Two beefs w/ my new '98: Common complaints?

[michaeltag]

I just purchased a '98 Limited and am very pleased with the power, the locking rear differential, the styling details (my favorite year in that dept.), but there are two things that I'm disappointed in. My other vehicle for comparison is a '93 SR5, by the way.
1. It feels like the suspension can't control the wheels and keep them on the ground. I bought the car with worn factory shocks and promptly installed Bilstein HD's at all four corners. My theory is with the 16" wheels that were introduced in '96, the unsprung weight has just gotten to high and the suspension is overwhelmed. Any thoughts?
2. My other complaint is the fuel consumption. My understanding is that in '96 with the introduction of a 24-valve 3.4 the EPA estimates actually went up slightly. My '93 3.0 got about 15-18 mpg, while this '98 gets 12-13 mpg. Engine has good compression and is bone stock except for Flowmaster muffler. Air filter is new. Again, any thoughts?

 

[2000t4r4wd]

I have the same complaint about the fuel I mean I get about 250-260 with a full tank. I would say check to see if there were any TSB's on that year for the gas gauge. I know on the 2000 4runners there was a recall for gas gauges that misread the amount of fuel.

 

[michaeltag]

Well, the gas gauge is irrelevant if we're figuring the fuel consumption by dividing miles traveled since the last fillup by the number of gallons required to top it off.
We just reset the trip odometer everytime we buy gas and we always fill it up until the pump turns off automatically. Consistency is where the accuracy comes from. I do know I have about a 3% speedometer/odometer error from having tires that are an inch taller than stock. So, when our trip odometer says we've gone 200 miles, we've actually gone 206. Still doesn't explain our mileage being so bad.

 

[Del34]

I have a '98 and I certainly don't get milage anywhere near that bad. 15 is the worst I've ever got when I've checked. I've had it as high as 23, but that was nearly all highway, but it could've probably been higher considering I was doing about 85 the entire time.

I'm not exactly very easy with the gas pedal most of the time, so I'm confused why your mileage is so bad.

 

[Jason B]

Congrats on the truck! I have the same one you do.

I have a lot of aftermarket items that slow me down. My bike rack, bug shield, etc. I know both of those can mileage down. I can get about 22 highway, and city is about 16, which is about normal.

I have Bilsteins as well. What brand tires are you running? Wha tis the pressure at? Some of what you are describing is just part of how this truck behaves.

 

[michaeltag]

Actually, Jason, you bring up a good point. I am suspicious of the tires either being too heavy or just poorly designed. They are an off-brand "Terra-trac" and they are 275/75-16, an inch taller, with a pretty heavy mud terrain tread.
It could be that one of the better reviewed tires like the Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo in the stock size would feel more "under control" and in contact with the ground. And since my gearing feels too tall, maybe that will help fuel consumption a little too.
Thanks everyone else for helping to confirm that my fuel consumption is not acceptable.

 

[24runners]

Tires are a HUGE part in how any vehicle handles. Inflation, size, brand/quality, tread design...all factors in how the vehicle handles.

Handling and even braking can be greatly enhanced by just getting better tires

I had the Bridgestone Dualer A/T's on my 96 and it handled great! Also, if they are over inflated, it feels like you are driving on a bed of pine straw kinda floaty and late to respond.

I dont really like the Dunlops my 4th gen came with *grrr*

I loved the way my 96 handled. Also, I got ~15mpg with the Supercharger, depending on how heavy my foot was during that tank of gas

 

[02sport]

As for the "handling" issues, i'd agree it probably has to to with tires (size, pressure)
as for the milaeage, 12-13mpg is definately low for a stock 3.4. lazy 02 sensor maybe? not sure for the '98's but have a look in the owners manual, for my 94 3.0, it stated that toyota will replace 02 sensor for free at 80k. 20k later, 3.0 gets 15-18. worth a shot.

 

[24runners]

As for the "handling" issues, i'd agree it probably has to to with tires (size, pressure)
as for the milaeage, 12-13mpg is definately low for a stock 3.4. lazy 02 sensor maybe? not sure for the '98's but have a look in the owners manual, for my 94 3.0, it stated that toyota will replace 02 sensor for free at 80k. 20k later, 3.0 gets 15-18. worth a shot.

I agree....another often overlooked item is to clean the air flow sensor (in the intake piping right after the air filter).

If it gets 'gunk' on it, it can affect gas milage as the car decides how much gas to spray depending on that sensor telling it how much air is coming in

Electrical contact spray cleaner from Radio Shack is cheap and it couldnt hurt

 

[michaeltag]

wow, those are some great ideas! I will check that out. There are so many more potential causes to consider with all of the sensors and emissions controls and computers, urrrrrghh!

 

[khaug]

Several thoughts:

-Your oversize tires are causing the odo to underreport miles travelled (and your speed). I'd lose those cheap, heavy tires and replace them with something better like Michelin Cross-Terrains in the standard size. I put Bilsteins on my '98 LTD and they were a huge improvement over the factory shocks.

-You should expect 20-21 mpg hwy, 15-16 around town. My '98 would consistently do 14-15 mpg even when towing my old Porsche to track events.

-There was a rear suspension recall program for '97-'98 m.y. vehicles that included replacing the rear springs and relocating the bump stops. The point of the recall was to increase rear suspension travel, which is minimal as delivered. Take a look at your rear suspension: If your bump stops are mounted outside the rear spring coils, the recall hasn't been performed on your vehicle. This is a worthwhile freebie if Toyota will still do it.

Good luck. My '98 was a great truck! If you decide to tow with yours, watch the brakes - they're marginal on long downgrades.

 

[michaeltag]

Yes, my spring recall done shortly I bought the vehicle. I became aware of it when I installed the shocks, looking at old shocks and new springs.
I'm getting tires tomorrow as a matter of fact, but I'm getting the Bridgestone Dueler A/T in the stock size, not the Revo, but the popular one that preceded it. I've had it before, on an '88 Toyota SR5 pickup, and I think it's one of the best for a good streetable tire that still can serve you off-road (I don't just want the off-road tread for looks, I actually take it off-road).
I did not know that the travel was increased by the recall. Thank you, that's good to know. Toyota does say in that recall that the bottoming problem was only with the 2wd 4runners, but that they applied the recall to the 4wd's as well "to avoid confusion." Imagine owning a 4runner and not knowing if it has 4wd or not! Well, Toyota probably has heard everything and is going from experience in this. With the brakes, I experienced brake fade once on my '93 4runner, which has taught me to be careful. The brakes got bigger in '96, but thanks for the heads up about it still being marginal.

 

[michaeltag]

Success! Got the Bridgestone Dueler A/T's in the stock size and the noise is gone and the ride is much improved. The day before the tires my mechanic drove it with telemetrics hooked up, displaying on a laptop on the passenger seat. Actual real time mpg: At 65 mph, 22mpg; at 35mph, 26mpg, during hard acceleration, 4mpg (which he said was normal). One inch shorter tires that I have now should serve to help the consumption during acceleration a bit.
Looks like my wife is a closet leadfoot!

 

[2000t4r4wd]

Congrats, you should love your new tires also

 

[24runners]

Success! Got the Bridgestone Dueler A/T's in the stock size and the noise is gone and the ride is much improved. The day before the tires my mechanic drove it with telemetrics hooked up, displaying on a laptop on the passenger seat. Actual real time mpg: At 65 mph, 22mpg; at 35mph, 26mpg, during hard acceleration, 4mpg (which he said was normal). One inch shorter tires that I have now should serve to help the consumption during acceleration a bit.
Looks like my wife is a closet leadfoot!

I had the Bridgestone Dueler A/T's on my 96 and loved them...great tires