I agree -especially large rear-wheel drive vans like the Dodge Ram and Ford Econoline have many rollover and crash issues. But the Grand Carnival has the similar footprint/dimensions as the Sedona, Odyssey, and Sienna. Check out the specs yourself -and it comes with stability control.
The frustration I have is both Honda and Toyota do not offer 8+ seating on the most high-end optioned vans (Touring and Limited). For someone like myself with 4 children I don't want half-powered low optioned vans to accomodate my family.
The only thing that is of concern is the back bench is right up against the back lid just as in alot of SUVs that claim 7 seating arrangements. But we wouldn't use the back bench very often -only during special circumstances.
As far as the Yugo vs. Volkswagen comment -- be careful. :mad: The Koreans are making huge progress (see JD Power, Intellchoice, Consumer Reports). Don't bury your head in the sand (or in the Honda/Toyota Ghetto). As well, in my opinion, I don't think Volkswagen ever had the quality of Honda or Toyota anyway.
The "Minivan Wars" are in progress! I am glad each company is trying to one-up each other. It's only better for us as consumers in the end.
Any update on this. I, too, feel something in the gas pedal just like you described. If it's quite enough I also hear a sound. Sort of a sound a spring would make.
Regardless of what JD Power and others say, I am still a little "stuck in the Honda/Toyota Ghetto" and will not consider a Kia/Hyundai/Daewoo or other Korean makes, until they have a long-term demonstrated reliability track record that the Japanese makes have had for the past couple of decades.
However it is nice to know that there are uncoming Korean alternatives to the Honda/Toyota vans, which will keep Honda etc on the straight and the narrow and not allow them to relax their manufacturing standards by too much. :shades:
Regardless of what JD Power and others say, I am still a little "stuck in the Honda/Toyota Ghetto" and will not consider a Kia/Hyundai/Daewoo or other Korean makes, until they have a long-term demonstrated reliability track record that the Japanese makes have had for the past couple of decades.
My perspective on the Koreans:
Today, the Koreans may not have the best mechanical technology in automotive engineering, but they have tried their best, and best yet, have given their customers the best they got. It is funny that our 05 Honda Odys has JD Power ranking of 2 stars out of 5 for the first year of production (many assembly and design problems) and while most Hyundais achieved 3 stars or better in recent years. Last year, they tied with Toyota for the first place on initial quality on some segments.
We can dispute that Hyundai vehicles have not achieved the reliability status of Honda or Toyota. And they are working hard on that too. In the last couple years, Hyundai has specified their powertrain to last 300 K miles as an engineering target. Some of their traditional suppliers could even made it.
They have spared at no expense to implement the best technologies for their vehicles. When they design a $20,000 vehicle, their engineers actually brought along a vehicle costing $40,000 for testing and demand their suppliers to match it. Any funny thing is sometime, they got it for free! Most of the time, they got quite a bit. Their engineers are a big pain to work with, but I have great respect for their tenacity of hard working and willing to take risk. The same could not be said about their US or Japanese competitors.
Just to prove the point of how far and fast the Koreans have come: just read the Edmund comparison between the new 06 Sonata vs. Accord/Camry. They are here for good and they are as tough if not tougher than the Japanese. Competition is great !
I owned a 2002 Kia(Killed In Action) Sedona EX and it was the single greatest mistake in my life. I will never ever buy a Korean car again, except for the 06 Sonata and SanteFe/Tuscon. Never a KIA.
The electricals,interior and anything other than the engine were crap. The AC kept breaking down. Do you know if you have to pay for parts, it will cost you more than BMW to buy parts for these mobie trash cans?
2 days ago I bought a 06 Odyssey and am very bitter about the 7K loss I had to take on the KIA.
Please for goodness sake never ever buy a Sedona or any other KIA again.
It is correct that old KIA vehicles have been at the bottom of the list in terms of reliability and Initial Quality.
But in recent years, after being bought by Hyundai, new Kia vehicles have gradually migrated to Hyundai platforms. Those are good ones to consider. The new Sodena is probably using Hyundai platform (probably new Sonata or new Santa Fe) and it probably is not the old version (weight as much as a Tahoe) make over. It is rumored to have 3.8L V6 with very competitive Horse Power. I would expect that new mill will produce in the neighborhood of >244 HP based on what Hyundai did on their new 3.3L (230 HP). On top of that, it will experience a weight loss thanks to Hyundai technical assistance. So in all likelihood, Kia new vehicles are badged Hyundai with more sporty tuning (Pontiac vs. Chevy).
I wasn't slamming Korean quality or putting VW on a pedestal. What I am saying is that I don't think a Kia will match or exceed Toyo or Honda or even German quality this next 'one up manship' go around. The Koreans do a fine job of copying things but like many other things in their country, they are imitiations, nearly as good as the original. They tend to have lower tech, less fuel effecient and not as solid feeling vehicles than teams T&H do IMHO. One area that concerns me is AirCon. The reason could be that when I was in the ROK less than five years ago and had a Pride (similar to a Sephia) for a year, they discharge and recharge the AC compressor every fall and spring. This isn't an isolated instance, the whole country did it (at least the millions with AC). I guess it's so it doesn't leak or sit and rot seals. Do you want that same company to build your $30K+ van and attempt to overcome decades of they cultural procedures? The hard working Korean society is quite capable of keeping up and even surpassing the Japanese but they need another say 20 years of practice to do so, again, just my opinion. Kai-zen anyone?
davant, I agree with your thoughts and concerns about the Koreans. It's hard when I am about to lay out 30K+ for a new van -especially when I am saving up for it to pay in cash. So as I approach my decision I would like to get as many features for the dollar (which the Kia would bring). However, as I depart with my hard earned savings I feel better putting this towards a Honda Odyssey then a Kia. Thinking of handing a 30K check to a Honda dealer is much more reassuring then handing it to a Kia dealer.
Your right Kia has not earned the trust yet --even in one or two model years. I think it would be better to give Kia a try on a commuter-class car in the price range of 10k-14lk
"Thinking of handing a 30K check to a Honda dealer is much more reassuring then handing it to a Kia dealer."
Well, considering a loaded Sedona with virtually everything except the DVD system has a TMV of around $22k+TTL, your 30k check should get you a Sedona + $8k in change.
And the 2006 KIA Sedona engine will probably equal or exceed the 2006 Honda Odyssey for power. :P and still leave the buyer with $ 8,000 saving over the cost of a comparably equipped Odyssey. I would not argue that the 2006 Odyssey will probably be more reliable and retain the $ 8,000 difference in value for at least 10 years of ownership.
I have the same problem.. My 05 Odyssey has 15,000 miles and I took it into the dealer for a hum/vibration above 30 mph. First they thought it was a wheel bearing so they replaced it but now they are replacing the transmission. I am outraged that the transmission failed. I have lost all confidence in this company and their product. Any suggestions?
I was offered a six year 100, 000 mile wrap around warranty for $1,595.00. When I declined that offer it was suddenly only going to cost me a reduced price of $1,095.00. I didn't take it anyway due to the fact that I plan on trading it (06 Ody EX-L RES) in before the 3 years or 36,000 miles comes up.
Does anyone know whether the Maintenance Minder assumes natural oil and does a calculation using your driving habits or does it actually monitor oil condition (using sensors of some kind)? In other words, if one were to use synthetic oil, would the system behave differently? I'm assuming that the synthetic oil would have a longer life.
I'm a bit gun-shy to reveal my data...but over the last six tanks, I've rotated between premium and regular. I don't think it's scientific yet, but I seem to be averaging 15% better mpg on the premium. And with current prices, premium is only 7% more expensive so it appears there is some merit to using premium. I haven't noticed a difference in performance. On vehicles that recommend premium, I've noticed a slight performance loss when running reg unleaded. It would be grand if a performance increase came along with the gas savings, but I'm not going to be too greedy :P
The maintenace minder was designed for the non-synthetic oil. It only records your driving habits, it doesn't actually sense the oil. It's a fairly basic system, GM had been using something similar on their trucks for five or so years and I have been impressed with it. If I tow, the oil change comes up earlier than normal so it works. We just changed the oil in the Ody today, around 6k miles and we were down to 10%. Synthetic should last longer, you'd just have to skip the maintenance minder. Keep in mind, the warranty/maintenance recommendations don't offer any differences for synthetic. So you could potentially shoot yourself in the foot by doing extended drains while the vehicle is under warranty.
That is a rip-off. Go to the forum Honda Odyssey Extended Warranties. I have a 2005 Ody EXL-RES and purchased 7/100/0 for $1051 from Bernardi Honda, website is hondawarranty.com (I think) but you can get all the info on the Extended Warranty forum.
We're about to buy a Honda Odyssey with the VCM option. While we realise that the amortisation period of the VCM is long, we are interested enough to try it. (we are not however getting the run-flat tires). There were 4 main reasons why we chose the Odyssey over the Sienna. 1. The ride. The 2005 Sienna we tested rides like an American car - soft and squishy. The Honda ride is firmer and tighter. We like the latter. 2. The fuel "recommendation". You may think it's not true, but it's in the documentation, and several reliable Toyota mechanics in our area concurred that it is preferable. I am not interested in paying more for fuel! 3. Resale. In our area (anyway), the Honda Odyssey has a slightly better resale value than the Sienna. and 4. Price - by the time we added in simply the safety deatures of the Sienna and the Odyssey, the Odyssey was slightly cheaper (different from 2004).
Again, all wise logic, it's a personal choice. Other drawbacks of the Sienna IMO are the solid rear axle that contributes to body roll (IRS for Honda), the inability to be able to insert and play a DVD from the first row, no driver seat memory. In this game of one-upmanship I'm sure no manufacturer will even keep it close to a tie for very long. Clincher for me was the 'Buickness', I nearly got seasick.
I had no idea that the Sienna DID NOT have an independent rear suspension. Every day you learn something new ! Honda on the other hand has equipped the Odyssey with an independent double wishbone suspension.
Toyota has equipped their Corolla too with a non-independent beam suspension in the rear, while Honda has equipped their competing Civic with an independent and dynamic double-wishbone rear suspension.
I wonder why Honda does not point out such major shortcomings in their primary competitor through aggressive ad campaigns.
The interesting thing is that Toyota equips all of their Lexus offerings with independent suspensions but equips their lower-end Toyota products with such el-cheapo non-independent beam suspensions, including the Matrix, Corolla, Echo etc. The Camry, Avalon and Highlander benefits from an independent suspension, since it has a corresponding Lexus equivalent model (ES330, RX330 etc). But I had no idea of the setup on the Sienna, since I had implicitly assumed that it would be equipped with an independent suspension, front and rear.
A torsion beam suspension is not the same as a solid axle suspension (as the word torsion implies). It offers better driving dynamics than a solid axle; although, most would probably prefer an independent setup for a passenger vehicle.
A torsion beam suspension is not the same as a solid axle suspension (as the word torsion implies). It offers better driving dynamics than a solid axle;
The above is something along the lines of:
Moving around with a wheelchair is better than moving around with a pair of crutches. Both options are bad but one is less worse. Sorry, could not help it. :shades:
Not to make this seem like a slamfest, especially with hansienna aboard, whose opinions I deeply respect but try this on a test drive in an Odyssey and then a Sienna: Drive at about a 45 degree angle or as much as you can without causing a panic over some railroad tracks. For safety's sake, please use a posted rail crossing. You can do this at a high rate of speed if that's what the road is rated for or preferably to better illustrate my point, at say 15 MPH. The Sienna will rock & roll due to the solid rear axle aka 'torsion beam me up Scotty I'm seasick'. You can call it whatever you like to sweeten the name but it still isn't independent or 'double wishbone with Lutz' suspension. For Sienna owners this means when one wheel hits a bump or pothole, the impact is echoed to the other wheel and is easily transferred to occupants for longer than say an IRS equipped vehicle (IRS stands for Independent Rear Suspension as we all know the other abbreviation causes disorientation too). The Odyssey, although firmer (read less compliant) will not roll anywhere close as one wheel independently reacts. I hope the hosts understand this comparison is only to prove a point and is not worthy of transfer to the Ody vs. Sienna smack down. If you want a more drastic/extreme comparison, do the same comparison in a Tahoe and Expedition. GM makes no qualms about its solid rear axle and Ford tries to promote IRS, the first on a large SUV. Now, back to our regular +5 Ody discussion already in progress.
Forgive me almighty hosts if this appears later multiple times. I was having problems getting it to show up.
Trying this again... to all readers and hosts. I apologize as I didn't mean to post this five times and it never showed up at all until this morning. Please delete four of them as I haven't got the power Cap'm!
Toyota has equipped their Corolla too with a non-independent beam suspension in the rear, while Honda has equipped their competing Civic with an independent and dynamic double-wishbone rear suspension.
Actually Honda just went back to the independent suspension on the new Civic after abandoning it on the previous model.
I wonder why Honda does not point out such major shortcomings in their primary competitor through aggressive ad campaigns.
It's a minivan for goodness sake - for the majority of the market, a sporty ride isn't a concern.
it matters a lot if where you drive is pothole central. There is a big difference how the van goes over a pothole, or any irregular road surfaces (not offroad) when driving my ody and my bil's sienna
Of course, the sienna is ultra quiet on the highway, whereas my wife often ask: have we roll up all the windows yet?
Actually Honda just went back to the independent suspension on the new Civic after abandoning it on the previous model.
Sorry, the New Civic (2006+) and the previous model (2001-2005 ?) and the one before that, were all equipped with independent suspensions. It is just that in the last 2 generations (the new model and the one right before that), Honda switched to a strut based independent suspension in the front while retaining a double-wishbone independent suspension in the rear, while the series before that, had a double wishbone independent suspension in the front and rear. In the 4 generations of the Civic that I know of (at least the past 10 years), Honda always equipped the Civic with Independent suspensions. No "abandonment" there !!
It's a minivan for goodness sake - for the majority of the market, a sporty ride isn't a concern.
An independent suspension is not intended to provide a "sporty ride" alone. It is to allow each wheel to independently react to shocks from the road (potholes etc) and not transmitting the jarring effects onto the other end.
The 'torsion bar' is NOT a solid axle running from one rear wheel to the other. The torsion bar takes the place of coil springs. (in fact, a coil spring is simply a torsion bar wound into a helix).
BTW - for decades the rear-suspension on the Porsche 911 was a torsion bar suspension (until the 964 series was introduced as the Carrera4 in 1989)
The reason the Sienna uses a torsion bar is for packaging reasons; the torsion bar runs from the rear suspension area FORWARD under the van (perpendicular to where a rigid axle would be).
FWD minivans ALL use independent rear suspensions for one major reason: packaging. If you have an rigid rear axle/suspension, you can't drop the interior floor down low enough for comfortable 3rd row seating/cargo room.
Rotate the van upside-down. And you will see that indeed the torsion beam suspension is not the same as a solid axle--it is independent (with a caveat). My guess is that Toyota went with this design to save space. My last quote was incomplete, as it should have been worded to say that most would probably prefer the independent suspension (ON THE HONDA)--coil springs can offer progressive spring rates. This basically mean the stiffness of the spring can be designed to vary with the amount of compression. A simple example of a torsion beam is a diving board. Theoretically, it will only have one spring rate assuming the material it is constructed from is uniform (as we would hope for suspension components on a car). This, of course. assumes you are within the elastic limit of the beam material (scientific details). There are more details, but I think you get the picture.
I hate writing long posts, but sometimes I suppose longer is better.
Sorry, inspite of the emphasis on the "independent", I really did not find anything in the link to indicate that the torsion beam is independent. Looks like it is better than the solid axle but could approximate a semi-independent, at best. Some other links indicate that it is a compact and cheap suspension. Good for economy cars but not for a 30K+ vehicle.
The previous generation Passat was saddled with a torsion beam while the corresponding Audi A4 (on which it was loosely based) had a true independent suspension. But the A4 obviously costed a lot more.
Live and learn. The result is still that with the torsion bar design the Sienna exhibits significantly more body role than the Ody for the previously mentioned reasons. My information on the solid axle came from an uninformed Toyota salesman who was trying to justify that rolley-polley feeling. Thanks to all for enlightening.
First - a torsion bar suspension is fully independant (ie. a bump encountered by the left rear has no effect on the right rear). A torsion bar suspension simply uses a long bar affixed to the trailing arms on one end and it runs forward under the car where the other end is fixed to the chassis. As the trailing arm moves up and down with the rear hub, it twists the torsion bar. The bar doesn't like being twisted (just like a coil spring doesn't like being compressed) and it resists the up and down movement of the rear hub.
Second - the excessive body roll in the Sienna has nothing to do with the torsion bar suspension. It has to do with the 'spring rate' of the bar (a thicker, shorter bar would have a higher equivalent spring rate). It has to do with the suspension geometry (design/location of the trailing arms and torsion bar). And it has to do with the shock design.
Toyota designed the van to be smoother and quieter. Some prefer the suspension calibration of the Odyssey (I do for example), but to insinuate that the ride of the Sienna is inherent to a torsion bar suspension is incorrect. That salesman was completely clueless.
Not to beat this issue to death, but if you check the "Standard Features" of the Odyssey and Sienna within Edmunds, you will find the following pertaining to the suspensions of both vehicles:
Odyssey: 4 wheel independent suspension Sienna: Front independent suspension
Does that provide any clues ?? Did Edmunds forget that the Sienna's rear is independent ? Or is it that they don't consider the torsion beam on the Sienna's rear as independent ?
A Torsion BAR suspension is very different from a Torsion BEAM suspension. The first one is usually independent (all current applications are to my knowledge), the latter one by structure and defnition is NOT an independent suspension.
The terms BAR and BEAM are used interchangeably by some, but the correct terminology identifies the TWIST BEAM suspension as the Torsion BEAM suspension, whereas the torsion BAR suspension uses the torsion effect to provide the spring in a suspension.
Torsion beam suspension From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Torsion beam suspension, also known as a torsion bar or torsion spring, is a vehicle suspension system. One end of a long metal bar is attached firmly to the vehicle chassis; the opposite end has a lever, perpendicular to the bar, that is attached to the axle of a wheel. As the wheel travels up and down it "twists" the bar along its axis to provide the spring force. This system was used extensively in European cars as well as by Packard in the 1950s and Chrysler throughout the 1960s. The system was applied to many new armoured fighting vehicle designs during the Second World War.
The main advantages of torsion beam suspension are durability, easy ride height adjustability, and a smooth ride. It provides a longer travel than older leaf spring systems, and takes up less space in a vehicle compared to coil springs. One major disadvantage is the lack of a progressive spring rate which can lead to sloppy handling.
Some vehicles use torsion bars to implement automatic leveling with sensors and motors to dynamically adjust the torsion in each bar in response to changing loads and road conditions.
A variation on this theme is often called a twist beam suspension, as is found on VW Golfs and other economy cars. It usually consists of trailing arms connecting to a twistable beam that runs from one side of the car to the other. This design's advantages are mainly space and cost, and does not offer the performance or ride height adjustability of torsion bar suspension. You will often see the names for these suspension types used interchangeably in marketing literature and in conversation which can cause a great deal of confusion.
The more commonly used coil spring is merely a torsion bar formed into a helix.
Torsion beam suspension Most modern mini cars up to C-segment (for instance, VW Golf) employ torsion beam as the rear suspension. Why? compare with double wishbones, multi-link and trailing arm suspensions, it engages little width of the car, thus enable greater rear seat room. It is cheaper too. Compare with MacPherson strut, its shock absorber is shorter and can be inclined steeply away from the vertical, thus engage less boot space. In fact, torsion beam suspension is only half-independent - there is a torsion beam connecting both wheels together, which allows limited degree of freedom when forced. For some less demanding compact cars, this save the anti-roll bars. On the contrary, it doesn't provide the same level of ride and handling as double wishbones or multi-link suspensions, although in reality it is superior to its only direct competitor, MacPherson strut. Most of the Europe's best handling GTIs employed this suspenion.
Thanks for education on Torsion Bar. Anyway, personally I still feel the Odys has better handling than the Sienna without ride harshness
For those who think handling is not a big deal on minivan, try driving on narrow road and full of pot holes at high way speed, the Odys will impress you with its stability.
If all roads are perfect, the Chrysler van with solid rear axle aand Siena with Torsion bar would probably work very well.
It is the rough road which separate boys from men.
If all roads are perfect, the Chrysler van with solid rear axle aand Siena with Torsion bar would probably work very well.
should be modified to:
If all roads are perfect, the Chrysler van with solid rear axle aand Siena with Torsion beam would probably work very well.
The following is the Sienna's suspension from www.toyota.com :
MacPherson strut front suspension with gas-filled shock absorbers and torsion beam rear suspension with coil springs and gas-filled shock absorbers, and front and rear stabilizer bars
I'm just glad to see that you now at least admit that you were wrong to say that a torsion beam suspension is the same as a solid rear axle. That, my MS (where I grew up) friend is progress.
Also, just to put the last nail in the coffin of this discussion, if you go to www.toyota.com, and do a comparison between the Odyssey and Sienna, under the "Features" heading, Toyota has listed the following for both vehicles:
Independent Suspension: Odyssey: 4 wheel Sienna: Front
So the Torsion beam in the Sienna's rear, as admitted by toyota themselves, is NOT INDEPENDENT.
Comments
The frustration I have is both Honda and Toyota do not offer 8+ seating on the most high-end optioned vans (Touring and Limited). For someone like myself with 4 children I don't want half-powered low optioned vans to accomodate my family.
The only thing that is of concern is the back bench is right up against the back lid just as in alot of SUVs that claim 7 seating arrangements. But we wouldn't use the back bench very often -only during special circumstances.
As far as the Yugo vs. Volkswagen comment -- be careful. :mad: The Koreans are making huge progress (see JD Power, Intellchoice, Consumer Reports). Don't bury your head in the sand (or in the Honda/Toyota Ghetto). As well, in my opinion, I don't think Volkswagen ever had the quality of Honda or Toyota anyway.
The "Minivan Wars" are in progress! I am glad each company is trying to one-up each other. It's only better for us as consumers in the end.
However it is nice to know that there are uncoming Korean alternatives to the Honda/Toyota vans, which will keep Honda etc on the straight and the narrow and not allow them to relax their manufacturing standards by too much. :shades:
My perspective on the Koreans:
Today, the Koreans may not have the best mechanical technology in automotive engineering, but they have tried their best, and best yet, have given their customers the best they got. It is funny that our 05 Honda Odys has JD Power ranking of 2 stars out of 5 for the first year of production (many assembly and design problems) and while most Hyundais achieved 3 stars or better in recent years. Last year, they tied with Toyota for the first place on initial quality on some segments.
We can dispute that Hyundai vehicles have not achieved the reliability status of Honda or Toyota. And they are working hard on that too. In the last couple years, Hyundai has specified their powertrain to last 300 K miles as an engineering target. Some of their traditional suppliers could even made it.
They have spared at no expense to implement the best technologies for their vehicles. When they design a $20,000 vehicle, their engineers actually brought along a vehicle costing $40,000 for testing and demand their suppliers to match it. Any funny thing is sometime, they got it for free! Most of the time, they got quite a bit. Their engineers are a big pain to work with, but I have great respect for their tenacity of hard working and willing to take risk. The same could not be said about their US or Japanese competitors.
Just to prove the point of how far and fast the Koreans have come: just read the Edmund comparison between the new 06 Sonata vs. Accord/Camry. They are here for good and they are as tough if not tougher than the Japanese. Competition is great !
jt
I will never ever buy a Korean car again, except for the 06 Sonata and SanteFe/Tuscon. Never a KIA.
The electricals,interior and anything other than the engine were crap.
The AC kept breaking down.
Do you know if you have to pay for parts, it will cost you more than BMW to buy parts for these mobie trash cans?
2 days ago I bought a 06 Odyssey and am very bitter about the 7K loss I had to take on the KIA.
Please for goodness sake never ever buy a Sedona or any other KIA again.
But in recent years, after being bought by Hyundai, new Kia vehicles have gradually migrated to Hyundai platforms. Those are good ones to consider. The new Sodena is probably using Hyundai platform (probably new Sonata or new Santa Fe) and it probably is not the old version (weight as much as a Tahoe) make over. It is rumored to have 3.8L V6 with very competitive Horse Power. I would expect that new mill will produce in the neighborhood of >244 HP based on what Hyundai did on their new 3.3L (230 HP). On top of that, it will experience a weight loss thanks to Hyundai technical assistance. So in all likelihood, Kia new vehicles are badged Hyundai with more sporty tuning (Pontiac vs. Chevy).
jt
Just curious what others are being charged by the dealer for this service? I got one estimate for $125.00, which seems high to me.
This same dealer also insisted that I needed Schedule A, not Schedule B which he was basing on the mileage not on what the MID is reporting.
What is the difference between Schedule A and Schedule B? Should I be trusting this dealer?
I logged into the "Owners Link" website and found that Maintenance Minder A is an oil change, and Maintenance Minder B is an oil change/tire rotation.
Based on that info, that one dealer quote is outrageous and I should go tell them that!
I agree with your thoughts and concerns about the Koreans. It's hard when I am about to lay out 30K+ for a new van -especially when I am saving up for it to pay in cash. So as I approach my decision I would like to get as many features for the dollar (which the Kia would bring). However, as I depart with my hard earned savings I feel better putting this towards a Honda Odyssey then a Kia. Thinking of handing a 30K check to a Honda dealer is much more reassuring then handing it to a Kia dealer.
Your right Kia has not earned the trust yet --even in one or two model years. I think it would be better to give Kia a try on a commuter-class car in the price range of 10k-14lk
Well, considering a loaded Sedona with virtually everything except the DVD system has a TMV of around $22k+TTL, your 30k check should get you a Sedona + $8k in change.
I would not argue that the 2006 Odyssey will probably be more reliable and retain the $ 8,000 difference in value for at least 10 years of ownership.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Thanks
Good grief. Do you at least get dinner and a movie out of it first?
Do not buy the $2500...
Cyn in HI
There were 4 main reasons why we chose the Odyssey over the Sienna.
1. The ride. The 2005 Sienna we tested rides like an American car - soft and squishy. The Honda ride is firmer and tighter. We like the latter.
2. The fuel "recommendation". You may think it's not true, but it's in the documentation, and several reliable Toyota mechanics in our area concurred that it is preferable. I am not interested in paying more for fuel!
3. Resale. In our area (anyway), the Honda Odyssey has a slightly better resale value than the Sienna.
and
4. Price - by the time we added in simply the safety deatures of the Sienna and the Odyssey, the Odyssey was slightly cheaper (different from 2004).
Toyota has equipped their Corolla too with a non-independent beam suspension in the rear, while Honda has equipped their competing Civic with an independent and dynamic double-wishbone rear suspension.
I wonder why Honda does not point out such major shortcomings in their primary competitor through aggressive ad campaigns.
The interesting thing is that Toyota equips all of their Lexus offerings with independent suspensions but equips their lower-end Toyota products with such el-cheapo non-independent beam suspensions, including the Matrix, Corolla, Echo etc. The Camry, Avalon and Highlander benefits from an independent suspension, since it has a corresponding Lexus equivalent model (ES330, RX330 etc). But I had no idea of the setup on the Sienna, since I had implicitly assumed that it would be equipped with an independent suspension, front and rear.
A torsion beam suspension is not the same as a solid axle suspension (as the word torsion implies). It offers better driving dynamics than a solid axle; although, most would probably prefer an independent setup for a passenger vehicle.
The above is something along the lines of:
Moving around with a wheelchair is better than moving around with a pair of crutches. Both options are bad but one is less worse. Sorry, could not help it. :shades:
Forgive me almighty hosts if this appears later multiple times. I was having problems getting it to show up.
Actually Honda just went back to the independent suspension on the new Civic after abandoning it on the previous model.
I wonder why Honda does not point out such major shortcomings in their primary competitor through aggressive ad campaigns.
It's a minivan for goodness sake - for the majority of the market, a sporty ride isn't a concern.
Of course, the sienna is ultra quiet on the highway, whereas my wife often ask: have we roll up all the windows yet?
Sorry, the New Civic (2006+) and the previous model (2001-2005 ?) and the one before that, were all equipped with independent suspensions. It is just that in the last 2 generations (the new model and the one right before that), Honda switched to a strut based independent suspension in the front while retaining a double-wishbone independent suspension in the rear, while the series before that, had a double wishbone independent suspension in the front and rear. In the 4 generations of the Civic that I know of (at least the past 10 years), Honda always equipped the Civic with Independent suspensions. No "abandonment" there !!
It's a minivan for goodness sake - for the majority of the market, a sporty ride isn't a concern.
An independent suspension is not intended to provide a "sporty ride" alone. It is to allow each wheel to independently react to shocks from the road (potholes etc) and not transmitting the jarring effects onto the other end.
The 'torsion bar' is NOT a solid axle running from one rear wheel to the other. The torsion bar takes the place of coil springs. (in fact, a coil spring is simply a torsion bar wound into a helix).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_beam_suspension
BTW - for decades the rear-suspension on the Porsche 911 was a torsion bar suspension (until the 964 series was introduced as the Carrera4 in 1989)
The reason the Sienna uses a torsion bar is for packaging reasons; the torsion bar runs from the rear suspension area FORWARD under the van (perpendicular to where a rigid axle would be).
FWD minivans ALL use independent rear suspensions for one major reason: packaging. If you have an rigid rear axle/suspension, you can't drop the interior floor down low enough for comfortable 3rd row seating/cargo room.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2006/sienna/key_features/ext360.html
Rotate the van upside-down. And you will see that indeed the torsion beam suspension is not the same as a solid axle--it is independent (with a caveat). My guess is that Toyota went with this design to save space. My last quote was incomplete, as it should have been worded to say that most would probably prefer the independent suspension (ON THE HONDA)--coil springs can offer progressive spring rates. This basically mean the stiffness of the spring can be designed to vary with the amount of compression. A simple example of a torsion beam is a diving board. Theoretically, it will only have one spring rate assuming the material it is constructed from is uniform (as we would hope for suspension components on a car). This, of course. assumes you are within the elastic limit of the beam material (scientific details). There are more details, but I think you get the picture.
I hate writing long posts, but sometimes I suppose longer is better.
The previous generation Passat was saddled with a torsion beam while the corresponding Audi A4 (on which it was loosely based) had a true independent suspension. But the A4 obviously costed a lot more.
Second - the excessive body roll in the Sienna has nothing to do with the torsion bar suspension. It has to do with the 'spring rate' of the bar (a thicker, shorter bar would have a higher equivalent spring rate). It has to do with the suspension geometry (design/location of the trailing arms and torsion bar). And it has to do with the shock design.
Toyota designed the van to be smoother and quieter. Some prefer the suspension calibration of the Odyssey (I do for example), but to insinuate that the ride of the Sienna is inherent to a torsion bar suspension is incorrect. That salesman was completely clueless.
Odyssey: 4 wheel independent suspension
Sienna: Front independent suspension
Does that provide any clues ?? Did Edmunds forget that the Sienna's rear is independent ? Or is it that they don't consider the torsion beam on the Sienna's rear as independent ?
Torsion beam suspension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Torsion beam suspension, also known as a torsion bar or torsion spring, is a vehicle suspension system. One end of a long metal bar is attached firmly to the vehicle chassis; the opposite end has a lever, perpendicular to the bar, that is attached to the axle of a wheel. As the wheel travels up and down it "twists" the bar along its axis to provide the spring force. This system was used extensively in European cars as well as by Packard in the 1950s and Chrysler throughout the 1960s. The system was applied to many new armoured fighting vehicle designs during the Second World War.
The main advantages of torsion beam suspension are durability, easy ride height adjustability, and a smooth ride. It provides a longer travel than older leaf spring systems, and takes up less space in a vehicle compared to coil springs. One major disadvantage is the lack of a progressive spring rate which can lead to sloppy handling.
Some vehicles use torsion bars to implement automatic leveling with sensors and motors to dynamically adjust the torsion in each bar in response to changing loads and road conditions.
A variation on this theme is often called a twist beam suspension, as is found on VW Golfs and other economy cars. It usually consists of trailing arms connecting to a twistable beam that runs from one side of the car to the other. This design's advantages are mainly space and cost, and does not offer the performance or ride height adjustability of torsion bar suspension. You will often see the names for these suspension types used interchangeably in marketing literature and in conversation which can cause a great deal of confusion.
The more commonly used coil spring is merely a torsion bar formed into a helix.
Please also see http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/suspension/tech_suspension21.htm
for the images that go with the following explanation:
Torsion beam suspension
Most modern mini cars up to C-segment (for instance, VW Golf) employ torsion beam as the rear suspension. Why? compare with double wishbones, multi-link and trailing arm suspensions, it engages little width of the car, thus enable greater rear seat room. It is cheaper too. Compare with MacPherson strut, its shock absorber is shorter and can be inclined steeply away from the vertical, thus engage less boot space.
In fact, torsion beam suspension is only half-independent - there is a torsion beam connecting both wheels together, which allows limited degree of freedom when forced. For some less demanding compact cars, this save the anti-roll bars. On the contrary, it doesn't provide the same level of ride and handling as double wishbones or multi-link suspensions, although in reality it is superior to its only direct competitor, MacPherson strut. Most of the Europe's best handling GTIs employed this suspenion.
For those who think handling is not a big deal on minivan, try driving on narrow road and full of pot holes at high way speed, the Odys will impress you with its stability.
If all roads are perfect, the Chrysler van with solid rear axle aand Siena with Torsion bar would probably work very well.
It is the rough road which separate boys from men.
jt
should be modified to:
If all roads are perfect, the Chrysler van with solid rear axle aand Siena with Torsion beam would probably work very well.
The following is the Sienna's suspension from www.toyota.com :
MacPherson strut front suspension with gas-filled shock absorbers and torsion beam rear suspension with coil springs and gas-filled shock absorbers, and front and rear stabilizer bars
I'm just glad to see that you now at least admit that you were wrong to say that a torsion beam suspension is the same as a solid rear axle. That, my MS (where I grew up) friend is progress.
Independent Suspension:
Odyssey: 4 wheel
Sienna: Front
So the Torsion beam in the Sienna's rear, as admitted by toyota themselves, is NOT INDEPENDENT.