Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I'm driving an '04 Chrysler T&C Limited, and shopping for an '05 Ody Touring. I use my van for people mostly, but I do pull all the seats (pre sto-n-go) once in a while to haul misc. construction garbage...I just throw a tarp down. Anyway, a person will use whatever they drive to do whatever they choose.
BUT, Honda apparently has tipped the scales their way for the time being in terms of performance, handling and comfort. Chrysler will come back with an upgraded package before too long, and we'll see things swing back the other way for a while.
It's the stuff like the bigger NAV screen and voice activation that caught my eye. The adjustable fore and aft middle row seats are a blessing when you're traveling with adults all the time...not to mention seat comfort...now that's a biggy !
The only thing I don't have in my T&C is the DVD screen....I've got the head unit and sirius sat radio (which I wish you could have either or...you know be able to choose sirius or XM, but not just the one...), and my point is, the '05 Ody out does the T&C in all those aspects...
Hey, to each their own, but I think I'll go back to a 36 month lease, and change vehicles as the manufacturers bring out their next best thing every so many years.
Sorry, marine2...That just struck me as funny.
It does sound a little funny I admit. But unlike the gentleman above that would take the seats out and throw down a tarp when he wants to haul stuff. I'm sure most Honda owners wouldn't dream of taking a chance hauling building material or other stuff in their van and risk tearing the upholstery in their vans on the seats or sides. I won't even let my grand kids eat or drink in my van, afraid they'll stain the seats and the fabric isn't as nice as the Honda's.
The two vans are nice but they are made for different things. One is a family and working van. The other is a transportation van. Both with most of the goodies owners want on them.
I am one of those that REALLY ENJOYS washing cars....I know I'm crazy!!!
Anyone with half a brain knows you can get a T&C for $5K off sticker with no effort. And more than that with some effort. Ridiculous how one of the statements was about the price of the $36.3K T&C Limited. That can be had for under $30K. The Ody Touring w/ NAV & DVD stickers at $38.8K and will cost minimum of $36K. And they mention the Michelin tires as a plus. I know for me (and others) it's an absolute deal breaker. No way I want tires that only a select few places can deal with...
I do like the Honda. Very nice. I just don't like it for the premium it comes over a T&C. And, to get the power hatch and power pedals, 2 features that we really like, we have to get the PAX tires, which just doesn't work for me.
Regards,
Dusty
What is real surprising is why Honda's high tech engine and five speed transmission that puts out fifty more horse power than the (old Dodge) push rod engine and four speed transmission, could only beat the Dodge in the quarter mile by less than one second
Another thing that's surprising, is why Honda, with their new high tech engine that can cut out three cylinders and run on just three cylinders, could only get two miles per gallon more than the Dodge with that (old) push rod engine that has to run on all six cylinders continuesly. I would have thought the Honda would have gotten at least 5-6 miles per gallon more. Especially with their new five speed transmission and Dodge stuck with that (old) four speed tranny.
In our situation it was not worth the extra $10,000 for lesss options. Again, as I've said before, both cars are great and fit a family's specific lifestyle.
Actually, if money were no object, we would have a Sienna in our garage now.
And, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a push-rod motor.
Regards,
Dusty
Many people thought the same thing of the horse and buggy in the early twentieth century when the Model T came along. It's move on or get left behind. While performance wise there may not be much difference. As you can see by reading these forums and other reviews/comparisons...people want the higher tech engines and transmissions. That's where Honda currently holds an advantage.
More people prefer to spend less money for a more flexible DC minivan than to buy the more expensive, higher tech Odyssey or Sienna.
If "high tech" engines mean dual overhead cams, the only reason why Honda and others use that design is because they need to extract as much horsepower out of a smaller displacement motor. Increasing the number of valves produces more horsepower at the expense of moving the horsepower and torque curves into a higher RPM range. That by itself isn't bad, but engines make more noise up there and will meet their oil burning point sooner in life, and cost a lot more money to repair should things go wrong. I might add that internal friction rates are generally increased with dual cams, and manufacturing costs are significantly higher.
The fact that a high low-end torque push-rod motor won't see 5500 is not a design detriment, it's a plus.
Those that think a dual overhead cam is high tech might think they have an edge, but in fact it's just not true.
Dusty
The main reason for GM gaining recent sales with employee price promotions to the public is because the public believes that the employee prices are what these vehicles are worth. Chyrsler is about to offer the same employee prices for the same reasons. It is interesting to note that both Honda and Toyota saw increased sales as well - so GM's gain was not at the expense of Honda and Toyota.
Maybe this lower employee prices are enough to sway some folks who were postponing future purchases of GM vehicles and saw this promotion as a good timing point to purchase.
The question is: Will GM and others like Chrysler be able to maintain these sales numbers when the employee prices end? Or are employee prices here to stay because that is the true market value of these vehicles?
Let us see how it unravels.
Dusty
My 1970 Dodge van was so horrible that I would not even look at any Chrysler product for over 30 years.
One son bought a new 2001 Ody EX and 2 years later his brother bought a used 2002 GC Sport. I like the Ody EX seat comfort, flexibility of 2nd row, and the 3rd row Magic Seat...BUT, the GC Sport has separately controlled temp for driver and front passenger, complete overhead console with compass/outside temp and trip computer, and is quieter than the Ody EX.
Because of the comparison, I got a used 2002 T&C LX clone of the GC Sport almost one year ago and like it very well.
Now that DC minivans have Stow N' Go, the Ody EX and GC SXT are very similar in content. Because of the price differential between a new Ody EX and GC SXT, I would probably buy the GC SXT.
The trick/challenge is to get most of your product life at the center a narrow/tight Bell -shaped distribution curve with the highest mean life in miles in this example under discussion.
OHV vs. OHC is a stupid argument. There are good engines and lousy engines of each type. The method of valve acutation is not the reason an engine is good or not.
True and that is why Japanese manufactures got such a big share of the market. You just have to listen to some of these owners of Japanese vans to know that they have either had good luck with previous Japanese products, or heard about their quality. That probably most have had American made vehicles made back in the 70's, 80's and 90's and had a lot of repair problems with them. The only way to win back some of these people is put out a good reliable product and price it lower than the imports and hope people will buy it. If they do take the chance and find out it is reliable, the chances are very good, they will buy that brand again and again. Reading that J.D. Powers are saying long term ownership, is proving GM & Ford are really putting out a bunch of good quality cars, can do nothing but help build back market share and win over skeptics.
Those engines with extreme low and high lives do not have a consistent behavior and lie in the wide extremes of a statistical Bell-shaped dustribution curve, i.e poor quality. A tight narrow Bell-shaped curve (i.e with low variability or standard deviation) with a high mean life is what high quality/reliability is all about, aka 6-sigma. Vehicles from some manufacturers like Honda exhibit this consistent tight narrow Bell-shaped curve.
Where are your statistics to back up this claim?
Having been in the automobile repair and fleet management business for over 30 years, I've seen many engines go 150,000 miles, literally 100s of 1960s-80s vintage Slant Sixes go that and more. Older vehicles didn't see that mileage because of economics or rusted out bodies. That's not the same today. Many, and I mean many, GM, Ford, Chrysler-built engines are found with 150,000 miles or more. My 1971 Scamp example may in fact be outside the average, but where can an equal Honda example be found?
So give me your Six-Sigma proof that Honda engines are going farther as a normal course more so than their competition.
Dusty
Like Isellhondas and others have said, it is very common to see OHC engines from Hondas, Toyotas, etc running at least 150K to 200K without problems. Yes there are OHV engines that last that long but many require major maintenance/repairs to get there. My previous Windstar only lasted 54K miles, despite meticulous maintenance before an engine knock forced me to ditch it for an Ody. What a difference in refinement and handling performance!
It is one thing to make a reliable product but many folks today want refinement and great performance along with that great reliability.
A great extreme example: a donkey cart is a very reliable machine.You just feed the donkey and pick up its dropping if you have a community conscience. But would you use a donkey cart if you have something better?
More common example: GM has a great OHC refined powerful engine in the 3.6L DOHC 24V V6 engine it uses in its CTS, STS, SRS. But they would not use it in their other car lines like Honda, Toyota and Nissan do across the board. Instead they use older less performing OHV engines that sounds very thrashy compared to the OHC engines in the CTS/STS/SRS or even the Japanese cars. The powerful Ody's engine has such a pleasant, melodic engine tone that it is very enjoyable and sporty to drive compared to the thrashy sounds of the OHV engines,when pushed, in the 60-70 minivan rentals I had in the past 2 yrs.
I guess that the domestics(GM, Ford, Chrysler) are using this strategy to capture that segment of the car buying crowd who do not want to spend too much and are satisfied with those cars. This is probably the differentiator that lets GM, Ford and Chrysler compete with each other. On a different level, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan are having a game of their own.
Infact Toyota, Honda, Nissan are not scared of GM, Ford, or Chrysler. In fact Toyota is even willing to raise their prices to help out GM - sound very sad. They are more concerned with Hyundai who are progressing so fast with refinement in their vehicles(e.g. 2006 Sonata) that is approaching the Japanese level.
We can only hope on July 4th, that GM, Ford and Chrysler wake up and take actions.
Reliability? None of the 3 has had any problems.
Considering all factors, the DC minivans are a better value than the Odyssey, Sienna, or Quest.
I don't know that much about the engines in GM and Ford. I do know Chrysler has made some very reliable engines over the years. Most of their problems were mostly trannies and electrical. One only has to go to the Chrysler Club and read what 1st and 2nd generation owners say about their engines. Many have anywhere from 150-250 thousand miles on these vans. Just look around when you drive around town and see how many first generation Chrysler/Dodge minivans you still see on the road. Honda and Toyota has a lot of years to go to show that they can put on those kind of miles without any major repairs. They are still babes in the woods when it comes to years of making minivans and years on the road.
I doubt whether many people bought a Honda because it had a five speed tranny.That high tech engine might have swade a bunch of people thinking they'd get a lot better gas mileage, (which they seem to realize now it isn't happening) But I would wager it was the looks inside, that won most people over.
As for that throaty engine sound. I doubt that turns many people off, because that's the sound of power coming from that engine. Most people like the sound of power. Just think back to the days of the glass packs and the Harley Motorcycles of today. Honda makes a motorcycle that can beat the Harley. But what are people buying and why? When I punch that Dodge, she goes and she goes fast. And the engine makes it sound even faster.
From the 60 - 70 minivan rentals I had in the past 2 years, which included some loaded new T & C's, I was never impressed when I used my right lead foot. That thrashy sound says, "Don't push me so hard". It is always so much more enjoyable to come back to my Ody and hear that engine sing melodically to me.
Again it all depends where in the driving spectrum that you are.
2005 Odyssey front passenger can now enjoy the comfort of separately controlled temperature that DC minivan owners have enjoyed now for 10 years..and 2005 DC minivan owners can enjoy having a rear seat that folds into the floor.
Because of Toyota ingenuity, the 60/40 split fold into the floor 3rd row seat is on Sienna, Odyssey, and DC minivans.
Dusty
Dusty
I do not have them for any engine type, but based on what some agencies like CR are reporting on all vehicle types including engines, tranny, etc it would not be surprising to see a wider, looser Bell-shaped curve for OHV compared to a narrower tighter curve for OHC engines.
It is interesting to note that all high-end/refined vehicles use OHC engines.
Besides the Japanese(Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, etc) and European manufacturers(MB, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, etc), GM and Ford use OHC engines in their high-end Cadillac and Lincoln for obvious reasons. These include refinement, lower noise levels, and more output per same engine displacement. This definitely provide support/preference for OHC in these premium vehicles.
As to noise, overhead cams make engines noisier. Besides increased bearing noise there are as many more mechanical noise generators as there are more valves. In any given platform newer OHC engines might in fact be quieter, but if they are it's because all manufacturers use a much thicker cast valve cover than older die-formed sheet metal valve covers, as well as other noise reduction techniques.
As to making more horsepower, that is not result of overhead camshafts. That is the result of multi-valving. Placing the camshaft in the head will marginally reduce friction depending on design. In some cases the loading effects from two cam drive systems counter any frictional gains. The biggest feature of overhead cam is the reduced effects of push rod bending at high RPMs, thus permitting a more stabilized valve train action at high engine speeds. This is really the only "refinement" result from OHC. For a mini-van this seems counter cultural at best, if not just totally unnecessary.
Dusty
It depends where you are in the driving spectrum when you get behind the wheel.
That is why the OHV engines of the DGC's/Freestars sound so thrashy compared to the OHC engines in the Ody and Sienna when pushed! This is very obvious fromthe 60+ minivan rentals(mostly DGCs and a few Freestars) I had in the past 2 years of business travels. The HP output of the Ody(255hp) and Sienna(230hp) far exceed the DGCs amd Freestars as well. You can really make them(Ody and Sienna) GO with gusto if you got right lead feet like the C & D guys! Absolutely no comparison, Mon!
Now I haven't driven a Honda van in a while, but compared to the Sienna, the Chrysler mini-vans seem just as quiet to me, maybe even more so at highway speeds. I've never been in a Freestar. I most certainly don't think the Chrysler T&C is "thrashy." and in fact most people I know think they are very quiet.
Any manufacturer can make horsepower. The fact that the Fords or Chryslers are not at the Honda or Sienna advertised horsepower as nothing to do with whether they have a camshaft in the middle or in the head. Hondas must live by the same laws of physics that anybody else does. If you make more horsepower you will burn more fuel. Plain and simple. American manufacturers by tradition have favored engine designs that produce higher torque at lower RPMs when compared to the Asian philosophy. This generally benefits fuel consumption on engines that will normally work withoin a narrower RPM range.
Volkwagen introduced the minivan concept with the original VW bus with an anemic little air cooled 4 cylinder engine.
Chrysler added creature comfort items in the original FWD minivan that was also powered by a 4 cylinder engine.
Most adults with children do not want to jeopardize the safety of their children by driving a minivan like a legitimate racing vehicle.
If you think your wiser than them combined to use OHV engines, that sounds interesting. VERY INTERESTING!
It is not racing, but spirited, energetic driving that some of us enjoy in any vehicle we drive. Minivans like the Ody/Sienna/Quest are based on great handing car platforms and they respond to spirited driving.
Again, it depends where you are in the driving spectrum that I have described in the past.
Both European and Asian manufacturers have had to deal with much higher fuel (gasoline) prices than North Americans since World War Two. The price of fuel has dictated that European and Asian car companies produce much smaller displacement engines to keep fuel consumption low. So for better than five decades they have become very good at getting more power out of smaller displacement engines. Hence, these companies usually have a small displacement philosophy and comensurately smaller displacement engine families.
Having smaller displacement engines has led to the development of overhead, multi-valve engines. It had nothing to do with noise. In fact, placing a drive belt outside of the head and having cam bearings close to the top of the engine is guaranteed to produce more noise. The so-called "refinement" you assume is the simple result of OHC is really in noise reduction techniques, like covering the belt drive components, and bringing thick cylinder partitions up higher, using roller tappets and very thick valve covers to quiet the noise. If these "refinements" hadn't been done then this discussion would be about why OHC engines are so darn noisy.
"OHV is more suitable for trucks where thrashy sounds are more tolerable."
That's funny, because some of these same testers have proclaimed the new Dodge Hemi engine, which uses a cam in the block and push rods to be as quiet or quieter than the competition. In fact, the 5.7 Hemi is 1 db quieter than the smaller 4.7, which is overhead cam.
I was looking at the Chrysler 3.8 and Honda 3.5 engine specs and noticed something curious. The Chrysler 3.8 is undersquared engine at 96 x 89mm, while the Honda 3.5 is oversquared at 89 x 93mm. The Chrysler 3.8 is rated at 205 Hp @ 5200 RPM with 240 lb/ft of torque @ 4,000.
Honda really has two 3.5 engines. Both are mechanically the same, but are tuned differently:
For LX & EX - 255 HP @ 5750 RPM with 250 lb/ft of torque at 5000 RPM
or
For EX with leather (huh?) or Touring, 255 HP @ 5750 with 250 lb/ft of torque @ 4500 RPM.
The LX & EX versions have an EPA rating of 19/25, while the EX with leather or Touring gets 20/28 EPA. Even Honda knows that increasing lower RPM torque is beneficial to fuel consumption. But why do you think Honda provides two different versions of the same engine?
For long-term reliability, I'd take the slower turning Chrysler.
Dusty
However, the Japanese automakers must now very carefully look over their shoulder and be concerned about the Korean automakers providing them REAL competition based on lower production costs.
How long before the Chinese competition scares both the Koreans and Japanese?
DC wisely produces half of its minivans in Canada to help lower the cost of production.
For LX & EX - 255 HP 5750 RPM with 250 lb/ft of torque at 5000 RPM
or
For EX with leather (huh?) or Touring, 255 HP 5750 with 250 lb/ft of torque 4500 RPM.
The LX & EX versions have an EPA rating of 19/25, while the EX with leather or Touring gets 20/28 EPA. Even Honda knows that increasing lower RPM torque is beneficial to fuel consumption. But why do you think Honda provides two different versions of the same engine? "
The difference is VCM. That's why you have better mileage estimates. Only on EX-L & Touring
For long-term reliability, I'd take the slower turning Chrysler. "
C & D minivan June 2004 comparo: The 3.8L engine is gutless and won't cut it with the others(Honda, Toyota and Quest) in this class.
The Chinese are where the Koreans were 20+ year ago. Their concept of quality is far different from ours. It is one thing to make clothing and other less high-tech stuff, but vehicles for western consumption is a very different thing. They would likely start at where Yugo was when it existed, and have to work VERY HARD to prove themselves to the masses. Of course there will always be a market for CHEAP cars that compromises quality.
The affluent Chinese do not drive Chinese-made cars because of the substandard quality issues. Instead, they drive Japanese and European luxury models.
The cheaper lower grade Chinese cars are ideal for those who want to upgrade from bicycles and mule carts!
Well, that makes sense on the surface, but cutting off cylinders doesn't explain the difference in the torque rating. The two different torque specifications is more likely the result of camshaft timing difference.
Dusty