i got my 4r from my inlaws,(who did all the schedualed maintinance on it since they bought it new), this limited is in really good shape. 142k on it, looks 5, not 10 years old. so i look up revews on the www, edmunds think the 3.4 is wimpy. i love my 4r, i don't do any heavy off roading, but if i wanted to, could i? i think this is the best $4500 i ever spent, but why is edmunds calling the 3.4 weak?
2001 3.4
- Thread starter cpac
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Ghostrider
Registered User
No idea... Unless they are trying to compare it to todays engines. From memory I can recall the major competitors to my SR5 in 2000. Jeep Cherokee had 190 HP and Nissan Pathfinder had about 210. I got something like 186 but over 200 of torque which is more important. Plus the Pathfinder needs premium fuel. I test drove the SR5 up a few hills to make sure the power was there and it was.
Nelsonmd
New member
Well, the 3.4 is a bit anemic compared to some of the other engines out there, but it also gets upwards of 20-22 mpg (in the late 90's). It's not a V8, but on the other hand, it's not a V8. It's not a modern engine, but it is as bulletproof as they come.
To answer your question, yes, you can do serious off roading with the 3.4L. These engines have good torque, and can take you just about anywhere. You won't see it on a hill climb rig, but it will get you anywhere the tires will let you go. Look around here for not very long and you will realize that the 3.4 will not ever be the thing limiting you.
And second, yes, that is the best $4500 you have ever spent.
To answer your question, yes, you can do serious off roading with the 3.4L. These engines have good torque, and can take you just about anywhere. You won't see it on a hill climb rig, but it will get you anywhere the tires will let you go. Look around here for not very long and you will realize that the 3.4 will not ever be the thing limiting you.
And second, yes, that is the best $4500 you have ever spent.
