Jump to content

2019 TOYOTA RAV4 FIRST LOOK


silvrsvt

Recommended Posts

Everything you said there is opinion.

 

No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver.

 

2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder

Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g
EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg
C/D observed: 24 mpg
2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder
Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

 

Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your choice of a Jag XF is just as irrational as any crossover purchase. You could have gotten by with a Fusion or a Camry for a lot less money.

 

Absolutely sir. Several high quality mass market sedan models are available. A used luxury car purchase like my current XF, or the other Jaguars and Lincolns I've owned in the past, I only did to be a show off. It's a Texas tradition to show off with the cars and trucks we drive. There's nothing rational about it.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buyers vote with their wallets, so if a Rav4 can get upwards of 40,000 sales a month

then Toyota is supplying a vehicle that a lot of its buyers like and more importantly, buy.

 

Clearly the mix of utility, higher seating position trumps those buyers' need for more chassis dynamics and performance.

You can do no better than giving your buyers a vehicle they embrace eagerly at a higher price than before.

 

An interesting opinion was posed above, that the choice of a higher riding Utility over a car or station wagon

is irrational.and that automakers encourage their buyers in the direction of Utilities using emotional gimicks..

I believe that happens to a degree but overwhelmingly, buyers are turning their backs on cars and station wagons

and that's a trend that's been going on for at least twenty years, it's permanent change brought about by people

being offered so much choice in Utilities and improvements in fuel efficiency to a point where fuel used versus

a car is not seen as a big disadvantage.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been convinced that Crossovers and SUVs were designed for humans while the modern sedans were designed for statistics. They've so severely compromised the interior comfort, ride height, and interior volume to meet the needs of design, performance, and fuel economy that they've made the sedan obsolete. Crossovers essentially returns the automotive form factor back to something that's flexible and comfortable while still providing performance and economy. I know I will never go back to a sedan, most people don't. In-fact, 75% of SUV/Crossover buyers never go back to anything else. We've been transitioning to the new utility form factor since the 90s and the Crossover finally nailed it for everybody.

Edited by Assimilator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been convinced that Crossovers and SUVs were designed for humans while the modern sedans were designed for statistics. They've so severely compromised the interior comfort, ride height, and interior volume to meet the needs of design, performance, and fuel economy that they've made the sedan obsolete. Crossovers essentially returns the automotive form factor back to something that's flexible and comfortable while still providing performance and economy. I know I will never go back to a sedan, most people don't. In-fact, 75% of SUV/Crossover buyers never go back to anything else. We've been transitioning to the new utility form factor since the 90s and the Crossover finally nailed it for everybody.

I blame "cockpit" styling where designers wrap the console around driver and front seat passenger,

normally a strong bone line on the outside of the car near the top of the door panel means the glass

is then set inwards reducing shoulder room and making your head close to the roof edge. Seats are

also set lower adding to the feeling of peering over what seems like a higher than normal dash panel

 

All of that adds up to large external dimensions not matched by generous internal space for occupants

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver.

 

2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder

Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g
EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg
C/D observed: 24 mpg
2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder
Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

 

Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars.

 

You need to quote some comparisons that consumers might actually use to make their choice: try things like hip point/seat height, field of view, etc.. CUV's are simply more comfortable to many consumers, they have perceived superiority in packaging (people and things), and are viewed as more versatile than a sedan for those reasons. None of which you show in your comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver.

 

2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder

Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g
EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg
C/D observed: 24 mpg
2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder
Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

 

Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars.

 

 

Pretty much every stat you posted there my wife (the average buyer of a RAV4) and most of the buying public could not give two hoots about.

 

Sure fuel economy comes into play....but comfort, ability to fold seats down to fit packages, room for the kid's stuff, higher seating height, AWD. Those are the things most buyers consider when looking at CUVs over cars.

 

I myself, would not buy a tradition 3-box car ever again. Hatchback? Sure! But the traditional "car" is severely limited in comparison to a CUV in almost any measurable statistic that boils down to the basic needs of a vehicle: Transporting people and their things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and Oranges. Compare RAV to the Corolla. Camry compares to Highlander.

 

Here are Car and Driver performance measurements for Corolla iM hatchback, Camry V6, and Highlander V6.

 

2017 Toyota Corolla iM 1.8L 4-cylinder CVT

Zero to 60 mph: 9.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.2 sec @ 83 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 112 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g
EPA city/highway driving: 28/36 mpg
C/D observed: 26 mpg
2017 Toyota Camry XSE 3.5L V6 6AT
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 129 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 189 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g
EPA city/highway driving: 21/30 mpg
C/D observed: 25 mpg
2017 Toyota Highlander XLE 3.5L V6 8AT
Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.5 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.6 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g
EPA city/highway driving: 20/26 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in those figures, notice how close the roll on 30-50 mph figures are, 4.1, 3.5. 3,8

none of those vehicles are bought with performance as a high priority, I would almost

bet that the 30-50 mph time is more than satisfactory to most buyers of those vehicles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Prius bad, but I'll call this style, "Japanese Pontiac".

 

Excellent observation!

I felt this styling reminded me of something and yet could not define it.

 

You have nailed it precisely. And to think that Toyota was the "Japanese Buick."

Perhaps the next design language cycle will be Oldsmobile?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For 99.99999% of drivers there is no discernible difference in performance or handling.

 

A journalist up in Canada says that after driving crossovers, even a Camry Hybrid on winter tires feels like a sports car. http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20160224/day-by-day-review-2016-toyota-camry-hybrid/

 

 

"It is kind of funny: I drive so many crossovers that I start to feel like they handle pretty darn well. But then I step into an average family sedan and it feels like an outright sports car. Even on winter tires the Camry feels more nimble than one would expect, almost, dare I say it, fun to drive!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A journalist up in Canada says that after driving crossovers, even a Camry Hybrid on winter tires feels like a sports car. http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20160224/day-by-day-review-2016-toyota-camry-hybrid/

 

An automotive journalist is not an average driver. For every one of them there are thousands of other drivers who wouldn’t notice a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically my best friends daughter is about to graduate high school and Grandma gave her, her '06 Rav 4. So it's a gift, I told her to smile, say thank you. SO we took the vehicle back home and dissected it. Not sure what the orgasm is with Toyota, but honestly it's a buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling vehicle. Even her mother's '05 Mazda5 feels more solidly put together. I'm trying to "compare" what a similar year Escape "felt like", and it felt nothing like this at all. Touching the buttons, the gear shift lever, even slamming the doors shut feels like some '80s GM product. I just kept telling her daughter "Smile, say Thank you"...and even shes like "Why does the vehicle feel so old", she even said the body feels wobbly (as I did a deep turn into our street). BUT for those who don't know, it'll sell well...​ :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically my best friends daughter is about to graduate high school and Grandma gave her, her '06 Rav 4. So it's a gift, I told her to smile, say thank you. SO we took the vehicle back home and dissected it. Not sure what the orgasm is with Toyota, but honestly it's a buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling vehicle. Even her mother's '05 Mazda5 feels more solidly put together. I'm trying to "compare" what a similar year Escape "felt like", and it felt nothing like this at all.

 

Thank you sir for encouraging that young lady to show appreciation for the gift from her grandma.

 

Compact crossover vehicles from that era were all buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling. RAV4, CR-V, and Forester are the best of that lot and have the highest percentages of owners still operating them after 10 years. https://blog.iseecars.com/cars-owners-keep-forever/. Similar year Ford Escapes are probably sitting in junkyards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you sir for encouraging that young lady to show appreciation for the gift from her grandma.

 

Compact crossover vehicles from that era were all buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling. RAV4, CR-V, and Forester are the best of that lot and have the highest percentages of owners still operating them after 10 years. https://blog.iseecars.com/cars-owners-keep-forever/. Similar year Ford Escapes are probably sitting in junkyards.

Maybe you should read these articles you post more closely before commenting.

 

Those aren’t the number of vehicles still on the road after 10 years. It’s the number of original owners who still have them. It says absolutely nothing about how many are still on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by big assumption you mean absolutely false. Those first gen escapes were pretty solid and they were jointly developed with Mazda on a Mazda platform.

 

 

IMO there is a huge difference between the 2005 and 2010 Escapes-the 2005s where pretty rough and lacked sound deadening materials that the refreshed model had.

 

I had a coworker at the time with a 2005 and my Wife got her then new 2010 a few weeks later and I was like holy crap that 2005 was pretty rough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO there is a huge difference between the 2005 and 2010 Escapes-the 2005s where pretty rough and lacked sound deadening materials that the refreshed model had.

 

I had a coworker at the time with a 2005 and my Wife got her then new 2010 a few weeks later and I was like holy crap that 2005 was pretty rough.

 

Yep, but that doesn't mean they're no longer running which is what rperez was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...