I really don't understand the 4Runner's engine/tranmission situation.

[engineeer]

I rented a 2016 Chevy Suburban about a year ago, loaded it with 7 people and luggage for a weekend, and drove from Northern California to Southern California for a road trip. We were probably sitting at around ~7,300lb and I had cruise control on 70-75mph for most of the drive. We averaged 18.5mpg on the drive down.

I've been on two roadtrips (500 mile round trips to the mountains not included) in the 4Runner with only my girlfriend and me in the 4Runner and about 100lb worth of gear. Same 70-75mph cruise control and yet I struggle to get 19mpg out of the 4Runner. The same trips in my old Range Rover Sport (3.5L supercharged V6, 8A) would yield 21mpg.

Here's a comparison of the 4Runner and Tahoe (both 4x4), which further points out the discrepancy. I will note that I've never achieved 17mpg city, at best I get 12-14mpg, but with 275 KO2s.

Our 4Runners weigh 18% less, have almost 25% less displacement/horsepower/torque/towing capacity, but only get 6% better city gas mileage while getting 9% worse highway mileage.

I understand that the 4Runner is more reliable, better off-road, etc. (that's why I bought it over the Tahoe), but this is purely a "what's going on with the engine and transmission?" It seems to be the only thing keeping the 4Runner from being an all-around close-to-perfect vehicle. Well, that and Entune.

I know this has probably been beaten to death, but maybe it's worth putting together a "petition" of sorts from a large number of current owners to get Toyota to address this in future models. Not a "you guys should put a turbo/diesel/whatever in", but a "this is an area where we current owners are unhappy, please address it if you haven't already planned to" Let me know what you think.

That complaint aside, I love my 4Runner. I'm going to post a comprehensive review once I hit 10k miles (at ~8k 4.5 months in). As a thanks for reading, here's a shot of it at the top of a ski lift:

 

[(none)]

Lots of variables.

275 aren't helping you at all, that's probably your biggest deficit right there.

I'd be willing to bet the tahoe is more aerodynamic than the 4runner with the better lower cowling up front.

Its all about how you drive. I'm running c-rated 255/75s (Maxx St) and a 2" lift, i have still achieved 21mpg on the highway with cruise set at 72mph. I achieved 22mpg while still stock on highway trips.

 

[engineeer]

Lots of variables.

275 aren't helping you at all, that's probably your biggest deficit right there.

I'd be willing to bet the tahoe is more aerodynamic than the 4runner with the better lower cowling up front.

Its all about how you drive. I'm running c-rated 255/75s (Maxx St) and a 2" lift, i have still achieved 21mpg on the highway with cruise set at 72mph. I achieved 22mpg while still stock on highway trips.

Indeed, but even if I were getting the stock claims, I'd still be doing 9% worse than a 5.3L V8 vehicle that weighs 1,000lb more.

It seems, on paper, that the 4Runner should get significantly better gas mileage than the Tahoe, but that's not the case. I took an engine dynamics class in college (with a comprehensive lab), so I know there's a lot that goes into it, but I think Toyota could have done much better.

 

[philsey]

....I know this has probably been beaten to death,

* Yes, yes it has.

...but maybe it's worth putting together a "petition" of sorts from a large number of current owners to get Toyota to address this in future models.

* Srsly?

.... Let me know what you think.

* Probably you should buy a Tahoe

FWIW, I get a consistent 19 in town, and 21 hwy. Dead stock, driven like an old man.

 

[engineeer]

FWIW, I get a consistent 19 in town, and 21 hwy. Dead stock, driven like an old man.

I am indeed serious about communicating, in relatively large numbers, to Toyota. I work at a very large company and we take notice when things like that happen. It doesn't change things immediately (usually not possible), but it becomes part of the discussion for the future roadmap and is fresh on the minds of people that go into making those decisions.

Also, "petition" isn't the right word (hence why I put quotes around it) since that has a certain connotation, but you get my meaning.

How fast do you drive in the city? And how do you define "old man" driving?

 

[(none)]

Indeed, but even if I were getting the stock claims, I'd still be doing 9% worse than a 5.3L V8 vehicle that weighs 1,000lb more.

It seems, on paper, that the 4Runner should get significantly better gas mileage than the Tahoe, but that's not the case. I took an engine dynamics class in college (with a comprehensive lab), so I know there's a lot that goes into it, but I think Toyota could have done much better.

You're comparing an old motor/trans combo to one which has been continually updated. The 5.3 probably has cylinder deactivation, plus at least 6 gears. What final drive ratio are they running? The 3.73s in the 4R are fairly high for a road vehicle.

The point you are arguing is the same as to why small pickups (tacomas, frontiers, rangers, etc) have never really achieved much (if any) higher gas mileage than full size trucks.

I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying the vehicles are built for different purposes. Toyota greatly improved the fuel econ on the new tacoma with the new DI motor and 6-speed trans, plus the aerodynamic improvements. Even with that, full size trucks are still matching those numbers.

 

[engineeer]

You're comparing an old motor/trans combo to one which has been continually updated. The 5.3 probably has cylinder deactivation, plus at least 6 gears. What final drive ratio are they running? The 3.73s in the 4R are fairly high for a road vehicle.

The point you are arguing is the same as to why small pickups (tacomas, frontiers, rangers, etc) have never really achieved much (if any) higher gas mileage than full size trucks.

I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying the vehicles are built for different purposes. Toyota greatly improved the fuel econ on the new tacoma with the new DI motor and 6-speed trans, plus the aerodynamic improvements. Even with that, full size trucks are still matching those numbers.

The 5.3 does have cylinder deactivation and 6 gears. Last I recall, it deactivates 4/8 cylinders when you're cruising at highway speeds. Final drive ratio is 3.08 (3.42 if you get the trailering package).

 

[JohnJerk]

I own that Tahoe. Very low front cowl which kills off road. Also cylinder deactivation. The Tahoe is amazing on efficiency and is very powerful and has endless safety and other features. Way better than my GX. It is very frustrating. I think Toyota plays it extremely safe on adopting new tech. The end result is reliability but terrible fuel economy and the economy we see comes from detuning. The Tacoma is advancing the tech and efficiency, but anything in the 5.8 and 4.6 and 4.0 liter range is just embarrassing. A 5 speed in this day and age? Give us a break. Still, in the end, there is great value with Toyota products with low purchase price and high resale - maybe that needs to be the mantra mumbled every fill up.

 

[philsey]

I am indeed serious about communicating, in relatively large numbers, to Toyota. I work at a very large company and we take notice when things like that happen. It doesn't change things immediately (usually not possible), but it becomes part of the discussion for the future roadmap and is fresh on the minds of people that go into making those decisions.

* Well, given that the 6th Gen is already 95% completed, communicate away.

Also, "petition" isn't the right word (hence why I put quotes around it) since that has a certain connotation, but you get my meaning.

* Indeed I do, see * above.

How fast do you drive in the city?

* ~ 30 - 45, always in S-4.

And how do you define "old man" driving?

* Ha ... that needs explaining???? Ppl honk at me way after the light turns green. I always have a turn signal blinking. I turn in front of motorcycles. I always drive at least 5 mph below the speed limit. I cannot work a smartphone. I left foot brake, and always ride the brakes. I listen to Talk Radio on AM. I never use my mirrors. ... and I'm 75 in January. Happy now?

......

 

[engineeer]

I own that Tahoe. Very low front cowl which kills off road. Also cylinder deactivation. The Tahoe is amazing on efficiency and is very powerful and has endless safety and other features. Way better than my GX. It is very frustrating. I think Toyota plays it extremely safe on adopting new tech. The end result is reliability but terrible fuel economy and the economy we see comes from detuning. The Tacoma is advancing the tech and efficiency, but anything in the 5.8 and 4.6 and 4.0 liter range is just embarrassing. A 5 speed in this day and age? Give us a break. Still, in the end, there is great value with Toyota products with low purchase price and high resale - maybe that needs to be the mantra mumbled every fill up.

All good points. Now that you mention it, this definitely seems like a Toyota/Lexus thing. I remember being younger and trying to decide between the Lexus IS300 (which had recently been released) and the BMW 3-series / Audi A4. One thing that really confused me was how the IS300 was not only underpowered compared to the other two, but got terrible gas mileage compared to them as well.

 

[nb rob]

5 speed transmission;
not as efficient as the competitors.
proven reliability.

 

[TEujunga]

Its all about how you drive. I'm running c-rated 255/75s (Maxx St) and a 2" lift, i have still achieved 21mpg on the highway with cruise set at 72mph. I achieved 22mpg while still stock on highway trips.

Seriously, another my-technique-is-better-than-yours mileage thread? :flamewar:

I have 35" tires and a 6" lift and get 27 mpg @ 85 MPH. It's all in how you drive.

There's not much esoteric driving technique involved in setting the cruise control.

Believe me, there's already plenty of pressure on automakers to improve fuel economy with ever more stringent standards looming. I doubt an owner petition would accomplish much.

That said, the T4R could (and likely will, in its next iteration) do a lot better. It's burdened by a lot of old technology that combines to limit fuel efficiency. As others have pointed out, the aerodynamics, driveline friction, and outmoded engine/transmission design are probably the main culprits.

 

[b407driver]

I understand that the 4Runner is more reliable, better off-road, etc. (that's why I bought it over the Tahoe), but this is purely a "what's going on with the engine and transmission?" It seems to be the only thing keeping the 4Runner from being an all-around close-to-perfect vehicle. Well, that and Entune.

I know this has probably been beaten to death...[/IMG]

Doesn't CA sell crappy oxygenated gas year-round now? I know when I lived there 20 years ago, my winter mileage would be about 10% lower than summer. I'm running 275 AT3's and getting 16.9 average with a lift and rack (17.3 before lift/rack/tires), here in Denver. Never done a full tank of city-only, so can't speak to that. How you drive can obviously have a tremendous impact on your efficiency, but your mileage may vary.

PS: But yes, the transmission and mileage suck, but I've learned to adapt to the higher RPMs. I knew it going in, but the 4R was the only choice for me.

 

[trox_355]

You're comparing an old motor/trans combo to one which has been continually updated. The 5.3 probably has cylinder deactivation, plus at least 6 gears. What final drive ratio are they running? The 3.73s in the 4R are fairly high for a road vehicle.

My work truck is a 2016 half-ton Ram. I'm mainly road-going and don't often carry around heavy loads, but a full-sized truck (with its eight-speed automatic transmission) can reach 28 miles to the gallon. Granted, I was using some pretty irritating hypermiling techniques to get that, but I was still averaging 65 miles/hour on rural freeways.

That one's the smaller six-cylinder (no HEMI for me) but the pick-up and response still impresses me when I have to execute an expedient get-faster on an acceleration ramp.

 

[roborob1969]

275 aren't helping you at all, that's probably your biggest deficit right there

Yup! I went from 19mpg city/highway when I was stock - went down to 17.3mpg after getting 275/70/17 BFG's.

 

[SacStateHornets]

Careful, we may have the Tacoma nightmare 3.5/6AT thrown in by Toyota.

If you can afford a $36,000+ vehicle, why are you complaining about 1-3 mpg? It is part of the holistic 4Runner experience, it weighs 4,400lbs.

It is also the final drive ratio. I think the Runner is 3.73, that Suburban is probably 3.21 and it has that cylinder deactivation crap, probably stop/start engine malarkey too.

I laugh when I see/hear a $60,000 Mercedes/BMW pull up to a stoplight and the engine turns off, WTF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aspade]

Keep in mind what the world looked like in the mid 00s when this truck was designed. The economy was in superficially great shape, CAFE standards hadn't moved since the 80s, the global warming puritans were still confined to the universities, and as a result every expensive vehicle had a V8 so that's where the development money went. The V6 was a base model afterthought.

Then $5 gas happened, and then the economy happened, and then 8 years of the Prius party happened. Toyota had to do massive last minute cost cutting - chit interior, base powertrain only, even the 4 cylinder for 2010, etc - to sell the truck at all in the recession market. Even with all of that it sold terribly, so there was no money for more than a cosmetic update.

So at the end of the day we're left with the base model afterthought from 2006, it sucked then and it sucked now.

 

[Slavic]

Keep in mind what the world looked like in the mid 00s when this truck was designed. The economy was in superficially great shape, CAFE standards hadn't moved since the 80s, the global warming puritans were still confined to the universities, and as a result every expensive vehicle had a V8 so that's where the development money went. The V6 was a base model afterthought.

Then $5 gas happened, and then the economy happened, and then 8 years of the Prius party happened. Toyota had to do massive last minute cost cutting - chit interior, base powertrain only, even the 4 cylinder for 2010, etc - to sell the truck at all in the recession market. Even with all of that it sold terribly, so there was no money for more than a cosmetic update.

So at the end of the day we're left with the base model afterthought from 2006, it sucked then and it sucked now.

And what is left is reliability,man.:juggle:
That's why i bought this truck.

 

[(none)]

Seriously, another my-technique-is-better-than-yours mileage thread? :flamewar:

I have 35" tires and a 6" lift and get 27 mpg @ 85 MPH. It's all in how you drive.

That's my point. It's not a dick waving contest. People on here are always complaining about their shit fuel econ..right after they rattle off a list of mods they made such as larger tires, added more weight, etc. Then they want to compare it to some other, totally stock vehicle. As i've said before, the best fuel mileage you are ever going to see in a 4runner was when it was completely stock. Everything you add is only going to bring that number down. Deal with it.

Why did i stick with smaller tires? I like my fuel economy. I came from a Jeep running 35s and 4.88s which would be lucky to get 17mpg on a trip. I'm not looking to go back to that.

Then again, i'm also not posting on here "I added bigger, much heavier tires and i'm driving around at 75mph and how come i can't get 25mpg??"

 

[03_4x4Runner]

I am not a GM fan but their LS series V8 engines are very efficient and powerful. It is one thing they got right. My brother inlaws Tahoe will run circles around my 4runner and get better mileage even being a bigger vehicle.