The Caravan story is a mighty big one, even if it came in a fairly compact wrapper. I’ve taken a run at it before (CC here), so today we’ll just focus on one of its oddity versions: the turbo. As this picture makes pretty clear, the turbo-van was not some Shelby-esque man-van. No, like most of Chrysler’s minivans, it ended up in the hands of mommies shuttling their kids, and they were none too thrilled about it.
So how (or why) did Chrysler’s 150 hp 2.5 turbo four end up in such an unlikely home? For lack of anything better, pure and simple. The Caravan/Voyager minivans sold way beyond Lee Iaccoca’s famously wild imagination. For almost ten years, Chrysler struggled to keep up with demand. Stamping out the boxes fast enough was a challenge in its own right, necessitating a whole second dedicated plant in St. Louis, for the long wheelbase versions. But powering them all was the real problem.
The Caravan was engine-poor from the get-go. All Chrysler had then was their 96 hp 2.2 liter four. To placate the expectations of those trading down from V8 station wagons, the Mitsubishi 2.6 liter four was optional, with all of 104 hp. Its slightly better torque helped, barely. But the Chrysler twin’s lack of performance was an issue from day one, especially when loaded up in the seven-passenger version.
With the arrival of the lwb versions in 1987, Chrysler had to up the ante. Chrysler’s bigger 2.5 L four replaced the base 2.2, and now a V6 was optional, Mitsu’s SOHC 3.0 L, making 136 hp. I specced out and ordered one of the first V6 lwb Caravan CVs to use as a portable production van for the tv station in 1987, and with an empty body in back, it ran quite well indeed, for the times. The crew was annoyed at not getting a big Econoline, but they came to love it, and it was a trooper. Of course, this came with the old three-speed TorqueFlite transaxle.
By the latter eighties, gas was cheap and power was in, and folks were over the hairshirt days. The wanted V6s in their minivans! But Chrysler couldn’t get enough of thems from Mitsubiushi to meet the demand. What to do? Eureka! Install the turbo four, which was becoming very popular in the smaller K-car sedans. Why not?
With today’s technology, why not indeed? Sophisticated electronic boost control, variable vane turbos, and a host of other improvements can make a modern turbo four feel like a six, or even better. But back then, it was a complicated mish-mash of vacuum and electronic controls, and they just didn’t work very well, especially in a heavier vehicle. The turbo four had serious turbo lag from a stop, and unless one was flooring it, the reliable but dumb three-speed automatic tended to shift like it was behind a V8: way too early. The result was highly unpleasant, and the exact opposite of what the target demographic was looking for: smooth low-end power, not herky-jerky moaning and whining.
I wish I had found a lwb turbo Caravan, because in my Caravan CC, a commentator insisted that the turbo was only installed in the swb Caravan/Voyager. Tell that to my friends that had one (a lwb turbo). We had a ’92 3.3 L V6 Caravan, and had told them how much we liked it (except for the transmission blowing a few times). They couldn’t afford a new one, so they showed up proudly one day with a used lwb turbo. I didn’t have the heart to comment on their choice. They learned to hate it, but it hung in there. And here’s the perfect tow-mobile!
The turbo’s rep (in the vans) quickly spread, and by the end of 1990, it was quietly shown the door. Chrysler’s new 3.3 V6 was finally ready to take its place. It had exactly what the turbo didn’t; good torque from the bottom, and decent power all through the rev band. And the new Ultramatic transmission really was remarkable, until it started grenading. It was the first fully-electronically controlled tranny of its kind, with adaptive memory. I drove one of the early ones, that some other friends had (half the families at our school drove these), and it was a revelation. Smooth, almost imperceptible shifts, and that OD fourth was such a boon.
Some turbo-vans were built with five speed sticks, and a few enthusiasts have turned them into serious sleepers, including one that does twelve second quarter miles. It’s good to know that someone has finally found a proper use for them.
I had forgotten all about these. When these were new, they could not have been farther off my radar. I was into either sport performance or monstro luxo cruiser. When my family days started in the 90s, no wussy minivan for me, no sir. A Club Wagon with a proper V8 driving rear wheels, thank you. A much better value if you buy your cars by the pound.
I never had experience with these Gen1 T-115s. I think that the 2.2/Torqueflite units were the best of them. The 3.0 Mitsubishi V6 did not have a great longevity record, as I recall. All the ones I ever saw were oil burners as they started to age. And driving that Turbo must have been truly maddening over the long term.
It has been quite awhile since I saw one of these first generation units out on the road in my area. I recently read that one of the collector car insurers has put these on its “endangered species list” because it insures so few of them. Even the second gen is getting pretty rare.
They’re all in Eugene! Yes, the early ones are getting a bit scarce. There’s gobs of the 1992-up refresh models.
We needed something bigger than the Cherokee when our third came along in ’92. I wanted to get a Previa, but Stephanie insisted on the Caravan, as it was the only one big enough to fit this enormous European pram behind the third seat. A full-size van wasn’t even on the radar, for us. Just buying our second American car in a row was a bit of big deal for me; who would have thought? But both the Cherokee and the Caravan were very popular in CA, even with the import-loving crowd. Goes to show that the right product will sell.
One of the secretaries in the college maintenance department (where I worked during my college years 1995-1999) had one of these, same color and interior as the subject of the CC. The thing that always amazed me was that her other daily driver was a 1985 Cadillac bustle back Seville. In a maroon color also. I wish I had asked her more questions about how she ended up with those vehicles. Her Caddy always stood out packed next to my white 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan with a blue interior.
I still adore the humpbacks, but only if the ass end sits a little lower than the front. They don’t look right level.
Which is more attractively designed? The bustleback Caddy or the Lincoln? My opinion varies, but I tend to favor the Lincoln’s proportions a bit more.
That is until an Aero Monte Carlo happens to pass by! I’d own one of those, fixed/opera windows be hanged!
Design is design and there’s no accounting for taste but… the tie breaker for me is that there’s only one year of bustleback Caddy I desire and that’s the 1980 model with the 6.0 big block (even if it’s V4-6-8) because of the superiority over the sad 4100. For the bustle Continental at least any year is an ok year to own one because of the durability of the 5.0 V8.
FYI a gentleman on eBay has a 1980 bustleback Seville for sale right now. If I win Saturday’s Powerball, that would be my first purchase. LOL
I like both the bustle Seville and Continental (for those who know my past posts, my grandfather had a Rose Quartz ’87 Continental), but I remember when they were new, some Sevilles had a fake spare integrated into the trunk lid, along with fake luggage straps. That was especially hideous.
Funny thing about the LWB Turbo vans is that according to Chrysler the “Hi Torque” 2.5 was never an official option. This one may bring the count up to 10. From what I remember the lwb turbos that have popped up were originally registered to rental fleets.
I can attest that the performance potential for the turbo 2.2/2.5 motors. Even on a junkyard budget it is staggering.
That might explain it; the lwb turbo one my friends bought was used, so it could well have been a rental. But there’s no doubt that’s what they had.
When I worked as a Chrysler service advisor, we had a mechanic who was the exceptionally proud owner of a Caravan Turbo. In the lunch room he often told a story, with great relish (no pun intended) of how on a twisty, high altitude mountain road, his Caravan had successfully blown off a Ferrari Testarosa. The reason for this, he pined, was the turbo compensated for the dearth of oxygen in the air.
The really amusing part was he actually believed it.
Did he usually smoke his lunch by chance?
Surprisingly, no. He was just a dimwit. The only reason he was kept on was he fixed the owner’s son’s race car for free. That is whole other story.
Maybe it was a Fierarri kit car..
We owned an 85 with the Mitsubishi 2.6 l. It died from being flogged down the W.Va. Turnpike (I-77) with a full load of kids and stuff. We replaced it with a 92 with a 3.3 V6. Same death. It was replaced with a 98 that had the 3.8 V6., still running with 180 Kmi. No tranny problems. 4 years ago we sold it to one of our employees, who still drives it every day, because our kids had grown up and moved away, and my wife wanted something smaller — she bought a RAV4.
Some family friends bought one of these new in the ubiquitous light blue and kept it 11-12 years. To my knowledge, it was reliable, which is to say I simply never heard any complaints about it. However, I can’t say the same for the used turbo LeBaron they briefly owned during the same period – I heard constant complaints about that car.
As always, with Chrysler, it’s all in the luck of the draw.
I used to borrow a turbo Caravan from the dealer I worked for in 1989. It was said to have been a ‘Chrysler executive fleet’ vehicle. I don’t remember if it was LWB or SWB any more, but we certainly had mostly Grand Caravans at the time. I don’t recall the drivetrain having any driveability issues. The turbo/torqueflite combo was great in my experience, except when the headgaskets failed or the accessory belt came loose, which happened more with low mileage Chrysler turbos than with any other engines I’ve had experiences with. The automatic masked any lag issues and the engines were a giant leap over emissions strangled carbureted cars that were still on the road in the late ’80s.
My best friend’s dad was (and still is) the used car manager at a Ford dealer in Florida. So they always had a different family car sitting in the driveway. In 1993 he brought home a 1989 Plymouth Voyager LE Turbo, white with the wood-grain on the side and burgundy interior. I thought it was pretty sharp. It was a trade-in from Illinois, and he got it pretty cheap. It was a bit snug for that family of six, but they made the most of it for a couple of years. The biggest surprise about that van was that the mileage was so lousy! As I seem to recall it never got above mid 20′s.
I drove a turbo swb Caravan with the 5-speed once, the same generation as the feature car. It was fun to drive, but too shrill and rough for me.
What would be a more natural progression, from a Pinto wagon, to the Magic Box?
I didn’t make the jump directly, but I did own a couple of these…the first, a 1989 industrial rental that was wholesaled from Gelco Leasing. It was the panel van – my plan, as a new enlistee in the Navy (quite a bit older than the typical Navy boot, I might add) was to convert it to a half-fast camper. It took the place of my 1971 Econoline panel van, which got me to California and promptly blew the manual three-speed. I shoulda hung onto that one, but the transmission, a cracked windshield that the base wouldn’t put a sticker on, and the fact that I had no money and no shop…and that credit in those days was easy-peasy.
I wasn’t pleased. It was a trouble-free vehicle that I put about 20,000 miles on…but it was dull as dirt to drive, zero road feel. Had the Ultramatic transmission…an inoffensive gearbox that led nothing to the Novocaine-numb, same-day handling. And I learned that the roof caps I’d seen on other Chrysler minivans, were out of production or couldn’t be located to order…
What I REALLY wanted was a Toyota flat-front minivan. But those had been phased out the year before; and there were no panel-vans or customs in the used-car pipeline. Now I had my bear-naked panel van…which I went about carpeting the inside in a desultory way…until I found a Westfalia and had the money for a down payment on.
NOT my wisest choice – although the VW was eons more fun to drive. But when it developed fuel-system problems, I couldn’t shake them, and the cost was adding up…
That was the first. The second…was, years later, I changed fields (a euphemism) and moved back East. My old man had landed in a nursing home; my mother was overwhelmed; and I was doubling my pay to come back. But by this time I had no car…so I appropriated my father’s 1988 Dodge…very low mileage, although he’d been an erratic driver in his last years.
It WOULD have been a good car…except that my job was as a railroad brakeman; I was required to use my own vehicle to traverse the yard I was assigned. All my colleagues used 4x4s; I would have been well to follow suit.
What I did, was knock/spring/bend the front end to where repairs were not worth the value of an old-if-low-mileage van. So, being a slow learner, I presented myself at the local Jeep-Eagle store, for one more fleecing.
These vehicles…were raw, naked value from a company which had little else and no options. The 1995 generation, one of which I later owned, were much better road cars, with little lost in utility.
” These vehicles…were raw, naked value from a company which had little else and no options.”
Man, you really nailed it.
People know value when they see it. If I was a van shopper in the ’80s, I would have chose a Caravan over an Astro or Aerostar, definately. I’ve been in and driven all of them, and the Caravan just reeks of honest value, somewhat in the same way Paul said the Fairmont did.
OTOH, I find most non-landau-topped K-based Mopar cars have this quality. People often say the FWH GM LeSabres and Cadillacs of the mid-late ’80s were masters of space utilization, but I’d put a K-based Caravan up against them any day in that metric, as well as cars like the Spirit/Acclaim and the 600/Caravelle.
Mom bought a Spirit brand new in ’89, and I still think of that car as being well thought out and especially handy to this day, far moreso than the ’91 Century I bought from them or even the ’95 Camry.
I felt this way about the ’91 Dynasty I had in the late ’90s. Thing was homely, but tough and comfortable, and pretty quick with the 3.3. Old lady in a Grand Medicare totaled it while parked in front of my house. If I find some pix maybe I can manage a writeup!
I’ve seen the videos of the guy with the turbo van, they’re hilarious. As a former Mopar turbo owner, the kitsch value of the racer van is immeasurable.
One thing that puzzles me on this van: the tow receiver (hitch). I don’t have access to it anymore, but IIRC, my Lancer Turbo owner’s manual advised against towing with the car, in the event that the turbo would overheat. A tow ball or hitch would (apparently) void your warranty…
I have to wonder if there was the same restriction on the Caravan turbo or not…
IIRC, the 2.2 TBI Lancer could tow a very light load, either 1,000 or 2,000 lbs. The turbo wasn’t rated for anyting, as towing would result in constant use of turbo boost and everything would be overtaxed but the trusty Torqueflite transmission. I thought the turbo in the Caravan was an odd choice for this reason, since carrying 7 people and pushing a shed through the wind is surely as demanding as towing a 1,000 lb trailer.
My folks ordered a new ’92 Grand Caravan ES (like you Paul), and it came in in October 1991. It was a pretty rare variant, as it was an ES with AWD, leather and captains chairs. It was my mom’s first minivan, and since she was used to Volvo station wagons (traded a ’90 740GL wagon), it was loaded. It was the monochromatic white with white alloys, red striping and a gray interior. All the ES’s were supposed to have a flush body color pentastar on the hood, but ours came with the chrome stand-up hood ornament. I think the AWD was especially rare.
Some neighbors had a Grand Voyager, probably a ’93, COMPLETELY loaded up. Dark maroon of the same color leather, dope smoker black window tint, digital dash.
My sister and I would sometimes ride to school with them and as a kid I was impressed every time. The main impression I still remember from it besides being supremely comfortable in the 2nd row captain’s chairs was that it rode REALLY well over our badly-maintained Oklahoma tar & chipped county roads. And it seemed quiet. Not soft, exactly, but….measured? It seemed sure-footed. It didn’t float, but it kinda rocked a little, but in a comfortable manner.
It was a damn nice van.
The white ES vans were my favorites. They actually managed to look sporty.
Some of the loons in the Turbo Mopar world are working on adapting that AWD system to their Turbo Omnis. They may have succeded by now, last time I looked was around 2 years ago.
Note how big the rear window was compared to today’s Caravan. Today’s rear window may look big, but 40% of is painted black to cover up the hatch frame. The old van’s hatch frame wasn’t covered up by painted glass.
So, Paul, what’s the reason you pick a LWB Grand Caravan instead of the more common (for production van) Econoline? The ride? lower price? Better fuel economy? Personal “Cash back” from dealer?
Just curious. I’m guessing that for production van the most important purchase consideration is roominess, and the Caravan, even in long wheelbase form, can’t hold a candle to an Econoline.
This was a new small little Spanish-language station, in San Jose. By “production”, I mean just enough equipment to shoot some video on locations to make cheap little commercials, like for car dealers, etc. All it needed to carry was a camera, tripod, VCR, a portable light kit, and? Some extension cords?
The lwb Caravan C/V was more than big enough; a station wagon or Nissan Sentra Wagon/Axxess would have done.It was also used as an errand -mobile.
The guys that drove it eventually came around and really liked it; it was a lot nimbler in traffic and such than a big van. And, no, for that van we paid cash, no trade deals or discounts. The station wasn’t even on the air yet when we bought it! Those came later…
You know, this must be the day for photos! I thought the double Vee-Dubs over on TTAC made my day, now I come here to check in and what do I see? A Chrysler minivan doing a burnout at the drag strip! That’s really cool and my Friday will have to be good.
The original Chrysler minivan was THE vehicle we really could’ve used back in the 80′s and early 90′s, but we could not afford one, and for some reason, I never considered a used one. We somehow managed to pay cash for all our cars and made it 17 years without a car payment – we didn’t consider a loan from my father-in-law a “real” loan, which, incidentally, we paid back every cent!
Looking back, we could have afforded one – a pretty SWB bright red one. Wishing we did own one. We made do with other assorted Chrysler vehicles and an AMC thrown in for good measure.
A buddy had a 1986? Dodge Lancer turbo which was a great little car until the turbo blew. He fixed it and it kept going for awhile longer. Ran like crazy!