Toyota RAV4 pre-2006

ltd2 · August 2003

it all depends on what you are looking for, a lot
of people bought RAV4 solely because of its cuteness.
i bought one for my wife months ago, every single day when i look at it, i feel like it is the most
adorable car in the world!

andrelaplume · August 2003

Yes it is cuter....but when spending 20K+ I would think cute vs functional would be an issue! Good Luck with your RAV!

nippononly · August 2003

(1) If I were you I would never return to that dealer - they sound like one of the bad ones.

(2) 185-185-185-185 is just about perfect compression - sounds like the engine is otherwise in good shape. If the whole vehicle is in just as good shape, I would not yet give up on it if i were you.

(3) The price is in the ballpark (out near the fence) for valve seal replacement. I would live with it if it were me, and check the oil a little more frequently...but

(4)...I WOULD call Toyota just to see if there are any further goodwill repairs they would be willing to spring for. I would also let them know about the lousy service department my local Toyota dealer has.

andrelaplume · August 2003

Thanks, I will call Toyota...I post what their repsponse is.

reklawc · September 2003

I was about to buy a Highlander when I noticed the improvement in the RAV4 engine for 2004. Up until now I had ruled out the RAV because I usually take one very long road trip per year (6,000 miles), and assumed that the RAV would not be satisfactory(due to power)on such a long interstate type (65-80mph,10 hr/day)trip. I would be interested in any opinions or recommendations as to the suitability of the RAV for such a trip. Comments on road/engine noise, ride, comfort, hill climbing and descending with cruise control, would be appreciated. I have driven one around town and loved it. Also, any comparisons with the V6 Highlander would also help me decide.

suvshopper4 · September 2003

The latest I heard is that the '04 RAVs with the 2.4 Liter engines will have 157 hp, up only a little from 148. Not much of an increase. Could be the torque will be significantly increased.

I just took a 3,800+ mile, 11-day trip in my '01 RAV. Comfort was fine, road/engine noise wasn't bothersome (wind noise not noticeable), and the cruise control did fine going uphill (tho the engine let me know it was working harder), but seemed a little sloppy going downhill (which could be a speed-trap problem).
Note: My speed was usually 65-69 mph tops, unlike yours.

Mileage was very good: 26.6 using Regular 87 octane, even tho I did go thru several mountain ranges, and some of the gas pumps (Maine, e.g.) stated MTBE was added.

I haven't driven a Highlander, but one with a V-6 would probably cruise easier (and use more fuel).

Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer choice.

cbmorton · September 2003

Toyota published the specs on the 2004 model last week. The 2.4-litre engine is good for 161 hp and 165 lb-ft of torque, increases of 13 and 23 respectively. Should improve driveability a fair bit.

penske_fan · September 2003

but, does anyone know anything more about this engine? Timing chain or belt, how long has it been out, is it in the Highlander only, or is it in other models too?

hal9001 · September 2003

Read all about here:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id- =2004rav4_r

reklawc · September 2003

According to Toyota press release, the price increase from 03 to 04 for the 4X4 Auto. Trans. is $1,725.

reklawc · September 2003

MY message #1009 is misleading. There is a big price increase in the US, but that is because many more features/options that were optional in prior years will be standard in 04.

To penske fan--The new engine is the same 4 cyl. that has been standard in the Camry for several years. And keep in mind the Camry actually weighs more than the RAV4. This engine is probably one of the best 4 cyl. engines ever made. I think it will be a big improvement for the RAV4. It should be smoother, quieter, and more powerful than the previous engine. I do not know for sure about the timing belt/chain; but, my guess is that it has a timing belt.

penske_fan · September 2003

hal9001 - very cool site, thanks. I can't see much difference in the front end.

reklawc - Camry engine o.k. by me, I rented one before and was very impressed with the power to weight ratio and the gas mileage.

I was in the market for a CR-V, until now :0

nippononly · September 2003

the 4-cyl from the Camry uses a timing chain.

In transitioning to the '04, they have basically eliminated the "stripper versions" that were all but impossible to find anyway. To my mind this is a good thing...a vehicle like this should have things like A/C standard since much cheaper cars do nowadays...

the 4-cyl in the Camry w/ auto is rated at 23/32 mpg...I am hopng that since RAV w/ 4WD is about the same weight (actually a touch less) fuel economy will come up a little from the 22/27 rating the current 4WD auto version gets...

canoe2 · September 2003

There is timing belt on 2.4L engine.
Yes, the Camry is heavier but RAV4 uses 4x4 so I expect the overall performance (acceleration) and fuel economy would be less than Camry.
Here is the last minute change for RAV4, I wonder would be any problem later on ?

ravenous · September 2003

Regarding your questions about RAV on a long trip:
Don't get me wrong, I'm crazy about my "baby" around town, but I have to admit it leaves a bit to be desired in the long-range comfort department. The arm rests are not padded very well, and the seats are less than ergonomic, at least for MY ailing lower back. I rode in the back seat on a recent 120-mile jaunt, and I found it cramped and awkward. I'm of average height/weight (5'9", 175 lb).

But it sure is fun to drive!

i_luv_toyota · September 2003

Toyota didn't update their webpage for the 2004 RAV4? Isn't it kind of dumb to announce prices and then NOT update the actual product page?

Hate to break it to you Toyota, but everyone should be off of '03s by now, so just give us the 2004's please!

i_luv_toyota · September 2003

The 2003 model is irrelevant crap now, nobody wants them, so give up extending sales events so your web lackies don't have to update the site. Once you announce the prices, that should be it right there! Not a second later. It's been a whole week since you announced prices for the 2004 RAV4, so like I said before the 2003 (and prices) is (are) irrelevant now.

I know I've posted my displeasure about Toyota's US website before, but it has now pushed me beyond my limits.

Please email Toyota (toyota_cares@toyota.com) and let them know your displeasure involving their glacial website updates!

i_luv_toyota · September 2003

The RAV4 page has been finally updated!

http://toyota.com/rav4

steveb84 · September 2003

The National Dealer Meeting was held earlier this week and many, many Toyota corporate people were there. That could be a reason why the website wasn't updated as soon as you would have liked.

Sorry but the 03 isn't "irrelevant crap now" they are still on many dealers lots and customers still want them and the incentives that are available on the 2003's. Remember, the small percentage of the population that visit here are not reflective of the buying public as a whole.

slavar · September 2003

Could anyone point me where the hell air filter is located in Rav 4. Just don't say its under the hood. Thanks

mcdawgg · September 2003

Big black box on top of the engine that has the decal "2.0 liter vvti". Has a big black intake hose attached. Intake is right behind the left headlight. Takes 5 minutes to change the air filter. This is for 2001 - current.

slavar · September 2003

Man. My wife keeps telling me that I am blind and now I see it's true. I can't believe I couldn't find it. Thanks

stever · September 2003

You guys are touchy in here this week - gas prices got y'all down or is it the chill in the air?

Relax and enjoy your ride a bit more! You could be stuck in a 60's chromevinylmobile you know.

Steve, Host

fryingbologna · September 2003

Makes the imminent purchase of the 2004 Forester XS a little less certain, but still my biggest beef with the RAV4 is that no rear bumper/tire shell in the back. I really hoped they might get away from that design (as would Honda with the CRV).

Still, this is a good looking vehicle that makes me pause... uh, 6.8% financing, Toyota Canada? Yeah, right!

ontheroadagain · September 2003

As I'm driving everyday I keep checking out this problem but find it a bit confusing. It looks to me as though they do have a bumper but that the tire hangs down and covers part of it.

What's it like to park a car like this with that extra tire sticking out? And isn't the CRV the same, really? Aren't you going to end up hitting the tire rather than the bumper if you just happen to "tap" another car while parallel parking?

fryingbologna · September 2003

While in theory that sounds good (bump the rubber tire all you want, while protecting the body), (a) the hard shell will crack with minimal contact, and (b) there are a bunch of heights and angles not covered by the tire when getting hit from behind.

The proof? Check out the IIHS test results for low speed (5 mph) rear collision damage.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_smsuv.htm

That Forester, which also scores better than the RAV4 for general safety according to the IIHS as well, starts to look much better in comparison. The 2004 RAV4 got closer, but I still think the Forester rules the roost in this category (I feel very uncomfortable sitting in the CRV driver's seat, even though by the specs it looks very roomy... go figure!) (I really like the Elephant, er, Element as well, but my wife gags when she sees it, or thinks about having to drive it sometimes).

ontheroadagain · September 2003

Well thank you fryingbologna, that's a sobering sight for sure. Hmm, there goes my idea of a nice small car, I guess. You're right of the small SUVs the Forester is the winner.

I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my post!

fryingbologna · September 2003

I am many months into researching my next vehicle, and I am far from a mechanical kind of person, so if I can save someone a bit of time, it is my pleasure! I really don't think you could go wrong with the Forester/CRV/RAV4 as a general rule, but there are certain things that stand out for each model. In fact, while I like Subaru's full-time all-wheel-drive, I am discovering that all four tires must be within 1/4" circumference, or you risk damaging the differential(s). I never would have guessed that!

Those of you who have not tried the Subaru discussion boards here at Edmunds, they are a gem. The regulars there have pretty much convinced me to go Subaru from their honesty, politeness and knowledge.

alpha01 · September 2003

You should note that Side Curtain airbags plus front side chest airbags, which would dramatically alter the RAV4s side impact test, are now available on the 2004 model. That, and the standard ABS/VSC, goes beyond what the Forester offers.

Something to think about.
~alpha

ontheroadagain · September 2003

True, alpha - and those are the very things that got me to thinking about buying a RAV - plus the new slightly more powerful engine that I read about right here thanks to some thoughtful posters!

Do I need an SUV? Nope, but I want a car that is good in snow and dependable. I have a 99 Subaru Outback..with just about 90K miles on it. It's been a good car...just replaced the wheel bearings and some other items...the coil, cracked distributor, etc.? Not sure of all the details...but it's beginning to show its age and due to my excessive driving in and out of NYC and my desire to be able to fit into more tight parking spaces - that's why I started to consider the RAV4, as it is so much shorter than most. Oh yes, and I often am transporting 2 or 3 others with their "stuff"...as in ballet gear, et al.

Ideally I'd love to have an AWD, safe, hybrid! ;-)

Maybe someday.

fryingbologna · September 2003

That's for sure - although it does have ABS! In fact, the Forester ABS is 4 channel/4 sensor, and I'm not sure if this is as complex as what the RAV4 has. The TCS on our 03 Accord works really nicely with the ABS for those slippery days.

Opinions vary greatly, and I have no opinion other than last winter's Honda TCS, but as far as winter driving is concerned, traction importance seems to be (1) good tires (2) Full-time AWD (3) Part-time AWD (4) traction/stability control. The first two are proactive systems, whereas the last two only start to work for you once you are already getting into trouble, and are therefore reactive systems. Toyota and Honda AWD only kicks in when there is wheel slippage, and Subaru's is full-time. Traction Control (TCS) and Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) are also reactive systems - but then, so is ABS!

The backseat room in the CRV is freakin huge, at least compared to the tight Forester. I am assuming the RAV4 comes somewhere inbetween, although I seem to remember RAV4 backseat room as quite comfy for my 6'1" frame.

The three are very close together for horsepower and torque, and therefore will be close for mileage as well. The wildcard is the new (for 2004) Forester XT, which is faster than 90% of all vehicles on the road - probably not a selling point for many of those hauling ballerinas and their gear!

2005 Toyota Highlander is supposed to have a hybrid option, and if what I am reading about the Prius is true, that could be one awesome midsized SUV!

fryingbologna · September 2003

Made by Waag:

BUT, installation cannot be combined with the Toyota hitch package for towing (according to the Waag website).

cbmorton · September 2003

I'm also looking at the updated RAV4 here in Canada. Something to clear up: as was previously noted, the US model RAV4 now has stability & traction control standard and side airbags optional -- but neither of these features are available at any price for Canadian buyers. To keep the price in their target range, Toyota Canada opted to not include these items in the Canadian 2004 RAV4. Ditto the rear discs and six-speaker stereo. South of the border only.

Logically, the Forester seems the better buy, with its limited-slip rear diff, side airbags, four-wheel discs, better stereo, auto climate control, more advanced AWD system (with auto tranny), etc. (Note that Toyota's AWD system is also full-time, NOT reactive as in the CR-V. Given this I would expect that there's a similar requirement re keeping the tires within the same specs as with a Subaru).

All that said, I'm having trouble warming up to the look of the Forester. It's a little too family truckster-ish for someone like myself without a family. So, I'm still waiting for the local Toyota dealership to get a new RAV4 in for me to look at.

fryingbologna · September 2003

Go down to your local Subaru dealership. Ask to test-drive a Forester XT. I predict you won't worry about what it looks like... and to be honest, it seems like many of the small SUVs are getting closer to the Forester look than they are getting away from it.

wheelz4 · September 2003

I have 3 beefs with the rear door/ door mounted spare combo of the Rav4 (and the CR-V, for that matter). They are more damage prone (and expensive to repair) in a collision. They block you rearward vision to a certain extent. They make curbside loading/unloading a pain in the a** as the right-swinging door totally blocks your path.
This design is a major inconvenience and long overdue for a change. Honda does it better on their Pilot and especially their Element and Toyota does it better on just about every other SUV they make.

cbmorton · September 2003

I agree that the Forester XT is a fantastic ride, but it's priced $3600 higher than the most expensive RAV4, so it's more likely that people will cross-shop the Forester XS against the RAV4 C or D. The Forester looks better on paper, but I feel about ten years too young to be seen in one. At any rate, just had a call from the Toyota dealer here saying their first 2004 RAV4 is in, so I have a test drive booked in for this afternoon.

alpha01 · September 2003

About the new engine- the 2.4L provides 23 lb. ft. torque more than the departed 2.0L mill, in addition to 13 more hp. Additionally, the torque peak is lower, which, given the assumed responsiveness of the transmission, should by my estimation, drop 0-60 times by about a second, which you will definitely feel through the seat of the pants.

(I believe C&D clocked the 01 RAV4 AWD auto to 60 in 10.2, so I'd expect low nines for that model, now.)
~alpha

cbmorton · September 2003

Well, so much for the test drive. The salesman told me he'd call if they hadn't PDI'd it yet and it wouldn't be available for a drive. Didn't get a call, so I go over there and surprise! it isn't available. So I got to look through the window. The new charcoal interior looks a little more upscale than the previous light grey. The new MP3/CD radio has a shiny silver face that brightens up the interior a bit. However, lease financing at 7.7%? Give me a break.

fryingbologna · September 2003

You were right, cbmorton... no traction control or stability control, and a single unit to look at. The 2003 RAV4 wasn't on my list, and this new Canadian one isn't doing much to move up. It looks like it will be Forester vs Element for me.

cbmorton · September 2003

to considering the Forester again as well. Still can't warm up to the look, but I like the interior a lot, the Sube's reliability quotient is higher, and their finance rates are lower. Neither Toyota nor my dealer seem overly interested in moving the new RAV at this point, and I don't want to wait 2-3 months or more until they get motivated!

ontheroadagain · September 2003

Thanks all for your speedy replies - and alpha, since I'm pretty much of a neophyte when it comes to all these terms, were you saying that I really would notice a difference in acceleration with the new RAV4 engine?

My Subaru Outback Limited '99 wagon really does not have the pick up needed to merge on to a very busy highway with the kind of entrances on some of the highways I drive daily in the NY metro area - the West Side Highway and the Hutchinson River Parkway.

fryingbologna, I was reading a bit about the Forester XT and am not really sure what it's all about...is it a turbo? I got a laugh out of your mentioning my ballerina's and their gear...actually I feel an awful lot like a yellow cab driver while I'm in Manhattan and I do want a car that handles well and can move out of the way fast. This is in part, why I thought that I'd prefer a car that was not quite as long as the Outback wagon...the Forester isn't that much shorter I don't think.

But agreed, wheelz4, it is a dumb way to have the back of both the RAV and the CRV open on the side. Very short sighted.

Oh yes, thanks for the bumper guard and the photo - that is something I would never have known about!

I'm not sure if it was on this thread or not - but someone mentioned something about insurance "shock"...and I'm wondering what the differences might be between say the RAV and the Forrester? Naturally, I realize our costs will be different down here in the USA vs Canada...

Appreciate your post! Thanks!

fryingbologna · September 2003

I've tried to float that boat, but the cap'n says, "ARRRGGGHHH!!!". I guess the XS Premium w/ Leather is the cost cut-off! We now have the AWD/FWD options on both the SL and SE, so the AWD SL is about the same price as the Forester XT. The 2003 VW Passat Wagon AWD has 2.9% financing right now, but cost will be in the Murano SE FWD range. Past that, nothing holds my interest much.

I think I have the go-ahead to make the push to buy over the next two weeks. We are supposed to get 15 cm of snow tonight (that's 10 feet for you Americans!) (no, it's actually only about 4 inches), so I may be quite motivated come 6:30 AM tomorrow morning!

fryingbologna · September 2003

You owe me a beer! We posted at the exact same minute.

The XT is a turbo, likes Premium gas and enjoys long walks on the beach... because of the added cost of premium gas, and the lower MPG (you lose 5-8 MPG going from the XS to the XT) I have given up on the XT. I knew nothing about the Forester until the past year, and I believe it comes out on top in the small SUV category when looking at a balance of safety, reliability, resale, practicality and dorky good-looks. I have never owned a Subaru, none of my friends own Subarus, and I would buy a Nissan yesterday if there was a model with the features I wanted at the price I am willing to spend. I like to think of Subaru now as, "The other Nissan"!

Insurance-wise, I know the Forester is a bit more than the CRV (not much) here in Canada, so I would think the RAV4 would be in the same ballpark... er, hockey rink!

cbmorton · September 2003

bologna, you clearly have more of a vested interest in making the right AWD vehicle choice than I do down here in southern Ontario!

I also like the Murano, but my price cutoff is the low 30s, and I'm a five-speed person anyway, so that simplifies things a lot.

Insurance-wise, I got some quotes for a year's insurance on several small SUVs, including the Forester, RAV4, Escape/Tribute and Freelander. The RAV4 was the most expensive of them all, and the Forester was the cheapest, almost $600 less than the RAV4. Could be you're paying for that rear 'bumper' design on the RAV4 on your insurance bill.

ontheroadagain · September 2003

I had a feeling that the RAV4's lack of bumper might up the ante - thanks cbmorton. I suppose I could call my insurance company to check it out.

Have yourself a nice cold one on me, fryingbologna... I figured it was going to be more of a gas guzzler so I will indeed pass on the XT.

My latest brain storm was along the lines of researching a "higher" quality of car - but a certified used or, as they euphemistically call them, "pre-owned".

I should probably just hang on to my current vehicle a bit longer - but it's interesting to research and try to take all the info. in.

Many thanks all, again!

stever · September 2003

In case you missed it earlier:

link

Steve, Host

ontheroadagain · September 2003

Thanks Steve!

What exactly is this navigation system?

alpha01 · September 2003

Sorry if I jargon-ed you to death. In essence, all I was saying is that if you are used to the old RAV4, you will certainly notice a positive difference in the new one. I *assume* the same when compared against your 99 Legacy, though I am not certain, b/c I have never driven that vehicle, whereas I've drive the Camry 4, which is similar in weight to and uses a version of the RAV 2.4L

~alpha

ontheroadagain · September 2003

Alpha01, I understand what you're saying. The best thing for me to do is go down to my local Toyota dealer and ask for a test drive!

By the way, is the only way to get an insurance quote or ball park figure to have the VIN number?

spleck · September 2003

seegertoyota.com has 2004 RAV4 listed on their inventory pages (presumably these are in transit), along with VINs. My insurance company (USAA) can give online quotes without a VIN, although I don't believe they have the 2004 RAV listed yet.

Toyota RAV4 pre-2006

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles