No, these were very similar. Same suspension, same engines, same transmissions. Pretty much a tall Aries/Reliant wagon.
Yeah, I wish Chrysler still made an upscale small minivan. They only make cheapo, economy model short wheelbase ones.
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.
Not by all the people who've blown transmissions out of them.
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
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...
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
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
It has also been a fairly heavily recalled vehicle. I just recently saw another Odyssey recall...
Matt
Well, quite obviously if they aren't recording long term reliability they are certainly biased.
What is the point of comparing reliability on 1-5 year old vehicles? These days the vehicles in that age range are are going to be covered by factory warranty. Thus any problems will be taken care of for free, by the manufacturer.
What is much more important is the reliability of the vehicles AFTER the manufacturers warranty has expired, and the vehicle owner is on his own for repair expenses.
And on top of that I can't help but believe that CR is going to be a much more popular magazine among the folks who have to make every dollar count, which is more a polite way of saying people who can't afford to buy a new car every 5 years. Thus I can't help but believe that the majority of CR readers are people who are going to be buying those cars in the 5-10 year old age bracket. I mean, can you really imagine the high-powered exec making 150K a year and buying a new car every year having the time to pay attention to what CR says?
The CR auto test ratings seems to me more of a device created by CR to generate squawking and controversial articles that are eye-catchers and that serve to generate yapping and talk in various forums (like this one) in order to simply repeatedly advertise the name of CR, rather than to produce actual data that their readers could actually use. I suppose that for the highly paid CR auto test people who cars are but mere playthings, it's not really fun to be reviewing 5 year old vehicles, so that is why they don't do it. And since foreign vehicles sell less in a per-class basis than domestics, you get more controversy and thus advertising by dissing the largest groups - ie: domestics. I would imagine that if imports ever do become the majority in most classes that CR will turn tables and start dissing imports in order to keep the bullshit generator in operation.
Ted
And of course, Chrysler's minivans have never been recalled.
I see. In Bizzaro world, "biased" means not reporting what you want them to report.
Which still means lots of inconvenience, alternate transportation, etc.
Yes, I can easily do so. Perhaps that's why so many execs buy Lexuses.
Really? Want to compare Accord sales to Intrepid, Taurus, or Impala? Civic to Neon or Cavalier?
Yeah, they just dis cars at random, without any data, without any owner reports, just to spite you.
Geez, you anti-CR folks are so incredibly DUMB! Most of you never even read the magazine (note all the people posting about the reliability data that show they have no idea what it means).
True, but at the time, everything at Chrysler that was fwd was K-car derived, save for the Omni/Horizon L-bodies and the B-bodied Monaco/Premier. The A (Spirit/Acclaim), C (Dynasty/New Yorker), E (E-class, Caravelle, New Yorker), G (Daytona, Laser), H (LeBaron GTS/Lancer), J (LeBaron), P (Shadow, Sundance), Q (TC), S (Caravan, Voyager, T&C), and Y (Fifth Avenue/Imperial) were all based on the K.
Similar in design, but not actually based on the Aires/Reliant chassis at all. A few suspension parts might interchange, but most do not. Not ANY part of the rear suspension will swap between a K-car and a van, for example.
Nothing that I have ever seen in CR works out in real life in regard to American cars. We are not CR and PR sheep like you.
Never said that or even implied it. Just that people seem to bow down before Honda's as though they are perfect and the Odyssey has been far from perfect.
Matt
Yes, and all current cars are based on the Model T to some degree. What's your point?
Matt
Not for many years now - and the poster never implied ChryCo minivans had never been recalled. YOU read into everything only what your warped, anti-Chrysler, pro-Toyota and pro-Honda mind wants to believe.
No, you just criticize CR without reading it. What does that make you?
No, I'm just not chauvinistic enough to call all Chrysler products perfect
10s and all others zeros.
Have I ever called Chrysler products a perfect ten? No, I have not, and I would appreciate your not trying to say that I have. Additionally, I have never given all others zeros. And, one other thing - there was a time that I DID subscribe to CR but I found them so biased and off the mark in their comparisons I canceled my subscription. I find it interesting, over all these years, that you always post the same old line,....."they don't accept advertising therefore they are not biased", as though you are the corporate shill for them. No matter how you respond to what I have posted here, many still know your true colors, but go ahead, post away and tell us differently.
Correction: I don't read it ANYMORE. For the reason stated. I guess that makes me smart enough to see what they're doing.
Correct. I want them to report reliability data over the long term life of the car, not just during the time that they think people keep cars for.
Anyone that has enough money to buy brand new cars every 4-5 years can afford the inconvience, and certainly has enough pull at the dealership to browbeat them into giving him a loaner. My heart bleeds for them. Why don't you try walking the shoes of the lesser-middle class who can only afford 1 car that's at least 6 years old, and is trying to make every dollar stretch, and needs the car to get to work. Those are the ones that really need useful data from publications like CR, they don't have the money to pay for an automakers mistakes, not to mention the auto dealerships won't give them the time of day.
You obviously don't know anyone actually in this class.
They buy those cars because it's part of their image. Lexuses are cars marketed to a group of people that has to buy an expensive car that screams "I'm an expensive car, but I'm not an expensive sports car that would make you think the owner is going through a midlife crisis", often because their primary job function is to impress weak minded fools that are impressed by that sort of thing.
No, as I already explained, they diss cars to generate squawking and controversial articles that are eye-catchers and that serve to generate yapping and talk in various forums (like this one) in order to simply repeatedly advertise the name of CR
It's called writing news articles that are self-serving, sorry your brain cannot apparently comprehend this.
As I've repeated before in this forum, CR does an excellent job of reviewing kettles, toasters, door locks, toilets, and all manner of basic consumer products that you can go buy at Target or Walmart. That is where their strongest area is. The problem is that those kinds of articles are pretty blah, and make horrible magazine cover come-on lines. This is why they have got into reviewing cars, because they can print emotion-stirring eye-catcher headlines on their magaine front covers, that people read and attract them to pick up the magazine.
Ted
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.