Undecided between a odyssey or sienna. To me the odyssey looks built better compared to the sienna. I\'ve owned several toyotas in the past and have proven very reliable but not sure with the hondas. One thing about the odyssey I do not like is

Toyota has finally starting to switch over from belts to chains so if you are owning for a couple 100,000 miles the $400-600 is something to consider in the Honda.

GM uses all chain driven timing in all of their gasoline engines and need no extra cost or services down the road. The Traverse, Acadia, and Enclave crossovers all have a timing chain and have space that is slightly behind the minivans but all offer AWD. Only minivan to offer awd is the sienna.

We own a 2002 Honda Odyssey with 175,000 miles and it has been relatively problem-free besides recalls for the past 15 years. It still rides smoothly and the VTEC engine is fantastic, expecially for a minivan. If I bought a new minivan now it would be the 2018 Odyssey. If you Google "chevy traverse timing chain" there are many complaints on Chevy Traverse forums about the timing chain. On my Odyssey, we had the timing belt replaced once before it wore out. It's normal maintenance, so you have to be ready to replace this part on most gas engine cars. The Sienna is consistently more reliable than the Odyssey for almost all model years.

The 2011-2014 Odysseys are notorious for brake problems of all kinds. Perhaps a 2015 Odyssey EX or EX-L would fit you. There was a refresh for 2014 so maybe get a 2014 or later. Drives more like a car than the Sienna, which feels more like a bus.

The 2015 Sienna XLE is also a good choice because it has blind spot monitoring and rear cross traffic alert. It's also more reliable and was refreshed for 2015. It's probably a better pick over the 2014-2015 Odyssey.

Also take a look at the 2015 Kia Sedona, which is a great value and depreciates quickly. 2015 was the first year of a full redesign (the old one was horrible). It's not as practical as the Honda or Toyota.

If you need an minivan, a three row SUV is not the way to go. You can't fit nearly as much stuff in the trunk and there is less passenger space, leaving you and your passengers cramped.

We have had great experiences with our 2012 and 2006 Odyssey's. The Sienna is very similar in almost evey way. The Toyota van tends to ride a little softer, but gives up a bit of sportiness in the handling as a trade off.

I would not make a car decision on a low mileage car based on timing belt vs chain decision. It is a misnomer that timing chain cars require now maintenance. Chain tensioners and related parts can fail and be just as expensive to repair, although the failure is not as catastrophic as a broken timing belt and failures are more rare.

I second the poster above that a three row SUV is no minivan replacement. The interior space difference is dramatic. Odyssey has 92 cubic ft behind second row and 158 behind first, and can haul a stack of 4x8 sheets of drywall or plywood. Traverse has 70 cubic ft behind second row and 116 behind the front. With all seats up, the Traverse has the same cargo space as my Golf GTI. Also, sliding doors are huge with kids. Sienna offers AWD, but we get by in Indiana winters just fine with a set of snow tires. Also, we just completed a 2,000 mile family road trip with our van stuffed to the gills and averaged 25.8 mpg for the trip. Real world mileage is where these vans can also really shine.

Honda of America had to settle in a class action suit of 1.6 million VCM V6's with oil consumption issues. Including 2008-2013 Odyessey minivans. GM had timing chain, or the result was stretched timing chain, in 2007-2009 V6 but was covered under 100,000 mile warranty. Where Honda's power train warranty was only 60,000 miles. Look at the comments section and plenty of people are having problem. American Honda settles class-action suit over oil-burning claim

American Honda settles class-action suit over oil-burning claim

American Honda has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit over claims that it manufactured 1,593,755 defective vehicles that excessively burn oil and require frequent spark plug replacements. The Japanese got caught stretching the truth about measuring interior space. I don't know why they just cannot use the SAE j1100 revision from 2009 like most everyone else does and not make false marketing clains. "The redesigned 2013 Toyota RAV4 has a maximum cargo room of 73.4 cubic feet and 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seats in place, significant numbers in the class. When Jeep revealed specs of its all-new Cherokee SUV (which is longer and wider than the RAV4), the numbers did not look good in comparison at 54.9 cubic feet max and 24.8 cubic feet with the seats in place. Look at the side-by-side photo (below) with our grocery bag test (10 recyclable bags filled with identical items) and the extra 13.6 cubic feet behind the second row looks like it can accommodate only one or two extra bags in the Toyota. That's not a huge real-world advantage." Bring your double wide stroller and your Pack 'n Play to double check actual fits your needs. "What Acura doesn't say is that you can't even compare the 68.4 cubic feet in the 2014 model with the 2013 MDX's 83.5 cubic feet because Acura derived the numbers from different versions of SAE J1100. SAE J1100 is a widely adopted methodology from theSociety of Automotive Engineersto measure interior space, but its roots go back more than five decades." https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/03/why-cargo-specs-can-stretch-the-truth/

But that still doesn't change the fact that all minivans have more space passenger and truck space than a three-row SUV. They simply are not as practical. My Odyssey has never leaked or burned any oil and that's also not a huge issue because checking the oil dipstick is easy. It also doesn't matter how they changed their measuring techniques. When looking for a car, especially a minivan, you should compare trunk space to its competitors.

I second @Dnslater. The Sienna ride more like a floaty Lexus than a sportier car. The Odyssey gives you sedan-handling dynamics. I'd personally go for the Sienna if I was looking from 2007-2010 because those Siennas were actually luxurious in the higher trims. I think the kids would prefer the Sienna's softer ride, sloppy handling (they won't drive it), and quiet interior over the Odyssey's OK ride, really annoying road noise, and sportier handling. IIRC, the 2011-2017 Siennas are less practical than 2011-2017 Odysseys because the Odysseys have easier seating configurations and mechanisms. The 2011-2017 Odyssey also has much more legroom in the second and third row seats than the 2011-2017 Sienna. The Sienna however has power folding third row seats in the top trims.

Per my quotes in the article 10 cu ft might not be that noticeable. Only about 15 difference in the two body types behind the 3rd row. The Traverse is a longer vehicle.

"Per my quotes in the article 10 cu ft might not be that noticeable. Only about 15 difference in the two body types behind the 3rd row. The Traverse is a longer vehicle."

It is actually a huge difference. My tiny Golf GTI has 23 cubic feet behind the rear seat, almost matching the Traverse. I can maybe fit one large suitcase before I begin blocking the rear window. The 38 cubic feet space in my wife's 2012 Odyssey can fit a stack of 3-4 large suitcases. The bulk of the space is actually below the floor of the van which is highly practical. The Traverse's extra length is all in the nose, which just becomes more annoying when parking. Odyssey also has a very tight turning radius. I rented a Traverse for a family road trip through the mountains last year. Nice vehicle, just doesn't match a minivan in practicality.

"The 38 cubic feet space in my wife's 2012 Odyssey can fit a stack of 3-4 large suitcases. The bulk of the space is actually below the floor of the van which is highly practical. The Traverse's extra length is all in the nose, which just becomes more annoying when parking. Odyssey also has a very tight turning radius. I rented a Traverse for a family road trip through the mountains last year. Nice vehicle, just doesn't match a minivan in practicality."

All that is true. The deep well in the back of a minivan is a huge selling point. Also has a lower load height which makes it easy on your back. I can hide an entire Costco trip's worth of stuff in the well. I also rented a 2015 Traverse in Hawaii and it rode very nicely and quietly and had a decent sound system for a mid trim LT. Didn't handle or brake as well as my Odyssey, got 16 MPG (my 15-year-old larger Odyssey gets 18 MPG), third row was tight, couldn't fit much in the trunk, and it was a pain to park. The Traverse is longer, but that's a bad thing. It fits less inside and it's larger. A cockroach also crawled out of the air vent, but that's a different story:)

My 2016 Prius Four has 27.4 cu.ft of space behind the rear seats. It's pretty big. That's 4 more cu.ft than what is behind the 3rd row of the 2017 Traverse.

The 2011-2017 Odyssey can hold 38 cu.ft behind the third row. The Traverse holds 24 cu.ft. More importantly, the Odyssey has 93.1 cu.ft behind the 2nd row. The Traverse has 70.3 cu.ft. A big reason for that is because the 3rd row in the Odyssey folds into the cargo well. Then you have a flat load floor.

Again, you can't argue against a minivan. It's the most practical car there is.