Topic: 2019 Toyota Rav4

[Dante]

Got an email from the local Toyota dealer that they have the RAV4. The lady who email me didn't know which trim they have. I'll go check it out tomorrow as I will be at the next door dealership for a service appointment.

[dirtyjeffer]

Got an email from the local Toyota dealer that they have the RAV4. The lady who email me didn't know which trim they have. I'll go check it out tomorrow as I will be at the next door dealership for a service appointment.

one of our local dealers appears to have 6 in stock...three FWD LE...and one each of AWD versions of LE, XLE and Limited.

[Dante]

I checked out the new RAV4 today. They had a LE and and a Limited on the floor and XLE and Trail in the parking lot.

First impressions are a mixed. The Trail front end looks really bulky, truck-ish for sure (as intended) but kind of excessively chiseled for my taste. I can't say I fully dislike it but I don't fully like it either. Probably I can leave with it without really loving it. The rear is a different story. The excessively slopped rear end takes away some of the tougher SUV looks Toyota was after. Not quite liking it to be honest, but again, I can perhaps leave with it.
What I really like though is the tidy and clean under body. No more hanging parts - everything but the exhaust pipe is covered with plastic cladding front to back, for a completely smooth surface with the the exhaust pipe slightly recessed.

The story for me is inside and specifically the rear/cargo space which I'm after in an SUV - kind of disappointing. While the cargo floor has a good depth and width, the floor to ceiling height is notably lower and the slopped hatch makes perhaps 1/3 of the floor space unusable above the window line if you need to carry a big box or stuck up smaller boxes. Also with the rear seats down, you lose again some height with with the backrest on top of the seat bottom plus the bump in the headliner for the sunroof housing. The cargo space in no longer at the top of the class but somewhere in the middle perhaps. I can't honestly see where the 37.5 cu. ft. behind the rear seats is (I guess from the longer cargo floor and slight increase in width). As for the 69.8 cu ft behind the front seats - well, I can see the drop from the previous generation and compared to the CRV.

The rear passenger space feels rather smallish too but usable (not a big issue for me) despite increase on the paper. Not a lot of knee room and more importantly due to low seat bottom, you are sitting with your knees up in a fairly uncomfortable position. The shoulder room is not impressive either. I'm not a big person but when I pulled down the rear armrest I got squished between the armrest and the door as I had to move to the side. I don't think 3 adults my size would fit in the back let alone any kind of comfort. I'm not sure where all the space went, but definitely it felt smaller than I expected and knew older RAV4s were like.

Other interior impressions:
- the front door pockets are laughable and virtually non existent - other than a bottle you can't put much more in there other than really small items like a matchbox and a pack of cards perhaps
- my right knee was rubbing against the center console which is kind of flimsy as it moved and twisted as my knee was pushing against it
- the soft touch material on the top of the doors is kind of flimsy too - it's vinyl with some padding underneath rather than solid soft touch material used by other manufacturers. Sure, better than hard plastic but does not instill high quality too me. I quickly stepped into a Mazda CX-5 next door and the cabin quality feel is remarkable and noticeable.
- the cup holder bottom and other cubbies are hard plastic - no rubberized coating or rubber liners

I would say the cabin quality feel is adequate for the class, but just that. It's still lacking any distinct or special attention to details I was expecting (hopping) for based on the generally glowing reviews of the car,  often emphasizing the bump in the interior quality of the cabin. I'd have to spend more time with one to figure it out, but these are my first impressions from a quick look.
 
 

[G.Bombay]

I checked out the new RAV4 today. They had a LE and and a Limited on the floor and XLE and Trail in the parking lot.

First impressions are a mixed. The Trail front end looks really bulky, truck-ish for sure (as intended) but kind of excessively chiseled for my taste. I can't say I fully dislike it but I don't fully like it either. Probably I can leave with it without really loving it. The rear is a different story. The excessively slopped rear end takes away some of the tougher SUV looks Toyota was after. Not quite liking it to be honest, but again, I can perhaps leave with it.
What I really like though is the tidy and clean under body. No more hanging parts - everything but the exhaust pipe is covered with plastic cladding front to back, for a completely smooth surface with the the exhaust pipe slightly recessed.

The story for me is inside and specifically the rear/cargo space which I'm after in an SUV - kind of disappointing. While the cargo floor has a good depth and width, the floor to ceiling height is notably lower and the slopped hatch makes perhaps 1/3 of the floor space unusable above the window line if you need to carry a big box or stuck up smaller boxes. Also with the rear seats down, you lose again some height with with the backrest on top of the seat bottom plus the bump in the headliner for the sunroof housing. The cargo space in no longer at the top of the class but somewhere in the middle perhaps. I can't honestly see where the 37.5 cu. ft. behind the rear seats is (I guess from the longer cargo floor and slight increase in width). As for the 69.8 cu ft behind the front seats - well, I can see the drop from the previous generation and compared to the CRV.

The rear passenger space feels rather smallish too but usable (not a big issue for me) despite increase on the paper. Not a lot of knee room and more importantly due to low seat bottom, you are sitting with your knees up in a fairly uncomfortable position. The shoulder room is not impressive either. I'm not a big person but when I pulled down the rear armrest I got squished between the armrest and the door as I had to move to the side. I don't think 3 adults my size would fit in the back let alone any kind of comfort. I'm not sure where all the space went, but definitely it felt smaller than I expected and knew older RAV4s were like.

Other interior impressions:
- the front door pockets are laughable and virtually non existent - other than a bottle you can't put much more in there other than really small items like a matchbox and a pack of cards perhaps
- my right knee was rubbing against the center console which is kind of flimsy as it moved and twisted as my knee was pushing against it
- the soft touch material on the top of the doors is kind of flimsy too - it's vinyl with some padding underneath rather than solid soft touch material used by other manufacturers. Sure, better than hard plastic but does not instill high quality too me. I quickly stepped into a Mazda CX-5 next door and the cabin quality feel is remarkable and noticeable.
- the cup holder bottom and other cubbies are hard plastic - no rubberized coating or rubber liners

I would say the cabin quality feel is adequate for the class, but just that. It's still lacking any distinct or special attention to details I was expecting (hopping) for based on the generally glowing reviews of the car,  often emphasizing the bump in the interior quality of the cabin. I'd have to spend more time with one to figure it out, but these are my first impressions from a quick look.

Thanks for sharing your first impressions. I doubt any of the compact SUVs will comfortably fit three adults in the back seat. Maybe a mid size SUV is a better bet to handle larger/taller boxes.  I'm surprised the back seat is tight for knee room. The 2018 Rav I rented fit our rear facing car seat well and I still fit in the passenger seat....rare in the compact class.

[Dante]

Not saying rear seat is tight to the point it's not usable but it felt a bit tighter than what I expected. There was another guy in the car who made a similar comment and he was comparing with the CRV.
I know it's not a Toyota thing, but sliding rear seats are a great feature which only few manufacturers employ. My knees were not rubbing the front seat but I had little clearance.
As for 3 adults in the back, sure thing you are right,  can't expect to fit comfortably,  but I'm questioning if you can even try, unless you put them somehow sideways. I may be wrong, but this is how it felt.
More time needed to figure out but at the first glance something is lost in terms of usable space and versatility from the previous generations.

One other thing I remember....  And a good one... the rear suspension towers take little space from the cargo space ( without the subwoofer)

[Dante]

I think I may have posted this article before, but nevertheless is backing up some of my field observations from my quick walk-around.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/20/toyota-rav4-vs-compact-suvs-comparison/

Note that the leg room, even by the numbers, is one of the smallest in the class. The max cargo space has been published in the meantime and it's listed at 69.8 cu. ft.

However, there is no distinction with/without sunroof which I think it's very important. For example, the class leading max cargo space of Subaru Forester listed in the table at 76.1 cu. ft. (without sunroof) drops to 70.9 cu. ft. with sunroof. Honda and Toyota do not post the numbers with/without sunroof but since they use the same kind of standard sunroof that retracts under the roof which creates a big bump in the headliner, in reality it would be a significant drop in numbers as well (the RAV4 is smaller to begin with).

On a side note, the rear legroom in the RAV4 is even smaller than the CX-5 which I thought it was on the small side.

As noted in the Autoblog article as well, with this redesign, the RAV4 is no longer at the top of the class in terms of rear/cargo space; there is no sugar coating to it and that's a pity.

I feel like ranting a bit at Toyota for screwing up one thing they had right in the previous 2 generations for nothing. Style is not their thing anyway and that excessively raked rear end doesn't do anything for style on what is supposed to be a rugged, utilitarian, truck-ish looking SUV. I really wanted to like this car wholeheartedly now that they fixed/improved/preserved other things important to me in an SUV and I was hopping that they finally built a car I want, just to screw up something that they had right before. I can get over missing features (e.g. heated rear seats) or stuff I don't want (e.g. sunroof) or even being overpriced (I think the Trail trim is overpriced) as these things are somewhat variables and could change through the life-cycle of the vehicle, but the body structure and subsequently rear/cargo space configuration is a constant. Not saying I'm writing it off yet - not many choices out there unfortunately, but even if I end up getting it (as a rational choice), I feel like I will never fully love it. Rant over.

[tortoise]

What's odd is the table in link you posted suggests the Rav4 has one of the largest cargo areas behind the 2nd seat.  Which for most is way more important than cargo space behind the 1st row.

[Dante]

What's odd is the table in link you posted suggests the Rav4 has one of the largest cargo areas behind the 2nd seat.  Which for most is way more important than cargo space behind the 1st row.

You are correct - the cargo area behind the rear seats and up to the window level (or below the cargo cover) is still good and among the biggest in the segment although I would note that the space is more in depth than height (the cargo floor is fairly high most likely to allow for a relatively flat floor when rear seats are folded with the backrest on top of the bottom cushion).
I also agree that this is what I care about 90% of the time, hence I would still consider the RAV4 as a viable option for me.

But there are times (in my case) when I need the volume above the window line and some times behind the front seats. Those would be the times when the drop in cargo space would be felt and I may need to reconsider what I can and cannot do with it. My Outlander was/is a very versatile vehicle through it's life time and I used it for all sort of things - carrying all sort or construction materials for my renovation projects, moving friends and family, camping, etc. It was never one time when I had to carry something with it and I could not do it even when it appeared impossible at the first glance. I don't want to lose any of that versatility with its replacement as much as possible.

It's also matter of principle - I held RAV4 (along with CRV) in high regard as best rear/cargo space in all configurations given the vehicle footprint (don't want to go bigger than this) but with this redesign, I feel like the RAV4 lost some of it for no good reasons (hence my rant).

[johngenx]

I really liked the cargo space in the old RAV with the tire on the door - the space allowed you to really fit a lot of stuff in. But the side opening door is not as nice as a top opening one for people looking to escape the rain/snow at the trailhead, so it's a mixed blessing.

The bummer for people that want to sleep in the car is the old ones didn't have a flat floor. The newer ones are better.

[EV Dan]

Stopped by the local dealer and they had an XLE on the floor. It had fabric seats which were comfortable for me and a power rear gate. The interior was nice and clean and the ute seemed truck-ish inside and out, which is a good thing IMO. I didn't have time for a detailed look but so far didn't find any annoyances. Wonder what the Hybrid Limited price will be like.

[G.Bombay]

What's odd is the table in link you posted suggests the Rav4 has one of the largest cargo areas behind the 2nd seat.  Which for most is way more important than cargo space behind the 1st row.

You are correct - the cargo area behind the rear seats and up to the window level (or below the cargo cover) is still good and among the biggest in the segment although I would note that the space is more in depth than height (the cargo floor is fairly high most likely to allow for a relatively flat floor when rear seats are folded with the backrest on top of the bottom cushion).
I also agree that this is what I care about 90% of the time, hence I would still consider the RAV4 as a viable option for me.

But there are times (in my case) when I need the volume above the window line and some times behind the front seats. Those would be the times when the drop in cargo space would be felt and I may need to reconsider what I can and cannot do with it. My Outlander was/is a very versatile vehicle through it's life time and I used it for all sort of things - carrying all sort or construction materials for my renovation projects, moving friends and family, camping, etc. It was never one time when I had to carry something with it and I could not do it even when it appeared impossible at the first glance. I don't want to lose any of that versatility with its replacement as much as possible.

It's also matter of principle - I held RAV4 (along with CRV) in high regard as best rear/cargo space in all configurations given the vehicle footprint (don't want to go bigger than this) but with this redesign, I feel like the RAV4 lost some of it for no good reasons (hence my rant).

Everything you described in your post reminds me of why I love love love my 4 by 8 utility trailer. I share the trailer with my father as he has better storage for it but honestly I can't justify buying a pickup truck but for the seven or eight times a year I need my trailer.

[PJungnitsch]

Sat in an XLE premium at the local dealer today the first one they've gotten in. Sold already so no test drives. Had a 2018 beside it.

Interior is a big jump in design for me over the old one. More modern and seems bigger inside from the drivers seat, maybe just a lower window line and a more open dash design.
Headroom is ample for me at 5' 9".

Rear seat had tons of room, about 4 inches between my knees and the seat ahead. Has a setting for an upright and a reclined position. The 2018 seemed smaller also in the back, though part of it was the top of the front seat curving back

Cargo area can be reconfigured to drop a couple inches below flush, and the floor can be flipped to textured plastic for hauling dirty stuff

Overall, looks promising.

[ArticSteve]

I was waiting on the 18s for a possible purchase and went to see one yesterday.
I couldn't get the seat far enough back or front raised enough to get any thigh support so unfortunately it's out for me (34 inseam) Other than that it looked like a really well done upgrade over the 18.

Toyota has had a decade to solve the lack of driver seat travel in all their vehicles sans the Avalon.  All that is required is to provide a longer seat rail.  Anyone with a 34 inseam is Toyota doomed.  You can get away with it in the Tundra because of the high seat position.  It's not out there to state that Toyotas have the worst seat cushions in the business.  In their mind if you want better seat buy a Lexus.

 

[dkaz]

I wouldn’t want to be taller than my 6’1”/32” inseam and drive my Sequoia.

[ArticSteve]

Same goes for the Tundra.  All that is needed is a longer seat rail.  It's not like there is a lack of rear seat room in a Tundra Crew to accommodate 2 inch longer rail. It defies logic with a company like Toyota.   

[Serniter]

Is an aftermarket longer rail available?

[Railton]

I was waiting on the 18s for a possible purchase and went to see one yesterday.
I couldn't get the seat far enough back or front raised enough to get any thigh support so unfortunately it's out for me (34 inseam) Other than that it looked like a really well done upgrade over the 18.

So, what's next on the list?
Railton

[ArticSteve]

Is an aftermarket longer rail available?

NO.  Even if you went to the extreme effort/fabrication of moving the rail rearwards, the show stopper are the wiring harnesses that control the air bags et al.

It is just dumb.  I'll get around to a show and shine later, but even on a 2019 MDX which has mucho interior space I could use at least another inch of seat travel to the rear.  Me thinks the D3 do a better job a front leg room although the 2016 Maxima had a published front seat leg room of 45 inches, but it seems shorter.  My 2015 Mustang has a published front seat leg room of 44.5 inches and it's fine.  Height of seat, seat itself, varies results.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Is an aftermarket longer rail available?

NO.  Even if you went to the extreme effort/fabrication of moving the rail rearwards, the show stopper are the wiring harnesses that control the air bags et al.

It is just dumb.  I'll get around to a show and shine later, but even on a 2019 MDX which has mucho interior space I could use at least another inch of seat travel to the rear.  Me thinks the D3 do a better job a front leg room although the 2016 Maxima had a published front seat leg room of 45 inches, but it seems shorter.  My 2015 Mustang has a published front seat leg room of 44.5 inches and it's fine.  Height of seat, seat itself, varies results.

Also FGC have seats that can move back farther

[tortoise]

Yeah. The Golfs seats go waaŕay back.