Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Voyager

1383941434475

Comments

  • momof5momof5 Posts: 4
    The "02" was/is an "01"?


    quote:

    DODGE GRAND CARAVAN

    CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY

    2002 models


    Vehicle tested:

    2001 Dodge Grand Caravan Sport


    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0102_02.htm


    A third test was conducted after DaimlerChrysler made a design change to fix the fuel tank fitting and retrofitted a 2001 model with the redesign (2002 models include the modification).

     

    Examination of the redesigned fitting after the third test indicates no damage.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    so?

    fix/replace my fitting, I already have the side airbags.

  • tomtomtomtomtomtom Posts: 491
    Do you think we can get a even deeper discount if we show the salesman the test result?
  • cheryl16cheryl16 Posts: 1
    My 2001 Grand Ccaravan EX is 3 weeks old and just now driving within blocks of my home (about 25mph) I hear (windows down) what sounds like a baseball card in a bike spoke anyone have any ideas-- (my question mark key is broke) Thanks!
  • dparis1dparis1 Posts: 45
    Check your tires.
    Could be a rock or a nail that is causing the sound
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Maybe it is a card in the spoke, and that is the replacement for the 3.5 that DC dropped before it came out. Seriously dparis1 sounds like they have the answer. I have heard that kind of sound in many vehicles. Or worse yet some kind of nail. May take 2 of you and some time to check all 4 wheels by slowly rolling van and watching the tread of each tire.
  • carleton1carleton1 Posts: 560
    How many times has anyone here ever been involved in an accident where the vehicle was struck in a manner that is done with the frontal offset crash? Better yet, has anyone here even SEEN an accident of this type.
    The chances of being involved in this specific type accident are less than the chance of being abducted by Aliens and taken to another planet.
  • Carleton 1: If I have 2 options, a 5-star vehicle or 1-star vehicle, why should I choose the 1-star vehicle? Why should I take the risk? Why should I buy an "average" minivan when 50 % of the tested minivans are better than the DG minivans? Please note also that the minivans, which had better crash test results than the DG minivan, have also better reliability records and better resale values! You wonder why!
  • scoyle1scoyle1 Posts: 14
    Here is the letter that I sent to Daimler Chrysler regarding the fuel leakage problem. Please feel free to use my words if you wish. Just email D/C and your local papers. Thanks!!

    I just learned of the Insurance Institute's recent crash test study and retest where they indicated that the 2001 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Caravan's had the potential for fuel leakage upon a crash. I also learned that you have corrected this problem on all 2002 models but will not be recalling or repairing 2001 vehicles. As the recent purchaser of a 2001 Chrysler Town & Country Lxi AWD, I hereby request that you recall all 2001 Dodge Caravans and 2001 Chrysler Town & Country vehicles and repair this potential problem at your expense. Since this potential problem is now public knowledge, DaimlerChrysler will be fully liable should a crash and a subsequent fuel leakage occur that results in serious injury or, god forbid, death. I bought a Chrysler Town & Country because of your promise of safety. To not repair a potentially deadly error such as this is negligent and short sighted on your behalf. Please recall my vehicle and all of the other affected DaimlerChrysler products as soon as possible, or you will forever lose this customer and tens of thousands of other potential customers. Please do not repeat the mistakes of your predecessors. As one should realize from the recent Ford/Firestone controversy, courts will take a very unfavorable view of automobile manufacturers who fail to correct mistakes that they have been made aware of.

    Please contact me at your very earliest convenience, as I fear for the safety of my wife and our 21 month old child.

    Thank You!
  • mechanmechan Posts: 7
    The IIHS tests simulate the effects of a head on crash between two vehicles where only a portion of the vehicle actually hits the other vehicle (similar to that that may be encountered on a two-lane highway). It demonstrates the ability of a vehicle's structure to absorb the crash forces while keeping the passenger compartment intact. Whether you will precisely duplicate the results in real world crashes is irrelevant here - the concern here is that DC failed again to achieve top ratings in these crash tests and demonstrated that the vehicle's structure is not up to the high standards set by other manufacturers. There is absolutely no excuse for this sub-par performance.

    Why settle for a vehicle with average test scores when other manufacturers (Toyota, Ford and Honda) are proving they can optimize the integrity of the vehicle's structure and thereby give its occupants a greater chance at surviving a serious collision.
  • ed12ed12 Posts: 100
    Just thoughts on the recent Insurance Institute crash test. First, as to the ocean of charred bodies about to pile up due to leaking gas. In World War 2, our Sherman tank was notorious for burning on being hit. It was assumed the fuel tanks were the problem as most Shermans used high octane gas. However, tests showed that the ammo was the problem, not the fuel tanks.

    As to the test scores, most products are put through tests, but the ultimate test is how the product performs in customer hands. If you look at the insurance institue web site, they list actual injury rates for vehicles. You will find that the Town and Country does quite well with a low injury rate.

    I am an engineer who is developing a product now. I tested the unit as best I could and sent several units into the field for customer use. Customer testing is far more important than lab testing becasue a customer can do things to a product that are simply not anticipated. Lab tests predict what might happen, actual customer use tells you what is happening and what is happening is that 400,000 2001 vans on the road and not one report of fuel leaking in a crash.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    According to the Highway Loss Data Institute, 45% of front crashes involved occupant injuries, and 85% of urban crashes that they studied also involved occupant injuries.


    I have been collecting pictures of wrecked vehicles at various salvage yards (mostly Mercedes-Benz vehicles, those which were tested are rated "good" and "best picks" in the IIHS tests) and you will be able to see that many accidents are almost textbook offset crashes, some at higher speeds than 40 mph. There are pictures of a few Chevy Ventures/Pontiac Montanas (rated "poor" in the IIHS and Euro NCAP tests) located towards the end of the album and you will be able to see that every single one of them crumpled in an offset accident almost exactly like the Pontiac test van did in the IIHS offset crash test.:

    http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=137587&a=10126395&f=0&sp=0


    FWIW, your insurance company, USAA, is one of the many funders of the IIHS.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • cgaydoscgaydos Posts: 116
    You're unlikely to stop carleton from reposting the same message, but thanks for providing some hard data.

    If one digs back a few months in the various DC van newsgroups one will find some good posts on the relative value of the crash tests and the real world crash data. To summarize:

    Most real life crashes are recorded as full frontal crashes. However, rarely do cars run headlong into immovable walls at a 90 degree angle, which is what the NHTSA test does. Most crashes are against objects that have some sort of "give" and where the resistance is not uniform across the front of the car. Therefore, although the exact circumstances of the IIHS offset test are rare, the test itself more resembles real life crashes and does a better job of measuring a car's crash survivability than does the NHTSA test.

    Meanwhile, the various real-life crash data are almost meaningless for determining the relative safety of competing models. The problems are: 1) most real-life data are actually measurements of the cost of insurance payouts, which are heavily weighted towards repair payouts and in which medical costs are actually a minor component. Therefore, in real-life charts based on insurance cost, cars with lower repair costs tend to do better, 2) In real-life charts that specifically measure fatalities, the actual number of fatalities, while numerically large (41k annually) are tiny when measured as a rate relative to miles driven. So tiny, in fact, that for individual models the fatality sample is too small to be statistically valid. To verify, check IIHS fatality data for minivans for the most recent year. The Quest and Villager, which are the IDENTICAL car but with two nameplates, have drastically different fatality ratings. One (Quest) is rated as better than average. The other (Villager) is so bad as to be almost off the chart. The only explanation for this wild variation is that the data are meaningless. Look at other twins in the chart, such as the Caravan v. Voyager, and you will again see unexplained variations.

    In sum, the IIHS and Euro NCAP tests, plus the NHTSA side crash test, are the best current indicators of car safety.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Scoyle1 says: DaimlerChrysler will be fully liable should a crash and a subsequent fuel leakage occur that results in serious injury or, god forbid, death.
    Lets hope they don't take GM's aditude of years ago when they thought it would be cheaper to pay out a few lawsuits in deaths than fix the problem. Just think if Bush does for the Auto Industry like he wants for the HMO's, a cap on suits. The Auto Industry would never, never, ever fix a problem.
  • cgaydoscgaydos Posts: 116
    You DO know that the a cap on product liability suits is in Bush's agenda, don't you? $250k per incident, and not just for autos but all products. Makes the manufacturer's jobs easier. "Let's see, car explodes when hit from behind. Cost of part to fix it: $11. Cost per lawsuit: $250k per person. Ave. number deaths per explosion: 2. Likelihood of such a crash per car: 1/100000. Cost of fix: $1.1M per 100,000 cars. Cost of lawsuits: $500k per 100,000 cars. Easy don't fix!"

    Think I'm making those numbers up? Think again. That's the rationale Ford used on the Pinto. Fortunately they got their [non-permissible content removed] nailed in court and it cost them big time in both legal costs and PR.
  • ingramwd2ingramwd2 Posts: 15
    I think all concerned Canadian owners of 2001 DC Minivans should follow some of our US friends here and campaign for a recall based on IIHS crash test results.


    Transport Canada:

    http://apps.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/Recalls/recintro_e.htm#If


    DC Canada Customer Assistance:

    http://www.daimlerchrysler.ca/corporate/en/assistance.html

  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Boy I must have been sleeping through that one, or sparring with scanner, or both. I guess I would rather have Clinton and Monaca in the White House than Yours Truly who's there now. But after I make my millions I'll change my mind.
  • scoyle1scoyle1 Posts: 14
    Well,

    My wife called Chrysler today, and here is a transcript of the telephone call.

    Wife - "I am calling because I recently saw numerous reports on the potential for a fuel leak in the Town & Country minivan, and we recently purchased a Town & Country minivan. I want to know what you are going to do about this problem."

    Mathew Long from the DaimlerChrysler Recall Center - "this test wasn't done by Chrysler. It was done by an insurance company."

    Wife - "Not an insurance company, by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

    Mathew Long from DaimlerChrysler - "Chrysler has tested the car 50 times and was unable to replicate the results. There is no problem, and there is no action to be taken."

    Wife - "Well if there is no problem, why did you redesign the 2002 model?"

    Mathew Long from from DaimlerChrysler - "For safety's sake."

    Wife - "That is exactly right, for safety's sake."

    Mathew Long from from DaimlerChrysler - "Well we are always redesigning cars for safety's sake. We are always making them safer."

    Wife - "I have had the car for 3 weeks. I refuse to drive it. I am not going to explode in an impact. I can not get my daughter out of the car seat quickly enough. I want to know what Chrysler is going to do."

    Mathew Long from from DaimlerChrysler - "Nothing."

    Wife - "So you are saying that for safety's sake it was redesigned, but you are going to do nothing."

    Mathew Long from DaimlerChrysler - "I am sorry, but it is our position."

    The DaimlerChrysler recall center then gave my wife the number 1-800-992-1997 for customer service in Detroit. I have called the dealer to return the car. Luckily, the dealer had a 30 day/1,000 mile return policy. Needless to say. They are very unhappy with me and said that the report was media induced, yada, yada, yada.
  • mrnimmomrnimmo Posts: 271
    Very poor analysis of Bush plan. I'm not in the mood to detail fully and I doubt any of you really care (or you'd know already), but perhaps it will suffice to say that you are not appreciating the difference in strict liability claims and negligence/ intentional tort-based claims.
  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    scoyle 1, why didn't you just have your dealership trade in your early 2001 model T&C for a T&C that has the new fule part that is suposed to remedy this "potential problem". I understand that you are concerned for the safety of your wife and kids, but it seems to me as if you are overreacting. You are not momment while driving your DC minivan, even if you get into a crash. There have been no deaths or any serious reports on ANY DC minivan regarding a leaking gas tank in the real world. Maybe I seem a little unsensative to your conern for your family, but it seems to me that you jumped the gun a little bit. As I said, if you are so concerned why don't you have them just trade in your old van for a new one with the new fuel tank/pump part?
  • 4aodge4aodge Posts: 288
    *You are not going to simply blow up or explode at any random moment while driving your DC minivan, even if you do get into a crash*
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,282
    While you cannot rewrite history, you have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button that follows your message after you post it.

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • cgaydoscgaydos Posts: 116
    As this isn't the right forum I won't continue the discussion. For the record, I don't agree with your post, and I'll leave it at that. These issues are complex and the plans very detailed (sometimes for purposes of obfuscation).
  • odd1odd1 Posts: 227
    Apparently, insurance companies believe highly in this test being closer to real world accidents than the NHSTA head on test. Why else do they spend the money on running them? Why do they say that the NHSTA test is at to slow of a speed and doesn't reflect real world situations as well? Don't insurance companies look at all the records and circumstances of accidents to analyze cost? I'm sure the actuaries use the results of the offset test in determining what that particular vehicle's insurance cost is for your driving habits/profile.

    Rationalize this however you want. I personally wouldn't bet against a billion(?) dollar industry that makes its money off of analyzing this stuff. Until an actuary group with years of auto safety analysis tells me its bunk I'm not discounting it.
  • mvgeekmvgeek Posts: 1
    I've trailed the links and found the fuel issue topic mentioned in results for the Grand and T&C models (2001 poor). Yet some folks have mentioned 2001 Caravan as having the same issue in this TH. Can someone help to clarify the extent of the models the fuel issue pertains to? We're to get a 2001 Caravan SE as company car this week and are thinking about refusing delivery. Can you help? Thanks!!
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    All of the Chrysler/Dodge minivans are basically the same, aside from badging and interior trim. Chrylser Town & Country, Dodge Caravan, and Chrysler Voyager vans for model year 2001 are all affected. The components were redesigned for model year 2002, but at this point, Chrysler maintains that the fuel leak wasn't the reason why they redesigned it and that there are no plans for a recall at this point in time.

    You can read more information here:

    http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr071701.htm


    Good luck,

    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • powersjpowersj Posts: 1
    Is there an mail address that anyone knows of to send a complaint letter. I called my local dealer and I don't think that will really help. By the way I know a Dodge technician that has told me there has been a fuel problem with the DC since 96 when the body style changed.
  • carleton1carleton1 Posts: 560
    I also heard that Aliens have landed and abducted humans.
    Really makes me wonder why so many people like to start and perpetuate "Hate Crimes" against DC minivans.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    The NHTSA is investigating the MY1996-2000 Chrysler minivans after the test vans spilled fuel in two seperate government crash tests, but in different areas than the '01 Chrysler minivan in the IIHS offset crash test.

    So, what was mentioned above may not be too far from the truth afterall.

    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Carleton1 said:
    Really makes me wonder why so many people like to start and perpetuate "Hate Crimes" against DC minivans.
    I'll bet it's the same troll that spreads hate and discontent about the Odysseys.
  • tomtomtomtomtomtom Posts: 491
    Just ran through a few Chrysler/Dodge parts websites. Nobody is offering the molded splash guards for the T&C, only the flat one. However, I found something interesting about the molded splash guards for the Dodge Caravan. As indicated in one website, Part#82206551 is for the rear and Part#82206552 is for the front and they would only fit 96-00 Caravans. I am not sure what's the difference in the rear bumper between the 2000 and 2001 but I think I am going to try a pair since it only costs $15.
Sign In or Register to comment.