Ask the Car People.SM


Toyota 4Runner

11428 messages,  Last post on Apr 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM

You are in the Toyota 4Runner Forum.

What is this discussion about? Toyota 4Runner, SUV

Messages Page 397 of 1144

#3955 of 11428 1990 4Runner by jtjackson33

Nov 10, 2002 (1:08 am)

Peter,
Thanks for the feedback. The vehicle is actually currently owned by a friend of mine. The mileage is for real. Also, the vehicle appears to be in excellent condition - she has taken to the Toyota dealer for all scheduled mtce since new. I just wasn't sure about that particular year vs other years and what, if anything, to watch out for. It is a std transmission which may help with the power a bit. Guess I'd best take it for a long test drive as you suggest.

#3956 of 11428 1990 Runner by nippononly

Nov 10, 2002 (3:13 am)

I have a V-6 5 speed, and I would call it slow but adequate. At highway speeds, you tend to lose speed going over mountain passes and the like.
 
I certainly would not want to have the 4-cyl in this vehicle.
 
In '96 they went to the 3.4L V-6, and by then they had also figured out they needed to redesign those head gaskets out of a new material, so there should not be those head gasket failures in the '96 and up V-6's.

#3957 of 11428 1990 4Runner by peter78

Nov 10, 2002 (8:17 am)

I have always like the 2nd generation 4Runner. As far as reliability the 4 cylinder has a good reputation. I have heard to expect getting a new clutch at 120,000 miles or so. If it is from a friend, it may be pretty good. You may want to look at this link, it is from a person who owns a 91, best second generation web site I have seen. In his site he talks about the lack of power, especially in the 4.

http://www.pnw4runners.net/tando/

Now about head gaskets, their were actually 2 different set of problems. One was with the 3.0 V6 in the second generation and the second completely different problem was with the 96 3.4 V6. A re-call was done on the 96, so hopefully all have been replaced that needed replacing.

#3958 of 11428 '03 4Runner by nhopper1

Nov 10, 2002 (10:45 am)

After road testing a Limited and an SR-5, I agree with many of the aforementioned posts. It's a great driving vehicle. Very different from my current 2000 SR-5 and a lot like the 2001 Sequoia(refined) I traded in after one year on a 2002 Avalon (it was too big for my needs).
  Positives as compares to the 2000 are smoothness, quietness in most situations, roomier esp. in front seat area, much more power, much better stereo with upgrade, easier for my 5'1" wife to get into(esp. because of a lower front seat bolster), tilt and extendable steering column and price compares well to that of the MSRP of my 2000 SR-5(which was 33,000).
  Negatives are cladding on SR-5(BIG negative), flimsier shifter console pieces, etc. on the dash, electonic climate control as compared to simple mechanical 2000 design, electronic rear hatch release (electronics = reliability questions eventually), harder to see out of right rear quarter glass, smelly exhaust after moderate to hard accelleration with rear window open,(my Sequoia did that). At speeds of 60 mph with all windows and roof closed, I did notice a great amount of wind buffeting in the roof area despite the rack's cross bars being positioned well to the back of rails(very bothersom). Also it doesn't seem as "friendly" or "likeable" as the 2000 type. I realize that is a very subjective comment.
   Right now, the cladding is the biggest reason I'm inclined to keep my 2000. I refuse to pay another approx. 5K for a Limited that has things I do not want, and would cost as much as an SR-5 Sequoia. None of my family can stand the cladding no matter what color the main body of the vehicle is, and I as I said I tend to agree. Painting would still leave a rough texture and the notches. (I wonder what the Limited's prepainted arches and door cladding would cost??) Let's hope Toyota does indeed offer Limited style cladding and bumpers on the SR-5 SOON. I will buy when they do.

#3959 of 11428 Driving with rear window down by toyotaken

Nov 11, 2002 (6:40 am)

You mentioned smelling the exhaust after hard acceleration with the rear window down. I hope that you had at least one other window open. Driving with JUST the rear window down is dangerous as the vacum caused by the vehicle moving through the air will draw the exhaust fumes into the vehicle unless you have another window open to draw air from the front of the vehicle back through the rear hatch window.

#3960 of 11428 2002 SR5 4Runner by 20024runner1

Nov 11, 2002 (7:41 am)

Hi All
 
Recently traded in my 1996 Camry and bought 2002 SR5 2WD 4Runner, liked it very much , only thing that bug me is the ride gets bumpy on concrete. I was wondering is there any thing which can be done for Bumpy rides ,like installing additional suspension ,don't know much about SUV.
 
Guru's any ideas..

#3961 of 11428 exhaust sulphur smell by nhopper1

Nov 11, 2002 (7:54 am)

I always had at least one window and/or s/r open. I'm aware of what you correctly warned about(I've been in the auto repair biz for 28 years). The sulphuric(rotten egg)smell was especially apparent at speeds less than 45-50 mph, but also higher if my memory serves me. Driving around town produced the most occurrences, as might be expected. The Sequoia had no rear spoiler and test 2003 4Runner did. It's not a huge problem, but seems strange that such a nice feature as a roll down back window would not be usable under so many circumstances.
  Now if Toyota would just get rid of that gray cladding for SR-5 models....(might be appropriate for the sport model buyers?)

#3962 of 11428 fuel for new 4 runner by rollie3

Nov 11, 2002 (9:13 am)

I understand Toyota recommends priminum fuel on both new v6 and v8 [89 oct.] Does anyone know which of the two new motors would run best on regular [87 0ct.] ????

#3963 of 11428 Bumpy ride by joatmon

Nov 11, 2002 (9:49 am)

My 97 4Runner came w/ Michelin LTX M/S. Great tires. Got 74k out of them and would have gone another 10k if pressed. But, the ride wasn't the best on pavement. Replaced with Michelin Cross Terrains. The pavement ride improvement is incredible. After 22k, the tires show little wear.
 
All you need is ~$550 and you are good to go.
 
Jack

#3964 of 11428 Premium vs. regular fuel by toyotaken

Nov 11, 2002 (10:10 am)

rollie3,
 
If you look back a few posts, you'll see quite a few posts about this topic. However, to answer your question, both will run well on 87 octane, just at a lower level of performance. HP and Torque numbers won't be quite a robust, although for most people, it won't be something that you will notice substantially.

Messages Page 397 of 1144

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement