minivan?
- Thread starter lewk
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: lewk
need to replace a taurus sedan with a minivan.I'd prefer a chrysler or a dodge ~8k max,what should I avoid? It will be driven 12k a year tops.
If a Chrysler, spend 6k and put 2k in reserve for a tranny.
If GM, spend 7k and put 1k in reserve for head/manifold gaskets.
If Ford, spend 4k and have 4k in reserve for most anything.
If import, spend all 8k (to get something under 150k miles) and have the same amount available on credit for most anything.
Is there anyone whom I've not yet offended?
need to replace a taurus sedan with a minivan.I'd prefer a chrysler or a dodge ~8k max,what should I avoid? It will be driven 12k a year tops.
If a Chrysler, spend 6k and put 2k in reserve for a tranny.
If GM, spend 7k and put 1k in reserve for head/manifold gaskets.
If Ford, spend 4k and have 4k in reserve for most anything.
If import, spend all 8k (to get something under 150k miles) and have the same amount available on credit for most anything.
Is there anyone whom I've not yet offended?
98-03 Sienna. Find one with documented oil changes of at least every 5000 miles. I know of one person with 300k+ on theirs on the original engine and transmission.
I doubt you can buy a Sienna that new for that amount of money unless you have high mileage.
Get the Dodge/Chrysler with a 3.8 engine.
Get the Dodge/Chrysler with a 3.8 engine.
I <3 our Windstar.
Our 2001 Windstar has been good to us the 4yrs we've owned it. 88Kmi total on the ticker. IMO, Chrylser and Ford MV's are equal in terms of reliability. I'd buy another Windstar/Freestar if I was in the market.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
The Freestar roofline is lower than the old Windstars. The vehicle looks like half station wagon/half crossover vehicle.
The new Caravans look slimmer/narrower than the old style.
Our work-fleet of salesmen have used the Caravans and GM minivans prior on three year leases. They seem to like the new Nissan minivan best. Cannot comment on the Honda.... no knowledege of that brand.
The new Caravans look slimmer/narrower than the old style.
Our work-fleet of salesmen have used the Caravans and GM minivans prior on three year leases. They seem to like the new Nissan minivan best. Cannot comment on the Honda.... no knowledege of that brand.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: levi
Originally Posted By: lewk
need to replace a taurus sedan with a minivan.I'd prefer a chrysler or a dodge ~8k max,what should I avoid? It will be driven 12k a year tops.
If a Chrysler, spend 6k and put 2k in reserve for a tranny.
If GM, spend 7k and put 1k in reserve for head/manifold gaskets.
If Ford, spend 4k and have 4k in reserve for most anything.
If import, spend all 8k (to get something under 150k miles) and have the same amount available on credit for most anything.
Is there anyone whom I've not yet offended?
Funny thing about the Chrysler trans. I don't seem to recall too much squawking from the sedan/coupe owners about the transmissions. It seems to be limited (mainly) to the minivan owners. It appears that the design is sound in most chassis ..just not under minivan duty. Perhaps the drivers are the design flaw
Originally Posted By: lewk
need to replace a taurus sedan with a minivan.I'd prefer a chrysler or a dodge ~8k max,what should I avoid? It will be driven 12k a year tops.
If a Chrysler, spend 6k and put 2k in reserve for a tranny.
If GM, spend 7k and put 1k in reserve for head/manifold gaskets.
If Ford, spend 4k and have 4k in reserve for most anything.
If import, spend all 8k (to get something under 150k miles) and have the same amount available on credit for most anything.
Is there anyone whom I've not yet offended?
Funny thing about the Chrysler trans. I don't seem to recall too much squawking from the sedan/coupe owners about the transmissions. It seems to be limited (mainly) to the minivan owners. It appears that the design is sound in most chassis ..just not under minivan duty. Perhaps the drivers are the design flaw
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
The Freestar roofline is lower than the old Windstars. The vehicle looks like half station wagon/half crossover vehicle.
I think you are confusing the Freestyle with the Freestar. Two completely different vehicles. The Freestar is the 2004-2007 version of the Windstar. The Freestar/Windstar are almost identical aside from interior, slight exterior and engine changes. I haven't compared specs in some time, but the 1999+ Windstar did have the most interior volume at one time. Also, for what ever reason replacement AX4Ns seem to be cheaper too!
Joel
The Freestar roofline is lower than the old Windstars. The vehicle looks like half station wagon/half crossover vehicle.
I think you are confusing the Freestyle with the Freestar. Two completely different vehicles. The Freestar is the 2004-2007 version of the Windstar. The Freestar/Windstar are almost identical aside from interior, slight exterior and engine changes. I haven't compared specs in some time, but the 1999+ Windstar did have the most interior volume at one time. Also, for what ever reason replacement AX4Ns seem to be cheaper too!
Joel
+1 for the Chrysler minivan option. The number of trouble-free miles on the vans in my signature should be enough of an endorsement as to their longevity. I'd look for a 2001-2007 model with either the 3.3 or 3.8 engines that will fit in your budget. Try and get one that has had documented maintenance performed on it. If you can find a 2005, try and find one with Stow-and-Go. That comes in very handy.
Our '01 Windstar has been pretty good. Aside for a few minor problems (nothing I couldn't fix myself) it's been a fine vehicle. It has about 80k on it now.
The cost consideration is secondary to utility and value.chrysler/dodge have the best vote here because they are very common/durable.Ford and GM would not get a buck for a minivan from me if it were your dime.remember, there is an inverse relationship between TCO and loyalty.thanks all.
Originally Posted By: lewk
chrysler/dodge have the best vote here because they are very common/durable.
I don't know that statement to be exactly true. Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler. Windstar is probably second.
Joel
chrysler/dodge have the best vote here because they are very common/durable.
I don't know that statement to be exactly true. Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler. Windstar is probably second.
Joel
Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: lewk
chrysler/dodge have the best vote here because they are very common/durable.
I don't know that statement to be exactly true. Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler. Windstar is probably second.
Joel
Next be sure to ask them which fluid was in there when they tore the tranny down. I'd put money on the fact that in most cases, it's not ATF+3 or ATF+4.
Originally Posted By: lewk
chrysler/dodge have the best vote here because they are very common/durable.
I don't know that statement to be exactly true. Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler. Windstar is probably second.
Joel
Next be sure to ask them which fluid was in there when they tore the tranny down. I'd put money on the fact that in most cases, it's not ATF+3 or ATF+4.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Funny thing about the Chrysler trans. I don't seem to recall too much squawking from the sedan/coupe owners about the transmissions. It seems to be limited (mainly) to the minivan owners. It appears that the design is sound in most chassis ..just not under minivan duty. Perhaps the drivers are the design flaw
I heard lots of 'squawking' on an Avenger forum I frequented when we owned one. It seemd that to most of us the A604 (IIRC) was [censored] no matter what vehicle it was put into.
Funny thing about the Chrysler trans. I don't seem to recall too much squawking from the sedan/coupe owners about the transmissions. It seems to be limited (mainly) to the minivan owners. It appears that the design is sound in most chassis ..just not under minivan duty. Perhaps the drivers are the design flaw
I heard lots of 'squawking' on an Avenger forum I frequented when we owned one. It seemd that to most of us the A604 (IIRC) was [censored] no matter what vehicle it was put into.
While not as "refined" as the car based minivans, the Chevy Astro and GMC Safari are tough and durable vans. You got the 4.3V6 and AWD as an option. Plus they can tow more. I think GM made a mistake discontinuing these. (I used to work at the Baltimore plant where they were built until it closed and I moved to another plant). But a car based van is probably what you were looking for - just throwing that in the mix.
A lot of the taxi fleets around here use GM minivans if they don't use old Crown Vic. police interceptors. There are a mix of other minivans, too, but they use GM brands the most by FAR. To me, that says a lot about durability.
Originally Posted By: gtx510
Or maybe you can get GM minivans for cheap in Detroit?
How maybe old minivans are driving around Detroit? What brand??
How many intake manifold gaskets has it gone through?
Or maybe you can get GM minivans for cheap in Detroit?
How maybe old minivans are driving around Detroit? What brand??
How many intake manifold gaskets has it gone through?
Aside from the IMG, the 3.4L + 4T65E combo is probably the toughest drivetrain of them all. It's just the rest of the van that lacks if you ask me. Super cheesy, rattly interiors, flimsy body panels, bodies tend to rust more than the Fords or Chyslers. FWIW, my brother has a 2001 Venture. It runs well, but most of the interior goodies have not held up. It's also forming more rust than my 2001 Windstar has.
Joel
Joel
- Status
