Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Dodge Grand Caravan

1356

Comments

  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    There are so many differences in the DCX "platform" from 1996 to current that it would be hard to describe them all.

    You are being fooled by the general exterior styling, which is not terribly radically different from 1996.

    We just bought a 2006 GC SE, which has the "same" engine as our 1996 Caravan did, but looking under the hood, it is amazing how many things have been redesigned and relocated, and that is just what you can see externally.

    In addition, to accomodate Stow and Go, essentially most of the "platform" was extensively redesigned, along with a complete redesign of the rear suspension.

    Carrying over some basic design features is not all that unusual. Just look at the undercarriage of Toyota Camry, which carried the low hanging exhaust routing through for about 4 generations, finally losing it for 2007.

    DGC refinement for improved reliability and for reduced manufacturing cost allowed us to buy a long wheel base Grand Caravan with overall more features for about $2,000 less than we paid for our 1996 short wheel base Caravan TEN years later. The 1996 Caravan wasn't all that unreliable anyways, except for its A-C system, which caused us two fairly expensive repair bills, but it never left us stranded, aside from a couple battery failures, which cannot be blamed on Chrysler.

    I am sure the 2008 new redesign will be very significant, as the competition is relentless. We decided not to hold off for the redesign, as what we bought will serve us well, and we don't have to have the latest bells and whistles.
  • sidksidk Posts: 1
    I think the new Dodge Caravan looks like a box...I'm just going to wait until the new one comes out to buy a 2007 at a discount price!
  • w9cww9cw Posts: 888
    I have a '94 Grand Caravan ES with the 3.3L V6 and the troublesome 4-speed ECT. I'm currently at 161K miles: engine is fine and also on the original transmission. I must be an anomaly! Mechanically, the vehicle has been stellar. 26 to 27MPG on the highway with the A/C on during the summer - no complaints. I've used Mobi1 1 5W-30 synthetic since new and changed ATF every 20K miles. Only engine-related replacement was a starter at 90K, and I did that myself at a cost of $70.

    Now paint is another matter. The hood and roof lost sheets of paint base coat and clear coat only 5 to 6 years after purchase. I know the reason, but there is no excuse for this. Really poor . . . and, the interior bits and pieces fall off on a regular basis. And, I've had nothing but problems with the A/C, especially the rear evaporator.

    But, it's been reliable, so I still like the van. Heck, it still has the original exhaust system which I find amazing after 12 years!

    The new DCX minvan looks an awful lot like the Honda from the disguised profile. Boxy, and slab sides . . . At least, DCX is targeting a winner.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    1998 wasn't bad year for vans.NO recalls. Our '98 DGC has had very few problems and was in great condition. no complaints! But it is time for huge remodel. Current style wasn't large change from '96. And what does "X" in DCX stand for?
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    DCX is the DaimlerChrysler stock ticker symbol.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    Badgerfan;

    I personally don't mind carrying over platforms if it is well executed; Problem is that the critics do mind, big time.

    Just look at so many publications and magazines ripping off the (usually American) car companies who re-use older platforms. One example is the GM (crossover) minivans. While I agree they need to improve in reliability and flexibility with a rear fold-down seat, the ride and handling of this van is not worse that DCX vans. It's smooth, quiet, and fairly nimble. But the platforms dates back to 1997, when they redesigned the minivan from the older "long nose" design. Now look how bad they are bashed all over the media, and Consumer Reports pointed this out many times, that this van is built on an old dated platform, even though this platform has been improved in most every way possible over the years, and is more reliable now than ever.

    And since the DC vans sits on a dated platform from 1996, they have to do something about it, because if not, it could go the same way as Ford and GM...
  • I agree, I don't mind carry over platforms, either, if quality control is maintained. The current DCX base vans are de-contented, in latest go-around however.
    The 3.3l family of engines is well sorted out,why retire it?
    Well, Car mags don't buy and live with their vehicles. Basically they do 0-60 times, and say gee whiz, the Honda is faster.
    So, all Car Co's have to keep up with the latest mid 250HP numbers and 6sp. tranny crowd.
    The new body reminds me of the boxy GM Safari/ Astro pair, ie. truckish looking vans. Not bad.
    Then again, Side by side I prefer the Aero look of the MDX over the Pilot.
    So, I too, may sit the '07 Caravan and '08 side by side when available, and choose the discounted Aero '06.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    Keep in mind that the current Honda Ody platform is carry over from 1999. Why do you think this latest gen has a circular "lazy suzy" for storage where the spare tire use to be.
  • Yesterday, I test drove an '06 Caravan. Decided, After loading amps and guitars for band members into my '98 Caravan, that mid SUV's can't do the job. Period.
    Compared to my '98 Caravan, I thought the handling of current design to be sloppier. Suspension issues, cheap factory tires, maybe ?, and the plastic trim looked very unfinished. Both SE's. Not much improvement for DCX minivans in 10 years in my opinion.

    Now, For sure I will wait for the new '08 to arrive. The quality of materials and chasis dynamics have to be better.

    Only thing is, for city travel, the new van in (ONLY) the size of the grand caravan, will be too big for whipping around parking spaces. Decent handling in a manageable package is very important.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Only thing is, for city travel, the new van in (ONLY) the size of the grand caravan, will be too big for whipping around parking spaces. Decent handling in a manageable package is very important.

    maybe you should consider something like ford freestyle. It holds 6/7 comfortably and hasabout 100 cu. ft. cargo space. and 4 in. shorter than current DGC, 3in. shorter than yours. for alittle more power but same dimensions try new suzuki XL7. For even more room and much smller dimensions try rendezvous which is more than a foot shorter.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Well, for a bit zippier and smaller package, have you looked at the Mazda5? It's certainly smaller (both externally and internally) than most other 'mini'vans on the market. Another plus (at least to my perverted viewpoint) is that it's the only minivan available with a stickshift!
  • Mazda 5 looks like a great package ! all Mazdas look good to me, Cx7, Mazda 6 wagon, however, I want to pull a 1600lb boat as well.
    My mechanic does recommend the Buick Rendezvous, if the intake gasket has been done, however, the styling in anything other than black, is suspect for me.
    I still give the Pacifica a double take when I see it, reliability: not sure. Magnum, hmmmm

    OF course, all the newer nicer SUV's: CX9, Veracruz, Acadia will be nice, but I prefer to let someone else take the 30 -50 % depreciation hit for first 2 years, not me.

    Now, if only a 2003 BMW 325iT wagon could tow an aluminum fishing boat, that would be grand. Have your cake .....
    Sorry, to get off topic, folks, Theres no un-camoflaged pics of the '08 Caravan that I can find, yet. We wait.
  • aaron_taaron_t Posts: 301
    There is not much difference in how the SWB and LWB minivans drive currently. Turning diameter is 2ft longer IIRC, and way better than any full sized SUV with less cargo room.

    Also, is the SXT model any nicer than the SE model? How about the base T&C which is SWB? With the discounts availbile now, people are paying $7-10k under MSRP. Hard to pass those up for the lower end models.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    Please leave this board for '08 models info only. If you have something to say about the current DCX vans, post it on the other boards which were created for them. Thanx
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    these look incredible!!! I curious about tow rating but will probably buy a loaded Chrysler.

    Look at the details...nets in 2nd row seats? blinds? location of sliding door switches!! These are going to be huge hits if they price em right!
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Almost said a bad word!!! THought seats weren't stow'n'go! But at the pictures I know they are. Who ever said differently should look at these pics. Analizing the new van- the inside lays the Sienna/ odessey to the dust. nothing can touch it! Chrysler just turned it up two notches! On the outside, I'm extremely dissapointed. I will say they don't look bad. I used to think no van looked better than the previous Chrysler. Now the Odessey looks a little better. I thought the guy who designed the 300 was on this! this is an old style! So plain! how come chrylsler couldn't put some nice lines on it like the Odessey/ sienna?! This minivan should have llooked just like the pacifica! cause we all know where it's going- why should the nice styling be wasted? At least it has most power in it's class. On styling stand point, not good! But if you're really looking for styling...
    You probably shouldn't be driving a minivan
    I'm not done with this yet.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Almost said a bad word!!! THought seats weren't stow'n'go! But at the pictures I know they are. chrysler would be stupid not to! This is revolutionary. Who ever said differently should look at these pics. Analizing the new van- the inside lays the Sienna/ odessey to the dust. nothing can touch it! Chrysler just turned it up two notches! On the outside, I'm extremely dissapointed. I will say they don't look bad. I used to think no van looked better than the previous Chrysler. Now the Odessey looks a little better. I thought the guy who designed the 300 was on this! this is an old style! So plain! how come chrylsler couldn't put some nice lines on it like the Odessey/ sienna?! This minivan should have llooked just like the pacifica! cause we all know where it's going- why should the nice styling be wasted? At least it has most power in it's class. On styling stand point, not good! But if you're really looking for styling...
    You probably shouldn't be driving a minivan
    I'm not done with this yet.
  • dennisctcdennisctc Posts: 1,168
    the interior looks like a corporate jet!! We won't have to hear any more whining about small or thinly padded 2nd row seats from other minivan owners (who don't actually own them)! The details are what's amazing....blinds for windows, actual levers to release 2nd row seats if you're in the 3rd row!! Sliding console with cooler!! They have totally leap frog the competition. My only concern is price!! With the Korean now on the scene with their's!! Guess I shouldn't worry though - If Kia can build a plant in the USA and be competitive, why can't DCX? (except for having over paid union workers!!)

    I like the exterior of the Dodge better but I'm going for a loaded Chrysler this time
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    You guys know what Chrysler does best it price. They have always had the best. Why stop now? And general minivan price has gone down tremendoulsly. The average topline buyer used to pay near 40 (not chrysler price). now it's a little under 35.This van has grown on me a little. it does look nice.
This discussion has been closed.