Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2011 Toyota Sienna

1…89101113

Comments

  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..safety hazard.."

    Yes, the area behind you that you wish to see is down low. Having the wiper arc from above is just idiocy.
  • bmwk75sbmwk75s Member Posts: 21
    I don't consider it to be major issue when the wiper is mounted above. In fact, I prefer it that way. On my Rav4, if there is a build-up of snow, the wiper won't move at all. If it were mounted above, you would have gravity available to help it move and then the excess snow & ice could drop off.
    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.
  • rgccrgcc Member Posts: 11
    Appreciate all your comments.

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You have to host them on a site like Picasa, then you can share the link.

    Problem is the photos sites keep folding, even Edmunds CarSpace did. :(
  • bulbmanbulbman Member Posts: 1
    While driving on I-94 at 65 mph my drivers side rear panel- side glass exploded- I called customer service at toyota and they have yet to call me back about the repairs. This is 3 month old vehicle and It it time for them to step up to the plate and pay for repairs.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Good luck. I had the windshield crack from the bottom edge (under the rubber gasket) to halfway up windshield within 10 miles of picking up a '97 Camry. They refused to accept responsibility. Can't believe I continue to even shop their products...including a 2011 Sienna. Great vehicle...terrible dealers. Nothing has changed since I bought my first one in 1992.
  • caw1caw1 Member Posts: 2
    We own a 2011 Sienna that makes metallic sounding clicking noices (my wife said it sounds like two aluminum beach chairs rubbing together) that seem to be coming from the 2nd or 3rd row seats or possbily from behind the 3rd row (hard to pinpoint). Brought the car back to the dealer and they could not repair and said that Toyota is aware of the problem. They said I have to wait for Toyota to investigate and recommend correction for the problem.

    Has anyone else had this problem??
  • rgccrgcc Member Posts: 11
    Sorry I can't help you on this one. At least just yet.

    Am leaving next Friday for 1300 mile trip. I'll let you know if that sound manifests itself.
  • 808speedcruzr808speedcruzr Member Posts: 5
    Wow! I visited the Honolulu Auto Show last weekend. The new 100% Japan-made Quest and Toyota Sienna were directly across the aisle from eachother, so comparing the two was very easy. I learned that there are glaring differences in quality.

    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.
  • rgccrgcc Member Posts: 11
    Just finished our first long distance (1200 miles) on our new Sienna LTD. Have the following comments:

    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?
  • nobonobo Member Posts: 305
    Sad to hear that Toyota is charging more and giving less in their current generation. Seems like they are following the path GM began years ago.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I won't defend the Sienna, but I will join the Cost Cutting Police and point out where Nissan cut corners:

    * 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.
  • rgccrgcc Member Posts: 11
    Appreciate your assessment of the Quest vs. Sienna. Thought the first 4 items particularly important and reaffirms my decision to buy the Sienna LTD (Fully loaded).

    TKS.

    RGCC
  • samnoesamnoe Member Posts: 731
    It's sad to read all these comments on the new Sienna, especially that the previous generation Sienna was THAT MUCH better. All the critics, magazines, testers, and private owners attest the same.

    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.
  • fawltytowers44fawltytowers44 Member Posts: 58
    Yes, I agree. I owned a 2004 which was a great vehicle and the 2009/10 version was even better. For two years I looked forward to buying the new 2011 version, test drove one for several hundred miles via a car rental agency and was ultimately very discouraged. The rental agency also said that the 2011's are not as good as the earlier version due to some hardware failures not seen in the last version. I will, regrettably ,not be buying one.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    We're pretty happy with ours. In 2005 we easily picked the Ody over the Sienna. In 2011 it went the other way. I actually still prefer the Ody but the wife was sold on the Sienna, particularly the trim/features of the Ltd. Beyond the dash material I really don't have any serious complaints. We have had LE model rentals and they seem to be pretty low-rent all around so if our budget was quite a bit lower I don't think we would have gone with the Sienna.
  • loucapriloucapri Member Posts: 214
    SAME HERE.
    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.
  • loucapriloucapri Member Posts: 214
    I really don't think smaller cargo space = cost cutting or concern cutting.

    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 :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, that's not cost cutting per se, just less utility out of a vehicle targeted at people who want utility.

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm anxious to see the new Sedona, because I honestly think the segment leaders have dropped the ball and left the championship among minivans up for grabs.

    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.
  • loucapriloucapri Member Posts: 214
    I agree with you. Based on current Kia redisgned model, there may be some surprised from Kia to bring a better Sedona. This van needs to step up.
    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited May 2011
    Quest is the unique one, and the materials inside definitely improved compared to the last one I sat in (the first year the last one came out).

    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    A reporter is interested in speaking with consumers who wanted to purchase a Honda or Toyota but decided to purchase something else because inventory was tight.

    If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply to pr@edmunds.com and include your name and email address.
  • kbinsturnerkbinsturner Member Posts: 4
    Count us in the 'sad' bucket. We have an 05 XLE and an 06 LE. (and a FJ Cruiser) I had hoped to replace the XLE with a new Sienna this year when the new model came out. The dealbreaker for me (besides the quality issues and the general 'cheap' feel of the interior) is one I haven't seen others mention. With 4 kids in car seats, the fact that the new Sienna reduced the number of LATCH positions is a nonstarter for me. Who do they think their target audience is, if not families with young kids?

    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.
  • drews578drews578 Member Posts: 2
    Remember that LATCH is only good to 45 pounds
  • drews578drews578 Member Posts: 2
    We are debating AWD vs. FWD. We live in the snow belt of the great lakes. I don't know what to think about not having a spare tire and getting run-flats instead. I always get snow tires on my vehicles. I dont like the idea of not having a spare. Any other issues with FWD vs AWD I should consider?
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    edited May 2011
    We planned to buy the AWD but walked away with a FWD. The run-flats were a deal breaker along with what appears to be (looking at real-world posts on various forums) MUCH lower mpg. The AWD system also is very basic in operation (only shifts power after slipping, limited amount of transfer available, eventually gives up in very slippery situations). We will install a full set of wheels/snows come winter and I have no doubt we will get along ok. I would have installed these on the AWD as well but there was also limited choices in snow tires with the run-flats.

    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.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "...only shifts power after slipping..."

    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.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    You're right it does send some power to the rear when accelerating, but at very low %. It doesn't send the higher amounts until there is slippage. Even if you could mod the system to disable the rear clutch you're still turning an extra driveshaft and worst of all, the AWD has a lower final drive. So even out on the open road it's always turning a higher rpm.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited May 2011
    "...but at a very low %..."

    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.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    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%.

    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.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    If I unintentionally implied that the 50/50 only applied under hard acceleration, my apologies. It is my understanding that any level of low speed acceleration, certainly so from a full stop, will result in approximately a 50/50 torque distribution.

    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.
  • mc2857mc2857 Member Posts: 1
    I bought a new 2011 limited sienna last night and it rained all night and this afternoon openned the trunk and the floor of the trunk is soaked (like you described). I am pretty dissapointed. This van was just delivered to the dealer 2 days ago. I thought problems would be resolved since they have been producing them for over a year now. What dealer did you take it to? I am wondering if I can have this Toyota service department contact your service department. Who did you talk to, if you don't mind me asking? Thanks!
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Actually if you look at Toyota's information on this system (Venza, Matrix, Sienna, RAV4) it applies various levels of amperage to the clutch pack during "acceleration, tight cornering, or when one or more wheels is spinning. If the ECU sends low amperage to the solenoid, a lesser amount of pressure is applied to the disc pack resulting in a smaller amount of torque directed to the rear wheels. Higher amperage sent to the solenoid produces a larger actuating force on the main clutch disks...... The amount of torque to the rear wheels is infinitely variable through the application of current as directed by the 4WD ECU up to a maximum of 45% rear and 55% front torque distribution".

    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.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Okay, consider the design problem the engineering team faces in designing a F/awd system, "this" system.

    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.
  • nmflyfishnmflyfish Member Posts: 1
    Getting close to purchasing a new Sienna SE. Hesitant to "pull the trigger" based on some comments that the build quality is not up to Toyota standards. My 97 T-100 and 05 Prius have been excellent long term vehicles - no rattles, no mechanical issues, etc. I have a quote for under invoice ($500) - thoughts on pulling the trigger? Thanks, Andy
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    For me, it's now close enough to wait and see what the new model year brings....I4 AND F/awd...? and even better deals for "this year's" Sienna.

    Even better yet, I4 adopts DFI, 210HP, f/awd....and...improved FE.

    Toyota has to start adopting DFI fleetwide soon.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I agree...question is how will they distinguish their Lexus models? Right now most add DI to Toyota's plain engines.
  • kbinsturnerkbinsturner Member Posts: 4
    You are correct that most lower anchors only are approved up to 45 lbs, but I'm really talking here about the tether anchors. (I should have been more clear in my original comment). I have 4 kids in convertible seats, all of which use tether anchors to improve installation and reduce head excursion, even when the seat is using seat belt path. Gee, which kid in the back row do I sacrifice since Toyota decided to eliminate one of the tether anchors back there? Sorry. I will keep my 05 awhile longer and see if they add the anchors back or I will get another brand minivan to replace this one.
  • rgccrgcc Member Posts: 11
    This is another case of the driver's functional designs in comparison to the 2004 Sienna. Can someone at Toyota explain why they took out all the front console functionality and replaced it with four cup holders for the driver and front passenger? If I include the door bottle storage, the front seat section has places for 2 bottles and 4 cups? As stated in a previous post, this must have been designed by a man who was brain dead when it came to practical/DRIVER FRIENDLY design.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Quite happy with the front console, particularly the piece that slides back to the 2nd row. Pretty much required given that the 2nd row chairs don't have any cupholders on them.....!! I like the flat surface of the console for phones, etc and the storage down on the floor is nice as well. Wife's purse no longer slides around.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I have a coin holder that takes up one cup position, and often use another for my BlackBerry. I wouldn't mind having those extra slots to be honest.
  • autowriteautowrite Member Posts: 226
    Reading the forums on the new Odyssey & Sienna tells me not to buy any one of these BUT a 2008 to 2010 used edition. Reminds me of the 1977 Chrysler Aspens, etc where a great engine was made worst by changing the wrist-pin design in the motor (I did not buy one).

    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
  • fawltytowers44fawltytowers44 Member Posts: 58
    All verbage asside, both accurate and innacurate, fanciful and mundane; the system works quite well in real life where most of us live and drive with few, if any, complaints of any consequence.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Have you happened to notice that the TC "off" capability is almost always an afterthought, subsequent add-on, driven/requested by consumer experience/voice...?
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    edited June 2011
    I guess it depends on your priorities. We had an '05 Odyssey and IMHO the new one is far better. Uglier...but styling is far from the top when I shop vans/SUVs. I never warmed up to the previous Gen Siennas...the new one is a bit more engaging to both drive and look at. Some nice extras like the dual sunroofs, smartkey, folding mirrors. The deal killer for us was the color combos on the Odyssey...wife hates gray interiors and refused another one. If the Black Ody came with Tan interior...that's what we would be driving. I would take either new model over the previous gen.
  • runnermom1runnermom1 Member Posts: 3
    just confirmed with Toyota that in fact, yes, the XLE does not come with adjusable arm rests. Sadly, this may be a deal breaker.
  • desna78desna78 Member Posts: 21
    only Sienna LTD has this feature(adjustable arm rests) for middle row captain chairs. very strange why this feature is not available in front as well.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Yep it sucks. We have Ltd so the 2nd row has nice adj. armrest...front has nothing. I'm wondering if you couldn't swap out the rears.....on my list to check out.
  • sgsiennasgsienna Member Posts: 2
    I have a 2011 Toyota Sienna XLE and have been experiencing the same issue. Did you have to go to arbitration with Toyota or did the dealership take care of swapping the vehicle? Did you have to go through a lemon law litigation? Any information you can provide would be helpful. Car is going back for the fourth time. Water is accumulating while my car is sitting in the driveway. Had Zero issues with my 2001 Sienna.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles