A whole lotta lovin’ was heaped on the Gen-1 Voyager/Caravan the other day, and the comments made for great reading. A common theme, backed by our own experience (that’s us in late 2000, with our ’98 Caravan in the background), is that the Gen-3 minivans represent the very pinnacle of development for Chrysler’s popular people haulers.
Our own experience includes a pair of third-generation vans (the ’98 Caravan in the top picture was totaled, and was replaced by the red ’98 Grand in the above photo), as well as a pair of Gen-4 vans: the above-pictured ’06 GC –which was totaled by a lightning strike–and the ’05 T&C (pictured below) that replaced it. Also, we drove a borrowed first-generation Caravan with the turbo four during the couple of months we looked for the Caravan’s replacement.
The Gen-1 was quite serviceable, but its K-Car roots were very much in evidence. Our Gen-3s were easily two of the best vehicles we’ve ever owned (Son number two still drives the ’98 GC, which currently has 270,000 miles on it). The ergonomics, materials, fit and finish were all top notch, and the smooth 3.3-liter V6 has proven to be in the same league as the venerable Chrysler Slant Six. Our Gen-4s are okay, despite Daimler-era cost cutting being very much in evidence. Surfaces that would have had nice cloth or leatherette touches in the Gen-3s now have hard plastic or cheezy carbon-fiber “accents,” and the ergonomics, which were so excellent in the Gen-3s, apparently changed for the worse “just because we could.”
During the purchase process of our ’13 Beetle Convertible, we took time to look at a Gen-5 GC, and while the quality of materials and finish seem to be moving up, the interior, as often lamented here, is very cold, sterile and cave-like, without the warmth of the Gen-3 vans.
I read a while back that Chrysler was going to try to reposition the T&C van as a truly high-end version, with better materials and finishes versus the GC, but they’re going to have to try a bit harder if they want to get there, in my opinion. Thus, I now officially crown the Gen-3 Grand Caravan as “Peak Minivan!”
I bought a ’95 Generation 2 Caravan about 1 month before Generation 3 came out. I should have waited a few more months. I missed out on the best one!
Actually, you would have wanted to wait for the ’98, when the improved electronic transmission was available. The early transmissions were pretty bad – we knew several folks who had them fail on 3-6 month old vans… Never had a lick of trouble with either of our ’98s.
OK I don’t feel quite so bad then. I did get 120K miles out of the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 my Generation 2 had.
I second the motion of naming the Gen 3 as best Mopar minivan. Having driven examples of all three, my thoughts echo yours.
One item I recently discovered in a new ’13 Caravan with the 3.6 is that it has pretty bad torque steer at around 6000 rpm, although it can hold its own against an early ’00’s Mustang GT.
I had never spent time in a ChryCo minivan until I bought an old, high mile 99 T&C for not very much money. Even at nearly 200k, I could suddenly see what all the fuss was about. It was a tight, solid cruiser that was loaded with cool little touches that I had never had in a car or van before. I bought it to replace a 96 Odyssey that got totaled in an accident. The Ody was more trouble-free, but it was slower, and not nearly so nice to live with.
I drove it about 20K before something in the tranny broke (it had been shifting like a champ right up to the end). I still see a lot of these running around as beaters, hauling either tradesmen or families. A good nomination. If everything Chrysler did in this era came out as good as these, they would have retained a lot better reputation.
It’s a tossup, Gen3 and Gen4.
I owned one G4 and two G3s; and my employer (an Eastern railroad) used a shuttle service that owned a fleet of these, both generations. The G3 passenger seats, the individual buckets with the center aisle…were about as comfortable for an adult as I’d ever experienced in a car. The G4s seats were stripped of padding and contoured for easy folding and removal – not use. The reclining feature on backseat buckets was ash-canned also.
As driver’s cars…I much preferred the dash of the Gen3. The cowl in relation to the seat was a bit lower as well. But both had comfortable driving positions…that may only apply to my Town & Country, a new 2007 I bought with a heavy discount in 2008. Perhaps lower lines had lesser seating.
The 2007 seemed to have tighter controls; but of course that may be because the 2007 was a new car, while both my G3s were well-worn used runners.
According to what I’d read, crashworthiness for the G3 was marginal for front-seat occupants. The Daimler versions got much higher ratings. Repositioned airbags? I do not know.
In any event…for my tastes and needs, as an older owner who looks for utility first…there has never been and probably WILL never be, a better car line than these.
My parents bought a brand new ’94 Plymouth Voyager SE to replace out ’87 Astro van that my mom hated. It was green & was the “10 year Limited Edition” version.
It was the worst car they’ve ever had. (& they have owned dual-Pinto wagons at one point)
I am sorry to offend mini-van owners but I do not bookmark this site because of mini-van or van nostalgia. The Ford Windstar is horrible; the Chryslers are; VW vans are; the Corvan is; the Econoline is; the Chevy Astro is; the Toyota Sienna is; the Honda Odyssey is; the Pontiac Aztec is. They are all horrible and uninteresting to car people. They all lack that special combination of fun, performance, looks, charm, thrill, romance and owner pride (none of them have any of these qualities) that we can get from cars, motorcycles, pick ups and bicycles we have owned. I simply can not imagine that any of the style and performance loving reader here could look back fondly at mini-vans that he or his family has owned.
The mini-van is the antithesis of all that good stuff that made that ’60 DeSoto coupe such a pleasure to the original owners, to the current owners and to this site’s readers. So much élan! The Chrysler mini-van has negative élan in all aspects.
Station wagons – yes! But please, no more mini-vans. Ever.
Every man to his taste.
What appeals to one owner…may not to another. Take the Corvette….please! take it! Swoopy styling…rumble out the glasspacks. Advertisement for virility.
What do I, a mid-fifties male, need with such a car? An old fart in a Corvette…is still an old fart. Vision-bending acceleration is thrilling. So is buying the gas needed, at $4 a gallon.
Even more thrilling is trying to put a typical ration of luggage, tools, or groceries into such a car. And, the final thrill…is getting OUT of that car, with arthritic hips. What the bloody hell…?
Who needs it?
A lot of young men think they do. Who am I to tell them they don’t? But what excites me with the minivan, is when project-material or quantity of “stuff” fits right in. When I can set up my cot and sleep in back, and save $70 on a motel room. When I can slip right in without having to jackknife my midsection.
And the style on these…it’s beyond what was done ever before with a car of this size and capacity.
I agree except for your last statement…GM dustbusters and Previa broke the ground in minivan style. The Chryslers were better looking and better vans in my opinion, but certainly not very far beyond, if at all, what had already been done. They just did it better as a complete package.
The Previa still looks fresh to this day – I’d place it at the top of my list from a purely styling standpoint.
I know a family who bought a 88 caravan bran new and they still have and hqve restored it back to how it was when they bought it, I can say that this man has fond memories of his van. The last time I seen this van it had north of 400k km on the clock and was getting its third transmission at a friends shop.
I myself can say that when the dustbusters came out I was twelve and I really like their oddness and style. My mother and grandfather both bought 91 transports and loved them enough to both buy 98 transports again.
This site has always focused on the mundane, common, and unusual. Not collector-grade cars. These vans were important in terms of automotive history.
Note CC’s motto: Every car has a story. That includes minivans, trucks and other wheeled vehicles. We’ve even done planes, trains and boats. So, we have had and will continue to have nearly everything on wheels here on CC.
+1
I’m as big a car guy as you’ll meet and I definitely have fond minivan memories, lots of good times. Performance is much more than just power, speed, and handling, it is also about how something performs its mission. A minivan can excel at carrying 7-8 people in comfort and harmony better than a station wagon…but a modern minivan can also embarrass many older vehicles in acceleration and handling. Almost everyone who derides minivans as useless has never owned one.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and free to express himself. That being said, we can’t eschew vehicles based on whatever feelings people may have.
When my brothers and I were growing up, my parents had a couple of the GM B wagons. When the 1st gen Chrysler minivan came out, their initial reaction was that driving a van was far too undignified, but they eventually relented. The Buick Electra was replaced by a 2nd gen GC, which was followed by a 3rd gen GC. When you’re hauling extended family, there’s no comparison as the full size wagons just don’t do as good of a job. My complaint was the odd driver’s seat shape which continued to the more recent models that I can’t get comfortable in.
Now that I have my own family, the kids go between the Mazda5 (relatively gutless, great handling) and the 2nd gen Toyota Sienna (OK power, but nonexistent handling). I’m guessing they’ll despise minivans as they grow older, as an awkward sign of their youth. Also, that their parents were cheapskates who bought vehicles by the cubic foot.
Hmmm….something that can haul my big screen, haul my extended family on trips, and can handle as well as a fwd sedan while getting decent fuel economy while not hauling anything-all in a luxurious package with great ergonomics and what I have affectionately dubbed “bun warmers”. You can keep your black-and-white vision, I’ll keep my ’99 T&C Limited.
Nice van! I had the low-end LX version and really liked it. Every once in awhile I see a really nice Limited version that makes me want it.
I much preferred the rear buckets in my mothers 91 dustbuster to the benches in my girlfriends grandmothers 96 caravan. The dustbusters seats while low and hard to get into where much more plush and reclined than the seemingly foam faced cinder blocks that the 96 caravan had. I spent ample time cozied in the way back seats of both back then.
We had a 96 Grand Caravan, and I think it really was one of Chrysler’s best vehicles ever. They sweat the details on it–the great cupholders, the back seats on wheels, the storage cubbies, the smoothness of the action as gear shift moved into gear, the controls placed just so. We had an early one with the Mitsubishi 3.0 liter and a 3 speed automatic. After the Ultradrive mess, I felt it was best to avoid the 4 speed, but we had to replace our transmission at 90k and it needed another at 150k so I may have been wrong. I had a lot of friends buying Windstars at the time and they had it worse, so maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on it.
We replaced it with a Toyota Sienna, which now has 236k miles with no major repairs needed. It’s been relentlessly reliable, so much so that after almost 11 years, I can’t come up with a good reason to replace it. That said, the Grand Caravan was better designed, better looking and much more useful as a van.
I remember how disappointed I was when I rented a Gen 4 version when they first came out. It seemed so much chintzier inside and the elegance of the previous design just wasn’t there. When I saw they’d taken the ratchet out of the cupholders, I knew they had messed up a good thing.
Outside of fold into the floor back seats, there really hasn’t been any innovation at all in the minivan market in the 18 years since the Gen 3. Maybe that’s why the minivan market has declined. And maybe it is fair to say that the Gen 3 was the peak of minivan design.
Yup, you mention the ratchet on the cupholder. A small thing; but it showed the attention to detail; the youthful think-outside-the-box attitude that went into those things.
The opposite happened when Daimler went through with their chainsaw. Cut, cut, cut; good-enough for who it’s for, what do those damn Yanks think they’re buying, a Mercedes? CUT the padding, CUT the anemities, find a way to use Mercedes parts and materials…lower budgets! Lower everything! Too good for them…
They deserved to fail. About the only good thing to come of that mashup, was how after paying all that money to buy it, they wound up giving it away for virtually nothing. And that somehow the value of their stock ROSE after the giveaway.
The Germans today…don’t play well with others, apparently. Not of the business class, from what has been shown.
The innovations are there but not necessarily exclusive to minivans. My mom’s 2012 van has navigation, bluetooth connectivity, a hard drive for storing media, backup camera, under floor storage, and an entertainment system that comes with wireless headsets for the kids. Overall these touches make for a very nice family cruiser. Even now that it’s been 20 years since she’s hauled kids around yet she still likes the space and usefulness of the vans.
For the record, our 2005 has ratcheting cup holders. The 2011+ don’t.
Our ’05 T&C and ’06 GC did *not* have the ratcheting cupholders, and both were well-optioned.
Wierd that my ’05 GC does. Pretty sure my parent’s ’07 T&C did as well. My ’05 is an SE+, which is just mid-line, nothing fancy. Don’t know what my parent’s was exactly…touring something I think.
I forgot to mention yesterday that my 03 Caravan SE has ratcheting cup holders.
Minivans have definitely fallen out of favor in lieu of snazzier SUVs, but that market is definitely more upscale.
We went there, giving our almost pristine 97 Grand Caravan to the daughter and son-in-law and 4 kids. It fits them to a tee, and we got a smaller Chevy SUV. The Caravan works well for them and it’s still in very good condition. We garaged it.
We all like the Equinox and the daughter asked me if there was any similar 3 seat SUV short of Suburbans-Tahoes. The answer is no, there’s nothing sized for a big family short of a big honking 3-row SUV, for a big family needing 3 seats with space for kids gear.
And, the big honking 3-row SUV will be another $15k than a minivan. The current generation GC, Americas value package is around $20k. Optioned up brings it to $25k. Honda Pilots, Chevy Tahoe-Suburbans strippers start at $40k.
A Sienna or Odyssey can easily set you back $40K+. The Chryslers are still a good value, they run about in the same price range as a compact CUV. I’ll refrain from my usual CUV rant here.
Dad’s on his fourth one — ’88 Grand Voyager, ’95 GV, ’01 Grand Caravan and now a 2010 GC. All have served him well, although he did have the valve guide problem with the Mitsu 3.0L V6 on the ’88, and UltraDrive issues with the ’95. The current one is really only let down by Daimler’s insultingly cheap Fisher Price plastic interior. He could have bought a 2011 with the vastly upgraded interior, and I pushed him to do so, but they made him a good deal on the 2010. Now he complains about the interior regularly – not so much the hard plastic as the dark, drab color.
The ’01 was my favorite of the bunch – best dash and very sound mechanically. If two different college students hadn’t run into him in the last year he owned it he’d probably still be driving it. I would agree that the 3rd Gen minivans were probably the high water mark.
Oh man…get rid of that 2010…. 3.3 is way underpowered for the heft of a GRAND caravan…..and if that doesn’t bother the old man,…replacing the entire brakes every 10,000kms will…I know I owned one, and promptly traded it in at 79,000kms, after so many brake/ rotor problems…..wayyyy under sized for the heft of the van. The newer 3.6 versions got the larger diameter brake calipers and rotors and pads..check it out…your welcome.
I’ve owned two of these minivans. Fine vehicles let down by lousy automatic gearbox. The 3.3L V6 seems to run forever. Every seen an ad for a minivan of this vintage with a blown engine? Doubt it.
I respectfully disagree about the Gen 3 being the Peak Minivan. I have never liked the 3rd(or 4th) gen Caravan. There is nothing ground breaking about the thing. It was in fact a big let down compared with the Gen 1(84-90) and Gen 2 (91-95). The 84-90 was a trendsetter and the 91-95 versions look stylish(well for a minivan) to this day. By contrast the Gen 3 looked outdated from day one. It looked like a Previa with engine in the front. Then there was the Gen 4, which showed Dodge could not be bothered to even fully revise the Caravan. Instead they slapped a new grill/front end on it and out it went
If you had driven or owned both, you would have a different outlook.
Style is subjective; but chassis design and driving ergonomics are far superior in the later ones.
The 3rd gen Minivans have worse crash test results than the 2nd gens of the 94-95 model year. The 3rd gen Minivans also have a soldering issue under the dashboard that can render them inoperable. Another issue 3rd gens have here in New York is the lack of rust proofing in the rear shock/spring area which results in a premature death for many of them. I also like the looks of the 94-95 2nd gens (only 2nd gens with two airbags) better than any other year. I should confess that my family owned a stripper model 3.0 Litre V6 3 Speed Torqueflite Plymouth Voyager in Poppy Red for nearly 18 years though.
I recently got a 2003 Dodge Caravan SE and I agree, the cost cutting is rather apparent and almost annoying; damn you Daimler Benz. Unlike my 95 there is no Cruise Control, adjustable steering wheel, and instead of 5 or 6 leafs in the rear springs this Caravan has only two if that. The windows are not even tinted black like there were in the Voyager. At least the Caravan gets better fuel economy due to its 2.4 Litre engine and I am used to inching up hills so that does not bother me.
So, overall I am biased toward 94-95 2nd gens, am slowly warming up to 96s-00s, but I quite like my 03 Caravan and would not want to go back to a 95 due to the driving I have to do and the fact I cannot have much downtime. Modern Minivans weight over 2 tons and close to 2.5 while getting bad fuel economy. I do not like that, but if I had to buy a new Minivan I would get a Dodge Grand Caravan American Value Package with a cheery interior.
You all look sharp in that photo from 2000, is this the license plate I see on the 98?
http://www.15q.net/us2/in99.jpg
Nope, we lived in Georgia at the time…
We did have to resolder the connections under the dash at around 220,000 miles, and replaced the front struts I think that same year. At around 250K, the rear wiper would start and stop by itself (possessed), so we just disconnected it. Electrical and wiring issues are the bugaboo of all modern cars – they live in such a harsh environment, after all.
My guess is that what will kill my son’s ’98 will be either the transmission finally failing or the shock towers rusting out (either of which is repairable should he choose to do so).
As for the crashworthyness of the ’98 Caravan at least, my wife and son are both members of the airbag club (second son was belted in the middle row seat). A lady pulled out in front of my wife on a 55mph State highway. She ended up with broken bones, my family had nothing worse than bruises for a couple days.
I am glad the family is ok after the collision and hopefully the other person does not have lasting injuries. Embarrassingly enough I ran a red light with my 95 and clipped a Murano with my driver side corner at 20-30, but the airbags did not deploy oddly enough. They did not even deploy when my mom nailed a Fawn at 50 back in 1995.
Good points about the electric issues. Another thing that will do in these Minivans (I think the biggest threat by far) is finding parts. Back in New York 2nd gens like mine filtered through junkyards until about 2008 or so and that made finding parts hard. Some parts for the 2nd gens (like AC piping) is no longer made, but then again, now that I am on the West Coast I am noticing vehicles last longer so perhaps parts are easier to find.
Another weakness of the 3rd gen is rusting front shock towers that, if not caught in time, will send them to the scrapyard. Here in salt country, I have noticed that the 4th gen vans are markedly inferior to the 3rd gen when it comes to overall body rust. Anti-corrosion measures seem to have been one of the places where money was taken out of these vehicles. Before I bought my 99, I looked at an 01 (early 4th gen) that Carfax said lived its early life in Michigan or Wisconsin (I forget which). A careful look over the car showed that rust was on the verge of popping through the paint on almost every panel, including the hood. I passed. The 99 which I eventually bought still has no rust-through on it after nearly 15 years and maybe 225K of Indiana winters.
I agree about the rust issues. My 03 Caravan from Rochester, NY has rusty rocker panels with some rust holes which really sucks. Also, the previous owner put blue tape on the leading edge of hood that was already rusting. What is really stupid though was the clear tape put over the drain holes on the tailgate which has led to some minor rusting. Luckily the Caravan is not in New York anymore so I have some time to fix it, but I think I will buy a used hood when back in California or the Southwest.
The new minivans aren’t as good in many ways, but economy is a strong point. You have to remember the measurement standard changed. My mom has a ’12 T&C and she regularly gets 27-30 MPG on the highway. I find that pretty impressive for something with more interior space than a Suburban.
Wow, that’s impressive… We’ve typically gotten 24-25 on average and maybe a few more on the highway. The T&C has the 3.8l, and it’s maybe 1mpg lower than the 3.3s have been.
I average about 23 on the highway with my ’05 3.3 @75 MPH. Although I did get 28 once going 60 MPH with a tailwind. It used to do better, but I think additional kids and the associated gear may have something to do with the drop.
The fact that the ’12 does better and has a lot more power all while having the aerodynamics of a brick is pretty impressive. The 6-speed trans is annoying though, too much shifting. And even though it is much nicer than ours and according to the numbers better in almost every way, I simply don’t like driving it as well.
The Gen 3 Caravan was in my opinion the best of the lot. They were designed before the Daimler driven cost cutting drive, so where wasn’t a lot they could do to them. I serviced hundreds of these vans regularly when I was a service advisor at a Chrysler store. By this time the horrid Mitsubishi V-6 was on the way out and the A604 much more reliable.
Were these good cars? Hell, no, they were cheap-ass and showed it. The thing was they really weren’t hard to fix and if you were willing to wrench on them to around $1000 per year, they were a pretty good ride.
For Betty, Bob and the kiddies who have a nice life, a Caravan is as big as your house and can move half of what’s it it. They have always been all about value. The Gen 3 Caravan was trouble free until 140,000 km but after that, watch out. Oh, and the brakes are pitifully bad. They rarely top 20,000 km here and often much less.
Pretty much.
I’ll admit, over all my praise – they weren’t tanks. They were reliable by the standards of thirty years ago – had they been out in the 1970s they’d have been at the top of the list. In their own era, not so much.
Transmission was a weak point; and the problem was, there wasn’t another choice to avoid the automatic. IIRC, three-speed or four-speed was dictated by engine choice – and no manual gearbox.
Brakes in Chrysler products of this vintage were always weak. I had a 1998 TJ Wrangler, bought new – and with 1500 miles on it, that’s right, brand new, the discs warped. A couple of panic stops at freeway speeds in rush-hour traffic was all it took.
The brakes in all Chrysler cars of the era were bad to the point of dangerous. The Grand Cherokees always had marginal brakes but when 2000 model came out, the brakes were downright dangerous. One trip down a long hill (ie British Properties, West Vancouver) would warp the rotors. A “fix” of sorts came out but the real problem (other than too small pads and rotors) was the carrier was so cheap it allowed the caliper to move on the rotor.
Caravans, especially the larger, loaded ones, would rarely go more than 16,000 km on a set of front brakes and it was common to do them at lower kms than that.
The TJ was the same.
I don’t mind that the minivans sleep outside, but is the Hesston windrower safely parked in that barn ?
+1
The Hesston was in the other pole barn and other than a layer of bird poop, came out fine.
My entire fleet of delivery vehicles are Mopars. We have a 2003 Ram Van, a 1999 Dodge Neon and two 3rd gen minivans. Both Grand Caravan (green, 275,000 miles) and the Town and Country (silver 220,000 miles) have the 3.8 liter. Other than basic maintenance on both, and suspension work and a power steering work on the Grand Caravan, these have been great vans that can easily have 250 miles per day on them.
Here’s the Town and Country (with a glimpse of the Ram Van). . . Talk about receiving a delivery in style!
I love these vans so much. The 3rd generation Chrysler minivans were the best ever!
I’d have to agree that the 3rd Gen was the best. The 4 gen, which I own, looks better (IMO) but it is cheaper. Stow & Go is a gimmick, it costs too much in passenger space and comfort. I’d rather have just the fold down back seat and a bench in the middle, much easier to deal with that third car seat. Are the 2005 considered 5th gen with the Stow & Go? If so then I guess I have a 5th Gen. They really started to cheap out in 2005, even taking away lighted cruise control and window switches.
It’s now getting time to upgrade and I’m not sure what I’ll do. All of the new ones are ugly as heck. The Hondas and Toyotas are spendy and their IRS makes them poor at carrying heavy loads. The Chryslers have cramped cockpits. Kia is outdated and Nissan is just…well…odd. Not sure what I’ll get next. They all have the latest gadgets, plenty of power, decent handling, and great economy. But in terms of overall design, none of them are as well done as the 3rd gen Chryslers.
Gen 5 are the boxy vans that came out in 2008, IIRC. (what goes around comes around)
my parents have been solidly loyal to caravans:
1990 grand caravan bought new, 56k miles until the tranny started acting funny after a 500 mile move while towing a trailer.
1994 grand caravan bought new, my absolute favorite. i love the dash, the dark green color. kept for around 50k miles.
2000 grand caravan bought new, pretty good, was wrecked by an 18 wheeler hitting the front clip, repaired, never drove the same again. kept for around 50k miles.
2007 town and country fully loaded, bought used at 36k, currently has around 57k, rear hatch struts blown, front wheel hubs replaced. still a good cruiser, they plan on keeping it awhile longer.
There’s a reason the wheel hubs are blown at 36/57 k….the brakes are undersized for the weight of the vehicle….hence boiling the grease right out of the undersized hubs when coming off the highway, or long slowdowns….further, the 3.3 in the grand caravan is a dog trying to pull this behemoth around. It’s too underpowered for the heft.
….advise your parents to unload 2007-2010 caravan as soon as possible because you cannot correct it.
The 2001-07’s look better. Its my favorite. I do not like the 1st or 2nd gens.
I am on my 30th Chrysler minivan (2014 Town and Country) and love it. Infact my 2011, 2012 and 2014 are the most refined of all, but I will say I loved the sporty feel and drive of the gen 3 I owned, the all white 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan SPORT. It had larger wheels and suspension was tighter, so body roll was not that of a box about to tip. Comfortable as well. They have come a very long way with the innovation……I get into my first one ( I found it and bought it back after a 20 yr wish I had never sold it rant) anyway, I get into my 1985 Caravan LE and go wow, the technology and little touches in my 2014 just amaze me. Yes, I went through the years with the tranny issues, but what is funny is that it was a grounding issue, a computer issue that made such an issue that these tranny shops took such advantage of and ripped off folks saying oh you need a new tranny etc. The failure of such a small part could go and cause other issues. Think of how many of the Chrysler minivans were made and sold and really the numbers of issues was not all that bad. Yes, those engines were a long lasting breed from the gen 1 2.2 Chrysler or 2.6 Mitsubishi to the 3.0 with the valve guide issue but would run forever to the bullet proof 3.3 and 3.8……I can say this 5.5 gen (that is 2011 to 2015) 3.6 is a great mpg and power set up, longevity, looks to be a good one. I started a fb page that kinda grew around the world and they love the gen 3 as well…. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Chryslerminivans/