Nice, but too tepid. Why won't one of these companies bust through and make a 30 mpg minivan? It's amazing how much gas those things hog down.

Jack,
2008 EPA test is slanted downward vs 2007. This vehicle may well get close to 30 on the old test.

For a little perspective, look up the old Dodge Caravan's from the mid-1980s. Not only are they equipped with I4 engines with 2.2 or 2.5 liter displacements, you have to remember that those engines put out considerably less power than a similar sized engine would today -- usually not much more than 100 hp. While the vehicle itself was probably a bit smaller and lighter, my overall impression is that there was a much higher weight to horsepower ratio than even a hypothetical Odyssey equipped with the modern Honda 2.4L I4 would have.

As an owner of a '99 Odyssey with 210 hp engine, I can tell you that at 210hp it's way overpowered. Absolutely no need for that much hp in a family vehicle.
Forget about towing anyway. The Honda is only rated for 3500 pounds and 350 lbs hitch weight anyway.
Our other car is a Citroen CX with 150hp 4 cylinder engine. That's what I use to tow our utility trailer. It can pull up to 3500 lbs and with the hydraulic suspension you don't have any problems with hitch weight.

V.O.R.: Just because 80-90mph is the norm does not mean it is right. Speed limits is another issue that needs to be addressed. Not just for public safety but for conservation reasons as well. There is a reason why the US Govt. put speed limits at 55mph during the oil crisis in the 70s

2008 EPA test is slanted downward vs 2007. This vehicle may well get close to 30 on the old test.

17/25 on the new test translates into 22-23 mpg combined on the old test.

240 hp may be right for a bigger vehicle like this minivan.

But minivan sales are down 20 % this year and its declining every year.

GM & Ford have pulled out 3 of their minivan models.
Luckily Honda is selling well.

They can put this VCM in CR-V which is 1 of their best selling vehicles.

Minivans are ugly. That's the main reason they don't sell.

Minivans are ugly. That's the main reason they don't sell.

What gorgeous vehicle do you drive?

It doesn't much help the discussion if we're all talking about MPG but our numbers are based on different definitions and/or test procedures. It might be useful to disambiguate the units, e.g.

MPGus = US gallons, EPA test proc's through MY 2007 + CAFE + gas guzzler tax

MPGus08 = US gallons, EPA test proc's starting MY 2008

MPGuk = imperial gallons, NEDC test cycle

L/100km = liters per 100km, NEDC test cycle
1 gallon (US) = 3.785412 liters
1 gallon (UK) = 4.454609 liters = 1.176783 gallons (US)
1 mile (land) = 1.609344 km

gCO2/km =~ 23.2 * L/100km (gasoline)
gCO2/km =~ 26.7 * L/100km (diesel)
gCO2/km =~ 9.9 * L/100km (E85)

km/L = km per 100 liters, Japanese test cycle

When quoting the volumetric fuel economy of diesel vehicles, Europeans refer to liters of diesel fuel.

It looks like the EPA may now do as well, I could find no mention of any adjustements for the different energy densities of different fuels. Total annual fuel costs also reflect the actual fuel used, though EPA apparently uses the real-valued MPG results for this rather than the integers it actually publishes. For CNG, a "gallon equivalent" is defined as 121.5 cu.ft. of natural gas at some unspecified pressure and temperature.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420d06002.pdf
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf

I know all this is a major hassle but unless you know how the data was produced, you cannot make meaningful comparisons. In particular, be careful when translating fuel economy data for European models to what that means for the US market. The NEDC is notoriously generous, perhaps 20-22% more so than the EPA08 procedures.

Having lived in Alaska for a while, I'm guessing the reason for the good economy is dead-even and moderate cruising speeds (~50 mph) because of the way the roads there are built. Except around Anchorage and in Fairbanks, pretty much all of the main routes are two lane roads where you cannot go 80 mph like motorists do on the interstates in the Lower 48. There also tends to be very little stop-and-go type driving.

Regarding my earlier comment, on the Odyssey being overpowered, I did not mean to say that the Odyssey should not be offered with a 240 hp V6 engine. If people in the midwest typically carry lots of people and have to quickly accelerate through on-ramps, they should be able to pay for the privilege. I merely said that I would be glad to see an I4 option, and I think a certain segment of buyers would agree. Automakers often offer cars with options for different engines, and this would be a good place to see that. The Accord, for instance, has I4 and V6 options.

You know what I drive

No, I didn't. This may blow your mind, but I don't catalog the details of everyone's lives once I hear them.

So you drive the amazingly gorgeous Chevy Avalanche - one slight step above the Pontiac Aztec in terms of looks. Nothing more needs to be said about your aesthetic capabilities.

NBK-Boston:

Roads in Alaska are tricky, potholed two-laners, indeed. However, distances are also very long, and I'd guess my average cruising speed was more like 60+ than 50. Odyssey has very tall final drive and cruises economically. It's also true that there isn't much need to stop, except for the occasional moose or to get out and take in the vastness of it all.