Mazda CX-5 FWD Pro v. Honda CR-V 1.6 V

[hardwang]

Performance alone will not appeal to most buyers. Take the case of the FXT, it is one solid package - very good performance with decent features. However, Subaru decided to take it out from their lineup in the new Fozzie generation. On the global market, Subaru says that less than 15% of Fozzie sales are of the XT model. Most buyers will rather have decent interiors and useful infotainment systems rather than the grunt of a powerful engine.

In the case of the new Rav4, a CUV with a big 4-banger engine with dismal features with an expensive asking price is more like shooting yourself in the foot. We all know that 5-seater CUVs have low sales, couple that with Pinoys' allergic tendencies against big displacement gas engines, then price it like 7-seater PPVs - it makes you wonder what ToyotaPH is aiming to achieve with the Rav4.

I’m thinking the Rav4 is kind of a niche product in our market. Bare bones but solid powertrain. I do agree, Pinoys tend to pick the one with the most features and avoids big performance figures like a plague. Hopefully our debate here opened some eyes of future buyers and would consider the under-appreciated Rav4.

[jut703]

Yes I get what you’re saying. Performance is just part of the equation. Many will look at the features, fuel economy, safety, etc.

But let’s get back to the topic, TC is looking at gasoline base models. Among the base models rav4, cx5, CRV 2.0 or forester, in my opinion the rav4 beats them hands down. The Rav4 has the best performance, most likely will last the longest, not just because of the “toyota reliability”. If that’s not what many people are looking for, then its fine. I guess features > performance and projected reliability for most.

If reliability is a concern, I don't think the RAV4 has exclusive claim to the throne. None of the other CUVs have had widespread problems either. Looking at gen 1 RAV4s vs gen 1 CRVs, I see much more of the latter running around. The sheer number of CRVs sold vs RAV4s also adds to the ease of parts availability down the line. The same is the case today as you can expect the CRV to outsell the RAV4 maybe 5 to 1. Even the other CUVs are expected to outsell the RAV4, based on previous generations' performance.

You may argue that the CRV has a CVT now, but is the perceived unreliability validated by empirical evidence? The infamous CVT-equipped cars, the Cedia Lancer and GD Jazz, were early adopters and it's quite illogical to dismiss today's CVTs as unreliable because of these 2 samples.

We have a 2011 ASX with 130k kms and its CVT still works fine. On the other hand, I've had to replace the transmission of my 4AT Mazda 3 at 90,000 kms. This is anecdotal evidence yes, but there aren't any widespread issues with the modern CVTs anyway. The City and Vios are probably the best-selling CVTs and for such a large sample size, you don't see any major problems. Neither with the Foresters and CRVs.

I'd say that none of the current crop of Japanese CUVs are any less inherently reliable than the rest of the competition. Like I said above, I forecast that parts availability will be a bigger factor to consider for long term ownership. And because the RAV4 is tracking to be a low-volume seller, you can expect other crossovers, especially the CRV and possibly the Tucson, to have better parts availability a decade later.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[jut703]

To compare between the current set of gas-fed entry level CUVs, my take would be:

RAV4 - great engine, nothing else
Forester - cheapest AWD in the market (along with the XV), humongous space
CX5 - still the best driver's car among the crop, but a bit cramped
CRV - class-leading ride comfort and space, good all rounder
Tucson - cheapest compact CUV, but bare and tighter than the rest

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[hardwang]

If reliability is a concern, I don't think the RAV4 has exclusive claim to the throne. None of the other CUVs have had widespread problems either. Looking at gen 1 RAV4s vs gen 1 CRVs, I see much more of the latter running around. The sheer number of CRVs sold vs RAV4s also adds to the ease of parts availability down the line. The same is the case today as you can expect the CRV to outsell the RAV4 maybe 5 to 1. Even the other CUVs are expected to outsell the RAV4, based on previous generations' performance.

You may argue that the CRV has a CVT now, but is the perceived unreliability validated by empirical evidence? The infamous CVT-equipped cars, the Cedia Lancer and GD Jazz, were early adopters and it's quite illogical to dismiss today's CVTs as unreliable because of these 2 samples.

We have a 2011 ASX with 130k kms and its CVT still works fine. On the other hand, I've had to replace the transmission of my 4AT Mazda 3 at 90,000 kms. This is anecdotal evidence yes, but there aren't any widespread issues with the modern CVTs anyway. The City and Vios are probably the best-selling CVTs and for such a large sample size, you don't see any major problems. Neither with the Foresters and CRVs.

I'd say that none of the current crop of Japanese CUVs are any less inherently reliable than the rest of the competition. Like I said above, I forecast that parts availability will be a bigger factor to consider for long term ownership. And because the RAV4 is tracking to be a low-volume seller, you can expect other crossovers, especially the CRV and possibly the Tucson, to have better parts availability a decade later.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Rav4 is more reliable because the Rav4 has direct and port injection rather than mere direct injection like the others. That means carbon build up on the intake valves will most likely never happen with the Rav4. Anyone who own a direct injection car should take a peek of their intake valves, you’d be surprised.

Ok, CVTs today might be better than those in the past but there has been some failures with Nissan and some recalls with modern CVTs like Honda, Subaru, and Toyota. I doubt they can outlast conventional torque converters, especially a Toyota, that’s just the way CVT is. When they go bad, its over.

I agree with the parts availability though. Being a fan of the popular has advantages. More people buying the vehicle, more spare parts. No arguing with that.

[jut703]

Rav4 is more reliable because the Rav4 has direct and port injection rather than mere direct injection like the others. That means carbon build up on the intake valves will most likely never happen with the Rav4. Anyone who own a direct injection car should take a peek of their intake valves, you’d be surprised.

Ok, CVTs today might be better than those in the past but there has been some failures with Nissan and some recalls with modern CVTs like Honda, Subaru, and Toyota. I doubt they can outlast conventional torque converters, especially a Toyota, that’s just the way CVT is. When they go bad, its over.

I agree with the parts availability though. Being a fan of the popular has advantages. More people buying the vehicle, more spare parts. No arguing with that.

Following that logic, then a non-DI engine like the R20 is even more reliable. And we've got thousands of samples of R-series engines that are over a decade old still roaming our streets.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[hardwang]

Following that logic, then a non-DI engine like the R20 is even more reliable. And we've got thousands of samples of R-series engines that are over a decade old still roaming our streets.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It is. And you know what’s funny? Some manufacturers like Kia know it too. If I remember correctly, in some models they’re going back to port injectors.

219 Kia Forte Specifications

Ford is adding port injection along with their direct injection too.

[Walter]

In my opinion, with the Rav4 you’re getting a decent performance, you get the best “theoretical” reliability, you get the practicality. Those features that the Forester and CRV have like leather seats, etc are nice but it is something you can live without.

and did you or are you buying a Toyota RAV4? ...

[Walter]

The Rav4Â’s 200hp is significantly better for overtaking in the highway (if you live in the provinces) than those two which only has 150 something hp.

For the AWD, yes its nice to have but it really isn’t necessary. It increases the weight of the vehicle and also increases fuel consumption. Yes it will improve grip and perform better off road but honestly, who goes off roading with their CUV? ��

A 2.5 liter engine will consume more fuel in traffic than an AWD system ...

Remember DMaxsiado guys? ... Ahihihi ...

[hardwang]

and did you or are you buying a Toyota RAV4? ...

Unfortunately no. Just bought a new car in 2017. Maybe in a couple of years. You’re missing the point though.

[diehard]

To compare between the current set of gas-fed entry level CUVs, my take would be:

RAV4 - great engine, nothing else
Forester - cheapest AWD in the market (along with the XV), humongous space
CX5 - still the best driver's car among the crop, but a bit cramped
CRV - class-leading ride comfort and space, good all rounder
Tucson - cheapest compact CUV, but bare and tighter than the rest

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Was thinking of replacing my Camry 2.5 V with the all new RAV4. However, the lack of features coupled with the high asking price dissuaded me from pushing through. As for the new dual injection engine, reviews abroad have said it is loud and coarse sounding during acceleration. This drawback should be addressed in future iterations. Having a regular torque converter AT assures more familiar shift feel but not long term reliability. My 2003 Accord’s AT failed at 80k+ km...the 9 speed ZF tranny in my diesel CRV has also had its share of negative feedback in both Honda other applications (hoping for the best).

Hoping VW will bring in the Tiguan L from China to replace the obsolete Tiguan they are currently selling here.