Real World Fuel Economy: 2013 Toyota RAV4


What's a more appropriate car to road trip to a Mercedes-Benz drive event than a 2013 Toyota RAV4?

The RAV4 XLE with all-wheel drive was a well-equipped "soft-roader" for the four-hour drive from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Toronto, but it's not exactly in the same ballpark as the new 2014 Mercedes S-Class I wrote about last week.

That doesn't mean I didn't get good use out of the roughly 250 miles of Canadian Highway 401 between me and the fourth largest city in North America. It seemed like a great opportunity to test for real-world highway fuel economy on this thoroughly redesigned compact crossover.

Equipped with a standard 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine making a rather docile 176 horsepower, combining this tepid truckster with one of the most boring highway stretches on the continent might not seem like a recipe for excitement. There's no fancy engine technology here — no direct injection, no turbochargers, no start-stop function, no hybrid anything. And for 2013, there's also no V-6 option; that's been discontinued in the name of better fuel economy, with Toyota saying it wasn't a big seller anyway.

Despite my lessened expectations, the RAV4 turned out to be a perfectly amenable partner for the trek. Seats are remarkably comfortable and handling is tight; the RAV4 is quiet, reasonably roomy and has excellent outward visibility. It drives well enough to overlook its cheapish interior plastic bits, archaic monochrome LCD gauges and completely outdated multimedia system featuring a touch-screen that's inexplicably dim regardless of how you adjust it.

Traffic was light both to and from Toronto, so I kept my speed along the highway to about 75 mph to keep up with the flow of traffic. This is a real-world fuel-economy test, not a hypermiling activity, so the goal wasn't to eke out the best fuel economy possible but to see what the RAV4 would deliver when driven normally. With temperatures in the mid-70s, no air conditioning was needed, and windows were open about halfway to provide comfortable cabin conditions. It's a good thing no air conditioning was needed: turn it on in the new RAV4 and a peppy, decently quick compact crossover turns into a doorstop, which is what the automotive industry calls "parasitic loss."

The all-wheel-drive 2013 RAV4 is EPA-rated at 22/29/25 mpg city/highway/combined. My own test consisted of two sections, from Ann Arbor to Toronto and back. The outbound leg covered 298.7 miles and consumed 11.3 gallons of gas, with an observed 26.43 mpg. The car's trip computer reported average fuel economy at 27.2 mpg.

The return trip covered 301.4 miles and consumed 10.68 gallons for an observed 28.21 mpg with the trip computer reporting 28.4 mpg. The combined average worked out to 600.1 miles covered using 21.98 gallons, with an observed fuel economy of 27.3 mpg.

This is a decent result for the style of driving and speeds traveled. While the RAV4 comes in below its EPA highway rating of 29 mpg, it was measured with a faster overall speed than what's used for EPA tests. The RAV4's fuel economy is rated about the same as many of its competitors in the recent 2013 $25,000 Compact SUV Shootout, but none of those crossovers had all-wheel drive like my RAV4 did. With all-wheel drive, the RAV4's gas mileage is comparable to competitors like the Ford Escape with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine and Honda CR-V with a 2.4-liter four-cylinder, which both get 22/30/25 mpg, but comes in just shy of the new segment-leading Mazda CX-5 and its more powerful 2.5-liter SkyActiv engine — 24/30/26 mpg with all-wheel drive — for 2014.

2013 Toyota RAV4 Review 2013 $25,000 Compact SUV Shootout
IIHS: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Poor in Small Overlap Test



My father has a 2009 RAV4 with the 3.5L. I took it on a 400+ mile trip last year (each way) and observed on the computer 30 mpg. That's at speeds of up to 80 mph. It's a shame they stopped offering that engine.

Please do a real test of the 2.4L Hyundai Santa Fe Sport!


Did you stop by the RAV4's birthplace in Woodstock, Ontario?

Tina Annunziata

I am writing because of the great satisfaction I nreceived from one of your great salesman, Mr. Anil Johari. Because I was alone in purchasing this vehicle, I found that Anil, directed me perfectly to the right item I was looking for.


This does not pertain to this article, but my beater '91 Camry four cylinder acts like a door stop too with the A/C on as well as this brand new vehicle. You really have to plan when to merge with it on. My favorite year for the RAV4 is 2008. Comfortable seats really make for a nice car, even if everything else is mediocre.


So you say breaking the law is a valid test? Driving the speed limit might be too boring but should have been the basis of this test.


Toyota LAV4 is a very good car. May I please know if there is another car that does not consume a lot of fuel. When God blesses me with money I would like one.
God bless you.

Jim C.

You could probably get over 30 MPG at 60-65 MPH, which is quite doable unless the hounds of hell are tailgating you most of the way. Many people don't realize what a big difference 5 or 10 MPH makes.

Everyone should slow down to conserve our one-time inheritance of petroleum instead of squandering it for convenience. Look up "Peak Oil" and learn what it really means (big denial about it due to a minor shale resurgence).


I'm wondering if I'm doing the math wrong on my m.p.g. figures. I rented a 2014 AWD RAV4 LE for the day and got way better. Based on setting the trip computer from 0, I went 82.8 miles and filled up with 2.108 gallons=39 m.p.g. The second trip was 74.4 miles filling up with 2.13 gallons=34 mpg. Combining my figures together is 157.2 miles divided by 4.238 gallons= 37 m.p.g. Granted my highway speed varied from as low as 60 mph and as high as 75 on a relatively flat highway. I also took it around town to try to get closer combined fuel economy. I also tried it in the various modes, of regular, eco, and sport. I even tried in manually 6th gear with sport and eco. I'm perplexed, the mileage is just to good to be true. Someone please let me know if I'm way off in my calculations. thanks.

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App