Edmunds Evaluation: 2006 Minivan Comparison Test

[Variance]

Edmunds Evaluation: 2006 Minivan Comparison Test

1st: Honda Odyssey

2nd: Kia Sedona

3rd: Toyota Sienna

4th: Nissan Quest

5th: Chrysler Town & Country

If there's an ever-changing segment of the automotive industry, it's the family-friendly world of minivans. In the 29 months since our last hard look at the segment, it has completely turned itself over. The Kia Sedona and Honda Odyssey have been overhauled, while the Nissan Quest and Chrysler Town & Country have been given thorough once-overs. To see which is the king of the modern mommy-mobiles, we brought the four together, along with the winner of the 2004 comparison test, the Toyota Sienna.

Each of the five vans packs a V6 engine, an automatic transmission and two power-sliding doors. Since the Sienna is the only one of the five available with all-wheel drive, we asked for one so equipped. The other four vans are front-wheel drive.

Edmunds

[siegen]

Since the Sienna is the only one of the five available with all-wheel drive, we asked for one so equipped. The other four vans are front-wheel drive.

Our Sienna XLE AWD Limited tester has a lot to offer and continues to play a strong role as the do-gooder of the bunch, but its high price kept it out of 1st place.

So they spent extra to equip the Sienna with AWD, despite the rest of the competition being FWD. Then they say it didn't win because it was priced too high? Lol

Not that I really care too much about minivans.

[CARBIZ]

Interesting that arrogance has handed the minivan market completely over to the Asians. Ford and GM used to have a strong presence in this market, but gave that up in favor of gas guzzling SUVs.

This minivan is a far more important vehicle to the Canadian market than it is south of the border. Consequently, we sell more Uplanders in a month than we do Tahoes in a year!

I remember back in '98 when the Sienna was overhauled and still missed the mark. We all had a good laugh. When GM fixed the cupholders and a few other things we didn't like about the Venture in 2000, we finally had a strong contender that was arguably the best minivan on the market at the time.

Yes, things have changed. Ford is wiped out of this market: the Windstar was a strong competitor a few years back. The Uplander is a sad joke that we can only sell on price; albeit, what a price! Ten grand cheaper than a Sienna is nothing to sneeze at, but when the Sedona's numbers are climbing - well, it gets embarassing.

[FAPTurbo]

At least the Honda won, which it deserved to. I never got how the Toyota would win comparisons even though the Honda Odyssey would often come out with better results, and sometimes with a cheaper price.

I hate the Sienna. I'd likely hate it less if we didn't own one, but that's because I really hate ours as well, even if ours is the previous gen.

[caddycruiser]

Without even reading it yet, the 2nd place finish just goes to show you how EXCELLENT even the Kia is. Even the last gen, which a relative has, is always impressive as hell to me, with a level of build quality & refinement that just go well beyond the pricetag. And now the new ones have all the features of the other vans--great buy.

The Honda still has one of the best packages, the Toyota has some issues but is still very nice, and the Nissan is now a really great choice too, with its upgraded materials and revised style. The Chryslers remain one of the best looking, but driving dynamics are a bit old, and the Stow & Go is great for utility, but not very comfortable.

As for the Ford and GM vans, well, they're just about as good as dead...

Minivans are still a "No!" to a lot of people, but with the switch from big SUV's to crossovers getting so strong, minivans are also benefiting lately.

Edited November 14, 2006 by caddycruiser

[Drew Dowdell]

If GM or Ford had been in this and come in anywhere but the last two places, I'd have screamed bias!

[Flybrian]

The Kia is still pretty junky in terms of design, ergonomics, and looks. The first one was also an obese pig.

[siegen]

The first one was also an obese pig.

215929[/snapback]

Aren't all minivans though? :AH-HA_wink:

[regfootball]

The Kia is still pretty junky in terms of design, ergonomics, and looks. The first one was also an obese pig.

215929[/snapback]

I have driven the new Sedona and despite its positive improvements, I can confirm what you say. Its still junky. In five years a family of four will have one reduced to rubble. The carpet and seat cloth will be shot, the plastic will be warped and brittle, and all the swtichgear will be loose and hatched. the sheet metal will be all dinged up and the paint will be dull and worn.

And the fact that the dvd's cannot be controlled from the front is laughable. Also laughable is the heavy ass folding second row seats.

The Quest is a sportier drive, but is no complete peach. But it would be the one I would pick out of the bunch to drive everyday if i had to. The domestric entries are laughable.

The Odyssey is not the kingpin everyone thinks. The interior is cheap and cheesy, plus its damn ugly. Dead fish look more charismatic.

I'd give the crown to the Sienna here, mainly because it best hits the middle. My test drive in one made me want to drive screws through my eyeballs it was so boring......but I know this is what most want in a minivan. It has an inoffensive interior and decent plastics and many options etc. They upgraded the engine for 07, i think, to the 265hp thingie.

I have concluded that there will never be a fun minivan so that is why now I say go Outlook and Acadia. Minivans in SUV packages.

Edited November 15, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

by the way, its been said the outlook / acadia have similar wheelbase and size to a minivan, this is true. I also think the curb weights are close. So I bet with the 275hp mill and new chassis, the Lambdas should outperform these vans and give better numbers.

Let's see how the Saturn Outlook stacks up against the existing competition -

Length - 200.7

Width - 78.2

Height - 69.9

Wheelbase - 118.9

Weight - 4722 lbs

Cargo vol - 117 cu ft

Seating Capacity - 7 or 8

Horsepower - 267 hp

Mileage - 17/25

2006 Chrysler Town & Country Limited / 2006 Honda Odyssey Touring / 2006 Kia Sedona / 2007 Nissan Quest 3.5 SE / 2006 Toyota Sienna XLE AWD Limited

Length, in. 200.5 / 201.0 / 202.0 / 204.1 / 200

Width, in. 78.6 / 77.1 / 78.1 / 77.6 / 77.4

Height, in. 68.8 / 70.0 / 69.3 / 71.9 / 68.9

Wheelbase, in. 119.3 / 118.1 / 118.9 / 124.0 / 119.3

Curb Weight, lbs. 4452 / 4703 / 4729 / 4518 / 4630

Edited November 15, 2006 by regfootball

[sciguy_0504]

I'd take the Quest.

[big blue]

Eh weird how they have the Sienna as AWD but anyways, the right minivan won. I think the Ody is the best looking of them all, although I prefer the last gen's exterior to the current one.

[pow]

This is all very pertinent, actually. My uncle called me and asked what minivan to buy, and there really aren't any choices.

The cheapest domestic is the POS Uplander, $17.5K CarsDirect. And he already said, "No American vans."

There's the Sedona LX, which looks great on paper, $19.5K CarsDirect. It has all the right features, warranty, and specifications. But quality control is still missing.

There's the ancient Sienna LE, $21.5K CarsDirect. It's not powerful and it's dreary inside, but there's nothing really wrong with it. But to get stability control, you have to get the $25K LE #3.

And finally, the Odyssey LX. It's better than the Sienna (more power, more room, better handling, better fuel economy), and at $24K CarsDirect, it's cheaper than LE #3.

The Quest is too avant garde and has no price advantage.

So, annoyingly, I'm telling him to get the Honda, unless he can wait for '07 Sienna. Wish there were more choices in the real world....

Edited November 19, 2006 by empowah

[regfootball]

The Quest is too avant garde and has no price advantage.

217436[/snapback]

um, not no more, and maybe if y'all DROVE it, you'd like it. what is it with people not wanting to go out and test for themselves? arg. that aggravates me.

DON'T GET THE KIA and the Honda is not that good either. If the Nissan is avante garde, the Honda is just plain bad.

Edited November 19, 2006 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

I may have to chew my fingers off for typing this, but the Sienna is probably the safest buy of the bunch, even though it is over priced.

You Americans are so spoiled with your cheap car prices and cheap gas. Here, a Sienna sells for $31k; whereas, the Uplander RWB is $20k. I would readily agree that the Sienna is a better vehicle, but not for $11k, plus taxes. Even if you went to the extended Uplander, it is still about $5k cheaper (plus taxes) in this market.

So, if you are a family of 5, living on a budget, facing $4 a gallon gas, which do you lease? A Sienna for $550 a month and $2k out of pocket, or an Uplander at $450 a month with $1k out of pocket?

I have had too many customers with Odysseys complaining about electrical and transmission problems. I want to like them, but don't.

As to the Sedona: I'd rather walk than drive a Hyundai or Kia.

[regfootball]

I may have to chew my fingers off for typing this, but the Sienna is probably the safest buy of the bunch, even though it is over priced.

  You Americans are so spoiled with your cheap car prices and cheap gas.  Here, a Sienna sells for $31k; whereas, the Uplander RWB is $20k.  I would readily agree that the Sienna is a better vehicle, but not for $11k, plus taxes.  Even if you went to the extended Uplander, it is still about $5k cheaper (plus taxes) in this market.

So, if you are a family of 5, living on a budget, facing $4 a gallon gas, which do you lease?  A Sienna for $550 a month and $2k out of pocket, or an Uplander at $450 a month with $1k out of pocket?

  I have had too many customers with Odysseys complaining about electrical and transmission problems.  I want to like them, but don't.

  As to the Sedona: I'd rather walk than drive a Hyundai or Kia.

217520[/snapback]

yeah but if you can't stand sitting or riding in the uplander, and its seating isn't as useful, and it isn't as spacious, and its engine is woefully deficient, then you're foolish to waste money on the inferior product you would be unhappy with when for a bit more money you would get something that better suits your needs and you WOULD be happy with it. with an uplander you'd end up with big time buyer's remorse.

[Flybrian]

What are you talking about? The Uplander is damn sexy and that alone sells it.

[CARBIZ]

Req, have you driven a 2007 Uplander? I would hardly call 242 hp "woefully deficient." I clearly said the Sienna was the better vehicle, but we don't all have thousands to throw away. For many, average families, the Uplander will do fine.

I, for one, am looking forward to the upcoming replacement, but in the GTA, the Uplander outsells the Tahoe and Suburban by, like 5:1.

The Uplander has many clear wins, including a larger gas tank (where does the Sienna seat disappear to, I wonder?), more comfortable 3rd row seating, more functional spare tire, OnStar, etc., so it isn't all doom and gloom.

I respect people's disdain for all things minivan on this site, but for many in the Rest of the World, the minivan is an important vehicle in the market. It is a shame that Ford and GM wasted an opportunity that was theirs to lose 5 years ago.

[regfootball]

Req, have you driven a 2007 Uplander?  I would hardly call 242 hp "woefully deficient."  I clearly said the Sienna was the better vehicle, but we don't all have thousands to throw away.  For many, average families, the Uplander will do fine.

  I, for one, am looking forward to the upcoming replacement, but in the GTA, the Uplander outsells the Tahoe and Suburban by, like 5:1.

  The Uplander has many clear wins, including a larger gas tank (where does the Sienna seat disappear to, I wonder?), more comfortable 3rd row seating, more functional spare tire, OnStar, etc., so it isn't all doom and gloom.

  I respect people's disdain for all things minivan on this site, but for many in the Rest of the World, the minivan is an important vehicle in the market.  It is a shame that Ford and GM wasted an opportunity that was theirs to lose 5 years ago.

217535[/snapback]

i am a minivan proponent and almost bought one and i can tell you from the uplanders dysfunctional seating (lame ass thrid row) and horrible cabin alone the sienna is worth the extra money. i've been in plenty of uplanderterrazamontanarelays, they are always used as dealer shuttles by my pont. dealer.

hey fly, that uplander is sexy. don't you see all the chicks pulling up to the bar with them whne they go out clubbing?

my aztek is far better looking than that uplander, even if its the same vehicle

Edited November 19, 2006 by regfootball

[Flybrian]

hey fly, that uplander is sexy.  don't you see all the chicks pulling up to the bar with them whne they go out clubbing?

217543[/snapback]

Yeah, but they're all like 45.

[thedriver]

Speaking as a minivan owner, I am not all that impressed with ANY of the Edmunds choices.

The Toyota and Honda are overpriced and ugly, the powertrains are good, hte resale is high, but I will drive it until it dies.

The Kia is a joke. It looks nice, the price is right, but geez, what a rattletrap. Our local Kia dealer is, for the second time, offering a "buy one, get one free" deal on its vehicles. That doesn't really inspre any product confidence. Maybe in a few years, if the product improves. I compare them to Hyundai of about 15 years ago.

The Nissan is a nice van. They fixed the interior this year, it has a strong powertrain, the added style is nice, might be my choice of the bunch.

The Chrysler is all that is wrong with MINIvans. I have a short wheelbase, soon to be non-existant in the marketplace. The T&C is a long wheelbase luxo barge, not a basic family hauler.

The Saturn Relay is something I have actually looked at as a replacement for my Caravan, but it is narrower, the reliability isn't any better than what I have, but I think it is relatively attractive.

I am hoping the 2008 Mopar twins are nice, because I am running out of options if I want to buy a new MINIvan.

[Polish_Kris]

What are you talking about? The Uplander is damn sexy and that alone sells it.

217530[/snapback]

You gotta be f**king kidding me? LoL

[FAPTurbo]

What are you talking about? The Uplander is damn sexy and that alone sells it.

217530[/snapback]

:rotflmao:

I dunno fly... I think this one looks better...

Hmm... then again, I'm really diggin' this...

GM offers plenty of vans to match everyone's personality and pocketbook!!!

Edited November 19, 2006 by Captainbooyah

[regfootball]

Yeah, but they're all like 45.

217553[/snapback]

[FAPTurbo]

217610[/snapback]

I think it's time someone started a "What WON'T reg hit" topic.

[CARBIZ]

Req, you never answered my question. Sitting in the back while some 70 year old drives you to work in a dealer shuttle bus is not the same thing. Sit in the 3rd row of the Chrysler and then compare. The Uplander trio my not have fold flat seats, but they are actually thickly bolstered (a little too thick, if you ask me) and quite comfortable, for a third row.

With the addition of the 3.9 for 2007, the power and performance is certainly as good as the rest, but these are still minivans, of course.

I am not defending these vans. They should have been replaced two or three years ago by an entirely new platform; however, in the absence of a bottomless pit of development cash, I believe GM is doing alright with these vans to tide us over until they are replaced. They have their place in the minivan wars - certainly for the family on a budget. MOst of our customers lease and the current Uplander is about a $100 a month cheaper than either the Sienna or Odyssey.

The GMT-900s do nothing for us up here. We would rather the money was spent on a world class minivan; however, the Tahoe is a more important vehicle for GM, profit-wise, so it got the cash.

[pow]

um, not no more, and maybe if y'all DROVE it, you'd like it.  what is it with people not wanting to go out and test for themselves?  arg.  that aggravates me.

DON'T GET THE KIA and the Honda is not that good either.  If the Nissan is avante garde, the Honda is just plain bad.

217452[/snapback]

No, I like the Quest myself... it's just hard recommending it to people who don't care about design or 19" wheel availability.

Stability control is only on the $30,748 (CarsDirect) SE, and the cheapest Quest S is $22,592 (CD), which is $1K more than the base Sienna LE. And since when was Nissan known for quality?

I can't stand the Sienna - I don't like its interior or the company that builds it - but it's the one I'm recommending for my uncle. Ignore the stability control, and it's a good $3K less than the Honda.

[PsychoBueller]

I believe GM is doing alright with these vans to tide us over until they are replaced.  They have their place in the minivan wars - certainly for the family on a budget.  MOst of our customers lease and the current Uplander is about a $100 a month cheaper than either the Sienna or Odyssey.

217630[/snapback]

Work me a lease payment on one with dual power sliders and power liftgate. ZERO down, sign and drive. 24 months/15K miles per year. Very curious because I just did this deal on a Dodge Grand Caravan SXT and feel like I did well. I am curious what a CSV goes for in the real world.

[regfootball]

so even if you can get the GM vans cheaper than the toyota, if you hate driving them, its money you hated spending and that does not make a happy customer.

plus the toyota residuals are much better than the GM vans so they probably lease cheaper than the GM vans.

[CARBIZ]

There you go again, not reading my postings. I have stated twice that (in this market) the Sienna is at least $100 a month more on a lease. Residuals be damned: when the interest rates are 4.9 and 5.9 and when the vehicle is $5k - $10k more to start with, inevitably the vehicle will be more to lease. There is that myth of Toyotas holding their value again. I am disappointed to see that rear its ugly head on this board.

Clearly, YOU don't want a minivan, my earlier point is that they are an important market and there are legions of fans for them. Control your disdain and view them for what they are: cheap, convenient people movers. They are far more efficient in both design and cost of ownership than ANY SUV.

I would rather drive an Uplander than a Tahoe. I would be ashamed for raping the planet with that vehicle (unless I still towed my boat all over the place) and can't see how anyone justifies being in one of those huge trucks.

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but some of you guys need to visit Europe or South America and see how the rest of the world survives with $6 and up gasoline.

The UPlander needs to be replaced. In the meantime, it continues to be one of our biggest sellers at dealerships in the GTA.

[regfootball]

There you go again, not reading my postings.  I have stated twice that (in this market) the Sienna is at least $100 a month more on a lease.  Residuals be damned: when the interest rates are 4.9 and 5.9 and when the vehicle is $5k - $10k more to start with, inevitably the vehicle will be more to lease. There is that myth of Toyotas holding their value again.  I am disappointed to see that rear its ugly head on this board. 

  Clearly, YOU don't want a minivan, my earlier point is that they are an important market and there are legions of fans for them.  Control your disdain and view them for what they are: cheap, convenient people movers.  They are far more efficient in both design and cost of ownership than ANY SUV.

  I would rather drive an Uplander than a Tahoe.  I would be ashamed for raping the planet with that vehicle (unless I still towed my boat all over the place) and can't see how anyone justifies being in one of those huge trucks.

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but some of you guys need to visit Europe or South America and see how the rest of the world survives with $6 and up gasoline.

  The UPlander needs to be replaced.  In the meantime, it continues to be one of our biggest sellers at dealerships in the GTA.

217812[/snapback]

clearly you don't ever read my posts. You would recall that about a year ago, i agreed to lease a Quest, and then as she was arranging the paperwork, the chick (internet manager) said Nissan had stopped sale of new quests due to safety recall on the middle row seats. You would also know that I have test driven odysseys, sedonas and siennas. I even had a great deal offered on a Sienna I turned down because it was dull. The only reaosn I have my 500 is because the Quest lease I agreed to fell through because they couldn't deliver the new Quest for a month.

As far as the uplander, here in the US I will bet you the Toyota leases much cheaper. In fact, the deal that was offered to me on an LE 7 passenger was around 370/month for 18k miles and 1k down. The Quest lease I agreed to was around 340/month for 18k and 2k down. She then offered me the base maxima w/ stick for the same range (even though they would have to go outstate to locate one) after the seat recall debacle, but my Ford dealer set up a deal on the 500 lease that allowed me to get the loaded limited for the same price as the Quest van.

Considering leases on Grand Prixs at the time I shopped were 100 bucks a month more than the limited 500 i got, for only an SE grand Prix with a sub 25 sticker there was no reason to believe that an Uplander in the 28-30 range with less resale than the GP would even come within 150 bucks of the Sienna.......and then to top it off I would not want to even spend a dime on an Uplander. Reasons? ugly, pushrods, 4 speed, lousy seat utility, lacks space, I could go on and on.

At least here in the US, the Sienna holds it lease structures very well to steal those who lease DCX vans and want to upgrade etc. So they have to keep the prices low to move the metal. Although it still is far cheaper to lease a DCX van, at least the DCX van is desirable from a functional standpoint and doesn't offend with its looks. You get the DCX and justify it. But not the CSV's.

If you BUY a Sienna, then you really do get bent over. You're better off in a DCX van. The DCX at least has stow and go and decent styling. The Uplander cannot compete with the DCX vans in price, space, or seating utility either.

Edited November 20, 2006 by regfootball

[DetroitNut90]

If you BUY a Sienna, then you really do get bent over.  You're better off in a DCX van.  The DCX at least has stow and go and decent styling.  The Uplander cannot compete with the DCX vans in price, space, or seating utility either.

217884[/snapback]

Truth...Stow 'n Go is many, many times better than the U-body's lame 2nd & 3rd row seats.

[A Horse With No Name]

The Kia is still pretty junky in terms of design, ergonomics, and looks. The first one was also an obese pig.

I would agree.

Chris