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

16364666869266

Comments

  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 839
    My point about the 'Car and Driver' article was that there was certainly no clear victory on the Ody's part. It was a one-point-win, mitigated by a 'depends on your preference' caveat.

     
    I would be saying the same had it been the opposite, so you put words in my mouth. 'C&D' reviewers are as biased toward sports-car-handling as 'Consumer Reports' editors are toward practicality.

     

    So it's no surprise they chose the '04 Ody (again, by a hair) over the '04 Sienna. These guys don't give a hoot about road noise, so long as the driving experience is 'fun' (if that's even possible with a minivan). The quiet luxury of a Sienna is lost on a bunch of guys who would rather be driving Porsches anyway.

     

    (Don't misunderstand me, I love 'C&D,' and have been a subscriber since 1979). Now if they'd just do an unbiased evaluation of PAX on the '05.....
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 839
    But I'm not sure it applies here. One scenario is a bit more desirable than the other.....

     

    And just why would I trust those TOP-NOTCH automotive reviewers at 'Money' and 'Kiplingers'..... I don't buy audio equipment that's recommended in 'Playboy'....
  • PAX tires will end up dropping the resale value of the Odyssey Touring model. Especially after Honda decides it is losing sales to Sienna (lost my sale this way, I cancelled my Honda order and I pick up my Sienna tomorrow) or people will buy lower end Odyssey to stay away from a dead end with the Touring PAX issues. And then changes Touring in 2006 or sooner!!!

     

    Who will want to buy a vehicle with very expensive, hard to find tires, only sold by Michelin (a French company) and Honda where the price and availibility is totally controlled by them?

     

    Remind you that, being the poor person stuck on a vacation or weekend spending all his time and money finding a replacement PAX. There are none in Canada, so Honda owners, no not visit there without STRAPPING one PAX on the roof. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can not strap it to the roof, unless you bought the "cross bar option" as Honda does not included these like most other car makers do with a roof rack!

     

    Odyssey is a great van, but so is Sienna. I drove both models several times. All this talk about how mine is faster than yours, or gets 1 mile an hour better gas mileage will mean nothing when you are stuck in THAT Odyssey Touring with a bad PAX tire and I go by you smiling in my new Toyota Sienna XLE Limited!!! I could not even stop to help you, no one CAN!!!

     

    PAX is a nice idea in theory, but for a person who drives on vacation or gets stuck on weekend the support will suck. If PAX was so great, why not make them mandatory on Acura?

     

    Why does Honda hide these PAX FACTS from the buyers? There was little reason except control, to NOT make PAX an option on Touring. Or have the option to allow for a regular tire to fit. Or AT LEAST include some kind of donut spare, instead of leaving the space in the Touring EMPTY! They almost HAD me, but I got away before delivery. Thank you Edmunds forum again! Time will tell.

     

    Stephen A
  • ewtewt Posts: 127
    I guess it depends on your point of view. There isn't a minivan made that I get much driving pleasure from. The Odyssey may handle marginally better than the Sienna but who cares? Neither one of them handle very well in an absolute sense, and the differences aren't big. It's like arguing about cup holders in a Viper vs. a Corvette.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,588
    as noted, the difference was one point. The primary reason the Ody won was related to features. basically, they tested an EXL vx. an LE, and the Honda had more goodies. Hence, it won the features catagory.

     

    IIRC, the test pretty much confirmed popular perceptions. The Sienna was cushier and quieter, and the Ody was more of a "drivers" car.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • petlpetl Posts: 610
    Most of the criterea used in rating vehicles are subjective. The bottom line is, C&D can arrive at the desired conclusion (on subjectivity alone). I won`t dispute which van is better. Those who purchase them will evedently be in the best posistion to judge.
  • susiejsusiej Posts: 12
    I think only an uninformed consumer would find PAX tires to be a huge plus. I have spoken with two uninformed Honda salesman as well who didn't believe me when I told them the tires were an odd size ( 17.5 inches I believe).

     

    If consumers knew they couldn't travel to Canada and will have great difficulty finding replacement tires in the States, they would not be buying Touring models.

     

    ISELLHONDAS , do you let your customers know these facts before they purchase a touring model?
  • yatesdyatesd Posts: 60
    colemanr7,

     

    If you read your owners manual you'll see that Toyota recommends premium fuel.

     

    87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage.
  • yatesdyatesd Posts: 60
    heywood,

     

    That is not true. PAX tire technology provides advantages in ride quality, repairability, rated distance when driven flat, and ability to work with heavier vehicles compared to conventional run-flats. That's why Michelin considers this to be their best technology, even though they also sell regular run-flat tires.

     

    Furthermore, it is my understanding that your rare tire size on the Sienna also limits your tire choices and increases replacement costs.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 839
    What could possibly be the repairability advantages of PAX? Would it be because you're strictly limited to a Honda or Michelin dealer for repair? Or maybe it's the fact that you're dependant on a Honda dealer having a 'hat box' in stock? Please explain.

     

    I will grant you the point that one can probably drive an extra 50 miles or so with a PAX tire, vs. a convention run-flat.

     

    I cannot speak to advantages of ride quality. But I do know that with conventional run-flats, I have some options. If your PAX tires turn out to be awful in wet or snowy conditions, you're stuck with them (pardon the pun)-- even if they DO have a nice ride on a dry and sunny day.

     

    Finally, the 17" wheels on my Sienna ARE NOT RARE! Seventeen inches is a STANDARD SIZE! (Why do people keep saying this?) The 18.1" of PAX, however, most certainly IS rare...
  • PAX Tires are 18.1 inches. They have no bead, and are flush with the rim...Weird, but cool!!!!
  • Yatesd:

    You write:"87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage."

     

    Do you have objective evidence that Sienna doesn't develop 230 HP with regular fuel? The manual only states "premium recommended for improved performance". It is more likely the HP numbers will go up by 5 if you use premium and not the other way around.

     

    As pointed out by others, currently Sienna has a better power to weight ratio, so that is better IMO.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,588
    Once the "Tweel" comes to market, PAX and regular run flats will be irrelevant.

     

    The Tweel was written up this month in one of my car magazines. Basically it is an integrated wheel/tire that is not inflated. Some sort of wire thingees support the rubber tread, which is replaceable.

     

    So, no chance of a flat, no need for a spare, etc.

     

    Look really weird though, with no sidewall. But, if they work as hoped, will comepletely revolutionize tire technology!

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,983
    Tweel link (Michelin)

     

    Steve, Host
  • weizeweize Posts: 1
    My 2005 sienna AWD uses the run-flat tires without a spare. Luckily, the wheel size is standard 17". I have checked with a tire dealer. They do not carry the run-flat. I think Honda's PAX has the same concept as Toyota's run-flat.

     

    Obviously, Honda and Toyota are helping the tires companies to promote these new types of tires with the expenses of non-informed consumers.

     

    Toyota sienna AWD has to use the run-flat since they can't find a underbody place for a spare.

     

    I may have to buy a spare and put it behind the third row seats when I replace the all four run-flats to four regular tires. Also, I hope the price and availability of the run-flat or PAX will be better in a couple of years.

     

    Any comments?
  • "87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage."

     

    Thanks for the feedback. Toyota recommends premium fuel for "increased" performance... not for "standard" performance. As stated before, we are getting very good gas mileage on 87 octane--equal or better than advertised in fact--without any knocking/pinging. I don't mean for this to be an arguing point... it is just my own experience (to date) with a Sienna. In short, the van runs very well on 87 octane.
  • davenowdavenow Posts: 171
    mine too. i never used 91 or better. i'm averaging about 24-25 mpg in 70-30 split highway-city(1) driving.

     

    i might add that i don't warm-up the van at all from a cold start, just let it do that on the way.

     

    1 - city - here means locally sporadic stop and go country driving with short perhaps steep hilly terrain in some spots.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,356
    To answer your question, yes, I tell them the pros and cons. So far, the only fears or complaints I've heard are right here, in these forums. Most people see benefits in having them.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Are the benefits they see the benefits of RFTs in general or PAX tires in particular?

     

    I understand and can appreciate the benefits of RFTs in general. That being said, I don't like proprietary technology which FORCES me to use one particular tire, and ONLY one particular tire. That is a huge liablitiy which the PAX tire has which other RFTs do not.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 839
    Really?... So when you mention that these tires can only be replaced at a Honda dealer or a Michelin dealer (one that's decided to purchase the PAX equipment), and that replacement cost is going to be about $1,000 for set (parts, labor, taxes, & bogus parts disposal fee most car dealers charge), the customer says 'Great, it's worth it!'?

     

    I suspect the reason you've heard no fears or complaints is that the customer doesn't yet realize what he's getting into...
Sign In or Register to comment.