V6 or V4 for general Mt driving? (Loveland: buying, living in) - City-Data Forum

Umbria · 10-20-2010, 08:09 PM

I plan on living in CO next year (Co Springs, Ft Collins or Loveland) and now that I'm retired, will do a fair amount of driving through the mountains visiting different areas. I will not be towing anything besides 3-4 people, maybe a kayak on top. I will not be doing much riving in the rugged areas.

I am buying a new Rav4 4wD and my question is: would it be best to get the V6 at approximately $1000 more or would the V4 be sufficient? There's about a 3-4 MPG difference. I have done a search on this thread and read various posts on types of cars; 4WD vs AWD etc...and would appreciate hearing your opinions on this one issue. Thanks!

jazzlover · 10-20-2010, 08:29 PM

First, it's an inline 4, not a V4. I don't think there has been a V4 car in this country since they quit importing the old V4 Saab decades ago. Now, as to which engine is better, it's the old tradeoff--extra horsepower and--more importantly--more torque from a larger displacement engine, or the better fuel economy of the smaller inline 4. Of course, an overworked engine will give up fuel economy, so the difference in fuel economy may be smaller in mountain driving. That said, a lot of the 4-cylinder "cute-utes" (they are pretty much marginal for any rough trail driving) perform adequately for many people (RAV4's, Honda CRV's, Subaru Foresters, etc.) Just remember that any non-turbocharged engine loses about 4% of its rated power for every 1,000 feet above sea level. So, an engine running at 10,000 feet has lost 40% of its rated power from sea level.

Truth is, the best all around engine for mountain driving is a turbocharged diesel engine--excellent torque, impervious to altitude, and with excellent fuel economy compared to a gas engine--but thanks to the EPA (which refused to adopt the European diesel emission standard and just had to have their own), the moronic auto manufacturers, and a clueless public, there are few models of turbodiesels available in the US. Our loss.

captain_hug99 · 10-20-2010, 09:15 PM

For a car that size, I'd go with the 6. I think you'll feel that it is underpowered with just a 4, unless you get a stick.

sunsprit · 10-20-2010, 09:34 PM

This is a vehicle where the 4-cylinder has to be worked hard enough at our altitude that the EPA test cycle for fuel economy rating is misleading. In the real world of driving in this area, the 6 cylinder will deliver almost the same mpg as the 4, while maintaining a better level of performance when you're on grades or at altitude. For some drivers, the 6 cylinder will deliver even better fuel economy than the 4, especially if you're loading the vehicle close to it's capacity (ie, 3-4 passengers w/baggage and the added windage of "stuff" on top).

wanneroo · 10-20-2010, 09:46 PM

I've done thousands of laps at speed on tracks in the RAV4, both 4 and 6 cyl. The 4 cyl is a dog and I can only imagine huffing that thing over Colorado roads. The six cyl. has power but is connected to an out of touch slushy gearbox. Having tested it on ice, the vehicle dynamic control is slow to respond in comparison to other competitors and the AWD system isn't that hot either.

Dynamically the Subaru Forester is the best, very stable, low center of gravity, high ground clearance and a proper AWD system. The Nissan Rogue I would rank 2nd.

breaksraver13 · 10-20-2010, 10:02 PM

6 cyl.......I used to have an Element 4 cyl, and live in Summit Co......of course it would "make it", but sometime's I swear I was going to have to push it over loveland pass

Umbria · 10-20-2010, 11:54 PM

Good info from all of you

This isn't a done deal so if I hear negative things about the Rav I will reconsider. I really like the look of them.

I keep my cars a long time so I want to get it right - if I were staying here it would be a I4 (you are right again, Jazzie), but I have to consider the altitude and power required for mt. driving. I did look at the Forester & Outback. Wish the Outback didn't look so much like a station wagon.

Umbria · 10-21-2010, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanneroo

I've done thousands of laps at speed on tracks in the RAV4, both 4 and 6 cyl. The 4 cyl is a dog and I can only imagine huffing that thing over Colorado roads. The six cyl. has power but is connected to an out of touch slushy gearbox. Having tested it on ice, the vehicle dynamic control is slow to respond in comparison to other competitors and the AWD system isn't that hot either.

Dynamically the Subaru Forester is the best, very stable, low center of gravity, high ground clearance and a proper AWD system. The Nissan Rogue I would rank 2nd.

I'm going to go take another look at the Forester.

CTC · 10-21-2010, 04:07 AM

get something with a turbo-we have a 2006 Outback XT-this car will climb any hill/grade with out any problem-If you are not too leadfooted the gas milage is acceptable=ours has been very reliable

They dropped the XT-but I believe the Forester has/had a turbo model as well

ajmac10 · 10-21-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTC

get something with a turbo-we have a 2006 Outback XT-this car will climb any hill/grade with out any problem-If you are not too leadfooted the gas milage is acceptable=ours has been very reliable

They dropped the XT-but I believe the Forester has/had a turbo model as well

Turbo is the way to go.