I haven't even touched a new Tundra yet and since I don't run a service shop anymore I doubt I will.
Not likely to see a Tundra in trade for a Range Rover you know.
The previous big Toyota trucks never impressed me when I worked on them. I would have to reserve judgment on this one till I get a chance to play with it some.
With the way Toyota is going, if I am a betting man I wouldn't bet against them.
Track record speaks for itself...
As for battery breakthrough, if human can go to the moon within 10 years I believe if we put our acts together there is hardly a thing that we can't accomplish.
As for battery breakthrough, if human can go to the moon within 10 years I believe if we put our acts together there is hardly a thing that we can't accomplish.
The last article I read about going to the moon was interesting. At this point in time it would take over 50 years for us to repeat what we did in 1969. We have lost the edge to safety. No risk takers allowed. We are buried in regulations that does not take big risks.
Lithium-ion batteries, first proposed in the 1960s, came into reality once Bell Labs developed a workable graphite anode[3] to provide an alternative to lithium metal, the lithium battery. Following groundbreaking cathode research by a team led by John Goodenough[4] (then at Oxford University, now at the University of Texas, Austin), the first commercial lithium ion battery was released by Sony in 1991
The Li-Ion battery has been in use for 17 years and still suffers the same problems that have plagued it since inception. Longevity and over heating.
Toyota has wisely pulled back from Li-Ion batteries. They were slated for the LS600h. They may have set that car back on the shelf.
FIRST-EVER LITHIUM-ION MAIN AIRCRAFT BATTERY READY FOR THE B-2 SPIRIT
he Propulsion Directorate, along with industry partners, developed the first-ever main aircraft battery using advanced lithium-ion technology for the B-2 Spirit. The lithium-ion battery (shown above) boasts the advantage of five times the energy output with the same weight of the currently used nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery in a form, fit, and function replacement. This battery has an estimated useful life of 2-3 years and is virtually maintenance free.
Accomplishment The 36 lb lithium-ion battery will replace the existing vented Ni-Cd battery. The directorate designed the new battery to fit dimensionally into the existing B-2 battery case and function with the existing charger system to avoid a costly charger modification. Implementing the new technology provides five times the existing battery capacity and exceeds the performance requirements of the upgraded B-2 aircraft. An equivalent sealed Ni-Cd battery would weigh approximately 108 lbs and require structural modification to the aircraft and battery compartment.
Background The directorate, along with industry partners, successfully developed the lithium-ion technology and tested the battery for the B-2 Spirit. Directorate researchers partnered with Yardney, Inc. to make this advanced battery capability available for use. The program’s goal was to create a battery of the same size and weight that generates greater capacity at a lower temperature. The battery has undergone low-temperature, high-temperature, and life-cycle tests with excellent battery performance. It supplies the required capacity at low temperatures and higher than required capacity at normal temperatures.
Apparently someone is having success with the Lithium Ion battery...
Well, I didn't say Toyota should just use THAT battery. What I am trying to say is I don't believe that technology is the problem. Sooner or later a feasible, low cost lithium ion battery will be invented.
It's too bad that not everyone can afford a Range Rover..
You can buy an LR2 for the same price range as the Highlander. I imagine it is a much more refined off road machine than Toyota builds in that price point.
Hell I can't afford a range rover. I could have bought one last fall when they had special Employee leases, you could lease a 77,000 dollar range rover for 450 a month including property and sales tax with just 1,000 dollars down, but I had just bought a house so that wasn't happening.
I didn't just mean Land Rovers though. Almost every brand makes some non-appliance interesting cars but Toyota has completely given up on enthusiast oriented cars in their quest to dominate the middle market. They don't even make any interesting non-enthusiast cars anymore. Not a single car they make gets me excited or makes me go WOW when I see one go buy.
I want to be wowed by a car and I can find a wow car at nearly every brand but Toyota.
I don't think one of the Highlander's selling point is its off road capability. If I want to go off road with a Toyota product I'll go with either the 4Runner (4WD version of course) or FJCruiser.
If I am going to pay the LR2-kind of money I'll just opt for the RDX or X3. Well, on the second thought, make it the RDX then...
What I am saying is they have tried to overcome the inherent problems with the Li-Ion batteries for a Long time and have not come up with a solution. Maybe some other technology such a capacitors or EEStor will pop out of the wood work. We can hope that it does. For me wanting an EV it looks mighty bleak.
Toyota knows that any hybrid they sell in a CARB state will have to be warranted for 10 years or 150k miles. 10 years for Li-Ion batteries will not happen. I think they could make the mileage factor. They do have some batteries that will take a lot of charging and discharging. It is the shelf life that has plagued the technology.
For me realistically I would not abuse an off road vehicle as I have in the past. So most any mid to full sized with a diesel engine will be my next new vehicle. It could be as small as a CR-V diesel. I don't see Toyota joining the diesel surge for 5 more years. I was hard on my 4X4s in the 1960s.
Toyota has pretty much dedicated to the hybrid technology. I don't see them joining the diesel party anytime soon. Like I said before if it's up to me I'll probably choose hybrid over diesel as well.
f I am going to pay the LR2-kind of money I'll just opt for the RDX or X3. Well, on the second thought, make it the RDX then...
Exactly you aren't getting a X3 for LR2 money. At least not a comparably equipped one. I thought I would like the RDX but I don't. It looks like the track is too narrow for the body width. I normally like the styling on Acuras but I don't like the RDX.
Back on topic:
A couple of years ago a Highlander rear ended one of LR3s at 45 mph. The guy wasn't paying attention and never even hit the brakes.
Results...
Highlander was totaled and it looked like a sledgehammer the size of a one ton pickup truck had smashed in the front end. You couldn't even recognize the Highlander from the front. The driver was ok though all the safety equipment worked as it was intended and the crumple zones did their job.
The LR3 had 1,800 dollars worth of damage as the rear bumper skin and passenger side exhaust pipe system up to the manifold had to be replaced.
Usually when a car rear ended another, the car in the back will suffer way more damage.
It was about 6 years ago, I rear ended a Focus with my Camry while going 40 mph. The front of my Camry was totaled and the only damage on the Focus is on the rear bumper skin.
That being said, I would like to see what'll happen if the LR3 and Highlander are involved in a head-on collision at 45 mph though.
LF-A The next Supra (checkout the FT-HS concept) IS-F
Seen them both and I just don't see them as all that exciting. I doubt they will offer manual transmissions and there will be way too much electronic driver aids that can't be disabled. Plus aren't they both supposed to by hybrids? I am not still not entirely convinced in hybrids.
Acura is coming out with a new NSX in a couple of years. The TSX and TL are exciting cars that are fun to drive. They offer an engaging drivers experience. The next gen ones will even offer AWD.
Buick ehh nothing they offer for now does anything for me either. I liked the Park Avenue Ultra and Supercharged Regals from the past.
Chrysler the 300C is still a good car even if it is a bit dated. Still don't like the mail slot windows. The new Sebring Hardtop convertible should be good if you are the target demographic. It as at least an interesting car. Does Toyota have a Hardtop convertible? :P
GMC they are trucks so not a whole lot to get excited about. They did offer a sweet four wheel steering Denali for a while and the Duramax GMC trucks are still great.
Hyundai and Kia ehhh the new Genesis could be interesting. I liked the Tiburon it was a competent entry level coupe. I liked the old Kia Sportage. My wife had one in college and I actually took it off road a couple of times after I totaled my Jeep. I did ok on the same trails my Jeep had no problems with and I only had to go around a couple of obstacles.
Lincoln is lost they have nothing I would be interested in.
Mercury I actually like the Milan one of my reps has one but I wouldn't pay more for the Lincoln version.
Pontiac has the Solstice which is a good car for the most part and the G6 which interests me slightly. Also another Hardtop vert.
Saturn has the Sky which I think looks better then the Solstice. The Astra is coming which could also be good and I think it will come as a hatchback. I love Hatchbacks. The Aura looks to be the best midsized sedan from GM in ages.
SAAB dude how can you not love the 9-3 Convertible? Even as a soft top it is quieter then some of the hardtop verts and next year you can get AWD.
Volvo how can you even think volvo isn't interesting. First you have the C70 which is a great car. Then the C30 is coming out another great Hatchback. The V70R/S60Rs are still around for now and are great. The S80 is another good car although it is a bit high priced for the V8 model. I would get the AWD T6 model. The XC70 is a good SUV alternative and you can get rear facing third row seats what is cooler then that?
Next Supra: probably will be a hybrid if it's going to be based on the FT-HS. However, rumor has it that it'll come with 2 versions: V6 (~350HP) and V8 (~400HP). Both should have manual tranny.
IS-F: V8 with over 400HP and 8-speed auto tranny :sick: , I guess it'll be more like a C63 AMG competitor than the M3.
As for the other not-so-exciting brands...
Acura: will not call TSX and TL "exciting". Fun to drive maybe but definitely not exciting.
Chrysler: sorry, nothing excites me here. The 300C is just a big RWD V8 that can go fast. I'll take the IS and GS over that any given day. Toyota doesn't have a hard-top convertible but the current Solara looks 100 times better than the new Sebring IMO.
Pontiac: The Soltice is defintely fun but "exciting"? Not really.
Saturn: Sky is a looker. Exciting? I'll pass and take the MX-5 or S2000.
Saab: Drove the 9-3 Aero, so-so car, cheap interior, not a fan.
Volvo: I actually like most cars Volvo has to offer but I wouldn't call any of them exciting. As matter of fact I wouldn't call any FWD car "exciting".
That being said, I would like to see what'll happen if the LR3 and Highlander are involved in a head-on collision at 45 mph though.
Ehh I don't think it would go over well for either car. That is a lot of energy to dissipate. Depending on how much the offset is we are talking a 70-80 mph combined speed.
I would imagine the LR3 would fare better just because it has about 2,500 lbs on the Camry, plus a unibody safety cage, plus it scored a few points better on the NCAP test.
It's more like if I want a second car to serve as the weekend fun car then that list is a good start. Other wise I'll stick with performance sedans as my daily driver.
We will probably keep the 1990 LS400 another 10 years. It is more than enough sedan for me to handle. Just do not like cars. Give me a Truck or an SUV any day of the week.
I can cruise all day at 70-80 MPH and get 27 MPG with the LS400. It is barely idling as you can see at 70 MPH. Too bad the new Lexus are not built like the old ones.
I agree all exciting cars. I have driven most of them except the S2000, NSX and C63. I have also driven a F430 which is the very essence of a exciting, sporty car.
I didn't just say exciting though I said interesting. Toyota doesn't make any cars that I find interesting or quirky because they want that middle market so, so very badly and will give up all pretense of sportiness, excitement or interesting to get it.
Even the Scions, the supposedly radical Youth brand, is not really that interesting. Funky looking sure but not that interesting. The Element or Ridgeline has interesting and functionality in spades over anything in the Scion or Toyota brand.
EDIT:
One more thing I drove a MINI Cooper S for two years. I don't have any prejudice against FWD performance cars. As long as the chassis is set up they can be very, very exciting. The TSX I drove reminded me of a Big MINI. The power comes on a little later, roots based superchargers build power right off the line, in the Acura but the TSX had room to play above 6,000 RPMS. My MINI was all done by 6,500 rpms.
I believe I read that it is .7 to 1. We are going about 85 MPH at 2000 RPM. Still gets close to 19 MPG around town. Which is OK for a big car. Runs great and has no sales value. We might as well drive it until the automakers come up with something we like. Maybe a Range Rover if they put a diesel in them.
Wow only .7:1 I would have figured it was in the .6 range. You must have fairly small tires on it.
What are they 16 inch rims with 205/55s on them or something?
No idea when the Range Rover will get a diesel for the US. I know the plan was to have Diesels in the US before the end of the decade but a sale of Land Rover could change that. It has been hinted at that the LR2 would probably get a diesel first since it shares so many parts with Volvos so it would be easier to get the engine emission certified.
I am not going to keep ANY car for more than 8 years nevertheless 18. My plan is to trade mine in after 5-6 years for the next gen IS or the 3-series.
If my current car gives me no trouble for 5-6 years then most likely I'll go back to Lexus for another around of the IS. Otherwise, I'll give BMW a shot...
I would rather put my excess cash into real estate. Especially when the auto makers cannot come up with anything decent looking. They are all copy cats. When I was growing up you could tell the difference between the auto makers models. Not anymore. Take the egg shaped Lexus RX. Look around, every maker has an egg shaped CUV.
Add to that you cannot go for a nice drive without being in bumper to bumper traffic. Kind has me turned off on cars as something fun to drive. Armor up and head out into the highway jungle.
I would rather put my excess cash into real estate
Very good advice and I intend to follow it. However, instead of investing real estate in Cali I am serious thinking about China, maybe even in something other than real estate. Agree that buying a brand new car every 5-6 years is not exactly a "smart move" but since I am a sucker for cars, oh well...
No problem. You have VSC, ABS, XZY and 10 airbags. How could you possibly get hurt?
I can have ejection seats in my car I still wouldn't want to crash while doing 120 mph. I like driving fast but certainly not crazy.
You can buy an LR2 for the same price range as the Highlander. I imagine it is a much more refined off road machine than Toyota builds in that price point.
They're not comparable. The Highlander is a lot bigger, in fact even the RAV4 is bigger.
Besides, Toyota would try to sell you on an FJ if you wanted to go off road.
To be honest in that class I think I'd opt for the XTerra and spend less then either of those.
LR2 is cool but you gotta wonder the size of the compact designer off-road market. Probably tiny.
True the Highlander is bigger but where is all that size going? The LR2 has better head, shoulder and legroom for both front and rear seats. All that extra size is going to the miniature third row in the Highlander and extra cargo space.
I agree if you want something in that size range for an off-road tow and you don't want a Jeep Wrangler then get the Xterra.
The Wrangler 4 door with the hard top would be the top choice. Then the Xtera. I have driven the FJ off road and I was not impressed. The sight lines are pathetic in the FJ and why does the traction control get shut down in 4WD? You don't shut down TC in 4WD you just provide a separate program for 4WD.
Not only are blind spots awful, but also the FJ runs on premium fuel. What where they thinking?
Think about it, you want to drive through Baja, Mexico, and are worried about fuel quality. Don't take an FJ!
Though now that I think about it, does the XTerra's VQ40 also like premium? Most VQs do, maybe not the X. I'm sure the LR2 prefers premium fuel as well.
My dad got it right. He had a fleet of SUVs for international use and basically ordered diesel Land Cruisers, the type that runs on crappy diesel fuel. That's all you'll find in some remote places.
Actually the 2007 Highlander is not much bigger. It's just longer and not in the same segment as the LR2. I personally would never compare a mainstream brand vehicle to a luxury brand vehicle, regardless of the price.
The FJ is a total loser except for those that want something really off the wall looking. The doors and the visibility is horrible. Plus the new 4 door Wrangler is kicking the FJs rear end. Like you say that determines which vehicle is BEST.
I have no idea the differential ratio and only read something that said the 4th gear was .7 to one. That is the tire size and the speed is only off 1 MPH on the radar signs along the freeway.
I don't think the FJ is a "total" loser and as matter of fact it is a "winner" according to Edmunds (it beats out the Xterra in a comparison test). It might not be as rugged as the Wrangler or not as big of seller but it is definitely not a "total loser".
Comments
Not likely to see a Tundra in trade for a Range Rover you know.
The previous big Toyota trucks never impressed me when I worked on them. I would have to reserve judgment on this one till I get a chance to play with it some.
Track record speaks for itself...
As for battery breakthrough, if human can go to the moon within 10 years I believe if we put our acts together there is hardly a thing that we can't accomplish.
The last article I read about going to the moon was interesting. At this point in time it would take over 50 years for us to repeat what we did in 1969. We have lost the edge to safety. No risk takers allowed. We are buried in regulations that does not take big risks.
Lithium-ion batteries, first proposed in the 1960s, came into reality once Bell Labs developed a workable graphite anode[3] to provide an alternative to lithium metal, the lithium battery. Following groundbreaking cathode research by a team led by John Goodenough[4] (then at Oxford University, now at the University of Texas, Austin), the first commercial lithium ion battery was released by Sony in 1991
The Li-Ion battery has been in use for 17 years and still suffers the same problems that have plagued it since inception. Longevity and over heating.
Toyota has wisely pulled back from Li-Ion batteries. They were slated for the LS600h. They may have set that car back on the shelf.
he Propulsion Directorate, along with industry partners, developed the first-ever main aircraft battery using advanced lithium-ion technology for the B-2 Spirit. The lithium-ion battery (shown above) boasts the advantage
of five times the energy output with the same weight of the currently used nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery in a form, fit, and function replacement. This battery has an estimated useful life of 2-3 years and is virtually maintenance free.
Accomplishment
The 36 lb lithium-ion battery will replace the existing vented Ni-Cd battery. The directorate designed the new battery to fit dimensionally into the existing B-2 battery case and function with the existing charger system to avoid a costly charger modification. Implementing the new technology provides five times the existing battery capacity and exceeds the performance requirements of the upgraded B-2 aircraft. An equivalent sealed Ni-Cd battery would weigh approximately 108 lbs and require structural modification to the aircraft and battery compartment.
Background
The directorate, along with industry partners, successfully developed the lithium-ion technology and tested the battery for the B-2 Spirit. Directorate researchers partnered with Yardney, Inc. to make this advanced battery capability available for use. The program’s goal was to create a battery of the same size and weight that generates greater capacity at a lower temperature. The battery has undergone low-temperature, high-temperature, and life-cycle tests with
excellent battery performance. It supplies the required capacity at low temperatures and higher than required capacity at normal temperatures.
Apparently someone is having success with the Lithium Ion battery...
Source: Air Force Research Laboratory AFRL
That is probably a 5 million dollar battery. :surprise:
Mackabee
You can buy an LR2 for the same price range as the Highlander. I imagine it is a much more refined off road machine than Toyota builds in that price point.
I didn't just mean Land Rovers though. Almost every brand makes some non-appliance interesting cars but Toyota has completely given up on enthusiast oriented cars in their quest to dominate the middle market. They don't even make any interesting non-enthusiast cars anymore. Not a single car they make gets me excited or makes me go WOW when I see one go buy.
I want to be wowed by a car and I can find a wow car at nearly every brand but Toyota.
If I am going to pay the LR2-kind of money I'll just opt for the RDX or X3. Well, on the second thought, make it the RDX then...
Toyota knows that any hybrid they sell in a CARB state will have to be warranted for 10 years or 150k miles. 10 years for Li-Ion batteries will not happen. I think they could make the mileage factor. They do have some batteries that will take a lot of charging and discharging. It is the shelf life that has plagued the technology.
LF-A
The next Supra (checkout the FT-HS concept)
IS-F
BTW, I can come up with many other brands that just don't WOW me...
Acura (the post-NSX Acura)
Buick
Chrysler
GMC
Hyundai
Kia
Lincoln
Mercury
Pontiac
Saturn
Saab
Volvo
Exactly you aren't getting a X3 for LR2 money. At least not a comparably equipped one. I thought I would like the RDX but I don't. It looks like the track is too narrow for the body width. I normally like the styling on Acuras but I don't like the RDX.
Back on topic:
A couple of years ago a Highlander rear ended one of LR3s at 45 mph. The guy wasn't paying attention and never even hit the brakes.
Results...
Highlander was totaled and it looked like a sledgehammer the size of a one ton pickup truck had smashed in the front end. You couldn't even recognize the Highlander from the front. The driver was ok though all the safety equipment worked as it was intended and the crumple zones did their job.
The LR3 had 1,800 dollars worth of damage as the rear bumper skin and passenger side exhaust pipe system up to the manifold had to be replaced.
It was about 6 years ago, I rear ended a Focus with my Camry while going 40 mph. The front of my Camry was totaled and the only damage on the Focus is on the rear bumper skin.
That being said, I would like to see what'll happen if the LR3 and Highlander are involved in a head-on collision at 45 mph though.
The next Supra (checkout the FT-HS concept)
IS-F
Seen them both and I just don't see them as all that exciting. I doubt they will offer manual transmissions and there will be way too much electronic driver aids that can't be disabled. Plus aren't they both supposed to by hybrids? I am not still not entirely convinced in hybrids.
Acura is coming out with a new NSX in a couple of years. The TSX and TL are exciting cars that are fun to drive. They offer an engaging drivers experience. The next gen ones will even offer AWD.
Buick ehh nothing they offer for now does anything for me either. I liked the Park Avenue Ultra and Supercharged Regals from the past.
Chrysler the 300C is still a good car even if it is a bit dated. Still don't like the mail slot windows. The new Sebring Hardtop convertible should be good if you are the target demographic. It as at least an interesting car. Does Toyota have a Hardtop convertible? :P
GMC they are trucks so not a whole lot to get excited about. They did offer a sweet four wheel steering Denali for a while and the Duramax GMC trucks are still great.
Hyundai and Kia ehhh the new Genesis could be interesting. I liked the Tiburon it was a competent entry level coupe. I liked the old Kia Sportage. My wife had one in college and I actually took it off road a couple of times after I totaled my Jeep. I did ok on the same trails my Jeep had no problems with and I only had to go around a couple of obstacles.
Lincoln is lost they have nothing I would be interested in.
Mercury I actually like the Milan one of my reps has one but I wouldn't pay more for the Lincoln version.
Pontiac has the Solstice which is a good car for the most part and the G6 which interests me slightly. Also another Hardtop vert.
Saturn has the Sky which I think looks better then the Solstice. The Astra is coming which could also be good and I think it will come as a hatchback. I love Hatchbacks. The Aura looks to be the best midsized sedan from GM in ages.
SAAB dude how can you not love the 9-3 Convertible? Even as a soft top it is quieter then some of the hardtop verts and next year you can get AWD.
Volvo how can you even think volvo isn't interesting. First you have the C70 which is a great car. Then the C30 is coming out another great Hatchback. The V70R/S60Rs are still around for now and are great. The S80 is another good car although it is a bit high priced for the V8 model. I would get the AWD T6 model. The XC70 is a good SUV alternative and you can get rear facing third row seats what is cooler then that?
LF-A: will have DSG and V10. No hybrid
Next Supra: probably will be a hybrid if it's going to be based on the FT-HS. However, rumor has it that it'll come with 2 versions: V6 (~350HP) and V8 (~400HP). Both should have manual tranny.
IS-F: V8 with over 400HP and 8-speed auto tranny :sick: , I guess it'll be more like a C63 AMG competitor than the M3.
As for the other not-so-exciting brands...
Acura: will not call TSX and TL "exciting". Fun to drive maybe but definitely not exciting.
Chrysler: sorry, nothing excites me here. The 300C is just a big RWD V8 that can go fast. I'll take the IS and GS over that any given day. Toyota doesn't have a hard-top convertible but the current Solara looks 100 times better than the new Sebring IMO.
Pontiac: The Soltice is defintely fun but "exciting"? Not really.
Saturn: Sky is a looker. Exciting? I'll pass and take the MX-5 or S2000.
Saab: Drove the 9-3 Aero, so-so car, cheap interior, not a fan.
Volvo: I actually like most cars Volvo has to offer but I wouldn't call any of them exciting. As matter of fact I wouldn't call any FWD car "exciting".
My idea of exciting cars:
911
Boxter
Cayman
Corvette
Viper
S2000
NSX
Supra
M3
C63 AMG
...
You get the idea.
Ehh I don't think it would go over well for either car. That is a lot of energy to dissipate. Depending on how much the offset is we are talking a 70-80 mph combined speed.
I would imagine the LR3 would fare better just because it has about 2,500 lbs on the Camry, plus a unibody safety cage, plus it scored a few points better on the NCAP test.
My idea of exciting cars:
911
Boxter
Cayman
Corvette
Viper
S2000
NSX
Supra
M3
C63 AMG
...
You get the idea.
I can cruise all day at 70-80 MPH and get 27 MPG with the LS400. It is barely idling as you can see at 70 MPH. Too bad the new Lexus are not built like the old ones.
Thank god the new Lexus are not built like the old ones.
Different stroke for different people.
Glad I'm not the guy in front....
911
Boxter
Cayman
Corvette
Viper
S2000
NSX
Supra
M3
C63 AMG
I agree all exciting cars. I have driven most of them except the S2000, NSX and C63. I have also driven a F430 which is the very essence of a exciting, sporty car.
I didn't just say exciting though I said interesting. Toyota doesn't make any cars that I find interesting or quirky because they want that middle market so, so very badly and will give up all pretense of sportiness, excitement or interesting to get it.
Even the Scions, the supposedly radical Youth brand, is not really that interesting. Funky looking sure but not that interesting. The Element or Ridgeline has interesting and functionality in spades over anything in the Scion or Toyota brand.
EDIT:
One more thing I drove a MINI Cooper S for two years. I don't have any prejudice against FWD performance cars. As long as the chassis is set up they can be very, very exciting. The TSX I drove reminded me of a Big MINI. The power comes on a little later, roots based superchargers build power right off the line, in the Acura but the TSX had room to play above 6,000 RPMS. My MINI was all done by 6,500 rpms.
What are they 16 inch rims with 205/55s on them or something?
No idea when the Range Rover will get a diesel for the US. I know the plan was to have Diesels in the US before the end of the decade but a sale of Land Rover could change that. It has been hinted at that the LR2 would probably get a diesel first since it shares so many parts with Volvos so it would be easier to get the engine emission certified.
If my current car gives me no trouble for 5-6 years then most likely I'll go back to Lexus for another around of the IS. Otherwise, I'll give BMW a shot...
Add to that you cannot go for a nice drive without being in bumper to bumper traffic. Kind has me turned off on cars as something fun to drive. Armor up and head out into the highway jungle.
Very good advice and I intend to follow it. However, instead of investing real estate in Cali I am serious thinking about China, maybe even in something other than real estate. Agree that buying a brand new car every 5-6 years is not exactly a "smart move" but since I am a sucker for cars, oh well...
No problem. You have VSC, ABS, XZY and 10 airbags. How could you possibly get hurt?
I can have ejection seats in my car I still wouldn't want to crash while doing 120 mph. I like driving fast but certainly not crazy.
They're not comparable. The Highlander is a lot bigger, in fact even the RAV4 is bigger.
Besides, Toyota would try to sell you on an FJ if you wanted to go off road.
To be honest in that class I think I'd opt for the XTerra and spend less then either of those.
LR2 is cool but you gotta wonder the size of the compact designer off-road market. Probably tiny.
DrFill
I agree if you want something in that size range for an off-road tow and you don't want a Jeep Wrangler then get the Xterra.
The Wrangler 4 door with the hard top would be the top choice. Then the Xtera. I have driven the FJ off road and I was not impressed. The sight lines are pathetic in the FJ and why does the traction control get shut down in 4WD? You don't shut down TC in 4WD you just provide a separate program for 4WD.
Think about it, you want to drive through Baja, Mexico, and are worried about fuel quality. Don't take an FJ!
Though now that I think about it, does the XTerra's VQ40 also like premium? Most VQs do, maybe not the X. I'm sure the LR2 prefers premium fuel as well.
My dad got it right. He had a fleet of SUVs for international use and basically ordered diesel Land Cruisers, the type that runs on crappy diesel fuel. That's all you'll find in some remote places.
Curb Weight - Automatic (lb.)
LR2: 4255
HL: 3935
Wheelbase (in.)
LR2: 104.70
HL: 106.90
Length (in.)
LR2: 177.10
HL: 184.60
Width (in.)
LR2: 75.20
HL: 71.90
Height (in.)
LR2: 68.50
HL: 68.30
Track Front (in.)
LR2: 63.40
HL: 62.00
Track Rear (in.)
LR2: 63.90
HL: 61.20
The 2007 Special Edition FJ will even allow you to use A-Trac with the rear end locked!
DrFill
Again, I am just stating the facts.