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?
The RAV4 looks showroom fresh for $500 more, condition being equal I would probably rather have the Forester but this is a no brainer.
I own a first gen Forrester with similar mileage, Yes head gaskets are an issue, but that RAV is heavy, slow, and ponderous, compared to the nimble, relatively quick, and versatile nature the Forester had. Also, who remembers owning their early rav compared to a Forester.
Misquoting Clarkson: the RAV4 is brilliant, I like the Forester
Rav4 all day, every day, and twice on Sunday. Funky fun. And I prefer my engines to have head gaskets that don’t leak. And I HATE the way Subarus sound.
The RAV-4 – despite them being objectively awful to drive with the sound-deadening of a snare drum, simply because the alternative is doing a head gasket every other oil change.
Haha, this is the correct take.
The Subie, because my niece has an Impreza but always says she would get more dates in a first-gen Forester. (Yes, some car stereotypes are true.)
RAV4 is a great deal but I voted for the Subie because OBD2* and I like Foresters.
*Yes, I got the passenger-car OBD2 year wrong.
Rav4. Toyota is a better appliance maker than Subaru.
I love that vintage Forrester, but that Rav4 interior is amazing!
Both for me – I’ll put a hitch on the Subaru and tow the Rav4 to RADwood (are those still a thing?)
I almost purchased a Rav4 of this vintage with about the same mileage and same 5spd / AWD combo about 3 months ago and I only backed out because it was all thrashed inside. But the dealbreaker was rust on the A-pillar, which was quite disturbing but not unheard of on a west coast vehicle. Mechanically it was tough as nails, and these engines are non-interference. It cannot get much more simple than that.
I would not have a piece of mind with an EJ25 powered Subaru unless I get receipts from a recent HG job, so Rav4 it is
The RAV4 isn’t really a wagon, is it? Also the Forester has a new cambelt, which is worth a lot at this end of the market. Subaru for me.
The Toyota gets my vote. I’m a little wary of older Subarus for their oil leaks.
This Forester appears to be the top S trim (as opposed to the base L trim). That means it has heated seats and, more importantly, a LSD for better traction on the slippery stuff.
Cool. It always seemed funny to me that back in the 90s, leather seats didn’t always mean you also got leather wrapped steering wheel. I saw that in several Fords but it’s the first time I see that in a Subaru.
Even my Volvo 850 was like that—only Turbos got a leather-wrapped wheel, and I don’t think any of them had leather on the shifter (maybe manuals) or parking brake handle. Saabs did the leather seats/cloth door cards thing until the late ’90s, but they didn’t use patterned cloth, so it didn’t look as weird as it does on the Subaru.
The Rav also has a locking center diff. I believe only 2 cars from the era came with a manual, and, and a locking center differential. Think the other was a Range Rover?
and, fu autocorrect
God damnit! AWD
How does that tire on the back of the rav 4 work? I’d prefer not to have that to deal with. A donut would be fine.
It works great for people who want a free midnight tire and wheel.
I bought that exact Rav4 in 1996 and again in 1997 after a deer totaled the 96. Probably my favorite car that I’ve owned. An absolute beast in the snow with the locking differential. Pre- kids memories…..sigh
I miss the 1st gen Foresters, but I gotta go RAV4.
My sister has a manual ’98 RAV4 that is fun to drive when I get the chance, so I am biased. Hers has much lower mileage but not in nearly as good a shape.
It’s the other way round in my bit of the UK. All the OG RAV4s I see are 2-doors. We’ve also got a startlingly large number of Mazda Bongos tooling about.
I would kill to get my hands on a 2 door ragtop from this era and in the shape this one is in. Practically unobtanium here in the states.
I overthought about a 96 2dr with a hardtop and by the time I made my choice it was gone. It was only $2500 but it was only 2WD and the clearcoat was shot, so not exactly the combo I was looking for.
But I just found a 2dr 99 Tracker with a soft top, 5spd and 4WD in nice shape and I’m digging it. I’m just not too enthusiastic about the price at $5K, but I guess it is what it is in this day and age.
I wouldn’t have pulled that trigger either.
I owned a forester XT, though mine was auto. I loved it but will never ever own (or recommend) another subaru.
Rebuilt title on the Rav does make me nervous, but that thing looks basically brand new and that interior is amazing!
I wonder if somebody had a really clean RAV4 and a raccoon and a skunk had a fight to the death in the interior and it was totaled on account of that and they got the interior replaced?
even a fender bender could total a 4 cyl, 5spd, high mileage, non-sports vehicle. Ask me how I know…
Oh I’m very aware. Been there, but usually on cars this old and cheap they would not get fixed afterwards
I suspect it was something that happened over a decade ago and whatever fix it needed is holding up well
Good finds. Both iconic first gens of immensely successful models. Well, as “iconic” as economy-minded little box wagons can be. Econic?
RAV4 for me. It’s underpowered but the Subaru isn’t a rocket either and gets pretty poor fuel economy from what I recall. The 30-year old cracking economy car leather isn’t doing it any favors, either. RAV4 looks to be in really good shape and I miss the gaudy 90s fabric patterns. Been a long time since I’ve driven a manual with the good old accordion baffle shift boot.
What is going on with the passenger door panel in the Subaru? Is that woodgrain that’s cunningly designed to look like stick-on shelf paper? In fact the whole interior looks to be saying, “I give up.”
Toyota is the easy choice today.
I thought it was cowhide, maybe? Either way, weird
You might be right. That’s even worse, it will absorb all the smells.
Depending on how (if?) it was cured, it could be *making* some of them…
This is gonna sound weird, but I saw a RAV-4 of the same “vintage” on the road here that looked in just as good shape – heck, it looked like it had been restored – and it was the first time one of these vehicles ever struck me as looking like a classic car. It might take a few more years, but people are really going to start appreciating the RAV-4. I think everyone forgets the buzz around it when it debuted. Easy win as far as I’m concerned.
First and second gen RAVs are starting to show up on the auction sites, here and there. I think a few people understand that these were durable, lightweight, and sprightly-handling little things without a modern equivalent.
“… people are really going to start appreciating the RAV-4.”
I certainly am. Especially the two-doors with the rear soft tops. This one looks straight-up lustworthy. I was not a fan when they were heralding in the crossover era but these early ones show how small and simple they were at first. Now a new RAV is only about 8” shorter than an 80 series Land Cruiser.
That Toyota interior is the tie breaker.
I might be inclined to keep it clean.
Why can’t new cars look like that inside?
The Subaru not so much.
I am very familiar with that era of Subaru, I know for a fact that it will climb out of my driveway and up my side street through 8″ of snow while I was still fighting the snowblower.
It can hang out with its great grand child in my driveway.
I will take my chances with the head gasket. At that point, I suspect it has already been replaced.
Like the Subie, but RAV-4 for sure. Portland is only a few hours from me, and had I need for something like the Toyota I’d be on my way there now for it. While not exactly fun cars, that generation of RAV-4 has character and with the AWD and stick is more engaging to drive than it would otherwise seem.