The unveiling of the new Toyota 4Runner sparked a wave of questions among Toyota enthusiasts, especially after the recent debut of the redesigned Land Cruiser. Both SUVs, sharing the robust TNGA-F platform with other Toyota stalwarts like the Tacoma, Sequoia, and Tundra, and featuring a similar 2.4-liter engine paired with an eight-speed transmission, seemed to blur the lines in Toyota’s lineup. The burning question arose: were the 4Runner and Land Cruiser too alike, perhaps even redundant?
Having had the opportunity to drive the 4Runner alongside the Land Cruiser, the answer is nuanced but clear: yes, there’s significant overlap, but Toyota strategically positions these vehicles to appeal to distinct customer bases. Toyota aims to cast a wide net, attracting buyers potentially considering competitors like the Ford Bronco, Jeep Wrangler, or even the Porsche Cayenne. As a Toyota representative explained at the 4Runner’s media launch, the 4Runner is meticulously crafted for North American preferences, emphasizing driving dynamics and styling tailored to this market. The focus is on a “fun to drive and sporty” experience. Conversely, the Land Cruiser is designed as a global vehicle, reflecting Toyota’s global heritage and catering to broader international tastes in driving dynamics.
Essentially, Toyota’s vision distinguishes the 4Runner as the more aggressive and dynamically styled option, while the Land Cruiser embodies a more premium persona. This distinction manifests not only in styling and fit and finish but also in their overall driving characteristics.
Decoding the Toyota 4Runner: Trim Levels and Offerings
The Toyota representative aptly described the 4Runner as multifaceted, a notion underscored by its extensive trim lineup. Unlike the Land Cruiser, which is offered in just two trims (1958 and Land Cruiser), the 4Runner boasts a staggering nine different variants, with prices ranging from $42,220 to $68,350. This broad spectrum of trims allows the 4Runner to cater to a wider array of needs and budgets.
- SR5 ($42,220 for 4×2, $44,220 for 4×4)
- TRD Sport ($48,700 for 4×2, $50,700 for 4×4)
- TRD Sport Premium ($54,060 for 4×2, $56,060 for 4×4)
- TRD Off-Road 4×4 ($50,640)
- TRD Off-Road Premium 4×4 ($56,420)
- Limited ($56,850 for 4×2, $58,850 for 4×4)
- Platinum 4×4 ($64,310)
- TRD Pro 4×4 ($68,350)
- Trailhunter 4×4 ($68,350)
The top-tier trims – Platinum, TRD Pro, and Trailhunter – exclusively feature the potent 2.4-liter hybrid “i-Force Max” powertrain, delivering an impressive 326 horsepower and 465 lb-ft of torque. This powertrain will be familiar to those acquainted with the Tacoma or Land Cruiser hybrid models.
In contrast, the Limited, TRD Off-Road, and TRD Off-Road Premium trims come standard with the non-hybrid 2.4-liter “i-Force” engine, producing 278 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque. This engine is also the sole option for the SR5 and TRD Sport trims. However, for those desiring enhanced power and efficiency, the hybrid powertrain is available as a $2,800 upgrade for the Limited, TRD Off-Road, and TRD Off-Road Premium models.
Third-row seating, a feature offering added passenger capacity, is exclusively available on the SR5 and non-hybrid Limited trims for an additional $600. This limitation is due to the placement of the hybrid battery beneath the rear cargo area, which significantly reduces available space. The image below illustrates the battery’s impact on cargo space in the Trailhunter trim.
Conversely, the non-hybrid SR5, pictured below, demonstrates the significantly lower cargo floor, allowing for the inclusion of third-row seating. Notably, while the TRD Sport and TRD Off-Road non-hybrid versions technically have space for a third row, Toyota historically has only offered it on the Limited and SR5 trims, citing customer demand and dealer feedback. Despite this, the author expresses a personal preference for a third-row option in the TRD Off-Road trim.
Delving into the 4Runner’s foundational elements, the TNGA-F platform and suspension components are shared across the Toyota family. The front suspension architecture, as seen in the Tacoma, Land Cruiser, and the new 4Runner, showcases a familiar double-wishbone independent front suspension with coilovers.
Here’s the front suspension of the Tacoma:
Here’s the Land Cruiser:
And here’s the new 4Runner’s front suspension:
While variations exist in control arms and geometry based on trim level, the fundamental suspension mounting points to the frame, which maintains a consistent pitch and rail width across these vehicles, remain the same. The rear suspension follows a similar pattern, utilizing a coil-sprung solid rear axle across the Tacoma, Land Cruiser, and 4Runner.
Here’s the Tacoma:
Here’s the Land Cruiser:
And here’s the 4Runner’s rear suspension:
In terms of dimensions, the 4Runner and Land Cruiser exhibit notable similarities. The Land Cruiser measures 194 inches in length, 84.2 inches in width, and 73.2 inches in height. The 4Runner is approximately an inch longer and maintains a comparable width. The height of the Limited, TRD Sport, and Platinum 4Runner trims closely mirrors that of the Land Cruiser. Even ground clearance figures are nearly identical across the Land Cruiser and these specific 4Runner trims.
Towing capacity is also consistent between the two SUVs, rated at 6,000 pounds. Combined fuel economy for hybrid 4Runners and the hybrid-only Land Cruiser is also the same at 23 MPG. Non-hybrid 4Runner models, however, experience a slight dip in combined MPG, losing one or two MPG compared to their hybrid counterparts.
Driving Dynamics: Experiencing the 4Runner
The driving experience commenced in downtown San Diego, where the author took the wheel of a 4Runner TRD Pro, venturing onto the highway. The interior immediately echoed the design and layout of the Toyota Tacoma recently driven by the author. A prominent 14-inch touchscreen dominates the center stack, complemented by a 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster. The interior design is characterized by a robust, chunky aesthetic, featuring blocky “TOYOTA” lettering on the dash, a substantial, Tonka-truck-like shift lever, a thick passenger grab handle on the center tunnel, and interior materials prioritizing durability over plushness.
Minor imperfections in trim fitment were observed in the preproduction TRD Pro, particularly near the glovebox, suggesting areas for potential refinement in production models.
While the 4Runner TRD Pro’s agility and speed didn’t elicit overwhelming enthusiasm, the ride quality was deemed respectable, considering its status as a large truck riding on 33-inch tires. Less-than-pinpoint handling is an expected characteristic in this vehicle category.
The prominent, non-functional hood scoop on the TRD Pro exhibited some shaking at highway speeds, mirroring a similar observation in the Tacoma. The author expresses a personal opinion that this plastic element appears somewhat superfluous.
Further scrutiny of the TRD Pro’s exterior plastic trim, particularly the piano black elements, revealed noticeable swirl marks. This was highlighted during a Toyota presentation, demonstrating the susceptibility of this material to showing imperfections.
Drawing from personal experience as a BMW i3S owner with extensive piano black trim, the author expresses frustration with the material’s tendency to exhibit swirl marks, deeming it unsuitable for any vehicle, especially an off-road-oriented one like the TRD Pro. The inclusion of this material on the top-spec TRD Pro trim is considered particularly incongruous.
The Appeal of the Base 4Runner SR5
Transitioning to the entry-level 4Runner SR5 in a two-wheel-drive configuration, priced around $43,000, the author experienced an immediate positive impression. The SR5 emerged as the preferred on-road driving experience among the 4Runner trims tested that day.
A key factor contributing to the SR5’s appeal is its significantly lighter weight. At 4,455 pounds, the rear-wheel-drive SR5 undercuts the TRD Pro by a substantial 1,000 pounds. This weight difference translates into a surprisingly nimble and responsive feel. The 278 horsepower, 317 lb-ft 2.4-liter non-hybrid turbo engine in the SR5 delivers performance comparable to, or perhaps even slightly quicker than, the more powerful 326 horsepower, 465 lb-ft TRD Pro. The SR5 felt subjectively smaller, lower to the ground, and more agile, resulting in a more enjoyable driving experience overall.
The 2.4-liter turbocharged inline-four engine, while functional and adequately powerful, is described as somewhat “buzzy” and lacking in distinct character. However, it provides sufficient power, and the eight-speed automatic transmission executes shifts smoothly and efficiently. The powertrain is deemed competent but ultimately unremarkable, aligning with the functional nature of previous 4Runner powertrains.
The SR5’s interior features an eight-inch touchscreen, which is considered sufficiently sized and, arguably, more seamlessly integrated into the dashboard design compared to the larger 14-inch screen in higher trims. The light cloth seats are praised for both their aesthetic appeal and comfort.
Exploring the Third-Row Seating
The optional third-row seating in the 4Runner SR5 was examined, revealing a design reminiscent of the “jump seats” in previous 4Runner generations. The solid rear axle’s articulation necessitates a raised rear frame “kick-up” and consequently a higher rear floor. This design constraint results in third-row seats that are positioned low to the floor and fold down and backward when stowed.
Access to the third row via the second row is somewhat restricted by the rear wheel arch. However, folding the second row forward using a simple lever mechanism makes entry reasonably manageable.
Images showcase the third row in its folded-flat configuration.
Instructions detail the use of handles and straps to release and raise the seatback.
The seat cushion is shown slotted below the floor when folded.
A rubber-ish barrier is highlighted, through which one reaches to pull the seat up into its upright position.
The resulting “jump seat” configuration is presented.
Occupying the third row, the author, at five-foot eight-inches, found legroom somewhat limited, suitable for short trips but potentially cramped for longer journeys.
The primary limitation in the third row is headroom, which is insufficient for adults, with the author’s head making contact with the headliner. The third-row seating is deemed practical for small children but likely unsuitable for teenagers or adults.
Trailhunter: A Legitimate Off-Road Contender
Moving to the 4Runner Trailhunter, positioned as the “overlanding” variant, the author acknowledges its $68,350 price tag but also its formidable off-road capabilities. The Trailhunter boasts extensive underbody protection, a sway bar disconnect for enhanced front axle articulation, robust 33-inch tires, a rear locker, and a snorkel. The interior is also well-equipped and appointed.
The off-road trail encountered was described as surprisingly easy for the Trailhunter. While the independent front suspension limited the effectiveness of the sway bar disconnect in terms of front axle articulation, the coil-sprung five-link rear axle demonstrated impressive flex. Crawling over uneven terrain was smooth and effortless, aided by the front-facing camera.
The hood design, with a lower central section, provided excellent forward visibility, simplifying trail navigation. Comprehensive underbody skid plates on the front end, fuel tank, and transfer case offered substantial protection when traversing rocky obstacles.
Despite its 10.1 inches of ground clearance, rear locker, and disconnecting front sway bar, the 4Runner Trailhunter’s breakover and departure angles (24 degrees each) are considered decent but not exceptional, falling short of the more extreme off-road geometry offered by vehicles like the Ford Bronco or Jeep Wrangler.
TRD Pro: Rally-Inspired High-Speed Fun
The 4Runner TRD Pro was tested on a high-speed dirt track, showcasing its “rally” oriented capabilities.
The TRD Pro’s “3-way adjustable Fox 2.5-in internal bypass Q3S shocks with rear piggy-back remote reservoirs” effectively absorbed bumps and undulations, providing a composed ride at speed.
Toyota even demonstrated the TRD Pro’s jump capability, further underscoring its robust suspension and off-road prowess.
Despite its high-speed off-road aptitude, the author remains less enthusiastic about the TRD Pro trim overall. The piano-black exterior cladding and the shaking fake hood bulge are cited as detracting elements.
Furthermore, the underbody protection on the TRD Pro is deemed less comprehensive compared to the Trailhunter, despite the TRD Pro also featuring off-road-oriented suspension components (“Old Man Emu® 2.5-in forged shocks with rear piggyback remote reservoirs” on the Trailhunter).
Ultimately, after experiencing a range of 4Runner variants, the author’s preference converges on a familiar conclusion, echoing their Tacoma trim evaluation.
The Trailhunter is acknowledged as genuinely capable off-road, thanks to its lockers, sway bar disconnect, tires, geometry, and skid plating, but its price and somewhat ostentatious styling (snorkel) are noted. The TRD Pro, while also off-road capable, is seen as less practical, less well-protected underneath, and overpriced. This leads to the TRD Off-Road trim emerging as the “Goldilocks” option.
TRD Off-Road: The Goldilocks of the 4Runner Lineup
The TRD Off-Road trim, starting at $50,640 (TRD Off-Road Premium at $56,420), is positioned as the sweet spot in the 4Runner lineup. While more expensive than comparable Ford Bronco or Jeep Wrangler four-door models by approximately $10,000, the 4Runner’s price premium is historically accepted by buyers, attributed to brand reputation and perceived refinement. The TRD Off-Road is considered the best value proposition within the 4Runner range.
The author first tested the TRD Off-Road Premium hybrid, priced over $60,870. This trim includes a faux-leather interior, the larger screen, a front-facing camera, and a moonroof, in addition to standard TRD Off-Road features like 33-inch tires and a rear locker.
While extensive off-roading wasn’t conducted in the TRD Off-Road, its inherent capability for even serious off-road enthusiasts was evident. Forward visibility is excellent, particularly with the optional camera (standard on the Premium trim). Ground clearance of 9.1 inches is ample, and the functional, matte-black fender flares are appreciated for their understated practicality.
The TRD Off-Road lacks a sway bar disconnect, but this is deemed inconsequential given the limited front suspension flex. Underbody protection is adequate but could be improved (composite front skid plate, limited transmission protection), suggesting aftermarket upgrade potential.
Subsequently, the author tested a base-model, non-hybrid TRD Off-Road, priced at $50,640, and identified it as their personal favorite.
The optionless TRD Off-Road is described as unremarkable in terms of interior and exterior styling, emphasizing its functionality. It features cloth seats, a rear locker, decent 33-inch tires, basic underbody protection, the gasoline 2.4-liter turbocharged engine, eight-speed automatic transmission, and a low-range transfer case – a comprehensive set of essential features without unnecessary frills.
Minor wishes include a front-facing camera (particularly useful for off-roading in a vehicle with a tall hood) and the removal of the running boards from the test vehicle. However, overall, the base TRD Off-Road is considered the best value 4Runner. Weighing 4,850 pounds, it is also over 600 pounds lighter than the Trailhunter or TRD Pro.
This weight advantage mitigates the power difference compared to the hybrid models, and the increased cargo space and questionable long-term fuel economy payback of the hybrid powertrain lead the author to lean towards recommending the non-hybrid option. This recommendation is preliminary, pending further real-world fuel economy and reliability data, but currently, the non-hybrid i-Force engine is favored.
Toyota 4Runner TRD Off-Road vs. Toyota Land Cruiser: Head-to-Head
The question arises: why choose a Land Cruiser over the 4Runner?
Pricing is a key differentiator. The 4Runner TRD Off-Road tested, at $50,640, is nearly $7,000 less expensive than the base $57,400 Land Cruiser. The base Land Cruiser does offer advantages, including a larger infotainment screen, a hybrid powertrain, and a full-time four-wheel-drive system with a locking Torsen limited-slip center differential. In contrast, the 4Runner TRD Off-Road features a smaller screen, a part-time four-wheel-drive system, and the less powerful gasoline powertrain.
However, the interior quality of the base “1958” Land Cruiser is not significantly superior to the 4Runner’s. Upgrading to a higher Land Cruiser trim level is necessary to experience a noticeable improvement in door and dash plastic quality. Furthermore, the author reiterates their earlier point: the hybrid powertrain’s benefits in the 4Runner are questionable, considering the reduced interior volume and price premium.
Interior styling comparison: Base Land Cruiser vs. Base 4Runner TRD Off-Road.
The author gives a slight edge to the Land Cruiser in interior design elegance. Exterior styling comparison:
Again, the Land Cruiser is favored for its more squared-off roofline and less “squished” front-end design compared to the 4Runner.
Off-road capability is assessed as closely matched between the two SUVs. Both come standard with a rear locker (Land Cruiser adds a locking center differential, not deemed essential for the 4Runner’s part-time 4WD). Both offer basic underbody skid plates and Toyo all-terrain tires.
However, tire sizes differ. The Land Cruiser uses 245/70R18 tires, while the 4Runner’s 265/70R18 all-terrains are approximately an inch larger in diameter. This contributes to the 4Runner’s 9.1 inches of ground clearance versus the Land Cruiser’s 8.7 inches.
Off-road geometry comparison reveals the Land Cruiser with a superior 30-degree approach angle, 22-degree departure angle, and 25-degree breakover angle. The 4Runner TRD Off-Road’s angles are 19, 24, and 24 degrees, respectively.
While the Land Cruiser’s 11-degree advantage in approach angle (typically the most critical off-road geometry metric) would usually indicate superior off-road performance, the author questions the 4Runner TRD Off-Road’s stated 19-degree approach angle. The Land Cruiser’s limited 22-degree departure angle also somewhat negates its approach angle advantage.
The base SR5 4Runner, with smaller tires and a front chin spoiler, is shown with a claimed 18-degree approach angle.
Removing the chin spoiler on the SR5 would clearly improve the approach angle significantly. The TRD Off-Road models tested lacked this spoiler and had larger tires, yet their claimed 19-degree approach angle seems inconsistent.
Toyota’s online configurator shows the TRD Off-Road with a chin spoiler. It’s speculated that Toyota may have removed the spoilers for the press event vehicles. Removing the spoiler on the TRD Off-Road could potentially increase its approach angle to around 30 degrees, aligning with the Trailhunter/TRD Pro’s 33-degree figures.
Driving experience suggests comparable off-road capability between the Land Cruiser 1958 and 4Runner TRD Off-Road. Off-road capability is therefore considered a wash, styling favors the Land Cruiser (subjectively), and pricing strongly favors the 4Runner. Interior volume and driving dynamics are the remaining comparison points.
Cargo volume for hybrid models is nearly identical: 82.6 cubic feet behind the front row and 42.6 cubic feet behind the second row for the 4Runner TRD Off-Road, versus 82.1 and 46.2 cubic feet for the Land Cruiser. Non-hybrid 4Runners offer significantly more cargo space: 90.2 cubic feet behind the front row and 48.4 behind the second row.
On-road driving dynamics suggest a slightly softer ride in the Land Cruiser, with the 4Runner feeling a bit firmer. However, neither is sporty, exhibiting body roll and brake dive. Both are deemed adequate on-road and capable off-road, with anticipated Toyota reliability.
Verdict: 4Runner or Land Cruiser?
The author acknowledges the initial temptation to criticize Toyota for offering two architecturally similar and functionally overlapping models. While the previous-generation Land Cruiser was unique and special, it had evolved into an expensive luxury vehicle. The new Land Cruiser, while less distinctive, and the new 4Runner now provide valuable choices in the body-on-frame, mid-size SUV segment.
The 2.4-liter turbocharged inline-four engine is considered adequate but not exceptional, similar to previous 4Runner/Tacoma engines. The eight-speed automatic transmission is effective, and anticipated fuel economy and reliability are expected to be improvements over previous models. The independent front suspension and solid rear axle are functional both on and off-road. Interiors are modernized but remain practical. The new Tacoma and 4Runner are deemed worthy successors, and the Land Cruiser is positioned as a mid-trim-level alternative within the 4Runner spectrum.
The Land Cruiser isn’t as hardcore off-road as the 4Runner TRD Pro or Trailhunter but is significantly more capable than the SR5 or Limited/TRD Sport. It is roughly on par with the 4Runner TRD Off-Road in terms of off-road prowess but comes standard with the hybrid powertrain (reducing cargo volume compared to non-hybrid 4Runner TRD Off-Road). The Land Cruiser offers arguably more appealing styling (subjectively) and potentially a slightly softer ride.
For buyers prioritizing affordability and potentially third-row seating, the base 4Runner SR5 is suggested. For capable off-roading without exceeding a $51,000 budget, the 4Runner TRD Off-Road is recommended. For hardcore off-road enthusiasts with no budget constraints, the 4Runner Trailhunter or TRD Pro are options. For the most luxurious and reasonably capable off-roader from Toyota, the Land Cruiser is the choice (with the Lexus GX for even greater luxury). For those prioritizing cool aesthetics over ultimate off-road capability, the base Land Cruiser may appeal.
Ultimately, the author’s rational choice leans towards the non-hybrid 4Runner TRD Off-Road due to its greater interior volume, preference for the non-hybrid powertrain, acceptance of the smaller screen, and $7,000 cost savings. However, emotional appeal might sway towards a higher-trim Land Cruiser for a nicer interior, acknowledging the desire for a more premium experience in a $50,000+ SUV.
