Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives RAV4 experience?

Any one use or have used a Toyota Rav4? Would be a daily driver/commuter. Current Corolla is nearing 300,000, would like to replace it with a Tacoma but the gas mileage kills it for commuting. RAV 4 splits the difference on mileage and would give a bit of room in the back.

My wife has one, terrific vehicle. Certainly about the "best in class." Her's is an 09' and we'll get her another this summer.

Thanks for the feedback.

You mentioned getting another this summer. When I started researching them I saw that Toyota currently has 0% for 72 months and $1000 bonus cash on remaining 17 models through 1/2/2018.

I bought a (I think) 98 Rav4 about 7-8 years ago for my sons 1st car. It had about 200K when I bought it and I wasn't expecting it to last long. The boy can tear up a steel ball. Being a first car it got put through things that shouldn't happen to any vehicle. After 3 years of abuse it looked like a prune but still ran strong so I let my 16 yr old girl take her turn at flogging it. She wasn't any nicer to it than the boy and hated it because her big brother tore it up before she got a chance to. After 2 more years of abuse from her we upgraded her to a 2010 Yaris and the little Rav4 took a much needed break beside the house. One day this guy knocks on the door. He owns a small package delivery service and wants to buy the car. He offers a better than fair price for it so I let him have it. After he had the title in hand he said he buys every Rav4 he can get his hands on. He said his employees are as rough on vehicles as my kids and the Rav4 seems to last better than any other car he's tried so far. He said he has one with over 450K on it. I still see that ugly little car around town from time to time. IMO, great cars.

Good to hear. At some point whatever I get might end up as my oldest kid's car. I was thinking I'd do that with the Corolla until I did a little math and realized it would likely be over 400,000 by that time...

Which engine for the Rav 4

I think they only come with a 2.5-liter four-cylinder. Not sure about previous models.

My son had an older one that was great. He put nearly 300k on it without any major problems.
Then last year, he and his wife borrowed her mother's new one for a winter trip across WA. He said the only problem was that you can put it in 4x4 but at 25mph, the 4x4 automatically disengages. It doesn't have real 4x4 like the older ones. It has some kind of AWD that senses slipping and engages on the fly.

The front wheel drive only model should be fine for my use. I haven't considered the AWD model.

we have had two a 1999 and a 2017 great rigs.

Ed

Great post... “the boy can tear up a steel ball” gave me a serious chuckle.

I forgot to add my daughter has a 2000 rav 4, and she too could tear up a steel ball. The vehicle is going strong.

[align:left][/align]I have a 2001 that I have had 3 years. It has the transmission control module problem of that year unfortunately and is past the warranty at 195k. Sadly it does not make sense to pay a grand or possibly 4 if the tranny needs replaced as well. Really love that car but it's time is up with me. Would buy another Ina heart beat and maybe will in the spring.

I read this aloud to my wife. She laughed so hard she farted. Twice.

lol.... Sounds like the RAV4 is a good machine though emission controls may be lacking....

That was funny, just not as funny. You only got a single small fart.

I got up underneath one back east that Family Friends had... women...

it got loaned to their brother in law, the methhead for 90 days...

it was an 07 with the V6 in it...

he destroyed it in that 90 days...

messed up the engine...ran it 25,000 miles in 90 days... and never left Massachusetts or New Hampshire
as they live on the state line..don't know where he went with it... but never changed the oil or anything..

the Trans fluid and differential fluids, which are ATF, were burnt...

brakes and pads were down to bare metal...

timing chain needed replaced...

not counting the extensive body work it needed...

it got loaned to him, because his wife was whining to mom, he needed a car to get to work...

the truck he had, was given to him, by 'someone who owed him money'....

turned out he ran it until the plates expired, because not only would it not pass state inspection
turned out that it couldn't be registered, because the vehicle was stolen also...

just an average metro Boston 40 yr old methhead...

We bought our daughter a 2013 and then traded it in for a 2017, so she, and we, have been happy with it. My parents have a 2015 and are happy with it. Only complaint is the cheap feel of the interior and the stupid cup holder that's mostly unusable. Great car for it's intended market. The 2017 Honda CRV is nicer though.

I picked up a 1999 a few years ago as a college commute car for our oldest boy, had ~215k on the odo. Ran a little rough and burns oil. Put in a new set of spark plugs which smoothed it out and ran some seam foam through it. Still burns oil. All three of our kids learned how to shift on it. The clutch was near death when I got it, and needless to say didn't survive the learning curve. I tried to change it out myself, warning to others, save yourself four days of work and just take it to a shop. It's a major expense to factor that in when if buying a manual.

Asside from that, the little thing just runs and runs. Even when the kids are out of the house I'll likely keep it as a spare car as long as it's driveable. Mileage isn't the best, but the awd handles winter conditions on our mountain road just fine.

My wife has '12 Rav4.......bought it in '13. It's been a good vehicle although it burns about a qt of oil every 1000 miles. We have 4 Toyota vehicles in the driveway; 11 Tacoma, 10 Corolla. '98 Avalon and the Rav4.

Oh yea, my FIL is retired from GM and we could get his employee discount but choose Toyota instead.

We're 'yota heavy here. Tundra, Sienna, Corolla. Everyone we've owned has been great so it's the first maker I look at.

I appreciate all the feedback on the RAV4.

My wife bought a new rav4 in 2002 put about 200k on it then sold it to our office manager. She drives the piss out of it. The only major fault it has had was the computer died. We replaced it then a couple years later Toyota sent us a check for the complete job price including labor. Hard to complain.

My sister-in-law had a Rav4, she owned it forever it seemed put nearly 300K on it. Traded it for a Honda CRV last year because she wanted something a little more refined.

The CRV and RAV4's used to be SUV's. Not any more.Now they're just cars with AWD.

Yep, they've "feminized" just about everything these days. Nothing much left for a man to drive that's actually off road capable.

For the more "manly" Toyota SUV you have to jump up to the 4Runner, or take out a second mortgage and buy a Land Cruiser. I've been trying to talk my wife into driving a new 4R but no-go on that one.

The wife bought one new in 14. Its been just fine so far. Great gas mileage.

Depends what you consider a SUV. I never considered them anything other than an AWD car. For their intended use, they are great. The RAV has been a great college car for my daughter and the new model CRV a good daily commuter for my wife. Having both the 2017 RAV and 2017 CRV in the driveway right now, I'll say the RAV is a better daughters car and the CRV a better wife's car.

They don't call these little ones SUV's any more. Now they're called crossovers. It used to be that an SUV you could get into some pretty rough stuff. There is/was the 4Runner, several Jeeps, Bronco, Blazer, Durango, etc. The crossovers are almost totally highway cars. Most don't have enough clearance to make it over a sack of spilled marbles. I'm not saying they're bad cars, just that they aren't SUV's anymore.

For my wife and daughter, they have enough clearance that they don't tear anything up when they drive over a curb. My wife has a camaro for a weekend car, and am just waiting for her to tear the spoiler off, or worse.

My sister's had one since she lived in Nambla, ID. She moved back to the midwest 8 years ago. She been trying to find a replacement for it she likes as well for about five years now with zero results. Other than the interior being covered in a fine layer of dog, it's still Kool and The Gang after 300k miles.

I have a buddy that lives back in the foothills of the Mogollons, six or seven miles from the nearest paved road. He is high enough that they get snow and the road to his house goes up a couple of canyons that have running water in them anytime there is rain or snow melt. Their go-to-town vehicle is a four or five year old RAV4 that has never failed to get them in or out. My Mom had one that she drove for almost ten years before she gave up her keys, and one of my nieces drove it for another couple of years until she could afford to buy a newer car. I have a lot of respect for them.

If it matters to some the Toyota RAV4 still uses a 6 speed auto transmission. The CR-V now uses a CVT. Having said that, my wife is running a 2008 CR-V and that little thing has really surprised me. We bought the car and had it 2 years before we ever got to try it out in more than an inch of snow. The little car just flat out goes and as others have said, is only limited by ground clearance.

IMHO a true SUV is a 4wd truck chassis with a 4 door cab and enclosed rear, essentially a station wagon body on a truck.

The Rav 4 has never been an SUV by that definition, it's a unibody with a Corolla drive train. Doesn't mean it isn't capable in somewhat rough terrain, but it simply doesn't have the ground clearance for serious terrain or deep snow.

It's a good little car/crossover/whatever you want to call it and pretty fun on windy roads with the short wheelbase. Does reasonably well on snow and ice with awd and winter tires.

The pre 2000 Rav4's were a true compact SUV with good ground clearance. Surprisingly capable off road as was the chevy Tracker. Some of us would like a compact SUV for the gas mileage and increased maneuverability on tight trails. Seems like there's more than enough of these feminized soccer mom crossovers and not much left in an actual compact SUV.

Going off my experience with both 2017 models in my garage(plus three other RAVs), the CRV is the better vehicle. My wife is happy with the CRV. She would not be so much with the RAV. The CRV gets considerably better real world gas mileage. I've driven both quite a bit and I'd rather have the CRV, although the RAV is fine. Honda completely redesigned the CRV in 2017 and the RAV is still the 2013 design, although they made structural changes in 2015 to meet the newer crash test standards. Both good cars, but to me the RAV is more of a college kid or younger adult car and the CRV is better for the wife.

My daughter had a 2013 CR-V and the driver seat to me was extremely uncomfortable. Specifically on longer drives (100+ miles).

My 19 year old son drives a '97 Rav4. Like the previous mentioned teenager, this kid can some how break an anvil with a rubber mallet.

It was tired when we bought it with 220k miles...but 3 years later and another 35k miles, it's still zipping around town.

It's not a real 4x4, but if he hits the obstacle fast enough, it clears.

Awesome story. I had a chance to test out a rav 4 when they first came out in 96 I believe. It was a loner vehicle because my new toyota tacoma had engine problems at 26,000 miles. The dealership took their sweet azzed time to get me into a loaner vehicle, so I took my frustrations out on that poor little rav. It was winter time when I was using it and I remember losing track of the road and went into a ditch. I gunned it and came up out of the ditch, but left the skid plate laying there. While I was in search for a replacement tacoma from toyota, I ran it pretty hard to and from. One day I went to check out a tacoma about 90 miles away, and ran that rav so hard that it was smoking when I got to the dealership. The salesman said he'd never seen a rav smoke like that. The brakes were so hot, I thought they were going to melt. I only put 15,000 miles on that little rav while I was waiting for a replacement tacoma from the dealership. Their jaws dropped when they saw how many miles I put on that thing in 2 months. I told them they should have had a replacement tacoma for me sooner. That rav was fun to drive and it got great gas mileage. It was fantastic on slick roads. I still wonder where that poor little rav ended up and if its still on the road...

That was the older body style. The newer ones are much more car-like.

We test drove one yesterday, liked it well enough, Toyota is throwing in a lifetime powertrain warranty for as long as you own the car, not transferrable. That's a pretty good incentive to buy new.

My wife just traded a 2010 Rav 4 in on a new one 2 days ago. Hers had 97000 miles on it and never needed a repair of any kind. They are a very solid vehicle. They are a small tall station wagon. I wouldn't take it in a very rough spot. She loves it.

If my wife is happy, I am happy. She loves the RAV4 and her first one was 2001 and had 198,000 miles on it when traded for a 2015. Not a speck of trouble.

Do you know what year the Honda CR-V went to a CVT? My wife's 2008 CR-V has 148k and is still running well. I do 10k oil changes with Mobil 1 5w-20 and add a 1/2 quart somewhere around the 6k mile mark. My major complaint would be the road noise. It has much more road noise than my 2011 Tundra with AT tires.

When it comes time to replace hers, another CR-V will certainly be in the running.

Timely thread. This is one of the vehicles my daughter has on her 'consider' list to replace her current vehicle.

With a lifetime powertrain warranty on a new one it would be hard not to buy it if it fit your needs.

Which has a lifetime powertrain warranty, the CRV or the RAV-4? Either way, I struggle to understand what that means. Does it require a dealer service record?

After seeing what my brother went thru with a CVT on a Nissan Rogue, there is no possible way I would consider any vehicle sporting that transmission.

The way the saleswoman explained it to me, as long as you own the vehicle and provide service meeting the manufactures' standards it has this warranty. She did say to keep receipts if doing your own maintenance.

But that is a salesperson talking, I saw nothing it writing.

My only experience with a CVT in a car was in a rental Nissan Altima in '09. I really cussed that thing. You could punch the pedal and the engine would rev way up but it wouldn't accelerate. All it did was make noise. It was very slow accelerating. We were trying to keep up with our SIL on a freeway and he just ran off and left us. We couldn't possibly keep up.

I have 2 versions of it at home. On is in my Polaris RZR. It works fairly well in that but of course we're not on a highway with it. The big problem is with compression braking. You have to keep the engine revved to a certain point or it will drop out of gear on downhills and you'll be freewheeling when you really don't want to be. You can't keep compression and brake at the same time. Luckily it has good disc brakes on all 4.
The other is the speed control on a 40 year old Shopsmith. The concept has been around a long time.

I don't know when they went to the CVT, but it really doesn't seem to be an issue. Certainly not for my wife anyway. She only knows how to drive one way, gas all the way down or brake all the way down. She has no complaints. Her "all time", city and highway gas mileage is right at 30mpg. It gets several better when I drive it, but I try not to bring that up too often. The new models ride better than the older ones, and there is a clear difference between the 2017 RAV and CRV we have. Honda made quite a bit of improvements in the 2017 models.

"It gets better when I drive it, but I try not to bring that up too often"

Funny chit right there! Our RAV tells us when there's a vehicle in the next lane, when to pull over for rest/coffee, when to gas up, etc.

My wife says she doesn't need 2 driving coaches and intends to drop me off @ the pound.

The wife has had an 05 since new. It has been great as a car, but has been the worst Toyota I've ever dealt with. 4-5 water pumps now, on its 3rd alternator, just a lot of little nickle and dime stuff, and is right at 120K. It is great in snow and ice.

We have an 09 V6 Limited. Love it. Wife would buy another without hesitation.

I'm thinking about one for the wife too. Like most vehicles these days it comes with too much sheit.

It sure was nice when you could hose out the backside after dumping a body and Quincy wouldn't be able to find a hair.

Ouch. I had the wp replaced in my Corolla at 200,000 just for maintenance/prevention. It's pushing 300,000 now.

I'm with Steelhead on all the extra "stuff". Simple is good. I do like cruise control though.

Does she let you drive it? That would explain alot

Our 99 that has had who knows how many owners is going strong (make that weak, it's pretty gutless) with ~220k on it. Putting in the new clutch was a major $$ but other than that I expect it to be easily good for another 100k.

Somebody has to make sure the e-brake works.

Add one to the alternator count as of last week.

I guess I am different, but I do not consider water pumps and alternators to be nickel and dime items.

Are those driven off a serpentine belt?

Is it tightened like a guitar string or something?

There has to be some issue with the design or this vehicle to be going through water pumps and alternators at that rate.

If Chris gets behind the wheel, that might explain the water pump and alternator failures

My wife is on her 2nd Rav4. First one was a 1997, gave it to my dad three years ago and it's still running with over 300k+ miles. Put a new water pump and radiator in it at 200k miles a few years before I gave it to my dad. Great vehicle, and he will drive it until it dies. Current one is a 2008 with 170k miles. Again, typical Toyotas, very low maintenance. Another great vehicle.

Anyone know much about the Hybrid RAV4?

The problem is they have all the extras in packages. To get the 1 thing you want, you have to buy the whole package that has a bunch of expensive stuff you don't want and might never use.

I drove one at the Dealers a year ago, pretty impressed with it actually. Super quiet, tight as a drum, typical toyota quality.

if you are going to buy one in the 2000 to 2003 range make damn sure it's had the shift computer - not sure of the correct term- replaced. otherwise it goes and it costs 1000 bucks for a new one and may ruin your tranny while you wait for the part and for them to replace it. mine is an 01 and i loved it and would have driven it forever but with 180k- only a couple years of ownership- the damn computer was fried and slammed my gears so much my guy told me it likely would need a tranny and the computer. i said no since it was high miles and a gamble. really liked that thing. kinda disappointed.

Wife just bought a '13 Highlander with 25K on it. That was about the last year before all the whiz-bang, foo foo bullcrap was added. More stuff to breakdown and get updated unless you buy a comprehensive package. Salesman told me last week that the '19 or '20 trucks will all have a rear camera too.

There isn't much anymore that is going to be "simple".

Thanks OEH

Joe, the backup camera on my 14' Tacoma may be one of my favorite things on the truck. I didn't expect that to be the case at all, but I'm a believer. I flat love that thing.

Those cameras are great. Neither my pickup nor van have them stock. I added one to the pickup for trailer hooking. It worked great so I added one to the van for backing. They're one of the really good improvements in car. All the late model Toyotas I've been in recently have had them from the factory. I wouldn't buy a new car without one.

My wife's car has a backup camera, what seems like foo foo crap turns out to be a pretty slick advancement. Same can be said of traction control in winter driving conditions, amazing what it can do in limited grip situations.

Well, just came home with a 2018 Hybrid RAV4 for my wife... guess I'll be the guinea pig, although Toyota has been at this hybrid thing longer than anyone. And it is a Toyota. One thing I like about the hybrid, apart from better mileage, is it's noticeably quieter, and it's a heavier vehicle. The Battery is in the rear. Good thing here in windy MT where you can get blown around the road pretty good in light vehicles.

And yeah, the Toyota backup camera is the chit.

Well I've been driving for 49 years without a backup camera and don't see that its "value added". Friends that have them have to clean them frequently during winter and after trips down wet dirt roads. We'll see now, with the wife's Highlander how it works. I've looked at it but still use mirrors and my neck. All the other whiz-bang bulllcrap has a little " * " after them. The manuals' fine print says: none of the safety features are a substitution for drivers attentiveness and situational awareness. New drivers I've talked to say they are a distraction until you get used to them and ignore them.

I wonder what the charge will be when the backup camera stops working? After warranty - no doubt.

Talked to a Toyota salesman two weeks ago. Asked if there was any chance they would sell a "common sense" model without all the bells and whistles. He is the one who said you have to go back to pre '14 to get away from them. He said the millennials want all the "modern conveniences". You know - lane departure, side collision warning, front brake override, parallel parking assist, WiFi, XM, large touch screens, full navigation capability, on and on.
He said there invariably will be software upgrades to be made for everything necessitating a service department appointment. It all will eventually break and well after $145/hr. that will add up. Insurance rates have been re-structured for all the electronic sophistication that vehicles now have. After all this, how ironic is it that some passenger cars don't even come with a "donut spare"? Buddies wifes Altima had a flat last fall and 2.5 hours later, the tow truck arrived. Sometimes we think we're so smart.

My pickup is a 4 door long bed. I added the camera with a license plate mount for trailer hooking as I trailer something or other regularly. With the camera, I can back in and hit it right every time. I have a goose neck hitch that I don't use but if I did, I can't see the ball from the cab. I'd add another camera in the bed in a heartbeat. Many of them are made to run several cameras with the same monitor.
For backing, mirrors are a must but in tight quarters, being able to see exactly how much room you have is a big help. It can prevent parking lot dings and save small children. You use it along with the mirrors, not instead of mirrors.

Yep, that was the biggest driver for installing a back-up camera on my F350; I can back up to the trailers every time without getting out multiple times or asking the wife to help...which is usually not much help in the end.

Yeah, I guess if I had been driving 49 years instead of the 41 years I have been driving I might think differently... but chalk it up to idiotic youthfulness, I love the backup camera.

Reminds me of a column I read a few years ago. Young teenager wrote the car guy and said that her grandparents always parked somewhere that they did not have to back out of. When she asked why, they told her that they were "saving reverse." She asked the car guy, if they really needed to "save reverse." His answer was something like, "I imagine that your grandparents are getting fairly old and older people often can't crane their necks around far enough to see well when backing up. I suspect that they are more comfortable and feel safer with parking spots that they can just drive out of."

At 75 years of age, I can no longer get my neck around far enough to see what's behind me when backing up. I use the mirrors, but I am haunted by accidents that happened to several friends who injured small children, backing over them, because they could not see them behind the car. A good friend here in the valley, backing up his pickup, killed his grandson that way. The little boy had rushed in behind the truck to help hook up the horse trailer.

I really appreciate the backup camera in my Tundra and I won't be with out it if I can help it.

The RAV4 included a V6 motor in addition to the 4-cylinder one up to 2012 or so. If you can get your hand on a 2010-12 RAV4 V6 you have a rocket. Not kidding! The V6 produces 269HP, and is relatively good on fuel. My wife's 2010 burns around 29-30MPG on the open road, and about 21 combined driving (city/highway). Press the pedal a little too hard, and you will move your body against the seat

I have been driving 47 years and love backup cameras, Blind spot monitoring and parking avoidance. I am more worried about the "other" driver wacking me then doing something stupid myself.

My wife just bought one on Friday, but not the hybrid model. Time will tell.

I have 55 years of driving now. I find that the neck doesn't turn as far as it used to. The camera's a big help in tight spots. I've never whacked a car in a parking lot and want to keep it that way.

My neck is in the same shape, hard to turn and painful at that . Had it not been for the camera and blind spot monitoring I would have been in multiple accidents this year alone. Too many people are distracted.

We have had our 2017 CRV for one year next week. It just rolled 32,000 miles. I just got home from a 5,000 mile round trip to BC in it, fully loaded down with three people and all our gear. We averaged almost 36mpg for the whole trip, which was awesome compared to the 18-20 I usually get in my vehicle. The CVT transmission was no problem once I got used to giving it more gas than usual when I needed to go quickly. It was great on the interstate.

Having a 2017 RAV and a 2017 CRV, plus previously owning a 2013 RAV, my choice would still be the CRV for most uses.

Our daughter had a CRV, the older style that looked like an SUV. She bought it 1/2 worn out then completed the job. I don't know how many miles it had but it was a bunch. She loved it and was very disappointed when they changed it from an SUV to a car.

then and now

Haw many have that auto braking (when cruise control is engaged) that is in my Tacoma?

Car pulled over into the safety lane and slammed on the brakes, so my automatic system slammed on the brakes also, but in the left hand driving lane.
Had someone been tailgating me as some do around here there would have been a pretty high speed accident.
A hazard created by Toyota's safety system.
Wonder how many accidents it will cause?

I have to go back to the manual to see how to turn it off, I did read back when I was perusing the manual originally that disabling the system sends a "Note" to the computer telling that you disabled it.

Had to read the manual, I went from stick, crank windows to this thing with every system in the world . . . Whether I wanted them or not.

I imagine adaptive cruise will soon be standard on every vehicle. Some work much better than others. Our Honda occasionally will try to brake when someone exits the interstate, but is more sensitive to the right and not the left. I now anticipate it and apply gas prior to it happening. The Volvo was much better and never got confused by vehicles to the right or left. I haven't used it in the Toyota enough to have an idea of it's sensitivity.

I prefer the adaptive cruise. It makes interstate travel much better. I don't use it in congested traffic, but never used the old type cruise in traffic either.

Certainly new technology will cause accidents, especially while it's being fine tuned. It will also reduce the overall number of accidents though and be safer than the old technology. Antilock brakes sucked when they first started using them, but how many people today would prefer some old school drums on their new car?

Reminds me of a column I read a few years ago. Young teenager wrote the car guy and said that her grandparents always parked somewhere that they did not have to back out of. When she asked why, they told her that they were "saving reverse." She asked the car guy, if they really needed to "save reverse." His answer was something like, "I imagine that your grandparents are getting fairly old and older people often can't crane their necks around far enough to see well when backing up. I suspect that they are more comfortable and feel safer with parking spots that they can just drive out of."

At 75 years of age, I can no longer get my neck around far enough to see what's behind me when backing up. I use the mirrors, but I am haunted by accidents that happened to several friends who injured small children, backing over them, because they could not see them behind the car. A good friend here in the valley, backing up his pickup, killed his grandson that way. The little boy had rushed in behind the truck to help hook up the horse trailer.

I really appreciate the backup camera in my Tundra and I won't be with out it if I can help it.[/quote]


First day of truck driving school.

"To avoid accidents, never, ever back up. Sometimes you have to. When you do, consider all factors, and choose the safest ones."
Backing up is a riskier maneuver than going forward.
Ito unbelievable to me, watching people at my kids events.
They show up one at a time, few people around,no one waiting on them.
At some point, theyou are going to back that car up, why not now?

They fly in the lot, pull into a back out spot.

Two hours later, dozens to hundreds of kids running around,
Parents, grandparents, siblings walking to the cars.

It's dark.

Everybody is in their car, leaving.
90%+ of these f'not idiots have to back up, kids everywhere, contending with headlights in the eyes, cars trying to leave, opposite cars in conflict.

Possibly, those old people were just smarter than the "wise" grandkid or the advice columnist.

I'm the first one to work every morning. I back in because the lot is empty and safer.....and since I don't have to back out when leaving I can haul azz a little safer at the end of the day!

So, we just went through an entire tank of gas in my wife’s 2018 Hybrid RAV4... mostly in town driving, 34.8 mpg.

Pretty nice!

Hence the earlier discussion of backup cameras. They help a lot in tight spots.

OTOH, I've done a fair bit of truck driving. In many cases, you can back a truck into a tighter space than going forward simply because a good set of mirrors on both sides gives you a good look at where your rear wheels are. That goes for semis, too.

Which would probably get closer to 40 MPG on flatland. Thats fantastic mileage

Those hybrids do get great mileage. My son's Prius gets about 50 on the highway.

I was given a loaner '18 Rav4 SE when they replaced the airbags (recall) on one of my other Toyotas. It was a snowy crappy day, and the awd was sure nice. As to "extras" that are not necessary, I sure liked the bum burners that day. The Rav4 is certainly on the list of possibles to replace an almost dead commuter we have. Great thread folks.

I got a 2014 XLE in 2wd with a salvage title with 30K on the meter. Paid $14500. 14500 is a bit stiff for a salvage title but the car was mint... nothing wrong with it at all except some smudges in the headliner. Other than that, the car is just like new. I got 5500 miles on it so far... not problem one yet.

I specifically bought a 2wd because I did not want the extra running gear or weight or maintenance, I was for maximizing the MPG . I average 24 to 26 MPG with my poor driving habits.

It is my local run around grocery getter. The front wheel drive will get me in and out of any grocery store parking lot... room enough to haul the dog... dosn't cost anything to go on a trip... If the weather gets bad.. I got the Chev K1500 FWD... It gets me 12.5 to 14.5 MPG

It's a good car... Kind of utilitarian... not very refined... But I see this car going to 300K miles with no problem.

I bought a case of oil filters on E-bay for $3.50 each and I change the oil every 10K with full synthetic 0-20. It will be the most cost effective car I have ever owned.

This car saves me $200.00/month over running my 1/2 ton truck. That savings will pay for the car in 84 months. And it will keep my 1/2 ton truck newer for longer.

The water must have been pretty deep to damage the headliner.