Exiting the local Target store early one morning about a week ago, I was struck by an unusual car/license plate combination. The vehicle was a Chrysler Pacifica, which is becoming a rare bird here in the Metropolitan NY area.
This isn’t the actual plate, though. I imagineered this image to represent the general consensus of people I know who have experience with Daimler-Chrysler’s early example of the crossover style.
When I looked up the Pacifica history, it surprised me to find that these cars were in production much more recently than I had remembered. Friends had one of the first generation examples, and grew to hate it. My research indicates there’s good reason for such an opinion. Underpowered and saddled with an abysmal quality record in year one (2004) the brand became an untouchable. Newer examples were better, and the marque had notably improved by the time it went out of production late 2007, but it never sold as much in any other year as the 67,000 that Wikipedia reports for ’04.
But, apparently, somebody loves this one. When I noticed it on a cold February morning, it was the first Pacifica that had caught my eye in years. I spied it first from the side, and might have photographed it anyway, but when I cruised around front and got a look at the license plate, shooting it for CC became a no brainer.
Yes, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. The owner of this car certainly seems to think so.
Unless the plate is older than the car. Blue and white New York plates went out of production in 2010. This Pacifica sports the droopy headlights of the ’07 -’08 years, so there’s no conclusive evidence there. But, were Pacificas considered SUV’s? Had the term “crossover” been coined eight years ago?
Did this car inherit its plate from a previous love?
Doesn’t seem likely. A car has to prove its mettle to earn a GR8 plate. If it was bought new in ’07, it would normally be delivered with a randomly numbered plate, and the owner would have to take the initiative to order a vanity plate later– and be willing to pay a premium for it, then and every time it needed renewing. And, if the plate came from a previous ride, why pay extra to keep it, unless you were proud of the current car wearing it?
Or, am I off by 180 degrees? Is it wrong to assume this car’s owner loves it? Would someone pay for a vanity plate to satire his/her own choice in cars?
Its a GR8 mystery.
Whats all this SUV Crossover bulldust its a Station wagon nothing else.
Can you have a wagon without an equivalent sedan? It sure looks like a wagon though. Maybe SUV was the flavour of the month in the US, so they called it one to cash in?
Don’t like the corrugated-iron hood.
Technically they have equivalents, they’re just not named the same. A CR-V can be Considered a Civic Wagon. A Hyundai Santa Fe could be considered a Sonata Wagon and so on…
“A CR-V can be considered a CR-V wagon”
Say what?? Come again?… Unless, you meant the CR-V could be a CIVIC wagon… because it did replace the Civic Wagovan in Hondas lineup.
The CR-V isn’t a REAL 4×4, too wimpy… it’s the same off-road capable, as the Wagovan was… and that’s not much. Right?
Pic 1… lowered Wagovan
Pic 2… lowered CR-V
See practically twins 🙂
I did mean that, edited.
In this case, the Pacifica was based on the Chrysler minivan platform.
“In this case, the Pacifica was based on the Chrysler minivan platform.”
Reminds me of another early crossover then: the Aztek
I seem to remember that the Pacifica was either the original crossover, or it shared the distinction with the Aztek/Rendezvous.
You’ve forgotten the 1998 Lexus RX, the mother of the whole genre?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-asian/curbside-classic-1998-lexus-rx-300-a-teaching-moment/
Didn’t forget it (hell, its the pretentious cockroach of the road), but at the time of the Pacifica and Aztek the media use of the term “crossover” and those vehicles came together. The RX300 was being referred to as an SUV when it first appeared.
The term “crossover” dates back to the late 80s. Chrysler used the term “crossover” in its justification for buying AMC/Jeep, in 1987:
The automaker acquired the Jeep brand and vehicles from AMC to add to its minivans, giving Chrysler a “solid position in the so-called ‘crossover’ market, which is somewhere ‘between’ cars and trucks and the fastest-growing segment in the entire industry. (written in 1989)
It was a term that had a somewhat slow beginning, but increasingly came into the popular lexicon. But it was very much around and in common use when the RX came out. I never heard it called an SUV, which would be rather grossly incorrect.
Guess I am the only one who thinks of the RX as an SUV since it is jacked up with looks similar to an Explorer of the same vintage.
An SUV (sports utility vehicle) is generally on a truck platform and dates back to the 1960’s when Ford Broncos and Chevy Blazers appeared. A crossover is now an SUV style vehicle built on a unibody platform rather than a body on frame platform, but time has really made the crossover design a somewhat fuzzy idea. The Audi Allroad was considered a crossover, but really (at first) was nearly an Audi wagon with a taller body. GM’s big crossovers (Buick Enclave, etc) seem too big to be crossovers.
Had a 2006 in our company fleet. Boy what a “no go showboat”. It was weird watching the tach zoom and the speedo doing nothing. Starting enjoying a quart of oil every 500 miles or so at under 40K. Very nice interior space too!
Even if it had been the paragon of build quality, it still would have looked bloated and weird.
“gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8” was all I could think of.
GR8 and SUV is an oxymoron.
Of note, this Pacifica is covered in salt, which means it’s probably rusted in half by now.
The blame goes entirely to Daimler, as does everything else from that period; the Crossfire, the Sebring, the list goes on. Thank god for the Italians.
Huh. I knew the Pacifica was considered overpriced (despite the fact that they didn’t make any profit on them) and repair parts could be expensive and hard to find because it didn’t share switchgear or other interior parts with any other model. I didn’t know they were so unreliable though. The Pacifica was replaced by the Dodge Journey, which seems to have found much better success in the market.
I always thought the Pacifica was one of the ugliest vehicles made, next to the Nissan Murano, which got it’s ugliness from some Infiniti model. The Pacifica is definitely not a station wagon. The shape is all wrong. Station wagons have a flat roof all the way back. Vehicles like this, and that red thing don’t really fit into any category. How about OBV (odd ball vehicle)
I’ll be honest when I say that the Pacifica introduced me to the term “Crossover Vehicle”. Right around the time they came out (early 2003), I remember I went with my mom to Foley Chrysler-Plymouth on one of the many times she brought her ’99 Jeep Grand Cherokee in for some type of service. We had seen a few Pacificas by that point and my mom and I couldn’t agree on whether it was a minivan or an SUV. We asked a salesman who said “we like to refer to it as a ‘crossover vehicle'”. And then after that it seemed like every SUVish-looking thing became known as a “crossover”.
I’d say this was one of the first CUVs not to have a boxy, SUV look, which necessitated the use of a new term. Earlier CUVs like the Escape, CR-V and RAV4 were FWD/AWD unibody, but still looked like 4WD BOF SUVs, so that’s what they were sold as. But this…! Obviously not an SUV, and couldn’t be a wagon ’cause it wasn’t a car…hence the name “crossover”.
I’m a little surprised at the negativity on the Pacifica. I’m well aware of the launch issues where most of them were built loaded and the high stickers in showrooms caused some problems.
But, I always thought it was a pretty good looking car. For some years, they put that damned straked hood on it that became a Chrysler brand design cue / sales killer for a few years. But, otherwise, if you think a Buick Enclave looks good, this should have been a reasonable alternative.
I rented one of these for a week in Nevada, and drove it all over, including the mountains. I’m not sure what year or engine I had, but it had the autostick and I found it both fun and useful in the mountains. The vehicle had plenty of power to haul around my family of five and luggage. It was spacious, smooth riding, and I recall the doors closed like bank vaults.
I considered buying one in 2005, but it was never offered as a seven seater. You could pick a five seater, or a six seater with 2nd row captains chairs. Neither fit my needs and I ended up with a Ford Freestyle which could be outfitted to seat 7.
These actually sold fairly well in my area, and I still see them at least once a week or so.
SUV or Crossover, It doesn’t matter what they call them both are station wagons. The SUV has a pickup frame and the Crossover a car frame. Other than that they’re the same thing, station wagons. And I’m not crazy about station wagons.
Good point – at Toyota, that’s the difference between the 4Runner (truck chassis) and the Highlander (car chassis, Camry-based). If you go off-road, the 4R is your choice. The ‘Lander has a more comfortable ride and is better suited for suburban duty.
Then what do you call the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee?
Always thought those turkeys looked at least 20 psi overinflated. Might look reasonably decent if they weren’t such fat bloated pigs.
Next to this article,I think that I have only seen two Pacifiers in my life. Guess the license plate says it all.
I’m sure you’ve seen more, but they’re just so painfully generic that you didn’t notice. It’s OK either way.
I had a soft spot for these, and not just because of the name.
It, I thought, looked good and seemed like an innovator, and did so without pretending to be a SUV proper, which is a breed I can’t relate too much in the uses it gets these days.
Crossovers tend to have more ground clearance than a traditional station wagons, they are marketed differently, some tend to have plastic cladding and others AWD. They are not “just wagons”, but they might well be called a subset of the wider Station Wagon segment.
I think the Pacifica is good looking. It seems to have come out too early, when SUV were still the hot thing to have (remember the Chrysler Aspen?). I think Chrysler today desperately need a new Pacifica of some sort. Likely smaller, and lighter.
> I think Chrysler today desperately need a new Pacifica of some sort. Likely smaller, and lighter.
You’re describing the Dodge Journey. Perhaps Chrysler will get a version of it. In the latest rethink, Marchionne is repositioning Dodge as a performance brand and moving Chrysler down-market.
I read an article on that rethink and there was a comment that product planners are looking at a large crossover for Chrysler. The article even mentioned the Pacifica and Aspen names, probably more historical than as future nameplates.
But, the Durango name kind of faded off in disgrace and came roaring back with a decent vehicle wearing the badge. You can’t rule out the return of the Pacifica or the Aspen.
I am somewhat confused by the Dodge Journey. 5-6 years ago I rented a Dodge Journey. It looked exacty like the Dodge Caliber. You couldn’t tell them apart. I never saw or heard of another Journey for a long time, and it was very different from what I had rented. I just figured it was because it was a rental car. They are often different than cars available to the public new. I thought the Caliber was fairly attractive for what it was, it did have a fairly rough ride for such a large vehicle, and I have heard there were a lot of issues with it’s CVT transmission.
But to me it sure looked a lot better than the Pacifica.
Like others here, I have always thought the proportions were wrong. It looks dumpy because it’s shortish and wide…or at least wide-looking. Then the engine for the 1st few years was just adequate, so what does Chrysler do? They add AWD, which makes it heavier and FINALLY upsizes the engine just before they kill it.
Mercedes builds a (vaguely) similar….vehicle, the R type, which also has strange proportions. The R is long with minimal overhangs and is RWD. To me these look like German hearses and tellingly don’t sell all that well in Europe.
Chrysler Pacificas are seen frequently here in The Northern SF Bay Area. Maybe they sold better here?
It couldn’t have been because of the the Celine Dion ad campaign.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9j1ZTH_bX4g
Barko, you’d be surprised how many Pacificas there are in the city. I was in Brooklyn today and saw a whole bunch of them there, too – including a green “Borough Taxi” Pacifica. The only one I’ve ever been in was also a cab (“car service”) – only a short ride but it was comfortable and surprisingly roomy. This really is just a jacked-up station wagon, but I think it was actually one of the first vehicles to be labeled a “crossover”. People originally referred to stuff like the RAV4 or CR-V as “cute utes” or “soft roaders”.
Personally, I’ve always thought the Pacifica looked cool, but I really like the Mercedes-Benz R-Class too, so maybe I’ve got a screw loose somewhere!
Our taste in cars is less interesting than our experiences with them, because any proclamations about style tend to be tribal: You like the same look I do, or you have no taste. We choose off. But, I will say that I have an affinity for the Pacifica, because I like station wagons that sit up a bit higher. I drive an ’07 Outback, which fits that description perfectly. It replaced a ’98 Grand Cherokee, which, except for pulling a trailer, was not all that appropriate for my lifestyle. I would actually consider an ’07 or ’08 4wd Pacifica as an every day runner, except for their thirstiness.
Are the boat strakes on Chryco cars from that period a nod to the ’61 300?
Now there is a car. The late Ford Flex also had those lines, on the hood, roof, and sides. They had to be there for styling. I like the Flex. If it had only been RWD. It reminds me a lot of the International TravelAll my neighbors had back in the early ’70s. It had a much cleaner, straighter look than the Suburban or Expedition To me the Flex looks 10 times better than the Pacifica.
Oh yeah, I’m sure… although they probably saw both as more of a general reference to wooden boats. On the 300D or Pacifica, I think they make sense since both are fairly “boat-like”, but on the Sebring they were totally ridiculous looking. I often think I’m guilty of just not being critical enough and liking way too much stuff (which may be the case with the Pacifica), but that’s where I draw the line!
I can get down with the nautical theme in general, though… there’s more than one way to pull it off:
I still see a fairly decent amount of these, but I took this picture at a local salvage yard this past summer. Between Pacificas and PT Crusiers, there seemed to be a fair amount that didn’t look like they were there due to collision damage.
My aunt and uncle bought an ’04 Pacifica Touring pre-owned in 2006. They were quite smitten with it, although they traded in their ’99 base model Grand Voyager for it, so it was a huge step up in their eyes. I rode in it quite a bit, and once you got past some of the cheap interior materials, it was actually pretty nice. I thought the location of the GPS screen in the speedometer was a good idea for an easy quick glance, and the heated second row buckets with center console felt quite classy.
As I said though, cheap plastics were everywhere to be found, and the high beltline made you feel like you were sitting in a hole. Their son totaled it a few years later, and I honestly have no idea what they replaced it with as we’ve since lost touch.
I was going to comment on the fact that the Pacifica had (IMO) the coolest & best integration of the GPS screen, but you beat me to it!! 🙂
Wow, there are a bunch of Pacificas there which just proves time keeps marching on.
I thought (Diamler) Chrysler was the first to coin the term Crossover and if they were not they sure created one of the first Crossover looking vehicles. I will always think of the Pacifica as a thick hipped station wagon since Crossover is not a term in my dictionary.
Glad the (Daimler) Chrysler product I own is a bare bones Caravan with the Neon engine instead of somthing more complicated and unreliable.
I recently asked my auto tech about Pacificas, as I saw one go past his garage. He said they were based on a Mercedes-Benz, and no other Chryslers were. Hence, the teething problems and high cost for parts of any kind.
Not true. The Crossfire was based on a Benz. I’m pretty sure the Pacifica was based on the minivan platform.
The Pacifica was based on the Chrysler minivan platform, but (oddly) used the longitudinal engine/transmission layout as used on the LH cars. I suspect they had the tooling for those transaxles that it was cheap to keep in production.
There was no Mercedes FWD platform to base the Pacifica on.
Don’t know about the Pacifica, but the Crossfire and the 300 were both based on MB platforms.
Speaking of MB and FWD, it is sad (for me) to see MB finally cave in and climb on the FWD bandwagon
i recall following this vehicle from spys to preproduction articles and finally release. i was intrigued, 3 rows, wagon-like, (i am biased) awd which was unusual for a vehicle of this type at the time. once i saw the msrp i had sticker shock and wanted no part of it. still have not so much as sat in one. we still see them here in northern mn and i am still curious but i now think there are better used vehicles available.
I was one of the people that liked the looks of these when they came out. Matter of fact I still like the looks of them. Never knew anyone that owned one – didn’t know about the poor performance of them – both power-wise and fuel economy wise – until reading more about them recently.
I think I’d still take a late model Pacifica, but after putting more into my Grand Caravan’s transmission than that van is worth We’ll be driving it for awhile. RIP Torque converter and planetary gear sets – you were taken before your time.
My Mom wanted to look at a Magnum Wagon when they came out. We drive off to the local Mopar dealer and l look in the general managers office and I see a salesman who in the past sold me a 1991 loaded Miata which when seen by fellow employees I managed to send him four more customers, he sent me a nice check. Next year the company I helped start decided to lease cars for the top six manager’s with one rule. The car had to be less practical then our current car. A deal was set up with Enterprise leasing and it turns out thatMaxda salesman was now the local Enterprise leasing manager who had the best week ever, I pick an Acura NSX as did two other people, one picked a Subaru SVX. We figured he would win the most impractical car award but we were wrong. The CEO got a Lotus Esprit after every buddy driving all the cars the Lotus won hands down. The best thing you could say was it looked and drove like a fair kit car. Six months into a three year lease he traded it for an NSX. When it came time to get the Magnum Pete called us into his office and told me that he made more money that week than in 6 months. He said that right now is not the time to buy a Magnum because they were all getting Hemi engines and there was a waiting list. Then he showed her a fully optioned Two wheel drive Pacifica touring model. The msrp was 36,000 dollars, mom liked the room and with no haggling he offered the car for 25,000 dollars. It has been completely trouble free except for the all vinyl dashboard completely warping in different directions. The vehicle has been perfect, from the soft leather to the dual a/c units, paint is still good with poor maintenance, I think it was waxed once. But the darn vinyl dashboard and trim is pure crap. A real shame.
One of the first crossovers was the Audi AllRoad, which was a tall wagon with an adjustable ride hight as I recall.
I was sitting behind one in traffic today; it has to be the widest bugger on the road. Just huge.
I’d call it a station wagon. Similar to the ford flex.
My Aunt first had a Dodge Caravan, and later a Pacifica (she lives in PA, not in NY though). While the Pacifica was indeed fancier inside, its ability to hold passengers seemed MUCH compromised compared to the Caravan…the seating was more like a car, but the 3rd row seating was hard to get to (have to tilt/fold the 2nd row) and very tight. The Caravan seemed able to hold more people and access seemed much better to me, but also was more utilitarian
I always liked these. They were based on the minivan platform but do not seem to share the vans’ longevity, and are becoming scarce in my locale.
I understand the great tradeoff to be between the early versions with nice interiors but are underpowered vs. The later models that were more powerful but suffered from decontenting.
I wasn’t completely sure if the Pacifica was Daimler-derived as I never cared enough to research the background but I have always thought the same group who styled the Crossfire must have had sizeable input in the Pacifica’s design.
As I understand it, the idea behind the Pacifica was to have a vehicle with all or at least most of a minivan’s utility but not it’s boxy styling and pushing the envelope on price was also a goal. GM tried to re-style it’s boxy minivan in 2002 with the Buick Rendezvous, no doubt inspiring Chrysler to attempt the Pacifica. It took Ford a few years, but they responded with the Flex. Of the 3 I would rather own a Flex.
A co-worker bought one used, as their other family car was a Dodge Caravan that they’d been happy with. He seemed to like it just fine until he found out exactly why they are starting to disappear before their time (like that junkyard row photo Brendan posted). When he took the car in for its yearly inspection, his mechanic informed him that he front subframe had a bad case of structural rust and was evidently in “could break at any moment” condition. This on a car that was 8 years old and had less than 150K miles on it.
Research indicated that this was a problem that was extremely common on 2 model years of Pacifica, as during manufacturing there was a spot on the subframe that didn’t get galvanized, and if exposed to salt pretty much at all it would start rusting. Chrysler had issued a “voluntary recall” for Pacificas sold in “salt belt” states, but it was also time-limited and had expired by the time my co-worker found out about it. That, plus the fact that Virginia isn’t “salt belt” (despite the fact that the car was sold new and lived in DC/Maryland, which counted) meant that the company and dealer refused to help him, and he ended up taking a huge loss on a vehicle that he bought as working family transportation and traded in for peanuts as it was only usable for parts or scrap at that point unless someone wanted to spend a couple grand to replace the subframe.
It was replaced with a Mazda 5 and a “no more Chryslers ever” mindset.
Anything will rust in the “salt belt” We would have a huge number of vintage cars around if not for that. If the subframe could have been replaced for $2K, I probably would have done it, depending on what he had in the vehicle. If it had been properly maintained and not abused, it should have had at least another 100K miles left in it.
When I worked in auto in the early 2000’s the DCX guys were very excited about this project.
The original interior was actually quite nice, but of course Daimler “de-contented” it so by the mid-2000’s it was just another sea of gray plastic interior. My parents had one with the 4.0 V6 and six-speed automatic and it had plenty of power.
A recently introduced S(edan)UV.
These were common around here. Two of my coworkers had them at one time. One called her’s a hooptie because things were continually malfunctioning. The other loved his. Drove 120,000 with little or no problems, then passed it off to his daughter who drove it another four years.
My neighbor still drives his. Took this pic from my kitchen window today.
As to the strakes/grooves/ridges in various body panels, they also stiffen the panel so it will not vibrate like a drumhead
There is a wagon group I follow on facebook. Many of the members wouldn’t consider this a wagon. Of course they don’t consider the Ford Flex a wagon, nor the Vibe/Matrix, V60 or CTS Wagon. These are all clearly wagons including the Pacifica.
I agree with them to a point. This is a crossover, as is the Flex. If you abhor the term crossover then maybe you could call them wagons, but I personally wouldn’t. The Vibe/Matrix is a 5-door hatchback. That’s a totally separate class from a wagon. But I’d really *love* to know why a V60 or a CTS Wagon aren’t a wagon. Sport(s)wagon is part of the model name! If that’s not a wagon, is a Lexus IS300 sportwagon? How about a Hornet wagon? Audi 5000 Avant? Because unless your criteria is “d-pillar is too slanty” or “cargo area isn’t big enough” I have no clue how the CTS and V60 aren’t real wagons.
When I bought my Taurus X, it was advertised as an SUV. When the state issued the registration, they decreed it a station wagon. When I traded it in, the computer system at the dealer that generated the paperwork decreed it a truck.
I always thought that this was a great FWD SUV. I do not want or have kids, but I thought that if I ever did have a family, this would be more appealing than a Suburban or a Sequoia or other big, blocky and bulky gas guzzlers parents typically buy to evade the minivan.
While I have never driven one, the ride in these are comfortable and they look great. I find it disappointing that these are starting to disappear from the road already.
There is coincidentally a lot of resemblance between this and the R-class Mercedes, even though they have completely different drivetrains and platform components.
Back when the Pacifica and the R-class appeared, I was thinking that some badge engineering and body panel doctoring was happening. The instrument cluster definitely tricked me: it resembled more of what you’d find in a M-B than you would a Chrysler. The leather seating resembled the design of what you’d find in a Mercedes of the same era, besides the headrests. However, the radio and HVAC controls were typical Chrysler.
Tell me guys does Chrysler make a 300 station wagon, I saw what looked like a Pacific today but it had a 300 grille I didnt get a shot of it and its the first like that Ive spotted.
Yes, there was. Even as an SRT8 (like the one below) or with a 3.0 liter V6 diesel.
And that’s one that annoys the heck out of me. The rest of the world got the 300 wagon. However, in the USA, we didn’t. Instead we got the Magnum wagon, with commensurately lower-grade interiors and a blocky, almost truck-inspired nose. Not really unattractive, but it pales in comparison to the 300 design. Why does the rest of the world get a more appealing product than the base vehicle’s home market?
(And yes, I know, they had to create the 300 wagon for markets where the Dodge brand does not exist. I’m just mad that they deprived us of it!)
The Magnum:
A black Magnum wagon towed a trailer with my 1969 Plymouth on it. From Lenoir City TN to Charleston SC. There they drove it into a sea can. Just the Plymouth, not the Magnum and the trailer.
The 300 wagon sold pretty well here, most of them had the V6 Benz diesel,
the Chrysler 300C Touring 3.0 CRD.
+1 The 300 Wagon is so much cooler… although Americans always seem to balk at any type of car like this. The reaction to the CTS wagon was way more polarized than I’d have imagined, yet no one even blinked at the original SRX, which was basically a CTS wagon with some additional ground clearance. BMW sells shit-tons of X1s and X3s, but can’t seem to give away 3/5-series wagons.
There’s some weird mental barrier there that I can’t quite put my finger on. We keep buying cars that are more and more wagon-like or more and more hatchback-like, but we don’t want them to actually be wagons or hatchbacks. That seems nutty to me…