If you designed the 2027 4Runner🚙, what’s the one thing you’d change?

[Macaque]

NODAK posted the numbers in a previous thread:
2026 4Runner (12.1 cuft ; 44.8 cuft ; 84.4 cuft)
2026 Sequoia (11.5 cuft*; 49.0 cuft ; 86.9 cuft) the sequoia has a sliding 3rd row so it varies from 22.3 to 11.5

So it's only 2.5 cuft more than a 6th gen...Not sure if that's hybrid or not though.


5th Gen 4Runner had 89.7. It was downright cavernous.

What do each of those 3 numbers mean? 6th gen 4Runner seats tilted back or all of the way forward? Measured how?

Volume alone isn’t a great measurement because it doesn’t consider shape and usable space.

Sponsored

 

[Dead Horse]

No idea.

Don't care. Not even worth arguing about seat positions. It shouldn't be remotely close to the same space as a 4Runner. The Tahoe has like 122, Expedition also is up there. The last gen Sequoia had around 120 as well. For it to have under 100 is an abject failure in my book.

It's not JUST the number/space either. Go try and use a Sequoia's cargo space. It's aggressively bad design.

 

[josiahg52]

One of my biggest complaints about the Toyota/Lexus vehicles is that there isn't much to differentiate them, meaning these SUV-type vehicles. The 4Runner storage allocation is pretty bad, especially the hybrid, but the GX550 and LC250 are surprisingly worse. Third row cupholders for a third row that's not even available? I guess if you camp back there a lot it's nice. For the price increases, I saw noting about the LC or the GX that made me want one. They might be "nicer" vehicles, but not worth the money to me. I really think Toyota could've done a better job specializing the storage spaces and cubbies across the line. Instead it's like what fits here, there, back here, with seemingly little thought on how they might be used.

 

[Macaque]

No idea.

Don't care. Not even worth arguing about seat positions. It shouldn't be remotely close to the same space as a 4Runner. The Tahoe has like 122, Expedition also is up there. The last gen Sequoia had around 120 as well. For it to have under 100 is an abject failure in my book.

It's not JUST the number/space either. Go try and use a Sequoia's cargo space. It's aggressively bad design.

That’s the price you pay for a solid rear axle I guess.

 

[Dead Horse]

That’s the price you pay for a solid rear axle I guess.

If the SRA actually improved anything over the previous (IRS) Sequoia, or if it were the main factor in the decrease in usability...Sure.

But it ain't the SRA that kneecaps the Sequoia. It's the design of the 3rd row seat, and to a lesser extent the battery placement.

 

[Macaque]

If the SRA actually improved anything over the previous (IRS) Sequoia, or if it were the main factor in the decrease in usability...Sure.

But it ain't the SRA that kneecaps the Sequoia. It's the design of the 3rd row seat, and to a lesser extent the battery placement.

Yeah I’d wager that the battery placement and seat design are constrained by the chassis and suspension design decisions but I wasn’t in the room during that review

Sponsored