Here are the results:
4 – 2013 Toyota RAV4 FWD LE (78.7%)
First off, it must be known that the Toyota RAV4 model we drove was over $10k cheaper than the other three competitors (with a $24,790 price tag), did not feature AWD, and did not have the amenities and extras the others did. We were fully aware of this when scoring this compact crossover. Despite knowing that, we all came to the same conclusions about the RAV4, which inevitably landed it in last place. Had we driven the Limited edition, we suspect it would not have gained one spot on the list.
The 2013 Toyota RAV4’s exterior design changes are good ones. Moving away from the previously box-y look, the new RAV4 is more fluid with a bulbous back and angular, modern lights. Toyota was clearly aiming at the young, active buyer with this one. The urban look of the RAV4 was appealing to most drivers.
On the inside, the Toyota RAV4 fell flat for everyone on the comparison drive. All complained of poor ergonomics (an issue we’ve brought up a lot recently in regards to Toyota products). Sunlight glare and poor button placement plagued the cabin. The interior’s only redeeming quality was in its space and access. All felt the seats were comfortable enough and the large trunk (largest of the lot at 1,090 litres) and back seats impressed.
Once we all got past the useless layout of the dash and focused on the drive, we were once again rather let down by the 2.5L 4-cylinder engine housed in the 2013 Toyota RAV4. Coupled to a rather lazy 6-speed transmission, the results were less than stellar, especially when matched up with the competition. Perhaps on its own, the RAV4 would impress but not after stepping from a CX-5 or Tiguan. Driving dynamics are fairly important in a segment like the compact crossover.
These vehicles aren’t just meant to be practical, they also need to be enjoyable to drive -- their buying demographic demands it.
The 2013 Toyota RAV4 did offer a “sport” drive option, which two testers admitted to pressing just to make the crossover feel normal on the road. Otherwise the gear changes felt laborious, slow and choppy. Throttle response felt numb compared to the others, as well.
The four-wheel disc brakes also fell short for all drivers who all felt they were much too soft and not at all as “grabby” as those offered on the competition. Again, this is something we’ve experienced across Toyota’s lineup.
Also of note was the 2013 Toyota RAV4’s fuel consumption numbers at the end of the day. Despite being the only model to feature FWD instead of AWD, the RAV4 was the second to worst offender for drinking too much fuel. With a final reading of 9.1L/100km, we all did a double take when we saw the results.
Overall, the 2013 Toyota RAV4 is not a bad compact crossover, in fact quite the opposite. It’s a well conceived, nice looking vehicle that’ll serve the modern small family everything they need in a vehicle. However, once backed up against the competition (as it was in our comparison drive) its foibles were hard to ignore.
4 – 2013 Toyota RAV4 FWD LE (78.7%)
First off, it must be known that the Toyota RAV4 model we drove was over $10k cheaper than the other three competitors (with a $24,790 price tag), did not feature AWD, and did not have the amenities and extras the others did. We were fully aware of this when scoring this compact crossover. Despite knowing that, we all came to the same conclusions about the RAV4, which inevitably landed it in last place. Had we driven the Limited edition, we suspect it would not have gained one spot on the list.
The 2013 Toyota RAV4’s exterior design changes are good ones. Moving away from the previously box-y look, the new RAV4 is more fluid with a bulbous back and angular, modern lights. Toyota was clearly aiming at the young, active buyer with this one. The urban look of the RAV4 was appealing to most drivers.
 |
| The new RAV4 is more fluid with a bulbous back and angular, modern lights. (Photo: Olivier Delorme) |
On the inside, the Toyota RAV4 fell flat for everyone on the comparison drive. All complained of poor ergonomics (an issue we’ve brought up a lot recently in regards to Toyota products). Sunlight glare and poor button placement plagued the cabin. The interior’s only redeeming quality was in its space and access. All felt the seats were comfortable enough and the large trunk (largest of the lot at 1,090 litres) and back seats impressed.
Once we all got past the useless layout of the dash and focused on the drive, we were once again rather let down by the 2.5L 4-cylinder engine housed in the 2013 Toyota RAV4. Coupled to a rather lazy 6-speed transmission, the results were less than stellar, especially when matched up with the competition. Perhaps on its own, the RAV4 would impress but not after stepping from a CX-5 or Tiguan. Driving dynamics are fairly important in a segment like the compact crossover.
These vehicles aren’t just meant to be practical, they also need to be enjoyable to drive -- their buying demographic demands it.
The 2013 Toyota RAV4 did offer a “sport” drive option, which two testers admitted to pressing just to make the crossover feel normal on the road. Otherwise the gear changes felt laborious, slow and choppy. Throttle response felt numb compared to the others, as well.
The four-wheel disc brakes also fell short for all drivers who all felt they were much too soft and not at all as “grabby” as those offered on the competition. Again, this is something we’ve experienced across Toyota’s lineup.
 |
| On the inside, the Toyota RAV4 fell flat for everyone on the comparison drive. All complained of poor ergonomics. Sunlight glare and poor button placement plagued the cabin. (Photo: Olivier Delorme) |
Also of note was the 2013 Toyota RAV4’s fuel consumption numbers at the end of the day. Despite being the only model to feature FWD instead of AWD, the RAV4 was the second to worst offender for drinking too much fuel. With a final reading of 9.1L/100km, we all did a double take when we saw the results.
Overall, the 2013 Toyota RAV4 is not a bad compact crossover, in fact quite the opposite. It’s a well conceived, nice looking vehicle that’ll serve the modern small family everything they need in a vehicle. However, once backed up against the competition (as it was in our comparison drive) its foibles were hard to ignore.