Honda CR-V v Toyota RAV4 2016 Comparison

Honda CR-V VTi-L Modulo v Toyota RAV4 Cruiser
Comparison Test

Ask any car enthusiast with half a clue about SUVs whether buyers would cross-shop the Toyota RAV4 against the Honda CR-V and the answer would likely be a resounding no. In the medium SUV segment the Honda is actually one of the also-rans, selling 8608 vehicles last year – a respectable but hardly startling figure.

In contrast, the RAV4 sold 18,435 vehicles last year – nearly 10,000 more than the Honda. Measured against the Toyota (and a host of other rivals), the Honda is one of the slower sellers in the segment. Perhaps buyers are reluctant to buy a car that more closely fits the mould of an American-style crossover.

Both Toyota and Honda are pretty familiar brand names, and either vehicle (or both) could end up on a shopping list of a couple with different purchasing criteria in mind. So let's see whether we can help those warring spouses...

On-paper specs narrow the gap
The RAV4 isn't ultimately the most focussed off-road wagon in the medium SUV segment nor is it exactly pillow-soft.

The CR-V, on the other hand, is aimed much more at traditional car buyers – those (barely) willing to risk a toe in the icy-cold waters of SUV ownership. A phrase you will soon grow tired of reading in this comparison is 'car-like', applied to the Honda.

Yet the two cars are not so very different in specification. The Honda came to us in all-wheel drive VTi-L form with the optional Modulo kit, which adds $3210 to the price and includes a front diffuser, side steps, revised rear bumper and rear spoiler. While the standard RAV4 is $2000 more expensive than the CR-V VTi-L, the Toyota with just one option – 'Crystal Pearl' paint for $550 – ends up the cheaper of the two vehicles on test.

Both cars are four-cylinder petrol variants around the same displacement with automatic transmission – five speeds for the CR-V, six for the RAV4. The Honda has a slight power advantage, but the RAV4 flips that advantage in the torque column. In theory the CR-V holds all the aces where power to weight ratio is concerned.

Both will tow 1500kg and both return similar fuel consumption figures. The CR-V is shorter, but only by about 20mm. The RAV4 is 25mm wider and 30mm higher. At 2620mm the Honda is 40mm shorter than the Toyota in the wheelbase. That doesn't translate to a distinct rear-seat legroom win to the RAV4 however. And nor for that matter is the RAV4's boot space much larger than the CR-V's (577 litres for the Toyota versus 556 for the Honda).

Right at home in the suburbs
While the CR-V holds that theoretical power-to-weight advantage over the RAV4, the Toyota's engine produces more torque from earlier in the rev range and is easier to drive around town as a consequence.

In the real world, furthermore, it's the RAV4 that impresses with its straight-line performance. At full cry from a standing start, the Toyota just gallops off into the distance, but the Honda needs a few seconds to think about things before it gives the drivetrain the go-ahead to get moving.

The CR-V's engine, like many Honda powerplants, needs a good rev to give its best, but sounds thrashier higher in the rev range. In contrast the Toyota engine is quieter but sounds throatier at full throttle. While you might hold the Toyota in a gear right up to the redline, you'll probably shift up in the Honda at 6000rpm – fully 1000 revs shy of the redline.

The six-speed automatic in the Toyota is far smoother in its shifting than the five-speed Honda transmission, but the Toyota can feel like a CVT at times. Particularly in 'Eco' mode the RAV4 drones.

In the corners it's a somewhat different story. The Honda's steering feels more connected to the front wheels than the Toyota's. Most drivers will find the CR-V is the safer option for handling and roadholding. While the CR-V's natural handling trait is understeer, it does cling on well at speed, and easing off the throttle will tighten the line through the corner.

The RAV4 is roly-poly in bends and by leaving the braking late the RAV4 will understeer prodigiously. But there is a very distinct tendency to lift-off oversteer too. With its performance advantage over the CR-V factored in, it is strangely fun to drive for that reason.

For road noise there's not much between these two, but judges were agreed that the RAV4 was quieter at the open-road limit on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway. For ride quality the Toyota also takes the win, although the CR-V was arguably better damped.

The camera based driver-assist systems in the Honda were highly impressive. The rear-facing camera automatically flashed up the view from behind in the infotainment display if a car was detected approaching from the rear after the CR-V had completed a manoeuvre like a U-turn, for instance. It also displayed the left side of the car when the left indicator was actuated. This clearly showed any car in the CR-V's blind-spot to the left rear. It also picked up the distance to the kerb when pulling in to park.

Reversing the CR-V was significantly easier than the RAV4. The Honda came with a dipping mirror on the passenger side and the smaller footprint overall made a major difference in negotiating a narrow, twisting driveway.

Under the wrapping
Right from the start the interior of the RAV4 felt airy and spacious, whereas the CR-V felt cosier. That's not to say the Honda lacked for roominess, far from it. But considering the RAV4 was less than two old-fashioned inches bigger in every major dimension, it's surprising how much bigger it seemed inside.

That said, the CR-V was undeniably nicer looking inside. A combination of trim materials, amenity and style lent the Toyota an ambience more about durability than plushness. The CR-V's carpeting was softer than the hard-wearing stuff under foot in the RAV4, for instance. And there were no adjustable vents in the RAV4 for rear-seat occupants.

There were more cubbies and cupholders in the centre console of the CR-V too. One was about the right size and shape for a smartphone to reside within, plus there was another for the car's key. The three cupholders adjusted to accommodate different size cups. Everything was within easy reach and there were also two USB ports in the storage bin under the centre armrest.

However, the RAV4 had better front seats than the CR-V's. The Honda's seats were very compliant but lacking support for long-distance touring, whereas the seats in the RAV4 were firmer and flatter in the cushion, but embraced the occupants better. The Honda at least came with a two-position memory for the driver's seat, highlighting its versatility for families.

On that point, both cars offered split-folding rear seats that lowered almost flat. The RAV4 lacked the CR-V's separate levers in the luggage compartment to flip the seats forward. Honda's system deployed cleverly, with the seat base folding forward and the headrest dropping for the squab to flop down neatly in the space left for it. Toyota's system was as effective, but folded up and down in one unit.

Rear-seat accommodation in both cars was fine for adults. The H (hip) point for the Honda was lower and therefore easier for smaller people alighting from the CR-V. Others may prefer to step into the RAV4, without the stooping. The side steps that come with the Modulo option pack are probably good for kids climbing in the back of the CR-V, but they're also too narrow for larger feet and adults will feel compelled to step over them climbing in.

For those who like their SUVs to deliver a commanding view of the road ahead the RAV4 offered a (slight) advantage over the CR-V. But as already mentioned, the Honda was easier to back and manoeuvre in a tighter environment.

A concentric array made the instruments appear quirkier in the Honda after the conventional looking dials in the Toyota, but both were readily legible at a glance. The Honda's controls were easier to locate and use than the Toyota's. There was more ergonomic logic to the Honda arrangement than the apparently random approach of the Toyota's – as well as fewer switches in number. However, some prospective buyers won't appreciate the Honda's foot-operated parking brake, versus the lever handbrake in the Toyota.

The Toyota was better endowed for 12-volt power outlets, with one servicing the rear row and another in the centre fascia for front-seat occupants. There was just one in the Honda.

The RAV4's boot is larger than the CR-V's by 21 litres, but it looks conspicuously longer too. There's a separate luggage net available with the Toyota, to complement the retractable cargo blind. The RAV4 also comes with tie-down hooks in the boot, so it's the clear choice for those who want to carry dangerous, spiky, wet and bulky gear on a frequent basis.

But the CR-V was equally practical in other ways. Simpler in design, the CR-V's boot was adorned with a couple of hooks to suspend shopping bags, plus a small, netted pocket in the side. Its dome light shone from overhead, whereas the Toyota's was located in the left side of the compartment, which can be blinding at night.

Sooner or later, anyone six foot (180cm) or taller will brain themselves on the CR-V's tailgate. The RAV4's (powered) tailgate opens higher by a few centimetres.

Unexpectedly, the RAV4 comes with a space-saver spare; the CR-V has a full-size alloy wheel and tyre under the lift-up floor in its load compartment.

The winner
Both cars are very capable in their respective roles. The RAV4 cuts across the gender divide in ways that the CR-V doesn't, but chaotic control placement and poverty-stricken presentation inside just didn't deliver.

The CR-V was nicer in both those respects, and cornered in a tidier fashion than the Toyota. But the RAV4 performed better and was more economical (12.7L/100km for the RAV4 versus 13.1 for the CR-V). Roomier inside the RAV4 also came with better shaped/cushioned seats.

The RAV4 offers capped-price servicing, but Honda can tell you in advance what each service will cost – which is tantamount to the same thing. For warranty coverage (three years/100,000km) and service intervals (six months/10,000km), the two SUVs are neck and neck.

The decision was always going to be a close-run result. We stand by the view that there's a market for a crossover-style SUV more in the mould of the Honda, but the RAV4 offers more of what people want in this market segment.

For our money, the Toyota takes the win.

2016 Honda CR-V VTi-L Modulo pricing and specifications:
Price: $46,253 (as tested, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.4-litre four-cylinder petrol
Output: 140kW/222Nm
Transmission: Five-speed automatic
Fuel: 8.7L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 201g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star (ANCAP)

2016 Toyota RAV4 Cruiser AWD pricing and specifications:
Price: $45,040 (as tested, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol
Output: 132kW/233Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel: 8.5L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 198g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: Five-star (ANCAP)