JB.
New member
Thanks for that. This thread had been deteriorating in a boring, predictable fashion until that gem of absurdity.
Test Drove new SR5 today...
- Thread starter blue2006
- Start date
Thanks for that. This thread had been deteriorating in a boring, predictable fashion until that gem of absurdity.
That's classic... I'll have to remember that one for future posts. Hmm...yeah, we all love the V6 because of its smaller carbon footprint. Hahahahahha.
Hell, I bet those 4cyl 5th gen owners are thrilled to death with their even smaller carbon footprint! Classic!
Since carbon footprint is directly proportional to dollars out of your wallet, it sure as heck matters to me. Every mpg matters when you are looking at vehicles around 20mpg and lower. A UR w/ the 6AT might be a different story, but as it stands, I'll take the 15% fuel economy improvement in the 5th gen over the 4th V8. Same goes with the center diff. I almost guarantee that the reason the Limited has 245 series tires instead of 265 is to help counteract the add'l drivetrain drag of the full time 4WD. I think long term durability of the part time 4WD will be better than full time as well.
I love the 3rd gen, but it is only marginally bigger inside than my GTI, the gas mileage sucks, and it is near impossible to find one that doesn't have 150k miles.
I love the 3rd gen, but it is only marginally bigger inside than my GTI, the gas mileage sucks, and it is near impossible to find one that doesn't have 150k miles.
If you are so concerned with the "carbon footprint" then you should have purchased a 4 cyl model. Or better yet, no 4Runner at all. BTW, a vehicle's carbon footprint is more than just its MPG rating.
I just find it funny because it seems a bit hypocritical to buy a heavy SUV and then talk about the importance of its carbon footprint. The fact of the matter is that most people use vehicles in this class as passenger vehicles most of the time, which we would than have to compare carbon footprints with a passenger car. Of course it wouldn't look so good in that type of comparison.
I'm sure some people will say, "yeah, but I NEED my 4Runner for _______"(insert various reasons) and all the good stuff they can't do in a car. Terrific. But that doesn't change the fact that most 4Runners spend most of their time on the road doing passenger car duty. That's just an undeniable fact. So don't get too caught up in the whole carbon footprint thing.
what are the actual mileage numbers you guys are getting, both local and highway?
on my 4th gen ltd V8. i get 13local with reg gas, and about 18-19highway...if i run super the highway mileage is even better, i've gotten the puter to show 20mpg while doing 65+ with cruise engaged.
i dont ever believe the mpg numbers that car makers put on the sticker, i think a lot of the time those numbers are the absolute best case you could get, and is not a representation of real world mileage.
as for my opinion on V6 vs V8, i think that if they wanted to go that route, then they should have followed in Ford and Chevy's footsteps with what they did on the 2011 stang and 2010 camaros, those V6's make serious power.
all i know is, when i put my foot to the floor in my runner, it gets going in a hurry and makes a great noisel, its FUN for me since i dont have a sports car.
when i was test driving the SR5, i floored it and found myself waiting for something to happen, it was slow. is this a priority for an SUV? for me it is, again, since i dont have the means to buy a fun car and have the SUV for family duty, off roading on the beach, and carting stuff here and there...i like my car, its a good mix of utility and sports "truck"/"muscle truck"...
on my 4th gen ltd V8. i get 13local with reg gas, and about 18-19highway...if i run super the highway mileage is even better, i've gotten the puter to show 20mpg while doing 65+ with cruise engaged.
i dont ever believe the mpg numbers that car makers put on the sticker, i think a lot of the time those numbers are the absolute best case you could get, and is not a representation of real world mileage.
as for my opinion on V6 vs V8, i think that if they wanted to go that route, then they should have followed in Ford and Chevy's footsteps with what they did on the 2011 stang and 2010 camaros, those V6's make serious power.
all i know is, when i put my foot to the floor in my runner, it gets going in a hurry and makes a great noisel, its FUN for me since i dont have a sports car.
when i was test driving the SR5, i floored it and found myself waiting for something to happen, it was slow. is this a priority for an SUV? for me it is, again, since i dont have the means to buy a fun car and have the SUV for family duty, off roading on the beach, and carting stuff here and there...i like my car, its a good mix of utility and sports "truck"/"muscle truck"...
westwind77
New member
Local I get 17 with 'normal' driving (I am heavy on the gas, 19 if I 'be good' HWY 20's +, but I do not do much HWY driving, mostly around town.
Personally I think people who think this, think what they want to think. They are driving a v6, not a v8, they are walking into it thinking/knowing/wanting to be disappointed. From the number of reviews/specs I found searching there is less than .8 sec between the old v8 and new v6. I am not going to argue a known fact, the old v8 is faster, but by just a slim bit. To sit there and say it was 'slow' is what you 'wanted' to feel, just human nature. If you drove the v4, yes then I would agree with you. Trust me, I can understand where you are coming from. I came from a 5.9L v8, the mental knowledge of what was under the hood plus the 'noise' is totally different, however, I have NOT been disappointed by the power of this new 4R once! This new v6 is not a sports car, but it is not 'slow' either!
fxoffroad
New member
Well its all relative, isn't it?
Environmental Impact Scores (Barrels)/Carbon Footprint
Toyota Prius: 6.9/3.8
Smart fortwo: 9.5/5.2
Ford Escape: 15.6/8.5
2010 Toyota 4Runner V6: 18/9.8
Ford F150: 21.4/11.6
2009 Toyota 4Runner (V8): 22.8/12.4
Land Cruiser: 22.8/12.4
Land Rover LR4: 24.5/13.3
Bentley Brooklands: 31.1/16.9
source: Fuel Economy
I have been in and driven many a 3rd Gen... its a completely different experience and as a total package - to me - better than the 4th Gen. Nope, never bothered by the interior space.
The 2010 I4 and V6 are rated the same... I think we can all agree that the 4cyl. has a limited appeal.
I'm not negating what you're saying. I think its pretty telling that a 2009 V8 4Runner is (EIS/Barrels) rated the same as a 2010 V8 Land Cruiser.
4cyl doesn't come in 4WD (one of the reasons I bought an SUV). I could have bought a Prius, but it wouldn't haul 4 adults, bikes, gear, or a utility trailer full of gravel or drywall very well. I already have 2 fuel efficient daily drivers anyway.
Jed said:
Dude, you missed the freaking point. I said carbon footprint because it is mostly fuel economy and better fuel economy = less money out of my wallet. I was being coy when I said "carbon footprint", hence the quotation marks. To me, spending as little money as possible to do what I want to do is more important than pretending that my SUV is a sports car like some people clamoring for a V8 seem to. My carbon footprint isn't a problem compared to nearly anyone on this board because I put a majority of my miles on my two hatchbacks that get over 30mpg.
The V6 4Runner fits my wants and needs perfectly because it does what I want it to do while getting decent fuel economy.
JB.
New member
Yes, relative would be the preferred approach of a self-indulgently green mindset. That approach best allows for retention of the big barrel lifestyle with minimal inconvenience of footprint reduction. Best, of course, would be reducing footprint in conspicuous (and proudly cited) ways while enjoying expansion in less obvious areas.
You just bought a brand new, 2 1/2 ton, full-time 4WD SUV. I'm guessing its service life won't be devoted strictly to emergencies and feeding of the homeless.
By all means, enjoy its features. Get goofy over how much you love it -- we've all been there. But trying to pretend planet saving played a role in your purchase decision just begs for comment.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you bike and take public transportation whenever possible. Maybe you down sized your house to use less energy or moved to an apartment in the heart of the city to travel less. Maybe you watch the quantity and quality of your calorie intake to minimize carbon footprint. Maybe you spend vacation time at home to eliminate travel impact. If these kinds of things describe you, a retraction is definitely in order.
fxoffroad
New member
All 5th Gens 4Runners impact on the environment is less than your 2005 V8. My original comment was: " I was glad it had a V6 - and smaller carbon footprint" (meaning less than and smaller than a V8).
My 4Runner, is not my daily driver and probably after the first year of ownership - will average 4,000-6,500 miles per year, like my last vehicle - and most of those miles will be spent getting to or on a trail.
If you want to personally attack me, sweet - have fun w/ that.
But the (high-jacked) discussion is about the impact of the vehicle - not personal lifestyle. Using your mindset, wouldn't you simply agree that your V8 is more "indulgent" than a 5th Gen V6? According to your apparent logic - small incremental steps/efforts are pointless.
No one's trying to pretend to save the planet - get over yourself.
Last edited:
SeattleMike
New member
You don't have to justify your purchase choices to me. Actually, it's pretty predictable...just like I said. It's your money and your life, so be happy with whatever you choose. Just don't try using the lame "carbon footprint" argument when it comes to relatively fuel inefficient vehicles.
But I completely understand your point. I own a 4Runner that I drive about 7000 miles per year. My neighbor commutes to work in his Corolla all year long and averages nearly 25000 miles per year. I'm quite sure that he uses more fuel in his Corolla than I use in my 4Runner over the course of a year. In one sense, that's a win for me. But if you think about it logically, if I would have chosen to buy a Corolla, I'd use FAR less fuel than him. But like you said, there are things I can't do in a Corolla that I can do in my 4Runner....carbon footprint be damned! LOL
Good post and right on target. There's nothing wrong with buying an SUV and enjoying the things you can do with it. I'm not a greenie and have no false intentions. But at the same time, it's silly for someone who chooses to buy a vehicle like a 4Runner to start harping about carbon footprints like they are some kind of environmental messiah.
Not according to the source you listed. The 4 cylinder has a smaller carbon footprint. But really, who cares? It's an SUV for Pete's sake!
westwind77
New member
Saint Peter. I think he was a famous guy in the bible or something...
