For our final pairing this week, we’re taking a look at two small crossover SUVs, both with manual gearboxes and all-wheel-drive. Both have a zillion miles on them, both seem to be well cared-for, and both come from parts of the country that don’t use road salt. Which one is the better deal? That’ll be up to you.
Our focus yesterday was on trucks, specifically whether to get a small and practical truck that can do most things, or a larger and more capable truck that can do everything. You all made good cases for both options, but the vote was clear: the small truck took a decisive win. The big-block Ford was just too much truck for most of you.
I have to admit that I love my full-size truck, but the only thing I’ve ever really used the full bed for is bringing home sheets of plywood or drywall. Everything else would easily fit in a smaller bed. If I had it to do over again, or if I had to replace my Chevy, I think I’d look for something smaller. Put my vote in the Mighty Max’s column too.
Like it or not, crossovers have taken over the car market. These not-quite-SUVs, hatchbacks in platform heels, have struck a chord with the driving public, and hardly anybody buys anything else anymore. It all started innocently enough, with cute little wagon-y things like the two we’re going to look at today.
1996 Toyota RAV4 – $2,900
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, AWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 224,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Toyota has a long history of building useful little 4WD wagons, dating back a decade before the RAV4 came out in 1996. Tercel and Corolla wagons were pushing their way through snowbanks way back in the ’80s. This is basically just the same thing, only taller and better-looking. The RAV4 was originally sold in either two- or four-door form, with a soft top available on the two-door, but the majority of buyers chose the four-door version, which is why that’s all you can get today.
The original RAV4 came with Toyota’s 3S-FE four-cylinder engine, and either a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission, with either front- or all-wheel drive. This one has the best combination: AWD with a manual. It has 224,000 miles on it, but the seller says it still runs and drives just fine. It is a Toyota, after all. We don’t get any more information about its history, but we are told it has a reconstructed title.
It has air conditioning, power windows, power locks, and very cool seat fabric. And it’s all in very good condition, especially for the mileage. Looking at this car’s interior makes me realize just how far we’ve fallen in terms of interior design. This space looks comfortable, inviting, and logical, with simple controls for everything and no extra bullshit.
It’s in great shape outside, too; there’s no trace of whatever happened to cause the branded title. And because it’s in Oregon, there’s no rust on it. I imagine this is one of those vehicles you just don’t see anymore in saltier climates. It’s too good in the snow to leave in the garage all winter, and as a result, none of them lasted thirty years in those places.
1998 Subaru Forester – $2,495
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter DOHC flat 4, five-speed manual, AWD
Location: Fremont, CA
Odometer reading: 250,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Subaru has a long history of building 4WD wagons as well, of course. The brand went all-in on four-wheel drive in 1996, and hasn’t built any 2WD vehicles since, except for the BRZ sports coupe. Subaru wagons are renowned, even revered, in snowy climates, and the tall Forester has been a hit ever since it was introduced.
Despite their popularity, the quality and reliability of Subarus has been called into question many times. Apart from the well-known head gasket issues, they’re pretty stout overall, but the ownership experience is sort of “death by a thousand cuts.” This one has reached a quarter of a million miles, and the seller says it runs and drives well, and drives that point home with far more exclamation points than are strictly necessary. It did just recently have its timing belt changed, which is one less thing to worry about.
We don’t really get a good view of the interior of this car; this is about as good as it gets. It looks a little threadbare, but still functional. I see a hole in the carpet and some cracks in the seats, but otherwise it looks decent. It’s pretty fancy for a Forester; I think most of them had cloth seats.
It has some dings and scrapes outside, and the clearcoat is mostly gone, but for a car in this price range, it doesn’t look terrible. It has some unfortunate bubbling window tint on the rear window that should probably just be removed, but that’s not difficult or expensive. And the advantage of a car that’s already a little beat-up is that you don’t have to care about it.
It just occurred to me that these are both the first model years of their type, and both models are still in production. The crossover takeover of the auto market is nearly complete, and we have these two vehicles to blame – or to thank, depending on how you feel about crossovers. But which one makes the better cheap beater today? Is it the clean Toyota with the dirty title, or the already-banged-up Subaru?
So I owned the direct clone of the Forester pictured, except for mine, sadly, was a four speed slushbox instead of a 5 speed manual. It was an early build 1998 S that had every option box ticked – HEATED leather seats, remote keyless entry, heavy duty rubberized floor mats, 6 disc in dash changer, ABS, even had the rare little optional brush guard on the front that toughened the looks considerably. The only option it lacked was the cool green graphics dashtop barometer/thermometer/incline/compass pod, which this present model also seems to not be equipped with. I bought it as a gently crashed but expertly repaired and still clean title car from a dealer that got it from its former life as a second car at some rich dude’s ski chalet in Steamboat Springs, with a fresh timing belt and water pump, for $8,500 cash in February of 2008.
It was a great little vehicle, and even with the 4 speed slushbox, the EJ25 was decently robust in the first gen models. It also was reasonable on fuel; not great but not terrible. I averaged 23.8 mpg over the 18 months and 42,000 miles i owned mine. My best ever tank was 28.9 mpg when I was driving 55 mph at night in early spring in northern New Mexico with ambient air temps in the 50’s. But it was pretty consistently around 24.5-26 mpg on the highway and 19.5-21 mpg in strictly town driving.
I annoyingly rear-ended a Jeep Commander that cut me off in traffic after only having it for six months in my first semester of college in Denver, and ended up having to dump almost $4k into repairs to fix the front end because my dad farked up hugely and forgot to put comp and collision on my car on the insurance policy -_-
The car never was quite the same again, it had a hard time keeping an alignment for more than 5-7k miles afterwards, and it had a weird rattle in the passenger side I could never quite isolate. I drove it to 82,000 miles and the transmission started shifting a bit weird, so I said ‘to hell with it’ and sold it to some suburban dad on Craigslist for his kid’s first car for $6,850, and replaced it with a 2003 Vibe AWD hatchback with 77k miles for $8k, put $2k down on it and used the rest of the money for paying for school/rent/existing.
So I also have experience with the first gen Rav4 because one of my good buddies at the tine had a forest green ’97 Rav4 auto that was already over 100k at the time, it was his grandmother’s former commuter car until she retired. It was a very tough car that never broke, but it was loud on the highway, and it was hopelessly, laughably underpowered. I honestly hated driving that car on road trips because it had no low end power, and passing maneuvers were a roll of the dice each and every time. Plus if it was remotely windy, the fuel economy dropped by 3-4.5 mpg and with the 12.9 gallon tank, the fuel economy would sink to sub 23 mpg and the range under 300 miles. It was very, VERY annoying. The Rav4 was also significantly less stable in crosswinds than the Subie; which was fairly planted and took a good 60+ mph gust to upset; the Rav4 bobs and weaves and feels like a small child clinging to a screen door being whipped about at the mercy of the gusts.
The Rav4 will be more reliable, to be certain, but its also less capable and more obnoxious to live with.
I’d take a 5 speed clone of one of my earliest vehicles in a heartbeat, so long as it wasn’t meant for DD duty.
I haven’t owned either, but I’ve been a passenger in both. The RAV4 was loud (road noise) but felt like it could do anything. The Subaru was quieter and felt “softer.” And I imagine it’s at least as capable. The RAV4 seems like a much better deal.
M’lady still has her Forester from the year 2000. Not quite as many kilometres as this one but well battered none the less. We’d take your one over the RAV4 no worries.
I like how clean the Rav4 is, but the Forester will have a lot more interior room, and will be a quicker car. I currently own three Subarus (plus three previous ones), and believe me, once the head gaskets have been replaced on the EJ25, there’s nothing more to worry about in that department. The last car i drove without side armrests in the front was my 1963 VW van, and I really wouldn’t want to do so ever again for more than an hour. And for the Forester, you can buy a Subaru OEM center armrest that attaches nicely to the top of the center console.
Didn’t have to read the details, automatic Subaru vote from me. We happen to have two company vehicles, a Rav4 and a Subaru Outback (I know it’s not the same as a Forester). 20 minutes in the Rav4 and I am in excruciating pain – I can drive the Outback for 8 hours straight with only short fuel and bathroom breaks without an issue.
I thought this model RAV4 came with a dash mounted diff lock (same switch as the Corolla all trac). Yet can’t see it in the interior pic.
The Toyota is better in every way, so naturally, I picked the Subaru. This was a tough one though. There’s a special place in my heart for crappy, EJ powered Subarus.
Sometimes I forget that RAV4s were kind of cool at one point.
Ron’s Wife replaced the timing belt? I’m sure she’s a very nice person and a top-tier mechanic. RAV4 please.
Before I had driven either I might have chosen the Forester; but, having taken a road trip across dirt tracks, etc. in a third-world country in a RHD RAV4 just like this one, I’d pick it every time. It’s a great little trucklet.
That is a great deal on a first gen rav 4 and a terrible price on a Subaru. Rav4 for sure. Subaru is $1k tops. 250k scares me on a Subaru for sure. 90s Toyota just laughs.
My brother had the first-gen RAV4 2-door. That might’ve been the cutest damn crossover ever.
Even though I do like the looks of that Forester, I know enough about Sube reliability to know the extra $500 is worth it.
Being from Colorado, I am obligated to choose the scruffy Subaru (our alternate state flag is a mid-80s GL wagon with ski rack), even if the Toyota is clearly better.
I’ll take a high mileage Toyota any day over a high mileage Subaru.
Plus I have a soft spot for the 1st gen RAV4. And it looks to be in better condition.
So this was an easy vote for me.
RAV.
I spent a fair bit of time in a co-worker’s 2nd-gen, AWD, manual RAV4 last summer, and always thought it was a pretty cool ride! It was usually stuffed with tools, and was the de-facto second work truck for our company.
Of course, a 1st-gen has to be cooler than a 2nd-gen!
“I imagine this is one of those vehicles you just don’t see anymore in saltier climates.”
As a resident of a saltier climate, that’s pretty much true. You don’t see them as normal-people commuters, but I have seen the odd nicely-kept 2-door convertible that someone cared to keep alive.