Do you think the new Toyota Kluger will dent Territory sales?

[mowog]

Originally Posted by jdg

I dunno what you call a Civic Type R or Integra type R...

Although yes, most proper "sports" cars tend to be AWD/RWD.

But who buys a kluger...or any suv for that matter for its ride / handling / performance capabilities. For someone who wants a well built, safe, reliable big car i reckon it will be great...and I think it will have some impact on Terry sales.

I said performance car maker. Honda and some others make some decent cars but they are not Performance car manufactures.

The Honda NSX is an exception but it is also a RWD...

[Kenster]

Like i said time and time again why do you guys have a problem with Toyota it cause they are coming into the same market as Ford and Holden. Yet you see continous review that Toyota is doing a great job to themself the way they target each car to members of the public.

Landcruiser and Hulux have been use for years to do heavy duty stuff around Australia.
Camry engine is still going stronge and realiable is still at its peak.
Echo and Yaris have took up as a small car with capiability to put more then you think.

And yet you guys still having a go at Toyota believe it or not Kluger is already getting buyers internationally and the car alone is confortable since i sat in one and the interior is more easy and feel like a luxurey car more then a basic model, with alot more option than what Terrorty probably offer

[Fordman1]

The poll options are stupid.

This car will eat into Territory sales because Toyota are good at what they do: Selling cars to the market segment (ie: demographic) they target and see good volume in. They have a car for just about everyone (except the large V8 performance sedan and RWD large car).

Making fun of Toyota is foolish, they sell more cars than Ford & Holden combined (see the June sales), AND they could buy Ford and GMH with their cash reserves if they wanted to.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by mowog

What proof do you need other than the facts. US car makers went FWD because it was cheaper to build a car this way. The problem was how do we sell this to the public? So they come up with FWD is safer. And people like yourself still believe this to be true. None of the true performance car makers produced a FWD car. Why? If FWD is so safe...

What facts? You have presented no facts other than your opinion. Thats not proof, that's an opinion. I never said I agree or disagree with you - I just don't agree with people presenting their opinion as fact.

As for no FWD performance cars, the reason why there are no fwd performance car's is that placing both steering and power demands on a front wheel drivetrain is simply too much for current (and probably future) tyre technology. However, that said, you would severely struggle to find a mainstream car manufacturer who does not use a fwd powertrain somewhere in the lineup.

Back on my rebuttle of your comment - what fact do you have to support that the American car industry purposefully started a myth that front wheel drives were better in the snow to ensure car sales.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by mowog

What proof do you need other than the facts. US car makers went FWD because it was cheaper to build a car this way. The problem was how do we sell this to the public? So they come up with FWD is safer. And people like yourself still believe this to be true. None of the true performance car makers produced a FWD car. Why? If FWD is so safe...

Sorry but I lived in the Mid West US for 18 months a little while ago and drove both an American US RWD car (Mustang GT which was my company car), and several FWD cars in different conditions including the middle of Winter (ie: snow / ice). My workmates laughed at me when I got the Mustang and it was my only car (I only found out when winter arrived).

The Mustang and the other RWD cars I drove were uncontrollable in difficult wintery conditions if the roads had not been salted or plowed at first light.

I remember driving to the gym one morning VERY carefully in light snow and only succeeding in turning the car around 180 deg after VERY carefully applying throttle when the traffic lights I stopped at turned green.

The front wheel drive Taurus I drove for a while and my GF's FWD Escort had no problems in snowy / icy conditions.

RWD is great for performance cars, but it is not the safest option for ALL drivers in ALL conditions.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by niko

ugly.

Yet someone from E-Series will still graft that front bar onto their daily :P

[QualityCounts]

IMO, it looks better than the straight edges of the Terri.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

As for no FWD performance cars, the reason why there are no fwd performance car's .................

Ha! BMC Mini Cooper. Bathurst 1966, Monte Carlo etc?!!!!!!!!!! But that was a different age. Cars were lighter then. I owned a FWD (Opel) Barina and it was a bucket of unresponsive lead compared to the Minis and 1800s I owned. Like I said, you've got to know how to design a FWD car. The Americans don't know. And like I suggested, BMW and Merc would have gone out of business in Europe if their cars were brought to halt every winter. Its not black and white guys.

Again I refer to the Wheels WASP tests. In the first test (extracts I think in the Territory forum reference section) the RWD Falcon and Territory outperformed just about every FWD and AWD vehicle in the lineup. In the end it boils down to competent design.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by QualityCounts

IMO, it looks better than the straight edges of the Terri.

Wondered how long it would take _

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Ha! BMC Mini Cooper. Bathurst 1966, Monte Carlo etc?!!!!!!!!!! But that was a different age. Cars were lighter then. I owned a FWD (Opel) Barina and it was a bucket of unresponsive lead compared to the Minis and 1800s I owned. Like I said, you've got to know how to design a FWD car. The Americans don't know. And like I suggested, BMW and Merc would have gone out of business in Europe if their cars were brought to halt every winter. Its not black and white guys.

Again I refer to the Wheels WASP tests. In the first test (extracts I think in the Territory forum reference section) the RWD Falcon and Territory outperformed just about every FWD and AWD vehicle in the lineup. In the end it boils down to competent design.

Haha, wasnt thinking back that far (granted I wasn't even alive then).

As to the Wheels WASP tests - didnt the Mitsubishi 380 whip either the commodore or falcon IIRC?

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Haha, wasnt thinking back that far (granted I wasn't even alive then).

As to the Wheels WASP tests - didnt the Mitsubishi 380 whip either the commodore or falcon IIRC?

I think the 380 had only just come out so they didn't get to include it. Falcon came 2nd after Mazda 6, then Corolla, Astra, Mazda 3 - then RWD Territory ahead of Commodore and rest of field. Ford designs its RWDs really well. AWD is the system for really adverse conditions, but even then poor design can put such systems at the back of the field when tested. The keywords are Engineering Design - some can do it, some can't, and some couldn't care if they do or don't as long as the m asses keep buying their products. If there is some bad feedback, buy some proprietory gizmo off the shelf, fit it (never mind the absence of an integrated engineering design context - a "patch"), give it some fancy acronym and the m asses will return.

[uranium_death]

Your survey options are terrible and are too opinionated.

I wanted to say "Yes, because it's a Toyota".

I do not think it is "sweet". Toyota haven't made a decent "sweet" car for eons. So how do you explain their growing market dominance?

They will aim to go for the Territory's chunk of the pumpkin pie, much like the Captiva. When a new model or car is released, the aim is to get to the top or as close to it as possible.
Holden have a poor history of 4WDs and crossovers, as well as cars that nobody has any idea what Holden were thinking (Zafira and Cruze). The Captiva is not a big threat.

Toyota have a good record of making cars that are boring, yes, but they're generally reliable and resale values are high. Toyota will market the car and maximise media saturation to ensure that the focus demographic is reached. They're good at that. As I said, Camry has been a boring car for a long time, but its sales are excellent. As I said, marketing, as well as reliability and resale.

Toyota can really hurt Ford here I believe.

[Focussed]

we currently own a focus & have been looking at upgrading to a SUV due to our changing needs. we have had a look at several models including the territory. in the end we have decided on getting the new Rav4 cruiser. The new model is bigger than the previous, & pricing, resale, standard features, service costs & fuel consumption figures are what made us opt for this car.
the territory imo, was too expensive, didnt give much value for money compared to the rav & was a fuel guzzler. That & the fact that our local ford dealer couldn't be bothered with our business & didnt seem interested.
before i get attacked, i have only ever owned fords, since i got my licence 11 years ago. this will be the first time we dont have a ford in our garage

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Focussed

we currently own a focus & have been looking at upgrading to a SUV due to our changing needs. we have had a look at several models including the territory. in the end we have decided on getting the new Rav4 cruiser. The new model is bigger than the previous, & pricing, resale, standard features, service costs & fuel consumption figures are what made us opt for this car.
the territory imo, was too expensive, didnt give much value for money compared to the rav & was a fuel guzzler. That & the fact that our local ford dealer couldn't be bothered with our business & didnt seem interested.
before i get attacked, i have only ever owned fords, since i got my licence 11 years ago. this will be the first time we dont have a ford in our garage

I wonder how much you really looked into the costs of owning either car, apart from the fact that they aren't really comparable - the Territory is bigger and more more powerful, carries more in people and cargo and tows more.

If you checked the NRMA's operating costs guide: http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xch...768EC-C293595A
you will see that the basic RWD TX Territory only costs $30 a week more to operate than the basic RAV model ($234.44 a week compared to $204.86 a week). However if you were attracted by the top RAV model you are paying $242.19 a week to operate it - some $17 a week more than the basic Territory. Does it really seem that much of a bargain for such a lesser vehicle? The dealers I can understand.

These costs are both running and standing costs and factor in petrol, service, parts, depreciation etc.

[jdg]

Yes but the model he chose will cost him, according to the NRMA, $230.56/week.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by jdg

Yes but the model he chose will cost him, according to the NRMA, $230.56/week.

.................which is almost identical to the TX Territory. Makes the statement "didnt give much value for money compared to the rav" rather meaningless. I don't understand comparing different classes of vehicle. If you're looking for a Range Rover, why not buy a Fiesta, it will cheaper to operate. :

[Dave_au]

I think everyone is over-estimating the interest or intelligence of an average motor vehicle buyer.

Most private buyers in this category tend to be more impulsive to certain qualities of each vehicle:

My sister has a Territory on the basis it could fit a double pram and act as the soccer mum vehicle for her kids. She upgraded from a CR-V simply because the Territory is a slightly bigger vehicle - and can fit the pram. They couldnt care less about the torque or the size of the engine - they had a 4 cylinder lard before.

My brother and his family have a Kluger on the basis that he wants toyota's resale factor when he sells it in a couple of years time, coupled with "not too bad service and running costs".

As for us, well you've got a very small section of the community arguing for their favorate brand based on individual preferences, struggling to grasp why on earth anyone would have a different opinion to your own. It's probably called fanatical obsession, and it isn't representative proportion of new car buyers, in particular in the Soft SUV market.

Different strokes for different folks.

[new2ford]

Quite agree Dave_au. And yet the Kluger's operating costs (which includes resale factor) is very similar to the Territory (and about $15 a week more than a RWD Territory). A lot of it is based on perception and emotion, and rammed home by marketing - rather than hard research.

[Fordmuscle1965]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

I think everyone is over-estimating the interest or intelligence of an average motor vehicle buyer.

Most private buyers in this category tend to be more impulsive to certain qualities of each vehicle:

My sister has a Territory on the basis it could fit a double pram and act as the soccer mum vehicle for her kids. She upgraded from a CR-V simply because the Territory is a slightly bigger vehicle - and can fit the pram. They couldnt care less about the torque or the size of the engine - they had a 4 cylinder lard before.

My brother and his family have a Kluger on the basis that he wants toyota's resale factor when he sells it in a couple of years time, coupled with "not too bad service and running costs".

As for us, well you've got a very small section of the community arguing for their favorate brand based on individual preferences, struggling to grasp why on earth anyone would have a different opinion to your own. It's probably called fanatical obsession, and it isn't representative proportion of new car buyers, in particular in the Soft SUV market.

Different strokes for different folks.

I dont know how much can be made of the resale cost of these two vehicles: just looking on carsales.com and the cheapest 2004 kluger, with 55000Klm on it is @25K compared to the cheapest territory which is 24K with 59000 to me thats saying that the toyota name means squat when it comes to resale on this particular vehicle! :

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Fordmuscle1965

I dont know how much can be made of the resale cost of these two vehicles: just looking on carsales.com and the cheapest 2004 kluger, with 55000Klm on it is @25K compared to the cheapest territory which is 24K with 59000 to me thats saying that the toyota name means squat when it comes to resale on this particular vehicle! :

First off - I really don't care, everyone is getting so beaten up over this thread!

Second off, Wheelsmag, based off info from Redbook estimates that after 3 years the resale value of a Kluger is 72% for the models under grande, and 68% for the grande VS territory with 61% for the TX and 58% for the Ghia

Third off - back to point one - I was just giving examples of the logic used by normal people (ie - people who aren't members of an online car forum)

Fourth off - I wouldn't drive either, I have no interest in SUVs. I'm not pro Kluger and I'm not pro Territory.

[Focussed]

Originally Posted by new2ford

I wonder how much you really looked into the costs of owning either car, apart from the fact that they aren't really comparable - the Territory is bigger and more more powerful, carries more in people and cargo and tows more.

If you checked the NRMA's operating costs guide: http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xch...768EC-C293595A
you will see that the basic RWD TX Territory only costs $30 a week more to operate than the basic RAV model ($234.44 a week compared to $204.86 a week). However if you were attracted by the top RAV model you are paying $242.19 a week to operate it - some $17 a week more than the basic Territory. Does it really seem that much of a bargain for such a lesser vehicle? The dealers I can understand.

These costs are both running and standing costs and factor in petrol, service, parts, depreciation etc.

you failed to mention that if i was comparing standard features on the model i chose & the territory for the same price, the rav 4 has more to offer. value for money is what swung us.
fuel is a big factor where i live. when you paying close to a $1.45 for regular unleaded & dont have any highway driving to speak of, you will understand why the territory didnt get my purchase.
in regards towing, i dont have a trailer so didnt interest me. seating, rav 4 seats 5 adults comfortably. remember its 25% bigger than the previous model.
based on our needs the rav 4 cruiser is by no means a lesser vehicle than the territory tx.
sides, this is about the kluger! lol

[Focussed]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

I think everyone is over-estimating the interest or intelligence of an average motor vehicle buyer.

Most private buyers in this category tend to be more impulsive to certain qualities of each vehicle:

My sister has a Territory on the basis it could fit a double pram and act as the soccer mum vehicle for her kids. She upgraded from a CR-V simply because the Territory is a slightly bigger vehicle - and can fit the pram. They couldnt care less about the torque or the size of the engine - they had a 4 cylinder lard before.

My brother and his family have a Kluger on the basis that he wants toyota's resale factor when he sells it in a couple of years time, coupled with "not too bad service and running costs".

As for us, well you've got a very small section of the community arguing for their favorate brand based on individual preferences, struggling to grasp why on earth anyone would have a different opinion to your own. It's probably called fanatical obsession, and it isn't representative proportion of new car buyers, in particular in the Soft SUV market.

Different strokes for different folks.

well said dave

[new2ford]

Yes this thread is about Kluger! My point was: why compare the RAV to the Territory (rather than Escape)? Clearly different classes of car, so the smaller one is obviously going to be better value by some criteria. As I said, at the extreme its like justifying a Fiesta purchase because its better value than a Range Rover.

The point of bringing up the NRMA figures is to point out that popular perceptions of values are often wrong. Territory may depreciate more and use some more fuel but other items (e.g. service, parts) cost less, so on balance the differences are often negligible - and indeed often in favour of Australian-made cars. There is an adverse perception against Australian made cars that is hard to shift - the NRMA figures provide evidence that local cars can be cheaper to operate, if anyone will read them.

[Poetic Justice]

Most people seem to expect that in the last couple of years when Toyota releases a new model it's going to be just as bland as its predecessor. I guarantee there'd be a lot more love for the Aurion if it was a RWD - the negative's start from there. If it was a RWD Aurion a lot of people would take a keen interest and speak of just how much better than an Avalon it is.

Same goes with Kluger - Toyota are in a position where they can afford to tackle the opposition. Rest assured Kluger will enter the market with a better spec level and a cheaper price tag than Territory - they know they have to do that and thats what they will do.

From what I have seen so far the spec levels on Kluger will be great, including a Grande (top of the line model) with 20" wheels - can't say I've seen them on any Toyota ever, not to mention any Territory either!

[Focussed]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Yes this thread is about Kluger! My point was: why compare the RAV to the Territory (rather than Escape)? Clearly different classes of car, so the smaller one is obviously going to be better value by some criteria. As I said, at the extreme its like justifying a Fiesta purchase because its better value than a Range Rover.

The point of bringing up the NRMA figures is to point out that popular perceptions of values are often wrong. Territory may depreciate more and use some more fuel but other items (e.g. service, parts) cost less, so on balance the differences are often negligible - and indeed often in favour of Australian-made cars. There is an adverse perception against Australian made cars that is hard to shift - the NRMA figures provide evidence that local cars can be cheaper to operate, if anyone will read them.

i was making a direct comparison between 2 of the vehicles i was thinking of purchasing. for the record the rav 4 i purchased is cheaper to run than the territory accordinging to the nrma's figures.
your comparison to what i said, is like comparing a fiesta with a range rover is ridiculous. i compared 2 suv's with the same price tag & chose another one because of better features, value, etc.
don't forget mate as said before, im a passionate ford man, but went to another brand because of the reasons previously stated
i also would have waited for the new kluger but couldnt because of our changing circumstances.

[ads]

Originally Posted by Venomous™

No way that thing sucks badly.

Wow, it looks so boring I didn't even notice they updated it.

[QualityCounts]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Get with the times - Thats the old model!

This is the new model:

In the new model, you can flip open the rear glass window or the entire tailgate.
It's a neat design and looks much better than the black hinges of the Terri.


"I know that you think you know what I said. But I'm not sure whether you understood that what you heard is what I meant." - Alan Greenspan

[UNR8D]

working for toyota has its benifits, as i attented a pre PR/Media launch of the Kluger the on Wednesday night some interesting facts

3.5L V6 204KW
5 speed auto
2WD and AWD
Standard reverse camera on ALL grades
9 Airbags on all grades inc drivers knee airbag 5 star EURO crash safety rating
glass and tailgate seperate openings
Euro V emmisions complient
19" rims standard on Grande
8" screen DVD system std (roof mount) + DVD touchscreen sat nav standard in Grande
ESP/TRC/Hill start assist standard on all grades
Downhill assist ctrl STD on all AWD varients
Tri Zone aircon from mid spec onwards
bluetooth compatable head unit from mid spec onwards with answer/reject controlls on steeringwheel
Auto open/close on tailgate Grande spec
Option of being able to make center row into 2 captains chairs when seating for 3 isnt needed.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by QualityCounts

In the new model, you can flip open the rear glass window or the entire tailgate.
It's a neat design and looks much better than the black hinges of the Terri.

Having concealed hinges is neater, but the opening height looks to be poor, which is one area where the Territory works well.

[UNR8D]

few pics sorry about the quality phone cam.