driving a vag-mobile

rsx is a really nice drive but no storage and a roof rack on an rsx??? not what its made for

rav-4...meh

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by mikestypes


No, the RAV is the same. It is FWD until slip is detected and then the center diff is activated to engage the rear wheels. The Rav also has a center diff lock button that locks the center diff for better traction in extreme conditions.

Either the Rav or the CRV are going to be great vehicles. I had an 07 Rav V6 Sport that was awesome and would put any CRV to shame, but you will probably want to go with the 4 cylinder models so they are much more comparable.

No, the Rav is not the same.

The Rav4 uses a full-time 4wd meaning it doesn't wait to detect slippage before it kicks in. It's equally distributed 25/25/25/25 at all times unless the VSC kicks in. Then it'll transfer it accordingly.

THe CRV uses a "real time" 4wd which means the front wheels need to slip before the rear wheels engage. Traction control will kick in as well and transfer it accordingly.

[Stealth22]

To the OP: Keep in mind that RAV4's and CR-V's hold their value quite well, especially if you want a decent one (02+ for CR-V, 04+ for RAV4...although if you have the cash, I'd almost say go with an 06 RAV4)

Are you going to need to have room in the car for more people? (Plus their bikes/camping gear?)

If you don't need a crapload of cargo space, you might be better off with a Matrix. Your budget you said is $17K, so you'll be able to pick up a pretty recent model Matrix for a good price.

[MikeAg]

How do you classify a Celica as a girls car? The majority of all girls thinks its a fucking sexy car whether the owner is a guy or a girl. IMO if you can get a girl due to the looks of your car there is no problem.

Anyways...the Celica has a sleek design, great gas mileage and great handling; throw some winters on it and your good to go.

[Boosted Gtir]

I think you may have pissed off a celica driver ^^^

crv ftw. :thumbsup:

[prae]

I quite like the CRVs... my friend owns one and is extremely happy with it. Big mountain biker.

I rock a V6 highlander so I suffer w/ gas mileage (12L/100km) but I like the extra power. Bigger towing capacity than a 4cyl RAV or CRV and more passing power on the highway. It's a heavy car though.

[blownz]

RSX > Celica

Rav4 > CRV

And on both of those comparisons I think the one is way better than the other. Celica really is crap and so is the CRV IMO.

[alloroc]

You might want to check this out ...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=170359

[davidI]

I'm going to have to take another look at the Matrix.

I had looked at the Element, but they're a little too big / boxy for me and don't get as good of MPG as a CRV. Their designed purpose fits what I want, but from the reviews I read Honda didn't execute it all that well.


My budget isn't a strict $17k...I have $30k+ I could put towards a vehicle if I really wanted to. I just figure I'd rather spend less on the vehicle and more on camping / fishing / skiing / snowboarding gear, plus I'll be buying a house shortly so it never hurts to have some extra money for furnishings :)

[Deetz]

I have an rsx and a CRV, lol

Very different vehicles! The rsx is quick and sporty, very fun to drive....not the best winter machine and small for transporting things.

The crv is a lot more practical, hold lots of stuff easily. The real time awd works good for slippery applications, but the crv still gets decent mileage for what it is. It does not by any means handle like a sports car though, ha ha

[alloroc]

Originally posted by alloroc
You might want to check this out ...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=170359

30K ?! buy brand new get a full warranty and a lower financing rate. I don't know why you haven't looked at the forester yet but with Subaru's new pricing they look pretty damned inviting.

[flipstah]

If you're looking for a used winter car, why not a 2004 Mitsubishi Outlander?

I have one and I must say, it is effin' awesome! You have a high view of the road, it's agile and peppy too! Lots of room in the trunk and seats 5 comfortably, especially on long drives! You get 20mpg which I think is good for AWD. It's also grippy on the road, especially if you have a good set of tires.

If you're also mechanically handy, you can upgrade the engine since it has the same one as an 04 Lancer (4G69.)

Surprised no one at least mentioned Mitsubishi offerings.

[A2VR6]

I dont see why alot of people say the RSX cant hold alot of stuff.

Last year I was able to throw all my camping gear into the back of mine and have a bike fit with the rear seats folded down. I'd imagine it would be much of the same story with the Celica.

I also dont find it too bad in the winter either, just throw on a good set of snow tires and your gold.

[finboy]

Originally posted by blownz
RSX > Celica

Rav4 > CRV

And on both of those comparisons I think the one is way better than the other. Celica really is crap and so is the CRV IMO.

i support this post

[FiveFreshFish]

I was looking for similar utility in a vehicle last year and ended up getting a Mk4 GTI VR6.

[dimi]

How about a Honda Experiment? :dunno:

[dj techsta]

From your post, i'd say it looks like you want either sportyness or versatility, while not compromising on gas. I agree, you should look at either the Matrix or an Outlander. Both have a decent fuel efficiency, both are fairly inexpensive and reliable, and the matrix can have a sporty tuner look if you want.

But out of the options, I'd say either CRV or RSX (i sway more to the RSX, but that's just the biased tuner in me talking)

[davidI]

Originally posted by dj techsta
From your post, i'd say it looks like you want either sportyness or versatility, while not compromising on gas. I agree, you should look at either the Matrix or an Outlander. Both have a decent fuel efficiency, both are fairly inexpensive and reliable, and the matrix can have a sporty tuner look if you want.

But out of the options, I'd say either CRV or RSX (i sway more to the RSX, but that's just the biased tuner in me talking)

Strange thing is, after looking at what I think are the best looking deals on CanadaTrader.com, the prices are very close between the RSX and Matrix. Rav4 is $1-2k more for similar mileage and CRV is $3-4k more. I think the RSX with a roof rack may fit the bill for MPG, reliability and versatility. I'm not sure if the extra space in the Rav4 or CRV is worth the MPG given that I'll have to put skis on the roof anyways. Decisions decisions...time to go for some test drives!

[canuckcarguy]

Everybody wants a Honda or Toyota product, and they keep their resale value. Which is fine if you're buying a new one, but sucks if you're buying used. At the risk of getting flamed, you should look at a Ford Escape. Not sexy at all, but they're actually a decent ride, they're not bad on gas, and they're way cheaper.

Okay, folks will say they're not as reliable. They're pretty reliable. But, when it comes time to fix them, way cheaper to repair than an import... and if you save yourself $5K+ at the outset, that's money you can put toward your new house.

[carreckless]

I think it's ok to go for the Rav4. It has lots of space for things and people

[davidI]

Originally posted by canuckcarguy
Everybody wants a Honda or Toyota product, and they keep their resale value. Which is fine if you're buying a new one, but sucks if you're buying used. At the risk of getting flamed, you should look at a Ford Escape. Not sexy at all, but they're actually a decent ride, they're not bad on gas, and they're way cheaper.

Okay, folks will say they're not as reliable. They're pretty reliable. But, when it comes time to fix them, way cheaper to repair than an import... and if you save yourself $5K+ at the outset, that's money you can put toward your new house.

My family has owned 2 Fords and a GM in the past 10 years. Lots of problems. The repairs may be cheap, but the inconvenience it can cause can be big $$$. Besides, breaking down in the parking lot of some secluded wilderness locality is not my idea of a good time. Plus, even though it may be cheaper to buy initially due to less resale value, when I go to sell the vehicle in a few years I will face the same dilemma. I prefer Toyotas to Hondas from past experience, but they've both been good brands to me.

[Projek01]

wow! fanboy much?


Originally posted by 410440
Celica = Girls car


RSX = Good 2 door fun, K20 for the win

CRV = Reliable, small suv, K24 for the win



Rav4 = Meh, I think they are ugly.

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002
Being a Honda fan I would still take the Rav4 over the CRV. The real time AWD of the CRV doesn't kick in until the front wheels detect slip. The 2004+ Rav4 has 50/50 AWD split.

RSX and Celica wouldn't be my first choice for camping/biking.

You can lock the 4WD in 2004+ RAV4, but it will automatically turns off when you step on the brake or reach 40km/h. Basically, it is pretty much the same as CRVs. Can you immediately press the lock button when it slips?

"A manual locking switch allows a maximum torque split of 55/45 between front and rear wheels, and when locked, the system reverts to Auto mode when the speed reaches 40 km/h or the brakes are applied. "

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/06rav4.htm

[rc2002]

Originally posted by leec001


You can lock the 4WD in 2004+ RAV4, but it will automatically turns off when you step on the brake or reach 40km/h. Basically, it is pretty much the same as CRVs. Can you immediately press the lock button when it slips?

"A manual locking switch allows a maximum torque split of 55/45 between front and rear wheels, and when locked, the system reverts to Auto mode when the speed reaches 40 km/h or the brakes are applied. "

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/06rav4.htm

FYI, CRV doesn't have a locking diff. And when are you going to utilize the locked diff the most? When all your tires already have traction and you're humming along on the highway? Or when you're at a crawl (or stopped) due to poor traction?

It's a bonus that it shuts off automatically to improve fuel efficiency.


And LOL at "it will automatically turns off". Are you going to give me "a Chicklets" as well?

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/poultry/baby_chicks222.jpg

[Jlude]

Originally posted by Eleanor
RSX if you don't need 4 doors.

CRV if you do.

+1

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


FYI, CRV doesn't have a locking diff. And when are you going to utilize the locked diff the most? When all your tires already have traction and you're humming along on the highway? Or when you're at a crawl (or stopped) due to poor traction?

It's a bonus that it shuts off automatically to improve fuel efficiency.


And LOL at "it will automatically turns off". Are you going to give me "a Chicklets" as well?

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/poultry/baby_chicks222.jpg

That "lock button" only helps you start to move your vehicle from a slippy road surface, same as CRV the auto detection. Are you going to press the button everytime when you stop?

:dunno:

"We had the opportunity to test the system with the 4-cylinder RAV4 during some suitable winter weather and found that the RAV4 accelerated confidently with little wheel slippage. Our efforts to entice a four-wheel drift were frustrated by the RAV4's vehicle stability control (VSC) which integrates a host of interventions. " by Canadian Driver

[rony_espana]

I got an 02 Rav4 and it is the most practical vehicle I've ever owned, other than being extremely slow and pretty small its awesome! Not sure if it has the same engine as the 04 your looking at.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by leec001


That "lock button" only helps you start to move your vehicle from a slippy road surface, same as CRV the auto detection. Are you going to press the button everytime when you stop?

:dunno:

"We had the opportunity to test the system with the 4-cylinder RAV4 during some suitable winter weather and found that the RAV4 accelerated confidently with little wheel slippage. Our efforts to entice a four-wheel drift were frustrated by the RAV4's vehicle stability control (VSC) which integrates a host of interventions. " by Canadian Driver

Actually that button is used to lock the diff. If you don't use the button, then you're the same as the CRV.

You wouldn't lock the diff at every red light. You would do it in a situation when you're moving at low speeds (or not moving at all) offroad or stuck in a ditch or something.

Not sure why you bolded the phrase about drifting and VSC. That's a different topic altogether. VSC usually kicks in when you're cornering and the system detects that the car is not going in the intended direction. And contrary to their frustration, the VSC IS doing it's job - it's SUPPOSED to intervene and not allow you to drift.

[barmanjay]

Lets think a bit more latterally,..

Any reviews on hyundai's product line?

What about the european products?

vw? audi?

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


Actually that button is used to lock the diff. If you don't use the button, then you're the same as the CRV.

You wouldn't lock the diff at every red light. You would do it in a situation when you're moving at low speeds (or not moving at all) offroad or stuck in a ditch or something.

Not sure why you bolded the phrase about drifting and VSC. That's a different topic altogether. VSC usually kicks in when you're cornering and the system detects that the car is not going in the intended direction. And contrary to their frustration, the VSC IS doing it's job - it's SUPPOSED to intervene and not allow you to drift.

If you are going to off-road, yes.
But these vehicles are not designed for that purpose.

Please be realistic, Richard!

[rc2002]

Yes they're not designed for off-roading. But occasionally, you might find yourself in a situation when you need it. i.e. the dirt road you normally drive on gets a huge downpour and turns into mud.

In that kind of situation, the option is there should you choose to use it. It's a selling feature for the car.

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002
Yes they're not designed for off-roading. But occasionally, you might find yourself in a situation when you need it. i.e. the dirt road you normally drive on gets a huge downpour and turns into mud.

In that kind of situation, the option is there should you choose to use it. It's a selling feature for the car.

Are you able to get out with regular all season tires?
Without winter tires, it won't work man..................

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by leec001


Are you able to get out with regular all season tires?
Without winter tires, it won't work man..................

Locking the diff works on ice/snow too. It's like having the VSAC off.

Rav4 = Full Time 4WD (50/50)
CRV = Part Time (100 front till slippage)

IMO, Rav4 over CRV.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by leec001


Are you able to get out with regular all season tires?
Without winter tires, it won't work man..................

I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

From the way your post is worded, you're either trying to say:
1.) That locking the differential won't work without winter tires. Or,
2.) You need winter tires in order to get through mud.

Both of which don't make any sense.

[Aleks]

The V6 RAV4 is the same price as a loaded CRV new. 100 more HP and similar gas mileage. They came out with the V6 in 06, so there are used ones out there now.

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

From the way your post is worded, you're either trying to say:
1.) That locking the differential won't work without winter tires. Or,
2.) You need winter tires in order to get through mud.

Both of which don't make any sense.

What I mean is they are identical even though RAV4 is better from the spec.

Just like the weather out there, can you drive back-up to the road when you slip into the ditch?

I guess not.

"Day 3:

I guess today I’ll offer a fourth opinion on the Toyota RAV4 posted on CanadianDriver (see Long Term Review by Chris Chase). And what a day today was! We got a good helping of snow, which certainly provided me with some real world experience with the capabilities of the RAV4 in the winter.

Maybe I was expecting too much, but I certainly did not expect the RAV4 to be as poor in the snow as it was. Of course, I am completely aware of the limitations of all-season tires and I attribute the faults in the drivetrain I encountered today to the 235/55/R18 Yokohama tires fitted to the RAV4, which are actually all-terrain light truck tires. If you were looking to purchase a RAV4, I would seriously urge you to factor in the cost of some good winter tires for it as the stock tires performed rather poorly today.

This was the first sign of cold weather since I have had the RAV4 as well, and the creaks and rattles on the interior were certainly off-putting. I could not isolate the exact location as I was busy trying to keep the RAV4 driving straight on the slippery roads, but it certainly was annoying."

by The Canadian Driver

http://www.canadiandriver.com/ctc/blog/?p=122

[rc2002]

Originally posted by leec001


What I mean is they are identical even though RAV4 is better from the spec.

Just like the weather out there, can you drive back-up to the road when you slip into the ditch?

I guess not.


*snip*
Canadian Driver review
*snip*




:facepalm: For the last time, they are NOT identical. And contrary to your guess, having a locking center diff means that you will stand a much better chance of getting out of that ditch (or any other uneven ground situation) in a Rav4 than in a CRV.

You can scour the internet all you want looking for bad reviews. There will be good reviews as well, as is the case with just about everything.

[leec001]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


:facepalm: For the last time, they are NOT identical. And contrary to your guess, having a locking center diff means that you will stand a much better chance of getting out of that ditch (or any other uneven ground situation) in a Rav4 than in a CRV.

You can scour the internet all you want looking for bad reviews. There will be good reviews as well, as is the case with just about everything.

Well, it is your choice to listen to the professionals or not.

[rc2002]

:rofl: at "professionals"

Do you actually think that the people writing reviews for magazines are 100% unbiased with no ulterior motives?

[alloroc]

2009 motor trend sport ute of the year.

AJAC 2009 Best new SUV / CUV under $35000

... and it isn't any of the picks in the OP.

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


:facepalm: For the last time, they are NOT identical. And contrary to your guess, having a locking center diff means that you will stand a much better chance of getting out of that ditch (or any other uneven ground situation) in a Rav4 than in a CRV.


:thumbsup: Completely agree with you. Being able to lock the diffs is a huge bonus. Ask any offroading guys.

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by alloroc
2009 motor trend sport ute of the year.

AJAC 2009 Best new SUV / CUV under $35000

... and it isn't any of the picks in the OP.

why would that matter considering the OP isn't looking for something NEW, and even then... we don't all buy cars based on biased awards.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by TYMSMNY


why would that matter considering the OP isn't looking for something NEW, and even then... we don't all buy cars based on biased awards.

No shit Dick Tracy.

Which is why I posted this unbiased comparison on page one ....


Originally posted by alloroc
You might want to check this out ...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=170359

^^ ... posted in 2004.

[barmanjay]

Back on topic here:

Does Nissan offer a small suv?

how about the saturn vue?

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by barmanjay
Back on topic here:

Does Nissan offer a small suv?

how about the saturn vue?

Nissan Xtrail.... probably stay away from that but worth a look if you want to be thorough.

I'd stick with Subaru or Toyota. Subaru for its awd and Toyota for it's expertise. CRVs were Honda's first attempt at a sport ute.

[barmanjay]

he was also looking at fuel economy

[alloroc]

Originally posted by barmanjay
he was also looking at fuel economy

Then he should definitely go with the Subbie. Subaru's AWD is more efficient than everyone else's, which is why they can offer full time AWD and the others have to shut it off. As soon as you run into conditions where you need awd with other brands the milage plummets, and in ideal conditions the subaru starts with nearly the same or better numbers. Don't be fooled by adverstisements where they show numbers from 2wd only models.

2004 forester
21 / 28 mpg

2004 CRV (awd trim)
21 / 25 mpg

2004 Rav4 (4wd trim)
22 / 27 mpg

[leec001]

Originally posted by alloroc


Then he should definitely go with the Subbie. Subaru's AWD is more efficient than everyone else's, which is why they can offer full time AWD and the others have to shut it off. As soon as you run into conditions where you need awd with other brands the milage plummets, and in ideal conditions the subaru starts with nearly the same or better numbers. Don't be fooled by adverstisements where they show numbers from 2wd only models.

2004 forester
21 / 28 mpg

2004 CRV (awd trim)
21 / 25 mpg

2004 Rav4 (4wd trim)
22 / 27 mpg

Strongly Agree!
Despite of maintance cost, all Subbies are over Rav4 and CRV

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by alloroc


Then he should definitely go with the Subbie. Subaru's AWD is more efficient than everyone else's, which is why they can offer full time AWD and the others have to shut it off. As soon as you run into conditions where you need awd with other brands the milage plummets, and in ideal conditions the subaru starts with nearly the same or better numbers. Don't be fooled by adverstisements where they show numbers from 2wd only models.

2004 forester
21 / 28 mpg

2004 CRV (awd trim)
21 / 25 mpg

2004 Rav4 (4wd trim)
22 / 27 mpg



So, Rav4 or a Forester. Both of them have full-time 4WD/AWD whereas CRV is part time.

[leec001]

Originally posted by TYMSMNY




So, Rav4 or a Forester. Both of them have full-time 4WD/AWD whereas CRV is part time.

SORRY, RAV 4 IS PART-TIME/ON-DEMAND not FULL-TIME 4WD.
Only Subbies are AWD.

SUBBIES ONLY :whipped:

[sillysod]

I have had both RAV 4 and a CRV out in Whistler on a job as rental vehicles both are 1 wheel drive in deep snow. It's really not a 4wd vehicle some dude in a 2wd Ranger with chains had to pull me out.

I suggest if you buy either of these you get a tube of Monistat so you can rub it on your snatch.

[leec001]

Originally posted by sillysod
I have had both RAV 4 and a CRV out in Whistler on a job as rental vehicles both are 1 wheel drive in deep snow. It's really not a 4wd vehicle some dude in a 2wd Ranger with chains had to pull me out.

I suggest if you buy either of these you get a tube of Monistat so you can rub it on your snatch.

That's what I have said..............................:love: :clap:

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by leec001


SORRY, RAV 4 IS PART-TIME/ON-DEMAND not FULL-TIME 4WD.
Only Subbies are FULL-TIME 4WD.

SUBBIES ONLY :whipped:

UHHH... 2001-2005 RAV4 = FULL TIME 4WD. and 2006+ has the newer system.

btw, "subbies" are AWD, not 4WD.

[AE92_TreunoSC]

Both the Rav4 and CRV are excellent cars, and its really hard to compare them, its all about preference.

At least its not a ford escape :banghead:

I find with Celicas and RSX's the owners tend to grow out of them quite fast, so the turn over seems to be quite sooner then most cars. Which isn't always a good thing.

I'd take a Honda Accord 2.4 over a RSX personally, and a Corolla XRS or a Matrix XRS over a Celica GTS, anyday.

Once again, its preference.

[Sorath]

heres what i think, crv and rav4 is same shit different pile. its whichever styling u like better pretty much. resale value is great. the forester is not an suv. people on here need to stop making it seem like its an suv. try looking at a nissan rogue. those are nice too.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Sorath
heres what i think, crv and rav4 is same shit different pile. its whichever styling u like better pretty much. resale value is great. the forester is not an suv. people on here need to stop making it seem like its an suv. try looking at a nissan rogue. those are nice too.

But the 2009 Forester just won SUV of the year :poosie:

[Sorath]

imo its in between the class of a car and a crossover

[sillysod]

Originally posted by Sorath
...crv and rav4 ..... the forester is not an suv. people on here need to stop making it seem like its an suv.... nissan rogue.

The Subaru isn't an SUV, but I would have a hard time calling a CRV, RAV4 or Nissan Rogue an SUV either. They are the ultimate soccer mom vehicles.

Hey Doreen my husband got me an SUV! Can you believe it Doreen? It's great I feel like I am up so high when I am driving. It's so much nicer than my Aerostar Sport ever was.

First station wagons were mom mobiles, and became un-cool, then mini-vans became mom mobiles, and they too became un-cool so now everybody is buying these shitty 1 wheel drive SUV's.

I have had to use these pieces of shit a lot for work when I request a 4x4 at the Budget desk and seriously i could go more places on a big wheel than you could ever go with these things. Nothing like getting stuck and then your fantastic plastic Highlander has no tow hooks or anywhere to hook on and pull it out.

[davidI]

Just saw this post bumped to the first page so I thought I'd let everyone know I ended up with an RSX and I love it. I even managed to fit 9' lumber in there yesterday. Very versatile, good on gas, fun to drive and decent in the winter. Happy I chose it vs. the CRV or Rav4.

[leec001]

Originally posted by TYMSMNY


UHHH... 2001-2005 RAV4 = FULL TIME 4WD. and 2006+ has the newer system.

btw, "subbies" are AWD, not 4WD.

My bad => Subarus are AWD, but 2001-2005 Rav are not Full -time 4WD, only Automatic AWD.

"2001 RAV4's offer an improved all-wheel-drive system with a new centre viscous differential which improves poor-weather traction. As front/rear torque split is now a constant 50/50, only 25% of the torque is applied to individual wheels thereby reducing the chance of wheel slippage, particularly in snow or ice. An optional rear Limited Slip Differential helps distribute torque to the rear wheel with the most traction.

As before, the RAV4's AWD system is completely automatic - no driver input is needed. Another new safety feature is ABS with electronic brake distribution. When braking, load is transferred forwards - EBD regulates the brake force distribution between the front and rear wheels when braking and cornering, sending the appropriate amount of braking force to the front and rear, or either side, to improve braking safety. Front disc/rear drum brakes are standard on all RAV4's. "
by The Canadian Driver :banghead:

What is AWD? Well, its just a play with words. All wheel drive (AWD) is the same thing as full time 4WD - without the "low range" transfer case setting. :facepalm:
http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/abc6.html

What is the difference between Full time Four Wheel Drive (4WD) All Wheel Drive (AWD) and automatic All Wheel Drive (auto AWD)?
http://www.rubicon-trail.com/4WD101/difference_4WD_awd.html"

Full time 4WD, also called permanent 4WD, (not to be confused with: part time 4WD ) is a system that powers all four wheels at all times and can be used full time on all surfaces including pavement. The additional feature of a differential incorporated into the transfer case makes it possible to use 4WD all the time.
2WD is not available (only part time 4WD offers that option). Each tire creates about 25% of the available torque when the ground is level with a consistant surface. Driver has a choice of a "4-high" (that's your every day setting) and "4-low".
Full time 4WD vehicles work very well on-road and are very capable off-road. E.g. Nissan Pathfinder.

All wheel drive (AWD) is almost the same thing as full time 4WD - it is a system that powers all four wheels of a vehicle at all times as well. Full time symmetric AWD would be the best term to be used. Difference to full time 4WD is that a "4-low" setting is not available in AWD cars. Due to the lack of "low range" AWD vehicles are much less capable in off-road settings than full time 4WD vehicles, but work perfectly well on-road.
E.g. All subarus


Automatic AWD system is the newest kid on the block. PR agency generated names like "Real Time 4WD", "intelligent AWD" or "active AWD" are hiding the fact that automatic AWD is essentially a sophisticated 2WD system. Automatic asymmetric AWD would be the best term for them.
E.g. CRV, Rav4, Santa Fe, Rogue, ...........
:werd:

[Deetz]

Originally posted by davidI
Just saw this post bumped to the first page so I thought I'd let everyone know I ended up with an RSX and I love it. I even managed to fit 9' lumber in there yesterday. Very versatile, good on gas, fun to drive and decent in the winter. Happy I chose it vs. the CRV or Rav4.

I think this is funny. I have both a crv and an rsx. The acura is a great car no question. I've had mine since new and its been problem free. It handles very well, and looks the part too. I park it during the winter, as it makes a great summer ride.
For the winter season, i bought a 97 crv with 150k for 7 g's. I couldn't be happier with it. It gets the same mileage as the rsx, but has way better ground clearance, and much better traction with a set of winter grips than any 2wd on the road.

As far as driving or comparing 4wd and awd vehicles, i don't think it really matters for a regular street driven car/truck. Any choice of or rav, rsx or even a subaru would work just fine. People read too much into offroad capabilities for something that will only see the street, it doesn't really matter.

Glad to see you didn't get a last gen Celica though. When i worked for Toyota, they had their share of problems overall.