Model Year | 2011 | 2014 | |
Model | Toyota RAV4 | Chevrolet Tahoe / Suburban | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr SUV | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 2,659 mm | 2,946 mm | 0 mm |
Length | 4,600 mm | 5,131 mm | -1 mm |
Width | 1,816 mm | 2,007 mm | -1 mm |
Height | 1,684 mm | 1,953 mm | 0 mm |
Curb Weight | 1,524 kg | 2,471 kg | -1 kg |
Fuel Capacity | 60 L | 98 L | -38 L |
Headroom, Row 1 | 1,036 mm | 1,044 mm | 0 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 1,450 mm | 1,659 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 1,367 mm | 1,636 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 1 | 1,062 mm | 1,049 mm | 0 mm |
Headroom, Row 2 | 1,008 mm | 996 mm | -995 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 1,405 mm | 1,656 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 1,331 mm | 1,539 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 2 | 973 mm | 991 mm | -18 mm |
Headroom, Row 3 | 945 mm | 963 mm | -18 mm |
Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 1,336 mm | 1,567 mm | 0 mm |
Hip Room, Row 3 | 1,100 mm | 1,247 mm | 0 mm |
Legroom, Row 3 | 762 mm | 650 mm | 112 mm |
Total Legroom | 2,797 mm (over 3 rows) | 2,690 mm (over 3 rows) | 0 mm |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 348 L | 479 L | -131 L |
Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 1,053 L | 1,708 L | 0 L |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 2,067 L | 3,084 L | -1 L |
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.