So, you want a hybrid Japanese crossover? No joke, great choice, you’re pretty much looking at the platonic ideal of a new daily driver. Not too big or small, plenty practical, and more efficient than something without electrification, we’re getting closer to the perfect ultimate form of family car. The question is: How much all-wheel-drive do you want? While the new Toyota RAV4 and the Subaru Forester Hybrid are similar in both form and battery pack sizing, they’re more different than the average Joe on the street might think.
One has an inline-four, one has a flat-four. One uses an electric motor for all-wheel-drive while the other uses more traditional means. One seems more Old Navy, while the other practically comes with an REI membership. However, they’re around the same size and should be about the same price. This is gonna be interesting.
[Full disclosure: Toyota Canada and Subaru Canada both brought their latest hybrid compact crossovers to AJAC TestFest, an annual event put on by the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada as part of the run-up to and evaluation for Canadian Car of the Year. Food and lodging were provided by the Association.]
How Do They Look?
It’s 2025 and boxy is in, so Toyota’s put in the work to take some of the rakishness out of the RAV4. The sixth-generation crossover’s silhouette works pretty well, and the taillights are great, but we need to talk about its face. Sure, the Woodlands and GR Sport trims have more conventional grillework, but the series of holes on most models are shocking enough to make the Forester’s unusual wheel arch trims look downright conservative in comparison.
Admittedly, the styling of the Forester doesn’t always dissect perfectly. The Gandini-influenced fender plastics are strange in execution, the grillework is busy, and the rest of the cladding contains enough lumps that it might want to contact a physician. However, zoom out and the Forester looks familiar, conventional, like you’ve seen it before. It also has a great greenhouse-to-metal ratio, which pays dividends once you climb inside.
What About Their Interiors?
Slide inside the latest Toyota RAV4, and it’s immediately apparent that the people who made the thing have children, because there’s genuinely a place for everything. A central shelf for phones, a smaller one beneath it for other trinkets like gum and cool rocks, one across the passenger side of the dashboard for other flotsam and jetsam like spare tissues and snacks, and even a surprisingly versatile center console lid. All good stuff, and the visual design of the cabin is particularly modern and sleek compared to the Forester’s.
That being said, the ergonomics of the RAV4 are a bit strange. The center console tries to occupy the same space as your inboard knee, the steering wheel feels a little bit far away even at full column extension, you sit quite close to the headliner, and the seats start to feel a bit flat after some real time in them. It’s also easy to pick up the occasional whiff of cheapness, so if you want a wagyu experience for fast-fry money, the RAV4 probably isn’t for you.
In contrast, the Forester Hybrid is a more comfortable, more premium place to be. Sure, there are lots of shut lines and different materials, but everything’s just a bit softer, richer, and more thoughtfully designed. The console sits low enough to avoid most cases of knee conflict and is actually padded. An extra 2.3 inches of front headroom goes a long way, and the armrests are properly cushy. However, perhaps the most surprising thing is the visibility, a revelation compared to the RAV4. Subaru has somehow managed to build a car that performs brilliantly in crash testing and has pillars so thin by modern standards, they’re practically wispy. Add in loads of glass, including a huge single-panel moonroof, and you get a really pleasant place to pass the miles.
Downsides? Well, you do give up a serious amount of on-paper seats-up cargo space in the Forester compared to the RAV4—about 10.2 cu.-ft. based on each model’s spec sheets—even if cargo space with the seats folded is within 1.31 cu.-ft. of the RAV4. Disregarding potential spec sheet shenanigans, the steering wheel comes out of the dashboard at a more bus-like angle than in the RAV4, and you get fewer cubbies to put stuff in up front. However, the Forester does have a wider rear seat and more rear legroom than the RAV4, important stuff for carrying rear passengers with or without child seats.
How Do They Drive?
If you’re familiar with Toyota’s hybrids, you know exactly what powers the new RAV4: A 2.5-liter inline-four mated to a two-motor transaxle with an integrated planetary gearset, and all-wheel drive is offered via a 54-horsepower electric motor on the rear axle. Officially delivering up to 40 MPG combined in certain all-wheel-drive models, the result is the most efficient all-wheel-drive series-parallel hybrid in its segment, no doubt about it. The all-wheel-drive RAV4 also outguns the Forester with an extra 42 horsepower, so on the asphalt, it’s really a case of having your cake and eating it too.
Indeed, it’s not especially hard to beat the official EPA figures in the RAV4, and it offers up a sense of confidence that extends beyond sailing past fuel pumps. Toyota’s done a good job of keeping body roll in check, and although you do notice the odd bump in the road through your seat, the tradeoff is more secure handling than in the outgoing model. However, it is worth noting that because the non-plug-in Toyota RAV4 can only send 54 horsepower and 89 lb.-ft. of torque to its rear axle, a predominantly front-wheel-drive feel shows up off the pavement. Not a huge problem on flat ground, but on a wet, hilly dirt road, a less efficient mechanical all-wheel-drive system would offer superior traction.
Speaking of mechanical all-wheel-drive, here’s a completely different way to build a hybrid crossover. Under the skin of the Subaru Forester Hybrid sits a 2.5-liter flat-four hitched to a regular all-wheel-drive system with a power transfer unit, a driveshaft, and a traditional rear differential. In practice, Subaru’s system isn’t as willing as Toyota’s to cruise along at freeway speeds on electric power alone, but it has a few major benefits. Because the total powertrain output can be split equally front to rear, the Forester Hybrid is just more surefooted when the going gets unpaved. Snow-belters, this one’s for you. Around town, Subaru’s tuned the powertrain response to be eager, and when the flat-four fires into life, it doesn’t seem ashamed of the fact that it is an engine. There’s character here, and the extra torque and smoothness of electrification only make it better.
Of course, with an EPA rating of 35 MPG combined, the Forester Hybrid can’t match the fuel economy numbers the RAV4 is putting down, but the pleasant driving experience doesn’t stop with the powertrain. The spring rates and damping feel softer than in the RAV4, and the result is that the Subaru glides over bumps you might feel in the Toyota. As a bonus, a 16.6-gallon (63-liter) fuel tank gives the Forester enormous cruising range for truly bladder-busting road trips. At the same time, outstanding visibility makes for easier parking, although I do wish the Forester Hybrid’s brake pedal was as dialled-in as the one in the RAV4.
Do They Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Two weeks ago, I got my first chance to sample the new infotainment system Toyota’s been working on for the latest RAV4. Since then, I’ve had a bit more time to play around with it, and guess what? It all works great. The RAV4 makes much better use of its screen real estate for wireless Apple CarPlay, including beaming certain mapping apps into the gauge cluster, the infotainment system boots quickly, everything’s responsive, and the menu structure is light enough to not be confusing. Alright, so the digital gauge cluster screen can feel a bit feeble in bright sunlight, and the only physical audio and HVAC controls you get on the dashboard are a volume knob and a few temperature controls, but the overall experience is very modern and user-friendly. With available dual wireless smartphone chargers and 45-watt USB-C charging ports as the maraschino cherries atop this banana split, Toyota’s cooked up a pretty good overall tech package.
In contrast, Subaru’s 11.6-inch portrait-style touchscreen infotainment system has been around for a few years, and it’s starting to show its age. Its biggest sin is having the screen completely wash out in bright sunlight, but slow boot times and limited use of screen real estate for phone mirroring are also slight annoyances. Everything works fine once it’s booted up, it just takes a minute to get there, and Apple CarPlay only takes up about half the screen. The Forester also doesn’t have any huge advantages over the RAV4 when it comes to physical controls outside of a real button for the heated steering wheel. Sure, there’s a tuning knob you don’t get in the Toyota, but Subaru’s system still relies on virtual tiles to activate the heated seats. However, it is somewhat nice that Subaru has provisions for both USB-A and USB-C charging and connectivity, as some of us just haven’t made the leap to all-USB-C.
What The Toyota RAV4 Does Better
- Its fuel economy’s on another level.
- There’s so much more small-item storage in the front of the cabin.
- The RAV4’s high-speed handling feels more secure than the Forester’s.
- More modern cabin tech means fast, big Apple CarPlay, huge gauge cluster configurability, available dual wireless phone chargers, and available 45-watt USB-C power points.
What The Subaru Forester Hybrid Does Better
- It’s comfier, from the console design to the ride quality.
- Mechanical all-wheel drive is a big plus in the dirt.
- The sheer outward visibility is a game-changer.
- Your kids will appreciate the overabundance of seatback storage pockets.
The Bottom Line
It’s safe to say the new Toyota RAV4 going all-hybrid is a big deal, because it means more people than ever will be able to experience awesome fuel economy for the segment. Between efficiency and the sheer range of trims on offer, the 2026 Toyota RAV4 is the best hybrid in its class, and it features a pretty slick new tech suite that’s remarkably user-friendly.
However, if you’re the sort of person to buy a car based on purely physical attributes, the Forester Hybrid feels like a better crossover. It has a bit more passenger space, a bit more comfort, and a bit more soft-road capability. Both are great choices for a daily driver, but if it were my money on the line for a U.S.-spec example and I had to buy one, I’d personally take the Subaru. Now that’s a sentence I didn’t expect to write.
Of course, things are a little different in Canada because the Forester Hybrid only comes fully-loaded north of the border for 2025. At the time of writing, details on electrified 2026 models haven’t been announced, and the availability of entry-level RAV4 trims is a huge plus. Still, the fact that these two crossovers are so close to the point where pricing could be the decider is a good thing. It just means people shopping in this space have several solid options.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
And you all complain about some of my matchups…
Ha! Hundal is the pump and dump writer though so he’s definitely going to miss once in a while. You get like a full 23 hours to figure it out (I assume you never sleep and are only allowed to recharge those random weeks it’s not as good)
Forester for places that see snowy winters.
Rav4 for all other situations.
Hard disagree. Toyota eAWD system functions wonderfully in the great lakes’ lake effect snow region. 50 hp on the rear axle—available instantaneously—is more than enough.
Agree. I have the Crown Signia and live in the great lakes snowbelt area. You can configure the dash to show the power distribution. Rear motor comes on exactly when you would want it to come on. I had Subarus before the Crown Signia, and don’t miss anything regarding handling snow.
That dash screen is really cool. I like when I hit a snowy or icy patch at 60 mph, and watch it instantly give power to the rear wheels, even at speed.
The great lakes snowbelt is nothing compared to real snow at altitude. Source: living 20 years in Tahoe and 10+ along Lake Erie. The Subaru will absolutely out-perform the Toyota in mountainous regions, no question. The mechanical, symmetrical AWD system is vastly superior. Having said that, the Toyota will likely do just fine in most situations.
without experiencing them, the correct answer is the Toyota almost every time, yet I have rode in my friends RAV4 and although it is 2 years old now, I can say the sounds from the CVT are atrocious. it sounds like a bag of rocks being tumbled. Dealer said this was normal after trying some sort of additive (Probably friction modifier), so if the modern Subie CVT is at least on par with the 2015 Legacy my mom drives , then I would have to go subie here.
Unfortunately, naming has failed most modern hybrids. CVTs and eCVTs are two different technologies. The Nissan/Jatco style of transmission (CVT) use a belt and they wear pretty quickly. I believe this is the style used in all automatic Subarus for the last several years, and several smaller Toyota models such as the ICE Rav4. (Although some Toyotas had DCTs, which were equally clunky). The eCVT, used only on hybrids, on the other hand doesn’t use belts and instead uses the planetary gearset and electric motors to make a transmission with only gears have constantly varying gear ratios. I don’t doubt that the ICE Rav4’s CVT is subpar, but I’d be surprised if any eCVT gave you that experience; the technology seems superior, and I don’t know of anyone (Honda/Toyota) having issues with their eCVTs. If you did have issues with an eCVT I’d be very curious to hear about it.
his Toyota was ICE, I must have read it wrong that the Toyota above is hybrid though, I though the hybrid here was the Forester. the older legacy CVT is surprisingly decent compared to some others I have experienced, so I was saying if the eCVT in the forester is at least on par with the older system then I would probably end up in that.
The ICE RAV4 actually used the 8-speed auto. The operation of that powertrain was often knocked almost from the start of the outgoing model’s intro for its shift quality and the buzzy engine noise. The hybrid/eCVT setup tends to drone but was quicker and generally more refined than the ICE, even if you didn’t care about the mileage gains.
Forester – Pro: has a mechanical AWD system. Con: Has a Subaru engine and transmission.
Hybrid Subarus don’t have a CVT transmission (see above).
I never said CVT. I said “Subaru Engine and Transmission”. Also, an eCVT is still a CVT, just not a belt and pulley style. And while the eCVT internal design and logic is licensed from Toyota, its a Subaru made and Subaru exclusive transmission.
It’s not a traditional transmission at all, and it’s a much more robust design than a CVT. But neither of us can predict the future, can we? Or even know that it’s manufactured by Subaru, not their partner, Toyota. Heck, my Ford E-CVT has been dead reliable.
It IS a CVT. Its type is called a power splitter, but its a transmission that is continuously variable. We also do know that the Subaru hybrid transmission is made by FHI in the Kitamoto Japan plant using Toyota technology, but as a Subaru Transmission (as opposed to the Toyota transaxle), although the Subaru is also a sort of transaxle since the front differential is built in, though the final drive doesn’t affect the transmission output.
Thomas – love these reviews from the AJAC event! Keep ’em comin’
If you combined the best attributes from both vehicles…
You’d end up with one perfectly ugly yet cromulent hybrid crossover.
Seriously, who is in charge of their respective styling departments and why are they still employed?
With regards to which AWD system is better, I suspect a large portion of the people who buy either will never test the limits of them.
The Subaru’s mechanical symmetrical AWD system is easily better, no question. True, most owners will never test the limits of the system, but lose living at altitude in snowy mountainous regions absolutely will. And it will absolutely out-perform the Toyota AWD system in those regions.
The main problem with the rav4 will be availability and the dealers. Subaru seems to understand dealers shouldn’t be charging over sticker and holds their dealers to that. That being said I’m super skeptical of a Subaru hybrid but if you are only going to keep it few years probably no harm and I bet resale in many Subaru markets will be fine.
The Rav4 is going to cost some insane amount when it arrives. They were already at nosebleed levels before we settled on a Subaru Crosstrek Sport, which has been great and at least has some level of character. Prepare to get reemed a the dealership. I would not be surprised if these wind up being at least $50k on average with $70k not being out of the question.
I only have experience at two Toyota dealers, neither was great. The 2nd one especially, as we were “only” looking at a Camry hybrid and nothing really expensive; they barely gave us the time of day. It was quite busy so I don’t think they cared.
Dad traded a Mercury Montego for an Escape a few years ago. Why? The higher H point was one. They both find it much easier (mid 70’s) to slide into the the CUV than to drop into a sedan.
“Slide inside the latest Toyota RAV4, and it’s immediately apparent that the people who made the thing have children”
Are you sure they aren’t children? As in: “Hey kids, here’s your rubbermaid bin of lego blocks, now assemble me an interior.”
You mention the bladder busting tank in the Forester, but even while holding less fuel, the Rav4 getting significantly better mpg means that it goes even farther. With the Rav getting the estimated 42 combined, it should make it more than 600 miles… But both are honestly irrelevant, I’m not making it 8-10 hours without stopping, so I just don’t see why people care about details like that. Anything over 400 is more than I’m making it without a stop so I really don’t care.
The more, the better for me. I’d be more than happy to go 10+ hours at a time to get to my destination that much sooner.
Yeah I can’t go that far without a bathroom break, and I am not peeing in a bottle to save 5 minutes.
For me I like that kind of range when traveling in the west so I can pick and choose when and where I buy gas.
This is my thought process as well. When I’m way out west and there’s realistically 50+ miles between towns, I don’t like my tank getting bellow 100 miles of range. Because of this I’m limited to filling up every 340 miles or so because my full-tank-range is only 440 miles. I’d love to have 600 miles of range.
And that town in 50 miles might be a tiny place with one or two seriously over priced gas stations. I check for Costcos along my route since most are within a mile or so of a freeway exit and their pricing is usually the cheapest in a given area. (Especially if you have their credit card). On the first gen Fusion Hybrid they shared the same tank size as the V-6 and a fill up would show a ~700 mi range which did make for a comfortable 600 mi range. My wife loved it for her daily driver too because it cut her trips to the gas station in half.
You know it’s possible to stop and pee WITHOUT getting gas too. In fact most places where someone can pee don’t sell gasoline.
Yeah when traveling on the interstate they have rest areas and that is where I pee when that is all I have to do.
The Toyota is probably the better purchase here considering long term reliability, depreciation and the MPGs, but without knowing prices it’s still up in the air. Considering that the local Toyota dealers (at least in my area) will almost certainly be putting $5000 “Market Adjustments” in addition to adding unasked for but obligatory Protection Plans and Maintenance Plans on all these they can get, the needle may very well swing in Subie’s direction.
Are you sure? I watched a YouTube review of fairly new small crossovers, and this gen of Forrester didn’t do as well as you would think when they tested it on an off-road test course. It included set test facilities with rollers under different sets of wheels.
Definitely. I mean, the Forester’s system is nothing like the viscous coupling/optional rear vLSD setup found in older manual Subarus, but being able to send more than 89 lb.-ft. of torque to the rear axle is a big plus. Out of curiosity, was the video you watched the CarExpert test where the Forester made disappointing progress but the outgoing RAV4 Hybrid didn’t even make it to the first cone on the hill? I was really impressed by how well the Hyundai/Kia hybrids did there.
It was. I had to go back and check based on your Car Expert reference since it wasn’t one of my normal channels.
While the Subie did a bit better than the old RAV4 it was decidedly worse than earlier models. I just don’t think you can assume the Subaru would be better than the updated RAV4. The old assumptions of the Subaru AWD system being better don’t seem to hold true any longer.
Yeah, Subaru’s system likely isn’t class-leading anymore. FWIW, I ran into a limitation of the updated RAV4’s AWD system on a hilly dirt road. With the rear motor only making a peak figure of 89 lb.-ft. of torque, I could feel the front wheels start to slip if I wanted to maintain a speed higher than 20 mph, and it didn’t seem to be shuffling enough torque to the rear motor to maintain consistent traction. While the RAV4 never got stuck, it’s definitely more of an in-a-pinch get-out-of-a-snowbank AWD system than the Subaru’s.
reminder that the peak torque of the Toyota rear motor (MGR) quoted is before gear reduction. The last system was roughly 11:1, so 89 lbs-ft = 979 lbs-ft at the ring gear. The Forester hybrid can send 50% of whatever the engine makes at the crank x 15:1 total “crawl ratio”. 199 lbs-ft total system torque divided by 50% times 15 isn’t much more actual torque at the ring gear. (1500 lbs-ft). Okay, it’s 50% more…assuming that you can get that much torque at stall combined versus having a motor at the ring. The real number for thermal and ICE output reasons is probably closer to the 1000 of the Toyota, which will have no trouble reaching that number.
I’m not disagreeing with you as much as I just wanted to show the math. I think Toyota should make a much stronger MGR. the last one was 54 hp and while that 1000 lbs-ft is actually more than the old non-hybrid could send to the rear, its still not enough.
As a matter of principle I would say that the better system from a capability standpoint is definitely the type in the Subaru, but I don’t think the difference is large enough to matter here because neither is good enough.
I was expecting a vote box here. Kinda disappointed.
I vote Subaru for it’s awd system.
Toyota has been putting out useless fake AWD systems for some time already, even before the hybrid drives. They should be called out for it.
Useless? Called out for finding a better solution to the AWD question? The Toyota system is, more fuel efficient, cheaper, less complex, and I bet it results in less weird tire wear. All the enthusiasts on this site are acting like 50 hp, available instantaneously, on the rear axle is nothing.
Go and watch some videos of AWD tests, where they simulate the front wheels losing traction. Toyotas have always performed horribly badly on all these tests.
If you’re talking off road tests, then sure. But neither of the vehicles are off road vehicles, so I’m not sure that’s relevant. But for snow and ice, which is the reason most people want an AWD equipped appliance, then the Toyota system is brilliant. If you want to go off roading, why are you looking at Rav4 anyway?
No I meant roller tests. They would put the front wheels on rollers to simulate the front tires slipping on ice, and then try to drive off using the rear wheels’ power. And then they would put 3 wheels on rollers and see if the remaining wheel can drive the car off the rollers.
The end result of all these tests was always that FWD based CUVs from Japan and Korea always perform the worst. German cars are typically better. But the longitudinal engine RWD based cars always performed best.
You’re telling me that a RWD car drives the rear wheels better than a FWD car?
FWD BASED. Meaning it has a transverse engine and FWD layout, with a driveshaft added to take power to the back as an afterthought.
Subaru always did well on those tests on YouTube.
That screen in the RAV4 would bother me every single day.
Sure it has most things over on the Subaru, but man. The interior looks so much better in the Subie.
I agree, at this point why are new cars being made where the screen still looks like it was tacked on as an afterthought?
Because it is objectively the best way to have a screen in your car. Anything you need to look at should be as close to the center of your view as possible without blocking anything else.
The only way to make it look more integrated is to lower the screen, which is measurably worse, or fill in the space behind the screen unnecessarily. This also tends to block a little visibility for the driver or passenger.
That makes sense, but using just these examples there’s not that much of a difference in height. I’d also argue that you shouldn’t have to look at the screen that much anyway when diving so it shouldn’t matter that much. And if so it’s an argument that knobs and switches are better to avoid driving distractions. But mainly I just think it could be integrated into the dash design better.
I 100% agree that more physical controls and the less the screen is needed the better. But if it is there, it absolutely must be placed properly. That is a safety issue for sure
The height difference may be quite meaningful even if it isn’t a huge amount. The screen should be the first thing your eyes hit when looking down from the road. Not the hood of the car or dashboard. I just don’t think making it objectively worse is worth a tiny aesthetic quibble.
I also think that quibble is generally misguided since there typically isn’t any real reason for the complaint. The steering wheel isn’t “integrated” into the dashboard either, and that isn’t a point of design contention. The complaint is repeated so often that it feels like it has a life of its own rather than being attached to anything meaningful.
So the dash screen should be the first thing your eyes hit when looking down the road? That’s crazy talk. What data on that screen matters as much as seeing the pedestrian or wayward truck or suicidal moose just down the road? These cars are made for a generation of vidiots who are afraid to go out without a screen in their faces at all times. Wake up, people!
You should read more carefully. The distance between where a driver’s eyes should be, the road, and other information with which they are interacting should be the shortest distance possible. No one has stated that the screen should block the view of the road.
Unless you’re unfamiliar roads or have absolutely no sense of direction, you should have no need to interact with a screen at all. They’re just distractions, attractive nuisances.
That is a different discussion from the placement of screens that exist. Plus, I have driven thousands upon thousands of miles across multiple countries prior to GPS, where paper maps were the pony option. A properly placed screen with a well-designed layout is infinitely better than a big paper map.
With a sunshield above, like my 2014 and 2017 cars have. Looks like I’m skipping this current generation of cars, which brings the drive-in movie experience into the interiors. All I want from my dash screen is an OFF button.
It’s really not the best way to have a screen.
First, that center stack should really only be an auxiliary screen. It diverts your eyes too far from the road (in either implementation) and should only be used for very occasional interactions. Pushing it up higher doesn’t really offer a benefit if the overall system is done right.
Second, with the tacked on design, it’s in the wrong aspect ratio. I’m not sure why designers think any UI needs to be that wide. The picture included is a good example. They have Nav up (which should really be in the gauge cluster) and it’s mostly dead space. You typically need to know what’s ahead on a map, not to your distant left or right.
I agree that the functions should be minimized. But if they exist, the screen being pushed up offers a considerable advantage since it minimizes the distance your eyes need to travel to engage with the screen. Which functions go where and the aspect ratio are other issues, but they don’t impact the fact that the further the screen is from the line of sight while driving, the worse it is to use.
Complaining about the screen not being integrated is just complaining for the sake of complaining.
“Complaining about the screen not being integrated is just complaining for the sake of complaining.”
To you maybe. To me they look awful and I very much question their ability to stand up to abuse.
Given that this design has been installed in nearly every brand across dozens of models and sold in hundreds of thousands of vehicles without widespread failure, I don’t believe there’s a valid concern about the durability.
You might not like the way they look, but I have yet to hear a good analysis of why, other than it is a popular thing to hate on.
“I don’t believe there’s a valid concern about the durability.”
I have yet to be shown any info on glued onto the dash touchscreen reliability vs integrated. Till then your guess is as good as mine.
“have yet to hear a good analysis of why”
Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder so if you’re looking for hard metrics you’re going to be waiting a while.
Given how much attention there is to things that regularly fail on cars, I am fairly certain a systemic issue with the screens would be well known. Plus, it was your original claim, so you are the one who needs to produce the evidence. Until then, there is no reason to consider it a valid concern.
Aesthetics is somewhat subjective, but given that I have been doing design and product development for 30+ years, I can say for certain that it isn’t nearly as subjective as people want to claim.
The screens are fine. They get hate purely out of the momentum of repeated comments.
“To me they look awful and I very much question their ability to stand up to abuse.” Those are opinions, not claims. The former is aesthetics which I’ve already pointed out needs no evidence. As to the latter give me 5 minutes with one of those screens and I’m sure I can provide all the evidence you could ever want.
The durability issue is a claim. That isn’t arguable in any honest way. Just because it isn’t supported doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.
If aesthetics were purely opinion-based, with no standards or methods, there would be no designers. So obviously, you are wrong there as well.
But you are just proving my point, the hate against these screens is always an opinion based on nothing but the repetition of other people’s opinions.
Your the only one who initially made claims regarding durability:
“I don’t believe there’s a valid concern about the durability.”
I’m the one who pointed out the lack of evidence. Thus burden of evidence is on you, not me.
“the hate against these screens is always an opinion based on nothing but the repetition of other people’s opinions.”
Not true. I’ve disliked the look since I first laid eyes on it.
Do you have reading comprehension issues or are you just completely dishonest?
So you are saying that you are the originator of the idiotic unsupported hate against these screens? Perfect.
“Stand up to abuse” =/= “durability”.
“Durability” is standing up to regular day to day use.
“Abuse” is above and beyond durability, e.g. somebody accidentally pulling the thing off the dash as they unconsciously use it as a weight bearing handle or a bored dog chewing on it.
How you decide to try to parse the word is meaningless. Use whichever term you like: sturdiness, robustness, resilience, hardiness, toughness, strength, etc.
It was still your unsupported claim.
I’ll leave you with this as an avatar themed memento.
OK troll. You’ve sealioned here long enough.
You responded to me, not the other way around.
This response included a 100% baseless claim.
You then lied and said that my dismissal of your baseless claim was the originating claim.
You now want to turn the fact that you are clearly clueless and are spouting B.S.into an insult of me.
I think you need to change your avatar to something like a roach or mosquito. Either would be a lot more appropriately inconsequential.
We’re done here.
You never had anything that could be considered a start.
What are you doing to your screens to abuse them?? I’m fairly certain practically any mounting scenario will stand up to poking it with your fingers now and then.
I shuttle around a lot of attack dogs and toddlers.
It’s not just for the sake of complaining. It’s impacted my last 2 car purchases. It’s an instant disqualifier.
That is a very pointless hill to die on.
I’m more concerned about the ability to not look at the screen, because it’s an irrelevant distraction.
I generally agree that screens are a distraction. But as long as automakers require drivers to interact with them, they should be placed appropriately.
The ability to rotate and tilt the screen comes to mind.
Yeah. The Subaru’s interior has more personality and warmth. The Toyota looks rental.
I’m biased, but I pick the Mazda CX-50 Hybrid.
This, or the CR-V.
I feel like I’m being asked whether I’d prefer to stan Applebee’s or Cracker Barrel.
And what is your pick of those two? We need to know!
It’s been a while, but I remember those riblets being pretty tasty. Also: full bar. I think Applebee’s wins this one.
Dollaritas FTW
I don’t really want to know exactly what animal’s ribs those riblets came from, but they are high on my “Trash Food I Like Anyway” list.
I’m surprised Alanis hasn’t responded to a comment about Applebees…
I adore Cracker Barrel, so that’s my vote.
O’Chilibee’s
I’m honestly kind of shocked that the Subaru, which kind of aims to be more of a budget option amongst the Japanese automakers, has a nicer interior than the RAV4. I expected the RAV4 to have the far better powertrain (for pavement) while at least matching the Forester in interior comfort to justify its higher pricing (in the US).
I think the people who bitch about Subarus being loud and cheap and tinny haven’t sat in one built on their Subaru Global Platform. They’re legitimately nice IME.
My lord that lead photo looks like the automotive equivalent of a dinner plate full of boiled chicken breast and cauliflower. Boring, but will- in fact, make a turd.
The Forester has that awesome sunroof, but otherwise, the Toyota is the better car.
Just because the new Rav4 looks a lot like the Nissan Rogue, I would choose the Subaru too. Between 35MPG and 40MPG is not that big of a difference, specially with gas this cheap in the US. Having real AWD makes a difference in driving experience.
That’s a 14% difference between the two, which isn’t insignificant.
It’s 14% difference in MPG, but not in gallons/100 miles, which is a more useful metric as you get to that kind of efficiency in general. The difference there is 2.5 gallons vs. 2.86 gallons.
Compare that to, say, a 15 mpg vehicle vs. 20 mpg, now that’s the difference between 6.66 gallons and 5 gallons, which is far more noticeable at the pump, even though they’re both a 5 mpg difference.
So I think, if both vehicles can reliably get about what they’re rated for, that the fuel economy is not a major differentiator.
Good point and with gas prices trending downward (2.50 a gallon around here), pretty trivial difference.
Bingo, thank you!
Could you define “this cheap” in the context you’re talking about?
People keep claiming cheap gas, yet premium is still $4/gal. It’s a facade and disingenuous at best.
Regular is $4.65/gal where I am and hasn’t been less in years.
I’ve been saying for months now that the Forester Hybrid is the perfect daily driver for a shocking amount of applications
Toyota is probably a better buy, but I’ve always liked Subaru’s chassis and AWD system. I think my usage of a hybrid crossover would be pretty limited off road, so I’d probably go with the RAV for the fuel economy gain alone.
Both seem fine, but my money seems better spent on the Rav4. I’d wager that the long-term reliability and resale will be better on the Toyota.
Let’s be honest, in just about ever metric from longevity, cost of ownership, fuel economy, power, build quality, and everything that isn’t “can this handle something tougher than the mildest of trails” the Rav4 will be the better vehicle by a country mile every time. They’ll both sell incredibly well.
Except for that Fisher Price interior in the Toyota.