Come on now guys, to say that the people who bought V6s instead of V8s because they didn't want to spend the extra $$$ is not very true. Some may not need all that extra torque for towing, others may not need to lose an extra 2mpg if all they do is drive like grandma/grandpa, while others may never go off roading. That's like saying those who bought SR5s & Sports were too cheap to buy the Limiteds (except for the fact that Sports has X-reas and larger brakes).
Seriously, the price difference between a V6 & V8 is about $1200. I could've got the V8 considering that it was only about a week's pay $$$ for me, but I chose to get the V6 Ltd 4x4 since it had relatively equal (but less) power than the V8 and had the multi-mode 4wd system (why lose an extra 2mpg cruising 70-80mph on the freeway?). Now if Toyota had made an '05 VVTi V8 w/the multi-mode 4wd, I'd be trading in my 6 month old '04 for it. The only thing I'm waiting for and hoping that it will be made is a TRD supercharger for the 4.0 V6. The $1200 not spent is for the future supercharger & an upgraded kick-ass custom audio/video system.
Final comment: All the info on the track/test times posted on these various websites are full of B/S (most, but not all). I've gone to so many of these websites and they all basically sound the same. The reviews of the 4R on several websites (I won't mention which ones) seems as if one writer plagerized another writer's review. The 0-60 times posted weren't even actual results, but came from unreliable sources (i.e- 3rd party publications; where's the proof of actual tests?). They just take some info from some source and use it, the same way they use photos of the vehicle to post on the websites. Now if these 0-60 times were actually accurate & true, they would notate the source it came from (i.e- from a car magazine, test on a particular month/year). Basically, I'm saying that if the results didn't come from a car magazine publication who uses their own professional drivers, then the info is most likely inaccurate. The only true results I've seen in actual publication is Motor Trend's 7.8sec 0-60 time for the V8. Another thing about car mags, they won't test a vehicle or release actual test results on a vehicle if the auto manufacturer prohibit them from doing so. Point in case: MT tested both the new M5 vs the E55, but only posted the E55 results probably because the M5 (possibly pre-preduction model) track results weren't as impressive as the Bavarian automaker had hope. This may buy them some time to tuned the final production models to make them quicker. I have yet to see any car mag run a V6 in any test possibly due to Toyota's own test results for the pre-'05 model V6s & V8s which probably didn't show that the V8 was a whole lot faster than the V6. Toyota may have barred the car mags from testing a V6 until the '05 VVTi V8s came out so that the consumer who buys an '05 V8 knows that he/she bought a more superior engine (Obviously the '05 V8 will whoop both the 4.0 V6s & pre '05 V8s).
IMO, the V6 is plenty powerful for regular driving on flat roads. I pass up cars on freeways as if they were Yugos & Metros. I must admit that there are times (weekly) that I could've use a little more omph and an extra gear & that is when I wanna do 85mph+ up the cajon pass (I-15 mountain pass) and when I wanna gun it from 80-100mph+ to shut up the occasional disrespectful racer.
If anyone has any REAL 0-60 test results other than some B/S website whose main goal is to list the features of various vehicles to help the new car buyer decide which make/model to purchase, I'd really like to see it! (((other than the actual test results from SD4RUNNER, which IMO is seems pretty accurate & reputable))).
