Last post on May 23, 2013 at 10:23 AM
You are in the Honda Odyssey
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, Car Comparisons, Van
#4003 of 5511 Stability control, and various safety stuff.
Mar 01, 2007 (1:30 pm)
Ah, ok, I had *thought* that maybe SAC stood for stability something-or-other, but didn't want to look like an idiot.
I think stability control would be one of those "nice to have, but not critical" things. I think it would be more useful in a vehicle more prone to tipping over like an SUV. But, not having had a car with it, I can't really say how useful it would be.
Before I had ABS, I thought it was for people who didn't know how to brake. Now, I can see where it keeps the brakes from locking up, so IS nice to have in emergency situations. The thing that amazes me about ABS more than anything is how it allows you to brake even on icy roads. In Michigan, I've avoided getting rear ended (and sliding into intersections myself!) thanks to ABS.
Traction control can be neat "sometimes", but I think it is more useful in a RWD vehicle. Having only owned FWD cars, several of which HAVE had traction control, I never used it.
So, the wife's van has 2/3. Like a lot of people who need corrective vision she is a poor judge of distance, so the ABS for her is invaluable. Traction control, eh.
I have to say I'm more than impressed that nobody has called our Chrysler "junk" yet, given that this is a Japanese van forum. We minivan owners must be a mellow lot.
That said, the one thing that does concern me about buying a Chrysler product is the long-term mechanical quality of the thing. PARTICULARLY the transmission. Ironically, though, when I was researching vans the thing that came up again and again about the Odyssey was its flaky transmission. Now, Honda has been making them long enough where they've hopefully fixed it, but then again that's what I tell myself about our T&C.
At the end of the day, I had to put my aversion to Chrysler products aside and suck it up. I have no doubt the interior will disintegrate LONG before an equivalent Japanese van, if my Maxima is any indication. That car just doesn't seem to age.
The one negative thing I have to say is I don't get Edmunds' love of the Kia van. Honestly when I sat in the Sedona I felt like the Town and Country was a luxury sedan by comparison. The Sedona's interior reminded me of my wife's 1998 Chevy Cavalier; it was just really, really nasty and cheap. The Koreans, for whatever reason, love to just plow as much chrome and fake wood into their cars as possible. The problem with doing this is it has the opposite effect of what they intended; it comes off like a Lexus as imagined by a 3 year old.
That said, I actually like some of the newer Korean cars like the new Sonata. While I can't *personally* see myself owning a Korean car in my lifetime, I wouldn't be surprised if my kids do. I went against my old man when he said never to buy a Chrysler because they're all garbage, so I would imagine my children will do the same thing.
#4004 of 5511 Re: Stability control, and various safety stuff. [perna]
Mar 01, 2007 (3:57 pm)
I checked out the Kia when I was looking for vans and had a similar experience. I wasn't overly impressed with it. However it does offer about every feature in the book for a price significantly cheaper then pretty much every van out there.
My wife also had a Hyundai Scoupe which was a pile of junk. However Korean quality scores seem to be getting better and that may be why Edmunds rate them the way they do. Remember Toyota didn't always have the stellar reputation it does now either.
#4005 of 5511 Re: Stability control, and various safety stuff. [perna]
Mar 02, 2007 (7:52 am)
Chrysler still uses a pushrod engine, but torque is decent and that's what you need in a van, so I don't consider the higher-revving, high HP engines that the competitors have a significant advantage.
I had a neighbor that was a carpet distributor that went through Dodge vans like we go through toilet paper, and his trannies kept failing right around 70-80k miles. Maybe it was the weight.
Funny thing was, he kept buying more of 'em, not exactly sure why. He just planned on one trans rebuild.
But yes, I've seen plenty of Honda owners complain, so I would not list that as an advantage for those.
And Toyota has had plenty of issues with new Camry transmissions. The older 3.3l Siennas were fine, but it gets the same 3.5l in the new Camry, so who knows.
I'd put a big question mark there, and not give any of them a clear advantage. Perhaps that's why, as you stated, noone called the DCX vans junk. They aren't.
#4006 of 5511 Re: Stability control, and various safety stuff. [ateixeira]
Mar 02, 2007 (10:30 am)
I think part of the problem with minivans in general is that they're engineered like cars, but are sometimes asked to perform tasks that you need a truck for.
I remember driving my folks' Pontiac Montana halfway across the country with 6 people + luggage, and that was SCARY. You could SMELL the brakes whenever you came to anything less than a really gradual stop. It accelerated like a pig with no legs, and wallowed like one too. It's no surprise that minivans are renowned brake and transmission eaters.
I can't imagine what the drive had been like if I had been towing anything.
#4007 of 5511 Re: Stability control, and various safety stuff. [perna]
Mar 02, 2007 (10:48 am)
I'm not sure that was a competitive van even when they were new. Today's best vans are far better.
GM made those narrow so they could also be sold in Europe, a big mistake IMO. The Uplander still shared a lot of that DNA and should be put out of its misery if it hasn't already.
#4008 of 5511 Did you say jobs for a Truck
Mar 02, 2007 (10:48 am)
Someone shared this pic with me today...
#4009 of 5511 Re: Seat Comfort. [perna]
Mar 02, 2007 (2:15 pm)
I am new to these boards, but have been avidly reading posts regarding Odyssey vs Sienna vs Chrysler, for the last week, as we are in the research phase. We're finally looking to move to a minivan, from the very reliable, but ancient, Olds station wagon, that has back killing seats (we use all kinds of little padded supports, etc. to help with that), but a non-rough ride.
I have already eliminated the Sedona/Entourage twins, based on test drives yesterday (our daughter remarked that she felt like she was in a boat, but maybe that's the way all minivans are, giving you that sort of swaying feeling???), and depreciation.
I'm also wondering how the new '08 Chrysler might compare...?
We've owned Hondas for 28 yrs., which other family members drive, and I have neck/back issues, so we don't want to spend megabucks on a vehicle that will give me a headache, literally, every time I drive it, due to a rough or bouncy ride. Already have a pickup truck that does that! And, you can't always tell these things on a little test drive. Our dealers aren't too keen on letting you take the vehicle home for a day, either.
So, question to all you owners out there - which has the least bumpy ride, Odyssey or Sienna or Chrysler?
#4010 of 5511 Re: Seat Comfort. [cmh707]
Mar 02, 2007 (2:28 pm)
The Odyssey rides notably firmer than the Sienna. When I'm alone, my Touring is almost too stiff for my taste. When fully loaded, it is just right.
The Sienna is much softer, at least with only a driver aboard. Haven't been in one loaded up.
Don't know about the current Chryslers.
#4011 of 5511 Re: Seat Comfort. [cccompson]
Mar 02, 2007 (4:36 pm)
We bought the Odyssey because we thought it handled better than the Toyota and was more responsive. Because of that you tend to feel more of the bumps too. The Toyota has a softer ride.
I heard one guy compare the Toyota van to a Cadillac as it has a relatively soft ride, while the Honda could be compared to a BMW with a more sport tuned ride.
#4012 of 5511 Re: Seat Comfort. [bobber1]
Mar 03, 2007 (10:59 am)
Yeah, that was me. Unfortunately, a Toyota driver got offended with the Cadillac/Lincoln reference. I didn't mean the whole vehicle resembled Lincoln/Caddy, just the ride characteristics (plush).