Which older, basic mini-van is best?

-
goldfish65

goldfish65

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
4,022
Location
Charleston
For years I've wanted to take a few months and explore our great country. I was thinking a mini-van would have room to sleep in back on an air matress, and space for camping gear. A 4-cyl would be economical and I would prefer a Chrysler product if possible. Any advice on what models are good and which ones to avoid? Open to all suggestions, thanks.
 
My buddy has a dodge caravan, early 90s model, still runs like new but he's got the 3.0v-6.

Astro vans are also pretty decent.
 
Always partial to the Chrysler minivans,....I think you'll find them a bit tight, but I'm 6 foot. If you can find a good old early gen with a 2.2 or a 2.5, stay away from the 2.6 mitsu motors, worn timing guides will cost a bundle, (if you can find someone who knows them),...later models with a 3.0, 3.3 or 3.5 V6 are better, although 3.0 were known for valve guides (read smoky),....can't say much about the later or latest models, ain't worked on to many of em.

I'd look for a later short wheelbase Fullsize Dodge van with that awesome slant 6 or 3.9 V6 pre magnum or magnum mill, there's a ton of conversion's still around for a good price.

I've got a buddy who has a fleet of Astro's, loves em,...we have one at the shop,...I'm not a fan, but I think even my cats have spare parts for em,...

Do Not Even think about a mini Ford,...you'll eat up your savings in a hurry,...Full size Ferds are a little better, but mileage truly sucks,....at all times...
 
Get a Conversion Van with swivel Captains chairs. I mean if you want to travel in total Comfort there's no comparison.
 
We owned a 92 and 98 Chrysler Town and Country. The 92 had a 3.0 and the 98 had a 3.8 engine. Both were good vehicles and we got well over 150,000 miles of trouble free motoring. The 98 was the best of the 2 and the 3.8 had plenty of power and mid to upper 20's for mileage. We drive 4 hours west to my inlaws house and I can drive it non stop and still be able to get out and walk around when I get there. LOL tmm
 
Cant knock a 90 ford Aerostar with a 3.0 in it. My mom had one and NOT single time did it EVER need to be torn into. When see got sold it (2007) it had 300k on it and didn't use any oil, the rack had a super slow leak, and the only thing done was the basic plugs/wires/cap/rotor/and filter changes. The auto tranny did go out a ~161k (lost first gear) and my tranny guy rebuilt it and was still going strong when she sold it. After 15 years of use I found another one in a pull a part with just 32k on it, ripped the entire interior out of and put that one in my moms (exact same color and I paid 100 bucks for everything minus the seats).
The only reason she sold it was because she wanted a newer mini van with all the option and bought an 2006 grand caravan sxt loaded (only option this van doesnt have is a power rear tail gate).
 
if you do look at a ford, stay away from the a4ld trans, from the factory they are pretty lame.....
 
goldfish65 said:
For years I've wanted to take a few months and explore our great country. I was thinking a mini-van would have room to sleep in back on an air matress, and space for camping gear. A 4-cyl would be economical and I would prefer a Chrysler product if possible. Any advice on what models are good and which ones to avoid? Open to all suggestions, thanks.
Click to expand...
honda
 
The Mopar ones have been good along with the old GM astro vans. Careful of the old Ford Aerostar ones as a transmission shop will tell you they are common for transmission failures.
 
From all my years working as a technician, my choice would be a 95 caravan or voyager with the 3.0 and a 3 speed auto. Here are the reasons why. This was the last year for that generation, and they were fine tuned by then. The 3.0 had been updated and they figured out how to keep the valve guides from falling out. The three speed auto was a pretty much bullet proof piece compared to the 604 time bomb. The parts are plentiful for these vans also. I remember working at the Dodge dealer in aurora Colorado in 95 when the new "96" model came out. What a turd those vans were. Way bigger pain in the arse to work on and they really screwed up a good thing they had. That's my 2 cents.
 
Thanks everyone and BasAss71 very good info...I like that '95 bodystyle better.
 
briankaplan said:
Dodge built the first ones. I still think they are the best. I think the later
V6's get better mileage than the 4 cyl. They don't work as hard.
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, a 4 cyl would be painfully sluggish to drive cross-country, besides most came with V6's.
 
Doesn't matter which ... they all attract soccer moms. :-D

Okay, heading to the shop now vroooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
get ONLY the 3.3l v6.

My cousin and I have a delivery company and we have a small fleet of 3.3 chrysler/dodge vans that get abused. with proper routine maintenace we average a retirement age of 197,500 miles on them. Transaxles are the weak point. our rule of thumb is 1 engine for every 2 transaxles.
 
Space duster with a slant 6. You will get close to 30 mpg and you can just fold down the rear seat and sleep in the trunk.
 
I've had 4 Caravans. The 94 with 3L was good. The 96 was so bad, I can't talk about it! The 99 with 3.8 L motor, that I've had since 2002 has been perfect - even the battery lasted 12 years. The 2002 Grand Caravan that I have had since new has been very good and still runs like new with close to 250,000 miles on it. But - transmissions require frequent fluid changes, as the owners manual states. Ignoring this leads to frequent transmission changes! Try to find one where you know that the previous owner did this. Another weak spot at least up north is the coolant line that goes to the rear heater on Grand Caravans. It can rust, and cause an unseen coolant leak. Stick with a van, that is toward the end of a design, like a 95 or 99, or 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top