1. Home
  2. Toyota Trucks
  3. 4 Runner vs. Jeep Grand Cherokee?
  4. Page 2

4 Runner vs. Jeep Grand Cherokee?

Here is the complete list of 2000-2002 mid sized SUVs:

Chevrolet TrailBlazer 46 Buick Rendezvous 53 GMC Envoy 56 Acura MDX 58 BMW X5 60 Oldsmobile Bravada 63 Jeep Grand Cherokee 64 Lexus RX 300 65 Ford Explorer 4dr 70 Mercedes M class 70 Land Rover DisSeries II 71 Mercury Mountaineer 71 Isuzu Trooper 71 Toyota Highlander 72 Chevrolet Blazer 4dr 72 Infiniti QX4 73 Jeep Liberty 77 Chevrolet Blazer 2dr 78 Dodge Durango 81 Nissan Xterra 83 Toyota 4Runner 91 Ford Explorer 2dr 92 Nissan Pathfinder 96 Isuzu Rodeo 4dr 97 Mitsubishi Montero Sp 119 Suzuki Grand Vitara 120 Honda Passport 124 Mitsubishi Montero 132

Is 21st out of 28 qualify as worst than most?

FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE SUVS: MIDSIZE DRIVER DEATH RATES Model years All Crashes Mult Single Roll Jeep Grand Cherokee 4dr 1994-97 52 (42-63) 19 32 23 Ford Explorer 2dr 1995-97 76 (39-132) 19 57 51 Toyota 4Runner 4dr 1996-97 126 (76-197 27 99 86 Chevrolet T10 Blazer 2dr 1995-97 153 (92-238) 24 128 112

How about having a driver seath rate 250% great than a Grand Cherokke? Does that qualify the 4Runner as less safe than a Grand Cherokee?

Again, the injury loss ratings don't match up with the results of the IIHS tests. The Tundra has one of the highest injury loss rating of any full sized pickup (Tundras rating was 65, F150 58, average large 2WD pickup was 60). Also, the Tundra did no better in the 2002 NHTSA crash tests than the F150. So, you have the one IIHS test where the Tundra looked great, a relatively poor performance in injury statisticas, and NHTSA crash test results that were the same as the F150. As far as I can tell it would be hard to make a case that the Tundra is safer than an F150. And I would imagine that the 2004 F150 will be significantly better than the old F150 that the Tundra was compared against.

See above -

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

You keep ignoring the poor injury loss rating and the very high driver death rating for the Tacoma and instead keep harking back to the one very specific IIHS test that made the Tacom look good.

But is the results for only one very specific test (the offset barrier crash test). It says nothing about accident avoidence, stability, or any sort of real world crash that doesn't duplicate running into something squarely where only 40% of your vehicle contacts the other object. This test is only of interest becasue those fine folks at Dateline have made it a star by reporting it on the program. And we know how responsible those folks are.

Why not post the link to the site that shows all the '98 Trucks tested -

formatting link
you look at the complete list, you will see that the Tacoma is one ofthe worst which is what I said and happens to be the truth. Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Ed, I agree with your above statement! ;-)

Reply to
MDT Tech®

Ed, I dont own a 2WD Tacoma. Did you check those other links? Seems Toyota did real good overall. How about the Tundra?

Reply to
MDT Tech®

Huh, I must be getting a different site, I keep getting 4 stars out of a possible 5 on the 98 Tacoma.

Reply to
MDT Tech®

4 out of 5 for the driver, 3 out of 5 for the passenger. Most (7 of 11) other trucks did better than this (4 out 5 stars or better for both passenger and driver).

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Ed, I'm the driver in my truck.

Reply to
MDT Tech®

I think the OP wanted opinions on whether he should get a Toy or a Jeep, and the transfer case and motors of the Toys. When I got my

4Runner I didn't base my decision on the crash test dummies. Most important was that it wore the Toyota nameplate, therefore assuring dependability, reliability and quality. Traits you won't get with any Jeep, Ford, Dodge or Chevy. Besides, the object isn't to crash your truck. But if I do crash and die, I'll go with the satisfaction that I've been driving one of the best trucks on the road .

OP, get the Toyota.

Reply to
mazdaman85

snip

Ed The nhtsa uses a full frontal crash for their tests which don't replicate the majority of crashes. The iihs uses an offset frontal crash which does replicate the majority of crashes thereby giving a real world indication of how a vehicle should survive a real world crash. The death statistics are related to several other factors other than how a vehicle was crashed so, as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread, should not be used as a barometer of a vehicles crash worthiness. I work on mostly Fords and some Chrysler and Jeep (Chryco) products and can honestly say if you want a Jeep buy one but be prepared to spend a substantial amount of money on repairs as well as deal with dealers who have a non-customer oriented attitude. The last Chrysler dealership I was in had a wall of customer ratings and well over 50% were negative with a lot of customer added negative comments. (Guess Chrysler makes them post them) I own two Toyotas and haven't spent anything on repairs, only services and PM's, and haven't dealt with a Toyota dealer yet who didn't have a customer oriented attitude. When I've searched for customer ratings on Toyota they have been almost all positive. davidj92

Reply to
davidj92

And if you crash and *don't* die, you'll get more money for a totaled Toyota, too...

Holding their value is another Toyota trait!

--Dan

Reply to
Dan O'Connor

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.