Instead of domestic and import COTY, they started having COTY and SUVOTY. X-Terra won the 2006 award. Can anyone name the previous SUV winners? I can't!
I wonder why MT picked the Envoy (or a sibling) over the Explorer/Mountaineer? The GMs probably had the advantage in the engine department, as their 4.2 inline 6 gets a lot of good press, but the Explorer seemed to have better fit and finish, nicer interior, independent rear suspension, and the ability to have a third row seat without going to an extended version that looked like a bus.
In the end, I remember both of them ended up being a bit of an embarrassment. GM recalled the Envoy & company almost the minute they hit the streets, because of a faulty tie rod, ball joint, or something. And I think the Explorer went through another tire fiasco.
If nothing else though, they were both big improvements over the vehicles they replaced!
was the Envoy/TB the one with failing tie rods or ball joints or something, where the wheel could actually fall off? Good pick, MT! :-P
I think it's all politics: you have to be unique and different and the way to do that is NOT to give your SUVOTY award to the largest-selling vehicle in its segment (the Explorer). Then people just say "well duh!". You have to make a splash with the award.
And the Touareg may be selling slowly now, but I believe it did good things for VW's bottom line for a couple of years. The ones we get here are built in like the Czech Republic or something - I'm not sure how much I want to spend $30-40K on a vehicle built in eastern Europe. :-/
Honda will have its work cut out for it in the next 12 months to keep up with Toyota - it occurred to me that Toyota is going to be VERY busy for a little while. The brand new and much-changed RAV4 arrives in a couple of weeks, the brand new Camry in about four months (including a 4-cyl hybrid version in about 8 months), the brand new Tundra in late summer, and the next gen Highlander near the end of the year.
Compared to this, Honda has ????? I guess the new CRV will be coming this time next year? And Acura will get the new RDX or whatever it is called. And that's it? While the RSX will possibly go bye bye? Having sat in the new Civic and taken it around the block once or twice now, I have no doubt it will beat up Corolla for the next year or so, but in 15 months we will have the all-new Corolla as well. And in most other segments, Toyota may be the one doing the beating up.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I believe it was the lower arm castings that snapped under stress. Had a co-worker of mine that had one snap one morning on a major highway. She was goin probably 70 mph when it happened, luckily slid onto the median without further incident. Truck had something like 15,00 miles if recall. That and a tranny replacement (Something like a sunshell something or other)at 20k were enough for her to trade the vehicle. She was driving a Highlander last I knew, before she left the co. in '02.
it's hard to believe a new Corolla is already on the horizon! My uncle has an '03 Corolla that he bought Memorial Day weekend, 2002 (they had an early launch date, as I recall), and I swear it seems like he just got that car! But it also has around 100,000 miles on it, so it's longer than it seems.
I haven't sat in the '06 Civic yet, but I'd be interested to see how it compares to my uncle's Corolla. My biggest beef with the outgoing Civic was that I just couldn't fit comfortably in it. The Corolla's a bit awkward because with the seat all the way back I can just barely reach the steering wheel, but the pedals are still a bit too close. But move it up to where the steering wheel's a comfy reach, and the pedals might as well be in my crotch! It's almost like you have to be built like an ape, with short legs and long arms, to really get comfy in this car. Passenger seat seemed fine to me, though, and even the back seat isn't that bad.
IMO Civic > Corolla right now, but Toyota has the luxury of seeing what Honda did and can respond.
I actually prefer the Accord to the Camry, but Camry takes the sales crown and again the Toyota is about to get a redesign.
CR-V has been clobbering the RAV4 since 1997, but I think the new RAV4 finally has the goods to take the crown. Let's see how Honda responds, given they have time to evaluate the competition (SF also goes to 3 row seating).
for a few reasons. First, I could fit fine in an Accord, but the front seat of the Camry didn't go back far enough for me. Now this might not have been totally fair, because the Camry didn't have a power seat while the Accord did. And while a power seat won't go back any further, you can still play around with the angle to give yourself more legroom and thigh support.
I also liked the Accord's interior better. Even on the cheap Accords, the interior still seemed nice. But on the cheap Camry, it was enough to make you question what all the fuss is over Toyota versus GM quality.
I wasn't crazy about the style of either one, but I liked the Accord a bit better. Oh, and I liked the fact that the Accord gave you a 5-speed automatic across the board, even with the 4-cyl while you had to make do with a 4-speed on the Camry.
But the Camry has improved. They now have a 5-speed automatic in the 4-cyl range. The interior seems nicer, so either they've upgraded it since 2002 or I'm just not as critical as I once was. And that mild little facelift they gave it for 2005 has really done wonders for it. Especially with the SE model. And I have tried them out with a power seat, and there's enough room there for me.
So at this point, it really would be hard for me to pick between the two. One good thing though, is that it's not like one is a total loser compared to the other, so even the "wrong" choice wouldn't be a disastrous one.
Oh, I will say that I think the Accord coupe blows the Solara away in style. Too bad they don't offer a convertible, like the Solara does.
"Compared to this, Honda has ????? I guess the new CRV will be coming this time next year? And Acura will get the new RDX or whatever it is called. And that's it?"
We gots the Civic, the CR-V, the Fit, the new RDX, and the MDX will be redesigned late in the year.
But Toyota is starting to right some of their wrongs.
It seems they are finally getting into the HP war with Nissan and Honda (IS250/350 and V6 RAV4).
The next Tundra promises to be a real full-size truck.
The RAV4 is a huge improvement and looks to be my new favorite small SUV. Gen 1 and 2 stuck with the cute and sporty paradigm. They lost many customers who were looking for family values like passenger space and cargo capacity. This 3rd gen model finally gets with the program; matching the CR-V and Escape in terms of size and space. But it trumps both with more powerful engines YET it doesn't suck gas. Prices seem expensive, but I'm guessing they're worth it.
Sometimes Toyota really nails a design. Sometimes they don't. But even when they miss, they keep trying and eventually get it right. It often takes a while... 3 generations for the RAV... 2 gens for the IS... 3 gens for a big truck... 3 gens for a minivan.
About the only thing I can give to Honda as an edge is the fact they usually fix their mistakes in 2 putts, not 3.
Envoy actually has an I-6, it's in-line, not vee. The I-5 in the small pickups and the H3 are derived from that straight 6.
Edmunds' RAV4 tester was $32.7k, yikes! And it didn't have a 3rd row seat, so figure about $33.5k for that. OK, it was pretty loaded, but it still didn't have NAV (though it did have a DVD player). NAV could push it in the mid/upper 30s.
I think RAV4 makes more sense as a lightly equipped V6 for mid 20s, and I'm sure most will cost that much or less.
Still gotta give Toyota kudos for pushing the segment that far.
"Envoy actually has an I-6, it's in-line, not vee. The I-5 in the small pickups and the H3 are derived from that straight 6."
DOH. Caught me being a V-ist.
On the RAV4... it's never been cheap. But they've never gotten MSRP for them, either. Not like Honda does with the CR-V. Discounts and incentives have been a given. So the price is likely padded quite a bit. Real world prices will be much lower 6 months after release.
"Compared to this, Honda has ????? I guess the new CRV will be coming this time next year? And Acura will get the new RDX or whatever it is called. And that's it? While the RSX will possibly go bye bye? Having sat in the new Civic and taken it around the block once or twice now, I have no doubt it will beat up Corolla for the next year or so, but in 15 months we will have the all-new Corolla as well. And in most other segments, Toyota may be the one doing the beating up."
Don't forget Honda will have a new Accord September 07 for the 08 model year in the Us even though it is a long time away. Honda has already has released so many products over the past couple years: TSX, TL, Civic, and RL. Yeah Honda will have a new CR-V to go head to head with the RAV 4.
Remember Honda cannot out-Toyota Toyota. Remember they tried to do with the 03 Accord Redesign and it backfired. I know there is lots of pressure at Honda to go head to head with Toyota but Honda has to concentrate on themselves and not what Toyota is doing. I think a sleek Accord styled Sedan could put a scare into Toyota but I don't think Honda's a company to go too far with the styling of their best selling car. Remember Toyota has a more of a complete line-up than Honda does. Honda doesn;t have a competitor to throw at the Highlander or the Avalon.
Honda doesn't have a competitor to throw at the Highlander or the Avalon.
Avalon? No. Highlander? Sure. They've got the Pilot. Actually the current CR-V is nearly as big on the inside and the pilot is bigger. So they've got the Highlander [bracketed].
I agree with you on trying to compete by matching Toyota. Focus more on delivering what the market wants, not what Toyota is offering.
They are jockying for position, but the next Highlander will try to match the Pilot in size, not the other way around. RAV4 moved up to a point where it's nearly as big as the Highlander now. In fact some say the 3rd row is more usefully shaped, even though it's not any bigger.
Wow. We bought our 97 RAV4 back in December 1996. We bought the 2 door 2wd with alloys, dual moonroofs, and power package. MSRP was $21,000. I know this one has more equipment, is larger, and has a V6 but that's in Pilot, Highlander, etc territory. I also know you can get it with the 4 cylinder but I have concerns about a 4 cylinders ability to haul it around with the power we are now used to in today's market.
I didn't mean to imply that Honda should try to "out-Toyota Toyota". Just making some casual remarks about a friendly rivalry between the two. There are many places where Honda does not go head to head with Toyota.
And of course, I forgot to add the Fit in my remarks - for which Toyota's competition will be a 3-door Yaris, with no 5-door for the US (probably because we already have the xA and Matrix here). This might be the other area where Honda will top Toyota, as I suspect the Fit will be more fun to drive and better-equipped at like prices (especially in terms of safety equipment). Plus, my bet is on it to be the fuel economy champ among the two.
And Toyota better milk the new RAV for all it's worth for the next 9 or 10 months, because once the new CRV arrives you can expect the RAV to be the also-ran in the segment. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Very late to this conversation and may repeat what others have said, so forgive me in advance.
In late 1983, I bought a 1984 Toyota Supra. In the 22 years since then, I have shopped Toyota, Honda, Nissan and many others before every car purchase decision. I can't hold a candle to most of the folks over at "Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous", but since the 1984 Toyota Supra, I have ended up with 2 Honda's (1985 Civic, 2002 S2000), 3 Acura's (1987 Integra, 2004 TL 6-speed, 2005 MDX), 1 Nissan (1995 Maxima SE 5-speed), 1 Isuzu (oops - 1996 Trooper) and 1 Porsche (2005 911 S). Zero Toyotas. Zero Lexi.
In my opinion, you practically need a frontal lobotomy before you can conclude that any Toyota/Lexus is "fun to drive" anymore. In terms of driving dynamics, every model I shopped has had more in common with the corresponding Buick than the car I eventually ended up with.
I realize that "driving dynamics" and performance is not at the top of everyones priority list. But in that area of importance to me, Honda/Acura is way ahead of Toyota/Lexus in the categories I shopped. I'd still take a $33k TL 6-speed over a $45k GS300, even if they were the same price. And I'd still take a $32k S2000 over a $62k SC430 for driving enjoyment.
Just my 2 cents, but I think Honda/Acura engineering is 3 rungs up the ladder from Toyota/Lexus engineering as it relates to satisfying someone who actually likes to drive a car rather than ride in it. I'd rather see Honda/Acura exploit that advantage than play a market share war with Toyota/Lexus, the kings of the reliable Buick.
I totally agree with you on this! Like you said, not everyone is a driving enthusiast. But most of us on here are, and Honda/Acura do make the most "fun" cars to drive without a doubt. I'm on my fourth Integra, fourth Prelude and a NSX. They all (have) been a blast to drive!
but at the same time, models like the Accord, CRV, and Pilot lean much more towards transportation appliance than enthusiast's dream. So you also have to recognize that Honda has become perhaps more "Toyota-like" in the last decade in an attempt to gain sales. In the case of the Accord, they have made a transportation appliance a decent driver's car at the same time (although hardly a thrill a minute), but in some of these other cases, that is less evident.
I mean how much of a driver's dream can a 2-ton crossover (Pilot) really be?
Kudos to Honda for keeping sporty interesting models in the line-up (H&A) along with the money-making mainstream models. Toyota decided NOT to do that in the interests of increased profits, and a razz to them for choosing that course.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And as a current owner of an S2000, I would have to agree that Toyo/Lexus has NOTHING that can even equal the satisfaction I get from my S
I'd also agree that Honda has no reason to go the Toyo route. IMO, The Accord has always had more flair than a Camry, Civic has more flair than a Corolla (Even the Corolla S is a patch job at best). Toyo can "Out Luxury" the Honda brand for sure, but not by much and the fun factor of the Honda vs Toyota is a much bigger gap.
For the most part, Toyota builds excellent, quality, reliable cars for the masses who aren't enthusiasts.
Honda build the same for the masses with the enthusiasts flair to boot.
I think this depends very much on which segments you compare. For example, I think the RAV4 has always been more fun to drive than the CR-V. (I prefer the CR-V because of its utility.) The Lexus GS cars have also been more sporty than the RLs.
What I think Honda does better is add a dose of performance to most ordinary (non-sport) cars. For example, the TL is both a bit sporty and a bit luxurious. As are the TSX, Accord, and to some extent the MDX.
Toyota, on the other hand, is starting to build separate models. One to meet the sporty driver and another to satisfy the drivers who prefer lobotomobiles. While Acura offers the TL only, Lexus offers the ES330 and the IS350.
But even Toyo has blundered (again) by not including the stick with the IS350. I know, I know most people don't really drive stick anyways but still... If they want to really compete with BMW, Lexus really needs to step up and offer it as an option. Acura does offer it on the TL while undercutting the both of them by a significant margin.
I wish the TL was RWD but at least it comes with the proper gearbox!
The one thing Toyota does a lot better is sound insulation, even when you're talking Lexus vs. Acura. They tune the cars to be softer and more quiet.
So yes, they're not targeting the enthusiast, and Hondas offer more feedback (exception: overboosted steering) and handle a little more sprightly, at least generally. But they give up some insulation, as most Hondas are relatively noisy.
Since that is a trade-off most enthusiasts make willingly, Honda wins more enthusiast hearts.
In the past, Honda has been all about small cars with good handling, good fuel economy, good ergonomics, nice interiors, and no-nonsense packaging.
As they have stretched their offerings they've sorta given up handling. The Pilot gives up top-notch handling, but provided an enormous interior. The CR-V is similar on a smaller scale. The addition of the V6 to the Accord throws it out of whack. Even so, it's a great V6 (and the I4 models are still quite good for handling). But in each case, the vehicle still offers the same strengths when it comes to fuel economy, ergonomics, interiors, and packaging.
The last gen Civic was really the only vehicle to "go Toyota". And this most recent model seems to be taking it back to what that car was years ago.
In some ways, I think the current Accord tried to "go Toyota", but in a good way. Well, for me at least. There has never been an Accord built, until 2003, that I could fit comfortably in the back seat of. In contrast, I could fit in the back seat of every Camry ever built, even the original 1983.
Traditionally, the Camry was always a bigger car than the Accord, but when the '03 Accord was introduced, that changed. In fact, the Accord now has a larger interior than the Camry (103 cubic feet versus 102), although the trunk is still smaller (something like 14-15 cubic feet, versus 17)
"I wish the TL was RWD but at least it comes with the proper gearbox!"
Couldn't be more in agreement. And speaking of gearboxes, the S2000 was every bit as crisp as my slightly pricier 911S; and the TL was crisper than the 2004 BMW 330i I test drove. Which, in both cases, is saying a lot.
We had a '96 Integra 5-speed manual and an '00 323i 5-speed manual at the same time. For shifting and clutch feel, the Integra was head and shoulders above the BMW.
Acura had a bad month, though. MDX is long in the tooth and the RL is selling inexplicably slow. I can't believe Lexus sells more of the close-in-price ES and the less sporty GS.
is pretty easy to explain. It's just a forgettable car. A wallflower. A competent wallflower, and decent looking, but still just a wallflower.
IMO, Acura's had a problem for years with the TL just being too good of a car compared to the RL. The TL's styling stands out more, IMO and it's at least as roomy inside, at least the way I fit in it. And I believe performance is comparable, too. So in the end, there just doesn't seem to be enough value in the RL to make the jump from the TL.
In contrast, over at Lexus the LS430 makes the ES330 look like the glorified Camry that it is. And there's also a big jump going from an Infiniti G35 to the Q45.
Maybe if Acura didn't do such a good job on the TL, the RL would have seemed like a better car.
they are going to struggle to sell 18K RL's this year? That is even lower than I thought it was. I can't believe the new car is selling less than 1K/month better than the old waffler they had before.
But the bread and butter Hondas must be doing better than they were when this thread was started, because Honda is up 6.2% for the year. Not as good as Nissan, up 11% for the year, but roughly on a par with Toyota (which is up 7-something %, isn't it?)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Acura apparantly counted on SH-AWD to be the distinguishing feature of the RL.
As it turns out, from my "enthusiasts" standpoint, it's an overweight, underpowered, softish handling, slushbox only, blandish styling, unexciting $45k vehicle. Sorry, I wish I could say something more positive about the RL, but it's not the least bit exciting to me. "Very nice" is about the best I can do, in the way I'd compliment something I would never buy.
I think Acura perhaps also made the mistake of thinking that undercutting the pricing of the 8-cylinder BMW 5-series and E500, they would capture some of that market. I think if they wanted to, they could compete at the $50-$60k level with a serious sport sedan. They just need to make the commitment to do it right, not go halfway to nowhere with the RL. It's not as though too many buyers like me would conclude that "I would really like a 540i or 550i 6-speed, but I'd rather save $10k-20k and take an RL." Hell for me, a $33k TL 6-speed was and remains a more appealing alternative to save even more - and is a lot more fun to drive than an RL. As of right now, there is no Japanese car that will get my $ if I want to go to the next level above the TL in a "driver's car".
I know why they aren't selling very well. For one there are simply better deals to be had right now. We were about to get one early Nov. but I just couldn't justify the price gap over the Accord. The RL is an amazing car when it comes to doo-dads and gadgets but when you drive an Accord and an RL back to back, there's no difference in drivng feel. It doesn't go much faster, it doesn't corner any better, and the ride is a little firm. It would make a great $40K car but I think $50K is pushing it a bit.
on the exterior but the interior I didn't like it and the headroom for a 50K car nearly equaled the TL. Even Consumer Reports ranked gave it a lukewarm review. I'm surprised the Lexus GS is selling because alot of magazines didn't like it. Even Consumer Reports didn't like it. They even ranked the RL, Cadillac STS ahead of the GS.
The M45 it looks too boy-racer-ish for a 50K car. I like the prefer the clean lines of the RL or the Mercedes E-Class. The E-Class would probably be the car I would buy in this class but reliability of Mercedes has not been good.
I liked the first M45 that we got to see (rarely) here in the US. I don't really care for the current one. Roofline looks like an Impala and a Legacy got tangled together somehow, and somehow a set of '00-04 Avalon taillights got worked into the mix. And something about the whole style just looks, for lack of a better word, Bangled. It does stick out though. Much more noticeable, for better or worse, than the RL.
I think the Lexus GS350 is the best looking when it comes to this class of car. Smooth, and sleek and expensive looking, it's more noticeable than the RL, but doesn't resort to shock value to get attention like the Infiniti M-.
I'm with you Andre. I actually liked the original (heavily derided) M45. That thing was just plain MEAN looking. Had that 60's muscle car flair to me. From what I read, the handling was average, and the power was intense. Surprised that people like Lemko wouldn't gobble one up. Sounds like it would be right up his alley as far as cars go. Heck, 340hp to the rear wheels, it's a modern day Impala SS! (The good one of course '96).
The new one is nice, in a polished sort of way, but without the attitude of the original.
The original M was a great car - for the 80s. The design was way too dated by the time it got here. I guess some folks like idea of a sleeper Q-ship sedan.
The new one has character, I don't like the tail lights but as a package I'll take it.
The RL is cleaner but maybe a tad boring.
The GS does look great. Plus it's such an improvement over the last generation's CALTY design.
Regarding the M45/M35 - no manual transmission. That's really a requirement in a "sport sedan" for me.
And although I think Infiniti has made progress on the driving dynamics, the styling still looks like it's done by committee. Compared with Acura, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes and other premium brands, too many Infiniti models look like they have a GM infiltrator on that committee. Dumb things like obnoxiously wide chrome around the windows and interiors that look like a jigsaw puzzle of parts instead of a clean integrated look.
Comments
2005 Land Rover LR3
2004 Volkswagen Touareg
2003 Volvo XC90
2002 GMC Envoy
2001 Acura MDX
2000 Nissan Xterra
1999 Lexus RX300
http://motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/suvotywinners/
In the end, I remember both of them ended up being a bit of an embarrassment. GM recalled the Envoy & company almost the minute they hit the streets, because of a faulty tie rod, ball joint, or something. And I think the Explorer went through another tire fiasco.
If nothing else though, they were both big improvements over the vehicles they replaced!
I think it's all politics: you have to be unique and different and the way to do that is NOT to give your SUVOTY award to the largest-selling vehicle in its segment (the Explorer). Then people just say "well duh!". You have to make a splash with the award.
And the Touareg may be selling slowly now, but I believe it did good things for VW's bottom line for a couple of years. The ones we get here are built in like the Czech Republic or something - I'm not sure how much I want to spend $30-40K on a vehicle built in eastern Europe. :-/
Honda will have its work cut out for it in the next 12 months to keep up with Toyota - it occurred to me that Toyota is going to be VERY busy for a little while. The brand new and much-changed RAV4 arrives in a couple of weeks, the brand new Camry in about four months (including a 4-cyl hybrid version in about 8 months), the brand new Tundra in late summer, and the next gen Highlander near the end of the year.
Compared to this, Honda has ????? I guess the new CRV will be coming this time next year? And Acura will get the new RDX or whatever it is called. And that's it? While the RSX will possibly go bye bye? Having sat in the new Civic and taken it around the block once or twice now, I have no doubt it will beat up Corolla for the next year or so, but in 15 months we will have the all-new Corolla as well. And in most other segments, Toyota may be the one doing the beating up.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I haven't sat in the '06 Civic yet, but I'd be interested to see how it compares to my uncle's Corolla. My biggest beef with the outgoing Civic was that I just couldn't fit comfortably in it. The Corolla's a bit awkward because with the seat all the way back I can just barely reach the steering wheel, but the pedals are still a bit too close. But move it up to where the steering wheel's a comfy reach, and the pedals might as well be in my crotch! It's almost like you have to be built like an ape, with short legs and long arms, to really get comfy in this car. Passenger seat seemed fine to me, though, and even the back seat isn't that bad.
I actually prefer the Accord to the Camry, but Camry takes the sales crown and again the Toyota is about to get a redesign.
CR-V has been clobbering the RAV4 since 1997, but I think the new RAV4 finally has the goods to take the crown. Let's see how Honda responds, given they have time to evaluate the competition (SF also goes to 3 row seating).
Competition is great, ain't it?
-juice
I also liked the Accord's interior better. Even on the cheap Accords, the interior still seemed nice. But on the cheap Camry, it was enough to make you question what all the fuss is over Toyota versus GM quality.
I wasn't crazy about the style of either one, but I liked the Accord a bit better. Oh, and I liked the fact that the Accord gave you a 5-speed automatic across the board, even with the 4-cyl while you had to make do with a 4-speed on the Camry.
But the Camry has improved. They now have a 5-speed automatic in the 4-cyl range. The interior seems nicer, so either they've upgraded it since 2002 or I'm just not as critical as I once was. And that mild little facelift they gave it for 2005 has really done wonders for it. Especially with the SE model. And I have tried them out with a power seat, and there's enough room there for me.
So at this point, it really would be hard for me to pick between the two. One good thing though, is that it's not like one is a total loser compared to the other, so even the "wrong" choice wouldn't be a disastrous one.
Oh, I will say that I think the Accord coupe blows the Solara away in style. Too bad they don't offer a convertible, like the Solara does.
We gots the Civic, the CR-V, the Fit, the new RDX, and the MDX will be redesigned late in the year.
But Toyota is starting to right some of their wrongs.
It seems they are finally getting into the HP war with Nissan and Honda (IS250/350 and V6 RAV4).
The next Tundra promises to be a real full-size truck.
The RAV4 is a huge improvement and looks to be my new favorite small SUV. Gen 1 and 2 stuck with the cute and sporty paradigm. They lost many customers who were looking for family values like passenger space and cargo capacity. This 3rd gen model finally gets with the program; matching the CR-V and Escape in terms of size and space. But it trumps both with more powerful engines YET it doesn't suck gas. Prices seem expensive, but I'm guessing they're worth it.
Sometimes Toyota really nails a design. Sometimes they don't. But even when they miss, they keep trying and eventually get it right. It often takes a while... 3 generations for the RAV... 2 gens for the IS... 3 gens for a big truck... 3 gens for a minivan.
About the only thing I can give to Honda as an edge is the fact they usually fix their mistakes in 2 putts, not 3.
Edmunds' RAV4 tester was $32.7k, yikes! And it didn't have a 3rd row seat, so figure about $33.5k for that. OK, it was pretty loaded, but it still didn't have NAV (though it did have a DVD player). NAV could push it in the mid/upper 30s.
I think RAV4 makes more sense as a lightly equipped V6 for mid 20s, and I'm sure most will cost that much or less.
Still gotta give Toyota kudos for pushing the segment that far.
2-3 putts is good. I usually need about 8. :mad:
-juice
DOH. Caught me being a V-ist.
On the RAV4... it's never been cheap. But they've never gotten MSRP for them, either. Not like Honda does with the CR-V. Discounts and incentives have been a given. So the price is likely padded quite a bit. Real world prices will be much lower 6 months after release.
For a while there the wife wanted one, she finally backed off. Great engine/trans but everything else makes me yawn.
At least the Accord V6 offers a manual now, and I believe sportier suspension tuning than the base Accords (right?).
-juice
Don't forget Honda will have a new Accord September 07 for the 08 model year in the Us even though it is a long time away. Honda has already has released so many products over the past couple years: TSX, TL, Civic, and RL. Yeah Honda will have a new CR-V to go head to head with the RAV 4.
Remember Honda cannot out-Toyota Toyota. Remember they tried to do with the 03 Accord Redesign and it backfired. I know there is lots of pressure at Honda to go head to head with Toyota but Honda has to concentrate on themselves and not what Toyota is doing. I think a sleek Accord styled Sedan could put a scare into Toyota but I don't think Honda's a company to go too far with the styling of their best selling car. Remember Toyota has a more of a complete line-up than Honda does. Honda doesn;t have a competitor to throw at the Highlander or the Avalon.
Sport-oriented Accord Sedan EX V-6 is available with a 6-speed manual transmission; features carbon fiber "look" trim and premium audio
All V-6 Coupes and Sedans have revised suspension bushings and damping rates to compliment the upgraded 17" wheel and tire package
Avalon? No. Highlander? Sure. They've got the Pilot. Actually the current CR-V is nearly as big on the inside and the pilot is bigger. So they've got the Highlander [bracketed].
I agree with you on trying to compete by matching Toyota. Focus more on delivering what the market wants, not what Toyota is offering.
-juice
And of course, I forgot to add the Fit in my remarks - for which Toyota's competition will be a 3-door Yaris, with no 5-door for the US (probably because we already have the xA and Matrix here). This might be the other area where Honda will top Toyota, as I suspect the Fit will be more fun to drive and better-equipped at like prices (especially in terms of safety equipment). Plus, my bet is on it to be the fuel economy champ among the two.
And Toyota better milk the new RAV for all it's worth for the next 9 or 10 months, because once the new CRV arrives you can expect the RAV to be the also-ran in the segment. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In late 1983, I bought a 1984 Toyota Supra. In the 22 years since then, I have shopped Toyota, Honda, Nissan and many others before every car purchase decision. I can't hold a candle to most of the folks over at "Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous", but since the 1984 Toyota Supra, I have ended up with 2 Honda's (1985 Civic, 2002 S2000), 3 Acura's (1987 Integra, 2004 TL 6-speed, 2005 MDX), 1 Nissan (1995 Maxima SE 5-speed), 1 Isuzu (oops - 1996 Trooper) and 1 Porsche (2005 911 S). Zero Toyotas. Zero Lexi.
In my opinion, you practically need a frontal lobotomy before you can conclude that any Toyota/Lexus is "fun to drive" anymore. In terms of driving dynamics, every model I shopped has had more in common with the corresponding Buick than the car I eventually ended up with.
I realize that "driving dynamics" and performance is not at the top of everyones priority list. But in that area of importance to me, Honda/Acura is way ahead of Toyota/Lexus in the categories I shopped. I'd still take a $33k TL 6-speed over a $45k GS300, even if they were the same price. And I'd still take a $32k S2000 over a $62k SC430 for driving enjoyment.
Just my 2 cents, but I think Honda/Acura engineering is 3 rungs up the ladder from Toyota/Lexus engineering as it relates to satisfying someone who actually likes to drive a car rather than ride in it. I'd rather see Honda/Acura exploit that advantage than play a market share war with Toyota/Lexus, the kings of the reliable Buick.
I mean how much of a driver's dream can a 2-ton crossover (Pilot) really be?
Kudos to Honda for keeping sporty interesting models in the line-up (H&A) along with the money-making mainstream models. Toyota decided NOT to do that in the interests of increased profits, and a razz to them for choosing that course.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd also agree that Honda has no reason to go the Toyo route. IMO, The Accord has always had more flair than a Camry, Civic has more flair than a Corolla (Even the Corolla S is a patch job at best). Toyo can "Out Luxury" the Honda brand for sure, but not by much and the fun factor of the Honda vs Toyota is a much bigger gap.
For the most part, Toyota builds excellent, quality, reliable cars for the masses who aren't enthusiasts.
Honda build the same for the masses with the enthusiasts flair to boot.
What I think Honda does better is add a dose of performance to most ordinary (non-sport) cars. For example, the TL is both a bit sporty and a bit luxurious. As are the TSX, Accord, and to some extent the MDX.
Toyota, on the other hand, is starting to build separate models. One to meet the sporty driver and another to satisfy the drivers who prefer lobotomobiles. While Acura offers the TL only, Lexus offers the ES330 and the IS350.
I wish the TL was RWD
So yes, they're not targeting the enthusiast, and Hondas offer more feedback (exception: overboosted steering) and handle a little more sprightly, at least generally. But they give up some insulation, as most Hondas are relatively noisy.
Since that is a trade-off most enthusiasts make willingly, Honda wins more enthusiast hearts.
-juice
As they have stretched their offerings they've sorta given up handling. The Pilot gives up top-notch handling, but provided an enormous interior. The CR-V is similar on a smaller scale. The addition of the V6 to the Accord throws it out of whack. Even so, it's a great V6 (and the I4 models are still quite good for handling). But in each case, the vehicle still offers the same strengths when it comes to fuel economy, ergonomics, interiors, and packaging.
The last gen Civic was really the only vehicle to "go Toyota". And this most recent model seems to be taking it back to what that car was years ago.
Traditionally, the Camry was always a bigger car than the Accord, but when the '03 Accord was introduced, that changed. In fact, the Accord now has a larger interior than the Camry (103 cubic feet versus 102), although the trunk is still smaller (something like 14-15 cubic feet, versus 17)
Couldn't be more in agreement. And speaking of gearboxes, the S2000 was every bit as crisp as my slightly pricier 911S; and the TL was crisper than the 2004 BMW 330i I test drove. Which, in both cases, is saying a lot.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/auto/20051201/LATH08601122005-1.html
Image > Product some times.
-juice
IMO, Acura's had a problem for years with the TL just being too good of a car compared to the RL. The TL's styling stands out more, IMO and it's at least as roomy inside, at least the way I fit in it. And I believe performance is comparable, too. So in the end, there just doesn't seem to be enough value in the RL to make the jump from the TL.
In contrast, over at Lexus the LS430 makes the ES330 look like the glorified Camry that it is. And there's also a big jump going from an Infiniti G35 to the Q45.
Maybe if Acura didn't do such a good job on the TL, the RL would have seemed like a better car.
I was hoping SH-AWD would make it stand out more. Maybe it sells better in the snow belt regions?
-juice
But the bread and butter Hondas must be doing better than they were when this thread was started, because Honda is up 6.2% for the year. Not as good as Nissan, up 11% for the year, but roughly on a par with Toyota (which is up 7-something %, isn't it?)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As it turns out, from my "enthusiasts" standpoint, it's an overweight, underpowered, softish handling, slushbox only, blandish styling, unexciting $45k vehicle. Sorry, I wish I could say something more positive about the RL, but it's not the least bit exciting to me. "Very nice" is about the best I can do, in the way I'd compliment something I would never buy.
I think Acura perhaps also made the mistake of thinking that undercutting the pricing of the 8-cylinder BMW 5-series and E500, they would capture some of that market. I think if they wanted to, they could compete at the $50-$60k level with a serious sport sedan. They just need to make the commitment to do it right, not go halfway to nowhere with the RL. It's not as though too many buyers like me would conclude that "I would really like a 540i or 550i 6-speed, but I'd rather save $10k-20k and take an RL." Hell for me, a $33k TL 6-speed was and remains a more appealing alternative to save even more - and is a lot more fun to drive than an RL. As of right now, there is no Japanese car that will get my $ if I want to go to the next level above the TL in a "driver's car".
I wouldn't mind one of those, or an M35x. Infiniti's new cars have a lot of character.
-juice
The M45 it looks too boy-racer-ish for a 50K car. I like the prefer the clean lines of the RL or the Mercedes E-Class. The E-Class would probably be the car I would buy in this class but reliability of Mercedes has not been good.
I think the Lexus GS350 is the best looking when it comes to this class of car. Smooth, and sleek and expensive looking, it's more noticeable than the RL, but doesn't resort to shock value to get attention like the Infiniti M-.
The new one is nice, in a polished sort of way, but without the attitude of the original.
The new one has character, I don't like the tail lights but as a package I'll take it.
The RL is cleaner but maybe a tad boring.
The GS does look great. Plus it's such an improvement over the last generation's CALTY design.
Tough segment! Eh?
-juice
And although I think Infiniti has made progress on the driving dynamics, the styling still looks like it's done by committee. Compared with Acura, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes and other premium brands, too many Infiniti models look like they have a GM infiltrator on that committee. Dumb things like obnoxiously wide chrome around the windows and interiors that look like a jigsaw puzzle of parts instead of a clean integrated look.
-juice
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-image?image=319284/mug_lm-04.jpg
Kinda boy-racer looking, but I