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
Larry (tongue-in-cheek-hope you all don't mind)
In my opinion, the more torque power, the better. That said, I think that a key variable here would be the skills of the driver, most especially the skills required to most appropriately and wisely apply engine POWER, i.e., operating or manipulating the GAS PEDAL. In other words, torque power is not an all-or-none force; rather, it is controlled by the throttle and the gearing selected by the driver. A heavy and unskilled foot on the accelerator is the most likely cause of excessive torque resulting in wheel slippage, especially when the vehicle's transmission is locked in a low gear. Therefore, if a driver lacks good skills at the gas pedal, attempting to COMPENSATE for this by selecting an engine with less torque is probably not a very rational solution to the problem. In addition, placing excessive demands on a less "torque powerful" engine may result in frequent LUGGING of the engine, which can be very damaging.
In any case, the V6 is new, so I can imagine that CR might reserve judgement. Of course, the V8 has a new transmission... What's "wrong" with the V6 that would prompt CR to label it as "least reliable"?
Enjoy!
-- Jim
I was just wondering what you guys were getting charged for your 15K and 30K mile services? I can buy a 4 year all scheduled maintence package from the dealer for $640 or so and am trying to see if this makes sense. I think the oil change is $25, so figure 3 a year, that's $300 worth of oil changes for the 4 years. I guess the 15K and 30K prices must really jump up.
Thanks,
Aaron
http://www.edmunds.com/maintenance/MaintenanceServlet?tid=edmunds- .o.landing.topleft..1.*
Enjoy!
Jim
-----------------
Source: Consumer Reports
Survey, conducted in spring 2003, based on scores for most recent three years' models, provided they didn't change substantially. For details, see Consumer Reports New Car Preview 2004
-----------------
I don't get how this can relate to the current models. For the V8, it had only been out 6 months before the survey and, while the engine was proven (probably only minor changes), the transmission was all-new.
For the V6, it had only been out maybe 3 months, and so perhaps they were talking about the previous generation vehicle with the previous generation V6. The transmission was proven, but in both cases, of course, the rest of the vehicle was new.
I haven't read the original article, but can't make much of this distillation and its small print. Could they be referring to the old sludge problem (which supposedly affected mostly V6s?
Perhaps smarter people than me (and/or those who have read the entire article) can shed some light.
[I've posted this message to the JCG vs. 4Runner thread but am also posting it here because some folks have probably stopped reading that thread due to often-repetitive content. Sorry if that causes any heartburn.]
I put my 4Runner in Lo and locked the differentials. With 20 PSI it would be very difficult to spin the wheels. I saw no other vehicles spin their wheels in the sand, either.
I have owned 2 old Jeeps. I found that spinning the wheels a little in mud helped keep the treads cleaned by throwing off the mud .I learned the hard way that going too slow in mud just filled up the treads and made them have almost no traction.
I don't think the Least Reliable V6 is based on the 3rd generation model, they got 78% above average in the 2002 year and Consumer Reports says used 4Runner models are a good bet to buy. Also, many SUV's did not make either list, I noticed Ford didn't make either list, kind of middle of the road.
To me it is quite strange for the V8 4Runner to make the Most Reliable and the V6 to make the Least Reliable. I can't explain it.
There are some possibly small number of people having many problems with their vehicle
2walker "Toyota 4Runner: Problems and Solutions" Nov 7, 2003 5:31pm
http://www.petsmart.com/products/product_365.shtml
Take a look at the Milford Cargo Barrier:
http://www.cargobarrier.com
North America Distributor:
http://www.midwestlandcruiser.com/productlines/Milford/cargobarri- er.htm
8436 of 8467 Protective Screen/Cage by abc Nov 08, 2003 (7:32 pm)
The rear cargo area of most (all?) SUVs is just an open space, sometimes covered with a theft deterrent cloth or plastic screen. I normally carry "stuff" like a tool box, fire extinguishers, knapsacks, suitcases, Costco purchases such as cases of canned food, etc.
If the SUV hits something (car, tree, deer, etc.) then the front, side, and head (curtain) airbags will deploy and save my front, side, and head. But all the heavy stuff in the cargo space will fly forward and maim or kill me, my wife, etc.
I've seen some commercial dog screens, but they are flimsy.
Can any of you folks suggest a commercial or home-made protective cage or screen that would reliably protect people from flying "stuff"?
Thank you.
I have had my lovely cargo shelf down since I took delivery of the vehicle. I even took the bar out that held the connectors for the cargo system. Incidentally that bar removed like a giant toilet paper roll holder.;-)
But to see a Toyota among least reliable is shocking. That new V6 must be quite an engine?
jd
I have the V6 and it is a great engine. Good mpg's, smooth power delivery, good torque, and no problems.
On sand I lock the diff and leave it in 4hi. 4lo only if I'm doing steep dunes. I air down to 12psi.
CR recommends the 4 Runner.
In "RELIABILITY" listed by individually by year from 2003 down. 2003 V6 4R got the highest marks (all red donuts or half red circles).
In ratings for engine, etc all red donuts (highest rating).
The only black mark is gas mileage.
This is the issue:
Under "Predicted Reliability" the V6 gets a black circle, V8 a red circle.
Description of "Predicted Reliability"- 3 years not including a model change. If it is a all new 03 model, surveys taken from the first 6 months of production.
All other ratings for the V6 are the highest or near top, identical to the V8.
I honestly think this "predicted reliability" data is based on the unpainted pre-May 03 V6's and do not indicate the V6's true reliability score.
I think you have to take CR's results with a grain of salt.
I think the verdict is out on this until next issue of CR or when they do a more complete evaluation of the 4 Runner.
I can't remember hearing about any reports of major failures or of stranded drivers, but perhaps others are aware of something. Certainly, a situation with a lot of dealer visits can drive the statistics, no matter what the resolution.
So, in reality, they are basing their high marks and endorsement on the V6.
Larry
They have a chart showing, for each class, the highest and lowest projected resale values after 3 years. For mid-size SUV's, the '04 4runner is the highest, with a projected value of $17,575 after 3 years, based on a sales price of $30,085. The loser you might ask? The Isuzu rodeo 4WD, Sale price 25,205, projected value of only $8,700 after 3 years.
Aren't you glad you bought that 4runner?
The one downside is that they do not come in the exact size. They only come in 265/70 size for 17 inch wheels. This appears to be fairly insignificant from my experience. They look great, do not rub at all (although they do fill up the wheel well slightly more)and have a minimal impact on the speedometer. They are the highest rated tires available, plus the 17 inch sizes are hard to get in any tire. If you have 16 inch wheels, the tires come in the correct size.
Thank you!
In brief, I really miss my 4Runner! The Sequoia is, of course, a much bigger truck than the 4Runner, and it therefore handles much differently. My '03 4Runner Ltd (with V8, X-REAS, and AWD) feels very "tight", responsive, and agile, with "buttery" smooth power and quickness. By contrast, the Sequoia loaner (probably a V6? I'm too lazy to open the hood...) is more like a well-mannered elephant that lumbers, but often in a nimble sort of way, if you will. And, whereas the cockpit and interior of my 4Runner is (dare I say?) very hip, sexy, elegent, and oh-so comfortable and refined... the Sequoia loaner (admittedly an SR5 from a rental fleet) has an interior that in my opinion is rather spartan and not particularly comfortable, nor ergonomic. For example, I'm 5' 10" tall, and I find that Sequoia's middle arm rest is too low to support my right arm. And unfortunately, the fold-down, right arm rest of the captain's chair is positioned too HIGH to comfortably support my right arm while driving-- i.e., my right shoulder joint feels uncomfortably "jacked up" and cramped when I try to use this arm rest, and so it is useless as far as I'm concerned. I also don't care for the level of comfort of the Sequoia's captain's chairs in general, nor do I like the fact that there is much less leg EXTENSION with this seat when compared to my 4Runner. In fact, even when I move the Sequoia's driver's seat fully BACK, my right foot(especially) and knee feel cramped, and no matter how I've tried, I've yet to find a sweet spot with the Sequoia's captain's seat.
Other complaints I have with the '03 Sequoia SR5: 1) The center console is a far reach, and a number of its controls and data readouts are difficult to easily and quickly see, understand, and operate. Some of these controls and readouts require the driver to look far DOWN and to the right, not to mention how far one must reach with their right arm and hand to operate them. 2) The fan control consists of a silly dial or wheel that controls only about *4* fan SPEED settings, yet this dial can be spun ad-infinitum either clockwise or CCW. How silly! (The temp. control is the same, by the way). And, the digital clock is located so far DOWN on the center console that it took me a a while to find the darn thing. 3) The 4WD Sequoia SR5's differential (4-wheel high, 4-wheel low, etc.) shift lever is located at a very LOW and far FORWARD position on the middle console, so far away in fact that I must lean far forward and really reach with my right arm just to even grasp it with my right hand, and meanwhile my head is about to hit the windshield... Furthermore, that handle is TINY, and it feels to be a purely mechanical (rather than an electronic) shift mechanism, and as such it JIGGLES about while under way, and transmits EVERY vibration and bump from the center diff. when you just hold this lever and feel it (which is not a good idea if you want to keep driving safely). And, moving that tiny shift lever feels rather like trying to shift a big rig (CLUNK), only with a TINY shift lever instead of a big one! You'd think that Toyota would get with the program and install a reliable electronic center-diff. shifter on all Sequoia models? 4) For a vehicle as large as the '03 Sequoia, its sideview mirrors are ABSURDLY and dangerously small, and in fact the new 4Runner's mirrors are significantly larger. Go figure. 5) In general (and in my opinion), the "cockpit" of the '03 Sequoia SR5 suffers greatly from a number of design flaws that I find to result in it's not having a fine, well-thought, and safe "cockpit" at all (in the true sense of the word), especially for the average-sized driver, let alone a more petite driver. I'll say again that in my opinion, this vehicle's cockpit places way too many controls (some of them silly at best) and data readouts too FAR AWAY from the driver's hands and eyes, and the end result is a vehicle that (unlike the new 4Runner) doesn't tend to allow the driver to almost immediately begin integrating, synchronizing, intuiting, melding, and imparting a feeling of enveloping oneness with the vehicle's controls, comfort, etc. Instead, when I sit behind the wheel of the Sequoia, I feel more removed and somehow never quite familiar, rather like I'm driving a tuna boat. 6) Even with a V8 Sequoia, one wonders if a more powerful engine might be needed (but not currently available), especially when fully loaded, and towing something.
For those who don't need the extra room afforded by a Sequoia, I would look elsewhere. And, for those who need the room offered by the Sequoia, I would guess that its level of reliability and dealer service will be better than your average American full-sized SUV.
Meanwhile, I can't wait to get my new 4Runner back.
Steve, Host
I'm not prepared to invest in a set of proper snow tires. If I lived up in the mountains then I'm sure I'd get a second set of rims and a set of specialized tires for winter and off-roading. I'm not convinced that using a snow tire all year round is a good idea as the required characteristics of snow and road tires are pretty different.
Anyway, in California you supposed to carry chains whenever you're in chain control areas in the winter regardless of whether you are 4WD or have snow tires. This is widely abused of course, and usually the roads close down before the conditions require 4WD's to don their chains. But then again I head out in the worst of weathers and sometimes go out on logging roads to remote trail-heads, so the chains do come in handy.
First thing I realized is that there is no way you can mount chains or cables on the front-wheels of the new 4runner. There's only a finger width of clearance between the tire and the vehicle (suspension mounts?). This seems like a design failing to me, as some people like to go with all wheel chains. I have a 4WD V8 SR5 by the way. So chains have to go on the rear wheels only and there's plenty of clearance and room to work.
I got a set of Alpine Sports by Laclede (code 2324), and these fit the 16" stock wheels nicely. I reckon that chains are the way to go, not cables, as the 4runner is a big heavy vehicle and can put lots of torque through its wheels. These chains have a cross pattern which should be a lot better than the old ladder style. Also fitting them is pretty straightforward, at least in the nice dry warm conditions of my garage!! They cost $90 from Kragen which is steep but hopefully they will be durable.
Of course I haven't used them in earnest so can't give a real review, but I'll let you know what happens if I ever actually need them.
Mark.
They are 2 very different vehicles but the Sequoia has one very clear advantage- size!!
It has wonderful space everywhere and a very useful 3rd seat. My kids used to sit in the 3rd row seats with the 2nd row folded up and they had a very large area in front of them. Often I miss my Sequoia and may reconsider when the "new model" comes out in 2005 or 2006.
I see things differently than kheintz. The Sequoia has the same engine as the 4runner v8. And while the vehicle is 1000 lbs heavier it still is "peppy" for a large vehicle. The interior could be praised by people that find the 4runner interior too edgy. The fan has the same number of speeds that the 4 runner has-he is thrown off by the fact that the control only has 4 bars, but each bar has 2 speeds.
The Sequoia has side curtain airbags available on lower models that you can't get-at least here in Canada-on the 4runner.
Also keep in mind that it has been around since 2001 and probably is due for an upgrade and the new 300 h.p. 5.4 liter engine.
A bit unfair to compare a 2001 design to newer technology just like it will be unfair to compare new Sequoia to old 4 runner.
Other Sequoia advantages- guages much easier to read and don't scratch, higher towing capacity than early 2003's, superior visibility and headroom, generally seemed better put together (not as many sunroof, headliner rattles etc.)I also don't get the number of looks that I got in my silver sky Sequoia- great looking vehicle.
I am very happy with my 4runner and its high tech features but still have a large soft spot for my old Sequoias!
I have not heard any more grumblings of an exhaust manifold fix(thicker wall)for awhile now.
My guess would be that whatever it was they fixed it on the 04's and hope those of us who do have the problem will get tired of fighting. The fact that many people on this and other forums were told that there were shim kits for these motors, proves to me that the dealers don't have a clue, wow...what a surprise. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I do my own maintenance except for warranty work/recalls and this is why.
Anyway, it's my opinion that with this valvetrain as I understand it, clearances will only increase in time and this clicking under acceleration will only get louder. Hotelseven, I hope you have had some luck dealing with the other issues you have had on your truck, I do believe that it is a great vehicle except for a couple of small issues out of the gate.
Many thank yous!
Seems like the smell problem doesn't occur with all/most vehicles or driving habits. Looks like there are alot of variables associated with this problem.
My question is this.....should I stick to the 5K service plan, even though I am a city driver, or is the 7500 mile plan OK? Im scared to leave oil in an engine that long, but I come from the old school.
It is one more oil change per 15 K miles. Not a big deal, but I have more peace of mind
If you like to do regular oil changes every 3-5K, sythetic is a waste of $$