Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna

rorr · April 2006

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.

thegraduate · April 2006

DING DING DING DING
*******************

Johnny, we have a winner!
*************************

I agree with everything you said, and second that!

jipster · April 2006

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?

socalawd · April 2006

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.

thegraduate · April 2006

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.

rorr · April 2006

"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.

jipster · April 2006

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.

thegraduate · April 2006

Ding Ding!

*Ladies and gentlemen, your intermission begins now. Please return to your seats shortly, as the third act will follow.

cccompson · April 2006

I made no such claim, only that the odometers on six vehicles from five different manufacturers were accurate.

socalawd · April 2006

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)

socalawd · April 2006

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.

jipster · April 2006

(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

)...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.

user777 · April 2006

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.

hansienna · April 2006

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.

elroy5 · April 2006

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.

user777 · April 2006

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.

jipster · April 2006

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 pole...it was because of the snow, ice, they didn't have VSC..whatever. OH, but if someone suggest they are driving to fast for road conditions...man...it'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.

hansienna · April 2006

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:

rorr · April 2006

"...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.

jipster · April 2006

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 labratories...so 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.

rorr · April 2006

"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)?

artgpo · April 2006

You were going to fast for driving conditions! So, yes...it 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.

jipster · April 2006

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!

jipster · April 2006

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:

thegraduate · April 2006

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

rorr · April 2006

"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?

jipster · April 2006

aHA A born cynic.

LOL. I don't care what anybody else says...you guys are alright.

rorr · April 2006

Yeah, I usually don't care what anybody else says either....

easym1 · April 2006

ANYTHING THAT WILL MINIMIZE OUR IMPERFECTION IS ALWAYS WELCOME.

artgpo · April 2006

BIG 10-4!

frunobulax · April 2006

Hello,

I have read almost all of the messages on this forum and thought I would throw my opinion on Sienna vs Odyssey.

I had a 2000 Sienna XLE that gave perfect service until it was traded last week for a Honda Odyssey. We spent absolutely nothing on unscheduled mantenance. My only complaint with the Sienna was the small size, wide turning radius, and the somewhat vague steering/suspension feel (my other car is a '98 BMW M3, so I am probably biased by that).

We decided we needed a larger van. With three kids and a large dog, the Sienna was frustrating due to the lack of cargo space. We only had 2 kids and no dog when we got the Sienna, so it was adaquate. Even though I wanted a Honda back then, the wife liked the Sienna better becuase it was smaller, and big enough. We were also not keen on getting the first year model of any car. So, we got the 2000 Sienna.

Since everyone we knew that had Chrysler minivans had some sort of major problem, we ruled them out. That left Toyota and Honda.

We were biased toward Toyota becuase of the reliability of our old Sienna, and the fact that relatives that had Toyotas all reported absolutly no problems during long service.

We had a 2005 rental Sienna when our Sienna was in the body shop (rear ended), and we liked it.We considered used 2005 Siennas, but the lack of stability control and side curtain airbags in vans that we could find forced us to consider a new one.

The Toyota dealer used sales was quite reasonable, and came up with quite reasonable prices and trade-ins. The vans just did not have the features we wanted. We shifted to the new department, and took a test drive, and liked the Sienna. I noticed that the 2005 had the same vague, isolated road feel as my old Sienna, but I realize it's a mini van, not a sports car. I also noticed a hesitation when accelerating from a slow speed that seemed to be transmission related. The room and interior features were fine. We decided to get quotes. If the price was right we would have bought it. Unfortunaly, for some reason the salesman could not give a price, but said he would call us that evening. The Totyota option packages made my head spin, but I knew what I wanted. The salesman never called back. Maybe I wanted an unavailabe configuration package (RES, leather, stability control).

After the lack of response at Toyota, we thought we would go try a Honda just for peace-of-mind, and then return to Toyota and see what we could do. So with our title, and checkbook in hand we visited the Honda dealer. The plan was to go to the Toyota dealer next. I was really ready to get a van, and was almost sure I was getting a Toyota, but I had to drive a Honda first.

The first thing I noticed about the Honda was the steering and suspension. The steering was heavier, and seemd to have better on-center feel. Also, when turning, the Honda seemed better planted to the road. To me, the difference was night and day. It was not a subtle difference at all. I realize that with reagard to objective measurements, there may be little or no difference, but the driving sensation of the Honda was far better for me. No matter what some feel about the BMW compariason, the steering, and firmer suspension do make for a much more like a BMW than the Sienna. No, the Honda handles nothing like my M3, but the on-center connected feel of the steering was quite suprising. I have never driven a Honda of any type, so this may be typical for Honda. Every Toyota I have driven seems more isolated than I like.

My wife noticed the different road feel, and actually liked the interor of the Honda better, and noticed the difference in steering. See noted that the tighter turning radius, along with the steering sensation, and stiffer ride made the Honda seem smaller than our old Sienna.

Since both the new Sienna and Odyssey were way beyond our old Sienna in all areas, and the fact that we would be happy with either one, we were stumped. We knew Toyotas were generally trouble free. We liked the simple options of the Honda better than the confusion of Toyota options. We liked the Honda RES configuration better. The Toyota 8th seat seemed better, but the captians chairs were smaller than the Honda. Both my wife and I are 5'8 and found that all seating positions (except 8th) in both vans were fine.

Both vans are great, but the driving sensation of the Honda, broke the tie for me.

We bought the Honda without returning to the Toyota dealer across the street.

After driving the Honda for the week, my wife commented that the Honda feels much more stable than our old Sienna.

If the new Honda is as reliable as our old Sienna, its great.

cpsdarren · April 2006

Indeed-

Sure, drivers are the untimately cause of most all crashes. Even so, there's no changing drivers in our society. For most people cars and driving are treated as a constitutional right rather than a priviledge. Mandatory safe driving classes or significantly increased enforcement? Not going to happen, even if the funds were available. It's far easier to make vehicles safer than to retrain/remove poor drivers. Plus, even the best drivers can have a lapse in judgement.

hansienna · April 2006

Congratulations on your purchase. Nice, detailed report of your experience.

We met responsive, pleasant salesmen at 2 Honda dealerships and the 1 Toyota dealership where we got our Sienna. The Honda dealerships, however, required a $ 500 NON-refundable deposit to get on the waiting list for a new 2006 Odyssey. Both :sick: Honda dealership smug, arrogant policy requiring a deposit made our choice of the Sienna quite easy and we felt bad for the Honda salesmen...but not enough to be jerked around by both Honda dealerships.

jipster · April 2006

there's no changing drivers in our society.

That's a defeatist and pessimestic attitude. Hopefully not everyone thinks like that. Increased enforcement & education worked and is working to keep drunk drivers off the road. Many states are adopting the "no cell phone while driving" laws...as well as mandatory seat belt laws.
So, to throw in the towel will leave more dead and injured on our roads and highways.

Mandatory safe driving classes?...wouldn't fly. Having "funds availabe" is just a matter on society putting it's priorities in order. How much has all the improved safty features reduced driver injury and death in accidents the past 2 decades? Check it out.

thegraduate · April 2006

No car is worth being belittled over, not even a Honda! I'm glad you found a good Toyota dealer. Here, we'd never deal with Tameron Honda again (arrogance out the wazoo!), but continue dealing with Serra Honda (prev. Neil Bonnett Honda) since 1990.

hansienna · April 2006

We would be driving a 2006 Odyssey EX (cloth) instead of a 2006 Sienna LE if either Honda dealership had treated us decently and the Toyota dealer had been rude and arrogant. We like both vehicles.
The Ody EX costs a little bit more than the Sienna LE but does have the choice of seating 7 or 8 people in the same vehicle AND separately controlled temperature for the driver and front passenger and 2 power sliding doors but I like having the driver side door NON power as it can be opened and closed more quickly. My wife and I both like the Sienna complete overhead console with compass, outside temp, and trip computer.

user777 · April 2006

one wonders why the insurance agencies don't push periodic refreshers (and offer associated discounted rates for same). maybe they want accidents to happen? think about that one.

it doesn't cost much nor represent significant inconvenience to have periodic refreshers or additional defensive driving training.

if they banned cellphone use alone, the resulting reduction in accidents (all severities) would be dramatic.

when you are behind the wheel, you need to be actively engaged in the task of driving and not distracted by calls to/from the office, family, or friends.

but we are drifting off topic.

both vehicles offer the additional safety technologies of stability control and three row side curtains. the side curtains are a no-brainer for me. the stability control? for me personally, it isn't a necessity - but i'd rate it as a nice to have (providing it is reliable and doesn't add to cost of maintenance).

i tend to be a late adopter of certain technologies. i advocate increased driver competency (defensive driving, high number of hours behind the wheel for teens) and reduced driver distraction (ban cell phones, and no passengers for teens).

as far as cost, i expect manufacturers to offer up VSC for example with little to no increase in cost because it is built on ABS and Drive-By-Wire infrastructure already in the vehicles for other reasons.

in the end, even though i'm a late adopter of certain technologies, i'd want a vehicle with VSC. i'm not always the one behind the wheel. (in case she's reading this: lemme make this clear - i'm not saying i'm a better driver than my wife).

cpsdarren · April 2006

I prefer realistic, rather than pessimistic. I volunteer in the area of traffic safety. The reality is that funding has dwindled and our program is a shell of what it used to be, as are most other traffic safety programs in our area.

If my remarks upset you, you are always welcome to help the cause. Local traffic safety programs can use all the support they can get, from time, donations or even when it comes to writing your congressperson for the national highway appropriations bill. This is almost always slashed in a budget compromise because most constituents and congress don't really care about the epidemic of highway fatalities until it strikes them personally.

I do give congress credit for passing the transportation equity act last year, which the president signed in a nearby town. Optimistically, that will remain fully funded for its duration with enough support. Realistically, with the usual support it gets, it will be slashed in favor of some other budget crisis.

In the end, I drive safely to keep my family safe. I buy a safe vehicle and properly restrain my family because I know that I can make a mistake, no matter how safely I try to drive. Plus, I realize there are always going to be dangerous drivers on the road. Crashworthiness and crash avoidance are both important.

jipster · April 2006

Given the lack of funding and the apathetic view of many over highway safty...I can see why you are so "realistic".

But, I still feel it is unwise to write that people and unsafe driving habits will never change. As it may very well have the opposite effect that you/we desire. Why go in to fight for something if you are fighting a losing battle?

cpsdarren · April 2006

Good question, I ask that myself sometimes. At least it does seem to be somewhat easier to get people to secure their children properly than it is to suggest they change their habits while driving.

fred222 · April 2006

Sure, drivers are the untimately cause of most all crashes. Even so, there's no changing drivers in our society
This is where mandatory insurance comes in. If you drive really really badly, you will be priced out of insurance so that you cannot drive. Now all the police need to do is enforce the insurance laws rigorously and the streets will be much safer.

cpsdarren · April 2006

So one would think. Until you see stories like this one that occurred in our county recently:

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/news/clifford-headlines/speed-cited-as-factor-in-2018- - - 05-crash-killing-3-west-chicago-wreck-is-ruled-accident

One would think that with a Ferrari and 24 citations over 9 years, insurance premiums would be crushing for a 27 year old male... Maybe he was rich or simply didn't have insurance despite the law requiring it in Illinois?

thegraduate · April 2006

Key word in that is "with a Ferrari." If a 27 year old has a Ferrari, he's obviously not average ecnomically relative to most 27 year old males. Or any other people, for that matter.

cpsdarren · April 2006

Lol. I knew a few people who bought exotic sports cars right after college even though they couldn't really afford them. I guess for some, status and speed are more important than eating...

05ody · April 2006

I know sometimes the power sliding doors can be slow and a real pain in the [non-permissible content removed] when your in a hurry, and although the power can be shut off I find they are heavy. But even with the power to the doors off, if you do not completlly shut the door, it shuts itself! haha really neat when I first seen that. I do wish we got a compass in our Odyssey though, that would of been a nice touch with the Temp gague.

davant · April 2006

As a youth sports event gathered tonight I noticed I was seated next to four mom-type Ody owners; one EX, two EX-L, two Touring (including ours). It was like a coincidental meeting of some Ody-yuppie-club. Odd part is three were Sage Brush and two Slate Green. Anyway, the 10 minutes spent comparing ideas, features, knowledge (and lack of) was the most enriching I've ever had since I don't own any collectible vehicles. None of us are dissatisfied with our choices and all have at least 5 months of ownership. Here are some of THEIR many comments/observations as I've more than expressed my appreciation for the '06 O-T:
Consensus was mileage was about 19 city, 22-24 highway. Nobody got the rated 28 highway MPG but we all come close to the 20 city. All but one of the owners, us included, never thought they'd own much less enjoy a minivan. One had already owned an earlier Ody and loved it. All could identify with the Ody as a 'minivan haters minivan'. Four of the five compared the Ody to competing models of minivans and SUV's ranging from domestics (T&C, Ford, Tahoe, Endeavor, Escalade), European (Volvo XC-90, M/B new wagon, BMW), Far Eastern genre (Sienna, Sedona, Mazda). All agreed the Ody clincher was it has the best handling and zip. Sedanlike was the word of the day. I asked what they did/didn't like about the Sienna as it's darn close is so many areas. The answer from three was it felt strained where the Ody just growls and goes. One lady who has to pull out into 60MPH plus traffic to leave home said the Ody was the only one that could get it done without feeling like it would blow up. Being the other Touring owner she also liked the peace of mind PAX tires. Three with NAVI use and like it. One wished they got a Touring, another wanted leather. While I enlightened them to many features I asked probing questions without injecting my own opinions, letting them spout off freely while taking mental notes. I could go on but don't want to bore the Sienna advocates further. I'm sure any gathering of similar vehicles would have about the same results. No offense to Toyota or other competitors but at least in our little corner of NW FL, the Ody wins as Best Available Road King (aka BARK). Who let the Ody's out?...WOOOF, WOOOF-WOOOF! <-- Please add two points for tying in the stupid joke post title to the ending.

vaskier · May 2006

Does anyone have experience with the Toyota Sienna Laser Cruise Contol? I am considering buying a Sienna Limited but was concerned that the cruise control may be over-automated. Can the laser feature be turned off so the cruise can be used in "normal mode"? Thanks for your help.

vcheng · May 2006

Yes, it can be toggled between Laser and Normal mode. The Laser mode will not work in the rain and if the lens is dirty, and you will have to use the regular mode if you want.

In moderate traffic and dry weather, it can be quite nice. Too many curves can lead it to consider a vehicle in the next lane over (depending on the curve) in the same lane and can have issues, but otherwise generally works well.

happyharry · May 2006

1) Does anyone know of next year's Sienna van may come with more powerful engine (at least to measure up to Odyssey's) and C/W full size spare tire for the AWD models? (Too many bad comments about those run-flats)

2) Any chance Toyota may consider offering mini-vans again? Not everyone needs a maxi-van! :confuse:

ginamcd · May 2006

We're looking at the 8 passenger Sienna (LE) and Odyssey (EX). Do you have the link to your comparison at epinions?

Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles