What's the allure of older 4Runners?

And yet, the terrorist crackpots still steal them. Evil terrorist crackpots they are, but their experience is apparently different than yours.
they use what they have, toyota is just the most common, all kinds of interesting vehicles in use over there.

hell i saw i video of a late model tahoe strapped full of explosives crash into an iraqi abrams and blow the entire block sky high
 
I have an '06 Suzuki Grand Vitara which has 150K on the clock. Very reliable and as capable off road as a 4runner. When I am really serious about conquering the wild I drive this;

1607548164130.webp
 
I have an '06 Suzuki Grand Vitara which has 150K on the clock. Very reliable and as capable off road as a 4runner. When I am really serious about conquering the wild I drive this;

View attachment 36244
Ah, the Landmaster!

From "****ation Alley" - with George Peppard and Jan Michael Vincent, among others...

Rocket launchers and autocannons certainly help against some threats, like gangs of crazy people, but don't work well against swarms of giant bugs in Las Vegas...
 
They stole F150, GMC etc. When ISIS took over huge part of Iraq they ran into all kind of vehicles that were delivered by the US. There are many F150's on photos of ISIS too.
And again, those are all gassers.

So what's your point again edy? All Diesels are bad? 4Runners (the subject of this thread) are bad? You just like being contrarian?
 
So what's your point again edy? All Diesels are bad? 4Runners (the subject of this thread) are bad? You just like being contrarian?
I gave an answer about Hiluxes. They are not as what they are argued to be.
I own Prado, what is GX470 here. My Alfa Romeo was more reliable vehicle than that.
Why people like old 4Runners? They like old Buicks too.
 
There's a reason people got rid of them in droves, during the cash-for-clunkers debacle. I hope you continue to have good luck.

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/090804-top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that people bought them in droves when new. They were the best selling SUV for over a decade. The numbers destroyed in the program were a small fraction of overall sales, and being drivable and continuously registered for at least a year prior were also requirements.

It's not luck, they are generally good vehicles if they are maintained and not allowed to rust out. Sure they've had issues, so has every other SUV ever built. It seems like the merits of the 4Runner in these threads are always based on bashing everything else as junk. 4Runners are good SUVs, but the prices of some used ones are pretty ridiculous no matter how reliable they are. There's a 2000 plain jane steel wheel SR5 on Craigslist for $13k with 121k miles on it. That's just crazy. They aren't all priced like that, but it's hard to find one that's a good value. That doesn't mean they are bad SUVs, but the prices are a bit over the top right now.

For what it's worth, Bronco II prices are insane too. People pay 2-4x as much as a first gen Explorer for something less capable, less comfortable, and less reliable. That's proof that some of these Radwood era prices aren't just based off of people making strictly practical choices.
 
I don't see anything there about the number of vehicles still on the road, or if they are "hanging on by a thread."

CarComplaints.com is good entertainment, but it's just people self-reporting complaints. Guess what? Vehicles with high production volume will get more complaints.

I drove my 1997 Explorer with 217K miles to work today, like I do most days...not reported on CarComplaints.com.
I'm not here to brash brands. I think we can all agree the 4-Runner has a rightly deserved reputation for being reliable.
 
There is also an allure for old Pathfinders before Nissan made them grocery getters.
The 90's and early 00's were definitely the best times for vehicles. Brand new, I would've picked a 4Runner over a Pathfinder. But on the used market, you can get a much better Pathfinder than a 4Runner in the same price range. The Pathfinders were just as reliable, rode a bit better, and a tad bit more modern than the 4Runners of the same model year. The 3.5 VQ was a legendary engine.
 
I don't see anything there about the number of vehicles still on the road, or if they are "hanging on by a thread."

CarComplaints.com is good entertainment, but it's just people self-reporting complaints. Guess what? Vehicles with high production volume will get more complaints.

I drove my 1997 Explorer with 217K miles to work today, like I do most days...not reported on CarComplaints.com.
Just for entertainment compare a 2002 Ford Explorer to a 2002 Silverado+Sierra 1500, to a 2002 4 runner. I haven't checked the 4 runner, but have Silverado and Sierra, and the explorer. There are variations but most years seem to be similar. My 2005 Silverado doesn't even show up.
 
The old 4 Runners aren't as ugly as the new 4 Runners

There is also an allure for old Pathfinders before Nissan made them grocery getters.
Editor of car magazine I worked for some 15 years ago broke frame on last model Pathfind that was body on frame. It just got out as far as I remember. This was in Europe, 2.2 dci engine in it.
 
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that people bought them in droves when new. They were the best selling SUV for over a decade. The numbers destroyed in the program were a small fraction of overall sales, and being drivable and continuously registered for at least a year prior were also requirements.

It's not luck, they are generally good vehicles if they are maintained and not allowed to rust out. Sure they've had issues, so has every other SUV ever built. It seems like the merits of the 4Runner in these threads are always based on bashing everything else as junk. 4Runners are good SUVs, but the prices of some used ones are pretty ridiculous no matter how reliable they are. There's a 2000 plain jane steel wheel SR5 on Craigslist for $13k with 121k miles on it. That's just crazy. They aren't all priced like that, but it's hard to find one that's a good value. That doesn't mean they are bad SUVs, but the prices are a bit over the top right now.

For what it's worth, Bronco II prices are insane too. People pay 2-4x as much as a first gen Explorer for something less capable, less comfortable, and less reliable. That's proof that some of these Radwood era prices aren't just based off of people making strictly practical choices.
Agreed, lots were destroyed because they were the #1 selling SUV.

True, a 4Runner is reliable, but for the price of a used 4Runner you could buy a theoretically "less reliable" SUV and have plenty of cash left over for maintenance and repairs, while not driving something with a 1980s interior that rides like a dump truck. They were great SUVs in their day, but I wouldn't pay the prices people ask for them today, no way. I've seen early 2000s 4Runners pushing 20 grand. I don't care how reliable it is, it's still 20 years old and maintenance items will wear out. That's true for any older vehicle.
 
The 90's and early 00's were definitely the best times for vehicles. Brand new, I would've picked a 4Runner over a Pathfinder. But on the used market, you can get a much better Pathfinder than a 4Runner in the same price range. The Pathfinders were just as reliable, rode a bit better, and a tad bit more modern than the 4Runners of the same model year. The 3.5 VQ was a legendary engine.
Nissans aren't half the car as a Toyota.
 
Agreed, lots were destroyed because they were the #1 selling SUV.

True, a 4Runner is reliable, but for the price of a used 4Runner you could buy a theoretically "less reliable" SUV and have plenty of cash left over for maintenance and repairs, while not driving something with a 1980s interior that rides like a dump truck. They were great SUVs in their day, but I wouldn't pay the prices people ask for them today, no way. I've seen early 2000s 4Runners pushing 20 grand. I don't care how reliable it is, it's still 20 years old and maintenance items will wear out. That's true for any older vehicle.
Lada Niva is more capable off roading, and you can find one in Russia very cheap. It never breaks, you might need ear plugs inside, braking is questionable, but in the end, mountain goats might be jealous with off roading capabilities.
20 grand? 😂
 
Just for entertainment compare a 2002 Ford Explorer to a 2002 Silverado+Sierra 1500, to a 2002 4 runner. I haven't checked the 4 runner, but have Silverado and Sierra, and the explorer. There are variations but most years seem to be similar. My 2005 Silverado doesn't even show up.

Look again...there's a "Silverado" section and a "Silverado 1500" section. That website is a mess.

The 2002 model year Explorer is an obvious outlier, and that was the first year of the IRS model. The prior years have far fewer complaints. They also rank the 2009 and 2010 Explorers, which share a platform with the 2002, among the best vehicles. If we are basing reliability/durability on the number of complaints reported to CarComplaints.com, my 1997 Explorer is definitely more reliable than your 2005 Silverado, but not as reliable as the flawless 2005 Silverado 1500 (or maybe it was the other way around).

That's the problem with trying to draw any statistical conclusions from that website. Their sample size is way too small and variable for any of these vehicles. Their data is based entirely on people coming across the website and self-reporting. It's anecdotal evidence at best.
 
Last edited:
Look again...there's a "Silverado" section and a "Silverado 1500" section. That website is a mess.

The 2002 model year Explorer is an obvious outlier, and that was the first year of the IRS model. The prior years have far fewer complaints. They also rank the 2009 and 2010 Explorers, which share a platform with the 2002, among the best vehicles. If we are basing reliability/durability on the number of complaints reported to CarComplaints.com, my 1997 Explorer is definitely more reliable than your 2005 Silverado, but not as reliable as the flawless 2005 Silverado 1500 (or maybe it was the other way around).

That's the problem with trying to draw any statistical conclusions from that website. Their sample size is way too small and variable for any of these vehicles. Their data is based entirely on people coming across the website and self-reporting. It's anecdotal evidence at best.
You can make excuses for the way the data looks sure, but take the Silverado (which can include half tons and 3/4 tons and up) and add the complaints up the total is still way less complaints than a 2005 ford f150, etc. Yes the website is a mess, but if you make common sense observations like the model choosing discrepancies and look further into it, it still basically matched up with my experiences working at the ford dealer and the gm dealer, plus an independent.

We had so many transmission and timing chain failures on explorers. It wasn't until not working there I heard of a few that reached high mileage. Definitely some of them are good and last, but it wasn't looking that way when we were seeing them in for work all the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom