I officially like these vans now. Chrysler played it safe with the design, and I think that strategy finally payed off for them. My only major bother with these is the availability of the 3.3L. It's not a bad engine, it does the job of hauling the GC up to highway speds well, but the 3.8L does the same job faster, smoother, and quieter, without a noticeable drop in fuel economy. I don't see the need for the 3.3L when the 3.8L does the same stuff better.

I officially like these vans now. Chrysler played it safe with the design, and I think that strategy finally payed off for them. My only major bother with these is the availability of the 3.3L. It's not a bad engine, it does the job of hauling the GC up to highway speds well, but the 3.8L does the same job faster, smoother, and quieter, without a noticeable drop in fuel economy. I don't see the need for the 3.3L when the 3.8L does the same stuff better.

The 3.3L is Flex Fuel.

the shifter is kinda in an interesting spot, possibly shift w/o taking you're hand off the wheel... unlike the lambdas.

Does that really matter though? It's not like you're moving when you shift, at least most of the time (on an auto).

I don't see what the big deal is about the shifter placement. It's unique at least, and as long as it's not blocked by the steering wheel I have no problems with it.

Here are the pictures I shot of the new minivans at the NAIAS on Saturday January 13th.

There was almost no one around the Caravan at the time, and I assume people were more drawn by Chargers lined up next to it.

In person, the headlights on the Dodge resemble an older Mazda MPV.

The Chrysler was rather gaudy IMO.

Oohh..Dodge has the backup lights towards the top of the cluster, Chrysler towards the bottom.

. . . What the hell is the shifter doing there?

I used to like DCX. Here recently, I've been feeling really disappointed.

Edited January 15, 200719 yr by YellowJacket894

From a driver's perspective, having the shifter there isn't much different from having it jut out from the steering column. Plus, this way, you also get the auto-stick feature (I assume that's what those horizontal spaces are for) without having to have a stationary console stealing space between the front seats.

My biggest complaint is that all of the interiors of every Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep are starting to look the same. It's like they only have two people working in the interior design studio. One person draws veritcal lines and the other person draws horizontal lines.

Edited January 15, 200719 yr by usonia

Oohh..Dodge has the backup lights towards the top of the cluster, Chrysler towards the bottom.

Nah... the guys at the factory are screwing with us and putting some tail lamps in upside down, just for fun!

Oohh..Dodge has the backup lights towards the top of the cluster, Chrysler towards the bottom.

Nah... the guys at the factory are screwing with us and putting some tail lamps in upside down, just for fun!

the shifter location of the sienna and sorento is what should be copied.

They don't have to be boring, though...look at the Estima..downright sexy for a minivan...not sold in NA, though..

You're kidding, right? That thing looks like a 1990 Lumina van that's constipated.

These new DCX vans are fine. They will sell well to the target audience. They look fine.

I'm not a minivan person but it looks like a winner except the stupid shifter location.

All the negative comments about the shifter baffle me. Has anyone that is complaining driven this van with the new shifter location?

No.

That's what I thought. Is it different - yes. Is it bad or awkward? Who knows. I assume that this was well thought out. I would wait until we have a chance to drive it before we complain about its new location. It is a minivan - it isn't like you will be working the gears while you take the kids to school. Pull it out of park and place it in drive - that is what 99.999% of owners will do. I'm sure this new location will work well for that.

Edited February 6, 200719 yr by boblutzfan

All the negative comments about the shifter leave baffle me. Has anyone that is complaining driven this van with the new shifter location?

No.

That's what I thought. Is it different - yes. Is it bad or awkward? Who knows. I assume that this was well thought out. I would wait until we have a chance to drive it before we complain about its new location. It is a minivan - it isn't like you will be working the gears while you take the kids to school. Pull it out of park and place it in drive - that is what 99.999% of owners will do. I'm sure this new location will work well for that.

+1

At least someone gets it.

kinda coming around on the exterior design. it's at least CRISP. the rear bumper resolution looks a bit basic to me but overall i guess i am warming to this vehicle.

the sirius backseat sat tv and dual dvd sound cool. the dash is ok, i still don't like the shifter location. the center pod is a bit too high.

seating looks comfy. swivel and go is a gimmick but some folks will really like it.

i think the new 4.0/6 speed combo is what will make this a nice ride.

Now, if only that 4.0L/6-speed powertrain was more available. The base model will be coming with the 170 HP, 3.3L V6 and 4-speed ATX. Not very competitive with the rest of the offerings. But at least it's an FFV engine. I think they should have made the 3.8L/6-speed standard and kept the FFV 3.3L/4-speed as a credit option, and/or for fleet buyers.

Edited June 4, 200718 yr by NeonLX

First, the good views. I am proud of Chrysler for continuing to offer a product in a field that they originated and had much success in since the 1980's. I agree that with ever increasing energy costs, it was wise for Chrysler to stay in a market that might become increasingly more important due to continuing energy concerns.

Now the bad views. The design of these vans looks like an evolution of the 1991-1995 version. There is not a lot here in these photos that would make me consider this product over a Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest, Hyundai Entourage, or Kia Sedona. Although there are some nice touches here and there and some innovative features, I just don't find the exterior or interior design appealing enough to steer me away from the competition. I find this even more disturbing when I read that these minivans were designed by the same man who created the beautiful 300 sedan. When you have a clean sheet of paper to come up with something great, why is Chrysler coming out with so many hideous products lately?

I also believe they should rethink this product for the Chrysler brand portfolio. The corporation needs to reposition their brands to be distinct and relevant. Chrysler needs to evolve into a true near luxury brand. A minivan does not fit into the image of a near luxury brand; no other near luxury brand offers a minivan (Buick wisely has just left this market). I believe that Dodge should be the only Chrysler brand to carry a minivan. The Town & Country model name could then be applied to an upmarket crossover or wagon that better fits in with Chrysler's role as a near luxury brand. If a customer wants a more luxurious minivan, then offer trim/options or an upper trim level for the Caravan. As soon as the 2008 models run their course, Chrysler should leave the minivan market and the remaining Dodge Caravan should be given a sportier redesign that fits in better with the brand's sporty image.

First, the good views. I am proud of Chrysler for continuing to offer a product in a field that they originated and had much success in since the 1980's. I agree that with ever increasing energy costs, it was wise for Chrysler to stay in a market that might become increasingly more important due to continuing energy concerns.

Now the bad views. The design of these vans looks like an evolution of the 1991-1995 version. There is not a lot here in these photos that would make me consider this product over a Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest, Hyundai Entourage, or Kia Sedona. Although there are some nice touches here and there and some innovative features, I just don't find the exterior or interior design appealing enough to steer me away from the competition. I find this even more disturbing when I read that these minivans were designed by the same man who created the beautiful 300 sedan. When you have a clean sheet of paper to come up with something great, why is Chrysler coming out with so many hideous products lately?

I also believe they should rethink this product for the Chrysler brand portfolio. The corporation needs to reposition their brands to be distinct and relevant. Chrysler needs to evolve into a true near luxury brand. A minivan does not fit into the image of a near luxury brand; no other near luxury brand offers a minivan (Buick wisely has just left this market). I believe that Dodge should be the only Chrysler brand to carry a minivan. The Town & Country model name could then be applied to an upmarket crossover or wagon that better fits in with Chrysler's role as a near luxury brand. If a customer wants a more luxurious minivan, then offer trim/options or an upper trim level for the Caravan. As soon as the 2008 models run their course, Chrysler should leave the minivan market and the remaining Dodge Caravan should be given a sportier redesign that fits in better with the brand's sporty image.

With respect to the minivan market, Chrysler knows exactly what it is doing. The word "sporty" and "minivan" do not need to be used in the same sentence. It is not necessary to have 240 hp and gorgeous pictures of said minivan driving sideways on the Bonneville salt flats. As gasoline hits $4 and beyond, Chrysler would be wise to position itself to capture the market as it rapidly downsizes itself, not unlike what happened in the late '70s.

The so-called "cross-over" niche is a cute ploy by the marketing boys to pussy-foot around the concept of the minivan once again, being as the mandarins in the media have convinced us that being caught in a minivan is like sleeping with your sister. The "cross-overs" are just another kick at the can, and I don't think that market will be more than passing fad. There are a significant amount of people who require a vehicle to carry 6 or more people and groceries at the same time, while not requiring a new mortgage to fill the tank.

I doubt Chrysler is losing much sleep over the HOnda or Toyota vans. Considering there is a $10k price difference (up here), the markets don't really meet. The import humpers will buy anything Toyota or HOnda dish out (example: Element) and charge whatever they like. Chrysler has maintained a pretty impressive lead over the past these past 23 years in the minivan market. It is GM and Ford who should be ashamed, not Chrysler. Chrysler's quality has improved quite a bit with the last generation and there are many, many loyal Caravan owners. My parents are one of them.

I know of many people who would not consider a SUV-based vehicle. Unless you are towing or hauling, SUVs are the WORST of both worlds, IMO. The minivan still strikes the best compromise of utility and efficiency. Take a look at what a Tahoe or Sequoia can do, for the price and size, then take another look at a Grand Caravan. Seriously.

Dodge can straddle the low and mid-priced fields, while the Chrysler brand can and should capitalize on the Town and Country name. I remember my uncle's Town and Country wagon, and it was synonomous with elegance and prestige in the late '60s, before we were brainwashed into believing that wagons and hatchbacks are a bad thing.