2010 4Runner 4x2 V6 = 17/23, 4x2 4cyl.= 18/23

1mpg city and 0mpg hwy, what were they thinking offering a 4cyl. instead of a V8 in the 2010's :lol:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/2010-toyota-4runner-debuts-with-four-cylinder-trail-grade-model/

Both wider and longer than the previous 4Runner, the new model offers an optional third-row seat and is available in three trims: the top-of-the-line Limited, SR5 and new Trail grade. Buyers can choose between rear-wheel-drive 4x2, part-time 4x4 and a full-time 4x4 system with a locking center differential. All 4x4 models get a 4.0-liter V6 producing 270 horsepower and 278 lb-ft of torque and achieving 17 city/22 highway mpg. V6-powered models with 4x2 do slightly better with 17 city/23 highway. The new 2.7-liter four-cylinder is only available on the 4x2 SR5 model and produces 157 hp and 178 lb-ft of torque while returning 18 city/23 highway mpg. Considering the marginal difference in fuel economy, we recommend the V6 and question why Toyota is even offering a four-cylinder option besides a lower starting price.

I'll take a 22/32mpg Equinox thank you.

Lower starting price as the article mentioned, but it also keeps up that golden Toyota image of environmental responsibility even if the numbers suggest otherwise.

.....that golden Toyota image of environmental responsibility even if the numbers suggest otherwise.

This way going to be my response.

Jeff
:lol:

Seriously? Are those numbers right?

I really like the new Equinox, and it has some pretty tough-to-beat numbers, but surely the Toyota will do better than 18/23...

:think:

Seriously? Are those numbers right?

I really like the new Equinox, and it has some pretty tough-to-beat numbers, but surely the Toyota will do better than 18/23...

:think:

Toyota is touting it as "taller, wider and longer" than the previous 4Runner. That obviously means it's no small rig. In fact, I see that it comes with an optional 3rd row.

I'm thinking the 4Runner is now more Trailblazer/Envoy than Equinox, which would explain the mileage numbers. That said, driving it with the 4 cylinder must be maddening.

How does the 2.7 L make less power then the 2.5 L (179 hp & 172 tq)

Not that it matters anyway with the size of that thing. Can you say Highway death trap.

The current 4runner and equinox are not comparable vehicles... the new 4runner is even bigger so it's even less comparable... so comparing it to the equinox 4-cyl seems kinda silly. Keep the comparisons to the RAV4 4-cyl and while the equinox still puts up better numbers, it's not by nearly as wide of a margin.

With that said, yes, the fact that they bothered to include a weak 4-cyl in such a heavy vehicle and it yields such poor results really makes me question what they were thinking.

Yes, the 4Runner has always been a BOF "true" suv (like the Envoy / TB), not a crossover. If it is adding a 3rd row along with BOF construction, then it isn't really an Equinox competitor. Which of course, as Threxx mentions, makes it a bit odd that they are putting a 4 banger in there. Except for the image thing of course.

Doesn't Toyota already have the Sequoia and Land Cruiser for 3 row BOF suvs? :think:

Doesn't Toyota already have the Sequoia and Land Cruiser for 3 row BOF suvs? :think:

Unpossible. As we are all conditioned to know, Toyota builds nothing but small hybrids because they are green and that is what the people want!!!!!!!


:cool:

A couple of reviews for the 4runner v6 trail edition here:
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0909_2010_toyota_4runner_trail_edition/index.html

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=157853/pageId=179847

In summary they both seemed to love it and call it the most capable off-road SUV sold today, both on road and off.

The current 4runner and equinox are not comparable vehicles... the new 4runner is even bigger so it's even less comparable... so comparing it to the equinox 4-cyl seems kinda silly. Keep the comparisons to the RAV4 4-cyl and while the equinox still puts up better numbers, it's not by nearly as wide of a margin.

With that said, yes, the fact that they bothered to include a weak 4-cyl in such a heavy vehicle and it yields such poor results really makes me question what they were thinking.

If you want a 4cyl, and great economy then you should get a RAV4 and not the 4runner. What is bad is not the final MPG, but the fact that it is almost the same as the 100HP stronger V6.

How does the 2.7 L make less power then the 2.5 L (179 hp & 172 tq)

Not that it matters anyway with the size of that thing. Can you say Highway death trap.
They're two different engines. The 2.7 is used in their rwd applications along with the Tacoma, and its just not as powerful.

4.56 gears in the 4cyl! No wonder it gets such craptastic mileage. :lol:

The Highlander would be more of a competitor to the Equinox. The 4Runner goes up against the Pathfinder, Explorer etc.

I wonder if GM will ever come out with another midsize SUV. Put some effort into it and put the next gen Colorado on the same platform.

They're two different engines. The 2.7 is used in their rwd applications along with the Tacoma, and its just not as powerful.

4.56 gears in the 4cyl! No wonder it gets such craptastic mileage. :lol:

The Highlander would be more of a competitor to the Equinox. The 4Runner goes up against the Pathfinder, Explorer etc.

I wonder if GM will ever come out with another midsize SUV. Put some effort into it and put the next gen Colorado on the same platform.
I doubt the 4 cylinder is capable of making enough torque to run gears signifigantly taller than the 4.56. When was the last time you rode in any 4 cylinder vehicle than ran under 3000rpms while cruising on the highway?

My 5cyl runs just over 2000rpm at 70mph. Using a gear calc, a 2wd 4cy Colorado with 3.42s runs about 2000rpm at 70mph.

I doubt the 4 cylinder is capable of making enough torque to run gears signifigantly taller than the 4.56. When was the last time you rode in any 4 cylinder vehicle than ran under 3000rpms while cruising on the highway?

My 4 cylinder Colorado doesn't go above 3000 RPM on the interstate unless I'm pushing 90 mph. It has 3.73 gears. My old S10 4 cylinder didn't either, had 3.73 gears too. Both are 5 speed manuals.

I doubt the 4 cylinder is capable of making enough torque to run gears signifigantly taller than the 4.56. When was the last time you rode in any 4 cylinder vehicle than ran under 3000rpms while cruising on the highway?

Actually out of all the 4-cyl vehicles I can recall having driven on the highway... none of them that I can recall ran at or over 3k rpm doing ~75 mph.

Heck our Aura 4-cyl runs closer to 2k than 3k when doing 75 mph... but it's also a 6AT.

If you want a 4cyl, and great economy then you should get a RAV4 and not the 4runner. What is bad is not the final MPG, but the fact that it is almost the same as the 100HP stronger V6.

I'm confused... we both agree on the fact that the 4-cyl is pointless and that the RAV4 gets much better mileage... what exactly were you adding to what I said?:p

People will buy the 4 cylinder because it is a 4 cylinder. They can save money, and feel green and responsible in their SUV...

EPA numbers are typically better when you have tall gearing. It could be that the 4cyl will do better in real life than it does on the EPA cycle.

They're two different engines. The 2.7 is used in their rwd applications along with the Tacoma, and its just not as powerful.

4.56 gears in the 4cyl! No wonder it gets such craptastic mileage. :lol:

The Highlander would be more of a competitor to the Equinox. The 4Runner goes up against the Pathfinder, Explorer etc.

I wonder if GM will ever come out with another midsize SUV. Put some effort into it and put the next gen Colorado on the same platform.

They are both AR engines. The 2.7 is also in the Venza (182hp/182tq) and the Highlander (187hp/186tq). This took over for the AZ engines. The 2.7 is a stroked 2.5L. Maybe my info is wrong but I still don't get the differance in power.


Found what you are talking about. The Tacoma uses a TR engine.

I'm thinking the 4Runner is now more Trailblazer/Envoy than Equinox, which would explain the mileage numbers. That said, driving it with the 4 cylinder must be maddening.

I don't think the 4Runner has ever been competing with the Equinox. Full frame SUV vs a unibody SUV, first of all, and second, Equinox is wrong wheel drive, unless both are AWD. Third, 4Runner is a lot more of a truck than Equinox, size-wise.

Equinox is 2" shorter and 3" narrower.

Actually out of all the 4-cyl vehicles I can recall having driven on the highway... none of them that I can recall ran at or over 3k rpm doing ~75 mph.

Heck our Aura 4-cyl runs closer to 2k than 3k when doing 75 mph... but it's also a 6AT.


FWIW I've never encountered an I-4 that hasn't run 3k rpms at 75mph. Typical GM small car gearing.

Does the Aura have trouble on inclines at all running such low rpm?

FWIW I've never encountered an I-4 that hasn't run 3k rpms at 75mph. Typical GM small car gearing.

Does the Aura have trouble on inclines at all running such low rpm?Honda small cars have always been geared super low (high engine speed on the highway). Also, my parents had a VW New Beetle once (many years ago). It was the base, weaksauce 2.0L with a 5 speed manual. 80 mph = 4k rpm. :eek:

The Aura has a relatively powerful 4 cylinder, and it has six gears to play with. I'm sure when it encounters a grade, it simply executes the 6-5 downshift and continues on its merry way.

I just noticed the 4runner 4-cyl only comes with a 4-speed auto. I'm sure, especially with such a heavy vehicle, that's really hurting the economy quite a bit. I wonder what a 6-speed auto would do for it... I'm betting 10% on the highway and maybe 5% in the city?

Equinox is 2" shorter and 3" narrower.

After seeing both in person I found that really hard to believe. The 4runner seems much bigger. So I looked them up and you're right. Well, close to right.

It's 2.1 and 3.3" to be exact.

But you conveniently left off the 4runner being 5.2" taller and more than 500 pounds heavier. I'm betting just based on looks that in addition to the 4runner having a significantly larger frontal area, it's less aerodynamic. And then of course you have a 4-speed auto vs a 6-speed.

All in all I'd say the big difference is to be expected with all things considered.

Actually out of all the 4-cyl vehicles I can recall having driven on the highway... none of them that I can recall ran at or over 3k rpm doing ~75 mph.

My Mazda3 will match your 3K RPM at 70mph :) :(

I just noticed the 4runner 4-cyl only comes with a 4-speed auto. I'm sure, especially with such a heavy vehicle, that's really hurting the economy quite a bit. I wonder what a 6-speed auto would do for it... I'm betting 10% on the highway and maybe 5% in the city?

4-speed, eh? What is this, 1994? I'm very surprised it isn't a 5-speed auto. You're absolutely right that is hurting its economy, even if by a meager 1 mpg.

The 4runner seems much bigger. So I looked them up and you're right. Well, close to right.

It's 2.1 and 3.3" to be exact.


Actually, 3 inches width is a LOT. I know it doesn't seem like much on paper, I was dumbfounded when comparing (online) the dimensions of various cars, basically my Mazda3 isn't much narrower than the Audi, yet the 1.5 in of difference or so make a huge difference.


But you conveniently left off the 4runner being 5.2" taller and more than 500 pounds heavier.

I'm really surprised that Equinox is as heavy as it is. Unibody versus full frame. The difference should be at least 800 lbs between those two trucks.

My Mazda3 will match your 3K RPM at 70mph :) :(
What trans?

Here's my Aura at 66 mph

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Rs8M5953Xyc/S1Oy1T5kdXI/AAAAAAAAB_Y/sTHUH5LsjNw/s800/photo.jpg

4-speed, eh? What is this, 1994? I'm very surprised it isn't a 5-speed auto. You're absolutely right that is hurting its economy, even if by a meager 1 mpg.
Yeah the 4-speed is surprising. Our 2005 4runner V6 has a 5-speed but the 2004 (same generation/body) had a 4-speed. I'm really surprised that an all new 2010 model year vehicle has a 4-speed. Especially from the company that pioneered the 8-speed auto 2-3 years ago.


Actually, 3 inches width is a LOT. I know it doesn't seem like much on paper, I was dumbfounded when comparing (online) the dimensions of various cars, basically my Mazda3 isn't much narrower than the Audi, yet the 1.5 in of difference or so make a huge difference.
Yeah now that you mention it, 3+ inches is pretty significant when comparing cars from compact to large... the width doesn't change that much compared to the length unless you're talking percent.


I'm really surprised that Equinox is as heavy as it is. Unibody versus full frame. The difference should be at least 800 lbs between those two trucks.

It's as much as 900 pounds when comparing the AWD V6 Eq to 4WD V6 4R

I doubt the 4 cylinder is capable of making enough torque to run gears signifigantly taller than the 4.56. When was the last time you rode in any 4 cylinder vehicle than ran under 3000rpms while cruising on the highway?

at what speed. I don't remember my SVT focus being buzzy at all around 65mph...

What trans?

5-speed manual, with 2.3L engine. I'll check exactly what RPM it's at next time I drive it.

Here's my Aura at 66 mph

That's pretty good! 6-speed auto?


It's as much as 900 pounds when comparing the AWD V6 Eq to 4WD V6 4R

I thought someone said the difference is only 500 lbs between the 2 trucks? Or is that with 2WD 4Runner?

Still, 4000 lbs for a V6 AWD Equinox seems a lot. Looking at its size, it should be around 3600 - 3700 lbs.

CR-V with 4-cyl (its only engine) and AWD comes in at 3550 lbs.

RAV4, which is closer to being its competitor than 4Runner, comes in at 3700 lbs with V6 and AWD. Equinox is quite porky with extra 300 lbs on top of it.

But you conveniently left off the 4runner being 5.2" taller and more than 500 pounds heavier. I'm betting just based on looks that in addition to the 4runner having a significantly larger frontal area, it's less aerodynamic. And then of course you have a 4-speed auto vs a 6-speed..

I doubt that 5.2" is interior space. I'll bet most of it is extra ground clearance. 4Runner also sits on bigger tires. Anyone know if they count the roof rack on SUVs with they measure height?


Still, 4000 lbs for a V6 AWD Equinox seems a lot. Looking at its size, it should be around 3600 - 3700 lbs.

CR-V with 4-cyl (its only engine) and AWD comes in at 3550 lbs.

RAV4, which is closer to being its competitor than 4Runner, comes in at 3700 lbs with V6 and AWD. Equinox is quite porky with extra 300 lbs on top of it.

The Equinox weights seem appropriate for its size.

Accord V6 = 3583lbs. (no AWD)

Also the Honda CR-V offers no V6 and is a good amount smaller than the Equinox. A better comparison would be the Toyota Venza, Nissan Murano or Ford Edge.

Toyota Venza V6 AWD = 4045lbs.
Nissan Murano AWD = 4139lbs.
Ford Edge AWD = ~4200lbs.

I doubt that 5.2" is interior space. I'll bet most of it is extra ground clearance. 4Runner also sits on bigger tires. Anyone know if they count the roof rack on SUVs with they measure height?

I don't know if the roof rack counts but the difference in ground clearance between the RWD 4runner and FWD equinox was under 2 inches... closer to 1 actually IIRC.

That's pretty good! 6-speed auto?
Yep, I'm happy with it.

It does want to downshift when going up hills on the interstate... especially at 75-80mph where it's already taking significant throttle just to fight the wind. I put it into manual mode (it has paddle shifters! lol) and force it to stay in 6th... it seems to apply maybe 35% throttle and from there just accept the speed loss which it quickly regains once the incline stops.



I thought someone said the difference is only 500 lbs between the 2 trucks? Or is that with 2WD 4Runner?
That was me. Yes that was for the base 4Runner 2WD vs the base Eq 2WD. Looking back I think I was wrong about the 900 pounds... I think what I was looking at was the Limited 4WD V6 4runner compared to the LTZ AWD I4 Eq (instead of the V6). Adding the V6 probably brings it back closer to the 500 pound difference (though still over, likely).

V6 = 400 lbs more than I4? :think:

V6 = 400 lbs more than I4? :think:

I said closer to 500 pounds.

I don't know what the actual difference is... I checked Chevrolet.com and they seem to only have the 4-cyl's curb weight published in their spec sheets.

I said closer to 500 pounds.

I don't know what the actual difference is... I checked Chevrolet.com and they seem to only have the 4-cyl's curb weight published in their spec sheets.Yes, Chevy's website is maddening if you want detailed specifications. :mad:

I don't know if the roof rack counts but the difference in ground clearance between the RWD 4runner and FWD equinox was under 2 inches... closer to 1 actually IIRC.


I know on our Equinox It feels pretty low to the ground (for an SUV). It throw me off the first couple of times when I stepped out of it and expected the step down to be a lot lower. I don't know about actually numbers but from the seat to the ground it feels a few inch's lower than my Colorado or my old room mates 4runner (2001).

Yes, Chevy's website is maddening if you want detailed specifications. :mad:

Same with Nissan, they only gave the FWD weight for Murano. It goes off base features for the model and the Equinox is offered with a 4cyl. on all models.

For specs, check edmunds.com. They listed different weights for FWD and AWD for the models that I checked. I know they don't have data on every model.

Equinox 2WD I4 - 3761 lbs
Equinox 4WD - 3975 lbs (this one could be I4 AWD, not necessarily V6)

This is just a hair under 70 mph.

http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=461&pictureid=1777