I just turned over 105k on my 99 Caravan SE. I had though that my next van would be a Honda Odyssey, till I saw the TV ads for the 05 Chrysler/Caravans. I sure like the concept of the stowable seats. I've always though that if I ever throw my back out it will be while removing those seats unassisted. Does anybody have any firsthand experience with the new configuration? It seems like there is a large "boot" behind the rear seats (like on the Odyssey) when the seats are up. That seems like it would make it tough to lift heavy items up and over the tailgate. Any sacrifice to cargo space?
Also, I've owned 3 Chrysler minivans over 13 years ('86,'93,'99), and replaced 5 transmissions. Maybe its too early to tell yet, but are the transmissions any more dependable now? I had an extended warranty on my last, so it didn't hurt as bad, but it was still damned inconvenient.
Louis Block video/audio technician San Francisco Bay Area
Yes the rear seats fold into a well behind the seats. While I don't have an
05 caravan, I've found in my experience with vans, the well is kind of nice. With a flat floor it is hard to pack a lot of stuff (like groceries) in because the space is mostly vertical and if the load shifts stuff can fall out when you go to open the door. With the well stuff fits downward (like a car trunk) and you can pile more stuff in before it becomes a problem.
You know, what I find really facinating about this post that everyone here really ought to take a look at, is that Louis is a perfect example of the typical new car buyer.
If you are among the majority of us who can't afford new cars and buy used vehicles, and curse the way some things are so shittily built then this post does a HUGE amount to explain why:
1) The poster considers a vehicle "used up" at 105k miles.
2) The poster's FIRST interest in a new vehicle is some cosmetic thing. LAST on the list is a reliability concern.
Louis, I'm really not dissing you, guy. You are exactly like just about ALL new car buyers. In short, all this group really cares about in a new vehicle is cosmetic fluff.
So is it any wonder that the automakers treat reliability as LAST on the list of things to pay attention to, and cosmetic fluff FIRST? Can you really blame them? None of their customers give a shit about reliability, why should they?
Ted
PS: Louis, I do want to thank you for one thing - that you consider a vehicle used up at 100K. I have saved a huge amount of money and got many a fine vehicle buying from people who think like you do.
We bought our '93 Grand Cherokee with 110,000 miles on it. It now has 195,000 and is still going strong. We bought our '96 T&C LXi new. It now has 176,000 miles on it and is still going strong. We bought our Pacifica in August. It now has 12,000 miles on it and eight years from now it will still be going strong. Reliability has always been at the top of my list, followed closely by styling, when purchasing a vehicle. Cosmetic "fluff" is rarely a consideration. I think automakers care about reliability more than you give them credit for.
Well, think man. They sell new cars to new car buyers. They can't manufacture a used car. I figured this out 30 years ago, while I was trying to figure out why old cars all came with air conditioning from the factory, but the people who owned old cars always took it off. It's simple. The people taking it off weren't the same people ordering the cars.
Okay...taking a deep breath...I promise to try not to get defensive. I'm not interested in starting another flame war like so many that populate Usenet these days. I appreciate your comments, Ted, and I'm trying to re-assess my own arguments.
1) From experience, I've found that a point of diminishing returns is reached for me somewhere around 110-130k, in which I am paying out more in maintenance costs than it would cost to obtain a new (or new used) vehicle. I'd love to believe otherwise. I am NOT a mechanic, or the least bit savvy about automotive repairs. The (replaced) Aamco transmission in my current vehicle is only covered for another 5k. Again, from experience, I expect it to die shortly thereafter. I'm not sure if it proves your point or mine, but when I went to sell my '93 Grand Voyager, it took 8 months and I had to settle for much less than very conservative blue book.
2) This is my primary business vehicle. I RELY on it daily for average trips of 100 miles per day. I transport large amounts of equipment and clients. On my off days, I transport my wife and 3 daughters. I'm VERY hard on my vehicles. Although it may have sounded as if the seats were my main concern, reliability IS first and foremost. From everything I'd read, I assumed that the Odyssey was still much more reliable. From posts here, I'm reevaluating that stance. I'll admit to having been intrigued by the new seat configuration, and that WAS my original reason for posting, but believe me, reliability is first in my mind. Next comes suitability for my particular applications (ie. being able to covert from cargo to passenger quickly and with minimal exertion, maximum cargo space, and comfort). I have NOT purchased all of my minivans new. In fact, only the '93 was purchased new from a dealer. The '86 was from a lot, and the '99 was a used fleet vehicle from Hertz.
Even though I replaced my last transmission at 50k, I've been VERY happy with my 99 Grand Caravan. I would probably have a different opinion had I not opted for the extended warranty from Hertz. Any van I purchase next will also include such a warranty. Unfortunately I've been conditioned to consider this a 'necessary' expense. I wish this were not the case. I've been burned over the years reading good reviews (service and reliability ratings) of Chryslers current minivans in CR, buying, then having them revise their opinions a year later. This has been the case with all 3 of my vans.
Again, I'm constantly reexamining my opinions on these things. I'd love to hear your (or anyone elses) opinions regarding my buying patterns. I hope I'm not opening myself up for a public whipping!
Hmm... I'd like to know more about that, frankly. When I bought our
95 T&C a couple years ago, nothing that was worth having was below book. In fact a lot of them were asking significantly above book. I was looking in the 92-95 age range specifically. However I will add as a qualifier that I was only looking at 3.3/3.8 liter vehicles.
However I will add that I live in Oregon, which does not salt the roads.
30-40 year old vehicles usually have little to no rust underbody. The few vehicles I've seen used that have rusted panels all originated out of state. Also, vans and trucks here are the most popular sellers. People really go apeshit over used trucks.
My guess is your 93 had a 3.0 liter engine, that would knock it's value way down. But this is an exception - because the maintainence problems (oil leaks, timing belt & such) apparently didn't become well known until later on. (I say apparently because the 3.0 engine was still selling quite late in the 90's) Also, the '93 vans took a bad rap because of the ABS brake recall fiasco. (even though yours might not have had ABS) And AWD turned out to be another maintainence pig too. If your
93 had a 3.0, with ABS and AWD then it would have taken a triple wammy and no wonder it would have sold way below blue book. But, when I was looking, the 4 cylinder variants of that year were holding their blue book. (still are, in fact probably now are worth above blue book due to gas prices)
Now, this much I'll say on mileage. There is NO QUESTION that ALL vehicles have a point of diminishing returns. EVEN if you are the worlds greatest mechanic with a bench full of tools, you just cannot keep a vehicle running forever. Sooner or later the parts themselves are going to be so hard to find because nobody stocks them anymore and all the cars that were of that model are crushed up and made into toasters, that the day will come when it's all over.
And this point certainly does vary depending on the person. I would suggest for a non-mechanical person that this point is more in the 70K range - because right after 70K is when the book value starts depreciating quite rapidly. In short, since your goal is to spend nothing on repairs (save normal maintainence) you want to sell the vehicle right before a "knee" in the depreciation graph so you can extract the most money you can from it
Another way of looking at it is this - for the 99 Caravan SE with
75000 miles and a 3.3 engine the book value is $7K - for the same vehicle with another 20K miles on it, the book value drops nearly $1K, add another 10K miles on it, and the book value only drops an additional $200. In short, if your vehicle is at 110K miles now and you add on another 50K miles, the value only drops $400!
By 110-130K miles if you still have the vehicle, you might as well keep driving it another 50K miles since by 110-130K you have just hit the bottom of a knee in the depreciation curve. There's another knee somewhere close to 200K miles I just haven't bothered figuring it out. Kelly Blue Book is online - you can run the numbers yourself with various years and mileages to get a more clear idea of what I'm talking about.
Of course this all assumes that the difference between 110K miles and
160K miles on a vehicle is nothing - and I think that today it is. 30 years ago - no!
But your OP said you were attracted by the TV ads, which certainly don't feature reliability first and foremost.
Don't get me wrong, I know there's lots of new car buyers that once they get past the showroom door and are looking seriously at a vehicle, they are going to look at different things than what attracted them in the first place.
But you can't deny that your eye was caught by the seat thing.
I don't really think that ANY auto manufacturers today emphasize reliability in their TV ads. Thus my submission to you is this - if reliability really is number 1 for you, then you want to close your eyes whenever a car TV ad comes on lest your judgement become compromised.
If you become aware of the level of advertising out there and how it controls and directs the typical buyers thinking, then you can immunize yourself against what the advertisers want you to think and what they want you to believe. That's the first step towards being a really informed consumer, instead of a consumer who is basing a decision on a "feel" they have, which in reality was manufactured by their subconscious as a result of all the advertising they have been bombarded with and aren't aware of.
You have to come to terms with the fact that at some level, the TV ad got to you with that initial hook. And that would never have happened if the TV advertising wasn't working away in your subconscious. Once you come to terms with this, then you can direct your "gut feels" with logic from your conscious mind. And it doesen't take that long before doing this becomes second nature, and you will end up frankly revolted by
99% of the advertising you see.
From everything I'd
Everyone knows that people beat the shit out of rentals. Thus an extended warranty on a used rental is almost a no-brainer.
The big bugaboo that any Chrysler guy that knows his stuff would have told you is the electronic Ultradrive transmission that has been hitched to the 3.3/3.8 engines in these vans for time out of mind. The number of revisions that this trans has gone through over the years is quite surprising, espically considering what some of the revs are for. For example, the original trans computers having dumb programming in them that ate the trans clutches.
These trans today have by most accounts finally reached the reliability level of the hydraulic trans that they replaced. But it is only because Chrysler kept doggedly at it with them. Clearly the design itself was not well thought out in the beginning.
The other problem with these trans besides the design is that few trans shops it seems know how to diagnose and repair them properly. Aamco has been cited before in this group for doing poor rebuilds on these trans. And it is stunning the number of trans shops that even today claim that you can use Dexron fluid in these trans instead of ATF +4. Of course, none of this is your fault, you didn't know any of this when you got your trans rebuilt.
Well there's a couple things that are going for you with a new Caravan purchase. First is the 7 year/70,000 mile warranty on the drivetrain. The Odyssey is a 3/30,000 The second thing is this, your buying a model (Caravan) that has been around for 20 years now, and your benefiting from a very long, long period of time that Chrysler has been putting in refinements into this vehicle.
Also, if your using this for business, you can order the cargo van option and instead of back rear side windows you get a nice expanse of sheetmetal for your company logo. :-)
Seriously, though, I certainly don't mean to hold you up for a public whipping. It is just this - that as you might expect, a huge number of posters in this group are dedicated used car buyers. Sometimes this is by choice, like myself, simply because since we can do our own wrenching, the temptation to get a great deal by buying used and fixing it ourselves is irresistable. Other times it is by force - the person is simply not making enough money for anyone to finance them on a new vehicle. But of the group of used car owners who post here, a great many of them seem to have a total disconnect as to what motivates the automakers to make and sell the cars they do.
How many times have I seen people complaining about the butt-ugly front ends on the new Chrysler cars here? Well, folks, Chrysler isn't makig them for YOU. They are making them for people like Louis here.
The only point I was trying to make is that new car buyers don't have the same criteria as used car buyers. Louis, your post illustrated this perfectly. But you should pat yourself on the back, anyway. 99% of new minivan buyers don't even make it to this forum, at least.
You are very unlucky as this is very uncommon. I've never had a used vehicle get the point that it cost more in repairs per year than what the cost of a new vehicle is per year. I've always traded because I simply wanted a new vehicle or a different type of vehicle. Also, Consumer reports did an analysis some years ago and found that this is really a myth, on average. Obviously, some folks have lemons that may cost more than a new car would be, but this is the exception. CR went back something like 15 years and found that even cars THAT old still cost less to operate per year than what a new car costs. My 96 GV has
148,000 miles now and I take it into the garage once a year on average for a fair bit of work (I tend to save up the little stuff and get it done when something bigger needs attention). I average probably $500 on these visits. My highest ever was just shy of $800, but that included four new tires as well. Even that is less than 3 months of new car payments so I could have a repair that bad 4 times a year and still be money ahead. I'd break even on repairs, but still save lots on insurance costs. I don't carry collision on this vehicle anymore and that saves another few hundred a year.
Why are you hard on vehicles? Driving a lot doesn't have to equate to being hard on the vehicle. Actually, driving a lot is better for them in most cases, assuming you aren't abusing them and maintain them properly.
I've never had a Chrysler tranny fail, so I can't relate to that. Why do you car what CR says or if they revise their ratings? All that matters is what your van does, not what CR says.
I have nothing against your buying pattern. If it works for you, that is all that matters. Many people just don't feel comfortable driving a vehicle with more than 100,000 miles. That is a fine reason for buying a newer one. I like to see how far I can make a vehicle go and I like to save money on vehicles so I can spend it on other things I like to do. Driving a car for 10+ years and 200,000 miles saves a lot of money on average.
The last several "good" vehicles I have owned have over *200,000* miles let alone 100,000. 1995 (parents bought new, gave to me at
224K, up to 242K and still have) , 1989 (229-238K, city impounded before I could fix broken windows and keep driving), and 1988 (217-231K, sold for twice what I paid, buyer took it over 240K and traded on a new Kia) Buick Centurys, as well as a 1989 Escort 5-door
5-speed with no AC and with 350K+, and a 1989 Voyager van (4-cylinder with 5-speed stick) with 215K.
I had more trouble with my 1993 Dynasty (bought at 77K, wrecked at
142K) than any of the 200K+ cars. If a car makes it that far, it's more likely to go farther as long as it was cared for. In the case of my 1995 Century, it was babied and driven 50 miles a day for work purposes by my father, now I drive it 250 miles a day for a courier service and I'm gentle as can be, knowing this car will run well over
300K and probably to 400K before I need to tear it down. And yes, it does have the 2.2 liter engine so prone to head gasket failures and valvetrain noise. Neither of which have occured on this one.
I don't think any of today's vehicles would be worth putting money into (car payment, full coverage insurance, maintenance and repairs) versus an older car. Cars have been built so well for so many years now that a 2003 Century used with 30K is no better than the 1993 Century used with 130K.
But I like the idea of disappearing seats. With delivery work, I could keep the seats in the van in the floor and save garage/patio space at home, and still be able to carry people or cargo in minutes. New Freestar has a disappearing back seat too. I'm not sure about the new Quest or new Sienna. Now if only Chrysler would get rid of those awful black text on white face gauges. Fine at night, but during the day it's annoying to have all this gray and black on the dash and then these solid white circles looming at you, saying, "stare at me, I'm wierd, look at me, don't bother watching the road, I'm white, I'm easy to see, look here".
I'm strange, I know, I'd rather have a thin strip of poorly contrasted speedometer numbers well below my sight line in a ten-year old Buick, than have the numbers right in front of me where I can see them.
There's no reason to be defensive. If you've got the money, and you enjoy it, you ought to buy a new one every year. There are plenty of folks that would love to have your old one.
I am impressed that you have an idea what you pay out in maintenance vs. car payments. I don't ever mention analysis of any kind on usenet, because people can't handle it, but obviously a financial justification is completely appropriate if you have the training. The concept is sound. HOWEVER, few of us will long enough and drive enough cars 100,000 miles to really generate a decent data set. If a bunch of people got together, you really could do this in a predictive way as you've stated.
It doesn't apply to everyone, though. My mechanical skills are such that I would never be able to pay for a new car out of my repair bills. I just have to move on because I get tired of the old one. It's not unusual for me to go an entire year with $50 or $100 per car in repairs.
Some organizations like Consumer Reports have done analysis much like this so that all of us don't have to. However, I track my expenses using MS Money and I've yet to keep a car long enough for its repairs to exceed the cost of a new car. Even a low-priced car will have a payment of $200/month unless you go with a ridiculously long-term loan. $2,400 a year will buy a LOT of repairs on most cars (not counting cars like M-B, etc., that have very high repair costs, but then their new cost is MUCH more than $200/month). You could lose a transmission or engine every year and still about break even as you need to factor in another $200-500/year for collision insurance that your new car loan holder will require.
Hmm, seat hiding is not cosmetic. I use my vehicle for work and family. I need to remove the seats on a regular business. Those captain and back seats of the 2000 are heavy and awkward and have to be stored. I am looking at the 05s because of that right now.
For instance, a few years ago, my sister wanted to use the vehicle as her wedding vehicle. We drove for 14 hours with 2 kids to go to her wedding, clean out the van of our junk and prepare it for wedding vehicle use. I would have loved to have been able to drive down with the back seat out to store all of our stuff, but then they needed it for the wedding party. If I could have been able to pop the seat down and then back up when we got there would have been great!!!! Hmm I suppose I could have strapped the seat to the roof rack.
BTW we are at 97,000K and I am beginning my search for the next van. Want to buy mine?
Really? I've put 400,000 miles on one car, 265,000 on another, and my wife has put 210,000 on a third. And we don't even drive much compared to people that are in businesses that use their cars (eg sales).
And no, the repair costs haven't matched the initial price on any of them, at least not if you use corrected dollars. Since the 265,000 mile car is a '66 model and probably sold for under $3k new, it would be pretty easy to add up that much in maintenance in non-corrected dollars. It would be a $25-30k car today. The 210k mile car is a 93 model, and it hasn't even matched its purchase price in NON-corrected dollars.
This really brings to mind old Datsun ads from the '70s, which show dust-slinging rally cars and rave about fuel efficiency.
Now, all of the major manufacturers, including Nissan, are jumping on the "super-huge mega-power" bandwagon. The other day I passed a diesel Excursion in traffic being driven by a soccer mom.
In a bizarre evolutionary way, it's the customer base at large that designs a vehicle, and expresses their wishes with the power of the dollar. Okay, so a dollar doesn't have a ton of power, but 20,000 of them do.
Hybrid cars are a curiosity for eccentric types and tree-huggers. Not that they're the only ones who buy them, but they're the target market. A few days ago, I saw an 80-something Datsun coupe, running, with a tiny 1.2l RWD
4-cylinder whose owner sadly confided that his mileage was down to 38mpg. Has technology gone downhill such that we can no longer make such a car? Of course not! We're just too concerned about whether it'll spin the tires once in awhile.
Perhaps if the price of gas gets ridiculous again, we'll be able to buy better-engineered, cheaper cars from a dealership. Who knows. Maybe someone will decide it's important enough to make a car with the economy of the Geo, with the reliability of a tank.
Technolgy hasn't gone downhill; regulation has gone uphill. A Datsun 210, Toyota Starlet, or Honda CRX HF would fail every crash test we have today.
The government mandates side impact standards which make for heavy, wide doors. There is a two-bag minimum and the market seems to be learning towards four airbags - that's a lot of weight right there. Subcompacts have to be beefed up for offset crash testing. Engines have to meet ever-lower emissions standards. Meanwhile you have all this aero tumblehome in the sides of the cars so headroom is cramped. You can wear a helmet in a 1977 Rabbit much easier than in a 2004 Golf, which has to be part of why ITB race fields are still full of them.
The most telling factoids about all this: the last three generations of Honda Civics have been larger and heavier than the original Accord. The current Accord is larger and heavier than the original Acura Legend. The new Audi S4 cabrio weighs as much as a 1982 Lincoln Continental Mark VI.
Higher impact standards and more desired standard equipment means more weight, which means bigger motor, which means more weight...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.