Chrysler Pacifica

bargamon

Called two dealerships yesterday and both disconnected me. could it be a sign?

I have been playing around with leasecompare.com and the american cars sure do depreciate fast. I might have to wait until some kind of subsidized lease happens. E-class mercedes Wagon still does great on the lease. Town and COuntry with awd lists for 38k and falls like a rock.

The press kit pictures look great. The first I have seen that properly puts the exterior in proportion. It has a lot of properties that x5 BMW truck has on the exterior. IT sizes out more like a truck than a wagon.

ed12

A dealer near me claims he will get the Pacifica in the middle of March.

rbirns1

Town & Country is a minivan. Almost all minivans have awful resale values. There's just not a very large market for used minivans. I suspect that the Pacifica will have resale and lease residual values more in line with SUV's like the Jeep Grand Cherokee (a Chrysler product in a somewhat similar price class). Jeep residuals are not quite as high as the imports, but much better than minivans.

jamessr

Thats thre problem with mini vans they are every where the same as jeep's the more you produce the more the value goes down.
The huge rebates all year don't help any either.
The Pacifica will arrive mid to end of March and be in the Dallas auto show.

porknbeans

I've really been waiting for this vehicle because it seems to embody what I really desire in a vehicle. The interior was nice and the room was good. The exterior proportions are good (not too big, not too small). Don't expect to carry more than a purse or 2 bags of groceries (turned sideways) if you have the third row up. The materials seems good and the seats were comfortable. My major disappointment was that the dash is so high you seem to be driving from a hole. The seats were obviously disconnected for the show but I can't imagine them going *that* high. Great vehicle and I'll reserve my final judgment until they arrive at the dealer.

rodney12

"the dash is so high you seem to be driving from a hole"!!! Alright!!!!! Every car I sit in (except large trucks/SUVs and some bigger mini-vans) my knees are up close and personal with the dash. I am 6'7" tall and sit sardined in pretty much any sedan or mid-sized SUV. I hope it's as "bad" as it seems, I'll be REAL happy! I'm very hopeful that Pacifica turns out to be big enough with the dash high enough. I have managed to make it this far without buying a truck and I intend to keep it that way. I'll keep my fingers crossed At the very least I'm sure I'll fit in a Pacifica better than I fit in my Saturn L.

For everyone else, I'm sure the seat will go up at least a little

russklass

I sat in 3 different Pacificas at the Detroit show. I'm 5'10" and thought the seating position was great.
Because the vehicle is so tall (66") the window sills seem high, but the windows are large and the visibility is very good.
With the power adjustable seat and pedals, most everyone should be able to find a satisfactory seating position!

bargamon

The bunker mentality of todays designs are different than the airy low belt with green house effect. The stlye is 2/3 steel to glass ratio, which you'll start seeing more of.

I do hope the residual is increased or the co. subisdizes the lease.

russklass

...may be due the the emphesis on safety and getting a 5 star crash score. This is also evident in thr thick doors on the Pacifica.
The 2/3 steel 1/3 glass ratio works on the Pacifica because of the 66" height; it is less appealing on the Crossfire.
As for leasing, the manufacturers have been losing their butts on residuals, don't look for much better on the Pacifica unless the early '04 model year helps.
As for any intro deals, Chrysler has already said there will be none.
However if the Pacifica doesn't sell well...

jamessr

It will sell well. Don't know how many times i have heard the "soccer Moms" say i wish it was less van like. The stigma associated with vans is either you do or you don't.
Area of sale will make a huge difference as well as something new to oogle.
Men might be the better target for this vehicle. Will at least stand around the water fountain feeling manly driving and bragging about.

bargamon

25% glass, 75% bath tub.

Like old porches!

The show magnum wagon looks likes a variant of the pacifica with big hemi engine. Very little glass.

At the moment the top of our list has the pacifica and the New Sienna MIni van.

My wife will ultimatly decide as it will be hers. She came out of a van but wants the size and convienence again. We have a ML320 which is great on gas, but a little small for our needs. Small v8 suvs like the aviater are pigs on gas and short on 3rd row. I realize the pacifica is not giant here, but it should be decent mpg and 2nd row comfort appears fantastic. Most SUVs except the suburban, navigater and aviator don't have the capt. chairs. We can give up some room and use the Thule ski "coffin" on long trips or have extra kids. The new Sienna minivan new limited with awd is sticker at 36k and has a long list of goodies. Very impressive and lexus like interior. You can never hide a mini vans roots, but it is good looking for what it is.

The pacifica will hit an emotional nerve and is very attractive and priced nice. If we lease, and the residual is out of line, I cannot in good concience go that route. But If the Mrs. will not drive it, then that is another story.

When is this thing being released?

ruski

I'd also like to have it armored, with a gun turret on top.

b4z

As of Friday the 22nd 667 Pacificas have been produced.
www.autonews.com

fijikm

Although the front pass seat only goes fwd/back and pwr recline, the driver's seat has sufficient upward mobility to get me (@5'6") plenty of visability all around. Also, the pwr lower lumbar is as good as any I've ever used. Let a friend of mine drive ours the other nite; he said it was as solid as a tank and the quietest Chrysler Corp product he had ever driven including his 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee Ltd. With over 1100 miles on our odo my opinion is that the Pacifica handles better than any of the 4 Chryco minivans we've had and probably better than my Concorde Ltd in most manuvers. Too cool doesn't begin to describe the in-cluster nav system; can't wait for an extended road-trip.

rcf8000

Would you say the front passenger seat is too low for you? Does it raise/lower in height when you move it foreward/backward?

fast929

fijikm, do I understand you correctly in stating that you have a Pacifica in hand? I'm dying to find out what the cubic feet capacity is and can't find those stats and many more. I've got only the basics. What about gas mileage? I'm guessing 17/23. I don't like a high door line. Reading these entries, it appears that the Pacifica has this. With two little kids, are they agoing to be able to see out of the back windows?

rcf8000

You can see a pretty complete sets of specifications in allpar.com. I presume you can believe them. (For some reason you can't get this information in chrysler.com.) They say 79.5 cu ft of cargo capacity with 2nd and 3rd row seats folded. Not bad, but not that great, either, considering the size of the vehicle. (It's less capacity than an RX330, for example, which is a lot shorter and narrower.)

regfootball

who cares a ratts but about whether the kids can see, will the car feel like a bathtub with the high sill?

dudleyr

I think the new Sienna looks more station wagon like than it used to - not too far off from the Pacifica, so I can see why you are comparing them. One thing I do really like about the Sienna (besides the tons of room and 8 passenger seating - with 44 cubic ft behind the 3rd row) is the excellend gas mileage. 19 city and 27 highway. That is as good or better than many v-6 sedans.

adp3

It is important that the kids can see. My kids prefer to go in the minivan than in my Sebring convertible. The Pacifica will replace the minivan and be our choice for any trip involving any significant mileage. I prefer it when my kids are happy.

Of course, I also want the car to perform, but (almost) anything is gonna be a step up from the Dodge Grand Caravan.

I'd like to hear more about snow performance, offroad (low key) performance (clearance?); mpg. It will get 75% of its miles going 75 mph on HWY 280 in SF Bay Area, 20% of its miles creeping around town, and 5% of its miles up and back to (and around) Tahoe. Am comparing it to the Volve XC90 and even considering the new Caddy (am I insane?). Am sure there's a Lexus I should be looking at.

rbirns1

Nope, there's no Lexus you should be considering. Sounds like you need seating for more than 5. That rules out the RX, even the new-for-2004 version. You're left with the LX and new GX. Both are truck-based, so the ride cannot compare to the XC90 or (anticipated) Pacifica. Also, they are both over $50K, so you're probably over budget as well.

Side note, it's hard to believe that Lexus revamped the RX without making 3rd row seating available. It's clearly the trend in SUV's today. With all the other great things about them, the Lexus RX and the Toyota Highlander (related vehicles) could absolutely dominate their segments if they had additional seating.

bargamon

Toyota has such a great truck line but the only the new lexus variant of the 4runner has a 3rd row, and its pretty small. for 50grand, Id rather have a landcruiser.

I think the sight lines should be fine. IF the kids are that small, they should be in boasters anyway.

Funny how we want to keep the kids happy, as kids we bounced up and down the back with no seat belt, the am radio speaker was in the front, and the flip up and down entertainment was the metal ashtray lid attached by spring in the back seat. That worked until you drove someone crazy. Now if we dont' have a 5.1 digital surround system with flip down video monitor, and a ps2 to hook into, we are child abusers!

What a country!

jamessr

Has anyone considered to have a 3rd row you might be infringing on the passengers safety?
3rd rows are nice but who in there right mind would want to purchase because of the 3rd row and put children in harms way. Put yourself in any mid size 3rd row seat and ask yourself would i survive. Tahoe tanks and overpriced Landcruisers are very nice alot of creature comforts but put those on the road against Honda Pilot's and who wins? The Pacifica with high door lines says to me safety and protection.

porknbeans

No offense, but high door lines may SAY safety and protection to you but it doesn't guarantee it. I would be surprised if the Pacifica has any higher safety scores than the Pilot (which did very well). The question is how well is the safety cage of the Pacifica and what have they engineered to protect the third row passengers. I would venture a guess that with MB involved there will be an improvement over past Chrysler products. MB did a pretty good job protecting third row passengers in the ML and I would venture a guess that some of that technology was passed on.

jamessr

The eternal question should always be safety crash tests and are they realistic.
Statistcally speaking crash tests are done at 35 MPH on average which would be a majority of accidents but how do they fair at 60 plus when most severe crashes would occur. USA today had good article on this with Chevy and Honda in mind and smaller has become more economical but more deadly. I think the bath tub spin is good and bad but would feel much safer knowing that MB is making Chryler stronger and better based upon Europe's high speed autobahn than the American speed limits. As far as Pacifica rating you are probably right but more metal surrounding you seems better than less metal and more glass. Really just tired of all the SUV bashing when people are to cheap to purchase a vehicle opting for better fuel economy than safer travel.

bargamon

If we all start buying cars for size to add saftey then we all need bigger and bigger ones. Ooops, already happend.

The majority of fatalities (60%) in SUVs are from roll overs, not collision. So in fact you can get killed avoiding a collision. The mention of the cage is the most important factor in passanger saftey.

I also think the saftey of our sons would be better protected reducing the relience of foriegn oil and not having to send our boys off to war.

IM not saying this is about oil greed, but the UN inspections stopped in 1998 by IRaq in protest UN sactions not being lifted to sell oil. don't get me wrong, im not in favor of terrorism or think saddam would use the case flow wisely, but we don't need to be driving such big cars that FURTHER's the problem. Every little bit counts.

Do we really need to be driving our kids to schools in Hummers? Great, then when they graduate they can get real hummers and drive them in the desert. Then he will really be in a safe vehicle!

"Tahoe tanks and overpriced Landcruisers are very nice alot of creature comforts but put those on the road against Honda Pilot's and who wins?"

Who wins? OPEC! Terrorists! Venazuala oil interests!

Large SUVs are the highest profit centers for the auto makers. They sell fear, but in fact they flip. They want you to buy these "tanks".

We are all free to choose what we want to drive, and I don't think government should make them stop making them, but we in good consience should rethink and demand safe but reasonable size vehicles with decent MPG. Its a start in the right direction. There are safe choices, 6cyl ML350, Pacifica, Pilot, and awd minivans.

The Illusion of using more steel is to feel safer? If you don't agree with that, check the reality of driving a Tahoe. You think your safer, but your not. All marketing ploys.

porknbeans

Somebody got a pressure cuff? I think Bargamons gonna blow a gasket!

I pretty much agree with what you have to say and would add that affluence of the baby boomers has fueled the fire for larger and larger vehicles (no pun intended).

dudleyr

Thee are plenty of people who like efficient cars for reasons other then the money they save on fuel. They are nimble handling, easy to parallel park, and fun to drive.

The other side of the coin to your statement about people being cheap and buying small cars with disregard to their safety is the following.

The roads would be much safer if people who waste their money with needlessly large and clumsy SUV's weren't crushing smaller cars with their battering ram frame rails that are incompatable with passenger car bumper heights and crush zones.

Also size has nothing to do with safety in an accident where you hit a stationary object (the kind of accident that clumsy and tippy SUV's are prone to have). The smaller car may have a smaller crush area, but it also has much less force to dissapate. How would you like to hit a bridge abutment with 3 tons of steel driving you into it.

Also remember that the cost of a vehicle and it's weight are not directly proportional. Is someone who buys a BMW M3 for 45k "cheap" when they could have a Suburban for the same price?

adp3

Geez, I know there's an SUV bashing page around here somewhere....

thanks for the advice that I don't need to look at any of the Lexuses - choosing between the XC90 and the Pacifica will be hard enough.

bergamon's point about how kids were "just fine" without DVDs, 5.1 systems, and decent visibility bouncing around on the backseats is very interesting - it probably WAS "child abuse" to allow you r kid to bounce around UNBUCKLED back there as you jetted down the highway at 70 mph, one hand on the wheel, thoe other holding your Pall Mall cancer stick. Ah yes, the good old days. Personally, I'd rather give my kids safety and decent site lines - I'm not a big believer in DVD systems (though I do like the upgraded stereo systems). On a long trip, my kids read, look out the window or talk to me - and I don't have any problem with them misbehaving.

Back on point - what do you folks think of the merits of the Pacifica vs the XC90? and do you think the Caddy SRX is a reasonable option? Coming from a van, I think I prefer a seat position that is higher than a "normal" wagon or sedan, which is one reason I am looking at these crossover/segment busters, or whatever we end up calling them. I prefer Station Wagon on Steroids, myself.

adp3

and one of these days someone is going to analyze the argyument that energy can be saved through SUVs - rather than having two separate cars (2 families) drive their big old sedan to soccer practice, one SUV can swing by the friends' houses and take 3 or 4 kids to practice. True, this may not be the norm, but it is what my family does very often. This "private bus service" aspect of SUV (and minivan) ownership, is a hidden energy savings. (of course, you could do this in a vehicle getting 20 mpg rather than 12!!!)

porknbeans

Having been in both the Pacifica and the XC90 I would say this. The greenhouse and height/riding position go to the XC90, however I would guess that the performance/avoidance would go to the Pacifica because of the lower center of gravity. I would have to guess the ride will be comparable as well as the amenities (I haven't driven the Pacifica). If I were you I'd climb in both and see which one fits you better. Just my opinion.

logic1

at the Chicago Auto Show. They are both great looking vehicles. As usual, the Chrysler is probably more beautiful while the Cadillac more bold.

Both vehicles are going to be very versatile and emphasize car and luxury features over truck features.

I think the SRX will probably be more pricey. You will most likely get a higher level of driving performance and luxury from the SRX. But for the money, the Pacifica looks like it will really be a great choice.

With luck, competition will keep prices reasonable.

rodney12

OK folks, at long last, full specs (drum roll please)

http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz03/b022503.htm

If there was a pool on gas mileage, fast929 would walk with the pot as he was dead on with city, and 1 mpg overly optimistic on highway (#327). Or maybe DC is in error.

rcf8000

I see they give just one MPG figure. Surely FWD is not the same as AWD.

bargamon

The caddy will be introduced with the V8 and 6 months later with the V6. I think it will be a very nice vehicle, The 8 will be 50k and the 6 about low 40's. The volvo is a great looking vehicle and is safe against tipping. It is smallish, so the 3rd row is tight, as it is on th pacifica. It does not offer capt. chairs in the 2nd row. That is very appealing to us. Otherwise the volvo is nice. The new AWD Sienna might work very well and is priced very close to the pacifica. Still gotta get behind the wheel before I choose.

Sorry If I went off yesterday. We have long found those suburbans very appealing and always considered them.

Some of my best friends do drive large SUV's!

nedzel

"IM not saying this is about oil greed, but the UN inspections stopped in 1998 by IRaq in protest UN sactions not being lifted to sell oil." Not quit correct. We'd been inspecting in Iraq for quite a while but didn't really find much until Saddam's son-in-laws defected to Jordan and told us where to look. Using that information, the inspectors started to find a lot about the Iraqi nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Surprise, surprise, once they started finding stuff, the environment in Iraq got very nasty for the inspectors and they were withdrawn, partly out of concern for their safety. Don't you remember the days-long standoffs between the inspectors at sites, surrounded by Iraqi soldiers who would not let them leave unless the inspectors turned over the documents they had found?

The Iraq situation is not solely about oil. And I too am concerned about our soldiers -- my best friend's son is in the 101st and will, no doubt, soon be deploying.

<rant>
I agree that we are way too dependent upon foreign oil. There is technology on the market today in Europe that would greatly improve vehicle mileage. All we'd need to do is 1) require US oil companies to make low-sulfer diesel fuel, 2) raise fuel taxes, and 3) raise the particulate limits for diesels that are scheduled to being in 2007. The turbo-diesels being sold in Europe have outstanding performance (similar or better than gasoline engines) with 30%+ greater mileage.

Unfortunately, the Dems just want to regulate what the automakers build (instead of using price elasticity for gasoline to change what consumers want to buy). Many enviro-folks are convinced that diesel is evil and are still looking for the magic electric car.

The Repubs don't want to raise taxes and don't want to force the oil companies to speed up the reduction in sulfur content (which is coming, but more slowly than it should be).
</rant>

russklass

The April issue of MOTOR TREND has a "first drive" 2 page spread on the Pacifica. Their comments are generally very positive.
They "estimate" a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds.
Can you say SLOW?

rcf8000

Give us some of the positive comments, please! The acceleration is about what I would expect; it's more like a minivan than a "sports tourer".

russklass

Pluses:
Standout styling
DVD nav system
Seats
Interior room & comfort
Sound system better than some home theatre systems
Nimble
Adaquate power
Minuses:
No 5 speed automatic

I stlll think it needs more ponies under the hood!

jamessr

All points well taken. Reality says (as a Gulf veteran) had we done the job right the first time we wouldn't be back this time. the sanctions were correct. The manner in which he spent his money on the military instead of his people the agony. As for larger better i do not feel larger is better that is why the Pacifica works well. The Tahoe is too big along with the Escalades and all of the other enormous SUV's. So what next send the Tree huggers after Mini Vans?

fast929

I'm glad I've found many who are thinking as I. I just purchased a Yukon XL and it's going back to the factory due to a significant "body boom" noise. I liked it for the room but it is too big. We previously had a Grand Caravan and got spoiled with the room. We didn't want another minivan. A large SUV seemed the only option. I didn't know about the Pacifica when we purchased.

The Pacifica seems to answer some of my needs. The new Sienna is intriguing...if it looks less minivanish. I too like the XC90 but I don't have a Volvo dealer close by. As the details slowly come out on the Pacifica there are two things that concern me: 1) under powered?, 2) when you get in, is it going to feel like you are in a deep bathtub.

I started the commentary about the kids seeing out the back window. While there were some interesting comments afterward, the fact is I am like adp3. Our kids aren't DVDized and we tend to play games and look at the country side, so greenhouse is important. Can anyone who has been in one address this for me?

adp3

sorry to hear of your experience with the Yukon - I hope you can give it back.

Funny how many of us there are, addicted to the minvan space, but just so tired of driving them. Probably how many felt after driving the station wagons of the 60s and 70s. I often wonder if we really need all that room.

That's why I am willing to go with something with less storage, and has some decent driveability (and mpg). I can always put a cargo carrier on top for the long trips, right?

I need to see if the Bay Area dealers have any Pacificas in stock

ed12

I saw the Pacifica at the NY auto show last year. I think it definitely fills a nice niche. AS to a big SUV or minivan. I own a 2002 T&C AWD. In 18000 miles, it has proven to be by far the best vehicle I ever owned. The quality, comfort, versatility and handling are amazing. I recently drove a friends brand new Cadillac Escalade. I was appalled. What a monument to excess. IMHO, the T&C blows it away and uses about half the gas doing it.

When my lease is up in two years, I will look at the Pacifica, but if Chrysler just puts in the 3.5 liter v6 and a five speed auto, I will be happy with the T&C as is.

regfootball

That vehicle will get flamed in the press for being a complete slug.

No way in hell a 35,000+ vehicle should be that slow.

rcf8000

I agree that Pacifica is slow. However, an awful lot of Town and Countries are sold for similar amounts of money, and they are as slow or even slower. Therefore, DC had good reason to believe that the Pacifica doesn't have to be any quicker in order to capture those buyers coming out of minivans. Those folks are a large part of the target market.

beach15

It's because the Pacifica is relatively heavy (not a bad thing) and it still uses a certain, crummy 4 speed transmission from the 300M, if I'm right. This tranny is quite inefficient and needs some work, because it makes the 3.5 into a complete dog. If I remember right, Motor Trend also commented on its poor shifting--and it being slow.

rcf8000

Yes, obsolescent technology must be at work here. Consider that some SUVs are heavier than the Pacifica and have less HP, but are quicker. The X5 3.0 comes to mind. Of course, it costs you.

shipo

I thought that I read somewhere (6 months ago or so) that the Pacifica was going to use the same transmission as the E320. Did I get that wrong, or did something change?

Best Regards,
Shipo

rcf8000

I wish it were the same as the E320 transmission, but, no, it isn't. (I have an E320.)

adp3

well, I don't care much about 0-60, but I do care alot about 40-60 and 50-75

hopefully, the Pacifica will do all-right in there

damn, are you guys gonna push me to buy a dang VW Wagon or something?

good to hear the good report about the AWD T and C. My Grand Caravan has been great, though boring. Still, it's nice to drive to Tahoe in a friggin living room. But being able to make it up the driveway once I get there would be a big plus. Maybe I'll just install a winch (?) in the Tahoe Cabin garage and have it yank my FWD van up the driveway. Cheaper than a new car, eh?