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.
Comments
I promise my feelings won't be hurt.
I'd say most people who haul big items know in advance and can just remove the front two seats. At least that way you get a comfortable 2nd row. And the swivel is great for families with kids, which is the main consumer of minivans in the first place, not folks needing a cargo van.
No one who's ever been in my van's 2nd row seats has complained about comfort either, nor have I seen many complaints online from Chrysler owners. I've hauled friends back and forth to Toronto now a few times - no issues whatsoever. Seems like it's always the concerned owners of competitive models, who don't actually own a Chrysler, maybe sat in them for all of 5 minutes at an autoshow, voicing that opinion. The people who actually voted with their wallets, are those who's opinion counts a little bit more.
I personally think the drivers seat is uncomfortable, too.
What are you doing here? I do not recall a mention of a competing brand in the message to which you replied.
These forums are for people to express their opinions. If you do not like that expressed opinion you do not have to read or reply.
It seems to me that you have carried on a years long crusade in favor of the Chrysler vans for as long as I can remember. When was the last time you owned a competing model? You have bashed me along the way for my stated refusal to own another Chrysler piece of junk due to my personal ownership of two consecutive models from the early and mid-90s saying that those are not representative of today's models. When I would rent a current model for business I would be told that those models are not indicative of the rest.
What about the model reviews posted by various magazines? There is so much negativism directed at Consumer Reports, a magazine which actually purchases their test models and accepts no advertising. Yet, when a favorable Chrysler review is printed by a magazine which is loaned a tester and gets paid to print advertisements it is touted as the holy grail. What will be said on here should CR print a glowing review in its upcoming 2008 Chrysler minivan review?
I said this years ago on here that most people will not admit to making a $30,000 mistake and down their vehicle in front of the world.
Please check message #521 for mention of DCX minivans and "Stow N Go" which is also a Chrysler trade name. I mentioned Ody only because that's what my buddy owned. I have also owned Honda Civic and Acura Integras, VWs, BMWs, Ford, and Chevrolets. If someone else can have an opinion on a vehicle they don't own, can't I recall my friend's like he recalled his parents Chrysler???
As for CR's unbias reports because they accept no advertiser money, spare me. I get CR monthly as a xmas gift. One just needs to pick up an issue to see bias in it..i.e...[non-permissible content removed] imports on the cover and lead of every auto section. Or just a few months ago how they gave Toyota's Tundra an unfair advantage over GM's blatantly. The day they print a glowing review on a Chrysler minivan, is the day it snows in He__.
For the longest time I thought PBS' "Motor Week" bought their testers but it isn't so and is reflected in their "We never met a car we didn't like".
These boards are similar to the auto media in that people come on and tout their models, for the most part or seriously criticize. One person's opinion on here can make people believe that every model of the same brand is a piece of junk.
I want to see what CR says about the new Chrysler vans. Personally I would never own another Chrysler product but, once again, my personal opinion. I think the new vans are ugly and resemble the old Kia Sedona. Seats facing backward are nothing new as VW had them at least as far back as the Vanagon. There is nothing really new or innovative in the Chrysler vans.
Who has the time to fill in their auto survey? You gotta have no life or "issues" to take that kind of time to fill it out. Therefore the results you see are those provided by those with "issues", ulterior motives, or a need to prove they are right.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-13-200- 7/0004703999&EDATE=
Well duhhhhhh!
Who's going to purchase a people mover that they find to have uncomfortable seats? I'd like to give Chrysler owners some credit for not being among those who don't like the seats in their own vehicle; a vehicle whose purpose is to haul passengers in comfort.
Do we really have to decide who was "first" in a market which is defined by being undefined?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Eagle
EXACTLY!!! OPINION.....and everybody has one, and everybody is bias - even the CR people who write the reviews. I noticed in the latest issue, comparing small CUVs...one had a good rear seat allowing for 3 across seating, but another vehicle what was actually wider by a few inches wasn't good for 3 across seating?
There is nothing really new or innovative in the Chrysler vans. That's an opinion but I could point out the first 6 spd auto in the segment, LED lighting, heated 2nd row seats, available seating options like SNG or SNG (too much too type). Not to mention their past innovations like dual sliding doors, overall packaging i.e...FWD 2 box design, which still sets the standard for minivans.
AMEN BRO!!
I'm glad you mentioned the RAV4 - which is one of the reasons I hate Consumer Reports. They have the audacity to give this a "Top Safety Pick". Well I have a friend with 5 little kids. She got this as her gas saving run around town vehicle because of its alleged top safetyness and piles all her kids into the optional 7 seater version. Did CR bother to look at the rear end collision test results? They are horrible and her kids sit about 1 inch from the back of this vehicle - like they do in others 3 row seaters like the MDX and Santa Fe. If she gets hit from the rear her kids back there are hamburger. Do I say something to her? Or do I just keep it to myself and hope nobody rear ends her? Screw CR's blatant bias and unintelligent reviews.
Who's going to purchase a people mover that they find to have uncomfortable seats? I'd like to give Chrysler owners some credit for not being among those who don't like the seats in their own vehicle; a vehicle whose purpose is to haul passengers in comfort.
Hauling passengers is only one purpose, versatility is another, quietness etc.......there are many different pupposes.
My "beef" is with people who don't actually own a Chrysler stating bias opinions like how difficult Stow N Go is to operate, while ignoring the obvious i.e...how difficult it would be in another minvan to physically remove the seats. If someone wants to wail on about how comfortable their own minivan seats are...more power to them, but if you have a need to prattle on about something you don't own, well it shouldn't carry too much weight with people. People are fully capable of test driving and forming their own opinion,
Heck, CR-V or Honda's tall Civic wagons w/4wd were on the market in the mid 80s. I can never figure out the RAV can be given this distinction??????
There are obvious first...vehicles that pulled all the basic elements together first like the Mustang. Sure people can say my 63 Corvair Monza coupe inspired Ford to create the Mustang....it had buckets seats, was sorta sporty for it's time, but the Mustang added performance, affordability, better styling etc.... Same can be said about the VW Bus vs. Minivan.... The Bus had the concept down, but lacked the packaging, power, ride etc..
"The Eagle, revolutionary when it debuted, came about when Jeep's chief engineer, Roy Lunn, joined an AMC Concord body with a Jeep-like 4-wheel-drive driveline.Such a vehicle was a logical step for AMC, according to then-AMC CEO Gerald C. Meyers, as a second energy crisis had hit in 1979, and sales of AMC's highly profitable truck-based Jeep line, which was not famous for good fuel mileage, plummeted, leaving AMC in a precarious financial position. Because of this, the Eagle provided a low-cost way of bridging the gap between AMC's solid and economical, but aging passenger car line, and its well-regarded, but decidedly off-road focused Jeep line, as the Eagle used the existing Concord (and later, Spirit) automobile platform.
So it depends on what you need. My parents use their DGC for hauling things. My dad is always putting down part or all the seats, even in the second row. So for him, the DGC Stow and Go system is perfect. He's not that interested in driving dynamics. The DGC has everything that he wants, and he paid $21.5k for a new SXT with a sticker of $29k.
For my family, however, a minivan would be more of a people mover. I can't forsee really any circumstance in which we wouldn't have the second row in place, and I think Honda has a great, light system for stowing the third row. So for us, seat comfort is a priority, and I don't even think that comparison is close. My wife is looking for a nimble van with car-like handling--so for us, I think the Odyssey is the best choice, and also the best value because of heavy discounts on 2007s. I also think that the controls and plastics in the Ody and Sienna are still better than on the 2008 DGC CTC.
It depends on what your needs are and what your priorities are.
I don't agree with the CR bashing. CR is not my ONLY source, but its a source worth considering. Their testing, in particular strikes me as pretty accurate based on the vehicles I have driven. When an American car is a good vehicle, it scores well---saying otherwise is really rather ignorant considering that the results are right there for anyone to look up. (For instance, CR has praised the Ford Fusion, and in this month's issue there is a cover story about how Toyota reliability is slipping, and Ford is gaining.) They call it like they see it.
That being said, it sounds funny when some people complain about "breaking their back" removing the second row seats and then go to Lowes and load sheets of plywood, sheet rock and other heavy items. If you're not able to remove a second row seat then maybe you shouldn't be loading 4x8 sheets of plywood.
And I think some folks here in this forum should try decaf
The first crossover was the 1972 Subaru GL wagon.
Earlier Jeeps were trucks. So they didn't really cross over from the car category to the truck category, they were just trucks to begin with. You might say Jeep invented the SUV, sure.
In 1972 Subaru took an existing CAR platform, that is the key here, and raised the suspension, added 4WD with a true low range, added skid plates, the works, and created the first true crossover, i.e. a car that crossed over to offer truck-like characteristics.
They were half a decade ahead of the AMC Eagle, which basically did the same thing with a bigger car.
dennis: heads up, read this month's issue, if your gift subscription has not yet expired. CR pans 3 Toyota models as worse than average in reliability and no longer recommends them.
Of course the Sienna is not among those, all Siennas are still rated highly.
I've never complained about my back, I love the ease of storing the seats, and the versatility of the interior. I have an uncle who hurt himself in a accident at work 3 DECADES ago, who's been on permanent disability and living very well too (after some lawsuits). It's funny to see him chopping wood with an axe, felling trees and seemingly in great health...i've never once heard him complain of any back pain.
Now that I think of this statement.....the only advantage Toyota or Honda has for carrying a family is the 8th seat option. Chrysler has everything else covered or improved upon i.e..more seating options (Swivel or Stow), quieter ride, keyless ignition, better versatility, every entertainment option and more (live TV via Sirius), great performance, all safety equipment/ratings and a better warranty. If you don't like Stow, get Swivel for comfort. Don't want to mess with toodler seats, get the booster seat option on Chrysler. Sorry to disagree with your premise
Maybe Dodge will bring that back, who knows?
Frankly, laundry listing like that doesn't work. Its not just what a vehicle has, its how it is executed and how it FEELS. Like the quality of the plastic, the suppleness of the seats, how the switches work, etc.
I admit that it is a subjective thing, however, even on the 2008, the reviews I've run so far seem to reach the conclusion that I did independently, so I don't think I'm off base.
And one other thing...great performance?. Only with the 4.0 V6, which you can't get on a CTC Touring and which very few DGC SXT's that are being shipped seem to actually have. The 3.8 is anemic--this is part of my problem. The 4.0 should be the ONLY engine offered on these vehicles. Chrysler should be embarassed to even be selling the 3.3, and the 3.8 is also underpowered for the vehicle.
Which is not to say that the DGC and CTC aren't right for YOU--maybe they are.
Maybe Dodge will bring that back, who knows?
With Stow N Go chasis, there's no way to package a driveshaft for AWD, plus it was such a low volume seller. Actually if you need AWD and 8 seats, the GM CUVs are outstanding vehicles!! I drove a Buick Enclave and it was beautiful and extremely quiet (tests show it's quieter than a Lexus RX 350!).
I'll give Honda credit - their seats in the 2000-2001 era were horrible. So they heard and responded. Their seats are pretty good now.
The Chrysler T&C in the Limited is an excellent seat too. But the lesser models are not nearly as comfy. Also I found Chrysler's stain resistant fabric to be itchy. I ordered a Limited with the suede and leather to avoid the itch.
Sienna was OK but so much of this is subjective.
As for the engines - I disagree with you on the 3.8. It is not sluggish at all except in comparison to the 4.0L. I cannot cut on Chrysler for the pep and power of their 3.8L and it rates with its competitors whereas the 4.0 surpasses them. As for the 3.3L this is obviously the economy line with an adequate engine that gets great mileage. I am grateful that Chrysler has this option available for people who need a minivan but have trouble making ends meet. Saves them at the time of purchase and as they own it. I am grateful some people consider the unnecessary wasting of our fossil fuel resources when purchasing a vehicle though I cannot count myself among them.
Motor Trend and Edmunds have tested the Chrysler twins with the 3.8. In the previous gen models, it pulled a 10.3 0-60 time. That's not competitive. I'm quite certain that even with the new transmission, the 2008 is not going to do much better than that.
The Sienna runs 7.2 to 60, the Ody around 8.2.
I drove the 3.8 equppied van on an 800 mile trip a few months ago--its underpowered when empty. With people and luggage--forget it.
EX-L and Touring models of the Odyssey have a good VCM system that meets or exceeds fuel economy on the downmarket Chrysler engines.
As for VCM -- looks like a dud. GM/Cadillac fooled with that 2 decades ago with their 8-4-2 engine. GM's failed due to poor programming which was the only thing available in that era. Hondas just isn't producing any great amounts of improved gas mileage.
Chrysler derated the 3.8 to 205 hp? but the 6 sp auto should help quite a bit - it's just common sense. Also, I think you're comparing 08 timing with CR timing from 06 for the Dodge. If I remember correctly, the Honda was 1.4 seconds faster to 60 than the Dodge back then, which would be about 8.9 seconds?
Also, all those VCM/displacement on demand systems don't seem to provide the MPG originally promised. Just look at the 07 vs 08 EPA ratings. Also look at the real world MPG some owners are getting - not just Honda owners.
GM's V864 was a mechanical system, no computer control valves or anything!!! Its night and day compared to whats out today. In my OPINION, a 6 spd auto is a more cost effective and more reliable method for improving mpg and performance.
It wasn't blowing off newer engines five years ago, and it isn't doing it today. Do you think Dodge offers a 4.0L now because the 3.8L was so superior to the competition? It was fine in the 1990s... GM Vans had 185hp, the Windstar had 200hp or so, and the engine offered in the new for 1999 Odyssey had 210hp (top of the class at the time I think). With 197hp, Chrysler is even behind the lame-duck GM vans' 3.5L, much less their 3.9L.
The 3.8L isn't a "bad" engine, it is just outclassed (by a large margin) by its own 4.0L, Honda's 3.5L, Hyundai's 3.8L, and especially Toyota's 2GR 3.5L V6. That's a fact that I can back up with numbers, but I don't think anyone wants me re-hashing those again (I'll be happy to if anyone prefers, though).
Unlike all other manufacturers, Chrysler has been using a molding process to make all their minivan seats, since about 1996. They insert the fabric into a giant press, then shoot the foam padding to form a perfect looking cushion with perfect seams. That's why even the leather seats look kinda flat and sterile vs the rippled leather seats in a Honda Ody.
I've got an itch for a new Minivan too. Drove a T&C limited and loved it, but want to look at a Honda and Toyota. I like how their 2nd row seats can be pushed together to form a bench (lame, but I'm thinking of my dog's comfort here
I think I have the same 3.8L engine as the 2001-2007 T&C, but it MIGHT be different as mine was the tail end of the previous model. I think mine is a 4 speed. If not, no, I really have never had any problem with power or acceleration. And I still own a 1995 SHO the MOVES so, I know what power and acceleration are.
Facts are facts, numbers are numbers. Unlike seat comfort, etc--its NOT a subjective. The 3.8 is not a strong engine. It might be reliable, it might be "fine for some of you, but its completely outclassed by newer engines from Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and even Chrysler.
The Ody gets EPA 17/24, btw. The 3.8 08 DGC gets 16/23. And the Honda 3.5 is a much more powerful engine. VCM or not, the Honda 3.5 is a better package, even from a fuel economy standpoint.
But Magazine differ, testing methods differ and testing conditions differ. As I've alway say.....CR is only good for numbers/testing, they have the best equipment and procedure, that's completely standarized, whereas the smucks at the auto rags are one day in AZ testing something, some another group in Michigan testing something else.....
Show me ANY test from ANY source that shows that the Chrysler 3.8 outperforms the Honda 3.5.
Go ahead.
I don't doubt that the Odyssey get very similar mileage - just nothing to make me get excited about. If it were a bigger difference perhaps, but..............
I think many of these folks who think they need 300HP, high-torque engines in their minivans should have begun their driving careers with 50 to 60HP economy cars. You would have then learned proper driving techniques, including seamless merging onto freeways and passing on two-lane roads. You don't "need" instantaneous rubber-burning acceleration in any vehicle, but especially in a family hauler like a minivan.
You're putting words in my mouth, I said nothing remotely like what you're stating. I'm just saying a 1.4 sec 0-60 mph time is meaningless for normal, sane people who know how to drive and merge.
It is amusing to see people using the words "minivan" and "performance" in the same sentence! Next thing you are going to see people comparing towing specs on subcompacts!! Or maybe cargo space on 2-seater sports cars.