(first posted 10/11/2016) After the success of its highly profitable and industry-leading Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager duo, Chrysler decided to push the envelope by creating the first ever luxury minivan, the 1990 Town & Country. More or less a top trim Grand Caravan/Grand Voyager with an upgraded leather interior, standard (but later deletable) Di-Noc woodgrain siding, fancier wheels, and a few unique luxury features, the first and second generation Town & Country minivans had a very narrow appeal. For their third generation, Chrysler sought to change that.
With the introduction of the third generation Chrysler minivans (codenamed “NS”) for 1996, Chrysler not only succeeded in the most dramatic redesign of its iconic minivan yet — something only challenged by the 2016 Pacifica — but fundamentally changed the Town & Country from a vehicle that primarily appealed to very high-salaried families, many of whom would otherwise not purchase an American car, to a vehicle that appealed to most Americans looking for a well-equipped minivan.
So how did Chrysler accomplish this? Well, it was actually quite simple: voyage down into Voyager territory. Unlike the previous two generation Town & Country minivans, which were sold as one unnamed trim level featuring most available minivan equipment available as standard, the third generation Town & Country branched out into several distinct trim levels, each with varying levels of features.
Predictably, the downside of this for poor old ailing Plymouth was that its consistent bread winner, the Voyager/Grand Voyager, was more or less cannibalized by the Town & Country moving downmarket into its market. Essentially replacing or supplementing all Voyager trim levels but the very base model, Town & Country sales immediately increased by a staggering amount, while Voyager sales took a substantial beating.
From an accounting standpoint, yes, this was a smart move. Take the mid- and high-level Voyager/Grand Voyager, give it the Town & Country’s nose, dressier trim, body colored bumpers, woodtone interior trim, and fancier wheels (though the same wheels available on the Voyager/Grand Voyager LE which was still sold in Canada) and sell it for a higher price.
While a slightly de-contented Town & Country with cloth seats and plainer lower bodyside cladding was one thing, one that was also a stubby-bodied Town & Country was another thing. Historically a “grand”-length-only minivan, for the first time, the Town & Country was available in the short-wheelbase bodystyle, known as the “SX” (“LX” for 1996 only).
Starting with just one short-wheelbase (LX) and one long-wheelbase (LXi) model for 1996, by 1999 the Town & Country was available in four trim levels. These included the long-wheelbase LX, LXi, and Limited, and the short-wheelbase SX, which fell between the LX and LXi in terms of standard and available equipment.
On a subjective note, there’s something about the Town & Country’s more grandiose front end, along with its lower body cladding, that just didn’t work as well on the short-wheelbase NS. Visually, something’s missing.
As stated, this move worked out well for the Chrysler brand, as Town & Country sales went from just 38,358 for the old model’s last full year of sales in 1994 (only 13,059 of the old AS-body’s abbreviated 1995 year of sales) to 105,583 of the new NS body in 1996 — a figure greater than the total number of first and second generation Town & Country sales combined.
Regarding our featured short-wheelbase Town & Country SX, its sales made up a statistically significant percentage of total Town & Country sales, though this was never a truly spectacular number. In all honestly, I’ve definitely seen less than 10 examples in my lifetime. Despite this, the short-wheelbase Town & Country effectively demonstrated that it could take over for all but the base Voyager. Yet somewhat ironically, it was dropped for the NS’s final model year in 2000, due to the Voyager and Grand Voyager transfer from Plymouth’s lineup to Chrysler’s.
Short-wheelbase Chrysler-branded minivans would be badged solely as Voyagers from 2001-2003, upon which all Chryslers minivans (excluding Dodges) in North America became Town & Countrys. I guess Chrysler felt it no longer necessary to keep around any reminder of Plymouth — a brand that existed for 73 years and one that sold more cars than any other Chrysler division for most of those years.
White Town & Country SX photos by Will Jackson
Related Reading:
1996-2000 Chrysler “NS” Minivans (Automotive History)
I had the misfortune of owning the Plymouth version. At first, it was a great vehicle. Very comfortable on long trips and able to carry the entire family. Then, literally weeks after the warrantee expired, bad thing started to happen. Paint started to flake off. Just small areas at first, then much larger sections. Then, plastic bits started turning to dust. The power windows stopped working. One by one. The fuel pump died… twice. The fuel rail sprang a leak and forced an emergency evacuation. The sliding door refused to open. The transmission died. One of the non working windows crashed to the bottom of its frame, scaring my wife so badly she refused to ever drive it again. And on and on. At one point I asked the dealer to help, (in the interest of good will to a good customer) they politely refused. “The warrantee is up”. Go away. I wrote to the district manager. Again, “we can do nothing once the warrantee expires. I felt guilty selling it to a teenager even at a ridiculously low price. Needless to say, I have harbored an intense hatred of all things Chrysler ever since. I can’t help but wonder if I got the worlds worst minivan or were they all giant dog turds.
Your misfortunes appear to be the norm. The folks that I know who had them had similar experiences and worse. Most have now switched over to SUV’s other than of Chrysler manufacture. The few still buying mini-vans for business purposes have switched over to Honda and Toyota. In fairness, Ford and GM units were not a whole lot better and had more than their fair share of problems as well.
I should have written “warranty”, not “warrantee”. Luckily, none of my family expired in that van.
Having owned two, I will say this:
When they worked, they were wonderful. Comfortable, well performing, good on gas,versatile…able to do almost anything. At one point, I thought I had found my lifetime vehicle type.
Until things started going wrong. My two Chrysler minivans succumbed to strange and annoying electrical problems. Power window failures, battery drains, dead instrument panel, transmission constantly going into limp mode. After these two minivans, we never got another.
We had a 98 Grand Voyager for 9 years and had no huge problems. More than we should have to be sure, but nothing terminal. A hose in the cooling system got soft and popped off a couple times. Lots of steam, but pushed it back on and continued on our way. And the solenoid pack in the transmission failed, but the tranny itself was never a problem.
(We replaced it with an 07 Odyssey, which felt higher quality but really didn’t drive as well. After seeing our neighbor’s experience with their Honda’s transmissions (plural), we only kept ithat one for three years… )
Tip: When one of our XV10 Camry window mechanisms failed, I put suction cups on the inside to hold up the glass until I could get it repaired. BTW this car generally gave us good service but it wasn’t built as well as our ’86 V10 Camry.
I have an abiding mistrust of power windows, yet there’s no guarantee manual ones hold up any better. It’s not like you can pull off the door panel in the showroom to inspect the design.
In defense of power windows, I’ve never had one fail at 275k/15 years (Isuzu), 245k/13 (Nissan), 110k/6 (Toyota), or 80k/3 (Subaru). YMMV.
Those XV10 Camry window regulators are a pain to replace! They have this winding cable that goes into the motor. My window died stuck in the up position thankfully, but I could never get access to the screws up along the glass. I gave up. They simplified the mechanism in the XV20, eliminating the cables. Ford’s are so easy to change. Just a motor with a gear that moves the window. One single unit, pop in and out.
I would have to agree with you on the power windows. I too don’t have much faith in them.
It wasn’t just the minivans that imploded after the warranty expired. It was just Mopar’s thing.
What amazes me is the various trim sub models they churned out, were they here new? I dont know because I wasnt, maybe all ours came in used from Japan Ive not seen a LHD version but there are plenty of Voyagers around.
The Dodge Caravan version of this was the reason I swore off Chrysler vehicles and have never bought one since. I had a 1999 3.0L “Platinum Anniversary” edition that I bought in 2002. Rust, frequent repairs, and a tendency to stall at stop signs for reasons no mechanic could figure out. I had to budget $200 per month at one point to set aside for repairs to that thing.
I wrote it off in an accident, fortunately for me. The insurance company wanted to repair it at a cost of $4000. It wasn’t worth half that, so they cut me a cheque instead. I signed it over to the tow company to pay the tow and storage bill and kept the money.
I replaced it with a 2004 Mazda MPV, and besides the obvious early-2000’s Mazda rust, it had no issues.
Wow, there was a shorty Town & Country? Seeing as I’ve never been in the market for a minivan, it’s easy to see why that slipped by. This was a good catch.
Reading about how Chrysler went downmarket, at the expense of Plymouth, one word kept ringing through my head: Newport. There was definitely precedent in this market dive.
And oddly they came out with the Plymouth V.I.P. Why buy the expensive Plymouth when you could impress your neighbors with the cheap Chrysler?
I know there are issues but I see a ton of old Mopar vans out here still chugging along. Even the very first generations.
That “more grandiose” face was put on the Town & Country for ’99 because of the headlamps. The ones on all the ’96-design (NS) minivans were completely pathetic—marginally adequate legally, completely inadequate practically, even when new (and they got old very fast and badly). Same syndrome that affected the first-generation LH and cloud cars: headlamps too small to do a good job for the driver with the cheap, basic technology Chrysler specified. The ’99-’00 T&C got slightly less minimal headlamps, but that’s all the praise they deserved. The ’01 facelift brought larger headlamps to all the Chryco minivans…still with the same cheap, basic technology that hobbled the earlier lamps. Chrysler boasted of 80% more light than before, which was probably just about true, raising the headlamps from dangerously inadequate to marginally passable.
And that’s just one example of the kind of “no better than it absolutely, positively must be” engineering, build, and materials quality that went into these vans (and Chrysler products of that time in general).
Headlight brightness seemed to be one of the biggest complaints about most 1990s Chrysler products. The facelift with the new grille, winged badge, and dual-bulb headlights/separate parking light strips occurred for the 1998 model year.
Oh, that’s right, ’98.
What’s goofy about all of that is – didn’t they do ANY road testing at night? No one raised their hand and said the headlights suck?
I recall the comments about Chrysler lighting at the time, but I had my ’95 Concorde from new and drove it 10 years. I can honestly say I had no complaints about the headlights.
Wasn’t just Chrysler. The ’93-’96 Lincoln Mark VIII suffered from a similar sort of problem–the light capability of the lamps was compromised by the design. Looked great, poor light output. The mid ’95 LSC trim tried to rectify the problem by better technology, one of the earliest use of HID lamps, but that had a similar effect to the one you mentioned–it went from inadequate to passable rather than actually good. Seemed to be a common side effect of headlamp designs of the mid 90’s that had minmal vertical height, and led eventually to the less aesthetically pleasing but more useful “blobby” shapes.
Wow, I had forgotten all about the shorty SX. My 99 was the low level LX which was (as Jason Shafer noted) the Chrysler Newport of minivans.
I don’t doubt that some had bad experiences with these, but in classic Chrysler fashion, they were a kind of lottery. Mine was a winner that had 180k on it when I bought it (for not much). It drove like a dream and had few issues until the trans finally went at about 210k. The next owner fixed it and it is still on the road and closing in on 300k, last I knew.
If only Chrysler could have had Honda’s quality control. These (when right) were far better vehicles than the 99-05 Odyssey.
Our ’98 GC went almost 280K. Transmission finally killed it. Biggest problem we had was the electronics went wonky after around 230K. My son pulled the dash and resoldered a bunch of connections which solved the problems…
My ’99 was also an LX, but it did seem to have a number of nice upgrades compared to my sister’s Plymouth Voyager Expresso. Newport is a fair assessment.
I owned my van for just three years and had one minor problem with the power locks that would periodically activate for no reason. In the process, it would turn on the interior lights and sound a chime. It was an odd problem, but was fixed under warranty. Otherwise, zero problems with it. My sister had her Voyager for about 10 years, and it served her quite well.
These T&C vans really did attract an upscale crowd hungry for a spacious family hauler. I absolutely cringed when they came up with the Chrysler Voyager version a few years later. Peak Chrysler started to wane fast.
In what way were these better than the Odyssey? That seems like crazy talk.
The structure was far stiffer. The Honda was willowy. The Chrysler was quieter and rode better. It also had more little clever touches like the way cupholders and storage bins were done. And the transmission, while a weak spot was fixable with a rebuild while the Honda’s were never right again even after a factory reman that cost twice as much.
Honda had better quality control and that was about it. I like Hondas, but would take a 96-00 Chrysler over a 99-05 Odyssey any day.
Chrysler has always had the most functional and thoughtful interior of any family van IMO, by a long shot. 08-10 was a poor design from dynamics to drivetrain to interior quality, but they updated it pretty well in ’11 and are back on top in ’17.
I was amazed at how much I disliked the final generation Grand Caravan when I rented one a couple of years ago. My 99 had a very rigid structure, but the modern version did not. Where my old one felt like a rock, the new one groaned and creaked constantly. Every time I accelerated or braked, I could hear the flexing of the rear doors against their weatherstrips. I really hope that the Pacifica has resolved this problem.
Unfortunately right when they put a better sized vent they replaced the waterfall grille, it used to be the Chrylser charm…
Interesting. I’ve never seen someone put a ’96-’97 style grille on a ’98-’00 before. Kind of sinister looking. If I’m correct, it appears that grille is from a Cirrus sedan, as the Town & Country’s waterfall grill was far slimmer in height.
Yes, it’s from a Cirrus picture in the same angle. Looking better that naughty smile of the Cirrus gave an odd face for T&C.
My co-worker had one of these – he told me, it’s at about 60,000 miles. I told him “get rid of it now” he kept it, and a week or two later a power module failed that left him without headlights (of course in the winter time). That was the start of many problems. He said he should have listened to me, of course.
This was the era of “tiny headlights” at Chrysler, when designers won out over engineers. The LHs had similarly small headlights that soon fogged up to be even worse.
I guess if you must have one, lease it and then it becomes someone else’s problem.
In Europe the scenario was the weirdest of them all. People got a Caravan, right down to the crosshair grill, badged as Voyager, and with a Chrysler logo! What a mishmash! Couldn’t they have at least used the “winged” front end?? That ended in 2001, when we got the T&C, but still called Voyager/Grand Voyager. The same for the 2007 generation.
Probably Chrysler was obligated to do it. Town&Country is a weird name for everyone except British and Irish people. Caravan was actively used by Opel until 2008, so they just grabbed the best name. It was even kept when the T&C got rebadged as a Lancia. (Well, it was easier to pronounce than “Viaggiatore”, for sure.).
(Pic from Google Image Search.)
Same for Australia. I am pretty sure they had both wheelbases here too.
Not your Momma’s minivan:
http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews/toyota-sienna-r-tuned-and-s-tuned-concepts-first-drive
They say the R outpaced a Camaro SS! But maybe the driver needed more stick time in the latter.
It would be a hoot if there was an SCCA Minivan class.
Had a short wheel base 1995 Voyager Rallye. Absolutely loved it, especially the size’ Easy to park & fit in my garage perfectly. Wish someone still made a SWB van.
In classic CC fashion, this morning dropping off a family member to his new job, I parked in a spot with 2 white Town & Country vans of this generation, one on each side. Then came home and saw this write up.
Extra eerie points for the 5:00 am fog being thick as pea soup and this being the last open parking spot in the lot.
Our ’05 Grand Caravan was very reliable. Our ’12 T&C has been as well. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy another. They are the vehicle of choice for local taxi companies.
Now the Town & Country’s replacement, the Pacifica, is displacing the Grand Caravan which is not being updated and on its last legs. It’s too bad, because from 2011-2016 I thought the Dodge looked a heck of a lot better than the Chrysler. Unfortunately I couldn’t find one optioned the way I wanted so we ended up with the T&C.
This feels like a chicken-and-egg story, as relating to the death of the Plymouth brand.
Did the shorty T&C (help) push Plymouth into oblivion, or was the model created because Chrysler had already pegged Plymouth for oblivion?
I was surprised by the lack of rust until I saw the Georgia plate.
I was sad to see Plymouth become yet another memory.After 12 years of driving V8 performance sedans (2009 Pontiac G8 GT a 2013 Charger R/T) I was forced to search for a good cheap used family sized car for around $4,000. Never had a minivan and felt sorry for those who did. After hitting the used car lots in town and finding only high miles tan Camry’s I spotted a 2004 Pontiac Montana Transport in deep blue. Interesting… Let’s see how see goes….Rode nice, kinda sporty if you squint. In the end it needed too much love. Next dealer had a 2005 Chrysler T&C Touring. I’ve always thought they looked well styled with curves in the right places. Reminded me a little of my Charger. $4k purchase price plus some minor repairs and 6 months later I must say I love her. Her name is Della and the Sto&Go seats are an engineering marvel. the 3.8 l engine pulls nice and I hope the trans holds out. Feels much more robust and tighter than the 2009 Dodge minivan I bought new for my company. Typical rust issues in the quarter panels and some electrical gremlins (driver’s side slider only opens /closes/ locks manually and the air bag goes on and off) but hey, it’s had a rough life and it’s got 116K on the odo.
The station wagon Chevrolet / Opel Corsa Caravan looks like a miniature of T&C from rear side view.
I’d totally forgotten there was an SWB T&C in this generation, that is if I’d ever known in the first place. And I agree wtih the subjective judgment that the LWB versions looked more “natural”–it’s as if they designed the LWB version first and then took length out to make the shorter variant. With the “grands” becoming more common so one didn’t have to choose between a 3rd passenger row and having any cargo space, maybe the LWB versions were in fact the base design.
That having been said I think the LWB versions of these vans are among the best-looking minivans ever. Particularly in T&C trim, they manage to make the minivan look legitimately appealing–no small feat. The ’01+ version may have been better in several key areas, but they were a retrograde step in looks.
I love the SWB models but can see how families needed the LWB for the additional storage. The SWB are the ultimate 4 person touring car to me…..
A current pic of my 98 SX.
My first minivan was a new ’90 short wheelbase Dodge Caravan. We kept if for ten years and over 160,000 miles. I was glad that it was equipped with the Mitsu 3.0 V6 and three speed auto. One transmission rebuild at 130K. I liked that it was perfect for our family use. It drove well, handled well and was extremely comfortable. Lots of long road trips taken in this van. Once it passed 100K the valve seals allowed a small puff of smoke every time I started up from a stop. After I sold it it ran for many years.
My next van was a used ’97 Town and Country LXI with 70,000 miles. It was a beautiful Wisteria color with gold alloy wheels and grey leather interior. Four doors with Capt’s chairs and rear air. I loved the Infiniti 18 speaker sound system. This was the most comfortable road trip family vehicle I’ve ever had, even better than our Cadillac Seville. I called it the “luxury liner.” I actually thought that it looked great, and loved driving it. Unfortunately after the 150K mark, the transmission started giving problems and even after a rebuild it was never the same.
In 2019 we rented a new Dodge Caravan for our Summer trip to Oregon. I found it to be attractive, the quality to be good, with plenty of power, and the stow and go gave a lot of flexibility. I was impressed by the improvements but I don’t think that I’d chance that Chrysler transmission.
I must have painted hundreds of these as taxis in single stage back then. Many still had all the detritus of family life inside. Easy jobs as you could pop out the lights and roof rack,mask all the windows on each side in one piece and then have at it. Different wrinkles to the job depending on Chrysler or dodge based on bumpers, etc. I have to assume the taxi guys were good at getting the right candidates from the auction.
Our first family car was the 96 T&C LX in the same red as shown. Ordered the short wheelbase as the larger size just seemed like a lot of car to drag around to me (I was coming from smaller cars). It took about 4 weeks to build and get delivered…we didn’t get it as a low cost alternative and ended up ordering pretty much everything…the leather, captain’s chairs, the 3.8 engine, which I remember as a nice lazy and torqey motor. Leased for 4 years and about 50,000 miles, and couldn’t have been happier with it. Replaced with a 2001 Mitsubishi, which seemed much cooler, but in contrast couldn’t have been more disappointing.
Our 1999 Chrysler minivan was our first new vehicle since 1985. It was an amazing step up from a Citation. Along with the two times the transmission went into limp mode, the odd thing was that driving through puddles of water would throw the serpentine belt off!. I kept a 15mm wrench in the van because it happened at least 5 times before we altered our driving habits in wet weather.
In past 2-3 years, the 2001-07 generation Mopar vans are disappearing from Chicagoland steets from age and rust/wear. Some workers have switched to the ‘breadbox’ 2008+ gen, but Toyota Siennas are now work vans of choice. The once beloved Nissan Quests have aged out of the ‘system’.
I stil use my 1998 T&C. Love it. Very comfortable and ergonomic. I bougt it in 2003 as second owner. That was my 17 car. At the beginning I planned to use it for 3-5 years, but as longer I drive more satisfied. Yes, had problems with rust next to rear wheels, but welded and processed with antirust solvents (also liquid wax). Difficult access to change spark plugs. All over perfect minivan for family, long trips, lovely and comfortable for fun (specially with tinted windows).