CX -5 vs my old 2004 Highlander

pokerstar

Member
I have a 4 cyl 2004 Toyota Highlander base model. Here is what I'm finding on the engine specs:
Power: 119 kW , 160 HP SAE @ 5,700 rpm; 165 ft lb , 224 Nm @ 4,000 rpm
2,362 cc 2.4 liters in-line 4 front engine with 88.4 mm bore, 96 mm stroke, 9.6 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder 2AZ-FE
GROSS WEIGHT 5360 lbs

I don't know engines or how to compare this to the 2013 CX-5. Can someone tell me how the power will compare? I'm fine with the power of my Highlander, so this will help me decide if I should just go with the 2013 GT or wait for the 2014.

Thanks so much for the help.
 
I don't think anyone can tell you. Just go drive one. Not trying to be rude at all, but really, it's the only way.
 
I agree that you should test drive one. But, given the specs on that 04 highlander, I'm sure the CX-5 should feel way peppier due to the weight of that highlander. I'm sure 2000 lbs over the CX5 is a HUUUGE difference and won't make up for the extra 10hp/10lbs torque that the toyota has. Good luck!
 
I agree that you should test drive one. But, given the specs on that 04 highlander, I'm sure the CX-5 should feel way peppier due to the weight of that highlander. I'm sure 2000 lbs over the CX5 is a HUUUGE difference and won't make up for the extra 10hp/10lbs torque that the toyota has. Good luck!

Also agree on the test drive - I think you will be sold!

It's not just the weight difference that will make the CX-5 faster but also the fact that the 6 speed transmission (auto or manual) and drive train consumes a lower percentage of the available power. That leaves more power available to actually accelerate you down the road.
 
The curb weight of your Highlander (assuming FWD) should be 3520lb. So it's the same in this regard.

Guess I should've done a fact check lol. But regardless, like Mike said, the transmission on the CX5 should really get the power to the wheels much better than the highlander...not to mention the better fuel economy.
 
The curb weight of your Highlander (assuming FWD) should be 3520lb. So it's the same in this regard.

On what planet is 3,520 lbs. the same as 3,272 lbs. (curb weight of CX-5 in FWD w/ 6 speed AT)? The Highlander is 248 lbs. porkier and it only has 4 speeds.

There isn't a car in this class that you would not feel the weight of 12 20lb. bags of sand stacked inside.

Granted, it's not 2000 lbs. but it's enough to erase the measly 10 hp advantage (even ignoring the more efficient transmission and better aerodynamics of the CX-5).

Zoom-zooom!
 
The Highlander is AWD. And I'm looking at the GT AWD. I got that weight from Motor Trend, I believe, but it seem crazy high, so I double checked:

http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/highlander/2004/features-specs.html
GROSS WEIGHT 5360 lbs. CURB WEIGHT 3520 lbs.

and

Weights: gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 5,360, curb weight (lbs) 3,750 http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2004/toyota/highlander/specifications/exterior.html#ixzz2EmJkGV9m
HMMM 500 lb difference from Edmunds on the curb weight?!

What's the difference between gross weight and curb weight? Sorry... I've never worked this hard at car shopping before. :)

I agree with all of you that I need to test drive, and I will tomorrow, I hope. The nearest dealership is 45 mins away, so it takes some planning.
From the sounds of it, I will be very happy with the 2.0. The next decision point will be about TomTom. I'm reading a lot in that forum that I'm very concerned about.

I really appreciate the input!
 
GROSS WEIGHT 5360 lbs. CURB WEIGHT 3520 lbs.

and

Weights: gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 5,360, curb weight (lbs) 3,750
HMMM 500 lb difference from Edmunds on the curb weight?!

What's the difference between gross weight and curb weight? Sorry... I've never worked this hard at car shopping before. :)

Curb weight - weight of vehicle
Gross weight - weight of vehicle fully loaded with passengers and luggage

Comparing curb weights of 2004 AWD Auto Highlander w/ 2013 AWD GT CX-5 (from MSN Autos):

CX-5 - 3426 lbs.
Toy - 3750 lbs.

Toy AWD is 274 lbs. heavier. Very significant.

I agree with all of you that I need to test drive, and I will tomorrow, I hope. The nearest dealership is 45 mins away, so it takes some planning.
From the sounds of it, I will be very happy with the 2.0. The next decision point will be about TomTom. I'm reading a lot in that forum that I'm very concerned about.


If you're like me, you are going to love the driving dynamics of the CX-5 compared to the Highlander. Let us know after you have the opportunity to try it out.

The Tom Tom GPS is the worst GPS I've ever used but I have an acceptable fix for it - I leave it turned off. This would be an unacceptable solution if I didn't like everything else about the car, but I do.

I'm not pissed because it's only money and I love the bi-xenon headlights and blind spot warning system that also came with the Tech package.
 
My mom has a 2004 Highlander V6. I have always liked it, and still do. It is one of the most solid 8 year old cars I have ever ridden in. It might as well still be new.
Never a problem, always reliable and low maintenance. It is a great vehicle.

But, I'm with Mike. It suits my 60 year old mother perfectly as a grandkid, people and grocery hauler. But, the experience behind the wheel is not even close to being on level playing field. The CX-5 will drive it under the table, and behind the wheel is a far more gratifying experience. And I am also in agreement with Mike about the navigation. It is junk. However, I also sought the tech package mostly for the fantastic HID, adaptive headlamps. They alone are worth the added tech package expense.
 
On what planet is 3,520 lbs. the same as 3,272 lbs. (curb weight of CX-5 in FWD w/ 6 speed AT)? The Highlander is 248 lbs. porkier and it only has 4 speeds.
Correct, I had it pegged at ~3500 in memory incorrectly, perhaps because I've been only considering the AWD which is still ~100lb lighter.

The older gen Highlander is like a bigger Camry with similar engine and transmission. If your driving is spirited, you'd enjoy the CX-5 better. If you appreciate quiet, cushy, very smooth ride the CX-5 might have a little more road noise and some less smooth gear changes. Pokerstar, sounds to me like you are not the kind of person to care too much about driving qualities (I may be wrong). The CX-5 will offer you better MPG than the RAV-4, 2012 and 2013 models.
 
I had a 2002 3.0 V6 AWD/4 speed auto tranny Highlander for 3 years, it was not much quicker than the 2.0L CX-5, but it was a smoother and quieter engine, a boring and very reliable SUV.

So the 4 cylinder engine of that 1st gen Highlander will not seem any quicker (the current gen Highlander has a different and more powerful standard 4 cylinder engine).
 
Agreed with ALafya and CX-SV... A family member owned a '04 Highlander V6 AWD (3.3L, as I recall) that I drove often, another relative had an '04 Highlander Hybrid. While I've only been behind the wheel of a CX-5 twice for test drives, it felt significantly more svelte, light, and agile than the Highlanders did, and acceleration subjectively felt about the same as the V6 highlander (which got about 17city/23hwy for us over 50k miles); I imagine the 2.4L has to be a lug by comparison. The Highlander did have the advantage of feeling more solid and planted on the road, and was a very comfy long-distance highway cruiser (at least in these decked-out Limited trim examples).
 
For the OP, the biggest difference will be the gas mileage (CX-5 versus gen1 Highlander 4 cylinder), not performance.
 
The Mazda has 21 lb HP and the Toyota 22 so in an all out race the Mazda has an advantage. Peak power numbers are a poor indicator of how fast or slow a vehicle feels. Gearing, traction, and the torque curve of the engine will have more of an effect on your impression of power. Many manufacturers also make the throttle pedal extra sensitive for the first 25% of travel to trick the customer in thinking the vehicle is faster than it actually is. You really need to drive it and I bet the thing you'll notice the most is not the power difference but how well it steers and corners for an SUV. It drives like a well behaved sedan more than anything else.
 
Back