rperez817 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) Everything you said there is opinion. No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver. 2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg C/D observed: 24 mpg 2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg C/D observed: 19 mpg Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars. Edited March 30, 2018 by rperez817 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) Your choice of a Jag XF is just as irrational as any crossover purchase. You could have gotten by with a Fusion or a Camry for a lot less money. Absolutely sir. Several high quality mass market sedan models are available. A used luxury car purchase like my current XF, or the other Jaguars and Lincolns I've owned in the past, I only did to be a show off. It's a Texas tradition to show off with the cars and trucks we drive. There's nothing rational about it. Edited March 30, 2018 by rperez817 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) Buyers vote with their wallets, so if a Rav4 can get upwards of 40,000 sales a month then Toyota is supplying a vehicle that a lot of its buyers like and more importantly, buy. Clearly the mix of utility, higher seating position trumps those buyers' need for more chassis dynamics and performance. You can do no better than giving your buyers a vehicle they embrace eagerly at a higher price than before. An interesting opinion was posed above, that the choice of a higher riding Utility over a car or station wagon is irrational.and that automakers encourage their buyers in the direction of Utilities using emotional gimicks.. I believe that happens to a degree but overwhelmingly, buyers are turning their backs on cars and station wagons and that's a trend that's been going on for at least twenty years, it's permanent change brought about by people being offered so much choice in Utilities and improvements in fuel efficiency to a point where fuel used versus a car is not seen as a big disadvantage. Edited March 30, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 This isnt the worst Toyota design Ive seen. I think it actually has a bit of Jeep in it, perhaps some Compass. As others have said, it will sell because its a Toyota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) I've always been convinced that Crossovers and SUVs were designed for humans while the modern sedans were designed for statistics. They've so severely compromised the interior comfort, ride height, and interior volume to meet the needs of design, performance, and fuel economy that they've made the sedan obsolete. Crossovers essentially returns the automotive form factor back to something that's flexible and comfortable while still providing performance and economy. I know I will never go back to a sedan, most people don't. In-fact, 75% of SUV/Crossover buyers never go back to anything else. We've been transitioning to the new utility form factor since the 90s and the Crossover finally nailed it for everybody. Edited March 30, 2018 by Assimilator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) I've always been convinced that Crossovers and SUVs were designed for humans while the modern sedans were designed for statistics. They've so severely compromised the interior comfort, ride height, and interior volume to meet the needs of design, performance, and fuel economy that they've made the sedan obsolete. Crossovers essentially returns the automotive form factor back to something that's flexible and comfortable while still providing performance and economy. I know I will never go back to a sedan, most people don't. In-fact, 75% of SUV/Crossover buyers never go back to anything else. We've been transitioning to the new utility form factor since the 90s and the Crossover finally nailed it for everybody. I blame "cockpit" styling where designers wrap the console around driver and front seat passenger, normally a strong bone line on the outside of the car near the top of the door panel means the glass is then set inwards reducing shoulder room and making your head close to the roof edge. Seats are also set lower adding to the feeling of peering over what seems like a higher than normal dash panel All of that adds up to large external dimensions not matched by generous internal space for occupants Edited March 30, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver. 2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg C/D observed: 24 mpg 2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg C/D observed: 19 mpg Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars. You need to quote some comparisons that consumers might actually use to make their choice: try things like hip point/seat height, field of view, etc.. CUV's are simply more comfortable to many consumers, they have perceived superiority in packaging (people and things), and are viewed as more versatile than a sedan for those reasons. None of which you show in your comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 No sir. Compare the objective performance measures between a Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota car closest to it in price and features, Camry. They have the same engine and about the same passenger room inside. Here is data from Car and Driver. 2015 Toyota Camry XLE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec Zero to 100 mph: 22.4 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.3 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.3 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 88 mph Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g EPA city/highway: 25/35 mpg C/D observed: 24 mpg 2016 Toyota RAV4 SE 2.5L 4-cylinder Zero to 60 mph: 8.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 27.0 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph Top speed (governor limited): 108 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 184 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g EPA city/highway driving: 22/29 mpg C/D observed: 19 mpg Crossover is worse on all performance measures. Similar comparisons can be applied to crossovers and regular cars from other brands. Performance measures will generally favor the regular cars. Pretty much every stat you posted there my wife (the average buyer of a RAV4) and most of the buying public could not give two hoots about. Sure fuel economy comes into play....but comfort, ability to fold seats down to fit packages, room for the kid's stuff, higher seating height, AWD. Those are the things most buyers consider when looking at CUVs over cars. I myself, would not buy a tradition 3-box car ever again. Hatchback? Sure! But the traditional "car" is severely limited in comparison to a CUV in almost any measurable statistic that boils down to the basic needs of a vehicle: Transporting people and their things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Fusion and Edge fuel economy is virtually the same with the same 2.0LT engine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Apples and Oranges. Compare RAV to the Corolla. Camry compares to Highlander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 Apples and Oranges. Compare RAV to the Corolla. Camry compares to Highlander. Here are Car and Driver performance measurements for Corolla iM hatchback, Camry V6, and Highlander V6. 2017 Toyota Corolla iM 1.8L 4-cylinder CVT Zero to 60 mph: 9.1 sec Zero to 100 mph: 27.9 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.4 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.1 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.7 sec Standing ¼-mile: 17.2 sec @ 83 mph Top speed (governor limited): 112 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g EPA city/highway driving: 28/36 mpg C/D observed: 26 mpg 2017 Toyota Camry XSE 3.5L V6 6AT Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec Zero to 100 mph: 15.0 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.5 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph Top speed (governor limited): 129 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 189 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g EPA city/highway driving: 21/30 mpg C/D observed: 25 mpg 2017 Toyota Highlander XLE 3.5L V6 8AT Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec Zero to 100 mph: 18.4 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.5 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.6 sec Standing ¼-mile: 15.6 sec @ 93 mph Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.79 g EPA city/highway driving: 20/26 mpg C/D observed: 21 mpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 And in those figures, notice how close the roll on 30-50 mph figures are, 4.1, 3.5. 3,8 none of those vehicles are bought with performance as a high priority, I would almost bet that the 30-50 mph time is more than satisfactory to most buyers of those vehicles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlRozzi Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 Not Prius bad, but I'll call this style, "Japanese Pontiac". Excellent observation! I felt this styling reminded me of something and yet could not define it. You have nailed it precisely. And to think that Toyota was the "Japanese Buick." Perhaps the next design language cycle will be Oldsmobile? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 Or Astek... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 For 99.99999% of drivers there is no discernible difference in performance or handling. A journalist up in Canada says that after driving crossovers, even a Camry Hybrid on winter tires feels like a sports car. http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20160224/day-by-day-review-2016-toyota-camry-hybrid/ "It is kind of funny: I drive so many crossovers that I start to feel like they handle pretty darn well. But then I step into an average family sedan and it feels like an outright sports car. Even on winter tires the Camry feels more nimble than one would expect, almost, dare I say it, fun to drive!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 A journalist up in Canada says that after driving crossovers, even a Camry Hybrid on winter tires feels like a sports car. http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20160224/day-by-day-review-2016-toyota-camry-hybrid/ An automotive journalist is not an average driver. For every one of them there are thousands of other drivers who wouldn’t notice a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 It’s also interesting nobody ever says the same thing about minivans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 It’s also interesting nobody ever says the same thing about minivans. Next to a minivan, a casket seems like a sport car hahaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Ironically my best friends daughter is about to graduate high school and Grandma gave her, her '06 Rav 4. So it's a gift, I told her to smile, say thank you. SO we took the vehicle back home and dissected it. Not sure what the orgasm is with Toyota, but honestly it's a buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling vehicle. Even her mother's '05 Mazda5 feels more solidly put together. I'm trying to "compare" what a similar year Escape "felt like", and it felt nothing like this at all. Touching the buttons, the gear shift lever, even slamming the doors shut feels like some '80s GM product. I just kept telling her daughter "Smile, say Thank you"...and even shes like "Why does the vehicle feel so old", she even said the body feels wobbly (as I did a deep turn into our street). BUT for those who don't know, it'll sell well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Ironically my best friends daughter is about to graduate high school and Grandma gave her, her '06 Rav 4. So it's a gift, I told her to smile, say thank you. SO we took the vehicle back home and dissected it. Not sure what the orgasm is with Toyota, but honestly it's a buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling vehicle. Even her mother's '05 Mazda5 feels more solidly put together. I'm trying to "compare" what a similar year Escape "felt like", and it felt nothing like this at all. Thank you sir for encouraging that young lady to show appreciation for the gift from her grandma. Compact crossover vehicles from that era were all buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling. RAV4, CR-V, and Forester are the best of that lot and have the highest percentages of owners still operating them after 10 years. https://blog.iseecars.com/cars-owners-keep-forever/. Similar year Ford Escapes are probably sitting in junkyards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Similar year Ford Escapes are probably sitting in junkyards. Thats a pretty big assumption, considering I see plenty of that age range of Escapes tooling around my area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 And by big assumption you mean absolutely false. Those first gen escapes were pretty solid and they were jointly developed with Mazda on a Mazda platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Thank you sir for encouraging that young lady to show appreciation for the gift from her grandma. Compact crossover vehicles from that era were all buzzy, chintzy, puny feeling. RAV4, CR-V, and Forester are the best of that lot and have the highest percentages of owners still operating them after 10 years. https://blog.iseecars.com/cars-owners-keep-forever/. Similar year Ford Escapes are probably sitting in junkyards. Maybe you should read these articles you post more closely before commenting. Those aren’t the number of vehicles still on the road after 10 years. It’s the number of original owners who still have them. It says absolutely nothing about how many are still on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 16, 2018 Author Share Posted April 16, 2018 And by big assumption you mean absolutely false. Those first gen escapes were pretty solid and they were jointly developed with Mazda on a Mazda platform. IMO there is a huge difference between the 2005 and 2010 Escapes-the 2005s where pretty rough and lacked sound deadening materials that the refreshed model had. I had a coworker at the time with a 2005 and my Wife got her then new 2010 a few weeks later and I was like holy crap that 2005 was pretty rough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 IMO there is a huge difference between the 2005 and 2010 Escapes-the 2005s where pretty rough and lacked sound deadening materials that the refreshed model had. I had a coworker at the time with a 2005 and my Wife got her then new 2010 a few weeks later and I was like holy crap that 2005 was pretty rough. Yep, but that doesn't mean they're no longer running which is what rperez was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.