By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
whotheman
I see from the sheet they used 10w-30. Is this gonna be a problem? Whats the deal with everyone using 10w instead of 5w??? They also used a "mighty" oil filter. I hope this is gonna be OK...I have 5,400 miles on my Sport.
Rick
With that being said, I am still glad that i purchased th 2002 Sport - with the discount and incentives, i don't think i could have gotten a better deal. I would have liked more power - but this deal was to incredible to pass up. I am glad I purchased the last of the old design.
Rick
Very UN-Toyota like
whotheman
Mackabee
#2 door cladding similar.
#3 mirrors look about the same.
#4 Rear door windows with faux wing window.
#5 side glass behind c-pillar same shape.
#6 headlight,turn signal combo similar.
#7 big grille/wrap around plastic bumper.
#8 roof rack.
I did a side by side comparo. Just looks similar to me.No doubt build quality,dependability,reputation,and resale are no where near comparable though. Just my 2 cents worth. Like I said,wait till we can see one in person, then I might see it in a whole new light.
Toyota recommends 5w-30 and it is probably wise to use the recommended oil at least for the 60,000 mile warranty. Still some people use 10w-30 over 5w-30. I would stay away from the heavy oil like 10w-40 or greater. I decided to use Mobil One 5-w30 in order to follow Toyota's recommendation and to have oil that will not break down or burn off.
Now about that "mighty" oil filter, who knows but maybe you might get a good well know brand of filter. I use a Toyota filter.
--------------------------------------------
As far as your 2002 Sport model. I think the 2003 Sport model with the hood scoop and black bumper is not a good choice. I like the 2002 Sport model much better. The best 2003 model seems to be the Limited model.
Rick
The other question is what you are doing to the odometer. By putting on larger tires, the odometer is reading lower than the actual miles. For instance, if the diameter is 10% larger than stock, you will have an odometer error of 10%. At the end of the lease, the odometer may show 45000, but the real miles are 49500. Not only have you evaded the mileage penalty, the truck is now TMU (true mileage unknown). TMU vehicles are worth FAR less due to the odometer discrepancy.
I will tell you that I know many people put on larger tires on leased vehicles and replace them with the stock ones at the end. This is a violation of the lease but one that it nearly impossible to detect. Your question is really one of ethics.
My first thought for anyone on the fence between a 2002 and 2003 is to have patience and be honest with yourself. On patience: After this long, let's wait until Oct. 15 to see the showroom 2003 (my Tyson's Corner, VA dealer has confirmed that date as well) and whatever interior, engine, and design "advantages" it has over the 2002.
Also, let's be honest: my wife, every colleague of mine, my parents, the majority of posters on the various boards all over the Net, and myself are appalled at the appearance of the new redesign. We are very disappointed. Whereas 4Runner always stood out from the pack as the one sports utility vehicle (notice I didn't say SUV) that expressed truck-like, rugged individualism in its features and body molding, now it appears to truly be an "SUV" in every element of design: from the market-saturated plastic cladding that looks cheap ("cheesy" is what my wife said), to the baseball brim minivan-esque "spoiler" above the rear glass, to the RAV-4 rounded front-end and headlight package. Unfortunately, it now is just a "more affordable" version of the new Lexus, whereas all prior generations of the Runner stood out on their own, as real trucks, in contrast to the high-end minivan quasi-SUV soccer moms. The new 4Runner appears vanilla and wimpy, belying its body-and-frame, suspension, and awesome new engine.
Although this is always referred to as subjective (as I do feel some will like this new look), I think we can all agree from the spy shots out there that there are many objective differences that make this more of a conforming look to today's homogeneous SUV market as opposed to a truck that set the mark for sports utility (again, for some, this may be good; for me and everyone I know, this is bad enough to make me not want to buy).
Three years reading these boards have given me a view of 4Runner owners (and potential owners) as a different breed of driver than all the other owners of more practical, comfy, carlike, unibody "SUVs." For example, read the ad for the new Hummer H2: "In a world where SUVs have begun to look like their owners, complete with love handles and mushy seats, the H2 proves that there is still one out there that can drop and give you 20. . . ." Although this new look of the 2003 tells me Toyota thinks the market is shifting, I think this ad better expresses what many of us would be looking for in a 4Runner appearance. This is a terrible analogy, but seems apropos: like Heavy Metal music in the 80's when every one jumped on the band wagon and the music all became the "same", I feel the SUV market will inevitably experience a backlash towards a more boxy, rugged, truck-like SUV like the H2 . . . however, many of us can not wait that long. Appearance Advantage: 2002 (with hopefully open mind to see 2003 "in person").
All that being said, why would I still wait until the 15th? My thoughts are that if maybe, somehow, someway, I can find something redeeming in appearance when seeing the 4Runner "in person," then I can rationalize the new look maybe, somehow, someway. Looks are important (maybe 30-40%? tough question to answer . . . ); but the guts are at least if not more important of course. With a long overdue new V6 engine, plus whatever interior/driving/safety new goodies, the 2003, with enough design improvements, could be the better choice. So we should probably wait to see what one gets, for example, in a 2003 SR5 versus the 2002 SR5 (taking price into account as well of course). So far, other than the engine, I have not heard anything revolutionary in difference in design between the 2002 and 2003. The 2002 is loaded with every 4WD multimode, etc. design feature Toyota has perfected over the years. Non-Engine Design/Features Advantage: Tie (only for now due to little info; I would hope the 2003 has some incredible new features that outweigh and can help rationalize appearance).
Now, to the most important reason for my post: engine differences. Who has driven a 3rd Gen? I have; a lot of us have. It has adequate HP; there is not a HP "problem" at all. I can imagine circumstances where I would like more, but it would certainly do the job at its 183 HP. In fact, back in 1999, Toyota was touting this engine in brochures and hand-outs as ahead of the pack, e.g., comparing it to the 170 HP Pathfinder, etc.
However, I did not buy it for the HP reason. Many times over the years I almost did; it took a lot of willpower to drive the piece of junk I do for these past 3 years. I read about many of you who faced the same debate but decided to jump in and not wait - congratulations, a great decision - for me, I just couldn't do it. I felt I "needed" (maybe irrational?) more getty-up; if it was over 200 or 210 HP, I would have bit.
But the market changed (Pathfinder up at 250 HP in 2001, etc.) and now the 3rd Gen is called by some: "underpowered." Well, of course it is underpowered to something that offers 240+ HP - like the new 2003 Runner - that is no contest. I am drooling of the thought to have that many ponies under the hood. That is why I waited so long. That is what many of us focused on for the new 2003. HOWEVER, I don't think that then makes the 2002 underpowered as a vehicle unto itself (its weight, purpose, etc.): as I said, the 2002 183 HP WILL do the job. Go drive one. For me, out of personal preference, I felt I "needed" more HP and would rather wait to get that extra acceleration I felt in 210+ HP vehicles. If I had bought back in 2000, it would have been a good choice nonetheless. We're talking about a Toyota here. Engine Advantage: 2003.
So, where is my way out of this conundrum? Assuming the Non-Engine Design/Features are very similar between the two, is the extra oomph of the new engine enough to outweigh the SUV-ized new minivan look? Or does the classic, rugged, original look of the model that started it all outweigh any disadvantage from its 183 HP, but adequate,
The solution I have arrived at (at least for now): the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) +75 Supercharger designed for the 2002 4 Runner V6. I have my work cut out (must research this TRD supercharger more), but this seems to be a possible solution if the 2003 looks the same as what we're seeing in these photos. I could buy the 2002 I visually love but I get the HP of the 2003 that I have waited three years for (of course, I would rather have the higher HP from a redesigned engine than a supercharger, but that desire is trumped by the need to drive something that does not look like a Technicolor yawn of all the other SUVs on the market).
TRD has a website explaining the supercharger option; how it complements your Toyota factory warranty; etc. Check out: http://www.trdusa.com/homepage.asp. I have never been a fan of modifying stock engines, but it appears that Toyota has been using this for years on the 4Runner with much success. Pricing it out, I am looking at $3-4K to have Toyota buy and install. I would probably drive the 2002 for 6 months to break in the engine and then have the dealer install. Gets the same warranty as the original factory warranty on the Runner and Toyota has test results showing no deleterious effects on engine life. I think with the pricing breaks on 2002s, you could get this option added and still come out several thousand less than the MSRP+ 2003s. Off-road websites have given this supercharger good feedback (very little maintenance involved), but I am still researching any serious negatives. This supercharger is in its second generation, and the couple kinks with the earlier version (that people used on the 1996, 1997, 1998, etc. 4Runners) have apparently been worked out. Went through the 2500 posts here and none of us have really posted in detail on this option. Curious if any of you have had it installed on your 3rd Gen. Runner and what your experience has been?
In sum, my solution is to wait until I can view a 2003 in person, get a handle on where it will be priced for the SR5 4WD Sport model. If it lives up to its photos, I will be buying a 2002 with supercharger. If all the 2002s are really sold by say November 1 (as one dealer tries to claim), then I will buy a used 2002 or I will look elsewhere (e.g., as the H2 is a little extreme for my use and costs $50K, I will probably have to consider something like an Explorer, etc. - are you listening Toyota? You really rained on my parade.) I apologize for the long diatribe but it helped me air out my thoughts - and I hope it provides a basis for discussion for how others are sorting through this dilemma.
And for anyone out there who loves the new look of the 2003, I AM JEALOUS! That is how I wanted to feel.
Good luck to All.
My first question to you is.. what the heck are you doing over at Tysons? Kidding.
Next, you've really thought this one out. I can't argue with your conclusions except for one detail. The pictures we have seen may not represent exactly what we see. I just got the Toyota order guide for this area and notice that there are now three trim levels. There is the SR5, SR5 Sport and the Limited. We don't know which of those three models were pictured. There is at least a slim hope that one of these models will accentuate the rugged looks you desire. I doubt that all the offending design cues would vanish (those headlights wont go away), but it is possible that the Sport model will be more to the liking of the rugged truck bunch.
Its at least something to consider. The other thing is that no picture can really allow you to get the full feeling of the vehicle. For instance, I saw the pictures of the "new" Tundra and had a hard time discerning the differences with the 2002. Upon viewing it in person, I can really notice it and I really like it. My point is to not pass final judgment until you see the truck in person.
All Toyota had to do was increase the HP, and make the current 4runner a little wider and half an inch taller. Voila, it would have had an instant hit on its hands.
So what does Toyota do? Weird plastic cladding? A strange C-pillar that gets really wide at the base for no reason? A strange cleft in the rear tailgate? And those goofy, son of a RAV4/Hyundai Sante Fe headlights and grill?
Sure, I haven't seen it in person, and it may look better live. But the great thing about the current 4runner is that I never have seen a "bad" picture of the 4runner, I have never seen it in a "bad" color, and unlike alot of other trucks, it looks great regardless of the trim (i.e. with or without overfenders, with or without running boards, big alloy wheels or small 15 inch steel wheels, it always looks great because the underlying design is so good).
Well, I'm thankful my 2000 4runner is still running like a watch (still no squeeks or rattles even after some boulder bashing on some Vermont jeep trails this weekend). Looks like i'll be holding on to her for many years to come ...
Just to follow-up so as to keep the discussion clear: I agree 100% with the previous post from Cliffy. (By the way, Cliffy has been a great contributer to this board for a long time now and one of its best assets. FYI to anyone just tuning in given all the excitement with the new 2003 and the deals on 2002s.)
My message is to have patience to wait and actually see the new trim level(s). My whole mental process to date is predicated on the 2003 SR5 looking more or less like the photos that we have seen of the green spy-shot 4Runner and the recent one in my issue of AutoWorld. I pray that a miracle happens such that I can build out a trim level and options eliminating many of these things, e.g., rear window minivan "spoiler" (pardon the pun), weird plastic cladding, strange cleft in the rear tailgate, and all these other things we are seeing. In the past, like jynewf pointed out, the 4Runner has always looked A+ among its contemporaries (with the one exception being the non-functional hood scoop on the Sport Edition, something that I don't mind living with). If one can rationalize the 2003 looks by bringing it back to its roots via trim level and option packages, then I believe the 2003 could be the better choice (for some of us, doesn't have to be all of us . . .) given where the competition/market is come January 2003.
One thing more to add to everyone's calculus when considering how to avoid "buyers remorse": a couple friends of mine who bought the old Jeep Grand Cherokees because they hated that year's redesign to the current, more rounded look tell me now that they wish they had bought the redesign; they say their's now feels old and dated compared to the new ones on the street. I hate to say it, but for me it would still be hard to shell out $30-40K for something that I'm hoping I'll like in a few years.
So, I guess the big day of reckoning will still be Oct. 15th.
Again, good luck to all in their deliberations!
P.S. I am not promoting any dealerships out there. Just wanted to pass on what part of the country I am in as well as another confirming Oct. 15th statement from my closest dealer (which happened to be Tyson's). Arlington not too far, Alexandria, even Springfield is close!
Check out level10.com, they have some very interesting info on it.
I've been following many of the boards, including YotaTech and 4x4Wire. There are lengthy discussions
about the sheetmetal and mechanical components. I think both will prove to be just fine. The rig will
probably look better in person and it will be vastly improved mechanically, which is saying alot. But overall, I
think Toyota interiors (aside from being well built) are among the most uninspiring. The third gen interior is
downright archaic. Looking at the new Sequoia and even the RAV4, there is some hope, but I would really
be impressed if the new Runner had a sleek, utilitarian interior that was a pleasure to climb into. This is the
only thing I'm waiting to see, otherwise, I'd buy a V6 Sport right now.
Any thoughts on what we might see in there?
http://www.toyota.is/template4.asp?PageID=540
Now, why couldn't the 4Runner look like this?! It's a perfect blend of the GX 470 and a more rugged Toyota style. I would buy this baby in a heartbeat, without worrying about how it's going to look in reality, because it already looks kick-@ss in this photo! Come on Toyota! What are you thinking?! Give us the Prado!!! I know it'll never happen, but now I'm disappointed...
I really don't understand what those indentations on the fender flares of the Auto World 4Runner are either. They seem like a design flaw or after-thought. I hope this IS a photo of a pre-production vehicle, and some of the oddities like that have changed, but I doubt it. I think this is the real deal that we'll be seeing in a month. I guess I'm going to have to rely on the old "I'll have to see it in person" statement still...
I want to believe,
muskadine
1) On the supercharger, I do have the premium fuel factor listed as a negative. THX. Also, 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. Again, would love to hear from 3rd Gen owners who have actually put 30-50K (or more) miles on a supercharged Runner;
2) On the interior design improvements and side curtain air bag issues, I put these in the Non-Engine Design/Features category that could (if enough of them) move a few of us towards the 2003. I have unfortunately not seen any in-depth discussion and would love to know as well. Few people seem to have been able to get in one even without a camera. Should know in just a few weeks. Fingers are crossed that we are moving away from the standard SR5 seats and fabric of the past . . .; and
3) one thing I neglected to mention (unbelievable right!??) to Cliffy's post: although I try to be optomistic that a new Sport trim level for the 2003 could be the solution away from the spy shot green SR5's plastisidis, the AutoWorld photo in my print edition clearly shows side badging reading "Sport Edition" (not to mention the hood scoop). You can not see it well here on the posted link to the photo. Like tbcreative, I also "don't understand what those indentations on the fender flares of the Auto World 4Runner are either" - but it looks like we may have to get used to them with a 2003 SR5 or SR5 Sport trim level.
P.S. Anyone ever seen a standard Thule foot/aerokit multipurpose or ski rack system fitted on the front portion of the 3rd Gen. Runner roofline? (not talking about the Thule aerokit that I already know can be installed on the Toyota factory racks.)
The exterior that I saw doesn't match the one I see now. It more closely resembled the 2002 model, with hints of the Sequoia.
I just mention this because there may be differences in the interior as well. But they were bragging about how much the new interior was more like a sports car than an SUV. What I saw in the video would tend to agree with that. It was much sportier with more creature comforts. The instrument display was like that of the Matrix, with the 3 circle cluster. Door panels were more plush, and all around it was much nicer. It's definitely easier on the eye than the current model.
Seeing as how SUVs are more mainstream now than before, I think they are just reacting to the marketplace. Bigger, more cushy, more horsepower...just like Tim the Toolman Taylor says, "There isn't any problem that can't be solved by adding more power".
Of the 'spy' shots, the green one is an SR5 and the blue one is the Limited. I have confirmation of that. I've blown up the picture of the gray one, but I can't make out the tag on the side. Since it doesn't look like the other two, and with a hood scoop (good grief!) I'd had to say it must be the sport edition.
I have coined my own name for this amalgam of Toyota SUVs. I like to call it the 4RAVLander.
http://www.toyota.is/template4.asp?PageID=540
Thanks for your opinions! –TB
The only one of the trucks in question that I have seen in the flesh is the GX470. I got a good look at it during the Pebble Beach Concours. Have to tell you that it didn't attract in its muscularity, individuality, or style. From the pic of the Prado you sent over, it is obvious that the Prado and GX are kissin' cousins, but the Prado definitely has the more chiseled features, which look really good. Don't know if they would carry over better in person than the GX, but it may be a moot point as we'll never get it on these shores.
As for the new Runner, I seem to be one of the few who is confident that the thing will look much better in person and that we can't trust the spy shots to date. As I mentioned before, I'm more concerned about the Toyota tendency to make boring interiors.
Happy hunting !!!
Maybe it's time to stop by the dealer and ask for that brochure.
Thanks!
-------------------
You know I had a dream that Toyota put dorky looking pictures on the web of a fake new 4Runner only to throw people off. The real 4Runner was tough, simple lines and quite aggressive. It had a bumper sticker that said "No Soccer Mom's Allowed". Then I woke up and realized it was only a dream.
The current Toyota shocks are pretty good...they are made by Tokico. They are twin tubes. The rear shocks are very similar to the old Lexus LS400 shocks (which is good).
Basically, you don't have much choice. I think my 4Runner is bouncy, but certainly not bad. It rides well. Just think...a little bouncy is certainly made up with tremendous capability and ultra-strong bullet-proof body. I love my 4Runner! It performed flawlessly in a recent off-roading event.
: ) Mackabee
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I don't know how to say this......
Well I bought today my 2003 4Runner SR5 V6 Sports Edition. Well bought is a big word because the price are not out yet but I have reserved the
very first Silver V6 that my dealer ordered and supposed to get delivery in mid-december. I was the first one to enquiry for the V6 version. They
already pre-sold a Limited.
I will be able to bail out if the price is not right and if I do not want the truck because it turns out not to be to my taste. They will simply sell it to
another on on the list or put it in the showroom for a while.
I have seen today updated facts sheet about the 2003. The sport Edition is loaded with features. Awesome really.
One important thing: It doesn't seem like this truck will be a great off-roading rig like the 2nd gen and early 3rd gen. But I'm not into off-roading that
much myself. I like the truck and Toyota in general that's all.
Now lets all hope that it turns out nicer in person than on the pic I posted. If it turns out as ugly I'mgoing for a Pilot.... So let's pray !!!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D21F115B1
Respectable 0-60 time estimate, but throw in a K&N Filtercharger, and it should be in the 7 second range! I'm really curious to see the numbers for the new V6, because those EPA ratings are DISMAL...
After reading this board for the past few months, I went out and purchased a 2000 4Runner with 28000 miles on it late last week. I have a few questions for the experts here (a little buttering up). First, my 4Runner has the non-functional hood scoop with the hood protector (bug shield). Has anyone with these options noticed that the hood shakes a good bit at highway speeds (70+). Is this normal? Is it due to the wind resistance created from these options?
My other questions is, I read on this board about the fuel guage problem. Yesterday morning my fuel low light came on. I was only able to get 13.5 gallons into the tank at this point (fuel gaugae was reading 1/8). Now this morning, with only 50 miles on the new tank of gas, my fuel gauage is reading 3/4 full. When I filled the tank yesterday, after the pump stopped, I did squeeze in another $1 or so to make sure it was full. Any thoughts if this is the same problem, or is it normal? Thanks in advance folks!!!
Mitch
Bob
http://motioncars.com/autobuzz/articles23/2003_landcruiser.html