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
New? haha, thats not new, Subaru has been doing that forever. And did you forget the AMC Eagle? (or whatever it was called). No one wants an off-roading car, the whole point (and fun) of an SUV is you are seated nice and high.
As far as the market for 2-door off-road SUVs, it is small because there are none available. The friggin VehiCross sold (and sold out) at an extremely high price, and there are still websites dedicated to it.
You need a frame underneath to absorb major body torquing that happens offroad. Yeah, they can make some pretty stiff unibodies nowadays, but imagine how tweaked it would be in a couple of years...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You seem to be all to ready to discount the 4Runner as an off-roader.
You'd be hard pressed to count on one hand the SUVs better off-road than a 4Runner. This 4Runner is EASILY better than the last off-road, or on!
Nymph
I'm not talking about cars with 4WD. I'm talking about truly tricked out off-roaders built out of the car model. There is nothing like the RSC out now. Make an FJ CAR for us to play with.
DrFill
When was the last time you did any offroading? Where there was actually NO road?
I assure you the first part of your statement is not true.
Lower ground clearance, a HUGE long butt, bad departure angle, heck I clanked the butt end of one on the ground going up a steep driveway, and that was ON PAVEMENT. And HOW many tons does it weigh now????
As for FJ, you you do not properly take into account the price factor, which will ensure it does 40K per year over the model run, I would think. In fact, I think it will do better than 40K for the first couple of years. Perhaps get close to doubling that figure the first year out?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A less impressive departure angle doesn't mean it's a soft-roader.
This 'Runner could clear hills the others couldn't dream of.
And it's weight is still manageable, around 4200 or so.
Picking on the 'Runner to defend this FJ won't get far here.
DrFill
You have been constantly pushing the assertion that the FJ is totally redundant because of the existence of the 4Runner. All I am saying is no way is that true, for several different reasons.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
First, a similiar frame as the 4runner, with a wheelbase not much shorter. On-road ride should be similiar to the 4runner.
Second, the same powerful 4.0 V6 as the 4runner. That should make the smaller, lighter FJ really move compared to the 4runner.
Third, a smaller package- 11 inches shorter overall. I don't need to seat seven or haul plywood. The 4runners have gotten big. I really like the proportions of the FJ.
And, most importantly, PRICE! 4runners are getting expensive. If I can get the same technology (frame, engine, tranny, 4x4, etc), in a better size for me, and I don't have to pay as much as a 4runner, I'm all for it.
(LR3 is NOT reasonable, I'm poor!)
It's a pseudo off roader, and Toyota needs it to fight off the Explorers and Trailblazers. I like the 4Runner.
The FJ will take up a different price segment, as well as being a REAL off roader. This isn't a dis on the Runner! They are just completely different SUVs for completely different reasons. The Runner will be softer and bigger, and the FJ will be loads smaller, a bunch more agile, and a bunch cheaper. HOWEVER, I fear that Toyota may be shooting itself in the foot by not offering a four door. I've been in a VehiCross (obscure 2 door. Izusu made it from 99 to 2002) and it was mighty hard to get in and out of. Well, maybe I'm getting old. But let's not mince words. The FJ is a nice alternative to the Wrangler and Xterra <----silly name!! But.... not everyone knows that the Runner is a soft, midsize SUV, so it may cause a little sales friction. Don't get me wrong, they are way different, but the rest of the world who does not care may mix them up. Just my two cents. ---Chris
I'd like some smoke too!
The wheelbases are 8-10 inches apart, if memory serves me right, as this is a much shorter vehicle in length. This creates choppiness in ride quality.
This thing will weight not more than 300 lbs less than 4Runner. And a good deal of the cost savings will come in ride quality (and obviously exterior design). Do you think they're putting a lot of effort into making a compliant ride out of this purebred off-roader?
If you can't tell by the design, target audience, sale projections, wheel/tire package, that this thing rides rougher than any 4-door midsize SUV, then
Puff, Puff, Give!
DrFill
I would expect it to come in around 500 pounds lighter than a 4x4 V-6 Runner. Maybe more, as it will be more sparsely equipped than the Runner, but probably right around there.
As for the four doors issue, that is nothing to sneeze at. I think it helps that it has two little swing-back half doors like an XtraCab pick-up, but maybe they will add a proper four-door model in the future. I am sure they are afraid of cannabalization from RAV and Highlander sales if they offer a four-door version.
As for the ride, there is a certain amount of compliance in the cab that is provided by anything riding on a full frame underneath, and that combined with car-type (ie NOT leaf spring) suspension in the back and a longish wheelbase for this size of vehicle should make on-pavement ride just fine.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The 4Runner should be downright plush in comparison. I don't see how you get a "fine" ride quality form this vehicle. Why would it be fine again?
You also forget this is a taller, wider vehicle, so the size it loses in length comes back in width and height.
4Runners are 4100-4500 lbs.
The H2 is well over 3 tons! H3 is supposed to be close to 5000! This is smaller vehicle, but it depends how serious the parts 'Yota uses underneath. And it will use many less tech supporters than 4Runner, so more shafts, levers, and bolts will replace some of the processors and microchips, adding weight.
I doubt ride quality is a high priority in it's production for it's target audience, single males desperate to look cool.
Family vehicles get softer suspensions.
DrFill
I don't know why you would expect the FJ to have stiffer suspension than the 4Runner. Vehicles designed to go offroad usually have longer and softer suspension, so as not to beat you up over realy bad surfaces. In fact, this is why they are always criticized for their on-pavement performance, because that long, soft suspension takes a lot of the "sport" out of the road ride.
As for that whole piece about less tech supports and more levers, I just don't think there is any way you can possibly know that yet, unless you have actually helped design this vehicle, in which case this is an awful lot of contempt considering it's something you had a hand in (!!).
As an assumption or a speculation, I would question it. Most of the running hardware will probably be pulled straight from the 4Runner to keep costs down for Toyota. The suspension will probably be unique and cheapened down for this cheaper model (no levers or microprocessors there), but the powertrain should come over intact from the Tacoma.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Another stupid comment.
Everyone prefers looking "good" to looking "bad", and than includes the vehicle they happen to be in.
The question is, can the vehicle look good, and also be utilitarian?
The answer is, in terms of most SUV's, NO. Most are too big to be practical, or too car-like to be off-road.
The FJ is both - looks good, adequate cargo space, and is properly proportioned and developed to be useful on and off-road.
The only stupid comments here are figuring all vehicles get a good ride, regardless of the vehicles mission. Everyone doesn't get good ride quality, especially HD truck drivers.
DrFill
This highlights the point we have all been making, and you have been missing: the FJ is for folks who will be spending MORE than 1% of their time off the road, or at least on roads mucked up by ice and snow and generally ripped to shreds by the weather (this coming from someone who has driven the roads around Tahoe enough to know that the weather rips them up so bad that potholes are like canyons).
If all you want is a smallish SUV to commute in, with perhaps some AWD for rainy days, RAV4 and Highlander stand ready to answer your call, for prices in and around FJ territory. If you actually need a covered TRUCK, that is when FJ enters the picture.
Oh, and don't forget that when it comes to terms like "ugly", one man's skunk is another man's rose. Looks are very subjective. I happen to think that the FJ as displayed at the auto show is the best-looking of Toyota's SUVs right now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think its the best-looking of ALL SUVs right now, because of its dimensions + design...but that roof...
The white roof is interesting in theory, but Toyota better make it optional.
I'm of the opinion that the smooth-riding, car-based SUVs are basically tall station wagons. Forget 1%, they are for people who never intend to leave the pavement.
Also, I agree with the others here that like the styling. At the very least, one should be happy that the 'Yota product line won't be so dull/bland looking now.
And define a "good ride." I'm sure the FJ would be comfortable enough to take on 5 hours of highway. I mean, it's not a Wrangler.
Anyway, I like this FJ thing. I'm almost kicking myself for buying a Mazda3 about a year ago, but I needed a car, and that Mazda drives SWEET (Definitly a "Sport" utility car, since it's the 5 door). Small cars are the greatest thing since sliced bread for fun behind the wheel, either on-road or off. Now I find myself wondering if I have it in the budget for a second vehicle (since I'll be paying for the Mazda for quite a while). A 4-by would be REALLY handy up here, especially in the wintertime when dealing with snowbanks seems more like rock climbing. And I wonder if the FJ could fit a plow?
Probably to get some of those who are considering the new Xterra, to hold off, as it is going after that same customer.
Bob
I like the way the FJ looks a lot better than the way the Xterra looks. The white roof is.... interesting. I hope it's an option, because not everyone will love it.
Including me. Its the one thing keeping it from being perfect. I want the FJ in black but I dont want to drive around a damn penguin
lol. Since when is one car a "bandwagon"? The FJ is the Element done right, it adds offroad tires, offroad ground clearance, offroad 4WD and off-road capability.
There is no comparison.
I'm having that copyrighted!
DrFill
http://lc78.toyota.com.au/LC78/HomePage/0,,,00.html
Bob
By the way, on the Toyota site, I found a reference to power windows and door locks for the new FJ. Apparently, it will have them.
Here's a 'Yota LC 4x4, with a 4.2 diesel six standard, a 5-speed manual, plastic bumpers and steel wheels, optional A/C, no mention of power anything, I'm sure a spartan, functional interior... for 65% of the cost of a LC like we see over here. Sort of looks like a work vehicle, but still a nice-looking LC.
I'd love to pick one up used with 39k for $25,000...
The more I look at this vehicle the more I like it. Two dislikes are the white roof and 3 wipers on the windshield.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
While the FJ Cruiser may also be functional (to some degree), it's main purpose is to fit an "image," rather than do a "job," much like most SUVs marketed here in the US. I'd much rather see SUVs return to their roots in providing more honest-to-goodness utility, and less designer-like image.
Bob
I agree. That's why I like the LandCruiser 100 I described; it isn't trying to fulfill the "luxury" image like our North American models. I like the 78 also; I just need a medium/large, flexible, covered storage space for passengers/cargo, such as in a LC, but don't see the need for all large SUVs to be so luxurious as to drive the prices up. Why can't we have medium/large SUVs, relatively stripped, that are as cheap as mid-level optioned cars and small SUVs? Every full-size is so expensive, and with all kinds of ridiculous standard features.
While the FJ Cruiser may also be functional (to some degree), it's main purpose is to fit an "image" rather than do a "job"
I disagree, because it depends on the "job." As I said, I sometimes carry passengers, and often carry bicycles and like them to be inside the vehicle. I also occasionally venture off road. So, I need a vehicle that is large enough to accomodate my needs, and doesn't make me buy alot of luxury (good value). The FJ would fill this job very well.
Competitors fall short in at least one area. The Ford Escape has a lot of room inside but can't go far off-road, and lacks torque; these are very slow. The Jeep Liberty doesn't have much cargo room, even with the seats folded down. The Honda CR-V lacks space, 4-low and torque, and is high-priced IMO.
Further, I have considered Toyota products in the past and have been turned off by their blandness; everyone calls them "appliances." I am glad to see them produce a vehicle (scion excepted) that shows an attention to "image."
What I meant by that is that often styling (and/or image) gets in the way of function. The huge "C" pillar on the FJ Cruiser is a good example of that.
I've always felt that farm equipment, ATVs, and commercial trucks to be better "designed" than most "consumer" vehicles. Why? Because function overrides styling. I'd like to see more of that form-follows-function concept return to SUVs (and pickups too).
Bob
Despite what Toyota has said about the FJ, does anyone besides me think that there is still some cosmetic work to be done on the FJ before it hits the dealerships (like that huge C pillar and the wrapover rear glass, for instance)? I would think the glass in particular would be very costly on such an inexpensive model.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How do you guys think the large C-pillar would impair function?
If they tone down the styling elements which make it unique, then we are left with another forgettably-styled vehicle that won't stand out from the rest of the Toyota lineup.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if they can afford to leave it exactly the way it was presented at Chicago. And certainly some of the unique styling elements like the front end will make it to production, I am sure. If they truly sell it with the "Toyota" badge on the front, it will be the only model in the entire line-up to have the Toyota name instead of the weird symbol they use for the Toyota brand.
As for the C pillar, I think it will reduce the outside visibility somewhat, but I like the way it makes the FJ look, so I could deal if they left it just that way.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It blocks rearward vision, if you're looking over your rear shoulder. It creates a large blind spot.
Bob
Cant wait to see all the color choices.
Toyota keeps mentioning a very reasonable price in its press releases. Any speculations on what pricing will be. My guess would be similar to the Nissan Xterra?
Or maybe Toyota will surprise us with very low pricing like the Scion line.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)