I have an AWD Sienna and love it. While you may think the ascent is “more” practical with a bench 2nd row, I would point out that it still has swinging doors and that bench will be a pain in the butt when it comes to accessing the back row. This comes from experience with similar SUVs that I’ve rented from time to time. The sliding doors on the Sienna are much more practical.

Also, don’t sweat the RFT issue. I guess I like to ride the ragged edge as I have non-RFT and I don’t carry a spare. Plenty of miles on two vehicles that come with factory RFT that I’ve swapped for normal tires and never had an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You could also save the run flats for winter/long trips and pick up another set of 5 wheels for daily use too. I have a AWD Sienna and find the sliding doors and easier access to the third row more convenient for my family. I’ve owned a Ford Explorer and Highlander with third rows and hates having to pull the bench seat every time to let people in and out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have been a Sienna AWD owner since 2003 and have my eye on the Ascent. The scare stories you see about RTF are based on the old OEM tires. Modern aftermarket versions ride and cost about the same as conventional tires and last 45,000-50,000 miles. We have DriveGuards on our Honda CR-Z since it has a 35 mile round trip commute through the country, sometimes is bad weather.

The Subaru AWD system is much better than the Sienna, but I love the sliders and space, and have concerns about Subaru's quality and CVT in something that heavy.

 

If I buy 2017 AWD sienna, does it still get shitty RFTs? Or the RFT problem was with older versions (2011 to 2015 ish)

 

You still get runflats.

As a Subaru guy, I'll certainly go look at the Ascent for fun. And I'm sure it will be a worthy contender in the midsized SUV market. But none of these vehicles offers the interior space and flexibility of a van. So your first question is what's your primary need?

 

I know they are run flats, but are they as awful on snow as before? And wear out at 20K miles?

My primary need is space and comfort, but I would hate having a car that will skid around on the snow with kids on board.

 

We have a family of 5 (3 kids just into double digits) and after having a 2011 Honda Pilot and then a 2015 Honda Pilot we felt we had to move to the Sienna. 3 row SUVs are manageable for passengers but are no even close to the passenger convenience of sliding doors and bucket seats that make accessing the back row so easy. The passenger convenience was not the Pilot deal breaker, though, storage was. With 5 of us skiers and the 3 kids in ski racing there was just not enough room for gear and passengers anymore. I have driven way to many thousands of miles not being able to look out my back window in the Pilot. That all changed with the Sienna (we do still use the roof box for the convenience, especially with Ski gear). We are so happy with our Sienna "Upgrade."

 

There is no standard for how leg room is measured, so you'd have to sit in both to see how everyone fits. I'm betting the Sienna will win out, especially in the headroom department.

 

Thank you all for your comments. They were very helpful.

I am leaning towards Sienna now. My primary goal is to have comfortable space and ride. Sienna fits all my needs with AWD, it will not go off roading but will have piece of mind that the ride is more stable with correct tires.

Having said that, I would like to know what would be the best set of tires for all year use? I dont want to change wheels. I would be using Sienna for road trips, than commuting, and 70% of the driving will be done in non snow conditions.

 

30% snow conditions is pretty significant. With respect to swapping snows, you need only do it twice, not for every ski trip. Not sure where you live, but if it is in the lowlands of NorCal, you can probably put them on just before Christmas (or your first ski trip) and remove them at the end of March or by tax day. I have gotten caught in Tahoe in a snow storm at the end of March and my highly rated all-seasons forced me to chain up. Isn’t an avoidance of chains what you desired in your first post?

If you are adamant about not having a second set of wheels/tires, go to Tire Rack and check out their road tests and user reviews. I would look for an all-season tire that has the best snow and ice performance, even if it gives up some wet/dry performance.

Two last arguments for getting dedicated snow tires and I’ll get off that soap box.

1) Lake Tahoe (and the area) has strict chain control. Even if you have AWD, there is a level that still requires you to chain up if you don’t have true snow tires. If you have snow tires, you can proceed with only CARRYING snow chains on board.

2) AWD is good for getting moving, not for stopping. The only way to remain safely in control for stopping is to have the proper rubber. You can get away with all-season for a light dusting or maybe 1-2” of snow. But for those powder days, they will leave you disappointed, or stuck back at the room, if you don’t chain up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As stated by others, All Season tires (even with the M&S rating) are a compromise. The Bridgestone Turanza EL400 Runflat (I believe that's what comes on the Sienna AWD van) has been reported by others as not being very good in snow conditions. If you really intend to drive in that much snow, you really are a good candidate for proper winter tires. We probably don't drive in 5% snow, and have gone with this for nearly 20 years now.

A little light reading that I started: http://www.siennachat.com/forum/40-...om/forum/40-general-discussion-gen-3/32425-building-my-winter-tire-package.html

 

Thanks! So it appears that even if I get a Subaru (which comes with all seasons), it will not be as effective until I change to snow tires. I am getting a feeling that I am overthinking about AWD in general for 3-4 trips to Tahoe yearly.

I usually rent cars from Turo.com for snow trips, as I can select a particular vehicle with awd (I have a prius at the moment). Only once, I had problem with a rented car last year when our Honda Pilot AWD was stuck in 5-8 inches of snow on an incline (probably with All seasons). A good local guy helped out by using dry Acorns under the tire to get grip. Funny thing is, after he stopped to help us, his subaru outback was stuck, so we repeated the acorn process

Anyway, apart from R1 and R2 levels by CalTrans, I will need chains. I wouldn't want to get out in R3 level anyway. Also the road seems to be closed before R3 is even enforced.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/wo.htm

What are the downsides of using good snow tires all round the year?

 

What are the downsides of using good snow tires all round the year?

Short life, more noise, less dry road traction.

We've had three record low snowfall winters in a row where I live which might contribute to the faster wear. My first set of Bridgestone Blizzak WS80 winter tires I used on the Sienna had only 15,000 miles on them when I replaced when they got down to 5/32 inch of tread.

BTW, based on this thread, I looked at and sat in a Subaru Ascent today at the Kansas City Auto Show. Very nice! I didn't sit in the 3rd row but it appears to have far more legroom that a Toyota Highlander. Fit and finished looked good. I suspect it will sell well.

 

The secret to good winter tire performance is the outer 5/32 of soft rubber compound. Once that is gone, the magic grip is greatly reduced. Heat is the enemy. If you run them in the summer, you'll use up the good stuff in well less than 10k miles.

 

Is there a next best option? Are there any all wether option that could serve the purpose of snow as well as summer? No middle ground?

Like a good snow grip but will last little more may be 25-30k miles and can be used all through the year,

 

I have both a Subaru Outback and an AWD 2014 Sienna. Both have been good vehicles, but the Outback's AWD is far superior to the van, both with All Season radials. I know snow tires would be better, but the Subaru would still win if they both had winter tires.

 

Subaru and Audi use what I'd consider 'full time' AWD. They shift torque front to rear thru active center differentials. The Audi is biased towards RWD, the Subaru biased towards FWD, but the torque applied to either axle never drops to zero. By comparison, most other AWD systems out there bring the rear axle on board only when the computer thinks it's needed and often that delay makes all the difference.

I've never driven on them, but people say the Nokian WRG3 "All Weather" tire is the compromise you might be looking for. Hearty enough to survive the summer, yet better gripping than conventional all season tires in the winter.

https://www.nokiantires.com/tires/passenger-car/all-weather-tires/

 

I have a Subaru and a ‘16 awd sienna. I also have nokkian WRG3 tyres.

I am an awd snob and have extensive experience of Audi systems, Subaru systems, BMW’s 2 systems and no comparison. Subaru system is in a different league to Toyotas system that is in the sienna. But the sienna system is not totally rubbish and wholly adequate for a low ground clearance minivan.

Wrg3, better than most snow tires unless you are talking about blizzak or nokkian hakkapalita. Also very good in the summer and more importantly light off-roading in the mountains. They truly are an all season tyre.

If the ascent has been available in ‘16 I would have bought one of those. But the sienna fits more in comfortably. Better for road trips if you have 3 or more kids. The ascent would also be good but when you add in bikes, skis, kayaks,etc whatever you choose X 5+ people plus all the baggage for clothes etc. No comparison. The sienna is just a bigger box that contains more.

The Subaru will always do better in more extreme snow conditions but the sienna does just fine in snow with the right tires.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

It's been crazy here. Record temp of 78' F last week, then a mother of storms this past Friday, with another foot coming on Wednesday. I hate driving my snows on those hot days, but appreciate the grip when it plunges and snows/ices.

 

Why would you compare SUV vs Minivan?

Subaru Ascent = Toyota Highlander.
Toyota, Honda or Dodge vans are more comparable to Suburban or Ford Expedition, is their size. Vans has more leg rooms at any row than any SUV.

SUV is towing, Van is people mover for long distance, believe me we had Escalade ESV. Its was big, but Sienna or any van is more comfortable with kids, parking and ect.
Sienna AWD is great for winter as well. If I have to tow something, I would buy Tahoe or F-150, but we don't have any towing needs. ROLA box is perfect mount on installed hitch.

 

Face it, the Prius sacrificed most of it's noise abatement at the alter of fuel economy. An extra 20 lbs of foam and matting in the right places would have totally transformed the Prius into a 'real' car. I've rented a few, and found the experience disappointing. Even the 2015 Camry hybrid was noisy compared to it's gas-only siblings. And that might also be that Toyota has yet to master programming of the CVT.

CVT has been the mainstay of Subaru since 2010. There is more than one (TR580 and TR690), multiple torque converters and program files depending on the matching. The paddle shifters can emulate either a 6 speed or an 8 speed, and the total ratio range is pretty wide.

Like any good automatic, they will step down to a lower ratio to raise RPM to extract adequate torque when needed, and then 'upshift' as speed builds. You won't find them screaming away as on some other CVT implementations.

Perhaps the biggest question will be if the turbo flat 4 has adequate torque in this application, given the weight. Their last larger platform (the Tribeca) used the flat 6.

On the Safety front, Subaru's Eyesight system has an excellent reputation, but like Toyota it's rollout and take rate were initially too slow. It was available (barely) when I went shopping in 2013 but not on any of the cars I saw. In retrospect, I wish I'd waited a few months.

 

We have an Outback and Sienna SE.

Over and over the van's size wins for lots of hauling and lots of people. Even the 2WD SE is fine in winter most of the time.

Maybe compare the new big Subaru dimensions to a Pilot, but my cousin has near daily regrets for going from Odyssey to her Pilot. She says chain laws are an issue a maybe 12 times a year but space, handling and comfort pop up as issues hundreds of times a year.

Our Subaru and our Toyota experience has been quality and reliability with both makes. Having had standard suspension and SE, we're very biased toward the SE.

I'm probably in a minority that actually needs AWD via ski area director and trail builder. Even with that a modern front drive vehicle works most all the time. As much as I really like our Subaru, the Ascent looks ugly to me.

With minivans and big CarUVs in the family, the minivans are always better for trips and 5+ people. When my wife compared Highlander and Pilot to the vans she could tell made with same platform. Highlander to SE van had her thinking it was stupid to get less utility and lesser handling for most all the time you spend behind the wheel, but to be fair she was also comparing it to the SE van.

Having liked turbos in Kenworths, Macks and the Volvo car we had, the Subaru engine is appealing.

 

I have watched some reviews that say the headroom is poor in the second row for adults in the Ascent.

 

Was the reviewer in the NBA? 40 inches of headroom for the middle row is a lot and more than any version of the gen 3 Sienna: https://www.caranddriver.com/subaru/ascent/specs

Give us a link to these reviews.

 

https://youtu.be/-_0-CJvWumg?t=4m21s

Doesn't look like much headroom.

 

I must have sat in the Ascent version without the huge panoramic moonroof at the Kansas City Auto Show last Spring since I had lots of headroom. Here are the headroom specs from the Subaru Ascent brochure at https://www.subaru.com/content/dam/subaru/downloads/pdf/brochures/2019/Ascent/2019_Subaru_Ascent.pdf

Ascent Headroom (front/middle/rear) - 41.3 inches/40.0 inches/36.3 inches (with available moonroof: 40.1 inches/38.7 inches/36.3 inches)

Headroom in the Sienna similarly suffers when equipped (Limited only) with the huge opening rear moonroof.

Sienna Headroom with front moonroof only (front/middle/rear) - 39.1 inches/39.7 inches/38.3 inches (with dual moonroof: 39.1 inches/38.0 inches/35.9 inches)

There's no comparison when it comes to legroom for the third rows: Ascent: 31.7 inches; Sienna: 36.3 inches

What surprised me about the Ascent was that I could sit in the 3rd row without my head touching the headliner. The next vehicle I sat in was the new 3-row Lexus RX and I had to cock my head to the side and duck to sit in its 3rd row and there wasn't enough 3rd row legroom to rotate the 2nd row seat back backward to its normal position.

The Sienna 3rd row can easily handle two average size adults while the limited legroom in the Ascent makes it practical only for children or for adults on short trips. Even though the Ascent 3rd row is short on legroom it has way more (4 inches) than the current Highlander 3rd row (which I somehow compressed myself into) which has only 27.7 inches of legroom.

Comparing vehicles is like football - it's a game of inches!

 

Haha, I agree-definitely a game of inches.

I was disappointed with the 3rd row in the Highlander although I do like the new body style. It just wasn't big enough for our family.

I do really like the Subaru Ascent though.

 

I'm a Subaru guy and patiently awaited the launch of the Ascent. It seemed like the answer to our prayers - 3 kids, 2 adults and a dog...the Outback was too small and we needed something with a 3rd row. We actually test drove several competing 3 row SUVs and it was a frustrating process - they are all plenty big enough on the outside, but not so big on the inside.

After a lot of talking, I think I have finally convinced my wife that a minivan is the right option. (this has been a 15 year conversation) She actually convinced herself after doing some research and coming up with these facts / figures:

Sienna has nearly twice the cargo volume behind the third row compared to Ascent. (39 vs 17.8 cf)
Sienna has more cargo with the third row folded than Ascent with both rows folded. (87 vs 86.5 cf)
Sienna can fit full sheets of drywall/plywood in the cargo compartment (tailgate closed)
The exterior dimensions of the Sienna are *nearly identical* to the CX-9
Sienna: 200″ L x 78″ W x 69-71″ H (cavernous inside)
CX-9: 199″ L x 78″ W x 69″ H (cramped inside)


The Sienna is just so so so much larger for more or less the same exterior dimensions. That's not to say that the Ascent (or other 3 row crossovers) aren't nice - they are. (I do dislike the Ascent interior trim pieces (the ivory chunky dash / door panel parts), but for the most part it drove well (great engine) and has an excellent AWD system and comes well equipped at very competitive prices. But it suffers from the same issue that most crossover SUVs suffer from - in the quest to be the "un-minivan" they made design choices that make them less useful. (namely going for a long hood and not using sliding doors).

I test drove and rode in an Ascent and a Sienna, and as far as seating space (this applies to all of the crossovers I tested) the Sienna wins hands down. As a previous poster mentioned, ignore the numbers and go sit in the two vehicles. It's not even close. Passenger room in *all three* rows is significantly better than the Ascent. Access to the rear row is also much easier in the sienna (taller ceiling, flat floor, aisle between captains chairs)

As far as a bench seat for the second row, I don't think Sienna offers that in AWD, so that might be a factor. Access to the back row with a bench would be much easier in the sienna compared to most (all?) other crossovers due to the wide door opening and huge travel of the middle row.

4 adults and 2 kids in a Sienna would be workable. I sat in the second row captains chair and it was fine. The third row is good for small to medium sized kids, but once they approach adult size they might start complaining...but that's probably just too bad (unless a full sized SUV is an option)

The sliding doors alone are enough reason to get the Sienna, particularly with kids.

 

We've been a loyal Subaru and Toyota family for a LONG time. I drive the Subaru Outbacks. Wife drives the Siennas.


Reliability-wize, our old Sienna gave us very few reliability issues. The Subaru was very good but a few more issues most recently. But I kept that for 17 years and the old Sienna only 14 years. The old Sienna died of a crash, not natural causes.



We only just got a new to us AWD Sienna so I have no experience with how it handles in snow. My Outback is great in the snow but who knows on the new Accent. It's probably good.



It looks to me from the photos that if you plan to be using a cargo box either way that the Accent has a more flexible rail system on top and the roof is lower to the ground so it would be not as hard to get up there to on and off stuff.



The current gen 3 Sienna have a more limited rail system that pushes stuff to the rear and can (and does for me) cause problems with things extending too far back such that the hatch when lifted, will hit things on top of the car.



That's based on so someone with no experience with an Accent or an AWD Sienna. So take it for what it's worth.

 

I only have experience with the Gen2 Sienna AWD, we have 175k miles on ours. It’s an always on AWD, so at all times 50/50 power distribution. That’s also why the AWD has worse gas mileage.

The gen3 sienna is not always on. It’s based on slip. Details discussed here. https://www.siennachat.com/forum/40...eral-discussion-gen-3/1777-2011-sienna-all-wheel-drive-system.html#/topics/1777

www.siennachat.com/forum/40-general-discussion-gen-3/1777-2011-sienna-all-wheel-drive-system.html#/topics/1777

A video comparing Subaru vs Toyota AWD. I believe this older Highlander system is the dynamic AWD like in the gen2 sienna.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That video is really interesting as we just got the 2011 Sienna AWD. But I'm getting very confused. Do the Gen3 Sienna AWD systems behave more like the Subaru or like the Toyota in the video that failed?

 

Like the Toyota Highlander in the video. It’s an “active torque control system”.
More reference reading on the sienna AWD
https://www.wilsonvilletoyota.com/awd-4wd-systems/awd-active-torque-control/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk