In addition to the standard 3.5 litre V6 and Hybrid Synergy Drive equipped Highlander models, Toyota has announced the addition of a new four-cylinder engine to the options list of their popular mid-sized SUV.
A 2.7 litre unit, the new powerplant will generate 187 horsepower and 186 lb.-ft of torque while burning regular fuel. A dual-exhaust manifold helps achieve the impressive low end torque, and the vehicle earns an Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEVII) designation for its green performance. Toyota expects the model to be among the leaders in fuel efficiency in its segment, though official mileage figures have yet to be released.
The new engine comes with a six-speed automatic transmission, and is capable of towing 3,500 lbs when properly equipped. It comes standard on two-wheel-drive models with two rows of seats- working towards an excellent value proposition. A third-row seating package is available, and optional equipment includes an eight-way power driver's seat, manual rear air conditioning, and a six-disc CD changer.
Look for the new Highlander four-cylinder in dealerships this January.
Well there we have it. Confirmation that the 2AR is coming to Canada and in 2WD form. That should knock off close to $4k off the current base price (assuming ~$2k for a V6 and ~$2k for 4WD that Toyota usually charges in Canada under the pre-USD-parity pricing scheme).
__________________
2010 Prius Technology Package (Cdn)
OEM Cargo Mat, OEM All-Weather Mat, LED ext/int lights, 5000K HID, OEM Fogs, Euro Mudguards
Yes, there you have it. Highlander sales in both Canada and the U.S. should skyrocket once this 4 cyl model comes out.
Consider that with the exception of the Dodge Journey, no other vehicle in the Highlander's class offers a 4 cyl engine.
The Mazda CX-7 and CX-9, Honda Pilot, GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, Ford Edge, and other class competitors offer ONLY V6 engines.
The real irony here is despite the common perception that Honda makes the best 4-cyl engines on the market, the reality is Honda does not have a 4 cyl powerful enough to put into the Pilot. Once again Toyota trumps the competition swiftly and quietly. Not only is this a brand-new 4 cyl, but it will be paired with a 6-speed auto. This is like a one-two punch from Toyota. Performance should be quite decent, and fuel economy should be stellar.
Even further, the rest of the competition does not have 4 cyl powerplants that are powerful enough to be equipped in mid-large CUVs. Ford and GM will soon have some new 4 cyl powerplants coming out, but they will be expensive and they won't be out for at least another few years. There is also no indication from Ford or GM that those 4 cyl engines will be equipped in their mid-large CUVs.
My guess is that the V6 Highlander model might get the 6-speed transmission as well.
The Journey's a midsize? I would've guessed compact (but on the larger side of compact). Dang...
It could put the 190hp version of the Accord engine but the 162lb-ft of torque might not be up to task. And herein lies the other side of the equation. These midsize CUVs are heavy as heck. I'm not saying the Highlander is a lightweight but it's lighter than some of those mentioned above. This new 2.7 litre is pushing numbers close to the 1MZ back in 1995.
Ford might, esp. with the EcoBoost lineup... basically what Acura did with the RDX. The question is, how much more fuel efficient will it be? The RDX isn't significantly better than any of the 6 cylinder competition so I'm not getting it other than it can boast it has a 4 cylinder engine (read: fuel efficient) and a turbocharger (read: powerful) to the marketing division.
__________________
2010 Prius Technology Package (Cdn)
OEM Cargo Mat, OEM All-Weather Mat, LED ext/int lights, 5000K HID, OEM Fogs, Euro Mudguards
Yes, there you have it. Highlander sales in both Canada and the U.S. should skyrocket once this 4 cyl model comes out.
Consider that with the exception of the Dodge Journey, no other vehicle in the Highlander's class offers a 4 cyl engine.
The Mazda CX-7 and CX-9, Honda Pilot, GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, Ford Edge, and other class competitors offer ONLY V6 engines.
The real irony here is despite the common perception that Honda makes the best 4-cyl engines on the market, the reality is Honda does not have a 4 cyl powerful enough to put into the Pilot. Once again Toyota trumps the competition swiftly and quietly. Not only is this a brand-new 4 cyl, but it will be paired with a 6-speed auto. This is like a one-two punch from Toyota. Performance should be quite decent, and fuel economy should be stellar.
Even further, the rest of the competition does not have 4 cyl powerplants that are powerful enough to be equipped in mid-large CUVs. Ford and GM will soon have some new 4 cyl powerplants coming out, but they will be expensive and they won't be out for at least another few years. There is also no indication from Ford or GM that those 4 cyl engines will be equipped in their mid-large CUVs.
My guess is that the V6 Highlander model might get the 6-speed transmission as well.
Good news indeed. If, as Tideland Prius calculates, the price of the Highlander I4 comes out at about Cdn$32,000, I am hoping that the Venza comes out at Cdn$30,000 or lower. I am also hoping that the 1AR is available in not just the base Highlander, but the SR5 trim also.
As for the other manufacturer's crossover SUVs that are listed, I think that the only two in that list that could get away with a 4-cylinder engine would be the CX-7 and the Edge. All the others, I believe, are larger and heavier than the Highlander. Actually, I thought the CX-7 had a turbocharged 2.3-litre 4-cylinder engine?
The base Journey does come with Chrysler's 2.4-litre 4-cylinder World Engine, but, of course, that will be no match against the Highlander's new 2.7-litre 1AR engine; and the Journey is a larger, heavier vehicle than the Highlander.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tideland Prius
The Journey's a midsize? I would've guessed compact (but on the larger side of compact). Dang...
It could put the 190hp version of the Accord engine but the 162lb-ft of torque might not be up to task. And herein lies the other side of the equation. These midsize CUVs are heavy as heck. I'm not saying the Highlander is a lightweight but it's lighter than some of those mentioned above. This new 2.7 litre is pushing numbers close to the 1MZ back in 1995.
Ford might, esp. with the EcoBoost lineup... basically what Acura did with the RDX. The question is, how much more fuel efficient will it be? The RDX isn't significantly better than any of the 6 cylinder competition so I'm not getting it other than it can boast it has a 4 cylinder engine (read: fuel efficient) and a turbocharger (read: powerful) to the marketing division.
The availability of this large 4-cylinder engine shows once again that Toyota is the leader in the development of small engines, better than the claimed leader, Honda. Honda does have that second, more powerful I4 in the Accord, but its torque is low -- as in most of Honda's engines -- and would not be enough to pull around a heavy vehicle such as the Pilot. Toyota's engines have the torque, the power, AND the fuel economy.
And, I agree that the claimed fuel efficiency of Ford's EcoBoost engines will be higher than the real-life figures. I cannot imagine any driver with a light enough foot that the turbocharger never helps out, so yes, it will be more of a marketing move. And, assuming that the EPA fuel economy test cycle is not that aggressive, it should help Ford's CAFE average.
I doubt the Venza will be close to $30k base. Just looking at the wheels (19" standard on the 4 cylinder model... that's a LOT of weight for a 4 cylinder to move), it seems Toyota might market this as an upscale crossover. Another clue I'm latching on is the contrast piping which I haven't seen on a Toyota on this continent but that'll probably show up on the V6 limited model or something. I'm curious if after this round of vehicles, the next one will be decontented a bit (like how Toyota decontented the 1997 Camry) ... depends on the economy I guess?
__________________
2010 Prius Technology Package (Cdn)
OEM Cargo Mat, OEM All-Weather Mat, LED ext/int lights, 5000K HID, OEM Fogs, Euro Mudguards
I doubt the Venza will be close to $30k base. Just looking at the wheels (19" standard on the 4 cylinder model... that's a LOT of weight for a 4 cylinder to move), it seems Toyota might market this as an upscale crossover. Another clue I'm latching on is the contrast piping which I haven't seen on a Toyota on this continent but that'll probably show up on the V6 limited model or something. I'm curious if after this round of vehicles, the next one will be decontented a bit (like how Toyota decontented the 1997 Camry) ... depends on the economy I guess?
I was just going by Toyota's claim that the Venza would be slotted in between the RAV4 and the Highlander in terms of both market segment and price.
Toyota has had the bad habit of decontenting and reducing the quality of interior materials in the even number generations of the Camry: Gen2 (1987), Gen4 (1997), Gen6 (2007). I have leased every generation since Gen3, and I must say that the reduction in quality has been a disappointment. It did not help that the even number generations of my Camrys were assembled in Kentucky: reduction in quality of materials in addition to poor assembly quality was not very inspiring. I have said this before so let me get off my pedestal before I sound like a bitter old man.
As for the other manufacturer's crossover SUVs that are listed, I think that the only two in that list that could get away with a 4-cylinder engine would be the CX-7 and the Edge. All the others, I believe, are larger and heavier than the Highlander. Actually, I thought the CX-7 had a turbocharged 2.3-litre 4-cylinder engine?
The base Journey does come with Chrysler's 2.4-litre 4-cylinder World Engine, but, of course, that will be no match against the Highlander's new 2.7-litre 1AR engine; and the Journey is a larger, heavier vehicle than the Highlander.
The availability of this large 4-cylinder engine shows once again that Toyota is the leader in the development of small engines, better than the claimed leader, Honda. Honda does have that second, more powerful I4 in the Accord, but its torque is low -- as in most of Honda's engines -- and would not be enough to pull around a heavy vehicle such as the Pilot. Toyota's engines have the torque, the power, AND the fuel economy.
You are correct, my mistake. The CX-7 does have a turbo four. Fuel economy unfortunately on the CX-7 is quite poor, given the engine being used and the vehicle's weight. Plus, premium gas is recommended for the CX-7 engine.
That is exactly the point. Honda would not be able to use the I4 from the Accord, as that engine is already high strung and needs to rev high to achieve peak HP. Torque on that engine is also quite peaky. The 190HP I4 in the Accord achieves peak HP at 7000 RPM, compared to the 1AR in the Highlander which achieves peak HP at only 5800 RPM. To complicate matters, the Pilot is a heavy vehicle, quite a bit heavier than the Highlander. Reading reviews, even the 3.5L V6 engine in the Pilot struggles to move around all that weight. A 4 cyl in the Pilot would be out of the question, as Honda simply has no expertise in making high-torque 4 cyl engines, and the Pilot would require an engine with more HP and torque than the 1AR due to the weight difference between it and the Highlander.
If Toyota chose to do so, they could make the 1AR rev to 6600 or 6800 RPM and it would likely make over 200HP, without even using Valvematic. Doing that of course would sacrifice some torque, and fuel economy as well.
Compared to the Journey's I4, the 1AR makes more HP at a lower RPM, and makes a lot more torque as well. The Journey's I4 is also paired with only a 4-speed transmission. The Journey is a smaller and lighter vehicle than the Highlander, but the Highlander will still undoubtedly achieve better fuel economy.
I was just going by Toyota's claim that the Venza would be slotted in between the RAV4 and the Highlander in terms of both market segment and price.
Toyota has had the bad habit of decontenting and reducing the quality of interior materials in the even number generations of the Camry: Gen2 (1987), Gen4 (1997), Gen6 (2007). I have leased every generation since Gen3, and I must say that the reduction in quality has been a disappointment. It did not help that the even number generations of my Camrys were assembled in Kentucky: reduction in quality of materials in addition to poor assembly quality was not very inspiring. I have said this before so let me get off my pedestal before I sound like a bitter old man.
ohh... I forgot about that bit. My mistake. I never realised there was a gap between the RAV4 and Highlander lol. Maybe they're trying to fill the gap left by the old Highlander??
Hmm... you know what that means. Start switching to the odd number generations! The Gen 5 was our first Camry and we were pretty satisfied. That car was pretty solid despite taking numerous hits from drunkards and a Friday, 13th hit and other ones. The final blow from a cab did take it down but only because ICBC didn't want to repair it.
__________________
2010 Prius Technology Package (Cdn)
OEM Cargo Mat, OEM All-Weather Mat, LED ext/int lights, 5000K HID, OEM Fogs, Euro Mudguards
I like this thread. Its funny how its all detailed analysis and civil discussions and with no arguments and people willing to admit mistakes. So untypical of online forums lol.
From what I'm reading from you guys, perhaps we should all jump in on the first refresh of the new Venza because it doesn't seem to look too good for the next generation and the first refresh will iron out most bugs in the cars.
On the discussion of the AR engines, does anyone other than me feel that the 2.7 seems to be rather weak compared the 2.5? For a displacement bump its only making a tiny bit more power on basically the same engine. Perhaps maybe I'm giving displacement too much credit for making power.
I don't think the Venza slots in between the Rav4 and Highlander very well. It takes the Gen1 Highlander's spot, but that's not necessarily in between the RAV4 and Gen Highlander. The RAV4 is just simply too big to be the smallest offering available.
Back on the Highlander topic. I think the 4cyl will sell well., though not necessarily the 2WD. A lot of people buy the Highlander for its AWD though no one really uses it. Exactly why I'm driving a Highlander, because my parents decided the family needs a AWD SUV for the two days that it ever snows here.
Also I don't see the 4cyl bringing much in terms of mileage to the table. My Gen 1 Highlander is the V6 version, which makes 220hp on the old ratings, which I guess would be 200hp on the new SAE rulings. I think it lacks power pulling a 3800lb SUV. Now we are putting in a lesser engine in a Highlander that's bigger and heavier. Do you think its going to work out well? While they might be doing this to pull some more MPGs, realistically and hypothetically, how much more improvement will it make?
On the discussion of the AR engines, does anyone other than me feel that the 2.7 seems to be rather weak compared the 2.5? For a displacement bump its only making a tiny bit more power on basically the same engine. Perhaps maybe I'm giving displacement too much credit for making power.
I don't think the Venza slots in between the Rav4 and Highlander very well. It takes the Gen1 Highlander's spot, but that's not necessarily in between the RAV4 and Gen Highlander. The RAV4 is just simply too big to be the smallest offering available.
Back on the Highlander topic. I think the 4cyl will sell well., though not necessarily the 2WD. A lot of people buy the Highlander for its AWD though no one really uses it. Exactly why I'm driving a Highlander, because my parents decided the family needs a AWD SUV for the two days that it ever snows here.
Also I don't see the 4cyl bringing much in terms of mileage to the table. My Gen 1 Highlander is the V6 version, which makes 220hp on the old ratings, which I guess would be 200hp on the new SAE rulings. I think it lacks power pulling a 3800lb SUV. Now we are putting in a lesser engine in a Highlander that's bigger and heavier. Do you think its going to work out well? While they might be doing this to pull some more MPGs, realistically and hypothetically, how much more improvement will it make?
The 2.7 vs 2.5 power output question is pretty simple; the two engines are tuned differently. The 2.5L in the Rav 4 revs to a higher RPM, and fits the sporty character of the Rav4. The HP difference between the 2.7 and 2.5 may be small, but the torque difference is big. The 2.7 revs to a lower RPM compared to the 2.5L, and makes quite a bit more torque than the 2.5. The 2.7L is tuned specifically for lots of low-end torque.
You think a Gen1 V6 Highlander lacks pulling power? It's a matter of opinion really, as I think it's pulling power is quite good. It's no rocket ship like the current 3.5L V6 HL, but the performance is still pretty food.
Don't forget, it's also not about just the numbers. You need to think of things like the transmission, gear ratios, torque and HP curves.
The 3.3L V6 in the Gen1 HL uses only VVT-i on the intake side. The 2.7L 1AR uses Dual VVT-i, which gives it a broad, and flat torque curve. Dual VVT-i allows for better torque output through a broad RPM range, no matter if it's equipped on a 4 cyl or 6 cyl engine.
Also, the Gen1 V6 HL uses a 5 speed auto. The 2.7L in the HL will have a 6 speed auto. That will improve both performance and fuel economy.
Dual VVT-i combined with using a 6 speed auto will allow for more optimum gear ratios and torque/HP curves. The Gen1 V6 HL is a little restricted with gear ratios because of the 5 speed auto, as well as using only single VVT-i.
Just to clarify, performance will not be great, but it will be decent. Performance will be decent enough for most people, and most people will love the excellent fuel economy the 2.7L will bring. The V6 will still be available for those who want performance first and fuel economy second. The 2.7L will be about fuel economy first.
Fuel economy for the 2.7L should be quite a bit better than the 3.5L. Just wait and see.
I like this thread. Its funny how its all detailed analysis and civil discussions and with no arguments and people willing to admit mistakes. So untypical of online forums lol.
This is a Canadian discussion. Canadians are more polite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoFire
From what I'm reading from you guys, perhaps we should all jump in on the first refresh of the new Venza because it doesn't seem to look too good for the next generation and the first refresh will iron out most bugs in the cars.
This is true if it follows the lead that the Camry has set, but Toyota's crossover development schedule seems to be different. The 1st generation of the Highlander ran for a longer period than the usual 5 year cycle expected of Toyota's cars. Who knows how long the Venza will run, and whether it will even last to a 2nd generation, considering the ways things are changing these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoFire
I don't think the Venza slots in between the Rav4 and Highlander very well. It takes the Gen1 Highlander's spot, but that's not necessarily in between the RAV4 and Gen Highlander. The RAV4 is just simply too big to be the smallest offering available.
There seems to be a lot of people who consider the the RAV4 to be too big. I don't think it is. It is the same size as all other compact crossover SUVs on the market, including its 2 biggest Canadian competitors, the Ford Escape and the Honda CR-V. It merely looks big, and of course, it does offer a powerful V6 engine, which the Honda does not.
I don't think that the size of the RAV4 is the problem. I think that the problem is that the Venza is too close in size to the Highlander. They will both have a very similar footprint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoFire
Back on the Highlander topic. I think the 4cyl will sell well., though not necessarily the 2WD. A lot of people buy the Highlander for its AWD though no one really uses it. Exactly why I'm driving a Highlander, because my parents decided the family needs a AWD SUV for the two days that it ever snows here.
The thing with AWD is that it is automatic; you do not have to explicitly turn it on (unless you want to lock in the 50:50 torque split), and so you may never know when the Highlander is running in FWD or 4-wheel mode. I believe that Toyota has crunched the numbers and believe that the FWD, 4-cylinder model will appeal to those who want the large vehicle, but still are concerned about fuel consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoFire
Also I don't see the 4cyl bringing much in terms of mileage to the table. My Gen 1 Highlander is the V6 version, which makes 220hp on the old ratings, which I guess would be 200hp on the new SAE rulings. I think it lacks power pulling a 3800lb SUV. Now we are putting in a lesser engine in a Highlander that's bigger and heavier. Do you think its going to work out well? While they might be doing this to pull some more MPGs, realistically and hypothetically, how much more improvement will it make?
You think the Gen1 V6 Highlander lacked power? Could it be a perception thing? The 3MZ engine was known to be a very refined, smooth-running engine. Could it be that the engine -- and the vehicle itself -- is so refined and smooth that you do not feel that you are going fast, or accelerating quickly?
Yes, Toyota is now putting in a less powerful engine in the large Highlander, but remember that the smaller engine will not be pulling around the same weight as the V6 Highlander. The 1AR I4 engine is almost 25% smaller in displacment than the 2GR V6 engine, with much less moving parts, so the engine will be smaller and lighter. The I4 Highlander will be pulling around less weight, so that will help things out.
I have a friend who drives a Gen1 FWD I4 (2AZ) Highlander. He does admit that it is not that quick to accelerate onto the highway, but he also claims that he does not consider it to be that slow that it is unsafe.
For those who are concerned about lower fuel consumption, any little bit extra may help. You also have to look at what type of driving conditions you are likely to see. If a driver does more city driving, the 1AR I4 engine with its 6-speed transmission may be the better choice. If, however, the driver is more likely to be doing a lot of highway driving, the 2GR V6 engine may be the better choice.
Just a little heads up guys, my HL is the first batch Highlanders (pre-refresh) of 1MZ 3.0l mated to a full time 4spd AWD system with a viscous diff. Yeah I probably won't say its the slowest on the road, but to rev up to 4k on the highway to properly speed match is a bit excessive in my opinion. My HL is already geared lower than the old Gen 3 Camry, but it doesn't feel like its going anywhere sometimes.
The thing is I have heard people getting consistently better fuel economy with the 3MZ 3.3l w/ 5spd due to it probably being a 5sp and the engine power matching the car better. I feel the 5sp really only helps on the highway as the 4sp is sorely missing a 5th gear like it was designed for it. It goes through the first 4 gears relatively with ease(a bit shorter may be nice) though the rpm on highway is too high.
vasia: What I'm trying to get to is, I don't see the 4cyl helping too much with fuel economy because of the power not matching the weight of the car. The Toyota website tells me the minimum weight of the V6 is 4100+ lbs, so I'll give the 4cyl AWD 4000lbs give or take, and another 150lbs for the drivetrain. I just don't think 187hp 186lb/ft is adequate to move the car efficiently. Yes no doubt it can get it moving and up to speed. It'll probably be fine for flat city driving, but throw in some highways and some hills, the not-too-shabby V6 mileage isn't too far off.
When the extra gear and extra 10hp from the 3MZ demonstrated that more power is actually benefitting the car, I really doubt the logic of a 4cyl. Its probably more for sales than anything else so more people can afford the car.
i think performance will be enough for those whoe live in flat areas and have minimal highways to drive, this car will probably shine in gridlock traffic jams, but in those situations, I probably won't want to be driving such a big car anyways.
Like you said, we'll see about the mileage, though I'm not looking at it favorably. City mileage will probably be better, highway mileage would be close though.
Sulu: The Rav4 may compare well to the competitors, but there doesn't seem to be anything where the old Rav4 was in the current market. I think that was a much better size.
The old HL doesn't have a center lock diff, its all computer controlled. Most of the time its noticeable cause it only comes on when it starts slipping, its a weird sensation coming from a FWD Camry. It still sucks up power as all the drive systems are still turning, just not on. And also the extra weight. I just believe the market in Canada won't receive the FWD Highlander well. Most buy the HL for the AWD or Hybrid system, not because its a big car. Being big is only a plus and second to the AWD. If they want a big car they would have went with a minivan or something like the Venza/Journey/Edge which probably provide more efficient useable space than a SUV type car. And I don't see many SUV type cars that have both 2WD and 4WD/AWD options not having hte 4WD AWD option on it. Heck even the Merc and BMW sedans have a lot of AWD/4WD versions on the road.
And I know how fast the car is going. City wise its generally not a problem, it shows when I'm climbing hills(too many in Vancouver) or merging a highway. I generally pay attention to how fast I'm going, cops are always out to get you lol.
Its not slow that its unsafe, you just have to plan you lane changes and overpasses more than say a Camry.
its true every little helps, but I don't see the power hit and usability hit a worthwhile trade for whatever little city mileage it gains.
PS: hey guys I'm sorry if anything doesn't make sense or I'm repeating myself or it becomes mumbo jumbo.... I got home late but I had to get my fix of TN. I tried editing, but I think I still missed some.
Just a little heads up guys, my HL is the first batch Highlanders (pre-refresh) of 1MZ 3.0l mated to a full time 4spd AWD system with a viscous diff. Yeah I probably won't say its the slowest on the road, but to rev up to 4k on the highway to properly speed match is a bit excessive in my opinion. My HL is already geared lower than the old Gen 3 Camry, but it doesn't feel like its going anywhere sometimes.
The thing is I have heard people getting consistently better fuel economy with the 3MZ 3.3l w/ 5spd due to it probably being a 5sp and the engine power matching the car better. I feel the 5sp really only helps on the highway as the 4sp is sorely missing a 5th gear like it was designed for it. It goes through the first 4 gears relatively with ease(a bit shorter may be nice) though the rpm on highway is too high.
vasia: What I'm trying to get to is, I don't see the 4cyl helping too much with fuel economy because of the power not matching the weight of the car. The Toyota website tells me the minimum weight of the V6 is 4100+ lbs, so I'll give the 4cyl AWD 4000lbs give or take, and another 150lbs for the drivetrain. I just don't think 187hp 186lb/ft is adequate to move the car efficiently. Yes no doubt it can get it moving and up to speed. It'll probably be fine for flat city driving, but throw in some highways and some hills, the not-too-shabby V6 mileage isn't too far off.
When the extra gear and extra 10hp from the 3MZ demonstrated that more power is actually benefitting the car, I really doubt the logic of a 4cyl. Its probably more for sales than anything else so more people can afford the car.
i think performance will be enough for those whoe live in flat areas and have minimal highways to drive, this car will probably shine in gridlock traffic jams, but in those situations, I probably won't want to be driving such a big car anyways.
Like you said, we'll see about the mileage, though I'm not looking at it favorably. City mileage will probably be better, highway mileage would be close though.
Sulu: The Rav4 may compare well to the competitors, but there doesn't seem to be anything where the old Rav4 was in the current market. I think that was a much better size.
The old HL doesn't have a center lock diff, its all computer controlled. Most of the time its noticeable cause it only comes on when it starts slipping, its a weird sensation coming from a FWD Camry. It still sucks up power as all the drive systems are still turning, just not on. And also the extra weight. I just believe the market in Canada won't receive the FWD Highlander well. Most buy the HL for the AWD or Hybrid system, not because its a big car. Being big is only a plus and second to the AWD. If they want a big car they would have went with a minivan or something like the Venza/Journey/Edge which probably provide more efficient useable space than a SUV type car. And I don't see many SUV type cars that have both 2WD and 4WD/AWD options not having hte 4WD AWD option on it. Heck even the Merc and BMW sedans have a lot of AWD/4WD versions on the road.
And I know how fast the car is going. City wise its generally not a problem, it shows when I'm climbing hills(too many in Vancouver) or merging a highway. I generally pay attention to how fast I'm going, cops are always out to get you lol.
Its not slow that its unsafe, you just have to plan you lane changes and overpasses more than say a Camry.
its true every little helps, but I don't see the power hit and usability hit a worthwhile trade for whatever little city mileage it gains.
PS: hey guys I'm sorry if anything doesn't make sense or I'm repeating myself or it becomes mumbo jumbo.... I got home late but I had to get my fix of TN. I tried editing, but I think I still missed some.
A buyer's choice of whether to get the I4 Highlander or the V6 Highlander will depend on what type of driving that will be done. If the majority of the driving will be done on city streets, shuttling the kids around, the I4 may be the better choice. The lower torque will not be missed, but the greater fuel economy will be really appreciated.
If, however, the majority of the driving will be done on the highway, the V6 may be the better choice. The greater torque, allowing quicker acceleration, will be greatly appreciated, and the fuel consumption is lower on the steady-speed highways, so that is not likely to be a hindrance.
We will have to see how the FWD I4 Highlander fares in Canada. The auto market in Canada is different from the USA: the market is much smaller, and we prefer smaller, less expensive vehicles. So, on the smaller cars, we may have the choice of lower, cheaper trim levels than the Americans do, but because of the smaller market, when it comes to larger vehicles (mid-size and above, it seems) we will actually have less choice. The choices we may get are probably the higher-trim, higher profit ones. So, we do not get the Camry CE, and we did not get -- until now -- the FWD Highlanders.
The 1MZ in 210hp form is rated at 194hp under the new rating and the 225/230hp 3MZ is rated at 210hp.
I never understood the point of a 2WD SUV. Back then, an SUV was almost the only way to get AWD (or 4WD) but now a lotta cars have AWD as an option. A 2WD is another way to reduce fuel consumption while still selling an SUV.
Evofire, but a 6-spd auto will allow Toyota to lower the first gear to get better acceleration while retaining good cruising FE with its 5th and 6th overdrive gears. Also keep in mind that it brings with it a 5-seater option which so far is only limited to the base Hybrid model. (Hybrid w/ Comfort Package adds the 3rd row) so yes part of it is for marketing purposes in reduce the entry price.
This also begs the question, what can the Highlander do over the RAV4 other than people can "move up the ranks" and own a more expensive Toyota vehicle. I thought the RAV4's cargo area is pretty damn big.
Sulu, any idea why Toyota pulled the 4 cylinder Camry XLE then? It was a great way to get into an XLE without having to purchase a V6 but it was only available for 3 years before they pulled the plug on it. Was it really selling that poorly?
__________________
2010 Prius Technology Package (Cdn)
OEM Cargo Mat, OEM All-Weather Mat, LED ext/int lights, 5000K HID, OEM Fogs, Euro Mudguards
This new 2.7 litre is pushing numbers close to the 1MZ back in 1995.
Who would've thought: V6 power from a N/A I4? Strange though because V6s still produce more power because they have more overlap. For example, the 2.5L 2MZ-FE produces 200hp and 181lb-ft and the 2.5L 4GR-FSE does 204hp and 185lb-ft.
I'm pretty sure Toyota made these new I4s based on consumer perception that they are more fuel efficient. However, the 3.5L 2GR-FE in the Camry isn't far off from the 2AZ or even 2AR at 19/28, but TN Camry V6 owners have consistently outperformed Camry I4 owners in fuel economy. The 2.5L 4GR-FSE is rated at 24/32 with a 6spd auto, while the 2.4L 2AZ is rated at 21/31 with a 5spd auto or manual. So, the 2.5L 2AR-FE will achieve 22/32? That's still below the 4GR-FSE in city trim, and the 4GR produces a powerband that is more linear. That means the 2.7L 1AR-FE will do 19-21/25-27 in the Highlander. Not very impressive, since I'm pretty sure the 4GR can achieve the same results with highway fuel economy hovering around 26mpg assuming the same 16.67% loss the 2GR had when moved into the heavier Highlander.
I think it would've been wiser for Toyota to redesign the 4GR (for transverse use like the 2GR), keep the direct injection, and advertise the increased fuel economy AND power for the heavier Highlander. A 2.7L I4 is a BIG 4 cylinder, but a 2.5L V6 is quite compact.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
4-Cylinder Highlander coming this winter
Linear Mode
