Subaru Forester 2000 vs Toyota RAV4 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Toyota RAV4 is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Forester engine produces 25 HP less power than Toyota RAV4, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Toyota RAV4. Due to the lower power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.4 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota RAV4 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4, which means that by driving the Subaru Forester over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Subaru Forester consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota RAV4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 57 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Avensis Verso | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota RAV4 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Toyota RAV4 2003 2.0 engine: The 2.0-liter gasoline engine debuted in 2000 as a replacement for the 3S-FE. It features an aluminum block with cast-iron liners and an open cooling jacket, an aluminum 16-valve DOHC cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, and a chain-driven timing system. Most versions of ... More about Toyota RAV4 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.72 m | |
| Subaru Forester is 19 cm longer than the Toyota RAV4, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 400 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1150 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 0.2 metres more than that of the Toyota RAV4. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`825 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Subaru Forester has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Toyota RAV4, so Subaru Forester quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Toyota RAV4 has
| |