Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Minivans

13536373840

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I was trying to keep this discussion in the context of minivans. The only issue that affected the Sienna was the door weld issue.

    The problems with the new 6 speed automatic are pretty well documented, in fact IIRC CR made that front page news. Same with the Tundra's glass camshafts.

    There is no doubt Toyota has had major growing pains. You can't do that kind of volume, especially with rapid growth, and maintain the level of quality control you had before, when you were smaller.

    I don't dispute that at all.

    In fact, an Edmunds member works for a supplier to SIA and surprised me when he said the quality inspectoins for Subaru and more stringent than the ones for the Camry at the same plant.

    Should we be surprised that Subaru passed Toyota in CR surveys? Toyota dropped from 1st to 5th place.

    In the context of the Sienna, though, it's still the most reliable van out there, whether you believe Consumer Reports or TrueDelta. They are using a proven engine and transmission, and one small defective spot weld doesn't change that a bit.

    Also, let's keep in mind Simmermaker is a Union member and runs www.howtobuyamerican.com, not exactly an unbiased reporter.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    It's stuff like this that ticks me off.

    But what has happened since gas prices have been on the decline in recent months? The Wall Street Journal reported a "slight" increase in truck sales by American companies, as Ford Expedition sales were up 41% and Lincoln Navigator sales were up 44%. The American media even tries to restrain its applause for home-based auto companies by referring to gains of over 40% as "slight!"


    And the foreign car lovers will probably also not tell you (or maybe they just don’t know or don’t want you to know) that GM and Ford pour more money into existing American facilities than foreign automakers spend on new plants, usually with little or no tax breaks. GM has already spent over $500 million upgrading two transmission plants this year, and has spent nearly a billion dollars over the last decade, for example, for facility upgrades in Texas. And what do GM and Ford get for making their existing plants more efficient? It isn’t tax breaks. Instead, they get accusations of not being "competitive" enough! Maybe here I should also mention that the average domestic parts content for Kia is 3%, while the average domestic parts content of Ford and GM is 78% and 74% respectively. This means that buying a U.S.-assembled (or even foreign-assembled, for that matter) GM or Ford supports more American jobs than a U.S.-assembled car or truck with a foreign nameplate.

    Fortunately for our benefit, the U.S. remains the overall global leader in research and development, and a big reason for that is that American automakers - according to the Level Field Institute - invest $16 billion in R&D (Research & Development) annually, which outpaces any other industry one could name. Admittedly, the Level Field Institute counts German-owned DaimlerChrysler as an American automaker, so Ford and GM’s combined R&D contribution to America is closer to around $12 billion. But who’s counting, right? Certainly not the American auto-bashing media.

    Japanese companies do employ 3,600 American workers in R&D, but that still leaves the foreign competition behind in the dust staring at American rear bumpers. 3,600 sounds like a big number until you realize that 65,000 Americans work in R&D facilities in the state of Michigan alone. In fact, two of the top four R&D spending companies in America as reported by the Wall Street Journal are - you guessed it - Ford and General Motors. The other two are also American companies: Pfizer and Microsoft


    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753099/posts
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    He's spinning the numbers.

    WSJ said truck sales - that includes pickups, a much bigger percentage of the total pie.

    Simmermaker single out a couple of low volume luxury SUVs, a drop in the bucket when it comes to the big picture of pickup truck sales.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php?t=6417

    It has cost Sienna owners $ 2,000 per front door to fix the problem with spot welds failing in the front doors of Siennas.

    Try this link for more information. I could not find the discussion in the Sienna Club about the BIG DEFECT in 2004-2007 Sienna front doors because I am not a member of the Sienna Club. :shades:
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    What I'm trying to say is lets not put down our American vehicles if they are shown to be putting out decent vehicles. By calling Chrysler/Dodge junk because they had some problems 8-10 years ago, don't make them bad vehicles now. Toyota has had problems before with bad engines. Honda had problems before with bad trannies and sliding doors. But all three put out decent minivans now. By calling Dodge/Chrysler junk, only hurts them and many people who owe their livelyhood to American vehicles. There are many more Americans that owe their livelyhood to American vehicles than foreign ones. Not just the people who build them. When you close a plant in a town, you hurt a lot of people. You hurt the people who own restaraunts, furniture stores, air lines, home sales, even people who work for the city. It hurts people in other states who make parts for that auto company. It takes billions out of our economy and sends it overseas.

    Lets discuss the benefits and short comings of these new minivans. But lets not cut our own throat by judging them today by the problems they had 8-10 years ago. All of them had some major problems. All of them are pretty good vans now.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're using a Chrysler minivan forum as your source for Sienna repair costs?

    C'mon now.

    I am a member of Sienna Club and the issue was discussed over there. When the news arrived from Toyota owners were pleased and the discussion died down.

    In the 2004+ Sienna threads it's way down the list, 38th to be exact.

    That thread got a whopping 5 responses.

    Not exactly the flood of complaints you guys were hoping for, eh?

    You may find a few complaints here on Edmunds, but nowhere near the mass hysteria being implied by a cover-up scandal.

    Sorry, it just wasn't a very big deal.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Reporting to the AP is about as much as you can ask of Toyota. Anyone subscribing to the AP wire has the option of reporting it; those that didn't must not have seen it as newsworthy, but that's not Toyota's fault.
  • maryh3maryh3 Posts: 263

    I respect hansienna's opinions but I think he believes that his opinion is fact, and that everyone agrees with him. That's just not the case.


    And that is my exact feeling about CR and many people's opinion about CR. They are just a bunch of people giving their opinions like everything else. If glare bothers hansienna - his likes ought to be respected. You don't have to agree but this does not make his opinion wrong. Glare obviously is important to him. For me the lack of visibility out the drivers side in the Odyssey drove me nuts. It obviously doesn't bother many people but for me I drive on elementary school parking lots. I need to be able to see along my side so I don't back into a smaller child which even a rear camera might not see because it does not show the side of the van. I don't want to have to roll down the window everytime I back up.

    My opinion isn't better or worse than somebody else's. This doesn't bother most people. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Chrysler's softer, looser steering doesn't bother me either. It is agile and will turn quickly, you just have to turn more. This isn't important to me. But CR and those who accept it's reviewers opinions as if they were facts follow right along. When I see the new T&C judged by CR as having poor visibility because this new version has bigger pillars even though me, the visibility expert, knows that you can see along the side but you will have to move your head somewhat -- but that you simply cannot see along the Odysseys side no matter how you move your head -- and CR mentions nothing about the Odysseys nonvisibilty -- so I accuse them of poor, biased reviews.
  • hause7hause7 Posts: 153
    I don't believe in buying American to help our country crap. My Sienna was built by AMERICANS in Indiana and they were paid for it and they put the money back into the economy when they buy stuff. The Chrysler vans are built in Canada by CANADIANS. The Sienna and Odyssey are built here in AMERICA.
  • maryh3maryh3 Posts: 263
    What they said could be absolutely true. If they use (‘service campaigns’) instead of recalls. Who's to know except the owner? Unless someone speaks out. Keep the myth going.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/14/aw-snap-toyota-recalling-15-600-tundras-for-t- ransmission-shaft/

    Of course it aint true. But CR gave the Tundra a glowing predicted reliability review.
  • maryh3maryh3 Posts: 263
    I don't believe in buying American to help our country crap.

    Though I have bought American, I agree here. What incentive would American automakers have to do a good job if we bought their products regardless of their quality, reliability, price, likability etc? I love foreign competition and it always benefits consumers. I just hate the media if they give untrue reviews.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    Could we move this over to the American /Foreigh board and we can get into this much deeper?
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    Please read my post. I just drove a 2008 Sebring built by the American company, Chrysler in November, 2007. The car had 5997 miles on the odometer when driven off the rental lot in Orlando. The car was a clunking POC, PERIOD. The transmission clunked and SLAMMED back into first gear much the same as the past two 1990's Chrysler products I owned. It growled coursely like a 1950's motor. Why should I believe there has been any improvement in Chrysler's QC?

    "Overall, the entire company has benefited from the intensified focus on quality as Chrysler Group has seen nearly a 45-percent improvement in expense per vehicle (EPUS) from the 1998-2001 model years to the 2006 model year. In external metrics, the Chrysler Group brands continue to make dramatic year-over-year improvements. The 2007 Chrysler Sebring program and its dedicated engineers have made the vehicle another strong statement in the company’s goal of being among the best in quality."



    * Chrysler has posted a 15% improvement on first-time-through powertrain manufacturing capability, resulting in smoother, more efficient assembly processes.
    * Since 1992, Chrysler Group’s conditions per 100 vehicles have been reduced by 68 percent.
    * Chrysler Group's overall warranty expense has been reduced by approximately 50 percent since 1996.
    * At nine months in service, Chrysler Group's expense per unit sold (EPUS) has declined by 13-15% (2003 model year vs. 2002 model year), continuing Chrysler's double-digit improvements.

    The warranty cost reductions are largely through improved powertrains, intensified testing and laboratory validation, and increased durability testing.

    http://www.allpar.com/corporate/quality.html
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    My Sienna was built by AMERICANS in Indiana and they were paid for it and they put the money back into the economy when they buy stuff. The Chrysler vans are built in Canada by CANADIANS. The Sienna and Odyssey are built here in AMERICA.

    Question: Where do the profit go when you buy a Honda or Toyota or Kia? Sure workers are paid a salary which they spend locally.
  • artgpoartgpo Posts: 483
    Please read my post. I just drove a 2008 Sebring built by the American company, Chrysler in November, 2007. The car had 5997 miles on the odometer when driven off the rental lot in Orlando. The car was a clunking POC, PERIOD. The transmission clunked and SLAMMED back into first gear much the same as the past two 1990's Chrysler products I owned. It growled coursely like a 1950's motor. Why should I believe there has been any improvement in Chrysler's QC?

    I have documented the Dodge Truck assembly line worker I met late last year. The man fixes, you read that correctly, fixes, rear axle assemblies on the Ram pickup production line. The man claimed that due to production pressures he passes on potentially defective parts. I recently met a retired GM executive who said that early in his career he passed on defective parts. Today he drives an Acadia and says its quality is world class, something CR seems to agree with. My standard is my friend, the Chrysler dealer sales manager who bought an Odyssey for his wife because, as he said "I did not want her driving a Chrysler POC". He made that statement in 2007, not 1997.

    My son owns a 2008 Sienna XLE, a very well made, solid vehicle. My 2006 Odyssey EX-L has been a wonderful people mover. I have a brake issue covered by a TSB but it is more annoying than a safety issue. Would I buy American in the future? Perhaps but not a product of the Chrysler Corp.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    It's called hyperbole.

    It's a global economy. GM is building V6 engines for the Equinox in China. GM-DAT (Daeweoo, basically) is building Aveos in Korea, the best seller in the segment BTW.

    Chrysler builds cars in Canada and Mexico, and they tote these as being "domestic". Gracias, amigo, for the jobs.

    Is the Grand Caravan really a domestic if it's built outside of the USA?

    They don't hesitate to paint PT Cruisers with american flags to help sell these "domestics".

    Ford builds the Fusion in Mexico.

    Did you know that the Camry is the only car represented in NASCAR racing that is built in the US? Ironic, no?

    Automakers have to be efficient to survice, so this is inevitable. They do and indeed should source the parts from the most efficient source. If they don't, someone else will and they will lose sales.

    Heck, you should head over to the Mistubishi Outlander threads. Those guys pitch the "Made in Japan" status of that model as a distinct advantage. I don't, but those folks do.

    Any how, we could argue forever, but it won't change a thing. What will bring customers back is good product. GM has hits with the Malibu, the Lambda crossovers, and most of the Caddillac lineup. CR gave all of them glowing reviews.

    Ford and Chrysler would be wise to follow that business model.

    GM, Ford and Chrysler have to build some vehicles in Canada and Mexico or they wouldn't be able to compete at all. The foreign makers come over here and build new plants with tax breaks given them by the state. They hire new employees that are not ready to retire, don't have five weeks vacation coming to them. They pay them a lower wage, get a break on medical because they are younger and don't have to pay medical to retirees. Can you even imagine the profit advantage they have on domestic makes right from the start? One reason they can usually offer more on their vehicles than American manufactures can.

    To say Chrysler, or Ford doesn't put anything back into the American economy because they are losing money is far from the truth. Where do you think all that money goes? It's in higher employees wages and pensions, which that employee spends on goods and services right here. It pays taxes for police and firemen. It pays taxes for schools, city, county and state workers. It goes for furniture, food and airplane tickets. Where do you think that money goes to pay that health care for both employees and retirees? To Americans.

    Where do you think that profit goes that the foreign makers make? That profit that they don't have to pay out in taxes, health care, vacations pensions, etc? Most of it goes right back to their country, to create jobs for them.

    Chrysler builds Dodge/Chrysler minivans in Canada. But they also build them in St. Louis. Mine was built in Canada, with a 83% N. American content. Engine and transmission built in the USA. With that big a content, most of that money stays here creating jobs for us, not Asians, or Europeans.

    There is a big profit advantage these foreign manufactures have on American manufactures that they can't over come. Because they are locked into those contracts with employees. They don't get big tax discounts on their factories. Maybe if some tried to see the problem, they would be more understanding.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    I had read several months ago that Chrysler is pushing to have their customers have their vehicles serviced at their dealerships. They said too many customers were having them serviced at places like Quick Lube and etc.

    They stressed that their products use certain lubricants in their transmissions, radiators, power steering units, and etc. that weren't being used by these service centers. It was causing quality problems.

    That might be the reason they send me discount coupons every few months to have my oil changed and etc. which I posted recently.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    I live in Arizona where it gets extremely hot in the summer. On the top of my oil dipstick, it says to use 5W 20W oil. I thought that was way to light of an oil to use here in this heat and asked the service advisor if I could use a 10W30W oil. He told me no. He said the heat won't break the oil down as long as I have it serviced according to the time table in the owners manual. He said it was extremely important to only use the type and grade of fluids recommended in the manual. He said even the antifreeze Chrysler uses is different than some of the other makes uses. I don't think many people realize now days the importance of this, because it wasn't like that years ago.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    For the first comment I was referring to the Door Weld issues on the Sienna.

    You let that myth (CR not reporting that issue) slide right by


    I never mentioned the "Door Weld" issue, and have skipped over all those postings previously. That's why it slipped by
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    Last time at the dealer for oil change cost me about $20 (w/coupon) and a 4 hour wait for car. It took them longer though because my front outer tie rods were shot (thanks to crappy Michigan roads). The dealer found this because all oil changes get a 21 point inspection. The dealer went ahead and replaced the tie rods immediately because my 3 year warranty was up in 3 days, to save me money! So far I've had a great experience with my dealer here (Golling Dodge in West Bloom Michigan)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    CR gave the Tundra a glowing predicted reliability review

    Which seemed fair at the time, given previous Tundras and the T100 had a consistently good reliability record.

    As soon as they got enough data to show the new Tundra has glass shafts and was not reliable, they down rated it and published a front page story on Toyota's woes. Same for the 6 speed auto in the Camry V6, another model that is now rated below average and was also mentioned in that front page, headline grabbing article.

    They even took a further step - for all new Toyota models they will wait until they have enough reliability data before they recommend them.

    That's a pretty big slap in the face. What bias?

    Note that the Sienna is not affected by either issue and is still recommended, data which agrees with findings from TrueDelta.com and SiennaForum as well.

    The problem here is the people criticizing CR don't read it, so they're not really qualified to make judgements about something they haven't read!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Question: Where do the profit go when you buy a Honda or Toyota or Kia? Sure workers are paid a salary which they spend locally.

    I have 2 issues with that argument.

    First off, Chrysler is losing money, so there is no profit. They're not putting profits back in to the american economy, in fact you may argue they're doing the opposite - creating a liability equal to those losses.

    Second, the profits would go to some filthy rich shareholders. If you're asking if I care whether Bill Ford, Jr. is worth 7 trillion dollars or 8 trillion dollars, the answer is no, I could care less.

    I read Iacocca's book. That year where he made his salary $1/year? He made millions in stock options. Maybe that's why today Chrysler has a $3000/car handicap over the newcomers.

    Perhaps Chrysler deserves a rebate for what it (over)paid all those executives over the years.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    The problem here is the people criticizing CR don't read it, so they're not really qualified to make judgements about something they haven't read!

    You know this for a fact how? I've been getting CR for about 5 years, as a gift from my parents, it makes amusing reading. To say those that criticize, don't read it?? Whateva!

    Funny how CR can give the Tundra, which was totally redesigned a glowing review, when a domestic car, which was slightly redesigned and had an avg rating in previous year, can't get the same treatment etc... I'd call this bias!!

    Funny how you pick up an issue of CR and only see pics of Japanese cars on the cover or leads of articles? I'd call this bias!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're the exception, in that case.

    Remember, what started this conversation was an accusation that CR ignored the door weld problems on the Sienna, followed by the Ody's transmission woes. CR documents both of those issues.

    Why didn't you defend CR, if you knew that was inaccurate?

    More recently the Tundra recommendation was criticized - any reader/subscriber would have known the full story.

    Again, you were silent about that. Why?

    Did you not get this month's issue? Where the Caddy CTS whops up on BMW and Mercedes? Is that bias too?

    You subscribe, OK, I believe you, but do you really read it?

    Their last 2 Buying Guides had the Dodge Caliber and Saturn Outlook on the cover, both domestics.

    I'm going to borrow your line here: Whateva! :P
  • maryh3maryh3 Posts: 263
    They pitted the Tundra with the optional 5.7 liter V-8 against the Chevy with the standard 5.3 liter engine, producing 66 hp less than the Tundra. They could have used the 6.0 liter optional Vortec V-9 MAX which is more closely comparable to the optional Toyota engine, but they chose not to.

    They also pitted a Tundra with a 4.30 axle ratio against the Silverado with a 3.73 ratio, then gave the Tundra praise for having better acceleration. But the Silverado offers a 4.10 axle ratio as a no charge customer selection.

    Not only that, but they predicted that Toyota’s Tundra would have an above average frequency of repair rating. The Silverado? Too new to classify.


    The Toyota won the test.

    Surprise. It’s sorta like a boxing match were one of the competitors has his hands tied.

    In response to criticism of the “comparison” test, Consumer Reports has posted an explanation on its blog. It’s complete doublespeak, but you can judge for yourself: click here.

    Consumer Reports explanation boils down to saying that they selected trucks that used the powertrains most frequently purchased by consumers.

    Then, why do they call it a comparison test?

    As John Neff, who broke this story at Autoblog, notes, “Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they’re about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.”

    An equal comparison is not what Consumer Reports has done. Moreover, instead of admitting they used a flawed design for their testing, they’ve elected to defend their choices on the basis of a criterion utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the test.

    The test wasn’t biased merely in the vehicles selected.

    Giving the Tundra a predicted above average reliability rating while saying that the Silverado is to new to rate is plan ludicrous.

    The Tundra, as Neff points out, is an all new vehicle produced at a brand new plant. The engine Consumer Reports selected for its test is the one that breaks camshafts, seemingly at random. The Silverado is a new chassis and body, but the drivetrain in the truck is one that has been on the market for some time. And it is the Silverado that’s too new to rate? It’s the truck with the 20 engines, so far, that have had to be replaced because their camshafts broke shortly after delivery that gets the “above average” rating for reliability?

    Yup. That’s the way Consumer Reports did it.

    http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/consumer-reports-never-to-be-truted-ar4156- 9.html
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    First off, Chrysler is losing money, so there is no profit. They're not putting profits back in to the american economy, in fact you may argue they're doing the opposite - creating a liability equal to those losses.

    I happen to work in the auto industry here, and actually know how it works. Domestics OEM DESIGN (more engineering/technical jobs) and SOURCE (more tooling, design work for the actual tools) products here....creating more jobs HERE. Not just slap some parts together using engines from Japan or trannys from China.

    Second, the profits would go to some filthy rich shareholders. If you're asking if I care whether Bill Ford, Jr. is worth 7 trillion dollars or 8 trillion dollars, the answer is no, I could care less.

    Apparently you do care enough to spout off insane numbers like trillion. It's not your business or mine what boards want to pay their CEO or shareholders, we're still a free capitalistic country, and even if they're paid "trillions", do your really think that money just sits in some bank account doing nothing for this country? It does trickle down and lifts all boats here!
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155

    As soon as they got enough data to show the new Tundra has glass shafts and was not reliable, they down rated it and published a front page story on Toyota's woes. Same for the 6 speed auto in the Camry V6, another model that is now rated below average and was also mentioned in that front page, headline grabbing article.

    They even took a further step - for all new Toyota models they will wait until they have enough reliability data before they recommend them.

    That's a pretty big slap in the face. What bias?


    I read CR pretty well, but didn't see that front page story. What issue was it in? I still have some back issues of it.
  • marine2marine2 Posts: 1,155
    Please go to the thread that deals with American/ foreign and leave this one for the new vehicles.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's called hyperbole.

    It's a global economy. GM is building V6 engines for the Equinox in China. GM-DAT (Daeweoo, basically) is building Aveos in Korea, the best seller in the segment BTW.

    Chrysler builds cars in Canada and Mexico, and they tote these as being "domestic". Gracias, amigo, for the jobs.

    Is the Grand Caravan really a domestic if it's built outside of the USA?

    They don't hesitate to paint PT Cruisers with american flags to help sell these "domestics".

    Ford builds the Fusion in Mexico.

    Did you know that the Camry is the only car represented in NASCAR racing that is built in the US? Ironic, no?

    Automakers have to be efficient to survice, so this is inevitable. They do and indeed should source the parts from the most efficient source. If they don't, someone else will and they will lose sales.

    Heck, you should head over to the Mistubishi Outlander threads. Those guys pitch the "Made in Japan" status of that model as a distinct advantage. I don't, but those folks do.

    Any how, we could argue forever, but it won't change a thing. What will bring customers back is good product. GM has hits with the Malibu, the Lambda crossovers, and most of the Caddillac lineup. CR gave all of them glowing reviews.

    Ford and Chrysler would be wise to follow that business model.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    Why didn't you defend CR, if you knew that was inaccurate? ???????

    More recently the Tundra recommendation was criticized - any reader/subscriber would have known the full story. Because of their bias against domestics. I've brought this up many times and Mary has done a great job of summarizing it.

    Did you not get this month's issue? Where the Caddy CTS whops up on BMW and Mercedes? Is that bias too? Ohh so a few token pictures makes up for years and years of bias?

    You subscribe, OK, I believe you, but do you really read it? No, I only look at the pretty pictures in it!! Duh!
This discussion has been closed.