X2 on this one. The difference between 2WD and 4WD for gas mileage is much like a tail or head wind. Shouldn't much matter unless you are Hybridding or similar.
Educate me on 1996 & up 4Runners and Tacomas.
- Thread starter Josie'sLandCruiser
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
X2 on this one. The difference between 2WD and 4WD for gas mileage is much like a tail or head wind. Shouldn't much matter unless you are Hybridding or similar.
Not to get nitty-gritty, but 99-00 LIMITEDS ONLY had the multi-mode system (AWD) and all 01+. 99-00 SR5's had the traditional 4WD (no center diff).
Josie'sLC - personally, I like the 3.4L better. If you're going to be hauling or towing, it's definitely the winner. Other aspects is a personal preference, but I love the extra torque of the V6. The MPG difference is about 3-4MPG, which to ME isn't a big deal. I'd really like to pick up a manual V6 4Runner with a rear locker...
Instead of starting my own thread...
I figure this question fits into this thread:
for a '97 4runner, how practical is the 4cyl? (2.7L, right?) I have read in another forum--from one user--that the 3RZ-FE is grossly underpowered for the size of the 3rd gen 4runners.
Anyone that owns/has owned/driven one have any opinions on this?
I figure this question fits into this thread:
for a '97 4runner, how practical is the 4cyl? (2.7L, right?) I have read in another forum--from one user--that the 3RZ-FE is grossly underpowered for the size of the 3rd gen 4runners.
Anyone that owns/has owned/driven one have any opinions on this?
have a 97 regular cab Taco with 2.7/5spd/manual hubs. The 2.7 is 150 hp vs the 180 on the 6 cylinder which is heavier. The 2.7 spins 35" mud tires with ease, I have not found it lacking at all. The one thing I would recommend is that you do not get the regular cab Taco if possible, there is no room in that truck for anything.
Sounds not bad...weight difference b/t 3rd gen 4runner and single cab Taco, though?
Jacket
Moderator
It's probably going to be a matter of personal taste. Some folks argue that the 3.4 is underpowered for the truck, which is true in some cases (i.e., high altitude hill climbs). But the 3.4 is better than the 3.0 that came before it which is better than the 22re (from a power perspective). But the 4 cyl Toyota engines are a thing of simple beauty, and while they lack power they sure do last long and are easy to work on.
I would definitely make sure the 4 cyl is paired with the 5sp mT, and I would be prepared for a reliable but not peppy engine.
I would definitely make sure the 4 cyl is paired with the 5sp mT, and I would be prepared for a reliable but not peppy engine.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Threads
- 32
- Messages
- 583
- Location
- Townsend/Big Sky, Montana
- Website
- www.myspace.com
the 3rz-fe is grossly underpowered....compared to a Maseratti.
it runs great in 4L, 2nd gear, and about 3 mph.
as previously stated, make sure to get a manual trans, and prepare for a dependable vehicle that is easy to work on for a newer vehicle.
I have put 35,000 miles on mine in the last year and a half, including an expedition through Canyonlands, and countless 4x4 expeditions around home.
it runs great in 4L, 2nd gear, and about 3 mph.
as previously stated, make sure to get a manual trans, and prepare for a dependable vehicle that is easy to work on for a newer vehicle.
I have put 35,000 miles on mine in the last year and a half, including an expedition through Canyonlands, and countless 4x4 expeditions around home.
Well, that sounds good enough for me (in addition to all the other stuff above). Probably going to look at one (5sp MT, 3RZ-FE) on Saturday. 
Duane
IH8MUD Wookie
Well I have had a 2.7 auto for several years now. We were moving out of a BJ60 so the 2.7 was a rocket compared to the old diesel.
Our 2.7 is not happy doing 70 mph down an interstate against a head wind or up hills. If you drive it around town or country areas where you are under 60 mph it is great. Driving down trails I prefer it over a 3.4 for the extra range.
Absolutely a lower maintenance engine than the 3.4
I was trying to sell ours but the higher mileage seems to limit the amount for the offers I can get so I am thinking of just keeping it for city and trail driving and do the high speed trips with one of our 3.4L runners or the sequoia.
I am kind of happy with that as we love driving our 2.7L runner. It shifts up at lower rpms unlike the 3.4L when cold, has the rear e-lock and is light enough to drive over most snow banks in the winter. Knock on wood haven't managed to get it stuck yet where the 4-lo and rear locked wouldn't get it out.
The 3.4 isn't happy trying to pull what a 3rd gen is rated for towing capacity but will pull a loaded up utility trailer easier than a 2.7 for sure. We don't do enough pulling to really make a big difference. It's not like I ever trailered one of our 60 wagons behind a 3rd gen runner.
Our 2.7 is not happy doing 70 mph down an interstate against a head wind or up hills. If you drive it around town or country areas where you are under 60 mph it is great. Driving down trails I prefer it over a 3.4 for the extra range.
Absolutely a lower maintenance engine than the 3.4
I was trying to sell ours but the higher mileage seems to limit the amount for the offers I can get so I am thinking of just keeping it for city and trail driving and do the high speed trips with one of our 3.4L runners or the sequoia.
I am kind of happy with that as we love driving our 2.7L runner. It shifts up at lower rpms unlike the 3.4L when cold, has the rear e-lock and is light enough to drive over most snow banks in the winter. Knock on wood haven't managed to get it stuck yet where the 4-lo and rear locked wouldn't get it out.
The 3.4 isn't happy trying to pull what a 3rd gen is rated for towing capacity but will pull a loaded up utility trailer easier than a 2.7 for sure. We don't do enough pulling to really make a big difference. It's not like I ever trailered one of our 60 wagons behind a 3rd gen runner.
