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

Toyota 4Runner

15657596162221

Comments

  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    The 4th gen should have the same ATRAC (active traction control) as the 3rd generation. ATRAC does allow for ONE-wheel traction...any wheel. This system is in 2001+ 4Runners, Land Cruisers, and LX470. Of course, GX470 will also have it.
  • jkulp42757jkulp42757 Member Posts: 83
    My understanding was that it currently does allow for one wheel traction, but not in the same way as the Ford Expedition, Jeep Cherokee, & Hummer H2, do (there may be more than these 3 vehicles, this is all I know as of right now).

    The system does have one wheel in the sense that it basically works like electronic limited slips, transferring power from left to right, & right to left. The other systems transfer not only from left to right & right to left, but also front to back, & back to front, and some can transfer most, if not all of available torque to one wheel.
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    With a center differential lock, you have 50/50% split front and rear. Therefore, you don't need any shifting of power front-rear. The 4th gen will have the same.

    Jeep Grand Cherokee has a center diff lock too.

    H2 has a center diff lock too.

    So, basically, these systems are similar to the 4Runners (3rd and 4th gen).

    Only the H2 has a locker rear differential IN ADDITION to the traction control systems.

    Grand Cherokee, of course, uses limited-slip differential-like on the front and rear axles and center differential.
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    I remember months ago when someone posted the possibility of the new Runner having all these Chrome accents and most of the board went bananas. Well, I see some interesting, confirming facts in this new round of spy shots - only difference is they are silver, not chrome. Apparently, the spy shots that Corey first posted (and then were banned by Toyota) hid this as all those 4Runners on that cliff were in silver and the one that was not (i.e., the one on the trail) was an SR5 (whose accents are at least black). I guess silver may be the only way to get monochromatic.

    What I saw:

    SR5: gray bumpers, cladding and fender flares; black roof rack, door handles, mirrors . . . not sure about grill, "piece" on rear where key inserts, or running boards.

    Sport: gray bumpers, cladding and fender flares; color-keyed mirrors; silver roof rack, door handles, grill, and "piece" on rear where key inserts . . . not sure about running boards.

    Limited: color-keyed bumpers, cladding, fender flares, door handles, "piece" on rear where key inserts, and grill; silver roof rack, running boards, and bumper "stripes."

    What is going on? Just when I was getting optomistic, I get hit with all these silver accents?? The sport is almost too much to take with silver and plastic everywhere. Even if Cliffy is right and this will be a two-tone paint job in the CAT region, there is way too much going on here. And sorry to anyone who wanted a Black Limited . . . along with it, they may get silver roof racks, running boards, and bumper stripes that may be STANDARD. I can't imagine this! [Would love to be wrong here . . .]

    By the way, these photos seem to confirm everything we're reading in the 33-page, 7/17/02 University of Toyota guide to the new 4Runner . . .
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    has a full spread on the new 4Runner. I just got mine in the mail.

    Bob
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    Man, this board is dead - amazing we're still in the Top 10. Not even a Cliffy or two around with all the outstanding issues.

    Will pick up that Autoweek. Anyone read this recent interview on 3rd row seats, etc.: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L53B21CE1
  • airburairbur Member Posts: 31
    There is a post a little ways back that gives links to pictures of the trash tray in the new Runner. If you go to the pictures and then erase part of the url there is a listing of all the extra pics. Many of these are of 03 4Runners on the lot of a dealer in Dearborn, MI. In one of the pics you could see the sign on the door and the name of the dealer. I looked them up online and it was one in Dearborn. I won't say the name but from the pics they had a few.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    You can say the dealer's name in Dearborn (unless you're hording it for yourself), but the trash tray link got pulled for another couple of weeks :-(

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • peter78peter78 Member Posts: 284
    The trash tray link was mine, I thought it was a clever idea. Also I noticed in the last batch of pictures their was a mirror in the back of the inside of the car, I guess to see all of the kids. The inside of the 4Runner is definitely a improvement and will be one of its nicest feature.

    As far as some of the changes, I find it funny people are saying how can that be or maybe Toyota measured wrong. But the facts show the cargo room is down in both with seat up or down. The clearance is down almost 2". The engines now use premium fuel. Towing is still 5,000 pounds except Toyota recommends a engine oil and transmission oil cooler. Standard equipment such as Day Time Running Lights and Power Heated Mirrors are now optional on the SR5. The plastic cladding seems to be in use for the SR5 and Sport.

    Given those facts Toyota will sell a ton of them. OK, the 4Runner now has 2" less clearance. I wonder how many people are going to buy a 35,000 car to go off road. Still what attracted me to the 4Runner, 44.5 cubic feet of cargo space, regular fuel, 11 inches of clearance, has now changed. It is simply going for a different set of buyers. At least towing is still the same and hopefully Toyota reliability.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    I guess you haven't gone back and read all of the posts in the last 2 days, but it's been pointed out that Toyota wasn't using a true running ground clearance number, that the 3rd gen is actually 9.8", not 11". So that's only a difference of 0.7" for the new 'Runner. Now with bigger dimensions, like 5" more in length and wheelbase, that doesn't help the break-over angle any, but it's not as bad as it appears in Toyota's misleading number for the last generation.

    We've also discussed the theory that Toyota was misleading in their cargo figures for the previous generation, and are now complying with standard measurements, so some of us are ready to get out our tape measures and compare in reality. In the pictures, though, it seems to be a bit shorter, but, of course, a bit wider.

    And those mirrors in the back "D" pillar are called "back-up mirrors." They're supposed to help when backing out of a parking place, like at a mall or grocery store, enabling the driver to see vehicles coming toward him from the driver's side in his blind spot. If you were able to download the Powerpoint file, it's in there with a diagram. I didn't notice a picture of them though. Where did you see that?

    As far as the options, I think that's one of the things Toyota is doing to keep the base price down, and offer affordable packages to add.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    out of all that it comes down to slamming my Jimmy? I told you that you have a great truck, and I've already said I'm planning on trading up for a new 4Runner because of the quality and off-road issues with my GMC. I was merely making a point about my reasons for not choosing the 4Runner in '98 having to do with enough power, never saying it was sluggish, just not as fast as my truck. Plus the cabin felt a bit cramped for me.

    And of course personal experience and opinions are subjective, THAT WAS MY POINT. MY OPINION IS that my truck is faster. I'm not saying everyone should adopt MY OPINION. Okay, I'll stop beating a dead horse. I just felt you didn't get what I was saying, that there's a reason a lot of people who have driven the 4Runner, and some who own 'em, feel it could use a bit more power. Also, I was comparing my truck to other trucks with BFGs on them, and they are more grippy than other tires I've tried.

    I've taken my truck on some REALLY rough trails here in Arizona, and I've shocked all the guys with Wranglers and Cherokees at how capable my truck is. The one thing that makes it not as enjoyable as the 4Runner is worrying about gouging my rockers. That wouldn't even be an issue with the 'Runner. I could add rock rails, but they would look stupid without a lift and bigger tires. I could add those things, but why waste the money when I know I'm going to get a 4th gen 4Runner?

    Anyway, I'm sorry if you took offense, or felt you needed to put my Jimmy down. I was just trying to have a conversation about what I thought was a misunderstanding about perception of power. And when I was discussing the discrepancy in 0-60 times between real world and factory/magazines, I didn't go into a lot of detail, but that's not just true of my truck. That kind of difference is common for several reasons: 1) the difference between a new engine and one that's broken in, 2) air temperature, 3) the presence of a K&N filtercharger, like the one in my truck, and 4) the quality of gasoline. There are others too, but I didn't think I would have to explain all of that.

    Can we just agree that different things are more important to each individual than others, and agree that everyone has their own perceptions of various aspects, and leave it at that, without making fun of someone else's truck, that they've already stated is lacking in certain aspects? I have always liked this forum for it's friendliness and respect. :o)
  • airburairbur Member Posts: 31
    On the door in the pic it looks like "LaFontaine". I did a search on this dealer and I believe they are in Dearborn, MI.
  • peter78peter78 Member Posts: 284
    "tbcreative", yes I have read all the posts. I was talking about how people feel the measurement of Toyota is some how wrong, you changing the difference in clearance from 2" to .7" is exactly what I am talking about. The same holds true for cargo space.
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    The difference in ground clearance between 3rd and 4th gen 4Runner is still not clear. Toyota claim a 9.1" ground clearance for the new 4Runner...they also claimed 11" for the 3rd gen.

    As pointed out repeatedly before, the GX470 has a TRUE ground clearance of 8.3". I HIGHLY DOUBT that the 4Runner is any different, especially when they have the same tire size. Unless Toyota decided to totally redesign the suspension on the 4Runner.

    BTW, TB, K&N does not make much difference in power...just more noise and more engine debris that gets through (50% more i think). Quality of gasoline?? Isn't your 4.3L V6 uses regular fuel? Does premium make it go that much faster?? Why did you even mention that your AT tires are grippier?? (i thought you tested a stock 4Runner with stock tires, right? Stock tires are grippier than BFG AT tires on dry land. That was why you were able to make your truck tires "chirp.")
  • glzr2glzr2 Member Posts: 70
    Where's the close up of the window sticker?

    Thanks airbur, you are correct. Per the Toyota web site, they are the only dealer in Dearborn, so that makes it easy.

    I might have to take a long lunch.

    What is the piece on the center console that flips forward?
  • jimxojimxo Member Posts: 423
    That SR5 just doesn't do it do me. The black body panels is so Pontiac.
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    The '03 4Runner has a PEDAL-actuated parking brake (similar to car/MDX/etc.), instead of the handle/lever system. In contrast, the GX470 has the more conventional lever system. Strange....

    Also, the door design (power window buttons, etc.) is much different between the GX and 4Runner.
  • superleggerasuperleggera Member Posts: 74
    yeah, why are we moving back to pedal actuated from lever? toyota claims it's for faster emergency response...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    But aren't they really parking brakes?

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • superleggerasuperleggera Member Posts: 74
    Much of the footage for the new spots was shot at and around a 17,000-foot elevation base camp used by climbers ascending Mt. Everest. With awesome snow-covered peaks as a backdrop, the 4Runner is seen racing around the rugged terrain. And we do mean rugged.
  • pica1pica1 Member Posts: 23
    On the way to work this morning, a stone was kicked up by a semi (He was in the right lane of the Interstate, I was in the left) and flew into my windshield.

    There's a 5/8-inch diameter "star" on the lower passenger-side section of the windshield. My insurance company says I have two choices:

    • Have a glass shop repair the crack (they'll fill it with an epoxy under pressure). Nationwide picks up the bill.

    • Pay a $100 deductible and have the windshield replaced.

    I don't know if the replacement option is only good if the glass shop decides a repair isn't possible.

    For the 4Runner (mine's a '99 SR-5), what's the best choice?
  • stopgostopgo Member Posts: 16
    Read in a post here that the '03 4Runner will REQUIRE premium fuel. Is this true for both the V6 and V8 models? If so, that really stinks.

    Anyone able to tell me why manufactures make engines that have a Premium Fuel requirement. They should be working towards fuel economy in these things.

    Thanks
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    For the record, I am always off on Thursdays. That explains my lack of answers to direct questions since Wednesday night.

    Mrjohnr99, I have bad news. In the past, it has been easy to avoid the roof rack and spoiler because those were added at the port. All you had to do was to work with a dealer to take in inbound unit and not add those items there. Now, those are factory options and to avoid them, you will need a factory order. Most dealerships will not do those on Japanese built vehicles and it takes a LONG time to get them.

    As to the 4WD system, there will be some differences. The V8 will be coming with a torsen center differential. The V6 will still have the same Active-Trac system that we currently have which WILL get power to individual wheels. I believe the torsen center will accomplish this better but I honestly don't have enough information to say how yet.

    There is also a new feature that off-roaders will love. It prevents the truck from rolling backward when starting on a steep hill. It will apply the brakes to prevent this until you can hit the gas.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Fuel requirements are purely speculative right now. I am almost positive the V8 will not require it because the same engine doesn't require it in the Sequoia or Tundra. That engine does need it in the Land Cruiser but the LC is tuned a bit different and hence the different HP ratings.
  • 4runnerpilot4runnerpilot Member Posts: 18
    anybody know what the gas mileage is gonna be for the '03 4runner V8? I read a review somewhere, 17/21 for the V6 with premium octane.
    Also if you haven't downloaded the .pdf product info yet, you need to (and print out). The '03s lookin to be untouchable (among its SUV class rivals, and possibly some above)
  • airburairbur Member Posts: 31
    Here is what Toyota says about it's engines and the recommended fuel...

    ENGINES
    80% of mid-SUV segment buyers want 6-cylinder engines to compete against strong competitors, the new 4L V6 had to succeed in many areas:
    high output
    low-mass
    high durability / low maintenance
    high fuel efficiency / low emissions
    sharing of engineering & tooling costs

    A. 1GR-FE 4.0L 60° V6

    1. available ~90 days after product launch
    2. DOHC 24V
    3. Very long-stroke high-torque design:
    a. bore X stroke = 3. 70" X 3.74" (94 X 95 mm);
    b. prev 3.4L 5VZ-FE V6 = 3.68" X 3.23" (93.5 X 82 mm)
    c. 10:1 compression ratio

    4. 245 Hp @ 5,200 rpm: 283 ft/lbs @ 3,400 rpm
    (on 91 octane Premium fuel)

    5. Toyota’s 1st ever
    a. aluminum truck engine
    b. VVTi truck engine
    c. variable intake (ACIS) truck engine
    d. application of an all-new family of V6 engines
    e. use of 3D modelling in an engine design
    6. low maintenance / low NVH:
    a. chain-driven cams for more accurate cam timing
    b. serpentine accessory drive belt w/ auto tensioner
    c. piston crowns cooled by oil jets in main galley
    d. cross-bolted main caps
    7. High performance with environmental efficiency
    a. LEV certified:
    emissions systems designed for future LEV-II stds
    b. blend of high performance with fuel economy new linkless
    ETCS-i
    c. Class II towing capacity: 5,000 lbs
    d. about 130 lb lighter than the V8 in comparably-equipped
    vehicles
    e. lead-free crank bearings & valve seats

    B. 2UZ-FE 4.7L DOHC V8

    1. 4Runner buyers will enjoy the mid-SUV class’ newest V8 engine
    a. related to the i-Force V8 engine in Sequoia,
    Land Cruiser, Tundra

    2. 235 Hp @ 4,800 rpm; 320 ft/lbs @ 3,400 rpm
    (Premium 91 octane recommended)

    a. DOHC 32V
    b. bore X stroke = 3.70" X 3.31" (94 X 84 mm)
    c. iron block w/ aluminum heads
    d. 9.6:1 compression ratio
    e. superior acceleration & high-torque pulling power
    f. iridium tipped spark plugs for 100,000 mile service interval
    g. all-new A750Ei/Fi 5-spd A/T std
    h. Class II towing capacity: 5,000 lbs
    i. LEV emission certified: emissions systems design to meet future LEV-II stds
  • airburairbur Member Posts: 31
    A. VF4AM (V6) & VF4BM (V8)

    1. Both types are all new designs –
    a. 2-speed planetary w/ 2.566 Low range for off-road use
    b. ~ 2” shorter, 5 lbs lighter than previous transfer case
    c. increased torque capacity over previous models

    2. world’s 1st application of a Torsen limited-slip center differential in a mid-SUV transfer case
    a. center differential lockable by driver selection in H4 or L4
    1) for maximum traction on extremely slippery or uneven surfaces
    b. the Torsen worm gears transfer torque to the carrier during the transition between static, front-bias, and rearbias conditions:
    c. once worm gears develop axial thrust, they apply pressure to 2-disc clutch packs on each end
    1) clutches transmit torque directly through the carrier as long a axial thrust (traction difference) continues
    2) maintain fixed torque-split until drive torque is reduced
    d. static rear-drive bias favors stable tracking on- or offroad, decelerating or accelerating
    1) Static ft:rr torque split of 40:60% is determined by the ratio of the radii of the sun gear (inner that drives the front wheels) and the ring gear (outer gear that send torque to the rear axle)
    2) three dynamic torque split ratios depending on
    available traction:
    a) static torque split favors the rear 40:60% when
    both axles have equal traction;
    b) when front wheels begin to slip, the difference in ft:rr torque causes up to 70% of torque to be sent to the rear wheels;
    3) when rear wheels slip, up to 53% of torque is directed to the front wheels.

    3. V6 VF4AM:
    a. shift-on-the-fly multi-mode
    1) H2, H4, H4L, L4, L4L
    b. double motor-drive actuator
    c. low-range & diff lock (w/ synchro)
    d. Automatic disconnecting front differential (ADD)
    4. V8 VF4BM:
    a. full-time 4WD
    1) H4, H4L, L4, L4L
    b. double electric motors
    c. low-range & diff lock (no synchro)
    5. Ctr Diff lock switch on dash panel
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Our current 3.0 liter V6 in the Avalon, Sienna, Avalon etc. requires 87 octane but recommends 91 for "improved performance." Again, I think waiting until the product hits the ground will answer this one.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    Jeez, you don't give up! Why do I have to break everything down? Can't you just leave it that my personal experience is just that?

    I was able to make my stock tires chirp before I got the BFGs, which weren't as good of a quality as the ones on the 4Runner, but as I stated, I was saying that I wasn't able to get the BFGs to chirp on other SUVs with BFGs. That's all. The comparison with the 4Runner was with stock tires; the comparison with BFGs was with other SUVs.

    Now, I'm honestly not challenging you here, but how is it the BFGs don't grip better on the street than say a Goodyear RT tire? I'm just wondering for my own knowledge, because common sense tells me that a tread pattern and consistency of the BFGs that grips well in rain, on loose dirt and off-road, should be better on dry pavement as well. They feel more confident than my stock tires did, and than the Pathfinder A/Ts I had on, but I'm open to any research or information that would enlighten me.

    As far as the K&N, and again, I don't know why I have to keep justifying myself to you, but I'm friends with a woman at a GMC dealership, who ordered my truck back in '98. She's the perfect salesperson, because not only is she very cool, but also a big gear head, who loves to tinker with trucks, motorcycles, and sports cars. We ran a test on my truck out of poops and giggles to see what the difference was in performance between the stock air filter and the K&N. It wasn't huge, but there was a slight increase in engine efficiency, giving me slightly better 0-60 times. She said that because the Vortec depends heavily on air flow and density, that would explain it. My truck had better numbers than the published ones anyway, so the difference was very slight, but still there.

    My point was not to boast about my truck in the first place, but to point out that each vehicle and their engines are slightly different. I have some friends who have Blazers and Jimmys who have complained that their engines feel a little sluggish when they tromp on the pedal. I've only felt that when it's 117º and my A/C is working overtime with the fan running at high speeds. Hey, it's a GM product; you just never know what you're going to get. That's why I'm switching to Toyota, right? ;o)

    As far as fuel, I was mentioning things that affect performance, like fuel quality and air density. I wasn't saying that THEY WERE THE REASON for my truck's performance, just possible factors in the difference between my numbers and published numbers. Any fool knows that altitude also plays a factor in engine performance, so I thought I was just stating the obvious. I don't know the answers, other than there are never perfectly matched performance numbers from vehicle to vehicle, I was only giving some possible factors and sharing MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    to accuse you of not reading the earlier posts. But, as others have pointed out, there was some dispute amongst manufacturers over the past few years about how each company was coming up with their numbers for things like true ground clearance and cargo space.

    I remember reading an article about Ford and Toyota battling it out about these issues; that Toyota was "fluffing" their numbers. Where GM, Ford and Chrysler (Jeep/Dodge) were getting "minimum" ground clearance by measuring from the lowest point on the truck chassis to the ground, Toyota was measuring from the highest point on the chassis to the ground, which would be "maximum" ground clearance. I also remember reading somewhere about interior volume standards, and how foreign and domestic measurement standards varied at times.

    So the theory is that everyone has been complying with the same standards, except Toyota, until now. Which would explain why the cargo volume and ground clearance are down. Now the question is, how far off were they before in their measurements with the standards. If the cargo space was off quite a bit, then maybe the new 4Runner hasn't shrunk in that department at all. If the actual minimum ground clearance is 9.8", as proven by actual measurements by 3rd gen owners here, then the new 'Runner is only off by 0.7", not 1.9".

    However, as intmed99 points out, we don't know why there is a discrepancy between the GX and the 4Runner in ground clearance yet. Could it be that Toyota actually did something different? Probably not, but they did do a lot of other surprising things to differentiate the two, like the rear door/liftgate, the parking brake lever/pedal, the dash/gauges, interior panels, interior controls, etc., not to mention very different sheet metal. Even the windows are thicker on the GX, according to the Toyota news article.

    I guess we'll find out for sure soon enough. Has Corey or anyone over there that's been to the dealership in Detroit posted anything about ground clearance yet?
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    Peter78, I just saw that mirror pic, and that's the one on the driver's side, which looks like an infant mirror to see a baby's face in a reversed child seat. There's another mirror on the rear passenger side in the "D" pillar, just opposite, that's for the blind spot.

    Thanks for that link Airbur! Just when I thought it couldn't get any better, we've got a whole slew of new pics to gaze at! It sort of takes the fun out of going to the dealership ourselves, and seeing everything for the first time, but it does quench my thirst enough to hold me through the weekend, at least!

    After seeing these pics, now I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with a fully-loaded SR5, with the 5-spoke wheels. The black Sport Edition looks good, but I don't like the silver accents. Give me all black, and some BFGs, and I'm good to go!
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    That's a tray that flips out of the center console. There's also a dual hamburger tray that pops out from under the cup holders in the rear armrest. Pretty cool stuff!
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    TB, you need to finish what you started...don't blame me for dragging this out. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. Objective data rules!

    All-terrain tires, esp. BFG AT KO, are made for all-terrain. The tire compound is usually harder and more resistant to tear. Of course, BFG has a triwall protection. All-season/highway tires have a softer compound, thus allowing it to be all-temperature and better grip. Bad side is that it is not very durable in off-roading.

    Just from pure reasoning, why do all-terrain tires not on sports car or regular cars?? Why does it make more road noise than regular tires??

    As far as the differences between GX and 4Runner, yes, changing sheetmetal is easy, but changing suspension is much more difficult! Example: LX470 and Land Cruiser. LX has 4-wheel height control (not just rear as in GX) and all the high-tech gizmos. YET, ground clearance is IDENTICAL. Why? Suspension and frame cannot change, no matter how different the body is!

    As far as cargo area is concern, i have the "fact sheets" of the 3rd gen...a salesman let me copy it. It clearly states that my 4Runner has "79.8 cu ft WITH rear seats folded." It does NOT say just "79.8 cu ft." and leave it up to the imagination. As pointed out earlier, BOTH measurements (seat up and down) are bigger than the new 4Runner.

    I have a different theory than Cliffy: maybe this is due to Toyota increasing front and rear legroom, thus decreasing total cargo area size in the new 4Runner. This, of course, is good for most people.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    You may be correct. Just by eyeballing it, I can tell that the hood is longer as well. However, even if they increased the rear leg room, that would translate into more cargo room when the seats are folded. Time will tell. I'm taking a tape measurer to one as soon as we get one.
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    As far as I know, the LX470 is (for the most part), a rebadged Land Cruiser. I'm not surprised they have identical ground clearance numbers.

    But the GX470 and the new 4runner have very different bodies as well as target audiences. I would not be surprised, in the least, for them to have different ground clearance numbers.

    Consider the RX300 and the Highlander. They also share essentially the same underpinnings and also ride on identically sized tires (225/70R16). Yet the RX300 is listed at 7.7" clearance while the Highlander is listed at 7.3". Again, different bodies and different target audience.

    Since the GX470 is less likely to be used for serious offroading (compared to the runner) yet will probably get closer scrutiny for things like step-in height, I would not be in the least surprised if the runner ended up with a bit more ground clearance than the GX.
  • peter78peter78 Member Posts: 284
    As pointed out, the actual measurement of a 2002 4Runner clearance may not be 11". Maybe it is when there is 80 pounds of pressure in the oversize tires, but I also doubt the clearance of the 2003 is 9.1". But the "official" numbers are 1.9" off. Also I was amazed that a bigger 4Runner would have less cargo room, especially with the seats down. Heck if there is more passenger room, when the seat is down it should translate into more cargo room. I also wonder if the weight allowed in the 4Runner, which was quite high, is now up or down. Given the current numbers, my guess is down. I bet the ride should be better though.

    Also, I mentioned premium fuel, and yes I was talking about the V6 with its variable timing. From the way the specs read, 245 HP with 91 Octane fuel, I would not be surprised if you could use regular fuel and the computer changes the timing. Although if it recommends premium, like in the Pathfinder, I would probably use it.
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    Correct me if I'm wrong:

    Wheelbase on the new model is up approximately 4.5". Total increased legroom is approximately 3.5" (1.5" front, 2" rear).

    Doesn't it make sense that the increased legroom is due to the increased wheelbase rather than stealing it from the cargo area? Or does it look like the front wheels have been pulled forward to make room for a larger engine bay with the entire passenger area shoved a bit to the rear?
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Which is why I believe the listed numbers can't possibly be correct unless Toyota changed the way it is measuring.
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    I also remember that hip and shoulder room are supposed to be 4-5" wider, front and rear, in the new runner. Shouldn't that also translate into a wider cargo box, and thence MORE cargo room?

    I think Toyota's old numbers for the runner may have been a bit 'optimistic'.....
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    I guess we'll just all have to WAIT until each and every one of us can get a new one side-by-side with an old one and measure them ourselves.

    I hate waiting.....
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    the compound used by BFG (owned by Michelin) is softer than those used by other manufacturers on their A-T tires. That's why they have a softer road feel and are relatively quiet, compared to other all-terrains. It's probably also why the warranty coverage isn't as good as other companies.

    And I agree with what you're saying about cargo volume, I was just remembering an article I had read a few years ago after Cliffy pointed out his theory. If your measurements are right on with the Toyota specs, then it is upsetting that the new 4Runner is lacking in almost 5 cubic feet with the seats either up or down! I agree that with the seats up, the reason is increased 2nd row passenger room, but I'm just as puzzled as Cliffy as to why it's still smaller with the seats folded. Maybe they sit a bit higher for more comfort, and therefor so does the load floor, which would eat up a bit of space. And if you look at the side shots, the roof line looks like it slopes down slightly in the rear, which would also contribute slightly to less volume.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    The only thing that could account for it, other than new measurement style is a MUCH longer hood and engine compartment. That certainly is possible. More likely is that the old one was measured with the rear seat removed. I don't mean folded, I mean unbolted. Don't laugh, that is what they did with the Sequoia.
  • peter78peter78 Member Posts: 284
    Lets give credit where credit is due. The 3rd generation 4Runner had a ton of cargo space for the size.

    Sure the new 4Runner is down, more like the size of other mid size SUV's. The Chevy Trailblazer cargo space is 41 cubic feet, so if you compare the 2003 4Runner to the competition it does well. Just don't compare it the 2002 4Runner.
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    With RX300 and Highlander, the suspension is all-independent. All you have to do is change the spring size (or even shock size), and you can change ground clearance.

    This is NOT so with a solid axle. Spring size/shock size can ONLY change approach/departure angles (as in LX470 vs. Land Cruiser), NOT ground clearance (thus, both are the same). If you say that the 4Runner is more "off-road-oriented", then why does it have a PEDAL parking brake (usually not a good thing for pure off-roaders), while GX470 has a true lever??? In addition, why does the 4Runner have a DIAL for it's 4wd system (which again, is not for pure off-roaders because it is electronic and could fail), while GX470 has a true transfer case lever???

    Ok, i will eat my shoes one day, but i will bet that the 4Runner and GX share the same frame and suspension bits. Why wouldn't they???!!! Why would Toyota spend that much money to create literally TWO platform (change in suspension bits may need a change in frame configuration too)??!!
  • intmed99intmed99 Member Posts: 485
    Check Sequoia's "facts sheets". What does it exactly say in regard to cargo space??? My 4Runner fact sheets states very clearly that 79.8 cu ft is with seats folded (not removed).

    Just a thought.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    True, true. I'm hoping the new cargo space is at least accommodating to certain things like a dog crate.

    Ours fits perfectly into the back of my Jimmy, and even better in the current 4Runner, but when they re-designed my truck into the Envoy the cargo space changed. Even though it has slightly more cargo space, especially with the seats down, the rear area is actually only an inch longer than mine, while being about 4 inches wider. The problem with the space though, is where the angle of the liftgate cuts in at the top when it's closed. I wouldn't be able to get our dog crate in the back because of the dramatic change in that angle.

    I'm hoping the rear space is at least long enough to be practical in that regard, which it looks to be, and the liftgate is more straight than the Envoy/Trailblazer.
  • tbcreativetbcreative Member Posts: 357
    Man, you are right on about the suspension stuff! I am equally puzzled about these discrepancies in ground clearance and the strange choices of elements used in the 4Runner and GX...

    Do you think it has something to do with the GX being more identical to the Prado, and therefore carrying over more of those components for cost saving?
  • mjohnr99mjohnr99 Member Posts: 193
    Figured as much - any Toyota made in Japan is impossible to "custom" out on the racks, spoiler, etc. - darn.

    Well, at least I know of one dealership in Michigan that has a Limited without the spoiler! ;> [By the way, what is up what Toyota and their stupid Build-your-own Vehicle feature . . . what a joke from the marketing department.] Anyway, can't believe the CAT region allotment includes all that silver and spoilers . . . every darn one. Oh well . .

    Criused to Alexandria, VA at lunch today (for those in CAT) and saw plenty of beautiful 2002s for cheap - a black sport was just getting it's plastic overlays peeled off! God, that 3rd gen was perfect . . . keep the height, just a little wider, and a few more HP, that's all we wanted. Anyway, they claim '02s still rolling in for a while longer and that the allotments mentioned on this board were full of doo-doo, When I told them about Corey's pics and University of Toyota materials already being in our hands (actually emailed them the links!) they reacted very negatively to the reliability of the info. on the Net and where it was from. These dealers. God, I am not looking forward to the actual purchase . . . still hate that part of dealing with a negotation where you know more about the product you want then them.

    Hey . . . pact: first to get an '03 in the CAT region out here, tell us where you went, the name of who you dealt with, and the price paid. We can all get fair prices if we share same and agree to stay away from MSRP+ gouging. I know I will if I do, either '02 or '03 . . . or that H2 . . .
  • mhenderson1mhenderson1 Member Posts: 164
    Hey you got my vote. I just saw the Kia Sorento yesterday and the dealer wanted $24K (MSRP) for the vehicle plus another $3K for dealer mark-up. Now that is just ridiculous. I'm sure Toyota dealers can see drool on a potential customer before you set foot in the showroom. How long do you think one has to wait before you can negotiate..what 2005.
  • mackabeemackabee Member Posts: 4,709
    Once the supply catches up, I figure December. There will be discounts on these vehicles. I think the marketing whizzes are missing the boat (again) by flooding the dealers with nothing but v8's for the first two months when everyone knows the v6 will be the big seller. Sometimes I don't know what they're thinking. I wish they would spend a year on the sales floor to actually take the pulse of the buying public.
    : )
    Mackabee
Sign In or Register to comment.