2019 Toyota RAV4

[Earthboy]

this rav4 should be on the new TNGA and the current NX is still on the old platform.

 

that's because it IS the Lexus NX

 

[inlinesix]

It's not about the looks, it's about the pricing.

BM only brought in the 2.0l version which doesn't compete well with competitors like the Nissan Qashqai, Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, Honda CRV, Suzuki Vitara, etc. 

 

That kind of pricing by BM, people might as well pay a bit more for the Harrier. 

 

RAV4 got smaller than 2L meh?

 

RAV4 vs Harrier.

 

Doesn't make sense to have both our small market.

[Gabdat]

this rav4 should be on the new TNGA and the current NX is still on the old platform.

yes.i guess you're right.

[inlinesix]

yes.i guess you're right.

 

NX is on previous gen RAV4 chassis.

[SpeedRider]

2019 Toyota RAV4 - Specifications on engine and Transmission.

 

Two engine option

- Petrol 2.5L Dynamic Force

- Petrol 2.5L with Hybrid System II (THS II)

 

Transmission

- 8-speed Direct-Shift Automatic for petrol model

- Electronically-Controlled Continuously-Variable Transmission (ECVT) for Hybrid model

 

Drivetrain

- AWD for petrol model

- AWD-I for Hybrid (front wheel driven by petrol engine, rear wheel driven by electric motors)

 

Rim/Wheel

18 ~ 19"

[Fat_slayer]

Side track, if given a choice, would you chooose to get Harrier turbo or this new Rav4.

 

RAV4.... one of the few Toyota that looks nice to me although I have no idea on the comfort and drivability.

 

Harrier, see until very sian already.... been around since 2014???

[Mcscot]

Bros ... for those who have been to the auto show (no chance to go down) ... can someone tell me if the Rav4 has Apple Carplay?

[GTO-1]

Bros ... for those who have been to the auto show (no chance to go down) ... can someone tell me if the Rav4 has Apple Carplay?

No. The one of display doesn't even have an LCD head unit. Only has a basic radio.

 

SE said he doesn't even know if the actual cars sold will have it as he's heard the cars should have a reverse camera. Looking at all the brochures, they don't specify reverse camera.

 

In any case I asked the SE if it has AA or AC. He said no.

Edited January 11, 2019 by GTO-1

[Mcscot]

No. The one of display doesn't even have an LCD head unit. Only has a basic radio.

 

SE said he doesn't even know if the actual cars sold will have it as he's heard the cars should have a reverse camera. Looking at all the brochures, they don't specify reverse camera.

 

In any case I asked the SE if it has AA or AC. He said no.

 

Errrrr ... no head unit?!   

 

Borneo Motors must be 

 

A BIG 

[gemmoglock]

I find toyota/lexus sales person very amazing. i asked why e250 no turbo engine. the lexus sales told me toyota dont believe in turbo engine. they are strong believer of NA engine because they last longer. then i asked why IS and RX now into turbo engine and harrier too. the reply is toyota then realised they made a mistake so they going back to NA for new models. i scratch my head

 

Actually the statement isn't too far off.  

 

After the wave of 1.2/2.0turbos were launched, the focus has been back on NA with only the flagship LS getting a twin turbo as the emission savings vs the outgoing 4.6l are significant. The new ES and UX did not even launch with a turbo variant. Europe's upcoming 2019 Corolla Sedan is only 1.6NA or hybrid, while the Hatch only gets the 1.2t because it's a carryover.

 

I am not an engineer or insider, but comments by car execs and news sites suggest one reason for the shift back to NA or larger turbo engines is due to the new WLTP emissions testing protocol. Supposedly closer to real life scenarios, turbos don't do great once outside of their optimal zones.

 

So other than performance turbo engines, the rest are going NA or upsizing their turbo engines. For example, just when Hyundai caught up to 1.0 turbos, Volkswagen is moving its 1.0/1.4 turbos to 1.2/1.5 turbos respectively. This is the 1.5TSI you see in the Skoda Karoq.

[GTO-1]

Errrrr ... no head unit?!

 

Borneo Motors must be

 

A BIG

At least the brochure has one interior picture which looks like there is an LCD head unit. There is also a picture with the basic head unit.

 

There is nothing to say that it will be there on the on-sale models. Currently there is only one trim level on sale anyway. More than likely this is the most basic trim, and the higher trims will definitely have it.

[GTO-1]

Errrrr ... no head unit?!

 

Borneo Motors must be

 

A BIG

I ended up deciding against choosing a rav4 (it was on my shortlist between rav4, cx5 or crv). Went with the CRV 7 seater.

 

I just didn't like the presentation of the car. The white colour didn't do the car favours and I just think the car looked boxy. If it had a black roof like the cars in the US, it could've been better.

 

I think the biggest thing I hated is the lack of a head unit and that turned me off. It just seems like a step backwards. There is some really cool features not on other cars (Toyota sensing, active cruise control etc), but I can't get over the fact that I'd pay $120k for something that is standard on some of the simplest cars.

[Spring]

I ended up deciding against choosing a rav4 (it was on my shortlist between rav4, cx5 or crv). Went with the CRV 7 seater.

 

I just didn't like the presentation of the car. The white colour didn't do the car favours and I just think the car looked boxy. If it had a black roof like the cars in the US, it could've been better.

 

I think the biggest thing I hated is the lack of a head unit and that turned me off. It just seems like a step backwards. There is some really cool features not on other cars (Toyota sensing, active cruise control etc), but I can't get over the fact that I'd pay $120k for something that is standard on some of the simplest cars.

Car has 21st century features like Toyota sensing n active cruise control but 20th century Head Unit

[DACH]

Car has 21st century features like Toyota sensing n active cruise control but 20th century Head Unit

[Mcscot]

I ended up deciding against choosing a rav4 (it was on my shortlist between rav4, cx5 or crv). Went with the CRV 7 seater.

 

I just didn't like the presentation of the car. The white colour didn't do the car favours and I just think the car looked boxy. If it had a black roof like the cars in the US, it could've been better.

 

I think the biggest thing I hated is the lack of a head unit and that turned me off. It just seems like a step backwards. There is some really cool features not on other cars (Toyota sensing, active cruise control etc), but I can't get over the fact that I'd pay $120k for something that is standard on some of the simplest cars.

Bro ... Firstly Congrats on your CRV! Secondly, you're in the same market as me! I am also looking to get a SUV in the same bracket.

 

Can you share why you did not consider the new Forester? Or the X1?

[GTO-1]

Bro ... Firstly Congrats on your CRV! Secondly, you're in the same market as me! I am also looking to get a SUV in the same bracket.

 

Can you share why you did not consider the new Forester? Or the X1?

Good question! I've been in the market for 3 to 4 months and did several hours research. Happy to share my thoughts on all the options! It's going to be a long post...

 

I was torn between the CX5 and CRV until the very end at the car show.

 

But my view on the others:

 

Forester: The glasshouse and visibility was probably amongst the best of all the cars. On a per feature basis, probably one of the best value cars. But I wasn't a fan of the new design (consider it overstyled). Biggest thing though, is it's severely underpowered. The car just wouldn't move when you wanted it too. Overseas reviewers complain that the 2.5 engine is underpowered and SG gets a 2.0. Reliability also isn't amazing and the CVT transmission was super sluggish.

 

X1: This one is a bit more complicated. Been a huge BMW fan over the past 20 years. My dream car remains an M5. But having followed them for so long, I'm also very realistic about them. Truthfully, (IMO) the X1 isn't a true BMW. It's a mass market BMW to increase sales and generate profit off the BMW badge. Meaning to say, I refuse to pay an extra 30% premium for a badge when there are better cars out there for the price. A badge doesn't make me go faster or get there in more comfort! Reliability and performance isn't great of BMW and the X1 compared to their Japanese counterparts and it's not hugely practical. We have friends with an x1 and it can barely fit a set of golf clubs in the back. Basically, I would rather spend my money on a better car than buy the badge.

 

Tuscon: Perfectly good car. Pretty good value for money. DSG okay, but not amazing. Interior quality was passable. Really good car if you're just looking for a straightforward workhorse. For me, the SG trim just didn't have an X-factor that I wanted. Whereas the cx5 had drivability and crv had better space utilisation and 7 seats, the Tuscon was just really good at the basics and nothing more. Which by the way is fine for most people - just not me.

 

Outlander/eclipse cross - cheapest and best after sales offers (ie warranty). Beyond that it's a Mitsubishi and that's not a good thing right now. I loved Mitsu back in the rally days with their Evo, but as a car company today they've fallen back to creating a a range of mediocre cars. Yes, they've hooked onto the Nissan/Renault relationship and improved a bit, but there is a reason they have the longest warranty and are cheapest - because their product is mediocre.

 

RAV4 - Reasons above.

 

Harrier - didn't like interior design. Exterior design not my cup of tea. Way too many on the road. Nice engine. Nothing special about it IMO.

 

Sorento - I really liked the sorento. Amazing value for money. It's technically not in the same category as these cars (mid-sized SUV) and that's why we didn't go for it. The sorento is a huge car (I think 20cm longer than the CRV), and myself and my wife are going to be driving. Coming from a Mazda2 that's a massive shift. Too massive in my opinion. The other killer is that it's diesel. I have nothing against diesel, but road tax is 4 times higher than the CRV and we don't drive enough mileage to reach a breakeven point of lower FC and lower diesel cost.

 

Karoq - actually really good value for money considering it's a continental car. Good interior quality and nice touches like ambient lighting. But it's a continental car and I didn't want a continental car. Not because I don't like them, but generally speaking less reliable and more costly to run (E.g insurance). Skoda is also a bit of an unknown in SG.

 

Peugeot 3008 - it's French. I don't do French cars. I refuse.

 

Tiguan - nice car. Expensive. Avoided continental because you pay more for badge and the fact its continental. Also don't like VW due to dieselgate.

 

CX5 - my first choice. Amazing to drive for an SUV in this bracket. Looks amazing. The soul red crystal is gorgeous. Would've gotten it without question, until I started learning about omv and arf. TEK (the distributor) severely overprices the higher trim CX5 (just look at the margins) and then has the gall to provide worse warranty and servicing (3+1 year vs 5+3 of others). The 2.0 premium is not a bad price given Mazda wants to move upmarket, but it is slightly underpowered and I much prefer the 2.5 responsiveness. But way too expensive for the higher trims. Plus higher road tax and insurance than crv. The final thing that made me choose the CRV over the cx5 is just interior space. The cx5 has more premium materials and finish, but comparing it back-to-back in the motorshow, it's a huge difference in available space. Even something was simple as the passenger opening the centre console, as the driver I had to move arm to get out of the way, whereas the CRV I was undisturbed. Then other things like the size of the entry ridge on the door is higher, so it's harder to get in. Don't get me wrong though, the cx5 is the choice of my heart. I love a nice driving and handling car and this was top of my criteria. But the fact that I felt I was getting a crappier deal on everything else because of TEK, I chose against it.

 

CRV - the choice we went with. Definitely think it's one of the more expensive options. The 5-seater is a no go and way overpriced with few basic features. Don't get the 5-seater. Material quality good, but not as premium as the cx5. Little features that irritate me like no seat memory on electric seats (why?!) and the top tether for a child seat is in a really crappy location. Really no deal breakers though, and I think the better compromise for my situation. It's definitely not as driver focused as the cx5, but more of comfort cruiser (though road noise feela more). The cvt is smooth and not designed for performance, but as far as a cvt goes it's pretty good. Don't like how there is no manual override either (though I've never use it, it's nice to have it there). I then thought about my situation and when it comes to driving pleasure, there really isn't many places in Singapore where we can enjoy the handling (unlike UK or New Zealand). Closest place is Malaysia, but in that case, the space of the CRV would be much preferred. The 7-seater and pano roof was my xfactor. Yes, the back two seats are small, but we would only use it to cart my in-laws around on short trips (we don't live with them). The piano-roof would keep my son amused for a while. Few other things is I like how the CRV is unique on Singapore roads. That's crazy given the same model is a best seller in US and MY. In US alone they sold 330,000 last year, which is probably equal to the number of cars in SG. The lower insurance and road tax is a big plus. I also don't feel I'm being screwed by Kah Motors as this car has a 19% premium with 5+3 warranty and servicing. Importantly, I also don't feel I'm being screwed as much as our overseas counterparts. Yes, it lacks features like Honda Sensing (which I would like), but at least the engine and equipment levels are similar to our overseas counterparts. I hate that because of our laws here and the size of the market, we get underpowered engines, crappier gearboxes, fewer features at 5 times the price. The CRV and Tuscon was the least impacted by this in the options. Not saying the best option for everyone, but at least I feel it was for me. Oh for the CRV there is a major TSB out for the engine, which was concerning. Oil Dilution. But it doesn't affect SG and our region as the problems only occur under -10 degrees celsius.

 

Super long post, but hope it helps you. All of it is my opinion of course. I'm sure others are in different situations.

[GTO-1]

Oh, the other thing about the CX5 is that because I love my cars, I would feel I need to do some minor "zhnging" to really do it justice, where crv it was already "zhng" enough.

 

What I mean by that is the CX5 has few interior trimmings like scuff plates, mud guards, sunshades etc. Because TEK overcharge for these accessories I would have to buy of ebay and install myself. Crv has it all already there. Just need to buy those magnetic sunshades.

 

Also if I got the cx5 premium, I think the 17" wheels are ugly as sin. It's like putting an ugly hat on a gorgeous supermodel. If I got the cx5 it would bug me, and I would have to get 19 inch wheels. Which means more cost, hassle, less ride comfort and concerns about warranty.

 

Oh lastly the x-trail. There is a reason I forgot about it. It's priced a bit high, has some nice features (360 camera), but again no x-factor that puts it above my top 2 choices. The extra seats at the back are a total joke. Whereas the CRV you can vary the space in the second row, the xtrail has two options, which means the either the 3rd row gets no space or the 2nd row gets no space.

Edited January 13, 2019 by GTO-1

[tylsteve]

Good question! I've been in the market for 3 to 4 months and did several hours research. Happy to share my thoughts on all the options! It's going to be a long post...

 

I was torn between the CX5 and CRV until the very end at the car show.

 

But my view on the others:

 

Forester: The glasshouse and visibility was probably amongst the best of all the cars. On a per feature basis, probably one of the best value cars. But I wasn't a fan of the new design (consider it overstyled). Biggest thing though, is it's severely underpowered. The car just wouldn't move when you wanted it too. Overseas reviewers complain that the 2.5 engine is underpowered and SG gets a 2.0. Reliability also isn't amazing and the CVT transmission was super sluggish.

 

X1: This one is a bit more complicated. Been a huge BMW fan over the past 20 years. My dream car remains an M5. But having followed them for so long, I'm also very realistic about them. Truthfully, (IMO) the X1 isn't a true BMW. It's a mass market BMW to increase sales and generate profit off the BMW badge. Meaning to say, I refuse to pay an extra 30% premium for a badge when there are better cars out there for the price. A badge doesn't make me go faster or get there in more comfort! Reliability and performance isn't great of BMW and the X1 compared to their Japanese counterparts and it's not hugely practical. We have friends with an x1 and it can barely fit a set of golf clubs in the back. Basically, I would rather spend my money on a better car than buy the badge.

 

Tuscon: Perfectly good car. Pretty good value for money. DSG okay, but not amazing. Interior quality was passable. Really good car if you're just looking for a straightforward workhorse. For me, the SG trim just didn't have an X-factor that I wanted. Whereas the cx5 had drivability and crv had better space utilisation and 7 seats, the Tuscon was just really good at the basics and nothing more. Which by the way is fine for most people - just not me.

 

Outlander/eclipse cross - cheapest and best after sales offers (ie warranty). Beyond that it's a Mitsubishi and that's not a good thing right now. I loved Mitsu back in the rally days with their Evo, but as a car company today they've fallen back to creating a a range of mediocre cars. Yes, they've hooked onto the Nissan/Renault relationship and improved a bit, but there is a reason they have the longest warranty and are cheapest - because their product is mediocre.

 

RAV4 - Reasons above.

 

Harrier - didn't like interior design. Exterior design not my cup of tea. Way too many on the road. Nice engine. Nothing special about it IMO.

 

Sorento - I really liked the sorento. Amazing value for money. It's technically not in the same category as these cars (mid-sized SUV) and that's why we didn't go for it. The sorento is a huge car (I think 20cm longer than the CRV), and myself and my wife are going to be driving. Coming from a Mazda2 that's a massive shift. Too massive in my opinion. The other killer is that it's diesel. I have nothing against diesel, but road tax is 4 times higher than the CRV and we don't drive enough mileage to reach a breakeven point of lower FC and lower diesel cost.

 

Karoq - actually really good value for money considering it's a continental car. Good interior quality and nice touches like ambient lighting. But it's a continental car and I didn't want a continental car. Not because I don't like them, but generally speaking less reliable and more costly to run (E.g insurance). Skoda is also a bit of an unknown in SG.

 

Peugeot 3008 - it's French. I don't do French cars. I refuse.

 

Tiguan - nice car. Expensive. Avoided continental because you pay more for badge and the fact its continental. Also don't like VW due to dieselgate.

 

CX5 - my first choice. Amazing to drive for an SUV in this bracket. Looks amazing. The soul red crystal is gorgeous. Would've gotten it without question, until I started learning about omv and arf. TEK (the distributor) severely overprices the higher trim CX5 (just look at the margins) and then has the gall to provide worse warranty and servicing (3+1 year vs 5+3 of others). The 2.0 premium is not a bad price given Mazda wants to move upmarket, but it is slightly underpowered and I much prefer the 2.5 responsiveness. But way too expensive for the higher trims. Plus higher road tax and insurance than crv. The final thing that made me choose the CRV over the cx5 is just interior space. The cx5 has more premium materials and finish, but comparing it back-to-back in the motorshow, it's a huge difference in available space. Even something was simple as the passenger opening the centre console, as the driver I had to move arm to get out of the way, whereas the CRV I was undisturbed. Then other things like the size of the entry ridge on the door is higher, so it's harder to get in. Don't get me wrong though, the cx5 is the choice of my heart. I love a nice driving and handling car and this was top of my criteria. But the fact that I felt I was getting a crappier deal on everything else because of TEK, I chose against it.

 

CRV - the choice we went with. Definitely think it's one of the more expensive options. The 5-seater is a no go and way overpriced with few basic features. Don't get the 5-seater. Material quality good, but not as premium as the cx5. Little features that irritate me like no seat memory on electric seats (why?!) and the top tether for a child seat is in a really crappy location. Really no deal breakers though, and I think the better compromise for my situation. It's definitely not as driver focused as the cx5, but more of comfort cruiser (though road noise feela more). The cvt is smooth and not designed for performance, but as far as a cvt goes it's pretty good. Don't like how there is no manual override either (though I've never use it, it's nice to have it there). I then thought about my situation and when it comes to driving pleasure, there really isn't many places in Singapore where we can enjoy the handling (unlike UK or New Zealand). Closest place is Malaysia, but in that case, the space of the CRV would be much preferred. The 7-seater and pano roof was my xfactor. Yes, the back two seats are small, but we would only use it to cart my in-laws around on short trips (we don't live with them). The piano-roof would keep my son amused for a while. Few other things is I like how the CRV is unique on Singapore roads. That's crazy given the same model is a best seller in US and MY. In US alone they sold 330,000 last year, which is probably equal to the number of cars in SG. The lower insurance and road tax is a big plus. I also don't feel I'm being screwed by Kah Motors as this car has a 19% premium with 5+3 warranty and servicing. Importantly, I also don't feel I'm being screwed as much as our overseas counterparts. Yes, it lacks features like Honda Sensing (which I would like), but at least the engine and equipment levels are similar to our overseas counterparts. I hate that because of our laws here and the size of the market, we get underpowered engines, crappier gearboxes, fewer features at 5 times the price. The CRV and Tuscon was the least impacted by this in the options. Not saying the best option for everyone, but at least I feel it was for me. Oh for the CRV there is a major TSB out for the engine, which was concerning. Oil Dilution. But it doesn't affect SG and our region as the problems only occur under -10 degrees celsius.

 

Super long post, but hope it helps you. All of it is my opinion of course. I'm sure others are in different situations.

Wow super detailed opinions! Thanks for the honest feedback, these models are exactly what I wanted to read about.