(image: Eric Clem)
I know we talk a lot about cars growing with each subsequent redesign, but I couldn’t resist highlighting this comparison. When the Toyota RAV4 was first introduced, its 2-door model rode on an 86.6 inch wheelbase, and filled out a whole 147 inches length and 66 inches width. Even the 4-door models were only 163 inches long. The RAV4 has grown significantly over the years, especially from the 2nd to 3rd generations.
(image: Toyota)
Comparing the current RAV4 to the one in the first image will reveal an 18 inch wheelbase gain, 33 inch gain in length, and 6 inch gain in width. While no longer the subcompact cute-ute it once was, I doubt anyone at Toyota is upset, as U.S. sales of the RAV4 have steadily increased to nearly four times what they were when the RAV4 came to America in 1996. Americans seem to prefer larger and more feature-laden cars, and the RAV4 has successfully taken advantage of that.
When these were new, I thought they looked like they should be towing luggage karts on an airport tarmac. Now that even Jeep Wranglers usually have four doors and a wheelbase better suited to a railway car, I would really enjoy a RAV4 2-door with a 5-speed.
Those old 2-doors are getting pretty scarce. Fairly crude but effective devices, I think Toyota was surprised by their success (I mean of the entire range – two and four doors.). The RAV’s gotten larger and more competent in each generation. At this point I’m guessing it’s larger than the original Highlander and has grown into a very capable daily driver. Comfortable, refined, and not too hard on the wallet, what’s not to like?
The newest Rav4s are still smaller than the old Highlanders, much to my girlfriend’s parents’ chagrin. They bought a loaded 2013 Limited AWD with the peanut butter fake leather. This replaced an 05 Highlander that they bought new and racked up 170k trouble free miles on. That was their first Toyota and they’ve only bought Toyotas since then (09′ Prius, 12′ Camry SE). The thought was to get a more efficient replacement for the Highlander, while still retaining most of its utility. The Rav is certainly more efficient (28-30 mpg highway fully loaded with 5 people and luggage. running A/C, going 70-75). The old highlander did about 20 mpg in the same scenario.
The Rav4 has less cargo room, and rides much stiffer, crashing over bumps. Interior is a serious downgrade, all too many of the interior surfaces are hard, hollow plastic. Seats are narrow and hard. Rear leg room is a wash, but the rear seat is like sitting on a park bench, definitely a downgrade from the Highlander. Overall, I think the gain of 8mpg cost them more than it should have.
Based upon exterior styling cues, I find the current Skoda Yeti looks closer to a natural evolution of the Gen 1 RAV4, than the current RAV4. I see no lineage in the current RAV4, to the first one.
I think manufacturers will drop individual model styling cues, in a heartbeat, to adopt de rigueur styling trends. I see more Pontiac Vibe on steroids in the current RAV4, than Gen 1 RAV4.
I’ve wanted one of these since they came out. Someday….
Very rare to see a 3-door here now. My sister had a 5-door ’96, not the world’s best structural integrity but fine little thing for what it was – and relatively distinctive styling too. The current one looks fine, but doesn’t really stand out from the competition.
The “reverse-CC effect” at work…earlier this week, I saw a two-door soft top on my way to the office.
I had a 1998 RAV4, dark green, 2 doors, 4WD stick shift. It wasn’t a soft top. (I believe all soft tops were 2WD ?). It was a great winter vehicle. You couldn’t lock the diffs, the best you could do was to force the torque to go 50/50 front/back.
This generation was often criticized as underpowered (120 HP). True, they were a bit heavy for their engine size, but still moved reasonably IMO (for a small SUV).
I have fond memories of waiting for the next snowstorm to find some unplowed roads to explore. Proved quite reliable, only had to change the cabin blower on it. I sold it in 2010 after owning it for 3 years to get a 2WD Ranger. Life changed quite a bit and I needed something to haul stuff and didn’t want a trailer. Much less fun with this one, but more useful.
Still, I wish I’d kept it. But then I wouldn’t have had the money for the truck.
How far these have fallen, IMHO. The original RAV-4 in 2-door trim was more of an alternative to the Suzuki Sidekick/Geo Tracker twins, Daihatsu Rocky, and Suzuki Samurai. The Isuzu Amigo was always more in line with the Wrangler in terms of size and capability. The CR-V came out about the same time as the RAV which also offered a 4-door. The Sidekick/Tracker came in 4-door trim then also and these all fell more or less in line as well.
In their day, the 4 doors were ‘cute ute’s for a new family, whereas the 2-doors were fun spunky little runabouts. The Rav was more of a lite duty cruiser for the streets only capable of lite offroading whereas the Suzuki/Geo and Daihatsu could be set up for more advanced boonie bashing.
Now, all CUVs really are is a crop of suburban family cars. They may look a bit more stylish than the uber-lame minivans and sedans but the mommie mobile label is sticking. This is what you get when people get obsessed with the rough and tough image of an SUV and want to try to make it into a family car. Jeeps, Ramchargers, Broncos etc can work for families…in a pinch. They were never designed for June Cleaver types. But not wanting the ‘minivan mom’ albatross around their necks, suburban yuppies flocked to the downsized SUVs. And proceeded to bitch about bad mpgs, rough rides, and the overall lack of conveniences associated with them.
A trip to charm school, some fattening up, lethal injection of electronic infotainment doo-dads, and a total neutering of any and all backwoods capabilities…..VOILA. Todays CUVs. Barely fit to track down a dirt road.
The RAV4 was never meant to tread on XJ Cherokee territory but a 2-door soft top with a 5 speed/awd offered at least a taste of fun. Might be a good time to yank the roof and go sliding around the current snowscape in one of those. The current mommy mobiles….not so much.
These seemed to be practically everywhere around where I live in both 2 and 4 door guise along with the Kia Sportage 2 door convertible(which actually came out at the middle of 1993 as a early 1994 and beat the Rav4 by a few months) but now I hardly see any of them(save the RAV4 EV in the parking lot at work and the neighbor’s 2001 Sportage convertible) Were these first gen Ravs not reliable? I mean I do still see loads of first Gen CRVs plying the roads in Maryland.
I owned a 97 4 door AWD with a 5 speed, I bought it new and drove it for around 12 years. Probably the best car I’ve ever owned, certainly the most dependable. I don’t know where people are getting “not the most structurally sound car” or some of the other negative comments from. Mine was rock solid and I still see many 1st gens running around and they are still commanding premium prices for cars of their vintage and class.
I’ve looked into getting another and finding one for less than 3-4 grand that isn’t a basket case isn’t easy.
My wife had a 1997 4-door. It definitely was underpowered, but it was still nice.
Then I went away to war, and she ran it out of oil. The engine still ran, though, until the timing belt broke because of all the heat and turned the engine into a smoking hunk of scrap.
She still never gets her oil changed unless I remind her. She also still slags engines (two so far since then) because, well, she’s the living embodiment of the stereotype about women and cars.
We’re on our second one. We had a 2008 V6, and after a wreck replaced it with one of the last 2012′s with a V6 that we could find. The V6 went away in the 2013, and once you’ve had a 6 you’ll never drive a 4 again. Had to drive to Colorado Springs from Austin to collect it, but she’s a sweet daily driver and a fun car to travel with. Toyota be very, very good to me.
The first I ever saw of these was on the road from Sheremetyevo International to the center of Moscow in the summer of ’97. Needless to say, it really stood out. However, I think it might stand out on I-35 in Dallas even more these days.
These were the only RAV4s I ever cared for. Now it’s just another anonymous bitch box
What is the problem people seem to have with the spare tire being located on the back?
I’m asking because I’m watching a regional Toyota dealer ad for the new RAV4 and they make a big deal of the fact that the spare is now under the luggage compartment floor, unlike previous models. The national ads for the RAV4 mentioned it as well.
Was this some kind of aesthetic no-no for the suburban mom crowd, or a practicality issue of it being heavy/bulky when opening the tailgate?
I think it is mainly the inconvenience of using the tail gate with it there that made it unattractive to users. The other issue was that it made insurance rates higher because it became the bumper and being mounted to the tin can door meant that a small impact destroyed the door.
I suspect another reason the spare tire vanished was to shed weight for CAFE standards, which also resulted in the disappearance of the V6 in the 2013 models. I like having that tire on the back; makes it easy to get to when it’s needed.
Of course, we replaced all the cheap ToyoCrappo tires with a good set of Michelins after we got home from Colorado Springs, included the spare.
the original cute-ute that spawned a thousand imitators. Didn’t like it when it was introduced. Thought it looked very Asian unlike let’s say the T100s but after hearing about how fun, capable and durable that these trucks were, gotta give them some major respect. Much rather have this thing than a Bravada.
As a post-facelift model, the featured car is especially rare. Excellent find, Brendan.
Cute,though often sneered at as a hairdresser’s car.
By who? Have you looked at the prices these gen 1 Ravs command? Have you seen how many examples are still running around?
When I sold mine my phone blew up within minutes of listing it. They’re extremely popular. You won’t find a more durable car either.
Chavs,boy racers and the like
Mommy-mobiles? Bitch boxes? Hairdresser’s cars? And yes, I understand the British inference in the latter term. I’ve never been a RAV4 fan but I don’t think it – or women, mothers, or hairdressers – warrant such insults. Lighten up guys.
It was a good dependable mini-ute for the ladies.
We had a 70 year old aunt that had one and I also knew a middle aged librarian who drove one around town for years.
At a time when the SUV boom was in full swing, these little toys were for folks who didn’t want what an American SUV but wanted to stay in the style of the period.
They are still driven mostly by ladies, right? The senior lady living across the street tools around in one and I still mostly see ladies driving them.