2007 RAV4

Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4 from
Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my impressions.

This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.

Good stuff

- Size - I liked the size. Plenty of front and rear room, with good cargo
room too.
- Seats - The rear seat folds flat, a big improvement over my old Vue.
- Seating room - Head and leg room were excellent. Rear seat room was good
as well.
- Transmission - The transmission shifted flawlessly. Even though it was
only a four speed, I never felt that it was in the wrong gear, or that I
even needed another gear.
- Performance - The engine, although not particularly refined, was powerful.
It accelerated briskly and had no problem cruising at 85 mph. There were
only two of us in the vehicle for this trip, but I believe it would have
been more than adequate even with a full load. The engine and transmission
were well matched. I definitely felt that the engine/transmission
combination was far superior to my old Vue and at least as good as my
Sister's V-6 Escape (the transmission was definitely better). I doubt if the
4 cylinder RAV4 would outrun the V-6 Escape, but I don't care. The RAV4 four
cylinder had very good performance. I am not sure I would pick the V-6
unless I need to tow something.
- Handling - Although the ride was not great, the handling was very good.
- Features - Even the base model had really good equipment - ABS, Electronic
Limited Slip, Electronic Stability Control, Side Air Bags, Aux input for the
audio system, power locks, power mirrors, power windows. My only complaint
was that the vehicle did not come with floor mats.
- Steering - I have seen complaints about the steering, but I found it to be
just fine.
- Fit and finish - The car was well assembled. Although the interior didn't
look "expensive" it was properly assembled. There was not a squeak or a
rattle anywhere.
- Routine Maintenance - All the items to be checked are readily available.
The oil is easy to change. Only negative was the requirement for routine
valve adjustment.

Bad Stuff

- Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the worst
feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls. I don't think
I have every gotten into a vehicle with a worse organized/designed
collection of controls. The signaling controls, headlight controls, and
wiper washer controls were on stalks and were fine. The radio was also fine.
However, the HVAC controls were a train wreck. It is not that they were
poorly located, it was that they were difficult to read, and the ridiculous
outside wheel hiding the readings except in the little windows was
unnecessarily complicated. I have never seen such a poor design. The shift
lever was also needlessly weird. It is not just the little steeped gate I
found offensive, it was the way you could easily select third instead of
fourth. You may need to see one to understand, but to select 4th you pull
the lever down through a series of steps at reverse and neutral. Once at
fourth, you move the lever sideways (towards the driver) to select third. It
is very easy to accidentally select third, particularly once you have been
moving the lever side to side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten
miles in third before I realized I was in third. The outside power mirror
controls were located on the center console, which seems silly. The control
to dim the instrument panel light was off on the side of the dash where the
mirror controls should have been. The door locks and windows controls were
fine. The steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt
wheel. The cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen. They are
on a little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the stalk turns
with the wheel. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a stalk for
the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a fixed stalk.
After the first hour or so I got used to all this weirdness, and I assume if
it was my car I'd get over the strangeness., but I don't think I'd ever
think the HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person or persons
responsible for these should be fired immediately. I assume they were
designed by a graduate of an American design school. I can't imagine any
other person who would do something so silly.
- Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature of
the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was. My Nissan
Frontier truck with all terrain tires is quieter on the highway than the
RAV4 was. Both wind and road noise were excessive. It was far nosier than
either my old 2003 Saturn Vue or my Sister's 2001 Ford Escape. I am sure
part of the problem was the tires. They were very sensitive to changes in
road surface, but they were never quiet. But even if the car had quiet
tires, the wind noise was excessive.
- Ride - not as good as either my Vue or my sisters Escape. It was about on
par with my Nissan pick-up. The handling of the RAV4 was better than the
Vue, but not as good as the Escape.
- Engine noise - I constantly read about how sophisticated Toyota 4 cylinder
engines are. I think they must be comparing them to lawn mowers. The engine
was not as smooth as the 4 cylinder Ecotech in my old Vue at idle or cruise.
When pushed hard it sounded like there was a mix master under the hood. I
can't compare it to the Frontier or the Escape - they both have much
smoother running six cylinder engines.
- Interior quality - the interior design was very reminiscent of my old Vue
but, it was definitely a step above the Vue, about on par with my Nissan
Frontier, and a step or two behind my Sister's Escape (but her Escape is an
XLT model, the RAV4 is a base model). The interior was all plastic all the
time, but at least it was properly assembled (something I wouldn't claim for
the Vue).
- Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive (but they were more
comfortable that the seats in the Frontier - even if they looked worse).
- Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I
was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis got 25
mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles, so maybe
it will improve with usage.
- Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
weakest I've used in a long time.
- Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor installed
system was almost worthless.
- Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..
- Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
mounted on the rear door.
- Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that cost
hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.

All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good as
an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the Escape
rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is significantly less
expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of people would claim the
RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that reflects reality. My Sisters
Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she has paid for was a new cruise
control cable (I installed it) for a total cost of less than $12.

Ed

Check out the Honda CR-V. Got better safety ratings and no clunky spare tire
on the back.

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0lah.3369$ql2.2603@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4
> from Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my
> impressions.
>
> This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
> transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
> and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.
>
> Good stuff
>
> - Size - I liked the size. Plenty of front and rear room, with good cargo
> room too.
> - Seats - The rear seat folds flat, a big improvement over my old Vue.
> - Seating room - Head and leg room were excellent. Rear seat room was good
> as well.
> - Transmission - The transmission shifted flawlessly. Even though it was
> only a four speed, I never felt that it was in the wrong gear, or that I
> even needed another gear.
> - Performance - The engine, although not particularly refined, was
> powerful. It accelerated briskly and had no problem cruising at 85 mph.
> There were only two of us in the vehicle for this trip, but I believe it
> would have been more than adequate even with a full load. The engine and
> transmission were well matched. I definitely felt that the
> engine/transmission combination was far superior to my old Vue and at
> least as good as my Sister's V-6 Escape (the transmission was definitely
> better). I doubt if the 4 cylinder RAV4 would outrun the V-6 Escape, but I
> don't care. The RAV4 four cylinder had very good performance. I am not
> sure I would pick the V-6 unless I need to tow something.
> - Handling - Although the ride was not great, the handling was very good.
> - Features - Even the base model had really good equipment - ABS,
> Electronic Limited Slip, Electronic Stability Control, Side Air Bags, Aux
> input for the audio system, power locks, power mirrors, power windows. My
> only complaint was that the vehicle did not come with floor mats.
> - Steering - I have seen complaints about the steering, but I found it to
> be just fine.
> - Fit and finish - The car was well assembled. Although the interior
> didn't look "expensive" it was properly assembled. There was not a squeak
> or a rattle anywhere.
> - Routine Maintenance - All the items to be checked are readily available.
> The oil is easy to change. Only negative was the requirement for routine
> valve adjustment.
>
> Bad Stuff
>
> - Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the
> worst feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls. I
> don't think I have every gotten into a vehicle with a worse
> organized/designed collection of controls. The signaling controls,
> headlight controls, and wiper washer controls were on stalks and were
> fine. The radio was also fine. However, the HVAC controls were a train
> wreck. It is not that they were poorly located, it was that they were
> difficult to read, and the ridiculous outside wheel hiding the readings
> except in the little windows was unnecessarily complicated. I have never
> seen such a poor design. The shift lever was also needlessly weird. It is
> not just the little steeped gate I found offensive, it was the way you
> could easily select third instead of fourth. You may need to see one to
> understand, but to select 4th you pull the lever down through a series of
> steps at reverse and neutral. Once at fourth, you move the lever sideways
> (towards the driver) to select third. It is very easy to accidentally
> select third, particularly once you have been moving the lever side to
> side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten miles in third before I
> realized I was in third. The outside power mirror controls were located on
> the center console, which seems silly. The control to dim the instrument
> panel light was off on the side of the dash where the mirror controls
> should have been. The door locks and windows controls were fine. The
> steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt wheel. The
> cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen. They are on a
> little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the stalk turns
> with the wheel. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a stalk
> for the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a fixed
> stalk. After the first hour or so I got used to all this weirdness, and I
> assume if it was my car I'd get over the strangeness., but I don't think
> I'd ever think the HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person
> or persons responsible for these should be fired immediately. I assume
> they were designed by a graduate of an American design school. I can't
> imagine any other person who would do something so silly.
> - Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature
> of the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was. My
> Nissan Frontier truck with all terrain tires is quieter on the highway
> than the RAV4 was. Both wind and road noise were excessive. It was far
> nosier than either my old 2003 Saturn Vue or my Sister's 2001 Ford Escape.
> I am sure part of the problem was the tires. They were very sensitive to
> changes in road surface, but they were never quiet. But even if the car
> had quiet tires, the wind noise was excessive.
> - Ride - not as good as either my Vue or my sisters Escape. It was about
> on par with my Nissan pick-up. The handling of the RAV4 was better than
> the Vue, but not as good as the Escape.
> - Engine noise - I constantly read about how sophisticated Toyota 4
> cylinder engines are. I think they must be comparing them to lawn mowers.
> The engine was not as smooth as the 4 cylinder Ecotech in my old Vue at
> idle or cruise. When pushed hard it sounded like there was a mix master
> under the hood. I can't compare it to the Frontier or the Escape - they
> both have much smoother running six cylinder engines.
> - Interior quality - the interior design was very reminiscent of my old
> Vue but, it was definitely a step above the Vue, about on par with my
> Nissan Frontier, and a step or two behind my Sister's Escape (but her
> Escape is an XLT model, the RAV4 is a base model). The interior was all
> plastic all the time, but at least it was properly assembled (something I
> wouldn't claim for the Vue).
> - Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive (but they were
> more comfortable that the seats in the Frontier - even if they looked
> worse).
> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I
> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis got
> 25 mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles, so
> maybe it will improve with usage.
> - Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
> weakest I've used in a long time.
> - Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
> systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor
> installed system was almost worthless.
> - Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..
> - Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
> Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
> mounted on the rear door.
> - Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
> engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that
> cost hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.
>
> All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good
> as an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the
> Escape rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is
> significantly less expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of
> people would claim the RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that
> reflects reality. My Sisters Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she
> has paid for was a new cruise control cable (I installed it) for a total
> cost of less than $12.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

"D.D. Pallmer" <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y6KdnZFE79-pc_TYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> Check out the Honda CR-V. Got better safety ratings and no clunky spare
> tire on the back.[/color]

I suspect the CR-V is a great vehicle. I have not had a chance to try one. I
don't particualrly care for the look of the CR-V. I won't calim the RAV4 is
beautiful, but I think it olooks better than the new CR-V. My SO considered
a CR-V, but the RAV4 was less expensive and she prefers Toyotas (although
her son will soon be driving a new Civic Si).

Ed

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:9ce53$4569f795$47c2b532$20129@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue][color=green]
>> the wind noise was excessive.[/color]
>
> I've heard of several complaints about wind noise in this generation Rav4.
> Without hearing the level of wind noise in a "normal" Rav4, it is
> impossible to know what is abnormal, but one of the things I've read is to
> check the crossbars on the roof rack. There is a small arrow on the sides
> of the crossbars, and they should be pointed forward to reduce wind noise.
> It may be a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps. If you do not
> need the cross bars, it may be worth removing them to reduce noise.[/color]

I'll take a look at this. The SO wants the cross bars for carrying her Canoe
(and once the Canoe is up there, all other wind noise complains will be
overwhelmed).
[color=blue]
> <snipped>
>
> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I[color=green]
>> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis got
>> 25 mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles, so
>> maybe it will improve with usage.[/color]
>
> The EPA fuel economy for the optional 6 cylinder engine is almost the same
> as the 4 cylinder. To me, that is an indication that the 4 cylinder motor
> has to work too hard to be very efficient.[/color]

From past experience I feel certain the SO will get at least 2 mpg better
mileage than I will. When I still owned an Expedition, she would average
over 17 mpg when driving the Expedition and I struggled to get 15. On the
other hand, I can get from Raleigh to Columbia in 4 hours. It takes her 4.5
to 5 hours. I am hoping it is like several other cars I've owned recently
and that the mileage will significantly increase after 5000 miles. My Nissan
picked up over 2 mpg between 2000 miles an 10,000 miles.

Any thoughts on using 0W20 oil in the RAV4? Toyota recommends either 5W20 or
0W20. At the last oil change I when with 0W20 Mobil 1. The SO is worried
this is too thin (her Dad likes 10W40).

Ed

I've got a RAV4 2006 V6 4WD
[color=blue]
> Bad Stuff
>[/color]
Never heard of most of these complaints before from owners or from any of
the test reports!
[color=blue]
> Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the worst
> feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls.[/color]
The steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt[color=blue]
> wheel.[/color]

OK for me but I'm ~ average height
[color=blue]
> The cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen.
> They are on a little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the
> stalk turns with the wheel. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of
> using a stalk for the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but
> them on a fixed stalk.[/color]

A stalk not moving with the wheel would be VERY bad you'd have difficulty
using it when the wheel was turned. Its a bit low on the wheel but you learn
that in a few minutes.The cruise control works very well.. no engage lag and
holds uniform speed.

HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person or persons[color=blue]
> responsible for these should be fired immediately.[/color]

Huh... I think they are large and easy to use ... better than the auto air
controls in the limited model.
[color=blue]
> Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature of
> the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was.[/color]

There is a lot more engine noise with the 4 cyl than V6 on acceleration but
I don't have a problem with wind noise. Maybe the roof rack x-beams were on
backwards.
[color=blue]
> - Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive[/color]

I've heard there is a lack of thigh support for some long legged people. No
problem for me.
[color=blue]
> Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
> weakest I've used in a long time.[/color]

I like them ... lots of side elimination on low beam. Some people have
complained about the abrupt top edge to the elimination but I like that
feature and so do drivers of oncoming cars.[color=blue]
>..
> - Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary.[/color]

Gives more interior storage space and easy to get at to change a flat.tire.
You might like crawling under the back to get a tire ... not me.

I wish the rear gate would hinge from the left though.

Best features for me. The 269 HP V6 is a rocket! One of the quickest
vehicles I've owned and it gets great MPG too!

rj

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0lah.3369$ql2.2603@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4[/color]
from[color=blue]
> Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my impressions.
>
> This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
> transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
> and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.
>[/color]

I have pretty much the same vehicle except it's a 2006.

*snip*
[color=blue]
> Bad Stuff
>
> - Controls -[/color]

*snip*[color=blue]
> However, the HVAC controls were a train wreck. It is not that they were
> poorly located, it was that they were difficult to read, and the[/color]
ridiculous[color=blue]
> outside wheel hiding the readings except in the little windows was
> unnecessarily complicated. I have never seen such a poor design.[/color]

I actually like the HVAC controls better than anything I've driven before. I
find they are easy to use.
[color=blue]
>The shift
> lever was also needlessly weird. It is not just the little steeped gate I
> found offensive, it was the way you could easily select third instead of
> fourth. You may need to see one to understand, but to select 4th you pull
> the lever down through a series of steps at reverse and neutral. Once at
> fourth, you move the lever sideways (towards the driver) to select third.[/color]
It[color=blue]
> is very easy to accidentally select third, particularly once you have been
> moving the lever side to side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten
> miles in third before I realized I was in third.[/color]

I agree. the shifter takes some time to get used to and I still don't like
it much. I would have greatly preferred a manual transmission anyway but
it's no longer an option :-(
[color=blue]
>The outside power mirror
> controls were located on the center console, which seems silly.[/color]

Agreed. It's a weird placement choice although the windows adjust easily.

*snip*
[color=blue]
> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I
> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis got[/color]
25[color=blue]
> mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles, so maybe
> it will improve with usage.[/color]

I've never gone below 23 mpg in my RAV4 in any driving situations. Most of
the time I get about 26 mpg with 30% city/ 70% hwy driving with hwy speeds
averaging about 62-65. I just passed 4000 miles in my vehicle.
[color=blue]
> - Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
> weakest I've used in a long time.[/color]

I don't have any prblem with the headlights.
[color=blue]
> - Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
> systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor[/color]
installed[color=blue]
> system was almost worthless.
> - Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..[/color]

I know a lot of people complain about this. I don't really care one way or
another...at least not enough to dissuade me from buying the vehicle.
[color=blue]
> - Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
> Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
> mounted on the rear door.[/color]

I much prefer to have the outside mounted tire if it gains me inside space
(which it does in the RAV4 w/o the 3rd row seats). I also do NOT want to
have to crawl under my vehicle to get to my spare.
[color=blue]
> - Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
> engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that[/color]
cost[color=blue]
> hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.
>
> All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good[/color]
as[color=blue]
> an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the Escape
> rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is significantly[/color]
less[color=blue]
> expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of people would claim the
> RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that reflects reality. My Sisters
> Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she has paid for was a new[/color]
cruise[color=blue]
> control cable (I installed it) for a total cost of less than $12.
>
> Ed
>[/color]

I have heard a lot of people have complained about the Vue's long term build
quality. I had a 2002 CRV that was really good to me although I drove it
like crazy. My brother bought a V6 Escape about the same time and sold it a
year later even though he liked it. It just had too many visits to the shop.
Even under warranty, it was too much a waste of his time having to take it
in.

JennL

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:09:44 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I can get from Raleigh to Columbia in 4 hours. It takes her 4.5
>to 5 hours[/color]

One of these days John Law will slow you down...LOL

--

Scott in Florida

Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost more but
retain more of their value over the years.

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0lah.3369$ql2.2603@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4
> from Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my
> impressions.
>
> This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
> transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
> and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.
>
> Good stuff
>
> - Size - I liked the size. Plenty of front and rear room, with good cargo
> room too.
> - Seats - The rear seat folds flat, a big improvement over my old Vue.
> - Seating room - Head and leg room were excellent. Rear seat room was good
> as well.
> - Transmission - The transmission shifted flawlessly. Even though it was
> only a four speed, I never felt that it was in the wrong gear, or that I
> even needed another gear.
> - Performance - The engine, although not particularly refined, was
> powerful. It accelerated briskly and had no problem cruising at 85 mph.
> There were only two of us in the vehicle for this trip, but I believe it
> would have been more than adequate even with a full load. The engine and
> transmission were well matched. I definitely felt that the
> engine/transmission combination was far superior to my old Vue and at
> least as good as my Sister's V-6 Escape (the transmission was definitely
> better). I doubt if the 4 cylinder RAV4 would outrun the V-6 Escape, but I
> don't care. The RAV4 four cylinder had very good performance. I am not
> sure I would pick the V-6 unless I need to tow something.
> - Handling - Although the ride was not great, the handling was very good.
> - Features - Even the base model had really good equipment - ABS,
> Electronic Limited Slip, Electronic Stability Control, Side Air Bags, Aux
> input for the audio system, power locks, power mirrors, power windows. My
> only complaint was that the vehicle did not come with floor mats.
> - Steering - I have seen complaints about the steering, but I found it to
> be just fine.
> - Fit and finish - The car was well assembled. Although the interior
> didn't look "expensive" it was properly assembled. There was not a squeak
> or a rattle anywhere.
> - Routine Maintenance - All the items to be checked are readily available.
> The oil is easy to change. Only negative was the requirement for routine
> valve adjustment.
>
> Bad Stuff
>
> - Controls - For the first hour I drove the car I would have said the
> worst feature of the vehicle was the bizarre collection of controls. I
> don't think I have every gotten into a vehicle with a worse
> organized/designed collection of controls. The signaling controls,
> headlight controls, and wiper washer controls were on stalks and were
> fine. The radio was also fine. However, the HVAC controls were a train
> wreck. It is not that they were poorly located, it was that they were
> difficult to read, and the ridiculous outside wheel hiding the readings
> except in the little windows was unnecessarily complicated. I have never
> seen such a poor design. The shift lever was also needlessly weird. It is
> not just the little steeped gate I found offensive, it was the way you
> could easily select third instead of fourth. You may need to see one to
> understand, but to select 4th you pull the lever down through a series of
> steps at reverse and neutral. Once at fourth, you move the lever sideways
> (towards the driver) to select third. It is very easy to accidentally
> select third, particularly once you have been moving the lever side to
> side to get from park to fourth. I drove for ten miles in third before I
> realized I was in third. The outside power mirror controls were located on
> the center console, which seems silly. The control to dim the instrument
> panel light was off on the side of the dash where the mirror controls
> should have been. The door locks and windows controls were fine. The
> steering wheel position was too low, even though it had a tilt wheel. The
> cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen. They are on a
> little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the stalk turns
> with the wheel. If Toyota was going to all the trouble of using a stalk
> for the controls, I don't understand why they didn't but them on a fixed
> stalk. After the first hour or so I got used to all this weirdness, and I
> assume if it was my car I'd get over the strangeness., but I don't think
> I'd ever think the HVAC controls were not stupid. In my opinion the person
> or persons responsible for these should be fired immediately. I assume
> they were designed by a graduate of an American design school. I can't
> imagine any other person who would do something so silly.
> - Road noise - After getting over the controls, the actual worst feature
> of the car was the road noise. I was shocked by how noisy it was. My
> Nissan Frontier truck with all terrain tires is quieter on the highway
> than the RAV4 was. Both wind and road noise were excessive. It was far
> nosier than either my old 2003 Saturn Vue or my Sister's 2001 Ford Escape.
> I am sure part of the problem was the tires. They were very sensitive to
> changes in road surface, but they were never quiet. But even if the car
> had quiet tires, the wind noise was excessive.
> - Ride - not as good as either my Vue or my sisters Escape. It was about
> on par with my Nissan pick-up. The handling of the RAV4 was better than
> the Vue, but not as good as the Escape.
> - Engine noise - I constantly read about how sophisticated Toyota 4
> cylinder engines are. I think they must be comparing them to lawn mowers.
> The engine was not as smooth as the 4 cylinder Ecotech in my old Vue at
> idle or cruise. When pushed hard it sounded like there was a mix master
> under the hood. I can't compare it to the Frontier or the Escape - they
> both have much smoother running six cylinder engines.
> - Interior quality - the interior design was very reminiscent of my old
> Vue but, it was definitely a step above the Vue, about on par with my
> Nissan Frontier, and a step or two behind my Sister's Escape (but her
> Escape is an XLT model, the RAV4 is a base model). The interior was all
> plastic all the time, but at least it was properly assembled (something I
> wouldn't claim for the Vue).
> - Seats - The seats were uncomfortable for a long drive (but they were
> more comfortable that the seats in the Frontier - even if they looked
> worse).
> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I
> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis got
> 25 mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles, so
> maybe it will improve with usage.
> - Headlights - I found the headlight to be mediocre at best. They were the
> weakest I've used in a long time.
> - Park Pilot System - This was worthless. I have had factory installed
> systems on other vehicles and they worked great. This distributor
> installed system was almost worthless.
> - Rear Door - I'd prefer a lift gate over the RAV4 Door..
> - Outside mounted spare tire. I have no idea why this is necessary. My old
> Vue and my Sister's Escape are both smaller but don't have a spare tire
> mounted on the rear door.
> - Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
> engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that
> cost hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.
>
> All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good
> as an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the
> Escape rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is
> significantly less expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of
> people would claim the RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that
> reflects reality. My Sisters Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she
> has paid for was a new cruise control cable (I installed it) for a total
> cost of less than $12.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

--
Regards,

Ed White
[url]http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/[/url] - my automotive opinions
[url]http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html[/url] - my oil filter comparison
"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:qbekm21ffn8u0614fptgj7q6b2mbhc4jrp@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:09:44 GMT, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I can get from Raleigh to Columbia in 4 hours. It takes her 4.5
>>to 5 hours[/color]
>
> One of these days John Law will slow you down...LOL[/color]

Maybe, but it has been my experience that "John Law" drives faster than I
do. I was maintaining a good speed, but I was never the "fastest" traffic on
the Interstate.

Ed

"Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
news:kurah.2430$1O5.1265@newsfe20.lga...[color=blue]
> Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost more
> but retain more of their value over the years.[/color]

Why would this matter to my Sister. Her Escape is already 6 years and she
will probably drive it for another four or five. I just check KBB and they
claim the private party value for a 6 years old Escape in good condition is
$7500. A RAV4 of similar vintage and equipment is worth $8500. As I recall,
my Sister paid under $19K for the Escape in 2001. A base model RAV4 with a
manual was around $18K at that time and a 2001 RAV4 was smaller and only
available with a I-4 Engine. I am guessing that a 2001 RAV4 with an
automatic and the upgraded interior would have been closer to $20K, so I
can't see where there is a great difference in depreciation.

But even if you are right, it seems to me that the budget concious consumer
would buy a 2 or 3 year old Escape coming off a lease. You are then getting
the advantage of someone else's depreciation. It seems like the worst thing
to do is buy a used Toyota.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Igoah.3533$sf5.1276@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:9ce53$4569f795$47c2b532$20129@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> the wind noise was excessive.[/color]
>>
>> I've heard of several complaints about wind noise in this generation
>> Rav4. Without hearing the level of wind noise in a "normal" Rav4, it is
>> impossible to know what is abnormal, but one of the things I've read is
>> to check the crossbars on the roof rack. There is a small arrow on the
>> sides of the crossbars, and they should be pointed forward to reduce wind
>> noise. It may be a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps. If
>> you do not need the cross bars, it may be worth removing them to reduce
>> noise.[/color]
>
> I'll take a look at this. The SO wants the cross bars for carrying her
> Canoe (and once the Canoe is up there, all other wind noise complains will
> be overwhelmed).
>[color=green]
>> <snipped>[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> - Fuel economy - we averaged only a little over 21 mpg for the trip but I[color=darkred]
>>> was driving fast (75+ on I40/I95/I20/I26). My Mom's old Grand Marquis
>>> got 25 mpg making the same trip. The vehicle only had around 4000 miles,
>>> so maybe it will improve with usage.[/color]
>>
>> The EPA fuel economy for the optional 6 cylinder engine is almost the
>> same as the 4 cylinder. To me, that is an indication that the 4 cylinder
>> motor has to work too hard to be very efficient.[/color]
>
> From past experience I feel certain the SO will get at least 2 mpg better
> mileage than I will. When I still owned an Expedition, she would average
> over 17 mpg when driving the Expedition and I struggled to get 15. On the
> other hand, I can get from Raleigh to Columbia in 4 hours. It takes her
> 4.5 to 5 hours. I am hoping it is like several other cars I've owned
> recently and that the mileage will significantly increase after 5000
> miles. My Nissan picked up over 2 mpg between 2000 miles an 10,000 miles.[/color]

Besides additional wind noise, I think MPG will take a major hit with the
canoe on top ;-)
[color=blue]
> Any thoughts on using 0W20 oil in the RAV4? Toyota recommends either 5W20
> or 0W20. At the last oil change I when with 0W20 Mobil 1. The SO is
> worried this is too thin (her Dad likes 10W40).
>
> Ed[/color]

I am not that knowledgeable about motor oil and its properties, so this is
only an observation and opinion on my part, but automakers seem to be
trending towards lower viscosity oil in order to improve fuel economy. The
quality of oil has probably improved greatly over the years and no longer
needs to be thick to be effective.

At least from my experience with Toyota, I've always found that you won't go
wrong following the engineer's recommendations. If it were my car, I'd
probably go with the 0W-20 if ambient temps allowed it.

--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

If I remember correctly, the only Escape recommended by Consumer Reports, is
the hybrid version due to rollover and handling issues in other versions.


"tanukiki" <modernmiko@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:nqCah.18091$mM1.2831@trndny08...[color=blue]
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:456aeee8$1@kcnews01...[color=green]
>>
>>
>>
>> "Wolfgang" <NOwolfXgang_dieterxSPAM@NOXcox.netNOT> wrote in message
>> news:kurah.2430$1O5.1265@newsfe20.lga...[color=darkred]
>> > Check out the rapid depreciation on the Ford Escape too! Yotas cost
>> > more
>> > but retain more of their value over the years.[/color]
>>
>> Why would this matter to my Sister. Her Escape is already 6 years and she
>> will probably drive it for another four or five. I just check KBB and
>> they
>> claim the private party value for a 6 years old Escape in good condition[/color]
> is[color=green]
>> $7500. A RAV4 of similar vintage and equipment is worth $8500. As I[/color]
> recall,[color=green]
>> my Sister paid under $19K for the Escape in 2001. A base model RAV4 with
>> a
>> manual was around $18K at that time and a 2001 RAV4 was smaller and only
>> available with a I-4 Engine. I am guessing that a 2001 RAV4 with an
>> automatic and the upgraded interior would have been closer to $20K, so I
>> can't see where there is a great difference in depreciation.
>>
>> But even if you are right, it seems to me that the budget concious[/color]
> consumer[color=green]
>> would buy a 2 or 3 year old Escape coming off a lease. You are then[/color]
> getting[color=green]
>> the advantage of someone else's depreciation. It seems like the worst[/color]
> thing[color=green]
>> to do is buy a used Toyota.
>>
>> Ed[/color]
>
>
> Just in terms of finances, it looks that way. But the likelihood of buying
> someone else's troubled Escape is higher than with a RAV4. Of course,
> that's
> a risk you run with buying any used car..
>
> JennL
>
>[/color]

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:l0lah.3369$ql2.2603@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Over he Thanksgiving Holiday I had an opportunity to drive a 2007 RAV4
> from Raleigh, NC to Columbia, SC and back. I thought I'd share my
> impressions.
>
> This RAV4 I drove is a base four cylinder front wheel drive automatic
> transmission model with no significant options other than a radio upgrade
> and a distributor installed Park Pilot System.
>
> Good stuff
>[/color]

Thanks for taking the time to write it up.
[color=blue]
>
> Bad Stuff
>[/color]
[snippage][color=blue]
> The cruise control controls were the worst I have ever seen. They are on a
> little stalk located low behind the steering wheel. but the stalk turns
> with the wheel.[/color]

Toyota's done it that way for a long time. Previous Toyota owners will find
it familiar.

Did you notice that if you pull it towards you, that's "Cancel?" I owned
mine a while before I realized it.

The plus to having it move along with the wheel is the you can still reach
it with you finger and tweak it up/dow/cancel without taking your hands off
the wheel during a turn. I'm not sure how big a bonus this may be, as I'm
rarely going to be tweaking my speed via the CC in the middle of a maneuver.
In that situation, most of us will kill the CC by touching the brake or
override it by stepping on the accelerator.

[snippage]
[Wind Noise!]

Wind noise? I hear ya. The '96 to '00 Ravs are noisy this way, too. Don't
know about the '01s to '05s. On the other hand, this means opening the
sunroof doesn't add a lot of noise, relatively speaking.
[color=blue]
> - Engine noise - I constantly read about how sophisticated Toyota 4
> cylinder engines are. I think they must be comparing them to lawn mowers.
> The engine was not as smooth as the 4 cylinder Ecotech in my old Vue at
> idle or cruise. When pushed hard it sounded like there was a mix master
> under the hood. I can't compare it to the Frontier or the Escape - they
> both have much smoother running six cylinder engines.[/color]

Could it be the exhaust system? My older Ravs all sound rattly when
accelerating but it's the exhaust, the engine up front seems very quiet (two
are nearly silent, the oldest ticks a bit more). Perhaps you should put on
a cat-back and a fart-cannon system? :-)

[snippage][color=blue]
> - Valve adjustment required - I can't imagine that Toyota is still selling
> engines that require routine valve adjustment. This is a procedure that
> cost hundreds of dollars. This is inexcusable.[/color]

Is this a new "feature?" I've got older Ravs with 70K, 92K and 121K miles
on them and, so far, the dealer has neglected to hit me up for a valve
adjustment. And this dealer is not one to miss a revenue opportunity. Is
it possible that they're adjustable but don't require it for hundreds of
thousands of miles? I'm OK with that. In any event, no large bill for it,
yet.
[color=blue]
> All in all, I'd say the RAV4 was a better buy than a Vue and not as good
> as an Escape. The RAV4's larger size is an advantage, but I felt the
> Escape rode better, has much better controls, is quieter, and is
> significantly less expensive when comparably equipped. I know a lot of
> people would claim the RAV4 is more reliable, but I am not sure that
> reflects reality. My Sisters Escape is 6 years old and the only repair she
> has paid for was a new cruise control cable (I installed it) for a total
> cost of less than $12.
>
> Ed[/color]

I know a couple people with conventional Escapes and they are satisfied with
them, although I note that a few-year-old escape is rated 8.6 on Edmunds. I
believe CR also rates the Escape as relatively reliable (but my recollection
may be incorrect). Some reviewers on Edmunds remarked on getting
significantly better than the EPA estimates for fuel economy with the Escape
hybrid. I was very tempted to look at the Escape hybrid the last time we
bought a car but my wife, who has a long memory, nixed any Ford.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]