Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
Yes, the area behind you that you wish to see is down low. Having the wiper arc from above is just idiocy.
I understand your concern, but that is why you also have 2 exterior mirrors and one interior that is also mounted high to look down behind you. If you are going in reverse, you have the camera to also assist.
I have taken pictures to compare both rear window areas on my 2004 and my 2011 Siennas but unfortunately I haven't figured out how to paste them here. If someone can tell me how to get pics in here, I'll let you decide for yourselves which you consider most safe.
Tks.
And keep those "cards and letters coming". At least we started a discussion on this matter.
Problem is the photos sites keep folding, even Edmunds CarSpace did.
Has anyone else had this problem??
Am leaving next Friday for 1300 mile trip. I'll let you know if that sound manifests itself.
The quality of the Quest's interior materials & design felt and looked far superior to the Sienna's. The $43,800 Sienna's leather seat stitching (below the front seat headrests in the rear) were crooked and wavy--very visible to rear seat occupants. Not very good quality control there....The front seats on the Quest were almost LaZBoy-like in comfort compared to the hard, shallow uncomfortable front seats in the Sienna. The front door elbow rests on the Sienna had a thin layer of cushioning on cheapish vinyl, while the Quest's had much more padding and a thicker, plusher feel to it--very Infiniti-ish. The soft pad dash on the Quest contrasted greatly to the Sienna's hard plastic dash pieces, which sounded cheap when tapped with the fingernail.
The Sienna's electronic auto-folding rear seats--although appearing novel--partially crushed a cardboard oil change box I put in the rear bay where the seats fold into. Although the mechanism stopped, it didn't reverse like auto windows do to avoid pinching fingers. What if that was a baby stuck down there? I really like the fact that the Quest's permanent storage coves in back don't require you to move stuff out of the way to fold the seats down. Even the tall roof sills allowed for easier ingress/egress than both the Sienna and Odyssey. Lastly, the one-touch open/close sliding doors were fantastic!!!! The Sienna requires you tug and pull the handle for the door to auto-slide.
I was not a fan of previous-generation US-made Quests. But now with this new generation Quest--the first to be manufactured in Japan (Fukuoka)--the quality difference is so obvious. The design & materials felt and looked better than even Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi--especially the lower-end models.
Other car show observations: Even the Hyundai Sonata's interior was much nicer in design and quality than the C & E-Class Benz and BMW 3 series. The Canadian-made VW Routan exuded Chrysler Caravan cheap everywhere. The hard plastic non-variable-adjustable rear armrests were hard and pathetic. There were even stickers on the driver's door and in the engine bay prominently displaying 'Chrysler Group'. Very cheap and not very comfortable inside too...and overpriced. The Honda Odyssey appeared to be better in quality than the Sienna, but fell short in design, in my own perspective.
The Advanced Tech Pkg. (laser guided cruise control) system is not as responsive as the version I had on my 2004 Sienna XLE LTD. On one occasion, a car pulled into my lane and the car did not respond at all. Had I not braked, I would have rear ended him. The old system would have beeped loudly and braked immediately. I wonder if the old wave-guide located on the right bumper was a more efficient laser install rather than the current one installed on the front grill. It occurred to me that perhaps the lucite screen covering the laser unit in the grill may have been dirty from road grime and the receptivity was impaired. Since this option is not available to dealers in the NE and the mid=Atlantic states, I wonder if dealers in these locations are familiar with the system. Will try and get the system re-calibrated but I'm not optimistic about a solution. May have to go to a Lexus dealer for help.
The middle captain's seats were a boon to our grandchildren w/the extended foot rests (like airplane recliners). Also, the seat slides allow for moving these seats up against the 3rd row for max space. Good design here.
Driver's functionality: barely satisfactory. The center console box is completely dysfunctional on a trip in comparison to the old 2004 Sienna. One big box that holds everything (must have been designed by a man 'cause a woman would have been more practical here): just can't dig down deep enough when driving on an interstate. Center panel under the radio has two cup holders: nothing else. Old system had 4 different slots to hold cups, and other little goodies that were easily accessible when driving. Also the old center console had a flip up panel w/pen and pad holder that allowed for quick note taking. And under that panel was another small stowage area. The under that was a place for head phone storage. The small stowage in the doors in the old Sienna were also quite handy. Nothing on the new one.
Bottom line: the design in the driver's compartment is regressing in comparison to the old 2004. Whereas Mercedes and other European mfgrs. are adapting their designs to US needs for functionality and function over form, the new Sienna is going in the opposite direction.
The laser cruise control speed display is hard to read w/sunglasses. They should improve the digital readout speed display with brighter numbers.
This is perhaps the most expensive minivan sold today (mine has every option available), and I would have expected better out of Toyota.
Would appreciate comments re the ATP performance (and any other areas). Do others have the same problem?
* you give up about 40 cubic feet of total cargo space
* floor isn't flat, you have gaps and holes
* 3rd row seats are child-sized
* Cargo floor falls about 10" short of fitting a sheet of plywood
* peach fuzz headliner is awful cheap
* sun visors also cheap
* arm rests are vinyl, not leather
* storage cubbies are seriously lacking
* none of the cup holders can fit mug handles
The seats are plush, and I like the pin-striping. You can fold all the seats forward easily and don't have to store them. The arm rest angles adjust like 2006 and prior Siennas did.
Mixed bag, for sure.
TKS.
RGCC
Toyota still makes some terrific vehicles, but they seem to go downhill/backwards with every refresh or new release. IMO the Sienna and Corolla are the strongest examples. The new Sienna do have some nice standard features over the previous generation, like Bluetooth and backup camera, but they eliminated so many useful ideas from last generation for no apparent reason, like all the stowage areas and bins, and many more.
What's going on? Go figure.
Owned a 04 LE AWD, and planned to get an 2011 XLE AWD. Until the day I supposed to sign the paper, I back out. I just didn't have the same excitment. Although the 04 didn't have leather, sunroof but still feel more useful/nicer then the 2011 XLE.
We ended up getting an used 07 Highlander knowing it probably hold value better in a year or 2. By then we will get back to the minivan market hoping there are some improvement on the Sienna.
The reason Quest has less cargo space is the way the van is designed. The fold flat 2nd row might work good with specific buyers. Same for the 3rd row, small family might like the flat cargo over the seating space if they like to go to homedepot all the time.
I checked out the van in person, same as the Odyssey, some good and bad but one thing for sure, the 1st row is VERY NICE
The cargo isn't totally flat and there are gaps and holes when the seats are folded. I recommend a tarp, cardboard, or something to line the floor that will seal up those holes.
I liked the front seats also, the piping on the seats sure looks upscale.
Read Ody reviews, by the way, it's no longer the driver's minivan it once was. And you get a 5 speed unless you spend over $40k, too. CR dropped its score in their review (as they did for the Sienna).
If I were buying today, to be honest, I may go CPO on a 2010 Sienna.
I too can't believe so many misses from Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Their new vans do have some good thing to go for but it seems like the last gen van (except Quest) has better overall function/quality.
It's odd, though, in that it's more SUV-like with the seating.
Look at a Sedona and the new Ody side-by-side. Check out how tiny the rear-most side windows are. The Sedona's glass positively drwarfs the Ody's. So the uptick in the window is style over substance. They made it look like they tried to make the window bigger, but the window is actually much smaller than it could be.
If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply to pr@edmunds.com and include your name and email address.
We'll hold out another year or two at least, and consider other brands at that time. We have had so many other Toyota products (two 4 Runners, a Sequoia) but the past 2 years has been disillusioning for me.
The only other downside was the FWD Ltd has a power 3rd row which I'm not a fan...the AWD has the normal manual folding 3rd row.
No, the new Venza, Sienna, and RX350 all have a new F/awd system that automatically apportions a measure of engine torque to the rear at the times otherwise most likely to result in front wheelslip/spin. Even any minor level of acceleration from a low speed, or from a stop, will result in engine torque being apportioned across all 4 tire treads. Bias always remains toward the front.
But you are correct on the second part, ANY wheelslip/spin at all and the F/awd system goes TU in favor of TC. Hopefully there is a TC disable switch.
In my opinion this would be an excellent F/awd system with a few end-user modifications. There is absolutely no reason for the re-apportioning of engine torque to the rear unless the roadbed is suspected, or KNOWN to be poorly tractive. So I would use a switch to entirely disable the rear coupling clutch, eliminate ALL driveline windup and/or tire scrubbing, except when I have an expectation of need.
But my next step would be to have a switch that locks the rear coupling clutch, locking center diff'l "effect", when driving on a consistently low traction roadbed. Note that this can result in over-stressing the driveline components and/or excessive tire wear if left active on a tractive surface.
I don't consider 50% as being very low, which is the MAXIMUM amount routed during hard acceleration. It even partially locks, ~30%, the center "diff'l" while turning. Accelerate while turning tightly and that amount might actually grow to 50%.
Having a serious level of engine drive torque on the front wheels in the above circumstance can turn hazardous quickly.
"..it doesn't send the higher amounts until there is slippage.."
Even with a TRUE 4WD system it will generally do no good to "lock" the center diff'l AFTER wheelspin/slip has begun. The only reasonable reaction is to first slow the vehicle to regain traction, lock the diff'l, then proceed.
No, NOT!!
Due to the front torque bias it will almost always be the front wheels that initially develop slippage. That brings the vehicle to the precipice of danger to life and limb. Allocate some of the front wheels/tires traction coefficient to turning and the suddenness with which you reach that precipice will amaze you.
So, develop wheelspin on one of these new F/awd system, or ANY F/awd system for that matter, and the INSTANT result will be entry into the TC/TDC, Traction/Directional Control.
Your insurance rate would undoubtedly go into orbit where the factory to ignore the hazards of FWD or F/awd in these instances.
"..worst of all..."
No, part and parcel.
The extra weight and frictional losses (PTO) of a F/awd system is what requires the lower final gear ratio. A given engine MUST produce a tad more HP due to the above. So the factory optimal gear ratio computation comes out in favor of a slightly higher engine torque level at a given or average road speed. Chicken AND egg.
I suppose that's true if driving hard on dry....although Toyota's documentation seems to be a bit vague whether it's actually 45% or 50%. Not that it really matters as hard acceleration/cornering isn't high on the old family hauler must-have list. My point was more directed at slippery conditions which is where we are interested in the awd....you won't be hammering the go-pedal so there will be lower amounts of power transfer until slippage. Unless you just get your jollys from hot-lapping a monster-van with mediocre handling at best.
Yes the frictional losses and weight require more oomph from somewhere and in this case it gets it from lower gear ratio. So even if you could turn off 90% of the frictional losses it's still far less efficient. Negative in my book regardless.
When it's all said and done the cons far outweighed the pros. Mediocre system, substantial economical/efficiency losses, run-flat nonsense....pass.
Since actual road conditions cannot be determined in advance the system is designed to always assume the worse.
Stupid, yes, but when you start out with a base FWD the choices become somewhat limited.
I had read the 50% figure somewhere online as well but according the the docs I have here it says 45%. So it shouldn't be pulling much power at normal acceleration.
Bottom line, like an actual FWD, once a wheel slips, FWD always a front wheel, for F/awd most likely a front wheel initially, ALL is lost.
The F/awd system must now INSTANTLY switch into "RECOVERY" mode. With any level of front wheelspin/slip, even the slightest level, the threat of loss of directional control is just to great to ignore.
So the F/awd system's next action will mean nil, TC (VDIM) is now the BOSS.
So, the engineering decision is, MUST be, at the instant the vehicle begins initially moving from a full stop, use the MAXIMUM front to rear coupling coefficient (45%, I'm okay with that). Now, as the vehicle picks up speed the coupling level can, by design, decline precipitously.
MUST decline precipitously, actually. Rising speed always means sufficient roadbed traction for the level of acceleration present. Forward momentum also becomes an important part of the traction equation.
NOT reducing the coupling level cognizant with rising roadspeed would result in premature failure of driveline components due to driveline windup and/or tire scrubbing.
So, absent your "scan-guages" ability to plot a real-time curve of roadspeed vs current flow, dutycycle, you will not be able to "see" how the F/awd system is working.
Even better yet, I4 adopts DFI, 210HP, f/awd....and...improved FE.
Toyota has to start adopting DFI fleetwide soon.
2002 Honda Odyssey EX (currently has 278,000 kms, bought new)
1992 Ford Taurus L 4 door 300 cu in long-stroke
1982 Ford E150 Customized by Triple-E travel Van 351 cu ins V8
1979 Mercury Zephyr 6 cylinder 4-door sedan
1972 Datsun 510 4-door automatic
1967 Plymount Valiant 2-door sedan large-v6
1965 Morris 1100
1963 Austin 850 mini