Odyssey Vs. Sienna

My wife & I currently have 2 Chevy Venture Vans. With all the problems we have had with both, we will not buy another GM product.

I'd like to know what is the better van: Honda or Toyota; and if there is is current or previous model year to buy from - and a model year to stay away from.

Thanks

The Sienna has a better interior and it is quieter on highways. The Oddy is more fun to drive. You can't go wrong with either one.

Of course, I would stay away from the first year ('04 for Sienna). That can be said of any maker including Toyota and Honda. I don't know when the new Oddy came out.

The next redesign Sienna will be 2010.

Toyota by a longshot. If you can wait till 2012 there will be a hybrid version.

sorry but the hybrid will be for the Sienna also the Oddy will be able to have diesel engine in 2010

I own a 2000 Odyssey. It's by far the best car I've ever owned, in terms of reliability and longevity. However, it has several negative characteristics that have become show stoppers for me in choosing my next vehicle: (1) the power assist for the steering is too weak, and you really have to tug on the wheel to turn it; (2) the interior of the cabin is extremely noisy at highway speeds, with a combination of road noise and wind noise; and (3) the ride if harsh and bumpy. The reason I'm noting this here is that I understand the current Odyssey suffers from the same noise problem and harsh ride problem, at least, and that the Sienna does not. In fact I test drove a 2010 Sienna and found the steering nice and easy, even with the car motionless, and it's real quiet inside at highway speeds, with a pillow-soft ride. I'm waiting for the 2011 redesign before buying, because I understand owners of the 2010 model hate the navigation system, another show stopper for me. I hope Toyota doesn't mess up the good characteristics of the 2010 model in the 2011 redesign....

If you're going with "top of the line", I'd go with the Sienna Limited AWD with NAV and RES. It looks better than the Odyssey Touring, has AWD, woodgrain trimmed interior and is available with power folding rear seats.

If you're going with the mid level trim, I'd go with the Odyssey. Both sliders are power where only the passenger side is power with the Sienna. Also, the trim level is not evedent by looking at the van. The Sienna labels the rear bumper with "LE" letting everyone know you couldnt afford the XLE or Limited! Only the Touring Odyssey is labeled. All other models just say "odyssey". If you're vain like me, that's important!

If you're going with the base model, I'd also go with the Odyssey. In the base model Sienna, there are no tinted windows and the door handles are black as opposed to body colored, making it look cheap. Also, the same label problem exists with the "CE" being printed on the bumper.

Both vans handle well, get similar gas mileage and have only minor differences in cargo area and engine power.

Sienna is priced better than Odyssey at all trim levels and retains about the same resale value so if price is your number one concern, I'd go with the Sienna

Hope that helps

We just bought a 2010 Sienna, and it was between it and the Odyssey. My husband is very tall, and the headroom is better in the Sienna. It is also smoother and quieter. Unfortunately, the way cars are so heavily packaged now, we can't buy a premium model because the moon roof cuts into the headroom in any car. We are planning on doing aftermarket leather, which can be better than factory anyway. Good luck!

The Sienne is dipped fully to prevent corosion which may not sound like much, but think about it. The resale value can only be higher this way. The feel of the drive and suspension can be felt immediatly in the Sienne. There are also no blind spots in the Sienne.

Second, the Ody is noisy, and the Sienne is not.

http://CorollaPensacola.com

http://corollapensacola.com/2009/11/30/2004-t...

Benny wrote:

The Sienne is dipped fully to prevent corosion which may not sound like much, but think about it. The resale value can only be higher this way. The feel of the drive and suspension can be felt immediatly in the Sienne. There are also no blind spots in the Sienne.
Second, the Ody is noisy, and the Sienne is not.
http://CorollaPensacola.com

All cars are treated for corrosion today. Not an issue.

Well, the new Sienna made its "world debut," but with key details left out. In particular, nothing was said about the navigation system -- whether it will be modernized also, from the versions in Toyota's current lineup. I asked the Toyota salesman I'm working with to check on this. He was able to confirm that it will have a live traffic function, but also assumes that it will be the same DVD-based system in the current Venza and a few other Toyota cars, rather than a more modern hard drive-based system like the one in Ford's world-leading system.

This is a major let-down for me, and it could prove to be a show stopper. Comments on the Internet from current owners indicate that they hate the DVD-based system, and Toyota missed an opportunity to compete effectively with Ford and Nissan (the new Murano also has a modern disk-based system).

I don't see how Toyota can claim that the new Sienna is modernized when they have defaulted to a past-generation navigation system instead of bringing it up to the state of the art. I feel badly let down by Toyota. Everything else in the new Sienna could be great, but without a modern navigation system, I don't think I'll buy one. The Ford system has not only the fast response and ease of data base updating of a hard drive-based system and live Sirius traffic, but also the MSN-Direct information service, which provides gas prices, movie listings, sports news, and live weather reports. Toyota has really missed the boat. They claim they talked to many consumers about what they'd like to see in the new Sienna, but they didn't focus on this critical factor.

Charles wrote:

Well, the new Sienna made its "world debut," but with key details left out. In particular, nothing was said about the navigation system -- whether it will be modernized also, from the versions in Toyota's current lineup. I asked the Toyota salesman I'm working with to check on this. He was able to confirm that it will have a live traffic function, but also assumes that it will be the same DVD-based system in the current Venza and a few other Toyota cars, rather than a more modern hard drive-based system like the one in Ford's world-leading system.
This is a major let-down for me, and it could prove to be a show stopper. Comments on the Internet from current owners indicate that they hate the DVD-based system, and Toyota missed an opportunity to compete effectively with Ford and Nissan (the new Murano also has a modern disk-based system).
I don't see how Toyota can claim that the new Sienna is modernized when they have defaulted to a past-generation navigation system instead of bringing it up to the state of the art. I feel badly let down by Toyota. Everything else in the new Sienna could be great, but without a modern navigation system, I don't think I'll buy one. The Ford system has not only the fast response and ease of data base updating of a hard drive-based system and live Sirius traffic, but also the MSN-Direct information service, which provides gas prices, movie listings, sports news, and live weather reports. Toyota has really missed the boat. They claim they talked to many consumers about what they'd like to see in the new Sienna, but they didn't focus on this critical factor.

Might not be as critical as you think. Most people realize that factory nav systems aren't worth the limitations on it. Just go buy a Garmin or something for 200 bucks and skip the factory nonsense.
In my opinion, real time traffic with a monthly fee, along with things like push button starters is nothing more than technology for technology's sake.

liner wrote:

<quoted text>
Might not be as critical as you think. Most people realize that factory nav systems aren't worth the limitations on it. Just go buy a Garmin or something for 200 bucks and skip the factory nonsense.
In my opinion, real time traffic with a monthly fee, along with things like push button starters is nothing more than technology for technology's sake.

Please give me some credit for knowing what I'm doing. For a couple of years I've been using an expensive Magellan GPS in my Odyssey, and it's a piece of junk. There's nothing like a GPS with real time traffic fully integrated with the rest of the car. I have never found real time traffic to be "nothing more than technology for technology's sake." It has saved me countless hours an enormous aggravation, even with this awful Magellan system. Maybe you never drive outside some briar patch but in major metropolitan areas real time traffic is essential.
And regarding people not realizing the limitations on factory nav systems, I, and many others, are acutely aware of them. That's why I'm choking on Toyota reusing the ancient DVD-based nav system that has gotten so many bad comments, and why owners of the Ford vehicles that have their hard drive-based, advanced information system-supported Nav/Info system love it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but in my own opinion you are absolutely dead wrong.

Charles wrote:

<quoted text>
Please give me some credit for knowing what I'm doing. For a couple of years I've been using an expensive Magellan GPS in my Odyssey, and it's a piece of junk. There's nothing like a GPS with real time traffic fully integrated with the rest of the car. I have never found real time traffic to be "nothing more than technology for technology's sake." It has saved me countless hours an enormous aggravation, even with this awful Magellan system. Maybe you never drive outside some briar patch but in major metropolitan areas real time traffic is essential.
And regarding people not realizing the limitations on factory nav systems, I, and many others, are acutely aware of them. That's why I'm choking on Toyota reusing the ancient DVD-based nav system that has gotten so many bad comments, and why owners of the Ford vehicles that have their hard drive-based, advanced information system-supported Nav/Info system love it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but in my own opinion you are absolutely dead wrong.

Well maybe, but after reading posts on these boards for years, I've gotten pretty good at spotting shills for various products. Used to have some clown on here shilling for critical mass speakers, under numerous screen names. He finally got laughed off here(or ignored). Sorry, but, "and why owners of the Ford vehicles that have their hard drive-based, advanced information system-supported Nav/Info system love it.", smells like a cut & paste operation to me. Just my opinion, of course.

liner wrote:

<quoted text>
Well maybe, but after reading posts on these boards for years, I've gotten pretty good at spotting shills for various products. Used to have some clown on here shilling for critical mass speakers, under numerous screen names. He finally got laughed off here(or ignored). Sorry, but, "and why owners of the Ford vehicles that have their hard drive-based, advanced information system-supported Nav/Info system love it.", smells like a cut & paste operation to me. Just my opinion, of course.

Oh I see. I guess I'm a trusting soul, didn't occur to me that there may be shills around. I HAVE seen, however, numerous very specific, verifiable criticisms of most of the non-Ford built-in Nav systems, from frustrated, angry owners. For example, small LCD screen, dull, low quality graphics, non-intuitive menus/user interface, expensive to buy data base update disks (~$200), automatic disablement of the function whereby the user selects a new destination while the car is in motion, such that even the passenger, who is't driving and thus wouldn't be a safety problem, can't do it, long response delay to commands as the GPS attempts to retrieve data from te slow DVD drive, obviously terrible, illogical routes being proposed, poor voice recognition performance, etc etc etc.

At the same time, I have seen NO criticisms of Ford's system after about two years or so. And I've seen many individual comments that were at once highly critical of some other aspects of Ford vehicles but highly complimentary about their Nav/information components. I would think a shill wouldn't criticize anything, but I might be wrong of course.

What I do object to and deeply resent is the manufacturer bundling the GPS with other expensive options, particularly the power moon roof. Toyota does this, but Nissan doesn't. I must have a GPS but absolutely don't need a power moon roof, so I'm stuck.

Charles wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I see. I guess I'm a trusting soul, didn't occur to me that there may be shills around. I HAVE seen, however, numerous very specific, verifiable criticisms of most of the non-Ford built-in Nav systems, from frustrated, angry owners. For example, small LCD screen, dull, low quality graphics, non-intuitive menus/user interface, expensive to buy data base update disks (~$200), automatic disablement of the function whereby the user selects a new destination while the car is in motion, such that even the passenger, who is't driving and thus wouldn't be a safety problem, can't do it, long response delay to commands as the GPS attempts to retrieve data from te slow DVD drive, obviously terrible, illogical routes being proposed, poor voice recognition performance, etc etc etc.
At the same time, I have seen NO criticisms of Ford's system after about two years or so. And I've seen many individual comments that were at once highly critical of some other aspects of Ford vehicles but highly complimentary about their Nav/information components. I would think a shill wouldn't criticize anything, but I might be wrong of course.
What I do object to and deeply resent is the manufacturer bundling the GPS with other expensive options, particularly the power moon roof. Toyota does this, but Nissan doesn't. I must have a GPS but absolutely don't need a power moon roof, so I'm stuck.

You make some good points and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt......but the few people I personally know with a factory nav unit(don't know anyone with a late model Ford)don't seem to have any beef with it. But it certainly could be because they haven't experienced anything better.