did anyone see this months car & driver comparison test?

4runner sport, pathfinder, explorer, montero, cherokee pitted against eachother?

explorer was last, followed by 4runner, then montero, then pathfinder then cherokee.

the review is really stupidly written (they gripe about the looks of the A/C controls in the runner but the test was taking the trucks offroad...), but really thats a suprising outcome.

i suggest you check it out.

 

car & driver sucks

 

Car & Driver should stick to cars. And drivers....

But then, I don't really disagree with the poor rating for the 4Runner (sorry late model Runner lovers!) It's a nice car but it is no longer an offroad vehicle. Ugly trend, this blending of the appearance of capability with car components and gadgetry.

Reminds me of the Gallagher routine: "If there is such a thing as UFOs why don't they land? Because they look out their windows and what do do they see? Endless traffic jams made up of Off Road Vehicles... It's true! Everyone owns an off road vehicle and won't even drive over a curb!"

 

I agree too. I think the 4th Gen lost it's way as a true off-roader. Sorry to see it got beat out by a Montero though, that's just awful. Mitsubishi is in the ˟˟˟˟ter right now. And a Chrysler product? Sorry but the Wrangler is the only real Jeep these days, it was a total disgrace when they put a Hemi the GC. Props to Chrysler on the Diesel Liberty though, now that's an innovation and a step in the right direction for the US Market.... come on Nissan and Toyota, follow their lead.

 

the runner surely could outwheel any of those other vehicles, grand cherokee not sure about, but it's ugly, so there.

i saw a report on the morning news, abc 7, rating off-road suvs. it really only talked about 3 or 4. it said the runner is a good choice, but choose the highlander if you want better mileage and handling and plan on staying on the road. they also liked the new grand cherokee. they showed it crossing a small stream. i was blown away by this awesome file-footage display of brute off-road prowess.

the test for determining capability according to this report? don't bother yourself checking out the vehicle's components, rather look for a "shifter or lever" that enables 4low. sure that's a good start, but there's oh so much more.

 

I must say, I was surprised when I read that article too. At least the 4th gen came in 2nd for acceleration. I need to run the Broken Arrow trail sometime and see if their assessment was accurate.

 

Yep and Toyota has to follow the money and almost all 4Runners (all gens) are still on-road vehicles so they they made the 4th gens even more soccer mom friendly and sales haven't slowed. It started with the '01 3rd gens when they dropped 'em an inch and discontinued the diff lock. I like being in the minority of the off road 4Runner crowd.

 

not only cause i own an 01 and plan to make it quite offroad worthy over the next 2 or 3 yrs, but i wouldnt say an 01 isnt offroad worthy.

i never heard of 01 4wd's being an inch lower.. is that true? what makes em lower?

 

dang man, we should just quit the off-road nonsense and make em mall queens. anyone know where i can order some good lowering springs?

 

Next for soccer moms

 

 

Your 96 doesn't count. Do you have a 2003+?

 

and don't forget, they also dropped the 5 speeds. Funny they did that the year I was thinking of buying a new Runner. I never did. And never will.

 

What difference does it make what I am driving if I am scoping the terrain?

 

Did you lose track of the conversation? It was being said that the article dissed the trail prowess of late model Runners, and some of us were agreeing that they've been 'dumbed down.' And you Seemed to be saying you would go run that trail and see if they were right or not. Well, to do that and to prove/disprove the theory you have to do it in the rig being discussed, not your sweet trailworthy 96.

 

No, I didn't lose track, but thanks for asking. Actually, if you go back and read the first post, Lee mentions that the article is "stupidly written." I would like to verify some of the claims of the drivers specifically regarding this trail and the encountered terrain. That might give us an indication of credibility. Besides, if I lead a run up there I can almost guarantee a 4th gen will come along.

Not sure what your last comment was all about...

 

well....

anyway. the point is, if youre going to buy a new truck and make it trailworthy, the 4th gen 4runner is not a bad place to start.

its just silly when this article is written for truck-tards who have obviously never thought of serious offroading. its basically like "yea, the stock tires arent great, and clearance with these running boards could be better"

yea, well no ˟˟˟˟˟.

 

Also, it seemed like they gave the 4Runner and GC the good "off-road" reviews. The 'Runner was one of the few with off-road capabilities in the pro section. Downgrading it for stupid A/C controls (which I like)? What kinda crap is that?

 

No,even '05 Runners are off road worthy but after 2000 they started to make them more on-road friendly and dropping the rear locker was a big deal. Actually even late '00 models started to use slightly smaller springs and dropped 'em an inch. Compare a few older ones to your '01 with the same size tires and stuff and you'll see a slight difference and it even seems in '02 they dropped again since my friend's '02 is almost 3 inches lower than mine but I do have 265/75s on mine. I'll see if I can find the link where I read this.

 

Is the 4th Gen a body sitting on a truck chassis still? If it is then it's completely still trail worth. As worthy as the frame it sits on, which I presume is a beefed up version of the Tacoma Chassis.