Today's edition of the Wall St. Journal basically trashes the new 4Runners. Not that I agree or disagree with their opinion. In short, their reviewers seem to think its not rugged enough for real off-road work, looks too much like the RAV4, is still underpowered (they say the V8 is 235hp but the new V6 will have 245hp), and that its not large enough for a soccer mom to lug all her kids and junk around in. Anyway, thought I'd post this as there seems to be a lot of interest in what the press has been publishing about it.

Since when has the WSJ been an authority on anything automotive....? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

If you don't know anything about the financial side of the automotive business that's your problem. I'm not here to defend the Wall St. Journal and my post clearly stated that it is their opinion not mine.

I think Phong was bashing the WSJ, no you.

So, does this mean that they wouldn't like my 184hp with 4.10's and 33's?

Rich P. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

The V8 does 0-60 in 8 seconds... that's better than most SUVs on the market... how is that underpowered?
I love the WSJ (it's either that or the NY Times around here!), but I find most newspaper reviewers don't know jack about the cars... I'll stick to my subscriptions to Automobile, Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Road and Track (I can't pick a favorate!)

PS. Most of the reviews in this months and last months car rags have been very positive.

Here's what someone from USA Today had to say:
USA Today - 2003 4Runner Review

I'm not looking at either the WSJ or USA as advisers for true off-road capabilities on any vehicle let alone a 4Runner. I would like to hear other's opinions/likes/dislikes on the 2003 4Runner. Will it be worthy of it's heritage as being a very able stock off-roading vehicle and great platform for improving or adding to? From my own personal perspective I am not attaching to the newer 2003 4Runner design. It makes me think I should try and pick up a 2002 quickly! Still waiting a real test from somewhere! I see a more family mannered vehicle. Then again, maybe I need to see that Highlander with the suspension and 33's...

did wsj mention the torque specs? how about all of the neat-o gadgets and gizmos it has? i'm much more partial to the 3rd gen, and personally think they should call the '03 something else, but it's still quite amazing and is quite capable of flexing off road.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by PaulP:
<strong>....and that its not large enough for a soccer mom to lug all her kids and junk around in. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Prospective barge owners need not apply... IMO bigger is not better.. I prefer the size of the 3rd gen.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />