What did you end replacing your Pilot with? What was showing up on your UOAs as far as metals?
New Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, or Subaru Ascent?
- Thread starter Bowline_Bandit
- Start date
- Status
Did you have any failed injectors? Would your extended warranty cover them if they continue to fail from now on?
Originally Posted by Bowline_Bandit
What did you end replacing your Pilot with? What was showing up on your UOAs as far as metals?
2020 Tundra Platinum. Even at 20K miles it had high iron/copper/aluminum. It's possible those were still wear-in metals that would eventually washout but that was also the 4th oil change already. That was certainly not the reason I got rid of it as the other issues were MUCH higher on my list but it just added one more potential thing.
What did you end replacing your Pilot with? What was showing up on your UOAs as far as metals?
2020 Tundra Platinum. Even at 20K miles it had high iron/copper/aluminum. It's possible those were still wear-in metals that would eventually washout but that was also the 4th oil change already. That was certainly not the reason I got rid of it as the other issues were MUCH higher on my list but it just added one more potential thing.
Last edited:
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Nope, I think FCA is going to introduce Pacifica with AWD. Except that, it is Toyota Sienna. And I must add, AWD in Toyota is trade off as it does not have space for spare tire. So it is RFT's or spare in trunk space (like I do).
I was going for SUV as my X5 became too small, regardless of 16cu ft Yakima on the roof when we travel. So, I checked Audi Q7, MB GL etc. and realized soon that I am not gaining too much, so decided to check vehicles like Highlander, Pilot (anything that is not CVT) thinking I can save some money on them, they will do the trick and I can get myself some fun car on a side. Soon I realized I am again not gaining much, I am losing a lot in driving dynamic, so if I am going to lose a lot in driving dynamic, why not minivan, bcs. I am definiately gaining a lot in space. It turned out that I also saved A LOT compared to appliance SUV's. I actually did not realized in the beginning how practical these vehicles are until we went to visit my wife's parents in Las Vegas. They have two Pilot's, 2005 and 2011 that we drive regularly there. I always considered them much more practical than my X5, but after minivan I realized how unpractical compared to minivan they are, and they do not drive any better.
So, I got minivan, saved some money, got myself BMW 328i stick shift from money I saved, and now I drive Sienna only when I need third row, or get something in Home Depot.
People got into this SUV craze bcs. it is trendy. All our friends have small kids, they are in 40's mostly and when we start talking car choices they immediately say: there is no way I would ever drive minivan. I guess nothing comes closer to Ferrari than Pilot, Highlander Pathfinder etc.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Nope, I think FCA is going to introduce Pacifica with AWD. Except that, it is Toyota Sienna. And I must add, AWD in Toyota is trade off as it does not have space for spare tire. So it is RFT's or spare in trunk space (like I do).
I was going for SUV as my X5 became too small, regardless of 16cu ft Yakima on the roof when we travel. So, I checked Audi Q7, MB GL etc. and realized soon that I am not gaining too much, so decided to check vehicles like Highlander, Pilot (anything that is not CVT) thinking I can save some money on them, they will do the trick and I can get myself some fun car on a side. Soon I realized I am again not gaining much, I am losing a lot in driving dynamic, so if I am going to lose a lot in driving dynamic, why not minivan, bcs. I am definiately gaining a lot in space. It turned out that I also saved A LOT compared to appliance SUV's. I actually did not realized in the beginning how practical these vehicles are until we went to visit my wife's parents in Las Vegas. They have two Pilot's, 2005 and 2011 that we drive regularly there. I always considered them much more practical than my X5, but after minivan I realized how unpractical compared to minivan they are, and they do not drive any better.
So, I got minivan, saved some money, got myself BMW 328i stick shift from money I saved, and now I drive Sienna only when I need third row, or get something in Home Depot.
People got into this SUV craze bcs. it is trendy. All our friends have small kids, they are in 40's mostly and when we start talking car choices they immediately say: there is no way I would ever drive minivan. I guess nothing comes closer to Ferrari than Pilot, Highlander Pathfinder etc.
Last edited:
Our first van was an '81 Vanagon that I really enjoyed driving, but it was nothing like a modern FWD van in the driving experience or even the room. The VW was described in its C&D road test as a Porsche among vans and had interior room beyond what any of these newer vans offer. It also offered an upper body workout with every drive, since it lacked power steering. I think back to this vehicle and wonder what those questioning VW reliability are thinking since this thing was as reliable as a hammer.
The VW was a huge box on a short wheelbase that handled and braked really well and had interior space to transport a family and whatever it needed to bring along without compromise.
It was also quicker to 60 mph than the 240Ds we had although it was still slow and lacked shirtsleeve quality heat for winter trips.
Vanagons are now cult cars in the US at least and a decent one won't be cheap when you find it, although the same is true of W123 diesels.
We later bought a last MY Aerostar new. It was cheap, proved durable and reliable and offered plenty of interior space, although not as much as the VW.
Unlike the VW, it had great HVAC including the AC. It was not a powerful vehicle but had more than double the BHP of the VW and delivered about the same fuel economy.
By 1997, we were into the early SUV cool minivan lame days and I really didn't care.
The thing was so useful and so cheap to own that I could live with the lack of cool factor and it's not as though the SUVs were all that great to drive either.
People should really think needs and usefulness over perceived image.
The VW was a huge box on a short wheelbase that handled and braked really well and had interior space to transport a family and whatever it needed to bring along without compromise.
It was also quicker to 60 mph than the 240Ds we had although it was still slow and lacked shirtsleeve quality heat for winter trips.
Vanagons are now cult cars in the US at least and a decent one won't be cheap when you find it, although the same is true of W123 diesels.
We later bought a last MY Aerostar new. It was cheap, proved durable and reliable and offered plenty of interior space, although not as much as the VW.
Unlike the VW, it had great HVAC including the AC. It was not a powerful vehicle but had more than double the BHP of the VW and delivered about the same fuel economy.
By 1997, we were into the early SUV cool minivan lame days and I really didn't care.
The thing was so useful and so cheap to own that I could live with the lack of cool factor and it's not as though the SUVs were all that great to drive either.
People should really think needs and usefulness over perceived image.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Nope, I think FCA is going to introduce Pacifica with AWD. Except that, it is Toyota Sienna. And I must add, AWD in Toyota is trade off as it does not have space for spare tire. So it is RFT's or spare in trunk space (like I do).
I was going for SUV as my X5 became too small, regardless of 16cu ft Yakima on the roof when we travel. So, I checked Audi Q7, MB GL etc. and realized soon that I am not gaining too much, so decided to check vehicles like Highlander, Pilot (anything that is not CVT) thinking I can save some money on them, they will do the trick and I can get myself some fun car on a side. Soon I realized I am again not gaining much, I am losing a lot in driving dynamic, so if I am going to lose a lot in driving dynamic, why not minivan, bcs. I am definiately gaining a lot in space. It turned out that I also saved A LOT compared to appliance SUV's. I actually did not realized in the beginning how practical these vehicles are until we went to visit my wife's parents in Las Vegas. They have two Pilot's, 2005 and 2011 that we drive regularly there. I always considered them much more practical than my X5, but after minivan I realized how unpractical compared to minivan they are, and they do not drive any better.
So, I got minivan, saved some money, got myself BMW 328i stick shift from money I saved, and now I drive Sienna only when I need third row, or get something in Home Depot.
People got into this SUV craze bcs. it is trendy. All our friends have small kids, they are in 40's mostly and when we start talking car choices they immediately say: there is no way I would ever drive minivan. I guess nothing comes closer to Ferrari than Pilot, Highlander Pathfinder etc.
Hah. Mini-vans are just last decade's SUV. I remember when REAL vans were a thing. Panel/Church style vans for hauling people/stuff, and Good Time vans for travelling with the fam. But I guess nothing came closer to Ferrari than Caravan...
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
edy and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case we do.
A minivan is the solution as a family hauler.
Forget the cool factor. For space and utility, no three row CUV comes close to a minivan and AWD is available in these very practical vehicles.
We bought one twenty plus years back when we still had kids at home as well as a 130 lb dog and never regretted it.
Between the Toy, the Honda and the Subie, I'd rock the Subie.
Subaru CUVs have suspension travel not found in Toyota and Honda examples so the thing should be comfortable on the frost-heaved roads of the OP's state and Subaru also has long experience with turbo engines and CVTs so neither should bring any demerit points.
I suspect you'd pay around the same for any of the three.
Only in Sienna unfortunately. That tells you that demand for minivans is not so high.
When I was buying Sienna, similarly equipped Highlander with similar mileage was $7,000 more. Ridiculous, considering they are made on the same platform and have pretty much same components.
Is there no longer an AWD FCA mini?
Back in the day, there was an AWD Aerostar available, but that's ancient history now.
Not sure why Honda doesn't offer an AWD Ody. Would be easy to do just like with the Pilot built on the same platform.
The pricing situation indicates the price of style.
That a less useful CUV would run you $7K more than the minivan seems ridiculous.
Nope, I think FCA is going to introduce Pacifica with AWD. Except that, it is Toyota Sienna. And I must add, AWD in Toyota is trade off as it does not have space for spare tire. So it is RFT's or spare in trunk space (like I do).
I was going for SUV as my X5 became too small, regardless of 16cu ft Yakima on the roof when we travel. So, I checked Audi Q7, MB GL etc. and realized soon that I am not gaining too much, so decided to check vehicles like Highlander, Pilot (anything that is not CVT) thinking I can save some money on them, they will do the trick and I can get myself some fun car on a side. Soon I realized I am again not gaining much, I am losing a lot in driving dynamic, so if I am going to lose a lot in driving dynamic, why not minivan, bcs. I am definiately gaining a lot in space. It turned out that I also saved A LOT compared to appliance SUV's. I actually did not realized in the beginning how practical these vehicles are until we went to visit my wife's parents in Las Vegas. They have two Pilot's, 2005 and 2011 that we drive regularly there. I always considered them much more practical than my X5, but after minivan I realized how unpractical compared to minivan they are, and they do not drive any better.
So, I got minivan, saved some money, got myself BMW 328i stick shift from money I saved, and now I drive Sienna only when I need third row, or get something in Home Depot.
People got into this SUV craze bcs. it is trendy. All our friends have small kids, they are in 40's mostly and when we start talking car choices they immediately say: there is no way I would ever drive minivan. I guess nothing comes closer to Ferrari than Pilot, Highlander Pathfinder etc.
Hah. Mini-vans are just last decade's SUV. I remember when REAL vans were a thing. Panel/Church style vans for hauling people/stuff, and Good Time vans for travelling with the fam. But I guess nothing came closer to Ferrari than Caravan...
Originally Posted by Ws6
Hah. Mini-vans are just last decade's SUV. I remember when REAL vans were a thing. Panel/Church style vans for hauling people/stuff, and Good Time vans for travelling with the fam. But I guess nothing came closer to Ferrari than Caravan...
"REAL" vans are notoriously unpractical for family traveling. I was renting them a lot for years traveling with sports teams. We would sometimes rent Ford E series with 15 passenger seating or GM Express etc. There are numerous problems with those vans, and I have nod oubt they are practical in certain other situations, but for traveling, school duties, daycare etc. absolutely, NO WAY.
They are going through fuel like Boeing 747. They are extremely uncomfortable, loud, not really good in handling roads, and when you have bunch of kids in them it really does not inspire confidence.
Whenever we could get Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna when traveling to university matches we would go with vans compared to these "REAL" vans or big SUV's like Tahoe etc. They are better on budget, they are more practical, more comfortable etc.
Hah. Mini-vans are just last decade's SUV. I remember when REAL vans were a thing. Panel/Church style vans for hauling people/stuff, and Good Time vans for travelling with the fam. But I guess nothing came closer to Ferrari than Caravan...
"REAL" vans are notoriously unpractical for family traveling. I was renting them a lot for years traveling with sports teams. We would sometimes rent Ford E series with 15 passenger seating or GM Express etc. There are numerous problems with those vans, and I have nod oubt they are practical in certain other situations, but for traveling, school duties, daycare etc. absolutely, NO WAY.
They are going through fuel like Boeing 747. They are extremely uncomfortable, loud, not really good in handling roads, and when you have bunch of kids in them it really does not inspire confidence.
Whenever we could get Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna when traveling to university matches we would go with vans compared to these "REAL" vans or big SUV's like Tahoe etc. They are better on budget, they are more practical, more comfortable etc.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Our first van was an '81 Vanagon that I really enjoyed driving, but it was nothing like a modern FWD van in the driving experience or even the room. The VW was described in its C&D road test as a Porsche among vans and had interior room beyond what any of these newer vans offer. It also offered an upper body workout with every drive, since it lacked power steering. I think back to this vehicle and wonder what those questioning VW reliability are thinking since this thing was as reliable as a hammer.
The VW was a huge box on a short wheelbase that handled and braked really well and had interior space to transport a family and whatever it needed to bring along without compromise.
It was also quicker to 60 mph than the 240Ds we had although it was still slow and lacked shirtsleeve quality heat for winter trips.
Vanagons are now cult cars in the US at least and a decent one won't be cheap when you find it, although the same is true of W123 diesels.
We later bought a last MY Aerostar new. It was cheap, proved durable and reliable and offered plenty of interior space, although not as much as the VW.
Unlike the VW, it had great HVAC including the AC. It was not a powerful vehicle but had more than double the BHP of the VW and delivered about the same fuel economy.
By 1997, we were into the early SUV cool minivan lame days and I really didn't care.
The thing was so useful and so cheap to own that I could live with the lack of cool factor and it's not as though the SUVs were all that great to drive either.
People should really think needs and usefulness over perceived image.
VW always had in Europe good van offers. In 1998 I took a sports team on some 1800km trip one way in VW T5. It had inline 5 cyl direct injection turbo diesel from Audi, 6 speed manual. While not plush van like VW Sharan (Euro market) it was sooooooooo practical as it had sliding doors, and inside was designed in good ole German tradition: with an axe. It was remarkable vehicle for big crowd, not sure for family of four, but still.
My wife said she never suggested me to get minivan as she thought that there is nothing in this world that would make me drive it. But, as you know, with kids it is all about practicality. Not to mention that changing diapers in the van is a breeze, especially when it is super cold.
I mean, there a A LOT of stuff I have an issue with in this van, but since I do not use it anymore on daily basis, I do not care anymore about it.
Our first van was an '81 Vanagon that I really enjoyed driving, but it was nothing like a modern FWD van in the driving experience or even the room. The VW was described in its C&D road test as a Porsche among vans and had interior room beyond what any of these newer vans offer. It also offered an upper body workout with every drive, since it lacked power steering. I think back to this vehicle and wonder what those questioning VW reliability are thinking since this thing was as reliable as a hammer.
The VW was a huge box on a short wheelbase that handled and braked really well and had interior space to transport a family and whatever it needed to bring along without compromise.
It was also quicker to 60 mph than the 240Ds we had although it was still slow and lacked shirtsleeve quality heat for winter trips.
Vanagons are now cult cars in the US at least and a decent one won't be cheap when you find it, although the same is true of W123 diesels.
We later bought a last MY Aerostar new. It was cheap, proved durable and reliable and offered plenty of interior space, although not as much as the VW.
Unlike the VW, it had great HVAC including the AC. It was not a powerful vehicle but had more than double the BHP of the VW and delivered about the same fuel economy.
By 1997, we were into the early SUV cool minivan lame days and I really didn't care.
The thing was so useful and so cheap to own that I could live with the lack of cool factor and it's not as though the SUVs were all that great to drive either.
People should really think needs and usefulness over perceived image.
VW always had in Europe good van offers. In 1998 I took a sports team on some 1800km trip one way in VW T5. It had inline 5 cyl direct injection turbo diesel from Audi, 6 speed manual. While not plush van like VW Sharan (Euro market) it was sooooooooo practical as it had sliding doors, and inside was designed in good ole German tradition: with an axe. It was remarkable vehicle for big crowd, not sure for family of four, but still.
My wife said she never suggested me to get minivan as she thought that there is nothing in this world that would make me drive it. But, as you know, with kids it is all about practicality. Not to mention that changing diapers in the van is a breeze, especially when it is super cold.
I mean, there a A LOT of stuff I have an issue with in this van, but since I do not use it anymore on daily basis, I do not care anymore about it.
I test drove an Ascent on Tuesday. (got a $50 gift card from Subie too
) It was a nice ride with great acceleration and brakes. Power was decent but you could feel the turbo lag for sure. I drove a Premium with 5K towing capacity. Not sure I believe it could handle that. Interior seemed cheap and the carbon fiber accents were an ivory color that would mark up easily. Touch screen was really glossy and several scratches were already on it that you could feel with your nails. Not worth the $40K price at all IMHO. YMMV.
Honda or Toyota
with the Toyota you'll avoid the timing belt changes and associated expense
with the Toyota you'll avoid the timing belt changes and associated expense
I know your talking about larger vehicles than my Honda CR-V , but before I purchased I did a lot of research and comparison of several brands and boiled it down to Toyota and Honda. And after much more research on about both brands I decided that Toyota no longer maintained the quality level that Honda still had.
One thing that I would point out even though I have never used one, or seen the controls for it, but have used the half power, half manual version that my 2016 CR-V EX has, is that your wife probably would really appreciate a full automatic power rear lift gate that all she has to do is push a button or the tap of a top of a shoe if it has that setup to open or close the tail gate, instead of the half manual half assist ones that requires the operator to lift the tailgate up several feet when opening, or to push it down the last several feet when closing.
One thing that I would point out even though I have never used one, or seen the controls for it, but have used the half power, half manual version that my 2016 CR-V EX has, is that your wife probably would really appreciate a full automatic power rear lift gate that all she has to do is push a button or the tap of a top of a shoe if it has that setup to open or close the tail gate, instead of the half manual half assist ones that requires the operator to lift the tailgate up several feet when opening, or to push it down the last several feet when closing.
Originally Posted by JimPghPA
I know your talking about larger vehicles than my Honda CR-V , but before I purchased I did a lot of research and comparison of several brands and boiled it down to Toyota and Honda. And after much more research on about both brands I decided that Toyota no longer maintained the quality level that Honda still had.
I am not sure how you conducted your research, but as someone who repairs these vehicles on a regular basis, I have to disagree. The quality and long-term durability of the Toyota vehicles is significantly better than the recent Honda products.
I know your talking about larger vehicles than my Honda CR-V , but before I purchased I did a lot of research and comparison of several brands and boiled it down to Toyota and Honda. And after much more research on about both brands I decided that Toyota no longer maintained the quality level that Honda still had.
I am not sure how you conducted your research, but as someone who repairs these vehicles on a regular basis, I have to disagree. The quality and long-term durability of the Toyota vehicles is significantly better than the recent Honda products.
Chrysler has announced that it will sell a few 2020 Pacificas with all-wheel drive since the newly announced 2021 Pacifica will be available with AWD.
AWD will only be offered on the 2020 Pacifica AWD Launch Edition, though.
Expect to see it at dealerships this summer starting at around $40,000.
From a comfort standpoint, this is the way to go. IDK how old your children are, but getting into and out of one of these is a heck of a lot easier than an SUV.
AWD will only be offered on the 2020 Pacifica AWD Launch Edition, though.
Expect to see it at dealerships this summer starting at around $40,000.
From a comfort standpoint, this is the way to go. IDK how old your children are, but getting into and out of one of these is a heck of a lot easier than an SUV.
I bought a 2019 Highlander LEPlus a month ago.
The thing I noticed most on the test drive was the drive train. The engine seemed tight and the shifting was distinct. Fit and finish very nice. I particularly like the cloth seats. The safety sense equipment is very well done and nicely integrated into everyday use. The sales guy informed us that if emergency braking is needed that's what you get. Radar cruise is very smooth and it downshifts and brakes to keep speed down hill. After 800 miles the drivetrain has become more fluid and the engine more responsive. Brakes are smoother after break in. Lots of room rear seats are adjustable front to rear and they also recline.
Multimedia, Entune 2.5, is slow and clunky. Sound quality is very good to me, although my ears are 34 years jet noised.
Navigation is an phone based app and turn by turn without a detailed moving map, it does not use much data. HD radio and XM radio have excellent reception.
$7k off MSRP and 2.7% or 0% and give up $2.5k cash incentive. Two years oil changes and tire rotation from Toyota and two more years from Southeast Toyota.
I'm very pleased, so far. Drivetrain continues to get smoother.
The thing I noticed most on the test drive was the drive train. The engine seemed tight and the shifting was distinct. Fit and finish very nice. I particularly like the cloth seats. The safety sense equipment is very well done and nicely integrated into everyday use. The sales guy informed us that if emergency braking is needed that's what you get. Radar cruise is very smooth and it downshifts and brakes to keep speed down hill. After 800 miles the drivetrain has become more fluid and the engine more responsive. Brakes are smoother after break in. Lots of room rear seats are adjustable front to rear and they also recline.
Multimedia, Entune 2.5, is slow and clunky. Sound quality is very good to me, although my ears are 34 years jet noised.
Navigation is an phone based app and turn by turn without a detailed moving map, it does not use much data. HD radio and XM radio have excellent reception.
$7k off MSRP and 2.7% or 0% and give up $2.5k cash incentive. Two years oil changes and tire rotation from Toyota and two more years from Southeast Toyota.
I'm very pleased, so far. Drivetrain continues to get smoother.
If you want to take any road trips that require off road travel, I would absolutely side with your wife and stay as far away from a minivan as possible. My dad says to this day that one of the best decisions he ever made was to go with a Sequoia over a Sienna. That car has been on some gnarly 4x4 trails in the Colorado mountains completely stock.
On another note, I would look into excessive oil consumption in Subaru. Someone said they have a good track record with their engines. Not the case. They lost a huge lawsuit a few years ago and I've seen some new complaints from the newer models too.
On another note, I would look into excessive oil consumption in Subaru. Someone said they have a good track record with their engines. Not the case. They lost a huge lawsuit a few years ago and I've seen some new complaints from the newer models too.
Originally Posted by TCU_Adam
If you want to take any road trips that require off road travel, I would absolutely side with your wife and stay as far away from a minivan as possible. My dad says to this day that one of the best decisions he ever made was to go with a Sequoia over a Sienna. That car has been on some gnarly 4x4 trails in the Colorado mountains completely stock.
On another note, I would look into excessive oil consumption in Subaru. Someone said they have a good track record with their engines. Not the case. They lost a huge lawsuit a few years ago and I've seen some new complaints from the newer models too.
If off road is required, then any car based SUV is not good decision. If snow is going to be often occurrence, any minivan with AWD or SUV vehicle based with AWD will be better than Sequoia. ONLY advantage Sequoia has over minivan is off road capability. That is it!
If you want to take any road trips that require off road travel, I would absolutely side with your wife and stay as far away from a minivan as possible. My dad says to this day that one of the best decisions he ever made was to go with a Sequoia over a Sienna. That car has been on some gnarly 4x4 trails in the Colorado mountains completely stock.
On another note, I would look into excessive oil consumption in Subaru. Someone said they have a good track record with their engines. Not the case. They lost a huge lawsuit a few years ago and I've seen some new complaints from the newer models too.
If off road is required, then any car based SUV is not good decision. If snow is going to be often occurrence, any minivan with AWD or SUV vehicle based with AWD will be better than Sequoia. ONLY advantage Sequoia has over minivan is off road capability. That is it!
- Status
