What is next for the Toyota 4runner?

I think the truth may be somewhere in the middle. Turbos aren't that relevant to the start up and shut down procedure of the motor itself, due to modern engine tech and synthetic oil. But the issue is less that the turbo is heating the crap out of your engine (though neither is that a complete non issue) and more that the turbo itself is hot as f and shutting down can impede its own cooling. After all, they're typically cooled with an intercooler that relies on air. Thus hood scoops (you know, real ones, not like on the 4Runner lol) or placing the intercooler just behind the front grill, near the radiator.

All that said, it hardly seems to be the case that modern turbo engines are a big problem in the real world. Yes, all else being equal, it's an added component with moving parts etc., so it certainly ain't contributing to mechanical simplicity and reliability. But fear of turbo failure is probably overblown most of the time.

I don't like em myself, especially in a sports car, and they seem to exist in part to inflate EPA MPG numbers without real world MPG improvements. But they're a pretty cheap way of getting some good grunt out of a small motor, especially down low in the rev range.

 

Right. I think we're on the same page.

I have no concerns about reliability and turbos. I hope the next 4runner has the turbo 3.5, but I'm not counting on it.

They can improve power and fuel economy. It depends on how you drive, though. People probably beat the piss out of the EB F150's and then bitch about not getting the estimated fuel economy.

I can't think of a motor I'd rather have in a sports car than a 1jz or 2jz, personally. What's not to like about a small straight 6 making 700 (or more) reliable horsepower?

 

Lol, I’d never criticize anyone for liking turbos. The most impressive engine I’ve owned was a BMW turbo 3.0. Lots of HP and torque, incredibly linear power delivery with virtually zero sense of lag, tons of umph low in the rev range, and decent MPG given all that performance.

The turbo 2.0 in my GTI was pretty impressive too.

I just prefer the character of a good NA. No engine ever made me smile as much as the classic BMW in line six of the pre-turbo 3 Series. That sound! The silky zing to redline! That was truly a mechanical thing of beauty.

 

Oh, yeah! I think we had this conversation before!

And, there's definitely something cool about a good NA motor. I really did enjoy my slow-ass '85 Supra! It sounded beautiful!

 

Ah yes, it did seem familiar

I think we also talked about my dad's 85 Supra. It was slow by today's standards but back then I thought it was a freakin Porsche!* Damn did I love that car.


*In fact, it was about as fast as the 944 of the day. Not that I wouldn't have preferred the 944 all in all, but the Sup was a heck of a thing for the price.

 

I still miss mine! Boy, did I get the tickets in that thing!

 

A ticket in my dad's is what pushed me over the points limit and into a suspended license (and fines and mandatory driver training and ultimately court and...) Ah, those were the days....

 

Haha! If I could get back the money from all of the tickets, and reinstating my license, I could buy another Supra!

 

Don't want to throw this thread even farther off course, but can't resist mentioning that one day in '86 I took that Supra on a run of over 200 miles -- all on roads with 50 or 55 mph limits or less, including through the congested Washington DC Beltway -- and averaged 80.5 mph. That was very naughty of me.

 

Ahh, the best threads always stray off topic!

That took some courage to maintain that speed! My dumbest moment, aside from doing a burnout in front if a cop, was burying the speedometer (135 MPH) in a 55, at night. It actually felt very comfortable at that speed.

 

Whoa! Seems we can both be grateful that we -- and those around us -- survived our youths!

 

True! Sometimes I'm grateful that I was always broke and couldn't afford a fast car!

 

This is going to sound terribly elitist of me (I confess!) but I've alway felt that, as a moral matter if not a legal one (or as a matter of law enforcement discretion), high performance cars should allow for higher speeds. The braking, cornering and overall handling ability of my BMW M235 was sooooo far ahead of the average car that triple digit speeds were often entirely reasonable. That car was more stable, more maneuverable and more stoppable at those speeds than a lot of cars at 60. Awhile back a bunch of us piled on a forum member who talked about doing 105 in his 4Runner, and I was one of them. I feel bad about having been a scold then. But really, 105 in a 4Runner is like 160 in some other cars.

 

I definitely agree that some cars are safer at high speed than others. That said, I was the guy who got clocked at 98 in my 4runner. I don't believe the 4runner is designed to go that fast, especially for a long period of time. However, it feels surprisingly comfortable cruising at 85. Not that I recommend driving it that fast.

 

I was also surprised when driving 90 min or so on an 80MPH highway (or was it 85?) in northern Michigan a couple months ago. Road was dry, traffic was light and visibility was excellent and I set the cruise on 84/85 (which prob meant I was actually going around 82). The Limited seemed just fine at those speeds. Stable and not really straining -- though you also wouldn't call it loafing along. Put another way, it didn't feel unsafe but it also wasn't relaxed. I knew I might be in deep doo doo if an evasive maneuver was required. In my M235, those speeds on that road would have been almost nonchalant.

 

The T4R has to be a real cash cow for Toyota. The initial design costs for the 5th Generation must have been paid for long ago. Even with the gas mileage they continued to sell. For many, the "old school" tech was one of the big selling points.
This is probably why Toyota never came out with a replacement for the FJ Cruiser after 2014 (too bad). Toyota was happy to continue selling $40,000.00+ 4R's. LOL And the drive train for the T4R was the same as the FJ anyway.

Rick

 

I would love a v8. Might actually make me not want a Bronco.

 

Maybe I’m biased bc I own one, but the 5th generation 4Runner is a modern classic. These rigs are going to age extremely well, much like the FJ as you mentioned

 

On my way to Florida this past January, I cruised at 85-90 for quite a ways and felt very comfortable. There was very little traffic, and everyone else was hauling ass, too.

 

Nice! Yeah, I just go however fast I'm comfortable and deal with the consequences. You have to go super slow to get decent mileage anyway.

I'm curious how bad it's going to be this coming year on 285's.

 

Geez! I've been getting 16-17 still. The worst yet was 14.5 trying to keep up with a group of muscle cars driving back-roads a few weeks ago. Those MT's must really be a killer!

 

I've heard the STT's are heavy, but awesome.

I'm not sure my weight, but I'm pretty heavy as well.

 

I think the threat to the long term desirability and value of these trucks is actually EV. In an ICE world, the 4Runner has a combination of attributes that's very hard to match. And there's no reason to expect any car maker to build a new ICE vehicle that does match it.

But as EV technology improves over the next several years, there's gonna be a real question as to why someone would spend significant money on a used Runner.

It won't be for durability, reliability or mechanical simplicity. EVs should have a significant edge there.

It won't be for AWD and off-road ability, because that too can be done better by EVs. For example, having a motor at each axle or even at each wheel. And no need for exhausts, bulky transmissions and gas tanks that compromise ground clearance. An EV can have a virtually flat underbody that functions as one truck-length skid plate.

It won't be for cargo or passenger capacity, because EVs allow more flexibility in body design. EVs allow for flat floors and frunks in addition to trunks or hatches.

It probably won't be for range. At the rate of progress we're seeing now, in 5 or 10 years EVs might be getting 500 plus miles.

The prevalence and speed of fueling stations might still favor ICE several years from now, but that's offset to some extent for those with the ability to plug in at home. It may also be offset by advances in solar charging, which appears ready to make a big leap thanks to nano material technology.

So at some point the 4Runner will be desirable only to those who can't afford a new or near-new EV. And that means lower resale values for the 4Runner.

The only thing that can realistically prevent this eventuality would be the failure of car makers to offer EV SUVs with the ruggedness and capabilities of the 4Runner. For example, if they all decided that consumers only wanted Priuses and namby-pamby crossovers. But why would they? They would not. Mercedes is already working on an EV G Wagon. Jeep will surely make an EV Wrangler. Consumers will have a number of rugged and highly capable EV off roaders to choose from.

As the owner of a 2020 4Runner that stickered for almost 50K, I of course am not thrilled about this from a financial perspective. But I think it's inevitable that 10 years from now my Runner will be a cool and unstoppable old ICE truck with a lot of fond memories and continued utility -- but very little resale value.

 

That's why we have disposable income! Don't even check it. Just drive. There's a reason we have big fuel tanks in the Runner, else we'd be filling up every other day!

 

LOL exactly. As I said to my wife: Whad'ya mean, "MPG?" It's a truck, it doesn't get "MPG."

 

Just a funny thought.
EV-SUV on some remote mtn. trail, breaks down or runs out of juice. Another like mined SUV comes along to help (because that’s what we do), and it breaks down. Call for a tow. EV tow truck shows up and breaks down.
Only to be rescued by an old lumbering diesel tow truck.

 

I realize that the 4runner isn't ever going to get great mileage, but I'll take as much as I can get. I put on 43K miles so far in 21 months, so the cost adds up! Aside from that, I like getting 300+ miles per tank when I drive 1400 miles each way to Florida every winter.

I'm actually quite pleased with my 16-17 MPG. I was worried it would really go in the crapper after the lift/armor/tires.

Sort of back on topic:

That's what's great about this vehicle. I can go just about anywhere with it, and it's still nice to drive to and from the trail. That's what the next generation should be like. An extremely capable off-road vehicle that is enjoyable to drive to the grocery store, too.

 

Totally. Besides, I decided that the best way to think about it was how often you had to fill the tank. In real world use, that's after about 300-450 miles. Who cares that it takes 23 gallons to do it .

And it's at the price of regular.

 

It should be your goal not to get ones with a blue tint. The blue tint removes yellow light that is produced by the halogen. The blue tint reduces the bulbs life span because the tint causes the bulb to run hotter too. Your lights might look more modern, but its at the sacrifice of filtering light that could be used to light what is ahead of you, and a shorter life span on average.

The perception that blue is better is driven by the fact that most blue light halogens are made for higher end of the market, so they have a brighter filament to start with. They untinted version would probably out compete the same bulb with a blue tint. Its been my experience when I put on cheaper unfiltered bulbs that did better that the blue tints the previous owner installed.

The housing itself plays a large role to. The housings are designed to reflect light from a bulb that sends out light in all directions. LED aren't the same, they have a directional light output so its difficult to replicate the light pattern given by a halogen. Shoving any old LED drop in might not always lead to better results.

 

Powerlift gate!!