On 28 July 2008, I posted the following thread, which expressed my disappointment in purchasing an FJC with a 5-speed AT instead of a full-time 4WD 6-speed MT -- along with the fact that the dealership (Ardmore Toyota, Ardmore, PA) wanted an additional $3,000 (plus tax and fees) in order for me to TRADE it (as a one-week-old used car) for a similarly equipped 6-speed MT version.
******************* Original Post ******************
Hello All,
This is my first post -- having just joined after recently purchasing a new 2008 Sandstorm FJ Cruiser with 5-speed AT and OF (off-road) and CQ (convenience) packages. (I've driven Toyota for the past 22 years -- a 1986.5 Supra 5-speed followed by a 1998 4Runner 5-speed with PT4WD.)
Anyway... last Friday I test drove this 5-speed AT PT4WD FJC and received what I thought was an excellent deal from my local dealership (where I had purchased my prior two Toyotas). I had decided to get the AT because of its slightly higher MPG rating and because (in my ignorance) I thought the full-time 4WD 6-speed was unnecessary and even a "negative" ON-ROAD.
But then... later that evening and Saturday I read a significant number of threads and posts AT THIS WEBSITE that explained both the ON-ROAD driving advantages of a FT4WD as well as the pleasure of the 6-speed MT.
After weighing the plethora of evidence and opinions, it seemed apparent to me that I had blundered -- and should have gotten the 6-speed MT with FT4WD.
Unfortunately, my salesman informed me this morning that the dealership will sell me a new 6-speed FT4WD for the sticker difference between MSRP + $3,000 -- meaning, since my car is now USED, I will lose $3,000 on its value.
So, obviously, I'm disappointed (largely with myself for not moving slower on the buy) that my FJC has lost $3,000 owing to the fact that I drove it off the lot (it's now got 77 miles on it).
Anyone have any thoughts on what the best move is...
**************************************************
First, I want to say thanks to all the FJC owners who offered their advice and comments on whether or not I should keep the AT or go for the MT....
So, in reply to NEWTVOWNER who wrote, "Now that every one has expressed opinions on mt vs at, what did you [me] decide to do? keep the at or get the mt? what swayed you one way or the other?"...
As the title "6-SPEED WINS..." suggests, I traded the AT for an MT -- after negotiating a better deal, which resulted in an approximate $1,850 loss, as the original FJC would now have to be resold as a used car (albeit effectively a new one, having only a couple hundred miles on it when the swap occurred on August 1st).
The actual move cost me a total of $3,500 (including tax and fees), wherein I went from an FJC with an AT as well as CQ and OF packages to one with MT as well as CQ, UR and C7 packages. The additional cost of the UR and C7 packages versus the OF package was about $2,000 -- which was offset to the tune of about $350, owing to my initial purchase of a hitch receiver option that was included in the C7 package. So, I essentially lost the Bilstein shocks and P265/75R16 Rugged Trail Tires but gained roof rack, 115V Power Outlet, AM/FM Stereo w/6-Disc CD Changer with subwoofer, and P265/70R17 All Terrain BSW Tires, as well as a few other amenities.
All things considered, I believe that was as good a deal as I could expect...
After two weeks and approximately 600 miles of ON-ROAD driving with the 6-speed MT FT4WD model, I'd like to offer my comparison of it to the 5-speed AT PT4WD version. Obviously, my experience with both versions (especially the AT) is very limited, and I imagine -- having owned MT vehicles exclusively for the past 35 years -- I'm biased toward MTs. Regardless... I'll try my best...
My first impression of the AT FJC was that it seemed clumsy and lumbering through the tight-turns on the hilly, twisting secondary roads on the first-half of the 15 mile drive home from the dealership. On the expressway (during the-second half) the AT FJC handled fine. I don't know if any part of this sense of clumsiness could be attributed to the P265/75R16 BFG Rugged Trail tires, but I didn't like it -- especially since my old 1998 5-speed MT 4Runner (equipped with P265/75R16 Michelin Cross Terrains) handled really well on any on-road terrain.
This initial experience prompted me to do a significant amount of reading about the advantages of the FT4WD and Torsen differential combination -- which is included with the 6-speed MT FJC. The upshot (as I see it) seems to be that the FT4WD / Torsen combination results in better handling and traction (on ALL surfaces) for essentially two reasons: FIRST, because the TOTAL amount of engine torque needed to turn the drive wheels is distributed across 4 wheels instead of 2 (e.g., 20%/20% front and 30%/30% rear in lieu of 50%/50% rear) and SECOND, the front tires are "pulling" the vehicle forward in conjunction with the rear wheels "pushing" the vehicle, whereas RWD is only "pushing" the vehicle -- the FT4WD providing more directional stability.
This distribution of drive-torque among 4 wheels instead of 2 significantly reduces the likelihood of any of the 4 tires losing traction, since less torque is present at each wheel -- where at some point (depending upon the combination of road surface and conditions and the amount of throttle applied) the torque will overcome the friction between the tire and the road, which results in wheel spin and loss of control.
Further, the Torsen differential automatically responds to wheel slippage by mechanically and instantly redistributing the torque between the front and rear axles, depending on the amount of slipping at any wheel. This means there's far less likelihood of losing traction on poor road surfaces (as both the PT4WD and FT4WD models have open differentials on both the front and rear axles).
At any rate... when I next made that same trip through the tight-turns on those hilly, twisting secondary roads with the MT FT4WD FJC my impression was distinctly different. I felt as if this FJC was nimble and firmly-planted at all times -- and I was able to drive at a higher speed with significantly more control and confidence (better even than my old 4Runner). I don't know how much of this improvement might be attributable to the different tire and wheel setup -- but based on what I read, I attribute the improved handling primarily to the combination of the FT4WD and the 6-speed MT (where you have complete control in selecting which gear to be in at any given moment, depending on road and driving conditions).
My initial (and lasting) metaphorical impression of driving the FT4WD MT FJC was that of a sure-footed, running panther, as opposed to my impression of the PT4WD AT as an outboard motorboat, with the front-end rising out of the water as the propellor "pushes" it forward. Admittedly, a bit idiosyncratic -- but my impressions none-the-less.
I understand that for all but the experienced MT expert, the AT is the better choice for off-roading -- but 95% of my driving will be on-road, and I'll rarely, if ever, be doing the serious type of off-roading that would be hindered by an MT.
Also, the fact of getting 1-2 MPG less with the 6-speed (owing primarily to lower, final gearing) is something I'll accept as a trade-off for the on-road handling and performance advantages of FT 4WD.
So, that's that -- but I'm convinced I made the right decision, and I'm thoroughly enjoying my 2008 Sandstorm 6-speed FT4WD FJC.
Regards, Yamsman
Congrats!
Linear Mode
