Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna

taxesquire · January 2007

Before considering selling your 2006, think about what your payoff would be for that vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if you were upside down (owed more than the car was worth) at this point.

Assuming there's a loan on the 2006, but not the 2003, the 2003 may actually be worth more.

You'd need to balance that with the fact that if you unload the '03, you'll have 2 cars on which you're making paymetns, while if the '03 is or will be paid off soon, you'd only have 1 car payment.

crestonave · January 2007

On the contrary, the more you get for your trade the less you pay in sales tax. If you buy a car for 20k and your trade is worth 5k, you pay sales tax on 15k. If your trade is worth 10k, you pay sales tax on only 10k.

Did you owe anything on your trade? He might have "overpaid" you in order to cover what he had to pay off on your loan, if he had one. This is called "rolling up" and is done frequently when the customer is "upside down", meaning that he owes more on his trade than it's worth.

ticzon · January 2007

I made an error on the Sienna that I got. It is a Sienna Limited (not a XLE), which is higher than a XLE. Therefore, here is the correct specs:

Sienna Limited 06 7 passanger, leather seats.
Option #1 with 6 CD player with JBL Surround Sound DVD.
Pair of Wireless Head phones.
Tire Locks.
Price: 35738 + Tax and Lic. 60 months with 0%. Nothing down. No trade in.

mcjazzzy · January 2007

no, I don't car pool..I have a car seat for my 1 yr old and a booster for my 6 yr old...thats it..

mcjazzzy · January 2007

True..

mcjazzzy · January 2007

Assuming you don't owe anything on the 2006 I would sell that and use it as a trade..but see if you can sell it on your own and you'll get more for it that way than a trade in from a dealer. You use the Accord basically for commuting..the Accord will go on forever. That's my opinion. But, if you have a payoff on the Camry, than the equity on that may not be enough to put down and you may want to consider the accord. But, it really depends on you and what you want to do.

mcjazzzy · January 2007

That isn't entirely true..some states will allow a credit on the tax and some states don't. The trade amount comes off the selling price and any extras added hence the cheaper tax..but some states will use your trade on the final figure after the tax in figured in.

taxesquire · January 2007

Thanks for that comment. I'm in Fla, and don't know if mcjazzzy's comments apply to me, but we were not upside down on the car. The deal was structured something like this:

new car - valued at $35k
old car - valued at $20k
kbb on old car - $14k
payoff on old car - $9k

I hope the tax ramifications would have been the same if he valued my trad accurately and lowered the price of the new car.

flylowflyslow · February 2007

OK...first off why is it people have to make blanket statements about things? For example..AWD in many modern passenger sedans is not the same as 4x4. I have driven an AWD Caravan 1998 for years. I normally trade for a new car every couple of years but this vehicle has proven itself time and again. Yes I pay for a little extra gas (2-3 mpg less than a FWD caravan)But what I get in return is the most sure footed vehicle I have ever put my family in. When another family we went skiing with took a corner with their honda van the front drive wheels slid because the traction from the tire was divided by the force of pulling the car and trying to push the front into the turn. They drifted to the shoulder and out of the lane. Thankfully the didn't end up in the ditch. In the caravan the AWD shifted more of the engine power to the rear wheels and we went right around the same corner at a the same or better speed in perfect control. If stopped at a stop sign waiting to pull out into traffic and almost been hit because your FWD spun its tires in some gravel when you tried to accelerate? Never happens in an AWD. The car just goes. Ever have the steering wheel jerk left and right as you accelerate hard (also due to gravel) AWD just goes straight.
Modern AWD is awesome. An old truck or Suburban 4X4 is not the same. 4X4 is brutish aplication of power that does get you going. AWD is Tactful distribution of engine power in a way that adds to stability, handling and safety.

flylowflyslow · February 2007

OK...first off why is it people have to make blanket statements about things? For example..AWD in many modern passenger sedans is not the same as 4x4. I have driven an AWD Caravan 1998 for years. I normally trade for a new car every couple of years but this vehicle has proven itself time and again. Yes I pay for a little extra gas (2-3 mpg less than a FWD caravan)But what I get in return is the most sure footed vehicle I have ever put my family in. When another family we went skiing with took a corner with their honda van the front drive wheels slid because the traction from the tire was divided by the force of pulling the car and trying to push the front into the turn. They drifted to the shoulder and out of the lane. Thankfully they didn't end up in the ditch. In the caravan the AWD shifted more of the engine power to the rear wheels and we went right around the same corner at a the same or better speed in perfect control. Ever been stopped at a stop sign waiting to pull out into traffic and almost been hit because your FWD spun its tires in some gravel when you tried to accelerate? Never happens in an AWD. The car just goes. Ever have the steering wheel jerk left and right as you accelerate hard (also due to gravel) AWD just goes straight.
I often pull along side stuck 4X4's (spinning a tire) and offer assistance. Their pride always causes them to decline. So I continue on my way through the same snow that got them stuck. Modern AWD is awesome. An old truck or Suburban 4X4 is not the same. 4X4 is brutish aplication of power that does get you going. AWD is Tactful distribution of engine power in a way that adds to stability, handling and safety.

mcjazzzy · February 2007

I feel AWD is the best thing...before I got my 06 Sienna Limited w/Awd i drove a Mercury Mountaineer AWD..let me tell you that I never slipped in the snow. You can feel the vehicle in control. I cannot understand why you feel it's a fraud. Front wheel drive is OK it's better than rear wheel drive but when you drive a front wheel vehicle, the back of your vehicle will fishtail. I never had a problem with any of my AWD vehicles. You don't save that much when you have a 2 wheel drive vehicle anyway, it's cheaper vs an AWD vehicle, but when it comes to safety of my family, I'll go AWD all the way.

bobber1 · February 2007

Well you dudes are both a bit biased since you have AWD vehicles...

I've driven both. No argument on an AWD being able to accelerate quicker. The problem is you really can't slow down any quicker with them(other then perhaps if you use the transmission to slow down.)

That's an interesting story on the cornering vs. the Honda FWD. Of course you were in different vehicles so you might have hit the corner just enough different then he did. I would think the Stability Control would have helped him out but obviously not.

My experience is if you're an aggressive driver AWD is nice. If you're a careful one FWD works just fine.

hondalova · February 2007

I agree with bobber1. I drive 100 miles roundtrip to/from work every day and I cross the Bear Mountain Bridge at least once daily. For those unfamiliar with the BMB, its the next Hudson River crossing north of the Tappan Zee and getting into Westchester from that side of the bridge involves going down Bear Mountain Bridge Road - a single lane in each direction US-1 style goat path full of downhill twisties and turns for about 4 miles. I take this road at least once every day, regardless of weather.

I have always owned FWD vehicles b/c, with the mileage I drive, the extra 2-3 mpg really adds up. I have never had a problem - with the exception of icy conditions - which AWD or 4x4 aren't much help with anyway (starting is only as good as your ability to stop).

What I do instead, to improve my odds, is I put moderately aggressive snow tires (Blizzak WS-50s) on the front drive wheels of my '04 Accord V-6 6 spd. Coupe.

I know - I should use 4, but I only use two, and I just don't drive like a jackass in bad weather. In nearly 250,000 miles of driving since I began doing this, I've never had an accident, never skidded out of control, and never had a spin or a tail spin out on me. I slow down, brake and accelerate more gently, and try to anticipate road conditions ahead of me and it works really well - I've never felt like I wasn't in total control of my vehicle.

I just got an '07 Odyssey EX in December and it seems to be "OK" in the limited snow we've had this winter, but I plan to put WS-50s on that too if I can get them in the right size either this winter or, at the latest, next fall. The Blizzak is a great tire b/c it is a relatively stiff snow-tire that dramatically enhances snow traction, but still has better than average dry road handling, wears fairly well over the long term, and makes only minimal snow-tire whine.

I realize that many may disagree with my strategy - and have valid reasons for doing so, but its worked well for me and my wife for over a quarter-million miles so far. :shades:

-FS

thegraduate · February 2007

If you go and read the consumer ratings for the Sienna, I can't help but wonder how dumb someone has to be to buy a car that they don't like so obviously. Seems to me a buyer spending over $30k would do a little more research.

Either that, or a couple of trolls have made some bogus reviews on the Sienna. (I'm a Honda owner, so not Toyota biased).

Here's someone who rated it 2.5:

Comments: Handles like it is three times as heavy as it is, underpowered, interior could use some refinement. Overall unpleased.
Favorite Features: Nothing special about the Sienna.
Suggested Improvements: More power and fuel economy, improved handling, upgrade interior.

These are things that should be evident from a test drive (except maybe fuel economy).

I think it's a bogus review.

speterson1 · February 2007

Yeah no kidding...I especially like this comment:

Suggested Improvements: More power and fuel economy

That would basically be a suggested improvement for about every vehicle on the planet, no? While we're at it, how about more quality fit & finish, DVD & NAV, but please lower the cost. Sheesh.

thegraduate · February 2007

I think I'll rate my Honda a 3 because it doesn't fly and use grass clippings for fuel. Also, my Accord has never EVER remembered my birthday! :P

bobber1 · February 2007

Hey Hondalova,

Do you mount those tires on your factory rims every fall and switch back to regulars in the spring or do you have a set of second rims?

I like the idea of winter tires, switching each spring and fall seems a bit of a hassle. However I have been considering getting chains for when the conditions do get testy.

Nice review, but I suppose we're both biased on the other end of the spectrum!

hondalova · February 2007

I've always used the factory rims on my two prior Accords, my wife's Taurus, Century, and Venture, through the years. An extra set of rims is great if you: (a) can afford a second set of Aluminum rims, and (b) have an accessible but out of the way place to store them where they won't get scratched or corroded. I store my tires on their sides on shelves made out of old closet doors that I then hung parallel from the garage ceiling so they're out of the way.

Haven't purchased a set for the new Odyssey yet and my only fear is that these wheels are so damn honkin' big they may not make one in that size. I did find 17' Blizzaks for my '04 Accord but I just haven't shopped for the Odyssey yet b/c we just got it in December and its been a mild winter.

labagit · February 2007

My van purchase has been put on the back burner for some time and I decided to get things going again, so I went and test drove both the Sienna and the Odyssey today. I really enjoyed the smoothness of the Sienna's ride, but I am having a hard time getting over the interior. It just seems a lot less refined to me. I absolutely hate the woodtrim (I'm shopping for an XLE), and the seatbacks look unfinished to me with those hook-like things and no pouches. I also do not like how the seats flip forward. It's great from a space standpoint, but it is a very jerky movement, especially with kids letting themselves in. The aesthetics I'd probably get over, but I'm not so sure about the seats.

The Odyssey drove fine, just not as smooth. I was actually more comfortable switching lanes in the Odyssey, but I'm not sure if it was mirror adjustment or visibility due to the van's construction. The seats didn't seem as comfortable to me, but I was more relaxed in driving and might have noticed the seats in the Sienna. The big disappointment in the Odyssey was that I hadn't remembered that the dash is black in all the vans. I love the slate green with olive, but the black in contrast with the olive is just so harsh. I can't believe I hadn't noticed that before. Superficial, I know, but I was hoping to absolutely fall in love with one over the other, and it just didn't happen.

Bottom line is that I feel like I need to drive them again for further comparision. I'm picking apart little things which means that both really are great vehicles and I'll be happy with whichever one I pick and am no longer comparing.

I still wish I could fall in love, though.

user777 · February 2007

I still wish I could fall in love, though.

That's begging for a line, but I'm at a loss. :surprise:

I chose a sagebrush pearl exterior for a honda van with the slate green interior... the interior color to hide more of the dirt the kids would churn up. that worked for a while, but my kids out did me and i soon admitted defeat.

my wife expects the interior gets clean by magic. i love her though.

i think the black on slate isn't harsh at all. what's wrong with you? (kidding) have you tried hypnosis? they can convince you to fall in love with just about anything, even that faux wood trim you hate if you're willing to seek their service. :shades:

but seriously, there's probably a way to undo the faux wood trim since it's only plastic. maybe a dealer would do that for you as a condition of the sale.

crestonave · February 2007

I think if it bothers you that much you might want to do a google on "carbon fiber dashboard" - there are a few manufacturers who make aftermarket "upgrade" kits. I personally have not used them so I can't speak to the quality or reputation of the companies, but it's something you might want to check out.

labagit · February 2007

Thanks to both for your suggestions. I've driven both vehicles again and find that I'm getting used to the cosmetic features that I don't really like.

I'm curious to hear how others feel about driver's seat comfort? I probably would have purchased the Odyssey today if it weren't for the seat. It's just not that comfy to me.

cccompson · February 2007

Seat comfort is purely subjective. When I was shopping two years ago I really liked the Sienna and wanted to get an AWD model. In the end the dealbreaker was the driver's seat - the bottom cushion was simply too short and did not provide enough thigh support.

Bought an Odyssey instead and seat comfort has not been an issue at all.

labagit · February 2007

Yeah, I realize it is subjective. The salesperson said something about NASA using their seats, and I replied that I guess I wasn't cut out to be an astronaut! I'm just kinda curious to hear others' thoughts. If most find them comfortable, it still won't make my rear feel better! I'm going to try to drive it again tomorrow to see if I'm just having a bad butt day, LOL!

I'm just a bit bummed. I want the Ody to work for me, but I won't buy a car that I'm not comfortable in. I'm liking the Sienna more over time, but it's about $2400 more for the pkg. I would get.

thegraduate · February 2007

The Odyssey's seat is firmer than most (like my Accord), but I've found after a few minutes, it is quite comfortable, and it's firmness helps hold me in position and eliminate the fatigue that comes from long periods of driving (a ten hour drive to Disney World in my aunt's 2005 and I was still comfortable, although tired!).

I wouldn't buy a car I wasn't sure I could be comfortable in, however, so get the vehicle that suits you best.

dongliu · February 2007

Today I test drove Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey. I am satisfied with both.
However, on 2007 Sienna, when I stepped on the gas pedal and tachometer went over around 2500 RMP, I heard a new kind of noise added into the louder humming of the engine. The cabin is very quiet, even in acceleration. That made the sudden appearance of high-pitched noise more startling. In normal cruise, the engine hums in a low-pitched melodious tune. The repeated intrusion by this high-pitched "ZZZZZ" noise made me concerned about the durability of the Toyota engine.
I paid extra attention to the engine noise of Honda Odyssey. At low RPM, it hums almost same as Toyota Sienna. Under hard acceleration, the hum grow louder, without any change in pitch.
Anyone has the same experience?

user777 · February 2007

when i'm in other people's cars and i hear high-pitched "zzz" type noises, i think probably heat shield on exhaust manifold or cat convertor is loose, or possibly a bad or missing exhaust system hanger (the rubber grommets) and probably the exhaust is making contact with the body.

if it were me, i'd ask the salesman to try another sienna to see if it exhibits the same sound under the same conditions.

ateixeira · February 2007

salesperson said something about NASA using their seats

That's ridiculous and surely not even true. That's one of the wildest claims I've ever heard of.

Think about it - they are weightless the whole time, so seat comfort doesn't matter a whole lot!

In fact, if a van uses the same seats, they're pretty much be optimized for weightless conditions, and the van would have horrible seating!

-juice

speterson1 · February 2007

...unless it's during blast-off, when they have several minutes of sustained high-G forces which is pretty much the direct opposite of weightlessness!

Still, having said this, I have a hard time believing NASA went to the Sienna for seating design.

OK, done with my geek comment for the day... :P
Steve

ateixeira · February 2007

Forces against the seat back, not the seat bottom. So it's still a totally different set of requirements.

And I don't think even the 3.5l accelerates like a rocket ship, so let's not even go there....

-juice

flylowflyslow · February 2007

Ok now be nice......
The NASA reference was most likely refering to the type of foam used in the seats. Its a layering method where multiple layers of different density foam are used. A high density foam o the bottom followed by a lesser density then a low density on top. What you get is a seat that not only absorbs impact (I've seen an egg dropped from thirty feet into 3 inches and not break) but a seat that is very comfortable for LONG periods of time. The different layers eliminate pressure points. The type of foams used can get stiff in cold weather so initial comfort during the first 15 minutes may not be that impressive.
I sit in Jets for a living. Often a maufacturer will provide a foam based on someone sitting on it for a few minutes. After 2 hours in the cockpit (on this 1.5 inch pad)my butt would be so sore I couldn't focus

. I then found a shop that replaced the foam with NASA method foam and with the same 1.5 inch thickness got a seat I can sit comfortably for 4-5 hours at a stretch.
For the car that claims to have NASA foam: Try sitting in the seat for twenty minutes (read the brochure, watch a DVD, or even drive around). Nothing sucks more than being butt sore on a road trip.

ateixeira · February 2007

I don't doubt the process for a second, nor that the seats are good.

What I find silly is the reference to NASA, as if they were seating experts, especially given astronauts rarely, if ever, actually sit down under normal gravity circumstances.

So the reference to NASA is simply absurd. Not the seats, mind you, the reference.

-juice

taxesquire · February 2007

But they sleep on those great memory-foam mattresses!! :P

seven2 · February 2007

I'm deciding between the Oddesey and Sienna and wondering whether AWD is worth narrowing it down to just the Sienna. The Honda dealer (when I asked about AWD) said their VSA+traction control is better than AWD, but I was under the impression that they accomplish different things. Safety is important to me so I will get VSA in whichever I choose - I'm just wondering if there is much added benefit with AWD.

I'm sure this issue has been addressed before, but I'd appreciate any input or links to pertinent articles.

thank you

ateixeira · February 2007

What's the average snow fall per year where you live?

I'd get it if you live in Colorado or Vermont, but I wouldn't call it a necessity south of the Mason-Dixon line.

-juice

seven2 · February 2007

Good Point ateixeira, I should have elaborated.

I'm in Wisconsin, some years a lot of snow, some years not. We also get our share of ice storms.

thanks,
seven2

ateixeira · February 2007

In that case I'd pick between AWD or a set of snow tires for a FWD van. The latter may actually be more economical.

Traction/Stability control mandatory (as you've already noted).

-juice

cccompson · February 2007

LOL, well of course the Honda salesman would claim that. You might ask him, if that's true, why does Honda bother to build a 4WD versions of the Pilot, Element, and CRV.

There have been many complaints about the run-flat tires on which the AWD Siennas roll - mostly about abysmal treadlife.

If this is the deciding issue for you, yes, the AWD has some added benefit. Just how much will vary by locale and use.

bobber1 · February 2007

I live in the snow belt and all I drive are front wheel drives. I can probably count on one hand in the last 20 years the times when I really wished I had a 4 wheel drive while driving.

Yeah they're nice once in a while, but you give up a little mileage. I'd venture to say driving cautiously with a front wheel drive will get you 99% of the places a 4 wheel drive will. The 1% of the time you can't you probably shouldn't be on the road anyway.

However good points that it depends on where you live. If you have to climb a snowy mountain every day to get home, you should give some serious thought to AWD.

ateixeira · February 2007

You probably have good all season tires, then.

Yesterday a brand new Acura TL got stuck on my block, going up a slight incline, not steep at all. Pretty pathetic. FWD and stability control didn't help things.

I'm sure it was performance tires that bogged him down, but it was kinda funny. Some guy in a Jeep gave him a push before I could get to him with a bag of sand (traction aid).

Good tires, maybe some cat litter or sand as traction aid in the trunk, and practice (probably the most important), and you should be fine.

-juice

perna · February 2007

Honestly, I've sat in all current model minivans sold in the US, and the Chrysler vans are top-notch as far as seat comfort. None of the other vans come close, IMO. The problem I had with basically all the Japanese vans are bottom seat-cushion length (the Nissan in particular had a horrific combo of short seat cushion length and TOTAL lack of legroom, even at the furthest setting).

The GM vans had about the most uncomfortable backs you could possibly imagine.

ateixeira · February 2007

Front row maybe, but the Stow-n-Go seats in the 2nd row are kiddie sized, and not comfy at all for adults. That's OK for most people.

Also, I don't like the vinyl arm rests, they look decidedly cheap. The seats themselves are fine.

-juice

thegraduate · February 2007

Seat comfort is subjective, but the stow n go seating does make some compromises of comfort for its neat mechanism in my opinion.

bobber1 · February 2007

I didn't notice a big difference between the front seats on the Dodge, Honda or Toyota. However I found the Dodge's back stow-n-go seats to be the most got awful uncomfortable seat I'd ever sat in. The are extremely short which doesn't work well for my long back and are very hard. They were one of the reasons I didn't buy a Dodge.

ateixeira · February 2007

They're value priced, though. I found one for $20.6k that even had the power doors and tailgate.

But...it lacked a lot of safety equipment that the segment leaders make standard. No SAC at that price, the 2nd row windows don't open, and it generally felt a generation older than the Odyssey, Sienna, and even the Sedona/Entourage twins.

Price was great, though.

-juice

perna · February 2007

Seat comfort is subjective, but the stow n go seating does make some compromises of comfort for its neat mechanism in my opinion.

Back when my wife and I were looking a few years ago, the Stow and Go seats WERE insanely uncomfortable. When we tried out the 07, though, it was clear they are using a different type of cushion. It is actually now the tempurpedic stuff, and is comfortable.

That said, the seats being smallish isn't a huge deal for us because both of our kids will be in booster seats for the next 5-7 years. And if we still have the Town and Country after that point, the seat will fit a then-10 year old just fine.

When I said the seats were the most comfortable of any minivan we tested, I was actually referring to the front seats. Since the rest of the van is pretty much reserved for kid use, I didn't even think to differentiate. Sorry about that.

perna · February 2007

They're value priced, though. I found one for $20.6k that even had the power doors and tailgate.

But...it lacked a lot of safety equipment that the segment leaders make standard. No SAC at that price, the 2nd row windows don't open, and it generally felt a generation older than the Odyssey, Sienna, and even the Sedona/Entourage twins.

I have to be honest, I don't know what "SAC" is. I know that our 22k Town and Country has airbags all around, even one for the driver's knees which I thought was unusual. It also has traction control, ABS, and solid crash test scores.. I'm not sure what else is really that important??

Also, I don't personally WANT the second row windows to open. In my Maxima, I keep the auto windows locked at all times anyway! If my 3 YO had his way, he would spend his entire time in the car opening and closing the power window. He's FASCINATED by it. In fact I even had to pull over once and get his little arms back inside and get the window back up because I'd forgotten to lock them, and he refused to get his arms out so I could roll them back up. Toddler temper tantrums, gotta love 'em.

I'm sure it's "different strokes" time, but the T&C is the only minivan we could find for the price that had all 3 power doors. The Honda and Toyota required junk like leather and sunroof which we didn't want to get all 3 power doors.

I did check out the Kia van, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. The whole thing just felt like junk. Not that I would have bought one anyway, since I have no desire to spend my life in a dealership waiting for repairs.

Also, you forget that Chrysler IS the segment leader in minivans, and always has been.

thegraduate · February 2007

Back when my wife and I were looking a few years ago, the Stow and Go seats WERE insanely uncomfortable. When we tried out the 07, though, it was clear they are using a different type of cushion. It is actually now the tempurpedic stuff, and is comfortable.

Having not seen one on the roads yet, I didn't realize they were in dealers now, or I would have said "last generation seats were lacking" in the comfort department. Sorry for the misinformed post!

When did they hit dealers?

thegraduate · February 2007

It also has traction control, ABS, and solid crash test scores..

Traction control isn't worth $300 to me, STABILITY control on the other hand is something I wish I had on my 4-cylinder Accord (only available on V6 models at the moment). Traction control helps you start in slick conditions by applying brakes to the wheels spinning due to lack of traction. We had it in our 2000 Odyssey.

Stability control helps maintain control of the car in already-moving situations, preventing spins, fishtailing, under/oversteer, and rollovers.

ateixeira · February 2007

Sorry, SAC=Side Airbag Curtains.

The one I was talking about, a left over 2006 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, didn't have them. Other ones, priced higher ($26k or so), did, but the value equation eroded. This particular dealer had a very wide gap between the models with and without SAC.

I totally "get" you on the 2nd row windows, but having the option to keep them locked, or to open them, on that rare occasion where you spot a deer on the side of the road and the kids ask "WHERE?! WHERE?!" so they can get an unobstructed look.

I feel your pain with the power tailgate, believe me. No chance we can get one in a Honda or Toyota for our target budget.

Hyundai/Kia make SAC standard so it's just easier to shop. What's the fuss about? Well, Edmunds picked a Sedona 2nd place in their van comparo, and it was the quickest to 60 and the most fuel efficient and had the best brakes.

The Dodges would be a good value at $22k, sure. Especially if you got everything you mentioned.

-juice

Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles