We have been looking at honda oddies. They are certainly popular, but I have been reading about gearbox issues. These are mainly with US models with the v6 motor from what I can tell, but does the 2.4 available in NZ have a reliable transmission! Whats there fuel economy like!
kazbanz,
Aug 18, 7:48pm
Peacebird. When the oddyssey came out in 1994 it really set the benchmark for all modern 7 seaters. The 1999-2004 model really was just a bit of a facelift on the 94-99 model. the only big change was to a tiptronic/auto gearbox In New Zealand the 2003 model hastwo engines. The 2.3 (2.4) and the 3.0l V6. The V6 has a reputation for blowing up transmissions. The 2.4 not so much so. Ive sold a few of the 2.4's over the years and in fairness Ive had noone complain that the gearbox has blown up, Sorry if thats not precise
mugenb20b,
Aug 18, 9:35pm
Stay away from V6. Honda forgot to upgrade the guts of the transmission to cope with all the torque the V6 produced. The only thing you can do (if buying a V6) is fit the biggest possible after market transmission oil cooler. That will buy it some time. Also, avoid the 4WD model.
The 2.3 litre V-Tec is an outstanding unit, but make sure you replace the cambelt as required (there's two cambelts, easy to replace).
Fuel economy for a 2.3 litre Odyssey is around 10L/100km. Less, if you do a lot of highway commuting.
mugenb20b,
Aug 18, 9:37pm
The only car that comes close to that benchmark is a 2001+ Toyota Ipsum.
mantagsi,
Aug 18, 9:38pm
I'll put my 2c in here. My old boss had one, absolutely wonderful, did everything he wanted. 3.0l V6, stacks of guts, and then boom, trans went, that set him back over $3000, a bloody shame, and no guarantee that it wont happen again. Apart from that it was / is fantastic, he couldn't be happier
kazbanz,
Aug 18, 9:41pm
Lets agree to disagree mon :-)Ipsum is good I agree totally. But IMO theres others that are better. But then its horses for courses. The very thing i feel is better in other cars might have apsolutely no value to the OP
Incidently give or take $200 a year all the second generation people movers of this size seem to have the same fuel economy. MPV (2.3) Odyssey (2.3/2.4),presage (03 and later 2.5) Ipsum,mitzi etc
mugenb20b,
Aug 18, 9:50pm
Oh, I forgot about the Presage. That's a nice vehicle.
franc123,
Aug 18, 10:08pm
You would expect 10-12l/100km out of the fours under mixed driving conditions. Regardless of what engine size you look at its best to get an expert to give the auto a good test out (along with the rest of the car of course), this means having a good look at the fluid condition, and driving it from stone cold until its hot and doing the normal checks for shift points, quality and kickdown etc. Any gear shifts that seem delayed, mushy or harsh are not good, likewise dying units can also skip gears too believe it or not. Hard gear shifts can be caused by idiots not using correct spec fluid in them but obviously this is hard to test for as its all the same colour. V6 versions can also wear out engine mounts which can also cause shift shock during gear changes, they are hydraulic and this costs much more to fix than you'd think.Take it back to where you got it and make polite noises if your inspector isn't totally satisfied with its performance. Its tragic that a company that makes such beautiful and smooth engines makes such terrible autos and you have to be so careful about what you buy. Good luck.
kazbanz,
Aug 18, 10:20pm
OP---what he says ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree. with the addition that the odyyssey is known to wear out the front engine mount on the 2.4 as well but its a really easy job
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 18, 11:31pm
For what you pay for an 03 Odyssey you can buy a VW Touran. It just wipes the floor with the opposition in terms of power/economy, you get better safety, comfort and features as well. Plus, none of the transmission hassles as the DSG used in those is about as reliable as modern transmissions get.
Thanks to a much more modern transmission and engine design a 2.0 Touran has economy that's going to be right down around 7.5l/100km for mixed NZ condition driving yet unbelievably its quicker than both the 2.4 and 3.0 6 Cylinder Odyssey. Its hard to comprehend but once you drive one you will see what I mean.
It really is that good, go and drive one, turn on the instant economy meter and see for yourself.
BTW, VW service intervals are long, parts are cheap and easy to get and they are simple to work on. Just be aware though that because its not Japanese there will be a few loud mouths who have never owned one who will try and pretend its not reliable and other nonsense.
Best of luck with your search
mugenb20b,
Aug 19, 1:27am
Sorry Jazz, I was going to let your post slide.but, no. I don't think it's quicker than a Honda at all.
mugenb20b,
Aug 19, 1:30am
If that's the case, why do most people buy other people movers over a VW! The Odyssey is one of, if not the best people mover money can buy. The late model 200kw Toyota Previa is another good vehicle, but too pricey.
cessna3,
Aug 19, 3:37am
My 2002 3.0 V6 odyssey has more than 200,000km and still going with no gearbox trouble, might be because its NZ new or just luck.
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 19, 4:14am
Because most people don't bother to compare and are just suckered in by fashion and whatever Japanese vehicle is being over hyped at the time.
3tomany,
Aug 19, 4:17am
stop having kids after 3 thats all you can get in the back seat of a proper car unless you ditch the wife after 4
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 19, 4:40am
You can think all you like. but it dosn't change the numbers.
2003 (new shape) Honda Odyssey 2.4 0-100 time is 11.9 seconds. VW Touran 2.0 FSI 0-100 time is 10.4 seconds.
Both on paper and in person the Touran just smokes the standard 2.4 Odyssey. The only grey area is the V6 which I can't personally attest to and don't have figures for. However if you read the comments in the source document it pretty much concludes the new 2.4 and the old 3.0 are much of a muchness performance wise, that's good enough for me given how much quicker the Touran is than the 2.4.
What I can't tell you about is the 3.5 which quite likely is quicker than the Touran (although likely irrelevant due to availability and price) and I have a suspicion there is a smaller high performance Odyssey as well (I am no Honda expert) which I think is the one labeled the Absolute. I have no figures for that, you are welcome to add them.
Read the link, take from it what you will. My point is simply to the OP is that the 2.0 Touran is not going to be a slow cousin to the Odyssey despite the smaller engine and massive fuel economy advantage. The whole car is just so much more efficient its hard to comprehend until you drive one.
If the OP wants to know how it is that VW manage to make a much quicker vehicle that uses significantly less fuel I am happy to go into it. In the meantime I will spare everyone else the lecture.
Feel free also to add any customer (dis)satisfaction links from the likes of JDPower and Carsurvey.org from the US and UK re Tourans too, a few of them wished they'd bought Hondas lol.
_frodo_,
Aug 19, 6:12am
The space an odyssey offers is far superior to a Touran; they are not worthy of a side by side comparison.Touran is a golf based platform; Odyssey is based on Accord. A fairer comparison would be Honda Stream vs Vw Touran. And the 2.0 stream would clean up the Touran.
grangies,
Aug 19, 6:13am
The Honda is still a well priced, and great car though.
The Hondas are my choice for larger Japanese car, as far as quality goes. Maybe not fuel economy and all that other pedantic 0-100 rubbish.
grangies,
Aug 19, 6:58am
Also to add.
People with 7 seater station wagons,don't care about 0-100kmph times.
Unless they are in the position to afford the big Merc's / Audi's etc.
mugenb20b,
Aug 19, 7:03am
Well, that can't be right, because my old non v tec Odyssey does 0 to 100 in 11.6 seconds. The 2.3 v tec has more horse power so should be quicker than that. And the V6 is somewhere in the 9s.
outbidyou2,
Aug 19, 7:07am
zactly
bigfatmat1,
Aug 19, 7:27am
Worked on one of those new touran a few weeks ago what a overpriced unappealing cheap boring horrible to drive, gutless, horrible to sit in, featurless crap pile of pus. Hope the older ones are better if thats what ya recommendation is Jazz. Oh not to mention horrible to work on.
trdbzr,
Aug 19, 7:31am
You fix cars for a living and are not a fanboy. You will now be promptly labelled a troll.
morrisman1,
Aug 19, 7:39am
b-b-bu-but its european bigfatmat, how could it possibly uncomfortable and featureless let alone boring!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.