Toffees
Member
Seems like most of that would disengage when you enter 4LO
highlander gets routinely re-design, why not 4Runner
- Thread starter jsun_2k
- Start date
Seems like most of that would disengage when you enter 4LO
jsun_2k
New member
You might be right about the fact that those electronic toys may not be good for offroad, but the question is how many the 4runner owners drive off-road more than 1/2, 1/3 or even 1/4 of the times?
PaulB-2006 T4R
New member
Last year I rented a Jeep GC, while parallel parking, the back up sensor stopped me like I ran into something. I got to look and it was a rock the size of a football, ridiculous!
Ray Dunakin
Senior Member
Doesn't matter. If the vehicle is used off-road even once, any gadgets that interfere with the ability to go off-road will be a problem unless they can be disabled (and not just in 4-Lo).
LandCruiser
New member
The "off road" Chevy Colorado had side curtain air bag deployment on mild trails.
Not a great way to get people to trust in your product.
If you can't disable all that crap, people will go elsewhere and the product will devolve into a crossover shitbox.
Jetboy
New member
Toyota and other's commitment to undersized engines is one of my biggest frustrations. If Ford or GM have shown us anything at all - it's that you don't inherently have to sacrifice mpg for power. A large engine can run efficiently at lower than peak output. There's no reason at all the 4Runner couldn't be as or more fuel efficient than a Tundra with exactly the same twin turbo v6. And the cost to manufacture is very similar between that and a turbo 4.
That said- the NX200t is a decent engine. A comparable 2.4L turbo 4cyl with 280hp and 280tq that starts at 1500 rpms would be a significant upgrade IMO. It has much more power through the mid RPM range where most of us use it. The key is low rpm power delivery and the NX does pretty well with that. Other 4cyl turbos like Subaru for example are pretty terrible for daily driving.
Toyota would serve us very well to consider engine options that have more power, but also significantly higher range of efficient output where the stock version starts out at the bottom end of the efficient range rather than the top. No one modifies their 4Runners to be more aerodynamic. Being really fuel efficient at 80% of normal driving load doesn't do anyone any good. Being efficient at 120 or 130% of stock highway cruising load is much better. They seem to only focus on engine options that are efficient for a perfectly stock and empty vehicle. At 10% increased ouput the engines are unable to operate efficiently due to being undersized. While I'd take a turbo 2.4 over the current GR, I'd much rather have a turbo version of the 2.5L 6cyl (4GR) or something more comparable in output to ford's EB2.7. Or, another great option would be to simply use the off the shelf 5.0L atkinson cycle v8. It's a great engine that would also fit nicely in power and efficiency in a 4Runner. I think it might actually best the turbo 4cyl in thermal efficiency and mpg. And is likely cheaper to produce.
That said- the NX200t is a decent engine. A comparable 2.4L turbo 4cyl with 280hp and 280tq that starts at 1500 rpms would be a significant upgrade IMO. It has much more power through the mid RPM range where most of us use it. The key is low rpm power delivery and the NX does pretty well with that. Other 4cyl turbos like Subaru for example are pretty terrible for daily driving.
Toyota would serve us very well to consider engine options that have more power, but also significantly higher range of efficient output where the stock version starts out at the bottom end of the efficient range rather than the top. No one modifies their 4Runners to be more aerodynamic. Being really fuel efficient at 80% of normal driving load doesn't do anyone any good. Being efficient at 120 or 130% of stock highway cruising load is much better. They seem to only focus on engine options that are efficient for a perfectly stock and empty vehicle. At 10% increased ouput the engines are unable to operate efficiently due to being undersized. While I'd take a turbo 2.4 over the current GR, I'd much rather have a turbo version of the 2.5L 6cyl (4GR) or something more comparable in output to ford's EB2.7. Or, another great option would be to simply use the off the shelf 5.0L atkinson cycle v8. It's a great engine that would also fit nicely in power and efficiency in a 4Runner. I think it might actually best the turbo 4cyl in thermal efficiency and mpg. And is likely cheaper to produce.
Last edited:
