I've found a decent looking late model Caravan on a dealer's lot and thought it would be a hoot as a DD and as a hauler of bulky items. I realize it will be bog slow with the 4 cylinder/auto combo, but does anyone here have any DIRECT, PERSONAL experience with the 2.4 equipped Caravans? Any AFFORDABLE hop-ups for the 2.4?
Nope. My only experience is with the older1989 Plymouth 2.5 Turbo version. Not much done to in the way of hop ups, but it is not slow by any means. 
Almost direct, personal experience:
My brother in law has had a '97-'98(?) short Plymouth minivan since it was new. It has the 2.4/auto. Pretty sure it is a 3 speed auto. It is a bit slow, but adequate except for passing on 2 lanes.
His popped a head gasket at 50k miles a couple of years ago. They used it for a lot of short trips so it had pretty low mileage. I think he's reasonably happy with it overall, but I think the head gasket problem is pretty common from what he was told. The iron block/aluminum head probably contributes to head gasket problems.
I don't know about hop ups. Either a V6 swap or an SRT-4 motor? 
-Brian
They haul a full load of passengers around pretty well. My family rented a V6 FWD Caravan once, it was a tire vaporizing machine. We'd go back to the I4 Caravan on our next trip if car rentals weren't so expensive that we can only afford to rent compact sedans now.
Well, lets just say that if you want to tow-dolly a Rampage to the Challenge from Canada....forget it....You need a V6 Caravan. But the I4 is a fine beast for going 30 mph with no passing, and only carrying groceries. You want to hop it up? Buy a V6 version. Earle
Well, the 2.4 is the same as used in the other Chrysler vehicles so a SRT4 or PT Turbo version wouldn't be impossible. Nor would adapting a aftermarket turbo or supercharger kit to one.
However the V6 has more torque to start with so it would be the best solution for hauling a bunch of stuff unless you've modded the 2.4.
Look for the V6 version. If you're looking at older '96-'00 vans keep an eye out for rust around the front strut towers. I looked at several last year and that looks to be a weak area. I like my '97 3.8L. That thing will get up and move plus it gets 25 mpg on the highway.
Dodge built a factory 2.4L turbo van for Mexico and Europe. Emissions would not allow for mass consumption of the turbo engine.
The good: The vans do not have a lot of fail points, the plastic is crap as all manufacturers are. Coil springs fail often. The 2.4L NA engine is not bad in the Stratus (I have one) a bit buzzy and thirsty. The Van makes it slower, thirstier and buzzier. I would rather drive a V6 Caravan than the 2.4L unit personally, the 3.3L unit gets equal fuel mileage.
The Caravan in question is a lowish mileage '05 and I wouldn't be using it as a sub for a truck (i'm not sure I'd ever tow with a "minivan") except for hauling large/light weight bulky items. I was thinking of something not quite as "radical" as a full SRT-4 in the way of power add-ons. But considering how small the fuel mileage difference is between the 4 and the 6s in these vans, I guess I should forget it?
The V6 models are indeed "tire-vaporizing machines" as someone else above put it. I'm reasonably certain the short-body 3.3L V6 model that my mom drives can easily destroy my manual shift twin-cam Saturn in a drag race (talk about a cripple race!).
And it can get 20 city if you baby it.
Mine came with the optional bird reproduction module. 
Awwwwwwwwwwwwww... that's just downright too cute.
Twin_Cam wrote: The V6 models are indeed "tire-vaporizing machines" as someone else above put it. I'm reasonably certain the short-body 3.3L V6 model that my mom drives can easily destroy my manual shift twin-cam Saturn in a drag race (talk about a cripple race!). And it can get 20 city if you baby it.
yeah, off the line, my 3.3L caravan can easily stomp my mk3 golf. At highway speeds though, it won't stomp much.
The 2.4/3spd combo is bulletproof.
It's not supposed to be fast, it's a minivan. They work just fine.
I've been dreaming about an SRT swapped minivan.
Is that bad? :)
In truth, it would be pretty easy to do. An alternative would be to use the SRT4 bottom end (it used to be ~160 for the pistons and rods complete, not sure these days), SRT turbo and manifold, and a megasquirt. It would have sufficient torque at that point.
njansenv wrote: I've been dreaming about an SRT swapped minivan.
I've been dreaming about a GRMer who finds a trashed Viper who takes the engine and puts it behind the driver in a Dodge minivan...
EastCoast: those twin vacuum solenoids come on the turbo ?
Integraguy, I was just reading up on the 4 speed auto and final drive ratios. The 3.8 uses the lowest ratio's, and the 4 banger uses the highest. So putting the 3.8 gears in the 4 banger would slow the rev's down quite a bit. I'm not sure if the van would get any better mileage as you still have to push all that air out of the way, but it looks to be a easy swap.
daytonaer...thanks for the info, this is along the lines of the kind of help I'm looking for.
I'm telling myself I should forget this idea, but it keeps coming back. I imagine building this Caravan that goes, stops, and handles unlike any other minivan...at least that Chrysler has ever produced. Sort of a cross between that old Dodge Spirit R/T and a plain vanilla Caravan for a true sleeper that can also haul smallish loads.
Well, the v6 guys take the transfer gears from the 4 bangers to make them more snappy. I'm not sure if the 4 cylinder would have the guts to loaf around with the low ratio gears from the big v6. But it would be fun to try.
I can not find the chart I was looking at the other day, but here is one from the older transmissions. I stole it from 'turbododge' website, I can not link it without you registering.
..Basically, 5th ave or imperial w/the 3.8 had 3.17 final drive. and 4.07's on the 2.0 4 cyl. Sorry I could not locate a newer chart, but if the van has a 4 speed auto it should be easy. I don't believe there were that many different transfer gear sets for the 3 speed however.
I remember a big selling point with the re-design in '96 for the chrysler vans were there ability to drive like a car and not feel so big. They really were steps above everything else at the time, but nothing special now. They do have a aluminum suspension/subframe k-frame (whatever you want to call it) which looks fancy. I suppose if you slammed it to the ground and added some big sway bars it would handle.
However, I remember an article on the spirit r/t when it came out and they compared it to the daytona r/t with the same engine. They said the spirit felt faster because the power would overwhelm the suspension and make it feel scary fast, as opposed to the daytona which apparently had less suspension travel and handled the power in a less violent manner.
I've been working on a evil minivan for a while now, its not the newer one like your considering, but it can more than take care of anything I have ever needed to borrow a truck for while not being a truck.
Actually I don't think there is a difference in suspension travel, more a difference in spring and shock rate. The Daytona's were almost always more stiffly sprung than the 4-door cars.
Either way, a minivan would be fun but you'd have to be mindful of the potential rollover hazard if one pushed it too hard with ultra-sticky tires.
Its too bad the 2.2L Turbo II used in the Shelby Daytona and Chrysler GLHS, are so rare, 175hp and 175 ft. lbs. in stock tune would be plenty of pep.
Eh, get an 89 or later 2.5 Turbo 1 and add an intercooler and have more torque and more power.
The forged internals of the T2/T4 are a bit overkill for most performance uses
You'll need to log in to post.
