New RAV4 for 2018

[gbaglo]

One could hope that the new RAV is less thirsty.

[Bobbie54]

It's supposed to be 23/30 with a 15.9 gallon tank. That's the FWD model.

[drjp]

Anyone towing with a Honda Ridgeline? It's really got the tow rating easily for a 17B, but how do you like the vehicle overall? I've been thinkin', but still really like my 2011 RAV V6 AWD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

One could hope that the new RAV is less thirsty.

My wife and I keep being tempted by the RAV4 as a commuter and for modest utility trailer towing, and we have test-driven several. Every time, we walk away scratching our heads that something just doesn't seem right with the engine/transmission combination. Very comfortable, drives fine, but every time we try a quick acceleration, like in a traffic-merging situation, it almost feels like it's stalling, then the engine starts roaring with RPMs, then, after what seems like several seconds, it finally starts increasing speed. While the published MPG look great, I'm afraid if towing, you'd spend a lot of time at high RPM and low MPG. We're still watching to see if they come out with either a larger displacement engine or turbo in a 2019 model paired with more gears in the transmission.

[drjp]

Yeah, I wouldn't have wanted the RAV as a four. To have the six cylinder on tap is sure useful!

[steve dunham]

Again I have the same two questions. #1 ) Will it work as intended ?
#2) Why would you want to ?

In this case :
Question #1's answer is a definite maybe.
Question #2 has no logical answer !!

[thoer]

This focus on how many cylinders the new RAV has, as Brian BP as correctly pointed out many times, is essentially meaningless.

One thing lost in many of these discussions is that today there is meaningful tow rating standard: SAE J2807. Before this, manufacturers could essentially put whatever tow numbers they wanted on their vehicles - often probably partly determined by the marketing arm. So, consumers came up with their own "safety" factors, like don't tow more than 1/2 the rated numbers, etc. Today manufacturers that follow the J2807 are already incorporating safety factors as described in that article.

Rather than listen to self proclaimed experts, I'd put my trust in the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) as knowing what they are doing with their real world testing procedures.

[War Eagle]

Science, experts, and the collective knowledge and wisdom of professional societies aside, "it seems to me" that there is still something magical and smooth about a V8 where there is a combustion/power stroke on the crank shaft every 45 degrees of rotation (with at least two pistons pushing the crank at any given time) rather than a 4 cylinder with a combustion/power stroke every 90 degrees of rotation (and essentially only one piston pushing the crank at a time). Then again, older-style John Deere "Johnny Popper" tractors achieved a tremendous amount of torque with only two huge pistons "pop, pop, popping" along every 180 degrees of rotation with a big weighted flywheel to help fill in the gaps. That said, I think there are quite a few people out there who would jump onto (or into) a RAV4 if they would just bring back the V6, fuel efficiency be darned.

[thoer]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Science, experts, and the collective knowledge and wisdom of professional societies aside, "it seems to me" that there is still something magical and smooth about a V8 .....

And they have their own unique sound too. Cannot be denied.

Some auto experts still call an inline 6 the smoothest of all, but I don't expect them to make a comeback in modern consumer vehicles.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by thoer

... Some auto experts still call an inline 6 the smoothest of all, but I don't expect them to make a comeback in modern consumer vehicles.

In the early 1970's, a high school buddy of mine had a 1955 Chevy panel wagon with an in-line 6-cylinder 235 ci. engine with a straight pipe exhaust (no muffler, only restriction was the hump in the exhaust pipe where it bent up and over the rear axle). It could rumble with the best of the V8 muscle cars in the high school parking lot - including my 1970 383 Charger. Sweet sound!

[Bobbie54]

Originally Posted by drjp

Anyone towing with a Honda Ridgeline? It's really got the tow rating easily for a 17B, but how do you like the vehicle overall? I've been thinkin', but still really like my 2011 RAV V6 AWD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard it drives better than the Pilot. But haven't driven either so would love to hear from someone who has.

[Vermilye]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

In the early 1970's, a high school buddy of mine had a 1955 Chevy panel wagon with an in-line 6-cylinder 235 ci. engine with a straight pipe exhaust (no muffler, only restriction was the hump in the exhaust pipe where it bent up and over the rear axle). It could rumble with the best of the V8 muscle cars in the high school parking lot - including my 1970 383 Charger. Sweet sound!

Well, I'm dating myself, but my dad had a 1954 Hudson that had a 308 cubic inch straight 6. Dual carburetors & dual exhaust. Just to show efficiency improvements, the "L" head engine only produced 160 horsepower, and 12.1 second 0-60MPH, while my 2010 RAV4 V6, 213.5 cu in engine produced 278 horsepower & 6.4 second 0-60MPH. The old Hudson was a tub compared to today's vehicles, but a very sweet sounding & driving machine!

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

Well, I'm dating myself, but my dad had a 1954 Hudson that had a 308 cubic inch straight 6. Dual carburetors & dual exhaust. Just to show efficiency improvements, the "L" head engine only produced 160 horsepower, and 12.1 second 0-60MPH, while my 2010 RAV4 V6, 213.5 cu in engine produced 278 horsepower & 6.4 second 0-60MPH. The old Hudson was a tub compared to today's vehicles, but a very sweet sounding & driving machine!

Jon, Any way to compare torque between the two engines?

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

... "it seems to me" that there is still something magical and smooth about a V8 where there is a combustion/power stroke on the crank shaft every 45 degrees of rotation (with at least two pistons pushing the crank at any given time) rather than a 4 cylinder with a combustion/power stroke every 90 degrees of rotation (and essentially only one piston pushing the crank at a time).

45 degrees would be a 16-cylinder engine. It takes a 4-stroke engine two revolutions to go through a cycle, so an 8-cylinder engine fires four times per revolution. With an even-firing design (which is almost all V8's) that means every 90 degrees of crank rotation. There are never more than two pistons driving at any moment, and much of the time there is effectively only one.

Yes, this is a reason to want six or more cylinders. The power pulse is less than the 180 degrees of crank rotation of the power stroke, so in a four-stroke you need six or more cylinders for the engine to continuously produce power (rather than depending on the flywheel to get from one pulse to the next)... and even then it isn't completely smooth.

Most of the world considers an inline six-cylinder to be the "right" configuration for smooth power; only in North America are V8's (which usually have an unbalanced exhaust system) seen as the "right" engine type. Mercedes had inline sixes for many years, but 20 years ago shifted to shorter and lighter V6's (for mid-range cars) and big V8's (for the most ridiculously expensive and overpowered variants); they have recently introduced a new inline six, which looks like it will be their premium engine for many models. In practice, most people can't tell what's under the hood, and four cylinders has proven to be enough for most light vehicles.

[Vermilye]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Jon, Any way to compare torque between the two engines?

The Twin H Power Hudson engine had 260-lbs.ft. of torque at 1,800 rpm. They made a racing version that had 10 more HP, and a bit more torque.

Rav 4 V6 was 246 @ 4700 RPM.

I'd be interested to see the figures for the new 2018 version. Anything to get the torque peak at a lower RPM would be appreciated.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

... 4-stroke ....

Oh! Right. I remember something about that from shop class, now....

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

Well, I'm dating myself, but my dad had a 1954 Hudson that had a 308 cubic inch straight 6. Dual carburetors & dual exhaust. Just to show efficiency improvements, the "L" head engine only produced 160 horsepower, and 12.1 second 0-60MPH, while my 2010 RAV4 V6, 213.5 cu in engine produced 278 horsepower & 6.4 second 0-60MPH. The old Hudson was a tub compared to today's vehicles, but a very sweet sounding & driving machine!

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Jon, Any way to compare torque between the two engines?

From 1954 Hudson Hornet Special 6D Club Sedan:

Horsepower gross: 119 kW / 162 PS / 160 hp (SAE) / 3800
Torque gross: 358 Nm / 264 ft-lb / 1800

These are "gross" values, meaning actual net engine output is substantially lower.

From Edmunds, for the 2010 RAV4 V6:

269 hp @6200 rpm 246 ft-lb @4700 rpm

Coincidentally the same torque number despite the substantial difference in displacement (3.5 L versus 5.0 L), but the newer engine puts out more torque in actual operation, and puts it out at much higher speeds. That means that the newer engine can be used in a lower gear, putting more than twice as much torque to the wheels (comparing the Hudson @ 1800 rpm to the RAV4 @ 4700 rpm).

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

I'd be interested to see the figures for the new 2018 version. Anything to get the torque peak at a lower RPM would be appreciated.

I don't think the new package would change the engine output from the normal 2018 spec:

• Power: 176 hp (131 kW) @ 6,000 rpm
• Torque: 172 lb-ft (233 N.m) @ 4,100 rpm

This RAV4 can still run in a lower gear and put more torque to the wheels than the old Hudson, at any road speed.

More engine torque without increasing displacement would come from forced induction (adding a supercharger or turbocharger). The Lexus version of the RAV4 (which is called the NX 300) has a turbocharged 2.0 L four-cylinder:

• Power: 235 hp (175 kW)
• Torque: 258 lb-ft (350 N.m) @ 1650 to 4000 rpm

Yes, that's more torque than the 5.0 L Hudson, at a lower speed and maintained to a much higher speed. Unfortunately, a towing package is apparently not available to raise the NX 300's rated capacity of 2000 pounds.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Unfortunately, a towing package is apparently not available to raise the NX 300's rated capacity of 2000 pounds.

Just my luck. The 1954 Hudson isn't available any more, either, and I think I'd rather have it.

[Vermilye]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Just my luck. The 1954 Hudson isn't available any more, either, and I think I'd rather have it.

Who says! only $95,000.00.