UNBIASED Toyota Highlander Hybrid review

[goblue]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/carrev...rid/index.html

The Highlander, even the regular non-hybrid kind, has just one major shortcoming: It's boring. On a global scale of excitement, the Toyota Highlander ranks up there with a nice glass of room-temperature tap water.

If you want to know what it's like to drive a Highlander, think of Velveeta, the processed cheese product from Kraft. Soft, bland and a little gooey, it's neither interesting nor objectionable.

Even so, the Highlander is very popular, its dullness not withstanding. Few SUVs are easier to lose in a parking lot.

The addition of gas-electric hybrid technology actually spices things up a little. Besides the sheer novelty of it, the Highlander Hybrid has the same 3.3-liter V6 engine as the higher-end non-hybrid versions. So the two electric motors -- or one electric motor in front-wheel drive versions -- give the hybrid an extra boost of power in addition to saving gas.

Under hard acceleration, both the electric and gasoline powerplants spring to life and push hard. Total horsepower output comes to 268 in either two- or four-wheel drive versions. That's 38 more than you get in the regular gasoline-only Highlander. Also, the electric motors produce their full allotment of torque right from the start. That means a slightly gutsier take-off.

Not that the regular Highlander is underpowered. It's not fast, but it's OK. You can merge without fear. But the hybrid's extra boost is noticeable and nice to have.

It does come at the cost of some wicked engine noise, though. The hybrid's continuously variable transmission, which shifts gear ratios continuously rather than stepping up gear-to-gear, keeps the gasoline engine in its hardest working -- and loudest -- power range full time until you let up on the gas. It's working those pistons hard and it sounds like it.

The hybrid's handling also felt a little better to me than the regular Highlander. Now, that could have been just because, after a few days, I was getting used to its mediocrity. The Highlander does have "car-like" handling, but it's not like a very good car.

Or it could have been the extra 350 pounds of the hybrid system's motors and battery packs. The extra weight is under the Highlander's body, below the vehicle's center of gravity. That would add some extra firmness and stability, which would be just what the Highlander needs.

There is a plus to that boring, boxy shape, by the way. The Highlander makes efficient use of its space, offering as much room inside as seemingly larger vehicles.

It's easy to pack and unpack, easy to park and maneuver in traffic, and it offers a comfortable amount of space for five passengers. For all of those boring, practical reasons, the vehicle ended up growing on me after a few days.

On a 225 mile round trip from New York City to Hyde Park, New York -- home of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Culinary Institute of America and, perhaps more importantly, the EveReady Diner -- we got about 28 miles per gallon. That's outstanding for a roomy V6 SUV.

According to government estimates, a four-wheel-drive Highlander Hybrid should get about 31 miles per gallon in city driving and 24 on the highway. (No, those numbers aren't backwards.) That compares to 18 and 24 miles per gallon for a four-wheel-drive non-hybrid version with the same engine. Real-world driving usually yields lower mileage than EPA estimates, so my result was surprising.

The route we took was fairly evenly divided between steady highway cruising and slower stretches through small town shopping districts. There were also more than a few pedal-to-the-metal starts as we pulled off the highway and back on again to go back and look at something we'd missed.

On the self-righteousness front, the Highlander Hybrid allowed us to creep through National Park lands without releasing any finch-gagging particulate matter. OK, it was the Vanderbilt Estate. Not exactly the Grand Tetons, but you get the idea.

With a starting price of about $33,600, the Highlander Hybrid costs about $6,000 more than a comparably equipped regular Highlander. (Comparably equipped, in this case, includes virtually useless third-row seats. You can't get the Hybrid without them. Their sole value is as a conveniently folding way to punish small children.)

That high price differential is a real shame and only some of that is due to the hybrid system itself. The rest is from extras that have no relation to the system. Unfortunately, it may keep a lot of people from experiencing the benefits of this technology.

If they're going to charge that kind of cash, they should put the word "hybrid" somewhere on the outside in letters higher than a quarter of an inch.

If I'm paying that much to help save the world, I want everybody to know it.

[goblue]

To read a refreshingly honest review of a Toyota product was a little exciting. He calls out the so-so handling, ridiculous third row seats, loud engine - in a Toyota??, I thought for a second the thing had pushrods, and the exorbinant price for a hybrid relative to fuel econ. Just wish he had added the cost estimates. To see this on CNN's front page was interesting. I bet when buyers see the 8K price hike they will do the math.

[Tiger]

MSRP - Invoice - National Base Price / $39,290 - $35,198 - $41,662

Optional Equipment $2,000 $1,700 $2,000
NV Navigation System $2,000 $1,700 $2,000

Destination Charge $565 $565 $565

Total with Options $41,855 - $37,463 - $44,227

[johnny smallblock]

You know, the beauty of the media is that they want a good stroy more than they want the truth. So GM makes every mistake in the world, and Toyota walks with the Angels. You know what would be a good story? GM comes back with a passion and Toyota falls to pieces. If GM starts in the right direction, I don't think the media will be able to resist this story.

[VGT]

A short time ago the Highlander was tested against the Exploder and the TrailBlazer. The magazine proclaimed the Highlander the winner. I could not believe it. It had no off road capability due to it being on a car platform, plus it was FWD. It's not even really in the same class as the TB and Exploder.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by Mags

If this review had been about a GM automobile, 'bias' would have been in capital letters, and it would have 7 pages by now, filled with agreement.

MF

Exactly. This is a gm enthusiast site, but unfortunatly it is less enthusiast and more bias. Nothing GM does can be wrong and nothing a *** company does can be right in these peoples minds.

Personally I am a GM enthusiast, my entire family loves GM's, but we are not biased against everything else like most of the people here seem to be.

It is nice to see an honest review though, because the liberal media IS bias towards Toyota, however that doesn't mean that they aren't sometimes right.

[paul8488]

Does anyone know the guy who wrote this, or anything about him? Maybe he owns 49% of GM stock, and is really hoping for Toyota to fail. That would make this a very biased report. Bias doesn't necessarily have anything to do with positive or negative GM reporting. If this review isn't accurate, and the Highlander is actually the most exciting vehicle out there, then the report means nothing. We can't comment on bias when we don't know anything about what the author likes or knows or has experienced. That said, his review is clear, and he points out why he's not madly in love with this Toyota. Sounds like a fair, balanced review, and one that ignores what we all already know and think we know about Toyota. But if a guy in a Highlander ran over his dog last week, it might very well be the most biased report out there.

[stevecmh]

Wow, he must be a minority in Journalists. One that speaks out against Toyota. Nice to see it on the front page.

[gmwsag]

I disagree with his strong review. First of all, the Highlander is a very popular vehicle, and it isn't bland. Toyota's tend to be a little bit more conservative (something some people have complained about), but I don't agree. I find the Highlander a very attractive vehicle. He is definitely a minority. The Highlander is one of the best crossovers out there, besides RX330 and Equinox.

[gmwsag]

liberal media

I suggest you leave political words out.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by gmwsag

I disagree with his strong review. First of all, the Highlander is a very popular vehicle, and it isn't bland. Toyota's tend to be a little bit more conservative (something some people have complained about), but I don't agree. I find the Highlander a very attractive vehicle. He is definitely a minority. The Highlander is one of the best crossovers out there, besides RX330 and Equinox.

I've driven one - and compared it to a Nox testdrive. While its pretty well put together - its handling was subpar even for car based SUVs IMO - and no, I'm not comparing it to an X5. It's popular b/c of Toyota's reputation, if it was styled more like the Nox, I bet it would sell a whole lot more.

[espo19047]

Originally Posted by logansowner

Exactly.

It is nice to see an honest review though, because the liberal media IS bias towards Toyota, however that doesn't mean that they aren't sometimes right.

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes!
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze3ttrj/...urgerchevrolet/

[Road Kill]

Wild-Eyed Bleatings, Delusional Hacks, Instant Experts
autoextremist.com

By Peter DeLorenzo (Opinion)

June 22, 2005

DETROIT – Whatever you think of Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times Op-Ed columnist (aka "The Exalted One"), it's clear he embarrassed himself royally last Friday (June 17) in a column entitled "As Toyota goes..." He opened his column with this sentence, "So I have a question: If I am rooting for General Motors to go bankrupt and be bought out by Toyota, does that make me a bad person?" From there, he proceeded to embark on a ridiculous diatribe against General Motors and Detroit, suggesting that GM should be taken over by Toyota because of its incompetent management, saying "Indeed, I think the only hope for G.M.'s autoworkers, and maybe even our country, is with Toyota. Because let's face it, as Toyota goes, so goes America."

First of all, I was shocked to learn that Friedman had become an "instant expert" about the automobile industry overnight. Secondly, I was even more shocked to learn that he was capable of indicting the U.S. auto industry and GM in particular in a column that was based entirely on dubious technical facts. Oh hell, let's call theses "facts" what they are - flat-out fiction.

Friedman's entire premise revolved around the fact that in his opinion, GM management's behavior has bordered on the criminal and that "Having Toyota take over General Motors - which based its business strategy on building gas-guzzling cars, including the idiot Hummer, scoffing at hybrid technology and fighting Congressional efforts to impose higher mileage standards on U.S. automakers - would not only be in America's economic interest, it would also be in America's geopolitical interest." As if those accusations weren't ill-informed enough (and just simply untrue), Friedman officially veered into dim-bulb territory with his assertion that "Because Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction (how about 500 miles per gallon of gasoline?), but also our foreign policy from dependence on Middle Eastern oil autocrats." Wow, we can wipe out the industrial Midwest, solve our energy problems and be on course to have energy independence in no time - just by buying a Toyota? Who knew?

Friedman touts "Geo Greens" as the answer to all of our prayers - people who "seek to combine into a single political movement environmentalists who want to reduce fossil fuels that cause climate change, evangelicals who want to protect God's green earth and all his creations, and geo-strategists who want to reduce our dependence on crude oil because it fuels some of the worst regimes in the world." And then, in order to back up his assertions, he says that with the vision of the "Geo Greens" our world will be a much better place. Friedman then identifies "Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free coalition, a bipartisan alliance of national security, labor, environmental and religious groups that believe reducing oil consumption is a national priority..." as his be-all and end-all source for all things having to do with the automobile.

And at that point, Friedman's column completely fell apart when he said, "As Luft notes, if you combined a plug-in hybrid system with a flex-fuel system that burns 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, you could end up stretching each gallon of gasoline up to 500 miles." Feel free to read the previous sentence over again so it can sink in. Five hundred miles per gallon? We cannot fathom how Friedman got snowed by this lunacy, or better yet, how the New York Times allowed this laughable bull**************** to get in their paper. For Friedman to be taken in by this ridiculous "fantasy" mileage figure is so amazing to me that I frankly couldn't believe my eyes as I was reading it.

I have a hot tip for Mr. Friedman - and maybe the New York Times can unleash legions of reporters to help him uncover what I'm quite sure he'll deem as the biggest cover-up in the history of industrial America, seeing as he seems to gravitate toward such conspiracy theories. There once was a magical "Fish" carburetor in the '60s that delivered 100 miles per gallon. It was so revolutionary that it threatened to transform the automobile industry. But the inventor was stymied in his attempts to get " Detroit" to buy his invention, because, after all, it would fundamentally change their cozy little business model, and it would ultimately cost them money. So, the Big Three got together and purchased the rights to the invention for $10 million, bought up all the existing tooling and sample carburetors - and then promptly took them to a smelter and melted the whole lot down into metal, which was later reused to make cars and trucks. And the "Fish" carburetor was never heard from again. Yes, Tom, it was an evil conspiracy - and if you'd just dig deep enough into the story, I'm quite sure there'd be a Pulitzer Prize in it for you.

We only throw that mythical little fable out, Tom, in order to give you a sliver of an idea of just how wrong-headed your column was. For an esteemed journalist like yourself to willingly buy into the wild-eyed bleatings of a delusional hack and then put it in your column for all to see, and then, on top of that, to have the temerity to suggest that it's The Gospel and you've just solved the United States' - and the U.S. auto industry's - problems overnight with a few keystrokes, is simply inexcusable and unforgivable.

We don't doubt that you're a geopolitical expert, Tom, and you offer perspectives that are, for the most part accurate and correct in a lot of instances, but here's an excellent suggestion: stick to writing about what you know (and no, riding around in yellow cars with lights on their roofs or in black "hired" sedans doesn't constitute having accrued knowledge about the automobile business), because, 1. It's clear you know nothing about the automobile industry or the technology involved in building automobiles, and 2. You also don't have a clue about the technological resources and vast amounts of people power and money that GM spends (or Ford and DaimlerChrysler spends for that matter) on advanced research into fuel efficiency and future automotive propulsion systems. (For the record, GM has spent billions upon billions of dollars to reduce emissions and to search for more innovative technological solutions to our nation's long-term energy needs. One living, breathing example of this that exists right now is the hybrid propulsion system that has been developed at Allison Transmission, a division of GM. This exceptionally innovative hybrid propulsion system has allowed GM to focus on larger vehicles - conventional buses - in order to make them more commercially viable. If you had bothered to ask, you would have discovered that at the end of 2004, there were 335 GM-hybrid-equipped buses operating in about a dozen North American cities - saving about one million gallons of fuel a year. And, as GM points out, if America's nine largest cities were to replace its existing fleet of 13,000 transit buses with hybrid buses, the nation would save approximately 40 million gallons of fuel a year).

What, GM has hybrids? Yes, Tom, they do - and much to your amazement, I'm sure. As a matter of fact, there are automobile companies in Detroit and around the world other than Toyota that not only have hybrids, but future-think hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles too. (And since this is all apparently news to you, Tom, for the record, GM has spent more money and probably has more accumulated knowledge on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle research than any other car company in the world.)

I'm just wondering out loud here, Tom - but how could GM's management possibly find the time and money it does to devote to furthering the advancement of the automobile and securing our nation's future transportation needs when they - according to you - are so completely preoccupied with a business strategy based on building gas-guzzling cars and scoffing at hybrid technology?

Yes, Toyota has done a wonderful job with their hybrids, but Mr. Friedman's column flippantly dismissed the countless talented men and women at work at General Motors (and by association, Ford and DaimlerChrysler) who spend their entire working lives on coming up with real-world solutions to improving the efficiency of our cars and trucks. And frankly, Mr. Friedman owes all of them an apology.

Weaning this country off of our dependence on "Middle Eastern oil autocrats" for our energy needs is an urgent and noble goal. But much to Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement's chagrin, there are no magic "500 mpg" bullets or "Fish" carburetors out there just waiting to be discovered that will solve all of America's geopolitical problems overnight. And there is no "Geo Green" Happy Dust available that we can all inhale that will suddenly fix everything, either.

As much as Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement wants to believe that as a country we'd all do just fine by burying the automobile as we know it (and the U.S. auto industry right along with it) and that we'd then all enjoy driving around in our flatulence-powered, balsa-wood smiley cars - it's just notgonnahappen.com.

The long-term, big-picture thinking required to solve our country's future transportation and energy needs requires the talents of serious, knowledgeable people immersed and engaged in coming up with innovative, real-world solutions. The kinds of practical and effective solutions that will set this country on a course to energy independence - without impeding our economic growth or turning us into a nation of glorified rickshaw drivers.

The wild-eyed bleatings of delusional hacks and the musings of "instant" experts add absolutely nothing to the discussion - and border on being irresponsible.

[Road Kill]

I posted that column here because I thought it would get more viewing here than with origonal thread!

[cfch3399]

This would hold if the media were unbiased. But it is not. It's not just about reporting good stories of companies's ups and downs. The media has a vested interest in GM failing and foreign companies, prefferably Japanese, succeeding. I think that you'll find GM's future improved situation to be vastly underreported compared to the current hysteria of GM's troubles.

Originally Posted by johnny smallblock

You know, the beauty of the media is that they want a good stroy more than they want the truth. So GM makes every mistake in the world, and Toyota walks with the Angels. You know what would be a good story? GM comes back with a passion and Toyota falls to pieces. If GM starts in the right direction, I don't think the media will be able to resist this story.