Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2010 Toyota Avalon

2456789

Comments

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    New "avalon" = Toyota "GS350".
  • "Toyota GS-350". I have to ask the question a 2nd time. Why would I want to buy an Avalon replacement that cost $10K more and gets 10% less mileage?
  • geo123geo123 Posts: 33
    Could it be a version of this?

    http://www.toyota.com/concept-vehicles/crown.html

    I am holding on to my XLS 2000 anxiously awaiting the 2009 replacement to see if I want to stay with the Avalon or go elsewhere. Have received excellent service from the 2000 and looking for about the same type car to replace in a 2010. I am also considering a Lexus but like the extra interior room in the Avalon. Of course, the 460 Lexus is available, but that is more than I want to spend. So the bottom line is, I am hoping and waiting for a new version Avalon with luxury, intenior room, dependability, and new style with quality body side molding.

    Thanks,

    George
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    My answer is...

    What is the price, ratio, for/between a stripped down Camry vs a bottom priced Lexus ES350..??

    While I have doubts about a Toyota "GS350" ever getting fitted with a 4 cylinder it is clearly a possibility. A RWD (maybe even a R/AWD option) with an Atkinson/West cycle (***) DFI 4 cylinder engine mated with a 6 (9) speed automatic just might take the market by storm.

    *** HIGHLY FE Atkinson cycle (low torque, relatively) mode ONLY when the lockup clutch is engaged. Or maybe even at WOT when the cylinders are getting a FULL charge and therefore the Atkinson cycle mode will produce a decent level of torque AND still be highly FE.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    If you're considering a Lexus then the GS350 might be a perfect fit. The GS350 is RWD so there is also a bit of an additional safety factor involved. But for best FE be sure and get the GS350 with the DFI V6 engine.
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    Well a few hundred more miles and I have some other things I'd like to see on the next Avalon. Some maybe on the Limited but aren't on the Touring model. So if they are available on the LImited, then maybe I'll have to upgrade:)

    Earlier post:

    - Side Coin tray
    - Better roof liner (seems so cheap when sliding out of the way)

    New:

    - Side lights for when you are turning and have the blinker on.
    - Fan Speed control on steering wheel. If you are trying to make it convenient then it's one of the only controls not on the wheel.

    Skip
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    Hi folks. This might be hard to answer unless you've had both or tried both out well, but is there a difference in the ride between the Touring model (which is no longer made) and the Limited Avalon, and if so, what is the difference?

    On a scale of 1-10 softer or harder?
    On a scale of 1-10 more comfortable or less or can't tell the difference?

    Are the extras worth it?

    - Navigation system?
    - Seats?
    - Radio?

    Skip
  • The Touring model is history, no longer being offered by Toyota. A more firm ride compared to the Limited, not unlike the Touring model of my last Buick Park Avenue. The GS350 provides a similar feel as the Toyota Avalon Touring. A bit more sporty.
    My 2005 Avalon with 60,000 miles continues to amaze me with its fine smooth, quiet ride. If you want to compare an Avalon Limited to a Lexus sedan, the ES350 is to small, the GS to firm. The LS460 comes closest to the Avy. Now I'm talking size and feel on the road. As to price, the Limited stacks up against the ES350. If you're into a sporty ride stay with the Lexus GS, however, it cost much more than a Limited. The LS is totally above my budget. For what I want in a solid near luxury level vehicle, the Avalon Limited is number one.
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    The one thing I'd love to have is a quiet car.

    I purchased a Touring Sedan a few weeks ago, and LOVE the car. I just wish at 7- 80 MPH, it was quieter. The wind noise around the windows is a bit more then I'd like. This is the case, with most cars I tried.

    At slower speeds the all seems fine. I guess I'll just have to drive slower (closer to the speed limited) from now on.

    I didn't get a change to try the Buick Enclave out, but I'm told it's the quietest vehicle going?

    Skip
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    in New England? What have folks found they like and why?

    I'm looking at the Bridgestone Blizzak, any thoughts on these? I had Dunlop Grasspics on the Camry and they seemed good.

    Skip
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Lubricate the door and window seals, lightly, very lightly, with a silicon base grease, NAPA Sil-Glyde is what I use.

    For the most driving comfort and quietness I aways run on summer only tires, Bridgestone Turanzas, specifically. It doesn't hurt to pressure wash the interior of the wheel well, liner, and then spray a can of undercoat into each wheelwell for sound insulation/deadening.
  • Hi

    I just had Blizzak WS-60's fitted to my 2007 Avalon XLS, one MASSIVE difference.
    Love the tyres, got them at firestone for 113 each, they had no 215/55/17's so they put on 225/55/17's, gives a real good ride.

    Very happy with them, I would suggest these for snow/ice.

    Cheers

    Sheldon
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    I went with the Blizzak WS-60's as well, and I hate them!

    - They ARE very smooth …
    - They ARE very quiet …
    - They RIDE real nice … but

    They suck in light snow, deep snow, ice … in my opinion of course.

    I drive in any kind of weather (salesman), and I need, want something I feel comfortable in. Something is it starts to snow and I've got 100 miles until I get home, I can drive safely, comfortably and without changing my driving style to much.

    I'm fine slowing down and being carful, but with these tires, I DON'T get that feeling.

    I have had to backdown and turn around twice so far on small hills, as I couldn't go forward anymore because of the spinning.

    I think I purchased these looking at the wrong things, i.e., smooth, quiet, road noise …

    I'm giving these tires one more snow storm, and if it's no better, I'm going to get something a bunch more aggressive - maybe even studded, and learn to live with the road noise, and ride in leu of safety and control.

    Skip

    PS I have been driving for 30 years, and most of them as an on the road salesman, and all of those years in Northern New England, and yes, ALL of those years accident feel, so to those who might be thinking, this guy just doesn't know - I think I do.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Hmmmm....

    30 years if driving in Northern New England and you don't yet know that there is NO tire, "bare" tire, that gives you a feeling of safety...??!!

    There is NO tire, NONE, that will provide a reasonable, comfortable and safe level of traction on an icy, slippery, packed snow, or ICE covered roadbed, most especially in a patently UNSAFE FWD vehicle.

    Yes, the extra weight over those front wheels due to the engine being in front will yield improved traction, DRIVE traction vs RWD, but now you, or the ABS/TC/VSC/EBD/BA ECU, must figure out how to apportion that traction between "drive" (leading or lagging {inadvertent compression braking} drive), and/or lateral, directional control. Much easier "computation" if "drive" is restricted to, or primarily to, the rear wheels, allocating most, or even ALL of the front tires' traction coefficient to the front, stearing, wheels/tires.

    Drive a Honda or Acura with SH-AWD for an understanding and STRONG feeling of safety with a properly designed drive system even with a sideways mounted engine/transaxle.

    Yes, learn to live with the NOISE and speed limitation, <25MPH, but of quickly and easily installing and removing tire chains. Don't contribute to the destruction of our roadbeds with studs, studs that MUST remain on, the clear majority of the time, even on a DRY roadbed.

    Speaking as one who has been driving around for over a week now in a F/AWD '01 RX300 with tire chains on ALL 4 wheels. Almost 2 feet of snow here at home.

    A White Christmas is not so nice if the family/guests cannot arrive.
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    Hmmmm…

    I would not agree. I had Dunlop Grasppics on my Camry, and they were MUCH better. I read several reports from owners of the Blizzaks and they seemed to speak very higher of the tire, and all conditions?

    I have also had many other snow tires in the past, that I felt MUCH more comfortable with. Many that didn't cause me to change my driving habits as the weather changed.

    Now I'm wondering, if I would have enjoyed the Audi A6 AWD better, at least during the winter time.

    I'm glad I purchased the Avalon, and feel I made the right decision at the time, and in the long haul. I'm sure the Avalon will have a much better re-sell value and a much small COO (Cost of ownership) over the next few years.

    Skip
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    most especially in a patently UNSAFE FWD vehicle

    I have noticed in several other forums you always refer to FWD as unsafe. I have owned both RWD and FWD and find both have advantages. However, I have never felt unsafe in any conditions with a FWD vehicle. Are these your conclusions or is there an article somewhere that I can read up on it?

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • I, too, would like to read any information available about "patently unsafe FWD" vehicles. There must be some things I am missing.
  • nimiminimimi Posts: 249
    Wwest has some sort of affinity for RWD. He believes that ANYTHING (FWD, AWD, 4WD, treads) is inferior to RWD and, therefore, unsafe. I cannot understand how he can say this. I just returned over Snoqualmie and, as usual, there are RWD's that get stuck, spin out, hit the snow embankment, etc. If they are inherently superior to any other type of drive, why are they always the ones causing slowdowns and backups any time anything white appears in the skies of Seattle?

    After driving RWD's for 30 years and FWD's for the last 17 years, FWD is vastly superior to RWD in terms of both safety and handling.
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    If FWD was "inherently unsafe' there wouldn't be any "Big 3" or "Big 2 1/2" to discuss saving or bailing out today. The lawyers would have sued them into oblivion a long time ago.l
  • Interesting

    I've never had snow tyres before so cannot speak as to where these sit on the "snow tyre league".
    We have had some rather large snow storms down here in Utah and all I know is going through snow before the plows have had a chance as well as going on slick roads after the fact, these Blizzaks have offered a good amount of grip.
    I was sliding down hills the week before on my stock Michellin AS tyres but now have no problem climbing the same hill as long as my foot is under control on the gas.
    I purchased the WS-60's after reading a lot of reviews in comparison to other snow tyres and after not wanting studded tyres.
    They have received some impressive reviews and so far have offered me very good grip on icey roads, wet roads and snow covered roads.

    I would not count myself as any form of authority on this though as I said these are my first set of snow tyres and chose to go for what was getting the best reviews.

    You may be in an area with driving conditions that are far more sever to what I have to face here daily though.

    Let us know what tyres you end up sticking witgh that you find work best for you.

    Thanks

    Sheldon
  • nceencee Posts: 419
    I might not be happy with the snow tires I've purchased, but I too, would not agree with RWD being better then FWD. But I would also add, that I am fine with either, and in all cases, I have just made sure to have snow tires that I liked, and that woreked for me on each car.

    I have owned several front wheel drive (the last 10 cars) and MANY more RWD cars. My favorite car so far, was my 1972 Cutless Supreme, with 4 studded snow tires! That car would and did go anywhere, and I felt very comfortable driving it at all times.

    Now I should point out, I was a bunch younger, and likely to be a bunch crazier, and shiit bothered me a whole hell of a lot less then it does now. I will say, all of the Pontiac Catalina's were great in the snow, but again, I likely had studded tires on them, and I was younger. Those cars were nice and heavy, which I'm sure had a lot to do with how well they went in the snow (if I remember correctly:) )

    Skip
  • Does anyone have any advice for me. I'm going to buy my 2nd Avalon next week. I purchased a 2001 Avalon, traded it for a 2006 Camry and have always wanted my Avalon back. Next week I am going to get a 2009 Avalon. Any advice from someone who has a 2009 as to what amenities I need to look for. The only two must haves for me are leather seats and 6 cyl engine.
  • If your only must haves are truly leather and a V-6, you can get an XL Avalon with leather interior (heated seats) for around $30K.

    A dealer may tell you that leather is not available in the XL, but it is out there as a "Distributor Installed Option". My dealer got one with my color choice in two days.

    The XL has enough bells and whistles to make a very nice car with the addition of leather. I am very pleased with mine, and the price was right.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "he believes that ANYTHING (FWD, AWD, 4WD, treads) is inferior.."

    A bit of a BROAD BRUSH, that.

    What I believe is that ANY vehicle that has the PRIMARY drive on the same wheels as those providing "stearage", directional control, is PATENTLY UNSAFE on adverse, slippery, low traction, roadbed conditions.

    That MIGHT include AWD vehicles if they would more properly be referred to as F/AWD, as many vhicles with "sideways" front mounted engines should be. The sole exception being the SH-AWD system.

    4WD....If that means having a LOCKED center diff'l as it offen does then yes, those can also turn quickly hazardous, unsafe, on an adverse roadbed. You may note that most modern day 4WD & 4X4 vehicles automatically DISABLE all ABS/VSC/TC/EBD/BA functionality when the center diff' is locked. These features have functionality and capabilities FAR beyond those of us mere mortals and therefore there can be NO human substitute insofar as safety is concerned..

    When the rotation rate of the front and rear wheels are locked together in this manner those features cannot be made functional and might even operate to your detriment if enabled.

    And ANY 4WD or 4X4 owner/driver that doesn't know/understand that the center diff'l shouldn't be left locked once "underway" simply has (unknowingly..??) a death wish.
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    In my experience distributor - aftermarket - leather is not of the same quality as that supplied by the factory; and is usually overpriced.

    Step up to the XLS. Factory leather is standard and you will have all the whistles & bells you need for very little additional money.

    Another thought. 09 is aparently the last year for this body style, and info on the 2010 Avalons should be appearing shortly. Might be smart to wait a couple of months & see what's new.
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,926
    One thing I have noticed after recently switching to RWD is that it seems my previous
    FWD vehicles handled better in crosswinds. The RWD seems to be more subject to being buffeted around more.

    Maybe FWD has more weight over the front steering tires and that helps. Just my own personal experience after going from an Acura RL to a Lexus LS.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Our LS400's '91, '92(2), and a '95, are the most stable, quiet, and comfortably riding cars I have ever driven. One of the '92's and the '91 have air suspension, now that's COMFORT...!!!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    'affinity' might be an understatement -, 'obsession' might be better as far as wwest is concerned.
    The point concerning the drive wheels also doing the steering - and the problems that creates such with Torque steer (especially with these newer high HP engines) , engine braking, and the natural weight imbalance that usually comes with FWD vehicles are., however, valid points. BUT, the primary advantage that he seemingly wants to dismiss, is exactly what you mention - traction on those slippery nasty roads.
    Many years ago, some of the better cars that would successfully allow you to navigate on really bad roads were the VW bug and some Saabs - RWD and rear engined cars - WHY - better traction from the weight over the drive wheels. You could get places that the front engined RWD cars at the time couldn't dream of, which then begs the real issue - what is safer, that RWD sedan you mention that gets you stuck (or even worse refuses to move (because of the traction/stability control systems )), or that FWD sedan that at least gets you where you want to go?

    Given the relative abilities of today's driver (a real problem) - and their lack of experience with any kind of RWD cars, it is clear that FWD cars are definitely the better choice, especially in parts of the country that do see snow covered/icy roads frequently. Unless, of course, we all want to start putting sandbags in our trunks again ;) For my part, I 'd be willing to bet - that any driver in an Avalon, will be able to get to more places more safely than he/she could in, let's say, a Chrysler 300
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Just take a detailed look at the overall operating dynamics of the SH-AWD system if you wish to understand, take advantage of, both FWD featrues and RWD features.

    Speaking of those early VW's that were a favorite of my USAF buddies in the late fifties in NH, look how long it has taken Porsche to "tame" their rear engine rear wheel drive 911's. Good aspect: rear engine RWD. Bad, BAD aspect: rear engine RWD....!!

    Once the rear of that VW started to inadvertently (intentional being quite another matter) "come about" there was NO recovery possible, as was the case for the 911.

    Yes, the automotive industry would like nothing more than for the public to continue drinking their Cool Aid, FWD Cool Aid.

    Oh, modern day TC, Traction Control, implementations on a RWD or R/AWD vehicle is a LOT more beniegn, less driver intrusive, than ANY modern day FWD or F/AWD implementation. Wheelspin/slip due to too much engine torque at the rear driven wheels is a lot less life threatening than the "same" event on the front "driven" wheels.

    But NO driver with a decent level of experience or training would/should have need, continuous need, of ANY TC system other than as an early warning of adverse roadbed conditions.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    While torque stear in a FWD can be a problem, IS a problem at times, it was or is not a serious or primary consideration in my denegration of FWD and F/AWD vehicle. Torque stear CANNOT raise its ugly head unless one has a fairly high traction coefficient with the roadbed.

    My concern of/about FWD & F/AWD is primarily about the greater potential for loss of directional control due to engine torque, leading or lagging.
Sign In or Register to comment.