Pacifica to replace Town & Country

Duke wrote:

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.

So 5 vehicles, 450k miles? That's not really impressive. Unless you bought all of them at >150k or something.

No, it's not that impressive in terms of ultimate mileage, but among 5 different ChryCo vehicles with a fairly wide spread of models and generations, I've never gotten a dud.

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

No. You're thinking of SUV's.

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.

Yeah, but i said 3-row. Before the Pacifica, 3-row vehicles were mostly either minivans or SUVs, but not '3-row crossovers', which is now a huge segment.

Vigo wrote: Yeah, but i said 3-row. Before the Pacifica, 3-row vehicles were mostly either minivans or SUVs, but not '3-row crossovers', which is now a huge segment that exists almost entirely within marketing brochures, because the third row in most crossovers is completely useless for anyone except kids between the ages of 5 and 8.

FTFY.

In reply to Vigo:

Or, before Pacifica, the Rendezvous offered third row at launch in 2002.
But, enough bickering. We are agreeing about the trend and less about its origin.
http://wikicars.org/en/Buick_Rendezvous

In reply to JohnRW1621:

Dude where did you find that? You can totally see the plywood and the fake pillars in that picture.

They did have an unusable third row, the Pacifica was more of a hybrid wagon/van instead of the box CUV/crossover stuff.

Duke wrote: I'll repost my reaction from FB:

Detroit Free Press said: Chrysler is dropping the "Town & Country" name in hopes of shedding the stigma attached to the minivan as an uncool vehicle.

1) If people even *smell* something minivanish about it, they will think it's uncool, no matter what it's named. Hence the massive popularity of SUVs (which are about 65% as space-efficient as a minivan) being idiotically pressed into service as minivans throughout suburban America. 2) Chrysler wants to avoid the "uncool" minivan names - which have been around since the minivan killed the station wagon - so they revive the "Pacifica" name? A name that is only associated with a problematic and uninspiring lump of ambiguity that died in well-deserved obscurity 10 years ago? That being said, I can see myself looking for one about 10 years from now when our current, perfectly-preserved, low-miles 2012 T&C is inevitably rear-ended and totaled out because it's 15 years old and has no book value.

THat's exactly what I thought. The vehicle looks really good. IDK why in the world they're using the Pacifica name though. That name was lame the first time around, and even lamer this time.

That said, nothing a de-badge can't solve.

now, if they could only give it 5000lbs towing

That said, my parents have had about half a dozen Chrysler minivans since our original 1989 Voyager. They went overseas with us, went cross-country many times, I drove one for one year of high school (and beat on it good), and they just bought another new one last year. I don't recall them every having any major problems on any of the voyager/caravan/T&C that we owned, and I'm quite certain between the 5 or 6 they've owned, the've done well over 1million miles. I'm not a big Chrysler fan by any means, but if I was gonna buy any Chrysler product, it would probably be a minivan.

And now they finally have one that looks pretty stylish. Will see what the wife thinks when she gets home :)

JohnRW1621 wrote: In reply to Vigo: Or, before Pacifica, the Rendezvous offered third row at launch in 2002. But, enough bickering. We are agreeing about the trend and less about its origin. http://wikicars.org/en/Buick_Rendezvous

Acura MDX was first minivan SUV with 3rd row, way back in 2000.

I grew up in real minivans and always try the 3rd row of any new 3-row i can clamber into. The Pacifica 3rd row is pretty ok for 6'0 me. The MDX, Rendezvous, and Highlander 3rd rows (to name a few contemporary 3-rows, two of which would be considered SUVs anyway) are all very tight as they are basically afterthoughts to a 2 row vehicle, just as most 2+2s are 2 seaters for practical purposes. By extension, i dont think the Pontiac Aztek platform mate is a minivan that's missing it's 3rd row. I can still get into and sit in the 3rd row of one of my 3300lb 1st gen Caravans more comfortably than i can get into the 3rd row of the of the 4200lb current gen MDX, which i have tried every seat in (and in general am very impressed by).

I fully admit that this is a semantics conversation, and i'm not mad at anyone. In a way i'm glad there are people willing to argue about the history of the crossover segment at all.

I suspect the reason we haven't seen a hybrid minivan before is due to space. Yes, minivans have a lot of it - or more accurately, they're designed to be very space efficient. The market evaluates them on this, and it's a big selling point. We've already seen it in this thread, the hybrid loses the stow and go seats to the battery pack and this is a problem.

Meanwhile, SUVs aren't expected to have any space efficiency at all, so the hybrid equipment is easy to package.

Keith Tanner wrote: I suspect the reason we haven't seen a hybrid minivan before is due to space. Yes, minivans have a lot of it - or more accurately, they're designed to be very space efficient. The market evaluates them on this, and it's a big selling point. We've already seen it in this thread, the hybrid loses the stow and go seats to the battery pack and this is a problem.

Plug in, yes, I would agree. Traditional hybrid battery packs are not nearly as large. Just look in the back of a gen 1 Prius.

Honda managed to find the space to add a vacuum cleaner, hose, and several attachments to the Odyssey.

I think the stow-n-go thing is honestly a reflection of expectations being extremely high in a minivan vs (as Keith pointed out) kinda stupidly low in other segments. Chrysler stopped selling AWD minivans over the stow-n-go space too, with few complaints. I would give up Stow-n-go for either. I'm not yet old and debilitated enough to be that bothered by removing a 2nd row seat like i've always done before, as long as they are reasonably light and it's reasonably easy. It's not like the pre-stowngo seats were hard to get out, but they were heavy. If that's fixed, i can give up one row of stowngo to get my first 1.5 gallons of gas for free (basically) every time i drive the car.

I love the design language. Unfortunately I'm still under a Chrysler ban in place by the wife.

In reply to Vigo:

Now I would not give up the stow & go for a couple of gallons. Most of the time, my van is in "cargo mode" and the need to carry people comes without warning. Granted, if I replace the minivan with a full size van, I will lose the stow and go and likely any passenger carrying ability beyond the front two seats.

Additionally, I have no place to put the seats when I wasn't using them - which would be most of the time.

At the end of the day, it's unfortunately a Chrysler

It looks suprisingly nice, but yeah, bad call on the name. If you want a new name fine, but not that one. Imagine a cargo version, or one with a conversion van interior!

I would certainly give up stow and go for PHEV capabilities, as basically 100% of our driving outside of road-trips would be electric. Unfortunately I bet the price of the PHEV model is way out of my price range even on the used market 5 years from now.

Vigo wrote: I think the stow-n-go thing is honestly a reflection of expectations being extremely high in a minivan vs (as Keith pointed out) kinda stupidly low in other segments. Chrysler stopped selling AWD minivans over the stow-n-go space too, with few complaints. I would give up Stow-n-go for either. I'm not yet old and debilitated enough to be that bothered by removing a 2nd row seat like i've always done before, as long as they are reasonably light and it's reasonably easy. It's not like the pre-stowngo seats were hard to get out, but they were heavy. If that's fixed, i can give up one row of stowngo to get my first 1.5 gallons of gas for free (basically) every time i drive the car.

IDK what's wrong with the tilt-forward seats like we have in the Sequoia. They fold flat against the back of the front seats and leave the whole cargo area open enough for a 4-8 plywood. I'm sure they could do the same with minivan seats if no stow-and-go available.

They should come out with a stripped down version and badge it as a RAM.. Minimal power options, stow and go and wipe down seats.

In reply to irish44j:

That's basically how every station wagon and hatchback is. However, minivans generally have flat floors and there isn't a foot well for the seats to fold into. In my GC, the floor is flat from the pedals back.

I'm not holding my breath for a Dodge or Ram version of any kind if the rumors I've read hold true. Hopefully I'm wrong.