Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the mpv segment and utilize the same 5-door MPV body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Toyota-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 116hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 140hp engine designed by VM Motori.

The fact that the Chrysler got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, doesn't actually do much for it, as it's still a lousy 2-star coffin on wheels. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the mpv segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the American car offers a considerable difference of 21% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Toyota is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Toyota with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Chrysler badge with 4.4 out of 5. The same official information place Previa as average reliability-wise, and Grand Voyager is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.2 out of 5.

Chrysler is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.7 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 185 kilometers per hour, 10km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (38 mpg), in combined cycle.

Toyota appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the American car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Chrysler being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Chrysler. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.