The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued its first safety ratings based on the new, more stringent crash testing protocols on Tuesday, October 5, 2010. Of the 33 cars tested under the new system, only two earned an overall five-star designation.
The improved testing program gives a single rating of one to five stars to each car tested in an effort to make the information more easily understood by consumers. The rating is inclusive of performance for front and side impact as well as rollover resistance.
The BMW 5-series and the Hyundai Sonata both earned five stars. Only two other vehicles earned less than four stars, the Toyota Camry with three and the Nissan Versa compact with two. (All cars that were tested had electronic stability control standard.)
"With our upgraded Five-Star Safety Ratings System, we're raising the bar on safety, said Ray LaHood, secretary of transportation. "Through new tests, better crash data, and higher standards, we are making the safety ratings tougher and more meaningful for consumers."
Testing now includes a diagonal slide into a pole to mimic a car skidding into a post or tree and crash dummies of various sizes were employed, including the use of a simulated female. In the past, only dummies approximating the size and weight of an average adult male were placed in the vehicles during the crashes.
The agency will ultimately rate 55 vehicles from the 2011 model year
source:http://www.carseek.com/news/october2010/BMW-Hyundai-earn-five-stars/
Toyota Highlander Crossover Gets Major Revision for 2011
• Revised Styling with New Front Fascia, Hood and Fenders
• New Standard Three-Row Seating with Rear Climate Control
• Four-Cylinder Engine Availability Expanded
• More Powerful and Advanced V6 for Highlander Hybrid
• New User Technology
TORRANCE, Calif. -- Toyota has significantly revised its popular Highlander and Highlander Hybrid crossover sport utility vehicles for 2011, giving them enhanced styling, additional standard amenities and new user technology.
The 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine, which was available only in the Highlander Base grade model for 2010, is now also offered in the SE, the most popular grade (2WD only). The Highlander Hybrid debuts a more powerful and advanced 3.5-liter V6 gasoline engine, along with a standard Tech Audio Package and unique exterior design elements.
The 2011 Highlander is available in Base, SE and Limited grades in both two-wheel (2WD) and full-time four-wheel-drive (4WD). A 270-horsepower 3.5-liter V6 is standard on the Limited grade and available for the others. All Highlander Hybrid models are equipped with four-wheel-drive with intelligence and available in Base and Limited grades.
The first-generation Highlander pioneered the midsize crossover utility vehicle segment, ushering in car-like performance, comfort and fuel efficiency yet with SUV-like roominess and versatility. The second-generation Highlander amplifies those attributes and is among the leaders in the segment in standard active and passive safety features.
Honda supports 2nd Philippine Automotive Manufacturing Summit
Honda Cars Philippines, Inc (HCPI) officially announces its full support and participation in the 2nd Philippine Automotive Manufacturing Summit on October 8, 2010 which will be held at Dusit Thani Hotel, Makati City.
Organized by the Philippine Automotive Competitiveness Council (PACCI), this year’s summit presents the impact of local parts and automotive manufacturing industry in the economy as well as the challenges and opportunities that face the industry.
“This is a great avenue to help intensify local manufacturing’s global competitiveness and secure sustainability amidst economic challenges. Considering the substantial number of direct and indirect employment generated by the automotive manufacturing industry, it is best to address its welfare with careful attention.” said Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu, President and General Manager of Honda Cars Philippines, Inc.
In line with the summit theme “Partners in Action: Strengthening the Automotive Parts Industry,” Honda will display its locally manufactured model, City, while highlighting its local parts components. Local parts include seat assembly, foot rest, mat trunk floor and splash guard. The City is Honda’s best selling model and accounts for 53% of its total sales. Meanwhile, Honda also assembles Civic in its Sta. Rosa plant. Honda supports continuous development and enhancement of local parts in keeping up with global quality standards.
Established in 2009, PACCI is composed of Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturers Association of the Philippines and local automotive manufacturers, which collectively dominates the entire local automotive industry.
source: honda
Organized by the Philippine Automotive Competitiveness Council (PACCI), this year’s summit presents the impact of local parts and automotive manufacturing industry in the economy as well as the challenges and opportunities that face the industry.
“This is a great avenue to help intensify local manufacturing’s global competitiveness and secure sustainability amidst economic challenges. Considering the substantial number of direct and indirect employment generated by the automotive manufacturing industry, it is best to address its welfare with careful attention.” said Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu, President and General Manager of Honda Cars Philippines, Inc.
In line with the summit theme “Partners in Action: Strengthening the Automotive Parts Industry,” Honda will display its locally manufactured model, City, while highlighting its local parts components. Local parts include seat assembly, foot rest, mat trunk floor and splash guard. The City is Honda’s best selling model and accounts for 53% of its total sales. Meanwhile, Honda also assembles Civic in its Sta. Rosa plant. Honda supports continuous development and enhancement of local parts in keeping up with global quality standards.
Established in 2009, PACCI is composed of Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturers Association of the Philippines and local automotive manufacturers, which collectively dominates the entire local automotive industry.
source: honda
Porsche Panamera Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
- 4,806 cc 4.8 liters V 8 front engine with 96.0 mm bore, 83.0 mm stroke, 12.5 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
- Premium unleaded fuel 91 and petrol
- Gasoline direct injection fuel system
- 26.4 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank 22.0
- Power: 298 kW , 400 HP SAE @ 6,500 rpm; 369 ft lb , 500 Nm @ 3,500 rpm
2010 Hyundai Elantra Touring Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
- 1,975 cc 2.0 liters in-line 4 front engine with 82.0 mm bore, 93.5 mm stroke, 10.1 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
- Unleaded fuel 87 and petrol
- Multi-point injection fuel system
- 14.0 gallon main unleaded fuel tank 11.7
- Power: 103 kW , 138 HP SAE @ 6,000 rpm; 136 ft lb , 184 Nm @ 4,600 rpm
New Crash Tests Demonstrate the Influence of Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety in Crashes
Three front-to-front crash tests, each involving a microcar or minicar into a midsize model from the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models.
Arlington, VA - infoZine - "There are good reasons people buy minicars," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time."
The Institute didn't choose SUVs or pickup trucks, or even large cars, to pair with the micro and minis in the new crash tests. The choice of midsize cars reveals how much influence some extra size and weight can have on crash outcomes. The Institute chose pairs of 2009 models from Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the Institute's offset test into a deformable barrier. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-into-barrier tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact.
Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.
Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.
Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.
Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.
"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."
The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.
Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection.
Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes.
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.
Here's how the pairs of cars fared in the Institute's new crash tests:
Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.
Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.
"The Smart is the smallest car we tested, so it's not surprising that its performance looked worse than the Fit's. Still both fall into the poor category, and it's hard to distinguish between poor and poorer," Lund says. "In both the Smart and Fit, occupants would be subject to high injury risk in crashes with heavier cars." In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.
Toyota Camry versus Yaris: There was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar's door was largely torn away. The driver seats in both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively. Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies. The heads of both struck the cars' steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. There was extensive force on the neck and right leg plus a deep gash at the right knee of the dummy in the minicar. Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable.
Fuel economy implications: One reason people buy smaller cars is to conserve fuel. Gasoline prices skyrocketed last year, and there's no telling what the price at the pump might be next week. Meanwhile, the gears are turning to hike federal fuel economy requirements to address environmental concerns. The conflict is that smaller vehicles use less fuel but do a relatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, so fuel conservation policies have tended to conflict with motor vehicle safety policies.
A problem with the current structure of fuel economy standards for cars is that the target of 27.5 miles per gallon is applied to an automaker's whole fleet, no matter the mix of cars an individual automaker sells. This encourages manufacturers to sell more smaller, lighter cars to offset the fuel consumed by their bigger, heavier models. Sometimes automakers even sell the smaller — and less safe — cars at a loss to ensure compliance with fleetwide requirements.
In response, the Obama administration announced it is boosting the fuel economy standard for cars, beginning with 2011 models, and instituting a size-based system to set fuel economy targets like the one already in effect for SUVs, pickups, and vans. This system will mandate lower fuel consumption as cars get smaller and lighter, thus removing the incentive for automakers to downsize their lightest vehicles to comply. It also could mean that technology currently used to enhance horsepower would go instead to reduce gas consumption — a direct safety benefit because less powerful cars have lower crash rates.
Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55 mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved thousands of lives. Highway deaths declined about 20 percent the first year, from 55,511 in 1973 to 46,402 in 1974. The National Research Council estimated that most of the reduction was due to the lower speed limit, and the rest was because of reduced travel. By 1983 the national maximum 55 mph limit still was saving 2,000 to 4,000 lives annually.
"Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic safety successes in motor vehicle history," Lund concludes. "The political will to reinstate it probably is lacking, but if policymakers want a win-win approach, lowering the speed limit is it. It saves fuel and lives at the same time."
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/35409/
Arlington, VA - infoZine - "There are good reasons people buy minicars," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time."
The Institute didn't choose SUVs or pickup trucks, or even large cars, to pair with the micro and minis in the new crash tests. The choice of midsize cars reveals how much influence some extra size and weight can have on crash outcomes. The Institute chose pairs of 2009 models from Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the Institute's offset test into a deformable barrier. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-into-barrier tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact.
Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.
Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.
Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.
Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.
"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."
The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.
Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection.
Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes.
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.
Here's how the pairs of cars fared in the Institute's new crash tests:
Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.
Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.
"The Smart is the smallest car we tested, so it's not surprising that its performance looked worse than the Fit's. Still both fall into the poor category, and it's hard to distinguish between poor and poorer," Lund says. "In both the Smart and Fit, occupants would be subject to high injury risk in crashes with heavier cars." In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.
Toyota Camry versus Yaris: There was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar's door was largely torn away. The driver seats in both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively. Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies. The heads of both struck the cars' steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. There was extensive force on the neck and right leg plus a deep gash at the right knee of the dummy in the minicar. Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable.
Fuel economy implications: One reason people buy smaller cars is to conserve fuel. Gasoline prices skyrocketed last year, and there's no telling what the price at the pump might be next week. Meanwhile, the gears are turning to hike federal fuel economy requirements to address environmental concerns. The conflict is that smaller vehicles use less fuel but do a relatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, so fuel conservation policies have tended to conflict with motor vehicle safety policies.
A problem with the current structure of fuel economy standards for cars is that the target of 27.5 miles per gallon is applied to an automaker's whole fleet, no matter the mix of cars an individual automaker sells. This encourages manufacturers to sell more smaller, lighter cars to offset the fuel consumed by their bigger, heavier models. Sometimes automakers even sell the smaller — and less safe — cars at a loss to ensure compliance with fleetwide requirements.
In response, the Obama administration announced it is boosting the fuel economy standard for cars, beginning with 2011 models, and instituting a size-based system to set fuel economy targets like the one already in effect for SUVs, pickups, and vans. This system will mandate lower fuel consumption as cars get smaller and lighter, thus removing the incentive for automakers to downsize their lightest vehicles to comply. It also could mean that technology currently used to enhance horsepower would go instead to reduce gas consumption — a direct safety benefit because less powerful cars have lower crash rates.
Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55 mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved thousands of lives. Highway deaths declined about 20 percent the first year, from 55,511 in 1973 to 46,402 in 1974. The National Research Council estimated that most of the reduction was due to the lower speed limit, and the rest was because of reduced travel. By 1983 the national maximum 55 mph limit still was saving 2,000 to 4,000 lives annually.
"Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic safety successes in motor vehicle history," Lund concludes. "The political will to reinstate it probably is lacking, but if policymakers want a win-win approach, lowering the speed limit is it. It saves fuel and lives at the same time."
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/35409/
Toyota's 2009 Venza - a fresh take on the passenger car
Toyota has taken a new direction in the development of a vehicle that blends comfort and style in a five-passenger sedan that delivers the utility and versatility of an SUV. The all-new 2009 Toyota Venza is essentially 70 percent car and 30 percent SUV. It is a car-optimized vehicle, similar to the Camry Wagon, but with SUV properties.
Venza comes with two engine choices - a new base 2.7-liter four-cylinder that makes 182 horsepower at 5,800 rpm and a like amount of torque in pound-feet at 4,200 rpm, or a more powerful 3.5-liter that cranks out 268 horses at 6,200 rpm, while delivering 246 pound-feet of torque at 4,700 rpm. One may order the Venza in front-wheel or all-wheel drive with either engine.
In terms of trim levels, the Venza focuses on a single-grade strategy. Aside from engine choice and drive configuration, there's an array of standard features and equipment, with several stand-alone options and packages making it possible to personalize.
The four-cylinder Venza FWD begins at $25,975, with the AWD model starting at $27,425. V6 models begin at $27,800 for FWD and $29,250 for AWD. All Venza models come with an impressive standard equipment inventory.
Venza's exterior displays an imposing frontal styling with a distinctive grille, headlamps and fog lights. The shape is aerodynamic, featuring short overhangs with pronounced fenders, a forward A-pillar, sharp and definitive character lines, a low roofline, wrap-around tail lamps and sweeping rocker panels. The Venza was designed to appeal to consumers seeking the value and dependability of a Camry, the refinement and comfort of an Avalon and the versatility and utility of a Highlander.
The interior design focuses on enhancing the driving experience both visually and functionally. The center console's flow emphasizes a unique 60/60 layout, providing both the driver and front passenger with the feeling that 60 percent of the space is readily accessible. Storage and auxiliary outlets and connections are innovative and versatile. The rear cargo area features 60/40 split fold-down seats with one-touch fold-down levers and a tonneau cover.
I experienced both engines and several levels of content during the national press introduction, but my review is of an AWD model powered by a 2.7-liter, four-cylinder motor, finished in Tropical Sea Metallic with an interior of ivory cloth with light gray and ivory trim panels accented by a faux-wood/carbon fiber inlay pattern. The base price was set at $27,425 while the final tally came to $30,830.
Summary
I can really find nothing to nit-pick with the new Venza. Obviously, the V6 is much peppier than the four-cylinder, but even it delivers satisfying performance.
Venza provides exceptionally easy ingress and egress - easier in fact, than most cars, and particularly better than the majority of SUVs, yet with a higher ride height and sight line for enhanced visibility. The sight line is higher than Camry, while rear load-in height is lower than Camry and nearly as low as the Sienna van.
The ride quality and handling characteristics are particularly car-like, making it pleasurable to drive. Steering is electronically powered. Acceleration is more than adequate with the four-banger, but considerably better with the V6. Venza is fuel efficient with EPA ratings of 21 mpg city/29 mpg highway for the four-cylinder and 19 mpg city/26 mpg highway for the V6.
The Venza is an all-new vehicle that is pleasing to all the senses and unique in its approach. It lends itself well to customization as exemplified by Five-Axis in tricked-out models exhibited at the SEMA show in Las Vegas.
source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/16/MTAE16TJC0.DTL
Venza comes with two engine choices - a new base 2.7-liter four-cylinder that makes 182 horsepower at 5,800 rpm and a like amount of torque in pound-feet at 4,200 rpm, or a more powerful 3.5-liter that cranks out 268 horses at 6,200 rpm, while delivering 246 pound-feet of torque at 4,700 rpm. One may order the Venza in front-wheel or all-wheel drive with either engine.
In terms of trim levels, the Venza focuses on a single-grade strategy. Aside from engine choice and drive configuration, there's an array of standard features and equipment, with several stand-alone options and packages making it possible to personalize.
The four-cylinder Venza FWD begins at $25,975, with the AWD model starting at $27,425. V6 models begin at $27,800 for FWD and $29,250 for AWD. All Venza models come with an impressive standard equipment inventory.
Venza's exterior displays an imposing frontal styling with a distinctive grille, headlamps and fog lights. The shape is aerodynamic, featuring short overhangs with pronounced fenders, a forward A-pillar, sharp and definitive character lines, a low roofline, wrap-around tail lamps and sweeping rocker panels. The Venza was designed to appeal to consumers seeking the value and dependability of a Camry, the refinement and comfort of an Avalon and the versatility and utility of a Highlander.
The interior design focuses on enhancing the driving experience both visually and functionally. The center console's flow emphasizes a unique 60/60 layout, providing both the driver and front passenger with the feeling that 60 percent of the space is readily accessible. Storage and auxiliary outlets and connections are innovative and versatile. The rear cargo area features 60/40 split fold-down seats with one-touch fold-down levers and a tonneau cover.
I experienced both engines and several levels of content during the national press introduction, but my review is of an AWD model powered by a 2.7-liter, four-cylinder motor, finished in Tropical Sea Metallic with an interior of ivory cloth with light gray and ivory trim panels accented by a faux-wood/carbon fiber inlay pattern. The base price was set at $27,425 while the final tally came to $30,830.
Summary
I can really find nothing to nit-pick with the new Venza. Obviously, the V6 is much peppier than the four-cylinder, but even it delivers satisfying performance.
Venza provides exceptionally easy ingress and egress - easier in fact, than most cars, and particularly better than the majority of SUVs, yet with a higher ride height and sight line for enhanced visibility. The sight line is higher than Camry, while rear load-in height is lower than Camry and nearly as low as the Sienna van.
The ride quality and handling characteristics are particularly car-like, making it pleasurable to drive. Steering is electronically powered. Acceleration is more than adequate with the four-banger, but considerably better with the V6. Venza is fuel efficient with EPA ratings of 21 mpg city/29 mpg highway for the four-cylinder and 19 mpg city/26 mpg highway for the V6.
The Venza is an all-new vehicle that is pleasing to all the senses and unique in its approach. It lends itself well to customization as exemplified by Five-Axis in tricked-out models exhibited at the SEMA show in Las Vegas.
source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/16/MTAE16TJC0.DTL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)