My initial reaction to the 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan: “What were you guys thinking?” The new minivan’s boxy, big-nosed exterior flies in the face of two decades of design evolution. The equally artless interior is awash in plastic that looks as hard as it feels and feels as hard as it looks. But then, while driving one, it hit me: Chrysler is targeting men. Not metrosexuals. Not pistonheads. They’re looking to lure manly men: the kind of guys who buy pickup trucks (real pickups, not the ones with fancy trimmings). Aesthetically as well as functionally, the new Grand Caravan is the work truck of minivans.
To the human subconscious, the oval shape of the old Grand Caravan suggested the profile of a woman with child, the archetype of motherhood. Well, that’s what a Chrysler market research exec once told me. Suffice it to say, the new model is without child. The sides are much more upright. A large, distinctly separate front clip steps outside of the minivan monobox. Not that the new profile is truly new. Full-size vans have always been boxy. And consider who drives them: blue collar workmen, guys who labor with their hands for a living. And yes, the new Grand Caravan is available in white.
Inside, the Grand Caravan has all the style of a pre-urban cowboy pickup cab. Do the interior trim panels fill the gaps between the various control panels? Do they hold up when whacked with your gear? Mission accomplished. By the same logic (plus cost-cutting), you’ll find none of that soft-touch polymer business inside the Grand Caravan. That kind of plastic is more susceptible to wear and tear (i.e. it’s for wussies). Real Men (RM) go for the hard stuff. They’ll find acres of it here, resisting child and climate-related decomposition through the next ice age.
RM will also appreciate the new Grand Caravan’s driving position; the instrument panel is much higher than in other minivans, keeping the relatively horizontal hood within view. The forward vista suggests “truck” not “minivan.”
The new Grand Caravan provides three second-row seating solutions. (All trim levels have the stowable third-row split bench and commodious underfloor storage bins.) Cheapskates get a two-person bench. Next up the ladder: the “Stow ‘n Go” buckets introduced on the 2005 model. RM may appreciate how these quickly stow beneath the floor for spur of the moment mission changes, but they remain undersized for adults.
Manly men amongst manly men doing manly things must opt for the new “Swivel ‘n Go” seats. While great for kids, the rotating chairs put the second and third row too close for adults who don’t care to rub inner thighs with other adults. It’s a shame, as the stowable table packaged with these seats make a passable poker table. And the swiveling seats’ provide much larger backrests and cushions.
Unfortunately, turnabout isn’t fair play. The swivelers don’t stow. For big hauls—which usually require a completely flat floor– these seats must be removed; even Jack Bauer wouldn’t find them easy to lift. RM will have to decide what’s more important: Home Depot runs on the fly or protecting their buds’ personal space.
The new Grand Caravan isn’t what anyone would call exciting to drive. While the segment-exclusive six-speed manually-shiftable automatic extracts gutsier low-speed acceleration from the OHV 3.8-liter V6 than previous, at highway speeds, the old workhorse’s performance is merely adequate.
For high-speed pursuits, the SOHC 24-valve 4.0-liter V6 is the engine of choice. Neither powerplant makes sophisticated noises when pushed, but RM enjoy a little low-tech NASCAR-style engine roar. The moderately firm steering serves to accurately point the van in the intended direction. Though the rear axle remains a live one, the rear suspension does a much more passable job of absorbing bumps and dips than the last model’s set-up.
A few other minivans (e.g. Honda Odyssey) feel sportier. But the difference is one of degree, not kind. None can serve as a substitute for a sport wagon, much less a sports car. Some do a decent job of imitating a luxury car. But if that’s your mission, you want the faux-wooded (but no softer to the touch), faux-sueded Chrysler Town & Country Limited.
As a machine for getting a van-load of people or cargo from Point A to Point B, the new Grand Caravan performs to MIL-SPEC, even with the 3.8. And it contains as many gadgets as any car 007 ever drove. So when you see those slab sides, that boxy nose and all that hard plastic, don’t think, “Mommy on Bored.” Instead, consider that the men who hunt Jack Bauer drive vans. Why not you, Mr. Father of Three in an SUV?
I can’t wait to see what VW does with it next year. They’ll probably name it something stupid. I predict the Manatee.
scratch that last prediction. Who was the greek god of the van/child hauler/painful longing the days when you could attend parties with kegs?
Even though I’m a good couple of years away from having any kids and I loves me some sportiness, a Man-Van holds a strange allure even now. Something that I can stuff bags full of yard waste in and take to the drive-in with the missus. Something ultimately utilitarian. Minivans are one of the few things Chrysler really does right and I hope it does well for them, and IMO the minivan market is set for a resurgence as the SUV silliness dies down. Got kids? Trade in your Expedition and get a van.
I wonder how much is more than skin-deep. Modern vehicles have become so feminized that I think it is starting to infect their DNA.
As an example, my brother has a 2007 Honda Odyssey Touring Edition- a $37,000 minivan. We were over at my sister’s house at Christmas, and since she lives out in the country, he of course got stuck in her yard trying to get down her long single car driveway – one side of the van was on the drive, and the other in the snow. We were all amazed at how cheaply built the Honda was – there was no place in the rear of the van to push without denting the panels, or breaking plastic. Not to mention, the front bumper cover was about to tear from being impacted with snow.
Long story short – we had to get my brother’s two wheel drive F-150 and hook a couple of ropes from it to something that looked like a frame near the engine to pull it out. In three years, you better check any used Odyssey Touring Edition van on the market.
If the Caravan is cheaper than the Honda, I’m sticking to old school designs – does Ford still offer the Aerostar? (just kidding)
kazoomaloo:
…a Man-Van holds a strange allure even now
A nickname is born! The Dodge Man-Van it is.
Good review Michael.
Manly mini-van? Where’s the Hemi ;-) ?
There is a risk of this approach turning off a large percentage of the non-manly men population.
We’ll see how it plays out.
Kudos to Chrysler for toughing it out in this segment.
The exterior looks better in these photos than it does in person. Part of the reason: most of those on dealer lots don’t have the largest alloy wheels.
The interior photo, on the other hand, captures all of the beauty of the center stack. Nice pic, RF.
The great majority of minivans in my area are driven by women. I think the ext. styling simply reflects Chrylser’s desire to make it consistent with their other offerings. If the interior is a wash of cheap plastic I believe that reflects Chrysler’s cheapass nature and is not a clever plot to lure men into the miniV fold. The disneyland seating might lure some family buyers but I’ll predict that Chryler minis will remain a second tier player in this market.
The proof in the pudding will be if ChryCo has fixed the endemic transmission problems the extended wheelbase versions of these vans have had forever. A friend has one of the prvious gen models and had his tranny blow up last week, right on cue.
There are so few functional differences between the minivans on the market these days, you might as well buy a Honda or Toyota, all other things being equal (namely, price). Swivel seats are kindof neat, but, in the case of my toddlers, totally unnecessary. A hemi-powered van would be kindof cool, and provide much-needed vigor to the segment, but only if they could sell it under $25K. Not likely. Like I said before, all things being equal (price!), you might as well get some piece of mind and go Honda or Toyota.
Look like the Man-van should appeal to the current flock of fleet and rental buyers, not the people who make the Odyssey and Sienna the winners in the retail market.
But without a truck frame and RWD orientation, isn’t a man-van just an oxymoron?
The funny thing is that for all of the male-oriented brand positioning, Dodge now wants to make an about-face. The Detroit News reported this the other day:
Chrysler said the Grand Caravan advertising campaign would be a “celebration of moms and families” and aims to position the minivan as the “ultimate family vehicle.” The automaker will reach out with a Mom Test-drive program, blogs and a Christmas carol contest culminating in a Grand Caravan giveaway on “The View” talk show.
Print advertising will appear in Ladies’ Home Journal, Parenting, Cooking Light, Self and Working Mother.
Television commercials will run during “Desperate Housewives,” “Dancing with the Stars,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Boston Legal,” “Heroes,” and “ER.” The ads will portray the minivan as a safe “family room on wheels” and highlight features such as Backseat TV.
For those lamenting the VW Eurovan–check out the Dodge Sprinter! It is totally Euro-cool!
I would totally buy the short-wheelbase passenger version if they were just a tad cheaper (currently starts at around $33K).
Well they say that style and fashion is cyclical in nature, so it should come as no real surprise then that this new Grand Caravan mimics the original so successfully. Boxy exterior and interior lines were the hallmarks of the original Caravans of the 80’s. However those 80’s designs weren’t revolutionary in regards to style as pretty much all designs (exterior and interior) prior to that time were rather boxy and geometric in nature. We then moved into new generations of svelte, curving, flowing lines for the 90’s and the early party of this decade.
This new design (to me) is more retro than it is evolutionary. It really does fit into Chrysler’s current design language of harkening back to some more interesting and successful age. I personally hate that dash. It’s as if there were a group of engineers given the task of designing the center console area but weren’t allowed any information regarding the rest of the dash. So they figured in the end “we’ll just cut out a big hole in the dash for our center console to fit in.”
I’ve owned both design ideas:
2001 Grand Caravan – flowing lines
2004 Ford Freestar – boxy
Give me the flowing lines please. I don’t need a minivan (of all things) to remind me how much of a RM I really am.
Put the Bluetec in it and you have a buyer right here.
I’m basically sold!
Also, how long will it be before we find out whether or not those swiveling chairs become a safety issue? How well do the side curtain airbags work with the seats swiveled around 180 degrees? Do they put the passengers at a greater risk of injury? How sturdy will those pivot points be after Johnny, the ADD kid, has swiveled it around a few thousand times (in the first month)?
It’s as if Chrysler has thrown caution to the wind, for the sake of entertainment. I’m not necessarily faulting them – if government regulations continue, we’ll all be riding in vehicles with roll cages, head and neck safety devices, 4 (or more) point safety belts and the like. When I was kid, my family drove from NC to Texas in a pickup truck with my brother and I in the bed (with a camper top in place). We had a small chalkboard with a piece of chalk that we could use to communicate with our parents in the front seat. How did we ever make it without plush chairs, DVD players and eleventy gazillion airbags?
And for the Sprinter fans that want the Mercedes grille trim:
http://mercedessprinterconversions.com/
Several hundred bucks and you’ll be pimping in no time!
Here’s one bike-riding, tree-hugging, non-NASCAR viewing man who actually likes the looks of this thing. Vans are cool because they’re useful. You can carry large, heavy, dirty stuff in them. You can carry a lot of people in them. You can sleep in them if you need to. In theory, minivans offer most of the utility of a full-size van with much better fuel economy and driving dynamics. But current minivans look like overstuffed living rooms on wheels. Do you know how nasty that crushed velvet interior is going to get after 5-6 years of real world use? And no, neither I nor anyone in my family need to watch TV in the car or have the door shut for me. We’re not that lazy! Plus, as one poster above noted, I don’t need a 4×4, but it’s nice to have enough ground clearance and toughness to drive on bad dirt roads or semi-deep snow occasionally. I think Dodge is actually on to something here. If they offer this thing with a diesel it may be my next car.
“I can’t wait to see what VW does with it next year.”
I’m hoping Westfalia edition — note the flat roofline and table seating inside. Do you know that clean examples of the last version they sold in the U.S. have actually appreciated since new?
I gotta go with Phil. Giving Daimerberus credit for having an actual idea behind their styling flies in the gruesome face of all the Sebring evidence.
Michael, props for your comment that this “styling” flies in the face of 20 years of minivan evolution. I saw this thing in the flesh recently on the highway, and that was my first reaction exactly. And the shame of it is, Chrysler led that evolution at every stage. I personally believe their last-gen minivan was the most gracefully styled ever, by anyone. Here as in every other area, they’ve dropped the family china and let it smash in a million pieces, notwithstanding the genuinely commendable seating options.
This picture would really be made complete by some nice Chinese craftsmanship.
“Do you know that clean examples of the last version they sold in the U.S. have actually appreciated since new?”
I had a customer trade one in. This close to Detroit, I never get to see that much equity in a single deal. We still get asked about them at least once a week.
As for VW man-van clone, I think our best shot of seeing a diesel in it will come from VW.
…you might as well get some piece of mind and go Honda or Toyota.
How much more piece of mind can you get with a lifetime warranty?
Thinking of VW re-badging one of these man-vans with their own sheet metal and interior makes me sad. The 2001 VW microbus concept kicked so much ass.
“The new minivan’s boxy, big-nosed exterior flies in the face of two decades of design evolution. ”
Funny how when Germans do clean straight lines we call them “restrained” and “tasteful”, but when Chrysler does this well, it’s ‘boxy”. Has anyone seen Audi’s for tha last 10 years? after the original 5000’s design they have not evolved but I think de-evolved. But you know what? They look fine. They might not be like the most gorgeous Italian exotic but they are good for what they are. And I think the Caravan is good for what it is. Just how much further were they going to take the ovoid shape anyway? And if they did another, some people would be saying they were not “original” enough in the new design, just playing it safe. This is different enough that it will stand out in the market – think original Dodge Ram in ’94 (by the way the new Ram is losing the fender flares for cleaner, more tastefull lines – oops – I mean a more boxey look).
“Do the interior trim panels fill the gaps between the various control panels? Do they hold up when whacked with your gear? Mission accomplished. By the same logic (plus cost-cutting), you’ll find none of that soft-touch polymer business inside the Grand Caravan. That kind of plastic is more susceptible to wear and tear (i.e. it’s for wussies).”
And that’s the point isn’t it? You want to spend 20 or 30 something large on a family vehicle and then have it scratched all to hell because they used the same materials as an Audi or Mercedes? The fact that the panel gaps are gone tells me they are listening to the critics. This vehicle is designed with a mission in mind.
I predict it will sell well with little or no incentives in it’s initial model year. After that we’ll see. If they commit to a program of continuous improvement and roll out changes and additions each year they can keep interest high. As more North Americans get away from 4 door pickups and big SUV’s this will provide them something to go to.
quasimondo :
How much more piece of mind can you get with a lifetime warranty?
Quasi…that’s a ‘lifetime limited POWERTRAIN’ warranty.
For what its worth, I drove my ’94 Ford Probe GT to 230k miles. Original engine (thank you Mazda), original clutch (thank you Mazda), original steering wheel (thank you supplier), original seats (thank you supplier). Everything else had to be replaced over the ten years that I owned it, and it wasn’t all in year ten. In fact, it started at 37k miles…and I should have jumped ship then.
In the last three years my wife and I have put 50k miles on our Odyssey and 70k on our TL. Nothing but gas and oil. THAT’s piece of mind.
I like this “boxie” look. I always liked the original design over the newer puffed up ones. I think the length turned me away also. Unfortunately I hate minivans and unless my wife has triplets in 7 months I wont be buying one ever. There are a lot of people who like the old styling and they aren’t in a position to be losing any customers for any reason.
Now if I do end up with 3-4 kids in the next year, they are 100 times more reliable and priced right I would really consider getting this, I can’t get past the usefulness in it’s present form.
I give them props for not following in the other 2 clowns footsteps and actually taking a risk.
Wow. Two Dodge products reviewed in a row. Wanna bet when that will happen again?
Whenever a product is all-new like this one, people wonder about reliability. I hope to have quick reliability info on the new Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country, but this will depend on how quickly people buy them, join TrueDelta’s vehicle reliability panel, and participate in the surveys.
If you know anyone who buys one of these, please let them know about the research.
Details here:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Just a nitpick, third-to-last paragraph: “Live axle” refers to a solid axle with power going through it (hence “live”); a FWD car in this case has a “dead” or just “solid axle”.
I don’t get the appeal of the 40k minivan. It’s not like it has snob appeal or is more fun to drive. Nobody cares about soft touch plastics after Jimmy pukes all over them. When my three brothers and I were kids, the family transporter was the absolute base model Caravan.
Why get a nice car so the kids can wreck it by being kids?
It was slow and unglamorous, but it took an incredible beating (my brothers and I all learned how to drive on it) and was relatively trouble free until the very end. (we were big on scheduled maintenance) It was traded after 12 years and 185k miles for 400$ off a Scion xB.
If my parents still needed a van, they would definitely consider the Caravan. It is probably the only domestic vehicle that they would consider.
I wonder how this drives compared to the old Caravans – I don’t like how much bigger these are. And they really should get better gas mileage.
Michael Karesh,
just to clarify is it your opinion that Chrysler is targeting men, or is it an actual fact said so by Chrysler themselves?
The problem I see with targetting men is that it flies in the face of what minivans (and the Caravan) is all about. Minivans are for families. They always have been. Most minivan buyers have families to lug around. Only a very small percentage actually buy minivans (Caravan included) as a work van/vehicle. Those who want/need a work van, will buy a real work van, complete with huge interior capacity and a diesel engine. They’re not going to buy a minivan posing as a work van.
Considering all this, my guess is that Chrysler definitely is NOT targeting men with this thing. They may have tried to lose the negative stigma of a minivan with the boxy styling, but first and foremost this thing will be marketed at families.
As for the interior, I see it as nothing more than cost-cutting. Rock hard plastics and all those hard sharp edges and corners will make the interior an annoying place for families, and especially kids. The features and toys in the van are great for families, but the interior itself is not.
When the next-gen Odyssey and next-gen Sienna arrive, Chrysler is going to have a real fight on it’s hands in the one segment where they still dominate sales, especially considering the next Odyssey will have a diesel engine option and the next Sienna should have a hybrid option.
The new Dodge Mandom.
If they want it to have appeal as a work van make it REAR Wheel Drive. Sigh, I miss our Aerostar.
I saw the Dodge Caravan van today. Pretty good styling. I won’t be embarrass to drive the Van with my kids in the future, from Soccer Moms to Drifting Dads. The Van is awesome!!!
Chrysler isn’t leading anything with the new design. They’re just following the crowd. Honda made the Ody all angular in the last refresh, Hyundai basically copied Honda, and Toyota squared off their design as well but not as much. Chrysler is just playing catch-up.
The swivel & go second row is a great idea, but by the report of the space between the reversed second row and the third row it seems that they managed to screw it up. Darn shame.
No bother to me though. I’ve no plans in regards to touching this thing. I have yet to see a Chrysler product yet between 5-10 years old where the interior hasn’t gone to total crap under normal use, or is just about to embrace its inner crapness. Their minivans in particular. People give GM a hard time in this area but they have nothing on Chrysler.
If they really want to make a van that appeals to men, they need to bring back the Panel Truck, the original “Man Van.”
Panel trucks and sedan deliveries were cool. I actually saw a Chevy HHR that was done up with no windows as a “panel truck” (though I’d want to pedantically point out that “sedan delivery” would probably be a more appropriate moniker, since a panel truck is usually derived from a pickup.)
A real man can take the seats out of the van,sit’em in the driveway with a tarp over them and cover the little sockets in the floor with duct tape or a span of masonite or cardboard. Hell, the old original ’84 Voyager had plastic plugs for all the sockets stashed in the glovebox drawer under the passenger seat.
Stow and go middle and fold-flat rear seats present lots of hinges and seams that won’t stand up to heavy loads or to messy cargo. What would you rather put that clothes dryer on top of–a span of unsupported masonite well cover, a plastic seat back and hinges, or a solid steel floor?
Many years ago, my father was hauling sacks of concrete mix in the back of our ’61 Ford wagon and one bag sprung a small leak, getting concrete mix down the hinges of the back seat and underfloor spare tire compartment. Despite his best efforts, us kids still emerged from that seat
with white lines across our butts for many months afterwards, and following our next flat tire the spare tire cover never quite fit flush with the rear floor again.
When I saw that ridiculous hinged floor in the bed of Honda’s alleged pickup, I laughed at the notion of a truck with a permanently humped-up bed.
One thing that impressed me about the early minivans was that cargo could be carried without messing up upholstery or access to the spare.
These new Caravans ones aren’t vans, they’re tall station wagons with all of the considerable disadvantages of that body type.
To me it looks as if they’ve reinvented the ’84 Caravan.
More importantly, where did this crap about minivans being unmanly get started? I’ve never had a minivan, but I’ve never understood what’s effeminate about them. Dad never felt unmanly driving mom’s Country Squire, and a minivan is just a modern day station wagon.
One of the interesting things you can find on the JD Power website is buyer demographics. You might be surprised to find that for many minivans more men are buyer than are women. For example, the Chevy Uplander at 70% male:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/chevrolet/uplander/2007/minivan
2007 Grand Caravan, 65% male:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/dodge/grand-caravan/2007
2007 Kia Sedona, 63% male:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/kia/sedona/2007
2007 Honda Odyssey, 69% male:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/honda/odyssey/2007
So many people have repeated the stereotype of “all minivans are bought by soccer moms” that they don’t bother to check the data.
One of the interesting things you can find on the JD Power website is buyer demographics. You might be surprised to find that for many minivans more men are buyer than are women.
That’s good information, but I would guess that there’s more to it than that.
The marketing folks will tell you that women buy about half of the cars, and influence about 80% of the purchases. It’s fair to guess that in many families, the minivan purchase is a jointly made decision, and the vehicle is driven by both parents. The man may put the vehicle title in his name, but that doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t drive it or didn’t influence the purchase.
As for the truck look of Dodge, I gather that this is simply an effort by Chrysler to create a common corporate face for all of its vehicles. Since its last recovery was largely based upon its growth in the truck market, it opted to extend that truck snout to everything in the lineup, from the small Caliber to the largest vehicles. It may be appealing or hideous, depending upon your viewpoint, but the strategy itself is common across the industry and tends to make sense.
And male-oriented designs don’t tend to be off putting to women, so there isn’t much risk in opting for rugged styling cues. Decidedly female designs have typically flopped, as no guy wants to be a sissy, but many women don’t mind driving a man’s car and in fact may prefer it. I don’t much like the look itself, but whatever it is, it needs to be interesting and different from the leaders (Odyssey, Sienna) if this thing is going to fly. We’ll see what happens.
The “real man” angle is my creation, based on a realization during the test drive. I test drove a 2008 Toyota Sienna the same day, and the Dodge really does seem much different from the driver’s seat owing to the tall IP and relatively flat hood. I didn’t feel comfortable driving the Sienna owing to the invisible hood. The Dodge felt much more familiar. It would be an easier van to transition to for someone coming out of an SUV.
On the demographics, “buyer” is not the same as driver. My understanding is that the minivan market is split between women with children at home and men whose children are out of the home. The latter like the practicality of minivans, as many people here have noted. They’re also through the whole mid-life crisis thing and aren’t trying to recapture their youth based on what they drive.
Zenith, your story highlights what is great about minivans. They are like having a tall station wagon and a comapct pickup rolled into one.
Having strapped wee ones into car seats in small cars, big cars, SUV’s, and minivans I’ll take the minivan any day. Never mind the fact that if you have three in car seats the minivan is only one of three vehicluar choices available to you. The other two are full-sized SUV’s and cars like the Ford Crown Vic. Anything else is just too small anymore.
A friend of ours is a carpenter. When he’s not hauling kids around in their 98 Caravan he has the seats out, tools and such loaded, and a ladder strapped to the roof.
jthorner:
Those demographic statistics might be suspect. For instance, my wife’s minivan is in my name. So according to Toyota’s sales statistics, a man bought it. I was the one who did the research and made the deal and signed the paperwork. But it is her van. Is that type of transaction tracked by the JD Power statistics?
Does anyone remember the van craze of the seventies? After sixties’ musclecars died out, hot-rodding seventies’ vans was what took place.
I suspect that’s the male mindset that Chrysler is trying to tap into with the design of their new minivan. And why not? It’s just another retro idea that hasn’t occurred to anyone else.
With that said, two important items seem to be missing from the article. One is the steep asking price for a new tricked-out Grand Caravan with all the bells-and-whistles. It’s pretty close (if not over) $40k. That’s a lot for a domestic people mover (even after the inevitable rebates show up). It’s also worth noting that the strippo versions (which aren’t that cheap, either) lack some stuff that shouldn’t be missing (like the roll-down second row windows). It has rental market written all over it. If I were going for a bargain-basement minivan (other than one I had to use for strictly business purposes), the Grand Caravan would not be on that list. I think a much nicer stripped Sienna or Odyssey could be had for the same dough (or an even more loaded Sedona).
That’s the other thing that’s not mentioned. While roll-down second row windows are now a requirment for anyone wanting to be a player in this market (like the flip-fold rear seat), I read somewhere that the new Grand Caravan’s second row windows roll all the way down. That’s a nice touch.
Finally, it would be nice if the people responsible for coming up with new minivan designs would take a look at the original 1984 version. Someone in my neighborhood has one of the eighties’ versions and while build quality was woefully lacking, the proportions are really what made that vehicle the phenomenal sales success it was. The simplest two-box design would seem to the epitome of efficiency and practicality.
If someone could just take the original dimensions and package it with all of today’s conveniences, features, and level of quality, they’d have a hit every bit as big as the one they had in 1983.
Although I must say that the previous generation Mazda MPV was pretty close to that equation and it wasn’t exactly flying off the dealer’s lots.
The target buyers are newly immigrated folks with a need to haul their large extended families and friends.
jthorner, those numbers are very misleading since most of those males buy minivans for their families.
Michael,
That was the best review I’ve read in a long time – Iiked the RM angle, and believe it to be true with the Grand Caravan.
An excellent review – kudos.
Every car in the Dodge lineup, save for the Viper and the upcoming super-retro Challenger, currently share a flat cross-hair grille and big eyed look. It’s no surprise that the minivan would share this design trait.
These days, having a common face is the trend among automakers, it’s clearly a move to forge a common brand identity. Dodge would need to have a good reason for the minivans to not share this look, as it would go against the grain of this trend toward establishing brand identity via the “face” of each vehicle.
Ah, so that’s what I was missing when I drove the temple of plastic. It wasn’t really designed for adults hauling kids to soccer/dance/karate/little league.
And, in all likelihood five or six adults will exceed the load limit.
One size fits all (Chrysler interior design)
I get a little tired of this interior design and colors, probably quality too, can’t they come up with something new? and why such anemic engines? 3.3-liter pushrod V-6 (175 horsepower and 205 pound-feet of torque) 197-hp, 3.8-liter pushrod V-6 ?
“Man-Van”? I dunno. Maybe they designed it simply to resist spilled milk, tossed cookies, dirt, and dog hair. Like the Element.
I don’t understand this need to express one’s macho with one’s vehicle–well maybe I do, one of my friends is afflicted this way. “Afflicted” is the key word. (He didn’t want any “pussy” Honda SUV, he told me. It had to be a manly Cherokee.) But I can imagine wanting utilitarian if I had a couple of kids who had lots of friends and a dog, and who insisted on eating in the car.
One thing I really like about that Grand Caravan is the ample greenhouse. No visibility problems there!
Sure you can throw arrows at me for quoting JD Powers data, and I’m not a big JD Power fan. However, I have yet to see any of the critics come up with alternative data.
My point is that the simple minded view that minivans are bought by boring moms is probably just that, simple minded. The marketing types say that the “hot moms” want SUVs to demonstrate that even though they have children they are still aggressive and sexy …. to which I say, whatever.
Finally, even if the man is buying a vehicle primarily for the woman to drive, he is still the one signing the papers and therefore is the primary decision maker. Appealing to him makes some sense.
To Chrysler’s credit they have kept the mini van reasonable as the market is not willing to pay more than 25k-28K for a family mobile that will get trashed by the kids.
Nissan has the Elgrand minivan for other markets that is a cut above Chrysler’s, Honda, and Toyota’s mini vans but if brought to the U.S. it would be above the 25-28k price point.
jthorner:
Finally, even if the man is buying a vehicle primarily for the woman to drive, he is still the one signing the papers and therefore is the primary decision maker. Appealing to him makes some sense.
Let me guess: single?
Chrysler is targeting men. Not metrosexuals. Not pistonheads. They’re looking to lure manly men: the kind of guys who buy pickup trucks (real pickups, not the ones with fancy trimmings).
Time to ruffle some feathers….
Compared to my 1987 Chevy Pickup with bench seats, no air conditioning, 3-speed manual transmission (a.k.a. 3 on the tree), and AM/FM Radio – any of these modern trucks that’s not a diesel or isn’t a gasoline engine with a standard transmission is not a REAL MAN’s truck.
These big so-called “manly man pickups” (Rams, Silverados, F-150s, Titans, and Tundras) are false images conjured up by Madison Avenue’s definition of “toughness”. News bulletin – Madision Avenue is a METROSEXUAL mecca! These people wouldn’t know how to drive a REAL truck if it came up and bit them in the ass…
Computerized Climate Control (instead of the regular air
conditoning you manually adjust)?
DVD Player??
Satellite Radio???
Leather Seats?????
Automatic Transmission???????
Gimme a break! Any pickup truck that Grandma can drive IS NOT A REAL TRUCK! These trucks are driven by those yuppie office workers who want to project an image of toughness (to mask their insecurities) that isn’t there.
If your job doesn’t fall under the following occupations: construction, farming, delivery of parts, supplies and materials that you need for your business, fishing, military, security, or any other blue-collar/service profession that requires hauling anything – drive a car to work. Driving a big pickup truck to the office in a suit and tie is like having a big “IM A POSEUR” sign taped to the driver’s back…
I use my truck to HAUL things. When I drive to work or go on a long trip, I take my CAR… See how that works?
Back to the minivan – IF you drive a minivan, any minivan – you WILL look like a soccer mom. You can put big racing slicks and paint flames down the side of the van all you want – nothing is going to change the image of the minivan as “Soccer Mom Mobile”.
Cerberus should just put Chrysler out of its misery and get it over with…
“Let me guess: single?”
Nope, happily married for many years. My view of market realities is much more than any simple reflection of personal situation or personality.
fahrvergnugen11
Driving a big pickup truck to the office in a suit and tie is like having a big “IM A POSEUR” sign taped to the driver’s back…
I use my truck to HAUL things. When I drive to work or go on a long trip, I take my CAR… See how that works?
Love it!!! But I disagree that minivan necessarily means soccer mom. The minivan to me is gender neutral, and connotes someone who is more interested in family and friends than in being a poseur. And to me, there’s nothing negative about “soccer mom”.
But I disagree that minivan necessarily means soccer mom. The minivan to me is gender neutral, and connotes someone who is more interested in family and friends than in being a poseur.
Psychological studies conducted by the automakers confirm this. The basic market schism is between minivans buyers and SUV buyers, with minivan buyers wanting to convey a family-oriented message, while SUV buyers want to communicate that they are still “cool” people even though they are hauling kids and their detritus.
The purchase is not so black-and-white. Irrespective of who drives and titles the vehicle the most, both genders generally play a role in determining the purchase. Automakers try to appeal to both, and it is quite possible to accomplish that by making a “male”-looking design, as many women like the rugged look as well.
interesting.
I think the minivan that would really sell well, if it were produced, and then executed properly, would be the retro microbus. I’m not a minivan person–my dream car is a Boxster–but if I had a family, and I could get a Microbus that drove as well as, say, an Element, with a stick, I would feel utterly compelled to purchase it.
But then, maybe I’m not the ideal focus group rep. As for rugged, male-looking vehicles, most of the modern ones don’t do zip for me. I do like the ’53 Buick (go to motorlegends.com, click on CarToons, and scroll down to see LBJ’s ’53).
Mini vans might be gender neutral, the majority of mini van drivers are “aggressive women” with a family, on a tight schedule, multitasking, while attempting to drive and bulldose every other vehicle out of the way.
The other great users of mini vans are the families that don’t wear seatbelts, and usually spill the passengers all over the road in an accident.
The “de rigueur” people carrier is a mini van and we should all thank Hal Sperlich, Lee Iacocca, and Chrysler.
Michael nailed it, it does look like a Man-Van.
I had not seen the ’08 model in person until this morning. My sister ordered one a few weeks ago and I could not believe how ugly it looked in the brochure, but it looks MUCH better in person.
As I left the auto parts store this morning, I scanned the dodge lot for any sign of the new model.
Sure enough there it was parked with all the SUV’s and truck and it fit right in. It’s certainly lost the look of a large suppository and is quite butch in the new duds. Just from first glance, I’d say it rides the line between SUV and Minivan better than anything yet.
Ive got to agree with Rudiger above about the late MPV.
If this man-van appeals to your inner HeMan, then you likely buy Ikea furniture for its quality construction and hand rubbed finish.
Its a caliber with patio furniture in the back.
Re Rudiger, above, here are the lyrics to the ’70s song Chevy Van. But somehow I do’nt thikn this is quite what Chrysler had in mind w/ the new Caravan.
I gave a girl
a ride in my wagon
she crawled in and took control
she was tired as her mind was dragging
I said get some sleep and dream of rock and roll
cause like a picture she was laying there
D A
moonlight dancing off her hair
E
she woke up and took me by the hand
Bm
shes gonna love me in my chevy van
D E A
and thats all right with me
(verse 2 – chords same as verse 1 above)
her young face was like that of an angel
her long legs were tanned and brown
better keep your eyes on the road son
better slow this vehicle down
(play the chorus again)
(verse 3 – chords same as verse 1 above)
I put her out in a town that was so small
you could throw a rock from end to end
a dirt road main street
she walked off in bare feet
its a shame I won’t be passing through again
(chorus again 2x, but this time sing the
last line as ‘we made love in my chevy van and
thats allright with me’)
AGR wrote:
the majority of mini van drivers are “aggressive women” with a family, on a tight schedule, multitasking, while attempting to drive and bulldose every other vehicle out of the way.
—–
I disagree completely. The women you describe tend to drive full sized SUVs or crossovers, and look down their noses and sneer at any woman who would actually be practical enough to drive the far more efficient people mover that is the mini-van.
Some years ago I went out with two different women who drove minivans. Based on those example, as well as my only minivan driving friends, I have to agree with SkinnyFats, above. Minivan drivers are, in my expeience, very nice people.
While at first it might seem silly to think that Chrysler is trying to tap into the same kind of male market that was into the van fad of the seventies, consider that the review immediately preceeding this one is of an erzatz ‘retro’ 4-door Charger ‘Super Bee’ ‘musclecar’ supposedly targeting the same kind of market that went for the real thing back in the sixties.
From that perspective, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch at all to think that Chrysler is trying to steer the minivan market away from soccer moms and to regular guys who might otherwise buy a truck.
quasimondo :
September 14th, 2007 at 11:10 am
How much more piece of mind can you get with a lifetime warranty?
As someone else pointed out, it’s only on the powertrain. Still, if you somehow felt comforted by that:
Just Google “Chrysler sludge” and you’ll find out how well Chrysler honors their warranty, even if you show them oil change receipts. There is clear evidence of systematically denying major engine repair claims for a defect they were well aware of.
I would never, ever, ever purchase any new Chrysler product, for that reason alone.
(And yes, I’m aware they aren’t the only company to pull those shenanigans – but they’re leading the pack.)
Look, this is a ridiculous review. To justify the interior having low quality by saying “it’s targeted at Manly Men, who do not have any need for taste, quality, or design” is absolutely ludicrous and simply comes across as a Dodge marketing scheme more than anything. TTAC is supposed to not sound like an ad, and if something about a car sucks, it’s supposed to be treated as such. I felt while reading this as if I could have been reading Car and Driver, or some other advertisement influenced piece of car literature. This van, while looking more macho, will still sell mainly to women with kids, not to manly men, despite what the looks (aka advertising) would like you to believe. Nothing justifies a brand-new-for-2008 van having an interior that looks like this. Honda can create a world class interior on a van, as can Nissan, etc, so that means Dodge shouldn’t be able to escape under a facade of “BUT OUR TARGET MARKET DOESN’T CARE!!”. Lastly, you can say how a van isn’t supposed to be fun or entertaining to drive and use that line to justify how the Caravan is neither, but the Odyssey comes damn close, and does really well in those categories for a van. Once again, the Caravan fails, and is justified in doing so by some unforseen and unrealistic variable. Please stick to the traits which make TTAC a site I check every single day, and keep away from excusing low quality and lack with ambiguous advertisement sounding excuses.
Its strange, but the new minivan for excellence looks like its getting back to the shape of the origional 1984 model. The more things change the more they stay the same I guess.
This is the best minivan out there bar none. Ok so the interior may not have the best materials but those stow and go seats are awesome. The 4.0 liter for 2009 also matches Hondas stuttering stammering rough variable displacement 3.5 liter V6 without that ludicrous feature and with close tothe same power and more torque. I also applaud Chrysler for retaining bodyside moldings with chrome as an option compared to today oh so plain slab sided look that Toyota and Honda are shoving down our throats. When it comes to to trade in those Honda and Toyotas with 50 door dings and dents because of the omitted strip I will be laughing all the way to the bank and folding down my seats in the floor when it’s time to carry sheet rock home.