Hello And Advice.?

[lambo7]

hi everyone, I've been looking at Rav4's for a few weeks now, I finally found one i like but its done 86,000 miles

its got lots of history etc and it looks like its been looked after, but should it be ok with the miles.???

its a 2.2d T180.

thanks

[flyboyprowler]

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

What year is your car, and is the history with Toyota? You will see that a lot of the older diesels have had problems, the most recent being ok.

It is well worth researching the site for known problems, and the members here are a very knowledgeable and friendly bunch.

[lambo7]

Hi, it's a late 2006 so new shape. It's 70% Toyota history 30 other garages.

[Davrav]

Hi and welcome to the club.

At that vintage you need to read this:

http://www.toyotaownersclub.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132178&st=0&p=1175067entry1175067

Not wishing to put you off but, as Ainsley has said, just making you aware of what could happen [if it hasn't already..........check to see if the engine has been replaced and read any repair/service reports very carefully]

You have 40K of the extended engine warranty in terms of miles but I'm guessing only a few months in terms of the seven year cut off.

[Dabooka]

A lot of sound advice; I came along here when researching my RAV last month, and it was invaluble knowing about the EGR issue. I got ours from a Toyota main dealer and he was able to confirm the work had been done last year with a new 3/4 engine rebuild (I think that's right!).

Is it private or dealer, and if so main?

[lambo7]

its a private sale, its 86k I think 5 stamps are Toyota and the other 2 are a normal garage.

the last big service was at 82K by toyota.

thanks

[Big Kev]

its a private sale, its 86k I think 5 stamps are Toyota and the other 2 are a normal garage.

the last big service was at 82K by toyota.

thanks

So in arithmetical terms the car has been serviced on average every 12k miles if one wishes to split hairs. Could be a good buy or a goodbye (cash). Research its history (engine) well, coz as Davrav says, you are not far away from the time bar of seven years "coming first" under the excellent Toyota Warranty.

Bon Chance,

Big Kev

[lambo7]

So, if the 2.2 diesels aren't very good. What engine is the one to get 2.0 petrol???

I thought Toyota's were ment to be good????

[Davrav]

So, if the 2.2 diesels aren't very good. What engine is the one to get 2.0 petrol???

I thought Toyota's were ment to be good????

Well, in terms of the 2.2 D4D there's something of a lottery. Many seem to be fine and generally give no problems but the early ones certainly have a question mark hanging.

I had an MOT at my local Toyota dealer yesterday and raised the issue with the service manager. He said that they have replaced between 12 and 14 engines in various Avensis and RAVs to date and I have no reason to disbelieve him. His opinion was that it is more likely a quality control issue during manufacturing rather than a design fault as there are so many not giving problems.

Engines after mid 2008 should be fine. Mine's just before that and has done 57K with no issues. That being said I regularly monitor the oil and coolant level....................

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

[Mike JD]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

[CharlieFarlie]

Do not buy a Toyota with a 2.2 Diesel. It really is not worth the agg and they are impossible to sell !!!

[CharlieFarlie]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way.

Sorry Mike but that's just not the case My car has been used mostly on very long motorway trips and still has or has had major issue... No popping to the shops here Mate...........

[Mike JD]

Sorry Mike but that's just not the case My car has been used mostly on very long motorway trips and still has or has had major issue... No popping to the shops here Mate...........

Fair enough, chap. I was trying to be positive about the petrol engine in general versus that Toyota diesel engine in particular. You can deduce my thoughts on the Toyota diesel from looking at the panel on the left. I did not buy one! Others here have not all suffered the fate you have fortunately but I still need to be convinced that the oriental manufacturers have got their heads round diesel engines. Would that they all just fitted the PSA Hdi engines that have served me so well. If I was a low miler or school runner I would not have hesitated in buying a petrol RAV but for the missing bit that used to be on the back door. That last point alone is a deal breaker for me out here in the sticks so I won't be getting a new Grand Vitara either. I did cadge a ride in a Skoda Yeti diesel the other day. A bit smaller but seemed OK. No idea what any Skoda forums say about bugs in that, though. The spare wheel is an extra for heaven's sake but there is a place to put it.

[Manxrav]

Sorry to go onto a different subject, but to follow up on Mikes comments on the Yeti. I have been on their forum (Skoda) and nobody repeat nobody has any grumbles on the Yeti. All agree it is a wonderful motor ( well they would wouldn,t they) serious though, if you can live with the Badge there seems to be a decent motor there. One problem I couldn,t live with is why they don,t do a AWD 1.6 diesel, you have got to go for either a 2ltr diesel or a 1.8 Tsi engine. Even Nissan are now doing a 1.6ltr diesel AWD in the QQ.

Just my thoughts

Regards Clare

[dwilson]

TBH I don't like the look of a Yeti but really do like the RAV.

I drive my wife's RAV at times and on the motorway I find the torque sufficient but on other roads more torque would be beneficial. The fuel consumption averages 29 to 30 mpg which is acceptable to us. I would consider a newish diesel but would avoid the T180 or other 2.2 litre diesels of a similar age - just too risky after reading Charlie's experience with one. The only thing I dislike about the petrol RAV is pulling away in first - to avoid stalling I have to give it more revs than I would like and it sounds like I am trying to race other cars when I am not! So for me an automatic RAV will be the replacement for our our present RAV - but probably not for some time yet.

David

[firemac]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

I agree with Mike. The vvti petrol is a lovely engine with no technical or reliability issues. No, they can't compete on mpg with the diesels but, given the age of the design, that's not surprising. Our 10 yr old VX has 76K miles & does about 25mpg overall. Our 54-reg XT3 3-dr averages 33 mpg without trying at all; I'm sure if I was a bit more careful it would improve. However, fuel isn't your major expense. In my book if the car is reliable, reasonably cheap to service & insure then those are the single biggest costs. It does depend on what you are going to use the car for of course & if you want a diesel then the 4.2 D4D is a briliant runner (although it does have all the common diesel probs like DMF, etc. - it also has a timing belt rather than a chain); I had a 55-reg one a few years back & it was a great car.

Overall though, I'd have to say that the RAV's are the very best cars I've owned, taking everything into account.

[CharlieFarlie]

Sorry Mike but that's just not the case My car has been used mostly on very long motorway trips and still has or has had major issue... No popping to the shops here Mate...........

Fair enough, chap. I was trying to be positive about the petrol engine in general versus that Toyota diesel engine in particular. You can deduce my thoughts on the Toyota diesel from looking at the panel on the left. I did not buy one! Others here have not all suffered the fate you have fortunately but I still need to be convinced that the oriental manufacturers have got their heads round diesel engines. Would that they all just fitted the PSA Hdi engines that have served me so well. If I was a low miler or school runner I would not have hesitated in buying a petrol RAV but for the missing bit that used to be on the back door. That last point alone is a deal breaker for me out here in the sticks so I won't be getting a new Grand Vitara either. I did cadge a ride in a Skoda Yeti diesel the other day. A bit smaller but seemed OK. No idea what any Skoda forums say about bugs in that, though. The spare wheel is an extra for heaven's sake but there is a place to put it.

Mike Yes Mate You are correct I have been unlucky... But so have 7000+ other owners of cars fitted with the 2.2 diesel engine...

Major fact is that many cars now are coming up towards that extended warranty expiry date..... Then where will any unsuspecting owner be ??? Very definitely in a no win situation as repairs will cost more than the car is worth period...

I would be interested to know how much the OPs prospective purchase is costing ??

[firemac]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

I agree with Mike. The vvti petrol is a lovely engine with no technical or reliability issues. No, they can't compete on mpg with the diesels but, given the age of the design, that's not surprising. Our 10 yr old VX has 76K miles & does about 25mpg overall. Our 54-reg XT3 3-dr averages 33 mpg without trying at all; I'm sure if I was a bit more careful it would improve. However, fuel isn't your major expense. In my book if the car is reliable, reasonably cheap to service & insure then those are the single biggest costs. It does depend on what you are going to use the car for of course & if you want a diesel then the 4.2 D4D is a briliant runner (although it does have all the common diesel probs like DMF, etc. - it also has a timing belt rather than a chain); I had a 55-reg one a few years back & it was a great car.

Overall though, I'd have to say that the RAV's are the very best cars I've owned, taking everything into account.

TBH I don't like the look of a Yeti but really do like the RAV.

I drive my wife's RAV at times and on the motorway I find the torque sufficient but on other roads more torque would be beneficial. The fuel consumption averages 29 to 30 mpg which is acceptable to us. I would consider a newish diesel but would avoid the T180 or other 2.2 litre diesels of a similar age - just too risky after reading Charlie's experience with one. The only thing I dislike about the petrol RAV is pulling away in first - to avoid stalling I have to give it more revs than I would like and it sounds like I am trying to race other cars when I am not! So for me an automatic RAV will be the replacement for our our present RAV - but probably not for some time yet.

David

Both our 4.2's are autos - brilliant box.

Re the 2.2 diesel, Charlie's experience is truly unfortunate however it would be interesting to know what the %-age of replacement engines has been. There are a lot of owners who seem to have had no problems. Maybe Kingo or Anchs might know??

[anchorman]

I don't know but I would be interested in a percentage figure too. If the parc is 250000 then we have nothing to worry about. We would also need that 7000 weighted towards age. I know loads of people with them at various ages and they have never had a problem. I know quite a few (maybe 15 of which some are on the forum) that have had an engine fitted under the scheme and are very happy. They use no oil and have been trouble free. The post 2009 models have so far been trouble free too. There is no doubt that the pre 2008 models were more prone to problems.

There is no way I will be moving away from Toyota as a result of owning one of these 2.2s and that would apply to my old 2006 model which has been fitted with a 3/4 engine for about a year now.

[CharlieFarlie]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

I agree with Mike. The vvti petrol is a lovely engine with no technical or reliability issues. No, they can't compete on mpg with the diesels but, given the age of the design, that's not surprising. Our 10 yr old VX has 76K miles & does about 25mpg overall. Our 54-reg XT3 3-dr averages 33 mpg without trying at all; I'm sure if I was a bit more careful it would improve. However, fuel isn't your major expense. In my book if the car is reliable, reasonably cheap to service & insure then those are the single biggest costs. It does depend on what you are going to use the car for of course & if you want a diesel then the 4.2 D4D is a briliant runner (although it does have all the common diesel probs like DMF, etc. - it also has a timing belt rather than a chain); I had a 55-reg one a few years back & it was a great car.

Overall though, I'd have to say that the RAV's are the very best cars I've owned, taking everything into account.

TBH I don't like the look of a Yeti but really do like the RAV.

I drive my wife's RAV at times and on the motorway I find the torque sufficient but on other roads more torque would be beneficial. The fuel consumption averages 29 to 30 mpg which is acceptable to us. I would consider a newish diesel but would avoid the T180 or other 2.2 litre diesels of a similar age - just too risky after reading Charlie's experience with one. The only thing I dislike about the petrol RAV is pulling away in first - to avoid stalling I have to give it more revs than I would like and it sounds like I am trying to race other cars when I am not! So for me an automatic RAV will be the replacement for our our present RAV - but probably not for some time yet.

David

Both our 4.2's are autos - brilliant box.

Re the 2.2 diesel, Charlie's experience is truly unfortunate however it would be interesting to know what the %-age of replacement engines has been. There are a lot of owners who seem to have had no problems. Maybe Kingo or Anchs might know??

Jim.. Ask yourself how many on here alone have had replacement engines ?

Doosan

Mistermena x 2

Alex just down the road from Me (Cant think of his user name)

Bluemonster

Tony from Barnsley (In progress I believe)

Me X 3

Plus simply loads of others !! I and Anchs have assisted so many in the process its simply unbelievable..

7000 + UNITS in the UK and counting........

How can We advise others that its a good idea to buy one .......

How many other Forums have cars of any description that have had so many engines that have had to be replaced ??

Notice how I avoided the word FAIL ??? Simply because without replacement the engines would eventually fail ..

Sorry I did not wish to get into this !Removed! boring issue but come on .... Just look at the facts ?? Can anyone responsibly advise buying one of the cars with this engine ??? Especially in light of the warranty now evepourating fast ??

[CharlieFarlie]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

I agree with Mike. The vvti petrol is a lovely engine with no technical or reliability issues. No, they can't compete on mpg with the diesels but, given the age of the design, that's not surprising. Our 10 yr old VX has 76K miles & does about 25mpg overall. Our 54-reg XT3 3-dr averages 33 mpg without trying at all; I'm sure if I was a bit more careful it would improve. However, fuel isn't your major expense. In my book if the car is reliable, reasonably cheap to service & insure then those are the single biggest costs. It does depend on what you are going to use the car for of course & if you want a diesel then the 4.2 D4D is a briliant runner (although it does have all the common diesel probs like DMF, etc. - it also has a timing belt rather than a chain); I had a 55-reg one a few years back & it was a great car.

Overall though, I'd have to say that the RAV's are the very best cars I've owned, taking everything into account.

TBH I don't like the look of a Yeti but really do like the RAV.

I drive my wife's RAV at times and on the motorway I find the torque sufficient but on other roads more torque would be beneficial. The fuel consumption averages 29 to 30 mpg which is acceptable to us. I would consider a newish diesel but would avoid the T180 or other 2.2 litre diesels of a similar age - just too risky after reading Charlie's experience with one. The only thing I dislike about the petrol RAV is pulling away in first - to avoid stalling I have to give it more revs than I would like and it sounds like I am trying to race other cars when I am not! So for me an automatic RAV will be the replacement for our our present RAV - but probably not for some time yet.

David

Both our 4.2's are autos - brilliant box.

Re the 2.2 diesel, Charlie's experience is truly unfortunate however it would be interesting to know what the %-age of replacement engines has been. There are a lot of owners who seem to have had no problems. Maybe Kingo or Anchs might know??

Jim.. Ask yourself how many on here alone have had replacement engines ?

Doosan

Mistermena x 2

Alex just down the road from Me (Cant think of his user name)

Bluemonster

Tony from Barnsley (In progress I believe)

Me X 3

Plus simply loads of others !! I and Anchs have assisted so many in the process its simply unbelievable..

7000 + UNITS in the UK and counting........

How can We advise others that its a good idea to buy one .......

How many other Forums have cars of any description that have had so many engines that have had to be replaced ??

Notice how I avoided the word FAIL ??? Simply because without replacement the engines would eventually fail ..

Sorry I did not wish to get into this !Removed! boring issue but come on .... Just look at the facts ?? Can anyone responsibly advise buying one of the cars with this engine ??? Especially in light of the warranty now evepou

I don't know but I would be interested in a percentage figure too. If the parc is 250000 then we have nothing to worry about. We would also need that 7000 weighted towards age. I know loads of people with them at various ages and they have never had a problem. I know quite a few (maybe 15 of which some are on the forum) that have had an engine fitted under the scheme and are very happy. They use no oil and have been trouble free. The post 2009 models have so far been trouble free too. There is no doubt that the pre 2008 models were more prone to problems.

There is no way I will be moving away from Toyota as a result of owning one of these 2.2s and that would apply to my old 2006 model which has been fitted with a 3/4 engine for about a year now.

rating fast ??

Well there is another one to add to the list !! Your old car has had one too Don ? Yet still You persist in saying the risk is low !!!!!

Put Yourself in the OPs position.... Would You buy a T180 with 80,000 miles ? With the warranty getting short ???

How many engines will it take before its accepted that the 2.2 HAS A MASSIVE PROBLEM ??????????????????????????

[firemac]

2.0 petrol - low MPG and lack of torque. Depends what you want to use the car for.

Very true but reliable and silky smooth. Timing chain not belt. As Davrav says the call depends a bit on what you are going to use it for. The diesel needs to be worked harder and longer to keep itself clean and avoid issues that way. I did get 32mpg out of my petrol 4.2 by driving it v-e-r-y carefully so if you have a light right boot and are not planning on a high mileage or long runs it might be the better answer for you.In all other respects the car is a cracker and at that vintage you may still have a round thing on the tail door. It is called a spare wheel and later owners do not have one which would leave them vulnerable to Tour de France saboteurs. Welcome aboard!

I agree with Mike. The vvti petrol is a lovely engine with no technical or reliability issues. No, they can't compete on mpg with the diesels but, given the age of the design, that's not surprising. Our 10 yr old VX has 76K miles & does about 25mpg overall. Our 54-reg XT3 3-dr averages 33 mpg without trying at all; I'm sure if I was a bit more careful it would improve. However, fuel isn't your major expense. In my book if the car is reliable, reasonably cheap to service & insure then those are the single biggest costs. It does depend on what you are going to use the car for of course & if you want a diesel then the 4.2 D4D is a briliant runner (although it does have all the common diesel probs like DMF, etc. - it also has a timing belt rather than a chain); I had a 55-reg one a few years back & it was a great car.

Overall though, I'd have to say that the RAV's are the very best cars I've owned, taking everything into account.

TBH I don't like the look of a Yeti but really do like the RAV.

I drive my wife's RAV at times and on the motorway I find the torque sufficient but on other roads more torque would be beneficial. The fuel consumption averages 29 to 30 mpg which is acceptable to us. I would consider a newish diesel but would avoid the T180 or other 2.2 litre diesels of a similar age - just too risky after reading Charlie's experience with one. The only thing I dislike about the petrol RAV is pulling away in first - to avoid stalling I have to give it more revs than I would like and it sounds like I am trying to race other cars when I am not! So for me an automatic RAV will be the replacement for our our present RAV - but probably not for some time yet.

David

Both our 4.2's are autos - brilliant box.

Re the 2.2 diesel, Charlie's experience is truly unfortunate however it would be interesting to know what the %-age of replacement engines has been. There are a lot of owners who seem to have had no problems. Maybe Kingo or Anchs might know??

Jim.. Ask yourself how many on here alone have had replacement engines ?

Doosan

Mistermena x 2

Alex just down the road from Me (Cant think of his user name)

Bluemonster

Tony from Barnsley (In progress I believe)

Me X 3

Plus simply loads of others !! I and Anchs have assisted so many in the process its simply unbelievable..

7000 + UNITS in the UK and counting........

How can We advise others that its a good idea to buy one .......

How many other Forums have cars of any description that have had so many engines that have had to be replaced ??

Notice how I avoided the word FAIL ??? Simply because without replacement the engines would eventually fail ..

Sorry I did not wish to get into this !Removed! boring issue but come on .... Just look at the facts ?? Can anyone responsibly advise buying one of the cars with this engine ??? Especially in light of the warranty now evepourating fast ??

It's the facts that I was looking for , Charlie. If it is 7K in UK, out of how many? Clearly if it is 50% + then it is something that will likely affect anyone looking at a used 2.2. But if it is 10% then that's a completely different proposition. I accept however that for anyone who ends up having the problem, the stats are immaterial but it helps to understand just how widespraed the matter is if you're contemplating buying a car that might be affected.

[anchorman]

Yes my old car had an engine about a year ago and has apparently done about 20k since as he does a lot of mileage. The replacement engine is smoother and quieter than the previous and while it used about a litre of oil per 1000 miles from new it uses none between 10k services now. It was fitted locally by RRG at Macclesfield who do the job properly and check out any related components at the same time as the engine. If this is done there is no reason to suspect that it shouldn't be a permanent fix. I also know people that have bought 2006 or 2007 models and have no problems. They cannot be persuaded to consider a new engine either through a lack of understanding, interest or sheer not wanting to take advantage of TGB. I understand all these reasons.

I still think a well looked after RAV is a good buy. There is still enough time to assess oil consumption and get something done and it wouldn't stop me buying or recommending one. I'd rather have a 2006 RAV than a 2006 something else. Simple as that.

[lambo7]

well, thanks for all the advice. it seems a risk to buy a 2.2d but then again most cars have something thats not right?

I've had a 2nd look at the T180 and it does seem good and ive checked the water for oil etc etc and its ok.

are their any other checks i could do for this problem?????????

the owner seems trustworthy and they've never had any issues with burning too much oil etc.

I'm thinking about getting it but i hope lucks on my side and its a good one.?

[CharlieFarlie]

well, thanks for all the advice. it seems a risk to buy a 2.2d but then again most cars have something thats not right?

I've had a 2nd look at the T180 and it does seem good and ive checked the water for oil etc etc and its ok.

are their any other checks i could do for this problem?????????

the owner seems trustworthy and they've never had any issues with burning too much oil etc.

I'm thinking about getting it but i hope lucks on my side and its a good one.?

The main check You can do is the oil consumption test but then you would have to own the car to do this....

Lets make one thing absolutely clear.. Neither of the first two engines in my cars exhibited any head gasket or water mixing with oil or vice versa.. They simply drank oil........

I really cannot understand why Jim and Don refuse to accept that these engines are a HUGE liability..... OK Show me another vehicle that has had so many problems let alone replacements ???

FFS just look how many on this very limited forum have had these flaming engines done ????

My car seemed ace when I got it and the original owner also did not tell me it was burning oil.... Fact is it may not have been at the time I purchased it....

It seems You are relying on luck ??? So why ask ??

You come onto a forum and ask and about a specific car and are given a heap of facts and are still going to buy ?? Just remember ...............................