Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota RAV4 pre-2006

14445474950103

Comments

  • ccco1ccco1 Posts: 9
    Just fill it up to the bottom of the fill hole. The Repair Manual has the Torgue settings listed as: 49 Nm or in American it is 36 ft-lbs. That's for both the fill and drain plugs.

    These torgue settings are the same for the rear differential plugs also.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    On my '01 RAV, the middle rear belt just wedges up into the top ceiling slot - there is no latch. So all I have to do is yank on the exposed portion of the belt (where it passes over the middle piece of plastic, between the in and the out slots) and the metal blade "un-wedges" itself.

    Hope this helps.

    -ss4
  • rav4buyerrav4buyer Posts: 1
    Hi

    I have a 97 Rav4 with 86k miles. I am planning to drive it for another 10-12k miles before selling. Recommended mileage for changing timing belt is, I think, 90k miles. I was wondering if I can go upto 100k without changing it? I am debating if it is worth spending $500 on changing timing belt and driving for another year or sell it now. I read somewhere that with these new engines, even if timing belt breaks, it does not cause any serious damage. How accurate is that? Anyone who has driven their Toyota beyond 90k miles without changing timing belt, please comment. Thanks.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Please update your Town Hall profile to include a current and valid email address.

    The member agreement requires it.

    Thanks.

    tidester, host
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    I've also read that Toyota designs its engines so that a timing belt failure does not damage the valves. It was an article by Car Talk's Click 'n' Clack the Tappet Brothers (I think), and posted in a Toyota service department. The article also said that Honda's engines are not so forgiving.
  • I believe you are correct. Like you, my friend Tom, who until 2 years ago worked in an auto parts store, always said "Toyota designs it's engines so that a timing belt failure does not damage the valves, but Honda's engine is not so forgiving". He bought a Toyota.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    Seems like your friend Tom talks exactly like me.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    if you are planning to sell in a year or so, I wouldn't replace the belt if it were me. It is true the engine internals will not be damaged if the belt breaks, although you might be damaged if it quits at 70 mph on a busy interstate!

    Be aware that most buyers are not chumps in this internet age, so prospective buyers will know it is due and you didn't do it, and expect a discount for something they can reasonably insist should be done "right away".

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • rscooterrscooter Posts: 1
    lok888--I live in MA also. which dealership are you going to?
  • libertycatlibertycat Posts: 593
    but when you add in value, it drops to third after the Sante Fe.
  • i_luv_toyotai_luv_toyota Posts: 350
    Any news yet on any updates?

    This board is moving just short of a glacial pace!
  • ravenousravenous Posts: 13
    3rd fave after Santa Fe? "Value" can be very subjective. If a vehicle has sluggish acceleration and shoddy build quality, I'd say its value diminishes a bit. And, much as I hate to admit, appearance has value, too!

    My 2 cents; nothing personal.
  • sacstate1sacstate1 Posts: 189
    I have read unofficially that the Rav4 will be phased out in '05 for a new off-road design code named FJ40 by Toyota. Have you heard/read anything on this unproven topic?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    what I read is that when they bring in the FJ40 for the 2006 model year they feel it will compete too much with RAV, which is why they are dropping RAV. But RAV will apparently run through its life cycle and for a year or so they will be sold concurrently.

    The FJ40 is a two-door mini-ute styled to look like the original FJ40 Land Cruiser from the early 70s. It will be more trucky and suited to offroading than the RAV. I believe it is supposed to compete directly with Wrangler, or something.

    Perhaps by then there will be such an enormous market for crossovers that Toyota will decide to keep the RAV and introduce a gen 3.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    Just read where the 2004 is getting, along with some minor cosmetic tweaks, the Highlander's 2.4
    4 cyl......I believe they said it was good for 160-161 hp in the Rav.....now it's more than competitive with the CR-V, new Outlander, Forester (but not turbo) etc. I really hope they keep the Rav4 around for a 3rd generation. Now that it's got a decent engine, it can grow a bit to better compete with the CR-V. And please, give the next gen. a proper hatch, or maybe a split tailgate like the Element. I think the FJ40 will be more hard-core off-road, so there is plenty of room (and market share) for Toyota to keep the Rav4.
  • I don't think Toyota should drop the RAV4, because like wheelz4 said the FJ40 will be geared to offroad (ie rough ride, high climb in height, etc), whereas the RAV4 is geared to pavement.

    Toyota will lose market to people who want a small on-road SUV that can handle minor off-road (like fire trails) situations if RAV4 is dropped permantly.

    With the 2.4-liter engine, the RAV4 finally eliminated the power problem, so move over CRV, Toyota's coming through!!

    I don't think Toyota would go through the trouble of upgrading the engine if the car was going to be dropped in a couple years, so I personally think the RAV4 will stick around for a while to come.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    they haven't upgraded the engine, they have merely dropped in a different engine they already had...but I agree, it would be a big mistake for Toyota to drop the RAV. I remember when it was new for the second gen, it was their best-selling "SUV", and sales are still pretty good now, 3 years later...and this 2.4L engine will make a big difference...I wonder how much mileage will suffer, if at all.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • hal9001hal9001 Posts: 28
    I am interested in buying a new RAV4 next year when I move to Minnesota (got a Corolla now)
    I would like to know what kind of gas mileage people are really getting, as opposed to the mystical EPA figures. Please include equipment; auto/manual, AWD/FWD; driving style, terrain, temperature and anything else you might feel pertinent. Thanks a bunch
  • ravenousravenous Posts: 13
    I live in the flat, humid tropics of Louisiana, and I generally drive a vehicle hard. (With the RAV's awesome response/handling/braking, it's just too much fun to do otherwise!) I routinely get 24-25 mpg in the city. Last spring, we drove to Dallas, TX and actually got 31 mpg on one of the tankfuls. There were 3 of us in the car, and we ran the air conditioning most of the way. Equipment:

    2003 model, Sport Package
    FWD
    5-speed
    16-inch wheels

    Good luck! If you're like me, you were hooked on the first test drive!
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    hal9001: My 2001 RAV, AWD, auto trans, driven easily, has gotten 24.8 mpg over its first 44,000 miles, mostly on flat land, mixed suburbs/highway driving, mixed temperatures (20-95), some a/c. Best I've gotten on a tankful was 28 on the interstate a couple times.

    With MTBE in the gas, I've found the mileage penalty to be 2mpg+. NJ requires this in winter. I was just in Maine (August), and a gas pump sticker said MTBE was added. If the sticker was correct, looks like they may use it year-round up there. Don't know about Minnesota.
Sign In or Register to comment.