Archives

They need to bring back the option for a 5-speed in the minivan. The older ones were great on gas for being a big box on wheels. The sticker mileage (old EPA ratings) for a 1993 Dodge Caravan was 20 city and 30 highway. I bet some on here could have taken that close to 40 mpg, judging from some of the numbers I've seen here. If you had a similar engine and drivetrain setup as the old vans, but the aerodynamics of the 3rd generation (before Chrysler was on their " let's make everything as ugly as possible" kick) vans, I wonder what they'd be capable of.

I know one thing, I'd like to find one of the older ones with the 5-speed. A 7 passenger vehicle that gets 30 mpg would be amazing for carpooling.

I had the same year van, V6 with the automatic. If I took the rear seats out, it could get close to 30.

It doesn't even look like the '09 Caravans have the option of a 4-cylinder, let alone a standard transmission.

I am pretty sure the 5 speed stick option went away with the '92+ reskin. The four cylinder Caravans were 2.5L K-car engine (until 1995) and then the 2.4L engine from the PT Cruiser (1996-2007) with a 3AT up until 2000 and then the 4AT from 2001-2007, only in the shortie. The 4cyl went away with the redesign because the new van is too heavy (larger/bulkier than the old Grand Caravan) for the 2.4 to be a safe and practical option.
The last of the Caravan 2.4's, with Ultradrive, are rated 17/24 on the '08 EPA. The 3.3 V6 with the same transaxle rates the same 17/24, which provides a good indication of what killed the 4 cylinder option.

The new model with the 4.0 is rated 17/25 - the best of the bunch. Now why can't that same technology be applied to a 2.5 or 3.0 engine? It'd be a great combination, no?

We are looking to replace my wife's Yukon XL Denali with something cheaper and more fuel efficient, but we still want a third row seat because we have 3 kids. We are seriously considering the Mazda5 because it seems very competitvely priced for what is included. It only seats 6, not 7, but has a third row. It seems to be the only minivan type vehicle left with a 4 cylinder and manual transmission. I think the MT rates 22/28 mpg. I know that I could easily get 40 mpg with that car, but my wife does not want a MT. I think the automatic still rates 21/27, and could probably achieve 30 mpg fairly easily.

The new model with the 4.0 is rated 17/25 - the best of the bunch. Now why can't that same technology be applied to a 2.5 or 3.0 engine? It'd be a great combination, no?

The extra 1mpg for the 4.0 is due to the 62TE 6 speed AT. It's actually a 7 speed, as it has both a 4th gear (on upshift) and a "4th prime" for downshifting (1.576 vs 1.452 ratio). This allows the TCM to select that extra 4th gear additional power without resorting to the even lower 2.284:1 third gear.

They could theoretically use the same transaxle with the 3.3 V6, but they positioned that as the "base engine" and the 4.0 and 6AT as the pricier trim level. The new AT costs much more, so it'd be a very expensive option with the lesser engine. And since the 3.3 is an old pushrod motor, there's little advantage to winding it up too high, as it'd buzz & wail at full throttle with the 4.127:1 first gear ratio. And its torque curve is flat and very similar to the 3.8 and 4.0 engines, so it does just fine with the 4AT, whose overdrive ratio is the same. With the same top gear ratio, that extra 1 mpg is there because the 6AT has that very steep first gear and so they can use a taller final drive ratio.

Other than the 3.3, there is no engine that could power something the size/weight of the minivan. They do have the 2.7L engine, but it has its problems, even in small lightweight cars. Running at high load to move a van, it'd never make it to the 36k mile warranty cutoff. (Yes, I know they have a "lifetime powertrain warranty", but it's on paper only. When the engine dies, the dealer and warranty adjuster find a way to avoid covering the repair.)

I am pretty sure the 5 speed stick option went away with the '92+ reskin....

It did not. A friend has a 94 or 95 SWB Caravan, and it's a 5-speed with the 2.5. They're more peppy than you'd expect (unloaded anyway...) and easy to drive, although the shift linkage is hardly precise.

We are looking to replace my wife's Yukon XL Denali with something cheaper and more fuel efficient, but we still want a third row seat because we have 3 kids. We are seriously considering the Mazda5 because it seems very competitvely priced for what is included. It only seats 6, not 7, but has a third row. It seems to be the only minivan type vehicle left with a 4 cylinder and manual transmission. I think the MT rates 22/28 mpg. I know that I could easily get 40 mpg with that car, but my wife does not want a MT. I think the automatic still rates 21/27, and could probably achieve 30 mpg fairly easily.

M/T is one area where I wouldn't compromise. Not solely for the sake of FE, but also drivability. Automatics are boring and wasteful. M/T requires simpler (easily DIY) maintenance and uses less fuel. There must be some way you can sell it to your wife. Maybe check the price difference in the two, and offer to take the difference in price to buy her something else she's always wanted. According to their web site, the automatic costs $1,110 more than the standard. If that won't sway her, I don't know what would.

I am pretty sure the 5 speed stick option went away with the '92+ reskin.

Actually, it went away with the 96 redesign, when the vans became more streamlined, the m/t went away. Although they still sell them in Europe, with diesel engines nonetheless.