From: C. E. White on



"Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM(a)NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
news:kurah.2430$1O5.1265(a)newsfe20.lga...
> Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost more
> but retain more of their value over the years.

Why would this matter to my Sister. Her Escape is already 6 years and she
will probably drive it for another four or five. I just check KBB and they
claim the private party value for a 6 years old Escape in good condition is
$7500. A RAV4 of similar vintage and equipment is worth $8500. As I recall,
my Sister paid under $19K for the Escape in 2001. A base model RAV4 with a
manual was around $18K at that time and a 2001 RAV4 was smaller and only
available with a I-4 Engine. I am guessing that a 2001 RAV4 with an
automatic and the upgraded interior would have been closer to $20K, so I
can't see where there is a great difference in depreciation.

But even if you are right, it seems to me that the budget concious consumer
would buy a 2 or 3 year old Escape coming off a lease. You are then getting
the advantage of someone else's depreciation. It seems like the worst thing
to do is buy a used Toyota.

Ed


From: tanukiki on

"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:456aeee8$1(a)kcnews01...
>
>
>
> "Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM(a)NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
> news:kurah.2430$1O5.1265(a)newsfe20.lga...
> > Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost more
> > but retain more of their value over the years.
>
> Why would this matter to my Sister. Her Escape is already 6 years and she
> will probably drive it for another four or five. I just check KBB and they
> claim the private party value for a 6 years old Escape in good condition
is
> $7500. A RAV4 of similar vintage and equipment is worth $8500. As I
recall,
> my Sister paid under $19K for the Escape in 2001. A base model RAV4 with a
> manual was around $18K at that time and a 2001 RAV4 was smaller and only
> available with a I-4 Engine. I am guessing that a 2001 RAV4 with an
> automatic and the upgraded interior would have been closer to $20K, so I
> can't see where there is a great difference in depreciation.
>
> But even if you are right, it seems to me that the budget concious
consumer
> would buy a 2 or 3 year old Escape coming off a lease. You are then
getting
> the advantage of someone else's depreciation. It seems like the worst
thing
> to do is buy a used Toyota.
>
> Ed


Just in terms of finances, it looks that way. But the likelihood of buying
someone else's troubled Escape is higher than with a RAV4. Of course, that's
a risk you run with buying any used car..

JennL


From: Ray O on

"C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Igoah.3533$sf5.1276(a)newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:9ce53$4569f795$47c2b532$20129(a)msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>>> the wind noise was excessive.
>>
>> I've heard of several complaints about wind noise in this generation
>> Rav4. Without hearing the level of wind noise in a "normal" Rav4, it is
>> impossible to know what is abnormal, but one of the things I've read is
>> to check the crossbars on the roof rack. There is a small arrow on the
>> sides of the crossbars, and they should be pointed forward to reduce wind
>> noise. It may be a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps. If
>> you do not need the cross bars, it may be worth removing them to reduce
>> noise.
>
> I'll take a look at this. The SO wants the cross bars for carrying her
> Canoe (and once the Canoe is up there, all other wind noise complains will
> be overwhelmed).
>
>> <snipped>

>> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I
>>> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis
>>> got 25 mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles,
>>> so maybe it will improve with usage.
>>
>> The EPA fuel economy for the optional 6 cylinder engine is almost the
>> same as the 4 cylinder. To me, that is an indication that the 4 cylinder
>> motor has to work too hard to be very efficient.
>
> From past experience I feel certain the SO will get at least 2 mpg better
> mileage than I will. When I still owned an Expedition, she would average
> over 17 mpg when driving the Expedition and I struggled to get 15. On the
> other hand, I can get from Raleigh to Columbia in 4 hours. It takes her
> 4.5 to 5 hours. I am hoping it is like several other cars I've owned
> recently and that the mileage will significantly increase after 5000
> miles. My Nissan picked up over 2 mpg between 2000 miles an 10,000 miles.

Besides additional wind noise, I think MPG will take a major hit with the
canoe on top ;-)

> Any thoughts on using 0W20 oil in the RAV4? Toyota recommends either 5W20
> or 0W20. At the last oil change I when with 0W20 Mobil 1. The SO is
> worried this is too thin (her Dad likes 10W40).
>
> Ed

I am not that knowledgeable about motor oil and its properties, so this is
only an observation and opinion on my part, but automakers seem to be
trending towards lower viscosity oil in order to improve fuel economy. The
quality of oil has probably improved greatly over the years and no longer
needs to be thick to be effective.

At least from my experience with Toyota, I've always found that you won't go
wrong following the engineer's recommendations. If it were my car, I'd
probably go with the 0W-20 if ambient temps allowed it.

--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)


From: Art on
If I remember correctly, the only Escape recommended by Consumer Reports, is
the hybrid version due to rollover and handling issues in other versions.


"tanukiki" <modernmiko(a)NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:nqCah.18091$mM1.2831(a)trndny08...
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:456aeee8$1(a)kcnews01...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM(a)NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
>> news:kurah.2430$1O5.1265(a)newsfe20.lga...
>> > Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost
>> > more
>> > but retain more of their value over the years.
>>
>> Why would this matter to my Sister. Her Escape is already 6 years and she
>> will probably drive it for another four or five. I just check KBB and
>> they
>> claim the private party value for a 6 years old Escape in good condition
> is
>> $7500. A RAV4 of similar vintage and equipment is worth $8500. As I
> recall,
>> my Sister paid under $19K for the Escape in 2001. A base model RAV4 with
>> a
>> manual was around $18K at that time and a 2001 RAV4 was smaller and only
>> available with a I-4 Engine. I am guessing that a 2001 RAV4 with an
>> automatic and the upgraded interior would have been closer to $20K, so I
>> can't see where there is a great difference in depreciation.
>>
>> But even if you are right, it seems to me that the budget concious
> consumer
>> would buy a 2 or 3 year old Escape coming off a lease. You are then
> getting
>> the advantage of someone else's depreciation. It seems like the worst
> thing
>> to do is buy a used Toyota.
>>
>> Ed
>
>
> Just in terms of finances, it looks that way. But the likelihood of buying
> someone else's troubled Escape is higher than with a RAV4. Of course,
> that's
> a risk you run with buying any used car..
>
> JennL
>
>


From: DH on
"C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0lah.3369$ql2.2603(a)newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4
> from Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my
> impressions.
>
> This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
> transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
> and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.
>
> Good stuff
>

Thanks for taking the time to write it up.

>
> Bad Stuff
>
[snippage]
> The cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen. They are on a
> little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the stalk turns
> with the wheel.

Toyota's done it that way for a long time. Previous Toyota owners will find
it familiar.

Did you notice that if you pull it towards you, that's "Cancel?" I owned
mine a while before I realized it.

The plus to having it move along with the wheel is the you can still reach
it with you finger and tweak it up/dow/cancel without taking your hands off
the wheel during a turn. I'm not sure how big a bonus this may be, as I'm
rarely going to be tweaking my speed via the CC in the middle of a maneuver.
In that situation, most of us will kill the CC by touching the brake or
override it by stepping on the accelerator.

[snippage]
[Wind Noise!]

Wind noise? I hear ya. The '96 to '00 Ravs are noisy this way, too. Don't
know about the '01s to '05s. On the other hand, this means opening the
sunroof doesn't add a lot of noise, relatively speaking.

> - Engine noise - I constantly read about how sophisticated Toyota 4
> cylinder engines are. I think they must be comparing them to lawn mowers.
> The engine was not as smooth as the 4 cylinder Ecotech in my old Vue at
> idle or cruise. When pushed hard it sounded like there was a mix master
> under the hood. I can't compare it to the Frontier or the Escape - they
> both have much smoother running six cylinder engines.

Could it be the exhaust system? My older Ravs all sound rattly when
accelerating but it's the exhaust, the engine up front seems very quiet (two
are nearly silent, the oldest ticks a bit more). Perhaps you should put on
a cat-back and a fart-cannon system? :-)

[snippage]
> - Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
> engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that
> cost hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.

Is this a new "feature?" I've got older Ravs with 70K, 92K and 121K miles
on them and, so far, the dealer has neglected to hit me up for a valve
adjustment. And this dealer is not one to miss a revenue opportunity. Is
it possible that they're adjustable but don't require it for hundreds of
thousands of miles? I'm OK with that. In any event, no large bill for it,
yet.

> All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good
> as an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the
> Escape rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is
> significantly less expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of
> people would claim the RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that
> reflects reality. My Sisters Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she
> has paid for was a new cruise control cable (I installed it) for a total
> cost of less than $12.
>
> Ed

I know a couple people with conventional Escapes and they are satisfied with
them, although I note that a few-year-old escape is rated 8.6 on Edmunds. I
believe CR also rates the Escape as relatively reliable (but my recollection
may be incorrect). Some reviewers on Edmunds remarked on getting
significantly better than the EPA estimates for fuel economy with the Escape
hybrid. I was very tempted to look at the Escape hybrid the last time we
bought a car but my wife, who has a long memory, nixed any Ford.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com