Find Reviews by Make:
It’s easy to forget how small the early Caravans were, unless you see them with their van cohorts.
15 Comments on “Chrysler Minivan Thursday CC Outtake 1: Vintage Vans On Parade...”
Read all comments
I took my driver’s test in a first-gen short wheelbase Caravan V6 (’88?). Surprisingly, that thing actually drove pretty well–especially with 250# of bench seats removed.
The VW is only 1.5 inches longer than the Caravan, but its is also 16 inches taller and 2 inches narrower. It it this extra height that makes the VW look so much bigger.
Only in Eugene would you get three of these old things in a row. There is something utterly charming about that. That looks like a really nice microbus.
My late parents had a ’97 Caravan, specially modified by some local company so that my mother–crippled with MS–could drive her electric scooter into the back, and then the passenger chair would swivel so my father could get her into it fairly easily. It gave them a big quality of life boost.
The Caravan of that year, itself, was an attractive piece of industrial design IMO, rather powerful, and drove nicely, except that you didn’t want to try to corner too hard or quickly because it would resist.
I always meant to take a photo of my mother driving her scooter up the little retractable ramp into the Caravan, but fate intervened long, long before I expected it would.
I had a ’96. Agree with you on the design (which I like better than the current generation). Cornering on mine was actually not bad ’cause I had the “sport package” which meant slightly stiffer shocks and springs but that actually helped (did not have that seasick wallowing ride) but it’s true that understeer was a problem. I’d say the power was marginal, even with the OHV 3.8 engine – if fully loaded and in a hilly area, w. 3 spd auto trans it tended to hunt gears. Now have Routan w/ 4.0 OHC and 6 spd that’s significantly better – in the old days it would have been considered a rocket.
Just today I parked my Vibe in a school parking lot near to early ’90th Caravan. I had to do a double take: my Vibe looked very comparably sized!
I haven’t bothered to look up dimensions, but I do believe the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo are both at least as big as a 1st-gen Caravan, and are considered compact.
Current minivans are gigantic, howeve.r
Tell me about it. I was shocked at the size difference the day at work that I parked my Porsche 924S next to our head mechanic’s Kia Soul. I though they were supposed to be small cars!
I wish somebody would come up with the dimensions for the first generation Voyager/Caravan. It was a very utilitarian vehicle especially compared with current CUVs. The Mazda 5 seemed smaller to us. but that was memory alone.
http://www.allpar.com/model/m/history.html
shows dimensions in inches for the 1984 short wheelbase model:
Wheelbase 112
Length 175.9
Width 69.6
Here is the Mazda 5
Length: 181.5 in.
Width: 69 in.
Height: 64.2 in.
Wheel Base: 108.3 in.
Ground Clearance: 5.5 in.
Curb Weight: 3479 lbs.
I think the reason the M5 looks smaller to me is the more swoopy styling. The Voyager was a box and proud of it. The M5 only holds 2 in the 3rd row.
I wish there was something more like the Voyager available now.
The market has really given up on SWB vans. Aside from the Mazda5, which is too small to be useful IMHO, only one left is the Kia Sedona and that’s only sold in stripper trim. When Chrysler dropped the SWB, they said that the only people who bought it were cheapskates, which is in line with the way Kia is selling theirs. And the Kia is comparable to the 2nd gen. SWB Chryslers, which were , at around 189 inches, a foot longer than the originals and a foot shorter than the LWB versions, roughly.
I had two of those first generation minivans, both with the 2.2 liter and 5 speed. I averaged 28 mpg and I used them instead of a pickup truck on my North Dakota farm. I had a seed business, and I would put up to 1,400 pounds into them. 90% of the time they were better than a pickup, the rest of the time I used a one-ton dually with an 18,000# GVW. It saved a lot of gas.
I drove the first one 305,000 miles until the rear axle bent from all the overloading. They had the best traction of any two-wheel drive vehicle I’ve ever owned. I lived in far northern Minnesota, 300 miles from the farm, and driving down those empty, frost-heaved roads in the middle of the night, temperature at 30 below and dropping, I never was worried about a breakdown or not being able to get through, even when the snow was over the bumper and that little engine couldn’t even pull third gear against all that resistance.
I still have one of the last 5-speed vans, a 1993 with the 2.5, a much stronger engine but even better on fuel than the 2.2. Sadly, I stupidly poured brake fluid into the engine and ruined it. (Lesson- never put brake fluid temporarily into an oil can.)
The minivan was the best idea Detroit ever had. They’ve become such heavy pigs lately, but those early ones really got it right.
Imagine…efficient use of space, garage-able AND able to hold a 4×8 sheet of plywood – flat – between the rear wheelwells?
Make it reliable, and I may have to have one!
The SWB models could hold a sheet of plywood flat (there was 4′ between the wheelwells) but you couldn’t close the liftgate. Only the LWB ones can hold one with the gate closed.
Fun fact: the first Chrysler minivan I saw in the wild (i.e. outside of the auto show) had a personalized plate that read ‘TOY VAN’.
Nowadays, I keep repeating, “the minivan ain’t so mini anymore.”