Rav4 vs Forester
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
I just don't trust a CVT. Get a conventional transmission if you want to get some miles out of it imo
Originally Posted by klt1986
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
Cx5 does amazing in snow, but offroad the subaru is better. Cx5 kills everything on pavement and is the most refined and quietest. With the turbo motor, its a beast comparatively.
I wouldn't own a subaru with a cvt. Friends forester 2.0xt died at less than 90k miles.
I chose the cx5 turbo. By far the fastest, gets great mileage, for me far better than sticker says (my lifetime avg. Is 25mpg including having some fun right after break in, 0-60's, whatnot.). Handling is amazing, etc.etc
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
Cx5 does amazing in snow, but offroad the subaru is better. Cx5 kills everything on pavement and is the most refined and quietest. With the turbo motor, its a beast comparatively.
I wouldn't own a subaru with a cvt. Friends forester 2.0xt died at less than 90k miles.
I chose the cx5 turbo. By far the fastest, gets great mileage, for me far better than sticker says (my lifetime avg. Is 25mpg including having some fun right after break in, 0-60's, whatnot.). Handling is amazing, etc.etc
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by klt1986
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
Cx5 does amazing in snow, but offroad the subaru is better. Cx5 kills everything on pavement and is the most refined and quietest. With the turbo motor, its a beast comparatively.
I wouldn't own a subaru with a cvt. Friends forester 2.0xt died at less than 90k miles.
I chose the cx5 turbo. By far the fastest, gets great mileage, for me far better than sticker says (my lifetime avg. Is 25mpg including having some fun right after break in, 0-60's, whatnot.). Handling is amazing, etc.etc
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
Originally Posted by klt1986
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
The RAV went back yesterday since Busam Subaru was done with the Forester.
The Forester came back with good, even panel gaps and good paint match, so all is well.
We did about 700 miles in the Toy and it kind of grew on me for the 300 miles that I drove it.
Ride isn't as good as that offered by the Forester, which has soft, long travel suspension, but not really that bad.
Noise level is higher and the many speed tranny sometimes seemed unable to settle on which gear to use, but overall the powertrain was pretty decent and fuel economy was very good. We put a total of only twenty two gallons in it, so certainly as good as the Forester if laughable as compared to our Accord Hybrid.
Looking around, you can also buy a RAV for thousands less than a Forester, so the RAV may be a compelling value, although we feel having driven both that the Forester was worth what we paid for it.
There were in this thread the usual uniformed comments about Subarus in general, to which I would respond that those posters should have a look at my sig.
We have two Foresters, both bought new, so we didn't exactly just fall off the turnip truck when it comes to the Subaru ownership experience. These are solid cars that hold up well.
Comparing a '17 Forester to an old American car is laughable, and I write that having owned and driven old American cars.
I thought RAV4 is CVT?
The upcoming Rav4 Hybrid will have a CVT.
Wife and I will be in the market for a new vehicle within a year and will certainly consider the Forester, Rav4, CR-V, & CX5. May also consider the Tiguan but the closest dealer is 40 miles away and I'm a bit concerned about the long term reliability compared to the Toyota, Honda, Subaru, and Mazda.
I know the VW and Subaru have better AWD systems but we do not get a lot of snow here. Our current 2008 CR-V has never had an issue in the winter and I run an all season tire year round.
Cx5 does amazing in snow, but offroad the subaru is better. Cx5 kills everything on pavement and is the most refined and quietest. With the turbo motor, its a beast comparatively.
I wouldn't own a subaru with a cvt. Friends forester 2.0xt died at less than 90k miles.
I chose the cx5 turbo. By far the fastest, gets great mileage, for me far better than sticker says (my lifetime avg. Is 25mpg including having some fun right after break in, 0-60's, whatnot.). Handling is amazing, etc.etc
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
To have a grade of 27% over a run of 350' you would need a rise of ~100'. Clearly that's not the case so something is amiss. Your photo suggest something like a 3 -> 5:1 vehicle/crest ratio depending how far away from the base you're parked. 16 to 25 feet rise? There must be a severe slope change or distance error in your run to explain this. Photos can be deceiving.
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/03/full-73532-31293-ws6_tires.png "[Linked Image]")
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
Originally Posted by edyvw
It was muddy incline. Actually in winter he had a sign that said: do not come down if driving on summer tires or Hankook and Kumho snows.
Uh-huh--your mechanic made a sign listing what tires may and may not pass on his road. Right.
It was muddy incline. Actually in winter he had a sign that said: do not come down if driving on summer tires or Hankook and Kumho snows.
Uh-huh--your mechanic made a sign listing what tires may and may not pass on his road. Right.
Originally Posted by Corollaman
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
It will, this is true, but it will also suck to drive in comparison. It depends on what you are going to value. Owning the car...or getting rid of it.
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
It will, this is true, but it will also suck to drive in comparison. It depends on what you are going to value. Owning the car...or getting rid of it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Leo99
Originally Posted by Ws6
I just don't trust a CVT. Get a conventional transmission if you want to get some miles out of it imo
Not all CVT are the same.
The one in the forester isn't something I trust. Only know one guy who kept one any length of time, and it died at around the late 80K range.
Originally Posted by Ws6
I just don't trust a CVT. Get a conventional transmission if you want to get some miles out of it imo
Not all CVT are the same.
The one in the forester isn't something I trust. Only know one guy who kept one any length of time, and it died at around the late 80K range.
Originally Posted by ndfergy
To have a grade of 27% over a run of 350' you would need a rise of ~100'. Clearly that's not the case so something is amiss. Your photo suggest something like a 3 -> 5:1 vehicle/crest ratio depending how far away from the base you're parked. 16 to 25 feet rise? There must be a severe slope change or distance error in your run to explain this. Photos can be deceiving.
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
I don't own an altimeter, but I do own a smart-phone with an "inclinometer", and it was reading around 17 degrees.
As to the Nokians, I found them to be pretty bad at everything and will never own another set from that company. Cheap trash. They were done before it even snowed, down from new to 32 by 19K miles (19k miles of rough, un-balanceable, slip-and-slide-in-the-rain, loud and obnoxious torture.) I replaced them with Altimax RT43's, and was VERY pleased. My current CX5 has Toyo A36's, and when those die, it will get the RT43's, as well. I have never seen a [censored] product MORE recommended than Nokians. I feel wronged for having owned that cheap trash, lol!
The rise is much more than 16-20ft, as when I am standing on the roof of my 2 story house, I am not even close to seeing over the crest of that hill. I have 18ft ceilings, and the floor is a good 6' off the ground, and the roof extends a good 5' above the crest of my vaulted ceilings, and I stand 5'11", on top of THAT.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...445917e5261ca21684eadf7c&oe=5D0DB7C3
*The above photo was taken by me, standing, at approximately 75m from the house. Even at that angle, you can see hill behind it.
Per the topo map (Google), it's about a 40ft elevation change between the top and bottom of the hill, and the distance is @ 220ft. Again, this is from Google maps. I walked it out to be around 300ish ft, but when measuring distance on Google, it is straight-line only, not counting elevation. Also, I did not use a measuring wheel, but rather just "paced" it, and was pacing it for consideration of paving, and do not recall if I measured past the actual slope, or not, for that purpose.
To have a grade of 27% over a run of 350' you would need a rise of ~100'. Clearly that's not the case so something is amiss. Your photo suggest something like a 3 -> 5:1 vehicle/crest ratio depending how far away from the base you're parked. 16 to 25 feet rise? There must be a severe slope change or distance error in your run to explain this. Photos can be deceiving.
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
I don't own an altimeter, but I do own a smart-phone with an "inclinometer", and it was reading around 17 degrees.
As to the Nokians, I found them to be pretty bad at everything and will never own another set from that company. Cheap trash. They were done before it even snowed, down from new to 32 by 19K miles (19k miles of rough, un-balanceable, slip-and-slide-in-the-rain, loud and obnoxious torture.) I replaced them with Altimax RT43's, and was VERY pleased. My current CX5 has Toyo A36's, and when those die, it will get the RT43's, as well. I have never seen a [censored] product MORE recommended than Nokians. I feel wronged for having owned that cheap trash, lol!
The rise is much more than 16-20ft, as when I am standing on the roof of my 2 story house, I am not even close to seeing over the crest of that hill. I have 18ft ceilings, and the floor is a good 6' off the ground, and the roof extends a good 5' above the crest of my vaulted ceilings, and I stand 5'11", on top of THAT.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...445917e5261ca21684eadf7c&oe=5D0DB7C3
*The above photo was taken by me, standing, at approximately 75m from the house. Even at that angle, you can see hill behind it.
Per the topo map (Google), it's about a 40ft elevation change between the top and bottom of the hill, and the distance is @ 220ft. Again, this is from Google maps. I walked it out to be around 300ish ft, but when measuring distance on Google, it is straight-line only, not counting elevation. Also, I did not use a measuring wheel, but rather just "paced" it, and was pacing it for consideration of paving, and do not recall if I measured past the actual slope, or not, for that purpose.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by edyvw
It was muddy incline. Actually in winter he had a sign that said: do not come down if driving on summer tires or Hankook and Kumho snows.
Uh-huh--your mechanic made a sign listing what tires may and may not pass on his road. Right.
Yes, that was a time when those two companies made big splash with cheap snow tires in Europe. Had them, Hankook W300, and was not pleasant experience. Everyone jumped on train especially with Kumho as it had really cheap snow tires. Why not? It is from South Korea, not China.
Some 10 years later when I bought CPO VW CC, it had brand new Kumho Ecsta LX (I think that was the name). It reminded me of that mechanic as prayer was way to brake in wet conditions.
Originally Posted by edyvw
It was muddy incline. Actually in winter he had a sign that said: do not come down if driving on summer tires or Hankook and Kumho snows.
Uh-huh--your mechanic made a sign listing what tires may and may not pass on his road. Right.
Yes, that was a time when those two companies made big splash with cheap snow tires in Europe. Had them, Hankook W300, and was not pleasant experience. Everyone jumped on train especially with Kumho as it had really cheap snow tires. Why not? It is from South Korea, not China.
Some 10 years later when I bought CPO VW CC, it had brand new Kumho Ecsta LX (I think that was the name). It reminded me of that mechanic as prayer was way to brake in wet conditions.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by ndfergy
To have a grade of 27% over a run of 350' you would need a rise of ~100'. Clearly that's not the case so something is amiss. Your photo suggest something like a 3 -> 5:1 vehicle/crest ratio depending how far away from the base you're parked. 16 to 25 feet rise? There must be a severe slope change or distance error in your run to explain this. Photos can be deceiving.
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
I don't own an altimeter, but I do own a smart-phone with an "inclinometer", and it was reading around 17 degrees.
As to the Nokians, I found them to be pretty bad at everything and will never own another set from that company. Cheap trash. They were done before it even snowed, down from new to 32 by 19K miles (19k miles of rough, un-balanceable, slip-and-slide-in-the-rain, loud and obnoxious torture.) I replaced them with Altimax RT43's, and was VERY pleased. My current CX5 has Toyo A36's, and when those die, it will get the RT43's, as well. I have never seen a [censored] product MORE recommended than Nokians. I feel wronged for having owned that cheap trash, lol!
The rise is much more than 16-20ft, as when I am standing on the roof of my 2 story house, I am not even close to seeing over the crest of that hill. I have 18ft ceilings, and the floor is a good 6' off the ground, and the roof extends a good 5' above the crest of my vaulted ceilings, and I stand 5'11", on top of THAT.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...445917e5261ca21684eadf7c&oe=5D0DB7C3
*The above photo was taken by me, standing, at approximately 75m from the house. Even at that angle, you can see hill behind it.
Per the topo map (Google), it's about a 40ft elevation change between the top and bottom of the hill, and the distance is @ 220ft. Again, this is from Google maps. I walked it out to be around 300ish ft, but when measuring distance on Google, it is straight-line only, not counting elevation. Also, I did not use a measuring wheel, but rather just "paced" it, and was pacing it for consideration of paving, and do not recall if I measured past the actual slope, or not, for that purpose.
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Originally Posted by ndfergy
To have a grade of 27% over a run of 350' you would need a rise of ~100'. Clearly that's not the case so something is amiss. Your photo suggest something like a 3 -> 5:1 vehicle/crest ratio depending how far away from the base you're parked. 16 to 25 feet rise? There must be a severe slope change or distance error in your run to explain this. Photos can be deceiving.
Nonetheless, I'll take your word for it but maybe you're confusing a 17% grade with 17 degrees of inclination? Either way AWD is the wise choice. Most certainly if the latter.
Nice All-Season tires. They would give my winters a run for the money.
I don't own an altimeter, but I do own a smart-phone with an "inclinometer", and it was reading around 17 degrees.
As to the Nokians, I found them to be pretty bad at everything and will never own another set from that company. Cheap trash. They were done before it even snowed, down from new to 32 by 19K miles (19k miles of rough, un-balanceable, slip-and-slide-in-the-rain, loud and obnoxious torture.) I replaced them with Altimax RT43's, and was VERY pleased. My current CX5 has Toyo A36's, and when those die, it will get the RT43's, as well. I have never seen a [censored] product MORE recommended than Nokians. I feel wronged for having owned that cheap trash, lol!
The rise is much more than 16-20ft, as when I am standing on the roof of my 2 story house, I am not even close to seeing over the crest of that hill. I have 18ft ceilings, and the floor is a good 6' off the ground, and the roof extends a good 5' above the crest of my vaulted ceilings, and I stand 5'11", on top of THAT.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...445917e5261ca21684eadf7c&oe=5D0DB7C3
*The above photo was taken by me, standing, at approximately 75m from the house. Even at that angle, you can see hill behind it.
Per the topo map (Google), it's about a 40ft elevation change between the top and bottom of the hill, and the distance is @ 220ft. Again, this is from Google maps. I walked it out to be around 300ish ft, but when measuring distance on Google, it is straight-line only, not counting elevation. Also, I did not use a measuring wheel, but rather just "paced" it, and was pacing it for consideration of paving, and do not recall if I measured past the actual slope, or not, for that purpose.
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
No, the RAV has a conventional 8 spd autobox..
Might have been better with a Subaru CVT.
The Corolla has a CVT.
Toyota is a company known for very conservative engineering and the big motor cars don't get CVTs
Well, yeah I know they are known for conservative engineering (though not sure how Forester is progressive in engineering compared to RAV4).
But their 8speed box proved seriously unreliable and on top of that Toyota was playing this game of cat and mouse with customers (probably so it does not damage their "reliability" reputation). But that box has some serious issues, especially on larger models.
When I was buying Sienna, I did not want used 2017 or 18, as they come with that 8speed. I went purposely with 2015 as it has older 6 speed.
My friend owns HL with that 8speed, and car spent so far more time in dealership than his garage. Subaru's CVT is absolutely better when it comes to reliability in this case.
No, the RAV has a conventional 8 spd autobox..
Might have been better with a Subaru CVT.
The Corolla has a CVT.
Toyota is a company known for very conservative engineering and the big motor cars don't get CVTs
Well, yeah I know they are known for conservative engineering (though not sure how Forester is progressive in engineering compared to RAV4).
But their 8speed box proved seriously unreliable and on top of that Toyota was playing this game of cat and mouse with customers (probably so it does not damage their "reliability" reputation). But that box has some serious issues, especially on larger models.
When I was buying Sienna, I did not want used 2017 or 18, as they come with that 8speed. I went purposely with 2015 as it has older 6 speed.
My friend owns HL with that 8speed, and car spent so far more time in dealership than his garage. Subaru's CVT is absolutely better when it comes to reliability in this case.
Last edited:
Aah, I can see without doing any calculations with that new photo that your driveway is easily 17 degrees of incline. Sorry for doubting you.
Good choice with the RT-43's. I actually have them on my Yaris as my 3 season tires replacing the horrendously bad Bridgestone Turanza EL-400 OEM's after 1 year. I can vouch for their efficacy having kept them on for the first significant snowfall before swapping over to my winters. Decent enough grip and stopping ability that if more cautious one could manage the winter confidently. With AWD on your vehicle and warmer winter temps than here, it's a good compromise.
Good choice with the RT-43's. I actually have them on my Yaris as my 3 season tires replacing the horrendously bad Bridgestone Turanza EL-400 OEM's after 1 year. I can vouch for their efficacy having kept them on for the first significant snowfall before swapping over to my winters. Decent enough grip and stopping ability that if more cautious one could manage the winter confidently. With AWD on your vehicle and warmer winter temps than here, it's a good compromise.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Corollaman
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
It will, this is true, but it will also suck to drive in comparison. It depends on what you are going to value. Owning the car...or getting rid of it.
But Toyota's last 500,000 miles with nothing but oil changes, so why care about resale value if you never sell it?
Originally Posted by Corollaman
The Rav4 will have a higher resale value and perceived quality, like it or not it's the truth.
It will, this is true, but it will also suck to drive in comparison. It depends on what you are going to value. Owning the car...or getting rid of it.
But Toyota's last 500,000 miles with nothing but oil changes, so why care about resale value if you never sell it?
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Nokian AND CONSUMER REPORTS listed them as 55 and 50 thousand mile life-span tires, respectively. Also, they will lay waste to you in the rain, etc. I agree with your assessment, and will never buy another Nokian product again.
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Nokian AND CONSUMER REPORTS listed them as 55 and 50 thousand mile life-span tires, respectively. Also, they will lay waste to you in the rain, etc. I agree with your assessment, and will never buy another Nokian product again.
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
On looks and interior alone at least, I like the newest Rav4 more than the newest Forester.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Nokian AND CONSUMER REPORTS listed them as 55 and 50 thousand mile life-span tires, respectively. Also, they will lay waste to you in the rain, etc. I agree with your assessment, and will never buy another Nokian product again.
What Nokian and Consumer reports are saying is IMO irrelevant. That tire is sold as snow tire in some markets. 50k miles on that tire? Nokian sounds like they borrowed Redline marketing. Michelin says their Premier LTX is 60k tire. To achieve 30K is winning lottery. I personally prefer tires that do not last long like Michelin as for example Premier LTX is brutally good in wet.
I have no idea how they come up with those numbers. And for Consumer reports. That is company that said: Toyota Camry has superb suspension. That is when I stop reading anything they write.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nokian is doing some false marketing. Those tires are actually snow tires. That is how they market in Europe It basically has snow tire compound, but they sell them in the US as all weather (or all season, cannot remember). They should not be driven outside of winter months. And yes, they will have short lifespan.
I have their R2 Hakka on Tiguan, and they are superb in deep snow. However, like you said, absolute trash in every other application. I highly doubt they will last 15k. Though, they are hardcore snow tire and that is kind of expected.
Nokian AND CONSUMER REPORTS listed them as 55 and 50 thousand mile life-span tires, respectively. Also, they will lay waste to you in the rain, etc. I agree with your assessment, and will never buy another Nokian product again.
What Nokian and Consumer reports are saying is IMO irrelevant. That tire is sold as snow tire in some markets. 50k miles on that tire? Nokian sounds like they borrowed Redline marketing. Michelin says their Premier LTX is 60k tire. To achieve 30K is winning lottery. I personally prefer tires that do not last long like Michelin as for example Premier LTX is brutally good in wet.
I have no idea how they come up with those numbers. And for Consumer reports. That is company that said: Toyota Camry has superb suspension. That is when I stop reading anything they write.
- Status
