Howdy, Stranger!

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

Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans



  • dcb6538dcb6538 Posts: 4
    Hit it right on the head Drew. Anyway, what does a GMC dealership know about quality anyway? Since our little dealership discussion, I decided to forego the trailer I was going to buy so I didn't have to get an American truck (got a boat instead that can be pulled with the new Sequoia). I also suspect that the dealership was going to sell it to a Honda dealer for about $23k and wanted to make a little extra money.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    DTKWOK I Don't know what caused the fire damage to the 2001 DC van. Careless smoking? Short citcuit? Firebomb? Angry Odyssey owner? but it wasn't from a frontal crash, since there is no body damage. The Odyssey on the other hand took a terrible hit to the front and the drivers side rear where the fuel filler neck is. Draw your own conclusion!
  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    It seems to me that the trade-in value for DC minivans really don't seem to deteriorate until they have passed the 25-30k mile mark. Before the 30k miles period if you compare the value of a DC and Ody with similar miles you won't see such a big difference in the trade-in value as you would if they both had more miles (30k and above).

    The Kelly's Blue Book trade-in value for my 2000 Chrysler Town & Country LX is exactly 17,540 with the "excellent condition" button selected. I am not suprised that the number isn't as high as it would be with a 2000 Ody with similar miles as this is our second DC minivan and we bought the car under MSRP (lease).

    We just got a 2001 PT Cruiser Limited a few weeks ago and have learned alot about trade-in values during the looking then buying process. Our local Chrysler dealership is charging well above the estimated trade-in values for used PT Cruisers, just as some dealerships are doing with the Honda Odysseys.

    dcb6538 , I have no idea why someone would spend nearly 30k dolars on a USED MINIVAN with over 30k miles on it, as in the case of the Ody for sale you described. There is another side of this whole trade-in value that people seem to be overlooking. Yes, the value of a DC minivan is relitevely poor after the car has been driven for a good period of time. However, this helps people who are looking to buy a used DC minivan in that they can get one at a great price. The same cannot be said for a used Ody, at least in some situations. You may be getting a good deal when you trade-in your Ody but the same cannot be said for the poor guy who is going to try and buy it.

    I wish I could tell the guy selling that Ody for 26k "good luck" because I know I would never want to buy a used HONDA MINIVAN that is selling for more than what I could get for a new one. I feel the same for used PT Cruisers, as they too sell for much more than even some new models. Just my opinion.

  • pat84pat84 Posts: 817
    I know of at least one post that you deleted as you promised to avoid some possible flame war.
    I have no problems with your posts as you are more responsible, in general, than some of my fellow ODY owners' posts.
    Your DC has some features that I would like on my van.
    The infinity sound system is my first choice, the DC roof rack my second, and auto door locking my third. Intermitant rear window washer is my fourth choice.
    Interesting that the dribbling rear window washer on the 01 DC Grand Caravan Sport I recently rented was the same as on my ODY. A lot of ODY owners have complained about it.
  • DTKWOKDTKWOK Posts: 131
    Angry Ody owner? Naw, we value our van too much to do that. ;) But seriously, I would think that maybe it could have been a short circuit (for some reason I have a hard time visualizing a cigarette starting an automobile fire, but that's just me). I don't think I want to/should draw any conclusions from these wrecks just by visual alone. Who knows? Maybe the vans ran into a gasoline tanker or chemical tanker or something to that effect? Hmmm......
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    Resale value isn't a high priority for me overall, but if you ARE interested, it's easy to use comparable street prices at and lease residuals from For example:

    2001 Odyssey EX, carsdirect price is $27,189. Grand Caravan EX is $26,180 with the side airags needed to get the "Acceptable" IIHS rating. I'll leave it for others to debate which feature differences are important, if any. Carsdirect isn't the best or worst price you can get on either vehicle, but it is a comparable figure for both.

    The 2001 National lease residuals for Odyssey are 62% after 24 months, 47% after 48, and 39% after 72 months. For the GC EX they are 55%, 40% and 33% respectively.

    So, after 2 years, the Odyssey owner has lost $10,332 compared to $11,781 for the GC. After 4 years it is a loss of $14,410 for Odyssey vs. $15,708 for GC EX. After 6 years, it is $16,585 for Odyssey vs. $17,541 for GC EX. The Odyssey does retain more value (about $1400) over the first 4 years, but declines to about $1000 after 6 years. Not a big difference, in my opinion, assuming I got the right numbers and did the math right, too.

    I note the residuals for the Odyssey LX are slightly better than the EX, while the residuals for all other Grand Caravan models are much worse than the EX, perhaps because they are discounted more heavily.
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    Given your sentiments on CR, I was merely curious why you had posted category by category comparisons from the CR reliability ratings a couple weeks ago. Also, given your criticism of their [lack of] sample sizes, I was also curious why you felt that using small sample sizes of anectedotal accounts from people you know would be more statistically valid. Anyway, the questions are still in the "Soccer Moms" forum. I'm also still curious how you explain the discrepancies in death/injury data and insurance rates in regard to safety, since you still seem to feel these are the best indicators of crashworthiness.
  • pat84pat84 Posts: 817
    I have used CR with a grain of salt. I still remember their deliberate numerous attempts to roll a Suzuki Samurai. Not quite objective in the news stories of the times. They lost credibility on that one.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    My original post was in response to gatogonow who owns a 2001 DC van and has said they are afraid to drive it because of the one gas tank leak after 52 crashes, (50 by DC and 2 by IIHS). If you were to look thru site, I'm sure you will find cars trucks and vans that have fire damage with crash damage. Remember you are carring 13 to 25 gallons of highly flammable fuel in a plastic or metal tank that can be punctured or deformed in a crash. Gatogownow made the problem seem like the roads were strewn with burned out hulks of 2001 DC vans of the 400,000 that were sold. I posted that site as a reality check. Again draw your own conclusions, but check the information closely and buy the van that meets your requirements. You are the one making the payments!
  • odd1odd1 Posts: 227
    Do you really believe that Chrysler duplicated the IIHS test 50 times with a '01 and the part never failed? I don't think Chrysler is going to come out and say it is a bad part. How come the part failed twice, leaking fuel once, when the IIHS performed the test? How come Chrysler redesigned the part mid model year if they could not replicate the result and insist that it is safe? Because, Chrysler wants to keep selling vans and not recall all the '01s they have already sold.

    Ford keeps blaming the tires for the fact Explorers flip at extremely high rates when tires suddenly blow out. Why? The same reason. It is cheaper to settle with the families that are injured or killed then it is to recall the Explorer. If, you saw the news on the Firestone trail in Texas. Ford has settled all these suits out of court so far. I'm not saying that anyone has been hurt due to that part failing on Chrysler vans. I'm saying look at the cost of making 100,000+(or whatever the number is) of the parts, getting all those vans into a dealership, and the time to replace the part(the gas tank would have to come off each one to be fixed). It will be much cheaper to settle with anyone's family who is injured or killed due to this part failing than it would be to do the right thing and replace the faulty part on each of these vans.

    I for one do not trust car companies to police themselves.
  • I've got a 2002 Odyssey EX on order, while my brother just got a new 2001 Grand Caravan sport. I'm still awaiting delivery on mine, and he got his about 3-4 weeks ago. I read this board for months before making my far it's looking like I made the right one, and here's why.

    My brother and his family were on their way back from vacation in their 3week-old GC, and they experienced major engine trouble. They were stranded along the interstate(with a 4-yr old). The van is currently at the dealership where the early prognosis is a thrown rod. Does anyone here familiar with Dodge think that he may get a new van? I don't know because I've never had it happen. I hope that they do what is right. Needless to say, he is less than happy to think that his new van is about to undergo major engine work.

    This is only my second experience with Dodge. The other one wasn't much better. My father-in-law had a Dakota v-8 that had a perpetual oil leak. It was only a few months old, and the dealer could never get it stopped. It was ridiculous. He finally traded it. Dodge has a chance to earn my respect based on how they handle my brothers problem. Any ideas on his chances?

  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    I'm not too sure what your brothers chances are of getting a new van. However, I know that if we had had a similar experience with our 2000 Chrysler Town & Country, we would have forced our dealership (then even Chrysler) to give us a new van. Something is obviously not right with the car and probably is a lemmon. Can he do anything under the state's lemmon law?

    If the dealership refuses to get him a new van he will probably have to deal with DiamlerChrysler Corporate. It will be interesting to see what happens. Please keep us informed on the outcome of this story...

  • odd1odd1 Posts: 227
    You(your brother) will have to see what the state's lemon law is. Most of them allow chances to fix the problem before having to replace the vehicle. Be sure to keep records of all transactions with the dealer. You(he) might also check with the state's attorney general's office for lemon law procedures. Good luck. It can be done. My wife and I were successful on behalf of another family member against GM.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    After hitting a barrier at 40 MPH ALL those cars and trucks are totalled. I could care less about what was cracked. Again 52 crashes 1 leak!(2 teaspoons a minute. What facts do you have that DC is lying?
  • odd1odd1 Posts: 227
    I'm just going on car manufacturers, including Chrysler's, past denials of real problems. I'm skeptical. If they are so adamant that nothing is wrong why did they redesign the part?

    I believe, if you read Chrysler's statements carefully you will note that they say they didn't duplicate the leak. They never say they couldn't duplicate the crack. They say that in their 50 tests they never had a fuel leak. They never say if these fifty tests were 40mph offset tests or just what kind of tests these were. The Chrysler statements about this are very carefully worded. I question if they had fuel or a simulated substance in the vehicles. Also, I question if they looked for this problem since I don't read that they did 50 tests after the IIHS found this problem. I really just don't understand how Chrysler can be running the same test and have it not occur if it happened(the crack not the leak) both times the IIHS ran the test.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    Is your point that manufacturers should build all cars so that nothing should crack during a 40 mile per hour crash? Get serious! Did you know that some maufacturers are using plastic fuel lines? And as an Odyssey owner are you are CERTAIN that Honda used fuel or another liquid in their factory crash tests too?
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Out of all of the vehicles that the IIHS has tested, only the Isuzu Trooper and the '01 Chrysler vans have leaked fuel. Clearly it shouldn't happen for this test. The engineers from Isuzu quickly flew down from japan, examined the problem and subsequently recalled all of the vehicles to have them fixed. Even Chrysler's own '02 minivans have the revised parts and didn't leak any fuel. so it can obviously be done.

    The IIHS doesn't use gasoline, but they use something less flamable.

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • pat84pat84 Posts: 817
    I believe that the ODY was filled with beer. It only causes a leak when you drink it. ;)
  • tomtomtomtomtomtom Posts: 491
    People spill more gas on the ground while filling up the gas tank and some people keep the engine running/ smoking/ using cell phone in the process. Wouldn't you think that's more dangerous than a leaks that happen in a 40mph crash? DC change the part because they know it MIGHT be a problem. It is just like a product improvement. Do you question your car company if they decided to use a larger brake disc in a newer model? However, being said all that, I do wish my van doesn't leak anything.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    IIHS crash tested a 01 DC minivan and was ready to give it a poor rating based upon dashboard movement. DC asked them to redo the test because it did not compare with DC's results. The test was run again with another 01 and the fuel leak was discovered, but the dashboard intrusion was less, enough for a marginal rating for structural integrety. They gave it a poor due to the fuel leak and went back to look at the first test van and discovered the crack but no leak. I wonder if they rechecked all the vans they crashed to see if anything was cracked on their fuel systems? I think NOT! The Isuzu leaked on the 1st crash.
  • scoyle1scoyle1 Posts: 14
    I too was and remain very upset by D/C response to the fuel pump flange. If you read the D/C response to the IIHS' highway safety tests very carefully (as any lawyer must), they do not say that none of the 50 vehicles that D/C crashed had fuel leakage or that they did not have cracked fuel planges or fuel tanks. D/C says that they did not notice any fuel leakage. While seemingly minor, this is a big difference legally speaking. D/C did not indicate how many of the fuel flanges were cracked and or broken. Similarly, not all of D/C's crash tests would have been frontal/side impact crashes. Many would have been rear end tests, bumper tests, etc.

    IIHS did three tests. Two of the tests were done on the 2001 vehicles. The fuel plange leaked during the second of these two tests. This caused IIHS to look more closely at the first test, where hey discovered that the fuel plange was cracked. While it did not leak, the part was cracked. Only in the third test, a 2002 model with the redesigned part, did the fuel plange remain intact. So by my count, we only have all of the information available for two tests. In both of the tests the fuel plange was broken (100% failure rate), and in one of the tests, the fuel leaked (50% failure rate). While I am sure that the rate of failure would be much smaller than this (in fact, it probably is a very isolated event), the 2001 Chrysler/Dodge minivan's have been on the road for less than 1 year. If a vehicle had been involved in a crash that involved gasoline leakage and an injury, we may not have heard of it. Lawyers often get a gag order on cases that are pending, or settle cases early to avoid publicity. There simply is not enough time that has gone past for us to make a fully informed decision of the safety of the 2001 D/C minivans.

    Many have said that any vehicle could/would have a fuel leak with a 40 MPH crash. However, only two vehicles (not two minivans, but two vehicles period), had any sign of fuel leak. These were the D/C minivans and the Isuzu. No other cars had a fuel leak.

    That being said, when it comes to the health of my 22 month old daughter, nothing is worth the risk. Any of you who say that the risk is small, all I have to say is that any unneeded risk is too much. I had bought the 2001 Chrysler Town & Country Lxi. Luckily, I found a dealer who had a 30 day money back/no questions asked policy. I took advantage of that policy. I do think that the D/C vehicles drive better, look better, have nice amenities, etc., but my daughter is my #1 concern. She is alot better than comfortable seats, climate control, etc.

    As for you pessimists who think that I am over-reacting, look more closely into Chrysler's responses into safety concerns. In 1998, after years of fighting a recall of their safety belts on the Cirrus and Stratus, a US District court judge ordered a recall, resulting in 91,000 cars being recalled. When it comes to minivans, D/C's recall performance has also been abysmal. Remember the rear lift gates and the transmissions that shifted into drive without a foot on the brake? Both took years of lawsuits and news stories before they were corrected.

    I thought that the DaimlerBenz folks would "right the ship", but it seems as if it is business as usual at Dodge/Chrysler.

    My daughter and wife will be much safer (both according to IIHS and the NHTSA tests) in a Honda or a Toyota. I know where my money is going. -- For the safety of my family.

    Don't believe me, see the links below. /business/qcirrus5.htm /html/Recall_Chrysler032198.html ce/html/0102.htm ce/cecompoutc.asp rollover/rollover20010620.pdf
  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    hmmmmm haven't I read that response somewhere before?
  • pepe11pepe11 Posts: 41
    The people who think you are overreacting are not "pessimists" but rather optimists! You are the pessimist.
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    I remember that flap about the rear seat belts. I also remember on one newscast that Chrysler demonstrated that they lifted an unmodified Cirrus up with a crane by the seatbelts! no failure!
  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    What do you suppose caused the fire in the 2000 Odyssey shown on
  • scoyle1scoyle1 Posts: 14
    So hayneldan and others. Do you refute that D/C has a history of not recalling vehicles? Look at the evidence, listen to Click and Clack, talk to anyone at CPSC. D/C is renown for refusing to admit their errors and faults. If there was no problem with the seatbelts on the Cirrus and the Stratus, then why did D/C lose twice in court? They lost the initial trial and on appeal. D/C didn't have to prove that the seatbelts were safe, CPSC had to prove that the seatbelts were unsafe. They not only proved their case twice, D/C wasn't able to overcome that proof. D/C received the largest fine up to that point ever levied against an automobile manufacturer.
  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    There is something that has been confusing me about you over the last few weeks. I've been reading one negative post after another of yours about Chrysler and it's past safety reccord and how terrible and dishonest they are as a car company. Soooo, that leads me to this question...why did you buy a DC minivan in the first place? I realize that you did not know about the 2001 DC minivan crash test until after you bought you car, but according to what your saying...DC has had a notorious reccord for poor safety in the past.

    You seem to love your family and your small daughter just as any good parrent would, so why would you ever even think of putting your loved ones in a vehicle made by a company that, according to you, has never been good with saftey in the first place? I'm getting mixed signals here and it's rather me at least.

    I know I feel perfectly safe in our 2000 Chrysler Town & Country and would never even consider trading it in for a boxy, boaring, plain Honda Odyssey. With that said, Chrysler is not the only car company to be questioned on their past safety reccord. I'm sure you could dig up some pretty heavy dirt on just about every major car company out there, including the emaculate Honda Motors Company.

    As for Chrysler replacing the fuel part in its late 2001 model and 2002 minivans, it only seemed a logical step to prevent this entire media frenzy over a minor fuel leak in one of many simulated crashes from occuring again in next years crash test.

  • hayneldanhayneldan Posts: 657
    I am beginning to doubt Scoyle's credibility on really owning a 2001 DC minivan. Nobody with that much negativity about DC would hav bought one. Maybe he's talking about his woop-de-do Subaru?
  • scannerscanner Posts: 295
    I guess Scoyle1 isn't a lawyer, else he would know that Honda too "has a history of not recalling vehicles" and "is renown for refusing to admit their errors and faults".

    Seatbelt defects and fuel leaks included


  • scannerscanner Posts: 295
    Is the same thing Honda said when its CRV rolled over during crash testing. Even Consumer Report's AKA The Rollover Advocate said the same thing (see CR May 1999, page 11).

This discussion has been closed.