Toyota Suprarreal...

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Toyota Suprarreal...

Well, the waiting is almost finally done. I don't have my friend's magazine here for direct quotation, but I will post what my memory serves.


Toyota has been doing very damn well lately, and now they are about to do what they are known for doing best, the Supra.


After so many years of vacationing, they decided it was time to wake it up again to do its job as their flagship car. It is almost decided that they will discard the 4.5L V-10 for a more economical V6 3.5L, the same engine in the IS350. But that's not all, for they want to twin turbocharge the car to boost the already phenomenal 306hp.


To make their stand even firmer, Toyota is talking with Honda to buy their AWD technology, improve it, and install it into the new Supra, giving Nissan's ATTESA-ETS and Porsche's old PSK systems a run for their money.


Victory has never tasted better......

posted by  Inygknok

what magazine is tha from? I wanna read about it and maybe see some pics.
But otherwise this sounds great! I have always wanted the Supra to be brought back and now it might happen. Good thing u didn't say hybrid Supra like the other guy did on his thread. Cause the i would think that the world is just nuts. I also think that th eprelude should be brought back. Some may say well they have the civic and all that but i think they need to make a Prelude to be as good in performance as the STI/EVO. THat probably wont happen unless they make it RWD or AWD but i wanna see the Prelude come back.

posted by  V-Tec

I love the fact Toyota wants to buy the SH-AWD from Honda :mrgreen: Seems to be standard fare these days to buy stuff from Honda from a lot of companies (coughGMcough).

I like the idea about the new Supra coming out, but I hope to every god they dont make it over $50,000. Which seems to be out of the question, since last I saw it was supposed to be a LExus model costing NEAR $100,000.

posted by  thunderbird1100

My guess is around.... 45k or so, give the Mustang a run for it's money if it isn't in an entirely different class and since the Mustang is projected around 35k I believe (Could be wrong, haven't checked the progress for quite sometime) I'll guess 45k possibly....

posted by  Pythias

The GT500 (Cobra, or whatever they will call it) will cost near $40,000. At least that's what Ford said. I still dont see the new Supra coming anywhere near that price though. They said "near $100,000" last time. Plus back in the day Supas rang up $35k-$40k at dealers, a decade ago. Will definatley be more expensive than that.

I wish they did it this way.

3.5L N/A Supra - 306hp - $35,000.
3.5L TT Supra - 400hp - $45,000.

But I'm dreaming.

posted by  thunderbird1100

My first car might be a Supra, but from like 1991, or probably earlier...unless I win the lottery :hi: :laughing:

posted by  chris_knows

I want another Inline 6. V6s are for American cars...

posted by  PontiacFan27

I see, I remember the original pricing around 40k but I thought for some reason maybe it had dropped a little. And this supra will be expected to way much more? How much do you personally think it will be around? To me 100k seems WAY high I mean once you get into cars that high you talk about cars like the Viper and such. I realize this car will have a nice amoutn of power with twin turbo's and AWD but at the same time I couldn't see it being more than around 70k then. :2cents:

posted by  Pythias

If a 3.5L N/A V6 (new 306hp Lexus IS350) is already making MORE power than the 3.0L Twin Turbo I6 Supra did. I have no qualms about putting twin turbos on, ON TOP of that.

Since when did a V6 become American? All of the Japanese big three use V6's in the bread and butter sedans (3.0L V6 and 3.3L V6 in the Camry, 3.0L V6 in the Accord and 3.5L V6 in the Altima).

posted by  thunderbird1100

I never even remember Toyota announcing they were actually GOING to make a new Supra until, well today. Before they said the LF-A (4.5L 500hp V10) was going to be "the replacement for the Supra" and was going to be $100k. Then now I see the are coming out with a hybrid sports coupe with 400hp, but no pricing on that yet. Now I find out they are actually coming out with a new Supra.

MY best guess... I'd be suprised to see it cheaper than $55,000.

posted by  thunderbird1100

sorry for not having any price quotes, but this is wat i know from wat my friend read out loud to me over the phone. ill try to visit him today and read it directly and maybe quote it directly so u all can have a look yourselves.


i dont remember wat mag it was, but it also informed on the 2007 GT-R and the new Miata.


i bet Toyota saw the fluctuation of gas prices getting too out of control, so they opted for the 3.5L V6 in order to save much more gas and go more efficiently about it. great idea.


the IS makes just a tad less than the TT supra, but it sure will make way more power if Toyota tt's the IS engine for the new supra.


i wonder how Toyota will improve on honda's new AWD system.......

posted by  Inygknok

I dont know how they can improve on the SH-AWD system (most advanced on a production car right now). I guess the only thing the SH-AWD doesnt do is like it does on the rear wheels (Applies more torque to one rear wheel or the other on turns) is do that to the front wheels. But I dont see that really as an advantage.

posted by  thunderbird1100

they'll probably add a bit more computer power to the system....

u know, like back when the PSK was first released and everyone went "whoa....."

posted by  Inygknok

Oh so you basically just mean UPGRADE it in the electronics sense (ie make it quicker/lighter/more efficent). Gotcha.

posted by  thunderbird1100

That I6 is also over a decade old. A new one could do much better. Family-haulers dont really count in performance car discussions, so no reason to bring up Accords or Camrys when we're talking about Supras and Skylines.

posted by  PontiacFan27

You realize you dont gain any power advantage if you have the exact EVERYTHING by going from a V6 to an I6 right? I6's have smoother torque curves in general but that's about it. If you have a 3.0L DOHC 24v I6 with the same exact specs as a 3.0L DOHC 24v V6, there isn't any power difference.

So I guess the Nissan 350Z doesnt count? 3.5L V6 - 300hp.

The IS350 isn't a performance car either? 3.5L V6 - 306hp.

How about the 16 year old NSX? 3.2L V6 - 290hp. Not to mention that engine is a 16 year old design too, Older than a 2jz-gte (started out as a 3.0L 270hp V6 in 1990). 2jz is only a 13 year old engine.

You dont need an I6 to have performance. If you did ALL the Asian manufacturers wouldnt have use/used a V6 in their performance cars across the board.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I'm not saying you need I6s, I just think theyre one of the things that made them cool and exotic to begin with. All japanese companies are just throwing away the I6s, but I like them.

posted by  PontiacFan27

What's so exotic about an I6 if a V6 can make just as much power? Does the packaging of the engine make you nut or something?

posted by  thunderbird1100

yea. the system itself is already completely genius. not that the PSK and attesa ets arent, but you get the point.


another thing, pontiacfan, why are V6's just for americans? americans invented the freaking automobile, and internal combustion engines.... and airplanes... and a lot of other things.... so how come japanese cars cant use V6's for their new flagship sports cars?


i love the I6 deeply, even if it doesnt allow for a low center of gravity (but makes up in perfect balance). but still, i think that a change to a V6, even if temporary for a few years (like 5?) is a nice idea. just to have something different to play with for a while.

posted by  Inygknok

Because few cars use them.

posted by  PontiacFan27

quote: another thing, pontiacfan, why are V6's just for americans? americans invented the freaking automobile

didnt mercedes invent the automobile? and americans invent the first Production car?

posted by  behind_thewheel

America invented the assembly line process, which made mass production of automobiles, thats all I know.

The first vehicle that made itself go was a steam powered military vehicle made by the french. The first working four wheeled motor vehicle ran by an internal combustion engine that blows up gasoline was invented by Daimler. Benz recieved the first patent.

posted by  PontiacFan27

few cars use I3's. Do you love those too?

posted by  thunderbird1100

So, they are making a AWD 350-400hp machine? Damn, Honda should do that. I don't think Honda would just sell the SH-AWD to them. Toyota is going to have to pay them a extremely hefty price. Especially considering that the next wave of Honda cars are going to depend on that to be the quencher. I don't think Honda will sell their trump card to their biggest rival. They aren't exactly in need of financial assistance either, Honda is doing pretty well. Actually, Honda Canada posted better sales numbers then Toyota Canada. And I forsee that Honda America will post up better numbers then Toyota America this year as well considering the recent release of the Civic.

Honda has better chassis manufacturing processes as of now considering the Ridgeline is 150% more rigid then either the Tacoma or the Tundra. The NSX-S is much more well built then any Toyota Vehicle built in teh last decade or so using all aluminum and being hand built. Also the Bar-Honda 007 has the lightest carbon fibre uni body construction in teh league. And Honda is designing a V-10, along with it, V8 and turbo I4's, and maybe a turbo V6. So i forsee Honda will give the new Supra a run for its money a couple years after its release.

posted by  aerith

Toyota may not use the SH-AWD after all. Read this article. http://autonet.ca/News/story.cfm?story=/News/2005/10/05/1248874-ap.html

GM is planning to sell its Fuji (Subaru) stock off to Toyota, at least the majority of it. If Toyota has access to Subaru's AWD system, why bother with the SH-AWD. Even though the SH-AWD is a more advanced AWD system compared to Subaru's, why pay a large sum for something that you aren't familiar with when you have a pretty good system in the company and you also have access to the engineers who designed and built the system to make modifications.

posted by  aerith

No offesne to Subaru, but their AWD system is archaic on the WRX.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Actually, quite a few do. The Chevrolet Trailblazer, Nearly all model BMW's, Lexus IS 300, Oldsmobile Bravada, Lexus GS 300, Jeep Wrangler, Suzuki Verona, GMC Envoy, many Volvo 6 cylinders, such as the S80...

I find it interesting that you think that a V6 is an "American" thing, when actually during the 50's and 60's especially and continuing on into the 70's and 80's...the stock engine on many, if not all family sedans was an I6. Old Econolines, Dodge Vans, Jeeps, Bel-Airs, the first Corvette, early Mustangs, old Camaros...they were all over the place.

posted by  hondaman

Yeah, yet it miraculously pulls similiar performance figures to the Lancer Evolution which features a much more advanced AWD system.

posted by  aerith

I meant just the wRX, non-STi. The STi gets some AWD goodies the WRX does not.

posted by  thunderbird1100

you just answered your own question.


to have a much more advanced AWD system. who cares if its something the company doesnt have much experience with, specially since its new technology. if that was the excuse for everything new, then nuthin new would ever get invented.

posted by  Inygknok

Even so, the STi's setup is not as advanced as the Evo's. Im pretty sure we all know the specs of both cars, and we can agree that the Evo has a much more advanced AWD system. Yet, even though the STi doesn't have as advanced a system as the Evo, it gets very similiar figures.

posted by  aerith

But, its going to cost Toyota quite a bit. In the next few years, Honda/Acura is going to introduce SH-AWD into its TL, and maybe the MDX/Pilot, and Ridgeline. Maybe even for the Accord. If they just sell the technology to Toyota, then that destroy's Honda's edge over Toyota. Why would toyota pay such a large sum to get something that is only marginally better then the in house Subaru system?

posted by  aerith

I dont know if you can call it all that more advanced. Dont both have 3 LSD's? The Subaru has different selectable settgins too doesn't it? I know the EVO has the tarmac,snow,gravel settings.

posted by  thunderbird1100

from something just "marginally" better, with time and R&D, something way greater can be discovered.

its like the principles of many sciences and math, equivalent exchange.

posted by  Inygknok

The Evolution are also equipped with a bunch of technical crap that the STi doesnt, i don't know them all, but the most obvious one is the Super AYC.

posted by  aerith

That is true. But i just can't imagine Honda selling Toyota their trump-card. They are head to head rivals. If Toyota starts to use SH-AWD in their future line of cars, Honda may lose a chunk of market share. People who want AWD in a ordinary japanese import family sedan with Honda/Toyota reliability, decent resale values. The only other company to offer this is Subaru, and Subaru's reliability is no where near Honda's or Toyota's. Subaru customer service is atrocious, and resale values of Subaru's are relatively low except the STi. Not everyone wants to pay premium for an Audi, or pay for the overpriced Volkswagens just to have AWD.

posted by  aerith

- toyota is mos def making some moves... - i have ranted about this alot- i would love to see the supra back- YES V6... yes TWIN TURBO on that- pushin 306hp.... sounds good, and yes honda will lose market share.... Subaru isnt close to them; the one to watch is Hyundai- somehow they get these high quality ratings over the past few fiscal quarters and now everyone wants to compare them to toyota and honda.... well its kinda tru.... kinda :laughing:

posted by  cL300zx

They will lose market share in that segment if they do sell SH-AWD. But they can probaly make it back in Civic sales. The civic will sell much better then the Corolla. Even though on paper the corolla and civic are very similiar, the superior styled exterior is the quencher. And the new civic's interior is on a whole new level compared to the drab beige cheapy plastic interior of the corolla.

posted by  aerith

I dont think Honda will lose market share even if they sell their SH-AWD system to Toyota. That alone might offset the sales costs when Toyota finally would sell it on their cars. Plus, Honda will play it smart and if they do sell the system to them make sure they can release it on many vehicles before toyota does...such as the TL, Accord and alike.

posted by  thunderbird1100

hyundai.... do i smell another DeLorean-alike case again?

posted by  Inygknok

yeah- u r right in honda will outsell toyota when civic vs. corolla- but they will win more market share regardless of whether they sell their all wheel drive or not.... think about it:
camry vs. accord.. close battle
avalon vs. what>? accord.... correct me on that-- what is honda's flagship- the accord right>?

sienna vs. odyssey- anotha close battle
tacoma/tundra vs. ridgeline.... blow out for 05 and 06

honda on otha hand has sports car demographic on lock with s2K, but if the supra comes back.. hmm will be interestin

toyota suv's (sequoia, highlander, forerunner) vs. honda SUVs.... toyota wins
str8 up-- LEXUS vs. ACURA.... yeah we should all know that stat... lexus hands down...

now thundabird... dont git me wrong- acura is TIGHT... i like acura- TL, RSX, those are hot-- and who can debate the NSX... possibly one of the tightest cars of all time


but---- when it comes to sales... str8 up market share... Lexus owns everyone.... for now.. at least for the past decade lexus has a greater turnover in the share- #1 for 5 jus about 5yrs in luxury division.... yep. :thumbs:

posted by  cL300zx

Instead of you blowing some numbers around and not understanding what car competes against what car why dont we really look at sales numbers and let me show you what car competes against what car.

First off, a big thing a lot of people dont realize is this, Honda sells more Accords than Civics. Almost 75,000-100,000 more at the end of each year recently.

Second, the Accord competes against the Camry/Solara, period. Honda doesn't even really have competition for the Avalon as it really doesn't have a large sedan but if you had to pick and choose the TL would be your best bet. Everyone knows the Civic competes against the Corolla. Here's the rest...

Matrix vs. ?

Prius vs. Well I guess you could say the Civic Hybrid

Ridgeline vs. ? Toyota doesnt sell an SUV with a bed designed truck. The Tundra and Tacoma are light duty and 1/2 ton pickups. The Ridgeline competes against things such as the Explorer sport trac.

S2000 vs. ?

CR-V vs. RAV-4

Pilot vs. 4Runner

Highlander vs. ?

Sequoia vs. ? Might be able to say Pilot again, but not really.

Land cruiser vs. ?

Odyssey vs. Sienna

RSX/RSX-S vs. ?

TSX vs. ? The ES330 is not really competition for the TSX. I guess with the new IS250 coming out you could say that though.

TL vs. ? Again, the Avalon loaded out is it's best comparison.

RL vs. GS430, the LS430 isn't a luxury sport sedan like the RL is.

MDX vs. RX330/GX470, more similar in size with the GX but more similar in price with the RX.

NSX vs. ?

LS430 vs. ?

GS330 vs. ?

IS350 vs. ?

LX470 vs. ?

SC430 vs. ?

I thin kthat about wraps it up, here is AHM sales year to date and for the month of spetember 2005.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=419183

I can't find a sales chart for Toyota. I cand find random numbers here and there though. But at least now you udnerstand what competes against what.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The new Supra will blow an S2000 away in performance and money made off of it. It is a thing of legend, whereas the S2000 is just a sport convertable to alot of people, which is conquered by cars like the Corvette.

posted by  PontiacFan27

If you don't know anything about Honda S2000, don't just mouth off. The S2000 is not a competitor to the Corvette. The S2000 is a hardcore sports car; have you driven one? There are no luxuries, its like a F1 car in convertible format. You feel the road when you drive that car.

First of all, the S2000 will outhandle the Supra, no matter what AWD system they put into it. It's like half the weight. They're different type of cars; the S2000 is for the tight curves, the Supra is a saloon; its doesn't compete against the S2000. The Supra is Toyota's flagship sports car, what is Honda's? The NSX, and that is a true legend, the supra is a great car but its no marvel of technology like the NSX. And i would think the new V-10 NSX would take the new Supra hands down in autocross, but it probaly will cost around 2-3 times more, so thats expected.

posted by  aerith

I want to make some slight changes to your versus list. (this is just my opinion on what the competition is all about)

RSX/RSX-S vs. Celica/GT-S

TSX vs. IS250

TL vs. IS350, ES330 (depending if you want to compare performance of luxury; for performance its IS350vs TL, for luxury its ES vs. TL)

RL vs. GS330 series. I would take the RL over the GS any day.

NSX vs. LF-A variant or new Supra.

Echo vs. City (coming soon to North America)

Matrix vs. Fit (Honda president said they will release a Fit version for North America along with the City.)

RDX vs. RX330 (I know the RX costs more, but they seat the same amount of people and they have similiar performance figures)

2007 MDX (since they completely changing it; its going to be more luxurious and more powerful) vs. GX 2006 (same as above.)

posted by  aerith

I don't know if he was exactly comparing those 2 cars. He said the S2000 is blown away by cars Like the Corvette, correct me if I am wrong but aren't their prices around the same? Not sure but I thought. :2cents:

posted by  Pythias

The prices are 44,850 USD for the cheapest corvetter you can buy; 1LT, and that is without tax. The base price for the S2000, is 34,050 USD. 10,000 dollars difference is not around the same. I personally consider them different types of cars. The Corvette is a larger car, almost saloon size, but the S2000 is small, just a bit larger then the Miata. Their performance figures vary greatly. The S2000, has gone almost unchanged since its release in 1999, except for 0.2L change in engine size which gave more power at lower RPM's. The S2000, is better compared to the old BMW Z3 since the new Z4 is pitiful. Or a mercedes SLK. (in performance wise) It's a purist's car, theres nothing you don't need in a race car in that thing, except for the spare tire.

posted by  aerith

I see, I do like the S2000's though I have always sorta had a thing for them, maybe once their production is stopped they will go down in price... or up.... lol. One day I'd like to have my dream Mustang and either an 88' Corvette or an S2000, and do some major performance mods to either of them. Of course my dream meaning when I'm like 35 or older. :mrgreen:

posted by  Pythias

I'm sorry but obviously you know absolutely nothing abnout the S2000. First off it has HIGHER revving capability stock of an even the new Renesis ROTARY in the RX-8 (9500rpms stock rev limiter on the 00-03). It's basically one of the most superior handling cars you can buy right now. I haven't checked out handling numbers on a C6 convertible in a while but im pretty sure the S2000 is better in that department or at least VERY similar. LEt me remind you the S2000 OWNED it's SCCA Solo II stock class (B) so much that they FORCED it to go up a class and compete in A Stock, a class full of corvettes, which it does extremely well against. How can you even say the Supra will blow it away? It isn't out yet, specs aren't out and most of all price is not expected to be NEAR the S2000's only price of $33k. On another note, why in the hell did you compare a $52k Corvette to a S2000?

No other company has a car to compete with the S2000 except quite possibly the Porsche Boxster which is still over $10k more.

BTW - The only reason the "supra" is a legend is because of Fast and Furious... In japan it's known to be no more "godlier" than a Fairlady Z, Skyline or RX-7.

But anyways, so much for the C6 vette conquering the S2000 in anything but price :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yeah, i love the S2k as well. I've only test drove one, (why do i test drive so many Honda's you ask? I have a friend who works at a Honda dealership). And my friend's brother has one, but he never lets me drive it. :( They're fun as hell to drive when you curving around roads and such, but for daily use they are a pain in the ass.

posted by  aerith

The Celica isn't in production anymore, that's why i left it off the list. I just made the list on AVAILABLE 2006 models.

While I can see how you COULD compare the IS350 and the TL, they are really two such different automobiles IMO and dont compare very well. Even though price is pretty similar, like TSXvs. IS250 (About a $3k-$4k difference either way the Acura being cheaper). The TL isn't nearly as sporty as the RWD IS350, but definatley IMO is more luxo.

I dont see how the RL competes against the GS330. IT has the power of the V8's and the price is closer to the V8 varients of all competitors.

While I know I just said i will only make 2006 models vs. 2006 models I'll comment on your other ones.

I thought the fit was a subcompact? The MAtrix is just a compact wagon corolla.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I've always told people this. If you want a hardcore convertible all around get the 00-03 2.0L S2000 (9500rpm capability). If you want a hardcore convertible that you can drive everyday and on long trips I say get the 04-06 2.2L S2000 (8500rpms capability). The 04-06 is much more tame in the engine revving department yet still manages to be a little quicker (mainly due to a much easier launch). I once drove an 02 S2000 with a carbon fiber hardtop on the highway and revving 3700-3800rpms constantly. It made me have an EXTREMELY bad headache.

posted by  thunderbird1100

How come? Because of the suspension? And yes I would love to get one and do some major things to it, being so light there are many possibilities.

posted by  Pythias

It's one of the few Honda's I'd rather supercharge than turbocharge (much easier, with turbos you DEFINATLEY have to get new low comp. pistons, not so with the supercharger packages). With the say Comptech blower you go from 240 crank hp (on the 00-03 model) up to 360hp (With a new exhaust) with just that. And trust me 240hp is already MORE than fun in this 2800lb convertible.

posted by  thunderbird1100

NICE, I definitely like that idea, for awhile I thought about engine swaps, but after what you recently pointed out about it's revving and everything else I don't think I would. Besides if you put a bigger engine in it it would throw off the weight distribution. But man 360 HP in that thing would be amazing. :thumbs: Also if you don't mind me asking I was wondering what kind of gas mileage you got in your accord? I kinda like those year model's and may possibly get one eventually seeing as how I will be going to College, and prolly driving 40 minutes a day. :banghead:

posted by  Pythias

Well, i drive the TL on a daily basis and i drove the IS350 around, with the A-spec springs, Apex CAI, with potenza tires on my TL. Its every bit as sporty as the IS350 on a daily basis, the only time you can tell the performance difference is on the track. The acceleration feels pretty much the same, with that much power its hard to tell the difference between 20-30 horses with just daily driving. I was comparing the cars mainly by engine type. But the RL compares to the GS class in general, whether it be 330 or 430. The Honda Fit is a 5 person wagon like vehicle, probaly smaller then the Matrix by a bit; but its the closest thing to a matrix we're ever going to get here.

By 2007 the TL will probaly take the IS350's place as second place in its class ; performance wise, with the mid-life change hinted to feature SH-AWD and a horsepower increase to 300.

And the Celica is not in production anymore? I didn't know that. I don't really like Toyota, so i don't keep up to date with their cars. The reason i don't like Toyota is not because i like Honda, its because my parents had a Camry, Accord, Previa and Oddysey. The Camry had much more problems then the accord, it failed emission tests many times. And the Previa is way underpowered for such a large car. The Oddysey and accord were pretty quick considering they are family hauling vehicles, and they never had any maintainence problems. My parents never took the Hondas to the mechanic for anything except maintainence. The Previa and Camry had their complete exhaust system changed, fuel pumps changed, and the camry needed a new transmission since the original one cracked.

posted by  aerith

- i work for toyota bud... i got numbers... but that isnt even my point.- takes to long to put all that down-- but you make my point for me.. thanx- look at all the toyota cars that DO NOT have a matching Honda competitor- my point is honda is goin to lose market share to toyota Period. ( whether or not they sale their all wheel drive stuff... which is nice dont git me wrong) but they cannot compete in a real business world against toyota right now for several reasons.... ONE BIG REASON.. toyota is more established worldwide... anotha- they are more established here in the US... now i could give u all kinda stats.. but the point is still valid- oh and one correction- TL doesnt compete against avalon- to diff classes; avalon is flagship- technically accord is honda's kinda... if u wanna call it that- i feel your point it against camry/solara based off size.... TL would be against an IS more so from company vs. company, class vs class, and demographically... and u left some off the list for toyota-- RX's hybrid option, but like i said i dont feel like listing all the vehicle makes... because there are alot more than this list that anyone could see off of the websites.. based on worldwide sales.... and- SUPRA would smack tha s2k

posted by  cL300zx

What are you talking about? You are just spewing crap. You may work for Toyota. But, according to sales numbers, Honda is gaining market share. The Civic is outselling the Corolla 2 to 1. I have friends who work for Honda dealerships, and for the headquaters. In Canada, the number one selling car of all time is not the Toyota Corolla but the Honda Accord, and a close second is the Honda Civic. Honda is actually gaining market share, public statistics are taken every year, Honda's popularity is gaining while Toyota's image is starting to become a "old person's car." In the last 5 years, Acura has gained much distance in the Luxury market. The TL outsold the IS300 and the ES330 combined in 2004. More cars doesn't mean its better, GM has A LOT more cars in its line then Toyota, yet Toyota manages to outsell them and post a bigger profit margin every quater.

Despite Toyota's pathetic attempts to inject life into their "old people" cars the key demographics for the Camry and Corolla are still middle aged parents, and people in the range of 35-45. While the Civic/ Accord demographic is from 20-45. Toyota is not gaining market share; they are lucky they are not losing any. With the new Civic launch; the Corolla stands no chance, with its inferior exterior and interior styling; its no competitor. As the next half a decade pass; Toyota is bound to lose market share; Acura is ready to launch the RDX; featuring the same specifications of the RX but at a cheaper price. The current generation of Accord already outsells the Camry greatly. The current Sienna has been out for a year longer then the current generation of Oddysey, yet on the road; for every Sienna on the road; their is a Honda counterpart. The Oddysey drives better, carries people more comfortably, nicer interior, more power, more fuel efficient, and yet still manages to look a lot better. Don't get me wrong; Toyota makes great cars, but its not correct to say that Honda is losing market share to Toyota.

Also, you left another thing off the list; the Honda FCX, Toyota still has no hydrogen fuel cell production vehicle planned. Where's Toyota's competition against the NSX for the last 7 years? Where's Toyota competitor to the Element? Where's Toyota's competitor to the Honda Civic Coupe? Toyota still hasn't corrected it's V8 truck engine efficency problem; the Seqoia's V8 is no more efficient then my dad's 13 year old GMC 3500 heavy duty van. It uses 500 dollars Canadian a month as a daily driver, each day averaging about 50km per day.

You may work for Toyota; but even you do not know the specs of the new Supra. You do not know it's good enough to take the S2000 around the curves. Maybe its your opinion; but heres mine; the new NSX V-10 will spank the new Supra like yesterday's trash. I can be a jerk too.

posted by  aerith

Lets have a side by side comparison;
Toyota Corolla;
Corolla LE
1.8-liter DOHC 16-valve VVT-I
4-cylinder
126 hp @ 6000 rpm;
122 lb.-ft. @ 4200 rpm
MPG (auto) 30/38
Suspension;
Independant Front Strut
Semi-independant Rear Strut
Front Disc Brakes
Rear Drum Brakes
ABS optional
MSRP; 15,215 USD

Toyota XRS
1.8-liter DOHC 16-valve VVTL-i
4-cylinder
164 hp @ 7600 rpm;
125 lb.-ft. @ 4400 rpm
MPG; 30/38
Suspension;
Independent MacPherson strut front, torsion beam rear suspension with front and rear stabilizer bars (XRS add sport-tuned struts, springs and stabilizer bars, and sport strut tower brace)
Front/Rear Disc Brakes.
MSRP; 17,780USD
http://media.automotive.com/evox/stilllib/toyota/corolla/2005/4sa/46.jpg

http://media.automotive.com/evox/stilllib/toyota/corolla/2005/4sa/48.jpg

http://media.automotive.com/evox/stilllib/toyota/corolla/2005/4sa/59.jpg


Honda Civic
Civic DX
1.8L inline 4 SOHC i-Vtec
140 hp @ 6300 rpm;
128 lb.- ft. @ 4300 rpm;
MPG; 30/40
Suspension;
Control-Link MacPherson Strut Front Suspension
Reactive-Link Double Wishbone Rear Suspension
Front/Rear Disc brakes with standard ABS
MSRP; 14,560 usd

I am going to compare a Corolla XRS to a Civic SI, because the XRS is supposed to be the sporty version of the Corolla, and the SI is the "Sport Injected" version of the Civic, so they are both performance oriented; therefore its somewhat a fair compairson.

Civic SI;
2.0 inline 4 cylinder DOHC i-Vtec
197 hp @ 7800 rpm;
139 lb.- ft. @ 6200 rpm;
MPG; 22/31 (real world tested numbers, not given by manufacturer)
Control Link MacPherson-strut front Suspension
Reactive multilink double-wishbone Rear Suspension
Front Helical Limited Slip Differential
Front/ Rear Disc Brake
300 watt cd-changer system.
MSRP; 19,500 usd.


http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/2006/Hond a/CivicSedan/400/2006_Honda_CivicSedan_exdrvract.jpg

http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/2006/Hond a/CivicSedan/500/2006_Honda_CivicSedan_indash.jpg

http://a904.g.akamai.net/7/904/506/v0011/www.autobytel.com/images/2006/Hond a/CivicSedan/500/2006_Honda_CivicSedan_exrrpass343.jpg


Not much of a comparison is it? The Civic DX gets better fuel efficenty, has better styling interior or exterior, better suspension setup, better brakes, more power, 2% better resale rate, safer with standard ABS, and most important of all; its all at about almost a thousand dollars cheaper.
The Corolla XRS is no comparison to a Civic SI, i don't want to embarass the Corolla XRS; if i say anymore; the cheap plastic aero spoilers might fall off its narrow body caused by the tears of sorrow by being so completely overwhelmed by superior performance, superior styling, superior value, and superior engineering.

I'll do the Accord/Camry, Oddysey/Sienna, Pilot/Highlander, and the RAV4/CR-V comparos tomorrow; why those cars? They are the bread and butter cars of Toyota and Honda. Its getting late.

posted by  aerith

Except the guy I quoted brought up the S2000 and Toyota Supra in the same sentence. What do we call that again, comparing? Also, how would you know how much the new Supra is going to weigh, no such info is available. I'm pretty sure an AWD Supra is going to handle better than the RWD S2000.

To the person replying to my response about the Corvette conquering the sports car market, I was talking about sales. How many S2000's do you see on the road? I have only seen 1. How many C6 Corvettes have you seen on the road? Too many to count for me. The Corvette may cost more, but it seems power matters to some people.

posted by  PontiacFan27

I get between 31-33mpg on the highway when going 75-80. Been getting 14-15 around BR lately though, buts that due to EXTREME stop/go traffic and my heavy foot. In Atlanta I got about 20mpg around the city.

posted by  thunderbird1100

If you work for Toyota why dont you provide some competiting sales figures? It took me 2 minutes to find those Honda numbers. Since you work for Toyota it should take less :wink2:

Yeah, Honda has a lot less vehicle than Toyota. But Honda also is 4th (close to 3rd) in sales overall in America. And I guarentee you they dont have the 4th largest amount of vehicles in their fleet (just tihnk, Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler). When you say that I see it as a disadvantage. Toyota is going to run into a brick wall like GM and Ford did already with having TOO many SUV's in their fleet. Daimler Chrysl;er is on their way as well. Really does Toyota ALONE (not including their two OTHER brands) need 5 SUV's starting at $19k, $24k, $27k, $33k and $56k? No, they dont. Especially when they have 3 different SUV's in the Lexus brand (RX/GX/LX). Honda gets the SUV job done with a light and medium SUV (the CR-V and Pilot/MDX).

Whether you like it or not Honda is growing at a huge rate right now like Toyota. I doubt Honda would sell something and LET them lose market share to their biggest competitor. They will be much more smart about it than that.

And finally NOOOOO, the Accord is not Honda's flagship, HONDA DOES NOT HAVE A LARGE CAR! The Accord is Honda's mid-size sedan that competes directly against the Camry/Solara, nothing more. Like I said, if you had to PICK AND CHOOSE the Avalon would compete better against the TL becaus eof A. Price and B. Size (the TL is slightly larger than the Accord and the Avalon loaded out with leather is pretty close in price with the $33k TL). The Limited Avalon costs exactly the same as a TL.

I left off all hybrid options, except the Prius. Honda has the Civic Hybrid,Accord Hybrid with more coming...

Again, why are people comparing the new going to be extremely overpriced Supra that is in a COMPLETELY different class than the 2800lb convertible S2000. The Supra is a heavy GT car that WILL NOT handle nearly as well as the S2000 does.

posted by  thunderbird1100

A. The S2000 was never meant to be a mass market car like the Corvette has been for 4+ decades. Honda is more than happy if they sold 3000-4000 a year although they sell about 7500-8000 a year normally. IT's their car that no manuacturer has been able to compete against.

B. Again, I dont care if you went along with another post...the SUPRA IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CAR THANT THE S2000. Seems like I've said that about 4 times in this thread now. The Supra is a HEAVY GT car (the TT Supra weighed 3500lbs) while the S2000 is nothing more than a light (2800lb) extreme sports convertible. It's basically a slightly larger Miata with a TON more power injected and even BETTER handling. Just because you "Think" a VERY heavy GT car will outhandle an extreme sports car shows your lack of knowledge on the S2000. I'll say this again, the S2000 beats C5 CORVETTES in the A-Stock class.

Again the price difference between the C6 convertible and S2000 is too great, the C6 is $52k while the S2000 is $33k. That's almsot a $20k price difference. You realize what a person could do with $20k in the difference between a S2000 and C6 convertible? Hell with only $5k you could put a supercharger on the S2000 and run circles around a C6 all day long.

posted by  thunderbird1100

How do i know the Supra can't outhandle the S2k? Well, according to Inygknok its either going to be a twin turbo V6 or a V8 engine in it right? How much does the IS350's 3.5L engine weigh? Alot, think heavier then the VQ heavy. With twin turbos; they are probaly giving it a intercooler, its extra weight up front, it also means you need alot of extra piping, boost timer, and other things you need in order to have an efficient twin turbo setup. What about the V8, its a V8, enough said. Its going to be heavy. Which means either of these engine choices are going to be heavy; which means its front heavy, which means the balance may not be all that good. Unless Toyota walk down the path of the Vette, and use an all aluminum chassis and body. But i doubt that since they have no experience in it whatsoever. I'm not sure if the even have a plant that builds aluminum bodies/chassis.

posted by  aerith

Its not going to be a car that theyre going to cut corners on. This is a 100k vehicle we're talking about. They arent gonna make it weight 4000 lbs or something like that.

posted by  PontiacFan27

They aren't going to cut corners. But, either way; it can't outhandle a S2000, its a overall lighter car and probaly with better weight balance. Keep in mind this car is an old car; the car basically has not gone under significant changes since it was concieved in 1999, except for the 0.2L displacement gain. Honda didn't cut corners with the S2000, it was supposed to be a limited edition vehicle to celebrate the new millenium, but it was so well recieved they continued to produce it.

Since Toyota is a business profit oriented company first and engineering company second. Their R&D department isnt as well funded as Honda's. What has Toyota pioneered in the last decade or so? Nothing really, Honda's Insight was the first production Hybrid, and Honda's FCX was the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Toyota is good at what they do; but they aren't as good as Honda when it comes to technology. Don't get me wrong; I love the Supra, but it's not a perfect car; for one it can't outhandle a S2000. If the new Supra is to share similiar attributes; it won't be able to as well. The new Supra is to have either a V8 or V6TT both of which is a pretty heavy option and its supposed to have AWD; which is an extremely heavy option because it means you will need 3 differentials. Its like comparing a S2000 to a Honda CBR motorcycle; which will handle better? The motorcycle because its a whole lot lighter.

The Supra is legendary because it has a lot potential to be straight line fast, but when it comes to autocrossing; it doesn't hold a candle against the S2000. Its too different types of cars; the Supra old or new will be like the Lamborghini's and the S2000 is like Porsches.

posted by  aerith

Lets compare the Accord/ Camry now shall we?

Camry;
Camry SLE;
2.4L Inline 4 DOHC 16 valve VVT-i
154 hp @ 5700 rpm;
160 lb.- ft. @ 4000 rpm;
MPG; 24/34
MacPherson strut front suspension
Dual-link independent MacPherson strut Rear suspension
Front/Rear Disc Brakes
MSRP; 22,795 USD

Camry XLE V6
3.0L V6 DOHC 24 valve VVT-i
190 hp @ 5600 rpm;
197 lb.- ft. @ 4400 rpm;
MPG; 20/28
MacPherson strut front suspension
Dual-link independent MacPherson strut Rear suspension
Front/Rear Disc Brakes
MSRP; 25,805 USD

http://toyota.com/images/vehicles/2006/camry/gallery/exterior/large/photo_1 .jpg

http://toyota.com/images/vehicles/2006/camry/gallery/exterior/large/photo_7 .jpg

http://toyota.com/images/vehicles/2006/camry/gallery/interior/large/photo_4 .jpg

Accord;
Accord EX
2.4L Inline 4 DOHC 16 valve Vtec-i
166 hp @ 5800 rpm;
160 lb.- ft. @ 4000 rpm;
MPG; 24/34
Double Wishbone Front Suspension
Double Wishbone Rear Suspension
Front/ Rear Disc Brakes
MSRP; 23,250 usd

Accord LX-V6
3.0L V6 24 Valve SOHC Vtec
244 hp @ 6250 rpm;
211 lb.- ft. @ 5000 rpm;
MPG; 20/29
Double Wishbone Front Suspension
Double Wishbone Rear Suspension
Front/ Rear Disc Brakes
MSRP; 25,100 usd

http://photos.velocityjournal.com/images/stk/2006/hn2006accordsedan1768366m .jpg

http://photos.velocityjournal.com/images/stk/2006/hn2006accordsedan1768367m .jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 06/Honda/100645427/20028410-E.jpg

The interior image is of the Coupe version, but its the same except the sedan has a 4 spoke steering wheel instead of a 3 spoke.

posted by  aerith

Lets compare the Sienna and Oddysey now huh?

Sienna;
Sienna XLE;
3.3L V6 24 Valve DOHC VVT-i
215 hp @ 5600 rpm;
222 lb.- ft. @ 3600 rpm;
MPG; 19/26
MacPherson strut Front Suspension
Torsion beam Rear Suspension
Front Disc Brakes
Rear Drum Brakes
Traction control; optional
MSRP; 29,425 usd

Sienna XLE Limited FWD;
3.3L V6 24 Valve DOHC VVT-i
215 hp @ 5600 rpm;
222 lb.- ft. @ 3600 rpm;
MPG; 19/26
MacPherson strut Front Suspension
Torsion beam Rear Suspension
Front Disc Brakes
Rear Drum Brakes
MSRP; 35,880 usd

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 04/Toyota/100257805/022338-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 04/Toyota/100257805/022339-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 04/Toyota/100257813/032084-E.jpg

Oddysey;
Oddysey EX-L
3.5L V6 24 Valve SOHC Vtec
244 hp @ 5750 rpm;
240 lb.- ft. @ 4550 rpm;
MPG; 20/28
MacPherson Strut Front Suspension
Multi-Link Double Wishbone Rear Suspension
Front/Rear Disc Brakes
Traction Control; Standard
MSRP; 30,795 usd

Oddysey Touring
3.5L V6 24 Valve SOHC Vtec
244 hp @ 5750 rpm;
240 lb.- ft. @ 4550 rpm;
MPG; 20/28
MacPherson Strut Front Suspension
Multi-Link Double Wishbone Rear Suspension
Front/Rear Disc Brakes
Variable Cylinder Management (shuts off one bank of cylinders when not in use)
MSRP; 36,595 usd

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 05/Honda/100396379/031817-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 05/Honda/100396379/031818-E.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/20 05/Honda/100396379/031819-E.jpg

The Honda Oddysey is the benchmark of all minivans on the market with the best fuel efficency to power ratio in the market. This is not my opinion but the opinion of hundreds of professional car reviewers.

posted by  aerith

I think ive made my point, i'll leave the rest of the comparisons to yourselves. Its obvious all the Honda choices come with better power, better fuel efficency, better styling, and better resale value. Some of the Honda choices may cost a marginally larger amount, within 1000 dollars, but they have features that their Toyota counterparts do not carry. So, CL300, i don't know what market you are in, but from the looks of it; I don't know how Honda is going to lose market share to Toyota. The mainstream Honda products are all in all superior to their Toyota counterparts. And the amount of them on the road reflects it. You may say Lexus sells more then Acura. But look at the rate of growth for Acura, ironically the death of the integra marks the date that Acura started to grow to exponentially With the introduction of the RSX/TSX, Acura sales has went up to record breaking rates. The TSX has been out for only 2 years now and there is already more TSX's on the road then the 5 year old IS300. This is at least true in Canada. The number of ES330 doesnt even come close to the number of TL's on the road. I guess the superior performance/ styling do make more sales. The new IS line will beat out the current TL, but the new 2007 TL will be more then a fair competition for the IS350.

posted by  aerith

Man, minivans sure are hardcore racing machines. They should be compared as such.

posted by  PontiacFan27

They are compared as such, because the Oddysey and Sienna are both market leaders. They are not the top selling mini vans, but they are simply the best minivans out there. The other features that normally would be important in a minivan both of them already have. The Oddysey/Sienna are so close in comfort, efficency, and versatility that they don't have to be mentioned. The Oddysey edges the Sienna out only by its superior handling, power, and styling. Both the Sienna, Oddysey's other attributes are on par.

posted by  aerith

Whileminivans arent anything close to performance vehicles, you'd be suprised how WELL the new Odyssey Touring handles. It is realy noted as being the only sporty minivan in the entire segment. With ~255hp to boot (on the old SAE system) it's not exactly a big slouch on acceleration either. Kind of cool to know your minivan handles better than your average car and is quicker than an 82-87 (3rd gen) LG4 305 V8 F-Body Camaro or Firebird.

posted by  thunderbird1100

you guys have ruined my threads with all this chit chat! i was supposed to be cheering myself up with the new supra and u assholes ruined it!!!


nah j/k....


i dont know why the hell u guys are comparing other vehicles that way.... or should i mention the new corolla? i think toyota released it. i have no idea wat was that little thing that i saw on saturday, but it definately looked like wat toyota said the new corolla would look like. it was like an hb corolla, which they want to use in WRC for the following few years.

posted by  Inygknok

What isnt faster than a 3rd gen F-body? Except the turbo T/A of course...

posted by  PontiacFan27

Just showing it's not your typical people mover ONLY.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Who the hell is going to use this thing for anything else? IMO, its pointless to focus on performance for a minivan.

posted by  PontiacFan27

....Has the d*ck measuring contest ended yet or are we all to endure more?

posted by  Pythias

The hb you are thinking about is the Yaris. Its supposed to replace the Echo Hatchback and not even in the same line as the Corolla. And as for the Corolla, they better release a new one soon. The new Civic just plain stomps it into the ground, and then some more.

posted by  aerith

Not everyone has the money to afford a minivan and a nice little sports car on the side. Sometimes people with average income and need a minivan. Would you rather have your little old camaro or a warm family with a wife and kids? Most people would choose the latter. And if they do; they can't go taking their kids to soccer practice or to the super market in a Camaro. They need a minivan. Pontiac, you are still young, you don't have to worry about that stuff. Even people that are old like the hobo and ChrisV still love cars. But not all can afford two, so instead they try and get a sporty minivan or something that isnt a bore to drive. And believe you me there is no minivan in the market that can handle like the Oddysey.

posted by  aerith

omg... LOL! old like hobo and ChrisV...... i didnt even notice u said that until the 4th time i read your post.


anyhow, why would a soccermom want a minivan that handles like a lubed up door handle?

posted by  Inygknok

Then you wont understand a lot of things.

Just because YOU dont like that idea doesnt mean OTHERS do not. When I get married and have enough kids to where i need something with more than 4 passenger seating capacity the Odyssey is something I'd look into (sorry but I have yet find a sporty SUV within the price range of the Odyssey, plus body on frame vehicles tend not to handle as car-like as well, unibody vehicles in general, self explanatory). I dont want an SUV, so that leaves me to getting a Minivan. I dont want a boring vehicle to drive, so I;d get the sportiest of the bunch which is by FAR the Odyssey. A lot of people dont realize WITHOUT driving the Odyssey how well in fact it handles like a smaller car.

There are plenty of people out there who do performance and appearance mods to vans... Ever remember the turbo Caravan/Voyager? People take those and mod them to run 14s! Even 13s!

http://www.turbovan.net/turbovan.html

Check out a few of these Odysseys...

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/611180
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/342298
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/494827 - my personal favorite
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/496647
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/439565 - JDM Stream

posted by  thunderbird1100

Read my post above. Maybe some dads that buy them when they drive them they want something a little more engaging than a boring Sienna. I sure as hell want something more fun than a Sienna.

posted by  thunderbird1100

hm, looks like this is something im gonna have to talk about with my gf if we ever plan on getting married..... which she does....


how bout we all head down to a dealership and test out minivans on a closed circuit???? now that would be hella fun!

posted by  Inygknok

Camaro? I think you mean Trans Am.

If people would pass on getting a $36k van with their average income, and get a big sedan for less money like the Accord then they could get a used older sports car on the side easily.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Then have to pay gas for two cars, insurance for two cars and not be able to fit their entire family in either car thus forcing you to take two cars everywhere. Remember, the whole point of getting a minivan is because you need more than 4/5 seat capacity... An Accord seats 4 adults or 2 adults and 3 kids, most sports cars seat maybe 2 adults and 2 kids.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You think paying insurance for two cars is cheap? Especially since one is a sports car. How about maintainence? How about gas? You think a Transam can get 20/28 with 5 passengers, and a trunk full of groceries? Some large families NEED a minivan, IE families with more then 5 people.

They could get a cheap minivan like a caravan or sedona for much cheaper. But with the extra amount of money you spend you are getting a vehicle that is completely superior in every way. I would rather spend the extra 7-10k for a minivan that is fun to drive, more comfortable, better fuel mileage (touring model with VCM), more power, much much better reliability, and a hell of a lot better looking.

Although the reliability of most domestics have improved greatly, so much that there isn't much difference between them and the imports anymore. But not all of them; for instance; the Caravan isn't up to par with its asian competitiors.

posted by  aerith

If you have a passion for driving, and not just want something that will get you from A to B cheaply, then it makes sense to get a car on the side thats fun to drive. Insurance isnt going to kill you, not when the alternative is a massivepayment on a van. If you dont care about cars, then you will try to save money and get a van thats good and cheap for what its intended to be, a grocery getting people hauler. No person setting out to buy a minivan says "Ohh, which one gets the highest lateral gs on the skidpad?" or "Which one runs the best 1/4 mile?"

posted by  PontiacFan27

But its not only that; you are thinking about gas efficency as well. And have you tried to haul 7 people and a trunk full of groceries in a Caravan? I have, when my parent's van was in the shop. The Caravan's 180hp isnt enough to cut people. You obviously have never driven a Oddysey with a full load compared to a Caravan with a full load. The Caravan slugs along even with the 3.3L V6. There is a 3.8L option, but thats the Grand Caravan and it starts at 27,830 USD, why not just get the Oddysey for 3000 dollars more with more power, better handling, nicer interior, and better efficency?

What cars have you owned in your whole life? Have you driven a minivan on a long term basis? I have, before i got my car; i was forced to drive my parent's van. Let me tell you something; its a freaking bore to drive. And i can't imagine spending my whole life driving it. Some car enthusiasts wants to have a sports car but needs a van. Why not get a van that is fun?

Whenever my family goes on road trips; we rent a van, and not use our own. We rented a Oddysey for a week; to drive to Saskatoon (10-15 hour trip), and it performed extremely well, it kept me awake during the grave yard driving shifts.

posted by  aerith

You still are missing the point, there is no point in saying they should get two cars instead of the one minivan bercause THEY NEED something that can hold MORE than 5 passengers.

You're right though, people buying minivans dont care for statistics, but SOME people care how they handle (When driving it). Such as myself, if I were to buy a minivan I want the one that is MOST engaging to drive. I'm not the only one either. Some people like to have a little sport injected into any vehicle they buy, whether it be a car,SUV, truck or van.

Also insurance isnt BAD on two cars? WTF planet are you from? Did you also forget to mention MAINTAINENCE and GAS? LEt's do this math better, you buy a new $30k Odyssey, gets 29mpg highway, shouldnt have any problems and insurance will probably be about $1500-$1800/yr for a young couple(ballpark est.). Or you could buy an EX Accord for $22k AND say an older LS1 Camaro for about $10k. About the same price as the price of a new Odyssey. BUT, insurance on the Camaro will be OVER $2000 and insruance on the Accord will probably about what it is o nthe Odyssey maybe a hundred or two cheaper. So that's more than double on just insurance already, you're paying gas on TWO cars one that gets good gas mileage the other, not that good AND now you basically DOUBLE every maintain. price you'll spend.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yes, because a much cheaper Town and Country cant take turns at all. You know, all that track and autocross racing that minivan owners do, I can see why sport car like handling is important. :banghead:

posted by  PontiacFan27

You obviously will never understand why people like sport injected ANY vehicle and not JUST cars. It's okaty, remain ignorant. Maybe you just need to have a family that needs a van and then you'll realize. You still fail to realize we're NOT saying the Odyssey is a great auto-x'er. We're saying it wont BORE you to death like every other minivan will.

The T & C is such a heap. Sure you can get them for WAY less than msrp, but they are so OLD in design and IS the worst vehicle reliability and builf quality wise my ENTIRE family has ever had. They have a horrible engine, tranny, interior quality is cheap and they squeak and rattle like crazy. The seats are uncomfortable on the "stow-and-go" models (like vinal bus seats). The T & C is so many worlds behind even the Sedona.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Exactly my point. Pontiac; would you rather drive a Toyota Camry Inline 4 or the Honda Accord V6. I know you wouldn't choose either in reality. But say if you had to, which would you choose? The sluggish I4 or the sportier V6? Its the same point; if you are going to have to buy a minivan; why not get one that isnt boring?

posted by  aerith

Because its a waste of money. 36k for a VAN is rediculous. At least the Accord is a good handling and moderately fast car thats worth the money spent on it. The Odyssey may be the best handling van out there, but its still just a van. People that want real sport are going to go the "I'm old and boring but I'm still cool to me so Im going to get a SUV!" route.

posted by  PontiacFan27

The base price is not 36k, it starts at 25,345 usd. And it is still equipped with the 3.5L V6, and it still handles like the 36k Oddysey.

posted by  aerith

Im feeling the GT-R vs Supra vs NSX, like in the old days. Other competing cars, Z06 and Viper?

posted by  importluva

I wouldnt really compare the Viper with the Z06. The Viper has two more cylinders and it handles like a lamborghini. Its more of a straight line car, instead of a car built for autocrossing like the Z06.

posted by  aerith

You realize no other van even competes in features with the Odyssey TOURING model. Honda just added on that top model with the redesigned 05 Odyssey. Otherwise it would still be the $30k EX-L as the top model.

The $36k Touring model has standard features you wont find on any other minivan like VCM (Variable Cylinder Management), ACM (Active Control engine Mount system), ANC (Active Noise Cancellation), a large front stabilizer bar (24mm), 29mpg highway mileage, rear entertainment DVD system (w/ flip down screen), Power adjustible pedals, XM radio, TPMS (Tire PRessure Monitoring System), corner and backup sensor indicator, and coolest of all a neat 17 cup holders. YES 17!

The Odyssey has four trim levels.

LX - $25,345
EX - $28,395
EX-L (leather) - $30,795
Touring - $36,595

You can actually find a lot of Touring features on the EX-L model like VCM.

EX-L
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/742458

Touring
http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/vir/index.cfm/vehicle_number_int/ 1018031/Action/Media

^ it's the mutli spoke wheel version, not the 5-spoke EX version.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The base LX comes with all the same safety features found in the EX. So there is really no compromise between the models. So, how the Caravan is still leading in sales is eluding me. The Oddysey is only a couple thousand dollars more but yet it is superior in every way except for the folding middle seats. But instead of having the crappy uncomfortable Stow N' Go seats you get driver/passenger comfortable seats. So i guess its a fair tradeoff.

posted by  aerith

All the safety features are standard across the entire board of Odyssey models.

Caravan/T & C sales are higher simply because they can dupe people into buying them for such insanely low prices. We got our loaded out Limited T & C for $27k and change AFTER taxes/title etc... And it was a $33k+ msrp. You wont be able to get an Odyssey for $7k-$8k under msrp.

The pre-stow-n-go seats were highly comfy and soft (I love them in our T & C) and as soon as the stow-n-go seating came out the seats has HALF as much cushion in them and are extremely uncomfortable to sit in. For some reason they changed the front seats too like the 2nd row seats... Also they even got CHEAPER on the interior pieces as they stopped using as much "wood" and suede. Everything is now almost all cheap plastics.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Even more cheaper on the interior? Is that even possible? Ive sat in a lot of minivan middle seats and the Oddysey's are the most comfortable. Like i mentioned before, when we go on roadtrips we rent a minivan. So we go around all the minivans and pick the most comfortable one. I sat in the T&C with "Sto N Go" and i instantly went "next."

posted by  aerith

We have a 2000 T & C Limited (non stow and go) and the interior quality was NOTICEABLY better than the 2005 Limited w stow-n-go I throughly looked over a year ago. What suprises me the most is they INCRESED the price a few thousand since we bought our Limited for the new Limited... The powertrain is basically unchanged, the interior worsened AND they BARELY changed the exterior.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Man this pisses me off... I can't do it in GT 4... :banghead:

posted by  Pythias

Your Message