2025 6th gen 4Runner Official Reveal Thread

It went from 3.49 to 4.49 over a month here. So fucking stupid

 

Agreed. I also expect the actual fuel economy to be lower at first and improve over the first few thousand miles like it seems to on new vehicles.

Maybe it will get the tank from the Landcruiser. Or, did that get a little baby tank also?

I'm sure it will vary by driving style. I'll be interested to see how they do at 60-65 MPH, as that's usually what I cruise at when I take back-roads.

 

Thanks!

Wow, that's really going to suck if the real world fuel economy doesn't live up to the EPA estimates!

 

The Tacoma and Landcruiser both have the 17.9 gallon tank. I’m assuming the 4Runner will have the same one since they share so many parts. I don’t think it’s actual specs have been released yet.

 

Yeah. We’ll end up with the fuel light coming on at only 300 miles.

 

I wonder what the usable range is really going to be?

Maybe there's some new government regulations to reduce the range on ICE vehicles so that EV's have a better chance of competing.

 

Tacoma has an 18.2 gal tank, down from 21.1 in previous gen.

 

Let’s just call them both 18 gallons. The current 4Runner is 23 gallons. If that also ends up with the 18 is a huge drop in range. I really hope they don’t do it.

 

Then the 6th gen would have kept the 4.0 engine with a turbo slapped on it........woo-hoo

 

Interesting that the 3rd row is only available with regular engine. I think you either have a battery pack or 3rd row.

 

Makes sense if the battery pack creates a higher floor back there and headroom would be nill

 

This was stated several times in the debut videos I watched. Hybrid has the raised floor so no 3rd row

 

This has been beaten to death by now, but that's dumb.

How long did Toyota have to design the new 4Runner? Like 30 years? Lol

 

Yes. That’s why I don’t even consider to switch. I like the 3rd row but the non hybrid won't provide enough benefits for me to

Sure. That’s why every taxi in Germany and other European countries are Mercedes-Benz 4 cylinder DIESEL. And those can easily run 4-500,000 miles before they sell them to Eastern Europe. BTW almost every vehicle in the US Army is diesel. Probably because they are so expensive to repair
How many diesel vehicles did you have?

 

Huh , your response has nothing to do with what I said . I never said diesels were bad I said with all the emissions crap built in it's not worth it to own one . I also said if one of those components go it's going to cost you a fortune if it's out of warranty. I'm using diesel to compare to the replacement cost of a hybrid battery people are complaining about.

 

I read the Landcruiser is 300-400 lbs heavier in addition to its much boxier shape and height. So this should definitely result in a quicker car with better mileage for the 4Runner. I switched my deposit to a 6th Gen 4Runner from a Landcruiser when I realized its far worse ground clearance (vs TH or TRD Pro trims especially), worse approach and departure, more weight, less buttons (vs touchscreen). I like the more classically boxy look of the LC if I’m being honest, but it seems like all other actual off-roading and performance related figures tip the hat to the 4Runner.

 

excluding the TRD Pro and Trail Hunter (better numbers), SR5, TRD OR, Limited, Platinum ... approach is only 1 degree different between the 4R and LC. the departure is like night and day, 4R @ 24 and LC @ 14. the ground clearance is 4R @ 9.2 and LC @ 8.0

 

The only thing in a modern diesel that’s any more complicated than gasoline emissions controls is the DEF system. And that’s a storage tank, pump, injector and control unit. The most likely parts to fail there are the pump or injector and I can’t see those costing “a fortune”

The rest, particulate filter and catalyst are just canisters that bolt into the exhaust path like a gasoline car cat. They parts may cost more (or not) but the amount of labor is no different.

And like all emissions components they are mandated by regulation to be covered under warranty for 100,000 miles.



I suggest researching a bit before spreading FUD.

 

I'll propose an occams razor more likely explanation.

I spent some time teh other day making a table to compare key specs of hte 6th gen, LC and GX550 to the 5th gen. This is what I have for fuel numbers, I used the combined rating as I never see the highway figure even on the highway.

Baseline 5th gen: 17mpg combined x 23gal tank = 391 miles theoretical range
GX550: 17mpg x 21gal tank = 357 miles
Land Cruiser: 23mpg x 17.9gal tank = 412 miles
No numbers for the 5th gen yet but we can all assume it will be similar to or slightly better than LC.


I suspect that Toyota engineering is just using 350-400 miles combined range as their target design spec and sizing the tank to that. (plus there may be packaging issues, especially with the hybrids as space between the frame rails gets crowded) They probably have market research data indicating that most customers are happy with that.

I get that out west where you guys drive long highway distances without seeing civilization that may be on the low side, but on the dense east coast its rare for me to go more than 5 minutes without passing a gas station. Demographically, probably the vast majority of Toyotas customers live in dense areas where extreme range isn't needed.

 

Oh ok. Modern diesel engines are complicated for sure and a common rail system can be costly to replace. The advantage is the traditional transmission (hybrid is usually CVT) and the huge torque but for sure it stinks.

 

Well, that comment was mostly a joke.

But, I said "usable range", which means you have to drop a few gallons off of each vehicle's fuel capacity.

Even so, I guess the range is still OK as long as people are actually able to hit the EPA estimate. Definitely still better than an EV for traveling.

Also, I've exceeded the EPA highway mileage estimate with my 19 plenty of times. When it was stock, I got 21+ mpg at 70, but it dropped to around 18.5 at 80. Above 80, you're probably getting 14-18 depending on the environment.

My combined mileage stock was generally over 18, which surprised me. But, I know everyone is going to have different results.

 

It's unfortunate that government regulations have taken some of the appeal away from diesel. At this point, I'd probably only consider one if I really needed the towing capacity.

CVT's sound nice on paper, but I have a hard time trusting them to be reliable long term. Fortunately, the LC has a traditional 8 speed automatic.

 

That’s fair about the mileage. I average just shy of 18 commuting and 19s on highway but ATs and the Pro roof rack are affecting my number.

I know that’s not useable I was just doing a direct comparison of the published numbers looking for a pattern. 300 ish miles usuable seems very common for Japanese cars, it’s roughly what I get, and before that my 2014 taco got similar. My wife has been through 2 Honda pilots that both go 300-350 before the gas light comes on as did Honda/toyota sedans we owned in the past.

 

Expanding on that point, none of the Toyota BoF (truck/suv) hybrid systems are CVT afaik. And there are other hybrid systems out there that are non CVT (for example Honda has one that basically has no transmission, it’s just a single fixed gear and they use the electric motor for low end torque off the line and startup the gas engine for cruising speed)

I do get your hesitation however, I remember what a bad rep they had when Nissan first introduced them in the 90s, though I believe better materials and design have vastly improved them now. The bigger problem is that for a CVT to really deliver better efficiency it needs to “motorboat” and let the engine run a fairly constant rpm near the HP/ efficiency peak but consumers hate how that sounds so they tune them to mimic fake “shifts” and you loose a lot of the benefit vs. a traditional trans.

 

Thinking back on my stock mileage almost makes me want to go back to stock.

I remember the first drive to Florida with it, I was generally able to go 350+ before stopping.

Roof racks are a huge killer of fuel economy, which is why I use a Yakima Megawarrior that I can remove and install in ~15 minutes. I pretty much only put it on for wheeling trips, and when I'm hauling kayaks.

 

I don’t worry about it so much. I bought this thing knowing it was going to be bad. If we do long distance road trips with the kids we just take my wife’s Honda pilot, that thing gets high 20s on the highway…. When I was young I had compact hatchbacks that got worse so it seems a blessing to me..

 

I hear ya! My '85 Celica was a dog and only got like 24-25, IIRC. The Supra got less, but, to be fair, I was always driving it like I stole it.

I just remove mine because I rarely actually use it, and I do a lot of highway driving. The initial goal was to remove it for winter to help keep it from rusting. But, it's so easy, I just started leaving it off.

It's getting to be mall crawler show season, so I'm sure I'll be putting it up there and swapping the MT's back on soon, though.

 

Where it starts to get ugly is when you subtract three gallons for when the gas light comes on. Then look at what some users are getting in their 4th gen Tacomas. TRD Jon is now only getting high teens after mods. 19 mpg x 15 gallons is only 285 miles.

 

Well, maybe bolt less shit onto the truck.

Or research fuel tank size and range before buying, so the rest of us don't have to hear the bitching.

People seem to hate test drives and research these days, though.