Talk:Toyota Avalon

The avalon is probably the coolest car in the history of cars. Heres mine: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3216945 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.22.81 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Other model names

isn't the Avalon the equivalent of the Toyota Avensis in Europe, or are these completely different cars?

Avalon's predecessor: Is NOT the Cressida as listed here. Cressida was a RWD car that had entirely different characteristics from the Avalon.

The Camry-Era Avalon (1995-2004)

The wheelbase was below 111.0 in., but that time, the Avalon was considered Toyota's upper midsize car (ala Nissan Maxima, Mazda Millenia). -- Bull-Doser 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, it was considered a LARGE car by the EPA and Toyota.

May someone please update this page? The 2008 Avalon is on the official Toyota website and its got a few changes...

http://www.toyota.com/avalon/exterior.html

Fourth Generation

2011-present is FOURTH GENERATION, it is NOT a carryover of the previous generation, but it is a "careful evolution" of the third generation, much like the first (1995-1999) and second generations (2000-2004). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.94.90 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only changes are front and back fascia and interior console. Same engine, transmission, body. This IS a refresh, not a new generation. IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.225.193 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Toyota hasn't been clear on this, but according to JD Power, the 2011 Avalon is considered a fourth generation sedan [[1]]. On the other hand, there is a point that the mechanics have been carried over from the last generation. Therefore, I believe the 2011 Avalon should be considered as a facelifted version. I propose that we break off the 2011 Avalon from the 2005-2010 models in a similar fashion to the update for the 7th generation North American Honda Accord. L Kensington 02:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) — comment added by L Kensington (talk • contribs)

• Two comments: One, the 2011 paragraph on the differences between the Avalon and Limited needs improvement (six-spoke wheels are NOT on the Limited, but on the Base model; JBL is on both). Second, the current pic says "Limited" but again, that's the Base version. Limiteds have the 10-spoke wheels (I know, I bought one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.184.174.61 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only real way to tell is to look at the model code. First gen was MCX10, 2nd gen was MCX20, third gen was MCX30. Fourth gen would have a 40 in the model code.  Stepho  (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The third generation code is GSX30, and there is no GSX40 model (yet). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark II/III

Some of the first gen images are labelled as Mark II or Mark III but there is no explanation in the text what this means. Were these facelifted models?  Stepho  (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Mark" labels only apply to the Australian models (and maybe New Zealand). "Mark I" is the retrospective title for the original 2000 through to 2001 models.

When the Avalon was updated in 2001, these models gained the "Mark II" tag. The "Mark II" models were not facelifted; however, the model range was revised and new hubcaps/alloy wheels were fitted, et cetera. See: Mark I and II at GoAuto

The "Mark III" designation refers the 2003 to 2005 facelift models. Again, the model range was further revised. See: Mark III at GoAuto

Question: you have added "XX10" as the model code for the first generation Avalons, where "MCX10" is the model code when the 1MZ-FE engine is fitted. How did you work this out? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. that explains it nicely.

I got the XX from the same formula that we used in the Camry article. We already know that 1MZ+XV20 becomes MCV20, showing that Z+X is replaced by C. Similarily, 1MZ+XX10 becomes MCX10. But just in case people got confused, I put in anchors for both XX10 and MCX10. And just now I replaced the MCX30 anchor with GSX30 (thanks for pointing out my mistake).  Stepho  (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you came up with "XX" based on the Camry's "XV" prefix, but my concern is that it relies on the premise that the "Z+X=C" convention is used consistently by Toyota. Well I guess there is consistency with the GSV40 (XV40) Camry and GSX30 (XX30) Avalon as well, so it is probably safe to assume "XX" is correct. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Model years

In the 'model years' section it says, "For 2008, the Avalon received a mild mid-cycle refresh." As a non-American I read this as meaning calendar year 2008. Is it meant to be calendar year or model year? Likewise for the rest of the section. I understand that Americans mean model year when they say things like "the 2008 Avalon" to mean Sept 2007 to Sept 2008 but I find it very confusing when the context is unclear.  Stepho  talk  06:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"For" always means model year. "In," when properly used, means calendar year. IFCAR (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. English is my mother tongue but learning 'US speak' is like learning a foreign language.  Stepho  talk  06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lexus GS "is" similar to Toyota Avalon

The door knobs, taillights, headlights, etc. are all similar. --2602:306:CDB2:4130:6CF3:9FE5:A395:E7AA (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the styling cues are similar. But all Toyotas share styling cues with each other. Some of the parts are shared. But many more parts are unique to each vehicle. The sheet metal is different. The engine is at the other end - which means much of the related mechanical parts are different. Being similar size doesn't make them the same vehicle either. Toyota has a reputation for tailoring vehicles to specific market segment. The GS and the Avalon are aimed at different market segments and use quite different parts to do so. To claim that they are essential variants of a single vehicle, you would have to show us either a reference that says so or a list showing which parts are shared vs a list of which parts are unique.  Stepho  talk  04:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a full-size car

Who says it is? Where is the proof? There is nothing in the article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Australian ANCAP report calls it a 'large car' and is only slightly smaller than the biggest cars on the Australian market at the time. Of course, this may differ from what an American thinks if he is comparing it to something like a 1956 Cadillac. If you can find a reference (eg from a resale list website) then we can alter the page to reflect this (subject to comparing it to US full-size and European full-size).  Stepho  talk  05:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

All I know is I saw one close up and that was no bigger than a mid-size car. I don't really know where to look.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The US EPA considers the Avalon to be a mid-size car based on passenger and cargo volume. That conflicts with the Australian ANCAP report (they probably both use different measurement approaches.) I don't know if the description is that important if there is not a consensus among reliable sources. Bahooka (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I took an older model year Avalon at random to compare. For 1998, the Avalon was classified as a large car. Bahooka (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw another Avalon and it definitely wasn't full-size. I'm thinking we need to go through all these cars, for all their model years, and figure out what's right. Personally, I wouldn't know how to draw any clear conclusions.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to go through the articles and compare them to reliable sources. A lot of changes have occurred on these articles through original research or vandalism. Bahooka (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles and a lot of model years. I wouldn't even feel confident about deciding which sources were right.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2008 Avalon (I just chose one at random) IS full-size according to that site you posted the link to. They actually link to all different years.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When I get time I'm going to go through every year of every model, just from that site, and post on the talk page of each relevant article. Obviously this is not the final word, but to me some of these so-called full-size cars look smaller than the ones said to be mid-size.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually saw an Avalon that looked full-size to me. I chose a random year 2009, and not only Avalon but Honda Accord were large. But not Nissan Altima?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Full-Size" is simply a classification based on interior space. Your personal approximations based on the external appearance of the car are not particularly relevant. AFAIK Toyota (as do other manufacturers) tailored the Avalon's interior volume specifically to have it classified as a Full-Size. I think that the Saab 9000 also managed to be classified as a full-size. Conversely, many full-sized yank tanks didn't actually provide much useful interior space.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitespace

A couple of days ago I added some whitespace in the wiki markup around images. This doesn't change what the reader sees but it does make the images standout better when editing. I've done this to many articles to no complaint from other editors. Davey2010 reverted my edit with the edit summary 'rv as no need to have whitespace.' Since I think the whitespace is useful and has no drawbacks, I didn't understand why he thought the revert was neccessary. So I polietly asked him on his talk page. His response was to delete my question with the edit summary 'rv dipshit who's apparently incapable of reading article histories and more specifically "dummy edits". Apart from the blatant rudeness having no place in a public forum, I still don't have an answer as to what I am apparently doing wrong in his eyes and what harm I am aparently causing.  Stepho  talk  23:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You came to my talkpage with "I don't understand why you reverted my change https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Toyota_Avalon&oldid=prev&diff=818504596 Stepho talk 10:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)" (linking to the space edit and not the dummy edit) .... I then reverted with "rv dipshit who's apparently incapable of reading article histories and more specifically "dummy edits" - You conveniently decided to ignore the dummy edit made after my "space" edit so as such you got the reaction you were hoping for (Also just to add my laptop froze upon typing and saving and I didn't realise not until I hit enter),

Back on topic the article looks absolutely fine with and without whitespace, As someone who "amends ib spacing" on a daily basis I obviously try and make life as easy as possible for our new readers however as I said imho the whitespace makes no difference here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what reaction you thought I was hoping for. You didn't like my useful whitespace so you removed them and added a truly useless whitespace. I'm the first to admit that my changes were only mildly useful. But they were still useful. I am a computer programmer by day and know that a simple bit of formatting can make computer code (including wiki markup) more easily understandable. This leaves more brain cells available for thinking about the task instead of trying to decode tightly packed markup. My changes added newlines around images. Without the newlines the images look like they were part of the paragraph. With the newlines, the images standout out clearly in the markup. A small benefit for sure, but still a benefit and having no downside. You say it makes no difference. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But if it makes no difference they why on Earth did you take the time out to revert it?  Stepho  talk 

Well I had to add whitespace to make a dummy edit otherwise I wouldn't of been able to make the edit, Because your edit was a pointless edit to make, You object to my DATEFORMATS changes, I object to your WHITESPACE additions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have objected to your date changes on multiple pages because your change was against WP guidelines. It appears that you are reversing my whitespace changes out of spite. As I outlined above, my whitespace changes have a small but positive advantage and no disadvantage. I don't understand why you object to them? Is there some downside that I am not seeing?  Stepho  talk  01:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are no longer objecting to my addition of whitespace. Or at least you haven't raised any arguments except for WP:I just don't like it. Should I take this as permission to re-add them?  Stepho  talk  14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Avalon is marketed as a full-size car

I edited the page before to state that the Avalon is a mid-size car due to the EPA classifying cars based on passenger + cargo volume. However, on the same EPA website, the Avalon is listed as a large car as its "Market Class".. Toyota markets the Avalon as a large car. If going by passenger + cargo volume alone, then cars that are currently Large Size on Wikipedia and review websites ( 2018 Audi S8, 2018 Lexus LS, 2018 Bentley Mulsanne) are wrong. Since most cars go by their "Market Class", I'm reverting back the Avalon as a Full-size car. Bulhis899 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it is "full size" compared to the Camry, but in terms of exterior dimensions it is very similar to the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CTS, and Lincoln MKZ. To make things even more sense, it rides on the same platform as the Camry V6 and the ES 350. Heck, even the Genesis G80 is larger than the Avalon, and that is a mid-size car! 2600:1012:B01B:DB0A:63E3:F93B:4C47:5509 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

As confusing as vehicle size classes and market segments may be, I agree with Bulhis899. Also, the Genesis G80 is NOT mid-size as you've stated; it is a full-size car, and so is the LaCrosse. You are correct about the CTS and MKZ, however. Kaio mh (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the definition of "large sedan"? I suspect it includes both mid-size and full-size but I'd like to see an official definition. At https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40090 it is listed as mid-size. With no further information than this link and a nebulous "large sedan", I would put it as mid-size in the article.  Stepho  talk  10:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The USA's (via the EPA) official definition of a "large sedan" is the sum of its cabin room and cargo room must equal 120 ft³ or more, regardless of exterior dimensions. You've made a valid point that the Avalon should be listed here as mid-size from this logic. However, that means that other so-called "large" cars on Wikipedia (ex.: Bentley Mulsanne, Arnage, Flying Spur, Lexus LS, which are all HUGE!) must also be listed as mid-size. I don't know if you'd want to do that.

With that also being said, Toyota has both cabin room and cargo space listed for all trim levels of the Avalon. The base XLE's respective values are 104.3 and 16.09 ft³, which add up to 120.39, making this--barely--a "large sedan" by definition. The other trim levels have 118.99 ft³ each, making those mid-size.

Confusing, isn't it??? I'm going crazy making sense of this myself.

I feel it best to leave it as is. Regardless of any definition, the Avalon is best known as a full-size vehicle. Kaio mh (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So going by this logic, we may say that the Hyundai Sonata and the Honda Accord, are also full-size? Nissan Maxima is still considered midsize even by EPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.25.35.93 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, yes, they are full-size vehicles despite being marketed as mid-size. Kaio mh (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I have discovered why EPA is giving conflicting classes. First off, EPA's definition is at https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacarhelp.shtml#epaSizeClass , where mid-size is Passenger & Cargo Volume is 110 to 119 Cu. Ft. and large is 120 or more. The aggregate links like the one given above are for 'large class' but when we follow individual links we find 'mid-size' in the 'specs' tab. If we follow more of the individual links around the 2005 era then we find them listed as 'large' in the specs tab. It looks like the EPA lists the aggregate class as the largest of all the individual models. So, a 2019 model year Avalon is individually listed as a mid-size on its specific page but also appears in the large class list on the aggregate. This does not imply that the 2019 model year Avalon is in the large class, it only implies that some of the Avalon model years in its entire history were large but each individual model year needs to be check separately.

To summarise, some of the generations are mid-size and some are large (aka full-size) and the latest generation (eg 2019 model year) is not full-size.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the EPA's size classes, and that all Avalons before the 2013 model year were classified as large cars.

Either Toyota or the EPA did some miscalculating. Here's why I believe this...

•The EPA divides the 2019 Avalon into the Avalon, XLE, Hybrid, and Hybrid XLE. All of them are classified as mid-size, as you've said, with passenger and cargo room listed at 103 and 16 ft³ respectively, falling just shy of 120.

•Toyota themselves agrees with most of the EPA's figures, except for the XLE. Toyota's figure for the XLE's passenger room (published as "EPA passenger volume") is 104.3 ft³. https://www.toyota.com/avalon/features/mpg/3544/3504/3547 (Sorry, I don't know how to make a link over here!!) Click on the "Weights/Capacities" tab on the site and you'll find the figures, and you can do the calculations whenever.

I have an idea so that we can come to a consensus. Wikipedia should include in their guidelines that market segments AND official classifications must be included in the infoboxes for automobiles, regardless of whether or not they are the same. Change the "Infobox automobile" template if necessary. However, leave the market description unchanged. In this case, leave the Avalon described as a full-size car (because that is its market segment), but include that it is officially a mid-size in the 4th and 5th-gen sections.

I will make that change now and try to do the same for other car articles. Kaio mh (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's considered bad form to change the article while the same thing is being actively discussed on the talk page - better to wait until the discussion is done. I need to digest what you have written and to think about it from a few different angles. I'll get back to you in a day or two.  Stepho  talk  12:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I already did it before I saw your reply. Undoing it now... Kaio mh (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Made in China

Anon-IP editors keep adding that the Avalon was made in China or Taiwan. No proof has been given and in one case they also removed that it was made in Canada. Without proof (typically via references) we cannot leave this in the article. If you have references then please present them in the article or here. The only reference I could find is https://carnewschina.com/2014/02/10/toyota-avalon-will-be-launched-on-the-china-car-market-in-2015/ but that was just a forecast, not an actual launch. I also found http://www.ecns.cn/business/2015/01-14/150634.shtml but this only mentions sales in China, not manufacturing. I suspect the anon-IP editors are mere vandals, just stirring up trouble. But, as always, present proof and I gladly change my opinion.  Stepho  talk  04:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on my talk page

Some anon-ip editors are edit warring on my personal talk page about Avalon issues. I frown on people deleting other people's comments on any talk page and especially on my own talk page. I also look at every edit to my talk page, so deleting comments doesn't help you any. What it does is annoy me - and if you want me to look favourably on whatever article edits you want then annoying me seems a strange way to do it.

Short answer - putting polite and thoughtful comments on the article talk page (ie, here) is the most likely way to have your ideas considered by your fellow editors.  Stepho  talk  05:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Toyota Avalon (XX50)

The Chinese-made Toyota Avalon (XX50) will be sold in the Middle East since 2022. Derwydd74 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Reference?  Stepho  talk  00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Toyota Avalon (XX50)

The Toyota Avalon (XX50) is sold in the Middle East and China as of 2023. Bompanigcc (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References?  Stepho  talk  21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)