2016 Detroit Auto Show: 2017 Chrysler Pacifica

Looks good, for a mini van. 

LOVE that they will have a plug-in hybrid! I feel like this class of vehicles needs it as much as any in order to keep people buying them. Because people who buy large SUVs realistically would be suited better in a van with and with a good mpg advantage this should help them steal some SUV sales. Up to a 30 mile range sounds fantastic! 

Why leave the Town and Country name after all these years? 

Not sure I would have used the Pacifica name here. Other than that, looks fairly promising. It's got it's work cut out for it, that's for certain.

Nice looking Minivan, I see clues to the shape of the old CUV Pacifica. Disagree with their Marketing who changed names. They had history that was solid for leading the way with minivans. If they think they can get more CUV buyers to go to the minivan by changing names they are wrong and it is a failure for the name.

Interior is nice but does not look as well made as the Honda or Hyundai minivan. The seats look thin which I know is the new trend but also very uncomfortable. I do not see any comfort there for a road trip.

Over all like the outside design and fluid flow but the interior is only a B rating.

I don't mind the name change.  I liked the Pacifica name.  The people who bought the original Pacifica loved the form factor, but reliability was an issue.   They sold so few of them, I don't think there is much, if any, baggage with the name for FCA to worry about. 

I love this.  I would never own one because, well, minivan and I don't need one.  I see them easily keeping their dominance in the segment. 

Nice looking Minivan, I see clues to the shape of the old CUV Pacifica. Disagree with their Marketing who changed names. They had history that was solid for leading the way with minivans. If they think they can get more CUV buyers to go to the minivan by changing names they are wrong and it is a failure for the name.

 

Interior is nice but does not look as well made as the Honda or Hyundai minivan. The seats look thin which I know is the new trend but also very uncomfortable. I do not see any comfort there for a road trip.

 

Over all like the outside design and fluid flow but the interior is only a B rating.

Wait, Hyundai is building a minivan again?! (I think you mean Kia).

Sitting inside the Pacifica, it is really well done. I think it leaps over the Odyssey and the Sedona in interiors.

Well at least we kno Sergio now has a plan for fuel economy standards not simply relying on the tranny speeds and diesels

Wow. I am shocked Sergio didn't fk this up. Looks great !

I had thought it was inevitable we would be turning in our 2015 town and country when our lease is done in 24 months but now it's evident to me that rolling into a new lease may be a good choice. I'm cool with the name change. Town and country sounds way older than Pacifica. And Pacifica has name equity.

Biggest thing for me is the 3.6 comes back and the physical siZe stays the same.

Looks to be a nice van! I'm torn on the name though. I didn't think anything was wrong with Town & Country, and Pacifica could've been applied to a crossover. 

It's a shame that the original Pacifica was a bit ahead of its time. Aside from the reliability woes, it was a very nice vehicle and it's odd that Chrysler hasn't followed up with a successive mid-lux crossover.

I like it, I think it looks good, about as sleek and sporty as you can make a minivan look, and still looks pretty refined.   I like the Pacifica name change, it is a CUV name applied to a minivan, "Town and Country" was a tired name, Pacifica sounds like a crossover name, so buyers will like that.  I liked the original Pacificas they had good space in them and weren't a van, not a truck, the idea was good, maybe not the best quality or exception of it.

A Hybrid van is a good idea, that will be a segment exclusive.  Should give them a big edge over the competition.

While this is an improvement it is facing a tougher non friendly Mini Van market.

Of all the minivans left this one will find a home with the diehard fans but the CUV will really cut into sales and this will sell only a small percentage of models as the past models sold.

I hope this one does not smoke like all the others I see daily. They must go through the oil but they do keep running.

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

And not as many people want the castrating Minivans anymore. People like them better when you sit them up higher and let them pretend they are trucks vs. family trucksters. The MiniVan is slowly going the way of the Station Wagon.

Any of the tricks used here can be applied to any CUV and will be at some point.

Just with the higher and larger profiles the EV range is still not what is could or should be for this kind of class and when range continues to improve we will see more of it in the others.

Minivans are not a growth segment, but they did sell 93,000 Town and Countrys last year at a base price of $30k.   I think they could move 100,000+ Pacificas a year and if the base is $30k, most will probably sell for $35-40K.   I don't think 100k units a year is anything to sneeze at for a mid $30s priced vehicle.

As far as the EV range, it is 30 miles more than any other mini van, Explorer, Traverse, Enclave, or Acadia offers.

I'm not so enamored with this. The sleek styling works well on a sleek sedan.

On a minivan it looks like it's melting.

The next gen Odyssey is supposed to launch soon too. I wonder if it'll break the 30 mpg hwy barrier on all current minivans.

pseudo sleek styling in a minivan has never worked for me.

hate the name as well.

Minivans are not a growth segment, but they did sell 93,000 Town and Countrys last year at a base price of $30k.   I think they could move 100,000+ Pacificas a year and if the base is $30k, most will probably sell for $35-40K.   I don't think 100k units a year is anything to sneeze at for a mid $30s priced vehicle.

 

As far as the EV range, it is 30 miles more than any other mini van, Explorer, Traverse, Enclave, or Acadia offers.

GC + T&C sales maybe came close to 200k last year?  nothing to sneeze at

But GM will chase Buick coupes with a Camaro and ATS already out there, right?

There's always going to be those that want to haul a couch or have sliding doors for babies and kids, Chrysler invented the minivan, canadians love them, it's still a great segment for them now that we see they didn't hose up the powertrain, the design, or the size.

Chrysler not selling vans would be like GM not selling suburbans.

This will sell like crazy. Can't deny when I saw the name Pacifica, I was hoping for a proper Pacifica successor.

I like the styling, esp. the smallish 200 headlights and grille--kind of understated, and the rear treatment...rather dramatic compared to the stodgy, blocky current van rear.   I can see going w/ the Pacifica name, 'Town & Country' is dated and stodgy, reminds me of crappy 80s minivans and wagons w/ fake woodgrain.   Is it correct Dodge won't be getting a Caravan version of this? 

As an aside, since the 200 and Pacifica share front end styling cues, I assume the next 300 will also..that will be quite a change from the big mouth grille of the current model...

While this is an improvement it is facing a tougher non friendly Mini Van market.

Of all the minivans left this one will find a home with the diehard fans but the CUV will really cut into sales and this will sell only a small percentage of models as the past models sold.

I hope this one does not smoke like all the others I see daily. They must go through the oil but they do keep running.

So, they have the hybrid ou bitched about and ou still find nonsense to complain about.  I seriously doubt you are seeing any 11+ models with the pentastar smoking and burning oil.................

 

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

And not as many people want the castrating Minivans anymore. People like them better when you sit them up higher and let them pretend they are trucks vs. family trucksters. The MiniVan is slowly going the way of the Station Wagon.

Any of the tricks used here can be applied to any CUV and will be at some point.

Just with the higher and larger profiles the EV range is still not what is could or should be for this kind of class and when range continues to improve we will see more of it in the others.

 

Um, minivan sales say otherwise.  500k sales a year for them combined is still a lot for the segment and more than enough for this thing to make huge profits.  Face it, you just don't like because it is Chrysler.  If it was GM you would be singing it's praises.

A minivan makes a lot more sense as a people and a cargo hauler than a CUV. Usually much more spacious inside than a CUV.

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

And not as many people want the castrating Minivans anymore. People like them better when you sit them up higher and let them pretend they are trucks vs. family trucksters. The MiniVan is slowly going the way of the Station Wagon.

Any of the tricks used here can be applied to any CUV and will be at some point.

Just with the higher and larger profiles the EV range is still not what is could or should be for this kind of class and when range continues to improve we will see more of it in the others.

Um, minivan sales say otherwise.  500k sales a year for them combined is still a lot for the segment and more than enough for this thing to make huge profits.  Face it, you just don't like because it is Chrysler.  If it was GM you would be singing it's praises.

GM sold 3/4 that in just the Terrain and Nox that are old and outdated and even they should have done better.

The only thing I have against Chrysler is Sergio and fan boys like you. Just so emotional!

What is the fastest growing segment? Small SUV models. Mini vans has have dropped in volume. Nothing Anti Chrysler there as it is what it is. You just do not like the truth.

Just look at the fastest growing sales at Chrysler. Where are they? Jeep! What are the two fast Cherokee and Renegade.

The truth is the only company that could really push a mini van is Chrysler because of the previous fan base but it is not like it used to be. And yes many of the Chrysler 4 engines are know for burning oil. It is common and well know in the industry. Todays engines are much better but the past was a Smokey one.

Aren't they going to share this platform with a CUV?  That'll get them the volume they need to keep the minivan alive.

Aren't they going to share this platform with a CUV?  That'll get them the volume they need to keep the minivan alive.

Yep

 

 

 

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

And not as many people want the castrating Minivans anymore. People like them better when you sit them up higher and let them pretend they are trucks vs. family trucksters. The MiniVan is slowly going the way of the Station Wagon.

Any of the tricks used here can be applied to any CUV and will be at some point.

Just with the higher and larger profiles the EV range is still not what is could or should be for this kind of class and when range continues to improve we will see more of it in the others.

 

Um, minivan sales say otherwise.  500k sales a year for them combined is still a lot for the segment and more than enough for this thing to make huge profits.  Face it, you just don't like because it is Chrysler.  If it was GM you would be singing it's praises.

 

GM sold 3/4 that in just the Terrain and Nox that are old and outdated and even they should have done better.

The only thing I have against Chrysler is Sergio and fan boys like you. Just so emotional!

What is the fastest growing segment? Small SUV models. Mini vans has have dropped in volume. Nothing Anti Chrysler there as it is what it is. You just do not like the truth.

Just look at the fastest growing sales at Chrysler. Where are they? Jeep! What are the two fast Cherokee and Renegade.

The truth is the only company that could really push a mini van is Chrysler because of the previous fan base but it is not like it used to be. And yes many of the Chrysler 4 engines are know for burning oil. It is common and well know in the industry. Todays engines are much better but the past was a Smokey one.

 

Hardly a fanboy, just give credit where it is due.  You come in with negative remarks everytime there is anything about Chrysler or a Chrysler product posted, you sir, are the true fanboy.  So blinded by wanting a company to fail you can't even give a compliment without a backhanded response.  And yes, Jeep is the top player.  Basically all 3 have top brands.  Does GMC or Buick sell ANYWHERE close to Chevy?  Nope, but they still bring in money.  The 200 has been a hit and he T&C was still a top selling minivan..  Most of Dodges cars are seeing gains, and Ram has made huge gains also.  All you want to see is negative about them so you miss what is actually happening.

Not many CUVs seat 7 or 8 people.  Not many plug-in CUVs that get 80 mpg either.  30 miles of electric range is pretty good too.  If cargo and people hauling is your top priority this Pacifica makes a lot of winning points.

And not as many people want the castrating Minivans anymore. People like them better when you sit them up higher and let them pretend they are trucks vs. family trucksters. The MiniVan is slowly going the way of the Station Wagon.

Any of the tricks used here can be applied to any CUV and will be at some point.

Just with the higher and larger profiles the EV range is still not what is could or should be for this kind of class and when range continues to improve we will see more of it in the others.

Um, minivan sales say otherwise.  500k sales a year for them combined is still a lot for the segment and more than enough for this thing to make huge profits.  Face it, you just don't like because it is Chrysler.  If it was GM you would be singing it's praises.

GM sold 3/4 that in just the Terrain and Nox that are old and outdated and even they should have done better.

The only thing I have against Chrysler is Sergio and fan boys like you. Just so emotional!

What is the fastest growing segment? Small SUV models. Mini vans has have dropped in volume. Nothing Anti Chrysler there as it is what it is. You just do not like the truth.

Just look at the fastest growing sales at Chrysler. Where are they? Jeep! What are the two fast Cherokee and Renegade.

The truth is the only company that could really push a mini van is Chrysler because of the previous fan base but it is not like it used to be. And yes many of the Chrysler 4 engines are know for burning oil. It is common and well know in the industry. Todays engines are much better but the past was a Smokey one.

Hardly a fanboy, just give credit where it is due.  You come in with negative remarks everytime there is anything about Chrysler or a Chrysler product posted, you sir, are the true fanboy.  So blinded by wanting a company to fail you can't even give a compliment without a backhanded response.  And yes, Jeep is the top player.  Basically all 3 have top brands.  Does GMC or Buick sell ANYWHERE close to Chevy?  Nope, but they still bring in money.  The 200 has been a hit and he T&C was still a top selling minivan..  Most of Dodges cars are seeing gains, and Ram has made huge gains also.  All you want to see is negative about them so you miss what is actually happening.

Son it is what it is. I can and have pointed out many of GM's failure just Chrysler is the one that has had a longer history of struggling with several bail outs and buy outs.

GM has screwed up much but their existence was never as close to the edge as Chrysler has been over the last 40 years.

Their place of the Detroit three has always been 3rd place for many years.

They were raped by the Germans and now not maximized to their potential because of Sergio. At this point now he has had to turn back to Chrysler as his Alfa plan is stagnated and become a problem.

You make one big mistake here. I hold no grudge to Chrysler and I hope for them to remain and grow stronger. I have told you many times Sergio needed to invest in Chrysler not Alfa to save FCA and this is now coming true as he has failed with Alfa.

You want to label me a Sergio hater I am all for it but if you continue to label me a Chrysler hater then you are as wrong about that as how peachy good everything is you make believe Chrysler world.

Reality suck but it is what it is.

If they can like Drew says leverage this out over some CUV models they will make some good money. That is where they need to be right now in a market just begging for more CUV models. That is where the money is. Even GM is just now getting the models they needed several years ago.

Like I said the Nox and Terrain are old and the only thing that saved them is the Public for some unknown reason has increase buying them as they aged. It bucked the normal trend and GM was lucky.

Did I really read that someone " loves it "?

Son it is what it is. I can and have pointed out many of GM's failure just Chrysler is the one that has had a longer history of struggling with several bail outs and buy outs.

GM has screwed up much but their existence was never as close to the edge as Chrysler has been over the last 40 years.

Their place of the Detroit three has always been 3rd place for many years.

They were raped by the Germans and now not maximized to their potential because of Sergio. At this point now he has had to turn back to Chrysler as his Alfa plan is stagnated and become a problem.

You make one big mistake here. I hold no grudge to Chrysler and I hope for them to remain and grow stronger. I have told you many times Sergio needed to invest in Chrysler not Alfa to save FCA and this is now coming true as he has failed with Alfa.

You want to label me a Sergio hater I am all for it but if you continue to label me a Chrysler hater then you are as wrong about that as how peachy good everything is you make believe Chrysler world.

Reality suck but it is what it is.

If they can like Drew says leverage this out over some CUV models they will make some good money. That is where they need to be right now in a market just begging for more CUV models. That is where the money is. Even GM is just now getting the models they needed several years ago.

Like I said the Nox and Terrain are old and the only thing that saved them is the Public for some unknown reason has increase buying them as they aged. It bucked the normal trend and GM was lucky.

 

They have had 2 bailouts, not a as many as you make it.  The problem with Chrysler started with the "merger of equals" as far as buyouts.  Do ou realize in the 90s Chrsler was one of the most profitable automakers out there?  They had the design to production process, Their reliability was on par, they had the latest tech, and their designs were second to none.  That is what got Daimlers attention in the first place.  The problem was hat instead of nurturing the brand, they stripped it out.  Then they offloaded it to Cerberus which actually started making things better (much better interiors for the Patriot and Compass for example compared to the 07-08 models).  Much of the design work on the 11+ Charger, 300, etc, etc was started under them and as was the excellent GC platform (actually started under Daimler, but the rest of the vehicle was coming about under them), but they had their own financial issues and with the recession hat is brought the last bailout on.  Honestly, every auto manufacturer got some kind of assistance due to that.  If not from the US government, it was their home government and sometimes both.  Another issue, it takes o design a new platform and car, etc.  We know much is coming.  We have the GC Trackhawk, Wagoneer, and Wrangler truck all confirmed.  We have the new GC, and again the LX cars and 200 are all doing well.  An LX replacement is coming based on the new Alfa platform.  New CUVs ARE coming for Dodge and Chrysler.  A heavily updated 3.6 is used here and the n16 GC and will find it's way to the rest of the lineup I would guess in a model year.  I would also speculate one part of the 200s midcycle refresh, other than the new Pentastar, will be an adaptation of the hybrid system here to the 200 and no doubt those upcoming CUVs and other vehicles in the lineup.  Sergio may be unnerving now, but you have to admit he did some great things and more is coming.  We are in the 5th year of month over straight sales gains.  That says alot.  GM has done a lot of great things too, love alot of their newer stuff.  Seriously, the only maker doing bad as a member of the big 3 is Lincoln and as nice as the new Continental is, I don't really think it is the answer. 

Last I checked Several meant two.

I agree Chrysler was in the right direction but the Germans gutted them. They only wanted the larger cars and left them wanting for smaller cars.

As for Compass and Patriot you may want to rethink using them as examples.

Under Cerberus they languished as they really lacked money to do what was needed and the damage of the Germans was still hurting. I have sat across the table from the head of Direct Connection and got the story right from him. SO I know what really happened inside.

As for FCA they need to increase volume and they need to have done it several yes that is two years ago not now. With little in China going their way it will have to mostly come in North America and it will have to come through Chrysler. Sergio has his back against the wall as the Alfa plan for volume failed not only in China but Globally. To really think they would compete with BMW in a couple years was a big mistake.

The greatest hope now is Sergio is replaced by 2018 as he is now speaking retirement again.

Case in point. The Viper could really have progressed with the help of Ferrari. But what did they do. A tepid remake and sales are not in the hundreds. Now Segio says it could be moved to another platform and come back? Why did he not do this in the first place? Now show the love to Chrysler after the Alfa house of cards fell in.

The fact is Sergio should have gone to Chrysler as a whole like he has with Jeep and get them to where they need to be and use those profits to fix the Italian brands. They hold the key to profits and volume anyone with a clear mind can see this but his love for Alfa clouded the deal.

It is not too late but they will have more work to do in less time now. Also the Hybrid stuff needs to expand much as well as a possible look more to China with Trucks and Jeeps in larger numbers. The Volume would really help.

I am far from the only one stating this as I read it often in the financial web sites that deal with this all the time.

Why would I rethink using the Compass and Patriot.  I owned an 07 Patriot i bought new.  it drove well, had more room than it should have for it's smalle size, got over 30 MPG on the highway and the 5 speed/AWD combo made it a fun little vehicle.  They still sell around 16k a month combined and price per content cannot be beat.    Quit listening to the mags, I was an actual owner for 126k trouble-free miles. 

And few tidbits.

It is not cheap to do business in China.  it requires you to basically merger in the country with a Chinese maker.  Their economy is also tanking and car sells were WAY down last year.

We knew the hybrid was coming for years AND that it would fist appear in he Pacifica (actually the name change was the only real surprise).

As for where he started putting the money into, like most manufactures SUVs, CUVs, and trucks ARE the bread and butter and largest money makers bar none.  It made PERFECT sense to start with the SUV manufacturer and then the truck manufacturer, and then start with the much less profitable car lines.  I think is what gets me.  This information is freely available.  It is not hidden and it makes sense. 

When it comes to a multi-billion dollar comany...needing bailed out more than once would be "several" to me. 

Price per content on the Compass/Patriot?  What content do they offer over ANY other CUV out there? 

Straight from Webster's:

..so "several" was accurate with the second definition..

 "different and seperate" bailouts.

..so "several" was accurate with the second definition..

 

 "different and seperate" bailouts.

No, several is still 3 or more, 2 is a couple.

When it comes to a multi-billion dollar comany...needing bailed out more than once would be "several" to me. 

 

Price per content on the Compass/Patriot?  What content do they offer over ANY other CUV out there? 

It isn't that they offer more, but price it out option for option and they are far less expensive than an equally sized SUV from another manufacturer.  Even Cheaper than their own Renegade. 

Does anybody else HATE semantic driven arguments?

So "several" means more than two...Hyper should have said  "a couple of"  instead of "several"

Stew...it doesnt change the fact that Chryco was balied out in the late 1970s and with that money Chryco.'s Iacocca green lit the  engineering of the K-Cars and the minivan that used the same underpinnings of said K Cars...which in turn saved Chryco which led them to be wildly successful in the 1990s. Yet, after the "merger of equals", Chryco. was back in the same predicament they were ion the 1970s...

Hence the message that Hyper wanted to use as an example.

Read the message Stew, the rest is irrelavant.  

 

..so "several" was accurate with the second definition..

 

 "different and seperate" bailouts.

No, several is still 3 or more, 2 is a couple.

When it comes to a multi-billion dollar comany...needing bailed out more than once would be "several" to me. 

 

Price per content on the Compass/Patriot?  What content do they offer over ANY other CUV out there? 

It isn't that they offer more, but price it out option for option and they are far less expensive than an equally sized SUV from another manufacturer.  Even Cheaper than their own Renegade. 

 

Did you not read both of your definitions that you posted? The second one was ": different and separate  That would constitute two separate "anythings" being "several". And in this case it is bailouts. Two bailouts at completely different times and separate would be "several"

Yes, they cost less because they are all around cheaper. Stand next one then stand next to any other CUV they compete with and it's a no-brainer that they just don't compete at all. That is why Jeep has the Cherokee and Renegade. Those are very much class competitive and definitely leading when it comes to certain aspects. 

Does anybody else HATE semantic driven arguments?

 

So "several" means more than two...Hyper should have said  "a couple of"  instead of "several"

 

Stew...it doesnt change the fact that Chryco was balied out in the late 1970s and with that money Chryco.'s Iacocca green lit the  engineering of the K-Cars and the minivan that used the same underpinnings of said K Cars...which in turn saved Chryco which led them to be wildly successful in the 1990s. Yet, after the "merger of equals", Chryco. was back in the same predicament they were ion the 1970s...

 

Hence the message that Hyper wanted to use as an example.

 

Read the message Stew, the rest is irrelavant.  

Just the word was chosen as another of his attacks, he wanted to sound like more than it was, he probably thought it was more than 2, for that I give it a pass.

Interesting in the roof area, reminds me of the 700 Concept van in toned down form.  I don't care for the front... it is too soft for me, just as it is too soft on the 200.  If this is what we can expect from all upcoming Chryslers in the front end, it will mean the end of the 300's unique, brash American personality.

I do not care for the name change.  Pacifica was a piece of junk.  I hope the Town & Country name appears on the crossover based on this.

With all of that said, it is easily the nicest minivan ever built, and for those who need one, it's the one and only choice.

 

 

..so "several" was accurate with the second definition..

 

 "different and seperate" bailouts.

No, several is still 3 or more, 2 is a couple.

When it comes to a multi-billion dollar comany...needing bailed out more than once would be "several" to me. 

 

Price per content on the Compass/Patriot?  What content do they offer over ANY other CUV out there? 

It isn't that they offer more, but price it out option for option and they are far less expensive than an equally sized SUV from another manufacturer.  Even Cheaper than their own Renegade. 

 

Did you not read both of your definitions that you posted? The second one was ": different and separate  That would constitute two separate "anythings" being "several". And in this case it is bailouts. Two bailouts at completely different times and separate would be "several"

 

Yes, they cost less because they are all around cheaper. Stand next one then stand next to any other CUV they compete with and it's a no-brainer that they just don't compete at all. That is why Jeep has the Cherokee and Renegade. Those are very much class competitive and definitely leading when it comes to certain aspects. 

 

Ah, however you see it, but you have to admit that the general usage of several means more than 2 and couple is 2. 

Anyways, the main issue with the Patriot and Compass is age.  Newer interiors and updated suspensions and minor styling tweaks aside, they are still from 07 which is heir issue, though again, they still sell as many Compass and Patriots combined as they do Cherokees.  Considering their tooling is long paid off and they still sell well, it makes sense.  The biggest letdowns are 1.  still using the original 2.4 world engine, not even the tigershark, 2 it is still running the older version of Uconnect with the smaller screen, 3, while it offers a 6 speed auto now, if ou opt for the off-road packageou are still saddled with the CVT because the low-range is part of the transmission.

When the Patriot came out in 07 it actually offered a lot over the competition..  1.  Standard traction AND stability control, automatic brake assist with the standard ABS., a 2 prong 110V outlet in the center console, reclining and flat folding rear seats, folding passenger seat, ability to lock the awd 50/50 front/rear, available navigation and touchscreen, an available low-range (outside of a Jeep dealership you still will not find this in another competing CUV.  Let's see, front and rear brake-lock differentials in the AWDs which even in 07 Switched the power to the wheels with the most traction.  Again, outside of the Jeep dealership, where will you find 18 inches of water fording ability in this class.?  Nowhere.......    Look at that list, there are still a LOT of things to like about it, especially for the price.  In any case the success means there is a new one coming, we should actuall see it sometime this year. 

I hope they choose Patriot for the Compass/Patriot successor.  I read today that Chrysler has confirmed a replacement is coming soon, and it will keep one of those two names.  Only things I didn't like about my Trail Rated Patriot were the tiny gas tank and the CVT.

I hope they choose Patriot for the Compass/Patriot successor.  I read today that Chrysler has confirmed a replacement is coming soon, and it will keep one of those two names.  Only things I didn't like about my Trail Rated Patriot were the tiny gas tank and the CVT.

Oh yes, i had the 5-speed 2.4 combo and liked it pretty well.  I had forgotten about that tiny gas tank!  13.5 gallons i believe.  that did aggravate some, but at leasst i had he most fuel efficient AWD (regularly saw 30MPG+) so I am sure it was worse because of the lower gearing the FD2 CVT. 

 

I hope they choose Patriot for the Compass/Patriot successor.  I read today that Chrysler has confirmed a replacement is coming soon, and it will keep one of those two names.  Only things I didn't like about my Trail Rated Patriot were the tiny gas tank and the CVT.

Oh yes, i had the 5-speed 2.4 combo and liked it pretty well.  I had forgotten about that tiny gas tank!  13.5 gallons i believe.  that did aggravate some, but at leasst i had he most fuel efficient AWD (regularly saw 30MPG+) so I am sure it was worse because of the lower gearing the FD2 CVT. 

 

19-21, so yeah, it was hamstrung by a tiny tank and poor mileage for its size.  Looking back, I would have traded the Trail Rated badges for the 4WD with stick shift.

I hope they choose Patriot for the Compass/Patriot successor.  I read today that Chrysler has confirmed a replacement is coming soon, and it will keep one of those two names.  Only things I didn't like about my Trail Rated Patriot were the tiny gas tank and the CVT.

Totally agree with you, love my sons black Patriot Trail rated CUV, have come to hate the CVT Tranny. Worst part of the whole auto.

Wierdly enough, i got the stick simply because I refused to get a CVT lol.  To my surprise the FD1 was capable of a lot more off-road than I imagined and remains the best vehicle in snow I have ever had.

Also agree to keep the name Patriot, it has been the best seller between them since 07.

Here I am, blowing my mouth off about the softness of this new van's front end... but there is a precedent for it... here's the 1999 model.

Does anybody else HATE semantic driven arguments?

 

So "several" means more than two...Hyper should have said  "a couple of"  instead of "several"

 

Stew...it doesnt change the fact that Chryco was balied out in the late 1970s and with that money Chryco.'s Iacocca green lit the  engineering of the K-Cars and the minivan that used the same underpinnings of said K Cars...which in turn saved Chryco which led them to be wildly successful in the 1990s. Yet, after the "merger of equals", Chryco. was back in the same predicament they were ion the 1970s...

 

Hence the message that Hyper wanted to use as an example.

 

Read the message Stew, the rest is irrelavant.

Just the word was chosen as another of his attacks, he wanted to sound like more than it was, he probably thought it was more than 2, for that I give it a pass.

Stu the fact is none of my post are attacks. They are just facts and opinions you disagree with. I am good if you disagree but if you disagree at least come up with a real argument or comment to counter. You knew damn well what I meant with I said several if your best counter is semantics then you have nothing to work with.

Where am I wrong. I stated clearly the future for FCA is through Chrysler as they need volume and profits and that Sergio should have taken the money he has poured into Alfa and Maserati the last couple years and put the money into Chrysler. Jeep proves my point where their profit center is and it is at Chrysler. While they have had some success how much better would they have been if they had a class leading car in the Dart and 200? What they have is better for sure but no where near class leading in sales or class product win.

Just imagine if they had a Charger that had less weight and the hellcat in it with a all new platform that had the handling of the others in class. As of now the magazines do not even test it when they get the Camaro and Mustang together as it was in third with the old models they tested of the new cars they now have.

It would not take much to really make things so much better and competitive but Sergio has really screwed them. The profits he stole from Jeep should have gone to them.

There is nothing in this that is not true and even my MOPAR buddies fully agree. They are disappointed with Sergio and the way FCA has handled Chrysler.

As a Mopar fan you should clearly see this too. I would be pissed if Sergio had done this to GM. Hell I was pissed when he said he wanted to merge them. If he had it would have put an end to most of their products outside Jeep and Ram.

You really have to learn that Sergio has no love for Chrysler till now because it is his only move now Alfa has not made the progress he wanted. Many predicted the Alfa move was a poor one and now his latest moves confirmed what most industry watchers knew.

I could care less about the Italian end of FCA and I want the American side to succeed.

I dare you to find anyone here of a sound mind that would not agree with me that Sergio is the main problem for Chrysler not doing better than they are. Only Jeep and the trucks have seen his love and it was only for the money.

I saw the ratings came out today for the '17 Pacifica, 18/28 city/highway.

Not sure about you guys but that sounds stellar for how large "mini" vans have gotten.

I guess it is only on par with the Honda and Nissan (19/28 and 20/27, respectively)

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017-chrysler-pacifica-hits-1828-mpg/ 

those are nice numbers.  I know our current T/C can often hit 25 highway and has gotten close to 30 at times.  All conditions and weather being good, getting over 20 combined will be quite nice.  22-23 for a rolling vault not bad.

There's a lot of crossovers that aren't huge that can't get great mpg.  Something like the 08 Saturn Vues which are not big, AWD or not, those have a rep of not getting much over 15-17.

People think a smaller crossover with AWD can get better mpg than vans but that is seldom true.  Just about any crossover with a v6 and especially AWD has a real tough time cracking 20 combined, real world.