Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans

rktech · June 2005

Hi folks...just have to chime in...

I'm driving an '04 Chrysler T&C Limited, and shopping for an '05 Ody Touring. I use my van for people mostly, but I do pull all the seats (pre sto-n-go) once in a while to haul misc. construction garbage...I just throw a tarp down. Anyway, a person will use whatever they drive to do whatever they choose.

BUT, Honda apparently has tipped the scales their way for the time being in terms of performance, handling and comfort. Chrysler will come back with an upgraded package before too long, and we'll see things swing back the other way for a while.
It's the stuff like the bigger NAV screen and voice activation that caught my eye. The adjustable fore and aft middle row seats are a blessing when you're traveling with adults all the time...not to mention seat comfort...now that's a biggy !

The only thing I don't have in my T&C is the DVD screen....I've got the head unit and sirius sat radio (which I wish you could have either or...you know be able to choose sirius or XM, but not just the one...), and my point is, the '05 Ody out does the T&C in all those aspects...

Hey, to each their own, but I think I'll go back to a 36 month lease, and change vehicles as the manufacturers bring out their next best thing every so many years.

marine2 · June 2005

What turned me off on the Honda was the fact that the cloth looked so nice

Sorry, marine2...That just struck me as funny.

It does sound a little funny I admit. But unlike the gentleman above that would take the seats out and throw down a tarp when he wants to haul stuff. I'm sure most Honda owners wouldn't dream of taking a chance hauling building material or other stuff in their van and risk tearing the upholstery in their vans on the seats or sides. I won't even let my grand kids eat or drink in my van, afraid they'll stain the seats and the fabric isn't as nice as the Honda's.

The two vans are nice but they are made for different things. One is a family and working van. The other is a transportation van. Both with most of the goodies owners want on them.

fish8 · June 2005

On the way home yesterday I noticed several top of the line Odyssey's and thought to myself, WOW...those are some nice vans. Even though we own a '05 T&C, there is just something about the new Ody that stands out. I usually don't see a T&C and say WOW, But I do have to compliment Honda is building a good looking/sharp van. I just wish they didn't cost sooooo much more than our Chrysler product. Anyway, so far we are very happy with our van and I plan to wash her this weekend and make her shiny!!!!

I am one of those that REALLY ENJOYS washing cars....I know I'm crazy!!!

mrblonde49 · June 2005

Can also be said if realistic pricing was presented i.e..rebates and financing, the Chrysler would have won. All they did was list MSRPs. "

Anyone with half a brain knows you can get a T&C for $5K off sticker with no effort. And more than that with some effort. Ridiculous how one of the statements was about the price of the $36.3K T&C Limited. That can be had for under $30K. The Ody Touring w/ NAV & DVD stickers at $38.8K and will cost minimum of $36K. And they mention the Michelin tires as a plus. I know for me (and others) it's an absolute deal breaker. No way I want tires that only a select few places can deal with...

I do like the Honda. Very nice. I just don't like it for the premium it comes over a T&C. And, to get the power hatch and power pedals, 2 features that we really like, we have to get the PAX tires, which just doesn't work for me.

97xpresso · June 2005

The Honda is a decent looking van, but I cant believe they still have a gash on each side of the vehicle for the sliding door tracks. At least they follow a crease line in the sheetmetal to make the gash less noticable.

dustyk · June 2005

Actually, with the Honda being touted as vastly superior, the Chrysler still sporting that bad old push-rod motor and out-of-date four-speed transmission, I'm surprised that the vote was that close.

Regards,
Dusty

macakava · June 2005

The old saying, "You get what you paid for", is still alive and strong!!

marine2 · June 2005

Actually, with the Honda being touted as vastly superior, the Chrysler still sporting that bad old push-rod motor and out-of-date four-speed transmission, I'm surprised that the vote was that close.

What is real surprising is why Honda's high tech engine and five speed transmission that puts out fifty more horse power than the (old Dodge) push rod engine and four speed transmission, could only beat the Dodge in the quarter mile by less than one second

Another thing that's surprising, is why Honda, with their new high tech engine that can cut out three cylinders and run on just three cylinders, could only get two miles per gallon more than the Dodge with that (old) push rod engine that has to run on all six cylinders continuesly. I would have thought the Honda would have gotten at least 5-6 miles per gallon more. Especially with their new five speed transmission and Dodge stuck with that (old) four speed tranny.

fish8 · July 2005

Agreed for the most part!!!! But, you pay OUT THE NOSE for it!! :confuse:

In our situation it was not worth the extra $10,000 for lesss options. Again, as I've said before, both cars are great and fit a family's specific lifestyle.

Actually, if money were no object, we would have a Sienna in our garage now.

macakava · July 2005

It depends a lot on where your preference is located in the wide driving spectrum I have described in the past.

fish8 · July 2005

Very True!!!

dustyk · July 2005

Actually, Chrysler is developing a six-speed transmission for FWD using the same design architecture as the Dodge truck 545RFE.

And, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a push-rod motor.

Regards,
Dusty

jipster · July 2005

"And, there's nothing wrong with a push-rod motor"

Many people thought the same thing of the horse and buggy in the early twentieth century when the Model T came along. It's move on or get left behind. While performance wise there may not be much difference. As you can see by reading these forums and other reviews/comparisons...people want the higher tech engines and transmissions. That's where Honda currently holds an advantage.

hansienna · July 2005

Sales numbers do not support that claim. The old fashioned push rod engines with 4 speed AT Caravan and Town & Country still outsell the Odyssey and Sienna by a wide margin.

More people prefer to spend less money for a more flexible DC minivan than to buy the more expensive, higher tech Odyssey or Sienna.

marine2 · July 2005

It will be interesting to see what it'll cost to fix all that high tech stuff when it breaks. One would also expect high tech to do so much better than the old stuff. If not, why put money into it? Really, when you stop and think what Honda came out with, it should have wiped the floor with Chrysler in speed and miles per gallon. And one would expect it to. But it did just barely better in both.

jipster · July 2005

Until this years stow-n-go came out...sales numbers did indeed support my claim. Ody ,Sienna,Kia sales increasing while Dodge/Chrysler decreasing and losing market share. Agreed at the moment higher tech engines/5 speed transmissions doesn't matter much to DC buyers. But, they have probably lost some market share because of it. Hard to say how much due to how far they are ahead in total sales.Isn't Chrysler minis coming out with a 5 speed transmission soon? How much longer you think they'll stay with the push rod? :shades:

dustyk · July 2005

It is strictly speculation that "high tech" engines and transmissions have much effect at all on mini-van sales. Most mini-van buyers are not looking to run LeMans or Indianapolis. They want solid value, convenience, and reasonable performance. These are, by their very definition in form, family or people movers in the extreme, and general everyday haulers second.

If "high tech" engines mean dual overhead cams, the only reason why Honda and others use that design is because they need to extract as much horsepower out of a smaller displacement motor. Increasing the number of valves produces more horsepower at the expense of moving the horsepower and torque curves into a higher RPM range. That by itself isn't bad, but engines make more noise up there and will meet their oil burning point sooner in life, and cost a lot more money to repair should things go wrong. I might add that internal friction rates are generally increased with dual cams, and manufacturing costs are significantly higher.

The fact that a high low-end torque push-rod motor won't see 5500 is not a design detriment, it's a plus.

Those that think a dual overhead cam is high tech might think they have an edge, but in fact it's just not true.

Dusty

marine2 · July 2005

I know I wouldn't want to pay for a valve job on these new engines

macakava · July 2005

The same high tech overhead cam engines from Honda and others easily run over 150K to 200K miles without requiring any major work. I hear more more about valve work with OHV than OHC engines.

macakava · July 2005

That is because Honda and Toyota choose not to to compete in the $15K to $17K base price range in their business models for profit margin purposes.

The main reason for GM gaining recent sales with employee price promotions to the public is because the public believes that the employee prices are what these vehicles are worth. Chyrsler is about to offer the same employee prices for the same reasons. It is interesting to note that both Honda and Toyota saw increased sales as well - so GM's gain was not at the expense of Honda and Toyota.

Maybe this lower employee prices are enough to sway some folks who were postponing future purchases of GM vehicles and saw this promotion as a good timing point to purchase.

The question is: Will GM and others like Chrysler be able to maintain these sales numbers when the employee prices end? Or are employee prices here to stay because that is the true market value of these vehicles?

Let us see how it unravels.

dustyk · July 2005

So will those from OHV makers. There's a gentleman here in town that has a 1971 Plymouth Scamp, 318 engine, that has over 400,000 miles without any major work.

Dusty

marine2 · July 2005

Looking at the reliability figures coming out on GM and Ford by JD Powers, giving these price discounts are a very good idea. The idea is to get as many people as you can to buy your vehicle. If you are making a reliable vehicle, they will buy another from you. That's the way you build brand loyalty to it. It seems as the American manufactures have finally got their act in gear. What they lose on profit now, they will make up later by having a better product and people willing to buy that product without the big discounts. As quality goes up, so do sales.

hansienna · July 2005

Will probably work with me just as a bad vehicle will prevent future sales.
My 1970 Dodge van was so horrible that I would not even look at any Chrysler product for over 30 years.
One son bought a new 2001 Ody EX and 2 years later his brother bought a used 2002 GC Sport. I like the Ody EX seat comfort, flexibility of 2nd row, and the 3rd row Magic Seat...BUT, the GC Sport has separately controlled temp for driver and front passenger, complete overhead console with compass/outside temp and trip computer, and is quieter than the Ody EX.
Because of the comparison, I got a used 2002 T&C LX clone of the GC Sport almost one year ago and like it very well.
Now that DC minivans have Stow N' Go, the Ody EX and GC SXT are very similar in content. Because of the price differential between a new Ody EX and GC SXT, I would probably buy the GC SXT.

macakava · July 2005

From a statistical point of view, this 1971 scamp is likely one of those rare occurrences at the extremely right side/end of a wide Bell-shaped distribution curve.

The trick/challenge is to get most of your product life at the center a narrow/tight Bell -shaped distribution curve with the highest mean life in miles in this example under discussion.

1997montez34 · July 2005

We had a '85 Dodge Ram van with the 318, for 18 years, and accumulated 290,000 miles with no engine work at all. None. Just oil changes.

OHV vs. OHC is a stupid argument. There are good engines and lousy engines of each type. The method of valve acutation is not the reason an engine is good or not.

marine2 · July 2005

Will probably work with me just as a bad vehicle will prevent future sales.

True and that is why Japanese manufactures got such a big share of the market. You just have to listen to some of these owners of Japanese vans to know that they have either had good luck with previous Japanese products, or heard about their quality. That probably most have had American made vehicles made back in the 70's, 80's and 90's and had a lot of repair problems with them. The only way to win back some of these people is put out a good reliable product and price it lower than the imports and hope people will buy it. If they do take the chance and find out it is reliable, the chances are very good, they will buy that brand again and again. Reading that J.D. Powers are saying long term ownership, is proving GM & Ford are really putting out a bunch of good quality cars, can do nothing but help build back market share and win over skeptics.

macakava · July 2005

Th challenge/question for any of these engine type is which one is consistently able to hold a tight narrow Bell-shaped curve with a high mean life of at least 150K - 200K miles without any major rework.

Those engines with extreme low and high lives do not have a consistent behavior and lie in the wide extremes of a statistical Bell-shaped dustribution curve, i.e poor quality. A tight narrow Bell-shaped curve (i.e with low variability or standard deviation) with a high mean life is what high quality/reliability is all about, aka 6-sigma. Vehicles from some manufacturers like Honda exhibit this consistent tight narrow Bell-shaped curve.

dustyk · July 2005

"Vehicles from some manufacturers like Honda exhibit this consistent tight narrow Bell-shaped curve. "

Where are your statistics to back up this claim?

Having been in the automobile repair and fleet management business for over 30 years, I've seen many engines go 150,000 miles, literally 100s of 1960s-80s vintage Slant Sixes go that and more. Older vehicles didn't see that mileage because of economics or rusted out bodies. That's not the same today. Many, and I mean many, GM, Ford, Chrysler-built engines are found with 150,000 miles or more. My 1971 Scamp example may in fact be outside the average, but where can an equal Honda example be found?

So give me your Six-Sigma proof that Honda engines are going farther as a normal course more so than their competition.

Dusty

macakava · July 2005

Honda, Toyota and Nissan only showed their reliability maturity and strength from the early 1990's - so we can't go back that far to 1971.1971 technologies are so outdated in many ways that many people today are so spoilt by the modern reliable features of today like ABS, VSC, dual AC, DVD, 5 - 7 speed auto trannies, air bags, etc that they will not look back to then and live without them.

Like Isellhondas and others have said, it is very common to see OHC engines from Hondas, Toyotas, etc running at least 150K to 200K without problems. Yes there are OHV engines that last that long but many require major maintenance/repairs to get there. My previous Windstar only lasted 54K miles, despite meticulous maintenance before an engine knock forced me to ditch it for an Ody. What a difference in refinement and handling performance!

macakava · July 2005

I agree to a certain extent.

It is one thing to make a reliable product but many folks today want refinement and great performance along with that great reliability.

A great extreme example: a donkey cart is a very reliable machine.You just feed the donkey and pick up its dropping if you have a community conscience. But would you use a donkey cart if you have something better?

More common example: GM has a great OHC refined powerful engine in the 3.6L DOHC 24V V6 engine it uses in its CTS, STS, SRS. But they would not use it in their other car lines like Honda, Toyota and Nissan do across the board. Instead they use older less performing OHV engines that sounds very thrashy compared to the OHC engines in the CTS/STS/SRS or even the Japanese cars. The powerful Ody's engine has such a pleasant, melodic engine tone that it is very enjoyable and sporty to drive compared to the thrashy sounds of the OHV engines,when pushed, in the 60-70 minivan rentals I had in the past 2 yrs.

I guess that the domestics(GM, Ford, Chrysler) are using this strategy to capture that segment of the car buying crowd who do not want to spend too much and are satisfied with those cars. This is probably the differentiator that lets GM, Ford and Chrysler compete with each other. On a different level, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan are having a game of their own.

Infact Toyota, Honda, Nissan are not scared of GM, Ford, or Chrysler. In fact Toyota is even willing to raise their prices to help out GM - sound very sad. They are more concerned with Hyundai who are progressing so fast with refinement in their vehicles(e.g. 2006 Sonata) that is approaching the Japanese level.

We can only hope on July 4th, that GM, Ford and Chrysler wake up and take actions.

hansienna · July 2005

The 2002 GC Sport and T&C LX have more refinement than my son's 01 Ody EX and one needs a stopwatch to measure any noticeable increase of performance by the Ody. The GC and T&C also deliver better gas mileage in the real world driving of my family with these 3 vehicles. The GC and T&C are also more quiet on the road than the Odyssey. The DC minivans also have separately controlled temperature for the driver and front passenger that has been missing on ANY Odyssey until 2005.
Reliability? None of the 3 has had any problems.
Considering all factors, the DC minivans are a better value than the Odyssey, Sienna, or Quest.

marine2 · July 2005

Most people want good performance and reliability in a vehicle. If it does a good job at that, I don't think most care one way or the other if it's high or old tech. These new Honda engines and transmissions are still so new, it hasn't been proven they can go 150,000-200,000 miles with out any major problems.

I don't know that much about the engines in GM and Ford. I do know Chrysler has made some very reliable engines over the years. Most of their problems were mostly trannies and electrical. One only has to go to the Chrysler Club and read what 1st and 2nd generation owners say about their engines. Many have anywhere from 150-250 thousand miles on these vans. Just look around when you drive around town and see how many first generation Chrysler/Dodge minivans you still see on the road. Honda and Toyota has a lot of years to go to show that they can put on those kind of miles without any major repairs. They are still babes in the woods when it comes to years of making minivans and years on the road.

I doubt whether many people bought a Honda because it had a five speed tranny.That high tech engine might have swade a bunch of people thinking they'd get a lot better gas mileage, (which they seem to realize now it isn't happening) But I would wager it was the looks inside, that won most people over.

As for that throaty engine sound. I doubt that turns many people off, because that's the sound of power coming from that engine. Most people like the sound of power. Just think back to the days of the glass packs and the Harley Motorcycles of today. Honda makes a motorcycle that can beat the Harley. But what are people buying and why? When I punch that Dodge, she goes and she goes fast. And the engine makes it sound even faster.

macakava · July 2005

It comes down to value(i.e. how much you want to pay) for some and sporty performance(i.e. how you want to drive) for others. This leads to the wide spectrum of driving preference/style that I have described in the past (i.e. from the "Floridian retirees" to the "Mario Andretti" types). It is obvious which vehicles fit each end of the spectrum.

From the 60 - 70 minivan rentals I had in the past 2 years, which included some loaded new T & C's, I was never impressed when I used my right lead foot. That thrashy sound says, "Don't push me so hard". It is always so much more enjoyable to come back to my Ody and hear that engine sing melodically to me.

Again it all depends where in the driving spectrum that you are.

hansienna · July 2005

Glad we have a choice. Some people like the sound of the Ody engine while others like the nice, quiet, comfortable ride of a DC minivan while enjoying separately controlled temperature for driver and front passenger.
2005 Odyssey front passenger can now enjoy the comfort of separately controlled temperature that DC minivan owners have enjoyed now for 10 years..and 2005 DC minivan owners can enjoy having a rear seat that folds into the floor.
Because of Toyota ingenuity, the 60/40 split fold into the floor 3rd row seat is on Sienna, Odyssey, and DC minivans.

dustyk · July 2005

Hmmm. I didn't see any Six-Sigma proof in your response, and I know of quite a few OHV engines that are still going strong after 150,000 miles and still have not had major repairs. I'm sure Honda engines can go the distance, too, but the claim they do it longer on average or with less repairs has no empirical evidence to back that up. It''s a faith-based claim only.

Dusty

dustyk · July 2005

When we test drove mini-vans in 1999, I can tell you that the Honda gave me no seat of the pants feel that it was faster, only noisier.

Dusty

macakava · July 2005

I would like to see the Bell-shaped distribution curve for the OHV engines if you can provide them.

I do not have them for any engine type, but based on what some agencies like CR are reporting on all vehicle types including engines, tranny, etc it would not be surprising to see a wider, looser Bell-shaped curve for OHV compared to a narrower tighter curve for OHC engines.

It is interesting to note that all high-end/refined vehicles use OHC engines.

Besides the Japanese(Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, etc) and European manufacturers(MB, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, etc), GM and Ford use OHC engines in their high-end Cadillac and Lincoln for obvious reasons. These include refinement, lower noise levels, and more output per same engine displacement. This definitely provide support/preference for OHC in these premium vehicles.

dustyk · July 2005

Engine "refinement" has little to do with OHV versus OHC. The new Hemi engine in Dodge trucks meets federal emissions, is eight db quieter than the engine family it replaces, and runs extremely smooth.

As to noise, overhead cams make engines noisier. Besides increased bearing noise there are as many more mechanical noise generators as there are more valves. In any given platform newer OHC engines might in fact be quieter, but if they are it's because all manufacturers use a much thicker cast valve cover than older die-formed sheet metal valve covers, as well as other noise reduction techniques.

As to making more horsepower, that is not result of overhead camshafts. That is the result of multi-valving. Placing the camshaft in the head will marginally reduce friction depending on design. In some cases the loading effects from two cam drive systems counter any frictional gains. The biggest feature of overhead cam is the reduced effects of push rod bending at high RPMs, thus permitting a more stabilized valve train action at high engine speeds. This is really the only "refinement" result from OHC. For a mini-van this seems counter cultural at best, if not just totally unnecessary.

Dusty

macakava · July 2005

"For a mini-van this seems counter cultural at best, if not just totally unnecessary. "

It depends where you are in the driving spectrum when you get behind the wheel.

That is why the OHV engines of the DGC's/Freestars sound so thrashy compared to the OHC engines in the Ody and Sienna when pushed! This is very obvious fromthe 60+ minivan rentals(mostly DGCs and a few Freestars) I had in the past 2 years of business travels. The HP output of the Ody(255hp) and Sienna(230hp) far exceed the DGCs amd Freestars as well. You can really make them(Ody and Sienna) GO with gusto if you got right lead feet like the C & D guys! Absolutely no comparison, Mon!

dustyk · July 2005

If you like high reving engines, that's fine. there's nothing wrong with that. However, I don't believe that's where most people are.

Now I haven't driven a Honda van in a while, but compared to the Sienna, the Chrysler mini-vans seem just as quiet to me, maybe even more so at highway speeds. I've never been in a Freestar. I most certainly don't think the Chrysler T&C is "thrashy." and in fact most people I know think they are very quiet.

Any manufacturer can make horsepower. The fact that the Fords or Chryslers are not at the Honda or Sienna advertised horsepower as nothing to do with whether they have a camshaft in the middle or in the head. Hondas must live by the same laws of physics that anybody else does. If you make more horsepower you will burn more fuel. Plain and simple. American manufacturers by tradition have favored engine designs that produce higher torque at lower RPMs when compared to the Asian philosophy. This generally benefits fuel consumption on engines that will normally work withoin a narrower RPM range.

hansienna · July 2005

Do NOT do it in a minivan with your family.

Volkwagen introduced the minivan concept with the original VW bus with an anemic little air cooled 4 cylinder engine.
Chrysler added creature comfort items in the original FWD minivan that was also powered by a 4 cylinder engine.
Most adults with children do not want to jeopardize the safety of their children by driving a minivan like a legitimate racing vehicle.

macakava · July 2005

There must be obvious reasons why Cadillac, Lincoln have followed the lead of BMW, MB, Audi, Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinity, etc in using OHC engines in their high-end cars. Some of these reasons include eliminating the thrashy sounds for high refinement levels. OHV is more suitable for trucks where thrashy sounds are more tolerable. Even then, more folks are becoming more selective - the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra sport OHC cam engines and they more refined vehicles than the domestics according to many testing agencies. This is the next segment where the Japanese will dominate. It is just a matter of time.

If you think your wiser than them combined to use OHV engines, that sounds interesting. VERY INTERESTING!

macakava · July 2005

Hans,

It is not racing, but spirited, energetic driving that some of us enjoy in any vehicle we drive. Minivans like the Ody/Sienna/Quest are based on great handing car platforms and they respond to spirited driving.

Again, it depends where you are in the driving spectrum that I have described in the past.

dustyk · July 2005

And which one of us thinks they're wiser?

Both European and Asian manufacturers have had to deal with much higher fuel (gasoline) prices than North Americans since World War Two. The price of fuel has dictated that European and Asian car companies produce much smaller displacement engines to keep fuel consumption low. So for better than five decades they have become very good at getting more power out of smaller displacement engines. Hence, these companies usually have a small displacement philosophy and comensurately smaller displacement engine families.

Having smaller displacement engines has led to the development of overhead, multi-valve engines. It had nothing to do with noise. In fact, placing a drive belt outside of the head and having cam bearings close to the top of the engine is guaranteed to produce more noise. The so-called "refinement" you assume is the simple result of OHC is really in noise reduction techniques, like covering the belt drive components, and bringing thick cylinder partitions up higher, using roller tappets and very thick valve covers to quiet the noise. If these "refinements" hadn't been done then this discussion would be about why OHC engines are so darn noisy.

"OHV is more suitable for trucks where thrashy sounds are more tolerable."

That's funny, because some of these same testers have proclaimed the new Dodge Hemi engine, which uses a cam in the block and push rods to be as quiet or quieter than the competition. In fact, the 5.7 Hemi is 1 db quieter than the smaller 4.7, which is overhead cam.

I was looking at the Chrysler 3.8 and Honda 3.5 engine specs and noticed something curious. The Chrysler 3.8 is undersquared engine at 96 x 89mm, while the Honda 3.5 is oversquared at 89 x 93mm. The Chrysler 3.8 is rated at 205 Hp @ 5200 RPM with 240 lb/ft of torque @ 4,000.

Honda really has two 3.5 engines. Both are mechanically the same, but are tuned differently:

For LX & EX - 255 HP @ 5750 RPM with 250 lb/ft of torque at 5000 RPM

or

For EX with leather (huh?) or Touring, 255 HP @ 5750 with 250 lb/ft of torque @ 4500 RPM.

The LX & EX versions have an EPA rating of 19/25, while the EX with leather or Touring gets 20/28 EPA. Even Honda knows that increasing lower RPM torque is beneficial to fuel consumption. But why do you think Honda provides two different versions of the same engine?

For long-term reliability, I'd take the slower turning Chrysler.

Dusty

hansienna · July 2005

The Japanese have a BIG cost advantage: They do not have to pay the high cost of providing expensive health benefits to former workers who are now retired. :sick:
However, the Japanese automakers must now very carefully look over their shoulder and be concerned about the Korean automakers providing them REAL competition based on lower production costs.
How long before the Chinese competition scares both the Koreans and Japanese?

DC wisely produces half of its minivans in Canada to help lower the cost of production.

mrblonde49 · July 2005

Honda really has two 3.5 engines. Both are mechanically the same, but are tuned differently:

For LX & EX - 255 HP 5750 RPM with 250 lb/ft of torque at 5000 RPM

or

For EX with leather (huh?) or Touring, 255 HP 5750 with 250 lb/ft of torque 4500 RPM.

The LX & EX versions have an EPA rating of 19/25, while the EX with leather or Touring gets 20/28 EPA. Even Honda knows that increasing lower RPM torque is beneficial to fuel consumption. But why do you think Honda provides two different versions of the same engine? "

The difference is VCM. That's why you have better mileage estimates. Only on EX-L & Touring

macakava · July 2005

"The LX & EX versions have an EPA rating of 19/25, while the EX with leather or Touring gets 20/28 EPA. Even Honda knows that increasing lower RPM torque is beneficial to fuel consumption. But why do you think Honda provides two different versions of the same engine?

For long-term reliability, I'd take the slower turning Chrysler. "

C & D minivan June 2004 comparo: The 3.8L engine is gutless and won't cut it with the others(Honda, Toyota and Quest) in this class.

macakava · July 2005

Your smart, Mon!

macakava · July 2005

"How long before the Chinese competition scares both the Koreans and Japanese?"

The Chinese are where the Koreans were 20+ year ago. Their concept of quality is far different from ours. It is one thing to make clothing and other less high-tech stuff, but vehicles for western consumption is a very different thing. They would likely start at where Yugo was when it existed, and have to work VERY HARD to prove themselves to the masses. Of course there will always be a market for CHEAP cars that compromises quality.

The affluent Chinese do not drive Chinese-made cars because of the substandard quality issues. Instead, they drive Japanese and European luxury models.

The cheaper lower grade Chinese cars are ideal for those who want to upgrade from bicycles and mule carts!

dustyk · July 2005

"The difference is VCM. That's why you have better mileage estimates. Only on EX-L & Touring"

Well, that makes sense on the surface, but cutting off cylinders doesn't explain the difference in the torque rating. The two different torque specifications is more likely the result of camshaft timing difference.

Dusty

Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles