Talk:Honda Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found the Odyssey article much too US-focused, so I have made major revisions. Since 1999, there have actually been 2 Honda Odysseys made: One, built in North America, is for the US/Canadian market, while the other, built in Japan, is for the rest of the world (the 1st generation Odyssey being the same worldwide). Before my revisions, the article was almost entirely based on the US/Canadian market Odyssey. I decided to make the introductory paragraph of the 2nd and 3rd generation Odyssey refer to the worldwide version (the Japanese-built model, after all, Honda is Japanese), and not the US-version. The US-version information is still retained, though. I hope this doesn't decrease the readability of the page Davez621 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I must confess, I think this is a mistake, particularly for the English version of Wikipedia. I came across this article today as part of my general research on Minivans. I was surprised to see things like the metion of a 4cylinder engine in the 3rd generation Odyssey. There is no 4 cylinder engine in the North American Odyssey, only the 3.5L V6. As I understand, the Japan Odyssey is a much different vehicle from the North American version, so showing the 4cylinder listing with the North American image is confusing at best.
If we are going to have this article cover both the North American and "World" version of the Odyssey, then the two really need to have distince sections, particularly after their development paths diverge. Ultimate ed 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] More Pics

There needs to be a mid-model facelift pic for the 2008 model year. When I tried adding one, it wouldn't work. If someone else could get it on that would be great. Thanks--24.63.18.184 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing layout

The layout of this article with respect to the different nationalities of the three generations is confusing. I own a second generation US market 2001 Odyssey. The article appears to state that in this generation the automatic column shifter has been moved to a central position on the dash. In the 2001 US market van the shifter is actually on the column, not the dash. It took several readings of the article to understand that the writer was referring to non-US market Odysseys having the shifter on the dash.

This article really needs subheadings under each generation to distinguish when they are referring to US vs. the rest of the world versions

While there's nothing wrong with discussing non-US market versions first, I think a bit more clarity between market versions is warranted. Otherwise, this is a good piece. I especially like the discussion of PAX tires!

I agree. I've gone ahead and made a rough attempt to separate the JDM and North American version into two different sections. I know very little about the JDM version, so I've bascially just cut and pasted the paragraphs as they were written. Hopefully, someone can add some pictures of the later generation JDM versions.


Your new layout differentiating the North American vs JDM versions looks good. Thanks for doing that.

[edit] Narrative/Point of View

I find the Second and Third gen sections of the US market to be very opinionate, i.e. "the vehicle will continue to make profits for both the manufacturer and dealer", and also when discussing certain problems. Bok269 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Both the "rake in profits" quote and the PAX tires section read like someone with an axe to grind. --Dgibbons 06:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the last couple of sentences of both the 2nd and 3rd generation North American version either need to be rewritten more neutraly, or, at the very least, need some external sources to back up the claims. Ultimate ed 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it to reflect initial over-sticker charges and supply catching up.--matador300 20:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the fix, the criticism below about the article reading like "ad copy" is almost completely overshadowed by the PAX tires & transmission complaints, which really read like a disgruntled owner posting in usenet. I'd like to see actual stats on each issue rather than opinion. Djeaux 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding the 'rake in profits'; that totally has to go -- also it refers to the vehicle in the curious/awkward proper name fashion that seems to only appears in automotive commercials and never in actual human-human speech (maybe i'm too opinionated on that? -- i mean "Nevertheless, Odyssey will blahblah" as opposed to "Nevertheless, the Odyssey will blahblah"). perhaps if we can get ahold of sales figures to temper that marketing poo into a statement of fact?. also, the 'tax and destination charges' thing... tax is entirely subjective to the locale in which the vehicle is purchased, and there may be no "destination charges" at all. at best, it's like reading a car review; at worst it's like reading a brochure. Jrrs 06:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire last paragraph of the Third Generation American edition needs to be re-written. The reading of it a little cluttered, and overall poorly written. The neutrality of it is no doubt in question. It's blatantly obvious that someone, who perhaps had a few too many problems with their Odyssey, wrote it and decided to specifically focus in the downsides of the vehicle. User:inogenius

Appreciate the writing about transmissions and PAX. It rings true. Never hear about that from dealer or slick advertisements. What an eye opener.

I guess people have forgotten about the neutrality of this article. The second-gen section especially is about 3/4 negative points about various transmission problems. I really don't think that is the only thing people do know/want to know/need to know about the vehicle. Its a very popular vehicle, and generally considered a class leader; I personally know 3 different families that own one. If no one helps me, I'll just try to do my best soon, but I could use some facts or data. VonShroom 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad copy- "exciting", newer, bigger, better, "another first..."

Is this an encyclopedia or an advertising vehicle for the automotive industry?

Every adjective especially superlatives in these product articles should be looked at with suspicion and tossed if it is not essential to the article.


I do think these articles should be in wikipedia though because I happen to be looking for one and I do want a factual presentation of what these things are and what the differences are.


Corporate advertising folks reading this- I know the temptation and pressure is great, but it is a level playing field. IMHO- I'd suggest you back off or there will be a backlash against your products. We want the information but in an encyclopedic format, minus the spin. -Mak Thorpe 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article is quite useless

I'm shopping around for an Odyssey, and as a part of my research I read this page.

To summarize the "best 2002 minivan" by dedicating 3/4 of the section to the transmission problem is biased and useless.

I'd like to see what features are particularly handy in this minivan, and which are pointless. I'd like to see the transmission problem quantified, ie, using past statistics, what's the likelyhood it will happen to me? Otherwise, the section is nothing but FUD.

Rhociung 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck trying to pry that information out of Honda. If you do find quantifiable information somewhere, feel free to add it to the article. Remember, this is not a place to find original research.Ultimate ed 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinued

I read that the Odyssey is being discontinued for 2007. I believe it was in Car & Driver Magazine.


There is a 2007 model of odyssey and honda would be foolish to discontinue the Odyssey

Please sign your posts. I can say that in Australia in 2007 Honda stopped selling the V6 version, increased the price of the standard model (by $AUD1300) and decreased the price of the luxury (by about $AUD1000). The Odyssey definitely isn't being discontinued - but it will continue to be tweaked like all cars. --DreamsReign 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct. The V6 was dropped in 2004, when the 3rd generation Odyssey was introduced. Last year (2006), pricing increased only AUD$500 on the base model - from $38,790 to $39,290.Davez621 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


In fact two respected sites had voted the Honda odyssey Mini Van of the year!

1.Edmunds.com  car of the year!http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/mostwanted/2007/117217/article.html
2.Car & Driver  http://www.caranddriver.com/besttrucks/12395/van.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.85.149 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North American fixes

I have fixed the articles on the second and third generation Odyssey's, trying to make them less biased in general. The articles are now informative, rather than most of an article being devoted to transmission problems.

Third Generation information. Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) models in particular can suffer from objectionable vibration made worse by a collapsed motor mount. Another issue is engine droning due to exhaust mounts. Repairs usually help but may not eliminate objectionable vibration. See the links to Honda service bulletins for more information. Documentation lies in these service bulletins from the manufacturer. Posting these helps an owner who might have a problem get a repair and can help used car buyers evaluate before buying. Deleting accurate information has a chilling effect on free speech.

Service Bulletin 06-050. Droan or moan when driving at 2100 rpm. Links follow to 2 pages of this service bulletin. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/1971800162_26967013b9.jpg?v=0 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/1971800748_c5ecaa376d.jpg?v=0

Service Bulletin 06-083 Excessive engine vibration at idle or below 2100 rpm. Links follow to the service bulletin. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2239/1971858154_4f293966ea.jpg?v=0 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/1971858164_f868a89f63.jpg?v=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.246.21 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing from TSB is pretty questionable. Saying this is a common problem because there is a TSB is original research, just because Honda issues a TSB does not mean that the problem is common it could effect only a tiny percentage of vehicles. Secondly most manufacturer issue dozens of service bulletins for every vehicle and all car pages could easily be clogged with so called "common" issues sourced from TSBs. This is an encyclopedia article not a reference for owners or potential buyers.


Those comments are wrong. Definition of encyclopedia from wikipedia: "encyclopedia, or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge".[1] A TSB is not questionable. On the contrary, a TSB means a problem is common enough to document for service persons. And worth documenting because previous manuals do not cover the problem. The source is the manufacturer so it is their knowledge at the time about the issue. As the definition of encyclopedia states, comprehensive is part of the definition. Why not include facts to make it more comprehensive? Do not delete facts. Why not have an article that is a reference to owners or buyers? Knowledge is in the definition of encyclopedia. Why should an encyclopedia article not have facts or not be a reference. I say it should have facts and should be a reference. In fact, the wikipedia article on "encyclopedia" says, "Some systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference." Or is the real agenda an attempt to hide facts? Hiding facts is a bad, bad practice.

This is a general use encyclopedia and thus is not entirely comprehesive, factual but trivial or superflous items get deleted all the time. WP:NOT covers which types of facts are appropriate and which are not. I beleive this TSB sourced info is generally a violation of WP:NOT specifically the section on FAQs and guidebooks. Minor reliability issues are pretty trivial, of course if an issue is very important like the Odyssey tranny problem it should be covered using secondary sources. Also as I have said before it is a clear violation of WP:OR to claim that because a TSB exists the problem is common is just not true. Having worked in the service industry (at a Honda dealership in fact, and don't say that I am biased because of this, I really could care less about Honda.) I saw a lot of TSBs come across my desk. Some were for issues I saw every day, others were for problems I never came across and of course there were problems I saw every day for which no TSB existed. I stand by my assertation that these issues do not need to be mentioned unless they can be sourced from a secondary source that puts them into perspective regarding their prevelence. If this is still an issue we can bring it up at WP:CAR and get some other opinions. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"at a Honda dealership in fact, and don't say that I am biased because of this" How can you claim with a straight face to be unbiased if you worked for a Honda dealer? All your arguments are wrong and are mere attempts to hide problems. This kind of nonsense is what reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. Leivick's changes are mere attempts to hide problems and then making excuses that can not be believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.246.21 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can easily say I am unbiased, I don't own a Honda, I have never worked for Honda and I am not a fan of a lot of Honda products including the Odyssey. I worked at a Honda dealership and I said this to provide context for my arguments. I could have hidden this info, but I chose not to. It was just a job, I didn't choose a Honda dealership because I like them, it was who was hiring and I learned a lot about why Hondas aren't so great while working there. I stand by what I have said before. We will not have a laundry list of faults sourced out of TSBs on any car page regardless of manufacturer. Honda has issued well over 100 TSBs [1] for the Odyssey, no reason to list them all. Find a quality secondary source or forget about it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not in Europe

Could the article discuss why Honda does not sell it in Europe? In US and other places the van is extremely popular, so it seems odd it is not sold in Europe when Civic, Accord, CV-R etc are. Jirka6 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S.A. model is too long and too wide for European city streets. Uses too much gas for European gas prices. Most important for the manufacturer, would likely sell in small, low profit numbers. Unless sold in high numbers, would be imported from U.S.A. with shipping costs. Asian or Australian model might be a better fit.
U.S.A. model length for 2007 = 201 inches, 510.5 cm. Body only width without mirrors for 2007 = 77.1 inches, 195.8 cm. Width with mirrors is closer to 88 inches, about 223 cm.
http://automobiles.honda.com/odyssey/specifications.aspx?group=dimensions
Our Accord was also deemed too large to sell in Europe. IFCAR 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Even the Dodge Avenger is also to large to sell in Europe. -- Bull-Doser 03:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither Wikipedia nor the talk page is a place to discuss that. There are many good car forums to do so. And Dodge Avenger is on sale in Europe. PrinceGloria 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Honda advertisements≈this article! No, actually, Honda ads = this article! This article talks about how great this == Honda Odyssey == is! And what if we wanna find out some info? I know, it surprises the folks who wrote this article, but, seroiusly! We saw enough ads for 5000 lifetimes! --128.104.50.21 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Rachel

[edit] Recall Information

I'm curious to why my edits to include recall information were changed - I own an Odyssey, so this isn't motivated by spite. Wikipedia is about info, and info on a car model recall is pretty useful...TDRSS (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost all vehicles have recalls of some kind. The Odyssey has some notable issues that are already covered such as the transmission and the run flats, but we don't need a list of recalls as it violates WP:NOT and could potentially violate WP:NPOV by giving the impression that the Odyssey is unreliable without a source to back that up. If any of the recalls have been discussed by a reliable third party source then we can certainly add them but without a source they are trivial details that do not belong in a general use encyclopedia. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)