Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The HL is 188" long. Guess the size of the Acadia.
Just add a foot.
More a competitor for the Expedition than the HL. :surprise:
The HL was designed to compete with the Pilot, the other heavy hitter in this class.
DrFill
A buyer needing seating for 7 or 8 who doesn't want to step up to a Sequoia or Tahoe or Expedition has a good alernative to a minivan.
So I think the SUV crowd will flock to the Acadia, and the rest will be dispersed between the Veracruz, Highlander, CX-9, the new Pilot, etc. etc. etc. Personally I don't need the room of the Acadia, so the Highlander is perfect. And I really don't think dealers will maintain MSRP for long, since there is so much more competition.
HL looks like a hit. HL and Pilot are neck and neck in sales, and HL will pass it by year's end. More cargo and towing than Pilot. More power and better economy, plus a Hybrid model, and new features Pilot can't match.
Ridgeline or Tundra? That's what I thought.
Even Civic is having problems fighting off a 5-year old Corolla, being outsold rather easily. And a new one comes next year.
Did Gagrice send you over here? :confuse:
DrFill
CR-V: 104,179 (versus 72,054 YTD in 2006)
RAV4: 87,124 (versus 75,015 YTD in 2006)
Pilot: 66,632 (versus 70,746 YTD in 2006)
Highlander: 64,749 (versus 61,357 YTD in 2006)
Back on topic regarding the 2008 Highlander, I drove a Limted 2WD today. I think the smart key, Bluetooth, and power rear door are great new features for my list of "must haves."
The exterior didn't look as large in person as I thought it would be. The 19" wheels give it a muscular look and make the 17" wheels on the base look tiny (ironic since the largest wheels on the 1st gen were 17" and I thought even the 16" wheels looked fine).
I'll definitely investigate having the bodyside moulding installed (but I want to see what it looks like in person first). I'll probably pass on the running boards.
I thought the rims on the Sport and Limited were identical, but the features list on the Toyota web site indicates that they are different. Sure enough, the Sport rims have a dark accent that give them a slightly sportier appearance. The basic design appears to be the same, though.
Inside, I wasn't sure whether I'd be disappointed by the quality of the trim, given some of the other comments. There were a few disapointments -- the door trim has, particularly around the window controls on the rear doors, some cheap-feeling hard plastic. I wasn't sure, but the upper portion of the door trim does not appear to be padded. The center armrest and the compartment it covers also look and feel cheap.
Everything else appears to be step up from the previous model. The leather feels soft and the multi-function display seems larger and more useful in person than I thought it would be. The middle seat in the second row felt fine when I sat in it.
The Limited I drove had a flush, wood-grained lid that covered the aux-in and 12V power outlet. All the pictures I've seen have them, along with the seat heater controls (which my vehicle lacked), exposed. I thought it looks nicer covered and makes the dash seem less cluttered.
Oh yeah...I did drive it. Much more car-like than my 4Runner (obviously), but it does have a slightly more truck-like (maybe heavier?) presence when driving than the previous gen model.
In fact, I hardly remember anything significant about the drive. That's not really a bad thing. Driving the new model felt very natural. Where some would argue that the Highlander (or even Toyotas in general) are boring, I think that's probably the intent of the design.
The RAV is selling at a record pace only limited by lack of production here. When the new 150K unit plant in CA is finished the RAV will go even higher.
The new Highlander looks old?????
Tundra sales have the Big 3 really concerned because it is eating away at the most profitable segment in the market -the retail buyer in the %30-#50K range. The Tundra sales are way way up. And it's big for a reason.
Diesels are an answer for the future but only part of the answer. Honda says that their clean diesel is better than the urea-based technology but it is still vaporware. Then they have the monumental issue of convincing the buying public to switch to diesel. Honda is probably the only one that can do it due to their wealth of goodwill with Mrs Decision-Maker but it won't be an easy task.
Sqeaky-clean hybrid Sienna or diesel Odyssey? Honda's last two forays into advanced technology haven't been their best steps in recent years ( Insight and HAH ). Good engineering poor marketing. Then there is the cost premium for the new diesel technology. GM says it will be in the $4000-$5000 range, Honda may be less, but since it's still vaporware who knows.
That said, diesel has a cost premium over a regular gas engine and it's about on par with the cost premium of a hybrid. Diesels also polute more regardles of the urea injection.
The figure I've heard on Toyota's in general is 75%.
It's the woman who has to be convinced that diesel is every bit as effective as a hybrid, for the same money, with the same availability ( my wife says NO diesel ever until it's in every station in the country ), with the same panache ( HUGE issue ) and same cleanliness.
The bulk of the target demographic is middle America soccer-Mom. It's not male auto enthusiasts. I've done this several times with the buying public: out of the blue ask a woman if she'd like to trade her [ Sienna, Odyssey, Highlander, Pilot ] for a diesel that got 30% better fuel economy? HUH? After encircling herself with garlic to ward off vampires and demons she'll ask, Why?
A lot of education is going to be needed for this to work. But Honda is the one to do it IMO. The buying public ( the woman buyer/decider ) trusts Honda.
I, personally, would wait at least a couple of years before diving into more Accord experiments. If diesel fails on Accord, Honda really can't go anywhere else with a diesel. They're out of the business! :lemon:
Doing a lot, not a little, of customer clinics on diesels, and how to improve the next Accord overall, are necessary before going down this road. Sounds risky to me.
DrFill
The Gender Gap
Big number no matter which one you use.
DrFill
Hybrid numbers have not been released yet, but the previous version was listed at 32/27, and owners are seeing 25-26.
DrFill
What's a faux roof rack? Are you talking about roof racks that lack the cross-rails? While I agree that I don't see the purpose of having them without the rails, Honda also does the same thing with the Odyssey and Pilot.
Appearance is clearly something that's subjective. Personally, I think the CR-V looks great from certain angles, but too round (or bloated) from others. I do agree that the CR-V is selling better in terms of sheer volume than the RAV4. I'm not sure where the others are getting their sales stats from, but I posted the numbers earlier from Toyota and Honda press releases.
Regarding the diesel question, I think one thing not mentioned is the perception some may have of diesel engines of the past. While many of the old traits are no longer true, perceptions can be difficult to change.
As for old diesels, yes, they were awful. However, it was almost 30 years ago when non-turbo diesels (like the Oldsmobiles) were sold in this country. Does anyone even remember?
GM has a bit of an image problem with marginal reliability on their other mid-size SUVs of recent years like the Envoy. Reliability on Yukon, etc, is slightly better but nothing to brag about. Many will buy a Toyota who plan on buying and driving it for 7-10 years vs. leasing it for 3.
As far as HH goes, Toyota's hybrid technology is the best "stop gap" measure for fuel economy in larger vehicles until flex and biodiesel come into their own which will probably take another 5-10 years. Lithium Iion batteries coming (hopefully) for the next Prius could boost fuel economy a further 10-20% which is no laughing matter from a car that is already getting better than 40 mpg around town and a midsize SUV that gets 26.
As far as the hybrid being 'worth it' from a purely financial look at things there are few scenarios where it makes sense if you will own the vehicle for five years or less or put less than 15K miles a year on it. The person who the HH makes the most sense for is the person who will put 12-15K miles a year on the car and keep it for 7-10 years (or longer).
Gas is $3 but it won't be a shocker if it stabilizes at $4. I also think it's optimistic to think that in mixed driving the new ICE Highlander will get 20mpg... probably more like 18mpg.
So let's look at this by the numbers.
EPA gives the 2007 HH an annual fuel cost at 15K miles and $3.05 a gallon of $1761 per year.
EPA gives the 2008 ICE Highlander an annual fuel cost of $2406 a year with the same numbers.
at $600 a year in fuel savings (lets round down) then at about 7.5 yrs you break even on the $4500 premium price of the HH (assuming it is that much).
But now lets say that gas goes up to a $4 gallon average price over the next several years.
All of a sudden the fuel costs jump to a whopping $3157 for the ICE per year (15K miles / 19mpg * $4.0) and they increase to $2307 for the hybrid version (15K miles / 26 mpg * 4.0).
Now with an added fuel cost of $800 a year the HH pays for it's premium price after just 5.625 years and every year after that it's putting money back into your pocket.
At $5 and up it just gets plain silly.
So it all comes down to how confident you are that gas prices will stay at or around $3/gallon for the next few years.
Someone is profiting on higher gas prices, and they, along with the very unstable situation in the Middle East, will not produce more available gas for us. We have shown we'll pay up to $3 without slitting our wrists, so the $1.75 days are over.
DrFill
Same for the Prius.
If anything this tells me that buyers are extremely sensitive to gas prices but seem to think that if gas will stay under $3 a gallon they are more than happy to buy something that will cost them $500 or more extra a year to fill.
My point was that the market has shown that they will tolerate gas prices up to $3. Once over that, radical changes in buying habits occur, and generally hurt the domestics, in particular.
It would be in the Big 3's, and the US governments, best interest to stabilize gas prices under $3, for the sake of the economy and the domestic's well-being.
DrFill
If the worse thing about the RAV4 and Highlander is that Toyota includes a roof rack (which is optional, by the way, on the Highlander base model), then that's a pretty big compliment.
No. Your dealer is quite arrogrant. But, supply and demand will do that. I'm very confident that prices will stabalize very soon given that the CUV field is pretty competitive and the Highlander is a volume product for Toyota.
I agree with you on the headliner. My 4Runner has a similar fuzzy material. Even the Lexus RX uses some sub-par fuzz. I thought the headliner in a Pontiac Montana SV6 I rented was much nicer than what Toyota uses, but that was the only thing that looked like it was of decent quality.
HIDs would be a nice to have (along with LED tails), but they aren't dealbreakers for me. Bluetooth, the rear-view camera, and the smart key are much more important to me.
Mackabee
That's just a fact. SUVs here sell like hot cakes. The MDX that is going for invoice in many areas of the country is still selling here close to sticker.
I'm sure better deals can be had for those who are extremely patient and not picky about colors/options.
It's similar to the discount I got on my 2004 Audi A4 Ultra Sport when those were very hard to get and many dealers wanted full MSRP for them.
If Highlander prices don't come down to earth I might have to consider flying to another city to buy an MDX and drive it back here!
Go test drive the cars, multiple times if necessary. The Highlander is a very nice car but I think that it's priced a bit high for what it delivers. MDX is a "luxo" car that delivers better performance than Highlander for not a whole lot more money (depending on what features you need).
The big appeal to us on the Highlander was the gas mileage and "lower prices" of a comparably equipped Highlander to MDX. The new Highlander is VERY nice but you can see where they cut some things like nicer interior materials, driver seat memory, etc, so that they didn't make the Lexus people mad. For $40K that a Highlander with Nav goes for it should include driver seat memory, HID lights and better interior materials in my opinion. I was very disappointed by the steering response but maybe that was just the car we drove.
If dealers will only sell at sticker though, and you can get a discount on the competitor model the situation changes.
Highlander is still on our short list, and we've got lots of time to make a decision, but at this time I'm leaning more towards MDX.
Direct competitors (mid-sized, car-based SUV) include Pilot, Edge, Murano, Veracruz, and CX-9. These vehicles are of similar size, power, price, and economy.
DrFill
Luxo means nothing but what features a vehicle comes with, as evidenced by the MDX taking sales away from Pilot which is getting seriously long in the tooth.
But as soon as the Highlander prices start plumetting, the $41k Highlander becomes a $36k Highlander near invoice price.