Best budget used family hauler

[GeekPriest]

Quote:

There's always vehicles equipped with that transmission on CL or facebook buy/sell/trade groups with a bad transmission. Maybe they sold more than anyone else and that's why it seems to be so common?


There does appear to be a historical problem with people putting the wrong fluid in these transmission (e.g., Mercon) in place of the ATF+3 or ATF+4 called for my Mopar. It was apparently suggested on the dipsticks to top off with such, but it does bad things to the transmissions.

That's just a suspicion on my part. My 2011 T&C has 103k on it now, and the transmission works fine. I'll be arranging for its 100k mile service to change the fluid and filter within the next couple of weeks.

 

[john6974332]

I don't have a first-hand suggestion for you, but thank you for the reminder to not have kids anytime soon.

I'd personally look at a Toyota van or Ford SUV first (Explorer/Edge/Escape.) If the price is not suitable, then the Chrysler van, so long as you can budget a transmission replacement or equivalent expense. It seems that the cheap cost of the van would offset any repair costs.

In response to the Ford Windstar/Freestar, maybe it's just me but I never see any on the road that are well maintained. Lol.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

Originally Posted By: GeekPriest
We have a 2011 Town & Country now, with the Pentastar 3.6 V6. It has certainly been no trouble, although I have to admit that the drivetrain isn't as refined as I remember my 2000 Grand Caravan being. Maybe my memory is foggy.

I decided to ask here for guidance simply because the interwebs are full of horror stories about Chrysler products. In my experience, the vans have had no notable issues apart from [censored] Mopar brake parts. I just change them to aftermarket rotors when the factory ones warp.


I wouldn't worry about getting another Mopar minivan. Frankly, my 2000 3.3L Dodge GC has been the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned (outside of two 307 Olds Cutlass Supreme). Problems are few and far between and easily fixed.

If you go with another Caravan I'd limit the search to the 2014 model year and later when upgraded brakes became standard. Also, typically the longer a model is in production the more time the manufacturer has to correct any bugs or defects.

 

[fdcg27]

We have a couple of later Caravans in the fleet at work as well as a couple of four cylinder Avengers.
In fleet service with a variety of uncaring drivers, these recent Chrysler products have held up as well as anything else.
The later Caravans are actually pleasant to drive, ride well, are unbelievably spacious, deliver reasonable fuel economy and have good power.
If you like your '11, why not dance with the one that brung ya?
Sometimes, you just have to ignore what you see on the net, especially since you have actual experience with the vehicle in question and aren't one of the internet parrots repeating what they saw somewhere.
You can buy a really good Caravan for less money than what a ragged out Sienna will cost you and the later Caravans even have some real stitching on the interior trim.
Won't find that on any recent model 'yota.
Well, you will, but it'll be fake molded in stitching.
For overall utility, a minivan beats the (word I can't use here) out of any SUV plus you'll still be able to afford to drive it when fuel inevitably passes three bucks a gallon again.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You can buy a really good Caravan for less money than what a ragged out Sienna will cost you and the later Caravans even have some real stitching on the interior trim. Won't find that on any recent model 'yota.
Well, you will, but it'll be fake molded in stitching.

I like the Dodge GC but the interiors leave a lot to to be desired. Like many late model vehicles the seats are garbage compared to previous generations and don't hold up well, stitching or not. Not enough padding and poor materials, probably made out soy.

Look in the used car listings and see how the drivers seats begin to collapse on three or four year models with less than 75,000 miles. The seats and interior in my 2000 GC with way over 100,000 miles are still in great shape.

 

[GeekPriest]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We have a couple of later Caravans in the fleet at work as well as a couple of four cylinder Avengers.
In fleet service with a variety of uncaring drivers, these recent Chrysler products have held up as well as anything else.
The later Caravans are actually pleasant to drive, ride well, are unbelievably spacious, deliver reasonable fuel economy and have good power.
If you like your '11, why not dance with the one that brung ya?
Sometimes, you just have to ignore what you see on the net, especially since you have actual experience with the vehicle in question and aren't one of the internet parrots repeating what they saw somewhere.
You can buy a really good Caravan for less money than what a ragged out Sienna will cost you and the later Caravans even have some real stitching on the interior trim.
...
For overall utility, a minivan beats the (word I can't use here) out of any SUV plus you'll still be able to afford to drive it when fuel inevitably passes three bucks a gallon again.


Indeed. I guess I have a bit of concern about the constant invective directed toward American cars and Mopar products in particular. My hatred of the Big Three makes was well-justified for a long time, but, having driven a mix of vehicles over the past 30 years, American iron since about 2000 just hasn't given me a lot of trouble. In many ways, I regret trading my 2000 Grand Caravan for the 2001 Odyssey on the basis of a bad feeling. The Odyssey didn't live up to the hype in my eyes.

When we replaced the Odyssey, I looked at the Grand Caravan and the Sienna. The Sienna is a nice vehicle, but Toyota options are crazy expensive. I really detested the sea of textured plastic on the Sienna's dash. (And don't get me wrong, current minivans are an amazing value compared to everything else on the market.) This 2011 Town & Country came available, with 22k on the odometer, and fully 1/3 less -- some $11k -- than a new Sienna. I figured $11k would pay for a number of repairs. In truth, I've paid for...brakes and maintenance.

The only reason I lean toward the pre-Pentastar Mopar vans is because of ease of repair. They're just simpler OHV engines: simpler valve train, no VVT, and so on. I don't race the minivan, so as long as it gets to highway speed without too much travail, and can maintain speed on a reasonable Pennsylvania grade, I'm happy. I also like the bargain pricing on them.

The Freestar holds some appeal for having depressed prices also, but there's an awful lot of complaining about their transmissions.

I wish there were more interest in sustaining the minivan market. I know the minivan has a "soccer mom" reputation and all that, but the reality is that I have four kids. We do things as a family, and there are friends and so on. None of the SUVs hold six people and all their bags for an annual 1400 mile (one way) trip each summer. For all their blandness, the minivan swallows building materials and kayaks without much difficulty, and canoes ride with ease on top. I think FCA is making a mistake by trying to exit the minivan market, whether through badge-engineering or discontinuation. Just as Ford learned when it discontinued the Taurus name for a time, "Grand Caravan" and "Town & Country" are synonymous with "family hauler". I'd not be too quick to exit that business.

So time for me to quit worrying about public opinion and instead buy what I know.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We have a couple of later Caravans in the fleet at work as well as a couple of four cylinder Avengers.
In fleet service with a variety of uncaring drivers, these recent Chrysler products have held up as well as anything else.
The later Caravans are actually pleasant to drive, ride well, are unbelievably spacious, deliver reasonable fuel economy and have good power.
If you like your '11, why not dance with the one that brung ya?
Sometimes, you just have to ignore what you see on the net, especially since you have actual experience with the vehicle in question and aren't one of the internet parrots repeating what they saw somewhere.
You can buy a really good Caravan for less money than what a ragged out Sienna will cost you and the later Caravans even have some real stitching on the interior trim.
Won't find that on any recent model 'yota.
Well, you will, but it'll be fake molded in stitching.
For overall utility, a minivan beats the (word I can't use here) out of any SUV plus you'll still be able to afford to drive it when fuel inevitably passes three bucks a gallon again.


We should compare notes someday.

My fleet has been updating 04-07 Caravans to 2015-2016 caravans. They do hold up... but with frequent small maintenance items, particularly little things like trim, brakes, egr, ignition issues. Compare those to a few Uplanders I have, and they are a dream vehicle. If you do not mind minor fix-it item, then the Mopar is not a bad choice. That being said, if you can swing a Toyota with similar mileage, the Toyota will be better and more expensive initially, but cheaper if kept for a long time. If keeping it to a 5K-10K budget, I would go Mopar... and then expect to fix it.

However, if you want a cheap and reliable family hauler, look for a Mazda5. Great "little" minivans. You might be able to swing a CX7/CX9. Mazdas are reliable but don't command the Honda Toyota Premium. Folks forget about them.

 

[GeekPriest]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

We should compare notes someday.

My fleet has been updating 04-07 Caravans to 2015-2016 caravans. They do hold up... but with frequent small maintenance items, particularly little things like trim, brakes, egr, ignition issues. Compare those to a few Uplanders I have, and they are a dream vehicle. If you do not mind minor fix-it item, then the Mopar is not a bad choice. That being said, if you can swing a Toyota with similar mileage, the Toyota will be better and more expensive initially, but cheaper if kept for a long time. If keeping it to a 5K-10K budget, I would go Mopar... and then expect to fix it.


Thanks for the reminder about Mazda. Indeed, they're forgotten much of the time.

I have only anecdote as opposed to hard data, and so the larger sample size from a fleet has some weight behind it. Nonetheless, my own Toyota experience -- a 1996 Camry bought with 73k miles in 2005, and driven to around 130k miles and sold in 2009 -- is that the Toyota had at least as many niggling problems as any other car I've had. This was with a clean 1-owner Carfax.

The list, from memory:
* CV boots (fixed with reman drive axles)
* Interior door handles. EVERY SINGLE ONE broke off in my hand at some point. They'd just snap off. (A friend with an early '00s Tacoma has had similar experiences.)
* Exterior door handles. Had to replace two of them.
* Driver's power window switches.
* Leaky trunk, with a source I could never find.
* Cracked radiator; common problem, right at the base of the neck.
* Leaky valve cover gasket.
* Oxygen sensor failed.
* Starter; A normal person would go buy a new one. I determined that the failure was that the points (contacts) at the solenoid were eaten away by arcing, and drove an hour round trip after spending an hour on the phone finding a shop that'd sell me JUST the contacts. I had way more time than money at that point.
* Mystery brake fluid leak; I think it was running down inside the master cylinder where I couldn't see it.

The car was amazing in many ways: 33 mpg from a 1996 cruising at 70+ mph. Quiet ride. A/C worked well. I paid $5k for it.

Yet this is one of Toyota's top two reliability standard bearers (alongside the Corolla), that had lived its whole life around Houston, Texas. So no road salt problems and no extreme cold. AND it just wasn't very old or high miles.

It was certainly not the Toyota experience I was hoping for. What can I say?

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: GeekPriest
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

We should compare notes someday.

My fleet has been updating 04-07 Caravans to 2015-2016 caravans. They do hold up... but with frequent small maintenance items, particularly little things like trim, brakes, egr, ignition issues. Compare those to a few Uplanders I have, and they are a dream vehicle. If you do not mind minor fix-it item, then the Mopar is not a bad choice. That being said, if you can swing a Toyota with similar mileage, the Toyota will be better and more expensive initially, but cheaper if kept for a long time. If keeping it to a 5K-10K budget, I would go Mopar... and then expect to fix it.


Thanks for the reminder about Mazda. Indeed, they're forgotten much of the time.

I have only anecdote as opposed to hard data, and so the larger sample size from a fleet has some weight behind it. Nonetheless, my own Toyota experience -- a 1996 Camry bought with 73k miles in 2005, and driven to around 130k miles and sold in 2009 -- is that the Toyota had at least as many niggling problems as any other car I've had. This was with a clean 1-owner Carfax.

The list, from memory:
* CV boots (fixed with reman drive axles)
* Interior door handles. EVERY SINGLE ONE broke off in my hand at some point. They'd just snap off. (A friend with an early '00s Tacoma has had similar experiences.)
* Exterior door handles. Had to replace two of them.
* Driver's power window switches.
* Leaky trunk, with a source I could never find.
* Cracked radiator; common problem, right at the base of the neck.
* Leaky valve cover gasket.
* Oxygen sensor failed.
* Starter; A normal person would go buy a new one. I determined that the failure was that the points (contacts) at the solenoid were eaten away by arcing, and drove an hour round trip after spending an hour on the phone finding a shop that'd sell me JUST the contacts. I had way more time than money at that point.
* Mystery brake fluid leak; I think it was running down inside the master cylinder where I couldn't see it.

The car was amazing in many ways: 33 mpg from a 1996 cruising at 70+ mph. Quiet ride. A/C worked well. I paid $5k for it.

Yet this is one of Toyota's top two reliability standard bearers (alongside the Corolla), that had lived its whole life around Houston, Texas. So no road salt problems and no extreme cold. AND it just wasn't very old or high miles.

It was certainly not the Toyota experience I was hoping for. What can I say?


Dang. Well, that goes to show that not all used cars are equal. I would say, for $5k, that list is not bad. My MR2 has been the Toyota experience. Over the last 10 years,I have replaced an 02 sensor, rear brake calipers, and had a fuel filler crack P0440. And I keep that car signing at above 4K rpm. Nothing is maintenance free, but yea,bad cars can be a drag.

For Chryslers, what bugs me is that the parts that fail, fail again and again. Those are premature wearing or stress points items. With a fleet, you see the common problem areas. Trim in the same spots, specific brake issues, electrical issues.

 

[GeekPriest]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Dang. Well, that goes to show that not all used cars are equal. I would say, for $5k, that list is not bad. My MR2 has been the Toyota experience. Over the last 10 years,I have replaced an 02 sensor, rear brake calipers, and had a fuel filler crack P0440. And I keep that car signing at above 4K rpm. Nothing is maintenance free, but yea,bad cars can be a drag.

For Chryslers, what bugs me is that the parts that fail, fail again and again. Those are premature wearing or stress points items. With a fleet, you see the common problem areas. Trim in the same spots, specific brake issues, electrical issues.


Absolutely. I completely "get" that Mopar brake parts (at the wheel) suck. So, when they need replacement, I buy decent aftermarket ones and call it done. It's not terribly expensive for them.

I've not had any trim or electrical issues with our Mopar vans, but we'll see.

Oh yeah, I remember I left off some stuff on my Camry list:
* Engine mounts (dog bone, rear, front)
* Check engine light would periodically come on to complain about catalytic converter efficiency. I'd just clear it, but.....

 

[fdcg27]

Japanese brands reached their peak from around the mid eighties through about the late nineties.
American brands were pretty bad from the mid seventies through the early nineties.
We owned a couple of '86 Civic Wagons, a '97 Accord coupe and a '99 Accord sedan, all sticks, and all were really nice driving, durable and reliable machines. Not much broke and there was never any question of being able to drive any one of them to work each morning. We also have a '99 Subaru Legacy 2.2 AWD wagon in the family fleet and it has been reliable and durable in use.
The '02 Accord still in the family fleet is suffering from a dying automatic at about 154K, but it's survived long enough that we've driven our money out of it.
OTOH, we bought a '97 Aerostar new and it was as durable and reliable as any car we've ever owned, so by a certain point, American brands were as good as anything else out there.
My current winter beater is a '94 E350. Aside from age and corrosion related faults like the brake lines, this old dear has been an incredibly good machine and an extended length E350 makes a great hauler. At a couple of bucks a gallon, the 14.5 mpg average is tolerable.
I guess I'm trying to say that not all American brand cars were or are junk, just as not all Japanese brands were or are golden.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I guess I'm trying to say that not all American brand cars were or are junk, just as not all Japanese brands were or are golden.


+1,000,000

I sometimes joked and say "Mitsubishis are/were Chrysler products assembled correctly... and you see where that got them".

US brands made some absolute stinkers all the way into the late 2000s and early 2010. My "former" fleet 2006 Equinox, the 2008 Uplanders, 2005 Taurus, were complete trash. I have had 3 of my 4 2008-2014 Impalas to have major "surgery" (New trannies, etc) before 50K mile, although one has been fault free for over 100K. Had a few Ford SUV do fantastic so far. My 'rent's Sebring was the worst car ever... and they had a Fiat 124 back in the day. That is the reason they now have a Camry and an Solara.

I agree, many Japanese brands are not as good as their previous kin, but they are a much more substantial/complex vehicle. My MR2 is better built for reliability than a more recent Camry, but it is a much more simplistic car. However, IMO Toyota/Mazda is still better overall than most current makes although they are not as bulletproof as their late 90s counterparts. Honda is the one that has gone in the toilet... they have absolutely lost their way. Mazda is really the "new Honda". Subaru is going through growing pains but is still a lot further ahead. Nissan is now push low-rent junk... or really, focusing on pricepoint and you can see their cut corners. I would take a Kia over a Nissan/Honda any day if I was chasing reliability. Sad, I know. I would probably pick a Buick over a few of the Japanese makes... although, when buying Buick, you are often taking a re-branded foreign-made vehicle. Rant over...