5th Gen. Weakness and Strength

Or just stay at sea level.

 

I’ll suffer through it before that happens. Maybe a supercharger would help but I’m not sure it matters that much to me.

 

Resale value as a strong point. Full size spare, perfect for NYC and NJ roads. I don’t drive it high elevation so it’s ok. Easy 75-80 mph and 20 mpg on the shittiest regular gas. Anything else requires premium gas for the same mpg or hp.

 

Strength = Reliability. It will go down as probably one the most reliable vehicles toyota is ever designed and built.

Weakness = mpg

I enjoy my tank every day and will stick with it for a long time.

 

I understand the comments relative to power, acceleration, throttle response, etc… Many people have pointed out that if acceleration from a standing start or from 50 mph to 80 mph for passing on the highway is high on your list of wants - the 4Runner is probably not the vehicle for you. However, if you had off road ability, capability on snow/ice, occasional towing within weight limits high on your list I would suggest that the ability to add power gradually would be better than fast throttle response for these situations. I understand that many of the throttle response mods are adjustable - if so, you’ve got the capability to adjust to the specific situation. I’m good with how it is from the factory.

 

no equipment has weakness or strength - only humans have reasonable or unreasonable expectations. most of them from not reading equipment manuals. or just plain stupidity.

 

This is the dumbest take yet. While I agree many issues are user error, plenty of "equipment" has inherent flaws. The 4runners bad diff/tcase actuators are one example. The timing cover is another.

 

Nonsense. Many cars have documented faults and weaknesses, some that are impossible to fix or prevent.

 

it is not. I've seen here far worse.

- never had any of two 4runners the 5th in the last 12 years.
neither "flaws" affected my activity to ride my four grand children, tow a boat or run I-95 North/South. and since it was bought for cash, it is dealership-free, and therefore, the cheapest per mile vehicle ever. That's strength. If I spend (not going to) 15K on "upgrades" and "mods" just to dunk $75K into mud hole effectively destroying all that value, it will be my weakness, that I would call my own stupidity. do you want to play in a mud on weekend? - pick up old jeep from junk yard and Tig-welder from the store, make off-roader and have my respect for creativity.

 

Not sure why you're surprised, 2015 F150 weighs about 400lb more than a 4Runner and makes 80hp more and a boatload more torque (and in the 3.5EB, it makes it at way lower rpm). I came from a 2015 F150 5.0 and it was a huge adjustment.

I don't get the claim of no low end torque. compared to what? If you want stupid low end torque, you need either a diesel or a turbo (or both). the 4.0 isn't any worse on low end torque than any other NA V6. And yeah, at elevation it's worse (just like every other NA engine). You lose 3% per 100ft. Only way to combat that is forced induction.

You're not going to make big torque from idle to 3k rpm with a NA engine and you can't tune it for much more low end torque either. If you want torque in that rpm range, you need either a diesel or a turbo (or both). I think the throttle control and transmission contribute to the issue here.

I would be really curious how the 4.0 would do with the new 8 speed transmission...gearing matters.

 

Why would you want a V10 diesel when the overwhelming majority of over the road heavy duty tricks have inline 6 cylinder diesels.

 

"Incredibly underpowered" is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, it could use a little more low end torque. Gearing is part of the problem as well. But, they move well enough when you floor it.

I'd have thought the same thing, except that I got clocked at 98 mph in Georgia by my favorite state trooper in the world.

I was thinking the same. The Dodge Cummins HD's are I6, as well. Fantastic engines!

 

I haven't gotten anywhere close to 98mph. Doing the slow break-in and presently at 1362 miles. Pulled a trailer all weekend at a respectable 15mpg wheras my Maverick would have been at 18-19. With the exception of the gas mileage, I do not miss the Maverick at all.

 

It would do little or nothing in 95% of situations. There is no advantage in gearing that does not take advantage of the broad torque curve with added shifting/hunting for gears.

Big diesel trucks have more gear selections because their engines have a narrow power band of just a few hundred RPM, typically 1,600 to 2,100 RPM at the outside.

 

Interesting point. Can we extrapolate then that vehicles like the Bronco, that have 10 speed transmissions, have an engine with a narrower power band?

 

Excess transmission gearing is the auto makers "teaching to the test". While these extra gears may eke out a few tenths miles per gallon in the testing, they do little for day-to-day driving economy.

While 4 cylinder engines tend to have a narrow power band, V6 engines have a broad power band.

 

No, because Ford is putting a 10 speed in everything, whether it's got a 2.3 turbo in front of it, all the way to the 7.3 Godzilla.

 

I still prefer a 5 speed.

 

It really depends on tuning and displacement, but number of cylinders usually correlates with displacement.

If you have two engines (small and large displacement) putting out similar peak horsepower, it's a fair assumption that the smaller one will have a narrower powerband. The smaller engine would be tuned more aggressively (or have forced induction) than the larger engine, relatively speaking.

Think 4.7 4R V8 vs an Acura 3.5 v6; the V6 in this case is all top end.

Edit: once you throw forced induction into the mix, it is harder to compare so simply, because adding air makes it act like a larger displacement engine. (Unless comparing two FI engines, I think.)

Another edit: I feel like motorcycles are easier to compare: you can have a flat curve 1000 cc (not a superbike) or a 600 cc supersport both making around 100 horsepower, but the 1000 cc will have more torque everywhere in the rev range (the 600 usually revs higher to hit the hp numbers).

 

I think the bore/stroke ratio factors in as well.

 

Definitely! Engines with a longer stroke tend to be more torque-y (probably not a real word), while those with a shorter stroke tend to have more horsepower VS torque. And, engines with a good balance probably have wider power-bands.

I'm sure at least some will agree with me when I say that 86mm×86mm is the ideal bore and stroke for a sports car engine, with 86×71.5 being a close second.

 

I just sold my 2023 V6 Bronco Badlands with 35s. I never hustled that rig around, but the 10 speed tranny always felt like it had 2-3 too many gears. It was a little jerky out of 1st to 2nd gear too. Engine always felt like it had plenty of power. It was my first and last Ford. Loved it, but didn’t trust it.
Have 2016 Rubicon on 35s. Similar engine power and torque to my new 2024 TRDpro. Same number of gears. I just don’t hustle it around either. These vehicles are suited for a certain driving style and that’s how I use them.
2020 2500 diesel Chevy is also 10 speed and drives like butter and has power for days. But still drive it chill and tow stuff.

 

Inversely related to the under-stressed and reliable 5th Gen. The new generation of Toyota trucks. Over-stressed smaller engines? Reliability? Some may have watched this one. Always learning a thing from Tinkerer.
https://youtu.be/1XdaccfMxn4?si=OR9JDM3O824COCqd

 

This guy is great! Randomly came across his stuff before.