By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Move on and get out and drive!
Peace
"Thank god for small miracles because as of today I'm a Chrysler owner!! As my final act for 2004, I unloaded on some poor unsuspecting Honda lover a 2003 Honda hunk-a-junk Accord that I've had for less than 6 months (and drove for less than 10,000 miles) so I could put myself into a fully loaded 2003 T&C Limited."
Want more? This is from your same post:
"The depreciation argument is lost on me because by the time I'm done with any van it will be worthless not to mention the fact that I nearly stole this one from a private seller."
I think that ends this discussion. Enjoy your T&C.
BTW, I enjoy your posts on various threads.
Steve, Host
I realize it was frustrating to Honda and Toyota owners to not have a minivan comparable to Chrysler minivans for over a decade until the 1999 Odyssey was introduced.
The original Sienna was a very nice minivan but was too small for most buyers. Honda copied the size of the very successful Grand Caravan and improved on it with the Magic Seat and very flexible 2nd row seating.
Although Honda finally offered separately controlled temperature for driver and front passenger in all but LX, DC minivans remain the quietest even with "old technology" OHV engines.
Honda engines have more power than DC and also have a preferred 5 speed AT vs DC 4 speed. Even so, DC minivan gas mileage is as good as the Odyssey or Sienna.
If a person is concerned about resale value, the Odyssey is a clear winner over the DC.
I think that is true right now, but if Chrysler really does have their act together now, that stow-n-go van should be pretty hot in the used car market.Along with the three automatic doors.
And, a lot of people do not like the stow n go feature. It's a pain to put the seats forward, clean out the clutter so you can drop the seats.
And the seats are uncomfortable. I've had several customers go sit in them and say the same thing.
Still, I suppose it's a selling point to some?
If I can count the number of times that I have removed the second seat for any reason in the past 10+ years of minivan ownership, it would be less than 5! The most important feature is the disappearing third seat which Ody first presented in 1999 and others have followed.
Now if others can only copy the Ody's "sporty" handling with its reputable quality ???
Now that Honda and Toyota have finally stepped up to the plate when it comes to usable cargo space and luxury offering, I must say it would be hard for me to go back to another Town & Country Limited if I was ever in the minivan market again. In 2000 though, the Sienna was way too small for my family, and the Odyssey didn't even offer leather.
So I'd say today we'd probably buy a Touring Odyssey with navigation or a Sienna Limited with navigation if we were ever in the market again...BUT, I don't understand the argument about the Stow & Go seats.
While, I can understand people's complaints regarding seat comfort etc., since everyone has a different opinion on what's comfortable to them, I don't get the people that knock stow & go, because "you have to move the seats forward and clear out clutter" to fold them down.
Now this may just be me, but moving my seat forward and clearing out a few items from the seat storage area would be FARRRR easier than trying to manually lift out the bucket seats from either the Odyssey or Sienna.
While, I can probably count the number of times I lifted the bucket seats out of our two Town & Country's (1996 and 2000) on two hands, I would have gladly been given the option to just be able to move a seat forward in order to disappear my seats rather than deal with the unlatching of the seats and cumberstom way you had to maneuver the seats out the side sliding doors.
I hated how Chrysler NEVER put handles on the side of the bucket seats so you never really had something to hold onto when you were lifting the seats out. I remember many a time where I just hoped I had a firm grasp on *something*, because if not, there was going to be a minivan seat that was going to soon crash down onto the garage floor. I see the Honda and Toyota don't have handles either to lift the seats out more easily.
So I'm done with my rant/observation, and because the middle stow & go would not be a deal breaker for me, I'd take a Toyota or Honda over the convenience of stow & go, but I still think it's a fantastic idea Chrysler came up with and I think the next generation vans from Chrysler will fix the problems regarding comfortable seating material.
Hopefully in 2007, Chrysler will completely come out with a new van with new styling not derrived from 1996, more comfortable seats, and new powertrain options. We shall see, and it's good to see that at least Chrysler is trying, because the other domestic vans seem to be giving up (aka Freestar, Uplander, etc.) In the mean time, I'm waiting for the new MDX for my wife in 2007 as Honda has proven to make a very reliable vehicle for us.
While some might think it's a chore to empty the bins to stow the seats, I see the bins as a blessing to keep things off the floor and seats and put neatly away, keeping my van looking nice and uncluttered. I've had a pickup for years, and lived with having my umbrella, window shade, battery cables, tools and everything else I thought I needed, laying in the floor or seats. My truck always looked cluttered. That doesn't happen anymore. My van always looks neat and clean and I carry much more than I use to.
I keep one middle seat stowed, which gives easy excess to the dog moving around or sleeping in the van. It also makes very easy excess for the three grand kids getting into, or out of the van.
I've sat in the second and third row seats. While they are not as comfortable as I would like, the kids haven't complained and neither have friends that we have taken for a ride, or out to dinner in the van. Plus, most of the time, it's just me and my wife using the van and the front seats fit like a glove for us.
While I am sure when the time comes to buy another vehicle, the dealer isn't going to give me near as much for my van as they would if I had bought a Honda or Toyota. I am satisfied with the fact I didn't have to pay nearly as much for my van, to have all the niceties that I have on this van, as I would if it had been a Honda or Toyota. Chances are, I would have left many of them off, rather than pay what Honda and Toyota wanted to put them on. And the Dodge GC is loaded with so many things I like.
I'm hoping Chrysler has their transmission and brake problems behind them on this 2005. Looking at Consumers Report, it seems they do. If not, I have the 7/70,000 drive train warranty and an extended warranty on the van.
I read where some people complain of the tires wearing out on the Dodge van after only 44,000 miles. I've had about six new cars and trucks in my life time and never had the tires that came with them, ever last more than 30,000 miles on any of them. Most were shot around 20 or 25,000. Auto makers don't put the best tires on their new cars or trucks.
While I'm sure those of you that bought Honda's and Toyota's have great mini vans, I think I got a pretty good one too. And got all the goodies that go with it, for thousands less. Chance are, if I had bought a Honda or Toyota, I wouldn't have gotten all those goodies, because of price.
Thus, not ever getting the chance to enjoy the things I have on mine now. Plus, one advantage I have on you. I carry all the things I want in my van and it's all packed neatly out of sight.
Nothing wrong with buying it at the end of the lease! It'll have a high residual because it's WORTH that much or more!
The residual is carefully calculated to approximate a car's WHOLESALE value when the lease ends. Honda wants to get that much or more if it go's to auction.
UNQUOTE
....Hm not sure about that. One of the biggest problems that auto affiliated lease companies have is convincing their auditors to "sign off" on the residual values on their books.
More often than not, auditors will require lease companies to represent the difference between the BOOK residual value and the MARKET residual value as a contingent liability.
Rather than to bore you with the accounting detail, suffice to say the following:
WINNERS: Person taking out lease as he/she will pay less for same car.
LOSERS: Stockholders in lease company and owners of same vehicles.
Cars that have high resale values like Hondas do are good cars to lease.
The high residuals keep payments low.
Many carmakers have gambled and lost in an attempt to create sales. They have set the residuals too high in order to have attractive payments. At the end of the lease the cars get turned in and go through the auctions for thousands less.
Honda even did this to themselves back in 1997 with some too good to be real 24 month Accord leases.
Yes, the stockholders lose and vote wth their feet. The "owners" don't lose because the are not owners. They are renters and they can walk away.
After much study, they concluded that for MOST people, comfortable seats were much more important than the ability to store things. They figured since it was a minivan designed to carry people, the rear seats would be used most of the time. Of course a few people would find the stow and go to be a benefit. No design will please everyone.
I have sat in these stow and go seats and I don't think I would enjoy traveling a long distance on them. They had to be made thin and with little padding in order to fit in the wells.
For kids, they are probably fine.
My reply is it matters not a hoot what the book residual is if the market thinks otherwise. Many lease companies (particularly those affiliated with manufacturers) try to flatter the residual values in order to make the lease more attractive to the consumer - I think we agree on that point?
Where I should have been more specific is referring to the "owners" as the "other owners of similar vehicles" as their resale values drop.
Whilst I agree with the vast majority of your posts - particularly on EX-L price/demand, I simply disagree that all lease companies fairly recognise their residual values.
But for my needs, they are great. I only use them to take kids on short outings and the same with adults. Most of the time, it's just my wife and I and we love the fit of the front seats.
As I say, price and value for the dollar had a lot to do with it too. I got three way air with the van. AM/FM radio with CD and cassette with six speakers. With extra controls for the radio mounted on the steering wheel. Radio sounds very nice.
It also came with four wheel anti lock brakes and traction control. Three doors with power opening. Trip/compass,garage opener/computer to measure MPG and miles on a tank of gas.
Luggage rack, aluminum wheels, center console, lighted vanity mirrors, power/heated outside mirrors, power last row vent windows, anti thief alarm, remote entry, extended warranty to go along with Chrysler's 7/70 at 0% financing, for around $25,000. It would have been even less if I had had my trade paid down more or excepted Chrysler's financing.
For me, the Dodge made more since. It may not for others.
You are correct. The residual may fall far short of actual market values. This may have been the result of short term thinking. Let's worry about tomorrow later and sell (lease) some cars today.
The people who set residuals have to be VERY cautious. Too high of a residual and people won't lease because the payments are too high. Set them too low and face losing big time when the lease ends.
It's not a matter of "fairly recognizing" residual values. It's more like forecasting the future values.
Gas hits 2.00 a gallon, guess what that leased Grand Cherokee is worth now? etc...
-High residual value: If new DGCs were going for $16K with rebates, think what it does to drag down the prices of all the other Chrysler minivans with it.
-As has been said by many times before by others and I, the Ody is the best for "sporty car" handling and performance; and has the most powerful, refined engine with a "addicted" melodic sound.
- Great quality and reliablity. Just check the reporting agencies(CR, etc), despite what you may hear otherwise. As I keep my cars for 10+ years or until it dies, this is VIP and I do not want the hassles and wasted time for repairs whether in warranty or out of warranty. Other companies have to offer 7/70 and 10/100 because of the public perception of their reliability - on any day, I would much pefer 3/36 with few/no problems than to deal with lots of problems within 7/70 or 10/100 wasting my time and causing annoyance in our busy lives. I have not taken my Ody back for any warranty repair and I expect not to soon because of their historical high reliablity. The Sienna and Quest would provide similar reliable service, if I were to buy it. I am so aggravated by the warranty work with my other two domestic cars which I bought for the "value" factor that I, along with many others I know, have learnt our lessons and have switched to more reliable brands. You get what you pay for - many times, it(unreliablity)is hidden.
I don't know about reliability. I know my brother's D.C. needed only new brakes and a starter in the five years he has had his.
I have read all kind of stories about brakes and transmission problems with many of the Dodge/Chrysler vans back in late 1990's and up to 2001. According to Consumer reports, most of the problems with transmissions were ironed out by 2001 and brakes by 2002. Never heard much complaints with Chrysler engines at all since 1999. (mostly the four bangers even then) But I did get the extended warranty just in case. Not only for that, but because of all the electrical stuff on the van.
I also don't want, or plan to keep taking my van back for repairs. I am hoping I am as lucky with it as I was with my 2001 Dodge Dakota. I never had to have it in for repairs, although they did have a recall on the four wheel drive Dakota.
I won't knock Honda or Toyota. I also have a 2004 Honda Civic that the wife loves driving. But neither Honda or Toyota had the stow and go seats, which is what I wanted. The other goodies that came with the DGC, discounts and 0% financing, just made it the icing on the cake.
If Dodge hadn't come out with the new seats with all that storage space, I would still be driving my truck. I was only having the truck's oil changed when I wound up buying the van anyway.
I remember when the Ford Focus first came out. It handled great but it had recall after recall on it. Now, it looks like the bugs have been ironed out and Consumers Report gives it a good buy rating. I am hoping for the same thing for my Dodge. I noticed, the Dodge/Chrysler mini vans hasn't had a recall in several years. Honda and Toyota have. So I am willing to see for myself if they have, but ready with the warranties if they haven't. In the mean time, I have a good looking, smooth riding, quiet van that I can put all kinds of stuff in and keep it all out of view and have it look nice to who ever I take a ride in it with. Plus I have all these other goodies to play with that I never had before.
Were I purchasing my DCG SXT and not leasing, I would have added the 100K mile warranty and still come out cheaper than the comparable Odyssey.
If Honda had built an EX-cloth-triple power door van I would probably have bought it. To have all the goodies available only on the Touring with the PAX tires was a very stupid move IMHO and cost them the sale in my situation.
Price difference for simiarly equipped models isn't more than a thousand or three, I believe. Whether you go by MSRP or the recent deals that both Honda and Chrysler seems to be offering. (Although the Honda offers fewer option permutations than the Chrysler so it's more along the lines of adding the 6 CD radio etc. to the Town & Country to bump it up to similar lines.)
I'd agree that the Chrysler minivan is cheaper, yet that's balanced by Honda having a better reputation for reliability and performance. If you're lucky, someone's Chrysler may well have fewer problems than another person's Honda. The odds seem to be leaning against that, though.
Looks like I could buy gas for my DGC for a couple of years for the difference in the two.
For 2005 Ody EX-L with RES/Navi: $31,964 (one thou above invoice), plus 2.9 financing and some accessories
For 2004 Chrysler T&C LIMITED model (which also has RES/NAVI): $30,500, but no accessories.
So we found, in Colorado, about a $1500 difference, and maybe a bit more because I believe we would have had the dealer fees waived on the T&C. To us, and this was simply our choice, the $1500 difference was more than made up for in resale value, with the added plus of (probably) better reliability over 7-10 years.
They had one more upscale than that, called the Premium Group. I think that was around $28,000 with discounts. I think it was over $33,000 regular sticker price.
Without me being under on my trade, I got the van for $24,???. It went over $25,000 with the trade and that included the extended warranty.Sticker was over $28,500. But as I said, I really wanted the stow and go seats. I was so sick of having junk all over my pickup, I want that storage space to keep it looking neat. for once. But I can see why many like the Honda. It's a very nice van and Honda does have great reliability. That is why I bought my 04 Civic from them.
I made the mistake of "saving" $3,000 by buying Mazda MPV over Honda Odyssey in 2002. Now, I'm trying to sell my MPV in great condition and I'd be lucky to get $4,000 less than a similar used Odyssey would sell now.
My Dodge P/U didn't have speakers in the dash and I don't think our Civic has them in the dash either. Neither of them sounded that good.
This goes without saying! Domestic vehicles are MUCH MUCH MUCH more prone to problems than Japanese vehicles.
You're in a different situation than majority of US consumers. First of all, you bought a used vehicle. Second, you plan to keep it for 10 years. Average US consumer keeps vehicles for less than 4 years.
I got my Ody EX at $24,500 in Aug and have NO problesm with it. I perform my own PM (scheduled)maintenance of my 5 vehicles.
There many reasons why the DGC are made cheaper and the buying public have perceived them as such. Anyone who buys a DGC with the same features for the same price as an Ody , a Sienna or Quest has has overpaid TOO MUCH. I just came back from another business trip yesterday where I had a late model rental T & C and it again confirmed its driving performance shortcomings(power and handling) with the Ody or Sienna
Let's also not forget the financing cost the Honda buyer paid for that extra $10,000 he had to pay.
98 Honda Ody LX, one owner 95K miles $7,845
98 Olds N.M.listed, 85K miles $7,000
98 DGC SE 70K miles $6,000
99 Nisson Quest SE 50K miles $8,995
99 Ply Voyager SE 83K miles $6,200
01Dodge GC 37K $14,885
01Honda 81K $14,000
01 Quest, 10K $10,500
01Toy Siena CE $12,988
Now it's true Dodge/Chrysler used mini vans do not bring as much as Japanese vans. There only seems to be $2-$3,000 difference at the most. I don't think that difference makes up for the difference of thousands in buying them.
Now I do see a wider difference in the vans two and three years old. But it narrows as they get to 4-5-6 years old.
You should wait a week and call these people to see if their cars sold.
There is no way in HELL that a 2001 GC with 37K miles sell for anything above $12,000 for the top-of-the-line one!
Steve, Host
Even OSAMA in his cave has access to western news and sales with his wireless equipment!
Go tell the above to Car & Driver(June 2004 minivan Comparo) and others like Road & Track, Motor Trend and they would LAUGH at you! I have driven 30 DGC and T & C rentals in the past 18 months of business travels and I can easily compare the vast difference!
C & D described the 3.8L as "gutless" with a 1.5+ sec lag in acceleation to 60mph.
You have a very analytical, intelligent way of making buying decisions.
Like you, me and those of us in this thread who underdstand it, one has to look at the total cost of ownership(TCOH) over the life of the vehicle. With the highest residual value and excellent reliability resulting in less costly repairs and personal aggravation and waste of life which is priceless, the TCOH of the ODY will be superior. It would be useless to make your point to those who don't understand TCOH.
Even OSAMA in his cave has access to western news and sales with his wireless equipment! "
Pull out your news paper and find me a dealer that will sell a 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan for $16,000.
C & D described the 3.8L as "gut less" with a 1.5+ sec lag in acceleration to 60mph. "
I am not comparing the way either van drives to another. I have never driven the Honda van. I only said my van drives just like a car. Is smooth and quiet, corners nice and the 3.8 has plenty of power for me. If you think 1.5+ sec lag in acceleration to 60 mph,against the Honda makes the Dodge gut less, your wrong. I bought a mini van, not a race car. 1.5 seconds slower doesn't mean anything to me. And yes, the Dodge drives just like a car. For $5-$7,000. more, the Honda aught to be better refined.
Second of all, I got my van at 0% financing.( You can check that out as I said that a few days ago.)That alone takes about $4,500 off the cost of the Dodge.They show a $4,906 difference in ownership over 5 years if everything was equal. The 0% financing alone changes that to only $406.00.difference. Since that Dodge can be bought for $4,000. less than the $27,000 Edmonds lists it at, the Dodge is costing $3,393 less to own than the Honda. That is only if you take the EX model and don't get the extras the Dodge offers.
According to whom??? That is the silliest statement I've ever heard! Of all the minivans out on the market, Mazda MPV has the best handling according to automotive magazines, followed by Odyssey, followed by Sienna. American minivans are so low on the quality of handling scale that they don't even enter the equation!
Yes, the American minivans do RIDE "well", if you like a floating, cushy and disconnected ride.