www.Toyota.com/Venza

This is the new Venza, which Toyota will aim squarely at the Murano and CX-7 (and, to some extent, the RDX).

Go to the virtual view of the interior, and take a look at the rear visability. Yikes! FJ Cruiser bad.

 

like the rear, hate the front, V6 is a plus, interior is gross. toyota boring. looks very wagon-ish. i still think the rdx/X3 maintains the most truck like appearance

 

It's not to compete with the rdx. It's like a "cool" camry wagon.
It looks very nice in real life, interior included.
I don't think that the visibility will be that bad once you sit in one.

 

The shifter position is horrible.

The ipod dock is pretty cool.

And the sunroof might be nice?

Overall, I think it's a decent looking car (except for the shifter), but you're right that it is a 'cool camry' and not designed to compete in the RDX, X3, etc class.

And there is no way even the V6 option could hold a candle to the RDX in terms of performance.

But hey....it does have a DRL toggle switch.

 

profile and rear look good, front is ugly

 

It also has a smart key option.

 

Since when is "truck-like appearance" a good thing?!

 

for me, it is....alot better than drivin a wagon

 

Looks like a glorified station wagon to me. Too long for my tastes. I like the RDX because it provides just the right amount of size both inside and out. Doesn't make me feel like I'm driving a box around or a wagon which I think I would feel like in this new car.

As far as wagons go I think the design is pretty nice. I agree with the shifter comment someone made above. But overall it's a nice "family wagon."

 

have any of you guys checked out the new pilot yet, the dash?!.........the grille....

 

OMG...I just took a look at it. The grill is ugly and if people think the RDX dash and center console is too confusing then the Pilot is way worse. http://automobiles.honda.com/2009-pilot/#Photos_16

I personally like the dash and center console in the RDX. Don't find it confusing at all but I know a lot of reviews didn't like it.

I see that Honda implemented the CR-V gear shift into the Pilot instead of having the pull-down bar which is a good change.

 

The front grille too much "Avalon" like...too much chrome too..Not a bad rear, too simple for my taste...Interior is not too bad, never been a fan of the in-dash auto shifters, the Ipod hole is neat though...overall pretty descent, have to wait to see how the materials feel (too much plastic in my toyota experiences)....I think it looks more like a wagon (read Ford Freestile) than an SUV/CUV....Having all wheel drive doesn't make you one....

to follow up on Honda comments, I agree that the Pilot is not pretty...but it wasn't when it first came out either....

 

how can that be an RDX competitor?? if that thing becomes a lexus then yes.

 

dont think its rdx'n it.....more mid line brands i would guess. the Edge, maybe a murano, etc. the hyundais

 

Guess I'm coming from the other angle: I prefer the look/feel/perception of a wagon compared to any sort of truck/SUV, particularly the lower center of gravity that a wagon offers. Unfortunately, my wife wouldn't go for a Subaru wagon over the RDX (not saying I don't really like the RDX compared to other SUVs, just that I don't care for SUVs in general).

Too bad that there aren't really any $30K-ish sporty wagons out there anymore (except for the really small ones like the Imprezza/WRX or the MazdaSpeed3). Subaru made a great wagon a few years ago (Legacy 2.5GT limited), but now all their wagons are only offered in the Outback trim, which has a much less-interesting suspension.

The topic is relevent to me, because I'll be looking for a new car for myself in the next year or two, and there is nothing out there which meets my needs from both a practicality and fun-to-drive standpoint (while keeping within a reasonable budget!).

 

americans dont buy wagons.

they havent done well here since ?

you also have to question just who WILL spend 30k+ on a wagon, they dont offer the utility of an suv or more importantly the seating capacity of similary priced/equipped suv's. suv's took over. they offer more & do more. Short of the volvo kid toting machines....theres no market for them. and when there is, its a niche type thing (like the volvo, or a subaru (gross) )

 

Looks like a Camry with larger wheels and more ground clearance.

And yes, that shifter design is atrocious. Nasty.

 

that interior is horrid!

 

Audi A3 isnt too bad..although a little small

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. A decent-sized wagon offers the same seating capacity and similar cargo capacity as a mid-size SUV. Take, for example, a Subaru Legacy Outback and compare it to, for example, a Nissan Murano. Same price range, same luxury features availability. Both AWD, similar cargo capacity, same seating. Subaru has lower center of gravity, drives MUCH better (better handling), hass less power but also has lower weight, so acceleration should be similar.

So what exactly do you mean that SUVs "offer more & do more"?

Obviously, if you're looking at an SUV with third-row seating, then a wagon won't compare, but from a practicality standpoint, a Minivan would be superior (unless you need to tow stuff).

 

A murano is much nicer than an outback. If you also value styling, some valet cache, etc, wagons just arent today's ride. Maybe an Audi A3 would be nice

im saying that an suv gives u the towing capacity, higher roof (better cargo advantages) 3rd row (if needed) in most cases more ground clearance, it is NOT a glorified sedan, usually has more room/storage etc., bins, cubby's, middle row entertainment that isnt clostrophobic, they offer more than a sedan without an extended trunk is what im saying and can carry more and do more in the process. Handling, yea obviously its a wagon compared to an suv body, but an RDX will also out handle anything (within reason) and it has a truck body....im not sure what you say you are gaining getting a wagon vs what the rdx offers...

I consider the wagon the EX35...thats about all that will beat the RDX at the moment.

 

we digress......its a camry wagon........ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

A Murano isn't necessarily nicer than an Outback; it's a subjective decision (i.e. not as clear cut as saying that a Mercedes E63 AMG is much nicer than a Hyundai Sonata, or that the RDX is much nicer than the Saturn Outlook (LOL)). And why would an Audi A3 be nice; just because it's an Audi?

Take away the towing and 3rd row needs, and you're still not listing any advantages an SUV has over a wagon. On what basis do you say that the "RDX will...out handle anything (within reason)." Have you done slalom comparo tests between the RDX and any lower-sitting wagon?

Again, please don't take any of the above the wrong way - I think the RDX is the perfect "wife car" in that it meets my wife's practical needs and gives her the cachet that she thinks is important. However, for those of us who don't really care what the car next to us at the red light thinks about us, I don't see the advantages of an SUV over a similarly-equipped wagon.

 

You're right ddb, wagons don't lose any utility or practicality to SUV's, and they offer better handling and fuel economy, but Mike is also right in the fact that wagons and hatchbacks don't sell well in the US. For whatever reason, they are considered uncool or not stylish. Europe, on the other hand is a different story, where wagons and hatchbacks rule, and traditional four door sedans are for old people, lol.

FWIW, I like the new Toyota, but it's apples and oranges to the RDX.

 

I actually do think it is a RDX competitor. Toyota hypes it as combining the attributes of an SUV and a sports sedan.

I think that there are gunning for the Murano/Tribecca/Outlander/CX-9/Edge/CX-7 crowd - the more sport family oriented crossovers. Now, that is not exactly the same crowd as the X3/RDX/EX35 shoppers. But, I'm betting that some more sophisticated drivers (like I consider you guys to be) will cross-shop. Certainly, some here have cross-shopped the Murano

 

I agree 100% with you here. I'm looking at a 3-series sportwagon right now myself, although I'm still considering the RDX.

Wagons, in most cases, ride and handle better than SUVs. And, they get better mileage to boot. For most Americans, a wagon would be a far better option.

And, frankly, part of the reason I like the RDX is because it feels more like a wagon than a SUV to me. Maybe that is because of the nearly ideal size.

 

SUV style vehicles like the RDX do have more seating space per length than a typical wagon because the seats are usually higher from the floor, so your lower leg is more upright. You can't just go by legroom specs.

Plus car toddlers in car seats are way easier in an SUV. I used to have a WRX wagon. The RDX is way easier to put my two year old in because of the height.

Plus the higher rear floor of an SUV is better for day to day stuff like groceries. I never understood why people want a low loading floor. I am not an ape--my hands are about three feet off the ground when I am standing up. When I approach the rear carring something, the closer it is to the height of my hands, the easier it is to load.

Sure a lower center of gravity is nice for handling, but not so nice for day to day life.

Maybe when the kids are out of car seats...

 

Let's keep in mind that the difference in height of the floor is about 2 to 3 inches in Wagons vs. Suvs. And, for some wagons, (like the Outback, or AWD versions of the Audi A4 and Beemer 3) there probably isnt' any difference.

The real difference is that the volume in a SUV tends to be in height. With a wagon it is more about length. There are pluses and minuses to each.

 

exactly.

 

ddb...i listed advantages, you just dont consider them an advantage, like they dont matter. i cant help it if u dont think the benefits of an suv arent really benefits

ground clearance
towing (which you say take away)
3rd row (which you say take away)
Space - seating, seat height (which equals much more comfortable arangements), storage, cubbys/head room
higher loading floor

if those arent pluses than you got me. when a truck like the RDX or an X3 handles just as well if not better than sedans and some sport sedans, i dont see the benefit of driving a wagon, unless that is ur personal taste (which is apparent that its yours)

and theres just no way a subaru is nicer than a murano, yea its subject, but to a point.

my comment about the Audi was based on more of which would you rather drive up to a hotel, a nice city restaurant.....i def wont be in the volvo or a subaru.....and im not coming from the argument of well its an Audi, or I drive a Benz so bow down......im saying that when i spend 30k+, i want something along with that cost that is inherint to the brand of the car, rolling up in a subaru no one could care, its not discounting the car, but people just dont care.

i bought the acura because its NOT a snob brand, but it does have luxury appeal and some valet class to come along with its reasonable sticker. im not saying buy a car on what people think of it, but along with a big purchase, i want some prestige with that, an "ll bean" or whatever model they make Subby has none of it.

 

Again, space is similar (including headroom, legroom, etc). Storage is similar. Higher loading floor? As another poster already pointed out, you're maybe talking about a few inches difference, hardly enough to matter.

I'm still not sold on your claim that an RDX or an X3 handles as well or better than sedans/wagons. Do you really think an X3 will do as well on a track as a 328xi sports wagon? Come on!

Nothing special about a Murano, other than that the handling is god-awful and it has a 400-foot turning radius (at least, that's what it feels like when driving my mother's Murano SE).

my comment about the Audi was based on more of which would you rather drive up to a hotel, a nice city restaurant.[/QUOTE]

I can see how some people value the whole "snob appeal" thing, like maybe you'll get a friendlier greeting from the valet if you roll in in an Audi vs. a Subaru. Frankly, this carries zero value to me (actually might even carry negative value), but I can't criticize those like you or my wife for whom brand name is very importnt.

I think we've sufficiently beaten this horse to death!

 

1) AWD Wagons often have as much clearance as crossover SUV. In fact, I think the Outback might even have slightly more clearance than a Murano.

For most drivers, btw, clearance is a non-issue. For snow, mud, and sand (the typical surfaces most of us drive over), your standard FWD sedan has more than enough clearance.

2) Towing is not a strenght of crossover SUVs. Some (like the RDX) aren't any more suitable for towing than something like an Outback.

3) Many SUVs don't have a third row. In fact, most of the more sporty SUVs (RDX, Murano, X3) do not.

4) Space is debateable. A SUV has more height, but wagons are often longer. Depending on what you are trying to carry, an Outback might be more practical than something like an X3 or RDX.

Of course, your typical wagon won't carry as much and have as much flexibility as the MDX. But, now were are talking about the difference between larger and medium vehicles - not just wagons vs. SUVs.

5) I don't think the loading floor is actually a lot higher. In fact, I'd bet that the loading floor in an Outback is about as high as the RDX. And, if there is any height difference at all, it probably isn't more than an inch or two.

6) Having test drove virtually ever vehicle in this class, as well as the 3-series sportwagon, I can tell you that the handling is not even close. The 3-series kills the RDX and X3 in that domain.

 

Seriously...I don't see how you guys can nit pick and pigeon hole cars into categories any more.

I'm pretty sure in 50 years of modern automotive history, carmakers have covered pretty much the entire spectrum of car-wagon-cuv-suv-truck with no obvious dividing lines between those categories. It's entirely arbirtrary where you draw the line between a wagon and an SUV.

In today's world a car is what it is. What you end up with is based on your needs and your comparison shopping in the RDX category could include "wagons" (RDX and smaller) or it could include "SUVs" (RDX and bigger). The point isn't what you label the car...it's whether it suits your needs and can be aptly compared to the RDX (or whatever your base point is).

Everything mentioned above, from the Edge to the Murano to the X3 and beyond are worthy of comparison - depending on what you are looking for.

 

how about that Venza...lol

 

hey dont make fun of it, someone on these boards may have worked on it.

 

not making fun of it at all. making fun of the long winded convo we just had over wagons hahaha.

next up...we will debate meaning of life (and how the RDX fits in, of course)

 

But you are doing the same thing to ddb - dismissing the lower center of gravity and ignoring the fuel economy advantage that wagons have. It's ok if you don't care about them, but they are advantages.

I'm another in the pro-wagon category. If Acura made a TSX wagon (or Honda with an Accord wagon), I'd be driving one now. We traded my TSX for an RDX since it's as close as we could come to that right now.

SUVs have evolved to become more wagon-like as Americans realize that most of them don't tow anything or take them to anywhere more adventurous than Ikea. Wagons have another chance at returning as fuel prices rise, a trend I don't see ending unless the economies of China and India collapse. We'll see - if nothing else, your reaction is an n=1 sample of how Americans react to the term 'wagon'.

 

It's funny you mention an Accord Wagon because back in the early 90's Honda did make an Accord Wagon. My friends parents had one as a matter of fact. It's always amazed me that they discontinued that model but I guess they have a reason for it.

 

SUVs were originally factory-modded pickup trucks, body on frame (BOF). High center of gravity, big weight. Oh, really crappy handling. To lower weight and center of gravity, the move was made to unit bodies. Some SUVs morphed into CUVs. Unit bodies generally don't have the towing capacity of BOFs, except when it comes to AWD, which becomes a factor in stability and control. Body height is needed to stuff in AWD or 4WD while retaining interior room. Check out the 6 inch sandwich you can see around the RDX below the intercooler intake - take that out along with the AWD, you are left with - a wagon. But with an intercooled turbo 4. Talk about a hotrod Honda.

AWD when engineered and tuned to road performance proved to have significant impact. Witness the entry and subsequent weight penalties levied upon Audi and Volvo when family sedans and wagons entered in IMSA and SCCA events started smoking competition like M3, Corvette and Porsche. The gall Audi had was to accept the weight penalties and continue to win.

The point about this vehicle is that it has the handling dynamics of a sports sedan, more so when all-weather performance is factored in. It has cargo capacity rivaling the competition, but it feels smaller and more nimble when you play in the twisties. It has Honda DNA. It has Acura luxury. The market segment is going to get very crowded here and Acura will remain a player. It's great to have so many choices.

The TSX in the USA is the Euro Accord with some extras. The Euro Accord also comes in the wagon flavor. My bet is that we'll see it here very soon!

 

I was on the Consumer Reports chat board the other day, talking to one of the auto editors. He told me that he had asked Honda marketing about the possibility of the JDM Accord Wagon coming to the states. Honda says that it will unequivocally not be here - because Americans are not interested in wagons.