(first posted 5/1/5/2015) Chrysler is one of the few brands today that doesn’t offer a crossover, a fact made all the more mystifying by CEO Sergio Marchionne’s plan to make the Chrysler division FCA’s mainstream marque in North America. Their lineup at present consists merely of two sedans and a minivan, but there was once a Chrysler crossover. The defunct Pacifica actually beat Dodge, Ford and GMC to the crossover market, but was axed without replacement during the throes of America’s rapidly growing obsession with crossovers. The real question is: why did the Pacifica not earn a replacement? Was it something it did?
It seems to be popular opinion that the Pacifica sold poorly, but that isn’t the case. Yes, Chrysler projected annual sales of 100,000 units, a figure that proved to be overly optimistic, but throughout its run the Pacifica generally sold in excess of 70,000 units after a somewhat slow start. Compare and contrast that with the runs of other crossovers with vaguely premium aspirations, like the GMC Acadia, Buick Rendezvous and Enclave and Ford Flex, and you’ll see the Pacifica often sold consistently higher, despite low gas prices ensuring the popularity of traditional body-on-frame SUVs and also despite Chrysler having a minivan in the showroom. In fact, Town & Country sales were not at all dented by the arrival of the Pacifica, which meant the latter was actually bringing in entirely new buyers to Chrysler showrooms. The Pacifica also outsold another early crossover, the Nissan Murano, for three consecutive years.
Only when you compare Pacifica sales with that of the golden child of the crossover market, the Lexus RX, do they start to look disappointing. Lexus was exceeding 100k annual units with its hot-selling crossover that arguably pioneered the modern crossover format, and it was selling RXs at an MSRP of around $35k in 2004, the Pacifica’s first year on the market. The Pacifica, in contrast, sold from $29-32k initially but had the notable handicap of a much less prestigious badge.
It was that very lack of prestige that caused Chrysler to rapidly change tactics just a year into the Pacifica’s run. They had launched their first crossover as a “luxury sports tourer”. Although based on the minivan platform, the Pacifica traded the Town & Country’s boxy styling, roomy cabin and Stow ‘n’ Go versatility for a sleeker silhouette and a less practical interior. Four conventional doors opened to a cabin featuring three-row seating for six in a 2-2-2 format, but those seats could still fold flat to provide a sizeable cargo area. With all three rows up, though, cargo space was a mediocre 13 cubic feet. The Pacifica’s Goldilocks ride height allowed for easy ingress and egress, being neither too tall nor too short.
The sole powertrain was Chrysler’s 250-horsepower, 250 ft-lb 3.5 V6 with a four-speed AutoStick transmission. All-wheel-drive was optional, and the extra weight of the system blunted performance: total curb weight was around 4700lbs. The Pacifica’s weight also resulted in so-so gas mileage, with 17mpg city and 23mpg highway (22 with the AWD). Overall, though, critics praised the Pacifica’s dynamic ability: while it wasn’t sporty, it offered a poised ride and competent handling that bested any minivan or conventional SUV. Some of the credit can go to the multi-link rear suspension, which was purportedly derived from the Mercedes-Benz E-Class’ suspension.
Although the “merger of equals” between Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler was a disaster, the Pacifica was the beneficiary of other unique additions beyond the rear suspension. Inside, the Pacifica had a cabin that was almost entirely different from other contemporary Chryslers. Modern, high-gloss wood trim swept across the dash, satin metal trim highlights were employed tastefully and Pacificas with satellite navigation equipped actually had the display situated in the gauge cluster. Overall, the interior was a class act, although overall cabin space was lower than a minivan.
Outside, the Pacifica was generally perceived to be quite elegant in appearance, although some believed the horizontal feature lines and rakish D-pillar failed to conceal the Pacifica’s bulk. And the Pacifica was indeed a big ‘un: measuring 198.5 inches long, with a 116.3 inch wheelbase, the crossover was 12.7 inches longer and 0.4 inches taller than a Lexus RX. Of course, the RX lacked a third-row, but the Pacifica was still 9.7 inches longer than a short-wheelbase Mopar minivan. Its detailing was tasteful, and designers resisted the temptation to make the car look too blocky or truck-like. Perhaps that turned off buyers who wanted something more “butch”, but the overall style was none too garish: big, yes, but not overly bold.
The Pacifica may have looked elegant and upscale inside and out, but years of PT Cruisers and low-rent Sebrings had left Chrysler’s premium image in disrepair. Many early Pacificas on dealer lots were fully-loaded with satellite-navigation, rear DVD players, heated leather seats and power liftgates, not to mention list prices nearing $40k, and they were staying on those dealer lots for longer than Chrysler wanted. If Chrysler wanted the Pacifica to sell in Lexus RX volumes, it had to sell at prices much lower than that of the RX.
As quickly as it had begun, Chrysler’s planned repositioning as a premium brand – including a three-year contract with Celine Dion for “classier” television advertisements – was ended. The Pacifica range started its sophomore year a good $4k cheaper with a front-wheel-drive, five-seat LX trim opening the range. The LX ditched certain luxury features like leather trim, and featured a second-row bench seat. It also had an entirely different engine, a 3.8 V6 shared with the minivans. Power output was 200hp with 235 ft-lbs, and the 3.8 was generally regarded as being a solid performer in lower rev ranges but a little breathless the harder you pushed it. Gas mileage was scarcely better than the 3.5, with EPA estimated mileage of 16/23mpg. For 2006, the 3.8 would be dropped, only to return for 2007 and still only in price-leader FWD LX trim.
The Pacifica’s penultimate year, 2007, would also see the replacement of the 3.5 V6. A bigger 4.0 V6 arrived and despite having only 3 more horsepower, it had a solid 12 extra pound-feet of torque. Most crucially, it was mated to an all-new six-speed automatic. While gas mileage wasn’t improved, the Pacifica was now appreciably more responsive with a 2 second quicker 0-60 time by some reports. There was also revised front-end styling, bearing a closer resemblance to the new and challenging-looking Sebring. New to the options list was a backup camera that projected the footage in the gauge cluster, as well as backup sensors. Side curtain airbags and stability control were also made standard across the range. Overall, it seemed the Pacifica had got itself into a nice groove.
Perhaps it was the tumultuous turn of events at Chrysler Corporation to blame, but Pacifica sales dropped considerably during its final year. Suddenly, the Pacifica was on life support as Chrysler’s new overlords, Cerberus, looked to simplify the Mopar product range and cut slow-selling products. In the space of just three years, Cerberus axed the Chrysler PT Cruiser, Crossfire and Aspen, as well as the Dodge Magnum, Durango and Dakota. The Pacifica would not survive, either: model year 2008 would be its last.
The most critical threat to the Pacifica’s reputation was not its confused positioning or under-quota sales. Rather, it was the Pacifica’s reliability record which was less than stellar, with electrical gremlins plaguing some models. There were some reports of early models suffering from subpar build quality, and certain media outlets reporting overall reliability to be below average although there didn’t seem to be one particular reliability Achille’s Heel.
Warranty claims likely wouldn’t have helped the Pacifica’s profitability, nor would the crossover’s unique componentry and interior fittings. Pacifica owners, though, were lucky to avoid the generally quite rotten Mopar interiors of the time. Some trim changes made during the Pacifica’s run may have been questionable (although cloth-equipped models did receive stain-resistant fabric for ’07), but the car’s cabin was never dragged down to the lowly quality depths of the Dodge Nitro and Chrysler Aspen.
The Pacifica, owing to its DaimlerChrysler heritage, often seems to be lumped in together with the Mercedes-Benz R-Class in people’s minds. That is much more of a compliment to the Pacifica than anything, but it has little basis in fact. Although both were “sports tourers” (the R-Class was a “grand sports tourer”), they rode on entirely different platforms and sold at entirely different price points. If the Pacifica is deemed a failure by some, then the R-Class would have to be classified as an unmitigated disaster. Annual sales never exceeded 20,000 units and only topped 10k units twice, probably because of its daft positioning, showroom competition from the more desirable ML/GL, and its floppy styling.
Although the Chrysler marque has yet to field another crossover entry, the Pacifica’s demise was quickly followed by the introduction of Dodge’s first crossover. The Journey, a cheaper and smaller vehicle, has proved to be a relative success, especially in global markets.
Pacifica obituaries and retrospectives often paint a negative picture of a car that was poorly executed and a sales disappointment. While sales didn’t meet Chrysler’s projections, the Pacifica was still a moderate success and was quite well-received by critics upon launch. Rather than being left to wither on the vine, the car also received noteworthy improvements during its short run. We may not know why Chrysler didn’t replace it, but it’s not because the Pacifica was some Aztekian failure. On the contrary, the Pacifica was one of the first entrants in a segment that continues to boom to this day, and beyond some minor issues, it was a solid entrant.
Related Reading:
I drove one once, an 07 model I think. I liked it for the short time I had it. The only complaint I had was the wind and road noise seemed excessive for what I perceived to be a luxury car at the time.
I rode in one in Vancouver that was, of all things, a taxi. LOL the squeaks and rattles it generated. Maybe it was from the wear and tear of taking people back and forth, but as the owner of two Mopar products, I think it was the unfortunate build quality.
I had one for a rental for one day (it was all Enterprise had in an emergency situation until the following morning). I loathed the vehicle. Handled lousy, gas mileage about half what I was normally used to in my daily commute, big, porky. It currently holds the personal record for bad impression on the part of an automobile. I would never consider owning one.
yeah, this was pretty much the last time they were allowed to make a Chrysler product genuinely nice, inside and out. Then they had the poor taste to do the ME-412 concept, which led Stuttgart to drop the hammer on them.
ME-412 ‘poor taste’? Explain that. The ME is a perfect example of how good Chrysler’s engineers really were if turned loose on a project. It got squashed since the Daimler nazis were livid that some ‘stupid Americans’ built a far superior car than the M-B SLR for less money and in less time. It boils down to butthurt and arrogant MB mgmt nursing their bruised egos. No good deed goes unpunished, it would seem.
Look it up on Allpar if you want to know the full story.
that’s what I meant; they had the “poor taste” to dare encroach on Mercedes/AMG territory (in Daimler’s viewpoint,) so from then on every Chrysler Group product got the cheapest, most miserable fit, finish, and feel.
Ah gotcha. Sarcasm doesn’t always come off so obvious in print!
The real question is: why did the Pacifica not earn a replacement? Was it something it did?
In a sense it was replaced, the Dodge Journey is a mid-size CUV using the minivan platform.
The big problem with the Pacifica was how expensive it was when it first came out, which is a reason why its replacement was done under the cheaper Dodge brand.
The Pacifica was somewhat ahead of its time in being a minivan that shed its sliding doors in an attempt to camouflage its minivanliness.
Very nicely-written article. Although you make some important points about upgrades over its run (which I entirely forgot about), on numerous occasions I got to experience a Pacifica in person, and it was not a vehicle to my liking.
My aunt and uncle purchased a pre-owned 2004 Pacifica Touring AWD in 2006 as a replacement for their dying 1999 Plymouth Grand Voyager. While true that it had somewhat of a premium image, its interior used plastics that were just as bad as every other Mopar of the time. Dash and door panels were hard and grainy, with a hollow feeling. Leather was very industrial-grade, and nothing compared to the leather in my mom’s ’04 Toyota. The slivery trim and wood were way cheaper in person, and the bucket seats’ armrests were harder plastic than their Voyager’s.
I don’t recall it being very comfortable either, probably fueled my how poor the visibility was, owing to a very cave-like feeling. I don’t think they had any major mechanical problems with it, although they only owned it a few years before my cousin crashed and totalled it around 2009. I wanted to like these cars, but they were just as much of a let down as the Crossfire.
I do remember those Celine Dion ads though. I always recall them anytime I hear that “I Drove All Night” song.
The Pacifica’s downfall was it’s looks. It looked too much like a minivan… from ALL angles. It also had the ride height of a minivan or regular passenger car. Not very crossover-like.
Now compare it to the originator of the crossover genre, the Lexus RX300, it didn’t have the lifted car look. Or the SUV stance and utility. What does 0.4 inches matter in height, barely noticable if the Pacifica looks like a fat beluga whale.
The Subaru Outback which debuted in 1996/97, is a lifted AWD wagon… But it fills the crossover image alot better than tha Pacifica ever did. So does the Forester.
I don’t think Chrysler aimed at the Pacific to be a crossover, I think that is more the author’s perception. Face it, if Chrysler KNEW what they had, like the pioneering of the minivan… why would they abandon it?
The crossover market, like the midsize sedan market is very very popular. If Chrysler aimed the Pacifica to be a crossover, instead if discontinuing it, wouldn’t they have retooled and updated it with newer generations… like Lexus does with the RX?
Also, what’s up with stupid woodgrain strip, at the top of the Pacifica’s steering wheel? It looks like those overlay covers you can buy at Wal Mart. Talk about tacky.
Agreed. The Pacifica has the same issues that the Ford Flex has: they’re practical long “wagons”, but don’t exude the look that folks want from their CUVs: that they could go off-roading, even if they never will.
And that’s one of the things that I personally like so much about the Flex. It looks more “tall wagon” than it does “low SUV”. If I ever find myself needing a vehicle that size, the Flex will likely be at the top of the list. The Pacifica has a little more CUV in the look–to me, it resembles a stretched Lexus RX in basic shape. Though I can see how it would be perceived as more “wagon-y”.
Also, something I forgot to mention in my previous comment–it came as a complete surprise to find that the Paciica and the R-class are unrelated. I always thought they were platform-mates that didn’t share powertrains.
I love the Ford Flex precisely because it looks like a reincarnation of 1952-56 Ford Country Squire.
My wife, however, hates it, and calls it “the hearse” when we see one in traffic. I’ve heard the same thing from other men regarding the reaction of their wives/girlfriends to the Flex.
For some reason, a lot of women do not like the Flex.
My wife also thinks it’s ugly. However, she thinks my current vehicle is ugly, she thinks the majority of the cars I like are ugly, and as long as the doesn’t have to drive it very often, wouldn’t stop me from buying something useful just because she doesn’t like the looks.
Kind of an “agree to disagree” situation but it works for us.
To really be the new Country Squire, the Flex needs fake wood. It would cover those stupid grooves on the sides, and replace that odd silvery panel on the tail. Oh wait, a photo.
If there ever was a factory hearse it would be the ’12ish Nissan Quest in black and tinted windows and that narrow chrome strip wrapping around the rear.
I could never get past the bloated styling. Personally, I thought these were some of the ugliest vehicles on the road when they were available.
I think this was the production version of the Citadel concept. If you check that out, you can see the Pacifica was a far cry from it. If only they had the guts to build that, or at least make the Pacifica look more SUV like.
I do like the idea of having the nav screen in the center of the IP, I don’t think anyone else has done that since. Of course, it is probably a pain to get to if you need it. That was one feature I though Chrysler should have hyped more, but then it didn’t show up on other models either, so there must be a good story about why not.
Looking at the 4th picture from the top (interior with skis) and wondering who the hell transports skiing equipment like that…
I may be taking you too literally, but Im not so sure that it was intended to be realistic. Skis seem to be one of those size benchmarks, like a 4×8 sheet of plywood, that resonates with a consumer. The luxury image of skiing and the fact that one could find a smaller size ski to make the interior look larger dont hurt things.
Of course you’re right, this was a photo for advertisements/brochures, and and its purpose was to a) show “how spacious the interior is” and b) convey the image that drivers of these cars are “sophisticated adventurers” or some similar BS.
BTW, this reminds me very much of a similar picture I saw a few years ago in a brochure for a European compact minivan where, instead of skis, a surfboard was pictured (a regular surfboard, not windsurfing board which would be somewhat more probable in Europe). Almost nobody in Europe surfs (no good waves for that in the Mediterranean, and Atlantic waters are quite cold)… But perhaps it’s no coincidence that an American ad/brochure would show skis (as far as I know, relatively small percentages of Americans ski) and a European ad/brochure would show a surfboard…
Actually, I do. I don’t have good friends that ski, so I usually go by myself and throw the skis in the back of my TSX wagon just like that.
Well, if by “throw the skis in the back of my TSX wagon” you mean you put them in the trunk/cargo area, that is different. I have transported skis in a similar manner (I go skiing so rarely, I never got one of those special roof racks).
But what we see in the picture is quite silly – skis are just laid on folded seats, and not secured in any way so during the drive, they would bounce around (and those things are relatively heavy, with sharp metal edges!).
And who just throws the ski boots in like that? They would roll around, too. You put them in a bag – either in a special dedicated bag or (if you’re cheap like me) wrap them in a plastic supermarket bag. After skiing, ski boots are wet from snow, and then you walk to your car to change into normal shoes, so you often also get some dirt/mud on your ski boots. In such state, you don’t just throw them in your car – at least not if you have a brand new Pacifica in such immaculate condition as shown… 🙂
My goodness, do you race up the mountain? I don’t find the photo that ridiculous. It’s still a CUV…if you’re afraid to use it you bought the wrong vehicle.
My new neighbor…
If I’d been in the market for an over-priced over-weight over-loaded overly-complex maintenance-hog gas-and-money guzzler with a bad reliability reputation, I’d have chosen a bigger one.
With even more weight to lug around than the old Grand Caravan, these cars ate transmissions. Even though they may have sold around 100k annually, the only ones I see anymore are in the lots of transmission shops, waiting for a rebuild/swap.
The 41TE and its variants have always been weak links. The PT Cruiser weighs less than either. With the base n/a 2.4 its fine but the HO turbo 2.4 on the GTs or even the lower boost turbo lite are known for chewing these up. Dont DARE boost in 4th gear unless you really miss your transmission mechanic.
The nav screen was not a touch screen. The nav system was operated from buttons in the center stack. My guess is that touchscreen nav systems prevent the screen from being located in the guage cluster, except as a secondary screen to the primary one. My parents had a 2008 with the 4.0 and six-speed. It had plenty of power and was a nice road car. I seriously considered buying a leftover 2008 Pacifica in 2009, but the lack of driver legroom steered me towards a leftover 2008 Grand Cherokee, which I have been very happy with.
And the fact that you bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee – THAT underscores a major reason why these failed in the marketplace.
For all of DaimlerChrysler’s attempts to move the Chrysler nameplate upmarket, the Jeep nameplate is where higher-income folks go in the Chrysler family when they’re shopping for domestic, luxury utility vehicles.
That’s also probably part of the reason Chrysler killed them. They were trying to merge their Chrysler and Jeep dealers. If they are separate dealers, then they each need an SUV/CUV, but if both are at the same dealer, they are just going to cannibalize each other.
I liked the looks of these. But the constant juggling of power trains, equipment levels and prices showed how Chrysler never quite figured out what it was. High gas prices, a bad economy and fear of Chrysler’s demise finally killed it.
There is also one year (not exactly sure which, 2005 maybe?) that also had a serious issue with rusting front subframes. In a very Achilles’ heel sort of scenario, apparently when the subframes were galvanized, the spot where the robotic machine grabbed the subframe to dunk it in the tank was not accounted for properly, and if the car lived in a salty area, the subframes would start to rust in that vulnerable spot and it would spread from the inside.
A co-worker bought a Pacifica used in 2012 or so, and was very happy with it, until one day when it was up on the lift for a tire replacement his mechanic noticed advanced subframe rust to the point where it was borderline unsafe to drive. My co-worker found that a recall had been issued, but it was time-limited, and the time window had expired a bit earlier. The dealership refused to help him and he ended up taking a huge loss on trade-in as the car was essentially at scrap value. Chrysler lost a customer on that one, too, as he had previously bought their minivans but swore he’d never do business with them again after their handling of the matter.
I actually kind of liked the Pacifica, and thought they were interesting when they came out. A good step for Chrysler that I’m afraid was poorly executed in some key areas, thereby hindering its ultimate success, especially compared to Lexus. However, the Pacifica was light years better than the shockingly bad Pontiac Aztek and Buick Rendezvous, which were dismal attempts on the same concept.
I really wish that Chrysler could have built a production version of the Citadel concept vehicle. While I guess the Citadel looked more like a wagon than a crossover, it was still very interesting and unique and would have made a great Town & Country at the very least. Also, the Citadel was a pretty revolutionary concept when it appeared, as it was a gas/electric hybrid–way back in 2000!
Citadel exterior.
If they did the Citadel looking like this based on the LX cars’ running gear, they might’ve had something.
Citadel interior, definitely showing some details that influenced the production Pacifica.
You mustn’t forget the original Pacifica concept from the late-90s. Town & Country meets LHS!
Ouch! The actual Pacifica looks like Miss America compared to this thing.
The ovoid grille being wider at the bottom than the top ruins it. Looks like a pig snout, makes the whole car look droopy, but nothing a bean counter ordering a production version to use the existing minivan hood wouldn’t have fixed.
Is it wrong that I kind of like it? I have an odd affection for conversion vans.
Total POS. Cheap spec’d suspension and drivetrain components.
BUT…
IF you replaced the crap parts that wore our prematurely, THEN you’d have a nice vehicle. I know a mechanic who did just that and decided to keep it; it had become quite durable.
I drove a friend’s when new ten years ago and it was quite competent on the highway…but it started breaking stuff pretty quickly – something I understand was endemic to Pacificas. They traded it in within the year and to my knowledge never bought from Mother Mopar again.
I disagree that Chrysler had a low rent image at this time. The Sebring, yes…the sedans/convertibles were rental fodder and the coupe was barely existent. The PT was still a desireable car, and the pre-’06 models still were nicely built and had the better interior. The 300C was about to explode. The Crossfire was well regarded but a 2 seater is a niche market.
Like PN says, this car was far from a ‘failure’…the ongoing commitment to making it the best in its class just wasnt there. Ive felt from day one that the Journey should have been a Chrysler all along…or at least have a variant there, significantly restyled with LOTS of 300 in the look and better trimmed. But a new CUV is coming.
It wasn’t me who wrote this piece…..and I’m not sure of whether it really was a failure or not. It may have sold reasonably well, but I suspect it never delivered the level of profitability that Chrysler was hoping from it. And the fact that it was dead-ended makes it obvious that it was not really a viable concept.
As another commenter above wrote, the Pacifica didn’t exude the certain qualities that define a CUV, with a taller stance and more butch appearance. Actually, the Pacifica was essentially a Ford Flex, but with different styling. And we can see how well the Flex turned out, sales-wise. Americans like their CUVs to look like they could do a bit of off-roading, even if they never will. Image trumps function.
Whoops my fault…I got the by lines mixed with another post. Multitasking at work…
Thing is, the lexus RX sells like hotcakes, same wit thw CR-V. Maybe its all perspective but those 2 are about as butch as Justin Bieber. The only CUVs that seem to have any ruggedness are the KL Cherokee in trailhawk trim or the old honda element. But then, I think a Jeep Wrangler with less than 33″ tires is for total wimps so there ya go;)
I know they are a bit controversial, but I love those Cherokee Trailhawks. Just wish they were a bit bigger, but Jeeps have never been known for their interior space I guess.
Ill say they’ve definitely grown on me. I still don’t like the front end treatment. But the TrailHawk in a good color like Toxic orange, or that greyish blue with the black rims, aggressive tires and the black out hood panel…they kind of remind me of an Eagle SX/4 for some insane reason. As CUVs go, theyre probably the most capable thing out there, and along with a manual trans awd turbo Mini Countryman its one of the few Id ever consider owning. But when I see those in the lower end model with chrome and the dinky trike tires….it could be just another Hyundai or Toyota to my eye.
I absolutely love the Cherokee Trailhawk. I have no interest in off-roading and rarely like SUVs/crossovers, but I would love to have one. Striking styling outside, great design inside. FCA puts out SUVs I actually like: the Durango has the most useable third-row of almost any SUV its size, the Grand Cherokee is stylish although so very common now, and the Renegade looks like it will be good.
actually i transport skis like that. usually wrapped together, often 2 sets, with boots and 2 kids to and from a ski area. it’s quicker than putting on a rack, quieter than my rack, better mileage than my rack, and keeps the skis from getting road grime all over them. often do this with jumping skis which are 240cm.
i remember when the concept pacifica was out for review and being reported on. i was quite excited by the concept of something that even part-way resembled a wagon with a 3rd seat and optional awd. but looking closely at the interior photos they had a fish eye quality to them. and i began to wonder about how big that interior really was.
when it was released i still liked the concept but had a few misgivings all of which the article touched upon; too expensive for a chrysler, too small for 3 rows of seats, too thirsty – esp in awd. it was cheaper and more desirable to get an awd minivan or suck it up and buy the vw passat wagon. in time the reliability question raised its ugly head (although to be fair here 07 passat reliability is penultimately bad and that is saying something) and repair costs are high. i have an acquaintance who is retired about 4 miles from me who went from a minivan to a used pacifica to a new minivan in short order. i do not know the story but i doubt that was easy on their budget.
I liked these when they came out, still do. I was disappointed upon learning of their issues including the joy of combining low fuel economy with less than stellar performance…come on guys, pick one of the two but not both. Wonder what an improved second generation would have been like.
First Daimler, then Cerberus, can we go back in time and slap Bob Eaton upside the head? Or Maybe Kirk Kerkorian for scaring the Chrysler board so badly?
My mother has owned one of these for 3 years, a 2006. it’s creeping up on 200k miles, and still haven’t had any major problems, guess we just go lucky.
pic of car:
Chrysler sure got screwed when they merged with Mercedes Benz and I guess Fiat is better, but I am not sure what they are thinking with some of there ideas. Plymouth was the sensible person’s vehicle, Dodge the sportier version, and Chrysler the luxury version, but now Chrysler is screwing itself by trying to be Chrysler and Plymouth. All in all I rather have that decent looking Plymouth Voyager in the lead photo, but the centered license plate looks goofy.
I agree. It comes off as schizo, when you have El Cheapo variants of cars like the 300 that otherwise exude presence and class. The ’06-up PT Cruiser really got the shaft in the same way.
The LX cars are one good thing that came of this union. Those cars blew up 10 years ago and continue to amaze while being a solid seller. To a Mopar fan, those are our tri-five chevys.
I really wish Chrysler would just dedicate itself as the upscale luxury/near luxury Mopar brand.
I also kind of wish they would axe the Town and Country as I just don’t see a van as any sort of luxury vehicle, or at least not make any stripper versions of it.
I also think they’d be better off pushing the 300 over the 200, but maybe that’s just me.
If the Pacifica didn’t look 30 psi overinflated maybe it would has done better. Or not. Damn thing looks like a puffer fish.
I always thought it looked very hearse-like from the rear, especially in black.
A fair review on an overly maligned vehicle.
This did sell well, and really well in my Midwestern city with a strong CJD dealer nearby. I still see these on the road virtually everyday.
I considered buying one in 2005. The third row was not a functional as other offerings available. The biggest issue, I don’t think they ever offered a 7 passenger 2-3-2 seating set up. You could buy a 2-2-2 or a 2-3. A 2-3-2 has been important to me as I’ve been raising three kids for a while.
During a trip to the Grand Canyon in 2006 or so, I had one as a rental. It seemed like a very solid vehicle, had adequate grunt for the job, and the Autostick was kind of a fun diversion in some of the mountainous regions we crossed. It was a lucky find in the rental yard – my family could not fit with all our luggage in the 2-2-2 configurations that were in stock. I recall being in the stiflingly hot airport garage in Las Vegas, trying to select our car. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum and 2-2-2 Pacificas simply didn’t fit. I think I lost 10 lbs. in sweat trying to cram our luggage in. The lot attendant came around the corner with at 2-3 configuration Pacifica and we were on our way.
Styling is certainly a matter of opinion, but the Pacifica is awfully similar to the Buick Enclave and Chevy Traverse in my mind, and neither seems to get the same level of criticism.
Now the interior of that car is quite nice – a heck of a lot better than many Mopar models recently. It’s too bad this car didn’t stick.
My son bought one 2 yrs old 45k miles. 150k now. It’s been a good car. The Pacifica was Chrysler’s first traverse mounted drive train to set on a full separate subframe cradle. With its multi link rear suspension on a rear subframe it does very well to reduce NVH at the exspense of weight. This set up was carried over into 08 up mini van and Journey. Had some programming issues with the DVD remote and radio. Listened to kiddie cartoons rockin in surround sound unable to mute front speakers! Recommended fuel is 89 Oct.- up. He has the optional 19″ tires= expensive.As an above commenter stated ,to me they seem to increase road noise and a bit to firm (for me) ride quality. The only failed part at 130k was the front hydraulic ( liquid filled) motor mount. This becomes dramatically evident as a huge cloud of antifreeze steam when the engine torques back and pulls the upper radiator hose off!
I see these all over the place in Omaha. I think they look pretty decent, not my cup of tea, but like a slimmed down minivan for people who want a little more room than a car but don’t need/want an SUV and don’t want the “stigma” of a minivan. For Chrysler, it made sense I thought.
However, when I first saw a Mercedes R class (which now I know has nothing in common with the Pacifica but had assumed previously) the first thing I thought was, “Mercedes is making a freakin’ VAN? Holy crap, what the…” I thought it was just plain ugly and the design doesn’t fit in with Mercedes premium reputation.
A luxury SUV was a novelty during this time. A nice SUV based upon the minivan – wasn’t. GM went this route cheaply with the ugly Aztek and Rendezvous. Ford and Chrysler went the expensive route with the Flex and the Pacifica.
Everyone discovered that it was better to take a little truck and dress it up, than take a FWD minivan and do the same. The Explorer was cheaper and more profitable. Hopes that offsetting the costs of producing a minivan by twisting one into a luxury SUV sounded good on paper – but not in reality.
These vehicles answered a question that wasn’t being asked in the market. While manufacturers think this way, buyers don’t.
I didn’t see it mentioned, but Toyota brought out the similar Venza at about the same time the Pacifica was getting cancelled. It lasted from 2008 – 2015 in the US and is enjoying a return for 2021, albeit with a decidedly more SUV-like appearance.
My brother had to replace a rusted out subframe on his Dodge Caliber. Other Mopar models including Pacifica share this problem in the rustbelt. Dangerous and expensive. I’ve always thought Pacifica to be attractive all around. Don’t see many around these days though.
I know a guy with a Pacifica who had to do the same thing. He’s a trained ex-mechanic so he could handle it. The worst part was just finding a subframe for it.
Wow, I didn’t realize it’s been that long since the Dodge Magnum was axed. The others, such as Aspen, were largely forgettable.
4700 lbs. for a mid-size CUV? That seems awfully heavy. For comparison, an aluminum crew cab F-150 weighs the same. My compact CUV is almost 1500 lbs. lighter.
I never considered these “mid size”. They’re a full size three-row CUV, about the same size as a Buick Enclave, which weighed even more (4800-5000lbs).
I bought a fully-loaded 2003 Chrysler Sebring convertible, in 2006, from a family that “upgraded” to a new Pacifica. The seller told me that one reason for selling was that their pre-teen daughters didn’t like having their hair blown around! I still have the convertible; I suspect the Pacifica is long gone. I do recall them being touted as having a “5-star safety rating”, perhaps that’s because they were built like tanks.
William, have you seen my comments about your post (Oct 2018) on the Datsun Aspen. As I said in original condition. Paint job is two-toned, just not showing it in the photo.