boston_kevin said:
Comparing a 1998 GM V6 engine to a 2006 Toyota V8 is not a real comparison. That would be akin to comparing a 1998 4Runner with the 4 cylinder engine to the 2006 Honda Pilot The technology is miles apart and the vehicles aren't even in the same class. The 1990's V6 based blazers (little blazers) were horrible which is why they were eventually replaced.
I have both trucks. I have a V6 4Runner and a 2000 5.3L V8 Yukon. The Yukon has 112,000+ miles on it and we are averaging 16-18 mpg overall (depending on the amount of highway vs city), with a highway average of 19 mpg (and yes, all 8 cylinders are running all the time). Most of the time, the Yukon doubles as a "school bus" running 3 kids to school and after school activities which is in town mileage only (that is just over 16 mpg). As far as build quality, I have spent a total of $750 in repairs on a 6 year old vehicle and everything works fine. I tow a 4200 lb boat with this vehicle (and the 4Runner tows this boat), and off-road with this in the sand. Also it has a sunroof that still works perfectly and doesn't leak (unlike many 4Runner owners - not to diss any 4Runner owners).
All I'm saying is that I have both trucks and I have positive evidence on the gas mileage and reliability of these two. Maybe my experience is extremely fortunate, but most full sized GM SUV owners have not have problems with the 2000+ model year trucks.
Wait and see what Toyota gets with 4-cylinders shut off? They aren't even putting a part-time 4WD system in their V8 4Runners... Why would they ever shut off 4 cylinders to drive all 4 wheels at the same time. I agree that you may not see 22+ mpg with all 8 cylinders running on the GM, but at the same time, only a handful of V8 owners in this forum are seeing over 18 mpg average with the V8 4Runner.
The reason I didn't buy another full sized GM vehicle (like my wife's Yukon) is because we didn't need a 2nd full-sized SUV, but we did need the 3rd row. GM Trailblazer is a POS (as well as the Envoy) so I wouldn't buy that vehicle anyway. My only other options were an Exploder (not likely) or an MDX (which has a history of burning out clutch packs in the AWD system over extended use).
OK, first off, the only time Displacement on Demand is activated is on level highway going less than 65 mph, other than that all eight cylinders have to be firing to get it to do what you want it to do. I wish GM would put an indicator somewhere to tell you when its running on 4 cyl, I bet you'd be suprised to see how often its
not activated. I've never been in one, this is just hearsay but it makes sense, its simple physics. Besides, all the car magazines aren't reporting anything special for mileage on a DOD vehicle, a V8 4Runner can easily do 20+ mpg highway due to its smaller engine and less weight. The majority of the mileages everyone has been listing in this thread are combined.
Secondly, the only reason to own a GM SUV vs. a 4Runner is becasue it has more space, pure and simple. Its slower, uses more gas, and tows about the same as a V8 4Runner. It has worse build quality and higher maintanence costs as compared to a 4Runner, and don't even get me started on resale of a GM SUV...
Third, quit making the full time 4WD system on the 4Runner out to be a power sapping inefficient system. On the dyno I've realized 18-20% parasitic loss from the drivetrain, this is as good as most AWD cars and 2WD trucks, and this is with the center dif locked! The center dif is limited slip (non-mechanical) when its not locked is like it isn't even there. Plus when its not needed it sends 60% of the torque to the rear wheels reducing parastic losses even more. So that can't really be an arguing point on the efficiency of the drivetrain.
It cracks me up! The 4Runner has 60 less HP and 35 less ft-lbs yet its faster, uses less fuel (most of the time), handles better and can tow almost as much as a Tahoe/Yukon! To me, its a no brainer.
