RAV4 -vs- CRV
Ryan Thorson
Having trouble deciding between a Toyota Rav4 and a Honda CRV. Any comments
or suggestions on comfort, reliability, options, etc. would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks.
LevyDBoone
The biggest difference I read about these vehicles is the four wheel drive
system. If you are planning to try and go off road, the Toy has a better
4x4 setup. Personally I like the Honda, as a 4x4 car. full time AWD, and
larger interior.
Have fun shopping,
Dan
P.S. Look up Edmund's terrific web page for more info.
levydboone
Mitsu Hadeishi
LevyDBoone (levyd...@aol.com) wrote:
: The biggest difference I read about these vehicles is the four wheel drive
This question has been discussed to death on this newsgroup already, you
might try checking Deja News for the old articles. But in brief: The
RAV4 has a better AWD system than the CRV. The other vehicle you should
of course consider is the Subaru Outback, which is similar to both of
these vehicles but probably has the best off-road capabilities of all
of them. It is slightly more expensive, however. It is much roomier
than the RAV4, and also bigger than the CRV, but it handles extremely well,
better than either car. The AWD on the Outback is also considerably better
than the CRV for bad dirt road or off-road conditions (sand, snow, ice).
None of these cars are good for climbing over big rock piles or anything
like that, due to the lack of "breakover" angle (i.e., they have reasonable
minimum ground clearance to clear rocks but they hang low throughout the
undercarriage). The approach/departure angles on the RAV4 and CRV are
slightly better than the Outback, but if you're in a situation where this
would really matter you probably don't want to be in any of these three
vehicles.
The Outback also has a much bigger engine, and the CRV has often been
noted to be a bit underpowered. I haven't heard the same about the RAV4
although it is only a 120hp engine; the Outback has 165hp.
On-road the Outback is a definite winner based on what I've read. It
handles very well around corners, almost like a sport sedan, and it
has a smooth and quiet highway ride. The RAV4 however has a very nice
highway ride as well, not as nice as the Outback (based on comparative
reviews I have read).
This is just a summary of what I've gotten out of reading stuff on the Net
and magazine articles.
Mitsu
o...@worldnet.att.com
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:30:32 GMT, mi...@netcom.com (Mitsu Hadeishi)
wrote:
>LevyDBoone (levyd...@aol.com) wrote:
>: The biggest difference I read about these vehicles is the four wheel drive
>: system. If you are planning to try and go off road, the Toy has a better
>: 4x4 setup. Personally I like the Honda, as a 4x4 car. full time AWD, and
>: larger interior.
>: Have fun shopping,
>: Dan
>: P.S. Look up Edmund's terrific web page for more info.
>: levydboone
>
>This question has been discussed to death on this newsgroup already, you
>might try checking Deja News for the old articles. But in brief: The
>RAV4 has a better AWD system than the CRV. The other vehicle you should
>of course consider is the Subaru Outback, which is similar to both of
>these vehicles but probably has the best off-road capabilities of all
>of them.
>It is slightly more expensive, however. It is much roomier
Not so! Very good deals can be had on Outbacks, and there is a $750
dealer incentive to further reduce prices, RAV4s and CRVs are hard to
get a good deal on, so in many cases will actually cost more than a
comparably equipped Outback, on which ABS, luggage rack, alloy wheels,
and more are standard.
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <19970318230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
levyd...@aol.com (LevyDBoone) wrote:
>The biggest difference I read about these vehicles is the four wheel drive
>system. If you are planning to try and go off road, the Toy has a better
>4x4 setup. Personally I like the Honda, as a 4x4 car. full time AWD, and
>larger interior.
Please note that the CRV is AWD, but not a 100 full time 4wd system.
The rear axle will only see torque after slip is detected, and the coupling
is done with an hydraulic clutch. Similar to the MB 4-Matic system.
--
Bye,
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ illem _/ _/ an _/ _/ _/ arkerink
_/_/_/
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Hall...@aol.com
In article <mitsuE7...@netcom.com>,
mi...@netcom.com (Mitsu Hadeishi) wrote:
>
> LevyDBoone (levyd...@aol.com) wrote:
> : The biggest difference I read about these vehicles is the four wheel drive
> : system. If you are planning to try and go off road, the Toy has a better
> : 4x4 setup. Personally I like the Honda, as a 4x4 car. full time AWD, and
> : larger interior.
> : Dan
> : P.S. Look up Edmund's terrific web page for more info.
> : levydboone
>
> This question has been discussed to death on this newsgroup already, you
> might try checking Deja News for the old articles. But in brief: The
> RAV4 has a better AWD system than the CRV. The other vehicle you should
> of course consider is the Subaru Outback, which is similar to both of
> these vehicles but probably has the best off-road capabilities of all
> of them. It is slightly more expensive, however. It is much roomier
> better than either car. The AWD on the Outback is also considerably better
> than the CRV for bad dirt road or off-road conditions (sand, snow, ice).
> None of these cars are good for climbing over big rock piles or anything
> like that, due to the lack of "breakover" angle (i.e., they have reasonable
> minimum ground clearance to clear rocks but they hang low throughout the
> undercarriage). The approach/departure angles on the RAV4 and CRV are
> slightly better than the Outback, but if you're in a situation where this
> would really matter you probably don't want to be in any of these three
> vehicles.
>
> The Outback also has a much bigger engine, and the CRV has often been
> noted to be a bit underpowered. I haven't heard the same about the RAV4
> although it is only a 120hp engine; the Outback has 165hp.
>
> On-road the Outback is a definite winner based on what I've read. It
> handles very well around corners, almost like a sport sedan, and it
> has a smooth and quiet highway ride. The RAV4 however has a very nice
> highway ride as well, not as nice as the Outback (based on comparative
> reviews I have read).
>
> This is just a summary of what I've gotten out of reading stuff on the Net
> and magazine articles.
>
> Mitsu
In my opinion the RAV4 is out due to its dimunitive interior
and high price for the four door model. Equipped like the
$19,695 or $20,695 alloy/abs CRV, the RAV4 costs four grand
more and is simply alot smaller vehicle. Both interior and
exterior measurements of the CRV match or exceed the Jeep
Grand Cherokee. The CRV is one of the widest vehicles in
its class. The Subaru Outback is great, but again when
equipped like the CRV, its thousands more and I understand
that you must use premium fuel that could tack on another
$40 a month to the car payment. I haven't taken delivery
of my new CRV yet, but if the Outback handles as well as
other Subaru vehicles then I'm sure its just great. If
money is unlimited there are alot of good 4wd vehicles out
there, but for the most for the money it has got to be the
CRV. The CRV won't tow anything, or climb boulders, but
its super ground clearance and wide stance will likely get
you and some friends up and down most U.S. forest roads
safely and economically.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Rich Rubel
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
: its class. The Subaru Outback is great, but again when
: equipped like the CRV, its thousands more and I understand
: that you must use premium fuel that could tack on another
: $40 a month to the car payment. I haven't taken delivery
'97 Outbacks only require 87 octane fuel. And '96's run just fine on 87
(I've been doing it for 20k miles). Now - correct me if I'm wrong, but
the CR-V does NOT have a number of things that are standard on the Outback
- roof rack, floor mats, cargo cover, cargo mat, fog lights, cassette deck
(radio only is standard), 4-wheel disk brakes... and the AWD system is
inferior, and the gas mileage is worse and the power is less. And at
this time it's only available in automatic. By the time you add most of
the above stuff (roof rack is expensive), you're at or above the price of
an Outback ($23k, w/auto transmission). I priced one a few weeks ago.
Not impressed (and the salesman was downright DEFENSIVE about the car,
trying to point out everything that was superior to the Outback... and
failing with every one. His ignorance - the CR-V is better in a number of
things, inc. turn radius and GC).
--
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Rubel | Happiness is an AWD Subaru! |
| rru...@umbc.edu | Turn a SNOW problem into NO problem. |
| | http://alumni.umbc.edu/~rrubel1/outback.html |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
@sevenlocks.com Lawrence Young
Hall...@aol.com wrote in article <8587775...@dejanews.com>...
> equipped like the CRV, its thousands more and I understand
> that you must use premium fuel that could tack on another
> $40 a month to the car payment. I haven't taken delivery
Not true. In the manual of '97 Subrau Outback, it says you can use regular
gas.
Hall...@aol.com
In article <01bc34e6$f69f78e0$1737adce@jason>,
Your right the 1997 Outbacks can use the 87 octane fuel. It
was the 1996 Outbacks that had 91 octane recommended in
the manual. This issue was evidently well-discussed about
8-10 months ago and the general concensus was that even the
1996 Outbacks could use less than the most expensive premium
fuel without damaging the engine. Only performance would
suffer. I wonder if the 97 Outbacks motors or engine computer
chip was changed to allow 87 octane or if everything stayed
the same for 97 except the print in the manual. Oh well,
nobody is going to go wrong if they buy a CRV or an Outback
they are both likely to have great resale value if the
ownners take care of them.
Barry Ho
Buy a CRV!!!
~$21K you get ABS, Alloy wheel, AC, power lock and windows, AM/FM
and stero.
For $21K, you cannot get a 4 doors RAV4 with the same package.
CRV is bigger than RAV4 and gas mileage/0-60 is about the same.
So, why do you want to buy a smaller and more expensive SUV?
Toyota is very reliable, but the same as Honda.
ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV.
jose soplar
Could someone tell me if a RAV4 can be towed on its own wheels behind a
motorhome? I get conflicting stories from the dealer and the
distributor. I'm also told by the local Honda store that the CRV is
not available with manual transmission, and that it should never be towed
even if it breaks down. Anything to that?
larry soo
std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
>Barry Ho (h...@totempole.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>: ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
>: CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
>: Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV.
>A better AWD system, full time, not part time with a time lag
>when engaging. (When you need it most, IMO!)
Has anyone here actually tested a RAV4 and CRV side-by-side? While
the AWD systems may be different, just how much of a difference does
it make in the real world?
Furthermore, for the small difference the AWD systems might make, what
percentage of the time would you be using it? For vehicles which are
designed to be all-weather mobile, I don't think the type of AWD
system used is all that important.
I'm not taking sides on the CRV vs RAV4 question but I am curious
about the importance of the AWD system used.
In fact, I think a limited-slip diff (in the axle housings or xfer
case ...or whatever they use instead of an xfer case) would make much
more difference in performance than the type of AWD system used.
...lars (stirring up the pot)
GDTRFB1828
>In fact, I think a limited-slip diff (in the axle housings or xfer
case ...or whatever they use instead of an xfer case) would make much
more difference in performance than the type of AWD system used.
...lars (stirring up the pot)<
In fact RAV4 5sp 4x4 has a locking center diff that works very
effectivly here in central Wis. We get PLENTY of snow to make the
difference in full time 4x4 vs CR-V system worthwile.
Scott
GDTRFB1828
>ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV<
Uh, lets see, real AWD system, an actual options list that you can
choose from, 5sp available with limited slip, better looking, IMHO, and it
doesent have that STUPID picnic table, or a column mounted auto.
RAV4 AWD, 4dr, 5sp ,pwr sunroof, power everything else, 5 alloys, ABS,
just under $21,000 MSRP. Thank you for this price, CR-V and Outback.....
Scott
Rich Rubel
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
: suffer. I wonder if the 97 Outbacks motors or engine computer
: chip was changed to allow 87 octane or if everything stayed
Both - the 2.5l engine was redesigned to use solid lifters instead of
hydraulic, change the air intake system, re-work the shift points in the
computer, and several other little things. The net effect was 10 more hp,
7 more lb-ft of torque, 1 more MPG hwy and city, and the
(factory-recommended) ability to use 87 instead of 91 octane. On the down
side, though, peak torque moved to 4k RPM from 2800 so towing is probably
still easier with a 96 than a 97.
Doug
rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>Both - the 2.5l engine was redesigned to use solid lifters instead of
>hydraulic, change the air intake system, re-work the shift points in the
>computer, and several other little things. The net effect was 10 more hp,
>7 more lb-ft of torque, 1 more MPG hwy and city, and the
>(factory-recommended) ability to use 87 instead of 91 octane. On the down
>side, though, peak torque moved to 4k RPM from 2800 so towing is probably
>still easier with a 96 than a 97.
>
Solid lifters? Blecch! Do they have automatic lash adjusters? I
hate adjusting tappets. Sounds like a nice engine if you don't have
to adjust the tappets. 4K peak torque? That's pretty high. Does the
rest of the range still have similar torque specs as the previous
engine? What are the HP and torque specs anyway? Why am I so
interested? I've been trying to convince myself for 2 years that an
AWD car would be worth the extra expense. I really like the Outback,
but my next car is likely to be a V-6 Camry.
Doug
remove the NO_SPAM from my email address to reply to me via email
Mitsu Hadeishi
Posting and emailing.
In article <5gta7j$l...@fountain.mindlink.net>, larr...@mindlink.bc.ca
says...
>
>std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
>
>>Barry Ho (h...@totempole.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>>: ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5
pseed.
>>: CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
>>: Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV.
>
>>A better AWD system, full time, not part time with a time lag
>>when engaging. (When you need it most, IMO!)
>
>Has anyone here actually tested a RAV4 and CRV side-by-side? While
>the AWD systems may be different, just how much of a difference does
>it make in the real world?
>
>Furthermore, for the small difference the AWD systems might make, what
>percentage of the time would you be using it? For vehicles which are
>designed to be all-weather mobile, I don't think the type of AWD
>system used is all that important.
>
>I'm not taking sides on the CRV vs RAV4 question but I am curious
>about the importance of the AWD system used.
>
>In fact, I think a limited-slip diff (in the axle housings or xfer
>case ...or whatever they use instead of an xfer case) would make much
>more difference in performance than the type of AWD system used.
>
>...lars (stirring up the pot)
Now there you go again, Lars, heh heh heh.
Well, I can't say I have tested these cars, in fact I've never driven
either one. However, I have read a number of reviews, and I know
something about the two systems mechanically.
AWD can give you many benefits on dry roads, wet roads, icy roads,
muddy roads, snowy roads. I can attest to its effectiveness in a lot
of these situations in my Outback.
The main thing you get with a system like the Outback's is instant
response to changing road conditions. For example, you hit a patch of
ice on the road---the AWD will transfer power nearly instantly. This
REALLY makes a difference. You can even feel it on dry pavement going
around corners. The feeling is one of: glued to the road.
The CRV's system, however, is usually 100% two-wheel-drive. It only
engages the other wheels when there is slip, and then it uses a very
slow system to get the other wheels to engage. We're not talking
instant response here. If we're talking about all-weather performance,
the CRV just doesn't have the same capabilities as the Outback or RAV4.
The CRV gets more easily stuck---in sand for example, one reviewer got
his CRV stuck just driving along a flat stretch. So, the CRV is a
great car, but the AWD system does make a difference in terms of
off-road traction ability.
Mitsu
mo...@notnow.com
In article <19970321131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gdtrf...@aol.com (GDTRFB1828) wrote:
>
> >ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
> CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
>
>
> Uh, lets see, real AWD system, an actual options list that you can
> choose from, 5sp available with limited slip, better looking, IMHO, and it
> doesent have that STUPID picnic table, or a column mounted auto.
>
> RAV4 AWD, 4dr, 5sp ,pwr sunroof, power everything else, 5 alloys, ABS,
> just under $21,000 MSRP. Thank you for this price, CR-V and Outback.....
>
> Scott
I've test driven about 3 RAV$s and everyone was at least $24,000. Can't
see it being less than that with the min accessories. Needs a lot of
accessories to be comparably equipped as the CRV....
lem...@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Test drove both. Almost bought the CRV for under $20k then test drove the
Toyota 4runner SR5 and decided that this is the best one. Went to 6 dealers
to compare the lowest price and got the best deal in town for a full loaded
4runner SR5 auto for $26,500.
Rich Rubel
William S. Rowell (std...@unx1.shsu.edu) wrote:
: Rich, time for you to recommend a Subaru now... :-)
I have been :-)
Paul W Harvey
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 06:34:52 GMT, larr...@mindlink.bc.ca (larry soo)
wrote:
>Has anyone here actually tested a RAV4 and CRV side-by-side? While
>the AWD systems may be different, just how much of a difference does
>it make in the real world?
Yep they sure have. Car and Driver tested the CRV and RAV4 head to
head. You can read about it in the March 1997 issue page 82. The
difference in the RAV and CRV AWD systems allowed the RAV to drive
across a sand beach, the CRV had to be pushed. Not an easy thing to
push a car through sand, sure would have pissed me off.
>
>Furthermore, for the small difference the AWD systems might make, what
>percentage of the time would you be using it? For vehicles which are
>designed to be all-weather mobile, I don't think the type of AWD
>system used is all that important.
More important than you would think. Standard RAVs can lock the
center diff so you'll have true 4wd (2wd actually). The CRV's system
requires some spin at the front before the back will engage.
Sometimes you just don't want spin, could be the deciding factor in a
loss of control.
Here's how the vehicles faired:
Both autos, AC, alloy wheels. RAV4 rear LSD, CRV rear not stated
CRV RAV4
Price as tested 21,175 USD 21,783 USD
Test Weight 3330# 3035#
Horsepower (bhp) 126@5400 120@5400
Torque 133@4300 125@4600
Redline 6200 6250
Fuel 87 oct 87oct
Drive sys FWD/pt 4wd AWD
MPG 20.2 19.5
(normal driving)
Spd 700ft Slalom 58.8 59.8
0-20mph (sec) 2.5 2.4
0-30mph 4.1 4.2
0-40mph 6.0 6.4
0-50mph 8.6 9.5
0-60 11.9 13.0
1/4mile 18.7@74mph 19...@72.4mph
60-0 (feet) 136 147
Brake Cntl Excellent Excellent
Pedal effort .5g 15# 20#
Fade 6 .5g stops 20# 25#
They said the RAV4 had more torque down low, making it feel faster and
more fun than its stats relate. Overall they said the CRV had a
slight edge over the RAV4 because it had more room, "civilized road
manners", and appealing design. Counterpoint, they said both vehicles
were great for what they are intended to be, all weather, utilitarian
run-abouts.
Some people will opt for the RAV4 because it is available in manual
trans. You may be interested to know Consumer Reports got 19/32, 25
overall, and went 0-60 in 18.2 in the manual RAV4; all of which beats
the CRV.
Personally, if I was forced to buy either an RAV4 or a CRV I would go
with the RAV4. If for no other reason, then because the CRV's looks
don't appeal to me. Additionally, I like the RAV4's drive system
better. An plain vanilla locking center differential seldom fails.
I'm leary of the twin pump, hydralically actuated system which drives
the rear of the CRV, too much stuff to break.
On an aside the RAV4 doesn't comply with the side impact crash test.
This goes back to a thread SEVERAL months ago when people were saying
it did.
Hope the data helps. I can post other CRV - RAV4 test data on
request.
Cheers!
--Paul
Rich Rubel
Doug (NO_SPAM...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Solid lifters? Blecch! Do they have automatic lash adjusters? I
: hate adjusting tappets. Sounds like a nice engine if you don't have
: to adjust the tappets. 4K peak torque? That's pretty high. Does the
Manual adjustments, but only needed every 100k miles. To me, that makes
it reasonable.
: rest of the range still have similar torque specs as the previous
: engine? What are the HP and torque specs anyway? Why am I so
I don't actually have a graph of the HP/torque range - I've been trying to
locate one for a while. One article did say that the the HP and torque
are "improved over the entire range", FWIW.
: interested? I've been trying to convince myself for 2 years that an
: AWD car would be worth the extra expense. I really like the Outback,
: but my next car is likely to be a V-6 Camry.
We looked at a Camry wagon because I liked the V6. But $26k??? I paid
$21k and change for the Outback. And then they dropped the wagon and made
the sedan so bland I can't look at it any more.
Rich Rubel
GDTRFB1828 (gdtrf...@aol.com) wrote:
: >ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
: CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
: Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV<
: Uh, lets see, real AWD system, an actual options list that you can
: choose from, 5sp available with limited slip, better looking, IMHO, and it
: doesent have that STUPID picnic table, or a column mounted auto.
Has anyone looked underneath a CR-V? I was behind one today... check out
the rear half-shafts. If they're an inch across, I'll be surprised. I
thought they were part of the anti-sway bars until I saw them spinning.
Definitely a sign that the CR-V doesn't expect much rear-wheel torque -
they look like they'd shear in a strong breeze.
--
larry soo
mit...@ix.netcom.com (Mitsu Hadeishi) wrote:
>The main thing you get with a system like the Outback's is instant
>response to changing road conditions. For example, you hit a patch of
>ice on the road---the AWD will transfer power nearly instantly.
Hmm...now why would AWD transfer power instantly? I thought it was
driving all four wheels already?
>This
>REALLY makes a difference. You can even feel it on dry pavement going
>around corners. The feeling is one of: glued to the road.
I have definitely noticed that in my fiance's AWD Suby.
>The CRV's system, however, is usually 100% two-wheel-drive. It only
>engages the other wheels when there is slip, and then it uses a very
>slow system to get the other wheels to engage.
I didn't realize the system was slow to engage. Doesn't make sense
that they would use such a system when there are other
"real-time"-like systems which don't seem to be slow.
>The CRV gets more easily stuck---in sand for example, one reviewer got
>his CRV stuck just driving along a flat stretch. So, the CRV is a
>great car, but the AWD system does make a difference in terms of
>off-road traction ability.
Yeah, someone else mentioned that same example after I made my post.
I guess there _is_ a difference after all. Thanks for the
edification.
...lars (feeling englightened...kinda)
larry soo
gdtrf...@aol.com (GDTRFB1828) wrote:
>>In fact, I think a limited-slip diff (in the axle housings or xfer
>case ...or whatever they use instead of an xfer case) would make much
>more difference in performance than the type of AWD system used.
> In fact RAV4 5sp 4x4 has a locking center diff that works very
>effectivly here in central Wis. We get PLENTY of snow to make the
>difference in full time 4x4 vs CR-V system worthwile.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that fact. Even so, I was more interested in
the comparison of AWD modes.
Thanks, though.
...lars
Steven Atran
jose soplar <maz...@aloha.net> wrote:
>I'm also told by the local Honda store that the CRV is
>not available with manual transmission, and that it should never be towed
>even if it breaks down. Anything to that?
The CRV owner's manual states that it can be towed either with all
four wheels on the ground or all four wheels off the ground, but not
with just two wheels on the ground.
Paul W Harvey
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:22:05 GMT, ph...@sprynet.com (Paul W Harvey)
wrote:
>Yep they sure have. Car and Driver tested
SORRY!!!!!!! Car and Driver should read Road and Track!!!!!!
Don't know how I boned that one up?!
--Paul
Paul W Harvey
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 22:45:33 -0800, jose soplar <maz...@aloha.net>
wrote:
>Could someone tell me if a RAV4 can be towed on its own wheels behind a
>motorhome? I get conflicting stories from the dealer and the
>distributor. I'm also told by the local Honda store that the CRV is
>not available with manual transmission, and that it should never be towed
>even if it breaks down. Anything to that?
There was a thread on this a few months ago. I believe the answer was
No. There was some good info in there along with some RAV4 bashing.
Try DejaNews.
--Paul
o...@worldnet.att.com
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:45:33 GMT, NO_SPAM...@ix.netcom.com (Doug)
wrote:
>rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>
>>Both - the 2.5l engine was redesigned to use solid lifters instead of
>>hydraulic, change the air intake system, re-work the shift points in the
>>computer, and several other little things. The net effect was 10 more hp,
>>7 more lb-ft of torque, 1 more MPG hwy and city, and the
>>(factory-recommended) ability to use 87 instead of 91 octane. On the down
>>side, though, peak torque moved to 4k RPM from 2800 so towing is probably
>>still easier with a 96 than a 97.
>>
>Solid lifters? Blecch! Do they have automatic lash adjusters? I
>hate adjusting tappets. Sounds like a nice engine if you don't have
>to adjust the tappets.
You do have to adjust the lifters - every 100,000 miles! Apparently
new metals and designs allow this. Otherwise my fellings are the same
as yours.
> 4K peak torque? That's pretty high. Does the
>rest of the range still have similar torque specs as the previous
>engine? What are the HP and torque specs anyway? Why am I so
>interested? I've been trying to convince myself for 2 years that an
>AWD car would be worth the extra expense. I really like the Outback,
>but my next car is likely to be a V-6 Camry.
>
>
o...@worldnet.att.com
On 20 Mar 1997 23:45:44 GMT, h...@totempole.Eng.Sun.COM (Barry Ho)
wrote:
>In article <5gl6fq$8...@tofu.alt.net> ryan...@btigate.com (Ryan Thorson) writes:
>>Having trouble deciding between a Toyota Rav4 and a Honda CRV. Any comments
>>or suggestions on comfort, reliability, options, etc. would be greatly
>>appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Buy a CRV!!!
>~$21K you get ABS, Alloy wheel, AC, power lock and windows, AM/FM
>and stero.
>For $21K, you cannot get a 4 doors RAV4 with the same package.
>
>CRV is bigger than RAV4 and gas mileage/0-60 is about the same.
>So, why do you want to buy a smaller and more expensive SUV?
>
>Toyota is very reliable, but the same as Honda.
>
>ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
>CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
>
>Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV.
And I can't find any reason to buy either instead of a Legacy Outback,
which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
little over $20k.
GDTRFB1828
>And I can't find any reason to buy either instead of a Legacy Outback,
which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
little over $20k.<
Id like to know where you bought that Legacy Outback. When I was test
driving cars, a comparably equipped Outback was nearly $25,000. Compared
to RAV4, anyway. This was at a suburban Chicago Subaru dealer. I believe
its Schaumburg Subaru....
Scott
Mitsu Hadeishi
GDTRFB1828 (gdtrf...@aol.com) wrote:
: >And I can't find any reason to buy either instead of a Legacy Outback,
Well, first of all, Subaru has this kinda weird policy of making their
base model pretty much include everything. So the "base" Outback is pretty
much fully loaded (which means you get a lot for your money, but it also
means you can't get out of paying for all the accessories. On the plus
side, they don't kill you on the accessories, since they're almost all
included). A "base" Outback includes: air, power locks/windows/mirrors,
cruise control (!), 4-channel ABS, Yakima roof rack, front and rear disc
brakes, radio, extra power outlet in the cargo area, and little nice things
like a rear windshield washer, map lights, etc. About the only accessories
which are optional would be the skid plates, cold weather kit (heated
seats, engine warmer), and little things like yet another power outlet in
the back, a rear-seat cupholder, etc.
The "base" Outback can be had for a little over $20K in most places.
Mitsu
o...@worldnet.att.com
On 23 Mar 1997 13:00:01 GMT, gdtrf...@aol.com (GDTRFB1828) wrote:
>>And I can't find any reason to buy either instead of a Legacy Outback,
>which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
>little over $20k.<
>
> Id like to know where you bought that Legacy Outback. When I was test
>driving cars, a comparably equipped Outback was nearly $25,000. Compared
>to RAV4, anyway. This was at a suburban Chicago Subaru dealer. I believe
>its Schaumburg Subaru....
>
> Scott
I bought it at a local Subaru dealer through United Buying Service.
You should be able to do the same with AutoTel or others. For ANY
Subaru, the price was the Edmunds invoice + destination charge + $160
- $750 incentive (which is still available).
Hall...@aol.com
In article <33350757...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
o...@worldnet.att.com wrote:
>
> On 20 Mar 1997 23:45:44 GMT, h...@totempole.Eng.Sun.COM (Barry Ho)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5gl6fq$8...@tofu.alt.net> ryan...@btigate.com (Ryan Thorson) writes:
> >>Having trouble deciding between a Toyota Rav4 and a Honda CRV. Any comments
> >>or suggestions on comfort, reliability, options, etc. would be greatly
> >>appreciated. Thanks.
> >
> >Buy a CRV!!!
> >~$21K you get ABS, Alloy wheel, AC, power lock and windows, AM/FM
> >and stero.
> >For $21K, you cannot get a 4 doors RAV4 with the same package.
> >
> >CRV is bigger than RAV4 and gas mileage/0-60 is about the same.
> >So, why do you want to buy a smaller and more expensive SUV?
> >
> >Toyota is very reliable, but the same as Honda.
> >
> >ONLY one reason you may want to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV is 5 pseed.
> >CRV doesn't has 5 speed.
> >
> >Besides that, I cannot find a reason to buy a RAV4 instead of CRV.
>
> which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
> little over $20k.
Here are some reasons to buy the Honda CRV instead of the
Legacy Outback:
1. It's a Honda
2. It looks just great
3. It will have super resale value because its a Honda
4. It is a real sport/utility vehicle that can enter and
exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
7. You can walk through between the front seats because
it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
8. You get Alpine-based sound instead of Panasonic.
9. It might get Honda's usual super highway mileage.
While the Outback is a great vehicle, it can be very
expensive when equipped the same as the CRV in one of
the upgraded Outback models. No doubt the bottom of the
line Outback 5-speed is a smart choice as is most any
Subaru. I like the 97 Subaru Legacy Brighton 5-speed wagon
with crank windows, the five-spoke alloys and with the only
tires that really belong on a Subaru--Pirellis--the Pirelli
400 Touring is a dynamite all season tire for this vehicle.
So its not that the Outback is a terrible choice, its just
not a sport/utility like the upcoming 1998 Subaru Forester,
and one can save $5000 by choosing the base Subaru wagon
while adding larger tire/alloy wheel options that get you
within a half inch of the Outback's ground clearance. The
AWD Outback is a smart choice compared to the Accord wagon
but the real comparison is next year between the RAV4, the
CRV, the Forester, and the late arriving V6 8-passenger
Dodge Durango. Three years from now it will be Honda's
Accord-based ARV vs. the new Legacy-replacement line from
Subaru that will undoubtedly have a real sport/ute to offer.
Toyota will need to dramatically change the RAV4 and offer more
interior room to stay at the table with these boys--I think they
already make a vehicle that will but it costs $48,000. But for now
I'll take the loaded alloy/abs CRV for $20695.
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
In article <19970323125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, gdtrf...@aol.com
says...
>
>>And I can't find any reason to buy either instead of a Legacy Outback,
>which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
>little over $20k.<
>
>driving cars, a comparably equipped Outback was nearly $25,000. Compared
>to RAV4, anyway. This was at a suburban Chicago Subaru dealer. I believe
>its Schaumburg Subaru....
>
> Scott
I wrote:
>Well, first of all, Subaru has this kinda weird policy of making their
>base model pretty much include everything. So the "base" Outback is pretty
>much fully loaded (which means you get a lot for your money, but it also
>means you can't get out of paying for all the accessories. On the plus
>side, they don't kill you on the accessories, since they're almost all
>included). A "base" Outback includes: air, power locks/windows/mirrors,
>cruise control (!), 4-channel ABS, Yakima roof rack, front and rear disc
>brakes, radio, extra power outlet in the cargo area, and little nice things
>like a rear windshield washer, map lights, etc. About the only accessories
>which are optional would be the skid plates, cold weather kit (heated
>seats, engine warmer), and little things like yet another power outlet in
>the back, a rear-seat cupholder, etc.
I forgot to add, it also includes a height-adjustable driver's seat (you can
sit up reasonably high with that) and a tilt steering wheel.
Mitsu
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
In article <8591283...@dejanews.com>, Hall...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <33350757...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> o...@worldnet.att.com wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 1997 23:45:44 GMT, h...@totempole.Eng.Sun.COM (Barry Ho)
>> wrote:
>> >In article <5gl6fq$8...@tofu.alt.net> ryan...@btigate.com (Ryan
Thorson) writes:
>> >>Having trouble deciding between a Toyota Rav4 and a Honda CRV.
Any comments
>> >>or suggestions on comfort, reliability, options, etc. would be
greatly
>> >>appreciated. Thanks.
>> >
>> >Buy a CRV!!!
>> >~$21K you get ABS, Alloy wheel, AC, power lock and windows, AM/FM
>> >and stero.
>> >For $21K, you cannot get a 4 doors RAV4 with the same package.
>>
Outback,
>> which includes all the equipment you mention and a lot more for a
>> little over $20k.
>
>Legacy Outback:
>1. It's a Honda
I love Hondas, too. But they aren't known for 4x4's. The Honda
Passport is made by Isuzu. They just don't have the technology.
>2. It looks just great
This is a matter of opinion!
>3. It will have super resale value because its a Honda
I suspect the Outback will retain its value pretty well, given its
great popularity and utility.
>4. It is a real sport/utility vehicle that can enter and
> exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
> nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
Er, I don't think either the CR-V or the Outback belongs in "pretty
extreme terrain". The Outback doesn't because of its attack/departure
angles; the CR-V doesn't because its AWD sucks.
>5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
I'll grant you that.
>6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
I have to admit I like the picnic table. Maybe it's a Japanese thing.
>7. You can walk through between the front seats because
> it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
This is cool too.
>8. You get Alpine-based sound instead of Panasonic.
Also a big plus.
>9. It might get Honda's usual super highway mileage.
Might?
>While the Outback is a great vehicle, it can be very
>expensive when equipped the same as the CRV in one of
>the upgraded Outback models.
Please see other posts on this point. The bottom of the line Outback
is already fully loaded (alloy, ABS, cruise, air, power everything,
roof rack, etc.)
>No doubt the bottom of the
>line Outback 5-speed is a smart choice as is most any
>Subaru. I like the 97 Subaru Legacy Brighton 5-speed wagon
>with crank windows, the five-spoke alloys and with the only
>tires that really belong on a Subaru--Pirellis--the Pirelli
>400 Touring is a dynamite all season tire for this vehicle.
This isn't an Outback, it's a Legacy. A good buy, I agree, but no ABS,
no toughened suspension, etc., only 135hp engine (whoops, that's still
more than a CR-V!)
>So its not that the Outback is a terrible choice, its just
>not a sport/utility like the upcoming 1998 Subaru Forester,
>and one can save $5000 by choosing the base Subaru wagon
>while adding larger tire/alloy wheel options that get you
>within a half inch of the Outback's ground clearance. The
>AWD Outback is a smart choice compared to the Accord wagon
>but the real comparison is next year between the RAV4, the
>CRV, the Forester, and the late arriving V6 8-passenger
>Dodge Durango. Three years from now it will be Honda's
>Accord-based ARV vs. the new Legacy-replacement line from
>Subaru that will undoubtedly have a real sport/ute to offer.
>Toyota will need to dramatically change the RAV4 and offer more
>interior room to stay at the table with these boys--I think they
>already make a vehicle that will but it costs $48,000.
The tininess of the RAV4 is what stopped me from considering that car.
But come on, the CR-V just doesn't have the AWD system to compete with
the Subaru in tough situations: snow, mud, ice. In poor road
conditions both the RAV4 and the Outback would eat the CR-V for lunch.
I mean, come on, the CR-V can't even drive on sand without getting
stuck.
The overhang on the Outback is a minus, but relatively minor for the
road conditions that the Outback is likely to encounter. The CR-V
wouldn't even make it up the snow-covered or muddy dirt roads that the
Outback climbs with ease (before reaching an obstacle that att/dep
angles would cause it any difficulty). . .
And it's just fun to drive on snow or loose dirt or mud and retain such
good control. This is 98% of the time you're on the road or off the
highway, anyway.
>But for now
>I'll take the loaded alloy/abs CRV for $20695.
Is that a real price or MSRP? That's cheaper than the Outback's
MSRP, but about what you can actually get one for at least here in
Portland. And the base Outback (not talking the Brighton, which is a
Legacy but not an Outback) is fully loaded already (as noted above).
larry soo
o...@worldnet.att.com wrote:
>You do have to adjust the lifters - every 100,000 miles! Apparently
>new metals and designs allow this. Otherwise my fellings are the same
>as yours.
Does this use the traditional threaded adjusters or do you have to use
shims? Most modern sport bikes have long intervals between valve
adjustments but they also use shims which require more work and
expensive when adjusting.
...lars
larry soo
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
>Here are some reasons to buy the Honda CRV instead of the
>Legacy Outback:
>6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
That's a reason NOT to buy it. Unless the CRV has already been
selling in other countries for a couple of years, it hasn't been
thoroughly debugged. Buying the first model year of any vehicle is a
poor idea.
[snip]
>The AWD Outback is a smart choice compared to the Accord wagon
>but the real comparison is next year between the RAV4, the
>CRV, the Forester, and the late arriving V6 8-passenger
>Dodge Durango.
Why would you be comparing the RAV4, CRV and the Forester against the
Dodge Durango? They're totally different markets.
...lars
Rich Rubel
larry soo (larr...@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: Does this use the traditional threaded adjusters or do you have to use
: shims? Most modern sport bikes have long intervals between valve
: adjustments but they also use shims which require more work and
: expensive when adjusting.
I have a feeling it's shims, judging from what I was reading, but it can't
be too hard as they allow very little time "by the book" to do the
adjustment - less than 2 hours, IIRC.
Rich Rubel
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
: Legacy Outback:
: 1. It's a Honda
So? It's a Civic. Not even an Accord.
: 2. It looks just great
Matter of Opinion. I think the Outback looks (and drives) better.
: 3. It will have super resale value because its a Honda
For those of us who keep cars for 10+ years, that doesn't matter (btw - my
other Subaru, with 160k miles, has a wholesale of $3500... do that with
an Accord)
: 4. It is a real sport/utility vehicle that can enter and
: exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
: nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
Except that its AWD isn't up to the task of GETTING you to the terrain.
: 5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
I concede that one.
: 6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
: to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
And suffer from first-year blues...
: 7. You can walk through between the front seats because
: it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
And so you can't get a 5-speed.
: 8. You get Alpine-based sound instead of Panasonic.
Who keeps their factory stereo anyway?
: 9. It might get Honda's usual super highway mileage.
Bzzt - it gets WORSE than the Outback. 22/25 vs 21/27.
: While the Outback is a great vehicle, it can be very
: expensive when equipped the same as the CRV in one of
: the upgraded Outback models. No doubt the bottom of the
: line Outback 5-speed is a smart choice as is most any
Bottom of the line 5-speed Outback comes loaded with more stuff than the
CR-V TOP-of-the-line. Equip a CR-V with all the goodies like floor mats
and roof rack and such, and the prices are identical.
Bottom line - the CR-V rides like a Civic. The Outback rides like a sport
sedan. Drive them both, and judge for yourself... I did.
Doug
rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>: interested? I've been trying to convince myself for 2 years that an
>: AWD car would be worth the extra expense. I really like the Outback,
>: but my next car is likely to be a V-6 Camry.
>
>We looked at a Camry wagon because I liked the V6. But $26k??? I paid
>$21k and change for the Outback. And then they dropped the wagon and made
>the sedan so bland I can't look at it any more.
Really? According to Edmund's, an Outback invoices for 20,901 + 495
destination. The V-6 Camry LE invoices for 19,407 + 420 destination.
The vehicles are nearly identically equipped. Am I missing something?
I'd rather have a sedan over a wagon, but the Camry's new styling is a
step backwards.
Doug
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
>Here are some reasons to buy the Honda CRV instead of the
>Legacy Outback:
>1. It's a Honda
Yup
>2. It looks just great
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
>3. It will have super resale value because its a Honda
perhaps
>4. It is a real sport/utility vehicle that can enter and
> exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
> nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
snicker... ...chortle... guffaw! It also includes a half-assed
afterthough of a 4wd system similar to the dufus model on the V-6
Explorer.
>5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
snicker, huge guffaw...again. look at the exhaust pipe.
>6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
the picnic table is cute
>7. You can walk through between the front seats because
> it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
yup
The CRV does have some things to offer over the Outback, but
off-roadability ain't one of 'em.
Rich Rubel
: Really? According to Edmund's, an Outback invoices for 20,901 + 495
: destination. The V-6 Camry LE invoices for 19,407 + 420 destination.
: The vehicles are nearly identically equipped. Am I missing something?
: I'd rather have a sedan over a wagon, but the Camry's new styling is a
: step backwards.
Dunno about Edmunds; I do know what the sticker and price quoted by the
sales droids was. $26k for a '96 Camry wagon, V6, auto, air, abs, roof
rack, floor mats, cassette deck. No dealing. Even the 4-cyl model was
over $22k. I usually prefer sedan to wagon, but growing family needs (and
my wife's business) necessitated a wagon - and the Outback is such a
pleasure to drive and look at that I frankly don't miss the sedan (or
hatchback) look.
Paul W Harvey
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:32:26 -0600, Hall...@aol.com wrote:
-snip-
>Here are some reasons to buy the Honda CRV instead of the
>Legacy Outback:
>1. It's a Honda
>2. It looks just great
To you maybe. I think it's one of the UGLIEST things on the road.
>3. It will have super resale value because its a Honda
>4. It is a real sport/utility vehicle that can enter and
> exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
> nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
No offense intended, BUT WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SMOKING!!!
Ref my post somewhere in this thread where Road and Track compared a
CRV and a RAV4. The CRV couldn't even drive across a sand beach!!!
That's some SUV! Wow!
The CRV's lack of an effective AWD system prevents it from using its
approach and departure angles. Its axles are a joke (I saw them too
Rich). It has NO breakover angle to speak of. Handling "extreme
terrain" isn't theCRV's forte, unless of course you consider the
McDonald's drive through extreme terrain.
>5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
Looks can be deceptive. Look at a bone stock TJ. They look real low,
and they would eat any one of these vehicles off-highway.
>6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
A picnic table! What will they come up with next?
>7. You can walk through between the front seats because
> it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
>8. You get Alpine-based sound instead of Panasonic.
>9. It might get Honda's usual super highway mileage.
Again, because it lacks a good AWD system. It is a front wheel drive
car until it detects front axle slip. It then uses to hydralic pumps
to engage the rear axle. Needlessly complex, more parts to break,
ineffective all wheel traction. If that's the price I have to pay for
better milage I'll pass.
--Paul
Adam Frix
> For those of us who keep cars for 10+ years, that doesn't matter (btw - my
> other Subaru, with 160k miles, has a wholesale of $3500... do that with
> an Accord)
Sorry, Rich, but it happens every day. It's a mystery to me, but that's
how it is.
> : 6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> : to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
>
> And suffer from first-year blues...
Alas, it's already suffering from first-year blues: the details are all
wrong. Nothing's mechanically wrong, mind you, but they didn't get it
quite right out of the chute.
BTW, it's been selling in Japan since October 1995, so it's not a
first-year vehicle.
>
> : 7. You can walk through between the front seats because
> : it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
>
> And so you can't get a 5-speed.
And on a Honda, this is inexcusable.
> : 9. It might get Honda's usual super highway mileage.
>
> Bzzt - it gets WORSE than the Outback. 22/25 vs 21/27.
At the risk of repeating myself, on a Honda this is inexcusable.
> Bottom line - the CR-V rides like a Civic. The Outback rides like a sport
> sedan. Drive them both, and judge for yourself... I did.
Well, now, driving like a Civic is not a bad thing. Civics are, or have
been, quite sporting. If you tell me something rides like a Civic, that's
a good thing.
And I've driven my share of sport sedans; my Civic (92 Si, mind you) holds
no shame compared to the raft of sport sedans out there.
Aloha,
--Adam--
Adam Frix
In article <3336cbe5....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
NO_SPAM...@ix.netcom.com (Doug) wrote:
> snicker... ...chortle... guffaw! It also includes a half-assed
> afterthough of a 4wd system
Not at all half-assed, and *very* thought out. Honda has used this system
successfully since around 1984, and for the task it's designed for, it's a
superb system.
Of course, just like I wouldn't ask a Hyundai to haul gravel, nor would I
ask the Honda system to do something it wasn't designed for.
> The CRV does have some things to offer over the Outback, but
> off-roadability ain't one of 'em.
Which is not a bad thing, of course. I don't go off-road, and most people
I know don't go off-road. So an off-road vehicle is entirely unnecessary.
Aloha,
--Adam--
GDTRFB1828
>I bought it at a local Subaru dealer through United Buying Service.
You should be able to do the same with AutoTel or others. For ANY
Subaru, the price was the Edmunds invoice + destination charge + $160
- $750 incentive (which is still available).<
Sorry, but Im on my second RAV4. Liked it much better than ANY subaru I
test drove. And the Honda was a joke...
Scott
Rich Rubel
GDTRFB1828 (gdtrf...@aol.com) wrote:
: Sorry, but Im on my second RAV4. Liked it much better than ANY subaru I
: test drove. And the Honda was a joke...
Out of curiosity, what happened to your first RAV? I can't imagine it was
worn out already.
Rich Rubel
Adam Frix (7072...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: > other Subaru, with 160k miles, has a wholesale of $3500... do that with
: > an Accord)
: Sorry, Rich, but it happens every day. It's a mystery to me, but that's
: how it is.
Check Kelly's. A comparable Accord (hatchback) is worth about $2k. Which
is still a lot, given the mileage. BTW - I'm going on dealer trade-in
for the Accord, and wholesale for the Subaru - I don't remember what
trade-in was, but I think it's more than wholesale.
: Alas, it's already suffering from first-year blues: the details are all
: wrong. Nothing's mechanically wrong, mind you, but they didn't get it
: quite right out of the chute.
Like the rear door hinged on the right? :-)
: Well, now, driving like a Civic is not a bad thing. Civics are, or have
: been, quite sporting. If you tell me something rides like a Civic, that's
: a good thing.
To me, a Civic is too harsh over rough roads and bumps, but handles well
in turns. The CR-V was quite harsh on expansion joints, and didn't
actually handle the turns well (probably due to its height). I prefer the
Accord's ride, personally, though I still like my Outback better (I had my
mom's '94 Accord wagon the other night, which reinforced that).
Hall...@aol.com
> : Legacy Outback:
> : 1. It's a Honda
>
>
> : 2. It looks just great
>
> Matter of Opinion. I think the Outback looks (and drives) better.
>
>
> For those of us who keep cars for 10+ years, that doesn't matter (btw - my
> an Accord)
>
> : exit some pretty extreme terrain without sticking its
> : nose in the bank or dragging its tail.
>
>
> : 5. It has superior ground clearance--just look at it.
>
>
> : 6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> : to talk about and show off the little picnic table.
>
> And suffer from first-year blues...
>
> : it is a very wide sport utility vehicle.
>
> And so you can't get a 5-speed.
>
>
> Who keeps their factory stereo anyway?
>
>
> Bzzt - it gets WORSE than the Outback. 22/25 vs 21/27.
>
> : expensive when equipped the same as the CRV in one of
> : the upgraded Outback models. No doubt the bottom of the
> : line Outback 5-speed is a smart choice as is most any
>
> Bottom of the line 5-speed Outback comes loaded with more stuff than the
> CR-V TOP-of-the-line. Equip a CR-V with all the goodies like floor mats
> and roof rack and such, and the prices are identical.
>
> sedan. Drive them both, and judge for yourself... I did.
>
> +--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
> | Rich Rubel | Happiness is an AWD Subaru! |
> | rru...@umbc.edu | Turn a SNOW problem into NO problem. |
> | | http://alumni.umbc.edu/~rrubel1/outback.html |
> +--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
I like Subaru. I drive a Subaru. Subaru does not make a
sport utility vehicle. The Subaru Legacy Outback wagon has
the same interior and exterior dimensions and super AWD system
as the Subaru Legacy Brighton Wagon (the only notable diff
are the bigger tires, 28 more hp, grey paint on the bottom
panels, several hundred more pounds, and a $5000-$9000 extra
cost for the Outback stickon. While the outback is a
legacy the CRV is no Civic. I can't find a honda civic that
has over a 103" wheelbase,
69" of width, 66" of height, and weighs 3300 pounds to match
the Honda CRV. The closest thing I can find to match both
interior and exterior dimensions and standard features of
the Honda CRV is the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited costing
$35,000 without the wonderful new Honda grade logic
automatic transmission, a cool utility tray that folds down
when you need to walk through to the back, and of course
the ever present and ready picnic table. Subaru does have
a fantastic AWD system, again I drive one, but they don't make
a sport utility that has superior ground clearance, and
approach/departure angles of a sport utility such as Honda's
new CRV. Subaru needs to build a real sport/ute....It's
called the 1998 Subaru Forester. If they can match the base
CRV with auto, air, stereo, and power windows and 8" plus
ground clearance all for less than $20,000, Subaru will have
a hit.
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
Posting and emailing.
In article <8593026...@dejanews.com>, Hall...@aol.com
says...
>In article <5h5u1g$l...@news.umbc.edu>,
> rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>I like Subaru. I drive a Subaru. Subaru does not make a
>sport utility vehicle.
Neither does Honda.
>The Subaru Legacy Outback wagon has
>the same interior and exterior dimensions and super AWD
system
>as the Subaru Legacy Brighton Wagon (the only notable diff
>are the bigger tires, 28 more hp, grey paint on the bottom
>panels, several hundred more pounds, and a $5000-$9000 extra
>cost for the Outback stickon.
Not to be nitpicky, but the Outback has 30 more hp, and most
importantly a raised and reinforced suspension as well as the
bigger tires, and of course a whole host of extras.
>While the outback is a
>legacy the CRV is no Civic. I can't find a honda civic that
>has over a 103" wheelbase,
>69" of width, 66" of height, and weighs 3300 pounds to match
>the Honda CRV.
I also love Hondas, and I drive a Civic, but the CRV IS a
Civic. Read the news. Read the magazines. It's based on
the Civic chassis.
If Honda put a real AWD system in there the CRV would have a
lot more sport (or a lot more utility). As it is, it's a
nice runabout vehicle, but that's about it. Despite the
attack/dep and clearance, it doesn't have the power or AWD to
deal with really crappy road conditions very well.
Mitsu
jonatha...@analog.com
<8591283...@dejanews.com> <5h5u1g$l...@news.umbc.edu>
<8593026...@dejanews.com>
Date: 25 Mar 1997 12:27:58 -0500
Message-ID: <r343etj...@mira.spd.analog.com>
Organization: Analog Devices CPD
Lines: 111
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
It would also help if the outback didn't look like a
ford escort wagon, with a 1960's scoop on the hood.
Hall...@aol.com writes:
>
> In article <5h5u1g$l...@news.umbc.edu>,
> rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
> >
> I like Subaru. I drive a Subaru. Subaru does not make a
> sport utility vehicle. The Subaru Legacy Outback wagon has
> the same interior and exterior dimensions and super AWD system
> as the Subaru Legacy Brighton Wagon (the only notable diff
> are the bigger tires, 28 more hp, grey paint on the bottom
> panels, several hundred more pounds, and a $5000-$9000 extra
> cost for the Outback stickon. While the outback is a
> legacy the CRV is no Civic. I can't find a honda civic that
> has over a 103" wheelbase,
> 69" of width, 66" of height, and weighs 3300 pounds to match
> the Honda CRV. The closest thing I can find to match both
> interior and exterior dimensions and standard features of
> the Honda CRV is the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited costing
> $35,000 without the wonderful new Honda grade logic
> automatic transmission, a cool utility tray that folds down
> when you need to walk through to the back, and of course
> the ever present and ready picnic table. Subaru does have
> a fantastic AWD system, again I drive one, but they don't make
> a sport utility that has superior ground clearance, and
> approach/departure angles of a sport utility such as Honda's
> new CRV. Subaru needs to build a real sport/ute....It's
> called the 1998 Subaru Forester. If they can match the base
> CRV with auto, air, stereo, and power windows and 8" plus
> ground clearance all for less than $20,000, Subaru will have
> a hit.
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Eagle
jonatha...@analog.com
(617)461-3095
Analog Devices DSP group, 3 Technology Way, Norwood, MA
Paul W Harvey
>In article <3336cbe5....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>NO_SPAM...@ix.netcom.com (Doug) wrote:
>
> > snicker... ...chortle... guffaw! It also includes a half-assed
> > afterthough of a 4wd system
>
>Not at all half-assed, and *very* thought out. Honda has used this system
>successfully since around 1984, and for the task it's designed for, it's a
>superb system.
>
>Of course, just like I wouldn't ask a Hyundai to haul gravel, nor would I
>ask the Honda system to do something it wasn't designed for.
What was the system designed to do? This is a legitimate question and
not a snide remark. It seems to me the only thing the system does
better than any other is save gas. It performs extremely poorly in
the rear axle traction area.
--Paul
GDTRFB1828
>Out of curiosity, what happened to your first RAV? I can't imagine it
was
worn out already.<
Delivered flowers for 26 hours in two days on Valentines day. While
driving home, fell asleep at the wheel and rolled the car three times. Of
course, the car was totalled with the extensive roof damage. I have
excellent insurance, and was in my new RAV in a week. They really pissed
me off about my stereo, though. Only covered 1/3 of the cost ($3,000). Oh
yeah, my premium went up $28 per year when the new car was added to the
policy. Put me at $818 for a year.
Scott
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5h8jtj$6...@news.umbc.edu>, rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>GDTRFB1828 (gdtrf...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Sorry, but Im on my second RAV4. Liked it much better than ANY subaru
I
>: test drove. And the Honda was a joke...
>
>worn out already.
>
His first is definately not driveable anymore....8-))
Lets say that the crush zones worked, and that one should not sleep while
driving....;-))
--
Bye,
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ illem _/ _/ an _/ _/ _/ arkerink
_/_/_/
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Rich Rubel
Hall...@aol.com wrote:
: I like Subaru. I drive a Subaru. Subaru does not make a
: sport utility vehicle. The Subaru Legacy Outback wagon has
Define "vehicle"...
: the same interior and exterior dimensions and super AWD system
: as the Subaru Legacy Brighton Wagon (the only notable diff
: are the bigger tires, 28 more hp, grey paint on the bottom
: panels, several hundred more pounds, and a $5000-$9000 extra
: cost for the Outback stickon. While the outback is a
And the upgraded suspension and all the standard features like ABS, power
mirrors, map light, rear disc brakes, and so forth that are NOT available
on the Brighton. The Outback is actually priced in the middle of the
Subaru Legacy lineup... it's also slightly bigger inside because of the
raised roof line.
: legacy the CRV is no Civic. I can't find a honda civic that
: has over a 103" wheelbase,
It's a Civic engine, a Civic suspension, a Civic-derived chassis, a
Civic-derived interior... in a large, economy-sized package. Ask Honda...
their salesdroids will tell you all that. And auto-only does not an SUV
make.
Now the Forester will only have 7.5" of GC - Subaru needs to work on that,
true. But it will have more standard features than the CR-V (basically
what the rest of the Legacy line has, plus some more storage compartments
and stuff) for about the same price - $19k base, $22k loaded.
G. J. Hornaday
These are, without doubt, great "niche" vehicles, and much less
resource-consuming than most SUV's, which mainly never get their tires
dirty, anyway. BUT! The RAV4 and CRV (dunno 'bout the Subaru) both
lack low range options in their 4wd systems, as far as I know. If you
plan to go into seriously difficult terrain, especially with a small
4-cylinder (read "very little low-rpm torque"), you need low range or a
super granny first gear. Please believe me, 'cause this is the voice of
experience. Since '72, I've been off-roading in the western NC
mountains, mostly going neat places or cutting and hauling firewood.
Have owned 3 IH Scouts (OK, I'm a slow learner!!), a Tojo Land Crab, a
Baja Bug, and, for the past 17 yrs., a Tojo pick-up. If the terrain you
want to tackle is steep, rocky, slick, and rutted, you need LOW RANGE!!
Otherwise, you have to rely on speed and momentum, which will trash your
vehicle and your body real quick! Also, a lot of real interesting
places don't offer room for a running start; you just have to "walk" up
at whatever speed you have coming off idle in your lowest gear. A
locking rear diff helps a lot, too, but can get you into deep s**t on a
slick sidehill or ice, if you aren't real careful. If you plan to take
either of these vehicles into seriously rough terrain, take a shovel and
a good jack, or a cell phone and good plastic.
Hope this adds a little (factual) fuel to the fire.
Happy motorin',
Jim
Rich Rubel
Paul W Harvey (ph...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: What was the system designed to do? This is a legitimate question and
: not a snide remark. It seems to me the only thing the system does
: better than any other is save gas. It performs extremely poorly in
: the rear axle traction area.
Gas issue aside (I'm quite disappointed by the MPG specs), I think it was
designed to allow people who like the feel of a FWD car to continue
driving a mostly-FWD car. I think the auto Outback had a similar goal (in
my mind, and in that of friends, 5-speed equates to sport, and AWD equates
to sport as well - ie, Talon or VR-4). I think in Honda's situation it
was also a lot cheaper to design a FWD car (which they already have a ton
of) with a part-time rear drivetrain using that hydraulic transfer system
that requires no extra diffs or physical torque transfer devices.
Side issue - does anyone know how the system handles turning while
engaged (ie, back-to-front differentials)? Does the hydraulic fluid get
overpowered by the binding and suddenly go FWD, or is there actually a
center diff?
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
I'm posting this as well as emailing it.
In article <5ha073$91v$1...@nnrp-102.bryant.webtv.net>, Backr...@webtv.net
says...
>If the terrain you
>want to tackle is steep, rocky, slick, and rutted, you need LOW RANGE!!
I've been having some conversations with Doug about this, and he promises to
send me some scanned photos of some of the terrain he has taken his trucks
over. I've been playing around a little with my Outback on what appear to me
to be fairly slick, steep, rutted, slimy dirt roads, and it hasn't had any
difficulties getting up them so far. The times it had some difficulty were
places where it was losing traction (in that case it was a snow-covered steep
dirt road) but after I put on chains it went right up. So . . . low range is
definitely a plus, but how important is it really, and when you say "steep"
what do you mean? Are you talking about >50% grades or what? Climbing up a
cliff?
I'd like some more specifics about what kind of road conditions people have
actually encountered out there. I'm really curious! The Outback does lack a
low range, but most of the reviews I've read suggested that this is really only
important for technical rock crawling (which the Outback wouldn't handle anyway
because of its poor att/dep/breakover angles). Note that the Outback has a
165hp engine with fairly good low-end torque for a four cylinder; a much bigger
engine than either the RAV (120hp) or the CRV (130hp).
>Otherwise, you have to rely on speed and momentum, which will trash your
>vehicle and your body real quick! Also, a lot of real interesting
>places don't offer room for a running start; you just have to "walk" up
>at whatever speed you have coming off idle in your lowest gear.
Again, do you think the Outback could even get over these obstacles even with a
low range?
>A
>locking rear diff helps a lot, too, but can get you into deep s**t on a
>slick sidehill or ice, if you aren't real careful.
The Outback (and the RAV) either have or have the equivalent of a locking
center diff.
>If you plan to take
>either of these vehicles into seriously rough terrain, take a shovel and
>a good jack, or a cell phone and good plastic.
I have all of those things . . .
>Hope this adds a little (factual) fuel to the fire.
Details, more details!
>
>
> Happy motorin',
> Jim
Mitsu
Rich Rubel
GDTRFB1828 (gdtrf...@aol.com) wrote:
: Delivered flowers for 26 hours in two days on Valentines day. While
: driving home, fell asleep at the wheel and rolled the car three times. Of
: course, the car was totalled with the extensive roof damage. I have
Ouch. Testament to the RAV's safety, though.
Hall...@aol.com
In article <5h5b7g$d...@fountain.mindlink.net>,
larr...@mindlink.bc.ca (larry soo) wrote:
>
> Hall...@aol.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >Here are some reasons to buy the Honda CRV instead of the
> >Legacy Outback:
> >6. It's brand new, just out, and will be alot of fun
> That's a reason NOT to buy it. Unless the CRV has already been
> selling in other countries for a couple of years, it hasn't been
> thoroughly debugged. Buying the first model year of any vehicle is a
> poor idea.
> [snip]
> >The AWD Outback is a smart choice compared to the Accord wagon
> >but the real comparison is next year between the RAV4, the
> >CRV, the Forester, and the late arriving V6 8-passenger
> >Dodge Durango.
>
> Why would you be comparing the RAV4, CRV and the Forester against the
> Dodge Durango? They're totally different markets.
>
> ...lars
The delayed release V6 Durango was included because price
and purpose often determine whether a vehicle is in the same
market not advertisement hype or first glance opinion.
This is why the RAV4 discussion immediately moves to a
CRV vs. Outback discussion because the Honda while hyped to
compete with the RAV4 is just a much larger vehicle while
costing less than the RAV4. Once past the initial V8 intro
Durangos look for a relatively base version with an all
new V6 with decent near CRV and RAV4 mileage that can be
had for CRV, RAV4, and maybe Forester prices. Quality,of
course is a whole different story and in my opinion few
vehicles belong in the same class with Honda or Subaru
products.
Andreas Voss
In article <5gl6fq$8...@tofu.alt.net> ryan...@btigate.com (Ryan Thorson)
writes:
>Having trouble deciding between a Toyota Rav4 and a Honda CRV. Any comments
>or suggestions on comfort, reliability, options, etc. would be greatly
>appreciated. Thanks.
The same is with me - and I have another problem. The CR-V is not
available here in Germany before end of June. The only things I got is
a lot of information out of the internet and a 4-page-brochure with
nearly no informational content of the CR-V. In fact Honda shows the
japanese version of the CR-V.
For the RAV I have a sufficient amount of colorful paper ;-).
An information I am missing in all brochures are the dimensions of the
trunk. I have to transport a telescope mount (yes, I do astronomy) and
the legs of the tripod measures still some 5 feet when disassembled.
Could friendly owner of these cars measure all dimensions in the trunk
(RAV4: rear seat with seatback up and down as well as seat fully folded
up, difference in height between folded seatback and cargo area;
CR-V: ??? I don't know what is possible...)?
Thanks in advance.
Andy
--
This is only my private opinion!
Andreas Voss | Tel: +49-89-3187-2969
Institute of Pathology | Fax: +49-89-3187-3349
GSF - Research Centre | e-mail: vo...@gsf.de
P.O.Box 1129 | Mobil: +49-172-8639472
D-85758 Oberschleissheim |
Paul W Harvey
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:51:31 -0600, Hall...@aol.com wrote:
-snip-
>
>The delayed release V6 Durango was included because price
>and purpose often determine whether a vehicle is in the same
>market not advertisement hype or first glance opinion.
>This is why the RAV4 discussion immediately moves to a
>CRV vs. Outback discussion because the Honda while hyped to
>compete with the RAV4 is just a much larger vehicle while
>costing less than the RAV4.
I don't know where you got your prices for the CRV and RAV4, but in
the R&T arcticle I already posted exerpts from, equally equipped
vehicles were with a few hunder dollars of each other.
Additionally, the Durango will always be in a different class becuase
it is a *truck* based SUV. It will have a *truck* frame and should be
able to bear much heavier loads than either the CRV or the RAV4
(unless Dodge *really* screws something up). The CRV and RAV4 are car
based vehicles. Unit-bodies aren't known for their load bearing
capabilites.
--Paul
GDTRFB1828
>Quality,of
course is a whole different story and in my opinion few
vehicles belong in the same class with Honda or Subaru
products.<
Lets not leave Toyota out of the quality mentions. They still have the
highest ranked vehicle made (Lexus LS400) for I dont know how many years
running. And the RAV4 is #1 among "SUVs".
Scott
GDTRFB1828
>Ouch. Testament to the RAV's safety, though.<
Yes, I was quite happy to be alive. And why I bought another one. With a
lower roof line, I might well have been seriously injured, instead of no
injury at all.
Scott
Paul W Harvey
On 26 Mar 1997 00:22:02 GMT, rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>
>Side issue - does anyone know how the system handles turning while
>engaged (ie, back-to-front differentials)? Does the hydraulic fluid get
>overpowered by the binding and suddenly go FWD, or is there actually a
>center diff?
Don't know about turning. Just read another arcticle about them
though and it said it had a clutch on the rear driveshaft. Seems the
hydraulic pumps are opposed and are turned by movement of the vehicle,
not the engine. One pump os powered by the front axle, drive shaft,
whatever (it didn't say) and the other is powered by the rear drive
shaft. When the vehicle is going straight on a dry road both pumps
turn the same speed. When the front axle spins the front pump turns
faster than the rear and causes a build up in pressure. The build up
in pressure accuates a clutched device which connects the rear drive
shaft to some source of engine power (arcticle didn't explain how they
tap of the tranny) This thing has a transaxle doesn't it?
I didn't get the chance to read the arcticle in depth. More on this
later.
--Paul
Doccers
In <19970326235...@ladder01.news.aol.com> gdtrf...@aol.com
Another Consumer reports junkie? (snicker)
GDTRFB1828
> Another Consumer reports junkie? (snicker)<
Dont wanna believe CR, how about JD Power? their opinion of the Lexus is
identical. As far as CR goes, I dont listen to their driving impressions,
because theyre aimed at the minivan crowd. But I put a great deal of
emphasis on their customer survey. People are reporting real world
experience with their cars. I really dont believe the owners are going to
lie or embellish because they want their cars to rank better. That would
go against any reason one would subscribe to the rag in the first place.
Scott
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
Posting and emailing.
In article <5hd75o$9...@fountain.mindlink.net>, larr...@mindlink.bc.ca says...
>
>mit...@ix.netcom.com (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) wrote:
>
>>I've been having some conversations with Doug about this, and he promises to
>>send me some scanned photos of some of the terrain he has taken his trucks
>>over. I've been playing around a little with my Outback on what appear to me
>>to be fairly slick, steep, rutted, slimy dirt roads, and it hasn't had any
>>difficulties getting up them so far. The times it had some difficulty were
>>places where it was losing traction (in that case it was a snow-covered steep
>>dirt road) but after I put on chains it went right up. So . . . low range is
>>definitely a plus, but how important is it really, and when you say "steep"
>>what do you mean? Are you talking about >50% grades or what? Climbing up a
>>cliff?
>
>Hey Mitsu, check out the trip reports on my home page:
>
> http://off-road.com/~lhsoo/
>
>You can get an idea of my definition of "offroad".
I'll check it out, but of course, I'm not trying to claim that my Outback can
handle really tough off-road situations --- naturally, it has limited
capabilities in that arena for many reasons. I DO claim that it can handle
more stuff than you might expect, and certainly more than a regular car, and
I've already played around with it enough in mild situations to see that for
myself. But of course anything really serious and I'm leaving it at home and
walking (or riding in someone else's truck).
Mitsu
Paul W Harvey
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:15:27 GMT, ph...@sprynet.com (Paul W Harvey)
wrote:
>On 26 Mar 1997 00:22:02 GMT, rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>
>>
>>Side issue - does anyone know how the system handles turning while
>>engaged (ie, back-to-front differentials)? Does the hydraulic fluid get
>>overpowered by the binding and suddenly go FWD, or is there actually a
>>center diff?
>I didn't get the chance to read the arcticle in depth. More on this
>later.
Here's the rest of the story according to Car and Driver's 97 Buyers
Guide for Pickups, SUVs, and vans.
Info from page 69.....
" A full-time four-wheel-drive system - Honda calls it "Real Time
4wd" - completes the powertrain. It consists of a conventional front
wheel drive setup, a transfer case that feed power through a drive
shaft to the rear differential, and a dual-pump hydralic system with
one pump driven by the front half of the system and the other by the
rear.
"When the CR-V is running on dry pavement, the front and rear hydralic
pumps operate at the same speed, essentially cancelling each other
out. If the fron wheels begin to turn faster than the rear wheels, as
would happen on snow or ice, the two pumps begin to spin at different
rate. This creates a rise in hydraulic pressure which causes a
multiplate clutch to come into play. The clutch engages the
driveshaft with the rear differential, thus feeding power to the rear
wheels. The system is completely automatic - no electronics or driver
intervention is involved - and it automatically disengages under
braking which allows the ABS to properly engage."
(Any spelling errors are mine and not C&D's.)
The begining of the arcticle states, "Like the RAV4, the CR-V is based
on an existing passenger car platform; in this case Honda's 103.2 -
inch wheelbase Civic." I believe someone (Hall?) was questioning that
earlier in the thread.
The arcticle really doesn't answer your question, Rich. I figured I'd
post it anyway because the system is rather unique and I thought y'all
might be interested in it. Could it be the clutches allow the system
to slip when the front - to - rear wheel speeds vary in a turn?
--Paul
Rich Rubel
: post it anyway because the system is rather unique and I thought y'all
: might be interested in it. Could it be the clutches allow the system
: to slip when the front - to - rear wheel speeds vary in a turn?
Weird - it sounds a LOT like the Subaru system, but with the multiclutch
engagement on the REAR axle instead of the front. Seems to me like a lot
of needless equipment, including a driveshaft that spins but isn't
connected to anything unless the front wheels slip. Also, given the 100/0
nature of the system, I wonder if it truly can handle slippery turns well
- if it could, why not make it 90/10 or 80/20 or something? Can anyone
with a Civic Tall Wagon RT-4WD cast any light?
So WHAT drives the pumps? The halfshafts?
Debruyn
We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!
Rich Rubel
Debruyn (deb...@aol.com) wrote:
: We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
: than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
: lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!
Unfortunately, Kia's dealer network is too small right now. I'm not sure
if they have any on the east coast yet. Of course, if they take their
time expanding, then they might be spared the problems Hyundai had...
Klaus Kessler
>The same is with me - and I have another problem. The CR-V is not
>available here in Germany before end of June.
Auch Du, mein Sohn Brutus ? :))
I“ve got the RAV4 and am really content with it. It fullfilled more than my
expectations in speed, milage and off-road behaviour.
Regarding the fact that the RAV4 isn“t a "real" off-road car but more a normal
car that can go off-road I am really impressed what type of terrain I can
cross without getting stuck.
Klaus “Doc“ Kessler
Germany
Robert Mounce
>: We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
>: than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
>: lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!
>Unfortunately, Kia's dealer network is too small right now. I'm not sure
>if they have any on the east coast yet. Of course, if they take their
>time expanding, then they might be spared the problems Hyundai had...
The Maryland dealer opens for business April 1!
The Washington DC dealer is still awaiting zoning permission.
Call Kia at 1-800-333-4KIA and they will tell you where the
nearest dealer is (or will be).
Cheers,
Robert
GDTRFB1828
>We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!<
Ill ask once again, considering there has been more than one horror
story regarding Kias reliability. Where are you gonna get it fixed? What
if you move away from the dealer it was purchased at ( California?) ? What
about experienced mechanics for you car? Did you consider parts
availability? There just aint that many Kia dealers around to justify the
purchase of one, in my book.
Scott
Mitsu Hadeishi
Debruyn (deb...@aol.com) wrote:
: We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
: than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
: lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!
I've heard good things about the Sportage. If I didn't want the longer
cargo area that would have been my second choice after the Outback.
Mitsu
MKpine
Both cars are not serious off roaders (fine with me). Check out Kelley's
Blue Book on line for the list price on ALL options, the list is more
extensive than any other book source. I used it to negociate on my RAV4,
and it totally surprise the salesman when I can tell him how much the
floor carpet REALLY cost.
Dien Phan
In article <5h5565$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mit...@ix.netcom.com (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says:
>The tininess of the RAV4 is what stopped me from considering that car.
> But come on, the CR-V just doesn't have the AWD system to compete with
>the Subaru in tough situations: snow, mud, ice. In poor road
>conditions both the RAV4 and the Outback would eat the CR-V for lunch.
> I mean, come on, the CR-V can't even drive on sand without getting
>stuck.
>
I believe that with real-time 4WD, CR-V will be able to go into sand, mud,
and snow. Whenever it detect a wheel slips, the 4WD kicked in and
all 4 wheels turn. This will help the CR-V to get out of sand. However,
CR-V is not designed as an off road vehicle.
Consumer Reports June 1996 issue stated that the RAV4 4WD does not have
the low range. This means RAV4 4WD only can be activated at high speed. When
RAV4 get stuck on sand and stop, driver cannot activate the 4WD.
Other SUV such as Nissan Pathfinder, Toy 4Runner, Jeep Cherokee, and
Ford Explorer all have Low Range 4WD to get out of mud, snow and sand.
I believe that CR-V also can activate 4WD in low range.
By the way, Consumer Reports June 96 also stated that RAV4 does not have a
rear bumper. US govt. does not required it on SUV.
So if you back up your car, watch out. It may cost you
$1000. I hope that Toyota shields the RAV4 gas tank well from rear end
collision. Two months ago, a Jeep Grand Cheroke gas tank exploded into flame
when a Geo Prism slammed into it from behind at 20 MPH which killed a
child inside in Big Lake Minnesota.
>
>>But for now
>>I'll take the loaded alloy/abs CRV for $20695.
>
>Is that a real price or MSRP? That's cheaper than the Outback's
>MSRP, but about what you can actually get one for at least here in
>Portland. And the base Outback (not talking the Brighton, which is a
>Legacy but not an Outback) is fully loaded already (as noted above).
This is the MSRP. It comes with ABS and a plain AM/FM radio. Cassette and CD
extra. You are likely to get some discounts from the dealer.
Rich Rubel
Dien Phan (Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu) wrote:
: I believe that with real-time 4WD, CR-V will be able to go into sand, mud,
: and snow. Whenever it detect a wheel slips, the 4WD kicked in and
: all 4 wheels turn. This will help the CR-V to get out of sand. However,
: CR-V is not designed as an off road vehicle.
At least one magazine has proven this not to be the case, when their test
CR-V could not make it across a sandy beach that the RAV handled with
ease.
: Consumer Reports June 1996 issue stated that the RAV4 4WD does not have
: the low range. This means RAV4 4WD only can be activated at high speed. When
: RAV4 get stuck on sand and stop, driver cannot activate the 4WD.
RAV4 is in 4WD *all* the time - no need to activate/deactivate it.
: Other SUV such as Nissan Pathfinder, Toy 4Runner, Jeep Cherokee, and
: Ford Explorer all have Low Range 4WD to get out of mud, snow and sand.
: I believe that CR-V also can activate 4WD in low range.
CR-V has no low range.
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5hjije$o...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>,
Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Dien Phan) wrote:
>In article <5h5565$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mit...@ix.netcom.com
(Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says:
>
>>The tininess of the RAV4 is what stopped me from considering that car.
>> But come on, the CR-V just doesn't have the AWD system to compete with
>>the Subaru in tough situations: snow, mud, ice. In poor road
>>conditions both the RAV4 and the Outback would eat the CR-V for lunch.
>> I mean, come on, the CR-V can't even drive on sand without getting
>>stuck.
>>
>
>and snow.
Go into: yes. Come out of: ?....;-))
>Whenever it detect a wheel slips, the 4WD kicked in and
>all 4 wheels turn. This will help the CR-V to get out of sand. However,
>CR-V is not designed as an off road vehicle.
Sand is a very delicate surface, where wheel spin is to be avoided at all
cost. Slow accelleration and braking, wide turns etc. A rear axle that
engages only when and after the front wheel spin is a very Bad Think (tm).
Same goes for ice btw, a spinning tire has way less grip, stiction
(static friction) is always higher than friction while spinning.
>Consumer Reports June 1996 issue stated that the RAV4 4WD does not have
>the low range. This means RAV4 4WD only can be activated at high speed.
When
>RAV4 get stuck on sand and stop, driver cannot activate the 4WD.
The RAV3 is full time 4wd, the only additional option is locking the center
diff, which can be done at speed. The auto version relies on a mild visco
LSD on the center diff instead, not as good as a full manual locker.
But it always drives all 4 wheels all the time!
[note that the factory lockers in the ABS/Visco version of the TLC
80-series require a stand still to engage....a modification to engage at
least the center diff at speed should be online on the 80-series site by
now: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm]
>Other SUV such as Nissan Pathfinder, Toy 4Runner, Jeep Cherokee, and
>Ford Explorer all have Low Range 4WD to get out of mud, snow and sand.
>I believe that CR-V also can activate 4WD in low range.
The CRV has no low range.
>By the way, Consumer Reports June 96 also stated that RAV4 does not have a
>rear bumper. US govt. does not required it on SUV.
>So if you back up your car, watch out. It may cost you
>$1000. I hope that Toyota shields the RAV4 gas tank well from rear end
>collision. Two months ago, a Jeep Grand Cheroke gas tank exploded into
flame
>when a Geo Prism slammed into it from behind at 20 MPH which killed a
>child inside in Big Lake Minnesota.
If you think that any factory bumper saves a gas tank from exploding where
the lack thereof doesn't, then you put way to much confidence in those
flimsy things. They are designed for parking speed impacts, nothing else.
The car's structural crumple zones are for the high speed protection!
--
Bye,
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ illem _/ _/ an _/ _/ _/ arkerink
_/_/_/
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5h9q7a$2...@news.umbc.edu>, rru...@umbc.edu (Rich Rubel) wrote:
>Paul W Harvey (ph...@sprynet.com) wrote:
>: not a snide remark. It seems to me the only thing the system does
>: better than any other is save gas. It performs extremely poorly in
>: the rear axle traction area.
>
>Gas issue aside (I'm quite disappointed by the MPG specs), I think it was
>designed to allow people who like the feel of a FWD car to continue
>driving a mostly-FWD car. I think the auto Outback had a similar goal (in
>my mind, and in that of friends, 5-speed equates to sport, and AWD equates
>to sport as well - ie, Talon or VR-4). I think in Honda's situation it
>was also a lot cheaper to design a FWD car (which they already have a ton
>of) with a part-time rear drivetrain using that hydraulic transfer system
>that requires no extra diffs or physical torque transfer devices.
>
>engaged (ie, back-to-front differentials)? Does the hydraulic fluid get
>overpowered by the binding and suddenly go FWD, or is there actually a
>center diff?
>
AFAIK it uses a hydraulic clutch system that can gradually enage, unlike
the V6 Explorer on/off system (Borg-Warner clutch I believe).
You enter the territory of visco units as well: "when will they disengage?"
I think good pavement does provides more grip than the CRV system can send
torque to the rear, so barking tires are not likely.
But driving the tightest possible corner on ice, snow and mud isn't part
of this game either, you need a full time 4wd system with geared center
diff to do that. The once relying on a visco clutch instead of a geared
diff are prone to binding in tight corners as well....additional visco
LSD's on the center diff makes thing near-perfect....only torque sensing
LSD's are better, as they bias torque without any binding possible (but
they are not effective with wheels airborn, unless you apply the brakes).
Mitsuharu Hadeishi
In article <5hltng$n9r$1...@news.a1.nl>, w.j.ma...@a1.nl says...
>
>In article <5hjije$o...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>,
> Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Dien Phan) wrote:
>>In article <5h5565$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mit...@ix.netcom.com
>(Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says:
>The auto version relies on a mild visco
>LSD on the center diff instead
I thought the RAV4's center diff was multiplate clutch-type, not viscous.
Mitsu
Paul W Harvey
On 30 Mar 1997 14:35:28 GMT, w.j.ma...@a1.nl (Willem-Jan
Markerink) wrote:
-snip long RAV4 - CRV discussion.-
Willem,
I think you or your browser misquoted Mistu. He is arguing for the
Outback. I don't think it was Mitsu who said the CRV would go through
sand.
Back to the thread.... The CRV won't go through sand. R&T tried it
and then ended up having to push the thing.
--Paul
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5hmhde$4...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
the auto has a mild additional visco LSD instead (no user interference).
Ellen Prince
In article <5h5565$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Mitsuharu Hadeishi <mi...@openmind.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The tininess of the RAV4 is what stopped me from considering that car.
Well, its small size is what made me consider it in the first place! I'd
just discovered that Camrys now are over 1' longer than the '85 Camry
I was replacing and checked out other possibilities since I didn't want
anything bigger than the old Camry. And that's how I found the RAV. (And
it was love at first test-drive. ;) )
I realize most Americans buy cars like potatoes and calculate price per
pound -- but some of us really feel quite different and *prefer* our
cars small and nimble. Hope Toyota doesn't start catering to the average
American tastes with the RAV the way they do with the Camry. (In Japan
the Camry is apparently still the size it used to be, around 175" long.
The RAV 4-dr is 162", btw. Perfect!)
Ellen Prince
In article <5hmhde$4...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Mitsuharu Hadeishi <mi...@openmind.com> wrote:
>In article <5hltng$n9r$1...@news.a1.nl>, w.j.ma...@a1.nl says...
>>
>>In article <5hjije$o...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>,
>> Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (Dien Phan) wrote:
>>>In article <5h5565$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mit...@ix.netcom.com
>>(Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says:
>>The auto version relies on a mild visco
>>LSD on the center diff instead
>
>I thought the RAV4's center diff was multiplate clutch-type, not viscous.
I believe I corrected this misunderstanding of yours about a month ago
in email (or perhaps here). It's viscous.
Doccers
In <5hnlhb$59p$1...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S.
Rowell) writes:
>
>Dien Phan (Ph...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu) wrote:
>: Consumer Reports June 1996 issue stated that the RAV4 4WD does not
have
>: the low range. This means RAV4 4WD only can be activated at high
speed. When
>: RAV4 get stuck on sand and stop, driver cannot activate the 4WD.
>
You're still stuck, though. :)
I think he was just complaining about the lack of low range.
Barry Ho
In article <19970328175...@ladder01.news.aol.com> deb...@aol.com (Debruyn) writes:
>We looked at the CRV and the RAV and found the Kia Sportage offered more
>than either of them. Larger dimensions in all catagories, more power,
>lower cost. Tood delivery this week and we love it!
Are you sure Sportage is larger than a CRV?
They should have about the same power.
Lower cost is true.
But, how about re-sale value? Sportage is only 24% of the re-sale after 4 years!!!
CRV and RAV4 is about 50-60% of its value after 4 years.
If you will never sell your Sportage may be ok then......
I don't know how reliable of Sportage also, you will tell us.
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <333eeebc...@news.eur.sprynet.com>,
>Markerink) wrote:
>
>-snip long RAV4 - CRV discussion.-
>
>Willem,
>
>I think you or your browser misquoted Mistu.
Not likely, but I am too lazy to check that; but please don't call
newsreaders 'browsers'....that only applies to Netscrape stuff (with a
dreadfull newsserver-killing 4.0 beta release).
>He is arguing for the
>Outback. I don't think it was Mitsu who said the CRV would go through
>sand.
>
>Back to the thread.... The CRV won't go through sand. R&T tried it
>and then ended up having to push the thing.
Luckily you don't get your feet dirty in sand....8-))
Paul W Harvey
On 1 Apr 1997 18:36:23 GMT, h...@bh.Eng.Sun.COM (Barry Ho) wrote:
>But, how about re-sale value? Sportage is only 24% of the re-sale after 4 years!!!
>CRV and RAV4 is about 50-60% of its value after 4 years.
I'm guessing you took these figures from the non-U.S. markets, right?
Neither vehicle has been offered in States for 4 years, so we really
don't *know* what the re-sale value will be; we can only extrapolate.
Who knows the market may change.
--Paul
Doccers
In <5hsi4l$bn5$1...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S.
Rowell) writes:
>Barry Ho (h...@bh.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>: But, how about re-sale value?
> Sportage is only 24% of the re-sale after 4 years!!!
>: CRV and RAV4 is about 50-60% of its value after 4 years.
>
>RAV or station wag, er, CRV. :-)
Would someone please tell me where to find a 4 year old CRV and Rav4?
GDTRFB1828
>>>But, how about re-sale value? Sportage is only 24% of the re-sale after
4 years!!!
>CRV and RAV4 is about 50-60% of its value after 4 years.
I'm guessing you took these figures from the non-U.S. markets, right?
Neither vehicle has been offered in States for 4 years, so we really
don't *know* what the re-sale value will be; we can only extrapolate.
Who knows the market may change.
--Paul<<
Autoweek estimates the RAV4 will retain 75--80% of its original value in
FIVE years. Thats based on the resale of other Toyota 4x4s.
Scott
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <5houp6$e...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
In that case we must consider it a FAQ in its worst form....;-))
Additional note: it is an *additional* visco LSD, on top of the normal diff
gears. Not a visco clutch to the front axle a la Jeep Quadratrac and VW
Syncro Van.
The RAV4 manual gets a full manual locker instead.
Barry Ho
In article <5hv9kd$9...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> supe...@ix.netcom.com(Doccers) writes:
>In <5hsi4l$bn5$1...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S.
>Rowell) writes:
>>
>>Barry Ho (h...@bh.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>> Sportage is only 24% of the re-sale after 4 years!!!
>>: CRV and RAV4 is about 50-60% of its value after 4 years.
>>
>>RAV or station wag, er, CRV. :-)
>
>Would someone please tell me where to find a 4 year old CRV and Rav4?
>
Do you know what is prediction? I didn't do that, but some Car Magzs.
You don't have to believe that, but I bet it is close.
Debruyn
I understand your concern, but here in Portland, OR, there are 4 dealers
within a 10 mile radius, 6 more within an hours drive. Kia has been
selling here for three years. Perhaps it is just now moving down south??
Paul W Harvey
On 3 Apr 1997 17:16:00 GMT, h...@bh.Eng.Sun.COM (Barry Ho) wrote:
>Do you know what is prediction? I didn't do that, but some Car Magzs.
>You don't have to believe that, but I bet it is close.
Barry,
It would be nice, and possibly save you some questions, if you would
include your references when you make a statement like you did. The
way you worded your original post you made it appear as fact, which it
certainly isn't and can't be. If you would have said something like
Killer SUV Monthly estimates the RAV4's and CRV's resale value, after
four years, will be 50-60% of their original purchase price.
No one could argue with you then.
Regards,
Paul
The Struck's
I am looking to buy a 4runner limited in august that would be a 97
model and the new 98 4runners come out in october.Does anyone know
if the toyota4runner model will change in any way(lights,shape
etc)for 98?If it changes I will wait but if not then I will get the
97.Can anyone answer my question.Reply at tw...@ix.netcom.com(Greg)
Kyle Lussier
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 21:05:13 -0700, The Struck's <tw...@IX.NETCOM.COM>
wrote:
Not sure about 98, but I am *very* happy with my 97. I highly
recommend you get the sport kit w/ matching jet black running boards.
It's a really classly looking combo.
y+
---------------------------------------------------------------------*------
Kyle Lussier, NSF Engineering Research Center |
http://inside.net/silicon_softworks |
Author of "POWER-3D: High-Speed 3D Graphics in Windows 95/NT" *--*x+
Grab Silly Space 2, "Virtual Silly Putty" Now, Totally Free! /
-------------------------------------------------------------------/--------
z+ *