Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans

akin67 · December 2001

Once again the authorities seem to believe the better van is the Odyssey even if it is comparing a Long term test of the 1999 Odyssey to the 2001 Grand Caravan.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/45220/article.html

dmathews3 · December 2001

Well now that DC has the best armrests, did they ever put some development money into fixing the now famous drone noise on the AWD, and FRT. drive vans? I doubt it, they just let you guys whine for a while and you go away.

arbarnhart · December 2001

No one said it was, just that it seems to be better than in other worlds. You said someone traded their Ody out of disappointment. At least she wasn't engulfed in flames like some DC owners. I know, that is a pretty rare problem that only affects a few owners. The same seems to be true with the Hondas - most people have no problems. And a big difference is how problems are dealt with. How many DC owners get their transmissions replaced for free when the van is out of warranty and there is no recall?

I tire of this. I came back to the boards after a long absence to get some specific info. I will disappear again and you can have the last word.

eneth · December 2001

It is pointless to use sales numbers as the sole criterion for popularity - sure, Honda sold 120,000 Odysseys, vs. 480,000 Daimler-Chrysler vans. DaimlerChrysler has two plants (two enormous plants) in North America to produce minivans - Honda until recently had only part of the output of a fairly small plant (in Ontario) to build the Odyssey - constrained further in 2001 by the fact that it also builds the Acura SUV in the same plant. Toyota builds the Sienna side-by-side with two other models that together in sales outnumber all the DaimlerChrysler vans (put Camry and Avalon sales together and you're approaching 500,000 per year, just there) - the production capacity isn't there.

For 2002, Honda adds another 80,000 Odyssey vans to its production capacity - a more telling tale for 2002 will be to see who loses the most, as Honda adds sales toward 200,000 a year. I'd venture a guess to say the Sienna will remain fairly constant in sales - but that you'll see the steepest dropoff at DaimlerChrysler, despite its having the more current product.

dmathews3 · December 2001

The DC people like to throw up those sales #'s, than using that mentality I which they would explain why DC doesn't outsell the Accord? Geez, the Accord doesn't even use the large 0% and big buck rebates. Please help me to understand the logic, or is it because they are trying to justify their purchase of a DC van and don't really care about anything else. Maybe it's just people buy what they want or can afford. Even KIA gets some suckers, so why shouldn't DC.

phkck · December 2001

Guess I am a "DC people". Let's get over this number issue. Yes, we could afford an Odyssey. Even considered it strongly. Still hold the Honda in high regard. We "DC people" also have an Acura in our garage.
I guess this forum lends itself to the black and white thinking so many posters have adopted (on both sides).
I don't think I am a "sucker" to buy a DC mini-van. Just made an informed decision and voted with my wallet.
Hopefully, all the future mini-van owners can get some real benefit from this forum. And not think we are warring factions.
Just my 2 cents, Paul

dmathews3 · December 2001

Well it looks like to me the DC van owners will never admit that the Odyssey is better or vise-a-versea so maybe it's just time to put this one forum to bed for good, as I can never see anything of importance coming from this thread. It will be us vs them as long as they make the 2 vans and this thread is open.

phkck · December 2001

We will never admit defeat!! or whatever. I think when you resort to referring to DC owners as "suckers" you lose just a bit of credibility with the rest of the forum readers.
Just glad we all have choices.

dave210 · December 2001

damtthews3 wrote:

"It also didn't take Honda 10 or 12 years to fix their so called problem transmission like it did Chrysler. Actully only about a 1 1/2 tops, and the jury is still out on DC's trans"

Now I'll be the first one to admit Chrysler has had problems with their transmission, based on my friends' encounters on their 1992, 1994, and 1996 vans, but considering that there haven't been numerous (that I know of) reports of transmission failures on the 1998 and newer models on this board and in magazines, why is it that the "jury is still out" on DC's transmissions?

It's only been two years since the majority of Ody transmission failures and "the jury" (a.k.a. dmatthews3) comes up with a free bill of health verdict, yet "the jury is still out" on the Chrysler, who hasn't had a majority of transmission failures since the 1997 model year? I'm not getting it.

4aodge · December 2001

The Odyssey had trouble with transmissions in the 1999 and some 2000 model year vans, at least. Dmathews and his gang, after a little more than a year of a supposedly trouble-free transmission in the Odyssey, gives it a "clean bill of health." Meanwhile, as the reliability and quality rating of the DC minivans continues to improve year after year, especially with the transmission, dmathews3 says "the jury is still out on Chrysler transmissions." Dave120, I don't get it either.

We have two rescent Chrysler products with the 41TE 4-speed Chrysler transmission. The van has over 30k miles with no problem and the PT has over 12k miles with no problem. Both shift as smoothly as they did the day we drove them off the lot. Look at consumer reports and how the rate of transmission related problems in DC minivans has shrunk over the last few years. If that isn't enough, look here at the boards at edmunds.com. More Odyssey owners seem to be complaining of transmission falures than do DC minivan owners. Even look at the long-term Grand Caravan ES they are testing, which has no problems.

As for edmunds long-term road test of the 2001 Grand Caravan ES, they already had their mind made up on what is the best minivan. I think it is safe to say even the sensible Odyssey owners here would agree with that, especially after reading the totally biased and anti-Chrysler introduction to the road-test. My gosh, whoever wrote that must really hate Chrysler for whatever reason. Most of the monthy updates are dominated by them making small problems they have had with the van into a big deal and then turn them into a reason not to buy the van.

Oh well, no matter what dmathews says, I know Chrysler transmissions have greatly improved over the years, and are now ready for prime time...finally. Just look at the facts.

-Adam

carleton1 · December 2001

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/44034/page025.html#Introduction

Some interesting facts from the link:

Edmunds paid $29,970 for the 1999 Ody EX

MSRP was $26,215 = Edmunds paid $3755 Above MSRP

Edmunds sold the 1999 Ody EX for $22,000

Using traditional math that equals a depreciation of $7970. However, using creative bias Edmunds claims their 1999 Ody EX depreciated only $369.

Why didn't Edmunds buy a Grand Caravan EX that has a LOWER MSRP than the Odyssey EX and has many features NOT had on the Odyssey EX?

dmathews3 · December 2001

4aodge says: Meanwhile, as the reliability and quality rating of the DC minivans continues to improve year after year, especially with the transmission, dmathews3 says "the jury is still out on Chrysler transmissions." Dave120, I don't get it either.

Then 4aodge says: Oh well, no matter what dmathews says, I know Chrysler transmissions have greatly improved over the years, and are now ready for prime time...finally. I don't get it either. In one sentance you say one thing and the last sentance you say finally. Yea like about 12 years give or take. Remember, that trans was used before the minivan got it so life didn't start with the first van.

caviller · December 2001

...to see sales figures trumpeted as some magic reason why one vehicle is better or more reliable than another. A troll on the Saturn newsgroup used to post monthly sales figures and spam them across all the auto newsgroups in an effort to slam Saturns. Every time Saturn had a decline in sales, his commentary blasted them because it must mean their quality was dropping. Of course, he was never able to respond to his critics as to why the top rated cars of the time occassionally had sales drops, or why some twin cars had sales changes in opposite directions since their quality/reliability must be the same. When he then trumpeted that his favorite had higher overall sales as an indicator of reliability or value, he was hard pressed to explain why Ford Escort (in the late 80s and early 90s) was the sales leader, even outpacing his Japanese favorites. Many other factors affect sales than the one or two people try to extrapolate from the figures.

Another favorite tactic of this person was to use usenet anecdotes as some evidence of quality or reliability. He'd sometimes refer to Consumer Reports or JD Power, but only if it supported his bias. In years where Saturn did well in those surveys, he would all but ignore them, but in years where Saturn was below average he touted them regulalry. Always good for a chuckle.

Anyway, the Consumer Reports reliability ratings will be published again in the April edition, which will will go to press in less than 2 months. Their online subscriber area has the latest data which should reflect what goes into the new ratings in the April magazine. Of course, the average problem rate last April was 0.2 problems per vehicle in the last 12 months, so the differences are all pretty negligble anyway. It would still take years for even the most dependable minivan to have even one more problem than the least dependable. Still, here are the current ratings for overall and transmission reliability:

Odyssey: Overall / Transmission
1994: NA / NA
1995: BTA / <2%
1996: BTA / <2%
1997: BTA / <2%
1998: BTA / 5 to 9.3%
1999: AVG / 2 to 5%
2000: AVG / <2%
2001: BTA / <2%

GC/T&C: Overall / Transmission
1994: WTA / >14.8%
1995: WTA / >14.8%
1996: WTA / >14.8%
1997: WTA / 5 to 9.3%
1998: AVG / 5 to 9.3%
1999: AVG / 5 to 9.3%
2000: AVG / 5 to 9.3%
2001: AVG / <2%

BTA=Better Than Average
AVG=Average
WTA=Worse Than Average

If you believe Consumer Reports, the DC minvan transmissions did appear to improve after 1996. Still, in no year is the overall or transmission reliability better than that of Odyssey, and it is usually worse. If you want to pick on Odyssey reliability, then Brakes (before '00) and Power Equipment (after '98) would be the areas where it does poorly. Still, the DC vans were not standouts in those areas, either.

Each minivan has it's advantages. Some prefer smaller, some bigger. Some like a folding seat, some like a split rear seat. Some prefer creature comforts and convenience, others safety. Some want the lowest price, others the best value for the money. To each their own. Personally, I'm glad there are so many choices available.

4aodge · December 2001

I don't care how long it took Chrysler to fix the 41TE 4-speed automatic transmission. It could have taken them 50 years to fix the darn thing as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is, it's fixed. If you go out today and buy a 2002 DC minivan, your chances of having a transmission falure are smaller than they have ever been since the 1980s. Period. End of story.

Also, no one here said that Chrysler has a better reliability history than Honda. However, I have tried to point out that, indeed, not all is happy in Odyssey land and the vehicle does have it's fair share of problems. Especially when you consider that it is a Honda, a company respected for it's high quality.

If you are going to say 10 years from now that you aren't going to buy a Chrysler minivan because it took them at least 10 years to fix their transmissions, even though they are currently "rock solid", than I would say you are foolish. What kind of reason is that not to buy any car?

Once again, the bottom line is Chrysler has and is continuing to improve reliability. Don't believe me? Just look at Consumer Report ratings over the years, news articles, and even happy owners of DC minivans such as Carl and myself. Chrysler reliability has improved, whether you believe it or not.

-Adam
2000 Town & Country LX

carleton1 · December 2001

How else can you explain the BTA for the 1998 Odyssey? (Here are the numbers taking directly from your posting):
Odyssey:
Overall / Transmission

1998: BTA / 5 to 9.3%

WHILE the 1997 GC/TC in the EXACTLY identical category is rated WTA?

GC/T&C: Overall / Transmission

1997: WTA / 5 to 9.3%

.......Careful reading of Consumer Reports indicate CR is "NOT Recommended for purchase" due to unreliability, distortions, and flagrant bias.

dmathews3 · December 2001

I don't care if DC fixes or don't fix any of their problems, my point is as long as you and a couple of other DC people continue to stir the pot about the Odyssey, I will continue to slam you right back. If you don't want to hear me rant than don't stir the pot, as I have a BIG SPOON!

arbarnhart · December 2001

OK, I lied - I came back.

Carleton1 asks why the overall score of the Ody was BTA one year while the overall score of the GC/T&C was WTA in a year when both rated the same amount of trouble with trannies. Carleton1 suggests it is because CR is biased. I would like to suugest that possibly it is because the overall score takes into account more than just the tranny rating. Duh!

carleton1 · December 2001

Since their material is biased, distorted, and unreliable. End of discussion.

dave210 · December 2001

Why is it said that Carleton and 4adodge are "stirring the pot" when all they really say is that Chrysler has more creature comforts than the Honda, have gained an improved reliability rating compared to years past, and also state that like all things, the Odyssey have problems, too?

All are true statements. The Chrysler offers you much more bang for your buck, and is getting better and better in their reliability and quality. And the Odyssey, while a GREAT van (and I'm not being sarcastic) does have problems also (like anything).

If you intend on trading in your car every two to three years, financially the Honda is probably better since, yes, it does hold it's value quite well.

Yet, it should be noted that my friend, who just traded in their 2000 T&C LTD on a left over 2001 T&C LTD, only lost $8,900 on the whole thing. He originally bought the 2000 (with a $34,800 sticker) for $29,450. He got $19,400 trade on the 2000 and got the 2001 T&C for $28,300 (with a $36,460 sticker) Not too bad when you take into account the real prices they paid. If you look at the depreciation from MSRP, yes the vans do VERY crummy in the resale department, but the key into not getting screwed on a Chrysler is waiting for the right deal. Still, the Odyssey does fair better from MSRP and is a better value overall if you don't care for the luxuries on the Chrysler.

caviller · December 2001

Carleton1 uttered:

"How else can you explain the BTA for the 1998 Odyssey? (Here are the numbers taking directly from your posting):
Odyssey:
Overall / Transmission

1998: BTA / 5 to 9.3%

WHILE the 1997 GC/TC in the EXACTLY identical category is rated WTA?

GC/T&C: Overall / Transmission

1997: WTA / 5 to 9.3%

.......Careful reading of Consumer Reports indicate CR is "NOT Recommended for purchase" due to unreliability, distortions, and flagrant bias."

Arbarnhart is exactly right. Quite simply, transmissions are not the only category. Many other categories contribute to the overall rating. I only included the transmission category since that is what was being discussed.

In the past, you have also posted reliability figures from CR's breakdowns, so I know you have seen them. Though you later deleted those posts, I assume you are still somewhat familiar with their ratings system. It seemed good enough when you used it to tout the DC vans' performance in some sub-categories some months ago, yet now it is, "biased, distorted and unreliable." Interesting.

Consumer Reports certainly has its flaws, but none as serious as the many flaws with your preferred method of using anecdotes from friends and online forums for reliability comparisons.

dchopp · December 2001

Keep in mind that Consumer Reports obtains there data from Surveys sent out to their subscribers. They take no advertising either. One of my vehicles is a Pontiac Grand Am and it is a piece of junk and I informed them of it through the survey.

carleton1 · December 2001

Please explain how ANY vehicle with a transmission problem rate of 5 to 9.3% could be rated as BTA.
Only a non-thinking Honda lover will ignore atrocious transmissions. Transmission work is considered "routine maintenance" for a Honda.

eneth · December 2001

I'm not so sure about Honda, but replacing the transmission every 30-50,000 miles cetainly was part of the DaimlerChrysler van maintenance schedule from 1989-1999 or so.

carleton1 · December 2001

EXACTLY ONE of dozens of DC minivans owned by people we know has had transmission repair. It is a 1996 T&C LXi used in a business to tow trailers larger than is recommended. That transmission failed at 150,000 miles....NOT the absurd mileage eneth loves to exaggerate.
Three Honda Accords had transmission failure at FAR FEWER miles than this one DC minivan(of 7 owned by people we knew in March 1999).

Go read in Odyssey Problems Forums here in the Town Hall to read of MANY Odyssey transmission failures which occurred with much less than 30-50,000 miles.

eneth · December 2001

Our first one lasted 18,000 miles; another family we know needed three replacements before 70,000 miles. I don't know of a single owner of a pre-99 van who kept the car past 50,000 miles and did not need transmission repair or replacement. Same goes for everyone I've known with a first-generation LH car (or Dynasty/clone, etc.)

Conversely, among all the Honda owners I've known, no one has had any transmission problems - problems with rust, and flimsy sheet metal bodies, yes. Mechanical trouble, no.

So, individual experiences vary - but on the whole, the Chrysler 4-speed, circa 89-99, is one of the top lemon transmissions of all time, according to my friends and colleagues, and according to most sources (including a Dodge mechanic at the dealership were we bought ours; he said he wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole). Probably the only other unit on the road as bad as the Chrysler was was the Ford unit in the 91-95 Taurus/Sable/Windstar, which is just as failure prone (though at least Ford made some allowances for it, and publicly acknowledged the problems - Chrysler did back in the early 90s, but claimed a non-existent fix and never looked back).

It looks like they finally fixed the problem - but in typical fashion for Chrysler, the fix took ten years, and no doubt soured enough people on buying Chrysler that it's a major reason why they're in such financial trouble today.

caviller · December 2001

Quote:

"Please explain how ANY vehicle with a transmission problem rate of 5 to 9.3% could be rated as BTA.

Only a non-thinking Honda lover will ignore atrocious transmissions. Transmission work is considered "routine maintenance" for a Honda."

Do you really not get it, or are you just stirring the pot on this?

Either way, I'll try to make it simple for you.

1) I posted two details from Consumer Reports. The overall reliability rating, and the single-category problem rate for transmissions alone. I could have posted all the sub-categories, but it is time consuming and wasn't relevant to the topic. Please try reading the April, 2001 edition for more details. I know you've seen it; you've posted excerpts from it before to defend your position. Why you play ignorant now is still a mystery.

2) The overall rating includes many sub- categories. Engine, A/C, brakes, ignition, body hardware; over a dozen in all. Presumably, a car rated Better Than Average has very low problem rates in most categories, though a few may be higher. You see, they average all the sub-categores to get the overall rating, then compare it to the average of all other vehicles.

3) "Average" means average. Go figure. High or low, there are presumably equally many models worse than average as better than average. A grade school math text might help you with this.

4) For older cars, the problems rates in many sub-categories may be high, but a car may still be better than average for that year. Again, average is an average. Presumably, older cars have a higher average rate than newer ones.

5) Consumer Reports gets over 500,000 responses to their surveys a year. I suspect their results are far more statistically significant than your unscientific poll of a few friends and unverified usenet anecdotes.

You are free to dismiss Consumer Reports if you like, but please be somewhat intelligent about it. Indeed, you may chose to remain "non-thinking" on this, or you can continue the desperate name calling.

carleton1 · December 2001

Any vehicle with a transmission problem rate of 5 to 9.3% is NOT a better than average vehicle even if there have been no other problems.
I have read many things about DC transmission problems but so far have actually met only ONE owner that had transmission problems. The vehicle involved is a 96 T&C LXi that was used for heavy towing and had the transmission fail at 150,000 miles. My sister's 86 Caravan had 170,000 miles with NO problems. My co-worker's 90 (or whatever...I am not sure) had 110,000 miles with NO problems. He did not even have a tune-up performed.
When I actually meet someone in person who has had a transmission problem, I will then become concerned.

I believe you, eneth and others when you say you had problems. Like you, I would be quite mad at any company that made a vehicle that failed me.

carleton1 · December 2001

Granite Green with only 30 miles on odometer. I was very impressed with the power, ride, and quietness. The 2002 is considerably improved over the 2001. I have driven the 2001 Odyssey EX of my sister this past summer and the 1999 Odyssey LX-C in a test drive March 16, 1999.
Immediately went to look at Sienna and was shocked at how expensive Sienna are for a smaller minivan with less power than the Odyssey. Also looked at Pontiac Montana and feel they are over priced when compared to the Odyssey.

dave210 · December 2001

The often failed transmissions weren't introduced until the 1989 model year, and if I'm not mistaken, were only on the 3.3 V6, but don't quote me on that one.

I've been lucky since my 1988 Grand Voyager didn't even have this transmission (but the van did blow a head gasket thanks to Mitsubishi) and my 1996 van only had less than 40,000 miles after a little less than 5 years when I traded it. Maybe it would have failed later, I don't know.

akin67 · December 2001

I also concur with Carleton1's evaluation. We just traded in our 2000 Ody Ex for the 2002 last night. Just for the record we did not have a single problem with our 2000 Ody.

The 2002 has the following improvements over 2000:

1) Much quiter, inside and out

2) Seats (at least the drivers seat) are far more comfortable and seem to have greater range. I am 6'2" and use the drive the previous vehicle with the seat pushed all the way back. On the new car that is not the case. It seems they changed the contour of all of the seats , they are all more comfortable in general.

3) The ride has improved significantly, smoother ride yet does not seem to have compromised any in terms of performance (fast turns etc...)

4) The new engine/tranny combo is amazing. I didn't push it (break in period) but travelling on the hwy at over 70 miles an hour the RPM was hovering in the 1800-1900 range. The shifts are so smooth you don't even notice and the extra power is noticable even without pushing it.

5) Overall the car is more refined than before, fit and finish are perfect as expected from a Honda.

dmathews3 · December 2001

Well ran in to a ex fellow worker this afternoon as he saw me gassing up the wifes Odyssey. Asked me how I liked it and I said it's ok. First vehicle that we had never had a problem. He said his 01 Caravan got towed in with a busted trans. Now am I to use some of the logic here that I have 27 neighbors and all their DC vans had no problems so they are great vans. In that case I know one person with a DC van and his transmission went out so 100% of DC vans are junk?

carleton1 · December 2001

The lady who test drove it just before we got there ordered a 2002 Mesa Beige Odyssey EX-nav-Lthr and was currently driving a Toyota Land Cruiser and a Taurus Wagon. She looked at the Sienna but felt it was too small for her needs.
The man who test drove it after us was thinking of trading in his 2000 Granite Green Odyssey EX on a new 2002 Odyssey and was negotiating a trade when we left.
Would you let us know how much the dealer gave you for your 2000 Odyssey EX? The caustic remarks made by dmathews3 add nothing to these forums BUT real world experience shared by a real person who traded in a 2000 Odyssey EX on a 2002 Odyssey would be very valuable.

4aodge · December 2001

I just saw the movie "The Family Man" with Nicholas Cage that we rented on DVD the other night. I was pleased to see that he and his wife had choosen a bright silver 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan ES as their families mode of transportation. There were several scenes in the movie involving the Dodge.

The interesting thing is, it is a fine looking automobile. I can't even count the number of reviewers, including Edmunds, who have said the same thing about this car. What I can't get over is that it is a mininvan! A minivan described as a good looking vehicle? Only DC, the makers of the Viper, Prowler, and PT, could create such a thing.

I personaly feel the 1996-2000 model years were the best looking of the bunch. Although I still think the 2001 model DC minivans are still the best looking minivans on the market, right ahead of the 2002 Odyssey EX (I hate the LX as I think the abscence of the roof rack and the black trim is very ugly).

Anyway, you just can't beat a Chrysler minivan in terms of look and style (example: Chrysler hides the sliding door hinge on their vans while many others, including the Ody, have them clearly in sight). In my humble opinion, of course...

-Adam

dave210 · December 2001

While the majority of the DC vans now have body color trim, and at most, a small black strip running along the side of the car, the 1996-2000 were the biggest culprit of unneeded black trim, which was there way to differentiate the $36,000 van from the $20,000 van.

I never understood why up until 1999, Chrysler was still putting on black bumpers, thick black side cladding, black door handles, and a black roof rack. The white colored 1996-1998 Dodges and Plymouths were not pretty in my opinion. And the only thing they did in the 1999-2000 vans was take away the black door handles, which while good, was probably just a cost cutting move.

On that note, the 1996 vans had many minor changes to them through out the 1996 model year. When they first came out, the Town & Country LX and LXi were given exclusive front doors with a good gripped handle to close the door and wood accents, versus the little hand pocket with vynil covering on the other models. The LXi was also exclusive to the map pockets on the front doors. Later on in the year and a half the '96 vans were out, the headrests were changed to half leather on the front, where before they were completely vinyl. The doors were also changed to the ones with a small hand pocket(I'm sure to simplify things)but kept the wood accent. The gold LXi pin stripe was also changed from one thick one, to two double thin stripes.

dmathews3 · December 2001

Those vehicles were furnished by DC for FREE. That was the only reason they were used. Not just because you think they are beautiful. They would have used Studebakers if they had been free. Everyone here knows that you think they are the best, but some of us don't, so if you're going to stir the pot, use something useful. Even I'd brag up DC vans if they gave me one, but since they didn't and I had to buy, we chose the best, and safest, and most reliable bang for the buck.

4aodge · December 2001

dmathews, I'm sorry if you can't take someone talking possitively about how another mininvan on the market other than the Honda Odyssey without getting defensive and aggitated. I know the vehicles were given by DC for free as I doubt the movie makers would have gone out and purchased a near 33k dolar minivan.

Yes, your right. I do think that DC minivans are the best on the market, at leat for us. And I don't get defensive and worked up when someone else says something positive about another car just because it isn't sitting in my garage.

You can call it "stirring the pot" or whatever you would like, but that won't stop others from expressing their positive opinions on vans that are not Honda Odysseys.

-Adam

dmathews3 · December 2001

I have no problem with you talking about the DC vans, but you also seem to throw a number of snide remarks about the Odyssey, and as long as you continue.....................

4aodge · December 2001

You may have a big spoon but it seems as though mine is even BIGGER!

dmathews3 · December 2001

The only thing you have thats big is your ego. I have more time in the bathroom thinking about cars than you have been alive. I can't wait until you get old enough to buy your own car, and we'll see what you get. I doubt it will even be a minivan. Now the PT Cruiser that your folks have would be about the only thing DC has I would take a chance again on. But thats a cheap vehicle and if it turned out like other DC products I could get my money out of it.

4aodge · December 2001

I am not sure what my first car will be. I really like minivans. I value their decent gas mileage (generally speaking when compared to SUVs), versatility, cargo room, and seating capability, among other things. But I don't know if I would want one for my first car, although I love driving our 2000 Town & Country, even when I'm by myself.

The PT Cruiser is an awesome car, as one would expect from a vehicle crowned "Car of the Year" by Motortrend magazine. Its good looking, fun to drive, versatile, and is a great bargan when it's bought at MSRP. The interior and exterior is very well put together and the fit and finish is very impressive, especially when you consider how "cheap" the car is. You should hear the solid slammmmm when the doors are shut!

As for my ego, it's not big at all. I think you would like me if we were to talk face to face. I'm just really amused by this whole spoon size thing you've started and so I'm going to play into that. Especially after you got all riled up after I said that I think DC builds the best looking minivan. I mean common, did that really get u THAT upset?

-Adam

dave210 · December 2001

While I do think the PT deserved it for its outright "look at me" appeal and it's great initial quality, Motor Trend kinda lost their credibility with me after rating the Chevy Vega MT Car of the Year two times in a row, only to have it rust out after two years and have the infamous backfire that almost killed my back seat passenger (a dog) when the whole rear caught on fire.

Oh and for this years SUV winner...the GMC Envoy? Yeah ok.....

Sorry, just a *little* bitter at GM, so I actually DO understand why some people dislike the Chrysler vans who HAVE OWNED troubled Chryslers. I owned a VERY troubled GM product that they never stood behind until law suit after law suit.

While the transmissions may not be great (don't know, never had problems), that cannot compare to the near death experiencing I had with GM....but since I'm already off-topic, I'll save that for another day. :-)

4aodge · December 2001

Dave, I can totally understand why you have lost credit in Motor Trend and it's "Car of the Year" award. While I still have more faith in their ability to judge what's best, I too am a little confused as to why they chose the Chevy Trailblazer as the SUV of the year. I haven't driven one, but I have sat in a Trailblazer that was on display at a local mall. It was ok. But good enough to label it the car of the year?

I don't know about that.

Also, one more interesting thing about Motor Trend. The Chrysler minivans have been the ONLY ones ever made to win Motor Trend's car of the year award. That was back in 1996 when they were first remodeled. I wasn't into cars back then but the 1996 Chrysler minivans must have really blown past the competition in that year. I don't know of any other minivan on the market then that could even compare to the Chrysler vans.

But of course, those days are gone. And as someone here pointed out, the increased competition in todays market will only make the products better and cheaper. Which, of course, is good for the consumer!

-Adam

akin67 · December 2001

Especially since Car & Driver (industry leader) Motor Trend, Road & Track and Automobile Magazine all have rated the Odyssey the best minivan in the market in their most current minivan reviews. And those reviews were for the 2001 model year where the DC vans had just made siginificant improvements and yet the Odyssey had almost no majopr changes from the 2000 model year.

Can't wait until they review the 2002 vans. The Odyssey has addressed most of its previous shortcomings. Much quiter, much smoother ride, amazing performance and a great deal more refined than ever especially with the new leather interior. The already stellar safety in this vehicle has gotten even better with the introduction of side airbags, child safety seat latches and rear disc brakes.

bluffhouse · December 2001

Has anyone checked out the new Sedona?
If cost was no concern, I'd probably go with the Honda, but. If one wants to save about $8,000, one may take a look at the Kia.
The interesting thing with the Kia is it weighs like 4,700lbs. That's like 500lbs more that the Odessey and something like 700lbs heavier than the Dodge. With all the supersized SUVs on the road, every pound counts. Even though the Honda does decent in the crash test, it still tends to be a little light which may put it in a safety disadvantage.
Another problem I see with the Odessey is the price. With the lack of availability, and inflated pricing, one could almost drive away with something about 10 notches higher like a Yukon. I hear people are waiting in line to buy these odesseys at over $30,000. Is something wrong with this picture?

bluffhouse · January 2002

On all the minivans. We currently own a '95 Safari. It seat 8, has ample room behind the rear seat and has a dismal crash rating. Then you have the mini's, The Sedona, Odessey and DC? seem to have a major seat issue. You either have a 7 seater around town or a 4 seater on vacations. The older DC's I know had flexible seating . rear into middle position. Does the Odessey or the new Caravans do this? I know the Sedona doesn't. To meet the needs of a typical family of 5 that goes camping and on other outings, they don't cut it.
If the Kia wouldn't have made the major seating mistake like Honda did, I'd be driving one.
As for the ABS thing, I not sure if this is a real good thing. If you ever hit gravel, ADS cars are almost impossible to stop. The rolling wheels keep going over new gravel. The Sedona without the ABS with all it's weight can likely put it's feet down in adverse conditions. Besides safety, this is another advantage of the heavyweight Sedonda.
For now, I think I'll stick with the Safari until some larger minivans emerge.

tomtomtom · January 2002

Those auto magazine writers are normal human beings just like you and me. When they compare cars they do put in their personal feelings. If they like particular car/brand they would find nice things to say about it. In a recent C&R comparison between family sedans, Honda Accord ranked first, the writers wrote, "...The big black dials in the cluster are elegant in their purity. No other maker has the confidence to present machinery so simply...Interior feels a bit snug around the passengers' elbows compared with the others here..." If the two things mentioned about found in other cars, the writer would probably write, "...the big black dials in the cluster are oversized and boring and it shouldn't be in a $20K plus car...Interior feels a bit snug around the passengers' elbows compared with the others and this is bad news if you are buying a 4 door sedan to carry people."

I am not trying to badmouth Hondas, the Accord and other Hondas are fine cars. I just want to point out that buyers should not purchase ANYTHING based on what they read...

carleton1 · January 2002

We did NOT even look at the Sienna in early 1999 as Motor Trend had written that the Sienna is very nice but too expensive and too small.
Although the Sienna is smaller and more expensive than comparably equipped Odyssey and DC minivans, the Sienna size is actually better for some people's needs.
Read car magazines and also the magazine that test everything from toothbrushes to condoms to get ideas on features to consider. Compare, sit inside, AND drive all the ones you are considering. Each minivan has distinct advantages.

tomtomtom · January 2002

Sorry, C & R should be C & D (Car and Driver)

arbarnhart · January 2002

And probably the last time, but I came back and browsed and had to leave a couple of parting thoughts...

Carleton1 - Your Chrylser product blew the head gaskets before 36K and you recommend it? Yes, I know you got it replaced free, but what if it had happened a month later and you only had 3/36? Lots of DC owners are in that predicament. Also, you post inflamatory remarks about Honda and about Consumer Reports and then ignore responses that factually refute what you state. you use anectdotal information to back up your claims and then refute or ignore anectdotal information from others. FWIW, here is some more... I recommended the Caravan to my older sister a few years ago. I can only hope to live long enough for her to forget that. It's her easy comeback in any discusion now - "Yeah, and you were sure about the Caravan, too.". My next door neighbor had one. When it was totalled, they got an Ody. My neighbor said "I felt guilty, because within a month of buying the van I hoped it would get totalled. Fortunately, noone was hurt." These are just antecdotes, so the 100% anti DC bias should be taken withe a grain of salt. Many people have had good luck with them and several lived through it.

4aDodge - Why are you out here engaging in virtual arguments with a buncha old farts when you should be interested in fast cars and girls at your age? Not my daughters, though! Seriously, you need a bit more experience behind the wheel and behind the payment to be taken seriously here.

Bye bye (this time I mean it)...

Andy

carleton1 · January 2002

You write you once more entered the fray. Why then, do all of the listings for what you have written in the Town Hall appear in this forum to trash DC?
Why do you exaggerate and say my GC blew head gaskets when I wrote that it had a coolant leak and the dealer replaced the head gaskets the next day under warranty?
Why do you not trust current Odyssey owners who are writing about problems with current Honda Odysseys in the Town Hall....yet you believe "Not Recommended for Purchase" CR as if it were the Bible or Quran?

Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles