Fourwheeler.com 2015 Fourwheeler of the Year

[IdRatherBe]

I strongly considered the cherokee trail hawk before going with the 4runner. There were a few key factors that changed my mind.

1 - Take a look at the new gen Jeep Cherokee Forum... it is full of nightmares. You could even follow guys that started out loving their cherokee and got daring with it off road. Eventually, they would fall in the category of disappointed or downright furious with their purchase for any number of reasons. Jeep obviously has no idea what the hell is going wrong with the 9 speed.

2 - Last I checked, it costs something like 6 figures to lift it. Thats right... you are stuck at <9" of clearance forever. Good luck with that.

3 - I drove my TEP. All this talk about how rough, bulky, and bad of a ride it is is nonsense. I drive in the city with confidence and I know my family is safe in the case that the other guy is texting. My last car was a subaru impreza, and I still cannot think of a time I thought the 4runner was unwieldy compared to even that little guy.

Every single time I see a little Trailhawk on the road, I pause and thank God I went with the 4runner. The Trailhawk would have its niche if it ran well... but it doesn't. It's really a shame.

The 4runner has room for improvement, but it would be a sad story if it took notes from Jeep on how to reinvent a 4x4.

 

[4FL]

I feel I am unbiased, in that this is my first Toyota, and I did look at a few different suvs before deciding on the 4r.

Dated interior - I have never understood this on any review, as if having some idiotic swoopy lines somehow makes it "modern", I am into function, not useless designs. The interior is great on the 4r, and one of the top reasons that attracted me to it. Different and "modern" does not mean better. I think the "dated" argument is just bs in trying to mark a hit against the car (of any model). It is not like the interior is the same as a 1972 Ford truck.

Handling - Again, fail to see the issue. The 4r handles great on the road, they act like it is a 1972 Ford truck that needs all of its bushings and shocks replaced. I cannot tell any adjustment in my driving over the 2013 Ford Edge I had, except I am not paranoid about large bumps and and such as I was in the Edge.

I looked at the trailhawk, but it got dropped from my list early due to interior room because I wanted something bigger than me Edge. I settled on between the Explorer and 4r; when I finally got to test drive a 4r, I dropped the Explorer right away without even a test drive.

As for the article, come on now everyone, all offroad magazines have been like this at least since the early 1990's. I do not think anyone that actually knows about going offroad would base a purchase off of an offroad magazine. Really, a person with even a little knowledge can just look at the car and tell its offroad capability.

 

[dekeman]

Editors must have mixed up the results by mistake: I've driven that chickenhawk and was not the least impressed.
My editors also drove it against eight other Cute Utes and ranked it seventh, with not one saying they'd recommend it to a best friend.

Editors Choice

 

[sandcrawler]

The 4Runner's engine performance is unfortunately a result of Toyota's focus on fuel economy rather than anything else. The "Eco" mode built into the ECM just doesn't let the new Dual VVTi 2GR-FE perform the way it should in terms of shift mapping & throttle response. A very big point against the 5th Gen 4Runner in my book.

despite its evident downsides, i'm a real fan of The Toyota Way—that is to say, a conservative approach (to feature-creep).

but i agree with your point, and think 99% of us owners would've wildly appreciated it if Toyota made "Eco Off" enable the performance the Dual VVTi 1GR-FE is truly capable of, rather than just turning off the little light on the dash. i can appreciate having an available mode to maximize fuel economy, but how many 4Runner buyers are primarily motivated by EPA estimates? :loco:

 

[jrandom]

Hah what a joke, that jeep is such a piece of sh!t! (search youtube for all the electrical malfunctions) even looks as f'n stupid as those sets of balls weirdos hang from their hitch receivers.


Just a note, LOL Jeep with 3 vehicles on the cars to avoid list:
2015 New Cars, Trucks And Crossovers To Avoid - Forbes

 

[manofsteele2003]

I am biased as I've had about 10 Toyotas but my fiancé had two wranglers and her parents had nothing but jeeps. I learn from other people experiences, everyone I know that has had a jeep, especially the grand Cherokee, says they are problem after problem. I did kind of dig her last 2013 wrangler but it's not the most comfortable on long trips and you can't go 2 miles without passing 10 of them.

 

[CSix]

I read some of this post yesterday, Then, went to Winterpark, Colorado via Berthud Pass. I drove side by side with a Trailhawk and it did not have a lot of extra power over the Pass... 11,000ft. Not Scientific I know but I was there and watched it struggle.

The T4R had plenty of power, especially when shifted manually. I always use the manual mode on the high mountain passes. Oh, I also got over 20mpg on this trip.

Now, 4Wheeler Mag seems to have a lot more in common with WWF Wrestlin' than with 4wheeling... IMHO...

 

[Curly Jefferson]

I read some of this post yesterday, Then, went to Winterpark, Colorado via Berthud Pass. I drove side by side with a Trailhawk and it did not have a lot of extra power over the Pass... 11,000ft. Not Scientific I know but I was there and watched it struggle.

The T4R had plenty of power, especially when shifted manually. I always use the manual mode on the high mountain passes. Oh, I also got over 20mpg on this trip.

Now, 4Wheeler Mag seems to have a lot more in common with WWF Wrestlin' than with 4wheeling... IMHO...

Was it the 4cylinder or the V6 that you were driving next to?

 

[CSix]

That I do not know. I had not seen one up close yet. Just saw it driving up the pass and thought it looked cool, then remembered it was the same Jeep in the 4Wheeler mag. I had to pass it because it was too slow up the pass. Looked over at it on the way up... It definitely struggled but most naturally aspirated engines do up that pass.

 

[Curly Jefferson]

That I do not know. I had not seen one up close yet. Just saw it driving up the pass and thought it looked cool, then remembered it was the same Jeep in the 4Wheeler mag. I had to pass it because it was too slow up the pass. Looked over at it on the way up... It definitely struggled but most naturally aspirated engines do up that pass.

I would imagine it was a 4 cylinder or the guy wasn't giving it anything. Gotta love the passes in Colorado. I got stuck with a little 2wd rental car when visiting family in Denver after Christmas during that snowy cold snap. It wasn't too fun driving around.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

I would imagine it was a 4 cylinder or the guy wasn't giving it anything. Gotta love the passes in Colorado. I got stuck with a little 2wd rental car when visiting family in Denver after Christmas during that snowy cold snap. It wasn't too fun driving around.

Doubtful...

The 4Runner is running a 1GR-FE with Dual VVTi that is putting out 270bhp with 278ft.lbs of Torque @4400rpm.

The Jeep Cherokee pumps out 271bhp and barely eeks out 239ft.lbs of Torque @4400rpm.

The 3.2L Pentastar based on its numbers is more of a car engine than a truck engine, its barely pumping out the torque at the same RPM as the 4Runner; even with the magical 9spd transmission you can't make up for that loss of power. It will be even more obvious at higher elevations when the engine can't breathe properly.

 

[Curly Jefferson]

Doubtful...

The 4Runner is running a 1GR-FE with Dual VVTi that is putting out 270bhp with 278ft.lbs of Torque @4400rpm.

The Jeep Cherokee pumps out 271bhp and barely eeks out 239ft.lbs of Torque @4400rpm.

The 3.2L Pentastar based on its numbers is more of a car engine than a truck engine, its barely pumping out the torque at the same RPM as the 4Runner; even with the magical 9spd transmission you can't make up for that loss of power. It will be even more obvious at higher elevations when the engine can't breathe properly.

I'm not here to argue with you but what is the weight difference between the two vehicles? My 4Runner feels heavier and slower than the Trailhawk did. Again, this is my observation and opinion after driving both vehicles extensively.

It would be nice if the 4Runner had an option for the smaller V8 that was in the Tundra.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

Just for giggles...

4Runner TRD Pro:

(4789lbs)
278ft.lbs
. . .
17.22lbs per 1ft.lbs

At 11,000ft the engine loses about 91.74ft.lbs of Torque
(11,000ft * .03[3% loss per 1000ft estimate] * 278ft.lbs / 1000)

Resulting in 25.71lbs per 1ft.lbs @ 11,000ft​

Jeep Cherokee TrailHawk

(4108lbs)
239ft.lbs
. . .
17.18lbs per 1ft.lbs

At 11,000ft the engine loses about 78.87ft.lbs of Torque
(11,000ft * .03[3% loss per 1000ft estimate] * 238ft.lbs / 1000)

Resulting in 25.60lbs per 1ft.lbs @ 11,000ft​

~

Ironically enough, the Jeep and Toyota are extremely close in Lbs per Torque; but the 4Runner has a bit of a flatter torque curve than the Jeep, so I would imagine it does a bit better. The numbers are mainly theoretical and in the real world I would imagine that the Pentastar will starve faster than the 4Runner will since the Pentastar engine family is more geared to car-like design than the 1GR-FE's truck/SUV design goals.

Post Note-

We all wish the 4Runner would have gotten the 4.6L 1UR-FE engine... unfortunately its only going to be downsizing from this point on. As far as I know Toyota will never include a V8 in the 4Runner again and if the Tacoma is any indication we'll see smaller engines with possibly turbocharger/superchargers in the future before they ever go bigger.

 

[HP Drifter]

I considered three vehicles before my recent 4Runner purchase. The other two were the Trailhawk and Wrangler 4 door. Test driving the Trailhawk, it felt like it had a lot more zip in the lower throttle settings. The 4Runner has good power, unfortunately you have to push the accelerator an inch through the floorboards to get it. The Wranger Unlimited just seemed to struggle with power everywhere. I am not a big interior features guy but I would say the Trailhawks was the "nicest", but as stated above more gizmos to go wrong. You can't modify the Trailhawk much, can't lift it, put bigger tires on, nothing. The Wrangler is off road capable, but just wasn't what I wanted for a daily driver either.

Oh, and this is my 5th Toyota in a row, so I guess I stick with what I know works. I really don't think there is a better on road/off road combination than the 4Runner.

 

[JeremyB]

Ironically enough, the Jeep and Toyota are extremely close in Lbs per Torque; but the 4Runner has a bit of a flatter torque curve than the Jeep, so I would imagine it does a bit better. The numbers are mainly theoretical and in the real world I would imagine that the Pentastar will starve faster than the 4Runner will since the Pentastar engine family is more geared to car-like design than the 1GR-FE's truck/SUV design goals.

The 4Runner has 17.7 lb/hp
The Trailhawk has 15.1 lb/hp
~17% more power per lb, or ~17% less weight per horsepower, however you want to look at it.

Obviously the Trailhawk will outrun the 4Runner when pushed hard. Given the torque ratio is so similar between the two, the 9-sp auto should make the Trailhawk feel faster around town.

On paper, I think the Cherokee is a great compact SUV to compete with the RAV4 and CR-V and whatnot. Great power, great transmission (remember, this is on paper ), an actual low range, decent clearance and approach/departure angles. Mpg is so-so for the Trailhawk (18/25). Too bad paper isn't the real world, hah.
I'm surprised the 3.2 Cherokee isn't rated to tow more than 2,000lbs. It certainly has the powertrain to do it (on paper )

 

[BlackWorksInc]

The 4Runner has 17.7 lb/hp
The Trailhawk has 15.1 lb/hp
~17% more power per lb, or ~17% less weight per horsepower, however you want to look at it.

Obviously the Trailhawk will outrun the 4Runner when pushed hard. Given the torque ratio is so similar between the two, the 9-sp auto should make the Trailhawk feel faster around town.

On paper, I think the Cherokee is a great compact SUV to compete with the RAV4 and CR-V and whatnot. Great power, great transmission (remember, this is on paper ), an actual low range, decent clearance and approach/departure angles. Mpg is so-so for the Trailhawk (18/25). Too bad paper isn't the real world, hah.
I'm surprised the 3.2 Cherokee isn't rated to tow more than 2,000lbs. It certainly has the powertrain to do it (on paper )

Where did you get 15.1ft.lbs? I stated that 4108lbs/239ft.lbs= 17.18lbs per 1ft.lbs of Torque

The issue is probably that the frame can't handle the stresses, again a reason why a BoF is more desirable.

 

[JeremyB]

Where did you get 15.1ft.lbs? I stated that 4108lbs/239ft.lbs= 17.18lbs per 1ft.lbs of Torque

15.1 lb/horsepower, not torque.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

I wouldn't bother with HP numbers when it comes to SUVs, they are not as useful as the "Work" that torque provides. That's the number that will be more eneficial to people who want to lift, larger tires, more armour, load it up, tow, ect. Now some people do track their 4Runners so I suppose HP might be nice to deal with, but in general I have found that Torque is best when dealing with Trucks/SUVs; hence why most Truck/SUV engines show lower HP vs. TQ.

 

[4FL]

The HP and torque numbers are rather pointless unless a person views it as it relates to the whole package; gears, power curve, etc, things that makes one 4x4 better than an other in a given situation.

 

[mo_mo]

I wouldn't bother with HP numbers when it comes to SUVs, they are not as useful as the "Work" that torque provides. That's the number that will be more eneficial to people who want to lift, larger tires, more armour, load it up, tow, ect. Now some people do track their 4Runners so I suppose HP might be nice to deal with, but in general I have found that Torque is best when dealing with Trucks/SUVs; hence why most Truck/SUV engines show lower HP vs. TQ.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.

In the simplest terms, torque changes through a drivetrain (gearing), while power (horses watts whatever) is constant (minus efficiency losses).

Torque numbers are presented for two reasons to the public:
1) Confusion (hey I have more torque but less hp me mo better)
2) Peak torque rpm = peak brake specific fuel consumption [aka keep your rpm below = fuel economy]

Now if we could see the entire power curve (not torque, although you can easily convert between the two once rpm / the drivetrain is known), matched to available gearing, then we can make an informed decision about the power train. Next we must match vehicle dynamics such as rolling resistance, mass, and aerodynamics to make a complete decision of the entire vehicle for straight line acceleration dynamics.

Now back to the subject at hand.

2014 Jeep Cherokee:
2 Recalls
234 Complaints
2 Service Bulletins
178508 Sales
0.00131 complaints / sale or 763 sales per complaint

2014 4Runner
1 Recall
6 Complaints
1 Service Bulletin
76906 Sales [ninja edit]
0.00007801732 complaints / sale or 12818 sales per complaint

Jeep Cherokee gets 16.8 more complaints per vehicle than the Toyota 4Runner!

:rockon: