http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/15/t...or-highlander/

Wow, this is a pretty big SUV. I guess this is a sign of things to come. Chevy has a 4 cyl. in the new 2010 Equinox and for 2009 Ford will make more 4 cyl. Escapes than V6. In the old Escape you almost can't even find a 4 cyl model.

 

Thats a big 4 cylinder. I wonder if there is a point where having a small 6 would be more beneficial.

 

The highlander isn't all that big. It's heavy, but not that big. It's on the same, or similiar, platfort as the Lexus RX. My 95 firebird is longer than the RX. But with only 190 hp, the highlander will barely be able to get out of its own way.

 

FWIW the Colorado/Canyon models use a 2.9L 4 cylinder.

The new Equinox will be using a 2.3 GDI Ecotec so it should be interesting to see what kind of power it will be putting out in comparison

 

I wonder what kind of MPG benefit this will have, in this class of vehicle I'd say not much.

Our Pontiac Torrent GXP is only rated at 1 MPG less than the standard Torrent, and thats with about 85 extra hp the GXP gets. The GXP also gets a 6-speed vs. the standard 5-speed.

 

3900 pounds with a 4-cyl isn't going to be fun. I wonder how much fuel that will save? Seems like the bigger trucks don't save much fuel at all with smaller engines... sometimes they actually get worse mileage.

No, the new highlander is considerably bigger than the current RX, though the new RX will probably catch right back up.

 

Man, you ain't kiddin.' The website lists their curb weight around 4050lbs, not sure how much that would go down from the 4 banger. "A few" mpg seems quite optimistic (from article). My S-10 has 120hp, is a complete dog, and weighs in around 3,000 lbs, and that's with a manual. You weight that highlander down with 4 people and luggage and that's going to be a slow moving ride. But then again, Toyota always seems to pull something out of their *** and it will get 3mpg better and accelerate better than a V-6.

 

On second thought, 190hp with 3900 pounds is about the same power to weight ratio as a lot of small economy cars have.

 

They're not big aerodyamic bricks though

Not saying the highlander isn't aerodynamic, but it still much larger than an econobox.

 

Aero doesn't mean much at most speeds most people will be accelerating to.

 

It certainly does. More so on the highway than in stop and go traffic obviously.

 

Around town... 0-50 aero makes almost no significant difference. At highway speeds, it make a little bit but still nothing crazy noticeable in acceleration.

Consider we're not talking about Corvette 1/4-mile times here, we're talking about people driving a 4-cyl mid sized SUV... obviously not going to be sensitive to a tenth or two of a second lost in 0-70 times due to aero.

 

In-laws had a '99 4Runner with the 4-cyl in it. 150hp 2.7l, IIRC. That thing couldn't get out of its own way, and I'd bet the Highlander is heavier.

It was obscene with 5 people in it.

They replaced it with an '01 4Runner with the V6. Within 1mpg gas mileage, but had the nuts to pull its own weight, at least. They still have it.

190hp 4cyl with a healthy hybrid boost might be manageable??

 

Well, the original Ford Explorer had a 160 hp V6, and it sold like hotcakes.

This engine will probably be fine for 90% of the housewives that drive these things.

 

I'm dead certain that there is a mountain of difference in the midrange torque output of a 160hp V6 (it was the 4.0? ) and a 2.7 I4. Looks like 220ft lbs @2400rpm for the 4.0, and 177ft lbs @4000rpm for the 2.7. That's a difference that you can easily feel- enough to change the whole driving experience.