Thank you!!! Same can be said for Chevy and Ford, they are a full line brand/manufacturer, you can spend $15k on a Fiesta/Sonic or $80k on a loaded dually pickup

 

I would argue that Toyota is not quite at the level of the top end of Ford or GM. The new Expedition can be loaded up to $85K which is just astonishing. Toyota Tundra is nowhere near the big three in trucks. They do offer a full line but they are behind the competition. I think its a worthwhile discussion.

 

The 2010 probably does not feel anywhere near as sport-oriented as the new 2017-2018 with the 20" wheels and Hi-Per-Strut electronic suspension. I myself wouldn't touch that version with a ten-foot pole, but the auto press seems to like it.

SUVs are doing the same thing to the Avalon that they are to the Lacrosse and the other upmarket FWD/AWD sedans, though perhaps not to the same extent as at GM.

Perhaps I overdid the number of threads I started (or should have started) about the car myself (and comparing it to its competition)....even so, each one went on and on with seemingly endless comments and input. Part of that was the long (4-month) bad experience I had ordering mine (GM kept changing the marketing and moving goal-posts every time me and my dealer punted). But, even so, It worked out just fine in the end, and I'm more than satisfied....especially with the new transmission in the 2018.

We both know that GM's policy of non-defeatable engine start/stop and the E-Shifter is turning off at least some buyers. I've gotten used to mine (and how to defeat it or manipulate the mechanism by accelerator/brake pedal tricks). The mechanism doesn't always operate, either.....like on the long warm-up on the way to church this morning, after the snow yesterday, with a number of defrosting/de-icing and heating elements, all going at once, placing demand on the alternator....it won't operate during high-discharge periods.

 

Yep. There'a a reason why Toyota, Ford, and Chevy consistently have the most floor space at the big auto shows....though, in some cases, Jeep's indoor obstacle-course is also a big piece of real-estate.

 

On the lower end, though, Toyota's new C-HR is something that, right now, Ford or GM has no direct competition for, though the upcoming Ford Ecosport will offer about the same-sized platform with more traditional, space-efficient styling and the AWD option that the C-HR lacks. (I'm also not impressed at all with the C-HR's build quality....but the latest version of the Escape has not been that impressive either). Nevertheless, several of my colleagues (and their spouses) who I regularly swim with are interested in a new small (or sub-compact) SUV, and I'm advising them all to wait and at least take a look at the EcoSport early next year before doing any serious shopping.

 

That former version, though, had several advantages. The build quality, though not up to the level of the original U.S.-market one in 1994, was still fairly impressive. They got the suspension and tires right......something they clearly didn't do with the 2013. The interior, though less-flashy to look at than the 2013, seemed roomier, more space-efficient, had a higher roofline, and with more-solid materials inside. And..............(Get this).............yes, it came wth a REAL spare tire.

 

Strange. Almost all of the automotive press praise the 13s interior.

 

There were two different suspensions. A firmer touring as well as the softer riding limited. I believe the touring was canceled in 2011

 

Sure, it was nice to LOOK at.....I've said that many times. It had good fit/finish on the surface, rich-looking wood-tone, chrome, brushed-metal, etc.....

But looks, on the surface, can be deceiving. Underneath the surface-flash was flimsy, Cracker-Jack materials....I've already listed the worst ones in other posts. Other reviewers can have their opinions....I respect them (and I respect yours). But my own opinion on the 2013-2015 stands.....I'm not changing it. Last year, though, for 2016, in addition to the softer-suspension option, some improvements were also made inside, and, when I did a review, I duly noted them.

And, no, I'm not just picking on Toyota here. I also criticized the original Buick Enclave SUV for exactly the same thing.....a nice rich look to the interior trim (with acres of wood-tone and chrome)....but, like the 2013 Avalon, Cracker-Jack materials underneath that surface rich-look.

 

Just looked up the product information. The 2005 Touring model had 215/55R17 tires, the 2013 model had the exact same 215/55R17 tires.

 

I cannot remember that far back.

But from an Autoblog review:

"The Touring model ($28,875) features more aggressive suspension tuning and 17-inch alloy wheels with P215/55R17 Michelin MXV4 tires and high-intensity-discharge head lamps. Touring also upgrades to leather-trimmed seats, a leather-wrapped steering wheel and shift ****, and aluminum scuff plates."

"The Touring model is set up for sharper handling performance than the others, with stiffer shock tuning and Michelin MXV4 tires on 17-inch wheels. The Touring has quicker reflexes, at the expense of some ride comfort and noise control, and delivers a secure, on-center feeling through the twisties"

"Add the tighter suspension of the Touring model and the Avalon is decidedly sporty. "

 

Fair enough.

 

The Land Cruiser is pegged at $83k fully loaded standard and they hold their value extremely well for what many of us would say is an archaic SUV that has been in its current model for ages. With that said, I think Toyota needs to pick up the pace with their truck and SUVs and release some new models, because they're quickly falling behind in tech and interior quality.

 

Again, pretty much what I was saying. It's hard to find 55s on that class of upmarket sedans today. Even my comfort-oriented Lacrosse has 50s on 18" wheels.. And the Lincoln MKZ comes with either 40 or 45-series, depending on wheel and option. The Genesis products I've looked at also come with 45s.

 

55s are not the issue for ride comfort.