mmarshall

In most (not all) of their vehicles, interior plushness and material quality does not seem to be one of Toyota's strong-suits. They obviously put most of their money into drivetrain quality and reliability.

LeX2K

Is this intentional?

SW17LS

Yeah the materials we will have to see, I think the Hyundai twins still feel more upscale, but the materials are pretty good in the Highlander, could be preproduction materials.

Sure, different vehicles made for different purposes. I'm not "all about" fuel economy even in the family vehicle, but all things being equal if I can have great performance and great fuel economy in it i would take it. Having my wife driving around town getting 12MPG when she doesn't care about the V8 doesn't make a lot of sense.

I would have to drive it to see what that engine felt like.

But, this powertrain is super impressive is my point, and the 0-60 is best in class, not something to consider terrible. This is a big vehicle...

Motorola

Depends on what you consider to be in this class, a Ford Explorer ST is a whole second faster to 60. I think the point is that this powertrain doesn't exactly compete well against the turbo 6's that it on paper is supposed to match. It will have better fuel economy obviously as a hybrid, but power is not exceptional compared to powertrains it's supposed to compete with.

SW17LS

Ford Explorer ST is a competitor but is MUCH smaller inside than this, and again won't get anywhere near the same fuel economy, and its not quite a second, 5.6 for the Explorer 6.3 for this, and the Explorer gets 10MPG less in the city and 4MPG less on the highway. We know Toyota always airs on the side of economy vs performance, I would trade 7/10ths of a second to 60 for 10 MPG in town.

In any event, the 0-60 of this vehicle is not pathetic in any way, how does it not compete? Performancewise its very similar. Even a GLS450 is 0-60 in 5.9, X7 40i 5.7...this is within half a second with dramatically better fuel economy

JDR76

The current Highlander Hybrid is around 4500 lbs. No way will this thing weigh 500 lbs less.

SW17LS

My guess is close to or at 5,000 lbs

1111GS

which class should we compare this to? Full size suv? Mid size suv? IMO if one has more hp, less weight but slower, it’s nothing good to talk about.

JDR76

Other than the Explorer, how many turbo 6s are left in the class? I'm sure there are some but I'm drawing blanks. Not Hyundai/Kia, not Honda or Nissan, I don't think GM or VW do. Durango and Grand Cherokee have the optional V8s but otherwise it's the 3.6, right?

Motorola

The Explorer ST numbers are based on C&D's test, 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. And the Explorer itself is almost the exact same size as the Grand Highlander, only 2 inches shy with a much longer wheelbase. Of course, no one is disputing that the Highlander will have better packaging being a FWD plaform.

GLS and X7 are in totally different league than this lol, they're both significantly bigger vehicles. The only one the GH is close in size to is the Q7, which does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat with its 6 cylinder. I'm surprised how compelled you are by this powertrain when you didn't seem all that enthralled with it in the RX500h.

1111GS

Yeah gls and x7 are about 1 ton more. Similarly to Q7, X5 gets there in 5.2 or less with about 500lbs more. Of course all these are not in same league but numbers wise, nothing is crazy about this set up.

SW17LS

Three row crossover SUVs.

Have you ever driven an Explorer? I rented one for a week. Its dramatically smaller inside than vehicles like the Palisade/Telluride or something like an Atlas despite exterior dimensions. In this class the exterior dimensions don't tell you what the interior packaging is going to be like.

C&D may test the GH and find its 5.9 to 60, all we can go off of are estimated numbers, Ford's number for the Explorer ST is 5.6. Even if it is a full second slower 0-60, as someone buying in the segment I can tell you that buyers won't care, I want the bigger vehicle and if it has good performance then thats all I need from it, 6.3 to 60 is certainly good performance and the fuel economy is incredible especially given the performance.

I would never consider buying an Explorer after having one for a week.

They aren't much bigger at all. GH is 201.4 inches long, GLS is 204.9, X7 is 203.6, they are closer in size to the GH than the Telluride and Palisade in length. I included them to emphasize that even much more expensive vehicles are not much quicker. C&D got 5 seconds flat, but Audis number is 5.5. Until we have a number from C&D using their typically quicker numbers doesn't make sense.

The RX500h isn't a vehicle that interests me, so I never really looked into the powertrains.

Motorola

Oh there is no question the packaging on any RWD vehicle will be more compromised than either the Highlander or the Korean twins, I simply just don't see how the Hybrid Max 4-cylinder can even be remotely construed as "class-leading" like you claimed. In vehicles of similar size and weight with turbo 6's, its power simply doesn't come close. It's more efficient sure, but also much slower.

And yes, the Ford Explorer interior is very very mediocre lol. All that money went into the platform and powertrain.

SW17LS

It depends on what you consider "much slower", I don't consider half a second 0-60 as "much slower', certainly in a vehicle like this. I couldn't even tell you what either of my cars do 0-60 in. In a family vehicle I think a buyer is going to appreciate 10+ additional MPG in town over a .5 second 0-60.

What else in the maisntream segment is faster 0-60, other than the Explorer ST? I can't think of anything.

SW17LS

Here are the 0-60 figures as best I can find them:

Palisade/Telluride: 7.3
Atlas (V6, assume new 2.0T will be similar); 7.8
Traverse: 6.9
Pathfinder: 7.0
Grand Cherokee L V6: 8.0
Grand Cherokee L V8: 6.5

What else is faster?