HighlanderH & 400h top rated mid-SUVs by CR
10-02-05, 04:15 PM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HighlanderH & 400h top rated mid-SUVs by CR
I just received the latest Consumer Reports (Nov issue) and they have updated the ratings for midsized SUVs. The vehicles tested include the Highlander Hybrid and the RX400h plus the new MB ML350, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Nissan Pathfinder, Land Rover LR3, Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Hummer H3. Their top seven (out of 29) recommended vehicles and overall ratings are now:
1. Highlander Hybrid, Excellent (22 mpg)
2. RX 400h, Excellent (23 mpg)
3. RX 330, Very Good (18 mpg)
4. Honda Pilot EX-L, Very Good (19 mpg)
5. BMW X5 3.0i, Very Good (17 mpg)
6. Highlander, Very Good (19 mpg)
7. Nissan Murano SL, Very Good (19 mpg)
Out of 29 vehicles in this category, the MB ML350 (16 mpg) came out in 12th position, Tribeca (16 mpg) in 19th, Pathfinder (15 mpg) in 20th, LR3 (13 mpg!) in 21st, Cherokee (14 mpg) in 25th and H3 (14 mpg) in dead last 29th.
The article describes a a few minor differences between the Highlanderh and 400h and praises their acceleration, transmission, fuel economy, low emissions, ride, fit and finish, access and quietness. CR also expects some buyers to be disappointed in the mileage if their interest in hybrids is only to save money. Also, the article states "According to our 2005 subscriber survey, the 400h's reliability has been excellent in the short time it's been in owners hands." Overall, a very favorable write-up. My experiences have been very similar to their description except for two areas, mileage and headlights. For some reason, CR really doesn't like the Highlander and RX400h's headlight performance. I believe the headlights work great. I also have experienced better gas mileage than 23 mpg (currently averaging 26.6 mpg with 7,000 miles). My mix of city and highway may be different than CR's 50/50 split. However, the CR ratings are probably good for an apples to apples comparison to the competitive vehicles.
1. Highlander Hybrid, Excellent (22 mpg)
2. RX 400h, Excellent (23 mpg)
3. RX 330, Very Good (18 mpg)
4. Honda Pilot EX-L, Very Good (19 mpg)
5. BMW X5 3.0i, Very Good (17 mpg)
6. Highlander, Very Good (19 mpg)
7. Nissan Murano SL, Very Good (19 mpg)
Out of 29 vehicles in this category, the MB ML350 (16 mpg) came out in 12th position, Tribeca (16 mpg) in 19th, Pathfinder (15 mpg) in 20th, LR3 (13 mpg!) in 21st, Cherokee (14 mpg) in 25th and H3 (14 mpg) in dead last 29th.
The article describes a a few minor differences between the Highlanderh and 400h and praises their acceleration, transmission, fuel economy, low emissions, ride, fit and finish, access and quietness. CR also expects some buyers to be disappointed in the mileage if their interest in hybrids is only to save money. Also, the article states "According to our 2005 subscriber survey, the 400h's reliability has been excellent in the short time it's been in owners hands." Overall, a very favorable write-up. My experiences have been very similar to their description except for two areas, mileage and headlights. For some reason, CR really doesn't like the Highlander and RX400h's headlight performance. I believe the headlights work great. I also have experienced better gas mileage than 23 mpg (currently averaging 26.6 mpg with 7,000 miles). My mix of city and highway may be different than CR's 50/50 split. However, the CR ratings are probably good for an apples to apples comparison to the competitive vehicles.
10-02-05, 06:27 PM
#3
It's great to see both the gas and hybrid versions of the RX and Highlander take 4 of the top 6 spots!
I can't imagine how the LR3 and H3 will survive with the current driving culture and economic changes. You can't make a "cheaper" SUV for people who can't even afford higher gasoline consumption. People who buy SUVs have no concern with how much their gas will cost, because they have no concern to how much their SUVs cost (Escalades, Land Rovers, Hummers, etc). Hey, you know that when you buy a vehicle more than $50k, you're driving it not for function, but for status...
It's good that Toyota/Lexus were able to foresee the need of better gas efficiency + better performance.
I can't imagine how the LR3 and H3 will survive with the current driving culture and economic changes. You can't make a "cheaper" SUV for people who can't even afford higher gasoline consumption. People who buy SUVs have no concern with how much their gas will cost, because they have no concern to how much their SUVs cost (Escalades, Land Rovers, Hummers, etc). Hey, you know that when you buy a vehicle more than $50k, you're driving it not for function, but for status...
It's good that Toyota/Lexus were able to foresee the need of better gas efficiency + better performance.
10-03-05, 05:11 PM
#4
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't mention the headlights in the article. It just shows up as a black dot (bad) on the chart. I have noticed in other CR reviews that they are not that keen on the rotating headlights. I find them to be quite effective versus previous vehicles I have owned.
10-04-05, 07:39 AM
#5
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ny
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it's because the headlights are a frequent target for theft - and cost up to $8400 to replace. They can be popped out without opening the hood. Lexus has just started to 'upgrade' the headlights to make them traceable and harder to remove - probably before CR review.
10-05-05, 12:49 PM
#6
Instructor
I subscribe to consumer reports online. I remember reading about pivoting HID headlights on several new vehicles from Lexus, Infiniti, and other brands. Basically CR thought they didn't see much difference in performance between them and the regualr non-pivoting headlights. In addition, these HID lights on suv's created a blinding effect on oncoming traffic and didn't help the driver see any further than the non-HID type bulbs.
10-05-05, 01:00 PM
#7
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headlight feedback from CR
I sent a question to CR and got this quick response from one of their test engineers ...
"The RX400h headlights have very good intensity and good width (which may be why you like yours), but their low-beam distance is quite short and the light cut-off is abrupt. The scoring for headlights strongly favors distance as that's directly linked to you seeing an obstacle early enough to brake in time."
Tom Mutchler, CR Auto Test Engineer
"The RX400h headlights have very good intensity and good width (which may be why you like yours), but their low-beam distance is quite short and the light cut-off is abrupt. The scoring for headlights strongly favors distance as that's directly linked to you seeing an obstacle early enough to brake in time."
Tom Mutchler, CR Auto Test Engineer
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
