Drove New '08 Toyota Avalon Limited

[Sal Collaziano]

Originally Posted by kgm777

Recently stopped by a dealer to drive a new Avalon to see what all the blue-haired buzz was about.

New 2008 Avalon Limited ($37k) vs. my '07 Cadillac DTS ($45k without incentives)

Avalon feels smaller and lighter in steering (no surprise here).

Avalon is very quiet with some wind and engine noise. Less powertrain NVH and lower levels of road noise than the DTS.

DTS (Level 2) has a noticeably softer ride.

No noticeable transmission problems in the Avalon.

Avalon's brake pedal was sticky on the return and made a slight popping sound when released. This was irritating.

When backing up, you cannot see the rear fenders and even the Limited does not have audible sensors like the DTS (both front and rear).

Overall, a very nice car with better gas mileage and resale value than the DTS, but I'm not sure the Toyota dealer will take of me as well as my Cadillac dealer does at service time (includes a free CTS loan car for even minor service and free washes whenever wanted). For Cadillac-level dealer service, you may have to upgrade to a Lexus. The warranty is also longer at Cadillac and Lexus.

Lexus ES 350 requires premium fuel. Avalon and DTS do not.

Will be driving the new Lincoln MKS (base sticker for $37k) to when it debuts this summer.

Thanks for the review.. Your DTS (level 2) really rides noticeably softer than the Avalon? That surprises me.. How does it handle in comparison - if you checked into that..

Thanks again...

[member12]

I had riden in a 2006 Avalon (maybe a 2005 or 2007....don't know). I thought it rode pretty hard for a Toyota sedan. I don't know what they were thinking, because Toyota sedan drivers seem to go for the Buicky rides.

I didn't drive, but I wasn't very impressed with the cabin as a passenger. I noticed some uneven gaps in the dashboard. Other than the hard ride and the uneven gaps, boring styling, quality issues, and granny image, I guess it's an okay car.

Toyota seemed to sell way more Avalons back in the late 1990s than they do now. I'd be more pleased with the Toyota Crown sedan if they sold it here. It's a great car...built off the Lexus LS chassis.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by member12

I had riden in a 2006 Avalon (maybe a 2005 or 2007....don't know). I thought it rode pretty hard for a Toyota sedan. I don't know what they were thinking, because Toyota sedan drivers seem to go for the Buicky rides.

I didn't drive, but I wasn't very impressed with the cabin as a passenger. I noticed some uneven gaps in the dashboard. Other than the hard ride and the uneven gaps, boring styling, quality issues, and granny image, I guess it's an okay car.

Toyota seemed to sell way more Avalons back in the late 1990s than they do now. I'd be more pleased with the Toyota Crown sedan if they sold it here. It's a great car...built off the Lexus LS chassis.

The Avalon was redesigned for 2006. I'm curious, did you ride in the latest version or the previous?

The Avalon is also available in a trim level called "Touring" that has a much stiffer suspension for sportier driving. All of the other trim levels have the soft suspensions. You don't happen to remember if you rode in an Avalon Touring, do you?

[EldoFan]

Originally Posted by BrickTamland

You are right about sales - fullsize cars are on the decline these days.

But, the Avalon will not win awards because it is from 2005. They do not award old cars. It was well reviewed at its introduction, such as how it won a Car and Driver comparison in July '05.

The Avalon has not been hung out to dry. It has been redesigned steadily; every five years, with a mid-cycle update three years in. That is pretty typical (or at least what should be typical for cars that do languish for too long, like the Regal or the Intrepid, which in their most recent iterations lasted 7 years).

The Avalon sounds like a decent car at the very least, but wouldn't it be more efficient to just slather all it's std. features on the luxo-Camry (XLE if im not mistaken?) and flesh out the line a tad bit more?

[BrickTamland]

Originally Posted by EldoFan

The Avalon sounds like a decent car at the very least, but wouldn't it be more efficient to just slather all it's std. features on the luxo-Camry (XLE if im not mistaken?) and flesh out the line a tad bit more?

That is an ES350. We have to remember there are four trim levels for the Avalon, and the top of the line Limited is quite luxurious, but it comes in a fullsize package for thsoe who want it, as opposed to the smaller Camry and ES350.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by member12

I had riden in a 2006 Avalon (maybe a 2005 or 2007....don't know). I thought it rode pretty hard for a Toyota sedan. I don't know what they were thinking, because Toyota sedan drivers seem to go for the Buicky rides.

I didn't drive, but I wasn't very impressed with the cabin as a passenger. I noticed some uneven gaps in the dashboard. Other than the hard ride and the uneven gaps, boring styling, quality issues, and granny image, I guess it's an okay car.

Toyota seemed to sell way more Avalons back in the late 1990s than they do now.

The first gen Avalon was arguably their best both absolutely and in its time - even Toyota was at least mildly surprised with its success.

( We're just going to ignore things here like premature headgasket failures and sludge issues - and some other )

The second gen was a mixed bag compared to the first - Toyota understandably did a little internal repositioning visa vie Camry and Lexus 'cars'.

This gen Avalon is suffering everyway possible and has from day one - and in many ways that matter is not as good as even the first gen although there have been some advances in safety content and acceleration numbers.

The observations you made would never have happened with the gen 1 .

[1999 White C5 Coupe]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Well the Impala started out as "prestige for every man." I think the Impala should at least become somewhat of a luxury, full size sedan competing with the Avalon. There's a whole thread about this somewhere...

By the way, one of my best friends drives an Avalon Limited...it's actually quite nice inside, only it gets a piddling 21 MPG according to the onboard computer...she does want to get a Malibu though.

I agree - I bought a new 2008 Impala LTZ (top of the line V-6) and once I really drove and used it, I couldn't believe the number of "shortcuts" GM took with this car.

[Exploder]

Originally Posted by 1999 White C5 Coupe

I agree - I bought a new 2008 Impala LTZ (top of the line V-6) and once I really drove and used it, I couldn't believe the number of "shortcuts" GM took with this car.

I would think Toyota is doing that more and more lately judging by recent quality reports.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by BrickTamland

You are right about sales - fullsize cars are on the decline these days.

Well, some of the fullsize cars are pretty heavy (Crown Victoria, Chrysler 300) and most aren't particularly fuel efficient.

4-cylinders are getting more and more powerful, and five and six speed automatic transmissions can help keep them in high RPMs when power is required. Some automaker needs to make a nice fullsize family hauler with a base 170+ horsepower 4-cylinder and a six speed automatic. I bet it would sell.

Originally Posted by EldoFan

The Avalon sounds like a decent car at the very least, but wouldn't it be more efficient to just slather all it's std. features on the luxo-Camry (XLE if im not mistaken?) and flesh out the line a tad bit more?

Here's the size difference measured in cubic feet of cabin space with some other models for comparison:

Mazda6 96
Malibu 97.7
LaCrosse 99.4
Fusion 100
Altima 100.7
Camry 101.4
Impala 104
Sonata 105.4
Accord 106
Avalon 107
Azera 107
Lucerne 108
Taurus 108

(Of course, cubic feet of cabin space is far from a perfect way to measure size. The slope of the roof can block head room in anotherwise spacious car, the seat bottoms can be too low and make your legs uncomfortable, the center console can intrude into your knee room, and so forth.)

[kgm777]

Originally Posted by 1999 White C5 Coupe

I agree - I bought a new 2008 Impala LTZ (top of the line V-6) and once I really drove and used it, I couldn't believe the number of "shortcuts" GM took with this car.

I'm interested: what were some of the shortcomings of the Impala? I was planning on renting an Impala on my next trip to CA. Maybe I shouldn't bother? How is the 3.9L?

[1999 White C5 Coupe]

Originally Posted by kgm777

I'm interested: what were some of the shortcomings of the Impala? I was planning on renting an Impala on my next trip to CA. Maybe I shouldn't bother? How is the 3.9L?

The 3.9 is a quiet, powerful engine - but the fuel mileage is less than the revised / lowered EPA 2008 estimates. Here is a link to my initial posting about the car: 2008 Impala LTZ

[kgm777]

Originally Posted by Sal Collaziano

Thanks for the review.. Your DTS (level 2) really rides noticeably softer than the Avalon? That surprises me.. How does it handle in comparison - if you checked into that..

Thanks again...

Yes, the DTS (not the Performance version with Magnetic Ride Control) has a soft ride with decent handling. The Toyota is more nimble and less massive, but it also doesn't have the feel of substance that the DTS has. The softest ride is still the Town Car, which I recently drove in CA. The Avalon Touring that I rented in CA was dissapointing in the way it handled the brutal CA freeway expansion joints. The TC was far better in this regard (I haven't driven a DTS in CA). Of course the TC doesn't handle as well as the DTS, but the DTS has more power: Cadillac claims a 7.1 sec. 0-60 time. I believe Lincoln claims 8.5 sec . for the TC. The TC body tends to shudder slightly over bumps and you can also feel this through the steering wheel. I think the shuddering is due to bushings that are too soft.

[Astra RL]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

Well, some of the fullsize cars are pretty heavy (Crown Victoria, Chrysler 300) and most aren't particularly fuel efficient.

4-cylinders are getting more and more powerful, and five and six speed automatic transmissions can help keep them in high RPMs when power is required. Some automaker needs to make a nice fullsize family hauler with a base 170+ horsepower 4-cylinder and a six speed automatic. I bet it would sell.



Here's the size difference measured in cubic feet of cabin space with some other models for comparison:

Mazda6 96
Malibu 97.7
LaCrosse 99.4
Fusion 100
Altima 100.7
Camry 101.4
Impala 104
Sonata 105.4
Accord 106
Avalon 107
Azera 107
Lucerne 108
Taurus 108

(Of course, cubic feet of cabin space is far from a perfect way to measure size. The slope of the roof can block head room in anotherwise spacious car, the seat bottoms can be too low and make your legs uncomfortable, the center console can intrude into your knee room, and so forth.)

They do its called Accord. 2.4L 177HP five speed on the LX 190HP on EX. It is huge, only .5 inches shorter than the Acura RL. I would imagine with Honda's torque skillz that it is not much of a performer.

[kgm777]

Originally Posted by Astra RL

They do its called Accord. 2.4L 177HP five speed on the LX 190HP on EX. It is huge, only .5 inches shorter than the Acura RL. I would imagine with Honda's torque skillz that it is not much of a performer.

Actually, I think the Accord is slightly longer than the RL. Both cars have the same wheelbase, so they're probably built off the same platform. The big question: is the Acura RL worth 2.5 times the base Accord? Acura would sell alot of RLs if they priced them reasonably at about $36-$40k.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Astra RL

They do its called Accord. 2.4L 177HP five speed on the LX 190HP on EX. It is huge, only .5 inches shorter than the Acura RL.

Good point. Even though I wrote the post, I forgot how big the 2008 Accord is.

I would imagine with Honda's torque skillz that it is not much of a performer.

The Accord 4-cylinder 0-60 mph is 8.8 seconds, on par with, say, a Suburban, Expedition, or Silverado 4.8.

It's no rocket, but you won't fear for your life either.

People forget the 1980s, when it was common to get V8 family sedans with 9.5 second 0-60 mph times.