Minivan Comparison Test

Pull a muscle in your back, and you can know real agony for days, weeks, even months. Sometimes people even collapse to the ground in anguish, unable to move without suffering unbearable misery. And with Americans gaining weight at an alarming rate, it’s clear we’re not hitting the gym to blast our extensor, flexor, and oblique muscles on a regular basis, putting us at great risk for chronic, incapacitating pain.

Lifting rear-facing infant carriers and toddlers into sport-utility vehicles doesn’t do our weakened musculature any favors. Especially in parking lots, where clearances between vehicles are tight, we risk debilitating injury every time we swing one of those wide SUV doors open, squeeze into the narrow opening, twist while raising and inserting the child, and struggle to get the seat restraints properly attached to ensure Junior’s safety – all while trying not to ding the bodywork of the car next to ours. And don’t think it’s any easier with a low-slung, entry-luxury sedan, Mom and Dad.

Minivans resolve this problem because of their sliding side doors and ideal height. We know – they’re not cool. Instead of dismissing you as a pathetically vain and insecure person who thinks what you drive is more important than who you are, we’ll provide additional reasoning that shows why, when you’re a new parent or grandparent, a minivan becomes a must-have item in the household – even if it’s just for a little while.

Why Buy a Minivan? Minivans can save excruciating back pain from loading kids into and out of the car, sure, but generally they’re also the safest modes of transportation on the road. Granted, when it comes to crashworthiness, something heavier like a Chevrolet Suburban or a Hummer H2 might fare better in an accident with another vehicle of similar size and weight, but either of those vehicles is more prone to rolling over in that accident, and if the bambinos aren’t strapped down properly, they could be ejected from the vehicle.

Add to a minivan’s greater stability the benefits of better acceleration, superior steering response, shorter braking distances, and more agile handling, and it’s clear that minivans are not only more fun to drive but make it easier to avoid a wreck in the first place. Plus, if you’re conscious of the welfare of anyone but yourself, a minivan is more compatible with regular passenger cars in a crash, making them safer not only for your family, but also your neighbor’s.

Benefits of minivan ownership go beyond saving back pain and increasing your odds that you’ll prove Darwin’s theory of evolution. Costs associated with minivan ownership are less than what they are for SUV ownership. Minvans are priced lower, they are cheaper to insure, and they get better gas mileage. With fuel rising to almost $3 per gallon in some parts of the country, more miles per tankful can add up over time. And with the savings on purchase price and insurance, think how easy it will be to invest for Junior’s eventually crippling college tuition bills.

Comfort is also a big factor when it comes to minivans. Depending on which model you pick, they can easily seat six people (up to eight if you squeeze in tight) and carry a healthy load of cargo. They’re easy to get into and out of, they’re easy to drive, and they’re relatively easy to park. Plus, when you’re loading strollers and diaper bags and the dog for a family outing, the rear liftover height is low and the cargo space with the third-row seat out of the way is huge. And when out-of-town relatives visit, you won’t have to yank the child seats out of a minivan to get people into the third-row seat.

Minivans might not be cool, but the wisdom, intelligence, self-confidence, and selflessness that minivan ownership projects is sexier than any chrome-dipped Cadillac Escalade.

Congratulations, evolved man or woman. You have chosen to learn more about minivans.

With the recent introductions of new models and technologies, combined with the arrival of the summer road-trip season, we wanted to compare the four newest, best selling, and compelling minivans on the market. We chose two American nameplates and two imported nameplates, and then spent three days driving, evaluating, discussing, and ranking them to help you figure out which dealership sells the model that will best meet your needs.

Briefly, let’s review the minivans we selected for this comparison test:

2005 Dodge Grand Caravan

With the addition of Dodge’s slick Stow-‘n-Go seating system for 2005, which folds all of the rear seats into the floor to maximize cargo capacity, the Grand Caravan is once again a contender for best minivan. Add impressive safety scores, appealing design, and relatively low prices, and the Dodge Grand Caravan was a must-have vehicle for this test. The 2005 Chrysler Town & Country is essentially identical.

We tested the 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT with the Premium Group package (triple-zone automatic climate control, rear sonar park assist, overhead storage bins and rail system, overhead console with trip computer and vehicle information system), a power liftgate, power adjustable pedals, an in-dash CD/DVD changer with rear entertainment screen, tire pressure warning system, and side curtain airbags. The sticker price of our test vehicle was $31,930 including the $680 destination charge.

2005 Honda Odyssey

Redesigned from the rubber to the roof for 2005, the Honda Odyssey has been the choice of consumers and critics for years thanks to stylish design, impressive safety scores, and the increasingly ubiquitous foldaway third-row seat. Now, it’s even better, with more power, more features, and more style.

We tested the top-of-the-line Touring model, but without the optional navigation and DVD entertainment systems. The sticker price of our test vehicle was $35,010 including the $515 destination charge.

2005 Pontiac Montana SV6

General Motors has overhauled its minivan lineup for 2005, and we selected the Pontiac version of its so-called “sport crossover vans” to test against the best. Among the significant changes is a larger front end that is designed both to improve crashworthiness and look more like an SUV to minimize the geek-factor. GM also sells this van as the Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, and Saturn Relay.

We tested the front-wheel-drive model (all-wheel-drive is optional) with a Premium Convenience package (power sliding driver’s side door, rear park assist, driver information center, theft deterrent alarm, programmable garage door opener), and seven-passenger seating with second-row captain’s chairs. Other options included Stabilitrak stability control, traction control, side-impact airbags, remote vehicle starting, 115-volt power outlet, first-aid kit, wireless headphones for the standard DVD entertainment system, brushed silver rooftop luggage rails, and an engine block heater. The sticker price of our test vehicle was $31,825 including the $715 destination charge.

2005 Toyota Sienna

All new for 2004, the Toyota Sienna trumped the old Honda Odyssey thanks to more modern design, a larger and more comfortable interior, and a new luxury trim level with lots of fancy doo-dads. Question is: With a new Honda Odyssey on the market and substantially revised domestic competitors arriving for 2005, can Toyota hang onto the Best Minivan crown?

We tested the priciest Sienna that Toyota has to offer; the XLE Limited with all-wheel-drive. Options on our minivan included the Limited Package #2 (rear DVD entertainment system, two 115-volt power outlets, navigation system with touch screen and back-up camera, JBL Symphony audio system with 10 speakers), carpeted floor mats, and a rear spoiler. The sticker price of our test vehicle was $42,296 including the $540 destination charge.

Performance is defined differently for minivans than it is for other types of vehicles. With a minivan, you need enough horsepower and torque to haul a seven-passenger load up a hill and over a dale, to carry a dorm room’s worth of detritus across the state, and to handle unexpected finds at country antique shops. Just because acceleration is a secondary concern, however, there’s no need to settle for an agrarian powertrain. The engine should be refined and quiet, and the transmission should shift smoothly and quickly. As we discovered during our test, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler are behind the times on this front.

4th Place – 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6

Thrashing under the hood of the 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6 is a 3.5-liter V6 engine. Equipped with an archaic overhead valve design as opposed to modern overhead cam construction, this motor is more powerful than the V6 that propelled Pontiac’s minivan last year, but is distinctly lacking compared to the other models in this test. It musters 200 horsepower and 220 lb.-ft. of torque, making it the weakest engine of the bunch. However, the Pontiac Montana SV6 did boast the lightest curb weight of our quartet of family haulers, and returned the best average fuel economy of the test, at 16.6 mpg. Our test drivers agreed that the Pontiac’s V6 was lackluster, noting that the driver really needed to get a foot into the throttle to spark a downshift for more power, and that what power the engine could deliver was elusive. We also commented on how the four-speed transmission was constantly hunting for gears to make the best of the meager powerband, and that in traffic, the Montana SV6 sometimes produced unexpected bursts of acceleration because of the tranny’s indecisive nature.

3rd Place – 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan

Scoring a few notches better than the Pontiac, the 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan’s rapidly aging 3.8-liter V6 is getting close to retirement age. Like the Montana’s V6, this Dodge motor is an overhead valve design, making it less sophisticated than the hearts of the Honda and Toyota. With 215 horsepower and 245 lb.-ft. of torque made at lower engine speeds than the Pontiac, the Dodge feels more lively, despite its slight weight penalty. Nevertheless, the Grand Caravan’s V6 possesses a grainy, coarse character and the transmission is slow to downshift, making lane changes in traffic or passing on the highway a challenge. When plodding along in traffic, the four-speed transmission also clunks when shifting, which doesn’t inspire much confidence despite the standard seven-year/70,000-mile powertrain warranty – the best of the group. What helps the Grand Caravan’s engine rank higher than the Pontiac is strong mid-range response. On the highway, the Dodge is more fleet of foot. But, according to our testing, fuel economy is lower than the Montana SV6. We averaged just 16.2 mpg.

2nd Place – 2005 Toyota Sienna

More power would have tied the 2005 Toyota Sienna with the stronger Honda Odyssey, or perhaps even have clinched a lead. Toyota’s 3.3-liter dual overhead cam V6 is a paragon of refinement, making a respectable 230 horsepower in a minivan that weighs within 100 pounds of the Dodge and Pontiac. But where the motor really shines is low-end torque, providing 242 lb.-ft. at just 3,600 rpm. However, our test van, a well-equipped all-wheel-drive model, scored the worst fuel economy rating of the test at an unimpressive 15.2 mpg. Regardless, the Sienna’s V6 is quiet when cruising and emits a sporty note when revved, while the five-speed automatic transmission – with one extra cog over the Dodge and Pontiac – is responsive and refined in operation. We all agreed that the Toyota Sienna had plenty of power for a minivan.

1st Place – 2005 Honda Odyssey

Honda’s new Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) technology did not affect the voting for best minivan powertrain. Designed to improve fuel economy by shutting off half the V6 engine’s cylinders when cruising on the highway, VCM helped our Odyssey return an average of just 16.2 mpg during testing, tying the Dodge and coming in lower than the Pontiac. Plus, one of our test drivers didn’t like VCM because he could feel it working. Rather, gobs of seamless power, a smooth shifting five-speed automatic transmission, and a pleasing engine note at high engine revs contributed to the somewhat portly 4,634-pound Honda Odyssey’s one-point win over the Toyota. Indeed, the Odyssey will please even those who enjoy driving, which might explain the poor fuel economy showing – we had a good time driving this van.