Honda Odyssey 2005+

1910121415100

Comments

  • 65times65times Member Posts: 20
    John, I totally agree with you! My wife was absolutely amazed at it's sports car feel on the road. I am especially impressed with the instant response in quick maneuvers. Also, have you done U turn this van? It is even tighter than my 03 accord, can turn around on a dime!
  • 65times65times Member Posts: 20
    The Dealership is Mechanicsville Honda in Richmond VA. It would truly be worth the drive 100 miles south of D.C to capture such a savings. If you wish to contact via the net, search on Page Auto Group. You will find them listed there. Good Luck!
  • 65times65times Member Posts: 20
    I think your dealer is misleading you and simply does not want to track one down. When we ordered our EXL-RES in July, our dealership simply had to request one at our trim level that was scheduled for a production. Our name was tagged to it and we now have it. Dealers may also do transfers from other dealers so it sounds to me that you have a lazy salesman!
  • andyk1andyk1 Member Posts: 2
    I'm interested to know how useful the back-up sensor is as an aid for parallel parking. I read that some back-up sensors emit a solid warning sound as far away as 2 ft from objects. I love the rear view camera in nav system, but don't want the whole RES/NAV package.
  • alexmishalexmish Member Posts: 47
    Yeap, that is what I've also read.... Which means it will not help parking in a big city with tight parking space (like NYC)
  • macakavamacakava Member Posts: 775
    Manually locking the door would have the same rescuer challenges as with auto locks. No difference!

     

    Would the manually locked door unlock itself by luck?
  • hidoc1hidoc1 Member Posts: 1
    Howdy,I have the Pax system in my Infiniti FX 45
    and 5 days ago,The Nav.screen flashed with the warning:CHECK TIRE PRESSURES;FLAT TIRE."
    Then when i looked up for the tire pressures on the Navi.it showed all the 4 tires with only one reading 24 and the rest 33.all this info.without getting out of the car.then,I got out and looked at the driver's siide rear tire which is what the Navi.had said,it did not look flat at all.The car drove fine for a good 35 miles.Since the local tire guys(SEARS/GOOD YEAR)it appeared are not well equipped ,i called the dealer,who came to my place 60 miles away from the dealership and drove the car to the dealer to get it fixed.
                If the Honda Odyssey is the same Pax system as that of the Infiniti- I thought it was great!
               Iam by the way planning to get a Touring-Odyssey-today ?at MSRP price??
  • hondasellerhondaseller Member Posts: 3
    M.S.R.P. no adds like rust/stripes and mud guards!
  • firstdaddyfirstdaddy Member Posts: 19
    Let me get this straight, you think the 2005 Odysseys drives better than the Sienna? Just last night the wife and I drove the 2005 Odyssey for the first time. I'm sad to say we were not impressed. The ride was a slight improvement from the 2004 model, but it still exhibited a similar clunky and stiff ride as the 2004. Another thing is, under full throttle it has some very bad torque bump steering. The sales person urged my wife to "punch it" to feel the power of the vehicle. She did so at about 10 MPH after exiting a turn. Well, we almost ended up in the ditch. The van pulls very hard toward the right. All that extra power is great, but is worthless unless the vehicle is properly designed to handle it. There were several other things we did not like too. The Sienna ride is pure luxury compared to the Odyssey. New Odyssey is not in the same class as the Sienna when it comes to ride quality.
  • hondasellerhondaseller Member Posts: 3
    First off you really need to research both as i used to sell Toyota`s . The Toyota is not all that it is cracked up to be! What about that recall they had on the transmission on the seinna. Toyota also does fleet sales to Hertz/Budget ETC. Honda does not allow that! What does that mean to you ?? Less resale value. Why does Toyota give alot of rebates! They can barely give away those things! My biggest reason why i switched to Honda is because my resept for Honda is alot greater than Toyota . Toyota buyers are looking for cheap import cars. Thats why they came out with Scion. Honda is more advanced than Toyota will ever be. Honda learns for their racing division. Everyone has a choice either way is ok but I feel Honda is front!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Toyota also does fleet sales to Hertz/Budget ETC. Honda does not allow that! What does that mean to you ??

    It probably means Honda doesn't have enough capacity to supply fleet buyers. Captive buyers mean easy profits.

    Steve, Host
  • hpanhpan Member Posts: 61
    "Toyota also does fleet sales to Hertz/Budget ETC. Honda does not allow that! What does that mean to you ??

    It probably means Honda doesn't have enough capacity to supply fleet buyers. Captive buyers mean easy profits."

    It alos means Honda has a better resale value than Toyota.
  • hpanhpan Member Posts: 61
    I am torn between buying the EX-L w/ Navi & DVD and Touring w/ Navi & DVD. I can afford the Touring but do think it's overpriced relative to the EX-L.

    Nonetheless, I do like to have the power tail gate, adjustable pedals, auto-on headlights, fog lights, auto-dim rearview mirror, rear auto climate control and 115V outlet. I don't care about the other extra features and really don't like the PAX, which is THE deal breaker if I don't buy the Touring.

    Are the parking sensors redundant if you have the rearview camera?
  • alexmishalexmish Member Posts: 47
    I would say that parking sensors are redundant if you have rearview camera. If you can afford Touring - get it ! You will regret later that you did not. You will get used to all the extra options it offers, besides it seems that you like most of the extra features it offers!
  • ric345ric345 Member Posts: 8
    We were also debating between EXL and touring but decided on the EXL.
    Saw the EXL and were sold on that.

    Haven't actually seen backup camera but suspect its good enough in place of the sensors. The 115v outlet is in the back, great for the kids, but doesn't do much good for the first 2 rows. The rear climate control isn't that big a deal since it's already at least 2 zones in EXL up front at least manual control of fan speed in rear zone from the fornt controls. Figured the windows already tinted so auto dimming isn't that big a deal (love it on my other car tough).

    If you're willing to pay the extra $4200 for touring and don't like pax then wow you got money to burn!
  • chacha Member Posts: 16
    This in my opinion is the biggest difference between the Sienna and Odyssey. The Sienna is all Lexus underneath, excellent engine and transmission, which is superior to Honda's transmission.

    AWD is much better than FWD in Rain or Snow. FWD is much better than RWD in Rain and snow.

    For me I am shocked Honda did not include this as an option, especially since they are the so called "Safety Company". Can anyone explain how they make that claim and forget important features like AWD for the Odyssey and side curtain airbags on the Honda Pilot?

    AWD on the Sienna is automatic, it detects slippage and adjusts automatically.

    I for one went from RWD to FWD to AWD.

    All my vehicles will soon have AWD and side Air Curtains. All you need is one time, for a bad storm, rain or snow, to realize how important these features are!!
  • lumbarlumbar Member Posts: 421
    I like AWD, and, all things being equal, I'd rather have it than not have it. But the considerable majority of vehicles out there do not use a full time AWD system without safety consequences, and a considerable number of people live in areas where there is little demonstrable -need- for it in a van. Your discounting of a vehicle with traction and stability control in favor of AWD as lacking safety is a big stretch. As I said, it's nice to have AWD depending on where you live, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me provided there were other Odyssey features that sold me on the van.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I fail to see how AWD cars are any safer than cars without. The opposite can be the case when people with AWD have a sense of false security and drive too fast for conditions.

    I would have to live in a VERY snowy area to ever consider AWD.

    The driver is what makes the biggest difference.
  • chacha Member Posts: 16
    “Your discounting of a vehicle with traction and stability control in favor of AWD as lacking safety is a big stretch.”

    You're kidding right. AWD is superior to FWD, end of story!! If you decide it's not important feature for you, hey that's for you. But saying it’s a big stretch in lacking safety, I think you are the one stretching here.

    AWD in rain and snow is far superior, own one and you will understand why Subaru puts them on every vehicle. NO SUBARU VEHICLE HAS JUST FWD-THEY DEEMED IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH! So yes it's a safety feature, and should be an option for a so called safety company. Please don’t say its not a safety feature, that’s like saying Front Air Bags are good enough, side air bags aren’t needed, and they are not a safety feature.

    ALSO THE ODYSSEY WITH 255 HORSEPOWER HAS TORQUE STEER, WHICH WOULD BE AVOIDED WITH GUESS WHAT; AWD!!!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I tend to agree with Isell, but place more emphasis on the tires (I have a FWD minivan and an AWD Outback fwiw).

    caviller "AWD vs FWD with VSC + Traction Control" May 13, 2003 12:19am

    Steve, Host
  • montreidmontreid Member Posts: 127
    Coming from Michigan, I loved AWD. I lost count the number of times that our SUV got out of the driveway and through the neighborhood in the mornings without trouble or denting up other cars on the street. To me, it's another extension of ABS in safety.

    I totally agree that smart drivers are the most important thing on the road, but it doesn't matter when three wheels are caught in the snowbank and an incline and the only the 4th wheel is getting any traction.

    Since moving to California/SF Bay, we've chosen FWD with both recent vehicles. Only reason for AWD for us would be going to Tahoe and avoid the need for chains.....which we only occasionally do.

    AWD is worth it for any area with any significant snowfall....otherwise, you Floridians just get ABS and hunker down this weekend for Jeanne.
  • chacha Member Posts: 16
    If you can't see why AWD which handles better than FWD, especially in slippery conditions isn't safer, I really can't help you!!

    Minds are a terrible thing to waste, don't quit your day job!!
  • aab4aab4 Member Posts: 39
    I own a Subaru, and work for Subaru, and quite frankly after reading a few of these posts, I have to shake my head. AWD is indeed a safety feature here at Subaru. All of our vehicles have it, cause to us it’s quite a important safety feature.

    First- AWD is superior to FWD on all conditions, and improves handling. The big new feature of the Acura RL is a new sophisticated AWD system.

    Second- AWD is indeed a safety feature. If you feel FWD is good in Sunny weather, hey by all means go ahead and get it.

    But please don't say FWD:
    1) Is not a safety feature
    2 And FWD handles better than AWD, it doesn't.
    AWD really shines in snow and rain, and off road.

    Serious off road, you need 4WD.

    I for one will never go back to FWD or RWD.
    For higher horsepower vehicles, like the new Odyssey, AWD or RWD is a better fit for transferring the power to the wheels then FWD. Otherwise, when you need lots of power, you lose control when too much power goes to front wheel, know as torque steer,
    something we know a lot about here at Subaru.
     
    Most AWD vehicles have stability and traction control.

    Hope that enlightens the situation.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I'm in the Seattle area. We get more rain here than you can imagine and sometimes it snows...O.K.?

    Yesterday, I took in a 1993 Ford Explorer as a trade in on a new Pilot.

    the people who traded it in had owned it since it was two years old and they told me they had oput it into 4WD "maybe twice" in all the time they had owned it.

    Of course, it gives better traction than FWD but it sure does not make a car unsafe if it lacks AWD!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I've owned two of them in the past.

    C'mon...it's not so much a "important safety feature" as much as it is marketing.

    At least in most parts of the country.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Welcome to Town Hall. Be sure to say hi to Patti:

    Subaru Crew: Official SOA Presence (aka Patti)

    Steve, Host
  • sciencemanscienceman Member Posts: 80
    Well, it appears that I will have to agree with isellhondas.

    Bingo--it's more about marketing than safety. Subaru is a niche brand and AWD is their market. Since they went to building all cars with AWD their sales have rocketed. If you visit a Suby dealership, that's the big sales pitch the salesmen will make for buying a Suby over a Camry or an Accord. For many years Subaru built cars with AWD as optional. I own a FWD 1994 Legacy. And the dealer who sold it to me never said it wasn't safe. Instead he said 'you probably don't need AWD around here--which was the Southeast.' (Wish I had known I would be moving to upstate NY before then.) Now, it appears the story has changed. Having four wheels turning is great if you live in the snow belt--that's how I ended up buying a 4Runner. Now that I'm back in a warm, almost no snow state, FWD is all I need. And for the record, AWD Siennas will be a very small percentage of of total Sienna sales.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I'll bet a good Subaru salesperson can do a great job of convincing a customer that 4WD is a must have even in So. California!

    I've always been impressed with Subaru's marketing.

    A few years ago, they took a Legacy Wagon. They raised it an inch, added foglights and a decal package and a skid plate etc. they named it "Outback" and they hired Paul Hogan to do those nifty commercials.

    Pure brillance! Sales took off like a rocket on these.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    I think Honda's main reason for sticking with FWD is Fuel Economy, or MPG, if you're really big on using three lettered terms. Don't forget, Honda is also the most environmentally concerned automaker, so those MPG numbers mean a lot to them.
  • aab4aab4 Member Posts: 39
    If a car handles better, is it safer?
    I think so. AWD handels better, sorry but end of story. If you think you don't need it fine. Side Air Bags, are they safer.? Yes.

    Also Subaru doesn’t sell 4WD. Only AWD, big difference.
    Subaru just feels AWD is important enough to put in on every vehicle.

    Acura which by the way which is Honda is coming out with the most sophisticated AWD yet in the new RL. That’s also their selling and marketing point for the new RL.

    I guess the point everyone is missing, it should be an option. If you don't want it or like it, don't buy it. But to say it's not a safety issue or FWD handles just as good is incorrect.

    If you feel FWD is fine for you on nice Sunny day that might be an accurate statement.
    But try flooring the new Odyssey and see what happens. Your Van will jump and you will momentarily lose control. Torque steer was one of the main reasons Subaru decided to go with AWD on all vehicles.

    AWD is better in ALL roads, yes it costs extra as it should. Point being it should be an option, especially for a company like Honda, just as side air curtains should be an option for those that want them.

    I think AWD should be left up to the consumer as an option. For me it's an important option.
    For other people it might not be.

    But it should be an option.
  • lumbarlumbar Member Posts: 421
    If you just want to make a basic argument that AWD is preferable to front wheel drive, then be my guest. I drive a Subaru. I also live in an area that gets reasonable snowfall, and I like the flexibility of doing light off roading.

    But you insist on implying that a van with FWD, traction control, and stability control is not safe, and that there is a *substantial* safety difference with AWD in a van. You also contend that AWD is *far* superior in rain and snow. We part company when you go beyond being reasonable about your preference.

    As far as handling goes, once you get in a minivan with its size and center of gravity, the benefit of AWD in handling becomes secondary to the limitations of the vehicle itself. In a vehicle the size of an Audi quattro or Subaru, I will certainly agree that there are some handling advantages, particularly when cornering.
  • alexmishalexmish Member Posts: 47
    I would say that parking sensors are redundant if you have rearview camera. If you can afford Touring - get it ! You will regret later that you did not. You will get used to all the extra options it offers, besides it seems that you like most of the extra features it offers!
  • nornenorne Member Posts: 136
    Very well said. :-)
  • nornenorne Member Posts: 136
    "Toyota buyers are looking for cheap import cars. Thats why they came out with Scion."

    If toyota buyers are nothing more than cheap import buyers than toyota would sell nothing but the echo. Toyota introduce the scion division to market their vehicles towards the young 20 something crowd.

    "Why does Toyota give alot of rebates"

    lot of rebates? what do you call a lot? Honda has been running those special lease deals everything from civic to to the 04 odyssey.
    Who do you think subsidizes those special lease deals???

    Why don't you tell us the truth. You switch to selling hondas because you couldn't cut it as a toyota salesperson. :-)
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    It should be an option? Really?

    What if Honda did exhaustive market research only to learn that there wouldn't be enough demand to bother making AWD Odysseys?

    Just a business decision that pleases the masses and displeases a small percentage.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    FWD with snow tires beats AWD with all seasons any day.

    If you need AWD to be able to go, then you should not be driving because at some point you will have to stop.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    Agree with isell. AWD may be wonderful for people who have money to waste. AWD costs more to purchase, more in maintenance costs, more in fuel costs.
         Subaru needs a gimmick to sell vehicles that are perceived as having lesser quality than Honda or Toyota. Kia, Hyundai, and Suzuki use the gimmick of being cheap.
  • lumbarlumbar Member Posts: 421
    LOL. Perceived by who? You?
  • gonammergonammer Member Posts: 12
    I heard from a local dealer that EX-L RES/NAV models will not be available until sometime in November? In calling around other local dealers, some have the RES or DVD versions but no one as a NAV model. I live in Sacramento, CA. Has anyone out there heard something similar or know if RES/NAV models are selling?
  • hifisoftwarehifisoftware Member Posts: 69
    I talked to one dealer in LA and he said that they should get bunch of Odys this coming week (Wednesday or so) and at least one of them should have NAVI and RES. I'd like to see what it looks like. Sometimes dealers say thing just in case, but he actually took some time to look it up (or so it seems). I believe that they are coming.
  • foxhoundmefoxhoundme Member Posts: 29
    gonammer

    I ordered a EXL RES/NAVI and will take delivery first week in October 2004. I live in Tennesse and my dealer indicates this particular model and package will be very rare for the coming months. I hope this helps!
  • norm9norm9 Member Posts: 1
    On Friday I visited Arrowhead Honda in Peoria, AZ. They have the new Touring model (loaded) for $42605 and the EXL with NAV + DVD for $38405. Sounds like this dealer is very much on the high side.
  • hifisoftwarehifisoftware Member Posts: 69
    I think that AWD might be important, but not by much. I live in Southern CA and to me it's almost useless. Last winter I went to Big Bear mountain and many roads were icy. The house that we rented had some steep roads. The problem has always been with braking. My friend Accord initially had problem with acceleration due to the total luck of experience. My Accord with traction control accelerated just fine. I did not care for the speed of acceleration as going more then 2-3 mph was deadly. The real problem was with braking. I also have anti lock brakes, but they do not help much when road goes down and is completely iced. Any attempt to brake would result with car rotating rather then braking (turning wheel to restore original path usually did not help). It was possible to brake, but very very carefully. I do not think that AWD would've made it any easier to prevent this rotation during braking. It would actually made it worse since AWD weight something and inertia was hurting it. AWD might be useful for extremely powerful cars (500+hp? New BMW M5 could use it maybe) during acceleration. It will also be useful if you get stuck in show and ice. Any other case it probably would've been useless.

    To be safe there should be some way to brake safely. AWD is about acceleration so I can't see how it could increase safety in any way.
  • ac00lraac00lra Member Posts: 69
    "If you can't see why AWD which handles better than FWD, especially in slippery conditions isn't safer, I really can't help you!!

    Minds are a terrible thing to waste, don't quit your day job!!
    "

    Wow, such a strong attack from someone who's new to the forum. You must be working for Toyota. :D First of all, you need to understand the difference between all wheel drive and traction control. All wheel drive and no traction conroll is useless. Just because all four wheels are spinning doesn't make you car more stable. Traction control is what helps the car determine which wheel to give how much power to. That's what will help you on slippery surface, not AWD. The only time that AWD will provide added value is when going up hill or if you're towing some load on slippery surface. On the Odyssey, you also have VSA in addition to traction control as standard. On the Sienna, you have to get some crazy number of options on some higher end model.

    As for your comment about torque steer, that issue is overcome with VSA and DBW (drive-by-wire) throttle. If you don't know what that is then you need to do more readings before flaming others.

    Look, this topic has been covered before. AWD doesn't make it safer. And I'm not trying to defend or help anyone. Your comment just sounds very immature. If you just want to join this forum to rile most people up then you've come to the wrong place. Just making statement like AWD is safer than FWD is just incorrect and ill-informed. If you like Sienna so much and think it's the best thing since sliced bread then go get it and knock yourself out. But lay off those crackpipes and stop telling others that "minds are a terrible thing to waste" and "don't quit your day job."
  • ac00lraac00lra Member Posts: 69
    I own a Subaru, and work for Subaru, and quite frankly after reading a few of these posts, I have to shake my head. AWD is indeed a safety feature here at Subaru. All of our vehicles have it, cause to us it’s quite a important safety feature.

    I have to shake my head too from reading the level of intensity of statements from folks making claims about AWD being superior to FWD. Let's get it straight folks. Neither AWD or FWD is safer than the other. It's traction control and stability control that makes a car safer. Saying AWD is safer than FWD is like saying disc brake is better at preventing skidding than drum brakes. That's just untrue. It's the anti-lock braking mechanism that prevents locking. Again, let's put it to rest. AWD give better handling? Sometimes. AWD also burns more gas since the engine has to work harder to spin all 4 wheels. AWD also means that there's an axle between the front and the rear that take up space. So you might have to lose some interior space. But does that make AWD safer than FWD? No way. Again, as I said AWD without traction control is useless. You might be right that most car with AWD also has traction control. But then again that doesn't mean AWD is the one that makes it safer.

    In the future, Honda might make the Ody AWD for other reason. But safety is not the main reason for that. Right now the Ody has both Traction Control and VSA + drive-by-wire throtlle. That shold make it as safe as any car out there.
  • ac00lraac00lra Member Posts: 69
    "Let me get this straight, you think the 2005 Odysseys drives better than the Sienna? Just last night the wife and I drove the 2005 Odyssey for the first time. I'm sad to say we were not impressed. The ride was a slight improvement from the 2004 model, but it still exhibited a similar clunky and stiff ride as the 2004. Another thing is, under full throttle it has some very bad torque bump steering. The sales person urged my wife to "punch it" to feel the power of the vehicle. She did so at about 10 MPH after exiting a turn. Well, we almost ended up in the ditch. The van pulls very hard toward the right. All that extra power is great, but is worthless unless the vehicle is properly designed to handle it. There were several other things we did not like too. The Sienna ride is pure luxury compared to the Odyssey. New Odyssey is not in the same class as the Sienna when it comes to ride quality. "

    Uh oh, another newcomer trashing the new Ody.

    What does this mean???

    1) Maybe it really does suck as these couple folks claim?

    2) Or Toyota is getting nervous and sending out agents to infiltrate these Ody forums to cause a scare.

    3) Or maybe this is the work of a devious Ody buyer who wants people to stop buying Ody so he/she can get a better deal. :D

    I love conspiracy theories. :D
  • acguyacguy Member Posts: 3
    I am looking for some advice please, I just got a new job and I live in Georgia however I'll be traveling all over the southeast. I must have a van in my work they really don't care what kind, I have owned Honda Accord's and Civics, A Toyota Corolla and a 4Runner as well as a Ford AeroStar.

    Could somone give me some advice as to whether the 2004 or the 2005 is the better way to go? I have given some consideration to the Toyota if anyone has somefeedback there as well. It is my understanding that Leather seats will last longer than the cloth so I guess that would be a good idea. I will be carrying some equipment on the road as well as my luggage. I will also have some customers riding with me as well.

    I am looking for a Van that will be as safe as possible, will get great Gas Milage, Preferably will have Navagation built in, I have no use for DVD as both my kids are in college, I will use this for a family van when I'm at home with my wife and one of my son's in college. I plan on keeping this van for the long term.

    Thank you all in advance for all of your advice and assistance.
  • qveeqvee Member Posts: 8
    Traction control is an aid but not a panacea. Traction control is mainly utilized to stop the drive wheels from slipping during launch. For example, it cuts power to the drive wheel(s)(and in sophisticated traction control systems it applies the brake to the wheel) that has lost traction. Most traction control systems dont work above a programmed speed. Usually, the cut-off speed is about 30 mph. Therefore, most traction control systems are of no value beyond 30 mph. More importantly, some traction control systems work much better than others. The system in my wife's C240 is tons better than the one in my '03 Accord EX V6.

    The same applies to VSA & VSC. These systems are yaw control aids. These systems apply brakes to the appropriate wheel in impending rotation slip. This intervention attempts to "right" the vehicle. Again, all systems are different. Some systems are much better than others. Volvo's X90 is supposed to have the best yaw control system. The important thing to remember is that neither system can overcome the laws of physics.

    When viewed alone, AWD is more effective in low traction situations than FWD. VSC & VSA simply complement either system.
  • donleungdonleung Member Posts: 22
    Hasn't there just been a government (insurance?) study released that showed vehicles with VSA/VSC systems had an overall 35% lower single vehicle crash rate than similar vehicles without those systems?

    On SUVs the number was 67% less single vehicle crashes (likely due to higher propensity of these vehicles to rollover when driver control was lost during a skid) when equipped with a stability control system.

    This certainly sounds to be a worthwhile safety feature although it now generally only appears on higher trim or more expensive vehicles.

    DDL
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    If you don't need the DVD Rear Entertainment system yet don't mind saving big and driving last year's model, I think you should go for the 2004 Honda Odyssey EX-L w/NAV, if any exist anymore. If you can't find one, you can try the Sienna, but to get the Sienna's navigation system you have to go through lists of confusing option packages. If you really want the Odyssey yet can't find the 2004 model with NAV, order one up with the NAV and RES, which you have to get.

    And AWD helps with traction, but it depends on how you value AWD and where you live.
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.