Last post on Aug 21, 2013 at 5:16 PM
You are in the Toyota Highlander
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Highlander, Toyota 4Runner, Toyota Land Cruiser, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Tacoma, Truck, SUV
#2474 of 2493 Re: Highlander and RAV4 [luckyseven]
Jan 11, 2012 (5:53 pm)
Yes, I do not own an HL, but I do own the exacting(***1) equivalent, a 2001 F/awd RX300. Previously owned a 2000 F/awd RX300 which in retrospect I wish that I still had(***2). Due to pretty severe transaxle stress problems, premature failures, with the '99 and then less so the 2000 this early, more functional, F/awd system was abandoned. Those early failures proved to be the result of the rear drive being "automatically" engaged via the use of a VC, Viscous clutch/coupling design used to "lock" the center diff'l.
By the time the HL went into production the F/awd functionality had yet again been lobotomized, the VC was eliminated entirely.
"..home grown conspiracy theories..."
For years now, 10 or so, I have paid the substantial annual subscription fee (techinfo.toyota.com) for full and complete access to ALL Toyota, Scion, and Lexus models. The information I publish here is derived directly as a result of my access to the appropriate factory service/shop manual set.
If you suspect otherwise the daily access fee is quite affordable.
"..it on all the time..."
Pure BS. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of AWD systems will understand that this just simply cannot be the case. Driveline components would be overstressed, so overstressed, that component failure would result within ~50 miles. Even "partially" automatically engaged, or even "part-time" automatic engagement is proving, right at this very moment, to be a problem with all reasonably functional F/awd system...the best of the best, the SH-AWD system, for instance.
"..it on all the time..."
No, it's ENABLED 100% of the time. The HL's F/awd system only activates AFTER-THE-FACT, only after FRONT wheelspin/slip is detected via simultaneous monitoring all four ABS "tone" wheels. And while one might think that the process of Trac activation would involve quick drive coupling to the otherwise "free-wheeling" rear tires. But due to serious safety concerns unique to FWD vehicles that is not the case.
The first action taken via Trac activation will be braking of the front wheels in order to most quickly restore front traction and thereby alleviate the otherwise strong possibility of loss of directional control. To facilitate even quicker front traction recovery and to prevent overheating of those front brakes should the driver not quickly release the gas pedal the system will also automatically and simultaneously FULLY dethrottle the engine.
Many later models, including the HL, using a F/awd technique of this type now have a Trac/VSC disable system so the driver might often have additional resources to get unstuck or initially moving forward on a slippery (uphill) surface.
***1 My '01 F/awd has an absolutely USELESS VC mounted across the center diff'l, purpose being to automatically "lock" the center diff'l under conditions of consistent wheelspin/slip. So useless that it was dropped entirely from the RX and HL with the advent of the RX330.
***2 My '00 F/awd RX300 not only had a fully functional VC, Viscous Clutch/coupling, it also had the then optional rear mechanical diff'l. I traded up to the '01 to get HID and VSC not realizing that I was giving a more functional, MUCH more functional, F/awd system.
#2475 of 2493 Re: Highlander and RAV4 [wwest]
Jan 11, 2012 (6:11 pm)
You have wonderful theories but they proven to be baseless. Read actual HL owner experiences here
We've been around this number of times. Just stop posting your useless technical mambo-jumbo and drive a HL in a snow for a change.
Jan 15, 2012 (5:21 am)
Looking for some opinions here. I'll be buying a Toyota soon (Land Cruiser, Tundra, or Sequoia) and have been debating between RWD and 4WD. I pretty much decided I have no need for 4WD here in TX. When I lived in the upper midwest, it always made sense to have the 4WD for the inevitable winter storms. In fact it was hard to find trucks and SUVs that were only RWD. Now that I'm living in TX I don't really see the need for 4WD yet I often see these trucks and SUVs optioned out with 4WD. Why? What am I missing? You add $3 -$4 grand to the price, add more items that could wear out or fail, and reduce the gas mileage. I've only been in TX a few years so maybe I'm missing something. Can someone tell me why I might need 4WD when living in the South?
The only reason I can come up with is I may need it if I take winter trips to visit family in the UP or if I ever move back.
#2477 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [txpackersfan]
Jan 15, 2012 (5:34 am)
You might need 4WD to tow a future boat or travel trailer. If you ever decide to sell your vehicle, 4WD is like selling a house with a swimming pool. If the house is good, someone who must have a pool will buy your house over the one without. 4WD is great for off road, but if you have no desire.....not much point there. If you buy the vehicle without 4WD, you can never install it later, should your needs change. 4WD rarely goes wrong in Toyota's but, it does adversely affect the fuel mileage, by maybe 2 gpm's.
#2478 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [toyodave]
Jan 15, 2012 (5:53 am)
The thing you are missing, as you say, is this.......there is a huge community of "guys" out there who love to drive off road. If you want to drive in the bush, thru the muck, across streams, and generally cross country, then you have to have 4WD. I have a 4Runner, a serious off road vehicle. It has 4WD, with low and high and differential lock, it sits up high, and isn't too big, so I can get between trees in the woods. When I went to buy it, (used), there were a ton of 2WD's out there. I passed over all the 2WD's to find this 4WD. If your plan is to drive your vehicle to the office on the interstate, and you never plan to sell it, or move it back up north, then perhaps, your wasting your money on a 4WD.
#2479 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [toyodave]
Jan 15, 2012 (9:18 am)
Good points. I'm definitely not planning on moving north again, but of course never say never. I can see the need for 4WD for pulling a boat out of the water, but RWD for general towing on the highway should be fine. I'm leaning towards the Sequoia and I don't think too many people take them off-road since it's much bigger than your 4Runner. I also typically keep a vehicle for 10 years or more.
#2480 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [txpackersfan]
Jan 15, 2012 (10:45 am)
"...what am I missing..."
How could you possibility miss the fact that you are now DEEP into Red-neck territory. Those 4WD/4X4 fully decked out trucks and SUVs, gun rack and gun included, are a societal requirement in your region. They may NEVER go off-road, off-road hunting, but they MUST look capable of same.
You don't "need" anything beyond RWD. Travel back north, take tire chains along.
My question would be why something as HUGE, weighty, and gas-guzzling as are your seeming choices. Wouldn't something in the 4runner class suffice?
#2481 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [wwest]
Jan 15, 2012 (12:07 pm)
"My question would be why something as HUGE, weighty, and gas-guzzling as are your seeming choices. Wouldn't something in the 4runner class suffice?"
The answer is 3 teenage sons. The oldest is already 6'-4". The 4Runner doesn't get much better gas mileage and is much smaller. For basic trips, the 4Runner may be fine. For family vacations, it just won't cut it.
#2482 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [txpackersfan]
Jan 16, 2012 (9:38 am)
They why buy a huge gas-guzzler for the 96% of the time you're not on vacation...rent.
Is the HL still available with the I4..?
#2483 of 2493 Re: 4WD or RWD Opinions [wwest]
Jan 16, 2012 (6:08 pm)
"Then why buy a huge gas-guzzler for the 96% of the time you're not on vacation.."
Because I can .