Back in 1995, the movie Get Shorty turned product placement into a running gag by proclaiming the Oldsmobile Silhouette “the Cadillac of minivans.” Six years earlier, Chrysler tried to create the “the Dodge Daytona of minivans” by offering a short-lived, seldom-seen Turbo Sport Package for its popular Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager minivans, advertising the turbo vans as “seven passenger sports cars.”
Outside of a small contingent of fans, people are often surprised to learn that these turbo vans ever existed. The turbocharged Caravan and Voyager were offered for only two years (1989 and 1990), and they were never common. At the time, I knew that they were available, but I don’t recall ever seeing one outside of a brochure.
These were about the only version of the T115 minivans that WEREN’T practically everywhere: Chrysler sold 404,519 Caravans and Voyagers in the 1989 calendar year (including 13,150 Caravan C/V cargo vans), and another 377,483 in calendar 1990.
It’s a testament to the strength of the basic T-115 minivan package (and the inadequacy of the competition) that these vans got by for so long with inadequate engines. From launch until midway through the 1987 model year, the choices were the carbureted Chrysler 2.2-liter four from the K-cars and the Mitsubishi G54B (4G54) 2.6-liter four.
Neither engine was very powerful, and the Mitsubishi four suffered persistent driveability problems.
Starting in spring 1987, Chrysler phased out the original engine options in favor of two new ones: their own injected 2.5-liter four and the new 3.0-liter Mitsubishi 6G72 V-6. Although the V-6 added over $600 to the price tag, it gave the minivans a lot more muscle for hauling a full load of kids and stuff, and buyers strongly preferred it. By 1990, four-cylinder Caravan/Voyager sales had fallen below 10 percent of production.
I should say a few words here about the Chrysler A512 2.5-liter four, which became the standard Caravan/Voyager engine for 1988. Introduced on some other Chrysler models two years earlier, the A512 engine was initially a tall-deck version of Chrysler’s OHC 2.2-liter four, with a longer stroke and an add-on aluminum housing for twin counter-rotating balance shafts. It was tuned for torque rather than peak power, but it was smoother than the 2.2 or the 2.5-liter GM “Iron Duke” and less troublesome than the Mitsubishi 2.6.
Chrysler engineer Willem Weertman, who designed and patented the balance shaft assembly, has said frankly that the 2.5-liter four was intended as an alternative to the Mitsubishi engine. There were probably a couple of reasons for that: The ’80s were a period of often virulent anti-Japanese sentiment, not a little of it coming from Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca, so it was somewhat awkward for Chrysler’s to be so dependent on its Japanese partner for engines for its most popular products. Relying on Mitsubishi engines also left Chrysler vulnerable to shifts in import duties and exchange rates.
Although the 2.5-liter four eventually enabled Chrysler to abandon the Mitsubishi 2.6, the popularity of the 3.0-L V-6 quickly recreated the same problem. Also, there were only so many 6G72 engines Mitsubishi Motors could build, and it needed some for its own products as well as Chrysler’s. Chrysler decided to develop its own pushrod V-6, but that wouldn’t be available until 1990, and it would take a while for production to ramp up.
In the interim, Chrysler decided to turbocharge the 2.5-liter four. Like all 1989 Chrysler fours, this A519 “Turbo I” engine used a new “universal” cylinder block that had the same block height as the 2.2-liter four, bolstered with a stronger crankshaft and lighter pistons. The turbo engine used multipoint rather than throttle-body fuel injection, with a turbocharger supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (a different division than Mitsubishi Motors corporation).
In 1989–1990, the Turbo I engine was rated at 150 hp and 180 lb-ft of torque, a healthy 50 percent increase over the normally aspirated 2.5-liter four and a bit more than the Mitsubishi V-6.
Starting in 1989, the Turbo I engine found its way into the Caravan and Voyager minivans, but it was also widely used in other contemporary FWD Chrysler products, including the sporty Dodge Daytona ES coupe, the P-body Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance, the new A-body Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim, and the J-body Chrysler LeBaron.
On the Dodge Caravan, the Turbo I engine was part of a Turbo Sport Package that included heavy-duty suspension, 205/70R15 tires on 15-inch alloy wheels, full instrumentation, and a 125 mph speedometer (also available in some other Caravan/Voyager option packages).
This cost around $1,300, depending on what other options you ordered with it. It could be combined with an ES decor package that some sources (and some Dodge ads) treated as a separate model. The turbo package was also offered on the Caravan C/V cargo van, which would be a real unicorn today. In 1989, it could be ordered on a Grand Caravan (albeit only with automatic); in 1990, it was only available on the short-wheelbase vans.
On the Plymouth Voyager, you could order the Turbo I engine either as a standalone option or as part of an LX decor package that also included the heavy-duty suspension and 15-inch alloys, which were otherwise standalone options. The pieces and the prices were about the same as on the Caravan, but how you ordered them was a bit different. (Chrysler merchandising in this era was convoluted and frequently bewildering.)
The Caravan and Voyager were widely acclaimed at the time for their carlike ride and handling, but they were soft rather than sporty. These were still tall boxes, and their chassis tuning priorities were hauling loads of kids and kid-related ephemera and not feeling truckish while doing it. Adding turbo boost to thrill the family in highway passing was one thing, but seven-passenger sports cars?
I can’t claim to have driven one of these turbo minivans, and I couldn’t find any contemporary road tests; Motor Trend reported that they’d asked Dodge for a Caravan turbo 5-speed for their 1989 Truck of the Year competition, but Dodge declined. However, the heavy-duty sport suspensions Chrysler offered on other models in this period tended to make the ride noticeably crunchier, with the worst examples probably being the rock-hard “maximum performance” suspensions offered on the Shelby models. That might have been acceptable in a Daytona coupe, but in a minivan, I always assumed it would be a real “try before you buy” situation.
Or maybe not. The owner of the 1989 Voyager SE turbo in the above video says that his van’s heavy-duty suspension (with fresh front struts) just tightens things up a bit without really changing the pleasant basic character of the ride and handling. He notes that the short-body van still had a longer wheelbase than contemporary Chrysler cars (it was 112 inches, compared to 97 inches for the Daytona and P-body car and 103.3 inches for the A-body sedans), and of course it was heavier. So, maybe the heavy-duty suspension was a reasonable compromise, giving a little more body control without bouncing the kids around like stir-fry vegetables on a hot wok.
For vans of these turbo minivans, the Holy Grail is a van with the turbo engine and the A555 5-speed manual transmission. This was available, but it very rare. I don’t have any numbers for 1989, but in 1990, only 1,980 Caravans and 1,663 Voyagers had a 5-speed manual gearbox, and some of those were base models with the 2.5-liter normally aspirated four. Some owners have since done transmission swaps, so a turbo minivan that has a 5-speed today might not have left the factory that way.
Despite the cult appeal of the 5-speed minivan, the 3-speed automatic might have been the more sensible choice with the turbo engine. With the 5-speed, Chrysler claimed a 0 to 60 time of 9 seconds, much quicker than most contemporary people-carriers (Car and Driver‘s 1989 Caravan LE V-6 needed 11.8 seconds to reach 60 mph), but the automatic’s torque converter and detent kickdown did a better job of masking turbo lag at lower engine speeds.
Also, the turbocharger installation in these engines was designed more for quick bursts of power than sustained high-speed running. In stock form, the Turbo I engine originally had a rather peculiar boost schedule: Below 3,400 rpm, boost was limited to 6.9 psi. From 3,400 rpm to the 6,200 rpm fuel cutoff, boost could peak at up to 11 psi — but in sustained full-throttle acceleration, the controller would gradually reduce boost to a maximum of 8 psi to keep internal temperatures down. These vans were not intended for the Autobahn.
A previous owner of the Black Cherry Caravan SE pictured above substituted an aftermarket boost controller that allows the boost to be manually set to a single desired value. That might be better for performance (the auction listing includes timing slips from a local drag strip), but the reason Chrysler specified the weird variable boost schedule was to avoid the need for “exotic, higher cost and temperature resistant materials,” and the Turbo I engine’s oil system was pretty hard-pressed even with the stock boost schedule. That’s the trade-off with turbo engines: You can always dial in more boost, but too much can turn out to be very expensive.
There were other trade-offs as well. With balance shafts, the turbo four was reasonably smooth, but it was loud and sounded gruff. In the heavy minivans, it was just as thirsty as the 3.0-liter V-6, and Chrysler recommended premium gas, while the V-6 took regular. Chrysler also didn’t recommend using the Turbo I engine to tow — the fine print in the brochure cautioned, “such use may damage engine and invalidate warranty.” The V-6 was cheaper and less compromised.
At the time — in 1989–1990 — I think I felt that the turbo engine was out of character for these Chrysler vans. As a passenger, I had a healthy respect for the Caravan and Voyager (although it should be said that back then, my loyalty could be easily bought with middle-row captain’s chairs), but they were not in any way cool, and so the turbo package seemed like trying too hard.
A “Turbo Sport” option would have seemed right at home on the then-new Pontiac Trans Sport, which looked like some sort of spacecraft or perhaps a Car Wars autodueling van, but I thought the Caravan and Voyager were too station wagon-y to pull it off. I liked the idea of turbo power as much as the next teenager, but on the Caravan and Voyager, it seemed like someone’s parents trying too hard to be hip.
In any case, not many people bought these turbo minivans, and I don’t think they did much to reduce the demand for the Mitsubishi V-6. I’ve had a hard time finding any detailed production figures, but I’d confidently estimate total sales of the turbo Caravan and Voyager as “few and far between.”
When Chrysler revamped its minivans for 1991, the turbo package was dropped, leaving the normally aspirated 2.5-liter four, the 3.0-liter Mitsubishi V-6, and the Chrysler 3.3-liter V-6 (which had arrived during the 1990 model year). More than 86 percent of 1991 buyers ordered one of the V-6s.
The 2.5-liter Turbo I engine continued on other Chrysler models for a while longer, with a revised boost schedule that gave a whopping 30 lb-ft more torque, but even on cars like the Daytona, buyers were no longer terribly interested in turbocharging when V-6 power was available. Chrysler sold only 7,322 turbocharged cars for 1991 and just 2,587 for 1992. Only the 2.2-liter Turbo III in the Daytona IROC R/T survived into 1993.
The rarity, the obscurity, and the sheer oddity of the Chrysler turbo minivans continues to make them cult favorites and objects of Internet fascination. They don’t seem to be terribly expensive (the Black Cherry 1989 Caravan went for $13,000 in 2023, the white Voyager LX for $6,900 in 2021), so their investment potential is probably low, but for some people — and you know who you are — they’re weird enough to be irresistible.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1985 Dodge Caravan – Chrysler Hits a Grand Slam Homer (by Paul N)
Curbside Capsule: 1987 Dodge Caravan – Rare Five-Speed Stick-Shift Five-Passenger Version (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1989 Dodge Caravan Turbo – Desperate Measures (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager LE – Chrysler Rides The Fantastic Voyage (by Brendan Saur)
I remember late 90s-early Y2K, my local wrecking yard had 5 of these turbo vans all lined up in a row. Don’t recall if any of them had 5 speed however…
I had the mitsu 2.6 in myplymouth reliant. It was always running rich and impossible to tune the carb. The timing chain guides wore out and it wasnt wotth fixing by then. It always started though, ran smooth and didnt feel slow for the time so Ill give it that.
Chrysler kept the 3.0 v6 as an option in tge minivans till 02 or 03 even though they had their own 3.3 and 3.8 v6 engines. They must have been under contract with mitsubishi to buy A LOT of those engines to keep it for that long.
Great article, thanks.
I remember reading about the new 4 cylinder turbo just before ordering our 1987 Grand Caravan with the 3.0 Mitsu V-6. The turbo seemed viable but not available on the on the longer wheelbase. The V-6 ran fine until the valve guide wear created a blue smoke fogger. An under warranty head rebuild resolved that issue and continued a happy experience hauling kids on vacations, scout camping expeditions and the local grocery or kids soccer trips. And the towing package with it’s heavy duty suspension was a hard ride when empty but provided better clearance with the 15 inch wheels in addition to the upgraded cooling system. Fond memories.
In the 80s, Chrysler did to the reputation of Turbocharging what Oldsmobile did for the reputation of Diesels.
The turbochargers on 1980s Mopars rarely lasted over 70k miles, and the replacement cost usually resulted in vehicle going to the scrap yard.
By the mid 1990s Chrysler had no more Turbos. And for a few decades most others avoided them too.
Based on the Honda 1.5, the Ford Ecoboost, and others, Turbocharging may fall out of favor again.
Does anyone know whether turbocharged cars up the boost at high altitudes? They would need an ambient pressure sensor for this. It would be great for folks living in, say, Flagstaff or Denver.
Modern engines with ECUs undoubtedly do, but even if not on older engines, the boost all turbos make has always been very welcome in high altitude areas, significantly reducing power loss. One of the main reasons International added a turbo option to its original Scout 800 four cylinder was to improve high altitude performance, since 4x4s were popular in mountain areas.
Several points to comment on, but the most important one is that…we had friends that bought a used long wheelbase Grand Caravan with the turbo engine. I was quite surprised when I first saw it, having just assumed it was limited to the swb versions. But there it was, in the flesh, and with an automatic, of course.
They bought it largely because they liked our ’92 GC, and they had three kids at the time too, with a fourth on the way, so they looked for a used one. I would have recommended not buying the turbo, but it did the trick. We kind of parted ways after a couple of years when our kids went to different schools,so I don’t know how long they had it.
If the NA 2.5 had a higher deck, why didn’t the turbo 2.5?
For ’89 all 2.5s were redesigned to share a common block with the 2.2, so the new 2.5L Turbo I engine just happened to coincide with this change.
Also interesting to learn here the 2.5’s balance shafts were a bolt-on assembly, apparently added underneath the crankshaft if I’m interpreting the cross-section diagram here correctly. Not clear if this arrangement was retained for the revised common-block 2.5 from ’89-on.
On the shorter deck 2.2 block, as I read it. That’s a bit curious, as it makes one wonder why they first built the taller 2.5 block.
I probably could have explained that better. For 1989, all the 2.2 and 2.5 engines, turbo or normally aspirated, went to the new “universal” block. Willem Weertman explains it like this:
I had another look at the 1989 Caravan brochure (which unfortunately I could only find in frustratingly low resolution), and to my surprise, it says the turbo engine was available on the Grand Caravan, but only with automatic. The 1990 brochures and price lists indicate it only being available on the short-wheelbase vans, with either transmission, so I guess there were a few ’89 LWB turbos, but they thought better of it after that.
I did reach out to Stellantis last week to ask if they had any kind of Caravan/Voyager turbo production breakdown, but unfortunately I never heard back.
Hi Aaron. I have photos of a Grand Caravan Turbo on an old hard drive. They definitely existed. Feel free to reach out.
Hi Jonathan, I sent you an email earlier today.
Seven passenger sports car? Yeah, and “Cheryl” from the cold call email is really into you.
My 2nd gen Voyager didn’t have a turbo, but it did have a stick shift. Sticks were even more rare in the second generation than in the 1st. I remember reading take rate figures in the 1-2% range. Plymouth actually dropped the manual transmission option for 1992, but there must have been a clamor, because it came back in 1993.
As for handling… the Voyager was basically a tall Reliant wagon, so it handled like one. But as pointed out in this post, all of the K-car derivatives were built like Lego, so anything that fit any K-car derivative would work in the van. I made a few upgrades to my van using this principle, but I never got around to the suspension.
When I was a Chrysler service advisor, one of the mechanics had a turbo Caravan. He just loved the thing. He often told a story about how he drag raced a Ferrari Testarossa on a mountain road and won. The amazing part is he actually believed it.
I always found it funny how chrysler tried to brand the 3.0 v6 as a chrsler motor by casting CHRYSLER in the upper intake plenum. I was fooled too for a long time.
There really is no replacement for displacement. Chrysler’s big bet on small cars in the 1980-83 time frame put them behind the eight ball when V6 engines became popular in cars like the Taurus and the GM A bodies. Customers were demanding more power and Chrysler provided it the only way they could. The Toyota Previa had a similar problem and used a supercharger because their V6 wouldn’t fit in the van. This would have hurt Chrysler if the rest of the package had not been so perfect.
I think the Mercedes 600 Pullman with Stirling Moss at the wheel is the only “7 Passenger Sports Car”. I would like to see a track test between a Turbo Caravan and a second generation Mazda5 since Zoom-Zoom era Mazda put a strong emphasis on driving dynamics and got 150hp out of 2.5 liters without a turbo.
The minivan really was the right vehicle at the right time and Chrysler managed to ride the wave through several generations, helped weak domestic competition.I managed to raise children without a minivan or an SUV but for anyone with more than 2 kids that third row was a lifesaver.
I remember seeing a few of these and thinking it was a weird configuration. Chryslers was just 35 years ahead of the times, now that turbo fours are ubiquitous. Quite a bit more common than the Turbo minivans were manual transmissions; we knew several people who owned them including my own in-laws who went through almost every generation of these vans, starting after their all of kids were grown and married with kids of their own. They had Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler varieties, always purchased used. I wish I had taken photos.
A friend’s dad worked at Chrysler and would occasionally bring home an interesting car. I would have been in high school in 1989 and 1990 when these turbo minvans were in production. One evening he brought home a Caravan with the turbo engine and a 5-speed. Both the engine and suspension were not *entirely* stock. Not only was the van hilariously quick, it also seemed to have no limit to its cornering ability. As for ride quality, I do not recall, but as a 16-17 year-old, a smooth ride was not much of a priority anyway.
As an interesting footnote, my friend’s dad was Jack Pointer. If you have an interest in the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona an 1970 Plymouth Superbird, his name may be familiar.
In a way, I sort of have a “successor” to these vans: my 2016 Ford Transit Connect with the 1.6L EcoBoost engine. Amazingly, the performance figures are quite similar to Chrysler’s 2.5L Turbo: 178 hp and 184 lb.-ft. of torque; a bit more horsepower but the torque is about the same.
Another similarity is the recommendation of 93-octane (“Premium”) fuel to achieve the best performance. Frankly though, it’s already peppy enough starting from a complete stop using just regular gas, and fuel economy is more than okay; I routinely average 29 mpg (the EPA highway estimate) or more on the highway unless outside temperatures get below freezing like they did in my area a few weeks ago. The 6-speed SelectShift automatic transmission probably helps a bit with this too.
Trailer towing doesn’t hurt it either, but I also stay well within the 2000-lb. limit and don’t drive like I’m in the Daytona 500. But when you really DO need the “get-up-&-go” to like, say, hit the on-ramp and merge onto the Interstate, the engine MORE than delivers on the acceleration–even WITHOUT premium! 🙂
I saw one of these at the Back To The 80s show in 2022. May have been there other years too. Didn’t think to get a pic of the inside, but it looks like a clutch master cylinder under the plastic tank.
I remember the Chrysler ads about the turbo 4. Lido’s famous line “you’ll never go back to a V8 again”.