http://tyt.tnpv.net/Image/2007/02/TYT2007020697988_PV.jpg



While Toyota's upstart Scion brand, its new Tundra pickup truck and its growing lineup of hybrids have grabbed most of the company's headlines in the past year, Toyota says it's products like the new 2008 Highlander that form the core of its brand.

The Highlander bowed in 2001 and since then, Toyota executives said at a press preview of the new vehicle in Arizona , that ten new nameplates have been introduced in the same niche, including vehicles like the new Hyundai Veracruz .

To stay competitive in a growing niche, Toyota has moved the Highlander slightly upscale and has tried to build a more "forceful and compelling" vehicle than the first-generation Highlander. To that end, the new Highlander is significantly bigger than the vehicle it replaces, and more sophisticated inside, Toyota says.

The new Highlander also loses its four-cylinder engine in its progress upscale. Leaving the lower end of the niche to the new RAV4 crossover, the new Highlander returns with a 3.5-liter V-6 with 270 hp and a hybrid version with an identical power output.

In all, Toyota expects to sell just more than 130,000 Highlanders in the U.S. in the 2008 calendar year, with 28,000 of those sales going to the new Hybrid model. That number could rise in 2010, when Toyota opens a new plant near Tupelo, Miss., which will build gas-powered Highlanders. Hybrid models, under the current plan, would still be built in Toyota's plant in Kyushu, Japan.

Toyota 's busy product plan for this year includes the Highlander and the Highlander Hybrid, along with new versions of the Corolla sedan and Matrix wagon, as well as the big Land Cruiser sport-utility vehicle.


http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/New_Highlander_Is_Core_At_Toyota.S173.A12348.html

http://www.subaruklub.hu/subaru_pictures/subaru_forester_05.jpg

The Highlander is very functional, and that's why it sells.

Bigger than the Rav4, not as brawny as the 4Runner, not as expensive as the RX, and less soccer-mom-ish than the Sienna.

I can understand why Toyota is saying that the Highlander is "core," but I believe that the Camry will always be the "core" Toyota product that defines its image...

Too bad they still can't figure out the 6AT problem, so it comes to market with the same old 5AT.

The Highlander is a Camry on stilts, a great family SUV. I am sure the new one will extend on the old ones merits.

I would have liked them to keep the I-4 an option for those that want a midsize SUV with better fuel economy.

I would have liked them to keep the I-4 an option for those that want a midsize SUV with better fuel economy.

smaller engine in a vehicle doesnt always mean better fuel economy than a V6 in the same vehicle, especially if its a larger vehicle. There are many examples where its pointless to get the smaller engine. In this case I doubt a i4 can sufficently power this vehicle at a decent mpg rate vs the V6

smaller engine in a vehicle doesnt always mean better fuel economy than a V6 in the same vehicle, especially if its a larger vehicle. There are many examples where its pointless to get the smaller engine. In this case I doubt a i4 can sufficently power this vehicle at a decent mpg rate vs the V6

I don't know that I agree with this. As long as the 4 cylinder has enough oomph to pull the vehicle without resorting to F1-like gearing, it *should* return better all-around economy than a V6, all else being reasonably equal.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any normal production 4 cylinder cars that get worse mileage than its V6 counterpart.

Looks good.. :thumbup:

I don't know that I agree with this. As long as the 4 cylinder has enough oomph to pull the vehicle without resorting to F1-like gearing, it *should* return better all-around economy than a V6, all else being reasonably equal.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any normal production 4 cylinder cars that get worse mileage than its V6 counterpart.

its not limited to just i4 vs v6, v6 tundra vs 5.7 tundra? even the M35 made the same mileage as the M45, GS350 gained mileage over the GS300

its not limited to just i4 vs v6, v6 tundra vs 5.7 tundra? even the M35 made the same mileage as the M45, GS350 gained mileage over the GS300

Rated highway mileage, right? Where they test the cars at an artifically low highway speed on a completely flat road, with no head wind, no throttle inputs, no traffic? Real world, I seriously doubt that the 5.7 Tundra is going to return better all-around mileage than the V6. If it did, there'd be no point at all in Toyota offering the V6 in that truck. That extra 150 HP and 140 ft-lb's of torque don't come for free.

Heh, the SC300 got the same mileage as the SC400 in all years of production is my memory serves true.

"smaller engine in a vehicle doesnt always mean better fuel economy than a V6 in the same vehicle, especially if its a larger vehicle. There are many examples where its pointless to get the smaller engine."

True. I was debating between a used Lexus RX and GX and the MPG wasnt a significant difference, maybe 2 or 3 more MPG on the RX than the GX. Plus with the GX, I got tons more room and space, and power.

Before that though, I was testing the Highlander 4 cyl and 6 cyl, same thing. Even the dealer told me this, of course, he'd get more $$$ out of the v6 sale. But we agreed that the v4 has to work a bit harder to pull the weight, in effect, wasting more gas, making it closest to the v6.

smaller engine in a vehicle doesnt always mean better fuel economy than a V6 in the same vehicle, especially if its a larger vehicle. There are many examples where its pointless to get the smaller engine. In this case I doubt a i4 can sufficently power this vehicle at a decent mpg rate vs the V6This is true..My 6 cyl. X3 seems to get better fuel economy than my 4 cyl. Rav4 :uh:

I wish they would sell the Highlander in Mexico. The Rav4 is already their best selling vehicle here.

GS350 gained mileage over the GS300

True but note that the 3.5 litre is lighter than the 3.0 litre and more advanced (dual VVT-i and direct injection). If those 3 things (weight, dual VVT-i and direct injection) were implemented in a 3.0 litre, the mpg differences would be greater.

Chrysler ran into the engine size vs. economy issue when they introduced the Durango. The 3.9L v6 2wd version averaged 2mpg less than the 5.2L v8 4wd version. The extra weight was just too much strain on the sixer, and it was dropped after about 18 months. I can definitely see the same situation happening on a slightly smaller vehicle like the Highlander with an I4 vs. a V6.

Incidentally, my BMW is another example. My 2.5L I6 gets slightly worse mileage than the available 3.0L I6 because it has a slightly shorter final drive ratio.

True but note that the 3.5 litre is lighter than the 3.0 litre and more advanced (dual VVT-i and direct injection). If those 3 things (weight, dual VVT-i and direct injection) were implemented in a 3.0 litre, the mpg differences would be greater.

I'm pretty sure that the 2006 GS300 and 2007 GS350 use essentially the same engine, with a few modifications for more power. Virtually same weight, dual vvt-i and DI on both.

I'm pretty sure that the 2006 GS300 and 2007 GS350 use essentially the same engine, with a few modifications for more power. Virtually same weight, dual vvt-i and DI on both.The 350 is more advanced as it uses both port injection and direct injection while the 250 and 300 only employ direct injection.

Gotcha. Thanks for the correction!