Are these worth saving?

Hey guys,

My wife's aunt has two car that used to belong to he husband. He passed away about a year ago,and I always had said I wanted one of the cars. I was contacted by her,and she wants to know if I am still interested. One of the cars(the one I wanted) is an 88,or 89(12/88 build date) Dodge Caravan 2.2 litre 5-speed. I went to see it today,and while rough around the edges it isn't all rotted,and rusted. I was thinking turbo swap,and challenge vehicle,but I don't know a thing about original Dodge minivans. I was surprised to see leaf springs in the rear. I always assumed they had coil springs.

The other car is a 99 Saab 93 automatic hatchback. It has collision damage on the front,but doesn't look terrible. It appears very repairable,but if nothing else the turbo engine may be worth getting. Does this car have any desirable parts,or is it worth fixing the collision damage,and then drive,or sell? Is this a GM Saab,or is it before they came on board?

Only thing I remember about a certain early 2.2 Caravan is that it was dog slow. That, and when the ignition module went bad, it would intermittently stop running. I recall running down a particular stretch of busy road and having the thing let loose with an atomic backfire that genuinely startled a woman pulling alongside of me. I think she may have peed her pants. Ah, good times.

The muffler never was the same after that.

Do it on the van. Not sure about the saab.

Yes on the van, only because of what you want to do with it. Stock its pretty crappy.

Not so much on the Saab. Post GM sludging (?) automatic turd.

Then again you're talking to a guy washing his 3 Volvos worth a combined $2500*, so what do I know?

*including the soap and water I've used tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haPCQKOyMTo

i bought one of those first gen caravans (89) yesterday. tons of room to work under the hood since it actually has a hood and doesnt hide the engine under a giant windshield.

I was amazed at the space under the hood. With the small 4 banger,no AC,and a tiny radiator it looked like you could climb in there to work on it.

Can anyone tell me what year the van is with a 12/88 build date?

the saab could be nice as a daily.. and some of the turbos can go pretty damn quick.. but yes, beware of sludging on the t7 cars and the auto kills all fun

When the mini-kids were little, before jumping into the minivans with both feet, we had an early Voyager, '85, 2.2, 5-speed. I drove that thing all over the country and the 5-speed made it an acceptable driver. It grew on me and I was actually sad when it finally died. The utility was amazing. The only real downer was that the seats were bears to take in and out(and store). I used it as a truck, a camper, as well as a people (and kids)mover. I liked the smaller size and the boxy looks. Forget the turbo swap, clean it up and run the wheels off of it. Tinted windows, a set of wheels and your stylin'! ps- if it's for sale, let me know.

Only thing I remember about a certain early 2.2 Caravan is that it was dog slow. That, and when the ignition module went bad, it would intermittently stop running.

You're talking about a carbed, earlier model. The 88 and 89 vans would have throttle body injection which is practically the most reliable thing ever.

Plus, i highly doubt it is a 2.2. It is probably a 2.5L. Does it say 2.2 on the emission sticker?

I have a 90 2.5/5spd caravan that started out tbi and has since been turbocharged. The utility of the vehicle is just freaking amazing. Minimac covered that pretty well. The only thing i would add is that if you leave it non-turbo, it will be the fuel efficient minivan you're likely to find in the united states. My 2.5L averaged 27mpg while not being particularly nice to it. I did go super-easy on it for 200 miles once to see how high it would go. I got 33mpg on that tank.

A 2.2 non turbo would definitely be slow. The 2.5 is also slow, but generally its pretty satisfying because it makes a lot of torque and its available right off idle. I could get into 5th gear by 25 mph and still accelerate. You could lug the motor down really low and it still felt fine. My stock 2.5/5spd van ran 18.2@73mph several times. Definitely slow, but 0-50 or so was pretty similar to a 17.0 car ( i raced a few) so it doesnt drive as bad as it sounds.

Of course, when you get the urge there is always the turbo option. The torque of a turbo 2.5 is just ridiculous. The torque of a turbo 2.2, however, is less satisfying.

So, im hoping its a 2.5, and im recommending you definitely grab it! My 5spd van is my most-loved vehicle!

Vigo thanks for the info. The van has a 2.2 litre with a factory carb that said Holley on it. At least it looked like a carb,but it definitely said Holley on it. Maybe it is an 88 model,and before the carbs came out,or the door was off a newer van,and had the corresponding tag that showed 12/88 on it. My wife's aunt thought it was an 86,but the door tag said otherwise.

Chris

holley made TBI units too. Pull up the air cleaner to see for sure. 88 and newer should be injected.

Ditch the 2.2, ditch the interior, and put a V8 or bigger engine in the back, powering the rear wheels.

Gearheadotaku wrote: holley made TBI units too. Pull up the air cleaner to see for sure. 88 and newer should be injected.

Hell the tb on my 3.0 mitsu motor in my 94 scaravan says holley on it...

Junkyard_Dog wrote: Yes on the van, only because of what you want to do with it. Stock its pretty crappy. Not so much on the Saab. Post GM sludging (?) automatic turd. Then again you're talking to a guy washing his 3 Volvos worth a combined $2500*, so what do I know? *including the soap and water I've used tonight

When did G.M. get a hold of Saab anyway?

94 is the first of the "GM" saabs.. not too much GM content at that point.. but each year closer to now they got more and more GMified

mad_machine wrote: 94 is the first of the "GM" saabs.. not too much GM content at that point.. but each year closer to now they got more and more GMified

And now Saab is an orphink again...I wonder if GM can do ANYthing right...

I followed the link to the YouTube video on the worlds fastest Caravan, and this came up righ after it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQM_TyyRye4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Mikey52_1 wrote: And now Saab is an orphink again...

Not really.

If you want to know for sure what year it is, check the VIN. Look at the 10th digit. It will decode as follows:

F = 1985
G = 1986
H = 1987
J = 1988
K = 1989

Mikey52_1 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: 94 is the first of the "GM" saabs.. not too much GM content at that point.. but each year closer to now they got more and more GMified

And now Saab is an orphink again...I wonder if GM can do ANYthing right...

Err...wrong...Saab was bought by Spyker and is doing pretty well.

Right, saabs and all that, wonderful..

Can we get back to super cheap, super easy to work on, super useful, and super easy to make fast?

Last time i checked only the caravan fits..

I followed the link to the YouTube video on the worlds fastest Caravan, and this came up righ after it:

Ive looked at that video before, and what that is is a 96-00 AWD caravan (meaning most likely 3.8L) that they put a gear on the driveshaft and connected the turbine to the existing driveshaft with a chain, thus kinda 'backfeeding' a crap load of power into the stock drivetrain. In one of their videos they state that it trapped 98 IN THE 1/8TH MILE. Having owned one of those things before, i would DEFINITELY put way bigger brakes on it before making a full pass with that monster.

To the OP.. pre-87 vans all had 4 sealed beam headlights, as opposed to the two plastic housings that the 87-90 had. All the 4-light vans were carbed. I also think all the 87-90 vans were injected.

The tbi looks somewhat like a carbuerator, but it is not.

So, which front end does it have?