2008 Chrysler/Dodge Van Impressions

[Cory Wolfe]

I was able to check out a Caravan as well as a Town & Country last week. For a more extensive review commenting on it's minivan values, see Empowah's thoughts on it, here.

Starting off, I found the design to be decent; lacking, but not a complete turn off as certain other minivans are. The front ends are much more upright than the previous generation and is squared off. Proportionally, the Caravan's fascia is more even, and certainly better looking, than the T&C's with its large grill. The headlights of both are more horizontal and angular, as well as being the most unique from each other, than before. The midsection of the body and greenhouse is probably the classiest aspect of their designs. Aft of the sliding doors, it takes a turn for the worse and is quite frumpy. The rear end can be best described as looking similar to a dog dragging its ass on the ground. There's not much appeal in it. As well, the taillights are as uninteresting as they come. Unlike the previous gen, the taillights are very slightly differentiated between models. It has the overall feel that they didn't even put forth much effort into the design beyond modernizing it.

Moving inside the Caravan (I wasn't able to check out the T&C's interior), the first thing you notice is the rather cheap aura it gives off. The plastics are all hard and roughly grained, but well assembled. The controls appeared to be of higher quality than in past Chryslers. The audio and climate controls were pleasing to the eye and operated with fluidity. Ergonomically, everything but the dash mounted shifter checked out. It's located beyond the steering wheel, about even with the gauge cluster hood. I found that I had to learn forward to reach it, unlike other vans' dash mounted shifters. It was very unnatural to use for me. Looks-wise, the dash lacked. The center stack, while functional, was an eye-sore harking back to the tall-boxy interiors of the '70s and '80s. To match, the door panels were very square in design, with few differing angles. The most attractive area was the gauge cluster. To say the least, it wasn't the most pleasant place to be, but I'm sure you could find worse.

One thing that can be said of these vans is that they are highly innovative. While the swivel 'n' go seating offered limited foot room only children could use comfortably, it is a great idea that will most likely be popular with moms everywhere. The same could be said for the mirror that opens out of the ceiling console. It's a nifty feature that allows you to keep an eye on the rear passengers. Also in the ceiling console was LED reading lights and the cool blue accent lighting. The latter isn't noticeable in the day time, but I imagine at night it would quite a sight. In the rear, you can find a hook-ups for all your electronics to keep the passengers entertained. Returning to the outside, the mirrors had what appeared to be LED blinkers. Oddly, they weren't found on the T&C, just the Caravan.

Overall, I would say these vans will continue to be quite popular. These vans are not very offensive and should appeal to any mom looking for a safe, kid friendly buy.

[Cory Wolfe]

More pictures:

[Lamar]

I saw three GCs yesterday at the local Dodge dealer. Unfortunately I couldn't get in, so I couldn't get as detailed with my interior impressions as you have.

I tend to like the front fascia. The rear does leave much to be desired though.

From what I could see inside, I still hate the center stack, and the rear passenger seats' backrests look too low to be comfortable.

Nice pics though. I'm almost ashamed to say that the A/V inputs made me happy.

[BrewSwillis]

..... and the rear passenger seats' backrests look too low to be comfortable.

I'm pretty sure you are supposed to raise them up when people are sitting back there, as seen in this pic:

I believe they go down into the seat so that you can see better out the back window when nobody is sitting in the very back.

[Intrepidation]

I agree that the Caravan's front end is the more attractive of the two...Something about the T&C's headlight shape/detailing looks like it has eyes that are looking in opposite directions...but it doesn't look bad and I imagine that oddity is noticeable only from a direct front view.

Nice photos...too bad you couldn't get inside the T&C's interior...I'd like to see real-world photos of it.

[sciguy_0504]

The rear end can be best described as looking similar to a dog dragging its ass on the ground.

Now that you mention it...

The LED reading lights do look pretty cool, though. Upscale.

[Cory Wolfe]

I agree that the Caravan's front end is the more attractive of the two...Something about the T&C's headlight shape/detailing looks like it has eyes that are looking in opposite directions...but it doesn't look bad and I imagine that oddity is noticeable only from a direct front view.

Actually, I thought the front of the T&C looked better straight on than at other angles. The Caravan's looks good from any angle. Sort of reminds me of a Mazda MPV, though.

[CMG]

I think YOUR pictures are more flattering for the exterior of the vans than the actual press release photos.

LOL

Whatever you did they don't look bad at all in your pics.

The dash and front area still has too much "Japanese flavor" ( :wink: ) styling for me...

[regfootball]

swivel and go ought to be renamed.....

SIT AND SPIN

[CMG]

swivel and go ought to be renamed.....

SIT AND SPIN

Great insight, as usual reg!

[Cory Wolfe]

I think YOUR pictures are more flattering for the exterior of the vans than the actual press release photos.

LOL

Whatever you did they don't look bad at all in your pics.

Thanks. I must agree... Edited September 23, 2007 by blackviper8891

[Chris_Doane]

Nice shirt.

[loki]

Nice shirt.

i was going to say "where's waldo?" on a different pic where your shirt looked darker (red).

[drew770]

Chrysler always has the most innovative minivans but this new generation sure is ugly.

While the interior is very easy going the miles of plastic is unseemly.

But as unattractive as I feel they are I hope they continue to beat the pants off of Toyota and Honda!

[regfootball]

i followed a new one for a few miles today. what a lumpy looking brick. the rear view especially is quite dumpy. thick and fat.

[Intrepidation]

i followed a new one for a few miles today. what a lumpy looking brick. the rear view especially is quite dumpy. But not as dumpy as my Aztek...I'm just bitching because it's not a Ford....how about that awesome Focus? Isn't it pretty?

[CMG]

i followed a new one for a few miles today. what a lumpy looking brick. the rear view especially is quite dumpy. thick and fat.

Hahaha

More like you RACED one.

And while it was AHEAD OF YOU, it made you feel angry.

Hence your post....

:AH-HA_wink:

LOL!!!!!!!!

[CMG]

i followed a new one for a few miles today. what a lumpy looking brick. the rear view especially is quite dumpy. thick and fat.

Is it just me or does the owner of an Aztec calling ANYTHING a "lumpy looking brick" or describing the rear view of ANY other vehicle as "dumpy" sound just a tad bit.... Absurd..?

Earth to reg, come in reg.......

LOL

Edited September 27, 2007 by CMG

[Intrepidation]

Is it just me or does the owner of an Aztec calling ANYTHING a "lumpy looking brick" or describing the rear view of ANY other vehicle as "dumpy" sound just a tad bit.... Absurd..?

Earth to reg, come in reg.......

LOL

I refer you to Chris' quote that resides in my sig.

[CMG]

I refer you to Chris' quote that resides in my sig.

Hahahaha

Never noticed, pretty danged accurate though!

:AH-HA_wink:

[Nick]

....Reg...gotta love him...

[CaddyXLR-V]

i followed a new one for a few miles today. what a lumpy looking brick. the rear view especially is quite dumpy. thick and fat.

Your not allowed to criticize Chrysler on a GM fan site!! Are you crazy?

[regfootball]

people will likely say the same thing when they follow one on the road for the first time. i don't need to defend what i said, i'll just be waiting until others get the exact same reaction after seeing one.....cuz it will be a common reaction

still kinda looks like this

or a scaled down savana/express

Edited September 27, 2007 by regfootball

[CMG]

Aztec.

LOL

[Drew Dowdell]

Just followed a new Chrysler van this morning.... gosh that thing looks like it was dragging it's ass.

My impression was that someone over at Chrysler saw the CSVs from GM and said "Hey! We should try something like that"

[regfootball]

well, after a few months for the shock to wear off on these things, I think I am starting to appreciate the boxy clumpy exterior a bit more now.

what's done it for me lately is seeing how nasty the other minivans look.

I'm most partial to the exterior shape of the Freestar, but that does not exist anymore. The odyssey used to repulse me but now its boxy shape actually seems to be aging well. The Sienna was fresh when it came out and now its tired and blobbish. The Quest becomes more weird to me over time. The Kia/Hyundai pair definitely has a discount store look to it.

it still looks ass heavy, and is a lump, but i think the short hood, boxy upright stance is sort of starting to grow on me a bit. Not a lot. Just a bit.

[NeonLX]

I guess I'm kind of an "expert" on these vehicles because we're currently on our sixth Mopar minivan. Our first one was an '89 Grand Caravan LE which, while boxy, had nice styling. Ditto our '94 Grand Voyager Sport. Starting in '97, we switched to the standard-length models because the rounded off 3rd-gen. versions were quite a bit larger than the previous ones.

Anyhoo, my impression of the '08 Mopar minivans is mainly negative. For one thing, they are too big. And too heavy. There is no longer a SWB version. Exterior styling is rather institutional, especially from the rear. Interiors are decent, especially the T&C with some woodtone accents to warm things up. I can see offering the overworked 3.3L FFV V6 as a "credit option" on the lower-end models, but for goodness sake, make the torquier 3.8L/6-speed standard on these massive tanks (a vehicle weighing 4500-lbs. and stretching 201 inches in length is NOT "mini").

Defenders of the new minivan's styling often say things like, "well, it's just a minivan". Yeah, but until now, Ma Mopar has managed to make their minivans look pretty good down through the years. Look at a late 1980s LX or ES version, or a '95 Voyager Rallye, or even our current '06 Caravan SXT with the spiffy "Ingot" wheels--these vehicles managed to look good while still maintaining practicality and value.

We're in the process of finding a replacement for our '06 Caravan and while still undecided, the one vehicle that is definitely off the list is an '08 Caravan or T&C.

Very sad, because I've really champioined & enjoyed these minivans since I first saw them come on the lots back in late 1983.

Edited December 31, 2007 by NeonLX

[regfootball]

I am still rather amazed how all the different companies seem to botch different aspects of building a minivan.

The bulk thing is a real tough issue. You want to be able to advertise class leading cargo and passenger holds, and you need 5 star safety, but there is no way to make the vehicle 'smaller' while doing that.

What Chrysler did though was make the shape very upright and boxy, and so style wise they kind of pay the price in some folk's eyes.

I like the Quest from a handling standpoint, but they have never been tops in reliability and their goofy styling is offputting. Plus, no split stow 3rd row and the dash is still a bit goofy. And they could use a power boost.

The Kia is intriguing from a value standpoint and the powertrain is good and the dash layout is very usable. But the 2nd row does not stow and the interior sometimes still feels Korean. And, can you really trust a Kia?

The Honda is noisy and rides hard but has decent steering. The interior is puffy and grandma looking and the exterior is blocky. Plus no stowable second row. And, its pricey.

The toyota interior is snooze inducing while still very functional and decently laid out, but the van has a good powertrain. But the exterior is aero old and dreadful and you can't trust anything where the power doors fall off the van and you know toyotas can't withstand dings in the parking lot.

The Freestar was good looking on the outside but everything else about the van was badly done. They did have nice second row seats.

Plus, so many folks want AWD now and the only AWD minivan is the Toyota and those go through the run flats like crazy.

Another beef is no minivan has decent armrests for the driver and front passenger. Not nearly as comfy as the armrest (and full console) on say, an Acadia.

Chrysler should have dumped the 3.3 or made it a credit option as someone suggested. The 4.0 should be made optional across the board for low cost. Aside from this and the cheap interiors, the positives of the new Chryco vans will go unnoticed, unfortunately I think.

Someone needs to step up in this segment with a vehicle that hits all things. It would be nice if it was a US manufacturer. Sleek styling inside and out, stowing seats, top notch powertrain with manual shift mode, driver oriented interior, as well as sportier handling and ride, solid structure without pork, quiet refined interior, 5 star safety, AWD option, and great cargo room.

Edited December 31, 2007 by regfootball

[mustang84]

My little four year old cousin saw the Swivel N' Go commercial on TV and after that he couldn't stop talking about how he wanted a Dodge Caravan for Christmas. Instead, he got a Lego Pirate Fold N' Go playset.

[Duncan]

Overall, I would say these vans will continue to be quite popular. These vans are not very offensive and should appeal to any mom looking for a safe, kid friendly buy.

When the wrap-up on the review includes the phrase "not very offensive", I tend to think Chrysler may have more problems than I originally was aware of.

And about the weight - anyone remember when vans this size could get away with a 3.0-liter V6? Not quickly, mind you, but...

[NeonLX]

The original Caravan/Voyager of 1984 had a curb weight of ~3000 lbs. We had an '89 Grand Caravan LE (technically still a first generation model) with the 3.0L/4-speed ATX. The thing weighed in the neighborhood of 3400 lbs. and was reasonably quick. Our outgoing '06 SWB Caravan weighs slightly over 4000 lbs. and is powered by the 3.3L V6. Performance feels roughly the same as the '89 did (actually, the '89 felt a little lighter on its feet). Interestingly, the fuel economy of the heavier & more powerful '06 is significantly better than the '89; it averages about 2 MPG better in all driving than the '89 did. The 3.3L is a good torquer, but it's certainly got its work cut out for it trying to yank over two tons around.

[CMG]

well, after a few months for the shock to wear off on these things, I think I am starting to appreciate the boxy clumpy exterior a bit more now.

it still looks ass heavy, and is a lump, but i think the short hood, boxy upright stance is sort of starting to grow on me a bit. Not a lot. Just a bit.

I don't see many Aztecs at all ever, so the shock for me isn't there I guess....

You WERE talking about the Aztec, right..????

[regfootball]

safety, NVH, solidity, gadgets, electrics, all reasons why the curb weight goes up.

[Robert Hall]

safety, NVH, solidity, gadgets, electrics, all reasons why the curb weight goes up.

Yes, adding the usual features expected of a modern vehicle results in bringing the weight up relative to a similar vehicle from 20 years ago...taking the weight out w/o removing content is expensive.

[Duncan]

The original Caravan/Voyager of 1984 had a curb weight of ~3000 lbs. We had an '89 Grand Caravan LE (technically still a first generation model) with the 3.0L/4-speed ATX. The thing weighed in the neighborhood of 3400 lbs. and was reasonably quick. Our outgoing '06 SWB Caravan weighs slightly over 4000 lbs. and is powered by the 3.3L V6. Performance feels roughly the same as the '89 did (actually, the '89 felt a little lighter on its feet). Interestingly, the fuel economy of the heavier & more powerful '06 is significantly better than the '89; it averages about 2 MPG better in all driving than the '89 did. The 3.3L is a good torquer, but it's certainly got its work cut out for it trying to yank over two tons around.

The fuel economy improvement can most likely be chalked up to improvements in electronic transmission programming over the years.