Toyota’s RAV4 is often called a “cute ute.” For die-hard SUV drivers, the label is sacrilege, implying that the small four-by-four is a downsized, de-butched truck. To paraphrase the B52’s, WELL IT ISN’T! Like many so-called crossovers, Toyota “Recreational Active Vehicle with 4WD” is a hatchback on stilts that looks something like truck and drives something like a top-heavy station wagon. Despite these drawbacks, the RAV4’s runaway success has green-lighted the entire crossover genre. The latest version tells us all we need to know about the niche’s immediate future.
The first RAV4 looked like a small Toyota 4Runner. Generation two traded an off-roader’s stance for a distinctly lower and broader posture, belying a solid commitment to paved roads. V3 completes the transformation from macho lite to suburban grocery-getter. The new RAV4 is noticeably larger than its predecessors in every dimension. By stretching its clean lines, the RAV loses its dainty demeanor and gains… nothing much. The wrap-around taillights and blacked out B-pillars tells the tale, reflecting a conscious decision to sacrifice adorability on the altar of clean, sleek, inoffensive and, ultimately, boring design.
Other than our tester’s metrosexual color designation (White/Bisque/Taupe instead of Bleached Bone/Desert Sand/Savannah Clay), the RAV4’s only exterior faux pas is ergonomic. The tailgate hinges are on the right of the back; the door swings open to the left. It’s obviously a carry-over from the Land of the Rising Sun, where people drive (and park) on the left hand side of the road. The layout forces American soccer moms to the street side of the vehicle to access their shopping bags, rather than accessing them from the safety of the curb.
The RAV4’s interior runs from the sublime to the ridiculous. The major controls are as ergonomic as a fine writing instrument. The second row seats are equally well designed; they adjust forwards and backwards to steal or bestow legroom, and recline. The rearmost space rocks. Optional third row seats, fit for two children, fold flat into the floor. Two convenient floor panel compartments lie just fore and aft of the third row seat. An easily adjustable system of hooks, rails, and netting serve as useful rigging for any cargo configuration.
On the other hand, the driver’s seat does not scoot back far enough for my 32” inseams. Two of the ten cup holders are inaccessibly positioned in the rear doors. The cowling over the instrument binnacle is oddly shaped. Rather than a classic arch, Toyota’s designers created an unnatural arch-on-arch – sort of like an extraneous pimple growing on top of a boil. It looks okay from the driver’s perspective. From any other angle, it’s just about as ugly as it sounds.
The RAV4’s optional 3.5L V6 engine is the vehicle’s must-have feature. With variable valve timing, the rev-happy little monster produces 269hp. The sprint from rest to sixty takes a fraction over six– yes six– seconds. You’d be hard pressed to find a family hauler of any description in the RAV4’s price range ($25,168 as tested) so willing to flare its wheel arches and just go. Even more surreal, a RAV4 so-equipped still manages to deliver real world mileage in the high twenties.
Once you’ve achieved significant velocity, the RAV4’s front strut / rear double wishbone suspension keeps the ride Camry smooth while suppressing lean and pitch. When pushed hard through the twisties, the [optional] Yokohama 225/65 R17 Geolandar rubbers howl like Little Richard on Viagra. The helm also evokes a quick “Good Golly Miss Molly;” give it some and the electrically-powered steering system immediately intervenes to counteract torque steer. Road feel disappears.
Toyota maintains the RAV4’s SUV facade by offering optional Electronic On-Demand Four Wheel-Drive (all wheel drive or AWD to the rest of the world), with Hill Start Assist Control and Downhill Assist Control modes. The literature claims the RAV4 is “designed to meet most off-road driving requirements.” But not all. While a skid plate under the engine bay protects the vital bits from gnashing rocks, other not-so-vital but important, low-hanging components (e.g. the exhaust system) remain vulnerable. And despite the RAV4’s impressive off-road armory, 7.5” of ground clearance give it roughly the same terrain-crossing abilities as your average car.
For what it is, for what it’s generally expected to do, the RAV4 is an excellent machine. It sets new benchmarks in nearly every area for this classless class of vehicle, including design, comfort, power, ride, safety and economy. But the RAV4 is too civilized to rough it and too tall and heavy to waft it. Perhaps crossovers like the RAV4 are vehicular deprogramming for SUV owners who never should’ve bought a truck. Either that or a very agreeable sort of rehab for drivers on their way back to cars.
The RAV4 has gotten so big that the Highlander seems redundant.
I think the 3rd row jumpseat trend is going to fade. We have 3 kids and an Acura MDX. The third row sounds like a good idea, but it is so hard to get back there, that young children can’t do it on their own, and the seats are too small for adults.
We’d be much better off with a minivan or a large, wide sedan/station wagon.
SherbornSean:
The third row sounds like a good idea, but it is so hard to get back there, that young children can’t do it on their own, and the seats are too small for adults.
This doesn’t make sense to me, as I have memories of climbing over the back seat into the wayback of the ’57 Chevy and friends’ wagons without thinking twice about it. Why is it so hard for kids to get back there?
I just hope car makers get past this “bigger, Bigger, BIGGER!” phase soon. I much prefered the old small RAV4 with 2 doors and removable roof.
And yeah, the Highlander IS redundant now, but don’t worry, the next one will be the size of a Tahoe, while the Sequoia will grow to Suburban size, I’m sure.
I’m just scared that the 4runner is now a bastard child. The FJ Cruiser is more macho, the RAV4 is more practicle, and the Highlander has more mainstream appeal.
Waitaminit! Toyota has WAY TOO MANY SUVs!
“I have memories of climbing over the back seat into the wayback of the ‘57 Chevy and friends’ wagons without thinking twice about it. Why is it so hard for kids to get back there?”
David, back in the day, wagons had rear-facing seats you could get to via the tailgate. Plus, once you were in there (even if you crawled over the back seat to get there) you just sprawled, sat, piled on each other, or did whatever you had to do to claim your share of the space.
Today the seats face forward, meaning you have to crawl over or around the middle seat (with headrests and shoulder belts getting in the way) to get to them. Add to that the requirement for kids below a certain size to sit in booster seats and it’s dang-nigh impossible to get them back there and belted in properly. Once they’re past booster seat size they’re too big to fit comfortably in the munchkin-sized seats most SUVs have in the wayback.
Waitaminit! Toyota has WAY TOO MANY SUVs!
That’s what I thought, yet the slow-selling Solara is getting replaced by a curvy, 5-passenger crossover in another year.
I think the best implementation of a third row seat might be found in the forthcoming GM Lambda platform triplets (Saturn Outlook, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave.) This is particularly true if you get one with 7 instead of 8 passenger seating. A third row can be useful, but most car companies have yet to make it so.
I’m glad Honda didn’t SuperSize their nex gen CRV. Its the perfect size for the Civic crowd. It would have place pressure on Pilot to get bigger and more expensive.
And, that V6 in the Rav4 is the same as the one in the Camry. What interesting is that they were able to cut the manufacteuring costs of the engine in half compared to the previous generation V6. Without that production cost cut, there may have never been a v6 RAV4.
As mentioned a third row seat comes in handy for certain vehicles but I don’t think the Rav4 is one of them (it’s a selling point though even if it’s never used). If you have two kids the Rav4 is probably a good vehicle to have if you want to haul some stuff or do some basic camping. Lets face it the majority of people never use their SUV’s in any kind of serious rock-climbing. The may tow a small camper or boat or go over some gravel while camping but that’s it. The Rav4 and similar vehicles offer up pretty much everything you need. I never liked the first and second generation Rav4 but this one is kind of nice.
Once you get to three kids (I’d say even two) you are probably better off with a Sienna or Odyssey, especially when the kids are small. The new quest is nice looking but over-priced compared to it’s competition when you load it up. I admit it I am a mini-van convert; just glad it’s my wife’s car.
Some people gave me a hard time about suggesting that hatchbacks will be coming back, but the RAV4 is a perfect example of my point. The RAV4 is clearly a car masquerading as a SUV and one of the selling points for this car is that it looks more macho than a station wagon.
If you need a 3rd seat and can live with the “image”, a wagon is a better choice than the RAV4. If you don’t need a 3rd seat, a midsize hatchback car would give you most of the utility of the RAV4, and would be a better performng car in just about every aspect because getting rid of the disguise means you the car would no longer be top heavy, would weigh less, handle better, etc. and still wouldn’t look like the “suburban mom” wagon.
Probably the biggest problem with my argument is that it makes too much sense and relies on consumers to be realistic about their needs. If consumers were realistic about their needs, we would never have had such an SUV craze in the US to begin with.
I think the best implementation of a third row seat might be found in the forthcoming GM Lambda platform triplets.
I haven’t sat in the Lambda 3rd row, don’t know if it’s more comfortable than my Sienna’s. It doesn’t drop into the floor due to the location of the spare tire and rear axle in 4wd versions.
Minivans still have the upper hand for flexibility – Sienna and Odyssey allow you to choose which position you want the 2nd row passenger side seat – center vs. side. Sienna and Entourage/Sedona have tumble forwards seats for easy access to the 3rd row. All those vans have a split 60/40 seat that drops into the floor.
The frustrating thing with this vehicle is that it could be so much better if Toyota would give up the SUV façade. If they had designed the RAV4 as a sporty station wagon (i.e. lower center of gravity and less weight) it would easily outclass the Subaru Legacy Outback and really give the AWD wagons from Audi and Volvo a serious run for their money. Instead the driving experience is compromised by the SUV masquerade.
i dont think anyone wants to try to play with the Audi Avants…they are way to sexy.
I HATE that stupid crease in the spare tire thingy!it looks like you backed into a poll
We were looking at the previous gen RAV4 before we bought our Forester, and our biggest complaint was that the rear cargo area was just a few inches too short. It just looked like an uncomfortable squeeze for the dog.
It appears with the latest model that they fixed that problem and answered a bunch of questions I hadn’t asked.
Speaking of the FJ, a colleague just took delivery of his a couple weeks ago. I frickin’ want one every time go out to the parking lot now! But as a previous poster mentioned, Toyota has too many SUVs.
This is one of those strange vehicles where color may matter a great deal. The silver ones hurt my eyes but the dark blue ones are attractive. Go figure.
I am on my third Gen 1 Rav4 and I absolutely love it. The new one is too big and, to be perfectly candid at the risk of sounding less than manly, not cute enough. A poll, “What do you think about the new Rav4?” was taken over on the Rav4 group on Yahoo and the winning response was “What have they dont to my Rav?” But, Toyota knows what they’re doing; people get won over by the increased space or awesome performance or something.
An earlier response was right; Toyota’s built a really, really good compact wagon except they’ve dressed it up as a sport-ute. However, they already built a pretty compact Wagon – the Matrix/Vibe. Sales are maybe 200K units/year combined, aren’t they? How many sport wagons do Audi and Volvo sell? Not many, is it? Personally, I would buy an inexpensive compact wagon but I know several people driving sport-utes they don’t really need (Pilots, etc) and they won’t consider a standard wagon (“Grocery-getter,” they sniff, deprecatingly). What’s an auto manufacturer to do? Dress it up as a sport-ute, I suppose and that’s what Toyota did. This July, Toyota sold almost 15K Rav4s, twice as many as last July and anectdotal evidence says they did it with decent margins.
I’m trading up Ravs myself, in a year or two. To a 2005 Rav4. However, there is a shorter version marketed overseas. If Toyota imported that, I’d almost certainly buy it.
If they had designed the RAV4 as a sporty station wagon (i.e. lower center of gravity and less weight) it would easily outclass the Subaru Legacy Outback and really give the AWD wagons from Audi and Volvo a serious run for their money.
Not sure how you get this…
The Subaru Legacy is easily one of the most under-rated cars in production today. It’s already got the same gound clearance as the RAV4 (without the high CoG); an absolutely bomb-proof 2.5 turbo engine, a simpler, lighter, more durable AWD system; and looks significantly more aggressive. All for around the same price.
A sporty wagon from Toyota would be perhaps competitive with the Legacy Outback, but in no way would it “easily outclass” it.
The only thing an AWD wagon from Toyota would have over an Audi is reliability.
The Little Richard remark is way too funny, and an image I really didn’t need in my head…
My mom bought her Rav4 because it was “small and cute.” The latest interation is neither. Toyota is just continuing a trend of “bloat” that’s gone on since I can remember. Every small car introduced grows as the model is updated.
Hop into your wayback machines for a minute; remember the first Honda Civic? Toyota Celica? There are more if you think of them (I remember these two cuz I owned ’em).
Many years ago, Car & Driver did a comparison test of several “crossover” SUV-type vehicles. They came up with an acronym that was very appropriate, but never caught on: WOTTS (Wagons on Tall Tires).
For the overwhelming majority of “SUVS”, I think WOTTS is a more accurate description of their design/function/actual use.
Buzz L.
Regular cars don’t have 7.5 inches of ground clearance.
Claude Dickson: If you need a 3rd seat and can live with the “imageâ€, a wagon is a better choice than the RAV4.
I’d agree, except fewer and fewer wagons are available with a third row. The third row available in the Volvo sits entirely above the floor, with no well for feet.
his doesn’t make sense to me, as I have memories of climbing over the back seat into the wayback of the ‘57 Chevy and friends’ wagons without thinking twice about it. Why is it so hard for kids to get back there?
Kids today are fat. They can’t fit past tight spaces, and they’re too lethargic to climb over seatc.
Nice review. I also tested a RAV4 (AWD four-cylinder) and I liked it too.
Nice styling, though the 5-series headlights detracted from an otherwise fresh look for a Toyota. Steering and overall handling was nice. Power was adequate for most, and the AWD will take you to most any campsite in any weather. (I tried) Interior had nice materials all around, and the brushed aluminum trim is better than most “near-luxury” sedans.
JBL stereo was awesome, except for the doors rattling to the bass. Seats had rather hard cushions too. That exposed spare tire (why put so much weight up high on a commuter car?) and useless rear bumper (the tire hits your target before the bumper, and then goes for the back window) was the worst design flaw on the RAV.
I thought that 3rd row was a joke, but I was wrong. Children or supermodels fit, since the 2nd row has movable seat tracks.
The RAV4 is “cooler” than a minivan, almost as practical, and looks about a bazillion times better than the dowdy Highlander.
The issue with the third row of a lot of SUVs is that it’s hard for a 4- or 5-year old to climb up onto the floor of an SUV and get the second row seat out of the way and then sashay around to the way back. And then, get up into the booster seat and put on his seat belt without help, because there is no way I can reach back there while I’m trying to get the 2-year old in her carseat and the newborn in his.
You can certainly criticize ME because we should have bought a minivan, although at the time we didn’t figure on being quite so fertile.
But don’t call my kids fat!
;–)
Just want to sound agree with Kevin — kids today are fat.
Blunozer – I agree with you, but they have been doing “bigger is better” for a long time. When Detroit first worried about VW, they brought out Pinto and Corvair, then Falcon, and ?, and they grew, then when foreign market share got bigger, they came out with Maverick. I think the Maverick was the same size as the original Falcon. I get the names mixed up and the order, but you get my drift. It is nuts!
FWIW, I always thought the older RAV4’s looked like an overgrown trendy “athletic shoe”. It was ugly as $#!+ but still somewhat unique.
Now it looks like an overgrown overweight station wagon. Which of course, it is. If you sliced 6″ of the slab side off and dropped the roof accordingly, it would be, a station wagon.
–chuck
Freinds of mine have three large dogs and were looking to replace their beater Ford Exploder with another vehicle. They were looking at something “nice” enough to also replace the Lexus ES300 she drives (with which they’ve surprisingly had pesky maintenance issues) with something that could double as a dog transport when needed. He drives an ’06 C6, so it had to have at least a hint of driveability.
The new RAV4 V-6 was one of my recommended test drives. Low enough for the dogs, nice enough inside to meet 80% of their luxury need, probably reliable, quick and relatively nimble, not so thirsty.
I’d also thrown Touregs, XC90’s & wagons from Germany past them for consideration. They tested the RAV4 and a Nissan Murano and decided to limp along a bit longer with what they’ve got.
Other neighbors also have three large dogs, same dilemma: what’s nice enough to drive everyday yet presents the qualities of old family-haulers for the dogs? They have a Mazda MPV for the dogs and an Audi A6 2.8 for “luxury.” They don’t see the right vehicle on the market right now, either.
Neither family has needed AWD more than once every couple of years. I suspect there’s a “sweet spot” in the market for families (with kids, not dogs) that can be hit hard here. Minivans are out of the question for this demographic.
I’m curious to see how upcoming new crossover vehicles might meet this kind of market. That is, if car makers can stop mimicking SUV’s in their next-gen crossovers. You can make a car look good/durable/capable without making it resemble a truck. Think mid-50’s wagons. This RAV4’s not quite there.
Which would you rather drive?
http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/csedans.htm
Frank,
The ’57 Chevy had no third row, nor did most of the wagons I rode in. The crawling over the back seat back was not a problem. But the business about the parents having to stick the kids in their safety seats explains the current problem for me. Thanks.
Frank Williams writes:
David, back in the day, wagons had rear-facing seats you could get to via the tailgate. Plus, once you were in there (even if you crawled over the back seat to get there) you just sprawled, sat, piled on each other, or did whatever you had to do to claim your share of the space.
Today the seats face forward, meaning you have to crawl over or around the middle seat (with headrests and shoulder belts getting in the way) to get to them. Add to that the requirement for kids below a certain size to sit in booster seats and it’s dang-nigh impossible to get them back there and belted in properly. Once they’re past booster seat size they’re too big to fit comfortably in the munchkin-sized seats most SUVs have in the wayback.
Joe C –
I have 2 greyhounds and have hauled 3, could handle a lot more in a Honda Odyssey. A more practical vehicle you won’t find, can haul 4x8s, low enough for dogs, etc. etc., great for family vacations, but people shun them like the plague. I’ll never understand, though I am familiar with it. Functional, useful as all hell, but people want something that doesn’t handle as well, gets worse gas mileage, and won’t do what they want it to….
The RAV4 may be bigger than it used to be, but it is now the same size as the Honda CR-V. I generated the following from Edmunds:
Dimension………RAV4……….CR-V
Length……….181.1 in………..181 in.
Width………….71.5 in………….70.2 in.
Height ………..66.3 in………….66.2 in.
Weight……….3300 lbs. ……….3318 lbs.
WhlBase ………104.7 in. ………103.3 in.
Grnd Clear……….7.5 in…………8.1 in.
FHead………….40.8 in………….40.9 in.
RHead ……….39.7 in…………..39.1 in.
FShoulder……….57.1 in…………56.9 in.
RShoulder……….55.3 in………..56.5 in.
Front Hip……….53.8 in………..54.5 in.
Rear Hip……….52.4 in………..53.5 in.
Front Leg……….41.8 in………..41.3 in.
Rear Leg ……….38.3 in………..39.4 in.
MaxLuggage……37.2 cu.ft…….33.5 cu.ft.
When I met my other half she had a 4 door rav 4 L in green…. at first I hated it, but we went shopping in it, and took a few trips… and it definitely grew on you… when I drove it, fat me was my own airbag… and room in the back was non-existent… and it was way underpowered… but for some reason, that was part of it’s charm. It got great gas mileage, but held so little gas that we had to stop constantly on long trips for gas… the only complaint I have is that I think it was a little overpriced for what it was…
also… don’t go uphill with the a/c on….
-John
It’s weird… I’m writing from down under. In the US you have many models that we don’t but what you have as the Honda Odeyessy is not what we have. See
This is a sold as a minivan but with clever packaging is more like a wagon with a third row that adults can use. Why does Honda not sell this car in the US?
Stupid link – try this
and if this doesn’t work just go to honda.com.au and look at the Odyssey in the showroom. (Sorry about the spelling of Odyssey in the previous post – I had “e”s breeding there like rabbits)
ghillie –
The Asia/Australia market Odyssey was marketed in the US in the mid-late 1990’s, and didn’t do well as it lacked sliding doors, was smaller, adn less powerful than the majority of US market minivans. A US Odyssey has the 3.5L V6 and is approximately 25cm longer and 18cm wider than the Asia/Australia version. Now that gas prices have gone up, the situation would probably be very different. Rumors are that the JDM Honda Stream, one size smaller than the Odyssey, may someday make it to the US.
Fact:
’57 Chevy could be had with 3 rows, and the last one faced forward.
(does superiority dance)
Ford had three forward-facing rows, too:
http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/squire.htm#interior
But the ’59 Chevy wagon we had had rear-facing 3rd row seats….
http://www.adclassix.com/ads/59chevroletbrookwood.htm
…but we digress.
starlightmica
Interesting…. The previous model Odyssey did come in a v6 version in Australia but no doubt still a smaller size body than the one sold in the US. The current model that I referred to comes as a four cylinder only. I was referring to it mainly because the clever packaging allows adults to sit comfortably in the 3rd row while the car is low enough to look like a ordinary wagon not an SUV. It has good interior space, handles like a sedan and gets excellent fuel economy for its size. It would seem to be just the sort of car that some of the others posting above say they would be interested in.
The lack of a V6 may be a problem in the US – but as you say with current (and no doubt future) oil prices maybe that is changing!
My ’94 Taurus Wagon has a rear facing third row. My brother’s kids love it so much they hardly fight at all when riding back there. They love waving and smiling to people and getting laughs from bikers as well…
…and I climbed in back there once, and I’ll be damned if my 6’3″ frame didn’t just fit in there kind of okay. Definitely wouln’t want to be back there for a long trip though.
Looks like a Manto Hee Hee.
Toyota is trying too hard to design. (or over-design).
Looks awful at best. Whatever happened to the simple design days of mid 70s Corolla and Celica days. (Not the Celica with the fake targa strip that you couldn’t see out the rear seats, but before that).
Good thing Toyota makes good cars ’cause they aren’t looking good…
The thing I don’t get is why all you folks who hate SUVs so much are even reading this or any of the other SUV reviews on this site. I hate the way minivans drive but I don’t go off ranting in all the minivan reviews. From reading some of your comments it sounds like some of you also can’t handle a little change in your life. Think about it for a second. The new Rav now gets even better gas mileage while providing more space while remaining true to it’s original design yet you still prefer the old model that you are used to. The Rav has always taken the realistic approach that most folks don’t drive their SUV off road. This was true of the first and second generations and now has carried on to the third. As far as looks well, you know the old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even with that said, I totally disagree with the individual that said the first generation looks better. I’m sorry, that was one of the butt-ugliest vehicles to hit the road in a long time. It is only my opinion but it is a strong one. The second generation was a big improvement. Personally, I like the third even better but I can see where some may like the second generation more.
My dad has a second generation Rav and I have always tried to like it for what it is. However, it does have some “quirks” that keep me from taking it seriously. The steering wheel is so tiny it looks like it came off one of my kids Power Wheels. The seats are made of some kind of stiff molded foam that feels like it should be padding a new computer in a cardboard box. Worst of all, the second generation has possibly the worst ride of any production vehicle I have ever driven. And that’s saying a lot – my daily driver is a lifted Jeep Wrangler with a stiff off-road suspension! I have looked at the new Rav at a couple auto shows and the increased size is finally making it worth my consideration. All the talk of old cars was entertaining but how many of us grew up riding in a child safety seat? I know I didn’t. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of dealing with these contraptions they eat up more interior space than an average size adult. Therefore, a back seat that will seat three adults in a pinch now isn’t big enough if you have more than two kids. Even if the third kid is big enough not to require a safety seat, they are left with little usable space and hard plastic safety seats to sit between. Minivans fare no better in this respect. And everyone wonders why full-size SUVs and third-row seats have become so popular! The thing to remember is the car designers are trying to also meet the needs of someone other than you. A larger vehicle will look attractive to more potential customers than one that is so tiny it only fits the needs of a select few. When I finally test drive one of these new Ravs one of the things I will be looking for is how solid the vehicle feels. The second generation has the feeling of a tin box which isn’t helped by the poor suspension. Fix the ride quality and that feeling will probably be fixed as well. The V6 is one of the items that makes me want to like the new Rav. I have driven it in the Camry and it sounds like a winner in the new Rav as well. The deciding factor will be what else is out there that meets my needs.
My girlfriend bought a RAV4 and it seems very nice. My main complaint would be that being 6’3″ my knees are blocked in the front passanger seat by the extended glovebox. If I could only remove that bottom piece of the glovebox as it is anoying on long trips. I have more knee room in my little Grand Am. Also I agree with the reviewer that it would have been nice if the front seats could go back a little more.