Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

1626365676873

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's too bad they didn't build this:

    image

    Instead we get a 3rd clone of the Grand Caravan and Town & Country.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    And I'm sooo shocked, we should bow down and kiss their shoes as they picked the GM pickup (the only domestic). True to form though, and not showing any bias of course, they pasted a HUGE pic of the Accord on the cover...the entire front grill with logo etc... Oh they put a much smaller shot of the GM pickup on cover too, showing only the back end of the pickup. It's about 1/10 the size of the Accord. They also have another Japanese car in upper left hand corner. You'd think after years and years of promoting the Accord and how unique it is to choose a GM product, especially a pickup, that they would have swap them places.... I can't wait to get my issue via mail. Here's the link from Autoblog....

    CR Issue
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You beat me to it, here's the story on MSNBC:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23390986/

    Sienna won for the van category.

    Before anyone talk about bias, it won on objective scores like quickest from 0-60mph, best gas mileage observed, and most cases of beer (or was that C&D?). This is besides their subjective opinions.

    BTW, it makes sense to put the Accord on the cover because it's new, and the Silverado isn't.
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    American minivan innovation, quality and reliability haven't really gone anywhere the past ten years (sorry, swivel seats don't cut it for me). This lax attitude has allowed the Japanese nameplates to catch up and surpass them. Unless they get their act together, their market share will only grow smaller and smaller.

    Nothing new, just cosmetic. Only a new engine, new transmission, new suspension, new less wind resistant design, ability to change between 7 -seater and flat fold cargo van without removing seats, swivel seats with table that stores in the floor, backseat TV, computer entertainment system. And that is without looking at the specs.

    The Odyssey drives the same as it did 8 years ago when I tested it. Reliabiilty in the tubes as it always has been. Honda REALLY needs to start offering a better warranty before I'd buy -- VCM -- I'm REALLY scared.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Watch that video on the MSNBC link. The reporter actually talks about the domestics improving and "not getting the respect they deserve".
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    CR has egg all over their face after their Tundra comparison review. Many noticed. But poor old CR - jamming their alleged more fuel efficient autos down our throats with their hidden agenda. Doesn't seem to be working :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7265235.stm

    These things ARE gas guzzlers but if its what people want.... I'd wait for the new Hybrids personally. And I hope they bring out a hybrid minivan soon.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Just so we all understand CR and how they name Best Picks and Recommended buys - a vehicle has to do 3 things:

    * perform well in their ratings (some objective, some subjective scores)
    * perform well on IIHS and NHTSA crash tests and offer the latest safety features (VSC)
    * and, score well on reliability, in some cases forecasts

    The Tundra still meets 2 out of those 3. For a while they had forecast it would be reliable simply because the outgoing Tundra model had been consistently reliable. The new V8 with the glass camshafts was a new engine. It was hard to predict the woes that engine would encounter.

    The Silverado is now their Top Pick, because it still meets all 3. That does *NOT* mean it is rated higher. Important distinction. The Tundra is still rated higher, but the Silverado meets their reliability standards and the Tundra does not. Hence the GM gets the nod.

    Similarly, the Altima was rated higher than the Accord, but because it lacks VSC it doesn't meet criteria #2 above, and the Accord wins the Top Pick.

    OK, bear with me ... getting back to vans.

    The Sienna is their Top Pick among minivans because it meets all 3 criteria:

    * it gets their highest score in the ratings
    * it has all the safety features standar for 2008 (in 2007 VSC was not standard)
    * it scores well in reliability (yes, despite the door weld issue that caused a whopping 5 posts in the Sienna club threads).

    The door weld issue would not affect CR's Top Pick anyway, because they are rating current models, and the 2008 was never affected.
  • marine2marine2 Member Posts: 1,155
    Chrysler also appears to have opted for questionable cosmetic changes, rather than improving the overall vehicle as well. Swivel seats are nice, but that's mostly cosmet

    Haven't improved the overall vehicle? It seems people see only what they want to see. This is just what they did that they didn't have before on last years model. How in the world can you say it's only cosmetic?

    1. Stabilty control.
    2. New bigger engine
    3. Six speed tranny
    4. Thicker glass to make it quieter
    5. Two different rides on Chrysler/Dodge. One soft, the other firmer
    6 .Better upholstery, cloth resists stains. Better grade leather.
    7. Second-row power windows
    8. Retractable sunshades (2nd and 3rd row)
    9. Heated seats (first and second row, cloth or leather)
    10.Removable sliding "between-seat" console
    11. Swivel middle seats
    12. Two glove boxes
    13. Ambient lighting
    14. Rear back-up camera
    15. High Intensity Discharge headlamps
    16. Rear view conversation mirror
    17. Chargeable and removable flashlight.
    18. Dual-screen overhead entertainment system (allows a separate video source to be played on each screen)
    19. Hard-drive-based "MyGIG" Digital media system (w/navigation)
    20. Television.
    21. Remote start feature
    22. Electric fold third row seat.
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Autos/american_cars/

    This guy resembles my observations more closely than CR. I agree with Lexus. Most Lexus's are extremely reliable. So are those big sedan Americans cars. I''m shocked by Subaru though. I haven't collected enough data since I know so few who own one. I was strongly considering a Tribeca. I'll do my own research then decide how accurate this guy is. I'm hoping they come out with a hybrid Acadia with the 100000 warranty. Won't rule out Tribeca though. Can't trust the media as much as I can trust myself.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    Explains why I won't buy another Toyota. :shades:

    My 2006 Sienna LE has MUCH more attractive door panels than the Chrysler minivans BUT lacks too many nice features I had on my less expensive 2002 Chrysler T&C LX.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    Haven't improved the overall vehicle? It seems people see only what they want to see.

    EXACTLY!!! I couldn't have said it any better Marine2!!!! A huge step forward and it's "cosmetic"??? Sometimes perception is reality to people and they do themselves a disservice by not even testing driving other makes.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The DCX vans were certainly improved drastically in the parts that matter; cosmetically I don't think they were improved much at all, in fact, but rather taken down a notch from the previous generation.
  • marine2marine2 Member Posts: 1,155
    Tell you the truth, I don't like the plain white speedometer and I think the body style of my 2005 is nicer than the 2008 outside. But they did a heck of a job on all the rest.
  • rahmibubrahmibub Member Posts: 39
    Does CR send out their criteria list to all automakers when they do these ratings?

    My primary complaint against Honda, is that in order to prevent brand cannibalization from Acura, they deliberately strip down features from the Honda brand - even when there are no competitors in the Acura space (think Odyssey).

    Luxury-like features such as Memory Power seats / mirror would be great on the Odyssey - as well as other newer safety features such as directional headlamps.
  • rahmibubrahmibub Member Posts: 39
    A lot of these items you listed below are pretty much standard on many competing models

    1. Stabilty control - everyone has this - Others offer this
    2. New bigger engine - Others offer this
    3. Six speed tranny - Others offer this
    4. Thicker glass to make it quieter
    5. Two different rides on Chrysler/Dodge. One soft, the other firmer
    6 .Better upholstery, cloth resists stains. Better grade leather. - Others offer this
    7. Second-row power windows - Others offer this
    8. Retractable sunshades (2nd and 3rd row)
    9. Heated seats (first and second row, cloth or leather)
    10.Removable sliding "between-seat" console - Others offer this
    11. Swivel middle seats
    12. Two glove boxes
    13. Ambient lighting - Others offer this
    14. Rear back-up camera
    15. High Intensity Discharge headlamps
    16. Rear view conversation mirror
    17. Chargeable and removable flashlight.
    18. Dual-screen overhead entertainment system (allows a separate video source to be played on each screen) - Others offer this
    19. Hard-drive-based "MyGIG" Digital media system (w/navigation)
    20. Television. - Others offer this
    21. Remote start feature
    22. Electric fold third row seat.

    Admittedly, a lot of the other features you noted are improvements to the Dodge / Chrysler brand - which is a good thing.

    The value these other items really brings to the table are very dependent on the buyer. So the observation that some people see what they want to see when buying a car certainly rings true.

    I tend to put 6 speed transmissions, fuel efficiency and reliability (the Odyssey just went back to above average in reliability in the latest CR report) far above that of a rear-conversion-morrors, powered 3rd seats or swivel seats - but that's my call.

    I certainly hope that Chrylser makes good on their intent on reclaiming the title of "top dog" for the minivan market - but its got an uphill battle on fighting the Domestic Quality stigma it earned for itself in the late 90s and early 2000s.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I certainly hope that Chrylser makes good on their intent on reclaiming the title of "top dog" for the minivan market

    The fact that the Odyssey has closed in on the Caravan as "top dog" honors is only exasperated by the fact that the T&C has also cannibalized Caravan sales as well. Caravan used to be about 63% of Chrysler minivan sales, but was down to 55% for '07. And I'm sure dumping those fleet sales has been a big hit for the Caravan as well. Odyssey sales are fairly flat comparing '07 to '04. Caravan/T&C sales are down 100,000 units in '07 vs '04.

    I'm sure reliability plays big on most peoples minds (at least that's what CR and the media want us to believe) but I don't give it a lot of thought. I went for the Ody back in '05 because it had more features I wanted (namely great NAV/DVD system, good performance, and 8-passenger) and reliability was pretty low on the list. I've not had a bad car and I've had about every brand under the sun. So far the Ody has had a few first-year bugs that I somewhat expected, but overall has been fine. Based on real published reliability ratings (problems per 100 vs dots......) there's not a big difference between the best and worst so I'll just buy what I like best.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    CR often talks about how they rate cars in general but I've never seen how specific scores are obtained.

    Any how, I agree about Honda - and will add sound insulation to your list of complaints. The Ody definitely had more road noise than the Sienna on my test drive, and when we rode around with a family in Tucson (they own one, and took us around for 3-4 days).

    Even some Acuras could do better in that regard.

    In C&D testing the Dodge van was the most quiet, though, so kudos to them for working on that.

    I strongly disagree with the "higher grade of leather" comment about the Dodge van above, though. A lot of that seating surface is vinyl, and shiny at that. Not high grade at all.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    A lot of these items you listed below are pretty much standard on many competing models

    1. Stabilty control - everyone has this - Others offer this
    2. New bigger engine - Others offer this
    3. Six speed tranny - Others offer this
    4. Thicker glass to make it quieter
    5. Two different rides on Chrysler/Dodge. One soft, the other firmer
    6 .Better upholstery, cloth resists stains. Better grade leather. - Others offer this
    7. Second-row power windows - Others offer this
    8. Retractable sunshades (2nd and 3rd row)
    9. Heated seats (first and second row, cloth or leather)
    10.Removable sliding "between-seat" console - Others offer this
    11. Swivel middle seats
    12. Two glove boxes
    13. Ambient lighting - Others offer this
    14. Rear back-up camera
    15. High Intensity Discharge headlamps
    16. Rear view conversation mirror
    17. Chargeable and removable flashlight.
    18. Dual-screen overhead entertainment system (allows a separate video source to be played on each screen) - Others offer this
    19. Hard-drive-based "MyGIG" Digital media system (w/navigation)
    20. Television. - Others offer this
    21. Remote start feature
    22. Electric fold third row seat.


    I believe you're referring not just to minivans when you say "standard on competing models"?? Because I don't know of other minivans with dual screens, television, LED lighting, Swivel or Stow N Go seats, none with 6 spd autos, power 2nd and 3rd row windows, heated 2nd row seats, built in child seats, factory remote start et....

    I believe Chrysler is still top dog for minivan, still #1 in sales after 24 years? The fact that others are now heavily discounting their minivan says a lot - Chrysler's minivans are very competitive and compelling!
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    Any how, I agree about Honda - and will add sound insulation to your list of complaints. The Ody definitely had more road noise than the Sienna on my test drive, and when we rode around with a family in Tucson (they own one, and took us around for 3-4 days).

    Even some Acuras could do better in that regard.


    I owned a mid 80s Civic and 92 Acura Integra.......around town, noise levels were ok, but on the highway, the high revving engines quickly got to me. I definitely value less noise in a minivan than other aspects like 0-60mph or MPG.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    An 80s economy car would've had horrendously short gearing. Probably 3000RPM at 60 MPH. That'll get loud in a big hurry. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Nissan Quest had twin screens first, still does IIRC.

    My Sienna has power 2nd and 3rd row windows. Toyota also offered rear facing 2nd row and a power folding 3rd row first.

    Dodge did a good job bringing all these options together, however, and they deserve kudos for that.

    Locally, I've seen advertising that says the twin DVD screens are now included for free as an incentive.

    That might kill Journey sales. The local dealer has Journeys for $26-31k, which buys you a well equipped van that basically offers more of everything.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    If one wants to review all of automotive history, very few of these items are "new" but Chrysler certainly is the leader in "firsts" like a 2 box/FWD layout, basic packaging layout, dual sliding doors, Stow N Go for 2nd and 3rd row, instead of just 3rd row like many station wagons of the 60s and 70s.

    I'm seeing advertising here in Detroit for DGC SXTs for $19k....3.8 V6, 6 spd, power everything, Stow N Go.....awesome price when you consider all the standard features and warranty.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Stow N Go for 2nd and 3rd row

    I think that's giving them too much credit. We should say:

    "Stow N Go for 2nd row"

    And leave the 3rd row out, since they weren't first.

    $19k is a good price, the question is who will pay $7 grand more for the smaller Journey? It's almost as if they don't want the Journey to succeed.
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    The Nissan Quest had twin screens first, still does IIRC.

    My Sienna has power 2nd and 3rd row windows. Toyota also offered rear facing 2nd row and a power folding 3rd row first.


    Probably ALL of these were on full sized conversion vans years ago.

    I find it humorous how many want to cut down domestic vans so much and don't see how tunnel visioned they are. When a [non-permissible content removed] does it - it is "new and innovative". When domestics do it - it dangerous or nothing new. I don't think Toyota's swivel was in the 2nd row rather they were in the first row. Conversion vans did all kinds of swivel seating for years. Some accuse Chrysler's swivel seats of being "dangerous". But the alleged safety car, Volvo has had a rear facing 3rd seat for decades. Fold into the floor seats were new, but some might consider them just an extension of removable, interchangeable and fold down seating in previous vans. Besides they screw up the spare tire and now we have to deal with crap like "run flat" tires, lower ground clearance, limited all-wheel-drive trains, poor visibility. VCM is nothing "new", the idea is old and probably originated in GM. Very little out there is really new.
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    I can't understand the VW position with their minivan.

    Rebranding the Chrysler really doesn't differentiate them - since it won't have the VW German driving experience which is what many VW owners go for - so I'd expect that to fail relatively quickly.


    Actually they say it is supposed to feel more German in the way it handles. I just received my new T&C but have not gotten to drive it much since we are having a snow storm. But I kind of wish I had had a chance to test drive this new VW van. I have had a great experience with my current Chrysler minivan so I wanted another one but I wanted it to be somewhat different than what I currently have out of boredom. That is why I opted for the 4.0 L engine. The alleged different, more European feeling handling of this van might have satisfied my desire for "the same but different feeling" van even more. I think it offers everything that the T&C Limited offers except swivel n go seating. I could have compromised on this type seating in favor of different feeling handling. Of course my kids, who are having a good time with the swivel n go might object but I'm the boss.
  • rahmibubrahmibub Member Posts: 39
    Please note the items I annotated with - Others Offer This - is what I was referring to as "standard"

    6 speed transmissions are becoming the norm now, and are found in the Odyssey and other minivans.

    NOT swivel seats and Dual screen entertainment - that's not annotated, so it's a Chrysler feature.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    6 speed transmissions are becoming the norm now, and are found in the Odyssey and other minivans.

    Sorry but 6 speed transmissions are not the norm, and are not available in any other US Minivan (don't know about other markets). In fact, I don't think Honda even offers a 6 speed auto in any of their vehicles yet? I think the new Accord offers only a 5 speed AT. Check their websites

    Domestic OEMs have the clear lead here....GM/Ford codeveloped the 6 speed auto used in their midsize cars and CUVs I believe. They're also leaders in putting them in full size trucks, although its limited while they ramp up production.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I find it humorous how many want to cut down domestic vans so much

    First off, if you read back my posts are not anti-domestic at all, in fact I'm often the one to give credit where credit is due.

    I'm the one that pointed out the Chrysler vans were both quicker and more efficient than the Odyssey, for instance. And quieter, while we're at it. (source: C&D comparo)

    Perhaps other people get that way, and the domestic fans start to get a bit defensive. This is a "vs." thread, after all.

    However, I will step in when I feel like inflated claims are being made, and in this case they were inflated. Like the "higher grade of leather" claim. I'd hate to see the old stuff.

    I've never implied the rear facing seats were unsafe, in fact I'm not sure how someone could even come to that conclusion, to be honest. Leg room is a little tight, but that's about all there is to complain about with the Swivel n Go seats.

    Chrysler did a great job bringing back some old ideas, putting new twists on them, and tossing in a few firsts in the minivan segment. Is it perfect? Of course not, I think they could have used higher material quality, for instance, but someone shopping for features should look no further because they're the undisputed champ if that's your priority.

    Very little out there is really new.

    Well said.

    PS Honda still uses a 5 speed auto, I believe, so Dodge is still alone in offering 6 ratios
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    I really don't follow this thread much but I'm curious...

    Is there anyone here who is actually looking to buy a minivan or are you all mostly just throwing facts at each other?


    You may want to check the title of this thread i.e....Domestic vs. Foreign, which is what we're talking about here. If you're interested in "buying", there are many buying threads you can participate in
  • 442dude442dude Member Posts: 373
    Thank you
  • rahmibubrahmibub Member Posts: 39
    You know, you're right there. For some really odd reason, I thought the Ody had a 6 speed transmission, but that is incorrect (and yes the Accord only has a 5 speed auto) - very odd since 6 speed Autos are becoming the norm on the Sedans.

    Not even the Siennas are 6 speed trannys, only Dodge/Chrysler - so thank you for the correction.

    The odd thing I noticed though, is that the mileage is still the same between the models - even though Honda and Toyota have more power engines mated to a 5 speed transmission.

    The Edmunds vehicle comparator is a good starting point for the technical specs:
    http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=100952861&- styleid=100903240&styleid=100907682&styleid=100891696&styleid=100913199&maxvehic- les=5&refid=&op=3&tab=features

    From a "numbers" game, the Foreign minivans look technically more impressive to me - how they can get more power from a smaller engine mated to a relatively inefficient 5 speed tranny compared to a lower HP engine with higher displacement and more fuel efficient 6 speed transmission is a marvel to me.

    That said, a nicely engineered car is useless if it is too loud, handles terribly, or has bad ergonomics and interior design. The Dodge/Chrysler brand has the advantage of knowing what Americans like (cup holders, TVs, cup holders, swivel seats, cup holders, Stow and Go - and did I mention, cup holders?) - so they will always have some slight edge on that.

    Personally, the last time I looked at a domestic car (outside of the minivan) was over 10 years ago - and the car commercials I see re-enforce my general perception that it hasn't changed much to suite my tastes.

    Chrysler's interiors are far better than GM's in general. Ford, well - they gave up the minivan market.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    Efficiency gains from higher number transmissions are there, but relatively limited in scope in my opinion. I think they're more about a smoother feeling shift and marginally better gas mileage. Some of the old transmissions actually worked pretty good. GM had it's old 4 speed transmission tuned pretty well and it delivered relatively good fuel economy with smooth shifting.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    The Chrysler 4.0L V6 has MORE useable power than either the Sienna or Odyssey. Torque is the component that gets a vehicle moving. :shades:

    The Chrysler 4.0L has 259 lb-ft @ 4,200 RPM - Sienna 3.5L has 245 lb-ft @ 4,700 RPM - and lowest is the Odyssey 3.5L with 242 lb-ft @ 4,900 RPM.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    From a "numbers" game, the Foreign minivans look technically more impressive to me - how they can get more power from a smaller engine mated to a relatively inefficient 5 speed tranny compared to a lower HP engine with higher displacement and more fuel efficient 6 speed transmission is a marvel to me.

    But OEMs can play games with numbers, just like politicians. Ever notice how Japanese cars tout really great HP numbers from smaller displacement engines....it's always been at high RPMs, sacrificing torque at lower RPMs. Look at BMW's str8 sixes....vs. Q35's V6s.....The Nissans look impressive on paper but real world, not that impressive.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Member Posts: 1,168
    Better said than me :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Good point about torque, but forget the numbers entirely, and let's look at results instead. For instance you ignored curb weight completely. Results are what really matters.

    In Car & Driver the Dodge indeed did well on acceleration and passing tests, but it was the Sienna that really cleaned up. It whopped up on every other van and got the best gas mileage to boot. Dodge was #2 in both, impressive, but Toyota took the crown on all acceleration tests and in efficiency.

    Honda has some 'splaining to do because their van was only so-so on acceleration and got a dismal 16mpg. And this is with VCM.

    At first I wondered why Toyota didn't put their 6 speed auto in the Sienna, but now I'm relieved. Their 5 speed auto has been far more reliable. That matters a lot more to me than the number of gears.

    Cup holders? You win.

    The Sienna has 4 in the center console, but they are a far reach for the 2nd row passengers. They have bottle holders in the door, but again those are quite a reach. My middle seat in the 2nd row folds down and has two indentations for cups but they are not deep enough to be useful, so I don't think those should even count.

    We have booster seats for our kids that have built-in cup holders, 2 in each, so that does the trick for us. By the time they outgrow the booster seats they will be able to easily reach the center console. Problem solved.

    Still, Toyota would be wise to purchase a Dodge van and borrow some of their innovative ideas.
  • rahmibubrahmibub Member Posts: 39
    You know, you really did hit the nail on the head with that comment.

    Honda and Toyota engines usually have to rev to a higher RPM to hit those HP numbers - unlike American and European engines.

    Well said.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    But the peak output doesn't tell the whole story. You are only looking at one single data point. You have to look at the whole torque curve. What you want is as flat a torque curve as possible.

    Here is a pic of the torque curve for Toyota's 2GR V6. Impressively flat, basically.

    This is why it won the comparo for 0-60, 5-60 rolling start, 1/4 mile time, 1/4 mile trap speed, 30-50 passing, and 50-70 passing. All acceleration tests, basically.

    Click thumbnail below to see bigger image - it's the one on the right.

    SUPRISE :surprise: - that V6 has a much flatter torque curve than the V8 shown on the left, which has torque peaking at a much lower RPM.

    Disproving your theory.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Anyone have the curves for Chrysler's engines? I'd be curious to see them.

    I bet they're also fairly flat up to a certain point, dropping off at higher RPMs.
  • maryh3maryh3 Member Posts: 263
    You guys are nuts. High performance minivans???

    imageSee more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
  • siennamisiennami Member Posts: 116
    You learn something new every day. I didn't know that VW manufactured a van, well at least not one that looked like the one pictured. Pretty cool. Evidently those are not available in the US? I don't think I've seen them at my local VW dealership, and it would've been fun to have tested one, although I do love my Silver Shadow. I did, however, test a Mazda 5, so I am interested in the fact that Ford produces a Focus van. How about that? I am guessing that this vehicle is not manufactured in the US, either? I know I haven't seen them tooling around my town! This has been a very interesting discussion. When I first chose the Sienna some years ago, it wasn't because it is a Toyota. I just liked the vehicle. I can't say that I have been especially fond of GM or Chrysler vehicles, or Honda, to be perfectly honest, although I had a Chevy Cavalier for years. I've kind of skipped around, depending on my need, what I liked in a car, and the deal offered, although not necessarily in that order. I must say that I've been most satisfied with the Sienna. I have the most room in it, it is the most attractive of my vehicles (with the exception of my beloved Passat!), and it gets the best gas mileage. I just plain ol' like driving it!
  • carzzzcarzzz Member Posts: 282
    The torque-curve diagram you uploaded has direct injection; example: from IS350 & GS350. I have read a graph (did not find it at this moment) that the 2GR without DI torque curve is not flat. It starts off at 200 lb-ft at about 1500rpm and raise slowly and peaks at 3500-5000 with 240ish and then dips down! Some Sienna owners also say that the van starts to move above 3k rpm
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Can you find that torque curve graph?

    There is a 2 stage intake and the 2nd opening only opens above 3000rpm, unless the throttle is more than half way down. So they are probably observing it under light throttle application. Floor it and you get more response below 3000rpm.

    Mary found them for Chrysler (thanks), and you can see they're not quite flat. Looks like the 4.0l peaks at fairly high rpms, too, over 4000rpm from what I can tell, though the pic is very small.

    Any how, the Sienna is lighter, and out on the road, it's quicker 0-60, 5-60, 1/4 miles, passing at low speeds, and passing at high speeds.

    Those real world results account for gearing and weight.

    The Sienna is the quickest van for sale in the US right now, period. That fact is undisputed.
  • gsa38gsa38 Member Posts: 2
    I mostly agree that the domestic engines have more torque where it's needed. The Odyssey 3.5 is particularly weak in this respect and the lack of a quick manual override doesnt help. BTW it's amazing how much stronger the Sienna's V6 is compared to the Honda unit. Despite the output numbers, it is at least as good low in the rev range as the Chrysler 4.0, sounds way better than the Honda, and is stronger and smoother than the Crysler higher up. I just traded to a Sienna LE from Odyssey and putting aside the temptation to validate my decision I have to say that the Sienna, apart from too light steering, is a more impressive vehicle. All the Car mags seem to put handling at the top as the most important factor. If I have to drive a van, a properly growly v6 makes driving a lot more fun.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Your comments are right in line with Car & Driver's results.

    The Grand Caravan indeed outran the Odyssey easily. Got 2mpg better as well.

    But the Sienna beat 'em both. :shades:
  • jtk152jtk152 Member Posts: 139
    "I mostly agree that the domestic engines have more torque where it's needed. The Odyssey 3.5 is particularly weak in this respect and the lack of a quick manual override doesnt help....."

    What model year Odyssey are you referring to? Obviously, none of them are intended to be muscle cars, but after owning a 3.8L 2001 Windstar (which had some scoots to it) and having a 1997 3.8L Town and Country in the family (plus other GM and Chysler MVs), my 2008 Odyssey is a race car in comparison to those. Very impressive power and tight, responsive handling. The Sienna feels great in the power department too, but rides and handles like a Granny/Gramps Buick- if that's what you are into. Mushy, wallowy and disconnected, not that anything is wrong with that!?!

    Joel
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    Printed on page 32 of 2008 Chrysler Town & Country brochure are torque and horsepower curves for 3.3L, 3.8L, and 4.0L V6 engines of the 2008 Chrysler T&C minivans. :shades:

    However, there are apparently errors in the ones for the 3.3L and 3.8L V6 engines horsepower ratings. The numbers appear correct for torque but NOT for the horsepower. :confuse:
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    Yeah that's what drew me to the Hondas too. They handle so great! I also think they have plenty of get up and go. It is impressive however that the new Toyota engines seem to have both great horse power and mileage. Too bad they couldn't stick them in the Hondas! :P
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    BUT, Chrysler 4.0L has MORE torque which is also at a lower RPM than the Sienna 3.5L. :shades:

    Chrysler 4.0L: 259 lb-ft @ 4200 RPM
    Sienna 3.5L: 245 lb-ft @ 4700 RPM

    Would be nice to compare the GC SXT with a comparably equipped Sienna XLE and not compare the heavy T&C Limited with a lightweight, spartan Sienna CE. :blush:
  • carzzzcarzzz Member Posts: 282
    Here it is:
    http://toyota.jp/harrier/dynamism/engin/index.html

    you have to do some conversion calculation from N-m to lb-ft.
    This 2GR is one the best engines for excellent performance with outstanding fuel-efficiency. 200lb-ft off the line is not bad!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.