Quick Drive: 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid

Very cool info, nice job on the writeup, learned some new stuff. Families who like their mini vans should love this.

I've seen some video reviews of this, and they are all very positive.  Would be nice if it could go more than 33 miles on pure electric but for such a big vehicle its overall economy numbers and road manners are excellent.  Pretty expensive for what people expect a Chrysler minivan product to cost though, that might be its biggest hurdle.

The electric range and fuel economy numbers are really impressive, but $47k for a Chrysler minivan is a lot, especially when after 2 years these will probably sell for $20k or less on the used market.  Chrysler's depreciate like crazy.

The higher trim level Siennas are in the same price range, so it's not out unusual for minivans to be pushing $50k...

nice writeup.

I have been tracking many things Pacifica as our T&C lease is ending soon, and its been darn close to default that we may get into a Pacifica lease.  The hybrid is attractive to me for same reasons as it would be to many.

The main downsides to me are the loss of Sto N Go (which even if you only use a time here or there can be a big loss).  The increased weight to me is a concern, although William does speak to that here.  At least heavier equates to better winter traction.  And there are other little things where the hybrid is disadvantaged to the gas version.

Wishes come true with Apple CarPlay and 4g wifi for 2018.  The Uconnect and touchscreen updates are huge for 2018 as well.  Carplay is 75% of the time buggy and frustrating in my Malibu, but you still get used to using it.  I would not want another car without 4g wifi in car.  We use it a lot, my kid especially loves it and it helps save on the phone data.  The Uconnect in 2017 has been quite problematic and so the updates promise to make things better with that.

Probably the most frustrated of Pacifica customers have been the hybrid intenders and (few) owners.  Many have ordered them for a year ago or so, and still have never been delivered.  There were stops and starts on the sale, and for long periods you could not buy one.  The technical problems that caused this likely seem to be identified.  But whether you can still can the one your ordered is still a problem.  Many have tried to cancel their orders and that has been an issue too.  Many have sat at a dealership waiting LONG periods of time to get fixed.  I think when we actually see 2018 hybrids it will be a telling moment.  those who have or have driven the hybrid love it...apart from the big teething issues.

The gas version has had its share of teething problems too.  So the choice is not easy.  pacifica forums has great resources to learn what's up.

Despite that, i think if you were thinking about getting a 2018, i would not hesitate, and i would get in line to find out when you can get one.  We'll probably go for the gas version; the only other alternatives I am considering are the Traverse or Enclave for 2018 (but those are more $$$$).

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The electric range and fuel economy numbers are really impressive, but $47k for a Chrysler minivan is a lot, especially when after 2 years these will probably sell for $20k or less on the used market.  Chrysler's depreciate like crazy.

Really? A two year old plug in hybrid that is $47K will sell for $20K? Are you high? I want you to look here at what finished just below the Toyota and above the Honda minivan. 

21 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Really? A two year old plug in hybrid that is $47K will sell for $20K? Are you high? I want you to look here at what finished just below the Toyota and above the Honda minivan. 

 

Regardless of what reviews say, a 5 year old Odyssey or Sienna will still sell for $20k, because it says Honda or Toyota on the front, and people know it will be reliable.  Maybe not 2 years, but give the Pacifica 3 years and they will be under $20k.  Chrysler resale value is abysmal.  There are currently 2015 Town and Country Touring's for $20k on auto trader, those both had a base of $32k.

toyota reliability is a fallacy-the brand has been recalled so frequently in the last decade they installed revolving service department doors on their dealers. Too many other choices to risk getting burned.

VIa autotrader & my zip, the cheapest Sienna from '14-15 is $18K, and the cheapest T&C is $20K.

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Regardless of what reviews say, a 5 year old Odyssey or Sienna will still sell for $20k, because it says Honda or Toyota on the front, and people know it will be reliable.  Maybe not 2 years, but give the Pacifica 3 years and they will be under $20k.  Chrysler resale value is abysmal.  There are currently 2015 Town and Country Touring's for $20k on auto trader, those both had a base of $32k.

 

“Regardless of what the reviews say”. Do you hear yourself? You said two years at $20K and you were wrong. Even at three years, you are wrong. Kelly Blue Book has it above the Honda at 36 and 60 months and not being too far behind the Sienna. You are also attempting to compare an older model T&C, which isn’t made anymore, with a much newer and far better Pacifica, so your argument holds no water there either. The Pacifica is night and day better and the value shows for once. This is just another domestic slam by you. The funny thing here is that the Odyssey has a pretty shoddy history in the reliability department so you’re even in the loop on that either. Feel free to reference the many power train issues of the older models that have only recently been addressed.

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

toyota reliability is a fallacy-the brand has been recalled so frequently in the last decade they installed revolving service department doors on their dealers. Too many other choices to risk getting burned.

 

VIa autotrader & my zip, the cheapest Sienna from '14-15 is $18K, and the cheapest T&C is $20K.

Like I said, it’s just more domestic slamming bull$h! by him and he cant even admit he was wrong on all fronts.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

“Regardless of what the reviews say”. Do you hear yourself? You said two years at $20K and you were wrong. Even at three years, you are wrong. Kelly Blue Book has it above the Honda at 36 and 60 months and not being too far behind the Sienna. You are also attempting to compare an older model T&C, which isn’t made anymore, with a much newer and far better Pacifica, so your argument holds no water there either. The Pacifica is night and day better and the value shows for once. This is just another domestic slam by you. The funny thing here is that the Odyssey has a pretty shoddy history in the reliability department so you’re even in the loop on that either. Feel free to reference the many power train issues of the older models that have only recently been addressed.

My dad had a 2001 Odyssey that he put 224,000 miles on, and had fewer repairs and less money spent on that than he did on his 07 Hyundai Entourage or his 2011 Dodge Caravan that he has now.  The Caravan has by far been the least reliable and it only has 70,000 miles on it.  The Odessy had less repairs over 7 years than he has spent in just the past 1 year on the Caravan actually.

And a trip to auto trader or any car dealership shows Toyotas and Hondas with high resale value, and FCA products on deep discounts.  Even if the Pacifica is a much better vehicle, it is style a Chrysler which in the minds of most people = unreliable.

Hondas tend to be decent, but your example is still only anecdotal.

My buddy's family has a Honda CR-V, I think it's a '16- they all hate driving it. Visibility & servicing are nightmarish. They have a circa '02 Ford-Mazda Tribute, which they are reluctantly parting with come next inspection because of an exhaust manifold leak not worth the cost of the repair. Looking at a CX-5 for a replacement there- not Honda.

Anecdotal.

@smk4565

Did his automatic transmission fail in his Odyssey?

Did he have ball joint problems? (that could be only a Quebec thing or any other place where pot holes are a problem)

Because if you say yes to either of those things, especially the first one...and then it becomes hard for me to believe these words from you:

44 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

My dad had a 2001 Odyssey that he put 224,000 miles on, and had fewer repairs and less money spent on that than he did on his 07 Hyundai Entourage or his 2011 Dodge Caravan that he has now.  The Caravan has by far been the least reliable and it only has 70,000 miles on it.  The Odessy had less repairs over 7 years than he has spent in just the past 1 year on the Caravan actually.

Anecdotal:

Ive had many acquaintances that had automatic transmissions fail in their Odysseys, Accords, TLs and CLs of that time period. Many of those people changed that transmission twice.

Also...those same autos also had ball joint problems...but so does other makes...pot holes in Quebec resemble mini Yucatan craters in the Spring time.

38 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

@smk4565

Did his automatic transmission fail in his Odyssey?

Did he have ball joint problems? (that could be only a Quebec thing or any other place where pot holes are a problem)

 

Because if you say yes to either of those things, especially the first one...and then it becomes hard for me to believe these words from you:

Anecdotal:

Ive had many acquaintances that had automatic transmissions fail in their Odysseys, Accords, TLs and CLs of that time period. Many of those people changed that transmission twice.

Also...those same autos also had ball joint problems...but so does other makes...pot holes in Quebec resemble mini Yucatan craters in the Spring time.

 

The transmission started slipping around 200k miles, I don't think he ever really had it fixed because at that point, why bother.  He is a painter so he commonly carries 1,000 lbs of weight in his van, and does a lot of city driving too, so they are hard miles that he puts on.  I don't think he ever had a ball joint problem, I did replace 2 ball joints on my Mercedes, but that was $480, not the end of the world for a 95,000 mile car, and that is the only suspension related repair as of yet.

Yes it is one situation and anecdotal, but look at the used car market, and there are a lot of 200,000 mile Hondas and Toyotas selling with some value.  I know 2 people that had an Acura CL, they got about 150-70k miles out of them before the transmission and mechanical issues really started to surface and then they dumped the car.

Jalopnik has an article today on an Odyssey w/ 246k miles..

https://jalopnik.com/the-word-s-cleanest-2003-honda-odyssey-has-an-amazing-2-1819020901

So...all this anecdotal evidence...including a Jalopnik article...

Who do we believe?

Who do we believe?

Who. Do. We. Believe.

To try to win an internet discussion in trying to outsmart one another to try to convince one another that Honda's transmissions of this era dont self destruct...

And we even have an admittance of a failed transmission...but at the time of when a car dies of old age anyway...

Jalopnik's article goes a step further in admitting there was transmission problems...but NOT WITH THIS van...

Wink Wink...

Un.

Belieeeee.

Vaaaa-bull!

Well there is an example of an Odyssey with 246k miles and still running strong.  I am not a Honda fan, but there are a lot of high milage Hondas out there, so they must do something right.

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Well there is an example of an Odyssey with 246k miles and still running strong.  I am not a Honda fan, but there are a lot of high milage Hondas out there, so they must do something right.

Yeah...I own a Honda product...they are pretty effing reliable...

Problem is...The MAJORITY of V6 AUTOMATIC transmissioned Honda products in that era that existed in 1999, 2001, 2002 all the way to what? 2005-2006? erhad HUUUGE deficiencies. CATASTROPHIC failures of the expensive kind...

I really dont care for the few and far between outliers...

5 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yeah...I own a Honda product...they are pretty effing reliable...

Problem is...The MAJORITY of V6 AUTOMATIC transmissioned Honda products in that era that existed in 1999, 2001, 2002 all the way to what? 2005-2006? erhad HUUUGE deficiencies. CATASTROPHIC failures of the expensive kind...

I really dont care for the few and far between outliers...

 

So don't buy a Honda from that era. 

Regardless, Odyessy's have good resale value, while Chrysler products do not. 

Regardless, resale value is for sheeple...

I dont buy cars in hopes when my car is 10 years old Ill possibly get 100 bucks more.

Admittedly that Honda V6 automatics of that era is shyte...what resale do YOU wanna talk about?

You said it yourself....

12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

So don't buy a Honda from that era. 

I wont!

So...that  makes that era of Hondas...with me at least...less than ZERO!!!

So...where does Chrysler fit in on this then when on agreement, Honda aint perfect and their cars are prone to failure too?

The issue I had was when you mentioned a 2001 Honda Odyssey trying to use THAT as a reliable Honda product trying to dismiss Chrysler...

WRONG Honda product is alls Im sayin' to prove that point!

Either way, the Pacifica will probably tank in value just like every other FCA product.  So pay $47k now, and in 3 years time, over half that will be gone.   There are 2017 Pacifica Touring-L's on Auto trader right now for $24-25,000 and the MSRP new without options is $34,495.   That is $10,000 lost in 1 year, so I don't think it crazy for me to think a Hybrid will drop down to $20k in 3 years.

Jeeps certainly don't "tank" in value and they're FCA products. Challengers also look pretty solid in value.

But everything drops alarmingly in value, generally speaking, in the first few years. Some high-end luxury sedans end up losing their buyers $60K in 3 years on depreciation alone. Buying anything, automotively, brand new is a losing race.

Buy what you need/like, or whatever split there pleases you, and that's about the best one can do.

16 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Jeeps certainly don't "tank" in value and they're FCA products. Challengers also look pretty solid in value.

But everything drops alarmingly in value, generally speaking, in the first few years. Some high-end luxury sedans end up losing their buyers $60K in 3 years on depreciation alone. Buying anything, automotively, brand new is a losing race.

Buy what you need/like, or whatever split there pleases you, and that's about the best one can do.

Wranglers hold value, maybe Grand Cherokees, I think Compasses and Renegages will drop faster, but the Jeep brand has appeal so it keeps resale doing fairly well.

Any expensive car drops in value, unless it is a collectable, because the super rich get a new one every 2 years and the other 99% can't afford those cars.  But I think cost of car ownership is a big reason why these  flying drones and self driving cars will replace about half the cars on the road in 15 years.  People will just quit buying cars because there will be a cheaper, faster way to get around.

6 hours ago, smk4565 said:

My dad had a 2001 Odyssey that he put 224,000 miles on, and had fewer repairs and less money spent on that than he did on his 07 Hyundai Entourage or his 2011 Dodge Caravan that he has now.  The Caravan has by far been the least reliable and it only has 70,000 miles on it.  The Odessy had less repairs over 7 years than he has spent in just the past 1 year on the Caravan actually.

And a trip to auto trader or any car dealership shows Toyotas and Hondas with high resale value, and FCA products on deep discounts.  Even if the Pacifica is a much better vehicle, it is style a Chrysler which in the minds of most people = unreliable.

And? Those year Odyssey’s are what I’m mainly referring to. Those years are on every used car avoid list out there so if your dad’s did great, then he is in the minority. Feel free look up the many issues with those. 

33 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Jeeps certainly don't "tank" in value and they're FCA products. Challengers also look pretty solid in value.

But everything drops alarmingly in value, generally speaking, in the first few years. Some high-end luxury sedans end up losing their buyers $60K in 3 years on depreciation alone. Buying anything, automotively, brand new is a losing race.

Buy what you need/like, or whatever split there pleases you, and that's about the best one can do.

Hilarious. A Benz fan talking smack about others in regards to depreciation. Not even going to go there because that horse has been beat to death but we all know the truth about Benz depreciation. 

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

Hondas tend to be decent, but your example is still only anecdotal.

My buddy's family has a Honda CR-V, I think it's a '16- they all hate driving it. Visibility & servicing are nightmarish. They have a circa '02 Ford-Mazda Tribute, which they are reluctantly parting with come next inspection because of an exhaust manifold leak not worth the cost of the repair. Looking at a CX-5 for a replacement there- not Honda.

Anecdotal.

the last gen CRV was a horrible machine.  At least on my test drive I hated it.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Any expensive car drops in value, unless it is a collectable, because the super rich get a new one every 2 years and the other 99% can't afford those cars.  But I think cost of car ownership is a big reason why these  flying drones and self driving cars will replace about half the cars on the road in 15 years.  People will just quit buying cars because there will be a cheaper, faster way to get around.

I'm not so sure. With the proliferation of upmarket & luxury model lines; people seem more willing to pay than ever.

Look at the lowly, farmer-spec pickup- for it's entire history a low tech, no frills tool, now Ford is going to offer a $100K pick up (and it'll sell). Go dealership hopping and look for a rubber-mat, RWD, base model F-150 - good luck.

If poor resale & high prices were a wide scale factor, all these lux brands would dwindle back to what they were 25 or 50 years ago; purely niche-level rarities, instead of mainstream lines. This is besides the fact that, to date, true self-driving cars are MORE expensive than their counterparts, not cheaper. Same thing with EVs (for now).

37 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

I'm not so sure. With the proliferation of upmarket & luxury model lines; people seem more willing to pay than ever.

Look at the lowly, farmer-spec pickup- for it's entire history a low tech, no frills tool, now Ford is going to offer a $100K pick up (and it'll sell). Go dealership hopping and look for a rubber-mat, RWD, base model F-150 - good luck.

If poor resale & high prices were a wide scale factor, all these lux brands would dwindle back to what they were 25 or 50 years ago; purely niche-level rarities, instead of mainstream lines. This is besides the fact that, to date, true self-driving cars are MORE expensive than their counterparts, not cheaper. Same thing with EVs (for now).

Porsche holds value like crazy, they are an exception to the high dollar cars holding value.   People buy cars now mostly because they have to, and there is a desire to have the best or out do your neighbor or buy a fun or exciting car.  There will still be people that buy a Corvette because they want a sports car.   But for people that are just buying commuter cars, the drones will probably be way cheaper.  Why sit in traffic when a vertical takeoff drone can take you to where you want to go in half the time.

Amazon first announced drone delivery over 4 years ago, still nothing. People drones / jet-pacs have been talked about for decades, yet we still can't get a package of Ho-Hos dropped on a random doorstep. Personal drone Uber isn't going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Porsches hold their value well yes, but note that the '15 Caymans I looked at on Autotrader pretty much all had ridiculously low miles; Porsche owners don't seem to want to drive their cars. That's gotta help.

A lot of people have Porsches as 2nd or 3rd cars, so they tend to keep the miles down.  One anecdote that's the opposite I know of--a buddy in Colorado bought an '08 Boxster S new, has put about 120k miles on it as his daily driver.  

17 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Either way, the Pacifica will probably tank in value just like every other FCA product.  So pay $47k now, and in 3 years time, over half that will be gone.   

That's still better than an S-Class... an S-class loses more than the entire MSRP of the Pacifica Hybrid in just 2 years.  You could buy a Pacifica Hybrid, have it depreciate 100% and still be ahead on the money compared to an S-Class buyer/leaser, yet still be under warranty.   So, using your logic, the Pacifica Hybrid is better than the S-class. 

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

That's still better than an S-Class... an S-class loses more than the entire MSRP of the Pacifica Hybrid in just 2 years.  You could buy a Pacifica Hybrid, have it depreciate 100% and still be ahead on the money compared to an S-Class buyer/leaser, yet still be under warranty.   So, using your logic, the Pacifica Hybrid is better than the S-class. 

S-class as a percentage should hold value better than a Pacifica.  Large sedans in general lose value fast though, minivans can do better since there are only a few to choose from and there are families that can't afford a new one.

If all 38 or so brands were listed in resale value I imagine FCA would have at least 5 of the bottom 10.

Just now, smk4565 said:

S-class as a percentage should hold value better than a Pacifica.  Large sedans in general lose value fast though, minivans can do better since there are only a few to choose from and there are families that can't afford a new one.

If all 38 or so brands were listed in resale value I imagine FCA would have at least 5 of the bottom 10.

Does percentage really matter when you're losing that absolute volume of dollars in that amount of time?   Heck, even rapidly depreciating vehicles like the Regal are only losing $15k in 2 years... sure, that might be 30% of their value, but it's only $15k, not $60k like the S-Class.   Like I said, a Pacifica Hybrid buyer could have their vehicle depreciate to ZERO and they'd still be ahead of the money lost by someone getting into an S-Class. 

If I have the choice of losing $47k or $60k, I'm going to chose the $47k regardless of what percentage of the original value that is. Percentages are meaningless to your checkbook in this case. 

55 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

Does percentage really matter when you're losing that absolute volume of dollars in that amount of time?   Heck, even rapidly depreciating vehicles like the Regal are only losing $15k in 2 years... sure, that might be 30% of their value, but it's only $15k, not $60k like the S-Class.   Like I said, a Pacifica Hybrid buyer could have their vehicle depreciate to ZERO and they'd still be ahead of the money lost by someone getting into an S-Class. 

If I have the choice of losing $47k or $60k, I'm going to chose the $47k regardless of what percentage of the original value that is. Percentages are meaningless to your checkbook in this case. 

But the person buying an S-class new doesn't care.   You have CEO's and pro athletes and lawyers buying them that don't care about $60k.  

16 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But the person buying an S-class new doesn't care.   You have CEO's and pro athletes and lawyers buying them that don't care about $60k.  

Those 'buyers' are usually just leasing, so depreciation doesn't matter...

14 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Those 'buyers' are usually just leasing, so depreciation doesn't matter...

And the fact that they “don’t care” only highlights the general buying ignorance of your average Mercedes/BMW/Audi buyer. 

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But the person buying an S-class new doesn't care.   You have CEO's and pro athletes and lawyers buying them that don't care about $60k.

The flip side to that would be people who buy a car and drive it to the ground that no matter what car it is...resale value is 50 bucks because the damned thing is 15-16-17 years old and rusted to hell. The heater dont work. The tires are all bald. The tail light plastics are broken, there are all kinds of battle scars on it, and the car has traveled the equivalent of 3 times the earth.

Then there are people like me who amortize the car purchase properly. I utilized it long enough and is ready to part with it and I effectively become like those CEO's and pro athletes and lawyers you are talking about with their S Classes but with Oldsmobile Aleros and Impala SSs  and Ford Fusions and  Acura TLs.

I also corrected financial mistakes with Ford Edges and downsizing to Mazda 3s while paying no attention to resale value. Just using the tried and true formula of amortization and the looking yourself in the mirror and cutting your loses technique  because for 99% of the time, my wife and I make sound financial decisions anyway rather than making a car buying decision on a BIASED marketed term as resale value...

BIASED marketed term because in a wintery area where I come from, when you daily drive even the North American avg. of 20 000 miles a year, wear and tear on the car accelerates where freezing temperatures screw with your car, salt and little stones for the ice rust and ding your car, pot holes damage your car and you are always repairing the ball joints and suspensions because said pot holes are unavoidable therefore even after 8-9-10 years of daily driving your car in this kind of environment, no matter if Mercedes or Hyundai, your car in 10 years is WORTHLESS in Quebec...OK...a general scrap yard price of 250-500 bucks for the parts!!!

43 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Those 'buyers' are usually just leasing, so depreciation doesn't matter...

Depreciation does matter. It's factored into your lease.

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Depreciation does matter. It's factored into your lease.

Yup...and the manufacturer is giving you an arbitrary value for the car at the end of the leasing term...for you and for the manufacturer's benefit.

And in essence...the manufacturer dictates somewhat the value of its used cars somewhat...and THAT is why I say biased and marketed bullshyte resale value...

And in turn, this could hamper or help the value and perception of its new cars...

Which is why many view Mercedes and BMW going down a worm hole with their leases, their focus on going down market and the sheer amount of useless models in non-existent niches...

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

And the fact that they “don’t care” only highlights the general buying ignorance of your average Mercedes/BMW/Audi buyer. 

I guess GM should stop selling Escalades, CTS-Vs, and CT6's since they will just depreciate $50,000+ in 5 years.  Maybe companies should stop selling luxury cars all together.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I guess GM should stop selling Escalades, CTS-Vs, and CT6's since they will just depreciate $50,000+ in 5 years.  Maybe companies should stop selling luxury cars all together.

No, but maybe people who live in Benzes shouldn't throw depreciation stones at Pacifica Hybrids.

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, but maybe people who live in Benzes shouldn't throw depreciation stones at Pacifica Hybrids.

I bought mine after depreciation hit it, and Mercedes as a brand is better than industry avg on depreciation.  Chrysler is among the worst.  And my original statement of $20k after 2 years is going to be right, there are 1 year old Pacificas selling for $24k right now. 

The Pacifica oddly enough is the one of few FCA vehicles I would have no issue getting CPO.

Especially 2018 MY+ as they have finally gotten the 9 speed right with the newest model out as of late.

One thing I hope Chrysler does do, is make the future Pacifica Hybrid an AWD model with electric rear axle. That would be a great win, the only AWD minivan is the Sienna.

The Hybrid Pacifica is a better value than the Odyssey Elite. Sure you don't get LED lights and some other features, but you get 50% better mileage, and with tax incentives that if you can qualify for, will cost less.