Hid conversion 2000 Caravan

[Tim Mackinlay]

Has anyone done a Hid headlight conversion in a 2000 caravan?
I am thinking of this an am wondering if there would be too much
glare.

Tim

 

[Mike Hall]

HID's, DRL's, and flashing LED high-level rear brake lights bring the worst
out in people.. any or all of these on an SUV elevate syou to public enemy
#1.. don't go there..

 

[James C. Reeves]

Since when is a Caravan considered a SUV? Although I agree with the rest of
your post.

| HID's, DRL's, and flashing LED high-level rear brake lights bring the worst
| out in people.. any or all of these on an SUV elevate syou to public enemy
| #1.. don't go there..
|
|
| | > Has anyone done a Hid headlight conversion in a 2000 caravan?
| > I am thinking of this an am wondering if there would be too much
| > glare.
| >
| > Tim
|
|

 

[Mike Hall]

I just knew that somebody would pick up on that.. I was making the point
that the lighting referred to by the OP when fitted to an SUV is even
worse.. DRL's Rule..

 

[Steve]

Since when is a Caravan considered a SUV?

Well, its as big, uglier, and as hard to see around, so why do people
NOT hate them as much as SUVs?

20 years ago, the 84 Chrysler minvans were MINI. Now they're huge.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Well, its as big, uglier, and as hard to see around, so why do people
NOT hate them as much as SUVs?

As big as the small SUVs, but not even close to the size of an
Expedition or Suburban. Ugly is in the mind of the beholder, but I find
the minivans, except the new Nissan, to be more pleasing to the eye than
most of the SUVs. They aren't nearly as hard to see around as a large
SUV. I can see over a minivan in my K1500!

Many folks hate SUVs because they are a symbol of pure excess and waste
of fuel for MOST (not all) of the people that own them. I doubt that
10% of the SUVs are ever used for anything that couldn't be done better
by a minivan for a lot less cost in natural resources. I don't think
people hate them for their size alone, but for many other factors that
don't apply to minivans.

Matt

 

[Steve]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

As big as the small SUVs, but not even close to the size of an
Expedition or Suburban.

Many folks hate SUVs because they are a symbol of pure excess and waste
of fuel for MOST (not all) of the people that own them.

The really gargantuan ones like an H2 or Excursion, maybe. But when an
Expedition or Durango gets 19-20 mpg and a Caravan gets 23-35 mpg, is it
REALLY a big enough difference to care about? I don't own one, but if I
needed a vehicle to haul 6-7 people or tow a trailer, it would be a
Durango (rear-drive, v8 power) and not a minivan purely for the
difference in drivetrain. Actually it woudl probably be a restored
440-powered Chrysler Town and Country station wagon circa 1971 or Jeep
Grand Wagoneer circa 1988

I think some people just have to hate something in order to be happy.

 

[James C. Reeves]

| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > Since when is a Caravan considered a SUV?
|
| Well, its as big, uglier, and as hard to see around, so why do people
| NOT hate them as much as SUVs?

What do you drive, a Miata?

|
| 20 years ago, the 84 Chrysler minvans were MINI. Now they're huge.
|

I owned a 87 Grand and now a 97 Grand. The 97 isn't any bigger than the 87 was
that I can tell. I don't believe your claim is correct. Regardless, they're
far from being the size of most SUVs and are over 1000-1500 (or more) pounds
lighter as well and get 30%-40% better mileage than a SUV.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:




The really gargantuan ones like an H2 or Excursion, maybe. But when an
Expedition or Durango gets 19-20 mpg and a Caravan gets 23-35 mpg, is it
REALLY a big enough difference to care about? I don't own one, but if I
needed a vehicle to haul 6-7 people or tow a trailer, it would be a
Durango (rear-drive, v8 power) and not a minivan purely for the
difference in drivetrain. Actually it woudl probably be a restored
440-powered Chrysler Town and Country station wagon circa 1971 or Jeep
Grand Wagoneer circa 1988

If an Expedition or Durango really got 19-20, maybe it wouldn't be much
of an issue. I'd be surprised if an Expedition got 15 MPG in average
driving that would yield 22-23 in a minivan. That amounts to a 50%
advantage to the minivan and, yes, I think 50% is very significant.

I think some people just have to hate something in order to be happy.

Sure, there are some like that, but they are a small minority. As I
said, I own a K1500 which isn't an SUV, but it is the same size.
However, I haul firewood with it, plow snow with it, etc. I don't drive
it to the mall as a status symbol, which is what most folks buy SUVs to
do. I also own two minivans, and the difference in fuel mileage is
significant. I run 15-16 in the truck vs. 22-25 in the minivans. I
still prefer my other Voyager (the Kawasaki one) which gets 48-50 MPG
when I'm alone, but if you figure that a minivan can haul 7 people and
still get 22 MPG all day long, it is actually much more efficient than
my motorcycle, even if I'm riding two-up. 154 seat miles per gallon
beats 100 every day. So if you need to carry a bunch of people and
their gear very often, a minivan is an extremely economical way to do
that. And they are much cheaper to maintain as well. I can buy 4 tires
for my minivans for the price of two tires for my Z71 equipped pickup, etc.

However, if you need to tow a heavy trailer, plow snow, etc., then an
SUV or pickup truck is the only viable option. But driving the kids to
school and the mall in a 6,000 lb. vehicle that gets 14 MPG simply isn't
very sensible.


Matt

 

[Steve]

James C. Reeves wrote:

What do you drive, a Miata?

Actually a '66 Dodge Polara

I owned a 87 Grand and now a 97 Grand. The 97 isn't any bigger than the 87 was
that I can tell. I don't believe your claim is correct. Regardless, they're
far from being the size of most SUVs and are over 1000-1500 (or more) pounds
lighter as well and get 30%-40% better mileage than a SUV.

Depends on the SUV and the minivan. A loaded Town and Country weighs
*more* than my 18-foot-long '66 Polara, and only gets about 3-5 mpg
better than a 4.7L powered Durango.

 

[Steve]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

If an Expedition or Durango really got 19-20,

I was as surprised as you since I don't routinely drive an SUV, but the
last Expedition I rented (5.4L, 2003 model) did exactly that, and it was
just barely broken in with 12k miles on it. And I understand that 4.7L
Durangos get over 20 on the highway as well. My folks have a 5.9 Druango
that tops out at around 18, but the long-stroke 5.9 has always been a
fuel hog.

Sure, there are some like that, but they are a small minority. As I
said, I own a K1500 which isn't an SUV, but it is the same size.
However, I haul firewood with it, plow snow with it, etc. I don't drive
it to the mall as a status symbol, which is what most folks buy SUVs to
do.

I know about 2-3 people that own SUVs (mostly Benz M-class and Lexus)
because they're "status symbols," but most of the people I know with
SUVs picked things like Yukons, Durangos, Expeditions, and Jeeps because
they are simpler and cheaper to maintain- rear-drive with inline-6
(Jeep) or v8 engines that just flat hold up better than minivan
drivetrains.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:




I was as surprised as you since I don't routinely drive an SUV, but the
last Expedition I rented (5.4L, 2003 model) did exactly that, and it was
just barely broken in with 12k miles on it. And I understand that 4.7L
Durangos get over 20 on the highway as well. My folks have a 5.9 Druango
that tops out at around 18, but the long-stroke 5.9 has always been a
fuel hog.

How many tanks did you average over? A colleague at work had a Durango
with the 5.9 and he couldn't get 16 going downhill. Traded it after
just a couple of years. All tests I've seen of the Durange comment on
how poor its mileage is compared to other similar vehicles. Even 18 is
much less than a minivan will get on the highway. I get 24 easy on a
trip and have hit 27 with my 3.3L Grand Voyager. That's 30-50% better
than a Durango.

I know about 2-3 people that own SUVs (mostly Benz M-class and Lexus)
because they're "status symbols," but most of the people I know with
SUVs picked things like Yukons, Durangos, Expeditions, and Jeeps because
they are simpler and cheaper to maintain- rear-drive with inline-6
(Jeep) or v8 engines that just flat hold up better than minivan
drivetrains.

Is that really true? My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train
hasn't been touched. It is thus far the highest mileage vehicle I've
owned. My 94 K1500 welded the rocker arm to the pushrod at 5,200 miles.
Luckily, it was a warranty repair, but the fact remains that it had a
powertrain failure that neither of my minivans have had.


Matt

 

[James C. Reeves]

| Steve wrote:
| > I know about 2-3 people that own SUVs (mostly Benz M-class and Lexus)
| > because they're "status symbols," but most of the people I know with
| > SUVs picked things like Yukons, Durangos, Expeditions, and Jeeps because
| > they are simpler and cheaper to maintain- rear-drive with inline-6
| > (Jeep) or v8 engines that just flat hold up better than minivan
| > drivetrains.
|
| Is that really true? My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train
| hasn't been touched. It is thus far the highest mileage vehicle I've
| owned. My 94 K1500 welded the rocker arm to the pushrod at 5,200 miles.
| Luckily, it was a warranty repair, but the fact remains that it had a
| powertrain failure that neither of my minivans have had.
|
|

Of course it isn't true. I know many people that have gotten well into the
100,000 range with their Caravans. My 87 was close in the upper 100,000's
before the mitsushitty engine quit (tranny and drive train was original). We
sold it to a friend at 90,000 miles. Neighbor across the street has a 95 Grand
with 186,000 miles on it. A couple of people at work...one has a 94 with
120,000 (had rebuilt tranny) and one has a 96 with 136,000 (although he has a
rear seal leak) and another with a 98 with 160,000 miles on it. My 97 only has
40,000...I only use it as a spare vehicle since my family is grown up now and I
don't need such a large vehicle very often these days.

I know a lot of people with Yukons, Expeditions, etc. but you know, non of them
have driven them enough to get to that mileage yet. Most tell me that leave
them at home...too expensive to drive or won't fit into the parking garages
they need to use.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

| Steve wrote:
| > I know about 2-3 people that own SUVs (mostly Benz M-class and Lexus)
| > because they're "status symbols," but most of the people I know with
| > SUVs picked things like Yukons, Durangos, Expeditions, and Jeeps because
| > they are simpler and cheaper to maintain- rear-drive with inline-6
| > (Jeep) or v8 engines that just flat hold up better than minivan
| > drivetrains.
|
| Is that really true? My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train
| hasn't been touched. It is thus far the highest mileage vehicle I've
| owned. My 94 K1500 welded the rocker arm to the pushrod at 5,200 miles.
| Luckily, it was a warranty repair, but the fact remains that it had a
| powertrain failure that neither of my minivans have had.
|
|

Of course it isn't true. I know many people that have gotten well into the
100,000 range with their Caravans. My 87 was close in the upper 100,000's
before the mitsushitty engine quit (tranny and drive train was original). We
sold it to a friend at 90,000 miles. Neighbor across the street has a 95 Grand
with 186,000 miles on it. A couple of people at work...one has a 94 with
120,000 (had rebuilt tranny) and one has a 96 with 136,000 (although he has a
rear seal leak) and another with a 98 with 160,000 miles on it. My 97 only has
40,000...I only use it as a spare vehicle since my family is grown up now and I
don't need such a large vehicle very often these days.

I know a lot of people with Yukons, Expeditions, etc. but you know, non of them
have driven them enough to get to that mileage yet. Most tell me that leave
them at home...too expensive to drive or won't fit into the parking garages
they need to use.

And I forgot that I've also had to replace a u-joint on my truck, and
this is still with less than 90K miles. However, not really fair to
compare a 4WD drivetrain with a FWD minivan as the front u-joint that
failed doesn't even have an equivalent part on a 2WD minivan.

Matt

 

[Steve]

How many tanks did you average over? A colleague at work had a Durango
with the 5.9 and he couldn't get 16 going downhill.

The lifetime average (60,000 miles) of my folks' Durango is nearly 15,
all the city driving included! I got over 18 for 3 tanks out on the
highway on a trip a few years ago. The Expedition I rented got almost 20
on two tanks on the highway. Not nearly as good for the one tank I had
it on the backroads and even a little bit of offroad. I was very
surprised by that truck, I'd always written the new-generation Fords
off as overwieght, over-plush, and under-capable. It wasn't

Is that really true?

Well, its certainly true that the PERCEPTION is there and motivated
these people more than status symbol factor. Is it REALLY true?
Statistically, probably so. Especially if you factor out the GM trucks
and SUVs, which have had way more trouble than they should have (piston
slap, oil consumption, and continuing problems in the son-of-a-700R4
transmission they're still using). Minivans, of all brands, have a lot
of transaxle failures- probably even more than GM trucks. nothing wrong
with the engines, but the gears that fit in the small space a side-ways
installation allows just aren't big enough.


My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train

hasn't been touched. It is thus far the highest mileage vehicle I've
owned. My 94 K1500 welded the rocker arm to the pushrod at 5,200 miles.
Luckily, it was a warranty repair, but the fact remains that it had a
powertrain failure that neither of my minivans have had.

And I've got 207k miles on my wife's 93 LH car too and consider it one
of the best vehicles I've ever owned. But I still think my 400k mile 73
Plymouth is intrinsically more reliable because most of the drivetrain
is so over-built compared to the LH. And its essentially the same
drivetrain as a 2000 Durango.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

The lifetime average (60,000 miles) of my folks' Durango is nearly 15,
all the city driving included! I got over 18 for 3 tanks out on the
highway on a trip a few years ago. The Expedition I rented got almost 20
on two tanks on the highway. Not nearly as good for the one tank I had
it on the backroads and even a little bit of offroad. I was very
surprised by that truck, I'd always written the new-generation Fords
off as overwieght, over-plush, and under-capable. It wasn't

OK, but 15 is a long way from 23 which is what my minivans have averaged
over the long haul. I'd be skeptical of looking at only one tank of gas
or even two. There is just too much variability in filling the tank,
etc. to get an accurate reading on less than about a five tank average.

Well, its certainly true that the PERCEPTION is there and motivated
these people more than status symbol factor. Is it REALLY true?
Statistically, probably so. Especially if you factor out the GM trucks
and SUVs, which have had way more trouble than they should have (piston
slap, oil consumption, and continuing problems in the son-of-a-700R4
transmission they're still using). Minivans, of all brands, have a lot
of transaxle failures- probably even more than GM trucks. nothing wrong
with the engines, but the gears that fit in the small space a side-ways
installation allows just aren't big enough.

I hear this a lot, but I've yet to see any data to support it. Even
Consumer Reports, which is generally quite anti-American brand, hasn't
complained about most minivan transmissions for a long time. I own two
minivans with nearly 200,000 combined miles and no transaxle failures yet.

My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train



And I've got 207k miles on my wife's 93 LH car too and consider it one
of the best vehicles I've ever owned. But I still think my 400k mile 73
Plymouth is intrinsically more reliable because most of the drivetrain
is so over-built compared to the LH. And its essentially the same
drivetrain as a 2000 Durango.

Well, no offense, but thinking it is more reliable and actually being
more reliable are two different things! I had a 1970 Plymouth Fury III
that went through rear wheel seals and bearings like they were Chiclets.
Finally had to replace the entire rear axle. It wasn't nearly as
reliable in the power train as my 96 GV. At a little over 100,000 miles
on the 383, the oil pressure was so low that the light would flicker on
at idle. My 3.3L at 146,000 miles is showing no signs of real internal
distress. It uses more oil than I'd like, but then it has always done
that. Might be using it a little faster of late, but still getting
about 1500 miles a quart as compared to maybe 2500 when I first got it.
My 03 GC uses almost no oil at all. I just changed it after the first
3,000 miles I owned it and it was down maybe 1/16" on the dipstick. The
old 383 used oil at about the same rate as my oldest van, about 2,000 -
2,500 miles per quart.

Matt

 

[James C. Reeves]

| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > | > | Steve wrote:
| > | > I know about 2-3 people that own SUVs (mostly Benz M-class and Lexus)
| > | > because they're "status symbols," but most of the people I know with
| > | > SUVs picked things like Yukons, Durangos, Expeditions, and Jeeps
because
| > | > they are simpler and cheaper to maintain- rear-drive with inline-6
| > | > (Jeep) or v8 engines that just flat hold up better than minivan
| > | > drivetrains.
| > |
| > | Is that really true? My 96 GV has 146,000 miles and the drive train
| > | hasn't been touched. It is thus far the highest mileage vehicle I've
| > | owned. My 94 K1500 welded the rocker arm to the pushrod at 5,200 miles.
| > | Luckily, it was a warranty repair, but the fact remains that it had a
| > | powertrain failure that neither of my minivans have had.
| > |
| > |
| >
| > Of course it isn't true. I know many people that have gotten well into the
| > 100,000 range with their Caravans. My 87 was close in the upper 100,000's
| > before the mitsushitty engine quit (tranny and drive train was original).
We
| > sold it to a friend at 90,000 miles. Neighbor across the street has a 95
Grand
| > with 186,000 miles on it. A couple of people at work...one has a 94 with
| > 120,000 (had rebuilt tranny) and one has a 96 with 136,000 (although he has
a
| > rear seal leak) and another with a 98 with 160,000 miles on it. My 97 only
has
| > 40,000...I only use it as a spare vehicle since my family is grown up now
and I
| > don't need such a large vehicle very often these days.
| >
| > I know a lot of people with Yukons, Expeditions, etc. but you know, non of
them
| > have driven them enough to get to that mileage yet. Most tell me that
leave
| > them at home...too expensive to drive or won't fit into the parking garages
| > they need to use.
| >
| >
|
| And I forgot that I've also had to replace a u-joint on my truck, and
| this is still with less than 90K miles. However, not really fair to
| compare a 4WD drivetrain with a FWD minivan as the front u-joint that
| failed doesn't even have an equivalent part on a 2WD minivan.
|
| Matt
|

CV joints may be the closest thing...but if the boots are maintained I don't
think they fail very often.

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

| And I forgot that I've also had to replace a u-joint on my truck, and
| this is still with less than 90K miles. However, not really fair to
| compare a 4WD drivetrain with a FWD minivan as the front u-joint that
| failed doesn't even have an equivalent part on a 2WD minivan.
|
| Matt
|

CV joints may be the closest thing...but if the boots are maintained I don't
think they fail very often.

My boots are still sound after 8 years and 146K miles as are the CV
joints. I'm pretty impressed. Then again, my minivan doesn't have to
push a snow plow all winter like my Chevy truck does!


Matt

 

[Steve]

Steve wrote:


Well, no offense, but thinking it is more reliable and actually being
more reliable are two different things!

Well, I should have said it IS more reliable, and definitely lower cost
per mile (maybe even including fuel). Got the receipts and records to
prove it. Just a sampling- I had to replace a fuel pump on both vehicles
within the last year- $150+ for the LH, $25 for the 73. Alternators?
$230 for the LH, $80 for the 73. Rebuilt the front ends a few years
ago... don't even get me started on the price difference THERE.

I had a 1970 Plymouth Fury III
that went through rear wheel seals and bearings like they were Chiclets.
Finally had to replace the entire rear axle.

Which is what SHOULD have been done when the bearings failed the second
time. Whoever did the repair should have known that solid rear axles
don't do that unless something is wrong. The rear axle on my '73 has
never had the cover removed in 430,000 miles. When the differential
gearset in my '69 got noisy due to a previous owner's "high performance"
modifications, I had no qualms at all about pulling one out of a
junkyard car, because they just DO NOT fail under normal conditions.
Would you pull a transaxle out of a FWD vehicle in a junkyard? I
wouldn't because a dead transaxle is probably the very thing that put it
in the junkyard in the first place.