Lexus RX 350 versus Toyota Highlander Limited?
I've been researching the Lexus for a couple of months now. I want a 2009 and even rode in a friends 2008 last week. I liked everything but the front dash. I don't like the navagation system (big square right in the middle of the dash). Anyway I started comparing the RX350 with the Highlander Limited and they don't seem too different, except of course the Lexus is a "step above". I'm wondering if any of you thought about the Highlander before you bought the Lexus? I have also heard the Lexus will be re-tooled in 2010 and look more like the Highlander...shape wise. I appreciate any and all replies. As you can see I'm on the fence! Thanks, Suzq
Tagged:
0
Comments
The RX is getting a full redisign for 2010 so when it comes out we will see more differences but till then if you are debating between the two and $ is a factor, go for the HL but if $ is not an issue then why not go for the RX?
I'm one of those people who has very low miles on their car and keeps a car for many years (5-10) and since this will be my car right before retirement I hopefully will hold on to it for awhile. So my reasons for my choice may not be like others.
I can only hope that Totota comes out with a sweet deal in the next month or so. I'm planning on my purchase in the next 2 months.
Viscous Clutch vs not.....
The '99 & 2000 F/awd RX300's had a VC and actually relied on it for partial, rubber-bandish, locking of the otherwise full open center diff'l. By '01 VSC and TC were added to the RX300 thereby, with TC, making the VC virtually non-functional. Although marketing contended otherwise the VC was dropped altogether for the entire RX330 model run. The RX350 is supposed to have a VC but none of the Lexus shop/repair manuals indicate so.
If you read the factory information on TC it will be pretty obvious that a VC would be pretty much non-functional even if installed.
But for the 2010 the RX center diff'l is being dropped in favor of an automatic PART-TIME engagement of rear drive using an electric clutch as is used in the new Venza and in past years in the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner.
The seats in the 08 and 09 Highlander Limited I would say are as good and the Lexus as they now adjust to make the seat cushion longer. This was one of the things I was looking for as my 06 Highlander seats and distance from the pedals and my back did not get along on trips over 45 min.
BIG DIFFERENCE. The top-3 problems with our RX300 are : turning radius, cargo space, and flakiness of (lights, driver's visor, cup holders atop console.)
CARGO SPACE IS ROTTEN ON THE RX300. We have gone camping 10x times. It's just tiny enough that our 7-year old kids have to put up with sleeping bags under their feet and/or a cooler on the floor between them !! When they turn 10 we're gonna be OUT OF LUCK !! My wife often has a backpack and/or paper bag under her legs in the front seat, or both !! And this is with the rear of the car PACKED with stuff, and we have a tiny tent, you can only fit 3 full-sized cardboard boxes in the rear of the car before you're in trouble !! I would love to have the ~7 cu ft extra cargo space in the Highlander !!
If you camp with a family, STAY AWAY from the RX300, RX330, RX350, and RX400 series of cars !! STAY AWAY !! This is the greatest flaw in the RX3/4 series of cars ...
(FWIW, there are great deals on Suburbans and trailers right now.
Personally, I really like the smaller size RX300, but it's not for everyone. It's a little more spacious than I normally need, and I appreciate a car that's more nimble than any of these. I value the RX's features that "spoil" my tastes like the much better sunroof, etc. I've gone camping with many different cars, but I usually take the motorhome when I need that much stuff. I've even camped out of the RX and slept inside. The load floor is flat and long, a Toyota wagon trademark it seems. So I've never ran out of room in the RX; never even used the roof rails I took off when I first bought the car new.
The Highlander may share a common platform, but it's not the same as an RX, and I'm sure that's by design. The Lexus models have some really nice useful features that become endearing which are not available on cars like the HL. Little things that I use everyday, like the auto up and auto down on all windows and moonroof simultaneously remotely or activated inside and (via the lock) outside, to name one of many little tricks. I do miss the little extras when I'm not driving the RX. The newer RX's have many other tricks, too. But if you prefer a lower price and a little bit more cargo space and are annoyed by extra gadgets and don't care about things like an obviously better stereo with stock subwoofer, I can understand how the HL would be a better fit for you.
If you need that much more cargo space than the RX provides, you may run out with the HL, too. If that happened to me, I'd look at minivans, which can hold lots more, and attain about as high MPG. But the RX is roomier than expected, and in no way cramped, even for larger people.
I guess the Venza (with it's standard direct-injected 4 cylinder) is not even enough space??
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f21ebcd!make=Toyota&model=Highland- - er&ed_makeindex=.f21ebcd
stop beating a dead horse...
In the general case once you are "in motion" there is NO requirement for both front and rear drive. Most true 4WD owners will tell you that it is HIGHLY inadviseable, even DANGEROUS, to have both front and rear drives engaged when/once in motion.
I can see that you have wast theoretical knowledge about AWD but it worth zilch to me. I'm not a Toyota transmission engineer to go over AWD design implementation, it's shortcomings and advantages. Toyota doesn't engineer and manufacture vehicles that are "DANGEROUS" too drive (at list no one was able to get any credible proof too this date). You'll have very hard time finding a second Gen Highlander owner being unhappy with it's AWD performance under severe weather conditions. You on the contrary never bothered to drive the vehicle and trying to prove that it has inferior design based purely on your own theoretical conclusions. Real life experience proves you wrong! Read here:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f21ebcd/21!make=Toyota&model=Highlander&e- - - - - - - d_makeindex=.f21ebcd
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f21ebcd/21!make=Toyota&model=Highlander&e- d_makeindex=.f21ebcd
Thanks!
Other than the up-pricing due to the upscale features, heated/memory/leather seats, HID headlamps, etc, etc, just what are the differences???
3rd row seating and the F/awd system.
You either need or want that third row, so question answered.
I do find myself puzzled that Toyota has used, adopted the new, more functional F/awd system across the product line with the sole exception of the HL. I fully expected that as of the new model year the HL would also be so equipped.
Maybe we can get someone from Toyota to chime in and tell us why the HL is being left out in the cold...?
So, nuff said, bye.
Hi again wwest - Would you expand on the improved Toyota system. Is it in the RX/ 4Runner /RAV4/Toyota trucks but not the '10/'11 HL? Interested in purchasing a Lexus RX or Toyota crossover this year. Thanks.
What's your opinion on the Honda Pilot and CR-V? Any idea if Honda/Acura is going to upgrade their somewhat dated 5 speed automatic transmission?
Care of wording must be exerted here, as one should realize that even as above ALL four wheels are still getting EQUAL torque. It's just that for the wheel(s) remaining with traction the torque is now so low that no motion results.
The "legacy" technique, TC(TDC IMMHO) technique, that was in use, moderately (ABS "style" "pulse" moderation) brakes the slipping wheel(s) to simulate traction. But that could easily result in over-heating of the brake components so the engine was always dethrottled just as quickly.
While that proved to be satisfactory in some cases, maybe even most, there was enough public outcry about one serious shortcoming that it was addressed via adding a manual TC(TDC) disable feature.
Basically this legacy system was a REACTIVE, after-the-fact, F/awd system. Prior to a wheelspin/slip the system was, by default, a ONE-WHEEL drive system.
The new systems are "pre-emptive", "before-the-fact"...! So, has Toyota found a way to predict the future..."
Not at all.
The new system engages the rear drive capability in situations that are most likely to result in loss of traction on the primary drive wheels, the FRONT wheels.
That is:
A) During acceleration from a stop or from a relatively low speed, below 25 MPH. The higher the acceleration level, the more engine torque will be routed, coupled, to the rear.
With a R/awd system one might simply reduce the torque coupling level to the front, entirely so if the need should arise, a tight accelerating turn, for instance.
F/awd systems have a HARD, non-modulateable, front drive coupling. So all torque re-apportionment, F/R torque re-apportionment, must be toward the rear drive.
The obvious shortcoming of this new pre-emptive F/awd system is that unless the roadbed happens to be slippery enough to not incur driveline windup and/or tire scrubbing/hopping the driveline components might be subject to premature failures.
Your can see that in the long history of the use of this new F/awd design approach in the Ford Escape and Mariner, and more recently in the Acura MDX VTM-4 system. Both fraught with failures historically.
IMMHO the proper design approach would have been to have these new systems default to "reactive" mode but allow the driver to manually switch into "pre-emptive" mode when roadbed conditions are recognizably. In either case should the system not encounter a "slip" condition within a given time period or # of miles it would automatically switch back into reactive mode.
The Ford AeroStar R/awd system runs by default with 30/70 torque distribution. When wheelspin/slip occurs it automatically switches into 50/50 F/R torque delivery mode. It will UNCONDITIONALLY switch back in 50/50 mode in 3-4 minutes. The if wheelspin/slip repeats.....
Boy, you sure live in fantasyland.
Why do you think the public outcry was so "loud" and widespread that most "ONE-WHEEL" F/awd manufacturers have added a TDC "off" funtion...?
My impression re big differences:
The HL seats 7 (third row is somewhat cramped, but it's there); the RX350: seats 5. The HL has more clearance from the ground; the RX 350 is not really meant for off-road use - more aimed at comfort & safe driving. On the HL we tested, with less money we could have gotten the NAV system. But the HL ride was quite noisy (almost as much as my 4Runner) and a little bouncy. Also, the labelling on some of the controls and the quality of the chrome pieces on the HL Limited were not up-to-par. The SE trim level didnt suffer the chrome pieces, but you lost some of the options.
The real clincher for us was absolutely top-notch quality of material used and design on the RX 350 and the ride was super-quiet and cushioned. The interior quality on the RX 350 is several grades above the HL.
Once we test-drove the RX350, we could not bring ourselves to settle for the HL. Have had the RX350 for 4 days now and we just simply love it! If you are down to these two, then test-drive both, in close succession, if possible.
Good luck!
F/awd, R/AWD, RWD, these are all about SAFETY, SAFE on-road driving but in adverse or wintertime surface conditions.
The few who are interested in off-road have their own choices to make....4WD/4X4, etc.
The "world" was perfectly satisfied with the state of affairs until the switch was made to FWD, FWD market dominance.
Either way, a longer test drive is a good idea before buying.
Thanks
And I do NOT mean the availability of a mostly useless 4X4 mode.
Both of the vehicles you mention are primarily FWD vehicles with only PART-TIME. AUTOMATIC PART-TIME "awd" systems.
I would suggest you consider the base Porsche Cayenne, R/awd, instead, especially if you are in an area of harsh wintertime road conditions.
Decidedly more safe than ANY F/awd system, inclusive of even the best of the best, the SH-AWD system.
The notion that r/awd are better than f/awd is false. Without traction aids, any type of awd system (regardless if its fwd based or rwd based) with three open different are really one-wheel drive. A f/awd vehicle with traction aids (e.g. diff lockers, limited slip diff, etc.) will perform better than a r/awd with open differentials.
"..As long as traction/friction is equal..."
Exactly....!
But just since when is that of any real matter with the wintertime adverse roadbed conditions for which many (most?) of us purchase AWD systems...?
It's when traction is NOT equal, or so extremely low that EQUAL matters not, that the need for a TRUE AWD system, a R/awd, arises.
"..power always wants to go to the wheel with less resistance.."
Yes, and that results, directly, in the engine output torque level dropping to ZILCH.
"...Hence..."
TC braking, the method used to re-apportion engine torque to wheels other than the one(s) having lost traction will only be, can ONLY be AUTOMATICALLY activated AFTER, POST the initial wheelspin/slip event.
Should that initial wheelspin/slip event happen to occur at the front (a F/awd virtual CERTAINTY IMO) then the driver, at this instant in time, has lost directional control of the vehicle. Obviously that would not be the case with a rear biased, R/awd, system.
"..The notion that R/awd are better than F/awd is false.."
Absolutely NOT..!!!!
Modern day R/awd systems automatically reduce or completely CUT engine torque to the front drive at times of expected need to dedicate more front traction coefficienct for the use of lateral control. Those times are pretty much restricted to turning or correction of direction if the need arises.
Modern day F/awd systems operate in the inverse of that. Under low speed acceleration engine torque is automatically re-apportioned to the rear in to make optimal/best use of ALL available roadbed traction. On the other hand, if turning, turning tightly, or accelerating into a turn, F/awd systems will attempt to more heavily BIAS the engine torque to the rear in order to allot more roadbed traction to the front for lateral control, maintaining directional control of the vehicle.
With F/awd, make the turn a tad too tight, or accelerate a bit too hard into a turn, and VSC will activate pre-emptively. VSC will activate since absent doing so the system has predicted a HIGH probability of not enough front traction being available to support the maneuver the driver wishes. The result will be FULL engine dethrottling. To regain control over the throttle the accelerator pedal must first be fully released.
With an otherwise equivalent R/awd vehicle and in the same above circumstance the front traction coefficient WOULD BE, in the worse case, TOTALLY dedicated to maintaining or asserting directional control. Should the system judge, compute, that to much lateral force is required at the rear for the current maneuver, and the driver does not quickly react on their own via cranking in the appropriate level of counter-steering, the same result would occur. The engine would instantly be fully dethrottled.
Oh, and finally, is there a F/awd system manufacturer, even inclusive of the SH-AWD system, that does not advise that the system is FRONT TORQUE BIASED...??