I’ve been resisting calling Toyota “the new GM” for some time. And yet the world’s largest automaker is falling into the same traps that scuppered GM’s empire. By creating the entirely extraneous Scion “youth brand,” Toyota stole a page right out of The General’s poisoned playbook. Luxury brand reaching downwards, hoisting itself by its own petard? Lexus does as Cadillac did. Listen closely and you can hear ominous rumblings about Toyota’s declining build quality; a cancer that afflicted GM even as it soared to its zenith. And most damning of all: Toyota’s increasing portfolio of redundant, ill-conceived, poorly-executed products. Add the new Venza to that list.
The Venza’s aesthetic crimes are not quite as obvious as, say, a clown at a piano recital (i.e., the FJ Cruiser). Quite the opposite; the Venza is invisibly derivative. Toyota’s we-swear-it’s-not-a-station wagon’s shape, size, stance and “cut” rear haunches suggest the same relationship with Mazda’s CX-7 that links the PT Cruiser and the Chevy HHR (i.e., a total rip-off). But the Venza’s details put paid to the thievery theory. The Venza’s front grill is all Hyundai, while Toyota cribbed the Venza’s rear from the Lexus RX350—and added a Bangle butt (just for fun).
The last thing the Venza looks like is the Toyota Camry that lies beneath. Which was, I suppose, the point. Anyway, love it or hate it, you can ignore it.
Wander inside the new Toyota Venza and the damage created by designer-led differentiation is glaringly obvious. The Venza’s rear seating is generous. Indeed, cavernous. Literally. And not in a good way. The gun slit windows (complete with privacy glass) take their toll on external connectivity. It’s no wonder Toyota’s spent a big chunk of its Venza marketing budget appealing to owners with pets. Unlike children, dogs don’t tend to vomit from claustrophobia.
In terms of visibility, the Venza’s front row is even worse. The CUV’s severely raked windscreen creates the Mother of All A pillars; an edifice so large it has its own opera windows (a perfect complement to the rear opera windows). Cleverly enough, Toyota’s placed an LCD display within the resulting dash-top desert. Looking backwards, the mail slot that passes for the Venza’s rear window makes you wish the [optional] backup camera was a full-time gizmo. The Venza’s three-quarter blind spots are large enough to hide a sequoia. Both tree and SUV.
The Toyota Venza seems perfectly screwed together; all the dour but durable plastics fit with brand faithful precision. The Venza’s phone/MP3 player holder is excellent—just as long as you don’t mind plugging-in your iPhone upside down. While the glove box lid opens with oil-dampened satisfaction (down boy), the other plastic covers are flimsy and imprecise. The Venza’s ICE unit is so old-fashioned-looking it Hertz. And then there are the two squares of mouse fur resting at the bottom of the center cubbies. These mini-mats don’t fit, they’re not glued down and the plastic underneath is hideous, in a glassine sort of way.
Along the same lines, 20″ wheels? Even the Venza’s four-wheel independent MacPherson strut suspension can’t ameliorate the harsh ride delivered by these stylish wagon wheels. The Venza crash bang wallops over surface imperfections with all the grace (and none of the determination) of a Toyota 4Runner. The Venza’s trick V6 puts out more than enough oomph to not worry about oomph and delivers enough mpg not to worry about mpg (18/25). Too bad the Venza’s six-speed autobox hunts for gears like a truffle-crazed pig, and the brakes’ initial bite starts somewhere near the floorboards, and the handling is . . . irrelevant. Suffice it to say, the new Toyota Venza is most comfortable highway cruising. Just don’t change lanes without a spotter.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Venza is a Camry-on-stilts with questionable styling, crap visibility and big ass wheels. Sensibly specced, the CUV costs just under or just over 30 grand, depending on engine size, driven wheels, interior coverings, etc. Kentucky has yet to build the stripper four-cylinder front wheel-drive Venza (must maximize profits while demand is, uh . . . ). The entry level Venza should clock-in somewhere around $26K before discounts. Which raises an interesting question: what the hell is Toyota doing? How does the Venza fit into Toyota’s product pantheon?
The RAV4 (and Mazda CX-7) are cheaper than the Venza. The Highlander is about the same price. All three alternatives offer better visibility, better packaging, similar mpg and equal, if not superior, inclement weather capability. You can easily understand why Toyota wants to build the Venza: flexible manufacturing and all that. But not why anyone would want to buy one. In fact, the new Toyota Venza proves the old adage: just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As GM proved.
[Read Martin Martineck's Venza review here.]
107 Comments on “Review: 2009 Toyota Venza AWD V6 Take Two...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Having seen this Car in the showroom at my local dealers place in Guelph, I was not too impressed, I like my RAV4 much better, to me it seems to be very heavy type of vehicle, very similar to the Chrysler Pacifica and we know what happened to that Car!
The Tim Hortons chain, a Donut and Coffee shop system are featuring this model in there annual “Roll up the Rim” contest, they are giving away 35 of these vehicles, last year they gave away a similar number of Toyota Matrix Cars, to me a much better idea.
I had some time to kill recently while awaiting the installation of a car stereo and wandered around the Toyota store, eventually looking at this. I can’t say I minded the styling as much as you did, but couldn’t figure out why someone would buy this one over the more practical Highlander. I’m not sure they’re yet ready for The Toyota Death Watch, but they are making some amazingly boring cars…
Then again, virtually everything that sells well is and has been boring. Remember when the Olds F-85 was the top selling car in America?
I forgot to mention that I also have Show dogs and consider the RAV4 a better vehicle, although I note that this Toyota vehicle as shown with dogs in it at the Westminister show in New York recently, like the Pacifica I know several Dog showers that had it, but found it too hard on Gas, even if you could load lots of Show dogs and crates in it, most show goers got rid of it in time.
Ouch. I guess Michael Martineck probably got up on the other side of the bed.
Anyway. I still maintain that if Honda and/or Toyota decided to seriously make wagons again they could convince consumers to come back to reality. You guys are sales leaders, right? Lead!
Well said. Toyota is indeed rapidly becoming GM and this ridiculous new offering proves this in spades. Does the world really need yet another cute ute tall wagon or whatever they want to identify this thing as? Notice the lack of hybrid or 4 cylinder model months into it’s introduction as if with gas prices around the $2.00/gallon mark Toyota doesn’t need to worry about being green until oil prices spike again. And why does something like this need massive huge wheel options? Wouldn’t a pair of 16’s on base models and 17’s on upper trim levels be enough?
I suppose the Nissan Murano and Ford Edge were still selling quite well when they started developing this. Toyota felt the need to jump on the bandwagon.
I saw this car at the NAIAS. To me, it looked in shape and size nearly identical to the new Lexus RX, if maybe sitting a little lower.
I don’t get this car.
I for one am sick of the CUV that is nothing more than a Camry with a lift kit and big tires. These things are station wagons designed not to look like station wagons. Hell, I’d even say the whole SUV craze started off with the Explorer and Grand Cherokee was nothing more than wagons that looked like trucks.
Please please please bring me a regular god damned station wagon. Call it a Camry or Accord “wagon” and give it the same specs as the sedan. I have cash in the bank waiting for that. Not crossing my fingers it’ll get spent anytime soon.
Slit windows and crappy gas mileage. Two main reasons I’m not in the car market right now. You can also add in overwrought styling.
If somebody comes up with something with 35 highway mpg, good visibility, and space for a middle-aged 225 pound six footer for $20K or less out the door, I won’t be too long finding them.
These tall boxes have too much cross-sectional area for decent highway MPG, and I can’t get comfortable in a Pilot or an Accord–making the Honda Insight pretty much out of the question.
@ Robert Farago,
A bit off topic, but going back to your question about becoming a subscription-based site:
This review of the Venza is the type of critical, honest writing that I would be willing to pay for. If I was able to download these reviews to a portable reader (iPod touch for example), I would be sold.
C&D became my favorite car rag 20+ years ago because it was willing to point out the bad points of the cars it reviewed. Those days are obviously gone forever. Hopefully TTAC will continue on with its honest reviews.
And regarding the Venza, it reminds me of Ford with the Taurus X, the Flex, and the Edge. Aren’t these all the same basic cars?!?
I happen to think the Venza is actually a decent looking vehicle. The grill being the biggest styling misstep. Instead of saying that the Venza is redundant, perhaps it is a more truthful statement that the Highlander or RAV4 are redundant vehicles as the Venza does offer something new to the lineup although perhaps not improved.
Also, I am not sure if Mazda CX-7 references were intended to made toward the CX-9, but the CX-7 does not offer a third row that I am aware of.
I gotta admit, at a quick glance on a computer screen, I thought I *was* looking at an RX350.
Why anybody buying this isn’t looking at the 09 Forester (what I have) or the RAV4 is beyond me.
I don’t know, I think the styling is hideous. To me, it looks like a Ford Edge that has partially melted.
The bloated CUV wagon strikes again.
I’m still confused as to why someone wouldn’t simply take a Sienna over this. You do have the price premium for leather and/or AWD but otherwise the Sienna literally does everything better than this model.
RAV4, Highlander, Matrix… hell, why didn’t Toyota just make the Camry into a wagon again? My brother drove one of those for 13 years (a 30-something doctor driving a Toyota wagon with a cloth interior, imagine that…) and we still have another family member driving that same one today.
I understand the marketing concept of the Venza. But in the rear world it simply has too many compromises and the price is laughably high. Something tells me this one is going to be a one generation wonder.
In the meantime, a lot of folks are still waiting for a mid-sized wagon that is high quality, functional and fuel efficient. Maybe it’s time I gave the Ford Flex a long-term write up.
Robert, great writing, but I’m not sure it’s a great revue. I know what you are trying to do, vent your frustration for Toyota not “getting it”. But this is a review not an editorial. I expect a review to point out the good and bad points of car. I’m no fan of Toyota, but they know how to make a car. It may be mediocre, but one star? I did have a good laugh (actually two, which had my co-workers looking over at me). My favorite lines:
“It’s no wonder Toyota’s spent a big chunk of its Venza marketing budget appealing to owners with pets. Unlike children, dogs don’t tend to vomit from claustrophobia.”
“The Venza’s three-quarter blind spots are large enough to hide a Sequoia. Both tree and SUV.”
Having driven this car, I have to disagree with this review. From a marketing standpoint, the question isn’t whether the Venza makes sense in their product line-up, it’s whether the 4-Runner does. The Highlander used to fill the Venza’s market segment, but now that that’s become bigger and more truck-like (a la 4-Runner), Toyota was lacking a smaller, cross-overish vehicle that was a little more refined than a RAV4. There are a lot of empty nesters who want a versatile car (not truck) that offers near-luxury aesthetics but without the luxury badge. This is the same segment that the Murano and Edge occupy, and they fit relatively well into their respective product line-ups. Many people in this demographic have the means to buy an RX, FX, or MKX/Z/whatever it is, but don’t want to look like a snob driving a luxury car (especially during bad economic times). Say what you want about Toyota’s quality, but it doesn’t change the fact that people (especially those in this segment) still perceive it to have one of the best reputations of any carmaker today. Throw in the fact that the Venza has a sound, thoughtful interior along with an exterior design that isn’t as off-putting as you suggest, I don’t think that bringing this car to market was a bad idea at all. The Venza may not have many unique design elements, but it arrives as a unique package that stands out in this segment.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, Mr. Farago, or to TTAC when I say this, but I really don’t understand the one-star review. To put this in the same category as the G5 just doesn’t make sense to me.
I will just Echo others comments, I do not get this thing at all. The looks are, to my eyes, are not completely horrible but why anyone would want this car/wagon/CUV thing when Toyota it’s self have so many alternatives is a complete mystery.
I do think the author has a point that Toyota are making a lot of missteps. Perhaps having the new family guy at the helm will help. Alternately we may be looking at the start of GM 2.0.
I saw the Venza at the car show; in baby shit brown, no less. I have to say that i actually liked the look from the 3/4 rear view, although the tail lights look a bit to Volvoish. But i liked the rear haunches. What i hated was the trying to be trendy placement of the shifter and the entire front end. What’s with that hideous grille; is it supposed to look organic or something? And enough of the high window sills. If i can’t comfortably rest my arm on it during the nice weather with the window open, i wont buy it.
Steven Lang:
In the meantime, a lot of folks are still waiting for a mid-sized wagon that is high quality, functional and fuel efficient. Maybe it’s time I gave the Ford Flex a long-term write up.
I have a Flex Limited FWD as my family hauler which I got to replace my Nissan Pathfinder. Dont call it a crossover, it is wagon plain and simple. The interior is everything you could want and more in a family hauler, the fuel economy is good for a vehicle of its interior volume. I understand that the looks are polarizing, but functionally, the Flex is on par with a mini-van in many ways. Ford put a lot of effort into the Flex and it shows, too bad the market is ignoring it thus far.
I don’t call it a crossover because I don’t think it’s one at all. It’s a wagon with a slightly raised height.
Robert probably thinks I’m probably a bit off the beaten path to find the Flex such an interesting vehicle. In the ‘North American’ world, I think it’s a complete bullseye for a middle aged fellow with a family of four (yours truly). But then again maybe not.
Yeah, this review really did seem a bit over the top to me. First time I remember being told that a car would cause people to puke, literally. A tad harsh? Intersting mental image, given the light colored seat fabric in the photos.
Agree though that it would be bloody hard to rationalize the purchase of one of these over a RAV4, which is a pretty darned practical vehicle, and much better looking.
If what you really want is AWD in a true wagon, what the heck is keeping you from buying a Subaru Legacy? Mileage isn’t fantastic maybe, but otherwise…
This car looks fantastic, they really hit a home run with this car (as they did with the FJ Cruiser). I really don’t know what you’re talking about, Robert. To each their own.
I can’t comment on drivability, but Consumer Guide only gives it 4/10 for sound deadening and 5/10 for ride, or about Civic and Corolla territory. I wouldn’t get one because it doesn’t seat 7 (which LA Times Dan Neil was wrong when he said it was a manufactured need), but I think 1 star is an exaggeration.
Patrickj:
You just described the Honda Fit. Enjoy.
You can easily understand why Toyota wants to build the Venza
Yes, and it’s not because of flexible manufacturing, it’s because the Highlander (and to a lesser degree, the RAV) are cratering and they need another margin queen. That’s the point of crossovers: getting people into higher-margin vehicles.
It’s the same purpose the following serve:
Ford Flex (versus a minivan)
Ford Edge (Fusion wagon, Escape)
Mazda CX-7 (6 wagon)
Mazda CX-9 (MPV)
Nissan Murano (Altima wagon)
Chevy Traverse (Uplander)
BMW X5 & X6 (5 touring)
BMW X3 (3 Touring)
…you cannot charge much more for a low-end SUV, minivan or wagon versus it’s sedan equivalent—people will not pay the premium for a commodity vehicle—but a luxury or pseudo-lux crossover can certainly demand a premium over a more pedestrian vehicle.
Seriously, you could buy a Sienna for at or below the price of the Venza. You’d get about the same mileage, acres more space, actual visibility, and—oddly—better handling and a more enjoyable ride. But the Sienna doesn’t make Toyota much money, and the bulk of the Siennas sold are CE/FWD trim, where the Venzas sold will probably be more uplevel.
Or so Toyota hopes. Which is silly, because if the non-sales of Flex/Edge are proving anything, it’s that without easy credit and/or lots of liquid wealth, people are not buying cars like this. Anyone buying a Venza is going to have to walk past the Matrix, RAV and Sienna first. They’ll have to justify the lower value-to-dollar ratio, and chances are they can’t do it. A refreshed Sienna or an actual Camry wagon would have probably garnered more sales, but the Venza has been in the pipe for a while (it’s the production FT-SX) that they couldn’t turn back.
Here’s another example: in Canada, in 2009, Chevy still sells the Uplander minivan. They sell it very cheaply (CA$16,000 cash) and it’s moving very, very well, despite being eclipsed by every van on the market, but also Chevy’s own Traverse, which is very pointedly not selling at all. I don’t know if GM makes any money on the Uplander, but they have to be making more than they are on the Traverses that are rotting away. I suspect the situation at Toyota dealers, where base RAVs and Siennas are still moving, is going to be much the same.
Want another example? Ask a Nissan dealer how they feel about the Rogue and Murano being in the same showroom. Or a Ford dealer about how desperately they’d like the Freestar back.
Its a 1* mostly because its a “wrong trend” IMO.
It competes too directly with two existing vehicles (Rav4, Highlander), yet it doesn’t have the utility that you’d get if you took the camry and made it a wagon without the extranious lifting.
Have not driven one, but slanty A-pillars on Toyotas scare me, having blackened my eye and smacked my head boarding/unboarding a Highlander.
But the concept of this car I think is great. I am highly attracted to this model.
And then I look at the price tag, and I see a top end AWD unit is kissing $40K. And I realize that is probably over $10k what this is worth to me, and that I can buy two SX4’s, or a whole lot of other alternatives.
So when this otherwise attractive model flops because Toyota priced it too high, we will say America hates wagons, that’s why no vendor offers a full-sized one.
An honest and negative review of a Toyota… I love you guys!
Got to agree with the couple of posts above, it looks like a lowered RX. This style of vehicle hasen’t seen a whole lot of success.(Freestyle/Taurus X,Pacifica)
But honest station wagons have never been that successful either. (Camary, Accord, Magnum)
Everytime I see the Venza, I think AMC Eagle.
I think Toyota would have been better off (and would have cost them a lot less in development and advertising) if they would have just built a Camry wagon. Niche vehicles for Toyota should be Lexi, you would think that they would be smart enough to have learned the wrong way to do things (a la GM).
Looks like a Lexus,Fit,Subaru outback and corolla.
Wow Toyota really need a new car designer.
I never liked the Toyota for one Good Reason Not the interior, engine,suspension or handling.
Their car design just sucks man!
What’s up with the automatic gearshift creeping further and further up the console? Looks like more and more new cars follow this trend robbing larger folks like me of the right knee space.
To make things worse, oversized wheels and the required crash zone around them intrude on the left foot space.
Can we get a mid-size sedan-based wagon with 15-16″ wheels and a shifter on the floor or on the steering wheel?!!
I sat in the Elantra Touring on the local car show and I can bet that if Hyundai makes a Sonata-based wagon, they’d make a killing selling it.
WaftableTorque
Do you or anyone you know actually OWN an FJ? How about a Camry or Corolla?
Remember: a car can be terrific vehicle and still be a huge mistake for a brand. The Lexus IS-F, Chevrolet SSR and Porsche Cayenne all spring to mind.
In this case, the Venza is not a great vehicle AND it’s a brand mistake. It may sell well (I doubt it), but if it does it will cannibalize its stablemates. Which, psarhjinian, is not a good idea. Ever.
but now that that’s become bigger and more truck-like (a la 4-Runner), Toyota was lacking a smaller, cross-overish vehicle that was a little more refined than a RAV4
TM should have refined the RAV4 or downsized the Highlander.
Look at the interior pic above. The mass of the C-pillar draws your gaze, I know, but look at the transition from the rear door to the cargo area. Completely different color and material. It looks like an afterthought, like a Camry that had an SUV rear end grafted on . . .
Gamper, Steven Lang:
Couldn’t agree more about the Flex. My wife and I have 2 kids and a big dumb dog and our trusty Saab 9-5 wagon has simply become too small. We have always preferred smaller, fun to drive cars, but the reality is we need space.
We have been shopping for three-row vehicles and have narrowed our choices to the Flex and CX-9. The CX-9 is a sportier ride, but for family duty, the Flex is unbeatable. I love how it looks, but the most surprising thing to me was the overall quality, from the fit and finish to the panel gaps to the interior material quality.
I’ve never owned a domestically branded car, so this is a huge leap for me. But I think the Flex is that good. The only problem – the Saab! Trade in values are horrendous, so I’m trying to sell privately. What a pain! Meanwhile, my local Ford dealer is just blowing these things out – offering me a brand new SEL for $7K off MSRP! The one benefit of being ignored by the market I guess.
Oh…the Venza. Meh.
Good review considering the Venza is the automotive equivalent of a yawn.
And enough with the oversized rims… I don’t know which manufacturer started it (probably Nissan), but when Toyota is jumping on the band wagon you know it’s played out!
Whats up with Toyota’s fugly front ends? This afflicts every one of their vehicles now.
Is it just the picture angle, or does that thing have no cargo room?
Is it just the picture angle, or does that thing have no cargo room?
And that IS the problem with the modern wagon verse the wagon of the good old days. Most of todays wagons are just 4 door hatchbacks, not station wagons of old.
Steven Lang: I’m still confused as to why someone wouldn’t simply take a Sienna over this. You do have the price premium for leather and/or AWD but otherwise the Sienna literally does everything better than this model.
Me, too. But my own sister got a Volvo XC90 over a Sienna, and over a V70 because she didn’t want either a wagon or a minivan. And she should know better!
I actually like that Toyota is trying to get back to wagons, everyone should in my perfect fantasy world, but I completely agree with the Toyota becoming GM editorial spin.
The problem isn’t that this particular car is going to cannibalize sales (although I think it will, I’d call that a common mistake), it’s the fact that Toyota dosen’t seem to benchmark superior vehicles when signing off on new product. This rush to fill market niche’s by rearranging parts on current vehicles is fatally flawed b/c the current vehicles just aren’t as good as many of the competitors.
I’ve had my frequent criticism of Toyota challenged in the past along the lines of different strokes, etc… and I’ve given it hard thought. The problem is, especially after spending a week in UT with a family that drives Toyotas, that I can’t name a single thing that their cars did better than say Honda or definitely VW. I can’t even point to an area of basic competence in light of their price ranges and expectations. Not breaking is no longer special, or even unique, Toyota needs to benchmark VW’s engines/transmissions, Honda’s chassis/suspension design and anybody’s steering racks if they don’t want to follow GM’s example of milking brand loyalty to a sad death.
Which, psarhjinian, is not a good idea. Ever.
I’m not arguing with you on that point (that cannibalization is generally bad). I was just explaining what Toyota was trying to do with this car (eg, make oodles of money) and why, were this 2005, it would have been economically sound.
If it doesn’t cost Toyota much to do this vehicle (and, really, it’s little more than a shortened Sienna on dubs, so that’s entirely possible) then there’s no real problem making it if you have the sales numbers to support it. Toyota isn’t pulling a GM by having four cars (RAV, Highlander, Sienna, Venza) because they’re doing it in the same showroom. It’s only a cannibalization issue if you’re losing money on all the vehicles in question.**
Where they are making that mistake is with the Venza and the RX, LX and Land Cruiser, ES and Camry, and (this is the big one) RAV and xB. Within each brand, though, it’s not too bad. The Sequoia/Land Cruiser are far more problematic in these terms.
The problem with the Venza isn’t with the Venza. The problem is with the RAV and xB. Fattening the xB required fattening the RAV, which made the reason for an FT-SX production car problematic. This shows a brand-atypical lack of strategy on Toyota’s part (that the RAV, Scion and Venza teams weren’t talking). Had the xB stayed small, the RAV could have as well, which would have made the case for the Venza smarter.
As for being brand-defiling? I don’t think that’s the case here. There’s noting anti-Toyota about the Venza any more than the Edge and Murano are anti-Ford/Nissan. The Venza was more or less Toyota’s response to the Murano’s (at the time) sales success***. And again, it’s still valid, just not in a market this poor.
** which they’re probably doing now, but they might not have been in 2007, and might not should they be the last big manufacturer standing.
*** It’s funny that Nissan made the same mistake with the Rogue/Murano as Toyota is making with the Venza. You can see automotive groupthink in action.
Is it just the picture angle, or does that thing have no cargo room?
That’s a common problem on crossovers, and it has to do with the floor height. If you look at, say, a Honda Fit or Element, or any minivan with fold-to-the-floor rear seats, you’ll see how low the floor is at trunk level, and it allows piles of useful space. In a crossover (and many hatchbacks) the floor is almost waist height.
I’m at a loss as to why this is done.
Since I see so many “why would anyone want this car” posts, I’ll respond.
I currently have an 07 VW GTI and an 05 MINI Cooper S. My commute is short (5 mi). My wife’s commute is short (9 mi). I’ve still managed to put 35k miles on my GTI in 25 months due to lots of travel on weekends. While great cars, they are very limited in their practicality. This is where the Venza comes in. It is available in AWD w/ a 4 cyl getting 28mpg. My parents live 220 miles away across mountains that get insanely difficult to drive in the winter. It fits adults very comfortably in the back seats (so my parents, brothers, etc aren’t crammed back there). It can actually tow 3000lbs, which is what I need for home improvement projects. Being the DINKs that my wife and I are, we tend to like things a little on the luxury side. We will have fun daily runabouts in the GTI and MINI and have the Venza for weekend trips and home depot runs. The car has a clever interior and looks nice for a reasonable price (4cyl/AWD) while having AWD and good fuel economy. I am a huge Subaru fan, but the passenger room in the back seats in the Outback, and especially the Forester, doesn’t compare. The Venza fits the bill. My only complaints are the 19″ standard wheels (which won’t be an issue as 19″ tires are more commonplace now) and the lack of a stickshift. Honestly, though, my GTI and MINI will be there when I want to row my own gears. The Venza should deliver the type of reliability that ensures that I won’t be stranded when the MINI and VW need service down the road.
How is this anything other than a low-content Lexus Rx 350?
The tiny windows make me think that the Venza design team members were channeling their inner Caliber.
WRT Toyota’s product overlap, perhaps this is the anti-Aveo: an expensive nichemobile intended to encourage buyers to go with the more practical mass-market vehicle. People hear about the Venza, then find out that they can get a Sienna with more room or a RAV-4 with more off-road capability….
This is what the Ford Edge should have looked like. The Venza looks like a sporting, low slung Edge…while the real Edge looks…just terrible.
Me, too. But my own sister got a Volvo XC90 over a Sienna, and over a V70 because she didn’t want either a wagon or a minivan. And she should know better!
I took a lot of time to sell my wife on a Sienna. She wasn’t comfortable with the size, or (and she admits this now) the general minivan-ness of the thing, but after three weeks she loves it. It’s easy to drive, park and use.
The modern minivan really is the station wagon done right.
This is what the Ford Edge should have looked like. The Venza looks like a sporting, low slung Edge…while the real Edge looks…just terrible.
I don’t agree. I think the Edge is a very attractive vehicle, while the Venza looks like a design-by-committee compromise; the halfway point of a morph of an Edge into a Murano.
Uh huh.
A bland, bloated CUV for bland, bloated people. Um, the front is like a watered down Hyundai.
I suppose the “crash bang wallops over surface imperfections” might keep you awake.
If Toyota is the New GM, then Venza is the new Caprice Wagon. The sheetmetal hanging over the tail lights even recalls the Caprice’s wheel well skirts of the early nineties, right down to the bloated-porpoise effect.
The harder carmakers try to make station wagons that don’t look like station wagons, the more awkward things get. If there is so much demand for utility vehicles that are less “trucky” than Sequoia, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, RAV and Highlander, for God’s sake just build a Camry Wagon and call it that.
Ford products have a lot of problems which they have not overcome in the last several years like Fires caused by defective parts to Metal that love “Rust”
I saw a Chev Uplander advertised in the Toronto press for under Can.$14,000 dollars, this Van is considered by both Consumer Reports and Lemon Aid as the worst example of a Van and to be avoided at all costs, good thing its the last year for this “Pig”