Author Topic: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD  (Read 21837 times)

Offline Autos_Editor

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Carma: +91/-560
  • member
    • View Profile
Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« on: June 21, 2013, 06:30:39 am »


Bring the RAVindeed! Bring the driver and a strong back, too' Having access to a useful vehicle like the RAV4 is clearly a way to meet new people and keep fit, as Paul Williams discovers in the 2013 RAV4 XLE FWD.

Read More...

Offline Solstice2006

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 12681
  • Carma: +245/-468
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 Hyundai Entourage, 2007 Buick Lucerne
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2013, 07:07:48 am »
I like this RAV4 more than the Escape, and the previous generation RAV4.  If you need a V6, get a bigger vehicle.  Toyota is just following the trend of CUV's and not offering a V6.  I agree the power available for the size of vehicle is more than adequate.  But it crosses it off the list for anybody wanting to tow something small (1500lbs vs the 3500lbs on the V6).  The details are nice on the Toyota, too bad you have to get the XLE for better cloth and dash materials...I agree the fuel economy of 8.2 average is good, but hardly stellar.  Keeps up with the pack of the CRV, the CX-5, and the Escape with 1.6L.  Heck I am lead foot on the Mazda5, with the old 2.3L and average about 8.7L. 

Offline hemusbull

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
  • Carma: +15/-153
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2013, 07:08:19 am »
Really excellent vehicle with the best fuel efficiency! Made here, in Ontario!

Offline Danno001

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Carma: +13/-45
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2013, 08:00:43 am »
I agree the fuel economy of 8.2 average is good, but hardly stellar.  Keeps up with the pack of the CRV, the CX-5, and the Escape with 1.6L.  Heck I am lead foot on the Mazda5, with the old 2.3L and average about 8.7L.

The RAV4 on this long term test handily beats the 2013 Escape Km/L as tracked on fuelly.com buy about 20%. Stellar by any measure.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/escape/2013

Offline Solstice2006

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 12681
  • Carma: +245/-468
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 Hyundai Entourage, 2007 Buick Lucerne
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2013, 08:16:33 am »
I agree the fuel economy of 8.2 average is good, but hardly stellar.  Keeps up with the pack of the CRV, the CX-5, and the Escape with 1.6L.  Heck I am lead foot on the Mazda5, with the old 2.3L and average about 8.7L.

The RAV4 on this long term test handily beats the 2013 Escape Km/L as tracked on fuelly.com buy about 20%. Stellar by any measure.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/escape/2013

Fuelly is great, but the Ford Escape has 3 different powertrains, and its hard to filter which ones are using the 1.6L, and of those, which aren't using AWD.  A few I see, shows in the 8.7 range.

As per the Day to Day review, Justin gets an average of 9.8L when driven fast.  Some cars are less forgivable when driven fast.

Quote
On my trip to Montreal, I used major highways and set the cruise for 118 km/h; fuel consumption was, again, 9.8L/100 km. On the return voyage, I wasn’t in a hurry, so I set the cruise for 108 km/h, and the result just proves how much of a difference 10 km/h can make: this time, I averaged 8.3 L/100 km! Proving, once again, it’s not the ratings but drivers themselves that make a huge difference when it comes to fuel economy

Offline Danno001

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Carma: +13/-45
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 08:37:35 am »
I agree the fuel economy of 8.2 average is good, but hardly stellar.  Keeps up with the pack of the CRV, the CX-5, and the Escape with 1.6L.  Heck I am lead foot on the Mazda5, with the old 2.3L and average about 8.7L.

The RAV4 on this long term test handily beats the 2013 Escape Km/L as tracked on fuelly.com buy about 20%. Stellar by any measure.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/escape/2013

Fuelly is great, but the Ford Escape has 3 different powertrains, and its hard to filter which ones are using the 1.6L, and of those, which aren't using AWD.  A few I see, shows in the 8.7 range.

As per the Day to Day review, Justin gets an average of 9.8L when driven fast.  Some cars are less forgivable when driven fast.

Quote
On my trip to Montreal, I used major highways and set the cruise for 118 km/h; fuel consumption was, again, 9.8L/100 km. On the return voyage, I wasn’t in a hurry, so I set the cruise for 108 km/h, and the result just proves how much of a difference 10 km/h can make: this time, I averaged 8.3 L/100 km! Proving, once again, it’s not the ratings but drivers themselves that make a huge difference when it comes to fuel economy

Agreed on the filtering, but the 400,000 plus Kms speaks for a large pool and shows me the eco-boost is an EPA play - nothing more. Real world fuel economy s_cks.

As for highway speeds, all vehicles use more and SUVs use even more at higher speeds due to their greater drag. My 2013 Sonata returns 5.9 / 100kms at 100 Kph, and 6.6 at 120 Kph. No surprise. I am a fan of a solid proven powertrain that does not need DI or turbos to return excellent fuel economy.

Offline hemusbull

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
  • Carma: +15/-153
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 08:42:11 am »
I agree the fuel economy of 8.2 average is good, but hardly stellar.  Keeps up with the pack of the CRV, the CX-5, and the Escape with 1.6L.  Heck I am lead foot on the Mazda5, with the old 2.3L and average about 8.7L.

The RAV4 on this long term test handily beats the 2013 Escape Km/L as tracked on fuelly.com buy about 20%. Stellar by any measure.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/escape/2013

Fuelly is great, but the Ford Escape has 3 different powertrains, and its hard to filter which ones are using the 1.6L, and of those, which aren't using AWD.  A few I see, shows in the 8.7 range.

As per the Day to Day review, Justin gets an average of 9.8L when driven fast.  Some cars are less forgivable when driven fast.

Quote
On my trip to Montreal, I used major highways and set the cruise for 118 km/h; fuel consumption was, again, 9.8L/100 km. On the return voyage, I wasn’t in a hurry, so I set the cruise for 108 km/h, and the result just proves how much of a difference 10 km/h can make: this time, I averaged 8.3 L/100 km! Proving, once again, it’s not the ratings but drivers themselves that make a huge difference when it comes to fuel economy

Agreed on the filtering, but the 400,000 plus Kms speaks for a large pool and shows me the eco-boost is an EPA play - nothing more. Real world fuel economy s_cks.

As for highway speeds, all vehicles use more and SUVs use even more at higher speeds due to their greater drag. My 2013 Sonata returns 5.9 / 100kms at 100 Kph, and 6.6 at 120 Kph. No surprise. I am a fan of a solid proven powertrain that does not need DI or turbos to return excellent fuel economy.

Isn't 2013 Sonata DI engine?

Offline Danno001

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 513
  • Carma: +13/-45
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 08:57:06 am »

Isn't 2013 Sonata DI engine?

10-4

The 25,700 OTR price for the GLS with 0.9% 5 year financing "forced" me to overlook the DI technology. I have a catch can on order. The Camry SE I was cross shopping would have been almost $5,000 more over the same time period.

Offline Spheric

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 490
  • Carma: +8/-12
    • View Profile
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 09:44:51 am »
Good review.

Definitely makes you question the need for AWD in a vehicle like this, especially if already equipped with decent winter tires.

Offline JRM

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
  • Carma: +22/-94
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2014 VW Passat TSI, 2004 Pontiac Vibe AWD
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2013, 10:10:17 am »
Good review.

Definitely makes you question the need for AWD in a vehicle like this, especially if already equipped with decent winter tires.

+1

Offline Sir Osis of Liver

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 28596
  • Carma: +1376/-1726
  • Gender: Male
  • Ramblin' man
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2017 KTM DUKE 390, 2019 VW Jetta GLI 35th Anniversary
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2013, 10:20:17 am »
I'd never buy an SUV/CUV without AWD. It's like buying non-alcoholic beer.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

H. L. Mencken

Offline johngenx

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 33318
  • Carma: +758/-938
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2009 Toyota Corolla, 2004 Toyota Highlander V-6 4WD, 2001 Subaru Forester, 1994 Mazda Miata
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2013, 10:28:37 am »
I'd never buy an SUV/CUV without AWD.

Me neither.  But, I suppose with them being the modern station-wagon, I can see people living places with no snow or easy winter driving conditions wanting the cargo space and high seating position without the added cost of the AWD system.

In Alberta (and Sask?) a FWD CUV is something you'll have a terrible time reselling.  Highlanders sell very quickly unless they're FWD models.

Offline tooscoops

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 9526
  • Carma: +325/-227
  • Gender: Male
  • "stealership" employee
    • View Profile
  • Cars: '75 AMC Pacer, '70 Morgan 4/4, '21 Pacifica Hybrid, '21 Wrangler Rubicon
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2013, 10:38:26 am »
decent machine... i'm looking forward to selling the new cherokee so that i finally have something that will at least compete... i can honestly say we haven't had anything i would sell a friend if they were cross shopping a rav or even crv...

i find the styling quite... unmotivated, let's say. but so is 90% of the market and 95% of yota offerings. so nothing that sets it back from the pack there.

overall decent machine that doesn't give you a whole lot of reasons to not include it if you are shopping for a good cargo/people hauler.

as for the review mentioning the whole "bring the rav"... just imagine if you get long term testers in full sized trucks. you'll have a second job!
i used to be addicted to soap, but i'm clean now

Northernridge

  • Guest
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2013, 11:13:54 am »
Can't decide if this is good value or not. On the one hand it's a good quality 32k smallish CUV...on the other it's a tall FWD wagon with mid-level equipment. The same money buys a loaded 4cyl. mid-sized car from Honda, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, etc. folding down the rear seat in one of these offers lots of cargo space. Seems that this flavour of RAV4 comes down to the tall driving position, the hatch and tall rear cargo hold...and the desire to own a CUV.

Offline Solstice2006

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 12681
  • Carma: +245/-468
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 Hyundai Entourage, 2007 Buick Lucerne
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2013, 11:20:06 am »
Can't decide if this is good value or not. On the one hand it's a good quality 32k smallish CUV...on the other it's a tall FWD wagon with mid-level equipment. The same money buys a loaded 4cyl. mid-sized car from Honda, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, etc. folding down the rear seat in one of these offers lots of cargo space. Seems that this flavour of RAV4 comes down to the tall driving position, the hatch and tall rear cargo hold...and the desire to own a CUV.

Yeah but that's not unique to the Rav4, basically and FWD CUV.... Bring back the normal wagons!  These CUVs hit the target of so many, many older folks like to sit high, young families don't want a van, and get these things, etc...

Offline Vanstar

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Carma: +40/-236
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 Acura TL, 2015 Kia Rio5
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2013, 11:32:43 am »
A great car for the money, the modern station wagon. It is also interesting to see how the real world fuel economy is actually better with the larger, naturally aspirated engine than the competitor's turbo. For anyone wishing to keep their car past warranty, the lack of turbo and the lower up-front cost is a real consideration. My fleet experience has given me a rather low opinion of turbos but others may not agree, of course, but if you want to keep or drive a ten year old car, a naturally aspirated motor is a better buy in my opinion.

Toyota pricing is also highly competitive. They have mass production down better than any other company. The trade off, of course, is a lack of variety in their cars, for example the few colours available, but they are not the only company doing this.

This is a car I would recommend without hesitation to anyone I know.
I'd never join a group that would have me as a member.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 35347
  • Carma: +1423/-2113
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2022 Honda Ridgeline, 2021 Lexus GX460, 2018 Kawasaki Versys X300
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2013, 12:40:26 pm »
I'd never buy an SUV/CUV without AWD.

Me neither.  But, I suppose with them being the modern station-wagon, I can see people living places with no snow or easy winter driving conditions wanting the cargo space and high seating position without the added cost of the AWD system.

In Alberta (and Sask?) a FWD CUV is something you'll have a terrible time reselling.  Highlanders sell very quickly unless they're FWD models.

Absolutely...a FWD CUV here is pretty well a lot decoration for most dealers. I agree with Sir Osis....a lot like non-alcoholic beer.
Lighten up Francis.....

Offline Solstice2006

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 12681
  • Carma: +245/-468
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2008 Hyundai Entourage, 2007 Buick Lucerne
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2013, 12:55:18 pm »
Never looked into the savings potential, buy a FWD in Alberta, which may get a better bargain since they don't sell as well, pay less tax, and bring to the GTA area where I don't need AWD.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 35347
  • Carma: +1423/-2113
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2022 Honda Ridgeline, 2021 Lexus GX460, 2018 Kawasaki Versys X300
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2013, 01:01:05 pm »
Never looked into the savings potential, buy a FWD in Alberta, which may get a better bargain since they don't sell as well, pay less tax, and bring to the GTA area where I don't need AWD.

Thats not a bad idea actually, the number of FWD CUVs Ive seen I can literally count on one hand though, might be tough to find.

Offline LoveToDrive

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Carma: +3/-3
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 Mazda 3, 2014 Acura RDX
Re: Long-Term Test Wrap-up: 2013 Toyota RAV4 XLE FWD
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2013, 01:13:02 pm »
Test drove a 2014 CX-5 which I liked, but I overlooked this one.

I think about the only thing this has over the Mazda is noticeable better cargo and rear seat (maybe ?) room.   Aside from that, I find the CX-5 interior higher quality, supposedly better driving dynamics, higher output motor (2.5 SkyActiv) with better fuel economy.  And I think the 40/20/40 split rear seat's flexibility perhaps offsets the slightly larger cargo capacity of the RAV4.

Am I missing any other pluses for the Toyota ?