I have a 2020 F Sport without AVS and recently drove in a friends 2019 F Sport with AVS. I didn’t find it to handle bumps and rough road any better than the non AVS but it did feel like it controlled rebound better over dips and humps than mine. In Sport + mode the body lean was notably less.

All in all, I think it’s about the same for comfort in normal mode with a touch better rebound control and handles better when you crank it to Sport +

 

It's true size wise the Avalon is a more apt comparison vs Camry, but the Camry also shares essentially the same architecture, very similar (if not same) body in white, subframe/sub-assemblies as the Camry as well. The Avalon/ES is just stretched a bit to accommodate more interior room.

I've done the research and review, technical documents, etc. Car makers, especially Toyota, are not in the business of losing money. This is why they invested in a multi billion dollar TNGA architecture and apply it to several models. I know cars are personal to people and they'd like to think they have a distinct separate and unique beast than "lesser" models. And to some extent you do, but in this case, largely you don't.

 

Most consumers don't give a rat's a__ about the architecture of the vehicle. They sit in and test drive an ES then do the same with a Camry and decide yes or no the ES is worth $10K more or whatever the delta is. I doubt there are many ES owners holding their noses up thinking "I have the model that is much better than the Camry".

 

Then you're making my point for me. People keep complaining that their ES is being compared to an Avalon or Camry (including you in some posts in other threads)

I am saying it's being compared for a reason, because they're essentially and fundamentally the same car. It's not a bad thing, it's the result of massive investment by Toyota.

I just call it like it is. I don't fluff something up more than it is merely because am spending my money on it. All I have to say on this.

 

But you also say this which I disagree with "they'd like to think they have a distinct separate and unique beast than "lesser" models".

 

Oh man conversation like this reminds me why I hate forums...

I tried an Avalon TRD today. It drove very similar to a normal Avalon, but had firmer suspension. Nonetheless, it didn't handle better...just firmer. Overall vibe was still Avalon. The ES feels like a different car...specify there's just something about the Avalon transmission that is sluggish and not in sync with the engine. Same combo in the ES, but its quick and smooth there. The (long) rear end of the Avalon isn't in sync with the front at all.

I also tried a Honda Accord Hybrid the same day. This car most definitely handles better. All the reviews state its got good handling, but I was skeptical and came out surprised. Also the accord, HAS MORE rear seat AND trunk room. I'm still puzzled how this is all possible...Accord weighs 3.2k and the Avalon/ES is +500LB.

 

Update:

I tried an F sport with no adaptive suspension shortly after the TRD Avalon and new Accord.

First observation is the ES felt very compliant and handled surprisingly well with the expectation it will be similar to TRD Avalon (that maybe I missed something). The Avalon felt very different, where it was firm yet the steering felt loose and sloppy, but the ES felt tight and surprisingly nimble...not so sure if Adaptive Suspension is required, but apparently it improves things. This was after trying an Accord (that can also be had with Adaptive Suspension), which felt nimble, but not tight. The overall vibe is 'solid luxury' in the ES (reminded me of volvo v90) and 'economy' in the Accord. To be fair, the Accord is 2 times cheaper...regardless if someone said which one do you prefer, I think the ES handled better and was more comfortable, however its hard to ignore the low price of the Accord and the efficiency of the Hybrid. The Mark Levinson sound system in the ES sounded really nice (accurate and focused), but the Accord was also really good (very open sounding... the rear speakers are not on the doors, but at rear glass).

All of these 'large sedans' can realistically only fit 2 child seats (not 3). After you install a narrow rear facing infant/baby seat on the passenger side, the center is too narrow for a third... you need at least 16 inch hip room, but only get about 13 in all of them. If you don't use LATCH and seat belts to push the two sides over, you might be able to get three in. If you don't need a baby seat (have 3 kids ages ~3+) you might be able to work something out. If these cars just had a few more inches in width, it would be so much better...not sure what car designers are thinking. Unlike the ES, a big flaw in the Accord is the center head rest doesn't move, making it impossible to use the tether (clearly the Honda designers have no idea how child seat tethers work apparently...).

Out of all the cars, surprisingly the Accord trunk is the best shape and fits the most stuff. The ES trunk isn't as deep and as boxy, but its longer. There's enough room to fit 2 large check-in and 2 standard carry-on luggage if you puzzle it together, but you wont fit other kids stuff (stroller, basinet, toys, etc).

I'm leaning towards buying a minivan for family hauling duty then another small car for daily driving. Instead of getting an ES (loaded 52k), I could afford an Odyssey (30-40k) AND a Civic/Accord (20-30k).