Last post on Mar 31, 2013 at 4:37 PM
You are in the Vans & Minivans
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Sienna, Dodge Caravan, Chevrolet Venture, Mazda MPV, Kia Sedona, Honda Odyssey, Chevrolet Uplander, Nissan Quest, Hyundai Entourage, Van
#3473 of 3798 Re: Honda? NO WAY. Same for Toyota [hause7]
Apr 08, 2008 (12:12 pm)
I had a Toyota that was junk, a Nissan Van, junk as well. My 1983 VW Vanagon was a serious problem magnet. It would appear that Toyota has consistent quality but Nissan and VW are questionable.
During the past so many years I owned Pontiac, Ford, Dodge and Oldsmobile minivans. All were very reliable except the Grand Caravan. This van has soured me on Chrysler for the next 150 years. I presently drive a 2006 Odyssey which has been almost 100% trouble free. What minor issue there was has been taken care of by Honda.
I read about all the electrical issues with the 2008 Chrysler minivans and it reminds me of my 1994 model. Junk then more and higher priced junk today.
#3474 of 3798 Re: Timing chains that never need servicing? [hansienna]
Apr 08, 2008 (4:11 pm)
That's because you don't live in South Carolina..... my vehicle came with one (Limited lifetime warranty, that is!).
#3475 of 3798 Re: Timing chains that never need servicing? [siennami]
Apr 09, 2008 (6:53 am)
That only covers the powertrain, right?
artgpo brought up electrical issues that would most likely not be covered.
Hopefully Chrysler can resolve it.
#3476 of 3798 Toyota vs Honda Fuel Economy
Apr 09, 2008 (2:04 pm)
I've been digging deeper into the data on the EPA website and with some of the statistical tools I use as an engineer, I've backed out some estimates of fuel economy for recent years of Toyota and Honda.
I didn't not dig more into the Dodge/Chrysler because there isn't any data since the redesign and because I've pretty well scratched them off of my list.
I modeled the data by % city driving, model year and the estimated age of the vehicle as of the last report (using Jan 1 of the model year.) I'm not sure how the EPA calculates their combined number; my city/highway mix is straight 50/50.
Vans 3 years old get 2mpg (>10%) better mileage than vans less than a year old.
Honda vans equipped with VCM do not get much better economy than non-VCM in the city, and actually do worse on the highway. Honda's VCM is also the only engine that does worse than the EPA estimates in this data.
Toyota's vans are more efficient than Honda's. The Toyota 3.3L does 1mpg better than the Honda and early data on the 3.5L promises to be even better.
Vans less than 1 year:--------------City---|---Mix---|---Highway
Toyota 3.5L (2007*)------------------18.6---|---21.4--|--- 24.3
Toyota 3.3L (2004-2006)-----------15.4---|---19.5--|--- 23.6
Honda 3.5L (2005-2008)------------14.8---|---18.7--|--- 22.5
Honda 3.5L VCM (2006-2008)----15.1---|---18.5--|--- 21.2
* Toyota 3.5L is for all vans regardless of data age.
Vans more than 2.5 years:--------City---|---Mix---|---Highway
Toyota 3.5L (2007)--------------------N/A
Toyota 3.3L (2004-2006)-----------17.8---|---21.9--|--- 26.0
Honda 3.5L (2005-2008)------------17.1---|---20.9--|--- 24.8
Honda 3.5L VCM (2006-2008)----17.2---|---20.5--|--- 23.3
Toyota 3.5L (2007)---------------------17----|----19----|--- 24
Toyota 3.3L (2004-2006)-------------17----|----19----|--- 24
Honda 3.5L (2005-2007) -------------16----|----18----|--- 23
Honda 3.5L VCM (2006-2007)-----17----|-----20----|--- 25
#3477 of 3798 Re: Timing chains that never need servicing? [ateixeira]
Apr 09, 2008 (6:21 pm)
Yes. I figured that it was probably better than the 10 yr/100k mile warranty that my Kia had. That was one of the main reasons why I was willing to trade...well, and the fact that it was a Sienna was the prevailing factor, to be perfectly honest. The lifetime warranty was just "gravy". So when Chrysler keeps pulling out their commercials about that, I'm like eh, who cares? So does Toyota. Although in my hometown, the Chrysler dealership also offers free tires for the life of the car and stuff like that. It's attractive, I suppose. But not enough to make that T&C attractive, that's for darned sure!
While the lifetime warranty doesn't cover the electrical issues, I deliberately didn't get an LE or XLE for those same reasons. I'd already heard from a friend that a sliding door repair could cost upwards of $800, so I knew that would be out for me. And, I had to be really honest with myself. I could not afford either one of those vehicles unless I really talked some "magic" with a dealer, and at that point in my life, I was in no emotional shape to be dealing with someone like that. The week I got the Sienna was probably one of the worst of my life, so I probably didn't take care of things like I should've and that dealership got away with far more than they should have. The best I can say is I am driving the vehicle that I want. Long story, eh??
#3478 of 3798 Re: Toyota vs Honda Fuel Economy [yatesjo]
Apr 10, 2008 (6:21 am)
Sweet results, thanks for taking the time to do that.
That really reinforces my decision to wait for the 3.5l 2GR engine in the 07 Siennas.
#3479 of 3798 Re: ERRORS and comments for the well written "Big 3 Comparison" [yatesjo]
Apr 10, 2008 (6:38 am)
I think its already fair to say that Honda addressed the transmission issue in the Odyssey--the 2007+ Ody has a completely different transmission than the pre-07 versions. Its literally a completely different part.
The 07+ transmission is the same as the one that's been on the Ridgeline since its inception, and no problems have been reported.
#3480 of 3798 Re: The Big 3: Pros and Cons [yatesjo]
Apr 10, 2008 (6:46 am)
Also..are you SURE the Sienna is cheaper?
Honda's been discounting the Ody far more aggressively than Toyota did the Sienna. Graned, I bought about 6 months ago, but at that time, the Odyssey was $2600 cheaper...the trim levels I compared were Ody EX-L vs. Sienna XLE.
Obviously, its a personal preference, but---we felt that the handling/steering difference was far greater than you apparently did. Car and Driver noted it too, and in their 5 Best article, even mentioned it in terms of safety and what they felt was the Ody's superior accident avoidance. We felt that way too--the Ody just felt easier to control, turn, manuever, etc than the Sienna.
Certainly, if you're looking for a Buick, than the Sienna's the way to go, though.
They are both good vans, of course. Really can't go wrong with either of them. But I think you migiht find than when you really get down to negotiating, the Ody will be cheaper than you think.
#3481 of 3798 Re: The Big 3: Pros and Cons [mfletou1]
Apr 10, 2008 (6:58 am)
Right now, the Ody is cheaper. An EX compares with a Sienna LE EVP#2, basically. The Ody will cost less today.
The opposite was true about a year ago.
Timing is everything.
You say "looking for a Buick" like it's an insult. As if more road noise was a good thing.
I was looking for a family car that was comfortable and quiet. The Sienna was simply better at carrying passengers and cargo, 108 cubic feet worth.
The Ody is more of a driver's car, but with 8 seats, 1 person will be happier in the Ody, the other 7 will be happier in the Sienna. That is how I saw it.
Call me unselfish, but I chose the vehicle that made the majority of passengers happy, rather than the driver's car to please me alone.
#3482 of 3798 Re: ERRORS and comments for the well written "Big 3 Comparison" [mfletou1]
Apr 10, 2008 (7:59 am)
While the Ody tranny was changed in í07, I donít believe there were any known problems causing the change. Iíve been around these forums and other ody specific ones since this new generation came out and the only transmission issues Iíve seen have been some random leaks caused by bad case machining. They obviously replaced the transmissions because of this, but there were no real internal problems not caused by contamination. Iíve yet to hear of a massive internal failure on the Ď05+ transmissions, which was quite common on the earlier (pre-í05) models. If I had to guess, Iíd say going to the 4-shaft design was more of a production move than anything.