[Buckfever]

Saw a black render of the Pro. Not horrible.

Fun colors for 2025 4Runner TRD PRO, Trailhunter, Platinum Trims -- previews | Page 2 | 2025 4Runner Forum (6th Gen) News, Specs, Models - 2.4L, Hybrid, TRD Pro, Trailhunter, Platinum, TRD Off-Road, SR5, Limited -- 4Runner6G.com

[Buckfever]

So when I build a 2024 4runner Off-Road with the kdss I get to ~ 51. Figuring the sdm as an option should price around the same. I got to believe that with the hybrid it's got to be 5k more. So ~ 56?

There's nostalgia for sure but I don't know.

[Buckfever]

Also one interesting note and I don't know what it means but around here they are discounting the 2024s.

[perf0rmance]

Originally Posted by JRapid

I think the biggest takeaway is the much needed power upgrade. 465 torque is solid.

The looks will grow on people like they do with every other car. Look at how people hated the new M4's at first.

the new M4 is still ugly to me LOL
and that's based on my F80 M3 ownership hahaha.

While the 6th gen isn't perfect, I kinda dig the new look. I wish it main stauche was angled more like the taco though

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by TexasFunRunner

....Over the years most of the mainstream branded, midsize, off-road oriented two-row SUVs have fallen by the wayside such as the Nissan XTerra and Chevy S-10 Blazer, leaving the Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco as the main competition to the 4Runner.

I always chuckle when I see people saying that the 4Runner competes with the Wrangler and the Bronco. It's not in the same class. The 4Runner competes against the Grand Cherokee. That's really the only direct competitor remaining.

I was hoping that the 6th gen 4Runner was built to compete with Wrangle and Bronco, but unfortunately that's not the case.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by perf0rmance

the new M4 is still ugly to me LOL

Same here. That beaver teeth grill looked bad when it first came out and it still looks terrible today. Everyone said it will grow on me. It hasn't. Not even a little bit.

[TexasFunRunner]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I always chuckle when I see people saying that the 4Runner competes with the Wrangler and the Bronco. It's not in the same class. The 4Runner competes against the Grand Cherokee. That's really the only direct competitor remaining.

I was hoping that the 6th gen 4Runner was built to compete with Wrangle and Bronco, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Yes, but...

Many could care less to ever take the roof or doors off a Bronco or Jeep. So they are simply there to increase wind noise and provide free leaks.

Only 10% to 20% will ever use their "off-roader" in extreme off-road conditions, such as the Rubicon trail or in the extremes of Moab. For the other 80% to 90% of owners, their choice is more about utility, higher ride stance, looks, or just knowing it will take them down a fire trail to the campsite.

Having been on both Jeep and Bronco forums, once you get past the diehard Jeep or Bronco fanboys, there are many members who have owned or are returning to a 4Runner.

Yes, the 4Runner is competition to the Jeep and Bronco, for many, many shoppers.

[Jetboy]

For me the 4Runner sits half way between the Bronco/Wrangler and Jeep GC. Toyota doesn't build a direct competitor in either of those two segments. Nor does Jeep or Ford sell a 4Runner competitor in the USA market. Ford does build and sell the Everest that is pretty similar to a 4Runner segment globally. But not in the USA. I don't think anything globally in the Jeep world is similar. In my view the closest direct competitor to the Wrangler in the toyota corporate umbrella is the Subaru outback. It's very similar structurally.

Anyway - 4Runner overlaps the jeep/bronco market. I think this moves the needle that way with 35's fitting stock and 37's being pretty easy to bolt on.

I do think Toyota is missing the "fun" part of the market without any removeable top. That's what really separates the Bronco and Wrangler from all others.

I also think the 4R will out perform the Bronco offroad in some conditions. The rear suspension is significantly superior on the 4Runner. The coilover design on the Bronco is a real bummer. It effectively eliminates the benefit of a solid axle while keeping most of the negatives. To maximize the benefits of a solid axle the springs need to be inboard and shocks ideally put outboard as far as possible. Toyota's rear axle coil design is better. Wrangler is also similar to the Toyota design. I think a 4Runner with 37s will be pretty comparable to the Bronco or Wrangler on the trails overall.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Jetboy

For me the 4Runner sits half way between the Bronco/Wrangler and Jeep GC. Toyota doesn't build a direct competitor in either of those two segments. Nor does Jeep or Ford sell a 4Runner competitor in the USA market. Ford does build and sell the Everest that is pretty similar to a 4Runner segment globally. But not in the USA. I don't think anything globally in the Jeep world is similar. In my view the closest direct competitor to the Wrangler in the toyota corporate umbrella is the Subaru outback. It's very similar structurally.

Anyway - 4Runner overlaps the jeep/bronco market. I think this moves the needle that way with 35's fitting stock and 37's being pretty easy to bolt on.

I do think Toyota is missing the "fun" part of the market without any removeable top. That's what really separates the Bronco and Wrangler from all others.

I also think the 4R will out perform the Bronco offroad in some conditions. The rear suspension is significantly superior on the 4Runner. The coilover design on the Bronco is a real bummer. It effectively eliminates the benefit of a solid axle while keeping most of the negatives. To maximize the benefits of a solid axle the springs need to be inboard and shocks ideally put outboard as far as possible. Toyota's rear axle coil design is better. Wrangler is also similar to the Toyota design. I think a 4Runner with 37s will be pretty comparable to the Bronco or Wrangler on the trails overall.

I rode in a bronco at the new york international auto show. It seemed to flex pretty well, especially once they hit the swaybar disconnect. Admittedly didn't have a 4Runner to compare against.

[Jetboy]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I rode in a bronco at the new york international auto show. It seemed to flex pretty well, especially once they hit the swaybar disconnect. Admittedly didn't have a 4Runner to compare against.

It's not so much the range of travel but the load distribution while articulating. If you put the springs all the way out at the ends of the axle beam, you don't take advantage of the potential of the beam to use the lever arm to help distribute the weight side to side.

This is a copy and paste from another discussion, but it explains the issue fairly well I think:

In a simple scenario where you have a 72" track width and springs with a constant spring rate mounted inboard at 48" width (1 foot in from each WMS), and a spring rate of 200lb/in and the axle is bearing the weight of 2500lb. On a level surface each tire is loaded with 1,250lb of weight.

Now let's assume an obstacle where frame remains level and one tire is on top of a 12" rock. So the axle system will be put at a 9.56* angle.

With a solid axle modeled as a continuous beam with two point loads (springs) and supported ends (tires) the force on the tire displaced upward will be 1783lb and the force on the down side will be 717 lbs. (The springs will be displaced 4" up on one side and 4" down on the other, but that does not calculate the ground force distribution which will be a more complex, but not terribly complex, beam with asymmetrical point loads).

With coilovers like the Bronco uses if we took an extreme assumption to better tease out the issue - let's assume that each coilover was attached to the very end point of the axle beam. The axle would not transfer any of the force from one side to the other. The force on the upper tire will be 2450lb and the lower tire will be 50lb.

In both of those examples the tires always stay on the ground. They flex the same amount. Visually it would look pretty similar. But in terms of load distribution - the inboard spring design performs much better. And that translates to significantly less imbalance on the vehicle body, less body motion as you travel over obstacles (less head toss and more stability), and ideally better overall confidence and traction as the tires remain more balanced.

It's a balancing act though because as you move the springs inward you also reduce the inherent stability to resist body roll in corners or on sidehills. The solution for that is KDSS or similar anti-roll mechanisms. That's why the Toyota KDSS system paired with the inboard coils was a really great overall performer. Especially as implemented in the LC300 and should be in the GX550.

[syndicate1]

Sooo, now that the 6th Gen is released... is it too soon to create a 7th Gen T4Rs category and start a Best Speculation thread?

[johnbt]

I love North Carolina's Outer Banks.

Now where is that other picture? We all know it's more about the driver. Your browser is not supported | delawareonline.com



Rt. 12 north ends in Corolla NC. Well, the paved part does while the official state road goes out on the beach for the last 12 miles. Don't follow your GPS

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Jetboy

It's not so much the range of travel but the load distribution while articulating. If you put the springs all the way out at the ends of the axle beam, you don't take advantage of the potential of the beam to use the lever arm to help distribute the weight side to side.

This is a copy and paste from another discussion, but it explains the issue fairly well I think:

In a simple scenario where you have a 72" track width and springs with a constant spring rate mounted inboard at 48" width (1 foot in from each WMS), and a spring rate of 200lb/in and the axle is bearing the weight of 2500lb. On a level surface each tire is loaded with 1,250lb of weight.

Now let's assume an obstacle where frame remains level and one tire is on top of a 12" rock. So the axle system will be put at a 9.56* angle.

With a solid axle modeled as a continuous beam with two point loads (springs) and supported ends (tires) the force on the tire displaced upward will be 1783lb and the force on the down side will be 717 lbs. (The springs will be displaced 4" up on one side and 4" down on the other, but that does not calculate the ground force distribution which will be a more complex, but not terribly complex, beam with asymmetrical point loads).

With coilovers like the Bronco uses if we took an extreme assumption to better tease out the issue - let's assume that each coilover was attached to the very end point of the axle beam. The axle would not transfer any of the force from one side to the other. The force on the upper tire will be 2450lb and the lower tire will be 50lb.

In both of those examples the tires always stay on the ground. They flex the same amount. Visually it would look pretty similar. But in terms of load distribution - the inboard spring design performs much better. And that translates to significantly less imbalance on the vehicle body, less body motion as you travel over obstacles (less head toss and more stability), and ideally better overall confidence and traction as the tires remain more balanced.

It's a balancing act though because as you move the springs inward you also reduce the inherent stability to resist body roll in corners or on sidehills. The solution for that is KDSS or similar anti-roll mechanisms. That's why the Toyota KDSS system paired with the inboard coils was a really great overall performer. Especially as implemented in the LC300 and should be in the GX550.

Good explanation and makes perfect sense. Thank you.

[M1911]

Originally Posted by Jetboy

I do think Toyota is missing the "fun" part of the market without any removeable top. That's what really separates the Bronco and Wrangler from all others.

What is important to me is a quiet interior and reliability. If the 4Runner came with a removable top that would eliminate it from my consideration. My SUV is my daily driver, not a weekend toy. When I'm driving my hour plus commute in stop-and-go traffic, what I want is peace and quiet.

[AZ Craig]

Appears the embargo on the hybrid Tacoma lifted today with multiple press sites having first drive/impressions.

The most interesting thing though is the pricing of the TRD Pro and Trailhunter. From thedrive.com: $65,395 for TRD Pro. The Trailhunter will cost a little less at $64,395 with a five-foot bed, or $64,895 with a six-foot bed.

Ouch is all I can say. This pretty much implies a 4Runner Trailhunter or TRD Pro is going to be in the mid to high $60s, plus any ADM early on.