You don't choose cars like these, you succumb to them. They creep up on you like thin hair and thick ankles. One minute you're rolling a 3 Series coupe, the next minute your wife needs room to haul her gardening stuff and the kids want rear doors and a DVD player.
It's about that time when wagon-style things like the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour and 2009 Toyota Venza start to look attractive. OK, plausible maybe.
With extra cargo room and a more comforting view of the road, these tall wagons are sort of like SUVs, only without the guilt of a gas-sucking V8 under the hood. You won't find any big, heavy truck parts underneath their skins either.
Granted, neither the Honda nor the Toyota is going to do much for your image. In fact, you can pretty much kiss good-bye whatever sliver of cool you still had left. There are no wheels tall enough nor tires wide enough to make either of these vehicles look tough. These are wagons, and it's what's inside that counts. Don't worry, though. Your friends may wince, but your family will love you.
The Station Wagon Is Back
Honda and Toyota have done their best to position these vehicles as something entirely new, crossovers that defy categorization — segment-busters, if you will. But once you cut beneath the marketingspeak, the Crosstour and the Venza are essentially Accord and Camry wagons.
There should be no shame in such vehicles, and both the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour and the 2009 Toyota Venza have the mainstream persona adopted over the years by the Accord and Camry. When you compare them with sedans, there are a few notable differences like the higher ride height and optional all-wheel-drive systems. And for better or worse, both feature unique styling. Some of this is helpful. The fact that both vehicles are treated as premium versions of their respective sedans is slightly less so.
Yes, you must pay up for the privilege of piloting these suburban carry-alls. The cheapest Honda Accord Crosstour starts at just under $30K for a front-wheel-drive model with a V6. The Venza offers a base model with an inline-4, but even that starts at $26K. Get loaded-up versions as we did and you're looking at $37,000 for the Honda and just over $39,000 for the Toyota.
To expect anything more than a sedate driving experience from either of these wagons is asking too much. They are five-passenger cocoons.
Did you think the latest in car-based family transportation was going to be cheaper than some primitive pickup-based SUV? No chance, but at these prices these crossovers do include numerous family-friendly gadgets, like navigation systems, high-end stereos, heated leather seats, plus the requisite back-up camera so you don't run over the dog.
Big Backyards
The whole point of these vehicles is the extra cargo room out back, so here's what you can expect. The Toyota Venza's cargo bay is wide and shallow. The Crosstour's space is narrow and deep. In technical terms this translates to 30.7 cubic feet of room behind the Venza's rear seats and 25.7 cubic feet in the Crosstour.
For further comparison, consider the fact that the Accord and Camry sedans offer roughly 14 cubic feet of space in their trunks. It's also worth noting that the hatchback configurations of the Crosstour and Venza make for much larger openings so there's less wedging and angling required in order to pack stuff in.
In the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour, we found that a large suitcase and a stroller fit a little tight, while the Venza had room to spare with the same load. Possibly more important is the fact that the Venza offers an optional power-operated hatch and the Crosstour doesn't. On the flip side, there are several under-floor storage bins in the Honda and none in the Toyota.
If maximum capacity is a priority, the 2009 Toyota Venza wins with a total of 70 cubic feet of space compared to the Crosstour's 50.1 cubic feet. Both vehicles have 60/40-split second-row seats and both provide levers in the cargo area to fold them flat while you're loading up.
Again, the Honda's shorter, narrower space presents more of a challenge for odd-shaped cargo like a mountain bike, although one will fit even if one section of the second-row seat is in place. In the Venza, a bike fits more easily and your kid won't be eating the tire while he's sitting in the second row.
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Aside from their sizable backsides, the Crosstour and the Venza look and feel a lot like Accord and Camry sedans. Other than its slightly higher seating position, the Crosstour feels almost identical to the Accord from behind the wheel. That's probably because the cabin is, in fact, identical to that of the Accord sedan.
This is not altogether a bad thing. It means the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour has an easy-to-read instrument cluster, high-quality interior materials and good visibility for driving. Build quality is solid, too. Other than the overcrowded mess of buttons in the middle of the dashboard, the Crosstour is a high-quality piece for a family car.
Toyota took a slightly different tack with the Venza. This Toyota crossover gets a unique interior layout compared to the Camry. There's a high-mounted shift lever on the elevated center console and a simplified climate control layout. It's all connected to a reconfigurable center console between the front seats that includes cupholders, iPod connections and extra storage room.
On the whole, though, the 2009 Toyota Venza's interior often misses the mark. The shift lever is indeed handy and the center console useful, but the rest of the cabin is too low-budget given the Venza's price. The climate controls feel frail, the wood trim isn't convincing and the texture of the steering wheel cover and dashboard is oddly rough and cheap-looking.
We also noticed that our particular Venza showed numerous signs of poor construction. Several panels on the dashboard were misaligned, while others appeared to be peeling back — not what you would expect from a company that built its reputation on quality control.
They Drive Like Sedans
To expect anything more than a sedate driving experience from either of these wagons is asking too much. They are five-passenger cocoons. You don't really drive them; you just sort of ride along.
That said, both vehicles have well-sorted suspensions and plenty of power. The Venza's V6 sends 268 horsepower through a six-speed automatic transmission, while the Crosstour uses five gears to distribute its 271 hp.
The extra gear helps the Venza quite a bit, as it hits 60 mph from a stop nearly a second quicker than the Crosstour (6.9 seconds versus 7.8 seconds), despite weighing 73 pounds more than the Honda (4,108 pounds versus 4,035 pounds).
Our seat-of-the-pants impression suggests it's not simply the Toyota's gearing that makes the difference between these two crossovers, because the Venza's transmission also shifts more deliberately and has much quicker reactions during normal driving. Stomp the throttle in the Honda and the gearbox thinks about it first before shelling out the horsepower.
It's a similar situation when it comes to handling. The 20-inch wheels and more aggressive Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires that come standard on the higher-trim Venza deliver better grip and sharper turn-in. Through the slalom they give the Toyota an advantage of about 1 mph over the Honda. Even during normal driving, the 2009 Toyota Venza feels lighter and more nimble than the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour. If it weren't for the overboosted steering, the Venza might actually be interesting to drive instead of merely pleasant.
With its smaller, less aggressive tires and softer suspension setup, the Crosstour rides more comfortably over rough surfaces. Its steering isn't much better than the Venza's, though. It always feels like it wants to spring back to center and there's minimal road feel. There's very little harshness either, though, and the cabin is generally quieter than the Venza's, so it coddles a bit more than the Toyota.
Safety First
If you're going to bite the bullet and go all in for the family, you might as well get a vehicle that includes more safety and functionality than you'll ever need. The safety part is easy in this case, as both vehicles feature multiple airbags and electronic stability control systems for protection before and during an accident.
Naturally, four-wheel antilock brakes are standard across the board and both vehicles returned similar distances in our 60-0-mph testing (129 feet for the Honda and 128 feet for the Toyota). Pedal feel is slightly better in the Venza, as the action is light and easy to modulate.
Both vehicles feature optional all-wheel-drive systems, which also add a measure of safety in poor weather. You never really know that they're even along for the ride until you encounter a loss of traction at the front wheels, which sends power immediately to the rear wheels to help out.
On rain-soaked roads we could feel the systems work only with full-throttle starts from a stop. Snow would obviously be a different story, but even front-wheel-drive versions come with standard traction control. There's a penalty for the added weight of the AWD system, though. The Venza's EPA mileage numbers drop by 1 mpg with AWD, while the Crosstour drops 2 mpg on the highway and 1 mpg in the city.
The Better of Two Good Choices
The 2009 Toyota Venza has an advantage here when it comes to day-to-day functionality because its backseats are more spacious and a DVD player is optional. The Toyota's optional keyless ignition system is another feature that's useful, and it's not available in the Honda.
As slick as the 2010 Honda Accord Crosstour is inside its cabin, after a week behind the wheel of both we gave the edge to the Venza. Yes, the Toyota's build quality is disappointing, but everything else about it is perfect for the segment. You can argue about the styling all you want, but the Venza delivers a better combination of passenger space, cargo capacity and feature content.
It's also faster down a freeway on-ramp and slightly easier on the wallet at the pump. Not exactly the stuff of automotive legend, but once you take the plunge, you'll realize the compromise is worth it. Just ask the family riding with you.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
24hrz16 says:
10:00 AM, 06/12/2010
Are these cars seriously for people who think they'd be too embarassed to drive a minivan? More money for less space of these two cars vs a minivan doesn't make any sense to me. It's not like the buyer is looking for slightly better performance.
l1tech says:
06:23 AM, 01/29/2010
I LOVE WHAT YOU DO FOR ME! TOYOTA. BY GM....
to626n says:
02:04 PM, 01/26/2010
1487,
Again, I don't know why you are not able to comprehend what I am saying. The 3 Series, C Class, and ES are in the same class BECAUSE they are ALL entry level luxury vehicles that are in the same price range. The 3 Series and C Class are BMW and Mercedes' ONLY offering in the entry level luxury sedan segment. Yes the average 3 Series driver is younger, but you would be ignorant to think older people never drive the 3 Series. The median age of C Class drivers are MUCH closer to the ES. Just because automotive mags don't consider these cars as competitors, doesn't mean consumers won't. Automotive mags (usually) prioritize performance. 99.9% of people don't take their cars on a racetrack so for their driving purposes the ES, C Class, and 3 Series are ALL the same class of cars.
I challenge you to find anyone that would prefer the LaCrosse to the A6. I gaurantee you NO ONE would prefer the Buick. CLEARLY the A6 is a better car. But hey when you only look at features and value the LaCrosse looks pretty good. That is exactly what Edmunds did with the ES vs LaCrosse comparo. So what are we to conclude? In the same comparison the A6 would have also lost to the LaCrosse.
Why should you care about Toyota's reputation for reliabilty in 1975? Why should you care about any automaker's reputation for reliability in 1975? Two words: BRAND PERCEPTION. Now it's more important than ever. Notice that almost every single Chevy ad takes a knock at Toyota or Honda. Toyota and Honda don't need to attack Chevy because consumers know they have been making quality cars for almost half a century, which includes 1975. FYI EVERY long term study from CR or JD Power still favors Japanese brands.
Some other food for thought: If all the domestic automakers were not being brought to their knees due to the financial meltdown, would they still focus on quality? Look how fast they are able to turn around. They could have done this a decade or two ago. Why didn't they? Because they were still making a profit. It's sad to think the ONLY reason a company finally decides to build quality products is because it was either that or go belly up. What happens when they regain consumer confidence? Will they start cutting corners again to maximize profits?
So the Euro Focus and other Euro cars are finally able to come to America because Ford and GM somehow was recently able to figure out how to even out costs? No. Allow me to educate you. There is no miracle formula to cut costs while maintaining quality. Fact is all the domestics could have done this YEARS ago, but they didn't. Why? Because they know they could make a HIGHER profit buy selling inferior products here. For years they got away with it until consumers were finally fed up. Ford will not make as much profit selling the new Focus as they are making now with the current one. They knew they had better products overseas. Competition from the imports were so fierce here that Ford and GM were FORCED to bring those cars here. Remember they are not improving because they want to, they are improving because they are FORCED to.
If we never experienced an economic meltdown... if Ford, GM, and Chrysler were still making profits, they wouldn't give a crap about reliability. We'd still see the same shoddy cars they have been making for years. So I ask again... What happens when they start to make a profit and regain consumer confidence? What then?
1487 says:
05:55 AM, 01/25/2010
626,
You are incredibly naive. I know how 99% of cars are driven but that doesn't stop people from buying 300hp cars, sports cars, V8s, etc. for commuting purposes a corolla or Sentra will do just fine. BAsed on how cars are driven there is no reason for anyone to really own a BMW in the first place. The fact of the matter is people buy cars based on reputation, styling and what they can POTENTIALLY do. I never argued that BMW owners regularly take advantage of the handling and hp of their cars. In heavy urban traffic this isn't realistic. That said the 3 series conveys a younger, hipper image than the ES350 and appeals to a different set of buyers. As I said, MOST Es350 buyers are older- this isn't debatable. Everyone except you knows this. The 3 series is a very popular car for young singles and couples- its size, styling and reputatoin attracts a different type of buyer. BMW doesn't consider the ES350 a competitor for the 3 series, customers don't, the press doesn't- only you seem to think the two cars go head to head. It is OBVIOUS that the Lacrosse and ES350 are going after the same types of customers. It's also obvious that the Lacrosse is NOT aimed at the 3 series in any way. This is likely why the ES350 has been mentioned in Lacrosse ads and the 3 series has NOT.
"The Audi has less interior space, less features, and cost MUCH more than the LaCrosse so I guess Edmunds would have preferred the LaCrosse as well?"
Its possible but the two cars are so far apart in price that its hard to see them as direct competitors. can the LAcrosse do what the A6 does for less money and with more space? Yes.
"Toyota and Honda have been consistantly producing quality long lasting cars for the past three or four DECADES. It's going to take a lot more than a few good Fords, Chevys, and Chryslers to undo consumer preception. "
And who cares? Why do I care about quality of Toyota in 1975? Wasn't even born then. Don't care and its not relevant. Import fanboys cant get out of the past. Are you still wearning bell bottoms and listening to 8 tracks as well? The 70s are a long time ago. The 80s are a long time ago. If this was 1985 I might buy a Toyota- but sadly for Toyota its 2010 and the quality issue is a non-issue. The quality of cars in the 80s or even 90s is irrelevant to today's buyers and your thinking is shared by Toyota which explains why they are about to face tough times going forward. Like you, Toyota doesn't understand that is has to compete for buyers who may not be enamored with the company's reputation built over the last 40 years. Why would a 25 year old buyer be drawn to a Toyota showroom when he is too young to even remember the days when Toyota quality was head and shoulders above the competition? WHy would he care? When the new Focus comes out I can guarantee you any gen Y buyer who hasnt been brainwashed by their import driving parents wont consider a Corolla over the Ford for a second. The corolla is going to be severely outclassed in every way and the only people who will be denying it will be Toyota loving die hards who are still basking in Toyota's past glory. Mediocre cars are good enough for people like you who are still living in the past- but they arent good enough to convince open minded customers to buy Toyota.
A "few" domestic cars are good? Have you looked at CR or JD POwer lately? Its a lot more than a few. CR claims nearly EVERy Ford product is above average in reliability. Give credit where it's due. If you can.
"Why did it take them so long to improve quality? "
Who cares. People are buying cars TODAY so what is relevant is what's on sale TODAY. Not 20 years ago. 20 years ago most cars were undesirable by today's standards.
"They were given a choice: make quality cars or be destroyed by the imports."
Agreed. What's your point?
"Some food for thought: Until recently Ford and GM had some great cars that were only sold in Europe and Asia. Ford and Chevy were offering BETTER cars in Europe than they were in their home market, the US. Why? Why was our Focus so awful? Why do we get the Fusion while they get the Mondeo? "
Costs. Its that simple. Until recently Ford and GM didnt have the cost structures here that would allow them to sell higher content overseas based vehicles here for resonable prices. That has changed and they also believe Americans will pay more for excellent small cars. What does any of this have to do with reliability? The bottom line is their best global vehicles will be available here and that is bad news for Toyota and HOnda.
"The G8 even had a large LCD screen perfect for GPS. Ooooh thats right GM wants you to use OnStar instead."
The G8 wasnt intended as a US car from the start and something about the positioning of the nav screen supposedly didn't meet US standards. That is what I read. Again- how is this relevant?
"They could've brought those models to the US YEARS ago, GM and Ford have only been trickling in those cars recently. "
Countour was a MOndeo and it failed. Catera was an Opel- didn't do well. GTO was a Holden- didn't do well even though it was an excellent car. GM and Ford have sold overseas models here in the past but for the most part things have not worked out. European cars like the Focus sell for far more than their US counterparts and Ford had to find a way to get the costs close to what US customers are willing to pay. in EUrope they will pay $30k for a compact- not here. Believe me, the US Corolla and Civic wouldnt cut it in Europe which is one reason why Toyota/Honda arent all that successful over there.
subden says:
09:18 PM, 01/24/2010
I have to agree with Edmunds comments on Venza interior. I was really interested in the Venza as it drove nice and was fairly quick, but I just could not get over the dashboard plastic and leather seating material. Dashboard texture really does look cheap and leather seating looked cheap to me too.
Ended up buying a Murano LE whose interior was vastly improved in 2009. Not up to the standards of the loaded 2007 MB ML320 I'm getting out of, but much better than the Venza. Otherwise Venza is real decent car.
to626n says:
03:06 PM, 01/24/2010
1487,
How are you able to not comprehend what I am saying? Seriously this must be the third or fourth time I am saying this. The AVERAGE consumer (non automotive enthusiast) will see the C Class, 3 Series, and ES as being the same class of cars. Why? Because they are ALL entry level luxury sedans that are in the same price range. Automotive mags will not compare these cars because they prioritize performance. 99.9% of ALL C Classes and 3 Series' will be driven the exact same way the ES is driven: in straight lines on long highways. For the .01 % of people who take their C Class and 3 Series on a racetrack on a regular basis they should've spent their $40k on an Evo or STI.
The C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the LaCrosse because the comparison of the ES favored features and price, not performance. Both the C Class and 3 Series are smaller, has less features, and cost more than the LaCrosse. They would have lost to the Buick as well.
According to your flawed logic the FWD Audi A6 would also be in the same class as the ES and LaCrosse. Hey all are large FWD sedans right? The Audi has less interior space, less features, and cost MUCH more than the LaCrosse so I guess Edmunds would have preferred the LaCrosse as well?
As far as quality improvement among domestic brands, yes they have greatly improved over the past two or three years. But thats all. Toyota and Honda have been consistantly producing quality long lasting cars for the past three or four DECADES. It's going to take a lot more than a few good Fords, Chevys, and Chryslers to undo consumer preception. Why did it take them so long to improve quality? Because now they realize it was sink or swim. What if they never went through a financial breakdown? What if they were still able to make a profit by cranking out shoddy cars and not improving quality? You would be ignorant to think domesetics improved quality just for the heck of it. The domestics didn't start making quality cars because they wanted to, they did it because they were forced to. They were given a choice: make quality cars or be destroyed by the imports.
Fast forward ten or twenty years in the future. Detroit comes out with some great reliable cars, they regain consumer confidence in their brands. What then? Will they continue making quality cars? Or will they go back to making shoddy but stylish cars? No one knows the answer, not even you.
Some food for thought: Until recently Ford and GM had some great cars that were only sold in Europe and Asia. Ford and Chevy were offering BETTER cars in Europe than they were in their home market, the US. Why? Why was our Focus so awful? Why do we get the Fusion while they get the Mondeo? Look at China's version of the Buick Regal. It came out around 2005 and was based on the Holden Commadore. Why didn't Buick America get the same Regal? When the US finally got a version of the Commadore, it came as the Pontiac G8. Awesome car, but why could GM not offer GPS Navigation when EVERY other car in the same class offers GPS. The G8 even had a large LCD screen perfect for GPS. Ooooh thats right GM wants you to use OnStar instead.
They could've brought those models to the US YEARS ago, GM and Ford have only been trickling in those cars recently. We're still waiting on the Fiesta and new Focus. Guess they finally woke up and found out Americans want American car companies to sell good cars here too.
kingfish4 says:
02:09 PM, 01/22/2010
Both these vehicles perform the same function and resemble my old Malibu Maxx, at a price point of about $10K more. At these prices, I would be more likely to purchase a Ford Edge, a Buick Enclave, or better yet a CTS wagon.
1487 says:
06:36 AM, 01/22/2010
"Wow so according to you EVERY ES owner is in their 60's and EVERY 3 Series owner is in their 40's? You really must be dense or don't get out enough. How many times do I have to say this? To the average consumer (non automotive enthusiast), the 3 Series, C Class, ES, and even the IS are the same class of cars."
They are not and the reasons are obvious. Which is why no one else has supported you here. The ES is larger, FWD, softer, offers no manual transmission, etc. Its not aimed at the 3 series and it never has been. I didn't say EVERY ES owner is over 60 but we all know the car is aimed at an older demographic. Please show me ONE comparison done by any car magazine or site that compared the ES with the RWD cars you mentioned. Just one. Most 3 series owners wouldnt be caught dead in an ES350.
"So I say this again, looking at how skewed the comparison between the ES and LaCrosse was, the C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the Buick as well."
The fact that the ES lost doesnt make the test "skewed". You keep dancing around the reasons why it lost. Yes it was slightly faster but the ES was also more expensive, more poorly equipped, uglier, smaller and older. That is why it lost. Based on what the average LAcrosse or ES owner is looking for the 3 series would indeed lose in a comparison. If you are buying a Lacrosse you are looking for FWD and a spacious interior- the 3 series offers neither.
"You say they don't have anything but their reputaion for building reliable cars like it's meaningless. Guess what? Thats the exact kind of thinking that got Detroit in trouble in the first place. They thought they could get away with building shoddy cars as long as they were stylish and flashy. Over time they were proven dead wrong. Why did it take them this long to realize their mistake? Why didn't they fix their quality issues in the 80's and 90's?"
Your ignorance about the auto industry is apparent. You are spewing out typical Toyota fanboy talking points- I've heard them all a million times. First of all Detroit never said quality wasn't important- they just didnt know how to get quality built in for years because they had to dissect every aspect of Toyota/Honda's engineering and production systems and figure out how to implement them. financial meltdowns, unions, in-fighting, inadequate leadership, etc. meant that it took years to implement the engineering and produciton methods necessary to improve quality. It took longer than it should have but that's irrelevant now- its been done. Stylish and flashy? WHat 80s cars are you talking about? This idea that they tried to distract people with flashy cars in the 80s in nonsense- most cars in the 80s were dull including the American ones. The 80s is actually when many of the changes were being implemented to catch up to the Japanese. Reliability isnt meaningless, but its not the only reason to buy a car. At least for people who buy anything other than Toyota. Now that reliability is solid across the board its going to take more than claims about reliability to remain relevant. Ford and hyundai gained share in 2009 and neither has the reputation of Toyota or Honda. Value, features, styling, warranty protection and innovation are important these days and you don't see Toyota or Honda leading in any of those categories aside from Toyota's hybrids. Within the next 5 years VW, Hyundai, GM and Ford will be coming on strong and their gains will be at the expense of Toyota and Honda. You can see how the battle is shaping up based on future product. Honda has little to talk about, Toyota is promising more dull hybrids and little else and GM, Ford, Hyundai and VW are preparing full fledged product assaults primarily in the segments long dominated by the Japanese.
to626n says:
12:47 AM, 01/22/2010
1487,
Wow so according to you EVERY ES owner is in their 60's and EVERY 3 Series owner is in their 40's? You really must be dense or don't get out enough. How many times do I have to say this? To the average consumer (non automotive enthusiast), the 3 Series, C Class, ES, and even the IS are the same class of cars. They are ALL entry level luxury sedans that are in the same price range. The average consumer won't notice the difference between a FWD car and a RWD car. Why? Because 99.9% of all C Classes and 3 Series will be driven the exact same way any ordinary ES would be driven, that is in straight lines on long highways. For that .01% who take their C Class and 3 Series on a racetrack on a regular basis, they probably would have been more satisfied spending their $40k on an Evo or STI. So I say this again, looking at how skewed the comparison between the ES and LaCrosse was, the C Class and 3 Series would have lost to the Buick as well. Sure they perform better, but it's not as spacious, cost more, and had less features than the LaCrosse. It's exactly why the ES lost.
Just for fun, lets forget about the C Class and 3 Series. Lets say they compared the LaCrosse to a FWD Audi A6. Hey it's also a large FWD luxury sedan right? Sure the A6 will outperform the LaCrosse in EVERY way. But it cost a lot more than both the LaCrosse and the ES, has less interior space, and has less features. So I guess Edmunds would prefer the LaCrosse over the A6 as well?
In response to your response to AJT, it's going to take a lot more than a dozen or so decent domestic cars to undo Toyota and Honda's reputation for building quality vehicles over that past thirty or forty years. You say they don't have anything but their reputaion for building reliable cars like it's meaningless. Guess what? Thats the exact kind of thinking that got Detroit in trouble in the first place. They thought they could get away with building shoddy cars as long as they were stylish and flashy. Over time they were proven dead wrong. Why did it take them this long to realize their mistake? Why didn't they fix their quality issues in the 80's and 90's? Because they thought they could still make a profit. Over time the consumers spoke, and the only reason why they are changing now is because they realize that if they don't they will be oblitorated by the imports. So now I wonder what will happen when the domestics regain the consumer's confidence? Will they continue to design vehicles with quality as a top priority? Or will they cut back on quality to maximize profits? ... And like I said before no one knows the answer, not even you.
1487 says:
11:30 AM, 01/21/2010
AJT:
Suppose I either a) dont care about keeping a car for 15 years/200k miles or b) believe that most cars can go the distance due to the general high quality of vehicles today. With that assumption in hand explain to me why I should be a devoted Toyota or Honda purchaser that generally refuses to acknowledge or even research the competition.
Toyota and Honda have realized they dont have anything left beyond their reputations and that is why they are now engineering by marketing. Both companies ads have drifted from talking about vehicles and attributes to unsubstantiated claims about quality and reliability and claims about how many 20 year old cars are on the road. Quality is great but everyone offers it today. Which is one reason why GM, Ford and Hyundai arent afraid to offer better warranty protection than Honda or Toyota.
1487 says:
11:24 AM, 01/21/2010
"Well, in my book, that is precisely what makes a car a "good car."
I'm sure, thats what Toyota and Honda have taught us over the last 35 years or so. Nothing but reliability matters and any car that doesn't make to 200k with no repairs or replacement parts isnt worth owning. MAkes you wonder why people buy anything but Toyota or Honda. Almost any car made today can easily last 150k miles with maintenance.
to626:
well the fact that two people looked at an ES and 3 series PROVES they are direct competitors. What was I thinking? I mean obviously they are aimed at the same market and attract the same buyers. Must be why most ES350 owners I see are over 60 and most 3 series owners I see are under 40. I'm sure the ES is exactly what 3 series owners had down as their second choice. Its FWD, offers only an automatic, handles like a 90s Buick and looks like a Camry- sure sounds like what a sports sedan lover would be considering. I don't care what your neighbors said or didn't say about the Lacrosse. Most die hard Toyota/Lexus fanboys would never consider ANYTHING domestic. I never said EVERY ES owner considered the Lacrosse- I said the two cars are obviously direct competitors- hence the ES350 is mentioned in almost every review of the Lacrosse and the 3 series is NEVER mentioned. If the ES is aimed at the 3 and C class what is the purpose of the IS?
"On to the Venza... I saw the pics on Jalopnik. Like I said not one of the Toyota's best interiors. But Jalopnik only mentioned ONE panel gap (one of the AC vents), and for most people ONE panel gap does not qualify as a poorly constructed interior."
LOL! I like that response. In 2010 that is a poorly constructed interior. If you can find a similar issue on a comparable Chrysler product let me know. The margin for error is small these days but just like Toyota I see you don't get it. You and I both know you would LOVE to highlight such a flaw in a Chrsyler or Chevy but you are so beholden to Toyota you can't even acknowledge that such build quality in a brand new test car is unacceptable. Here is what I love about Toyota/Honda fans- they NEVER hold their beloved brands to the same standards they hold domestics to and yet they are the FIRST people to accuse domestic car owners of the past of placating domestic brands by accepting less than stellar quality. How does that work? Are you telling me that a vent surround coming detached in a Chrysler would be acceptable to you?
AJT123 says:
10:53 AM, 01/21/2010
"I have NO plans to keep ANY car for 150k miles so I really don't care much about how a Toyota or Honda can potentially go 200k miles without more than oil changes"
Well, in my book, that is precisely what makes a car a "good car."
to626n says:
09:56 AM, 01/21/2010
1487,
One last thing, CR Reports and JD Power have said that domestics have improved their quality. But only initial quality. Do some research, all of their LONG TERM studies still favor import brands such as Toyota and Honda. Like I said NO ONE, not even you can predict how well the newly released domestic cars will hold up over 10 years. It would be another ignorant sentiment to not care about vehicles lasting 10 years, even though you don't tend to keep cars that long. Why? Becuase long lasting vehicles INCREASE residual value and brand preception. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler only made cars that lasted 5 or 6 years but clunked out after they hit 60,000 or 70,000 miles how will that make their brand look to potential used car buyers? Over time they will still prefer imports.
to626n says:
09:49 AM, 01/21/2010
*** just to clarify there are THREE people in my neighborhood who purchased an ES 350
to626n says:
09:47 AM, 01/21/2010
1487,
How ignorant could you be? In my neighborhood there are two people that have purchased an ES 350, one of them just three weeks ago. I asked them what other cars they were considering and ALL THREE mentioned the C Class and two mentioned the 3 Series. I asked my neighbor that purchased the ES three weeks ago if she thought about the Buick and her exact words were "Hell no." Look at the majority of people buying entry level luxury cars. Newsflash: they all target the same market. The ES just focuses on comfort while the C Class and 3 Series focus on sport.
To the average consumer (non automotive enthusiast) these are all the same class of cars. Why? Becuase they are all entry level luxury cars that are in the same price range. It's not like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing fuji apples to washington apples. Your still going to buy an apple, but what kind. In any case the C Class and the 3 Series would have lost to the Buick in that comparison. Why? Because it was clearly skewed to favor value and features. If you've been reading Edmunds for as long as I you would know they normally value performance.
To further drive my point home, about a year ago Edmunds compared a 1984 Ferrari to a Kia Sedona. Now I know your going to somehow justify this comparo, but lets face it. The Ferrari and Sedona have ZERO in common. If they can somehow justify this comparison, surely a comparo between the ES, C Class, and 3 Series would not be "unfathomable."
On to the Venza... I saw the pics on Jalopnik. Like I said not one of the Toyota's best interiors. But Jalopnik only mentioned ONE panel gap (one of the AC vents), and for most people ONE panel gap does not qualify as a poorly constructed interior.
1487 says:
06:49 AM, 01/21/2010
t0626:
HAve you ever heard of the LExus IS? If not, its a small RWD sports sedan aimed DIRECTLY at the 3 and C class. The ES350 is NOT a competitor for those cars and to suggets otherwise is unfathomable. The ES350 and 3 series have nothing in common except that they are both luxury cars. The LAcrosse is CLEARLY aimed at the ES350 in terms of styling, drivetrain, features and handling. IL would never compare the Lacrosse to the 3 series because they are totally different. You are just making excuses because you dont want to accept the obvious: the Lacrosse delivers more sytle and value than the ES350. The Es is 3 years old so its not surprising that its been eclipsed.
Jalopnik's review mentions the poor build quality AND shows examples in photos. What more do you want? You complained (rightfully) that IL mentioned poor quality without showing pics. I told you that Jalopnik showed pics of misaligned components and plastic pieces coming unmoored and you are still claiming no "proof" exists that the Venza is subpar. There is proof but you chose to ignore it. I didn't notice glaring build quality issues but I really wasn't looking that hard. If I have time I will definitely check the car out again at the auto show. I have been in the current Camry and I can vouch for the hard plastics, mediocre panel gaps and flashing on components. HAve seen the same on the Corolla as well. Toyota interiors are not designed to be best in class, they are designed to cost.
"Finally just because I prefer import cars doesn't mean that I can't admit domestic cars have greatly improved their quality in the past 2-3 years. Having said that, we only know that initial quality has been improved. Will they be as reliable as imports over ten years? No one knows the answer, not even you."
Typical import fanboy talking points. First of all JD Power and CR PROVE that domestic quality is much improved. I'm not a CR fan (but most import fanboys are) but they say Ford's quality in on par with Toyotas. Furthermore, I have NO plans to keep ANY car for 150k miles so I really don't care much about how a Toyota or Honda can potentially go 200k miles without more than oil changes. That is impressive (if true) but it really has little bearing on my vehicle preferences. If you know anything about quality processes, manufacturing improvements, engineering, etc. you would know that it takes YEARS to improve quality. Domestic quality has been improving for years and the fruits of that are apparent now. This is not something that materialized out of the blue within the last 2 years. Also; How many brand new unreliable domestic cars have you owned in the last 15 years? I am curious to know how you can speak with authority about how domestic vehciles were low quality until 2 years ago.
lexuslvr says:
08:36 PM, 01/20/2010
Im a Lexus/GM fan. That being said I believe together they make the best cars. The Lacrosse is better than the ES350. THe Lacrosse is better than the Cadillac DTS for that matter with a better looking interior than the STS. The GS is better than the CTS but the CTS looks better. Of course the CTS-V is better than the IS-F even though they aren't in the same class. The lacrosse hits 60 in 6.4 seconds. Speed was supposedly the main thing going for the ES350 but Car and Driver clocked 6.4 for the Lacrosse. Bottom line is both Lexus/Toyota/GM make some of the best cars.
to626n says:
04:39 PM, 01/20/2010
1487,
It would be ignorant to think the C Class, 3 Series, and ES are never cross-shopped. They are all entry level luxury sedans that are in the same price range. Just because the C Class and 3 series are RWD doesn't mean they are never cross-shopped. They may handle better than the ES, but how often do you see C Class and 3 Series owners clipping apexes on a racetrack? I can guarantee you 99.9% of C Classes and 3 Series are driven exactly the same way the ES is driven: straight lines on long highways. The ES vs LaCrosse comparo clearly valued features and value over performance. The C Class and 3 Series would have lost in that comparison as well. So does that mean the C Class and 3 Series are inferior to the Buick?
Like I said (you don't seem to understand), I would not say the Venza's interior is the best interior Toyota has ever designed. However no other automotive publication (including the Jalopnik review) has said the interior overall was of poor quality. Let me make this clear, the Venza's interior is not Toyota's best interior design, but it is not of poor quality. For Edmunds to greatly contradict themselves from an earlier review is unprofessional journalism.
Finally just because I prefer import cars doesn't mean that I can't admit domestic cars have greatly improved their quality in the past 2-3 years. Having said that, we only know that initial quality has been improved. Will they be as reliable as imports over ten years? No one knows the answer, not even you.
kdhspyder says:
02:51 PM, 01/20/2010
Despite the commentary from some mags and reviewers the Venza is actually doing exactly what it was supposed to do; i.e. replace the Solara in the production scheme at Georgetown. It's actually moving quite nicely after a very very slow rollout over 6 months. The big surprise which was immediately recognized is that the American public loves I4 engines.
The 2.7L I4 was thought originally to be an afterthought for the budget conscious. It's now selling at a take rate of more than 50%. This 2.7L is perfectly suited for this size vehicle. Put the hybrid system into it and I might actually drop from 47 mpg ( Prius ) back to only 35-ish. Tough decision.
At 54,000+ units of sales in the horrible year of 2009 it more than doubled the Solara sales of 2008....at a higher price point on average. In corporate-speak that's a huge winner.
1487 says:
01:09 PM, 01/20/2010
"Since the C Class and 3 Series don't have these features either, would it be safe to say Edmunds would prefer the Lacrosse to those cars?"
Now you are being ridiculous. The Lacrosse is CLEARLY a large FWD luxury car like the ES350 that has a lot in common with the Lexus. The C class and 3 series are both RWD compacts that are not going to be cross shopped with the Lexus or Buick.
"If you don't believe me, perhaps you are newer to Edmunds than I. Take a look at reviews or comparisons of domestic vehicles between 2000 and 2007/2008. Edmunds called out the domestics when they produced a shoddy car. Now look at the reviews from the past two years. Complete shift and sometimes total bias."
I can only assume you are being facetious. Has it ever occured to you that domestic vehicles are competitive? I know its hard to fathom but perhaps IL and others arent bashing domestic vehicles as much because it would endanger their credibility to do so considering the merit of the products. That said, IL almost always prefers an import in every respective vehicle class so I'm not sure what "evidence" you are referring to here. Pointing out that the LAcrosse beat a lesser equipped and somewhat dull ES350 that cost over $4k more is not proof of bias- thats proof that common sense occasionally prevails at IL. For the record, MT also believes the Lacrosse is superior to the ES350.
1487 says:
01:04 PM, 01/20/2010
to626:
I will say again: check out reviews on autoblog.com and jalopnik.com if you want details on the build quality issues. This is NOT the first time its been mentioned so I fail to see why you have a hard time accepting this reality. I am all for consistency but you are not likely to get it in car reviews. C&D and MT are notorious for totally contradicting their initial reviews later on. Its nothing different just because Toyota is the victum. If you have been in the Venza you should be able to acknowledge the materials are low grade for such a pricey vehicle. I'm not really into plastic quality in the way IL is but the cheapness is noticeable. When I saw the pics I thought the interior was a step up over Avalon and Camry but in reality its not.
Now I see your problem, you are mad because you feel that "objective" means imports win every time. You are being very selective in your recall of the ES350/Lacrosse comparo. I see you failed to mention the Lacrosse had more equipment and a larger backseat and better styling for about $4k less than the Lexus. The Lexus was faster and more efficient- but thats it and in this class neither attribute is all that critical. The Lacrosse does everything the Lexus does for less money and with more style and thus it was the winner. YOu need to recalibrate your expectations for domestic vehicles. Even IL has to put a domestic out front every now and then when you consider how competitive GM and Ford's vehicles are these days.
to626n says:
11:55 AM, 01/20/2010
1487,
What? And we should be ok with automotive publications not being consistant? It should never make us raise an eyebrow? Sure two reviews of the same vehicles will never be the same (especially from different publications), but Edmunds review here and the 2008 review are wildly different. I've driven the Venza, while the interior is not the best Toyota interior to date, I never thought it was of poor quality. In fact it seems that Edmunds is alone in their thinking. Motortrend praised the interior calling it Lexus-like. Even Car & Driver, who hates Toyotas, never mentioned anything about the Venza having a poor quality interior.
I've been reading Edmunds for years, which is why I have noticed this sudden shift of tarting up domestic brands as much as possible. Take the comparison of the Lexus ES 350 and Buick Lacrosse. One of the most skewed reviews I have ever read. It didn't matter that the ES would blow the doors off the Lacrosse in a drag race while returning better MPG. In this review Edmunds cared more about the features the Lacrosse offered like a 4 cylinder engine, traffic info navigation, and remote start. Since the C Class and 3 Series don't have these features either, would it be safe to say Edmunds would prefer the Lacrosse to those cars?
If you don't believe me, perhaps you are newer to Edmunds than I. Take a look at reviews or comparisons of domestic vehicles between 2000 and 2007/2008. Edmunds called out the domestics when they produced a shoddy car. Now look at the reviews from the past two years. Complete shift and sometimes total bias.
watchdoc2003 says:
08:18 AM, 01/20/2010
IL, please do a I4 FWD Crossover comparison. Venza vs Equinox vs 2011 Sorrento with an emphasis on value, economy, and practicality. I would include the new Outback but no fwd version offered.
If Honda would build the Crosstour with the 190hp 2.4 from the EX-L and offer a 6speed manual FWD version with a sport suspension, I bet it would sell like hot cakes!!
1487 says:
05:26 AM, 01/20/2010
"Crosstour sales in its first full selling month was 2079 units. Venza sales in it's first full selling month was 1474. In Dec 09, Venza sold 5819 units. It seems like people are buying these vehicles despite the negative opinions on web forums. "
Name one vehicle that doesnt sell. Every vehicle sells. I'm not surprised the Venza is selling with Toyota offering leases for $260 a month. Highlander and RAV4 sales were down though- don't think that is a coincidence.
Honda isn't even predicting robust sales for the Crosstour so I'm not sure what you are expecting.
leokbelo says:
08:58 PM, 01/19/2010
Once again we get in the US market, with it's fear of PROPER station wagons / estates, the so called "crossovers or whatever" instead of the more sensible, more usefull cars that the REST OF THE WORLD gets...I mean, god forbid that we would get the equivalent of the Avensis estate (the real deal when it comes to a Camry wagon).
Now it seems that somehow proper wagons are indeed coming back to the US, however only at the "upscale" segments e.g. Cadillac CTS wagon or the upcoming TSX sportwagon. I guess better that than nothing.
I guess it all comes down to car companies thinking that the average american really does not care at all about driving dynamics, instead opting for bigger vehicles or the so called CROSSOVERS ...maybe they're right...
p.s. The Accord Crosstour looks ridiculous, and completely pointless. And I am a big Honda fan!
carzzz says:
08:32 PM, 01/19/2010
Crosstour almost has a 50/50 weight distribution!
carzzz says:
08:31 PM, 01/19/2010
Crosstour almost has a 50/50 weight distribution...
mozzz77788 says:
07:46 PM, 01/19/2010
That was a no-brainer. The Crosstour seems so half-baked
lexuslvr says:
02:47 PM, 01/19/2010
Why are people questioning whether or not the Venza will sell? If Toyota didn't think they could sell enough they wouldn't have made it. If you don't like the Venza you can get a Rav4 or a Highlander or a FJ cruiser or a 4Runner or a Sequioa or a Land Crusier or the Sienna or even a Matrix. Its like Burger King lol.
trjnflip says:
01:40 PM, 01/19/2010
Crosstour sales in its first full selling month was 2079 units. Venza sales in it's first full selling month was 1474. In Dec 09, Venza sold 5819 units. It seems like people are buying these vehicles despite the negative opinions on web forums.
1487 says:
12:10 PM, 01/19/2010
risdo:
54k is really nothing significant for a mainstream vehicle like the Venza. Especially when you compare that to sales of the top crossovers that are similar in price. Then again, Honda is only predicting it will sell 25k crosstours.
Niether vehicle will grow marketshare, they will simply cannibalize sales from crossovers sold in the same dealerships.
1487 says:
12:07 PM, 01/19/2010
to626:
If you are looking for consistency you are in the wrong place. The things you are complaining about are nothing new- just new to you because you are a Toyota fan. IL often criticizes build quality without showing examples. Other online publications often do the same thing but I have seen example on other sites of the Venza's poor quality. Check out jalopnik's review and pictures for details. I'm never surprised by IL treading softly when reviewing a Toyota product so I'm not shocked they initially praised the Venza's interior. After sitting in it I can tell you its not a step up over the older Camry or Highlander. In fact, it FEELS like a Corolla with fake woodgrain inside. Take away the wood appliques and you would be left with a basic interior with hard plastics.
Your conspiracy theories about Toyota being hated here because they are supposedly the biggest threat to domestic automakers are grounded in fantasy. How long have you been reading reviews here? I assure you no one would ever accuse IL of rooting for domestic brands after reading reviews for 6 months and following the trends. To be perfectly honest Toyota products really arent all that loved by most of the American press. They laud Toyotas for build quality and "reputation" but the actual vehicles are often mediocre. THe Rav4 has consistently gotten praise since its redesign in 2006 and most like the Prius but its a mixed bag otherwise.
ff1825 says:
11:20 AM, 01/19/2010
With all the criticism of the Crosstour I have seen here and on other sites maybe more people will realize that the myth, and I emphasize myth that Honda can absolutely do no wrong is indeed a myth.
lexuslvr says:
11:20 AM, 01/19/2010
"why not just sell the full blown Euro Accord Wagon?"
THEY ARE PEOPLE! Honda will bring it over as the TSX wagon just like they do for the TSX sedan.
risdo says:
11:04 AM, 01/19/2010
Toyota sold over 54,000 of them in 2009 in the U.S. That's a decent amount. Not sure if they were bought by "MILF's" though.
to626n says:
10:59 AM, 01/19/2010
1487,
Funny you should say the Highlander's interior is better. Back in 2008 when Edmunds first reviewed the Venza they said the interior quality and materials were "a cut above the Highlander and Camry." But that was back in 2008, domestic automakers weren't hurting as much. Toyota wasn't seen as the villian that is killing Detroit's automotive industry.
I'm not saying the Venza's interior is the best thing since sliced bread, but you would think if Edmunds was going to make a big stink about how poor the interior was the pictures would show it. If there were "several" misalaigned panels, you would think they would show you. It's the best way to make readers see Toyota's potential decline in quality. Buuuut, there are no pictures which indicates the editor was making a mountain over a molehill.
In any case the review was written in a tone that indicated they picked the Venza reluctantly. Even in the introduction one could sense their disdain for these types of vehicles. So Edmunds I say to you, next time you don't feel like reviewing a vehicle, don't! If you have no passion for a particular segment or vehicle whats the point of writing an article?
jdoria says:
10:55 AM, 01/19/2010
No self-respecting, or preferably self-disrespecting, MILF will drive either of these "lookers".
jdoria says:
10:50 AM, 01/19/2010
These vehicles are from two companies I dont buy from. I never think of looking at a Hona/Acura or a Lexus/Toyota when looking for a new car.
The rear of the Accord looks useless for small family use. why not just sell the full blown Euro Accord Wagon? This is the next Aztek....
Neither of these vehicles seem possible of sparking any emotion from their driver except depression.
I can see the following comments in a road test log book:
"Why did I buy this?"
"Why didnt I just spend a few more dollars and get an XYZ car?"
"How ugly do I look driving this?"
1487 says:
10:35 AM, 01/19/2010
The Venza basically is a wagon. The Accord is a hatchback sedan with ungainly lines. I would love to know why the Crosstour weighs 400lbs more than the Accord. AWD cant be responsible for all that so Im assuming its improved sound deadening.
The bottom line is that this comparo was very gracious to these two vehicles and littel in the way of common sense objective criticism was included. The crosstour doesnt make sense on MANY levels and for its size and weight its an incredibly inefficient family vehicle. Also, that cargo bay is a joke with the intrusions from the rear suspension components. You can forget about loading wide, flat boxes or building materials in that cargo bay.
1487 says:
10:31 AM, 01/19/2010
HondaAcura:
Can you please offer specific reasons why the Crosstour is superior to the CR-v aside from power? They have almost the exact same options and the CR-V is larger, more efficient and cheaper. I've been in the Accord and CR-V- no major difference in interior quality. I actually like the CR-V design better. I also don't see what obvious demographic target differences would exist between the two.
I dont know much about Honda's marketing plan for this vehicle but four cylinders are spreading and Honda is KNOWN for efficiency so not offering a four makes no sense. When the Highlander, Lacrosse and VEnza offer an I4 I fail to see why the Crosstour is too upscale to offer one. Audi sells four cylinder vehicles so its not like people wont buy a $30k vehicle with a four banger.
risdo says:
10:27 AM, 01/19/2010
"Audi Allroad" LOL.
risdo says:
10:23 AM, 01/19/2010
True that. Wagons like the Audi Crossroad and CTS are much better looking. Perhaps "crossbreed" is a better term for the Crosstour and Venza...
kjnorman says:
10:18 AM, 01/19/2010
I wouldn't demean wagons by calling either of these two wagons. Wagons have style! Look at the any of the Euro wagon, the Germans or Ford's or GM's wagons that alas you can't get over here. The Venza is the closest to a wagon bu the Crosstour is just an abomination of a product. Please don't paint wagons into a bad light by calling the Crosstour a wagon. It's not!.
risdo says:
09:57 AM, 01/19/2010
Colorado, I don't recall saying that it was a good move. I don't like the vehicle either. I Haven't said "crossover" once in this thread...
colorado1974 says:
09:35 AM, 01/19/2010
risdo: The main point here is that making the Crosstour was a stupid move on honda's behalf. Not only have all the online forums been overwhelmingly negative, but the car is huge, fugly, a gas hog and one more thing...IT ISN'T A CROSSOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Escape, CRV, Equinox, Rav 4 and Pilot are all crossovers. This is a hatchback sedan that is the same weight as a Grand Cherokee.
Quit putting the "crossover" batch on everything with AWD.
trjnflip says:
09:34 AM, 01/19/2010
Are these "mommy-mobiles" or more of empty nester vehicles? I would think that mothers/families would want some sort of 3 row vehicle like a Pilot or Highlander.
jazzor says:
09:20 AM, 01/19/2010
Both of these weird anomalies of the human mind are an unforgivable sin!
hondacura4 says:
09:03 AM, 01/19/2010
I guess if I had to take one of the it would be a combination of the 2. I'd take the Toyota's exterior styling and drivetrain with the Honda's interior styling.
"Why wasnt real world mileage recorded for these vehicles? I dont get why that is omitted from so many tests."
1487, I wondered the same thing.
"I fail to understand why Honda didnt include a four cylinder with the crosstour- that is just stupid."
1487, from what I've read Honda positions the CrossTour ABOVE the Accord. With that said, standard V6 power would at least (in Honda's eyes) somewhat validate that decision.
"The Crosstour makes little sense with the CR-V parked in the same showroom."
1487, I agree somewhat, however the Crosstour is a much more luxurious package overall with better materials, more power and some other things. They may be similar on paper but actual real world performance and execution are very different. Also the target demographics for the CRV and CrossTour are vastly different.
"Honda's 4's being thirsty probably had something to do with it."
Risdo, Honda's 4 bangers may seem "thirsty" on paper but real world figures say the exact opposite. Even though EPA testing procedures have been updated/changed, don't put so much truth into them as there are quite a few vehciles that have steller EPA estimates that don't translate into real world figures.
1487 says:
09:00 AM, 01/19/2010
risdo:
I think there are two factors here:
1. Honda wants this to be "premium" even though that makes little sense becaues its not better equipped than accord V6. The lack of a power liftgate, rear DVD and backup camera sans nav screen is just head scratching.
2. The crosstour would be slow as heck with an I4 because it weighs about 500lbs more than the slow CR-V. The CR-V is good for 60 in about 9 secs with a 3500lb (approx) curb weight. That would likely put this overweight Honda at 11+ secs to 60.
Either way, its a primary reason why Honda isnt going to sell a lot of these vehicles. When a base Accord starts at $22k its quite a jump to a base Crosstour at $30k. When 80% of Accords are I4s its kind of silly to not offer an Accord based hatch without an I4.
risdo says:
08:37 AM, 01/19/2010
1487. It's nice chatting with you. Your posts are always well thought out and to the point.
risdo says:
08:35 AM, 01/19/2010
Honda's 4's being thirsty probably had something to do with it. The Accord sedan V-6 is rated at 29MPG highway, only 2 less than the 4 banger(31MPG) I see the AWD Crosstour took a 4MPG hit at 25MPG. The 4 probably would have been around 28 with just FWD. Maybe they thought they couldn't profit on the 4 cylinder version..
1487 says:
08:26 AM, 01/19/2010
"The Eqinox with a V-6 is rated at 24MPG highway. I don't see the sense of comparing a 2.4 liter 4 with a big V-6..."
I think the point is Honda should have offered the Crosstour with an I4 getting close to 30mpg. I dont think anyone is comparing an I4 to a V6 here. The Venza weighs just as much and offers an I4. Of course without a 6 speed a Crosstour I4 would be less efficient and slower than the Equinox or Venza.
risdo says:
08:15 AM, 01/19/2010
1487, I think the answer to why Honda didn't include a 4-cylinder is obvious.(4000+ pounds)
risdo says:
08:07 AM, 01/19/2010
The Eqinox with a V-6 is rated at 24MPG highway. I don't see the sense of comparing a 2.4 liter 4 with a big V-6...
1487 says:
07:59 AM, 01/19/2010
The Venza is OK looking but that Edge wannabe grille is not attractive and the 20s are over the top. Its better looking than Crosstour but worse looking than the similarly priced Equinox/Terrain. Before the RAV4 got butchered with the new grille I would've said it too was better looking than either of these wagons.
wikiwiki says:
07:28 AM, 01/19/2010
I'd take the new Toyota Sienna over either of these any day of the week. These seem decent if you have 2 grown kids or one grown kids and a baby. But for people like me (3 kiddies) a minivan is easily the best option.
kingisback350 says:
06:59 AM, 01/19/2010
Two Ugly Cars!!!! Toyota = Stupid Grille / Crosstour = looks like poop... literally
1487 says:
06:57 AM, 01/19/2010
"zoom zoom: you forgot to mention that the equinox has much better economy than either of these. "
I fail to understand why Honda didnt include a four cylinder with the crosstour- that is just stupid. I want to know why any Honda fan would buy the Crosstour over the cheaper, larger CR-V other than acceleration. It would have made to sense to try and understand how these vehicles compete against their own stablemates in price, cargo capacity and fuel efficiency. The Crosstour makes little sense with the CR-V parked in the same showroom. CAn you imagine the flak Chevy would've taken for introducing the Equinox with a V6 ONLY in 2009? Honda does it and no one blinks.
1487 says:
06:50 AM, 01/19/2010
"The Flex doesn't cut it. I seriously doubt that Venza and Crosstour customers would even cross shop it. I'm not surprised that the Venza won this comparison test, it just has a whole lot of good baked into the package."
The Flex has been extensively praised but its larger and pricier than these two. I would think the 2011 Edge will compete pretty well vs these vehicles, especially if it gets an Ecoboost four banger.
Why wasnt real world mileage recorded for these vehicles? I dont get why that is omitted from so many tests.
colorado1974 says:
06:50 AM, 01/19/2010
zoom zoom: you forgot to mention that the equinox has much better economy than either of these.
The crosstour is this generation's Pontiac Aztek....Only it get's worse mileage than the aztek, has less room, is heavier and much much much uglier.
1487 says:
06:48 AM, 01/19/2010
zoomzoom,
At this point Toyota sells on brand name, the vehicles are secondary. Look at all their recent ads- they mention legendary Toyota quality and safety (how ironic) but don't actutally talk about the vehicles. Toyota has such a strong brand name that they can sell mediocre vehicles and thats exactly what they do in many cases.
Here's my gripe with this comparo- no reference was made to similarly priced crossovers in terms of price and cargo capacity. The crosstour offers less cargo space than virtually every small crossover on the market in spite of being 195" long and weighing over 4000lbs. The Equinox/Terrain have been heavily criticized by IL for not having enough cargo space relative to their size and weight. Meanwhile the Crosstour is just as heavy, 8" longer and considerably smaller and there are no comments about the packaging inefficiency of the Honda. There is no reason for the Crosstour to be so small in terms of cargo space.
1487 says:
06:35 AM, 01/19/2010
to626:
Are you serious when you claim IL would be more forgiving if the Toyota was a domestic? Surely you jest, or maybe you are just new. I guarantee you that wouldn't be the case. The Venza has poor build quality and this has been documented on reviews on Autoblog and Jalopnik. Its a real problem but because its a Toyota everyone dismisses it as some isolated incident. IL rarely provides pictures of the poor quality areas they mention in reviews- they dont do it for domestics and apparently the Venza is getting the same treatment. I sat in the Venza and its material quality and overall ambiance is cheap- at least for a vehicle that tops out at $39k. The interior lacks any sophistication in person although it looks OK in photos. The Highlander interior is MUCh better looking in spite of the fact that the Venza is newer.
Why no mention of the Crosstour's styling in the review? The Aztek is being bashed for ugliness years after it left the market and yet there is really no criticism of this ugly Honda that just debuted.
thammer62 says:
06:14 AM, 01/19/2010
I'd like to express my feelings about the honda in the form of song. To the tune of "Kokamo"
The Crosstour
So ugly
Ewww I just can't stand it
Cause it's ugly - so ugly
Get it the hell away from me
Key Largo is far enough ewwwwww
I wanna take it to the dumpster
We'll throw up fast - pull over I'm gonna blow...
That'sssss where the Crosstour can go
Way down in Kokamo ('s dumpster).
Thank you be sure to tip your waitress.
zoomzoomn says:
06:12 AM, 01/19/2010
I like the Venza more than the Crosstour basically on looks alone. That said, I think we finally answered the question as to when big wheels look too big! Having seen a number of Vezas on the road now, I can honestly say that the optional wheels look too big and kind of cartoonish. Anyway, personal taste I guess. On another note, one thing Honda has going for it (or not?) is that the Crosstour could be referred to as the poor man's BMW X6/5GT! Now that's a funny thought!!!
daskiing1 says:
04:36 AM, 01/19/2010
for the same money as these two you can get a volvo v70 to haul the family around in. Volvo please
to626n says:
12:47 AM, 01/19/2010
Not surprised at all that the Venza won. Overall however I am very dissapointed with this review. Lately Edmunds have been very nit-picky when reviewing Toyotas. I've driven the Venza as well as a few other domestic and import crossovers. I found the dashboard to be of high quality. If there were a "several" misaligned panels why not take a picture and show us? Or include it in the video? Nothing in the pictures or the video showed us that the interior was of "poor quality." As far as the dashboard texture, I suppose it's a matter of taste. I prefer the padded dashboard they used on previous Toyotas, but the Venza's unique pattern didn't bother me. I suspect if a GM, Ford, or Chrysler used a similar dash texture you guys would be more forgiving.
zoomzoomzoom04 says:
12:22 AM, 01/19/2010
I don't know why the automakers keep investing in designs like this...they're awkwardly proportioned, less practical than the vehicles they're 'crossing over' from, and answer the question that no one asked. It didn't work as a Pontiac Aztec and it's not going to work as a Venza, a Crosstour or BMW X6 for that matter.
I also wonder how Toyota continues to hang onto its public perception...every Toyota I've driven that was manufactured in the last 4 years has been poorly finished and felt sorely de-contented. They've also managed to strip the soul out of their cars to the point that they feel sub-appliance grade.
Honda used to take pride in their simple, functional designs; they now seem to be abandoning that. Where there were once easy to read controls that were elegantly intuitive and felt great using them, there are now oceans of oddly shaped buttons spread across the entire dashboard. And the Crosstour seems to be the epitome of non-functional overwrought Honda design.
What we have here folks is a comparison test with no winner...they're both losers.
dgs4 says:
11:34 PM, 01/18/2010
This article is all the more reason I am so happy I don't have a family. Not only is the thought of schleping around kids everywhere distasteful, but the thought of driving one of these things is equally distasteful. Although I have to admit, they are both A LOT better than the obnoxious SUV's littering our countryside.
I like kids, don't get me wrong, but I like "other" people's kids.
chunky_azian says:
11:08 PM, 01/18/2010
Subaru Outback carries more than the Venza and starts $3k lower. And is more suitable off road, with its ride height and center differential, than the Toyota's poseur.
lexuslvr says:
11:02 PM, 01/18/2010
ant14
The Flex doesn't even compete with these, the Edge does. Now a fully loaded Flex cost $50k while the ECOboost adds 3k to that.
Now lets see the Venza, Murano, and Crosstour ho head to head even though the Venza already beat the Murano before.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/crossover/163_0906_2009_ford_edge_2009_nissan_murano_2009_toyota_venza_comparison/final_results.html
cz75 says:
10:25 PM, 01/18/2010
This makes me happy. Honda seems to think they can remove the interesting and fun cars from their lineup and shove any ugly boring POS out the door and expect it to sell well. Since it does nothing better than the Venza and looks uglier doing it, I hope Honda flops and has to re-evaluate their strategy.
charlesb says:
10:14 PM, 01/18/2010
The Flex doesn't cut it. I seriously doubt that Venza and Crosstour customers would even cross shop it. I'm not surprised that the Venza won this comparison test, it just has a whole lot of good baked into the package.
double_duece says:
09:55 PM, 01/18/2010
@ant14
I couldn't agree more. I'd much rather have a Flex Ecoboost
@iancar
Honda just doesn't like us anymore. No more S2000. No more NSX. Now the Crosstour. They just hate us.
I wouldn't be so hard on the Crosstour if it had some sort of redeeming quality. But it's ugly, overpriced, and doesn't even do what it's supposed to do all that well. Honda FAIL.
ant14 says:
09:32 PM, 01/18/2010
At almost $40K I'm not seeing any convincing reason to purchase these 5 passenger station wagons, when for similar money (depending on options) you can get a 7 passenger Ford Flex and get more advanced technology, high quality interior, and available optional Ecoboost engine. Or even any other product out there. These vehicles seem to answer the question no one has really cared to ask...
iancar says:
09:13 PM, 01/18/2010
We ask for a JDM Odyssey, how and why we end up with an Accord turn "incredible hulk".