I'm looking to buy a 2nd gen pickup but with standard transmission. I found an auto but it has an excellent body. What are autos like with regards to off road capability and fuel economy?

 

they are slow and not reliable... get a 5sp.

 

thanks, I thought so.

 

I mean, they will last as long if not longer then your typical domestic autotragic, but the manual trucks will have 1-3 more mpg and upwards of 20hp more then the auto.

 

if a stock 3.0L V6 motor in a 4runner puts out 150hp, how can you get 20hp more by choosing manual instead of auto? you get 170hp out of a 5speed? am i reading into this incorrectly?

I get the fact that with a manual trans you can shift at higher rpm's at any given moment and use your 150hp a bit more freely. but you don't get 20 MORE horsepower by going manual trans over a/t, you can get more driveability out of a m/t. I hate my a/t most of the time except when i'm stuck in traffic and don't have to push the clutch in a thousand times on the way home. Other than that i'd do a 5spd the next time i get a 4runner just because auto tranny's suck going up hill with them shifting back and forth and it's that many more things that could break on you.

for economy of vehicles check out this site

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/bymake/Toyota1995.shtml

i don't think they're very accurate but it gives you an idea of what some vehicles get. My 95 v6 4runner on 31" tires (stock 4runner 4x4) gets about 17mpg average, if i do all freeway like when i drove to Washington State i got 20mpg cruising at a modest 60-65mph.

 

Mines an auto & so far so good but I would have preferred having a 5 speed as well. I took it because the body & interior was very clean. You will get better MPG with a stick though.

 

Same here and also when i was shopping for my 4runner i found most 4runners have a/t (auto trans) in them and the 5spd's where hard to find. It all came down to the best deal for the buck and my a/t works very well but i drive a lot of hills and would prefer my own shift points while climbing them. You do get the 1-3mpg's out of the manual and i wouldn't mind finding out how to do an auto to manual swap.

 

I have the auto in an '89 Runner behind a 3.0.

For me, being 6'4", the auto was an easy call, as I have a hard time working the clutch in these small rigs.

All above is true of the auto. It gets worse mileage. It sucks out HP's from the motor.

Also, the shift solenoids are a maintenance item, almost.

And, if you want to do 4.7 gearing in the transfer case, you have to buy an expensive adapter from Inchworm. And, putting a doubler in the thing makes it really long and you have to modify a cross member.

All in all, get the 5 speed.

Mike

 

Read around for people's opinion of the 3.0 ... 99.999% of the people who complain about the power and fuel economy are driving autos.

The auto is perfectly reliable - THAT wouldn't be a deal breaker ... however

The MONSTER overdrive in the auto is. You need to be geared at least one step lower, and a lot of people argue 2, than the manual for a given tire size to have decent performance if you lift or get bigger tires. That means you are practically limited to 33's with 5.71's. Also, if you're going to mod the rig, an aux tranny cooler needs to be on the top of your list because the torque converter won't lock up at the low engine RPMs and you just shear the crap out of the fluid generating heat.

Sooo ... if you're gonna leave it stock, the auto is OK. ANYTHING else, get a manual.

 

I was talking about rear wheel power. Ever hear of a little thing called driveline power loss?? The autotragics are famous for it. A heavy 4runner and a automatic that was geared WAY to tall from the factory, they helped it by adding the 4.88's in 92 but still....

5sp will beat an auto anyday of the week.. will also outlast it too.

 

This is the best post so far. The first guy who said they were unreliable is wrong. I've been wheeling my AT for nearly 5 years now with nary a problem.

All the other things about sucking power and hard to fit with doublers is correct.

However, my other 4runner with the manual tranny sits unused, unmodified. Why?

Have you guys spent 2-4 days wheeling for 8-10 hours a day on challenging terrain with a manual tranny? Anyone over 40 years old?

I do that kind of lengthy wheeling more than a few times a year and I'm here to tell ya, an automatic can make a huge difference (not even talking about reversing\going forward on a slippery slope... that's another issue).

I only call 'em like I see 'em.

 

Autos rule, "One foot on the brake and one on the gas", if you want horsepower buy a V-8 something. The A340's are reliable, remember they are also in several million Jeep's, Mitsu's and Isuzu's.........

 

I'm not sure who said what to get this into a V6 mileage discussion....
But being an owner of a 91 2wd automatic pickup I can honestly say that it's mileage is about equal to, if not better than my 88 5sp 4Runner. It gets a little less MPG around town, stop and go, etc. but on the freeway / highways it's a tad more.

As for off-roading... auto vs. stick is mainly a personal preference but there is something to be said about being able to press the brakes and gas at the same time without worrying about a clutch. Automatics have a more smooth application of torque to the wheels so less chance of spinning wheels, particularly when you don't have to worry about applying gas, holding brakes so you don't roll backwards and trying to feather the clutch with your third leg.

And some of the quickest cars use automatic transmissions: the Buick GNx only came with an auto. Even race cars are moving into the realm of automatic transmissions with paddles or such to shift gears a-la 'manual style'.

I can even say with authority that my old 84 Laser turbo / 3-sp auto was quicker in 1/4 mile by almost a car-length when compared to my bud's (identical engine) 85 Daytona Turbo-Z with 5-sp. But I knew how to launch. He actually had a faster terminal speed (crossed the line at a faster 'speed' than me) but I could get going quicker and maintain boost and power better during shifts.

 

I agree that there's not much difference in fuel mileage between the 2.

They both suck.

 

Really? You're comparing a 2WD mini to a 4WD 4Runner? Ever think the 1000 lbs difference between the two affects the mileage?

Back on topic ... manual w/ crawler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any automatic any day

 

Yeah, I'm comparing the two.

And I didn't realize my 91 Xtra cab 2wd weighed 1000 pounds more or less than my 88 4Runner. If anything, I'd have thought the weights were pretty darn close... at least within the realm of the differing gearsets.
I'm fairly sure my 88 4Runner is geared different than the 91 truck in order to compensate for the higher weight and the stick shift transmission. and all-in-all... puts them both back on mostly equal ground.

and an automatic with crawl box >= comparable manual w/crawler any day.

 

Uh, no - the gearing may compensate for tire size and transmission gearing, but all it does is keep the RPM in the same range - you're still moving more weight with the same power ... laws of physics always apply.