GTP Cool Wall: 2013+ Toyota RAV4

[motortrend]

This, this, this and that.

I absolutely LOATHE those fat, useless cars they call "crossovers". Get a proper 4X4 SUV off-roader if you need one, if you don't then solve your self-confidence issues and get a damn car or station wagon. They're exclusively driven by soccer moms who believe they need them to feel secure in traffic (even though they've got nothing on a Volvo) and they are repmobiles where I live, driven mostly by the nouveau riche because bigger is better and everyone wants to own a scaled-down version of a narco's Land Cruiser.

Seriously uncool.

It's about ease of access, clearance, better visibility, extra space and all that without the added cost or consumption of a 4X4. They're not just bought by people that want to show off or something big, if that were the case they wouldn't sell this well.

EDIT: just noticed all of this was mentioned already, my bad.
Voted SU, nothing cool about a Rav4 really.

 

[buickgnx88]

Dropped the external spare, seriously uncool.

 

[Wolfe]

A good crossover, (CX-5, Subaru XV) except for one or two inches of extra ground clearance, drives exactly like a hatchback.

I find it amusing that a lifted Impreza hatchback is considered a crossover. On one hand, the Forester could be considered one of the progenitors of the segment and it has Impreza bones, but the XV is an Impreza. If Subaru sold ice cream, they'd have two or three colors of the same flavor, each with different names. It seems to work for them, though!

All the heavy parts are near the ground.

Hell, our CRV is useless in a flood because the engine and intake snorkel are at exactly the same height as they would be in a Civic or an Accord.

I guess this addresses my question about crossover design. Some of them could still go on a diet and enlarge the windows, and the fancy "coupe"-roofed models are just absurd.

As for your comments on driving dynamics, doesn't it mostly boil down to the extra suspension travel and (probably) tires with lower limits? I can't say I've driven a lot of new cars -- I got my degree but haven't found a way to start the career in automotive journalism I always wanted -- so have everyday sedans/hatchbacks finally upped the handling game to the point that they've lost their pliability? I've long appreciated the "adequate" suspension tuning of everyday Japanese cars, occupying that practical middle ground between sporty stiffness and numb marshmallowy-ness.

 

[niky]

I find it amusing that a lifted Impreza hatchback is considered a crossover. On one hand, the Forester could be considered one of the progenitors of the segment and it has Impreza bones, but the XV is an Impreza. If Subaru sold ice cream, they'd have two or three colors of the same flavor, each with different names. It seems to work for them, though!

It's genius. But interestingly, our local Subaru isn't even bothering to bring in the hatchback. Guess they figure that they'd cannibalize sales from each other.

Forester dynamics, I don't like. It's too tall, too heavy, too SUV-like. It's a lot better than the old one, which had scary handling at speed (and XTs have the muscle to reach fairly stupid speeds), but the suspension tuning feels pretty clumsy. They're touting it as an SUV, so clearance and off-road ability are priorities here.

I guess this addresses my question about crossover design. Some of them could still go on a diet and enlarge the windows, and the fancy "coupe"-roofed models are just absurd.

I like absurd. But yeah, diets are a necessity. Part of the reason the CX-5 is so good is that it's a a couple hundred pounds lighter than the CX7 (which I never liked) while being more comfortable inside.

As for your comments on driving dynamics, doesn't it mostly boil down to the extra suspension travel and (probably) tires with lower limits? I can't say I've driven a lot of new cars -- I got my degree but haven't found a way to start the career in automotive journalism I always wanted -- so have everyday sedans/hatchbacks finally upped the handling game to the point that they've lost their pliability? I've long appreciated the "adequate" suspension tuning of everyday Japanese cars, occupying that practical middle ground between sporty stiffness and numb marshmallowy-ness.

Lower limits, yes... but also just having less weight sitting outside the wheelbase. Mind you, not all crossovers are great athletes. Something like a Kia Sorento has a lot of natural grip in the chassis (stiff chassis, great anti-roll bars), but is nowhere near as trustworthy to drive as a Kia Optima. YMMV.

-

Auto journalism, start writing stuff, send stuff to the usual suspects... Jalop, TTAC, Autoblog... see if you've got anything they want to publish. No money there yet, but build up enough cred and you can start applying at your local papers for their motoring sections.

Good luck!

 

[Tornado]

Wouldn't sending an article praising non-manual non-wagons to Jalopnik cause them to hunt you down and beat you?

 

[Azure Flare]

 

[Xilor]

There are different types of crossovers out there. Some of them, like my Ford Escape or the VW Tiguan are genuinely brilliant. They combine attractive design and good driving dynamics with comfort and practicality, all of which, IMO, outweighs the somewhat unfair soccer mom stereotype.

The Rav4 though (and I've looked at one quite extensively when buying my Escape a couple of months ago) doesn't really fit into that category. It doesn't look very good, the interior is awful compared to some competitors, it might actually be relatively fast as @niky said but the steering, the brakes, everything feels far too disconnected from the road for my liking.

Overall its just not good enough to compensate for the soccer mom/mall crawler image. SU.

 

[White & Nerdy]

@niky I wouldn't know, I've never taken an SUV or crossover to a mountain road or a track and beat the snot out of it. I have, however, driven an SUV, and it's the tall driving position I'm worried about. Like I said, it feels like driving a bus. When you're that far off the ground, it just sort of feels wierd somehow, like you should be tilting about half a degree for every MPH. It's kind of... unnatural, almost. I like 'em low. I good rule of thumb I've worked out is this: I, 5 feet, 7 inches tall, should be able to comfortably rest my elbow on the roof while leaning against the car. If I can't do so, or it's uncomfortable, the car is too tall. If I can do so on the hood, it's way too tall.

 

[Azure Flare]

Try a Ram 1500, that thing is ****ing huge.

When my dad brought his home, I asked if he had the right license to drive it.

 

[niky]

rule of thumb

Based on what? You haven't driven any modern crossovers, high performance SUVs or even that many cars... where do you derive your criteria from? What exact height is "comfortable"? Based on my measurements, that would be about 55 inches, which includes a whole shebang of sports sedans and cars.

A roof is nothing but a steel shell that goes over the passenger compartment. What really matters for car balance is where all the oily bits go. A car can have a low roof and an engine mounted high up (if, for example, it's got the transmission tucked under the engine), and can handle like garbage compared to a tall-roofed car with a low-mounted engine and differential.

 

[McLaren]

@niky I wouldn't know, I've never taken an SUV or crossover to a mountain road or a track and beat the snot out of it. I have, however, driven an SUV, and it's the tall driving position I'm worried about.

Not all SUVs or crossovers have the same driving position. Driving a BMW X3 still feels like driving a car. Driving a GX460 definitely feels like an SUV.

I good rule of thumb I've worked out is this: I, 5 feet, 7 inches tall, should be able to comfortably rest my elbow on the roof while leaning against the car. If I can't do so, or it's uncomfortable, the car is too tall. If I can do so on the hood, it's way too tall.

That quite literally rules out anything that isn't categorized as a regular car, then.

 

[C-ZETA]

I find that the best crossovers come from companies who actually market them as their hatchback in the rough sector it 'crosses over' with, so to speak.
The 1st gen Qashqai did so well that Nissan didn't even have to introduce a true hatchback at that level.
Of course they have introduced the Pulsar to go with the 2nd gen but one reckons that the Qashqai will be going strong for generations to come because of the way the 1st gen brought the crossover idea into every other manufacturer's light.
Sadly, running just a crossover and not a hatchback is rare.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well of course off-road vehicles would have to be an exception, but I don't think anyone interested in off-roading is going to buy a ski taxi with a four-cylinder engine and front-based "all-wheel-drive".

 

[spencer7x7]

Meh meh.

 

[niky]

That quite literally rules out anything that isn't categorized as a regular car, then.

That isn't a low-slung coupe, actually. At 5'7", leaning over, that requires something that is about 12" or more below his head... which rules out anything over 55" in height. Which rules out the current Evo, the previous and current M3s, the Mustang, and a whole bunch of decent to drive cars.

Which is why I question the validity of the rule.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I probably didn't realize those cars were that tall. Which they shouldn't be. For a sports car like a Mustang or an M3, being low-slung is practically part of the job. Nothing a little suspension work can't fix, I guess.

 

[homeforsummer]

I wouldn't know

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[niky]

I probably didn't realize those cars were that tall. Which they shouldn't be. For a sports car like a Mustang or an M3, being low-slung is practically part of the job. Nothing a little suspension work can't fix, I guess.

Let's put it this way.

Your lower limit is low slung, already. Very much so. And yet, it's a pointless metric. A Civic coupe falls under it, an M3 falls over. You'd be hard pressed to call a Civic coupe sportier than an M3.

If you want a car with the lowest center of gravity possible, yet with enough suspension stroke to not fly straight off the road, it shouldn't be higher than forty inches. And no modern car gets close.

Not even the modern Ford GT, the successor to the GT40, gets close (43 inches). But that's a car that's so low slung, tall people don't fit properly.

-

Every car is a compromise in terms of something. If you say a crossover is too tall for spirited driving, I could point out that most sports cars are a bit too tall. Too long. Too heavy. Too inert. I've driven "sports cars" that aren't as much fun as a CX-5. Numbers? They don't mean nuthin' worth printing. It's what a car does with those numbers that counts.

I'm not saying crossovers are the be-all and end-all of motoring, but if you want people to take your opinions seriously, you really ought to learn a bit more about motoring in general and what you're criticizing. You don't like the RAV4, fine. Lots of people don't. But formulate your opinion based on something that makes sense instead of inventing reasons that don't actually apply to the RAV4 at all.

-

It's not an eco-car, and doesn't pretend to be.

It's not an off-roader, and doesn't even come close to pretending to be.

It's not a sports car.

It's just a car. That's all. Which makes it rather uncool.

 

[Moglet]

Well of course off-road vehicles would have to be an exception, but I don't think anyone interested in off-roading is going to buy a ski taxi with a four-cylinder engine and front-based "all-wheel-drive".

They aren't designed to do serious off roading, but my mk2 CRV has been up dirt banks to get around tractors quite a few times in the village I live in. Chunky tyres, increased ground clearance and softer suspension all helped a huge amount. The part time 4WD has kicked in on mud a few times too and has meant I didn't get stuck where my fiance's FWD did, albeit briefly.

That doesn't make crossovers cool, though, and I voted sub zero by accident (fat fingers on a touch screen). The older crossovers still look miles better IMO, they were much chunkier and looked as if they could handle the rough stuff more easily than the modern ones.

 

[TheCracker]

A car for people with no real interest in cars. Plus it's a Toyota. Uncool.

 

[Tyger]

Rare SU from me, it has too many of my bugbears. I generally dislike SUVs unless they are up to the task for and used for genuine off-roading, not school-run fodder like this. If you need a spacious car to throw a family and their friends inside there are MPVs or large estates/station wagons, why do you need a 4x4 when the only time you are likely to leave the asphalt is to sell cakes at the school fete or jumble sale?

Also it just looks terrible. The styling is dialled-in resulting in a bit of a bloated-looking travesty of a car. Perhaps performance-wise it's OK but that's not enough to save it for me. Plenty more valid and attractive cars perform well too.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you need a spacious car to throw a family and their friends inside there are MPVs or large estates/station wagons, why do you need a 4x4 when the only time you are likely to leave the asphalt is to sell cakes at the school fete or jumble sale?

This has literally just been addressed, both in the post two above yours by someone who actually owns such a car, and by a few others in previous posts.

 

[Moglet]

This has literally just been addressed, both in the post two above yours by someone who actually owns such a car, and by a few others in previous posts.

We all know that he's sort of right though, the majority of crossovers are driven by people who really don't require them. They are everywhere on the Isle of Wight due to the way the roads run out of proper tarmac very quickly but I still see loads parked up outside schools in Leamington Spa or Solihull.

 

[homeforsummer]

really don't require them

It depends how you define that. Nowadays, there's little reason not to choose one over say, a wagon or a regular hatch - most are damn-near as economical these days, all offer that desirable higher seating position (which in itself can be a safety feature), they're easier to load kids and stuff into because they aren't as low, and the ones that do have all-wheel drive do offer that extra slippy-road ability as and when it's needed. They're also relatively compact still, which makes them easier to park than the "large MPVs or station wagons" being suggested.

And that's without even starting on the fact that some people simply like the way they look. It's not up to us to decide that some people don't "need" these vehicles, without knowing why they've bought them. And frankly, a forum of car enthusiasts, people who choose to drive cars for all sorts of daft reasons, don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to suggesting what car a parent should buy to ferry their family around in...

It very much isn't a black and white "estate for this job, 4x4 for this other job" situation.

 

[Famine]

I'd have been most glad, with my knees, to get into a crossover to go home after a day in the F-Type, NSX et al.! Instead I had to fall into and climb out of a Mk1 MX-5.

In many respects, the Mk1 RAV4 was the best car of the day

 

[Moglet]

It depends how you define that. Nowadays, there's little reason not to choose one over say, a wagon or a regular hatch - most are damn-near as economical these days, all offer that desirable higher seating position (which in itself can be a safety feature), they're easier to load kids and stuff into because they aren't as low, and the ones that do have all-wheel drive do offer that extra slippy-road ability as and when it's needed. They're also relatively compact still, which makes them easier to park than the "large MPVs or station wagons" being suggested.

And that's without even starting on the fact that some people simply like the way they look. It's not up to us to decide that some people don't "need" these vehicles, without knowing why they've bought them. And frankly, a forum of car enthusiasts, people who choose to drive cars for all sorts of daft reasons, don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to suggesting what car a parent should buy to ferry their family around in...

It very much isn't a black and white "estate for this job, 4x4 for this other job" situation.

I think my post was badly worded, I was simply pointing out that the majority of them are driven on perfectly smooth roads (unless you're in the UK). I completely agree with you, they may not require them but they want a crossover so they buy one. We don't require a 2nd car in the house but we've got one because we wanted it.

 

[Cano]

​

Oh boy, where to start with this thing?
trash

Dude you are pure gold. What would we do without you

Yes.
Sub-freaking-zero.

The only thing I don't like about it is the fact they eliminated the V6 engine. Other than that, I'd drive one of these daily and absolutely love every milisecond of it. The engine has a very good response, the transmission is flawless, I love both the exterior and interior (except for the fake carbon fiber), it's comfortable, it has plenty of space & it drives magnificent...

This would be my number one choice for an SUV if the Mercedez Benz GLK didn't exist.

Good is not cool. If you told me you drive a RAV-4 I'd plainly laugh in your face. I did at a friend. I don't have a single doubt it's a good car (and @niky here has made a great job of defending it), but it's one of the uncoolest things I can think of. Just the badge alone warrants an uncool these years.

And btw, the Mercedes G is even more uncool. Imagine that.

 

[homeforsummer]

perfectly smooth roads (unless you're in the UK)

Indeed, which was one of the points I raised before But that notwithstanding, I don't begrudge anyone choosing a crossover as their family vehicle over a regular car. Okay, in some cases it's a pity - it means few are getting to experience just how good cars like the Mazda 6 are, because people are buying CX-5s instead - but then as @Famine has already pointed out (and @niky for that matter), the CX-5 is bloody brilliant anyway and offers several advantages that even the 6 can't manage.

There's no such thing as really not "needing" a crossover - whether someone wants one or not, they're often simply better for the job they're designed to do. That's reason enough to choose one, in most cases.

 

[Moglet]

If you told me you drive a RAV-4 I'd plainly laugh in your face. I did at a friend.

Wow, you seem like a good friend.

 

[Cano]

Wow, you seem like a good friend.

He's my best friend in all my life. True story