Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
In the US. Good luck getting a comparable MDX for 37,500, wait, you can't. In Canada, isn't the MDX around 50K base or something?
Yes the base Acura MDX prices in Canada are:
MDX 52500 plus freight 1855
TECH 57200 plus 1855
ELITE 62200 plus 1855
(and the C$ is worth more than a US$)
also: vehicle sales were up again in February in Canada
The top ten by sales were:
Feb 2008 and (YTD)Canadian Auto Sales
GM 26309 (52713)
Chrysler 16332 (33168)
Ford 14019 (26727)
Toyota 12776 (22429)
Honda 10632 (21166)
Mazda 5810 (10542)
Hyundai 5326 (9200)
Nissan 4881 (9417)
VW 2331 (4234)
Kia 2195 (4003)
I'm a fan of the VC, especially the interior and those chocolate leather seats, but that number sounds high to me, if we're talking about US dollars.
At fitzmall.com (no-haggle, so these are transaction prices) the median price is $32,182 and the most expensive one is $33,856.
The cheapest one is $25,223, so the average price is well below the median price. I bet it's closer to about $30k or so.
Why change the name at all?
Plus, don't they use BLX for the Saab 9-3 based Caddy in Europe? This might confuse people.
The other question I have is on AWD. I definitely want this - lots of snow here. I haven't found much info on the AWD systems in either car, but saw something that the Outlook doesn't have true AWD. Can anyone comment? I'm coming from a Subaru Impreza which has great AWD.
Thanks,
Michael
I think this was discussed here earlier. I am not sure what you mean by true AWD but the Lambda's have a default torque split front/rear of 90/10 I believe. It does reallocate torque based on wheel spin. I am not sure how much torque can go to the rear however. I would call that true AWD but maybe I don't appreciate subtle differences.
I own an 06 Outback 3.0R and an Enclave. I have noticed that the Enclave seems to have the traction control kick in and to slip a bit more than the Outback but it is not really a fair comparison since the OB has snow tires and the Enclave does not. We have not had a great deal of snow here in MN this winter but we have been very satisfied with the performance of the Enclave in the snow.
Come to think of it, what's left on the dealer lots are the models that did *not* sell.
Still, I think that's a bit high. I'd believe $32k. Maybe you heard the MSRP instead of the transaction price? :confuse:
I think the same thing. My guess would probably be 30k.
Why change the name at all?
That's why I don't think it's replacin the SRX, which was a hot seller, but rather sliding in under it.
This annoying transmission issue is the main reason I decided not to buy an Outlook, or any of the Lambdas. I know it would just bug me day in and day out, so I went with the Mazda CX-9 with AWD, and am very happy with cargo space (better than the Veracruz), and handling capabilities.
Personally, I do believe that the RAV is a bit cheap on the interior. If you are looking for a SUV that is decent in on road conditions, and you need it for light utility, and don't car about brand image or overall quality, go for the RAV. If you want luxury, a nicer ride, more options, go for the RX.
Hey, Juice, you here?!
The RAV4 is a good budget crossover, but I find the interior a noticeable step down from most of this admittedly pricier class. Plus I hate the swinging rear door that opens the wrong way - blocking curb side loading. You also may not be able to open the door if you ever parallel park. It might be OK (to me) if the window opened seperately, but it doesn't. Plus visibility is limited.
For me that was a deal killer. The 2GR V6 is excellent - both powerful and extremely efficient. Plus it's chain-driven so no timing belt changes. In fact I bought that engine, but in a different vehicle.
The AWD system is also not very sophisticated. They basically use open diffs and let the traction control divert power. Believe it or not the RX basically works the same way. If you want a technical explanation head over to a Toyota AWD thread and ask for "wwest" to explain in detail. They stopped using the viscous coupling, even on the RX.
The RAV4 is probably the sportiest of the 3, which may not be saying much, but still. It's very light and the powerful engine really moves it along nicely. I read in C&D that a FWD RAV4 was actually Toyota's quickest car, period. The only problem with that? Torque steer (FWD).
The RX is a lot nicer inside, but it really doesn't feel any bigger. To me it actually feels narrow, for some reason. It's 5" or so longer than the RAV4 on a 2" longer wheelbase. It does have a more user friendly lift gate for the hatch, too. No 3rd row, though. And it's tuned very soft and isolated, which you will either love or hate.
The Highlander falls right in the middle. Nicer interior than the RAV4, not as nice as the RX. Suspension not as soft as the RX but more isolated than the RAV4. Bigger than either. Lift gate. 3rd row doesn't split and was a serious oversight, but perhaps they figure it's not used often anyway.
To me none of them are ideal. I'd want to combine different characteristics from each model.
Give me the RAV4's curb weight, acceleration, and price. Give me the RX's interior materials and lift gate. Give me the Highlander's overall size and nifty 2nd row.
To be honest I'd take my Sienna over any of the 3.
We're now shopping for an economical crossover and once again looked at a RAV4 (4 cylinder), but the visibility issue still creeps up, as does the swinging rear door. We're leaning towards an 09 Forester instead.
Half my street stayed home from work today because of the snow. All types of different vehicles that couldn't get out. And we've already driven over 100km today without incident.
I'm not so mechanically inclined that I can explain the system (I'm sure others here can) but back in late November we tested the other AWD's on our list in some early season snow, and none performed with the same aplomb as the VC.
I have read about the system and it's designer but lots of the tech is lost on me. Just good to know Hyundai has drawn Aces on this one.
You have a very perceptive SOTP impression. Seat of the Pants, for people who have never heard that before.
The Hybrid Highlander is indeed completely different. In fact the rear wheels get electric power only. So instead of an open differential connecting the two axles, the axles are completely independent. If the battery is drained it's basically FWD.
Some in the industry call this a "through the road" AWD system, due to the lack of a connection between the axles. Check out a cut-out of the system next Auto Show you get a chance to attend, it's neat.
I still see a couple of issues, even with the Hybrid Highlander:
* initial price is high (naturally)
* 3rd row still doesn't split-fold
* not as roomy as the larger crop people here seem to love
A neighbor has one and it's pretty nice. She pulled up to drop off my kid from Brownies and it was eerily silent. She backed out, started moving forward and only then did the V6 engine kick in.
I do wish Toyota would have used the 2GR 3.5l V6 in place of the old 3MZ 3.3l V6, since it makes more power and is just as efficient. And Toyota has sorted out this powertrain combination for the hybrid GS, so I was disappointed that they use the older V6. It's also heavier and costlier to produce, so I'm not sure why.
Note that the 3.5l V6 in the cheaper non-hybrid Highlander makes more power than the 3.3l V6 with electric boost combined.
For me, I think I'd wait for a diesel CR-V or Forester before dropping $38 grand on one of those babies. Luxury economy is an oxymoron to me.
The XC60 looks nice.
An XC90 just crashed into my Miata this morning. Damage isn't too bad, at least. She said she never saw me.
This is why visibility is a high priority for me.
Still looks like the HiHY will be our choice though. Hate the solid back row, hate the lack of a memory seat function in such an expensive technological vehicle. Don't need the cargo size given we have the XL for the big trips and appreciate it driving a little smaller so that weakness wasn't fatal.
We are making the choice purely for the Hybrid drivetrain. Sandra likes the idea that the kids know it is Hybrid and the environmental issues that surround it. We get to reduce our carbon footprint by about 2-3 tons annually relative to another CUV and even more relative to our current driving/vehicle arrangements. Bonus is that with gas at $1.16/L or $4.40 USGallon and government tax breaks, and with our driving patterns the monthly combined fuel and lease cost of the Hybrid is less than the regular Highlander. (Limited compared to Limited or similarly equipped base hybrid to SR-5) Plus it is really cool with all the displays and everything.
I wondered about the 3.3l too, but there seems to be the issue that it is more efficient when de-tuned which it was for the Highlander hybrid. The 400h used the same powerplant but had poorer economy than the Highlander despite smaller size because it wasn't detuned. I think the 3.5L does not have those same efficiency gains in lower output/detuned form. IIRC the GS has that engine tuned to a higher power output even than the Sienna or Camry. Maybe that is as detuned as it efficiently gets.
Sorry, while I don't disagree with your statement, I have no idea what point you are making wrt my post.
Depending on the savings on the CPO Outlook you may actually end up with less depreciation. It all depends on the $$. Regarding the transmission - I would ask to drive it for a few hours or overnight. The transmission issues do not seem to be reliability related but rather responsiveness related. If you drive it and like the way it behaves I would not worry about others dissatisfaction with the transmission. If you drive it and it bothers you then walk away.
We have an 08 Enclave and love it.
The cushions are too short, no thigh support for me.
I tried both cloth and leather seats, no go, at least for me.
It also felt heavy for its size. I'd say the new one is smaller inside than the old one yet it weighs a lot more. It does feel more substantial.
I would have tried the Green Line hybrid model, and might be more interested in that one if it weren't a mild hybrid.
You have a 90 or 91, right? I suppose it would not take too much to consider it a total loss. Can you fix it?
Only the fender was damaged, so I don't think that's enough to total it.
To be honest I wouldn't mind if they did, as I'm going to sell it and get a newer used Miata soon anyway.
To bring this back on topic, I wish automakers building crossovers kept visibility in mind, more so than style. The new Murano, Rogue, FX, RAV4, and Outlander all have limited visibility.
It's still driver error - she should have seen me in her right side mirror, probably didn't look.
On a better note, her huge wheels and tires are what hit my car, so her Volvo suffered absolutely no damage. The tire pushed in my fender, and her wheel put a crease in it, but the wheel ended up with only a very small scratch that will buff right out.
So height and sheer size won that battle. My fender is toast.
Okay, I let the first one pass, but I can no longer resist....DUH!
More likely, you are just working on being obtuse. For the benefit of the community I'll play along. Most vehicles don't get their EPA numbers, but that is largely due to driving habits.
Don't buy a hybrid if you drive 30 miles to work every day on the highway, the advantage is seriously reduced. This vehicle will be almost exclusively stop and go city driven which is the hybrid's forte. EPA differential of the regular powertrain and hybrid are about 5l/100km or 10 mpg in that situation. In my structured test drive simulating our usual trips both vehicles logged poorer than posted fuel economy as expected, but the consumption difference remained the same at 5.1L/100km. So for us, for every 1000 kms we drive, we can expect to consume 51 fewer L of gas with the hybrid, or put another way, for every 1000miles driven we'd consume 20 gallons less gas.
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=reviews&crpPage=reviews.jsp&make- id=43&modelid=8378&year=2007&myid=&acode=&mode
at least i got you to practice your math skills. let the kids check it next time.
are you saying you could not get the 18/24 for the highlander or 27/25 for the highlander hybrid?
my sister has a 2005 prius which can approach the old epa highway mileage, but doesn't get close to the epa city mileage. cold weather has a big negative effect based on the computer readout.
As someone else said, it's not a bad vehicle, but for the money, the majority of us would probably agree that there are some better options for the money- like the VC.
In my oppinion, the Highlander is a nice 5 seat CUV (and I like the styling). But if you want to seat seven, I'd say go else where. They did well upgrading everything else, but I think the third row is where Toyota stopped improving. The bench isn't even split.
Of course she didn't
visability is a sportscar? Doesn't seem to work that way too often.
Not to be a downer, I'm sure it will work out great for you, but I think that the Highlander Hybrid is all name and little game. Like you said, you and your wife will be happy because your kids can say that mommy/ daddy drives one of those hybrid thingys. But for me, mpg isn't increased enough and certainly doesn't match the hype. I know what EPA says, but you never really get EPA. Like I said, I'm sure you'll be happy, but I'll stick with with the base model, and save the extra 6-7 grand. It would take years to get that back, unless the lease is really cheaper for a hybrid version. And I thought the government was going to stop giving the tax breaks on hybrids.
Now didn't you say a while back that you were hooked on a BMW 3 series wagon?