Model Year | 2011 | 2014 | |
Model | Toyota RAV4 | Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 104.7 in | 116.0 in | -11.3 in |
Length | 181.1 in | 202.0 in | -20.9 in |
Width | 71.5 in | 79.0 in | -7.5 in |
Height | 66.3 in | 76.9 in | -10.6 in |
Curb Weight | 3360 lb. | 5448 lb. | -2088 lb. |
Fuel Capacity | 15.9 gal. | 26.0 gal. | -10.1 gal. |
Headroom, Row 1 | 40.8 in | 41.1 in | -0.3 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 57.1 in | 65.3 in | -8.2 in |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 53.8 in | 64.4 in | -10.6 in |
Legroom, Row 1 | 41.8 in | 41.3 in | 0.5 in |
Headroom, Row 2 | 39.7 in | 39.2 in | 0.5 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 55.3 in | 65.2 in | -9.9 in |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 52.4 in | 60.6 in | -8.2 in |
Legroom, Row 2 | 38.3 in | 39.0 in | -0.7 in |
Headroom, Row 3 | 37.2 in | 37.9 in | -0.7 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 52.6 in | 61.7 in | -9.1 in |
Hip Room, Row 3 | 43.3 in | 49.1 in | -5.8 in |
Legroom, Row 3 | 30.0 in | 25.6 in | 4.4 in |
Total Legroom | 110.1 in (over 3 rows) | 105.9 in (over 3 rows) | 4.2 in |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 12.3 ft3 | 16.9 ft3 | -4.6 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 37.2 ft3 | 60.3 ft3 | -23.1 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 73.0 ft3 | 108.9 ft3 | -35.9 ft3 |
2011 Toyota RAV4 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2012 | 4dr SUV 179-horsepower 2.5L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
I'm about 6'3" and 220lbs so I get cramped on long trips. see full Toyota RAV4 review |
2012 | 4dr SUV 179-horsepower 2.5L I4 4-speed automatic FWD |
I'm about 6'3" and 220lbs so I get cramped on long trips. see full Toyota RAV4 review |
2011 | 4dr SUV 179-horsepower 2.5L I4 4-speed automatic AWD |
back seat is hard, not much leg room see full Toyota RAV4 review |
2010 | 4dr SUV 179-horsepower 2.5L I4 4-speed automatic AWD |
no lumbar support see full Toyota RAV4 review |
2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2015 | Some (perhaps more than some) people are drawn to large SUVs because they like to feel like the king of the road when behind the wheel. Others need a lot of space while driving, or at least feel they do. Few vehicles have more front seat room than the new Tahoe. With an inch-and-a-half less shoulder room, the Ford's front-row dimensions aren't quite as generous, and its taller, shifter-festooned console is more intrusive. The front seats are comfortable in both. The Expedition's are a little wider and softer, and they're upholstered with especially rich hides in the King Ranch and Platinum (vs. the most recently tested and photographed Limited). Whether this is preferable is a matter of taste. see full Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban review |
2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
Both the Tahoe and Expedition have roomy, comfortable second-row seats, with a slight edge to the higher cushions in the Chevrolet. Bonus points to the Tahoe for automatic rear climate controls (they're manual in the Expedition). Move to the third-row seat, and you'll wonder why, despite redesigns for 2007 and 2015, General Motors has stubbornly refused to follow Ford's 2003 switch from a solid rear axle to an independent rear suspension. With a solid axle, the rear floor must be high to permit the rear differential to travel up and down when a wheel hits a bump. Consequently, the Tahoe's third row seat must be very thinly constructed and mounted very close to the floor. Even pre-teen children won't be comfortable in it. In sharp contrast, the Expedition's third-row seat is higher off the floor than its second-row seat, much less the ridiculously low third row in the Tahoe, and is--surprise--considerably more comfortable as a result. The Suburban's third-row seat is roomier than the Tahoe's but still far inferior to the Expedition's. see full Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban.