4 cylinder 4Runner . . . Catchy!

[Mermaidman]

So here's another vehicle, previously available with a 6- or 8-cylinder motor, that's going to have a 4 banger. 3 rows of seating too!
2010 Toyota 4Runner

Exterior looks nice and rugged, interior is . . . um . . . not to my liking. If the performance with the 4-cyl is good, I'd be wondering why carmakers did not offer such fuel-efficient models in the past?

Update:
Good official debut photos here: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...der-trail-grade-model/

 

[StageLeft]

Finally lives up to its 4runner namesake. How sluggish would this be, though?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

They did offer such models in the past. Just go back to the 80s.

 

[evident]

most suv drivers can get away with driving 4 bangers as they never tow anything and usually only have one person in the car. they should keep the V8 as an option for people who really do need the power though.

 

[ElFenix]

that's almost as bad as the honda fit inside

 

[Dr. Detroit]

4500+lbs of weight under the stress of a 2.7L 4cyl engine.

Ugh - this thing will be slow!

 

[alpineranger]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
They did offer such models in the past. Just go back to the early 2000ss.

fixed for you
3rd gen 4runner was available with a 2.7L I4. It was miserably slow, even in the lower trim levels without 4wd and a lot of the extra weight.

 

[thescreensavers]

I dont think the MPG on a 4cyl in that car will be any good, it will be constantly at highrevs lol

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: alpineranger

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
They did offer such models in the past. Just go back to the early 2000ss.

fixed for you
3rd gen 4runner was available with a 2.7L I4. It was miserably slow, even in the lower trim levels without 4wd and a lot of the extra weight.

But in the 80s, it was the norm. 1.6-2.5L I-4s and 2.5-3.1V6s were the main stream engines for small and midsized SUVs. You had to go up to the full size to get the V8s.

 

[ElFenix]

fueleconomy.gov is reporting 18/22 for a 4 banger 1999 4runner, and 16/19 for a 6 pot. both with 4 speed autos. wonder how slow the 4 banger was?

 

[ja1484]

Not worth it.

The 4cyl isn't enough power for the Tacoma, and it's about 500lbs lighter. The 6 cylinder is good and responsive, but it should be the base model. The optional trim should be Toyota's 4.6L V8.


SUV are pointless pig-cars to my mind anyway. Either get a sedan or get a double cab truck. Don't half-ass in the middle.

 

[StageLeft]

SUV are pointless pig-cars to my mind anyway. Either get a sedan or get a double cab truck. Don't half-ass in the middle.

Me, too they are basically bullsh*t. You forgot, though, to add in minivan as a third option.

 

[zoiks]

Pretty generic and unexciting. Meh.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

SUV are pointless pig-cars to my mind anyway. Either get a sedan or get a double cab truck. Don't half-ass in the middle.

Me, too they are basically bullsh*t. You forgot, though, to add in minivan as a third option.

Fair enough...that's all modern SUVs really are anyway...Minivans that have been masculinized.

 

[geokilla]

Just for the CAFE thing.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Skoorb

SUV are pointless pig-cars to my mind anyway. Either get a sedan or get a double cab truck. Don't half-ass in the middle.

Me, too they are basically bullsh*t. You forgot, though, to add in minivan as a third option.

Fair enough...that's all modern SUVs really are anyway...Minivans that have been masculinized.

It's funny, though. Most of the guys I know still prefer a car or truck. Most of the females I know prefer SUVs over anything else.

I still don't see it. I drive a car for every day use, and I drive a truck when I have something that won't fit in the trunk.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
It's funny, though. Most of the guys I know still prefer a car or truck. Most of the females I know prefer SUVs over anything else.

I still don't see it. I drive a car for every day use, and I drive a truck when I have something that won't fit in the trunk.

Way I see it transporting people = car, transporting people and stuff = truck, transporting a fuck-ton of people = van.

SUVs really serve no purpose beyond aesthetics and oil company profits in my mind...and most of them are ugly and ponderous as hell. No wonder they've sold so well.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
It's funny, though. Most of the guys I know still prefer a car or truck. Most of the females I know prefer SUVs over anything else.

I still don't see it. I drive a car for every day use, and I drive a truck when I have something that won't fit in the trunk.

Way I see it transporting people = car, transporting people and stuff = truck, transporting a fuck-ton of people = van.

SUVs really serve no purpose beyond aesthetics and oil company profits in my mind...and most of them are ugly and ponderous as hell. No wonder they've sold so well.

A SUV is going to offer you more comfort and passenger room than a truck, better driving ability in winter than a car and how many people without kids want to drive a van? And if I get into an accident, I'd rather be in a SUV than some small compact plus the additional visibility from being up higher.

When I drive four people, several dogs and mountain bikes or hiking equipment. SUV for me.

In regards to the 4-cyl on the 4 Runner, in the 90s and even early 2000s, the 4-Runner, Explorer, Pathfinder, etc... had standard hp in the 165-180 range.

The 4-cyl will be in the base model which will more than likely the least popular model that Toyota sells.

 

[yh125d]

I'm glad my g-parents got in on their 08 with a V8

It would be hugely sluggish with a 161hp four. It begs a question though. How the hell does toyota only manage 161hp out of a 2.7l? I mean the 2.3 in my fusion even gets 160. I hope its torquey though, it'll need it



They should have put their diesel 4 instead. 150hp, 250 lb/ft!

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: yh125d
I'm glad my g-parents got in on their 08 with a V8

It would be hugely sluggish with a 161hp four. It begs a question though. How the hell does toyota only manage 161hp out of a 2.7l? I mean the 2.3 in my fusion even gets 160. I hope its torquey though, it'll need it



They should have put their diesel 4 instead. 150hp, 250 lb/ft!

Because then it'd be like the equinox, where the power band is too high up in the RPM range. Even with Variable valve timing, the valve timing is designed with a certain power band in mind and because it's a truck, they've probably lowered it in a more appropriate range which in turn sacrifices HP.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
A SUV is going to offer you more comfort and passenger room than a truck, better driving ability in winter than a car and how many people without kids want to drive a van?

Haven't been in a d-cab truck lately huh?

I'll also take the truck in an accident any day.

As for the van thing - exactly.

 

[Draftee]

The Europeans make 1.4 litre engines with 160 hp and 178 lb. ft. torque at 1750-4500rpm. What are Toyota wasting their time with?

 

[LTC8K6]

In the Highlander the 2.7L 4 banger has 187Hp and 180lbft, both at rather high revs, and a 6 speed auto.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/0...linder-for-highlander/

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Draftee
The Europeans make 1.4 litre engines with 160 hp and 178 lb. ft. torque at 1750-4500rpm. What are Toyota wasting their time with?

Without a turbo?

 

[MyThirdEye]

I have a 2008 4Runner with the v6. Wishing I would have found a v8, but my gas mileage is really good for an SUV. 24 on the highway, 20 in town.