Do Chrysler Minivans last a long time?

That's a fair question.

Of all the vans I've owned, one was a Mitsubishi 4 cylinder 1986 model
(didn't like it...) two were 3.3 liter engines which both leaked oil
like a tanker stuck on a coral reef, and the others were 3.0 engines.
For the past 8 years I've worked as a courier, which is how I've done
the majority of my driving. I put on about 50 to 60 thousand miles a
year. 4 or 5 of these vans, including the two with larger engines, have
been driven by my wife, who goes about 10 or 15 thousand a year.
Ironically, she always has more mechanical trouble than I do. I buy
almost every vehicle I own at the auction, some for as little as 50
bucks. Actually, now that I think of it, four of these vans came from
private sales. But the point is that they always have over 100,000
miles when I get them, sometimes as much as 190,000, and I don't pay a
lot. I put them right on the road and go. I have had the best luck
with the 3.0. I'll have to admit that I like the water pump on the 3.3
engine, but other than that the two 3.3s I've had seemed like tired,
greasy, noisy contraptions compared to the 3.0. Both of them had noisy
valves, possibly even one stuck. I have done 3 water pump/timing belt
changes on the 3.0, which really isn't that big of a deal after you've
done it once. It isn't even that big of a deal to have a belt failure
because the pistons don't hit the valves.

I don't know what you mean about the spark plugs. I have always changed
spark plugs in the 3.0 by removing the air cleaner only. The use of a
wobble socket helps in the case of the one under the alternator, but no
major disassembly has ever been required. And I get great performance
on $2 plugs.

I suppose that it's all subjective. I don't care what my vehicles look
or sound like. In fact, I don't wash them because dirt is a theft
deterrent. So I'm not into having a prestigious vehicle. I know you
see a lot of minivans sitting at red lights with clouds of smoke wafting
around, but when I go outside on a cold morning and turn the key, they
always start right up and run, even if the valves are sometimes a bit
noisy. Actually I have a suggestion for that, and your oil consumption
problem. When you have an old engine that smokes and clatters, throw a
bottle of Smoke-B-Gone in it and it will run as if it has only 90,000
miles instead of 250,000. I had one 3.0 that I drove to 275,000 miles,
and it burned around a quart per 1,000 miles. Smoke-B-Gone cut the
consumption down to about a quart every 4,000.

 

Thanks for the reply. Both the 3.3L and the 3.8L I've owned never dripped
any oil on the garage floor, but for that matter my 1991 3.0L doesn't drip
either, although all 3 have/had some minor leakage since the oil pans
had/have some caked on oil build up.

Some additional comments in line to your reply below...

Bob

That is an enormous amount of driving in a year!

Interesting that your experience is the opposite oif mine. My 3.8L is very
quiet and my 3.0L sounds like our old 15-year old Kenmore washing machine we
just replaced.

You must have a lot more room in the engine compoartment. Doing my 3000GT
was exemely difficult and required a special tool as well.

I believe my 222 HP DOHC is an interference design. Maybe if yours is a
SOHC it may be different? My owner's and FSM specifically call for timing
belt changes every 60AK miles as a preventive measure.

Again, sounds like a different design here. My intake manifold needs to
come off completely to gain access to threee of my spark plugs. This
necessitates new EGR and manifold gaskets. It is not as bad as the timing
belt or water pump, but is a pain nonetheless..

Again, sounds very different here as well. Mitsu News/User groups warn
against using anything other than the high performance NGK plugs, and given
the PITA to get to them I have never used anything but. By the way, the
local Mitsu dealer charges over $20 a plug for these. The best price I
found for them on the Internet was $12 each plus shipping.

Additives are always a possibility for extending life and reducing
consumption, but in my case it is a known design/manufacturing problem with
the early 3.0L valve stems. I basically need to rebuild the heads but just
would prefer to wait since I did not have the funds when I did the timing
belt and water pump last year at just under 120K.

I do agree with you that the vans are fairly reliable. The real weak spot
was the 4 speed transmission. My first, a 1990 needed replacement at 6.5
years and 48K miles (done under Chrysler's 7 year 70K mile warranty which
came with the van new.) We have just turned 70K miles on our 1999 T&C and
it still pretty much runs like it did when it was brand new. I change the
transmission fluid and filter every 30K miles in the hopes that it will
give us another 5-6 years of trouble free performance. The only real
problem we have had was a cracked flywheel at just under 3 years and 36K
miles (again replaced under the factory warranty) and an output speed sensor
failure. There have been a few factory recalls (clockspring, seat
heaters come to mind) and the brakes are not as good as they should be (25K
miles average between front pads and rotors have been replaced 2X, but
otherwise it has given us good service and we have been happy with the
vehicle

Bob
..

 

The mechanic you know is clueless. My 96 Grand Voyager has 175,000 on
the original transmission and it has been untouched other than routine
fluid and filter changes. I have these done at a Chrysler dealer so
they may have also updated the transmission control software, but I
don't know that for sure as it has never been so listed on the bill.

I did have some trouble that began on the last leg of a long trip I took
this weekend that may possibly be transmission related, but I'm not sure
yet. Look for a post from me shortly with the symptoms. However, even
if my transmission dies tomorrow, it certainly proves wrong the
assertion of your mechanic acquaintance.


Matt

 

Consumer Reports says that the Chrysler is one of the worst bets for a
used car purchase. Whether it is the transmission or not, I do not
know. My personal thought is that it is based upon volume. There are
bound to be more problems with the Chrysler minivans reported because
they sell more vans.

I've just never heard anything good about them other than they are
roomy. from "professional" reviews. All the good I have heard from
them is purely anecdotal....not that that is not valid.

 

Obviously a totally different engine...

 

Yes Dan, they work fine. My 83.5 Voyager is still running fine. I just have to
get someone to solder a fusible link for me before I get my beast going again.
(I found out why the link melted by the way - and corrected the problem).

At one stage I had to replace the exhaust system - and I thought they
originally had a stainless steel exhaust system in them. Oh well, mine runs
and runs... even though it is one of the original carburetted ones...

Mine runs really well in the winter on Mohawk "gasohol (10% ethanol). I am not
worried one bit on efficiency or mpg at -35C - just as long as it starts and
runs well at those temps. In the warmer weather (like right now near 0C) I
just use regular Co-op gasoline (at 88.9 cents/liter - what a bargain as
compared to the $1.39/l this past August in Kapuskasing).

Ken
Winnipeg

 

A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan

I dunno, my '93 Grand Voyager has been amazingly reliable. 3.0L/3-speed,
modded with a wheelchair ramp. My father got it new and it went through a
fuel pump early on, the A/C has crapped out at least twice, a couple of
cat-backs, but really nothing else major had been done to it until I took
possession when my father passed away last winter. Even now the only things
engine-wise have been normal items, ie. plugs (dirt simple with the
aircleaner housing off)/leads/cap/rotor, a pair of thermostats this year,
etc.. 186k kms on it, it doesn't leak a drop and has never been torn into.
No smoke and she starts right up every time (well after the ignition parts
it does, it was LONG overdue). Original accessories and timing belt. The
front end has always kind of sounded dry but it hasn't been a problem in
twelve years now. The tranny fluid and filter have been changed several
times but like the engine, it has never been torn into. That kickdown
linkage likes to bind though, causing rough shifts. <shrug> Overall it has
been a fantastic vehicle.

Just a few weeks ago I pitched the OEM struts. Twelve years isn't too bad...
Now if only I could find a pair of those modified hydraulic shocks for
the rear...

 

Consumer reports isn't worth wiping your ass with! It makes for fun reading
if you like to be in a Toyota or Honda fan club. Otherwise they aren't worth
shit.
Larry

 

that's good you can still do that. do they let you turn on the engines
in these auctions? do they have "good" or "fair" or just no indications
of the car's conditions? a good auction or private sales and courier
work go together. it's amazing if you expect the vehicle to work and
you need it for work - it just works a lot of times, even all day or
night long work jobs. sounds silly but true dat. now about the
addidtive below:

that's really helpful to know. i once put Bardahl's gunk in an
Oldsmobile with a V-8 and I feel it fouled up the catalytic converter
in a short period of time, maybe a coincidence. so i'll keep this in
memory. thanks.

 

A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
unless it had recently had a new transmission (or two) because he said
the transmission on these vehicles only last about 60,000 miles. <<<

The mechanic you know is wrong. I know of several, mine included, with
160,000 miles or more and no trouble.

Many, if not most, transmission problems (not just in Chrysler
minivans) are caused by the operator's failure to come to a complete
stop when backing before shifting to a forward gear. They are
transmissions, not brakes.

 

Are you sure about this? I thought the electronically controlled
transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
any appreciable speed.

Matt

 

taking care of them is a major help to long term usage and trouble free miles

 

Nice to hear good feedback about my unconventional methods. Usually
anybody who talks like this on Usenet is just asking to be jumped on by
every professional mechanic reading the group. But the fact is that
used cars are a disposable commodity. Get them cheap, drive them until
they quit, throw them away and get another one. And you're correct that
courier work is custom made to go along with auto auctions. I can't
understand the guys who make payments and put 100,000 miles on their
vehicles in two years. That's a very bad plan in my book.

At the auctions here in Kansas City you can start the engines and put
them in gear, but not drive around the lot. I've found a few vans with
transmissions that were on their way to failure. You can turn
everything on, run the A/C, etc. But other than that there are no
guarantees. You buy it, you're stuck with it. But I've never bought a
lemon. My $50 Caravan had a radiator failure on the way home.... But
I've had great luck in general.

I would think that anything that cuts the amount of oil going into the
converter would help keep it from fouling, but I could be wrong. Lucas
also works well, but it costs more. The other thing is that when the
engine gets a ton of miles on it you can forget about the thin oil
specified in the owner's manual. I always use SAE 40. It lasts a lot
longer and keeps the parts from smacking together so loudly and
severely. Whenever I buy an old van that has thin oil and I change it
to SAE 40 I can always tell a big difference. There's also something
magical about running the vehicle 200 miles every day. Whenever I start
up my spare van that's been sitting for months, sometimes it will make
so much racket that you would think it's going to throw a rod. But when
it's on the road every day it settles down into a more normal and
comforting sound.

 

<<<Are you sure about this? I thought the electronically controlled
transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
any appreciable speed.

Matt <<<

Some may not, but I have 4 electronic transaxles....3 GM and a Chryco.
1996 to 2004 models. They will all shift to drive while going
backwards. Any speed other than zero is appreciable in this instance. I
have taught my wife and children not to do that. Between the 4 we have
446,000 miles with the only trouble being a worn out converter control
valve (at 130,000 miles) in one of the GMs. The Chrysler minivan leads
the way with 166,000 miles.

 

That's the truth. After my friend spent thousands trying to get his
tranny fixed, I drove with him once. AWFUL. I told him, you don't shift
into drive while going in reverse. Literally using it as a brake, as
you kind of joked. What a wookie he is.

But there was a problem with the computer software and the
electronically controlled clutch upshifting too slowly and destroying
the torque converter. This was fixed around 1995 announced with a
factory bulletin. But one could rebuild a tranny and it would start to
self-destruct if the place [Cottman] did not update the Tranny Control
Module [TCM] with the latest firmware. This was the famous 37 or 42 mph
shudder. I tried once to discuss this with Cottman, what a funny
conversation. Computer update? The dealer came through like a true
champ. But I could not discuss this with independents or chain other
than the dealer. You would have thought I was making this all up. Very
expensive or expert mechanics knew what I was talking about - but not
the ones around me.

 

Your methods are not unconventional if you know your way around the
vehicles you're interested in. It's working for you. You have the right
attitude, so it works for you. Others might get put off by the
fuzziness of just picking a car out of the blue.

What's the secret for telling a transmission going south if you can't
drive the vehicle? You just run the tranny through its gears. Wait, I
remember, you press on the brake and use the accelerator and that will
tell you something about the torque converter? It's been so long -
something about the stalling out. If you have any suggestions, I'm all
ears.

SAE 40. Yup. I remember going to a shop and getting racing oil, Kendall
SAE 50, used to bring cars back from the realm of the dead. Little
problem with oil pressure and the idiot light?, use SAE 50 or the 40,
probably easier to find the 40.

I see your point about my using the Bardahl. The stuff was super thick,
took forever to pour out of the bottle. It only worked briefly and
then? It could have been a coincidence. I remember one old gent, had a
cadillac, not a thing wrong with it. Went to Pep Boys, just had to
tinker so got some engine additive or whatever to throw into it. BAD
MOVE. His car never was as good after that. Coincidence? Some of these
things are not good. But I noticed on a Mercedes group that they were
using Smoke-B-Gone, so I am thinking, hmm, two recommendations now.
Lucas? Don't think I've seen that around? Expensive? Anything Lucas
does is expensive [bad pun?].

 

The ones I've seen that were going bad all did the same thing. When
placed in gear, either forward or reverse, they hesitate before they
start doing anything.

I never tried anything that is supposed to "clean" your engine. It
doesn't seem wise to clean crud out of an old engine unless you want to
tear it apart later. All I want to do is cut down the quart per week
oil habit when I'm driving an oil-burner. Smoke-B-Gone is cheap and
gooey. When I use it, I leave it stuck upside down in the oil filler
hole at the end of the day when the engine is hot.

I'm thinking of going to the auction this week to see if I can get a
good deal on something to replace my 89 with the bad transmission. I
saw a 92 3.3L sell for $450 last week, and it had only 132,000 miles on
it.

 

It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as the
owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.

 

Condemner Retards says a lot of hilarious stuff.

 

Well, keep in mind the manifolding and head are totally different, and
hinder access to a much greater degree in the 3KGT than in the Chryslers.

Correct.