By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Seems to me an Audi Allroad fits the SPORTS tourer tag. SPORTS doesn't apply in a 4700 vehicle.
So while the Pacifica as a package is really good overall, lets just agree to call it a good cruiser wagon and that's about it. Anyone who falls for the SPORTS tourer BS will be sadly disappointed. The utility of the vehicle is the positive about it, not anything related to PERFORMANCE.
Nothing sporty about them.
As most know my opinon of the heafty proportions of the pacifica, I would define it as a family cruiser than sports car. Magazines often focus too much on handleing charactoristics than the utility of the vehicle. Car and Driver loves the bmw over almost any Mercedes. BMW are "drivers" cars. I agree, but when I went to look at the back seat and trunk of the 5 series, there was not much more room than found in the 3 series. The E-class offered a decent truck and back seat room. In reality, it became a better fit for what I needed. The Pacifica has no peer at this time, but its slower than most minivans, slower than most semi luxury sedans, slower than 11 passanger awd chruch van, and slower than most mid size SUVs. Fill it up with the family and some gear, passing may become problematic.
I still have it on my short list and will drive it. I love the look, love the interior and from what I am reading, it is solid and well made. And my wife really likes it. Thats 60% right there! It would be hers! We are long from the days we let the "little lady" just pick the color!
it should be compared to other vehicles that can seat 6, like a minivan, certain SUVs, the Caddy SRX, and the volvo that has that [non-permissible content removed] rear facing rear seat
the Caddy may be the fairest comparison, I guess - and isn't the SRX gonna cost 10k more?
I need to seat more than 5, so the 5 series bimmer and the Audi don't work for me.
I agree it can be better, but is it WORTH the price and better than the other vehicles in its class
I compare it to the SRX and the XC90, but not sure what else yet
RFB: could not disagree more. Try finding a large four door sedan with 250/250, leather, heated seats, computer info ctr, big stereo for 30K equal to the 300M. It doesn't exist. I've tried. The General competes with the Buick Park Ave Ultra for only $39,900 (and then you drive them both, and, well...no comparison). The Pacifica is a new niche and people are spending $40-50 for luxed out trucks call SUVs. People will vote with their wallets. The Pac will be a big success.
A loaded Chrysler shouldn't cost more than $3,000 more than a Taurus? Get real!
I'm surprised that Chrysler's top brand (Chrysler) costs consistently less than Ford's (Lincoln) and GM's (Cadillac).
Show me another car with the room and features of a 300M for anywhere near $30,000!
While I would love to see the Pacifica with 500 fewer pounds, and 50 more ponies, it's still a good value compared to what else is out there.
"room and faetures" hey Chrysler is moving in on GM territory!.....Room and features is the mark of excellence isn't it.
Also a guy on that thread dyno'd his Intrepid R/T and it put out 173 hp. It is rated at 242 hp.
That is waaay more than the normal 20% reduction due to frictional losses,etc.
If it had been a 20% reduction then it would have made 194 hp.
The 300M has a power toweight ratio of 14.46.
The Intrigue's is 15.91.
Yet they post the same 0-60 time.
Sat in a beautiful Lt. Green one, loaded to $40,300 without only the cargo group and HID headlamps.
I played with all the toys, and came away very impressed.
It had just come off the truck, so no test drive...bummer!
A cut above the standard domestic stuff?
Yes, its big! First impression is of the width and muscular stance.
Only disappointments were prop rod for hood, and no polished tail pipe.
Though not an SUV, the Buick Park Avenue Ultra approaches $40K, and people buy that too.
Considering all of its standard equipment, I believe the Pacifica is priced very competitively.
After seeing the Pacifica today at the autoshow, I am convinced its way overpriced. I could see a sticker of around 32 being reasonable but anything approaching 35 or more appraoching 40 for this thing is reaching. Bless those folks that want to spend that kind of money on that. I have some charities called 'my checkbook' that I would like you to donate to.
It also did not appear as spacious as its been billed to be.
Of course not much of the rolling crap available for sale out there is worth over 30 grand.
The Touareg didn't even do anything for me. So fun to just sit and watch the VW area....all sorts of yuppies fawning all over all the VW's. Nice cars, but man I coulda made a killing selling mochas over by the Passats and jettas and twaregh. I swore I was living in a J Crew catalog.
Of course the first look my wife had of the Pacifica, she responded quickly with a very unflattering remark which I can't repeat here. I think the exterior design is fine actually, but I didn't like the interior. Mostly the dash...the 'big curve' over the instruments was a bit hokey and the dash itself is like a tall wall in front of the drivers seat.
Then there's the whole thing of Chrysler playing Celine Dion loud on the speakers around all their cars, I think I'm gonna yack from all that Celine.
oh, and also I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to spend 40k on an Exploder either.
Bottom line is the Pacifica, despite its lack of sports, will most likely sell very well....riding the SUV / crossover wave, getting that group of buyers who is either moving away from minvans or truck based SUV's but still wants a third seat and wasn't lucky enough to get an MDX.
I would advise all Pacifica shoppers to just go check out the Murano. NOW THAT THING IS THE DEAL. Acceleration, great interior, comfy seating, good cargo space, svelte looks......LOWER PRICE. No third seat? Too bad for the whiny kids....make em sit together, it builds discipline and cooperation skills. If they whine, pull the plug on the dvd player.
Nice visual, pit bull chews off pigs head......
Gas sucking Nissan v6....hmmm they are getting about 20 mpg on the message boards for the Muranos, not bad for an SUV. I wonder what Pacificas numbers are in the mpg dept.
Saw a stunning black Murano the other day. Maybe if I see a black Pacifica it will spruce it up a bit. The Pacifica at the show was a lighter color. Not a flattering color.
Love your takes on over spending. Youdah man!
Sorry the whole thing is so upsetting to you.
But lets not let this debate bring us to diss the Vette. No matter who buys it can do nothing to change the fact that it is the best pure driver's car for the money.
redneck sled....lol......naw, the corvette rises above that status. Might be fair to call a camaro or pontiac so.....
Did you read my post, my wife was the one who said it was ugly. I think Pacifica looks fine for a big fat wagon. pretty decent.....but it won't win awards or cause people to pay list price or over to get one.
Forced with a choice between an M3 and Vette....for 'pure drivers car' award.....wow that'd be tough.
Chrysler is trying too hard trying to play with the big boys, as far as pricing. Nice for them to try and jack up the price, to see what dummies take the bait. But really the Pacifica would be a lot more successful if it were perceived as an 'under 30k' vehicle instead of 'over 30k'. Chrylser just doesn't have the esteem the big boys do.
The Crossfire definitely lost soemthing in transition from show car to production. Lacks the panache. I saw the corssfire on the pedestal at the autoshow this wkd. Did nothing at all for me. Nice rehashed minimercedes.
I'd take a m3 over the vette because it does not screem "look at me".
I find it funny to mention the collective car division "esteem" that Chrysler has a problem with costing a vehicle near the 4ok mark. VW has a 12cyl that will be over 80k.
but if self esteem were not a problem, then many would not be needing a corvette?
Chicks will go drop 24k on a measly Jetta no problem, but its pulling teeth to get people to drop same said amount on most dodges and chryslers.
Further off topic and/or heated messages will be automatically deleted.
And now back to the subject of the Chysler Pacifica. Thanks!
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
Chryslers roots are the imperial, 300, new yorker etc.
The 80's when the company was on life support about every product was K-Car based and image was at lowest.
DC plan to eliminate Plymouth was to have dodge cover the low to mid level, chysler cover the mid to upper, and mercedes to take it from their.
Its a sound strategy. Chrysler is in the future, not the past.
Im not saying I will get the pacifica, but it will be a fine offering. On a new platform, the first designed under the new ownership, it represents the new company and they best not blow it! I called a small town dealer and they had 20 already preordered and 16 they will have for inventory. I have yet to see one or sit in one. I have read alot about it and look forward to creating my own impression after driving one.
Chrylser does have a bad history of resale values and thus does not lease many. If they want to go upscale they need to address this. ITs a business expense for me, and won't pay 10% more on a lease because of low residual.
I can't understand where VW is going with the luxury market offerings. It might have worked as a counter-culture thing in the dot com hayday, but not now. VW should stick with Audi for the high end market or create a new luxury brand.
You're right on about Chrysler.
I too am concerned about resale/residual value. With a 40K sticker on the Pacifica, the downside is pretty large, especially at 25-30K miles per year.
Got to balance the emotion against reason!
#1, Work Vehicle:
I drive 25-30K miles/yr, and need something I enjoy driving, has plenty of room, and at least a reasonable annual cost. 2 Taurus SHOs and 2 300Ms have performed admirably for the past 9 years, and I would hope the Pacifica could do so for the next 30-36 months.
#2, Play Vehicle:
Our 13-year-old Mazda Miata has been a joy! Still love looking at, and driving, it every summer. Paid $16,250 in July od 1989 and practically nothing on maintainance since. It's in showroom condition, and probably wouldn't bring more than $5,000 now, but it's not for sale. Thats value!
My concern about poor acceleration was mitigated, as the vehicle at least seemed to be a lively performer. It moved smartly from rest and accelerated smoothly.
The ride is very good, and very quiet. The only intrusive noise was when the engine is operated in the higher end of the power band.
I tried it thru some sharp curves and it carved thru smartly. Steering had a very good feel.
Overall very impressive!
You only see the jade and the silver on the net.
we ain't comparing the thing to a freakin Vette or M3, ok? I want something that is more fun to drive than my Grand Caravan, without sacrificing everything that my Grand Caravan gives me (e.g., seating for more than 4 and enough cargo space so I can take it camping).
I know it's overpriced, but so is everything out there. Compare the Pacifica to other 6-seaters and then let's talk. Stop yanking the chain by saying "it doesn't have the power of the X5" or "it doesn't drive like an A6"
no kidding!!! but those cars do not sit 6. It ain't that complicated. I want seating for the wife and 4 children and I don't want another minivan or a damned Suburban.
Maybe I just keep my nmoney in my pocket and drive the van for another year to see how the XC90 and the Pacifica and the Cadillac SRX shake out, but please put the worthless comparisons on other message boards.
Straight line acceleration is but one element of performance.
In my short test drive I found the Pacifica did well in all aspects of performance: acceleration, braking, ride, steering, comfort, quietness, features and overall feel.
Compared to what else is out there, I still think the Pacifica is a good choice.
The thing to do here is stick with issues (about the Pacifica) that you'd like to discuss, and completely ignore messages that irritate you. Keep in mind that responding to unwanted posts will only bring more unwanted posts.
To Everyone - A couple off topic posts have been deleted. A little comparing is okay, but let's not forget that the main focus of this discussion should be about the Chrysler Pacifica.
If you want to respond to someone's off topic question/comment, you can always ask them to join you in a more appropriate discussion or respond to their post by email. Okay?
Bottom line: Unless you want to be writing with disappearing ink, stick to the topic of this discussion.
Thanks!
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
well, forget about that
but can someone please compare the Pacifica to similarly-situated (?) vehicles? It seems tofit a niche that no one else wants - seats more than 5, AWD, not a minivan or a truck....
though it makes more sense to keep the Pilot in the comparison mix than it does to compare the Pacifica to a 5 series BMW wagon or any of the Audi products, perhaps
again, the "driver" for me is the passenger capacity
I'm nervous about the Volvo and The Caddy and the Pacifia, given that this is the year of intro for them - I hope my Grand Caravan holds out so I don't have to make this decision until we have more data
I think the Pilot is valid competition, but then I won't buy a car with a sunroof (takes up too much headroom) and I could care less where the shifter is mounted.
The Pilot is also quite a bit less expensive, topping out at $33,000 with leather and nav.
The semi-loaded ($38,000)Pacifica performed admirably, even conquering the hill with enthusiasm.
I'm convinced! Now if I can just find the one I want...
The fact the pacifica has a 4 speed tranny is relevent, and its lack of effiecentcy is relevent. We welcome these subjects as do any test drivers whom comment on actual real time driving experience, until we can test drive ourselves. We'll know soon enough.
Russ, what is your opinion of the third row? Is it tight or valid 3rd row?