Carvan with I4?

[supton]

Dodge (or Plymouth Voyager, for whatever years available), 2000-2007-ish I'm guessing. While the 3.3L V6/4spd auto is usually preferred, what is wrong with the I4? It lacks overdrive and 30hp as compared to the 3.3L; it also lacks about 40lb-ft of torque. At peak ratings, anyhow (I4 does have deeper gearing).

The I4 should be generally lower-equipped (less stuff to break); I can't find a difference in curb weights yet. I think I4 was short wheelbase only, not sure if the 3.3L was available in short wheelbase or only long wheelbase -- so, the I4 might have a few less pounds to push around.

Best I can tell, the I4 might have a head gasket problem, but has a robust 3spd auto. Otherwise, it's generally panned--but I don't get that, as it's only down a few hp. I can see it really spins on the highway, but I'm less concerned about that. Towing is not recommended on the I4.

Are the I4's really that gutless around town?

 

[Hokiefyd]

Yes, the 2.4L was only available on the SWB version. You could get the 3.3L in both versions, SWB and LWB. I was not aware that the 2.4L came with a 3-speed...apparently the 31TH.

I've known people with these, both in person and on message boards, and nobody recommends buying a 4-cylinder Caravan. They're underpowered when empty, and apparently scary if you have any type of load in them. The fuel economy in the field really isn't different by much, if at all, from the 3.3L version because the 2.4L is working so hard all the time.

The torque difference between the two, from what I understand, is pretty large. While the difference is 40 lb*ft at peak (which is significant), I wager that the difference is even greater just off idle. The 2.4L is only making 150 hp at full steam, which isn't much to move what is still a substantially-sized minivan.

The take rate was very low on the 4-cylinder models. It (the 2.4L) wasn't offered in Canada during the 4th generation run (2001-2007) and the 2.4L was dropped after 2007 with the 5th generation vans.

 

[supton]

I thought I came across something that indicated the I4's were more popular in Canada; they are somewhat rare here.

After lots of looking I did find a torque plot for a 2002 PT Cruiser, showing about 130lb-ft at 2k rpm, peaking slightly over 150lb-ft at 4200rpm, dropping to 115lb-ft at 6000rpm. Plot doesn't indicate if it was at the wheels or not; but the hp plot shows a peak of about 140hp, which must indicate a stickshift... Regardless, can't find a plot for the 3.3L, but it must have like 180lb-ft around 2k or so for a healthy bump in power.

fuelly.com shows something like 23-24 for the I4's, and 20-21 for the V6's. But that's averages, and everyone's mpg varies, depending upon how driven. I've read a number of 24mpg reports on the 3.3L, and the 3.8L probably can get close to that (it used a taller final ratio).

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Yes, the 2.4L was only available on the SWB version. You could get the 3.3L in both versions, SWB and LWB. I was not aware that the 2.4L came with a 3-speed...apparently the 31TH.

I've known people with these, both in person and on message boards, and nobody recommends buying a 4-cylinder Caravan. They're underpowered when empty, and apparently scary if you have any type of load in them. The fuel economy in the field really isn't different by much, if at all, from the 3.3L version because the 2.4L is working so hard all the time.

The torque difference between the two, from what I understand, is pretty large. While the difference is 40 lb*ft at peak (which is significant), I wager that the difference is even greater just off idle. The 2.4L is only making 150 hp at full steam, which isn't much to move what is still a substantially-sized minivan.


Its even worse than the numbers make it seem. The gear ratios in the 41TE (when so equipped) are TERRIBLY matched to the torque curve of the 2.4. The 31TH is probably better, and is certainly at least a bulletproof (relative to the 41TE anyway) transmission.

Back in the days when minivans were actually mini, a 2.2/2.5 4-banger could do the job. But not in the bread trucks that "mini"vans became in the 2000s. Get a 3.3, even the 3.8 doesn't cost you much economy because it has the torque where you need it and it doesn't have to wind up like a mosquito just to move the van.

 

[bepperb]

I doubt there is a difference in mileage between the two, since the I4 would be working so hard and has the added problem of the 3 speed auto. For what it's worth, our I4 Highlander gets about 1~2mpg better mileage than our V6 Sienna, which weighs 500 lbs more.

The real reason an I4 minivan is sold (by Chrysler or Toyota or whomever) is to advertise a lower starting price. Very few people buy them. And that's the only reason I would buy one, if it was significantly cheaper. And by significant I mean thousands, not the 1400 dollars difference the Sienna had. Our Highlander was 5000 dollars cheaper than the cheapest V6 I could find, and I still thought about it awhile.

Are they that gutless around town? With a 3 speed? Probably. I tow with the Highlander and wouldn't want that stress day in day out, and when I tow I probably still weigh less than an empty Caravan (and I have a 4 speed).

For what it's worth I grew up in an 88 caravan with the 2.5 I4 making ~100 hp. I remember the top speed when I was 16 was about 80. Those were so much lighter then, and smaller, and to be honest the standards were a lot lower. V8 SUV's had less than 200 hp back then. Not like today when a family sedan has 270 and that's not impressive.

 

[caravanmike]

don't forget timing belt idler/tensioner and more frequent water pump replacements(because ur in there anyway) on the 2.4L. as far as refinement the 3.3/3.8 is a more refined (smoother)motor. the 2.4l was heavily counter-balanced from an engineering standpoint to smooth it out. still a good motor but not demanded by consumers of carvans and T&C's.

 

[JHZR2]

Our Toyota previa has a 2.4L I4, and 4-sp AT, and never needed any work for 250k+, original transmission, and accelerated just fine to take a full family anywhere they needed to go around the country, fully loaded.

I doubt the specs or weight on the 4 cyl older caravan is any different. The new sienna may be more of a dog, as Ill bet it is much heavier.

 

[supton]

I don't want to doubt antedotal opinion (either way); but I know I've made do with 100hp for quite some in a 3,000lb car. [That it's about 140hp now means it's all the better!] I just don't attempt to pass anyone other than on a divided highway, that's all. Maybe 150hp moving (3,900lb?) via a slushbox would turn that opinion on its head, though. Beats me.

I did miss the bit about the 2.4L using a timing belt; thanks!

 

[supton]

Found curb weights: 3920 vs 3582, LWB vs SWB, FWD, presumbably stripper in either case.

 

[doitmyself]

My daily driver is an '05 short wheel base Caravan with the 2.4L engine. I had two others before that over the past 20 years.

We manage o.k. with it. The engine is noisy. Only engine problem has been the spark plug well o-rings need replacement past 125K miles (easy/cheap). We run most of the time without the third seat in because we rarely need it.

Driving a lower powered vehicle just requires a mental change. I wouldn't want to lug more than 4 large adults all the time. 2 adults/2 kids is o.k..

Sometime in the 4th. generation, they stopped offering the 3 speed transmission. I had our 41TE rebuilt 2 years ago at about 100K, in spite of BITOG care.

Here's a picture of our trusty watch dog sent out to guard our mini van from evil doers.....caught napping on the job:

 

[SwampSurvivor]

If you carry people or luggage at all, the V6 is going to get the same, if not better mileage.

With Chrysler (and Ford), I'd be suspicious of any front drive auto. The I4 does have a more reliable trans connected to it.

 

[mrsilv04]

That picture of that dog is hilarious.

Hope you don't leave the keys in the van...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: doitmyself

Only engine problem has been the spark plug well o-rings need replacement past 125K miles (easy/cheap).


Isnt that almost always the case? Cant say Ive had an engine where these didnt get leaky.

Love the picture.

 

[Chris142]

I have seen the 4 cyl option in our books but have never seen one. The 3.3 seems to be popular here and the rest of the van falls apart but the 3.3 keeps going

 

[supton]

I haven't figured out exactly what I want this vehicle for (I4 or V6 or whatever). Third row seems most important; I'm starting to think anything with a third row is going to be too-low mpg for us to take on long trips. [In general, that is.] Thus I'm not sure I need towing etc on it. My VW tows decent, save for having not the ability to back up on a hill; I could see us wanting to use that instead for family vacations, if just for the fuel economy.

Ergo, the thought of the I4, vs V6. Even just for around town usage, I'm guessing it could rack up 5kmiles/year, maybe even 10k. Since I don't need the power, nor the cargo space, perhaps the SWB would work--and if it has a better transmission, well... Just one more data point for me.

Thanks.

 

[SLCraig]

I would go with the 3.3. More of them out there and honestly even the 3.3 is not exactly a powerful engine.
You can still get a base van with not much to break but with the 3.3L. They have had a few SWB and some LWB 3.3L Caravans where I used to work and they were all great vehicles with virtually no issues.

 

[bigjl]

They did the 2.4 in the UK for a short while, but it never sold in huge numbers.

The 3.3 was fairly common in Grand Voyager spec (LWB)

Most of the early ones sold in the UK were fitted with the 2.5 VM engine, I think some were auto aswell.

Always suffered due to lack of decent economy, though a lot of executive airport transfer companies used them.

Later on they fitted the 2 8 version of the VM Diesel engine and stopped the 3.3 in the UK.

I looked at one last year and was shocked at how uncomfortable the driving position was and how poorly finished the interior was.

But I still liked the look of it.

We only get the Chrysler version.

THe new squarer version has not been very successful.

But when you consider the Diesel engine is not very refined or quick or fuel efficient I think it was always going to struggle in the UK.

Diesel ones will return about 28mpg (UK)

2.4 and 3.3 are considered to return very similar economy in the UK, around 22/25mpg.

The 3.3 is often converted to LPG, not possible when they started putting in the stow n go seats that fold into the floor apparently.

Ford Galaxy, VW Sharon etc produced economy figures around the 40/45 mpg mark from '98 onwards and pretty much killed the market for the Voyager overnight.

A pity, as it was certainly a little different to the norm in the UK.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: supton

Ergo, the thought of the I4, vs V6. Even just for around town usage, I'm guessing it could rack up 5kmiles/year, maybe even 10k. Since I don't need the power, nor the cargo space, perhaps the SWB would work--and if it has a better transmission, well... Just one more data point for me.

Thanks.


a) The 2.4 will in all liklihood get the same or worse mileage than a 3.3 v6. Especially in around-town driving- get it wound up on the freeway where aero and internal losses dominate, then it might win. But in a situation where it has to repeatedly haul that pig-iron from a stop up to speed... the v6 will win the mileage contest for sure.

b) The 2.4 doesn't have a better transmission. Back in the late 80s and 90s, the old 2.5L 4-cylinder got a basic but reliable 3-speed. Not the 2.4, it gets the 41TE. And as another poster pointed out, that's a 100k to 150k mile transmission in a heavy van.

 

[supton]

The 2.4 was available with the 3spd. Apparently towards the end of its life though it got the 41TE. I was not aware of the 2.5 in the Carvan.

Moot point. I've moved on. Would likely get the 3.8L, maybe with the 6 speed. Not sure yet on the 3.6L: if I did the 3.6, I'd probably go new, so as to get max warrenty. The 3.6 sounds like a good motor and all, but call me leery of new technology. The 3.8L might be a safe bet used. 3.3L/4spd, I dunno. If I'm going to get out a loan, I might as well spend enough to get something good for 10 years / 100kmiles with a minimum of issues, I think.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: supton
The 2.4 was available with the 3spd. Apparently towards the end of its life though it got the 41TE. I was not aware of the 2.5 in the Carvan.

Moot point. I've moved on. Would likely get the 3.8L, maybe with the 6 speed. Not sure yet on the 3.6L: if I did the 3.6, I'd probably go new, so as to get max warrenty. The 3.6 sounds like a good motor and all, but call me leery of new technology. The 3.8L might be a safe bet used. 3.3L/4spd, I dunno. If I'm going to get out a loan, I might as well spend enough to get something good for 10 years / 100kmiles with a minimum of issues, I think.


The 6-speed is definitely the best transmission in the CaraVoyageRoutan since the days of the 3-speed- cursing with faint praise, I know. But that means looking at newer vans and jacks up the purchase price. The 3.6 is still a little unknown, but boy does that thing RUN! I've had several in rental Grand Cherokees and vans and it is definitely a potent package. But being only a year or two out of the box, its going to be expensive in the used market as well as the unknown longevity. Chrysler has rarely missed the mark with a new engine (the 2.7 v6 being the big obvious exception) since the 1950s though. Its what they do best of all.