Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna



  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    But I'm not sure I understand the POINT of this kind of study. We aren't trying to say that VSC will enable one to go faster (comparing times for VSC vs. non-VSC cars). All we're saying is that VSC would make the car more controllable in adverse conditions.

    Under your test, it would be easy to see that VSC helped the novice drivers to go faster. I would also expect it to show that VSC actually slowed down the most experienced/skilled drivers. You (jipster) could then draw the conclusion that it was better to be a non-distracted highly skilled driver than to rely on VSC.

    Yes. Acknowledged. But the vast majority of drivers ARE distracted and are NOT highly skilled. So, unless you can come up with a way to MAKE us all attentive, highly skilled drivers, I'll take all the driver aids I can get. And this viewpoint is coming from a graduate of one of Bondurant's Advanced Roadracing/Grand prix courses.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731

    Johnny, we have a winner!

    I agree with everything you said, and second that!
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    Since the system is supposed to help those drivers who don't know how to properly react...

    Really? Since when have drivers had the capability to react by applying front left brake or right rear brake to get out of a skid? The system is designed for people going to fast for driving conditions,who are careless, or happen to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Most of the accidents I have read about on the "Vehicle Stability Discussion" have been "experienced" people driving Vettes and other high performance sports cars.

    Care to comment about NHTSA's own admitted lack of confidence in it's ESC data?
  • socalawdsocalawd Posts: 542
    People can get overconfident with VSC, much like many SUV drivers who find themselves upside down in a ditch. I think people who don't pay attention end up in accidents reguardless of the safty features on their vehilce.

    People are overconfident all the time. I have yet to see someone drive different with and without ESC. If they drive poorly it's usually just there style. I like stability control because it is a engineering control which tends to be alot more reliable than getting people to drive better. I wish more people would pay attention! I recently got rear ended on the Freeway at a dead stop. I saw the guy coming and he had no idea that the traffic had stopped. There was enough time for me to pull my foot off the brake and start rolling.

    Out of all the VSC encounters I have read on the various boards on Edmunds...over 95% have "avoided" accidents while driving to fast for road conditions, or driving carelessly.
    I rarely read of the refrigerator falling out the back of a U-haul and the driver having to swere to miss it. But, I guess there's always that possiblity.

    Chances are they still would drove that way at least they stayed out of your lane by not losing control.

    The encounter you have posted about(car coming around a corner and in your lane with you nowhere to go but up against the guardrail)is likely one where VSC would have come in handy. My concern is to much focus on safty features, and not enough on driver responsibiltiy.

    Keep railing driver safety. I hope someone listens. But unfortunately most people who drive poorly don't even knpw it. I went to drivers education after a speeding ticket. It took me 3+ months to get into a class. Noone there really thoght they were at fault. It's the quota's not there behaveior. Giving this the added features may save someones life.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'll say it again. If I had been able to avoid a skid which turned into a death spiral into a guardrail, I would've saved $2,200 in body work to my Accord last year, as well as a recurring back problem. Unfortunately, when the driver of an F-150 decided to occupy MY lane at the same time as ME, I had to swerve and brake at the same time. The car fishtailed, I steered out of the skid, but at 50 MPH (5 UNDER the posted 55MPH limit) there was no hope in catching the steering back up with the rest of the car. I crashed. With VSC, the proper wheels would have been braked, and I likely would've had only a skidmark in my pants. Instead, I left one on the road that was something like 80 feet long and curved (I'll have to check the wreck report for the exact measurement the policeman had) before I hit the guardrail.

    I was aware of my conditions, driving BELOW the speed limit (as I knew a traffic light lay on the other side of the arched bridge I was on), and saw him coming a split second before he passed me and nearly side-swiped me, but I STILL couldn't prevent the skid.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Really? Since when have drivers had the capability to react by applying front left brake or right rear brake to get out of a skid?"

    This is getting ridiculous.

    You should be aware that there are several different ways to control a car when the limits of adhesion have been exceeded by either the front tires, the rear tires, or both.

    A skilled driver can maintain that control (and maintain speed) by judicious use of the throttle as well as the steering wheel. If the point of your VSC test is to go as fast as possible, then obviously using the BRAKES to maintain control wouldn't be the fastest way around the course, which is the reason that magazines test with the systems off.

    However, as I've stated, the POINT of VSC is NOT to go as fast as possible, it is about maintaining (or regaining) control. The DRIVER is still responsible for steering the car in an appropriate direction. The system simply uses the appropriate brakes to ensure the back-end of the car STAYS the back-end of the car and that the front-end of the car actually goes where the steering wheels are pointed.

    "Most of the accidents I have read about on the "Vehicle Stability Discussion" have been "experienced" people driving Vettes and other high performance sports cars."

    Yes. And these accidents have occurred when these experienced drivers were trying to use the system for a different purpose than it was intended - going faster. The system DOESN'T give you more traction. If you dive into a corner 10mph faster than physics will allow, VSC won't save you; particularly if you are already trailbraking deeply into that corner (using up whatever braking control the system may have been able to provide).

    I don't think you can apply problems encountered with a system on a racetrack to what a typical suburbanite in a minivan will encounter coming home with a load of groceries in the rain.
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    All we're saying is that VSC would make the care more controllable in adverse conditions.

    Yeah...I agree with that. But, what I have trouble with is the percent figures NHTSA is throwing out. I think they are much to high. And would like to see more studies comparing the two(VSC vs non VSC). My test would show at what point/speed and under what circumstances does VSC prove benefical...and what point/speed is it ineffective.
    Aaannnd ....I gotta go. Ring that bell for round 2 graduate,it ain't over till it's over...or until our friendly host steps in. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ding Ding!

    *Ladies and gentlemen, your intermission begins now. Please return to your seats shortly, as the third act will follow.
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    I made no such claim, only that the odometers on six vehicles from five different manufacturers were accurate.
  • socalawdsocalawd Posts: 542
    Yeah...I agree with that. But, what I have trouble with is the percent figures NHTSA is throwing out. I think they are much to high. And would like to see more studies comparing the two(VSC vs non VSC). My test would show at what point/speed and under what circumstances

    I think those numbers are too high also they are probably closer to half that. As far as what speeds VSC is useful I'll try and find the site but it had some good info they said it's from 20mph(at this speed it's hard to lose control and if you crashed it was probably not due to lose of traction) and 85 mph(You are going too fast for VSC to do it's thing)
  • socalawdsocalawd Posts: 542
    The Odyssey inaccuracy causes people to think the Odyssey is getting better gas mileage than it really is while the Sienna shows lower gas mileage than actual if miles travelled is divided by gasoline consumed.

    You don't really think this is true do ya?? Taking information from one car and making it a worldwide conspiracy is quite a leap of faith! I really doubt thats why it's that way could be many things that make it inaccurate. ;)
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    (comes out a bobbing and a weaving) Rorr, for the third time...would you care to comment on NHTSA's own admitted lack of confidence in its ESC data? That is my main point. I understand how ESC works, the physics and it's purpose. I'm not disputing that it works...but I question to what extent. I think the accident reduction numbers given out were aquired under flawed methodology. I appreciate the links, but I personally did not find the so called evidence compelling. I'm not a statistical anaylsis expert(only got a C+ in college :cry: )...but I would find a field study test(as I had suggested) comparing the two in a variety of manuveurs and tests...more practical than what has been given thus far. You said the manufactureers have done this, but I have seen nothing from you or anyone else to validate this. But, I'm sure they don't want to share that information? The kind of study socalawd mentioned has some meat on it in my opinion.

    I also question the wisdom in focusing so much on ones saftey features and not driver responsibility. The drivers out there eating their Chicken Mcnuggets and have a cell phone growing out of their ears...are "some" of the same ones who think their VSC will pull them out of any jam they happen to run into. Just as there are "some" people who think they can ignore the laws of physics in an SUV, I believe there some who feel the same with their ESC.
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    The results of the study: Passenger cars showed a 35% reduction in single-vehicle crashes and a 30% reduction in fatalities from single-vehicle crashes. SUV's showed a 67% reduction in single-vehicle crashes and a 63% reduction in fatalities from single-vehicle crashes.

    Look at the differences here. It suggests to me the technology differential is even greater in vehicles more likely to tip over and more likely to have controllability characteristics beyond the skill of the drivers.

    This suggests driving a vehicle more in keeping with one's ability.

    I'd like to see the same accident reductions for people in Accords and Camrys with and without the technology.

    Look if manufacturers are introducing vehicles that are inherently unsafe because of a high center of gravity, or that extend beyond driver capability - maybe they shouldn't build those vehicles.

    Think of the lives saved if there were
    no SUVs on the road
    there was no eating and drinking beverages while operating the car
    no cell phone use while driving
    if everyone obeyed the stated speed limits
    if there was no drinking and driving
    if people periodically took refresher / defensive driving courses and had to demonstrate proficiency
    if teenagers needed x hundreds of hours of driving time before they got their licenses
    if teenagers could not ferry other teenagers
    if people could not read the paper or do their makeup behind the wheel
    if people were encouraged to stay off the road unless an emergency when ice, significant snow, or torrential rains were present
    if people maintained their vehicles properly
    ((insert suggestion here))

    We don't need complex technology to improve safety as much as a shift / focus in what is acceptable to be driven on our roads, when and by whom, but also a respect for the primary task of being actively engaged in driving the vehicle and being aware of ones surroundings, vehicle operation and environmental conditions.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    No conspiracy ever suggested. I have just reported the facts that my son's 2001 Odyssey EX read 3.35 % more distance travelled than my 2002 T&C LX and the 2001 Odyssey read 6.12 % more distance travelled than the 2006 Sienna....
    His Odyssey odometer could be less accurate than other Odysseys. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The safety features in the cars today are great. A car can never be "too safe", or even "safe enough". But I think the best way to prevent accidents from happening is to make sure people know how to drive (a real "driving" test) before just handing them a driver's license A mandatory driving course, would be a step to consider. There are some really bad drivers out there. We should be teaching people how to better handle the cars they have. That would help everyone. Teenagers get a driver's license, and they have virtually no driving experience. It's like "on the road" training. And then we complain about the teenage accident rates.
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    alright, so how did all four vehicles do on a measured / known course of significant distance, and are you sure each had proper tire size and inflation before the experiment? maybe the experiment you performed is the source of the variation of results. ;)
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    Agree with most of what user777 wrote. We are putting all this energy and focus into making cars safer, that we are forgetting about the human factor(i.e safe driving),. By all means make cars as safe as possible. But, at the same time I think car manufacturers need to advocate safe driving as much as they do in selling their product.

    This is the age of blame it on somebody else and take responsibility for nothing. If someone slides off the road into a telephone was because of the snow, ice, they didn't have VSC..whatever. OH, but if someone suggest they are driving to fast for road's "well he didn't know, he didn't know!!" Well, he should have known! It it gets close to 32 degrees F. things freeze. When the roads are wet or damp..they get slippery. When you are in heavy traffic you need to be even more attentive.

    Sure accidents happen. But, 90% of the time it is because of inattentive,careless or wreckless drivers.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    All vehicles had original equipment tires on at the time of the test and each was driven by the same driver.
    You may not like the results but they are reported exactly as measured.
    The results do NOT imply that the T&C or Sienna are better than the Odyssey nor do they imply that the Odyssey is the best.
    As stated many times, I think the Odyssey EX, Sienna LE, and Grand Caravan SXT are almost identical in being most preferred by myself after test driving each and comparing features. The Odyssey would be # 1 if seating comfort in all seats were the most important feature. The Sienna is # 1 if attractive interior and instrument panel is most important. The GC SXT is # 1 if user friendly controls for stereo, HVAC, wipers, etc. is most important.
    Edmunds is biased towards the Odyssey and facts to support that statement have been posted many times. :shades:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...would you care to comment on NHTSA's own admitted lack of confidence in its ESC data?"

    Sure. Since their study was based on comparing real-world occurences between models with VSC to the exact same models without VSC, it would help the validity of the study if the sample size was larger. Their study (due to the relatively uncommon nature of VSC) covered a very small segment of the vehicle population over a very short time span.

    And truthfully, I have some problems with the methodology used. Rather than compare accident RATES (ie. # of single vehicle accidents per vehicles with VSC), they made an assumption that VSC would be of zero benefit in multi-car accidents and compared the single-vehicle accident #'s to the mult-car accident #'s.

    The point of VSC is to reduce the number (and possibly the severity) of accidents. What better way to determine if it is EFFECTIVE at doing this than to compare actual accident rates between vehicles with and without the system?

    Let's look at ABS systems as an analogy. In initial instrumented tests, ABS was shown to allow drivers to stop a bit shorter and under much greater control than in cars without ABS. Everyone thought the systems would be a godsend on the road. But actual RESULTS (ie. comparing accident rates) didn't bear this out. Yes, there was some slight improvement, but not what was predicted BY INSTRUMENTED TESTS.

    You can do all the instrumented tests you want but you still have to extrapolate by some convoluted methodology to arrive at some 'expected' real-world effectiveness. Why not simply study real-world accident rates?

    "I also question the wisdom in focusing so much on ones saftey features and not driver responsibility."

    I think it's a given that driver screwups are responsible for the vast majority of accidents (I'd be willing to believe in excess of 98%). Yes, more focus should be on driver responsibility. HOWEVER, does that mean that efforts SHOULDN'T be made to improve safety features built into the car? As a manufacturer of cars, do you think that Honda or Toyota would be more effective by building safer cars or pushing driver responsibility through a series of infomercials?

    What if DCX were to provide only the bare minimum of federally required safety equipment on all of their vehicles and instead insituted an ad campaign pushing driver responsibility and training. I'd be willing to bet they'd be accused of paying lip service to safety.

    "Just as there are "some" people who think they can ignore the laws of physics in an SUV, I believe there some who feel the same with their ESC."

    Where there are certainly "some" of those people out there. However, do you think that "some" people keep a mental checklist of all the little driver aids/supposed traits of their vehicle and ratchet up their speed for each feature? Personally, I think that "some" people will drive as fast as they think they can get away with REGARDLESS of what they are driving. I think that "some" people with SUV's will attempt to ignore the laws of physics even if you plunked them into the seat of a Malibu.
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    Well, if the study is flawed, as you have admitted. Then the results must also be flawed, unreliable and questionable.

    If I recall correctly NHTSA used 2 years of luxury line models without VSC, then 2 years with VSC. I have problems with that methodology. The comparison should be within the same time frame. Maybe, the saftey consious luxury end buyers were holding out for VSC, amoungst a host of many other variables. Again, I am not questioning whether VSC is effective or not...just to what extent.I'm guessing it's about half the stated amount as socalawd suggested.

    Why not study real world accident rates?

    Well, we should. But, not at the exclusion of other field tests such as I have suggested. They conduct vehilce crash tests in they can list all variables and keep them constant. They should do this with VSC as well.
    I've seen the same old VSC studies for the last year or so.

    does that mean that efforts shouldn't be made to improve
    saftey features built into the car?

    I never suggested such a thing. I wrote that car manufactuers should make cars as safe as possible. But, they should be more responsible in putting out driver safty material and public service messages on t.v. Saying that they do informercials is being silly. But, putting out commercials, newspaper and magazine ads, would be appropriate. Maybe commercials showing the consequences of going to fast, being inattentive(eating/cell phone)...then at the end saying,"This public service message brought to you from the friendly folks at Toyota. "OOHH what a feeling...TOYOTA"

    Bottom line: I want more VSC studies. Studies that use scienticially accepted experimental methods. Study VSC in real life situations as well as labratory/field tests. That car manufacturers put more effort(money) into car safty awareness.(like the cigerette and liquor companies do) Do all that, and if VSC results are still as high as initially reported...I will resign my membership in the Edmunds VIP Gold Club. :cry:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Well, if the study is flawed, as you have admitted. Then the results must also be flawed, unreliable and questionable."

    I didn't say the study was flawed. I said I had some problems with the methodology. I have some problems with the methodology you've proposed as well; it doesn't mean the study is flawed. It just means one has to be careful with the conclusions drawn from the study.

    Also, EVERY study could be deemed 'questionable'. The reason is that many assumptions are made (by necessity) in setting up a test. The problem comes from people not knowing (or understanding) what those assumptions were and what the ramifications are if those assumptions were faulty. Which is why I question folks making grandiose proclamations that Car 'X' is 'safer' than Car 'Y' simply because it has more "stars" in an IIHS study. Laboratory results don't always directly translate into field results. Which is one reason why I always prefer studies of field results, even if I might question some small aspect of the way the study was set up.

    "But, they should be more responsible in putting out driver safty material and public service messages on t.v."

    We already have numerous ad campaigns, by a number of organizations, regarding driver behaviour. Society has been hammering that nail for as long as there've been drivers. The problem is, you aren't going to change basic human nature. We aren't all going to be good little boys/girls and always drive the speed limit (and only in good/clear driving conditions). We aren't all going to keep both hands on the wheel at all times with our mind 100% on the task at hand. And any form of ad campaign isn't going to dramatically change this.

    Now, the libertarian in me wants to say "well, if folks insist on being boneheads, then they should accept the consequences. If you flipped that SUV because you slid off the road going too fast in the rain, tough cookies".

    But in all honesty, we can ALL be boneheads on occasion (even rorr!). And if there is technology available which can help me (or my wife/kids) when/if I cross the bonehead line, then I want it. It doesn't necessarily mean it gets used as an excuse to drive like a maniac.

    "Bottom line: I want more VSC studies. Studies that use scienticially accepted experimental methods."

    So do I. And as far as I know, the studies already performed DID use accepted experimental methods. And no, I DON'T expect the early high numbers to be verified. I do expect however to see around a 25% reduction in single-vehicle crashes for cars and between 40-50% reduction for trucks/SUV's.

    Just out of curiousity - why such an (apparent) distrust for VSC in general? Are you just naturally suspicious of safety related claims (which I can certainly understand giving the past history of other features)?
  • artgpoartgpo Posts: 483
    You were going to fast for driving conditions! So, is wise you purchase vehilces with VSC.

    So, making a right hand turn at a traffic signal at an intersection paved with brick in the rain at maybe 8 mph was too fast? Perhaps you are correct and I should have slowed down to 1 mph or even gotten out and pushed my Odyssey around the corner?

    I am now doubly glad I have VSC and all the other standard Odyssey safety equipment because it will prevent me from getting killed by someone without VSC's spinout.
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    you aren't going to change basic human nature.

    Maybe not human nature...but human behavior. To often it takes getting into an accident, or having a loved one involed in an accident to change ones poor driving habits.
    I believe the "Don't Drink and Drive" campaign has made a difference. It has saved lives. Now people are still getting stinking drunk...but many are calling cabs or have a designated driver. I think the same approach could be used for "Safer Driving". But, it starts with education...and that means money.

    why such an (apparent)distrust for VSC in general?

    Well, basically if it sounds to good to be true...
    A 35% reduction in single-vehilce crashes for cars and 67%for SUV's just sounds to good to be true. I wish that it were true. But, thus far the evidence hasn't been strong enough, in my opinion.

    I guess I have nothing new to add to this discussion that I haven't already said. So, the final word is yours rorr.
    Drive safely all! ;)
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    Well sure 8 mph was to fast! Otherwise your vehicle wouldn't have slid out on you.

    I'm glad your VSC worked for you. But, I wouldn't be so overconfident to think all of your saftey equipment will make you indestructable should you be in a severe collision.

    Ya see rorr...arts post is what I meant when I wrote VSC(and other saftey features) can lead to overconfidence...which can lead to inattentiveness...which leads to... sscccrrrreeeeeechhh booooommmmm!! :sick:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Guys, guys! I will turn this car RIGHT around if you dont behave! My car doesn't have VSA so I might even lose control doing it, so I wouldn't keep it up if I were you!

    Be good, guys; if you're good, mom will get us ice cream :)
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Well, basically if it sounds to good to be true... "

    aHA! A born cynic. I just KNEW you had some redeeming qualities... ;)

    But seriously, I felt the same way when I first heard that MB was working on this system way back in the mid-90's. And knowing the kind of lackluster results (after the wild hoopla indicated by laboratory/instrumented tests) for airbags and ABS, I was skeptical as well. Maybe this is why I don't put a lot of stock in instrumented tests. :mad:

    However, the actual FIELD results from the NHTSA study gave me pause. Do I have some quibbles with some of the methodology? Sure. Is the sample size small? Yep. Be that as it may, THERE HAVE BEEN TANGIBLE RESULTS.

    Now, we could argue about whether or not the 35% reduction for sedans and 67% reduction for SUV's will hold up with wider application (and I don't think they will). But I'd be hard pressed to believe they'll drop down to the 5-10% range (which is not far from the field effectiveness of ABS).

    Since few of us would buy a minivan without ABS (btw - I don't think I or my wife started driving any more recklessly after buying vehicles with ABS), and I sincerely believe that VSC will prove to be more beneficial, why wouldn't I want VSC on my minivan?
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,344
    aHA A born cynic.

    LOL. I don't care what anybody else guys are alright. ;)
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Yeah, I usually don't care what anybody else says either.... :blush:
  • easym1easym1 Posts: 218
  • artgpoartgpo Posts: 483
    BIG 10-4!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna - Page 111 — Car Forums at