Toyota Highlander

1…162163165167168…211

Comments

  • lmacmillmacmil Member Posts: 1,758
    You (and/or your wife) should test the Nissan Murano, Mitsubishi Endeavor and Honda Pilot. All car based and much less truck like than the Explorer. My wife drives a '96 Ex (also must have the higher ride height) and she liked the Murano best. Lack of a sunroof in the Pilot ruled that out. The HL is nice but awfully bland looking. The new engine and 5 speed makes it more competitive with the others in this class.
  • bagpiper2bagpiper2 Member Posts: 3
    Wow, thanks for all the updates.....can hardly wait to see the first ones roll into the dealerships ! Could someone tell us the web site addresses that you found the colors shown......when we pull up the toyota.com site, it only shows the '03 Highlander.
    Thanks !
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Steve sells Toyotas so he may have access to a Toyota site or literature that the rest of us don't.

    Steve, Host
  • akasrpakasrp Member Posts: 170
    Notes on my ‘03 4cyl FWD HL week long test drive.

    ‘J’ Vin. Odometer 16K miles. Drove 60 miles to a dealer in Victorville CA that rents all Toyota models. Highlander was $300/week. Ivory interior looked more beat than the tan interior of my ‘97 Camry. Power driver’s seat was broken. Stuck in the most elevated position! (tipped up/forward) Could never get comfortable. (I’m 6’ tall). Really disappointing as evaluation of seating and driving position was one of the main reasons I wanted to drive one for a week before dropping $30K. (Sat in a friend’s 03 V6 FWD at work and was able to find OK seat/drive position). Not thrilled with the power seat. Still feel that the seats are marginal - soft foam - not a lot of thigh support (32” inseam). Subaru and Honda can make seats! Plenty of front passenger legroom. 4 cylinder is capable/adequate in town and when driving twisty-turny roads but really has to work to push it (Unloaded + AC) from Zero to 60 (spooky merging onto SoCal freeways) and is fairly noisy doing so (my wife said she felt like she was in a ‘Camry on stilts with a sewing machine motor’). Handling and cornering very nimble.
    Spent a morning driving twisty canyon backroads (Saugus to Quartz Hill CA - Bouquet Canyon and Godde Hill Roads) and was very impressed with Highlander’s responsiveness and non-SUV/Truck handling. Very little lean or roll. No significant FWD understeer. The 4 banger performed very well in this setting. This canyroad drive alone has probably sold me on the HL.
    Bit more bounce over rough uneven highway than I expected and more road noise entering the cabin than I recalled from an earlier (5 minute) test drive of a V6 AWD - are the V6 AWDs better insulated? Wind Buffetting with both back windows down was as I was warned - but I never drive like that anyway. Brakes felt every bit a good as those in my Camry - despite reports of mushy and or hard to depress pedal. Glove box rattles over bumps - so does the glove box in my 97 Camry - gave up fooling with the Camry glovebox after dealer still couldn’t stop the rattle after 3 tries. Guess this is a Toyota ‘Trademark’. Otherwise, Fit and Finish was top notch. Being used to cars (Camry, Accord) this thing feels huge in my 2 car garage - can’t imagine trying to squeeze a Pilot in there. Unless they are extremely cleverly hidden there are no cup holders up front! Center console has two sqare bins - neither of which functions to hold cups. In-Dash CD Stereo system was marginal. Decent sound but the CD player skips (phtt - phtt- phttt) even over smooth road - again this is a rental so hopefully just a dirty or defective head unit. I’m no audiophile but it’s obvious Toyota isn’t spending any money on this base sound system.
    My 24” mountain bike lies flat in the back with back seats folded down.
    Despite this being a mid-size SUV with no significant step-up, I was still eye level with almost all trucks and SUV drivers I met.
    Overall thoughts:
    Good size - not too big - not too small. Solid fit and finish. Impressive car-like handling. Tight turning radius. Easy ingress/egress even for 5 footer. Inofffensive design.
    Can not say there is anything particulary fun or enticing about this car - unlike Turbo Forester - but I suppose those things are low on the typical Highlander (or any SUV) buyer’s priority list.

    I anticipate the 04 V6 AWD to erase any negative thoughts or feelings I have regarding this test car.

    I know this has rambled on but hope it may aid others considering HL. Please don’t take my negative comments as nit-picking and I don’t mean to offend anyone who is happy with their 4cyl model. I tend to keep my vehicles for a long time and I’m just trying to notice the ‘little’ things up front - rather than be surprised after the check clears...

    srp
  • jcwelchjcwelch Member Posts: 1
    For the earlier post that was looking for the website address to view the 04 photos:

    http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display.html?kw=Highlan- der
  • donxdonx Member Posts: 44
    Any guess for the number of 0-60 secs for Highlander 2004? Sienna 2004 can reach 8.3 secs (FWD) and 8.8 secs(AWD). With the same engine, Highlander might be slower?
  • grenedygrenedy Member Posts: 17
    I note that the 04 4cyl has 5 additional HP @ 5700 rpm and 2 add'l lbs of torque at 4000 rpm over 2003 model. It appears all engine specs are otherwise unchanged (bore and stroke, displacement, compression, etc). Anyone know how its done? New computer chip? New exhaust? Make any significant difference in performance? Possible to retrofit 2003? Thanks.
  • wcpwcp Member Posts: 40
    I doubt the 5 HP and 2 lbs increase would make any noticeable difference to the performance. Especially when the curb weight of the 2004 2.4 AWD is increased to 3750 vs the 2003's 3715.
  • grenedygrenedy Member Posts: 17
    I noticed that too. Do you think the additional 35lbs is due to structural changes in all models to accommodate the 3rd seat? There is an 85lb difference with the seat installed. Also noticed that the fuel tank is smaller on the 2004 (prob for same reason). So if increase in power/torque is for added weight of the 04, it would be nice to have, if available, for the 03 model. Right?
  • jrt629jrt629 Member Posts: 8
    I was originally interested in purchasing an '03 Highlander V6, but see some interesting changes in the new 3.3 V6 for '04 such as more torque (222lbs to 242lbs) and a slight mpg improvement from 19/23 to 19/25. Odd thing is the '04 Sienna with the same 3.3 engine gets 19/27 even though it weight more (3660lbs - Highlander, 4120lbs - Sienna). Must have something to do with gearing, axle ratio, etc. I like everything about the '04 Highlander except Toyota's recommending 91 octane fuel... I would think 89 octand would suffice...
    Any ideas?
  • phrosutphrosut Member Posts: 122
    I tried a few tanks of 91 octane and barely gained 1/2 mpg, as I remember. Not enough to pay the price difference, and I noticed no difference in performance.
  • reklawcreklawc Member Posts: 27
    The pressroom Toyota website says the'04 HL V6 requires 91 octane or higher. It does not use the word "recommended" and it does not mention 87 octane at all. I believe this is unlike the previous years V6 where I think Toyota says that you can use 87 octane but recommends 91 octane for optimal performance. Of course, the '04 Highlander specs. could be mistaken, because I noticed the '04 Lexus RX330 (same engine) specs. say "87 0ctane, 91 octane recommended". I would appreciate an informed reply as I do not want a car that must use premium gas. Thanks.
  • mikey00mikey00 Member Posts: 462
    The only reason you gained 1/2 mpg with 91 octane is your wallet was lighter.
  • jrt629jrt629 Member Posts: 8
    I looked again at the pressroom Toyota website part displaying the specs and along the left side column it states: "Recommended Fuel" and under the V6 column: "91-octane unleaded or higher". We probably do need some clarification from the folks at Toyota. Personally, I would not want a vehicle requiring Premium. Can't imagine what harm using 89 octane would bring...
    Other than that I am excited about the '04 model. Wonder if they will be offering any incentives on them?
  • 1sttimevolvo11sttimevolvo1 Member Posts: 189
    Jeese louise! I can't imagine that someone would actually say they will base purchasing a car on whether it requires premium fuel! Your paying $30,000+ for a vehicle and you're going to NOT buy the one you like over $250± a year?
    This makes no sense to me. If I like the vehicle I'm not going to let such a small amount keep me from buying it.
    Incidently, $250 per year is based on using 25 gallons per week at 0.20 more per gallon. Assuming you get 18 mpg average, that would still be a hefty 23,400 miles per year driving. If the average is 16,500 miles, then your fuel costs will be less.
  • jrt629jrt629 Member Posts: 8
    Good point about the premium fuel. I do like the Highlander V6, but am trying to keep all costs down. When I purchase one it will be the base V6 model with privacy tint and possibly the tow prep package which should be in the $25,000+ range.
  • reklawcreklawc Member Posts: 27
    The difference between the price of premium and regular is approximately the same as reducing gas mileage by about 13% or 3 mpg. Therefore, you are getting the equivalent of 15 city and 21 highway vs. EPA of 18 and 24. I agree if you like the car enough, an extra $200-$250 per year is not a lot, but it does make me like it less. There are other good SUVs that do not require premium. For example--the '03 Highlander, '04 RAV4, Honda Pilot. But I am still not convinced the new HL absolutely requires Premium.
  • hlfanhlfan Member Posts: 46
    My problem is not the $250 a year, I just curious about the quoted performance increase of 230 HP + 242 lb/ft, at the offset of using the 91. If you used 89 instead, do you maybe end up with the original 220/222 ? Or will it not be that bad ? The original 220/222 felt just a bit lacking to me...
  • 1sttimevolvo11sttimevolvo1 Member Posts: 189
    Check the FTC website. It has some useful information regards to premium vs. regular, but from the standpoint of using premium gas in a vehicle that is recommended to use regular. It basically says that you should go by your vehicle's manufacture recommendation. Most domestic autos are recommended to use regular.
    Since Toyota is recommending / requiring premium, check the specs on the '04 engine vs. the '03 model. If the compression ratio is higher on the '04 model, then that would explain the recommendation / requirement.
    As it states at the FTC site, some engine knock is not a problem, but if it's strong and consistent enough, it can cause long-term damage.
    IMHO, I would not want to buy a used vehicle that had been running on less than what the manufacturer required.
  • phrosutphrosut Member Posts: 122
    Yer prob'ly right about the lighter wallet. However you gotta admit that percentage-wise, premium costs less than it ever has! I remember when regular was 27 cents a gallon and premium was 47. Now it doesn't seem such a big difference with 87 octane at 1.99 and premium at 2.17. Of course, even with the percentage difference, I'm still puttin' in 87 octane.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'd do that (pass on a vehicle that requires premium). I can plan ahead for the big expense up front, but dislike the idea of being forced to buy the expensive gas every week. More so those weeks when gas decides to jump up .20 a gallon.

    I drive a more expensive laser printer rather than an ink-jet for essentially the same reason - cheaper operating cost. The running expense is a no less of a concern to me than the capital expense. That $250 a year saved using the 87 octane blend pays for the car insurance for example.

    It's not the only factor but it is something I consider. I've been known to call the parts department and price alternators too while shopping a brand I'm not familiar with. Eurovan part prices and $800 Mercedes brake jobs don't mesh with my bang for buck nature.

    Steve, Host
  • skyrebskyreb Member Posts: 129
    I mentioned not long ago, and no one commented, but I am not absolutely convinced there is much difference in the two fuels. My 1992 Acura "required" premium fuel according to the manual. After the first year, I have only used regular for the past ten years. I can tell absolutely no difference in performance; no knock; no ping. I will conceded it is possible I could tell the difference on the drag strip, but it has never been tested in that manner. It now has 168,000 miles, and delivers 27+ mpg. Recently my mechanic pulled the plugs, and reported they looked great, and the color was indicative of good combustion.

    I have always burned 87 octane in my 2001 HL (V6, AWD), and have no plans to change.

    Happy HL'ing to all.
  • 1sttimevolvo11sttimevolvo1 Member Posts: 189
    Your point is well taken and I can understand where you're coming from. I was more or less struck by the comment made that the few dollars added to purchase premium gas would keep someone from purchasing a car they otherwise really like.
    Most people keep a car a few years and trade it in, so the aggregate gas cost would be less than for someone who keeps a car 8+ years.
    But I understand your POV.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    When I picked up my C4 at the factory I was told that refueling without premium would be fine as the system would adjust for lower grades. It was only leaded fuel that might cause parts to be replaced before shipping to the US.
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Member Posts: 247
    Steve Do you know if Toyota has any plans to bring the WISH to our shores? It has been a big hit since it was introduced in Japan last January. Size seems to be larger than the Matrix but smaller than the Sienna. Maybe about the size or slightly smaller than the Highlander. Any ideas?
  • reklawcreklawc Member Posts: 27
    The '04 Sienna, which has been out for several months uses the same exact engine/trans. as the new '04 Highlander. I would think that the gas octane requirements for both would be the same. As stated above, the pressroom Toyota web site specs. says "91 octane or higher" for both vehicles. So I posed the question on the Sienna board. Read message #s 2765 and 2766 and you will see that the Toyota web site is incorrect, and that regular is acceptable (although not recommended for max. performance) for use according to the Sienna owner's manual. We can probably asssume the HL will be the same.

    PS - Does anyone know why the '04 HL will continue to be made in Japan when its Lexus sister (RX330) is now being made in CANADA?

    One other thing about gas--if you alternate between 93 octane premium and 87 octane regular (filling up at 1/2 tank intervals) you actually are running with a higher octane (average 90) than using 89 (plus) all the time --for the same price.
  • rqcrqc Member Posts: 95
    We finally got our '03 Highlander last Monday. Bluestone/Ivory cloth, side airbags (it's a miracle), convenience, preferred, privacy glass, and tow prep. Our goal was to get the guts of the Limited without all the little add-ons or things we didn't want. We love it already. Yes, we would have liked the 3.3 V6, 5 speed, 3rd seat, and curtain airbags, but enduring yet another long delay wasn't practical.

    I can't say the custom order process was fun, but we made it through. I want to go back to the four dealers who wouldn't custom order for us (especially the one who told us we would have to buy a car the way they wanted to sell us one) and show them the car.

    I know all dealers aren't like this (we have some great people in this forum who represent good dealers), but these guys were not interested in helping. And in fairness to dealers, most people wouldn't endure this process. But we saved many thousands by doing this and our price was less than the HL's we were getting offered with less equipment.

    We hope to have many years of happy ownership!
  • mapleleavemapleleave Member Posts: 25
    Has anyone seen the limited 04 yet? How is the wood grain compare with the old one? is it real maple?

    I like the wood trim of Sienna minivan (XLE and up), and the 03 highlander seems too fake to me.
  • landdriverlanddriver Member Posts: 607
    Congratulations on finally making the big purchase!
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Member Posts: 569
    There's been a lot of speculation over in the Wagons board/Honda Latitude section on whether Honda will bring over their Stream (said to be called the Latitude if & when it comes) and whether Toyota will follow suit (or beat them to it) with their Wish (hope they change the name, though). You are correct in that the Wish splits the difference nicely between the Matrix and the Sienna. I guess you could call it a sport compact van! For those if us who feel tha Sienna has gotten too big but the Matrix is too small for our needs, it would be a nice fit, especially if it was priced midway between the Matrix and the base Sienna. It certainly would be alot more affordable than the Highlander.
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Member Posts: 247
    Thanks for your input wheelz4. Would like to see if Honda and Toyota bring the Latidude/Wish to North America. Prices for the Highlander/Pilot/Sienna in the $27-32K range so would hope a fully loaded Latitude/Wish would sell in the upper teens to low $20K.

    Those of you who haven't seen the WISH look at this page:

      http://toyotawish.pantown.com

    Think Toyota would have a hit especially if the Wish has at least the 2.4 160hp of the Highlander but better still a hybrid. Hopefully with more hybrids the price will not be much more expensive.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    www.wieck.com

    Go to "Public"
    Then in the search type in "Toyota Highlander"

    Lots of pics.

    ~alpha
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Vcarreras, this discussion fell off my radar for a few days, but it looks like Wheelz4 has more info on the Wish that I could hope for. Thanks Wheelz!

    1sttimevolvo1, I kept my last two cars 10 and 17 years (that one was a Toy) - the current two (a '99 and '97) are newbies. In case you were wondering :-)

    It is hard to think about driving the current ones a full decade when you read about hybrids, side air bags and other neat stuff every day!

    Steve, Host
  • metmdxmetmdx Member Posts: 270
    Can someone summarize the changes to both standard equipment and options on the '04 Highlander LTD?
    (Sorry if this is a duplicate request)

    tia,
    metmdx
  • mcmattmcmatt Member Posts: 80
    I do a lot of work on my Toyotas and I am feeling a bit stupid. Where is the PCV on my 02 V6. For the life of me I cannot find it by looking. I would like to hear from someone who has changed it.

    Thanks very much.
  • carman36carman36 Member Posts: 14
    Can someone help me and explain the pros/cons of front wheel vs all wheel drive on the Highlander??
    Worth the $$$

    Much appreciated.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    FWD: extremely hazardous in the "twilight zone".

    HL-AWD: ditto.

    The HL AWD system is forward torque biased on the order of a 70/30 F/R ratio, at BEST. Relying on just the front tires' contact patch, ONLY, for vehicular control in slippery conditions is a circumstance the body shops and the morgues dearly love.

    VSC/Trac will help but what you really need is RWD or rear bias AWD. The new 4runner seems to be a perfect example.
  • landdriverlanddriver Member Posts: 607
    Subtle enhancements to exterior styling, changes to exterior paint colors, interior accent enhancements, addition of much-anticipated third-row seat option, and a new 3.3-liter V6 5-speed option (up from 3.0-liter V6 4-speed option on the 2003), to iterate most of the major changes.

    See http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display.html?kw=Highlan- der for more information, including pics.
  • carman36carman36 Member Posts: 14
    Can you explain in "English" to a novice.

    Does anyone agree/disagree with # 8675?

    Thanks
  • prajapatiprajapati Member Posts: 33
    IMHO - If you live on a street with 8+ degree gradient and the street remains frequently unplowed when there is minimum of two inches of partially melted snow on the ground then AWD is somewhat "worth" it, not otherwise....
  • joemama4joemama4 Member Posts: 1
    Having lived where it snowed 20' plus every year, I've tried lots of different combinations of drive. The HL is not an off-roader. It does seem to be designed to get the power to the wheels where the weight is. I've always taught-It's not what you drive, but how you drive it.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I live here on the east side of Seattle and in the last 13 years I can say that I really needed 4WD (note: I did not say AWD!) only two times, and both times I also needed snowchains on all 4 wheels.

    But then there is no way I can say for sure that AWD wasn't a great help many times also, it operates completely transparently. Given the type of roadbed conditions I encounter during the winter traveling throughout the northwest and into central MT, I have lttle doubt that AWD has helped to save my butt many times.

    I just wish the visual warning indication of VSC or trac activation were elongated enough that I would get to actually see them after the event has passed.

    Several posts on the RX and HL threads have questioned why they sometimes "feel" as if the vehicle suddenly lurches forward during moderate braking or just before coming to a final stop.

    Many of the manufacturers are now beginning to recognize the extreme hazards of FWD or front torque bias AWD and are looking for cheap and simple fixes, cheaper than the GM one anyway.

    The newer FWD Cadillacs have an over-running clutch so that engine braking has no effect. The new HL and RX has a transmission system that shifts into a higher gear, to prevent the majority of engine braking, when coasting or slowing to a stop.

    Engine braking on a slippery surface to only the front wheels can oftentimes lead to loss of control of the vehicle.

    An AWD, and even moreso a 4WD, can and is often very advantageous in on-road adverse weather conditions. I would avoid any AWD vehicle wherein the primary drive is to the front. The HL and RX are at a particular disadvantage in that snowchains can ONLY be installed on the front, further exacerbating the hazard.
  • lmacmillmacmil Member Posts: 1,758
    Have you been getting by with a FWD car? If so, you can probably continue to do so. If you get a significant amount of snow and/or the roads are often snow-covered or slick, then AWD will probably give you more "surefootedness" in low traction conditions. Sure, true 4WD would be even better but most of us don't need it.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    If that's not enough Carman, browse through the FWD vs AWD discussion plus there's a big one in Wagons that has some good stuff:

    AWD, FWD, RWD - Which is the Best?.

    Steve, Host
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Sometimes just getting by means passing up fun opportunities that AWD would give you the ability to participate in.
  • braganzabraganza Member Posts: 5
    Matt,
    It is at the left rear of the engine. You need a 9 mm open ended/ring wrench to take it out. It costs about $5+ at the dealer. It has a some kind of a sealant compound on it so it takes a bit of strength to get it out and put the new one in. You also may have to move one of the little rubber hoses close to it out of the way.---Chris
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Those who recall the thread go-round about extended warranties on the first of the month may want to join us in the Town Hall wide live chat in a couple of hours. The chat topic is extended warranties. The chat link is in the left sidebar.

    Steve, Host
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Finally a chat topic I could really sink my teeth into and I'm off work when it starts... which means no 'puter.
  • mcmattmcmatt Member Posts: 80
    I got a diagram from the dealer and the valve is in plain sight. My problem was that I had a PCV valve that was for a Highlander but it was the 90 degree style. After Jan 2001 (0101 on parts dia.), the design changed to a straight valve that is threaded into the block. Prior to this, it was the bent one that plugged into a grommet. One has to wonder if this was related to gelling???
    Thanks again for the help!!
  • rlonn1rlonn1 Member Posts: 106
    It seems that the information that I have obtained from several Toyota Dealers in the San Diego area is the 2004 Highlanders are not due in till mid or late October. Every night I drive home and go past a local Toyota dealer and the same 5 Highlanders remain on the lot UNSOLD. I am sure that if the 2004 arrived, they would just keep them in the back lot to move out the 2003. As many sales folks I have talked to, my distrust on what they tell me only continues to build. One sales person told me , when I asked about the 2004, that we have great deals on 2003, could we sell you one of these? I said I wanted to wait and see what might have changed in 2004. I said that knowing all the changes that would take place in 2004. In response the sale person told me "We know of no significant changes in the 2004 Models".. That was interesting. I then decided to probe further and ask him would he not consider 3.3 V-6, 5 Speed and 3rd row seats a significant change. Just silence at the other end of the phone. Then he said, hold just a minute. After 5 minutes on hold I got a DIAL TONE. So he decided to just avoid the question and hang up on me. I think the choices for 2004 are very substantial. Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Endeavor from Mitsubishi and don't forget the new VW or Nissan Murano!! I think for me it is all part of trying to deal with these folks and go in prepared 100%. You need to be a sharp consumer these days. I am sure once the 2004 Highlanders do arrive, the dealers will claim they can't keep them on the lot, get in line and No Deals, sorry.. OK, that is fine. I just walk away and come back in a week and see what is left on the lot. I always write down the VIN number, that way I can tell if the cars has been sold... Edmunds and all of you that leave feedback and updates for us to read is super. So in conclusion, I would like to ask if anyone is aware of 2004 Highlanders on the Lot, or back lots at any dealerships in the USA? One dealer told me the new cars are not even in the USA yet??? Is that another deception from our group of HONEST sales folks??
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.