This combination of a first generation and current generation Dodge Caravan is an infrequently seen pairing.
While the difference in physical size isn’t as pronounced as one might think, at least from this angle, their differences are palpable. One defined a market, the other was just another entry. One had around 100 horsepower in most applications, one has over 250. No doubt this list of differences could grow quite long.
Yet think of all the model names that have morphed over time in one way or another; Camry, Civic, Explorer, Charger, the list is long. But did the Caravan ever really change course from its original incarnation? Not really.
Found September 30, 2017, in Columbia, Missouri
Due to the scarcity of first gen caravans this is probably a once in a lifetime find.
Thanks for sharing
+1 !
A very infrequent pairing, no doubt.
And totally unnoticed by their drivers, most likely.
Great find!
+2
Absolutely! Great find!
The first-gen vehicle is asking for a bagel and cream cheese…
clever…
Took me a few seconds to get that…
Okay I’ll bite, I’m sure I can’t be the only one. I don’t get it…
Hint: Look at the license plate number on the older Caravan.
Look at the letters in the license plate of the older car, and put it on a bagel w/cream cheese.
Ahh! I had to zoom in. Got it now haha
Yep, the more these things change, their “infamous” transmission issues stay the same…….
Given how many manufacturers have them, and how a trans’ problem shows up in its’ minivan application first before “spreading” to the cars that have it, I think it’s the almost inevitable result of truck carrying capacity with a car powertrain.
Those two are much closer in size than I would have guessed.
If my belief is correct that the 4th generation (2001-07) was still ahead of Honda and Toyota in certain metrics, it took nearly 25 years for Chrysler to cede leadership in minivan design. Which was an admirable run. The 5th generation is the only one that I would not really have much interest in (as much as it pains me to say it).
Still Caravans everywhere in Canada, although the chances of finding this pair side by side are pretty much zero. First gen Caravans are all but gone here, victims of rust.
Our 2007 Caravan is definately behind equivalent Honda and Toyota vans in certain metrics as well (like interior plastic quality) but far ahead in value. We’re up to 260,000km with no really major problems, but an increasing number of small ones.
We’ll probably replace ours in the next year or so with another lightly used Caravan. I have no interest in a more prestigious, feature laden van. It’s just a tool with a job to do.
Yes, victims of rust and emission test failures no doubt.
I remember when my neighbour across the street got the first Caravan in the neighbourhood. It was a snowy day, with perhaps 4-6″ of accumulation. Most other cars were getting stuck without their snow tires on yet, and mostly RWDs, but he was zipping in and out like a summer day!
Other than it’s irritating lack of acceleration; I’d rather have the first gen model.
are the orange lenses the same top n bottom on the original? Are they both indicators?
I think the answer is “yes” to both of your questions. They also served as parking lights.
It’s hard to believe but the 1st generation Caravan was the same size as the same year Honda Accord sedan.
I haven’t seen any on the road in years, but did see a 1st or 2nd generation van for sale a few months ago on a Craigslist near me.
I still occasionally see the facelifted ’87-90 version with the composite headlights, but I never see the early ones with the stacked sealed-beam lights anymore.
Notice the thickness of the A-pillar in the newer car. One of my pet peeves is the growth in cross-section of roof pillars in all kinds of consumer vehicles; my assumption is that this results from a desire to project safety-and-security to the buyer’s unconscious. I’d love to know if there’s a lot of air behind the plastic cladding, there . . .!
Probably the thicker A-pillar has at least something to do with better crash-test results. I imagine there are old videos of the older minivan crashing, and likely new videos of the new one crashing which would show better results.
Despite that, I still find thick A-pillars distracting and somewhat dangerous. A lot can be lost in that A-pillar (pedestrians, etc.)
I think there are often side-curtain air bags in there as well.
Massive A-pillars are a real hazard. There’s one particular T-junction on a daily route of mine where I’ve twice had the experience that as I approach the junction, a car is completely obscured by the pillar, and stays behind it all the way until my last glance, at which point it suddenly “leaps out of nowhere”. Every time I now approach the junction I lean forward to get an unobscured view, and I try to remember to do it elsewhere as well.
I’m sure the A-illars could be trimmed down a bit and still meet all their safety requirements, but “outward vision” is not a criteria in the ANCAP ratings, so it won’t be addressed. Massive B and C pillars, large head restraints and tiny rear windows are part of the same problem, so much so that technology has had to step in with “blind spot warnings”.
Safety-wise, I recognise that older cars have many issues, but it’s so nice to be in a car with decent all-round vision.
As far as car safety they have gone to the survivability mode rather than avoidance. To me this gives many drivers a mentality that I can survive anything and then drive in a manner that is less than safe. Sure the death rate is down but I am sure the accident rate is way up today.
If that’s true, it seems like a good trade to me.
Soon after getting my ’63 Electra convertible I found the pillars could hide a double rig semi, but under exact conditions. I had the top down so expected near perfect vision. I was alone and not used to the car yet, I stopped at a stop sign to a major road, I thought I was stopped completely, and I had, but didn’t have enough pressure on the brake pedal. The Electra was only moving fractions of an inch, but scanning back and forth my movement and the semi approaching at 55 mph made the entire rig invisible behind a 5-6 inch pillar. I was going to pull out, but a blast of truck air horns stopped me, and it became visible a second later. EVERY stop in the decades since then in the Electra, I lean forward AND back behind the pillar a couple of times to make sure nothing is hidden. My ’64-65 Riviera’s are identical to the Electra so I use the same technique. My Mopars on the other hand wrapped the top AND bottom of each windshield corner, moving the pillar back far enough on the Normal Mopars (56 Desoto, ’57 Plymouths, but the 64-66 Imperails windshield are unlike any other cars I’ve been in (and were so from 1957-1966) The windshield is so large and wraps so far around and up there is nothing blocking vision
A-Pillar growth is a direct result of revised roof-crush standards the U.S. government implemented around 2000/2001. The new standards basically dictate that a car that rolls over should be able to stand on its roof without crushing inward. It takes much thicker pillars to meet the standards.
The new roof crush standards are also to blame for gunslit windows. Designers wanted them for years, but with the new standards, shortening the pillar length went a long way toward stopping the pillars from folding over during a rollover.
Fun fact-back in the 1960s Ford tested rollovers by parking the car sideways on top of a hill and having a couple of stout guys flip it so it would roll down the hill. Now, they have a huge machine that they load a car into that just applies pressure until the structure fails. The machine is really cool to watch, but I imagine rolling the car down the hill had a certain satisfaction, too.
I liked the originals because the engine wasn’t buried under the ‘cab-forward’ styling adopted by the later Chrysler minivans, and just about everything else today. Supposedly, the tranny issues started when they went to the UltraDrive.
But my brother bought a low-miles ’84 Voyager and his tranny was toast after 2 months!
Happy Motoring, Mark
In your list of cars that you believe have morphed over time more than the Caravan, Jason, I’m surprised to see the Camry listed. Sure, it’s evolved … along with cars in general … to be bigger and fancier, but I’d say that’s no different than the evolution of the Caravan all the way to the Pacifica. The sedan that does belong on that list is the Accord.
More than a few “Camry Knockers” on this site.
It’s such a reliable trigger word 🙂
I see where you are coming from. My thought was simply those that, over time, grew considerably or changed their mission in some way. The Accord likely is a better choice as it has indeed changed significantly along the way.
Agree! Other than supreme reliability and outstanding quality control; today’s Honda Accord shares very little with the earlier models.
IMO the Camry is still very close to it’s original concept.
Apart from an ’87-’90 Grand Voyager SE I see from time to time, first generation Chrysler minivans are all but gone in southeast Massachusetts. The last other one I can remember seeing was this Caravan LE two years ago while driving, making for the less than perfect picture.
The newer Caravan feels more imposing somehow simply because its headlights are up higher. The lower headlights on the original Caravan makes it seem lower to the ground.
That was my first takeaway from comparing these two as well — the bumper on the newer Caravan is at the same height as the high-beams on the ’84. To me, it looks like the Chrysler folks tried real hard to make the minivan look intimidating.
That photo reminds me of this article (which, full disclosure, I wrote in 2009)
Good article!
I’ll echo: great find!
It also occurs to me that one of the most aesthetically pleasing uses of stacked quad sealed-beams was one of the very last – on these first-gen Chrysler minivans.
You’re right. I almost never like stacked square headlights in any form, the results are almost always awkward, but I never even thought of these Caravans as having them, they don’t have that alien look like most have.
I think the stacked rectangular headlights work because of the inherent tall body and short, sloped hood of the minivan. The don’t look as out of place on a vehicle that has a long, mostly horizontal hood. The flush grille helps, too.
Color me surprised as well, I would have thought for sure the new Caravan would dwarf the original like so many modern cars do their 80s predecessors. The side profile may paint a different picture though, the originals were shorter.
Stylistically they haven’t even changed, they went from boxy to very round and back to boxy.
Not too long ago, Car and Driver did a really great comparison of the new Pacifica and the original 1984 Chrysler minivan:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-chrysler-pacifica-vs-1984-plymouth-voyager-comparison-test
I still think the original was great and would love an updated version with modern engineering and features, but in the original 1984 body.
As would I, rudiger!
My high school car was an ’85 Caravan with a 5 speed manual. I haven’t seen any first generation Caravans in the wild in years!
My in-laws had an 84 Voyager which was their third car, only really used when the six of us (my in-laws and my wife and children) went somewhere together. We were able to borrow it at any time, and I did. Like most younger men, I didn’t like the non-sporty vibe the van radiated, but I loved the utility. Even with the 2.6L Mitsu motor, it wasn’t peppy, but it was adequate. It drove like a smaller-tired, less powerful version of my Lancer turbo. But with a far larger cargo capacity.
I sometimes think I’d like to get an original mini, but I think they’ve all been scrapped. Like most family vehicles, they were rode hard and put away wet. Actually, my holy grail for minis is the first year Chrysler Town & Country, with the leather interior. I would still be stuck with a Mitsu motor, but it would be soooo nice.
The reality is, when my Oldsmobile Silhouette croaks, I will probably hunt down a Chrysler minivan of some stripe. They’re way too handy not to have one around.
Great article Daniel! I too am surprised at the closeness in size with the two vans. For some reason knowing that gives me a little warmer feel towards my 03!
I wouldn’t have guessed that the newer vans are so close in size visually to the originals! I’d be curious to see comparable numbers for interior space, leg room, all that jazz to see how different or alike they really are.
And what a cool shot! The first-gen vans here in the salted wastes of Michigan all returned to the Earth long ago. By the late 1990s, they were the hated hand-me-down cars for high schoolers everywhere, and those high schoolers beat the ever-loving snot out of them because that 100 hp motor and the 3-speed Chrysler Clunk of Cuality transmission behind them needed full throttle to so much as move. The rust got the ones the high schoolers didn’t.