Review: 2014 Dodge Durango Citadel AWD and Dodge Grand Caravan SXT 30th Anniversary

Nice write up, I love the current Durango and that they went back to mid size like the first generation. This CUV is a perfect auto for most people.

The Durango is a VERY well done and polished piece, taking the "guts" success of the Grand Cherokee to a bigger package, more useful for those needing 3 rows and not that much off road equipment.

It just took 1st place in a Motor Trend comparo of Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mazda, etc. 3 row utes too:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1408_the_big_test_2014_three_row_crossovers/

As long as the reliability stays up, and they can work on resale, they may be getting somewhere. Durango still needs marketed more...reviewers love it, but still not everyone in the 3 row crossover/SUV class recognizes it as a choice since years back.

Our company vehicle is a dodge journey which I have put probably 4 or 5 thousand miles on myself. There have been times I pulled 28 mpg with it and the pentastar is great. First and second row room is not much different from this pair. It drives alright and is much cheaper than the Durango. I'd recommend to anyone looking at this pair to look at the Journey too. I still would buy one because it's a Chrysler but I would recommend it to others. I would also recommend the minvans because they are good and a great value. I have nothing I like about the Durango. It makes no sense to me.

Would not buy one -edit-

Over $50k for a Durango seems like a lot, I'd think an Explorer or Lambda (though dated now) is a better value.  $30k for the van with the same engine and basically same people carrying ability seems like the deal, but people don't like vans.  Personally I don't see much difference between a van and a crossover, it is still a tall box on wheels and doesn't handle like a car.

Over $50k for a Durango seems like a lot, I'd think an Explorer or Lambda (though dated now) is a better value.  $30k for the van with the same engine and basically same people carrying ability seems like the deal, but people don't like vans.  Personally I don't see much difference between a van and a crossover, it is still a tall box on wheels and doesn't handle like a car.

The refinement and driving dynamics are very different, as is the feel. The Durango is a different ballgame compared with the big & soft Lambda's and the 3.6L/6-speed that can feel lazy, and the Explorer that's all over the place, with a not overly comfortable interior. Small seats, big space, awkward feel. It's strange to say but back to back, the Durango is the premium feeling and performing offering. When the big reviewers say so...that's saying something. The only downfall of that is, like the 1st SRX, it doesn't mean buying public always notices if they don't know to test drive.

I was looking at a few out of curiosity, and a "Citadel" or other high end AWD model loaded up is still not far from $40k. The 3.6L/8-speed is a great combo, I was very impressed by it on a test drive in a new Jeep GC and another friend's new 2014 GC.

The Journey and Caravan, as in GM speak, are "old Chrysler" rehabs. Not that they are all bad, but they are not the same level of vehicles.

Over $50k for a Durango seems like a lot, I'd think an Explorer or Lambda (though dated now) is a better value.  $30k for the van with the same engine and basically same people carrying ability seems like the deal, but people don't like vans.  Personally I don't see much difference between a van and a crossover, it is still a tall box on wheels and doesn't handle like a car.

No way on the Explorer over the Durango... just not even a contest.  The Lambdas aren't really that dated and they are the cargo kings of the segment... but they are more soft-roaders than the Durango.   The Durango you could take on a rutted country trail... the Enclave not so much.

Over $50k for a Durango seems like a lot, I'd think an Explorer or Lambda (though dated now) is a better value.  $30k for the van with the same engine and basically same people carrying ability seems like the deal, but people don't like vans.  Personally I don't see much difference between a van and a crossover, it is still a tall box on wheels and doesn't handle like a car.

My Trailblazer SS AWD I would put up against anything the germans put out. My SUV it tight, handles amazing and blows most sports cars away. American LS V8 power with Driving Dynamics that eats up a curvy road!

Why buy a Durango over any other American midsize SUV/CUV?

Hemi.    Also has the most usable 3rd row between it, the Explorer (not even close), and the Lambdas (by a slim margin IMO).

Funny how the Durango is called a CUV by a lot of people, even though it shares bones with the Grand Cherokee, which has never been a crossover...

Why buy a Durango over any other American midsize SUV/CUV?

 

Hemi.    Also has the most usable 3rd row between it, the Explorer (not even close), and the Lambdas (by a slim margin IMO).

 

Funny how the Durango is called a CUV by a lot of people, even though it shares bones with the Grand Cherokee, which has never been a crossover...

Grand Cherokee is a CUV also now. Once they dropped the body on frame, they left the SUV and went to CUV with the Auto Unibody. I consider both the Grand Cherokee and Durango to be CUV's.

Grand Cherokee is a CUV also now. Once they dropped the body on frame, they left the SUV and went to CUV with the Auto Unibody. I consider both the Grand Cherokee and Durango to be CUV's.

Grand Cherokee has always been unibody.

Now, unless we're going to retroactively add to the generally accepted crossover meaning of "an SUV built on a car platform with less SUV capability...."

 

Why buy a Durango over any other American midsize SUV/CUV?

 

Hemi.    Also has the most usable 3rd row between it, the Explorer (not even close), and the Lambdas (by a slim margin IMO).

 

Funny how the Durango is called a CUV by a lot of people, even though it shares bones with the Grand Cherokee, which has never been a crossover...

Grand Cherokee is a CUV also now. Once they dropped the body on frame, they left the SUV and went to CUV with the Auto Unibody. I consider both the Grand Cherokee and Durango to be CUV's.

 

Grand Cherokee has always been unibody.

 

Grand Cherokee is a CUV also now. Once they dropped the body on frame, they left the SUV and went to CUV with the Auto Unibody. I consider both the Grand Cherokee and Durango to be CUV's.

 

Grand Cherokee has always been unibody.

 

Now, unless we're going to retroactively add to the generally accepted crossover meaning of "an SUV built on a car platform with less SUV capability...."

 

Showing my age as Jeep used to make true SUV's that were Body on Frame. With the Grand Cherokee, it became from the very first generation a CUV.

I think the only SUV Jeep makes is the Wrangler now.

 

 

Grand Cherokee is a CUV also now. Once they dropped the body on frame, they left the SUV and went to CUV with the Auto Unibody. I consider both the Grand Cherokee and Durango to be CUV's.

 

Grand Cherokee has always been unibody.

 

Now, unless we're going to retroactively add to the generally accepted crossover meaning of "an SUV built on a car platform with less SUV capability...."

 

Showing my age as Jeep used to make true SUV's that were Body on Frame. With the Grand Cherokee, it became from the very first generation a CUV.

 

I think the only SUV Jeep makes is the Wrangler now.

 

Not really.  The term Crossover, when it came about, generally meant a SUV that was built on a platform originally meant for a car.  So, vehicles like the CR-V (Civic related), RAV-4 (Corolla related), Aztek (Chevy Lumina APV/ Venture related), and Lexus RX (Toyota Camry related).    The Grand Cherokee, from the start, was only ever built on its own platform.   Yet tiny SUVs like the Geo Tracker and the very first Kia Sportage were true small SUVs and not crossovers because they were body on frame and not based on a car. (The Sportage was very distantly related to a commercial Mazda van chassis).

But just being Unibody doesn't mean the GC is a crossover.   The Range Rover has been Unibody since 2002 and no one would consider that "not an SUV"

Now, on the other hand, if we want to hold that "unibody = CUV," I move that we call the last B-bodies and Panthers "trucks."  For the sake of consistency.

I have never considered Land Rover a true SUV since they left Body on Frame. I also never see them off road around here or even on the mountain passes at ski resorts. They seem to be stuck in Seattle and the suburbs and along the highway as I always see them broken down. So Landrover is CUV's to me also.

So a tall wagonlike vehicle more capable off-road -- the exact antithesis of the definition of a crossover -- than any Suburban you've driven... is a crossover?

Heh.  Wow.

I have never considered Land Rover a true SUV since they left Body on Frame. I also never see them off road around here or even on the mountain passes at ski resorts. They seem to be stuck in Seattle and the suburbs and along the highway as I always see them broken down. So Landrover is CUV's to me also.

Aside from the fact that most ride on Dubs these days, Range Rovers (not Land Rover, that's the entire brand) are still one of the most capable off-roaders one can buy that side of a Wrangler. Pretty much your only other choice that would equal the Range Rover off-road is a loaded Grand Cherokee with the height adjustable suspension.

That means, yes, the uni-body Range Rover and Jeep GC are more capable off-road than a Trailblazer, Tahoe, or Suburban.

So a tall wagonlike vehicle more capable off-road -- the exact antithesis of the definition of a crossover -- than any Suburban you've driven... is a crossover?

 

Heh.  Wow.

 

I see at the landrover dealership by my house they take people on their fake rock, wood and cement bump trail but that is the extent of ever seeing Land Rover any place other than in the city. You do not find them in the PNW 4x4 club that is for sure, but I see plenty of Tahoes, Suburbans, Especially Wranglers, trailblazers, Cherokees First generation. If it is body on frame, you find it on the mountain ski pass and off road clubs.

That's because no one goes off-roading with a vehicle that bases at $84,000.

Range Rovers are at ski-resorts all the time...but perhaps you aren't allowed through the gates of those. :-P

Basically, just because a vehicle isn't used for the purpose it was built doesn't mean it's incapable of performing that task (re: Land Rover).

RE: the Durango -- its Jeep bones allow it to still be more than competent off road, according to reviews.

That's because no one goes off-roading with a vehicle that bases at $84,000.

Range Rovers are at ski-resorts all the time...but perhaps you aren't allowed through the gates of those. :-P

You crack me up, I see plenty of BMW, MB, Acura, Infinity, Lexus and Cadillac CUV/SUV's. Maybe the ski resorts just deny Land Rover access.

Infinity make SUVs now?

Infinity make SUVs now?

My Bad for spelling,

Infiniti QX80 is what I was thinking of.

That pig is far less capable off-road than the Grand Cherokee or Range Rover.

That pig is far less capable off-road than the Grand Cherokee or Range Rover.

What about the Patrol it's based on? Just curious.

It loses a lot of the off-road abilities in the translation from Nissan to Infiniti.   Gone is the multi-setting 4x4 with rock, snow, and crawl mode, instead you get a run-of-the-mill AWD with Auto/4hi/4lo mode.  Gone is hill descent control and electronic locking rear differential in favor of Adaptive Cruise Control and other on-road stuff.

I'd take the Range Rover against anything off road.  It has a lot of technology like the terrain recognition and traction and stability control, and the hill decent thing, etc.  The Wrangler doesn't have the high tech goodies or the power of a Range Rover.  I'd put the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler just behind the Range Rover, and you have to put the G-wagen in there too.  I've seen Top Gear (the real version) put the Range Rover through a lot of stuff and it always is impressive.

When you look at a Durango, it seems as big as a Tahoe, I wonder how the two compare.  Body on frame is sort of old news, so which is the better driver, the Durango or Tahoe, and I am talking on road, because I doubt many Tahoes are going off road.

I've driven both back to back (old version of the Tahoe) and it would be a tough call for me to make if I were given the choice to pick one for free base on ride and drive.  The Tahoe does drive more truck-like, but not by much.  Handling and maneuverability is a bit of a wash on these types of vehicles too.... but I got called a "He's just a good ol' boy" by my co-worker in reference to Dukes of Hazard for my ability to wheel a Suburban from New Jersey through NYC rush hour traffic and into Queens and back.  I never felt the Suburban was unwieldy, but neither is the Durango.  I had the Expedition in this same time-frame and hated it... an absolute dinosaur of an SUV. 

My favorite SUV rentals are GCs, Durangos, Suburban/Tahoe, Enclave... or if none of those are available and a Flex is, I'll take that.

I've had new Pathfinders, the Infiniti QX-Pathfinder, the Edge and they were decent movers, but not as good as the Lambdas.... and a far cry from the Durango/GC.

I'd take the Range Rover against anything off road.  It has a lot of technology like the terrain recognition and traction and stability control, and the hill decent thing, etc.  The Wrangler doesn't have the high tech goodies or the power of a Range Rover.  I'd put the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler just behind the Range Rover, and you have to put the G-wagen in there too.  I've seen Top Gear (the real version) put the Range Rover through a lot of stuff and it always is impressive.

 

When you look at a Durango, it seems as big as a Tahoe, I wonder how the two compare.  Body on frame is sort of old news, so which is the better driver, the Durango or Tahoe, and I am talking on road, because I doubt many Tahoes are going off road.

In the Real World of off roading, I would take a Rubicon Jeep Wrangler every time over the over loaded Electronic everything Range Rover. The Jeep will outlast it and take more punishment than the modern Range Rover. Plus if something did break be easier to fix on the trail than the Range Rover.

You are all missing another very important aspect of these vehicles --- towing!

The GC, being a FWD, in its best form is rated at 3750 lbs.

The Durango, with a hemi is rated at 7400 lbs., because it is RWD - in a 2 wheel drive version.

That is the highest rating of all the CUVs.

BTW, the Feds now rate the Durango as full-size with the new unibody, not MID-size, as the

1st Gen version were, with their body-on-frame.

I prefer the old ones, and have one out of choice --- cuz I pull a trailer !