My review: 2010 Toyota 4Runner

[DC Car Examiner]

 

When Toyota last redesigned the 4Runner in 2003, it was the automaker's entry in the heart of the SUV market, a direct competitor to Ford's best-selling midsize truck-based Explorer. Toyota sold over 100,000 4Runners that year and even more in 2004.

 

In 2003, like today, many SUVs were sold as comfortable and luxurious family vehicles. The outgoing 4Runner, therefore, needed to put an emphasis on a smooth, quiet ride and an opulent interior to continue to attract the highly profitable customers who were turning to trucks as more stylish alternatives to station wagons rather than for their heavier-duty utility.

 

But since then, truck-based SUVs have fallen out of the mainstream in favor of car-based crossovers...

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-DC-Car-Exam...ota-4Runner-SR5

[CKNSLS]

 

 

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-DC-Car-Exam...ota-4Runner-SR5

 

As someone who owns an '05 Sport model w/V8 that I tow with, I am really disappointed that Toyota does not offer the V8. The rule of thumb is that to allow for vehicle cargo and occupants (to tow safely) you only want 90% of the vehicles tow capacity behind you. If you figure this in, the V6 will only tow light weight hybrid type travel trailers.

 

I am not going to buy the Lexus vehicle equivalent at 20K more to get the V8. I don't have that kind of money. I am undecided on the Tundra-good power train most certainly, but tailgate, bed bounce, and possible frame issues have me concerned! I will probably end up with an Expedition.

[97svtgoin05gt]

As someone who owns an '05 Sport model w/V8 that I tow with, I am really disappointed that Toyota does not offer the V8. The rule of thumb is that to allow for vehicle cargo and occupants (to tow safely) you only want 90% of the vehicles tow capacity behind you. If you figure this in, the V6 will only tow light weight hybrid type travel trailers.

 

I am not going to buy the Lexus vehicle equivalent at 20K more to get the V8. I don't have that kind of money. I am undecided on the Tundra-good power train most certainly, but tailgate, bed bounce, and possible frame issues have me concerned! I will probably end up with an Expedition.

 

 

Good decision. Wait until next year, I believe the 6.2 will be in the Expy which will address the powertrain issue.

[OHV 16V]

Good decision. Wait until next year, I believe the 6.2 will be in the Expy which will address the powertrain issue.

 

+1

 

I actually won't be surprised if the fuel-economy goes up a little bit after that happens. The 6.2 shouldn't need to work as hard as the 5.4 to lug around the weight. That combined with the 6-speed auto (Expy already has one of those now) should be more than adequate.

Edited December 10, 2009 by OHV 16V

[OHV 16V]

As for the 4Runner, I don't actually mind the styling change really. What bothers me is the engine lineup. Especially considering that this revised one is both a little longer, a little wider, and weighs around 130 lbs. more than the last one. And, to top it off, the V6 only gets a 5-speed auto, while the 4-cylinder, (which you would think for both fuel-economy and acceleration purposes would get a 6-speed auto), only gets a 4-speed unit.(!)

 

Yeah...they shoulda used the new 4.6-liter V8 from the Tundra combined with a 6-speed auto as an option.

Edited December 10, 2009 by OHV 16V

[guesswhoscomingtodinner]

As someone who owns an '05 Sport model w/V8 that I tow with, I am really disappointed that Toyota does not offer the V8. The rule of thumb is that to allow for vehicle cargo and occupants (to tow safely) you only want 90% of the vehicles tow capacity behind you. If you figure this in, the V6 will only tow light weight hybrid type travel trailers.

 

I am not going to buy the Lexus vehicle equivalent at 20K more to get the V8. I don't have that kind of money. I am undecided on the Tundra-good power train most certainly, but tailgate, bed bounce, and possible frame issues have me concerned! I will probably end up with an Expedition.

 

Yeah, don't worry about the Expedition burning your house down in the middle of the night!

[Pioneer]

Yeah, don't worry about the Expedition burning your house down in the middle of the night!

 

 

Or running out of control killing your whole family.

 

Difference? The cruise control switch was discontinued years ago, while Toyota still hasn't figured out what is going on with their electronic throttles.

 

Go away troll.

[Deanh]

Or running out of control killing your whole family.

 

Difference? The cruise control switch was discontinued years ago, while Toyota still hasn't figured out what is going on with their electronic throttles.

 

Go away troll.

he eats alone.................

[DC Car Examiner]

As for the 4Runner, I don't actually mind the styling change really. What bothers me is the engine lineup. Especially considering that this revised one is both a little longer, a little wider, and weighs around 130 lbs. more than the last one. And, to top it off, the V6 only gets a 5-speed auto, while the 4-cylinder, (which you would think for both fuel-economy and acceleration purposes would get a 6-speed auto), only gets a 4-speed unit.(!)

 

Yeah...they shoulda used the new 4.6-liter V8 from the Tundra combined with a 6-speed auto as an option.

 

Actually, the old one is slightly longer and I think the weight difference is closer to 300 pounds.

 

I'm sure they didn't bother doing too much with the 4-cylinder because they don't expect to actually move that version in any significant volume. It's just there to advertise a lower base price. You can't get most features with it and it will be slow with any transmission.

[Deanh]

Actually, the old one is slightly longer and I think the weight difference is closer to 300 pounds.

 

I'm sure they didn't bother doing too much with the 4-cylinder because they don't expect to actually move that version in any significant volume. It's just there to advertise a lower base price. You can't get most features with it and it will be slow with any transmission.

yeah, but it will still get 80 miles per Gallon knowing toyota....ahem!

Edited December 10, 2009 by Deanh

[OHV 16V]

Actually, the old one is slightly longer...

 

Everything I read says the old one was 189.2 inches vs. 189.9 on the new one. :shrug:

[OHV 16V]

yeah, but irt will still get 80 miles per Gallon knowing toyota....ahem!

 

LMAO!

[DC Car Examiner]

Everything I read says the old one was 189.2 inches vs. 189.9 on the new one. :shrug:

 

I thought I'd seen those figures reversed somewhere, but I guess not. Oops.

[V8-X]

Yeah, don't worry about the Expedition burning your house down in the middle of the night!

And the recall on this has been out for how long? Been wide spread by the media in practically every outlet. So sure Fords fault for using this bad switch. But if owners haven't taken care of this free service yet, then they are partly to blame. Had my CC switch on my '02 F150 taken care of as soon as parts were available.

 

Yota owners can't say the same, since the recall was just announced (happening since 2002), and no one is sure the floormats and pedal are truly the issue. Mostly speculation from what I've seen.

Edited December 11, 2009 by V8-X

[PolarBear]

Good review!

 

Where I see Toyota's major challenges is in the SUV segments. They're offering... what... 8 different SUV models? Hell, they're filling niches that don't even exist. If you look at the sales numbers, only two of them actually are working on the showrooms (Rav4 and Highlander). The 4Runner slots between the (slightly) larger and more expensive Sequoia and the (slightly) smaller Highlander crossover. It's a truck- true- but based on Tacoma sales numbers, it appears that Toyota customers that want a truck actually buy one. Also of interest is the Taco sales numbers vs. the Tundra. It's pretty clear full-size truck buyers aren't shopping at the local Toyota store.

Edited December 11, 2009 by PolarBear

[aneekr]

Nice quip in your review re: "Alas, Darcars Toyota didn't invite this reviewer to test the off-road ability of the new 4Runner – its only 2010 model in stock at the time – by exploring the nearby rugged terrain of the Intercounty Connector construction sites."

 

It certainly would have been something if Darcars Toyota did allow that!

[CKNSLS]

Good review!

 

Where I see Toyota's major challenges is in the SUV segments. They're offering... what... 8 different SUV models? Hell, they're filling niches that don't even exist. If you look at the sales numbers, only two of them actually are working on the showrooms (Rav4 and Highlander). The 4Runner slots between the (slightly) larger and more expensive Sequoia and the (slightly) smaller Highlander crossover. It's a truck- true- but based on Tacoma sales numbers, it appears that Toyota customers that want a truck actually buy one. Also of interest is the Taco sales numbers vs. the Tundra. It's pretty clear full-size truck buyers aren't shopping at the local Toyota store.

 

I wouldn't consider the RAV and Highlander SUVs. Crossovers maybe. Since when is an SUV unibody and front wheel drive? I know there have been some people I know that have made the mistake of purchasing an "SUV" like the Honda Pilot. Only to learn it can't tow any substantial weight, and is really a min-van in disguise.

[J-150]

I wouldn't consider the RAV and Highlander SUVs. Crossovers maybe. Since when is an SUV unibody and front wheel drive? I know there have been some people I know that have made the mistake of purchasing an "SUV" like the Honda Pilot. Only to learn it can't tow any substantial weight, and is really a min-van in disguise.

 

 

since when was the definition of an SUV BOF and RWD?

 

Sport Utility Vehicle.

 

Well, the pilot, Escape, Equinox, RAV4 etc are all sporty and all have utility.

 

 

Or are you one of those redneck chest thumpers that likes to talk shit about "real men" and "real trucks" and other horseshit to leads to auto companies going bankrupt?

Edited December 12, 2009 by J-150

[CKNSLS]

since when was the definition of an SUV BOF and RWD?

 

Sport Utility Vehicle.

 

Well, the pilot, Escape, Equinox, RAV4 etc are all sporty and all have utility.

 

 

Or are you one of those redneck chest thumpers that likes to talk shit about "real men" and "real trucks" and other horseshit to leads to auto companies going bankrupt?

 

Again, I will grant you that the front wheel drive "SUVs" (to use your term) that the Japanese companies make have some utility. But front will drive is not practical once you fill up the rear hatch and need to tow something behind. Body on frame is were it is at for any medium to heavy duty hauling. Hey, I tow a 5,000 pound travel trailer with a 4Runner.

 

Chevrolet and Chrysler are in bad shape because IT'S THEIR FAULT. Years of mismanagement finally came home and bit them in the a**.

 

At least the Ford family had some common sense to do what it takes to stay in business, from getting someone to run the company, to putting their finances in place.

[jpd80]

Sigh,

Again with the same arguments as on the 2011 Explorer thread, SUV does not equal 4WD

It's the body shape that determines whether it is CUV or SUV, not the construction.

SUV has the distinctive body shape of a conventional 4WD but less rugged for off road use.

A CUV is car based and has a distinctive swept back crossover body shape.

Edited December 13, 2009 by jpd80

[F250]

Sigh,

Again with the same arguments as on the 2011 Explorer thread, SUV does not equal 4WD

It's the body shape that determines whether it is CUV or SUV, not the construction.

SUV has the distinctive body shape of a conventional 4WD but less rugged for off road use.

A CUV is car based and has a distinctive swept back crossover body shape.

 

Wiki has a pretty good definaion:

A crossover is a vehicle built on a car platform but borrowing features from a traditional Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).

 

While body on frame construction and light truck platforms are used to build traditional SUVs, crossovers use a car's monocoque/unibody platform construction. The crossover combines, in highly variable degrees, the design features such as tall interior packaging, high H-point seating, high ground-clearance, or all-wheel-drive capability of the SUV—with design features from an automobile such as independent rear suspension, car-like handling, interior roominess and fuel economy. Crossovers are typically designed for only light off-road capability, if any at all.[1]

[J-150]

Again, I will grant you that the front wheel drive "SUVs" (to use your term) that the Japanese companies make have some utility. But front will drive is not practical once you fill up the rear hatch and need to tow something behind. Body on frame is were it is at for any medium to heavy duty hauling. Hey, I tow a 5,000 pound travel trailer with a 4Runner.

 

Chevrolet and Chrysler are in bad shape because IT'S THEIR FAULT. Years of mismanagement finally came home and bit them in the a**.

 

At least the Ford family had some common sense to do what it takes to stay in business, from getting someone to run the company, to putting their finances in place.

 

 

and guess what? part of Ford's success is to do the exact opposite of what you are proposing. They have done a fine job ditching "real man SUVs" in favor of FWD unibodies.

 

 

Let's call Alan and tell him a redneck armchair CEO knows more than he does.

[J-150]

Wiki has a pretty good definaion:

A crossover is a vehicle built on a car platform but borrowing features from a traditional Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).

 

While body on frame construction and light truck platforms are used to build traditional SUVs, crossovers use a car's monocoque/unibody platform construction. The crossover combines, in highly variable degrees, the design features such as tall interior packaging, high H-point seating, high ground-clearance, or all-wheel-drive capability of the SUV—with design features from an automobile such as independent rear suspension, car-like handling, interior roominess and fuel economy. Crossovers are typically designed for only light off-road capability, if any at all.[1]

 

 

and since when does Wiki make these decisions?

 

 

SUV and CUV are nothing more than marketing terms. That's all they are. Any automaker can call any vehicle anything they want. Doesnt make it true.

 

Government classifies everything into 2 categories. Truck and Car. The rest is fluff marketing.

[CKNSLS]

and guess what? part of Ford's success is to do the exact opposite of what you are proposing. They have done a fine job ditching "real man SUVs" in favor of FWD unibodies.

 

 

Let's call Alan and tell him a redneck armchair CEO knows more than he does.

 

Yep, and have made a ton of money selling trucks to "real men".

[F250]

and since when does Wiki make these decisions?

 

 

SUV and CUV are nothing more than marketing terms. That's all they are. Any automaker can call any vehicle anything they want. Doesnt make it true.

 

Government classifies everything into 2 categories. Truck and Car. The rest is fluff marketing.

 

I just quoted an outside source. You didn't. Give us a link to a better defination.