Why we chose our 2003 Grand Caravan Sport...  We went through a pretty lengthy process to decide what minivan we were going to purchase.  We started looking, casually, in the spring of 2004, and eventually bought ours right before Christmas 2004.  We considered all vans, narrowed the field down to two, and ultimately chose the Dodge.  I put this page together to help someone who might be trying to narrow down the minivan field, to give some ideas of how we did it, and possibly help start a "brainstorming" process to help someone prioritize the minivan attributes that are important to them.

The matrix below illustrates how we tried to objectively narrow down our choices of make with some criteria which included very subjective measures (like "styling we can live with" and "satisfying power/torque").

 

"Must-Have" Attributes	Ford	GM	Honda	Kia	Mazda	Mercury Nissan	Mopar	Nissan	Toyota
Long wheelbase space and functionality ("big enough")
Styling/driving style we can live with
Satisfying power/torque
Quad seat availability
Vans still eligible:
"Prefer-to-Have" Attributes	Ford	GM	Honda	Kia	Mazda	Mercury Nissan	Mopar	Nissan	Toyota
Timing chain
Solid rear axle
Price in the $15-18k range

Our matrix really helped us narrow the field down.  The Mazda/Kia/Nissan/Mercury minivans were too small for what we wanted.  We wanted a full, long wheelbase van and that removed the smaller vans from the selection set.  I liked the styling of the GM minivans, but my wife didn't care too much for it.  The powertrains were also a bit more crude.  We drove a family member's 1999 Pontiac Trans Sport and while it had good get-up-and-go, it was a touch coarse...at least more than what we wanted.  GM was out.  My wife is from a family where Ford is a four-letter word, and in truth, the Windstar/Freestar just doesn't turn us on.  They're definitely less-polished and just didn't appeal to us.  Strike Ford from the list.  Neither one of us really cared for the Toyota Sienna, no matter how good it did or didn't drive; it was out of the running.  That really left the Honda Odyssey and the Mopar LWB vans (Dodge Grand Caravan or Chrysler Town & Country).  This is our first minivan, and we've never owned a Honda nor a Dodge.  Brand-loyalty has no play here.  The following is a little about the subjective attributes of both vans, something that really can't be captured in a yes/no matrix like what is shown above.

Odyssey Powertrain

The engine is more powerful, with at least 30 hp more than Dodge's big 3.8L V6, and about 60 more than Dodge's 3.3L.  Although we weren't shopping for raw speed in a minivan, more power never hurts.  However, this comes at a day-to-day premium...as in having to use premium fuel (it's recommended anyway).  There's also a premium every 60,000 miles, in the form of a timing belt change.  I've never owned a vehicle with a timing belt, and I really didn't care to start now.  Timing belts are inferior in every way to a timing chain, and I'm surprised Honda went the cheap route with their mainstream engine by using a timing belt on it.  A well-engineered timing chain is always a better choice.  With the reliability record of modern vehicles (read: very good), a $700-1000 maintenance visit to replace the belt every 60-100k miles will add up if you have to do it a few times.  All else being equal, that's a cost a timing chain engine doesn't have.

The Honda uses a 5-speed automatic transmission vs. the Chrysler's 4-speed.  The transmission's 1 gear advantage over the Mopar tranny is really misleading.  The first four gear ratios are very similar to a conventional 4-speed automatic, with 3rd gear being 1:1 and 4th gear being around .70:1.  Honda's 5-speed automatic simply adds another overdrive gear, and it's something like .55 or .60:1 I believe.  The advantage here is when you're cruising down the Interstate in 4th gear, the Honda has yet another overdrive gear to drop down into.  The Honda's spread of gear ratios offer no advantage in day-to-day driving, since the first 4 ratios are comparable to those in a conventional 4-speed automatic.  Otherwise, the engine is smooth and quiet, and the transmission shifts on par with any other FWD vehicle I've driven or ridden in.

Mopar Powertrain

We drove an '05 with the 3.8L engine, and also our '03 with the 3.3L engine.  In all honesty, the two engines felt very much the same, regardless of the power and torque advantages of the larger engine.  Granted, the '05 was a well-equipped SXT with Stow-N-Go, so it may have weighed more than our Sport.  Nonetheless, the 3.3L provides engaging performance in our '03 model.  There's never "not enough" power to get the job done.  The gearing is perfect for easy overtaking on a 2-lane road.  Even though the technology is relatively primitive (cam-in-block design, with pushrods opening 2 valves per cylinder), the engine is remarkably sedate, quite, and never intrusive.  It also returns excellent fuel economy, 20-21 in town and 26-28 on the Interstate.  The reliability of Chrysler's 3.3/3.8 engines can't be denied.  They're workhorses...smooth and predictable.  I'd expect a few hundred thousand miles out of any given engine, if well maintained.

Chrysler's 41TE transmission shifts smooth and quick, and the public's perception of poor quality really comes from a much earlier version of this transmission...from at least 10-15 years ago.  If the 41TE is well-maintained, and the correct transmission fluid is used (Chrysler ATF+4), the transmission should give great service.  Most problems associated with a modern 41TE are caused by the use of Dexron fluid, which is absolutely a no-no.

Odyssey Suspension

On paper, the Odyssey has good credentials; a Honda 4-wheel independent suspension sounds like it would ride good.  And it does.  The ride is firmer than we expected, but completely acceptable.  I'd call it "nimble".  The independent rear suspension was actually a detractor to me.  I can't count the number of Odysseys I've seen on the Interstate, loaded to the gills with stuff, with the rear wheels severely cambered in because of the poor suspension geometry and insufficient spring rate to cope with loads.  I'd hate to think how those rear tires feel, riding hundreds or thousands of miles down a hot Interstate on summer vacation, canted in 5 or 10 degrees and riding on their inner edges for hours on end because the suspension can't handle the weight of the luggage.

Dodge Suspension

On paper, the Grand Caravan's suspension is more rudimentary...and it feels it if you try to feel it.  Simple struts up front, with a solid beam axle and monoleaf springs in the rear.  Back-to-back, the Grand Caravan loses some "plushness" to the Odyssey due to the old-design suspension.  The Dodge still rides sporty, and I'd have been 100% happy with either.  But we bought ours with utility in mind, and anticipate using the van every now and then as our "pickup truck".  I didn't want a dumpy rear suspension.  Whether you have a single grocery bag or a 1500-lb load of bricks in the Grand Caravan, the tires will always sit vertical and in even contact with the pavement.  Not only is it aesthetically more pleasing not to have tires tilted in towards each other, but it's safer too.

Interiors/Styling

I didn't spend too much time on the interiors.  I preferred the Dodge's, far and away.  The Odyssey's dash looks old and dated, although the center row seats do a trick move to access the 3rd row.  The Dodge's dashboard is fresh and new, and all the seats are on "Easy Out" rollers.  Ours has a split 3rd bench; both seats are independent of each other.  Both will fold and tumble forward, or easily remove completely, for extra space in the back.  We both also liked the exterior styling of the Mopar vans better.  My wife liked the rounded contours better, and I never really cared for the Japanese angular styling of the Honda.  Even so, I think either of us could have easily lived with the Honda.

Price

This was the biggest factor...not the raw number, but the comparative value.  Domestic vehicle depreciation is a son of a gun.  We bought our '03 with 38,000 miles for about HALF of the MSRP, or $15,800.  To get into a Honda for the same price would have required us to look at a late '90s van, and one with at least 80-100k miles.  Either that, or a nicely-equipped '03 Odyssey would have cost about $7-10k more than our Dodge cost.  If the prices were the same, or if the Honda was priced lower than the Dodge, we might have purchased it.  But we didn't perceive ANY quality or reliability advantage for the Honda over the Dodge, and we certainly didn't think the "Honda experience" was worth anything over the Dodge, certainly not 50% more.

Given our priorities and our opinions of the advantages and disadvantages of both vans, the choice between the Honda and Dodge turned out to be easier than I expected.

For best performance, set resolution to at least 800x600.
Web Page Copyright 2006
Main Page / Send Email