Caravan - Brake & Electrical Nightmare?

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: DanielinTheLions
The overall picture that I'm getting here though is that it might be better to go with a slightly older caravan 2005-2006 or else go with a rather new one 2010 to present and avoid the 2007 - 2009.


If you are considering the 4th generation (2001-2007), I'd frankly look back to the 2001-2004 vans. You don't get Stow 'N Go with those (that came in 2005), but they seemed to have better reliability earlier on. Seems like parts got cheapened as time went on. The fit-and-finish of our 2007 was measurably worse than our 2003. We have a 2006 at work with similar issues; dash and interior trim doesn't fit right, etc. It's real hard to beat a 2001-2004 Grand Caravan with a 3.3L or 3.8L V-6, but going that far back, maintenance history will obviously play a big part in how reliable the van will be going forward.

If you are considering the 5th generation (2008-current), I'd only look at the 2011-current models. The suspension was revised in 2011, and the interior got a complete (and quality) makeover. All prior engines were also dropped for the very good 3.6L Pentastar engine. It's pretty hard to compare a 2011 with a 2010...the newer ones are THAT much better.

 

[DanielinTheLions]

Yeah that's where I'm starting to wonder. Does the loss of reliablity from age by going with a 2001-2004 out weight the loss of reliabily from the trouble years 2006-2010.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Sister has 1993 and 2007 Grand Caravans.

1993 has 320k on it and runs perfect. I rode in both over the last week when I was up in her place and the 1993 is a better built and rides/performs better than the 2007 with almost a third LESS miles.

2007 has door issues, poor thumping suspension, has required over $1,000 in AC repair alone and now is using about a quart every 1000 miles.

It will NOT make 150k IMO without major $$$ and then she still has a 2007 pile. I'm not impressed with it at all.

If it was 1/2 the vehicle the 1993 is then there would be some hope. I suspect a crossover will be in her carport in the next year. Prob a Kia, Hyundai or Dodge with a simple 4 cyl.

On the other hand, the stow and go is nice.

Bill


I have a client with a 2nd gen Caravan. Over 300,000 miles. The white paint is coming off in sheets, the rear hatch will try to kill you if your hand slips while you are holding it up, the headliner is long gone, and if you absolutely do not know what you are doing, you will not be able to get the sliding door closed again. However, the Mitsubishi 6G72 still starts eagerly, transmission still shifts and it still drives.

 

[DanielinTheLions]

Seems like the general concensus here is to go 2004 or earlier. I just have to wonder......by the time the van is 9 years old will the better build quality really pay off. Will this really be a vehicle that is more dependable for 1,800 trip than one that is only 6 years old.

I guess one of my biggest challenges with getting one that old is not knowing how well the previous owner maintained it. If they chained the oil, flushed the tranny, changed the coolant, etc maybe it would be great. But who knows, and it seems like so few sellers have any type of maintenance record. Also, I think if I didn't need to make family trips with it I'd be fine with an older one. If a water pump, or an altenater, etc fails at home I could just fix it no big deal. But if that happens 800 miles from home that can make for a really bad day.

Unfortunately I think the 2011 is out of my budget. It's too bad there is a 5 year gap between years with better build quality.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: DanielinTheLions
Yeah that's where I'm starting to wonder. Does the loss of reliablity from age by going with a 2001-2004 out weight the loss of reliabily from the trouble years 2006-2010.


I think it would certainly out-weigh the potential of trouble with a 2008-2009 model. By 2010, I think they had sorted some of the mechanical issues, but I'd hate to spend that coin on a 2010, when the very next model year (2011) brings what is essentially a complete fix or improvement to the entire van, to include a fantastic powertrain. The big V-6 in 2008-2010 was the 4.0L OHC engine derived from the older 3.5L. Keep in mind that it has a timing belt. I certainly don't think that makes it a bad engine (I own an engine with a timing belt myself), but that's an expense to keep in mind when buying a used one that may be nearing 100,000 miles. The smaller V-6s (3.3L and 3.8L) are OHV in nature and do not use timing belts.

Any 4th generation van will be old enough to have many thousands of miles (especially the earlier ones) and you'll probably just have to play that by ear. If you're asking whether I'd buy a junky '03 over a well-kept '07, no, I would not. I would let condition and your intuition lead you in this situation.

I hear you about reliability away from home. That's really why we got rid of ours: we couldn't trust it. It was our family vehicle and the vehicle my wife drove all the time. And man, it was nice. Nice leather, heated seats, sunroof, DVD for the kids. It was top-line, and we loved that van. We just couldn't trust it. In hind sight, we probably should have kept the '03, but you always have 20/20 vision looking into the past.