Carvan with I4?
- Thread starter supton
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, that is why I'm thinking 3.8/6spd, good tipping point: depreciation taken its toll, low miles though, some proven history. The 3.6L used, I dunno. However, I'm tempted to go new: I mean, I don't have an interest in options (nav? power doors? sport suspension? nope); only interest I have is towing capacity and it appears base model today is 3,600lb out of the gate so that is all set (more than I need).
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
i've read quite a few issues are going on with the new 3.6 with head problems. i'd be very leery of them for another year or so, and then only buy new.
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012. Mostly Wranglers, for some reason. All 2013 model year vehicles got the new head, FWIW.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120813/carnews/120819959
http://pentastars.com/engines/repairs.php
http://www.egmcartech.com/2012/08/15/rep...of-malfunction/
I don't know that its in ANY way related, but the one design feature of the 3.6 that made me wince a little bit was the cast-in-head exhaust manifolds. That extra exhaust port length means that much more heat rejected to the head metal. It obviously works OK, and other manufacturers do it. But it does make the back of my neck itch a little to think about it. The old Ford flathead had a similar issue in that each exhaust port ran from the valve on the "valley" side of the block, through the block and water jacket to the outside of the block where the manifolding attached, so a lot of exhaust heat went into the cooling system on those (much more than on the 3.6). That's a big part of why Ford flattys had two water pumps and a reputation for overheating.
i've read quite a few issues are going on with the new 3.6 with head problems. i'd be very leery of them for another year or so, and then only buy new.
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012. Mostly Wranglers, for some reason. All 2013 model year vehicles got the new head, FWIW.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120813/carnews/120819959
http://pentastars.com/engines/repairs.php
http://www.egmcartech.com/2012/08/15/rep...of-malfunction/
I don't know that its in ANY way related, but the one design feature of the 3.6 that made me wince a little bit was the cast-in-head exhaust manifolds. That extra exhaust port length means that much more heat rejected to the head metal. It obviously works OK, and other manufacturers do it. But it does make the back of my neck itch a little to think about it. The old Ford flathead had a similar issue in that each exhaust port ran from the valve on the "valley" side of the block, through the block and water jacket to the outside of the block where the manifolding attached, so a lot of exhaust heat went into the cooling system on those (much more than on the 3.6). That's a big part of why Ford flattys had two water pumps and a reputation for overheating.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012.
I'm reminded of a saying: "It's a recession if your neighbor loses his job, but it's a depression when you lose yours." We don't mind too much when it's a recession, but nobody wants it to be a depression.
Lots of stuff to wince at, in the new tech. How many of these new engines can be rebored? What with all the fancy surface preps. Lots of things are now remove and replace, not rebuild and restore. Just the way it is, I guess.
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012.
I'm reminded of a saying: "It's a recession if your neighbor loses his job, but it's a depression when you lose yours." We don't mind too much when it's a recession, but nobody wants it to be a depression.
Lots of stuff to wince at, in the new tech. How many of these new engines can be rebored? What with all the fancy surface preps. Lots of things are now remove and replace, not rebuild and restore. Just the way it is, I guess.
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012.
I'm reminded of a saying: "It's a recession if your neighbor loses his job, but it's a depression when you lose yours." We don't mind too much when it's a recession, but nobody wants it to be a depression.
Lots of stuff to wince at, in the new tech. How many of these new engines can be rebored? What with all the fancy surface preps. Lots of things are now remove and replace, not rebuild and restore. Just the way it is, I guess.
Yeah, most of these thin-sleeved open-deck aluminum block engines aren't really "rebuildable" in the old-school sense. But they're about 100-200 pounds lighter for twice the power, also. And now that we have a better infrastructure for large-scale recycling, throwing away an entire block so that it gets melted down into new blocks or beer cans is a lot less wasteful than it would have been to just scrap that Olds 455 block when it got tired 30 years ago.
Times move on, and I've gradually come to see the positives. The cars are more throw-away than ever because the increased complexity makes it cost-prohibitive to repair them at 15 years when all the miles of wiring starts to get flaky, codes keep throwing, and they won't run right or pass emissions.
The downside is that consumer cost is awful darn high, or so it seems.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I wouldn't say "quite a few issues," I'd say "an issue" and it seems to have showed up in between 1/2 percent and 1 percent of 3.6 engines built before August 2012.
I'm reminded of a saying: "It's a recession if your neighbor loses his job, but it's a depression when you lose yours." We don't mind too much when it's a recession, but nobody wants it to be a depression.
Lots of stuff to wince at, in the new tech. How many of these new engines can be rebored? What with all the fancy surface preps. Lots of things are now remove and replace, not rebuild and restore. Just the way it is, I guess.
Yeah, most of these thin-sleeved open-deck aluminum block engines aren't really "rebuildable" in the old-school sense. But they're about 100-200 pounds lighter for twice the power, also. And now that we have a better infrastructure for large-scale recycling, throwing away an entire block so that it gets melted down into new blocks or beer cans is a lot less wasteful than it would have been to just scrap that Olds 455 block when it got tired 30 years ago.
Times move on, and I've gradually come to see the positives. The cars are more throw-away than ever because the increased complexity makes it cost-prohibitive to repair them at 15 years when all the miles of wiring starts to get flaky, codes keep throwing, and they won't run right or pass emissions.
The downside is that consumer cost is awful darn high, or so it seems.
OTOH, new cars last longer today than they ever did in the past without any need for rebuilding.
I know that you've put significant miles on your old Mopars, but you are an exceptional case.
Most owners struggled to get 'sixties cars much past 100K.
150K with no major repairs is now the rule and 200K is pretty common.
I know that you've put significant miles on your old Mopars, but you are an exceptional case.
Most owners struggled to get 'sixties cars much past 100K.
150K with no major repairs is now the rule and 200K is pretty common.
We drove many happy miles in an '81 Vanagon with all of 67 bhp.
We also drove many happy miles in a couple of 4 cyl diesel 123s with all of 64 bhp.
The 4 cyl Chrysler minivan also has more power than did our '97 Aerostar V-6, 3.0 Vulcan.
You can get along just fine with less than maximum horsepower.
If you drive the thing right, fuel economy should be pretty decent.
We also drove many happy miles in a couple of 4 cyl diesel 123s with all of 64 bhp.
The 4 cyl Chrysler minivan also has more power than did our '97 Aerostar V-6, 3.0 Vulcan.
You can get along just fine with less than maximum horsepower.
If you drive the thing right, fuel economy should be pretty decent.
Way back in the day (mid 90's) I sold a 3rd generation Camaro and got stuck taking this 1980 something Caravan in on trade. My son was 4 or so at the time, and the ol' lady was hollering about a mini-van. So we kept the thing around. It had the I-4/3 speed automatic and boy, was that thing a dog on the highway. It actually turned out to be a really good vehicle for us for quite a few years until her dad hit a deer with it.
I remember in 83 or 84 my dad's uncle bought a new caravan it had a 2.2 in it. There was not a whole lot to that van a shoe box on wheels. He came to the house to show of his new ride and take us for a spin. Three adults and two kids, the 85 year old lady next door in her three wheel bike beat us to the corner, need less to say the van had a short stay with uncle lead foot.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We drove many happy miles in an '81 Vanagon with all of 67 bhp.
We also drove many happy miles in a couple of 4 cyl diesel 123s with all of 64 bhp.
The 4 cyl Chrysler minivan also has more power than did our '97 Aerostar V-6, 3.0 Vulcan.
You can get along just fine with less than maximum horsepower.
If you drive the thing right, fuel economy should be pretty decent.
The 2.4 DOHC has more power (155) than the older 3.0 V6 Caravans (150)!
We drove many happy miles in an '81 Vanagon with all of 67 bhp.
We also drove many happy miles in a couple of 4 cyl diesel 123s with all of 64 bhp.
The 4 cyl Chrysler minivan also has more power than did our '97 Aerostar V-6, 3.0 Vulcan.
You can get along just fine with less than maximum horsepower.
If you drive the thing right, fuel economy should be pretty decent.
The 2.4 DOHC has more power (155) than the older 3.0 V6 Caravans (150)!
I've got the Chrysler 2.4 and I don't think I've ever thought that I would need the power a 3.3 V6 would provide.
...but then again my 2.4 has a little extra.
The Sienna 4cyl runs 0-60 in under 10 seconds. IIRC, that's a little quicker than the Caravan with the Mitsubishi 6G72 3.0 or 3.3 V6. Disappointing that the Caravan could not do better.
I still want a 2.5 manual 2nd gen Caravan. Easy to work on. going to make a domestic Westfalia
...but then again my 2.4 has a little extra.
The Sienna 4cyl runs 0-60 in under 10 seconds. IIRC, that's a little quicker than the Caravan with the Mitsubishi 6G72 3.0 or 3.3 V6. Disappointing that the Caravan could not do better.
I still want a 2.5 manual 2nd gen Caravan. Easy to work on. going to make a domestic Westfalia
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
...but then again my 2.4 has a little extra.
On a hunch I searched for "2.4 turbo Caravan" and got a bunch of hits on turbododge.com. Looks like its a totally doable swap. That might not be a bad engine in a SWB Carvan and could even handle the popup camper assuming the brakes are up to the task. Not sure how the trans would like an SRT motor though.
I'm guessing that kind of project is not what supton needs right now though.
...but then again my 2.4 has a little extra.
On a hunch I searched for "2.4 turbo Caravan" and got a bunch of hits on turbododge.com. Looks like its a totally doable swap. That might not be a bad engine in a SWB Carvan and could even handle the popup camper assuming the brakes are up to the task. Not sure how the trans would like an SRT motor though.
I'm guessing that kind of project is not what supton needs right now though.
I need zero projects...
So far I'm still waiting for an estimate on my car (struts); with an expired inspection I'm starting to wonder if I should be driving it at all. I also have the annual holiday trek coming up: a 2,000mile roundtrip. Two adults, two kids, one dog, and the all the gifts that go along with Christmas. We did the trek last year in the Camry. We fit, but we had to watch what we brought, of course. More space would be nice.
I don't see myself buying any used Caravan (or any used vehicle, I guess) and doing this trip. So we'll probably do it in the Camry again. It'd just be nice, though, if I did buy a minivan to use it on a trip like this. [I should probably go see what it costs to rent a van for a week.]
So far I'm still waiting for an estimate on my car (struts); with an expired inspection I'm starting to wonder if I should be driving it at all. I also have the annual holiday trek coming up: a 2,000mile roundtrip. Two adults, two kids, one dog, and the all the gifts that go along with Christmas. We did the trek last year in the Camry. We fit, but we had to watch what we brought, of course. More space would be nice.
I don't see myself buying any used Caravan (or any used vehicle, I guess) and doing this trip. So we'll probably do it in the Camry again. It'd just be nice, though, if I did buy a minivan to use it on a trip like this. [I should probably go see what it costs to rent a van for a week.]
- Status
