Rav4 or Freelander?
 

Hello members, I have a max of £2k to spend on something to replace my Ford Puma with, need something bigger due to a change in situation and quite like the look of these.

I'm not ready to get a Mondeo rep wagon and I refuse point blank to even consider an MPV, thought 4x4 might be handy if we keep getting snow each winter too and in practical sence they look a good buy.

Freelander over a rav4 (theyre a complete joke!) ..... but for that cash and in that bracket you shouldnt overlook a forester!

But if all your after is something that sits well on the road most of the time, but then has to deal with a few days of snow every winter ..... why on earth would you need a soft roader when a decent awd car will cope just as well? .... say for example an subaru impreza or legacy?

Out of the 2 cars I'd go for rav4 more reliable IMO.

freelander td4, easy to fix, parts cheap 35-40 mpg

petrol freelanders are bad for headgaskets going and various other issues diesel ones are better.

If 2k is your limit, then the RAV4 is probably the more sensible option - though I personally prefer the Freelander of the 2, I just think the RAV4 would be more reliable.

However, if it were my £2k, I'd go and buy a Forester - should be able to get a decent SF (either a NA or possibly even an S-Turbo) or maybe even an early SG (NA only though, don't think you'd be able to get an XT). Either is a much better option on and off road than the Freelander or Rav4 IMHO.

Assuming you mean a MK1 freelander? Why would you ever consider a Austin Maestro with jacked up suspension and Rover 25 running gear and electricals over a Mondeo? (as thats what it was built on - check out AR online if you don't belive me)

They aren't good to crash in (fold like a tin can), not that reliable - pretol engine as above, gearboxes also die pretty spectacularly when the viscous coupling fails, so all you have left that is good is the BMW bit on the TD4. And to cap it all not a nice drive either.

Out the two: Rav4 anyday....but if you want my true verdict...neither. throw a few extra hundred quid at it and have a X-trail instead. Still horible, but at least its good VFM, reliabl(ish) and crashes well, and more space inside.

You probably could also pick up a Suzuki Grand Vitara as well, but I'm not sure if thats much better than a Freelander TBH (not a nice ride last time I was driven in one... live rear axle)

Seriously if had to be a Freelander get the newer Freelander2 which is based on the Mondeo (ironic when considering you were avoiding them ;) )

+1 For Forester

Freelander will just fall to pieces/never start

The Freelander I had was 100% reliable (I know, I must have had the only one that was), not bad to drive either in all honesty but still, it was nothing on my Forester :)

I've done a huge amount of research on this as I've been p laying the same game. Budget wise you will get a better car in the rav but it's not a proper off reader by any chance.

2k will get you a high mileage freelander more than likely a mark 1. Reviews are mixed, some owners survive, others had shed loads of problems as the quality checking wAs questionable at this time. The reliability and engines didn't change on the freelanders until. Circa 2000 where I think the k series engines came out.

For what its worth,I have a 2005 td4,I bought it 2 yrs ago for 3500 quid with 135000 miles on it...its been faultless,i take it offroad too...nothing short of a wall will stop it (all terrains fitted) excellent vehicle

I think the Rav it is, the Freelander sounds like to much hard work and the Forester would have awful mpg. Rav has the best of both, reliability and not a bad looking car (for a 4x4).

Dont be fooled into thinking the rav4 is a capable 4x4 just because its jacked up a bit!

bad call on overlooking the forester! Have you looked for an LPG one? thats the best of both worlds as it'll get you dieselish fuel costs and retain the petrolish performance.

Know its an auto, but its not far outside your price bracket and infinately better than any rav4!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Forester-A...item4ab9647a1f

Assuming it will never go off road it HAS to be the Rav 4. Freelanders are properly crap.

Don't be so sure of that... the NA Forester and petrol RAV4 are not far appart on fuel economy - in the real world both will return circa 30mpg.

Why all the RAV4 hate on here ?

We had a first gen 3 door GS which was a hoot to drive, pretty nippy and 100 percent reliable. Would go anywhere a forrester would go and cheaper to own too.

We also had a 2nd gen 3 door NRG (I think) which was even better, again would go anywhere a Forrester would go and was brilliant in the snow. Also 100% reliable.

Nothing wrong with RAV4s other than a slight image issue... like you say generally reliable and with the MK1's locking center diff (not sure if MK2s had this?) they can be capable off-road too in the right hands. Not so sure they'd go anywhere a Forester would but it'd be fun finding out!

In any case, Foresters are still better though :)

Why do i hate the rav4 ..... mainly because its just a jacked up corolla!

A fella at the shoot my dad works at has one and it gets stuck as soon as it sees mud, the foresters and outbacks just keep going!

Plus, for a tall car, the road manners of a forester are mighty impressive.

Looking at your location though devildog, youve undoubtably got alot more experience of snow than i do! :-)

Don't get me wrong, and speaking having driven a Mitsbushi Shogun for the past 5 years in all conditions a RAV4 is no proper 4X4, but for moderate off road, forrest tracks, muddy fields, snow, etc, they are way better than a normal car.

Ravs getting stuck in the mud will either have crap drivers or more probably totally the wrong tyres to be going off road on shoots. And arguably a Forrester is a jacked up Impreza (and on perforamance road tyres they are hopeless on snow, ice and mud) and an outback is just a jacked up Legacy.

For the record, I've lost count of the number or Range Rovers and RR Sports, etc, I've pulled out of difficulty with the Shogun (especially in the snow) due to having the wrong tyres for the conditions. And vehicles like that would certainly be called "proper" 4x4s for sure.

Snow? yep. lots

Attachment 56782

In any offroading situation...tyres are the first point of importance.


If you ain't got "M+S" or "A/T" stamped on the sidewalls of the tyres at the very minimum it'll be pathetic on anything thats not tarmac. ;)

Many used softroaders have summer tyres fitted. Freelanders and X-trails etc typically came new from the factory with M+S tyres fitted (unless it was specced with bigger alloys), but when they wear out, the typical person driving it buys whatever the chepaest that Kwik fit'll sell. And typically it'll be a standard road tyre.

Oh yes Freelander and tyres....don't mix them with old+new or different terrain types, or at least put the tyres with the most tread on the rear (as a matching pair). Otherwise if the viscous coupling is on its way out it'll kill the transmission.

Speaking from experience, other than ground clearance, Forester (only one 'r' BTW :)) can hold their own against some much more specialised machinery off road as well as showing a clean pair of heals to a fair few "sports" cars on the road.

The stock tyres, whilst V rated (on the XT) are all terrains / all season tyres and will easily cope with a fair bit of mud and snow with aplomb as well as holding the road pretty well (albeit with a bit of squeal) when you want to chuck it about a bit.

Sure, if you stick road pattern tyres on it will struggle in tougher conditions, but the same would be true of a Shogun - just as putting some AT/S on the Forester would improve it's of road abilities.

As an all round package to use on and off road, there's not much (if anything) that can tick as many boxes IMHO.

Plenty of guys on http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f102/ doing some reasonably challenging off-roading in theirs :)

I quite like the Forester and Outbacks. When looking on ebay many seem to have engine issues, so I've always thought that these werent too reliable. Is this the case ?? Is there a particular engine / model that I should stay clear of ?? Some advice on one would be gratefully recieved.

SBK

Early 2.5 non-turbo engines can suffer from head gasket issues. The 2.0 (turbo and non-turbo) is as rock solid as any other Subaru.

The mk2 and beyond all have viscous centre diffs iirc.

With the right tyres, yes, I still stand by the point that a RAV4 would go anywhere a Forester would go. Plus you've got the 3 and 5 door options.

Low range on the non-turbos is pretty handy, but like I say, would be fun to find out :)

Thats a great shout :thumb:

I'd take a Honda CRV 4x4 over the freelander and the rav 4.

A mate had 2.0L Rav 4 and i was as bad as a scoob on fuel, if not worse, if your not careful how you drive it, never got much more than 25mpg.

The only freelander to have is a diesel and for your budget you'll be looking at ones with a gazzillion miles on the clock.

The petrol hondas are decent on fuel 35+ and with it being a honda it's pretty much bullet proof, a mate of miles dad has had one for about 8yrs and in that time nothing has gone wrong..

Iv'e had a forester, and while they are great cars, they are as thirsty as an impreza, and my auto turbo drank so much i called it George.:lol1: