a few years ago I test drove a 95 4runner w/3.0 and auto... it was so dang slow that I told the salesman something was wrong with it, the salesman even thought that. He gave it to his mechanics (it was a dealership) and they did a bunch of tests and it came out fine. I would never want a truck that slow! I didn't buy it by the way <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />
AUSSiE

I test drove a 22re 5-speed second gen runner and it was a bit gutless so I figured the 3.0 would have some more ass to it. I want the 4 door so a gen 1 is out. I don't want to take out a loan so the gen 3 is out... gen 2 it is. I'm not looking for a speed demon. I beleive the bulk of 3.0 power is on the lower to mid range right? Sounds good for low speed wheeling and highway cruising.. Can't be sure till I get behind the wheel of the 3.0 5-speed.
Preciate the input fellas. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />

Incorrect. This used to be the case, but as Jeff mentioned, Inchworm has an adapter for the A340H now. You still have to buy the adapter and a gear drive case and figure out a crossmember though, none of which are issues with a 22RE and 5 speed combo. Maybe not that big of a deal unless you are rockcrawling though.

You guys crack me up about the 3.0 4runners being so slow. Try driving a 5300lb truck with 100 h.p. 22RE. Now that's slow. But somehow I'm able to get around just fine. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If I was in the market for an auto 4runner, I'd look for the ones with 4.88 gears, which would be '92-'95 with the V-6, auto trans and 31" tire option. At least that way if you couldn't afford to regear, you could still install 33s and get around OK.

The nice thing about the '90-'95 4runners regardless of engine/tranny combination is that they are cheaper than the later models and have the pretty decent torsion bar IFS and ball steering and can more easily SAS'd.

Gutless perhaps, but I think the more cost effective platform for a serious build up. If I was comparing stock to stock ones or with minor mods and price didn't matter, I'd give it up for the later model 4Runner, especially with the power and optional rear locker, though. I just don't trust that rack and pinion steering, but at least it doesn't have the Taco frame.

If you want to do a "serious build" I still wouldn't start with one. They have too much sheetmetal, are too heavy, and you still have to change the entire suspension (front SAS, rear leaf swap since they have short control arms) and drivetrain (3.slow, slushbox, need adapter to run 4 cylinder transfer case, front axle to solid). If you are going to throw the whole drivetrain and suspension away you might as well start with a Jeep. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />

My 3rd gen 4Runner has good power and is very comfortable and capable, I haven't had any issues with the rack and pinion (I admit that I would prefer a steering box) and I like the coilover front suspension. I've considered getting a 100 series Land Cruiser but can't justify selling a coilover front suspension equipped vehicle to go back to torsion bars.

Sorry, I guess when I say serious build up, a lot of people think buggy or dedicated 4 wheeler. I was thinking more like my own rig. I would never build a 4Runner as a dedicated trail rig. That's kind of like making a school bus your daily driver...but it would be good base as a expedition/serious 4wheeler. Something you could drive to Moab in comfort, then wheel. A mini-LC80 essentially, once you built it right.

The 4Runner has major advantages over the pick up in that it can carry at least two additional people, and is more suited for long distance expedition travel, IMO. While I enjoy having a ton of rear cargo space without any seats to take up room or gas tanks dragging the ground, I really do wish I had pass through access between the cab and the rear cargo area and side doors to more easily access stuff in the front of the bed.

So, when I say serious build up on a 4runner, I'm thinking SAS, probably leaving the rear coil suspension, minimum lift and 33 or 35" tires, regearing and of course lockers. I'm still old school where "serious" means 33/35 tires and a street legal -and- street capable rig. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Since the frames are different than the Taco is it possible to SAS a newer 4Runner easier than the Taco? Or is the frame of the newer 4Runner completely different than the older 4Runner, making SASing more difficult? I think that would be the major difference.

If SASing were cost effective on the newer 4Runner, it would be the hands down winner with it's engine, etc.

If we're discussing which is better out of the box, I would definately want the newer 4Runner. While I don't trust the rack and pinion, I also don't trust the older 4runner's 3.0's reputation for spitting out headgaskets. The rack and pinion is a less expensive headache and the newer rig has a bunch of advantages like locker and engine and probably more comfort.

Sorry about the misunderstanding Brian, that sounds like my mild/daily vehicle. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/nana.gif" alt="" /> I wouldn't even bother building a 2nd Gen 4Runner like you described above. I'd just get the 80 series and be done with it. I put 33s on mine when it was stock and it already had solid axles and lockers.

Well, you know how much I like the 80 series, but the REALLY nice things about the later model 4Runners are plenty of power (I assume) but much better gas mileage. And they're smaller and more managable for off road use.

Of course, since you've owned both, you already know this. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A 5-spd 3.0 second gen Runner will have a lot more power than the 22re 5-spd you drove. Definately hold out for a 5-spd. A buddy of mine had a '93 5-spd and it wouldgot around fine, nothing like my mod'd 3.0 truck(which weighs more), but it performed well enough for the era the Runner was bilt. On the other hand my sister had a '95 3.0 auto, and it could barely get out of its own way. not to mention its dismall mpgs. Here '95 auto got about 13mpg on average, while my buddy in the '93 5-spd averaged around 17.

You can modify the 3.0 to get more power out of as some of us here have, though it isn't cheap to do, but compared to a 3.4 swap it is cheaper.

I think that the 80 had a smoother ride (both have OME suspension) and was nicer inside. The 4Runner definitely feels quicker and more nimble, and I appreciate having the 5 speed. There have been a few places I've taken the 4Runner that I would not have attempted with the 80, but I attribute this to having the correction body protection more than size. I've already smashed the gas tank on the 4Runner, on the 80 it is tucked up between the framerails and I never touched it.