For 2011, a modest face lift better distinguishes the Highlander’s hybrid calling, and a larger V-6 engine offers the tandem benefits of more fossil-fueled grunt and improved fuel-economy estimates.

The Basics

The substitution of Toyota’s ubiquitous 3.5-liter V-6 for the previous 3.3-liter is the most noteworthy change for 2011, bringing the Highlander hybrid up to spec with the Lexus RX450h. With 231 hp and 215 lb-ft of torque (versus the RX’s 245 hp and 234 lb-ft,) the V-6 is joined at the front axle by a 167-hp electric motor. A 68-hp motor at the rear axle provides on-demand all-wheel traction, with both motors sourcing juice from a nickel-metal hydride battery. The combined output is 280 hp, 10 more than the regular Highlander’s 3.5-liter V-6, but 15 fewer than the RX450h’s total.

As in the RX hybrid, a continuously variable transmission transfers power to the wheels while removing any enjoyment from the driving experience. It’s sluggish and causes the engine to drone under acceleration. Although city and highway fuel-economy ratings of 28 and 28 mpg are up from last year’s 27/25 figures, we managed 22 mpg over 800 miles of mixed driving—a mere 1 mpg better than the last Highlander V-6 we tested—making us think upping the battery capacity would have been a better strategy than switching to the larger V-6. (We managed 25 mpg in a similarly rated, all-wheel-drive RX450h.)

Also new for 2011 are a revised grille and front bumper unique to the hybrid, blue-tinted lenses for the projector-beam headlights, and body-color rocker panels with chrome accents. As a result, the hybrid’s lines are cleaner than the standard Highlander’s, and the hybrid provides a slight visual return on your investment, although it remains stealthy enough to get lost in the Whole Foods parking lot.

Putting It All to Work

The 4815-pound crossover’s performance was a touch inconspicuous, though. This Highlander scooted to 60 mph in 7.3 seconds and tripped the quarter-mile lights in 15.2 seconds at 92 mph—comparable to the last V-6 model we tested, which finished midpack in a six-vehicle comparison test. Its 181-foot stop from 70 mph is solid for this size class, although 0.74 g on the skidpad is somewhat lacking. Nineteen-inch wheels—standard on Limited trims and a $1020 option on the base model—may have helped the skidpad figure a touch but wouldn’t have done much about the considerable understeer and body roll we noted.

Given its mission, however, the Highlander hybrid’s ride quality is decent if a little choppy and underdamped, and the lack of lateral support in the front seats isn’t an issue at suburban speeds. The switch between electric and internal-combustion power is nearly seamless, usually necessitating a glance at the dash-mounted power meter/trip computer to see what the V-6 is (or is not) doing. As with most hybrids, the regenerative brakes are grabby, and the electric power steering offers zero feedback or buildup off-center.

Toggling the EV button on the center console allows for low-speed, short-distance travel on electricity alone, but it’s more gimmick than useful electric-vehicle operation. Like those in most other hybrids, the electric-propulsion system in the Highlander is really only intended to augment the gas engine. If the driver more than breathes on the throttle or exceeds 15 mph, especially in cold weather and with the accessories whirring, the Highlander will go back to emptying its 17-gallon fuel tank.

Inner Workings

Although a low-res infotainment interface and some hard, cheap-looking plastics dot the cabin, the hybrid offers numerous standard amenities for the modern family, including electronic driver aids galore, a six-speaker audio system with Bluetooth, a rearview camera, a stowable second-row center console, and seven airbags, including one for the driver’s knees. Three rows of seats, including a generous sliding and reclining middle bench, are standard. The third row is a 50/50-folding setup that offers much more space than the first-gen Highlander’s. Two adults will fit in the way back for short hauls, provided the middle row isn’t reclined, but you’d better pack light, because that leaves only 10 cubic feet of cargo space. The rearmost chairs fold and slide easily, upping the figure to a respectable 42 cubes, with 94 cubic feet available if the second row is stowed flat.

At $38,300 to start (a $2600 increase from 2010), the Highlander hybrid is pricey, commanding a $7000-plus premium over a standard four-wheel-drive model without the extra electrons. Swelling our tester’s bottom line to Lexus levels were more than $8500 in options, including a rear-seat entertainment system ($1660), a leather package that netted a power sunroof and steering-wheel audio controls ($2650), and an infotainment upgrade that included touchscreen navigation, iPod/USB connectivity, and a premium nine-speaker JBL stereo ($2650). Running boards ($649), a power liftgate ($400), carpeted floor and cargo mats ($275), and various other extras pushed our example’s as-tested figure to a heady $47,042. That’s serious money.

The Hybrid Mystique

Like any hybrid’s, the Highlander’s fuel economy will vary depending on—among other things—how often you’re stuck in stop-and-go gridlock and other situations in which the battery and regenerative braking pay larger dividends. Yet even accounting for highway running, our observed figure is only slightly better than that of most comparable three-row crossovers: a small return on a considerable investment.

Placing a value on good citizenship is murkier still, considering the politically and morally questionablesourcing of elements necessary for the hybrid’s battery pack. It’s likely that Highlander hybrid buyers will weigh their peace of mind—real or imagined—with Mother Earth before signing up, but this is one hybrid that lightens your wallet more than your carbon footprint.

Specifications

source from: caranddriver

2010 Lexus ES 350

This past Monday Toyota released a statement denying any finding of fault on Toyota’s part or any defect in its cars in relation to the deadly floor mat safety advisory issued in late September. Today, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is saying that Toyota’s information is “inaccurate and misleading” and that there is in fact a defect in the 3.8 million cars affected.

The Toyota statement included reference to a letter being sent out to customers which Toyota stated, “confirms that no defect exists in vehicles in which the driver’s floor mat is compatible with the vehicle and properly secured.”

The NHTSA minces no words in contradicting Toyota’s claims, calling the removal of the offending floor mats an interim measure only, and saying that “This remedy does not correct the underlying defect in the vehicles involving the potential for entrapment of the accelerator by floor mats, which is related to accelerator and floor pan design.” That leaves no doubt that the NHTSA considers the design of the vehicles and the accelerator pedal both to be defective in this regard.

Between the tragedy of a California Highway Patrol officer and his family losing their lives in a borrowed dealership Lexus ES 350 and the farcical zip tie solution issued shortly thereafter, the Toyota/Lexus floor mat recall is quickly becoming one of the most unique events in recent automotive safety history.

The problem, according to Toyota, lies with installation and mat selection. The dealer loaner car that was driven to a fiery end in Southern California earlier this year was just such a case, says the company: the wrong mat was installed improperly.

So the fix? To install the proper floor mats and do it properly. The letter mailed earlier this week explains that the notice is of a future voluntary safety recall campaign which will see the mats replaced with the right model and installed according to procedure for no charge. Owners had previously been warned to pull driver’s side floor mats from affected vehicles and not replace them with any other mats.

Affected models include:

• 2007 – 2010 Camry
• 2005 – 2010 Avalon
• 2004 – 2009 Prius
• 2005 – 2010 Tacoma
• 2007 – 2010 Tundra
• 2007 – 2010 ES350
• 2006 – 2010 IS250 and IS350

If you own one of these models, look for the letter in your mailbox over the next couple of days. But be forewarned that the NHTSA isn’t buying Toyota’s story.

Source:motorauthority.com

Jarno Trulli during practice at the 2009 Japanese GP

Toyota Motor Corporation confirmed officially on Wednesday its decision to pull out of Formula One with immediate effect. Given that the team was told it had “two more years” for success in December 2007–a deadline that has come and gone without a race win, despite a generally strong showing this season–the decision perhaps ought to be unsurprising.

“Based on the current economic environment, we realize we have no choice but to withdraw,” said the Japanese carmaker’s president Akio Toyoda at a news conference in Tokyo. The economic situation actually put even this season’s run in doubt, with the team boss commenting on the near-cancellation this March.

The decision to pull out of F1 could mean that up to 550 Toyota F1 employees will be out of a job, however.

A Toyota staff member told Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport magazine that, following the announcement of the carmaker’s withdrawal from F1, he heard rumours that only 150 employees will remain at Cologne for the next racing project.

About 700 staff currently work on the team’s F1 engine and chassis programs in Junkersdorf, in the west of Cologne.

One option for the withdrawing owners of F1 teams is to sell the operation as a going concern, but team president John Howett said on Wednesday that he believes Toyota Motorsport GmbH will instead be scaled down in order to participate in “grassroots motor sport.”

Source:carsmart101.com

2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser

Daimler and Chrysler may have gone their separate ways back in 2007 but the two companies are still closely linked, especially since several of their models share common parts. It is because of this sharing of parts that has led to the latest squabble between the two, with Chrysler accusing Daimler of refusing to honor contracts to supply components and thus threatening production at some Chrysler factories.

The latest allegations are contained in a lawsuit filed last Friday in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York but so far Daimler has rejected all the claims. The claims say Daimler is refusing to supply steering columns and torque converters in order to pressure Chrysler to make payments for stemming from a previous dispute between the two companies.

In the previous dispute, Daimler claims that Chrysler still owes it around $78 million to compensate for reduced volume for a 2.2-liter diesel engine designed for the PT Cruiser in Europe. Daimler says it is owed this amount because Chrysler didn’t buy as many of the engines as it had said it would.

Source:motorauthority.com