Talk:Toyota 4Runner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about a proposed edit to the Toyota 4Runner article[edit]

I have some information regarding Toyota SUVs and trucks built in Japan and maybe other parts of Asia (possibly Europe as well but at this time I do not think so). I posted it as an update on the Toyota Land Cruiser article as well as other Toyota articles. I probably rushed to fast and I received feedback from some users regarding this. I probably should have looked for solid references (as was advised in the feedback). I do believe that at least some of the main points in my edit are fact and I do admit that some of it contains future speculation as well.

I invite all interested users to debate my proposed edit on these discussion pages to determine what parts of my edit (if any) should be posted on the official article. The information that is in my proposed post are things that potential customers of these products deserve to know.

Here is a draft of my proposed edit (that was posted on the Land Cruiser article as well as some other articles relating to Toyota SUVs and Trucks and then removed pending online debate):

--

Toyota SUV’s and trucks (built in Japan and maybe other parts of Asia as well) including the Land Cruiser and 4Runner as well as others are used by Osama Bin Laden’s illegal Al Qaeda terrorist army and their Taliban partners. In the United States this is becoming controversial because Americans who buy these vehicles can be seen as extremely unpatriotic and honoring the enemy. As a result, these products might get vandalized in many different ways including spray paint, scratching, damaging lights, windows, etc. This will probably cause insurance premiums to increase in significant ways making these vehicles much more expensive to own and drive. Passions will most likely increase later in 2006 as the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches. There are also 2 movies about 9/11 that are planned for release in theaters in 2006. After this time the possibility of these vehicles being vandalized might increase (especially ones built after the 2006 model year) as their American owners might be viewed as being extremely unpatriotic and honoring the enemy of America and showing absolutely no respect for America. If this results in big insurance rate increases, the owners of these vehicles will be spending a lot more money to own and drive them.

(End of proposed draft edit)

As mentioned in this article I have information regarding these vehicles being used by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the battlefield in the same way that the Jeep was used by America and its allies against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in World War 2. I have watched several news reports on news networks such as CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC, as well as others regarding Al-Qaeda and I have spotted these vehicles on these news reports many times (especially as the war on terror was first starting) including the Toyota Land Cruiser. Land Cruisers are easy to recognize. And I also saw what appear to be Toyota markings on many of these vehicles. I believe that this is something that people (especially potential customers for these vehicles) should know. I invite all interested users to join this debate and share any information you all might have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlossantos2004 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How relevant is this?[edit]

The use of a vehicle by any particular user or groups of users, and scaremongering of this nature are not particularly pertinent to a page detailing the history of the vehicle.

Additionally to single out any single group is of no significance if it is not looked at in context. Many other groups in such regions also use these vehicles, the UN itself for one, and countless other individuals unaffiliated to any organizations who simply live and work in conditions which make these vehicles useful and desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morr (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 4Runner and Surf[edit]

The result of this discussion is no consensus to merge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Toyota 4Runner and Toyota Hilux Surf are the same vehicle with different names for different markets. Both articles cover similar information. If there is no objection over the next week, I can merge them into a single article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Outside of Japan which markets exactly are the Hilux Surf currently being sold? 69.65.224.246 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The back doors are different - Surfs have a split tailgate whilst 4Runners don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.250.109 (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly a huge difference worthy of keeping the articles split. Stepho-wrs (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Merge them but the titles need to reference both as there are some markets where people definitely know the car as a 4runner and some as the Hilux Surf. Have a note for each generation of the model that explains differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I say that it should. It has barely any difference, and Toyota Motor Corp. states them as both the same. Lemonlad7 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Definitely merge. As has been said before, it's essentially just different names for different markets, with a few minor differences. Paradoxsociety (review) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a reason why you don't want them merged? Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I see no reason to merge them. They have been marketed differently and at times have had different technical and trim specifications. Morr (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I also see how this will not work out accordingly, as the Hilux name was not used in the US apart from the Toyota Pickup, Tacoma, and 4Runner. Keep separate. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: If the articles are merged, the 4Runner name needs to be used over the Hilux Surf. In English speaking markets, the car is much more often referred to as a 4Runner. In the world, the most sales of the vehicle happen in English speaking markets where, again, the vehicle is referred to as a 4Runner. Keeping both seems rather redundant. A section or sections can be made to cover the Hilux Surf and the difference between the two. OlYellerTalktome 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as 4Runner, as this name is used in almost every single export market. Whatever differences there are, are no deeper than for any other model with different nameplates in JDM and export.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'll have to agree with OlYeller. PS I'm actually known as Icanhasaccount but I'm not logged in right now. Too complicated to explain. 216.137.223.114 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose!!! The Toyota 4Runner did start out as a Hilux Surf pick up with a rear seat and roof of fiberglass but it quickly evolved into the 4Runner, not the Toyota Hilux Surf as the 4Runner is called in Japan — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'the Toyota Hilux Surf as the 4Runner is called in Japan': isn't that saying they are the same vehicle.  Stepho  talk  03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: I've been trying to get my hands on a Hilux/Surf for 8 years now because they are different vehicles. You just need to look at the Hilux in South America. It doesn't share the Tacoma Platform which is shared with the 4Runner. They are sold all over the world except North America. There is a petition to bring them to North America, It has been sent to Jim Lentz, the President of Toyota Motor Co. USA. You can search for it with the keywords "Toyota Diesel Petition" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijay77 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean www . petitiononline . com / TOYD4D / (without spaces) ? It only asks for diesel engines, not the Surf in particular. Toyota often has the same basic car but with different trim and engines for different markets. Toyota also often uses markets the same basic car under different names for different markets (look at the Echo name for recent madness). If the only differences are the engine and name then almost all Toyota articles would be fragmented beyond belief. But I'm willing to learn - what are the significant differences of the recent models ?  Stepho  talk  03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think it would be a good idea to merge a present car with an out-of-production car. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the earlier generations they were essentially the same vehicle with different engine and trim choices. It seems that only the later generations differed (although my knowledge of the later models is fuzzy). Wikipedia covers all generations, so a present/out-of-production distinction is irrelevant to an article that covers the entire history of a vehicle. PS: If we merge then the name would be 'Toyota 4Runner' to follow the WP:Automobiles policy of using the most common English speaking market name and differences of the Japanese market Surf would be called out. The Toyota Camry article did similar to cover the Camry/Vista/Scepter names used in Japan.  Stepho  talk  03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are on different platforms. The Hilux Surf being an Off-Road, and the 4Runner being a pickup/mid size SUV. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the recent generations. The earlier generations of the Surf and 4Runner were built on the same platform.  Stepho  talk  04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant body style. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if you did it with the Vista and Scepter, then what happened to the Aurion? There are only two paragraphs on the Camry page, period. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have seen how confusing the narrow/wide body Camry/Vista/Scepter articles were before they were merged. Now it is easier to understand a complex family of cars. But yes, the Aurion should be in there too. Feel free to mention on their talk page.  Stepho  talk  06:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since both articles are covering the same information, I don't think it will grow much bigger - maybe 10%, certainly no more than 20%. Remember that they are essentially the same vehicle (at least in the early generations) with just a few typical market differentiations (eg trim and engine choice), similar to what Toyota does with all of its world cars like the Corolla, Camry and Land Cruiser.  Stepho  talk  03:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess I should read the articles properly. You are right. The history part is the same isn't it. Well with that in mind, I will re-read the articles and will change my vote if need be. :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have changed my mind, with help from Stepho. I wasn't thinking clearly. And so what if one has to scroll down a page further, I mean it isn't like having to go to another page for that little bit of info that isn't on the main article. (I'm having ISP problems, loading another page can be a nightmare.) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 05:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could make a section like this?:
== Hilux Surf ==
{{Main|Hilux Surf}}
Info blerb...
By the way, Hilux Surf is a red-link. I'm putting a redirect since this could (has taken) take a while. :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 05:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge of common content, per WP:CFORK. If later models reused existing names but were substantially different then perhaps we could disambiguate according to year. I think that someone who already has a clear understanding of the history of these models would probably be best placed to go ahead and do so. This has been hanging around for too long! -- Trevj (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal (2014)[edit]

The result of this discussion is support to merge, with 4 supports and 2 opposing comments. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Toyota Hilux Surf be merged into Toyota 4Runner. I think that the content in the Hilux Surf article can easily be explained in the context of 4Runner, and the 4Runner article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Hilux Surf will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Hilux Surf is simply the Japanese marketing name for what is sold internationally as the 4Runner. There are no material differences between these cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — they are the same vehicle with typical tweaks (engine and trim) for each market.  Stepho  talk  07:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - this has been discussed before. I see no compelling reason to merge the two pages. Both vehicles have been marketed independently with at times greatly different engine, drive-train and trim specifications. The view of the vehicle (4Runner) from a US perspective is different to the perspective of those wishing to see information specifically regarding the Surf, this is particularly the case when determining its relationship to other vehicles in its class and to other models in Toyota's 4WD offerings.
    The 4Runner page has already had a lot of detail added to it regarding the differences between the 2 vehicles which only serves to clutter and confuse the 4Runner page, adding more would further decrease its value and readability. If any changes need to be made, it is the removal of extraneous Surf detail from the 4Runner page to improve its quality.
    The differences are also significant enough that any user wishing to research the Hilux Surf would (if the pages were merged) have to wade through a vast amount of irrelevant detail specific only to the 4Runner version.
    Any merging of these pages can only result in a diminished page quality and readability for those wishing to view details of either vehicle. Morr (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I went through Toyota Hilux Surf only to find 90 percent of the information was already at 4Runner. Who ever created these articles basically just copied and pasted from one to the other. I have moved the last of it over, and it barely changes the size of this article. The biggest difference is the addition of the Toyota Trekker information, which I removed from the Surf page to here as the Trekker was sold in the US, and thus is 4Runner-based. The rest of the changes were confined to the addition of the odd sentence or paragraph here and there. All that is required to complete this merger is to create the redirect. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there are no differences above and beyond the usual market specific tidbits, such as more diesels abroad and more automatics and bigger gasoline engines stateside. There are no real differences between these two badgings.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Object - (This is the first time I've voted in one of these things, please accept my apologies if I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong?) This proposal has already been roundly defeated before, and I don't see anybody raising any original reasoning to overturn that decision. The Surf and 4Runner shared an early body style and that's it. Drivetrains, suspensions, and option packages were different between the two depending on country of origin, and by '95 they were completely different (the Surf became Prado based, while the 3rd gen 4Runner shared a platform with the Tacoma). Any attempt to merge the two pages will result in confusing and misleading information for individuals looking to research one of the two trucks and not the other. I do like the addition of the Trekker info though, FWIW. Rapier42 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it wasn't "roundly defeated before", as there were more supporting votes than opposition—just saying. Drivetrains and option packages were different between the two depending on country of origin, just like every other Toyota! 4Runners in other markets offered the same diesel engines that Japan received. By 1995, the trucks were still exactly the same. Both Japanese and US models shared the same platform, the same body panels, pretty much everything except Japanese models received a few extra engine options and had different badges. Like it or not, the two pages are already merged—Toyota Hilux Surf contains no information already not at Toyota 4Runner. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rapier42, where are you getting your information? The Surf and the 4Runner both began moving away from their Hilux origins and onto the Prado chassis with the 1995 redesign. The 3rd gen 4Runner/Hilux Surf share everything including the chassis code (N180), while the Prado of the same era is the J90: I would suggest you reconsider your opinion.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't think the 4Runner moved to the 120 platform until the 4th gen. It doesn't affect the thrust of my argument though, which is that the 4Runner and Surf are different enough that merging the two topics will result in an article full of qualifications regarding which of the 4Runner or Surf is being talked about, OR an article full of misleading and contradictory information. The fact that the Surf article is basically a c&p of the 4Runner article is not an argument for merger of the articles, it's an argument for somebody who knows the Surf to go edit that article properly.
If the 4Runner and Surf articles should be merged because of some mechanical similarities, then it would make sense to merge the resultant article with a merged Hilux/minitruck article, because after all the early 4Runner/Surf was just a Hilux with second row seating, right? I hope you'll agree that's a silly argument - by extension, I feel the argument to merge 4Runner and Surf is equally lacking. Rapier42 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - They are effectively the same model with very subtle differences, e.g. badges, dashboard layout and other accessories. Please check this out for reference.--SiuMai (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

poorly written page[edit]

Even at first glance it is clear the page (Toyota 4runner) contains various spelling mistakes, missing links and is generally poorly written. I myself do not usally create pages so I'm not an expert but it is very clear the page was written by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. Ive corrected a few mistakes but will leave the rest for someone else. yesilikecars (talk) 02:59., 08 October 2012 (UTC)

Navigation system complaint[edit]

The following has been added a few times by what appears to be unhappy 4Runner owners as anon IP.

Although the fifth generation 4Runner has had numerous safety improvements, there is a large percentage of the U.S. customer base that is very disappointed in the optional navigation system. This vehicle option (at a cost of $2000+) has a larger 7" touch screen and integrated navigation system, but there have been numerous complaints made to Toyota due to intrusive safety programming changes. This intrusive software actually disables most functionality when the vehicle is traveling over 5 MPH. All features related to finding a destination are disabled, phone functionality is disabled, most radio and audio functionality is also disabled.{{cn}}
All attempts to rectify this with Toyota Motor Company and the OEM Denso Electronics have been unsuccessful. Neither company will respond to customers complaining about this unnecessary and intrusive change, nor have they provided any options to customers who wish to disable the feature and allow use of the system while driving their vehicles. It is unclear why Toyota has made the decision to remain silent on this issue, and refuses to respond to complaints. It is also unclear why Toyota has imposed these unwarranted restrictions in the first place, considering the fact that there is no legal obligation for them to do so.{{cn}}

I have removed it each time because it is more about a personal complaint with the company rather than a fact that we can verify. If these editors wish to keep it then they need to provide a reliable reference. If the problem is as big as they say it is then surely one of the magazines or at least some newspapers will have a story on it.  Stepho  talk  05:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stepho in keeping this out until it can be sourced. Having had to drive a Toyota Highlander a lot (with the same nav system) I also agree with Anon that this "safety feature" is INCREDIBLY annoying, to the point where I would never buy a vehicle equipped with it. However, I am not a trustworty source.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The unhappy anon IP has added his complaint yet again. I've reverted it twice today, so I'll need help to avoid running foul of the 3 revert rule.  Stepho  talk  04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be time to report this particular user.  Mr.choppers | ✎  09:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he is vindictive. He just sounds frustrated that Toyota won't deal with his problem. Unfortunately WP is not the venue for discussing his problem - unless it is shown to be notable enough by being reported in the mainstream media. Getting him blocked will just turn him into another believer in the WP cabal.  Stepho  talk  15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change usage of production years in section headings to model years...?[edit]

It appears that many/most vehicle pages on here (see Dodge Durango, for one) utilize the official model years to subdivide the generations of vehicles. That approach makes sense to me because any other resource for researching vehicles (fueleconomy.gov, autotrader.com, etc.) all use model year as well. Is there any reason why this article uses production years instead?

(I ask because I happen to be researching 4Runners myself right now, and that particular aspect of this article threw me off.) Antessima (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment that most vehicle articles use model years, I'm guessing that you are an American looking at mostly American vehicles. The problem is that the system of naming model years such that the 2012 model goes from mid 2011 to mid 2012 is only used in America and markets that are closely tied to America. The rest of the world doesn't understand the US model year system and thinks you've been smoking some bad weed. To make it worse, when an article mentions a 2012 facelift, an American will intuitively know that this happened in approximately Sept/Oct 2011 while a non American will think it happened in mid 2012 - that's nearly a whole year difference. It also encourages Americans to change "2011" to "2012" and non-Americans to change it back to "2011" in an endless edit war.
The convention used in most articles is to use internationally understood calendar years. All section titles, production dates, sales dates, etc are done in calendar years. However, because Americans only use and understand model years, we allow articles about vehicles sold predominantly in America to use model years in their section headings - the rest of the world mostly ignores these articles in the same way that Americans ignore articles about Czechoslovakian vehicles. The complex bit comes for vehicles that are well known in both American and non-American markets. The convention we have chosen is to use calendar years for most parts and to occasionally use phrases like "In 2011, for the 2012 model year, ...". If there is any doubt in a table then we add the words "calendar years" in the table heading.
The 4Runner is sold in multiple markets outside America, so it should use internationally understood calendar dates in it's section headings instead of a US specific dating system.  Stepho  talk  04:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Yes, our auto industry takes many liberties when it comes to advertising. :) Thank you for the explanation. Antessima (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toyota 4Runner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image for the Toyota Trekker[edit]

In the section of the Toyota Trekker, predecessor to the Toyota 4Runner, I would like to add an image. I found the image off Google and was going to add it, but became worried of issues related to copyright and if I would catch trouble. The site it was taken from is: "http://www.toyotaoffroad.com/Articles/Toyota/Trekker/Trekker.htm" The image link is: http://www.toyotaoffroad.com/Articles/Toyota/Trekker/Images/rdunntrekker4.jpg I downloaded it, but have no clue how to add it or if its even OK to add it :/ I intend to cause no issue and would like some advice from expert Wikipedians, Ty :) Ivan Zarco (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Ivan Zarco[reply]

See WP:IUP for details of how to add images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, since you don't own that image, you can't add it to WP (copyright violation). However, you might be able to convince the owner of the image to allow you permission.  Stepho  talk  13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carsalesbase.com[edit]

There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that discussion and tend to agree. I have my own database that I've developed to track U.S. Sales that I can provide to replace the Car Sales Base one. TurboManiacal (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4Runner Sales Figures (1984-Present)[edit]

Up until this morning I had been exhaustively searching for sales figures for the missing years - 1984 - 1993. I e-mailed Toyota Corporate and traded emails with someone from Public Affairs who quickly provided me an export from their Motor Intelligence database. I have updated the sales numbers appropriately. What is missing is the citation (if needed) - might need help formatting that.

Secondly - now the US Sales Chart is rather long and unwieldy. I have my own excel file that I maintain - I might try to recreate that to insert here. TurboManiacal (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Year US - 1st Gen Calendar Year US - 2nd Gen Calendar Year US - 3rd Gen Calendar Year US - 4th Gen Calendar Year US - 5th Gen
1984 6,498 1990 48,295 1996 99,597 2003 109,308 2010 46,531
1985 5,495 1991 44,879 1997 128,496 2004 114,212 2011 44,316
1986 5,564 1992 39,917 1998 118,484 2005 103,830 2012 48,755
1987 3,635 1993 46,652 1999 124,221 2006 103,086 2013 51,625
1988 20,880 1994 74,109 2000 111,797 2007 87,718 2014 76,906
1989 36,927 1995 75,962 2001 90,250 2008 47,878 2015 97,034
2002 77,026 2009 19,675 2016 111,970
2017 128,296
2018 139,694
2019 131,864

Something Like this? TurboManiacal (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...or this? TurboManiacal (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4Runner Jan2020


Thank you that you are trying to find confirmation for all the US sales figures.
However, any reference you use must be publicly available data. Private emails cannot be confirmed by other people and are therefore unusable as WP references. If you can convince Nissan USA to put that data on their web site then it becomes useful.
We definitely do not want monthly data. That just makes the table huge.
The 4Runner is also sold in Japan and Australia, so the table must allow space for them. The current format is long and skinny but not particularly bad. I propose that we don't change its format.  Stepho  talk  21:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering this as well as a third option. The US / Canada numbers are available separately so it could look like:
Calendar Year US - Sales Canada - Sales Australia - Sales European - Sales Japan - Sales
1984
2019
The other option for condensing numbers is to just cut out the top of the table and use the bottom portion. All are easily done and maintained. TurboManiacal (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Canadian sales figures would be welcome.
I would be very reluctant to drop the historical data. See WP:RECENTISM.
Tables have a collapse feature.
The single big table could be cut into several smaller tables by generation or decade(s) or whatever.
Each table can be collapsed to just its heading by default (perhaps the last expanded by default).
I like the second table that you created. 23:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Calendar Year US Canada Australia European Japan
1984
1999
Calendar Year US Canada Australia European Japan
2020
2019
We can drop the multiple use of " - Sales" in each column.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6th generation[edit]

Its been 15 YEARS since the 5th generation released! Now we have a 6th generation at last! 172.103.254.229 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Please feel free to update the details at Toyota_4Runner#Sixth_generation_(2024), supported by reliable references of course.  Stepho  talk  03:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I cant do it cuz im a 11 year old first of all and I have this filter my dad uses so can someone else do it? I cant wait to see the new model! 172.103.254.229 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, I have an account. Tech and Car Savvy (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Can anyone add the picture of the new 4Runner Tech and Car Savvy (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_4Runner&oldid=1218076006"