which engine--minivan?

Keep at it.

-Stern

 

The 2.5L??
Didn't his posting say 2002 or 2003?
As far as I know, the only 4 cyl available in the Caravans/Voyagers since
1999 or so have been the 2.4 DOHC 4 cyl.
Likewise, the 3.0 hasn't been available in years....

I"ve got the 2.4L in my 2002.
It's no ball of fire but it's adequate for my purposes.
BTW, I know of no consistent reliablity issues with the 2.4 L since 1999.

Doug

 

Not quite true.
The original poster of this thread was talkingl about the 2002 and 2003
minivan model years.
The 2.4 L was offered with the 3 speed auto thru mid year 2002.
I have one.

Doug

 

Gotta disagree.
I test drove my 2002 (2.4L) with the dealer salesman onboard when I bought
it in 2002.
I drove onto a limited access highway and went up a 20% grade full throttle
until I reached the top of the grade on the highway. I started at zero mph
and by the top of the hill reached 65 mph. The run length is about 1500 ft.
Later, I timed the 0-60 acceleration. The Caravan, with its 2.4L does it in
12 seconds.
I suspect that the 3.3 L would do the same in 10.5 to 11 seconds, with the
3.8 shaving another half second off of that. Whoppeee....

Keep in mind that the 2.4L does have 150 hp and only about 25 lbs less
torque than the 3.3 liter.
As a DOHC engine, the trick is to keep the revs up and stay in its power
band.

I also have no problem passing a car doing 50 mph on a 2 lane road.
You just have to instantly floor it, kicking down the transmission.

The great thing about buying a Caravan with the 2.4 L is the price.
With discounts, a 2.4 Caravan SE goes for less that $17K.
There is no other such low cost minivan on the market.
I was buying it for my business use and didn't care about bells and
whistles.
The trouble is I had to go to three Dodge dealers before I found on that
would sell me one.
They claim that there's no profit in it for them.

OTOH, I'm a guy who used to drive a Mercedes-Benz 240D diesel that did zero
to 60 in about
5 minutes - or at least it seemed that way....Nothing like a 2 ton car with
only 65HP.

Doug

 

Still into one-upmsnship? Enjoy, Dan, for as I stated before you are smarter
than me, and I publicly acknowledge that. However, I am sble to assess your
intellegence as compared to the remaining readers of this news group.

 

....which explains why escaped transmissions never make it over the
junkyard fence before they are caught.

 

I have an '89 Caravan SE turbo 5-speed. There were 405 made with that
power train.

 

But low gearing results in more power or torque. Basic physics. Try
moving a large rock with a short pole and a fulcrum. Then try it using a
longer pole. Much easier.

 

ft.

You sure it is 20%?

 

It isn't worth searching back through the thread. That is what I
thought you said, but if you didn't, fair enough.

Well, actually it is torque that produces acceleration, not horsepower.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Horsepower determines the top speed
capability, but acceleration is force divided by mass and torque is the
force, whereas horsepower is a unit of work.


Matt

 

Sorry, Bill, it was Ted who made the statement I was remembering:

"And yes gearing makes a BIG difference.... multiply the same amount of
torque by 3.25 instead of 2.5 and you have 30% more power at the
wheels... a lot of people seem to forget that.

Ted"

My apology.

Matt

 

If you're happy, I'm happy. 0-60 in 12 seconds is slug-land for me, but
as long as you like it, that is fine by me. If everyone drove V-6 vans,
then I'd feel even slower than I do already!


Matt

 

You don't know the difference between force and power. They aren't the
same at all. A lever and fulcrum can provide more force, but they don't
provide more power. You are right in that this is basic physics, and
you don't understand basic physics.

Matt

 

Hey, wait a minute! I am *not* the guy who said that! And I *do*
understand basic physics, and have the high school grade card to
prove it!

I was the guy who made the crack about transmissions escaping the
junkyard, which only proves that I don't know basic *humor*.

So, there are three kinds of people in this thread:

1) people who don't understand basic physics
2) people who don't understand basic humor
3) people who are a little sketchy at operating a newsreader

What an august collection of minds!

 

You don't know the difference between force and power. They aren't

You're such a helpful person in the way you so politely tell me I don't
understand basic physics. I understand basic physics. I just can't
remember the proper terms or semantics. I was simply making a comparison:
having a longer connecting rod is like having a longer lever.

 

I replied to Justin's message and it appears he didn't keep the thread
headers. Sorry about that.

Matt

 

Except that it isn't the same. There's an old saying, "It is better to
remain quiet and let people think you are ignorant, than to open your
mouth and remove all doubt."

You may want to do some review of basic physics before you write too
much more.


Matt

 

There's also a fourth category:
Those who are simply engaged in ego based pissing contests....

Doug

 

No problem, dude.

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

 

I actually appreciated the joke. So which catregory am I in and why?

With friends like you, who needs enemas? (See - I appreciate humor).
8^)

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