In my recent review of the 2018 Kia Sedona, I mentioned that one of the terms of the rental provided by my Kia dealer was that I could not take it out of state. Unfortunately, I had a pressing need to take a van several hundred miles away to collect my daughter and her possessions after a summer internship in North Carolina. My dealer contacted the good people at Enterprise and I was put into another minivan for the weekend.
I wondered for several days what I might get. A different Sedona? One of the now discontinued Nissan Quests? Or maybe I would get to experience one of the newer Siennas or the new Chrysler Pacifica. I got . . . a Grand Caravan.
First thought: “Dammit.” However, as the weekend progressed I came to appreciate the van on its own terms. While it suffers from a number of deficiencies, it still does a thing or two that no other entrant in the segment can do. And it turned out to be a good fit for my trip.
This is still the best selling minivan in the US. Chrysler has found the sweet spot that maximizes utility and low price, something that has added some life to this old girl. How old? The design of this van goes back to the days of Daimler-Chrysler. It hit showrooms during the end of the George W. Bush administration in late 2007. Its toaster-like shape may be the most recognizable in all of minivan-dom. I can find no fault with the styling and actively like the retro style of the D-O-D-G-E lettering across the back. Suddenly it’s 1950.
These 5th generation Mopar vans and I have a little history. My first rental of this style was a Town & Country in the spring of 2010. This was a fairly fresh design then and the van impressed me with its many cool features. This was early in the post-Fiat takeover and Chrysler had dumped some emergency money into the horrid interiors that Daimler/Cerberus had been satisfied with. I drove it for a couple of weeks while I looked for a replacement for my totaled ’96 Odyssey. At the time it seemed like a modern grown-up version of a van compared with my petite little Oddity. This one would have had the old iron V6 (3.3 or 3.8, I no longer recall) and the 5 speed auto.
Next came a Grand Caravan during a 2014 trip to Denver. I. Hated. That. Van. By then I had experienced a 1999 (3rd generation) T&C and my 2012 Sedona, so I had some more relevant experiences to contrast with it. Perhaps this rental had been particularly abused because the body noticeably flexed each time I accellerated or braked from/to a stop. The flex was made impossible to ignore by the weatherstrips around the rear doors that would go “weeeek” every time I started or stopped. I liked the new Pentistar engine but came to hate the transmission. Wonky shift logic and odd-feeling shifts ruined the experience of the very pleasant 3.6 engine. I could not wait to get home to my Sedona and said a prayer of thanks that I had not bought one of these instead.
This van sort of hits a middle ground. At 30k miles, this is not a brand new car, but it is noticeably tighter in structure than my Denver GC four years ago. It still jiggles just a bit (and coaxes the occasional squeak out of the stowed seats) but is not bad. I would rate its structural integrity as a bit behind the new Kia.
Let’s start with the good stuff. The Chrysler 3.6 Pentastar engine has proved to be a home run. Given Chrysler’s recent history I had been leery of investing in one for myself when they were brand new, but my fears have proved unfounded. This thing is strong right from idle and runs its little heart out until over 6k on the tach. It has a bit more power than the Kia’s 3.3 (which should be expected given its displacement advantage), making 283 bhp @6400. But where this one really shines is in its torque. At 260 ft lbs @ 4400, its 12 ft. lb. advantage might not sound like much over the Kia. However, it finds its peak a full 1200 rpm lower.
You would think that an engine this flexible would make whatever transmission that is bolted to it mostly irrellevant. But you would be wrong. Perhaps I am just hard to please, but the characteristics of Chrysler’s 6 speed automatic almost ruined the experience for me. The gear ratios are not bad – mated to a 3:16 final drive ratio, the 4:13 first gear makes pavement rippling almost easy. Direct drive comes in 5th and then there is a big jump to the .69 6th/overdrive. The problem is in getting from one to another of those six forward gears.
Disclosure: I have been in transmission nirvana with my 2012 Sedona, with which I have entered a sort of soul-meld. In other words, it does its job so smoothly and unobtrusively that you neither know nor care which gear you might be in. The Chrysler experience could not be more different. No two shifts feel the same. Some are firm, some are soft and some have a quality I can only describe as crunchy. And you never know which one you are going to get. The shift logic seems only moderately connected to the gas pedal – sometimes it upshifts as you are pressing harder on the pedal, other times it will downshift. If you want a downshift you have to work for it, but when it comes it really grabs your attention. I found this one better than my 2014 experience. That one may have been hampered by high altitude or a vehicle that had taken too many trips up into the mountains. This one was better. Not hugely better, but better is better. Perhaps this wonky shifting will somehow aid in longevity of the unit – Lord knows that the silky shifting 4 speed autos of the 90s had problems that way.
I also didn’t care for the steering. I found it a little vague and requiring much too much effort. I can take vague when corrections are easy, but when you have to put some muscle into moving the steering wheel, I prefer to move that wheel as little as possible on the interstate. The steering requires more effort than my ’12 Sedona and much, much more than the ’18 Sedona.
I also did not care for the driver’s seat. First, is vinyl back in style? Beyond the covering, the seat was shaped in such a way to nestle my body into a hammock-like indentation in the middle. This was not, in itself a problem, but there was an area across the upper part of the seat back which kept some unwanted pressure across the back of my shoulder blades. I think Jim Kline experienced something similar in his recently rented Jeep, so maybe Chrysler’s seat design is more intentional than accidental.
Speaking of seats, it took me a minute to figure out the cryptic 1-2-3-4 instructions on pulling order for the multiplicity of little cloth straps in order to stow the rear seats. I figured it out but the process seems more complicated than it needs to be.
One last gripe – that “key”. When I was a toddler I had a set of big, thick, multi-colored plastic keys to play with. This system takes me back to those days. Insert big dumb child-sized plastic “key” into big dumb child-sized plastic “keyhole” and start the car. I suppose that with longer than a weekend I might develop the knack for quickly opening the right door or getting the passenger door unlocked. But I never got there. In fairness I have whipsawed fairly quickly between three vans with three completely different fobs and starting styles. Give me the simplicity of my own Sedona. Yes, I’m a Luddite.
But enough bitching.
The GC was very sure-footed on the road. It went where I pointed it (though it leaned a bit more than my own does in corners) and handled both smooth and bumpy roads very nicely. There were times on the return trip where I stepped hard on the gas to get away from some troublesome traffic and was surprised to see the needle at the 90 mark. And every time I went for the brakes they did their job straight and fast. Get this van comfortably up into OD on the highway and it does what it does best – eat up miles with lots of confidence and no drama.
This van does some things that others do not. The big one is Stow ‘N Go. I rented this van for cargo. I also used it for taking 5 other adults out for dinner one night. In my own Sedona, the center seats would have been left in my garage for maximum cargo, requiring a second car on the dinner trip. In the new Sedona there would have been less room for cargo due to the folded center seats taking up significant room. However, at least two of those adults would have been more comfortable in the more substantial cushions. Stow N Go makes for compromised seating quality (and it is not all that much easier than my own experience in removing and reinstalling seats) but to go from full cargo to full passenger 700 miles from home – well the Dodge rocks.
The GC also still gives you several thoughtful little touches in things like console storage. This van may be old but its basic layout shows how far ahead of the pack Chrysler was ten years ago.
The van is also giving you a lot of utility for the price. With the advent of the Pacifica, the GC is now the Value Van. This SXT is the top trim line but is a universe away from the luxurious feel of the new high-end Sedona. Automatic headlights are there but a nav system is not. The stereo was decent but fancy bells and whistles were largely absent. Remember how 95% of Buick LeSabres were equipped in the 90s? That’s how this van is equipped now. Most of what you really need, not much of what you don’t.
At 4321 lbs this van is a little on the light side in this day and age. How long will it stay around? Good question, but it was the top-selling minivan in the US so far in 2018.
I began writing this before DougD bought one and gave us some insights into his early experience with it. But not everyone experiences the same highs and lows from a given vehicle. But more data points are better than fewer data points so I offer my experience as a counterpoint. Bottom line? I liked it more than I expected to and after living with the 2018 Sedona for awhile, this is a more useful and versatile minivan. However, I did not like it as much as I wanted to. Which is a shame, because a better shifting transmission and a better front seat design would have made this a really pleasant driver as well.
A thorough review on a minivan that has aged extremely well.
I suspect you are right about your Denver GC not being an optimum example of the breed. My sole experience with these is a ’13 in the pool at work. You do indeed know what gear you are in, and it pulls to the right a shade at 6,000 rpm, but its 3.6 cures any ills. Chrysler has built their most versatile engine since the 318. That is high praise!
My only counterpoint to the GC is the Sienna I rented earlier this year and each had their virtues – and demerits.
In the big scheme of things it seems like it would be hard to go wrong in the current minivan market. Sure, some have some advantages over the others, but it almost seems like once a person factors in everything, it’s as close to a wash as we will ever see. That’s certainly good for the consumer.
Your comparison of the 3.6 with the old 318 is a good one. I was a huge fan of the iron 3.3/3.8 that used to power these. Everyone raves about the durability of the Buick 3.8 but the Chrysler iron V6 was every bit as good (and never suffered from the ills of plastic manifolds and Dexcool). They were like the slant 6.
It seems like Chrysler has built 2 kinds engines over the years – they are either fabulously durable or they are trouble-plagued boat anchors. There seems to be no middle ground.
It is funny that the 3.6 was the biggest reason I ignored these in 2011 (with the 2.7 being a fresh memory) and it is the biggest reason I would consider buying one now.
I’ve had a few GC rentals in the last 3 years or so, most recently a month ago. Very timely, as my wife and I are expecting our first, and with the little one and associated baby-things AND two larger dogs to haul around for trips to inlaws, we’ve got minivans on the mind. I respect the Grand Caravan for offering incredible bang for the buck in the class, with real world prices allowing you to buy a basic one for under $20k, or a very decently equipped one (new) for around $25k. I agree that you feel the platform’s age in overall structural integrity and ride, but again, for the money I can forgive that. I also recently rented a Pacifica Touring-L, and WOW that thing blew me away. It just feels thoroughly modern, very nice to drive, harnesses the Pentastar with the 9-speed very well. I was punching it away from construction zones (55mph->70mph) just to hear that Pentastar sing. And I still got an indicated 29mpg going 75-80mph for 8 hours straight driving from Iowa back to Indiana. The Pacifica trades a bit of interior room, but in every other metric absolutely blows the GC away. With what lightly used Pacificas go for, I’d be hardpressed not to go that route. To be fair I have not sampled the latest Odyssey or Sienna.
Timely article — this past weekend we started test-driving minivans. And as with your previous articles, I’ve found this review to be very insightful.
I think we’ve ruled out the Grand Caravan and Pacifica, largely because my wife’s family had a awful experience with a 1972 Dodge truck, and evidently in her family grudges last about 50 years… and this one against Chrysler hasn’t expired yet. That’s not the sword I’d choose to die on, so I just go along with it.
In any event, we did look at GC’s on the used car lot, but somewhat amusingly our kids found the black interior (identical to your rental here) somewhat creepy. Can’t say I entirely disagree, though.
This past weekend we drove a Sienna. Not bad, though the transmission was awful. Your description of the GC’s shifting applies equally to the Sienna — apparently the ’17-19 Siennas have 8-sp. transmissions that appear to have been rushed to market without anyone making sure they shifted well. It ruined the driving experience for me, and judging from a multitude of online reviews/comments, I’m not alone there.
This coming weekend, we’re going to drive a Kia Sedona, though that’s not perfect either, with its non-removable seats, etc. And I can’t stand the new Odysseys (the outside looks like it was designed by a 5-year old, and the inside looks like it was designed by Darth Vader).
Really — how hard can it be to make a minivan? Each one of the 5 current minivans offers some pretty significant compromises. Grr.
I suppose there’s always the passenger version of the Transit Connect? Are there still any Nissan dealers with leftover Quests?
Family brand grudges are kind of funny. Chrysler has been something like 3 different companies since 1972. The Pacifica seems to be a really nice vehicle, an impression boltered by gtemnyk above. My sister just bought a new Wrangler Unlimited and told me something about a “forever” warranty. I am sure that there is plenty of fine print, and even so, if Mama isn’t going to sleep nights with the thing in the garage it doesn’t matter how good the warranty is. Yup, I get it.
Eric I’d say you guys are doing yourselves a disservice to not at least test drive a Pacifica. Just tell your wife “well it’s not a Dodge, it’s a Chrysler!”
Gtemnykh, you know how this works. Every single Pacifica built will be like the best Dodge Dart ever, running up crazy high miles with almost no repairs. Except the one Eric would get. It would be in the shop every third week and would start an ugly chain of events that would end in a divorce court. 🙂
haha yeah honestly I wouldn’t bet a happy marriage over a relatively untested FCA product, no way, no how. I’d be running straight into the arms of a certified-pre-owned Sienna with the older 6 speed auto!
I know — and depending on how our upcoming Sedona test drive goes, we might just visit a Chrysler dealer for a comparison. Your experiences above are similar to others I’ve read about the Pacifica. I do hope to drive one at some point.
Transit Connect is way too small for our purposes — and from what I can tell the last new Quests have already been sold (of course, THAT was an awkward-looking vehicle if I’ve ever seen one!).
Eric, considering how long your wife and her brother keep vehicles, and how that gene came from somewhere, is it because that ’72 Dodge lasted only 20 years instead of 30???
Ha! To convey to you the enormity of the Dodge Truck fiasco, Margaret says that her dad only kept it only for 2 years… a family record. She says the Grudge is still a decade or two from dying out.
In May when my 2005 Town & Country set itself ablaze, USAA and Enterprise were kind enough to give me a black on black leather with red stitching one of these in GT trim for a week. Wow, did I like it!. Driving dynamics were good with plenty of power. It was a little shift crazy and the ignition key was an outdated left over from the MB days. At $32k sticker, I expected a little more from from this “Man Van” but found it far superior to a SUV with 4wd that I’ll never use. Too bad minivans are out of style
I know several people that have these and love them, but I have also heard many negative comments about them. When we purchased our minivan last year, I was tempted by the GC’s great prices, but I still didn’t actually consider one for two main reasons: (1.) fuel economy is a few MPGs below the current frontrunners. Coming from small, fuel-efficient vehicles (my wife’s trade was a 2011 Elantra), and doing a lot of driving, any minivan would be a tough adjustment. (2.) while not an unsafe vehicle, the crash tests yielded poorer results than the competition, which means a lot. Add to that my worries–which I admit may be unfounded–about Chrysler reliability, resale value, and FCA’s future (or at least the future of the Dodge brand), and it seemed more logical to go in another direction.
Nevertheless, there are things to like about this vehicle, and I can definitely get behind the idea of a cheaper, simpler minivan. I grew up with a 2nd-gen Caravan in our garage, and it was an excellent vehicle. So Chrysler minivans, in whatever shape, will always have some level of appeal to me even when they’re not class-leaders.
Great review JP! I have to take pause with your comments about the driver’s seat and the apparent impingement on the shoulders. I’m afraid that might be a bit of a show stopper for many, after all, which seat is always occupied when the thing is being driven? I have a similar complaint about my 2010 Ford Escape. I can’t stand the lean-forward headrests. When I tried to remove one, I learned they don’t come out. You can’t lean them back either, so you are stuck with it. I like to keep my vehicles for several years, so the driver’s seating position has to be paramount.
That forward-leaning headrest has become a bit of an irritant to me in the 2018 Sedona (which I am still driving, btw.) My 2012 Sedona has headrests that are adjustable fore and aft with three positions. One more reason I am starting to pine for the return of my old van.
I feel qualified to comment here- I have a ‘10 T&C and my wife has a ‘16. My van has 160k on it, and all I’ve had to do to it so far are brakes and the rear AC condenser. Oh, I hit a deer with it, too… Mine is the bottom model, so it doesn’t have any bells and whistles. I’m not at all into any of that stuff though, so I don’t miss it. My wife’s van is the top-0-the line one, so it’s auto and power everything. Which bugs me, but nothing has broken on it. Oh, we got the trailer package on her van, so we could pull a camper with it-It’s got close to 70k on it now, with nary a hiccup. I think the brakes on hers are bigger than on my van, since it takes a lot less effort to stop (and it stopped with the camper behind it just fine, too) My van has the 3.3/4 speed, and it feels really anemic after driving her van with its 3.6. I HAAAATE the way hers shifts, though-mine is completely unobtrusive, and hers feels like it’s in the wrong gear pretty much all the time. My van is the first vehicle I’ve owned with an automatic though, so I may be more sensetive than most. Hers moves right out, despite the weird shifting program though, and pulled a 3000# camper (and all 6 of us) with absolutely no issues, though- I put 6 people in my van and it feels like it would have trouble going up hills… I grew up in the 70’s/80’s so underpowered vehicles were the norm, and I’ve had a few so my van doesn’t bother me all that much. I do wish mine had the 3.6 though….
Oh yeah, MPG. My van struggles to reach 20 mpg. My wife’s van, with over 100 extra HP (and every conceivable option) knocks off 25mpg effortlessly, and we’ve seen 29 on trips with all of us in it. The current vans are better than the older ones in just about every way! Now, if I could just get a proper 5-speed manual in one, it would be perfect (and yes, I know I’m one of about four people nationwide that thinks that…
Good point on the trailer. In our 2015 our popup trailer is hardly noticeable. We can blast up the long grades on the 400 between Toronto and Barrie keeping up with traffic. In the 3.3 equipped 2007 we would huddle in the slow lane as speed dropped to 80 km/hr.
And the brakes are great now that I replaced the front discs. In the old van it was always a bit Whhhooooaaahhhh!!! to slow down quickly.
Here’s the oil filter BTW
FWIW, Chrysler made some kind of minor change to the 3.6L cartridge oil filter in, say, 2013. The before and after filters look similar.
I don’t know what they changed, but they’re definitely not interchangeable, and I’ve wondered how many 3.6L engines have been fouled-up due to having the wrong oil filter installed.
You really highlight the tradeoff in these. I had the 3.3 in my 99 T&C and I agree that it could have used more power. I made peace with it given my respect for its durability, but wished I had the 3.8. And you reaffirm my memory of how smoothly the old 4 speed auto was (although it was not all that durable for much of its life). So we get a choice – great shifting in a van down on power? Or unpleasant shifting in a van with one of the sweetest engines ever. It is a tough choice for those buying used.
You better have a good transmission cooler (ought to come standard with the towing package) when pulling that camper–that thing’s 600 pounds under the maximum tow rating! Are there any issues with weight distribution (I imagine there are without the correct hitch)? I was amazed to learn that my Aerostar and my brother’s ’01 Ranger BOTH had transmission coolers already installed even without factory trailer hitches; mine was a REESE Towpower receiver & needed extra holes drilled into the van’s frame for installation. I think the cooler was a standard feature with the pushrod AND SOHC versions of the 4.0 Cologne–it would have to be in order to handle all that torque! Too bad even the cooler wasn’t able to save my transmission from eventual failure. It’s nice to know the Grand Caravan still has a life for the foreseeable future, especially for budget-minded families.
I’ve been waiting for this one. Most of your review I agree with 100%.
The transmission remains a source of annoyance. I find myself wondering “how can there be so many gears yet the gaps between them are so big?”. I am making good use of the manual shift function, in town I limit it to 4th gear and on open roads to 5th, just to avoid being 2 or 3 gears away from where I want to be when accelerating.
Seat comfort is no problem for us. However you have to look at where we’re coming from, our 2007 base Caravan seats were a bit sacked out and our 2013 Focus is quite uncomfortable on long trips so the GC is an improvement.
I changed the oil on the GC for the first time this weekend, the plastic cover on the engine is a convenient spot to place tools, but it was a bit of a comedy of errors.
The GC uses about 6.5 liters of oil, and the used oil almost overflowed my drain pan. Then I spilled new oil on the accessory drive belt because the oil fill is right next to it.
Then I spilled old oil all over trying to empy the overfilled drain pan. Also the oil filter is that newfangled cartridge type, actually not that new since my 1993 motorcycle and my former 1962 TR4 had cartridges. A bit weird and of course drips oil on the motor because it comes out from the top.
Hopefully the next oil change will be smoother…
So you are saying that your new van is a well-oiled machine? 🙂
I had a cartridge filter in my 59 Fury with the wideblock 318. In the late 70s I had to call ahead to make sure a parts store had one in stock. I had no idea how futuristic my car was.
Cartridges are here to stay I think and if well designed work good. The ’02 Porsche has one and you spin the case off and lower that. The case stays full of oil oriented correctly (open at top) so you just drop it down onto the drain pan, then pull the cartridge off the bottom of the engine.
The Mercedes had it accessible from the top but IIRC only a short top cap came off and then the cartridge lifts out the top. The oil has already drained down into the engine at that point (or out the drain hole?) so there was zero mess (well, except for the time my drain pan hole was clogged so eight quarts of oil overflowed and ended up on the garage floor…). But hey, no mess from the cartridge!
I haven’t done the one on the Jeep yet but it’s at the top as well, I keep getting sent enough coupons from the dealer to just have them do it.
And I have no idea what the Highlander has. I assume it’s a cartridge too, the dealer has been doing that one as well.
It sounds like a funnel and an old rag would be helpful items to put at the top of your Christmas list… 🙂
Ah the cartridge oil filter. You have not done a cartridge filter oil change until you did a oil change on the GM Iron Duke. There is no unmessy way of changing that oil filter.
A rented GC a few years ago was the only minivan I ever drove that I not only didn’t hate, but sort of liked. I’d own one. That’s saying a lot.
Our fleet manager scored a couple of new GCs for under $15k. They’re used as airport pool vehicles so no assigned driver. I drove one for a few days while my company Chevy was in the shop. I hadn’t driven a GC since my 4th gen was replaced by the Chevy. The one I drew already had 20k+ miles, so it was well broken in. I remember (always a bit risky at my age) my 4th gen as being somehow smoother and tighter, but it was a more upscale 4wd Sport (what a misnomer) with the 3.8.
These SXT 5th gen GCs may be a bit decontented, but they sure seem like a lot of vehicle for the buck. It did what it was supposed to and I didn’t notice any major vices – and that includes how the tranny shifted.
My nephew just paid $35k for a new Odyssey. Is it a nicer van than the GC? Unquestionably. At more than twice the price, is it more than twice as nice? No way. If I needed a van, my internal wiring would never let me get over the price premium.
Since this is or was AMC week, let me try to make the unlikely tie-in of the GC to a Rambler.
As a young man, I was embarrassed by the procession of used Ramblers that lurked in our garage. Looking at my own reaction to GC prices, I finally understand what the old man saw in his Ramblers. In fact, I think I’ve turned into him.
As far as price goes, my ‘10 was 1.5 years old/10k miles on it when I bought it. For 14k. My wife’s van was north of 35k brand-new… and I can’t say hers was more than 2 times better… I think I totally turned into my dad, the king of no AC, rubber-floor-mat, radio-delete buying people…
Interesting reading for me. I didn’t even realize that the GC and Pacifica are different platforms; when I saw the lead picture I thought JPC got an old van as a rental. Re: automatic shift logic. The worst thing about my 6 speed Tacoma. The new high-HP and high MPG V6’es with torque peak at higher rpm seem tricky in this regard, and judging by comments, Toyota doesn’t quite have the touch of Kia or others.
Finally, the return to cartridge oil filters … both our cars have them now (as does my Suzuki DR650, designed in the days when all bikes had ‘em). The Golf’s is located up front and center next to the engine, as easy to reach as the oil filler, removable with a standard socket, and my one oil change so far was painless and dripfree. The Tacoma’s is under the engine, requires a special tool, and made a BIG mess when I finally did it myself after the dealer-included service ended. And yes, with these 6+ qt capacities, I need to upgrade my 40 year old drain pan. So now my Ducati is the only vehicle I own with a spin-on.
I have to say these have grown on me tremendously, especially the understated and literally going on “timeless” styling.
Were you aware of the name of the color on this test rig: “White Knuckle”. I kid you not, it’s the best name I think I’ve ever seen for a minivan color, someone has a great sense of humor.
The engine is a peach as I’ve (and other here have) said before. The couple of rentals I’ve driven the body and structure was a bit flimsy/creaky relative to newer competitors but the pricing is certainly right.
Mopar’s “forever” warranty runs somewhere between $2500 and $3500, IIRC, and does cover pretty much everything bt includes a (smallish) deductible , the caveat being that it won’t keep it running literally forever, the fine print states that once the value of the van drops below whatever the repair it needs costs, they can I think buy it from you instead at that market value (trade-in value? Not sure who comes up with the value). And I assume those are based on parts LIST prices. So if the tranny for example craps out at 135k miles and the van is otherwise a little beat on, who knows, it might become advantageous to rebuilt it on your dime…On a Jeep the big debate is making sure that your dealer isn’t concerned with any modifications in regard to the warranty (Mopar DOES seem to cancel or deny coverage based on that), but on a van that’s obviously unlikely to be an issue.
I Uber’ed myself to work this morning in a Chrysler T&C. Was just awful. My ’83 Ford Ranger 4X4 rides nicer, and the road noise was absolutely deafening. My Ranger is a ’68 LTD Country Squire by comparison. And people buy these shitboxes why? On a side note, the Dodge Avenger I rode in last week was a really nice riding and quiet machine.
Great review and comments so far. As you older CC-ers know, we’re on our fifth Chrysler platform minivan, a 2012 Routan SEL. We’ve never owned any other brands, and my experience driving other minivans is limited to a Toyota Van and Previa many years ago. We had two ’98s, a Caravan that was totaled and a GC that made it to almost 280K miles before the transmission died. Then had a ’06 GC that was totaled by a direct lightning strike, followed by an ’05 T&C.
The 3.3/4 speed was a great combination in the 3rd gen vehicles, and never really felt underpowered. Both 4th gens had the 3.8, and both were fine road trip vans, albeit with slightly reduced fuel economy and a significantly cost-reduced experience compared with the earlier vans.
The Routan has the 3.6/6 speed, and every bad thing mentioned above about the shift programming is true. The transmission alone ruins what would otherwise be a great vehicle. Our van has the larger brakes (good), and the 3.6 delivers an easy 30 mpg on the highway (my wife has managed as high as 34 mpg on a tank). The interior is a nice warm grey two-tone, with leather seats. The Routan didn’t get center stow-n-go, but the captains chairs do fold up and a long table can be slide between them.
We have about 115K miles on the Routan at this point, with the transmission really being the only negative. From experience, I’m expecting to need to replace front sway bar bushings soon, but there haven’t been any mechanical issues to speak of yet.
Beth has indicated she’s in no hurry to replace it, so who knows what will be on the market in 3-5 years when it hits 200K…
Oh, I also meant to add that the Routan got more “European-like” handling, and ours is actually somewhat enjoyable in the twisties.
My understanding is that Chrysler/FCA adopted the Routan suspension tuning when they refreshed the GC with the 3.6L in 2011(?)
I drove all the minivans in 2016 when I wrecked my 06 caravan with 232000 trouble free miles. I looked at base trim minivans because I can open a door myself and power doors are just something to expensively break. The quest had no advantages over the competition and seemed smaller inside and was somewhat expensive. The sienna felt weirdly junky with rattles and a loose, floppy feeling and a feeling of poorly attached pieces.
The Odyssey was ok prior to its recent restyling in which it went from homely and questionable to flat eyewateringly hideous, but it was missing a few mins and minor features compared with the Chrysler products. The grand caravan was cheap, but the cowl is higher than the Pacifica, the stow and go is a lot less comfortable, although I rarely carry passengers in the back seats, it jiggled and didn’t ride as well, and it weighs 300 lbs more than the Pacifica and felt noticeably less athletic. the Pacifica is nicer on the inside with lots of useful bins and cubbies and a high quality, futuristic interior and exterior. The cloth in the Pacifica is not as nice as the grand caravan. The price difference between the grand caravan and Pacifica narrows if you want the standard rear air and standard second row opening windows in the Pacifica. The Pacifica is much quieter, more composed, and less rattly and flexy than the caravan. The Pacifica does not come with a spare Tyre or jack, and I had to buy one, and it irritatingly does not have a CD player. Currently I have 49000 miles on the Pacifica with the only trouble from the stupid stop/start system. I bought the lifetime Chrysler warranty for 2945, and a friend I recommended purchase said lifetime warranty had the transmission replaced on his charger this summer at no cost despite the fact that he had neglected to have it dealt with when it was showing signs of trouble, so the Chrysler extended warranty is worth it assuming Chrysler exists long enough to make it worth it. I drive 40k+ miles a year, so I think it is.
I too had the fortunate luck to experience a Grand Caravan, last year when my car was getting fixed from being wounded, My dad and I went to Enterprise for a rental car, and the final two choices on the lot were this and a white, convertible, V6 Mustang. I chose this because it was the lesser of two evils. Of course, mine was different from yours, but my thoughts were nevertheless the same. I did like it more than I initially thought I would, and for what it did, it was serviceable, just not enough to muster up anything more than “average.”
Of course, that had to be traded in, because my father, ever the one to save a pretty penny, decided to swap it out for a CVT equipped Toyota Corolla. But, that’s a story, for another day.
You know you are a true CC’er when you willingly choose a rental minivan over a rental convertible Mustang. No more than 1% of the general population does that. And then go back to trade that for a Corolla, thus putting you in a true minority!
I had one of these as a rental for a day a few months back. Compared to my 2016 odyssey exl it was a step below but it was expected. For the price the GC can’t be beat but there are small tradeoffs. No push button start, ride isn’t as good, drivetrain isn’t as smooth, seats aren’t as comfortable, dated design, etc but nothings bad and for volume/$ it’s the best buy out there as far as family transportation goes.
“No push button start”
I still can’t fully wrap my mind around the appeal of this feature. And before anyone calls me a crusty old codger I’m 29 years old.
My 1950 Ford 8N tractor must have been years ahead of its time!
My wife’s van has the push button and mine doesn’t. I really don’t like hers, because it seems like 4 extra steps to start/stop. Plus, what do you do with the key (it has to stay within so many feet of the vehicle to be able to start it) I got stuck at the gas station once, because I brought MY keys (our fobs look identical) and once I shut the van off, I couldn’t restart it! Apparently where we hang the keys by our garage door, was close enough to start the van, but as soon as I pulled out of the garage, I couldn’t shut it down again and be able to restart it. Grr. My wife had to pack the kids up and come rescue me And yes, I marked my key fob so I didn’t make that mistake again!
And, yes I’m a Luddite who doesn’t see the point of “toys” like the push button.
I have to disagree on this. I love my push button start. The key never leaves my pocket.
I loathe, however, auto-stop and restart. I can’t imagine how much that shortens the lifespan of your starter and battery.
I don’t see how “push button start” is in any way, shape, or form a “trade-off” or a demerit. Ridiculous.
After driving a new 2009 GC back in the day I was surprised to see how cheaply it was made. Weird interior color coordination on a 2012 I looked at too. White console with a black dash and really poor quality materials. Still think my 2005 T&C rode and drove better than the next gen. Trans was smooth shifting and the 3.8 had plenty of go. Nobody has mentioned the two ways that generation appear on the road today. Either rusted out to heck at the front of the rear wheel openings and slider bottoms or pristine. Every one I see in Sunset Pearl Bronze falls into the later category!
That’s basically the story across the entire auto industry. It seems like the 90s were a sort of sweet spot for nice interior materials and it was all down hill from there (although many mid-late 1990s GMs were pretty horrid). The Japanese went the same direction. I remember a friends’ ’98 Caravan SE, it had a really nice velour, super comfy seats, and all sorts of handy interior features.
Interesting comments on the transmission programming. The ProMaster has the same engine and a “beefed up” version of the same trans as the Grand Caravan. Yet I haven’t seen any similar complaints about the PM. The PM I tried out seemed to shift just when I thought it should and I HATE automatics. Any other observations on the ProMaster trans programming? Paul?
My ‘15 RAM 2500 has the 6 speed 66rfe automatic, and its programming is just as bad as the Routan’s I mentioned above. At least it has a tow mode that makes it behave more like the old 4 speed (it uses all but 6th gear in my case, and holds on longer before shifting).
Just got back tonight from our first longer trip in the Promaster: 1400+ miles in 7 days, through the mountains and deserts of Eastern Oregon. More to come…
As to the transmission, i find it reasonably ok all things considered. Undoubtedly the heavier weight and lower (higher numerical) gearing are part of that equation. And perhaps it’s the kind of driving: highways, mountains, and rough back roads, not the typical daily suburban/urban driving most folks do with their minivans.
The automatic speed hold function when going downhill (with cruise control off) is very aggressive. it’s nice in a way, but it’s too intrusive, because it doesn’t let the van speed up naturally on a downgrade, as i would prefer, to take advantage of its momentum. One has to give it some throttle to break that function. Also, the manual shift mode does not give one enough true control; it will still hold a lower gear on a long grade. That bugged me some.
Needless to say, when it gets to 6 or more gears, it’s not always automatic heaven. But I can’t really complain, but then I also don’t have a frame of reference in terms of a similar sized vehicle. I rented a Transit van a few years back, but it was just a pure flat freeway run to Portland and back, and I don’t have enough impressions in my memory to compare.
I’m reasonably happy with it.
I wonder if the transmission gear hunt can be rectified with a updated software push?
I like this model of Caravan. I hated the egg shape of the 3rd and 4th gen(the 4th gen looked just like the 3rd gen with a few minor changes) I like the 84-90 and 91-95 version of that van.
In a way this van does look a lot like my 1997 Pontiac Trans Sport. The U Van was designed by GM to mimic the 91-95 Dodge Caravan. It goes to show that the shape of the 84-90 and 91-95 Caravan was a timeless design.
I am happy with my U Van. It has 126,983 miles on it now and it still is running well and drives smoothly.
The 3400 V6 is not a rocket but is more then enough to motivate the metal on the highway.
I’ll wait until I’m out of warranty on my truck to try it, but it sounds like an aftermarket “tune” on the ECM can make the shift programming much better.
I don’t think anyone offers tuners for the GC, though.
I meant by the dealership. The GC has a computer controlled transmission
I recently got a software upgrade on my 2011 Chevy Colorado and it shifted a whole lot better.
Another great honest review, and an interesting contrast to Doug D’s recent review of this car.
The Grand Caravan is one of those car I’ve become so used to being there while not really noticing it, that I’ve forgotten just how long it’s been around. I remember sitting in these when they first came out at the 2007 Auto Show, back when Swivel-N-Go was their buzz word and the Town & Country came with that horrendous orange-colored peel-n-stick wood trim.
Swivel-N-Go? I’ve never heard this from Chrysler at all before! Typo? I only ask because Chrysler never had anything by this name in 2007.
Stow-N-Go was introduced before this Generation even came out. It was introduced on the 2001-2006 Gen IV vans.
Just came back from a cottage trip with my buddy’s 2014 Crew. We had four fatties on board and a full load, and still averaged around 30 MPG imperial. We kept the tranny in Eco mode, and I will agree with the comments in that it loses speed quickly on the uphill sections. and then roars away as it drops gears.
The GC’s transmission behavior seems to be exacerbated by using Eco mode, and may actually do damage over the long-term, which would not be offset by the relatively minor benefit in fuel mileage.
We saw no mpg benefit to ECO mode, and even worse shift behavior (plus hard, jolting shifts). It’s been turned off since about three months after we bought ours.
The Fiat-era redo of the RT-generation Grand Caravan and Town & Country occurred in 2011. That was when they gave both models drastic facelifts and re-did their interiors. The only major components of the interior that were kept the same were the head units. That’s also when the engine changeover happened, moving from the 3.3-liter, 3.8-liter, and 4.0-liter V6s to the then-new 3.6-liter Pentastar V6. Also, the RT minivans never had a 5-speed automatic. It was always a 6-speed, and it’s been the same since they were offered in 2008.
Strangely, the badge-engineered Volkswagen Routan did not receive any of the revised interior components apart from a new steering wheel that included the new wheel buttons.
So if the one you rented had the revised interior in 2010, it would have been an early-production 2011 model with the 3.6-liter as well. If it was a 2008-2010, it could have had the 3.3, 3.8 or 4.0-liter V6 engines.
As for the key, it’s a holdover from the DaimlerChrysler era, and is identical in operation to a Mercedes-Benz key. The only other current FCA vehicle that uses it is the outgoing generation of RAM, and only in the lesser-equipped versions that don’t have a smart key.
Thank you for also bringing to light the key being a Daimler piece.
How much to bet that had this been a three-pointed star vehicle instead of five that the key would have never even been mentioned, or even more possibly, praised?
Some of the snarky things written on some details are delightful when you counter with truthful points. People hate that! Don’t interfere with their fantasy of things with facts! The horror!
The 3.6 Pentastar V6 is one of the best things about FCA
I think the Pacifica is worth the extra money over the GC largely because all of the problem areas you discussed have been remediated – the 9 speed transmission is smoother, the front seats are more comfortable, the stow-n-go 2nd row is more comfortable, both the 2nd and 3rd rows are easier to fold, the steering has better feel, and everything just feels more upscale and modern. And let’s not forget perfect results in both the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests, as well as far more up-to-date safety tech features.
I happen to also love the Pacifica’s styling, inside and out. It’s not just good-looking for a minivan, it’s good looking for any vehicle.
It’s the exact same keyless fob that many Mercedes-Benz vehicles of similar vintage have.
That means the description of the Dodge’s fob fits the MB’s to a “T”.