Pacifica to replace Town & Country

ProDarwin wrote:

Klayfish wrote: I agree with ProDarwin...here's hoping another manufacturer comes out with a decent electric only range minivan.

Even a traditional hybrid would satisfy me. It could probably be done cheaper and sacrifice less space. If they could make a minivan that was rated at 30/30, that would be fantastic compared low 21-23mpg combined for the current crop of "full-size" minivans.

Seriously. 21-23mpg for my current minivan would only happen if I drove downhill both ways. I've had several tanks that were literally 100% highway cruising...as in filled up at a station right off the highway and drove 75-80mph until I needed gas again...only got 22mpg out of my Sedona. Throw in any suburban or city driving and it quickly dips into the teens.

Chrysler's current minivans are pretty efficient. I average about 20mpg in the city in mine, and 27-30 on the highway--- depending on speed and traffic.

An all-electric range of 30 miles is a fantastic idea in a soccer-mom, grocery getter.

Chrysler may not get much right---- but they do minivans damn well.

Klayfish wrote: Seriously. 21-23mpg for my current minivan would only happen if I drove downhill both ways. I've had several tanks that were literally 100% highway cruising...as in filled up at a station right off the highway and drove 75-80mph until I needed gas again...only got 22mpg out of my Sedona. Throw in any suburban or city driving and it quickly dips into the teens.

22 mpg while moving 75-80 mph in a 4500lb vehicle (plus occupants/cargo) that's shaped like a slightly rounded brick sounds pretty impressive to me. I'd wager it would be 25+mpg at 65 mph.

A name that is only associated with a problematic and uninspiring lump of ambiguity that died in well-deserved obscurity 10 years ago?

Don't you mean the vehicle that made the mold that all the others followed? Traverse, Acadia, Flex, Pathfinder, et al are all basically the same thing that didn't exist until Chrysler invented it, which is to SUV-ify a minivan just enough to make it a '3-row crossover'.

I think the mistake Chrysler made with the 1g Pacifica was that it actually had to compete on the same lot as the T&C, which was obviously a much better minivan. I also think the Pacifica was actively trying to move Chrysler upmarket and was initially priced appropriately, getting decontented and much cheaper as the years passed. Forge a new vehicle niche and try to move a brand upmarket (I.e. be more expensive than most stuff on the lot) at the same time? That's a tough sell. I think the design of the 1g Pacifica was just fine. It just had a very hard job to do. Chrysler still deserves to be recognized for being first to market in a niche that has grown to be huge and profitable. I think the term "ahead of its time" is appropriate. Hell, how many cars nowadays have a big screen in the middle of their gauge cluster? How many had them in 2004? Hmm!

This new van is super exciting to me. The idea of a hybrid minivan is exciting enough to me that i spent a fair bit of money collecting parts to build my own..

The one thing I remember about the original Pacifica was that if you rolled the back windows down----without rolling the fronts down, the buffeting was mind blowing. I swear, the first time I did it, the damn thing shook, and pummeled me with noise and air so badly I thought for sure I had blown a tire. Nope---- just put the back windows down before the fronts. It was worse than any car or truck I've driven before or since.

Besides that is was an OK place to spend time. The interior was actually quite comfy. A sports car it was not.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

Then you haven't driven an Mk6 Jetta then.... It was designed to be driven with the windows rolled up and a/c blowing.

Was the old Pacifica that bad, or are people just repeating what they read somewhere? My sister in law had one for a number of years, and as far as I know it was a pretty good car. I thought it was decent looking as well.

I know of four pacificas and they are or were all junk.

That thing is secksy and I look forward to replacing my current '14 T&C with one in 4-6 years. Electric mom van is genius and why dont we have one already?

Total par for the course of mid-00's Chrysler. I guess some people have a distorted sense of just how bad that is. I can't think of a single thing on a Pacifica that is a cringeworthy problem area as far as mechanicals. The design aesthetics were definitely a cut above everything else Chrysler sold in 04.

xflowgolf wrote: The hybrid with 30 miles electric only is ideal for a soccer mom hauler. Full range for the inevitable road trip. No gas used dropping junior off at elementary school on the way to the office.

This is exactly what I want. Except for the office part. Work is for suckers and all that.
Some of us like making lots of babies and have an interest in plug in vehichicles. Until now we have been woefully underserved by the manufacturers.
Tuna knows what I'm talking about.

chandlerGTi wrote: Electric mom van is genius and why dont we have one already?

The more I thought about it, the more I kept coming back to this.

A minivan already has the size to hide battery packs of a substantial size.

Minivans are also already heavy inefficient vehicles, rarely breaking into the 20mpg range in real mixed use. Hybrid operation helps them most where they need it, short trips and stop/go errand running.

Minivans aren't really bought to haul more than what's crammed inside them. Unlike the attempts at Hybrid Tahoes, which hurt the tow ratings (the reason most people buy a body on frame V8 SUV in the first place) and defeated the functional purpose of the vehicle.

30 mile electric range in a vehicle this functional is huge! A lot of people don't want to try to cram a family and their stuff into a Prius, but being more efficient makes a vehicle already based around practicality better in almost every way.

Two of my relatives have had Gen 1 Pacificas. They're surprisingly good cars, and I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up. As for the new minivan, I really want to see it in the flesh before I pass judgement. I think it looks overall very good, but slightly awkward from some angles. Hopefully that's just the lighting and editing.

stuart in mn wrote: Was the old Pacifica that bad, or are people just repeating what they read somewhere? My sister in law had one for a number of years, and as far as I know it was a pretty good car. I thought it was decent looking as well.

They are without a doubt crap.

The 3.5s are the worst. A 3.8 wouldn't be near as bad.

Head gasket failure is WAY too common. This had 60k miles on it. No other problems with the cooling system.

Also common is an EVAP line on top of the saddle tank shrinking over time, side loading the 90 deg nipple on the pass side fuel pump module. Which this one also had.

Also the engine mounts fail with regularity. Just like this one as well.

My problem with the hybrid version is it loses the center stow-n-go. As cool as 30 miles of electric range would be, it doesn't have much use for me personally.

I remember reading awhile back that Chrysler plans to make this minivan on the pricey side. Figure $40k or so. Not sure how well that'd work. I vaguely remember reading there won't be a Dodge version, but the dealers may object as the Caravan still sells reasonably well. We shall see...

Looks good and would consider but I'm still skeptical about purchasing anything FCA related. For some reason in my mind Dodge/Chrysler are the VWs of the Americas with reliability and quality.

Head gasket failure is WAY too common. This had 60k miles on it. No other problems with the cooling system.

Well that's really too bad for the Intrepid, 300m, Concorde, LHS, Sebring, Avenger, Caravan, Town&Country, Challenger, Charger, Journey, Magnum, Nitro, and Volkswagen Routan owners out there who have the same gasket and are apparently all cursed with vehicles with pervasive headgasket problems.

As cool as 30 miles of electric range would be, it doesn't have much use for me personally.

Losing stow-and-go is definitely a downside, but if the seats are light and removable i don't think i'd miss it much. If you pretend not to know anything about the powertrain you can just think of the PHEV as a van that gets way better fuel economy in the sense that you save a bunch of fuel money.

I think the $40k thing will work out well enough for top-spec models. Honda hasn't exactly cancelled the Odyssey.. I just want to know how much better the PHEV drives than the regular trans. The 6spd in the current vans shifts like crap and if my Toyota Hybrid experiences with my Prius and GS450 are any clue, the PHEV (which sounds to use a similar system) is going to drive way nicer than the 'normal' 9spd auto van.

Am I the only one wary of a 9 speed chrysler transmission? Are 9 speeds really necessary?

My immediate family never had any Chrysler transmission problems but several extended family members have to the point they won't buy Chryslers anymore.

I do like the hybrid option a lot. We are soon moving to where I would be so close to work that I would hardly use any fuel with a vehicle like this.

Vigo wrote: Don't you mean the vehicle that made the mold that all the others followed? Traverse, Acadia, Flex, Pathfinder, et al are all basically the same thing that didn't exist until Chrysler invented it, which is to SUV-ify a minivan just enough to make it a '3-row crossover'.

I think it a bit overstating to say that Chrysler made the mold.

Chrysler Pacifica first year, 2004
Buick Rendezvous first year, 2002 which is a blatant styling rip off of Lexus RX300
Lexus RX300 first year 1998.

I'm not even saying that Lexus or Buick built the mold but it certainly was not Chrysler.
I will agree that it was early on the path that everyone followed.

STM317 wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Seriously. 21-23mpg for my current minivan would only happen if I drove downhill both ways. I've had several tanks that were literally 100% highway cruising...as in filled up at a station right off the highway and drove 75-80mph until I needed gas again...only got 22mpg out of my Sedona. Throw in any suburban or city driving and it quickly dips into the teens.

22 mpg while moving 75-80 mph in a 4500lb vehicle (plus occupants/cargo) that's shaped like a slightly rounded brick sounds pretty impressive to me. I'd wager it would be 25+mpg at 65 mph.

No doubt. The Sedona has always been a thirsty minivan compared to others anyway. Add in the fact that it's got enough power to smoke the tires and piss off the wife, and it ain't half bad. I just want my cake and eat it too. And no chance in hell am I going to go 65mph just to get to 25mpg. You try driving from Atlanta to Orlando with a wife and 3 kids in the car...it's a miracle I don't do a buck-twenty.

xflowgolf wrote: Minivans are also already heavy inefficient vehicles, rarely breaking into the 20mpg range in real mixed use.

I've owned mine for years and years and have never seen a tank below 20, otehr than when I tried E85 for the heck of it.

Highway A/C off it's more like 28-30.

I love the idea of a Plug-in Hybrid minivan, and it would be my next car IF I could afford it, but I highly doubt that will be the case.

What's the over/under on the Hybrid model MSRP? I'm going to guess at least $45k after the tax incentives are factored in. I could probably make it work at $35k after the federal rebate, but I don't see that happening.

A top spec T&C is about $40k now, hopefully they will be able to keep or beat that price point.

DirtyBird222 wrote: Looks good and would consider but I'm still skeptical about purchasing anything FCA related. For some reason in my mind Dodge/Chrysler are the VWs of the Americas with reliability and quality.

You have clearly not owned a Fiat.

--- former X1/9 owner. Great car, when it was running.

DirtyBird222 wrote: Looks good and would consider but I'm still skeptical about purchasing anything FCA related. For some reason in my mind Dodge/Chrysler are the VWs of the Americas with reliability and quality.

I've owned 3 different Mopar minivans spanning 3 generations, over 20 years, and a combined 250,000 miles. None of them has ever had a major mechanical issue, and damn few minor ones. I had a pair of '95 Neons which were flogged mercilessly for over 100,000 miles each and other than the notorious 420A headgasket (permanently fixed out of warranty by Chrysler at almost zero cost) neither of them ever gave a lick of trouble, either.

stuart in mn wrote: Was the old Pacifica that bad, or are people just repeating what they read somewhere? My sister in law had one for a number of years, and as far as I know it was a pretty good car. I thought it was decent looking as well.

There are 3 ex-Chrysler techs at my work and the mention of the Pacifica starts them twitching. One says he has never rebuilt as many transmission in other vehicles as he did the Pacifica.