Greetings!! Have one of the new design ‘02 Explorers.  Just passing 37k on our V-6 Limited that have been basically trouble free miles (except, of course, for the new rear end and hopefully someday a new hatch on the back). Was wondering what kinds of issues are cropping up for those of you who have put far more miles on the new design (that is, post-02) Explorers? In particular, I’m wondering about when to plan for replacements for things such as shocks, brakes, and so on.  To be honest, except for an impending set of tires, the other maintenance-type items seem to be acting just like they have since new.  (Mostly easy in town driving, etc., for us.) Thanks in advance. Ken

Response:

I am at 30,000 on my ‘03 Mountaineer and thought the same thing as you…that this SEEMS to be a bullet-proof vehicle (versus my 1999 Explorer which felt like it spent more time at the dealer than on the road). And, also like you, the only REAL problem I am having is the rear window hatch, now waiting for the new redesigned parts.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Greetings!! > Have one of the new design ‘02 Explorers.  Just passing 37k on our V-6 > Limited that have been basically trouble free miles (except, of course, > for the new rear end and hopefully someday a new hatch on the back). Was > wondering what kinds of issues are cropping up for those of you who have > put far more miles on the new design (that is, post-02) Explorers? > In particular, I’m wondering about when to plan for replacements for > things such as shocks, brakes, and so on.  To be honest, except for an > impending set of tires, the other maintenance-type items seem to be acting > just like they have since new.  (Mostly easy in town driving, etc., for > us.) > Thanks in advance. > Ken

Response:

Tires at 37K?  I just replaced the OEM Michelins on my ‘02 V-8 XLT, as the vehicle passed 80K.  I could have gotten anotgher 10K legal miles out of them – i.e., the tread had enough depth – but we were leaving on a cross-country trip towing a trailer, and wanted to be sure there were no on-the-road problems. I had the brakes done at about 60K.  The OEM battery is dying – a bit soon, I would have thought.  Rear end was replaced at 35K and needed it again at 40K (haven’t done it).  I’m not thrilled with the transmission when towing, though it is fine without a trailer.  Other than that, it’s been a pretty good vehicle. What tires were on your Explorer when you bought it? Bill Jeffrey – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Greetings!! > Have one of the new design ‘02 Explorers.  Just passing 37k on our V-6 > Limited that have been basically trouble free miles (except, of course, > for the new rear end and hopefully someday a new hatch on the back). Was > wondering what kinds of issues are cropping up for those of you who have > put far more miles on the new design (that is, post-02) Explorers? > In particular, I’m wondering about when to plan for replacements for > things such as shocks, brakes, and so on.  To be honest, except for an > impending set of tires, the other maintenance-type items seem to be > acting just like they have since new.  (Mostly easy in town driving, > etc., for us.) > Thanks in advance. > Ken

Response:

80K on tires? That would NEVER EVER happen here in Pittsburgh. I got 25K out of the OEM Goodrich tires which the dealer said is about average. Had to do all 4 brakes at 25K too…again, is about average in up and down Pittsburgh driving.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Tires at 37K?  I just replaced the OEM Michelins on my ‘02 V-8 XLT, as the > vehicle passed 80K.  I could have gotten anotgher 10K legal miles out of > them – i.e., the tread had enough depth – but we were leaving on a > cross-country trip towing a trailer, and wanted to be sure there were no > on-the-road problems. > I had the brakes done at about 60K.  The OEM battery is dying – a bit > soon, I would have thought.  Rear end was replaced at 35K and needed it > again at 40K (haven’t done it).  I’m not thrilled with the transmission > when towing, though it is fine without a trailer.  Other than that, it’s > been a pretty good vehicle. > What tires were on your Explorer when you bought it? > Bill Jeffrey > Greetings!! > Have one of the new design ‘02 Explorers.  Just passing 37k on our V-6 > Limited that have been basically trouble free miles (except, of course, > for the new rear end and hopefully someday a new hatch on the back). Was > wondering what kinds of issues are cropping up for those of you who have > put far more miles on the new design (that is, post-02) Explorers? > In particular, I’m wondering about when to plan for replacements for > things such as shocks, brakes, and so on.  To be honest, except for an > impending set of tires, the other maintenance-type items seem to be > acting just like they have since new.  (Mostly easy in town driving, > etc., for us.) > Thanks in advance. > Ken

Response:

Bill I have the Goodyear Wranglers. They are actually OK (tread wise), but we do a lot of driving in the winter in the mountains plus deal with a lot of rain and I’d rather be safe than sorry.  There’s probably 10-15k more miles before they are illegal. I’m not complaining. Thanks for your input, especially since you tow and probably put a bit more strain on things than we do. Cheers!! Ken – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Tires at 37K?  I just replaced the OEM Michelins on my ‘02 V-8 XLT, as > the vehicle passed 80K.  I could have gotten anotgher 10K legal miles > out of them – i.e., the tread had enough depth – but we were leaving on > a cross-country trip towing a trailer, and wanted to be sure there were > no on-the-road problems. > I had the brakes done at about 60K.  The OEM battery is dying – a bit > soon, I would have thought.  Rear end was replaced at 35K and needed it > again at 40K (haven’t done it).  I’m not thrilled with the transmission > when towing, though it is fine without a trailer.  Other than that, it’s > been a pretty good vehicle. > What tires were on your Explorer when you bought it? > Bill Jeffrey > Greetings!! > Have one of the new design ‘02 Explorers.  Just passing 37k on our V-6 > Limited that have been basically trouble free miles (except, of > course, for the new rear end and hopefully someday a new hatch on the > back). Was wondering what kinds of issues are cropping up for those of > you who have put far more miles on the new design (that is, post-02) > Explorers? > In particular, I’m wondering about when to plan for replacements for > things such as shocks, brakes, and so on.  To be honest, except for an > impending set of tires, the other maintenance-type items seem to be > acting just like they have since new.  (Mostly easy in town driving, > etc., for us.) > Thanks in advance. > Ken

Response:

We have a 2002 Explorer with the same deal.  The dealer said it was a bad seatbelt tension spring.  That spring, however, has been on order for 4 and a half months!  Good luck!

Response:

Since the SRS light is flashing, the SRS system is disabled and *should* not deploy (unfortunately this doesn’t cover any possibility of ‘unintentional deployment) – I’m  not sure what the code means since I only have documentation and tools for 5 digit alpha-numeric codes. Something of this nature is better left to someone with appropriate training and equipment. HTH. Jim Warman

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a 1999 Explorer air bag light on 3 flashes a stop then to 7 light > ups then solid on from that time on, after restarting the car. I looked > around and did not find that much regarding this error light. Will it not > go off it something occurs? Anybody that can respond will be greatly > appreciate and it will return it to them, in time. Thanks again. Mark E.

Response:

I have a 1999 Explorer air bag light on 3 flashes a stop then to 7 light ups then solid on from that time on, after restarting the car. I looked around and did not find that much regarding this error light. Will it not go off it something occurs? Anybody that can respond will be greatly appreciate and it will return it to them, in time. Thanks again. Mark E.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars. > Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT > Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis." Not to mention that the > first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and > Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans. > They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, > Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

It has also been a fairly heavily recalled vehicle.  I just recently saw another Odyssey recall… Matt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback. > I first noticed similar things back in about 1985. I specifically > remember reading their ratings of the Dodge Diplomat and Ford Crown > Victoria. Big black marks in the overall rating and inane comments about > them being "carbureted dinosaurs with rear-wheel drive." And yet there > were NO specific reliability issues in any of the categorized areas, and > at the time the Police and Taxi fleets were FILLED with indestructable > Diplomats and Gran Furies and Crown Vics. Go ahead and rip them for > bland styling, and I’d believe it. Rip them for mediocre handling > (except the police packages) and I’d believe it.Talk about the > less-than-ideal bench seats and instrument layout, and I’ll agree. But > you don’t rip those particular cars on *reliability* and come away with > any credibility intact. > Just compare CR’s drivel to the story time has told. Do you see more ‘85 > Gran Furies or ‘85 Toyota Cressidas on the road today in 2003? Do you > see more 85 Crown Victorias or ‘85 Nissan Stanzas still on the road today?

I think part of the problem is the CR only attempts to capture reliability, not durability.  There is a subtle, but important disctinction between the two.  I haven’t returned one of their annual surveys in years because they were so biased I felt it wasn’t worth my time.  Also, last one I did only covered cars up to 5 years old.  My 84 Accord didn’t begin to self-destruct until after the 5th year and thus I had no means to report that to CR.  My Acclaim was bullet proof for nearly 10 years and I likewise had no means to report that.  They may collect data over a longer time period now, but I don’t know as I file 13 the survey each year and have done so for several years now. Matt

Response:

>>Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 >years of subscribing to their magazine. > How?  They accept no advertising, no corporate contributions, and no free > samples of merchandise to test.

Beats me, but they are biased and not even consisten with their own data as another poster illustrated.  Could be the head of the auto test department had a lemon Chrysler in the 70s and hasn’t got over it yet. Who knows… >Still useful, but biased.  I’ve >found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car >magazines. > They accept advertising and get their test cars free from the auto companies.   > How can that be unbiased?

You are confusing having the appearance of bias or having a reason to be biased with actually being biased.  People are prejudiced with no good reason, and people with a reason to be prejudiced often aren’t. Matt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after > 20 years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.   > I’ve found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the > car magazines. > Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

I agree, I’ve noticed the bias for years.  It seems to mainly affect cars, I don’t notice it with appliances, etc.  Just have to factor it in with the other information that is more useful and accurate (stats, etc. on the cars). Matt

Response:

>>>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >>and you’ll understand >>my point. >Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise. > Which means based on one of the best cars out there.

A) Camry is Japanese for "crap that stupid Americans will buy", and B) A car platform is not a suitable base for a minivan.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >>>and you’ll understand >>>my point. >>Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise. > Which means based on one of the best cars out there. >A) Camry is Japanese for "crap that stupid Americans will buy", and

But solid, reliable, quiet, roomy, good-riding, etc. >B) A car platform is not a suitable base for a minivan.

Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars.  Honda’s Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, is based on the Accord.   Nissan’s new Quest on the Altima/Maxima.  Mazda’s MPV on the 626.

Response:

> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars.

Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis." Not to mention that the first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans. They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s > Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan,

Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

Response:

>> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars. >Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT >Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis."

No, these were very similar.  Same suspension, same engines, same transmissions.  Pretty much a tall Aries/Reliant wagon. >Not to mention that the >first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and >Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans.

Yeah, I wish Chrysler still made an upscale small minivan.  They only make cheapo, economy model short wheelbase ones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s > Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, >Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 > years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve > found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car > magazines. >Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. >Black rating for reliability. >Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. >Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or excellent. >NOT ONE below average mark.

You don’t understand how CR does this.  The overall reliability rating is by comparison to the average vehicle of that model year.  If you look at other vehicles, they are better.   The individual categories are based on what % of owners reported a problem in that area.  No comparison.  Those circles do not represent average, worse, or better, but what % reported a problem. CR tells you this if you’d bothered to read the magazine before shooting your mouth off. >Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. >I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. >GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate >GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you >can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

No, the obvious conclusion is you cannot read.

Response:

>> But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look > and you’ll understand > my point. >Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise.

Which means based on one of the best cars out there.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

I first noticed similar things back in about 1985. I specifically remember reading their ratings of the Dodge Diplomat and Ford Crown Victoria. Big black marks in the overall rating and inane comments about them being "carbureted dinosaurs with rear-wheel drive." And yet there were NO specific reliability issues in any of the categorized areas, and at the time the Police and Taxi fleets were FILLED with indestructable Diplomats and Gran Furies and Crown Vics. Go ahead and rip them for bland styling, and I’d believe it. Rip them for mediocre handling (except the police packages) and I’d believe it.Talk about the less-than-ideal bench seats and instrument layout, and I’ll agree. But you don’t rip those particular cars on *reliability* and come away with any credibility intact. Just compare CR’s drivel to the story time has told. Do you see more ‘85 Gran Furies or ‘85 Toyota Cressidas on the road today in 2003? Do you see more 85 Crown Victorias or ‘85 Nissan Stanzas still on the road today? CR is best used as toilet paper, and its not very good at that job either.

Response:

>Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 >years of subscribing to their magazine.

How?  They accept no advertising, no corporate contributions, and no free samples of merchandise to test. > Still useful, but biased.  I’ve >found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car >magazines.

They accept advertising and get their test cars free from the auto companies.   How can that be unbiased? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Matt > CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. >>>Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup > here.  I >>>just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues > (although >>>only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my > 1999 >>>Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I > looked >>>at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that > had >>>them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans > are >>>worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I > decided on >>>the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and > solid. >>My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has > 140,000 >>miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes > light up! >>>Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the > past >>>then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. >>Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth >>Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly >>bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. >>>Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 >>>Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The >>>American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you >>>something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American >>>manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines >>Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan >>slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 > Sienna >>had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for >>nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American >>brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is > definite >>bias there. >>>One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans > drop >>>like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying >>>American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for > any >>>manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or > more on >>>the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a > lot >>>longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. >>Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and >>demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans > that >>come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to > add >>to my stable… >>Matt

Response:

> But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look > and you’ll understand > my point.

Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise.

Response:

Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car magazines. Matt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. >>Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup > here.  I >>just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues > (although >>only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my > 1999 >>Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I > looked >>at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that > had >>them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans > are >>worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I > decided on >>the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and > solid. >My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has > 140,000 >miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes > light up! >>Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the > past >>then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. >Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth >Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly >bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. >>Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 >>Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The >>American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you >>something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American >>manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines >Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan >slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 > Sienna >had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for >nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American >brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is > definite >bias there. >>One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans > drop >>like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying >>American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for > any >>manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or > more on >>the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a > lot >>longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. >Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and >demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans > that >come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to > add >to my stable… >Matt

Response:

>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >and you’ll understand >my point.

We did – didn’t impress us a bit, so instead of trading the ‘96 T&C LXi, we kept it and bought a Pacifica AWD.

Response:

> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 > years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve > found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car > magazines.

Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. Black rating for reliability. Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or excellent. NOT ONE below average mark. Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car > at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s > are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a > premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like > that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little > more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced > earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 > Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other > manufacturers to begin with… >Have you looked closely at the new Quest?  What an abomination of a >minivan.  The dash is not only butt ugly, but nonfunctional.  I’ll lose >a lot of faith in the American public, and there isn’t all that much >left to lose, if this thing sells well at all.  The multiple sun roofs >are kind of neat to ease the claustrophobia, but that dash is horrendous. >Matt

Apparently, from published tests, it rides and handles nicely, being built on the Altima/Maxima platform and all.  And at least it isn’t a box on wheels like some minivans.  I agree about the instrument cluster, but the controls on the center raised console are handy (and why don’t more minivans come with a shifter like this and the Sienna’s, much easier to shift, than on the steering column?).

Response:

>CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna.

And apparently Motor Trend has a comparion of the Sienna, Quest, and Odyssey coming out (they featured it on "Motor Trend TV" this past weekend). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup >here.  I > > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues >(although > > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my >1999 > > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I >looked > > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that >had > > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans >are > > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I >decided on > > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and >solid. > My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has >140,000 > miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes >light up! > > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the >past > > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth > Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly > bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan > slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 >Sienna > had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for > nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American > brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is >definite > bias there. > > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans >drop > > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for >any > > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or >more on > > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a >lot > > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans >that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to >add > to my stable… > Matt

Response:

> Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add > to my stable… > Matt

Well said.  It is true that there is SO MUCH Chrysler minivans that come back from fleets or location companies. But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look and you’ll understand my point. And it is true that Nissan’s Quest designer have gone a little too far on their pulsion. It is YOU LIKE or YOU DON’T LIKE with their cars.

Response:

CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has 140,000 > miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes light up! > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth > Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly > bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan > slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 Sienna > had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for > nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American > brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is definite > bias there. > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add > to my stable… > Matt

Response:

> OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car > at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s > are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a > premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like > that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little > more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced > earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 > Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other > manufacturers to begin with…

Have you looked closely at the new Quest?  What an abomination of a minivan.  The dash is not only butt ugly, but nonfunctional.  I’ll lose a lot of faith in the American public, and there isn’t all that much left to lose, if this thing sells well at all.  The multiple sun roofs are kind of neat to ease the claustrophobia, but that dash is horrendous. Matt

Response:

> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid.

My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has 140,000 miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes light up! > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks.

Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines  

Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 Sienna had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is definite bias there. > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there.

Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add to my stable… Matt

Response:

OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other manufacturers to begin with… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Yes, but American minivans sells for much less when they are new. >Dealers sell them 2K to 5K$ less than their MRSP. >With Honda or Toyota, it’s hard to buy a new car 2K$ less than the >MRSP. >Bottomline, american cars and vans MRSP are too high according to their >value. > Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, > however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe >delivery."

"No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery."

Response:

Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines   One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery."

Response:

Yes, but American minivans sells for much less when they are new. Dealers sell them 2K to 5K$ less than their MRSP. With Honda or Toyota, it’s hard to buy a new car 2K$ less than the MRSP. Bottomline, american cars and vans MRSP are too high according to their value.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, > however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe

delivery."

Response:

Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines   One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery."

Response:

Yes, but American minivans sells for much less when they are new. Dealers sell them 2K to 5K$ less than their MRSP. With Honda or Toyota, it’s hard to buy a new car 2K$ less than the MRSP. Bottomline, american cars and vans MRSP are too high according to their value.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, > however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe

delivery."

Response:

OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other manufacturers to begin with… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Yes, but American minivans sells for much less when they are new. >Dealers sell them 2K to 5K$ less than their MRSP. >With Honda or Toyota, it’s hard to buy a new car 2K$ less than the >MRSP. >Bottomline, american cars and vans MRSP are too high according to their >value. > Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > "No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, > however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe >delivery."

"No computer components were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery."

Response:

> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid.

My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has 140,000 miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes light up! > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks.

Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines  

Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 Sienna had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is definite bias there. > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there.

Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add to my stable… Matt

Response:

> OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car > at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s > are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a > premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like > that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little > more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced > earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 > Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other > manufacturers to begin with…

Have you looked closely at the new Quest?  What an abomination of a minivan.  The dash is not only butt ugly, but nonfunctional.  I’ll lose a lot of faith in the American public, and there isn’t all that much left to lose, if this thing sells well at all.  The multiple sun roofs are kind of neat to ease the claustrophobia, but that dash is horrendous. Matt

Response:

> Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add > to my stable… > Matt

Well said.  It is true that there is SO MUCH Chrysler minivans that come back from fleets or location companies. But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look and you’ll understand my point. And it is true that Nissan’s Quest designer have gone a little too far on their pulsion. It is YOU LIKE or YOU DON’T LIKE with their cars.

Response:

CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup here.  I > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues (although > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my 1999 > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I looked > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that had > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans are > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I decided on > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and solid. > My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has 140,000 > miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes light up! > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the past > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth > Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly > bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan > slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 Sienna > had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for > nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American > brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is definite > bias there. > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans drop > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for any > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or more on > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a lot > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to add > to my stable… > Matt

Response:

>CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna.

And apparently Motor Trend has a comparion of the Sienna, Quest, and Odyssey coming out (they featured it on "Motor Trend TV" this past weekend). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup >here.  I > > just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues >(although > > only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my >1999 > > Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I >looked > > at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that >had > > them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans >are > > worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I >decided on > > the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and >solid. > My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has >140,000 > miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes >light up! > > Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the >past > > then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. > Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth > Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly > bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. > > Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 > > Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The > > American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you > > something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American > > manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines > Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan > slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 >Sienna > had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for > nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American > brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is >definite > bias there. > > One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans >drop > > like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying > > American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for >any > > manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or >more on > > the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a >lot > > longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. > Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and > demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans >that > come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to >add > to my stable… > Matt

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> OK.  That is a valid point.  I guess anyone who buys an American car > at or close to MSRP is getting screwed.  I know that the 04 Sienna’s > are selling at or close to MSRP (some have the gall to charge a > premium!).  Law of supply and demand I guess.  The Odysseys were like > that too when they were first introduced, although there is a little > more wiggle room now (especially after the 04 Sienna was introduced > earlier this year).  I hear there is some wiggle room on the 04 > Quest’s MSRP too – but they were never as popular as the other > manufacturers to begin with… >Have you looked closely at the new Quest?  What an abomination of a >minivan.  The dash is not only butt ugly, but nonfunctional.  I’ll lose >a lot of faith in the American public, and there isn’t all that much >left to lose, if this thing sells well at all.  The multiple sun roofs >are kind of neat to ease the claustrophobia, but that dash is horrendous. >Matt

Apparently, from published tests, it rides and handles nicely, being built on the Altima/Maxima platform and all.  And at least it isn’t a box on wheels like some minivans.  I agree about the instrument cluster, but the controls on the center raised console are handy (and why don’t more minivans come with a shifter like this and the Sienna’s, much easier to shift, than on the steering column?).

Response:

> But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look > and you’ll understand > my point.

Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise.

Response:

Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car magazines. Matt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. >>Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup > here.  I >>just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues > (although >>only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my > 1999 >>Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I > looked >>at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that > had >>them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans > are >>worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I > decided on >>the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and > solid. >My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has > 140,000 >miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes > light up! >>Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the > past >>then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. >Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth >Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly >bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. >>Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 >>Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The >>American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you >>something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American >>manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines >Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan >slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 > Sienna >had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for >nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American >brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is > definite >bias there. >>One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans > drop >>like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying >>American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for > any >>manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or > more on >>the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a > lot >>longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. >Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and >demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans > that >come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to > add >to my stable… >Matt

Response:

>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >and you’ll understand >my point.

We did – didn’t impress us a bit, so instead of trading the ‘96 T&C LXi, we kept it and bought a Pacifica AWD.

Response:

> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 > years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve > found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car > magazines.

Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. Black rating for reliability. Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or excellent. NOT ONE below average mark. Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

Response:

>Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 >years of subscribing to their magazine.

How?  They accept no advertising, no corporate contributions, and no free samples of merchandise to test. > Still useful, but biased.  I’ve >found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car >magazines.

They accept advertising and get their test cars free from the auto companies.   How can that be unbiased? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Matt > CR just reviewed the minivans including 2004 Sienna. >>>Read the complaint about a 2004 Sienna from another newsgroup > here.  I >>>just got my 2004 Sienna a week ago and I LOVE it.  No issues > (although >>>only 450 miles).  Anyone can get a lemon now and then (like my > 1999 >>>Explorer).  Just less likely on the Toyota and Honda vans.  I > looked >>>at the Windstar and Caravan, but after speaking to neighbors that > had >>>them in for frequent repairs, super low resale values (the vans > are >>>worth 50% what people bought it about 2 years – or less), I > decided on >>>the 2004 Sienna.  Great decision so far.  Smooth, quiet, and > solid. >>My 1996 Grand Voyager is smooth, quiet and solid … and it has > 140,000 >>miles as of 10 minutes ago.  Kind of fun to watch all the zeroes > light up! >>>Overall, I have had less issues with my Accord and Corolla in the > past >>>then I did with my Ford and Dodge cars/trucks. >>Worst car I ever had was a Honda Accord.  Best car was a Plymouth >>Acclaim that replaced the Accord.  My Chevy truck has been nearly >>bulletproof since I bought it new 10 years ago. >>>Consumer Reports, Smart Money Magazine, and others rank the 2004 >>>Sienna tops overall (or a close second in other magazines).  The >>>American vans are rarely in the top 3.  That has to tell you >>>something.  Unless there is a "conspiracy" against American >>>manufacturers in all trade and consumer magazines >>Last time I checked, Consumer guide rated the 2003 Grand Caravan >>slightly higher than the 2003 Odyssey.  I don’t think the 2004 > Sienna >>had been tested yet.  And, having subscribed to Consumer Reports for >>nearly 20 years now, I do believe they are biased against American >>brands.  I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but I think there is > definite >>bias there. >>>One of the big things is the resale values.  The American vans > drop >>>like a weight once they roll off the car lot.  If you are buying >>>American, wait and buy a 2 year old model (though this is true for > any >>>manufacturer).  But with the American cars you can save 50% or > more on >>>the original MSRP.  The Siennas and Odysseys hold their value a > lot >>>longer.  Just check out any resale list out there. >>Yes, the resale values are low, but that is a result of supply and >>demand as much as anything.  There are simply LOTS of Chrysler vans > that >>come back each year from fleets.  I just bought one this evening to > add >>to my stable… >>Matt

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 > years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.  I’ve > found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car > magazines. >Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. >Black rating for reliability. >Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. >Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or excellent. >NOT ONE below average mark.

You don’t understand how CR does this.  The overall reliability rating is by comparison to the average vehicle of that model year.  If you look at other vehicles, they are better.   The individual categories are based on what % of owners reported a problem in that area.  No comparison.  Those circles do not represent average, worse, or better, but what % reported a problem. CR tells you this if you’d bothered to read the magazine before shooting your mouth off. >Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. >I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. >GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate >GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you >can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

No, the obvious conclusion is you cannot read.

Response:

>> But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look > and you’ll understand > my point. >Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise.

Which means based on one of the best cars out there.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

I first noticed similar things back in about 1985. I specifically remember reading their ratings of the Dodge Diplomat and Ford Crown Victoria. Big black marks in the overall rating and inane comments about them being "carbureted dinosaurs with rear-wheel drive." And yet there were NO specific reliability issues in any of the categorized areas, and at the time the Police and Taxi fleets were FILLED with indestructable Diplomats and Gran Furies and Crown Vics. Go ahead and rip them for bland styling, and I’d believe it. Rip them for mediocre handling (except the police packages) and I’d believe it.Talk about the less-than-ideal bench seats and instrument layout, and I’ll agree. But you don’t rip those particular cars on *reliability* and come away with any credibility intact. Just compare CR’s drivel to the story time has told. Do you see more ‘85 Gran Furies or ‘85 Toyota Cressidas on the road today in 2003? Do you see more 85 Crown Victorias or ‘85 Nissan Stanzas still on the road today? CR is best used as toilet paper, and its not very good at that job either.

Response:

>>>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >>and you’ll understand >>my point. >Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise. > Which means based on one of the best cars out there.

A) Camry is Japanese for "crap that stupid Americans will buy", and B) A car platform is not a suitable base for a minivan.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>But I have to give the credit to the new 04 Sienna though, go take a look >>>and you’ll understand >>>my point. >>Once a Camry in disguise…. STILL a Camry in disguise. > Which means based on one of the best cars out there. >A) Camry is Japanese for "crap that stupid Americans will buy", and

But solid, reliable, quiet, roomy, good-riding, etc. >B) A car platform is not a suitable base for a minivan.

Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars.  Honda’s Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, is based on the Accord.   Nissan’s new Quest on the Altima/Maxima.  Mazda’s MPV on the 626.

Response:

> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars.

Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis." Not to mention that the first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans. They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s > Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan,

Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

Response:

>> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars. >Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT >Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis."

No, these were very similar.  Same suspension, same engines, same transmissions.  Pretty much a tall Aries/Reliant wagon. >Not to mention that the >first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and >Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans.

Yeah, I wish Chrysler still made an upscale small minivan.  They only make cheapo, economy model short wheelbase ones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s > Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, >Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after > 20 years of subscribing to their magazine.  Still useful, but biased.   > I’ve found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the > car magazines. > Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback.

I agree, I’ve noticed the bias for years.  It seems to mainly affect cars, I don’t notice it with appliances, etc.  Just have to factor it in with the other information that is more useful and accurate (stats, etc. on the cars). Matt

Response:

>>Yes, I read that issue, but I believe that CR is fairly biased after 20 >years of subscribing to their magazine. > How?  They accept no advertising, no corporate contributions, and no free > samples of merchandise to test.

Beats me, but they are biased and not even consisten with their own data as another poster illustrated.  Could be the head of the auto test department had a lemon Chrysler in the 70s and hasn’t got over it yet. Who knows… >Still useful, but biased.  I’ve >found Consumer Guide to be a little more balanced along with the car >magazines. > They accept advertising and get their test cars free from the auto companies.   > How can that be unbiased?

You are confusing having the appearance of bias or having a reason to be biased with actually being biased.  People are prejudiced with no good reason, and people with a reason to be prejudiced often aren’t. Matt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Take a look at the review of the 2003 Grand Cherokee in their auto guide. > Black rating for reliability. > Then look at the ratings in the back for reliability. > Note how since 2001, every single category is good, very good, or > excellent. > NOT ONE below average mark. > Than look at the bottom rating for overall reliability.  100% black. > I emailed them about it and their response was a bunch of double-talk. > GO take a look – then wonder what in the world is going on.  They hate > GM and Chrysler and are biased – that’s the only logical conclusion you > can draw from their blatantly overriding their own feedback. > I first noticed similar things back in about 1985. I specifically > remember reading their ratings of the Dodge Diplomat and Ford Crown > Victoria. Big black marks in the overall rating and inane comments about > them being "carbureted dinosaurs with rear-wheel drive." And yet there > were NO specific reliability issues in any of the categorized areas, and > at the time the Police and Taxi fleets were FILLED with indestructable > Diplomats and Gran Furies and Crown Vics. Go ahead and rip them for > bland styling, and I’d believe it. Rip them for mediocre handling > (except the police packages) and I’d believe it.Talk about the > less-than-ideal bench seats and instrument layout, and I’ll agree. But > you don’t rip those particular cars on *reliability* and come away with > any credibility intact. > Just compare CR’s drivel to the story time has told. Do you see more ‘85 > Gran Furies or ‘85 Toyota Cressidas on the road today in 2003? Do you > see more 85 Crown Victorias or ‘85 Nissan Stanzas still on the road today?

I think part of the problem is the CR only attempts to capture reliability, not durability.  There is a subtle, but important disctinction between the two.  I haven’t returned one of their annual surveys in years because they were so biased I felt it wasn’t worth my time.  Also, last one I did only covered cars up to 5 years old.  My 84 Accord didn’t begin to self-destruct until after the 5th year and thus I had no means to report that to CR.  My Acclaim was bullet proof for nearly 10 years and I likewise had no means to report that.  They may collect data over a longer time period now, but I don’t know as I file 13 the survey each year and have done so for several years now. Matt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why not?  The original Chrysler minivans were based on the K-cars. > Common myth, not particularly close to the truth. Sorta like "The PT > Cruiser is built on a Neon chassis." Not to mention that the > first-generation Chrysler minivans were truly "mini." The Oddyssey and > Sienna wiegh more than many SUVs, as do the modern Chrysler vans. > They’ve gotten HUGE. They weigh more than my ‘66 Dodge Polara. >  Honda’s Odyssey, widely regarded as the best minivan, > Not by all the people who’ve blown transmissions out of them.

It has also been a fairly heavily recalled vehicle.  I just recently saw another Odyssey recall… Matt

Response:

Put the car in manual low gear (the "1" position on the quadrant) and get up to about 25 mph….. let off the gas. If you have no engine braking I would guess at a concern with the low/reverse band or hydraulic circuit. If you do have engine braking and for sure all forward gears appear to work normal, I’m snookered. Either way, the transmission is coming out. — Jim Warman

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 1999 Explorer XLS 4×4 > I’m not mechanically inclined, so all I know is that my wife put our Explorer > in reverse, backed up 10 feet, there was a loud clunk, and no more reverse. All > other gears are fine. In 4-wheel drive, same thing: forward but no > reverse.There has been no other indication of problems (noises, smells, > vibrations, etc.). Transmission fluid looks fine. Any questions, theories, or > comments would be greatly appreciated.

Response:

1999 Explorer XLS 4×4 I’m not mechanically inclined, so all I know is that my wife put our Explorer in reverse, backed up 10 feet, there was a loud clunk, and no more reverse. All other gears are fine. In 4-wheel drive, same thing: forward but no reverse.There has been no other indication of problems (noises, smells, vibrations, etc.). Transmission fluid looks fine. Any questions, theories, or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Response:

ok i have a 1999 Explorer its a 4 wheel drive Eddie Bauer i bought it totally stock but added a 10 cd changer burl wood dash accents and its in perfect condition i want to ask 16,000 flat its got 66000 miles, is that ok?

Response:

Lots of online resources for you to use. www.nada.com www.edmunds.com etc – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ok i have a 1999 Explorer > its a 4 wheel drive Eddie Bauer > i bought it totally stock but added > a 10 cd changer > burl wood dash accents > and its in perfect condition > i want to ask 16,000 flat > its got 66000 miles, is that ok?

Response:

Don’t have a tape measure??? — Jim Warman

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Does anyone know what size fog lights fit the provided hole for fog lights > on  a 1999 Explorer Sport? > If so I would appreciate the help thanks > Jacob

Response:

Does anyone know what size fog lights fit the provided hole for fog lights on  a 1999 Explorer Sport? If so I would appreciate the help thanks Jacob

Response:

Something sounds loose in the back trunk area when I go over bumps. It sounds like a creeking sound or something. What might it be??

Response:

In my case, I found a trailing light set. It was where the jack is located. When you open the lift gate you can find it on your left.  I still keep it there leaving it making noise. It’s ok.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Something sounds loose in the back trunk area when I go over bumps. It > sounds like a creeking sound or something. What might it be??

Response:

try the jack that is tightened down with a wing nut or something,  mine was loose and rattling till i tracked it down.  its in the rear quarter panel hatch.  good luck.

Response:

I just bought the wiring kit that plugs into the wiring circuit behind the passenger side of the rear bumber.  Despite it saying that it is for a 99 explorer there was one tab that didn’t line up at all.   I removed that tab and the remaining two lined up fine, but the trailer lights don’t seem to work.   I know the trailer lights work fine and don’t have a tester to see if there is power getting to the trailer.  I am concerned that there is something unique about the 1999 model given that it didn’t fit correctly. Any thoughts? Thanks, Jim

Response:

> I just bought the wiring kit that plugs into the wiring circuit behind the > passenger side of the rear bumber.  Despite it saying that it is for a 99 > explorer there was one tab that didn’t line up at all.   I removed that tab > and the remaining two lined up fine, but the trailer lights don’t seem to > work.   I know the trailer lights work fine and don’t have a tester to see > if there is power getting to the trailer.  I am concerned that there is > something unique about the 1999 model given that it didn’t fit correctly. > Any thoughts? > Thanks, > Jim

I have a 2001 XLT 4WD, and I would sure like to buy one of these wiring kits as described above. Manufacturers? – Part Numbers? – Anyone?

Response:

i need to know if i can put daytime running lights on my 1999 explorer eddie bauer???? i do have automatic lamps if that helps, i’m sorta making it mine now lol, i just ordered a wood kit for the dash -Ryan

Response:

See the URL below and scroll down to the DRL section and read the info. Also please note that some people have posted that their ‘98 Explorer and later Explorers? didn’t have the harness in place if their vehicle did not come equipped DRLs originally. If this is the case it’s more of a hassle because you need the harness. http://ourplaceusa.home.att.net/drl.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >i need to know if i can put daytime running lights on my 1999 explorer eddie >bauer???? i do have automatic lamps if that helps, i’m sorta making it mine now >lol, i just ordered a wood kit for the dash >-Ryan

Response:

One thing that will do this is a crack in the block, such that combustion gases get in the coolant, but the coolant won’t leak out (small crack that requires the pressure in the cylinder to force the gases out). There are testers that will test for combustion gasses in the coolant. BTW, throwing a fit as an opening gambit usually doesn’t enhance your position with the service people. Free advice. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Hi guys, I’m kinda new to this group.  I recently bought a 1999 explorer, >and I checked the coolant about 2 weeks ago, and it was really really dark. >(like almost black)  I took it back to the dealer, and threw a fit.  They >said they would flush it, and clean it.  Free of chanrge, so thats nice.  I >checked it before I left the dealer, and it was the normal neon green color. >I check it again on Monday, and it is dark again.  I called the dealer and >they said they cleaned it and flushed it like they were suspose to.  They >said to bring it back and they would do it agian.  Does anyone know why it >would be like this.  The truck has 30k miles on it.  I had a 1988 chevy >corsica a few years back with almost 300k miles on it, and the coolant >wasn’t ever flushed the whole time I had it, and it was never dark like >this.  Anyone know why it would be dark?  Thank you in advance for >responces. >Austin

– Bill Funk http://www.users.qwest.net/~bfunk33/

Response:

Hi guys, I’m kinda new to this group.  I recently bought a 1999 explorer, and I checked the coolant about 2 weeks ago, and it was really really dark. (like almost black)  I took it back to the dealer, and threw a fit.  They said they would flush it, and clean it.  Free of chanrge, so thats nice.  I checked it before I left the dealer, and it was the normal neon green color. I check it again on Monday, and it is dark again.  I called the dealer and they said they cleaned it and flushed it like they were suspose to.  They said to bring it back and they would do it agian.  Does anyone know why it would be like this.  The truck has 30k miles on it.  I had a 1988 chevy corsica a few years back with almost 300k miles on it, and the coolant wasn’t ever flushed the whole time I had it, and it was never dark like this.  Anyone know why it would be dark?  Thank you in advance for responces. Austin

Response: