RAV4 Horsepower

[Randy Arnold]

The Rav4 v-6 is rated at 269hp/245ft. lbs. Is it using the same 3.5 litre engine as the Avalon which I think is rated at 280hp? The3.5 is just ,I think again, a destroked 4.0 litre. If thats the case I'd like to have their ecm programing and maybe their cams. Any serious Toyota gearheads out there that no little more about this 3.5 litre and any cross component compatability with the 4.0 liter.
I bet that the RAV4 is a lot more fun to play with with the near 100hp boost.

 

[OUTRNNR]

I bet that the RAV4 is a lot more fun to play with with the near 100hp boost.

Its faster than the 4Runner VVT-i V8... I don't think I could ever be seen in one though, those softroader segments just don't make sense to me. You want an SUV? Buy an SUV. You want a car? Buy a car.

Good idea on the ECU and cams though, but I think the 3.5 is an entirely different engine except for maybe the block, which like you said, is probably a de-stroked 4.0. The main difference I think is that the 3.5 has variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust.

Anyone know this for sure?

 

[Thai]

I believe that the 3.5L V6 in the cars and Rav4 is totally different family from the 4.0L V6 in the 4runner. 3.5L emphasizes HP at high rpms. The 4.0L V6 is a truck engine...torque down low.

 

[Uneek]

Everything said above is correct. I agree with Thai, the 3.5 is designed for a car application, so the emphasis is power on the upper RPM range and a fast revving engine (from idle to redline). I test driven a IS250 and IS350, those engines climb to redline quick, similar to Hondas. Notice how HP output is greater than torque. This isn't typical of most Toyota engines with the exception of the 2ZZ, the engine in the Celica GT-S, Matrix XR-S and Corolla XR-S. The 4.0 is designed for a truck application where torque is the emphasis and greatest power in the lower RPM range.

The 3.5 is dual VVT-i, intake and exhaust. The 3.5 in the IS350 has direct injection, which further aids in power and efficiency.

GR series

 

[CVsGX470]

I believe that the 3.5L V6 in the cars and Rav4 is totally different family from the 4.0L V6 in the 4runner. 3.5L emphasizes HP at high rpms. The 4.0L V6 is a truck engine...torque down low.

I too agree with Thai on this one. However, the RAV4 has come a long way since I owned my 98. I got rid of it in 03 after I got sick of the engine red-lining to accelerate in traffic.

CV

 

[nh00gts]

I looked at one for my wife but I don't see any logic in buying an "entry level" SUV that is $2,000 cheaper than what I paid for my 4runner.

 

[CVsGX470]

I looked at one for my wife but I don't see any logic in buying an "entry level" SUV that is $2,000 cheaper than what I paid for my 4runner.

:iagree:

However, I don't believe that you are a member of the demographic they are trying to appease.

 

[nh00gts]

:iagree:

However, I don't believe that you are a member of the demographic they are trying to appease.

From what I had read before the Rav4 was supposed to be an entry level SUV for younger women and the FJ was supposed to be the male buyers equivalent. Going by the prices they have on the RAV its sounds like they are trying to appeal to rich daddies girls whose parents wont buy them a Bimmer or Lexus

 

[Koz]

The Rav4 v-6 is rated at 269hp/245ft. lbs. Is it using the same 3.5 litre engine as the Avalon which I think is rated at 280hp? The3.5 is just ,I think again, a destroked 4.0 litre. If thats the case I'd like to have their ecm programing and maybe their cams. Any serious Toyota gearheads out there that no little more about this 3.5 litre and any cross component compatability with the 4.0 liter.
I bet that the RAV4 is a lot more fun to play with with the near 100hp boost.

I have read somewhere that the 3.5 is the 4.0 de-stroked. Just because it produces more peak HP doesn't mean it will produce better performance in a truck. You have to look at a graph of how and where it actually makes its HP and torque. If you look at the history of Toyota engines you will see that the engine in their trucks have always been designed and tuned to make more torque sooner then their auto engines. Before the 4.7 and 4.0 there was the 3.4 which made 190 hp and their higher reving 3.0 auto engine made over 200 hp. Toyota engineers know what they are doing. There is a method to their seemingly madness.

Koz

 

[Northof49]

From what I had read before the Rav4 was supposed to be an entry level SUV for younger women and the FJ was supposed to be the male buyers equivalent. Going by the prices they have on the RAV its sounds like they are trying to appeal to rich daddies girls whose parents wont buy them a Bimmer or Lexus

Here a base RAV4 starts more than $10K less than a base 4Runner, and a fully jammed V6 RAV is more than $13K less than a V8 Ltd 4Runner. 4 cyl Rav prices are right in line with the previous generation Rav, with respect to equipment levels. The only prices that are higher than years past are those of the V6, but hey, you're getting 270hp with 35mpg......of course it costs more than the 4 banger!

 

[Koz]

Here a base RAV4 starts more than $10K less than a base 4Runner, and a fully jammed V6 RAV is more than $13K less than a V8 Ltd 4Runner. 4 cyl Rav prices are right in line with the previous generation Rav, with respect to equipment levels. The only prices that are higher than years past are those of the V6, but hey, you're getting 270hp with 35mpg......of course it costs more than the 4 banger!

The V6 does not get 35 mpg, it's more like 25.

Koz

 

[nh00gts]

Here a base RAV4 starts more than $10K less than a base 4Runner, and a fully jammed V6 RAV is more than $13K less than a V8 Ltd 4Runner. 4 cyl Rav prices are right in line with the previous generation Rav, with respect to equipment levels. The only prices that are higher than years past are those of the V6, but hey, you're getting 270hp with 35mpg......of course it costs more than the 4 banger!

We were looking at V6 models because she has no interest in the 4cylinder. I just couldn't believe that there was a $2,000 price difference between the Rav sport with sunroof and my 4runner.

 

[Boston_Runner]

I just test drove the RAV4 V6 2 days ago. This thing is insanely fast. Much faster than the 4runner limited V8 I test drove last year, especially off the line. Which should be expected, since is about a thousand pounds lighter. To my surprise, the back seat on the RAV is actually roomier than the 4 runner.

 

[Northof49]

The V6 does not get 35 mpg, it's more like 25.

Koz

Ahh shit, I was thinking of Canadian mpg where the V6 is rated 25/36......why can't you guys use the same system as the rest of the damn world :arrow:

And yes, the V6 Rav goes like a raped ape.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

MotorTrend ran a 14.9 in the 1/4 with a 6.3 0-60 time which is what the '95 turbo MR2 ran and is just a few ticks slower than what a '00 Integra Type R ran but we also live in a world when the new Subaru Legacy and Forester run solid 13s which is right behind a new Mustang GT.

 

[Koz]

MotorTrend ran a 14.9 in the 1/4 with a 6.3 0-60 time which is what the '95 turbo MR2 ran and is just a few ticks slower than what a '00 Integra Type R ran but we also live in a world when the new Subaru Legacy and Forester run solid 13s which is right behind a new Mustang GT.

Legacy and Forester running solid 13s, I don't think so.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2005&make=Subaru&model=Legacy&trimid=-1

The Legacy is running 14.3s (which is fast) with 250hp and the Forester weighs more and has less hp.

Koz

 

[RonMAIDEN]

I saw a test in Sport Compact Car magazine and they ran a Legacy in the 1/4 in 13.7@99mph.
Not all tests are going to be the same as conditions and driver dictate alot so one test isn't the final result.
It does have 250 horses and AWD and isn't too much heavier than the 2.0 227hp WRX which runs low 14s.
The Forester shares the same 2.5L turbo motor slightly detuned to 230hp as the Legacy and is just a tad heavier and I know a private owner posted a timeslip from his which was 14 flat but I think he also removed the horsepower restriction to match the Legacy's ponies.

 

[05SportV8]

Even with 260+ hp the Rav does not make the trick for me.

I would like to see the Rav with 3 adults and some gear beating my V8 with 3 people and the same gear inside. Put a small boat behind, something like 2000 lbs, and run it again.

My acura rsx is a 200 hp engine in a 2600lb car... when driving alone it is fast, but put 3 people on it and Mr 4R V8 kicks its butt.

Hp is never a substitute to torque if you are loaded. Why are bus engines only making 250 hp and over 900lb/ft torque?

I agree 100% to whoever said let's see the torque curve (Not Max torque), the whole curve. Not only that. Mathemathically integrate the torque curve over RPMs and then divide it by weight. Then you know who is who in the street. The ratio HP/weight is misleading unless both engines produce same torque.

With that said... I think the Rav is an excelent second car (the 4 cylinder though).

1.5 cents spilled here.

SpV8

 

[RonMAIDEN]

Of course the Runner will be better all loaded up but you're comparing apples to oranges since they aren't competing with each other. The RAV4 is a people hauler and it would be a better choice if it was just a daily driver and never leaving the paved roads.

 

[05SportV8]

Ron,

Definitively, they are not in the same segmet. As much as 4R and honda pilot, aren't either. But that is your perception (and mine as well) but majority of customers do not know a difference between a real 4x4 and an awd car. For them Rav, Highlander, Pilot, 4R, Sequoia and many others are just different sizes of a 4wd. I bet many don't know what is a transfer case.

You know the capabilities of the 4R and I am with you. Nothing else in toyota, except tacomas and now the new cruiser are in the same level as tough off road vehicles.

My comments on power/weight were just to disagree with those that said Hp is higher and weight is less thus the car must be faster.

Although that may be true in many cases, it is not a rule. There are many circunstances where a lower Hp car and heavier can reach a point faster. That I believe would be the case if comparing a 4R with a new Rav where tehere is some moderate weight inside. It is more realistic to compare torque power bands and weight to have more accurate results. Even with that is not clear, because transmission and transfer ratios influence the use of the power band.

So, if someone come to me and says: I'll race your 4R with my 270 hp Rav I'll say .. Yes, Lets put all our friends inside and gun them... No mall-traveler4wdwannabe is beating the 4R =)

SpV8