Seeing a Silver Rav-4 + Silver 2007 CRV EX together

[dejal]

Hoffmans Honda + Toyota in Simsbury CT. has some 2007 CRVs in by the Body Shop.

There was a Silver CRV EX with a Silver Rav4 parked behind it. I don't
believe I'm saying this, but the CRV looks better.

Interior, hand down winner to the CRV. But, then again, I've been in the
Honda family since 1981.

The grill only looks funny in profile. There, you can see the dropoff. Other than that it looks fine to me.

They have a LX and the it looks pretty bad. In photos the lack of chrome
on the grill seems to look better than the EX but in real life it's just not
happening. Also, the EX window tint looks pretty good.


I've been talking myself out of the CRV and toward the Rav4 based on photos and the Rav4 V6.

I would be pulling the trigger next spring, so there's still time to decide.

[CollegeProf]

dejal,
I'm with you-I drove both, looked at both, researched til the "cows came home"-then, bought the silver CRV EX-L this morning! It was tough until I sat in, then drove the CRV on the highway. That sealed it for me! It's to each his own-but I feel really good about my personal decision.
Good luck!

[Redleatherinterior]

I too checked out the RAV4 before buying our CRV EXL AWD. I do believe the RAV4 is a very good example of an outdated SUV. Once you drive the new CRV, the decision is over. My decision by the way was over even before I drove our CRV. The look of the front over the front quarter panel is gorgeous as is how the windshield and entire top swoops back and then down in the rear. Adding that classic 49 Buick Roadmaster side year window is just icing on a quite beautiful cake. Go look at the CRV in person, sit in it, and compare it to the RAV4. Unless you are a "toyota guy" there is no comparison. Kinda shocking really what Honda has done. Considering the first gen S2000 and the latest Civic in really shouldn't be. What a company.

[canon9]

The RAV 4 equipped the way an EXL is will be a couple thousand more money. The availability of a V6 is nice but the is adequate power in my opinion with the four.

[bluewho25]

:?:

[sleeksilver]

X3= Pointless vehicle. People buy those so they can say they have a BMW SUV.

You are right, the interior of the RAV is hideous.... But that is just my opinion :)

[lawrance]

I agree that the RAV4, although new, looks dated. I HATE the tire on the back. - Never liked it on the CR-V either. The interior of the RAV4 is too plasticy for my taste. (That's why I'm looking to trade out of my Element.)

Now if could transplant the RAV4 6 cylider engine into the CR-V, we'd be talking about the ideal vehicle!

[KW Sluggo]

Well as a 10 year CRV owner, it pains me to write this but after numerous test drives of bothe the RAV and the CRV, I must say that the V6 is the better way.

Yes, Honda has more metallic in its paint and yes the dash is nicer (more logical) and yes the back door is better BUT the Honda 4 is marginal with 4 passengers in in it and we noted a breathless quality when taking hills (and no we don't have massive hills around here) so I shudder to think of it on the Penn Pike or in the Tennessee hills on I-75.

The major downfall of the V is the refusal of Honda to put in the 200 HP version of this very engine simply because of a fear of costing the RDX some sales. It is a strange circumstance in that the Japanese car companies criticized Ford, GM and Chryco for having so many multiples of the same vehicle under different names and yet here they all are starting to do the same thing (Scion, Toyota & Lexus, for example).

Then there is the "grade school science project" rear fold down seat that is bettered by the one in my 1997 CRV.

After ten years with a no-torque CRV I am reluctant to sign on for another. The price difference is only about $400 CDN betewwen the CRV-EX and the RAV V6 Sport. The notion of paying $32,400 for a four cylinder car (plus 14% tax) --- even in 85 cent Canuck bucks is hard to take.

I will spend a lot more time driving than loading that rear hatch and while I prefer the CRV dash, I won't miss the black door handles or the fact that the awd cannot be locked on at low speeds.

I haven't bought yet but it does not look promising for the V no matter how old fashioned the wheel on the back may look on the RAV. That CRV spare tire is no thing of beauty either.

[sleeksilver]

The CRV will NEVER get a V6, it will always be a 4 cylinder. It might receive a version of the TSXs motor tuned for truck duty or it might get a detuned version of the RDX's motor.

Have fun with that RAV and the great interior that goes along with it! :lol:

[chrisk_352]

I kind of agree with KW Sluggo. But before we go anywhere, I did buy 07 CR-V EX-L with Navigation over RAV4. One of the reason was size. I wanted compact so I bout a smaller of the two.

You talk about price, V6 RAV with all the options that EX-L have are equivalent in price. 2007 CR-V EX-L was priced similar to 2007 RAV4 Limited 4dr SUV 4WD (3.5L 6cyl 5A). I was very tempted to go with RAV4 other than for it's size. I am very happy with my CR-V right now, however, I went to Lake Tahoe for skiing over the weekend and it was hard pressed with 4 cyclinder. It couldn't pass anything going up hill so end up following 18 wheelers in the right lane. While the V6 RAV4's doesn't seems to have this problem (I could see them passing me). Just my 2 cents worth.

If CR-V will never get V6, they should consider using RDX's 2.3L Turbo Charged engine or something similar to Acura TSX that's got standard 2.4L (4 cyclinder) engine that provides 210 HP.

[bumpzter]

I also agree with Sluggo. Except, I would not buy another vehicle with that type of that back door. I hate it on my CR-V. If the RAV4 would have a hatch, there would be one in my driveway. No doubt.

[lawrance]

On paper, I like the CR-V. Sitting in the two in each respective showroom, I like the CR-V. After taking both vehicles for a test drive, no contest. The RAV4 V6 is superior to the CR-V. I was quite surprised by the outcome. As the owner of an Element, I'm looking to get a vehicle with carpet, less wind noise, and some heated leather seats and steering wheel radio controls. I first drove the CR-V and was very surprised how much it felt like my Element. Steering and suspension were almost identical. The wind noise was not much better either. Brakes however are superior! Really nice and sensitive. After my letdown, I went straight to the Toyota dealer less than a mile away. I told the salesman I wanted to drive the 6 cylider RAV4 and after a very disappointing test drive, learned it was the 4 cyclider. He then dug up a 6 and off we went. WOW! What a difference. Sportscar FAST. (I used to own an MR2 Turbo, so yes I have a legitimate comparison.) The interior is much quieter, the supension is much better in that it absorbs bumps better, yet still has a very sporty feel to it. The back seats fold flat into the floor, and the POWER seat was easy to adjust as needed. The Optitron backlit dashbord was a pleasant surprise as well. I don't like the interior as much as the CRV, and I definately don't like the back door/tire setup as well, but those are well worth overlooking for the overall driving experience. Sorry guys, but you have to drive the two back to back to make your decision. For me it bacame very easy.

[TMQ]

CR-V Gen3 still sells well, so it might be hard for Honda to stuff a more powerful engine in there.

However, Honda continues to deny people the options. This will be a problem sooner or later (see some of Acura's vehicles). Why don't they put the turbo in CR-V? yeah because if they do, RDX sale will be even more dismal. That's some really bad planning by Honda - turbo 4 shouldn't be in a near luxury SUV. On the other hand, Honda Pilot's engine isn't that far off from Gen 1 MDX, yet MDX has sold quite well.

the new CR-V is nice, but I still can't believe that Honda doesn't give it more bump in power, or offer a V6 option, given what the competition is doing.

By the way, RAV4 is now on the Car and Driver 5 best truck list.