2009 FJ Cruiser SE at SEMA

[cruiseroutfit]

It is interesting reading a number of posts about guys wanting to merge the 4runner and the FJ or for toyota to put out a "proper" midsize truck?

Am I the only one that looks at an FJ or a Tacoma or a 4runner these days and wonders why they have balooned into roughly the same size as mid 80s Suburbans? ...

Your not at all the only one. The Tacoma has turned into the T100/Tundra an the Tunrad morphed into a full-size truck to compete with the F250, etc. This left a void for the light pickup that started with the 79' Toyota 4x4.

 

[teotwaki]

No you're not the only one. However I assume you're being intentionally fececious (sp) about your comparison.

I also agree that mfg's should keep these things smaller, but I would still like the more powerful engines :chowtime:


Oh, and I didn't consider the rear locker a big upgrade since I figured you could get one from TRD or out of a Tacoma no?

E locker takes a different axle housing to accomodate the solenoid as well as the 4th Gen 4Runner did not have the wiring harness or ECU s/w. People have retrofitted them with a fair amount of effort. Easier to go with an ARB and get a stronger diff to boot.

 

[teotwaki]

4Th Gen 4Runner as big as 80's Suburban?

1973 through 1991 Chevy Suburban

Length 219.1 in
Width 79.6 in
Height R10: 72.0 in
V10: 73.8 in
R20: 74.3 in
V20: 76.1 in

4th Gen 4Runner

Length 189
Width 73.8
Height 68.9 (Sport 71.3 Limited 71.1 had taller tires and rims)


(Source Wikipedia)

 

[cruiseroutfit]

1973 through 1991 Chevy Suburban

Length 219.1 in
Width 79.6 in
Height R10: 72.0 in
V10: 73.8 in
R20: 74.3 in
V20: 76.1 in

4th Gen 4Runner

Length 189
Width 73.8
Height 68.9 (Sport 71.3 Limited 71.1 had taller tires and rims)

But its getting closer

1st Gen 4Runner

Length 174.6 in (+14)
Width 66.5 in (+7)
Height 66.1 in (+3)

 

[teotwaki]

But its getting closer

1st Gen 4Runner

Length 174.6 in (+14)
Width 66.5 in (+7)
Height 66.1 in (+3)

LOL! Let's look at the LandCruiser :hehe:

1960
Length 151.2 in
Width 65.6 in
Height Hardtop 78.8 in

2008
Length 194.9 in (+43.7 inches!!! WOW!)
Width 77.6 in
Height 74 in

 

[cruiseroutfit]

LOL! Let's look at the LandCruiser :hehe:

1960
Length 151.2 in
Width 65.6 in
Height Hardtop 78.8 in

2008
Length 194.9 in (+43.7 inches!!! WOW!)
Width 77.6 in
Height 74 in

Exactly why you won't hear me condoning the size of the 200. I think the 60 is one of the most practical of the series, particularly the 62

But your proving my point. Whereas the HiLux/Taco turned into the T100/Tundra, the 4Runner turned into the "sized appropriate" Land Cruiser after the LC morphed into a Full-Size SUV. They have morphed from small and mid-size platforms to mid-size and full-size platforms. Leaving a giant void in the small truck offerings.

 

[Backwoods Rambler]

Well with the big 3 going down, sounds like we all need to pool our resources and fill the void :victory:

 

[jingram]

LOL, I didn't go an pull numbers on dimensions between early model suburbans vs 4th gen 4runner. I stand corrected, but as was mentioned, it is getting damn close. I don't think the 4th gen 4runner is too big for an expedition vehicle, it is just a bit too "soft" for me and I prefer a manual transmission, regardless of how much better an automatic may be offroad.

I think a 2nd Gen 4runner was a nice size. If the rear seats laid flat and it came with rain gutters, it would be the perfect platform size wise for me.

That all being said, we want to have our cake and eat it too. I want that more powerful motor and I also want that stellar gas mileage... something has to take a hit, lol.

Personally, of all the rigs I have owned, I liked that 85 Isuzu by far the best. It was desert tan in color, it was gutless with a 1.9 4 banger and only had a 4 speed, but it was in many ways the perfect expedition rig. Lots of cargo space, removable rear seat meant you could easily sleep in the back. Rain gutters for a rack, relatively light weight, great visability, and just a very simple and utilitarian design.

 

[lathamb]

Yeah, I'm definately not a member of the "bigger is better" crowd. I would love to see a smaller SUV also.

When I was growing up on the farm, we bailed and hauled an awful lot of alfalfa hay. We were the largest producers in our county for years. Round bales and square bales. Lots of weight there. We hauled all of it first with a Chevy Luv pickup then later an S-10, both with gooseneck hitches in the bed. The rest of the world does just fine with small, efficient work trucks. Most of the US consumers that buy these big 1/2 to 1-ton pickups probably spend less than 5% of the life of those vehicles actually towing with them. Its just wasteful, and much of the reason why we're in the mess we're in now.