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.

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?

 

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 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 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.

 

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.

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?

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.

 

My Mazda3 will match your 3K RPM at 70mph

 

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.

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.


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.

 

What trans?

Here's my Aura at 66 mph



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.


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.


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

 

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

 

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

That's pretty good! 6-speed auto?

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.

 

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?

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.