(first posted 1/14/2015) “Oh no, not again. Brendan’s writing about another minivan”. Yes I am, and I want to apologize upfront to those of you who view the minivan as a fate worse than death. But at Curbside Classic, “every car has a story”, and this, my friends, is a very defining vehicle in automotive history, as well as a car that I’ve always had an enthusiastic fascination with.
Chrysler literally shook the industry when they released their 1984 Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager “Magic Wagons”, which are credited for creating the minivan segment in North America. Essentially tall K-car wagons with a rear sliding door, these “minivans” were instant hits, with their space and fuel efficiency, as well as mass appeal. Initial competitors failed to capitalize on Chrysler’s successful formula, and thus didn’t pose any significant threat. But with more competitive minivans on the way from rivals, Chrysler’s little-changed minivans were becoming stale in that face of competition, and an overhaul was key to their continued dominance.
In the event that you did not already know, the second generation “AS” minivans, were not all-new, but heavily reengineered versions of the original 1984 “S” minivans. Their “new” platform was yet another derivative of the ubiquitous K-platform, dating back to 1981. It wasn’t difficult to find a plethora of other parts shared with the outgoing minivans and other K-cars either, as a wide range of components from engines and transmissions, to door handles and switchgear were all pulled from the Chrysler community parts bin.
Dimensions were more or less the same, with all models retaining the single rear sliding door layout – the world would have to wait until the third generation Chrysler minivans to experience dual sliding doors in a regular-sized minivan. Naturally, the styling of these new vans was largely evolutionary, as Iacocca wouldn’t have allowed for anything but. Corners were rounded a bit, bumpers were better-integrated, and the hood was lowered, all for a slightly sleeker appearance.
As critics, we are often quick to disapprove of such mild redesigns. Yet, for this type of vehicle at this point in time, one should not condemn Chrysler for such a cautious update. More radically-styled minivan competitors from GM, Ford, and Toyota had failed to take a serious portion of Chrysler’s market share. Add in Chrysler’s virtual dependance on the minivan for survival, and their choice not to significantly alter their winning formula is very justifiable.
As with most Chrysler badge-engineered products, each van was given a few unique trim pieces to add minimal distinction. The Dodge Caravan was given a crosshair grille, black masked taillights, and thinner dual-strip front turn signals. The Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Town & Country shared wider single-strip front turn signals and grooved taillight lenses. Voyagers received an egg-crate style grille, while Town & Countrys were adorned with Chrysler’s chrome waterfall grille and crystal pentastar hood ornament. Unique wheel styles and, of course, badging rounded the differentiation process out.
The interiors were treated to more drastic makeovers. Gone were the sharp-edged K-car dashes, replaced with more rounded instrument panel. Exterior lighting and wiper controls were relocated to pods on either side of the gauge cluster, and a vehicle information center with all warning lights was placed atop of it. As typical of most Chrysler products, a complete gauge cluster was available, even on the minivan.
Seats were redesigned, with thicker padding and greater contour. All-new fabrics and leathers were a welcomed change, as those on the outgoing model were looking increasingly vintage. Despite more modern interiors, red and blue interiors were still available along with gray and beige. The biggest news, however, was the Quad Command seating option available on Town & Countrys and higher-trim Caravans and Voyagers.
Replacing the second-row bench with two individual bucket seats not only went a long way in increasing rear seat comfort, but I’m sure it also decreased the number of sibling fights, much to parents’ pleasure. Integrated child safety seats were another option that probably came to the relief of some parents, as child safety seats are often expensive and difficult to install.
The 2.5L Chrysler I4 (from the K-cars), 3.0L Mitsubishi V6, and 3.3L Chrysler V6 were all carry-over from the previous generation. 1994 would see increased output for the 3.3L, as well as the addition of a torquier 3.8L V6. Transmission choices were still a 5-speed manual (that’s not a misprint!), 3-speed TorqueFlite automatic, and an overhauled 4-speed Ultradrive automatic. As with other features, engine and transmission availability varied by model, wheelbase, and brand.
A number of enhancements were made to the minivans’ suspension, in order to improve both comfort and handling. For the first time, all-wheel drive was available on higher-trim models. Sending ninety-percent of torque to the front wheels under normal conditions, when front wheel slip was detected, the system would divert an appropriate amount of torque to the rear wheels, improving traction.
At least in your author’s opinion, the most fascinating aspect of the 1991-1995 Chrysler minivans was the often dizzying array of trim levels, sub-trim levels, special editions, and decor packages available over their five-year run. Starting with the basics, you could choose your Dodge or Plymouth minivan in base, mid-level SE, and upscale LE, in short- or long-wheelbase “Grand”, of course. Simple enough. But there was also the sportier-styled Caravan/Grand Caravan ES, which was equipped like an LE. There was also the short-wheelbase only Voyager LX, which was basically a less boy-racer Caravan ES that came with multi-spoke cast aluminum wheels.
Caravan/Grand Caravan and Voyager/Grand Voyager SEs could also be equipped with the Sport Wagon package (2 pictures above), which oddly enough attempted to make them appear more SUV-like, with gray bumpers and 5-spoke wheels. 1994 brought a 10-Year Anniversary Edition package available on SEs, which included special badging, two-tone paint, gold paint stripes, and special wheels.
There was also a Gold Special Edition on SEs that included gold accent molding, gold paint stripes, gold BBS-style wheels, and on short-wheelbase models, the Grand’s larger 15″ brakes. For 1995, Voyager SEs also gained a Rallye decor package, featuring special door badging, cast aluminum wheels, and two-tone paint. Additionally, all LE models could be equipped with the Woodgrain decor package, featuring the infamous woodgrain Di-Noc. There were even more, but I think you get the picture.
The Town & Country ordering process was a lot simpler, with only one model in standard woodgrain or “woodgrain delete”, which replaced the Di-Noc with gold accents.
Offhand, there is no other vehicle I can think of in which so many distinctive trims were available. With combined sales of these minivans reaching over 500,000 annually, it makes sense that for a very small amount of money, Chrysler would want to provide its very diverse range of potential minivan buyers a bit more exclusivity beyond the basic low-, middle-, and high-end models.
This red Grand Caravan SE I photographed is either a 1994 or 1995 model. All minivans received a mild refresh in 1994, with new exterior moldings (LE and ES models received Coke Bottle rocker panels) and less brightwork being the obvious visual changes.
Inside, a redesigned instrument panel incorporated slightly better ergonomics, marginally softer-touch materials, and a passenger’s side airbag. A number of other small convenience and safety improvements were also made, helping these aging minivans remain among the most competitive vehicles in their class.
The number of 1991-1995 minivans on the road has really dwindled in the past ten years, and I was very impressed with the great condition of this Grand Caravan. It’s not perfect, but it’s one of the nicest I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m willing to bet it’s a low mileage example, and judging (yes, I’m judging) by the parking job, I’ll also bet it’s senior driven.
Seeing one of these vans is very nostalgic for me. Numerous people I knew as a child, including family members, neighbors, friends’ parents, and family friends, owned one. They were the ubiquitous family vehicle of their time, and one of the defining vehicles of the Nineties. The close of the decade would see the surge in popularity of SUVs, and further down the road, CUVs (which aren’t all that different from minivans) would in turn become the most popular choice for family vehicles. But in the early-to-mid-1990s, the minivan was seemingly invincible. They were kind of cool, and dare I say, they were even trendy. If the 1984 minivans created the segment, then the 1991 minivans proved that Chrysler had the formula for success. Competitors tried, but none could match the appeal of the Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager, and Chrysler Town & Country.
Related Reading:
Believe it or not these were the most stolen vehicles in the Seattle metro area in the 90s. You could fit the whole “crew” inside.
I still have a 95 Sport Wagon and love it. Short wheelbase means I can park it in the garage and still have room for a workbench on that side of the garage. 3.3L has lots of power. No rust and only 117,000 miles means it will be around for a while.
Another minivan owner (’08 Kia Sedona) who will never complain about yet another minivan article. (And its not a brougham.)
I love the damned things. Mine is run with the middle seats permanently stored in the attic and the rear seat usually folded into the floor. It’s my RV. Perfect for tailgating at the NASCAR or AMA Superbike races, absolutely wonderful for carrying all the necessary kit for a weekend’s reenactment, and once I get the trailer hitch installed to cover garbage runs and motorcycle hauling the pickup truck is probably getting sold.
These were sold in Europe as Chrysler Voyagera, and they were also assembled in Austria. They are (were) a relatively common sight on European roads, especially the third generation (1996-2000) and the fourth generation (2001-2007), I think these were the most popular. For an American car, their numbers were huge. For most Europeans, this is probably the only way they will experience an American car.
One thing confuses me though: what was the reason for not having the rear door on passenger side?
Oh and I have to comment on this:
“CUVs (which aren’t all that different from minivans)” – I think CUVs are different when it comes to trunk space. At least with minivans and CUVs in Europe, CUV trunk space is pathetic, often not much more space than in a Golf-sized hatchback. Even ‘compact minivans’ (very popular in Europe, they’re slightly smaller than Voyagers and other full size minivans) usually offer huge amounts of rear storage space. Compare, for example, VW Touran (compact minivan) with VW Tiguan (CUV) and see what I mean.
The reason for not having a driver’s side door was mainly because that was the layout of larger vans going back decades. The larger vans were usually used as work vans, and not having a door and windows on one side made it possible to install shelving and other storage. Chrysler merely replicated this formula in their “mini” vans in 1984.
IIRC, they threw around the idea in focus groups for both the second and third generation minivans, and having a second door wasn’t that important to consumers. It was also cheaper to not have it. For the third generation Chrysler ultimately did introduce a driver’s side door as an option on higher trim models, as keeping only one on cheaper models allowed for lower base prices.
I agree with you that minivan’s have much more cargo capacity than CUVs. What I meant by “CUVs (which aren’t all that different from minivans)” is that most people criticize minivans as being embarrassing mommy mobiles when CUVs are essentially the same type of vehicle without sliding doors. They are both essentially car-based tall wagons.
Thank you for clearing up the question about the rear doors. Now it kind of makes sense. And since the primary mission of these vehicles is to haul the kids around, you need them to enter/exit at the curbside, not on the other side where there’s traffic.
Re: ‘mommy mobiles’ – ok, now I get it.
You see, this consideration is apparently more important in the US. Over here in Europe, there isn’t really such a stigma around minivans (at least not to such an extent). Minivans (or station wagons) are the usual choice as the main family car for families with kids, and they are more likely to be owned and driven by the father, not mother. If the family needs a second vehicle, it’s usually for the wife/mother to get to work, and usually it’s a smaller vehicle (quite often, a small hatchback such as Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta or VW Golf, size-wise). When the whole family travels by car (for holidays, for shopping, visiting relatives etc), the main vehicle, i.e. the “father’s” minivan or station wagon, is used.
The stigma in the US is HUGE. To the point that I’ve read articles warning women on a first date against getting involved with a guy who shows up in a minivan. The rationale is that no single guy would own one, and if he’s stuck driving on, then he’s obviously cheating on his wife.
And women are terrified of the (supposed) message they send that their life is nothing other than being a mommy, and in this liberated day and age I suppose that’s supposed to be the equivalent of slavery. Or something like that.
Yeah. Stereotypes. All I know is that an SUV/CUV is incredibly inefficient compared to a minivan.
To me, the stigma of a CUV is worse. The size, efficiency, and towing ability of a minivan, with half the space and a 20% cost premium. And it still says soccer mom to me.
That’s getting to be less true as CUVs become more like vans and since AWD vans have all but disappeared. But it still mostly holds.
I am interested to see what Chrysler comes up with for the ’16 vans. Word is they will be aggressively styled and AWD will make a return. I just hope they aren’t “aggressive” like an Odyssey or Quest.
Interesting thoughts about minivans and stereotypes about families and parents. Actually, I’ve heard that minivans have been popular with some empty-nester segments because they can haul a lot of stuff (like for home improvement, gardening, recreational equipment) that they can spend time and money on due to their disposable income available. And they’re really handy for hauling grandkids too.
Sort of in reply to silverkris: Minivans are fairly popular among seniors, at least here in MN, because it’s the easiest vehicle to get in and out of. Seats are right at hip level and doors open nice and wide. Plus they’re the de facto vehicle for wheelchair conversions.
As far as I know this is the only factory hot-minivan, the Opel Zafira OPC with a 240 hp 2.0 liter turbo engine. It’s smaller though, so it’s a mini-minivan. The model below was introduced in 2005.
drzhivago138 , you make a great point about seniors. My parents continued to drive minivans after all of us kids were out of the house. My mom still does to this day at 71. She doesn’t need something nearly that large anymore, but the combination of space, ease of entry/exit, comfortable highway manners and low load floor make her life a lot easier. And for the price she can’t get a car or CUV nicer than her T&C.
I remember hearing a lot at the time (we’re a van and minivan family going back to ’81) that many parents believed (urban myth?) that they didn’t put doors on the street side in minivans because they didn’t want kids jumping out into the traffic side, and then child safety locks mooted that issue. Not sure there’s much veracity to this being any thought at Chrysler, but it made sense to people at the time.
I’ve heard that too before, more than once. It was probably an expressed concern among some consumers, though I doubt it had much influence in Chrysler’s decisions.
The same justification/reason could maybe also be said for why 2-door sedans (not coupes) were sometimes more popular with young families in the ’50s-’60s and why the ’67-’72 Suburbans had 3 doors.
Hank, what you wrote makes sense, but on the other hand, before 1980s, people were hauling kids in sedans and station wagons, and those always had rear doors on both sides, and probably child locks.
So I think Brendan’s explanation is more likely – traditional van layout of the time and cheaper to build if you have one less door to install.
I also think it was either cheaper, easier, or more reliable (or most likely a combination of the three) to run the rear wiring thru the non-door side wall of the van, instead of under the floor. I don’t think Chrysler was expecting the second sliding door to take off as well as it did.
Personally, I’d prefer only one sliding door, leaving the other side available for internal uses. Then again, that my use as a van-as-RV instead of people carrier.
I believe structural integrity was a big reason as well. Sliding doors result in huge openings. Pickups also had trouble when they started going to the suicide-door extended cabs.
You got that right. Boy, was I happy I had never seen this video while I was driving our ’98 F-250 as my high school car…
The curbside door was a holdover from the very first “mini” vans like the 1961 Econoline. I think they were mostly designed for cargo use, so load doors in the rear or curb side were normal. Chevy offered a driver’s side load door early on, but they do not seem to have been popular. Everyone just got used to this configuration on passenger versions. When Chrysler offered 4 doors, it was a feature than nobody really knew that they wanted, but soon discovered that they could not live without.
Phil L also has a good point – that huge door opening played havoc with structural rigidity on these. On the side without the door, there was always an extra brace/pillar compared with the door side.
The gen1 Econoline and the Dodge A100 could also be had with optional driver’s side cargo doors. The VW bus offered that as an option, and I assume the Big Three felt they had to do it too. But this was all about the cargo versions. Possibly it could be ordered on the passenger versions, but it was rare in any case.
Agreed. My father had a 1960 VW van which although it didn’t have all the windows some do, did have sliding doors on both sides.
“most people criticize minivans as being embarrassing mommy mobiles when CUVs are essentially the same type of vehicle without sliding doors”
That’s exactly what most CUVs are:
Compromised
Useless
Vehicles
See, this is what you get when a good honest idea (on one hand, true sports utility vehicles such as Bronco, CJ, Scout, etc and on the other, the original minivans) suddenly becomes ‘trendy’. The masses, who tend to be shallow, fickle and slavish to jumping on whatever is ‘hip’ glom onto something because its all of a sudden ‘cool’. I have to point the finger at the original XJ Cherokee for allowing this to get out of hand, although really it dates back to the original Wagoneer and Willys wagon. Its one thing to add a few conveniences in and make a vehicle that really is aimed at young active singles, ranchers, adventurers etc more useable as a daily driver and to expand its appeal. Its quite another to pimp them out as ‘family cars’ and bastardize the original concept. Its bad enough that true SUVs have as much soccer mom wagon in the DNA as they do, but CUVs offer some of the worst attributes of SUVs and minivans. They cant tow much, they have no offroad capability to speak of, and still get comparably bad mpgs all the while STILL being space inefficient and carrying the soccer mom stigma.
Its a free country, if you want to drop the coin on a Ramcharger and use it for family duty since it looks cool and can hammer thru a blizzard, then knock yourself out. BUT, at the same time know what youre buying. Don’t then complain about the rough ride, inconvenience of 2 doors, lousy mpgs, noise, and lack of conveniences. These rigs were never meant to be mommy mobiles. If you buy one for that then complain about it and expect for future models to cater to you, then you look like a whiney A-hole. That’s coming from someone who IS the target demographic of those rigs. Which have all but disappeared as they’ve been castrated into thinly disguised minivans. What sucks about that is that a CJ-5 will in fact deliver your kiddies to school in one piece, if not comfy and infotained. But a Honda CR-V would be absolutely chewed up and spit out on even the milder trails Ive explored in my 5 Jeeps.
Yes, its a rant. But its frustrating to see whats being built mutate into such lousy excuses for filling ANYONEs needs, as opposed to having a wider field of available vehicles that are more focused. These minivans weren’t ‘cool’ but they did what they were built to do and did it effectively. Even those are disappearing nowadays.
On the other hand, a CUV can be the better (not best, just better) of all worlds. My 2002 Mazda Tribute can hold 95% of all my worldly possessions, the increased ground clearance vs. a wagon means I can actually get home in a heavy winter or muddy spring, and I can get 26 MPG highway (I think it was just a fluke, but it’s happened twice, and that’s 4 better than what an AWD V6 model is rated) if I keep it in overdrive. No, it can’t make it through Moab, but it can make it through a hay field while pulling an empty hay rack. And since I’ve grown up in the seats of various minivans, pickups, trucks, and tractors, I could never drive a regular sedan, coupe or wagon. Just being that low to the ground doesn’t feel right to me. I suspect it’s the same for many other people.
Well what I didn’t get around to saying (ducked on here on lunch break) is that the basic idea of a CUV does have merit. I think the Escape/Tribute twins are guilty of the ole bait-n-switch, in that they LOOK like real SUVs but have little of the function.
Pretty much every long-roof Subaru has the CUV concept distilled down to something with more merit. Theres no pretentions of an Outback or even a Forester being the boonie bashers that Jeep has put out in the past. A small station wagon that can handle crap weather and lite off pavement work is a sound concept. Those are good honest cars. I really wish the basic idea behind the Element would’ve taken off more. I like the clamshell door arrangement…FAR more useful than 4 forward hinged doors, it looks edgy and experimental and its a multi-talented rig in the vein of the old VW buses. If they would’ve pushed manual transmissions, had a better awd setup (as opposed to the limp wristed ‘rear wheel assist’ that Honda calls real time 4wd) as well as a beefier engine, that car would have more appeal. I considered one as a daily grinder but NO WAY to 4 cyl/automatic and even the 5spds were slugs.
The boxy shape of the Escape/Tribute/Mariner may have “tricked” people into thinking they were traditional SUVs, but they also contributed to more cargo space and better visibility than later, curvier models.
And let’s look at the main function of what people used the Escape’s predecessor, the Explorer, for. Did they go offroading all the time, or tow trailers up and down the trail? No, even though the Explorer was great for those things, they used it more often for picking the kids up from school and running to the grocery store. Being a DD was the main function of the Explorer, and the Escape handles that role much more efficiently.
But I do hear you on the Element…I had considered one for my car but couldn’t get around the weaker engine. Having 200 hp and torque (a “square engine”) in the Mazda is great for getting up long grades without having to downshift.
Boxy is good. The xB is another idea that in execution isn’t bad at all. I really, REALLY liked the Dodge Hornet concept. Much like the Element in some ways but with a boosted 4 banger, manual trans and clamshell doors. Just as much hotrod as useful. Im pretty down on V6s, myself. Little to no upgrade potential. Even a turbodiesel makes a lot of sense in these.
If I designed a CUV, it would be an Element body with removeable rear roof, choice of a VW TDI diesel or Subaru 2.5 turbo boxer, with Subaru’s awd system…arguably the best around. And Dodge styling!
The Explorer is a piss poor excuse for an SUV. Those are the mid level of the exact scenario I was talking about above: Sports utilities gentrified first into SUVs then CUVs. The Grand Cherokee still has capability, as does the 4Runner. That’s about it. The Wrangler is the only thing out there that holds true to the concept on any level. Just needs a Hemi….
I like the way you think with the CUV concept! Element meets Envoy XUV–that’s “utility”.
It really depends on what you use it for. Up until recently CUVs have been useless for towing. Personally, I never saw much point because they couldn’t tow more than a minivan and I have never had trouble navigating Minnesota winters with front wheel drive and decent tires. The only time I’ve needed 4×4 is when I’m towing snowmobiles, at a wet boat launch, or off road, none of which are situations CUVs are typically good at.
While my wife drives a minivan, our expanded family drove me towards a full size crew cab pickup, and I’m glad for that. Absoultely love it. And it gets the same mileage as my old mid-size SUVs. The new trucks are approaching minivan MPGs, which is incredible given their sheer size and weight.
For safety purposes. The passenger side of a car in North America (and other countries where they drive on the same side of the road as North Americans) is known as curbside. Figuring that most folks owning this type of vehicle had a rack of kids to haul, you want them to exit the vehicle on side of the sidewalk and not into traffic. Same goes for those folks using this van for commercial hauling or delivery pick up or drop off. It is less hectic trying to remove packages from the curb side over unloading them into traffic.
As much as I hate K-cars and their derivatives, I don’t hate these. That might just be my own feelings of nostalgia, since in 1993, I worked part time at a small mom and pop Dodge dealer prepping and detailing new cars while I was stationed in New York. It was a pretty neat time to work at a Dodge store as Chrysler was on a roll; we sold one Viper that summer, the Intrepid was a hot new car, and the new Ram pickups were on their way. I was real excited about those but I got orders to transfer to a new unit about midway through the summer where I wouldn’t have much time off for a part time job so I didn’t get to see the first of the new trucks but the dealer was excited.
We couldn’t unload Caravans (and Intrepids) off of the trucks fast enough and it seemed like they were sold as soon as they hit the lot, I really don’t remember them keeping many in stock, versus the remaining Spirits, Shadows and D-series Rams (except the Cummins trucks, they sold quick) that seemed to sit for months. I also remember seeing lots of fully loaded Caravans going out the door at or near sticker price, which at the time I believe was in the mid-to-high 20s. That’s a lot of money for a K-car! They felt like they were pretty solidly built and the sixes were pretty torquey and probably about as fun to drive as a minivan can get.
I still see a lot on the roads here, many still in decent shape with what Im assuming are 3.3 and 3.8 V6s; the Mitsu 3.0s didnt last long and I don’t think they sold that many with 4 cylinders. I know many of them went well over 200K and my old boss has a 94(?) with 430K on it and the engine (3.3) is original and unrebuilt.
The refreshed minivans were the ultimate, in my opinion. The vehicle we needed in the 1980s and needed desperately after moving to the Cincinnati area in 1992, but never bought one.
We made do with K-Cars and their derivatives. No real regrets, either.
Still, the Chrysler minivans were and still are the best all-around, and I hope they keep their sales crown by rubbing it the face of Toyota, Honda and every other player!
Last year we looked at Odyssey, Sienna, Quest, and Caravan/T&C, and I’d have to agree, overall the Chryslers are still the leaders. A big part of that is price though. The others were more refined and I thought the T&C was overly sporty (harsh and quick) in its handling. Which normally I like, but it feels odd in a minivan. But the interior and value can’t be beat. We priced out a Caravan with heated leather and DVD entertainment system and it came to just over $27K. Nobody else can touch that. Resale has improved greatly too from the old days, to the point that buying new made more sense. And the options! You can get a Chrysler configured in so many ways it will make your head spin. The asian vans are terrible, they have a few trim levels and if the trim you want doesn’t have a specific feature you want you are usually SOL unless you go up a level.
We actually liked the Quest best of all. Very quiet, smooth and refined, almost feels like an Infinity. But the price was $9K more and they are oh so ugly.
Hard to believe I’m saying this, but I’m anxiously awaiting the ’16 T&C. Will they revive or kill the segment? Word is they are not going conservative like they did in ’08.
I have a COAL coming up in about three weeks on a 94 Caravan in the exact same color. Unfortunately not in as great shape as the featured vehicle above. CC effect strikes again.
Must be something good about these…. the taxi companies here EXCLUSIVELY use this generation of Dodge/Plymouth minivans. No Ford or GM products.
The ghost of DeSoto is smiling.
I associate many good feelings and memories with this vehicle. We had a base model with the 2.5 liter growing up, black with the red interior (nice to see the photo of the red interior!). My parents bought it new in the spring of 1991 based on my recommendation, and my dad kept it all the way until 2007 because it was such a good vehicle. It was so painfully slow (100 hp!!!), but it did everything else it needed to do. Barely any mechanical problems or rust in over 150,000 miles. The 2002 Caravan he replaced it with had more rust at age 6 or 7 than the 1991 did after 16 years. That–along with several other characteristics–really demonstrated to me how little the Daimler-era Chrysler invested in the newer vans. But those 2nd generation models were class-leading. And, yes, everyone seemed to have one…
That is a clean one you found there, I haven’t seen one of that vintage here in NH in awhile.
I still miss my ’88, even though it was 2.5L powered.
I assume one of the reasons for all the special editions was that these had a lot of up-sell potential. I think some of these went to quite affluent families who could afford more, but couldn’t find many alternatives that worked better for kid-shlepping duty. Obviously, the midsize SUVs gradually cut into that market, but as a family taxi, these vans made more sense.
I remember I saw an ad in an old National Geographic from 1994, where a “real life” visibly wealthy couple were raving about their Town & Country. The husband bought it as his vehicle so they had more space for their antiquing. She loved it so much that she “made him trade” for her BMW 7-Series.
I don’t know how much truth there was to that, but yes, I have no doubt that many affluent families had a Chrysler minivan in the driveway next to their BMWs, Mercedes, and Jaguars.
They did. They were were very common in the affluent neighborhoods, and folks paid inflation-adjusted big bucks for them at the time.
I paid $22k in 1992 for our Grand Caravan LE (mid level), with a few key options (3.3, automatic, rear A/C, kiddie seats, ABS). That would be serious money today ($36k), given that those options are all pretty much standard today.
As used and well-used vehicles, these minivans provided and continue to provide cheap, dependable transportation for legions of low-income families. After thousands of hard miles with minimal care, they continue to perform the function they were designed to do. The loyalty of people whose lives don’t revolve around cars for these workhorses is justified. Long live the humble Chrysler and Dodge minivan!
+1. If the seats finally give up the last of their stuffing and you run out of duct tape to cover where the 3rd-row windows used to be, sell it to the newly-arrived Syrian family down the road to use to transport their goats to the sale. No joke, this is what one family did and the recipients were beyond ecstatic.
If anyone finds a Ford Windstar with the ‘King Door’, the story of that fiasco would be worth telling.
Those integrated child safety seats were a great idea. But my brother (who owned a minivan at the time) pointed out that they had one giant drawback: You can’t pick them up and shake all the crumbs & other debris out of them like you can with a separate seat.
From what I understand, they and the AWD option were sacrificed on the altar of Stow’N’Go. Too many things competing for the same space.
Aw yeah, Stow n’ Go! Our extended family rented two GCs to take on our Memorial Day vacation to Yellowstone several years ago, and they really proved their worth when there was 5 feet of snow out there and we left 70-degree weather with snow boots and coats packed away. I felt like we were smuggling things in hidden compartments like the Millennium Falcon!
I would think it would also be rendered problematic by the ever-changing rules on what kids are supposed to be in what type of seat for how long.
Yeah, modern car seats are like cocoons now with huge side bolsters. Impossible to integrate that into a seat. Was a great idea at the time though.
I really feel for anyone with a kid nowadays. You have to have them in a car seat until theyre like 24 years old under the new regs. AND you pretty much have to drop a serious amount of coin on a new seat ever few years since what was safe 2 years ago now wont protect your little ones from zombie attacks, solar flares, nuclear fallout, or a robot uprising. At what point is enough enough? OR, maybe Im in the wrong business, since it seems like if youre selling car seats you couldn’t print money faster than last years model is banned and mommy has to spring for a new one…
On the flip side, who wants to be the one with a dead or severely injured kid because they weren’t using the proper restraint?
Yes, I know, I stopped using a booster seat when I was 5 even though I was still too small (preemie baby), I rode around in the ’79 F-250 with no seatbelt, I was just fine, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I agree, but lets follow your thought thru to completion: Who wants to deal with ANY situation less than ideal? Its sad, it sucks, its tragic but shit happens. You can drive your kid around in a rolling bank vault. But a car wreck is one out of like 40 billion ways to die. Spending your whole life hand wringing over one scenario doesn’t plug the other holes in the boat. You want to take reasonable precautions but rather than some space age car seat, Id start with not driving like an A-hole. We’ve become FAR to reliant on gubmint mandated safety equipment and abandoned common sense and competency.
It’s not my own driving I’d have to watch out for; it’s everyone else on the road. We all have different definitions of “reasonable precautions”.
What has changed is the parent’s (and society’s) attitude. When I was a kid (1950-60’s) the parental attitude was that, no matter what the mishap, junior would survive with a few bumps and bruises.
Nowadays, the parent is convinced that junior is going to die any second now unless extensive methods and equipment are used to protect his safety. And to go without said safety equipment is a prime result of parenting that should get the notice of Child Welfare.
Sorry folks, we’re not going to die any second now.
We all have different ideas about what are “reasonable precautions” but its a different matter when the gov’t mandates that you HAVE to abide by ones that seriously limit the amount of people you can carry around.
Helicopter parenting, its called. Google it, some of the stories (such as the girl whose parents followed her to college) are BEYOND ridiculous.
I think more manual transmissions across the board would make the roads safer. They FORCE you to be more on your game. You cant physically cane your ride while texting, screaming at kids, drinking frappaccinos, and infotaining. I find myself MUCH more tempted to interact with my phone now that I have an automatic than I ever did when driving a stick….
I just feel for some of the smaller kids (i.e. those who are short/lightweight for their age). I think the current regs say you have to use a booster seat until age 13 if you’re under 5′ tall or under 100 lbs, which a lot of smaller-framed girls definitely are at that age. Can you imagine being seen using a booster seat at age 13? At that oh-so-conscious-of-perception age, that would be absolutely mortifying.
Also, with the giant anchor-at-sixteen-points child seats available nowadays, is there any way to even install them in an older vehicle, something with only lap belts? Unlikely anyone with a family is going to use something that old as a daily driver, but it’s pretty unfortunate to think that kids will never get the chance to even legally ride in a classic until they’ve outgrown the booster requirement.
Regular- sized minivan. Is that like jumbo shrimp? And economics are on the side of the manufacturer. So what if the same headlight switch fits 10 different models. Less parts to inventory, and the guys at the dealer parts counter, who, ahem, may not be the sharpest tools, have an easier time actually getting you the correct parts. My oldest sister and her hubby, having 2 young kids, bought one of the first ’84s. Had some very minor warranty issues, but was a good rig. 2.6 Mitsu power no doubt helped in the reliability department, although I did do a head gasket job on it around the 100K mark. Then it got traded in.
You make a valid point: As much as pundits complain about parts-bin switchgear, there is a lot to be said for having replacement bits that are easy to get and therefore probably cheap. A lot of people here have experienced the headaches that go with having a relatively rare model with a lot of bespoke stuff that’s only slightly easier to find than the Ark of the Covenant.
Indiana: That part belongs in a museum!
Bad Guy: Alas, Dr.Jones, this is the last new-old-stock HVAC control panel in ze world, und I need it for my Mercedes!
Indiana: You’ll never get away with this!
Bad Guy: I vill if the steering rack doesn’t fail. As you know, there is no aftermarket support for that. But my contact in Istanbul has a lead on a low-mileage used piece. Ha ha ha!
Indiana: Heartless grave robber!
Bad Guy: Maybe so, but if my car lives to carve another corner, it will all be worth it. Now I will leave you to die, stymied by a blown radiator hose. Goodbye, Dr.Jones.
Little did the wicked Bad Guy know, the upper radiator hose from a modern Ford fullsize van is a perfect fit on his old Chrysler. Soon Indiana Jones was on his way!
By “regular-sized minivan” I meant not a “mini” minivan, such as the 1980s Nissan Stanza/Prairie. It was much smaller and didn’t have a third row, but it did have dual sliding doors.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-asian/curbside-classic-1986-nissan-stanza-wagon-prairie-the-first-modern-mini-van/
Yes, those were strange vehicles, but there was something about them I liked. A small people-mover like the Mitsubishi micro-minivans sold as Summits” for Eagle, complete in 2 sizes, micro and mini-micro!
One of Wifey’s friends years ago had a Stanza and she loved it until it began breaking down and repairs were horribly expensive. She bought a PT Dream Cruiser. A very nice ride, too.
Wowza….that body structure probably has the rigidity of a jellyfish combined with overcooked noodles….
Maybe that was what the body engineer had for lunch.
Someone at work uses one of these Stanza wagons as his DD. It’s in showroom-immaculate condition, so he obviously cares for it very well. I’ve yet to run into him to chat about it, but it’s a treat to see every day!
Re: the body structure, I think these had B-pillars though, didn’t they? As opposed to the Axxess which had one wide opening? Or maybe I have that backwards.
I prefer them to be called “midivans”. But it hasn’t taken off yet.
I drove a ’95 Voyager for about 81/2 years….it was a fairly reliable vehicle which gave me relatively few problems-until it hit 100k-then everything started going south. First, the fuel pump, then the a/c compressor and finally the transmission. I had taken really good care of it, but this really destroyed my confidence in Chrysler vehicles. I haven’t touched one since.
Yup, our 94 we bought in 05 at a garage sale for $800 with 89,000 miles lasted until 2011 at 133,000 miles when everything started going wrong. Tranny controllers, head gasket, AC, driver side front seat back broke, and a sprung driver door that I couldn’t replace without cutting the door hinges off because they are glued on. And the driver door latch wouldn’t anymore. We got a $500 trade in on a 02 F150 and were ecstatic.
As original owner and ardent defender of Toyota Vans [we have 1984 LE 5MT], I was always bummed that they didn’t do the dual sliding doors earlier. Since they sold this van in other markets, they had already figured out how to make the door on either side [though in their defense, I suppose not on both sides at the same time). rear HVAC controls would have needed to be relocated I guess.
Also Toyota had the swivel captain’s chairs in 1986!
And just to mess with semantics, North America might have had to wait until 3rd gen to experience dual sliding doors, but the Maruti/Suzuki Omni had these on their mini-minivan, starting in 1984. I always marveled at that as a kid when visiting family in India. It seemed like such a no-brainer!
We also bought a ’95 Voyager base 2.5L and had it 9 years while the kids were young. Very comfortable ride but slow. We bought an extended warranty bumping it to 5/60 from 3/36 and boy, did that pay off. For $800 extra it paid for 3 AC compressors and several other items. Ironically, when the warranty expired it ran trouble free until 125K and then it all went south, including the AC(again) and we sold it for $1K. Cars in TX w/o air aren’t worth too much. I have a fondness for this generation but doubt I’ll ever buy Chrysler again.
“Cars in TX w/o air aren’t worth too much.” To quote a friend ” a car in Texas without a/c is considered disabled”
I love those seats. And no huge console. A vehicle made for real people. Hard to find these days.
The 1994-95 model year also had side impact beams added to all the doors which makes parts swapping a bit difficult if you care about such things. I think Cash for Clunkers killed about 10,000 of these 91-95 Chrysler Minivans if I remember correctly.
I am so glad my folks bought a 95 Voyager Family Package with the 3 Litre V6 and 3 Speed Torqueflite since that seems to be one of the most durable powertrain combinations. It was Poppy Red and one of the last ones on the lot by August 95, I think Buhler was glad to see it go. Great vehicle and we enjoyed it for 18 years even spending a few grand at one point fixing a bunch of rust. Now that I am in Oregon I am buying another 94-95 Voyager when I have enough money.
How did they get away without having them for so long, or weren’t they required in normal cars either? It would seem odd for what was clearly a family vehicle to slip through some kind of ‘truck’ loophole.
My brother still has his 1995 Plymouth Voyager. You have to appreciate an older car which with no more than normal maintenance has outlasted three transmissions in its “replacement” Honda Odyssey. Oh, yes…he has had to replace the Voyager’s radio, whose digital controls locked up. I gave him the one that I took out of my 1995 Dodge Intrepid when I put a CD-equipped Chrysler radio in it.
I don’t know if they’re any better now, but in my experience the reliability of 90’s Chrysler factory radios is awful.
My pickup originally had one with a tape deck. It was broken when I bought it used. Dealership had it repaired. The radio broke again in a short time. I don’t remember what happened, but it was rendered useless. Replaced that temporarily with a basic AM/FM only unit. In addition to not having a tape deck, it had fewer station presets and no clock display.
Then I installed an upgraded Chrysler Infinity stereo with CD player. The buttons started going wonky, either not working or doing the wrong thing. They cheaped-out on the circuit board button contacts and didn’t gold-plate them so they oxidized. I took it apart and cleaned the contact once, which lasted for awhile. When it stared acting-up again I replaced it with an aftermarket JVC deck which I’m pretty happy with.
An ex boss had one of the original generation (exact yr unknown}. Short, stick, 4cyl and run for over 200k. Made a believer out of me but not quite heavy enough for a contractor work vehicle.
Btw: My selection for who parked this one is a youngster (about your age) who was texting. I generally shift my cube to reverse and use the rear camera to spot the lines. A senior using technology. Who woudda thot.
Either vans and wagons would be an acceptable choice for me but i sure am sold on 4wd. A van would be ideal for my 36yo son who refuses to consider it. Life full of kids, surfboards, and false pride.
On that parking job: Yeah, most likely…but I do remember one time when I grabbed the last space in the lot, which happened to be shaped just like that. Sure enough, when I returned to the car the spots on both sides were empty and I looked like the idiot.
I’m one of the holdouts who prefers driving a car-shaped vehicle, and thinks that a wagon should be quite enough for one child or maybe two. If I had more than two, I’d go minivan before I’d go SUV, because it’s obviously the most sensible vehicle for a larger family. As I don’t plan to have more than two, it’s wagon all the way for me. False pride? Maybe. But I’ve already spent too much of my life driving vehicles that I’ve been underwhelmed with due to them being cheap or free, so if I’m going to buy something decent, I’m going to buy something that I’ll enjoy whether the whole family is on board or whether it’s just me.
I like the 91-95 Caravan. I like the restyle that Lido and company gave it. It made the van look just enough different to be considered the 2nd gen but not so different that Chrysler deep sixed the heritage of the first generation. The only thing I would change on it was to ditch the pentastar hood ornament and instead mount the pentastar in the grill.
However i would rather have a 1990 Caravan as it could be had with a turbo engine and a 5 speed stick.
I miss hood ornaments.
Then the Hyundai Equus is for you.
I pulled this off a 1995 Grand Caravan LE at a salvage yard last summer! Too bad it wasn’t a crystal pentastar from a Town & Country.
These were nice vans, and this one is still very presentable. Around 1990 I was having something done on my Colt at the local ChryPly dealer. I recall sitting in one of these and was impressed with the quality of the materials inside, as well as all of the thoughtful little touches that these were known for. I had never been much of a fan, but I started to understand that appeal that day.
There are still a few of these on the ground in the midwest, most likely 3.3/Torqueflite cars. Say what you will about Iacocca’s reign at Chrysler, for the first time in my lifetime, the company was building a wide range of cars that were appealing to the average Joe and Jane.
We had a neighbor that owned a jewelry manufacturing company that drove a dark green and gold Dodge Caravan with tan leather interior for at least 10 years. Whenever I see a Caravan of this vintage that is the first one that comes to mind because I would see them drive that vehicle everyday for over 10 years and then it suddenly disappeared when they moved to Florida in the mid 2000’s.
My mom’s best friend had one of these when I was a kid. White Caravan (maybe Grand?)… a 93ish, I believe. There’s video of me and the friend’s daughter, who is similar in age, riding in the dual child seats in the second row.
My grandfather also had one – a white 94ish Town & Country. Tan leather interior (with supremely soft seats, from what I recall) and digital dashboard. I remember the gauges would always do a “full sweep” and count all the way up and back down when you started the van.
I think a lot of people my age grew up riding around in these vans, or with friends whose parents had them. I remember a few of the AS and then a TON of the NS (the 96-01ish) models. Definitely remember some more well-off families who had the dads driving luxury sedans and mom in a loaded Chrysler T&C. It was basically that or a Suburban, if you wanted the 7-passenger hauler, and the Chrysler van definitely drove better and was easier to park.
Todays minivans, yes…a fate I wouldn’t wish on anyone. Right down there with the average 4 door sedan.
That said, I do have a SMALL amount of love for the first generation minivans. They hadn’t become full bore mommy wagons just yet. Cargo versions were aplenty, and most could be had even with a manual trans! I remember seeing examples of all the American minis in Four Wheeler magazine with swapped in Jeep running gear making them into 4x4s.
Ive seen quite a few Caravans/Voyagers turned into monsterous sleepers. A warmed over GT Cruiser or SRT-4 engine/transaxle in one of these would catch many sports/muscle cars with their pants down at a stoplight faceoff. And Im 99% sure that somewhere out there exists a shortie Caravan with no side windows, a manual trans and a turbo II engine. All those were available simultaneously at one point. And that would make a helluva little hotrod.
Mine was the ’92 Voyager with the ultra-rare 5-speed stick. I seem to remember reading that in 1992, Chrysler made 176,000 minivans, and only 3,000 had manual transmissions. I think they were all red; mine was.
I bought it in ’03 for $850. By that time, a lot of vans from that generation were in the junkyard due to failed autoboxes. I used that to my advantage in changing my base interior to top-line spec for a couple hundred dollars.
It was a solid vehicle. I drove it for 2 years and sold it for $500.
I remember when the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager minivan premiered, and frankly, I didn’t like it much. It looked too plain for what it was to be used for. And to make matters worst, it was front-wheel drive, fine for small cars like the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon, but hardly what I call acceptable for a van.
Actually, it was good that Chrysler didn’t fiddle around with the basic look of the Gen 2 minivan, in retrospect today. The original T115 had very clean lines and these models maintain that well.
Some of today’s minivans just look too big and overwrought by comparison. The current Honda Odyssey, for example. No wonder some of the posters here are nostalgic about the original Mopar versions.
I want to know who is actually buying a minivan for the styling in the first place. That’s like hiring a lawyer based on his fashion sense. Its a tool, a means to an end. Pure and simple. Todays minivans look ridiculous because whoever designed them is trying to rub some Fast N Furious stank on them. Save ‘aggressive’ for the sports cars and muscle cars.
About the only minivans that I actually liked the styling on were the 3rd-gen Chrysler minivans that followed these. Very rounded in the mid 90’s idiom, but they just nailed the details.
The current-gen Kia Sedona isn’t bad at all either, if a tiny bit overdone up front. But, you’re right in that no one buys one for the styling and many manufacturers are just trying too hard.
The current Odyssey reminds me of a hearse, specially in dark grey or black. There is something about that horizontal kink that shouts funeral.
for what its worth:
2015 Dodge Caravan
weight: 4510 lbs
width: 78.7″
height: 68.9″
length: 202.8″
wheelbase: 121.2″
1975 Dodge B-Series van (SWB/LWB)
weight: 4600-4800 lbs (B100)
width: 79″
height: 80.8″
length: 176″/194″/212″(Maxivan)
wheelbase: 109″/127″
Not really “minivans” anymore, are they?
“Midivans”.
One quirk of this generation that always puzzled me was how they carried over the old chrome door handles for 1991, then added the new blacked-out handles in 1992. Why? Maybe a supplier issue, who knows. I’ve also never seen a 1995 model with fake wood paneling – another thing I’ve never read anything about online, but I’m 90% sure they discontinued it after 1994.
I’ll reluctantly admit to having gone through a brief fascination with early Chrysler minivans as a kid for the same reasons as you, even though they are a weird genre of vehicle to care about. My family owned an ’84 Voyager, an ’86 Caravan C/V (the rare cargo version), and a ’90 Voyager at different points throughout my childhood. The ’84 contains some of my earliest memories – loaded first-year LE model with fake wood paneling, oh-so-’80s deep brown paint, matching brown velour interior, I think it had just about every option.
Modern vans don’t interest me at all – they are huge, expensive, and are always driven slowly and poorly by grandparents or the rare soccer mom who hasn’t switched to a CUV. They are so big now that I rarely hear the word “minivan” in conversation anymore, my friends simply call their parents/grandparents Town & Countrys “the van”, etc.
I think you are correct in that no woodgrain versions were produced for 1995. It’s not listed as an option in my 1995 Voyager brochure. It was still available in 1994, even with the smoother bumpers and lower body cladding. Here’s a ’94 Grand Caravan with it. I’d assume it was just cost cutting, as they weren’t that popular as the years went on anyway.
The door handles was a weird thing. Probably a supplier issue, or a 13th hour decision. Again, the black plastic was probably cheaper.
My 1995 Plymouth Voyager brochure has no mention of woodgrain as an option for the outside.
We bought a new ’92 GC, with the 3.3 V6, Ultramatic, and ABS. The V6 was great, but we went through four(!) transmissions, as well as several of those damn ABS pumps. The ABS system was so problematic, Chrysler had to give a lifetime warranty on it. The last time I had them install a new pump, the van was 15 years old, had some 200k miles on it and almost worthless. It probably would have been cheaper for them to buy it from me and scrap it then to install another ABS pump.
It felt a bit strange to be asking for a warranty repair on such an old car. I suspect many were scrapped by owners who didn’t know about the life-time warranty on that ABS pump.
We had neighbors who bought almost the exact same ’92 GC, except for the 3.0 V^, the Torqueflite, and no ABS. They kept it even longer than we did, and never had any major issues. I should have kept it simple.
But for the time, the Ultramatic was a great transmission (when it worked). It’s adaptive memory was very advanced, and it shifted very smoothly. And the overdrive was so much nicer than not having one on long trips.
That is what my folks bought, a stripper version 95 Voyager with the 3 Litre and 3 Speed Torqueflite.
A family friend with an ABS equipped 92 Grand Caravan drove it through a Vermont snowstorm and found the ABS annoying since they said it locks up the wheels for 6 feet then releases them for 6 feet.
Just glad my dad can still drive his Subaru with non-functioning ABS.
We had a ’94 Grand Voyager for a while and it was pretty reliable given the high miles (over 180k when we sold it at auction). It had the 4-speed Ultradrive, it started slipping a little at the end (even after fluid change as recommended by Allpar) but by then the body was in poor enough shape that it wasn’t worth putting any more money into.
I always wondered, why was there a “3” selection on the gear shifter AND an “O/D OFF” button to the right of the gauge cluster? Aren’t those the same thing? Or did the O/D OFF button allow fourth gear without locking up the torque converter?
The O/D Off button as far as I know keeps the Overdrive off all the time through all the gears if you want it to and keeps the revs higher at higher speeds.
They finally got the front end styling right with this one . The original had the stacked quad headlights and larger grill that looked a bit odd. I called the second generation the Free Willy van, because it was rounded and looked like a whale.
My dad had a 1995 Chrysler Grand Voyager Le lux 3.3 from it was new to the year of 2000. I think it was a Plymouth badged as a Chrysler for Europe. Actually this was a troublefree car for the 80.000 miles(130.000 km) he drove it, and compared to his new Peugeot 406 HDi he missed the V6 engine a lot. The 406 also was less troublefree to say at least. Remember a 3.3 liter engine was considered as VERY big in Norway in 1995.
Compared to other vans we could buy in Norway, as the Toyota Hiace and VW Caravelle and others like them, the Voyager was very fast, very strong, very comfortable and very very quiet. Norwegian taxrules let these vans (all of them) be registered, with less rear seat leg room, as a “combination-car” with only 20% of the normal taxes. With normal taxes these Voyagers would have cost, in USD, today about 120-140.000 USD (!).
Does 3 weeks qualify for the CC Effect? I saw an immaculate Gen 1 Caravan a couple days after Christmas out on Coronado (across the bay from San Diego). I assume it’s been restored (I don’t think that’s a factory color combo), but it is remarkable condition.
Wow. That’s the nicest 1st-gen Chrysler minivan I’ve seen in a long, long time!
Neither my parents, nor anyone in my extended family, ever owned a gen1 or 2 minivan. Seems impossible for a bunch of Mopar loyalists, but we yoots all got hauled around in sedans until the SUV era. Didn’t live at home by then.
Everybody’s mom in my town seemingly drove dark green versions these between ’92-’00 (right about the time everybody’s dad drove a Grand Cherokee or Explorer).
Except the Town and Country. I only remember one, driven by a very hot younger teacher who was recently married. It didn’t fit her at all. And I never figured out the target buyer for the T&C. The woodgrain didn’t seem to add any character like it did on the big Wagoneer and the Country Squire.
That’s funny as one of the only people I ever knew who drove this generation Town & Country was my high school chemistry teacher and cross country coach. He was a married father of four in his late-50s/early-60s, so he better fit the demographic. It was a ’92 or ’93, forrest green with woodgrain, gold alloys, and tan leather.
This was in like 2007-2008, so the van was well broken in by then (it felt a little rickety quite frankly). I rode in it once when we were checking out another team’s XC course. By like 2010 he had replaced it with his wife’s 4th gen Grand Caravan after she bought a new Grand Cherokee.
So which of the V6s and auto transmission combos are the most reliable? And for which series? I rented a 1989 Caravan during the Christmas holidays of that year. It was SWB versuion with the turbo 4 cyl. It made a very favorable impression but never bought one.
My folks got 18 years of use out of a 95 Voyager with the 3 Litre V6 and the 3 Speed Torqueflite until it got totaled. The Overdrive Tranny is not as reliable and I saw a bunch of Minivans with that tranny in junkyards. I continue to say the 3 Litre V6 is the most reliable of the engines, but others disagree.
Didn’t they have a dizzying array of problems, too?
A good friend’s dad had one of this generation, I think a ’91. White Caravan SWB with gray lower-body cladding and gray interior, not sure of the trim level. Spent quite a bit of time in it, and I remember the interior seemed high quality, if not exciting at all. He put a ton of miles on it, well over 100K and on the way to 200K by the late 90’s. It started burning oil at some point, which I think wasn’t uncommon on 1st and 2nd gen models, not sure which engine was prone to it but one must have been, but good other than that. As far as I know, they still owned that van when I lost touch with the friend after we went to different colleges.
The 1995 Plymouth Voyager is old enough to be classic-eligible. There are fewer on the road, as you point out. Well-maintained, they still look good, and have unique style. Any opinions on the efficacy and the likelihood that there are still thousands in good condition, will be appreciated.
I drove a ’95 Voyager for several years and was a good vehicle until I hit the 100k mark, then everything started going south: fuel pump, a/c compressor, transmission, radiator and then peeling paint. I went through about three replacement transmissions in about an eighteen month period. I’ve never driven another Chrysler product since then. I’m currently on my second Honda Odyssey and the differences are night and day.
“As critics, we are often quick to disapprove of such mild redesigns.” We are?
Back in summer 2007 I bought 92 Plymouth with 200k on the clock but very mechanically sound for 1200 USD. Had a blast during WAT program in Lake Tahoe area with my girlfriend and other 4 girls taking us to trips within California area. In September, working program ends and my sister with BIL come over to USA and we spend next 4 weeks travelling to Yosemity and many other parks on the way back to California camping every night. I sold the van 2 days prior our flight from San Francisco back home, for 1400 USD. What a great vehicle it was! Plate database confirms to serve another 3-4years before finally being scrapped. Now I’m enjoying Sienna, looking forward to recreate this trip once kids are older, perhaps with the proper RV this time as my bones are getting older for freezing night temperature in Yosemite and Flagstaff during otherwise perfect weather period of September.
Edit: was typo, we made it actually all the way to Yellowstone. Just during September put 5k miles during our camping road trip. Found old ad from craiglist, made my day. Had 197,500 miles when sold, was fully loaded minus ABS, fog lights and 4×4.