[cornhusker]

New to the forum, but I feel I have read almost all of the threads. I will preface my post by saying I'm seriously considering an FJ. However, in classic Japanese fashion, Toyota has snubbed potential FJ owners horsepower. Am I the only one who is confused by the new RAV4? Does it bother anyone that you will be giving up 30 ponies to a girl in her RAV4? Why can't Toyota put the Avalon motor in the FJ? Does anyone care if they give up 30 ponies if they are gaining 30 lb ft of torque? Just interested.

3.5-liter Dual VVT-i V6=269bhp, 246 lb ft

4.0-liter Dual VVT-i V6=239bhp, 278 lb ft

 

[air]

they're two entirely different vehicles.

 

[cornhusker]

Thanks, I didn't realize that, I thought the RAV4 was the "special edition" due this summer.

 

[air]

hi, junior member.

 

[cornhusker]

I was being sarcastic.

But honestly, without getting into a pissing match which ALWAYS seems to happen on these forums. (This is the reason I'm a JUNIOR MEMBER, and don't actually participate in these discussions, but simply read them.) What do you think? I take it AIR you are of the breed of torque over horsepower, since it is afterall a "truck". Yet, from the sound of the forum, is torque a necessity in off-roading as much as it is in towing.

 

[air]

Husker,
It was funny. Sarcasm's good. I don't know about the current generation Rav4's or the new ones but my very first car was a two door rav4 when it came out in 96. it didn't have low range or much else. i put some ridiculously huge 255/50 racing tires on it and went off roading all the time (it made no sense to me either). i never got stuck and am still amazed at this. i then owned an xterra (beast) but had to be winched out 3 times (in admittedly idiotic circumstances [read: off roading through a muddy field for hours on end during a rainstorm]). so i can't say bad things about rav4's, though it has become a supremely feminine vehicle.

as for torque vs horsepower - purely through an ideological prism: this is an off road vehicle so it should be obvious that torque is more vital once you pass a certain horsepower threshold (which 239 accomplishes easily).

 

[caliFJ]

horsepower? what's that? torque? wha??

i need another drink......

 

[Kruiser]

New to the forum, but I feel I have read almost all of the threads. I will preface my post by saying I'm seriously considering an FJ. However, in classic Japanese fashion, Toyota has snubbed potential FJ owners horsepower. Am I the only one who is confused by the new RAV4? Does it bother anyone that you will be giving up 30 ponies to a girl in her RAV4? Why can't Toyota put the Avalon motor in the FJ? Does anyone care if they give up 30 ponies if they are gaining 30 lb ft of torque? Just interested.

3.5-liter Dual VVT-i V6=269bhp, 246 lb ft

4.0-liter Dual VVT-i V6=239bhp, 278 lb ft

How about the performance numbers from C&D for RAV4 v6 limited with street tires (not even with sport pakage optional)


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=10394

C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 2.3
40 mph: 3.2
50 mph: 4.7
60 mph: 6.3
70 mph: 7.9
80 mph: 10.6
90 mph: 13.5
100 mph: 17.0
110 mph: 21.4
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph: 3.0
50–70 mph: 3.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 129 mph

BRAKING
70–0 mph @ impending lockup: 180 ft

HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
Understeer: minimal moderate excessive

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving: 20 mpg
EPA highway driving: 27 mpg
C/D-observed: 16 mpg

INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
Idle: 35 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration: 75 dBA
70-mph cruising: 68 dBA

 

[KTMRiderToo]

Does anyone care if they give up 30 ponies if they are gaining 30 lb ft of torque? Just interested.

3.5-liter Dual VVT-i V6=269bhp, 246 lb ft

4.0-liter Dual VVT-i V6=239bhp, 278 lb ft

I'd be willing to trade the horsepower for torque. Trailer-towing and 4WD creeping require more torque. And if the horsepower is very high in the rev-range, it's pretty useless off-road.

That being said, I wouldn't want to get beat by a RAV4. I'll just avoid eye contact at stoplights..

 

[mpd8488]

Those are just the peak figures, they are really meaningless. One has to examine the powercurve to get usefull information. The FJ will have a lot more low end grunt which is good off road and around town. The RAV4 may have more highway passing power, but it will nevertheless be sufficient in the FJ.

Horsepower sells the car while torque actually moves the car.

 

[n6opv]

That being said, I wouldn't want to get beat by a RAV4. I'll just avoid eye contact at stoplights..

Don't worry. I doubt we'll see too many of them on the trails and if we do we'll be pulling them out. These vehicles aren't even in the same class. I'm not sure why this is even a comparison...

Jason

 

[Kruiser]

Horsepower sells the car while torque actually moves the car.[/QUOTE]


The 3.5v6 in RAV4 is very torquey too, and due to its relative light weights (~3600lbs),it runs almost as fast as BMW x5 4.8 v8. More impressive is its 0.83g skidpad number (better than X5) with only a non sport-edition and average tires.


But for off-road, we have FJ

 

[fjsmurf]

How about the performance numbers from C&D for RAV4 v6 limited with street tires (not even with sport pakage optional)


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=10394

C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 2.3
40 mph: 3.2
50 mph: 4.7
60 mph: 6.3
70 mph: 7.9
80 mph: 10.6
90 mph: 13.5
100 mph: 17.0
110 mph: 21.4
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph: 3.0
50–70 mph: 3.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 129 mph

BRAKING
70–0 mph @ impending lockup: 180 ft

HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
Understeer: minimal moderate excessive

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving: 20 mpg
EPA highway driving: 27 mpg
C/D-observed: 16 mpg

INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
Idle: 35 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration: 75 dBA
70-mph cruising: 68 dBA

WOW 0-60 in 6.3 That is extremely quick for a SUV, I'm sure there are quicker SUVs out there but probably cost 2-3 times more...

Kinda scary if you think of about it...

 

[john.com]

Horsepower sells the car while torque actually moves the car.

mpd, you sure nailed that. horsepower's the real sexy term that most folks think they understand. it's because all of the automakers use it in their advertising if they're at or near the top of the class. torque is where it's at in any vehicle. it's what the potential buyer feels when he stabs the gas, whether in a large sedan or a truck.

and, yes it's true, save for the tacoma x-runner, the awd rav4 is the fastest toyota. so, definitely avoid the dreaded eye contact with the gal at the stoploght.........

 

[Percy]

Summer will bring us a supercharger. Supercharger should jump that FJ to over 300 lb/ft of torque and bring that HP number to somewhere around 280 if not more! Bring on the eye-contact. Homegirl in the RAV4 is going down.

Doesn't really matter what the numbers are anyway. It's not the car afterall it's the driver and if you know what you're doin' you will still be able to blow people away at the stop light.

There have been a lot of incredible vehicles with HUGE engines that had low HP numbers. Take the 351W out of a Bronco for instance. This was a high output engine with a 4bbl carb and it only boasts 210HP from the factory. Now, granted, with a little work you can push almost 800HP out of the same engine. But for a bronco, you are more concerned with it being able to walk a trail then smoke all 4 on a drag strip. That same engine at a stoplight can beat a camaro Z28 with the right driver (yup, a couple of times). The rav4 boasts smaller torque numbers than the FJ so off the line, the FJ will get the jump. Then it's up to the operator to keep it in front.

My 82 F150 with a 4.9l only rates about 110HP. But it's geared 2.73 in the rear. I can whoop anyone to 5 miles per hour. After that, I've gotta shift. It all depends on what your vehicle is set up to do.

 

[Pancho]

Percy's back in the hood. I'm thinking my '54 Willys might clip you in the 0-5mph drag race however, with a tree stump behind it.

 

[Percy]

Percy's back in the hood. I'm thinking my '54 Willys might clip you in the 0-5mph drag race however, with a tree stump behind it.

You're on. How big of stump? Are we gonna start with them still in the ground, that might make things more interesting?

 

[DocAltie]

No offense to the uber-sensitive people on here, but honestly for what the majority of you are going to do with your FJ, the RAV4 is prob. a better option for you.

The only difference on the street (which is where 99-95% of your driving will be done) is the cool factor... just like anyone that drives a Hummer.

 

[Roosterdo]

3.5-liter Dual VVT-i V6=269bhp, 246 lb ft

4.0-liter Dual VVT-i V6=239bhp, 278 lb ft

THe 4 liter will hold up better in the long run and as papa use to say hp will get you in deep **** while torque will get you out of it.

 

[Percy]

No offense to the uber-sensitive people on here, but honestly for what the majority of you are going to do with your FJ, the RAV4 is prob. a better option for you.

The only difference on the street (which is where 99-95% of your driving will be done) is the cool factor... just like anyone that drives a Hummer.

You may be right Doc, but from your logic the Dodge Neon is probably a better option for most of the people who don't intend on beating the piss out of a brand new off road vehicle doing nothing but HARD CORE rock crawling everyday.

When I first saw the FJ, it felt like Toyota had crept inside my head while I was sleeping and built EXACTLY what I wanted.

I still feel that way. I can't wait. I'm not going to wheel it all the time, but it will be nice to know that I can. If I'm going to be in debt for 6 years paying for it - I want to know that I can. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Besides, I thought you were getting an H3.