"WiscoProud" (wiscoproud)
08/06/2018 at 11:10 • Filed to: None
0
12|
"WiscoProud" (wiscoproud)
08/06/2018 at 11:10 • Filed to: None | 0
| 12 |
Long story short, we’re selling my wife’s 2014 Forester to my mom, and are thinking about buying a used Sienna minivan for my wife. Goal is to have no car payment, so the purchase price would need to be under $8k.
Would you take an older van (2005) with AWD and great maintenance history or a newer van (2008) without AWD and less maintenance history? Note, we live in the Milwaukee area and my wife routinely needs to be to work before the plows have been out.
Longer version, my wife has been wanting a minivan for a few years now, and it would allow my daughter and dog to load themselves in by themselves. We were going to take a loan and get her a newer model Pacifica, but then we got hit with and unexpected bill, and decided its probably a better idea to pay that stuff off first. My mom is going to buy my wife’s car, and we should clear about $6,000-$6,500 when everything is all said and done. I’ve had very good luck with Toyota (my LC has 190k+ on it) and the Siennas are supposedly very reliable. Its also the only minivan with AWD (see above why this is important).
I test drove this van yesterday:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Its obviously been well loved, but in decent shape. The rims are surprisingly bad and peeling and the back bumper needs paint, but nothing terrible. The bonus is the owner has great records and everything important has been done, including the timing belt change. It has the 3.3L engine, which seems to be reliable, but low powered.
Here is the other option:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Its also the highest trim package, no AWD, but does have DVD (not a big deal to us). It also has higher miles (148k) I have not seen this one yet, but the fact its at a small used car lot, I can’t imagine I’m going to have much for maintenance records.
What do you guys think? Better records or newer year with higher miles? My wife barely drives (9k miles in 4 years), so I’m not real worried about the mileage (within reason of course).
Cash Rewards
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 11:51 |
|
Are they the same generation of van? If so, get the AWD. If not, and the newer one is a newer generation, I'd check crash tests results to see if the newer one is better on any way.
|
WiscoProud
> Cash Rewards
08/06/2018 at 11:52 |
|
Yes, both second gen. Third gen didn’t come out until 2011 I believe.
Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 11:55 |
|
The first seems like a better overall buy based on the miles and the AWD. Three years in age difference, to me, is less of an influence in deciding when both cars are over 10 years old and you won’t be getting financing.
|
WiscoProud
> Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle
08/06/2018 at 12:02 |
|
Without seeing the second, I can’t say its better conclusively, but I’m leaning that way too. Aside from aesthetics, it was in very good condition.
Long-Voyager
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 12:09 |
|
Buy her a minivan that’s actually enjoyable to drive.
Spend the remainder on snow tires for winter and modding.
Jokes aside, after driving all the modern vans, I don’t understand how anyone willfully buys the Sienna. IMO they drive like hot garbage.
|
WiscoProud
> Long-Voyager
08/06/2018 at 12:18 |
|
For us? Reliability. The goal is to have the lowest cost of ownership vehicle for a year or two, so that auto payments can be diverted elsewhere. Odysseys have nagging transmission issues, Chrysler is Chrysler, and the others aren’t much better.
I would love to get her a Sienna SE, with the actual sport suspension, but she’d never appreciate it. Her commute is literally 1.5 miles.
The first one didn’t drive too bad to me, all things considered. I don’t know if there are suspension changes between the FWD and AWD models. We did drive a FWD one last year that handled like a boat. I was convinced it didn’t have sway bars. This one was fine though.
HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 12:19 |
|
My MIL has an 05 Sienna with 230,000 miles no rust and other than a leaky drain plug, leading to low oil, it’s had no problems. And that low oil issue hasn’t seemed to cause any damage after a year and another 10,000 miles. I can’t speak for the AWD system but other wise I’d say both vans have lots of life left in them.
|
WiscoProud
> HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles
08/06/2018 at 12:22 |
|
Thats good to hear. I’ve had a handful of Toyotas over the years than have been trouble free past 200k. Anything we buy for her will only pick up a few thousand miles a year, so I’m not concerned.
|
Long-Voyager
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 12:32 |
|
Chrysler vans are as reliable as their owners. Take good care of it, it will take good care of you. Problem is the majority of owners don’t maintain them, then want to complain when things break from lack of maintenance.
I would love to see a reliability study that takes into account how the vehicles were maintained. Ex: Chrysler gets a bad rep for transmissions, yet they will go well over 200k when taken care of, even under hard abuse from my experience. Problem being the majority of owners never change their trans fluid/filter, then complain when it eats a trans at 150k,
They are also cheaper to maintain, offer SNG seating (useful to many), get better real world mileage than the other minivan offerings, and drive far better IMO.
In the price range/miles you are looking, you can expect anything you buy to need suspension work in the very near future if it hasn’t been done already, along with other mileage related issues.
|
WiscoProud
> Long-Voyager
08/06/2018 at 12:48 |
|
We really like the new Pacificas, and will likely end up in one someday. The stow and go seating is very convenient. As to your comment about reliability, see here:
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Chrysler_Town_and_Country.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Toyota_Sienna.html
|
Long-Voyager
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 16:10 |
|
Again, neither of those offer any info on how they were maintained.
Look at the types of people who buy each.
1. Generally the Dodge/Chrysler buyer is someone who just wants transport and doesn’t really have extra money for regular service. This leads to the vehicle being driven with minimal maintenance, which will lead to reliability issues down the road.
2. Generally the Toyota/Honda buyer is someone who will take it in for regular service as scheduled and can afford to keep up with it. This leads to less reliability issues down the road (if you omit Hondas eating transmissions at a higher than Mopar rate).
|
Long-Voyager
> WiscoProud
08/06/2018 at 17:14 |
|
My experiences with the Sienna is it feels cheap inside. Uncomfortable seating, combined with harsh ride, and sloppy handling ruin it for me. It was also the noisiest of the bunch and struggled to top 21 mpg in mixed driving.
The Odyssey was nicer inside and rode better, but handled worse and got horrid mileage (17 mpg in mixed driving) . It also cost significantly more.
The Grand Caravan in SXT trim was nicer than the Sienna and rode better, while handling roughly the same. It got better mileage (averaged 23 mpg in mixed driving) than the Sienna or Odyssey and cost a lot less.
The Grand Caravan in RT/GT trim was nicer than both, rode good, and offered decent handling. Same mileage as the SXT, still cheaper than either “foreign” van in terms of price.
The Pacifica is a great van for the money. Nice inside, nice ride, decent handling, quick, not overly expensive. It also averaged 25 mpg in the same driving.
Mind you this was my take on them after having one of each for almost a week in 2017 . All were brand new vans.
In the end it’s your call, just giving my experience with all of them. Don’t rule out what’s potentially a better van just because of “perceived reliability”. IMO a Grand Caravan with a full service history would likely make a better van than a Sienna with little history.
All that being said, I look forward to another minivan owner to join the ranks and wish you luck on your search.