Have a 2 litre auto Rav4, used mainly for towing a 7x4 caged trailer full of wet firewood rings in the summer. Seems to be very thirsty (as expected working hard). But even for cruising roun as a car it seems to gobble the fuel, have heard this is a Rav4 trait. Been considering getting another 4WD, really like the later Suzuki ones, but having the V6 motor the timing chain problem is a worry. Or at the other end size wise even thinking of a Mitsi Challenger, Bighorn 3.2V6or heaven forbid a Jeep Wrangler type of thing. Would these vehicles use significantly more fuel than the Rav4 open road, considering the Rav seems quite thirsty! Must be petrol, preferably auto. The Rav has been very good at climbing farm paddocks etc with heavy trailer in tow, and have even towed a few bigger "proper" 4WD's out on a couple of occasions where the Rav has got through but they haven't, due to weight I guess. Needs to remain an everyday car also if required so don't need a serious 4WD. Interested in opinions about the Suzuki V6 especially, but keen to know real life fuel use of the bigger petrol auto 4WD's as well.thanks.
mugenb20b,
May 20, 6:33am
Yeah, all petrol automatic SUVs will be thirsty. Suzuki is a good choice, but a V6 is a waste of time if you are after horse power. They make all the right noises, but leave you feeling depressed and disappointed. Get the Vitara with a 2.0 litre chain drive DOHC 16 valve motor. It's still not a fast vehicle, but excellent off road performer. If you want a comfortable good all round SUV, get a 2.3 litre 4 cylinder Mazda Tribute or Ford Escape.
msigg,
May 20, 7:09am
As above a square box is always going to be more thirsty than a lower sleek car. Think about it.One thing is you will get good money for your RAV four compared to other models the same vintage. Best bet is to keep what your got. You don't save anything buying another car. Think depreciation, can't make that up in fuel savings.
ema1,
May 20, 7:59am
Maybe a Toyota Highlander V6 or better still go the whole hog . Land Cruiser, they are tough as nails and handle pretty much most things they are saddled with.
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 9:59am
Whats the budget and whey not Diesel! If you have the budget something like the Skoda Yeti will give you amazing fuel economy but still have surprisingly good offroad ability.
You would be talking less than half the running costs of the highlander etc and be a proper improvement in economy, drive experience etc over the RAV. Its designed for pretty much exactly what you want to do.
You would want the 2.0 TDI one for the wet firewood though.
If you can get away from the inefficient old Japanese technology you will actually find you can have an SUV AND really low running costs. You don't have to pick one or the other any more. The only catch is purchase price as you have to go fairly new, but price is very comparable to the Japanese equivalents.
mugenb20b,
May 20, 10:12am
!- !- !- !- !
doug207,
May 20, 10:49am
I'd go with a 4cyl Suzuki Vitara/Escudo, the RAV is a bit silly seing as it's full time 4wd, this is why they eat gas like an American eats cheeseburgers. The 4cyl Suzuki are excellent vehicles.
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 10:53am
Well, what would you call twice the running cost and several times the servicing requirements then!
I am being serious, the likes of a Highlander V6 will directly cost you about $25 per 100km (fuel) the Diesel Yeti just $14 (fuel and RUC).
And thats being kind using the official figures, which are very kind to the Highlander.
When you consider the extra servicing the Highlander needs the running costs are easily more than double even going on the official figures.
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 11:13am
To put it into perspective some more. A new 1.8 litre Corolla costs about $16.50 per 100km
a.woodrow,
May 20, 11:16am
The highlander is pretty horrific in fuel consumption, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for economy
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 11:18am
My point exactly! Anything else you want to compare the Yeti too!
EDIT - Just to put the Vitara in there, the newish 2.4 petrol is about $22 per 100km. Still has the extra service costs etc though as well, so its still heading up towards twice the running costs. but is at least better.
A new Rav 2.4 is about $21 per 100km and again has a lot higher servicing costs than the Yeti.
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 11:31am
Not to mention road mana! Who's going to argue with that!
But seriously though, I get the feeling that a yeti might be outside the price range OP is considering, based on the other vehicles that they have mentioned in post 1
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 11:42am
I think you could be quite right, that's the only shame of it. Realistically if it were me in the OP's shoes and they are not in a position to go fairly newish I would possibly be tempted to wait a couple more years.
Given economy is a primary objective there isn't much in the way of alternatives in the cheaper stuff thats going to have enough additional economy to warrant a change.
However, hang in a couple of years and the likes of the Yeti and friends will likely be an affordable proposition.
That said, I may have a few other ideas. But I would need them to post an actual budget or I am just taking more shots in the dark.
sw20,
May 20, 11:45am
How many years fuel would it take to break even trading 'up' to a Skoda Yeti!
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 11:50am
Well thats the point. If they are spending that much money anyway then sweet. If they have to double their budget then its not worthwhile.
That said I wouldn't be surprised if they saved $3000 a year in running costs. (thats an educated guess on the sort of running they are doing though, and I am thinking heavier than average combined running and perhaps slightly more than average annual km's to get that). I think they would be blown away by the offroad capabilities too, the 4WD system is of course one of those amazing Audi/VW ones.
Its a pity they need the ground clearance for paddocks as that kills some of the cheaper economical car type 4WD options.
r15,
May 20, 12:07pm
why is it you always compare the diesel yeti to the petrol rav4!
the rav4 comes in diesel, and in first world experience it uses on average 6.5l / 100kms. + RUC = about $15 per 100kms.
which is slightly more than a yeti. but we all know that toyotas dont depreciate like most other brands, therefore making a rav4 a cheaper option.
thejazzpianoma,
May 20, 12:12pm
Fair question. The OP wants Petrol so I was trying to emphasise the difference in running costs between petrol and diesel, thats part of my argument.
Now that said, I find the Japanese diesels, especially Toyota are just not up to snuff. The reliability is not there and the servicing required is usually at least twice as much. (which of course adds to the running costs, quite noticeably) That's the second part of my argument.
Its not anything personal against the Japanese industry its just they have 10 years of technology to catch up on from not having any domestic Japanese cars for that period. It was doubly bad timing as the new common rail technology co-insided with that restriction and a poor Japanese economy.
Meanwhile the Europeans not only invented the new technology they have been selling more diesel cars than petrol ones all that time, while VW had eye watering amounts of money to invest in R and D. Thats why as much as I hate generalisations, pretty much all European diesels are still far superior to what Japan has to offer. (There is the odd exception like Mazda who benefit from Fords technology and Suzuki who buy European diesels for their cars but while better they are still no VW/Skoda)
The Yeti is also a much better vehicle all round. Its a generation ahead on transmission technology, better 4WD system, suspension, features etc etc.
So, in short. Yes they could come fairly close to the running costs of the Yeti by going for a Diesel RAV but its still not anywhere near as good an option.
Read the spec and do the math on both vehicles then drive them both. I think you will draw the same conclusion. Pretty much every motoring magazine and organisation has been blown away by the Yeti as well, so its not just me.
mugenb20b,
May 21, 12:24am
Jazz.have you compared the size of a Highlander to a Yeti! Jeez, it's like comparing a water melon to a plum. The Highlander is a great machine, and was made 10 years earlier than the Yeti. Also, you can't compare a 3.3 litre V6 petrol engine to a lawnmower diesel thing. Of course, the technology and servicing will be different from one to the other. Besides, would you rather tow a heavy trailer with a big mighty Toyota or a small test platform car made by VW!
ambo11,
May 21, 5:14am
Hi all, thanks for replies, and yep a Highlander etc is way over the top price wise, would maybe consider a Challenger etc for around $10K, but will think on it for awhile.as another poster suggested maybe keep what we have for a bit longer.would still love personal fuel usages etc from those who have a petrol Challenger/Tribute etc.won't consider diesel due to ridiculous rego costs etc, and I'm not a diesel fan at all.definitely of the new diesels, but don't want to spend $20K plus. Should sit down and work out actual fuel use of the Rav, but to get from Foxton to Palmerston North and back is around $45 or so without a trailer.can't imagine a Bighorn V6/Challenger V6 etc being much dearer.And Jazz, have to grin at your passion for European, but although they look beautiful, I have just witnessed constant problems with Fiats, Volkswagen autos etc etc and couldn't ever purchase a Euro. Possibly a Mercedes, but nothing else.but your dedication is commended! Cheers
matarautrader,
May 21, 7:01am
We have just gone from a 2.8TD Pajero to a 3.0 litre petrol Challenger. Challenger seems to average 12.3 litres/100km.
slarty45,
May 21, 7:14am
What are the "extra" service costs of Grand Vitara 2.4 petrol! No cam belt to change so can't be that.
My 18 month old 2.4 4cyl GV (5spd manual) good for 33mpg, or 22mpg towing boat. Have had it off road getting to trout fishing spots without getting stuck, even on orig road tyres. Apart from water based paint job, very happy, would buy again no worries.
msigg,
May 21, 7:15am
Well said Ambo11, at least you got back to your thread. Thats good that you have seen the problems yourself with some of the suggestions. Some of these posts are just ridiculous.
r15,
May 21, 7:30am
turbo diesel surf is a nice drive for a low price- a bit more tow friendly than a rav, still fairly car like to drive.similar to the challenger- except im not selling a challenger
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.