Consumption Test: Toyota RAV-4 120D 2.0D 2wd

 
Change of pace in the field of SUV : As had already claimed some of the fellow members of this blog, it's the turn to the front wheel. It effectively as well as more than one has pointed out, are the best selling in the overall calculation of this segment or niche, although there is some brand like Subaru does not sell more than the 4wd transmission. Anyway, it will be worth remembering that over recent times, we had tested three such vehicles with front wheel drive, and precisely those who have enough weight on the market: 2.0-TDI VW Tiguan, Nissan Qashqai 1.6-dCi and a newer one, the Mazda CX-5 2.2D . In any case they would not be forgotten, because it was obvious they would resort to their data to complete the picture.

Dirt road in good condition ideal for a 2wd SUV

 Anyway, without trying to revive the controversy, or just conversation, about the reasons for buying and type of use that the market is for this type of vehicle, the indisputable fact that SUVs dominate by a landslide 2wd to 4wd sales is sufficiently expressive. Increased ground clearance of between five and at most ten centimeters more than in a passenger car, but accompanied by the help of all-wheel drive, does not seem sufficient justification for such a landslide for the 2wd. With a purely utilitarian approach is justified for those with a dirt road in very good condition not to come to your house, but it was a flat road, because when they get together mud and uphill, the front axle is of very little warranty. So the vast majority of the rest buy these cars for their aesthetics, structure, amplitude, better visibility and a figure difficult to quantify, its deterrent in traffic.

On good roads even a passenger may pass without major problems

The SUV that we bring today is "the other" Toyota RAV-4, to distinguish it from 150D 2.2 4wd already offered a few weeks ago. But aside from having only front wheel drive, has another set of data that differ from his brother technologically more complex. The low displacement engine, with the 2.0 D-4D variant that we have tested in the Avensis and Auris, at its latest evolution of 124 hp, and as for the transmission, the most economical approach of this version is reflected in the fact that, despite losing over 200 cc and 26 hp, has a development in 6th nearly 2 km / h longer. Certainly, having no losses generated by AWD may be allowed, at least in part, these luxuries.

But we're getting ahead of events, because of the effects of the difference between the two types of traction is what we need to speak more hereafter. We also give an overview of the possible differences that one or other transmission may occur in relation to the behavior of both rutero RAV-4, in particular as influencing wheel equipment that is mounted on either model.

Almost every time he gets one for the field, the car has to go after the wash station.

So it is best to set and the RAV-4 features 120D:

Toyota RAV-4 120D 2wd:
Engine: 1,998 cc, 124 hp at 3,600 rpm, 31.6 m.kg of 1600-2400 rpm.

Transmission: Front-wheel drive, six-speed box, with 54.0 km / 1000 rpm in 6th.

Tires: 225/65-17 (Yokohama Geolandar G-91).

Dimensions (length / width / height): 4.57 / 1.84 / 1.66 meters.

Weight (without driver, full tank): 1.645 kg.

Maximum speed: 180 km / h.

Extra-urban consumption: 4.4 l/100 km.

Weighted CO2 emission: 127 g / km.

Usually, when the car is proper, it allows a less joy thereof

Regarding the 150D 2.2 have already mentioned 233 cc and 24 hp less, always at the same speed (3,600 rpm) in both cases. Obviously, also the maximum torque is lower (the 2.2 has 34.7 mkg), but here's another difference: the 2.0 120D is more elastic. Indeed, its "plateau" of constant torque is 1,600 to 2,400 rpm, while in the case of 2.2, is displaced above 400 rpm, and which is between 2,000 and 2,800 rpm. By weight not achieved a significant reduction, despite forwarding remove front drive shaft, rear differential and axle shafts down towards the wheels in total, all this is no more than 35 kilos of lightening, according to data officers (seems very little).

The term in the bracket is supposed to be for when it is family and friends if they like and just buy one.

So it is very clear that this is a version of the RAV-4 designed more for the economy than to the brilliance of travel: less power, not much less weight, and development somewhat longer, as the 150D takes of 52, 2 km / h. Moreover, the engine is more elastic, within its range of power and torque, pointing back to a more quiet. Which is also seen in the wheels, since the previous test 150D wore 235/55-18, more sports by sizing. Clearly these differences are felt in approval data: in the extra-urban interests us face our road test, low consumption of 5.0 to 4.4, and emissions (directly related to the combined use ) also fall from 149 to 127 grams.

The blind spot warning casts a mirror image of the side where the danger lies

However, when it is not required to either hold them at the top of their potential, both are able to maintain a walking pace similar, in fact, the 120D has taken to complete the course one minute less than the 150D. Consequence, no doubt, minimal differences in the traffic, but what is significant is moving in the same environment within the averages achieved. By contrast, consumption can be appreciated on the influence of all the differences outlined above, the 150D consumed at a rate of 7.36 l/100 km, while the 120D of this test obtained the following results:

120D RAV-4 2.0 2wd consumption: 6.41 l/100 km. Average: 106.9 km / h.

Flawless finish, in this case of a unit with automatic

So it is to be a minute faster (not significant difference rather than as a testimony that has a walking pace "normal" perfectly comparable) in exchange for not having all-wheel drive, saves a whopping 0.95 l / 100 km, and this already is too big (a reduction of 13% exactly). So to go get muddy forest mushrooms is certainly less desirable, but for road travel at a rate even higher than that for current and future limitations, turns out to be much cheaper.

Panoramic view of cabin and trunk side.

Then there is the issue of equipment, although finishing Advance in both cases, the two test units were separated by nearly 5,000 euros difference, which is a negligible first economy for the 120D. As always, for those interested in refining these economic aspects, nothing like resorting to km77 database, without leaving this site. But both cars are aesthetically similar, and even wheel choices can be similar, although it is reasonable as the observed difference between these two units; difference motivated rather by the different profiles of the model that needs no power derived or weight.

The boot is not only spacious, but very usable.

Rutero Behaviorally, the 120D is more in the classic line of front-wheel drive, especially if you drive the 150D Sport button to send some initial percentage propels the rear, which will have a penalty, very difficult to quantify, in consumption, but it certainly gives it a little more pizzazz, and the more the more you force driving style. As we have repeated, in behavior as walking pace, and while we extralimitemos, both models are practically equivalent.

The tow hook is retractable, and thus less aggressive.

It remains to touch a point raised in the first paragraph: as we have data from four SUVs both single transmission other, we can make a first comparison, the statistical field is pretty rickety, but do we have at the moment , and the cars themselves are quite comparable in size. So we will provide engine data, power consumption and time spent on the circuit for each other, and then do the respective averages, which have a base to draw all kinds of conclusions more or less risky.

There goes the Ebro! If the bottom is pebbly, well, if it's mud, better not risk a 2wd.

Going from low to high consumption, starting with the least expensive front-drive, the first thing to note is that this Toyota RAV-4 120D has beaten all his rivals, as seen when viewing data, which are as follows :

RAV-4 120D: 2.00 engine, 124 HP, 6.41 l/100 km, 4 hours 43 minutes.

Mazda CX-5: 2.19 engine, 150 HP, 6.56 l/100 km, 4 hours 46 minutes.

Qashqai 1.6: 1.60 engine, 130 HP, 6.62 l/100 km, 4 hours 44 minutes.

VW Tiguan: 1.97 engine, 140 HP, 6.82 l/100 km: 4 hours 42 minutes.

Needless to say, both in the case of the four as the four that follow, are turbodiesel engines. And it's worth noting that consumptions are highly clustered, although slightly picked up the VW, and the same for the times, as they are the four fork stuck in as many minutes.

And we already have four-wheel drive:

Honda CR-V: 2.20 engine, 150 HP, 7.01 l/100 km, 4 hours 41 minutes.

Forester: 2.00 engine, 150 HP, 7.28 l/100 km, 4 hours 40 minutes.

RAV-4 150D: 2.23 engine, 150 HP, 7.36 l/100 km, 4 hours 44 minutes.

Outlander: 2.27 engine, 150 HP, 7.44 l/100 km, 4 hours 38 minutes.

Also here we have a closed group consuming the last three with the Honda a little stressed up, and in terms of time, the RAV-4 is a little delayed, while the other three also involved in as many minutes. But what is really interesting are the averages, we offer below:

2wd Traction: 1.94 engine, 135 HP, 6.60 l/100 km, 4 hours 44 minutes.

Drive 4WD: 2.18 engine, 150 hp, 7.27 l/100 km, 4 hours 41 minutes.

It shows a fairly linear scaling in all respects, except for the time spent for travel. The average displacement motors 2WD is 89.2% of that for the 4WD and in almost just correspondence, the power of the front wheel is at exactly 90% which have total removal. And consumption is on the same line as the average content with 2wd 90.8% of what the 4wd drink, which is not as logical, since consumption usually are not in direct proportion to the engine (luckily for vehicles with more powerful engine).

This is already playing with fire with this mud, as there is a small ramp,
one can get stuck with only front wheel drive.

The ratio also holds for the weights, since they are in a fork 2WD ranging from 1,445 kilos CX-5 to 1,645 of the RAV-4 of this test, with an average of 1527 kilos, while the 4WD are more concentrated among the 1,570 kilos of Forester and the RAV-4 1680 150D (always the heaviest Toyota, for better or for worse, depending on your perspective), which gives an average of 1,642, ie 115 kilos more . This difference averaged and is more reasonable than the 35 kilos simply that between the two RAV-4. 115 kilos said difference corresponds to the 93.0% 2WD weigh the 4WD. But consumption also tend to be in direct proportion to the weights, and less on the road, unless it was with many ups and downs with many curves that require slow and not permit economizing.

Two different ways of facing the cross country; Note that the horse is on my block (AA in the blanket).

The reason for this 9% over the 2wd economy lies in the weight a little, okay, and a little in their engines slightly smaller and less powerful, but especially in the transmission to all four wheels, even if it type reagent (Haldex or the like) far more power stealing classical only two wheels. As already stated, each side of the shaft (which absorbs pair in their bearings and seals) is forwarding the one hand and on the other the rear differential (and axle shafts), all with bearings and rotating piñonaje oil , which produces friction losses (despite the oil) and by the bubbling of the latter.

So the conclusion can not be more than this: although the market tipping towards basically 2wd SUV type because they are cheaper, deep hits, since the difference in operating costs is very noticeable in consumption, not to mention eventual complications in transmission. Those who need to be 4wd and know what they want, and accept the increase in exchange for the benefits they get, but to take the children to school, traveling on bad roads or going on vacation with a car full to the brim, the SUV 2wd is plenty enough and, once accepted that the user wants that kind of body, and no other.

Regarding the weights, the difference between the two RAV-4 made me think of the possible error of the famous conductor 75 kilos, but not, for even consulted data from the two official cards (green and blue), the data is correct. Of course I have already found cars that fill these boards who are not clear, and in some cases the data is displayed with 75 kilos of difference in respect to each other.