Yes, they’ve got themselves one heck of a problem down Pentastar way: the boffins have done the math and reckon some 67 percent of Chrysler Group minivan buyers are previous owners. That’s a good thing when it comes to polishing your R.L. Polk Owner Loyalty award, but it’s not exactly helping Chrysler make inroads on volume or market share. Which is where the “Minivan Pledge” comes in. “It’s Time To Drive Detroit Again: The Best Minivans In The Industry Just Got Better,” shouts the headline of Chrysler’s release announcing a 60-day money-back guarantee for buyers who trade in a competitive product towards a 2010 minivan. “‘Minivan Pledge’ gives competitive owners the peace of mind to ‘try us again,’” is the pitch. The only problem: everyone knows it takes at least 90 days for a Chrysler minivan to eat its own transmission.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Yup, they lost a lot of customer’s in the’90s with those transmission issues.
They got by until the turn of the century on the fact that nobody else figured out how to do the minivan right–the Previa was too weird, the Astro/Safari and Aerostar were truck-based, the first gen Odyssey didn’t have sliding doors, Windstars had similar reliability issues without the Chrysler minivan features, and so on. But once Honda and Toyota figured out the right way to do a minivan (conventionally styled, FWD, dual sliding doors with lots of storage cubbies and cupholders) Chrysler’s goose was cooked.
I’ve seen and heard of several Honda minivans with glass-jaw transmissions. But, unfortunately for Chrysler, their decades of transaxle misconduct is no match for a few years of bad news from Honda.
I have heard the same about Honda minivan autos, come to think of it I have heard the same about all automatic transmissions regardless of make.
That’s true, but it’s worse with minivans, Their autoboxes are similar (the same?) to a sedan, but they carry much, much more weight. So its kinda like towing a 500-1000lb trailer with an Accord.
Really? Our family’s owned about 15 cars over the years, and only 2 have ever had tranny issues, both cars being built in the 1980’s.
Honda vans did have some transmission issues. However, a signal difference was that Honda seemed to care whether or not you were satisfied with their vehicle and would cheerfully replace the transmission at up to at least 100K miles. I know a guy whose Honda transmission failed at just under 100K miles, it was replaced and they really were cheerful about it, too. Free loaner car and everything. He recently bought another car… an Accord.
Actually, Honda vans are notorious for transmission problems. “Honda vans did have some transmission issues.” Correction, many.
“However, a signal difference was that Honda seemed to care whether or not you were satisfied with their vehicle and would cheerfully replace the transmission at up to at least 100K miles.” Not true if not under an extended warranty to 109K miles due to a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. http://www.hondatransmissionsettlement.com/php/login.php
Mine went at way below 80K miles. Had to pay dealer. No loaner. Honda did not care. “I know a guy whose Honda transmission failed at just under 100K miles, ” probably because it was under the class action lawsuit.
He noticed the transmission was sliping a little and drove it to Honda, thinking it would be adjusted and he’d get some kind of a bill, since it was out of warranty. He didn’t know anything about transmission replacements until they said they’d like to keep it for the day to replace the transmission and offered him a loaner. It was a complete surprise. If Honda or a law firm ever mailed him a class action settlement notification (isn’t notification required?), he’d never noticed it.
For whatever reason, the end result is, Honda sold him an Accord.
Chrysler will not gain market share without real quality improvements. In the interim it should put its money where its mouth is and give an honest, comprehensive 10-year warranty. It clearly lacks the confidence in its products to provide one. Why would customers assume the risk when superior alternatives abound?
Chrysler has a real problem. Their minvans look outdated, their interiors look unrefined, and the perception is that the quality is very poor. Anyone that has been in a Chrysler van with over 100k knows first-hand how they rattle and shake around the doors. No marketing spin is going to help their situation until they have better vehicles to sell.
I disagree with that comment
“Anyone that has been in a Chrysler van with over 100k knows first-hand how they rattle and shake around the doors. ”
I’m on my second one (Owned a 2001 T &C LXi and currently a 2006 T &C Limited) I ran the 201 to 115K and never had any problems with it except for A/C issues. The van was sold to a co-worker who now has over 160K on THE ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION!
As I’ve stated in the past, all cars have issues. I agree that Chrysler’s styling and quality are not up to par, but that’s Daimler’s fault for doing Chrysler “on the cheap” There is alot of upgrades and a face lift for the minivans this year or next.
Personnally, I’m not a fan of the current design, so I’m hoping the next one is better.
Oh, and by the way, the president of my company ownes a Honda odessey van. He’s had electical issues with it on and off for the last year or so.
I agree completely. My brother’s employer gives him Caravans as company cars. Previously they had Freestars until Ford cancelled the product. As bad as those Ford’s were, the Chrysler is worse. His last van, 2007 model, was turned it at 80,000 miles and went straight to the scrap yard thanks to tranny and head gasket issues. The 2009 model doesn’t seem much better. Fit and finish of the vehicle is terrible. Very underpowered engine (probably why the tranny goes since you have to flog the thing to get up to highway speeds). Overall they are throw away vehicles. One ride in an Odyssey or Sienna makes it clear why they get a premium price.
Transmission death is one thing, but expecting doors not to rattle after 100k miles is really asking too much. Weatherstripping is a regular maintenance replacement part — plasticizers evaporate and rubber rots, it just happens.
I have a car with 145k miles on it….and it’s a 26 year old Buick. The doors and trunk rattled, and so I spent an afternoon replacing the weatherstripping. Problem solved.
Transmission death is serious; Chrysler engines sludging is serious; expecting the rubber to stay pert and perky after year-on-year exposure to the elements and abuse is akin to the odd fixation of new car reviewers with how gentle the fabric feels on their skin, or that the plastic either is too hard or soft when they brush against it.
The latest style looks like a boxcar. And rides AND rattles like one too.
The plastic interior and mini-monkey cardboard seats are almost comical. This stuff would be acceptable in a commercial van, but in something that I’m going to spend my own money on and haul my family around in? Not so much.
The minivans are okay. Not great. Definitely not executed as well as the Hondas. But here’s the problem – are you really driving Detroit again?
The company is Italian now, and their minivans are built in Windsor which is close to Detroit but definitely in another country.
I could be more callous and mention the fact that there is still the Bailout Stigma haunting this company, or that they build shoddy cars, or that they have terrible resale value.
Hmm………..while chrysler minivans are far from perfect, I have never actually seen one with a bad transmission. My co worker had to have the trans rebuilt in his odyssey at 40k though. But his dealer did treat him well and he wasn’t charged anything.
My neighbor up the street owns a 97 plymouth voyager, last time I talked to him about 8 mos ago it had 210k on it, and was still going strong with the original engine and trans. It is starting to rust now, but that is a given here in ohio.
Had a friend with an 89 caravan, he drove it 179k, still had the original trans when he got rid of it. He did have to replace the mitsubishi engine at 144k tho.
I personally know someone who went through three Chrysler minivan transmissions in 150K miles.
Please, Moparman. You need to get out more.
In the late nineties I had five colleagues who bought mid-90’s Chryco minis. Every single one of them needed a new tranny between 36K and 50K. I was able to escape with only a rebuild at 50K for my 94 New Yorker. In fact: I don’t know anyone who did NOT have a tranny issue with Mopars of that vintage.
My understanding is that the 2000 and newer vans have better trannies. But the world has changed. I wish Chrysler well in finding Toyonda customers who are ignorant of both depreciation and history.
PS – re Honda Odyssey transmissions: It came out in the class action that the failure rate (at 100K) for the Gen II models was about 9%. For Honda, that’s huge. For Chrysler, probably only a dream.
I personally went through three transmissions with my Voyager, one under warranty, and two more instances before I sold it with 85K miles (130,000 kms) on the odo. The poor fellow I sold it to didn’t even make it another 6,000 miles (to 140,000 kms) before it required yet another rebuild.
It was a decent vehicle, although other than the transmission, nothing else needed to be fixed during the warranty period, once out of warranty, it needed the A/C condensor, power steering pump, fuel pump, valve job, and a few other minor items fixed.
I could have lived with the spotty build and parts quality if Chrysler had given a shit about me, but nope, Chrysler Canada basically told me to pound sand. This coming after I had to fight several times to get warranty repairs on our Dodge Spirit. By the second out of warranty rebuild on the transmission, I just figured I’d suck it up and sell it. Chrysler during the Daimler and Cerberus years pissed away any residual goodwill that might have still existed, and turned off an entire generation of car buyers. I will probably never again consider a Chrysler product, and anytime anybody asks me for advise on cars I warn them to steer clear of Chrysler. Of course, lately, most people don’t even mention Chrysler when talking about buying a new car, and with those few that do mention it, it’s usually accompanied by an epithet of how they’ll never shop Chrysler again.
Chrysler has far more to do than just up the quality of the cars; Chrysler needs to rebuild it’s image with the public. A good place to start would be a Hyundai type comprehensive warranty, and to friggin’ stand behind it, not just offer lip service to it.
Because, if you multiply the times the transmission failed by the amount of drivers who had to suffer Chrysler’s less than stellar attitude about warranty repairs, then times that by the cost of every tranny rebuild, thats how many pissed off former Chrysler owners there are.
I used to think the Mopar mini vans were the wisest vehicle ever made, and once upon a time I used to think Chryslers were the best domestic brand, but now? I have forsworn the Pentastar. How many more of me do you think are out there, right now buying minivans? I hazard a wager that most of them are turning towards other minivans, and if not minivans, are buying another company’s CUV.
Chrysler has about another year left on life support, and then, it’s lights out.
Yep, Truckducken, and my family has had 4 total 41TE’s/Ultradrives and we’ve had to rebuild/replace zero of them. ’92 Voyager, ’98 Voyager, ’98 Breeze, ’06 T&C.
My point? I’m convinced that the stories behind the Ultradrive are over-exaggerated.
Gold star for Commander Fish. The tranny problems ARE exagerated. Most of the issues with Ultradrive were fixed after 1992. I owned a 94 Dodge Grand Caravan LE Sportwagon with alloy wheels, body colered grill, and fog lights. A great looking van in i’ts day. 3.3 V6 and Ultradrive. No problems with either.
Someone daid the failure rate on Honda Oddies at the time of thier woes was 9%. Chrysler’s WAS higher during their time but is now back to “normal” industry average, which I think is 2%, but don’t take that as gospel. I have owned 6 Chrysler products over the years and have one tranny go on me – the car had 135,000 miles on it, and I was the second owner so I don’t what was done or not done to it in the way of maintenance.
Allpar has a great page on the tranny issues of early 90’s Mopars.
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html
“Chrysler reportedly put over a million miles of testing on the A604 (now the improved 41TE) before its first use in 1989, which is when they discovered that Dexron fluid was not good enough. However, the company did not make this clear to customers, saying that Dexron was good enough if their own fluid, ATF+3, was not available. Nor did they get the word out to oil change places and corner mechanics. As a result, many, many transmissions were destroyed. Even some dealers apparently told customers they could use Dexron. The result was a terrible reputation for quality – we have been told by one transmission rebuilding establishment that the horrific return/repair rate on their own transmissions fell to normal levels when they switched to ATF+3, and that was around ten years after the A-604 was first introduced!”
Bottom line – if you put the wrong fluid in YOU blew your tranny not Chrysler. Do not use Dexron in a Chrysler transmission, even with an additive. Dexron = death.
Like the Audi and Toyota acceleration issues the media has overblown this and the B&B here have fallen for it.
windswords:
I read the AllPar page, and I must admit, I’m a pretty savvy guy, and even my head is spinning.
So let me get this straignt: Chrysler makes it confusing as to what the correct ATF is (even printing it incorrectly in some manuals), and yet it is the customer’s fault for destroying their tranny with the wrong fluid?
Chrysler put out the notice about the correct fluid not long after the tranny was introduced. Most of the dealers got it right but many independent shops never bothered to check, just putting in what they always did. Or worse yet telling the customer that their fluid was just fine. And there were some customers who added the wrong fluid themselves. If they were referring to their original owners manuals then they are not at fault. But you know lots of customers never crack open their manuals. Those were the ones I was referring to. If you owned a Chrysler at least from 94 on (as I did) it was quite clear in the manual that only ATF+3 was to used in the front wheel drive 4 speed automatic. I believe the manuals were change to list the correct fluid earlier than that.
The 4-speed “Ultradrive” transmission introduced in 1989 with the 3.3L engines was utter trash. I didn’t know of one that DIDN’T puke a transmission before 100K miles. That plagued the Chryco minivans all thru the 90s.
That old Mitsu 4-banger was bulletproof, and despite how harsh the shifts were, you couldn’t kill the transmission. The outstanding reliability of my family’s ’86 prompted us to buy a ’95, which was nowhere close, and ate 3 transmissions in its 200K lifetime. At least the engine was solid.
I know of three, all of which I own/owned. There was a ’93 Dynasty which was Camry-reliable in every way to 189,000 miles (at which time, would you believe it was actually stolen/never recovered), a ’99 Concorde which I traded in at 101,000 miles because of the 2.7 liter turd under the hood, and the ’99 Grand Voyager I currently drive, 206,000 miles and in the family since new. Runs great, no rattles, tranny shifts as it should.
I put over 100,000 miles myself on the Dynasty and never once changed the trans fluid, which may be why it lasted at long as it did. Putting anything but the recommended fluid in these transmissions means certain death.
I think that neither a Dynasty nor a Concorde be a mini-van.
Same transmission, and in the case of the Dynasty, same engine (3.3).
And how many Dynastys weigh as much as a mini-van with a full load? There’s something to be said for different equipment for different applications.
I get what you’re saying, but plenty of Dynastys have been sidelined by tranny problems, too. I was one of the “lucky” ones. “Lucky” is in quotes because it’s pretty evident that many of these trannies didn’t have to die; they were given the wrong fluid.
Simply offering another incentive (i.e. a money-back guarantee) does not make their minivan “better”…it only makes buying one a slightly better deal. And stating that their minivan is the “best in the industry” is nearly on the same level as calling the Nissan Juke’s design “cautious.”
yes, the ultradrive did give problems at first. The dexron fluid used in them didn’t work out well with the design, and would cause them to go into limp mode while cruising at speed. This was later resolved when they started specifying the use of ATF3 fluid. The 3speed autos were based on the old 998 torqueflite design, and gave good service. The 4 cylinder engines used in those vans were 2.2 chrysler designs. The 3.0 V6’s were mitsubishi designs and were junk.
I think you’re the one that needs to get out, truckduckin. You probably don’t know much of anything about a vehicle, you can probably barely change oil. Ever worked on a transmission before? I have.
I have a friend that owns a trans. shop. A few years back the Crysler vans alone kept him extreamly busy. I am sure Crysler set a record for A.T. failures.
What trans shop would that be, mfgreen? I would like to send them an email to find out all about it. :o)
My 96 Grand Voyager 3.3 went 120k on the original transmission and engine. That car died due to electrical failure.
My 98 Grand Caravan 3.8 is still going at 144k miles on the original transmission and engine. It had its torque converter changed at 110k miles, and I can’t vouch for its care prior to when I bought it at 99k miles.
But I don’t like the new Chryslers. If I got a minivan today, it’d be a Kia Sedona.
GS,
I’ve rented a Sedonia and i’ve rented a Town and Country. The Sedonia is nice, but it’s not as good as the Chrysler twins. You need to get the V6 with the 6 speed auto. If you go cheap in options it will feel cheap as well. Chrysler has not done a good enough job in making it’s more base models feel like quality. Hopefully that will change with new engines and trannys from FIAT.
Our 93 Voyager wasn’t bad the transmission had to be replaced at 55,000, but the van took a lot of abuse. We used to load that thing with all sorts of crap and we lent it out to family members all the time. It was one of the cars I learned to drive in and I used it as a tool shed after we let it sit for a summer and couldn’t get it to start again. When we sold it to scrapers I kept the grille and mounted it on my wall.
My only experience with the Chrysler Minivan dynasty was a 2009 Grand Caravan I hired for a couple of days. I don’t know about the reliability of the transmission or engine, but from my 2 days spent behind the wheel I got one impression. Cheap.
Cheap plastics, cheap seats, the whole vehicle felt plasticy and a bit crap. It drove ok (for a minivan) but the fit and finish of everything was at best average and at worst poor. Combined with the fact that the touch screen entertainment system was mind boggling complex and a bugger to use if you were actually driving, the whole experience was rather forgettable.
If Chrysler want people to buy their vehicles then quality SERIOUSLY needs to improve. If the car looks and feels cheap when it’s brand new, it doesn’t need a massive leap of imagination to figure out that 5-6 years down the line it’ll be a heap that is falling apart.
If this program gains traction, how long before everything in the Chrysler portfolio is branded as “a minivan”?
Chrysler minivans come out poorly in the CR evaluations. They are just not competitive. I have owned two of them. THe last one, a 2002 Grand Caravan was worth half what a similar age/mileage Odyssey was worth when I traded/sold it. A whopping $8k in additional depreciation. I now have a Sienna and it has been a good vehicle. Have a problem with the blower motor sometimes making a ‘chirping noise when cold’ but outside of that it has been very reliable and gets good mileage too. Chrysler is just not building high quality products in general. The consumer is tired of taking it in the shorts when they buy a new one. Used is the only way to go but be prepared to spend some money on them.
I see this as a desperate move by Chrysler, as their offerings are about to look far more dated in wake of surprisingly stylish competitors from Toyota and Honda.
Oh, and Chrysler is far from past their transmission problems. Transmission problems are legion in the Journey – just check a Journey forum or Google. My neighbor’s Journey ate its transmission after six months.
Of the 8 cars I’ve owned (3 Volvos, 3 Fords, a Geo Metro and a Honda Civic) only one ever had even a minor transmission issue.
It was an 89′ Ford Escort with about 145K on it, and sometimes it wouldn’t shift out of “Park.”
What are these people doing to their cars? Is this a Chrysler thing?
Ahh………..another consumer reports reader. You know what, the people that work at consumer reports don’t know any more about cars than the people that read their publication. Do you think they know how to fix a car if it breaks? heck no, they have to take it to a garage to get it fixed, but they try to tell you what is a good car and what isn’t.
You see a lot of tacoma trucks around here with rusted frames, why doesn’t consumer reoprts mention anything about that in their reviews of the trucks? They’re probably based somewhere like california, where they don’t even have snow or salted roads.
If I were to trade in my Sienna and find I dislike the ChryCo van after 59 days, I’m still stuck without a van after the return. Huh?
Haven’t yet tried out the current van but have had 3 weeks’ seat time with the previous generation which shares the same Stow-N-Go floorplan – pass.
I never lost a tranny in an LH car. I have had three of them.
Was even given one recently because it won’t die! I understand
the present disdain towards Chrysler these days but GM and Ford
cost me more transmissions than anybody (all under 100k).
If anything, the 2.7L engine should get more flack than their
trans-axles.. Bottom line, as a previous poster on this site has said, Chrysler resembles Studebaker during their last years.
Oh well.
I’m sure the Volkswagen Routan is a much better minivan.
http://www.vw.com/routan/en/us/
Would be hilarious if Chrysler accepts the Routan as a “competitive vehicle” for trade-in.
Yeah, why would anyone even look at a Chrysler when they could have a Routan?
Hmmm, just as I thought. You should go out and buy a Routan instead srogers. You are a smart man. Everyone, stay away from Chryslers … buy Volkswagen Routans.
You’re right. Chrysler has copied the Routan part for part, but still lack the fine ‘German Engineering’. ;)
The Routan is a beacon of originality and was developed in the unforgivingly severe conditions of the autobahns in Hell.
My father, who is 73 had only one vehicle in his life require a new transmission, and yes it was a Dodge Caravan. Dealer serviced, no towing, ultra careful driver.
I can’t say I’d never buy a Chrysler product but I’d sure have a good think about transmissions before I did. Dad drives a Kia now and the tranny is just fine.
Actually some of us don’t need to get out more, just stay under the bridge..
I’ve had transmission issues with exactly one Chrysler product – a 2005 Grand Cherokee with the 3.7 and Mercedes-designed 5-speed auto. If you were accelerating hard and let off the gas in the middle of a shift, you’d lose all gears and get a check engine light. If you then brought it to a full stop and put it in neutral, you’d then be on your merry way and CEL would go out in a day or two. It was a leased vehicle and I no longer own it.
Our ’92 Caravan: four transmissions in the first 88k miles.
Paul,
That dovetails with my reply post above. The initial problems were mostly corrected at the factory by 92. Your van was probably built in 91, and the people who serviced/replaced it (I’m assuming at the dealership) were not using the latest parts. They probably put the wrong fluid in the new/rebuilt one, ensuring it suffered an early demise.
The real problem for Chrysler is that wrapping the T&C/Caravan in the American flag is about all they have left. Most customers are going to instinctively go for the Sienna or Odyssey unless they’re cheap, in which case they buy a Sedona.
To add to the A604 parade, a good friend of mine had a ’98 Caravan for a few years, and it ate 2 transmissions.
My father’s 97 Grand Caravan Sport needed two transmissions before 80K. At the trans shop, I saw 4 other Caravans. Similar to the poster above, that guy said the Caravans keep him in business.
I have a 06 Grand Caravan – great family vehicle, no problems. The 08-10 models I think represent a dead-end direction. They spent a lot of resources on the reversible 2nd row seat. The seat doesn’t leave enough foot-room to be useful. It also takes away the genuine utility of sto-n-go.
Chrysler’s worst problem with the vans may be trade-in value. Not much incentive to buy a new chrysler if you’ll take a bath when it comes time to trade it in.
Second worst problem: a new generation of competitors. New Honda Odyssey unveiled in Chicago this week. Much more stylish, expected 19-28 mpg EPA without hybrid. new Sienna should come out hot on the Odyssey’s heels. I don’t know what Kia has planned for the Sedona, but Hyundai/Kia has a brand new generation of more powerful V-6 engines and 6 speed transmissions ready to go.
FYI – they still offer stow and go – the swiveling seats are an option.
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans-testimonials.html
Everyone here that had a minivan transmission replaced needs to read this. They all got taken by unscrupulous trans shops.
It is interesting that several people said there were transmissions shops who were kept busy just with these trans, they didn’t say dealerships. The dealers had a TSB that cost $30.00 in trans fluid to fix the problem.
I’m voting for driver error.
From the link that Moparman posted above:
“Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your great web site. I have a ’95 Dodge Caravan with the A-604 4-speed transmission. About two weeks ago my van experienced the infamous torque converter whine and extreme shifting problems. It would not go into Drive at all, only “limp home” mode. Every mechanic told me that I would need a rebuilt tranny; the average price I got was around $900 (no labor included). I was almost in tears!
In a fit of desperation I found your site and took the knowledge right to the local Dodge dealer. They agreed that I need to get rid of the Dexron III I had put in before and get the 7176 [ATF+3}. However, they said my tranny was too far gone but it was at least worth a try. It took me roughly an hour to replace my fluid and filter and have now been running it for about a week! I do experience the occasional shudder problem but have already set up a time to reprogram my computer (through the dealer).”
Notice he doesn’t say that he put the wrong fluid in until the second paragraph. So there you go.
If some of those peoeple would have gotten out and learned something, instead of reading consumer reports, they would have known to change the tranny fluid!
I worked at Chrysler Cottomer Sevis from 1997-1999. The trannies and AC suck as bad as everyone thinks they do. Once out of warranty, in those times when chrysler was flush with cash, we had a blank check to do whatever we wanted. Most of my co-workers would do a BS $100 “deductible”, but I never would, I’d just pay the whole thing. Folks had the choice of a 3/36 or 12/12 and 7/70 powertrain warranty, but even at 70k, when they went to the dealer with 70300 miles and a dead tranny, and their dealer told them to kick rocks, it just wasn’t right.
Don’t know squat about the mini-vans (why would a “car guy” drive a mini-van?) but I do own two Dodges – an 04 RAM Hemi with but 43k miles, and an 06 Charger RT Hemi with 8k miles. Both meticulously maintained, and both … JUNK as far as quality control. The problems I’ve had with each of these vehicles is crazy – from a new steering rack on the Charger (off warranty yet), to electronic modules on both, to defective door mouldings.
The Charger is now for sale with intent to buy a new Volkswagen CC. The RAM … unfortunately has to stick around because I can’t afford 2 car payments at this point.
Chrysler seriously needs to improve quality control before I’d ever consider buying another vehicle from them.
You are about to enter a new, deeper level of hell if you buy a VW, especially if you intend to keep it for 3 or more years.
More smoke and mirrors.
Returning your mininvan to Chrysler means losing your trade in plus paying a 30 cent per mile penalty.
There will be no returns because the penalty is too stiff.
Classic Chrysler. Try to appear like you take quality seriously while behind the curtain it’s business as usual.
Anyone have opinions on the Mazda5 AT? I want the stick but wife wants the auto as it has better available trims.
There were a few 2009 Touring models with the manual, saw a couple show up in inventories. Perhaps there will be a few 2010s so equipped.
The 4AT is adequate, haven’t driven the 5AT.
Wow. Lots of denial of the minivan trans issues.
I worked at Chrysler during the A604 transmission period. At the time, Chrysler had to run a fleet of vehicles to certify emissions. It was a 100k mile durability test. I remember that the transmission guys came over and wanted to test drive a few minivans with 100k mile transmissions. The problems was that by the end of test, not one minivan had its original transmission! This was the 96-00 body style.
Dealerships kept these transmission in stock, that’s how often they were swapped out.
Wow… Simply wow. How proud they must have been?
When my wife was in college (before we were married), her Mopar dad talked her into buying an early 90s Dakota with just over 100k miles. Within the following six months they had to replace the transmission.
Glad I could be of some help to you, windswords. If there’s anything else I could help you with, My email address is the same name, only it’s @aol.com. I first found out about this issue with the trans fluid back in the late 90’s. My best friend’s wife had an early 90’s caravan, I don’t remember the exact year. It had about 60k on it and the trans started acting up in that it would shift into 2nd at about 35mph, and stayed there.
He took it to a trans shop, and they said it needed rebuilt and wanted $900.00. He didn’t want to sink that kind of money into it, so we were going get a junkyard trans to swap into it, and his wife was going to trade it for a new one within a few months.
A guy that worked at the auto dismantler where we were going to get the trans from was a neighbor of mine, and told me about the fluid issue. He told us to flush the fluid and replace it with type F (this works well in these trannies also, but now I would recommend going with the type chrysler recommends)>
Anyway, we tried that and the transmisson worked flawless from then on. His wife ended up keeping that same minivan for about 4-5 more years, I don’t remember how many more miles she put on it, but I know it was a lot.
I have always changed the fluid and filters in my cars and trucks every 30k, and have never had transmission problems. This should be done with any make of vehicle, no matter what brand, and no matter what the owner’s manual says, because fluid and filters are much cheaper than a new transmission. I change the fluid in my plow truck every spring, because it takes a beating with all of the plowing that I do with it around here during snow season.
That must be the reason Ed Niedermeyer is so bitter, he must be especially miffed now that he knows that all he had to do was replace his trans fluid with the right type!
That is correct, many of these transmissions that later came from the factory were ruined later on down the road because an owner or garage added dexron. Chrysler discovered that the dexron was not compatible with the clucth packs, and ate them up.
But if a person changed to the ATF+3 in time after the transmission stared actting up then it was normally fine afterward. If the trans was operated for too long a period of time with the wrong fluid after starting to act up then the clutch packs would burn up from slippage.
This transmission was actually the first totally electronic trans ina production car. All transmissions are now electronically controlled, just like this one. Chrysler was the one that paved the way.
GM”S 700 R4 that came out in the 80’s was conventional in operation, with only the torque converter lockup feature being computer controlled. For the first few years it was a total disaster. They made changes to it over the years, rerouting and enlarging fluid passages, stronger input shafts and better clutches, etc. They finally made it into a good unit, and it is still used in some of their vehicles only now it’s called the 4L60E.
When first intoduced in 84 tho it had a lot more problems than chrysler’s ultradrive.
I got one massive gripe…
Chrysler (“thinks” — and I know they dont..) that they can drum up some other b.s customer awareness program.. sitting on top of their minivans.. hoping that some SUCKER is going to give them the time of day.
When its a here today, gone tomorrow situation.
I really feel bad for people who buy shit from them.
Minivan pledge…
How bout ya design decent vehicles.. worth a shit, in competitive markets.. and not go bankrupt or wards of the state..every 10yrs.
Minivan pledge..
Id love to give them a GIANT 1 finger pledge..
Show them how much I really.. WANT MY MONEY BACK!
I’m no minivan person myself. But….except for the idiots in here who operated theirs with the wrong fluid, if chrysler’s minivans were so bad then why were they No.1 in minivans for so long?
They are the only american company to still be in the soccer-mom business as ford and gm have pulled out of that segment. Gm tried with the lumina apv and it’s pontiac and olds siblings. They later brought out the chevy venture which didn’t pan out. Ford flopped with the aerostar and windstar.
There was even some idiot that posted that the volkswagen routan was nicer than a mopar minivan and that chrysler copied it.
Hello? That shows the mentality of some of the people posting in here, he doesn’t even know that the routan is a rebadged chrysler.
Moparman426W:
Actually, the level of discourse here is higher than just about any other site I frequent. I am frequently impressed by the level of knowledge the B&B possess, and enjoy reading the comments as much as the articles they are attached to.
The suggestion to consider the Routan (and various humorous followups) were clearly intended to be ironic. Even an idiot knows that a Routan is just a rebadged Chrysler.
And the person who actually CAN SELL that “VW” to someone…
THAT.. is a genius, and the person buying.. IS TRULY AN IDIOT.
So if the level of knowledge is so high in here, thalter, then why didn’t any of these people know they were using the wrong tranny fluid? The tsb came out for that way back in the 90’s.
And why would they need to take it to a trans shop if they know anything? You can avoid being ripped off by fixing your own car.