4-Cylinder Highlander coming this winter

In addition to the standard 3.5 litre V6 and Hybrid Synergy Drive equipped Highlander (http://www.auto123.com/en/toyota/highlander-hybrid/2008/review?carid=1086107707&artid=98525) 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 (http://www.auto123.com/en/news/green-wheels/calculating-your-fuel-economy?artid=99672) 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.

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/car-news/4-cylinder-highlander-coming-this-winter?artid=100402


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).

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.

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.

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?

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. :headbang:

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.;)

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

But, perception is the key to better sales.

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.

I'm not sure most buyers are that clear of what they need, especially with salespeople pushing the higher trim model for higher profits.

Though we do prefer smaller vehicles, I don't think the Highlander is small. Yeah its smaller than say a Suburban, but that's like comparing an elephant with a hippo. Recent trends seem to point towards higher priced vehicles that are smaller yet providing more luxuries. Too bad our market is not big enough to make an impact on the NA auto market as a whole. Since the Gen 10 Corolla came out, there are a lot more LE's and S's than the base CE's running around.

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?

You fit into my observation that people buy SUVs for the AWD/4WD in Canada, hence I see the 2WD trim pointless. There are a few people who would, but is there enough to justify Toyota to make one just for those people? Well Toyota does right now, though I have a feeling it'll be pulled to save admin and marketing costs in the future.

There is a certain aura that comes from driving a Highlander I think. It would definitely look better if you drove a Highlander compared to say a Rav4. The Rav4 design just doesn't have that elegance and classy feeling compared to a HL, it feels like a toy.

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.

But, perception is the key to better sales.

You just posted what I was about to bring up. It just seems to make so much more sense to put a smaller V6 in the car than a large I4. It seems that at this overlapping size, the V6 are more efficient. Perhaps its once again a cost thing as the 4 cylinder is probably cheaper to make and install and instantly making the car more profitable or can sell for lower price.

Though your comparing of the mileage from different cars with the Highlander is kind of flawed as you are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not sure most buyers are that clear of what they need, especially with salespeople pushing the higher trim model for higher profits.

Though we do prefer smaller vehicles, I don't think the Highlander is small. Yeah its smaller than say a Suburban, but that's like comparing an elephant with a hippo. Recent trends seem to point towards higher priced vehicles that are smaller yet providing more luxuries. Too bad our market is not big enough to make an impact on the NA auto market as a whole. Since the Gen 10 Corolla came out, there are a lot more LE's and S's than the base CE's running around.

Really? I mean yeah I've seen a few LEs but I still see a good chunk of CEs. Over in ON, I see a lotta Gen 9 LEs. They seem to buy more LEs than us. Here, it's like 70% CEs or something lol.

You fit into my observation that people buy SUVs for the AWD/4WD in Canada, hence I see the 2WD trim pointless. There are a few people who would, but is there enough to justify Toyota to make one just for those people? Well Toyota does right now, though I have a feeling it'll be pulled to save admin and marketing costs in the future.

There is a certain aura that comes from driving a Highlander I think. It would definitely look better if you drove a Highlander compared to say a Rav4. The Rav4 design just doesn't have that elegance and classy feeling compared to a HL, it feels like a toy.

True. The RAV4 is something you buy your daughter to go to college and the Highlander is something you and the husband/wife drive. Honda's selling a 2WD CR-V. Does anyone know how that's faring?

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.

But, perception is the key to better sales.

Good point. Toyota might be playing the marketing game here. I know the IS250 is very fuel efficient (moreso than our 02 Camry with the 2AZ as rated by Transport Canada). A pity Toyota doesn't want to use that for the ESh (rumours have it that it'll be an ES400h).

With regards to your last paragraph, again I think it is perception. People will wonder what's the point of having two V6 engines. People are used to having two 4 cylinder options but not two V6 options (IS excluded). However, BMW and MB seem to do well with multiple 6 cylinder options in their entry-luxury vehicles, incl. a Canadian-only C230/C230 4MATIC sedan.

Really? I mean yeah I've seen a few LEs but I still see a good chunk of CEs. Over in ON, I see a lotta Gen 9 LEs. They seem to buy more LEs than us. Here, it's like 70% CEs or something lol.



True. The RAV4 is something you buy your daughter to go to college and the Highlander is something you and the husband/wife drive. Honda's selling a 2WD CR-V. Does anyone know how that's faring?



Good point. Toyota might be playing the marketing game here. I know the IS250 is very fuel efficient (moreso than our 02 Camry with the 2AZ as rated by Transport Canada). A pity Toyota doesn't want to use that for the ESh (rumours have it that it'll be an ES400h).

With regards to your last paragraph, again I think it is perception. People will wonder what's the point of having two V6 engines. People are used to having two 4 cylinder options but not two V6 options (IS excluded). However, BMW and MB seem to do well with multiple 6 cylinder options in their entry-luxury vehicles, incl. a Canadian-only C230/C230 4MATIC sedan.

I see a lot of S and LE's on the road, even the taxis are straying away from the CE's. Maybe we are hanging around the wrong parts of town lol. Most the CE's I've seen are rentals surprisingly. The rental cars are really subtle nowadays and its hard to notice sometimes.

Dunno about the CR-V. I don't like it, if you wanna know what I know about it. The RAV4 looks like a toy, the CR-V just looks ridiculous imo.

And about the small V6 vs big I4. I think its more cost cutting than marketing as like you said, Lexus is doing it, BMW and Merc is doing it with V6 across the board. The I4 is smaller (read cheaper), lighter (read cheaper), probably easier to make (read cheaper), has less parts (read cheaper) and is available already from the ongoing development of AR series instead of redeveloping the 4GR (read cheaper again).

By far, there are more 2009 Corolla CEs (with a Convenience Package, as evidenced by the body-colour door handles) on the road here in the Toronto area than any other trim level. I cannot remember when I last saw a Canadian LE. I saw an American LE a few weeks ago, but originally thought it was a CE because it had body-coloured door window frames, not the blacked out frames like Canadian LEs do.

I also cannot remember the last time I saw a Gen6 Camry XLE, and even the LE V6 models are few and far between. Camry LE models, of course, are a dime a dozen, and there are even quite a few (surprisingly to me) SE I4 models; the SE V6 models are few and far between. I would say that the Camry Hybrid models outnumber all others except the LE.

I believe that the decision to go with the 1AR I4 engine in the Highlander was due to perception and marketing, and marketing is nothing more than playing with, and playing off, perceptions. The buying public is more likely to believe in lower fuel consumption with a 4-cylinder engine compared to a 6-cylinder engine, regardless of the comparative sizes of 2 available V6 engines. The 4-cylinder engine, after all, has one-third fewer cylinders than a 6-cylinder, so people will think that will naturally make it more fuel efficient. So, marketing plays with that belief, and then as a bonus, they can say that it is a very powerful 4-cylinder engine, comparable in power to V6s from not too long ago. Power and perceived economy -- what more could you ask for?

I don't think that the FWD Highlander will be a sales dud. I don't think that it is AWD or 4WD that sells crossover SUVs these days, rather, it is the higher ride height and the belief that crossovers have more cargo capacity than station wagons (and/or Canadians buy them because there are so few real station wagons available now). People who buy SUVs do not take them off-road and I think that there has been enough years of "AWD is not meant for off-roading" that FWD will sell. Add in the perception that an I4 FWD Highlander will use less fuel than a V6 AWD Highlander (regardless of the size of the V6), and I think that is a good combination.

I don't really know how well the FWD CR-V sells in Canada, but it seems that the base model sells well here (and it is the base model that comes available with FWD), so I can only guess that the base models seen did not come with expensive stand-alone options, such as AWD. What makes it more difficult is Honda's refusal to place trim-level badges on its vehicles.

SUVs have come with 2WD options for a long time now in the USA, but were not as readily available in Canada because of the smaller market. Automakers in Canada can only hope to sell at best one-tenth the number that they sell in the USA, so they tend to offer the models that will sell, and sell at a profit. For larger, more expensive crossovers in Canada, that means AWD or 4WD.

The FWD I4 Highlander could also be used as a loss leader for Toyota, attracting more buyers into the showroom. That will, of course, depend upon how Toyota prices it.

Price it low enough to attract buyers who may be looking for a large, Toyota crossover/SUV, but do not want something as expensive to buy or to run as the 4Runner. When the buyer comes in looking for the perceived cheap, fuel-efficient Highlander, the salesman can try to sell up, with the sales pitch that for very little extra money ("only $50 more per month!"), the buyer can get a AWD V6, with the bonus that the V6 does not use that much more fuel.

The FWD I4 Highlander could also be used as a loss leader for Toyota, attracting more buyers into the showroom. That will, of course, depend upon how Toyota prices it.

Price it low enough to attract buyers who may be looking for a large, Toyota crossover/SUV, but do not want something as expensive to buy or to run as the 4Runner. When the buyer comes in looking for the perceived cheap, fuel-efficient Highlander, the salesman can try to sell up, with the sales pitch that for very little extra money ("only $50 more per month!"), the buyer can get a AWD V6, with the bonus that the V6 does not use that much more fuel.

Probably, ya. Again it's to get more people into the Highlander fold. I haven't seen many new 4Runners (those with the LED taillights).

By far, there are more 2009 Corolla CEs (with a Convenience Package, as evidenced by the body-colour door handles) on the road here in the Toronto area than any other trim level. I cannot remember when I last saw a Canadian LE. I saw an American LE a few weeks ago, but originally thought it was a CE because it had body-coloured door window frames, not the blacked out frames like Canadian LEs do.

I also cannot remember the last time I saw a Gen6 Camry XLE, and even the LE V6 models are few and far between. Camry LE models, of course, are a dime a dozen, and there are even quite a few (surprisingly to me) SE I4 models; the SE V6 models are few and far between. I would say that the Camry Hybrid models outnumber all others except the LE.

I believe that the decision to go with the 1AR I4 engine in the Highlander was due to perception and marketing, and marketing is nothing more than playing with, and playing off, perceptions. The buying public is more likely to believe in lower fuel consumption with a 4-cylinder engine compared to a 6-cylinder engine, regardless of the comparative sizes of 2 available V6 engines. The 4-cylinder engine, after all, has one-third fewer cylinders than a 6-cylinder, so people will think that will naturally make it more fuel efficient. So, marketing plays with that belief, and then as a bonus, they can say that it is a very powerful 4-cylinder engine, comparable in power to V6s from not too long ago. Power and perceived economy -- what more could you ask for?

I don't think that the FWD Highlander will be a sales dud. I don't think that it is AWD or 4WD that sells crossover SUVs these days, rather, it is the higher ride height and the belief that crossovers have more cargo capacity than station wagons (and/or Canadians buy them because there are so few real station wagons available now). People who buy SUVs do not take them off-road and I think that there has been enough years of "AWD is not meant for off-roading" that FWD will sell. Add in the perception that an I4 FWD Highlander will use less fuel than a V6 AWD Highlander (regardless of the size of the V6), and I think that is a good combination.

I don't really know how well the FWD CR-V sells in Canada, but it seems that the base model sells well here (and it is the base model that comes available with FWD), so I can only guess that the base models seen did not come with expensive stand-alone options, such as AWD. What makes it more difficult is Honda's refusal to place trim-level badges on its vehicles.

SUVs have come with 2WD options for a long time now in the USA, but were not as readily available in Canada because of the smaller market. Automakers in Canada can only hope to sell at best one-tenth the number that they sell in the USA, so they tend to offer the models that will sell, and sell at a profit. For larger, more expensive crossovers in Canada, that means AWD or 4WD.

I guess. But I've seen tons of Gen 8 LEs when I was in Toronto, more than I've seen over here where the majority are CEs in silver (with the occasional Special Edition or 20th Anniversary Edition... also in silver). Yeah their LE is our CE with the Enhanced Convenience Package. I saw two Blue Streak Mica LEs both with NY plates.

Funny. I just saw a Mag. Grey XLE V6 today lol. But yeah you're right, they're few and far between. There are a lot more XLE V6s in Toronto though. (I'm still talking about the Gen 6). I must've spotted at least 6 of them within a month whereas it's more like 1 every 6 months here on the west coast. Or maybe your area is more of a Hybrid area and the place I was staying in Toronto wasn't? lol.

I know a dealer that still has a brand new 2007 XLE V6 that hasn't been sold yet even with a heavy discount.

The CR-V LX comes in both 2WD and 4WD versions and I think the only way is to find that "realtime 4WD" sticker somewhere (do they still put those on CR-Vs?), otherwise I can't distinguish between the LX models. It's also a way for Honda to advertise a lower starting price than the RAV4. Honda Canada still refuses to lower its prices. A loaded CR-V EX-L w/ nav in the US is $28k. Here it's nearly $34k. A Civic EX-L is $24k and a DX starts at $16k.

I see a lot of S and LE's on the road, even the taxis are straying away from the CE's. Maybe we are hanging around the wrong parts of town lol. Most the CE's I've seen are rentals surprisingly. The rental cars are really subtle nowadays and its hard to notice sometimes.

Dunno about the CR-V. I don't like it, if you wanna know what I know about it. The RAV4 looks like a toy, the CR-V just looks ridiculous imo.

And about the small V6 vs big I4. I think its more cost cutting than marketing as like you said, Lexus is doing it, BMW and Merc is doing it with V6 across the board. The I4 is smaller (read cheaper), lighter (read cheaper), probably easier to make (read cheaper), has less parts (read cheaper) and is available already from the ongoing development of AR series instead of redeveloping the 4GR (read cheaper again).

You just posted what I was about to bring up. It just seems to make so much more sense to put a smaller V6 in the car than a large I4. It seems that at this overlapping size, the V6 are more efficient. Perhaps its once again a cost thing as the 4 cylinder is probably cheaper to make and install and instantly making the car more profitable or can sell for lower price.

Though your comparing of the mileage from different cars with the Highlander is kind of flawed as you are comparing apples to oranges.

I was comparing the 2.5L 4GR vs the 2.4L 2AZ vs the 2.5L 2AR MPG (all in passenger cars of similar weight)

I then used the 2GR from the Camry to show it's not far off of the Camry's own 2.4L 2AZ in MPG. Then, I used the MPG numbers from the 2GR equipped Highlander and tried to estimate the 4GR's consumption while also estimating and comparing the 2.7L 1AR's consumption in the Highlander.

Sorry for the confusion. I get a little carried away sometimes.

And remember, the more overworked the engine is (i.e. not having a sufficient torque curve for vehicle weight) will always result in worse real world MPG, especially in hilly or mountainous areas. The reason being is that the engine must stay at a higher RPM to keep the vehicle at speed. You'll usually notice that in cruise control traversing a steep grade. Without intelligent hill control or adaptive shifts, the transmission will up and downshift constantly, but I believe the 1AR's 6spd auto will finally get that.

That could be part of the reason the 2GR outperforms the 2AZ in real world MPG performance with many Camry owners. It has more than enough power to pull its own weight, and the engine can pretty much be lazy and rev as low as needed.

The FWD I4 Highlander could also be used as a loss leader for Toyota, attracting more buyers into the showroom. That will, of course, depend upon how Toyota prices it.

Price it low enough to attract buyers who may be looking for a large, Toyota crossover/SUV, but do not want something as expensive to buy or to run as the 4Runner. When the buyer comes in looking for the perceived cheap, fuel-efficient Highlander, the salesman can try to sell up, with the sales pitch that for very little extra money ("only $50 more per month!"), the buyer can get a AWD V6, with the bonus that the V6 does not use that much more fuel.


I would guess that the difference would be quite a bit more than $50 but I think you may be more correct than you think. I do think that it fills a void in the lineup in terms of price/payment. People who come in looking at a Highlander in comparison to a GM product may find some sticker shock looking at a v6....whereas a 4 cyl will help "walk" people up to the higher payment and/or just get the sale of the 4 cyl. As for the 4wd question we get quite a few people asking for 2wd Ravs... I'd love to see one.

On another note....I'm surprised that no one has come up with the HV possibility. How'd the public like a 2.7l hybrid Highlander that pumps out 200hp and gets 38-39mpg? Say for $35k? When can I start taking orders for one of those? The 2.7l will give Toyota lots of room to work in the hybrid components without the 4wd and the 7 seats and more room in the engine bay. (not to mention the presumably much better fuel economy than the 3.3l)

On another note....I'm surprised that no one has come up with the HV possibility. How'd the public like a 2.7l hybrid Highlander that pumps out 200hp and gets 38-39mpg? Say for $35k? When can I start taking orders for one of those? The 2.7l will give Toyota lots of room to work in the hybrid components without the 4wd and the 7 seats and more room in the engine bay. (not to mention the presumably much better fuel economy than the 3.3l)

I was just thinking that. Pair the more efficient, latest generation HSD (from the new 2010 Prius) with the 2.7L I4 and the 3.5L V6, and we could have a Highlander Hybrid Lite and Highlander Hybrid Sport. Oh, how I love to dream!

I was just thinking that. Pair the more efficient, latest generation HSD (from the new 2010 Prius) with the 2.7L I4 and the 3.5L V6, and we could have a Highlander Hybrid Lite and Highlander Hybrid Sport. Oh, how I love to dream!
Wouldn't that be nice?? Plenty of torque and superb fuel efficiency.

I was just thinking that. Pair the more efficient, latest generation HSD (from the new 2010 Prius) with the 2.7L I4 and the 3.5L V6, and we could have a Highlander Hybrid Lite and Highlander Hybrid Sport. Oh, how I love to dream!

That sounds so good..... Too bad enthusiasts don't run car companies lol.

The FWD I4 Highlander could also be used as a loss leader for Toyota, attracting more buyers into the showroom. That will, of course, depend upon how Toyota prices it.

Price it low enough to attract buyers who may be looking for a large, Toyota crossover/SUV, but do not want something as expensive to buy or to run as the 4Runner. When the buyer comes in looking for the perceived cheap, fuel-efficient Highlander, the salesman can try to sell up, with the sales pitch that for very little extra money ("only $50 more per month!"), the buyer can get a AWD V6, with the bonus that the V6 does not use that much more fuel.

That's really good reasoning. My aunt just bought a LE Corolla but she was looking at the CE... What you said was exactly what happened. Well I was the one that sold her the LE too because its just so much better.

I was comparing the 2.5L 4GR vs the 2.4L 2AZ vs the 2.5L 2AR MPG (all in passenger cars of similar weight)

I then used the 2GR from the Camry to show it's not far off of the Camry's own 2.4L 2AZ in MPG. Then, I used the MPG numbers from the 2GR equipped Highlander and tried to estimate the 4GR's consumption while also estimating and comparing the 2.7L 1AR's consumption in the Highlander.

Sorry for the confusion. I get a little carried away sometimes.

And remember, the more overworked the engine is (i.e. not having a sufficient torque curve for vehicle weight) will always result in worse real world MPG, especially in hilly or mountainous areas. The reason being is that the engine must stay at a higher RPM to keep the vehicle at speed. You'll usually notice that in cruise control traversing a steep grade. Without intelligent hill control or adaptive shifts, the transmission will up and downshift constantly, but I believe the 1AR's 6spd auto will finally get that.

That could be part of the reason the 2GR outperforms the 2AZ in real world MPG performance with many Camry owners. It has more than enough power to pull its own weight, and the engine can pretty much be lazy and rev as low as needed.

I've been doing a lot of my whoring really late at night, I might have mis-understood, but I understand about torque curves. I'm right in the "lack of power for weight" problem right now with my Gen 1 Highlander. Makes me wonder how the 4cyl guys even drive these things.

I've been doing a lot of my whoring really late at night, I might have mis-understood, but I understand about torque curves. I'm right in the "lack of power for weight" problem right now with my Gen 1 Highlander. Makes me wonder how the 4cyl guys even drive these things.


It's all relative....will a 2.7litre Highlander accelerate faster than a Yaris? Probably and for some people that's more than enough. I know a lot of 50+ people who never see the far side of 100km/h in their cars.

It's all relative....will a 2.7litre Highlander accelerate faster than a Yaris? Probably and for some people that's more than enough. I know a lot of 50+ people who never see the far side of 100km/h in their cars.

I have a feeling not faster than a manual Yaris....

Perhaps instead of the HSD w/ the 2.7L, Toyota will update the HSD in the Camry Hybrid with the new 2.5L 2AR (it'll then be dubbed 2AR-FXE). That would push power a little bit above the 200hp mark while also keeping efficiency, with the newer low-friction engine design, in perspective.

By the way, to further my point on the small V6 thing:

Here's the D-4 2AZ-FSE's curve:
http://toyota.jp/avensissedan/dynamism/engin/image/p02.gif
Peak torque: 169.51lb-ft @ 3900rpm
Fuel consumption: 10.6km/L (Avensis sedan)

Not very impressive. It has a steep drop off after peak torque. That's most likely due to conservative cam profiles and the amount of stroke the engine has (increased piston speed). The 1AZ-FSE has a much flatter curve since it's perfectly square (86 x 86mm).

4GR-FSE:
http://toyota.jp/markx/dynamism/engin/image/01-p02.jpg
Peak torque: 191.62lb-ft @ 3800rpm (+13.04% over the D-4 2AZ)
Fuel consumption: 12.6km/L (Mark X)

V6s belong in SUVs, even small V6s. If the torque curve of the 2.7L 1AR looks as flat as the 4GR's, I'll commend Toyota.

EDIT: Also, take note in the fuel economy. The 2AZ is LESS fuel efficient than a 4GR in a heavier car. The 4GR is nearly 20% more efficient with more weight to lug around AND a rear-wheel drivetrain to spin. Both use the same direct injection technology, D-4, which only utilizes direct injection and not both port and direct. I sincerely hope the new AR engines are tons more efficient than their AZ predecessors.

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. :headbang:

The current V6 FWD Highlander can be had at an MSRP of US$28700. The new 2.7L FWD I'm guessing will arrive at about US$26500.

The Venza 2.7L FWD I think will begin at about US$24500 or about $2000 above the I4 Camry LE and $2000 below the 2.7L FWD Highlander.

The choices for the buying public I think will be ( in order of increasing cost ):
Sportier ( rougher ) ride in the RAV4 with a more basic interior and good room
Sophisticated ( smoother ) ride in the Venza with an upscale interior and good room.
Sophisticated ( smoother ) ride in the Highlander with an upscale interior and lots of room.

The RAV cannot be upgraded IMO because its wheelbase is too short relative to its weight and height so it will always have a bouncier, noisier interior. They have chosen to give the RAV a more basic look and touch in the interior as well. It is in fact the 'entry-level' utility vehicle. It's priced that way, it drives that way, it feels that way..it is what it is. It is not a Camry by any means.

The Venza however can be the Camry utility vehicle where the Highlander is the Avalon utility vehicle.

By far, there are more 2009 Corolla CEs (with a Convenience Package, as evidenced by the body-colour door handles) on the road here in the Toronto area than any other trim level. I cannot remember when I last saw a Canadian LE. I saw an American LE a few weeks ago, but originally thought it was a CE because it had body-coloured door window frames, not the blacked out frames like Canadian LEs do.

I also cannot remember the last time I saw a Gen6 Camry XLE, and even the LE V6 models are few and far between. Camry LE models, of course, are a dime a dozen, and there are even quite a few (surprisingly to me) SE I4 models; the SE V6 models are few and far between. I would say that the Camry Hybrid models outnumber all others except the LE.

I believe that the decision to go with the 1AR I4 engine in the Highlander was due to perception and marketing, and marketing is nothing more than playing with, and playing off, perceptions. The buying public is more likely to believe in lower fuel consumption with a 4-cylinder engine compared to a 6-cylinder engine, regardless of the comparative sizes of 2 available V6 engines. The 4-cylinder engine, after all, has one-third fewer cylinders than a 6-cylinder, so people will think that will naturally make it more fuel efficient. So, marketing plays with that belief, and then as a bonus, they can say that it is a very powerful 4-cylinder engine, comparable in power to V6s from not too long ago. Power and perceived economy -- what more could you ask for?

I don't think that the FWD Highlander will be a sales dud. I don't think that it is AWD or 4WD that sells crossover SUVs these days, rather, it is the higher ride height and the belief that crossovers have more cargo capacity than station wagons (and/or Canadians buy them because there are so few real station wagons available now). People who buy SUVs do not take them off-road and I think that there has been enough years of "AWD is not meant for off-roading" that FWD will sell. Add in the perception that an I4 FWD Highlander will use less fuel than a V6 AWD Highlander (regardless of the size of the V6), and I think that is a good combination.

I don't really know how well the FWD CR-V sells in Canada, but it seems that the base model sells well here (and it is the base model that comes available with FWD), so I can only guess that the base models seen did not come with expensive stand-alone options, such as AWD. What makes it more difficult is Honda's refusal to place trim-level badges on its vehicles.

SUVs have come with 2WD options for a long time now in the USA, but were not as readily available in Canada because of the smaller market. Automakers in Canada can only hope to sell at best one-tenth the number that they sell in the USA, so they tend to offer the models that will sell, and sell at a profit. For larger, more expensive crossovers in Canada, that means AWD or 4WD.


Interesting on how the markets differ. We normally have 40-60 Camrys in stock and 30-40 Corolla's as well.

There are a lot of 2540's ( XLE 4c ) in a variety of trims. Good number of 2554's as well - all loaded.

As regards the Gen10 Corolla we stopped ordering the BASE Corolla ( CE in CA? ) such that now our inventory is 70+% LE's with a few XLE's and S's.

The current V6 FWD Highlander can be had at an MSRP of US$28700. The new 2.7L FWD I'm guessing will arrive at about US$26500.

The Venza 2.7L FWD I think will begin at about US$24500 or about $2000 above the I4 Camry LE and $2000 below the 2.7L FWD Highlander.

The choices for the buying public I think will be ( in order of increasing cost ):
Sportier ( rougher ) ride in the RAV4 with a more basic interior and good room
Sophisticated ( smoother ) ride in the Venza with an upscale interior and good room.
Sophisticated ( smoother ) ride in the Highlander with an upscale interior and lots of room.

The RAV cannot be upgraded IMO because its wheelbase is too short relative to its weight and height so it will always have a bouncier, noisier interior. They have chosen to give the RAV a more basic look and touch in the interior as well. It is in fact the 'entry-level' utility vehicle. It's priced that way, it drives that way, it feels that way..it is what it is. It is not a Camry by any means.

The Venza however can be the Camry utility vehicle where the Highlander is the Avalon utility vehicle.

Yeah I can see them marketing the Venza as a premium crossover vehicle. I guess like the CX-9 but more fuel efficient lol.

Interesting on how the markets differ. We normally have 40-60 Camrys in stock and 30-40 Corolla's as well.

There are a lot of 2540's ( XLE 4c ) in a variety of trims. Good number of 2554's as well - all loaded.

As regards the Gen10 Corolla we stopped ordering the BASE Corolla ( CE in CA? ) such that now our inventory is 70+% LE's with a few XLE's and S's.

Are Corolla inventory is 0 and 2554s is also 0 and down to 1 2546 and down to 2 2540s. We have a good amount of orders for the 4cyl Highlanders already. Markets do differ.

So from the posts above, Canadians enjoy their higher luxury models compared to the US?

So from the posts above, Canadians enjoy their higher luxury models compared to the US?
In small cars its probably true. Some of the most popular cars here are the Honda Civic, Mazda3, and Toyota Corolla. The Civic has topped the numbers game for 10 years or more. So with all of the smaller cars we have on the market there are quite a few sold that aren't the base model but the higher end models. For the Corolla I've seen allot of LE's and S's. Actually I've seen almost as many XRS as I have S. I've seen fewer CE's although there sure were allot on the dealers lot when I went to buy my XRS.

Same with the other models...the Civic and Mazda 3 I see allot of the higher end models.

So from the posts above, Canadians enjoy their higher luxury models compared to the US?

As in any society, we enjoy what we get, and because of the differences between Canada and the USA, we get different choices. It is not that we would not like the choice of lower-featured and lower-priced luxury models, it is simply that we do not get that choice, and most people probably do not realize that fact, and so enjoy what they can get.

Because of the different markets for cars between the USA and Canada, those automakers that realize this fact give Canadians different trim levels or differently-appointed trim levels. The Canadian market demand is much, much smaller, and we tend to prefer smaller, cheaper cars; the Americans tend to prefer larger, more expensive cars.

So, when it comes to sub-compact and compact cars that sell very well in Canada, but not so well in the USA, we may get more trim levels, or at least differently-appointed trim levels. We may get cheap, stripper models that the Americans may not get.

The Corolla compact is a good example of this. The Americans get 5 trim levels (CE, LE, XLE, S and XRS) whereas we only get 4 trim levels (CE, LE, S and XRS); but our Corolla CE actually starts at $14,565, less than the American Corolla CE starting price of $15,350. The American Corolla LE does not match the price nor the features of our LE ($16,750 US and $19,900 Cdn). The Americans see smaller cars as cheap cars, but they also demand higher-level features, so our Corolla CE is likely a stripper model that would not sell in the USA, explaining the lower starting price. (It may also be that our Corolla CE is a loss-leader, used to attract more people to look at Corollas as opposed to Civics or Mazda3s; this is likely the case, because I see a lot of CE models with an optional Convenience Package than I do base CE models.) But because Canadians buy more sub-compact and compact cars -- proportionally -- and the Americans think of sub-compact and compact cars as basic, cheap transportation, we get more features in our Corolla LE than even the American Corolla XLE (we get automatic climate control in our LE, for instance, but the Americans have no such option).

When it comes to larger, more expensive cars, such as mid-size and above, we may get less choice than the Americans. We do not get the Camry base model, nor do we get the XLE I4, for instance (the low-profit, bare-bones base Camry likely would sell in such low numbers here that it would not be profitable for Toyota, so they don't sell it here). The Americans also have a choice of 4 trim levels of the Avalon: XL, Touring, XLS and Limited. We, however, have no choice; we only get the Avalon XLS. When this generation of the Avalon was first introduced, we did get the Touring and XLS, but the Touring trim level was dropped.

There are, of course, models that don't seem to quite fit this easy theory. We get 4 trim levels of the large, expensive Highlander (Base, SR5, Sport and Limited), whereas the Americans only get 3 trim levels (Base, Sport and Limited).

The bottom line is that the American and Canadian markets are different, and some automakers, especially the ones that have Canadian sales headquarters reporting to the American HQ may have an especially difficult time getting the proper mix of models to suit the Canadian market. Mitsubishi found out the hard way, and finally persuaded head office back in Japan that the Canadian sales HQ should report directly to Japan and not the USA. Toyota Canada (sales) also reports to Japan, and not the USA; Toyota's assembly plants here still report to the USA.

If I may add to Sulu's paragraph above, note that because of our smaller market, it's more profitable for Toyota to bundle features together either in trim levels or in option packages. This is also why even if we do get the same numbe rof trim levels as the US-spec car, our option packages are a lot more limited (usually just one package, sometimes two. Three is rare and only on a handful of Toyotas like the Yaris). For example, when the 2004 Prius was launched, the Americans got nine, count 'em, nine packages to choose from in addition to the base model so you could have your Prius in 10 different configs. In Canada, we only got two option packages over the base model. Most other countries also had one or two option packages.


In terms of luxury small cars, the basic transportation still wins. Toyota expects that 70% of the '09 Corolla sales to be CE model, S = 12%, XRS = 2% and LEs = 16%. I do noticed there are more LEs in S. Ontario vs the South Coast. In 3 months, I saw more LEs in Toronto than I do in Vancouver in an entire year. But those that do buy the higher end models do like their luxury and carmakers are starting to see that. We have HIDs as standard on the Mazda3 Sport GT, we have the CSX and even the Corolla LE gets 8-way power driver's seat w/ power lumbar, automatic climate control and smart key, all of which are not available at all on the US-spec Corolla.

From my observation it seems the LE's and "S" Corolla's are the most popular and I think that's what Toyota was banking on. I rarely see the other trim models. It seem almost every new Rolla I see is an "LE" model.