4th Gen Rav4 buying advice

[///MAZI]

I'm thinking of buying a 4th gen Rav4 diesel, I remember the previous gen 2.2 d4d were known for headgaskets.

Any issues with the 4th gen, I'm leaning towards the 2.0 d4d. Was considering the hybrid but it has inferior fuel consumption. 

I'll be buying it specifically for driving overseas with my family. 

 

[philip42h]

There's no real problem with the 2.2 diesel engine in a 4.4 - it's as reliable as any modern diesel and, like any modern diesel, needs appropriate servicing and correct fluids.

Early 4.4s with the 2.0 diesel had a Toyota engine; later ones had had a BMW derived engine - and that didn't have a great reputation either (in BMWs or Toyotas). The latter came as FWD manual only with a primary focus on economy.

The hybrid comes in FWD and AWD forms, is 'automatic' by design and has a very reasonable fuel economy for a car of that size - and it is petrol rather than dirty diesel which may be of benefit in European cities and low emissions zones.

[robo1]

I had a RAV 4.4 diesel (2013) followed by a RAV 4.4 hybrid (2018). Fuel consumption wise they had similar mpg. 

[///MAZI]

OK, I am leaning towards the hybrid now, I am not a fan of CVT boxes but thats the price I will have to pay if I decide hybrid.

I also looked at the newer shape which looks nicer but seems to have poorer fuel economy than the previous shape which seems odd

[FROSTYBALLS]

Depends what information you're using to compare consumption. For official consumption figures, the 4th generation would have used the older NEDC testing regime, whereas the 5th generation used the WLTP regime. Both are lab based regimes, and WLTP is supposedly closer to real world figures.

However, neither system is supposed to represent what owners will achieve, but provide a standard comparison to compare between models.

[philip42h]

18 minutes ago, ///MAZI said:

OK, I am leaning towards the hybrid now, I am not a fan of CVT boxes but thats the price I will have to pay if I decide hybrid.

I also looked at the newer shape which looks nicer but seems to have poorer fuel economy than the previous shape which seems odd

There's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with the CVT box - it is integral to the hybrid system and is wholly different from the old "belt and cone" style CVT. Folk who don't like automatics won't like the CVT version either but one gets used to either very quickly (or not at all).

The fuel economy on the generation 5 model is probably marginally better. You are probably comparing NEDC figures for the 4.4 with WLTP figures for the 4.5 ... 😉

[robo1]

I used to get 45+mpg for the 4.4 Hybrid ( onboard computer) Now get 50-55 mpg with the 4.5 hybrid. The 4.4 would only run in EV mode up to 40 mph whilst the 4.5 will run in EV mode up to 60 or more mph.

[Cyker]

8 hours ago, philip42h said:

There's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with the CVT box - it is integral to the hybrid system and is wholly different from the old "belt and cone" style CVT. Folk who don't like automatics won't like the CVT version either but one gets used to either very quickly (or not at all).

The fuel economy on the generation 5 model is probably marginally better. You are probably comparing NEDC figures for the 4.4 with WLTP figures for the 4.5 ... 😉

A lot of people, esp. manual drivers, dislike how the CVT reacts as it's very similar to how a slipping clutch feels which is very disconcerting.

In the hybrids, the in-fill from the electric motors helps, but the newer ones especially have enough pull that it isn't really an issue. I have tested this extensively   

[///MAZI]

13 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Depends what information you're using to compare consumption. For official consumption figures, the 4th generation would have used the older NEDC testing regime, whereas the 5th generation used the WLTP regime. Both are lab based regimes, and WLTP is supposedly closer to real world figures.

However, neither system is supposed to represent what owners will achieve, but provide a standard comparison to compare between models.

That what I suspected, WLTP wouldn't have been around when the previous generation was being tested. Thanks for clarifying. Its not great that vehicle MPG is listed on auto trader using 2 different testing regimes.

[///MAZI]

13 hours ago, philip42h said:

There's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with the CVT box - it is integral to the hybrid system and is wholly different from the old "belt and cone" style CVT. Folk who don't like automatics won't like the CVT version either but one gets used to either very quickly (or not at all).

The fuel economy on the generation 5 model is probably marginally better. You are probably comparing NEDC figures for the 4.4 with WLTP figures for the 4.5 ... 😉

Nothing wrong with it but I find it unpleasant to use when pressing on, I guess most hybrid drivers are prob more eco drivers than me as I like driving fast powerful cars that make lots of noise. Oh and I do like an auto, ZF8 is an excellent box and not far of some of the early twin clutch boxes. These CVT boxes may not be like the old ones (I wont pretend to understand the engineering) but the certainly behave in much the same way when you put your foot down. Some of that slipping clutch feeling may be less intrusive but its still there.

[///MAZI]

I've just driven a Lexus UX250 Hybrid snd the flaring revs issue when pressing on is hardly noticble

[TonyHSD]

4 hours ago, ///MAZI said:

I've just driven a Lexus UX250 Hybrid snd the flaring revs issue when pressing on is hardly noticble

These cars all work the same way.  
From Yaris hybrid to LS600h  
The difference between comes from how much and how sharp you push, and how much Battery charge you have and engine temperature. 
Those with bigger engines when pushed harder usually get faster to the speed with less engine high rpm noise because of an extra power. But in general very similar experience.