new Chrysler van interiors

[regfootball]

over lunch i popped into the chrysler dealer.

peeked in and out at a new minivan just off the truck

TERRIBLE!

thing looks like humpty dumpty on the outside, but worse....

horrible interior! in just about every way.

build quality sucks

plastics quality sucks

color scheme sucks

control layout sucks

design sucks

ugh!

chrysler really shot themselves in the foot. they killed their iconic model and took no care to replace it with an effort that would cement their standing as top dog.

meh.

Edited September 11, 2007 by regfootball

[Northstar]

Chrysler is really in a downward spiral, but I think the vans will do okay. They're innovative and have to be nicer than the current ones. However, with Chrysler recently announcing that it will take 10 years to turn their product around, one has to wonder if we'll ever seen good interiors out of a Chrysler brand until then.

[Intrepidation]

Interior platstics I can see the gripe about, same with color (although I like the tan ones). Build quality I dunno...but control layout?> I don't buy it. Controls are logically places and easy to reach. If there's one thing Chrysler interiors are good at besides versatility it's ergonomics.

[CMG]

I've driven many Chrysler minivans over the years, and the 1996 and up are actually very nice to drive, much better than the other domestics, which is why GM and Ford probably got out of the market. They truly did NOT compete IMO, those who have driven both know what I mean....

As far as materials go, I haven't seen the new interiors- the 2008 minivans, but I'm not really sure what you are looking for..? Connelly leather and burled walnut? It's a MINIVAN! Kids, pets, cargo, you name it.

I think they are pretty nice for the application.

Sure are alot of "wow terrible" threads in here that could be used in ANY new car scenario. Lots of plastic inside and out on all sorts of vehicles nowadays.

I'll have to look at a new minivan to see if I think this thread is ANOTHER sour grapes thread, or if it has any merit....

*shrugs*

What's so cheap looking?

Is this the interior you were looking at?

Edited September 11, 2007 by CMG

[Ravenfreak13]

looks fine to me....

[CARBIZ]

I've driven many Chrysler minivans over the years, and the 1996 and up are actually very nice to drive, much better than the other domestics, which is why GM and Ford probably got out of the market. They truly did NOT compete IMO, those who have driven both know what I mean....

As far as materials go, I haven't seen the new interiors- the 2008 minivans, but I'm not really sure what you are looking for..? Connelly leather and burled walnut? It's a MINIVAN! Kids, pets, cargo, you name it.

I think they are pretty nice for the application.

Sure are alot of "wow terrible" threads in here that could be used in ANY new car scenario. Lots of plastic inside and out on all sorts of vehicles nowadays.

I'll have to look at a new minivan to see if I think this thread is ANOTHER sour grapes thread, or if it has any merit....

*shrugs*

What's so cheap looking?

Is this the interior you were looking at?

Sure, one would expect a $45k Town & Country wagon to have a nice interior, but what about the 'bread and butter' vans? You know, the $19k van interior?

I don't think Chrysler's vans are all that bad, but Chrysler has surely gone downhill in the past few years. I remember a few years ago when a customer showed me their new 2000 Sebring convertible with the cream leather interior: my jaw dropped - it was gorgeous. Back in those days, Chrysler was leading the pack with some of the 'horniest' looking interiors out there, but in the past few years they have very obviously been cutting corners - at the very worst possible time, IMO.

[Intrepidation]

Sure, one would expect a $45k Town & Country wagon to have a nice interior, but what about the 'bread and butter' vans? You know, the $19k van interior?

I don't think Chrysler's vans are all that bad, but Chrysler has surely gone downhill in the past few years. I remember a few years ago when a customer showed me their new 2000 Sebring convertible with the cream leather interior: my jaw dropped - it was gorgeous. Back in those days, Chrysler was leading the pack with some of the 'horniest' looking interiors out there, but in the past few years they have very obviously been cutting corners - at the very worst possible time, IMO.

You liked the 2000 Sebring interior? I can't stand it...it is so god-awful cheap and ugly in design it's not even funny. The new one may not be class leading but it's light years ahead of the car it replaces in the interior department.

[SoCalCTS]

HEres the Caravan.

[Cory Wolfe]

While I haven't had time to sit in one, I have looked at a Town and Country. They look better on the outside in person than in pictures. There were still some aspects of the design I found laughable, but considering there's only one other minivan I find attractive (Quest), it should bare well. The interior, I could only view looking through the windows, so I can't say much about it, other than the center stack is horrible. It took Cadillac's design and magnified it 5 times. Ugh.

[EMan]

That is a very odd location for the shifter. It seems like you have be careful when turning. Why not use button if you are going to put it there?

I guess it just takes some getting use to it.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Odd shifter and weird center stack!

[CARBIZ]

The thing about always being the 'also-ran' company is that Chrysler has traditionally not been afraid to take risks. They have pushed a lot of weird and innovative ideas over the years: push button trannies, oval steering wheels, the plexiglass 'dome' that housed the instruments in the early '60s - a lot of great stuff. There are lots of people out there who will buy something because it is 'different' or unusual.

If Detroit is going to stand out in a sea of boring beige Toyotas, they are going to have to start with a clean sheet. I agree with the remarks about the Quest. It was actually a beautiful design - for a minivan. Just because people who drive minivans have families and are on a budget, does not necessarily mean they don't want to at least pretend to be cool.

[BrewSwillis]

The thing about always being the 'also-ran' company is that Chrysler has traditionally not been afraid to take risks. They have pushed a lot of weird and innovative ideas over the years: push button trannies, oval steering wheels, the plexiglass 'dome' that housed the instruments in the early '60s - a lot of great stuff. There are lots of people out there who will buy something because it is 'different' or unusual.

If Detroit is going to stand out in a sea of boring beige Toyotas, they are going to have to start with a clean sheet. I agree with the remarks about the Quest. It was actually a beautiful design - for a minivan. Just because people who drive minivans have families and are on a budget, does not necessarily mean they don't want to at least pretend to be cool.

Yeah, Chrysler is an "also ran" in the minivan segment.

After all, the Dodge Caravan remains the No. 1 bestselling minivan, as it has for 23 years.

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_6767603

And yeah....the Quest is a beauty queen

[pow]

I'm gonna check out the new vans today, too... in addition to the Accord and leatherette CTS. Half the time I drive an '02 Odyssey, so I'll let you guys know how it is as a minivan.

[CMG]

I think the Quest is rather homely, mind you, I think the 2000 Chrysler minivans were better looking than the 2007 OR 2008 minivans. I think they took a step back in styling.

The shifter is in a weird position, but it reminds me of the A100 vans and pickups. Minivans are usually put into drive and left in drive. If it was a sports car I would be shaking my head, but it's not a sports car.

Chrysler as an "also ran" in the minivan segment must make even the diehard GM fans here laugh? Pretty funny stuff....

I think the interiors look pretty nice for a minivan. Almost TOO nice in the case of the Town and Country stuff, it's more suited to moving adults than kids and pets. The interior looks pretty innovative to me, with the seats that can all face a central table while traveling.

In order to judge it I think those should look at it as if it was THEIR BRAND OF PREFERENCE, and then truly evaluate the vehicle. The "SOUR GRAPES" routine in alot of threads is getting kinda old?

[CMG]

weird center stack!

What do you think of this center stack, with the fake wood and plastic galore? Better? Worse?

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news...ld_interior.jpg

Don't even MENTION the Quest interior.....

SHEER OPULENCE!

Edited September 11, 2007 by CMG

[Flybrian]

I think it looks red-xy

[CMG]

I think it looks red-xy

LOL!

Sorta....

OK!!!!!!!!! I changed it to a link!!!!!!!!!!!

[Flybrian]

lol

Dude...stop comparing everything to a GM car.

I have no issues with these vans from seeing pictures as well as seeing them on the lots. However, it is a fact that Chrysler/Dodge occupies the lower-end of the minivan market. That's the 'bad' news. The good news is that they absolutely own the cheap van world to the point where their domination of a stangnant segment effectively forced GM and Ford out of it.

[Sixty8panther]

Screw the quality issues... my problem with Chrysler Minivans is that for every

minivan they have sold over the years they sell three or four remanufactured

transmissions to bolt up to where a blown up trans used to be.

I swear Mopar sucks at transmmissions worse than anyone domestic. It just

boggles my mind how someone cen replace three or four transmissions in their

FWD Chrysler product only to buy ANOTHER one! WTF?

I've owned a ton of GM cars, FWD & RWD, that have had 100K + and still had

their original trans.

[regfootball]

I'm gonna check out the new vans today, too... in addition to the Accord and leatherette CTS. Half the time I drive an '02 Odyssey, so I'll let you guys know how it is as a minivan.

I'll be interested to get your take. Bring a barf bag, just in case.

to the others. the thing looks like a beached whale in person. It looks like a squatter and wider GMC safari, and the interior plastic and aura is not even on par with a Safari. This thing is the automotive equivalent of a nasty BBW. except its not a BBW, it's a BUW. BBW's are nice to look at. this is NOT.

Chrysler better hope the market for cargo vans is big right now, because I don't see trendy moms touching this f@#ker with a ten foot pole.

Rush out to get your 07 now while you can!!!!!!!!!!!!

The quest is an assload nicer inside than this thing. Sienna/Ody trounces this thing.

WHERE IS GM HERE!?!?!?!?!?!

ok, i will give this thing a second chance and try to find one with leather this weekend.

Edited September 11, 2007 by regfootball

[CMG]

Screw the quality issues... my problem with Chrysler Minivans is that for every

minivan they have sold over the years they sell three or four remanufactured

transmissions to bolt up to where a blown up trans used to be.

I swear Mopar sucks at transmmissions worse than anyone domestic. It just

boggles my mind how someone cen replace three or four transmissions in their

FWD Chrysler product only to buy ANOTHER one! WTF?

I've owned a ton of GM cars, FWD & RWD, that have had 100K + and still had

their original trans.

My wife just sold her Caravan- 1997 3.3 auto. It had 220,000+K on it, never had any tranny issues of any kind, she towed a 19 foot boat with it quite a few times on very hilly highways for hours and hours.

The OLDER Chrysler minivans had tranny issues galore, but that was late 80s early 90s.

My Chevy Express gets a new tranny in a week or so when I can schedule it in, it has 38,000K on it, I'm not gonna abandon it because it needs a tranny.

LOL

Edited September 11, 2007 by CMG

[CMG]

Bring a barf bag, just in case.

We all bring "barf bags" into your threads.

:wink:

We need them. For your UNBIASED opinions.

:wink:

LOL

[BrewSwillis]

Screw the quality issues... my problem with Chrysler Minivans is that for every

minivan they have sold over the years they sell three or four remanufactured

transmissions to bolt up to where a blown up trans used to be.

I swear Mopar sucks at transmmissions worse than anyone domestic. It just

boggles my mind how someone cen replace three or four transmissions in their

FWD Chrysler product only to buy ANOTHER one! WTF?

I've owned a ton of GM cars, FWD & RWD, that have had 100K + and still had

their original trans.

You have no proof or numbers to back any of that up. You just bring up the same old tired lies about Chrysler and other non-GM brands.

The proof I have is that out of about 15 Chrysler vehicles that my immediate or extended family have had.......exactly one vehicle had transmission problems. It was my sister's Dodge Stealth......which, you guessed it, is not really a Chrysler vehicle at all, except for the name. The Mitsubishi transmission went bad at about 120K miles. My dad even had a 1986 Dodge Daytona Turbo that he pulled a 16 foot boat with. That car was handed down to me, and I put a bunch of hard miles on it with a Mopar performance computer that raised the boost. No problems but a busted timing belt that was overdue to be changed at 65K miles.

Maybe people keep buying Chryslers because they don't actually go through 4 transmissions per vehicle?

[CMG]

You have no proof or numbers to back any of that up. You just bring up the same old tired lies about Chrysler and other non-GM brands.

Maybe people keep buying Chryslers because they don't actually go through 4 transmissions per vehicle?

The only Dodge work van I had was a 5.9 auto and it had 400,000K before it was put out to pasture.

Never had any tranny problems whatsoever, but MORE surprising was the spark plugs were changed once.

In the lifetime of the vehicle when I had it. LOL

I like the MoPar powertrains for the most part, I have had a few Chevys but I probably prefer the MoPars if reliability was an issue.

I know that "can't be REAL" around here.... so.... I hate them.

hahaha

I'll see how my Express does a year down the road....

[regfootball]

Here's a new press pic of the new grand caravans.......

[CMG]

Here's a new press pic of the new grand caravans.......

I bet that's yer Momma Reg!

And yer Daddy's sister too!

:wink:

[scharmer05]

It looks like a squatter and wider GMC safari, and the interior plastic and aura is not even on par with a Safari.

You've got to be kidding....right?

While the Caravan/T&C may not be quite as pleasing to the eye as the 07s they are light years ahead of the Astro and Safari. My mom had 3 Astros for work and those things were the most uncomfortable rolling hunks of plastic that I have ever had the displeasure of stepping foot into. Not to mention the fact that all struggled to make 13mpg with almost all of the driving being highway. My Suburban can do better than that.

Luckily her company just bought her a new 07 Caravan SXT after 5 years of driving an Astros. She is happy they went with the 07 instead of an 08 after seeing the new ones, but she will tell you all the Chrysler minivans she have ever driven have been top notch. The 07 being the best so far followed closely by the 96 and 98 she has had in the past. Coming from a woman that has put over 100K a year onto all kinds of vans from GM to Ford to Chrysler, that says a lot about what kind of quality vans Chrysler puts out. I'm sure that won't change with the 08. All you have to do is get used to the styling.

And to 68. The first two Chrysler vans she has driven both made it over 200K with no tranny issues. I realize that Chrysler has had there issues in the past, but not in any Chrysler that has been in our driveway. The 98 was even an AWD model.

[regfootball]

All you have to do is get used to the styling.

the women in this country who control checkbooks, i don't think they will when they compare this thing to the ody/sienna.

[Sixty8panther]

the women in this country who control checkbooks, i don't think they will when they compare this thing to the ody/sienna.

Soooooo True!

This is exactly why Toyotas & Hondas keep selling

despite being the worst values in the marketplace!

[Sixty8panther]

You have no proof or numbers to back any of that up. You just bring up the same old tired lies about Chrysler and other non-GM brands.

Let's see: Almost every single person who I've known with a Caravan

from the 1980s to the 1990s has replaced their trans, in some cases

they were on their FITH one....

I can give you plenty of cases of this, you know I stick up for Chrysler

more often than not but I'm sorry just driving the used 2005 RAM that

we have here at the Chevy/Cadillac store was enough for me to

seriously question the quality of the newer products. The transfer case

in the ram is an absolute POS.

Back in 2003 when I was selling cars I sold THREE TrailBlazers to people

who got sick and tired of thier crappy transfer case & transmission in

thier 1st gen. Durangos.

Time and time again.... I do not trust Chrysler's FWD-automatic

transmissions. Chris & Izabella have had great luck with their PT Cruiser

but they are one of a few exceptions to the rule it seems.

[Flybrian]

Chrysler killed my father. And raped my mother.

[Sixty8panther]

Chrysler killed my father. And raped my mother.

Dude... too much!

[Flybrian]

No one watches Family Guy?

[pow]

OK the one in the showroom I checked out was a moderately-loaded SXT Grand Caravan in black. It had leather, parking sensors, heated front and rear seats, power liftgate, navigation, and reverse camera, but no DVD player or moonroof. It had the 16" alloys, the mid-grade 197 hp V-6 (down 43 from our '02 Odyssey), a six-speed auto (one more than our Ody), and stickered at $33K.

The pricing structure is definitely more complicated than its import rivals, most of which have fewer trim levels and one ~250 hp powertrain. The GC's MSRP seems lower, thanks to a basic stripper model with 175 hp, but loaded up comparably to the LX/LE/S and EX/XLE/SL equivalents, it's no cheaper. The 4.0L engine forces you to get a well-equipped model.

OK, so about looks. Actually I kinda liked it. It's not as generic and bloaty as the old Grand Caravan or current Sienna and Odyssey. It's fairly crisp and well-proportioned, and doesn't look as bulky as it is. In fact it reminds me a lot of our old Ody (also black). Maybe I'll hate it in white or some other color.

Inside, overall build quality was good. The main components were solidly assembled and didn't jiggle about. Some of the dash materials were similar in quality to our 5-yo Ody -- low-sheen, hard to the touch, but not hollow-sounding or flimsy -- except there's a lot more of it (everything is molded into one piece, including the A/C vents), which kinda amplifies the cheapness.

The stuff on the lower dash was noticeably cheaper and thinner, though. The gloveboxes were flimsy, and the door panels suck.

But what really sucks about the interior is the design. There's absolutely no sense of flair or even established industrial design sense. The cutlines for the upper glovebox, A/C vents, radio controls, gear lever, and drawers are all haphazard. The door panels are solely there to cover the doors. All the shapes are harsh and clash together. The old Grand Caravan's dash was actually better in this regard.

As far as practical matters, the only center console is this clumsy and poorly-assembled, bulky and gimmicky unit. It can store more than the tray in our Ody, but you can't use it as a table for fast food or clipboards, and it doesn't fold away (no walk-through access to the 2nd/3rd rows).

The second and third row seating accommodations are clearly inferior to our Ody's. Both rows have less room and are significantly less comfortable. The second row buckets (the "posh" swivel-and-gos) are mounted too low (or the floor is artifically too high), so there's more bending of the knees. The swivel-and-gos also are bulky, limiting visibility and lots of third-row toe room, and they don't slide fore-aft enough to apportion 2nd/3rd row space as nicely as the Ody.

Speaking of swivel-and-go, I found it clumsy and gimmicky as well. There's very little legroom with the seats facing each other, and removal of the little table is a PITA. It's a cool idea, but I would prefer airplane-style seatback trays. Small children won't mind the lack of room. There's footwell storage (where the stow-and-gos usually go), which is nice, but it requires moving the front seats forward for access, also a PITA. Cool idea, but could be executed better. The thin seat-mounted armrests are rough plastic (both 1st and 2nd row), as opposed to the cushioned leather ones I'm used to.

The split 40/60 third row is definitely nice, and folding it into the floor was much easier than our Ody's bench. There's no space underneath, so you can't slide snowboards beneath them (that's how we loaded 7 adults/teens and their snow stuff), but then new Odys (split bench) don't have that either.

Back to the driver's seat. The MyGig CD-ripping harddrive is definitely nice, though the system's graphics are rudimentary. The touchscreen is nice. The A/C vents are rather annoying. You get a tiny knob to jerk them up and down, and a separate dial to move them side to side. The turn-signal stalk is very high-quality and nice, as are the window switches and key fob. They feel like -- they are -- Mercedes pieces.

The ergonomics in our Ody are better. The secondary controls are mounted on a narrow and very vertical tower. The imports spread them out laterally, on the same level, so you don't have to reach for your knees. That also frees up space for more cubbies and cupholders. They're also less vertical and angled more, so knobs and switchgear are much easier to see and control. The GC's floor is a bit higher than in the Ody, so I have to climb in as opposed to sliding in. The front seats are good; they have more lateral support than the Ody's. The leather quality, however, sucks. BMW and Mercedes have leatherette that's nicer.

There is a lot more small-item storage possibilities than in our Ody. There's a Quest-style thing on the roof, for CDs and sunglasses, and there are two gloveboxes and larger door map pockets. The seatback pockets, on the other hand, are pathetic. There are sunshades for the third row, which is nice. The second row windows roll down.

The power sliders are powered only if you push their respective buttons. If you pull the door handle, it reverts to manual mode. It depends on your preference; personally I like power operation all the time. The power liftgate is very nice and handy. There's a cheap and dim but clever LED flashlight in the back.

Overall, I think the GC and T&C will do well. They're packed with lots of features, and even if they're not as good as the current Ody and Sienna technically, they've always sold well. Little kids won't mind the lack of room and care more about the Sirius TV. Personally I'm bored with the Ody and Sienna - I find the GC to be fresh looking and I wouldn't mind one. I just wouldn't pay Ody and Sienna money for it.

Edited September 12, 2007 by empowah

[Ravenfreak13]

My breeze's tranny (with the neon 2.0 l slow engine) has cost a grand total of $180 in repairs. The sebrings tranny shifts nicely being that its a 4-sp. Cars.com liked the 4sp. in the Sebring.

[regfootball]

The stuff on the lower dash was noticeably cheaper and thinner, though. The gloveboxes were flimsy, and the door panels suck.

But what really sucks about the interior is the design. There's absolutely no sense of flair or even established industrial design sense. The cutlines for the upper glovebox, A/C vents, radio controls, gear lever, and drawers are all haphazard. The door panels are solely there to cover the doors. All the shapes are harsh and clash together. The old Grand Caravan's dash was actually better in this regard.

i had it messed up earlier what i meant. i meant that the new van's looks reminds me of the express / savana twins....not the safari

[regfootball]

The stuff on the lower dash was noticeably cheaper and thinner, though. The gloveboxes were flimsy, and the door panels suck.

But what really sucks about the interior is the design. There's absolutely no sense of flair or even established industrial design sense. The cutlines for the upper glovebox, A/C vents, radio controls, gear lever, and drawers are all haphazard. The door panels are solely there to cover the doors. All the shapes are harsh and clash together. The old Grand Caravan's dash was actually better in this regard.

imagine how disastrous the journey will be.

i had it messed up earlier what i meant. i meant that the new van's looks reminds me of the express / savana twins....not the safari

the uplander interior might be better than the g-caravan

Edited September 12, 2007 by regfootball

[K.C.]

Despite the ingenious engineering for space utilization, the vans appear dated upon introduction. I saw an SXT Caravan with the 16" wheels. In dark blue, it appeared economy car stale. I think that Dodge should take a page from Subaru's trim level designations and come out with the Grand Caravan DL, for Dull.

[pow]

I forgot to mention that the sheetmetal appears to be adequately thick. The stuff on our Ody is uberthin and dentable.

[Intrepidation]

It baffles me how Reg can possibly make fun of the exterior of these things but have no problem with what he's got

I like them, the Caravan especially has a clean and taught exterior...I like how they hide the sliding door slit below teh window rather than in the middle of the body with another outline for the panel that cover it in say, the Odyssey.

empowah's review seems much more fair and unbiased.

[cire]

Let's just face the cold, hard facts. Chrysler was beginning to redefine itself in the 90's, but then hit a brick, staunch stone wall called Daimler. The 2008 minivans were engineered and designed under this evil, blood sucking regime. It will take Cerberus a lot of time, money, and ingenuity to turn the tattered remains of this severely derailed company back into a genuinely competitive automaker. We will have to be patient and try to endure the hideous products unleashed upon the unsuspecting buying public by this wicked German dictator. Hopefully, this period will be brief and Cerberus will ensure that the sun will shine brightly on the Chrysler name once more. It's just a shame that Chrysler must look for redemption and renewal from the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell. Isn't it ironic, don't cha think.

I have relatives that own a 2007 Chrysler Town & Country who said that they won't go near the 2008 redesigned minivans because of their dated, grotesque exterior and interior appearance. They have quite a few kids and definitely fall in this vehicle's target demographic. Their opinion was formed after thoroughly investigating a nicely equipped model at the dealership. I understand that minivans are not necessarily a style driven auto segment, but even adults who value utility/substance over style don't want to be seen in an oversized, lackluster metallic box with coordinating Rubbermaid interior appointments. I know Chrysler still owns this segment, but there is no need to take it for granted and risk losing even more overall market share. Swivel N Go and other available gimmicks don't necessarily serve as replacements or distractions for haphazard exterior design or second rate interior appointments.

[regfootball]

Swivel N Go and other available gimmicks don't necessarily serve as replacements or distractions for haphazard exterior design or second rate interior appointments.

ITS NOT BIAS THE DAMN THINGS WERE HORRIBLY EXECUTED

inside and out, the new chrysler vans lack appeal. they are DOA. they have terrible lot appeal. you're not going to get women to agree to buy them. these things will sell as cargo vans maybe because that's the impression they give on the lot.

Nardelli gonna be giving out huge rebates on these things from his own bank account, and that may not be enough

Edited September 12, 2007 by regfootball

[cire]

ITS NOT BIAS THE DAMN THINGS WERE HORRIBLY EXECUTED

I guess that pretty much sums up this topic, folks.

Nicely executed and straight to the point.

Goodnight one and all.

[CMG]

ITS NOT BIAS THE DAMN THINGS WERE HORRIBLY EXECUTED

Strange you never quoted cire's post on such factual stuff as THIS...

The 2008 minivans were engineered and designed under this evil, blood sucking regime.

Nope, no "bias" at all......

LOL

hahahahaha

I guess that pretty much sums up this topic, folks.

Nicely executed and straight to the point.

Goodnight one and all.

I'm thinking "sour grapes DREAMWORLD" sums this thread up MUCH more accurately....

:wink:

While I'm not in love with everything about a 2008 Caravan's interior I certainly have to laugh at the "worst out there" nonsense etc....

Edited September 12, 2007 by CMG

[CMG]

It baffles me how Reg can possibly make fun of the exterior of these things but have no problem with what he's got

It baffles me how anybody can read any of reg's posts seriously. (or any of the other propagandists here)

:wink:

[Sixty8panther]

Fly: I must have missed that episode of Family Guy.

(You should have put in a small pic of Peter Griffin to clue us in)

I forgot to mention that the sheetmetal appears to be adequately thick. The stuff on our Ody is uberthin and dentable.

Every Honda ever made feels like POS Budweiser can to me.

The Sheetmetal on my old Datsun was super weak too but it

was better reinforced than most Hondas form that era, they

seem to be all about featherweight cars at Honda, that's a

HUGE turnoff to me. Many modern cars are too soft.

[CARBIZ]

Enthusiasts contempt for the minivan segment on C&G is amplified ten-fold in the media world. There is nothing wrong with a minivan. For my money, I would rather drive a minivan than a Tahoe or Explorer: it is the SUV market that is the sum of all Evil in the Universe, IMO.

Chrysler has always done a lot of things well with its minivans. It's Achilles heal has been in cutting corners in places where it hurts. Anyone who has driven any of their 2006 or 2007 more BASIC models can attest to that. Keep in mind, when any manufacturer hands over the keys to its models to the media, it rarely does so with the base model. The T&C has always been a nice looking vehicle, but it is the base Caravan that has been the volume leader and those are very forgettable: no Stow'n Go, no swivel seats, no ABS - not much of anything.

We have one of the largest Chrysler dealers on our doorstep, yet we are one of the highest volume Uplander dealers in Toronto. I hope for Chrysler's sake the 2008 is an improvement in the riding dynamics on their BASE models, because if not they will have to continue giving them away. On a Saturday afternoon dealer tour, most customers come back to the Uplander after they've driven the base Caravan or Grand Caravan. Yes, the higher models are nicer, but the base ones are pretty spartan.

And I desperately hope somebody at GM is taking note with the launch of Chrysler's 'new' minivan. There is a big market for a well priced, well executed minivan out there. It would not be hard to cut the middle between the Chrysler stripped vans and the Toyota/Honda over-priced vans to carve out a respectable quarter million units a year. It would just take convincing someone in the RenCen that a minivan is a worthy vehicle to be seen in.

[Sixty8panther]

cire:

You seem to foget that for every two $h!ty, ugly products that

Daimler-Chrysler produced (Caliber, Nitro) they got one kick

ass, amazing product that se the world on fire!

Charger

Marnum

300C

Those three right there saved Chrysler, make no mistake.

Thank god for the LX cars proving all those FWD-car-humping

morons dead WRONG. RWD is on its way back and it all started

with Daimler-Chrysler and for that I'll always love the LX cars.

[CARBIZ]

cire:

You seem to foget that for every two $h!ty, ugly products that

Daimler-Chrysler produced (Caliber, Nitro) they got one kick

ass, amazing product that se the world on fire!

Charger

Marnum

300C

Those three right there saved Chrysler, make no mistake.

Thank god for the LX cars proving all those FWD-car-humping

morons dead WRONG. RWD is on its way back and it all started

with Daimler-Chrysler and for that I'll always love the LX cars.

Don't get too excited. I think RWD is making a 'come back' for higher end and boutique cars, but the economics of FWD still makes far more sense for most people. I would like to see the Impala and G8 both be RWD. That makes sense from a marketing point of view, but vehicles like the Malibu and G6 would always be the volume leaders. Someone spending $40k for a Caddy or BMW doesn't care about gas mileage or spending money on winter tires, but a family barely making ends meet does.