Behind the Scenes: Top Picks 2009 – Toyota RAV4 vs. Subaru Forester

One of the highlights of Consumer Reports' Annual Auto Issue is the Top Picks list. These are the cars we think are the best choices in a particular category. We don’t cover every vehicle group, but we do feature a broad spectrum of the vehicles that most people buy.

Although the criteria for selecting a Top Pick is fairly simple on the surface – the car ranks at or near the top of the Ratings, average or better reliability, easily available electronic stability control (ESC) – there are some nuances. One interesting choice involves our 2009 Pick for Small SUV.

When we tested the redesigned 2009 Subaru Forester, it did very well. The turbocharged 2.5XT even outscored the RAV4 V6 and the basic Forester 2.5X outscored the four-cylinder RAV4 at the time. We also tested a group of several manual transmission vehicles including a Forester with a stick; it’s one of the very few small SUVs that offers one. It also scored well. (See the Forester and RAV4 model overview pages, with reviews and ratings, available to online subscribers.)

So, why isn’t the Forester our Top Pick for small SUVs? Two reasons:

The RAV4 got a new 2.5-liter, four-cylinder engine for 2009. When we retested the RAV4 for the upcoming May issue, we found that it was improved. It just barely outscored the equivalent four-cylinder, automatic-transmission Forester.
 
While the turbocharged and manual-transmission Foresters each outscore the RAV4, those versions sell in comparatively low numbers. The vast majority of Foresters and RAV4s sold are basic, non-turbo, four-cylinder, automatic-transmission versions.

It boiled down to this: we wanted the Top Pick to apply to the biggest number of buyers out there. In the end, the 2009 RAV4 four-cylinder narrowly out pointed the Subaru equivalent, becoming our Top Pick.

It’s important to keep something in mind here: both the RAV4 and Forester are very impressive small SUVs. You’re not going to go wrong choosing either one. (See the Forester and RAV4 videos.)

—Tom Mutchler

Visit the annual auto issue special section for quick access to the latest Ratings, articles, and videos.

Comments

[RBC]

Good call. Both are great cars, with each lacking something significant to me. The Forester is using old automatic transmission technology... a 6-speed auto in the non-turbo engine and a 5 or 6-speed automatic in the turbo XT could improve fuel economy 10-15%. The Rav-4 doesn't have a good rear hatch setup for cars with left hand drive. There's some improvement with the option without the rear tire hanging on the door, but functionality would be greatly improved with a vertical opening rear hatch (or failing that, at least a door that swings open from right to left for safer curb-side loading in countries where driving is done on the right side of the road.

[Jack Grawoig]

Good grief! How can a vehicle with a side-opening "hatch" be a "Top Pick"???

[ty]

Maybe this will push fuji heavy into gear so that they bring the boxer diesel to the US.

[Gifters]

Subaru needs to catch up with the transmission but that doesn't make it a bad car. Being a Rav-4 with a Side opening Cargo hatch... not to mention the drive terrain.

[MT]

There is certainly room for Subaru to improve the Forester (e.g. transmission in hilly terrain, front seats, spill-prone coffee cup holders, spare tire), however, the side-opening "hatch" with the attached spare tire and the interior design will make the RAV4 never a feasible choice for me (and my garage). I am also becoming more and more convinced of the superiority of Subaru’s unique symmetrical all-wheel drive. The only issue that worries me is that CR judged the new-car reliability of the Forester in the summer of 2008 above average, while now its rating is only average. Should Forester’s reliability really be average then this, in my view, would be the only reasonable justification for calling another small SUV a “Top Pick” for 2009.

[Edmund]

I am a prime candidate for a small SUV -- I have two kids. So when I was in the market for a new car recently, I rented a RAV4 6 cylinder to test it out. It did not change my view of SUVs from previous experiences -- jittery, too big, too far above the road and a completely disengaged driving experience. So I bought a WRX! It has plenty of room for all of us -- about as much on the inside as the RAV4 -- is comfortable, and great fun to drive. In Europe families generally opt for smaller vehicles, and they're not missing out on anything --quite the contrary!

[MC]

I have a 2009 Forrester XT Turbo. So far does only 20mpg (Can gallon) and the interior reaks of raw fuel. (A common problem with Subaru Turbos) Buy the Toyota!!!

[John]

We looked at the Forrester and it was fine, but we liked the Nissan Rogue better and the VW Tiguan best of all, though the ride of the Tiguan is a little stiffer than the Rogue. Did not try the Rav4 because we hated the tire on the rear and we actually like the slightly smaller SUV's.

[John]

WHAT!!!
the subaru is a way better car hands down. we have a regular H4 and its fine. we drove all 4 cars CRV RAV4 Escape, and the Subaru. One HUGE thing in our book for a car is good visibility and the only two cars that had that were the escape and subaru. the CRV has that sloping roof and the RAV4 looks like it has a big rear window but its tinted black because the pillars are huge. and the only car with good acceleration (4 cylinder) was the escape it had the best and braking goes to the subaru and interior appointments thats a mixed bag but the subaru has the most usfull but all are good. with big bulky items the subaru delivers it might not have the most but theres the least intrusions of wheel wells and such trust me the subaru is the best choice (look at all the other awards its won the rav4 doesnt come close!) besides were getting 25.2 average MPG with the automatic.
i will say this though a 5 or 6 spd trany will be nice but both rav4 and subaru have 4s so if you want a 5 or 6 the only option is a pricy V6 RAV4 or the CRV and escape

[David Scott]

Im disappointed that Subaru apparently doesnt sell a turbo Forester with a manual transmission.

[dwight]

My wife and I are interested in both the RAV4 and Subaru Forester. One thing I've not seen addressed is comparative repair costs. I know what to expect with Toyota having owned several. But, not so for the Subaru's , especially all wheel drive. Can anybody comment?

[Jeff]

Do Subaru's still experience head gasket problems? I know of two people that have needed head cylinder gasket repairs. Both vehicles had under 100.000 miles.

[Jeff Bartlett - Consumer Reports]

Detailed owner cost and reliability information can be found on the model pages for the RAV4, Forester, and all other vehicles we test and report on (available to online subscribers).
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/types/new-a-to-z-index.htm
There is a compare function on those pages, though using the New Car Selector can also give you quick way to compare ratings.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-selector/select.htm

[Mark M]

IMHO, a lot of prospective buyers looking at these 2 vehicles should also look very long and very very hard at the base Volkswagen Jetta wagon (especially the amazing new diesel-engine version), a vehicle which CR barely acknowledges the existence of. It can be cheaper (although you do loose AWD/4WD), and may have a better "fit and finish". In past years this would not have been a good choice, but recently the Jetta's reliability history has improved considerably. Also - last I knew - it was still possible to factory-order Volkswagens (if you can wait a couple of months) a novel option that most buyers don't consider.

[Robert Smith]

Dwight, I've owned 3 Subies. All were great cars with no major mechanical problems. One of my biggest gripes is their refusal to frame in the side windows. We have a 2007 Forester, and it handles like a son of a gun, especially if you put good tires on it.
I like the low center of gravity of the boxer engine. You never get the sensation of 'tipping' on quick turns. Plus, our 100 pound dog fits in the back of it better.

[David]

We've had our '06 RAV4 Ltd for 2.75 years with zero problems. I find the side-open rear door to be a plus.

It's not fancy, but it's an excellent vehicle. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

[Leigh]

I have a 2000 Subaru Outback limited with 165K. We've had problems since mile 20K or so. I love the look and feel of the car, but my husband refuses to give Subaru a second try. Maybe we had a lemon ...maybe not (we have several other friends with Outbacks, some had similar problems). At any rate, I won't own another Subaru. I'm torn between the CRV and the RAV4. The RAV4 has a much nicer interior, but is that worth the additional $?

[Robin]

My wife and I shopped and test drove like mad. It came down to these two great vehicles. I loved the Forester, but we ended up with a Rav4. Why? It came down to visibility. My wife is short in stature and she simply could not adjust the seat enough in the Forester to have an adequate view of the road. For me, visibility was much better in the Forester, but was still adequate in the Rav4. The safety of my wife naturally won out.

Bottom line. If the main driver is shorter than 5'3", then you may want to go with the Rav4. (the seat raises higher)

[boB]

I drove both vehicles and found the Toyota's seats to be hard and uncomfortable, and the vehicle felt cheap. I ended up buying a Subaru Outback. What a suprising vehicle.

[Mark]

I will never buy another Subaru. My 2003 with just over 100,000 miles blew a head gasket. Cost me $2,200. And 2003 was not supposed to be a problem year. I and no one else in my family over 40 years has never had a head gasket blow in a car and we have owned some real crap. I would avoid a Subaru for that reason. Bad head gaskets.

[Frank]

Won't go wrong with either SUV, went for the Rav4 for the following reasons. It does sit a bit higher than the Forester, and the 4 cylinder is a little peppier, the RAV4 feels a little sportier on back country twisties. The Forester is plush, smooth and quieter over rough roads though, whereas the Rav4 is a little stiffer, though still quieter than a CRV. Forward visibility is a little better in the RAV4, whereas rear and side visibility is better in the Forester. Tough choice, as the Subaru's MSRP is a little cheaper. Symetrical AWD is great, but the RAV4 has AWD when necessary. The Rav4 a little less thirsty at the pump, and Toyota a bit more reliabla over the years than the Subaru, so went for the Toyota.

[Jane]

I am looking at the 2009 RAV4 V6. I currently own a 2001 Outback and it's my third Subaru. Never thought I'd cheat on the Sube, but at only $103,000 miles, I have the head gasket issue. I've already replaced the clutch, front axel, and rack & pinion steering. I've had it....this thing should have lasted at least another 60,000 miles without any problems. Get the Toyota.

[Bailey]

We bought the 09 Forester Premium 2.5X 5 M/T....this car is so much fun to drive. VDC,ABS, Hill Assist are all standard. Side curtain airbags, side airbags are also standard. After we bought it, I went to where the mud is...and boy, with stock tires (all season) I was like a little girl, playing in the mud. This puppy can climb out of 5 inches of mud and drive around it like it's nothing (clearance height is 8 inches) hills that a jeep would go through is nothing (as long as you know the limits of the car) this is not an SUV ladies and gents, insurance still considers it a "wagon".

All in all I'm getting 25 city, 29 hwy, very happy!

[Al]

I just ordered a RAV4 6 cylinder limited. Why - reliability. We own a 2001 Forrester, and like the car - but the repairs and maintainence have been ugly. With 85K "easy" miles, the Subaru is on it's 3rd set of tires, needed both rear wheel bearings replaced due to an acknowledged defective design, the brakes were replaced (including discs), the exhaust shields rusted off and had to be replaced, the transmission bangs into 2nd gear when cold, one valve lifter taps loudly, we're slowly loosing coolant but not fast enough for Subaru to replace the head gasket under the extended warranty, and the AC has a slow leak. The routine maintainence on the Subie is also expensive - plugs every 30K miles, change the brake fluid every 30K, along with the engine coolant (and you'd better do it a Subaru to get the stop leak which is required to maintain the head gasket warranty). Net: Subaru nice car to drive but high repair and maintainence costs. Also, the seats on the 2009 Forrester are not as comfortable as the 2001. The only real negative on the RAV4 is the stupid side opening tailgate. Also, the 6 cylinder RAV4 is a hoot to drive - and gives very good gas mileage.

As an aside, the Honda CRV is a distant 3rd. Choppy ride, pokey acceleration, and terrible design for the folding rear seats.

If the RAV4 had a top (rather than side) opening tailgate, Forresters and CRV's would disappear from the road.

[Bart]

I own a 2004 Forester and a 2009 RAV4 V6, but it's like comparing apples to oranges as they are very different vehicles. I have driven the '09 Forester for a few days while our '04 was in for an extended service. As stated, you can't go wrong with either vehicle. I have owned many Toyota's and they tend to have all the high technology stuff, which Subaru is lacking. I do prefer the side opening rear hatch because I don't hit my head on the roof pillars when loading/unloading items. My wife is 4'10" and does not fit well in the new Forester, but does fit the 09 RAV4 and the 04 Forester. The V6 is very powerful and gas mileage is 21 MPG combined. I love both my vehicles for different reasons and I believe it is just a matter of what you prefer when making a new car decision. Good luck!