Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota 4Runner

15556586061221

Comments

  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I'll tell you what we have coming to the states, but that doesn't always mean you have the same thing coming up North. Down here, "gray painted" is how Toyota lists all the cladding on the SR5 and Sport. Therefore, the vehicle would be titanium silver on top and gray on the flares and cladding. Not a bad combo.
  • 22rrules22rrules Member Posts: 2
    Does anyone know if you can get the unpainted cladding option like the recent pics? I think it looks fine. I personally hate the scratches you get on the wheel wells and bumpers after going off road or getting hit by a shopping cart...
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    If i were to get an '03 4Runner, i would get the V8. For one, you have tons more torque, especially at low RPMs! Nothing can beat displacement when you talk about torque, even with VVTi! Second, your fuel economy is nearly the same (1 mpg difference). The V8 is also very proven and reliable (iron-block). Smooth. It has 80% of its torque at 1000 RPMs!!

    The V6 is good, but still unproven. It is all-aluminum (as in car engine), which is great for saving weight; however, i am not sure about truck duty.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    It really depends on the region. Here in the CAT region, we will be getting a very small number of 2WD models without the painted cladding.
  • g_huskyg_husky Member Posts: 32
    I seem to remember awhile back when first looking for new 4runner info, that there was a disgreement between some members here on when the new 4runner would actually be available. Could it be, one side was quoting when it would actually be available in 2002, and the other was quoting some distant time way off in 2003 that Toyota actually admits its available and lifts this ridiculous embargo?!
  • superleggerasuperleggera Member Posts: 74
    Do you have access to the color combinations? Can you let us know? I like the deep red color on the current Sport. Test drove one of those. Also would love to see a nice blue like on the Lexus IS300, called Intensa Blue Pearl. Thanks for all the good info.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    SR5 and Sport:

    White, titanium, galactic gray, black, impulse red (not available until November order/December delivery), dorado gold, imperial jade, stratosphere blue mica and pacific blue.

    Limited:

    Same but not available in white (go figure that one), jade green or impulse red.

    For this region, here are the breakdowns of what is being ordered:

    SR5 4WD: White 7.5%
    Titanium 35%
    Gray 26%
    black 11%
    jade 8%
    gold 8%
    pacific blue 4.5%

    Sport 4WD: titanium 45%
    gray 32%
    black 21%
    jade 2%

    Limited 4WD: titanium 40%
    gray 32%
    black 18%
    gold 10%
    pacific blue 3%

    Also new this year is the availability of stone (gray) leather. That will be the color for the titanium, gray and pacific clue. The 18% black breaks down to 13% black/stone and 5% black/ivory and the gold is ivory.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    No, one side was an idiot and has abandoned this page because that is what he was proven to be. A long time ago, there were rumors that the new one would be out in the Spring of 2002. As that time approached, I pointed out that I had been incorrect on that rumor and that the release date would be late summer/early fall of 2003. Another member insisted that it would be released in February, then March and finally April of 2002. He claimed to have insider information. He was aided and abetted by another member who claimed that his dealership was taking orders for the 2003 to be delivered in the spring.
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    hey guys,

    quick question...did toyota ever fully get their 3.4l head gasket problem figured out? just wondering as i'm certainly hoping the new 4.0l engine won't have any of those issues...
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    It was the 3.0 that really had the problem in the design. It was corrected in the 3.4 but, some early 3.4 engines has problems as well. It was a materials problem (as opposed to a design problem)and was found and fixed by the '97 model year.
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    hummm...my co-worker had either a '98 or '99 4runner that had the head gasket replaced...3.4l equipped SR5...
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I'm sure that's possible, but it wasn't part of the issues that plagued the 89-95 models and it wasn't part of the '96 batch with bad gasket materials. It is rare to hear of such a thing any more, but as with all vehicles, there are probably some around that have blown heads.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    The previous post I made about colors was from the October order. I just looked up the September order and there are a couple of differences. There will be a few stratosphere blue SR5 (7.5%), Sports (9.5%) and Limiteds (10%) on that order. If you live in the Central Atlantic Region and want that color, you need to buy it in the first month because there are none coming the following month... or you could wait several months to see if they order more.
  • beercoll1beercoll1 Member Posts: 88
    I have a 94 4-Runner with 112,000 miles. Lately, the engine has been idling rough, and the poswer pickup is real slow. When I go up hills(not sure of the grade), I loose MPH. I think I may have a clogged fuel injector. I tried putting in premium for a couple of taknfuls, and have noticed a little, but not much, difference. Is there an over-the-counter fuel injector cleaner that is recommended?
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    I use Chevron Techron Fuel System Cleaner. All of them are the same, but somehow, i like Chevron better...my 4Runner seems to run smoother with it (imagination probably). I think most people like Chevron more than other brands.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    Everyone has their opinion about power, and mine is by experience and driving, not by just the numbers. I drove a '98 and have since driven the 2002 in the same places I drive my GMC Jimmy, and I'm telling you, the test drive is the reason I bought my Jimmy in '98, and the reason I haven't traded it in for a 4Runner yet. It doesn't have the "get-up-and-go" that my truck has, period. So, why would I settle for less? I shouldn't, which is why I can't wait for the 4th gen.

    And just to clear things up, the Vortec V-6 in the Jimmy/Sonoma/Blazer/S-10/Bavada has never been an in-line, only a V. The in-lines are in the new Trailblazer/Envoy/Bravada/Rainier. They're great engines. The older engines vary in horsepower from the pick-ups to the SUVs, and my truck's stock hp was rated at 190, with 250 lbs/ft of torque, but both of those numbers went up after I put a K&N filtercharger on. I don't know what your experience has been, but my truck performs great at highway speeds, enabling me to pass effortlessly on steep mountain grades, driving up to Sedona and passing cars and trucks. I love the torquey feel of the engine; it reminds me of muscle cars. I have never "run out of gas" at highway speeds. My pedal has plenty of room to mash down, if needed.

    Look, you shouldn't have to defend your truck. It's a great rig. I just need more power, plain and simple. Now with this new V-6 or V-8 it looks like I'll have my cake and eat it too!
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    does Toyota love gray so much??? Just look at those numbers cliffy posted for color distribution. Some 60% of all the Runners delivered initially will be either gray or silver (titanium), despite the fact that they have numerous colors available!

    This is a trend I have observed in other models too - it would be nice if they provided more real color choice. Blues and greens, especially darker shades, look really good on the 4Runner, IMO.

    To posts on the engine choices: yes, the two engines are not far apart on power or torque ratings, but I bet the way they drive will differ substantially due to the 4-speed vs 5-speed auto trans.

    And I agree, on a vehicle where weight is HARDLY a major issue, since it is really heavy either way, why give it an all-aluminum engine, which may have less of Toyota's famous long-term lasting power vs an iron block?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    TB, you're right...the 4.3L is a V6...i was not thinking this morning. I've driven my father's S10 and it didn't have that much acceleration...maybe the gearing on the S10 is different from Blazer. Of course, my 4Runner is not any better. Well, you know, subjective feeling varies...but objective data (0-60 times) are true.

    Bottom line is, the 4th gen is going to be a lot faster. However, a lot of these comments about the 3rd gen being "weak" or "gutless" are unfounded. Look at the numbers and compare to other equivalent competitors!
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    well, one thing is for sure, at least by my seat of the pants feel. the 4.3l GM engine isn't nearly as smooth running as the 3.4l toyo engine...
  • g_huskyg_husky Member Posts: 32
    You mentioned plenty of supply. Is this to mean when things get cranking that you are going to see higher number of these coming in than you did the 2002's? I suppose I'm asking if they are increasing production and/or shipments of the new 4runner over what has been available in the past. Thanks.
  • glzr2glzr2 Member Posts: 70
    I have to agree with TB on the power and torque of the 4.3, but I also have to agree with emale on the smooth running of the 3.4. After test driving the '02 I did notice the lack of HP in the 3.4 compared to the 4.3. It's all about how you drive your vehicle. I personally was very hesitant about buying an '02 runner because I drive the highways in detroit. You need a vehicle that you can drive 80-85mph with the ability to pass at 90mph... or you will get ran off the road. Now in saying that... the 4.3 was very stressed at those speeds... so I was really worried about the 3.4. Knowing that the new V6 will have more power... who knows, but I can't wait for the test drive.
  • mackabeemackabee Member Posts: 4,709
    And passing at 90mph! Where on earth in the US are these speed limits legal? I need to move there so I can speed with my MR2!

    ; )
    Mackabee
  • glzr2glzr2 Member Posts: 70
    I have to drive from Ann Arbor, MI to Madison Heights, MI and back every day... 108 miles round trip... unlike other cities were the highways are clogged bumper to bumper at 30mph, we drive bumper to bumper at 80mph.... and when something goes wrong... well, I like to call it the parting of the red sea.... all you can see is red brake lights and everyone starts ditching and weaving so they don't rear end anyone. Needless to say... I don't have to drink coffee in the morning to be wired when I get to work.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Our Future Vehicles page has been updated with more 4Runner photos. They have Toyota Motor Sales stamped all over them so I guess it's ok for Edmunds to publish them....


    Maybe Toyota needs to make an extended version and call it the Embargodera - let it compete head on with the Excursion, Escalade and Expedition



    Steve

    Host

    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    after seeing the pics again. Man this thing looks AWESOME!!! Sorry for my juvenile outburst, but it does!
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    Like I said, I'm basing my opinion on actual driving, not numbers. I've clocked my truck at about 8.3 sec, to 60, when factory and magazine times are about 9.5 sec. I can chirp my BFGs on take off, which are pretty grippie tires, but that's a no-go on the current 'Runner. You really can't say that my personal experience is "unfounded."

    I'm not saying the 4Runner is a total slug at all, and I ruled out just about every other SUV in '98 when I got my Jimmy, for various reasons. The main reason I ruled out the 4Runner was acceleration, which was also a factor in other trucks too. Plain and simple. "I knows what I knows."

    The other reasons were the cramped-feeling interior and goofy joystick shift knob. Now you can bring out all the numbers on dimensions and compare everything on paper, but I'm telling how I felt about the cabin. My main gauge was where my left knee rested. In the Exploder and 4Runner, it was almost straight up and down. In the Grand Cherokee and Jimmy, it was at a slight angle against the door, which was much more comfortable. I know I'm very picky, but when I'm laying down this much cash, I have every right to be.

    Again, my point is that I do like the current gen 4Runner A LOT, otherwise I wouldn't have considered it in '98. I'm just expressing my opinion on what it is lacking FOR ME. Once I found out there was a re-design in the works, I became very excited and have been anticipating it's arrival for a long time. With the new engines, and it's stylish looks, I'm here to say it was worth the wait.

    Well, at least so far...I can't wait to drive one!
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    Man, i am not after you for getting a 4th gen...it's going to be a great truck! Fast too! I am sure it will blow away my 4runner. However, that does NOT make everyone else gutless. In addition, the fact that YOU got 8.3 from 0-60 and magazine drivers (who hammer their test vehicles, including brake-throttle acceleration) get 9.5 is a bit strange, don't you think?? If true, you should try out for the Indy 500! :)

    (BTW, BFG A/T tires are not considered "grippie" on dry land...they are all-terrain, with more emphasis on off-roading! Highway-oriented truck tires are a lot more grippy on land. In fact, stock tires are probably more grippy than all-terrains. I have an all-terrain too.)

    Subjective is just that, a personal opinion. It is not fact. Therefore, cannot be used for comparison.

    Here are some OBJECTIVE DATA: (because i got interested and did a little research)

    4Runner (3rd gen): 0-30 = 3.3
    5-60 = 10.4
    ML320: 0-30 = 3.4
    5-60 = 10.2
    ML430: 0-30 = 3.1
    5-60 = 8.3
    LX470 (2002): 0-30 = 3.3
    5-60 = 10.4
    Discovery (2002): 0-30 = 3.7
    5-60 = 11.6
    Montero (2002): 0-30 = 3.6
    5-60 = 11.9
    2003 Range Rover: 0-30 = 3.3
    5-60 = 10.3

    Pulling onto traffic is similar to doing 0-30, right?? Or maybe, 5-60?? I have already posted 0-60 times.

    The above times are from ONE magazine, Car and Driver. So, i guess the LX470, ML320, and NEW Range Rover (with BMW 5-series engine)are "gutless, plain and simple." I think there are a few people out there that will argue you on that point, including me.

    And please, no more comparison between your Jimmy and 4Runner...i am just about to puke from laughing to hard! :)
  • beagles3beagles3 Member Posts: 132
    I agree with intmed99, it's good that you are happy with a rig with Indy performance,but, it's not what's it is all about. I buy Toyota for quality and peace of mind and not for it's 0-60 times. I am happy with my Goodyears and my little 3.4 wonder. That's why Toyota's are off-road material and the American brands spend most of their time on the pavement or at the race tracks. Your GMC may obliterate my Toy on the line,but, let's look at longevity....
  • world_travelerworld_traveler Member Posts: 153
    I own a 99 4Runner.

    While I would not go as far as saying that it is gutless it is definitely not very powerful. More noise than raw power. Pulling my 2500lbs boat (fairly light boat) I often wished for more power on the winding back road that goes to the cottage and lake.

    That kind of power was fine for me until I drove more powerful vehicle. I quickly realized that my 4Runner was not very powerful.

    I recently test drove a 2003 Pathfinder LE. Nice vehicle. It seemed to me to me much more powerful (I did not try a 0-60). I wish that the demo vehicle had a hitch, I would have try to pull my boat on a tough road not far from here.

    The added power of the 2003 4Runner will be welcomed as far as I'm concerned. If for some reason the 2003 would have kept the same engine and power I would have looked elsewhere most probably.
  • ptrsnptrsn Member Posts: 7
    My 2000 4runner has no power problem that many of you seem to be writing about. The simple solution, which for an additional $3500.00 and well worth it, is the addition of the TRD Supercharger. My 183 horse 3.4 now boasts approx 265 horses and , believe me, has no problem either in town or especially on the highway. Also the whinnig sound is really sweet and a definite head turner. If TRD eventually builds a unit to fit the Gen 4's 4.3 six, that would be a great package.
  • sbell4sbell4 Member Posts: 446
    The southeast region has some 800 2003 4Runners allocated and 400 are sitting at the port. It was first believed every dealer was going to get one and then more to trickle in over the next couple of months but it appears that larger volume dealers will be getting 10 - 20 4Runners wholesaled on the 15th of October.

    V8 SR5 = 55%
    V8 SR5 SPORT = 15%
    V8 LIMITED = 10%
    V8 SR5 4X4 = 5%
    V8 SR5 SPORT 4X4 = 5%
    V8 LIMITED 4X4 = 10%
  • mugsomaticmugsomatic Member Posts: 1
    On my way to work today I saw a tractor trailer full of new 4 runners. They looked to all be Limited. Thought everyone would like to know. Check your dealers!
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    Can we agree that the 3rd Gen V6 will do the job for the size, purpose, function of the vehicle in most situtations (again back in 1999 they were hyping the 183+ HP of the 2000 model as a big PLUS ober the 170+ HP Pathfinder, etc.), but that there are many of us who "need" (i.e., want) more HP because of our particular preferences, driving habits, lead feet, etc.? I am in the latter group and waited all these years because of it - but of course having problems with the new and "improved" look.

    ptrsn, I have been trying to figure out the supercharger as my way out of this. Tell me more about your experience. So far, I have the premium fuel factor listed as a negative (but sounds like the new V6 will require it as well). I am familiar with the level10.com site and went through it a while back. Seems to be focused on those really into high-performance and racing - I am hoping that level of engine mods would not be necessary to incorporate the TRD supercharger into a 3rd Gen simply for those desiring the extra HP. At this point, I see inconsistency between what trdusa.com and level10.com "claim" needs to be done and am trying to seperate out the fact and fiction from those groups' self-interests. Did you do any additonal mods to your 2000? Or, did you just add it to the stock engine and go from there? How many miles on that supercharged Runner of yours and any problems/maintenance? Thanks!
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    I am NOT saying that the people who want more power is wrong! I would love for my 4Runner to have 300 HPs and 400 Torque...who wouldn't? I am just saying that the current 3rd gen 4Runner is not "gutless"! It's performance is right up there with the best of the best SUVs!

    I agree that towing is not 4Runner's strong point. But, for most of us (including me), the most i will ever tow is a jetski. If you want to tow something heavier, then none of the Toyota products are particularly good at it either. For me, I am more into off-roading and sight-seeing (Grand Canyon, Big Bend, etc.). This is where the 4Runner literally outshines everything else in it's class (reliable, great off-roading talents, built like a tank, etc.).
  • ptrsnptrsn Member Posts: 7
    I traded a '96 4Runner SR5 4WD 5 Speed standard trans. for the 2000 SR5 4WD Auto (after having been a stick shift buff for the past 17 years or so I decided to just sit back and cruise with the automatic) and thinking that the automatic is not as responsive as the 5 Speed, I opted to find something to compensate. I had quite a few talks with TRD and decided to give this, specially designed for the 4Runner, supercharger a go.
    Yes, mjohn99 you're right, premium gas does cost a bit more but I, for one, never used just Regular in any of my vehicles; it was either Plus or Premium anyway so for me that's not a bad point. I ordered the 4Runner from Clearwater Toyota in Florida and did not have the supercharger shipped from TRD until the truck arrived. I drove it around town for the first 1500 miles or so before having the unit installed; you can really tell the difference. The only other item I installed was a transmission cooler (at TRD's suggestion), all else is stock. I now have 48,650 and have not had a single problem either with the 4Runner or the supercharger. I opted to have the dealer install both supercharger and trannie cooler as I get a 5 yr or 50k warranty from them as opposed to only a 1 yr if you do it yourself. Cost is roughly about $300.00 for Toyota to do the work. I just had the truck in for it's 30k service (a little late) and had them replace the supercharger serpentine belt (cost: $ 19.00 and labor $66.00) although the service dept. said I didn't need to worry the belt would last forever. At $80.00 invested in a new belt versus having the old one snap and having to order a new one (not a Toyota stocking part) and wait about a week for it, I opted for the replacement.
    I live in Central Florida and commute to work in Savannah so most of my cruising is on the I-95 corridor. Normal cruising traffic speed on I-95 is in the 75 to 80 mph. This is effortless as I'm only doing 2500 rpm @ 80 mph. What's a kick is dropping out of overdrive and punching it and 105 mph is there awfully quick. Not that I do this all the time but at least I know I still have plenty of power after 80. Gas mileage is 18 - 19 in town and 21.5-22 on the highway if I use cruise @ 78. The one thing some people might find annoying is that @ idle there is a slight kind of diesel sound (not clanking but more of a whirring sound) that come off the pulleys from the supercharger but you can't hear it inside only while standing in front of the vehicle. When I go to get a new vehicle (probably 2004 and probably another 4Runner) I will definitely do the supercharger again if it is available..
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    With the great analysis in previous posts that true minimum running ground clearance of the 3rd Gen is 9.8" (and not 11" per Toyota), and speculation that the 4th gen may be only 0.7' shy of that, I am curious if a 2003 can be had such that it is more akin to the 3rd Gen? [By the way, correction to my earlier post: a LOT of other SUVs received 3 star rollover ratings last year - maybe a good rationalization can result if this slight loss in clearance plus wider body results in 3 stars this year?!? The NHTSA page has a lot of good info. how things like VSC do not change what happens when a two-star gets up off the pavement, hits the soft stuff and ends up rolling (. . . of course VSC does a good job keeping you on the pavement in the first place!).]

    Question: seeing Cliffy's breakdowns for the CAT region, would it nevertheless be possible next year to "order" the monochromatic Limited (or near monochromatic silver SR5 with gray PAINTED cladding - that's a relief) withOUT the rear spoiler and roof rack? I have always bought off the lot and am not sure if/how that can be done.

    A lot of the posts on this board are helpful and thanks are in order. With the reviews plus rumors that base prices may be lower than anticipated, the fact that the V8 is only one MPG less than the new V6, the fact that the V8 is tried-and-true and is not first year out like the new aluminum V6, the fact that the DVD, air suspension, spoiler, and roof rack are all options, and Cliffy's suspicion that any less cargo space may only be due to newly-accurate measurements, a monochromatic V8 may be priced such that it is a better "value" than the loaded $31K 2002 supercharged SR5 I am looking at ($27.5K plus $3.5K charger). Of course, there's no way out of that headlight package . . .
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    That was a terrific post and very helpful. Most who have gone with the TRD charger seem to do nothing but off-road. Your positive review is helpful. It sounds like the 3rd gen computer took right to it, and as promised by the TRD folks, you really didn't have to do much else - just install and go. How much for and what type of transmission cooler? I really like the idea of getting the last of the rock-solid 3rd Gen and having a Toyota dealer up here install the charger - warranty terms are great! Gas mileage is great - some claim it even improves with the charger. I heard no real maintenance on the unit until around 90K. Florida, eh? Long drive - :> - I wish you had a Toy. mechanic up here in DC to recommend - I've read some bad stories about guys putting these things on wrong or not having installed enough such that when they get the part from TRD they don't have the expertise to tell that something is not as its supposed to be on the charger.
  • superleggerasuperleggera Member Posts: 74
    Any info on what the Western (California) region will be receiving when the new Runners ship?
  • airburairbur Member Posts: 31
    Looks like there is a dealer in Dearborn, MI that has the '03s on the lot.
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    I'm guessing you got TRD's trans oil cooler . . . but did you go with their boost gauge as well? (just saw both on their web site.) If so, then you got the charger, cooler and gauge all installed for $3.5K back in 2000?
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    I am sure you know about this site, but there are a few things you need to know about superchargers (and possible complications):


    http://www.gadgetonline.com/Super.htm


    Also, remember, the 4th gen ground clearance is 9.1". I don't think this is the "MINIMUM" running ground clearance. Speculation. This maybe the maximum ground clearance. The Lexus GX470 (same frame/suspension as 4Runner) has a MINIMUM ground clearance of 8.3". I don't know why 4Runner would have a higher ground clearance than GX470.

  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    yes, thanks, I have gone through that whole site and that is what has caused me concerns. Contrast that site to what TRD claims and try to seperate out the self-interests of the two respective parties/sites. That's why I need some 3rd party, relatively "unbiased" info like ptsrn's experience. Intmed, have you had some bad luck with a charger or just an FYI to the site?

    On the ground clearance, my goof. So as not to confuse new readers:

    3rd Gen Runner: Toyota listed "ground clearance" = 11"; true, measured "minimum running ground clearance" = ~ 9.8".

    4th gen Runner: Toyota listed "ground clearance" = 9.1"; true, measured "minimum running ground clearance" = ??? (probably ~ 8.3" as you surmise).
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    Well, initially, i had some interest in putting a supercharger into my 4Runner. However, after reading that site, i am very hesitant. As stated (repeatedly) above, i think the 4Runner power is decent. Also, from reading about Eaton S/Cs (which is same as TRD S/C), at low-RPMs and high-RPMs, supercharger tends to rob power, rather than give, UNlike turbochargers (which do not run of the engine power, but exhaust).


    I wrote a thread a while back on another forum regarding this issue (for a CRV; however, would apply to any SUV):


    http://www.gocrvclub.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70


    Just scroll down to my first post in the thread, (my name is "Thai").

  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    Good discussion. I realize the effect of the charger on the power curve and lower RPM's, but at least this is one option open to consideration for those seeking more HP on the 3rd Gen. I too would prefer the HP from a redesigned engine of course - hence, my 3 year wait. Unfortunately, I am having trouble coming to grips with the new look - may be just my strange idiosynchroncies (sp?) - but things like that spoiler and even the new look of the roof rack (while more substantial now) is too carlike/minivan for me. As it's all relative, it makes the supercharger perhaps worth the risk. In any event, if Cliffy tells me I can kill the spoiler and put on my Thule's (yes, you can do so without using the manufacturer's roof rack), then my decision to wait until Oct. 15th has been "so far, so good" . . .
  • jkulp42757jkulp42757 Member Posts: 83
    Cliffy,

    I remember a post a few months back saying something about the new 4Runner being able to transfer power to one wheel (like Grand Cherokee), instead of just side to side, as it currently does.

    Is this still the case for the 2003's? Any other updates you know about regarding the Traction Control and VSC?

    Thanks
  • glzr2glzr2 Member Posts: 70
    Is this a confirmed sighting or did you look at inventories online? What dealership? If it's there, I'll take I-94 and swing by after work to kick the tires. I should stop in at TTC in Ann Arbor to see if they have one.
  • ptrsnptrsn Member Posts: 7
    Wow, just read all the pros and cons about the supercharger stuff. I just looked into gadgetonline.com sent by intmed99 and I don't know what to tell ya. Yes I guess most problems occur from bad installations; when I had mine installed in Clearwater, Fl. the dealer had told me that they had installed a couple, which to me was 2 or 3 more than none, and if it had screwed anything up then they would have been liable but in any event that is all speculation as not one thing has gone wrong.
    To answer your question mjohnr99, I bought the charger, TRD's transmission cooler (I think it was about $150.00 or so, a little priceyer (sp?) than most), I did not get the boost gauge but plan on getting it soon, not that you need one but it's just another gadget to have. I believe it costs about $100.00 and all this stuff has to be obtained from a Toyota dealer as I don't believe TRD sells to the public. If you have more than one Toyota dealership in the area it would pay to shop around. Clearwater is right next to Tampa and there are about four dealerships in the area. All of them gave me different prices and labor charges. I didn't go with the cheapest offer. When I purchased my charger (March of 2000) it sold for about $2895.00 from TRD then the Dealer marked it up to about $3150.00 and then charged about 300.00 to install it. The Trans. cooler cost me about $50.00 to have it installed so I guess the grand total was more like close to $3700.00 give or take a buck or so. And that would not include to cost and installation on the boost gauge.
    And, you know, I was just looking at the specs on the Gen 4 and based on horsepower I still think the aluminum V6 with a charger (I'm sure TRD will come to the rescue soon) would be the way to go. TRD claims about a 45% increase in horsepower so that would be: new V6= about 235 h.p. + about 45% = 106 h.p. that would equal about 341 h.p. !! That would be killer, especially with the lighter V6 (I wonder if it is a Japanese V6?) as opposed to the heavier V8 ( I heard that it is a Chevy V8, does anyone know?).
    A guy I work with has a late model 5 liter Mustang and installed a Paxton charger which was installed inline with the air intake and looks pretty shabby. The TRD on the other hand replaces the intake manifold and looks clean plus I believe I get a larger % of horsepower than he does.
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    - all good information, I'm right with ptrsn on all of that posting: "the 2 or 3 more than none" experience with the dealers, the pricing, the good looks of the charger when installed, as well as the preference for the new 2003 engine(s). I think I come down where you are on this topic and that we can safely put this one to bed until the 15th. Appreciate the advice, both.
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    I think the Edmund's embargo is on, so I can't post the link, but for anyone following the major boards on the 4Runner (you should know the ones . . .), there are more shots of the new Runner at a dealer!!! This is no promotion of that site (I'd like to name it, but already in trouble with Edmund's for that terrible "masked profanity" . . .) and only intended as useful information for additional discussion here. Have you guys not seen these? These are the best shots yet. (Hint: there are 72 of them!)

    The bad news (at least for these photographed here): the ugly plastic cladding and fender flares are still there on the SR5/Sports! And the Limited is not monochromatic unless that gray on the roofrack and bumpers is a protective coating that peels off . . . sheesh.
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    The 4th gen 4.0L V6 engine is all-aluminum with a relatively high compression ratio (i think). Usually, most people prefer an iron-block when supercharging their engine. Secondly, a high compression ratio is difficult to supercharge i believe (not sure on this one).

    Based on the Hp/Torque ratings, the 4th gen should have plenty of power...i don't think a supercharger is needed, unless you want to race a F150 Lightning.
Sign In or Register to comment.