That doesn't sound right. Plus, the 4.88's with 31's *should* take care of the too-tall-from-the-factory gearing. (assuming you have an auto, wasn't sure)

To illustrate, I can set my cruise control at say 75-80 MPH, have the AC on, and climb any old hill on I15 or I5 here in San Diego without shifting to 4th. I have the 5 speed and an old engine.

Sure there isn't something wrong?

Frank

 

Yeah -- I bought a '97 and realized how much fun it is to drive a vehicle with adequate power again! Makes me resentful of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that I've sunk into my '95 trying to bump up the horsies. That, and the fact that it's been in the shop for nearly a month (again) trying to solve the over-heating issue.

I've also gone up to 32" tires. That, alone, has reduced my power. I have the ECT engaged nearly full-time now. When it's running. I absolutely hate Chevy and all GM products, but the 4.3L V6 they have been using since the late 80's is a far superior product, IMO (in reply to 92 Runners statement). I'll never own anything but a Toyota, but I think there are a bunch of you guys that are simply in denial! The 3.0L 3VZ-E is a turd by nearly anyone's standards. Ah, well...to each his own, I suppose. ;-) For me, the '95 'Runner has been retired from daily driver status and is strictly my off-road toy. Probably should have done that long ago. Now, I have absolutely NO complaints about it's off-road capabilities! Different ballgame, there...

Ed

 

Now why did you have to go and do this? It was nice having everyone pity us for having to put up with the 3.eventually, now they know better!

 

Aw c'mon Ed. I have a big V8 with tons of power in my other truck, heck it'll pull my quite large not very aerodynamic and very heavy boat at 70 mph at 1500 rpm, but guess what - even with no load at all it downshifts on the slightest inclines.... that's what slushboxes do - they take horsepower and torque and convert it to noise and heat, diverting excess funds from your fuel budget in the process. Don't blame it on the 3vze.

 

Word!
I was thinking exactly that.
When the 3.0 came out it was SO much better to have all that power over the 22re... but today, no of course not. If it was a 2005 offering it would be entirely unacceptable. Like the new 5 cyl from GM - an dumb answer to a question nobody asked.

And picking on the head gasket issue is silly (don't mean you 92) - only about 2% sufferred any failure at all, and most of them had 100k or more miles on them by then. That's better than many engines with no 'acknowleged defect." Give me a break... :pat:

 

Ah, don't mind me. I'm just bitter lil man these days...

Looks like you were typing your post while I posted my last one -- both the Chevy's and Ford's during the same era had better HP. I've owned two S-10's with the 4.3L V6 and they were tough as nails and plenty powerful, so that's where I'm getting my comparison.

The head gasket issue? C'mon -- there's about one person a week posting about it on here. The recall was for the 90-early 95 models. Definitely not a minor problem affecting a small group of people. Every one I know who has a 3VZ-E has had the head gasket repair or a new engine out of necessity because of that problem. Couple that with the ridiculous engine air flow/breathing design, and it's one of the worst engines Toyota has ever produce.

Y'ALL ARE IN DENIAL!!!!

Ed

 

Yota trucks generally haven't been tops in the HP department..actually almost all Yotas haven't been at the top in the HP department...as far as the headgasket goes my truck has over 400,000 on it and 360k before any engine work was done and the headgasket was never done before that not too bad IMO

 

The reason toyota's drivetrains last so long is probably due to the smaller amount of HP and superior engineering of course.
Here is a funny- my old westfalia with the 2.0 L porche 914 motor could pull faster up donner pass from reno to truckee than the 89 p/u with the 3.0 (based on time to get from reno to truckee). my 89 had 4:11s and 31's and 5spd, the runna has 4:56, 31's and 5spd, there is a noticable difference, the runner is much better pulling the long hills than the p/u.
I kind of like the sound of the engine myself. I had a 91 exploder with the 4.0, what a pita! I was wrenching on that damn thing every two weeks! But it was pretty quick. A/C was dismal, even after a full replacement, was on 3rd tranny after 140K, all the fit and finish was falling apart etc... Milage was the same as the runner. Off road the motor sucked, suspension sucked, but it did take ALOT of abuse.
I have never driven or ridden in a 3.4 so I can't compare, but the new 4.0 in my mom's runner is FAST, I had 2 weeks to drive it and I left it at their house after the 3rd day, or I would have got a ticket for sure! I can't even imagine what the v8 is like.

 

Epic ed- its ok to be bitter, hindsight being 20/20 you may not have been AS bitter had you got the 5sp

 

Hehe -- hey, we all have our opinions and preferences. I'm just trying to bring a few people into the light! Save a few souls, ya know...oh, wait...that's a different forum.

Ed

 

Ed, sell the 95 and put a couple FZJ 80 axles under the new one! j/k i can appreciate keeping a vehicle totally stock for reliability and DD issues. after reading your posts I am not going to touch the 3.slo other than maintenance, I don't like the engine compartment and I don't want to get in there unless I have to.

On this topic, does anyone know the weight of a 3.slo and 22re I wanted to run HP/lb calcs and TQ/lb? I'm just brainstorming, but was curious why some buggie/truggie don't run the 3.0, if the mill itself is not that large or heavy it might have application in that arena.

 

I'd rather have the Jeep 4.0. Ancient, and practically bulletproof design (too bad the rest of the vehicle isn't) and a good amount of torque and power, especially with proper gearing.

I like my 3.0 most of the time b/c it keeps me out of trouble

 

Aside from the few factory flaws (HG, crossover, VAFM), I think the 3.0 is a great engine. Let it breathe and get rid of that crossover and it'll do just fine. There isn't a section on Donner pass that my runner can't hold 75-80mph. I've got to agree with dlbrunner about it having a nice sound too.

 

We have to be in denial - we got what we got and must make do. Me, I want mine to die so I can justify a swap - but it just won't. It's like the darn eveready bunny....

[[there's about one person a week posting about it on here. The recall was for the 90-early 95 models. ]]

Yep, and they are 10 to 15 years old now with beaucoup miles on them.
But I totally do agree - the choked off head design (and manifolds and crossover) were just plain poor design. But just to be fair - I know of at least five among my old wheeling buddies 22REs that blew head gaskets before 125,000 miles - and a ton more american made engines that did the same, so lets be real about that issue too.

I would rather gripe about the IFS myself - the engine does its job okay, the IFS really doesn't provide either the nice highway ride OR decent travel - worst of both worlds...

I hope the newest Yota V6 4.0 proves to be durable - it sure feels NICE to drive.

 

So do you think (at 216k miles now) that if I put a header and new exhaust back to the cat (get rid of the crossover) it would bring a smile to my face? Lot o' money for the miles that are on it. I'd hate to do it and feel little or no benefits, and from all I read on here it sounds like many didn't feel it made much difference.

 

Callmej-towing a trailer AND pulling 55 up Fancy Gap? Sonds like the ol' 3.0 muscled her way right up that long hill! I have two 3.0s, one with auto, and one with 5spd. I love them both. Plenty of power. The auto is considerably weaker, but it works great off-road. And it is a bulletproof motor. My old truck had a 22RE in it, and while that is a tried-and-true motor, it was a slug. Once I got my new truck with a V6, it was amazing the difference in performance. Much more power, and the motor felt much more refined and smoother than the 22RE. For me, the 3.0 does everything I need it to, and just keeps on ticking. (and by ticking, I mean the infamous 3.0 tick) I love it!

 

Yeh man...loaded with big screen tv, couch, recliner, mattresses, chests, carts and clothes and other misc. stuff. Had it crankin about 5G's up the hill but when I made it to the top it was glad to see the downhill ride And to think...I came all the way from Jacksonville florida before I hit this hill...nonstop besides for gassing up!

 

I think part of the issue is you have the automatic. Man I agree they are slow. Now take a 22RE auto and it is even that much slower. (might as well compare apples to apples) The 5 speeds really do move out much better.

With 32's you'd prolly need 5.29's but that's another issue....autos were clearly geared too tall when they left the factory.

Here's a thought for you all. The 3.0 is small for the size of the truck. The competition (Ford, Chevy...) offered a liter or more of displacement with a consession in fuel economy. For example, mother's mint '94 Explorer gets 14, maybe 15mpg. I get 15 out of my lifted runner. I got 18 when it was stock. (talking freeway here) My buddy's cherokee which has similar lift, gearing, and tires to my truck gets 13mpg. So, take it in that light and the 3.0 is a compromise between fuel economy and performance.

Frank

 

Ed, here is a random thought. Have you checked to see if your fan clutch is frozen? I test drove a number of 2nd gen trucks that had frozen fan clutches and my gawd were they slow.

Frank

 

Just got back from the garage -- the '95 is getting completely torn down right now trying to figure out what is wrong. His shop isn't far, so I run by to check in about every day. I was over there installing an alarm on my '97 this afternoon -- it's DAMN HOT out there today.

The fan clutch has been replaced with a HD fan clutch as of about 1 year ago. It is one of the things he has checked this time around and it is working fine. I dunno, dude. That vehicle has a mind of it's own. He thought he had it fixed and was driving it over to my place on Wednesday -- it over heated again. Went into the red, he says. Now the F'ing heads are blown AGAIN. And, yes, he's picking up the tab for this one, but it's still mighty aggrivating.

Ed