Toyota Highlander

cmuniz

Cliffy1 - Thanks for the great info. Sorry to drag you into this, but I thought that getting the right info would reduce the amount of chatter about who's right and who's wrong. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

glmartin56

Just talked to local dealer service manager about the 15,000 mile checkup and he informed me that tranny fluid change was now part of it due to a factory recommendation...does this mean waiting until 30K is a bad thing?

15K check-up cost is $200...does that sound expensive to you all?

wwest

Until 30k is a BAD thing. Waiting until 100K is a GOOD thing.

Seriously, if the dealer wants to do anything more that what's recommended in the owner's manual under non-rough service then ask him to have the factory pay for it since it wasn't an expense you planned for upon purchasing the vehicle.

By my book 15k should cost about $50.

scanner

Since I base my own maintenance schedule on the clock, I'd personally recommend changing the transmission fluid every 2 to 3 years. It all depends on your driving habits and how long you expect to keep the vehicle. At least check the fluid often to keep an eye on its condition.

http://www.autosite.com/garage/repairqa/ques123.asp

nippononly

Dealers love to add lots of extra things to their "routine maintenance" services to make extra money. But you only need to do what the manual says.

If they have made some mid-model change in the maintenance schedule (this is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) you will be able to confirm this by e-mailing Toyota itself. Hey, maybe you should ask the service manager where you are taking yours to produce a copy of the letter from "the factory" showing that this has been changed!

BTW, I know this apples and oranges, but I could not find a routine transmission fluid change in the schedule for my new Matrix anywhere before 100K.

tommyg12

In my 2001 maintenance schedule a trans fluid change is never recommended under "normal" conditions. Actually, the first part of the manual even states that changing the trans fluid is not recommended unless following a "severe" schedule.

Want a laugh? One of my local dealers has developed their own maintenance guide. 13.5K miles is considered a "major" service. The service includes all fluids, air filter, "top engine" cleaning (whatever that is), fuel filter, fuel injector cleaning, the all important glove box and gas door lubrication, along with a million different checks and inspections (oh yeah, a brake fluid flush also).

I hope that no one actually buys this service. It makes me shiver to think about all of the perfectly good fluids that are being wasted.

mrmelody

I am buying a Highlander this week. A mechanic friend recommended getting the 4x2 instead of the V6, not only for the money but also reliability. I don't mind paying a little more for the V6, but this makes me rethink. Can somebody give me some input? Thanks. MrMelody

wwest

Incomprehensible!

If you're not planning on towing or often traveling in mountenous terrain then the 4 cyl will be fine. The AWD model is worthless so stick with the 2WD with VSC.

nippononly

is not worthless if you live in the snow belt, or if you are going to regularly take it to the snow.

But if you are going to get AWD, you HAVE to get the V-6 in this model. This adds almost 300 pounds to the weight and it is pretty challenged already with the 4-cyl.

Reliability should be excellent - this is one of the infamous sludge engines, but it has an enormously long warranty (8 years) from Toyota, and if you are buying new, they have already changed the design to fix this anyway. And except for this issue, this V-6 has been doing stellar service for a long time.

runpanther

Anyone else receive. Specific 2001 and 2002 Highlander ORVR Valve Breather Hose Clamp Safety Recall Notice.

Apparently in crash tests there is a potential of the breather hose to break causing the clamps to come in contact with the fuel tank which can result in fuel leakage.

gwkiser

Yes, we received the recall for our '01. In and out at the dealer in about 1 1/2 hrs., including an oil change.

gwkiser

I suppose that there's two ways to look at it. Personally, we went with the 4x2 V6 as I prefer to have the extra power available for highway passing and the like. For the extra $1500 (approx.) intial cost over the I4, spread out over the time you'll keep it, I think it's worth the expenditure. EPA figures are about 2-3 mpg less for the V6. I'm not sure how new the I-4 design is, but the V6 in the HL was/is the first application of a new engine design which is now incorporated in the Avalon and Camry, and, IMHO, should prove to be the dominate engine of the near future within the Toyota lines. Regarding reliability, since you are purchasing an '02 model (or possibly an '03), most if not all of the issues the early purchasers faced should be resolved by now. OTOH, perhaps your mechanic friend knows more that we do. Any chance you could ask him his concerns regarding the V6?
Bottom line, my advice would be to consider the primary use you'll have for the HL and buy the engine which best suits that need. I4 = mostly in-town driving. V6 = mostly highway and/or frequent towing or heavy loads.
Finally, I would recommend that you purchase the "tow PREP" option, as this provides additional cooling for the engine and transmission, a higher capacity alternator, and pre-wiring for a trailer. For the $160 extra, this is a very good deal. (Bear in mind that the PREP is everything EXCEPT the hitch itself).

Hey Cliffy....
Did I misspeak? Care to toss in your thoughts??

pdalpsher

I've got a V6 FWD non-limited '01 with tow prep. I love it. It has been one of the hottest summers on record where I live with 30+ days in a row with 90+ degrees and 85+ humidity. I ran the A/C non-stop all season and still got 21+ mpg with day-to-day driving. With the 4 cyl Camry I used to have A/C put a big drag on performance and mileage. The newest 4 cyl probably would be better but the HL is a wee bit larger than the current Camry. For the type of driving I do the 4 cyl would have given me 2-3 more mpg. For the 12,000 miles I've driven, at 21 mpg vs 24 mpg at $1.25/gal is additional gas cost of $89. The V6 is sweet to drive, well worth the slightly higher cost.

mrmelody

Thanks everyone for your valuable feedbacks. I originally leaned towards the V6 for several reasons, especially about using the A/C in the summer as noted by pdalpsher. I mostly use this SUV to and from work, but occasionally drive to the Bay Area from Orange County where I would have to climb at least 4000 miles near Magic Mountain, and I think that is where I will feel the dragging, especially with A/C on. I also started to ski a couple of years ago, and will need to climb some distance. With all of your wonderful remarks, I am more confident to spend the extra bucks for the V6. I will have to chat some more with my friend who's a transmission expert (He owns a transmission shop). He seems to be skeptical about Toyota's V6 engine.

pdalpsher

and Toyota extended the warranty coverage for the original design. Just take care to get your oil changed regularly. My engine is the original and I did an oil analysis that opened my eyes about the quality of oil that the dealer uses. With my next change, I'll get an analysis of another brand to see if it is doing better at the 3k mark. I do think the newer engines are less forgiving of 'forgetting' to get the oil changed. There is an archived message board that Toyota particpated in that deals with sludge, take a look at that to get a better perspective. The number of engines with problems was small but the ability of folks to gripe (even when they didn't own one of these cars) and the initial errors in customer relations magnified the issue into a bigger deal than it needed to be.

wwest

The RX and the HL are AWD in name only, they do not have anything close to a functional AWD system. In my opinion you want to avoid the extra cost of AWD, but especially so if you expect to encounter ice and snow conditions this winter.

The FWD (w/VSC) version will give just as good service at a cheaper price and you won't need the extra HP of the V6 to haul that useless extra AWD weight around.

fortek

Last time I checked my 4WD was functional. We all know that this is not an off-road system. It was never designed to go where other more complex systems can play. I expect to encounter ice and snow this winter during trips to Vermont and bought the 4WD system for this very reason. If you expect me to believe a FWD (w/VSC) will out perform an 4WD system in snow or ice, it's not gunna happen. I've been in other SUV's (no AWD) with so called traction systems and none were able to get up our ice and snow covered driveway at our ski house. I had to transfer all their gear into the HL and take it up the driveway myself. It always comes down to what you use the vehicle for. For some the FWD (w/VSC) will work fine, for others like myself 4WD does the trick. We can all appreciate your comments on the pros and cons of our 4WD system being discussed in the "Highlander 4WD" message board, but to basically tell everyone who bought a V6 4WD they made a mistake in thinking it's not "functional" or "useless" is not a responsible statement.

wwest

I recognize that maybe one of the strange things about me is I am sometimes maybe too willing to admit my mistakes, and sometimes even take on some of the responsibility for the mistakes of others.

I try to direct my comments to those that are thinking of buying, but regrettably those of you that have already bought get to see them also.

What I have tried to say is that the FWD RX or HL will give just as adequate performance in ANY condition as one with an attached AWD label. That label on the HL & the RX is virtually meaningless.

They do deliver about 5, maybe 10, percent of the torque to the rear wheels but if the front wheels lose traction there will never be enough torque delivered to the rear wheels to get the vehicle moving forward from a standing start.

I have proven that to be true on both a 00 AWD RX300 and an 01 AWD RX300. And I have put the 01 on a 4 wheel dyno to verify my own findings.

I have never seen the MB demonstration of the ML capabilities versus the RX, and when I first heard of it I disbelieved it because I had a great deal of faith that Lexus would not sell me a "pig in a poke". After a couple of minor instances when my 00 RX didn't quite act right I began to doubt. That's when I did my initial testing.

I traded up to the 01 because it appeared to me on reading the operational description and listening to the salesman that with the adoption of VSC and Trac that the Trac system was simuliar. to the ML, the RX would automatically brake a slipping wheel and thereby force engine torque distribution to wheels with traction remaining.

It doesn't.

But the VSC aspect does seem to work and work well.

If you do get to see the ML versus RX demonstration you will see what I mean, no trickery is involved.

macmac

I have a 2001 4x2 V6 with Towing Prep Package.The package gives you a upgraded radiator, transmission oil cooler, 130-amp alternator and other stuff. The highlander is fine crossover SUV. I also drive up to the SF Bay area from L.A. Going over the mountain with the A/C running, 4 adults and luggage seems like a breeze. I can't even feel or hear the engine shift when going up the mountains.
I now have 34,000 miles on my HL and the engine still feels brand new. I only use Mobil 1 Synthtic oil and change every 5,000 miles.

fortek

While I read your comments in the Toyota 4WD message board with great interest it still doesn't convince me that "FWD will give just as adequate performance in ANY condition as one with an attached AWD label". Your 4 wheel dyno pull may have produced the results you wanted using your own self-described "artificial conditions", but this doesn't translate to my real world experiences with the HL. To suggest that "if the front wheels lose traction there will never be enough torque deliver to the rear wheels to get the vehicle forward from a standing start" misses the point that the system is constantly changing torque distribution based on the available traction. When I encounter a situation like this I don't just give up on the first sign of slippage nor does the AWD system.

jacser

Any idea when the '03s will appear at the showrooms?

cfu000

cliffy1,

>> Holdback is an amount that is part of the invoice which we are refunded at the
>> end of each quarter.
>> Financial reserve is similar to holdback. The difference is, this money is set aside to
>> assist the dealership in paying its floorplan interest.

Thanks for the explanation, yet I am a little bit confused. I think the purpose of
holdback IS to cover the interests paid for the car by dealer, as described in
edmunds' "What is Dealer Holdback?", so what is Financial reserve for?

wwest

My test was done with the front wheels raised completely off the ground on a good sturdy roller jack. The RX made no "motion" to move forward with the engine up to 2000 RPM and the rear wheels planted firmly on asphalt blocked by a 2X10 cut to about a 5% "grade".

In retrospect it was probably a damn foolish thing to do, and please no one else even come near trying this for themselves, but I held a torque wrench on one rear wheel with the other blocked from turning (with all four wheels elevated) while my wife ran the RPM up. about 70 ft lbs was were it topped out at 2000 RPM.

Obviously I had already confirmed the likely results before I did that. I had blocked both rear wheels with light pine 1X2s which I could hear creaking as the RPM went up but there was not enough torque to the rear to shear either of those.

If someone can tell me why Trac didn't kick in and break my arm, or worse, I'm listening.

brad_22

I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I applaud the way you've tested the Highlander/RX300 for yourself. I love my highlander, but some of the offroading I've tried supports your findings.

Haven't tried it in the snow, yet, though. : )

fortek

wwest
I commend you on trying to assimilate a loss of traction at the front wheels, however I would contend that the test is flawed. The HL's AWD system uses variation in wheel speed to produce a change in the (VC)viscous coupling's fluid and subsuquent change in the normal 50/50 torque split. Since the front wheels are off the ground they are spinning at the same speed. You haven't introduced a variation in the speed between these wheels to affect a change at the VC. I'm surprise you didn't damage your transmission or VC. I'm by no means an expert on these systems, but years of experience racing an AWD Talon in rally competition with basically the same system (AWD, 50/50 split, VC) as the HL has shown how effective AWD vs FWD can be. The AWD class was consistently faster than the FWD class, and we were always helping the cars w/FWD who happen to venture too far off course and got stuck. I hate to beat a dead horse, but to say that AWD is "non-functional" and "virtually useless" compared to FWD is baseless when comparing your test to the substantial body of literature that says otherwise and IMHO my own "real world experiences".

wwest

The VC in the HL and the RX is mounted across the center diff'l, BETWEEN the front driveline and the rear driveline. Both front wheels were turning "with" the engine RPM while the rear wheels were stalled. Just how much more turbulence can you put in the viscous fluid to get it to stiffen up?

I'm not questioning whether the RX300's AWD system could be made to work or not. What I am saying is that the formulation of the viscous fluid in the RX was specifically selected such that the vehicle could be ethically marketed as AWD without incurring the cost of de-coupling the VC during heavy braking as is done by more adequate, competitive, VC designs.

fortek

I thought the whole point of your experiment was to find out if the AWD system could be made to work or not...? Your original discussion never mentioned anything about the formulation of the viscous fluid in a vehicle marketed as AWD.. etc. etc. I'm not talking about that or more adequate, competitive, VC designs, MB vs RX, it's HL FWD vs AWD. Now I know the horse is dead, but I'll kick it one more time... "vitually useless" is what your experiment shows. Have at it wwest, I'll end my post concerning this subject and move on.

tidester

...but years of experience racing an AWD Talon in rally competition with basically the same system (AWD, 50/50 split, VC) as the HL has shown how effective AWD vs FWD can be.

I can personally attest to that!

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

wwest

Originally I became concerned that the RX AWD system was not all that it was "touted" to be. So I sat out to find out for myself. Once I had performed my own "shade tree" testing I then wanted to know why. That led me to look into the details of VC design, construction, etc.

New subject: Now I have no idea how this part is implemented but the RX/HL AWD does not have anything close to a 50/50 F/R torque split. To the best that could be measured on the dyno, it starts out at about 90/10 F/R and under extreme "duress" the VC will "stiffen" and allocate about 25 to 30% to the rear.

I suspect that it might have something to do with the different final drive ratio for the front vs the rear.

sportsterer

here on the windward side of the big island of hawaii, where it can rain almost a hundred inches a year and the roads are often awash in liquid sunshine, our experience with the awesome awd v6 green bomb has been that its almost impossible to bust it loose or get it to fishtail, at a speed suitable for the conditions. this is one extremely stable machine!

cmuniz

wwest - I have read your comments over and over again and don't dispute your "scientific" results. However, there seems to be a big disconnect with drivers' actual, real-life experiences. That leads me to believe your tests or conclusions are flawed. I live in the mountains and deal with snow all the time. I have never had a situation where the HL has not performed like I expect from an AWD vehicle. Your emphasis seems to be on the torque that is transfered to the rear expressed as a percentage of the available torque. I think that misses the point. You only need enough torque to get the wheels moving on ice or snow. That may not require much. In fact, in some cases, less is better to prevent wheel spin in the first place. Many vehicles, including the HL, have a snow mode that actually starts the vehicle in a higher gear to reduce torque and thus wheel spin. I am not a technical person so I can't disagree with any of your arguments, but my real life experience (and other) does not support your conclusions for some reason. Therefore, I think it is a shame that you are trying to discourage prospective new owners from buying a new AWD HL when the actual owners seem to be very satisfied with them in wet and snow driving conditions.

wwest

Hawaii first. living here in the Seattle area as I do I often drive in rain, and oil, soaked streets also. Personally I have no idea why anyone would think an AWD discussion would be somehow pertinent to these conditions. Maybe, if you believe in jackrabbit starts.

In the conditions you describe I've never found either a FWD or RWD vehicle to be of any problem for getting around provided you're willing to excercise a little conservatism in your driving style.

cmuniz: The idea is to have enough traction to get about 4000 lbs moving in a reasonable fashion without having the engine torque overcome that which is available. I will willingly grant you that once it's moving the RX AWD system will almost always appear to be adequate, but then so would most FWD or RWD vehicles.

I think you would agree that the more evenly the engine torque is distributed over the available roadbed traction devices the more likely you are to be able to make that initial "move".

My testing has shown that the native torque distribution is nowhere near "even". And don't we then have to ask ourselves, "Hey, this is a Lexus, why are we being short-changed?"

And, just why are we being short-changed, is the rear driveline and systems not capable, sturdy enough, for handling 50% of the engine torque?

Even part-time?

I'd almost be willing to bet the issue was initially time-to-market. Had Toyota, in 97(?) had a low cost AWD system "off-the-shelf" that was in the class of the one in the Chrysler T&C I have no doubt that it would have been used. But what they did have (or way to quickly designed)was a cheap workaround that could be marketed as AWD, maybe with nobody ever the wiser.

wwest

Mis-spoke, sorry.

Still feel the same way about Toyota though.

sportsterer

you "personally" have no idea why an AWD discussion is pertinent to rainy conditions? you have been discussing the relative effectiveness of the Highlander's AWD system, mr. west, 4 driving wheels versus 2, and it sounds like you cant tell the difference.

wwest

When it comes to driving (normally, not "boy-racer" style) a RWD(,FWD) versus a rear(,front) torque biased AWD, good, bad or indifferent, in a heavy rain, through standing water, or oil and water slicked streets I'd be hard pressed to guess which is which if I didn't know beforehand.

But, put me in a non-offroad circumstance wherein AWD is really needed and I'll be glad to give you an evaluation of the drive type and system capability within about a hundred yard long S-curve.

And if you like I'll even take the time to teach you why a rear torque biased AWD or 4WD is safer and nore capable overall than any front torque biased AWD or 4WD(are there any of these, front torque biased 4WD?).

jwfjwf

It occurred to me that if we can conjure up some topics that are generally exclusive to HLs, we make be able to get past the AWD obsession of some self-annointed Lexus owners. After all, a HL is not a Lexus.

What about it? If we began talking about Highlanders, it could make some folks slide right off this message board road. In a couple of months, someone undoubtedly will want a re-hashing of the esoteric dynamics of Lexus AWD, and at that point, I will kindly volunteer to call a wrecker.

(Okay, I can dream.)

wwest

It is generally understood that the RX shares it's entire AWD design and structure with it's junior sibling, the HL. So in that regard most of what is said about the RX AWD system also applies to the HL. Same goes for the lack of reasonable clearance between the rear tires and the rear suspension.

And I would strongly suspect taht the HL and the RX share the very same VSC/Trac/ABS firmware and hardware.

nippononly

HL's AWD system is 90% front, 10% rear normally, then it has to direct some more torque to the back if it detects slippage, which takes significant time with slipping wheels, although milliseconds in the real world.

And also, is that Talon AWD thing pertinent? Didn't that car have an old-style center viscous coupling so that it was essentially running 50% front 50% rear all the time, and then shifting power AWAY from the slipping wheels?

Either way, I would think that the AWD HL would be an improvement over the 2WD w/ VSC, in any situation where traction to move forward were needed, because all the VSC does is slow down slipping wheels, which means that in that icy driveway scenario, VSC will just kill power to those slipping front wheels, and the car will not move!

m4eth

I've been reading the most recent verbage on the HL AWD system and its seems that some folks are neglecting the basic premise behind the HL's AWD system...it's designed for ON-ROAD conditions not OFF-ROAD. If you want OFF-ROAD racing machine then get a Subaru AWD...if you want basic transportation for the majority of folks who read this message board and especially who puchased a Highlander/Lexus that involves ON-ROAD driving conditions (rain, snow, dry pavement)you must keep this in mind...the HL is not a JEEP...Subaru...LandRover nor Hummer. Its basic design is from a car designed for typical highway driving conditions! See Canadian Driver.com for review of HL in snow conditons.

tombuchta

I've read most all posts on this group from its start...and Ive not heard or read of anyone being anything other than happy with the AWD performance of the HL.

Personally I have got 40,000+ miles and two winters driving here in Salt Lake area in a AWD HL. Although I didnt really want the AWD for milage reasons initially, I can tell you the AWD makes a BIG difference over FWD in the real world, on snow and ice (Have a FWD Camry). In fact the only times I've broken loose the rear wheels on packed snow is going too fast around corners....

fortek

Tried to read most of the 6000+ posts but didn't find an question/answer to the following (apologize if it's been covered before). When I bought our HL, the dealer installed our transferred plates to the front and rear. Here in NJ we are required to have front plates. I recently got personalized plates and when I went to install them found out that someone, either the factory, or the dealer just used two large self tapping sheet metal screws right thru the plastic front bumper. Is this the preferred method, does Toyota make a proper front bracket? Now the threads are stripped by an over zealous person who initially installed the plates. I have three options... tap two more holes, see if any members have a suggestion, or the least appealing is going back to the dealership and hearing "that's the way all of the plates are installed" Thanks in advance for your help

alirob

I just received the recall notice for my 2002 HL regarding the repositioning of the ORVR valve breather hose clamp.
Has anyone had this procedure performed yet? Any problems. How long did it take?

farfegnugen

Keep in mind, that wwest has admitted in the RX topic that he has pretty much never driven his RX300 in the snow (even light snow) in the real world, for fear that it will get stuck. Therefore all of his "AWD is useless" comments are based on almost 100% therotical and not real world experiences, unlike many owners here. Keep this in mind when you read those sorts of comments. I laughed when I read the part about being "too willing to admit my mistakes". He has never admitted his error that the BMW X5 has no Bi-Xenon headlamps, despite what X5 owners have said. Again, 100% therotical (based on an error on BMWUSA's homepage) and ignoring what real life owners repeated said. Of course this is someone who believes that a 35/65% RWD-bias AWD vehicle is more neutral than a 50/50 AWD split vehicle such as the Talon, once again, based on therotical assumptions and not real world experiences. Seeing a pattern here? ;-)

While the HL or RX's AWD systems aren't as good as the MB M-class' or other vehicles on the market, it will certainly get you moving far better in snow than a FWD vehicle.

tidester

...he has pretty much never driven his RX300 in the snow (even light snow) in the real world...

Are there other places to drive in snow besides the real world? :-)

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

farfegnugen

Wwest will tell you that it's like driving on a dyno in a shop ;-) It's darn curious how all of the Highlanders and RX300s manage to make it up to the Cascade mountain passes in the WA state area during the winter with their "useless" AWD systems. Maybe they were towed up there by Chrysler T&Cs or X5's.

wwest

Not too many years ago now in the dead of winter we were headed north out of Denver through Wyoming and on up into MT. At the Wyoming border the interstate was blocked by a state patrolman and he allowed no one to proceed, unconditionally, who did not have snow chains installed. We drove our Ford station wagon all the way up through Wyoming with a set of tire chains installed.

Cascade mountain passes. For about ten years or more our DOT has been CLOSING the mountain passes during the times they need to be cleared, while the snow plows were out. Prior to that if you couldn't install chains you weren't allowed to proceed. In those days a few people made out quite well renting tire chains, installed, both directions.

I don't think any RX or HL has been around when there was a need to travel over one of our Cascade mountain passes that hadn't already been "cleared" by DOT.

Many, many times I have seen motorists with FWD cars become really irate that the Oregon State patrol would not allow them to proceed to the Ski mountain with snow chains on the front.

Two feet of snow in Buffalo in 24 hours.

No, that doesn't happen here.

It snows about 6 to 8 inches on Sunday. Monday the sun comes out and melts the "top" which of course promptly refreezes the following night. On Tuesday we get another 5 or 6 inches of snow in the morning which by afternoon has turned to freezing rain. On Wednesday we have another warming trend and then on Thursday we arise to find a beautiful snow covered landscape with huge flakes still falling. Etc, etc.

Seattle is a lot like Memphis in that we don't get this kind of extreme weather very often so none of the city/county governments can justify the purchase of a high volume of snow removal equipment, unlike say, Buffalo, NY. Most people just stay put in these conditions and wait it out.

By the following Sunday we start to hear of building roofs collapsing due to the accumulated weight. So my wife tells me we had better tool up and get ourselves into Redmond and check our own building.

What we have out there is a layer of "black" ice on the pavement down at the bottom, then a layer of pacific boiler-plate (Cascade skiers will understand) about 5 inches thick, another layer of ice, etc, all the way up above the axles of a 1992 Jeep Cherokee Limited.

Can I get the Jeep moving in 2WD? Didn't even try.

In AWD with rear chains? NO!
In AWD with front AND rear chains? NO!
In 4WD with 4 Chains? Yes, we're finally on our way. Can I shift back to AWD once we're out on a more travelled roadbed? Yes, as long as I don't have to "restart" in a non-broken trail area.

That's just a few of my "real-world" experiences, and yes, none of them involved an RX300 nor an HL. Now for those of you that don't like the conclusions I draw from my own "real-world" experiences and my knowledge of the comparative shortcomings of the RX AWD, frankly my dears, I don't give a damn.

I'm writing this for those in the audience that know that 2+2 equals 4, and for those of you that simply cannot accept that, I wish you the best of luck, sincerely.

X5 bi-xenons.

I took my information from the BMW internet site and when someone posted that the site didn't indicate bi-xenon I went back and checked and verified that indeed it did, and in quite great detail. Now, I agree that several posters has said that it does not, but which shall I believe?

If you insist that I make some sort of admission in this regard the admission I will gladly make is that I don't have any firm idea, really, who is correct, BMW or the posters who claim that it does not. If I were still asked to chose I would chose BMW.

nippononly

I think even most owners (and Toyota) will agree that HL and RX are not supposed to be truly hard core, off into the woods across virgin snow, deep in the woods and it snowed three feet last night, cars. They are suitable for travelling on roads that are alreay tracked by other vehicles, or perhaps by plowed roads onto which it is snowing, or perhaps icy. For these conditions and for wet rainy roads the AWD on this and any other model out there is more than adequate. AND it will get you past the chain police, here in CA, except under the most severe conditions.

vinod_s3

...for the 2003 model years. However for the '02 model years, they're ready to offer at a little over invoice price. The best offer I got so far on the '03 model year is $27,000(invoice $24,600) for the FWD V6 base model.
Do you guys think the '02 buy would be a good deal for invoice price(24,600) ?

tombuchta

So based on your "real life" experience you could legitimately say that AWD does not give you the traction of 4wd with chains, and no one would disagree with you!

But to say you believe that AWD is no better than FWD is dishonest on your part and a disservice to folks who might read your posts and not realize that you are putting them on...

stringfellowh

There seems to be a growing and largely accepted consensus that the Highlander is not a viable off road vehicle. This is false. I have taken my 01' V-6 HL offroad to some challenging venues, like Fire Island National Seashore, a deep-loamy sand entrenched place which must be traversed if I want to catch fish. Airing down to somewhat less than 1/2 the rated tire pressure on all 4 Desert Duelers is all thats needed to get the HL through some deep washes, tidal cuts, and any debris that happened to wash up with the last tide. So, the next time someone suggests that the HL can't offroad..question the driver's skill set first-then the prowess of this vehicle.