New neat Chrysler minivans

Chrysler showed its new minivans due out in March. Kind of reminds me
of Osborne Computer. When Osborne showed his new model II portable
PC, everyone stopped buying model one and he went out of business.

Anyway the neat things in these vans is that the back 2 rows fold flat
into the floor. They used the extremely high density foam that is
used in the space program (sounds like the stuff in the beds and
pillows they sell at Brookstone) to make the cushions much thinner so
without changing the floor height they were able to fit the chairs
into the floor.

 

One could not compute with an Osborne I as effectively as one might have
with an Osborne II.

One *can* get four passengers and some luggage down the road just as
effectively in a 2004 model minivan as a 2005, or a 1983, for that matter,
all other things being equal, and negating the towing question. The only
thing that matters is the cost at which one has to do so, and if having the
latest, greatest vehicle is a concern or not.

This business with seats folding flat is cupholder frippery. I doubt that
by itself this will make Chrysler the dominant minivan brand again, if it
truly has lost that title in the first place. Not that folding flat seats
aren't nice to have; they just don't represent the quantum leap that's
needed here. Maybe the total package will be a quantum leap, but I rather
doubt it.

--Geoff

 

So much for that stupid Ford Fartstar commercial then....

 

I've had 5 passengers, and luggage in an 89 K-car, all while towing a
trailer. Who needs a van for that matter?

As it is the van is a nice package, but they do need a little more than
folding seats.

 

"Bill > As it is the van is a nice package, but they do need a little more
than

1. Chrysler should have a fully independent rear suspension.
2. Chrysler should migrate toward a fully independent front suspension and
away from the struts.
3. Chrysler should upgrade the sway bar links, tie-rod links, etc., so that
they last quite a bit longer in the field.
4. Chrysler should adopt a modern, stone dead reliable 5 speed automatic
transmission. (At least adopt a nut and bolt in place of the transmission
pin that is associated with case cracking.)
5. Chrysler should offer a handling management option.

IMO.

Richard.

 

Why? IRS reduces load weight capacity, cargo volume, and long-term
ruggedness compared to a solid axle. And a minivan the size of a
billboard isn't gonna benefit from the slight rough-road handling
advantages of IRS. IRS is a placebo for the Motor Trendy crowd. Although
it has great real-world applications on sports sedans and performance
cars, minivans and SUVs aren't among them.

This makes no sense. Struts ARE a fully independent suspension system,
like them or not. And, like the solid rear axle, they do their job VERY
well, VERY reliably, and with a minimum of wasted space.

Yep.

 

Those who carry 7 passengers and luggage.


Matt

 

2. Chrysler should migrate toward a fully independent front suspension and
away from the struts.

This makes no sense. Struts ARE a fully independent suspension system, like
them or not. And, like the solid rear axle, they do their job VERY well,
VERY reliably, and with a minimum of wasted space.

Honda switched to a strut front end for the Civic and just about every
review of the modified design noted that it did not ride or handle as well
as its predecessor. It is more difficult and expensive to work on but
cheaper to build. You would notice the difference if Chrysler put in a well
designed front and independent rear suspension in the mini-van; I have
little doubt.

Richard.

 

True enough. I guess I was thinking in the scenario of 4 passengers. It
seems around here the moment a couple has 2 kids they buy a van. Although
with 7 passengers and luggage, towing capacity would be a factor because the
trunk would fill up quickly and I don't know what a roof rack would do for
the CoG in a fully loaded van.

 

My '96 T&C LXi is about to roll up 170,000 miles and still has ALL of the
original supension although I am about to replace the front struts. Is this too
short a time to last in the field???

 

And there's a reason for that. I grew up in one of those families that did
the
Station Wagon thing every summer for vacation. (I only discovered when I
was an adult that this was because my mother had an irrational fear of
flying)

Put 2 kids in the back seat of a wagon/sedan/etc. and go on a long trip, and
your going to be ready to shoot yourself if you haven't shot the kids
already.

Put them in the back of a minivan and when things start deteriorating you
can make one of them sit in the far back seat, and one in the middle seat,
so they can't keep slapping/pinching/poking/whatever each other.

The van also has the room for a DVD player/drink cooler/games/books/etc.
which make a long trip with children much more bearable.

Ted

 

See K-car example. 3 Kids 2 adults, no A/C, no DVD player, no problem.

 

I have three kids, so we have 5 pax almost all the time. Add in a set
of the in-laws and you are at 7, or a friend or two of the kids. We
have the van full quite often. Never yet used the roof rack nor towed.
I use my Chevy truck for towing as I don't like towing with FWD
vehicles. They just aren't stout enough for that, IMO.


Matt

 

M6 96 has 143K with all original suspension parts. Struts and shocks
don't leak and still work pretty well. However, the sway bar bushings
have been shot for more than 50,000 miles. They squeak and groan all
the time. I'll replace them next time I need to take the van in for
something more critical than just the bushings.


Matt

 

Having hauled three kids to Florida from PA, I'll take the minivan any
day over a car for such a trip.


Matt

 

On my 96 I had to change the sway bar strut links twice in 150,000 miles.
The second set was a redesign that lasted only about 40,000 miles. I just
had to replace the tie rods at 45,000 miles on my 01 Cruiser and a pair of
front bearings at 40,000.

Richard.

 

Carrying 7 people and luggage for them? Did you strap the in-laws to the
roof?

I wasn't of course talking about towing anything too big.

 

Nope, you can fit a lot of luggage behind the seat of a Grand Voyager.
I've never owned a standard Voyager/Caravan, but I can see where 7 pax
and bags would be a problem in the shorty van. To me, it is a Grand or
none at all.

Matt

 

Undoubtedly Bill is saying it's no problem because he was sitting in the
drivers
seat the entire trip. Next time before he thinks it's "no problem" he needs
to put
his wife behind the wheel and one of his kids in the passenger seat, then
spend the
trip in the back seat.

My dad always thought it was "no problem" also.

Ted

 

When I was a kid, I was the oldest of 8 kids. When we went on a
camping trip, it was my mom & dad & grandma and 8 kids (and Bobby -
small dog) in a 1955 Ford Station Wagon. We didn't TOW anything.
NOW you see WHY they have mini vans. You didn't do any " He's
touching me" or "He is on my side", because sardines don't mess with
each other. Good thing there was not a SEATBELT law then( that was in
1960). "SPREAD OUT" has alway been a personal saying of mine. I
think you see why.