Rented an Aurion SX6

[zetec]

Hey all,

Recently rented an Aurion SX6 on a trip to Nth Queensland and wanted to see what others thought while sharing my points.

As a current XR driver its clearly based on the Falcon XR6 (which in many ways is I guess flattering to Ford) even down to the similar name clearly intended to be instantly recognisable.

Upon first impressions, it's not a bad looker. Be that thanks to the adaption of a very BA-esqe look and proportions. Funnily enough it's designed by Nick Hogios, the very man who penned the BA XR. Twin pipes look great and overall it's a smart looking car. Just unfortunately 99% of the ones you see in Nth Qld are renters, meaning the resale value can't hold on too long once they start flooding the used market.

Rims at 17" look tiny, despite being the same size as a BF XR6's standard rims. The Aurion's bigger body really doesn't flatter the rims at all, nor the the bulging round Michelin eco tyres that offer little to no grip and aren't particularly quiet on coarse surfaces. The tyres look and feel just a little too narrow for the rims, such that the edge of the rims are exposed and I can see gutter rash becoming an accepted part of Aurion drivers for not so careful parkers. 18"s would be ideal and probably really set it off.

Interior is terrible in a word. Identical to Camry save for the Optitron dash which is a bit of a gimmick. Whilst it offers a new exciting spacey-name, it does little to nothing to change anything from the established way that dash displays work - other than making exact speed very difficult to read. The markings for speed are 20km/h apart and speeds such as 50km/h and 110km/h aren't marked beyond a line on the inner edge of the dial... which means you look at the needle then re-docus on the inside of the speedo to determine the speed. Not a fan at all. Stereo and Aircon are Camry. Air-con feels and looks cheap, with controls moving easily within their housings, doesn't feel solid at all.

Cruise control interface on a stalk is in-intuitive and wasted space on the steering wheel would be ideal for the cruise instead of the trip computer display taking up a whole single button. Cruise Control actuation and operation is not very nice - it holds speed up hills rather well - refusing to drop below the speed selected, but will more than happily pick up 10km/h down the hill, still firing over the crest. I ended up disarming it for the safety of my licence. Doesn't seem to be any grade control logic as in the Falcon - no gear drop-downs meaning jerky brake prods needed at times, upsetting the balance and flow of the drive.

Door trims are plainer than plain and don't offer anything in the way of trimmings beyond a minor metallic strip on the leading edge of the door. Window switch on the driver's door works both auto up and down which is good, unlike my Falcon. Windows tend to get a little stuck/sealed in their closed position in the heat/salty air and can crack open with a nice thud when opened after a long time.

Interior space and visibility is excellent with rear seats not bad, although not as comofortable for rear passengers in terms of actual seat support. Front seats are supportive and offer power adjustment, power backrest and power lumbar which is a nice feature but not really a life-changer if you never change it beyond the first time.

Air-con feels a little weak compared to the cyclonic fan speeds in Falcon. Rear vents could be a little more powerful.

Overall, it doesn't do anything really new and seems to copy and fall a little short of the XR6. Interior plastics aren't anyhting special and the constant buzz/rattle from the driver's side of the dash put paid to any bank-vault build quality impressions...

Boot space is great, but hockey-strap hinges are a BIG BIG NO NO now having grown used to Falcon's boot hinges. We packed it with suitcases and I nearly crushed the laptop under one side - a spot it so conveniently and almost tragically fitted at the last stage of boot packing. Realised at the last second before ramming home the boot.

Performance is nothing earth shattering. It certainly moves when provoked and feels about line-ball with the XR6, but surely the XR6's overtaking prowess must smoke this. Punch Aurion's throttle, pour a cup of tea and write a letter to Toyota to ask for some engine reponse before two gears are thrown away for some sudden turbo like acceleration. It's an engine that loves to rev smoothly and rewards with big power, but lacks any semblance of being a V6 below about 4,000rpm. It overtakes well enough, but just feels a little lacking after the initial hesitance to kickdown. Probably down to this example only having 6,000km. Fuel Economy however is excellent at about 8.4L/100km over a mixed highway trip from North of Bundaberg to the Sunshine Coast.

Suspension crashes over bumps when empty and when fully-laded feels much happier. It's hard to tell what's out of synch, but it feels uneasy when unladen.

Good
Interior Space
Exterior Proportions
Engine sound at high revs
Fuel Economy

Bad
Throttle response at kickdown
Low Rev performance
Infuriating Sports Shift around the wrong way
Tyre Grip
Suspension tune
Too-small rims that still provide a crashy ride?!
Boot hinges

Irritating
Microwave "Donuts Are Ready" beep from the remote. Sounds like it was lifted from a Philips microwave and doesn't sound classy at all.


Overall it just doesn't seem to add up to any more than what the XR6 offers, or at least has offered for quite some time. Standouts such as standard 6 airbags really don't seem to change the rest of the package that in many ways is behind a now 5 year old base XR6 and just doesn't seem to do anything to push any boundaries at all. It just feels like a Toyota XR6. Value appears to be theo nly thing holding it up above the XR6 - on paper at least.

[nick81xd]

so when do you start working for WHEELS magazine. haha.
pretty good review of the car

[Swordsman88]

Couldn't agree more zetec. I remember when the mitsu 380 came out, and the BF falcon, a mate an myself took both of the cars for short spin. I remember coming away astounded by the quality of the ZF transmission and the extent ford had taken the NVH in the Falcon, but more than anything, mightilly impressed by the 380. How a heavy front drive car could handle so well (i took it up mt cootha, which was more fun than the usual test drive) was a new thing to me (i have now tested the new ford mondeo - its better again).

It was genuine fun, with a rorty and willing engine (beyond 3000 rpm it really goes) and quite a good 5 speed. Its steering was especially good, with more feel than the falcon i thought. Ride was quite acceptable on the poor surfaces, and brakes felt good too.

I point this out because in short this is how an aurion should handle and ride, but doesn't. I have also driven the aurion when it was launched, and while it appeared well built and not badly styled (considering it is based on a camry), its auto was the only reall good point in terms of drivetrain (its smooth, but poor programming with the quick upshifts around town).

The engine is well nigh useless below 3000 rpm, and its not until 4000, as you note, that it even seems to get going. I had just jumped out of my EF before getting in the aurion, and after adjusting all the mirrors etc, i am embarrassed to say i put down what i thought was ample accelerator travel, and NOTHING HAPPENED! I put down more, and it slowly started moving, i put down more and we were off, i heard the engine (not bad NVH and very free spinning so can't here anything down low) looked down and i was doing 4300 RPM!!! I thought, WTF, if i was in my EF, a ten year old crate, at that RPM we'd be hearing the engine all right and flying through that intersection up ahead at nigh on 80 clicks!

Even after i got used to this wierd Fly by Wire throttle (which is cunningly linked to the engine/transmission to minimise fuel burn but kill driveability) i found its handling was pretty bad, ESP would come on in moderately quick roundabout work, steering was particularly lifeless, ride was not too good etc. But it is the drivetrain that is most infuriating. What a waste the engine is when tuned in that way, dumbwitted manual mode on the auto doesn't help but it is obvious toyota sold out everything else to get that 9.9 l/100km ADR rating. Hopelessly inept engine tuning is what i would call it! :

[paule11]

Good Review
We had a bottom of the range aurion rented some months ago the aircon was really poor took about 3 times as long as our xr6 to cool down and rattled I didnt think their was much room in the boot compared to a falcon

[Disciple]

I'll agree on most things from your review mate. The interior, while bland and crap, still shits all over Falcon interior. Performance too, yes it is doughy below 4000rpm, but definitely a lot faster than the XR6 in terms of in gear acceleration and standing start. Everything else I pretty much agree with. The auto trans is horrible - won't change when you tell it to, holds gears too long, and generally is just crap.

Just FYI too re: fuel economy. That figure of 9.9l/100 that Toyota claim I'll tell you how they get that. When Toyota dial in their speedos on new cars (all their new cars) they dial them in 8km/h under real speed (which is totally legal) so at an indicated 100km/h on the speedo, you're actually doing 92km/h. You go take an Aurion for a spin with a GPS and sit on 92km/h GPS speed, then sit on 100km/h actual speed and the difference in the fuel usage will be at least 1l/100km. So in reality, the Aurion uses 10.9l/100km.

[EF Futura 07]

hi, great write up. wheels or motor did a test on the SX6,BF XR6 (6speed auto), VE SV6 and a 380 last year. the BF Killed everything, but overtaking (80-120, as they test) was 4.5 secs for the falcon and 4.7 for the aurion so they are very close in that respect except for 0-100. falcon killed it by 0.5 of a sec. 7.4 v's 7.9

just curious, what are the ratios like?

[DK30RB]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Just FYI too re: fuel economy. That figure of 9.9l/100 that Toyota claim I'll tell you how they get that. When Toyota dial in their speedos on new cars (all their new cars) they dial them in 8km/h under real speed (which is totally legal) so at an indicated 100km/h on the speedo, you're actually doing 92km/h. You go take an Aurion for a spin with a GPS and sit on 92km/h GPS speed, then sit on 100km/h actual speed and the difference in the fuel usage will be at least 1l/100km. So in reality, the Aurion uses 10.9l/100km.

That is the biggest load of garbage i have ever heard. I own a ZR6 (next model up from SX6) and i used to own a BA XR6.

I have a satnav and i sit on 120 on the freeway (110 actual speed), and my average freeway consumption is 8.1l/100km. Around town its 8.9l/100

You would have to thrash its *** off all day to push consumption above 10l/100km.

[paule11]

Originally Posted by DK30RB

That is the biggest load of garbage i have ever heard. I own a ZR6 (next model up from SX6) and i used to own a BA XR6.

I have a satnav and i sit on 120 on the freeway (110 actual speed), and my average freeway consumption is 8.1l/100km. Around town its 8.9l/100

You would have to thrash its *** off all day to push consumption above 10l/100km.

So the speedo says 120 but its actually 110 have you taken it back to Toyota to get it fixed interested to know as I sent a car back to holden that had an inacurate speedo and the young girl advised me that the GPS we used was wrong due to time delay from satellite and that the speedo was correct she got very upset when I proved her to be an idiot.

[DK30RB]

Originally Posted by paule11

So the speedo says 120 but its actually 110 have you taken it back to Toyota to get it fixed interested to know as I sent a car back to holden that had an inacurate speedo and the young girl advised me that the GPS we used was wrong due to time delay from satellite and that the speedo was correct she got very upset when I proved her to be an idiot.

No i haven't taken it back to Toyota as i've replaced the wheels with different sized ones. There is a small difference in rolling diameter which i believe causes the difference.

Before i had the wheels changed, the difference between the speedo and Satnav was approx 5km at 120.

Anyway - Xr6 is looking a little dated now. I may be biased, but i think the pic below looks better than most Xr6's.

[Bossxr8]

Camrys and Aurions always look so undertyred, no matter how big the wheels are.

[CADSKY]

last night an aurion sx6 pulled up next to me at the traffic lights and wanted to have a bit of fun _2: so i thought ok we'll see what its got, and i must say i was very disappointed with its lack of power.
now i know that my car is a manual and it was more that likely an auto, and my car has pacemakers and a 2 1/2 exhaust, but i even stuffed up the change from 2nd-3rd and was still clearly infront when the road changed to 1 lane. i just thought it would have more balls than that

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by DK30RB

That is the biggest load of garbage i have ever heard. I own a ZR6 (next model up from SX6) and i used to own a BA XR6.

I have a satnav and i sit on 120 on the freeway (110 actual speed), and my average freeway consumption is 8.1l/100km. Around town its 8.9l/100

You would have to thrash its *** off all day to push consumption above 10l/100km.

I was speaking strictly in reference to Toyotas' "claimed" fuel economy figure of 9.9L/100km, the one they submit to the government or whatever. They do the little speedo trick to attain better consumption figures - my Dads new Hilux is the same.

Anyway, your car looks sweet. Those rims really suit, and I think the Sportivos' the best looking model in white too, so you've done well. :

[AUIIForte]

Ive test driven the non supercharged Protege, and by god, off the line it accelerates like a monster! Up until second gear that is. After that, while still maintaining full throttle, it feels weaker than my Forte. And also, I found that overtaking (say from about 90km/h to about 120km/h) it felt a little weak. I really expected more from a vehicle that received so much publicity.

Oh and Zetec, I don't know if both models, Protege and SX6 has the same drivers seats, but after driving it for more than 20 hours (all up of course, over a few days) I could not find a comfortable seating position. It felt like it was trying to push my body into the steering wheel, no matter how many position's I tried. Very uncomfortable!

[Disciple]

I can tell you first hand an Aurion will do 0-100 in 6s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WVxFT6ppOY

[Force6]

Originally Posted by Disciple

I can tell you first hand an Aurion will do 0-100 in 6s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WVxFT6ppOY

You mean first hand as in you watched a video of one doing 0-100 in 6 seconds on YouTube? I don't believe that video for a second. It's most likely down a steep hill. Wheels registered a time of what, 7.7 to 100? Launch skill doesn't shed 1.7 seconds to 100km/h...

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by Force6

You mean first hand as in you watched a video of one doing 0-100 in 6 seconds on YouTube? I don't believe that video for a second. It's most likely down a steep hill. Wheels registered a time of what, 7.7 to 100? Launch skill doesn't shed 1.7 seconds to 100km/h...

I've driven a couple Aurions and they are 6s 0-100km/h cars. I've raced a couple Aurions in my Ralliart Magna, and raced hy_boi's XR6T (stock 4 speed auto) The Aurion isn't far off his XR6T. The youtube link just backs up my own experience. If you chose to believe numbers posted in a magazine that's fine. I've driven one, that's my experience.

[ClevlndStemer]

Originally Posted by Disciple

I've driven a couple Aurions and they are 6s 0-100km/h cars. I've raced a couple Aurions in my Ralliart Magna, and raced hy_boi's XR6T (stock 4 speed auto) The Aurion isn't far off his XR6T. The youtube link just backs up my own experience. If you chose to believe numbers posted in a magazine that's fine. I've driven one, that's my experience.

Well I would be more inclined to believe written evidence over someone else's "timing." One has journos who have professional equipment and access to tracks all day to do these runs, the other is using a stop watch on a road with the possibility of a few errors being recorded. Maybe it is the academic in me but I would certainly go for the published times over hearsay. Unless of course you took it to the 1/4 mile and have a time slip?

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by ClevlndStemer

Well I would be more inclined to believe written evidence over someone else's "timing." One has journos who have professional equipment and access to tracks all day to do these runs, the other is using a stop watch on a road with the possibility of a few errors being recorded. Maybe it is the academic in me but I would certainly go for the published times over hearsay. Unless of course you took it to the 1/4 mile and have a time slip?

I posted my experience, do you have any with an Aurion? Have you raced an Aurion vs an XR6 or any other car? If you have then post up your results. I like to actually go drive the cars and not just rely on what the magazines tell us. You can read all the magazine figures you want, but at the end of the day you need to drive them for yourself and get your own impressions to form an opinion. If whatever mag can only get 7's out of an Aurion, then they are crap drivers, or they had more than 1 person in the car, because I have driven a couple, a base ATX and the top of the line Presara, and they're as fast to 100 as my Ralliart and it does low 6's to 100km/h.

[needaXYGT]

Be that thanks to the adaption of a very BA-esqe look and proportions

couldnt agree more!

[ClevlndStemer]

Listen chief I didn't say I had experience with one, I simply commented on your "experience," I mean afterall we really don't know anyone's experiences with any cars, it is a forum where anyone can say anything. I simply stated (if you read my post correctly), I go for written evidence that is published, not someone's hearsay. I mean I could say that my BA XT does the 1/4 mile in 13 seconds flat, sure it is BS but how do you know it is or isn't unless I provide the timeslip, see what I mean??? I simply will listen to your opinion but doesn't mean i believe it, after all you're just another joe blogs on the internet.

[Disciple]

Is it really that hard for you to believe that something made by Toyota might be a little bit faster or a little bit better than something made by the blue oval? I would urge you to go and rent an Aurion and line it up with an XR6, or even an XR6T. It might suprise you.

One of the motor mags, part 2 or something of POTY a sportivo aurion clocked 400m in 14.8sec and in the latest one the superchrged did 14.3 or something. In the same article as the TRD the ZF XR6t did a 13.8 stock. I know what I'd be getting for the same price as the sportivo aurion and it wont be the toyota.

On a personal note I've raced an ATX in my VRX before the charger and it's ok on a rolling start, nothing spectacular, off the line it's attrocious but then again mines manual not a crappy auto.

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by Fast VRX

One of the motor mags, part 2 or something of POTY a sportivo aurion clocked 400m in 14.8sec and in the latest one the superchrged did 14.3 or something. In the same article as the TRD the ZF XR6t did a 13.8 stock. I know what I'd be getting for the same price as the sportivo aurion and it wont be the toyota.

On a personal note I've raced an ATX in my VRX before the charger and it's ok on a rolling start, nothing spectacular, off the line it's attrocious but then again mines manual not a crappy auto.

What were the terminal speeds of the 1/4 mile runs? I think the TRD Aurion was 167km/h which will be about line ball with the Ford I'd say which gives a good indication of real world speed. I think the standard Aurion was 154 or 157km/h terminal speed. No arguments here they're overpriced, big FWD sedan with no LSD = not much fun. The TRD starts at like $60k ffs, .

[AUIIForte]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Is it really that hard for you to believe that something made by Toyota might be a little bit faster or a little bit better than something made by the blue oval? I would urge you to go and rent an Aurion and line it up with an XR6, or even an XR6T. It might suprise you.

You are spot on mate. I have driven in my mates BA XR6 MkII, and the Aurion Protege and my thoughts after where, "Holy crap. I don't believe its a Toyota." It really did make the XR6 feel slow off the line after driving the Aurion around.

But at the same time, I do admit that the XR6 does definitely come back with the massive overtaking power it has.

You know, over all though, I would still take the XR6. Its handling just really makes it for me. The Aurion handles very poorly, in the fact that you cannot accelerate too much through corners because of the front wheel drive. (And its no where near as fun to drive as the XR6)

[ClevlndStemer]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Is it really that hard for you to believe that something made by Toyota might be a little bit faster or a little bit better than something made by the blue oval? I would urge you to go and rent an Aurion and line it up with an XR6, or even an XR6T. It might suprise you.

No it isn't hard for me to believe it. My opinion of the current crop of blue oval falcons is pretty low (as I have mentioned in the forums many times). I don't doubt the Aurion is quick, it may be quicker than a Falcon ( i think one or two reviews have indicated this), I never said it wasn't, but all i was saying is I can't base the overall performance of a car based on someone's "feeling" and amateur timings. Look as I said before I look to written and proven evidence for any kind of debate, otherwise it didn't happen. Is that such a problem?

I personally have no interest in the Aurion or the XR6(T) but I wouldn't mind seeing the two (stock) run on the 1/4.

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by ClevlndStemer

No it isn't hard for me to believe it. My opinion of the current crop of blue oval falcons is pretty low (as I have mentioned in the forums many times). I don't doubt the Aurion is quick, it may be quicker than a Falcon ( i think one or two reviews have indicated this), I never said it wasn't, but all i was saying is I can't base the overall performance of a car based on someone's "feeling" and amateur timings. Look as I said before I look to written and proven evidence for any kind of debate, otherwise it didn't happen. Is that such a problem?

I personally have no interest in the Aurion or the XR6(T) but I wouldn't mind seeing the two (stock) run on the 1/4.

It's no problem to me man, it just seems a bit pointless to argue magazine times with people. I'd rather share experiences and compare feelings about the car etc. To me, it gives a more real world impression and you can actually compare and dictate it in an emotional fashion.

Anyway, I'm blabbing on. I have no real interest in either car. The Aurion is too big to be FWD with far too much power for the front wheels, and the Falcon is too big and heavy.

[GK]

One opinion, another somewhat different. Claims and counter claims. Assertions and counter assertions. A climax with a potential for a slinging match, a bit of a pause and some sort of resolution.

Just another day on the forums.

I love this place! LOL!

GK

[ClevlndStemer]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Anyway, I'm blabbing on. I have no real interest in either car. The Aurion is too big to be FWD with far too much power for the front wheels, and the Falcon is too big and heavy.

Agreed

[XRUTEDAVE]

I had one when my AU ute was off the road for a couple of weeks. My opinion was basically a nice car, but the chassis was over powered and the transmission couldn't decide which gear it should be in (not good when trying to accelerate out of a T intersection with traffic around).

[BlackLS]

Keep in mind the journos test with 2 passengers full tank and equipment on board. Plus no loading up the torque converter.