Business History Books » Business Plans » 1996 GCaravan with 3.3LV6
1996 GCaravan with 3.3LV6
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But I only need one engine and one transaxle. Is 3.0 Mitsubishi the best > choice for the short Chryslers? I heard they are more reliable than the > 3.3, but are they powerful enough? I am beginning to think it might be > worth taking a chance on the non-grand Chrysler and will have a look at > the storage capabilities. Sometimes you have to take a chance on getting > a lemmon. > My gripe about the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 engine in the Plymouth Voyager > is that it’s mated to the 3-speed automatic transaxle. Does anyone > know if it can be had with the 4-speed auto? Can anyone comment on the > reliability of the 3-speed and 4-speed transaxle used? >Buddy
The 3.0 is only available with the 3-speed automatic according to http://www.4adodge.com/dodge/caravan/caravanEP/specSEGcarB.html. I have a 3 speed with a 2.5 4 and it has 91′000 on it with the original transaxle. What gets me is why whould you want to buy the 3.0 engine. It is a piece of junk IMHO. The 3.3/3.8 has a good track record and even though it is not as sophisticated as some other engines it is a good performer. The 3.0 had a history of oil consumption due to bad valve seals but even though it is supposed to be fixed Mitsubishi is not know for quality. Jack Gross
Response:
>I think the long Chrysler van is a bigger vehicle than the Villager.
We also considered buying the Villager and would have except that they had those annoying automatic seatbelts! We had a car with those once and ended up spending a fortune fixing them when the motor went out. We swore we would never again but any vehicle with that type of seatbelt. Sorry Villager! I am happy with my Voyager!!!!! — ** If the right side of the brain controls ** ** only lefties are in their right mind. **
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Also, can anyone compare the Villager/Quest with the short Chryslers? >Go visit Plymouth Place at http://www.plymouthcars.com/NewPlymouth.html >Voyager versus Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest >> Plymouth Voyager offers the versatility of three engine choices and two >transaxles — Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest offer only one engine. >But I only need one engine and one transaxle. Is 3.0 Mitsubishi the best >choice for the short Chryslers? I heard they are more reliable than the >3.3, but are they powerful enough? I am beginning to think it might be >worth taking a chance on the non-grand Chrysler and will have a look at >the storage capabilities. Sometimes you have to take a chance on getting >a lemmon. >–
Neither are bad engines at the moment. The 3.3L is the better of the two though, more power, similar mileage. I don’t know about which length is better. The Grands are really big now (Bonneville, LH size) so I prefer the regs more myself but it’s like tynenol, regular and extra strength. I always take the extra strength cause I figure it can’t hurt me anymore than the regular stuff. >Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
Eric Bin
Response:
> But I only need one engine and one transaxle. Is 3.0 Mitsubishi the best > choice for the short Chryslers? I heard they are more reliable than the > 3.3, but are they powerful enough? I am beginning to think it might be > worth taking a chance on the non-grand Chrysler and will have a look at > the storage capabilities. Sometimes you have to take a chance on getting > a lemmon.
My gripe about the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 engine in the Plymouth Voyager is that it’s mated to the 3-speed automatic transaxle. Does anyone know if it can be had with the 4-speed auto? Can anyone comment on the reliability of the 3-speed and 4-speed transaxle used? Buddy
Response:
>> Also, can anyone compare the Villager/Quest with the short Chryslers? >Go visit Plymouth Place at http://www.plymouthcars.com/NewPlymouth.html >Voyager versus Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest > Plymouth Voyager offers the versatility of three engine choices and two >transaxles — Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest offer only one engine.
But I only need one engine and one transaxle. Is 3.0 Mitsubishi the best choice for the short Chryslers? I heard they are more reliable than the 3.3, but are they powerful enough? I am beginning to think it might be worth taking a chance on the non-grand Chrysler and will have a look at the storage capabilities. Sometimes you have to take a chance on getting a lemmon. — Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
Response:
<snip> >Carrying two extra passengers isn’t "enough advantage"? > Not for me. The problem is you can seat four with storage in the back or > seven with no storage, or if you have a bench in the first back seat (can > you do this?)
Actually, it’s easier in the Villager than in most vans; you just pull out the 2-passenger bench and slide the rear bench forward. I’ve done this unassisted. Oh, you do have to re-arrange the carpets to expose and then conceal the tracks. I don’t think you can do a 4-passenger arrangement. > you still get only five because you can only seat two in > front. The station wagon can seat three in thr front plus three in the > back and still give you storage.
About half the cargo space, I would guess. The extra height of the van gives you a big win here. >> In my case, we need to seat five on a >> normal basis and six or even seven on occasion plus have room for luggage >> and normal family hauling from furniture to Home Depot stuff. >Kinda hard to manage seven people plus luggage with a Taurus. Our >family vacation in the Villager went fine with 6 on board and their >luggage; didn’t even use the roof rack. Bumping the third bench >forward a notch gave us all the space we needed. For trips to the >lumber yard, I generally take the Escort wagon. 
> With seven you only have the left side of the jump seat, so no luggage. > Basically, you can seat five comfortably for a long trip with the whole > hatch area available for luggage, plus of course the roof rack.
Also doable in a Villager, except the cargo space is much larger than that in a Taurus. Even with all seats fully deployed, there is *some* luggage space in a Villager. You can slide the last bench forward several inches to trade off leg room for luggage space; that’s the configuration I use, and our 5′10" teenager didn’t complain about space over the long haul. This gives a minimum of about a foot between the seat and the hatch (the space tapers), and there is a cargo net to help you pile stuff high in this space. <snip> > But give me more reasons why I might want a Q/V.
The single nicest thing about the Villager is the seating flexibility. The one thing you can’t do is remove all the seats entirely, but I’v never wanted to do this. You can have a 7-seater with max passenger space, 7+luggage with a bit less legroom for the aft passengers, 5-seater with enormous rear legroom (by removing row 2), 5-seater with large cargo room (slide aft bench forward), or a 2-seater with even more cargo room (fold aft bench and slide fully forward). Yes, Lloyd, I know you can fit more beer cases in a Windstar or Caravan by removing all seats altogether. Also good: handling (for a minivan) and fuel economy; mine seems to hang around 20 MPG, and most of its use is short trips. > One nice thing is that > you can distribute the kids so each has his own seat and therefore is > reasonably out of fighting range with the others. Also, I like the idea > of being able to get to them without having to get outside the car. But > in my perception you would need a Chrysler Grand to offset the space > advantages.
I think the long Chrysler van is a bigger vehicle than the Villager. <snip> — -Stephen H. Westin The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford’s.
Response:
> Also, can anyone compare the Villager/Quest with the short Chryslers?
The 96 short van from Chryler HAS the same interior space as the 95 GRAND… The Quest is in the back field, maybe even spectator in this class. After all, for many magazine, Chrysler’s minivans are "van of the year". S.B.
Response:
<snip> > With a Chrysler minivan, you can seat 7 AND have enough storage. And > nobody really sits on the middle front seat of a wagon! Between the huge > transmission hump
Lloyd, the Taurus has *front wheel drive*. And a transverse engine, so you don’t have an LH transmission intruding in the middle. > and the driver’s arms on the wheel, it’s unusable.
I do agree that the center of the front seat is only useful on occasion; you wouldn’t want to stick anyone there on a regular basis. — -Stephen H. Westin The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford’s.
Response:
> Also, can anyone compare the Villager/Quest with the short Chryslers?
Go visit Plymouth Place at http://www.plymouthcars.com/NewPlymouth.html Voyager versus Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest > Plymouth Voyager offers the versatility of three engine choices and two
transaxles — Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest offer only one engine. > Voyager features the new Easy Out Roller Seats(TM) that can be easily
removed, installed or repositioned. Villager and Quest do not offer a similar feature. > Voyager models’ turning circle is more than one foot shorter than
Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest. > Voyager models have nearly 20 cubic feet more maximum cargo volume. > Voyager offers an optional driver-side sliding door — an option not
available on Villager, Quest nor any other competitor. > Voyager offers available Dual Integrated Reclining Child Safety Seats, a
feature not available on Villager or Quest. > Voyager’s upward and downward forward visibility is better than Mercury
Villager or Nissan Quest. > Voyager has more front head room, shoulder room, hip room and leg room
than Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest. >Voyager provides standard dual front air bags. A passenger side air bar
is not available on Villager or Quest. Always wear your seat belt.