Head to head comparison of 4wd CRV EX-L to 4x4 Limited Rav4

[praningzkee]

Honda Competitive Comparison - RAV4 (http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/compare/results_photos.aspx?ModelName=CR-V&ModelYear=2007&AICGroupNum=5096&RURL=http%3a%2f%2fautomobiles.honda.com%2fmodels%2 fexterior_gallery.asp%3fModelName%3dCR%252DV%26360 VIDEO%3d0%26Function%3dexterior_360s_enhanced&AICNum1=20648&LastState=%2Ftools%2Fcompare%2Fresults_overview.as px%3FModelName%3DCR-V%26ModelYear%3D2007%26AICGroupNum%3D5096%26RURL%3 Dhttp%253a%252f%252fautomobiles.honda.com%252fmode ls%252fexterior_gallery.asp%253fModelName%253dCR%2 5252DV%2526360VIDEO%253d0%2526Function%253dexterio r_360s_enhanced%26AICNum1%3D20648%26LastState%3D%2 6AICNum2%3D20639&AICNum2=20639&Filter=&Mode=)

[Flomobile]

If I were Honda, I would NOT post that comparison on my website.

Apparently the RAV4 has more interior space, more power, a greater towing capacity, more customizable options, yet only gives up 1 city MPG and no highway MPG vs. the CR-V. It also looks more like a CR-V should than the actual CR-V. It's sad.

These two pictures are especially amusing:
http://comp.autosite.com/configurator/photos/publishedphotos/USA/2007/HONDA/CR-V/spe/usa_2007_honda_cr-v_spe_4_x_incargo_x.jpghttp://comp.autosite.com/configurator/photos/publishedphotos/USA/2007/TOYOTA/RAV4/spe/usa_2007_toyota_rav4_spe_4_x_incargo_x.jpg
That picture alone is enough to put the RAV4 higher on my list... Look at the stunning difference in cargo space with all seats raised... somehow, the cubes of space never tell you the whole story.

[praningzkee]

yeah when i looked at the comparison it is pretty sad that Toyota was ahead of Honda most of the time, and they had the nerved to highlight the few features CRV had ahead of Rav4. that was like 6-7 features that's it! LOL.

[praningzkee]

btw: it's not directly posted on the site, they had base I4 Rav4 :roll: to compare it too. i managed to compare them head to head base on the comparison link.

few things i would change on the Rav4 though, get rid of the spare like the CRV and put a tailgate and get the NAVI!!!!!!!!

[dejal]

I do give Honda credit for having the guts to do the comparison.

The angle of the umbrella really tells a story. Looks like the Rav4 is deeper by a few inches. I think there's 8 cubic feet more space in the Rav4, yet cargo capicity isn't much different. I do like that the hole
in the back looks bigger than the CRV.

[80honda]

If you equip the RAV4 to match the EX-L with Navi, the Rav will break the 30K price point.

I have shopped the new RAV-4. The interior is very cheap economy car looking. The new CR-V has a very upscale interior now.

[Racoon]

If I were Honda, I would NOT post that comparison on my website.
It's not a specific comparison they have posted.

The Compare function on the Honda website allows you to choose a Honda vehicle and then compare it to other vehicles, including other Honda vehicles.

I used it to compare the Fit to a CR-V awhile back.

:)

[hoverzy]

They are not really compaired side by side. If you compare a Pilot to a RAV4, the latter still looks bigger. Do you really believe a RAV4 is bigger than Pilot? LOL

http://comp.autosite.com/configurator/photos/publishedphotos/USA/2007/HONDA/PILOT/spe/usa_2007_honda_pilot_spe_4_x_incargo_x.jpg

[MRKKBB]

I don't know, if these pictures are a good comparison. Fort the following reasons.

1) They are taken at a different angle. The Honda picture is taken at a lower angle.

2) The RAV4 picture is stretched! Look at the length of the umbrella. I think we may be talking only a few inches of extra space in front of the umbrella

3) The Honda picture is taken from a further away than the RAV4

Take a look at the side by side comparsion, the CRV and RAV4 are pretty much the same length. But if you look again at the rear shot, at how far the dash on the RAV4 is compared to the CRV you see the stretch effect.

Numbers: Length: CRV 177.9 RAV4 181.1
Cargo Volume: CRV 72.9 RAV4 73.0

My thoughts. Honda should of gotten better pictures.



If I were Honda, I would NOT post that comparison on my website.

Apparently the RAV4 has more interior space, more power, a greater towing capacity, more customizable options, yet only gives up 1 city MPG and no highway MPG vs. the CR-V. It also looks more like a CR-V should than the actual CR-V. It's sad.

....


That picture alone is enough to put the RAV4 higher on my list... Look at the stunning difference in cargo space with all seats raised... somehow, the cubes of space never tell you the whole story.

[clarion15090]

I checked out the new Rav4 extensively and just bought the new 07 CRV. Trust me when I tell you, that picture is a total scam. If the Rav4 had anywhere near as much room as that picture "depicts", I'd have bought one.

I'm not sure where that picture came from but it is not real. What's scary to me is that I can't tell how the picture was doctored. If I had not spent extensive time in both vehicles, I'd have no way of knowing.

[praningzkee]

the pilot comparison is unreal because you are comparing the cargo volume of a 2 row Rav4 against the cargo volume on the 3 row Pilot. Of course the space with the umbrella would be smaller on the Pilot, cuz it has 3 rows up. that doesn't mean it is depicted as smaller than the Rav4. what kind of a moron would actually assume that? get the facts straight first before you assume.

[praningzkee]

by the way, thanks for correcting my thread.... im sucha noob :lol:

[dejal]

I checked out the new Rav4 extensively and just bought the new 07 CRV. Trust me when I tell you, that picture is a total scam. If the Rav4 had anywhere near as much room as that picture "depicts", I'd have bought one.

I'm not sure where that picture came from but it is not real. What's scary to me is that I can't tell how the picture was doctored. If I had not spent extensive time in both vehicles, I'd have no way of knowing.


It's HONDAs web site. Why in the world would the Rav4 look better? Honda wants me to consider the Rav4?

Honda can certainly buy a Rav4, which I sure they did. I doubt they lifted them off the web.

So, Honda doctored the Rav4 photos to make the Rav4 look better. Right!!!

That's not to say that the Rav4 is a "better" SUV, but the photos AND the specs make it a close call.

The new CRV is not head and shoulder above the Rav4. Maybe before, but not anymore.

[clarion15090]

It's HONDAs web site. Why in the world would the Rav4 look better? Honda wants me to consider the Rav4?

Honda can certainly buy a Rav4, which I sure they did. I doubt they lifted them off the web.

So, Honda doctored the Rav4 photos to make the Rav4 look better. Right!!!

That's not to say that the Rav4 is a "better" SUV, but the photos AND the specs make it a close call.

The new CRV is not head and shoulder above the Rav4. Maybe before, but not anymore.


Yea, I can see now (by clicking on the link in the original post) that you are correct. LOL!

The pics ARE off of the Honda site. That's pretty amazing. But, Honda did not take the pics or do the comparison. Look at the bottom, "Automotive Information Center" (AIC) did the comparison. Now that I understand where the picture came from, I don't think there is any dishonest motive. But for some reason, the Rav4 pic is NOT reality. Strange. Just goes to show you, there is no substitute for in-person inspections and test drives.

And, I agree with you that the CRV is not a hands-down winner over the Rav4. Both vehicles make a compelling case for themselves.

[Visiting_Guest]

i think that if Honda wanted to keep the same lineage as the Gen 2 CRV, the 2007 RAV4 would be the incarnation of that vehicle.

Beyond their obvious shape differences and equipment, i think this is a case of just personal tastes and choice vs one being better than the other. Toyota or Honda, both are very wise choices

[andersean]

Is it me or do the Toyota's rear seats appear to be in the most upright posistion whereas the CR-Vs appear to be reclined? There appears to be a big gap between the seats and the wheelwells on the RAV.

[CollegeProf]

I honestly believe it is going to come down to "taste" due to my driving both the RAV4 and the CRV and truly finding good points with both. I ultimately chose the CRV-quite honestly due to the interior and I wanted something not so "sporty" this go round. (there, I said it!) :o I think looks are definitely in the "eye of the beholder" which is great-hence, why they make the CRV, RAV4 AND the CX7! :D (Who did I leave out?)

Of course, I've only owned 10 Hondas so it's not like I'm biased or anything! :lol:

[markbarany]

Hey CR-V'ers,

Here is a true look at cargo space between the RAV4 and CR-V. They are very comparable. I don't know how the one picture made the RAV4 space look so stretched? So I thought I should actually post a couple real pictures of the cargo space.

[dejal]

Hey CR-V'ers,

Here is a true look at cargo space between the RAV4 and CR-V. They are very comparable. I don't know how the one picture made the RAV4 space look so stretched? So I thought I should actually post a couple real pictures of the cargo space.


Honda's not doing themselves any favors with using "stock" photos. If I was going to give photo comparisons, I'd buy the other car myself. It could be as simple as a different focal length on a lens.

[KW Sluggo]

I agree Mikey.

When I first saw the RAV last winter I thought, hey Toyota finally built a CRV. They copied the size, made it a bit boxier etc. The one major flaw in previous generations of RAVs was the lack of decent size.

Then when I saw the photos of the CRV I was surprised by how Honda had abandoned the traditional CRV. Yes I like the hatch but they should have made it two piece, similar to before. It takes some getting used to and a suspension of judgment until it can be seen in person (according to the posts I've read here).

Regardless of what these pictures may or may not disclose, I will be very interested in he actual back seat leg room (son is 6' 2" and growing). The RAV is reasonably good in that department and I hope the CRV matches it. If not, it's one more point in favour of the RAV in my decison making process.

I have owned 4 Hondas and no Toyotas so it would be a major switch for me.

[dejal]

Look at the side by side umbrella photos again.

The headrests in the Rav4 + rear view mirror are REAL tiny or REAL far away. I don't think they are that small. It looks like they are about as
far away as they would be in a Suburban.


That's a lens causing the distortion, pulling the umbrella further into the
photo. Also there's the possibility that the image is cropped in trying to get the rear area the same sizes.

[bluewho25]

I agree Mikey.

When I first saw the RAV last winter I thought, hey Toyota finally built a CRV. They copied the size, made it a bit boxier etc. The one major flaw in previous generations of RAVs was the lack of decent size.

Then when I saw the photos of the CRV I was surprised by how Honda had abandoned the traditional CRV. Yes I like the hatch but they should have made it two piece, similar to before. It takes some getting used to and a suspension of judgment until it can be seen in person (according to the posts I've read here).

Regardless of what these pictures may or may not disclose, I will be very interested in he actual back seat leg room (son is 6' 2" and growing). The RAV is reasonably good in that department and I hope the CRV matches it. If not, it's one more point in favour of the RAV in my decison making process.

I have owned 4 Hondas and no Toyotas so it would be a major switch for me.

Want some leg room in the second raw?
Check out the 2007 Element.
I post some info about it here http://www.hondasuv.com/stg/viewtopic.php?t=18994

Even my wife love it. She seen it yesterday after we cheched out the CRV.
I think that is even wider than the CRV. The seat's material is really cool (all weather proof)

I may go for it, since it will cost about $2K less than the CRV-EX.
Honda did so many changes from the 2006 year.

Let me know what you think :wink:

[bluewho25]

Guys FYI, I just got off the phone with my auto insurance.
They quote me on these 2007 Models:

Honda CRV-EX-AWD Auto

Honda Element-EX-AWD Auto

Toyota Rav4 Sport Editon-AWD Auto I4

Hondas are about the same price.

The Rav4 was about $130 more per year. I guess it is due to the spare on the rear.
And the 2007 CRV was cheaper than the Element by $6 per year.

[4hondaowner]

I vote to have moderators delete all discussions about RAV4's.

[Visiting_Guest]

Competition is the best information possible. Id much rather see everyone on this board make INFORMED DECISIONS with the best possible knowledge base out there, when u spend 23k+ on something, u want ur money spent right, why delete about the RAV, its teh CRV's MAIN COMPETITOR?????

anyways - in that second pic of the RAV - the seats are entirely vertical - u can see almost 1/3 of the door panel coming out into the rear cargo hold (Unless im reading the angle wrong), so that too, doesnt look like a good impression either, but def better than the first picture

[praningzkee]

totally true!

[Skrapiron]

Well, I just got back from a journey down this same road.

I had a 2006 Saturn Vue, that was bought back under the lemon law. I was spoiled by the room and economy of the Vue, but the reliability was non existant (4 computers replaced in 3 months!)

When I started searching for a replacement, it boiled down to either a CR-V or a Rav4.

In the end, I went with the CR-V. Side by side, the CR-V had better, more comfortable seats, more versatile seat configurations, with comperable power and economy. I did not like the barn-door tailgate on the Rav 4. Thats one of the principal reasons I went with the Saturn in the first place. Honda did their homework on this truck.

It didn't help Toyota's case that the Sales guy was really pushy, talked down the Hondas, and tried to convince me that I -had- to have the $65.00 first aid kit option...... The Honda sales guy was just the opposite. He let me drive an '06 then told me to wait until they got a shipment of '07s. I did as he said and didn't regret it. When I said I was looking at a Rav4 as an option, he said they were good trucks. Then he arranged to have a Rav4 from one of their sister dealerships (Owned by the same company) delivered to the lot, so I could side by side compare both trucks. You gotta love that! (They didn't care what I bought since the same company owned both dealerships!)


I brought both home and got the Family's approval. Overwhelmingly, the CR-V won.

I pick it up at 10am on Monday. I can't wait!!!

[mkaresh]

The Autosite price comparison method is flawed. When it comparably equips vehicles, it options up the competitor vehicles so that everything standard on the first vehicle, i.e. the Honda on Honda's site, is on the other vehicles. BUT the first vehicle is not optioned up so it has every feature standard on the other vehicles.

For example, I did an Accord SE-Camry LE comparison on the Honda site. To get illuminated visor mirrors on the Camry, the Autosite program adds a sunroof to the car, because it includes them. Similarly, it adds a $1,000 audio system to the Camry to get a CD changer.

My price comparison program works differently, treating both vehicles in the comparison equally. If will do the above things if you explicitly ask for these features, but in the automated modes (min, max) it makes judgment calls whether the price of an option is justified by the value of the features sought.

My site also adjusts for remaining feature differences.

End result: while the Autosite comparison suggests that the Camry LE is $1,275 more than the Accord SE, my site suggests that the Camry is nearly $1,000 less before adjusting for feature differences, and nearly $1,200 less after adjusting for these differences.

http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php

As far as SAE cargo volume stats go, there are many legitimate methods to calculate it. So the stats aren't all that helpful. I've seen them change by 15-20 cubic feet from year to year, even though the car is unchanged, just because the manufacturer adopted a new method.

[Visiting_Guest]

Wait im confused. It just tells us the true value of the options considered?

I would think it more handy to have the real life options, in Toyotas, certain options ONLY COME bundled with other options ie the audio system upgrade with the cd changer or the Vanity mirrors with the roof. So i actually think Honda works better because if I want a sunroof on my honda and want to see what it would cost me to get it on the toyota, it will tell me the price

So, basically my question is, why is your program better? If i cant get a cd changer in the toyota without having to upgrade the stereo too, why would I just want to kno the price of the changer if I cant get it anyways?

Just set me straight if I'm saying this wrong :)

[mkaresh]

Wait im confused. It just tells us the true value of the options considered?

I would think it more handy to have the real life options, in Toyotas, certain options ONLY COME bundled with other options ie the audio system upgrade with the cd changer or the Vanity mirrors with the roof. So i actually think Honda works better because if I want a sunroof on my honda and want to see what it would cost me to get it on the toyota, it will tell me the price

So, basically my question is, why is your program better? If i cant get a cd changer in the toyota without having to upgrade the stereo too, why would I just want to kno the price of the changer if I cant get it anyways?

Just set me straight if I'm saying this wrong :)

The program calculates price differences both before and after adjusting for feature differences. Panel members can even store their own values for features.

I didn't use the best example to explain how my basic approach is better. Basically, it forces the competition to have all of the major features on the first vehicle (the Honda in this case), but not vice versa. So if the other vehicle happens to have standard leather or a sunroof, for example, the program will not require the Honda to have these. But if the Honda had them, it would force the competitior to have them.

My program also lets you decide which features to put on the vehicles. The Autosite comparison makes this decision for you, generally in the client's favor.

[Racoon]

My program also lets you decide which features to put on the vehicles. The Autosite comparison makes this decision for you, generally in the client's favor.
But I think you didn't answer the question...

Does your site reflect reality? Does it configure vehicles the way the manufacturers sell them? Specifically the way Toyota sells a lot of their options only as a package, not as invididual items?

It's nice to know on an item-by-item basis, but it's not very useful if you can't actually buy the vehicles that way.

:)

[ukrkoz]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6425/07crvline04uk4.th.gif (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=07crvline04uk4.gif)


rav4:
External dimensions: overall length (inches): 181.1, overall width (inches): 71.5, overall height (inches): 66.3, ground clearance (inches): 7.5, wheelbase (inches): 104.7, front track (inches): 61.4, rear track (inches): 61.4 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 34.8

toyota did what nissan did with new pathfinder. instead of leaning sidewalls in, they brought them streight up. boxy it might look, but it immediately added huskiness and bulk to the look. at the same time, it significantly added internal space.
by the way, when you check out rav4, don't forget to look under the false floor in the trunk. there's second trunk under the mat.
i donno much about extensive driving of the both cars, i have no doubt that v6 will dust and outperform anything 2.4L 4cyl can possibly do, but let me tell you this: i was in both of them today, with maybe 5 minutes apart. in new cr-v i was just like back home in my 02 model, except smaller cargo space. but i said "vow!" in rav4 immediately. it was superiorly more comfortable right away. i do not give much about "looks", car is a car. but comfort wise it was no comperison. 6'5'', 275, and very brode shouldered.
yes, everything is matter of taste and preferences. but fact stays: honda did ridiculous mistake by not upgrading to 6 cyl and will be punished for that in the market where questions of power and towing are indisputable. multiply this by honda dropping down to number SEVEN in quality, after lexus, toyota, mercury, buick, forgot who, and acura. and all this AT THE SAME PRICE as new cr-v. you can start arguing.

[Visiting_Guest]

-not much to argue, CRV was never a vehicle geared for a V6 audience, ever

-the toyota IS more spacious

-CRV should have a better 4 cylinder and then, i think, would have been the pefect blend of everything we Honda owners could as for in the 07.

I will be honest, if the CRV came in with 180-190HP range, there would be a new one in my garage, regardless of looks, its just that good of vehicle that does everything thrown at it well

[Skrapiron]

-the toyota IS more spacious



No, it isn't. The Toyota and Honda have nearly equal passenger and cargo volumes. Toyota gets their extra 3.5 cubic feet of cargo space by allowing the user to slide the back seats forward about 8". It's a clever idea, but has a serious drawback. Since the rear seat sits flush with the cargo floor, it opens a lovely 6" deep by 8" wide gap into which all lovely manner of junk can slide and get lost.

The CR-V, on the other hand, has a flat floor, front to back. When you slide the seats forward, you end up with the extra storage space, with no cavernous gap between the floor and the seat-backs.

Up front, the fighter-jet feel of the Rav4 cockpit is cramped, compared to the CR-V. The high armrest, with the center mount shifter isolates the driver from the cabin. What I particularly didn't like was the cup holders were so far forward that you hit the dash every time you took a drink in and out. Almost as annoying is the position of the shift lever. It sits relatively close to the armrest and that made it very easy to bump and accidently drop it out of D and into 3rd gear.

Yeah, the CR-V has more of a Mini-Van feel to it. I like that. I believe it was car and driver that summed up the CR-V best: It's a duffel bag on wheels.

[CollegeProf]

My understanding is that the 3 or so extra inches on the Rav4 came from the rear tire still being mounted on the back. Just as the CRV lost a few inches from the rear tire disappearing. When I compared the measurements, they really did seem to come quite close on every aspect. I tend to agree with Skrapiron as far as the driver's seat. I was leaning toward the Rav4 until I sat in the new CRV last week and then that was what sealed it for me. It just seemed more spacious (IMO).

Grant it-I still think the Rav4 has a more sporty feel to it. WHat I didn't like was how it looked like in the red and blue colors they "dipped" the entire car! I like a little other color (silver and black) touches mixed in. The one I test drove and looked at were monochromatic. :?

[80honda]

Ok, my CR-V to Rav 4 comparison.
If you are going for the 4cyl, the CR-V just stomps all over the RAV. Price and interior materials and comfort are much better in the CR-V. If you must have the V6, then the RAV4 is of course a winner. But if I needed the towing and power of the V6, I'd buy the MUCH NICER Pilot anyway.

[clarion15090]

I do not understand how some folks believe that the Rav is roomier inside. I test drove three Ravs and really spent some time in there and then bought a new CRV.

Rav left me with no good place to keep my left foot. I think that's where some of the extra turning radius was bought.

Rav made me feel cramped in the left armrest area.

Rav has a goofy seatbelt setup in the rear seat. We have three kids and we knew we would have issues there. The rear seat is also smaller in the Rav by about two whole inches.

And the extra loverall ength is entirely the spare tire sticking out. I parked them side by side.

I'm not slamming the Rav, despite these issues we almost bought one. In fact we would have if the dealer would have agreed to throw in a couple hundred dollar item. But instead they balked just long enough for us to see and drive the new CRV. There was no going back to the Rav for us.

If we bought the Rav it was going to be a V6. To me, the amazing power was my sole consolation for the other things I was not crazy about. I thought of it as a 269 horsepower pacifier.

We are extremely grateful we saw and drove the new CRV before we bought another car. It was pure luck. From what I saw and read, there was no need to wait to see it. Even if it was "ok" we'd end up in a much worse negotiating position. But, the new CRV sold itself to us and we are thrilled with it.

Oh, another thing about the Rav, we really didn't like any of the colors available on the V6 base. They all looked pretty cheap, especially now compared to the CRV color selections. We got the Whistle Silver.

[clarion15090]

How do people feel about the Rav's four wheel drive not working past twenty five mph?

Personally, I didn't mind. As pointed out in another thread, "most" people don't need four wheel drive when you have front wheel drive.

And, once you get going past twenty five, it's extremely rare that four wheel drive is going to add anything.

To me, if Toyata could eek out a few MPG by not having four wheel drive past twenty five, I had no problem with it.

Just curious what others think.

[mkaresh]

How do people feel about the Rav's four wheel drive not working past twenty five mph?

Personally, I didn't mind. As pointed out in another thread, "most" people don't need four wheel drive when you have front wheel drive.

And, once you get going past twenty five, it's extremely rare that four wheel drive is going to add anything.

To me, if Toyata could eek out a few MPG by not having four wheel drive past twenty five, I had no problem with it.

Just curious what others think.

You've got some misinformation here. The AWD works at all speeds. What happens at 25 is that the locked center differential, which should only be engaged on loose surfaces to begin with, disengages. This is the case with all vehicles with manually lockable differentials, including the Honda Pilot. You don't want or need differentials locked above 25 mph.

[mkaresh]

My program also lets you decide which features to put on the vehicles. The Autosite comparison makes this decision for you, generally in the client's favor.
But I think you didn't answer the question...

Does your site reflect reality? Does it configure vehicles the way the manufacturers sell them? Specifically the way Toyota sells a lot of their options only as a package, not as invididual items?

It's nice to know on an item-by-item basis, but it's not very useful if you can't actually buy the vehicles that way.

:)

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. The program configures vehicles the way manufacturers sell them. Option packages are automatically selected based on the list of requested features. This can be very handy on models with confusing option packages.

One qualification: the list of option packages for Toyota and Lexus models is from the main brand sites. However, with both brands only a portion of the nationally available option packages are available in any one region. A very odd way to run an auto company that frustrates many consumers. For example, in Michigan (where I live) it has not yet been possible to get a RAV4 with the third-row seat--one of the redesigns two big new features. Crazy.

[praningzkee]

fit and finish of the CRV is better, especially the interior. RAV's interior isn't as polished as the CRV although it does look a little rugged.

[mkaresh]

I drove the CR-V today. I'll probably post a full review to Epinions tonight. Agree with many here that while power is only adequate, the new CR-V has the look and feel of a premium vehicle, while the RAV4 does not. For example, the Honda's door shut quality is worthy of a luxury car.

[CollegeProf]

I was just reading an article in Motor Trend (October, 2006) which was comparing the Rav4 to the Cx7 and RDX and it stated that "it's 73.0 cubic foot maximum cargo capacity outspaced" the other two. Since the CRV and RAV4 were so similar in size, does that mean the CRV has more cargo space than the RDX and CX7? That just did not seem right (?)

Interesting, but odd.

[paddler]

as an E owner who gave up an A6, I want something with a bit more pep and a little more luxury in my next car, but I don't necessarily need the flagship model or to go highline. A six cylinder in the CRV was a way to attract people that wouldn't normally look at the CRV because it's a 4cylinder only. Saying 6cyl people are not the intended market is just dumb.

Personally, looking at the new RAV and CRV just keeps pushing me to pick up a used MDX or see what kind of deal I can get on a CX7. I don't care for either. No six on the CRV and the lux package on the RAV looking a bit on the cheap side. Picking up an MDX, still under warranty and certified can be had for under $22k.

[mkaresh]

I was just reading an article in Motor Trend (October, 2006) which was comparing the Rav4 to the Cx7 and RDX and it stated that "it's 73.0 cubic foot maximum cargo capacity outspaced" the other two. Since the CRV and RAV4 were so similar in size, does that mean the CRV has more cargo space than the RDX and CX7? That just did not seem right (?)

Interesting, but odd.

Not that odd. The CX-7 is tight inside. Its rear seat is also much less roomy than the CR-V's. The RDX, as Acura's version of the CR-V, can also be expected to be less roomy. Compare the TL to the Accord and the MDX to the Pilot. Acuras sacrifice room for styling.

[clarion15090]

How do people feel about the Rav's four wheel drive not working past twenty five mph?

You've got some misinformation here. The AWD works at all speeds. What happens at 25 is that the locked center differential, which should only be engaged on loose surfaces to begin with, disengages. This is the case with all vehicles with manually lockable differentials, including the Honda Pilot. You don't want or need differentials locked above 25 mph.

From the Rav4 brochure:
"Available Electronic On-Demand 4WD (footnote 1) inhances traction."
Footnote 1: "Automatically disengages at speeds above 25 mph or when brake is applied."

I don't claim to understand modern 4WD systems. I just read the brochure.

So, does the CR-V AWD work above 25mph or does it disengage like the Rav4?

[mkaresh]

This is what happens when marketing types who know nothing about cars write brochures.

I've never seen any mention of a speed limit on the Honda system. However, the rear wheels only get power when the fronts slip, and the faster you're going the less likely the fronts are to slip. In general it's a less comprehensive system than that used by Toyota and others, intended to boost low-speed traction rather than affect handling. For high-speed handling, the SH-AWD system used in the Acura RL, RDX, and new MDX is much better. It will direct power to a rear wheel at speed to balance out the handling of the car.

[raidencraig]

We are Toyota people seriously considering the CR-V this time... agree with points made below-- this comparison by Honda is dumb-- the $2k for Navig. (not an option on Toyota) totally distorts the comparison cost. On the other hand, Honda does not offer the V-6, which is a HUGE plus for Toyota, because it gives kick-butt power for comparable MPG. We think the CR-V clearly looks better and may indeed have a nicer interior in the new iteration. It is a nice plus to stow the spare, partly becuase it allows for a hatch-opener instead of a heavy swing-open. A CR-V EX-L has a better bundled price than a RAV4 4 cyl... Toyota REALLY begins to bump the sticker with options-- a point noted by reviewers. Honda dealers might not negotiate much right now, but then you are not likely to find RAV4's where the sticker price is not higher, often by a bunch.

************************************************** *************

If you equip the RAV4 to match the EX-L with Navi, the Rav will break the 30K price point.

I have shopped the new RAV-4. The interior is very cheap economy car looking. The new CR-V has a very upscale interior now.