Note: None of these pictures are of the actual vehicle
In 1984, Chrysler stunned the automotive world with the introduction of the Caravan/Voyager minivans. Although based on the K-car platform, these vehicles were quite versatile in that they fit most garages, could transport up to 7 people, and could haul all sorts of items both big and small.
Naturally, when they were introduced, the motoring public couldn’t buy enough of these vehicles. That resulted in prices at or above sticker. In my case, that meant that although I was interested in acquiring one, it wouldn’t be for a while until prices came down on the used market. Sure enough, several years after the introduction, a co-worker mentioned that he was interested in selling his 1986 Caravan. Only $1500 and it only had 80,000 miles. I went to look at it, test drove it, and declared it mine.
The van was a tan metallic paint in the SE trim level. It had cloth seats, A/C, 2.6L Mitsubishi engine, automatic transmission, power windows, power brakes, and power locks. Everything worked like it should have and it also had decent tires.
This is the same color and material type that was in my van
The rear seat was adjustable so that you could either haul three people, or move it forward behind the second seat to haul cargo. The middle seat was not adjustable and was shorter in width to allow access to the back seat. Although advertised as being able to transport 7, in reality, the 2.6L engine was maxxed out. Four or more people resulted in slow acceleration rates and poor overall performance. The standing joke at the time was that Chrysler put rear window defoggers on the vans so that the passengers could keep their hands warm in the winter when pushing the van uphill.
The best feature was the cargo capacity of the Caravan. With a low liftover height and a tall ceiling, these vehicles could haul a lot of gear and haul it with ease. The largest load I hauled with my van was a washer and dryer, which I was able to load with both standing up. Just try that with any SUV. Since I was usually the only driver and passenger, both rear seats were relegated to couch duty in my basement. That kept them in pristine condition.
The engine was a typical Japanese rear drive engine adapted for front wheel drive. In other words, the manifolds and carburetor were at the front of the vehicle. Easy access was available for all of the components.
This engine was equipped with two features as shown above. The MCA Jet added a small third valve to each cylinder for improved combustion. This never gave me any problems. The Silent Shaft balance shaft system was the Achilles heel to most 2.6L engines including my engine. Over time, the problem with this design was that the lubrication of the rear bearing of each shaft would degrade in quantity. Thus, the shaft encountered more resistance when trying to turn and resulted in timing chain damage. Most of these engines would eventually lock-up when the silent shafts stopped rotating due to a lack of oil pressure. The oil pump itself was driven by the silent shaft chains, so when they stopped turning, so did the oil pump. It happened to me after a couple of years and that meant time for an engine overhaul.
The engine was easily pulled from the top unlike certain Ford cars where you had to drop it out of the bottom and lift the body over it. There were a couple of learning experiences on the 2.6 engine that I would use again in the future on flipper cars. First, the balance shaft setup could be eliminated with the $35 kit shown above. The chain is needed to operate the oil pump, the camshaft timing chain is operated directly from the crankshaft. When this kit is installed, you couldn’t tell the difference in engine vibration levels. Apparently, some Mitsubishi engineers felt that there were some vibration levels that were only detectable by sensitive instruments that needed to be offset. Second, when you have the top deck of the block machined, you need to include the timing chain cover to the machine shop. If you don’t install it on the block before machining, you will have an uneven cylinder head mounting surface. You also have to make sure that the shop returns all 17 bolts that attach the cover to the block. Years later, when I rebuilt a Chrysler 2.5L engine, the same machine shop recommended that I eliminate the balance shafts from the bottom of the block. This was a simpler procedure that did not involve having to buy a special kit. All you needed to do was remove the hardware, insert a tap into the oil feed hole in the block, and break it off. No more balance shafts and again, you could not sense the difference in vibration levels.
The second most favorite component of mine(second only to the silent shafts) on the 2.6L engine was the Mikuni carburetor. Compared to the simple Holley found on 2.2L engines, this was a mechanical nightmare to adjust. Plus, the choke had a wax pellet inside of a housing that used engine coolant to heat it. You had to be careful when installing the carburetor to make sure that the coolant passage would seal correctly. Otherwise, you would get coolant flowing through the carb into the engine. Although I wasn’t aware of it at the time I owned the van, there were Weber carbs available for retrofit that would have simplified life.
Another experience with the van was that I decided to get the automatic transmission rebuilt while the engine was out for rebuild. The early transmission had a reputation of being a weak design. I was referred to a transmission technician at Chrysler Engineering who rebuilt them on the side. He had a good reputation for work, the problem was that I could never get in touch with him to find out if it was done. I finally decided to go to his house and confront him. Turns out the transmission had been done for a couple of months, but I had purchased a used transmission in order to get mine back on the road. I ended up selling the rebuilt unit to another minivan owner, so all’s well that end’s well.
The air conditioning in the Caravan worked well when I bought the car. Upon inspection, the condenser was of tube and fin construction. This was much more impressive from a construction standpoint than the shaved fin serpentine condensers used in K cars. After two years of use, however, the Caravan’s condenser failed. I installed a new replacement condenser, pulled a vacuum on the system, and recharged it with R-12. Back to proper operation.
The left front door had been in an accident prior to my ownership. It had been repaired with Bondo and was showing some stress cracks due to door closure shock. I ground it out and used All Metal filler to repair it. After repainting, it looked as good as new and never cracked again.
I put 20,000 miles on the Caravan, including a four month long term training assignment in Virginia. It hauled cargo easily and was easy on gas. What else can you ask from a car? More power from the engine would have been welcomed, but you can’t have everything given Chrysler’s shortage of good V6 engines at the time. I was going to keep the Caravan longer, but was presented with an opportunity to buy a three year old Voyager at a very attractive price. I sold the Caravan for a small profit, considering the expenses involved in repairing the engine. The Caravan/Voyager were advertised in Canada as “Magic Wagons,” which is an appropriate name given their versatility. In fact, the Dodge Grand Caravan still shares many of the characteristics that made my van extremely useful and versatile. How hard is it to make a minivan? Not hard when you know what you are doing!!
I was a gradeschooler when these first came out, and I misread the nameplate as “Carvan”, which seemed to make sense to me because they were sort of a half-car, half-van kind of thing. And suddenly they were everywhere.
I’ve been told by more than one person who was positioned to know that these vans turned out as well as they did because during most of the design and engineering process, entire levels of management were absent on account of Chrysler’s dire financial straits—therefore the engineers’ and designers’ intent made it through to production with less than usual managerial fiddlefutzing.
There was much good to be said about them in this Allpar piece on the 25th anniversary of the breed, almost a decade ago. Not much good to be said (then or now or ever) about the Mitsu 2.6 engine or its carburetor.
That’s why that name caravan was so great as it could be defined two ways , caravan in the traditional way of traveling across a great distance of half car half van
Not necessarily, Daniel. The Mitsu engine was a mainstay here for the company from ’77 through to ’96 (in all Sigmas then Magnas, probably 500,000 at least). Here, they were considered decent units, with the “Silent shaft” acknowledged to be a misnomer for “smoother”; and for a 2.6 four, they were indeed smooth. They were a viable towing/heavy load competitor for the local sixes in high fuel price times.
However, in partial support of your comment, they were oddly variable in durability, from beginning to end. As in, you got an 80,000k job or a 350,000 one, nothing in between. I speak from experience of three of ’em – in two cars! I put it down to the problem of oil on start-up for that balance mechanism, as this article seems to support. It was audible – some rattled appallingly for 3 secs on starting, some not at all.
When running as per, they were nice, torquey units with a reasonable-to-very-decent turn of speed in the cars sold here.
My comments were in the North American context. Given the relative stringency of emissions laws in America vs. Australia at that time, it’s likely the specifications were different enough to have a substantial effect on durability. For example, the American units probably ran quite a bit hotter. Couple that with typically American slack maintenance, and…well…
Friends of our just traded an ’09 Chrysler minivan for a nearly new ’17 model with 39k on the odometer. I rode in the ’09 several times and it was very comfy and well-designed. When I asked them if they looked at any other minivan brands they said, “Is there any other than Chrysler?” Die hard fans, and it all started back in ’84 with the very first Magic Wagon. One of the things Chrysler has consistently got right over the decades.
During my college summer job delivering pizzas, my car broke down and I was the only driver on duty at the time. My manager tossed me the keys to her early-90s Grand Voyager, and I was amazingly impressed at how well it drove. It was almost fun to drive and I was amazed at how car-like it was. Chrysler really nailed a lot things with those earlier vans.
I never spent time in these early ones but knew sevreal owners who were fans. Having been a longtime Chrysler fan, I was left scratching my head at how so many competent Mopars had gone begging for buyers and yet this one was both in demand and loved after the purchase.
I bought a new ’90 Caravan with the Mitsubishi V6. That was the perfect motor for this vehicle, especially with the three speed auto. That OHC motor loved to rev and would cruise easily at high speeds with a full load.
Never had a caravan but I have had a couple of silent shaft Mitsubishi Astron engines a 2.0L and 2.6L in Mitsubishi Galant sigma wagons they never gave any real trouble, the 2.0 burned a lot of oil but it was anvil reliable at 460,000.kms I thought it was pretty good, the 2.6 blew a welsh plug easily replaced, it had only done 230,000kms and had been on LPG most of its life it ran great both were manuals.
My FIL had one of these when we lived near them in Atlanta. It was our go-to vehicle when we took all six of us on longer family outings. Occasionally, we would drive it when one of our cars was in the shop; I grew to love the little thing. Of course, being in my late 20’s -early 30’s I didn’t necessarily like what it broadcast about me and I joined in the general derision of minivan owning people. But deep inside, I liked them greatly.
Later, when we moved to Michigan and our kids were getting older and more involved in activities, I wanted to replace one of our cars with a minivan. My wife was adamant that we get an SUV instead. Up until about three years ago, our fleet was some sort of SUV and sedan. But after a deer took out our last Aztek, I went with an Olds Silhouette minivan as it’s replacement. I haven’t looked back since.
Once the Olds runs it’s course (or gets taken out by a deer…), I’ll probably get a Chrysler minivan. I have several friends who have the later model Grand Caravans and Town & Country vans and they’re very handy. Right now, I have a hard time imagining not having one of these “Jacks of All Trades” in my fleet…
I wish we’d gotten these early Mopar minivans here. I’m curious how they would have sold… The only car-based vans we had here were the Nissan Prairie (Stanza Wagon) and the Mitsubishi Nimbus (Dodge Colt Vista). Everything else was just a delivery van with seats. Unless I’m forgetting something?
You ain’t. The choice was miserable.
If you had lots of kids, the industry just said “Really? Oh, for god’s sake, just put them in this”
I may or may not have been one of those kids….
My parents bought a new one in 1987. It was a Voyage LE. I have many fond memories of it (Dad would teach me to drive in it when mom wasnt around; it was her van). We had it until 1995 and over 275,000 miles with the white smoking 3.0. It’s one of the reasons I would only by Mopar until the Germans invaded.
You won’t find me removing balance shafts. I’ve had two cars with them, one a 2.5 Turbo I Plymouth and the other a 3800 V6 Oldsmobile. The 2.5 was noticeably smoother than most fours and the 3800 noticeably smoother than the 3300 in our Ciera wagon.
Minivans are the perfect vehicle. They’re so thoroughly practical that noone wants to be seen with them.
Perfect is a relative term. Saying the minivan is the perfect vehicle is rather like saying the Jeep Wrangler is the perfect vehicle. The Wrangler is ‘perfect’ in two metrics: off-road prowess and making a lifefstyle statement. It is quite effectively dead last in every other category.
So, too, goes the minivan. In terms of bang-for-the-buck practicality, the Grand Caravan can’t be beat. The most recent (and probably last) Grand Caravan is going on twelve years old now and, for the price (always heavily discounted), it’s the largest, cheapest, most fuel efficient and comfortable cargo/people mover out there. In fact, generally speaking, it (as well as all generations of the Chrysler minivan) is the spiritual successor to that other paragon of legendary Chrysler practicality, the slant-six, Torqueflite Valiant A-body (particularly the station wagon versions).
With that said, regarding the type of lifestyle statement driving a minivan makes, I once read a great anecdote that said seeing a not-that-old single guy driving a minivan is the definition of someone who has given up on life. A minivan is the complete antithesis of stylish and/or trendy.
It’s also worth noting that when recently looking at new minivans on a Chrysler lot, I was somewhat astonished to see that the price difference between the lowest-tier Grand Caravan and Chrysler Pacifica ‘L’ is not that great, something on the order of less than $1000. I can only surmise that FCA is getting ready to (finally) put the Grand Caravan out to pasture and replace it with a severely decontented version of the Pacifica. And that’s not a bad thing.
When I bought my ’87 Voyager (used in 1989), the sales guy was pushing me to get one with the 2.6 and a turbo. It made no sense to me, I got the 3.0 L in mine and it gave me enough power to haul Mrs. Lee and I and our sons with their friends to movies, etc. All except for that one last time, at a red light on an uphill, full load on board, and I pushed it too hard coming off the light and dumped the tranny. Still, we got about 100,000 kms out of it over 9 years or so. I loved that van.
From 1989 to 2010, our family’s only cars besides farm pickups were minivans, and all but the last were Chryslers. The first, an ’87 Voyager (possibly a Grand?), Mom and Dad borrowed for a weekend for an “extended test drive”–which involved driving to Sioux City towing Dad’s homemade toy trailer, back when he made and sold custom 1/16 farm toys at farm toy shows as his winter hobby. Good thing it was one of the first V6 models. Usually that rig was pulled by his ’77 Slant Six-powered D100.
It bears mentioning that it was confirmed on this very site that ’84-86 Caravan/Voyagers had a seldom-ordered front bench option, which could bring the seating capacity up to 8: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-follow-up-1984-dodge-caravanplymouth-voyager-6-and-8-passenger-seating/
Theoretically, you could make a 9-passenger setup by swapping the middle 2-person bench for a 3-person. Questions of how to access the third row or how to maintain decent speed and acceleration with all seats occupied are best left unanswered.
Bought a new Caravan, 2.6 in January of ‘87. Served our family well for nearly 10 years. Silver with dark grey on bottom. Wire wheels (what was I thinking!?!?). Same interior (color, as well) as in the post, and seeing it brings back good memories.
We didn’t get this in Aus, which is a pity. A good size, a good looker (to me), and there was certainly the market for it.
It’s a quiet amusement that anyone who’s ever owned a van of any sort has really fond memories of the sheer functionality. (I’m one of those past converts myself). Amazing how the ability to haul crap or friends – no, crap mostly – outweighs those “sports” or “chick magnet” canards.
It’s the old ‘sensible shoes’ analogy. Minivans are the automotive equivalent of comfortable, but ugly, shoes, sort of like geezer-class walking shoes. Honestly, the cargo-carrying ability of a minivan accomplishes everything of a 6.5′ bed pickup (and nearly all of an 8′ bed). Plus, it’s immune from the weather and can haul people, as well. They’re perfect for the the vast majority of American consumers, primarily those with a house and family.
And that’s really the problem. They’re too practical. They portray the imagine of someone so nerdy, they could never be construed as being trendy and/or hip. Add in the old soccer mom stigma (something never associated with a macho full-size pickup truck) and it explains how the ‘sporty’ large SUV has eclipsed the minivan as the go-to vehicle.
It’s a real pity since the minivan, to this day, is still the most practical vehicle one can buy.
coldest vehicle i ever owned was an 86 caravan 2.6 ..loved that you need to rev the engine at a stop sign to get enough flow to the heater core thing..other than that it was last carb vehicle I owned and i miss those days of non airbus 380 electronics enough to drive you insane.It died of a blown head gasket but limped home burning gasoline and coolant mix unbelievably:) Loved it except the heater issue
My friend had a 1990 Caravan sometime in the 90s. He was about to make a turn, had the wheel turned about 3/4 of the way, and gave it a good amount of pedal to merge and he broke a half-shaft. The mechanic said that happens with those things. Turning AND giving it all that 90 horsepower AT THE SAME TIME? ARE YOU CRAZY!? We joked about that for quite awhile. I had a nice ’97 Caravan and a very nice ’03 Town & Country, but by that time minivans had become more substantial. Those first ones just seem so…minivanny…
My first car was an 85 Reliant SE with the 2.6. Yes that carb was a PAIN to adjust so I didnt. It worked, so yea if it aint broken dont fix it…even if it only gave 22 mpg at best, 15 in the winter, and spewed black smoke. In the end what killed it was the nylon timing chain guides. Luckily I was able to replace it before the engine shit the bed.