Any Changes In New Rav4 2013 Awd System?

[offnote]

Hi,

I have 2002 rav4 AWD and I have to say that system sucks, e.g. been stuck few times

when front wheels were slipping and rear ones didn't even move. Do you know if that new model from this year

is any different? I'm looking to replace my rav4 for new one soon.

thanks

[ginnnts]

Don't know about 2013, but on rav4.3 AWD system is much worse (my opinion).

I have a 2002 rav4 with full time 4wd and in winter I didn't get stuck, where my girlfriends 4.3 did. And that stupid system with VC overheating...

This winter I was happy I owned 2002 rav insted of newer one.

And not once I had this problem of rear wheels not spinning,

[anchorman]

I don't know what you guys have been doing to get stuck with either a 4.2 or a 4.3 with overheat warnings but I suspect you need something more than a conventional "soft roader". For a start, it is impossible to have the front wheels spinning on a 2002 model without at least one rear wheel spinning. I suggest you look underneath and make sure you have a prop' shaft to the rear axle.

As for a 4.3 with the axle overheat warning, well its the first I've heard of - ever.

JCB might be able to help you out with something to fit your needs.

[offnote]

e.g. take a look at these

[offnote]

and look here on this simple uphill test at 1;22 rav4 is failing to climb:

[offnote]

or here at 1:57 toyota fails again as well as honda CRV BTW:

This is basic test IMO and all AWD wannabe vehicles should pass it.

[anchorman]

Have you thought about buying something else and selling your pile of garbage?

[Parts-King]

A Subaru maybe? Then you will know what motoring bills are

[Davrav]

Now, why did I buy a RAV?

Was it to drive up Snowdon? No, if I'd wanted to do that I would have bought a Landrover or similar agricultural 4WD.

Was it because I wanted a competent, high seated, reasonably robust, versatile, reliable and comfortable vehicle that could cope with the woeful road conditions where I live and the occasional fall of snow that stops most people getting around, for a reasonable daily running cost......................?

Much of these 'tests' is down to 'spin' [pun intended], tyre choice, familiarity with the vehicle and driver competence as far as I can see.

[anchorman]

Here, here my learned colleague.

[offnote]

Just test drove new crv today and salesman told me there are changes to AWD

meaning crv starts always in 4wd mode and can shift up to 50% to rear.

Wonder if this is the case with new rav4 as well.

[Tony Barnsley]

Just test drove new crv today and salesman told me there are changes to AWD

meaning crv starts always in 4wd mode and can shift up to 50% to rear.

What you mean it behaves Just like the Rav 4.3 always has done ;)

[Big Kev]

Hi,

I have 2002 rav4 AWD and I have to say that system sucks, e.g. been stuck few times

when front wheels were slipping and rear ones didn't even move. Do you know if that new model from this year

is any different? I'm looking to replace my rav4 for new one soon.

thanks

Any chance you drive a 1.8 Rav, with the model/suffix "NV".........?

[grangie]

Much of any AWD's performance is down to driver experience, approach and departure angles, tyre bias - road or off road. I've had three LR Discoveries (two from very nearly new)i n the past and managed to get everyone of them stuck at some point. Partly my c****y driving I admit, but also because they hated mud and soft ground, where they could dig themselves up to the axles in seconds. And don't get me going on reliability and repair bills. My current five year old T180 is without doubt one of the most reliable, comfortable vehicle I have owned. I could get something newer but to be honest I don't think theres anything out there to match for price and reliability (including, unfortunately, the new 4.4 at the moment). The RAV does all I want including coping regularly with mild off road conditions (forest track etc) and is great in snow. And iI'll bet it won't be long before some of our members are posting you tube videos showing ravs being more than competent off road. If you want to do hard core off roading then get a landie ... but don't hold your breath!

[grangie]

And some day I'll learn how not to double post entries .

[offnote]

OK, so in rav4 there some changes as well:

The 2013 RAV4's all-wheel-drive system is more sophisticated than before, with a computer-controlled electromagnetic coupling transferring power front to rear as required. Up to 50 percent of the engine's torque can be sent to the rear wheels, and the system can be locked at speeds under 25 miles per hour.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/18/2013-toyota-rav4-first-drive-review/

But why transferring only 50%??? Haldex 4th gen system e.g. in yeti or tiguan even 100% of torque can be transferred and those vehicles

are doing much better on slipper hills etc. Also rear wheels are doing normally 10% of job which makes traction much better.

[firemac]

If Robert has owned his RAV from new, why has it taken him 11 years to come to the conclusion that "it sucks"? If he bought it used then obviously he didn't do his homework before selecting it - he should have bought the Subaru (and a job lot of ramps to play on).

I can't see the point of regurgitating these Subaru marketing videos; they've been posted before . All they prove is that if you concoct an obscure enough test, you can make it look like your vehicle of choice is better than the competition.

I suggest that Robert stops wasting his time one here & buys a Subaru (might even get employees' discount?). Then he can get on their forum and share his vids with like-minded souls.

[offnote]

If Robert has owned his RAV from new, why has it taken him 11 years to come to the conclusion that "it sucks"? If he bought it used then obviously he didn't do his homework before selecting it - he should have bought the Subaru (and a job lot of ramps to play on).

I can't see the point of regurgitating these Subaru marketing videos; they've been posted before . All they prove is that if you concoct an obscure enough test, you can make it look like your vehicle of choice is better than the competition.

I suggest that Robert stops wasting his time one here & buys a Subaru (might even get employees' discount?). Then he can get on their forum and share his vids with like-minded souls.

you're being childish - how old are you, 10?

subaru or not it's not the point here, the point AWD system kid which I'd like to see improved in rav4.

If you have nothing to say here don't respond.

[firemac]

If Robert has owned his RAV from new, why has it taken him 11 years to come to the conclusion that "it sucks"? If he bought it used then obviously he didn't do his homework before selecting it - he should have bought the Subaru (and a job lot of ramps to play on).

I can't see the point of regurgitating these Subaru marketing videos; they've been posted before . All they prove is that if you concoct an obscure enough test, you can make it look like your vehicle of choice is better than the competition.

I suggest that Robert stops wasting his time one here & buys a Subaru (might even get employees' discount?). Then he can get on their forum and share his vids with like-minded souls.

you're being childish - how old are you, 10?

subaru or not it's not the point here, the point AWD system kid which I'd like to see improved in rav4.

If you have nothing to say here don't respond.

Do calm down. This is a RAV4 owners' forum where most of us are unashamed fans of the vehicle. One can only assume that your original "sucks" posting was intentionally provocative (although I'm sure that I don't know why). If you want to see technical or engineering changes then I suggest that you write to Toyota with some suggestions.

I repeat that the vids you have posted are biased. If I had the time & inclination I could trawl YouTube for any number of clips that show the 4.2 RAV to be the most capable SUV ever built - which would prove nothing to anyone who prefers a different marque.

Re your assertion about childishness, you should remember that when you point a finger in accusation, there's three pointing back at you.

[BeechCustom]

I'd like to write in defence of the Rav4's 4x4 capability. My 2000(x) vvti 4.2 got me through the snow when I had regular essential commutes between west and east midlands during the worst of the recent snowfall. This included traversing remote ungritted country lanes in and around mansfield. It didn't let me down once and I was able to honour the various commitments I had during that period. That is exactly what I bought the car for. I for one am more than happy with the capability of this vehicle. I am confident that it will get me through most situations that the weather can throw at us. I'm not about to enter the paris dakar in it but that's not what it was designed for and that's certainly not why I bought it.

[pgp001]

The RAV 4.2 is brilliant for the use it is designed for. It is not designed to traverse the kind of terrain depicted in those video's.

A 4.2 with no rear LSD will always lose traction of you have one front and one rear wheel off the ground. It is a simple fact that cannot be changed without having additional diff locks.

Used on normal muddy tracks or snow covered roads etc, you will have no problems. Mine has driven me to work a few times this year through 12" deep snow drifts and performed better than I expected.

I only did not manage to get through once and that was a snow drift that when I went back to look a couple of days later turned out to be four feet deep.

I slammed into it and almost got through, but it did not quite make it. It still manged to reverse back out of it and get me safely out of trouble.

Phil

[dwilson]

Regarding Toyotas ad Subarus - both good cars but customer service is important to me. After owning many Toyotas I owned a Subaru Legacy SpecB - very fast! I decided not to buy another Subaru because the salesman at my local dealership refused to take mine in part exchange - it was 3 years old. I drove straight to a Toyota dealer who dealt with me in a dignified manner and have stuck with Toyotas ever since.

David

[anchorman]

And some day I'll learn how not to double post entries .

Click once to post, not twice!

[anchorman]

OK, so in rav4 there some changes as well:

The 2013 RAV4's all-wheel-drive system is more sophisticated than before, with a computer-controlled electromagnetic coupling transferring power front to rear as required. Up to 50 percent of the engine's torque can be sent to the rear wheels, and the system can be locked at speeds under 25 miles per hour.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/18/2013-toyota-rav4-first-drive-review/

But why transferring only 50%??? Haldex 4th gen system e.g. in yeti or tiguan even 100% of torque can be transferred and those vehicles

are doing much better on slipper hills etc. Also rear wheels are doing normally 10% of job which makes traction much better.

If it transfers 100% torque then it would switch from being front wheel drive to rear wheel drive. Also, the CRV used to have tha Haldex system. Maybe they have changed. I wouldn't despute the reliability of a Subaru.

[offnote]

OK, so in rav4 there some changes as well:

The 2013 RAV4's all-wheel-drive system is more sophisticated than before, with a computer-controlled electromagnetic coupling transferring power front to rear as required. Up to 50 percent of the engine's torque can be sent to the rear wheels, and the system can be locked at speeds under 25 miles per hour.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/18/2013-toyota-rav4-first-drive-review/

But why transferring only 50%??? Haldex 4th gen system e.g. in yeti or tiguan even 100% of torque can be transferred and those vehicles

are doing much better on slipper hills etc. Also rear wheels are doing normally 10% of job which makes traction much better.

If it transfers 100% torque then it would switch from being front wheel drive to rear wheel drive. Also, the CRV used to have tha Haldex system. Maybe they have changed. I wouldn't despute the reliability of a Subaru.

so what? in uphill situation it's better to be rear wheel anyway. If both front wheels slip what's the point of powering them in 50% instead of shifting whole power to the rear where is needed. As we see on videos 50% is not enough to move the vehicle uphill. Just to clarify as I see it's not clear here - I don't care about subaru because of 2 major issues. First is price way too high then it should be and second subaru reliability is bad and it's been bad since years.