Howdy, Stranger!

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





Buying a Used Sienna

I'm in the market for a mini van but not wanting to spend too much money. We found at a dealership a 2002 Symphony model for $8600. It has been very well kept, body in excellent condition, interior good, runs excellent as far as I can tell. Noticed a funny odor from the exhaust when dealer first started up that is hard to describe, but finally went away. She has 120,000 miles on her, but have been told by a mechanic it is just broke in. Your comments please, should I bring her home?
«13456789

Comments

  • Well, no one said anything...so I bought it. No watch everyone say you shouldn't have!

    Good running mini-van if I must say. I'll keep you posted as we run the wheels of of it.
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,345
    yes, powertrain should be the last thing to go. bring er home.
  • schottpghschottpgh Posts: 2
    My husband and I are looking at purchasing a 2006 Sienna LE (pkg 3, I believe) for $17,200. However, it was used as a dealer service vehicle and has 32,000 miles on it. Should we be concerned? We both drove it and it seems fine, but what can you really tell from a 30-minute test drive?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That price is a steal.

    Considering the price is so low, ask if the dealer will run it through the CPO program so that you get it CPO. Even if it adds a grand to the price, you're still getting a bargain.

    An 07 LE with that package is over $25 grand.
  • newbie2007newbie2007 Posts: 1
    We are looking to buy a used minivan (sienna or Odyssey) for 10K to 12K.
    I did some research on KBB and almost decided to buy 2000/2001 Honda Odyssey. Mainly due to it's 5 star front
    crash rating plus folding rear seat. Sienna is little behind wrt these two points.
    My brother who also owns a 2001 Sienna told me about this forum. I did some digging in this forum on Odyssey and Sienna. And now, my general feeling is that Honda Odyssey has more repeating problems with Engine and Transmission. Whereas I could not find very prominent and repeating problems being disucssed about Sienna. That makes me think
    now I should start looking for Sienna rather than Odyssey.
    Please correct me if my feeling is wrong. Also any advise about 2000/2001 Sienna is welcome.
  • schottpghschottpgh Posts: 2
    Thanks for the reply....I think we're going to go for it. I thought it was too good to pass up, but wanted another opinion.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Be careful with the 3.0l V6 from that Sienna, as I think those were affected by the sludge issues Toyota had.

    I'd search for a later 3.3l V6 model, whenever that was introduced.

    If you do get the 3.0l, ask for proof of oil changes, and consider using synthetic oil, which better protects against sludge.

    Maybe spend a bit more and get a higher mileage 3.3l V6 that is newer?
  • freeriderfreerider Posts: 3
    I went ahead and bought it. Rides and runs great. I think we made a good choice. I changed the timing belt, water pump, and new plugs. Get about 24 mpg. Hope to run it to 300k miles.
    No engine sludge. Previous owner changed oil regularly.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Cool, congrats, then!
  • lntlnt Posts: 189
    My son is looking at a 2004 XLE Sienna with 68,000 miles on it. Is the engine a non interference engine? Does the 2004 model still have a belt or does it have a chain? If a belt, should it be changed at 60 or 90 thousand? I think that is a lot of miles, but since it is a toyota, I guess it might be okay. Any warnings about problems with the 04? The people want $18,900 for it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Price seems high to me. I didn't look at a lot of used ones, but the few that I did see weren't that high, at least not for an 04 with that many miles.

    The 3.3l V6 uses a timing belt. I'm not sure about the interval for replacement, though. The 3.5l V6 they started using for MY2007 uses a chain.

    Honestly? Get him to sacrifice a few options and just buy new. You can get a CE for $22k brand new, and that's with 266hp. I got an LE package 3, that has power sliding doors on both sides, alloys, trip computer, and stability control cost me just over $25k.

    That plus the rebate looks like it went up for June, so he might be able to get one just under $25k new.

    I know that seems like a stretch from $19k, but if you think about it the ownership costs might actually be lower. You get lower rates for new car loans vs. used. No timing belt to change, ever. 0 miles vs. 68,000 miles. And I'm sure an 07 will be worth a lot more than an 04 when he ends up selling it.

    At least shop for a better price. $19k is just too close to a new one for comfort.
  • searcher5searcher5 Posts: 1
    Hello Sir..I am looking for 2007 Toyota sienna LE option # 3.Where did you buy? I am in Louisville.Is that the price out the door?Who is the dealer?
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,345
    searche, I'm from Louisville. I'd be careful if buying from Toyota of Louisville. They like to play games, as well as try to lay a $480 doc. fee on you.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    BEWARE of the hype about the 2007 Sienna with 266 HP at a much higher 6200 RPM while the TORQUE had a small increase to 245 Lb Ft at a much higher 4700 RPM.

    Would be VERY interesting to see an actual test of a 2007 Sienna 3.5L vs the 2006 Sienan 3.3L. Does the 2007 Sienna ACTUALLY accelerate any faster than the 2006 since the 2007 engine must be revved higher to develop the increased power? :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You don't have to warn me, I own it and the power is there, I feel it every time I hit the gas pedal.

    The results are noticeable, too. Even the slow pokes at Consumer Reports got it to 60mph in 7.8 seconds. Another site had it clocked at 6.7, which is sports sedan territory.

    Both results are substantially faster than the 3.3l managed to obtain.

    Peak horsepower is only 600 rpm higher than before, not exactly "much higher" as you stated.

    Not to mention the Direct Injection actually made the torque curve flatter. It makes more torque at all RPM, even near idle.

    I saw a torque curve, and it was very impressive.

    Sorry, hansienna, but my advice is DO NOT test drive the 3.5l model or you will go into a deep and severe depression. The new engine is much, much quicker. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Flat as a pancake. Funny thing is the V6 has such an amazing torque curve that it makes the V8 look positively peaky! :D

    Look like at 2000rpm it's making more torque than the old 3.3l engine did at its peak, just about.

    No contest.

    Oh, and no sacrifice in fuel mileage to boot.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    Actual numbers:

    3.3L has 215 HP at 5600 RPM / 222 Lb-ft at 3600 RPM

    3.5L has 266 HP at 6200 RPM / 245 Lb-ft at 4700 RPM

    Tachometer REDLINE is 5900 RPM...so the 3.5L V6 NEVER does achieve Maximum HP unless the tach is in REDLINE. :shades:
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    The 2006 Sienna 3.3L has DIRECT INJECTION just as the 2007 Sienna 3.5L.

    Didn't CR test the Sienna 3.3L in an WLL WHEEL DRIVE Sienna that will NOT accelerate as fast as the FWD only? :confuse:

    The new 3.5L is just MARGINALLY quicker than the 3.3L if both Siennas are either FWD or AWD. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You are only looking at one single data point, and mis-using it at that.

    What the numbers actually mean is that the new 3.5l breathes better and maintains torque at higher rpms, while the old engine had the torque drop off sooner.

    You are (erroneously) concluding that the new engine has less torque at the same rpm. That is wrong, as the graph proves. In fact it makes more torque at all rpm.

    So what if peak HP is near redline? It still makes more HP than the old engine at all RPM, from idle all the way up to redline, but even at low RPMs.

    Look again at that flat torque curve. It makes more torque at 2500rpm than the 3.3l did at its peak.

    More torque all the time in every scenario. With no sacrifice in gas mileage.

    The 3.5l wins, period. It's better in every way.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Remove your blind fold and you will see the 3.5l is a brilliant engine and far superior to the 3.3l in your van.

    I think you're unhappy with your van for some reason and you've made it your mission in life to put down the Sienna, and that has made you biased enough to ignore facts like the torque curve above.

    That's a shame. You seem knowledgeable and could be a good resource to the Sienna owner community, but you simply refuse to. Too bad.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The 2006 Sienna 3.3L has DIRECT INJECTION just as the 2007 Sienna 3.5L

    Incorrect. It has MFI, but not DI.

    Tachometer REDLINE is 5900 RPM

    Incorrect. Redline is 6400 rpm.

    The new 3.5L is just MARGINALLY quicker

    Incorrect. You have not driven the 3.5l, otherwise you would not say that.

    The 3.3l delivered a mid-8 second 0-60 in most publications (sources: Motorweek, Consumer's Guide). Certainly adequate, but not quick by today's standards.

    The 3.5l has been clocked at 6.7 and 7.8 seconds (sources: KBB and Consumer Reports), appreciably quicker.

    CR's fuel mileage was identical to their old one: 19mpg overall. No sacrifice there either.
Sign In or Register to comment.