Grand Caravan vs Toyota Seinna am in the market for a new one, comments .

  • Thread starter Thread starter xinteerts
  • Start date Start date
X

xinteerts

In the market for a new one. I now have a 97 3.0 litre voyager,. Its
been very good to me.

My friend is telling me that the Toyota van is less expensive, and may
be as good qualtiy, and is bigger than the Grande.


Is this true.
\
Apreciate any comments.
 
Seen 'em both. sienna is decent looking but I"d still give $$ for $$ to the
Grand Caravan or T&C. I have had 3 (still have 1) and they have given me
exemplary service. The only one I had (didn't include it in my count) was an
88 Grand with 3 litre and 3 spd and after all the trans and engine troubles
I had with it I almost never got one again. Ended up getting a 92 GV with
3.3 and was amazed at how much better it was. We kept that until it was
totaled in a bad wreck at 176000 miles. Just got rid of a 93 T&C with over
200k but the frame rusted out in a key area which I felt comprimised it's
safety. Mechanically I believe it would have gone to 300k. We still have a
99 T&C ltd. and it's very nice product also.
High points are.
1. Cheap to maintain.
2. Simple engine design without alot of stupid bs design issues. Just
straightforward OHV V6 smooth, quiet and behaves more like a small block V8
than a 6. Also very simple to maintain.
3. Sturdy build design. Important if you want to haul a small boat to the
lake or a camper (small of course) it will do it nicely (if properly
equiped)
Dislikes
1. I don't like having to lift out seats (but it does make a simpler
stronger design)
2. Still a little weakness in the trans. (No worse than any other FWD car
imo). Stick to good maint. sched. it will be fine.
Larry
 
In the market for a new one. I now have a 97 3.0 litre voyager,. Its
been very good to me.

My friend is telling me that the Toyota van is less expensive, and may
be as good qualtiy, and is bigger than the Grande.
Click to expand...

Which Toyota? The 2004 model or various prior generations.

The latest Toyota is as big or maybe slightly bigger than the current
Grand. It is MUCH more expensive, probably 8-10K similarly equipped.
Quality is reputed to be better than the Chryslers, but I've never owned
a Toyota so I have no first-hand experience with them. Sounds like
your friend is largely ignorant about minivans.

There is a lot of information on the net and even a few sites that will
do comparisons among similar models for you.


Matt
 
jdoe said:
Seen 'em both. sienna is decent looking but I"d still give $$ for $$ to the
Grand Caravan or T&C. I have had 3 (still have 1) and they have given me
exemplary service. The only one I had (didn't include it in my count) was an
88 Grand with 3 litre and 3 spd and after all the trans and engine troubles
I had with it I almost never got one again. Ended up getting a 92 GV with
3.3 and was amazed at how much better it was. We kept that until it was
totaled in a bad wreck at 176000 miles. Just got rid of a 93 T&C with over
200k but the frame rusted out in a key area which I felt comprimised it's
safety. Mechanically I believe it would have gone to 300k. We still have a
99 T&C ltd. and it's very nice product also.
High points are.
1. Cheap to maintain.
2. Simple engine design without alot of stupid bs design issues. Just
straightforward OHV V6 smooth, quiet and behaves more like a small block V8
than a 6. Also very simple to maintain.
3. Sturdy build design. Important if you want to haul a small boat to the
lake or a camper (small of course) it will do it nicely (if properly
equiped)
Dislikes
1. I don't like having to lift out seats (but it does make a simpler
stronger design)
2. Still a little weakness in the trans. (No worse than any other FWD car
imo). Stick to good maint. sched. it will be fine.
Larry
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all points except the "small block V8" comment. I
find the Chrysler V-6 engines to be completely unlike the V-8 engines of
old. They have NO torque below 3,000 RPM. These are horsepower engines
(i.e., need to rev to deliver), not torque engines that can pull at low
revs. That is my only complaint. The good thing is that they rev
pretty well and don't sound all that busy even at 3 grand. However,
given how most folks probably drive their minivans, I think a low-rev,
high torque engine would be better, but you'd likely sacrifice some
weight and efficiency as you'd need larger displacement.


Matt
 
My friend is telling me that the Toyota van is less expensive, and may
be as good qualtiy, and is bigger than the Grande.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that the Toyota costs quite a bit more than a Grand Caravan after
considering actual transaction costs. As for quality, Toyota certainly has a
good reputation, but the Sienna is a new design, so quality must be proven.
Around here, the Sienna is in short supply so the dealers are adding about
$2K to the window price. I wouldn't pay that amount. Instead, I'd look for a
used Grand Caravan and make sure I got the remainder of its 7 year warranty.
 
That's why I specified SMALL BLOCK V8. The 3.3/3.8 remind very much of the
old chev 283, and mopar 273.
Larry
 
That's why I specified SMALL BLOCK V8. The 3.3/3.8 remind very much of the
old chev 283, and mopar 273.
Larry
Click to expand...

A Chevy 350 is also a small block.. That 3.8 sure doesn't remind me
of a 350.

Steve B.
 
i do know the new chrysler vans are shipping to the dealers with the new hidaway
seating pretty ko0l stuff
 
Steve said:
A Chevy 350 is also a small block.. That 3.8 sure doesn't remind me
of a 350.

Steve B.
Click to expand...

My 3.3's don't even remind me of a 283! Or even the 4.3L Chevy V-6 in
my pickup. It won't rev with the little V-6s, but it will pull below
2,000 RPM.


Matt
 
Matthew said:
I agree with you on all points except the "small block V8" comment. I
find the Chrysler V-6 engines to be completely unlike the V-8 engines of
old. They have NO torque below 3,000 RPM. These are horsepower engines
(i.e., need to rev to deliver), not torque engines that can pull at low
revs.
Click to expand...

That makes one of you! The 3.5 is a revver, but the 3.3 and 3.8 are
tractor engines. And the 3.5 really isn't a slouch on the low-end
because its got variable manifold tuning. They don't have AS MUCH torque
below 3k as a 318 or 360, but they're about a hundred cubic inches
smaller, too! Compared to similar-sized engines from Toyota and Honda,
they have a LOT more get-up-and-go off the line.
 
Steve said:
That makes one of you! The 3.5 is a revver, but the 3.3 and 3.8 are
tractor engines. And the 3.5 really isn't a slouch on the low-end
because its got variable manifold tuning. They don't have AS MUCH torque
below 3k as a 318 or 360, but they're about a hundred cubic inches
smaller, too! Compared to similar-sized engines from Toyota and Honda,
they have a LOT more get-up-and-go off the line.
Click to expand...

You must have much different tractors where you live! Neither of my
3.3L engines will accelerate much at all below 2,000 RPM and don't
really begin to pull until 3,000. And when I come to a grade at all,
the transmission downshifts twice to maintain 60 on any significant hill
in northern PA. My Acclaim with the 2.5L would pull most hills around
here in high gear with only the occasional unlocking of the TC clutch.
It took probably 3/4 throttle to trigger a downshift. The 3.3 will
downshift at what feels like 1/2 throttle or less. I never meant argue
that they have the same absolute value of torque as the old larger V-8s,
I meant that the torque curve is much less flat and peaks at a much
higher RPM. It is the character of the engines, not the absolute numbers.


Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest threads

Back
Top