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?
God do I ever wish I lived in Oregon. Look at the condition of that RAV4! Just look at it!. It looks better than most 5 year old RAV4s around here.
RAV4, no contest, unless there is some alarming structural issue underneath that nice-looking bodywork.
Until recently I had a low-mileage 2003 RAV4L that I admittedly got so that some younger soon-to-be drivers in the family could learn to drive and wrench on it. Good visibility, easy to work on, no distracting gizmos, but with airbags and ABS so moderately safe. I almost picked up a 2000-MY one that we had come through work but it had more miles than I felt justified the price.
That Subaru looks tired. Their appetite for head gaskets and wheel bearings is unmatched. It also doesn’t look well-cared for. The cheap tint on the rear-most windows is also cause for concern. Easy pass.
I went down this path with an Outback several years ago and it did not go well. As a result I am now Subaru-shy. Plus I have some oil filters left over from an old Camry I used to own, and I think they may fit the RAV.
The RAV4 is definitely the one. It’s so easy to “total” an old car like this, that I bet it was a fender bender that did it. Same thing happened to my ’99 Corolla. I bought it back from the insurance company, and hammered the dented fender out enough that it wouldn’t rub. I could have replaced the fender for a $25 used one and completely fixed it, but I couldn’t be bothered.
I don’t feel strongly either way. I like that the Subie has a clean title and costs a little less, but that RAV4 looks amazing for its age and mileage.
I like them both. The Subi looks to have more room inside but that RAV is in such nice shape I can’t say no. So unfair we don’t have stuff like this available in the Northeast…
Rav-4. It’s perfect, no notes. Absolute art on wheels. No care about the title. If I didn’t have to fly from first Portland to second Portland to acquire it, that would be in my drive right now.
I have the Corolla All-trac which precedes and donated a lot of its parts and DNA to the RAV4 model and is holding up well better than it has rights to with the same ammount of miles as this one with original clutch and radiator. This age was peak Toyota.
I owned a 98 forester.
Head gaskets and rear wheel barrings are short lived wear items. I wouldn’t bother with one of this vintage unless you can wrench it yourself.
Rav-4 for the win
I had a ’97 Outback that we bought used at 80k miles with the 2.5 and a five speed. The head gaskets failed at 120k. Upon removing the head, I discovered that one side had already been machined. Yikes! Drove that car to 200k when one of the wheel bearings was screaming and the A/C compressor failed.
So, yes, the RAV-4 is the easy pick here.
I’ve had a 98 Forester and I can tell you it was absolutely fantastic, except for the times when it was an absolute and utter letdown.
In its defense some of those letdowns came when it had over 300K miles on it and to be honest, were likely due. But others were inexcusable.
So. RAV for me.
I grudgingly chose the RAV4 because it’s in far nicer condition, regardless of its mortal sin of not having armrests for the front seats. I rode in one years ago and that was my main takeaway – did whomever design this fucking thing not have arms?!
I’ll roll the dice on the RAV4. At this price, what’s the worst that could happen? Besides, at this age and mileage, either the damage happened so long ago that the repair isn’t really going to be an issue, or the damage happened more recently, and was not a big deal. I mean, on a car like this, if someone dropped a slushie in the back seat, having it cleaned would total the car.
I know everyone is gonna go, “but the RAV-4 will go forever,” but it’s taller than a Forester to begin with and you never see a lowered RAV-4. The STi Forester looks great. That’s my entire logic for picking this one. I admit, it’s stupid, but I don’t care. Gotta go with what want over what need. Also I want to keep the Boxxer theme of the garage going.
I’ve seen lowered RAV4s. It’s one way to get what’s essentially a tall Corolla hatchback (though with a swing-out door for the first few generations).
We need a BOTH option today.
I love my Subbies, think I’m on my 4th or 5th. The wagons are cool, any of the stereotypical head gasket issues have been taken care of by 250k miles. Now it’s just nickle and dime stuff (from owning an ’02 WRX for one). Looks like rallycross fun.
But that Toyota looks really good, and perfect for this crap weather. I want both.
The OG Rav4 is peak Toyota in the best way possible and this is an extremely nice example. No way this ad stays up for long.
The RAV4 is the stronger choice here even with the branded title. It presents better, looks to have been better taken care of and the RAV4 overall is generally considered to be a rock solid choice, even with high mileage. The Subaru looks much more dogeared and there is the ever present headgasket issue looming in the background.
Rav 4 for sure. That subie engine is a time bomb, even with the timing belt changed.
I think the tall Subarus look a bit silly, so original RAV4 for me 😀
–Would take a green and silver Otback anytime [heart emoji]
But I do expect to find some rust somewhere behind all that plastic on the Toyota.
Rav4 all day long. It’s the perfect combination, manual and awd. The subaru will need head gaskets in the near future if it isn’t already leaking. That fix will probably be more than the cost of the car.