Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Toyota Sienna 2004+
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
In the case of the RX300 that is exactly what I was told by the mechanic/technician at Bellevue Lexus.
I have no reason to believe, no foundation, that the X5, ML, etc, do not have a robust enough ABS pump to keep up with the needs, continuously, of the VSC/Trac/AWD capability.
When you apply the brakes, even with "maximum" ABS "activity" you will reasonably soon come to a stop. You will not need the ABS pump again until you accelerate. Duty-cycle requirements of the ABS pump, for ABS alone, are substantially limited.
In some wintertime roadbed environments you might find you need virtually continuous virtual AWD activity. That's going to require a more robust ABS pump than one used simply for ABS.
Or the AWD firmware needs to predict when the ABS pump motor has reached it maximum short term use and shut it down for a cooling off period.
I have owned three AWD T&Cs, a 97, a 98 and a 2000, and unlike others, have had absolute success with their overall reliability. Had to have the rotors turned at 20k on the 2000 is about all.
I had all but decided to buy a new RX330 once the market cools a bit, say late fall before the snow flies.
Today I discovered the new MY2004 Toyota Sienna AWD minivan.
WOW !!
It has exactly the same engine, transmission, driveline, VSC/Trac, and "virtual" AWD system that the new MY2004 AWD RX330 has.
It doesn't have air suspension. Maybe only a minor negative.
But it does have room between the rear tires and the suspension for snowchain installation.
I was about to pay approximately $43k for an RX330 with air suspension but I can get an AWD Sienna XLE Limited that seats 7 (or 8) for about $37k.
Anyone see any downside that I don't?
Oops, almost forgot another BIG advantage of the T&C and the new Sienna. Electrically open/close the rear quarter panel winglet windows from the driver's seat.
Eliminates the really PAINFUL helicopter BOOMING problem of the RX and Highlander.
I also wish the car had a memory driver's seat. All-in-all, it's an impressive vehicle. I also considered the Pacifica, but I wanted a vehicle that could accommodate 6 people and their luggage,and the Pacifica can't. There are other plusses and minuses to each. They cost about the same, although I suspect large discounts will be available on Pacificas in the near future. They're already piling up on dealers' lots around here, whereas the Siennas sure aren't. Incidentally, I had never considered buying a minivan before. If there's an image problem, it doesn't concern me. I test drove an RX330, and didn't think it drove much better than the Sienna. In fact, the engine seemed noisier. It holds less people and cargo, and is ugly, too. It would be nice if the Sienna had some of the RX330 amenities, though. (Where is the Lexus minivan?!)
Steve, Host
> RX330, Sequoia, etc) AWD is implemented in
> software, therefore "virtual", intangible, etc.
Apart from full mechanical system such as Torsen and viscous coupling, most other systems rely on sensor/computer/software to work, e.g. Honda's VTM-4, Haldex, Subaru Legacy/Outback Auto's electronic clutch etc. So by your definition, all of them are "virtual"? Limited slip at differential level, drive shaft level or brake level should make no difference.
Sorry, your use of the term "virtual" just bugs me :-) It gives other people a wrong impression that it is not a real AWD system. In actual fact, it is a very REAL AWD system.
> how can the torque distribution ratio possibly be 50/50?
For RX330, it IS 50/50; you can check Lexus web page for confirmation.
> No one has said anything about any vehicle's ABS
> pump being subject to over-heating due to other
> uses except the Sequoia, RX300, and now possibly
> the RX330 and the Sienna.
Sequoia, RX300 and RX330/Sienna all use totally different AWD system. Why would you generalize from one vehicle to another? I would not encourage such unsubstantiated speculation.
> In the case of the RX300 that is exactly what I
> was told by the mechanic/technician at Bellevue
> Lexus.
Sorry, I don't believe him. I would like to see references or technical service bulletins. I simply cannot see how you can overheat your RX300 ABS pump even in Winter driving; and remain disabled for 10 to 15 min! This is not normal and this sounds dangerous. As I said, it seems more like a mechanical problem to me.
> I have no reason to believe, no foundation, that
> the X5, ML, etc, do not have a robust enough ABS
> pump to keep up with the needs, continuously, of
> the VSC/Trac/AWD capability.
Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe that Sienna/RX330 do not have a robust enough ABS pump to keep up with the needs of the VSC/Trac/AWD capability.
I am not saying that it will never overheat. Just that under expected winter driving condition, this should not happen. In addition, engine power is moderated and can be reduced to reduce the chance of overheating/overtaxing the brake system.
Regarding RX330 vs Sienna AWD, I agree with you. Sienna AWD is better value and better packaged. But for many buyers, their mindset is SUV and nothing else; so Sienna probably would never cross their minds.
I read a really good review on the RX330 recently on it's new awd system comparing it to the RX300. The review discussed situations when the RX300 didn't perform very well but the new set up was excellent.
Lexus was perfectly happy to market an RX300 as AWD when it really wasn't as is Toyota with the Highlander. As has been said many times, how many of the 300,000 purchasers are going to actually need true AWD capability, and then with the new RX330 how many will discover it bails at 30-45 seconds, and then how many of those will even have a knowledge basis to complain?
I guess you have to be in the computer business to equal software implementation of an "object" as being "virtual".
Not a negative connotation at all just a way of stating the facts.
And I am really glad to see that someone still believes, religiously, in marketing hype.
But again, maybe you can explain to the rest of us, how can you have differing final drive ratios to the front versus the rear and still have equal torque delivery?
The RX300 has differing F/R final drive ratios and Lexus has advised me that the RX330 will also use differing F/R final drive ratios.
Since the AWD 04 Sienna shares almost all drivetrain aspects with the RX330 my presumption would be that it also has differing final drive ratios F/R.
When I bought my first RX I was told the torque distribution was 70/30 F/R. Upon testing my 01 AWD RX300 on a 4 wheel dynamometer we determined that the actual torque distribution was closer to 90/10 F/R and only increased to something close to 75/25 once the viscous clutch was forced to stiffen up.
Maybe someone out there can look up the final drive ratios for the Sienna (or the RX330?) and compute the "native" (non-slipping) torque distribution ratio. Except from having been told by Lexus that the differing ratios provide differing torque distribution F/R I haven't a glue as to how to compute their actual values.
But I do know, absolutely, that a lower gear ratio is used to "multiply" engine torque.
RX300, and likely the Highlander, has 3.291:1 front and 2.928 rear.
> drive ratios for the Sienna (or the RX330?) and
> compute the "native" (non-slipping) torque
> distribution ratio.
I don't see the point of this exercise, as I have little reason to doubt manufacturer's official specifications. There is no marketing advantage in misrepresenting the torque split ratio specs (unlike engine horse power for example).
Why would you put more trust in your dealership's tech/mechanic than official Toyota source?
Trusting my mechanic/technician...
Because he was responding/troubleshooting an actual failure, and the failure, indications, and symtoms made sense (only) in the context of what he said. The mechanic told me the ABS pump had a time-out to prevent over-heating, nothing was said about FWD biasing.
Does anyone out there know of ANY vehicle that is available as FWD and AWD that isn't FWD biased in AWD mode?
Got a source for that "extremely hazardous" statement?
Steve, Host
I just ordered this option today. Hope I did the right thing.
Here's what Toyota web site says:
"The Toyota driver, front passenger, front seat-mounted side airbags and three-row side curtain airbags are Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS). The driver and front passenger airbags are designed to deploy in severe (usually frontal) collisions where the magnitude and duration of the forward deceleration of the vehicle exceeds the design threshold level. The side airbags and three-row side curtain airbags are designed to inflate in severe side-impact collisions. In all other accidents, the airbags will not inflate. To decrease the risk of injury from a deploying airbag, always wear seatbelts, sit upright in the middle of the seat as far back as possible from the airbag modules and do not lean against the door. Do not put objects in front of an airbag or around the seatback. Do not use rearward-facing child seats in any front passenger seat. The force of a deploying SRS airbag may cause serious injury or death. Please see your Owner's Manual for further instructions."
> FWD, or FWD biased AWD, can be extremely
> hazardous in adverse roadbed conditions
???
> it is becoming more and more well known....
???!!!
Then count me as ignorant then, as I have not heard about this. You may argue that AWD is safer, but calling FWD "extremely hazardous"??
And you'd better inform Volvo for its safest-SUV-XC90 and Acura for its MDX...
For the general public, SUV is SUV, AWD is AWD. They may question full time vs part time AWD, but few would ask about torque split or front/rear biased.
> Does anyone out there know of ANY vehicle that is
> available as FWD and AWD that isn't FWD biased in
> AWD mode?
Sienna and RX330 ;-)
To be honest, I was a little bit surprised by this as well. But since the same specs is listed for both vehicles which have the same system, I would believe it until proven otherwise.
For seat/door mounted side airbag, yes, it could be hazardous to kids if they are leaning against the window; as they would be right against the point of airbag deployment. But it is only available in the front passenger seat and you are unlikely to allow your kids to sit there, it should not be a concern.
For side curtain airbag, it deploys from the roof, so the danger to kids is much less. The airbag is supposed to deploy against the window, and worm its way between the head and the window. But as we are talking about explosives here, there is no guarantee. And if there is a car coming towards the door, the airbag deployment from the roof is the least of your concern...
Yes, you have made the right decision. All things considered, it is still a safer option. But you should try to educate your kids not to lean against the windows.... yeah, I know how hard this could be; you could only do your best. If you anticipate that they may fall asleep during long trips, you may consider bringing a pillow to put against the window or the door.
As for reclining seats, this has nothing to do with side airbag or curtain airbag, as the seat belt is useless in a reclined position. It could not achieve its restraining effect, and the occupant would slide forward or backward in case of collision.
Yes, FWD has a definite advantage for getting up and GOING on snow and ice, but that advantage can quickly turn into a hazard for stopping or slowing on snow and ice, especially downhill.
Adding any additional roadbed traction at the front, snow treads, snowchains, simply serves to exacerbate the dangers.
I have heard folks complain for many years now about tire shops not being willing to install studs on only the driving wheels of FWD vehicles, they always seemed to feel that it was simply a way for the shops to rip them off. Maybe enough of them are now getting the message.
And since FWD is cheaper, less expensive overall, to manufacture, and allows more cabin space with a flat floor, why do you think GMC and FMC are moving "backward" to RWD as rapidly as the realities of design, manufacturing, and the market will allow?
The way I read the brochure the new 4runner appears to have a method of changing the engine torque distribution ratio away from the front when turning, going from 50/50 to 30/70 if I remember correctly.
Quite a reasonably solution.
The fact that the RX300 and the RX330 have a higher reduction final drive ratio in the front vs the rear is available in printed form. does anyone think you can have 50/50 torque distribution in that circumstance?
And can someone find me, in printed form, somewhere that Toyota or Lexus attests to the "native" (no slippage) torque distribution of the RX300 or the Highlander being 50/50?
Not having ever driven a Corvair, but:
The Corvair and the Porsche 911 likely share the same type of hazard, dramatic over-steering!
The new Boxster or the 968 likely offer the best overall balance in this venue.
I'm still looking for a cite that says FWD cars are extremely hazardous under certain road conditions.
Steve, Host
In a word: performance. You only see automakers employing RWD on their high-performance cars. It is well known that a RWD car can offer superior handling by getting closer to a 50-50 weight distribution, which is practically impossible to get on a FWD car. Also, engines are becoming so powerful on high-performance cars that they would probably rip the wheel out of your hands in a full-throttle start with a FWD platform. The implication that automakers are moving to RWD because FWD is "extremely hazardous" is ridiculous.
Scary, DAMN scary!!
Why doesn't the Sienna board have an "Options & Aftermarket Accessories" discussion like the Odyssey does?
Sienna Owners: Accessories & Modifications
It must be pretty well hidden since there's only one message in there that I see. Maybe that's because there's another one:
Toyota Sienna Aftermaket parts and upgrades
Guess we should try to consolidate them. Try a keyword search on the left for "Sienna" to see if there are any others you may have missed.
Steve, Host
Thanks,
Bev
Just a thought...any engineers?
Becky
How are you liking the car overall?
BTW, I called Danville Toyota after you mentioned them a few weeks back, and they told me MSRP, so you got yourself a good deal from them. Congrats!
I totally love this van, it rides great, I feel very high up, and it doesn't drive bigger than my old Sienna. I am not at all sorry I chose the Toyota, even with the invoice pricing on the 03 Hondas. I know yours is coming soon, I hope you love it.
Peace, Becky
As I have always said, $0.20 difference between regular and premium amounts to approx $4.00 per fillup. Even if you do fillup everyday, simple brown-bagging your lunch will make up for it :-)
BTW, I am shopping the 04 Sienna v/s 04 Quest too. Waiting for Summer O'2003 for the Quest so that I can take that test-drive !!
Before I bought my Passat, we had a very lengthy discussion here which ultimately settled down to : Treat your 25K+ car engine with an extra $4.00 per fillup. It's worth it.
Does octane rating really affect how my car runs?
a) It depends on your car. Indeed cars are designed for a certain octane rating. If you use lower octane rating than that one that your car allows, your car performance will be affected.
b) The main point to remember is that when your engine knocks or pings during acceleration, your octane is too low. The ideal octane for your car is the lowest grade you can give it without encountering the dreaded knock and ping. Otherwise if you use a higher octane rating you won╢t get any benefit.
c) Gasoline is a mixture of 20 to 30 different fuels, octane being the heaviest fuel in unleaded gas. A gasoline's octane rating is simply the percentage of octane fuel it contains. High octane gas is better for summer driving because it won't evaporate quickly; low octane gas is used in winter because it ignites easily.
Oddy : does not requires premium.
Sienna : requires premium
Quest : does not requires premium
Would you choose/reject a MV based on this ? All I am saying is that there are other features to look in a MV instead of whether premium fuel is required or recommended. Fuel grade use of a vehicle does not look like a deal-maker/breaker to me.
"Select octane rating 87 or higher. For improved vehicle performance, the use of premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher is RECOMMENDED."
Alan
Maintenance and operating costs are harder to plan for. I could plan for the added expense of premium, but I really dont like being forced to use it. An extra fifty or hundred bucks a year saved on gas goes a long way towards paying the insurance for example. So yeah, it may not be a deal killer, but itll go on the negative side of my matrix.
Seems like a good time to plug the True Cost to Own tool, but it'll be a little while before the '04 Sienna info gets in there.
Steve, Host
But what if the manufacturer REQUIRES premium and if a frugal consumer insists of using regular - just because it works ?? Isn't it risking your big-dollar purchase for a miniscule amount ?
And as long as we are talking yearly amounts, if we buy our daily dose of a soda can at $0.85 from the vending machine for 5 days of the work-week:
0.85 * 5 = 4.25 per/week * 52 = $221 per year
I will not make a decision based solely on the fuel grade requirement.
Premium fuel requirement raises the total annual operating cost of the MV/car.
This is an *important* criteria which I use along with *other* criteria in deciding which MV/car I will buy. It is not something which a potential buyer should ignore.
How about oil-changing intervals ? That is always a touchy and surely off topic .. So, let me stop right here
I'm not sure how good an analogy it is, but I've never purchased an ink jet printer - the consumable cost is too high to me, and I don't need color. So the "premium fuel" factor nixed any ink jet purchase I might have entertained, since a cartridge of toner lasts me for years, and doesn't evaporate on the shelf.
Steve, Host
(At ~$7 for a 24 pack, my Diet Coke habit runs me ~$75 a year <g>)
The oil wars take place over in Engine Oil - A slippery subject Part 2, but I'm afraid to show my face in there anymore.
Steve, Host