Topic: First Drive: 2016 Toyota RAV4

[Autos_Editor]

Powering popularity.
Read More...

[dirtyjeffer]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

[Danno001]

Fearless prediction that the XLE AWD will be the most popular trim, with Toyota pricing it to be competitive. Prices rise rapidly in the higher trim levels.

With Honda worsening the fuel economy ratings for the 2016 CRV, it makes the 2016 RAV4 more competitive. Worse fuel economy a result of the fix for the "idling vibration" issue for the 2015 CRV. All kinds of post on forums on this issue.

[safristi]

Wow a 4.1 inch screen..for Smurfs and that front end is "TO DIE" for   NOT...better value elsewhere.
and I 'm a hometown built here fella

[ChaosphereIX]

ugh

[drive67]

Fearless prediction that the XLE AWD will be the most popular trim, with Toyota pricing it to be competitive. Prices rise rapidly in the higher trim levels.

With Honda worsening the fuel economy ratings for the 2016 CRV, it makes the 2016 RAV4 more competitive. Worse fuel economy a result of the fix for the "idling vibration" issue for the 2015 CRV. All kinds of post on forums on this issue.

I find the Rav4 more truck like solid feel while the CRV car like low down faster in the corners. I would think buyers would go for what they like before the 1L/ per 100km difference.

[Noto]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

My first thought when I read this is that I could get a loaded WRX for less than this thing...and it'll hold resale the same or better.  Kia cannot be said to be anywhere near that playing field.

Beyond responding to the needless comment above, the 2016 Rav4 changes seem to all be in the right direction.  Whereas the loaded hybrid variant is $42,000 before freight/PDI, making it hella expensive, the Hybrid Limited without TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome :|  Toyota needs to rethink this acronym) is actually a very nice bargain.  For those who think they can drive themselves without aids, it's a $765 'upgrade' from the Rav4 Limited to the Hybrid Limited.  Better fuel economy AND performance.  Win-win for a not-so-big pricetag.

Then again, I like these driving aids, so I would likely shell out for them.  BUT, whereas Subaru's EyeSight and Honda's HS are ~$1,000-$1,300 options, charging $2,675 for the system is robbery.

The manufacturer doesn’t quote a hybrid torque figure, but it’s safe to say it’s more than the gas model’s 172 lb-ft, given the torquey nature of electric motors.

I actually have a problem with this statement.

Take, for example, the Ford hybrid system, where the max Torque figure is posted - Despite the 188hp, it only produces 126lb-ft of torque.

Electric motors are not necessarily "torque-rich;" they simply produce maximum torque at 0 rpm.

The reason why Toyota doesn't list max torque is because it is dependent on which motors are working and when.  The situations vary, and as such, max torque is sort of an obtuse figure in such a system.  That, and placing the system on a dyno would be difficult as the rear motor would likely shut down mid-run.

The RX400h has been around since 2006 and was the first to utilize the eAWD set-up.  Good luck finding a single dyno chart of one that is AWD (the FWD cars can be dyno'd).

[mixmanmash]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

My first thought when I read this is that I could get a loaded WRX for less than this thing...and it'll hold resale the same or better.  Kia cannot be said to be anywhere near that playing field.

Beyond responding to the needless comment above, the 2016 Rav4 changes seem to all be in the right direction.  Whereas the loaded hybrid variant is $42,000 before freight/PDI, making it hella expensive, the Hybrid Limited without TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome :|  Toyota needs to rethink this acronym) is actually a very nice bargain.  For those who think they can drive themselves without aids, it's a $765 'upgrade' from the Rav4 Limited to the Hybrid Limited.  Better fuel economy AND performance.  Win-win for a not-so-big pricetag.

Then again, I like these driving aids, so I would likely shell out for them.  BUT, whereas Subaru's EyeSight and Honda's HS are ~$1,000-$1,300 options, charging $2,675 for the system is robbery.

The manufacturer doesn’t quote a hybrid torque figure, but it’s safe to say it’s more than the gas model’s 172 lb-ft, given the torquey nature of electric motors.

I actually have a problem with this statement.

Take, for example, the Ford hybrid system, where the max Torque figure is posted - Despite the 188hp, it only produces 126lb-ft of torque.

Electric motors are not necessarily "torque-rich;" they simply produce maximum torque at 0 rpm.

The reason why Toyota doesn't list max torque is because it is dependent on which motors are working and when.  The situations vary, and as such, max torque is sort of an obtuse figure in such a system.  That, and placing the system on a dyno would be difficult as the rear motor would likely shut down mid-run.

The RX400h has been around since 2006 and was the first to utilize the eAWD set-up.  Good luck finding a single dyno chart of one that is AWD (the FWD cars can be dyno'd).

You can dyno them.  On a AWD dyno that has both rollers connected together.

[Noto]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

My first thought when I read this is that I could get a loaded WRX for less than this thing...and it'll hold resale the same or better.  Kia cannot be said to be anywhere near that playing field.

Beyond responding to the needless comment above, the 2016 Rav4 changes seem to all be in the right direction.  Whereas the loaded hybrid variant is $42,000 before freight/PDI, making it hella expensive, the Hybrid Limited without TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome :|  Toyota needs to rethink this acronym) is actually a very nice bargain.  For those who think they can drive themselves without aids, it's a $765 'upgrade' from the Rav4 Limited to the Hybrid Limited.  Better fuel economy AND performance.  Win-win for a not-so-big pricetag.

Then again, I like these driving aids, so I would likely shell out for them.  BUT, whereas Subaru's EyeSight and Honda's HS are ~$1,000-$1,300 options, charging $2,675 for the system is robbery.

The manufacturer doesn’t quote a hybrid torque figure, but it’s safe to say it’s more than the gas model’s 172 lb-ft, given the torquey nature of electric motors.

I actually have a problem with this statement.

Take, for example, the Ford hybrid system, where the max Torque figure is posted - Despite the 188hp, it only produces 126lb-ft of torque.

Electric motors are not necessarily "torque-rich;" they simply produce maximum torque at 0 rpm.

The reason why Toyota doesn't list max torque is because it is dependent on which motors are working and when.  The situations vary, and as such, max torque is sort of an obtuse figure in such a system.  That, and placing the system on a dyno would be difficult as the rear motor would likely shut down mid-run.

The RX400h has been around since 2006 and was the first to utilize the eAWD set-up.  Good luck finding a single dyno chart of one that is AWD (the FWD cars can be dyno'd).

You can dyno them.  On a AWD dyno that has both rollers connected together.

...but the HSD system will kick off the rear motor.  It won't just spin.  It's not a problem with the dyno, it's a problem with the hybrid synergy drive.

[Ex-airbalancer]

When does the Hybrid go on sale ?

[mixmanmash]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

My first thought when I read this is that I could get a loaded WRX for less than this thing...and it'll hold resale the same or better.  Kia cannot be said to be anywhere near that playing field.

Beyond responding to the needless comment above, the 2016 Rav4 changes seem to all be in the right direction.  Whereas the loaded hybrid variant is $42,000 before freight/PDI, making it hella expensive, the Hybrid Limited without TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome :|  Toyota needs to rethink this acronym) is actually a very nice bargain.  For those who think they can drive themselves without aids, it's a $765 'upgrade' from the Rav4 Limited to the Hybrid Limited.  Better fuel economy AND performance.  Win-win for a not-so-big pricetag.

Then again, I like these driving aids, so I would likely shell out for them.  BUT, whereas Subaru's EyeSight and Honda's HS are ~$1,000-$1,300 options, charging $2,675 for the system is robbery.

The manufacturer doesn’t quote a hybrid torque figure, but it’s safe to say it’s more than the gas model’s 172 lb-ft, given the torquey nature of electric motors.

I actually have a problem with this statement.

Take, for example, the Ford hybrid system, where the max Torque figure is posted - Despite the 188hp, it only produces 126lb-ft of torque.

Electric motors are not necessarily "torque-rich;" they simply produce maximum torque at 0 rpm.

The reason why Toyota doesn't list max torque is because it is dependent on which motors are working and when.  The situations vary, and as such, max torque is sort of an obtuse figure in such a system.  That, and placing the system on a dyno would be difficult as the rear motor would likely shut down mid-run.

The RX400h has been around since 2006 and was the first to utilize the eAWD set-up.  Good luck finding a single dyno chart of one that is AWD (the FWD cars can be dyno'd).

You can dyno them.  On a AWD dyno that has both rollers connected together.

...but the HSD system will kick off the rear motor.  It won't just spin.  It's not a problem with the dyno, it's a problem with the hybrid synergy drive.

Which is fine if it turns of the motor.  The rear roller will still spin at the same speed as the front.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Writing about torq of  a CUV is like  arguing about fuel-efficient of a pick up 

You only do it if you are bored 

[JRM]

I like the revised front and rear styling.  To me it now looks better than the CX5.  The CRV, on the other hand, just keeps getting uglier with each refresh.

[Noto]

...but the HSD system will kick off the rear motor.  It won't just spin.  It's not a problem with the dyno, it's a problem with the hybrid synergy drive.

Which is fine if it turns of the motor.  The rear roller will still spin at the same speed as the front.

...except it won't be an accurate depiction of the power output capability because the non-defeatable VDC will kick in.

[dirtyjeffer]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

of course it has, but i don't think the exterior dimensions are THAT much larger (but yes, still larger)...my comment was more about the similar comparison in pricing, and was curious how many might simply choose the Sorento, which seems to be regarded as more premium (from many of the journalists who review it).

also of note, as most people finance, the max term on the RAV4 is 72 months and the rate is 3.99% (AWD Limited trim)...that means a payment of $695.68 all-in (or a total price of $50,088.96)...in comparison, the Sorento EX trim is $582.95 all-in for the same 72 months (but you can do 84 months at 0% too, which would bring your payment down to $499.68 all-in)...the Sorento EX would be $41,972.40 in total, or a whopping $8116.56 more expensive.

regarding resale, sure, the RAV-4 will likely be worth more after 6 years of ownership (% of initial price), but it should be...it cost you $8k more to buy.

[Noto]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

of course it has, but i don't think the exterior dimensions are THAT much larger (but yes, still larger)...my comment was more about the similar comparison in pricing, and was curious how many might simply choose the Sorento, which seems to be regarded as more premium (from many of the journalists who review it).

also of note, as most people finance, the max term on the RAV4 is 72 months and the rate is 3.99% (AWD Limited trim)...that means a payment of $695.68 all-in (or a total price of $50,088.96)...in comparison, the Sorento EX trim is $582.95 all-in for the same 72 months (but you can do 84 months at 0% too, which would bring your payment down to $499.68 all-in)...the Sorento EX would be $41,972.40 in total, or a whopping $8116.56 more expensive.

regarding resale, sure, the RAV-4 will likely be worth more after 6 years of ownership (% of initial price), but it should be...it cost you $8k more to buy.

...and that's the reason why people are upside-down major! 

[Danno001]

the upper trims seem nicely equipped, but they're pretty much the same price as the larger and more powerful Sorento.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some people don't want larger?  And with more power comes more fuel consumed - I'd like to see the Sorento in any guise get 6.9L/100km in the city (to Kia's credit, I'd also like to see the Rav4 get this...in the city, the Corolla does in the mid-7s, so that would be great for an 'AWD' (well, FWD unless there's slippage) vehicle).

of course it has, but i don't think the exterior dimensions are THAT much larger (but yes, still larger)...my comment was more about the similar comparison in pricing, and was curious how many might simply choose the Sorento, which seems to be regarded as more premium (from many of the journalists who review it).

also of note, as most people finance, the max term on the RAV4 is 72 months and the rate is 3.99% (AWD Limited trim)...that means a payment of $695.68 all-in (or a total price of $50,088.96)...in comparison, the Sorento EX trim is $582.95 all-in for the same 72 months (but you can do 84 months at 0% too, which would bring your payment down to $499.68 all-in)...the Sorento EX would be $41,972.40 in total, or a whopping $8116.56 more expensive.

regarding resale, sure, the RAV-4 will likely be worth more after 6 years of ownership (% of initial price), but it should be...it cost you $8k more to buy.

That's why I couldn't justify a Camry over a Sonata - over the 5 year term, the Camry was $5,000 more, with the Sonata having better option level. I keep my vehicles for at least 8 years, so that $5,000 gap would never be overcome on resale values.

[tooscoops]

no-san is right on there... everyone thinks they keep their cars forever... some on here might, but most never do. i see them in four years when a new model comes out, the first big bill comes up on their car, or their life changes in a way where they need something different...

people will look over the whole term and think what they saved, but a 0% loan over 7 years doesn't matter as much when you only keep it 3-4 years... you are "wasting" 3-4 years worth of "free" money... like jeffer noted the 6 year term for toyota... if you buy it out after 4 years, what do ya know! those last 2 years were also 0%! heh...

i think these are priced pretty darn well respectively. as long as they are as reliable as previous and hold their value similarly, it is hard to put them against anything else...

and to compare it to the sorento... i don't know... i just wouldn't. i would expect to pay more for the toyota.

cars, you get what you pay for... if a car is less money but has more features on the surface, it's those items under the surface that were cheaped out on... and those are what i care about.

[Noto]

no-san is right on there... everyone thinks they keep their cars forever... some on here might, but most never do. i see them in four years when a new model comes out, the first big bill comes up on their car, or their life changes in a way where they need something different...

people will look over the whole term and think what they saved, but a 0% loan over 7 years doesn't matter as much when you only keep it 3-4 years... you are "wasting" 3-4 years worth of "free" money... like jeffer noted the 6 year term for toyota... if you buy it out after 4 years, what do ya know! those last 2 years were also 0%! heh...

i think these are priced pretty darn well respectively. as long as they are as reliable as previous and hold their value similarly, it is hard to put them against anything else...

and to compare it to the sorento... i don't know... i just wouldn't. i would expect to pay more for the toyota.

cars, you get what you pay for... if a car is less money but has more features on the surface, it's those items under the surface that were cheaped out on... and those are what i care about.

[mixmanmash]

...but the HSD system will kick off the rear motor.  It won't just spin.  It's not a problem with the dyno, it's a problem with the hybrid synergy drive.

Which is fine if it turns of the motor.  The rear roller will still spin at the same speed as the front.

...except it won't be an accurate depiction of the power output capability because the non-defeatable VDC will kick in.

No it won't because the rear wheels will be spinning at the same rate as the front.