Toyota Avanza vs. Suzuki APV

[niky]

As I've said in the Avanza thread, I rode a brand new Avanza at the back in near perfect roads.

The ride upfront is good enough but try riding at the back for a considerable amount of time and you might change your mind.



Sorry... didn't had the chance to drive it and wouldn't dream about it as those LHD roads are really confusing... :puyat:

Sayang. We should schedule a test-drive one of these days.

May point ka about the ride in the back. In denial pa rin ang Fortuner boys about the same issue on the Fortuner (hahaha... Peace, Bros!), but the ride in the back of a poorly damped vehicle is much worse than the ride in the driver's seat.

That's why, for any extended test, when it's my turn to be passenger, I ride in the back. Third row, if possible.

Well, actually, I ride their para feeling "Boss"... :hysterical:

[sleepdoc]

as an apv owner for more than a year, i can safely say that the boiled egg effect is non existent. i suggest buying the auto tranny version though, if only for the dual a/c. with its big interior space, it takes a while to fully cool with only the front a/c in the manual.

apv's fuel consumption is about 7km/l though, about the same as my old 1.6l carburatred corolla. but i love its amazing use of space and ride height. i've seen the avanza and its looks cramped to me. especially the 3rd row...

If you ask me, all vans take on one design cue, the bread box. so its just a matter of personal tastes. I could have bought an innova, L300, a starex, or a pregio but for my purposes and budget the apv IS value for money. best part... all 200lbs 5'9" of me fits in the third row with some grocery space left to spare.

like the motto says "looks great(for a bread box) fits eight"

[mbt]

Guys, surprisingly, the third row seat of the Avanza is reasonably spacious. It feels very similar to the Innova (which has one of the best third row seats in any MPV/SUV besides a gen2 Ford Expedition and Suzuki APV) except for less headroom.

If it's seven or eight passenger capacity that you need, the APV will fit the bill better than the Avanza. Otherwise, the two are very similar on paper: huge interiors within tiny exterior dimensions, rear-wheel drive, truck-style ladder frame and truck-style rear live axle, etc.

Both feel cheap and tin-can hollow though. Toyota will of course have the advantage in resale values and parts availability, and as a vehicle designed and marketed for fleet use, parts and service ought to be dirt-cheap. On the other hand, Suzuki has better styling and a more charming personality than the blander-than-bland Avanza.

[low_profile2]

ok dito ha...mukang apv ata ooo avanza pinaka maganda i test drive ko nga itong dalawa..

[dfcsantos]

I'm driving an APV M/T before I shifted to Avanza 1.3. Avanza 1.3 is P32,000 cheaper. APV M/T is hot especially on the 3rd row because of single aircon. The APV's FC is 7-8km/L compared to 10-11km/L of Avanza. Comparing 1.6 APV and 1.3 Avanza, Avanza has more power because lighter body. APV is more spacious, better interior finish and has power windows. Drive - Avanza is like a car, APV a truck. APV ride is more bumpy. In APV, you will never know if there is a car right behind you - there is a blind spot because of narrow rear windows.

[oldblue]

ti-nry ko sumakay sa driver side sa naka-display na apv sa theatre mall.

na-feel ko kagad insecurity ... this car is not safe.

[userfriendly]

ti-nry ko sumakay sa driver side sa naka-display na apv sa theatre mall.

na-feel ko kagad insecurity ... this car is not safe.

bakit hindi safe?

[oldblue]

mataas sya sobra for a very thin body. Pumasa kaya ito sa american standards? Or katulad din ng samurai na hindi pinapasok sa mainland noon 90's. Malaki probability nito mag tip over if im going to apply my driving style pag nagmamadali.

the avanza is safer

[eggman]

Medyo di rin ok ang Avanza,medyo ang payat ng body..

[OTEP]

I'll just say it again. The COG of the APV is not that high off the ground as all the heavy bits are underneath the vehicle. Considering the hood is almost to my chest already, there's virtually nothing in the 'engine compartment'. The engine is set low (and a bit on its side making it even lower) at knee level. Just as high as you'd find in your average sedan. Heavy bits like the frame, suspension, tranny, etc. are all set low (lower than say your average 4x2 pick up). About the only thing mounted high is the greenhouse.

And since the vehicle was never tested by the NHTSA, no one will really know if it will pass their crash standards. However, from an equipment standpoint, it will not comply (just like most local vehicles). The absence of side marker lamps alone is in violation of Federal standards. Just the same, the Avanza is also not NHTSA-approved and is also a rolling list of Fedral violations. So I guess its even-steven. It would not be proper to simply judge a vehicle as unsafe just because it is not sold in the USDM. Toyota Fortuners, Toyota Innovas, Nissan Patrols, Nissan Mistrals, etc. are also not sold in the USDM and are pretty much in non-compliance with FMVSS.

The Nissan Vanette, Mitsubishi L300 [star wagon body], along with other forward control vans did pass Federal standards at the time of their sale in the USDM. However, I still don't regard them as being 'safer' than other vehicles on the road.

The Samurai complied with all pertinent Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in enforcement during the time of its sale. It was Consumer Reports Magazine who kept declaring it 'Unacceptable' along with the Isuzu Trooper/Acura SLX and the Mitsubishi Montero. Slow sales and newer regulations were what took it off the market. It would have been too expensive to reengineer the Samurai considering the relatively low volumes it has always sold (it was a niche market vehicle) in the U.S.