Edmund's says 3rd gen under powered

N

nick117201

New member
Edmunds says"As numerous car-based SUVs entered the market, the third-generation 4Runner grew old quickly, and its weaknesses began to show. Two engines were available: a 150-hp 2.7-liter inline-4 and a 183-hp 3.4-liter V6 engine, neither of which was particularly strong for the time..."
Is this correct?
Terry
 
Register to hide this ad
It's a fun truck, not a racing truck.

It pulls its own, but I wouldnt go towing anything huge or drag racing it.
 
Truck is built for off-roading and cruising she isn't meant for speed being very top heavy. Great smooth ride though.
 
And yet we are still talking about them over a decade later. Their competition? not so much, really.
Got old quickly? Hmmmm... arguably the longest lasting, most dependable SUV ever made.
Under powered? Ok... you got me there. which is why mines supercharged
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Considering what was offered in the American SUV's at the same time, even the 3.4L was small. I had a '99 Explorer with the 5.0L and yes I miss the beautiful sounds it made and the off the line performance, but I do love my '99 T4R much more.
 
I can say that the 3rz probably shouldn't have been offered in the 4x4 cut.....but man you should see how the 3rz reacts to just a few upgrades and good tuning.
 
nick117201 said:
Edmunds says"As numerous car-based SUVs entered the market, the third-generation 4Runner grew old quickly, and its weaknesses began to show. Two engines were available: a 150-hp 2.7-liter inline-4 and a 183-hp 3.4-liter V6 engine, neither of which was particularly strong for the time..."
Is this correct?
Terry
Click to expand...

They are underpowered and a dog up hills. But they are tq'y in 4wd low and enough to climb anything. Good for flat city/highway driving. Not good for mountain passes but it works. It has enough power to get your around but not to beat anything on the road.
 
I don't know why they say it got old quickly? The lines on the 3rd gen make it the least dated of any 90's SUV, to my eye. Scale it up by 10% and it'd look like it was designed yesterday.
 
I recall a test of pretty much all the then-current 4wd SUV's in Four Wheeler magazine, when the 3rd gen was a new model.

In V6, 4wd, manual trans configuration, the 4Runner was quicker from 0-60 mph than almost all of it's competition. Several testers commented that it felt surprisingly spirited.

I test drove most of the available SUV's back then, and agreed with the Editors assessment. There was also a noticeable difference in performance between the manual and auto trans equipped V6 4Runners. The manual feeling much more spirited.

I think that whoever wrote that for Edmunds, either wasn't old enough to drive back in the mid 90's, or their memory is clouded after driving so many newer vehicles in the ensuing years.

At the time, especially with a V6 and manual trans, it was more than competitive with it's competition.
 
For the 5VZ's size it was quite powerful. What was the V8 Exploder's acceleration to 60? Like 8.5 seconds? The 4Runner in automatic form did 9.5 seconds to 60. Pretty poor from Ford's side considering it had two extra cylinders and an extra 1.6L's in displacement. On top of that, you could drive a 4Runner off the dealer lot with a supercharger that did 60 in around 7 seconds. All that with a warranty. They weren't that slow in the 90's...
 
It's definitely not fast by any means. I sometimes miss my Xterra and the power it had. Having the 4runner makes me drive slower but that's probably better since the gas mileage is pretty bad.
 
:flipoff: Edmunds!! If I had wanted to go fast, I would have bought a race car but you can't drive a race car for 200,000 + miles without a rebuild or take a race car 4 wheeling.
I had a 1999 ZR2 Blazer with the 4.3 and actually the 3.4 doesn't feel that lacking to the 4.3 and the 3.4 gets better gas mileage. It all depends on the intended use of what you are buying. You wanna cushy ride, buy a Cadillac. You wanna go fast, buy a race car.
 
02SE said:
In V6, 4wd, manual trans configuration, the 4Runner was quicker from 0-60 mph than almost all of it's competition. Several testers commented that it felt surprisingly spirited.

I test drove most of the available SUV's back then, and agreed with the Editors assessment. There was also a noticeable difference in performance between the manual and auto trans equipped V6 4Runners. The manual feeling much more spirited.

I think that whoever wrote that for Edmunds, either wasn't old enough to drive back in the mid 90's, or their memory is clouded after driving so many newer vehicles in the ensuing years.

At the time, especially with a V6 and manual trans, it was more than competitive with it's competition.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. The automatics are underpowered, the manuals are great, especially with the supercharger. That said, the 4Runner had just as much if not more power than the competing SUVs at the time.
 
T4R2014 said:
For the 5VZ's size it was quite powerful. What was the V8 Exploder's acceleration to 60? Like 8.5 seconds? The 4Runner in automatic form did 9.5 seconds to 60. Pretty poor from Ford's side considering it had two extra cylinders and an extra 1.6L's in displacement. On top of that, you could drive a 4Runner off the dealer lot with a supercharger that did 60 in around 7 seconds. All that with a warranty. They weren't that slow in the 90's...
Click to expand...

I don't know about the V8, but the V6 in my '00 Ex was definitely peppier than the 3.4 we have in the 4Runner now. Both are/were automatics, but that 4.0 would catapult the truck up any hill I pointed it at, where the 3.4 bogs badly on steep hills.

'Course, at 170k the Exploder was just about done in across the board, where at 200k the 4Runner is just getting broke in. But in terms of available power, the 3rd gen 4Runner is definitely behind the 2nd gen Explorer.
 
Got old quickly?

Well, when she's all clean and sparkly I've had people ask me what year it was and all thought it was in the mid 2000. Certainly not a 99!

I love my 5-speed :boink:
 
KidVermicious said:
I don't know about the V8, but the V6 in my '00 Ex was definitely peppier than the 3.4 we have in the 4Runner now. Both are/were automatics, but that 4.0 would catapult the truck up any hill I pointed it at, where the 3.4 bogs badly on steep hills.

'Course, at 170k the Exploder was just about done in across the board, where at 200k the 4Runner is just getting broke in. But in terms of available power, the 3rd gen 4Runner is definitely behind the 2nd gen Explorer.
Click to expand...

Aren't you running 33's on your 4Runner? Turning those larger diameter, more aggressive tread and much heavier than stock tires will make it noticeably slower than it otherwise would be with stock tires.

The issue which I still have a copy of at home, also tested V6 and V8 Explorer's. They were both slower than the 4wd V6 manual trans 4Runner, equipped with the optional P265/70R16 tires.

At the time when all the vehicles were stock, not lifted and running bigger heavier tires, and loaded down with camping, recovery, and/or off-road oriented gear, the 4Runner was more than competitive.
 
^^^^^very true^^^^^

I know my old 86' felt like a race car when I'd take the top off for summer!
That ol' 22re was an all new fire breathing dragon. I'm sure if I put 265/70/16 on my 99 it would smoke some vw bug off the line!

O2SE makes a valid point in saying weight and tire size can make a world of difference
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 745 (members: 4, guests: 741)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,312
Messages
3,554,089
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top