# X-trail vs Rav4?



## WildCoast (Aug 10, 2012)

Hey guys,

I'm looking for an off-road capable compact SUV and was hoping to ask for some advice. I'm currently split between getting a 1998-2000 Rav4.1 or spending a bit more and getting a 1st generation (T-30) Nissan X-trail or a 1st generation Suzuki Grand Vitara. 

My main concern is off-road capability. I live in British Columbia, Canada and do a lot of mountaineering and other backcountry stuff; I don't really care for rock crawling or off-road for the sake of off-roading, for me it's all about getting to the trailhead, and around here that means driving decommissioned logging roads (think steep cross-ditches and washed out sections of road). Why not get a 4Runner with tons of clearance or a little Tracker/Samurai with a tiny wheelbase you ask? Because this will be my only vehicle and it will still see 90% pavement driving (you have to get to the logging road first!), so fuel efficiency is important (something the 4Runner lacks). The Trackers or Samurai's are great for navigating cross-ditches but are too small inside; can't really fit 4 people plus backpacks and gear inside. 

I actually used to own a 1998 Rav4.1 for a short time and really liked it. My main problem with it was that the rear seats didn't fold down completely flat to create a flat large cargo area (think sleeping surface) - something that's very important because I want to be able to sleep in the car. In comparison, the Nissan X-trail does have this flat cargo area feature so I can sleep inside it, plus it also has a switch to go from 2WD, AWD, or Lock mode which locks the transfer case - so theoretically better off-road capability compared to the Rav4.1. My main concern with the X-trail is that it is slightly longer, so I'm not sure how it compared to the Rav4.1 in terms of clearance and off-roading. 

Here are the stats I could find:

------- 1st generation Nissan X-trail:
> Ground clearance: 200mm (7.8 inches)
> Wheelbase: 2,624 mm (103.3 in.)
> Length: 4,455 mm (175.4 in.)
> Width: 1,765 mm (69.5 in.)
> Approach angle: 29 deg ?
> Departure angle: 26 deg ?
> AWD + 'Lock' 4x4 mode
> seats that fold flat (can sleep inside)

------- Suzuki Grand Vitara (1999-2005):
> Ground clearance: 203 mm (8.0 inches) - good!
> Approach angle: 32 deg 
> Departure angle: 29 deg 
> Supposedly more of a 'true' off-roader with low gearing, solid rear axle, etc (?)

------- Rav4.1:
> Ground clearance: 190mm (7.5 inches)
> Wheelbase: 2,624 mm (103.3 in.)
> Length: 4,455 mm (175.4 in.)
> Width: 1,765 mm (69.5 in.)
> Approach angle: ??
> Departure angle: ??
> cheap, fun, reliable 

Any idea about approach and departure angle for the Rav4.1??

From what I can see the X-trail seems to have better clearance, but it is also a longer vehicle - which makes a big difference when getting into and out of cross ditches I would think. Overall I'm leaning more towards the X-trail; it's a bit more money but the 4x4 'lock' mode as well as the folding rear seats for a flat sleeping area are a big sell. I just want to make sure I'm not loosing any off-road capability. 

So any feedback or recommendations? Am I missing something with the Rav4.1? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Max


----------



## Do Bamboo (May 3, 2010)

I've had my Xtrail for 2 years and like it. I would imagine that Toyota would offer you better reliability. Did you see this comparison video


----------



## WildCoast (Aug 10, 2012)

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the good info. One problem I find with all the reviews of the Rav4 I've come across (and those you shared) is that they compared the 2nd and 3rd generation Rav4's (year 2001 and newer). But those newer Rav's share very little of the off road capability of the original 1st generation Rav4. The original Rav4 had 7.5" of ground clearance, then Toyota started turning it into a pavement friendly mini-van (2nd generation has 6.3" and the 3rd generation has the same clearance as a sedan, the wheel base has been getting stretched too, which makes the clearance problem even worse). It's pretty stupid if you ask me. I guess Toyota is just being practical and building cars for what the majority of people want and will use them for - lots of pavement driving with the occasional gravel road. But if you want a vehicle that's not a monster for fuel efficiency and still has good off road capability and ground clearance - the options are actually very limited, especially as far as newer vehicles go. The original X-trail seems to have retained that true 'SUV' spirit, hence why I'm considering it. 

So the question is: how does the T-30 X-Trail compare with the FIRST GENERATION (year 2000 and below) Rav4?


----------



## solanog (Aug 9, 2012)

X-trail is much more powerful than the 1st RAVs if that matters to you, can't comment on fuel efficiency for gas cars, mne is a diesel X-Trail. X-trail has been reliable the main issue I've had has been the power window switches, two are broken, this has not happened to me in any other car I've owned.
X-trail rides very nicely it has a soft ride, not the best for highway but not that bad. For it's boxy shape it has good trunk space and off road performance I would say better than others in this class, the Suzuki may have the advantage of low range over the X-Trail. But I've gone through really nasty terrain with a lot of mud going up and down and it has behaved bravely!


----------



## mdeleon (Aug 25, 2012)

Hi Man,

I just got an X-Trail 2006 and basically is the same of previous versions, and let me tell you, It's Amazing.... and answering your question you don't have other option in this group than the X-Trail based on your needs, sleep inside, big cargo area, switchable between 2x4, Auto and Lock (4x4), etc... so don't doubt it, go for the X-Trail you won't be disapointed.

Good Luck...


----------



## PLNCRZY (Mar 8, 2004)

You wont be able to beat the Suzi for off road cababilities... It is a true off road machine. I had one. Problem with Suzies are the price of parts.. They are INSANE.


----------



## akamcfly (Aug 31, 2012)

The only things the Suzuki has over the X Trail is low range and a shorter overall length/wheelbase.

They're very closely matched otherwise.

Given your expectation of 90% on-road use, the low range is pretty much negated. What (I feel) you're left with is whether you need the interior space and fold flat cargo area or the on-trail maneuverability.

My only complaint with my X Trail is things slide all over the cargo area. If I was to nit pick, I wish the cup holders were in a better spot and I wish there was another 12 volt power outlet up front. Beyond that, I really really like it.


----------

