Rav4 - enough space for baby?

We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
please?

I raised a baby with a VW Bug --- but then I didn't have DVD player,
bouncy-bouncy, breast pump, etc.


"Sergio" <cpsb@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Edpqe.45086$Ph4.1104212@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...[color=blue]
> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
> sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
> please?
>
>[/color]

Hell, a lot of us even MADE a few babies in bugs LOL


mike hunt



Wolfgang wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I raised a baby with a VW Bug --- but then I didn't have DVD player,
> bouncy-bouncy, breast pump, etc.
>
> "Sergio" <cpsb@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Edpqe.45086$Ph4.1104212@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...[color=green]
> > We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
> > vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
> > sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
> > please?
> >
> >[/color][/color]

Sergio wrote:[color=blue]
> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're
> not sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone
> help please?[/color]

If it's got to be Toyota - 4 cylinder Camry.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:10:28 -0400, "Wolfgang"
<NOwolfgangdieterSPAM@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I raised a baby with a VW Bug --- but then I didn't have DVD player,
>bouncy-bouncy, breast pump, etc.[/color]


ROFL....

....and it was possible to conceive in a VW bug....too <g>

[color=blue]
>
>
>"Sergio" <cpsb@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:Edpqe.45086$Ph4.1104212@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...[color=green]
>> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
>> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
>> sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
>> please?
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

Sergio wrote:
[color=blue]
> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
> sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
> please?
>
>
>[/color]

One good test is to try installing the infant car seat in the backseat.
If you are happy with the results in the RAV4, then buy it. If it is
a major pain to install the car seat, look for a larger car.

ma_twain wrote:
[color=blue]
> Sergio wrote:
>[color=green]
>> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
>> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
>> sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
>> please?
>>[/color]
>
> One good test is to try installing the infant car seat in the backseat.
> If you are happy with the results in the RAV4, then buy it. If it is
> a major pain to install the car seat, look for a larger car.[/color]

My brother and his wife have a 2005 Corolla, and the baby seat barely fits
in the back seat. The front passenger seat has to be moved almost all the
way forward for the baby seat to fit. I don't know how roomier the Rav4 is
in the back (if at all), but I agree with the other poster who said that a
4-cylinder Camry may be a better choice.

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:jctla1hlagd06a0g0r1jmog1vccf3uv1s7@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:10:28 -0400, "Wolfgang"
> <NOwolfgangdieterSPAM@cox.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I raised a baby with a VW Bug --- but then I didn't have DVD player,
>>bouncy-bouncy, breast pump, etc.[/color]
>
>
> ROFL....
>
> ...and it was possible to conceive in a VW bug....too <g>
>
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>>"Sergio" <cpsb@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:Edpqe.45086$Ph4.1104212@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...[color=darkred]
>>> We're expecting our first baby in October and we're looking for a new
>>> vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like the Rav4 but we're not
>>> sure if there's enough space for all the baby things. Can anyone help
>>> please?
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Or an MG Midget . . . .

Charles of Kankakee, who rode in an ordinary "hang over the seat" car
booster seat until he was tall enough to sit by himself in the back. (No
seat belts in those days, they weren't even mandatory to be put in cars back
then.) I also rode a bike without a helmet when I was a kid. A nice 1962
Schwinn Racer, 20 inch wheels. I even used to race with it.

"Sergio" wrote:[color=blue]
>We’re expecting our first baby in October and we’re
>looking for a new vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like
>the Rav4 but we’re not sure if there’s enough space for
>all the baby things. Can anyone help please?[/color]

The bad thing about a Rav4 is not the room for a baby seat (and I like
Toyotas) but it is the rear hatch design. There is no rear bumber and
tire is mounted on back of hatch. It someone taps you in the rear the
slightest bit or if you back up into something by accident you will
have a very expensive repair of rear hatch and that was the reason I
did not get one when my wife looked at them 5 years ago and they have
not changed in that regard either.

--
Posted using the [url]http://www.autoforumz.com[/url] interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/Toyota-Rav4-space-baby-ftopict124003.html[/url]
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=604719[/url]

I was almost ready to buy the RAV but I test drove the Honda CR-V at the
last minute. No comparision! The Honda is CLEARLY the better vehicle,
ESPECIALLY for a young family with baby seats, strollers, etc. And it's a
better dollar value. I got the Special Edition with leather and all the
goodies for about $1000 less than a loaded RAV that did NOT have leather.
And while they get the same gas mileage, the Honda is 600 pounds
heavier...read...SAFER. I admit that the RAV is "cuter" than the awkward
CR-V, but truthfully only the "base" CR-V looks awkward and the Special
Edition looks very very nice. And you can't go wrong with EITHER Toyota OR
Honda in terms of quality and long term durability. I love Toyota...I also
own a Lexus LS430....but in this case Honda makes the better product (unless
you are perhaps a younger person who values "cute" over utility).


"SnoMan" <UseLinkToEmail@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_604719_4b0087d1519af541acb2c6360ce06858@autoforumz.com...[color=blue]
> "Sergio" wrote:[color=green]
>>We're expecting our first baby in October and we're
>>looking for a new vehicule, preferably a small SUV. We really like
>>the Rav4 but we're not sure if there's enough space for
>>all the baby things. Can anyone help please?[/color]
>
> The bad thing about a Rav4 is not the room for a baby seat (and I like
> Toyotas) but it is the rear hatch design. There is no rear bumber and
> tire is mounted on back of hatch. It someone taps you in the rear the
> slightest bit or if you back up into something by accident you will
> have a very expensive repair of rear hatch and that was the reason I
> did not get one when my wife looked at them 5 years ago and they have
> not changed in that regard either.
>
> --
> Posted using the [url]http://www.autoforumz.com[/url] interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL:
> [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/Toyota-Rav4-space-baby-ftopict124003.html[/url]
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
> [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=604719[/url][/color]

"D.D. Palmer" wrote:[color=blue]
> I was almost ready to buy the RAV but I test drove the Honda
> CR-V at the
> last minute. No comparision! The Honda is CLEARLY the better
> vehicle,
> ESPECIALLY for a young family with baby seats, strollers, etc.
> And it's a
> better dollar value. I got the Special Edition with leather
> and all the
> goodies for about $1000 less than a loaded RAV that did NOT
> have leather.
> And while they get the same gas mileage, the Honda is 600
> pounds
> heavier...read...SAFER. I admit that the RAV is "cuter" than
> the awkward
> CR-V, but truthfully only the "base" CR-V looks awkward and
> the Special
> Edition looks very very nice. And you can't go wrong with
> EITHER Toyota OR
> Honda in terms of quality and long term durability. I love
> Toyota...I also
> own a Lexus LS430....but in this case Honda makes the better
> product (unless
> you are perhaps a younger person who values "cute" over
> utility).
>
>
> "SnoMan" <UseLinkToEmail@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
> news:1_604719_4b0087d1519af541acb2c6360ce06858@autoforumz.com...[color=green]
> > "Sergio" wrote:[/color]
> &nbsp;>>We're expecting our first baby in October and we're
> &nbsp;>>looking for a new vehicule, preferably a small SUV.
> We really like
> &nbsp;>>the Rav4 but we're not sure if there's enough space
> for
> &nbsp;>>all the baby things. Can anyone help please?[color=green]
> >
> > The bad thing about a Rav4 is not the room for a baby seat[/color]
> (and I like[color=green]
> > Toyotas) but it is the rear hatch design. There is no rear[/color]
> bumber and[color=green]
> > tire is mounted on back of hatch. It someone taps you in the[/color]
> rear the[color=green]
> > slightest bit or if you back up into something by accident[/color]
> you will[color=green]
> > have a very expensive repair of rear hatch and that was the[/color]
> reason I[color=green]
> > did not get one when my wife looked at them 5 years ago and[/color]
> they have[color=green]
> > not changed in that regard either.
> >
> > --
> > Posted using the [url]http://www.autoforumz.com[/url] interface, at author's request
> > Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet[/color]
> standards[color=green]
> > Topic URL:
> > [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/Toyota-Rav4-space-baby-ftopict124003.html[/url]
> > Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report[/color]
> abuse:[color=green]
> > [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=604719[/url][/color][/color]

I will say though that the RAV4 is more fuel efficent than the Honda
and a very safe vehical in a crash (rear door may damage easy but it
will not come apart in a wreck) A few years ago I totaled a old Camary
when a car pulled out in front of me and block escape paths. I nailed
it at about 50 mph (I do not remember much still about it) and it ate
the other car up. My Yota was intact from windshield back and and all
four doors were still perfectly aligned and closed like new and
passanger compartment and dash was undamaged. Car was totaled but
engine still ran fine and would power the car though cooling system
was gone. Toy’s crash extremely well and have few equals in there
class.

Your comments about the miles per gallon are just not true. BOTH the HONDA
CR-V and the TOY RAV 4 get 22 city/27 highway, yet the Honda weighs 3494 lbs
vs the RAV at 3196...about 10% heavier getting the same economy.


"SnoMan" <DoNotEmail@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_607510_755918a7bde021c1f511e62514589be3@autoforumz.com...[color=blue]
> "D.D. Palmer" wrote:[color=green]
> > I was almost ready to buy the RAV but I test drove the Honda
> > CR-V at the
> > last minute. No comparision! The Honda is CLEARLY the better
> > vehicle,
> > ESPECIALLY for a young family with baby seats, strollers, etc.
> > And it's a
> > better dollar value. I got the Special Edition with leather
> > and all the
> > goodies for about $1000 less than a loaded RAV that did NOT
> > have leather.
> > And while they get the same gas mileage, the Honda is 600
> > pounds
> > heavier...read...SAFER. I admit that the RAV is "cuter" than
> > the awkward
> > CR-V, but truthfully only the "base" CR-V looks awkward and
> > the Special
> > Edition looks very very nice. And you can't go wrong with
> > EITHER Toyota OR
> > Honda in terms of quality and long term durability. I love
> > Toyota...I also
> > own a Lexus LS430....but in this case Honda makes the better
> > product (unless
> > you are perhaps a younger person who values "cute" over
> > utility).
> >
> >
> > "SnoMan" <UseLinkToEmail@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
> > news:1_604719_4b0087d1519af541acb2c6360ce06858@autoforumz.com...[color=darkred]
> > > "Sergio" wrote:[/color]
> > &nbsp;>>We're expecting our first baby in October and we're
> > &nbsp;>>looking for a new vehicule, preferably a small SUV.
> > We really like
> > &nbsp;>>the Rav4 but we're not sure if there's enough space
> > for
> > &nbsp;>>all the baby things. Can anyone help please?[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > The bad thing about a Rav4 is not the room for a baby seat[/color]
> > (and I like[color=darkred]
> > > Toyotas) but it is the rear hatch design. There is no rear[/color]
> > bumber and[color=darkred]
> > > tire is mounted on back of hatch. It someone taps you in the[/color]
> > rear the[color=darkred]
> > > slightest bit or if you back up into something by accident[/color]
> > you will[color=darkred]
> > > have a very expensive repair of rear hatch and that was the[/color]
> > reason I[color=darkred]
> > > did not get one when my wife looked at them 5 years ago and[/color]
> > they have[color=darkred]
> > > not changed in that regard either.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Posted using the [url]http://www.autoforumz.com[/url] interface, at author's
> > > request
> > > Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet[/color]
> > standards[color=darkred]
> > > Topic URL:
> > > [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/Toyota-Rav4-space-baby-ftopict124003.html[/url]
> > > Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report[/color]
> > abuse:[color=darkred]
> > > [url]http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=604719[/url][/color][/color]
>
> I will say though that the RAV4 is more fuel efficent than the Honda
> and a very safe vehical in a crash (rear door may damage easy but it
> will not come apart in a wreck) A few years ago I totaled a old Camary
> when a car pulled out in front of me and block escape paths. I nailed
> it at about 50 mph (I do not remember much still about it) and it ate
> the other car up. My Yota was intact from windshield back and and all
> four doors were still perfectly aligned and closed like new and
> passanger compartment and dash was undamaged. Car was totaled but
> engine still ran fine and would power the car though cooling system
> was gone. Toy's crash extremely well and have few equals in there
> class.[/color]

"D.D. Palmer" wrote:[color=blue]
>Your comments about the miles per gallon are just not true. BOTH the
>HONDA CR-V and the TOY RAV 4 get 22 city/27 highway, yet the Honda
>weighs 3494 lbs vs the RAV at 3196...about 10% heavier getting the
>same economy.
>
>[/color]

Some EPA rating are not wrth the paper they are printed on and are not
real world driving at all. The EPA is under a mandate by 2006 to make
test more realist and harder to cheat on. I friend/fellow worker of my
wife (my wife is a teacher) has a CR-V and is disappointed in the fuel
mileage she is getting. BTW the 4x4 CR-V is rated 21/26 with a manual
and the RAV4 is rated 22/27 and RAV4 has a 5 year 60K mile drive train
warranty and the CR-V is only 3/36. You might say that you do not need
the longer warranty but 3/36 is pretty much the minimum in industry
and a atou maker that is confidant with their cars can offer a longer
warranty and not get hosed on repair cost and if you ever get a Honda
fixed out of warranty at a dealer you will find out first hand when a
"hosing" is. Also RAV 4 has more headroom and legroom in front seat
than a CR-V and RAV4 has sequentail fuel injection and the CR-V has a
cheaper multipoint system. Through in it weighing 200 to 300 less and
that can make a big difference in MPG in this type of vehical. My old
camary was rated 26/34 as I recall and I got as high as 41MPG on hiway
and routinely got upper 20’s in town and upper 30’s on the road with
A/C on. Toyota makes some excellant cars. My son has a old and worn 90
tercel with a carb that got 43 mpg on a trip recently and car runs
well and is zippy too and it has 170K on it as well. It is really hard
to wear out a Yota, even when they are old. I have a friend that used
to love Hondas but gave up on them because he got tired of the cost of
repairing them when they got more than a few years old. When my toy
was totaled at 220k it still had oringinal clutch and had its first
timing belt replaced at 180K miles and it was not broken and other
than that outside of normal maintaince (oil changes and a few new
batteries and a few sets of brakes I did myself) I never spent a dime
on car for "repairs"

SnoMan wrote:
[color=blue]
> You might say that you do not need
> the longer warranty but 3/36 is pretty much the minimum in industry
> and a atou maker that is confidant with their cars can offer a longer
> warranty and not get hosed on repair cost and if you ever get a Honda
> fixed out of warranty at a dealer you will find out first hand when a
> "hosing" is.[/color]

Every car maker has good and bad dealers. Don't say that Honda dealers are
the "hosing" type based on an experience with just one such dealer.

[color=blue]
> I have a friend that used
> to love Hondas but gave up on them because he got tired of the cost of
> repairing them when they got more than a few years old.[/color]

I find this hard to believe, unless he either got a rare lemon or he didn't
take care of it. Many Hondas last just as long as Toyotas with a minimum of
problems.

C'mon. While it's true that the EPA number is often far from reality, the
POINT is that BOTH the RAV and CR-V get the SAME EPA rating. It is an apples
to apples comparison. So while BOTH may deviate in the real world, it's
unlikely that the RAV will do any better than the CR-V. Period.


"SnoMan" <DoNotEmail@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_607889_1573568dc676cd41a8e225ed64e088f4@autoforumz.com...[color=blue]
> "D.D. Palmer" wrote:[color=green]
>>Your comments about the miles per gallon are just not true. BOTH the
>>HONDA CR-V and the TOY RAV 4 get 22 city/27 highway, yet the Honda
>>weighs 3494 lbs vs the RAV at 3196...about 10% heavier getting the
>>same economy.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Some EPA rating are not wrth the paper they are printed on and are not
> real world driving at all. The EPA is under a mandate by 2006 to make
> test more realist and harder to cheat on. I friend/fellow worker of my
> wife (my wife is a teacher) has a CR-V and is disappointed in the fuel
> mileage she is getting. BTW the 4x4 CR-V is rated 21/26 with a manual
> and the RAV4 is rated 22/27 and RAV4 has a 5 year 60K mile drive train
> warranty and the CR-V is only 3/36. You might say that you do not need
> the longer warranty but 3/36 is pretty much the minimum in industry
> and a atou maker that is confidant with their cars can offer a longer
> warranty and not get hosed on repair cost and if you ever get a Honda
> fixed out of warranty at a dealer you will find out first hand when a
> "hosing" is. Also RAV 4 has more headroom and legroom in front seat
> than a CR-V and RAV4 has sequentail fuel injection and the CR-V has a
> cheaper multipoint system. Through in it weighing 200 to 300 less and
> that can make a big difference in MPG in this type of vehical. My old
> camary was rated 26/34 as I recall and I got as high as 41MPG on hiway
> and routinely got upper 20's in town and upper 30's on the road with
> A/C on. Toyota makes some excellant cars. My son has a old and worn 90
> tercel with a carb that got 43 mpg on a trip recently and car runs
> well and is zippy too and it has 170K on it as well. It is really hard
> to wear out a Yota, even when they are old. I have a friend that used
> to love Hondas but gave up on them because he got tired of the cost of
> repairing them when they got more than a few years old. When my toy
> was totaled at 220k it still had oringinal clutch and had its first
> timing belt replaced at 180K miles and it was not broken and other
> than that outside of normal maintaince (oil changes and a few new
> batteries and a few sets of brakes I did myself) I never spent a dime
> on car for "repairs"[/color]