Ecomodding a minivan

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Here's what the actual data says, collected from mechanics:

Minivan - Dashboard Light




The Odyssey had some really bad years, where Honda basically messed up all of their V6 auto transmissions. The Accord data were really bad for those years too.



Here's the Dodge (statistically speaking), and bear in mind that even a vehicle with a score of zero will still have many trouble-free examples:

Yep, I dodged the transmission horrors by one model year here. Again as I said it's not going to be as reliable as a toyota, but i would have to put a lot of money into it to make up the difference I would have had to pay for equivalent year and condition.

As for "paying 10,000 more" I paid 3500 for the ody, and around here 07 town and countries go for 2500-5k, so very comparable, and always with rust.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Here's what the actual data says, collected from mechanics:

Minivan - Dashboard Light




The Odyssey had some really bad years, where Honda basically messed up all of their V6 auto transmissions. The Accord data were really bad for those years too.



Here's the Dodge (statistically speaking), and bear in mind that even a vehicle with a score of zero will still have many trouble-free examples:

Bottom line, Honda and Chrysler exactly the same but the chart has problems as some of these models have zero differences, even made on the same assembly lines by the same people and serviced in the same shops. That shows what the plus or minus accuracy of the data must include. Plus as I pointed out, a problem on a Honda or Toyota is likely to cost twice what a problem on a domestic would be but in this data I'm sure any problem gets equal weight.
Yes after max depreciation nothing is going to cost much more than something else but had you put that $10,000 price difference there was back in 2006 in the market you would have enough to buy a whole new van of your choice now.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Bottom line, Honda and Chrysler exactly the same but the chart has problems as some of these models have zero differences, even made on the same assembly lines by the same people and serviced in the same shops. That shows what the plus or minus accuracy of the data must include. Plus as I pointed out, a problem on a Honda or Toyota is likely to cost twice what a problem on a domestic would be but in this data I'm sure any problem gets equal weight.
Yes after max depreciation nothing is going to cost much more than something else but had you put that $10,000 price difference there was back in 2006 in the market you would have enough to buy a whole new van of your choice now.

Agreed on all points. Another factor to consider is who owns these vehicles and how they're treated.

[Shaneajanderson]

Sorry guys, but looking at that chart they rate GM as having some of the best reliability across their brands, as well as the mercury, which are all notoriously unreliable. So I can't really take this "data" seriously.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

Sorry guys, but looking at that chart they rate GM as having some of the best reliability across their brands, as well as the mercury, which are all notoriously unreliable. So I can't really take this "data" seriously.

Take a look at their methodology. It's mechanical reliability only. Jeeps tend to do well on those charts because their gremlins are electrical. Otherwise, data is data and (even as a serial Honda owner) I trust data more than anecdote.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Take a look at their methodology. It's mechanical reliability only. Jeeps tend to do well on those charts because their gremlins are electrical. Otherwise, data is data and (even as a serial Honda owner) I trust data more than anecdote.

Well if we're only talking about mechanical I can see the GM's doing well, but electrical issues cripple many a vehicle, so excluding them from the reliability charting is misguided at best, and downright deceitful at worst.

I remember the mechanics mantra with the GM vans was always: electrical and wheel hubs, because there where always problems there. Dodges are also plagued with electrical issues, as well as most years having terrible transmission problems. The only common gripe I've heard about the Hondas were the couple years of transmission horrors that were already mentioned, and the struts don't tend to last as long as they should.

[Hersbird]

We had a dodge with a "failed" transmission two times, once it turned out to be a $120 fix at the honest Jeep dealer (who had all the same Chrysler certification) after an independent transmission shop said it was the "commin" $1500 complete failure. Another time on a different van Jiffly Lube did a transmission service and 3 months later it was toast, or so we thought, put back in the correct fluid and the transmission was fine still 10 years later that van is still in service with no transmission problems. I think a bunch of the early problems were with the wrong fluid or simple sensors or solenoids and taken advantage of by the popular notion that's just the way it was. Never did they reach the failure levels the Hondas had as soon as they made a big van powered by a big motor and found out it wasn't as easy as it looked. Even my Uncle's 2006 Sienna had a failed transmission that was very expensive to fix. I agree Toyota on average is more reliable but think those numbers in the chart are skewed by I'm sure actual Toyota service centers are not giving their data, and even after warranty Toyota owners are more likely to use the dealer's service center. So independent shops don't see Toyotas come in like they might a Ford or a Dodge.

[mpg_numbers_guy]

And again that doesn't take into consideration that even within the same generation of vehicles, some may be more reliable than others. A while back my family had a very reliable 1998 Pontiac Trans Sport.....and then sold it to buy a 2001 Pontiac Montana (same car, same generation, just different name). The 2001 was less reliable at 220k miles when we sold it than the 1998 was at 250K when we sold that.

Even unreliable cars have a low % chance of falling apart when looking at overall numbers, but who wants a car that has a 10% chance of a catastrophic failure when another equal car has a 2% chance of the same thing breaking.

But I think we're all starting to get quite a bit off topic now...

[freebeard]

The ultimate minivan will always be the VW Type II. The ultimate ecomod is a full boat tail. Here it is balanced by a spoiler that moves the stagnation point down.



Plus it looks like an Art Deco locomotive.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The ultimate minivan will always be the VW Type II. The ultimate ecomod is a full boat tail. Here it is balanced by a spoiler that moves the stagnation point down.



Plus it looks like an Art Deco locomotive.

Rounded rear ends are cool but cause turbulence, they're not very aerodynamic. Better to have a sharp cutoff.