Last post on Dec 06, 2010 at 11:30 AM
You are in the Toyota 4Runner
What is this discussion about?
Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota 4Runner, SUV
#19 of 51 Toy vs Path
May 04, 2007 (2:34 pm)
I just got back from a 400 mile boat moving challenge. The challenge was mine! I have not pulled a trailer or a boat in 25 years and then only a few times. After having read some of the reviews (here) on the 4 Runner, I was about to back out of taking my new 2007, 4 Runner Sport, V8. I pulled a 4800lb, + gas, etc, 23' Sea Ray, from Arkansas to Oklahoma. It was the most effortless, easy riding, no problem trip you can imagine. If I hadn't known I was pulling a 5000lb.+ load, I wouldn't have known there was a trailer behind me.
As it was, I drove between 60-70 MPH and had to be careful not to go faster! Not a bit of sway!!
Whoever said the shorter wheelbase made a difference, must have been driving a replication of a 4 Runner....it was GREAT experience!!
May 23, 2007 (12:50 pm)
Does the Path. have a better or worse ride than the 4Runner, or about the same?
#21 of 51 Re: Ride Quality? [spaceman210]
Jul 21, 2007 (1:58 pm)
I had a 2002 Pathfinder and now have a 2006 4Runner SR5 V6. I think the Pathfinder had a better ride, it was more car like. I definitely notice more bumps in the 4Runner, it just has a rougher ride.
To add to the other comments in the topic, I liked the Pathfinder better. The 4Runner is a fine vehicle and I haven't had any problems out of it, but I liked the way the Pathfinder drove and rode better. I do think the 4Runner is probably a little better quality, I had a few problems out of the Pathfinder, but I still liked it better and wish I still had it. My lease is up in about 20 months, I'll probably go back to a Pathfinder at that time.
#22 of 51 Re: Ride Quality? [jpp5862]
Jul 27, 2007 (6:09 pm)
I have had 3 4Runners (97, 99, 04) and a Landcruiser (97) before my new 07 Pathfinder LE. I have to agree with jpp5862 in that while I think the 4Runner might have slightly better quality, I simply like the Pathfinder better.
The 4Runner has smoother engine/transmission and I think a better suspension, particularly with X-REAS. However, it is still somehow not very satisfying to drive. It can be nervous on the highway and very susceptible to high winds. The Pathfinder's steering feels less precise, but you can drive with one finger even in windy conditions. The 4Runner feels faster, but the Pathfinder is actually faster.
One other thing to note: these cars are within inches of external dimensions, but the interior of the 4Runner feels like a cockpit while the interior of the Pathfinder is more like a Lazy-Boy chair. The 4Runner feels and drives smaller than it is, while the Pathfinder feels bigger than it really is. Go figure.
In the end, choose your favorite. I'm happy with the Pathfinder.
Jul 29, 2007 (6:52 am)
So now that Nissan is adding their 5.6L, 310 HP V8 as an option for the Pathfinder I wonder if Toyota will try and crap their 5.7L, 381 HP engine into the 4Runner.
Does anyone have any information on this?
I'm still wondering why Toyota's 4.7L engine isn't more powerful. Doing the math, if they can get 381 HP out of their 5.7L, they should be able to get about 314 HP out of their 4.7L.
#24 of 51 Re: Engines... [rentschl]
Aug 01, 2007 (1:10 pm)
1) Torque is more important that horsepower for an SUV.
2) My 2003 4Runner V8 has "only" 235 hp and still does 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds. How much faster do you have to go in an SUV?
#25 of 51 Re: Engines... [nedzel]
Aug 01, 2007 (3:26 pm)
For me there's no such thing as too much power.
The problem I run into is with vehicles in front of me in narrow canyons that have very limited passing sections. Many drivers will go very slowly for the entire time you can't pass, only to speed up on the very limited passing sections.
More power/torque means more safety margin in a wider range of passing scenarios.
I've got the '03 V8 as well but I'm looking for sub 7 second 0-60.
#26 of 51 Re: Engines... [rentschl]
Aug 02, 2007 (10:08 am)
I'd much rather have a significant improvement in fuel economy (e.g., a 3-4 liter turbo diesel) than a heavier, thirstier engine. YMMV.
#27 of 51 Re: Toy vs. Path vs. Murano [tidester]
Aug 09, 2007 (11:26 am)
I am currently a Pathfinder owner, but I also rented a Murano during a week-long vacation in New England and was very impressed with it. My recommendation would be that if you don't need the towing capacity, 7-passenger seating or off-road capability of the Pathfinder, then the Murano will give you a better ride due to the car chassis it sits on.
My wife and I are both tall and were a bit cramped when we test-drove a 4Runner. The upright seating position in the Pathfinder was much more satisfying to us.
Presumably you've already made your purchasing decision since a few months have gone by, but hopefully this posting will be of use to future buyers.
#28 of 51 Re: 4-RUNNER VS. PATHFINDER [t4rsearch]
Aug 09, 2007 (11:49 am)
You've probably already made your purchase decision, but let me get the word out to others: AVOID THE ARMADA!!! We are just turning ours in after a 39-mos. lease (2004 model) and the lease end could not come soon enough.
Four major problems. The first is pretty obvious - poor fuel mileage and $75 to fill up. Ouch!
The second is build quality/body integrity. Squeaks and rattles galore, especially from the dash.
Third: really poor ergonomics. The door handle hits me in the leg and leaves a crease. The front passenger seat leans slightly forward and forces you to plant your feet into the floorboard to stay seated. Lots of hard plastic in the cabin. Steering wheel controls not lit at night.
Fourth: powertrain hunts for gears while towing. Holds gears too long and refuses to upshift when prompted to do so.
Perhaps some of these problems have been corrected since the 2004 model, but Consumer Reports doesn't seem to think so.