Toyota Sienna 2004+

15152545657

Comments

  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    WOW....

    I live on the Eastside of Seattle.

    I would not recommend a FWD or front biased AWD to anyone for driving on adverse wintertime conditions as you will/might encounter on the way to Mt Hood Meadows.

    But:

    I have a 2001 AWD RX300 but have 1.5" wheel spacers all around and upgraded to 17X8 wheels with wider tires. 3.0" Wider stance adds stabilty against rollover and wider tire tread yeilds more roadbed traction.

    But the important point is while I run summer tires all year around for best quietness and comfort I always have snow chains onboard, at the ready, during the winter months.

    Should the need arise the rear chains go on first and then the fronts if conditions warrant.

    Otherwise take a long hard look at the 4runner.

    But the bottom line is this. If you insist on risking your life and that of those you hold close then you might as well go for FWD with all of the extras, VSC/Trac/ABS/BA/EBD, as paying the extra cost for AWD will not help when the torque biasing remains at the front as it does in the Sienna.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Don't forget snow tires. They will help you stop and awd will not.

    Speaking of risking ones life and those they hold close. If you have to hit the brakes on unexpected black ice it is too late for the chains. Snow tires are always there when you need them, not just when you think you need them.
  • brs1brs1 Member Posts: 17
    I actually happen to believe in the usefulness of AWD
    based on our recent experience and some theory. I have bought a 2006 XLE AWD Sienna this Tuesday, partially for
    the added safety for our skiing trips.

    My wife and friends in three cars were traveling during a light snow fall on a steep mountain road. The first car was a VW Jetta - flew off the road and down 30ft (everybody survived). The next car was Nissan Xterra RWD - started spinning and, finally, landed on its side. My wife in our old trusted 1997 Subary Legacy AWD (front biased!) didn't even feel like there is any problem on the road.

    I think this has a mathematical explanation. Four wheels
    you cover fout spots on the road. Unless you are driving on a skating ring, having 4 driving wheels rather than 2,
    you are significantly descreasing the probability of losing control of the car (there is a good probability that at least 1 wheel has traction.)

    Another observation from driving to ski resort during snow
    is that often people get stuck after parking 2WD over a snow patch. Having all my cars AWD, I don't even have to pay attention to the snow in parking spots.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Unless you are absolutely 'against' used cars - that's all I ever buy, Ill explain - buying a Certified USED Toyota is better use for your money.

    All Toyota's should take you about 250K-300K miles with little problem. That's 15-20 yrs of driving for most people. 15-20 yrs??? Who keeps a vehicle that long? As the poster above mentioned you're not getting married. If someone has driven the vehicle for 3 yrs say, coming off-lease, and it has 35-45K mi on it you, the 'real owner' can drive it for the next 12 years and pay significantly less than the original buyer did.

    Ahh, the warranty on a TCUV is somewhat better than a new vehicle warranty also.

    Contrary to the common idea that there must be something wrong with a recently traded vehicle with 6K miles on it, the reason usually has to do with the recent owner not the vehicle. Change in lifestyle, change in job, death in the family, who knows. We have two '05 Prius' on the lot traded recently one has 2500 mi on it and the other 5500 mi. The reason for trading the first was that the lady had to have the new '06 because it had a backup camera on it like the Siennas with Nav; the other was because the owner was coming out of a Mercury Marquis for ( 15 yrs ) and the Prius was just too small.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "Snow" tires actually have less contact surface area, less traction on black ice, than would summer tires. "snow" tires are only an advantage when the tread blocks can sink, dig into, the surface area over which they travel.

    There is a "place" for snow/winter tires but it is not on a solid surface area, ice, packed snow, etc.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I don't disagree that AWD or some equivalent forms of 4WD, will yeild additional safety on adverse roadbed conditions over 2WD vehicles, certainly so against inherently hazardous FWD in these conditions.

    I am inspired by the new AWD system in the 2006 Lexus GS300 and ISxxx. On those vehicles the VSC system's yaw sensor is used to manage the allocation of engine torque. If the yaw sensor indicates that lateral forces are high, or the vehicle is not following the proper "line", engine torque is automatically shifted from the front to the rear. That allows the front tire's contact patch to be allocated entirely to directional control.

    I am now looking forward to the day when the RX series adopts that same system.

    DOWN with FWD or front torque biased AWD!
  • plambsheadplambshead Member Posts: 4
    Thanks to all of you for your input! I have some follow-up questions:

    1. For the less technically minded among us, could someone please explain the difference between "front biased AWD" and [presumeably] "rear biased", why the latter is so much better, and which vehicles have it? Does that rule out Suburu's?

    2. In the real world, how many mpg's should one expect to sacrifice on the AWD version of a comparably equipped FWD (a Sienna in my case)?

    3. Are 'snow chains' the same as 'traction devices', and aren't they pretty difficult to put on in wintery conditions?

    4. Do 'snow tires' really help that much more than today's all-season radials? Are a set of studded tires (despite the noise and pavement wear) worth purchasing?

    Paul
  • drewbadrewba Member Posts: 154
    I can't answer most of these, but I have some experience with #3. As a skier living in Washington, I've had a fair amount of opportunity to try different chains and cables. Up until recently, I'd be inclined to agree that they are a pain to put on.

    However, a couple of years ago, we got SCC Shur-Grip Z cables for our Highlander. These are easy to put on and remove and you don't need to stop to tighten them.

    Personally, I would rather deal with using these cables a few times a year than pay the additional upfront cost and mileage penalty all year long of AWD.

    BTW, please stay away from studded tires, whether you go with FWD or AWD. They really do trash the pavement, and in the Northwest, we very rarely have snow in the lowlands.
  • plambsheadplambshead Member Posts: 4
    Do you put traction cables on all 4 wheels, or just the drive wheels? And can you tell me where you purchased your cables?
  • drewbadrewba Member Posts: 154
    Just the drive wheels on the FWD car. I think that I got them at Firestone, but there are a bunch of places that carry them. There is a store locator on the SCC-chain dot com website.
  • brs1brs1 Member Posts: 17
    No, I am not at all against used cars. IMHO a good
    used is a 3 year old 30K miles with service records
    and 1 owners. Often these are after a lease. In my latest purchase my main reason to go for a new car was the availability of the latest safety features (in particular, curtain airbags.)

    I do not disagree that used cars with very low mileage can be attributed to something wrong with an owner, not necessarily
    the car. However, owners who do this often have to have 2 characteristics:
    1. Have lots of money to waste.
    2. Not very smart.
    These characteristics are well illustrated by your examples.
    Assuming that these people are not prevalent in the general
    population, I would still suspect that there could be something wrong with the car.

    Of course, one needs to take into consideration what kind
    of car it is. I imagine that one can find lots of Mercedes
    S-500 that were traded in since they didn't match the color
    of somebody's new shoes or BMW750 because the I-drive was not very intuitive to operate. This is probably not the case
    with Sienna, who's buyers have large families and, therefore, heavily stretched budgets. Those people just can't afford to waste $5K just
    because of backup camera. So, in this particular case,
    I would stay away from the used Sienna.
  • brs1brs1 Member Posts: 17
    Before I get to your questions, I would like to dispell
    one misunderstanding about AWD. AWD is good not just
    for snow. While I was shopping for a car in Southern California, every dealer would tell me - why do you need
    it - it rains only a few times a year. Well... Do you
    know how many accidents happen in Southern California during a rain? In San Diego alone, there is at least a hundred accidents during any rainy day. So, yes, most of the year you don't need AWD. Except, few days a year AWD can save your life. I don't mind paying 10% for gas
    for this.

    1. Biased in the case of AWD means that under normal condition the engine's torque force applied mostly to
    front wheels (front-biased) or real wheels (rear-biased.)
    I don't know if all one is better than another. Also,
    I believe my 2001 Lexus RX300 is not biased (it applies
    equal torque to both front and rear.)
    Subaru has at least 4 different AWD systems, depending on
    the car and a trim. Cheaper models are front-biased.
    More expensive trims (e.g. Legacy GT, Outback XT) are
    rear-biased for performance reasons. Their most fancy
    Outback VDC combines AWD with stability control and
    can control every wheel separately (so it can be become
    right rear or front left-biased if it wants.) Whenever
    I drive to the mountains in California, I am always amazed
    to see hundreds of Subarus. I doubt this would be the case
    if they didn't handle the snow.

    2. I imagine it would be no more than 10% difference in MPG. It is hard to compare as your would need to drive
    both on the same road under the same traffic conditions. It is the driving style that defines MPG. So,
    comparing AWD and 2WD cars between friends does not make
    much sense.

    3. No, snow cables are not hard to put at all. In the situation that I described above, my wife was able to put
    the chains herself even though she has only seen once
    how I put them on (I am a proud husband:). Despite the fact all my cars are AWD, I always carry snow cables and put them on the front wheels as soon as I feel a potential trouble.

    4. No, snow tires is additional expense and inconvenience.
    Snow chains or cables are all you need.
  • petlpetl Member Posts: 610
    These are the facts. For best traction in snow and ice conditons AWD/4WD is number 1. Next is FWD and brigging up the rear (sorry for the pun) is RWD. There are some that can't seem to accept the obvious. These conclusions are based on over 35 years of driving experience (in wintery driving conditions). I've own all 3 types of drive convigurations. There may be some acceptions to the rule. However, for the everyday driver (not racer) the benefits of additional traction of AWD over FWD over RWD will be felt. What some forget is that AWD/FWD systems do not improve stopping distances.

    Actually, Consumer Reports (December 2004) agreed. Recently, Mercedes released their new B-class FWD vehicle stating in an add that it offered better traction than RWD. You may choose not to beleive me. For a better argument take it up with CR and DC.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Before you believe any of this FWD and or AWD/4WD is better do some thorough research into the newest technology on the road today in that regard. Have a long hard look at the way the new AWD systems operate, dynamically, on the Lexus GS300 & IS300, and/or the 4runner AWD system. All of these re-apportion engine torque, leading or lagging, to the rear when more lateral, directional control is needed or directional control is threatened.

    The Volvo XC90 is yet another good example. And while I shudder in saying it so is the new Ford Freestyle. When entering a turn, corner, both of these allocate the majority of the engine torque to the rear wheels and then begin reapportioning engine torque to the front as you reach and pass the apex of the corner/turn.

    Prior to reaching the apex of the turn the front tires will be heavily loaded laterally. Once the apex is reached the lateral loading declines allowing for more engine drive torque to be applied to the front without threatening loss of directional control.

    You may take note that most american manufacturers of upscale vehicles are rapidly departing the FWD and front biased AWD venue. Following the lead of MB, BMW, & Lexus no doubt. Cadillac first tried using an over-running clutch to eliminate a high rate of loss of control of their FWD vehicles due to inadvertant engine compression braking.

    Nothing satisfies an old experienced owner/driver like knowing that the front tires' contact patch is totally allocated to directional control.

    Just what can you do with a FWD or front biased AWD that I cannot do with my RWD? You can get up and going fast, faster, than I. I'm satisfied with that.

    There are OLD pilots. There are BOLD pilots.

    But there are very few OLD and BOLD pilots.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    And while you're at it check out the AWD system now on the Acura RL and the upcoming Acura RDX.

    Acura, rear biased AWD?

    Hell MUST be freezing over.

    Pardon me while I go check my pig fence.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    ""Snow" tires actually have less contact surface area, less traction on black ice, than would summer tires. "snow" tires are only an advantage when the tread blocks can sink, dig into, the surface area over which they travel"

    That statement could not be further from the truth. Snow and ice tires stop much better on glare ice than summer tires, and if they are studded they are better still. They use a different rubber compound that is much more flexible and sticks to the ice, they are also heavily siped.

    Read CR or go to Tirerack.com and look at the actual tests.
  • mchappellmchappell Member Posts: 52
    Does anybody know if/where it is possible to rent a Sienna in the Chicago area? We'd like to spend a few days with one before committing.

    Thanks,

    Mark
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    I'd call all the Toyota dealers in your area to see if they carry Toyota-Rent-A-Car and if they carry rental Siennas.

    You can also try Avis and Alamo I think, but I'm not sure and your chances of getting a Sienna versus an Uplander or Grand Caravan are slim.
  • krishna__jkrishna__j Member Posts: 24
    Hi. I am in the market for an Odyssey or a Sienna and I am leaning towards a Sienna XLE LTD FWD due the pax tire issues with the Honda. My purchase time is somewhat flexible. I intend to keep the van for a while and buying a 2006 makes sense unless there are some serious upgrades on the 2007 (unlikely). I was wondering what is typically the best time to get good deals on the 2006 models.

    July/Aug or do I have to go to Sep/Oct?

    Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

    p.s. also posted this on the prices paid forum. Apologies to people browsing both.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    If you can live with a limited selection, I'd recommend waiting until Augustish when Toyota starts putting incentives, and then looking hard.

    The Limited models seem to be particularly hard to find- only 1 dealer in my area has a Limited...
  • coupedncalcoupedncal Member Posts: 252
    Now that Toyota has put the new engine in most of their lineup, is it likely it will also end up in Sienna ? That would bring it more in line with Honda Ody's engine. The current one sure seems under-powered. Plus the 3.5L is also more fuel efficient. Has anyone heard the latest ?
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    Certain people on a different Sienna forum elsewhere have mentioned that the 07 Sienna may come with the 3.5L engine.
  • plambsheadplambshead Member Posts: 4
    For many reasons I would prefer to buy a 2006 EX-L Odyssey, rather than an AWD Sienna, but wonder how good the FWD Ody will be in winter driving conditions?
    Does anyone have real world experience comparing the two? Is the AWD Sienna significantly better in snow & ice than the Ody?
    Thanks!
  • heywood1heywood1 Member Posts: 851
    IF you're willing to buy an extra set of (4) snow tires, the FWD Odyssey will perform well in most winter conditions. But an AWD Sienna with snow tires will take you to the next level of winter-driving capability. Depends on your needs and where you live.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    A large local newspaper is looking to interview consumers who purchased a Lexus, Toyota or Scion vehicle and what led you to purchase that vehicle. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Wednesday, April 5, 2006 containing your daytime contact information, along with the make and model your vehicle.

    Thanks,
    Chintan Talati
    Corporate Communications
    Edmunds.com
  • dbtdbt Member Posts: 298
    I've read that the new 3.5 engine is significantly cheaper to manufacture (30-50% or so), and so it would seem to be in Toyota's interest to put it in, as long as no major modifications are required.
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    My wife and I are in the market for a minivan due to the impending arrival of our third child. We were at Toyota of Concord in Concord, NC this afternoon and lo and behold, there sat a 2007 Sienna XLE. It does in fact have the 3.5 liter engine, rated at 268 horsepower, mated to the six-speed transmission. The real shocker was the EPA numbers: 22 city and 31 highway. It was a base XLE, with no additional packages listed on the window sticker. The MSRP was around 28k. I thought that the 2007s weren't scheduled for production until December. Does anyone know of an official on-sale date?
  • wandlwandl Member Posts: 40
    are you for real? I checked on their website, couldn't find on Toyota's website or anywhere about an 07 Sienna anywhere...I didn't think they'd start offering those till later this year in the fall...
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    I can guarantee you that it was real. There were three Siennas lined up in a row. I was actually looking through the window of one and saw the window sticker with the different EPA numbers, which I thought was wrong. Upon further investigation, the window sticker was for a 2007 Sienna XLE. If you don't believe me, call Toyota of Concord in Concord, NC and ask if they have a dark grey 2007 XLE on the lot. I only wish that I had my digital camera to put to bed the obvious doubts as to the veracity of my claim. I too looked all over the Toyota website and Toyota's media website for 2007 info, but couldn't find anything.
  • msm20032003msm20032003 Member Posts: 7
    Did anything look different? I heard they were changing the wheels? How about the interior?
  • starlightmicastarlightmica Member Posts: 58
    toyotaofconcord.com

    Would need pics/VIN to confirm this.
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    Since we haven't been in the market for that long, I can't really say for certain what has changed and what hasn't as far as the interior is concerned. I do know that the wheels were different than the 06 XLE's wheels.

    I, too, checked the dealership's website; the 07 is not listed. However, the "dealer inventory" is an inventory of all of Southeast Toyota's vehicles. The website doesn't even have an option to choose the 07. The Monroney sticker on the 07 looks just like an 06, like it came directly from the factory.

    I realize that the first person to see one is always going to be treated with a great deal of skepticism, but it's there. Call the dealership and actually speak to a live person. Have him/her walk down to the bottom lot with the pickup trucks. It's there. It's dark grey in color, a new color for 07.
  • dc_driverdc_driver Member Posts: 712
    I believe you. It makes sense that Toyota would put the 3.5 liter engine in the Sienna. I read an article recently that stated that this engine is actually cheaper to manufacture than the 3.3 liter. It also makes sense since this would give the Sienna class leading horsepower. I am also not surprised to see a 6 speed automatic transmission (fuel consumption) but I wonder if this will only be in the upper-end models (rest get a five speed tranny)? I would suspect that this would add to the overall cost of the van, unless Toyota saved money on other components such as the engine and did not want to raise the price.

    Man, I wish they would release the full specs of the 07. Although it does not do me any good since I just purchased an 06 Honda Odyssey EX-L two weeks ago...
  • fdesignfdesign Member Posts: 3
    Sorry jmfreshour, your are incorrect.

    I actually called Toyota of Concord, and spoke with Clyde.

    I read to him your three posts detailing what Sienna you saw.

    As I was on the phone with him, he walked down to the lower lot, and looked at the three Sienna's that are there.

    They are all 2006 models.

    Even the dark gray one you mentioned.

    So at this point, the report of a 2007 in Concord is debunked.

    Jmfreshour, if you still believe you saw a 2007, I HIGHLY recommend you go over there with your digital camera and take a picture, at this point, that is the only way anyone will believe it.

    Sorry people... I was so excited that the 2007 might already be out, cause I need a mini-van bad, and I just dont think I can wait until Fall or Winter... so this is sad news... Oh well... at least we know...
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    I just back from the dealership. This time I took my camera. Same van, same position, no Monroney sticker at all, not from 06 or 07. The wheels appeared to be the same six-spoke alloys that are available with some LE packages. I do remember reading from the 07 Monroney that there should have been chrome-tipped dual exhausts, which this van did not have. That leads me to believe that someone mistakenly put an 07 Monroney in an 06 van. It's possible that Clyde got down there and realized the egregious mistake that the dealer had made putting 07 info on an 06 van, and ripped out the Monroney.

    One other interesting thing about the 07 Monroney was that for the base XLE (no packages), the MSRP with destination was 28k and change. That's almost $1500 less than an 06 XLE. Maybe Toyota is lowering prices on the 07s to reflect actual transaction prices, trying to do away with incentives.

    I stand by the Monroney that I saw. When the official 07 info is released, I expect the naysayers to make a public apology in this forum. If I'm wrong, you can forever banish me from this forum. I'm just as interested in the 07s as you all, and thought that I would share what I saw.
  • starlightmicastarlightmica Member Posts: 58
    Hmmm....

    2007 Camry XLE V6
    Base MSRP with shipping but no option packages: $28,100 (Toyota Mid-Atlantic, via buyatoyota.com)
    EPA 22/31
    3.5L VVT-i V6, 6sp auto, 268hp
    Chrome-tipped dual exhaust? Yes.
    (info from toyota.com/camry)

    --

    Rumors on the aforementioned Sienna forum point to MY 2007 late in 2006, as in, not yet.
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    You may be on to something. Perhaps it is I who should be offering the public apology. I must admit that when I saw 2007 on the Monroney, I immediately started to look at the standard features, such as engine size. It's entirely possible that some joker put a Camry Monroney in a Sienna. But how someone could make that mistake I'll never know. I assumed that since the Monroney was on the inside of a Sienna that it was for a Sienna. Stranger things have happened. I guess the waiting game continues.
  • jmfreshourjmfreshour Member Posts: 57
    I did a little more research to temper my enthusiasm for what I thought was the 2007 Sienna. It was a little hard to see the screen through the egg on my face. This is probably not new news, but it looks like orders will be accepted for 2007 Siennas starting October 1, which means late fall for delivery to dealers. Looks like we'll wind up with a 2006; our third child is due in August. My apologies to all for the false alarm.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Member Posts: 619
    There is no way an '07 Sienna is going to have 22/31 EPA mileage ratings.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    I am satisfied with the 3.3L in my 2006 Sienna which got slightly over 30 MPG in a recent 190 mile round trip. (Miles driven divided by gasoline used). While cruising at 75 MPH on the Interstate, the trip computer was reading 30 to 32 MPG instant economy. On a fairly steep, long hill, the transmission shifted down only once (to 4th gear) and trip computer read 15 to 16 mpg while in 4th.
    For around town driving, I preferred the 4 speed AT in my 2002 T&C to the 5 speed AT in my 2006 Sienna since it did not downshift as frequently.
  • dc_driverdc_driver Member Posts: 712
    I don't think the Sienna feels underpowered either. However, Toyota seems to have a real winner with the 3.5L 268HP V6 that is in the new Rav and Camry.

    I would suspect that Toyota would eventually put this in the Sienna, but I am curious as to what kind of gas mileage it would get. I am guessing that it would be pretty similar to the current EPA ratings...
  • msm20032003msm20032003 Member Posts: 7
    http://www.arifleet.com/pnews/2006/pn608.pdf
    Has no one here seen this link? It's a fleet site that says the '07 is getting the 3.5.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    I'm mainly interested in seeing how those new wheels look.
  • msm20032003msm20032003 Member Posts: 7
    Maybe they'll put 18's on it.....Unlikely but would be cool.
  • cptpltcptplt Member Posts: 1,075
    is the TPMS in the Sienna the type which uses the ABS or is there an actual sensor in valve?? I'm thinking of getting snowtires this winter, if I don't need a new valve/sensor I will get new wheels also.
  • sarin_jsarin_j Member Posts: 1
    the TPMS uses the ABS system to determine changes in pressure and Toyota says that it functions only when speed is around 45 mph.
  • cptpltcptplt Member Posts: 1,075
    thanks for the info. will get wheels and tires then, those sensors aren't cheap, they are 100 bucks each for a subaru!

    if it only works at 45mph, thats not a whole lot of use when you are travelling at highway speeds and something bad develops when you really need to know your pressures are ok! sounds like a Ford explorer disaster waiting to happen!
  • undecided12undecided12 Member Posts: 2
    Hearing confirmation from several sources. Anyone heard any solid details on price and availability?
  • msm20032003msm20032003 Member Posts: 7
    http://www.donlen.com/buildstart_toyota.asp
    This says start up date is November and Delivery is January, but the delivery date would probably depend on where you live. I live very close to the Sienna plant, so I would probably be able to get one in December.
  • nofeernofeer Member Posts: 381
    with the european diesel technology, i'd get a diesel for the extra torque and better mileage.
This discussion has been closed.

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.