Minivans offer enough capacity to accommodate even big families, with three rows of seats and the ability to seat seven or even eight people. When shopping for a minivan, Chrysler’s Pacifica is one of the models that should definitely be on your watchlist. In fact, the Chrysler Pacifica is a great choice, and that doesn’t come as a surprise for a company that single-handedly invented the segment in the ’80s and has been doing it for years.

If you do a quick online search, you’ll notice it rarely misses in listicles of the best minivans on the market. The Pacifica has several strengths that have earned it top marks from expert reviewers across publications. The 2026 Pacifica seats up to eight and is fitted with either a gas-only 3.6-liter V6 engine producing up to 287 hp (making it one of the most powerful minivans on the market) or a hybrid powertrain featuring a 3.6-liter V6 with two electric motors, with a total output of 260 hp.

However, while the Chrysler Pacifica is one of the best, it doesn’t rank high on every metric that matters and on every site. Some minivans have better ratings than the Chrysler Pacifica and might serve you better. We’ve rounded up a list of the best minivans that have performed better than the 2026 Chrysler Pacifica in reviews by earning higher scores. For more details on how we selected these minivans, see our methodology section at the end of the article.

The first minivan you can consider instead of the Pacifica is the 2026 Honda Odyssey. While both the 2026 Chrysler Pacifica and the 2026 Honda Odyssey have earned a spot in Consumer Reports‘ (CR) list of the best minivans, the latter comes out on top, with better ratings. The Odyssey is ranked fifth in CR’s rankings and earns the site’s CR Recommended badge, while the Pacifica sits a position lower, at sixth. Behind the wheel, CR’s experts found the Odyssey to be a better car in its road test.

It also has higher predicted reliability and owner satisfaction scores, meaning you’re more likely to be satisfied with your purchase if you pick the Odyssey. In Car and Driver’s testing, the Honda Odyssey narrowly beats the Chrysler Pacifica. The Honda earned an overall rating of 8.5 out of 10, just 0.5 higher than the Pacifica. In J.D. Power’s rankings, the Chrysler still falls behind the Odyssey, earning 6 fewer points overall with a score of 75 vs. 81.

The Odyssey also ranked higher in quality and reliability, as well as driving experience. And if you’d like to sell it in the next three years, J.D. Power predicts it’ll fetch more on average than the Pacifica. Per U.S. News rankings, the Odyssey tops the charts of the best minivans and is the only model that scored better than the Pacifica. The 2026 Honda Odyssey has a starting MSRP of $42,795, with an additional $1,595 destination charge.

The 2026 model year of the Kia Carnival is also a better car than the Chrysler Pacifica, if ratings from different sites are anything to go by. Starting with J.D. Power’s ratings, the Carnival edges out the Pacifica by a small margin, scoring 78 out of 100 vs. 75. It’s pretty tight between the two, with the Pacifica performing better in quality and reliability by a single point while the Carnival offers a better driving experience and resale value. In Car and Driver’s testing, the Carnival stands out as a better car overall, scoring 9 out of 10, a point higher than the Pacifica.

In addition to these two rankings where the Carnival performs better, the same story plays out in CR’s ratings. The Kia Carnival rounds out the top three in CR’s rankings of the best minivans, while the Pacifica sits in sixth place. Additionally, this model performed well enough in testing to earn the site’s buy recommendation as one of the best options shoppers should consider, something that the 2026 model year of the Pacifica didn’t get.

According to CR, the Carnival is predicted to offer better reliability and satisfaction. On the road, it also offers better driving dynamics than the Chrysler. The only site where the Kia Carnival doesn’t outperform the Pacifica is U.S. News, where it earned an 8.8 out of 10 vs. 8.9. The 2026 Kia Carnival starts at $38,935, including a $1,455 destination and handling fee, and tops out at $53,035 for the high-end Carnival SX Prestige FWD trim with no additional options added.

While the 2026 Toyota Sienna doesn’t sit at the top of J.D. Power’s rankings of the best minivans, it manages to beat the Pacifica, albeit by a small margin. The Toyota Sienna earned an overall score of 77 out of 100, clinching third place, while the Pacifica earned 75 and is ranked fourth. The 2025 model year of the Sienna was ranked as the most reliable minivan by J.D. Power, and interestingly, the 2026 variant fails to beat the Pacifica in quality and reliability. However, in other categories, the Sienna is a better car as it scores higher in driving experience, resale value, as well as the dealership experience.

That edge over the Pacifica can also be seen in Car and Driver’s test. The Sienna earned an overall score of 9.5 out of 10, while the Pacifica scored 8.0. Car and Driver has ranked the 2026 Sienna as the best minivan on the market as of this writing. CR has also tested this model, and it’s a similar story to the other sites.

In CR’s rankings, the Sienna comes in at second position, performing better than the Pacifica, with a better overall score and higher scores in individual categories, including predicted reliability, owner satisfaction, road test score, and one of the highest fuel economy figures thanks to its standard hybrid 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. It’s only in U.S. News tests that the Pacifica came out ahead of the Sienna with an 8.9 overall score vs. 8.7. The Sienna starts at an MSRP of $42,915.

The 2026 Kia Carnival comes in hybrid and non-hybrid options. The gas-only Kia Carnival boasts higher ratings than the Pacifica, and if you go the hybrid way, you’ll still get a solid car with better ratings. According to Car and Driver’s hands-on tests, the hybrid Kia Carnival scored an impressive 9 out of 10, similar to the gas-only variant. As a result, it’s a better car overall compared to the Pacifica, which scored 8 out of 10.

CR also rated the Kia Carnival Hybrid separately, and in the site’s testing, it topped the list with the highest overall score, beating the Sienna, non-hybrid Carnival, Honda Odyssey, as well as the Pacifica. It’s predicted to be highly reliable, more than twice as reliable as the Pacifica, and it boasts the highest owner satisfaction score of any minivan model in CR’s shortlist. It also scores better in driving experience, as depicted by its higher road test score in CR’s testing.

However, U.S. News testing results depict a different story. According to the site, the 2026 Pacifica is the better model overall, earning a higher 8.9 out of 10 score compared with the Carnival Hybrid’s 8.5. J.D. Power has yet to rate the 2026 Kia Carnival Hybrid as of this writing, so there’s no way we can pit it against the Pacifica’s 75 out of 100 score. The base trim of the 2026 Kia Carnival Hybrid, the HEV LXS FWD, starts at $41,390, plus a $1,545 destination charge.

Chrysler has already revealed the 2027 model year of the Pacifica. However, since some sites have yet to give that car a rating, we chose the 2026 model as our reference point, as it’s been widely reviewed by different automotive experts. We also chose the 2026 model year because some of its competitors from that year have been widely reviewed as well, unlike the 2027 variants.

Next, we scoured the web to find 2026 Chrysler Pacifica ratings from different reputable sources, including Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, Car and Driver, and U.S. News. Once we had ratings for the 2026 Pacifica, we searched for minivans that have earned scores equal to or higher than those of our reference model from the same site. While we strove to only include models with higher rankings in every reference site, we also included models that were ranked higher in at least two of the four sites.

Since each site has its own ranking and scoring system, we compared the scores that the Pacifica earned with those of competing minivan models from the same site to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, because of the differing scores and scoring systems from the reference sites, we have listed these models randomly.

One of the more curious inventions of the automotive industry is something called cylinder deactivation. Essentially, when under light load, an engine will shut down some of its cylinders. When a driver is only placing a partial load on an engine, efficiency drops by up to 15%, according to research by engineers at the Brno University of Technology published in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. This is because the amount of fuel being used just to keep the motor operating is actually greater than the amount going toward propulsion. In that situation, deactivating some cylinders will reduces the amount of fuel used and boost efficiency.

Cylinder deactivation isn’t a recent development. It actually goes back to the 1905 Sturtevant, which allowed the driver to stop half the cylinders on its V6 engine. However, the technology didn’t get much attention again until GM launched a new engine in the early 1980’s Cadillac Eldorado with what it dubbed a “V8-6-4 powerplant,” like three engines in one. Today, there are a slew of cylinder deactivation systems across the industry, including dynamic fuel management (DFM), variable cylinder management (VCM), multi-displacement system (MDS), and Camtronic, to name a few.

However, this technology can also introduce some potentially pricey problems under the hood. Some implementations have been plagued with excessive oil consumption, increased carbon deposits, vibration and noise, and lifter issues. It’s also received mixed reviews from drivers, as Hemi owners are deleting this feature, even though it’s costing them fuel. And this is hardly the only example of drivers wanting this technology out of their vehicle.

Many causes of excessive oil consumption have nothing to do with cylinder deactivation, but some drivers with the technology under their hood have reported increasingly oil-thirsty vehicles. The piston rings on some cylinder deactivation systems aren’t able to combat a partial vacuum created following the cylinders being shut down. Those stationary piston rings let oil into the combustion chamber, which can create a variety of problems, including increased oil consumption, blue smoke out of the tailpipe, and other potential performance problems.

Take Honda’s variable cylinder management ( VCM) system, which has had many drivers experiencing accelerated oil consumption. For every 1,000 miles, 1 quart of extra oil is burned up. It doesn’t help that the automaker’s response has been a little dismissive, simply recommending drivers check their oil at every fuel stop.

GM’s active fuel management (AFM) technology has also created some issues on its 5.3-liter Vortec 5300 engine. Oil was apparently sneaking past the inactive piston rings into the combustion chamber, and the issue was exacerbated by pressurized oil directed at the piston skirts from relief valves. Even worse, GM’s engines weren’t directly monitoring oil volume, so by the time other indicators revealed an issue and lit up the dashboard warning, the problem would have already been well under way.

Carbon deposit buildup can often be the reason behind a vehicle’s sudden loss of performance. These deposits essentially look like clumps or collections of black muck found around the inside of an engine, particularly near the valves and intake. According to YouTube channel TorqueCars, it can cost you up to 60% of the airways if left unaddressed.

Cylinder deactivation can increase the buildup of carbon, as the system controls the behavior of the valves. When shutting down cylinders, the valve timing must also be adjusted, potentially resulting in the intake dipping into a cylinder containing unburnt material. This exposure creates a perfect opportunity for carbon formation on the valve.

In addition, according to some reports, positive pressure is created due to certain cylinder deactivation settings. This pressure can force greater amounts of oil vapor back through the crankcase ventilation system, leaving residue on the valves that will form into carbon deposits after continuous thermal exposure.

Ideally, the cylinder deactivation technology should be virtually undetectable while driving. However, many have reported experiencing odd vibrations and strange noises, particularly when the system turns off cylinders. For instance, certain recent Mazda models have been experiencing odd sounds and shaking once drivers reached a cruising speed. These models are running a four-cylinder SkyActiv-G engine variant that still features cylinder deactivation. Meaning, once a driver reaches a consistent speed, the system goes down to just two cylinders.

According to a Mazda technical service bulletin, in order to correct the problem, it requires specially modified brackets to mount the radiator, and a fresh PCM calibration. The automaker is blaming the problem on resonance from the radiator. However, some owners are still experiencing issues when the system turns on and off the cylinders. 

If you consider that common city driving scenarios will include times full power is needed (acceleration, increasing speed to pass), and times when it’s not (cruising), the cylinders could frequently be oscillating between four and two cylinders. Vibration and noise associated with the switch back and forth, would certainly be cause for a driver to become frustrated. 

Some cylinder deactivation systems use specialized lifters to engage and disengage the cylinders. For instance, GM’s AFM system is activated by latching down select lifters via a mechanism powered by pressurized oil. When all cylinders reactivate, the oil stops flowing to the locking components on the lifters, releasing them to move freely again. This system is featured in some of the automaker’s V6 and V8 engines of years past.

Unfortunately, these small mechanical bits have been known to fail, or not function properly. The lifters that get disabled can get stuck or not relatch when the cylinder deactivation system switches on and off, which can occur countless times over the life of the engine. It may start as just an odd tapping sound, but it can escalate into full-blown failure, destroying the camshaft in the process.

In addition to misfires, other signs of failing lifters in an AFM system include, engine stalling, performance losses, and jerky idling. Some owners have attempted to head off these problems by using an AFM disabler, however that won’t be much help for those who have already begun to notice problems, it could actually make things worse.

In order to get the most out of a chainsaw, sometimes you have to swap out some parts. The guide bar, for instance, is a removable piece in case it’s time to replace the bar or take on a different length to accomplish a specific cutting task. Major brands like Stihl and Husqvarna will sell different bar lengths specifically designed for their respective chainsaw models. With that said, what if you somehow wound up with a Stihl bar and a Husqvarna chainsaw? As it turns out, these elements can come together to form a working machine, but it’s not accomplished by just connecting the bar to the chainsaw as you would normally.

Though some have tried, the reality is if you try to put a Stihl bar on a Husqvarna chainsaw outright, it’s not going to work for one reason or another. Stihl bar openings are larger than Husqvarna’s, they also have different driver widths, and there are various other reasons. Thus, you’re better off finding a way to match brands between your bar and saw, this way you avoid the frustration of mismatches altogether — this is, unless you feel particularly adventurous.

Strictly stock, Stihl bars and Husqvarna chainsaws don’t mix. However, with the aid of some extra hardware, and some precise modification, you can make a connection to some level of success.

For those adamant about putting Stihl bars on their Husqvarna chainsaw, a solution has presented itself. Throughout the Internet, Stihl-to-Husqvarna adapters have become commonplace, bridging the gap between the two product lines for the convenience of users everywhere. You’ll potentially need to modify the bar a bit, too, extending out the center slot and drilling out the tensioner holes so that they can fit Husqvarna bolts through. Overall, it doesn’t seem like too much effort, but one has to wonder if it’s worth going through so much trouble for the outcome.

Ultimately, how worthwhile fitting a Stihl bar onto a Husqvarna chainsaw comes down to individual skill and priority. Are you comfortable and capable of altering your chainsaw bar, without doing excessive damage and potentially making the tool dangerous to use? Do you trust a third-party adapter on a tool that’s so powerful and, for some users, unwieldy? Not to mention, the cost of the items needed to adapt the bar in the first place could meet or exceed that of a new Husqvarna bar, so why not just take the easy road and buy a natively-compatible piece?

As two of the biggest and best of the major chainsaw brands out there, Stihl and Husqvarna combining their strengths into one unit seems like a tempting proposition. While a Stihl bar can fit a Husqvarna chainsaw with modification and the presence of an adapter, whether it’s worth the time, money, and hassle to make it fit is something only you can answer.