(first posted 5/19/2013) Now before I go any further, I must confess something to you: I have a thing for minivans. For as long as I could say “Volkswagen Buggy” or “Ferrari”, I could also say “Dodge Caravan” and “Plymouth Voyager”. As a kid, minivans were cool. Today? Well, I’d rather stick to my memories of them.
Minivans were truly a unique type of vehicle twenty years ago. There were no crossovers. The only other large, high-riding vehicles were truck-based SUVs. And nothing could match the minivan’s configure-ability. They offered features just not found in other vehicles back then. Third-row seats, individual second-row buckets, rear climate control, and sliding doors! Three out of four of those can now be found on just about every SUV and crossover today, but to a young child, experiencing these for the first time was a real excitement.
So it’s no secret that I wanted one. I tried to convince my grandfather, but he stuck to his Oldsmobiles. Then I begged my mom. She wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan though, and as I grew older, neither would I. That’s right, I do not want to drive or own a minivan. It’s more of a fantasy, not something I want as part of my real life.
Now just like a twenty-year-old is only into girls around his own age, my interest in minivans has only to do with ones that were new around the time of my childhood. And it’s mainly for Chrysler minivans.
Looking back, the thing I like most about these Chrysler minivans was their ability to have so many personalities. From the basic no-frills base Caravans and Voyagers, to the boy racer Caravan ES, rugged Sport Wagon trim, and ritzy Town & Country that could even be had with the throwback wood grain siding. Now as you Chrysler people know, I’m referring to the 2nd generation 1991-1995 minivans.
These are the first minivans I remember seeing as a kid. They are also the first minivan I remember riding in (a ’94 or ’95 Voyager). These are the cars that taught me about badge engineering. I thought it was pretty cool back then, now I know better. They weren’t that bad looking either, at least in my opinion. I mean look at their competition.
On one end you had the RWD, truck-based monsters: the Ford Aerostar, GM’s Astro/Safari, and the spaceship Toyota Previa. Its front-wheel drive competitors were the infamous Dustbuster minivans from GM and the smallish Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager twins.
Towards the end of its lifecycle, Ford finally released the more competitive Windstar. But Chrysler would not be outshone nor outsold in the segment it created…
Enter the 1996 Chrysler minivans: Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan, Plymouth Voyager/Grand Voyager, and Chrysler Town & Country. Gone were any remnants of the K-cars. Styling was fresh, sleek, and stylish in every form. I will go so far as to say that I think these are the best-looking minivans ever produced.
1996 brought a host of innovations, none more notable than a driver’s side sliding door. It always seems odd to me that it took decades for a carmaker to build any sort of van with a driver’s side sliding door. Needless to say, dual sliding doors were a huge selling point for these cars. Now, the five rear passengers didn’t have to wait (or fight each other) to get out through one door. Rear seats could be rolled out on their very own tiny wheels. With the choice of either intermediate bench or Quad Command buckets, seating arrangements could be configured for any situation. ’96s were also airier, as the greenhouse was 30% greater than ’95s.
With the exception of Caravan Sport and ES models, and all Town & Countries, these new minivans all came with gray bumpers and side moldings. It looked quite distinguished and provided a nice two-tone effect. As an added bonus, the gray plastic bumpers were less susceptible to scuffs and dents and thus held up better over time.
LE models were given gray lower body cladding, giving these vans a true two-tone appearance. These rather rare models were the best looking trim in this minivan connoisseur’s opinion.
Unfortunately, the Plymouth Voyager, my favorite, was not available in LE trim in the U.S. For some odd reason, it was in Canada. I didn’t believe this until I purchased a 1996 Canadian-spec Voyager brochure, where it was in fact included. Maybe more Canadians wanted leather seats and fancy alloys, but didn’t want to flaunt their luxury in a gold-trimmed Town & Country.
The rest of us Americans were left with the choice of Voyager in either plain or SE trim. But have no fear, (now quoting the 1996 U.S. brochure) “For a distinctive styling flair that’s paired with high-value equipment, choose the optional Rallye package. It’s the perfect way to showcase Voyager’s fun personality”. Fun personality? As a marketing major, I can only applaud the clever use of attaching this adjective to something so subjective. They could have easily said “fun to drive”, but that wouldn’t be fooling anyone.
So precisely what was all this styling flair and high-value equipment? Little more than features otherwise optional: 15-inch 10-spoke cast aluminum wheels, tinted windows, silver paint stripes surrounding the windows, body-color grille and door handles, and special badging so everyone knew you were driving a Rallye Voyager. Due to its $1,000+ MSRP over regular Voyager SEs, I assume opting for the Rallye décor package also included other packages such as lighting, climate, etc.
For ’97 the Rallye’s availability was expanded to Grand Voyager SEs. These models also now included the upgraded luxury cloth and low-back front buckets found in LEs and base Town & Countries. The writing font used on those super special Rallye badges spread throughout the Plymouth lineup and would be used for all Plymouth badging until the end. This would be the swansong of the Voyager Rallye, as this décor package would be renamed “Expresso” for ’98.
I drive by this ’97 Voyager SE Rallye often on my way to the gym. It’s always sitting in this playground parking lot. I assume the owner lives in a nearby home and doesn’t have enough driveway space. The Voyager changes directions often, so it must still be a daily driver. The lower body rust, though minimal, was a surprise to me. Most Chrysler vans from this period have actually seemed to ward off rust despite 15+ New England winters.
Moving around to the rear, there’s a considerable dent that too has begun to rust. The rest of the minivan was pretty normal for a 16-year-old vehicle. From the pictures, you will notice that the front grille badge has fallen off. I doubt anyone would want to steal a plastic Plymouth grille badge like they would a Mercedes hood ornament.
Between the three, I always preferred the Voyager’s styling touches the best. I’ve never been a fan of Dodge’s crosshair grille. And as seen on higher trim models, spoilers and mesh grille inserts don’t look nearly as good on a minivan as they would on a sedan or coupe.
The Town & Country started off okay, with its traditional waterfall grille and gold wheels, but went too over the top for ’98 with its enlarged main grille, large lower air intake, two mini air intakes, oversized fog lights, and the addition of separate running light strips, for a total of six separate headlights.
Meanwhile, stylists over at Plymouth kept it simple. Appealing egg-crate grille, fog light-less bumper, and modern-looking wheel covers. If buyers wanted a sporty, menacing-looking vehicle, they wouldn’t buy a minivan. Slapping “Rallye” badges on a Voyager was an odd move, as a minivan would be the last type of vehicle the word “rallye” would ever invoke. What I can say is that the Voyager’s styling made sense. Fun-loving or not, it fit the Voyager’s personality as a family hauler, with a bit of style.
I agree: These are the best-looking minivans ever. I’d think a short-wheelbase Voyager from this era would make good cheap wheels today.
Ditto and +1.
Material quality, fit and finish dropped considerably with the Gen 4 restyle, which to me ruined the lines of the vehicle in an attempt to be trendy.
As I’ve often stated, Son Number One still drives our ’98 Grand Caravan (3.3l, which has proved to be as durable as the venerable Slant Six), which is nearing 270,000 miles as of this writing. The rust repairs I made 5-6 years ago are starting to bubble back through again, and we’ll probably let them go this time.
+1, tho the new Pacifica is quite presentable.
+1
The 2001 face-lift wasn’t an improvement.
Honda just got around to having the hidden sliding door tracks in the latest Odyssey, more than 2 decades later.
I, too, have had a thing for the minivan. I’ve had a satchel of them…I had a Mini-Ram panel truck, that I used for a time as a camper. Then, I inherited my father’s Caravan. A 1988.
That one was worn; and the driving position in those years was not the best for long trips. So it went away…but years later, the 1996-era Chrysler minis started showing up in the market as near-beater drive-and-go’s.
The railroad assignment I had at the time, sort of encouraged having a car at both ends. You’d be at the company flophouse for hours, and often more than one day. Walking to Mickey Dee’s got old; eating there got old quicker. Having an away-from-home-terminal car solved it all.
I bought a stripper white 1996. It had exactly the rust in your first picture; but I loved it! The driving position perfect for me. Reasonably economical. And, I could hall googobs of crap, or six very-greasy railroaders to an off-the-beaten-path mom-and-pop bistro.
I liked it so much, when the transmission failed (in a race with structural rust) I actually bought a new one! The last of the last…a 2007 Chrysler T&C. Daimler-No-Longer-Chrysler was having a fire sale to clear out 2007 inventory…this in March 2008. I got it with a $4000 rebate. Couldn’t beat that with a stick!
And it was one of the best all-around cars I’d ever owned. Driver’s chair ALMOST as good as the 1996. Instrumentation, not as well laid out…but more thorough. Reliable to a fault; it towed my Jeep YJ from Ohio to Wisconsin and later to Michigan, and never complained.
I traded it in prematurely…because I’d really beaten on it and knew the breed beget trouble. And Chrysler was bankrupt and the lines sitting dead…nobody then knew if ChryCo would rise from the grave.
But…I’m a no-apologies minivan proponent. Especially of those two generations of Chryslers; 1996 to 2007.
Put me down as a minivan lover, too. The original SWB proportions were just right to tackle 90% of suburban tasks while maintaining decent fuel mileage and maneuverability. And it just kept getting better and better with the additions of the driver’s side sliding door, fold-into-the-floor rear seat (Honda Odyssey) and, finally, the ‘Stow-N-Go’ system which also allowed the second row seats to fold into the floor.
Unfortunately, this supreme practicality was likely the undoing of the original SWB minivan, too. Eventually, no one wanted to be seen in a vehicle that screamed, “I’m the most practical, unstylish person in the world!”. The emasculated perception just couldn’t be shaken and the ‘sporty’ (but nowhere near as useful) SUV ran away with the market.
However, I’m still hopeful that, someday, someone will see the wisdom of conquering one of the last remaining minivan hurdles, and that’s improving the fuel mileage with some sort of hybrid/EV system. IMHO, a hybrid version will be just the thing to return the minivan to its former glory. Well, a hybrid/EV system will go a lot further to improving minivan sales than stuff like Honda’s latest big minivan improvement: the integral vacuum cleaner.
In 1993, my parents bought a ’94 Plymouth Voyager SE minivan in green, with the “10 Year Limited Edition” package.
In 2000, they replaced the Plymouth with a ’01 Chrysler Town & Country LX with the same ugly green color (and now with dual-rear doors.)
As boring & utilitarian as they were, I’d pick the Voyager over the T&C because the Daimler-designed vans looked like jellybeans.
Is that a big leak of transmission fluid on the concrete? If it is it somehow seems fitting.
Never having owned one, I would still rally around a Rallye Voyager. Really.
Sorry, I couldn’t help that. 🙂
All automobiles seem to have become bloated over the years, the minivan in particular. The curb weight on an ’85 Voyager was 3200 to 3400 pounds; not light-weight, but reasonable for what it is. Looking at a new Honda Odyssey, the curb weight is in the 4500 to 4800 pound zone – that’s 1977 Mercury Grand Marquis territory, and the Honda doesn’t have as stout a suspension (didn’t look up the weight of the Caravan or T/C). I would wager my ’00 Ford E-150 is about the same weight as the Honda. Not good.
This generation of Mopar minivan was about the ultimate – very comfortable to drive, reasonably economical, and roomy.
My 99 T&C was very close to 4,000 pounds, in the range of a mid 60s Newport. In its defense, however, all that weight made for a very solid-feeling vehicle.
Somewhere they build these in RHD we have a lot of Plymouth Voyagers here, its easy to see where Chryslwer got their inspiration from all those, Japanese powertrains Lido imported must have come with pictures because Jap minivans predate the American ones though admittedly some of those were in commercial vans fittede with multiple seats instead of cargo, and today Nissan leads the minivan charge with their Elgrand Homy, Thats what the wealthy Pacific Islanders drive here as they traditionally buy these vans due to large families and export back to their Island when they leave, Samoa actually changed to RHD simply so people can import cars from NZ where they are so much cheaper than the US and minivans are a favourite.
Think ours came from the Magna-Steyr plant in Graz, Austria.
Too bad your grandfather didn’t buy an Oldsmobile Silhouette.
Here’s mine and I still love it.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-curbside-classic-2002-olsmobile-silhouette-gls-this-is-your-mothers-olds/
If manufacturers are going to offer Rallye & Sports trim packages for minivans, there may as well be SCCA events for them. Now that would be a hoot! They could even have rules insisting on crash-test dummies for all the ankle-biters in back.
Very nice article, thanks! Minivans are strangely fascinating to me as well. And I like the Saab 9-2X in the background, rare bird, that one.
That is the SAAB badged WRX, right?
I owned a 97 Voyager Ralye in dark green, and no it’s not ugly based on the number sold in that color. Had it for 13 years Engine and trans never opened. Except for tune ups an oil changes. Every thing the surpentine belt drove was replaced (except the compressor). My wife is still mad at me for selling it. We are now retired and doing many long driving trips. But not in an old minivan. I have to rank it near the top of the cars we’ve owned. But mini vans aren’t mini anymore. So we didn’t buy another.
Had a 1996 Grand Caravan. Great vehicle, except the headlights were abysmal. No major problems. Replaced that in 2003 with a 2003 Town & Country. More nicely equipped, but the cost-cutting was beginning to show (no wiper defroster wires, fewer interior lights). That was replaced in 2012 when the transmission and head gasket both began leaking profusely (one or the other I would have had fixed, both, forget it). I discovered that these can be bought used quite cheaply, so got a 2006 T&C with 50,000 miles for $10K. Love the stow-n-go seats, the rest of the van not so much. Further cost-cutting is in evidence (yes I do still need a lighted button for the garage door opener, thank you). However, I hope to get 5 more years from it, if it lasts to about the same milage as the last one (125K).
The level of decontenting between my parents’ old 2002 Caravan and their current 2007 T&C is staggering. In addition to the lack of a defrost element for the wipers and fewer lights (the blank-out panel for the second light in the liftgate seems particularly insulting) there are also more exposed screwheads, cheapened door panels with fewer backlit switches, and thinner carpeting and floor mats.
Neither of those vans was as comfortable to drive as my Dad’s first ChryCo minivan, a 2000 base model Caravan. The seats seemed to have thicker padding on the earlier model, and Chrysler also did something with the accelerator pedal angle in the newer versions that makes it uncomfortable to rest your foot on it while driving.
Quite, my brother’s older Caravan had an interior quite superior to that of my 2007 model.
Brendan I am amused by your comment about lower body rust, around here that one would be considered good. A lot of Caravans are missing the back half of the outer rocker entirely.
On mine I replaced the plastic stick on plug with a rubber grommet plug, which gives me access to the inside of the rocker panel. Every couple of years I can vacuum out the 2 inches of grit it collects, and spay in some rustproofing oil. Am I OCD or what??
If I am going to name a “vehicle of one generation of which I have ridden in the most examples of”, it would have to be this generation of Chrysler minivan (1996-2000).
I was born in the early ’90s, so it seemed like ALL of my friends’ parents had one back in the day!
I also remember the strange but oddly fascinating “sport appearance packages” on the Dodge: my piano teacher lived across the street from a (now closed) Dodge dealer lot.
Fun fact: first-generation Durangos use exactly the same taillights as the 1996-2000 minivans.
Chrysler rightly deserved to lead sales of minivans all these years, because they were the best executed product of what the minivan is, a simple conventional box dressed for comfort but not too much to not be family friendly. No need for space age designs, mid engine layouts, or truck chassis (although there was a commercial use for those).
I was talking to someone once that owned a Chrysler Pacifica and had considered trading it in for a new vehicle. I said, “what are you going to replace the station wagon with?” He said adamantly “it isn’t a station wagon, its a crossover!” I said, “really? I said you told me you got it because its roomy for your kids and stuff and drives like a car. A crossover has all the features of a station wagon and a minivan but labeled in a package that doesn’t affect your image…”
That is so true. You’d think just the utterance of the dreaded word, MINIVAN!! would cause men to have erectile dysfunction and sexual-orientation issues; and women to suddenly turn into frumps with ten kids. The whole POINT of the minivan was,. it was made to better fill the need of a station-wagon buyer; with more interior room and better economy.
It was right on the mark.
Moms loved them…until they, the vans, started getting identified with motherhood. That’s a problem…WHY? Catty women sneer at fortysomething men in Jeep Wranglers or Corvettes…yet they, their brood in tow, all want to be Lara Croft and drive Land Rovers.
Or something that looks vaguely like a Land Rover; but hauls the kids and meets the family budget.
Anyhoo…rejection of the minivan by America’s mothers, is THE most telling proof: People often buy cars to adopt or portray an IMAGE.
And, it’s a shame. If I could get a like-new 2007 ChryCo minivan…even for a premium…I’d do it in a split jiffy. It was THE one most useful car I ever owned.
Minivans were cool when they first came out. Wagons were uncool. Now with station wagons all but gone, minivans are not cool and have been supplanted with crossovers.
Like the story with the lesbians and the Subarus, its not nice but people are often not nice, and there is a lot of stereotypes to certain cars.
I would have said the need for a minivan proves you had no erectile problems
???
In 96 my mother had a 91 transport and my girlfriens grandmother had a new caravan. The individual buckets in the transports way back where far more comfortable than th uprightbench in the caravan. I spent many a long drive in each a wished they had used a similar setup in the caravan as thre was a bar in the middle of the backrest that wouldmake me ach within an hour. Whereas the low slung buckets in the transport while a little more difficult to get into kinda coddled you and I didnt have a back ach ever even after the longest drives.
The buckets in the Chrysler minivans got noticeably cheapened once Daimler took over.
I know this. In addition to my own experience, the transport company that moved railroad crews used these same minivans. Over fifteen years; of course they’d replace their fleet incrementally.
The original individual semi-buckets were about as comfortable for an adult as any back seat ever is. But the Daimler cost-cutting…made them into torture devices, time-out chairs we dreaded sitting on for more than half an hour.
I like minivans myself, even though current ones really stretch the definition of “mini.” I would readily buy an 80s/ early 90s Chrysler minivan, preferably the wood grained T/C, since I’m a brougham man at heart.
Of the body style in the article, the T/C is my fave, and if I see one on the road, I do give it a second look. That’s happening less and less, however, as the years go by. Hopefully a few survive to remind us of the 90s!
I knew some people (from Canada) that had a SWB Plymouth Voyager “R/S”. Apparently, all that meant was some extra pinstripes and “R/S” badges. Cool name, though!
“Chrysler T&C- The Brougham Of Minivans”
Probably the most / only popular Chrysler to be sold here in the Netherlands (well, the Cherokee did ok too). Our 1997 Chrysler Voyager had the Dodge grille, though for later generations they switched to the Chrysler grille. Strangely, there also was a cargo version called the Dodge Ram Van. Anyway, our experience was that the van started to look tired quickly; it worked just fine, but it looked like it had 4 times the mileage. Still, much better than the Renault Espace which came after that, which had endless problems with going into limp mode, and at one point the under-engine cover fell off on the highway. One still sees the rare Voyager around, but Espaces have completely disappeared.
Agree, these were nice vans. My wife’s (then girlfriend’s) parents had one, a gold ’97 Town & Country, when we were in our early twenties. I had driven Venture/Uplanders and Windstar/Freestars, but I liked driving the Chrysler. The steering was nice and accurate in comparison (if a little light and slow), like driving a top-heavy Intrepid. And though the ride was thumpier than a car, it was a lot more stout-feeling than those other vans. It was great for moving apartments, tons of space with those rear seats removed.
“I’ve never been a fan of Dodge’s crosshair grille”
Bingo! That’s one reason I always preferred Plymouth over Dodge. I’m talking cars and minivans. Plymouths have always appeared a lot classier than any Dodge by the grille alone.
Why did it take so long to offer a driver’s side sliding door? Indeed. Why in the world did it take so long to install roll-down glass in the sliding doors is a more important question, which is the exact reason why we never bought a minivan, though we sure could have used one for several years.
We – yes, so did wifey – feel that the flip-out glass on 1st & 2nd generation vans would not provide enough outside air flow, and would force the use of A/C most of the time.
I miss Plymouth…
Dang, CC is doing it again – another close hit on one of my family’s vehicles. When my second was born in 98 we realized that the Cherokee we bought when #1 was born wasn’t as good with 2 to be strapped in.(Too high for the oldest (who was stoll 2) to climb in himself.) So we gave in and went to the Plymouth dealer. Got a green (weren’t they all?) Grand Voyager. Still have the picture snapped by the dealer with us. But I liked both the Jeep (with 5speed) and the Miata, so we were a 3 car family for a while.
“Unfortunately, the Plymouth Voyager, my favorite, was not available in LE trim in the U.S. For some odd reason, it was in Canada. I didn’t believe this until I purchased a 1996 Canadian-spec Voyager brochure, where it was in fact included. Maybe more Canadians wanted leather seats and fancy alloys, but didn’t want to flaunt their luxury in a gold-trimmed Town & Country.”
I suspect that the Voyager LE wasn’t sold in the U.S. to avoid overlap with lower-trimmed versions of the Town & Country, as Plymouth and Chrysler shared a dealer network in the U.S.
In Canada, Dodge dealers also sold Chryslers, which means there would have been a potential conflict with both Plymouth and Dodge. If Chrysler U.S. didn’t sell the the LE through Plymouth dealers, then why did Chrysler Canada? Since there would have been a conflict with both Plymouth and Dodge, shouldn’t Chrysler Canada have not sold the LE at all? I suspect the explanation is one or more of the following:
–Dodge dealers in Canada refused to give up the LE, and due to the long-standing tradition in Canada of Dodge-Plymouth and Chrysler-Plymouth dealers offering parallel model lineups, Plymouth had to be allowed to have it as well.
–Chrysler Canada equalized/simplified/de-conflcted the lineups sold by the two dealer networks by having Dodge and Plymouth sell the exact same lineups (including the LE), but not selling the lower-trimmed versions of the Town & Country (that might potentially conflict with the LE).
–Given that the Canadian market has historically been more slanted towards lower-priced models than the U.S. market, there may be something to Brendan’s suggestion that there was just more demand for a vehicle wearing a Dodge or Plymouth badge than a Chrysler badge.
A similar situation is discussed here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/car-show-classic-1979-chrysler-lebaron-this-ones-under-the-brougham-radar/
Thanks for your knowledge on why the LE was kept in Canada! What you said about dropping it in the U.S. to not overlap with T&C trims is definitely the reason.
I actually wrote my junior research paper in high school on the U.S. auto industry decline and fall (this was in 2009, right after the 2008 crisis) and one of the books I read for secondary research was “A Critical Path: Inventing and Automobile and Reinventing a Corporation” by Brock Yates. It’s all about the development process of the 1996 Chrysler minivans, so needless to say I think it’s a really good book.
Anyway, I remember when reading it did say that Chrysler-Plymouth’s marketing strategy with this generation was to strictly focus the Plymouths on value, while also trying to increase T&C sales. This is why when the ’96 vans came out, the Town & Country was available in lower-trimmed LX and SX models. Basically what they did with all Chrysler models around this time, adding cheapened versions while starving Plymouth for new products, eventually killing it off.
Great book though. I recommend everyone whose commented about their interest in these minivans to read it!
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Path-Automobile-Reinventing-Corporation/dp/0316967084
Actually, what I said above about Canada was just speculation on my part — sorry for not being clear on that point. I don’t know any of those things to be true, but based on the ususal explanations for these types of differences, I suspect that at least one of them is (maybe all of them are).
Another fan, here. I bought a well-used 99 (187K) T&C for peanuts, and soon found out why they were so popular. They were just so thoughtfully done. So many little touches that you didn’t know you needed until they were provided for you, then you rely on them.
After a year and a half, the tranny finally ate itself (at 207K) and the finance committee (chaired by Mrs. JPC) vetoed the expense of a rebuild.
I now have a 2012 Kia Sedona. I like it fine, particularly for the price, but it is nowhere near as nice inside as my T&C. I consider these minivans the peak of the genre. Also, for the record, I loved the big grille with the chrome wings. Chrysler was incredibly stupid to ditch this design feature, as anyone could ID a Town & Country at 100 yards
The wife and I bought a used 1999 Caravan “Platinum Edition” in 2002. That was quite a couple of months, since our son was born, we bought the minivan, and bought our first house in that time.
For the first couple of years we had it, it seemed fine. Then the problems started. The suspension, exhaust, and other mechanical bits needed replacing on a regular basis. This van had the notorious 3.0L Mitsubishi engine as well. About a year or so before it met its demise, it stated having a random stalling issue that no one could diagnose. On cool mornings (not cold), it would stall at a stop sign without fail. This was after 20 mins of driving at highway speeds, without an issue.
It was never fixed, as I got into an accident with it outside of the gates of Old Quebec City. The insurance company cut me a cheque for 3x what I thought it was worth, and I replaced it with a Mazda MPV. I’ve never owned a Chrysler product since.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that these are some of the best looking minivans ever made and it was a very capable vehicle. The maintenance costs were crazy after the first couple of years and that turned me off for good.
I have since had a new Grand Caravan as a rental for a week in Florida. I was very impressed with how they’ve improved. I don’t know if I am ready to give them another shot, though.
+1 for the SWB Plymouth! Perfectly sized vehicle.
When I bought my Trooper in 2001, the only serious contender was the Nissan Quest SE. Heated cloth seats and a sunroof are all you need in life. I decided against the Nissan only because I had had Nissans since ’88 and was ready for a change. I have no regrets, but as I’m car shopping now there is really only one “mini” van, the Mazda 5. It just doesn’t do anything for me, so I’m looking at an Outback.
A family member has an ’03 Grand Caravan…it truly is a Swiss army knife with all the crap that thing takes. Unfortunately it’s needed a number of repairs that I find very annoying, since the car barely has 100k.
Currently I think the VW Routan is pretty sharp looking, but unfortunately they’ve been cancelled. VW blew it big time when they didn’t produce their micoibus concept 5 years ago…
We had a ’93 Grand Caravan as I was growing up. I might be the odd one out but I always felt it was a little frumpy and utilitarian compared to the Lumina APV or Trans Sport. When I’d see one of them as a kid I thought they were the coolest of minivans, mainly because of that taillight treatment they had. Our van was the common metallic blue but had these rare styled rally wheels that I liked. Around 2000 after not being garaged for a year the paint on the roof started to let go, followed by the hood. After a rain there would be streaks on the windshield from the primer. It seemed to be the thinnest paint I’ve ever seen, I have no idea how it even had a clear coat. As a passenger as a kid, it wasn’t the most comfortable vehicle in the world with the flat bench seat but still beat the back seat of my Dad’s Volvo 240. The sliding door was always a bear to close, and many times you really had to slam it.
Driving it for a couple years when I got my license it rode very nice, had good power with the 3.3 and handled very well for it’s size. It was actually fun to drive. Wasn’t too good on gas however. My Dad kept vehicles around far longer than he should have and it was looking ragged in the later years between dents, the chrome around the lower body became mottled and it wasn’t until my parents divorced that it was sold. He was actually looking for an identical one to replace it with and this was over ten years on! I argued several times that these 96+ ones were nicer or to at least look into a Town and Country version. Ours was a formal rental vehicle bought when it was a year old so it didn’t have many options.
Overall though it was a good durable van and the trans only failed once. Around 100k one of the rear wheel bearings failed when I was using it. The motor had a mysterious thirst for oil but there was no blowby. A/C needed recharging each year but I suspect that’s due to the crap R-134a conversion. It had around 130k when I last drove it, only rust was the bottom of the sliding door and on the left side in front of the rear wheel.
Glad to see you posting again, Brendan! I really missed your writing style.
I had an ’87 Voyager SE with the 3.0 litre engine, what a great car, er I mean van. Took my family and I to Nova Scotia and back on vacation without a hiccup. Succeeded that one with a ’99 Voyager SE on a lease, that was replaced by my ’01 Dodge Caravan. Enjoyed each one of them, and marvelled at how Chrysler made the seats more and more easy to remove with succeeding design iterations. Hauled 2X4s, drywall, etc in that ’01.
The new designs that are out now are ubiquitous, but I wish they had kept the short version and I would have one in my driveway today.
I had over 20 years of continuous minivan ownership and only suffered one transmission failure. The FWD feature helped to ensure straight tracking on snowy and icy roads. I recall passing all traffic on the 401 driving up to Montreal to catch a Habs game in a snowstorm about 10 years ago. They all just felt sure-footed
One of my most vivid memories is giving my Dad a hug as he got out of our ’87. I was dropping my folks off at their home after visiting us for dinner one time. It was the last I ever spoke to him, he passed away suddenly the next day.
pic of my ’99
I didn’t follow CC when the post 1st came out. Pretty well covers almost all ChryCo minivans – except the AWD version.
As a kid, I’m from the “Country Squire” generation of family haulers – though ours was a Colony Park. I have no fond kid memory of minivans to attract me today.
Once I became a parent, minivans were hopelessly conflicted with the self image my wife and I both held of ourselves. We only had 2 kids, so we could and did ignore minivans – until the day I got one as a company car.
I’m based in Arkansas where AWD minivans are rare. However our home office is based in Wisconsin. They buy the vehicles and have a different mindset towards AWD vehicles. This van had been bought for Wisconsin, but for some strange reason had gone less than 3,000 miles in 4 years. My Pontiac was due for replacement, so I agreed to take this very lightly used 4 year old van. I mean, what the heck.. . might as well give it a try.
The AWD feature was introduced on the 2nd generation vans in 91. It continued up through the Gen 4 minivans, but was discontinued to change the floorpan to accomodate Stow & Go seating. I think my 03 was one of the last of the AWD. In exchange for giving up the convenience of Stow & Go seating – which I rarely wanted, I got more comfortable 2nd row seats, AWD and better ground clearance.
This time of life corresponded with my boys being in Boy Scouts. Since it had no undercarriage protection, this was hardly a true off road vehicle. Yet I was amazed at the places this van could go so long as you were careful about what you were running over.
I drove this van over 1/4 million miles with little trouble. As a minivan newbie, I always worried about sensitivity to crosswinds driving in the west. This thing was a surprisingly comfortable and well behaved highway cruiser. Not a handler, but always competent and secure feeling.
It was so good that I seriously thought about buying the thing for myself when the company replaced it. Being a southern van, it had no rust and I knew it had always been well maintained. Then I looked at the shape – which I still hate – and let it
Someday I might regret it, but so far not. The photo shows the van in one of our rare Arkansas snow storms. The relatively narrow tires and heavy weight of this van let it push through snow that had the wide tire jacked up pickups so popular in the south slipping and sliding all over the place. Since our snow removal equipment consists of 2 guys with toy shovels and a Tonka truck, the AWD van came in handier than I ever thought it would.
I still miss the practicality and reliability of this van. I don’t miss the look though. For that reason alone, I’m still a minivan hater at heart.
I would still love to own a late 90’s T&C with leather quad seating and all the trimmings. These were phenomenal vehicles, and of course that time period was Peak Chrysler. As I’m still driving a ’99 300M, I can attest to the fact that Chrysler’s interior trim quality and fit & finish was never better than during this period. I sometimes think I’d like to trade up to a new RWD 300, but anything in the price range I’d consider is from ’05-’10, and the interiors are crap, plain and simple. I still find my ’99 to be well laid out and well appointed, and it has aged quite well.
I’m glad i’m not the only one who felt that the T&C refresh on the front end was too over done. The 1996 Was a perfect balance of design. The ’98 Grille almost looks caricature-like on the Gen 3.
My parents were early adopters of the minivan. The year was 1984. With my younger sister having just been born the previous year, they decided they needed something bigger than mom’s Vega and dad’s Corolla. They thought a full-sized van would be just the ticket, so four year old me got dragged along to a bunch of car dealerships while they looked at various vans, which was fun at first but got tiresome quite quickly for a four year old. At the end of a long day of car shopping (at least it felt long when I was four) they decided to stop at one more dealership before heading home, a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. The salesman showed them this brand new vehicle that had just come out, with front wheel drive, called a minivan. My parents were totally sold on the idea and ordered a brand new, brown, first gen Voyager.
And you’re right, in those days, minivans [I]were[/I] cool. It’s hard to imagine now with, but back then they seemed new and modern. They made the big American station wagons that were the more common family haulers at the time seem old fashioned by comparison.
In 2009, with 3 kids, age 2, 9, and 14, I needed a minivan. Gymnastics, music, dump runs, household projects, plus a small graphics business in 2011-12. We could haul the family and stuff for a week. We could haul a 3 piece band’s stuff or more. so practical. And at 43, I needed something better for family than a truck; larger than a crossover, but still get that sheet of plywood in the back. Stow & Go worked great! And with seats up, you can still get 3 electric guitars in the area where the middle seats stow.
And if so inclined, a minivan makes a pretty good party van. A few stories that aren’t tellable, but that was a friend’s older Dodge.
My ex still has the 2009 T&C – I was working out of town when we separated and didn’t need the van like she did. I think it is sitting in her drive, needing tires, and probably getting worse by the day. She doesn’t drive it and neither do the kids. Saddens me. I liked it for all it was.
+1 on the party van thing. I also have stories…
This is what Clark Grizwaled ordered in Antarctic blue but instead was talked in to the family truckster.
I loved the Chrysler minivans as a child too! When I was 8 or 9 I had several scale models of this generation Plymouth Voyager complete with sliding doors. I thought they were the coolest cars and when I would play MASH (a sort of origami Life-themed game) this would be my ‘dream car.’ Nowadays I can’t lust after a minivan but I do love station wagons.
First of all can we stop referring to the GM vans as “dust busters” and second why were they “infamous”?
LOL – Because they sucked?
If we do, we will be all alone.
Why? Because . . .
Ironically those ugly plastic “dustbuster” GM vans ( Lumina, Transport, Silhouette), were much safer vehicles than their replacements due to their space frame construction.The late 90’s Chevrolet Venture, Pontiac Montana and Olds Silhouette were absolute death traps in frontal collisions. If you drive one be EXTRA careful!
Don’t they still have the worst result EVER in the offset-barrier crash test?
I was never a minivan fan…mostly, because I loathe front wheel drive.
A good friend of mine had a 1989 Caravan…he has no kids and bought it strictly for utility: he is a drummer, and was tired of wrestling drums in and out of his Volvo 740. (I think the snare drum on the passenger seat also got old.) It was a bit odd, though: a Dodge Caravan…turbo. Yes, a minivan with a turbocharged engine. It was a one-owner van with about 90,000 miles…he loved it. So, he drove it…and drove it. It wound up 280,000 miles, with typical service, some minor stuff, and exactly one major repair (the steering rack took a dump-as in, the fluid-at about 170k)…looked a little ragged, but still reliable. It was optioned…about what you might expect in 1989, I guess: air conditioning, rear wiper and defrost, power windows and locks, cruise control, tilt column, tint, cassette stereo, I think 15″ alloys. It was hit by a Honda Accord at 280,000 miles.
A dude I work with has a 2000 (I think) SWB Voyager…it is a base model, the lowest option I have seen: 2.4, 3 speed transmission, no carpet, no left sliding door, crank windows, idiot light dash, steel wheels, no tilt, criise, or tint…only option seems to be AC.. He bought it new…it was the van mentioned in the newspaper, under the big “MINIVANS STARTING AT (insert super-low price)” ad. He has about 290,000 miles…it was in Florida until last spring, so the body is solid. He loves it and has no plans to replace it.
I’m also a drummer and part of the reason why I bought my minivan. We played for five+ years and the vast majority of that time I was stuffing my five-piece Ludwigs (plus hardware and electronics) in my Sunfire GT. It was a tight fit, but I made it work. Not too long after I got the van, the band dissolved. Ugh.
He had a decent-size drum kit…not sure the specifics, but it FILLED his Volvo, with the back seat folded. He did admit that the Volvo was lots more entertaining…and perfectly happy to cruise at 90MPH. (It was a 740 turbo.)
All this minivan love… I’ve related other times about my in-laws’ Voyager that they would let us borrow. It was their fourth car and when they didn’t need it to haul all of us on a Sunday outing, we could use it. Before then, I thought minivans were an oddity, it wasn’t until after my kids came along that I saw the light.
As the kids grew and made friends, we knew a number of people with minivans of all sorts. My close friend worked for a Chrysler (and later Daimler) subsidiary and had a cousin who had a CJD dealership. He got his Grand Caravans leased super-cheap. Great rides, all of them.
Everytime I drive one of that generation of Chrysler mini, I’m amazed at how well they work. Chrysler had a mixed reputation, but the minivans largely worked. My kids have a 1997 Voyager, even though it’s ancient, it’s still a joy to drive. I like my Olds Silhouette, but my mind changes when I hop in the Voyager.
I’ve more than once considered trying to find a real nice original 1984-1990 era minivan as a collector vehicle. My holy grail would be the original 1989 Chrysler Town & Country or a nice turbo Caravan. But, it will have to wait for a while.
Nice, We had a 97 Rallye in Dark Green. Bought it new sold it in 2010. No problems, just routine maintainance. Great car. Wife still misses it. Would have bought a new one but Minivans aren’t that mini anymore. Bought a Ford Edge that is doing fine.
99 caravan sport for us with quad seats. still the most comfortable car to ride in. middle row is a long way from each axle. great for all ages ingress & egress. you can load a tandem bicycle inside or multiple singles and still have room for passengers. show me a SUV that can do that. we popped out one of the quads. stuck in a cooler and a small table over the top. was food and activity table for the kids for a cross country trip in high comfort.
I bought a Caravan in ’85, and well, I hated it for a couple of reasons:
1. Totally underpowered. Not as bad as my best friend’s dad’s VW van, but not a lot better. Passing on anything except flat ground was a joke. Since it had to be floored so often in hilly country, the AC sucked a lot of the time. The 2.6 Mitsubishi engine should never have been put into one.
2. Trailing throttle oversteer. Scared the crap out of me the first time I experienced it, and I never got used to it. Ac leaked every summer or spring, Chrysler paid to fix it, so I never held that against it. Within 2 years, we had paid it off and I started looking.
In 3 years, it was gone, replaced by the second most reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned, an ’88 S10 Blazer, with the chopped 350, aka 4.3 V6. It survived to a ripe old age, 22 years and still on the original shortblock, with over 400,000 miles on it.
And what am I driving now, well, for 2 weeks now, I’m driving a rental ’17 Grand Caravan SXT. Great AC. Decent power, and it handles ok. Very useful during my move. And the bad? Seats are just not comfortable, no matter how much I screw with them. Stereo sounds like crap. My car should be back very soon, and the only thing I will miss is the cargo space. Since my move is over, that’s not important. I want it gone.
Ha! My parents wished they’d gotten the 2.6L! Theirs had the base 2.2L Chrysler engine. I mean I was too young to drive it myself, but I definitely remember my parents complaining that it was under powered. When they started offering the V6 option it was a huge improvement. They upgraded to the second gen version with the 3.0L V6 in late 1991, which a few years later I was old enough to drive. It was nothing spectacular, but I think my parents liked it because of its utilitarian nature.
I have never understood the mini van aversion that folks have. They are comfortable to drive and ride in and I think 80% of the folks buying/owning crossovers could have gotten what they needed with a mini van.
My brother is like that. He did not want to buy a mini van for his growing family so he bought a Dodge Journey(which looks like a mini van from the front.
I have always been a fan of the 84-91 and 92-95 Mopar minivans.
I just got a minivan two weeks ago. It is a 1997 Pontiac Trans Sport with 117,xxx miles on it. It was a one owner van and was well taken care of. I got it for $500 and the only thing it needed to pass the strict MD inspection was 2 tires and an alignment( I bought 4 tires) The 80 year old owner bought a 2015 Kia Soul from the dealership I hang out at and offered it to me for $500. It has been driving good and very comfy seats
Here is a pic of it at NTB for tires
Very Nice. My brother still drives one of these. He has owned it for 10 years.
Simple enough for me: wrong wheel drive. I would own an Asttro or a Previa in a second.
Not mine, but it could easily be,… or I wish it was. I have a similar use for innovative vehicle transport on a budget.
My parents purchased a brand new 1996 Plymouth Voyager (their first and last Chrysler product) and needless to say it was an absolute pile of doo doo. That Voyager spent more time at the dealer for warranty repairs than any other car my parents owned. The last straw was when the Voyager’s transmission completely failed at 19,000 miles leaving my mom stranded in a parking garage. After two years my parents traded their Voyager for a new Toyota Sienna which was never a problem in the eight years they owned it.
I had a 1996 rallye Plymouth Voyager and I loved it unfortunately two weeks ago a degenerate ran a red light while my girlfriend was driving it and took the front end off of it. Now it’s totaled. I love that car so much I intended to keep it to the day I die. One thing you did not mention. The rally had the biggest engine and the best transmission of that year. Mechanic told me I got lucky because they had the best engine and the best transmission. I had a 1930 Packard Hood ornament put on it and I got well known all around town it looked awesome and was perfect for that van. I feel sick every time I think about it. Now it is in the 905 Auto Auction Center
I bought a new ’90 SWB Dodge Caravan with the 3.0 V6. It was a great van, the Mitsu engine loved to rev, and fuel economy was okay. It did have the valve guides start to wear until it let a little puff of smoke on every take off. I liked it so much that I bought a four year old ’97 Town and Country LXI. That was a fantastic van, with rear air, Capts chairs front and second row. Fully loaded with the gold alloys. I thought that it was great driving and perfect for family vacations with the three kids. Ate up the miles at 85 mph. I called it the luxury liner.
My first van needed a transmission at 160K. My ’97 needed a transmission at around 130K. It was rebuilt and a long series of transmission problems followed. That finally burnt me out.
The thing that bugged me was that these vans had to have the seats removed to carry large cargo, and where do you put all those seats? It prevented any spur of the moment antique and other large item purchasing. Stow and Go solved that problem. I solved my problem by getting an Explorer and later my Navigator. If you really are going to use all three rows, the minivan beats the SUV.
When It comes to image, I could have cared less, I’ve got a Harley tattoo on my right forearm, and I had Harley in my garage during my minivan years!
Must they be called the “dustbuster” vans every single dang time they are written about? Good lord. That comparison is so old and tired at this point. And they aren’t infamous.
The only “mini van” I’ve ever owned was an AWD Aerostar. While not the most attractive vehicle on the road it was probably the best “all ’round” vehicle I’ve ever owned. Interior space and utility as well as a great snow vehicle. The narrow 14″ tires cut through the deep lake effect snows like it wasn’t there. Eventually I sold it to a friend and it met it’s end when someone turned left in front of his wife.
If I could find a rust free example of an AWD Aerostar or a GM Astro I’d grab it in a minute.
I guess it depends on when you became a parent, as to what generation of Chrysler mini van looks the best to you. We didn’t need one until 2007, so the 2008 restyle of Chrysler looks the classiest and best to me. Our was the 2015, which is even more squared than the 2008. When you look at the design history of the Chrysler, what happened in 2008 was a return to original design. It was this aero-style generation that was an aberration.
The Ford Taurus effect is what happened to that generation. By the mid-1990s, most cars looked like bars of soap. The Chrysler minivan looked like that as well. The headlights were too small and ineffective, the grille was too small and didn’t cool enough, and a lot of those stylings didn’t help the mechanics of the vehicles. It looked slick, but it wasn’t really an optimal design over the first generation or the 2008-17 restyle.
There is a reason why Chrysler products enlarged the headlights and grille openings later in that generation – it wasn’t just for show – it was because the orginal front end on the aero design wasn’t a good design.
The 2015 we had is still what Chrysler sells in a new 2017 body generation. Everything we liked in the 2015 – we liked in the current generation. Yet once again, this current generation was released with headlights that were too small and a grille that was also too small. After two years, the current Chrysler minivan, now called Pacifica, has those design problems fixed.
I am a minivan fan, but not for me – for my family. My wife loves her minivans, and today grumbles a bit over the Ford Explorer that replaced the Chrysler. The SUV is definately not as great a design over the minivan, but I still prefer its truck design over the rolling purses that we had when our kids were first born.