mmcartalk
Expert
- Messages
- 4,158
- Reactions
- 2,675
MM Retro Write-Up: First-Generation 1995-2000 Toyota RAV-4.
IN A NUTSHELL: One of the original Crossover-Crazes of the 1990s, and still enormously successful today.
The 1990s, in the U.S., saw the meteoric rise of family-SUVs such as the Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota 4Runner, Dodge Durango, Chevy S-10 Blazer and Trailblazer, etc…. as millions of those families who had formerly had minivans were now looking for a vehicle that could still carry their families but also offer more versatility in the winter with Four-Wheel-Drive/All-Wheel-Drive and at least some limited capabilities off-road. Automakers, in a number of ways, found a quick and relatively inexpensive way to meet this demand by redoing their compact and full-sized pickups to enclose the rear bed and add a back-seat/interior. This concept was quite successful overall, and worked very well for several years (the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee were especially popular)…but one of their noted weaknesses was a stiff, truck-like ride and somewhat ponderous handling. This was not surprising, given that their suspensions and steering-systems basically came from the pickup trucks they they were originally based on. Customers began to complain about the firmness of the ride. (Except for the Mazda Miata, I’ve never liked firm-riding vehicles myself). The Ford Explorer’s suspension, for example, dated back to the Twin-I-Beam truck-suspension introduced in 1964 That design-antiquity, and the shortcomings of the Firestone Wilderness tires at lower PSIs and hot temperatures/high speeds and heavy vehicle loads would lead to tire failure, classic roll-overs and big liability problems for both Ford and Firestone a few years later.
So, by the middle of the decade or so, a relatively new concept began to take hold among automakers, one which would offer at least some of the utility/usefulness of the truck-based SUVs, full-time all-wheel-drive for winter traction, beer fuel-economy, better and more civilized road-manners, and easier entry/exit, and better ground-clearance for road-debris and mild off-road/non-paved surface conditions…..in short, the Crossover. The term Crossover was used because, of course, with some inevitable compromise, it combined the comfort of traditional sedans/coupes/wagons with the better utility and ground clearance of trucks. This crossover-concept, of course, had been tried back in the early 1980s with the Eagle and Eagle SX-4 from American Motors (which I covered in a previous write-up), but the public was not ready for it, and this vehicle was some fifteen years ahead of its time. In fact, not only the Eagle, but parent corporation American Motors itself, even under Chrysler and Renault ownership, did not survive the decade, and went out of business.
Well, by the middle of the 1990s….the public WAS ready for that concept. Subaru’s Outback, introduced in 1995, was a big success….more-so than even the company marketers had projected. (I owned a later 2006 version of the Outback myself). It was essentially a modern version of the former AMC Eagle..a raised suspension wagon, based on the Legacy sedan, with what was arguably the world’s best full-time AWD system at that point. But the Outback was basically more of a wagon than today’s idea of a crossover……two years later, in 1997, the Subaru Forester would debut, which was more of a true crossover. By that time, however, had also Toyota introduced its own crossover, the first-generation RAV-4, in 1995, for the 1996 model year. Honda would shortly follow with its CR-V, and many other automakers sold essentially play copy-cat without heir own crossover introductions. Many, if not most, of these original crossover designs, particularly the Forester/Outback, RAV-4, and CR-V are still in production today in updated forms, as these four have been especially popular and successful…they sell almost as many units each year as the top-selling domestic full-size pickups.
Personally, I thought the first-generation RAV-4 (and, for that matter, its rival Honda CR-V) looked somewhat awkward in its styling, but there was no denying its huge success. At the Toyota dealership where I had gotten the blue 1995 Celica that I was driving at the time, I can remember overhearing some of the salespersons (I had gone to my freshman year in high-school with one of them, so he had known me decades previously) sitting around and talking when they thought the customers were probably out of earshot. They were discussing about how easy it was going to be to get profits and mark-ups over list for the new RAV-4s…and, needless to say, they were right. A lot of people DID pay more for the early-production RAV-4s than they probably were worth, but, that, of course, is the capitalist auto-buisness for you, and the way many dealerships work.
I have long-felt that both Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura were at their peak and produced many of their best vehicles in the 1990s, and, true to form, the RAV-4 was no exception. Mechanically, although it was an all-new vehicle, it used well-proven parts and components (including the all-wheel-drive system) from various different AWD Toyota Tercel, Corolla, and Camry platforms….so there were no reliability problems even on the brand-new design. The ultra-tall square greenhouse windows gave it the outward visibility of a fish-tank…at the expense of the sun quickly heating up the interior. Those were before the days of the classic Toyota cost-cutting (which really got going after 2000)….so the first-generation interior, though not upmarket-lavish, was durable and well-screwed together with high-quality plastics, leathers, and other materials. Unlike most of its rivals, the first-generation RAV-4 was also available in a very short 2-door version (which, IMO, looked even more awkward than the 4-door), but for some reason (I’ve never known why) 2-doors were quite rare here in the D.C. area, and dealerships simply didn’t order them or keep them in stock. Perhaps (?) there was simply more profit for dealerships in the 4-door model (they were selling them at list or more…often above list). Or, perhaps, the type of person or family that would be interested in the 4 door ended that extra room in back, and the 2-door would simply be inadequate. I myself briefly considered a two-door version, in addition to my Celica, as a vehicle to drive in winter when I didn’t want to expose my Celica to road salt/abrasives….but decided against it. Because I knew the salespeople there at the Toyota shop, I probably could have gotten at least a minimal discount on one and avoided a mark-up, but I never could quite live with that odd-looking body-design on the two-door. And, besides, much of the time, I commuted on the subway, particularly in winter….so that also kept my Celica off the worst of the winter roads.
In the U.S., first-generation RAV-4s came with the tried-and-true Toyota non-turbo 2.0L in-line four, a choice of 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic transmission, and a choice of front-wheel-drive or all-wheel drive for those who did not need the extra winter traction. A 2-door convertible version (similar to Isuzu’s Amigo) was also available, but I don’t recall ever seeing one in the D.C area….for that matter, as I mentioned previously, I saw almost no 2-door hardtops. A fully-electric version (no gas engine) was available in California, but mostly to fleet-orders. The drivetrain and mechanicals in these vehicles, while not quite as robust as in the off-road 4Runner, are still, nonetheless, quite durable and well-made. A colleague of mine from my former church, who works at the Pentagon, still has a 1999 four-door RAV-4 that he drives daily as a personal and commuting vehicle…..needing a few age-related repairs but still basically going strong. (I’ve told him, several times, that he was fortunate to have had one Toyota’s best products from the 1990s).
The first-generation model was produced through the 2000 model year, and the second-generation dropped the two-door hardtop and convertible versions altogether. Noticeable cost-cutting in materials and build-solidness started with the second version, and (In my opinion at least) each subsequent version has lost a little more of that original material-solidness in its interior, hardware, and trim. Toyota being Toyota, however, the famous reliability and engineering that the company puts into its drivetrains is still there in the newest RAV-4s, going strong. And I thought the latest RAV-4, introduced a couple of years ago, although still with cheap second-rate trim and interior materials, was major improvement, looks-wise, from the somewhat goofy-looking one that preceded it, although it grew noticeably longer and is now almost a mid-sized crossover.
Indeed, despite its weaknesses, the RAV-4, like the CR-V and Subaru crossovers, is still enormously successful in the American marketplace, and even today, this class of vehicle, particularly the RAV-4. still manages to outsell all but the large domestic pickups.
And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING
IN A NUTSHELL: One of the original Crossover-Crazes of the 1990s, and still enormously successful today.
The 1990s, in the U.S., saw the meteoric rise of family-SUVs such as the Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Toyota 4Runner, Dodge Durango, Chevy S-10 Blazer and Trailblazer, etc…. as millions of those families who had formerly had minivans were now looking for a vehicle that could still carry their families but also offer more versatility in the winter with Four-Wheel-Drive/All-Wheel-Drive and at least some limited capabilities off-road. Automakers, in a number of ways, found a quick and relatively inexpensive way to meet this demand by redoing their compact and full-sized pickups to enclose the rear bed and add a back-seat/interior. This concept was quite successful overall, and worked very well for several years (the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee were especially popular)…but one of their noted weaknesses was a stiff, truck-like ride and somewhat ponderous handling. This was not surprising, given that their suspensions and steering-systems basically came from the pickup trucks they they were originally based on. Customers began to complain about the firmness of the ride. (Except for the Mazda Miata, I’ve never liked firm-riding vehicles myself). The Ford Explorer’s suspension, for example, dated back to the Twin-I-Beam truck-suspension introduced in 1964 That design-antiquity, and the shortcomings of the Firestone Wilderness tires at lower PSIs and hot temperatures/high speeds and heavy vehicle loads would lead to tire failure, classic roll-overs and big liability problems for both Ford and Firestone a few years later.
So, by the middle of the decade or so, a relatively new concept began to take hold among automakers, one which would offer at least some of the utility/usefulness of the truck-based SUVs, full-time all-wheel-drive for winter traction, beer fuel-economy, better and more civilized road-manners, and easier entry/exit, and better ground-clearance for road-debris and mild off-road/non-paved surface conditions…..in short, the Crossover. The term Crossover was used because, of course, with some inevitable compromise, it combined the comfort of traditional sedans/coupes/wagons with the better utility and ground clearance of trucks. This crossover-concept, of course, had been tried back in the early 1980s with the Eagle and Eagle SX-4 from American Motors (which I covered in a previous write-up), but the public was not ready for it, and this vehicle was some fifteen years ahead of its time. In fact, not only the Eagle, but parent corporation American Motors itself, even under Chrysler and Renault ownership, did not survive the decade, and went out of business.
Well, by the middle of the 1990s….the public WAS ready for that concept. Subaru’s Outback, introduced in 1995, was a big success….more-so than even the company marketers had projected. (I owned a later 2006 version of the Outback myself). It was essentially a modern version of the former AMC Eagle..a raised suspension wagon, based on the Legacy sedan, with what was arguably the world’s best full-time AWD system at that point. But the Outback was basically more of a wagon than today’s idea of a crossover……two years later, in 1997, the Subaru Forester would debut, which was more of a true crossover. By that time, however, had also Toyota introduced its own crossover, the first-generation RAV-4, in 1995, for the 1996 model year. Honda would shortly follow with its CR-V, and many other automakers sold essentially play copy-cat without heir own crossover introductions. Many, if not most, of these original crossover designs, particularly the Forester/Outback, RAV-4, and CR-V are still in production today in updated forms, as these four have been especially popular and successful…they sell almost as many units each year as the top-selling domestic full-size pickups.
Personally, I thought the first-generation RAV-4 (and, for that matter, its rival Honda CR-V) looked somewhat awkward in its styling, but there was no denying its huge success. At the Toyota dealership where I had gotten the blue 1995 Celica that I was driving at the time, I can remember overhearing some of the salespersons (I had gone to my freshman year in high-school with one of them, so he had known me decades previously) sitting around and talking when they thought the customers were probably out of earshot. They were discussing about how easy it was going to be to get profits and mark-ups over list for the new RAV-4s…and, needless to say, they were right. A lot of people DID pay more for the early-production RAV-4s than they probably were worth, but, that, of course, is the capitalist auto-buisness for you, and the way many dealerships work.
I have long-felt that both Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura were at their peak and produced many of their best vehicles in the 1990s, and, true to form, the RAV-4 was no exception. Mechanically, although it was an all-new vehicle, it used well-proven parts and components (including the all-wheel-drive system) from various different AWD Toyota Tercel, Corolla, and Camry platforms….so there were no reliability problems even on the brand-new design. The ultra-tall square greenhouse windows gave it the outward visibility of a fish-tank…at the expense of the sun quickly heating up the interior. Those were before the days of the classic Toyota cost-cutting (which really got going after 2000)….so the first-generation interior, though not upmarket-lavish, was durable and well-screwed together with high-quality plastics, leathers, and other materials. Unlike most of its rivals, the first-generation RAV-4 was also available in a very short 2-door version (which, IMO, looked even more awkward than the 4-door), but for some reason (I’ve never known why) 2-doors were quite rare here in the D.C. area, and dealerships simply didn’t order them or keep them in stock. Perhaps (?) there was simply more profit for dealerships in the 4-door model (they were selling them at list or more…often above list). Or, perhaps, the type of person or family that would be interested in the 4 door ended that extra room in back, and the 2-door would simply be inadequate. I myself briefly considered a two-door version, in addition to my Celica, as a vehicle to drive in winter when I didn’t want to expose my Celica to road salt/abrasives….but decided against it. Because I knew the salespeople there at the Toyota shop, I probably could have gotten at least a minimal discount on one and avoided a mark-up, but I never could quite live with that odd-looking body-design on the two-door. And, besides, much of the time, I commuted on the subway, particularly in winter….so that also kept my Celica off the worst of the winter roads.
In the U.S., first-generation RAV-4s came with the tried-and-true Toyota non-turbo 2.0L in-line four, a choice of 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic transmission, and a choice of front-wheel-drive or all-wheel drive for those who did not need the extra winter traction. A 2-door convertible version (similar to Isuzu’s Amigo) was also available, but I don’t recall ever seeing one in the D.C area….for that matter, as I mentioned previously, I saw almost no 2-door hardtops. A fully-electric version (no gas engine) was available in California, but mostly to fleet-orders. The drivetrain and mechanicals in these vehicles, while not quite as robust as in the off-road 4Runner, are still, nonetheless, quite durable and well-made. A colleague of mine from my former church, who works at the Pentagon, still has a 1999 four-door RAV-4 that he drives daily as a personal and commuting vehicle…..needing a few age-related repairs but still basically going strong. (I’ve told him, several times, that he was fortunate to have had one Toyota’s best products from the 1990s).
The first-generation model was produced through the 2000 model year, and the second-generation dropped the two-door hardtop and convertible versions altogether. Noticeable cost-cutting in materials and build-solidness started with the second version, and (In my opinion at least) each subsequent version has lost a little more of that original material-solidness in its interior, hardware, and trim. Toyota being Toyota, however, the famous reliability and engineering that the company puts into its drivetrains is still there in the newest RAV-4s, going strong. And I thought the latest RAV-4, introduced a couple of years ago, although still with cheap second-rate trim and interior materials, was major improvement, looks-wise, from the somewhat goofy-looking one that preceded it, although it grew noticeably longer and is now almost a mid-sized crossover.
Indeed, despite its weaknesses, the RAV-4, like the CR-V and Subaru crossovers, is still enormously successful in the American marketplace, and even today, this class of vehicle, particularly the RAV-4. still manages to outsell all but the large domestic pickups.
And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING