minivan?

[Gary Allan]

I wouldn't want to get any current generation minivan. Way too many things to break. I'd take a 2nd Gen Chrysler mini ..not a Grand either. Simple ..non electronic trans. Nothing behind the firewall /dash in gizmos.

 

[Virtuoso]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I wouldn't want to get any current generation minivan. Way too many things to break. I'd take a 2nd Gen Chrysler mini ..not a Grand either. Simple ..non electronic trans. Nothing behind the firewall /dash in gizmos.


This is my biggest gripe with the current crop as well. Just too much stuff all over the vehicle. Even if some of it is nice to have (rear a/c and heat, power stuff, ect).

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: Virtuoso

This is my biggest gripe with the current crop as well. Just too much stuff all over the vehicle. Even if some of it is nice to have (rear a/c and heat, power stuff, ect).


Good thing is, most of your base model MVs come without rear HVAC and power options. Like any other vehicle, those are the ones to stick with if you are in it for the long term IMO. Hehee.. I still cant get over the 'need' for power sliding doors, rear hatches, backup sensors, etc.

Joel

 

[keith]

Originally Posted By: JTK

Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler.



They are the volume leader, so no surprise there. The newer vans, with whatever internal updates were done to the transmission over the years and now with ATF+4, are very reliable. The 3.3L and 3.8L engines are bulletproof.

More than likely, the engine and transmission will outlast the rest of the van. My '99 GC 3.3L is still running great at 183K miles. I did do an Auto-RX treatment on the transmission and it fixed a cold start engagement problem. Now it shifts like a new van. It's my intent to get 300K miles out of the van, another 6 years to go.

 

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: JTK


Talk to a transmission shop and ask which make/model MV they typically work on. It bet it will come up Chrysler.


That was true at one time.

Most of the problems with the A604 4 speed could be attributed to the old ATF+ formula though. Chrysler has since improved their ATF, come out with a flash ROM update for the TCU, and they have made other improvements which have made them far more dependable.

The other reason, you see more of them at the transmission shops, is because there is just a whole lot more of them.

 

[Gary Allan]

Although this is true to some extent, oilgal, there were hard part failures in many of them ..and many failed with OEM fluid. This was still a generation that never had to check their trans fluid level ..and never had to service a trans over their ownership of any previously owned vehicle from the 50's, 60's, or 70's..and for anything without a transaxle ..the 80's (with some exceptions).

Mine failed due to converter clutch grenading ..fouling the internals. Nothing to do with fluid there.

Although I saw plenty of minivans ..I don't recall other stuff with the same engine/transaxle filling the lots of the trans shops to the same degree. One would have to consider that it was the chassis and/or the targeted market that had some relationship to the frequency of failure.

 

[Oilgal]

You're right of course Gary. Hard parts did have a lot to do with it. Chrysler did later upgrade certain key hard parts after their first ATF upgrade to +3 though. Differential pins were beefed up and retainer clips were added, and the planetary gears and drum spindles(?)[I think they are called] were likewise made stronger.

You're right about the A604 lasting longer in lighter cars than it did in the minivans. A change in final drive ratios, along with a flash ROM update, have really improved that situation though. I think the torque converter and solenoid valve body were also changed for minivan platforms.

I don't even claim to understand these darn things. The genius, who rebuilt and hardened my A604, has just been kind enough to answer my questions is all, and no way would a stock A604 be able to take the abuse I dish out. I only have about 30 ponies above stock, right now, but I have abused it daily for 3 years. Of course I also feed it Amsoil ATF and religiously change filters and flush all the fluid, and it has the biggest forward mount B&M cooler they make. So far so good.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I don't even claim to understand these darn things.


Well, you seem to do a pretty good job of not understanding something very well (I think the redundancy was on purpose- maybe)

 

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
I don't even claim to understand these darn things.


Well, you seem to do a pretty good job of not understanding something very well (I think the redundancy was on purpose- maybe)

Unh, thanks?

I like to think of it as reiterating or expanding on a point myself.

 

[wagsg]

Originally Posted By: levi
If Ford, spend 4k and have 4k in reserve for most anything.


Amen to that!!! Please don't ask me how I know... too painful ($$$).

 

[Oilgal]

I have never owned one of theirs. But there must be at least some truth to that at.

I almost never see any older Ford minivans on the street. I see lots of really ancient Dodge Caravans Plymouth Voyagers and Chrysler T&Cs driving around though.

 

[meep]

I had a 01 dmc GC 3.3L. great car. Flushed the fill for life ATF and never had an AT problem, BUT I also sold it before 70,000. I've missed it ever since.

Good friend has a 3.3L '02 GC, same as above. at 99,000, TC just shredded, tore up the input shaft and spread debris throughout the AT. $2300 best price to Repair/rebuild by local trans shop. Plans to fix, sell.

M

 

[Towel_Rail]

Dodge Caravans have been good to my folks. Some maintenance here and there, but fairly reliable otherwise. I'll check the mileage on their current one (a late-90's model) and report back. Their previous one ran great until I totalled it in high school.

 

[Virtuoso]

Tons of "older" Ford vans around here..not many Dodge/Chevy's. Must vary by locale.