Minivan discussion

Just a couple weeks ago we had a thriving discussion on the merits of the various brand minivans and how there is an impressive amount of constant innovation thanks to the intense competition between the brands.

Update!! Here's a great article profiling Chrysler's "secret" decision to add the hideaway rear seat to their 2005 vans:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-06-30-minivans_x.htm

Enjoy! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

Dave

Here's mine:

BTW which minivan offers the best bang for the buck? I am looking into getting one, I only had cars.

Alex

Alex, check out the Chevy Venture, had a '99, traded it in for an '03. Very happy with it.

Joe

I removed the 3rd seat in our 1996 Plymouth Voyager and have never used it since. Chrysler's approach makes for a lighter weight vehicle and reduces fuel consumption slightly, but obviously hurts its sales.

Driving a van is like driving a bus. Don't buy one if you're young and have a heavy foot.

If you're looking for a good deal, the heavily discounted Chrysler product would attract, but check out the reliability first. Ours has cost more in maintenance costs than I would like. I won't be buying another Chrysler product.

We have been stranded /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif a number of times when the van wouldn't start and also when the brakes failed, needing to get a tow back to the dealer which is another story altogether.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif

Toyota came out with their new Sienna this year. It's quite a nice car. Check out the Honda Odyssey too. Those are both great minivans.

1996 Was the first year of the current design Chrysler. If you can help it, NEVER buy the first production year. 2002? They 'redesigned' them but it's just body stuff so drivetrain should still be reliable.

We've shopped lots for minivans and we always end up at the Chryslers. Haven't looked a lot at the Sienna or current generation Honda's or Mazdas I must admit--but last time we were looking (About 1999 and we were looking at 93-97) we found the Chryslers were the easiest to get in and out of and you got your best bang for you r buck, they rode the best and were most confortable. The GM Minis are ok but you either have to have captains chairs (My mom hates them) or remove a seat to get to the third row.

If I were buying today I'd seriously consider the Sienna, Honda, and then end up with a Chrysler.

Consumer Reports is a good resource, but it's just 1 of many resources and you'd best take what they say with a grain of salt (mine).

If you don't need a Minivan, how about a Wagon? Used Mercedes with 4Motion or a Volvo with a turbo...vroom!

Oh one more thing, I agree with PhotonBoy. Our van (1993 Chrysler Town & Country) sounds fast, drives slow. I drove a friends 1987 BMW and then had to drive our van. Sad. Lots of body roll.

[ QUOTE ]
AlexGT said:
BTW which minivan offers the best bang for the buck? I am looking into getting one, I only had cars.

Alex

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked at all of 'em earlier this year when we replaced our 1993 Chrysler (that was absolutely reliable and troublefree its whole life, BTW). The Hondas and Toyotas are probably a bit smoother and more refined to drive than the Chrysler, but the 2001+ DC vans really do hold their own and are light years ahead of the previous DC generations . . . particularly interior noise -- the new ones are amazingly silent!! The interior on DC doesn't have the magic foldaway rear set (yet) like Honda and Toyota which is a big drawback to some buyers. The Japanese brand van's are ranked a little worse for reliability than their cars, and the Chryslers have gotten 100x better, so call that a tie. So I'd say quality and performance is really close to a draw. For me, the Chrysler vans have much more pleasant styling, but that's personal preference, and face it - no one buys a van for it's appearance anyway. BUT, and this is a big but, you can buy the Chryslers for $5K to $8K less comparably equipped. For me, that kind of price difference matters alot. And both the Honda and Toyota have a waiting list to get one, but DC's are plentiful and discounted. So overall winner for me . . . Chrysler.

The GM and Ford vans are cruder and less pleasant to drive, IMHO, and cost no less than the Chrysler. I found the GM Venture in particular to have a narrower interior (by 6"), and very uncomfortable seating, with the seats too low to the floor for comfort. The Ford Windstar was loud and rough, and puts the emergency brake on the floor between the front seats -- hello!?!

So if your question was "what's the absolute best van, money no object," the answer would probably be Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey, whichever one strikes your preference more. But since your question was "what's the best bang for the buck" I think Chrysler is the winner and still champion.

Dave

PS - here's the previous post that I was talkin' about.

PPS I forgot to mention, you can get All Wheel Drive on the Chrysler vans, which would be a big plus, but unfortunately you can only get it on the high-end models which are a lot more expensive. I passed, although I'd have gotten it if it was available on the LX. You can get it on the Toyota too, but again only on the topline model, and - get this - you have to give up having a spare tire if you opt for AWD. No thanks!! AWD is unavailable on the Honda Odyssey.

Buy used. Get AWD. Nah we don't have AWD but it's nice. The other nice thing that (AS far as I know) only the Chrysler vans have [As an option] is Auto 3 zone climate control. Manual AC controls are ok, but once you go to the set-it and forget-it convienence of Auto air it's hard to go back.

Dual power sliding doors are pretty much standard fare now, but the Chryslers also have (option of course) a power liftgate.

A 10-20K mile 2003 Venture or Astro is great bang for the buck. The Toyota and Honda are very nice vans but IMO are not real good bang for the buck. I have seen Ventures and Astro's with over 200k miles still going strong and you are looking at $17k for a well equipped low mile 2003. The Pontiac and Olds. are built on the same chassis as the Venture.

[ QUOTE ]
I removed the 3rd seat in our 1996 Plymouth Voyager and have never used it since.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have to ask, then why get a minivan? A sedan or wagon would get better mileage, be safer and easier to drive. The only advantage I can think of is ease of getting in and out?

On a side note minivans are not rated as passenger vehicles and are not in the same class for safety. So just about any mid sized sedan or wagon is actually safer for the occupants then most minivans. Some minivan manufactures do take extra safety steps, but they still aren't held to the same rollover and crush standards as standard cars.

My son graduated from college in 2002 and had about $5K graduation present earmarked for a vehicle.

On his way cross county to four years of graduate school in New Jersey he had no doubt what vehicle type offered the greatest utility value proposition for him -- a dreaded soccer mom mobile. He bought a 1995 Chevy Lumina Van primarily for the ease and cost savings of sleeping in it on weekend and extended trips. He also liked the speed and convenience with which the 23# modular individual middle and rear seats could be moved in and out.

I get to ride his motorcycle that remained on the left coast while he roams the right coast.

hey saaby when do we see the G5 in your avatar (?)?

No no...don't buy an Astrovan. We just went to California in an Astrovan. We're a traveling family..always by land. 1999 Astrovan was maybe 1/20th as comfortable as our 6 year older Chrysler. Of course, YMMV..

Hm, interesting this discussion came up - my dad's 1991 Dodge Grand Caravan LE kinda blew up 4 days ago; one of the engines shot itself /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif . So we kept in mind not to go back to Chrysler... Looked for used vans and found,... guess what? A 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan SE. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif We passed it off, saying that newer models won't "go kaput". Hope for the best... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dan

We loved our 2 minivans (total of 12 years and 220,000 miles)!

But...when our kids grew up and moved out... we switched back to compact cars with a trailer hitch to haul extra stuff like for camping (using a mini-trailer)...for better mileage (got to cut down on that evil, imported oil) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

We really miss our minivan at times though!

I sure wish some diesel minivan were distributed in the U.S. (the Chrysler is available in diesel in Europe)! What's really wierd is that they build diesel PT Cruisers in the U.S. purely for export to Europe...no diesel here! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I just have to ask, then why get a minivan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Details aside, our family has changed since we bought the Plymouth Voyager van. Right now, I would probably go for a Toyota Corolla: best combination of size and reliability for us right now.

I read a vehicle buying recipe recently that makes a lot of sense:

1) Buy a two year old vehicle
2) Drive vehicle for two years, then sell it
3) Go to 1)

Minimizes your depreciation cost and avoids the expense of maintaining an older vehicle. (A 4 year old vehicle costs almost the same as a 2 year old vehicle.)

Here's another article from a reliable source. Enjoy.

Dave

You have to be a subscriber...