Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

dc_driver · May 2006

Is it just me, or does anybody else hate the "he/she" dialogue and content of this interview team?

They did raise some good points, but lets be honest, paying MSRP on a Hyundai/Kia is like paying MSRP on a DCX/Ford/GM minivan. You shouldn't.. Kia already offers a combined 3K rebate on the 06 Sedona (2K competition bonus, 1K rebate if you finance through Kia at 3.9%). I am sure folks will be able to pickup an Entourage for 3K+ under invoice in about 6-12 months.

I did not drive the Entourage, but did drive the 06 Kia Sedona (basically the same van), and found it to be a nice van but not quite on par with Honda/Toyota. My wife preffered the Chrysler T&C to the Kia as well.

Some of the things I did not like about the Kia (which is probably true on the Hyundai as well):
- The van had plenty of power, but had some torque steer before traction control kicked in.
- Like the Tucson that I test drove a few months back, the transmission seems to get lost sometimes and "hunts" for the right gear. This was very noticeable on my test drive when trying to accelerate very quickly while coasting.
- There was much more roll and body lean in the corners with this van than the others.
- The second row seats do not slide sideways.
- The leather in the Kia was not on par with the Honda/Toyota.
- Consumer Reports rated the 05 Sedona as a "worst bet" minivan with regards to reliability. Hopefully the 06 will resolve some of these issues, but Kia is still not on par with Honda/Toyota IMHO.
- I did not hate the look of the van, but to me, it reminded me of the previous generation Odyssey in the front.
- The third row seat sits lower than the Odyssey/Sienna and it just felt more cramp.
- Questionable resale value.

All that said, if my budget was to buy the most van for $25K, it would be a very close call between the Kia and the DCX vans when you consider incentives. I would probably lean towards the Chrysler T&C Touring model (I was quoted $24K for a loaded T&C that had power doors and liftgate, leather, etc)...

hansienna · May 2006

I also hated the He-She dialogue of the review.
I would also add that people should NOT pay MSRP or even close on a Sienna or Odyssey. I got a nice discount on my 2006 Sienna LE but shortly afterward, Toyota put a $ 750 incentive...which means I paid $ 750 TOO much.
The 3rd row seats of the 2006 Sedona are NOT comfortable for adults and are LESS comfortable than the 3rd row on DC Stow 'N Go minivans. The Sedona carpet and cloth seat material felt cheaper than DC minivans, Sienna and Odyssey.

The BEST BUY now for me in a 2006 minivan would be a GC SXT with optional power liftgate for under $ 22,000 (that has an MSRP of $ 28,430)...or about $ 300 LESS than the T&C Touring.

dc_driver · May 2006

True, nobody should pay MSRP on any minivan (including Toyota/Honda). I paid under invoice on my Odyssey, and could easily have paid well under invoice on a Sienna.

The funny thing, to me, is that there were a lot of folks paying OVER MSRP when the current generation Odyssey van came out. At least here in Northern VA. There were waiting lists, and many people paid $1-2K over MSRP.

Personally, I never try to buy a new model or generation vehicle for the first year or so. For one, I like to see what issues occur and to let the manufacturers correct mistakes. The second reason is I like to let the hype die down that so many people get caught up in.

I truly believe in utilizing the Internet to buy a vehicle and have been able to purchase my last five vehicles at or under invoice.

Agree with you on that GC SXT van. That is a lot of van for 22K... Anyone looking to buy a Hyundai/Kia or entry level Honda/Toyota should really look at the DCX vans.

hansienna · May 2006

Odyssey LX would be the entry level van with the MOST safety features and power for the lowest price. The Sienna CE would cost slightly less than the Ody LX but would also have slightly less power and fewer safety features.
The Caravan SE would be much lower priced but would be smaller, have MUCH less power with the 2.4L inline 4 cylinder engine and would lack MANY safety features of the Ody LX or Sienna CE.

dennisctc · May 2006

Whenever I see something Minivan owners might be interested in from the Detroit News, I like to post it. I think they're a cute couple with a few good points but also a Pro Detroit slant. It doesn't bug me too much, especially when I look at other publications...

A year ago my father gave me a subscription to CR. I use to think they were somewhat fair but more and more I see the slant too. For example....look back over the past year of CR and notice how many domestic cars actually make the cover pic or the pics at the beginning of automotive review! I haven't found ANY although I am missing a few issues that were loaned out to friends. Then notice how totally new offerings from the Japanese are rated high, with no track record or feedback from "Consumers", while redesigned domestics or German cars are "unrated"?? I've already told my father not to renew subscription for me.

hansienna · May 2006

You have posted my exact feelings on why CR is "NOT Recommended for purchase" in my opinion.

I subscribed to CR for many years but found it to be too biased and unreliable when writing about minivans.

CR states that DC minivan controls are confusing but I like having a separate control for treble, bass, fade, and balance instead of the Odyssey and Sienna "one knob does all" where I must scroll thru the entire menu to change any one function.

I do agree with CR that the DC minivan interior looks cheap when compared to the Sienna or Odyssey and have also found that the Sienna and Odyssey engine/transmission are not as noisy going up a relatively steep hill in 3rd gear as the 3.8L V6 GC SXT in 2nd gear.

jipster · May 2006

I subscribed to CR for many years but found it to be too biased and unreliable when writing about minivans

Actually I find every car mag rag I've read to be biased in some way. Car and Driver favors cars with the faster 0-60 times...CR favors the vehilces that will hold the most ping pong balls in its trunk. The best thing to do is read them all. Pick out their pros and cons to focus on during a test drive. Sometimes you'll agree with what they have to say about a certain vehilce, sometimes you won't.

dc_driver · May 2006

I agree. It really comes down to personally driving the vehicles and finding the one that fits your needs best (and most likely, your budget best).

I always find it amusing how so many of these magazines drive all the loaded vans in their tests. I would love to see more tests on the base on mid-level models. Not everyone can afford a $35-40K minivan...

That said, there is useful information in the reviews especially with regards to safety features, performance, handling, etc. With regards to CR, I usually tend to look more at their reliability ratings than their actual car reviews. It has been my experience (based on both personal knowledge, and knowledge from friends, family, and the Internet) that their reliability ratings are fairly accurate. It is a data point, and nothing more. I have never based my decision to buy a car just because it received an award in Motor Trend, Car and Driver, CR, or even Edmunds (hopefully I will not get banned for saying that

. When my wife insisted a few months ago that we buy a minivan for our growing family, we did not have Honda at the top of the list (I was leaning towards a Toyota, and she liked the DCX vans). We both knew we wanted the Odyssey after the first test drive. It was just the right car for us, with the right features, for the right price...

dennisctc · May 2006

Actually I find every car mag rag I've read to be biased in some way. Car and Driver favors cars with the faster 0-60 times...CR favors the vehilces that will hold the most ping pong balls in its trunk. The best thing to do is read them all. Pick out their pros and cons to focus on during a test drive. Sometimes you'll agree with what they have to say about a certain vehilce, sometimes you won't.

Yeah but I don't believe C&D, Motor Trends and other car rags claim to be unbiased, whereas, right on CR's cover you get "expert", "independent" and "non profit", and "unbiased ratings 311 products".

leon111 · May 2006

I disagree on the "unfair" slant of CR in favor of Japanese autos. I understand that many feel this way, but I have been buying cars since 1980 and have given up on American makes. I feel CR is "fair and balanced." It is not surprising they feature Japanese make cars a lot since they sell so well, are consistently more reliable, have better built-in quality and, generally, more standard safety features. I also do not find it surprising that CR will rate a new model from Honda or Toyota high based on the consistent track record of the company's products. I used to be a "ford" man and have seen them fall apart regardless of how well I maintain them over 10 years and 100,000+ miles. I have a 1995 Windstar blow the head gaskets ar 88,000 (at least Ford did cover the repair on a "secret" extended warranty) but overall, the van has completely fallen apart after 122,000 miles even though I met or exceed all recommended and even addtional maintenance checks. My 2001 Crown Vic has been fairly mechanically reliable over 166,000 miles but the paint is peeling off the roof line drip lanes and I live in a mild climate in the South East. I had the same experience with a Chrysler Concord (1996) when the engine literally blew at 90,000 miles. So, I am back to Japanese makes although I am considering a Kia (Korean) due to what seems to me to be pretty good price, good standard safety features, above average warranty and decent quality. Kia seems to be where Toyota was around 1980 as far as value and quality goes.

jipster · May 2006

CR usually dogs the Kia lineup for quality and reliability issues.

I don't see how our opinions on CR can be labeled "unfair". It's not like Edmunds pays us to review car magazines.

I'm a G.M/Mazda/Toyota guy. If Tiger Woods can drive a Buick...then so can I. :surprise:

dc_driver · May 2006

All I know is my personal history. I have been buying cars for about 18 years, and in that time I have owned 11 different automobiles (including my wife's). Here is the breakdown:
- 8 Japansese (3 Mazda, 4 Nissan, 1 Honda)
- 1 European (VW)
- 2 American (GM, Ford)

My experience has been that the Japanese brands were better engineered (specifically engines, transmissions, interior layout, fit and finish, etc). The VW had a great interior but was a pure :lemon: mechanically. All of them (Japanese) had little to no issues outside normal maintenance/normal wear and tear (except for the time when I totalled an RX-7 when I was 19 years old)

All of them held their value pretty well and I did not feel burnt when it was time to sell them.

My experiences with non-Japanese brands has been much worse. All have been in the shop on a somewhat regular basis for issues that should not occur on a well maintained low mileage newer vehicle (alternators under 20K miles, transmission problems, electrical problems, windows that fell into the door, fuel injector problems, interior wearing easily, radio failure on a car with less than 20K miles, excessive squeaks and rattles, brake rotors being replaced under 15K miles, etc). While the Ford held up better than the Saturn and VW, it also was the victim of terrible resale value and poor interior design/fit and finish.

Personally, I believe that both Ford and GM have acknowledged some of these issues and are working to fix these problems, but they still seem to be behind the Japanese. My father is a good example that I will use. My father refused to buy foreign cars and always bought GM or Chrysler (hated Ford). When I joined the military and was away for training for over a year my father drove my Nissan Maxima and fell in love. My Dad is now on his second Toyota and loves them. He is probably a Toyota buyer for life now (except for Chevy trucks. My Dad still owns an 84 Chevy truck that has about 300K miles)... Sorry for the long post...

marine2 · May 2006

The Caravan will have roll down electric windows in the sliding doors. It is boxy and has an angular look. Production date is August 2007 and it should be arriving at dealers by September 2007.
Perhaps the most important features of this minivan are said to be:

Higher quality due to the team-based manufacturing and other new systems
Better gas mileage
Better acceleration
Quieter interior
The identifier for the new minis is RT, but that's not R/T (Road and Track); it's just RS moved up one letter. (RS is the current model identifier).

Confirmed: a 4.0 liter V6 or a new 3.8 liter V6 for minivans and Pacificas. The 4.0 is 255 hp with about 265 lb-ft of torque. Its not tuned for paper racing (that is, with an inflated horsepower rating), but apparently has a nice torque curve and gas mileage similar to the 2004 215 hp / 245 lb-ft 3.8 liter V6 (which was rated 18 city, 25 highway, only 1 mpg less than the 3.3). (hawida noted that the 3.8 had been changed to 205 hp, 240 lb-ft for 2006, possibly due to new measurement rules by SAE.)

The new manumatic transmission is not in the cards for the minivan. That would be a killer, providing best in class mileage and acceleration (we believe) even with current engines, but it would be too expensive for this application; it might be used in trucks, or in performance cars, or not at all. Instead, a six-speed version of the current four-speed automatic is being set up in Kokomo for 2006 model year production - the 62TE. This transmission will almost certainly require Chryslers special synthetic transmission fluid, but should be more reliable than current automatics, thanks partly to Chryslers new endurance standards.

We expect a built in diaper changing station to be added - and we can say that would have been a welcome feature in our own lives! Also expected are rear windows that roll down, and much larger tail-lights. We really hope they will return the windshield wiper de-icers, a very useful feature that was deleted in a cost-cutting binge.

Just thought you might want to add that the RT will have coil springs in the rear.

Many hope that the loss of windshield-wiper de-icers and backlighting for the headlight switch panel and door switches, due to past cost-cutting binges, will be rectified.

We have been told that the Kahuna will not take over as the standard minivan design, in what may well have been an Airflow disaster. Instead, we expect a single wheelbase model around the size of the current Grand Caravan with traditional styling, and a short-wheelbase version with that radical Kahuna styling. It's possible the switch from Kahuna styling to conventional styling is what caused the year-or-so delay in introducing new minivans! (But then again, with new transmissions and engines, and a switch to flexible manufacturing and possibly an independent rear suspension, and team-based manufacturing...its possible it just takes a while to do everything right. And we suspect Chrysler does not want to repeat the early-1990s lets send all our customers away quality glitches.)

Export versions already have a new diesel engine, with an optional automatic. The new 2.8 CRD engine delivers 110 Kw (150 bhp) of power at 3,800 rpm and best-in-class torque figures of 360 Nm (266 lb.-ft.) at a low 2,100 rpm. Chrysler engineers paid particular attention to "launchability," the rapid take off from standstill. The accelerator pedal also features a kickdown detent that allows the driver to actively control the downshift of the transmission and the vehicle's acceleration at higher speed (a feature known to TorqueFlite users).

The Voyager is already gone, and we don't expect a return except perhaps in the highly unlikely event that Plymouth returns. Instead, Voyagers are badged Town & Country. We have no word on whether the Chrysler version of the Caravan will be a true Chrysler, that is, an actual upmarket version rather than an obviously restyled and slightly retuned Dodge.

DCX is thinking of having no more short Caravans and staying with Grand Caravans only.

ansatzjp · May 2006

I am in the market for a decent used minivan. The budget is between 15K and 18K, and if possible, I would like to buy either Odyseey or Sienna. What year or trim can I buy with that money? Thanks.

dc_driver · May 2006

A user in the Sienna message board claims that he spotted an 07 Sienna in person at the dealer. The 07 XLE model he saw had the 268 3.5L V6 mated to a 6 speed automatic transmission (he stated the sticker had the EPA ratings at 21city/28highway). Wow. This sure sounds pretty good (best in-class HP and MPG)...

Can anyone confirm this? Maybe I should have waitied to buy the Odyssey, but I thought the 07's would not be out till late this year to early next year.... Are these already on sale? I can find nothing on Toyota's website...

dc_driver · May 2006

What features are you looking for? This definitely affects price. You can get a newer (04) base model Sienna/Ody for this price, or a more loaded 02-03 model. For around 18K you should be able to find either an 02-04 Sienna LE/XLE or an 02-03 Honda a Odyssey EX/EX-L (for about 18K you should be able to also find an O4 Odyssey LX).

The used Sienna should be slightly cheaper than the used Odyssey (Odyssey's tend to have higher resale).

I suggest you drive an 03 Honda and an 03 Toyota to see which you like better. FYI, Honda seems to have quite a few transmission problems with the second generation Odyssey. You may want to look at getting a certified one that has a decent powertrain warranty..

jchan2 · May 2006

You can definitely get a 2002-2004 Odyssey, perhaps an EX-L NAVI model if you get a 2002.

04 LX Odysseys are in the $18K range I believe, as are 04 Sienna CEs/LEs.

jchan2 · May 2006

I doubt Toyota is currently producing the 07 model Siennas right now, but I may be wrong.

dc_driver · May 2006

Your right.. Looks like a Toyota dealer accidently put a Camry sticker on a Sienna and the individual was confused..

Still, I would not be surprised if the 07 Camry has the 3.5L engine with the 6 speed automatic tranny..

hansienna · May 2006

YES, it looks like the data is for the 07 Camry and NOT the 07 Sienna. The 07 Sienna will probably get the same powertrain.
The Toyota brochure gives data for the 07 Camry: 3.5L DOHC 24 valve VVT-i V6 268 HP, 248 lb-ft torque with 6 speed electonically controlled automatic overdrive trasmission with intelligence (ECT-i).
How will Honda respond with power for the 2007 Odyssey?

thegraduate · May 2006

I doubt if anything changes for 2007, but a mid-model refresh is due for the 2008 model year, and you'll likely see a 10 hp bump in power then.

All speculation; don't set your watch by my words!

dc_driver · May 2006

I agree with you, although there is talk of Honda upgrading the transmission in the 07 model to the same as the Pilot/Ridgeline.

Honestly, I think the Odyssey has plenty of power as it stands. I would rather see Honda offer more standard features without raising the price of the van (ala Hyundai/Kia). Personally, I would like to see the EX/EX-L gain: tire pressure monitoring system, better trip computer, powered rear liftgate, rear backup sensors.

The Touring could get: make the PAX optional, add bluetooth support, telescoping steering wheel, improved stereo.

I would also like to see Honda upgrade the head restraints in the third row so they can receive a better score on the rear impact IIHS test (ala Hyundai/Kia).

thegraduate · May 2006

Sounds good to me.

What sounds even better: keep horsepower similar to now, and instead of continually offering more power, just work on improving mileage. 240+ hp is plenty to keep up in traffic right now. Let's see 22/29MPG !!!

dc_driver · May 2006

Yes, I agree. If they were able to lower the weight of the vehicle they could achieve both increased performance and better MPG...

It is looking like the minivan field is going to be very competitive in the next year or two.. Choice is always a good thing..

jchan2 · May 2006

I would like to see PAX optional on the Touring and instead of a power increase I'd take 22/30 for the EPA ratings instead of 20/28. (which is still good)

hansienna · May 2006

WHAT features would you be willing to give up to bring the weight of the Odyssey down so it would get EPA rating of 22/30? (Power sliding doors, lighter weight seats with space age foam, less rugged frame, etc.) :shades:

marine2 · May 2006

WHAT features would you be willing to give up to bring the weight of the Odyssey down so it would get EPA rating of 22/30? (Power sliding doors, lighter weight seats with space age foam, less rugged frame, etc.)

How about the wife and kid's seats? Then he could really enjoy driving his van.

thegraduate · May 2006

How about the wife and kid's seats? Then he could really enjoy driving his van.

Ba dum, pssssh! He'll be here all week guys!

jchan2 · May 2006

I would be willing to get seats filled with space age foam, depending on how comfortable it is.

I would also be willing to trade horsepower for economy, if possible.

The DVD Entertainment System could go. I can't think of anything else.

If it's impossible, I'm fine with the 25-28 MPG that most minivans get. But if it is possible, the thing I would be most willing to trade would be horsepower.

hansienna · May 2006

I would give up power sliding doors, power liftgate, RES, and a small amount of horsepower for economy. My 2002 T&C LX had less power than the Odyssey or Sienna but the 180 HP and 210 lb-ft was more than enough for me to drive at or above the speed limit anywhere in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California...while still giving excellent fuel economy.
In the first 3000 miles, the more powerful 3.3L V6 in the 2006 Sienna LE is delivering higher gas mileage than did the 3.3L V6 in my T&C.

marine2 · May 2006

Are plastic bodies lighter than steel? If so, there could be several body parts that could be converted to plastic, such as on the Saturn.

jchan2 · May 2006

Aha! A brilliant idea!

I'd take those Saturn polymer panels to save weight, or maybe aluminium.

badgerfan · May 2006

Vehicles with plastic body panels generally are no lighter in weight than the equivalent all steel vehicle. This is because the plastic panels are unable to offer much structural reinforcement to the body. To compensate, a stiff steel "skeleton" underbody has to be used. The net result is no weight loss.

As far as aluminum goes, you wouldn't want to pay the cost of an aluminum bodied minivan.

sebring95 · May 2006

As far as aluminum goes, you wouldn't want to pay the cost of an aluminum bodied minivan.

Or the insurance.

marine2 · May 2006

Well, how about turning water into fuel?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128967/water_as_fuel/

jchan2 · May 2006

Very good points.

Maybe I'll just take the 26 MPG a Sienna offers and bite the bullet. A friend who works at a Toyota dealer nearby has offered me a discount (I don't know how much, but I'm guessing it's the employee price) on any Sienna I want, even if it's a special order.

marine2 · May 2006

Well, how about turning water into fuel?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128967/water_as_fuel/

When clicking on this, wait for advertising to stop and the video will automatically start. This is truly remarkable if true.

hansienna · May 2006

Why the Sienna 26 MPG instead of another Odyssey with 28 MPG? :confuse:
BTW, my 2006 Sienna trip computer shows 30-32 MPG while cruising at 75 MPH on the Interstate. Overall mileage for first 3000 miles is 25.95 MPG (Divide 3004 miles by 115.759 gallons). Idling at stop lights and start up each time lowers the overall gas mileage greatly. The Trip computer shows overall average of 26.6 which is 2.5 % higher than actual and lowers the 30-32 MPG cruising at 75 MPH to only 29-31 MPG). :shades:

jchan2 · May 2006

The problems from the Odyssey problems board scare me. The only issues with the Sienna that I know of are the run flats on the AWD models, and I don't plan to get an AWD model.

dc_driver · May 2006

What types of problems on the Odyssey boards are you concerned about? There were a few minor issues that caught my attention, but it looked like it was mostly the 05's (first year of a new model generation). So far, my 06 Odyssey has been perfect, and I have a co-worker that owns a late model year 05 and he has had no issues.

Not that this means anything, but a quick look at the total number of posts for the Odyssey (05+) boards vs the Sienna (04+) is about 400+ posts to 2000+ posts. My point is there are problems with any vehicle and while the problem boards are a source, they are just one. IMHO both the Odyssey and Sienna are safe, reliable vehicles and I recommend that you at least drive them both back to back to compare (if you have not already).

ramib1 · May 2006

My wife currently drives a 2005 XC90 V8, which we really love. However, with twins on the way (in addition to the 2 kids we already have), we realized that the XC90 might not be big/convenient enough for our needs. We're looking into replacing it with a high- end minivan, without sacrificing anything as far as driving pleasure, comfort, and overall amenities. Two primary vehicles we're looking at right now is the Odyssey touring and the Sienna XLE. Would appreciate any comments/recommendations. Thanks!

thegraduate · May 2006

Well, while the same things continue to be said, i'll rehash some of them for you, with the two competitors I'm most familiar with, the Honda Odyssey Touring and Toyota Sienna XLE Limited.

Both of these vans come with a LARGE array of standard features, and offer the optional Navigation System and Rear-Entertainment System (DVD Player).

Most will agree that the Sienna definitely rides better (softer) while the Odyssey is more firm (probably closer to your Volvo). The Odyssey definitely handles better than the Sienna, but at the expense of the ride quality. The Odyssey isn't particularly HARSH, just firmer than Sienna, and driven back to back, the Toyota feels more "plush" while the Odyssey feels more "sporty".

Overall amenities are generally similar, and come with all the features that should be had on a vehicle costing $35k +. Go drive the vehicles and decide which suits your needs best.

There are other options than these two vans, but since you are looking for a luxury-SUV replacement, I felt these two were at the top of the food chain in their price-catergories. A more budget-minded shopper should definitely consider the Dodge and Chrysler minivans, as they offer superior bang for the buck, and have apparently made great strides in reliability lately.

jchan2 · May 2006

I read about the whistling sound and I had the transmission replaced on mine, so my faith in Honda is a little shaky.

I will drive them both back to back when the time comes, which right now will probably be either late 2006 or mid 2007, when I will test the Odyssey EX-L RES-NAV, Sienna XLE (or Limited), and the Entourage Limited. (which I heard was getting a factory Navigation unit for 2007)

It will be interesting to see which one I end up with.

tkm526 · May 2006

I traded in a 2001 BMW X5 for a 2006 Odyssey Touring w/RES/nav yesterday. I had to take a few deep breaths, and am now so happy with my choice. I only have two kids, but wanted a true 3rd row for my frequent visitors and more leg room in 2nd row (tired of getting kicked in the back).

I chose the Odyssey over the Sienna even though I would have loved AWD for these reasons:
1. Storage, lazy susan, 2nd row console;
2. ease of moving 2nd row seats forard and together and ease of folding 3rd row seat;
3. fuel efficiency;
4. aesthetics (bodystyle and color choices);
5. control of DVD from front (my kids are too small to do it themselves.

In my mind the only pro-sienna feature was the AWD.

rorr · May 2006

What you don't see is the electricity being consumed (electrolysis) to break up the bonds between the hydrogen and the oxygen.

The energy gained from burning the hydrogen is LESS THAN the amount of enegy consumed in the electrolysis process.

TANSTAAFL

(there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)

cpsdarren · May 2006

Not to mention that fresh water is more precious in some areas than gasoline.

hansienna · May 2006

How many people buy bottled water at $ 2.50 for 20 ounces but are all upset when gasoline costs $ 3.00 a gallon?

hansienna · May 2006

LACK of activity in a forum could also indicate a very boring vehicle...and not necessarily a reliable one. :shades:

dennisctc · May 2006

How many people buy bottled water at $ 2.50 for 20 ounces but are all upset when gasoline costs $ 3.00 a gallon? And consider how much effort goes into producing gasoline vs. Milk or water! You drill for Oil, pump it out of the ground, refine it, ship it half way around the world.

In my mind, driving is a priviledge, not a right....I dont see it listed anywhere in the constitution. I have a friend who thinks the government should mandate everyone into a Focus - period!!! Yet this same friend claims Bush has stripped us of our rights, Bush is fixing gas prices to make himself right etc... goofballs!

cpsdarren · May 2006

Gasoline in Europe is often double what we pay, in part due to taxes. Had we done this 20 years ago, you can bet our fleet of vehicles today would be significantly more fuel efficient without any other laws or restrictions. Imagine if all that tax revenue went to developing even more efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, especially for the troubled 'domestic' manufacturers. Even a 10% cut in gasoline use is a huge cut in foreign oil dependency. It's the best tax we could ever pay, IMO.

Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles