A real truck--is that what you need, what you want, or neither?
Written: Mar 31 '04 (Updated Jun 17 '05)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Off-road features, refinement, interior workmanship, rugged styling, massive feel (if that's what you're after)
Cons: Rear seat too low, steering somewhat numb, less practical than Highlander on-road, massive feel
The Bottom Line: If you need an off-road capable midsize SUV, it's between the Grand Cherokee and the 4Runner. The Jeep is more agile, the Toyota offers more electronic aids.
|
|
|
| mkaresh's Full Review: 2004 Toyota 4Runner 4WD |
Initially, most SUVs were basically pickups with a removable roof over an integrated bed. They were designed and generally used to carry four people and their stuff off-road in an enclosed space. Since few people needed a vehicle for this purpose, sales were limited. Then beginning in the early 1980s and gaining steam around 1990, SUV sales enjoyed strong growth, such that by the mid-1990s they were a major market segment.
This growth occurred not because millions of people took up off-roading. Rather, the great majority were bought as imagine statements and lifestyle vehicles. They replaced station wagons and minivans, without the stigma attached to those other vehicle types. Many buyers also appreciated their high seating position, which aided visibility in traffic.
Recognizing that many SUV buyers not only did not require a vehicle with off-road capabilities, but did not care for the sloppy on-road handling and busy on-road ride of most conventional SUVs, in the late 1990s automakers created a new sub-type: the car-based SUV. These combined a car-type chassis with an SUV body.
This is bound to leave many SUV shoppers confused. Even if they know they want an SUV, which one should they buy? What are the tradeoffs involved? These questions are likely to be especially pressing in showrooms that offer both types.
To sort out these issues, I drove both of Toyota’s midsize SUVs, the convention 4Runner and car-based Highlander. The link to my Highlander review follows this one, for those wanting more detail on that model. This review will compare the two, but focus on the 4Runner.
Toyota 4Runner Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Toyota 4Runner rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
The 4Runner began life in 1984 as a pickup with a removable roof over an integrated bed. In 1990 it gained a five-door version and smoother riding chassis, and lost the removable roof. A more evolutionary redesign in 1996 added a bit more interior room and further refined the chassis. Even with this redesign the rear seat remained cramped and the step-in very high, even for a conventional midsize SUV.
Last year the 4Runner received a more radical redesign. It gained four inches of length and a huge seven inches in width. The width gain was enabled by giving the 4Runner its own platform. Through 2002 it was based on Toyota’s compact pickup.
Few car-based SUVs look terribly authentic. Because they share bits with front-drive cars or minivans, their proportions are rarely right. Often they don’t look very “trucky” no matter how much SUV paraphernalia is tacked onto them. Toyota’s Highlander is no exception.
In contrast, the 4Runner looks every bit a truck, with a short front overhang, upright windshield, brawny lines, and tall stance. To ensure that no one mistook it for a cute ute, the 2003 redesign included substantial wheel lip moldings. On the Sport these moldings were unpainted gray plastic with a gear-tooth motif. Like similar flourishes from GM (Avalanche, Aztek) this one didn’t find favor with consumers. For 2004 the Sport adopts the Limited’s smooth moldings.
Even with this change the 4Runner is hardly beautiful, but I doubt it was meant to be. It was meant to appear tough and rugged, and at this it succeeds.
Inside the 4Runner is typically Toyota, with high quality materials, Lexus-like two-tone panels, and curvy, almost bulbous forms to the panels and trim that are at once odd and interesting. The interior contains one unique element: the HVAC controls resembles flower petals. Instead of turning knobs or punching a row of buttons you press buttons arranged in circles. Some reviews I’ve read disliked these controls, but I had no problem with them. They’re certainly more ergonomic than rows.
Accommodations
The 4Runner’s seating position might be a bit lower than before, but it’s still a big step up. Unlike with the Highlander, you’ll want the running boards with this one. (They’re $345 on the SR5 and Sport, standard on the posh Limited.) Once in the driver’s seat there’s no mistaking the 4Runner for a conventional SUV. You sit way above the road, yet the instrument panel is still fairly high relative to the driver’s seat. The windshield is not nearly as tall and expansive as the Highlander’s.
The front seats are large, moderately firm, well-contoured, and comfortable. The Limited gets power seats upholstered in heated leather. The other two trims make do with cloth and a manual height adjustment.
The rear seat is a bit of a paradox. The main benefit of last year’s seven-inch gain in width was enough shoulder room to fit three adults in the rear seat with a minimal amount of squeezing. Yet the seat is mounted low to the floor, and so provides adults with no thigh support. They’ll either have to ride with their knees up or flopped to the sides. Though the Highlander’s rear seat offers less shoulder room, it seats a pair of adults much more comfortably. Why increase shoulder room without making the rear seat comfortable for adults? Beats me.
A rear seat entertainment system is optional on the SR5 and Sport, but not on the Limited because of an incompatibility with its standard sunroof.
More and more midsize SUVs are available with third-row seating. For 2004 Toyota made a third-row seat available in both the Highlander and 4Runner. In the latter, it’s a $735 option in the SR5 and a $1,195 option in the Limited (replacing a cargo system in the latter). It’s not available on the Sport. ($585 to upholster the small third-row seat in leather seems a bit steep to me. They should have just used vinyl back there like many competitors.) The Limited I drove lacked this option, but I would be surprised if it was suitable for adults. That in the Highlander has enough headroom, but very little legroom. If you want to put adults in the third row for extended periods, better opt for a full-size SUV like the Sequoia. Or a minivan.
In place of a third-row seat the SUV I drove had a very sturdy feeling hinged parcel shelf that can be positioned either on the floor or roughly a foot above it. Standard in the Limited, this “double-decker cargo system” costs $125 in the other models.
I suspect that with the third row up cargo volume is minimal. Without this seat a decent amount of space is available behind the second row. This row folds 60/40 without removing the headrests. With it folded cargo volume is 75 cubic feet, about five shy of the Ford Explorer, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, and Toyota Highlander. This volume is especially notable for its width, which now matches that in the domestic competition but looks even wider.
On the Road
I asked to drive a V6 4Runner, but ended up driving a V8. I’ve driven a V6 before, and if memory serves there’s not a tremendous performance difference between the two engines. The V6 actually produces ten more peak horsepower (for a total of 245), but the V8 has more midrange power, with 37 more foot-pounds of torque (for a total of 320). Note that while the peak horsepower figures are at best average for the class, even the V6 produces as much torque as the Ford Explorer’s V8. So both engines excel at midrange power, which, given how most SUVs are driven (i.e. casually), is more important than peak power. The V8 is further assisted by a fifth ratio in its automatic. Add it all together and the V8 initially feels stronger and has to rev less to move the vehicle. It’s also a bit quieter and richer sounding. A definite downside with the larger engine: two fewer miles per gallon. The 4WD V8 is rated 15/19. Not pretty, especially since Toyota recommends premium fuel for either engine.
Generally I’d recommend the six, as it provides just about as much performance using less gas. But the V8 also features full-time four-wheel-drive, while the V6 must be shifted. Although the latter system can be left engaged on dry pavement, the V8’s is more convenient. And then there’s the price. The V8 together with its fifth gear ratio and more sophisticated 4WD system adds only $1,250. I’d probably still go with the V6, but if you prefer the V8 after driving both then it’s not much more money.
Even with the V8 the 4Runner feels much less spry than the V6 Highlander. Some vehicles feel lighter than they are, but not this one. You’ll never forget you’re driving a 4,500-pound vehicle. Initial response to throttle tip-in is very gradual, and only at or near full-throttle does the speedo needle move rapidly. Granted, the V8 always felt strong, but this strength was clearly being pitted against a great deal of mass. This is a feeling I generally associate with full-size trucks. The Ford and GM midsize SUVs are just as heavy or even heavier, but feel lighter. A Highlander feels far lighter—no one will confuse the two based on how they drive. This isn’t necessarily a negative. Many people no doubt prefer this feeling of being inside a very sturdy piece of machinery.
The five-speed automatic, though usually very smooth, sometimes seemed to second guess itself. This could be due to adaptive logic, and would go away once the transmission became used to the driving style of a particular driver.
I did not venture off-road, but judging from its standard content the 4WD 4Runner is designed to perform well there. Standard features on four-wheel-drive 4Runners include limited-slip center differential, traction control, stability control, hill start control (keeps the vehicle from sliding backwards when moving from the brake to accelerator), and hill descent control (maintains a steady slow speed down steep grades) are standard. The last feature was copied from Land Rover.
The brakes require an unusually high level of effort to operate. When I pressed as hard as I typically do the 4Runner slowed much less quickly than I expected, especially at moderate speeds. This is not to suggest that the brakes are weak; they are not. In fact, stabbing hard at the pedal engages the standard brake assist, which applies full pressure when it senses a panic stop. This results in very quick stops for a heavy SUV.
The Limited I drove was fitted with the $450 X-REAS sport suspension (standard on the Sport), which uses a hydraulic connection between diagonally opposite shocks to counterbalance sudden weight shifts while cornering. Though no sports car, lean in turns is well controlled for such a tall, conventional SUV. I noted none of the rear end sway that plagues some GM products. Although standard stability control adds an extra cushion, I did not drive the 4Runner nearly as hard as I do most cars I test. Though the 4Runner was no doubt capable of more than I dished out, the vehicle’s massive feel and fairly numb (though decently weighted) steering suggest a more casual driving style. Again, this is a TRUCK and it drives like one. To the extent it has any “sport” in it it is the off-road variety.
Ride quality is better than many past SUVs, falling between the Ford Explorer and GM SUVs in smoothness. I suppose the Lexus variant, the GX 470, feels more luxurious. Road imperfections are generally well absorbed, and the 4Runner always feels composed, refined, and SOLID, but the suspension dances a bit over patchy roads. This last characteristic is typical of a conventional SUV (though not the softer sprung competition from GM).
Noise levels are about as low as you’ll find in a non-luxury-brand conventional SUV. A Camry is quieter, but not by a large margin. Tire noise creeps up on some surfaces. Wind noise around the A-pillars can also be a minor factor at highway speeds. Nothing atypical of an SUV here, just don’t expect a Lexus.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
In a nutshell, the 4Runner is the most expensive mainstream brand midsize truck-based SUV, costing between one and two thousand more than its primary competitors. But it also includes the most features, some of which the competitors don’t even offer. So the price seems reasonable.
Last Words
Compared to other conventional midsize SUVs the 4Runner feels more massive but also more refined, although it does not provide the smoothest ride. Its many off-road-oriented electronic and mechanical systems suggest it should perform among the best off-road. Anyone seeking a $35,000 midsize SUV for heavy off-road use should probably put it and the Grand Cherokee at the top of their list.
But what about those who won’t be leaving the pavement or towing anything particularly heavy? Driving the Highlander and 4Runner back-to-back clarified the tradeoffs involved between car-based and conventional SUVs. The Highlander performs better, feels much more agile, has a more comfortable rear seat, and costs considerably less. The 4Runner’s major advantages are greater off-road and towing capabilities and a full-size truck feel for those who like that sort of thing. If it’s just the last, then don’t let me stop you. Just be aware how much that feeling is costing you.
I have given the 4Runner four stars assuming the owner has a need for its capabilities. Otherwise a rating of three stars is more appropriate.
To learn more about and sign up to participate in my reliability research, visit www.truedelta.com.
My reviews of related vehicles:
Toyota Highlander
Chevrolet TrailBlazer
Ford Explorer
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Kia Sorento
Nissan Pathfinder
Toyota Sequoia
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 41,546
Model and Options: 4WD V8 Limited with nav package, side airbags, CD changer
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.