Toyota teases the 2025 4Runner

[redhat]

True most don't get used on serious 4wd trails. How much of the country even has readily available access to 4wd trails? For me, and from my experience, I've used various Toyota trucks and SUV's for 30+ years on 4wd trails. I know that none of them have ever left me stranded. I can't say the same for other makes I've owned or seen dead on some trail. There's also a matter of size. Fullsize trucks and SUV's just don't fit very well on some of those trails. Even the 4Runner is getting too big to be ideal in some cases.

Most of those oil and gas, railroad, etc roads, are not some narrow shelf road were width and 4wd with low range and traction aids absolutely matter. As well as ground clearance, axle articulation, and approach, departure, and break-over angle. Bigger is NOT better in those circumstances.

Out west we have lots of public land with dirt roads and trails. Unlike most of the eastern states. You can run out of gas in some areas if you don't carry extra. Until something better comes along that's as versatile, the old reliable 4Runner is still our choice

I can understand the gas thing as I'm looking up rotopax to add to my atvs for some trips we intent upon doing.

 

[02SE]

True. However, 99% of 4Runners are street animals. I get the idea behind it. Still, you need to get to those trails and still live with it every day. They could do a much better job bridging that divide, the divide between street and off-road capabilities. Stronger engines (another option), better brakes. Most people buy 4Runner bcs. its capability. But they never utilize it, while on the street, they are one of the least capable.

Edy, who cares why they buy it? If they like it, they'll buy it. Looking at the cars in your signature, I have no interest in any of them. Buy what you like, and maybe let others make their own vehicle choices.

As for power, I can tell you that a 5th gen is worlds more powerful than the 3VZE powered 4wd Hilux I had. Now THAT was slow. I still enjoyed it at the time. It actually got lower MPG than the 4Runner, despite being much lighter.

The brakes on our 5th gen have never been a source of concern either. Granted they're not the brakes on the X6 M, or the Carbon Ceramic brakes on the Viper. But comparing a BOF SUV to them is dumb, as they are not the same class of vehicle.

 

[edyvw]

Edy, who cares why they buy it? If they like it, they'll buy it. Looking at the cars in your signature, I have no interest in any of them. Buy what you like, and maybe let others make their own vehicle choices.

As for power, I can tell you that a 5th gen is worlds more powerful than the 3VZE powered 4wd Hilux I had. Now THAT was slow. I still enjoyed it at the time. It actually got lower MPG than the 4Runner, despite being much lighter.

The brakes on our 5th gen have never been a source of concern either. Granted they're not the brakes on the X6 M, or the Carbon Ceramic brakes on the Viper. But comparing a BOF SUV to them is dumb, as they are not the same class of vehicle.

Sure if they like it, they can buy whatever they want. I am just saying.
As for brakes, I would say, comparison to both VW's in my signature would not be fair, let alone X6M.

 

[RAVL]

Except that I can get BETTER than those MPGs with a suburban (I have in exended rental) with way more utility, power, and capability.

I dont know what SUVs need premium. The BMW X5 I just did 1000 miles in said it required 89, but it did fine with 87, and we got just under 26 MPG on the trip.

Longevity? Meh. I drive diesels. Check in after a few decades and a few hundred thousand miles. My brother has an FJZ80, his will be around a while, but its a different design than a pedestrian current toyota engine. Im sure a modern 4runner will last a long time, like plenty of other vehicles. I cant say that my brother's 96 FJZ80 is any better in terms of internal plastic brittleness or whatnot as compared to my 96 Ram - in fact, I know its worse! And if I was looking at pure mileage longevity, Id take the Ram vs the FJZ80. Our 94 Previa had no real issues, but it had none of the fancy stuff. So Im not sure Ill buy the superiority based upon history...

But for modern vehicles, 1990s trucks are not really relevant. Still, Id take a suburban any day for the money and MPGs.

If you want a vehicle with the smaller form factor, OK, got it. But its fairly useless to do anything real with (just did 1000 miles in an X5 with three kids all under 12, could barely fit, and I doubt the 4runner is much bigger), thus to me its pretty wasteful in terms of the operating cost to capability.

But I will give a huge thumbs up that at least they still sell in this size and form factor! Perhaps the new engine and updates will improve efficiencies. My wife had an early 90s 4cyl 4runner (I gues it was a 1990 or 91, it was the four door version, but had little triangle windows in the front doors) and it was fine until it rusted out. The AT would boil the transmission fluid on severe hills but it kept going...

Looked almost exactly like this. Maybe a darker shade. I think it was 2wd!

View attachment 212704

I get your point. Different strokes for different folks. For me, it would be hard to buy a GM vehicle. Don't trust them. Some of that is likely irrational, I know, but like all of us I have my preferences. Plus the Suburban and Tahoe are really nice looking, but they are much more expensive (at least $25k more in typical configuration) and my wife and I are routinely in city garages - neither of us want to deal with a vehicle of that size in that situation. 4Runner is much more manageable. But I don't view them as competitors, not a knock on them, just different segments.

As to why the 4Runner, for our family when we bought it both my boys were scouting and camping, and it was a useful vehicle built for that kind of thing that I didn't have to sweat damaging. With the advantage that I could find some really neat spots with them well off the beaten path. It also had a third row so that when we were back in the weekly routine, I could handle little league and swim practice car pools, etc. We aren't doing as much of that stuff now, so it is mostly a pavement princess, but that is fine because a few times a year we will still use it in its intended function. And we have horses so its off-road abilities to get through pretty much any kind of muck, particularly in the winter and spring when fields can be a mess, and handle a light trailer with no fuss are very useful. And when I get in pretty dirty, everything is designed to clean up easy. What sold me and was absolutely critical was the electrical outlet in the back for my emergency coffee pot! I can handle pretty much any situation or roughing it, but not without coffee!

I hear a lot of complaints here about its performance. Again, this is a 5k full body on frame SUV. But put that aside. They do have a very long throttle so to speak, meaning that you do really need to use the throttle before the engine actually starts to climb in RPM. I may not be explaining it clearly, but the contrast is a nice car we thought about buying years ago - a late 90s Maxima. My wife and I had just gotten married and she needed a car, but coming out of her fun but unreliable Jetta, she wanted something fun. Cool cars when they were new but if you tapped the gas you were thrown back into your seat. Same with 90s GM cars of that era that my parents owned. The Toyota doesn't do that. Now as far as speed and performance, I have never found it lacking, including family road trips of 1000 miles each way when I have had to pass 18 wheelers - the 4Runner will get up to 80 or 90mph pretty quickly with no drama. Braking wise, it has four piston calipers up front. Nose dive is an issue if you aren't familiar with tap and squeeze braking but after 5 minutes you get it and the truck can be hauled down from speed very nicely.

Two last points in its defense: as someone who did amateur endurance racing for 10+ years, and having driven some really fun cars during that time, I feel like I am pretty well positioned to judge the dynamic capabilities of a vehicle. the 4Runner is not a sports car but it is comparable to a host of family trucksters I've driven. (The BMW SUVs are very impressive dynamically - I am surprised you used 87 - 89 is minimum and 91 recommended -- just rented one in Belgium last month - surprised it didn't throw an idiot light.). And finally, I am not sure where the crazy need for horsepower came from today. You said you drive diesels? Very cool. I learned to drive a manual transmission on a W123 240D. Great car, but not a powerhouse. Funny thing is that you learn to drive better when driving a slow car fast. What would be a turn off to a 240D today for me is not the speed but the noise. But put all that aside because sadly the cars that Mercedes (and BMW) make today are good from a performance and driver position perspective, but from a build quality perspective, they are not the same as what they made in the 80s and 90s - any person who owned when then and today can see that, and inflation adjusted comparison of pricing gives that away pretty readily as well. (Interestingly both the BMW and MB museums in Germany now have big exhibits on recycling their cars - normal people find it cool, I found it disturbing because the cars still looked like years and models that should still be in service.). And the government has made it a point of killing diesel, with VW's help. Secondly, you reach a point in your life when you are tired of buying things and being disappointed - even a little - in the quality. Having owned those other German cars new in the not too distant past, the nice thing about the Toyota is that generally speaking, it doesn't disappoint, it is consistent with what it has always been. So that's why we have one, and that's why we keep it. Fully understand the logic is not there for everyone.

Take care.

 

[edyvw]

I get your point. Different strokes for different folks. For me, it would be hard to buy a GM vehicle. Don't trust them. Some of that is likely irrational, I know, but like all of us I have my preferences. Plus the Suburban and Tahoe are really nice looking, but they are much more expensive (at least $25k more in typical configuration) and my wife and I are routinely in city garages - neither of us want to deal with a vehicle of that size in that situation. 4Runner is much more manageable. But I don't view them as competitors, not a knock on them, just different segments.

As to why the 4Runner, for our family when we bought it both my boys were scouting and camping, and it was a useful vehicle built for that kind of thing that I didn't have to sweat damaging. With the advantage that I could find some really neat spots with them well off the beaten path. It also had a third row so that when we were back in the weekly routine, I could handle little league and swim practice car pools, etc. We aren't doing as much of that stuff now, so it is mostly a pavement princess, but that is fine because a few times a year we will still use it in its intended function. And we have horses so its off-road abilities to get through pretty much any kind of muck, particularly in the winter and spring when fields can be a mess, and handle a light trailer with no fuss are very useful. And when I get in pretty dirty, everything is designed to clean up easy. What sold me and was absolutely critical was the electrical outlet in the back for my emergency coffee pot! I can handle pretty much any situation or roughing it, but not without coffee!

I hear a lot of complaints here about its performance. Again, this is a 5k full body on frame SUV. But put that aside. They do have a very long throttle so to speak, meaning that you do really need to use the throttle before the engine actually starts to climb in RPM. I may not be explaining it clearly, but the contrast is a nice car we thought about buying years ago - a late 90s Maxima. My wife and I had just gotten married and she needed a car, but coming out of her fun but unreliable Jetta, she wanted something fun. Cool cars when they were new but if you tapped the gas you were thrown back into your seat. Same with 90s GM cars of that era that my parents owned. The Toyota doesn't do that. Now as far as speed and performance, I have never found it lacking, including family road trips of 1000 miles each way when I have had to pass 18 wheelers - the 4Runner will get up to 80 or 90mph pretty quickly with no drama. Braking wise, it has four piston calipers up front. Nose dive is an issue if you aren't familiar with tap and squeeze braking but after 5 minutes you get it and the truck can be hauled down from speed very nicely.

Two last points in its defense: as someone who did amateur endurance racing for 10+ years, and having driven some really fun cars during that time, I feel like I am pretty well positioned to judge the dynamic capabilities of a vehicle. the 4Runner is not a sports car but it is comparable to a host of family trucksters I've driven. (The BMW SUVs are very impressive dynamically - I am surprised you used 87 - 89 is minimum and 91 recommended -- just rented one in Belgium last month - surprised it didn't throw an idiot light.). And finally, I am not sure where the crazy need for horsepower came from today. You said you drive diesels? Very cool. I learned to drive a manual transmission on a W123 240D. Great car, but not a powerhouse. Funny thing is that you learn to drive better when driving a slow car fast. What would be a turn off to a 240D today for me is not the speed but the noise. But put all that aside because sadly the cars that Mercedes (and BMW) make today are good from a performance and driver position perspective, but from a build quality perspective, they are not the same as what they made in the 80s and 90s - any person who owned when then and today can see that, and inflation adjusted comparison of pricing gives that away pretty readily as well. (Interestingly both the BMW and MB museums in Germany now have big exhibits on recycling their cars - normal people find it cool, I found it disturbing because the cars still looked like years and models that should still be in service.). And the government has made it a point of killing diesel, with VW's help. Secondly, you reach a point in your life when you are tired of buying things and being disappointed - even a little - in the quality. Having owned those other German cars new in the not too distant past, the nice thing about the Toyota is that generally speaking, it doesn't disappoint, it is consistent with what it has always been. So that's why we have one, and that's why we keep it. Fully understand the logic is not there for everyone.

Take care.

Well, talking about idiot lights, my BMW and Tiguan were combined more reliable than Sienna I luckily got rid of in time.
I think people really overthink what they need going off road. IMO, if one is going to places that require locking differential? $4,000 Lexus GX470 or first gen Sequoia for $3,500 are way to go, or even better, 1&2 gen VW Touareg, not brand new vehicle.
As for long gas pedal, I think reason for that is modulation during hardcore off-road usage.
Current generation 4Runner will be excellent off-road vehicle in, 10-15 years.

 

[mdoan300]

My merry tribe and I will take a big camping trip once or twice/year from Dallas. The shortest being a 12 hour drive to Big Bend TX area or San Juans mountains CO area, and longest being out to Banff, Alberta, CA area. We find primitive camp sites along the way, so there is plenty of wheelin’, usually with some gnarly rock-crawling. Last year’s mondo 2-week long trip was traversing southern UT trails during the Ring of Fire eclipse; and the year before that, it was camping in Moab and camping on the White Rim Trail at Canyonlands NP in UT.

My observations over the past 6 years of owning my 2018 4Runner:

- there’s always some crazy winds on I-40 in AZ
- there’s even crazier winds in WY and MO
- passing 18-wheelers at 80+mph on those windy highways with is a bit white knuckling
- (I said it previously) passing on 2-lane roads in CO is suicidal and requires plenty of planning and runway
- my avg highway fuel economy on those trips is around 15mpg

If my 4Runner got 20mpg on the highway during those trips, then I would be ok with the power deficiency. Or if the 4Runner had significantly more passing power, then I would be ok with the abysmal fuel economy. Instead, I got neither.

Consider that my 4Runner has minimal weight-increasing mods: suspension lift, rock sliders, TRD PRO aluminum skid plate, and Yakima roof basket. The other folks in my group- well, one fella has front & rear steel bumpers, full steel under armor protection, winch, roof rack, rock sliders, and suspension lift - he easily has 1000lbs added, and that’s before camping gear. Other folks have a similar setup, but with the heavy air brake added- the roof top tent.

The overlanding/fauxverlanding fad really took off during the pandemic. If Toyota wants to ride the wave, then they should consider the additional weight folks add to their rigs. As I previously said, the only folks not struggling with power are the forced-induction Jeeps and Broncos.

I’ve attached a pic from the Glacier NP-Banff NP trip in 2022. There were only 3 of us: two 4Runners and a Land Cruiser Heritage Edition. This pic was taken at the Columbia Icefield, Alberta, CA before I parted ways with them- my friends were heading to the Arctic Circle & the tippy top of AK, while I had to make my way home to Dallas (I had only 2 weeks, they had 6 weeks). Of interesting note, the white 4Runner has over 200k miles.

 

[02SE]

Lift, basket, and tires can make a big difference in fuel economy. Going from the light all-seasons Toyota puts on these from the factory, to a heavy, LT, aggressive A/T or M/T, can really knock the fuel economy down. Aggressive tires in the stock 'size' alone, can account for a 2-3 mpg loss. Then the lift hurts the aerodynamics (such as they are) enough to knock it down further.

 

[dlundblad]

Supposedly Forbes accidentally posted these too early.

 

[drtyler]

Supposedly Forbes accidentally posted these too early.

View attachment 213252View attachment 213251 View attachment 213253

If true, those look good.

 

[mdoan300]

The Forbes article is still cached… https://webcache.googleusercontent....ts-off-road-lineup-with-all-new-2025-4runner/

 

[02SE]

Well, today is supposed to be the day of the official reveal of the 2025 6th gen 4Runner.

 

[drtyler]

Well, today is supposed to be the day of the official reveal of the 2025 6th gen 4Runner.

Toyota has it scheduled at 10:15 PM EDT, but Forbes dropped the article and photos early.

 

[02SE]

Toyota has it scheduled at 10:15 PM EDT, but Forbes dropped the article and photos early.

Yep.

I have to say that I'm not overly excited by what I see and know about it. Maybe my opinion will change. I'm happy to have a very low mile 5th gen right now.

 

[02SE]

So here are a few initial reveals.

 

[2002 Maxima SE]

Other than price and model name, it's not easy to understand how the Land Cruiser will differ from 4Runner and why a buyer would choose it. Land Cruiser pricing starts just above the highest priced 4Runner TRDPro. Since it's redesign, Land Cruiser has same engine options and seems to be the same sizing and packaging.

Reading a few articles this morning, the only physical difference I've read is height and standard engine. Land Cruiser is 5" taller and the IForceMax 4 is standard. Maybe they have plans to add the IMax 6 later to the Land Cruiser?

 

[HoosierJeeper]

Other than price and model name, it's not easy to understand how the Land Cruiser will differ from 4Runner and why a buyer would choose it. Land Cruiser pricing starts just above the highest priced 4Runner TRDPro. Since it's redesign, Land Cruiser has same engine options and seems to be the same sizing and packaging.

Reading a few articles this morning, the only physical difference I've read is height and standard engine. Land Cruiser is 5" taller and the IMax 4 is standard. Maybe they have plans to add the IMax 6 later to the Land Cruiser?

Looks like the 4Runner gets KDSS (still not as good as a solid front axle with a sway bar disco IMO), like .5" more ground clearance, but part time 4WD. LC is full time, and doesn't have the option of a third row. Although it sounds like in the 4runner if you get the hybrid one (same as the LC), you don't get the third row either. Plus the same differences you mentioned - really seems like it comes down to the details.

 

[2002 Maxima SE]

Looks like the 4Runner gets KDSS (still not as good as a solid front axle with a sway bar disco IMO), like .5" more ground clearance, but part time 4WD. LC is full time, and doesn't have the option of a third row. Although it sounds like in the 4runner if you get the hybrid one (same as the LC), you don't get the third row either. Plus the same differences you mentioned - really seems like it comes down to the details.

4Runner Limited offers AWD and neither will have a third row seating option from what I read.

 

[E365]

Another example of the absolute mess that is hybrid packaging. 30 years of hybrids and even Toyota can’t figure out what to do with batteries. In this case (and the Land Cruiser) you lose a very significant amount of cargo space because they’re installed on the rear floor area.

 

[Arch Stanton]

That's your subjective opinion.

The 4Runner is better on a 4wd trail, (IME) and reliability absolutely matters, when you're a long ways from civilization, with no Cell service. If people wanted a Tahoe, Suburban, or any other vehicle, instead of a 4Runner, they'd buy those. Lots of people DO buy those other vehicles, because they meet their needs/ wants.

There are lots of vehicles I would never buy. I don't care if others want to buy them.

People that buy 4Runners can say the same thing as Jeep owners, "If You Have to Ask You Won't Understand". I've driven several generations of 4Runners. They certainly could use more power. If you're buying it as a daily family hauler than there a re many better choices. If buying it for it's intended purpose, you won't find a whole lot better.

 

[edyvw]

I like it! Put in B58 from BMW and Supra, and there would be 2-3yrs wait.
Other than that, 2.4T no hybrid looks like a winner.