Expected Life/Mileage

I am looking into the following cars and would love to hear what a good life expectancy is for them. If you have one, had one, or know of any, please let me know how many total miles they can get (some situations) and most likely get (average). THANKS!!! :slight_smile:

Toyota RAV4

Honda CRV

Suzuki Grand Vitara

Subaru Forester

Subaru Outback

It ALL depends on how well you maintain them and how you drive them. ANY car can reach 500k miles if you put enough money into them.

A better question would be how far you can get with the least amount of money. I don’t have too much experience with any of those vehicles…but have had some experience with some of the companies (Toyota and Honda). From my experience either of these should easily be able to reach 200k miles with little maintenance beyond normal maintenance.

There is only one number to consider. Cost per mile. The Suzuki will probably provide the lowest cost all things considered.

1 Like

Does it really matter? There are not many people who care to keep a car for its entire life, either 300K miles or 20 years, whichever comes later. All you really need to know is that each of the cars on your list will outlast your emotional attachment to it.

Frankly with proper care and no accidents most any car can do 300,000 to 500,000 miles. The reason few make it that far is lack of proper care or accidents. Not many cars will go 500,000 miles without a serious accident. When that accident happens the true value of the car is often less than the cost of repair so it get junked.

As others have already said, the longevity of a vehicle is largely dependent on you–namely how diligently you maintain the vehicle, and how you drive it. If you maintain it properly, monitor fluid levels regularly, follow up promptly on any unusual noises or vibrations, avoid potholes, etc. etc, the life of virtually any modern vehicle is far longer than cars of yesteryear.

So, I suggest that you choose a vehicle with a better-than-average record for frequency of repair (this probably eliminates the Suzuki), and then care for the vehicle as if you want it to last forever.

Some of the longevity is based on the type of vehicle. The Honda and Toyota seem to be based on small trucks. It may not be the absolute truth but the Subaru’s seem like overweight cars to me and when they have expensive repairs when they are older, the owners may choose to junk them and start over. It seems that there are fewer truck-like vehicles in the junkyard than cars. It could be because the utility vehicles are recycled to the maximum where cars are just crushed. My reasoning may be off if a lot more caes are sold than sport-utes. In any case I think the Suzukis and the Subarus will be more problematic than the two others you listed.

I believe 10years/150k miles of driving without major repair is pretty universal.

The Toyota RAV4/Honda CRV are based on cars.

Keep your car out of the winter salt and hot southern summer sun and you have the beginning of keeping a car that you can drive far from home indefinitely.

The next question is which car will have readily available parts after 10 years. A popular model that changes little or was produced in the same form for several years is your best bet. In addition, I prefer a car that has plenty of dealers wherever you will go such as Chevrolet or Ford.

Toyota, Honda, Suzuki and Subaru dealers are rare in small town USA.

In my opinion, vehicles built by Honda or Toyota will last longer than anything else.

The Subaru Forester and Outback get great ratings from Consumer Reports, but my personal experience with Subaru is that they are expensive to operate and maintain. GREAT in snow, however, and I still have my '96 Legacy wagon.

I much prefer my '97 Accord, however. It gets better mileage, is more comfortable, and costs less to maintain. There have been several Toyotas in my past, and all were extremely reliable and inexpensive to maintain.

If you’re car-savvy, and can do some of your own maintenance, a Suzuki might be a good buy. I’m not afraid to try different brands now and then, and have had good results with cars most people consider not worth looking at.

If you’re talking about used cars, it all comes down to the individual car. Each is different. You can get a good one or a bad one. Roll the dice!

I forgot about total miles. ANY of the vehicles you mentioned should go 150,000 to 200,000 miles if you follow the factory maintenance schedule. There was recently a Toyota in my family that ran to 180,000 with no problems, and continues to serve the people we sold it to.

My favorite independent Honda mechanic has a customer who’s approaching 400,000 miles with an Accord, and he says 250K-300K is common.

I know people who have gotten 300K or more from Camrys.

I’m hoping to get at least 200K from my Subaru, and I’m pretty sure my Accord will go that far, too.

Emotional attachment goes away when the car breaks often enough for you to lose your emotional attachment to it.

Consumer Reports says the RAV4, CR-V, and Forester are all highly reliable. The Grand Vitara is not rated as highly. Last fall when we bought a CRV, we eliminated the Suzuki for that reason. Other posters say that there are significant differences in maintenance and other costs per mile. When you get right down to it, you’ve got to decide which one feels best when you drive it. We found significant differences there, and that determined what we bought.
As others have said, any of these should last 300-500K if you take reasonable care of them.

The Honda and the Toyota should last longer before getting expensive than either of the Subarus. I don’t know about the Suzuki.

What is most important is keeping up with routine maintenance and not cheaping out when things inevitably break. A junker is a car whose owner fixed only what he had to and that as cheaply as possible.

If you don’t abuse or neglect them, both the Honda and the Toyota should go 200k miles easily. Since we have a Legacy with 168k miles, I think the Subarus will go that far, too. However, if our experience is typical, a Subaru will cost significantly more on the way.

Since all of your candidates are all-wheel-drive, I suspect you need the traction. In another thread, it is asserted that CRVs are all-wheel-drive only in the forward direction. You should check this with Honda.

My experience over 50 years and 40 cars American, Asian and European … a SIMPLE large displacemment, non-interferance engine lasts longer than a small, turbo high-reving, high-tech power plant.
Ask to see the maintanance/repair costs of service … oil change, spark plug replacement, brake service, fuel pump replacement, etc … the higher the cost of service, the faster you’ll trade for a new model.

Tell that to the people at car shows who have a 1950 or earlier vehicle that they’ve owned since brand new, and have the original receipt/dealer sticker to prove it.

2nd that…turbo adds extra pressure to an engine that will give it a lot of problems in the long run. Stay away from the Subaru turbos.

But I like the NA Subaru Outback for its utility and ruggedness. At 200k miles with faded paint and dents, rugged cars look way cooler than sedans - at least you can say it’s useful and that’s the reason you still drive it.

With old sedans you do everything you can to destroy it so you don’t have to look at it anymore.

… a SIMPLE large displacemment, non-interferance engine lasts longer than a small, turbo high-reving, high-tech power plant.

That certainly has truth to it, but it should be added that part of that difference is the drivers that those cars attract. Their driving style and the maintenance (as opposed to modifications) their cars get.

Interesting your so WRONG on Subaru turbo’s. The 2.2L turbo of 1990-1994 is beyond reliable. No known issues as Subaru reinforces their motors to take the load of higher compression and HP.

The same is so true of the WRX 2.0L and the current 2.5L both turbo’s. They have been a very reliable engine and consumer reports states so. Also the forums I frequent on WRX show no real issues related to the turbo.

The 2.5L NA on the other hand has had nothing but issues with piston slap and significant head gasket problems. These are non-existent in the Subaru turbo engines. Hopefully the 2.5L NA has had these problems addressed by now.