Do Chrysler Minivans last a long time?

I've never tried it for the obvious reason. It just seems amazing to me
that with all of the software and "intelligence" in these transmissions,
they would use some of it to prevent the transmission from doing
self-destructive things. I know mine won't downshift if the speed is
such that the redline would be exceeded. You can shift into low gear at
80 MPH and it won't shift down into 1st gear. It will shift down, but
only as far as it can without over-revving the engine.


Matt

 

<<<I've never tried it for the obvious reason. It just seems amazing
to me
that with all of the software and "intelligence" in these
transmissions,
they would use some of it to prevent the transmission from doing
self-destructive things. I know mine won't downshift if the speed is
such that the redline would be exceeded. You can shift into low gear
at
80 MPH and it won't shift down into 1st gear. It will shift down, but
only as far as it can without over-revving the engine.

Matt <<<

Most hydraulically controlled transmissions are that way, also. At
least as they came from the factory. Lots of shift "improvement" kits
eliminated this feature. When you're in the business of manufacturing
transmissions, self destruction can be a good thing.

 

The gating and/or shift stick pushbutton is regarded as sufficient
safeguard against inadvertent shifting between a forward range and
reverse. One cannot always save the operator from himself without
compromising the utility of the machine.

It is worth noting that through 1965, the Chrysler automatic transmissions
contained a reverse safety valve which, if the transmission were shifted
into Reverse while travelling more than about 3mph forward, would place
the trans into Neutral. It remained in Neutral until actually shifted into
Neutral and then into a gear. This was a wise inclusion on the
pushbutton-shifted Torqueflites, and was carried over through 1965
(lever-shift Torqueflites using the same twin-cable shift/park mechanism
as had been used by the pushbutton shifters), but for '66 this feature was
deleted along with the rear pump. No more push starts for
Torqueflite-equipped vehicles, no more safeguard if you shift to reverse
while moving forward.

DS

 

Good point. Maybe the criteria for whether to put any given essentially
free (firmware) safeguard in is whether the destruction that would be
caused would be easily provable as to cause (for denial of warranty
coverage purposes).

For example, in the LH cars (and probably most others) the PCM limits
engine RPM to 4000 rpm when the tranny is in park or neutral. If my
theory is correct, it could be that engine damage due to over-rev'ing in
neutral may be difficult to distinguish (to a point provable in court)
from certain spontaneous damage from other (non-customer initiated)
causes - so that safeguard is put in. And, on the flip side of that
scenario, that damge to a drivetrain from a tranny being thrown into
reverse while traveling forward at speed *is* easily provable - so that
safeguard is left out.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

really dan could have fooled me when my kid slammed my charger into reverse at
45 and we heard the most allful noise and then had to get home by tow truc

 

I had a 1972 Chevy Vega that had the tried and true Turbo Hydromatic 350
transmission. My girlfriend kicked the floor shifter into reverse while we
were traveling down the freeway at 62 MPH. I'll never forget how it
screeched ... just as if the brakes had been applied. The engine died as
well ... I pushed the shifter back to neutral as fast as I could and
restarted the engine. I was shocked when I shifted to Drive and took off
like nothing happened at all.

Bob

 

Ahhhh the old tried and true "reliable" TH 350. Back when I did tranny
rebuilds for fun and beer money, 8 out of 10 were TH350s. I could turn
one out in about an hour and a half, good as new.

 

H'mm. A TH350 "good as new". Well...I guess, for certain definitions of
"good"!

 

Read more carefully.

First year for the Charger: 1966.

Last year for the reverse-safety valve in Chrysler Torqueflites: See
above, re-read what I wrote. 1965!

 

I am considering a new minivan to replace my 2001 Avalon. I test drove the
Honda, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler this weekend. I have to say that I was
very disappointed by the numb steering feel of the Chrysler minvan.
Considering how well the steering is weighted in the 300M and other
Chryslers I've driven, the minivan was a big disappointment compared to the
other makes. Will probably go with the Honda which also gets excellent epa
gas ratings..... similar to that of my 99 300M.

 

Oh, any definition of "good" you want to use. "Good as new" can be an
awfully weak claim.

 

I read that the Odyssey is actually larger inside cubic feet wise than
the Chrysler. At least in used models. I couldn't believe it.

 

I believe it. It looks like a bloated pig on the outside so I sure hope
it is bigger inside!


Matt

 

Do they get kickbacks from the foreign auto makers?

 

I have an opportunity to by a 2001 odyssey for 11,500 at 83,000 miles
or a 99 Chrysler Town & Country with 90,000 for 5900. That price tag
of $5900 sure is attractive.

 

Come on Putt.. you're an engineer.. I know you took lots and lots of
math..you certainly got to derivatives !! LOL This group is such fun!

 

Are you KIDDING? Old American cars run forever- I've got 441,000 miles
on a '73 Plymouth. Japanese dispose-a-cars may have required a lot less
TLC for the first 100k, but I'd NEVER touch a Japanese car with more
than 100k on it- they seem to undergo massive organ failure where
*everything* goes wrong somewhere before 200k miles, but American cars
just keep going if you take care of them.

That said, I don't generally think of ANY minivan as being a good
candidate for a long-life vehicle. Front-wheel drive is basically a
light-duty arrangement, and is generally overstressed in a big vehicle
like that, and drivetrain problems are apt to crop up. The engine may
run forever, but I'd get tired of feeding it CV shafts, struts, steering
racks, transmissions, etc.

 

Which is reason enough to run out and buy one immediately.

 

Now I've heard every possible ridiculous statement about automatic
transmissions....

 

Which begs the question "why bother?" There are plenty of used 3.3s out
there, which are better in every measurable way. The only reason I can
think of would be if you want to buy a much older van, during which time
the 3-speed tranny (available only with the 3.0 or 2.5 4-cylinder) was
much more reliable than the 4-speed behind the 3.3. But if you're
looking at vans made after 94 or so, I'd pass by anyone with a 3.0.
Steam ship boilers should be oil-fired, not van engines