Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Odyssey vs. Toyota Sienna



  • ewtewt Posts: 127
    "With the most HP and sport car handling, The Ody will out accelerate and out handle all minivans out there, if you are a sport car guy type of person"


    I didn't really hear "sports car handling" and "minivan" mentioned in the same sentence did I?


    Also, have you dynoed a Sienna with and without premium fuel since you're throwing out HP numbers? I didn't find any difference in timing advance at WOT between the two. Without a difference in timing advance there shouldn't be a difference in HP either.
  • Some quick responses to recent Sienna-bashing posts (I now own a 2005 Sienna).


    1. Max HP is rated at over 5000 rpm on both vehicles. The HP at 3000 rpm is a much better metric of useful power. I do not have the curves for each engine so I do not know the truth on this.

    2. Sienna torque reaches 242 ft-lbs at 3600 rpm. The Ody doesn't reach its' 250 ft-lbs until 5000 rpm. When pulling, etc. low rpm torque is more important than high rpm HP.

    3. I drove our brand new Sienna from D.C. to home and measured the fuel mileage. I averaged between 26 and 28 mpg with 5-speed on the interstate at 70 mph using regular (87 octane) gas. Averaged about 23 mpg when running in 4th gear at 65 mph.

    4. Sports car handling? I've driven the Odyssey many times and am certainly impressed with the variable velocity steering "feel" that Honda uses in all of their vehicles... but sports-car like?.

    5. Resale value: supply, demand and quality will drive resale values as will how well you keep it. Where I live, there are more used Odysseys for sale than Siennas. Trust me, Siennas hold their value extremely well around here--which is why I bought new.

    6. Toyota recommeds premium fuel? Where did this come from? All documentation states 87 octane and I can testify that it runs perfectly at this level (no knocking, pinging, etc.). Maybe it would matter under heavy towing load since the engine may want to adjust the ignition timing a bit? Clarification/references are needed.

    7. The Sienna has a higher power-to-weight ratio than the Odyssey. Acceleration probably has more to do with how the transmission is geared than anything else. Low-end pulling power will suffer the acceleration and vice-versa. I personally want low-end torque since we sometimes pull a trailer. Thinking of that... only the Sienna comes standard with a 3500 lb tow rating. All Siennas come standard with heavy duty alternator, cooling, etc. The new Ody does not (one of those trade-offs that Honda decided to make to pay for the extra goodies on the inside I suppose).
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,551
    Personally I think people are focusing on what they perceive are the negatives of the PAX system and not the positives. Heck, they could well save your life! Being able to drive after a flat on a rain slicked dark freeway surrounded by heavy traffic seems like a HUGE plus to me!


    Still, if you feel this way, then others must as well. I hope Honda Corporate types monitor these forums.
  • cccompsoncccompson Posts: 2,388
    Obviously, Honda also thought PAX would be perceived as a huge plus because they effectively charge a huge premium for PAX. IMHO, the positives and negatives are a wash which means the added cost is a decided downside in contemplating a Touring model.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    All the advantages you named can be accomplished with conventional run-flats--with the added benefit of multiple brands and tread patterns from which to choose at replacement time.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,551
    that's the point I keep trying to make. I have yet to hear even ONE customer speak about this in a negative fashion. To many people they are a selling point!
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    My point was that all the PAX benefits you noted, while true, can be achieved with conventional run-flats--without the odd size and risk-of-obsolescence of PAX.


    I do think it's silly that so many people are scared of run-flats in general. But the real issue is conventional run-flat vs. PAX-- sort of like VHS vs. Beta....


    It's a bit of apples and oranges, though. Sienna AWD has run-flats because it HAS to. Odyssey Touring seems to be PAX-laden for no good reason.
  • macakavamacakava Posts: 775
    Leave it to the experts at Car & Driver. In their June 2004 issue, the 2004(NOT 2005 now) Ody was rated above the Sienna, Quest, Grand caravan and Freestar.


    I have driven both the Ody and Sienna and I have to agree with C & D on the reasons why they chose the 2004 Ody over the 2004 Sienna. The 2005 Ody has raised the bar even further!
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Your summary of the 'Car & Driver' review is over-simplified. As I recall, the rating difference was about one point, and the review said it basically comes down to your personal preference. Also, I remember being a bit bewildered, as they seemed to say more positive things about the Sienna, but then rated it behind the Ody (again--barely).
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,551
    If it had rated the Sienna about the Odyssey you would have thought that a good thing I'm sure.


    Since this didn't happen you disagree.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    My point about the 'Car and Driver' article was that there was certainly no clear victory on the Ody's part. It was a one-point-win, mitigated by a 'depends on your preference' caveat.

    I would be saying the same had it been the opposite, so you put words in my mouth. 'C&D' reviewers are as biased toward sports-car-handling as 'Consumer Reports' editors are toward practicality.


    So it's no surprise they chose the '04 Ody (again, by a hair) over the '04 Sienna. These guys don't give a hoot about road noise, so long as the driving experience is 'fun' (if that's even possible with a minivan). The quiet luxury of a Sienna is lost on a bunch of guys who would rather be driving Porsches anyway.


    (Don't misunderstand me, I love 'C&D,' and have been a subscriber since 1979). Now if they'd just do an unbiased evaluation of PAX on the '05.....
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    But I'm not sure it applies here. One scenario is a bit more desirable than the other.....


    And just why would I trust those TOP-NOTCH automotive reviewers at 'Money' and 'Kiplingers'..... I don't buy audio equipment that's recommended in 'Playboy'....
  • PAX tires will end up dropping the resale value of the Odyssey Touring model. Especially after Honda decides it is losing sales to Sienna (lost my sale this way, I cancelled my Honda order and I pick up my Sienna tomorrow) or people will buy lower end Odyssey to stay away from a dead end with the Touring PAX issues. And then changes Touring in 2006 or sooner!!!


    Who will want to buy a vehicle with very expensive, hard to find tires, only sold by Michelin (a French company) and Honda where the price and availibility is totally controlled by them?


    Remind you that, being the poor person stuck on a vacation or weekend spending all his time and money finding a replacement PAX. There are none in Canada, so Honda owners, no not visit there without STRAPPING one PAX on the roof. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can not strap it to the roof, unless you bought the "cross bar option" as Honda does not included these like most other car makers do with a roof rack!


    Odyssey is a great van, but so is Sienna. I drove both models several times. All this talk about how mine is faster than yours, or gets 1 mile an hour better gas mileage will mean nothing when you are stuck in THAT Odyssey Touring with a bad PAX tire and I go by you smiling in my new Toyota Sienna XLE Limited!!! I could not even stop to help you, no one CAN!!!


    PAX is a nice idea in theory, but for a person who drives on vacation or gets stuck on weekend the support will suck. If PAX was so great, why not make them mandatory on Acura?


    Why does Honda hide these PAX FACTS from the buyers? There was little reason except control, to NOT make PAX an option on Touring. Or have the option to allow for a regular tire to fit. Or AT LEAST include some kind of donut spare, instead of leaving the space in the Touring EMPTY! They almost HAD me, but I got away before delivery. Thank you Edmunds forum again! Time will tell.


    Stephen A
  • ewtewt Posts: 127
    I guess it depends on your point of view. There isn't a minivan made that I get much driving pleasure from. The Odyssey may handle marginally better than the Sienna but who cares? Neither one of them handle very well in an absolute sense, and the differences aren't big. It's like arguing about cup holders in a Viper vs. a Corvette.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 24,899
    as noted, the difference was one point. The primary reason the Ody won was related to features. basically, they tested an EXL vx. an LE, and the Honda had more goodies. Hence, it won the features catagory.


    IIRC, the test pretty much confirmed popular perceptions. The Sienna was cushier and quieter, and the Ody was more of a "drivers" car.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • petlpetl Posts: 610
    Most of the criterea used in rating vehicles are subjective. The bottom line is, C&D can arrive at the desired conclusion (on subjectivity alone). I won`t dispute which van is better. Those who purchase them will evedently be in the best posistion to judge.
  • susiejsusiej Posts: 12
    I think only an uninformed consumer would find PAX tires to be a huge plus. I have spoken with two uninformed Honda salesman as well who didn't believe me when I told them the tires were an odd size ( 17.5 inches I believe).


    If consumers knew they couldn't travel to Canada and will have great difficulty finding replacement tires in the States, they would not be buying Touring models.


    ISELLHONDAS , do you let your customers know these facts before they purchase a touring model?
  • yatesdyatesd Posts: 60


    If you read your owners manual you'll see that Toyota recommends premium fuel.


    87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage.
  • yatesdyatesd Posts: 60


    That is not true. PAX tire technology provides advantages in ride quality, repairability, rated distance when driven flat, and ability to work with heavier vehicles compared to conventional run-flats. That's why Michelin considers this to be their best technology, even though they also sell regular run-flat tires.


    Furthermore, it is my understanding that your rare tire size on the Sienna also limits your tire choices and increases replacement costs.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    What could possibly be the repairability advantages of PAX? Would it be because you're strictly limited to a Honda or Michelin dealer for repair? Or maybe it's the fact that you're dependant on a Honda dealer having a 'hat box' in stock? Please explain.


    I will grant you the point that one can probably drive an extra 50 miles or so with a PAX tire, vs. a convention run-flat.


    I cannot speak to advantages of ride quality. But I do know that with conventional run-flats, I have some options. If your PAX tires turn out to be awful in wet or snowy conditions, you're stuck with them (pardon the pun)-- even if they DO have a nice ride on a dry and sunny day.


    Finally, the 17" wheels on my Sienna ARE NOT RARE! Seventeen inches is a STANDARD SIZE! (Why do people keep saying this?) The 18.1" of PAX, however, most certainly IS rare...
  • PAX Tires are 18.1 inches. They have no bead, and are flush with the rim...Weird, but cool!!!!
  • Yatesd:

    You write:"87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage."


    Do you have objective evidence that Sienna doesn't develop 230 HP with regular fuel? The manual only states "premium recommended for improved performance". It is more likely the HP numbers will go up by 5 if you use premium and not the other way around.


    As pointed out by others, currently Sienna has a better power to weight ratio, so that is better IMO.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 24,899
    Once the "Tweel" comes to market, PAX and regular run flats will be irrelevant.


    The Tweel was written up this month in one of my car magazines. Basically it is an integrated wheel/tire that is not inflated. Some sort of wire thingees support the rubber tread, which is replaceable.


    So, no chance of a flat, no need for a spare, etc.


    Look really weird though, with no sidewall. But, if they work as hoped, will comepletely revolutionize tire technology!

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Tweel link (Michelin)


    Steve, Host
  • weizeweize Posts: 1
    My 2005 sienna AWD uses the run-flat tires without a spare. Luckily, the wheel size is standard 17". I have checked with a tire dealer. They do not carry the run-flat. I think Honda's PAX has the same concept as Toyota's run-flat.


    Obviously, Honda and Toyota are helping the tires companies to promote these new types of tires with the expenses of non-informed consumers.


    Toyota sienna AWD has to use the run-flat since they can't find a underbody place for a spare.


    I may have to buy a spare and put it behind the third row seats when I replace the all four run-flats to four regular tires. Also, I hope the price and availability of the run-flat or PAX will be better in a couple of years.


    Any comments?
  • "87 octane is OK, as long as you don't insist on the advertised HP and gas mileage."


    Thanks for the feedback. Toyota recommends premium fuel for "increased" performance... not for "standard" performance. As stated before, we are getting very good gas mileage on 87 octane--equal or better than advertised in fact--without any knocking/pinging. I don't mean for this to be an arguing point... it is just my own experience (to date) with a Sienna. In short, the van runs very well on 87 octane.
  • davenowdavenow Posts: 171
    mine too. i never used 91 or better. i'm averaging about 24-25 mpg in 70-30 split highway-city(1) driving.


    i might add that i don't warm-up the van at all from a cold start, just let it do that on the way.


    1 - city - here means locally sporadic stop and go country driving with short perhaps steep hilly terrain in some spots.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,551
    To answer your question, yes, I tell them the pros and cons. So far, the only fears or complaints I've heard are right here, in these forums. Most people see benefits in having them.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Are the benefits they see the benefits of RFTs in general or PAX tires in particular?


    I understand and can appreciate the benefits of RFTs in general. That being said, I don't like proprietary technology which FORCES me to use one particular tire, and ONLY one particular tire. That is a huge liablitiy which the PAX tire has which other RFTs do not.
  • heywood1heywood1 Posts: 850
    Really?... So when you mention that these tires can only be replaced at a Honda dealer or a Michelin dealer (one that's decided to purchase the PAX equipment), and that replacement cost is going to be about $1,000 for set (parts, labor, taxes, & bogus parts disposal fee most car dealers charge), the customer says 'Great, it's worth it!'?


    I suspect the reason you've heard no fears or complaints is that the customer doesn't yet realize what he's getting into...
Sign In or Register to comment.