grams72

3.slow

Why?

What is the design flaw that makes this motor such a un-economical dog?

radrex

It's pretty easy - 150 hp. Which makes it an extreme dog considering the weight of a 4Runner 4x4. 12mpg City/17 Highway cause you have to keep your foot in it to get it to move.

My Ford Supercrew with 270 hp and every bit as heavy gets 13 in the City - 18 Highway.

I make my wife drive the 4runner cause her commute to work is only 3 miles.

mt_goat

I feel the single worst flaw with the design is the high gearing from the factory, especially the auto OD gear. What were they thinking? Oh let's see, I'll design this 4000 lb + vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick and a 150 HP engine and then gear it to go 120 mph. Yeah right

elripster

I think the exhaust is also a culprit. It is very restrictive. Lower gearing with better breathing would likely make for a much peppier truck.

Frank

Jantha

I guess I don't really feel that it is that slow. I guess I don't know what people expect out of a vehicle like this, but it seems adequate to me anyway. When I want fast, I have access to a '66 Chevelle SS... ain't nuttin you can do to ANY 4runner to make fast like that.

It's the mileage that gets me... but I have a boss that has an Xterra that gets 14mpg and a friend with a Durango that gets 11mpg. So, maybe my gas mileage is about right.

It only stands to reason that if we call the 3.0 the 3.slow, then we should call the 22RE the 22REALLY SLOW.

havic

It's funny because it seems like other companies can squeeze out more horsepower, and better gas mileage out of virtually the same size engine. for instance, look at the Pathfinder. The 3.5L engine gets 240hp and the 3.4L found in the 96-2000 4Runners get 183hp, with virtually the same mpg. I love Toyota, however, they need to squeeze more out of the engine. Plus, you feel like you're driving a V8 when it comes to gas consumption.

4RUNR

Peak hp and peak tq up high means nothing.

Just look at a 2004 Pathfinder.
4100lb, ~10sec 0-60, 15/19MPG.

4Runner did the same in 1996.

mastacox

The 4.0L V-6 in the 4th gens makes 240 horse, thanks to variable valve timing...

radrex

Yes, let's not forget that the 3.Slow is now 15+ Year old technology. A lot of things have changed in 15 years.

gwhayduke

Amen!

havic

It's fifteen year old technology if you don't count the 95 3.0 liter. How about the new Solara with the 3.3L. Everyone was expecting it to pump out just as much power as the max, but it fell short. Still love Toyota though, and I must say they are making improvements. Also, can't beat Toyota quality.

gwhayduke

Wellll....The only improvement on the '95 3.0 that I'm aware of was that it didn't seem to eat headgaskets as often. Other than that, and a change in the tensioner pulley, the engine was pretty much the same from inception...When was that...1988?

I've also always wondered if Toy purposely de-tunes their engines to ensure reliability. If that's the case...Can you imagine the 3.0's rods and headgaskets in a tuned engine?

RED 85

"It only stands to reason that if we call the 3.0 the 3.slow, then we should call the 22RE the 22REALLY SLOW."

I know a couple of 22re and ret that will bet a 3.0.
250hp out of a 22ret is not unheard of.
Look here

But then again the have the 3.0 with 255hp
Here

but you'll pay for them!!!!!

elripster

Another consideration as far as speed is the 3.0 is an "under-square" motor. It's stroke is larger than it's bore. In contrast, the 22RE is "over-square" as it's bore is larger then the stroke. The 3.0 makes more torque at idle than the 22RE does peak but it sacrifices higher RPM operation. (22RE oversquare dimensioning is typicall in cars and sport bikes) This will effect how "fast" it is since you have to shift sooner. However, the 3.0 will vastly out pull a 22RE in top gear performance and still out accelerate it due to its torque.

Better breathing can increase the higher RPM band torque thus making the truck faster because the engine produces more power. This is where headers and intake mods can help the 3.0.

Also, Toys are heavy and 3 liters ain't much motor. It takes energy to move the truck period regardless of motor. Much of the economy issues are from the weight, not the motor.

Frank

gwhayduke

Thanks for the link on TCR...I thought DOA was the only 3.0 builder. And TCR is a heckuvalot closer to EP

havic

Good point of de-tuning for reliability. They do that with Japanese spec engines for emissions as well, so that also might be a factor. I think they could have gotten 200+hp out of the 3.0L and probably close to 240 out of the 3.4L. Also, the dashboard configuration sucks in my car (Had to add that in).

Jantha

I know.. hehe. I was just trying to find a way of sticking up for the 3.0. She may be a pig, but she's my baby.

hale

Let's not forget some of Toyotas GOOD engines!

the 7mgte was amazing for its time. puts down 230hp and 245ft-lb torque back in 1987...look at Nissan's 300zx turbo at the same time, it did like 175/195 with the same size engine, just nissan did v6 not straight six

take it forward to 93 with yet another straight six 3.0 2jzge and 2jzgte, pushing out like 220hp and 330hp stock...none of the other japanese supercars at the time were pushing that kind of power out which makes the Supra the king of japanese sports cars. i just wish toyota would have used the same 3.0 in the supras and the 4runners :-D i wouldnt mind a 7mge in the 4runner, defintally wouldnt mind a 7mgte or 2jzgte

corvettelvr73

The 3 liter in the later model avalons (1997) is a very good engine. That car is fast compared to the runners. Is weight one of the big differences? If there was a way for that (front wheel drive) engine to be put in a 2nd gen I think that that would be a pretty good setup. Maybe?

My99

I don't hardly understand why they didn't use the same 3.0 that was in the camry's all through the early 90's in the 4Runners. THey put out about 180 hp, and seem to be very stout engines.