Which Is Better

[creatron]

I am still looking for a Rav4 and I am wordering which is better.

1994 with 54k miles or 1997 with 120k miles.

They both cost more or less the same.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks

[Uncle Bob]

I am still looking for a Rav4 and I am wordering which is better.

1994 with 54k miles or 1997 with 120k miles.

They both cost more or less the same.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks

Tricky one, any lower mileage cars is a better bet, the down side of that is the metalwork of the car is older and subject to rust/corrision.

The trouble with younger model with 120K on the clock, is its on all drivrtrain components, ie discs ,drivshafts,gearbox,diffs etc have more chance of wear and tear and a chance you may have bigger repair bills, the 1997 model (i think )should be the facelift model with better spec and upgrades.

My own thoughts.....if your going to keep the car for years and years ,get the lower mileage model, if your only going to keep it a year or two ,get the younger model with better spec :) .

[AndyRav]

Just check for service history and whether it is genuine milage But what i've heard is that Toyotas are pretty much bomb proof! My mate got his second MR2 years ago with 59k miles on and kept it until 125k miles with no problems whatsoever. He's had an RX8 the last couple of years but still misses his Toyotas.

[TheNissanMan]

If your looking it at it from a resale value then neither unfortunately!

It's a difficult Q, an under-used car may suffer from corrosion in places like the exhaust as it hasnt been run a high miler has its own obvious risks.

Toyota's are generally bomb proof as said so if you have to choose between those two I would go for the one with FSH and if neither then the one that feels better to drive.