When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I totally disagree about Toyota today vs Toyota in the 90s. Toyota does not lead in any area today, where they led all over the place in the 90s. They can build the absolute best put all the compettiors to shame cars in every segment if they wanted to. But, they don't want to. Hyundai does, they just don't have the
resources or ability Toyota does...yet. They're getting better and better though.
.
Actually they did not lead, they were still building their competitive strengths.. In the 90s, their powertrains were not on par for power and ratings compared to where they are today. Just look at my 4.7UZ motor which I had in my LX470 and now in my 4Runner, compare it to the 4.8 and 5.3 GM trucks at the time. Toyota trucks also lacked size as well as powertrain competitiveness. Even the Toyota 3.4 in the original Avalon was not as good as the 3800GM motor. Toyota also has size problems in the 1980s and 90s where their cars were not as large as American cars for their most important market the USA. Even their design and innovating ideas lacked as well. You never bought a new Toyota in the 1980s or 1990s, I struggled with the decision of buying a Toyota in the 1980s/90s over an American car which were far more appealing, better advertised, and larger, but their things about Toyota at the time that were very very appealing as well. Their Toyota Sienna was a poorly designed minivan at the time compared to what the American vans were offering. Their trucks T100/Truck where nowhere remotely close to what the Americans offered.
Originally Posted by SW17LS
So, the Highlander is the 3 row crossover of choice for people who don't actually need or want three rows in their crossover. Makes one scratch their head as to why those people are buying a 3 row crossover, but okay lol. Why would you buy a 7 passenger vehicle if you never (your emphasis) want to carry 7 people? Why would you think a 7 passenger vehicle should be designed with people who dont want to carry 7 people in mind?
.
A HL would be perfect if they offered a 2 row version and 3 row version, just like the 4Runner or Lexus RX. Not everyone wants a 3rd row
Actually they did not lead, they were still building their competitive strengths.. In the 90s, their powertrains were not on par for power and ratings compared to where they are today. Just look at my 4.7UZ motor which I had in my LX470 and now in my 4Runner, compare it to the 4.8 and 5.3 GM trucks at the time. Toyota trucks also lacked size as well as powertrain competitiveness. Even the Toyota 3.4 in the original Avalon was not as good as the 3800GM motor. Toyota also has size problems in the 1980s and 90s where their cars were not as large as American cars for their most important market. Even their design and innovating ideas lacked as well. You never bought a new Toyota in the 1980s or 1990s, I struggled with the decision of buying a Toyota in the 1980s/90s over an American car which were far more appealing, better advertised, and larger.
I dont agree. When comparing 1990s Toyotas to their competitors, they were clearly better built, better designed, higher quality.
Not everyone wants a 3rd row
But this is a 3 ROW CROSSOVER. If you are buying a 3 row crossover you want a third row, thats the whole point. Its like buying a 4 door car and saying that they should design the front doors much larger and make the rear doors real small because not everybody wants 4 doors. You should buy a 2 door car. And if you don't want 3 rows, buy a 2 row vehicle instead of expecting a 3 row vehicle to compromise from its designed purpose to meet your needs.
There is no point in the RX for instance to get the third row, its unusable. The Highlander's third row is certainly usable, but it could be a lot better with just a few minor tweaks.
I dont agree. When comparing 1990s Toyotas to their competitors, they were clearly better built, better designed, higher quality.
.
I don't think you owed any Toyotas back then. Toyota had some advantages, but they are nowhere close to as competitive as they are today.
Toyota also won a number of the MT Car of the Year awards in the 00s....
00Tundra
04 Prius,
05 Tacoma
07 Camry,
08 Tundra.
Originally Posted by SW17LS
But this is a 3 ROW CROSSOVER. If you are buying a 3 row crossover you want a third row, thats the whole point. Its like buying a 4 door car and saying that they should design the front doors much larger and make the rear doors real small because not everybody wants 4 doors. You should buy a 2 door car. And if you don't want 3 rows, buy a 2 row vehicle instead of expecting a 3 row vehicle to compromise from its designed purpose to meet your needs.
There is no point in the RX for instance to get the third row, its unusable. The Highlander's third row is certainly usable, but it could be a lot better with just a few minor tweaks.
The original Highlander had both 2 rows and 3 rows. Not sure why you are so opposed to that.
I don't think you owed any Toyotas back then. Toyota had some advantages, but they are nowhere close to as competitive as they are today.
I had family members that owned exclusively Toyotas as far back as into the 70s.
The original Highlander had both 2 rows and 3 rows. Not sure why you are so opposed to that.
That was a different time, the third row was an added feature and "3 row crossovers" as we know today didnt really exist.
I would have no issue with that as long as the 2 row variant didn't make the 3 row variant useless, as is the case with the RX. The issue comes when a vehicle designed as a 2 row is adapted to have a third row. What 3 row crossover consumers like me want is a vehicle thats designed from the ground up to be a 3 row crossover, because the size and design make those back two rows much better.
I had family members that owned exclusively Toyotas as far back as into the 70s.
But not YOU. Not your own money. I personally do not love the new TNGA direction for their platform, but modern-day Toyota's are far better driving cars than they used to be. The assortment of options is better. Better standard safety features. Toyota dominates hybrids even though I don't love them. And their new engines from their dynamic force designs are superior to what Hyundai, Ford, GM are all offering where they have downsized, offered turbos and regular start-stop to hit their fuel efficiency targets.
Originally Posted by SW17LS
I would have no issue with that as long as the 2 row variant didn't make the 3 row variant useless, as is the case with the RX. The issue comes when a vehicle designed as a 2 row is adapted to have a third row. What 3 row crossover consumers like me want is a vehicle thats designed from the ground up to be a 3 row crossover, because the size and design make those back two rows much better.
That is a fair point of view. I still think the sizing of the Highlander is what it is because Toyota still offers a 3 row 4Runner, a 3 row Sienna, and a 3 row Sequoia. Even a Land Cruiser but ovi that price is far too high. And from the Toyota press release, it is clear they are targeting empty nesters as well as former Camry buyers.
I don't think you owed any Toyotas back then. Toyota had some advantages, but they are nowhere close to as competitive as they are today.
Disagree. The mid-90s Camry/ES were head-and-shoulders above everything they competed with. This was the time of the true breakout of the LS400 and 430. Lexus created the luxury CUV market from wholecloth--it literally didn't exist before the RX. The GS was revolutionary and beautiful, and the first ever non-German true competitor for the 5-series and E-class.
They made the transition from the great-for-the-time MkIII Supra to the still-legendary-2.5-decades-later MkIV. The 2nd gen MR2 was an amazing performance bargain for a mid-engined sports car. Even the lowly commuter Corolla and Tercel were in a completely different league than anything else in their respective "classes" other than the Civic. They introduced a mid-engined minivan for chrissake, then gave it all-wheel-drive and a supercharger!
To the very last model, everything Toyota introduced during this period was intended to be either class-defining, or at the very least class-leading in significant ways. Some were more successful than others, but it's not rational to say they weren't trying to be the absolute best.
About the only thing I've seen from Toyota in the past 5 years that falls into that same category is the LC.
But not YOU. Not your own money. I personally do not love the new TNGA direction for their platform, but modern-day Toyota's are far better driving cars than they used to be. The assortment of options is better. Better standard safety features. Toyota dominates hybrids even though I don't love them. And their new engines from their dynamic force designs are superior to what Hyundai, Ford, GM are all offering where they have downsized, offered turbos and regular start-stop to hit their fuel efficiency targets.
And? I can still sit in and drive cars and compare them even though I don't own them. In the 80s and bulk of the 90s we only owned American cars because of my dad's connections to labor unions through business.
All cars drive better now than they used to. All cars have better assortment of options and safety features. No Toyotas stand out today.
That is a fair point of view. I still think the sizing of the Highlander is what it is because Toyota still offers a 3 row 4Runner, a 3 row Sienna, and a 3 row Sequoia. Even a Land Cruiser but ovi that price is far too high. And from the Toyota press release, it is clear they are targeting empty nesters as well as former Camry buyers.
None of those vehicles you mention, save the Sienna and the Sequoia, have a decent third row.
A 3 row crossover is not a 4Runner or a Sequoia or a Sienna or a Land Cruiser, the set of wants the buyer has are different. The packaging in the Highlander is just due to laziness on Toyotas part. Why innovate when they know people will just buy it for what it is?
Disagree. The mid-90s Camry/ES were head-and-shoulders above everything they competed with. This was the time of the true breakout of the LS400 and 430. Lexus created the luxury CUV market from wholecloth--it literally didn't exist before the RX. The GS was revolutionary and beautiful, and the first ever non-German true competitor for the 5-series and E-class.
They made the transition from the great-for-the-time MkIII Supra to the still-legendary-2.5-decades-later MkIV. The 2nd gen MR2 was an amazing performance bargain for a mid-engined sports car. Even the lowly commuter Corolla and Tercel were in a completely different league than anything else in their respective "classes" other than the Civic. They introduced a mid-engined minivan for chrissake, then gave it all-wheel-drive and a supercharger!
To the very last model, everything Toyota introduced during this period was intended to be either class-defining, or at the very least class-leading in significant ways. Some were more successful than others, but it's not rational to say they weren't trying to be the absolute best.
About the only thing I've seen from Toyota in the past 5 years that falls into that same category is the LC.
You made some interesting points. I agree there were successes and as I said, Toyota was still working on its competitive advantage during that time. Toyota was still behind in a whole number of different categories. Just observe their trucks at the time with their lack of a V8...and even when finally offered a V8 in 1999, GM at that point was offering far superior offerings. And many of their cars were not quite the size of their American competitors. While the LS was a great achievement, MB and BMW still moved their full-size sedans to another level where Lexus never had a V12 to compete with. Their first hardtop never came until the SC430 in the 00s where you could get a convertible for quite some time from the Europeans.
Toyota also had long engine runs in the 1990s like they do today, the UZ series engine was used for how long in the LS or other Lexus variants? The VZ engine from their truck line went on for like 15 years or something.
Originally Posted by geko29
Lexus created the luxury CUV market from wholecloth--it literally didn't exist before the RX.
And the Mercedes Benz M class crossover came out at the exact same time in 1998
Disagree. The mid-90s Camry/ES were head-and-shoulders above everything they competed with. This was the time of the true breakout of the LS400 and 430. Lexus created the luxury CUV market from wholecloth--it literally didn't exist before the RX. The GS was revolutionary and beautiful, and the first ever non-German true competitor for the 5-series and E-class.
They made the transition from the great-for-the-time MkIII Supra to the still-legendary-2.5-decades-later MkIV. The 2nd gen MR2 was an amazing performance bargain for a mid-engined sports car. Even the lowly commuter Corolla and Tercel were in a completely different league than anything else in their respective "classes" other than the Civic. They introduced a mid-engined minivan for chrissake, then gave it all-wheel-drive and a supercharger!
To the very last model, everything Toyota introduced during this period was intended to be either class-defining, or at the very least class-leading in significant ways. Some were more successful than others, but it's not rational to say they weren't trying to be the absolute best.
About the only thing I've seen from Toyota in the past 5 years that falls into that same category is the LC.
Toyota back then was waaaaay better. They were hungry and wanted to prove themselves. Our MkII Supra lasted 15 years and was a great chassis. The Tacoma was driven hundreds of thousands of miles with little issues. Our Camry also went almost 300k miles before I got rid of it (engine blew up) but never needed a new tranny and all the power windows worked. The 2nd Gen GS was a great car and so was the 1st and 2nd gen LS. So much rich history. But Toyota doesn't take many chances these days. They have some good cars and trucks like the Camry, Rav 4 and Tacoma but very very mediocre products too like the Highlander and Tundra. The Sequoia is a joke at this point and the 4 Runner is ancient too. Sadly, their best products are joint collaborations with Subaru and BMW.
I totally disagree about Toyota today vs Toyota in the 90s. Toyota does not lead in any area today, where they led all over the place in the 90s. They can build the absolute best put all the compettiors to shame cars in every segment if they wanted to. But, they don't want to. Hyundai does, they just don't have the resources or ability Toyota does...yet. They're getting better and better though.
Urgh. Hyundai/Kia is very large manufacturer, only hampered by years of bad product quality (according to their board), bad sales and low profits. There is absolutely no other reason why they should not have all the resources that Toyota has. Although I am not sure why does everyone think Hyundai and Toyota are really competitors - I doubt it, didnt happen years ago when Hyundai had new product cycle, not sure why would it happen today.
On the other hand, pretty sure Toyota leads in many areas today. They sell 2m hybrids per year where others sell thousands, but do a lot of PR sales... they are by far most profitable manufacturer in the world, and have been for a long time. They just introduced new platform that Mazda chief engineer calls new benchmark. Corolla, Camry, Rav4 - their best selling vehicles are arguably better than they have ever been, and more competitive than before. Highlander is certainly best they have ever made. New Yaris is shaping to be the best Yaris ever too.
But yes, they are lazy and complacent because their 3rd row has 1" space less than competition, and do not want to compete anymore, just cruising around. In fact, I would call Highlander the most old-school Toyota of them all, so it is pretty funny if you think Toyota was best in something in 90's and yet at the same time 2020 Highlander is not good enough. It is classic Toyota product that caters to Toyota audience.
In any case, knee jerk reactions of Toyota being lazy and koreans taking over with each product cycle are now just funny.It would be fun to go back and see exactly same thing being said when last Sonata, Elantra, Santa Fe,etc, came out and yet ultimately it led to failing sales and poor profitability. Just like with Genesis, they are making bad decisions that are hurting them long term.
But yes, they are lazy and complacent because their 3rd row has 1" space less than competition, and do not want to compete anymore, just cruising around. In fact, I would call Highlander the most old-school Toyota of them all, so it is pretty funny if you think Toyota was best in something in 90's and yet at the same time 2020 Highlander is not good enough. It is classic Toyota product that caters to Toyota audience.
This is a great post. I used the words that the new Highlander is the safest choice out there in the past. Toyota is catering to those who want a Toyota with a design that they are familiar with. Never thought of using the "classic" Toyota. Thank you spwolf
Originally Posted by spwolf
They just introduced new platform that Mazda chief engineer calls new benchmark.
Where did you read this?
Originally Posted by spwolf
But yes, they are lazy and complacent because their 3rd row has 1" space less than competition, and do not want to compete anymore, just cruising around. In fact
But yes, they are lazy and complacent because their 3rd row has 1" space less than competition, and do not want to compete anymore, just cruising around. In fact, I would call Highlander the most old-school Toyota of them all, so it is pretty funny if you think Toyota was best in something in 90's and yet at the same time 2020 Highlander is not good enough. It is classic Toyota product that caters to Toyota audience.
Why is it funny? Toyota has stood nearly still and let everyone pass them, instead of committing the effort to maintain their status as king of the hill. An XV10 Camry would not be class-leading today, even though it was head-and-shoulders above everything in its class back in the mid-90s. Everyone else has gotten better.
So if, as you say, the "Highlander is the most old-school Toyota of them all", that is exactly the problem. They have been content to rest on their laurels and make small evolutionary changes, while some competitors are striving to be the best. The current Highlander is a little better than the last gen, which was a little better than the one before it. Meanwhile the competition is making large strides from generation to generation (or from model to model), because they want it more. It only takes a handful of iterations of this disparity in effort for the champion to relinquish the belt. Classic tortoise and hare trope to a tee.
Why is it funny? Toyota has stood nearly still and let everyone pass them, instead of committing the effort to maintain their status as king of the hill. An XV10 Camry would not be class-leading today, even though it was head-and-shoulders above everything in its class back in the mid-90s. Everyone else has gotten better.
.
King of the hill? The XV10 is only one example of Toyota in the 1990s. I must point that Toyota was 4th in US sales in 1997, the year the Camry became the best selling car.
04-07-20, 09:52 AM
