If anyone remembers my 1998 Chrysler Town & Country SX post from a short time ago, you’ll remember that the short-wheelbase 1996-2000 Chrysler “NS” Town & Countrys were quite rare, even when new. In fact, the pictures in that post came from a friend and fellow CC-commentator, as I couldn’t find one. Well, in belated CC-effect fashion, I did.
The LX was only applied to short-wheelbase Town & Countrys for the 1996 model year, making this one a first-year example. Although I’ve never seen one, even in pictures, apparently the driver’s side sliding door was also an extra-cost option for 1996.
In any event, short or long, the NS minivans are arguably the most cleanly designed minivans of all time, and some might even say they have grace. The 1996-1997 Town & Country is my favorite, its waterfall grille, “Camelot” spiralcast wheels, and tasteful chrome accents and gold pin striping appealing to me.
Related Reading:
For a twenty year old New England vehicle that Chrysler sure looks sharp indeed! It is a shame this Minivan was one of the downward steps for the Chrysler brand, but it is what it is.
Teddy
I agree, I took a road trip with friends back in 1996 to Atlanta, GA. We rented one of these when they first came out (extended wheelbase) to travel in.
I was amazed at how smooth and buttery the ride was on the highway. For it’s time, it was probably the most aerodynamic minivan on the Market. Ho Hum build quality, but excellent dash board layout for the controls.
This era Chrysler minivan has aged very well, unlike the Ford’s and Chevy minivans of the same era.
One thing I will say about most Chrysler vehicles of this era is that they appear to hold up well against the elements (rustproofing, etc.), so long as they don’t fall victim to various mechanical failures or accidents/poor owner care. These NS minivans in particular seem to have had pretty good build quality too as far as paint and body panel fit and finish go.
I wouldn’t say this generation of Chrysler minivans have particular good rust-proof, but comparing to other cars, it’s not bad. At least the badge doesn’t fall off with the surrounding sheet metal. Of course, my Michigan standard on rust is pretty harsh for cars in general, probably only those very well built cars like final GM B-Body are that good.
One thing about the rust proof of those minivans, I reached into the rust hole of side panel and found sound deadening material was wrapped in many smaller plastic bags, rather than directly put into the panels. I figure it prevents the sound deadening materials from absorbing salty water. I would say it’s a thoughtful engineering detail, even though it doesn’t prevent me from reaching the whole bag through a hole that big.
In Upstate, NY if you see one of these vans they are usually heaps of rolling rust. The rockers are mostly gone, the rear door is generally full of holes and the door bottoms are missing. They don’t appear to me any better or worse than most any competitor of this era
Compared to the Ford Aerostar/Windstar, this iteration of the minivan was indeed good looking! I always thought the Fords looked kind of “dowdy” in camparison. 🙂
Very much agreed! Both generation Windstars were always a bit clumsy looking, and the post-dustbuster GM U-bodies were very generic and uninspired looking even when they came out.
I think the NS really showed up the miscalculations of the original U-bodies by demonstrating that it was possible to incorporate organic, aerodynamic styling into what was basically a tall box without sacrificing the sensible proportions that had made the T-115s so popular in the first place. (I feel like somebody — maybe Don Andreina? — could do a comparative styling analysis of the Pontiac Trans Sport and Renault Avantime.)
It was also a very effective effort to update vans that had started to look pretty dated by the ’90s in a way that felt like an upgrade rather than something completely different (*coughTauruscough*). That’s not an easy trick, so hats off.
I know, I’m a dinosaur, but it’s just another jellybean people-mover that I’d pass without a glance. I’ll allow that it’s not aggressively ugly.
Santa Cruzin
Actually at the time if you think about what the competition brought to the table. These minivans were actually very “smartly” aerodynamic designed, with appropriate proportions.
Keep in mind I’m not a fan of overly designed “jellybean” cars, such as the 1996-1999 Ford Taurus. However, different taste is understood.
Count me as a near-rabid fan of this generation, although not so much for the short wheelbase version.
I never understood what all the fuss was about until I owned one. Even when old, it was tight and solid. My 99 model had the newer grille. The early one was cleaner, but I kind of liked the bolder look. Also, Chrysler was foolish to abolish the emblem with the big wings on the grille – that grille badge made it possible to ID a Chrysler T&C from 100 yards.
I just noticed an ad at the top of the page (ad block off here) of the new Pacifica. The newer version of the winged badge is back in the middle of the black grille. Someone at Chrysler gets it.
The Pacifica continues to get rave reviews. They really nailed it.
Too bad they didn’t put that kind of effort into the 200 and Dart.
Also had the 1999. I thought the updated front was very sharp. It did quite a bit to separate it from the Plymouth version – which I believe was a major reason they did it. The turn signal lamps sure looked vulnerable, but I never had any problem with mine.
Agree with your points on the emblem. Chrysler was on a roll in this era, they knew it, and wanted you to know it. That spirit and product made me a three time / consecutive Mopar buyer.
I remember Chrysler’s “champagne” craze for 1998 in all their advertisements with the “new” winged emblem. Here’s me with a similar Town & Country at the auto show that year.
Chrysler really goofed in my opinion for dropping the SWB versions of its vans.
Still a Chrysler, though, complete with all their issues. Sad, because these were the best minivans ever created, design-wise.
“Chrysler really goofed in my opinion for dropping the SWB versions of its vans.”
I believe SWB sales tanked hard in this generation, and were usually associated with base model strippers from Plymouth and Dodge. The Daimler era management probably hated the tooling cost for them, and they were probably right about this.
Brendan’s SWB Town & Country find, 20 years later, in that condition, in New England, is nothing short of a unicorn.
The SWBs not having Stow and Go in the next generation was probably the nail in the coffin. Just too expensive to keep a completely different floorplan around.
I don’t think it was so much the lack of Stow n Go as the market for the SWB minivan had simply moved to SUVs. While I agree that the SWB minivan was better, that’s not what consumers were buying. I hate to say it, but it was the right move.
I had no idea that the SWB models did not offer that feature. That’s certainly a negative to a lot of people looking for simple practicality in this category. If I were to minivan back then, one of the shortie Chrysler vans would have been my choice certainly. The small footprint with the combo of simply flipping some seats into the floor vs. hauling seven folks would have been envious packaging efficiency. Upon learning this, I’m not so sure now. Same trade off as other vans at the time dampers my appreciation.
It does have nice wheels.
A few years ago, we bought a well-used LWB T&C Limited so my wife could bring her 9-foot surfboard to the beach. She loved it (it was her surfwagon, after all), but we really appreciated its clever design and excellent visibility. And for a minivan, it was pretty good-looking, too–a near-twin of the feature car, just longer.
We got rid of it because we moved to the Midwest (no surfing out here!), but we still miss it.
I live in a surf town. Minivans are very popular here, whether T&C’s, Previas, Astros or Vanagons. Also cars with sunroofs …
I still love the SWB Chrysler vans and wish they were still made. My 95 SWB Voyager is a gem when it comes to utility.
I still like these, and wouldn’t hesitate to rock one today, despite having absolutely no need for a minivan. Back in the 90’s when I did have need for one only the 4 cylinder SWB Caravan was within my budget, but I opted for an off-lease ’97 Nissan Quest instead, which turned out to be a great choice.
Cut to 2005, and I was issued a well-optioned LWB Grand Caravan as a loaner while my Saab was in for one of its many overnight stays in the service bay. I had that van for 3 days and fell in love with it. These were good looking, great driving vans, as long as their transmissions held up.
Tommy Ziarko was the Chrysler engineer responsible for design and release of the intermediate steering shaft assembly, Chrysler called em Lower Coupling Assy, in the minivan carline.
Great engineer to work with, always very positive in both spirit and mind and a terrific all around guy.
I lost track of him over the last 20 years, and was saddened to see last week that he had passed on.
Just wanted to add this little footnote about a guy who left his mark on the NS (stood for New S Body) as well as a raft of other Chrysler products, and, I’m sure, on the heart of every body that ever knew him.
RIP Tommy.
It’s funny how your eye gets used to things. I remember when they added the extra length to the Aerostar and stretched the WB on the Caravan that the longer ones looked like hotdogs. At the beginning they would catch your eye the way a stretch limousine would. After a few years of mostly LWB minivan sales it was the shorties that stood out. This SWB Caravan would catch my eye for a lot of reasons including it looks like an egg.
There was some shifting of LX as a trim line. The 1999 Town & Country I bought new was an LX – LWB with a standard driver side sliding door. I still have the window sticker.
These short wheelbase Town & Country vans were always pretty scarce. When you were used to the proportions of the LWB body, the SWB always looked rather strange.
My dealer sent me a fancy 1996 Chrysler-Plymouth newsletter that had a spread on the Town & Country. For 1996, the LX was indeed SWB only.
A Chrysler LX-a short wheelbase mini van? I never would have guessed ,but, then again minivans are not my thing.
Another good Chrysler effort spoiled by indifferent quality control, pitiful transmissions and some questionable engine choices such as putting the underpowered 2.4 in any of these heavy bodies and the not so hot Mitsubishi 3.0 oil smoker. The 3.3 and 3.8 were the way to go but it was hard to find the larger mills in the lower and mid trim levels at times. Chrysler did get the utility and look spot on for the times though. My cousin still has a 1998. It was a pretty good vehicle when new but hasn’t aged well and currently has a head gasket leak and got a new transmission about 8 years ago.
I prefer the look of the LWB models (the SWB is a bit too egg-y) but all things considered, this generation Chrysler as a whole has to be the most attractive minivan ever produced. They managed a design that looked right at the time and still continues to look right–it’s aged quite well. The generation that followed these looked like blocky caricatures of their elegant predecessors.
The most beautiful minivan built. The current Pacifica doesn’t come close, even if it is a better car overall.