You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans 

2008 Minivans - READ ONLY

1261 messages,  Last post on Feb 27, 2008 at 7:47 AM

You are in the Vans & Minivans Forum. Your Host is Karens

What is this discussion about? Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, Chrysler Town and Country, Dodge Caravan, Hyundai Entourage, Mazda MAZDA5, Kia Sedona, Car Comparisons, Car Buying, Van

#159 of 1261 Re: quality [marine2] by ateixeira Sep 05, 2007 (11:59 am)
Replying to: marine2 (Sep 05, 2007 11:40 am) Chrysler had not had a complete redesign since 1997. So major upgrades were to be expected. The '08 is indeed a big improvement.   I'm not convinced it's the best, though. That requires a no-excuses effort. The price on the Edmunds tester of more than $39k is also in the no-excuses level.   I would have liked to see them offer a multi-valve engine (which was considered during the last refresh, but shelved) at that price. If they did, maybe they wouldn't have to offer rebates once the newness fades.   I'm sure they have contracts with current engine suppliers to keep certain plants operating, and that's why the 3.3l and 3.8l engines carry on, but c'mon, it's not 1997 any more, Chrysler. Time for a clean sheet. Replies to this message: marine2 (Sep 05, 2007 12:27 pm) ateixeira (Sep 06, 2007 8:06 am) marine2 (Sep 06, 2007 2:47 pm) marine2 (Sep 05, 2007 1:08 pm)
#160 of 1261 Re: quality [ateixeira] by marine2 Sep 05, 2007 (12:27 pm)
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 05, 2007 11:59 am) "I'm sure they have contracts with current engine suppliers to keep certain plants operating, and that's why the 3.3l and 3.8l engines carry on, but c'mon, it's not 1997 any more, Chrysler. Time for a clean sheet."   Let me repeat what I said before, because it's obvious, you didn't understand me.   "It's been hard for Chrysler and Ameerican automotive manufactures to compete with the advantages the foreign makers have in profit. They can't put as much in R/D into their vehicles. Foreign makers here are not paying the health care for retirees. Have thousands fewer retirees to pay for. Not paying as much in health care, because their employees are younger. Got many of their new plants at big tax discounts to bring them into these states. Pay lower wages."   Japanese widen profit gap over U.S. automakers Associated Press August 8, 2007 Article tools E-mail Share Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Furl Google Newsvine Reddit Spurl Yahoo Print Single page view Reprints Reader feedback Text size: TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - Japanese automakers widened their profit-making gap over the Big Three domestic automakers last year by 31 percent, according to a study released Tuesday.   The profit gap, which already was significant in 2005 at $2,899 per vehicle sold in North America, widened by $915, to $3,814, according to a study of industry costs and profits by Laurie Harbour-Felax, managing director of Stout Risius Ross, a Chicago-based financial and operational advisory firm.   The study, made public at an automotive industry conference, found that while General Motors Corp. had improved its efficiency and cut production costs, the nation's largest automaker and its Detroit counterparts, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, still have a long way to go to match the profits of Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co.   GM cut its loss per vehicle in North America to $146 in 2006 from $1,271 in 2005, largely because of cost cuts that included the departure of more than 34,000 hourly workers to buyout and early retirement offers. It also is saving money on efforts to design cars and trucks globally, by increasing the number of parts common to all of its vehicles and by purchasing parts on a global basis, Harbour-Felax said.   "GM has done the most from this as you look at their whole product lineup," she said.   Still, GM made $2,123 less per vehicle than Toyota in 2006, according to the report. Toyota, the most profitable of all automakers on a per-vehicle basis, increased its profit per vehicle from $1,175 in 2005 to $1,977 in 2006, the report said. The numbers for individual manufacturers are at times lower than the overall gap because they do not include special write-offs, Harbour-Felax said.   Ford, while it has made progress on cost cuts, common parts and globalization, still had a $3,939 profit gap in 2006 when compared with Toyota, Harbour-Felax said.   Chrysler's profit gap with Toyota averaged $3,088 per vehicle for 2006 mainly because it was "force feeding" the market by selling vehicles with heavy incentives, she said.   The labor cost difference between the Big Three and the Japanese automakers amounts to $1,200 to $1,500 per vehicle, Harbour-Felax said. Although the domestic automakers likely are to seek parity with the Japanese in ongoing contract talks with the United Auto Workers, that won't solve all of their problems because labor costs make up only about 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle, she said.   The average price of a vehicle in the U.S. last year was $28,451, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. Replies to this message: ateixeira (Sep 06, 2007 8:06 am) marine2 (Sep 06, 2007 2:47 pm)
#161 of 1261 Re: quality [ateixeira] by marine2 Sep 05, 2007 (1:08 pm)
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 05, 2007 11:59 am) You may think Chrysler has no excuses not to come out with every new innovation that Honda and Toyota has but they do. I am surprised they can put as much in this new 2008 as they have and keep the price down as much as they have.    Now the 3.8 might be an old design, but it's been dependable and there isn't that much difference in acceleration than Honda's new engine and five speed tranny. Less than two sec. with Chrysler's four speed tranny in the quarter mile. That could be even less with Chrysler's new six speed tranny. I hear Chrysler's new 4.0 is at least a second faster than the Honda. As if it makes much of a difference either way. Of course the Honda people made it a big difference about it before. I am sure they will think it irrelevant now that the 4.0 is faster. I don't know, Chrysler's new 4.0 may not be the old push rod engine. But if it's as dependable aas the 3.8, I wouldn't complain.   I don't think all of Toyota's problem was just oil. Wasn't it determined the passageways were to small in that engine, not allowing the oil to flow freely, there by gathering up into sludge?
#162 of 1261 Re: quality [davethewave1] by dennisctc Sep 05, 2007 (1:30 pm)
Replying to: davethewave1 (Sep 05, 2007 4:31 am) That's the good thing with competition!! Just like when DCX came out with dual sliding doors or power hatches etc... it's win win for all of us Replies to this message: allez (Sep 05, 2007 3:03 pm)
#163 of 1261 Re: quality [dennisctc] by allez Sep 05, 2007 (3:03 pm)
Replying to: dennisctc (Sep 05, 2007 1:30 pm) I agree that competition helps - it spawns innovation and improvement. I am on my fourth minivan; my first three were DCX - a 1995 GC, 1998 T&C, and 2002 T&C. My '95 was horrible - went through 3 transmissions and got rid of it; I had an extended warranty on the tranmissions but I could not deal with the possibility of my wife and kids being stranded somewhere. The '98 overall worked well - no major problems up until some idiot crossed over the yellow line and totaled it. My '02 is doing well - it has approx 75k miles, with a few relative minor things (transmission solenoid replaced, etc).   Now I also have an '07 Sienna. I'm very happy with. It cost a bit more, but for me it was worth it. At the time I got it (July), the new T&C's were not out. If they were I would have looked at them, although my suspicion is that I would have still ended up with the Sienna. It seems a lot of new ideas come from DCX, and many are copied by others. The innovations in the new T&C's are interesting, but I do have a couple of concerns about the Swivel 'n Go. First, for me riding backwards in a vehicle makes me incredibly nauseous; many years ago I had to ride a school bus with backwards-facing seats for a couple of years Second, I'd be a little leery of having a hard table in front of the 3rd seat in the event of an accident; perhaps the seatbelt would keep my kids from hitting the table, but it would still make me nervous. I think with crash testing they don't seem to check what happens to the back seat passengers; I would want some reassurance that the table would not be a problem.
#164 of 1261 2008 Town & Country Limited & Grand Caravan SXT First Impression by carcom2 Sep 05, 2007 (5:28 pm)
I finally got to see and drive a Limited with leather, dual dvd's,sunroof, NAV and every option except power rear seat. Priced around $41,700. It looks real nice in black w/ the silver accents.   Facing rearward, Swivel N Go will only be good for shorter people or kids. My legs couldn't fit under the table unless stretched out and then there would be little legroom for person across. This would be good for kids perhaps but not much room for adults especially because you have to move forward the front seats to make room for the 2nd row to swivel and to also open up the storage bin where the table is stowed. The seats are comfortable though. But now I'm curious on how the Stow N Go seats will feel in comparison. And perhaps the 3rd row power seats have for/aft adjustments. The manual 3rd row does not, but it can recline as well as the Swivel N G can recline, but not all the way back to the 3rd row.   The Limited looks much much better than the 2008 Grand Caravan SXT. A definite step up in looks. I drove the GC SXT with the 4.0 and fabric seats without tow package. I wasn't too impressed with the steering - felt numb or acceleration. The upgraded trim on the Limited and the clock make the T&C look a lot nicer inside vs the GC. The T&C with the tow package includes the self leveling rear suspension and I thought it drove much better and the steering feedback was much better than the GC. T&C - Acceleration was really good with a quiet ride. Overall much nicer interior and better ride than the GC.   I do wish they had some softer rubberized plastics. At least the fold down armrests are padded. Plenty of storage area.   The power sliding doors & liftgate work perfectly smooth even when used manually.   Only thing missing is a telescoping steering wheel. I'm sure I'll want to check it out further. It's staying on my list for now.   But it makes me wonder what if any enhancements will be made to the VW version of this minivan.   Will they add softer materials inside, what will the diesel engine specs be,etc. When will the VW come out in the US?   Wondering why not much mention of the Nissan Quest? - huge amount of legroom in all rows. Replies to this message: marine2 (Sep 05, 2007 5:47 pm) dennisctc (Sep 05, 2007 6:18 pm)
#165 of 1261 Re: 2008 Town & Country Limited & Grand Caravan SXT First Impression [carcom2] by marine2 Sep 05, 2007 (5:47 pm)
Replying to: carcom2 (Sep 05, 2007 5:28 pm) I had read the ride in the Chrysler was softer than in the Dodge. I guess they give you a choice. Not sure you set in the swivel seats backwards when traveling. Something to ask the salesman about. Were the seats comfortable?
#166 of 1261 Re: 2008 Town & Country Limited & Grand Caravan SXT First Impression [carcom2] by dennisctc Sep 05, 2007 (6:18 pm)
Replying to: carcom2 (Sep 05, 2007 5:28 pm) The T&C with the tow package includes the self leveling rear suspension and I thought it drove much better and the steering feedback was much better than the GC.   What baffles me a little is the tow rating, 3500 lbs? My 2005 was rated at 3800 lbs with tow package...and has smaller engine?   I'd love to see a Diesel version on the market, I'm hearing that'll happen in 2009 for Chrysler, and rumors of a Honda Ody for 2010?
#167 of 1261 As a former T&C owner and current Sienna owner by hansienna Sep 05, 2007 (6:45 pm)
T&C is a BETTER minivan for the money. Each has advantages and disadvantages. I like the Toyota dealer and salesman but the Sienna is a disappointment because it is overpriced.
#168 of 1261 Re: quality [marine2] by ateixeira Sep 06, 2007 (8:06 am)
Replying to: marine2 (Sep 05, 2007 12:27 pm) Let me repeat what I said before, because it's obvious, you didn't understand me   Actually, I understood you completely.   Legacy costs are precisely the "excuses" I was referring to before. To call yourself the best van there is no room for excuses. That was my whole point!   Edmunds' van was $39k and change. Now we see another stickering for $41k plus. These are not the value-priced vans that the outgoing ones were!   Edmunds compared the new 4.0l/6 speed to the outgoing 2007 Honda JC35 engine, which is being updated for 2008. It's already more efficient and should only increase that advantage.   That arrives for model year 2008, I believe, same as the new Chryslers.   It's a moving target. To be best you need continuous improvement. Replies to this message: marine2 (Sep 06, 2007 2:47 pm)

You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans