Astrovan vs Caravan?

[supton]

Which one is better? Used, well used, over 100kmiles. Assume third row seating, no AWD, no electric sliding doors—those options don’t appeal to me (I don’t think Caravan has had AWD for a while, and the Astro AWD I’ve read some negative stuff about).

I'm thinking both have the strong potential for bad transmissions (if not based upon age/miles then by reality); the Astro might be easier to replace, perhaps cheaper--and vastly easier to make beefier, if one so chose. Both could have rust and/or electronic issues, given the age. Astro could have the rear-end regeared, if one didn't like the gearing. Astro should be better at towing. But engine work is tougher on the Astro, it is less refined overall (while not body on frame it's still more truck like), and gets less mpg (quick look on fuelly shows 17mpg vs 21mpg, give or take). Caravan could be newer, is more carlike, probably easier to remove third row (if desired, or may be folded up).

Does that sum up the differences?

 

[NHGUY]

I think the Astro drivetrain holds up ok,the older bodies are rust buckets though,and crash tests are scary (check out You Tube).You sit high,near the front wheels and makes you feel like its a regular "dog house" style van.The engine is a bear to work on (think doghouse without the doghouse).While some are partial to Astro/Safari,I think its a poorly designed S10 van.
Caravan/Voyager obviously has 41TE transmission troubles,while the 3.3 engine is rock solid.Rocker panels and doglegs rust out (worse on Grand models) as do the hood edge (01-07) and tailgate bottom.The good thing about Caravan/Voyager is the problems are common...they all do the same thing.Can never guess whats going to happen with a GM vehicle...anything can go bad.

 

[bepperb]

In NH I'd pick the front driver. I also think there are so many more Caravans on the road it would be easier to get a good deal on one, lots more internet support, easier to find parts... etc.

 

[Chris142]

The Astro will have the 4.3L Chevy engine and a deceint trans. IMO it's a much better choice than the Chrysler product.

 

[TallPaul]

Rear wheel drive is my choice.

 

[supton]

Do Caravan's have some sort of easy-to-find option sheet, which can be consulted to find out if it has a tow package? GM's usually have a list of codes on the glovebox door, listing rear ratio etc.

I did have the thought of buying a Caravan this weekend, under the understanding that the transmission should be expected to break. Can anticipate that, put aside money; but while a transmission cooler can be installed, it won't undo prior owners--so I almost wonder about preventatively replacing it. [Would hate to have to get a tow while on the road!]

Speaking of snow, my VW ain't all that great in the snow as a FWD--I wouldn't expect a Caravan to do that much better in conditions that defeat my VW. Maybe the extra weight will help? But I don't plan to drive a minivan much in the snow anyhow.

 

[bigjl]

Strange.

But rwd are much worse in snow than fwd.

A fwd layout is not only easier to produce but there is more weight on the driven wheels.

And she there is a loss of grip then you can "pull" yourself out of trouble with plenty of throttle.

Rwd cars are much easier to get out of shape in slippery conditions. When reaction is lost the read end will slide down any gradient or camber on the road.

When there was a massive snow fall in London back in 2008 the whole road network was in disarray.

Every hill had a large number of Mercedes and BMW's spun out and stuck.

I do prefer rwd if I want a car for fun, but practicality points me towards fwd every time.

 

[cmorr]

Caravan up to 2007, would avoid 2008-2011
We will be trading ours in shortly for a 2012

 

[supton]

Not so strange. 2 out of three stuck incidents involved inclines. Once the nose tips up, the front tires unload. With no sort of traction control (limited slip, or electronic traction control), my VW just spins a tire. While I run dedicated snows, they are not studded, which may have helped. [The third incident involved icey ruts, studded may have helped.]

I'm thinking an automatic is going to be harder to control wheelspin with. My diesel engine is slow to respond, and has a clutch, thus I have gobs of control.

But honestly? This is to be something of a spare vehicle. I'd rather not drive it in the snow.

 

[SLCraig]

I would easily pick a Caravan over an old Astro/Safari but that's just me. I think the 4.3 is solid, but so is the 3.3 Mopar.. The Caravan's are also a lot nicer inside if you ask me.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: SLCraig
I would easily pick a Caravan over an old Astro/Safari but that's just me. I think the 4.3 is solid, but so is the 3.3 Mopar.. The Caravan's are also a lot nicer inside if you ask me.


What about towing considerations? I'm pretty sure there was a towing package of some sort for Caravan. Not planning on towing a house. Just a popup. Which can get quite heavy.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I thought the Fi on the 4.3 VORTEC was garbage - did the older vans use TBI?

 

[AstroTurf]

I like my Astro...

An 05 2wd with 180,000 miles.

Lifetime MPG of 18.0

Still going Strong!

 

[supton]

Yep. TBI up to '92 or so--it looks like '90 thro '92 could be TBI or CPI, then CPI only after 92. I'm guessing CPI came with the Vortec label?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_90-Degree_V6_engine#LB1_and_LB4

200 or 190hp vs 160hp.

 

[Mau]

Caravan gets my vote. It drives very close to a sedan vs the Astrao which drives like a pickup. The caravan also has a nicer interior.

JMO

 

[crazyoildude]

Plymouth grand caravan
chrysler town and country
dodge grand caravan/ caravan
3.3 is a grat engine and they ride very well the transmissions 41te get a bad rap they have a tcm problem and if not reprogrammed they have problems.
I see many of them with over 200,000 miles on them

 

[rjundi]

Just pure conjecture but the Astro likely is not built to the safety standards of a Caravan. It was an afterthought of a design adopted from a pickup truck.

Caravan was purpose built vehicle with family/safety in mind.



I would not drive my kids around in the Astro if I could help it.

 

[supton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Astro

Quote:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which is known for its testing of vehicles and results that are often shown on NBC's Dateline television news program, gave the Astro a "Poor" rating in 1996 because of what by all appearances was a horrifying display of structural failure in the Institute's 40 mph (64 km/h) crash test into a fixed, offset barrier. The underbody of the test van buckled, pitching both front seats forward and shoving the crash dummy into the dashboard and steering wheel, and resulting in a broken left leg, leading the Institute to comment that "[t]he collapse of the occupant compartment left little survival space for the driver."[4]

In testing performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, the Astro and Safari fared better, improving from a single-star rating in 1991 to a three-star (driver) and four-star (passenger) rating by 2000. In side impacts, the Astro and Safari both received the highest, five-star rating in every year that the test was administered.

Surprisingly, in 2007 the IIHS reported that in real life situations, the 2001-2004 Chevrolet Astro recorded during calendar years 2002-2005 the least number of killed drivers of all passenger vehicles in the United States, as calculated per every million units on the road. Driver's habits and vehicle usage might have influenced this result.[5]


I added some emphasis. I should have emphased the bit about side impacts too.

 

[cmorr]

Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Plymouth grand caravan
chrysler town and country
dodge grand caravan/ caravan
3.3 is a grat engine and they ride very well the transmissions 41te get a bad rap they have a tcm problem and if not reprogrammed they have problems.
I see many of them with over 200,000 miles on them


The Plymouth variant is called the Voyager

 

[supton]

Interesting.

1996-2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan#Crash_test_results

Quote:
The 1996–2000 Dodge Grand Caravan received a "Marginal" rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 40 mph offset test. The structural performance and restraints were graded "Acceptable", but the foot injuries were very high.

In the NHTSA crash tests, it received 4 stars for the driver and front passenger in the frontal-impact. In the side-impact test, it received 5 stars for the driver, and 3 stars for the rear occupant, and resulted in a fuel leak that could cause a fire hazard.


2001-2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan#IIHS_results

Quote:
The 2001 model of this version got a "Poor" rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 's 40 mph offset test. It did protect its occupants reasonably well, and the dummy movement was well controlled, however, a fuel leak occurred. Chrysler corrected this problem starting with the 2002 models, moving it up to an "Acceptable" rating.

The 2006 model year brought optional side curtain airbags and a stronger B-pillar, which was tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's side impact crash test. With the side airbags, it got an "Acceptable" rating. For the driver, there is a chance of serious neck injuries, rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries. The rear passengers, however, could leave this accident unharmed, as there is a low risk of significant injury in a crash of this severity for them...