Toyota Aurion Presara 2012 Review

Aurion AT-X
Price Guide (recommended price before statutory and delivery charges): $36,490
Options fitted (not included in above price): 17-inch alloy wheels $500; leather-accented trim $1500
Crash rating: Five-star (ANCAP)
Fuel: 91 RON ULP
Claimed fuel economy (L/100km): 9.3
CO2 emissions (g/km): 215
Also consider: Ford Falcon XT, Nissan Maxima 350 ST-S

Aurion Presara
Price Guide (recommended price before statutory and delivery charges): $49,990
Options fitted (not included in above price): Nil
Crash rating: Five-star (ANCAP)
Fuel: 91 RON ULP
Claimed fuel economy (L/100km): 9.3
CO2 emissions (g/km): 215
Also consider: Ford Falcon G6E, Honda Accord V6 Luxury, Nissan Maxima 350 Ti

Toyota has made a lot of mileage out of the pricing for its new Aurion, managing to cap the range below $50,000. With the Aurion Presara flagship sliding in barely $10 below the half century mark, it places a substantial buffer between the ceiling of the locally-manufactured V6 sedan and the Luxury Car Tax threshold ($57,466).

But with a new model comes the inevitable price increase at the other end of the range. For the Aurion that means a narrower spread of pricing from the entry-level AT-X to the flagship Presara. In fact, where the difference in price between Ford's Falcon XT and the G6E Turbo is closing in on $20,000, the gap from bottom to top-spec Aurion variants is less than $14,000.

Ignoring the Ford comparison however, the difference in price from base-grade to range topper in the Aurion looks like a lot of money. There would want to be a heap of kit to justify the additional cost, to say nothing of the intangible qualities a flagship model should deliver — reduced NVH and enhanced safety, to give two examples. So how do the two cars compare? Does the Presara still provide fair value for money at just a smidge under $50,000?

Dealing with the equipment list first, the Aurion AT-X comes with dual-zone climate control, a reversing camera, seven airbags (including one for the driver's knees), electric driver's seat adjustment, 16-inch alloy wheels, Bluetooth with audio streaming and a six-speaker stereo. As all Aurions do, the AT-X is powered by Toyota's 200kW 3.5-litre V6, driving to the front wheels through a six-speed automatic.

Presara adds 17-inch alloys in lieu of the 16-inch wheels, front fog lights, front/rear parking sensors, rain-sensing wipers, leather-accented trim, keyless entry/start, memory for driver's seat adjustment, electric rear sunshade, HID headlights with Adaptive Lighting System, Automatic High Beam, 10-speaker DAB+ (digital) JBL audio system, seven-inch touchscreen, sunroof, blind spot monitor and satellite navigation.

So the short answer is the Presara warrants the difference in price, for the added equipment alone. And that's ultimately a good thing for Toyota and its prospective Aurion buyers, because it's hard to refine and enhance the Presara much beyond the level already achieved by the Aurion AT-X.

In either level of trim the Aurion's engine is magnificent. Smooth and powerful from negligible revs right through to the redline, it's inaudible at open-road speeds and relatively economical for its performance potential. And it makes a good partner to the six-speed automatic transmission too. Even under full throttle, with the driver using the sequential shift facility manually, the engine and transmission change up to the next gear with nary a hiccup. The transition is positively seamless, even in circumstances that are highly challenging for even the best-paired engine and transmission coupling.

But if the drivetrain's refinement is equally good in both cars, the Aurion's dynamics are similarly lacklustre in some circumstances. Neither the AT-X nor the Presara coped that well when asked to get power to the ground on wet roads, for instance. In fact, even in the dry the two cars exhibited torque steer.

Axle tramp in the wet was pronounced and the traction control system didn't seem to be able to rein in the torque as some systems do. Stability control was more effective when playing the role of junior partner to the driver. Provided the driver exercised reasonable care, the Aurion could be hurried along in the wet — with the stability and traction control systems operating properly, in unison.

Steering response was by no means up there with that of Ford's Falcon, but in comparison with cars boasting a similar specification, the Aurion impressed. The level of assistance was about right for the Aurion's target buyers, but in the Aurion AT-X it could be a fraction vague at the straight-ahead. Frequently the low-grade Aurion demanded correction and counter-correction at the wheel in a straight line.

Committed to a corner at higher speeds both Aurion models were better behaved. The cars tracked through corners consistently and — with power off —closer to neutral, by the standards of a large, front-driven V6 sedan. Even with power applied on the exit the Aurion remained stable and surprisingly communicative, leaving the driver in little doubt as to just how far the car could be pushed.

Up against the two front-drive V6 competitors listed at the head of this article, the Aurion makes a strong case on the grounds of performance and manoeuvrability, frankly. The Nissan Maxima's engine and CVT are a plus, but not so much its cornering dynamics. And unlike the Toyota with its accessible torque and effortless power, the Honda is peakier and more demanding in some situations.

Ride quality for both the Aurion variants was better than that of the Camry Hybrid driven recently, but the petrol/electric Camry felt better nailed down, suspension-wise. There's more feedback through the wheel in the Aurion however.

The Aurion's interior shares a lot of its design with the new Camry, and the core fixtures are well conceived. What let down the interior for us was the decorative trim —satin-finish metallic-looking garnishes for the AT-X, woodgrain for the Presara. Neither looked upmarket, and both seemed at odds with the otherwise attractive and functional fittings and trim used elsewhere in the cabin.

We found the steering wheel, like that of Holden's Commodore, to be rather large in diameter. Otherwise, the instrument and control layout was sensible and most items were in easy reach or simple to read. The Presara's larger multimedia infotainment display in the centre fascia is better to use; offering significantly more functionality than is the case for the Aurion AT-X and delivering added legibility. Both cars suffered from the same reluctance to stream audio from a Bluetooth-capable phone without a nudge from the driver — typically by twiddling the volume control knob of the audio system — and despite the touchscreen indicating the phone was connected.

Seats were comfortable and supportive in both cars, offering electrically-adjustable lumbar support, but they might not prove as suitable for larger physiques. Rear-seat accommodation was up to snuff for a mid-sized car, which the Aurion effectively is, despite being treated as a large car in VFACTS segmentation. There was plenty of headroom and a respectable amount of legroom as well. Entry and exit to the rear was straightforward and there was less ducking of the head than we recall in the case of Holden's Commodore. The cupholders in the rear doors are worth having, plus there are additional cupholders in the centre fold-down armrest.

The boot space is handy, but the boot lid closes with a clang, which is disconcerting when the passenger doors close so softly and quietly, although they are not quite as easily secured as in the case of some imported Toyotas, needing slightly more of a concerted effort.

The anti-carjacking two-stage central locking quickly fell out of favour with the reviewer and his family. At least it could be disabled in the Presara. For the week the Aurion AT-X was with us, the central locking would not automatically unlock all four doors — even once the driver had switched off the engine and opened his own door.

On country roads at night, the Aurion's headlights were mediocre on low beam — for both cars, but the adaptive beams and the intelligent high beam of the Presara compensated. The high-beam assist functioned well in the Aussie context, although it was slow to dip the lights on winding roads if the on-coming car was approaching obliquely. Swivelling with the direction of the front wheels as they do, the adaptive headlights were beneficial when the lights were dipped — when being able to see properly around corners and bends is most important — but the whole effect was lost when the lights were set on high beam. Plenty of light and a very broad coverage on high beam made the adaptive lights largely redundant.

If the Presara's lights don't offer quite the advantage they promise on paper, then that brings us back to the question posed at the beginning of this review: Is the Presara worth the extra cost over the Aurion AT-X? Based on the dollar value of the extra equipment the answer is an unequivocal yes, as already noted. And based on the functionality of that extra equipment, in the real world, the answer is still yes, but not unequivocally.

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at the carsales mobile site