If you were to peek at a list of best-selling cars, the Toyota RAV4 will place high. Last year, Toyota’s beloved crossover reportedly sold over a million units, beating the Corolla and the Tesla Model Y. The RAV4 didn’t always dominate the market. Almost three decades ago, the Toyota RAV4 was a quirky early crossover. Many of them were front-wheel-drive and with five doors. However, for just the couple of final years of original RAV4 production, you could have your little crossover with four-wheel-drive, a manual transmission, and a soft top, making for the kind of compact convertible AWD we don’t really see anymore.
Recently, we put out a call on our Discord server for Grail-worthy vehicles deserving of a retrospective. Multiple readers delivered excellent suggestions. Today’s Grail was recommended by one reader and upvoted by four more people. As it turns out, quite a few of you love rad 1990s 4x4s!
The 1990s were a wild period of development for both SUVs and crossovers. Americans were increasingly choosing the SUV over other classes of vehicles. Sure, the SUV was hardly a new concept, but the SUV had grown from the vehicle for rough tough off-roaders and rough ranchers to the chariot for families and even the wealthy. In the years prior, the Range Rover took the SUV a little more up-market while the Jeep Wagoneer brought some serious class to the table.
Ford captured and elevated the SUV market with its 1991 Explorer. The competition couldn’t keep up with the runaway success of the Explorer. Reportedly, the Ford Explorer sold more units than every import SUV combined and not even American competition like the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chevrolet S-10 Blazer could keep up. Ford would deepen its knife into its rivals in 1995 with the second-generation Explorer, which went on to become America’s best-selling vehicle that wasn’t a pickup truck.
At the same time, some automakers wanted to blend a car’s driving dynamics with the SUV’s rugged abilities, all with the thrills of a convertible. The 1990s was home to a bunch of compact SUVs with roofs that peeled off to let the sun and fun in. Highlights of the era include the surprisingly capable Geo Tracker, the funky Suzuki X-90, the friendly Isuzu Amigo, and the oddball Land Rover Freelander.
Don’t forget that Kia was even in on the action. The first-generation Kia Sportage was a body-on-frame design with four-wheel-drive, a manual transmission, and was available as a three-door with a soft top. The last time I saw a Kia Sportage in this configuration was maybe five years ago, and it wasn’t in good nick. Perhaps it is worth its own story one day.
For many, the king of the weird convertible SUV hill is the Toyota RAV4, and for good reason.
A Neo-Urban 4WD Car
As the Toyota UK Magazine writes, the idea of combining the traits of a car with the characteristics of an SUV was on the minds of Toyota engineers as far back as 1986 during Japan’s infamous bubble economy. That year, discussions began about producing a radical vehicle and designers penned the first sketches for the RAV4.
Those thoughts and discussions were eventually unveiled as the Toyota RAV-FOUR concept at the 1989 Tokyo Motor Show. It shared display space with two other Toyota stars, the glass gullwing-doored Sera coupe and the futuristic 4500GT concept. The RAV-FOUR concept was dubbed as “a neo-urban 4WD car designed to cater to the active lifestyles of young city dwellers by integrating the functions of an off-road 4WD vehicle.”
Toyota saw the small SUV as a sort of activity vehicle. Perhaps you wouldn’t use it for hardcore off-roading, but you’d use the RAV-FOUR and its permanent four-wheel-drive off-road on the path to other activities. Promotional images of the concept vehicle even showed a dirt bike stuffed into the open-air interior. Door nets held things down and the concept also bore aggressive off-road tires, a high ground clearance, and even a hidden winch.
As Toyota UK Magazine writes, Chief Engineer Masakatsu Nonaka had a challenge on his hands. He had to convince Toyota brass that there was a market for a type of vehicle that wasn’t known to exist yet. Sure, there were large 4x4s out there, but as the magazine writes, many at Toyota found the idea of a small 4×4 to be hard to understand. At one point, Toyota axed the project, only for its sales channels in Japan and Europe to convince Toyota that the RAV-FOUR was a project worth developing.
Sadly, Japan’s bubble popped and the good times came to an end, but Toyota continued development on the RAV-FOUR. A new concept was presented in 1993. This one was toned down and resembled what Toyota would launch a year later. In 1994, the Recreational Active Vehicle With 4-Wheel Drive, or RAV4, was born, and it joined a list of vehicles we’d call crossovers today.
The Recreational Active Vehicle With 4-Wheel Drive
When the RAV4 reached production in 1994, it lost a lot of what made the concept so captivating. Yet, it still kept rather cool features. The first RAV4s utilized a unibody chassis containing a mix of Japanese-market Carina and U.S.-market Corolla origin. The engine and steering rack came from the Japanese Camry while the rest of the drivetrain varied based on transmission choice. A RAV4 with an automatic transmission got its remaining drivetrain from the Corolla All-Trac while manual models got theirs from the Celica All-Trac. Reportedly, 40 percent of the original RAV4 came from other vehicles in the Toyota lineup. In other words, the original RAV4 would be worthy of one of our Parts Bin Puzzles.
Back in 1994, Toyota expected to sell 4,500 RAV4s. The automaker grossly miscalculated the public reception to a vehicle like this because 8,000 orders were placed in just the first month of production. Here in the United States, Toyota expected to sell 36,000 units.
Europe and Japan got the RAV4 in 1994 for the 1995 model year. The United States would get the RAV4 in 1996 in both three-door and five-door form. Regardless of your choice of body, you got a 2.0-liter 3S-FE four rated for 121 HP. Later models saw output bumped up to 127 HP. If you want a little more spice, you’ll have to import a RAV4 from Japan with the 2.0-liter 3S-GE BEAMS four, which put out a healthy 177 HP.
Otherwise, you’ll have to live with the fact that your RAV4 will reach 60 mph in about 12 seconds with an automatic or 10 seconds with a manual. That’s slow but still offers enough oomph for a comfortable drive.
Five-door models measured 162 inches long, or 13.5 feet. This was two feet shorter than the era’s Camry! Opting for the bigger RAV4, which turned out to be the more popular option, got you better luggage space and the rear seating area grew large enough to carry three. Sadly, the funky roof didn’t carry over and the design was somewhat muted as a five-door as well.
The Grail
Many enthusiasts would point to the three-door as the better of the two choices. You didn’t get space to store a dirt bike, but the first generation RAV4 three-door did get seating for four, two removable roof panels, and full-time four-wheel-drive. When equipped with a manual transmission, that four-wheel-drive system also gained a manually-locking viscous coupling center differential.
By 1999, the hardtop three-door model was discontinued. You’d think, then, that we’d nominate that to be the Grail. Or, maybe we might nominate the short-lived California-only RAV4 EV. J5/Jay recommended the three-door RAV4 on our Discord:
I just realized I’ve owned what might qualify as a grail car: a 1996 3-door, AWD RAV4. Yeah, the RAV4 these days is a boring mommy-mobile, but the 1996 version (the first to be imported into the US) was very new and different. The car could be had in FWD and AWD versions; the AWD version had a lockable center diff but no low range. It could also be had in manual and automatic transmission versions – but the 3-door AWD was only available with a manual. I don’t know how many were imported into the US, but the hardtop 3-door was only available for 2 (some say 3) years starting in 1996, and was quite scarce compared to the 5-door that took the country by storm. This one’s mine, and one of the few cars I regret getting rid of. I haven’t gone looking myself, but I understand that this version is quite sought-after.
However, there is an even cooler version of the RAV4 out there, and it’s that same three-door, but with a soft-top convertible. Sure, you could already remove the panels of the hardtop, but the convertible takes it all the way. Here in America, we saw the convertible from 1998 to its discontinuation in 2000. Honestly, you couldn’t go wrong with either RAV4 variant.
The three-door RAV4 is a short 12.1 feet long with a wheelbase measuring just 86.6 inches. To put that into perspective, that wheelbase is just 13 inches longer than a Smart Fortwo’s. Couple that with a 7.5-inch ground clearance plus short overhangs, and the RAV4 was primed for some decent wheeling capabilities. While these weren’t built for hardcore off-roading, I have seen these go deep off-road with little more than a tire upgrade.
A first-generation RAV4 also looks pretty sick with rally-style lighting. According to Car and Driver, a Torsen rear differential was optional as well. Add the McPherson strut suspension up front and a double wishbone suspension with a trailing arm in the rear, and you have an independent suspension on all corners with a car-like ride.
Another sweet feature is the fact that the seats in a first-generation fold flat, allowing for extra cargo space. You could also fold every seat flat and sleep in it if you wanted to. MotorWeek‘s John Davis got to take one of the convertibles for a spin:
Car and Driver also gave the RAV4 some high marks:
Because of the RAV4’s unique size and high ground clearance, it can be driven like a truck—go ahead and jump the curb of that Burger King drive-thru that’s gridlocked because someone’s complaining of unsolicited pickles on his Whopper. Exercise that freedom in a Camaro and you’ll get hung up on its catÂalytic converter.
So trucks have distinct advantages—and the RAV4 resolutely shines in its climbing ability. The suspension has car-like struts in front and a sophisticated independent trailing-arm setup in the rear that apes the consistent geometry of unequal-length control arms. You can take your hands off the steering wheel when you drive rapidly over bumps, and there’s no bump steer induced by a rotating live axle. The Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Nissan Pathfinder, and the Toyota 4Runner all dance over the bumps.
With a full load of passengers, the RAV4’s body roll approaches the wallowing of a minivan on curving pavement, but with just one person aboard you’d be hard pressed to tell it wasn’t cornering at higher, Camry-like levels. On the skidpad, our RAV4 managed a confident 0.75 g, which is closer to a sport sedan’s perforÂmance than a sport-utility’s. It’s perhaps the best-handling vehicle we’ve tested with the name “Dueler” imprinted on its tires.
So, how rare are these? Well, Toyota sold 300,101 RAV4s from 1996 through 2000. The RAV4 Soft Top came out halfway through the 1998 model year. From 1998 through 2000, Toyota sold 175,905 RAV4s. I have not seen this number drilled down between three-door and five-door, or by transmission choice. However, Toyota fans consider the RAV4 Soft Top to be rare.
Toyota’s own UK magazine says the convertible model was unpopular due to its complicated manual operation. Apparently, Toyota killed the convertible off before the first-generation RAV4 even ended. I’ve found zero RAV4 Soft Tops currently for sale. Likewise, just one sold on Cars & Bids for $14,500. In 1999, a RAV4 three-door stickered for $17,508 while the five-door was $18,198.
If you do happen to find one of these for sale, cherish it. If you don’t, one day you might be like our reader here and wish you didn’t sell it. Toyota sold hundreds of thousands of these RAV4s, yet, it seems like so few of them survive today. That’s sad because these look and sound like rockin’ little rides.
Do you know of or own a car, bus, motorcycle, or something else worthy of being called a ‘holy grail’? Send me an email at mercedes@theautopian.com or drop it down in the comments!
(Images: Toyota, unless otherwise noted.)
I test drove a manual softop with FWD. I remember it feeling peppy, but my other vehicles at the time were a 98 4 cylinder Ranger and an 87 Tercel.
I dunno…
I think the three door hard top is the true grail.
The soft top just wastes available utility space.
This is a grail I could get behind. I never have anyone in the back seat, so I’d just leave the seats folded full time and use it for cargo space.
May I point out that at the same 1989 when this Holy Grail was a Car Show Model pre-built, the Isuzu Amigo was an available Manual Soft Top (over the back seat and cargo area)3-door available with 4WD and seating for either 2-4 passengers. My 1989 Amigo was a hoot.
I was 14 at the time and remember calling(!) Isuzu to get more info on the Amigo that I saw in an ad. “For a free brochure, call (800) 245-4549.” They never sent it.
Sorry to take over your comment, but I just called the number from the ad and it’s now a medical alert center number.
Well I didn’t buy the Amigo new but I bought it and drove it all over the country. I eventually bought a Vehicross and gave it to my brother for free who hit a deer.
I forgot you could get a manual RAV4. There are a few survivors in daily service in my area including a,2 door but no convertible. They are,astonishing small by modern standards and the first generation RAV4 is far more interesting looking than the later models that I constantly confuse with a Honda CR-V, another car that went from interesting to indistinguishable.
On a related note it’s amazing how many midsized CUVs look like a Mazda CX-5
When I first moved from Southern California to Colorado in 1998 my company had one of these as a company car. Back home I was driving a 1999 Cougar which I really loved. I had put all the SVT Contour bits on it and with a 5 speed and a V6 it was a great little car that I think deserves a “Grail” story in and of itself.
I had met my future wife and had been working hard to come up with excuses to make trips to our Denver location to see her. We had just merged with a Denver based smaller company so the husband and wife who had been the owners had picked up the little RAV4 as a tax write off and it had come with the company.
One of the things that let my “business trips” happen was that I could use the car instead of renting a car.
One reason the Cougar was so fun was that, at the time, it looked like a show car compared to everything else that was coming out at the time… it just looked exotic (at least to me). The RAV4 3 door soft top looked the same way to me. it looked like a better looking mini Isuzu Vehicross. Maybe the love child between a Suzuki Samurai and a Toyota Corolla
Now like show cars, it wasn’t the best vehicle to drive in the Colorado winters because the soft top was TERRIBLE. I remember it leaked water, air, ice, bugs and the occasional squirrel. And it was very underpowered in the mountains (in town it was a blast with the stick shift). I also remember that it was so well put together. It was pretty buzzy too. but in a very end of the 20th century Toyota kind a way. But other than that I only have good memories of it.
Unfortunately the cooperate powers that be didn’t like the liability and dumped it right around the time I moved to Colorado for good. But I do have great memories of it being a fun and rugged little buddy that was my first guide in and around the mountains that have become my home for more than 2 decades and for safely caring the woman who would be my life partner and soul mate.
Its fun, I didn’t think I would ever have one of these “Grails”
“One reason the Cougar was so fun was that, at the time”… I really thought the discussion was veering toward exciting trips with future wife in the RAV4.
Those squirrel leaks start as a drip, but if left unattended the next thing you know you have a gusher of squirrels.
I was parked in Fairplay once with it, we went for a hike and came back to a pile of pinecones in the driver’s seat
My aunt passed in 2021 and had a ’97 Rav4. Despite getting most of her estate I didn’t attempt to go after the car and I sort of regret it. It was garaged most of its life and despite being the least interesting variety (a white, 4-door, front wheel drive automatic) I kind of wish I had it now.
I drove a JDM-spec hardtop 5-door with a five-speed all over Malawi recently on vacation, and it was a ball to drive. I didn’t know these at all until then, so it surprised me. Handled some surprise stream/ditch crossings like a piece of cake.
I knew a grandmother that bought one of these. The exact same model; MT, AWD, soft top, in a purpleish colour. Her kids were always worried she would roll it. Her grandkids thought she was a superhero.
Now this is a grail. >400 lb-ft pickups are a dime a dozen. But two-door SUVs of any size are rare before adding stick. Technically the Wrangler and Bronco, but nothing light and fuel efficient like this. I was also going to say this was in a different price range, but $17,500 in 1999 adjusted for inflation is $32,000, and a 2024 Wrangler still starts at $33,690.
Slow? Maybe seems it now but at the time it was neck and neck with the warm hatches of the time such as the 8v Golf GTi.
People forget what 0-60 meant then vs now. First, yes, all cars were slower then so there was the benefit of relativity, but old slow cars still tended to come with something called low and mid range torque. They didn’t have to rev to 7.5k (probably didn’t even go past 5.5k) to have enough power to move and make the most of their acceleration from 45-60. These older cars did most of their accelerating where it mattered most: 0-30 or 0-40. Another thing they had was actual throttle response. An ECU didn’t have to weigh your input and decide whether or not it will comply before prodding a recalcitrant transmission awake to think about allowing whatever meager power provided by the engine with the throttle opening the ECU ended up allowing to pass through to the tires—they had an actual damn cable connected to the pedal that opened the throttle however much you told it to and it responded with the uninterfered power of physics through a dead simple transmission that didn’t have a brain that needed to overanalyze what was going on, it just did its damn job. They might not have been fast, but they responded in a manner that made them perfectly serviceable in everyday situations. My ’83 Subaru did 0-60 in 13+ seconds, but never felt dangerously slow and was even a fighter in Boston traffic with off-the-line punch. Most dangerously slow feeling car I had the misfortune to drive was a ’16 Kia Rio which supposedly did 0-60 in less than 10 seconds for all the reasons above, though the Kia was especially bad with what felt like nearly a full second before it even started to move, which must have not counted toward its time when tested by whoever claims it was as fast as I found online.
I think you are the only person lamenting for old 3 speed automatic transmissions. I am sorry, but if you throw out CVT’s which do suck for driving experience today’s 8-10 speed computer controlled automatics are a billion times better for everything then an old POS 3 speed. Especially for “regular” production cars. I won’t get into an argument about how a 2 Speed Power flite is the best dragster transmission of all time or how a Mopar 440 super wedge with a built 727 Torque Flite can rip the shorts off of you at the spot light. But that’s now what you are talking about. We are talking about normal cars.
Case in point. Take a FWD Toyota Corolla from the early 90’s with a 3 speed automatic. nothing fancy 1.6l sohc 4 with around 105hp. basically the standard of the day and went 0-60 in a little over 11 seconds. That car fits your bill. it even has your manual wire opening the throttle (sorry dude it has fuel injection) but it gets 35mpg so maybe you will cut me some slack.
So then take todays Toyota Corolla that car gets 139hp from its 1.8l 4 and goes 0-60 in 7.3. That car’s got throttle by wire and a fully computer controlled transmission. (Sadly its a CVT but at least it has a real physical first gear so it feels WAY better then most). It still gets around 32mpg.
I rented an E90 corolla in AZ once and you can’t tell me that the E90’s unrefined, buzzy, underpowered, thrashy powertrain is in ANY way superior to the new one in anything, let alone in any of the areas you said. The throttle response was garbage, there wasn’t any good torque curve and just because there is a manual cable it doesn’t guarantee a visceral feeling in the pedal.
Look at Dodge, they could have put a 3 or 4 speed dump automatic in their performance cars… hey they stuck a pushrod iron block engine, technology that is from 1944 in cars that are just leaving the production line new. Heck in a time when Koenigsegg can suck 1400hp out of a 3 cylinder engine, if Dodge can make a successful business case for an engine that a time traveler from WWII could work on without difficulty, why couldn’t they have dropped a retread of their ole’ 727 behind it if they were so fantastic?
The reason is one that you see on car forums and Bring a Trailer, everywhere.
Technology is looked at as evil by some.
Sometimes it older among us but since I am no spring chicken I can’t say that. I don’t get it. Every car I have purchased has gotten better and better. Ya some things are a pain but overall they are better. Heck bring a Mirage back to 1944 and it would be a marvel and would be considered a luxury item.
And to you guys who don’t want any technology, go to Bring a Trailer and buy some old car and be happy. Its your right but don’t blanket dismiss all technology as bad.
Most of it is fantastic and makes cars better, safer, more fun, faster, more reliable and cooler in general.
Todays cars are more then just machines. They are complex, integrated machines and if we stop comparing them to the past and look at them as a complete package we can start to see how impressive a feat that is. Its when you see that, not a suspension, engine, brakes, interior and exterior but one complex machine you start to see how those little subsystems you were complaining about, the throttle by wire and its algorithms as they learn and adapt to your foot movements, working seamlessly with the engine sensors and environmental sensors detecting the outside temperature and oxygen levels, the rotation speed of each tire working with electronic differentials to keep traction to each wheel perfectly, the electronic power steering talking with the transmission computer to keep the engine speed perfect for the situation. Billions of pieces of data being processed every second, a dance happening all without us knowing it. Then we can start to understand how we get the amazing cars we drive today. And, as we transition to EV’s that all gets more and more integrated as we can precisely control wheel speed and torque.
It’s all so impressive when thought of that way.
So you can say “get off my lawn” all you want. Hey its a free country. There will always be (I sure hope) a place for guys who want to wrench on their old simple cars. I love my vintage motorcycles. For me they occupy a place where I can indulge in simple wrenching and balance carbs etc. but when it comes to moving me, I love my modern cars.
It was said by Don DeLillo
“This is the whole point of technology. It creates an appetite for immortality on the one hand. It threatens universal extinction on the other. Technology is lust removed from nature.”
For a car enthusiast what is more pure lust then a sexy car?
IDK what you’re on about with old 3-speeds—I don’t want old 3-speeds, the point is that newer automatic transmissions suck so much to drive that that old junk is preferable to the modern trash. But, that must be referencing a previous comment as I was complaining here about the lousy programming with e-throttles and transmissions that is rampant and how modern engines of low end cars lack low end torque in exchange for higher rpm because that number sells even if it’s less useful in the real world of low speed lane changing and pulling onto higher speed streets from a stop. I care less about getting from 40-60 a lot faster if 0-30 is slower and—even worse—the car hesitates like worn points ignition (old tech that can burn in hell) before the transmission might do the same thing in turn. You seem to think I’m some T-bucket driving boomer, but I’m a late Gen X who’s worked as a mechanic, looked to patent an anti-lag system I designed (a patent search turned up that Ford beat me to it by about a year), studied design, engineering, history, and business of automobiles for almost 40 years as it had been my dream to build my own car. I know how all the shit works, which makes it all the more frustrating when it’s deployed in such a way as to make for a worse drive than the simpler part it replaced and costs a lot more when it breaks. Fast processing speed isn’t impressive, it’s embarrassing that so many aspects have so much damn lag, be it throttle or transmission request. Maybe the problem is that the industry is infested with incompetent programmers, IDK, but it negatively affects the driving experience. I’m not looking for ancient tech, I’m looking to enjoy driving or at the least not be cursing the entire experience of electronic “safety” nannies, rebooting screens, agreeing to not use the touchscreen while driving when they’re the ones who put stuff on it that previously worked with switches that didn’t require attention to operate, and audio alerts to tell me something that doesn’t matter—yeah, a real sporting experience that lets you get into the zone where you feel one with the car!
I have what some consider to be the antidote to the modern market of bloated CUVs and overweight performance cars that deliver the driving experience of a video game: a GR86. It’s one of the only remaining sports cars left, RWD, manual, has the minimum of dumb BS, isn’t too fast to use, and is about the only car I think looks good. The feel of all the driving controls is woefully inferior to some of the old shitboxes from the ’80s from steering feel (people don’t even know what this is anymore—they think directness or weight are the same thing, but they’re not, it’s feeling the road surface through the tires as if the tread blocks were your hands), to clutch (much better after changing the pedal spring, but stock was the worst clutch feel of anything I’ve driven in almost 1 million miles of manuals—not just lacking feel, but very inconsistent), throttle response (front-loaded so that 95% throttle opening is achieved by about 60% pedal travel to make it feel faster, I suppose, and it has the same hair of hesitancy off the line of every e-throttle I’ve driven, though better than some).
The ’86 has about the same weight as my FWD ’90 Legacy wagon. It has shorter gearing (6th is shorter than 5th was in the Legacy), supposedly 100 extra hp, and 50 more lbs/ft that the dyno charts tell me is higher throughout the rev range, yet it lugs around 2k from 3rd gear up where the Legacy was good down to maybe 1500 even in its tall 5th. While the GR is definitely faster, it doesn’t feel it and still needs to be downshifted more often to move with anything like the aggressive feel of that old SOHC fixed-valve-timing, MPFI 2.2 even with its shorter gearing. The ancient mom-mobile also had much better throttle response from its cable throttle—might as well have been a tuned race engine with ITBs in comparison.
Another dumb thing they’ve done with modern cars. I have an open recall to replace the entire tail light units. Why? Because when the sun hits them the wrong way, the indicator won’t work. That’s absurd. That’s modern electronic architecture.
Funny timing on your comment about new transmissions as my BiL’s Cadillac ATS 8-speed just went out with under 80k miles. The CVT in their Ascent is a little over 100k and they think there might be something wrong with that, too.
Let me first say that I am glad you are not just some boomer driving at T bucket. I did assume that. Like you I am a late GenXer. And funny you mention that you drive a GR86. I drive a GR Supra (after much research and soul searching I chose the 2.0 manual because it had less of the electronics, was a true 50/50 balance so it handled much better and felt much more like a pure sports car) but I did like the GR86.. .
I will tip my hat to you because while I do have engineering experience, I have spent most of my life driving multi million dollar airliners and am not an engineer. From my experience and in my world, the technology has been a good thing for the most part.
I don’t like the bloated crap CUV’s out there but from my purchase experience since 2016:
GR Supra
Kia Stinger GT2
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 Turbo Premium
Mazda 3
All but the Supra were autos for commuting purposes and not a single one of those cars have ever needed a single service visit other then maintenance or recalls
Nah man, it was slow. It was drop out of 5th at the smallest highway hill slow. Fun though. Great engine response
Unless you were going uphill, then it was into the truck lane.
Mildly offended you didn’t come ask me about these first. Oh well, no biggie. One small correction “Regardless of your choice of body, you got a 2.0-liter 3S-FE four rated for 121 HP”
This isn’t actually true, the 3 doors had less HP because of exhaust restrictions. I think it was 117 for the 3 doors. I can’t remember but I remember being disappointed when I read about it.
Mine was a direct order 1996 5 door manual model that my dad bought new and I bought from him. He ordered the optional Torsen rear LSD…probably one of 20 who did, I can’t imagine it was a lot. Wow that thing was fun in the snow.
My girlfriend’s brother rebuilt her a salvage one of these (though with the automatic, sadly) for college. It was a fantastic little runabout through college and grad school, where the desert climate finally claimed all of its plastics and rubbers. With the rear seats folded up it had SO MUCH cargo space. If you dropped the top, it was basically a teeny tiny pickup truck.
I’ve been looking for one of these for a while now. They hardly exist. I’d be good with any purple manual first gen though, tbh
I just found one on Offer Up in Phoenix, AZ. for $5,500
Wish I could.
Damn that’s barely even ex-Vegas Taxi money!
https://www.motortrend.com/vehicle-genres/isuzu-amigo-rodeo-sport-history-generations-specifications/
I preferred the Chunkier wheels and better balanced styling of the Amigo. I think those came initially in Manual Only, that in itself was kind of amazing.
Also the Amigo stood true to the color pallet and wild interior of the time. Mine would have looked like a perfect tow car for the Vibrant RV with a swish on it an paint splatter interior.
That one that sold on Cars & Bids wasn’t even 4WD. Wonder how much that would go for.
There’s an unmistakable purity and optimism in the 2-Door 1st Gen Rav4, whether it’s a JDM manual or a USDM automatic. They just look happy to see you, ready to go anywhere, and simply, honestly styled with a few little fun touches, but in a clean and perfectly 90’s aesthetic you can’t ignore is just awesome these days.
I like the deep pull picture for the Explorer: a 2-door 4×2 in base XL trim with the full wheel covers. There was probably 10 of those ever made, none that still exist.
I saw one a few years ago that somebody had spray painted camo and put smoked taillights on. The poor thing didn’t look like it was going to survive the rest of the year. Sure enough I haven’t seen it since.
Speaking of Rare Toyotas, Ever consider talking about the holiest of Toyota Grails: The Toyota Trekker? (forerunner to the 4runner)
Yes!!! This is on the short list for my next car but damn they’re hard to find
I saw one just last week!
Seeing it surrounded (parking lot) by modern SUVs struck me as being very much like the Suzuki Samurai back in the ’80s – an irrepressible little guy that just screams “fun” (if not particularly good sense).
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3275624,-79.8937678,3a,75y,17.07h,81.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNcv8wZ-WL4FrNIwGq7Lmhw!2e0!5s20230501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I pass one of these on my way to and from work.
Wow, you might be the first person to hack Autopian’s Clinton-era site features and post a photo!
It posted as a photo for you? I just looked with 3 browsers (chrome, opera and edge) and all come up as a link. Now I’m curious what browser you are using. Or do you have some sort of extension that automatically loads pictures.
Just a link here, on a few different platforms/browsers.
Mercedes Streeter told me in a conversation here somewhere recently that they were holding off on enabling images in comments for now, due to the potential for fuckery by bad actors.
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
I wondered that after I hit post comment.
If these were available with the rare rear torsen(?)/helical LSD option like on the other Rav4’s. They are shockingly good off road for what they are.
Someone in Fairfax, VA has what appears to be every body style of first gen RAV4 and probably different variants within bodies. I don’t live there anymore so this is from memory but they had at least 5, maybe 7? Like the David Tracy of RAV4s. I’m positive they have one of these.
This makes me incredibly happy