Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota 4Runner

1125126128130131367

Comments

  • tfuzztfuzz Posts: 93
    Peter--I should have mentioned in my message that I did take the Highlander on one long trip pulling a Coleman pop-up trailer. I used premium when pulling the trailer in the mountains, but otherwise used regular. If you don't count the mileage when pulling the trailer I'd guess the overall mileage for the HL is pretty close to what you get on your Runner.

    It's good to hear that someone else is as crazy as I am about keeping records ;-). For some reason, which I have forgotten, I started keeping records of my mileage when I got my license (and my first car--a '56 Chevy) in '62. Can't find those records now, but I remember paying as little as 17.9 (and frequently 19.9) cents/gallon.
  • peter78peter78 Posts: 284
    Besides mileage I keep all repair and maintance records. It is amazing to me that people have no idea when their last oil change or tire rotation was. I also love it when people tell me their mileage is pretty good, probably 18 to 20 MPG in their Suburban, when in reality they have no idea.

    My first car was a 1959 Jaguar with a DOHC in-line 6 that got 12 MPG. I guess I shouldn't of checked, huh?
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,642
    Count me in, Tfuzz and Peter78. My lifetime mpg for my last van was 18.07730706 mpg; current one is running 21.2781476877317 mpg :-)


    The TCO tool is fun to play with; hopefully one day we'll be able to plug our own numbers into it.


    Steve, Host

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • peter78peter78 Posts: 284
    Our family bought the 4Runner because we needed more room to carry stuff on our camping trips and more room for the family. And in the future possibly tow a small camper.

    I kept my old car and sometimes drive that to work. Then my wife who owns a 92 Honda Accord Wagon all of a sudden decides to drive the 4Runner sitting in the garage. She likes it as do I because you sit up high in the SUV and you feel better driving it in traffic. I know the people behind me hate it. Also my Son thinks it is really cool. Actually I don't mind. It is heavier, better crash results, dual air bags, ABS brakes and pre-tensioners seat belts. Bottom line I lost the use of my SUV because my Wife likes it in the traffic. I can still drive it when we go camping or when she is really nice.
  • thelthel Posts: 767
    Hello all, I'm looking at a couple of 1995 4WD 4-runners. Both have about 115,000 miles.

    One is a V6 automatic that has had 3 owners, each keeping the vehicle for a couple of years each. The first appears to have been a rental company in Utah. From there it made its way east to Kansas, then Missouri.

    The other is a 2.4L 4cyl with a 5-spd. It is a one owner truck that has been in mid-MO its whole life. I think it may have been a demo or something early in its life as its first owner titled it with over 4,000 miles on it. It appears to be in great shape.

    I really just need and OTM for my Miata that has cargo room for baby gear and lumbar and 4WD for the winter. Is one engine/drivetrain more reliable or durable than the other? The V6 auto is advertised for $8460 and the 4cyl is advertised for $7450. Any advice from anybody is very much appreciated.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    4-cyl is older than dirt - the same engine that was in my '83 celica. It is the famous 22RE, probably the best, most durable engine Toyota ever built.

    the 6-cyl is the same engine as is in my '90, and it has issues - namely, the head gasket. Toyota changed the material used for the head gasket, as well as its design, due to excessive failure, and warranted all the engines for 8 years, which means you would just barely be inside the time window. But if it has never been replaced, it is just waiting to happen, and would be a hassle for you - you should check to see if it has been done.

    Also, the exhaust valves in the V-6 tend to need replacement later in life, say around 150K, which is fairly expensive.

    The only thing is, this truck is also SLOWER than dirt with the 4-cyl, at least to my mind. I took a pass on a couple of 4-cyls when I was looking, just because of that. Make sure you are happy with the power before you buy the 4.

    And that price seems a little high for the 4-cyl with 115K. Of course, that is just in my area...

    If you are willing to look at a '96 or '97, they were making a 4-cyl then which was 2.7L and had as much power as the previous V-6, and they go for cheap because most people are looking for the V-6.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    ...current one is running 21.2781476877317 mpg :-)

    LoL! You must have paid a bundle for the equipment that measures distance and capacity down to the atomic level! ;-)

    tidester, host
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,642
    Excel ;-)

    Steve, Host
    (funny how recording gallons used to two decimal points can yield twenty decimal points down the road - must be a math thing )

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • I am strongly considering am '03 4 runner. I'm very pleased with the test drive of the Sport except for head room. My hair brushes the liner. Bumps will give me a flat top. I suppose eliminating the sun roof (and sun shade)will provide more head room but there are none without the roof to compare. The dealer says I can order one the way I want and expect it in three to four months. Has anyone seen a roofless one? comments please.
  • kjack100kjack100 Posts: 133
    Nippononly, while everyone is reminiscing, I knew I liked you for some reason. My first Toyota was an '83 Celica GT coupe automatic(dark blue). The days of buying one at full MSRP, if you were lucky.

    Ok, I have a '98 4Runner right now. I am not buying all these MPG's. I get 14.72 in town, 20.01 on the road.

    Welcome back Cliffy.
  • tfuzztfuzz Posts: 93
    Peter--Funny thing. I traded my Highlander on the 4Runner. Then I decided we really didn't need to pay our high property taxes and expensive insurance on the Runner and my wife's Sienna both, so I took the Sienna to town and traded it on a '94 Mazda pickup. Guess who now drives the Mazda to work? I think I should have thought that one out better. My Runner is nice, though, when she lets me use it!

    I see Steve_Host is playing one-upmanship with us. I guess I'll have to set my spreadsheet to read out to 20 decimals now--even though the station I usually go to only gives me the gallons to the thousandth! I used to be in the Army in Alaska--should we all start adjusting our gallons for temperature variations like we used to have to do there? It's more accurate that way.
  • From sitting in both, the ones without the moonroof have what apears to be at least 2 extra inches of headroom. It makes a big difference.
  • jimxojimxo Posts: 423
    How much off of the MSRP can I expect to pay?
  • sovangsovang Posts: 56
    Everyone,

    I just bought a 2003 4runner SR5 (white) last week. Yesterday, I discovered that the hitch, which came with the truck, will not fit into the receiver. Does anyone else out there have this problem?

    Regards,

    SV
  • How does it not fit? is it too large, small, long, short, etc? I have tried to slip the hitch into the receiver on several 4Runners here on the lot and haven't had any problems. Actually they are specially made to fit.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,642
    Tfuzz, 4,000 of those miles were driven in Anchorage, and I didn't adjust anything for temp, so I guess my 20 decimal points aren't all that precise!

    Sovang, you can delete your own posts with the "Delete" button next to the message title. You also have 30 minutes to edit your posts. Congrats on the new 4Runner.

    Steve, Host

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • sovangsovang Posts: 56
    My hitch was too large by about 1/8 of an inch or so.

    SV
  • jcla7jcla7 Posts: 18
    sovang, I don't have the problem now, but did on an earlier vehicle. Check (carefully) the inside of the receiver. I found a couple of burrs which can easily be removed with a chisel and BFH.

    BTW, still haven't pulled the trigger Plan B (Pathy) although I think it is a great vehicle. Decided to wait and drive the 6 on the 4Runner. Has anyone driven one? The dealers here say 4 to 6 weeks (although one guy tells me they are going to "start building the engines" in March 2003). Imagine, he does this for a living.

    I still have 2 questions which I can't quite figure out: (a) Why do they have two different drive systems for the 6 and 8? The 8 is "full time" for lack of a better description, and the 6 is the traditional style of picking your preference? For highway driving, I'd sure rather throw the thing in 2-HI rather than push all the wheels. Is that logical, or simple neanderthal thinking, and an inability grasp/trust new
    technology? (b) How does the 6 end up with more horsepower than the 8? Is that a result of HP just being a poor measuring stick, or something else? Just wondering where performance is lost between the two. Not too technical please, after all, I only measure gas mileage to the tenth.
  • peter78peter78 Posts: 284
    Actually I only figure to 1 decimal point for mileage. It was 19.5. When "tfuzz" figured it out further I decided to re-add all the gallons and mileage and re-figured it to 19.52. There were more decimal numbers on my calculator but I figured going to the 1/100th is far enough.

    On one car I kept records for the 260,000 miles I owned it. On the first 100,000 miles I got 37.5, then 36.1 on the second 100,000 and during the last few miles I got 25 or less, a good indication the engine is wearing out.
  • peter78peter78 Posts: 284
    I think the biggest reason for the increase in horse power is because of the variable valve technology. Basically, the cam in the engine has a set of bumps called lobes that move a valve a certain distance to introduce fuel and air or on the exhaust valves to remove the burnt fuel and air. If you have a aggressive bump or lobe you can get more power and if you have a small bump or lobe you can idle better and have good low end power. A extreme example of a aggressive bump or lobe would be a dragster, if you have ever seen a dragster sitting at idle the engine seems very rough. Well now car companies can have it so there are two lobes for each valve. After a certain set of RPM's the cam moves over to the higher set of lobes giving the engine more fuel and air and also the ability to remove the extra burnt fuel.

    Car companies have been using this technology for years now. It seems to work OK and not have problems with it breaking down. I think one problem is when you put more stress on the engine the oil may start to break down sooner. Toyota V6 3.0 use this technology and there has been some concern over sludge build up. If I bought the V6 I would be more aggressive in changing the oil. That is just my opinion.
  • My 2001 4WD 4Runner is at 30,000 miles. What do you experts say on the 30,000 mile checkup? We are leasing the truck now but want to eventually buy it out.
  • lok888lok888 BostonPosts: 1,787
    Why Toyota offers two different types of engine (V6 and V8) with no major specs differences on the new 4Runner? I know the V8 is came from the Tundra pick up.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,642
    I think Toyota is trying to eat Honda's lunch myself. Honda has no pickups and no V-8's (available in NA that I'm aware of). Lots of people in the US want a V8 and they won't bother to look at the other specs. Toyota seems to be expanding their foothold with this market as the Japanese "truck" guys (Isuzu really isn't on the radar is it?), and you got to have a V8 to compete against Ford, DC & GM.

    Maybe Cliffy can relate some "real" reasons to counter my "marketing" analysis :-)

    Steve, Host

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • There are a couple of different differences between the two vehicles. First, the V6 is about 200 lbs lighter than the V8. There is a significant difference in the way they put out their power as well. The V6 has 245 hp at 5200 rpm and 283 lb/ft of torque at 3400 rpm. Compare that to the V8 with 235hp at 4800 rpm and 320 lb/ft of torque at 3400 rpm. Just by looking at the numbers, you can see that the torque provided by the V8 engine is both much greater and at a lower rpm range, therefore more "useable". This doesn't tell the whole story, however. If you get a chance to see the hp and torque curves of the two engines, you will see a significant difference. The V6 is a high revving engine. It doesn't get into it's true powerband until further along in the rpm range. The V8, however has most of its power right from idle and just gets better from there. Also, with the 5sp automatic on the V8, the gearing is a bit closer spaced and the top gear is a bit higher for better highway milage.

    The V6 models will have a multi-mode 4wd similar to that found on the Sequoia. You can drive it in 2wd if you prefer or you can drive it in 4wd all the time with the torsen center differential with no detriment to the drivetrain.

    The system is sophisticated enough that you don't have any real drawback to having full-time 4wd on the V8 or driving in 4wd all the time on the V6 models other than a very small decrease in gas milage. Similar to the Sequoia, I would expect to see a reduction from driving in 2wd to 4wd of about 1mpg. The system is very efficient and even in 2wd, you're still moving all of the components when you're driving, it's just that they are not receiving power from the center differential when in 2wd.

    Some people prefer to be able to disengage the 4wd. For those, the V6 model was provided as an alternative with very few comprimizes. Basically an engine that is less torquey and has a bit more top end horsepower to compensate, a 4sp auto transmission. For those looking to spend more on sophistication and the added benefit of full-time 4wd, the V8 model is a vailable.
  • That's because, as is normal for Toyota, they stay very close lipped about production. They don't give out info about upcoming changes, technical info, or spy photos unlike most other manufacturers. That includes their dealer network. They give us an estimate occasionally, but if you've spoken with someone that has worked for Toyota for any length of time, they know to hedge a bit. If Toyota decides to change their plans, they don't ask for permission or notify anyone, they just do it, partly because they haven't made all sorts of public anouncements about production schedules.

    That being said, from what I can tell, they look like they're building some of the V6 models in December's production assuming nothing changes. If this is the case, you can expect to see them start showing up on dealer's lots sometime late December though mid January.
  • intmed99intmed99 Posts: 485
    I am also compiling all the reviews of the 2003 4Runner:


    http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1


    Is it complete...if not, please direct me to the link.


    Thanks.

  • Based on what I've read on this board and my meager technical aptitude, it seems counter intuitive to have the 5 speed in the V8 and not the V6. Because the V6 needs to rev higher to achieve peak HP a more narrowly defined operating range within the gearbox would benefit it more. The V8 could lope along all day with the 4 speed box, as it does in the Sequoia. Comments please.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,712
    I think it's great that the V8 gets a 5-speed automatic, but I would think it would of even greater value with the high-revving V6.

    Also, think Toyota could streamline production if all 4WDs used the permenent full-time unit—including pickups. Also, I wish a "Neutral" position were included. The Lexus GX470 has it.

    Bob
Sign In or Register to comment.