Used "swiss army knife" vehicle?

Why do you guys prefer the Chrysler vans?

If you are down with van life they are definitely the most versatile vehicles out there we love our 2010 Odyssey, I very rarely pull the second row out as behind the second row is already a ton of space

I'm towing a 3k trailer with it using a WD hitch setup and trailer brakes, it does ok but I have to watch the trans temperatures I am installing an additional cooler that i hope will solve that

I'll put in another minivan vote, most from this century are rated to tow 3500lbs and do it surprisingly well with nothing but the usual trans cooler and trailer brake controller. They tend to be pretty quiet and comfortable too.

In reply to Jaynen:

They Chrysler vans are pretty decent as Chrysler products go and depreciate faster than the Honda/Toyota equivalent.

Allroad. Is it an SUV with sporting pretentions? A wagon with SUV ground clearance? Able to tow 5,000 lbs with ease? A twin turbo terror a tune away from 330 hp? An all weather interceptor capable of ludicrous speed in sketchy conditions?

All of the above. Nothing is as "Swiss army" as an Allroad.

And this is GRM, we laugh at pesky things like "reliability" and "sensible". Get the fun car!

Other than towing, I'll take a minivan over an SUV any day. We replaced our 2003 MPV with a 2011 T&C (first year for the Pentastar). With the seats stowed it'll haul more than my 1993 Dakota. Towing is maxed at 3500 and most 2012+ vans just need a proper hitch to do that.

BrokenYugo wrote: I'll put in another minivan vote, most from this century are rated to tow 3500lbs and do it surprisingly well with nothing but the usual trans cooler and trailer brake controller. They tend to be pretty quiet and comfortable too. In reply to Jaynen: They Chrysler vans are pretty decent as Chrysler products go and depreciate faster than the Honda/Toyota equivalent.

Just looking on True Delta almost every year of the Chrysler vans seems to be less reliable than the toyota or honda but I know lots of people who havent had issues

Van life and this was behind the second row and still could fit a power wheels in there

19ft Hybrid trailer camping at the lake

I think that Minivans are the most swiss-army vehicles out there. With the possible exception of the Mazda5, they are too big however.

(Where I live in particular) the FJ Cruisers are the AWD equivalent of what Corvette's used to be. Poser-town.

Audis scare me with the repair-bill horror stories. Subaru wagons without a WRX or STI in their name bore me.

But I'm not picky

Jaynen wrote:

BrokenYugo wrote: I'll put in another minivan vote, most from this century are rated to tow 3500lbs and do it surprisingly well with nothing but the usual trans cooler and trailer brake controller. They tend to be pretty quiet and comfortable too. In reply to Jaynen: They Chrysler vans are pretty decent as Chrysler products go and depreciate faster than the Honda/Toyota equivalent.

Just looking on True Delta almost every year of the Chrysler vans seems to be less reliable than the toyota or honda but I know lots of people who havent had issues

Over the last 25 years and 250,000 miles I've had 3 Mopar minivans. 2 of them were killed by getting rearended, and 1 of those was easily resurrected by Ross413 and is still in long-haul service. I've never had a major mechanical problem, and damn few minor ones.

Kreb wrote: But I'm not picky

So then Mazda 5 despite the lack of towing capacity...Or maybe you could throw us a bone.

What is the absolute minimum towing capacity you'll accept?

What is the absolute maximum length, width, and turning circle you'll accept?

What is the absolute minimum cubic feet of cargo volume you'll accept, or at least a representative vehicle to compare against? How much does cargo volume form factor matter?

Even if it's not as 'swiss army knife' as a minivan, I personally think the RAV4 V6 (2006-2012) has a great combo of right-sizing for sub/urban life, efficiency, and light duty (3500 lb) towing capacity...But I'm biased.

I'm curious on 1st gen xb versus the element.

As far as the caravan questions:

2011+ for pentastar

I like dodge because of costs, stow and go, and the ability to put a stack of 4x8s in the back with the hatch closed. I've had mine for something like five years and it's needed an alternator.

Kreb wrote: I think that Minivans are the most swiss-army vehicles out there. With the possible exception of the Mazda5, they are too big however.

If you want a utility vehicle with more tow capacity AND comfort/refinement than a Honda Element you pretty much have to go bigger. They're pretty maneuverable for their size, short overhangs and whatnot.

In reply to Driven5:

My company has full-sized trucks that I can borrow, so the towing thing is more of a "like" than a "need". But 3000 lbs. min up a grade to 7500 ft. would be nice. I was not planning to replace the Element any time soon, so unlike most of my decisions, I haven't tossed this around in my head for 6 months. So I'm still trying to wrap my head around things. Currently these are what I'm considering:

Most likely: Rav-4 or Highlander V-6, Another Element, Mazda5, CRV, CX-5 (might be too pricey at this point)

Also under consideration: Ridgeline (too big, but I love 'em), Forester XT, 4th gen 4runner (Probably too pricey), XB.

What am I missing? Anything Korean or American I should consider?

I'll be honest - I loved our 4Runner, but it's "trucky" and pretty small inside. The Sequoia is just too big for daily stuff, and boring to drive.

My wife's new (well, 2013) Mazda CX-9 may be your answer (or the CX-7). They're pretty inexpensive on the used market, use a proven drivetrain on the pre-2015 models (Ford), come in FWD and AWD flavors. But the thing I like most about the CX-9 is that it can comfortably seat 8 people but when driving it, it FEELS small, and dimensionally it is pretty small. My neighbor has a Pilot that I've driven a couple times and the CX-9 is night and day more fun to drive. A few interior components are a bit "hard plastic" and it doesn't have the interior fit+finish of a Honda, but with the Touring/Grand Touring seats you can forget you're not in a sportwagon, but in a large-ish SUV.

Not sure about towing (I use the Sequoia for that), but I think it is probably around 4500 for the CX-9.

Anyhow, just throwing it out there. When wife started looking for her new kid-hauler, the CX-9 wasn't even on our radar. It was like 10th on our list. In the end, I like it better than everything else in the same price range that we tried. I hate "zoom zoom" marketing, but the CX-9 feels a hell of a lot like her Mazda3 felt in terms of driving dynamics, evne though it's much bigger. Give one a try, highly suggested.

BTW, From 2009 to about 2015, they're all basically the same vehicle underneath, but with cosmetic and interior changes. THe 2015+ is a totally new design.

Caution on the CX7. The turbo 4cyl is considered one of the least reliable vehicles made. In the later years there was a Ford 2.5L 4cyl offered that was shared with the Ford Escape.
If any CX7, be sure to get this 2.5L

irish44j: You may be on to something. My wife has a CX-7 which she likes, but would prefer something smaller. I don't want the CX-7 for my own ride, but might consider going big for something like the CX-9 or other up-class vehicle IF..... she traded in on something small and fun like a Mazda3. That way my vehicle may be less fun, but it's more refined and has the power that I want, whereas hers becomes more fun. Hmmmmmmm.

Go drive a CX-9. You'll forget how big it is while driving, until you look back and realize there are two rows behind you. Third row folds flat and the cargo area is pretty big. Not Sequioa big, but plenty for a family vacation trip.

Also, if you check them out, drive both a FWD and and AWD. The FWD feels much lighter and peppier. The AWD has much better corner grip but you can feel the extra weight to some degree. Pass on the base model and go either with the Touring or Grand Touring - they have MUCH better seats (the ones in my wife's Grand Touring are damn near as "sporty" feeling as the ones in my WRX......

Mazda CX5 with the 6 speed manual tranny. You'll need to look around for a while to find one but it's the most fun crossover / small SUV (owned Jeeps, KIAs, Hyundai, Toyota)I've ever had.

mike h

A CX9 may not 'feel' big while you're driving it out on the road, but when it comes to how well it physically fits in an urban environment, there is no changing the fact that it's nearly the same footprint as a minivan...If that's still of significant concern for you. I believe it also has 'only' a 3500 pound tow rating, which may be enough, but is noticeably less than most others its size/class.

MB R-Class. What could go wrong?

Dark horse? Toyota Venza. Fuel economy in the mid 20s. Max tow rating is 3500lbs. Similar cargo capacity as the Element. Prices range from sub 10k to 15k depending on mileage/condition. They seem a bit more 'car-like' than a RAV4 or Highlander as overall height is lower.

Overall, they're probably biased more towards the comfort and luxury side than the utilitarian side but it might be worth a look.

Jaynen wrote: Why do you guys prefer the Chrysler vans?

Because they are the most versatile vehicles out there.

Jaynen wrote: If you are down with van life they are definitely the most versatile vehicles out there we love our 2010 Odyssey, I very rarely pull the second row out as behind the second row is already a ton of space

We have a 2011 Oddy and I've grown to really, really dislike it. Egonomics are a cluster-bleep. More than a few switches are not in a logical place, the HVAC/Radio stack still, after 3+ years fails to feel intuitive and requires eyes off the road to manipulate. The seats aren't terribly comfy, and the power sliding doors are TERRIBLE. Slow and cumbersom, and if you lose battery power, it takes a strong person to be able to open them. None of my kids can open the doors with out the power 'assist'. That's a scare thing in the event of a crash. Heck, my wife is recovering from surgery and can't open the doors if the battery were disconnected or the system fails.
That's a horrible design.
Then there's the heavy, bulky, awkward middle seats and the cargo hold that is great at swallowing small stuff, the a 4X8 sheet of anything either isn't going to fit, or will require you to buy extra lumber at the store to erect a platform to get your load above the rear trim.
Sure, it has an OHC engine that revs, but it lacks torque. the old 3.8 in our last grand caravan pulled like a train, this does NOT do that. It also has a sucktastic turning circle and feels ponderously huge in traffic.
Oh I could go on and on. Owning this Honda has proven that the Japanese are great textbook engineers, but terrible designers and don't understand how many folks use the vehicles.
So, if you're hauling people and never large loads, it's a fine, if over-priced vehicle. If you want to use it like a truck (many minivan owners do), its woefully lacking.

Edit: then there's that terrible transmission....and that's comparing it to a Chrysler product!! The only transmission that would be more reluctant to shift would be a 1-speed.

In reply to DrBoost:

Most odyssey lovers are the worst, I am glad to hear some truth.

I have an Ody-friend and their family had a breakdown and their post on Facebook was essentially:

Our van with 80K had the transmission died on our road tip, but we were so happy to find an open dealer who took pity on us and gave us a van loaner while they swapped our transmission! We love Honda!

I couldn't help but giggle. They get an unexpected $3K bill from a vehicle with under 100K miles and they are happy about it. If it were a Chrysler, they would have complained about how crappy it was.

Anyway, the 4x8 sheet is key. The Caravan takes basically as many as you dare to fit.

KyAllroad wrote: Allroad. Is it an SUV with sporting pretentions? A wagon with SUV ground clearance? Able to tow 5,000 lbs with ease? A twin turbo terror a tune away from 330 hp? An all weather interceptor capable of ludicrous speed in sketchy conditions? All of the above. Nothing is as "Swiss army" as an Allroad. And this is GRM, we laugh at pesky things like "reliability" and "sensible". Get the fun car!

Subaru Baja Turbo is almost all of those things, but with more reliability and bonus ugly.

DrBoost wrote:

Jaynen wrote: Why do you guys prefer the Chrysler vans?

Because they are the most versatile vehicles out there.

And they're freakin' cheap. Especially used.

Plus, they do the "truck first; people-mover second" thing best. Most of the time, the seats in mine are "stowed," but once in awhile, a bunch of us at work go to lunch - "everyone pile into the man-van!" - and it's a simple, two minute task to convert it back into a people-mover. I will miss that when I get another conversion van modified for camping - that ability to quickly change the functionality.

We haven't owned any other van to compare it to. But my grandparents had a couple of the early generation caravans when they were pretty much the only game in town besides the astro and the aerostar.

Ours works well but it spends 90% of its time as a people mover not as a truck :)