Makes and Models
Duelling Diesels: RAV4 Cruiser versus Outlander Aspire
It’s been a dual diesel duel over the last week, between the revamped Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire 7 seater diesel up against Toyota’s new diesel entrant to the SUV competition, the venerable RAV4, with Cruiser AWD nomenclature. Both have undergone a substantial exterior reskin whilst the Outlander has received a moderate tickle to the interior. The RAV4 has gone a little further but it’s the under bonnet makeover that’s of most interest.
Mitsubishi has supplied its soft roader with an oil burner for some time now; Toyota has kept their diesels more for their Landcruiser and Prado range in a non-commercial sense. With diesel’s economic benefit being more widely appreciated along with the extra torque compared to petrol being part of that 
factor, Toyota has finally lobbed an engine powered by dinosaur juice into the vehicle that kickstarted the soft roader revolution.
Both have a 2.2L capacity engine with identical power and almost identical revs, 110kw at 3500rpm vs 3600rpm (Mitsubishi/Toyota), the Mitsi twisting out 360Nm of torque from 1500rpm to 2750rpm and the Toyota 340Nm (2800rpm) via an auto gearbox, in this case a Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) for the Outlander and a traditionally slick self shifter for Toyota. Both have six ratios programmed in with the Outlander receiving 
F1 style paddles behind the tiller and the RAV a “traditional” gear lever change. Both are All Wheel Drive (no transfer case for low ratio dedicated off road work) and have a form of hill descent control plus an ECO mode to gauge how gently (or not) you’ve been driving and the RAV gets a Sports mode 
too. The Outlander and the RAV have an electronic lock system, allowing a change between a torque split (torque directed between front or rear) drive or a locked AWD setup. There’s a better measure of refinement on the Toyota though, with less engine chatter intruding into the cabin plus the Outlander had some vibration 
and shudder at low speeds at around 1500rpm. There’s a touch less lag on the Toyota as well, when the go pedal is depressed.
On the road both are well behaved, tracking truly on the straight. When asked to change direction both do so without fuss, with the RAV’s electronic assist to the steering somewhat without feel on centre but loads up on either side. The Mitsubishi offers a more even feel all the way through. Ridewise the Outlander was a touch harder; although supple enough on a flat road there was a little less give than the RAV, especially on humps’n’bumps. The front end would also “crash” over bigger speedbumps, with a seemingly shorter suspension travel feeling as if they would pull out. The Toyota, with a slightly more plush ride, would have tyre squeal and understeer more when pushed into a hard cornering situation; possibly to 
do with its slightly different wheel and tyre configuration, 
17 inch rims with 225/65 tyres as opposed to the Aspire’s 18/225/55s, which also may account for the slightly less level of rebound. The stop pedal on each on each was smooth and well weighted on the feel.
Both come with a 60L tank; somewhat strangely, the Toyota seemed LESS economical than the Outlander, even with a mere 50kg weight impost with the RAV reaching a quarter tank used first with similar distance and driving styles covered. Both came with keyless entry and start plus electronic tailgates. Operated via the remote fob, the Toyota’s seemed more successful in reading the signal, with both having a switch in the tailgate and Mitsubishi one on the dash. As expected, both had beepers to warn of gate up, gate down motions.
The interior of both is comfy, with the RAV’s seating a little more padded and supportive; the Outlander’s give you a sitting on rather than in impression. The Aspire has the extra row of seats with the simple “pull strap” to raise or lower but has lost the tumble fold and roll middle seats. The Cruiser has a five seat setup, a touch compromised by the RAV’s ten centimetre shorter overall length although, oddly the wheelbase is just a centimetre less. There’s well over 400L of cargo space for each with the rear seats (not including the third row in the Outlander) up plus 
each have a cargo blind. Overall width is a winner to the Toyota, by just 45mm but the Outlander feels a wider cabin although the RAV has a sunroof. Both dashes are easy to read, with a logical layout whilst taking slightly different routes with the placement of the Start/Stop button. The Mitsi’s is to the lower right of the steering wheel and the RAV to the upper left….neither are clearly visible to the driver. Toyota wrap the centre console and door trim in a carbon firbre look and some handsomely stitched leather on the centre dash. Outlander gets a tastefully contrasting wood trim (doors) 
and pianoblack highlight (centre dash) and both get heated seating. A minor ergonomic issue with the Aspire was the placement of the interior door handle, feeling as if it should be an inch or two higher. Both came with touchscreens for the satnav/entertainment system and steering wheel controls; the Mitsubishi won out with a more user friendly control system and, more importantly, did NOT have the utterly intrusive voice system saying a driver was over the limit…especially when the GPS was a bit lost. The sound from the audio system in each was 
wonderful, with the Aspire copping a Rockford Fosgate setup, although the Toyota’s bass was a little more defined. Naturally, connectivity is not an issue with USB/Bluetooth and Auxiliary ports available, with the RAV proffering two USBs, one in the head unit and one below.
It’s the exterior where these two have a more clearly defined delineation: the RAV cops the new angular family design brief, with the sharper, pointier nose and headlight cluster, LED running 
lights and a slightly less rounded rear than before. The Outlander has the now, more familiar, rounded and slightly bulbous look; it’s one that is slowly growing on me. There’s the familiar rubber touchpad for the keyless entry on the Aspire with the Cruiser getting a touch sensor embedded in the door handle plus has a nifty “blind spot” sensor with each exterior mirror lighting up a graphic if another vehicle appear to be in a tricky position to see.
Pressed to find a clear winner here, I can’t; both have their pluses and 
minuses enough to cancel each other out. And that’s great news for prospective buyers that aren’t brand locked. Both are competitively priced, the RAV starting at $48490 (auto) plus on roads and metallic paint whilst the Outlander starts at $45490 plus on roads and metallic ($495 + the electric tailgate, sound system and a couple of other items are a $5500 option) which, on dollars only, would have the Toyota only just ahead.
For more information click here: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/vehicles/outlander/specifications/outlander-2-2l and here: http://www.toyota.com.au/rav4/specifications/awd-cruiser-diesel-auto
When Bigger Is Better
OK, there’s been a lot written about small cars with small engines and how they can save you wads and wads of dollars because they use less petrol. And there certainly are some thrifty little numbers out there, plus some amazing hybrids that are easy on the environment and on the fuel. You might even wonder if the days of big cars with big engines are numbered. Will we still see the likes of Land Rover and the Mitsubishi Pajero, not to mention all the big-engined Ford and Holden utes and stationwagons in years to come?
Yes, we will, and we’ll probably see some new numbers, too. There are times when a small hatchback just won’t do, no matter how frugal it is. So when is bigger better?
1 When you do a lot of towing. Small engines just can’t cope with the hard work involved with towing heavy loads and if you try to lug something around, the motor is going to work so hard that it’s not going to be particularly frugal, and it will probably add a bit to the old wear and tear. Truck companies know this, and realise that you don’t send your smallest unit out to tow a road-train, as this isn’t the most fuel-efficient way to do things. While your average little Suzuki or Peugeot will probably handle a trip to the garbage dump – oops, make that the recycling and waste recovery station – and can probably take a three-piece lounge suite across town if you’re helping a mate shift house, if you tow a big trailer on a regular basis, it makes better sense to get a bigger vehicle that can handle the harder work. This applies to owners of boats and horse trailers, and also to contractors.
2 When you have a big family. And these days, “big” means three children or more, or two children plus a dog. OK, you can cram three kids and two parents – just – into a Nissan Micra but it will be a squeeze, especially if you add in school bags or the shopping. Double the squeeze if the kids are teenagers. You might save on petrol but you’ll probably drive everyone bonkers instead. If you really are pinched for cash and are trying to save petrol, there are some frugal sedans out there that will save you getting frazzled (which can potentially cause accidents) by the continual “Get your elbow out of my guts, you idiot! You just trod on my foot. I’m telling! Ouch! Muuuuuuum, he hit me!”
3 If your work requires you to take stuff around with you. If you are a contractor, as mentioned above, you probably want something that can tow a trailer on a regular basis, but you probably also want something that you can store gear in so light-fingered passers-by don’t help themselves to your paintbrushes, weed trimmers and hammers. Utes and 4x4s are classic favourites for contractors, along with vans, and there are plenty to choose from. Sales reps, providers of mobile services (e.g. hairdressing, dog grooming and cleaning) and even childcare workers often have to take lots of bits and pieces with them. It’s more convenient to you and to any passengers you have to take (and we all take them from time to time, whether our work is suitable for car pooling or not) if you don’t have to shift your boxes of whatever, a diary, an invoice book and twenty biros off the passenger seat. Something with a generous boot or a stationwagon is likely to be the best bet here.
4 If you actually need to go fast at times and need the extra oomph. You will still need to be legal, but if your work often means that you have to go against the clock or else (midwives, for example, especially those specialising in home births) then having a bit of grunt for when it’s needed is always reassuring. Or keep an eye out for a small engine with a lot of grunt – they are out there.
Level 2, 9 Help Street