Wading through Kia’s (painfully bad) website, I found the Rondo’s maintenance schedule. The V-6 engine calls for a timing belt replacement every 4 years or 60k miles. Ouch!

I didn’t mean to say that the RAV4 or CR-V’s AWD would get them stuck in snow, just that in my experience they do only marginally better than FWD with a price and weight penalty. I, too, spent an unfortunately high number of winters in WNY and found FWD just as good as the occasional-time AWD systems in friends’ cars. One guy I knew had an Audi S4 wagon, and that was really unstoppable.

I have a hard time seeing the utility advantage of the Rondo over the Rav4 or CRV. The later models have AWD, the former does not. In many northern areas of the country, only 4WD RAV’s are available on dealer lots; making the comparison to a 2WD-only Rondo seems disjointed.

You say the Rav4 and CRV’s systems are “laughably bad.” I have driven both in deep snow and both have handled WNY winters without complaint. I don’t think the Rondo would have faired as well. I’m wondering what makes the systems inadequate?

In my opinion, neither of these autos offer as much utility as a Subaru Forrester. With corrent rebates, one can have a base 5-speed (woot!) for under $20K. Now that’s a bargain.

Fatal flaw, you say? Only if you read what I wrote the wrong way. What I’m saying, and have been saying all along, is very simple:

-I believe that the Rondo is superior to 4-cylinder RAV4s.
-Saying that “the” RAV4 is better than the Rondo is too broad to be accurate, because the RAV4 ranges over $10,000 in price depending on engines and equipment.
-The claim was that since there is only a few thousand dollar price difference between a fully loaded Rondo and a base V6 AWD RAV4, they are a reasonable comparison.
-I disagreed with that.
-As an example of why I disagreed, I used the same reasoning (a few thousand dollar price difference) to show that comparing cars on that basis could lead to unreasonable outcomes – in this case, the Yukon and the RAV4 V6 AWD are within a few thousand dollars of one another but clearly are very different. Since the logic of “a few thousand dollars difference in price makes for a worthy comparison” is untenable in the Yukon example, it should be rejected when applied to the Rondo and V6 AWD RAV4.

You’re now introducing the claim that the RAV4 is the closest thing Toyota makes, and hence is a good comparison to the Rondo.
-First, see above – “the” RAV4 is too broad.
-Second, the Matrix and 4-Cylinder RAV4 are better comparisons than the V6 AWD RAV4, because they have more similar equipment and prices.
-Third, comparing on the base of “closest thing a manufacturer makes” is untenable as well. Being the closest thing a company makes does not make it a proper competitor. Consider: Dodge Viper is the closest thing to the Mercedes SL that Dodge makes, but they are not a realistic comparison.

Justin, there is a fatal flaw in your argument here.

1)RAV4 is compared to Rondo, because it’s the closest thing to Rondao in Toyota’s line up. Comparing Yukon to Rav4 is NOT valid, because a closer competition (4Runner or Highlander) is available.

2)A is comparable to B, while B is comparable to C, doesn’t necessarily warrant a valid comparison among A, B, and C. Fit can be compared to Versa, Versa can be compared to Civic, Civic to Impreza and so on you will have S65AMG comparing to Fit soon.

I appreciate the lesson. But your determination that the RAV4 (and laughably the CR-V) are more “versatile” is a normative statement, which depends entirely on your under-described and self-generated definition of versatility. The majority of that definition, as far as I can tell, is premised on towing and off-road abilities, and your impression that the cargo space in the RAV4 “looks larger.”

Towing and off-road prowess were omitted from my consideration of the Rondo with respect to the CR-V and RAV4 because (1) the vast majority of people (upwards of 90%) who buy any of the three never go off road and (2) objectively speaking, all three suck in the towing and off-roading department compared to vehicles designed around those ends, like the Wrangler.

Finally, I stand by my contention that a vehicle like the Yukon fits your framework of comparison against the RAV4 V6 AWD (and blows it away). The Rondo runs from $16,000-$22,000 and you compared it to the AWD V6 RAV4 at $25,000 (an increase of 13.7% over the most-loaded version). The RAV4 runs from $20,000 to $30,500, whereas a reasonably equipped Yukon (pre-rebate) is $35,000 (an increase of 14.7% over the most loaded version). Apples and oranges? You bet. So is an AWD V6 RAV4 against the Rondo.

If you wish to continue this conversation, I encourage you to e-mail me at (my name) @ yahoo

If you did not wish to compare the Rav 4 and CR-V in this case, then it would have been better to not mention them in the review.

Mentioning the Yukon is a bit silly. It has an over-10K price differential between the Rav 4 and CR-V.

I deem that you get what you pay for, and that the Rav 4 is a wholly better vehicle than the Rondo. Full-size SUVs have nothing to do with this.

Strictly speaking in terms of compact CUVs/MPVs, the Rav 4 and CR-V are more versatile vehicles than the Rondo, and have little details which warrant their slightly higher cost.

The Rondo was never meant to be an SUV – it’s an MPV for the 99.9% of people who realize they don’t need off road abilities, high ground clearance, or towing capability, and the review is aimed at that majority.

So keeping in mind all of the qualifications you’ve listed – that I need an all wheel drive vehicle capable of towing my boat and hauling my family of seven through a snowstorm on the way home from our off-road camping trip, and that several thousand dollars of leeway is acceptable – I’ll take a GMC Yukon.

http://www.toyota.com/rav4/models.html

4×2 base V6 starts at around 23K.

I don’t know about you, but if I was on the road with my family, and happened to get caught in the middle of a snowstorm, I’d much rather be in a Rav 4 AWD , or a CR-V AWD, than a Rondo. The Rav 4 also happens to have a better stock audio system than the Rondo, not to mention a much better optional audio system. There are things the Rav 4 has that are not available on the Rondo. The Rav 4 has available Hill Start Assist Control and Downhill Assist Control, both of which are optional on the 4 cyl models, and standard on V6 models. Again, useful features when doing some light off-roading, like going on a camping trip.

Towing capacity on the Rondo is a dissapointing 1000lbs. The Rav 4 starts off at 1500lbs capacity, and the V6 models can tow up to 3500 lbs. Again, more versatility than the Rondo. It should also be noted that the CR-V’s towing capacity is 1500lbs.

Not only that, but the Rav 4 has noticeably more cargo room than the Rondo.

Again, little things here and there, but the cohesive styling, higher ground clearance and larger cargo room alone would be enough for me to get a Rav 4 over a Rondo. And that’s not even getting into the little details, which matter to most buyers, including myself. Consumers appreciate little details.

As far as ground clearance goes, if you’re off-roading I suggest a proper off-road capable vehicle – all of these would be totally rubbish. And truth be told, I’d imagine less than 1% of them are intentionally taken off road, anyway.

In terms of safety, the Rondo does come with electronic brake distribution, they just don’t have an Alphabet Soup abbreviation for it. It also has active headrests, which has become a top priority for the IIHS.

I agree that the RAV4, when properly equipped, is a great vehicle (although no better IMHO than a Camry), but you’re almost comparing apples and oranges when you look at the price differentials between the RAV and the Rondo. The fact that the Rondo offers nearly everything that the RAV does, aside from a mainly useless AWD system and the big V6, for far less money, makes it a beating in my book. A telescoping steering wheel and reclining second row seats, unfortunately, don’t do a whole lot for me, especially when you add in the Rondo’s cargo capacity.

How do you think the CR-V and RAV4 are more versatile than the Rondo, aside from their available (and laughably bad) all wheel drive?

For one thing, they have higher ground clearance. To be fair, Honda did admit the CR-V was designed mostly for pavement and urban roads. Toyota has said their Rav 4 is made to handle light off-roading. By virtue of a higher ground clearance, both of these off the road would be a bit more capable. The Rav 4 would be the most capable out of the three. The Rondo likely would struggle on any sort of muddy road or terrain.

Are the Rondo’s 2nd row seats sliding and reclining like the Rav 4’s? Did I mention the Rav 4 gets better fuel economy? For 23K, you can get the V6 Rav 4, a vastly more drivable and more powerful machine than the Rondo.

There are also little things that add up to make the Rav 4 and CR-V a more versatile vehicle. For instance, they both have a tilt-telescope wheel, where the Rondo only has tilt. It’s great that the Rondo has ABS and stability control standard, but the CR-V and Rav 4 have that standard too, and more.

On top of ABS and stability control, the Rav 4 and CR-V also have Electronic Brake Distribution, and Brake Assist. Both the Rav 4 and CR-V have roll-sensing side airbags, while on the Rondo it’s not listed anywhere in the specifications, so it’s safe to assume it doesn’t have it.

Little things here and there, that ultimately add up to more versatility for both the Rav 4 and CR-V.

Actually, Hyundai/Kia do have a TSB out that using non-OEM oil filters can void the warranty.

John