Although somewhat demoralizing to car enthusiasts, it is nonetheless very understandable that the majority of consumers choose cars of more basic, conventional, humble, and for lack of a better term, “boring” nature. For the fact of the matter is, cars are purely a utilitarian object of transportation for most people, which explains why even in segments that prioritize practicality above all else, vehicles that attempt to break the mold with interesting or unique features that add little practical value most often fail. The Toyota Previa was one of those such vehicles.
Conceived and ultimately introduced in an era when the minivan was a rapidly flourishing and profitable, yet unsophisticated and unadventurous segment, the Toyota Previa was a minivan that broke the mold with its exclusive platform, unprecedented for the class mid-engine rear-wheel drive layout, avant-garde styling, and available features such as all-wheel drive and a supercharged inline-4 engine.
Available worldwide, the minivan continued to use its predecessor’s “Tarago” name in the Australian market, while in Japan it was known as the “Estima”, and available in a narrow-body version with either the “Emina” or “Lucida” suffix. A nod to its futuristic nature, for most markets however, Toyota chose to call this new minivan “Previa”, derived from the Italian word previdenza, meaning “foresight”? On that note, props to Toyota for switching traditional gender roles by showing a working mother and stay-at-home father in its promotional video of the Previa.
You see, up until that point, minivans, whether they be front-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive, largely made use of existing car or truck platforms, shared a plethora of other components with existing vehicles, and offered little in the way of dedicated styling. Notwithstanding any of its other unique aspects, the very fact that the Previa was a clean slate, designed from the ground-up minivan is noteworthy.
Rather than the traditional front-engine rear-wheel drive configuration of its predecessor and many competitors, Toyota engineers elected to mount the Previa’s exclusive 2.4-liter inline-4 TZ engine at a 75-degree angle beneath the front seats, for a very unique mid-engine, rear-wheel drive layout. Doing this benefited the Previa in several ways. For starters, it gave the Previa a significantly lower center of gravity and a near 50-50 weight distribution, something unheard of for the class, for superior handling than its relatively tall height and narrow width would suggest.
Furthermore, much like competing front-wheel drive minivans, this layout gave the Previa a flat floor for the second and third rows (broken up only by the small hump between the front seats), for maximum interior space and passenger accessibility. Depending on the market in which it was sold, the Previa (or sssssss) was available with eight passenger seating (2-3-3) or two seven passenger seating (2-2-3) configurations, which differed by either an off-centered second row bench or two individual bucket seats. Notable of the Previa, its third row bench split 50/50 and stowed against the sides of the vehicle, while the available second row buckets swiveled, allowing them to be forward-facing or rear-facing the third row.
The Previa’s most obvious difference from other minivans at the time was naturally its styling. Fittingly dubbed “Egg on a box” by its design team at Toyota’s Calty Design Research center in Newport Beach, California, the Previa eschewed the defined two-box shape, straight lines and sharp angles of other minivans for an almost one-box ovoid silhouette, its hood and expansive windshield an unbroken singular curve.
Like its predecessor, the Previa featured a single-rear driver’s side sliding door on either the left or right side depending on the country it was sold in. Somewhat curiously, especially for a vehicle that embraced innovation to such an extensive degree, dual sliding doors were never offered for the minivan’s first generation.
The interior, which was designed by Toyota Auto Body Co., Ltd. in Japan, complemented the exterior design with numerous curves and futuristic elements. The dashboard featured a symmetric “dual cockpit” design, allowing for easy conversion between right-hand drive and left-hand drive. Although the radio and HVAC controls were mounted high on a central pod, contemporary reviews cited other controls as poorly designed and poorly placed.
In spite of its innovative nature, the Previa had its drawbacks, some of which ultimately limited its appeal and success. While its mid-engine configuration was novel and unique, the compact engine bay did not allow for a larger and more powerful six-cylinder engine, something most competitors offered. Toyota responded to complaints and criticism of lack of power from the standard 138 horsepower, 154 lb-ft torque inline-4 by adding an optional 2.2-liter supercharged I4, making a much more competitive 161 horsepower and 201 lb-ft of torque, but it was too little, too late, arriving four years after sales began.
Additionally, neither engine offered fuel economy that could be called impressive for a four-cylinder and regardless of which engine, as its placement underneath the front seats yielded harsher cabin vibrations and noise than a traditional front-engine configuration. Other drawbacks included the Previa’s height and width, for despite being externally taller than the Chryslers by some five inches, its floor was substantially higher off the ground, making for poorer headroom, while its width was narrower for a tighter interior, particularly the rearmost three-seat bench. The fact that the Previa scored a “poor” rating in the IIHS’s offset frontal crash test was also likely a cause for concern to most buyers.
Among other factors, what most likely prevented the Previa from achieving measurable success (at least in North America) came down to two factors. The first of which is something subjective: Style. Alas as style is subjective, in some cases the Previa’s futuristic styling may have helped it, but in retrospect it’s clear that the unusual egg shape was just too unorthodox in a segment that was very conservative at the time, something only exaggerated by the Previa’s proportions.
The second of these two big factors is an objective one: Price. Quite simply, the Previa was an expensive minivan, considerably more so than its competition. For this featured 1995’s model year, the least expensive DX model began at $23,338, while its most costly LE S/C All-Trac (supercharged, AWD) retailed for a whopping $31,568 starting price — which didn’t even include options such as the $1,790 leather interior package — making it the most expensive minivan on the market.
While its base model did lack the same level of standard equipment as the Previa DX, a base 1995 Dodge Grand Caravan started at only $18,605, while its most expensive ES all-wheel drive model listed for $26,265, over $5,000 less than the top trim Previa. Only the “luxury” Chrysler Town & Country all-wheel drive came close, retailing for $29,775. Did the Previa really have enough meaningful unique features that justified its $5,000-plus premium over most of its competition?
While its introduction may have caused execs of Chrysler, who dominated more than 50% of the minivan market in North America, to begin sweating nervously, the Previa soon showed that its presence had little impact or influence on the market, even backed by Toyota’s near-indestructible image at the time. North American-specific sales figures are no where to be found, but total global production of the Previa/Estima/Tarago et. al. never surpassed 173,000 units, in most years much less.
Although it continued in other markets, with the third generation Estima still on sale in Japan today, the Previa was dropped from Toyota’s lineup in 1997, replaced with the more conventional front-engine, front-wheel drive Sienna, which was based on the Camry. So while many of us might drool over that exotic sports car boasting maximum sex appeal and a price tag whose hundreds of thousands of dollars are only surpassed by its hundreds of horsepower, when it comes to daily drivers “conventional” is what appeals to most buyers, even those who buy minivans.
Photographed in Hingham Center, Hingham, Massachusetts – May 2018
Related Reading:
Wow. I’ve never even imagined that the first-gen Previa had its engine under the floor of the passenger compartment. On the interior shot it looks as if there’s no engine at all, anywhere in this car ! That’s really unusual, thanks for bringing this up. I wonder, what was the designer’s idea of any engine repair, that should’ve been a major pain in the butt for the mechanic.
That is the kind of vehicle which looks extremely “kewl” and futuristic on paper, but is not quite adapted to the real life.
Can’t help but think of Yuriy Dolmatovskiy’s conceptual rear-engined minivans of 1950s & 60s – just the same thing, extremely cool idea, but not all that practical when you give it a closer look. Extremely ovoid styling, too, by the way.
No, that’s downright insane…
These had a lot of presence on the streets of Melbourne; as had the previous gen. Surprised they didn’t really cut through in the US. I think this is one of Toyota’s better shapes, but I’m sure that’s an eye-of-the-beholder thing because I like the whale B-bodies as well. The next generation typified the styling decline that overtook Toyota.
In Australia we didn’t have any of the American competition, except for some Chrysler presence in later years – and they were a minor upstart company in this market. When you look at the competing vehicles on sale here, so wonder they sold so well – apart from the Honda Odyssey they were all converted cargo vans, like the previous Tarago was.
My family’s daily driver is a 1998 Tarago that is still going well with 330,000 km on the odometer. Here’s a picture of it, taken in a leafy street in Melbourn’s east.
I liked the bold, futuristic styling of these. These seemed very popular in the ’90s and ’00s in east London, though the ‘grey’ import Lucida/Emina versions were probably as common as the Previa itself. Given our relatively narrow and busy streets those few inches less width may have been part of the reason. Since moving to North Wales I rarely see these now; locally (Vauxhall) Cascadas seem more common!
These are all dissappear fast in the UK now there replaced the jag xjs and ford granada as the banger racers favourite banger
Enjoyable article. I’ve owned two Gen 1’s and currently have a Gen 3 JDM model. They’ve all been great vans – the two Gen 1’s both had over 150K miles, and were still going strong when I sold them. You’ve accurately summarized their shortcomings, but in my case those were insignificant to the many advantages – the most prominent being its reliability and dependability. These things run forever – knowing the engine was in a confined space, Toyota overbuilt the 2.4 TZ with a timing chain that never required replacement. The bodies will rot off before the drive train gives up.
i’m glad you brought this up. i was thinking that it is the kind of quirky vehicle that i might buy, if it weren’t for the engine inaccessibility. not having to replace the timing chain is a big plus.
Toyota Previa: When Chevrolet makes a minivan out of the Caprice
I remember the first two generations of Toyota minivans (this one and the rectangular one that preceeded it) being crazy expensive, especially for a four.
I once saw an ad for an older one that seemed to have been in great shape. I called my mechanic for an opinion. His response – “They are good vans, but for selfish reasons I hope you don’t buy it. We are down to just one of these that comes in here and I have been looking forward to it disappearing soon.”
I figured when the mechanic doesn’t want to see it in his shop that was a bad omen.
I will say that the Previas were never very common sights in my area, even in the late-1990s/early-2000s. By contrast, the Sienna was nearly as ubiquitous as the Chrysler minivans almost as soon as it came out.
The only people I ever knew with a Previa was the family who lived at the end of the street I grew up on, in the form of a very ’90s Toyota gold-colored DX model driven by the father. I will say, they probably had it up until the late-00s, when it was replaced by a Honda Pilot.
These were everywhere when I was growing up. Once we turned into teens and its family hauling days were over, a good friend inherited the one we’d grown up with as his first car, and it took a lickin’ and kept on tickin’. Although slow and underpowered, it was steady, reliable. I recall it doing a trip from California into the Arizonian desert with no problems at all. You could fold down the seats and sleep in it, which I remember my buddy doing one miserably cold and windy night at Joshua Tree. Another friend’s family bought a Caravan and went though five or six transmissions (under warranty); the Previa required nothing but fresh oil.
One by one, these started leaving the streets and being replaced with Siennas and Odysseys. Living in a surfing town, now and again, I see surfers who treat the Previa as a poor-man’s Westfalia, strapping their gear on top and building out the inside as a camper. Like the Toyota Van of the ’80s, the Previa is an odd, unique vehicle that will probably find a place with enthusiasts in time. I think its unique styling and Toyota reliability will make nice examples desirable in the future, as opposed to Caravans, Aerostars, or even Odysseys or Siennas, all of which feel more disposable and appliance-like.
as a westy owner, i agree with your analysis. all wheel drive and low center of gravity. let’s see… raise it about an inch… now how do i get a poptop on this thing?
We had a mixed-feelings relationship with a ’96 Previa EX S/C that we bought used in ’98 to replace a ’92 Grand Caravan LE. Previas depreciated rapidly in their first couple of years of life, and we got a $30k can for$21k. We had wanted something that would break down less and tow a 3000 lb boat trailer decently. It did both of those things well. The low CG made for surprisingly good handling up to around 45 mph, but the crude suspension made for a jiggly highway ride with plenty of wandering and rubbery steering at speed. The mid engine compromised 2nd row foot room and had poor nvh compared to that silky Chrysler 3.3l v6. It burned 10-20% more gas than the Caravan had, and required premium for the supercharged engine.
My stepfather bought a gen3 Town and Country. Neither of us had expected it, but when the two vans were parked next to each other it appeared that Chrysler had copied the shape of the back of the Previa and only changed the lights and trim.
My wife never got comfortable with driving the Previa, and we traded it on a new 2000 Odyssey, which we ran up over 200k miles on. It was geared all wrong for towing, but in most other respects was a much nicer vehicle.
We visited Oahu a few years ago and were surprised by the large number of Previas still in use there and apparently cherished. On reflection, though, it seemed to make sense. Speed limits were low, traffic was slow, parking was right, and there were a lot of curves to be taken at 30-40 mph. Those are precisely the conditions under which a Previa excels.
One interesting thing is that it might be the last US mass-market Toyota that wasn’t really designed around local US needs. (Maybe the Tundra would also fall into this category). Cramped and unsafe would be deal-breakers for most US minivan shoppers.
I would be surprised if the high price were really a barrier: this van was sold during the peak period of the “Toyota premium” when their reputation was light-years ahead of the US manufacturers. I think you’d see a similar difference if you compared the Camry and the Taurus… but in terms of daily use, the Camry was a superior product (unlike the Previa).
I have never been, not do I ever expect to be, in the market for a minivan. That said, I would have to say that the lack of a V6 and the inability to heavily discount the MSRP worked against the Previa.
J. P. :
I think your mechanic might also have discouraged you from buying a Toyota van because he knew that he wouldn’t be making much money off you. I can’t say for sure why, but the vans Toyota sold before the introduction of the Sienna, have a propensity to rack up high mileages.
I don’t think so, he is an honest guy and never hesitated to recommend things that were low-maintenance. Instead he has always given me the benefit of his experience with a given model, whether better or worse than most. His problem with it was that the thing is just insanely difficult to work on, something that I have seen referred to here on this site more than once.
The engine and transmission in these might well be the most bullet-proof ones built in the last 30 years. There’s a reason the main taxi company in Eugene used nothing but used Previas here for years, and they still have one or two, with over 600k on the odometers.
And these are prized by private owners here too, as their almost infinite lifespan makes a great long-life car, something folks here place value on. The used prices for these here have always been almost absurdly high, but folks will pay them.
They are replacing the previous Toyota van here for those kind of owners. The Toyota van, also nigh-near indestructible, is finally petering out here, although there’s still a few around.
I’m sorry, but your mechanic was projecting. Yes, access is a bit difficult to the engine, but who cares when there’s nothing to fix?
maybe he just doesn’t like having to alternate between laying on his belly to access the engine through the hatch and then putting it on the lift to get at the bottom. it would drive me crazy!
I was on the sales floor back in 1991, these were a hard sell. I think our Chevy store had an easier time shifting Lumina APVs, but I’m sure the more conventional front-engine, FWD layout had more to do with it than the Star-Trek styling did.
These were expensive machines back then. Most of the ones we had on the lot were ringing up close to $30K. I don’t know if we lost many sales due to the strange powertrain arrangement, but folks were not overly impressed with the truck like fuel mileage, space utilization and the high floor. Along with the high price. Did I mention these were not cheap?
At least where I was at the time, the Chrysler minis were king. I don’t know for sure if it was the “first mover” advantage, but it was largely the benchmark for minivans. Typically the purchasers of these things were hard-core Toyota fans.
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen expensive minivans that were rolling biohazards. Maybe folks weren’t interested in spending serious money for something they knew was going to be treated badly…
The only person I ever knew with one of these traded in an older Toyota Van for it. I had to look it up, had forgotten that the first angular minivan was just called Toyota Van and not Previa. Those were crazy expensive (for what you got) too, but those who loved them were almost fanatics about them. I think most minivan buyers were on a budget (multiple kids will do that to you) and were looking for the most minivan for the money. Had the first two Toyota minivans either matched the Chrysler in power and features and just been more expensive or kept their odd layout but were roughly similar in cost they would have done better. But the toyotas were compromised in shape *and* way more expensive, so there was more than one reason to not buy.
The original Odyssey had the same problem – not only was it smaller and less powerful, it was just as (or more) expensive, and it didn’t sell well either. Both Honda and Toyota finally cracked the minivan code and their sales picked right up with vehicles that were similar in specs and moderately more expensive.
I strongly considered buying a used Previa around 2006, seeking out fully-optioned supercharged AWD LE models from the last few years. I needed space but didn’t want a large vehicle, and few cars, trucks, or vans were as space-efficient as a Previa. My brother had a second-gen Lexus RX at the time which was exactly the same length as a Previa but only could fit two rows of seats plus a luggage area not much bigger than what the Previa managed behind three rows.
Several things that impressed me or were at least unique at the time:
– Forward visibility was spectacular due to the low cowl, high seating position, tall windows, and thin pillars
– Dual sunroofs were available
– The third row was split in half, and folded up against the side of the van to clear the floor. This was before the era of fold-into-the-floor third row seats; other vans during the Previa’s run required removing the 3rd row seat out of the van if you needed to haul cargo.
– The interior was available with leather or velour cloth. In lieu of a second-row bench seat, you could order captain’s chairs that swiveled, but were non-removable. I’m not sure if they can be taken out with tools or not – anyone here know?
– The engine did seem to disappear under the floor – it was raised slightly from the area around it, but you could easily walk between the first and second rows, a major improvement from the earlier Toyota vans that had a large bulkhead between and behind the front seats that also sapped 2nd row legroom.
– a 5 speed manual transmission was available on the DX models. I recall that you couldn’t get a supercharged engine, manual transmission, and AWD in the same van, although you could get two of those three IIRC. Still an exotic layout for a minivan.
I found the styling rather modernistic and attractive. Compared to the Chrysler vans, the inside was a bit plain and the dashboard looked 8 months pregnant, but ergonomics were still good. Ultimately I decided to buy a new car after my financial situation improved rather than the used Previa (or Mazda MPV, or Honda CR-V i also considered). I still have a soft spot for these though.
I ran the sales floor back in those days. We didn’t have Toyota, but we did have Chevy, Ford, and all the Daimler/Chrysler franchises. We sold a surprising number of Astro’s out of the Chevy store, although the Lumina (dustbuster) was a non event. The Ford store did OK with the Aerostar, but unsurprisingly the Chrysler/Plymouth and Dodge stores did a land-office in mini-vans.
Even more surprising, after over 30 years and a number of well known mechanical issues, FCA (Pacifica and Grand Caravan) still holds over 60% market share in the minivan segment. They are to minivans what GM is to large SUV’s.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2018/06/minivan-sales-in-america-may-2018/
These were hampered most of all by price, and secondly by a few other details, as Brendan points out so well. When we needed a minivan in 1992, I wanted to get one of these. But Stephanie wanted a Grand Caravan.
Let’s just say the GC went had 4 transmissions in 170k miles, and 3 ABS pressure generators (or whatever they were called), as well as a radiator or two, a water pump, and a few other items. I finally donated it to a charity because the fourth transmission was leaking.
If we’d bought a Previa, I’d almost undoubtedly still be driving it today as my utility van. Seriously. And it would be on its first engine and transmission.
These might have had some issues that turned off buyers, but I bet there’s hardly ever been a buyer of a Previa that regretted it over the long haul.
I had a beautiful top spec ’96 Town and Country LXI that I loved driving. However the transmission was a problem even after it was rebuilt. Other niggling problems developed over time and it became just too unreliable. On the other hand my previous plainer ’90 with the Mitsu 3.0 went to 160k on the original tranny. I never considered the Previa. the drivetrain was just too unconventional for a minivan.
I learned to drive in one of these.
My family bought a low mileage used DX when I was a toddler. It turned 200k on my 16th bday and a little before 300k i convinced my mom to downsize after all of us had cars of our own.
No real problems, just changing the oil.
Briefly sold Toyotas in the early 90s. Once in a blue moon we’d get a base DX trim 5-speed manual, which were fun to drive, similar to a VW Vanagon with more power. Handling was good on smooth roads, if not as supple as the VW due to the solid rear axle. As previously mentioned, a well-maintained/restored Previa could be a reliable and inexpensive Vanagon/Westy alternative.
I had no idea why these were so overpriced when new, thank you for the article. My folks bought a base model 1995 Plymouth Voyager for $18,000 and no way would they want to spend much more than that.
I always thought these were cool and I remember growing up my neighbors had one in this Green as did my mom’s work place.
In central New York these Previas were all about gone by 2009 and I do not remember seeing any last year when I visited Ithaca. When I moved to Portland, Oregon 5 years ago these Previas were rather plentiful and I tried to photograph nearly every one I could. Now they are quite rare though I do see some still owned by fans or folks in need of a Minivan including the occasional All Trac version. Last year I went the more sensible route and bought a used Sienna instead of one of these Previas. Here is a Previas I found this month in East Portland.
Hope the photo posts.
I have a 96 with the supercharged engine. I have had it about 5-6 years. I traded some work for a client for it ($850). It had 300 000 Kms on it and I figured I would be lucky to get a couple of years out of it. Other than a rear axle bearing and seal, some brakes, tires, oil changes, new muffler and a battery it has been reliable and always got me home. It’s now approaching 400 000 kms and the front shocks are starting to go. But it owes me nothing and I will try to keep it up until something major breaks. Talking to the courier at work he says they are good for 600 000 kms before either the body rots off or the engine dies.
As service goes it is pretty easy as all the accessories are under the front hood and there is an access hatch under the passenger seat for changing the plugs. There is even an oil tank that you fill between oil changes so you don’t have to flip the drivers seat to check the oil. Mine uses under a litre per 5000kms.
It also camps well with the center seat removed and back seats folded. It will also tow my old 70’s canned ham trailer which weighs in about 2000 lbs with no complaints, although I have to turn the overdrive off up the steeper hills.
The Previa did not break the mold with its dedicated platform or mid engine rear drive set up.
Lets look at the Minivans on the market when pencil was put to paper to design the Previa.
Toyota, mid engine, rear drive, dedicated platform
Nissan, mid engine, rear drive, dedicated platform
Mitsubishi, mid engine, rear drive, dedicated platform
Ford, front engine, rear drive, dedicated platform
GM, front engine, rear drive, dedicated platform
Chrysler, front engine, front drive, half of the K car platform.
So it was following the then common Japanese layout with the distinction of laying the engine down so they could move it farther to the rear.
Styling was one of the two places they stepped away from convention, the other was the SAD shaft to drive the accessories normally hung on the front of an engine, including the supercharger on those with it.
Except the Nissan, Toyota and Mitsubishi “minivans” were just converted versions of their existing cargo vans. And didn’t the Aerostar and Astro make extensive use of their respective makers’ parts bins?
It is not like they were conceived solely to be cargo vans.
The Ford and GM twins did use stuff out of the parts bin but no more so than other vehicles. The chassis were completely unique and despite what a lot of people think did not use suspension from their small pickups.
I would add that the existing Nissan, Toyota and Mitsu vans were also virtual copies of the original Ford Falcon van (and the other domestic clones, too). Which is to say, front engine, rear drive. Just because the engine was a bit behind or astride the seats didn’t make them mid-engined.
To address William’s comment, yes the Ford and GM vans borrowed heavily from the small trucks. Which made them so heavy, actually.
The Astro’s front suspension was actually an adaptation of the design from the B body station wagon.
Not really. Yes they are both unequal length A-arms with lower arm mounted coil springs but there are many front suspensions that use that basic layout. The control arms are different as are the spindles. Yes there are people who modify B body drop spindles to lower their Astro but they mess up their steering geometry in doing so, but then again most people who do significant lowering do that and don’t really care.
The generally accepted definition of a mid engine vehicle is that the engine is located between the axles/axle center line. The aformentioned Japanese vans as well as the Econoline/Falcon Station Bus and its copies all have their engine behind the front axle.
No the Ford and GM vans did not borrow heavily from the small trucks, other than engines and transmissions which were shared with other vehicles too. If you’ve ever been under them or replaced suspension pieces on them you would know they are not related. The front suspensions aren’t even close to the Ranger and S-10. Out back the Aerostar and Ranger aren’t even close, the former is a coil spring 3 link and the other leafs. The Astro and S-10 are closer in that they are both leaf spring suspension but the axles are different and the Astro used a composite mono-leaf while the S-10 used a traditional steel multi-leaf. Then of course there is the fact that the pickups use a ladder frame and the vans are unibody.
Yes they are heavier than the Caravan but they were designed to be light trucks with a significant towing and payload capacity and not a modified car.
Amazingly indestructible cars. Saw one in the flesh once with 458k and it was still running. The crash tests werent so good, but that engine is unkillable. If I had the space to have an extra vehicle and the need for a van, I’d probably still seek one out….
still holding onto mine. Valve cover leaks, shocks gone, some rust showing. However, the rest is solid. The steering became dangerous with struts worn out. Front struts are complex proceedure. Still, I’d buy a AWD SC if I could find a decent one. 600,000 miles life is about right on. diehard fans know this.
I was told by a Toyota Parts staff of an elderly Previa owner who faithfully maintained is van at the Stealership / Service bay. He was offered multiple times to sell the Previa to the dealership, which he repeatedly declined.
Finally, when he came in for an oil change with 890,000 km. , the Toyota Dealership owner was so impressed, he offered a considerable premium- $10,000 for the Previa as a trade-in for a new Toyota at wholesale price even. That finally convinced hime to let go at 890,000 km.
The Stealership resold the Previa 3 days later at $14,000. Go figure. Such is the legend when a Previa shows up at a service garage. They know how long these last, if cared properly.
Tengo la fortuna de tener mi segunda Previa Gen 1 desde hace más de un año, siempre me causó curiosidad su comparación con la caravan pero después de 30 años las condiciones aquí en Colombia exigen de un buen auto y la verdad creo que ninguna caravan pudo resistir la exigencia de recorrer caminos tan quebrados y complicadas como nuestra geografía, en cambio el Previa como siempre lo único que exige es un cambio de aceite de vez en cuando es una máquina increíble, resistente, cómoda y lo que más me encanta, es que al detenerme en un semáforo las personas voltean con cara de admiración a ver un vehículo tan exótico, incluso hoy en día no he visto una camioneta tan linda como esta, estamos muy contentos y en pleno 2021 espero poder conservarla muchos años mas
Great