Toyota 4Runner

canddmeyer · June 2006

Some of this is true for me. In crosswinds or headwinds, I cannot drive a straight line. But in no wind or tailwind, I can cruise at 90mph effortlessly. I have the SR5 suspension. No problems with the cruise control other than it losing its memory when braking to a stop, then having to reset it again. Road noise and the bouncy ride bother me most. I just slow down in windy conditions.

Needless to say, I'm looking at a Mercury Mountaineer at the moment. Unlike the 4Runner, I can sit in a Mountaineer (or Explorer) with a sunroof and not have my head resting on the ceiling. The Ford/Mercury is MUCH quieter inside, and I can get a slew of options I want like electrochromatic rearview mirror, heated outside mirrors, and side airbags at a price thousands less than a comparable Toyota. 0% financing, Sirius satellite radio availability, and supplier pricing help too. The only negative is Ford quality, but my Toyota hasn't been troublefree either. No ashtray on either vehicle bothers me too.

agnosto · June 2006

I am the owner of a new 2006 4Runner LTD V8 4WD with less that 2,000 miles and I have driven at various speeds from 65-102mph effortlessly, and I was surpised of the handling improvement versus to a new previous 1999 4Runner LTD V6 4WD I used to own. I have the original Michelin Cross Terrain and definitely these tires provide/contribute a lot to the superb solid/robust handling on the road at any speed level and most import with no steering wheel vibration (like I used to get with my old 1999 4Runner).

nedzel · June 2006

I've got 43,000 miles on my 03 4Runner LTD V8 4WD. The steering on the 4Runner is very quick (few turns lock-to-lock), very light, and has poor on-center feel. It is a tall vehicle so it is easily affected by cross-winds. The result is that it is a bit busy on the highway. My wife's MB C240 is much less tiring to drive on the highway -- it stays in the center of the lane effortlessly. The 4Runner wanders more and it is easy to overcorrect with the sensitive steering.

I just replaced the OEM Dunlops with Cross Terrains. I haven't noticed a significant change in highway driving.

I don't feel it is "unstable" in any way. Rather that it takes a lot of attention and small corrections to keep it in the center of the lane.

blov8r · June 2006

and has poor on-center feel. It is a tall vehicle so it is easily affected by cross-winds.

My experience w/ my wife's Lexus ... this is what I was inquiring about. Bart

chuck1 · June 2006

"I just replaced the OEM Dunlops with Cross Terrains. I haven't noticed a significant change in highway driving."

I can tell you based on my towing experience with my 05 4Runner that the Michelins have a much harder sidewall than the Donlaps. When I tow, I get no where near the sidewall flex I got with the Dunlaps.

kheintz1 · June 2006

I've previously mentioned that I drive a minimum of 350 miles/week in my '03, AWD, 4Runner Limited, mostly on highways. At any rate, my truck just recently underwent its scheduled 60,000 mile servicing, and when I picked it up from my dealer's shop, I took the time to talk with a master technician about the condition of my truck's Michelin Cross Terrains. He agreed with me that my set of these tires will likely meet, and may well exceed, the manufacturer's claim of 75,000 miles of use before needing replacement.

As to why my Cross Terrains have been aging so well, I can only speculate, but I firmly believe that road-force balancing, religious tire-rotation every 5000 miles, and attention to tire pressure, have been key factors. If you rotate the tires religiously, and you avoid overly aggressive and abusive driving habits, these superb tires should more than live up to their manufacturer's claims in terms of longevity.

blov8r · June 2006

75K miles! Great ... my wife's tires won't need to be changed for ten years! Bart

woodyww · June 2006

Funny, I've been thinking of trading my 2000 528i (wagon) for a 2-3 y.o. 4runner. Partly because it's out of warranty, & has had a couple of relatively minor electrical problems. In the 4 1/5 years I've owned it (I bought it used-CPO), I think I've had it in for minor repairs twice (knock wood!). Mine has incredibly low miles tho--I'd suggest getting a lower-mileage car if you do buy one.

FWIW, it's extremely stable at highway speeds, irregardless of wind, rain, etc. And the 5-series wagon ("Touring") holds a lot of "stuff", altho not as much as a 4Runner. A few of the posts here have me just about convinced to hang on to it. (I realize they are vastly different vehicles with different capabilities.....)

nedzel · June 2006

If you don't need the offroad capability of a 4Runner, then you may be better off staying with a station wagon or wagon-like vehicle.

The 4Runner's offroad capability is its strength. But that strength comes at a significant cost. It handles pretty well -- for a truck. It brakes pretty well -- for a truck. It rides and drives pretty well -- for a truck. But there is no mistaking it for what it is -- a body-on-frame truck with pretty bad gas mileage.

I have a 4Runner because a station wagon wouldn't get very far up the beach when I'm fishing. Nor would it get me up a snow-covered logging road when I'm hunting.

That capability doesn't come for free and I don't understand why someone would accept those costs when they don't need the accompanying benefits.

navguy · June 2006

06MY 4Runner includes an in-dash 4 disc CD changer that is MP3 and WMA compatible. Plus, you get Bluetooth integration with approved handsets! The new navigation is the most awesome thing ever!

chuck1 · June 2006

"a body-on-frame truck with pretty bad gas mileage."

I have an '05 Sport w/the V8 and X-Reas suspension (which I would recommend if you don't mind a slightly stiffer ride.)
Gas mpg is as follows: in town - expect NO MORE than 14mpg. On the highway at 65mph - expect 20mpg. Higher speeds will have an impact on gas mpg.

sacstate1 · June 2006

Those Dunflop AT20's are death tires. I can't believe Toyota would put such a poor tire as OEM.

sacstate1 · June 2006

My onboard computer mpg is exactly 3mpg optimistic.

black_tulip · June 2006

Those Dunflop AT20's are death tires

What do you mean by this? I have had them for the last 38,000 miles ('05 V6 4WD SR5) and I am still alive (as far as I can tell)!

With about 90% highway @ 70-75 mph and 10% city, my mileage is about 22. I don't think that is poor at all, for a truck of this size. My trip computer indicates about 22.6.

Anyway, I am planning to switch to Michelin X terrains. I can't believe how expensive they are. Tirerack is quoting them at $168 +shipping for the 17". My Toy dealer will probably want at least $220 everything included. How much are you guys paying?

chuck1 · June 2006

"Those Dunflop AT20's are death tires."

Yes, most guys can't stand them. I got lucky on my Cross Terrains and (on another forum) found a guy who lives in Park City, Utah and needed real off road tires for the snow. I contacted him and got the Cross Terrains slightly used (500 miles on them) for $125.00 a piece shipped to my door. They are mounted and are on my 4Runner now. The wife and I tow a 21-foot travel trailer once or twice a month with our 4Runner and I noticed right away while towing that I got a lot less "sidewall wiggle" when towing. The price is expensive for the Cross Terrains, but they are a good tire. I also hear that a new Goodyear tire is available as well. (Silent Amour?)

beercoll1 · June 2006

If you are a member of a wholesale club that installs tires, you could look into them.

nedzel · June 2006

"My trip computer indicates about 22.6."

I've found the trip computer to be at least a couple miles per gallon optimistic. Next time you fill up, reset the trip odometer. At the following fill up, divide miles driven by gallons used. I think you'll find you're getting a couple miles per gallon less than the trip computer shows. I'm very skeptical that the V6 would get 22.6 mpg.

black_tulip · June 2006

That is how I computed the mpg, which came out to be about 22. I replaced about 14 gallons of fuel after 307 miles. The trip computer indicated 22.6 during the same interval. My trip computer is optimistic by 0.6 mpg , not by 2 mpg as yours is.

chuck1 · June 2006

It is always interesting how some owners seem to get more mpg than 99% of all other owners. My trip computer is ALWAYS 1.5 to 2 mpg higher than actual. As I mentioned - with the V8

NO MORE THAN 14mpg in town.
Highway 20mpg at a STEADY 65mph

Could you get 22 or so with the V6 - yes with a strong tailwind.

tradscott · June 2006

I've had as high as 23.5 with the V6 on a 170 mile round trip driving 45 the whole way, but I've also had 17 mpg on a 75mph trip with strong cross winds. I'd guess I average around 20.

I also do not believe the inflated claims I hear on message boards. I think people remember the good tanks and discount the bad ones as flukes.

I have also noticed that the cruise control is extremely happy to downshift in slight inclines.

black_tulip · June 2006

I looked up the EPA estimates for the V6: it is 17-21. I don't see what the big deal is, to get 22 .
Moreover, how do you know what 99% of the owners are getting? Have you conducted a survey?

chuck1 · June 2006

EPA figures are always optimistic. And yes, there are other forums where mpg is discussed and reported. Congratulations for getting such fantastic mpg!

Edmunds own survey...

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/105503/article.html

black_tulip · June 2006

And yes, there are other forums where mpg is discussed ...
Yes, but I am sure you would reject any claim of > 20 or so mpg, creating a self-fullfiling prophecy.

But, no doubt you are right and I am mistaken. I could not possibly have gotten 22 mpg.

woodyww · June 2006

All really good points, thanks. I've owned one SUV (a '98 Range Rover), & a couple of pickups, one Toyota, & one Chevy. I loved the RR, when it wasn't driving me nuts with repairs, or abysmal gas mileage (between 11 mpg & 15, usually around 12 or a little more), or the horrendous depreciation. I live in Mass., so the AWD or 4wd of an SUV, plus cargo capacity, would be my rationale. And, "I just like trucks", for the most part (in addition to my German Car Fetish).

I've gotten to a point where the small SUV's don't interest me that much--I've seen the new Rav4 & it looks good, but just screams "cute-ute" to me. And don't know if I want to get 14-20 mpg in a 4Runner. Oh well, nothing's easy. If I got a fantastic deal on a nice 2-3 y.o. 4Runner I'd be tempted tho.....

nedzel · June 2006

"I live in Mass., so the AWD or 4wd of an SUV, plus cargo capacity, would be my rationale."

Fair enough. Sounds like you already have plenty of experience with trucks so you know what to expect. I'm always surprised by the folks that post "I just bought a MegaSuperXXL SUV and I'm only getting 12 mpg, help!" Well, duh!

I live in MA as well. FYI, I found that the while my 4Runner had excellent traction for acceleration in the snow, the OEM Dunlops completely sucked for braking and cornering in the snow. I ended up getting a set of dedicated Hakke snow tires. Much better...

nippononly · June 2006

Don't be silly! EPA is usually achievable if you take it easy. In my '00 V-6 4WD I average about 19-19.5 mpg (running average) in suburban driving, and it was rated 17/20 EPA. On highway trips, as long as I hold the speed to 70 mph or so, it is routine for me to pull 23 mpg, 3 points above the EPA highway rating.

The bigger the engine, the more the fuel economy will fluctuate depending on driving style. With the large engines of the 4Runner, especially the V-8, it is inevitable that you would see owners post a large range of mpg, and that a few would get quite high figures.

jmtreetop · June 2006

I often get over 22mpg with my 05 4runner V6 4X4. I rarely get below 21 and the best is 23 with mixed driving. I filled up two days ago and calculated 22.73 mpg. The computer read 24.7 mpg average. When the range indicator reset, it indicated that I could go 476 miles on the tank until empty. I usually fill up around 450 miles on the tank and put in 20 - 20.5 gallons. I fill up at the same Conoco gas station using 85 octane. Most of my driving is in the 45-65 mph range. The worst gas mileage I have received was 18 mpg average going over 80 on a road trip. Best was 23 with a highway/city mix.

nippononly · June 2006

I have all seen all kinds of "computer centers" in cars that try to tell you things like fuel economy and miles remaining, and they have NEVER been very accurate. From everything I've read from current owners, the '03+ 4Runner's seems to be no exception. Why don't the automakers quit trying this until they can get it right?

Mileage should, of course, be computed using the tripmeter and the number of gallons of gas you put in at fill-up, preferably from the same station each time to eliminate variability (if you are trying to be very precise about your truck's gas mileage). It seems that your truck's computer, jmtreetop, mirrors most other owners' computers in being about 2 mpg optimistic.

robg4 · June 2006

I got a little over 20 on my last trip driving around 70mph. It is a V6.

pec1970 · June 2006

I have been looking at the 4Runner Limited as a replacement for my Yukon, but I want a satellite radio that is integrated with the factory radio. The Build Your Toyota website lists both Sirius and XM Kits and I have noticed that there is a "AM/SAT" button on the radios of the vehicles I have looked at. Has anyone had a Toyota approved kit installed? Where do they put the receiver and the antenna? I have inquired at 2 local dealerships and received 2 totally different answers. Thanks.

woodyww · June 2006

That's what they don't tell people--a RWD Mercedes (or whatever) with great snow tires can be better in the snow than a lot of AWD vehicles with the standard tires. I knew someone who slid into the car in front of her--in a snowstorm--with an AWD Subaru, & did a lot of damage. My suggestion to get snow tires was dismissed totally.

I think I'm gonna go to Lexington Toyota & drive a RAV4, 4Runner, & maybe a Taco. Of course, a surburban wuss like me should probably get a RAV, esp. with gas prices what they are. Maybe I could justify getting a real 4wd truck with my sort-of-plans to move to Maine.....& see if Toyota puts a $3K rebate on the 4Runner to blow out the '06's.....:-)

*my 4Runner had excellent traction for acceleration in the snow, the OEM Dunlops completely sucked for braking and cornering in the snow*

jeffer3 · June 2006

I am jealous. I recently purchased an '06 Subaru Outback in Feb. I've got only just over 2k mi. on it. My best mileage per tank is 19.5 mpg. This is just driving back and forth to work. I haven't taken any long highway trips yet so I better get better mileage but my commute is fairly inocuous and I start work at noon so I don't hit lots of traffic.
I had seriously considered a 4runner but choose the OB because it was a few thousand $$ cheaper and I thought I'd save some money on gas too. But as it looks now the gas savings probably won't be more then a couple hundred a year. And to tell the truth I'm a little cramped in this thing. Wish I had sprung for the 4R, I think I'd be much happier.
I don't know if I'd take a bath trading in at this point. Another thought I had - does anyone think the new engine in the Camry would eventually make it to the 4R? It's got 268 hp and gets up to 31 mpg's. Of course 4WD would cut that down but I was thinking if Toyota was going to do anything with the engine in the 4R to make it a little more economical.
thanks
Jeffer3

jmtreetop · June 2006

I had an 05 Outback and never got over 19 mpg on the 4 cyl. turbo w/ 5spd. It also took premium because of the turbo. I was also a little cramped but ultimately got rid of it because of problems and a multitude of trips to the dealer. I do not regret my switch to the 4runner as I like the overall handling, quality, power, and space. I have 25k on my 4runner. I had 12000 on the OB when I traded.

nippononly · June 2006

The Camry's V-6 is a smaller version of the 4Runner's V-6, which is already the smallest engine, so no, I don't think it's likely the Camry V-6 will make it to the 4Runner.

If they ever make a serious attempt to get the Runner's fuel economy above the dismal range, I am convinced it will be with a hybrid powertrain. They have promised eventual hybrid versions of everything in their line-up after all.

biglatka · June 2006

The name of the game in a serious SUV is torque and Toyota's 4.7L V8 is a bulletproof engine. Why tamper with success other than improve on it. My 4WD V8 SE gets 15-20 honest mpg, city/highway, depending on traffic conditions. I've never gotten less than 15 mpg and was able to achieve 20 mpg at a constant 65-70 mph. That's pretty good for this type of vehicle. What other vehicle with similar size, weight and engine could tow 7000 lbs. I'm happy with it.

chuck1 · June 2006

"My 4WD V8 SE gets 15-20 honest mpg, city/highway, depending on traffic conditions. I've never gotten less than 15 mpg and was able to achieve 20 mpg at a constant 65-70 mph."

I know you can get 20mpg at a constant 65mph. My wife's 2WD '05 Sport (V8) doesn't achieve more than 14 in the city. This may have something to do with our "special blend" of gas here in Southern California.

It will tow our 4,500lb. 21 foot trailer w/o any problems.

nedzel · June 2006

No, I doubt the Camry engine will make it into the 4Runner. A truck needs torque for towing, so the engine performance profile for a truck is significantly different than that for a car.

What may make it into the 4Runner is a 3.0l diesel.

ghosh · June 2006

Chuck:
Long time lurker, first time poster. Is it really necessary to call somebody a liar if your experience does not match with his or her's? There are so many variables. I am really amazed that you chose to drive bt away by constantly questioning him. We need more participants, not less. Just my 2C. You will not hear from me again.

tidester · June 2006

Long time lurker, first time poster.

It's easy to forget: ghosh, "Toyota 4Runner" #10370, 24 Dec 2004 7:13 am!keywords=

I don't think Chuck was calling anyone a liar but he was expressing skepticism. And we can't be all that certain that bt won't/hasn't returned.

tidester, host

chuck1 · June 2006

I did not call anybody any names. It always amazes at claims of miles-per-gallon that people make. Some people make claims about their vehicles that they can't technological achieve.

Can you get a "good fluke" tank? Yes, if someone tells me that got 25mpg in a V8 4Runner while on the open road,not running the air conditioner, with over-inflated tires, going down hill, with a tail wind that is a different story.

jeffer3 · June 2006

While I don't completely understand the relationship between horsepower and torque I do understand that more torque is better for pulling more load or pulling yourself out of a ditch. But from what I can see the new Camry engine has 268hp and 248 ft-lbs of torque. I'll bet that's way more than the earlier 4runners had. The current 4runner V6 has 236hp and 266 ft-lbs of torque. Now to me the difference between 248 and 266 doesn't seem like all that much.
And in this day and age with global warming, green-house gases, wars and being beholding to foreign countries for our very livelyhood, and prices of gas in general, if you could squeeze a few more mpg's from an engine it seems it would be worth it.
The Camry engine (in the Camry) is rated at 22/31 mpg's which I'm sure would reduce somewhat. But if you could put that engine or a similar one in the 4R and get even 19/25 I think that would be huge. I don't really need a mondo hauling vehicle. Just something to get me through a few feet of snow, or a little off road and carry all my camping gear, kayaks and bikes.
Anyway thanks for the thoughtful replies.
Jeffer3

biglatka · June 2006

Jeffer3,
The V6 4Runner is probably close to 1000lbs heavier than the Camry, it is 4WD (I know there is a 2WD model but you talked about snow and off road), and most importantly it has the aerodynamic shape of a brick on 4 wheels

. Even if you don't tow, the 4Runner has to come with the ability to tow (5000 lbs for the V6 - 7000 lbs for the V8) because many do tow with their Runner. The rpm range where torque peaks is probably lower with the 4Runner engines (very important when under load) as opposed to the Camry's high revving engine. There are many factors that go into fuel mileage, including engine displacement. I'm sure Toyota designed the engines that go into 4Runners as the best compromise of fuel economy balanced off against the demands of a 4WD truck with great off road capability and sheer pulling power.

jeffer3 · June 2006

biglatka- you make a lot of sense, thanks for helping me understand this better. I got a chuckle from your statement -

"and most importantly it has the aerodynamic shape of a brick",

jmtreetop · June 2006

I filled up 2 days ago with 413.0 miles on my tank and filled up with 18.33 gallons of 85 octane from the same pump at the same gas station that I go to every week. That equates to 22.53 mpg. The computer stated 24.3 mpg avg. This is in line with what I typically get in my weekly commute. Again, this is with the V6 4X4. Even though the computer over-estimates, I still find it to be a good gauge of my mpg and I can still estimate if I'm in the 22 range, or 21 range, etc.

sacstate1 · June 2006

I get 16-17mpg in easy city driving and 20-21mpg on the freeway at a steady 65-75mph. This is with full time 4WD and the V8. I have never used 87 octane, always using 89 or 93.

The onboard computer is exactly 3mpg optimistic.

chuck1 · June 2006

"20-21mpg on the freeway at a steady 65-75mph. This is with full time 4WD and the V8."

That's fantastic! Your getting 1mpg more than the EPA RATED mpg highway at 21! Even with the V8 and lugging around the extra running gear for the 4WD! Going faster than 65mph!

(WOW - that TAIL WIND MUST REALLY BE BLOWING!!)

nedzel · June 2006

"And in this day and age with global warming, green-house gases, wars and being beholding to foreign countries for our very livelyhood, and prices of gas in general, if you could squeeze a few more mpg's from an engine it seems it would be worth it."

Which is exactly why we may see a diesel engine -- it will get 30% greater mileage than a similar power gas engine.

Btw, peak torque values are not everything. What's most important is the torque curve. I'm willing to bet that at low RPM the 4.0 V6 has more torque than the Camry motor.

canddmeyer · June 2006

Since putting Revo's on my 2003 V6 4Runner, I can't do any better than 16.6MPG in mixed driving, and I have to run 89 octane or higher as mine pings on 87 octane. Honestly though, the MPG, which is very acceptable, doesn't bother me as much as the road noise and choppy ride with the base SR5 suspension, neither of which improved when I got rid of my Dunlop's.

chuck1 · June 2006

"doesn't bother me as much as the road noise and choppy ride with the base SR5 suspension, neither of which improved when I got rid of my Dunlop's."

The only thing that will help the ride (other than changing suspension, is a passenger car tire. I know in the stock size there are not any (passenger) tires for the 4Runner. The Revos, while an excellent tire, will not help the ride.

mt_flightsuit · June 2006

I noticed today when washing my 2006 4Runner that it had louvers exposing the wire on the fog lamps and I could see the ground through my fender well. What on earth is the purpose of these louvers? What are the engineers thinking on this design?

Toyota 4Runner

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles