I may have found it... UPDATED: HELP NEEDED!

[prlundberg]

The main advantage of the 4Runner is off-road ability, which is second to none. But with a 4x2 you can't really use that. That generation of 4Runner is also nortorious for rust as well as the engine problems others have mentioned. Even if you don't care about looks that's something to consider. And if the problem with the hatch is the window motor it may be pretty spendy. Here's a forum about it:

http://www.yotatech.com/f116/high-co...w-help-118881/

I'm a Toyota fan, but given the age and the milage of these two vehicles, combined with the history of this generation of 4Runners, I would probably go for the Kia. But I must admit I don't know much about Kias.

[Uncle Cracker]

Man rule # 127.
Never date a gal that can't drive a standard.

My neighbor has a wife who can not only drive one, she can take it out and rebuild it...

[JSUPreston]

Sam, we have a 2004 Sedona that has less than 30k so I can't say much for reliability, but the wife has been very happy with the Kia. I know that we're comparing apples to pomegranites here, but in my opinion the Kia's are a pretty good buy for the money. I've heard of several folks who have Kia SUVs and love them.

The bad thing about Kia is that resale value SUCKS!!! Even if ours was in perfect condition (no kid puke, etc.) we would still get only $9k if we were to trade or sell, and this was the higher end EX model. Then again, my bad resale is a perk for you. Plus we didn't buy for the resale, we bought it because SWMBO liked it and it was what we felt we could afford.

I'd say go with the Kia. Just be prepared for a timing belt swap if it hasn't had one already.

[sweensdv]

As I said in my post on your other thread about the KIA Sportage, I actually own a Sportage and have been very happy with it. Not sure why the owner of the one you're looking at only gets 18mpg as my wife actually gets around 23mpg on hers. For $500 more money you get a vehicle that is 5 years newer and with 70,000 less miles plus 4WD, that to me makes going with the KIA a no brainer.

[footprintsinconc]

i love toyotas, but given the specs as you mentioned above, the kia is the way to go. i bought an hyundia elantra a couple years back. like JSUPreston, the resale value sucks, but i didnt buy it to sell off at a later date. so go for the kia, bargain hard with the guy and i believe you will be happy.

[scmhogg]

Stick Shift

Sam,

OOOF! The story of the KIA owner really hits home. The very reason I am driving the RAV4 now.

I bought the RAV4 for my youngest on his 21st birthday. He hadn't driven a stick before. After much bucking, he got the hang of it.

A week later he called us late at night, 30 miles away, asking us to pick him up. [Heart beating out of chest now.] "are you all right, what happened" [Heart about to burst.] I was almost in an accident, he says. [Heart still won't calm down.] ALMOST!!

Seems he still had trouble with the clutch. Stalled the car in an intersection and sent others skidding by. He never got behind the wheel of the RAV4 again. Kids learn the power of of the "unsafe" words early. I was driving a two year old Altima. Notice I said was. He now owns an Altima and I love driving my little two door RAV4.

Sam with two boys, you have much to look forward to.

Steve

[gwyneth]

Stalled the car in an intersection and sent others skidding by.

I did that with my first legal car, a 3-on-the-tree* Camaro of all things, but fortunately it was in Madison where few things cause crises. After I got it home, it did sit for the next three months while I worked up my nerve again but once I did...well, 27 vehicles since then and all with standard transmissions.

*Annotation for the young: Believe it or not, into the late 1960s "standard" transmissions meant a three-speed manual with shifter on the steering column. "Stick shifts" with four speeds were extra. Five-speeds were rare, belonging to Porsche 914s, Fiat 124s, some real exotics, and then broke through in the early 70s with the Toyota Corolla (hey, fellow old folks--remember the ads in '74 pitching the new Corolla for $1995?)

[Tom Slick]

parts availability is much better with the toyota. If it were me I'd buy the toyota, if it needs a headgasket down the road then you can deal with it then. there is nothing that tells you that the kia won't need a head gasket someday also.

[gwyneth]

parts availability is much better with the toyota. If it were me I'd buy the toyota, if it needs a headgasket down the road then you can deal with it then. there is nothing that tells you that the kia won't need a head gasket someday also.

But if it happens to the Toyota, given its age, will it be worth sinking a grand into it?

[Tom Slick]

although the toyota may need a headgasket, it might have already had it done, it's common to replace them and they usually don't have problems once they are updated to the newest gasket. you don't know that the KIA won't need a headgasket in a couple of years either, it is still a 7-8 year old car. The parts and an experienced mechanic will be much easier to find for the toyota. it's irritating when you can't find small stuff like wheel bearings, smog parts, etc for less popular cars.
remember that 7 years ago KIAs where not as good or popular as they are now.

[JimD]

I think either vehicle would probably be OK but I would buy the Kia. My Festiva was a much different vehicle but absolutely trouble free. I would rather have a Suzuki but I think a Sportage would be fine. It is probably geared low like my Sidekick so it will still tow small trailers it will just wind a lot of rpm. My 1997 Suzuki turned 3000 rpm at 55 mph. It still doesn't use oil at 140,000 miles. I do not know Kias are as good but I think theres a decent chance.

On the other hand, a couple guys at work have a lot of miles on their Camrys. One finally got rid of his at over 300,000 - it was a V6 and never had more than normal maintenance.

Jim