Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
1. Dimple side panel...what the hell is that?! It does not match anything else!
2. Side cladding is pretty darn ugly and the notches on the cladding are strange.
3. Ground clearance is significantly less! The front suspension hangs down low. The rear axle looks slightly lower (bigger pumpkin?). There was also a few parts on the underbody that was not tucked in completely.
4. The rear body (NOT frame) is up high; thus, the cargo floor is much higher. Strange. The rear shock upper mount is now visible (3rd gen upper rear shock mount is deep up into the body).
5. The UPPER control arm in the front suspension is stamped steel, not welded boxed like the 3rd gen. (stronger in 3rd gen). The lower control arm is similar to 3rd gen.
6. Step-in height is lower than 3rd gen.
7. Leather looks good. Seats less confining than 3rd gen
8. Automatic climate control looks weird...i much prefer the 3rd gen more traditional automatic control system.
9. Speedometer is OK.
10. The upper dash is soft...however, it kinda felt cheaper than the soft dash of the 3rd gen.
11. The lower dash is hard...this is where i see cost cutting. If you tap your fingers on the lower part, you hear a hollow sound. Try the same on the 3rd gen, and you will hear solid plastic.
12. The titanium trim looks nice. Rearview mirror is cheap when trying to adjust it...maybe Limited model has a more sturdy one.
13. Rear seat legroom is same.
14. Much wider...nice.
15. The rear seat cushion in the model is uneven...one is in front of the other...do they adjust??
16. Garbage bag holder...are you kidding me?! In an off-roader??!!
17. Rear armrest is very nice.
18. Headroom in front and rear is not much different from 3rd gen (the model had sunroof).
19. Cargo height is a lot higher! I just don't get that.
20. The cargo space is wider, but seems shallow and not as tall as the 3rd gen.
21. Integrated hitch is nice.
22. Sunroof seems a tad smaller. But, one-touch auto is nice feature.
23. Rear hatch closing mechanism is cool, but not needed.
24. AUTO window only driver.
25. AUTO for rear hatch window...ok, what was the point of that??? Yet, not on passenger window??
26. Pedal parking brake...easy to use, but still prefer lever.
27. Window switches a bit low, but not bad.
28. Doors have more hard plastics than the 3rd gen. Suede leather was nice touch though.
29. Integrated airbag is nice touch.
30. Powered hood struts are nice.
Overall, a nice truck. However, i am happy that i bought my '02. Surprisingly, i am now happier with my '02 4Runner Ltd. 4wd.
What's the best feature so far?
The Limited clearly looks much better than the Sport & SR5. The cladding looks more integrated and doesn't have those goofy notches in them.
The leather seats seemed more comfy than the cloth seats. The cloth seats in the rear seemed a little stiffer.
The silver plastic on interior is overdone but it's the gray granite in the Limited that is disturbing. I'm sure someone will come out with a nice wood kit for it.
The ride was very nice and handled well. The cabin is very quiet and the build is tight.
The V8 is a monster and definitely screams. Very quiet.
Tranny is smooth as butter.
The 4 wheel disc brakes are just what it needed. Excellent stopping power.
Rear seat console is though out very well. The extra tray that folds out under the cup holder is great for drips and to hold extra stuff.
The cup holders in the front shift to different sizes. There is a movable bracket that slides in and out. Nice touch.
The increased interior room is highly noticed. Not as cramped feeling as the last generation.
Hood release is very handy.
The double decker cargo shelf will be very useful. Very nice.
The Galactic Gray color is very nice. It is more of a bluish-gray color, rather than just plain gray. Looks great.
The temperature rotary toggles are a little strange at first. They are not just buttons. When you press on one, the whole thing slides over to that corner. The plastic here felt cheap.
Telescoping & tilt steering wheel was also nice. Good combination.
In the brochure it states the Limited comes standard with wheel mounted audio & cruise controls. It only had audio. The cruise control was a stalk on the right side. What didn't make sense is that there were blank plastic pieces on the right side of the wheel for where it should have been.
Theat gray plastic cladding is still goofy, sorry. Knock on the rear bumper, go ahead. Not really the sound you want to hear.
The black roof rack looks better. The silver looks cheaper.
Oh, did I mention that V8 really is nice.
Very nice over all. Waiting to drive that new V6, then I'll make up my mind.
Comparisons vs. my 2002 Sport Edition.
First Impressions:
Exterior - Liked:
Overall look of Limited.
17" tires
Illuminated running boards on Ltd. nice feature.
Front has very smooth lines, good look
The Limited in Titanium was the best looking and should be for $40,242.00.
Exterior - Did Not Like:
Cladding on the Sport.
The Sport's plastic is looking a little like the Avalanche, guess this appeals to some??
Roof rack, no cross supports?
Will not accept Sport's cladding, too much plastic
Interior - Liked:
Telescopic / tilt steering wheel.
More interior room
Front seats very comfortable
Rear cargo shelf very convenient.
Slightly lower, easier to get into. (wife will appreciate)
The gauge package, o.k. change
115 vac outlet
Dual climate control
Rear view auto dimming mirror with compass.
The pods or (Rotary Toggle Buttons)are not bad, ergonomically easy to use.
Variable heat control for seats, very good idea!
Interior - Did Not Like:
Rear seat seating other than width, no better than 3rd gen.
To give rear passenger room, front seats need to be moved too far forward.
Window switches should be placed higher.
Test Drive: Limited in Titanium Metallic (Heavy rain in South Jersey this afternoon)
V8 is only available at this time, outstanding power upgrade
5 speed auto is smooth
Power up/down back window nice
No power up/down on passenger window disappointment!!
Did not feel like a large vehicle (Sequoia)
Full time 4 Wheel Drive is great, you know you are in 4WD in 3rd gen.
Like the illuminated indicators on gauges, similar to Lexus.
Seats very comfortable.
Need a little longer than a 4 mile 10 minute test drive for final decision
I will wait for supply to exceed demand. Would like to see the Nav. System.
For the negligible difference in fuel economy, will most likely go with the V8.
My next vehicle: a 03 or 04 Limited in Titanium Metallic with Stone leather interior.
Tom's next vehicle: most likely a 03 or 04 4Runner, looks like his other choice, the Highlander (Camry AWD Wagon) will be put off for a few years.
If I did not have an 11 month old 02 Sport Edition, I would be price shopping very soon.
Overall very pleased with the upgrades. We drive in the mountains and the V8 with DAC (Downhill Assist Control) and HAC (Hill Start Assist Control) will be well worth the price. Now if I can get that $40,000. Ltd. for $35,500..at 0% interest..
In any event, thanks for the first-hand review!
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
When I first looked at the Sport and SR5, I was a bit... well... under whelmed. Sure its nice. I like the gauges. The seats were comfortable but the adjustments are manual. Stereo is better than before but not the best I've ever heard. Everything was new but still felt like Toyota. Then I drove it. All skepticism ended about the value of it. I came back with a silly grin on my face.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X4B922612
Mackabee
I wonder what Cliffy's been smoking?
As to looks, like it or not, people make purchasing decisions on this factor alone. If they don't like the looks, they may never open the driver's door...
BTW, I think the looks are okay (not great, but just okay), and I did drive it. Cliffy's right. It's a very nice SUV to drive. Still wish it had IRS though...
Bob
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I own a Tundra. Well, OK, I lease a Tundra. I had been planning on leasing another one in December. Now, I'm not so sure. The rods (usually 6 to 10 of them) will fit because when you fold the seat down, there is a cut out between the front drivers and passenger seat. That leaves plenty of room for tackle and batteries.
Deer is a problem. Even with a tarp in the back, it would be a tight squeeze for one big buck plus all my hunting gear and one buddy. That may be a deal killer.
Towing would be fine, although my boat weighs 4200 pounds which is closer than I would like to the towing capacity. I am convinced that Toyota is being too conservative here but it would mean that I couldn't upgrade the boat any time soon (well until the lease ran out on the Runner).
I might just do it. Lease payments on this will be about the same as a Tundra SR5 which is $5000 less on the sticker.
In addition, the new V8 4Runner has the superior Land Cruiser permenent 4WD, and 5-speed auto, that's lacking in the Sequoia.
Bob
• Clearly different styling, both inside and outside.
• GX 470 is contented more like a fully loaded 4Runner.
• The GX 470 has a console mounted transfer case lever, which includes a "Neutral" position, which is lacking on the dash-mounted 4Runner transfer case switch.
• GX 470 offers 3-row seating.
• GX 470 will probably(?) be priced close to a Sequoia Limited.
What I find most interesting about the GX 470, is that it is quite a bit more different, than are the LX 470 and the Land Cruiser; which leads me to wonder... Will the next-generation LX ?* and Land Cruiser also break away from one another, more so than they are now?
* = I'm assuming the next LX will have the long-rumored larger 5.?L engine, thus will have a different name.
Bob
The JBL radio upgrade is quite pricey and does not even provide for satellite broadcasts. It looks too much like a Trailblazer, Envoy or Bravada. I think I would opt for a used Landcruiser b4 shelling out big bucks on such a dull looking vehicle. It really lacks a presence - the 2wd must really be ugly since it is lower to the ground. I would like to supercharge my Monty - any ideas?
The second problem is that I am pretty lazy. I put the ball mount into my Tundra three years ago and never removed it. Since I do a fair amount of salt water fishing, it became rusted into position two years ago. I tried removing it last year and couldn't budge it with a sledgehammer.
I'm not saying I couldn't or wouldn't do this, but it does present some issues.
The 03 4Runner IMHO is not a true replacement for the 02, it is just a new SUV (New4Runner) because it has lost the bold stance we have come to know the 4Runner for, & I would classify the 02 as the (Classic4Runner), Toyota has succeeded in making an SUV that looks just like the rest of so called SUV's.
The GX470 however has more truck like bold looks & it qualifies better to be the modified 4Runner but it has couple of drawbacks even though I can afford the price.
First is that stupid liftgate opening which I don't understand why couldn't it also open in split fashion up/down or even if it's window goes down (04 Envoy XUV opens both ways).
2nd is the L name which I do not want to be associated with or with L owners mentality.
I do have a solution for the 2nd problem if anyone can come up with a solution for the liftgate problem, I am seriously considering getting the GX470 but replace the L name with something like (MODIFIED) or (TRUE) and replace GX470 with 4RUNNER !!
The rear gate will be more dificult however but not impossible to get some hardware from Toyota as if the gate was damaged & modifie the hinge etc...or just replace the whole thing.
BTW, had a chance to look at H2 parked on grass in a dealers event by GM plant, I was carious about the ground clearance, this thing is using a GM truck chassis.
I didn't think measuring it parked on grass was fare but then I realized it was perfect, SUV's do get on soft surfaces in off road situations and it is perfect, the pumpkin ?(rear dif.) was just 8 inches from the grass, of course the wheels must have been couple inshes lower due to soft surface.
I then measured an Envoy, I did not need to, a bar which was lower than the pumpkin was almost touching the grass !!, if grass was any taller (just cut), it would have touched it.
I understand why they call these things SUV's when ground clearance is the same as cars, I always see that on road & compare them to a car right next to them.
oops, I went over 2 cents !!
Zaad
Land Cruiser is still king in Toyota domain. TLC has better ANGLES (approach/departure/breakover) and ground clearance. In addition, according to Toyota literature in other countries, the TLC is MORE capable than Prado:
TLC can go up an incline of 45 degrees and tilt to 45 degrees.
Prado can only go up incline of 32 degrees.
Yes, 4Runner and TLC may have the same powertrain, but TLC is still king.
Here is a question: why does the GX470 and TLC cost the same??? GX is only a tad smaller, yet has TONS more features and customer service.
Interior is much improved but the space is only ok; it will not be for taller folks: the front window is still small and the rear seats are better than in the prior versions but the leg room is still tight. No 3rd row is a marketing blunder!
The plastic on the SR5 and Sport are pretty pathetic but the look is ok in certain colour combos. I have also driven the Sequoia, Pilot, MDX and Pathfinder. Every single one of these lacks something. All lack the clearance and the off-road characteristics of my current '91 4Runner that I bought 11 years ago. Given the interior space/seating, the 4Runner has the most ridiculous pricing. I am particularly disappointed at the fact that Toyota is still gauging the consumers by charging ridiculous amounts for many options (that really should be standard, like floor mats or air bags) and bundling useless crap (like the stereo upgrade) with desirable models. I would like the Sport with bags and Leather but I doubt I will be able to find one in the CAT region, without the 3-6 month wait. If I was set on these options I would have to spend closer to 40k (MSRP) by buying a Limited or get a Pilot that will run closer to $30k. At MSRP, this vehicle is already overpriced!
One last thought: The dealership experience was as bad as it has always been. Every single one of them lies and wastes consumer time! This salesperson was full of it and insulted my current set of wheels by calling it ancient and questioned my ability to pay for such a vehicle, all in the first minute. Way to go, Toyota!
If you don't like the Range Rover, try a new IRS-equipped Montero—which has gotten rave reviews for its off-road prowess, or the new full-size Expedition. IRS *CAN* work off road, and especially in the role that the 4Runner is slotted for.
Are you suggesting that Toyota should revert back to a solid front axle, by any chance?
Bob
As for the new Montero, FourWheeler and Petersen's BOTH said the Montero had very limited wheel travel...it's Limited-slip diff was good though, according to reviews.
Ok, Montero can do DECENT in off-roading...but it will never be as good as the 4Runner (3rd gen) nor the Discovery, and, especially NOT as good as the Land Cruiser.
Solid FRONT axle is great! However, i must admit that there are on-road handling trade-off with it. Thus, the best combo in my opinion is still IFS and solid rear axle.
I'll also mention the new VW Touareg, but it hasn't been tested yet, Stateside. All early indications are that it too will be a very good off-roader—with IFS/IRS.
Bob
My brother's LX470's electronic gas shocks occasionally will raise or lower the SUV on IT'S OWN! However, unlike RANGE ROVER and TOUAREG, if it does fail, the LX470 has a strong basic foundation...ground clearance will always be 9.8"...as in Land Cruiser. In the Range Rover or Touareg, you're screwed!
I bet you the Touareg and Range Rover will do very well in a road test. However, if you were to use it over a longer period of time (and especially off-roading), you will get a different picture.
Maybe, maybe not. The same has been said of virtually all new technology. There are always skeptics who will say this new will eventually fail. If that were true, we'd all still be driving Studebaker Conestoga Wagons.
I don't think it's all doom and gloom. I do think IRS can work off road. I know I'm in a minority here, but I really believe it's true. It's really a matter of coming up with the right system, and if anybody can do it—it's Toyota.
Bob
VW is also not known to make very reliable cars. The ONLY one that is decent (in terms of quality) is the Passat. All others have below average reliability. Now, they are venturing into a completely new territory with new technologies. At least Land Rover had the electronic suspension on the previous Rovers.
Looks really good in person from the front end and three quarter views. The C-pillar and the wheel wells are really troublesome. This car will be bought for its many merits, and it looks handsome enough, but won't win any design awards. The interior is a huge improvement in every respect, IMO. Spacious, solid, high-tech. The beltline is a little high, and the pillars are wide, so the view out from the cabin is hindered.
I still have to drive it. As Cliffy mentioned, that seems to be the main selling point. There was nothing in the looks or the setup that would prevent me from buying if it drives like everybody says.
The Europeans get another flavor of the Runner/GX470. There it is called the Land Cruiser. Take a look:
http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/paris/highlights/h14-toyota-landcrsr.html
I think it looks pretty cool. Mostly I wonder why the American market won't support a 3-door SUV like the one shown in the pictures. I for one would like a shorter wheelbase, two-doors, and the more sporty look. Given the whole debate about third row seats, I guess I shouldn't even ask.
Seems the Toyota safety gadgets are interfering with vehicle operation to the point of making it suicidal to drive the vehicle (in this one persons experience). A summary of the most serious one (Sequoia) I read is: with every imperfection in the road, the traction control or VSC would cut engine power and leave you in the path of getting clobbered by another vehicle. This happens going over train tracks, changing lanes, pulling into traffic at intersections or from driveways, etc.
So I hope this has been rectified on the 4runner or else it is going to be a no-runner for me (especially since I would need to take mine off road). Guess I will wait until the 03's get some miles on them before deciding.
BTW, a MDX owner gave a similar account of safety electronics resulting in no forward motion while trying to get up a gravel road.
In the 4Runner (3rd gen at least), you can EASILY disable VSC by LOCKING THE CENTER DIFF via pushing a button in 4-HI or 4-LOW.
I have an '02 4Runner. I have taken off-road. MDX owners are just plain nuts if they think the MDX can keep up with the Sequoia. What is the true ground clearance of MDX anyway?? 5.0" i think! What a joke!
With my '02 4Runner, I have never seen VSC kick in when driving on the road under stable conditions.
All stability control system is a bit intrusive. Sequoia's system is just a bit harder to disable when off-roading. 4Runner is quite easy.
Most of these problems lie in the execution, not in the theory or concept. The fact of the matter is, the trend is towards IFS/IRS. Sooner or later, someone will get it right.
The big bug-a-boos regarding IFS/IRS (historically) in terms of off-roading have been: strength (or lack-there-of) and articulation (vertical wheel travel). Let's talk about those:
Strength: Well we all know about the IFS/IRS Hummer, with it's over 10,500 GVW. Did you know that Oshkosh*, the maker of severe-duty military and off-road vehicles offers vehicles that have fully independent suspensions? Granted these are purpose-built and very expensive vehicles. The point is: A) the military has confidence in IFS/IRS suspensions it can be done, and C) sooner or later the costs will come down so that that mere mortals will be able to afford good IFS/IRS equipped off-road vehicles. This has always happened in the past, I see no reason why it won't happen in the future. What it takes is new thinking to solving old problems.
Articulation: Again, new thinking is needed here. Most of today's IFS/IRS setups are very closely based on on-road setups, not designed as off-road from the get go. I remember a couple of years ago Toyota showed an off-roader built by Rod Millen(?) that closely resembled the old style Land Cruiser. It had IFS/IRS, and it had gobs of wheel travel. It was a cover story for Four-Wheeler magazine. It was an awesome truck. Most off-road racers have IFS with huge amounts of wheel travel. If you can do it up front, it can be done in the rear too. However, the vehicle has to be designed from the get-go with this in mind. You can't just graft, or transplant a long-travel suspension onto an existing vehicle.
I am absolutely convinced we will see very good IFS/IRS off-road vehicles that the average Joe can buy. It may take 5 years, or it may take 10 years, but it's coming... The public wants it (I'm talking about the 99% of the public who buys these things, not traditional hard-core off-roaders), and hard-fought *competition* will make sure superior setups are developed. We may not be there yet, but it's coming. Even if the VW Touareg turns out faulty, it will spur others on to develop better systems using the fundamental concepts that VW laid out. I think Toyota (or Honda) could build a superb Touareg—if they wanted to, and if the market demanded it. Who knows, maybe the 2nd or 3rd generation Honda Pilot, as it evolves, will be that vehicle?
* = http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/
Check out the "Striker" (Airport section), and the "MTVR" (Defense section). These are rather "strong" vehicles (and with IFS/IRS), I would say...
Bottom line for me: I see tremendous potential for IFS/IRS in off-roading, and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.
Bob
Next, IRS is ONLY good if you have VERY long control arms (with very long shocks) and the tinniest anti-roll bar (if any). Hummer matches these characteristics, but it still does not have good articulation.
The Retro Land Cruiser you speak of is very nice. However, as you can see, the truck costs well over $100K! In addition, it has the characteristics i talked about above. I have not seen it in action to talk about it.
Remember, most off-roading events (Dakkar,etc.) is mostly HIGH-SPEED desert running, where articulation is of second priority. What I am talking about is more mud-rock terrain at slow speed..."crawling".
but most off-roaders aren't running the Rubicon, and a good (properly engineered) IRS can handle most of their needs. From what I've read, the VW Touareg (assuming it works as stated), would be able to handle any and all of my (and most people's) off-roading needs. In fact, it would greatly exceed any of my needs.
But getting this discussion back to the 4Runner (and on-topic), even though this is Toyota's off-road, mid-size SUV, the reality is most will rarely if ever make it past a gravel road. That being the case, I see IRS (considering the audience it's targeted for) is perfectly acceptable.
Mother Nature as inspiration?
Granted this could be a bit of a stretch, but think for a moment of the "legs" of 4-legged animals; it's really their "suspension" system. One could say that animals that "hop" (rear legs that act in unison, much like a solid rear axle) like rabbits, are far less common than animals in which all 4 legs act "independently." Is Mother Nature telling us something here?
Bob
With IRS, there is only so much distance you can go...the length of control arms (& shocks) limit this.
http://www.pnw4runners.net/jon_03_4Runner_offroad_test/jon.htm
Just scroll down to the PICS and MOVIES!
I tried the Truck Trend web site, but it has not yet been updated with this road test. I will say this, however: It didn't take much of a hill for this one rear wheel to become airborne.
Would a IRS-equipped vehicle kept all 4 wheels on the ground under the same circumstances? Probably not, but it does show that the rear axle articulation of the new 4Runner not to be as great as intmed99 would have you believe.
As to HUMMER's articulation, intmed99 could be right. However, at the end of the day, the HUMMER *will conquer* just about any off-road obstacle it encounters. Articulation is important, but it's not the only thing that's important in terms of off-road ability.
Bob
http://www.gocrvclub.org/showthread.php?s=076b96a5b8f4cb5d020b5a8238d784f1&threadid=910
Remember, from those pics, i was not even close to reaching the limit of the rear axle articulation on my 4Runner.
When did i say the Hummer is not capable?? It is very capable because of it's enormous torque (at transfer case and wheel hubs) and it's traction control system. Of course, big wheels help!
How is your IRS example superior to other solid axle SUV in terms of traction and power??? If everything is equal, then wheel articulation is very important. That is my point!
The TLC has a Ramp Travel Index (RTI) on 20 degree ramp of 600. Land Rover Discovery is 700! Land Rover Freelander (all independent with long travel control arms) is around 350-400. Ford Explorer is around 300 (axle thru frame crap).
You want to see the effect of anti-roll bar and suspension design:
Toyota Sequoia has RTI of 350! That is a BIG difference as compared to TLC.
Perhaps, but we're talking about the 4th generation ('03) 4Runner, not the 3rd generation model, or at least I was.
<< When did i say the Hummer is not capable?? >>
You're right, but by suggesting that the HUMMER's articulation is only so-so, you've implied (either intentionally or unintentionally) that it's off-roading ability is less than it could be—if it had solid axles.
<< It is very capable because of it's enormous torque (at transfer case and wheel hubs) and it's traction control system. Of course, big wheels help! >>
Absolutely, it's the *total off-road package* (not just articulation) that counts.
<< How is your IRS example superior to other solid axle SUV in terms of traction and power??? If everything is equal, then wheel articulation is very important. That is my point! >>
I never said it was superior, only that it can be made to be very good. Yes, wheel articulation is very important assuming you can put all 4 wheels on the ground. Judging by that Truck Trend photo, a "stock" '03 4Runner can be made to lift one wheel off the ground pretty easily. I don't know about you, but I have no intention of disconnecting my sway bar when I go off road.
Bob
Bob