Toyota owners seem to be a fickle group

[SpeedyKevin]

Toyota has basically negated the crawl gear issue with crawl control. Where a physical gear with a specific "golden" ratio doesn't exist, advanced ABS control does. It's the same thing as LSDs vs. an open dif with brake biasing. The crawl gear/LSD is certainly better because it's a mechanical solution, but for 99% of situations the vehicle will be in, using the brakes will be sufficient, too.

All spec sheet bench racing aside, that "fact" of the matter is this; the 4Runner isn't the best at rock crawling, it isn't the most comfortable or nimble on road, but it does have the best compromise of on and off road characteristics of anything on the market now, in my opinion. It gives 99% of people 99% of the abilities they need, which is where Toyota wants to be to appeal to the most people and sell the most cars. There will always be the 1% of people who want something that's better off or on road, and for them there's the Jeep Wrangler or the Subaru Outback.

I think one review summed it up for me when I was shopping around. Not exactly great at one thing but decent in all areas. That was enough for me.

That being said, I'm still expecting big (or maybe not too big) things for the 6th Gen!

 

[1jzgte]

See there in lies the issue. JB has an opinion about "5 or 6" and fusses over gear size and tech stuff for pages and pages. My opinion is that only the business model matters and JB should fuss over that (provide the data proving that business model is wrong) of which he cannot do there for his "5 or 6" tech fussing's are meaningless.
Once again the business model (aka White Paper) would have this information below in one form or another.



I think that if Toyota can sell 140,000 4 Runners in its what 7th to 8th almost unchanged year of production that they know what they are doing and it does not need a 6 speed.

absolutely on the head of the nail. Why would toyota spend more money to re-engineer and fit and test and test and test and test and recertify. Then to warranty the new problems design changes introduce. You can't just slap a new gear and call it reliable. All the above alone cost millions. We the consumers are the dumb ones. We continue to buy a old yet reliable vehicle for nearly/over 10 years of the same design. Sales increase year after year after year. All it took was some new buttugly headlights to keep it going even longer. Why do you think automakers almost/always introduce a mid-model redesign? Because we the consumers are suckers and it works.

 

[TRD PANTHER]

4 actually... 3rd gens haha. Friends and family owned
. Still not bad though.

How many miles on them? I have not known any. I have one friend with a ‘97 with 430k on it with no major issues. And of course plenty of 300k Runners with out issue. Now, if we are talking 2nd gen V6’s there’s plenty of them because of the notorious head gasket issue. The 3 Toyota trucks I owned prior to my 2001 4Runner were 22R and RE 4 cylinders that last. Slow as molasses, but reliable.

 

[SpeedyKevin]

How many miles on them? I have not known any. I have one friend with a ‘97 with 430k on it with no major issues. And of course plenty of 300k Runners with out issue. Now, if we are talking 2nd gen V6’s there’s plenty of them because of the notorious head gasket issue. The 3 Toyota trucks I owned prior to my 2001 4Runner were 22R and RE 4 cylinders that last. Slow as molasses, but reliable.

three of them at 200K+ and one at 250K. All city driving (LA traffic) so all that stop and go was probably tough on the car.

 

[Muff Muff]

I think one review summed it up for me when I was shopping around. Not exactly great at one thing but decent in all areas. That was enough for me.

That being said, I'm still expecting big (or maybe not too big) things for the 6th Gen!

Same for me. My brother had three JKU Jeeps, and I came from Mustangs before the 4Runner. Once I got married, I realized that I was never going to road course my Mustang like I thought I was when I bought it, and really I was just commuting. My wife and I are also outdoorsy people, but weren't satisfied with the (lack of) space and the (lack of) handling characteristics of the Wrangler. I was also extremely averse to buying a new car again after experiencing depreciation for the first time with my second Mustang.

So what used vehicle offers decent off road ability, still drives good on the road, retains its value decently, and has decent interior room? The Land Cruiser or the 4Runner. I went 4Runner because I'm poor.

 

[4FL]

Beware, this post turned into an aimless ramble at some point, but I decided to share it anyway. Feel free to agree, disagree, add your own rant/incoheremt babble as you see fit! :cheers:

Just some observations of my time here since 2014, lurking on Tacoma forums, and recent experiences on Tundra forums...

I find it interesting that the Toyota camp is divided. On one side are the reliability loyalists that love Toyota for their proven durability, even if that means having more "dated" vehicle characteristics and longer product lifespans between major upgrades.

In the other camp are those who appreciate the reliability and high resale value, but bemoan the fact Toyota is rarely pushing the envelope and cutting edge with their product assortments.

I'm often entertained by conversations around Jeeps. For whatever reason, the 4R crowd talks about Jeeps almost as much as the Jeep crowd does. The reliability card is played religiously in every one of those discussions to justify labeling the 4R as superior. Then in the very next thread there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the 4R being ancient, boring, and not having all the cool gimicks, gadgetry, and doo-dads the Jeep does.

Not meaning to poke anyone in the eye here, as I love my 4R and Tundra for what they are, and I appreciate all the great advice and knowledge gained here. But you have to admit the fascination with 4R vs Jeep (and now Bronco) is... odd? Because I don't see Jeep people constantly postimg about 4R's. On one hand we love Toyota for the reliability and great resale value they provide, and on the other we seem to gripe that they're not upgraded constantly as a trendy fashion accessory with cutting edge technology or engineering that caters to our specific demands (wants).

But I have to ask, why is constant change necessary? What is so bad about a 10 year model run when the platform is solid? The automobile has been around for 120+ years, mostly in the same basic form. What can be changed yearly or bi-yearly that is truly different? We still have seats, a steering wheel, gas/brake pedals, ac/heat controls, radio, and head/tail lights. 2 or 4 doors, 4 wheels, an engine compartment and a trunk. That's pretty much it, same basic layout/proportions for most. Some manufacturers like to switch out shapes of body panels and dash layouts almost as often as I change underwear. Why? Seldom are these changes earth-shattering, they just make it look different and maybe slightly modify some trivial functionality.

I dunno, I'll stop rambling like a disgruntled old man now, I guess. Thanks for listening, if you've made it this far.

Well, I am not a Toyota loyalist, this is my first one ever, first Japanese car ever, but I will say I am impressed. Will keep this and buy a 6th gen if they do not ruin it.

As for "cutting edge", honestly, I like the knobs for the AC/heat system, and the touch screen is just fine. Not sure what bells and whistles are out there, but not a fan of those safety things like lane departure, blind spot alert, push button start, turn off when stopped, etc. If they want to offer, sure, but I want to option to have these things or not. If I wanted gadgets and doodads, I would have lease an LR.

I agree with the constant change thing, have no idea why anyone makes a big deal out of lack of change or even a refresh when it does not happen every three years. But I have always thought this, with my first thoughts on why the Mustang and Camaro with through so many changes in such a short time when they were first introduced. (in fours years, went from a 67 Camaro to the 70 fugly creature, seriously? Was there something wrong with the 69 Camaro where the body style could only last one year?)

 

[RichinRidgewood]

absolutely on the head of the nail. Why would toyota spend more money to re-engineer and fit and test and test and test and test and recertify. Then to warranty the new problems design changes introduce. You can't just slap a new gear and call it reliable. All the above alone cost millions. We the consumers are the dumb ones. We continue to buy a old yet reliable vehicle for nearly/over 10 years of the same design. Sales increase year after year after year. All it took was some new buttugly headlights to keep it going even longer. Why do you think automakers almost/always introduce a mid-model redesign? Because we the consumers are suckers and it works.

Thank you Jesus that there are people, on this forum, that understand how vehicle development works.

 

[RichinRidgewood]

Well, I am not a Toyota loyalist, this is my first one ever, first Japanese car ever, but I will say I am impressed. Will keep this and buy a 6th gen if they do not ruin it.

As for "cutting edge", honestly, I like the knobs for the AC/heat system, and the touch screen is just fine. Not sure what bells and whistles are out there, but not a fan of those safety things like lane departure, blind spot alert, push button start, turn off when stopped, etc. If they want to offer, sure, but I want to option to have these things or not. If I wanted gadgets and doodads, I would have lease an LR.

I agree with the constant change thing, have no idea why anyone makes a big deal out of lack of change or even a refresh when it does not happen every three years. But I have always thought this, with my first thoughts on why the Mustang and Camaro with through so many changes in such a short time when they were first introduced. (in fours years, went from a 67 Camaro to the 70 fugly creature, seriously? Was there something wrong with the 69 Camaro where the body style could only last one year?)

Ford had the rwd van market wrapped up. They had the Taxi cab Market wrapped up too with the Crown Victoria. All they had to do was DO NOTHING and they had 60k builds in the van and I dont recall the Crown Vic numbers but they were good. BUT NO. They had to ‘eff around and ‘eff around until they had to recertify and after years and years they have that have English POS “van” that I wouldn’t even park in my driveway if they gave me one. Beyond stupid. Chalk one up for the 4.0 GPA Engineering students they hired that HAVE NEVER WORKED ON THEIR OWN CARS. Imbeciles.

 

[83Mule]

A six speed by adding internals to an existing Trans would have nothing but a positive effect on the mpg and useability of the 4Runner with no large investment. Return on that small change would be big and give them something to ''Trumpet'' in the Ads........My God, they could even make it an ''Option'' and charge a sum that would turn a large profit! Just because ''Bean Counters'' build a Truck does NOT mean the Truck couldn't be BETTER! Sure Toyota want to do it cheap, but We can dream of how they can improve it right?!

 

[TacoRunn0517]

absolutely on the head of the nail. Why would toyota spend more money to re-engineer and fit and test and test and test and test and recertify. Then to warranty the new problems design changes introduce. You can't just slap a new gear and call it reliable. All the above alone cost millions. We the consumers are the dumb ones. We continue to buy a old yet reliable vehicle for nearly/over 10 years of the same design. Sales increase year after year after year. All it took was some new buttugly headlights to keep it going even longer. Why do you think automakers almost/always introduce a mid-model redesign? Because we the consumers are suckers and it works.

Thank you Jesus that there are people, on this forum, that understand how vehicle development works.

Yea, I've mentioned this same premise before and it falls on deaf ears haha. People are absolutely entitled to point out shortcomings. But at the same time, Toyota has no FINANCIAL incentive to make the 4Runner more "modern." Can the 4Runner use updates? Sure. No one can deny that. But people keep buying them for a reason. That's why I've resorted to hoping that we have some members make a move and get a non-4Runner SUV. Not because I want them to but it seems like that will be the only way for them to understand exactly what is true: every vehicle compromises in some capacity. People want all the cake but fail to realize that it be too expensive for most of us haha.

 

[Jetboy]

See there in lies the issue. JB has an opinion about "5 or 6" and fusses over gear size and tech stuff for pages and pages. My opinion is that only the business model matters and JB should fuss over that (provide the data proving that business model is wrong) of which he cannot do there for his "5 or 6" tech fussing's are meaningless.
Once again the business model (aka White Paper) would have this information below in one form or another.



I think that if Toyota can sell 140,000 4 Runners in its what 7th to 8th almost unchanged year of production that they know what they are doing and it does not need a 6 speed.

You're proved you don't understand much about suspension in the solid axle thread. And you don't know much about epidemiology - as demonstrated in the covid thread. Now you're proving you're just not very good at math in the gearing discussion. Apparently you can't look at a transmission breakdown and understand what in it. And you can't read a bcfs map. Maybe it's time to stop being a troll? Or maybe at least try out your 4Runner on a dirt road? It's fun. You might like it. Most of us do.

 

[Jetboy]

absolutely on the head of the nail. Why would toyota spend more money to re-engineer and fit and test and test and test and test and recertify. Then to warranty the new problems design changes introduce. You can't just slap a new gear and call it reliable. All the above alone cost millions. We the consumers are the dumb ones. We continue to buy a old yet reliable vehicle for nearly/over 10 years of the same design. Sales increase year after year after year. All it took was some new buttugly headlights to keep it going even longer. Why do you think automakers almost/always introduce a mid-model redesign? Because we the consumers are suckers and it works.

There's no engineering. The combo is literally already for sale in the Prado 150. Engineering is done and has been for a long time. And the 4Runner did an EPA re-certification in around 2017 when it lost 2mpg in EPA rating. Both are non-issues.The 6AT has been in production since 2003. I don't think it's exactly an unknown situation.

Dealers - they are complaining about it. They know the current lineup of BOF is not competitive in any segment except the Tacoma. I don't recall what Toyota exec recently said it but the comment was that new product frequency was not good enough dealers were complaining and that had to change. Lexus especially is suffering from old boring products. And sales are suffering. The 4Runner sales haven't dropped - yet. But I think they will. It took the new Colorado to finally get an update in the Tacoma. Maybe the Bronco will finally force an update in the 4R.

 

[cb1111]

Ford had the rwd van market wrapped up. They had the Taxi cab Market wrapped up too with the Crown Victoria. All they had to do was DO NOTHING and they had 60k builds in the van and I dont recall the Crown Vic numbers but they were good. BUT NO. They had to ‘eff around and ‘eff around until they had to recertify and after years and years they have that have English POS “van” that I wouldn’t even park in my driveway if they gave me one. Beyond stupid. Chalk one up for the 4.0 GPA Engineering students they hired that HAVE NEVER WORKED ON THEIR OWN CARS. Imbeciles.

The Crown Vic was discontinued for several very logical reasons - first and foremost because it was a poor handling boat that no longer met any of the safety requirements.

Ford saw the handwriting on the wall when police departments started looking at SUVs and more fuel efficient vehicles like Chargers.

The majority of taxis were out of service cop cars, so they weren't a big business for Ford fleet sales and when cities like NY started looking at efficiency, that market died too.

I was a bit sad when they went away, but the reasons for the demise was legitimate.

 

[Muff Muff]

There's no engineering. The combo is literally already for sale in the Prado 150. Engineering is done and has been for a long time. And the 4Runner did an EPA re-certification in around 2017 when it lost 2mpg in EPA rating. Both are non-issues.The 6AT has been in production since 2003. I don't think it's exactly an unknown situation.

Dealers - they are complaining about it. They know the current lineup of BOF is not competitive in any segment except the Tacoma. I don't recall what Toyota exec recently said it but the comment was that new product frequency was not good enough dealers were complaining and that had to change. Lexus especially is suffering from old boring products. And sales are suffering. The 4Runner sales haven't dropped - yet. But I think they will. It took the new Colorado to finally get an update in the Tacoma. Maybe the Bronco will finally force an update in the 4R.

Big maybe. I don't think Toyota really shares philosophies with any other manufacturer in that regard. They're not concerned with what other manufacturers are doing so much as they are concerned with building the best car they can for a given price and purpose, and letting that speak for itself, at least in my mind.

This market segment is at an inflection point, though. With the sudden explosion of off roading/overlanding/expedition/safari, whatever you want to call it, Toyota certainly has the opportunity to play ball with Wrangler and Bronco, but again, I don't really think they're into ball games, especially with competition that only really exists in the US market. Granted, the US market is still the largest in the world, but even US manufacturers aren't focused on making cars designed specifically for the US market anymore. In essence, Toyota has no desire to be a short order cook for the US market, because the rest of the world's idea of what an off road vehicle should be is different than ours, and they're already catered to the rest of the world because, well, they kind of dictated what that idea is with the Land Cruiser.

Long story short, if you think of the 4Runner as a product solely for the US market and solely from the perspective of a US buyer, yeah, it may not seem competitive anymore. You have to think of the 4Runner (or Prado, as the analogous the global product) as an SUV meant for elsewhere, but sold here. Ever since the postwar era, people in the US have been all about "keeping up with the Jones's." Toyota is not for them. Toyota is for the person who wants something that works, period. It's not the latest, greatest, shiniest thing available, but it's tried and true and there's no real sense in changing it. It's the M16/M4 of the car world. There's newer service rifles out there, but they all do the same thing, and none of the newer ones really do it any better than the M16/M4, at least enough to warrant a change.

 

[SpeedyKevin]

Big maybe. I don't think Toyota really shares philosophies with any other manufacturer in that regard. They're not concerned with what other manufacturers are doing so much as they are concerned with building the best car they can for a given price and purpose, and letting that speak for itself, at least in my mind.

This market segment is at an inflection point, though. With the sudden explosion of off roading/overlanding/expedition/safari, whatever you want to call it, Toyota certainly has the opportunity to play ball with Wrangler and Bronco, but again, I don't really think they're into ball games, especially with competition that only really exists in the US market. Granted, the US market is still the largest in the world, but even US manufacturers aren't focused on making cars designed specifically for the US market anymore. In essence, Toyota has no desire to be a short order cook for the US market, because the rest of the world's idea of what an off road vehicle should be is different than ours, and they're already catered to the rest of the world because, well, they kind of dictated what that idea is with the Land Cruiser.

Long story short, if you think of the 4Runner as a product solely for the US market and solely from the perspective of a US buyer, yeah, it may not seem competitive anymore. You have to think of the 4Runner (or Prado, as the analogous the global product) as an SUV meant for elsewhere, but sold here. Ever since the postwar era, people in the US have been all about "keeping up with the Jones's." Toyota is not for them. Toyota is for the person who wants something that works, period. It's not the latest, greatest, shiniest thing available, but it's tried and true and there's no real sense in changing it. It's the M16/M4 of the car world. There's newer service rifles out there, but they all do the same thing, and none of the newer ones really do it any better than the M16/M4, at least enough to warrant a change.

Off topic but do derivatives count? Because I was a big fan of the M27 when we tested. The Corps is now issuing it out to all infantry Marines. Once the NATO politics are pushed aside, itd also be nice to get a round that isn't 5.56.

 

[Muff Muff]

[/B]

Off topic but do derivatives count? Because I was a big fan of the M27 when we tested. The Corps is now issuing it out to all infantry Marines. Once the NATO politics are pushed aside, itd also be nice to get a round that isn't 5.56.

Lol NATO politics...

I have the feeling that the Marines' intent all along was to get the 416 in everyone's hands, they just had to sell it to the bean counters as replacing the 249 just to get their hands on them first. They also have the benefit of being a much smaller force than the rest of the military, and enjoy relative autonomy in terms of hardware selection. As far as the rest of the world, you're actually seeing countries who previously used some other rifle switching to an AR platform (excluding the countries that we just give our old ones to) because it's just a better fighting rifle than most everything else. What really comes to mind for me is the 5 or 6 programs there's been since the adoption of the M16 to try and replace it, all of which concluded with "well it's not really any better at dispensing lead, and it would cost way too much to replace every single one we already have, and retrain everyone on the new platform..." The government never learns...

That being said, it's kinda funny that the original AR-15 --> 416 evolution mimics what we're talking about with the 4Runner, that is taking something that's pretty good at its task to begin with, but completely bastardizing the design to make it something it was never meant to be. In the rifle's case, it was originally supposed to be a super lightweight, low recoil weapon, and the 416 is anything but. The 4Runner is supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades vehicle, but people are trying to make it some uber rock crawler, and get upset when they can't do it within their budget. Then they come on forums and whine about why Toyota needs to update their product to compete with Jeep and Ford, when literally the rest of the world seems satisfied with what they're doing. Who cares if it has a 6 or 5 speed transmission, this ring/pinion gear or that? Just enjoy it for what it is, life is easier that way.

 

[sn_85]

absolutely on the head of the nail. Why would toyota spend more money to re-engineer and fit and test and test and test and test and recertify. Then to warranty the new problems design changes introduce. You can't just slap a new gear and call it reliable. All the above alone cost millions. We the consumers are the dumb ones. We continue to buy a old yet reliable vehicle for nearly/over 10 years of the same design. Sales increase year after year after year. All it took was some new buttugly headlights to keep it going even longer. Why do you think automakers almost/always introduce a mid-model redesign? Because we the consumers are suckers and it works.

That may not be the case the next generation and the next decade. The 4Runner did well for a few reasons. There hasn't been competition in the segment since forever. People weren't buying as many off-road or overland geared vehicles. 2008-2012 the economy hit people hard and they weren't looking at big gas hungry SUVs when gas was at an all time high. Early 5th gens didn't fare all that well.

Then came 2014 and a few things happened. People were recovering from the housing crash. Gas prices started leveling out and going down. The 4Runner got a nice boost with a face lift and I think this plays a huge part in the 5th gen 4Runners success, Expedition Overland. All of a sudden people started looking at the 4Runners as a reasonably priced off-road vehicle and everybody wanted to get outside. Overlanding became a thing and Instagram took over facebook. You saw all these 4Runners going to Utah, Colorado, Alabama Hills, etc etc. Youtubers like SwellRunner and Lifestyle Overland became big influencers. Attendenace Overland Expo over the past decade has probably increased 20 fold at least. Overlanding and the whole get outside trend has blown up over the past 5 years dramatically.

So now it's a lifestyle thing. All the auto manufacturers see it and you see competition in the space increasing. TRD Pro, ZR2 Bison, Rubicons & Mojave editions, Defenders, Raptors and now return of the Bronco. The 4Runner did really well because it was already there well before the craze hit and readily available. So yes, later in the cycle the 4runner has done really well and from a financial standpoint there's no need for Toyota to change anything.

However that goes to say that if the 6th gen 4Runner does not come out with a bang and doesn't impress then I think it will lose sales numbers. Toyota WILL NOT get away with running the 6th gen for 13 years, unchanged and with only 1 underpowered powertrain its entire life. I don't think the 6th gen can be managed as conservatively as they handled the 5th gen. Honestly Toyota got lucky with the 5th gen 4Runner. Its success was very circumstantial and dependent on the overland scene along with social media. If "overlanding" didn't happen I think sales would have been very similar to that of early 5th gens and may have already tailed off.

 

[Jetboy]

Big maybe. I don't think Toyota really shares philosophies with any other manufacturer in that regard. They're not concerned with what other manufacturers are doing so much as they are concerned with building the best car they can for a given price and purpose, and letting that speak for itself, at least in my mind.

This market segment is at an inflection point, though. With the sudden explosion of off roading/overlanding/expedition/safari, whatever you want to call it, Toyota certainly has the opportunity to play ball with Wrangler and Bronco, but again, I don't really think they're into ball games, especially with competition that only really exists in the US market. Granted, the US market is still the largest in the world, but even US manufacturers aren't focused on making cars designed specifically for the US market anymore. In essence, Toyota has no desire to be a short order cook for the US market, because the rest of the world's idea of what an off road vehicle should be is different than ours, and they're already catered to the rest of the world because, well, they kind of dictated what that idea is with the Land Cruiser.

Long story short, if you think of the 4Runner as a product solely for the US market and solely from the perspective of a US buyer, yeah, it may not seem competitive anymore. You have to think of the 4Runner (or Prado, as the analogous the global product) as an SUV meant for elsewhere, but sold here. Ever since the postwar era, people in the US have been all about "keeping up with the Jones's." Toyota is not for them. Toyota is for the person who wants something that works, period. It's not the latest, greatest, shiniest thing available, but it's tried and true and there's no real sense in changing it. It's the M16/M4 of the car world. There's newer service rifles out there, but they all do the same thing, and none of the newer ones really do it any better than the M16/M4, at least enough to warrant a change.

The thing is - Toyota does short order cook for the USA market. If not - explain the Tundra. And the Tacoma. And the 4Runner. And the Sequoia. All 4 of which are North America only models designed just for us. And that's the paradox - Toyota built the 4Runner just for us - but puts the oldest and least efficient drivetrain in it that it has in the parts bin.

And it didn't use to be that way: "it's all new 2.4 liter engine with 116hp is the most powerful ever built for a sport utility vehicle" is a quote from an old Toyota ad. It also claimed the most ground clearance of any vehicle in its class. You won't see those sorts of claims anymore. Or the 22r turbo - "the most powerful small truck ever." Or even the 4th gen supercharged v8. https://www.fourwheeler.com/vehicle-reviews/129-0409-2004-toyota-4runner-supercharged/ - fastest 4x4 ever tested. Faster than the same period Porsche Cayenne. Where did that 4Runner go?

 

[TRD PANTHER]

Lol NATO politics...

The 4Runner is supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades vehicle, but people are trying to make it some uber rock crawler, and get upset when they can't do it within their budget. Then they come on forums and whine about why Toyota needs to update their product to compete with Jeep and Ford, when literally the rest of the world seems satisfied with what they're doing. Who cares if it has a 6 or 5 speed transmission, this ring/pinion gear or that? Just enjoy it for what it is, life is easier that way.

Lol NATO, and watch out for the other group with blue helmets. I’m old, like my M1A NM, which, is still my favorite. And give me a MG42 over a SAWS. And yes, to what you stated about the 4Runner, to keep this on subject.

 

[RichinRidgewood]

You're proved you don't understand much about suspension in the solid axle thread. And you don't know much about epidemiology - as demonstrated in the covid thread. Now you're proving you're just not very good at math in the gearing discussion. Apparently you can't look at a transmission breakdown and understand what in it. And you can't read a bcfs map. Maybe it's time to stop being a troll? Or maybe at least try out your 4Runner on a dirt road? It's fun. You might like it. Most of us do.

Don’t try the revisionist history crap with me. You don’t understand what is going on when an automobile independent suspension is in operation and it was very clear in my “Solid Axle Fascination” thread. And again with all of the bells and whistles and claims to off-road awesomeness in the the Bronco’s advertising you will see it has Independent Front Suspension. Ford voted. It’s is superior.

I used to be in engine calibration at Ford. I have practical experience as well as many classes on power train design and calibration. I dont care about BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). 4Runners have sold well with few any changes for years. Changes involves money and risk. Most consumers don’t have a clue what a transmission does or home many gears there are. There is no point to it.

More name calling. Good Job.