Howdy, Stranger!

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

Toyota 4Runner



  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    You're asking for a lot here but I'll try.

    1. The 4Runner. It is a mid-sized SUV with the off-roader in mind. It is strong, built with a ladder frame and is very suitable for towing (although I am not happy with a 5000# capacity on the new V8). It can be had fairly plain to very luxurious. Being smaller than the others, it is easy to drive in town and this also makes it better on narrow trails.

    2. The Cruiser. It is the ultimate expression of luxury with off-road capabilities. There are more luxurious and better off roaders (the Hummer H1) but nothing with both. Due to its short wheelbase, it is better off road than the Sequoia. There is something else intangible that makes it what it is. I really can't describe it but when you drive it, you will feel it. Its just awesome. It is less expensive than the LX and now only lacks a wood finish, height adjustable suspension and memory seating. The buying experience is not Lexus but neither is the price.

    3. Sequoia. This is the SUV for soccer dads who also want to be able to tow and off-road. It is pretty long for extreme off roading but it will handle all but the most difficult trails well. While the Limited is VERY loaded with luxury features (including some that are still unavailable on the LC), it is missing that intangible feel I spoke of on the LC. It is a big beast.

    That's a summary. I would hope that brochures and visiting a dealer would answer more of the details.
  • sbell4sbell4 Posts: 446
    I apologize but I can not email anyone the brochure until they are released ( I made one exception for cliffy {DON'T MESS ME UP, CLIFFY!!!}). I don't mind if he shares some info on some of the specs but it doesn't need to be posted or released to anyone yet.
  • the whole truck has grown, remember? So, cliffy and I have been wondering that if the whole truck has gotten bigger, by about 3 to 5" in every direction, then why wouldn't there be a consistent ratio of growth? If they could increase the front leg room slightly, and the rear leg room slightly, then why would that encroach on the cargo space if those numbers don't add up to be more than the entire growth? There's only 3.5" more added leg room, which leaves 1.5" more for somewhere,so why the drastic decrease in cargo space? Even if that 1.5" was used elsewhere, the cargo space should remain the same or even get slightly bigger, because of the extra 3" of width. So, where did that space get used?

    Ah, but cliffy has come up with the most logical theory, that it could have a longer hood, therefore pushing everything back, in addition to the longer body.

    What you said was exactly my point about the Prado, that it's a rugged SUV over-seas, so maybe they just kept similar components on the GX as a cost-savings device. But then why spend the extra on the 4Runner to "dummy" some things down from off-road standards? That is a good question. It is a puzzle, unless, as you, myself, and others surmise, they're making this even more appealing to "soccer moms." Which seems to go against all logic; that the 4Runner would have some less rugged features than the more luxurious Lexus GX. It's very strange, and almost like Toyota couldn't make up their mind and got confused about their target markets.

    And speaking of confused...what the heck was that guy talking about in the AutoWeek interview, when he said the 4Runner is geared toward younger couples/buyers?! That's true to an extent, but a $40K Limited? Younger buyers?! Come on! This guy proved to me that Toyota has their heads up their patooties about marketing. They could have easily put the REMOVABLE 3rd row seats in as an option or standard on the Limited. Why don't they just say that they don't want to take too many sales away from the Lexus, and be done with it? That is the only logical reason. I don't believe the bull about their "off-road customers" not wanting the "added weight," when they could be an option, and REMOVABLE!

    Anyway, I still love this new truck! =o)
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate that and, as I said in my e-mail, I wont mess you up. Funny though that this site has managed to come up with just about everything that is in the brochure without ever seeing it. At this point, the brochure just confirms what we already knew.
  • I am a bit confused about the interior volume that is given in the Toyota brochure. (It is available on another site) It lists the EPA cargo volume with the rear seats up as 42.2cf w/o the double decker cargo system and 40.6cf with the double decker cargo system; but with the rear seats folded it specifies the EPA cargo volume as 72.4cf w/o the double decker cargo system, and 75.1cf with the double decker cargo system. So it appears that the double decker cargo system increases the cargo volume with the seats folded, but decreases the cargo volume with the rear seats up. Could this possibly be due to the method the EPA uses to calculate the volume? That is, specific minimum box sizes? And could this explain the apparent cargo volume differential between the 2002 and 2003 4runners?
  • ""Final pricing was not available when we went to tape, but look for base stickers to range from $27,000 for an SR5 4X2, to $37,000 for a Limited 4X4.""

    Limited is what I expected, but $27,000 for a 2WD SR5 is more than I expected.
  • I have a very nice powerpoint presentation on the 2003 4Runner.

    If anyone would like it let me know. It's a pretty big file at 35mb, but if your on a fast connection it won't take that long to download.
  • I have noticed these "bad" stuff on the new 4Runner: (you guys know about the good stuff already)

    1. DIAL 4wd switch
    2. PEDAL parking brake
    3. Slight decrease in ground clearance
    4. Approach/departure/breakover angle is only OK, especially breakover angle
    5. Rear legroom is less i think!
    6. THICKER anti-roll bars may mean less wheel travel/articulation!
    7. Less cargo room (debatable right now)
    8. 17" tires are slightly undesirable in off-roading (although i do like them!)
    9. V6 is all-aluminum (not a big deal)
    10. V6 has only a 4-speed auto
    11. Price is still up in the air...may get pricey with options!
    12. Exterior design is OK

    Well, that is all i can say for now...otherwise, the new 4Runner looks like a winner. Still off-road capable.

    I am still confused about ground can the GX and 4Runner have different numbers?? What could Toyota have done to change it?? A possible (but unlikely) is that the 4Runner has a smaller rear axle (thus, the pumpkin is smaller), thus increasing the clearance. Or that the GX470 has more stuff hanging down on it's underbody??

    The other weird thing is the difference between the GX and 4Runner regarding parking brake and 4wd transfer case.
  • How do I download the program?
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    since I know how busy you are, thank you for the detailed explanation...getting old just ain't as easy as it used to be...or, as Yogi Berra once said, "when you get to a fork in the road, take it"...

  • Not sure if I am allowed to post the link.

    Email me at and I ll send it over to you.
  • I remember about 6 months ago or so someone (I can't remember who) said they had seen the 2003 4Runner and that it looked like the Montero.

    I agree, they do kinda look alike, at least from the front. I hate to say it, but the Montero looks better, in my opinion.

    Check it out

  • In complete disagreement with the Montero post above. My opinion. Those huge fenders on the front look horrible.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    I was just thinking that while the FRONT of the new Runner actually looks a lot better, the BACK looks exactly like the Montero Sport!

    32/24/22 for approach/departure/breakover angles doesn't sound too good to me. I wish I could remember the exact numbers for the 3rd gen - are these better or worse?

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

  • Approach = 35
    Departure = 28
    Breakover = unknown
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Those are the numbers I had in my head for MY truck, but I didn't want to quote them, because I was not positive of their source.

    So the new Runner is seriously sucking in that department, huh?

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

  • 32/24 (approach/departure) is not is well above average for the this to Envoy, MDX, Sequoia...the 4Runner positively shines against these competitors!

    The Toyota Land Cruiser has 32/24 also; however, for a wheelbase of 112, it has a very good breakover of 24 degrees.
  • mackabeemackabee Posts: 4,709
    is 22
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    of comparisons with other trucks, not MDX and the like. I am curious to know what these numbers are for Rubicon, trucks like that. Mainly I am disappointed they needlessly reduced the figures of the third gen.

    Why oh why, couldn't they have just put a more powerful engine in the 3rd gen, maybe changed the look of the nose a little, and left everything lese the same?

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

  • Approach/departure/breakover angles:

    2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon: 45/34/25.8
    2003 Nissan Pathfinder: 33/28/NA
    2003 Nissan Xterra: 33/28.6/NA
    2002 Mitsubishi Montero: 39/18/NA
    2002 Mitsubishi Montero Sport: 31/22/NA
    2002 Land Rover Discovery II: 31/21/25 (with self-leveling: 31/25/25)
    2003 Range Rover: 32/29/28 (in HIGH mode)
    2003 Lexus GX470: 30/29/NA (in HIGH mode)
    2003 Lexus LX470: 32/26/24 (in HIGH mode)
    2003 Toyota Land Cruiser: 31/24/24 (correction from previous of 32/24/24)
    2002 Toyota Sequoia: 28/20/NA

    2003 4Runner: 32/24/22
    2002 4Runner: 35/28/NA

    2003 Acura MDX: 28/21/21
    2002 Toyota Highlander: 28/22/NA
Sign In or Register to comment.