As the recent worldwide recall fiascos of Toyota and Honda erode their credibility, the secondhand prices of the two Japanese carmakers’ autos are falling sharply in Korea, according to the market watchers yesterday.
SK Encar, a major used-car dealer in Korea, said the secondhand prices of Toyotas and Hondas have dropped by 2 million won ($1,735) to 5 million won over the past month.
The secondhand price of the 2009 Lexus ES 350 fell from 53 million won in January to 50 million won as of late last week, the dealer said. The prices for the 2008 and 2007 models of the same car declined from 47 million won to 44 million won and from 43 million won to 38 million won, respectively.
The 2009 Lexus GS 350, a sports sedan, slid from 57.5 million won to 54 million won, while the 2009 Lexus RX 350 SUV retreated from 54 million won to 50.5 million won.
As for Honda, its SUV model CR-V 4WD LX, produced last year, went down from 29.5 million won to 27.5 million won. Honda’s 2009 Accord 3.5 sedan moved down from 34.5 million won to 31.5 million won.
Camry and Prius, the other Toyota cars subject to a worldwide recall, were still new to Korean markets and were not much available at the local used car markets, the dealer said.
By Kim Tae-jin [joe@joongang.co.kr]
source
Showing posts with label Honda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Honda. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, August 28, 2009
Toyota and Honda Lead Japan Carmakers’ Output Cuts Amid Recession
By Kiyori Ueno and Makiko Kitamura
Toyota Motor Corp., Japan’s biggest automaker, and Honda Motor Co., the second-largest, led a drop in production among the nation’s carmakers last month as rising unemployment sapped North American sales.
Toyota’s production fell for a 12th straight month, declining 20 percent from a year earlier to 576,074 vehicles, the company said in a statement today. The number excludes Toyota’s affiliates Daihatsu Motor Co. and Hino Motors Ltd. Honda’s output fell 24 percent to 258,972, while Nissan Motor Co. built 265,623 vehicles, down 16 percent.
The production cut at Toyota was its smallest in nine months as government incentives spurred demand in the U.S., Japan and Europe, according to Bloomberg data. The company’s Corolla and Camry models were among the top five purchased under the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program, which ended Aug. 24 and generated almost 700,000 sales, according to the Transportation Department.
source
Toyota Motor Corp., Japan’s biggest automaker, and Honda Motor Co., the second-largest, led a drop in production among the nation’s carmakers last month as rising unemployment sapped North American sales.
Toyota’s production fell for a 12th straight month, declining 20 percent from a year earlier to 576,074 vehicles, the company said in a statement today. The number excludes Toyota’s affiliates Daihatsu Motor Co. and Hino Motors Ltd. Honda’s output fell 24 percent to 258,972, while Nissan Motor Co. built 265,623 vehicles, down 16 percent.
The production cut at Toyota was its smallest in nine months as government incentives spurred demand in the U.S., Japan and Europe, according to Bloomberg data. The company’s Corolla and Camry models were among the top five purchased under the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program, which ended Aug. 24 and generated almost 700,000 sales, according to the Transportation Department.
source
Monday, June 23, 2008
Top10 Most Fuel Efficient Cars of 2008
The Environmental Protection Agency's new fuel economy sticker can be found on all new vehicles for sale, giving customers a quick way to compare models before making a purchase. The following photos show the most fuel-efficient 2008 model year vehicles, as determined by the EPA.
1. The Toyota Prius Hybrid
2. The Honda Civic Hybrid
3. The Nissan Altima Hybrid
4. The Ford Escape Hybrid
5. The Mazda Tribute Hybrid
6. The Mercury Mariner Hybrid
7. The Toyota Camry Hybrid
8. The Toyota Yaris
9. The Toyota Corolla
10.The Honda Fit
source
1. The Toyota Prius Hybrid
2. The Honda Civic Hybrid
3. The Nissan Altima Hybrid
4. The Ford Escape Hybrid
5. The Mazda Tribute Hybrid
6. The Mercury Mariner Hybrid
7. The Toyota Camry Hybrid
8. The Toyota Yaris
9. The Toyota Corolla
10.The Honda Fit
source
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Toyota Prius vs Honda Fit Review
Performance
Both the Honda Fit and the Toyota Prius are likely to feel slightly slow because of their high horsepower-to-weight ratio.
Handling
The Honda Fit and the Toyota Prius have approximately similar tires. With their comparable turning radiuses, the Prius and the Fit definitely handle about the same into and out of tight spots.
Drivetrain
The Toyota Prius packs quite a wallop compared to the Honda Fit when it comes to torque, which is roughly equivalent to acceleration. The Honda could learn a lesson or two from the Prius as far as torque.
Utility
The Honda Fit and the Toyota Prius can accommodate the same number of passengers.
ComfortTaller drivers will substantially enjoy the extra head room in the Honda Fit's front cabin compared to the Toyota Prius. The ampler interior dimensions of the Prius make it considerably roomier for your passengers than the Fit.
Dimensions
Both the Honda Fit and the Toyota Prius are likely to feel somewhat slow because of their high horsepower-to-weight ratio. The Honda Fit's tank is roughly the same size as the Toyota Prius's, though the Toyota Prius's is a tad more capacious. The Honda Fit and the Toyota Prius compete for the same parking spaces. The Toyota Prius's longer wheelbase will likely result in a smoother, more stable ride; however, the Honda may give a sprier feel in daily traffic.
Cost
The destination charge is a standard charge for transporting the vehicle from its point of origin to the dealer. It costs about the same to get the Honda Fit to the dealership as the Prius. As far as MSRP, the Fit costs tremendously less than the Toyota. As far as out-the-door cost, the Honda costs tremendously less than the Toyota Prius. The Honda will cost you a bundle in gasoline every year compared to the Toyota Prius.
Overview
The Toyota and the Honda Fit have the same basic warranty.
from here
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Toyota Yaris vs Honda Fit vs Nissan Versa
Economy Car Comparison
Fuel costs continue to rise, and you've been digging for coins under the couch
to fill the tank. Time for a reality check: subcompacts are no longer just for
the credit-card challenged.
By Allyson Harwood, Photography by John Kiewicz
Back in the halcyon days of $2.50-a-gallon gas, subcompacts were perceived mostly as transportation for college students. If there wasn't a Delta Tau chi sticker on the back window, you could expect to see a rental-car frame around the license plate. Either way, premium unleaded isn't getting cheaper, and you have to stop raiding the kids' piggybank to fill up your prized sport/utility. No wonder subcompact gas-sippers are becoming more appealing-and more sophisticated. Variable valve timing, side-curtain airbags, and six-speed transmissions are now standard equipment in some of these cars-and most of them now cost less than $13,500. Add to that three hot new entries from Honda, Nissan, and Toyota, and the niche that was once a punch line is now all grown up.
The Honda Fit, known as the jazz around the world, is a five-door that slots into the American lineup below the Civic. It's the smallest offering from Japan's big Three, but, as is Honda's way, contains concentrated doses of ingenuity and Versatility. The Nissan Versa is a more powerful version of the Tiida hatchback. It has the most European styling of the trio, along with the longest wheelbase and heaviest curb weight. Like the others, the Toyota Yaris has already been on sale in Europe and Japan. It's offered here as a three-door hatch or a four-door sedan, but for a fair interior comparison, we put the sedan up against two hatchbacks. Our testers were the loaded models, equipped with optional transmissions and all available safety items, including ABS and front, front side, and side curtain airbags.
The styling of all three fits their differing personalities. Despite the limited success of the tall-wagon-meets-micro-hatch in America, the Fit's design works and is instantly likeable. It's clear Honda's aiming at a younger market, and this car's lines and attitude are edgy enough to steal sales from Scion. The Versa, which one staffer describes as "a Quest that shrank in the dryer," takes longer to get used to. Most of the lines are pleasant enough, but the rear side windows that slant forward at the bottom, countered by the back-sloping rear hatch, creates an odd triangular c-pillar (a combination that won't be in the sedan, available in early 2007). The attractive if nondescript four-door Yaris takes on a familiar shape: Meet the corolla jr. The Yaris doesn't need to appeal to the youth market-that's what Scion's for. This one will bring more conservative subcompact buyers to dealerships.While none is lightning fast, all do an admirable job of getting up to speed. The Yaris and Fit have 1.5-liter fours with variable valve timing, producing 106 and109 horsepower, respectively. The Toyota uses a four-speed automatic, and our Fit Sport came equipped with a five-speed automatic with steering-wheel-mount EZ paddle shifters. The Versa, the heaviest of the three, is powered by a 122-horse,1.8-liter four, controlled by a CVT for improved fuel economy and performance. The Nissan has the second best weight-to power ratio, but its gearing advantage over the four-speed Toyota made it the best performer at the track, reaching 60 mph in9.7 seconds, over two seconds faster than the Fit (11.9) and 0.7 second faster than the Yaris. It also clinched the quarter mile, reaching that distance in 17.4 seconds at78.6 mph. The middle-of-the-road Yaris came in second-best in acceleration, braking, and handling. The Fit, however, is the agile go-kart-like handler of this test: it ran the slalom at 64.1 mph, a speed 2.1mph higher than the Yaris's and 3.5 better than the Versa's.
The Yaris has the most comfortable freeway ride. Its soft suspension absorbs road irregularities and potholes better than those of the other two-though its numb steering does a poor job of communicating road feel to the driver. That's fine for stop-and-go traffic, but a real letdown anywhere else. The Versa is sportier than the Yaris and slightly quicker getting up to speed, and with much more responsive steering, it's a nicer drive on freeways and in canyons. The CVT doesn't let you do much to control what's going on-there's an "O/D Off" button, and low for downhill engine braking-and its whirring sound without an audible gearshift payoff isn't for everyone, but it allows a decent compromise between fuel economy and enthusiastic driving. The Fit is easily the runaway sporty car of the three. Its steering is quick and smooth, and the suspension is firm, but not jarring. You can push the Honda in corners, and it stays well planted. The ride isn't as comfortable as the others on the highway but is certainly acceptable. While the Fit is the slowest in a straight line, its paddles let you control the shifts to get the most out of the power it does have.
Anyone who endures the grind of the daily commute has certain needs: interior space, flexible layout, a good stereo, and cupholders. As expected from these three automakers, Fit and finish are excellent, even in the preproduction Versa. Each contains a unique definition of "attractive" seat cloth, and there are budget-minded hard-touch plastics, but the interiors all have style. The Fit's is the sportiest, with brushed-metal-like accents, backlit blue gauges and radio display screen, and a leatherette-wrapped steering wheel. The Versa has the most interior space overall and offers the most shoulder room, but the Fit has the most supportive seats, the most headroom, and, though the narrowest, provides the most hip room. The Fit also has by far the most transformable cabin. Its interior passenger volume is greater than the 88.0 cubic-feet in the Accord coupe and is almost as much as the Accord sedan's The second row's seat bottoms can flip back, making room to accommodate something tall behind the driver; if you need to carry larger items, fold the seats forward (without removing the headrests) to reveal a near-flat load floor. if that's still not enough space, the front passenger seat can recline to make room for items up to 7.8 feet long. And, if you need a place to catch some shut-eye, the front seats can ratchet back flush with the rears, creating a decent place to rest.
Each car is a fine commuter-there's more room than you'd think, with plenty of standard items and cool options, and they're great values. it comes down to what you want. The Yaris gets the best fuel economy (34 city/39 highway), has the best weight to-power ratio, and has the softest, most comfortable freeway ride. but it's the least engaging drive and the cabin doesn't have enough flexibility-so it earns third place.
Anyone who endures the grind of the daily commute has certain needs: interior space, flexible layout, a good stereo, and cupholders. As expected from these three automakers, Fit and finish are excellent, even in the preproduction Versa. Each contains a unique definition of "attractive" seat cloth, and there are budget-minded hard-touch plastics, but the interiors all have style. The Fit's is the sportiest, with brushed-metal-like accents, backlit blue gauges and radio display screen, and a leatherette-wrapped steering wheel. The Versa has the most interior space overall and offers the most shoulder room, but the Fit has the most supportive seats, the most headroom, and, though the narrowest, provides the most hip room. The Fit also has by far the most transformable cabin. Its interior passenger volume is greater than the 88.0 cubic-feet in the Accord coupe and is almost as much as the Accord sedan's The second row's seat bottoms can flip back, making room to accommodate something tall behind the driver; if you need to carry larger items, fold the seats forward (without removing the headrests) to reveal a near-flat load floor. if that's still not enough space, the front passenger seat can recline to make room for items up to 7.8 feet long. And, if you need a place to catch some shut-eye, the front seats can ratchet back flush with the rears, creating a decent place to rest.
Each car is a fine commuter-there's more room than you'd think, with plenty of standard items and cool options, and they're great values. it comes down to what you want. The Yaris gets the best fuel economy (34 city/39 highway), has the best weight to-power ratio, and has the softest, most comfortable freeway ride. but it's the least engaging drive and the cabin doesn't have enough flexibility-so it earns third place.
At a close second, the Versa has the lowest estimated EPA fuel economy but second-best observed mileage on our drive and the most space inside, and is the fastest through the quarter mile. It's a good compromise between comfort and sportiness and impresses with its levels of polish and sophistication. but, at an estimated $17,000 (as tested), it's too pricey: The interior's not as Versatile as it should be, the fuel economy isn't good enough to justify the extra cost, and being faster to 60 is nice, but not worth the added money.
The winner: the Honda Fit Sport. It combines excellent steering and handling with a fantastic interior package and paddle shifters that make it feel like it has more juice than it really does. Of the three, it's the one you'll want to drive and the most capable of performing the cargo- and people-toting duties. The Fit is the right choice for the enthusiast who wants a car that handles twisties as well as it does chores, saves gas, and eases your budget.
FIRST PLACE Honda Fit SportCrisp, responsive steering, excellent handling, plus an unbeatable interior package. This one's the driver's car, and it can tackle day-to-day hauling duty, too.
SECOND PLACE Nissan Versa SLUnusual Euro styling plus high admission price were too much to earn it the gold, but it's fun to drive-and quick.
THIRD PLACE Toyota YarisToyota quality is present here. But the behind-the-wheel experience is forgettable. Enthusiasts need a car they like to drive, even if it's only to and from the office.
The winner: the Honda Fit Sport. It combines excellent steering and handling with a fantastic interior package and paddle shifters that make it feel like it has more juice than it really does. Of the three, it's the one you'll want to drive and the most capable of performing the cargo- and people-toting duties. The Fit is the right choice for the enthusiast who wants a car that handles twisties as well as it does chores, saves gas, and eases your budget.
FIRST PLACE Honda Fit SportCrisp, responsive steering, excellent handling, plus an unbeatable interior package. This one's the driver's car, and it can tackle day-to-day hauling duty, too.
SECOND PLACE Nissan Versa SLUnusual Euro styling plus high admission price were too much to earn it the gold, but it's fun to drive-and quick.
THIRD PLACE Toyota YarisToyota quality is present here. But the behind-the-wheel experience is forgettable. Enthusiasts need a car they like to drive, even if it's only to and from the office.
find here
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Toyota RAV4 vs Honda CR-V
Utility
There's no clear winner between the RAV4 and the Honda CR-V regarding transporting cargo. Drivers with frequent kid-duty might favor the Toyota RAV4 over the Honda. Towing is substantially more the Toyota RAV4's forte than it is the Honda CR-V's.
Performance
As far as horsepower, the Toyota RAV4 packs quite a wallop and will knock the Honda down a few rungs. On the other hand, keep in mind that high horsepower engines often command higher insurance premiums. The Honda CR-V is likely to feel a tad sluggish because of its high horsepower-to-weight ratio compared to the Toyota RAV4.
Dimensions
The Toyota RAV4 is somewhat heavier than the Honda CR-V. The CR-V's tank is about the same size as the Toyota RAV4's, though the Toyota RAV4's is somewhat bigger. The Honda CR-V and the Toyota RAV4 compete for the same parking spaces.
Convenience
The Honda CR-V's fuel tank will need to be replenished somewhat more often than the unit in the Toyota RAV4.
Cost
The destination charge is a standard charge for transporting the vehicle from its point of origin to the dealer. It costs roughly the same to get the Honda CR-V to the dealership as the Toyota. There isn't much of a difference in gas mileage here, but if you must know, the Toyota RAV4 is a tad more economical than the Honda CR-V. The Honda CR-V isn't much less expensive than the Toyota RAV4 in terms of MSRP.
Handling
The Toyota RAV4 and the CR-V have roughly comparable tires. With their comparable turning circles, the CR-V and the Toyota RAV4 doubtless handle roughly the same into and out of tight spots.
Drivetrain
The Toyota RAV4 has a more sizeable engine than the Honda CR-V. Keep in mind that smaller engines typically get better gas mileage, but a smaller engine usually has to work a little harder. Torque equals pickup, and the Toyota RAV4 will have picked up and gone by the time the Honda CR-V finally gets moving.
Comfort
Taller drivers will substantially enjoy the extra head room in the Toyota's front cabin compared to the Honda CR-V. While the rear of the Honda CR-V provides a bit more head- and leg-room than the Toyota RAV4, there honestly isn't much of a difference.
Overview
The Toyota and the Honda CR-V have the same basic after-sale protection.
from here
There's no clear winner between the RAV4 and the Honda CR-V regarding transporting cargo. Drivers with frequent kid-duty might favor the Toyota RAV4 over the Honda. Towing is substantially more the Toyota RAV4's forte than it is the Honda CR-V's.
Performance
As far as horsepower, the Toyota RAV4 packs quite a wallop and will knock the Honda down a few rungs. On the other hand, keep in mind that high horsepower engines often command higher insurance premiums. The Honda CR-V is likely to feel a tad sluggish because of its high horsepower-to-weight ratio compared to the Toyota RAV4.
Dimensions
The Toyota RAV4 is somewhat heavier than the Honda CR-V. The CR-V's tank is about the same size as the Toyota RAV4's, though the Toyota RAV4's is somewhat bigger. The Honda CR-V and the Toyota RAV4 compete for the same parking spaces.
Convenience
The Honda CR-V's fuel tank will need to be replenished somewhat more often than the unit in the Toyota RAV4.
Cost
The destination charge is a standard charge for transporting the vehicle from its point of origin to the dealer. It costs roughly the same to get the Honda CR-V to the dealership as the Toyota. There isn't much of a difference in gas mileage here, but if you must know, the Toyota RAV4 is a tad more economical than the Honda CR-V. The Honda CR-V isn't much less expensive than the Toyota RAV4 in terms of MSRP.
Handling
The Toyota RAV4 and the CR-V have roughly comparable tires. With their comparable turning circles, the CR-V and the Toyota RAV4 doubtless handle roughly the same into and out of tight spots.
Drivetrain
The Toyota RAV4 has a more sizeable engine than the Honda CR-V. Keep in mind that smaller engines typically get better gas mileage, but a smaller engine usually has to work a little harder. Torque equals pickup, and the Toyota RAV4 will have picked up and gone by the time the Honda CR-V finally gets moving.
Comfort
Taller drivers will substantially enjoy the extra head room in the Toyota's front cabin compared to the Honda CR-V. While the rear of the Honda CR-V provides a bit more head- and leg-room than the Toyota RAV4, there honestly isn't much of a difference.
Overview
The Toyota and the Honda CR-V have the same basic after-sale protection.
from here
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Honda Civic Hybrid
The Honda Civic Hybrid is a hybrid version of the Honda Civic sedan.For the 2003 model of the Civic, Honda added a continuously variable transmission and an Integrated Motor Assist hybrid system similar to that of the Insight, creating a fuel efficient hybrid sedan. It is an assist hybrid. Along with the conventional Civic, it received updated styling for 2004.
It was redesigned in 2006 and based off the new Civic platform.
Technology
1st Generation (2003-2005 Model)
1.3 L i-DSI lean-burn internal-combustion engine with VTEC Cylinder Cut-off System, which allows up to three cylinders to cease operation during deceleration. This decreases friction losses generated by engine aspiration and allows more effective regeneration of energy.
15 kW (20 hp) brushless, permanent magnet assist motor, which functions as a generator during deceleration and loads (recharges) batteries
120 V Nickel-metal hydride batteries with 6.0 Ah capacity
Multimatic S continuously variable or 5-speed manual transmission (latter available only in USA)
SULEV or optional AT-PZEV certification by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Low rolling resistance tires and regenerative braking
Electric power-steering
Does not need to be plugged in
2nd Generation (2006-2007 Model)
Note: only advancements specified, those items remaining the same not mentioned.
4th generation IMA (Integrated Motor Assist)
1.3 L single-overhead-cam four-cylinder gas engine same as before; yet, there is now the addition of high profile camshaft. This increases power to 93 hp @ 6000 rpm
Addition of third stage of i-VTEC and VCM (Vehicle Cylinder Management) permits deactivation of all four cylinders when decelerating and constant cruising. This allows the car to run only on electric power for the first time.
EPA increase to 49 mpg city, 51 mpg highway
Awards
The Civic Hybrid's engine won the International Engine of the Year "1 litre to 1.4 litre" size category award for three years straight from 2002 through 2004 as well as the "Best Fuel Economy" category for 2003 and 2004. It has won Motor Trend 2006 Car of the Year award, along with the rest of the Civic range.
from wikipedia
add to del.icio.us
digg
reddit
technoratiTuesday, June 5, 2007
Toyota Prius i-Tech vs Honda Civic Hybrid
Overview
The futuristic design in the Civic Hybrid was pretty impressive to me. The Civic Hybrid's interior features beige treatment that certainly adds a nice touch to the overall appearance.
If you compare the two vehicles on features alone, then the Toyota Prius i-Tech would totally dominate the competition. The official capacity of the Toyota Pirus i-Tech is 456 liters, and the capacity of the Honda Civic Hybrid is set at 376 liters. Both cars have your basic alloy wheels. The Honda Civic Hybrid is the cheapest way to become eco-friendly with a starting price set at $31,990, which oddly enough is the same price as the Honda Civic Sport.
When you compare the two by features, the Honda Civic Hybrid undoubtedly takes second place to the Toyota Prius i-Tech. However as a hidden incentive for the eco-lovers Honda has pledged to plant 18 trees for every Civic Hybrid sold.
Details
Many are skeptical about the technology involved with Hybrids and because it isn't common yet, many just brush it off as small trend. Although they aren't often seen cruising around town, I believe this type of car is here to stay and will only be improved over time. As years pass you will be sure to see more and more of them, and eventually they may even become the norm since pollution problems are escalating at an alarming rate.
In Australia there is an extremely small market for eco-friendly cars unfortunately. In fact, there are only two well known cars that are having success in this market. They are the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid. They both certainly have their upsides and downfalls and when it comes down to economic fuel efficiency there is a clear cut winner. In this article, I will compare the Toyota Prius i-Tech against the Honda Civic Hybrid to see which one of these cars will come out victorious.
First off, we will discuss the interior of the vehicles. The futuristic design in the Civic Hybrid was pretty impressive to me. I like the fact that Honda wanted to take a chance and not follow the norm. One thing that Honda did maintain during design is the shape. It is the same shape as all the other Civic models, but I don't see this as a bad thing. The Civic Hybrid's interior features beige treatment that certainly adds a nice touch to the overall appearance.
Comparing the amount of space in the vehicles comes out about even in my opinion. Neither of the two are short on space and can both fit four adults in the car with ease, with no problems. The trunks are a tad short on room but this is only because that is where they both store the battery packs for the vehicles. The Toyota Prius can thank the flat battery pack that lies beneath the floor of the trunk for giving it 80 more liters of space than the Civic hybrid. The official capacity of the Toyota Pirus i-Tech is 456 liters, and the capacity of the Honda Civic Hybrid is set at 376 liters.
Now we can take a look at the Toyota Prius' interior. After seeing how impressive the Civic's interior was I was hoping to see a decent competition take off. Unfortunately, this was not the case. In comparison the Toyota Prius just couldn't compete due to its very simplistic design. The gauges and controls are either restricted to the steering wheel or confined to the touch screen LCD monitor. One thing I found rather interesting though, is that they didn't limit the steering wheel controls to audio, cruise control, and the telephone. In the Toyota Prius you are able to adjust the climate and demister controls as well, which I found to be rather remarkable. Before stepping foot in the Prius i-Tech I had never driven a vehicle that gave you the control over these features via the steering wheel. These extra features don't complicate the controls either. They are actually very easy to use and quite helpful when you are in busy traffic.
Another great feature of the Prius i-Tech is the keyless entry and keyless start system. All the driver has to do is walk up to the vehicle with the key fob in their hand or pocket, and grab the door handle. After doing this, the car simply unlocks it. Once you are inside the car all you have to do now is press the starter button from any location within the vehicle, and it starts right up. This feature was amazing to me. I enjoyed being able to just unlock my car without fumbling for the keys and starting it up in a less conventional way.
If you compare the two vehicles on features alone, then the Toyota Prius i-Tech would totally dominate the competition. On a downside though, the extra zing added by these features won't come very cheap. In fact, you will find yourself paying approximately $16,000 more than you would if you were to purchase a Honda Civic Hybrid. With a price that jumps that high from its competitors, the features on the car better be really extraordinary. Don't count the Prius out just yet though because of its price, it comes equipped with a remarkable center console LCD screen that is used to control the DVD satellite navigation. Along with managing that task the LCD screen also features a reverse camera and vehicle stats. One of the more innovative features is when the screen is showing live power statistics, which tell you how much energy you are using and how you are obtaining it. You can check the statistics to find out if you are using the engine, or electricity, or even both. I found that this feature was quite an amusing treat for me as well as informative.
Now we come down to the exterior appearance of the cars. As it did with the interior, the Honda Civic Hybrid once again wins when judged by its looks. With the eco-friendly appearance of the alloy wheels as well as the chrome highlights and hybrid badges, it was no question of why the Honda Civic claimed another victory. Toyota tried to go with something new when they designed the Prius i-Tech, but Honda stuck with the popular design of the past Civic models which gave it a nice edge on the competition. Toyota took a chance and I certainly commend them for doing so, but it unfortunately didn't work out in their favor. The one positive thing that came from the unique design of the Prius is that you know it's a hybrid car when you see it, and you are never fooled into thinking it is some other Toyota vehicle. However, the Civic Hybrid wasn't meant to deceive anyone, it was just based on the popular luxurious design on past Civics to help boost its success. Both cars have your basic alloy wheels. They look nice on both vehicles, but if you really put them side by side and look at both, you will most likely prefer the Honda to the Toyota.
Both of the vehicles are equipped with the Continually Variable Transmission (CVT), which is always a welcome feature to come across. The CVT system is used help the vehicle adjust to the driver's style.
For the Toyota Prius, you will find that the handling is much more laid back. There is an awful amount of body roll and the chassis certainly isn't up to par to that of the Honda Civic Hybrid. The steering seemed like it was a bit too power assisted for my taste. As the testing continued to move along it became apparent that the best place to drive the Prius would be in the city and not on windy or curvy roads.
The Civic Hybrid is normally ahead when it comes to taking corners and using general handling. Since it is based on the new Civic chassis there are plenty of opportunities to improve it, and continue developing it and perfecting the handling dynamics. The Civic doesn't feature any significant amounts of body roll, and is actually able to respond quickly and efficiently.
Now let's look at the prices and features and compare them. The Honda Civic Hybrid is the cheapest way to become eco-friendly with a starting price set at $31,990, which oddly enough is the same price as the Honda Civic Sport). The standard features than can be found in the Honda Civic Hybrid are as follows: cruise control, electric windows, driver and passenger side SRS airbags, alloy wheels, an immobilizer, climate control, central locking, leather wrapped steering wheel, driver and passenger front airbags, front and rear curtain airbags, Antilock Brake System (ABS) brakes, and a 6 disc changing MP3 compatible CD player.
However, the Toyota Prius i-Tech is starting at a price of $46,500, which is quite a bit more than the Civic Hybrid. The standard features that can be found on the Prius i-Tech are as follows: Power windows, climate control, dual front SRS airbags, MP3 compatible JBL audio system, Vehicle Stability Control (VSC), front fog lights, immobilizer, reverse warnings, push button start, Electric Power Steering (EPS), Antilock Brake System (ABS) brakes, Brake Assist (BA), Electronic Brake Distribution (EBD), motor traction control, DVD satellite navigation system, cruise control, alloy wheels, and many more.
One of the things that I like the most about the Honda Civic Hybrid is that they participate in the Green Fleet program, which plants trees to counteract emissions that are put out from vehicles. Honda has pledged to plant 18 trees for every Civic Hybrid sold. As an added bonus, at the end of the three years you are given the opportunity to continue participating or stop participating in the program. You shouldn't let this affect your decision though. I am a huge fan of the program, but I still think drivers should base their purchases on a number of factors to ensure that they make the right decision.
When you compare the two by features, the Honda Civic Hybrid undoubtedly takes second place to the Toyota Prius i-Tech. The quality and number of the features drastically changes between the two cars. Whether or not the price is worth it is left up to you to decide.
In conclusion, it would be great to own either of these vehicles. If you can drive a fuel efficient and eco-friendly car, then what is there to lose? After driving the hybrids I can now answer that question. You don't have anything to lose and there is actually much to gain. You don't have to be a tree hugger to take part in the prevention of world pollution. And even if you are so worried about the environment, you can still at least enjoy the benefits of a much more fuel efficient breed of cars than any others on the market.
from here
The futuristic design in the Civic Hybrid was pretty impressive to me. The Civic Hybrid's interior features beige treatment that certainly adds a nice touch to the overall appearance.If you compare the two vehicles on features alone, then the Toyota Prius i-Tech would totally dominate the competition. The official capacity of the Toyota Pirus i-Tech is 456 liters, and the capacity of the Honda Civic Hybrid is set at 376 liters. Both cars have your basic alloy wheels. The Honda Civic Hybrid is the cheapest way to become eco-friendly with a starting price set at $31,990, which oddly enough is the same price as the Honda Civic Sport.
When you compare the two by features, the Honda Civic Hybrid undoubtedly takes second place to the Toyota Prius i-Tech. However as a hidden incentive for the eco-lovers Honda has pledged to plant 18 trees for every Civic Hybrid sold.
Details
Many are skeptical about the technology involved with Hybrids and because it isn't common yet, many just brush it off as small trend. Although they aren't often seen cruising around town, I believe this type of car is here to stay and will only be improved over time. As years pass you will be sure to see more and more of them, and eventually they may even become the norm since pollution problems are escalating at an alarming rate.In Australia there is an extremely small market for eco-friendly cars unfortunately. In fact, there are only two well known cars that are having success in this market. They are the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid. They both certainly have their upsides and downfalls and when it comes down to economic fuel efficiency there is a clear cut winner. In this article, I will compare the Toyota Prius i-Tech against the Honda Civic Hybrid to see which one of these cars will come out victorious.
First off, we will discuss the interior of the vehicles. The futuristic design in the Civic Hybrid was pretty impressive to me. I like the fact that Honda wanted to take a chance and not follow the norm. One thing that Honda did maintain during design is the shape. It is the same shape as all the other Civic models, but I don't see this as a bad thing. The Civic Hybrid's interior features beige treatment that certainly adds a nice touch to the overall appearance.
Comparing the amount of space in the vehicles comes out about even in my opinion. Neither of the two are short on space and can both fit four adults in the car with ease, with no problems. The trunks are a tad short on room but this is only because that is where they both store the battery packs for the vehicles. The Toyota Prius can thank the flat battery pack that lies beneath the floor of the trunk for giving it 80 more liters of space than the Civic hybrid. The official capacity of the Toyota Pirus i-Tech is 456 liters, and the capacity of the Honda Civic Hybrid is set at 376 liters.
Now we can take a look at the Toyota Prius' interior. After seeing how impressive the Civic's interior was I was hoping to see a decent competition take off. Unfortunately, this was not the case. In comparison the Toyota Prius just couldn't compete due to its very simplistic design. The gauges and controls are either restricted to the steering wheel or confined to the touch screen LCD monitor. One thing I found rather interesting though, is that they didn't limit the steering wheel controls to audio, cruise control, and the telephone. In the Toyota Prius you are able to adjust the climate and demister controls as well, which I found to be rather remarkable. Before stepping foot in the Prius i-Tech I had never driven a vehicle that gave you the control over these features via the steering wheel. These extra features don't complicate the controls either. They are actually very easy to use and quite helpful when you are in busy traffic.
Another great feature of the Prius i-Tech is the keyless entry and keyless start system. All the driver has to do is walk up to the vehicle with the key fob in their hand or pocket, and grab the door handle. After doing this, the car simply unlocks it. Once you are inside the car all you have to do now is press the starter button from any location within the vehicle, and it starts right up. This feature was amazing to me. I enjoyed being able to just unlock my car without fumbling for the keys and starting it up in a less conventional way.
If you compare the two vehicles on features alone, then the Toyota Prius i-Tech would totally dominate the competition. On a downside though, the extra zing added by these features won't come very cheap. In fact, you will find yourself paying approximately $16,000 more than you would if you were to purchase a Honda Civic Hybrid. With a price that jumps that high from its competitors, the features on the car better be really extraordinary. Don't count the Prius out just yet though because of its price, it comes equipped with a remarkable center console LCD screen that is used to control the DVD satellite navigation. Along with managing that task the LCD screen also features a reverse camera and vehicle stats. One of the more innovative features is when the screen is showing live power statistics, which tell you how much energy you are using and how you are obtaining it. You can check the statistics to find out if you are using the engine, or electricity, or even both. I found that this feature was quite an amusing treat for me as well as informative.
Now we come down to the exterior appearance of the cars. As it did with the interior, the Honda Civic Hybrid once again wins when judged by its looks. With the eco-friendly appearance of the alloy wheels as well as the chrome highlights and hybrid badges, it was no question of why the Honda Civic claimed another victory. Toyota tried to go with something new when they designed the Prius i-Tech, but Honda stuck with the popular design of the past Civic models which gave it a nice edge on the competition. Toyota took a chance and I certainly commend them for doing so, but it unfortunately didn't work out in their favor. The one positive thing that came from the unique design of the Prius is that you know it's a hybrid car when you see it, and you are never fooled into thinking it is some other Toyota vehicle. However, the Civic Hybrid wasn't meant to deceive anyone, it was just based on the popular luxurious design on past Civics to help boost its success. Both cars have your basic alloy wheels. They look nice on both vehicles, but if you really put them side by side and look at both, you will most likely prefer the Honda to the Toyota.
Both of the vehicles are equipped with the Continually Variable Transmission (CVT), which is always a welcome feature to come across. The CVT system is used help the vehicle adjust to the driver's style.
For the Toyota Prius, you will find that the handling is much more laid back. There is an awful amount of body roll and the chassis certainly isn't up to par to that of the Honda Civic Hybrid. The steering seemed like it was a bit too power assisted for my taste. As the testing continued to move along it became apparent that the best place to drive the Prius would be in the city and not on windy or curvy roads.
The Civic Hybrid is normally ahead when it comes to taking corners and using general handling. Since it is based on the new Civic chassis there are plenty of opportunities to improve it, and continue developing it and perfecting the handling dynamics. The Civic doesn't feature any significant amounts of body roll, and is actually able to respond quickly and efficiently.
Now let's look at the prices and features and compare them. The Honda Civic Hybrid is the cheapest way to become eco-friendly with a starting price set at $31,990, which oddly enough is the same price as the Honda Civic Sport). The standard features than can be found in the Honda Civic Hybrid are as follows: cruise control, electric windows, driver and passenger side SRS airbags, alloy wheels, an immobilizer, climate control, central locking, leather wrapped steering wheel, driver and passenger front airbags, front and rear curtain airbags, Antilock Brake System (ABS) brakes, and a 6 disc changing MP3 compatible CD player.
However, the Toyota Prius i-Tech is starting at a price of $46,500, which is quite a bit more than the Civic Hybrid. The standard features that can be found on the Prius i-Tech are as follows: Power windows, climate control, dual front SRS airbags, MP3 compatible JBL audio system, Vehicle Stability Control (VSC), front fog lights, immobilizer, reverse warnings, push button start, Electric Power Steering (EPS), Antilock Brake System (ABS) brakes, Brake Assist (BA), Electronic Brake Distribution (EBD), motor traction control, DVD satellite navigation system, cruise control, alloy wheels, and many more.
One of the things that I like the most about the Honda Civic Hybrid is that they participate in the Green Fleet program, which plants trees to counteract emissions that are put out from vehicles. Honda has pledged to plant 18 trees for every Civic Hybrid sold. As an added bonus, at the end of the three years you are given the opportunity to continue participating or stop participating in the program. You shouldn't let this affect your decision though. I am a huge fan of the program, but I still think drivers should base their purchases on a number of factors to ensure that they make the right decision.
When you compare the two by features, the Honda Civic Hybrid undoubtedly takes second place to the Toyota Prius i-Tech. The quality and number of the features drastically changes between the two cars. Whether or not the price is worth it is left up to you to decide.
In conclusion, it would be great to own either of these vehicles. If you can drive a fuel efficient and eco-friendly car, then what is there to lose? After driving the hybrids I can now answer that question. You don't have anything to lose and there is actually much to gain. You don't have to be a tree hugger to take part in the prevention of world pollution. And even if you are so worried about the environment, you can still at least enjoy the benefits of a much more fuel efficient breed of cars than any others on the market.
from here
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Three-way comparison: Toyota, Honda, Dodge
by mkaresh
Pros: Seat comfort, upscale interior, roominess, ride, powertrain smoothness
Cons: Soggy handling, odd front end styling, pricey
The Bottom Line: Very comfy, roomy, and refined, but undermined by soggy handling and high price. Use this one for long hauls on the highway.
For 15 years Chrysler dominated the minivan market. This began to change—and fast—once Honda and Toyota introduced equally large front-wheel-drive minivans. Honda was first, in the 1999 model year. For five years the much larger second generation Odyssey was the “hot” van. Then in 2004 Toyota introduced an equally large second generation Sienna. It almost instantly supplanted the Odyssey as “the one to get.” I drove one as soon as I could get my hands on one—no easy thing the first few months. Unfortunately it was the very base CE model. (For more extensive background material see that review.)
This year Honda is seeking to regain its leading position in the hearts and minds of actively breeding suburbia with a redesigned Odyssey. I drove and reviewed one recently. For a fresher comparison, and because I drove the CE last time, I visited a Toyota/Dodge dealer and drove the Toyota Sienna XLE and Dodge Grand Caravan SXT. Like the Honda Touring I sampled, both were fitted with leather and listed for over $30,000. So, which is the best van? Well, it depends on your priorities. This review will focus on the Toyota.
Styling
I didn’t like the styling of the Toyota last year, and I still don’t. The Renault-like (or is it Peugeot-like? I just know it looks French) front end looked weird enough on the first Prius, much less on this large van. The round nose and way the headlamps pull back into the fenders suggest the effect of wearing a stocking over one’s face (as in “Boy, you got a panty on your [minivan’s] head”).
The sides and rear of the van are more successful, so Toyota most needs to fix the front. Honda pulls off similarly shaped headlamps on the new Odyssey more successfully. The Honda has a bulkier, more upright look, but looks at least as upscale and thankfully looks better in the metal than in photos. The Dodge (well, the Chrysler actually) remains the best looking to my eye.
Inside the Sienna’s design is more successful. The look is upscale, easily the nicest interior in the segment last year. In comparison the interior of the Odyssey felt like that of a cargo van. The Odyssey’s 2005 largely bridges this gap, but not entirely. In comparison to either the Dodge interior feels dated and almost cheap. I liked its Chrysler sibling when I drove it last spring, but driving the uplevel Toyota and new Honda revised my expectations in a minivan. It also became evident that the Dodge’s controls are much less ergonomic than the others (with the Honda the leader in this area).
Accommodations
Both the Sienna and Odyssey are very roomy minivans, with adult-worthy legroom and headroom in all three rows. The Dodge is a bit tighter, especially in the third row. Certainly no SUV save the largest can compare.
I had issues with the driver’s seat in the new Odyssey. I’ve always liked those in the Chrysler vans, wondering why the company doesn’t bolster the seats in its cars as well. (More lateral support would be helpful in the Magnum and 300, for example.) But the Toyota’s seats easily take the prize. Those in front are wonderfully comfortable, at least in the XLE. Compared to the others they are much more luxuriously padded. You sink into them just the right amount, and their shape perfectly fit at least this backside. Very nice. Good for trips.
The second- and third-row seats are similarly most comfortable in the Toyota, though the margin with the Honda is not as large. The Dodge’s second row seats continue to feel undersized and hard to me, I imagine because they must stuff beneath the floor.
Both the Honda and Toyota vans are loaded with innovative storage areas, consoles, and such. The Sienna XLE does lose a bin beneath the front passenger seat this year, though, to make way for power seat motors (a new feature). The XLE’s folding front passenger seat also disappears for the same reason. If you want these two features, you’ll have to save some money and buy the LE.
To enable the Stow n’ Go seats the Dodge lost the ability to move the console to the second row—an idea Toyota borrowed for the Sienna. On the other hand, the Dodge has a large amount of underfloor storage. The Honda provides some, but not as much, and the Toyota provides none at all. It’ll be easiest to keep the floor clear in the Dodge.
All three have a good amount of room behind the third row, but the Toyota appears to have the most, followed by the Honda. Folding and stowing the seats in pretty simple in all three minivans, much easier than in the Nissan Quest where the process left me with my first and still only test drive injury (to a few fingers). Here Dodge has its main advantage: as everyone knows by now, its second-row seats also stow beneath the floor. Pretty slick. In the others the seats can only be folded forward or removed. And removing and replacing them is never easy, in any van.
On the Road
The Sienna’s 3.3-liter V6 / five-speed automatic powertrain is shared with the Camry, Highlander, and a pair of Lexus models. In all of them it’s a very smooth, quiet powerplant. In the over two-ton Sienna its more burdened than in the Camry SE, but it easily gets the job done, never sounding strained. Let’s face it, even an enthusiast like myself only needs so much grunt out of a minivan. That said, if you do need more than most because you live in the mountains, plan to fully load the minivan, or both, then the Honda is the leader here. Its engine is a bit less refined than the Toyota’s, but is and feels a bit more powerful. The Dodge trails the others here, with a considerably less refined engine that feels punchy enough around town but falls behind at highway speeds.
So far, all seems wonderful with the Toyota. But it falls apart—for me at least—in the handling department. It is much more softly sprung than the others. In turns it leans readily and understeers with a passion. I’m aware that minivans tend to be driven very casually, but I found the sponginess of the Toyota’s suspension unsettling. Very light steering also doesn’t help. I don’t mean to suggest that the Sienna is unsafe—I don’t think it would easily roll. But I simply did not feel confident driving it.
The Dodge was fitted with a “touring suspension.” It was the firmest of the trio, with much heavier steering than the others. Usually this would appeal to me, and as before I did find the Dodge easy to drive. But the steering was too heavy, and the heaviness was not simply the price for great feedback, as their was no more than in the others.
The firmness of the Honda’s suspension and the weight of its steering falls between the other two. It is the easiest and most confidence-inspiring to drive.
Generally a tradeoff exists between handling and ride quality. So the Toyota might be expected to ride the best. Well, it does ride much more smoothly than the relatively abrupt (though still far from uncomfortable) Dodge. (Low-profile 17-inch tires are no longer available on the Dodge; I can only imagine what it rode like with them.) But its margin over the Honda isn’t significant. If anything, the lesser amount of float over uneven pavement in the Honda translated to a better overall ride in my book, even if the Toyota ironed out harshness over the small stuff a bit better.
Toyotas tend to be quieter than their competitors. The second-generation Odyssey in particular was often criticized (but not by me—I’m used to much noisier vehicles) for being noisy. The Odyssey is quieter, such that the Toyota’s lead though possibly still present (I did drive the two a couple weeks apart) is not substantial. I heard more road noise than I expected in the Toyota, for one thing. Compared to the Japanese vans, the Dodge is less quiet and, of greater importance, lacks their smooth, solid, thoroughly refined “feel.”
Toyota Sienna Price Comparisons and Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
I’ll use TrueDelta to compare the three minivans equipped as much as possible to the Odyssey EX-L (leather). In this case it is especially helpful, as Toyota has grouped all of the Sienna’s options into an array of bewildering packages. The results, after TrueDelta adjusts for differences in equipment is a $34,565 price on the Toyota (XLE with #6), a $30,810 price on the Honda, and a $29,920 price on the Dodge (with a $1,500 rebate included in the last). However, equipment differs considerably even after making them as similar as possible. TrueDelta adjusts for these differences, yielding a $340 advantage of the Dodge over the Honda, which in turn has a $1,640 advantage over the Toyota. To yield these numbers I set the engine to that in the Odyssey EX-L then asked for a "minimum" comparison. Different feature levels will yield different results--you can specify those you want when using my site.
Last Words
Undoubtedly the dealer discount on the Dodge will be larger than on the others, widening the gap. But unless you plan to make extensive use of the Stow n’ Go second row, you should come up with the extra cash, especially since the others’ slower rate of depreciation will make them less expensive overall. But what about between the Honda and Toyota?
Generally I’d give the nod to the Honda. It handles far better while riding nearly as smoothly and quietly. It’s just as roomy, and now has an almost equally upscale interior. And it costs less. But the driver’s seat is not comfortable. Hopefully Honda will recognize that there is a problem and make a quick fix. Even then, the Toyota’s seats are better padded and flat out more comfy. So do you want your minivan to handle well, or make long hauls on the superslab as pain free as possible? Is this van for short jaunts around town, or long hauls on the road? For the long hauls, the Toyota’s the one. Otherwise, and especially if the seat doesn’t bother you, it’s the Honda.
Now for something out of left field: none of the three is quite there for me. I drove the new Ford Freestyle crossover the same day as the Odyssey. It can also seat adults in all three rows, though the third is more cramped than in the vans, and I much prefer its much tidier, nimbler feel. If only the Ford had their powertrains and interior materials.
A Note on Toyota Sienna Reliability
I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.
Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a Sienna rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Toyota Sienna reliability comparisons.
Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Sienna--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.
Pros: Seat comfort, upscale interior, roominess, ride, powertrain smoothness
Cons: Soggy handling, odd front end styling, pricey
The Bottom Line: Very comfy, roomy, and refined, but undermined by soggy handling and high price. Use this one for long hauls on the highway.
For 15 years Chrysler dominated the minivan market. This began to change—and fast—once Honda and Toyota introduced equally large front-wheel-drive minivans. Honda was first, in the 1999 model year. For five years the much larger second generation Odyssey was the “hot” van. Then in 2004 Toyota introduced an equally large second generation Sienna. It almost instantly supplanted the Odyssey as “the one to get.” I drove one as soon as I could get my hands on one—no easy thing the first few months. Unfortunately it was the very base CE model. (For more extensive background material see that review.)
This year Honda is seeking to regain its leading position in the hearts and minds of actively breeding suburbia with a redesigned Odyssey. I drove and reviewed one recently. For a fresher comparison, and because I drove the CE last time, I visited a Toyota/Dodge dealer and drove the Toyota Sienna XLE and Dodge Grand Caravan SXT. Like the Honda Touring I sampled, both were fitted with leather and listed for over $30,000. So, which is the best van? Well, it depends on your priorities. This review will focus on the Toyota.
Styling
I didn’t like the styling of the Toyota last year, and I still don’t. The Renault-like (or is it Peugeot-like? I just know it looks French) front end looked weird enough on the first Prius, much less on this large van. The round nose and way the headlamps pull back into the fenders suggest the effect of wearing a stocking over one’s face (as in “Boy, you got a panty on your [minivan’s] head”).
The sides and rear of the van are more successful, so Toyota most needs to fix the front. Honda pulls off similarly shaped headlamps on the new Odyssey more successfully. The Honda has a bulkier, more upright look, but looks at least as upscale and thankfully looks better in the metal than in photos. The Dodge (well, the Chrysler actually) remains the best looking to my eye.
Inside the Sienna’s design is more successful. The look is upscale, easily the nicest interior in the segment last year. In comparison the interior of the Odyssey felt like that of a cargo van. The Odyssey’s 2005 largely bridges this gap, but not entirely. In comparison to either the Dodge interior feels dated and almost cheap. I liked its Chrysler sibling when I drove it last spring, but driving the uplevel Toyota and new Honda revised my expectations in a minivan. It also became evident that the Dodge’s controls are much less ergonomic than the others (with the Honda the leader in this area).
Accommodations
Both the Sienna and Odyssey are very roomy minivans, with adult-worthy legroom and headroom in all three rows. The Dodge is a bit tighter, especially in the third row. Certainly no SUV save the largest can compare.
I had issues with the driver’s seat in the new Odyssey. I’ve always liked those in the Chrysler vans, wondering why the company doesn’t bolster the seats in its cars as well. (More lateral support would be helpful in the Magnum and 300, for example.) But the Toyota’s seats easily take the prize. Those in front are wonderfully comfortable, at least in the XLE. Compared to the others they are much more luxuriously padded. You sink into them just the right amount, and their shape perfectly fit at least this backside. Very nice. Good for trips.
The second- and third-row seats are similarly most comfortable in the Toyota, though the margin with the Honda is not as large. The Dodge’s second row seats continue to feel undersized and hard to me, I imagine because they must stuff beneath the floor.
Both the Honda and Toyota vans are loaded with innovative storage areas, consoles, and such. The Sienna XLE does lose a bin beneath the front passenger seat this year, though, to make way for power seat motors (a new feature). The XLE’s folding front passenger seat also disappears for the same reason. If you want these two features, you’ll have to save some money and buy the LE.
To enable the Stow n’ Go seats the Dodge lost the ability to move the console to the second row—an idea Toyota borrowed for the Sienna. On the other hand, the Dodge has a large amount of underfloor storage. The Honda provides some, but not as much, and the Toyota provides none at all. It’ll be easiest to keep the floor clear in the Dodge.
All three have a good amount of room behind the third row, but the Toyota appears to have the most, followed by the Honda. Folding and stowing the seats in pretty simple in all three minivans, much easier than in the Nissan Quest where the process left me with my first and still only test drive injury (to a few fingers). Here Dodge has its main advantage: as everyone knows by now, its second-row seats also stow beneath the floor. Pretty slick. In the others the seats can only be folded forward or removed. And removing and replacing them is never easy, in any van.
On the Road
The Sienna’s 3.3-liter V6 / five-speed automatic powertrain is shared with the Camry, Highlander, and a pair of Lexus models. In all of them it’s a very smooth, quiet powerplant. In the over two-ton Sienna its more burdened than in the Camry SE, but it easily gets the job done, never sounding strained. Let’s face it, even an enthusiast like myself only needs so much grunt out of a minivan. That said, if you do need more than most because you live in the mountains, plan to fully load the minivan, or both, then the Honda is the leader here. Its engine is a bit less refined than the Toyota’s, but is and feels a bit more powerful. The Dodge trails the others here, with a considerably less refined engine that feels punchy enough around town but falls behind at highway speeds.
So far, all seems wonderful with the Toyota. But it falls apart—for me at least—in the handling department. It is much more softly sprung than the others. In turns it leans readily and understeers with a passion. I’m aware that minivans tend to be driven very casually, but I found the sponginess of the Toyota’s suspension unsettling. Very light steering also doesn’t help. I don’t mean to suggest that the Sienna is unsafe—I don’t think it would easily roll. But I simply did not feel confident driving it.
The Dodge was fitted with a “touring suspension.” It was the firmest of the trio, with much heavier steering than the others. Usually this would appeal to me, and as before I did find the Dodge easy to drive. But the steering was too heavy, and the heaviness was not simply the price for great feedback, as their was no more than in the others.
The firmness of the Honda’s suspension and the weight of its steering falls between the other two. It is the easiest and most confidence-inspiring to drive.
Generally a tradeoff exists between handling and ride quality. So the Toyota might be expected to ride the best. Well, it does ride much more smoothly than the relatively abrupt (though still far from uncomfortable) Dodge. (Low-profile 17-inch tires are no longer available on the Dodge; I can only imagine what it rode like with them.) But its margin over the Honda isn’t significant. If anything, the lesser amount of float over uneven pavement in the Honda translated to a better overall ride in my book, even if the Toyota ironed out harshness over the small stuff a bit better.
Toyotas tend to be quieter than their competitors. The second-generation Odyssey in particular was often criticized (but not by me—I’m used to much noisier vehicles) for being noisy. The Odyssey is quieter, such that the Toyota’s lead though possibly still present (I did drive the two a couple weeks apart) is not substantial. I heard more road noise than I expected in the Toyota, for one thing. Compared to the Japanese vans, the Dodge is less quiet and, of greater importance, lacks their smooth, solid, thoroughly refined “feel.”
Toyota Sienna Price Comparisons and Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
I’ll use TrueDelta to compare the three minivans equipped as much as possible to the Odyssey EX-L (leather). In this case it is especially helpful, as Toyota has grouped all of the Sienna’s options into an array of bewildering packages. The results, after TrueDelta adjusts for differences in equipment is a $34,565 price on the Toyota (XLE with #6), a $30,810 price on the Honda, and a $29,920 price on the Dodge (with a $1,500 rebate included in the last). However, equipment differs considerably even after making them as similar as possible. TrueDelta adjusts for these differences, yielding a $340 advantage of the Dodge over the Honda, which in turn has a $1,640 advantage over the Toyota. To yield these numbers I set the engine to that in the Odyssey EX-L then asked for a "minimum" comparison. Different feature levels will yield different results--you can specify those you want when using my site.
Last Words
Undoubtedly the dealer discount on the Dodge will be larger than on the others, widening the gap. But unless you plan to make extensive use of the Stow n’ Go second row, you should come up with the extra cash, especially since the others’ slower rate of depreciation will make them less expensive overall. But what about between the Honda and Toyota?
Generally I’d give the nod to the Honda. It handles far better while riding nearly as smoothly and quietly. It’s just as roomy, and now has an almost equally upscale interior. And it costs less. But the driver’s seat is not comfortable. Hopefully Honda will recognize that there is a problem and make a quick fix. Even then, the Toyota’s seats are better padded and flat out more comfy. So do you want your minivan to handle well, or make long hauls on the superslab as pain free as possible? Is this van for short jaunts around town, or long hauls on the road? For the long hauls, the Toyota’s the one. Otherwise, and especially if the seat doesn’t bother you, it’s the Honda.
Now for something out of left field: none of the three is quite there for me. I drove the new Ford Freestyle crossover the same day as the Odyssey. It can also seat adults in all three rows, though the third is more cramped than in the vans, and I much prefer its much tidier, nimbler feel. If only the Ford had their powertrains and interior materials.
A Note on Toyota Sienna Reliability
I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.
Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a Sienna rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Toyota Sienna reliability comparisons.
Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Sienna--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry
by Sameer Kumar
Steven Spielberg would be happy. He wouldn't have imagined he would be vindicated thus, but A.I. seems to have arrived. With cars pushing the cause of Artificial Intelligence, how could it be otherwise?
The Camry, with its VVT-i engine, was already, um..., intelligent. And it would never do for Honda to be left behind, so the new Accord has an i-VTEC engine now.
As you would guess, the 'i' in both cases denotes intelligence. Variable Valve Timing - intelligent, for the Camry, and intelligent-Variable Valve Timing and lift Electronic Control, for the Accord.
With intelligence in such abundance, do we have a Mensa candidate here? Is sheer size their only virtue, or do these cars have other talents to their name? Let's see if we can determine which car has the higher Intelligence Quotient.
Couture: How haute?
Before we actually get down to putting the cars' brains/brawn to test, let's take a minute to see how they look in person. Which is important, after all.
The most intelligent girl may top the class, but it's the looker who has the class chasing after her. Well, at least the male segment of the said class anyway.
The 'looker' thing gets a bit difficult here, for between the Accord and the Camry, there's little to choose. For the Camry, I'll repeat my old refrain -- its styling is the very embodiment of the word 'bland'.
The lines are unremarkable, I struggle to find anything to say about them. Remember the Zeppelin air balloon of first World War vintage? Supremely functional? Yes. Featureless?
Also, sadly, yes. It does look big though, if that counts.
The new Accord is a mild improvement over the old one. This time, it looks like some design house -- and not a psychography expert -- has actually spent time penning its lines, etching its curves and working out detail embellishments.
The European-spec Accord (which we don't get) definitely looks sharper and more aggressive, but the American-spec car, which they've brought here is also passable. Just about.
There is a certain family resemblance to other Honda cars now -- take a look at the headlamps sitting pretty and flush on the flared wheelarches and tell me if you don't think there's hint of the S2000 there.
It isn't as muscular of proportion as a Mondeo or as assertive of stance as a Vectra -- not at all -- but neither is it as plain-jane as the Camry.
With the Accord, we had people saying it looks smaller than the old one, though it's actually larger.
Both cars are fitted with 15-inch alloys that look smallish for the cars' heft. Sixteen-inch alloys, as used on the Vectra or the Mondeo, would have looked much better.
Style-wise, I'm still undecided if any one of these cars has an edge over the other, but things are clearer inside.
Undeniably, the Accord's twin-tone, tan and black interiors are more contemporary than the Camry's. Both cars get full leather upholstery, a smattering of plastic-wood trim and power adjustments for front seats, but where the Accord really scores over the Camry is dashboard layout.
The Camry's facia features a Sony Xplod 11-CD changer, which is powerful and sounds good, but is burdened with excessively flashy lights and animated displays.
Frankly, the thing looks a bit out of place in a car, which belongs in this segment. The Accord's 6-CD changer is much better integrated with the car's interiors, and appearance is much neater overall.
The Accord also has dual-zone air-conditioning, with separate temperature settings for driver and passenger sides of the cabin.
The Camry doesn't have a dual-zone set-up, but quality of plastics used is similar on both cars, and both cabins are pleasant, comfortable places to be in for the long haul.
The Camry's Mercedes-Benz E-Class size (well, almost) interiors feel a mite plusher and more spacious, but even the Accord seats five without trouble. With their superb ergonomics, adjustable driving positions, comfy seats, powerful music and aircon systems and intuitive controls, the cars beg to be driven long and hard.
Four play
You're waiting for me to stop talking about cabin ergonomics and design, and get on with what these cars are like to drive. Of course. We'll get to that in a minute.
Let's take a look at the two inline-fours first. The Camry is fitted with a 2362 CC, DOHC, VVT-i unit that makes 141 horsepower and 20.9 kgm of torque.
Though that seems fairly prosaic on paper, the pace at which this engine picks up revs is quite something.
In fact, with its 3.86 second 0 - 60 kph time, the Camry remains the quickest D-segment car we've ever tested. The Accord is no slouch either. Its 2345 CC, DOHC, i-VTEC mill makes 1 bhp more than the Camry, though torque, at 20.0 kgm, is slightly lower.
Due to an unfortunate mismatch in testing schedules (or maybe an unforeseen misalignment of stars, or overworked Honda personnel...), we got an Accord with a 5-speed automatic rather than the 5-speed manual we would have liked.
Yet, its 5.02 second 0 - 60 kph time would be somewhat indicative of what the manual would have done.
At 10.34 seconds, the automatic Accord was also 1.79 seconds slower than the manual Camry in the 0-100 kph sprint.
Actually, the stopwatch only confirmed what I felt when I first drove the new Accord (that one being a manual) - no way the thing would get off the line as quickly as a Camry.
Honda make brilliant engines, but in this case, Toyota seem to have outdone them -- the Camry's seamlessly smooth VVT-i is more eager to rev harder, higher and quicker, though the Honda unit, which spreads the torque more evenly, does make a nicer ripping sound when accelerating hard.
Right from the word go, the Camry inches ahead, which is also reflected in the cars' in-gear acceleration times. And though it would not be of much consequence for most, the (manual) Camry was still accelerating at 220 kph, while the (automatic) Accord seemed to start running out of puff at 210.
I suppose a manual Accord would have been a lot quicker and bit faster too, though the 5-speed auto gave us no cause for complaint.
This electronically-controlled 'box is fitted with Honda's grade logic control, shifts cleanly, and there is no inordinate hunting for ratios.
It even lets you manually select any of the first three gears, though in the D3 mode, it will upshift automatically once it hits the rev-limiter.
If the Camry has a slight advantage in the engine department, the Honda has a small edge when it comes to high-speed handling. The new Accord features an independent double wishbone set-up at front, and independent 5-link double wishbones at back.
Ride is not as compliant as the Camry's (independent, McPherson struts at front, independent, dual-link at back), but the Accord does feel marginally more composed at very high speeds.
You think twice before attempting to throw the Camry around, but the Accord is more willing to play along. The Accord's smaller steering wheel feels sportier than the Camry's, and overall, the former feels like a smaller, tauter and slightly more composed package.
Chassis dynamics are definitely not in the league of a Mondeo or a Mercedes-Benz C-Class, but the new Accord's chassis/suspension combo is better than the old car's, which had a marked tendency to get out of line very quickly (and rather unpredictably) when pushed hard.
Both cars are fitted with tubeless radials, though I somewhat preferred the Camry's 205/65 Dunlop SP Sport 300s to the Accord's similarly-sized Bridgestone Turans.
Both cars have anti-lock disc brakes all around, and these are quite adequate when it's time to haul the cars down from the 200+ kph speeds they are capable of.
If I were to choose, I'd take the Camry's brakes, which somehow feel more reassuring. When braked hard on wet surfaces at very high speeds, the Honda tended to feel slightly more fidgety and skittish, though of course, the ABS never failed to work.
The i-Choice?
To recap quickly, both cars are more or less equally competent overall. They also offer just about as much driver involvement as the other, which is not much, really.
The Camry scores marginally higher on ride comfort, the Accord offers slightly better noise insulation and its high-speed handling is a smidge better.
Fuel efficiency is similar, at about 7 kpl or thereabouts. Speed is a non-issue – both will happily do 200+ if you are up to it.
If that's not nearly enough, we'll have V6-engined Camrys and Accords by the end of this year, so you can go even faster if you can ever find the roads for that sort of thing.
With capabilities so similar, how do you choose? The clincher could be the big difference in their prices. Ex-showroom Mumbai, the Camry will cost you between Rs 17.85 and Rs 18.50 lakh, depending on trim level etc.
The Accord is pegged at Rs 15.35 lakh for the manual, and Rs 16.07 for the automatic.
Of the two, the Accord is more contemporary, and after the C-Class and the Sonata V6, the only other car in its segment which you can buy with an automatic transmission.It may not look as big as the Camry, but given its price/performance combination, the new Accord's IQ is sizeable, and for now, it's the car we would recommend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)