Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I feel that this is an intolerable list of problems, and this is starting to cost me money that I do not want to spend. Is there any way to get some relief from these problems, other than just complaining? Does Dodge do anything about transmissions that fail way too early, or about vehicles that have such poor reliability?
This car is the most unreliable I have ever had, and this includes a '83 Alfo Romeo GTV6 that I owned for a few years in the later 80's.
Many Dodge Caravans have zero problems (carleton1). As swampcollie, myself, and many of my friends have experienced. My 1999 Grand Caravan purchased 3/20/99 now has 10078 miles and has performed flawlessly. Gets 18.6 to 29.1 MPG at each refill.
Secondly, I recall no postings claiming that the new Ody was more reliable than the 1999 and later DC vans. What I do recall was postings from carleton1 saying that the Ody was "the most trouble-prone minivan." This is what we Ody owners objected to, and pointed that, if history is an indication, DC had a long way to go. And if, as you have said, there have been no statistics anywhere yet that compare 1999s and later with each other, why did you not have a problem with carleton1's above statement about the Ody when there was no "objective data" to support it?
In the thread titled "has Chrysler fixed their transmission problems" carleton1 recently posted "The answer is YES (carleton1) to the title of this forum. And it happened a number of years ago." Have you seen statistically-significant numbers to support this allegation? Seems to me it's still to soon to say. Doesn't it seem that way to you? Why didn't you object to *this* statement when there's no "objective data" to support it?
KarenS
Vans Host
I feel that this is an intolerable list of problems, and this is starting to cost me money that I do not want to spend. Is there any way to get some relief from these problems, other than just complaining? Does Dodge do anything about transmissions that fail way too early, or about vehicles that have such poor reliability?
This car is the most unreliable I have ever had, and this includes a '83 Alfo Romeo GTV6 that I owned for a few years in the later 80's.
FYI - I bought the new wiper switch assembly from the dealership db works for. DB found a pricing issue. The recalled/replacement part and the 1996/97 part are identical BUT the two parts have different part numbers in the parts catalog. So if it's replaced under warranty one part/price is charged, if it's paid for my the owner the other part/price is charged. Guess who gets the better price - big suprise. The recall replacement is $30-$50 LESS than the 1996/97 part. So if you're paying for the replacement switch out of your own pocket, have the parts guy look up both parts and give you the CHEAPER one. And don't fall for a line about how they're really different parts. The 1998 recall replacement is working great in my 1997 GV.
Did you start to have problems soon after having your anti-freeze changed? Also, did the same mechanic perform all of the repairs on you van?
Chrysler stopped using the 2.5L engine in minivans in 1995. Chrysler minivans switched to the 2.4L in 1996 which is based on the 2.0L. I've heard of some head gasket problems earlier on, but nothing lately out of the ordinary.
I also have a 94 Caravan, with 64,000 miles. It seems to have developed a miss in the past couple of months. Anyone else having problems with that? The mechanic can't find any reason for the miss.
Seems some aftermarket person/company would have a cure?
What fails inside the Chtco xmission and what causes the failure/
Parts too small?
Plastic parts?
What?
The second time it failed (92K miles), I would put the transmission in gear and nothing would happen. When I increased the engine RPM, the transmission would engage with a clunk and the van would jump. Slipping clutch packs would most likely cause this.
There is a belief that the wrong type of transmission fluid could have caused both of these failures. An excellent reference for transmission fluid that also lends credence to this belief is:
http://www.lubrizol.com/referencelibrary/lubtheory/adduse.htm#atf
At this site, Ford and GM ATF's are mentioned, the recommended ATF for Chrysler is conspicuously missing.
I guess it could be argued that the special transmission fluid that Chrysler developed for the 4 speed automatic (after it had major reliability problems using dextron for which it was originally designed) may still not be the "right" transmission fluid. I am more inclined to believe that it was a poorly designed transmission from day one and still has reliability problems 10 years latter. This belief is shared by most transmission repair specialists - - just ask a few.
Here is a tip, get one of those hand pumps with clean hoses. You can carefully route the pickup hose through the dipstick tube and pump out about 4 quarts of fluid BEFORE you drop the pan. While this may take a bit longer, you will not have near the mess in your driveway to clean up.
Hope this helps.
TB
TBONER, While your method will change the fluid, at some point you will need to change the filter
The 31K service was by Chrysler dealer A. The transmission replacement was by Chrysler dealer B. They may have used the same ATF, I don't know. If dealer A put in the wrong fluid, then the failure showed up 11K miles after the wrong fluid was installed. I'm not sure why the second failure would happen 50K miles later.
Less messy. Not less work!
Some of our problems..just for comparison :
>>belts - needed tightening, and timing etc..
>>brakes - ABS was getting funky needed checking out
many interior plastics (especially air vents in rear passenger area) have been broken.
>>flat tires etc..
>>water pump failed - car needed towing and new pump
>>bad front end alignment experiences. FWD is NOT the way to go with a van. rattles and rocks at 70+mph
>>broken driver side window mechanism. (inconvenience of driving around with duct tape and a plastic bag since the window could not be rolled up in any manner)
>>Still have problems on cold mornings (in florida that is) - belts squeak and whine, and it seems like fuel injection is inconsistent, producing occasional fits of mild acceleration at low speeds.
>>Torque steering is typical and annoying as is with most large FWD cars.
>>Steering column has at many times "locked" up, not allowing the driver to turn wheel. The scarriest thing is, this has happened at HIGHWAY speeds as well as around 5 mph and also at 30 -50 mph. This car is a potential death trap to my mother and is being sold as we speak.
>>cant remember anything else off the top of my head but Im sure theres been more.
My advice: Sell the thing while it still has ANY value (they depreciate like crazy), and get your wife a more worthy automobile. Do MASSIVE research before buying anything.
Swampcollie - Poor design of the Chrysler 4-speed does not mean all would fail. It means that it is a marginal transmission. While it took Chrysler 10 years to get it to finally last past the original warranty period, it is still has long term reliability problems. Since it is marginal, failure depends on usage. It will fail much quicker if continually subject to heavy use, i.e. hot climate, heavy loads, stop & go city traffic, towing, etc. I only suggest that those who want to own a caravan past the original warranty buy an extended warranty and get rid of it before the extended warranty expires. With the history of the Chrysler 4-speed automatic, it is foolish to do otherwise. This is based on my ownership experience.
Unlike the rest of you, I am not allowed to name brands in here, however if you look at the problems forums on several other vans in here you will find plenty of tranny problems reported in here. And many right off the truck.
I admit, the early 4 speed was a problem... i saw it.. I am not seeing it now. Go to car point. they list years after 93 as little or no problems. And, no, I dont know where they get their data.
Had taken the van to the dealership service twice for brake inspection and twice they told me the brakes are working fine and the poor braking is normal!?!
Anyone with this or similar problem and what's the fix? TIA.
Aside from the weak brakes and the useless headlights I am quite satisfy with my T&C.
This is an interesting site: www.allpar.com,
it talks a lot about the DC transmission problems-
and which must exist, for so many people to be
complaining about them (three people I know at work
with DC minis have had transmission failures),
even considering that there are 600,000 DC vans
sold per year to 125,000 winstars and 60 or 70 K
each Honda and Sienna. Most of the DC failures seem
at low miles 40-50K, then again they fail for the
same owner 40K miles later. Transmission is a major
part that should not fail.
If Dextron fluid ruins the transmission, it was a
serious design error for DC to market a product
with that "risk" as they must have known that most
people think there are only 2 kinds of fluid,
Mercon and Dextron and that most Jiffy lubes are in
a big hurry.
Toyotas use dextron without a problem.
The toyota forums are full of problems too, really
biggies like the brakes squeal or the rear window
washer dribbles - quite an order of magniture in
inconvience and $$$ from the transmission problems.
The other factor seems to be that the factory has
not been responsive to a "fix", if the fix has been
applied, it has received no publicity. That says
either DC does not believe its a problem,
(uninformed) or do not care. Why should they?? ,
"you" keep buying their products
But "you" have stopped buying GM products as much,
as there market share goes down each year - so
they are getting the message from Toyota et al.
Especially Olds, sales of what 1.3 million in 1984,
and 200K last year?
As to why Chrysler designed a transmission that needed a special fluid, the answer is they didn't. The 4-speed automatic was designed to and was using Dextron. But after major problems with the transmission dying after 30,000 miles, Chrysler "fixed" the design flaws by developing a new transmission fluid Mopar ATF-3. With ATF-3 and other "fixes" Chrysler achieved their goal of getting it to last past the warranty period. Also Chrysler dropped the 7 year 70,000 mile power train warranty they use to offer - it was costing too much. That still leaves a transmission with major long-term reliability problems.
All of the above can be verified by talking to any independent transmission repair shop.
you say they average 50k..exactly where is that statistic from? I am sure that you did not just pull that number out of the air. You surely have some kind of data.
tell you what. I have a 99. I will put up a $1000 that my tranny goes past what you call average. that would be even money since if 50k is average then half would fail prior to that and half after. well that is not exactly right. vans like my 93 would raise the average quite a bit..
how about it?..wanna put your money where your keyboard is?..
vehicles transmission problems in another brand ...especially if the vehicle has a V6 engine in either a sedan or minivan configuration. Check for yourself right here in the Edmunds Town Hall.
My Wife and I have been shopping for a Mini-van for about four weeks now. Opinions about who makes the best ones are as varied as the makes themselves, but I have come to one conclusion. THERE ARE NO GREAT MINI-VANS!
If you believe everything that you read Dodge, Chrysler, and Ford all have MAJOR engine problems. Mercury, Mazda, and Oldsmobile STINK in crash tests. Toyota is too expensive for what you get and Honda (and this is personal experience talking) is a mini-van that you can't even look in, let alone test drive, because all of them are supposedly spoken for already.
I am beginning to look at this like the upcoming Presidential election...There is no good choice...only a better choice.
Thanks
As to a documented history of problems, one of the best sources are consumer groups. I would suggest you look at: http://www.lemonaidcars.com/chrysler.htm
http://www.autosafety.org/minivan.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/chrysler_mini_vans.htm
I would also suggest getting the opinion of a lot of owners. Of course there is Edmunds and also:
http://www.badtrans.webprovider.com/id17.htm
http://geocities.com/Baja/Mesa/7135/
http://www.carcast.com/cc/conference/messages/1247.html
There is a lot of good documented historical information - past reliability is the best gage of future reliability. A 10 year history of the same problem should be enough to give anyone reason for concern/caution.
I would strongly suggest, from painful personal experience, that if you decide to purchase a Chrysler, you get an extended warranty and sell the van before the warranty expires. Good luck.
It has had all the normal replacements (tranny, hoses, misc AC parts, Head Gasket) along with others (brakes, tires,etc) along with some nice extras such as new rollers for side door. Supposedly - top notch parts were used.
All parts have low miles on them (highest is around 25,000 (tranny, and maybe the Head Gasket).
I want something reliable that will go 15,000 mi per year for at least two years. Obviously it's hard to know, but what do some of you used car buyers look for when purchasing used cars. Any good used car buyers guides out there besides edmunds, that explain what to inspect, how to negotioate etc.
Thanks for any help,
Heath
Consumer Reports' survey shows Dodge Grand Caravan transmissions rated below average for reliability through 1995 (that's more recent than 1990, swampcollie; don't you think?). Still waiting to see what happens when more recent years rack up higher mileage. This is not "bashing" or "trashing." It's noting the facts, which some choose to hide themselves from.
Still waiting for someone to give me a cogent reason to doubt the results of the CU survey.
So what do we make of that? It probably demonstrates both extremes. Readers will probably either praise the vehicles or pan them. When I did my survey last year, I faithfully reported on the two vehicles we owned. I have to believe that most readers, if they do the survey will truthfully describe the ownership experience they had. Scientifically, the data is not as good as a random survey, but I'm fairly confident that given the sample population, the data collected is at least accurate.
Since CR does not accept advertising, I really doubt they have much motive to slant the numbers for a particular vehicle in one direction or another.
Since the automakers are required by the federal government to meet certain fuel standards (CAFE, I believe that is Corporate Average Fuel Economy) which I believe is administered by the EPA, I would suspect that they would engineer the vehicles to perform exceptionally well in that test environment. So the flaw with the EPA testing is the test is known and the manf. can prepare to excel at the test, knowing full well that real world mileage will be different. (Kinda like cramming for an exam. You don't really retain anything the day after the test, but you do pass
I don't think CR does the same test, therefore it is not surprising that vehicles test by CR will deviate from the EPA figures. While we would like to believe that every government agency is infallible, I'm not sure you have solid ground to stand to support the assertion that the EPA's test was superior and more accurate to that of CR.
Have you ever achieved, consistently, the EPA figures? Probably not. They simply provide a range you MIGHT expect. (Of course your mileage may vary
Finally, would you like to discuss the details of those failures. Did those Honda transmissions fail at 25K miles or 125K miles? I could say I know of seven brand X cars with transmission failures, but without information about how and when in the lifetime of the vehicle they failed that sort of information posted about any vehicle should be discounted as anecdotal at best.
And I haven't owned a Honda since 1990, but that one was pretty darn bullet proof. My point, I have no axe to grind or decision concerning Honda to defend, I just thought your discussion of Hondas and Consumer Reports was perhaps a bit prejudiced.
"The Ratings include only cars for which we have recent test results. To earn our recommendation--mark by a (checkmark)-- a model must perform competently in our tests and based on the model's history have at least average predicted reliability. New models that perform competently and, based on the reliability of other models from that maker, whose reliability should be at least average, are marked promising (up arrow). Twins and triplets--essentially similar models sold under different nameplates--are grouped in the charts below; each is marked with a (filled square) typically, we've tested only on eo fthese models. Overall mpg is based on our tests in a range of driving conditions. Tested model notes the items that can affect specific test results."
Now turn to page 280 and you see the posted average reliablity based on trouble spot and year. Compare any vehicle you wish to this average and see if it is above or below average.
Again, I don't think CR is hiding anything, the rationale is posted in black and white.
Please tell us, what does CR have to gain by reporting erroneous numbers. The only revenue the get is from the readers. If the readers have any reason to doubt the veracity of the reports, they would be out of business. THINK about it.
For example, he simply does not understand what CR is saying in the quote he cites in posting #244. What CR is saying is that the charts contain data for the model years 1992 to 1999, and there is no implication that a vehicle's reliability will not be noted if it did not exist for all eight of those years. carleton1's talk about "not following their stated policy" is just his usual red herring, and makes about as much sense as thinking that CR subscriber confusion over the inconsistency in whether a Taurus is a mid-sized or full-sized vehicle has caused the CR survey to reflect negatively on DC minivans.
The reason CR "does not know about" the supposed Honda V-6 transmission problem in 1999 is quite simple: That there weren't enough problems reported to CR to affect the ratings. This is a classic illustration of why you can't go by the anecdotal evidence which carleton1 loves to cite, but have to rely only on statistically significant numbers, including reports from people who have had no problems. carleton1 cannot seem to grasp that concept, I regret to have to say.
Back to work, installing servers etc.
Cheers,
TB
As far as fuel efficiency testing, it appears that you like the EPA results better than CRs and therefore the EPA is accurate and CR is not only inaccurate but biased. Do you know something about the EPA test that you would share with the rest of us so we will see the light. My recall is that when the EPA test was originated in the '70s by an act of Congress requiring that it be done on a dynamometer simulating travel on a road and results calculated based on tail-pipe emissions. As a result the owners I know were not surprised that they did not get as good of results on the road as the EPA test reported. Maybe someone in the auto industry can explain if the EPA test has changed and if not why it would be better to test on a dynamometer measuring emissions than on the road measuring fuel consumed.
http://www.epa.gov/orcdizux/cert/factshts/cafe4.pdf
I think the passage that is probably most telling in about the EPA's procedure is the following:
"This formula is the equivalent of multiplying the fuel consumed per mile during the city test by 55 percent and multiplying the fuel consumed per my during the highway test by 45 percent and adding the result. SINCE WE DO NOT ACTUALLY MEASURE THE FUEL CONSUMED, we must perform the inverse and divide the fuel economy proportionately. This is known as a harmonic mean (sometimes called harmonic averaging)."
Just to simplify harmonic mean if you drive 100 miles in the city and get 10MPG (10 gallons consumed) then drive 100 Miles on the highway and get 20MPG (5 gallons consumed) your average fuel consumption is NOT 15MPG, but 13.3 MPG. You used 15 gallons to go 200 miles -> 13.3 MPG.
Now call me silly, but it seems that to get better EPA fuel economy results, you could "tune" the emissions.
(The light bulb goes on in my head...) This may explain why Ford has so many Low Emission Vehicle SUV's. Perhaps, given the EPA testing methodology, this results in higher EPA fuel economy ratings for these vehicles.
However, I believe this technique translates poorly into real world economy.
You have yet to give a cogent reason to doubt the veracity of the readers surveys.
Therefore, I must conclude that you simply have an axe to grind.
Since I clearly stated what CR states as there policy concerning vehicles that do not have a history covering all of those years the burden is on you to prove your assertion that CR is biased.
Remember, in America you must be proven guilty. I do not tolerate vague, baseless accusations.
Cheers,
TB
Are you saying the reliability figures are inaccurate? Or are you just upset your van is not on the best bet list. My van is not on the Good Bet list either, but I don't doubt the veracity of the figures.
You have not yet provided any details concerning your seven Honda failures.
I guess you just have an axe to grind.
Sorry, I'm not yet convinced.
Cheers,
TB