Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
My 2003 4runner has about 2000 miles on it and I have been tracking mpg for the last 1100 or so using the recommended method.
For the last 1087 miles I have averaged 13.77 miles per gallon. I am not very happy with this figure especially compared to the other information I am seeing on this site. My computer shows an average of between 15.1 and 15.4 in contrast to the real numbers.
The most amazing thing is that a Fleet Manager here in So. Cal found exactly the truck I want. It will be here tomorrow. Galactic Gray Sport Edition 4WD V6! Simply finding a 4WD in So Cal is tough, but a V6 4WD is like a needle in a haystack. I'll be picking it up on Saturday...
Thanks again!
Let us know how you like the V6. I think you may be the first V6 owner (well, potential owner, anyway)on this forum.
-Karl
I rented a 2003 Sport Edition 4Runner for the past two days and did a test drive from Boulder (5000ft +) up to Loveland via I-25, then to Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes Park (7000ft +, winding road), back south via Peak to Peak Hwy (ranges from 7500ft to 9500ft, winding road) to Nederland (8000ft+), then back east to Boulder (downhill winding road). I then drove my 2000 4Runner via the same route and repeated the route with the 2003 Sport Edition.
My evaluation...
Negatives in no specific order --->
1) Wind Noise - I was quite shocked how much wind noise is produced by the new 2003 model. It was significantly more than my 2000 model. Might have been partially caused by the hood scoop.
2) Road noise - The 2003 Sport edition I rented has fulltime 4WD. Maybe this is the reason that it was noiser on any road surface that I drove upon.
3) Location and orientation of the driver side power window and lock controls - They are not ergonomic at all. In the 2000 my arm can remain on the arm rest to adjust the controls. In the 2003 you have to remove your arm reach down to
make any adjustments on a "control Panel" that is tilted inward. You have to slightly twist your hand inward, much like throwing a screwball in baseball.
4) The circular design of the Tac, speedometer, fuel gauge console - When driving in sunlight the center "circle" casts shadows on all three. In a
number of situations I could see the bright orange "pointer", but could not see the numbers on the gauge. I found myself doing a double take
trying to quickly determine what my speed was exactly. The odometer and Tac are also about 20% smaller than those of the 2000. The height of the
center "circle" also slightly obscures the gauges to the left and right. The silver painted design is a distraction.
5) Orange backlit gauges at night - Very irritating to me. I flat out hate orange.
6) Cladding - The model I drove was black with the ugly grey cladding. As I was driving along you start hoping that no one around you is going to notice how pathetic looking it is.
7) Ride quality - My 2000 model is equal to or better. I wasn't impressed by the 2003 on the highway at all, but I did have very high expectations.
8) Silver roof rack / door handles - one word... ugly! on black with the crappy cladding.
9) Center speaker on the dash - It seems to overwhelm the sound from the other speakers. The sound of my 6 speaker system of my 2000 is much better.
10) Flat surface of the fender flares - Jeep Cherokee / Chevy Avalanche ugly!
11) "White" Plastic strip on the door interior - ugly, cheap looking...
Positives in no specific order --->
1) Horse power - The V-8 is outstanding and the transmission is amazing. More times that I can count I was doing 20mph faster than I thought.
2) Handling - Another outstanding quality... As I was driving back to Boulder from the dealership where I rented this 2003 model I went from
I-25 northbound to Hwy 36 westbound (to Boulder). I didn't realize it going through this high speed exit ramp/turn, but I was doing 75 mph in a 55 mph zone and it felt like I was driving a sportscar. Same experience on the winding mountain roads during my test drives.
In Summary, as a long time Toyota 4Runner owner I am extremely disappointed in this new generation of 4Runner. While it has many new technical advances and a powerful V-8, the stlying changes are a major step backward. As far as styling goes the 4Runner design team thought of the Jeep Cherokee, Nissan X-Terra, etc. owners... only problem... they forgot about their most loyal
following... actual 4Runner owners. I could never imagine that I would use the words like hate, pathetic and ugly, etc. when speaking about a Toyota 4Runner... I will never buy this design for reasons 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 from above.
I am more motivated than ever to take care of my 2000 4Runner...
When i test drove the '03 4Runner i noticed the same thing. The noise is, at best, a bit better. If you don't believe, wait for a windy day and take the '03 for a testdrive...it will surprise you...as it did me with my '02 4Runner.
Also, I did see that combination of tan leather interior on a Silver Ltd V8 4X4. Very classy looking.
: )
Mackabee
The subjective looks I won't touch, I'm talking function here (but IMO the color matched 2003 looks great).
As far as the interior, yes, it is different. But if you look at the new one and old one side by side, you will see that the materials are about the same - the 2003 quality is just as good as the 2002.
The new engine and tranny is incredible - no one can argue with that.
The ONLY functional problem I find with the 2003 compared with the older model is the lower ground clearance. Other than that I challenge anyone to show me any significant area, NON-SUBJECTIVE, where the 3rd gen is better than the 2003.
I'll be compiling the list of 2003 advantages while I wait (and BTW, I don't own a 4Runner - yet).
1.) Payload, 3rd generation holds about 40% more. This is a huge difference for me.
2.) Cargo Capacity, 3rd generation holds 6% more.
3.) Ground clearance, 3rd generation holds the edge.
4.) Towing, 3rd generation tows 5,000 pounds, which is tied to the V8 4th generation.
Three wins and one tie. Back in 2001, if I wanted 4th generation specs and looks I would of bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Newer does not always mean better. I am surprised of the review of the wind and road noise of the 4th generation. But if you go strictly by numbers, 3rd generation wins.
I noticed Carson Toyota had a couple of V6 4WD's.
It is disappointing to hear of others noticing the same. This is definitely out of character with the general quietness of the vehicle. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Also tire noise was greater than I expected. I have found that tire noise varies noticeably depending on which brand or brand model is on a specific vehicle.(Michelins tend to hum or whine more than a Goodyear Wrangler for instance).
The corssbars should sit centered over the notches on each side.
It makes a big difference.
Hope this helps.
I always liked the 3rd Gen's and have driven a friends quite a bit. When I drove the '03 I was blown away, I thought it was a much better truck.
I will admit, I did not like the new model when I first saw it. But, every time I went back a test drove or looked at it, I liked it more and more.
I think some people who own 3rd gen's are upset because their 4 Runners have been made basically "outdated" as far as the market goes.
I do agree that the body cladding is ugly...
There are some things I'm not real keen on... But, no auto exsists that fit's the bill 100%.
- I'll give you the payload issue as well, I hadn't thought of that. But if you really need payload, you shouldn't be looking at a midsized SUV IMO. Can you honestly say you would go over the limit more than once or twice?
- As for cargo capacity, I read that Toyota changed the way they calculate that number for 2003, and it would have been more if they used the old way. Think about it: it's 4 inches wider and 4.5 inches longer. It will have at least as much cargo capacity.
- Trailer capacity: obviously the problem is with the hitch, not the engine (on the 2003). Maybe the capacity is technically the same, but I would WAY rather be pulling a trailer through the mountains with that V8 purring and not the old 3.4 liter...
Just my $.02
Your response to me was, payload is not a big deal, well with only 1100 pounds you can now carry 5 big guys and maybe a toothbrush. I carry camping equipment and a canoe all the time, along with 3 people, I need the 1,650 pound payload.
To my knowledge, Toyota hasn't announced they have measured the cargo space differently. I know Cliffy has a post saying Toyota has measured differently and I immediately challenged him on that. I know this board also had posts on maybe ground clearance is now measured differently. It seems funny to me that people come up with explanations over the differences, other than it really is less.
Towing is the same. Why would towing be the same with a V8 and the old 3.4 V6, don't you think they could of improved the numbers. Maybe Toyota is measuring that different too.
Now as far as slamming the new 4Runner. I am sure it is just wonderful, with the more interior space and extra power. I am sure it will do well. It just now has a slightly different mission.
The only thing we could come up with is that while the v8 most likely can tow more weight, Toyota either doesn't want or doesn't think people who buy 4Runners need to be pulling more than 5k.
That was our solution and seemed reasonable.
At the time of the information that I was given, I was told that the drivetrain was actually tested towing 13,000 lbs, but the chassis and suspension are obviously not designed for those tolerences.
So, at some time in the near future, there should be an upgrade to the towing ability of the 4Runner up to 6,500lbs. I do not know if it will be something that is only available for factory built units or if it will be a "bolt-on" option that you can have done at the dealer. As I get updates, I'll post them here.
Steve, Host
We spent the past 5 years and 75K miles in a '98 Limited. It was a well-assembled and finished, robust, extremely reliable vehicle. As the miles rolled up, though, I came to realize that it had a cramped passenger compartment, was moderately noisy, was seriously short of torque for towing my 4,000# trailer, had marginal braking capacity, had a primitive 4WD system and a harsh ride. It was also woefully short of the amenities that were offered by its competition. I would not have bought another 3rd gen 4Runner, and I suspect that many share that opinion, as sales had fallen to less than 1/3 the level they reached at the peak of the model run.
The 4th gen has addressed all of these shortcomings while preserving traditional Toyota and 4Runner virtues. The '03 is clearly superior in comfort, noise level, power, handling (at least with X-REAS) and "content". I agree with some of the aesthetic criticisms that have been posted, but to me, pretty is as pretty does, and the 4th gen 'Runners are pretty indeed in that context.
It was icing on the cake for me to discover that if you adjust the price we paid in '98 for inflation, you end up almost to the dollar with what we paid for our '03. Which means that thirty-some improvements such as the V8 engine, 5 speed tranny, 4 wheel disc brakes, 17" wheels, auto climate control, etc., etc., all came free!
You could not pay me enough to go back to the 3rd gen at this point. The '03's level of refinement is simply in a different league than the '98. If you disagree with this assessment, fine: Go buy a J**p GC or something. Me, I'm looking forward to the next 5 years.
BTW, I, too, was told the towing capacity is strictly a hitch issue. The standard equipment hitch is a Class III, which limits capacity to 5K #. Interestingly, though, the factory-supplied drawbar is rated for Class IV loads, and is bored to accept a 1-1/8" ball shank. Toyota finally found me one that fits the receiver!
Peace!
-Karl
The cargo capacity is increased in the 03 Runner, and on page 11 of the Toyota product source book there's a footnote that reads:
"Cargo volume is based on new SAE measurements, while the 2002 and previous 4runner cargo volumes were measured using the old SAE standard. As a result, the new 4runner cargo and interior volume numbers are smaller, but if measured against the previous generation 4runner using the same standard, the 2003 4runner's actual volumes are greater." Go to any Toyota dealer and ask them to see the product source book, not the brochure.
: )
Mackabee
You know sometimes less really is less. That includes cargo space, payload and ground clearance.
http://pics.montypics.com/peter78/2002-12-14/16-095417.jpg
The campground I stayed at was Shallow Bay. Here is a picture of the crowded beach.
http://pics.montypics.com/peter78/2002-12-14/22.jpg
The picture of my 4Runner was not at a campground but at a rest stop. There are mountains on one side of the road, then plains where the road is, then the ocean. Here is a picture of the rest stop, I turned the camera slightly to the right to show the crowded rest stop by the ocean.
http://pics.montypics.com/peter78/2002-12-14/09.jpg
I showed the first picture of my loaded car, to show some people still can use the extra cargo space and payload offered in the 3rd Generation. Since the new 4Runner is considerably larger, I was hoping for a bigger payload and cargo area, not less.
Steve, Host
Your experience regarding mpg and hwy wind noise would be much appreciated by me. Also your(or anyone elses) comments regarding x-reas vs. std. suspension would be great(I know you have air at the rear, but maybe your test drives revealed something).
Enjoy!
Regards, Neil
Noise: I own an inexpensive SPL meter. Our '98 'Runner measured 70.5 dBA @ 70 mph, and our '03 measures 68 dBA. To put these numbers in perspective, Road & Track magazine just tested a new Mercedes E500 sedan, measured an interior noise level of 68 dBA, and dubbed the car, ".. VERY quiet..". Our '03's level of power train and road noise at low speeds is breathtakingly low, better than our 2000 BMW 528i, and I can't hear any wind noise until 60 mph. As speeds rise above that, wind noise increases, but stays unobtrusive to me up to our 75 mph interstate cruising speed. I don't find myself needing to turn up the radio to overcome interior noise at 75.
Mileage: We now have about 1400 miles on the 'Runner, and have averaged a calculated 16.7 mpg. This has mostly been very gentle out-in-the-country driving to break it in. The one Interstate trip I've done involved c. 160 miles of cruise at 75 mph plus 8-10 miles of surface streets and yielded 17.4 mpg (premium fuel). Weather for the highway trip was cold & windy.
Suspension: Our '03 has X-REAS and air suspension, and seems to ride a good bit firmer than the demo I drove which had only the X-REAS package. I haven't driven an '03 with the base suspension package, so can't comment. Our 'Runner has lots less body roll and braking dive than our '98 and is much more pleasant to drive on winding roads, but the really dramatic improvement is the almost total elimination of the severe "head toss" (abrupt snappy rolling motions) that was such a pain in the neck in the '98 on an undulating road.
While I'm at it, there are some things I don't like: The instrument illumination during the day is really awful, and there are times when you just can't read the speedo or tach. The foot-operated parking brake sucks, IMHO, and the double-decker cargo shelf is plain silly and useless, far as I can see. I agree that the placement of the window/doorlock/mirror switches is less desirable than the '98's, but I'm getting used to that. And the Homelink buttons on the overhead console need to be illuminated. Otherwise, it's all good stuff, far as I'm concerned.
Best.
-Karl
I've got in-channel deflectors on all four windows on my '95. Though not a common occurence, I have seen a couple of other rigs on the highway with one of their 3M tape-adhesive wind deflectors flapping in the breeze. I wanted to avoid that and so opted for the in-channel version. They were between $60 and $70 for the set.
Roll the window down up to 4-6 inches or so and the wind noise is noticably less than without the deflectors. However, with the windows all the way down, I don't think you'd notice any benefit in noise or wind pressure.
On the minus side, it's a little tougher to clean under the deflectors, and this can lead to some scratches on the upper 1/4 - 1/2 inch of your window as dirt accumulates there and gets rubbed between the plastic and the glass. Also, the underside edges of the ones I got aren't smooth. That may or may not be an issue for your canines' noses.
Remember that you canNOT compare directly with those noise levels. Testing conditions can be much different. Testing instruments are different. At best, these magazines values give you a "ballpark" value.
Any idea on timing of the option?
If anything, have your mechanic check it out. Hopefully, your '02 is normal.
Yes, my transmission downshifts, sometimes into second. So if I am on steep hills or if I am carrying a lot, I simply turn off the cruise control.
I guess the bottom line is that it just doesn't even feel like the same power as my 99 had?