The definition of "slow"

[1X83Z]

Consider this: the 1990-1995 Toyota 4Runner had two engines, one being an "optional" 150-horsepower 3-liter V6.

The V6 with the standard 5-speed manual did 0-60 in 14.1 seconds with a top speed of 99mph. That means the automatic V6 was probably in the low fifteens for 0-60.

Like I said, though, it had two engines - but the other was a 115-horsepower 2.4-liter four. Can you even imagine it? Manual was the only transmission available, but even so, it probably wasn't doing 0-60 in under 20 seconds. In 1995! I can't even imagine what it's like after ten years of wear and tear - or, in the case of 1990 models, after fifteen years.

But I could imagine it if I wanted. There's 21 on AutoTrader, nationwide. One of us should buy one. Right? It's a collector's item!

You know you want it...

 

[Blackbird.]

Eck! I didn't know they were that slow. They always looked like powerful trucks.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Have you heard the new 4Runner's slogan?

"Now faster than creeping paralysis."

Someone should buy one. How much could it possibly cost to buy a 15 year-old SUV like this?

 

[1X83Z]

Someone should buy one. How much could it possibly cost to buy a 15 year-old SUV like this?

Like all 4Runners, used prices are unbelievably high.

Remember, there's two maxims in life:
1. Treat others the way you want to be treated
2. Only idiots buy Toyota trucks used

I searched AutoTrader using the criteria: 1990-1995 Toyota 4Runner 4-cylinder. The average price of the 21 that came up is $5324. The high is $9005. Keep in mind they all have crank windows, manual mirrors and locks, no airbags, a manual transmission, and probably less than 100 horsepower. Though actually, a couple of these things have lift kits and huge tires and the like. The cheapest one was $1250, but it needs "a starter and a little T.L.C.", according to Buy-Rite Auto Sales in Shakopee, Minnesota.

 

[Blackbird.]

The price comes from that tiny symbol and name. Toyota. Sad really that is all it comes down to. You're sometimes buying it for the name.

 

[1X83Z]

The Toyota name is worth dick, and it doesn't explain why the T100 is worth so much used. The truth is, it comes from reliability. I read some reviews on epinions trying to see if anyone reviewed the four-cylinder, and pretty much everyone said they have 150,000, or 110,000, or 160,000 miles on theirs and they've had no mechanical breakdowns. It's almost Infiniti G20-esque how reliable it is.

There's a lot of very reliable Cherokee and Blazers, but there's a lot of unreliable ones too. Truthfully, there's few if any unreliable Toyota 4Runners. It's always been that way.

 

[skip0110]

Can you say Top Gear

Anyway, I had no idea they were that slow. What were the tow ratings on these things? My neighbor owned a V6 4Runner for many years, and towed a boat behind it.

 

[Famine]

The Nissan Serena people carrier, introduced in 1993, came with a choice of four engines, two of them diesels. The 2.3 turbodiesel, first offered in 1995, kicked out a monstrous 75hp for 0-62mph in 26.5s. And that's with full fluids and a driver - imagine it when there's actually people in it - its sole design purpose.

Astonishingly, they also offered a 2.0 diesel - 67hp and 0-62mph in 31.0s.


I'll see your 4Runner and raise you two Serenas.

Would you stuff your family into something THAT turgid?

 

[Blackbird.]

For its reliability the people perceive it from the name therefore that's why they buy it. When they hear Toyota they think realiability.

 

[The359]

It's an SUV, I doubt many people cared about the 0 - 60 times in the early 1990s, or the top speed.

Granted it limited it's off road capabilities, but people who were serious about that probably bought Land Cruisers.

 

[1X83Z]

What were the tow ratings on these things? My neighbor owned a V6 4Runner for many years, and towed a boat behind it.

3500lbs, all engines.

God, can you imagine a 2.4 towing 3500lbs?

Would you stuff your family into something THAT turgid?

Yeah, I know about the Serena - but we never got it, or anything remotely similar. We've had discussions about the Serena diesel before. Meanwhile, I'd bet the 4Runner is the slowest vehicle of the US market's last fifteen years. I can't think of anything that's anywhere near as slow.

It's an SUV, I doubt many people cared about the 0 - 60 times in the early 1990s, or the top speed.

You fail to understand the purpose of quoting the 0-60 time. Everyone knows what "good", "average", and "bad" 0-60 times are. Therefore everyone can relate when seeing the 0-60 time of the 4Runner 2.4, and they can understand how slow it is. I couldn't care less about the actual time.

Plus - there's a difference between caring about your 0-60 time when it's ten seconds and caring about your 0-60 time when it could present a road hazard.

 

[Famine]

Come to the European market - we get many more interesting and deathly slow vehicles than you. 0-60mph for the average car sold in the UK is 10.5s.

Wasn't the base Ford Ranger something really appalling too? It's around the 20s, if memory serves.

 

[1X83Z]

Come to the European market - we get many more interesting and deathly slow vehicles than you. 0-60mph for the average car sold in the UK is 10.5s.

Wasn't the base Ford Ranger something really appalling too? It's around the 20s, if memory serves.

It's difficult to know. The slowest vehicles on our market these days are stuff like the Toyota Highlander 2.4 (SUV based on Camry and RX330), Ford Ranger 2.3/Mazda B2300, and Hyundai Santa Fe 2.4. But these vehicles, all of which are probably in the fifteens 0-60 or higher, are rarely actually produced and usually serve solely to allow the manufacturer to advertise low prices and get people to dealers. Which is why the 4Runner 2.4 is such an absurd anomaly.

 

[Blackbird.]

Isn't the Prius Hybrid really slow, M5P?

 

[skip0110]

I dont call around 10 secconds terribly slow.

My car does 0-60 in aorund 9, and it is really quite perky.

 

[Blackbird.]

Heh, it's 10 seconds? I didn't know that, I perceived since it was an electric car or hybrid it would be quite slow. It's both sad and good that gas cars are slower then hybrids.

 

[1X83Z]

Isn't the Prius Hybrid really slow, M5P?

New ones are about 10.5 sec 0-60, old ones were about 12.3. Not bad for what it is. The Honda Insight is about 11.6; Civic Hybrid is 11.6 with a manual, 11.9 with optional CVT automatic. Escape Hybrid is weak at about 9.7 sec, but that's considerably better than the standard gasoline four-cylinder, which is on-par with the Insight. Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Hybrids are nearly unaffected compared with the 5.3L V8 they're based on, and the Accord Hybrid is actually faster than the EX V6.

 

[Blackbird.]

This is all good, because I thought if we were going to transfer from gas to electric we would all have quiet under 100hp vehicles but I'm wrong.

 

[1X83Z]

This is all good, because I thought if we were going to transfer from gas to electric we would all have quiet under 100hp vehicles but I'm wrong.

It depends, really. The Accord Hybrid is a rocketship; it's the most powerful, quickest, and fastest Accord sedan ever. But it's not doing much better than 30mpg. For major fuel savings, you need to get a quiet, relatively gutless car like the Prius, which gets, says the EPA, 57.5mpg.

 

[skip0110]

Lexus is also planning a hi-po hybrid V6 GS that should be quite powerful with decent economy.

I think that would make it the first RWD hybrid, if I am not mistaken.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Well, now I know what I'll be buying my kids should I ever be drunk enough to concieve some.

 

[MazKid]

Slowest car I drive is the old Nissan truck we have at Fusz...carries a huge water tank and pressure washer, and doesn't run to well. Flat out in 1st is choppy and I'm lucky if I can see the up-side of 15 mph in the parking lot.

 

[The359]

Slowest car I drive is the old Nissan truck we have at Fusz...carries a huge water tank and pressure washer, and doesn't run to well. Flat out in 1st is choppy and I'm lucky if I can see the up-side of 15 mph in the parking lot.

We had a Toyota Tacoma and Ford Ranger to do that at the dealership I used to work at. They were just like that, slow and crappy. But then again they had a 210gal tank on the back of them...

 

[1X83Z]

Lexus is also planning a hi-po hybrid V6 GS that should be quite powerful with decent economy.

I think that would make it the first RWD hybrid, if I am not mistaken.

Wrong you are. The Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra can be ordered with a Hybrid engine in both rear-wheel and four-wheel drive configurations. It will certainly be the first good RWD Hybrid.

Hybrid firsts are everywhere; the largest-engine Hybrid will be debuting in February as the Lexus RX400H (a four-liter V6).

 

[skip0110]

Hybrid firsts are everywhere; the largest-engine Hybrid will be debuting in February as the Lexus RX400H (a four-liter V6).

I think that hybrid drivetrains make a lot more sense as a performance enhancing feature than an economy feature (in other words, you get better performance with similar economy rather than better economy with similar performance).

Mating an electric motor with a weak-kneed engine means that performance can easily dip from mediocre to terrible. But with an OK engine to start with, you only go from good to mediocre. It's much like the idea of electric supercharging, which has been around for 5 years at least, but with regenerative braking. (I'm talking real electric supercharging, not that bull**** stuff under $100)

Seems that I'm pulling this thread quite off topic, but oh well.

 

[Epinionator89]

It's difficult to know. The slowest vehicles on our market these days are stuff like the Toyota Highlander 2.4 (SUV based on Camry and RX330), Ford Ranger 2.3/Mazda B2300, and Hyundai Santa Fe 2.4. But these vehicles, all of which are probably in the fifteens 0-60 or higher, are rarely actually produced and usually serve solely to allow the manufacturer to advertise low prices and get people to dealers. Which is why the 4Runner 2.4 is such an absurd anomaly.

Three things: First of all, the Santa Fe with the base engine goes to 60 in about 10 seconds. Second of all, my Excel with 81 horsepower goes to 60 in 13 seconds. lastly, the Ford Escape Hybrid goes to 60 in about 15 seconds. The first and third facts came from Automobile Magazine (Nov 2003) and Car and Driver (Nov or Dec 2004), respectively.

 

[skip0110]

lastly, the Ford Escape Hybrid goes to 60 in about 15 seconds.

For Escape Hybrid 0-60 in 10.8 sec according to C&D Dec 2004. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8777&page_number=4

And welcome to GTP.

 

[1X83Z]

Three things: First of all, the Santa Fe with the base engine goes to 60 in about 10 seconds. Second of all, my Excel with 81 horsepower goes to 60 in 13 seconds. lastly, the Ford Escape Hybrid goes to 60 in about 15 seconds. The first and third facts came from Automobile Magazine (Nov 2003) and Car and Driver (Nov or Dec 2004), respectively.

Hyundai claims the 2.7-liter V6 Santa Fe goes 0-60 in 10.3 seconds. But there's a four-cylinder engine below that which serves as the actual base engine, that, as I said, does 0-60 in about fifteen with an automatic transmission. The Ford Escape Hybrid does 0-60 in 9.7sec, according to me, but I'm more willing to believe mid-10s. It's not fifteen, or anything near that.

One thing you MUST NEVER DO - EVER!!!!! - is look at Car & Driver, Automobile, Motor Trend, and Road & Track for 0-60 times. In the case of Car & Driver and Road & Track particularly, their times are ALWAYS absurdly low for several reasons. First, they rev all vehicles (automatics are foot on gas/brake until they won't rev any higher). Manual transmission cars are tested first to see how far they can be revved without wheelspin, then are launched from the highest possible rev for the very best launch. Then, their drivers, who have unbelievable driving experience and shift a zillion times faster than anyone could ever dream of, take over and turn it into an absurd acceleration-fest.

One of the motor industry's very best jokes is Subaru claiming the WRX does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds in ads, based on Car & Driver's October 2001 issue, where they actually claim to do 0-60 in this vehicle that fast. Before this, Subaru themselves were claiming 6.0 seconds. Then Car & Driver did it 0.6 seconds faster. Subaru didn't release their six-second claim until after the C&D issue came out, though, and once C&D realized the stupidity of their claim, they had to re-test the WRX under the pretense of a comparison, where it came back with a much more apt time of 5.8 seconds (which is still absurd). Keep in mind, the current Subaru estimate for the WRX STi - a vehicle with the same body and 73 more horsepower - is 4.9 seconds. Yet the WRX somehow does it in 5.4? That's just one of MANY examples that Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Motor Trend are PERFORMANCE-BIASED magazines who employ performance drivers and prefer performance cars. They care about little else, which means they speak for about one percent of the buying public. PAYING ATTENTION TO MAINSTREAM MAGAZINES FOR 0-60 TIMES IS A STUPID MISTAKE. Don't rely on them, ever.

 

[Blackbird.]

I never knew I was going to get educated on a Saturday...

 

[neanderthal]

vw vanagons only had a 90hp four. weighed abot 4000lbs. early ninties vintage. i dont know their 0-60 times.
eurovans that came after them weighed even more, had a slightly peppier engine. but also have a weekender option that increased weight a whole bunch if it was alraedy the top level model. i dont know thier 0-60times either.

anyone care to dig up thier stats?