2006 Toyota RAV4: Making My Devil and Angel Happy

Great analysis, bro!

This 3.5L 2GR-FE (269 hp), and 2GR-FSE (306 hp), is on the Rav4, Camry, Avalon, Sienna, ES, RX, IS, GS.
Its fuel efficiency blows the competition away.
It's as fuel efficient as everyone else's I4!

The power-to-fuel-economy ratio is a major reason I bought the RAV4. It really offers the best of both worlds: plenty of power when you put your foot into it, and relaxed economical cruising when you don't. I routinely see 27-28 mpg on the highway, and once achieved just over 30 mpg with a little extra effort to drive more economically. Not bad for a 3700-lb 3.5L AWD SUV.

It's Electronic On-Demand 4WD.
Meaning it's a FWD on the highway just about always, and gets FWD mpg.
Full time AWD would cut 3 mpg on most vehicles.

Without getting into 4WD/AWD semantics, it's certainly true that increased fuel economy is a benefit of an on-demand vs. a full-time system. Couple that with an efficient engine and a programmed-for-economy transmission and the RAV4 does surprisingly well for its size and power.

cbmorton, that is a great point. However, James referred to his mother's new CR-V (trim not specified in his entry) which one would think would fare somewhat well in terms of fuel economy. I know the previous generation CR-V's 4WD system was a joke. I haven't read much about the current one's. In my (biased) opinion, the Subaru Forester is the only compact SUV/CUV with an all-wheel drive system worth any real mention in terms of its capabilities.

The CR-V in question is an EX-L with 2WD. I successfully convinced her that four-wheel drive is completely useless for her in Phoenix -- even with the part-time set-up in the CR-V that works similar to the RAV4. The rear-wheels are only powered when the car detects the front wheels have lost traction. This was just fine for the snow and rain we'd get in Indianapolis when my mother had an original '97 CR-V with a similar 4WD set up. The Forester's full-time set-up may be ideal for handling, but it does take a toll on fuel economy and certainly is overkill when you're a person who really only needs 4WD occasionally during the winter.

You're totally right about not needing AWD in the Sunbelt, James. Are the RAV4 and CR-V both using Haldex-based systems (which it sounds like from what you wrote above)? Because we're in SoCal where we don't actually have four real "seasons," I actually told one of my best friends it may not be good for him to get a Subaru Forester or Legacy even though he really liked them (probably due to my influence). In late March, he ended up getting a 2007 Honda Accord SE V6 Sedan for $21k *after* tax.
 
Come to think of it, Subaru's mainstream sales (I'm excluding the enthusiast/tuner crowd such as myself) in the Sunbelt are always something they're trying to improve. Let's just say it's a slippery slope and it's going to take more than Subaru's "Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive" to climb it!

Two other things I've noted as a plus with the new RAV: Max Cargo Space (cu ft) and Turning Circle. If my spec sources are accurate the RAV provides 73 cu ft max cargo and a 34.8 ft turning circle. I guess these numbers are all relative, as they say.
  
So check the competition...
  
The only Utes on the road that match the turning circle are the new Outlander and the Forester (both at 34.8 ft). Anything else, in any class, is worse.
  
In terms of the max cargo space (space with rear seats down), there are many Utes (in bigger classes too) claiming less space than the RAV. Check it out: Equinox/Torrent, ML350, Forester, Edge, LR2, Sportage, Patriot/Compass,Liberty/Nitro,Cherokee/Commander, FX35, Escape, SRX, X3, RDX, Touareg, Xterra, CX7, to name a few.[C&D source]
  
The speed and fuel IS great - but - the RAV has other little pluses.
  
Now what about that rear swinging door?

Hehe. That turning circle definitely isn't shabby. I was impressed by the turning circle of the regular wheelbase straight six equipped 2003 Trailblazer (looked it up just now, and it shows just over 36 feet). I could u-turn in that just about anywhere, and was especially surprised that even the compact cars I'd owned and driven didn't do as well.

Too bad Toyota won't give us a nice 5-speed stick to go with that 269HP. That would provide even better fuel economy, more power on demand and of course it would make the Rav even more fun to drive. Why is it every other country in the world except the USA seems to realize this?

manual transmissions do not provide better fuel economy than automatics.
Toyota and several other companies have already crossed that gap.
 
Next gen, Toyotas are using CVTs also.
As the all-new 2008 Corolla shows in Europe, CVTs provide better fuel economy than stick.
I think Audis also have better fuel numbers for CVT than stick.

It would be more accurate to say that manual transmissions don't always provide better fuel economy. Obviously, that depends on the particular vehicle in question. The RAV4 V6 is pretty efficient as it is, but its fun factor would certainly be improved with a manual tranny.