RAV4 -- 4x4 vs 4x2

Hi,

Just curious about what people think of the 4WD vs
Front WD for the RAV4?

I've only had front-wheel drive cars up to now and they
have been just fine (Honda Civic before, 1991 Toyota Corolla
DX Wagon now)

I am seriously considering a RAV4, and I am tempted to
get the 4x2 as the car will be 99% of the time on paved
roads :-)

I think the slightly better fuel economy and possibly fewer
problems with a simpler mechanical setup will lead to better
long-term reliability/maintenance.

Your thoughts? (You may also toss in opinions for 4cyl vs v6 ..
I'm leaning towards the 4cyl .. no need to tow much, I know
that's one major difference in addition to possibly better
acceleration)

Thanks!

Esmail

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:47:27 +0000, Esmail Bonakdarian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Just curious about what people think of the 4WD vs
> Front WD for the RAV4?
>
> I've only had front-wheel drive cars up to now and they
> have been just fine (Honda Civic before, 1991 Toyota Corolla
> DX Wagon now)
>
> I am seriously considering a RAV4, and I am tempted to
> get the 4x2 as the car will be 99% of the time on paved
> roads :-)
>
> I think the slightly better fuel economy and possibly fewer
> problems with a simpler mechanical setup will lead to better
> long-term reliability/maintenance.
>
> Your thoughts? (You may also toss in opinions for 4cyl vs v6 ..
> I'm leaning towards the 4cyl .. no need to tow much, I know
> that's one major difference in addition to possibly better
> acceleration)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Esmail[/color]


I would ask, first of all, where do you live? Do you NEED AWD, will you
use it, of are you in an area where it won't be used?

Toyota makes some good AWD vehicles; if you live where there is snow or
mud, and are going to use it, obviously go for the AWD. It's made by
Toyota; that doesn't mean it's infallible, but it's a good indication it
will be more trouble-free than others...

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I would ask, first of all, where do you live? Do you NEED AWD, will you
> use it, of are you in an area where it won't be used?[/color]

Well, right now I'm in NE Ohio, but I will be moving most likely next
year (not sure where in the US).

I drove my front-wheel vehicles without troubles in the harsh Iowa
winters for many years. I suppose if I had mountains to contend with
a 4WD would be a safer choice. Perhaps I should try to wait on a new
car until I know where I am moving ...

Yes, Toyotas are great cars and super reliable in my experience.
My 1991 Corolla Wagon has had only break pads replaced and the
battery once. That's all .. trouble free as can be.

Esmail

The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads). Sounds
like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a consideration
look at the Matrix which has about the same room.

"Esmail Bonakdarian" <ebonak-a@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3QiRg.910$422.519@trnddc03...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Just curious about what people think of the 4WD vs
> Front WD for the RAV4?
>
> I've only had front-wheel drive cars up to now and they
> have been just fine (Honda Civic before, 1991 Toyota Corolla
> DX Wagon now)
>
> I am seriously considering a RAV4, and I am tempted to
> get the 4x2 as the car will be 99% of the time on paved
> roads :-)
>
> I think the slightly better fuel economy and possibly fewer
> problems with a simpler mechanical setup will lead to better
> long-term reliability/maintenance.
>
> Your thoughts? (You may also toss in opinions for 4cyl vs v6 ..
> I'm leaning towards the 4cyl .. no need to tow much, I know
> that's one major difference in addition to possibly better
> acceleration)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Esmail[/color]

"Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
news:o5mRg.4170$Go3.1783@dukeread05...[color=blue]
> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
> 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads).
> Sounds like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a
> consideration look at the Matrix which has about the same room.
>[/color]

You get a few more mpg with the Matrix but the rear visibility is horrible
and the instrument cluster is messed up IMO. Test drove a Matrix and knocked
that right off of the list. It's a cool looking vehicle from the outside
though.

--

Tanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys)

tanukiki wrote:[color=blue]
> "Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
> news:o5mRg.4170$Go3.1783@dukeread05...[color=green]
>> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
>> 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads).
>> Sounds like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a
>> consideration look at the Matrix which has about the same room.
>>[/color]
>
> You get a few more mpg with the Matrix but the rear visibility is horrible
> and the instrument cluster is messed up IMO. Test drove a Matrix and knocked
> that right off of the list. It's a cool looking vehicle from the outside
> though.[/color]

I have to agree with you, test drove one too .. plus I don't even
really like the way it looks :-)

Personally though, I wish they hadn't made the new (2006+) RAV4 bigger,
I thought the size was just fine. I read that the RAV4 sold in Japan
and Europe is not larger like the US version.

Wolfgang wrote:[color=blue]
> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
> 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads). Sounds
> like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a consideration
> look at the Matrix which has about the same room.[/color]

I thought about it, and in spite of thinking it's somewhat an ugly
car I took a test drive and didn't really like it. Poor visibility
compared to my current car, and it felt cheap'ish .. the ride wasn't
nearly as nice as the RAV4 either :-)

Wish the RAV4 hadn't grown in size in 2006 .. I was happy with its
dimensions.

"Esmail Bonakdarian" <ebonak-a@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KumRg.955$422.662@trnddc03...[color=blue]
> tanukiki wrote:[color=green]
>> "Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
>> news:o5mRg.4170$Go3.1783@dukeread05...[color=darkred]
>>> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based.
>>> The 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads).
>>> Sounds like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a
>>> consideration look at the Matrix which has about the same room.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> You get a few more mpg with the Matrix but the rear visibility is
>> horrible and the instrument cluster is messed up IMO. Test drove a Matrix
>> and knocked that right off of the list. It's a cool looking vehicle from
>> the outside though.[/color]
>
> I have to agree with you, test drove one too .. plus I don't even
> really like the way it looks :-)
>
> Personally though, I wish they hadn't made the new (2006+) RAV4 bigger,
> I thought the size was just fine. I read that the RAV4 sold in Japan
> and Europe is not larger like the US version.[/color]

That's funny because I didn't consider the previous RAV4 over the 02 CRV I
bought because I thought it was too small inside. The only reason I looked
at the RAV4 this time was because it was bigger than the second gen RAV4s
(and I think the new 07 CRV is fugly!!!).

--

Tanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys)

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:47:27 GMT, Esmail Bonakdarian
<ebonak-a@t-hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I am seriously considering a RAV4, and I am tempted to
>get the 4x2 as the car will be 99% of the time on paved
>roads :-)[/color]


Most unpaved roads don't require 4WD either, as they have a perfectly
drivable with 2WD gravel or packed dirt surface.

Reasons to own 4WD:

- Muddy off-roading (construction sites, etc...)
- Boat launches
- Driving in snow, or on snow packed roads, on a regular basis
- Deep sand driving (where you'll "air down")
- Delicate surface driving, for example, wet lawns.
- Resale value vs. 2WD version of vehicle (if you swap often). The
2WD version of certain vehicles can be genuine white elephants in many
areas.
- You want people who you don't know, and who don't really care, to
think you're an off-roader. <G>

The way I look at it, if you've got to ask, you're probably a great
candidate for 2WD.

Don't forget that AWD is a different animal than 4WD and is much more
usable in daily driving. I totally loved my AWD, manual shifted,
Subaru on wet or snowy roads! <G>

This is not quite a RAV4 but I have an AWD 02 V-6 Highlander.

I live in No. Calif. and we do get some snow as well as I periodically
go to Reno during the winter. AWD, IMHO, is well worth the slight
cost/mileage penalty. Handling is great for a higher profile rig.
Yep its a Toyota so when it says "inflate tires to 35psi if you intend
to cruise over 100 mph (where legal)" you can be pretty sure its a
good drive system.

Ron

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:30:01 -0400, Wolfgang wrote:
[color=blue]
> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
> 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads). Sounds
> like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a consideration
> look at the Matrix which has about the same room.[/color]

Hmmm...when the RAV4 first came out in '95, it was based on the Celica
GT+4...




[color=blue]
>
> "Esmail Bonakdarian" <ebonak-a@t-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3QiRg.910$422.519@trnddc03...[color=green]
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just curious about what people think of the 4WD vs
>> Front WD for the RAV4?
>>
>> I've only had front-wheel drive cars up to now and they
>> have been just fine (Honda Civic before, 1991 Toyota Corolla
>> DX Wagon now)
>>
>> I am seriously considering a RAV4, and I am tempted to
>> get the 4x2 as the car will be 99% of the time on paved
>> roads :-)
>>
>> I think the slightly better fuel economy and possibly fewer
>> problems with a simpler mechanical setup will lead to better
>> long-term reliability/maintenance.
>>
>> Your thoughts? (You may also toss in opinions for 4cyl vs v6 ..
>> I'm leaning towards the 4cyl .. no need to tow much, I know
>> that's one major difference in addition to possibly better
>> acceleration)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Esmail[/color][/color]

tanukiki wrote:[color=blue]
>
> (and I think the new 07 CRV is fugly!!!).
>[/color]

:-)

Bonehenge wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Most unpaved roads don't require 4WD either, as they have a perfectly
> drivable with 2WD gravel or packed dirt surface.
>
> Reasons to own 4WD:
>
> - Muddy off-roading (construction sites, etc...)
> - Boat launches
> - Driving in snow, or on snow packed roads, on a regular basis[/color]

Well, I like 4 seasons, so I've lived in Iowa and Ohio which have
regularly very snowy winters .. but that's worked out ok with my
front-wheel drive Corolla Wagon over the years.
[color=blue]
> - Deep sand driving (where you'll "air down")
> - Delicate surface driving, for example, wet lawns.
> - Resale value vs. 2WD version of vehicle (if you swap often). The
> 2WD version of certain vehicles can be genuine white elephants in many
> areas.
> - You want people who you don't know, and who don't really care, to
> think you're an off-roader. <G>[/color]

he he ...
[color=blue]
>
> The way I look at it, if you've got to ask, you're probably a great
> candidate for 2WD.[/color]

Yes, I think so too .. but if I end up moving to Colorado for a new
job, or up-up-up-state NY, I may reconsider.
[color=blue]
> Don't forget that AWD is a different animal than 4WD and is much more
> usable in daily driving. I totally loved my AWD, manual shifted,
> Subaru on wet or snowy roads![/color]

that sounds great. Actually, I was looking at a Subaru Legacy
Wagon .. manual! .. but the dealership around here was so bad and
rude, and I wasn't able to have another dealership find me the
particular car I gave up on it.

I enjoy driving manual, it's too bad the RAV4 doesn't come that way,
as most of the cars nowadays seem automatic only :-(

Esmail

ron wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I live in No. Calif. and we do get some snow as well as I periodically
> go to Reno during the winter. AWD, IMHO, is well worth the slight
> cost/mileage penalty. Handling is great for a higher profile rig.[/color]

That's what I am trying to determine.
[color=blue]
> Yep
> its a Toyota so when it says "inflate tires to 35psi if you intend to
> cruise over 100 mph (where legal)" you can be pretty sure its a good
> drive system.[/color]

Ok, I'm a bit puzzled by this .. of course Toyota is great quality,
but I am missing the significance of the quote from the manual you
provide. This must be due to my lack of knowledge of 4WD vehicles.

In article <o5mRg.4170$Go3.1783@dukeread05>,
"Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The RAV4 is not an off road vehicle --- underneath its Corolla based. The
> 4WD is for snow conditions and muddy secondary (back country roads). Sounds
> like the 2WD is what you need. Why the RAV4? If mileage is a consideration
> look at the Matrix which has about the same room.[/color]

I agree in looking at a smaller vehicle. What's wrong with the Corolla?
They are now used as cabs here.
The Rav4 is now a big heavy vehicle, actually it's like a short van.
Also that spare tacked on the rear turns me off.