Last post on Mar 23, 2008 at 7:43 AM
You are in the Honda Odyssey
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Caravan, Honda Odyssey, Chrysler Town and Country, Chrysler Voyager, Plymouth Voyager, Van
#4324 of 7485 Re: My 2 cents [socalawd]
Aug 23, 2005 (4:14 am)
Well I think it does and thats what matters to me so I guess it probably matter to other people!
Based on Sales figures to date, I'd say saving $5000-$10000 is of more concern to more people than a 1.4 sec 0-60 time (using CR's more calibrated testing, than some motorheads roadtripping in Las Vegas), especially since we're talking Minivans, not sports cars.
Here are the results from car magizines they run usually the same coarse but you want me to look at a place where people complain about stuff TYPICIAL!!
So it's ok to use your own complaints about DCX vans .i.e..your 2001 DCX, but not other's posted here....Niccceeeee.
I could go for a while but thats the norm of the reviews. There maybe somewhere out there where the dodge is faster and uses less fuel but I couldn't find it. Oh I get almost 22MPG on my EX-L.I used to get 17.5 on a 2001 Dodge Caravan 3.3L. The mileage will go down now that school is starting for my 10 year old 19MPG would be nice for me
Funny how these glowing reviews never mention the real world price difference. There's no mention of the quality problems or recalls either. These cars rags are given primo vehicles, that have been checked out prior to starting their comparisons. I'd love to see them post 0 - dealership times!!
Notice on Edmund even, they haven't tested a DCX van since 2001! No one's saying the Dodge is faster, I'm saying "so what" for a minivan!!!! If you think a second can save or prevent accidents, you beter buy a Porsche 911 then. Just think how cool you'd be to your 10 year old, dropping him off at school like that instead of a minivan!
As far as real world gas mileage, one just has to review the Honda problems and mileage posts on this very forum. You're personal experience is different. I get 25 mpg on my DCX CG SXT with 3.8 V6 on trips and it's not broken in yet, around town 22 mpg, and towing my 3500 lb coleman popup/tent rv with van loaded I get 18 mpg.
#4327 of 7485 Re: GC SXT safer van for the kids than the Ody EX-L [dennisctc]
Aug 23, 2005 (6:01 am)
My Saab 96 had a "safety cage" far better than the golf's many years earlier.
It's called "Progress", i'm sure the 2005 Golfs have a better structure than a 96 Saab too.
1) The "96" was the model number. Mine was from 1968.
2) And no... they don't. Those Saabs were built incredibly tough.
It was the only street model I was aware of at the time that didn't need to add a roll-cage in order to qualify for offroad rally races (maybe the Audi).
#4328 of 7485 Re: My 2 cents [dennisctc]
Aug 23, 2005 (6:20 am)
Agree. People who says Ody drives like a Bimmer never driven a Bimmer before.
#4329 of 7485 Re: GC SXT safer van for the kids than the Ody EX-L [frodob]
Aug 23, 2005 (6:27 am)
All SAABs, at least the one's I've owned prior to the GM acquistion, were built like tanks. From the SAAB 92-series (again, these are model numbers, not the year of manufacture), 93-series (both the Inline 3-cylinder 2-stroke & later with the Ford Taunus V4), 96-series (again with the Ford Taunus V4), the 99-series (with the Triumph-built Inline 4 & later with the SAAB Inline SOHC 4), on to the Classic 900-series (with the SAAB Inline 4 - both SOHC and DOHC) - all were exceptionally structurally strong vehicles with rollover protection not found in most cars of today. Early Volvo's were also unbelievably strong from a structural (and, engine) perspective. In fact, late '60s Volvo ads depicted a number of Volvos stacked on top of each other with no roof deformation, including the Volvo on the bottom. The Swedes know how to build tough vehicles.
SAAB was building uni-body structures with a strong safety cage and crush zones front and rear when VW was still producing the original Beetle. Technical details such as engine compartment structural designs to force the engine to submarine the passenger compartment/saftey cage in the event of a front end collision to the trivial, but intelligent, details of running all brake lines inside of the car to prevent corrossion, show that SAAB was one of the first - along with Volvo - manufacturers to take safety very seriously. Note: If you've ever driven on some of Sweden's back roads, you will understand why SAAB chose to place the majority of the brake line run inside the car!
#4330 of 7485 Re: My 2 cents [j562002]
Aug 23, 2005 (6:29 am)
The only thing they have in common is that they both have 4 wheels.
#4331 of 7485 Re: GC SXT safer van for the kids than the Ody EX-L [w9cw]
Aug 23, 2005 (6:30 am)
Too bad Saab now just rebadges GM vehicles.
#4332 of 7485 Let's get real,
Aug 23, 2005 (6:35 am)
I think very few people ever bought a van or car because they found out one could stop four feet shorter, or was 1.4 seconds faster than another. Unless of course we're talking sport cars and you wanted the fastest thing on the market. Those comparisons usually come after it's bought, to try and show the van you picked out is better than the other guy's van. Most people go from one dealer to another and compare looks and price and what kind of (goodies) the van has on it. If money is not all that important, you buy the best looking van with the most goodies you can get on it. If money is important, you go looks and more for what you can get for your dollar.
I don't really think there is much of an argument that the Honda is one of the nicest looking vans on the market inside. I don't think they have anything over on the Dodge/Chrysler outside. But I think unless some people are like me and feels a van has one or two particular features that they really want, that the others don't have (like I wanted stow-n-go seats,) looks and price and the goodies, is going to determine what most people buy, not speed, braking or sporty handling.
All these vans handle pretty much the same. There is very little difference in gas mileage, speed or safety. Most wouldn't know if they were driving a four speed or five speed unless it's pointed out to them. So most buy the best looking van they can get or the best they can get for the money they want to spend.
I think Honda gives you a lot of goodies you can't get on the Dodge/Chrysler, but if you want them all, your going to pay dearly for them. Most of us are not willing to pay that price. But when we travel down the street or freeway together, don't think your going to leave me in your dust or think I will burn with envy. Because I think I got one heck of a deal on my van and although it's not as nice inside as yours, I am always ready to use my van for what vans were made to be used for and I never have to go home and take my seats out or fork over thousands more to buy it.
So no matter what, we're all happy with what we bought and we use Edmonds for a lot of bragging rights as to how we did better than the other guy in our choice.
#4333 of 7485 Re: Let's get real, [marine2]
Aug 23, 2005 (9:44 am)
To add to what you said, the people that read/respond to these forums are not a true sample of the average driver. The fact that we're here reading and posting means that we do more research than the average person. So while you may be describing the way the average guy goes out and buys a car, I don't think that's representative to those reading these forums.
That being said, people actually do research vehicles before they buy them to determine which have the better quality, safety, conveniences, MPG, interior noise level, etc... Just like using Consumer Report before buying a washing machine, digital camera, etc...if nothing else to at least identify the real lemons. If I see a lot of black circles for one model of car and lots of red circles for another in Consumer Reports, although I'm not necessarily going to buy the one with the most red circles, if it's a toss up between two vehicles than it's a good factor to use.
I like the stow-n-go seating idea as well, but I've read lots of reviews by people saying that the seats aren't comfortable. If that's the case, then I'd have to do the cost/benefit of how it will be used, but it's good to hear the viewpoints. And the handling differences can be pretty significant between minivans just like between cars. And when it comes to quality, I'd rather have a car that didn't break down with a smaller warranty then a care with a long warranty in the shop every month. Plus the interior quality is something you have to live with every second, so the feeling of solidness in the interior is something that I'm willing to pay extra for. And on and on and on.
Bottom line is that there are people out there looking at the differences before they buy.