Toyota Highlander

canadiancl

the more it looks like a bigger and slightly more stylish Forrester rather than a relative of the RX300. May as well go with the Forrester and pocket the savings.

vadp

Just one question.
Your owners manual tells you to use 5W-30 grade oil for example.
By using 5w-20 grade you will improve your gas mileage (a Fact).
Let's forget about the warranty issues for a moment.
The switch to thinner oil will save you some gas money and the engine will continue to run just fine.
Would you do that?
I don't think so.
The same situation is with gas. You can use the lower grade gas without harming your engine. The question is if it's worth the trouble.
I don't think that it's a good idea to second guess the powertrain engineers.
If you like to save every penny, then probably you're looking at the wrong vehicle.

hawkeye70

Thanks to cliffy, baddestbob, vadp and cotmc for the insight on the highlander fuel question. To all the others, thanks for the lively discussion. My opinion is similar to cotmc in post #391.

Regarding gas mileage, one thing that is curious to me is that the MDX is rated at 23mpg hwy while the highlander, about 5-600 lbs. lighter and with a smaller engine and smaller frontal area, is rated at 22mpg hwy. Any thoughts?

tonychrys

My apologies if I missed your point on that issue. Overall, we are in agreement.

TC

rsholland

Don't tell folks who use these vehicles off road, that they are driving a "dying" breed. They'll laugh right in your face. There's a lot of rural America where 4x4 SUVs DO get used off road.

Yes, some of us DO go off road occasionally. And, some go off road a lot. We DO like having low range when the going gets tough.

I've owned a 4x4 of some sort ever since 1986. Every one has, at some point been off-road, on terrain I would never think to take a Highlander. So, don't tell me that traditional SUVs are going to become extinct. It ain't going to happen.

Lastly, the Liberty is not a $30K vehicle. Mid $20K, max. The 4-Runner is mid-$30K, and the Sequoia is mid $40K. They're not anywhere near the price points of what the Liberty will fall into. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Bob

vadp

The answer is the 5-speed tranny in the MDX.
The very tall fifth gear allows the engine to turn very slowly at the highway speeds.
Less rpm - better fuel economy.

bobcatbob

Hey look, RS HOLLAND in the Highlander board!

Wenyue, I do a lot of off-roading when I have the appropriate vehicle. In college my roommates owned a Blazer, a Wrangler, a old CJ, and a 1994 Tahoe. We had a lot of fun traversing the hills of Southeastern Ohio. After grad school I "sold out" and bought an Accord. I am now in the market for a vehicle that meets the many needs of my life style.

As for my off-roading plans, I will do a moderate (15%) of off-roading. I am an avid backpacker and mountainbiker, as well as, a photographer. Getting onto a trail, or onto a fire road is THE way to get to the places for shooting photos or just taking you bike out.... If you have a chance, and a good map, I recommend camping for a week in the Allegheny National Forest using only the fire roads.

I do agree that a lot of manufacturers are going to the "soft-roader" set up, but that does not make the off-roading bunch a dying breed. A smaller segment of the market maybe, but it will never be extinct.

And, for clarification, I will say that producing, selling, or pruchasing a "soft roader" is no crime in my book. Heck, if I had $45K I'd promptly buy a BMW X5 as it's simply an amazing vehicle. I'd never take it off road, heck, I doubt I'd drive it much because it's too pretty, almost a piece of art.

rsholland

Well put! And... thank you!

Bob

wenyue

rsholland: take it easy. Don't get upset, it's bad for your health.

Well, "dying breed" may have been too harsh of a word. But the truth is that market trend has taken a change towards the 'soft riding'/non-offroad SUV. That's my point. It wasn't meant as an insult. I appologize if it was interpreted that way.

Your are certaintly entitled to your preference for off-road SUV. And people who are interested in the Highlander are entitled to their preference for a soft-ride SUV, of course.

Bobcatbob:

I fully respect your needs. I agree that some people will have the need for off-road capability. It's just that people who do go off-road are the miniority, according to Edmund's, less than 10%. Nothing wrong with going off-road of course. In fact, I'm dismayed by people who buys an SUV purely as the status symble.

Sorry about the dying breed comment. I wasn't saying it will disappear, simply saying the market trend has changed. I guess it's like the modern replacement for the unpopular wagon.

wenyue

There is a flaw in your argument.

Switching to 5W-20 will void your warranty. Why? Because the car is NOT designed to use that grade of oil. Because wrong grade of oil will cause engine damage, probably due to improper engine lubricaton. This is the same thing as running 87 octane on an engine not designed to anything less than a 91 octane.

Now, Odyssey and Highlander ARE designed to run with 87 octane. You can maximize their performance using 91 Octane, but you don't have to. Runing 87 octane will NOT void your warranty. Why? Because it's NOT harmful to the engine. This is writen in the owner's manual, and it comes directly from the manufacturer.

Now, I'm not going to argue with the manufacture. I'm sure they know these engine's design a lot better than any of us do.

So if Toyota and Honda say the Odyssey and Highlander will be perfectly fine running 87 octane, then who am I to argue?

If someone wants that last 5 hp in a 220 hp engine, they are perfectly entitled to use 91 Octane by their preference. I'm simply stating hte fact that there is no harm (according to the published manufacture's info) in using the 87 Octane. And by using 87 octane, you trade 2-3% power for a 10% or so in gas saving.

I'm not here to state an arguement. I'm simple showing there is a mistake in assuming the extra performance by using 91 octane is enough to off set the higher cost of the fuel.

Now, let me repeat myself: there is nothing wrong with using 91 octane, nor is there anything wrong with using 87 octane in the Highlander. The decision is purely the owner's. And it's purely my humble opinion that why pay 12% more for only 2.4% increase in performance. And it's quite possible that most people won't even feel the difference since 2.4% is awefully a small number.

salliebee

I drove the Highlander yesterday and agree that it has a nice ride, but you wouldn't mistake it for an SUV. The dealer talked it up like the Lexus RX 300, it sure looked like a big fancy station wagon to me (not even that tall --the pictures in the brochure appear to have been taken from a low point of view, making it look taller).

Inside, it's more like a minivan. As for the price, the salesman gave me a quote for a well equipped 4Runner that was about $1500 less than the HL, and I'm confident that it would go down if I had been serious about the 4Runner.

The model I drove had the spoiler & chrome running boards, which looked kind of silly. As my style arbiter (18 year old daughter) said: "Mom, NO!"

tonychrys

Priceless... simply priceless.

Now THAT'S a Mastercard moment.

grplavloff

"cliffy1"said:
"The USA today article did make reference to the traction, but
I didn't think it said it did poorly. It said it made a bunch of clicking
noises. This was the VSC that was on the one he drove and it was
doing exactly what it was supposed to do. Take it for a spin. For the
money, I'll bet you are impressed. "

I didn't see anything in the article about clicking, and the reviewer is
someone whoseems to know how VSC works and what it sounds like.

This is what the article actually had to say about the Highlander's traction
capabilities. It doesn't sound very promising for those of us in the snow belts:

"A rare snowburst in Virginia was a chance to see how Highlander took to its intended task. OK, but not great. Other all-wheel-drive test vehicles that happened to be on hand zipped up the icy, inclined driveway without spinning wheels or hinting that a low-traction slope was underneath. Those weren't specialty four-wheel-drive vehicles, either, but family machines such as a Chrysler minivan with all-wheel drive. Highlander, though — just like RX 300 does — went through confidence-eroding indecisiveness. This wheel, then that one, then the one over there would slip and grab, back and forth, as the vehicle's electronic system tried to send power to the wheels not slipping. Try to find one of those on an icy incline. Highlander made it up the drive, but it was an iffy thing. "

mdx1

wenyue Jan 19, 2001 4:46pm

Here in Colorado, the regular gas (~$1.55) is at 85 octane, plus (~$168) 87 and super (~$175) 91. The price difference becomes much smaller between 87 and 91.

My 4cyl Camry ('88) has a lot of more power with 91 octane gas than 87. If I use the 85 octane gas the car is pretty weak going up the hill with the A/C on. My '98 Sienna with V6 does not seem to show that much difference with the high octane gas.

plaaaaane

wenyue, since octane is a measure of an anti-knock quality and not power in gasoline, do you think your timing might be not quite right if you require a higher octane gas?

Repeatedly it is emphasized there is no additional "power" in premium fuels.... except by the oil companies inuendo trying to profit more for the product.

cliffy1

The HL is not an off road vehicle. No unibody vehicle really can be. Yes, it will take dirt roads, ice and snow, but if you find yourself without a road or fording streams, you need something with a truck frame and more than 7.2 inches of ground clearance. The HL will handle light duty stuff but anything beyond that, you are asking for trouble.

Now, to expand a bit on the USA Today review, I did misstate the criticism but it doesn't change the outcome. What the reviewer described as "indeciveness" was the VSC preforming as intended. On an icy, uphill climb, you may find power being sent left to right and you may even feel a reduction in engine RPMs (not likely but a possibility). The vehicle will move forward in a straight line. I've played with VSC a good bit and an stunned at the level of control realized by this system. It does take a bit of getting used to and it does not feel like any other system. Once you get the hang of it, you wont want anything else.

The other BIG advantage of VSC is how it handles corners and panic maneuvers. Again, I've really played with this and can attest to the fact that it gives you incredible control. Body roll is minimized and understeer is eliminated. Understeer is responsible for a large percentage of SUV roll overs. If they made this system available on the Tundra, I would have already traded my 2000 in to get it.

qgu

I remembered a review that said RX300 spins wheels easily when taking off. The reviewer attributed this to the tires on RX300. Toyota tried to minimize the road noise (and maybe save a few bucks too) by using smaller tires which caused the problem. This problem is even worse if the road is slippery. Did anybody here notice if HL had the same problem?

duainem_us

I recently started a Highlander Club on Yahoo and there are a couple of new owners of Highlanders as members. Come on over to read their comments and join in on the discussion.

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/toyotahighlanderclub

Good Luck!

inky

By now it is clear the Highlander while a nice ride is 1)overpriced and 2) a little late for the party. The MDX came late but what a value it is.
Honda has a hit at MSRP plus for a few years coming. The Highlander is nice overall and a fine SUV hybrid at INVOICE. In fact, in the coming months a 2WD with V-6 and cloth with few options will become a great deal. I am still surprised by the number of negative comments. I saw one the other day and it looked very small to me. I really thought is was the RAV-4.
INKY

rsholland

Thank you for your clarification.

A little about me, for the record:
I've been driving since 1962. I've been reading car magazines ever since I was a young kid. I currently subscribe to: Car & Driver, Automobile, Road & Track, Motor Trend, AutoWeek, 4Wheel & Off Road, Four Wheeler, and Consumer reports. Besides that, I check daily, most of the major auto news web sites. So... I'm pretty up-to-date on what's happening in the auto industry.

If you check my profile, you will see I've owned a wide range of vehicles since the early '60s. Currently our household contains: a '96 Impreza Outback, for my son; a '92 Prelude, for my daughter; a '01 Forester S Premium, for my wife; and a '98 Explorer, for myself. As you might imagine, I'm very well versed on the new-generation vs. old-generation SUV topic—both the pros and cons.

I spend most of my Edmunds time over in the Subaru Owners Club area. The reason I've been lurking over here in the Highlander area is because several days ago I posted (in the Subaru area) a question as to whether potential Outback H-6 customers would also consider the Highlander, since they both offer similar features, and are in the same price range. I then thought I would pose the same question to potential Highlander customers, as to whether they would consider an Outback H-6. So, that's how I ended up over here.

And... I've been reading a number of posts from people in this forum who seem to feel that Explorers, Grand Cherokees—or any so-called "traditional" SUV are about to disappear, because of all the new "cute-utes" out there. It's not going to happen. There is a market for both types of vehicles. Yes, I do agree the new breed of road-oriented SUVs will cut substantially into the sales of the traditional SUVs—but it's not going to kill them off.

If anything, it's going to make those so-called, old-style SUVs better. All you have to do is look at the new 2002 Jeep Liberty and the 2002 Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer. These new models are light-years better than the vehicles they are going to replace. I just got back from the Baltimore Auto Show, and I sat in a new Mountaineer, and I studied the new Liberty quite closely, although I couldn't sit in it. These are both great new vehicles, and they show what can be done to "improve" that breed of SUV.

Bob

bill28210

Well, unless I Can find a deal in Virginia away from the Southeastern Dealers Association, this may be it.

6cyl - 2WD with EJ Premium Sound and 6 CD, LA Leather Package, LL Limited Package, SR Sunroof and TO Towing Prep for $30,300. My 1998 V6 Honda Coupe with 37500 and $16K.

Will think about it over the weekend.

wenyue

MDX1:

I don't know about the 88 Camry. But in cases such as the current Camry and Odyssey, the power drop is about 5-6 hp. The drop is pretty insignificant for a car/van with around 200 hp.

20 cents extra a gallon, for a minimal performance gain that someone most likly will not even notice or use, doesn't sound like too good of a bargin. Again, all decisions are up to the owner themselves.

I wonder how often people actually drive the car at the maximum engine output. I never drive beyond 4000 rpm, well below the peak engine power. I for one probably would never missed the few extra hp that I never needed. But again, that's me. I think Acura should have designed an engine that could have used both regular fuel and premium fuel, and let the owners decide whether they want to pay for the extra performance or not.

plaaaane:

Higher octane is not entirely an anti-knocking measure. Yes, if your engine knocks, then you should try switching to a higher grade of gasoline. But higher octane also allow higher compression ratio. That's why racing cars often run on 100 Octane to squeeze out every last drop of power.

But you are right, there is no need for higher octane gas if you engine design allows cheaper low octane rating. Like I shown before, the extra 20 cents doesn't bring about equal amount extra performance. Why pay the oil company an extra 12% when in return they only give you 2.4% extra in performance? Bang of your buck, the regular 87 is a much better value.

wenyue

seems to center around one article. The USAtoday. I am waiting for a more qualified review from sources such as Car and Driver. Car and Driver's first article on the car seems to be quite positive. Perhaps USAtoday got a prototype or a lemon?

Is anyone know which major automotive magazine will publish the first full review on the car? Erh I mean SUV.

bobcatbob

RS HOLLAND, you know my feelings about the Liberty, but you are also so right about the Mountaineer.

I sat it the demo model at the Auto Show yesteday and said to myself "If they screw this thing together, it won't be too bad."

Seeing as it is a rebadged Explorer, the same goes for the new Explorer too.

I guess my beef with the Highlander is it styling. If you are going to call it an SUV, then make it look like one.

Heck, put IFS or IRS on the thing, warn people never to take it off road, whatever. But, please, don't make the thing look like a thin mini-van or a wagon on steroids.

grplavloff

wenyue: "most critisim here... seems to center around one article. The USAtoday. ..."

That is not the case. Most of the criticism thus far has come
from people looking at the vehicle.

"I am waiting for a more qualified review from sources such as Car and Driver. ..."

Actually, mags such as Car & Driver have criticized traction
control systems on a number of vehicles because in certain
situations they do not behave as they should.

"Car and Driver's first article on the car seems to be quite positive. Perhaps USAtoday got a prototype or a lemon?"

C & D's first article was a short gloss-over piece that didn't
say much of anything. They run 30-40 of those a year and most
are "quite positive."

dichelle

I'm not real knowledgeable about cars, but I can say I liked it. Tested the turning circle in a parking lot, and it matched specs, turned much more handily than the RX we test drove. I tried more sharp turns in that parking lot, and the steering did not feel "numb," as I have read some vehicles described, it felt responsive and as though the HL were going exactly where I wanted it.

It's been several months since we drove an MDX, but we had been disappointed by the wind/road noise in that, and there was also an annoying tire whine on certain concrete roads (base model tires). The HL seemed quieter and is the right size for me.

The first HL we drove jolted quite a bit going over bumps--when we mentioned this to the sales person, he was surprised, said that that vehicle had just come off the truck, and perhaps its tire pressure had not been reduced from the over inflated shipping state. He got us another one to drive, checked ITS tire pressure to make sure it was correct--and it did drive better, this time acceptably (don't know for sure that the first was over inflated). It's not like a Camry, and I think it was a little stiffer than the 2000 RX we drove, but I have read that the 2001 RX is also stiffer.

Toyota is passing out a little booklet warning about SUV roll over risks and giving driving tips. Salesman pointed out that the Highlander's V6 is mounted low in the engine compartment, in order to lower the center of gravity. I don't know how much difference this actually makes, would love to see its rating from the NHTSA roll over formula.

I was not immediately taken by the two-tone interior, and then the salesman noted that the darker color appears on the lower part of the doors, which people are prone to scuff with their feet, and the upper surface of the dash, in order to reduce its reflectivity. After that, I was OK with it--we drove a white rental car in Arizona last summer and the glare was so bad we actually had to cover the dash with my husband's navy blue jacket.

I could reach the low pull-out cup holders without difficulty, but I'm 5'3". In the brochure, there is a picture of the center console available as an accessory--it appears to be very narrow, can't tell if it's as wide as a CD, but I would hope so. I could find a comfortable driving position; my husband (6') wished that the steering wheel was more adjustable.

I don't know what the apparently awful "Gulf Port Add-ons" are that you folks down in Texas have to pay for. This one had some that seemed to make sense--narrow protective strips on the back edge of each door and on the edge of each wheel well, so that area doesn't get dinged in parking lots and you don't scratch anyone else opening your door. Don't know if they're worth $99 for each set of four, though. Then there was a "Simoniz 3" paint protector--anybody know anything about it? Claims to bond Teflon to your paint and protect against things like bird droppings and acid rain, and your paint is then actually insured against damage by these substances.

Salesman gave us information on exactly how VSC works--it made sense. Regarding the USA Today article which knocked the traction of HL and RX--I checked over on the RX forum, and a number of people report that the RX does quite well on snow and ice. However, several seem to have upgraded their tires, and that may be the difference.

We asked if the price is MSRP firm, and the salesman did not say that definitely, said "we want to sell all our cars, will do our best." But then, we hadn't really gotten down to dealing, and I'm sure he wants us to come back. Still, they don't seem to be flying off the lot quite like the MDXs did.

My husband would rather spend the same amount of money to get a nice Avalon, with less rollover risk and better gas mileage. We'll see.

rsholland

is going to show some bias, one way or another. Car & Driver's take will differ a bit from that of Automobile, which will differ a bit (a whole lot!) from that of Four Wheeler, and so on... However, after reading several reviews, from several publications, a rather clear picture should present itself.

Bob

wenyue

Which automagazine do you think is the most biased one? I'm not entirely sure. I don't subscribe to any of them, just look through them once in a while when I'm at the local Barns and Nobles. I have heard of alot of arguement from different people saying different magazine is taking money from different automakers. So which one do you think is the most untainted magazine out there?

Anyone can throw in their 2 cents and give their pick.

grplavloff

"... I have heard of alot of arguement from different people saying different magazine is taking money from different automakers. So which one do you think is the most untainted magazine out there?"

I don't believe that any of them are "taking money" from individual
manufacturers, nor do I believe that they tilt editorial content to
manufacturers that advertise the most (another common accusation).
But I do believe that they, like consumer "enthusiast" magazines in
any consumer field, be it boats, audio equipment, etc, will try to
promote the sales of whatever industry they cover by trying to turn
people on to products made by that industry as a whole. Car mags
are like Playboy but trying to produce fantasies of sheet metal
rather than flesh, to get a little bit extreme about this :-)
The magazines gain if they produce editorial content that turns
people on and gets them to buy more issues. They also prosper,
through healthy advertising, if the industry as a whole prospers.

rsholland

was probably the wrong word to use. I should have said—"point of view." These articles are written by individuals, and, to a certain point, reflect their own personal tastes and/or bias, even though they do try to be objective.

As to the issue of them taking money from manufacturers, that has been a subject of debate ever since I began reading them as a kid. It would not surprise me if it happens from time-to-time, which is all the more reason to get several opinions before making any decision.

I think I would be most leery of publications that constantly "scoop" other magazines. It would not surprise me that in order to be the first publication with a big story (especially if it pertains to a new model announcement), that something may have occurred under the table. I'm not saying that is definitely the case. But it's something to think about.

Bob

grplavloff

"These articles are written by individuals, and, to a certain point, reflect their own personal tastes and/or bias, even though they do try to be objective."

My guess is that one of the primary pressures on reviewers to produce positive articles is that if a reviewer is seen as being generally negative he/she will likely have a heck of a time getting further work as a reviewer.

cliffy1

Well written review. Thank you for your input. Its nice to see a balanced post from a person who has actually driven one instead of reading about the opionions of the "experts."

mdx1

RE: wenyue Jan 20, 2001 4:38pm

I should add that when I lived in Houston, TX it did not matter what kind of gas I put in my Camry. At the sea level, my 4 cyl Camry had as much power as my wife's Mercury Sable with a 3.8L V6 that time around the Houston freeways. But here in CO around the mile high city at 5300ft above the sea level it makes a BIG difference. It may have something to do that the car is more than 12 years old (only 95K miles though).

wenyue

Hey, I was in Texas for 4 years. I'm an alumnus of UT-Austin. And yes, at high altitude, displacement and number of cylinders plays a big difference.

Last year of undergrad, I decided to go on a ski trip to Anglefire, New Mexio. Being a poor student, I got a Geo Metro. It was fine until we got half way up the mountain. Then the 4 cylinder car with 60 some hp just ran out of juice. There we were at about 10,000 ft up, and I was the gas peddle floored, and the car was crawlling at 15 mph. Then it started to snow heavily, we were lucky to make it to the resort near midnight.

redirector

Second visit to drive a Highlander, this time in 4cyl Front Wheel Drive configuration. I like driving this truck, and so does my wife. Very predictable and easy to manuever. The 4cyl. is, as suspected, "just fine" for everyday driving in TX. My wife is not going to stress out the engine so I don't think we would benefit from the great V6.

Still don't agree with the trim on the dash, looks very tacky.

However, again, the Gulf States Port junk added $2000 to the MSRP!! This 4cyl had leather, but it was not the factory leather -- it was a grey perforated leather, for $1,015, added at the port, and I must say Toyota does better leather than this. Very sloppy and ill-fitting. Other addons included pinstripes (from the 70's!), and more verbiage about free roadside assistance for 3 yrs and etched glass etc for another $400. The Compass/mirror for $325 is an amazing ripoff.

The salesman is not showing any signs of "getting it". After waiting all this time for a great new car, and Highlander can fit the bill, we will not pay for this port-added junk, nor do we even want it. No other inventory seems to exist down here.

Since the 4cyl is acceptable, we paid a visit to the nearby Honda dealer and drove a CRV EX, which would price out at $22,000 including factory leather and all options. The 4cyl Port Junk Highlander stickered at $29,000. That's too big a gap to ignore. Next up, Subaru Outback wagons. I hear the AWD 2001's have a 4cyl with 165 hp and over 7 inches ground clearance, 68 cft of cargo room, and are incredibly safe. Mid $26k MSRP gets you 2 moonroofs, heated seats, leather & wood trim, too, and if you follow Carsdirect.com pricing, it appears that $1500 discounts are possible. Better see for myself.

The pricing policies of the Toyota Gulf States Port is creating competition for itself where previously there was none. Incredible.

Somebody please offer me a clean Highlander - Vintage gold, beige cloth, front wheel drive, 4 cyl, quick order package, color mud guards and that's it.

AARRRGGHHH!!!
redirector@aol.com

gottscdj

There are many of us in the Gulf States region but that doesn't mean we must purchase from them. I refuse to give them my business so I ordered from dianne at dianne@earthlink.net. At her California dealership she can sell you the exact car you want or have it order-built. She will give you a good deal and you can even have it shipped to the gulf states for around 650. Even with the shipping charge I bet you would still save money as compared to the local dealerships. Give her a try, you have nothing to lose and money to save. dj

nikkom

I've noticed a lot of people wanting price, and specs on the Highlander. Toyota has all the data on it's website....Toyota.com Another site that is very helpful and highly rated is: CARPOINT.COM
Yahoo Internet Life, Forbes, PC Magazine and on and on rate carpoint the #1 auto purchase website.

nikkom

FYI folks..I've seen Highlanders on the road here in northern california last week!

wenyue

I would also check with internet sites that sells cars, like www.carsdirect.com. They might be able to get you one without all the add ons.

tonychrys

I've checked both Carsdirect and Driveoff, neither even has the Highlander listed as a Toyota model yet.

All in due time...

scname

There are two small rectangular holes on the front bumper, just inside the fog light. I saw one with the cover off, it has a circular socket inside. What is it for?

dianne4toyota

Hmmm... I just got told to go CRAZY and sell Highlanders. Apparently there is a big allocation (sorta like a storm front?!) coming my way for SUVs and I'm s'posed to get nuts. I cannot believe anyone's marking these up over MSRP because there's about 10% profit already in MSRP and that's fair enough to be happy with as far as I am concerned on a car like this, but it seems that an under-MSRP to a significant amount might be possible as long as I have cars, and right now, I seem to have plenty.

I read here about all of the other regions' markups and higher than what it should be MSRP levels... and I'm going to post my current stock with options and pricing for MSRP so ya'll can compare.

2WDs (all V6)

6914 silver SR BE TO LL EJ LA CF MSRP=$32075
6914 white DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF RF MSRP=$29129
6914 red DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF RF MSRP=$29129
6914 silver DR TO AG CQ HE CF RF MSRP=$28314
6914 red SR BE TO LL EJ LA CF MSRP=$32075
6914 green SR BE TO LL EJ LA CF MSRP=$32075
6914 white DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795
6914 gold DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795
6914 white DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795
6914 gold DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795
6914 silver DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795
6914 blue SR BE TO LL EJ LA CF MSRP=$32075
6914 white DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$28795

4WDs (all V6)
6924 green DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$30195
6924 silver DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$30195
6924 red DR SR TO AG CQ HE CF MSRP=$30195

(I do have other 6910's and 6920's coming, just not yet here)

Dianne
dianne@earthlink.net

dianne4toyota

The insert areas of the fog lamps (the ones you describe, if I read you correctly) is for your own installation of other lights/fog lamps etc.

swsms

The two rectangular holes right inside the fog light areas are used to insert a tow hook just in case you get stuck somewhere in the Highlander and need to be pulled out. The tow hook is located under the cargo area next to the full size spare.

I think Toyota has thought of everything with the Highlander!

dntmat

Last week I had the opportunity to test drive the New Toyota Highlander LTD AWD. It was a dream to drive and I would have bought it in a heartbeat except for one thing: The right front passenger seat is a manually operated seat. The "cush" is in the back part of the seat and the front slopes down giving one the feeling of sliding out of the seat. The driver's seat was 8 way power adjustable and great. If Only the driver is going to be in it or if others are going to ride in the back seat, it is great. The cup holders for the front are on the right side of the drivers seat near the floor, so I judged them to be inconvenient.
I am not going to pay 35G for a car that I can't be comfortable in the front passenger seat.

texashombre

I went to the Toyota dealer to look at the Highlander. I expected a jacked up station wagon looking vehicle like the Forrester. However, that was not the case. I saw the Highlander and it was that reddish burgundy color. It looked really nice. Yes it's few inches shorter (in height) than the 4Runner but it looked really nice. It reminded me of the Grand Cherokee. Probably that love handle look of its sides making it wider than the 4Runner. I like the pulling door handle that you can have your palm down instead of lift ups, hood and the rear nicely sloped. I didn't had a chance to go inside. Too many people. Plus now is definite not the time for not paying above MSRP me to get serious. Window sticker said $26K and change. First thing came my mind was, "Well, that's not as bad as I thought. Maybe we just all estimated. the price." Then as I read the detail of its features, I realized that it was only a 4 cylinder version.

Yes its MSRP and above is a bit pricy especially with expected high demands. But I guess Toyota; due to its reliability and reputation is high to begin with. Think about the fully loaded V6 Camry and Avalon. And yes, Highlander is more attractable than the Sienna. Do you know how much the Sienna goes for these days? So I can see why it cost more. However, if they would just do that mass production thingy and reduce cost and sell more, I will definitely buy it. Since well equipped 4Runner SR5 goes for about $25-26K (before TT&L), I'm hoping similarly equipped V6 FWD Highlander goes for $23-24K. Wouldn't that be nice?

gpolt

I can only speak from personal experience, but, recently upon visiting a friend in southern Calf., I picked up an L.A. Times auto section and viewed New Toyota adds with incredible prices (i.e. Base Camrys with AC and power package for $13,500 (automatics $14,000). Huge dealerships typically had 5-10 at these prices per week. These prices were on the average $3,000 less than what I could find in Maryland. The problem was that there was no way of circumventing the double payment of sales tax (both states). The CA dealers were required to charge sales tax if the vehicle TOUCHED the roadway (i.e. if driving it cross-country). The dealers unanimously refused to take part in shipping the car (not to mention the added $800-$1,000 for transport) cross country because of the extra paper work involved on what essentially are loss leaders. The State of Maryland is required to charge tax (use tax) unless the auto is a gift, and won't issue a credit for tax paid in another state, nor do they have reciprocity with CA; and should the auto be a gift, there is always gift tax if one wants to be honest and report it, and a disclousre statement that must be notarized.

The lesson to be learned here folks goes beyond caveat emptore. More like Uncle Sam of Uncle State beware. When shopping price, be certain you do all of your homework.

toyotatoys

When I went to close a deal on the Sequoia, I saw a Highlander that was exactly the color and most of the options I wanted. The price was bearable. Yes, it's really a great vehicle to drive and my wife almost got me tempted.

However, when I thought about it again I could not rationalize buying the Highlander for slightly more money than a Honda Odyssey EX, which is bigger, bigger engine, seats more, and better configured IMHO. The Odyssey is, of course, a minivan but if you put them side by side I don't think they would really look very much different. I think most of the distinguishable differences between the two are just in perceived image: driving an SUV versus a minivan.

That's why I was back to the Sequoia. (Of course, there are still others who will argue that the SEQ is not a true SUV, but that's fine with me.)

dianne4toyota

...see, I thought it was odd the way it was described! Now that you've corrected what he means, I can see what he meant! (LOL)

mdx1

RE: toyotatoys Jan 22, 2001 1:54pm

The same comparison can be made between:

Highlander vs. Sienna
Sequoia vs. Sienna
MDX vs. Odyssey
etc.

SUV will cost more as long as the demand is high. But I agree with you that minivans are priced for value seekers.

We have a Sienna and I thought about replacing my Camry with an Odyssey. Having two minivans is kind of silly although it would be quite practical. We need a vehicle that seats seven and drives more like car than a truck. The MDX wins since neither RX300 nor Highlander can seat seven and Sequoia is too large to fit in my garage.