The second in a series of family hauler reviews

By Chris Haak

11.30.2007

Following my Sienna Limited AWD test drive, I headed to the local Honda dealer to sample an Odyssey EX-L with navigation and DVD entertainment. I was eager to drive the Odyssey, since I had never driven the current generation before, and by reputation and other reviews I’ve read, the Odyssey has a more engaging driving experience than many other family haulers.

Exterior
This particular van was in dark cherry pearl with a tan interior, and was a really attractive van. I found it to be about as attractive as a minivan can be expected to be. The sides are far more sculpted than the Sienna’s, with an interesting character line below the door handles. External panel gaps were tight and consistent, and the doors opened and closed perfectly (“as if on ball bearings,” to paraphrase an old Car and Driver review of the Accord). At this point in my life, I’m not trying to impress anyone with how hip my vehicle looks, so saying the Odyssey is a cool minivan is like saying Brilliance makes good Chinese cars. However, it does have a more modern, attractive shape than its competitors, and not really at the expense of interior volume or usability.

Interior
The van I drove was a 2008 Odyssey EX-L (the L stands for leather, and is the second-highest trim line behind the Touring model), equipped with satellite navigation, XM radio, and an award-winning overhead DVD entertainment system. The EX-L model comes with standard dual power sliding doors that can be opened via the key fob remote, but the rear cargo hatch is manual (it’s powered on the Touring model). The navigation screen is large and easy to read (larger than the Sienna’s), and can be controlled via touchscreen. The navigation screen also sits high on the dash, which allows the driver to quickly check the screen without taking his eyes off of the road. The problem with screens high in the dash (especially without a cowl around them) is that they tend to be more susceptible to sun glare. I did not experience this, but I know it can be a possibility.

Seating comfort in all three rows was outstanding. Honda really knows how to make comfortable seats. Access to the third row was a little tricky – and would be worse in my particular situation with two car seats in the second row captain’s chairs – but fortunately I’m still young and limber enough to make it to the back between the second row seats. To do this, you have to remove the “PlusOne Seat” (really a mini seat that bumps the seating capacity up to eight) between the second row captain’s chairs and squirm your way to the third row. Third row access can be a little easier if the right side captain’s chair is moved closer to the center of the vehicle, as long as you aren’t concerned about your children being within arm’s length of one another.

All of the controls (radio, HVAC, light switches, etc.) had a consistent, smooth and well-damped feel. Unlike with some vehicles, there was no obvious cost cutting inside the Odyssey. Even the glovebox door and auxiliary audio input jack cover moved smoothly without binding or feeling cheap.

On the Road
I drove the Odyssey – which only had five miles on the odometer – with the salesperson present so he could explain the features to me. The first thing I noticed was how much more planted it felt on the road over the Sienna I had driven 90 minutes earlier. Steering feel was excellent, especially considering that I was driving an eight passenger family hauler with about as much usable interior space as a Chevrolet Suburban. Really, the biggest complement I can pay to the Odyssey is that I felt like I was driving a Honda Accord, only one that weighed over 4,600 pounds and had a higher driving position. In fact, the instrument panel and steering wheel, as well as control placement was almost identical to my 2004 Accord’s. Acceleration was strong – not earth-shattering or as quick as the Sienna – but it had enough power to merge onto the freeway and the 241 horsepower 3.5 liter Honda V6 emitted some of the same sweet sounds I’m used to hearing.

Fuel Economy
The EPA rates the Odyssey EX-L and Touring at 17 miles per gallon city/25 miles per gallon highway. This is tops in the minivan class, and can be partially attributed to the inclusion of Honda’s VCM (Variable Cylinder Management) that can run the engine in three- or four-cylinder mode in low-load conditions to conserve fuel in highway driving. LX and EX models have slightly more horsepower (244) but slightly worse fuel economy.

Pricing
The entry level Odyssey LX starts around $26,500 including destination. An EX-L without navigation or DVD is about $32,800. The DVD player adds about $1,600 to the price, and the navigation and DVD together (the only way to get navigation is in a package with the DVD player) adds $3,600 to the base EX-L price. The top Touring model starts around $has the navigation and DVD player starts around $40,600 and has navigation and the DVD player standard, plus adds Bluetooth functionality, a power cargo door, foglamps, an upgraded stereo, and larger 17″ wheels. The only option available in the Touring model is run-flat tires for $600 (they are standard in all wheel drive Toyota Siennas). Frankly, I don’t think that the $4,200 price difference between a loaded EX-L and base Touring is worth it, and the salesman agreed with me.

The EX-L is practically a bargain for what it is – the interior is very comfortable with high quality, soft-touch materials and a lot of space and flexibility. This is probably the vehicle I’d buy today if all wheel drive was available, but after driving through hard rain last week in a front wheel drive car, my wife and I decided that all wheel drive was the way to go. It’s a shame, too, because the Odyssey is a great van, gets four miles per gallon better on the highway than the Sienna AWD does, and costs a lot less. Honda’s Odyssey is now the best selling minivan in the US, and I can see why that is.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Brendan Moore

11.30.2007

Business students in St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia learned a bit about what Wall Street and the automotive press wants to know about Chrysler LLC from Steven Landry of Chrysler; that is, that the company may cut up to another four nameplates soon, and that they’re forecast to spend more than a billion dollars more than they will bring in this year.

Steven Landry, EVP of North American Sales for Chrysler, was at the school to donate $100,000 from Chrysler and spoke to the students as part of the event. Landry graduated from the school in 1982.

This is all according to the Daily News in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The last time Chrysler said anything about its finances was in May of this year, so this is indeed news.

Regarding the financial data, Landry reportedly told the audience of students, “You have to come to the realization that in some instances, you’ve got to stop spending. You’ve got to right-size what you do to the revenue that comes into the company.”

Regarding the model cuts, the Daily News reported that Landry said Chrysler plans to reduce its nameplate lineup from 28 to about 20.

Now, doing the math, that means four additional nameplates are going away soon since Chrysler just announced that the Chrysler PT Cruiser, the Dodge Magnum, Chrysler Pacifica and Chrysler Crossfire will cease production. That leaves four more on the bubble if Chrysler intends to get down to 20 from 28.

Chrysler LLC immediately cautioned against giving too much weight to Landry’s statements to the students, saying that he was speaking in general terms to a group of students in an informal setting.

Chrysler spokesman Mike Aberlich stated, “He’s not saying we want to be at 20 tomorrow or next year. He’s saying an ideal. When looking at three brands like this, it makes some sense to get to that point, and we are moving in that direction. I know he didn’t specify a timeframe.”

“I wouldn’t be looking for another four announced tomorrow, or next week or next month.”

Backpedaling by the company aside, I’m more inclined to believe that Mr. Landry was being candid in speaking to those students, and that there is a great deal of validity to this statement. In fact, I’m willing to bet that 20 nameplates is the exact number of models they’re aiming for, and Landry just let it slip, that’s all. As to the spokesman’s point that he didn’t mention any timeline, well, it’s worth noting that Chrysler LLC and Cerberus, their owner, have not hesitated in acting once a decision has been made regarding Chrysler’s turnaround efforts.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Bruce McCulloch

11.30.2007

I think most agree with me when I say that a great engine is most definitely one of the top priorities in any sports car. Whether it is a Lotus, or a Ferrari, it makes little difference. Obviously, an engine is much of what gives a vehicle’s it character. Drive a BMW M5 for instance and you’ll immediately notice it’s eagerness to rev; drive an AMG Mercedes, however, and you instantly notice it’s character is much more thundering and ultimately, more muscular.

In a supercar, there very few things which are as illustrious and electrifying as the engine. Few things can match the blistering speed, pulsation of the horsepower coupling with the torque and of course, the loud mechanical howl the engine gives off during operation. Needless to say, it’s a sensation which few things can match.

That all being said, let us take the time to examine two extreme supercar engines which quite frankly, share little in common beside the fact that they help to power amazing machines.

Porsche Carrera GT – 5.7 litre, 10-Cylinder

The anecdote behind the Carrera GT’s 10-cylinder engine is a particularly interesting one. Originally developed to be fitted to a future LeMans race car, the project was ended nearly as fast as it was conceived. Thanks to ever-tightening emissions regulations throughout the racing world, Porsche engineers were essentially forced to throw the project away, or until it could serve its purpose elsewhere. And in 1999, the plan to fit the engine into a concept car called the “Carrera GT” – which first debuted at the Paris Motor show in ’00 – came to life.

Originally, the car had been a mere concept, but excited Porsche fans meant that Porsche soon saw the Potential to produce the Carrera GT as a road vehicle. But before they could do so, they realized that the basic engine would just not do; not only was it not passing emissions, but it was after all, a racing engine. Not smooth, or road worthy by any means and thus leading Porsche engineers back to the drawing board to make a number of modifications to make the engine more suitable for the road.

The first of many changes which the 10-cylinder motor endured was an increase in capacity displacement. The original engine had boasted just 5.0 litres, but for the road version of the engine, engineers saw fit to increase the displacement, thus ultimately allowing the engine’s maximum torque load to increase.

Additionally, the original (approximately) 10,000 rpm redline was notably reduced not only because it didn’t pass air-emissions regulations, but also because of its inability to meet noise-level regulations and added unwanted cockpit vibration.

And thanks to a series of brilliantly-engineered emissions control systems and an on-board diagnostics setup that continually monitored the exhaust system, the Carrera GT passed 2004 regulation standards with flying colours. In addition, each of the two cylinder banks has its own exhaust system in which two sets of catalytic converters are operated. From thereon, a cross-flow system helps to cool each cylinder which in turn always keeps the engine at a moderate temperature.

Tidbit: The engines cylinders are coated with a combination of nickel and silicon to reduce wear.

So from a technical standpoint, this engine is most certainly a Porsche product. It’s an engine which showcases some 70 years of motorsport history and advancement. On the other hand, the 10-cylinder also happens to be quite unlike any other Porsche engine we’ve ever seen. Rather than relying on forced induction – like many Porsches before – the Carrera GT’s character is defined through its ability to feed off it’s revs, and like any true race car, it does it damn well. With a maximum redline of 8,400 revolutions per minute and some 600bhp working collectively with 435lb-ft of torque peaking at 5,700 rpm, the Carrera GT’s engine is unique. Sure, there have been numerous (great) attempts from other such manufacturers like Ferrari at creating an engine which will rev to no-end, but this motor is pretty much unparalleled when taken as a whole.

Weighing a slim 205kg (or 452lbs) and boasting a compression ratio of 12.0:1, the engine acts in a way which is very much reminiscent to a racing car. Feeding on the gobs of torque available at high revs, while still retaining a great deal of road-worthy torque, its speed and ability to rev is seemingly endless. English “Top Gear” journalist, “Jeremy Clarkson” probably said it best when he said: “it’s like it’s in vacuum”.

And when it comes to toddling around, what’s immediately notable about the 10-cylinder motor in this car is that it lacks inertia when it’s revved. If you rev it a stop light, for instance, you’ll notice how the engine has no carry over and by that I’m referring to how engine responds when you let your foot off the throttle. The way in which the engine responds to throttle modulation is undoubtedly unique as it has no inertia. It’s hard to explain, but more understandable if you have knowledge of motorsport – think Formula One car.

Frankly, few engines are as interesting or intoxicating as this one. One of the best engines ever made? You bet.

Specifications:

5733cc (5.7 litres) 10 Cylinders, 90 degree
Aspirated: Naturally
Bore & Stroke: 98.0mm x 76.0mm
Compression Ratio: 12.0:1
DOHC, 4VPC (40 total valves), VarioCam
Redline: 8,400 revolutions per minute

612 PS (604bhp) @ 8,000 rpm; 590Nm (435lb-ft) of torque @ 5,750 rpm
105.9 bhp/litre

Bugatti Veyron – 8.0 litre, 16-Cylinder

“A 16-cylinder engine in a road-legal sports car? Don’t be obtuse.”

Quite frankly, that was most people’s reaction to the concept version of the Veyron. Most people thought it was an obvious recipe for disaster, and as the project was continually delayed, most thought their assumptions about such were correct. Mind you, many people hadn’t put any consideration into the fact that the automotive world had in fact seen numerous 16-cylinder engines – albeit less powerful – before. In fact, the origins of the 16-cylinder engine go far back as 1927 with Howard Marmon and “Marmon” motorcars that developed the world’s first 16-cylinder engine. Shortly thereafter, prestigious luxury brands such as “Cadillac” and “Peerless” – with the help of Marmon engineers, naturally – followed.

And in the last two decades, Cizeta Motorcars released the Cizeta-Moroder V16T which featured, as its name suggested, a 16-cylinder. But, unlike previous engines with such cylinder configurations, the Cizeta’s engine was technically not an authentic 16-cylinder. Instead, it was assembled with two Ferrari flat plane V8’s, mounted transversely, with the gearbox mounted between the two providing the vehicle’s longitudinal transmission layout.

And when Cizeta was developing the V16T, they hadn’t to worry about excessive over-heating as: A) it was an Italian company and thus expected, and, B) boasted a “mere” 560bhp.

With the Veyron, the plan had always been to create something with some 1000bhp and as a result, the development of this particular engine took engineers not only years to perfect, but a seemingly endless amount of cash.

It must be said, though, the end result truly is spectacular.

At the starting grid, engineers were faced with one ever-present problem: how to actually assemble such an engine. In the early 1930’s and 1940’s, Bugatti’s assembly of a 16-cylinder had been to essentially put two in-line 8-cylinder engines beside each other, but wanting to keep the engine compact, the current engineers knew this was not the solution.

When assembling the Veyron engine, Bugatti choose to merge two regular Volkswagen-sourced 8-cylinders to make one engine, and then add the daunting task of letting the two engines share the same crankshaft; a risky, but effective, gamble. The end result is not a “V16″, but rather a “W16″ And like Volkswagen’s W12, it’s amazingly compact. Measuring just 710 mm (27 inches) in length, 889 mm (35 inches) in width and 730 mm (28.7 inches) height, the Veyron’s engine is smaller than most conventional 12-Cylinders.

So, with the initial blueprints in place, it was time for Bugatti to actually look at the numerous ways in which they could achieve their target figure of “1000” horsepower. And actually, achieving such horsepower a figure wasn’t as hard as you might think. Aside from the obvious power boosters – displacement, variable valve timing, etc – Bugatti realized that the addition of forced induction was probably the most efficient way to produce power. So, that’s exactly what they did – they added a few turbochargers, but not jut two, oh no, four to be exact; all of which pound out 18 PSI and collectively work in constant rotation to avoid turbo lag.

Tidbit: the 1993 Bugatti EB110 also featured a total of 4 turbochargers, though connected to a conventional V12 rather than a high-tech 16-Cylinder.

Not surprisingly, one of the biggest issues with the preliminary project was cooling the engine. And as a result, the big Bugatti not only features a dry sump lubrication system based upon those seen in Formula One vehicles, but an elaborate internal oil path to ensure proper lubrication and cooling to all 16 cylinders. Additionally, the Veyron’s engine has 10 (yes, 10) different radiator systems: 3 for the engine cooling system; 1 heat exchanger for the air-to-liquid intercoolers; 2 for the air conditioning; 1 for the transmission oil; 1 for the differential oil; 1 conventional oil radiator and last, but certainly not least, a hydraulic oil radiator for the flashy retractable spoiler at the rear.

And when it’s all combined together, it makes for an engine character quite unlike anything else on four wheels. Its character, you ask? Well, it’s reminiscent to a thundering fighter plane; it’s not peaky, nor zippy, it’s just an atomic weapon of surging power.

It must be said, if the Starship Enterprise actually existed, this is what would power it.

Specifications:

7993cc (8.0 litres) 16 Cylinders, 90 degree
Aspiration: quad Turbocharged
Bore & Stroke: N/A
Compression Ratio: 9.0:1
DOHC, 4VPC (64 total valves), Variable Valve Timing
Redline: 6,500 revolutions per minute

987bhp (1001PS) @ 6,000 rpm; 922lb-ft (1250nm) of torque @ 2,220
123.7 bhp/litre

Verdict:

As for drawing a direct technological comparison between the two engines, I think I tip my hat to the Veyron’s 16-cylinder, as it truly is one of kind. Just for the fact that there has never been an engine like it before, makes it a legend. In a project that started off completely beyond common-sense, Bugatti (or Volkswagen if you wish – ouch!) engineers have perfected something utterly ridiculous, but beautiful. They’ve created an engine with not just one, but four turbochargers, 16-cylinders and ultimately, something sporting some 1000 horsepower. It’s an incredible feat.

Though in all fairness, the Porsche’s 10-cylinder isn’t – if at all – far behind. Because, sure, the Carrera GT’s motor might not have the same amount of colossal power, but taken as a whole, it’s most probably the closest thing to a racing engine ever offered in a road car. And that being said, I actually prefer the Porsche engine to the Bugatti’s. It may not have 1000 horsepower, but surely 600 ponies are enough and with the addition of its racing character, it makes the Bugatti’s engine look a little dull.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Mike Mello

11.29.2007

New England is a part of the world where you’re likely to see a fair amount of Saabs. I park near a red, late model 9-3 every day at work, my girlfriend drives a 95 900 SE, and I walked by an exceptionally clean-looking 900 for sale in a Boston neighborhood the other day.

Guiding the return to true Saabness is the Aero X concept, which debuted in Geneva, 2006, and is also on display at the Boston show. The Turbo X makes smart use of some of the design cues from the Aero X in subtle ways. I think Saab followers and new luxury car shoppers alike will find the forward shape of the hood quite attractive, as it presents an extended, horizontal arc that conveys a sense of momentum above the engine bay, providing a sweeping transitional plane that meets the upper edge of the front quarter panels in clean-cut fashion. Gone is the rub strip of past sedans, leaving, again, clean door faces and smooth bumpers that won’t trap wax after years polishing. A pair of sophisticated headlamp assemblies thrust forward the 3-port grille, which, as GM Vice President of North American Design, Bryan Nesbitt remarked, truly serves as the face by which people identify the brand.

Most noteable about the Turbo X is the XWD all-wheel-drive system, which not only decides how much power to send to the front or rear wheels, but also regulates power between the two rear wheels. Up to 40 percent of the torque delivered to the rear wheels is handled by an electronically controlled limited slip differential, sending power to the wheel with the most grip.

Speaking of grip, I was fortunate enough to speak with Saab 9-3/9-5 product manager John Libbos about the Saab Aero Academy; a two-day performance driving program offered to new Saab owners at Road Atlanta in Georgia. While asking Libbos about Saab’s challenge of retaining loyal owners as well as attracting new ones, I remarked that the Aero Academy sounded attractive, and that perhaps it should be developed more in Saab advertising. To me, it’s not just performance-oriented drivers who might enjoy this kind of program with their new Saabs. How many people out there know of the Aero Academy program? Other manufacturers have similar driving schools up and running and I feel that Saab should spread the word about the Aero Academy. Communities of like-minded people are sharing ideas all over the Internet today, and perhaps new Saab owners who meet at the Aero program would share their experiences with other potential Saab shoppers.

I get the data from the major vehicle wholesale auctions on a regular basis, look at the NADA and Black Book data on used vehicles as it comes out, and it’s become apparent that used full-size SUVs have gained a few points in residual value recently. This is a bit surprising, since it represents an inverse relationship to rising gasoline prices and the same inverse relationship to sales of new full-size SUVs, which have been declining for some time.

It appears that some consumers are making the decision that they need a full-size SUV around the homestead, and the rising price of gasoline will just have to be accepted as part of the deal.

Other people in the industry have noticed this as well, and acted accordingly. Dealerships are no longer running away from the full-size trade-in, but instead, putting a better ACV (Actual Cash Value, the real value of any trade – NOT the trade-in value) on the full-size SUVs that still show up on their lot every day.

And other automotive writers have noticed as well – David Welch of BusinessWeek, a auto writer who puts out some good work, had a piece in the magazine yesterday on the same subject.

One of the points made in Welch’s article was that some people have decided that they need an SUV and are buying used SUVs because a used SUV is much, much less expensive than a new SUV, and still fills whatever need they have.

This, by the way, if I could digress a little bit, syncs up with some strong anecdotal evidence I’ve run across in the past 12 months in consumer interviews that consumers who currently have an older SUV that was previously used as a primary vehicle are not trading those vehicles in when it comes time to get another vehicle, but rather, keeping the SUV as a second or third household vehicle.

The rationale employed by these consumers is that the market value of the high-mileage full-size SUV they have is so low that it is not worth trading in, but, the SUV still looks great and runs great, and since they have the room in the driveway, they simply keep it around for those “maximum-use” instances that that may crop up. These run the gamut from ski trips to needing to carry a lot of people at once to trips to Home Depot. From their point of view, the value of having a vehicle available to the household for these infrequent, but important, “maximum-use” instances far exceeds the minor expense and/or hassle of keeping the high-mileage SUV around. Which, of course, is a pretty valid rationale, all things considered.

What about the new vehicle that replaced that high-mileage SUV as the daily driver or commuter car? More and more, it seems to be a real car that gets much better fuel economy than that full-size SUV. It seems that some percentage of the SUV-driving population has come to the conclusion that doing 40 miles to work every morning and then 40 miles back in the evening by yourself in a 3-ton vehicle that gets 15 mpg is not in their own best economic self-interests. So they’re replacing the big SUV in the driving rotation with a more fuel-efficient car, but they still love that SUV for what it’s good at, so they keep it around.

Now, obviously, this scenario of owning both a full-size SUV and a commuter car (or, in the case of the stay-at-home parent, an errand car) makes no economic sense unless you already have the high-mileage SUV and were due to cycle into another new car anyway. But, a lot of people are in that exact situation because they bought a full-size SUV during the last 10 years, when SUV sales were going through the roof.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

The first in a series of family hauler reviews

By Chris Haak

11.28.2007

The past few weeks have found me in the market for a larger family hauler – one that can accommodate two child seats and with enough room for one adult over six feet tall (me) and one near six feet tall (my wife). The shopping list included large crossovers (as long as they had more second row legroom than our current SUV did) and minivans.

Last week, I had the opportunity to test a nearly-loaded 2008 Toyota Sienna Limited AWD. The Sienna and the Honda Odyssey, of course, are the 800 pound gorillas of the minivan market. Both vans offer large cabins, dual power sliding doors, stability control, the full complement of airbags, kid-friendly features such as built-in DVD players, and solid reliability ratings. One thing the Sienna offers that its competitors do not, however, is optional all wheel drive. Hyundai, Kia, Chrysler, Honda, and Chevy all offer only front wheel drive minivans for 2008. Living in the Northeast, all wheel drive is nice to have for the occasional snowstorm, and for a more secure ride even in non-icy foul weather.

Exterior
People don’t buy minivans to make a fashion statement; they buy them because they are some of the most space-efficient passenger carrying vehicles in the market. That being said, the Sienna is a pretty boring looking vehicle. It’s a very generic minivan shape without many interesting styling details. The integration of the rearmost side window at the D-pillar with the shape of the taillight has an unfortunate resemblance to the Buick Rendezvous’ similar design. Most trim levels have standard or available alloy wheels, which slightly improves the appearance. Top-of-the-line Limited models have available HID headlamps, which add some spice to the appearance after dark (as well as enhancing the driver’s field of vision).

Interior
Crossovers have nothing on minivans when it comes to interiors. They can try to replicate the utility and passenger space of a minivan, but inevitably compromises in their design (such as the necessity to have a higher ground clearance and “trucklike” styling, plus non-sliding back doors). Dual sliding doors are opened and closed with buttons on the key fob, as is the rear cargo hatch. The Limited is extremely comfortable inside – in fact, on more than one occasion that afternoon, I referred to the van as the “Lexus of minivans.” Seriously, if Lexus sold a van, it would be very similar to the Sienna Limited, which features such niceties as woodgrain interior trim (although it’s fake), a wood steering wheel, navigation system, leather seats, and more. The styling of the interior was pretty attractive, and most modern minivans like the Sienna feature a third-row seat that folds flat into the floor, but leaves a deep, useful cargo well behind the third row when the seat is not folded. Also, there was plenty of legroom in all three rows of seats, plus the second row seats could be adjusted fore and aft to accommodate all different sizes of passengers. I found plenty of room for my 6′4″ frame in both the second and third rows. In fact, the third row was far nicer than the third rows in any crossover or SUV I’ve sat in, including the Suburban. Another nice feature is that the console between the front seats can be moved between the second row captain’s chairs so rear seat passengers have an extra spot to store things, or hold a drink.

On the Road
The salesperson at the Toyota dealership made a copy of my driver’s license, stuck a magnetic tag on the van, and sent me on my way. I appreciated having the opportunity to drive the van wherever I wanted to without worrying about whether the salesman wanted me to stay on a designated route.

I found it very easy to find a comfortable seating position. I’m used to driving a Honda Accord and a Nissan Pathfinder, and I felt at home immediately in the Sienna. As I pulled onto the highway, I noticed that there was no wheelspin at all; though the roads were dry, I definitely would have experienced at least the traction control activating in a front wheel drive vehicle in that scenario. Engine power was strong from the 266 horsepower 3.5 liter V6, and the van felt very stable at highway speeds. I hadn’t driven any Toyota in a while, and the common complaint is that they tend to have a less-than-engaging driving experience. I found this to be true, particularly with the steering. It felt very numb and uncommunicative – even worse than the steering in my heavier 2005 Nissan Pathfinder. The other odd thing I noticed about the driving experience was that the transmission seemed to upshift under full throttle at a relatively low (around 4,000 RPM) engine speed. When I encountered that issue, I had been cruising around 25 miles per hour and floored the accelerator. Accelerating on a freeway on-ramp at full throttle did extend the shift point to a higher range.

Fuel Economy
EPA fuel economy ratings (newly revised for 2008 to more accurately reflect real world expectations) are 16 city/21 highway for the all wheel drive model and 17 city/23 highway for the front wheel drive model, and are nearly identical to the ratings of competitors’ vehicles.

Pricing
Pricing for the Sienna CE FWD starts around $25,000 including destination; the least expensive AWD model is the LE, which starts around $30,000 but includes far more equipment than the value leader CE. In general, all wheel drive adds about a $2,000 premium over a comparably equipped front wheel drive version. Fully loaded Sienna Limited AWDs start around $40,000 and top out at around $42,000 when all the option boxes are checked off (including navigation, laser cruise control and the aforementioned HID headlamps).

I haven’t yet decided which vehicle I will purchase. On one hand, the Sienna looks great on paper: luxury interior, Toyota reliability, all wheel drive, and plenty of passenger space. On the other hand, while I won’t be its primary driver, the driving experience was not the least bit engaging, and it may be the least attractive minivan on the market (except for the Chevy Uplander). My wife could care less about its looks and probably about its numb steering, so it might be the right choice for us.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

The BYD F1 – it retails for around $3200 USD

Part of the BYD plan is to skirt the all-out competitive firefights in the current automotive market by producing electric cars in the future.

The company just announced that they will be displaying both plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) at the Detroit Auto Show in January 2008. BYD says they plan to start selling their own cars in the U.S. in late 2008 or early 2009, though they have no engineering or design expertise in-house that would help them in meeting the many U.S. requirements for light passenger vehicles.

“Electric cars will be the trump card for us in the global arena. We expect them to account for half of our total sales by 2015,” commented Xia Zhibing, BYD’s sales chief.

The company currently has a hybrid car called the F6 that uses a Mitsubishi engine paired with a battery pack in the last stages of development and expects to roll that model out in 2008. A company spokesman claims that the F6 will have a battery-only range of 400 kilometers and a battery-only top-speed of 160 kilometers per hour. BYD also stated that the F6, curiously enough, will use an iron-based battery pack that can be recharged to 70% capacity in approximately 10 minutes. The company claims that this revolutionary, new kind of battery took 500 employees to perfect, and that it will be used not just in their cars but in toys, mobile phones, laptops and power tools.

BYD also says that they will have an EV for sale in 2009.

Wow! That is a lot to think about.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved