Crossovers, you may have noticed, are here for the foreseeable future. Enthusiasts see them as an occupying force and the erasure of driving culture, but the scrimmage line is now well behind them as they mount an ineffective resistance from outposts within their former homeland. It was never going to be much of a fight. They couldn’t even keep a stick shift in BMW’s iconic sport sedan, what hope did they have in keeping out the CUV?
The populace has welcomed the friendly and helpful newcomers with open arms and wallets and crossovers have therefore transitioned from occupying force to legitimate government. Diplomatic campaigns to The Resistance have begun in the form of AMG and M and Porsche crossovers and…it’s working. There are defections. It’s over, folks. This cycle of history will simply have to play out. In the meantime it may be worth identifying who in the new order is governing well.
Manufacturers may make rally versions and hot lap videos, but reality is far more benign
My 1000-mile interview with a 2013 RAV4, a leader in the crossover movement, left me somewhat unimpressed. Yet, as the best selling representative of the best selling segment, it is influential and won re-election in 2019 on a whole new platform and new powertrains. The populist’s choice looks stronger than ever. In contrast, the fussy enthusiasts warmed to the original Mazda CX-5 as the anti-establishment candidate. The new model had the unenviable task of bringing in mainstream constituents without betraying the hardliners. Sales numbers and magazine reviews indicate the coalition was built successfully.
While getting the 2013 appraised by the dealer prior to sale, I thought I’d see if I actually liked either of them. Why not? The segment has advanced, and there wasn’t a single MX-5 or 86 or three-pedal anything in inventory that would be more entertaining to try while I waited. And I kind of liked the 2013’s blend of efficiency and utility; it was like a rolling multitool. That nearly loaded 2013 RAV4 was about $29K when new, translating to $32K today. $32K buys a 2020 XLE Hybrid RAV4 or Grand Touring CX-5. I consider these the segment leaders, on paper at least. Let’s see what has improved in 7 years.
RAV4 XLE Hybrid
No more effeminate styling for Toyota’s sales leader, no sir. This one is all butch edges and flaring fenders. Camry wagon writ tough. I’d like a cleaner and less insecure design, but at least it doesn’t look like anything else. The interior is where the styling language tidies up and coalesces, with a linear and clean dashboard and matching door panels. The tacked-on touchscreen is industry-wide now and keeps the rest of the dashboard low, so I’ll let it slide.
The cabin doesn’t feel as airy as the 2013 and I think some greenhouse has been lost. The materials and build quality are nicer, though. The padded dash has the requisite stitching, the switchgear now feels solid and damped. The doors shut with more attention to the resulting sound and the vertical door grips are solid goods, like those in my 4Runner. The air vent vanes move more fluidly, the console armrest feels sturdy. The steering wheel has softer leather. The shift lever is stout and solid moving through the detents. I didn’t see any immediate panel gaps or poor fit. Unlike the 2013, this generally feels like the asking price.
The key word here is “generally”. The interior door panels are a middle finger at the owner for not buying the top trim. Everything is hard plastic except for the little thinly padded island of armrest. It’s nicely grained hard plastic, but this is a high contact area and you will be bumping into it. This ruins the vibe and harshes the mellow. Buyers must spring for the Limited, Adventure, or XSE to get nice door panels. Additionally, the Softex imitation leather in gas-only XLE trims is not available in the Hybrid XLE and the mandatory cloth is industrial in feel.
In the Camry Hybrid, “XLE” seems to actually mean something for tactile interior quality, providing the upgraded contact surfaces the RAV4 lacks. It’s a nicer interior yet costs the same $32K, demonstrating that the CUV form factor and AWD is still going to require sacrifices or additional cost over the equivalent sedan.
The RAV4’s poorly engineered side mirrors cannot be avoided in any trim. They are gigantic and mounted to the flexible sheet metal where they wobble about when the door closes. On the road, the glass vibrates noticeably within the housing. From 60mph onward they generate a din of wind noise, ruining whatever work was done to suppress tire roar. My 4Runner’s mirrors are every bit as big. They don’t wobble and vibrate. They don’t howl in the wind. All that money in the TNGA platform and they let this slip through QA/QC. This stuff can turn away buyers.
Which would be unfortunate, because it drives nicely for its intended clientele. Toyota has sorted this hybrid powertrain very well. It whisks off the line with no delay, gas engine quickly assisting the initial electric torque. The 0-60 run is less than 7.5 seconds and it will hit 90 at the quarter mile. Freeway merging is no problem. The powertrain is responsive and satisfying on the move, like a turbocharged engine without the initial lag. At 40 mpg combined it uses half the fuel of my 4Runner while being quicker and nearly as roomy. It is the RAV4’s ace in the hole, available for cheap even in the base LE. Mazda charges $10,000 over their base model for one with the good engine.
Yes, the engine blazes from silent to RAAWWRRR! in the blink of an eye when floored. They should work on that, it’s a bit startling compared to the quiet spaceship noises of the electric propulsion and battery regen. However, one mustn’t always floor it for good performance and it behaves nicely otherwise.
Dynamically, this car feels nothing like the 2013 from behind the wheel. Gone are the choppy ride and brutal kicks. Gone also are the sense of lightness and quick reflexes. The 2013 wasn’t exactly athletic or fun, but it was responsive and light on its feet in a way that this 2020 isn’t. Instead, bumps are more adroitly absorbed. The steering is consistent and accurate, but rather slow off center and the car feels heavy in the curves. Body roll begins early, the front end wants to push, and you back off long before limits are approached. It’s far from sloppy, but it’s equally far from sporty. Which, frankly, is a better match to the market than the 2013. XSE and lighter gas-only models with the Dynamic Torque Control AWD seem to get better handling marks by other reviewers. My example combined additional battery weight with the soft suspension and fat tires, and it felt like it.
Overall, it is an impressive machine for most buyers and a large improvement over the 2013. However, some of Toyota’s cost cutting decisions are going to light up the radars of buyers who key in on such details.
CX-5
Those buyers will be delighted with their first impressions of the Mazda CX-5. Nothing felt cheap or cost-cut on this Grand Touring trim. The seats are nicely grained leather with subtly contrasting stitching. There is a consistent, quality feel and solidity to the interior surfaces. The hard plastics are nicer. The door panels are padded everywhere above the armrest. The switchgear is decent. The center armrest and console are rock solid. The glovebox is flocked. The pillars are fabric. The gauges are a slick, seamless integration of digital and analog, described in detail by Jim Klein in his review. Home run, man. I like a good gauge cluster. Unlike with the Toyota, you aren’t sacrificing material quality and feel going from Mazda6 to AWD CX-5.
However, that interior is smaller than the RAV4’s. Front space is fine but everything aft is tighter. I could buy the RAV4 without checking if a rear-facing infant seat would interfere with my driving position. I’d have to ground truth the CX-5 because it’s walking that line. The RAV4’s cargo area is also 20% larger. These are meaningful differences. However, as a skier I noticed the Mazda rear seatback folds 40:20:40 whereas the RAV4 is 60:40 only.
The driving position and seat comfort are fine for me, but unexceptional. Just as in the RAV4, I’d like a touch more padding and bottom cushion length. I don’t quite get the impression of all day comfort from either car. The Mazda’s mirrors don’t wobble or whistle, but they are set too far back on the door and require a slight turn of the head.
My driving impressions are limited by a 20 minute town-n-highway route with a ridealong salesman. Refer to Jim’s review for a more thorough analysis. There is a crucial difference between my CX-5 and his: the powertrain. $32K buys only the same naturally aspirated 2.5L found in the much lighter Mazda3. No 310 lb-ft turbo unless you pony up another four grand for the Grand Touring Reserve. The base engine attempts to move 3700 pounds of car plus 350 pounds of primate with 187hp and 185 lb-ft torque. My salesman pointed to the twin tailpipes and claimed “that gives it really great power”.
No it doesn’t.
It’s an immediate letdown when compared to the torque blitz of the RAV4. The engine is refined for what it is, and the automatic responds crisply, but it still upshifts aggressively into the no-power zone, struggles below the midrange, and is always downshifting again to keep up with traffic. It’s not meaningfully faster than the old 2013 RAV4 whether from a stop or a roll. Quite disappointing.
My first thought examining the excellent CX-5 interior was, “How can Mazda do this for the same price as that RAV4?” My first thought pulling into traffic was, “Oh. This is how.” All of the money went into making the Mazda feel like a near-luxury product right until you’ve got to get up to speed for the first time. The hope is that those first ten minutes will saturate your memory and lead to an imprint that won’t be shaken by the first trip up an onramp. It probably works for most people, but I wouldn’t be happy with this. The turbo engine is standard in the Mazda6 Grand Touring sedan that costs $1000 less than this gutless CX-5. This is where the crossover penalty hits.
Otherwise, the CX-5 drives well. Road noise on the interstate section was impressively low. The ride is firm but comfortable. Every reviewer likes to pilot it and I won’t second guess them. However, in my recent car shopping experiences I’ve been focusing on how enjoyable a vehicle is to drive around town. I’ve noticed a number of cars with good backroad reputations feeling rather unremarkable in the ‘burbs. This, unsurprisingly, is no different. The steering feels like EPS and the elevated center of gravity is still very apparent. Maybe it comes to life on a good backroad but, believe it or not, the old 2013 RAV4 felt a bit more fun around town. Well, until the suspension started jackhammering over potholes, anyway.
So which is the class leader after a 20-minute test drive? Neither of these $32K examples, which are the wrong combination of expensive and flawed. Either go lower or higher. My personal answer is the $27K CX-5 Sport or $28K RAV4 Hybrid LE. You get the fundamental strengths of each at a price in which the drawbacks are more palatable. Alternately, splurge for the $36K versions to get vehicles that feel worth the price.
Choosing between the Mazda and Toyota at either price tier requires weighing priorities. Overachieving powertrain and practicality…or bargain luxury? At $27K I’d probably lean RAV4, the hybrid powertrain punches above its price and that is more important to me than an interior that does. At $36K, fuel economy is less important and I would lean Mazda for the strong but thirsty turbo and premium road manners.
The Mazda wins the Scandinavian moose test for those who must dodge wildlife at close range
Impressive as they were, we’ve already got our family haulers so I didn’t vote for either candidate. I went home instead and sold the 2013 private party because the dealers made laughable offers on it. Of course they did. I knew better, but curiosity and the temptation to avoid the flakes and low-ballers of the online classifieds got the better of me. I bucked up, listed the 2013, braced myself for misery, but received my asking price the next day because it was a high-demand vehicle (thank you, new world order) and I made a serious listing with a realistic price.
I then went out to see what I could do to join The Resistance. I’ll write about that next time.
All photos except dashboard, door panel, and obvious web screenshots are from Carvana listings, which made direct comparison very convenient
It’s often noted in this comments section that as enthusiasts, we make up a tiny sliver of the car-buying public. Most car buyers want a conveyance.
And as such, it’s hard to beat the RAV4 Hybrid. Hauls you and all your offspring and their associated detritus in a reasonable fashion while getting 40mpg. The “hybrid tax” is all but gone – the most basic hybridized model is $2500 more but includes AWD that the most basic ICE model omits.
For $7000 less than the average new-car transaction price, it’s not hard to see why Toyota dealers can’t keep RAV4 Hybrids on the lot.
Thanks for the detailed review. Your conclusions have pretty much affirmed my assumptions on these two vehicles. For me, a family car is all about being a pragmatic choice. So more interior room, more cargo space, way better fuel mileage and better long term reliability (most likely) makes the Rav4 Hybrid the hands-down winner for me. I could care less about the more luxurious door panels or better handling of the CX-5 when I am just looking to have a reliable family vehicle. I have other vehicles for fun driving.
We might be in this market next year for this type of car as I am itching to dump our Outback, which is much unloved by me. I have been leaning towards the Rav4 Hybrid as our next choice and your review only helps reinforce that thought. As much as I’d love to go outside this crossover segment, they really don’t make anything else practical for my family’s needs. Sedans just can’t cut it for us. If they made a decent mid-sized wagon, I’d go for that over a CUV, but sadly that’s not the case (as mentioned regarding my dissatisfaction with the Outback).
Yes, if I were genuinely shopping this segment and my kids were still in those rear-facing seats, it would be RAV4 all the way. It’s a better family vehicle and the powertrain is far more satisfying. And while the Mazda is nicer and handles better, the differences are not enormous.
Now, with my kids out of the bulky child seats, the decision would be a bit harder.
Nice comparison, and makes obvious what buyers seem to prefer – i.e. utility and convenience over outright performance of most kinds. The first parts you can and do use every day, the “backroads performance” isn’t a big consideration for the vast majority of people and even if is, it’s A) hard to exploit to its fullest in most places and B) If it’s that important people often have another more mission-specific car, i.e. used Miata or GTI or whatever. Just like how you have a 4Runner as the offroad performance that you actually use is much better than these two and your sedan for example whereas in most other situations something like a Highlander is perhaps a better day to day driver (Nothing wrong with your choice, mind you).
Ultimately that’s what I found wasn’t so great about the CX-5 – it was a strong performer but that was against the yardstick of other CUVs which is a generally low bar, performance-wise. However the interior was good (even if my expectations were even higher going into it) and it was generally comfortable except for the low speed ride, sounds like your more basic one with bigger sidewalls was better in that regard which, let’s face it, is how 99% of the actual buyers use these things – around town, to and from work, and in the drive-thru lane at McD’s. I’ll note that on mine after I gave it back and they read my review, they had it looked at and while finding no fault with the infotainment system, did in fact find that both rear shocks were defective and replaced them. I didn’t get an opportunity to re-drive the car so will withhold judgment as I didn’t think the front end was much softer either but perhaps that did have something to do with the ride I disliked.
I completely understand though why they cost more than their equivalent sedans, AWD is a biggie, as is the (sometimes) available ground clearance, but the outward visibility due to the higher seating position is a factor no matter how “small ” the windows are getting (sedans no better really these days), and of course the utility aspect. Wagons usually cost more than the sedan too and objectively the main material difference is an additional two pieces of glass, you pay to play and if people are willing to do so, then why shouldn’t they charge for it.
In the end, the “middle of the line” for these two appears to be less of a good deal than is the case in many other vehicles, to get some of the things that you’ll notice every day (such as the softer doorpanels in the RAV4) probably makes it subjectively more appealing to go higher or conversely just to go base level and get most of the basic intrinsic good parts while justifying the lower-spec parts.
Edit – One thought, like myself, I believe you are at a fairly high altitude as compared to much of the country, I tend to concern myself that this negatively affects more modestly powered vehicles in my experience as opposed to what many others would experience at lower altitudes in the same car. The battery “push” in the Rav4H would tend to help in that regard whereas the CX5 NA engine would be more affected.
Yes, at 4500-5000 ft, I think only Denver and Albuquerque are higher. It’s no La Paz, but it is apparently enough to sap about 15% of a naturally aspirated engine’s horsepower and that elevation-immune electric motor really does help.
These two vehicles continued to warm me to the crossover. They really are quite good at doing it all and they drive far better than my mission-specific 4Runner. And ride can be difficult to assess for those who have different pavement quality. I thought the Mazda rode on the comfortable side of firm, but I didn’t take it on the poor quality roads that make our Camry XSE and that 2013 RAV4 feel too stiff.
I drove the RAV4 Hybrid XSE and although a little pricey, the interior is far superior to the XLE. It’s the one to get. If you can live without heated seats and a sunroof, the Hybrid XLE is a fine choice, and it’s interior looks better than the more expensive XLE.
The RAV4 Hybrid is a remarkable vehicle and the super rational choice in this segment. The styling, mediocre AWD, and overall lack of soul won’t yet get me out of my ’09 Forester 5MT.
Last year while trying to decide on the right medium sized SUV to purchase, wife and I looked at and drove a new RAV4 among others. Our takeaway was, not crazy about the edgy styling, the base engine was very noisy, the dash looked cheap with the protruding knobs on the radio. I thought that the steering felt strange. We ended up purchasing two non base Hyundai Santa Fe 2.4 SEL models. We’re very happy with the styling and size inside and out plus excellent cargo area to boot. Engine is smooth and quiet with 185hp that does a fine job with 3 drive modes to choose from…can average 32 mpg on the HWY. A whole lot of safety features are standard and included in the price of $26,000.
Another huge plus is a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty and 10 year 100,000 mile warranty on the drive line.
When I wrote that I would prefer cleaner styling, I actually had the current Santa Fe in mind. I think it’s the best looking of the class. The powertrain specs didn’t strike me as class-leading, particularly the thirsty turbo that isn’t very powerful. But that’s an on-paper criticism and the rest of the package looks excellent. Glad you like yours.
Ill take the crv hybrid. Its more spacious, more cargo volume, lower load floor.
The hybrid CR-V has a smaller cargo hold than the RAV4 and no spare tire. The battery pack takes up a lot of space in an older platform that probably wasn’t originally designed to be hybridized. The RAV takes a far smaller cargo hit and keeps the spare. I believe Honda also charges more for the hybrid upgrade than the RAV4, where it is a very inexpensive option.
Assuming you can find one on the dealer lot, anyway. They seem to be selling very quickly and there goes your bargaining power.
Much like Subaru but to even lesser extent, Toyota does have a little bit of ownership stake interest in Mazda about less than 6% after Ford and Mazda went their separate ways about six years ago. This small minority ownership also enabled Mazda to build their Mazda 2 Demio based Toyota Yaris for Toyota as well at their plant in Mexico.
The front of the Toyota looks like a storm trooper’s helmet.
The RAV4 going rugged is because the Venza name is coming back on the same platform in hybrid-only form next year. It’s the direct descendant of the first two generations of the Lexus RX (Toyota Harrier), and is much more premium: You do pay for it but it’s a big step up from even top end RAV’s:
pic did not load:
I don’t especially like the RAV4’s edgy styling, the front end reminds me of an imperial storm trooper out of a Star Wars movie. Coincidence?
“I knew better, but curiosity and the temptation to avoid the flakes and low-ballers of the online classifieds got the better of me.”
The nice thing about selling a seven year old Toyota is that the market isn’t the Kellogg’s coalition. Scammers prey on the desperate, and that doesn’t include owners of late model RAV4s. Advertising a 2016 Chrysler 200? Prepare to interact with someone trying to hack your Craigslist account so they can save $5 on the listing for the last car they stole. There may still be a chance that your photos were borrowed by home invaders in another city, because people who respond to ads for 2013 RAV4 AWD Limiteds have nicer stuff to steal than people bargain-hunting titanic depreciators.
What sort of spread did the two dealers give themselves between the fifteen to nineteen thousand they’d have retailed your car for and what they were willing to pay? I think there is a real synergy between dealers and scammers when internet antics drive people to accept low-ball dealer offers. A friend of mine recently got his used car license in a super shady town. It is a sideline to his repair shop. His customers and referrals regularly sell him cars with no immediate needs for prices that he can double and triple by picking up the phone and calling people who have asked him to keep his eyes open for something reliable and affordable. The sellers take the hit to avoid the scammers and the buyers take the hit to avoid the scammers. Thanks scammers!
They offered twelve grand. On a vehicle they would have listed for nearly eighteen. I thought my response was very disciplined and polite.
The people who bought it from me loved their Toyotas. They arrived in a Prius V and spoke very fondly of their Sequoia with over 200K on the clock. The buyer was attending school for a medical career and was very excited about the RAV. Her father looked it over and didn’t dicker on the price because he knew what a dealer would charge for it. Solid family, I felt far better watching them drive off in it than I would have handing the keys to a dealer.
What I don’t understand is that the pre-finance net profit on a new car is measured in the hundreds of dollars. Why do they need to make five grand on your RAV4 at a Toyota dealer? There are only about twenty-five 2013 RAV4 AWD Limiteds with less than 60K miles in new car dealers’ used car inventories in the entire USA. Low asking price is $15,500. High is a touch over $19,000. The mode is about $17,700 like you said. Why not offer you $14K and make three before financing instead of $0? It isn’t like they’re going to a used car auction where anyone is leaving the same amount on the table on such an ideal used car.
Toyota owners typically aren’t going to private sale their “relatively” late model, mid-high trim model cars. They buy new from the dealer, service at the dealer, and then trade at the dealer for a new car. The loyalty of Toyota owners is legendary.
This isn’t some unique Toyota thing. I once negotiated a new BMW purchase for someone in exchange for getting to buy their trade-in BMW for the dealer’s appraisal. I bought their car for less than 60% of the asking price of higher mileage, older versions of the same model that were sitting on the lot. Fortunately, I saved them far more on the new one, so they didn’t hold it against me. I also met a guy in 2006 who was driving a LOW mileage 1999 Cadillac Deville Concours. It seemed like an unusual choice, and I asked him about it. It turns out it was his father’s last company car as a Bridgestone exec before he retired. He went to the Cadillac dealer to trade it on a new one and they offered him no more than eight thousand dollars for a 20K mile, six year old flagship. Why would anyone buy another?
Petrichor took his RAV4 to the Mazda dealer, and they didn’t offer him a reasonable price for it either. It isn’t like you can go to a wholesale auction and pick up a low mileage RAV4 with a clean CARFAX. Even the competition knows they are as good as liquid currency. If someone traded one in at an Audi dealer, it wouldn’t probably be sold within the dealership, and if that didn’t happen it would still be sold from the used car lot to a regular customer rather than auctioned.
At the end of the day, both dealers let a customer walk off the lot with a 2013, 51,000 mile RAV4. They wanted to make as much as $6K gross without financing, and were willing to make nothing instead of $3K gross without financing. How does that make sense on a car that would be in inventory for a few days?
You answered the question yourself. They don’t make money on new cars they make it on used cars that were “bought right”.
As far as this situation it sounds like they only made the one offer and of course they started low. If pushed they probably would have bumped up their offer considerably.
I understand all that, but this wasn’t a Ford Focus with an auto-tragic gearbox or a 2016 Malibu turbo with a backordered vacuum pump. You can turn a low mileage RAV4 as fast as you can do the paperwork. Margins don’t need to be as large on cars that aren’t going to be in your inventory or reveal hidden expenses during test drives. I could do a comprehensive PPI on a 51K mile RAV4 in fifteen minutes. Is the carfax clean? Does the body and paint match the clean carfax? Is there rust on any mechanical components? Are the fluids clean? Are the tires worn evenly? Done.
Buying a great car right doesn’t mean stealing it, and nor does buying a mediocre car right. It just feels like it to the seller of the mediocre car. Petrichor sold his car quickly, so he probably priced it between fifteen and sixteen thousand dollars. Buying the car from a Toyota dealer instead of a private party probably adds some perceived value to the car. Selling the car to a Toyota dealer instead of a private buyer probably removes some stress from the transaction for the seller, discounting the price a bit. That spread doesn’t have to be close to six grand for the dealer to see a good return on carrying a bulletproof car for a week. The proof is in the pudding. What did the dealers do with their capital instead of making three thousand dollars for process some forms?
Sure the margin doesn’t really need to be as large on something that you know you’ll turn as soon as you put it out on the lot. However that doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to swing for a home run on every first pitch.
Sure that may push a few people out the door, but I’m betting their success rate is high enough that it is a profitable strategy for them.
“Petrichor sold his car quickly, so he probably priced it between fifteen and sixteen thousand dollars.”
Correct. There were some ambitious private partiers attempting to sell comparables for closer to seventeen and those ads were languishing.
“As far as this situation it sounds like they only made the one offer and of course they started low. If pushed they probably would have bumped up their offer considerably.”
Very possibly. I didn’t feel the urge to push after such a lowball, and I felt a sudden urge to risk the online classified game. Glad I did. And it turned out to not be a waste of time, I was genuinely curious about these vehicles.
I couldn’t stand the Toyota’s rabid-storm-trooper styling.
Still, I guess you can’t see it from inside…
The Toyota looks horrible and will no doubt date quickly when the next fashion curve arrives. Still, as Bangle demonstrated, looks don’t matter, brand is everything. The Mazda is such a much nicer environment to occupy as you sit in a traffic jam, it’s like a proper luxury car, and it looks infinitely more classy.
Well, in this case, “brand” represents a fundamentally excellent vehicle, so the sales success is based on tangible qualities–whatever one thinks of the styling. And while the Mazda has generally nicer materials to poke and prod while stuck in traffic, seat comfort and driving position were a wash between two and the smooth instantaneous hybrid powertrain response is more “proper luxury car” than the torqueless Mazda engine. At this price, you really do have to pick your compromises because they both have them.
Another stellar review! My in laws still have their ’13 Limited and my impressions of that car exactly mimic yours. Horrific ride on bad roads, really cheap interior that’s started to fall apart as of two years ago (broken glovebox latch, broken center console lid, in very easy use). My rentals of Grand Touring CX5s left me with the same impressions: very legit luxury crossover vibes, just needs more motor. Toyota’s latest interiors and cars in general feel one step forward, one step back. In every place where things feel nicer, they somehow managed the (seemingly impossible) task of making some other part of the car even worse/cheaper than their already cost cut state. Incredibe.
We got close to unloading our ’12 Camry SE to a private seller a month ago (were going to consolidate my old 4Runner and the Camry into a new crew cab truck), but got cold feet due to sticker shock on the trucks. Ended up selling the 4Runner and picking up a high mileage but Colorado-clean (read: zero rust) ’06 Suburban for utilitarian weekend purposes for half of what I sold the twice-as-old-but-half-the-mileage 4Runner for. Camry replacement is still on the radar, just not a burning need for it yet. Some flavor of crossover is kind of a “default” in the running, both the Rav4 and CX5 would be in the running (as is the current Ford Edge). But between the Suburban and our Chrysler van (With snow tires) all season kid hauling as well as bad weather driving is handled well so I’m trying to get my wife to consider something more interesting… RWD? Coupe? Convertible? The world is her oyster!
Thanks gtem. A little part of me died hearing you sold your 4Runner, though it looks like it treated you very well one last time in providing a straight trade for a newer Burban *and* cash in hand. Looks like things are going well and that is good to hear.
I hope you can persuade her to get something interesting to replace the Camry. I finally have seen the light and achieved a balanced driveway with a third car that doesn’t need to do it all. It just needs to make me smile when I take it out for a spin.
Yeah I sold the 4Runner for $7700, 7 years and 50k miles after buying it for $6350. Incredible stuff. The Suburban I paid $3100 for. The 4Runner stood for everything I loved about older cars and old Toyotas in particular, but it was an albatross around my neck: it barely got used, we didn’t really have a purpose for it anymore. The Suburban is much more comfortable on the road, a lot roomier for our baby+dogs (plus future babies?), has LATCH anchors and good rear cabin HVAC (again, babies and dogs), gives me enough offroad chops to do the beaches at OBX or a trip out West at some point, and is a vastly more capable towing rig. All while getting basically the same real world mpg (17mpg mixed).
The burb’s got…. 290k miles, single owner who bought it one year old as an ex rental. Rebuilt trans at 130k, rebuilt rear end around 200 (towed a boat). It’s needed tinkering to get it to 100%, mostly a bunch of electrical issues (Airbag crash sensor, vent valve solenoid, blower motor resistor, t-case solenoid wiring, intermittent TPMS issues). Notably, I never had ANY electrical issues of this nature on my Toyota. That’s the biggest quality difference I’ve noticed so far. I’ve had to replace the water pump right after purchase (2 year old aftermarket one started leaking). It’s got all original suspension and still rides decently and all balljoints/tierods are tight which is amazing to me, must be much better roads in CO. But I’m throwing on some Z71 rear springs along with some manually adjustable air shocks, nice new mono-tube shocks up front and tweaking the torsion bars up to make up for some sag. So it’s been a bit of a project truck but dailiy-driveable the whole time. I use it for the daycare/commute every other day almost, something I never did with the 4Runner.
Makes sense, and you’re well equipped to diagnose and repair the issues that could quickly become expensive for many of us. 290k is impressive,but those engines do have a reputation for durability. Take it to 400k!
Never!
Glad I could be of some use 🙂