Author Topic: 2009 Venza pricing for Canada released (Read 41333 times)

Ice · « **on:** January 04, 2009, 04:37:14 pm »

Since Toyota is listing this as a car on their Toyota.ca and Toyota.com sites I'm posting it here.

Just in case anyone is interested the Toyota.ca website has been updated with all of the Venza information including the Canadian pricing and packages.

Basically it goes like this:

I4
FWD: $28,270
AWD: $29,720

V6
FWD: $29,970
AWD: $31,420

Plus there are some additions in the form of Premium, Touring or Navigation.

Overall the pricing isn't as significantly different with the US models as it was in the past. Off by only about $2000ish.

http://www.toyota.ca

Loudpedal · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2009, 04:48:58 pm »

At first glance, that's very good pricing. Love the tow rating too.

I'm still not sure exactly what it is though, but I see it most as Toyota's interpretation of a Ford Flex or Nissan Murano. I'm looking forward to seeing it in person.

sailor723 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2009, 04:50:51 pm »

Quote from: Loudpedal on January 04, 2009, 04:48:58 pm

At first glance, that's very good pricing. Love the tow rating too.

I'm still not sure exactly what it is though, but I see it most as Toyota's interpretation of a Ford Flex or Nissan Murano. I'm looking forward to seeing it in person.

I'd say more Ford Edge than Flex.

sirAQUAMAN64 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2009, 05:06:00 pm »

There's the reason the RAV4's price dropped - who the heck would buy one if priced similarly?

The Venza looks to be a very good proposition.

EV Dan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2009, 05:07:40 pm »

I'd call it a long awaited Camry Wagon

Same length, a few inches wider and taller. 182lb of torque from a NA 4cyl is nice. Colour selection is rubbish as ususal, but nonetheless the car will make a good alternative to a CUV and most likely sell.

Loudpedal · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2009, 05:40:55 pm »

Quote from: sailor723 on January 04, 2009, 04:50:51 pm

Quote from: Loudpedal on January 04, 2009, 04:48:58 pm
At first glance, that's very good pricing. Love the tow rating too.

I'm still not sure exactly what it is though, but I see it most as Toyota's interpretation of a Ford Flex or Nissan Murano. I'm looking forward to seeing it in person.

I'd say more Ford Edge than Flex.

...thanks, I meant Edge.

ovr50 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2009, 05:43:19 pm »

I think the pricing is very competitive, I predict a good sales figure for this new Toyota.

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2009, 06:10:43 pm »

Dunno. I'm still not convinced many people will pick a Venza over the less expensive Rav4.

It's a Camry hatchback, which would have been fine, but they jacked it up and slapped 19" (20" optional) wheels on it. Replacement rubber is going to be very pricey.

In the US, I still think it's DOA. They just don't like hatchbacks down there.

ArticSteve · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2009, 07:23:58 pm »

Overall the pricing isn't as significantly different with the US models as it was in the past. Off by only about $2000ish.

True to form, option packages are very much superior in the US. hence pricing will be significantly better if you're after a 4 banger, FWD, with heated seats/leather which is a huge seller in Canada.

Even still, contrary to most comments when this vehicle was first revealed, it will be a big Canadian seller.

Colour selection is rubbish as ususal

Worse than usual if you include the ivory or grey only choices.

rrocket · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2009, 07:30:54 pm »

Quote from: Big_Thumb on January 04, 2009, 06:10:43 pm

Dunno. I'm still not convinced many people will pick a Venza over the less expensive Rav4.

It's a Camry hatchback, which would have been fine, but they jacked it up and slapped 19" (20" optional) wheels on it. Replacement rubber is going to be very pricey.

In the US, I still think it's DOA. They just don't like hatchbacks down there.

As far as the jacked up...yes and no. It is higher than a Camry (no surprise), but it's roofline is LOWER than even the RAV4...but 3" or so. As far as choosing it over a RAV4, it's longer, wider and has more interior room. Thus it will ride better and handle better while giving you more interior room. The exterior dimension are about the same as the Toyota Highlander...but roofline is quite a bit shorter by 4.3". So you have close to Highlander room in a more convenient car/wagon like package.

Edmund's extracted almost 28 MPG from the 4 banger...which is very good for a vehicle of this size and class. It outhandled a Murano through the slalom too.

ovr50 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 04, 2009, 07:58:34 pm »

Quote from: Big_Thumb on January 04, 2009, 06:10:43 pm

Dunno. I'm still not convinced many people will pick a Venza over the less expensive Rav4.

It's a Camry hatchback, which would have been fine, but they jacked it up and slapped 19" (20" optional) wheels on it. Replacement rubber is going to be very pricey.

In the US, I still think it's DOA. They just don't like hatchbacks down there.

Admittedly the RAV4 we had was the previous generation, but, regardless of that, I would take this new Venza over the RAV any day, any way (without having driven the new RAV nor the new Venza).

Ex-airbalancer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 04, 2009, 08:27:11 pm »

OK, AS get me a test drive in a AWD premium package , no big rush for it, I can wait would the rush to die out
Unsure if 4 or 6

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #12 on:** January 04, 2009, 08:28:00 pm »

Quote from: ovr50 on January 04, 2009, 07:58:34 pm

Quote from: Big_Thumb on January 04, 2009, 06:10:43 pm
Dunno. I'm still not convinced many people will pick a Venza over the less expensive Rav4.

It's a Camry hatchback, which would have been fine, but they jacked it up and slapped 19" (20" optional) wheels on it. Replacement rubber is going to be very pricey.

In the US, I still think it's DOA. They just don't like hatchbacks down there.

Admittedly the RAV4 we had was the previous generation, but, regardless of that, I would take this new Venza over the RAV any day, any way (without having driven the new RAV nor the new Venza).

The new RAV is night and day over the old one. In any event, I suspect you wouldn't fit in the typical car buying demographic.

The EPA doesn't have numbers up for the 4 cylinder, but the V6 gets the same mileage in the RAV as it does in the FWD Venza. It's only marginally (2mpg) better than the Highlander.

So it's marginally more spacious than the RAV, slightly less so than the Highlander, overlaps both on price, and doesn't have an advantage in fuel mileage (I'm going to assume the 4 cylinder gets the same mileage as it does in the RAV). The FWD V6 is 3870lbs, apparently the 4 cylinder is 130lbs lighter, so the little motor is going to be pretty darned sluggish on the highway.

This car to me suggests that Toyota is doing the same thing the big three were accused of doing, more and more variations of the same thing.

Ice · « **Reply #13 on:** January 04, 2009, 09:27:00 pm »

My parents are interested in something to replace the old Grand Voyager they've had for years (back in the day it was a great tourer on various road trips). Now they want something a bit smaller but still with a decent amount of utility. The RAV4 and CR-V were something they looked at but the storage room is not fantastic in those actually. Not without folding down the seats anyways. It remains to be seen if the Venza's storage will compare....it is long and wide which may pass the drywall test and even with the seats up it may pass the cooler + suitcases test

As for the I4 engine...it'll be interesting to compare the performance of that over the Carvan's old 3.3L V6 (150hp or so).

ArticSteve · « **Reply #14 on:** January 04, 2009, 10:24:51 pm »

The FWD V6 is 3870lbs, apparently the 4 cylinder is 130lbs lighter, so the little motor is going to be pretty darned sluggish on the highway.

ASSumption

a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn

ArticSteve · « **Reply #15 on:** January 04, 2009, 10:33:24 pm »

Quote from: airbalancer on January 04, 2009, 08:27:11 pm

OK, AS get me a test drive in a AWD premium package , no big rush for it, I can wait would the rush to die out
Unsure if 4 or 6

with a super roof rack ....

johngenx · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2009, 11:12:24 pm »

~$1500 for AWD is decent. Not sure how it will sell in total units. With automotive sales down so far in the US and their notorious dislike of hatchbacks, I'm not sure if there will be enough demand in total in North America.

Subaru still offers some great alternatives in the same price range, so this wouldn't be on my radar, but it's nice to see more wagonny kinda things popping up...

Ice · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2009, 11:40:53 pm »

Quote from: johngenx on January 04, 2009, 11:12:24 pm

~$1500 for AWD is decent. Not sure how it will sell in total units. With automotive sales down so far in the US and their notorious dislike of hatchbacks, I'm not sure if there will be enough demand in total in North America.

Subaru still offers some great alternatives in the same price range, so this wouldn't be on my radar, but it's nice to see more wagonny kinda things popping up...

See I think it looks enough like SUV...at least from the pictures that the average buyer will be "fooled" into buying what amounts to a wagon. I think its an interesting experiment to be honest. Its not the only one either...seems to be a bit of a trend forming with SUV looking wagons. The spy photos of Honda's competing vehicle look like an Accord with a hatch on the back. That could just be the mule...we'll see. Cadillac SRX is basically the same thing.

Maybe peoples opinions of "wagons" will change.

initial_D · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2009, 11:45:26 pm »

Quote from: articsteve on January 04, 2009, 10:24:51 pm

The FWD V6 is 3870lbs, apparently the 4 cylinder is 130lbs lighter, so the little motor is going to be pretty darned sluggish on the highway.

ASSumption

a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn

From those numbers, I can conclude, with the I4, it will be slowwwww. Any soccer mom in a CR-V can out drag it.

Wolverine · « **Reply #19 on:** January 05, 2009, 06:24:11 am »

4 cil engine for this car is a bad bad idea...