User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 6:16:24 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That would have been a high freeway average for me. I used mine for lots of interstate travel to shooting matches and was never happy with internal cube space, power, and mileage. Lol my average over the last 1k miles I had it was 15.1. Figured the raptor thay replaced it would do better… lol nope 14.6 over 3k mikes |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 6:21:47 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I rolled our window down twice on the 4Runner. Once on a dirt road, that was one hard lesson to learn to never do again. Dirt and dust everywhere! Ditto...they could have saved that and the moon roof for my money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 6:38:35 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They spent like 15 years using the VZs with head gasket issues and recalls. They stick with an engine because it is cost effective and efficient. That does not mean it is competitive. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's lasted so long for a reason. It works. I loved mine, but had to sell it Why change what works? The 4.0 is solid. They spent like 15 years using the VZs with head gasket issues and recalls. They stick with an engine because it is cost effective and efficient. That does not mean it is competitive. That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 7:57:28 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... Sounds like an argument for the ol’ 4.7 option. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 8:25:23 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Toyota invented "the supply chain" just in time delivery. They did but, ironically, they apparently started stock piling parts when they foresaw the coming supply chain crisis. At least, that's how it was explained to me, that they avoided a lot of the disruptions other auto manufacturers experienced. Well, until their supply cache ran out, apparently. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 8:30:56 PM EST
[#7]
expectations>reality
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 8:37:23 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... Those are fair comparisons, but Throw in the Grand Cherokee trail rated V6 full time AWD, plus the 5.7 Hemi version Throw in the Wrangler full time 4WD V6, and 392, versions. You can match those averages in the 5.7 Trailhawk or 392 Wrangler and both are full time 4WD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 9:05:23 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those are fair comparisons, but Throw in the Grand Cherokee trail rated V6 full time AWD, plus the 5.7 Hemi version Throw in the Wrangler full time 4WD V6, and 392, versions. You can match those averages in the 5.7 Trailhawk or 392 Wrangler and both are full time 4WD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... Those are fair comparisons, but Throw in the Grand Cherokee trail rated V6 full time AWD, plus the 5.7 Hemi version Throw in the Wrangler full time 4WD V6, and 392, versions. You can match those averages in the 5.7 Trailhawk or 392 Wrangler and both are full time 4WD. I think you're being a bit optimistic... Grand Cherokee V6: 19 MPG Grand Cherokee V8: 15.5 MPG Wrangler V6: 18 MPG Wrangler 392: 12.7 MPG lol The Pentastar V6 is a traditional port injected V6. There's no magic there. The ZF 8HP transmission is the bigger difference maker. The V8s? Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 9:06:33 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the supporting argument for the Tundra? The launch has been rough in terms of reliability/quality, and the Tundra falls behind in most other metrics. I'd absolutely wait for them to sort things out before even considering one. The Big 3 half tons have their problems, but at least we have a pretty good idea what those problems are, at least for most configurations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Typical Toyota haters: "Oh hai guys. I hate reliable vehicles like the 4Runner, but I own this POS Dodge pickup. It's got a new modern engine. I mean yeah its unreliable but it's "modern". Its got all this cool tech in there but yeah its unreliable but it's modern. Yeah I know we are in a supply chain crisis and realize I can't get basic parts to keep an unreliable vehicle running. I prefer to own vehicles that are super unreliable because they are modern." "Oh look at how the sides of the road are littered with "modern" vehicles with all these "features" because nobody can keep them running. Those who have these "modern" vehicles that are still somehow running must be spending a fortune having them fixed all the time. Meanwhile I'm here with my 4Runner that never has any problems, but if it did it's so utterly simple I could fix it with an adjustable wrench and some pliers like it's still 1945." Said like someone that owns an unreliable vehicle but desperately trying to justify their purchase. I'll bite. If we still lived in the world of 2019, I wouldn't have even considered the 4Runner, and I'd be echoing some of your arguments. I would most likely be in an EcoBoost F-150 or a Ram 1500, and I would have bought one of those vehicles knowing full well I might have to make 1-2 extra trips to the service department and that I should probably move on to something newer in 5 years. And that would have been okay with me. But we don't live in the world of 2019. Nearly every aspect of the world around us is showing red flags. We have supply shortages, labor shortages, food shortages, major market instability, military conflict, and very high inflation. There's a very real chance that the service department won't always be an option. There's a very real chance that buying something new and shiny in 3-5 years won't be an option. That's the reality in which I chose the 4Runner. Something with more interesting drivetrain tech would be fun, but I deliberately chose the most proven and reliable body on frame 4x4 on the market for a reason. Makes sense. I’m actually debating my next vehicle purchase and reliability is probably my most important criteria. My heart wants to take a stab at the new Tundra but my mind says 4Runner. What's the supporting argument for the Tundra? The launch has been rough in terms of reliability/quality, and the Tundra falls behind in most other metrics. I'd absolutely wait for them to sort things out before even considering one. The Big 3 half tons have their problems, but at least we have a pretty good idea what those problems are, at least for most configurations. I agree. There is no telling what the long term reliability will be. Toyota has typically done a decent job vetting their powertrains. So if I had to take a chance on a new powertrain it would probably be with Toyota. Yes, there have been many gremlins. I think the wastegate issue may be overblown but the infotainment system has been complained about by tons of reviewers. As well as the invisible tow hooks and suspect weatherstripping around the rear door windows. The supporting argument for the Tundra is: Looks (With a lift and 35s it’s nice) Nice large interior with ventilated seats (Great for the FL heat) Large gas tank for road trips Decent Power to Fuel Economy ratio (TRDJon put a lift and 35s and was getting around 16-17 MPG. ) Cons: First year of production (Do we know what we are getting here long term?) Reliability (see above) In regards to the 4Runner, this might be the last chance to snag one in this generation. It’s vetted and as bulletproof as it can get. I don’t need luxury nor speed. Totally undecided and will continue to scour the forums and ultimately pull the trigger on something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 9:11:03 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like an argument for the ol’ 4.7 option. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... Sounds like an argument for the ol’ 4.7 option. It would be interesting to drive one for academic reasons, but I'd probably be cheap and buy the 4.0 even if I had the option.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2022 9:43:11 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would be interesting to drive one for academic reasons, but I'd probably be cheap and buy the 4.0 even if I had the option. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's sound logic, but what is the 4Runner's engine lacking relative to the rest of the market, and who is feeling that the most? Let's compare it to the more advanced engines in its segment... 4Runner 4.0L 1GR-FE V6 w/ 5 speed trans 270 hp 278 lb-ft 7.5s 0-60 17.5 MPG average Ranger/Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost I4 turbo w/ 10 speed trans (we'll use Ranger numbers because there's more data) 270 hp 310 lb-ft 6.5s 0-60 20 MPG average Jeep Wrangler 2.0L Hurricane w/ 8 speed trans 270 hp 295 lb-ft 6.3s 0-60 18.5 MPG average Horsepower is oddly the same across the board. The I4 turbos have more torque lower in the RPM band. That can be nice, and might be the biggest quality of life difference here. The I4 turbos are both about 1 second faster 0-60. That might matter to someone. The Wrangler Hurricane is about 5-6 % more efficient than the 4Runner while the Ranger is closer to 14% more efficient (ain't aerodynamics a bitch?). Even at $5/gal, the Ranger would only save around $500 a year relative to the 4Runner. That's not going to be a difference maker. Considering one of these engines is about 15 years older than the other two, the gap isn't that big. The real world difference comes down to the low end torque. I like that as much as the next guy, but are the trade-offs worth it? The complexity, pressure, and heat of forced induction? I think that's going to be a personal preference, and I see some pros and cons... Sounds like an argument for the ol' 4.7 option. It would be interesting to drive one for academic reasons, but I'd probably be cheap and buy the 4.0 even if I had the option. Side note-Also if you recall, the earliest 5th gen had an I4 option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 12:17:29 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you're being a bit optimistic... Grand Cherokee V6: 19 MPG Grand Cherokee V8: 15.5 MPG Wrangler V6: 18 MPG Wrangler 392: 12.7 MPG lol The Pentastar V6 is a traditional port injected V6. There's no magic there. The ZF 8HP transmission is the bigger difference maker. The V8s? Nope. No kidding. The transmission is part of the drivetrain. It’s horribly outdated on the 4Runner Real world comparison for them same 40 mile commute- back and forth at least 2X each- FJ Cruiser 18mpg 4Runner 19 mpg in 2WD V6 Grand Cherokee 25mpg full time 4WD 5.7 Grand Cherokee full time AWD 21mpg 392 18 mpg The MDS on the V8s means you cruise along on 4 cylinders at 65 mph at like 1500 rpm. And can go into full beast mode. Hell, I get over 24 on that commute in a 392 Challenger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 10:46:09 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No kidding. The transmission is part of the drivetrain. It’s horribly outdated on the 4Runner Real world comparison for them same 40 mile commute- back and forth at least 2X each- FJ Cruiser 18mpg 4Runner 19 mpg in 2WD V6 Grand Cherokee 25mpg full time 4WD 5.7 Grand Cherokee full time AWD 21mpg 392 18 mpg The MDS on the V8s means you cruise along on 4 cylinders at 65 mph at like 1500 rpm. And can go into full beast mode. Hell, I get over 24 on that commute in a 392 Challenger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think you're being a bit optimistic... Grand Cherokee V6: 19 MPG Grand Cherokee V8: 15.5 MPG Wrangler V6: 18 MPG Wrangler 392: 12.7 MPG lol The Pentastar V6 is a traditional port injected V6. There's no magic there. The ZF 8HP transmission is the bigger difference maker. The V8s? Nope. No kidding. The transmission is part of the drivetrain. It’s horribly outdated on the 4Runner Real world comparison for them same 40 mile commute- back and forth at least 2X each- FJ Cruiser 18mpg 4Runner 19 mpg in 2WD V6 Grand Cherokee 25mpg full time 4WD 5.7 Grand Cherokee full time AWD 21mpg 392 18 mpg The MDS on the V8s means you cruise along on 4 cylinders at 65 mph at like 1500 rpm. And can go into full beast mode. Hell, I get over 24 on that commute in a 392 Challenger. The numbers I posted are the rough Fuelly averages based a wide range of real world users. Although Chrysler hasn't had as many problems with it as GM or Honda, I do not consider cylinder deactivation to be a desirable feature or benefit for the consumer. It probably saves the manufacturers billions on CAFE compliance. The fuel savings generally aren't that significant for consumers, and one cam/lifter/piston ring job wipes that out entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 12:06:13 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The numbers I posted are the rough Fuelly averages based a wide range of real world users. Although Chrysler hasn't had as many problems with it as GM or Honda, I do not consider cylinder deactivation to be a desirable feature or benefit for the consumer. It probably saves the manufacturers billions on CAFE compliance. The fuel savings generally aren't that significant for consumers, and one cam/lifter/piston ring job wipes that out entirely. The numbers you posted were comparing a single engine option slanted to try to make the 4Runner look less non competitive. I have had three, there is a ton I like about the 4Runner. There is an FJ Cruiser with the same engine in my current fleet. I have driven various versions of Toyota, Nissan, etc. trucks and SUVs overseas over a couple of decades. I’m not going to fall on my sword defending that they are not stingy and using very outdated tech and losing competitive features each year. They also dodged and delayed owning up to two V6s in a row with issues in the 80s and 90s. You can have the opinion that MDS is not a desirable feature. But people want both good MPGs and power in the same package. Plus the manufacturers are under regulations. Nobody in the American market is going to buy a 150HP 18mpg SUV anymore like they did 30 years ago. They barely tolerate are a 300hp-ish one at 18mpg. They want a 300Hp or more one at 25mpg if they can get it. And the majority of SUV buyers no longer want the classic RWD, 4H, 4L set up. They want a fantastic full time AWD for adverse road conditions, plus the 4H and 4L. And will buy CUVs with AWD and no true 4L in huge numbers if they don’t find one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 2:52:29 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rumor : The 2023 Sequoia is supposed to have an off road version making it the American Land Cruiser. We'll see. If it doesn't have a "J" VIN it's not a Land Cruiser no matter what Toyota wants people to believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 3:00:16 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... In regards to the 4Runner, this might be the last chance to snag one in this generation. It’s vetted and as bulletproof as it can get. I don’t need luxury nor speed. ... Nailed my buying criteria, and if popularity and sales figures are any measure there are a hell of a lot of people looking for the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 3:03:41 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol my average over the last 1k miles I had it was 15.1. Figured the raptor thay replaced it would do better… lol nope 14.6 over 3k mikes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That would have been a high freeway average for me. I used mine for lots of interstate travel to shooting matches and was never happy with internal cube space, power, and mileage. Lol my average over the last 1k miles I had it was 15.1. Figured the raptor thay replaced it would do better… lol nope 14.6 over 3k mikes My 4runner is a little over 3k miles, averaging 19.4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2022 5:37:27 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My 4runner is a little over 3k miles, averaging 19.4 That similar to a 2020 I used on my commute a handful of times. And about 1.5mpg better than a full time 4WD manual FJ on the same route. A full time 4WD 2016 V6 Grand Cherokee does it in 24-26 mpg. In 2WD a 6.4 Hemi 4x4 2500 Ram in 17 mpg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:08:13 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a 4runner fanboy but seriously all they did was put some racing strip decals and some badging. Someone can replicate that in a few hours at home. If they wanted to go all in on a retro, have a removable top option. And the altimeter package 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:46:31 AM EST
[#21]
Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity.
Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:27:06 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity. Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. An updated engine and more over drive gears is not really crazy tech. 4Runner gets killed by Wrangler and Grand Cherokee sales numbers. They could very easily offer a two speed transfer case, full time 4WD with true 4Low, similar HP and torque combo that could tow over 6000 pounds instead of barely 5000, that gets 2 or 3 more mpg in the city and 5 or 6 more on the highway without resorting to turbo, etc. This updated drive train would both be better for adverse road conditions and as good or better off road. I have been driving and owning Toyotas since the 3rd Gen US Hilux and various overseas models since the 80s including other Japanese SUVs. Full time AWD is way better than RWD. I actually want Toyota to do that drivetrain update, and make a version with a removable roof panel and doors. It would have a massive following. Edit- I also forgot to add the 400 pond lighter 4Runner would be awesome to put the GX drivetrain into and would likely match or improve the mpgs. Let alone if they went to a y or 8 speed transmission in each of them and got the highway crushing final overdrive ratio down. The bigger gas tank of the 4Runner would go nice with it also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:31:05 PM EST
[#23]
they should detune it so that it loses 50% of its horsepower
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:38:53 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity. Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. Yep. Old me loves the GX470 but if I were young again my 94 4Runner with an LS swapped in would be a blast. Or whatever engine. Just needs more power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:16:35 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An updated engine and more over drive gears is not really crazy tech. 4Runner gets killed by Wrangler and Grand Cherokee sales numbers. They could very easily offer a two speed transfer case, full time 4WD with true 4Low, similar HP and torque combo that could tow over 6000 pounds instead of barely 5000, that gets 2 or 3 more mpg in the city and 5 or 6 more on the highway without resorting to turbo, etc. This updated drive train would both be better for adverse road conditions and as good or better off road. I have been driving and owning Toyotas since the 3rd Gen US Hilux and various overseas models since the 80s including other Japanese SUVs. Full time AWD is way better than RWD. I actually want Toyota to do that drivetrain update, and make a version with a removable roof panel and doors. It would have a massive following. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity. Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. An updated engine and more over drive gears is not really crazy tech. 4Runner gets killed by Wrangler and Grand Cherokee sales numbers. They could very easily offer a two speed transfer case, full time 4WD with true 4Low, similar HP and torque combo that could tow over 6000 pounds instead of barely 5000, that gets 2 or 3 more mpg in the city and 5 or 6 more on the highway without resorting to turbo, etc. This updated drive train would both be better for adverse road conditions and as good or better off road. I have been driving and owning Toyotas since the 3rd Gen US Hilux and various overseas models since the 80s including other Japanese SUVs. Full time AWD is way better than RWD. I actually want Toyota to do that drivetrain update, and make a version with a removable roof panel and doors. It would have a massive following.  4Runner sales have tripled in the last decade. They have seen 10%+ year over year sales growth in 5 of the last 8 years. PS: The 4Runner IS available with full time 4WD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:40:28 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 4Runner sales have tripled in the last decade. They have seen 10%+ year over year sales growth in 5 of the last 8 years. PS: The 4Runner IS available with full time 4WD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity. Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. An updated engine and more over drive gears is not really crazy tech. 4Runner gets killed by Wrangler and Grand Cherokee sales numbers. They could very easily offer a two speed transfer case, full time 4WD with true 4Low, similar HP and torque combo that could tow over 6000 pounds instead of barely 5000, that gets 2 or 3 more mpg in the city and 5 or 6 more on the highway without resorting to turbo, etc. This updated drive train would both be better for adverse road conditions and as good or better off road. I have been driving and owning Toyotas since the 3rd Gen US Hilux and various overseas models since the 80s including other Japanese SUVs. Full time AWD is way better than RWD. I actually want Toyota to do that drivetrain update, and make a version with a removable roof panel and doors. It would have a massive following. 4Runner sales have tripled in the last decade. They have seen 10%+ year over year sales growth in 5 of the last 8 years. PS: The 4Runner IS available with full time 4WD. They certainly have. And during that time you can no longer go buy an FJ Cruiser or X-Terra. And the Pathfinder kind of not being able to decide if it’s going to be a SUV or CUV. And the Explorer becoming a CUV. Let alone all the other mid sized Japanese SUVs that have fallen by the wayside. They are currently selling about 140K units a year. With many buyers simply shrugging and getting one because their options have become more limited. And you have to opt for the luxury model to get the full time AWD. With a Wrangler you can get it on any engine except the Diesel. The Wrangler has gone from that 140K units sold per year to over 200K. Sometimes 240K units a year. The Grand Cherokee has gone from over 150K to over 260K units a year during that decade. There is something to be said for offering two door versions, a variety of engine choices, removable doors, etc. and making your product more attractive and going from massive sales to even more massive sales, Vs Spending a decade letting decreased models for competition drive you to almost massive sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:05:35 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They certainly have. And during that time you can no longer go buy an FJ Cruiser or X-Terra. And the Pathfinder kind of not being able to decide if it’s going to be a SUV or CUV. And the Explorer becoming a CUV. Let alone all the other mid sized Japanese SUVs that have fallen by the wayside. They are currently selling about 140K units a year. With many buyers simply shrugging and getting one because their options have become more limited. And you have to opt for the luxury model to get the full time AWD. With a Wrangler you can get it on any engine except the Diesel. The Wrangler has gone from that 140K units sold per year to over 200K. Sometimes 240K units a year. The Grand Cherokee has gone from over 150K to over 260K units a year during that decade. There is something to be said for offering two door versions, a variety of engine choices, removable doors, etc. and making your product more attractive and going from massive sales to even more massive sales, Vs Spending a decade letting decreased models for competition drive you to almost massive sales. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah I buy toyotas for reliability and longevity. Great resale and low TCO. I really dont want direct injection, turbo'd, models. I would buy my 2005 right now if offered again. Would I prefer to have better gas mileage? Of course. Frankly my 2022 has more tech than I want. Would be nice to still have the V8 option. I understand some just need more tech and more power. I guess you'll need to find something else. It seems Toyota knows their market since the 4runner is one of the top sold vehicles. Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. An updated engine and more over drive gears is not really crazy tech. 4Runner gets killed by Wrangler and Grand Cherokee sales numbers. They could very easily offer a two speed transfer case, full time 4WD with true 4Low, similar HP and torque combo that could tow over 6000 pounds instead of barely 5000, that gets 2 or 3 more mpg in the city and 5 or 6 more on the highway without resorting to turbo, etc. This updated drive train would both be better for adverse road conditions and as good or better off road. I have been driving and owning Toyotas since the 3rd Gen US Hilux and various overseas models since the 80s including other Japanese SUVs. Full time AWD is way better than RWD. I actually want Toyota to do that drivetrain update, and make a version with a removable roof panel and doors. It would have a massive following. 4Runner sales have tripled in the last decade. They have seen 10%+ year over year sales growth in 5 of the last 8 years. PS: The 4Runner IS available with full time 4WD. They certainly have. And during that time you can no longer go buy an FJ Cruiser or X-Terra. And the Pathfinder kind of not being able to decide if it’s going to be a SUV or CUV. And the Explorer becoming a CUV. Let alone all the other mid sized Japanese SUVs that have fallen by the wayside. They are currently selling about 140K units a year. With many buyers simply shrugging and getting one because their options have become more limited. And you have to opt for the luxury model to get the full time AWD. With a Wrangler you can get it on any engine except the Diesel. The Wrangler has gone from that 140K units sold per year to over 200K. Sometimes 240K units a year. The Grand Cherokee has gone from over 150K to over 260K units a year during that decade. There is something to be said for offering two door versions, a variety of engine choices, removable doors, etc. and making your product more attractive and going from massive sales to even more massive sales, Vs Spending a decade letting decreased models for competition drive you to almost massive sales. The Exploder made the CUV transition in 2011, the FJ departed the US market in 2014, and the Xterra died in 2015. Having less competition helps, but the exit of those models 7+ years ago doesn't explain the 4Runner's growth now. The Wrangler is a multi-generational American cultural icon, both the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee are operated by fleets, the Grand Cherokee has historically had much better incentives/discounts, and FCA dealers will finance anyone with a pulse. All of those factors add up. Reducing complexity by reducing ordering options has generally worked really well for the big Japanese manufacturers, and that's a trend I expect to see continue, not reverse. We almost certainly aren't going to see a 2 door 4Runner for the same reason there's no single cab Tacoma or Frontier. The take rate is too low to justify the complexity in production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:11:52 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still can’t come up with anything new I like it but it’s the same as the land cruiser special edition, so I expect this will be overpriced too They don’t have to. When 4-Runners sit on the dealer lot for 6 months, they’ll make a change. I had one for a rental a couple weeks ago. Drove fine. Was it Lexus-like in its refinement? Of course not. But it was still a pretty good vehicle. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 4:44:41 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Exploder made the CUV transition in 2011, the FJ departed the US market in 2014, and the Xterra died in 2015. Having less competition helps, but the exit of those models 7+ years ago doesn't explain the 4Runner's growth now. The Wrangler is a multi-generational American cultural icon, both the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee are operated by fleets, the Grand Cherokee has historically had much better incentives/discounts, and FCA dealers will finance anyone with a pulse. All of those factors add up. Reducing complexity by reducing ordering options has generally worked really well for the big Japanese manufacturers, and that's a trend I expect to see continue, not reverse. We almost certainly aren't going to see a 2 door 4Runner for the same reason there's no single cab Tacoma or Frontier. The take rate is too low to justify the complexity in production. The SUV Explorer was averaging about 60K units a year the past few years before that. FJs and X-Terra’s were selling about 25K total a year. The 3rd Gen SUV Pathfinder averaged about 50K units a year. Toyota was selling under 50K units a year until the Pathfinder and Explorer became CUVs. And did not break 100K until after both the FJ and X-Terra both left the market also. Part of the 4Runner popularity is great reliability, durability, capability, and resale value. Absolutely. But if your saying the decreased availability of other mid sized frame on Japanese and American frame on SUVs doesn’t explain the growth, look at the numbers again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 4:47:58 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No kidding. The transmission is part of the drivetrain. It’s horribly outdated on the 4Runner Real world comparison for them same 40 mile commute- back and forth at least 2X each- FJ Cruiser 18mpg 4Runner 19 mpg in 2WD V6 Grand Cherokee 25mpg full time 4WD 5.7 Grand Cherokee full time AWD 21mpg 392 18 mpg The MDS on the V8s means you cruise along on 4 cylinders at 65 mph at like 1500 rpm. And can go into full beast mode. Hell, I get over 24 on that commute in a 392 Challenger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think you're being a bit optimistic... Grand Cherokee V6: 19 MPG Grand Cherokee V8: 15.5 MPG Wrangler V6: 18 MPG Wrangler 392: 12.7 MPG lol The Pentastar V6 is a traditional port injected V6. There's no magic there. The ZF 8HP transmission is the bigger difference maker. The V8s? Nope. No kidding. The transmission is part of the drivetrain. It’s horribly outdated on the 4Runner Real world comparison for them same 40 mile commute- back and forth at least 2X each- FJ Cruiser 18mpg 4Runner 19 mpg in 2WD V6 Grand Cherokee 25mpg full time 4WD 5.7 Grand Cherokee full time AWD 21mpg 392 18 mpg The MDS on the V8s means you cruise along on 4 cylinders at 65 mph at like 1500 rpm. And can go into full beast mode. Hell, I get over 24 on that commute in a 392 Challenger. Cylinder deactivation works wonders for engine longevity. You can keep it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 5:12:59 PM EST
[#31]
The forerunner to the 4Runner was the Toyota Trekker, built by Winnebago, which was all fiberglass from the cab back. This is mine, circa 1995:
 I also had a 1986 and 1996 4Runner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2022 9:10:11 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The SUV Explorer was averaging about 60K units a year the past few years before that. FJs and X-Terra's were selling about 25K total a year. The 3rd Gen SUV Pathfinder averaged about 50K units a year. Toyota was selling under 50K units a year until the Pathfinder and Explorer became CUVs. And did not break 100K until after both the FJ and X-Terra both left the market also. Part of the 4Runner popularity is great reliability, durability, capability, and resale value. Absolutely. But if your saying the decreased availability of other mid sized frame on Japanese and American frame on SUVs doesn't explain the growth, look at the numbers again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 2:55:47 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its disingenious to insinuate 4runner owners are ignorant of the newer tech etc and are just herd followers. I know exactly what I want. sorry the 4runner is not for you. Regarding the new version. meh. WUT? This is exactly what owners are, herd followers for the majority. So brand and model crazy they will go out of their way to say the outdated technology, interior, engine output is actually what they prefer. Your post proves how 4-runner fanbois exist. And don’t for one minute expect me to believe that a larger screen, Apple car play and larger wheels and brakes will somehow reduce reliability. GTFO The 4 runner is far shittier than it needs to be but Toyota is the HK of the car industry. And they can be because people love buying their outdated 4 runner. The highlander has all the new tech and get this, it also has Toyota reliability. According to 4 runner owner math, the highlander (with LED headlights and more comfortable seats and BLIS) should all be in junkyards now broken down and possibly on fire. The argument the 4 runner can’t be made more modern without it becoming a Land Rover in terms of repair is so old. But you guys do you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 3:09:00 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL. I just had my '21 TRD hit 100 with ease.* That is, with a Sprint Booster. Yes, stock throttle response isn't good. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No mention of the 20 year old 4.0 with 295hp and 0-60 in 12 minutes while being noisy as fuck struggling at highway speed? LOL. I just had my '21 TRD hit 100 with ease.* That is, with a Sprint Booster. Yes, stock throttle response isn't good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 4:45:24 AM EST
[#35]
The 4runner just works, simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 5:19:51 AM EST
[#36]
No EV, no care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 5:22:01 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it doesn't have a "J" VIN it's not a Land Cruiser no matter what Toyota wants people to believe. QFT |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 5:27:31 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprint Booster has no bearing on how quickly a vehicle reaches a certain speed. All it does is remap the throttle positioning/sensitivity. So whether stock throttle response, or with a sprint booster, at 100% throttle for both, it would achieve 100 mph at the same 87 seconds... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2022 6:50:21 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sprint Booster has no bearing on how quickly a vehicle reaches a certain speed. All it does is remap the throttle positioning/sensitivity. So whether stock throttle response, or with a sprint booster, at 100% throttle for both, it would achieve 100 mph at the same 87 seconds... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No mention of the 20 year old 4.0 with 295hp and 0-60 in 12 minutes while being noisy as fuck struggling at highway speed? LOL. I just had my '21 TRD hit 100 with ease.* That is, with a Sprint Booster. Yes, stock throttle response isn't good. The fact that you have to buy a “sprint booster”, a device to add remote start and a device to hold the iPhone since it’s screen is bigger and better than the one that comes with the car…..that’s proof right there that buyers are making excuses |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
