2010 4Runner 4x2 V6 = 17/23, 4x2 4cyl.= 18/23
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
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 
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/2...l-grade-model/
I'll take a 22/32mpg Equinox thank you.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/2...l-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.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
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.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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?
Doesn't Toyota already have the Sequoia and Land Cruiser for 3 row BOF suvs?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
A couple of reviews for the 4runner v6 trail edition here:
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...ion/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../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.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...ion/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../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.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,647
From: Jupiter, FL
4.56 gears in the 4cyl! No wonder it gets such craptastic mileage.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,327
From: Hartford, CT
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.
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.
4.56 gears in the 4cyl! No wonder it gets such craptastic mileage.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 615
From: Pekin, IL, United States
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.