Smallish Stickshift SUVs: 1996 Ford Explorer vs 1997 Toyota RAV4

Sbsd 3 24 2023
ADVERTISEMENT

Good morning! Today we’re back in the Pacific Northwest looking at a couple of manual SUVs. But before we do,  let’s see whether you like ’em plain or with everything:

Screen Shot 2023 03 22 At 6.57.30 Pm

Yeah, that’s what I thought. That Caddy is basically a superfund site with keyless entry. The Cavalier is nothing special, but it does the job.

Now then: Need something with a little more room, but still want a stickshift? We’ve got you covered. These two SUVs are fundamentally different: One is an old-school body-on-frame 4×4, and the other is a front-wheel-drive crossover. But either one will carry five people and a bunch of stuff. How do they compare? Let’s find out.

1996 Ford Explorer – $2,900

01515 Go8fgylaqaq 0ci0t2 1200x900

Engine/drivetrain: 4.0 liter overhead valve V6, five-speed manual, part-time 4WD

Location: Tillamook, OR

Odometer reading: 166,000 miles

Runs/drives? Sure does

The Ford Explorer, one of the best-selling vehicles of the 1990s, needs no introduction. But this one is a little different from the Eddie Bauer mommy-mobiles you might remember from the shopping mall parking lots. Here you won’t find any power windows, cruise control, eight-speaker audio system, leather seats, or any of that other bric-a-brac. This Explorer is a former government fleet vehicle, from Yreka, California.

00101 Fdkvunrulg2 0t20ci 1200x900

As such, it has not only a manual, but also a plain-Jane interior, with vinyl and plastic as far as the eye can see. It has a basic AM/FM radio, which doesn’t work, and air conditioning that may or may not. It has shift-on-the-fly four wheel drive, and is currently equipped with studded tires. You’ve got about a week to change ’em out for regular tires, by the way.

01212 Edsh4sarcsj 0ci0t2 1200x900

This Explorer runs and drives well, but the seller says it just recently threw a code for a misfire. From what I remember of the Explorer my wife had for years, that’s a sign that it’s time for new plugs and wires. No maintenance records come with it, so a good thorough inspection isn’t a bad idea. The Cologne 4.0 liter V6 and Mazda-built five-speed manual used in these trucks are both stout units, but the front end ball joints will almost certainly need replacing, if they haven’t been.

01212 K30brjqahm2 0ci0t2 1200x900

Otherwise, it’s a clean truck, with just a little rust on the roof (again, typical; ours had it too) and some holes plugged from CB antennas and whatnot. Yeah, it’s refrigerator-white, but it’s a fleet vehicle, so that kind of comes with the territory.

1997 Toyota RAV4 – $3,000

00h0h Cq0xhmrotdf 0ci0t2 1200x900

Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD

Location: Seattle, WA

Odometer reading: 163,000 miles

Runs/drives? Yep!

This is it, the one that started the whole compact crossover craze: the first-generation Toyota RAV4. Built on a unibody architecture, with a front-wheel-drive drivetrain and the engine from a Camry, the RAV4 is nothing like a typical SUV of its time. But it struck a chord with buyers, Toyota sold a ton of them, and the rest is history.

00l0l 37plbera2bd 0xs0pp 1200x900

The first-generation RAV4 was available in two-door or four-door models, with front- or four-wheel-drive. The two-doors rode on a much shorter wheelbase than four-doors like this, and could be had with a soft convertible top over the back half, similar to Suzuki’s Sidekick and Geo Tracker. But it was the four-door wagon model, like this one, that set the template for the compact crossover class.

00606 4tceefskwdq 0ci0t2 1200x900

This RAV4 is in good shape, and has fewer miles on it than you typically see. Most of them I see for sale hover around a quarter million miles, and more often than not are automatics. A stick with only 163,000 on it is a treat. The seller says it runs and drives well, and the timing belt is about 50,000 miles old (which means it’s due again soon). It was rear-ended by a hit-and-run driver and has a banged-up rear door; there’s no word on whether the door still opens, but the only photo of the cargo area is from the inside. Not a good sign.

00v0v 4zfuulcyxdt 0ci0t2 1200x900

It does have this fun seat fabric, though, and it’s in good condition. I like how the pattern carries over into the door panels as well. Nice touch, Toyota.

Obviously, these are different vehicles that are each good at different things, but they’re similar enough that someone looking for a smallish SUV and insisting on a stick might cross-shop them. Which one moves you?

(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)

About the Author

View All My Posts

49 thoughts on “Smallish Stickshift SUVs: 1996 Ford Explorer vs 1997 Toyota RAV4

    1. More or less, the RAV4 was a bit of a bastard child. The basic chassis was based on the camry (Camry was XV10 chassis Code, RAV4 was XA11) and used Camry All-trac bits but also some Celica in there like the rear diff.

  1. I desperately miss my 96 metallic green 5 speed RAV4. Let’s get a few things straight first.
    1. It was SLOW. I live at nearly 5000 feet and its 122 hp was not digging in. At my elevation it was lucky to put out triple digit power. it was easily double digit over the mountain passes. 2. It didn’t actually get great mileage. Probably because you had to floor it all the time.

    However. It was FUN. The 5 peed was a decent transmission, the 3S engine had a great sound and character and it enjoyed being spun up. It was VERY light – the awd version was nearly 300 lbs lighter than a mazda 3. Off-road it had real sized tires, very decent suspension travel and with the manual transmission it had what people would consider 4wd high range. (In SAE terms it had Full time variable torque with lockup to part time). Mine had the optional Torsen rear Lsd. With the actual center diff locked (not one of these “Center lock” buttons that just changes clutch programing) its genuinely locked into 4WD. I can attest that they were actually very decent off-road and I’ve personally taken mine on Fins N’ Things in Moab. The clutch hated me, because it needed gearing badly, but it did it.

    A stupid deer killed it, I was sad.

  2. “The one that started the whole compact crossover craze” is in fact the Cherokee XJ. A small Jeep that’s built on a unibody platform for the first time and co-developed with Renault for global domination? You bet!

    The answer to ‘the one that started’ isn’t Japanese but effectively saved Jeep and lifted Lee Iacocca’s Chrysler to the tune of 3.1 million units. I’ll hold out for an XJ that’s realistically more able to find than either of the choices presented today.

    1. It’s a valid argument, but truthfully, the RAV4 set the standard for how all crossovers are built – Small transverse engine, unibody based on passenger sedan, independent front and rear suspension, etc. The XJ wasn’t technically unibody, it was uniframe – a sort of precursor to unibody. It was a full frame that was welded to the body structure. It also had longitudinal truck based engine and trans as well as front and rear solid axles. I’ve owned both an XJ and a 1st gen RAV4 and I can tell you with certainty which was was crossover and which wasn’t.

  3. If this RAV is indeed the OG of CUVs, it’s also the place to direct my distain for what has become of the automotive landscape.

    Explorer.

  4. I almost bought a 97 RAV4 in that green – with a stick! – and now I’m kicking myself for passing on it. It was AWD though.

    Given the damage though I think the Explorer takes the cake. Also you can beat on it like nobody’s business and not feel bad.

  5. I’d like to RAV on like Buddy Holly (apologies Sonny West), but who can resist vinyl seats, manual everything and an appliance white paint job. Plus, 4×4. So, I’ll take the Ford and hope it will not fade away.

  6. A friend of mine had a ’90 Explorer in an even baser spec than this (no rocker panel extensions or roof racks), but with 4WD and a manual. He put over 250k miles on it with no major issues. This one is a solid SUV that, if maintained, can go another 100k.

    The lack of details on the RAV4’s damage make it a no-go. Sellers, don’t mention damage without following up with pics, just makes you look like you’re hiding something and I’m not doing business with someone who can’t be forthright.

  7. Explorer is body-on-frame and there should be used parts a-plenty available for it. The RAV4 has a rear end collision as a big minus. I just have no desire to deal with straitening sheet metal. Explorer gets the nod.

  8. They’re both overpriced IMO. The Exploder will be considerably more expensive up front between dealer fees, the misfire, and needing new tires. I’d save a little money and get the RAV4. Being able to open the rear hatch is a luxury you don’t need in a peasant’s car.

  9. The Ford has potential. Boneyard and parts cars will provide upgrades to make it more like a daily user/comfort, the radio is a cheap or expensive as you want.

    The only red flags are the “misfire” and the rust. For under 3000, not sure I would go for an inspection. Buy it and part it out if too far gone.

    1. It makes sense. They’ll handle what I buy and I’ll buy what’s cheapest. Im not sure the drivers abilities or preferences factored into it.

    1. I want to see one of these where the k-car wins.

      Let me rephrase that. I want to see what loses to a k-car.

      I’m in a dark place today…

  10. Exploder wins. Haven’t seen many sticks, but this one appears to be a decent Transportation Module. Ball joints aren’t the end of the world, as long as you fix ’em.

    I prefer the looks (and size) of the OG Rav4 to later models, but am put off by the damage to the rear door. That might just require some panel-beating, but could also be hiding damage you don’t want to deal with.

    The Ford is totally Utility-grade, which is good when you’re talking about low money. Less to fail. And in the $3K range, you can expect things to fail.

  11. I’ve been to Yreka! Black Bear Diner serves a mountain-sized B&G.
    The Exploder would make an awesome blizzard beast, especially if you keep the studded tires. And you’d never have to worry about getting it dirty, as these public-works grade trucks are built for it. And crank windows!
    And the RAV4 isn’t bad either. If it was AWD, I might reconsider.

  12. I gotta go with neither. In Jersey 1995 and older don’t require inspection (emissions only) so 1996 vehicles here tend to be worthless as it almost impossible to get a first year OBD2 smogged without spending a ton of money as they almost always require new cats. So the Exploder is not worth it.

    No 4wd on the the Rav4 makes it a no thank you.

    1. Interesting, in my state a ’96 is great because you don’t have to take it in for the smog test, which is just an OBD-II code scan. Since this only applies to ’97 or newer, ’96’s are kind of sought after here.

    1. If it was a shorty rav4 with AWD I’d be all over it, but I don’t like the big ones. Especially with only half the drivetrain and been tear ended.

  13. Out of all of the nice price, shitbox showdown posts this is the easiest one I’ve ever seen:
    A: Ford Explorer, basically a big olke’ piece of shit
    or-
    B: Toyota Rav4, which will still be running after you’re dead.

    I was fully expecting this to be a situation where the Toyota was cheap because it had 400,000 miles or something. But with 163,000? AND its a manual? That is a steal. Seems like everything Toyota made in the 90’s ran forever. I am still driving my 1996 Tacoma that I bought brand new. It has over 300,000 miles and it doesn’t matter as it still runs, drives and even looks like new. The ONLY issue are the frames. And as this is in Washington, no issue as there isn’t the shit tons of road salt that tends to do the frames in.

  14. This is a close one. It really depends on how much fuel economy matters to you, whether you need 4×4, how much the damage on the back of the RAV4 scares you, and whether you like bigger or smaller vehicles. I’d be all-in on the RAV4 if it weren’t for the damaged hatch. I voted for the Explorer because I already have an aging FWD Toyota hatchback (so I don’t need a second one), and because I’m awful at body work.

    Ford – Pros: More spacious and comfortable. More common, which makes junkyard parts easier to find. Probably less body damage. Cons: Worse fuel economy, more questionable reliability (sure it has 160k-ish miles, but fleet vehicles can spend lots of time idling).

    Toyota – Pros: Legendary reliability. Interior looks nicer. Better fuel economy.
    Cons: Smaller and less comfortable. Damaged rear hatch. Expensive or annoying maintenance due soon.

  15. Explorer wins this one. While the rav4 has the transfer case lock, the difficulty of finding a new rear door, underpowered 2.0, and needing a belt gives the win the the explorer. It has a low range, same mpg, and it doesn’t have the problematic ohc 4.0 in it, so no timing chain guide problems.

      1. “The 3S-FE has plenty of power”
        Strong Disagree. I guess at sea level with no hills, but even on the freeway it needed downshits to 4th to keep speed on the tiniest of hills.

  16. FWD Toyota make it just a raised roof station wagon, I am slightly ashamed to say it, but the Exploder is superior here with a manual and 4WD. The 4.0 has it’s drawbacks, but I think I can keep it going for a while.

Leave a Reply