Nope, but we had one that we drove there. Ancient crusty thing ran like a top.You own a Previa from Afghanistan? Interesting story behind that one.
Nope, but we had one that we drove there. Ancient crusty thing ran like a top.You own a Previa from Afghanistan? Interesting story behind that one.
If it's not rusty, I would have no trouble trusting it. Friend had a 92 (93?) Previa...he replaced it at 250,000 miles. Six years later, it's still running, probably over 300K.Hello everyone,
I've got an old Toyota Previa 1991. I was in a discussion with a family member about the old clunker. The discussion was in regards to a recent breakdown the Van had on the freeway. The breakdown was entirely the fault of my inept DIY acumen. I had failed to secure a radiator hose in its respective holding bracket. Eventually the radiator hose contacted the radiator fan, severed it, and caused a pull-over situation on the interstate. I believe the reliability of the old van is not in question. I've owned the van for over 6 years and never had a mechanical failure. I drove the thing out from California to Michigan a few years ago, without any problems. In addition to it being a 90s Toyota, I also invested about $3000 worth of parts and labor into it. New engine mounts, new clutch, flywheel, belts, water pump, and new bushings all around. The parts list is quite extensive. It is the smoothest runner I've owned. No vibrations at all on the interstate, and a quiet idle.
Is it unrealistic to assume just because it is a 90s Toyota that it will be mechanically reliable? Would you treat a 90s Toyota Pickup 22re as nearly reliable or even as reliable as a modern car with preventative maintenance? My Previa has received impeccable maintenance. The valvetrain is so clean, you could eat off of it.
This is a typical BITOG. There is no way a vehicle pushing 200,000 miles is reliable as a new one. You believe that I have some swamp land in the Rocky Mountains to sell you. As a matter of fact-with that have shaft that drives the accessories that thing is known for breaking.I'm sure it can be exceedingly reliable with proper maintenance. Probably as much so as any new vehicle. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time and that is not to be blamed on the vehicle.
I daily drove a 1966 Dodge pickup for years, still drive it occasionally. Over the course of a couple hundred thousand miles it never once left me stranded. I wouldn't say a vehicle's age has much to do with reliability, more so with parts availability. Do frequent inspections and address small problems before they become big ones.
So?Mileage? As good as Toyota’s are, it’s still a 30 year old vehicle.
I think our previa would have said otherwise when it was only at 200k.This is a typical BITOG. There is no way a vehicle pushing 200,000 miles is reliable as a new one. You believe that I have some swamp land in the Rocky Mountains to sell you.
I can't state anything specific to a Toyota Previa, as I have not owned one. But I've had several vehicles with over 200,000 miles, and a handful with 300-500k, and none of them have ever broken down on me. Several of my customers are in the same place. That's not to say they haven't needed repairs, but with upkeep they were all extremely reliable. I'm meticulous about my maintenance and except for sudden failures I never let things get to the point of a reliability issue.This is a typical BITOG. There is no way a vehicle pushing 200,000 miles is reliable as a new one. You believe that I have some swamp land in the Rocky Mountains to sell you. As a matter of fact-with that have shaft that drives the accessories that thing is known for breaking.
I have had two. When they were new.
There was a supercharged version for people like you.My only beef with the RWD Previa is that the engine is super weak for those heavy rigs. It can almost be dangerous trying to pull out into heavy traffic with those, even with the gas smashed through the floor board.
Is that the rating from back in the day, or compared to today's vehicles? Safety ratings is a bit of moving target.Because of the mid-engine layout I was curious about safety ratings... 1 star driver/4 star passenger frontal crash.
I’ve seen those Wicked campers in the US but they are using the E-150 or Dodge Grand Caravan. It’s now Jucy or something else these days.Hundreds of them used as campers in NZ. Mechanics hate them, but they really do the miles no problem. You can get narrow and wide body...I guess in the US you would only get the wide ? I can't put up a photo because I'd get banned...but Google Wicked Campers. This is another outfit using them.
In absolute term, real "mini" van outside of US having nothing in the front to protect you in a crash means you either lose both legs knee down if you are lucky, or you are dead instantly if you are lucky, or you have brain damage for the rest of your long life if you are not lucky. This is why nobody in the developed world build something like this after the 90s. They are still wildly popular in rural China, Indonesia, Africa, etc and other 2.5 to 3rd world area when income is low and it is still cheaper than a scooter.Is that the rating from back in the day, or compared to today's vehicles? Safety ratings is a bit of moving target.