Two years ago I drove the Toyota Highlander and concluded that, owing largely to its lack of a third-row seat, Toyota needed to go back to the drawing boards. Well, Toyota did. For 2004 a third-row seat is available in the Highlander. Other changes include and larger V6 and 17-inch alloys on the Limited. To evaluate these updates, I took an all-wheel-drive Highlander Limited for a test drive.

Toyota Highlander Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Toyota Highlander rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

The Lexus RX 330 and Nissan Murano have proven that every SUV doesn’t have to look like a box on wheels. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with a box. The Jeep Cherokee of the 1980s and 1990s was all edges and angles, yet quite attractive in an outdoorsy sort of way. The Scion xB is as boxy as boxy can be, yet is the current hot thing. But these are exceptions. Most boxes are boring. Or worse. The Highlander falls in the last category. In stark contrast to its Lexus sibling, it is a poorly proportioned hopelessly bland box.

To my eye, the Highlander's styling lacks presence, a necessity with an SUV (otherwise you might as well buy a minivan). The flat bodysides suggest it is stamped out of tin, especially in lighter shades. Calty, Toyota's California design studio, couldn't have had a hand in this one. I'm not sure any designers did. Maybe it was styled by engineers?

All this notwithstanding, the Limited’s new-for-2004 17-inch alloys somehow boost the vehicle’s appearance to borderline acceptable, especially when viewed from the front quarter. (Viewing the Highlander dead-on to the side still isn't advisable, as this highlights the vehicle's proportions.) It seems this is a design that greatly benefits from larger wheels. The new alloys’ rugged five-spoke styling also helps. With these wheels I prefer the Highlander’s styling to the even plainer, more oddly proportioned Honda Pilot’s or the tacky Mitsubishi Endeavor. This isn’t saying much, but as these are direct competitors it is worth something.

The Highlander’s interior fares better, as its intersecting instrument nacelles, bulbous trim pieces, upward curving center console, and various non-standard shapes are clearly the work of designers. The sharper edged RX 330 interior is at once even more unique, less odd, and more attractive, but it’s perhaps the most attractively designed interior in any SUV. The Highlander’s interior certainly looks better than the average SUV interior, and manages to be distinctive. The Murano’s instrument panel is more odd, and not in a good way. As in the Lexus, the Highlander Limited interior combines silver and wood trim. Although in the Highlander the wood is actually plastic, it isn’t obviously fake. It is, however, not so cleanly integrated with the silver bits, and thus a bit much. To avoid the faux wood, either get the regular Highlander or spring for aftermarket alternatives.

Though hardly a match for the extra-fine RX 330 interior, the Highlander’s interior materials are all tasteful and high in quality, especially with leather. Most competitors feel lower in quality. The Honda Pilot is arguably the major exception. It feels roughly equal in quality, and has a slightly sportier character despite a column-mounted shifter. (The Highlander’s shifter is mounted on an upward curving console.)

Accommodations

The Highlander’s driving position no doubt finds favor with many owners. It’s significantly higher than a car’s. Visibility is very good. To boost its credibility as an SUV the Highlander’s hood is high and flat, making its entire expanse clearly visible from the drivers seat. Few hoods, even in SUVs, are quite so visible these days. Many people dislike how current styling often renders the edge of the hood invisible. They’ll be happy here. They’ll probably also like the relatively upright windshield, which enables a relatively shallow instrument panel. In comparison the Pilot has a slightly deeper IP, while those of the Mitsubishi Endeavor and especially the Nissan Murano would be more appropriate in a minivan. The Highlander’s step-in height is on the low side for an SUV, making it easier to get into than most, including the Honda Pilot. Unlike in most conventional SUVs, I see no need for the optional running boards.

The Honda Pilot, Nissan Murano, and Toyota Highlander all offer comfortable seats in the first and second rows. That said, there are notable differences. The Pilot’s seats are the firmest and flattest, and especially in the second row are the least comfortable of the three. You sit on them, not in them. The Highlanders seats are a bit softer and especially in the second row are more fully contoured. They fit well, providing support in the right places. The Murano’s seats are not as precisely shaped, but their additional softness and larger cushions lend them a more luxurious character. My head says the Toyota has the best seats, but my rear prefers the Nissan’s. Something about them suggests the word “comfy.”

The second row both reclines and adjusts fore and aft a number of inches. Good-sized adults have plenty of legroom as long as they’re about as far back as the fronts. The cushion is high enough off the floor to provide good if not quite great thigh support. The fold-down armrest is very wide, which might prevent bickering between younger passengers.

For 2004 a third-row seat is optional on the base front-wheel-drive Highlander and standard on the Limited. Even more than that in the Pilot, adults won’t want to spend much time back there. Although headroom is sufficient, the cushion is very low to the floor and legroom is scarce. The salesman demonstrated that legroom can be increased by sliding the first and second rows forward, but this would merely share the misery more widely. However, if you need space to stow extra kids the new seat should serve well. You’re entirely out of luck with the Nissan Murano and Mitsubishi Endeavor, which do not offer a third rwo. Note that while the Honda’s third row holds three people, the Highlander’s is much narrower and only has belts for two.

The third row has a fan control for the rear heater. This seems odd, as the only people small enough to fit back there comfortably cannot be entrusted with such a control. Hence the lock-out on the instrument panel.

The Highlander’s exterior did not grow to incorporate the third row, so it remains a considerably more compact vehicle than the Pilot with 3.4 inches less length, 5.4 inches less width, and 4.0 inches less height. This more compact exterior translates to a more compact interior. Most notable is the nearly half-foot width disadvantage. The Pilot’s significantly wider second row is much more capable of carrying three adults.

Retrofitting the third row reduced cargo volume by less than a cubic foot. Thus the Highlander continues to offer a bit over 80 cubic feet with the second and third rows folded. Most competitors offer a similar amount. The most significant exception is the Pilot, which offers 90. In the real world the Pilot’s extra ten cubic feet probably won’t be tremendously valuable. The extra width of the Honda’s cargo area is impressive, but probably not hard to do without nearly all the time. The Toyota’s disadvantage with all seats up is much more significant. Compared to the Honda’s 16.3 cubic feet, it offers only 10.5. In practical terms, you can’t fit much stuff behind the Highlander’s third row.

In the Highlander all seats fold without tilting their cushions or removing their headrests. Except the front passenger seat, which unlike those in a growing number of vehicles does not fold. The interior is chock full of storage compartments and cupholders.

On the Road

For 2004 the Highlander’s V6 grew ten percent, to 3.3 liters, and gained ten horses and twenty foot-pounds, with lower peaks in each case, in the process. The new engine does feel stronger than the old one, but not by a large degree. Although competitive at full throttle, at part throttle it’s no match for the larger engines in the Pilot, Murano, and Endeavor.

I’ve sampled this very smooth V6 in a number of 2004 Toyota’s: the Lexus RX 330, Sienna minivan, and Camry SE. It felt far stronger in the Camry for one obvious reason: much less mass to tote around. For a bit more verve (though perhaps with a little torque steer tossed into the bargain), opt for the front-drive Limited. At 3,705 pounds, it’s 230 pounds lighter than the all-wheel-drive V6 Highlander and nearly 700 pounds lighter than the Honda Pilot. Do without the third row (though standard on the Limited it’s an $850 option on the base Highlander) and you’ll save another 55 pounds. (These figures are for the standard Highlander; the Limited is a bit heavier owing to extra standard equipment.)

But mass is not the only issue. As in the Sienna, though thankfully not to the same extent, the Highlander suffers from a lazy throttle profile. Though I’m no fan of aggressive throttle profiles, as they can make smooth launches devoid of tire squeal difficult, it’s also possible to go too far in the other direction. A moderately more aggressive throttle profile would make the engine feel stronger.

The transmission certainly is not the issue. For 2004 the Limited’s automatic (but not the four-cylinder regular Highlander’s) gets a fifth ratio. This should aid both performance and fuel economy. While the EPA city remains 18, the EPA highway increases from 22 to 24. Add one MPG for the front-drive SUV. Most competitors do the same or a bit worse. The Murano’s numbers are a bit better, at 20/24, but owner’s report rarely breaking out of the high teens.

Along a curvy road the Highlander feels like the relatively compact SUV it is. Those who find the Pilot too bulky will be happier here. Lean in turns is a bit less than in the Honda, though the Mitsubishi and especially the Nissan corner flatter still, and none of these will be mistaken for a car. Of greater significance, the Highlander’s steering is not nearly as numb as the Honda’s. For an SUV it provides a laudable amount of feedback. It provides some kickback as well, but less than I recall from two years ago and certainly a price worth paying for better road feel. The Nissan is objectively a better handler, but the Highlander feels more “natural” somehow. It’s less distant, and driving it is more intuitive, at least for someone used to driving cars. The Mitsubishi falls between the two, sportier than the Toyota despite inferior steering, and more “natural” than the Murano. I’d have to drive the 2002 and 2004 back-to-back to tell if the lower profile tires make a difference. My sense is they mildly enhance the sharpness of the steering.

Unfortunately, the 2004’s lower profile rubber might also sharpen the ride. Two years ago the Highlanders ride was not quite as smooth as I expected from a Toyota, and this remains true. Though far from punishing, tar strips and the like are distinctly felt. Patchy pavement induces minor side to side rocking and a minor but easily perceptible amount of shuddering in the front structure. Either the Highlander doesn’t possess sufficient structural stiffness to fully absorb impacts, or the front suspension requires tweaking. Ride quality is similar to the Honda and Mitsubishi. The Nissan rides worse than the others, though not nearly as badly as the Infiniti FX. The RX 330 has a significantly cushier ride. If ride quality is your top priority, the Lexus might be worth its higher price.

While I felt the tar strips, I did not hear them. This is in sharp contrast to many of the cars I test, especially those from Europe. Wind noise is moderately low, at least as low if not lower than in direct competitors, but is another area where the Lexus earns its higher price.

Overall, the Highlander performs competently, but not exceptionally. Compared to its peers its steering is its best feature. It feels much like an extra-tall station wagon might be expected to feel. Buyers used to cars will probably feel more at home in it than in the Honda, Nissan, or Mitsubishi.

Safety

The Highlander comes standard with stability control, and offers both torso and head curtain airbags in an option package. Though the curtains only cover the first two rows, this ties the Highlander with the Nissan Murano as a segment leader in terms of safety equipment.

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

Considering that the front-drive Highlander is basically a tall Camry wagon, it is interesting to note that it costs about $3,000 more. Personally, I’d prefer a better handling conventional wagon like the soon-to-appear Mazda6, which costs just a few hundred more than the related sedan.

Last Words

I find myself not wanting to like the Highlander because its exterior is so blah, but liking it nonetheless. I like that it offers nearly as much interior volume as the Pilot with significantly less sensation of bulk. I like the thoroughly well designed interior. I like the near-perfect driving position. I like that the Highlander gives you the option of just front-wheel-drive. This is really just a tall wagon; all-wheel-drive isn’t necessarily part of the package. The available sunroof, available curtain airbags, and standard stability control are additional plusses not found in the Honda Pilot. The Nissan Murano and Mitsubishi Endeavor look just plain ugly to some eyes, and neither offers even a rudimentary third row. All in all the Highlander is the best all-around car-based midsize SUV. Others may be stronger in this or that area, but the Highlander wins by having the fewest major weaknesses.

Still, it will not be the best for everyone. I like the Chrysler Pacifica better, but its character is much different than the Highlander’s. The closed-in feeling of its cabin is not for everyone, and the styling might be a bit on the glitzy side. For those with little or no need for a third row, a compact SUV might serve nearly as well for thousands less and a Nissan Murano is much more stylish for about the same money. Even better, consider a conventional wagon like the upcoming Mazda6. It handles much better and costs thousands less. Those who need to tow heavy loads or venture well off the pavement require a conventional SUV.

If you are set on the Highlander, consider whether you really need all-wheel-drive. Its extra weight harms both fuel economy and performance, and it adds $1,400 to the price. I’d only recommend it if you need to climb icy hills, drive frequently on slippery roads, plan to do mild offroading, or will use it to tow and launch a boat. (Front-drive is no good for boat ramps.)

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.

My reviews of related vehicles:
Acura MDX
Buick Rendezvous
Chevrolet Equinox
Chrysler Pacifica
Ford Explorer
Honda Pilot
Hyundai Santa Fe
Lexus RX 330
Mitsubishi Endeavor
Nissan Murano
Saturn VUE
Subaru Forester
Toyota Sienna
Toyota 4Runner

Recommended: Yes

Amount Paid (US$): 35,510
Model and Options: Limited AWD with sunroof, heated leather, side airbags