Prev: Strange Toyota Hat - "With Pleasure Behind Arudder" ???
Next: Problem with Tire sensors on 4Runner?
From: C. E. White on 26 Nov 2006 13:27
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

- Size - I liked the size. Plenty of front and rear room, with good cargo
room too.
- Seats - The rear seat folds flat, a big improvement over my old Vue.
- Seating room - Head and leg room were excellent. Rear seat room was good
as well.
- Transmission - The transmission shifted flawlessly. Even though it was
only a four speed, I never felt that it was in the wrong gear, or that I
even needed another gear.
- Performance - The engine, although not particularly refined, was powerful.
It accelerated briskly and had no problem cruising at 85 mph. There were
only two of us in the vehicle for this trip, but I believe it would have
been more than adequate even with a full load. The engine and transmission
were well matched. I definitely felt that the engine/transmission
combination was far superior to my old Vue and at least as good as my
Sister's V-6 Escape (the transmission was definitely better). I doubt if the
4 cylinder RAV4 would outrun the V-6 Escape, but I don't care. The RAV4 four
cylinder had very good performance. I am not sure I would pick the V-6
unless I need to tow something.
- Handling - Although the ride was not great, the handling was very good.
- Features - Even the base model had really good equipment - ABS, Electronic
Limited Slip, Electronic Stability Control, Side Air Bags, Aux input for the
audio system, power locks, power mirrors, power windows. My only complaint
was that the vehicle did not come with floor mats.
- Steering - I have seen complaints about the steering, but I found it to be
just fine.
- Fit and finish - The car was well assembled. Although the interior didn't
look "expensive" it was properly assembled. There was not a squeak or a
rattle anywhere.
- Routine Maintenance - All the items to be checked are readily available.
The oil is easy to change. Only negative was the requirement for routine
valve adjustment.

Bad Stuff

- Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the worst
feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls. I don't think
I have every gotten into a vehicle with a worse organized/designed
collection of controls. The signaling controls, headlight controls, and
wiper washer controls were on stalks and were fine. The radio was also fine.
However, the HVAC controls were a train wreck. It is not that they were
poorly located, it was that they were difficult to read, and the ridiculous
outside wheel hiding the readings except in the little windows was
unnecessarily complicated. I have never seen such a poor design. The shift
lever was also needlessly weird. It is not just the little steeped gate I
found offensive, it was the way you could easily select third instead of
fourth. You may need to see one to understand, but to select 4th you pull
the lever down through a series of steps at reverse and neutral. Once at
fourth, you move the lever sideways (towards the driver) to select third. It
is very easy to accidentally select third, particularly once you have been
moving the lever side to side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten
miles in third before I realized I was in third. The outside power mirror
controls were located on the center console, which seems silly. The control
to dim the instrument panel light was off on the side of the dash where the
mirror controls should have been. The door locks and windows controls were
fine. The steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt
wheel. 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. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a stalk for
the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a fixed stalk.
After the first hour or so I got used to all this weirdness, and I assume if
it was my car I'd get over the strangeness., but I don't think I'd ever
think the HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person or persons
responsible for these should be fired immediately. I assume they were
designed by a graduate of an American design school. I can't imagine any
other person who would do something so silly.
- Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature of
the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was. My Nissan
Frontier truck with all terrain tires is quieter on the highway than the
RAV4 was. Both wind and road noise were excessive. It was far nosier than
either my old 2003 Saturn Vue or my Sister's 2001 Ford Escape. I am sure
part of the problem was the tires. They were very sensitive to changes in
road surface, but they were never quiet. But even if the car had quiet
tires, the wind noise was excessive.
- Ride - not as good as either my Vue or my sisters Escape. It was about on
par with my Nissan pick-up. The handling of the RAV4 was better than the
Vue, but not as good as the Escape.
- 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.
- Interior quality - the interior design was very reminiscent of my old Vue
but, it was definitely a step above the Vue, about on par with my Nissan
Frontier, and a step or two behind my Sister's Escape (but her Escape is an
XLT model, the RAV4 is a base model). The interior was all plastic all the
time, but at least it was properly assembled (something I wouldn't claim for
the Vue).
- Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive (but they were more
comfortable that the seats in the Frontier - even if they looked worse).
- 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.
- Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
weakest I've used in a long time.
- Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor installed
system was almost worthless.
- Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..
- Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
mounted on the rear door.
- 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.

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







From: D.D. Pallmer on 26 Nov 2006 14:42
Check out the Honda CR-V. Got better safety ratings and no clunky spare tire
on the back.

"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
>
> - Size - I liked the size. Plenty of front and rear room, with good cargo
> room too.
> - Seats - The rear seat folds flat, a big improvement over my old Vue.
> - Seating room - Head and leg room were excellent. Rear seat room was good
> as well.
> - Transmission - The transmission shifted flawlessly. Even though it was
> only a four speed, I never felt that it was in the wrong gear, or that I
> even needed another gear.
> - Performance - The engine, although not particularly refined, was
> powerful. It accelerated briskly and had no problem cruising at 85 mph.
> There were only two of us in the vehicle for this trip, but I believe it
> would have been more than adequate even with a full load. The engine and
> transmission were well matched. I definitely felt that the
> engine/transmission combination was far superior to my old Vue and at
> least as good as my Sister's V-6 Escape (the transmission was definitely
> better). I doubt if the 4 cylinder RAV4 would outrun the V-6 Escape, but I
> don't care. The RAV4 four cylinder had very good performance. I am not
> sure I would pick the V-6 unless I need to tow something.
> - Handling - Although the ride was not great, the handling was very good.
> - Features - Even the base model had really good equipment - ABS,
> Electronic Limited Slip, Electronic Stability Control, Side Air Bags, Aux
> input for the audio system, power locks, power mirrors, power windows. My
> only complaint was that the vehicle did not come with floor mats.
> - Steering - I have seen complaints about the steering, but I found it to
> be just fine.
> - Fit and finish - The car was well assembled. Although the interior
> didn't look "expensive" it was properly assembled. There was not a squeak
> or a rattle anywhere.
> - Routine Maintenance - All the items to be checked are readily available.
> The oil is easy to change. Only negative was the requirement for routine
> valve adjustment.
>
> Bad Stuff
>
> - Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the
> worst feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls. I
> don't think I have every gotten into a vehicle with a worse
> organized/designed collection of controls. The signaling controls,
> headlight controls, and wiper washer controls were on stalks and were
> fine. The radio was also fine. However, the HVAC controls were a train
> wreck. It is not that they were poorly located, it was that they were
> difficult to read, and the ridiculous outside wheel hiding the readings
> except in the little windows was unnecessarily complicated. I have never
> seen such a poor design. The shift lever was also needlessly weird. It is
> not just the little steeped gate I found offensive, it was the way you
> could easily select third instead of fourth. You may need to see one to
> understand, but to select 4th you pull the lever down through a series of
> steps at reverse and neutral. Once at fourth, you move the lever sideways
> (towards the driver) to select third. It is very easy to accidentally
> select third, particularly once you have been moving the lever side to
> side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten miles in third before I
> realized I was in third. The outside power mirror controls were located on
> the center console, which seems silly. The control to dim the instrument
> panel light was off on the side of the dash where the mirror controls
> should have been. The door locks and windows controls were fine. The
> steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt wheel. 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. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a stalk
> for the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a fixed
> stalk. After the first hour or so I got used to all this weirdness, and I
> assume if it was my car I'd get over the strangeness., but I don't think
> I'd ever think the HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person
> or persons responsible for these should be fired immediately. I assume
> they were designed by a graduate of an American design school. I can't
> imagine any other person who would do something so silly.
> - Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature
> of the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was. My
> Nissan Frontier truck with all terrain tires is quieter on the highway
> than the RAV4 was. Both wind and road noise were excessive. It was far
> nosier than either my old 2003 Saturn Vue or my Sister's 2001 Ford Escape.
> I am sure part of the problem was the tires. They were very sensitive to
> changes in road surface, but they were never quiet. But even if the car
> had quiet tires, the wind noise was excessive.
> - Ride - not as good as either my Vue or my sisters Escape. It was about
> on par with my Nissan pick-up. The handling of the RAV4 was better than
> the Vue, but not as good as the Escape.
> - 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.
> - Interior quality - the interior design was very reminiscent of my old
> Vue but, it was definitely a step above the Vue, about on par with my
> Nissan Frontier, and a step or two behind my Sister's Escape (but her
> Escape is an XLT model, the RAV4 is a base model). The interior was all
> plastic all the time, but at least it was properly assembled (something I
> wouldn't claim for the Vue).
> - Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive (but they were
> more comfortable that the seats in the Frontier - even if they looked
> worse).
> - 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.
> - Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
> weakest I've used in a long time.
> - Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
> systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor
> installed system was almost worthless.
> - Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..
> - Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
> Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
> mounted on the rear door.
> - 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


From: Ray O on 26 Nov 2006 15:21

"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.
>
<snipped>

> Good stuff

<snipped>


> Bad Stuff

<snipped>

> - The shift lever was also needlessly weird. It is not just the little
> steeped gate I found offensive, it was the way you could easily select
> third instead of fourth.

I suspect that the gated shifter is an attempt to mimic the gated shifters
in luxury cars.

.. The outside power mirror
> controls were located on the center console, which seems silly. The
> control to dim the instrument panel light was off on the side of the dash
> where the mirror controls should have been.

I also thought that the power mirror controls on the center console of our
Sequoia was a poor location, however, I've noticed that they are easier for
me to reach on the console while sitting in a driving position than the one
on the dash, where I have to lean forward, make an adjustment, sit back,
check, and re-adjust if necessary.

The door locks and windows controls were
> fine. The steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt
> wheel.

I've hear others of average or taller height make this complaint, but it
works fine for vertically challenged folks like me ;-)

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. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a
> stalk for the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a
> fixed stalk.

Toyota has used this arrangement for a long time and I agree, it seems like
a needlessly complicated setup to make the stalk rotate with the wheel
instead of fixed on the column.

<snipped>

> 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.

<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.

<snipped>

thanks for the post!
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)


From: C. E. White on 26 Nov 2006 17:03

"D.D. Pallmer" <ddpalmer(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y6KdnZFE79-pc_TYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> Check out the Honda CR-V. Got better safety ratings and no clunky spare
> tire on the back.

I suspect the CR-V is a great vehicle. I have not had a chance to try one. I
don't particualrly care for the look of the CR-V. I won't calim the RAV4 is
beautiful, but I think it olooks better than the new CR-V. My SO considered
a CR-V, but the RAV4 was less expensive and she prefers Toyotas (although
her son will soon be driving a new Civic Si).

Ed


From: C. E. White on 26 Nov 2006 17:09

"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.

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


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Strange Toyota Hat - "With Pleasure Behind Arudder" ???
Next: Problem with Tire sensors on 4Runner?