Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan 2005+

samnoe

Where did you hear about a powertrain update for 2006? Do you know anything more specific? Any details?

I really hope that DC will not shut themselves in the foot by offering a 300 design on the new redesigned minivan.

mrblonde49

I really hope that DC will not shut themselves in the foot by offering a 300 design on the new redesigned minivan. >>


Don't think this is possible:
1) The 300 is the most significant and successful Detroit design in many years (meaning, people like it)
2) The 300 is already a boxy design
3) There's only so much you can do with a minivan
4) The grills of the 300 and T&C are already kinda similar

will88ss

I have purchased the Town and Country with the tow packaage. (without the hitch of course) After installing the class IV hitch, I also noticed the 4 pin. Did you install a brake controller with the 7 pin? And if so was it required to run new wires under the van and thru the fire wall??

dennisctc

My DCX SXT came with the 4 pin harness also. I purchased the 7 pin circular (USCar connector)from dealer for $115. The 7 pin harness came with very detailed install instructions but I let my RV dealer install hitch, harness and brake controller. All new wires were run under the van, none thru firewall. I paid about $450 for hitch, LED brake controller and labor. I supplied the 7 pin harness.

My only complaint......The RV dealer installed the 7 pin connector right to my painted bumper!!! Screwed right into it!!!! He says it's because he didn't have anywhere else to mount it with the 3rd row seat bin and the muffler behind the bumper??? I can see his point but it looks "stuck on"!!! and I'll have to be carefull mating/unmating the 7 pin connector.....holding the Minivan side while mating the harness side.

hansienna

DO NOT BUY a 2005 GC SE Plus or the clone T&C LX .

GC SXT with no extra options $ 27,850 (incl dest).
GC SE Plus with optional popular equipment group $28,010 (incl dest).
For $160 LESS for the GC SXT than the GC SE Plus, there is the more adequate 3.8L V6, Power Sliding doors on both sides, 8 Way Power Driver's seat, Fog Lamps, Cast Wheels, 215/65R16 tires vs 215/70R15, low speed traction control, leather wrapped steering wheel with remote audio controls.

DaimlerChrysler has very stupid marketing policies. Although I like my 2002 T&C LX, my first choice for a new 2005 minivan would be the Odyssey EX (cloth). The new 2006 KIA Sedona may displace the Odyssey EX (based on initial information released by Edmunds).

samnoe

I always read in many magazines, Chrysler & Dodge brochures, and more, that the 3.8L engine produces 215 hp. Now I see all over (Chrysler.com; Motor Trend magazine; CR; etc.) that it is rated just for 205 or 207 hp.

What gives?

shipo

Hmmm, interesting. The Dodge web site still shows 215 hp @ 5000 and 245 lb-ft of torque at 4000. The Chrysler web site is now showing 205 hp @ 5200 and 240 lb-ft of torque at 4000. No doubt about it, that is heading in the wrong direction.

Best Regards,
Shipo

badgerfan

Hansienna,

I don't know where you got your numbers, but Edmunds pricing lists GC SE+ at $25280 including destination and there is not a popular equipment group option listed that I can see for the SE+. The SXT is listed at $27625 including destination with no options.

For those on a budget who want the Stow and Go seating but no other bells and whistles, this is a $2345 MSRP savings over the SXT at $27625.

I agree however, that if you want a lot of bells an whistles, the SXT is the way to go.

With the $3500 rebates in effect and dealers willing to go down to about invoice or less, both options are a pretty darn good deal.

hansienna

BIG MISTAKE: The GC SXT is $385 less than GC SE Plus with optional popular equipment Gp II (to get it closer in content). My original difference was wrong because I forgot to delete the $225 optional Inferno Red Crystal Pearl Coat paint on the GC SXT.
I got my data at the official Dodge web site where I priced the GC SE Plus with $1465 optional popular equipment group II that includes the overhead console, three zone temp control, roof rack, tachometer, AM/FM stereo radio with cassette, CD player, and 6 speakers.
The GC SXT with no extra cost options is $27,625 at both Dodge official site and at Edmunds and includes all of these items in GC SE Plus optional group + the extra items that are NOT on the GC SE Plus. The 8 way power driver's seat is a $370 extra cost option for the GC SE Plus....making the price of the GC SE Plus $ 755 MORE than the GC SXT and still has LESS content.
The Edmund's pricing does not have the optional popular equipment group listed.
.

deerfielddave

I am replacing a 99 Voyager with an 05 SXT, specifically for the towing package. I searched almost all the 5 star dealers in the state (Florida) and found 4 that weren't with other packages well over 33K MSRP. The hope of my perfect package (towing, dvd, satellite, nothing more) quickly evaporated. I realized portable DVD that doesn't drop down is available and will save you 1K over a dealer drop down. I'll have to stay with my JVC PNP Sirius too.

Rather than haggle in Orlando and Tampa from Ft. Lauderdale, I went with an autobroker who found my Wife's color with the tow pack, power gate and 6CD changer options for $300.00 over invoice including shipping. Probably could have done a bit better if I did it myself, but between uncertainty and time lost haggling and dealing with shipping and a long distance transaction, I elected to pay the middleman.

Point; after looking at many dealer inventories, I noticed a common theme that the stock was dramatically slanted toward high option packages, only one dealer really had 3.8 SXT stock that had good small option packages. South Florida was ridiculous, multiple dealers lied about having a towing package to get me to the lot. Lots of leather.

Other random comments from this shopper;
1. DCX still has it balanced right if you value today's money more than tommorow's worry free operation. I.e. talked the Wife out of the Ody and Sienna again, Yesss.
2. The rear overhead storage is cheap and hideous. Worth paying for a sunroof if you are getting the DVD so you don't have to deal with it.
3. Really looking forward to never lugging seats out again.
4. Finally, towing capacity! I never liked being at 100% of towing capacity, which is what a small camper, people and gear does to a 2000 lb. ltd.
5. Lived with non-Grand size without complaint for 6 years, got one dog too many and I'm back on car payments.
6. As stated elsewhere here, the list of standard options on the SXT is quite impressive, I just tell myself it's the engine I'm extra paying for!

Jason5

Dennis...and/or other posters. Anyone heard about this 2006 upgrade? If so, what have you heard and what is the source? Many thanks...Also..what are folks finding for prices of Grand Caravan SXT at the moment?

dennisctc

Finally, towing capacity! I never liked being at 100% of towing capacity, which is what a small camper, people and gear does to a 2000 lb. ltd.

Towing and Stow n Go were the two most important features for me!!! I only wish they'd throw in the hitch while they're at it, like the Trucks - already for ball mounting.

When I was looking for tow package...the dealers in Detroit all said "ohhh they're hard to come by, you better take the one I have". The dealer I finally bought off leveled with me - they're NOT rare, he could have me almost any color or optioned SXT in days!! He happened to have almost exactly what I wanted - White SXT with Tow, power hatch and it came with sunroof which is cool for camping for me. My one mutt loves to lay in Van so with sunroof open, he'll be a little happiers

I also purchased the 3 rd storage bin that converts to table top!!! Cool feature and very well built with metal bracing etc.. not just plastic!!! perfect for camping!!

dennisctc

What i'm hearing is more modern Engine and 5 spd auto finally. Major redo in MY 2008.

badgerfan

I will not argue that the SXT gives you more value and more features, rather than trying to load up an SE+. But, if you do not want all the options, you can still get the SE+ giving you a minivan with stow and go seats with no extras for quite a bit less money. That is the only point I was trying to make. Anyone who wants Stow and Go but wants to keep the vehicle fairly stripped and low cost has the option of finding an SE+ with little or no options.

1997montez34

Per Dodge Customer Service:

The 3.8 was reduced to 205/240 due to packaging issues with Stow 'N Go. No reduction occurred with the 3.3 and SNG. Still 180/210.

shipo

It seems now that there are indeed three versions of the 3.8 liter mill. Our 1998 has one, our 2003 has another and now the 2005s have yet a third. Listed below are the specs:

1998 - HP: 180 @ 4400 - Torque: 240 @ 3250
2003 - HP: 215 @ 5000 - Torque: 245 @ 4000
2005 - HP: 205 @ 5200 - Torque: 240 @ 4000

Given that our 1998 seems a fair bit faster off the line when compared to our 2003 but a tick or two slower accelerating from 65-80, my guess is that those numbers are fairly accurate. The 1998 has more low end torque while the 2003 has more high(er) rpm horsepower. It seems that the mill in the 2005 suffers in both comparisons with the same torque peak but arriving at a higher RPM than the 1998 and lower total horsepower at an even higher RPM than our 2003. Geez, could the 2005s be the slowest of the 3.8s to hit the road?

Best Regards,
Shipo

badgerfan

They probably had to reroute the exhaust system to get around the stow and go bins, or some such trivial thing that resulted in a tiny bit of lower HP and torque numbers. The whole thing is pretty trivial in my opinion, and I doubt if you could tell much difference between all three engines.

The stow and go seating configuration itself likely added more weight to the vans, so the added weight may be more of an issue than these teensy engine performance differences.

These are minivans after all. As long as they can get 0-60 in 10-11 seconds, most people will consider them acceptable.

Jason5

Dennis...

Thanks for the information. I'm wondering if we'll see the ubiquitous SOHC 3.5 appear in the 2006's with a 4 or 5 speed automatic? Some of you no doubt recall that the 3.5 engine was to have ORIGINALLY been available in the 2001 redesign but cost issues made DC change their minds. It was to have been available in high end trim lines as an option.
It seems odd that the 3.8 wouldn't be "re-rated" until after a year into the model run. Perhaps Hyundai and Ford's fiascos with misrated engine output has everyone running scared... Any one out there shopping for GC SXT's and have some stories on pricing to report?

hansienna

Good point I had overlooked.
To me, the Triple Zone Temperature Control with complete overhead console and 50/50 split 3rd row seat of my 2002 T&C LX (clone of 2002 GC Sport) is of greater value than to have Stow and Go in the 2005 GC SE Plus without the Triple Zone Temp and complete overhead console.
Too bad DC doesn't have the 60/40 split 3rd row fold into the floor with fore and aft adjustable 2nd row buckets in the Caravan SXT...or just have the fore and aft adjustable 2nd row bucket seats with the current 50/50 split 3rd row.

I just priced the GC SXT with no extra options at Dodge web site and it is $27,850 incl $730 destination. At the Chrysler web site, the T&C Touring clone is $28,610 incl $730 destination.
WHY is the T&C clone more expensive when they have the same content and the Dodge has the more attractive cast wheels? The new T&C grille looks like the older Chrysler Voyager grilles. I would not want to buy a new car that more closely resembles a lower priced older model.

marine2

Too bad DC doesn't have the 60/40 split 3rd row fold into the floor with fore and aft adjustable 2nd row buckets in the Caravan SXT...or just have the fore and aft adjustable 2nd row bucket seats with the current 50/50 split 3rd row.


The SXT does have a 60/40 third row split bench seat that folds into the floor, or that flips over so you can sit facing out the tail gate. It also has second row bucket seats in the second row,(Stow-N-Go) that are adjustable fore and aft. The seat backs are also adjustable.

mrblonde49

The GC took a step back with their front this year, IMO. The horizontal slats are not nearly as nice as the former honeycomb mesh grill. I agree that the grill on the base T&C looks just like the old Voyager, but when you add the chrome on the slats that comes optional on Touring and standard on Limited, it looks great. Big improvement

badgerfan

Well, if you are going to get nitpicky about looks, I still like our 1996 Caravan SE Sport's styling better than the current Dodge/Chrysler styling.

However, in my opinion, Dodge and Chrysler Caravans are still the best in class for exterior styling of all the new vans on the market today. A bit less boxy than Honda and Toyota. On Freestar, Ford didn't do enough to differentiate it from Windstar.

Styling wise, the GM minivans are the worst of the bunch. Adding a SUV front end to a carryover platform that was pretty bland in the first place is just a styling joke. Get with it GM. Offering a minivan that has SUV front end styling pretentions is just silly. You are fooling no one GM.

samnoe

I think they changed it due to cleaning reasons. Did you ever try to clean that honeycombed front grille? Now it's much easier. But both, the Chrysler and the Dodge van have changed their front ends just for the sake of change. I agree that Chrysler minivans until 2004 is one of nicest grille designs I've seen on a van (of course much better than the new Sienna), but since that grille dates back to 1998 (?) they needed a change, and they tried to match it to other Chrysler vehicles with the bold grille.

The thing about the engine makes me mad. I know that the stow & go added weight to the van, so we would need even more power to handle that. Now they reduced the power output, and the muffler noise is very noticeable inside the van when accelerating... and Chrysler claims that the 2005 models are 16% quieter than the previous models - which is NOT TRUE.

In other words, in terms of engine, Chrysler does not offer anymore an advantage over the Ford and GM engines. They all have 200 or 200+ horsepower, and the Ford offer 265 Lb.-Ft. of torque. I agree it's not as refined as DC engines, but with that annoying muffler noise, the DC vans are almost as noisy as the Ford engines. And the transmissions on the GM is superior to the one in DC vans, and even the Ford Freestar I test-drove felt more smooth-shifting than DC vans. I also think that the interior of both GM and Ford vans now surpass DC dated design. But that's my opinion only.

Yeah, baby. They need a powertrain update really bad... Aren't they realizing what Honda is doing??

marine2

I agree the Chrysler/Dodge exterior are nicer than any of the others. As far as interior, they have a long way to go to match the new Honda and even a lot of the others. They need to add some color to the interior and make parts look like they are part of, and not added on. Such as the covers on the door and window switches. It looks very tacky.

I also think American manufacturers are making a mistake in always trying to keep the same grill on the different makes of cars. When I buy a new car, truck or van, I want it to look new. You can't do that with many vehicles today. There is very little you can change up front when you keep the same grill. It is almost impossible for the average person to tell the difference in a 2002-2005 Dodge van unless you know what to look for.

The Buick is a great car, but I am so sick of looking at that big oval grill on it. It is not attractive at all and makes it very hard to change the looks of it when GM puts it on every model year. Unless your a Buick fan, you can't even guess at the year of it.

kfdmed

I have to disagree with you on the wheels and the front grille. The GC wheels are the generic 5 spoke you see all over the place The T&C are unique and more attractive in my opinion. The grille/light combo is close to the same thats on the crossfire. The grille may be similar on the old voyager but the lights sure aren't. The mono colored GC is not match for the T&C in the looks department in my opinion. T&C has the more attractive grille/light combo and chrome on the front, back, and sides. The GC is just BLAH.

hansienna

Sorry I did not specify the short wheel base Caravan SXT instead of the Grand Caravan SXT.
If the short wheel base Caravan SXT had the 60/40 third row split bench Stow and Go with bucket seats similar to current ones with ADDED fore and aft movement, the Caravan SXT would be my choice as it is thousands $$$$ less than the GC SXT, Odyssey EX, or T&C Touring and still has separately controlled temperature for driver and front passenger + complete overhead console with trip computer and nice cast wheels standard equipment.

veritasusa

I hope that DC can come up with a better engine than the 3.5 that has been around for a few years now and hasn't gotten very good reviews regarding noise, power and economy when tested in other DC cars.

hansienna

Put the 5.7L V8 hemi into the DC minivans and it would take Honda many years to equal the power of it.
BTW, the GC SXT lacks the power liftgate as standard equipment that is included as standard equipment in the T&C Touring. That $400 option narrows the premium one must pay to get the Chrysler instead of the Dodge.

masterpaul1

I like chrome a lot on cars. I had a 1971 Ford LTD II and 1986 Lincoln Town Car with chrome bumpers and trim all around. I actually like the 2001 Model year DGC aluminum rims better than the T&C chrome rims. To me, the T&C chrome rims remind me of spoked rims guys put on the older cars from back in the 60's with the star in the middle. T&C chrome rims show dirt, spots and scratches easier then the DGC aluminum rims do because of the mirror like shine. Also, the DGC rims are a lot easier to clean then the T&C rims, since the spaces are wider between each spoke. :shades:

Jason5

I've never read a review of the 3.5 that complained about it's power or economy. If you mean the end result of putting it in too heavy a vehicle--then I can see your point and have seen articles which suggest that. The SOHC 3.5 is a solid engine--always has been--and it's output essentially equals Honda's 3.5 without the added complexity of VTEC. Engines can "be around a few years" and still be strong powerplants...Ever heard of the 30 year old GM V-6's still soldiering on in many applications?
I would like to see Chrysler do right by it's minivan customers by adding a stronger powerplant and a 5 speed transmission. Here's hoping that the 2008 redesign knocks one out of the park!

masterpaul1

Now I'm not sure which other cars you are referring to in your statement. But we have the 3.8L V6 SOHC push rod engine to which is more then enough power for our DGC, even when loaded up with 6 passengers. Our van RPM's are the same when cruising when loaded with people as if it was just the driver. I think the Ody's 3.5L V6 is a good engine and has more power then our 3.8L V6, but the 2005 Ody weighs over 400lbs more then our DGC. So with that in mind, it would need a more powerful engine. Even though Daimlerchrysler has not upgraded to a V6 DOHC 24 Valve engine, they are only a second or two behind from 0 to 60 compared to the competition. (And I believe that those test are with just the driver in the van.) What would the time be if it had 5 to 7 passengers in it when the 0 to 60 test is done? Most of the time that is how many people are in our van. :surprise:

hansienna

So why do we need bigger engines?
I would have preferred the DC 3.8L V6 but for normal use the 3.3L is a great compromise between power and economy.

shipo

We have two 3.8 GCs, and both routinely return between 22 and 24 mpg on road trips. How much better does the 3.3 do?

Best Regards,
Shipo

marine2

I would like to see Chrysler do right by it's minivan customers by adding a stronger powerplant and a 5 speed transmission. Here's hoping that the 2008 redesign knocks one out of the park!

I think they would if they can. But you must remember, they are fighting fairly new plants with Honda and Toyota that are better modernized and require less workers. They also have older workers that causes insurance cost to be higher. Plus they are paying out much more in vacations, wages, and pensions that Toyota and Honda are not saddled with. Thus, Honda and Toyota can afford to put more in their vans and to also invest more in engine and tranny upgrades. It also doesn't help Chrysler to give those big rebates and zero financing. They are at a huge disadvantage to Honda and Toyota.

Jason5

While I respect your post, I disagree with the premise. DC had planned on a more modern engine--but chose not too add it to the options at the 11th hour. They managed to wrangle a 5 speed automatic into their pick-ups and SUV's several years ago. Seems to me that the truth is they could if they wanted to. The issue of rebates and 0% financing is a circular one--products that are just adequate or slightly behind the curve end up garnering these incentives. That is why Honda rarely has to offer such incentives.
Please be mindful that I AM a DC owner--and have been most of my life. I'm just mindful that on my "wishlist" is a minivan that didn't have some noncompetitive features straight out of the gate. I also wish that my Intrepid had a 5 speed autostick--though the 4 speed one works just fine...

greener1

my T&C 2005 LX has been averaging between 26 and 28 all road trips on the overhead trip odometer all driving within stated speed limits on highways of 55 and 70 mph

jjj2

I sure hope that Crysler fixes 3 little more things that haven't been mentioned in their next models:
1. The emergency brake release is so low that one can pop a disc releasing the brake. It would be nice if they moved the release latch up about 6-8 inches higher, or just use a foot release on the emergency brake.
2. It would be nice to have a illuminated glove box when you open it, which it does not have.
3. The lockable center console option and the passenger side "under seat lockable storeage drawer" use the same key that unlocks the vehicle and starts the van. It would be more useful to have a seperate "valet key" for those locks that when you have your vehicle in for service, or a car wash, that the key you must give them is not going to unlock those locks so that you can lock up a few things that you don't want taken while it is in service.

hansienna

The 3.3L in 2002 T&C LX delivered 25.0 to 27.4 MPG on 8 long round trips by first owner. Overall average was 22.5 MPG for the first 27,000 miles (according to record kept by original owner). The overall average since I got it last summer is 21.6 MPG (mileage dropped with winter driving and lower ratio road/city driving).
The lowest was one tank in February with 16.0 MPG with the highest 25.8 MPG in early October, 2nd highest 25.3 MPG in March, and 3rd highest 25.1 MPG in September. (calculator computation dividing miles between fill-up by gallons gasoline need to fill-up). My road speed is about 65 MPH.
BTW, the trip computer average was 3 % higher than actual for a 7 month period when I did not reset the average economy.
A friend with a 2000 GC 3.8L V6 says he gets 23-1/2 MPG on road trips when he has cruise set at 83 MPH. (I doubt that he actually drives 83 MPH all the time on his long road trips). He had a 96 GC with 3.3L and likes the 3.8L better.

shipo

Thanks gang. ;-)

Around here we find that traffic is routinely moving along between 75 and 85, and as such, we go with the flow, hence our 22-24 mpg calculations for our two 3.8 vans. What is interesting is that when we got the 1998 in July of 1998, we drove it home, loaded it and drove from northern NJ to Portland, ME. On that trip the van only managed about 17 mpg, although we did have the A/C running. It also seemed that back then more folks drove between 65 and 70, which is considered to be suicide these days, even in the right lane. On the most recent run from southern New Hampshire to my brother's place in Brooklyn, traveling north of 80 for well over 75% of the trip, the 1998 got 23.9 mpg. I assume that maybe 1 mpg of the difference was the fact that we had no A/C running. The rest? Probably a combination of the MUCH looser engine and the higher speeds.

Best Regards,
Shipo

hansienna

I think the 3.8L will get better gas mileage than the 3.3L (in the same size DC Minivan) at speeds above 75 MPH and the 3.3L will get better at speeds up to 65 MPH. Between 65 and 75 MPH they will both get about the same (when driven on the same road at same time).
My friend said his 2000 GC LE with 3.8L "Feels Right" at about 83 MPH.
I would have preferred the 3.8L over the 3.3L but the price of my used, mint condition 2002 T&C LX made it the best buy for me last summer.

marine2

While I respect your post, I disagree with the premise. DC had planned on a more modern engine--but chose not too add it to the options at the 11th hour. They managed to wrangle a 5 speed automatic into their pick-ups and SUV's several years ago. Seems to me that the truth is they could if they wanted to. The issue of rebates and 0% financing is a circular one--products that are just adequate or slightly behind the curve end up garnering these incentives. That is why Honda rarely has to offer such incentives.
Please be mindful that I AM a DC owner--and have been most of my life. I'm just mindful that on my "wishlist" is a minivan that didn't have some noncompetitive features straight out of the gate. I also wish that my Intrepid had a 5 speed autostick--though the 4 speed one works just fine...

You might want to look at this interview by Edmunds with Bob Lutz.

Why do you think the Japanese continue to gain market share in the U.S.? Is it simply product-related or does it go beyond that?

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100660/article.html

Jason5

I see some rationalizations in his interview--but little in the way of solid reasoning. Again--when they wanted a five speed in one product line--it appeared. Ford is competing against a "weak yen" but manages a CVT and a six speed automatic....and I could cite other examples. Ford, like Chrysler, now has a deeper well of products and engineering from which to draw (Daimler, Volvo), as does GM. It's interesting, nonetheless....

samnoe

About the emergency brake release you're so right. It makes me crazy at times that I have to push myself down to the floor to release the brake. About the illuminated glove box we have discussed it somewhere above. According to some posters, Chrysler used to offer a lighted glove box in previous versions, as well as the illuminated controls for power windows, door locks & mirrors. They never offered lighted cruise controls, however. and about #3, I think the Chrysler used to include a valet key in the good old days... but since I never lock my drawers inside the car I never thought about that.

I really hope Chrysler is reading our (and so many other) posts, and they will improve the new van in every way.

masterpaul1

It must be just me, but I like the location of the emergency brake and release lever on our 2001 DGC. It is a reach, but is a lot easier to apply and release then the ones located between the seats. Besides, It is located down by the hood release. (I don't hear anybody complaining about that). I guess I'm just use to the way the old car set up was. I even like the gear shifter on the steering wheel. The 2005 T&C and DGC's are nice, but I would rather keep our 2001 DGC instead. :shades:

samnoe

It's a difference between the hood release and brake release. While I use the brake release at least twice daily while sitting on my seat; the hood release is used about once in months, and I (or the mechanic) usually open it from outside the van, so no big deal.

I too prefer the shifter on the steering column. It gives you more room between the seats, and make the clutter on the IP cleaner. I could not understand why people make such an issue of the shifter location, when all you use it is when you start your trip, and again when finishing the trip. And in between, you have a cleaner IP. BTW, the 2005 DC vans have improved the shifter for 2005 with a better "click" feel between shifting, and making it a little shorter so it does not block the audio controls while in DRIVE.

mrblonde49

Samnoe - o you use the parking brake all the time, or is it just on inclines a lot?

I only use parking brake on auto trans when on incline, not on flat ground (maybe I'm missing something and I should??).

badgerfan

I almost never use the parking brake. Even on moderate inclines. I know it is recommended practice to do it to take load off the transmission park lock mechanism, but I have not had problems so far.

Only time I use it consistently is when I have either of our cars up on ramps for oil changes.

Yes, I know the parking brake can rust and freeze up with no useage, but it hasn't happened yet on our 1996 Caravan.

Now, if I lived in SF or some hilly/mountainous area, I might think differently!

masterpaul1

We use our parking brake all the time. (owners manual says to do so). It's good logic when you think about it. Our van is over 4,200 lbs which is a lot of weight to be resting on the transmission. People might not think when on flat ground your vechicle doesn't move. Your vechicle can still be moved and resting on the trans. if it is bumped by another vechicle. I see it like this, it is better to use the parking brake all the time to prolong the life and function of the trans. since minivans seem to have the most problems with them. :shades:

masterpaul1

It's recommended that you get an oil change every 3 months or 3000 miles. So are saying if you are not having any problems, that you won't do it as recommended? Sometimes it's the little things that we don't do that can cause lots of problems and money down the road. I'm glade to hear that you have not had any problems with your 96 Caravan. Me and my wife plan on keeping both of our vechicles until they die, which means that every little thing that can be done to prevent mechanical problems, outside of normal wear, we will do it. I have learned in life that you have to think and plan ahead. Live for today, but plan for your tomorrow. :shades:

shipo

"It's recommended that you get an oil change every 3 months or 3000 miles."

It is? Says who? The manuals for both of our Caravans quite clearly spell out a 7,500 OCI.

Best Regards,
Shipo