My Number One Son has been vehicle shopping since the demise of his (formerly ours) 1998 Grand Caravan ES. The impending demise of Daughter-in-Law Number One’s 1998 Chrylser Concorde (2.7L + 165,000 miles = ticking time bomb) has made this a bit more of an urgent activity. We took some time to look around this weekend and ran across this very clean 1993 Caravan C/V. While I was completely unable to get them interested, I have to admit it did tug at my wallet, albeit very briefly.
Especially when I saw it had 265,691 miles and is powered by a 3.0L V6 – an engine sourced from Mitsubishi that had developed a reputation by 1993 due to dropped valve guides and excessive oil burning. I wonder if this 3.0 may have set a record? More likely, it’s not the original engine… On top of the iffy engine and high miles, the asking price was $2990 (!). In its favor, the three-speed automatic used with its 142hp engine was pretty reliable as compared to the four-speed overdrive. A five-speed manual was standard; I’m not sure if it was offered with the 3.0L, however.
What sets the Caravan C/V apart from normal Caravans is that it’s set up strictly as a cargo hauler; rubber mats and bare painted steel are the order of the day out back. This being a short wheelbase model, hauling sheets of plywood would not be possible, but I’m sure those racks came in handy over the years.
The cab is stock Caravan, with exception of the hard metal console visible in this photo.
I found it amusing that Dodge (Chrysler) was still reminding drivers nearly ten years after the debut of the Caravan that the vehicle had “Front Wheel Drive.” I’m also guessing this van came with the standard AM/FM radio, which has been “upgraded.”
One could order the first-generation C/V with either a standard lift gate as seen on our subject vehicle, or with optional fiberglass “barn doors” out back, which were fitted post-factory. I was unable to confirm if this was the case for second-gen C/Vs.
The second generation would be the last of the K-car derived minivans; the significantly redesigned third generation minivans debuted in 1996. This particular example is a true survivor, having lived its entire life just an hour South of Peoria, IL–right in the heart of the Rust Belt. Someone really took care of it, and I suspect with some selective refreshing of components, it could live on another 5-10 years or more.
So as I mentioned at the top, I was unable to talk Son and Daughter-in-Law into buying the C/V, but we did run across another red vehicle that may just indeed be in their future. Stay tuned!
When I worked at a Chrysler/Plymouth dealer back in the early 90s, I smashed our parts van which was a gen 1 CV 4cyl with a Manual trans. It was over. My manager was really not angry as one might expect….
I’d stay away. The high kudge factor radio tells me other things were half-assed as well. You just can’t see them because they finally spent that deferred maintenance money at the detail shop. And why’s he selling now?
I had a ’92 Plymouth Voyager in this red. It had the 2.5 liter 4, and an honest-to-goodness stick shift. That surprised a lot of folks. I think the take rate on manual transmissions was something like 0.3%, and dang near every one I’ve seen was in this shade of red.
But you’re right – you could only have a clutch with an I-4, never with a V-6.
“you do not have permission to edit this comment” – what the hey?? Anyhow, I was going to add a comment about the provenance of the Audiovox radio confirming my kudge factor comment. That thing’s a wal-mart special.
Don’t judge a car by the radio!
Judge it by the amp and sub woofer.
in IT nerd land it’s “kludge”
Ours smoked bad when you first started it up too. I think it had the Mitsubishi? 4 cyl in it. Even with a stick shift it was a dog!!
If it had the stick, it was the Chrysler 2.2/2.5 engine. Early Caravans did have a Mitsubishi four optional, but they were automatic-only.
That is very possible. It was a 22+ ago. I really thought it had a carburator on it. Did the 2.2/2.5L still have a carb in the mid eighties? I do know when we had it fully loaded down with parts that thing had a 0-60 time of about 20 minutes!
I had an ’85 Plymouth Turismo with a 2.2 with a carb, although Chrysler may have changed different models/different versions of the 2.2 over to fuel injection at different times.
Some of them did, like MCT mentioned… I’m not 100% sure if the Caravan ever had the carbed version of that engine, though. It also could’ve been a TBI unit, which looks nearly identical to a carburetor.
I’d like to drive a Caravan with the 5-speed just to see what it’s like, but I’m sure they’re completely overwhelmed by any sort of heavy load!
I think it was mentioned here before, but whenever I see a car burning oil, it’s 95/100 a mitsubishi.
likewise no lights in the dark: 80% toyota 20% honda
I was fascinated with these “Windowless Caravans” as a kid. As everyone probably knows by now, I am a big Chrysler minivan fan (for reasons that are still partially unbeknownst to me). As a matter of fact, about 10 years back, there was a slightly darker red C/V like this one for sale at the landscaping/garden place we used to buy our Christmas trees from. I remember thinking how cool it would be for a first car. Still cool vehicles though.
From the last picture, I’d assume your son and daughter-in-law chose an ’07-’10 Grand Caravan?
Brendan, are you in my facebook group I started a while back for Chrysler minivan lovers? I didn’t know there were others out there as weird as me! . https://www.facebook.com/groups/Chryslerminivans/
Wow; one just doesn’t see clean 2nd gen Caravans anymore. Seems they’ve all devolved to beater status. *And* a C/V? And this thing has 266K mles? Dang. That’s very clean for that many miles. The engine compartment is perhaps too clean, I’d think either the engine was recently replaced or it was indeed given a detail.
We had a 4th gen Caravan C/V at my workplace in 2004-05, but by that time, rather than having true windowless sides they just took a standard Caravan body and fitted metal blanks rather than windows. Same no-nonsense interior, though rather than rubber matting, ours had a hard plastic floor with tie-downs. Good for big stuff, not so good for our usual cargo (PCs and monitors) which would slide around like crazy. Maybe the rubber matting was an extra-cost option? It was pretty new at the time, and given that it wasn’t used daily and operated mostly within the confines of a college campus, it’s probably still in the fleet today.
Though these weren’t common, I remember seeing a few cargo Caravans, the RWD Aerostar and Safari/Astro twins were pretty popular in cargo configurations too, the ones you hardy ever saw were the plastic bodied Lumina APV cargo vans, I remember we had one on the lot for the 6 months or so I sold Chevrolets, and no one ever even bothered to look at it.
i think there is a pizza shop in north michigan is still using it. plastic is handy for Michigan winter
My dad had a first generation Caravan C/V that be bought new back in the day. 4 cylinder, stick shift IIRC. Had to install a passenger seat so my mom could ride with them for their honeymoon. His didn’t even have a window in the sliding door. It served him well, and did a very good job of hauling lots of building and farm materials back to the homestead.
Yeah there is no way this has its original engine at least without having had at least the heads rebuilt. Also I’m finding it very hard to believe that the 2.7 in that Concorde is original and untouched. It has had to at the very least had the timing chain replaced at least once and had a fix similar to what I came up with applied or the person just keeps up on it and when they hear the death rattle on start up they take it in for a new timing chain and water pump. However many of the engines started that death rattle before the warranty was up and the Chrysler position at the time was that it was “normal” and that they wouldn’t do anything about it. Then when the chain snapped after it was out of warranty they said it was due to “sludge” and hence the customer’s fault. The reality is that they did not design enough travel into the timing chain tensioner, with a new chain the tensioner is about 75-90% extended so it doesn’t take much stretch since it is a pretty long chain before the tensioner can’t control the chain anymore.
What mileage have you seen the 2.7 grenade itself?
During my fleet gig, we had six 2.7 liter 2004 model year Dodge Stratii in the motor pool. Knowing the reputation of the 2.7, I kept them rolling as best I could (some refused to drive them) until they hit 120,000 miles – the threshold upon which they could be sold.
I was able to get four of them to this point. None of them ever had engine issues, however I felt much like Ed describes above. The rest of the car screamed its crappiness. I was assigned one brand new in 2003 and kept it for nine months and 14,000 miles when I happily traded for a five year old Taurus. I almost felt bad about that deal.
These were the early versions, but I had one customer who lost the first engine at 40K or so. That was after he had complained numerous times about the noise when still under warranty. They tried to pull the sludge thing on him but he fought and some how got them to replace the engine. He then paid close attention to when that noise started and had the timing chain replaced soon there after. I did the second timing chain on the second engine at ~120K but fixed the tensioner.
What really happens on those early 2.7s is that the chain breaks when it starts flopping around too much and the valves often leave holes in pistons when they meet.
Eventually they figured out that the chain would indeed stretch with use and fixed it so it doesn’t occur on the later versions.
However I still would not buy a Chrysler with a x.7 engine as the original versions of all had some sort of blatant engineering defect that caused catastrophic failure that Chrysler then blamed on “sludge”. Eventually they did fix the glaring issues but what other bad designs made it through/were ignored that were so obvious.
Of course I saw lots of grenaded 2.7’s when I was at Chrysler. They would not warranty them unless you could prove you changed the oil at exactly 3 months/5000 km. Most customers didn’t. These were very efficient motors that ran at high RPM at lot of the time and what they really needed was synthetic, but Chrysler didn’t want to spec it as customers would complain about the cost.
You are correct about the cam chain but there was also a problem with the tensioner. The oil passage that caused the tensioner to do its thing often sludged up. The main reason for this, here anyway, was excessive short trips and not enough oil changes. I have seen a 2.7 go decent kms if they have been maintained well. Most weren’t and Chrysler customers weren’t very careful with maintenance.
Well many of the grenaded ones I saw were clean as a whistle on the inside so I doubt that the passage to the tensioner was plugged up.
Back when these were actively blowing up there was a website full of people who had their engine blow up airing their complaints.
Many did have documentation that they had the oil changed, at the dealer no less as often as the dealer recommended, yet the engine still blew up and Chrysler still denied or fought the warranty claim.
A fair number had complained, while the vehicle was still under warranty about the death rattle of the chain flopping around on start up. They were usually told that it was not a problem or wasn’t a warrantable defect. Then the vehicle was out of warranty and the engine blew.
The fact is at least on the early versions the tensioner was extended 75% or more with all new timing components properly installed. They just didn’t design in enough travel to compensate for the normal chain stretch.
Much like Toyota’s sludge claims they did redesign the engine to fix the problem. Unlike Toyota they didn’t admit they changed the engine nor make broad reimbursements or extend the warranty.
We were instructed to call death rattle “normal tolerance.” It was all about keeping warranty costs as low as possible. The early engines also had sludge problems galore but were quickly addressed in running updates. We did replace the tensioners under warranty, one that took up the extra slack. By then it was usually too late.
Later on, the 2.7 was much better.
Nice Cadillac in the background. Cabriolet Roof?
Upgrade to a cassette player? Surely you jest higher priced Toyotas and the like were coming with CD players in 90 here and by 93 tape players were being dumped for the newer music tech,I’d avoid it simply because of the Mitsu/ Hyundai 3.0L V6 not a great engine.
Even today, most fleet-spec pickups or vans only have a basic AM/FM stereo. (many of the newer ones at least have an mp3 input)
By early ’90s cargo van standards this Caravan was downright luxurious. A/C, factory AM/FM, cruise, tilt wheel, rear wiper and defroster, cloth seats (with folding armrests IIRC) etc. Also, note the glass-mount cell phone antenna on the windshield. Definitely not cheap to install or use in those days.
Yup in the US at the time a cassette player was something you found on the options list of a lower end vehicle, even more so on a “truck”. Yes on a higher end car the cassette player was usually standard in this era in the US.
About ten or so years back I read a “car review article” in some non-automotive magazine that derided a certain luxury car (Lexus I think) for still having a cassette deck.
There was even a picture of the radio, to show that so unhip and last century cassette slot.
It had both cassette and CD decks! Yea. It’s just soooo unhip not to force people to replace their entire music collections. (rolling eyes.)
Seemed like a great idea to me, just the kind of thoughtful convenience a luxury car should have.
My wifes Durango and my previous outback were both the highest trim models when they were new in 2001 and both had tape decks and CD players.
Ah yes, the “RAZ” head unit. Same one I have in my ’02 Dakota. Proof that there’s at least one Mitsubishi-made item installed in a Chrysler product that doesn’t suck.
On second thought the clocks on those things are notorious for running fast.
A couple of my past cars – a MY 2000 Nissan Maxima, and a MY2000 Audi A6, had a factory cassette and CD player system. So it wasn’t uncommon back then.
10-15 years ago, ‘books on tape’ were popular, so cassette decks were used for those on lux cars. So, the reviewer was off.
I think Honda stuck with cassettes longer than anyone – I think up thru 2005 or 06 in Acuras.
The 2010 Lexus SC430 was the last: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/automobiles/06AUDIO.html?_r=0
We had a discussion about this subject about a year ago:
Maybe things were different in New Zealand — perhaps cassettes were just never as popular there as in the U.S. — but cassettes were the dominant format for albums in the U.S. from roughly 1983 to 1991, commanding 60-70% of the market at their peak in the late ’80s. (The rate among teenagers at that point was probably more like 90-95%.) And even as CDs grew in popularity in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I suspect that the popularity of car CD players lagged a little behind the popularity of CD players for home use. When this van was new, I’d guess that the popularity of CD and cassette players in cars in the U.S. was probably about even, although who knows when this radio was actually installed in this vehicle.
My wife and I owned a ’95 Ford Escort which we bought new that had a cassette player (no CD). Admittedly, this wasn’t an expensive car, and I remember that we looked at another new Escort on the dealer’s lot that did have a CD player (CD only, no cassette). We also owned a ’99 Jeep Cherokee base model that had an AM/FM radio with no music player of any kind.
And even as CDs grew in popularity in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I suspect that the popularity of car CD players lagged a little behind the popularity of CD players for home use. When this van was new, I’d guess that the popularity of CD and cassette players in cars in the U.S. was probably about even….
Even in ’93 the vast majority of new vehicles still had either a cassette player or a plain AM/FM stereo. On many vehicles at the time the first step up from the standard cassette player was a better cassette player. CD players were still a pricey top of the line option and almost always included an equalizer, better speakers etc. I’d say by around ’96-’97 it finally reached 50-50 and by 2000 cassette-only players were typically found only on “strippers”.
The first vehicle I had with a factory CD player was a ’97 Grand Prix. IIRC, the base radio was a cassette player, the next step up was a cassette player with an equalizer and 8 speakers and finally the CD player.
Another reason car CD players lagged behind home units was that the early ones, even from the better aftermarket brands, tended to skip badly. By the early ’90s buffering technology and better shock resistance had solved that problem.
1st and 2nd gen caravan shared the same chassis didn’t they?
A neighbor bought a old 86 Dodge Caravan around 2004 for almost nothing. I figured it had the troublesome smokey Mitsubishi V6, but turned out it was a rare stick shift with the 2.2. I told him he got the most reliable drivetrain you could get, and the high mileage underpowered van never let him down and served him well. The Caravan pictured is a well taken care of example, but the Mitsu engine and mileage would scare me away.
For some odd reason (cheap gas in the ’90s? Astro still going strong?) there was no thirdgen C/V but it came back in 2001 and has been around ever since. The ’07 and up (at the earliest) have the same plastic side panels as passenger models, complete with molded-in cup holders upwards of six feet from the nearest seats,
My first wife and I had a 1984 Caravan C/V that I picked up as a year end special just as the ’85’s were coming out. At the time, Sally and I were both intensely involved in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), a medieval fantasy organization, and I was about to get involved in historical re-enactment. A couple of weeks after purchase, the van was sent to the local conversion outfit with instructions that I wanted the floor and walls done in carpeting, and the usual ‘panty cloth’ for the headliner. Which wasn’t exactly what we got. The floor was carpet, the headliner was panty cloth, but so were the walls.
Which worked out fine for the years we used it, but it made hauling stuff to major events like the Pennsic War a pain for fear of ripping the walls. And we’re talking high end medieval: A 12x24x12 foot pavilion, complete with rope bed, full furnishing (visualize the inside of a castle in any Hollywood knights in shining armor movie) including a dry sink – my wife’s idea of roughing it.
Now that I’m back into re-enactment, and starting to do professional historical costuming again, I’m starting to look for another van. What goes around, comes around.
Vans are just so useful. I’ll take one over a pick-up any day.
Work colleague used to drive one of these (his get-around beater; his ‘real’ car was a Boxster S), same red colour but really beat up and nasty looking. We nicknamed it ‘the rapist’ because it looked so creepy.
Looks like remarkable condition, given type of vehicle, age, and mileage. Best of all: it’s red!
I must be an outlier but I always liked the 3.0 they were a great power train in the caravan (yes the ultradrives were to be avoided) By parents had two mitsu powered 3 spd auto caravans and the both lived past 150k miles with no engine problems. The first one dropped the tranny around 160k and I’m not sure what happened to the 2nd one.
Do not understand the dislike of the 6G72 aka the 3.0 Litre engine because it is the only one that Consumer Reports recommended in 1995. Most junkyard Chrysler Minivans I see have the 3.3 or 3.8 and usually the junky 4 Speed TorqueFlite. Until I ran a red light a few years ago my 95 Voyager’s 3 Litre never gave us any serious problems. The power steering pump was 18 years old, the 02 Sensor, EGR Valve, windshield wiper motor, Distributor, and hood release cable all lasted over 16 years. In fact, the check engine light never came on until 2010. If we had not lived in the rust belt I bet we would still have her and I know she would not have nickle and dimed us like she did. When I have enough disposable income I am going to buy a 94 or 95 Voyager with the 3 Litre and 3 Speed TorqueFlite.
Aside from the 1st generation the Caravan has never looked as good as the Voyager and I do not like the steering wheel’s aesthetics. Not a big fan of the fake chrome on the bumpers. This paint is Flame Red in my 1995 Voyager brochure, but also have seen it called Flame or Racing Red. My 95 Voyager had metal nubs to hold the doors’ rub strip in place, but I see this Caravan CV has neither; interesting indeed. The paint is in amazing shape especially for the mileage and climate, has it been redone? The rims are alright, I think they would bolt onto my 03 Caravan.
Back in the 90s, I felt like every other Caravan/Plymouth Acclaim/etc. I saw had a blue cloud of smoke following it around. Always assumed that the Mitsubishi V6 was a piece of crap because of that…
However 20 years later it seems like tons of them have survived and I will rarely, if ever, see one accompanied by the telltale puff anymore. Maybe the valve guides were their only real problem and Mitsu issued a fix at some point? No idea, but mileage like this does not seem to be unheard of for them.
Perhaps Chryslers are particularly prone to burn oil if not broken in properly. Back in 2008/2009 there were a bunch of 2007 Ram 1500s that were already burning oil with less than 20K miles. Even the Econolines burned oil, but the F-150s did not burn oil. The Silverados and Expresses also did not burn oil.
Always thought Econolines and F-series shared powerplants. Am I missing something here?
Yes in general the E and F series had the same power plant options in a given year though not always, and no they don’t burn oil just because they are in an Econoline.
I’ve never seen a Caravan C/V this nice, or this colorful! I always assumed they all came from the factory in refrigerator white paint and with the road rash pre-installed!
Funny that the featured van is red – I’ve seen exactly two of these, and both were also red.
Years ago there was a Chrysler dealership around here by the name of Cummings. At some point in the early nineties, two C/Vs passed through their operation – both red, one with the rear glass and one without. I seem to recall they were parts runners, or used for some other in-house purpose initially.
Strangely enough, both remained local after being (re?)sold, and made regular appearances around town.
The glassless one went from saying “Cummings Chrysler-Dodge” on the sides, to “Cummings Painting Company”. Though the details were replaced, the name was left alone. How convenient!
Among the details were the two painters’ names and phone numbers. One of them was a Roger. Still kinda wonder if that was the same guy as “Smilin’ Rog Cummings”, the dealership’s main man/crazy advertising spokesman back in the day.
More recently, the van seems to have changed hands. Now it’s covered in advertising for someone’s home-based pyramid scheme type venture. It’s still a common sight around town; in fact, I saw it on the road just last week.
The other one doesn’t poke its head out quite as often, but I do still see it around once in a while. I suspect it’s spent the past couple of decades as some elderly individual’s grocery getter.
I should really get some pictures next time the opportunity presents itself.
I love it! The oil burning tendency of the 3.0L can be easily fixed by having the heads redone.
I still have a 95 Voyager, 3.3L, with 115K miles. I love the short wheelbase and rarely have the back seats in it. They make great basement couches. With the seats out, you can haul a washer and dryer upright with room to spare. Great visibility from the large windows, something that today’s cars lack greatly in the name of aerodynamic style.
Why does it seem that 99.9% of all first and second gen Caravans, Voyagers, and T&Cs except the one at the Smithsonian either have become beaters or have very high mileage? I have only ever seen one that was in good shape and didn’t have a single cosmetic or mechanical issue. With most mass produced cars, no matter how old, you will always see a sizeable amount in good shape if you look, but not for these. My guess is this must be because there aren’t many enthusiasts of these, few were bought new by old folks, and quality control wasn’t the best.
The same reason that the same rule used to apply to old station wagons. They were so useful that they were put to hard work by their second or third owners in their painting, plumbing, fix-it businesses. The only nice old wagons you saw were owned by elderly people, and they were extremely rare. I think that 1st and 2nd gen ChryCo minivans are now way too old for well-heeled older folks to drive.
Well if a vehicle is viewed as a throw away item it is not going to be taken care of and as pre-1996 Chrysler Minivans fall down the Socioeconomic ladder of car ownership they get more rough around the edges and eventually die. Camries are the same way, but they are more durable.
I have some shots of one of these (a white one, Keith!) that was the first of these I had seen in years and years. I can tell you from experience in driving panel vans, that window in the side door is absolutely crucial. I drove a big van without those, and every time I stopped at an angled street or railroad track, I had to get up out of my seat and lean over the passenger seat to see. That window really helps.
I had a white ’95 C/V that I used to haul music gear, I sold it to a friend that got 250k out of it, then sold it herself.
That 3.0 Mitsu engine had a solid ‘mosquito sprayer’ reputation by the mid 90s. Up until just recently, I had thought the cylinders just scratched easily and they were doomed to blow smoke. The dropped valve guide issue is actually a fairly easy fix, the rest of the motor is a decent piece. For a work van, this is actually pretty well preserved. Many of these have been chewed up and spit out over the years since theyre minivans…I mean who really cares if theyre beaters? Long as they run without breaking, don’t suck gas, and can haul tons of crap and or/kiddies then theyre doing their job.
Ive heard horror stories from pretty much all of the Japanese V6’s that started popping up around the mid-late 80s. Not sure about the Nissan V6, I know little of them, but the Toyota 3.0 is supposedly a head gasket eater. I think the real issue was that the Japanese hadn’t much experience with bigger engines so it was a teething problem, mostly. Prior to this, here were I-6’s borrowed from American designs with mixed results but their 4 bangers were known for longevity.
I had an 87 C/V that I bought from my F-i-L with the 2.7 and 3 spd auto – that thing was bullet proof. My F-i-L had the timing chain re-done not long before I got it, and I literally didn’t spend one thin dime on anything engine or transmission related in the 5 years I owned it. I changed the oil regularly and did the transmission oil every 30,000 km’s, and eventually ended up with almost 400,000 km’s on the odo when I scrapped it. I replaced the starter and alternator, and I had to have the FI worked on, but for how many years and km’s it had, it wasn’t unexpected.
Had the rust not been so bad, I would probably still have the van – it was better than a full size pick-up for hauling stuff. Plus, anyone trying to hole-shoot me at stoplights was in for a surprise – that van had some serious get-up-and-go. And it proved very worthy for winter driving up here in the frozen north; between the FWD and heavy front end weight bias, adding winter tires made it almost unstoppable.
If I could find one in decent shape, I’d replace the Ranger in a heartbeat.
I am on my 30th Chrysler minivan (2014 Town and Country) and love it. I can say (sadly) out of all the 30 I have had, I never had the cargo van version! They have come a very long way with the innovation……I get into my first one ( I found it and bought it back after a 20 yr wish I had never sold it rant) anyway, I get into my 1985 Caravan LE and go wow, the technology and little touches in my 2014 just amaze me. Yes, I went through the years with the tranny issues, but what is funny is that it was a grounding issue, a computer issue that made such an issue that these tranny shops took such advantage of and ripped off folks saying oh you need a new tranny etc. The failure of such a small part could go and cause other issues. Think of how many of the Chrysler minivans were made and sold and really the numbers of issues was not all that bad. Yes, those engines were a long lasting breed from the gen 1 2.2 Chrysler or 2.6 Mitsubishi to the 3.0 with the valve guide issue but would run forever to the bullet proof 3.3 and 3.8……I can say this 5.5 gen (that is 2011 to 2015) 3.6 is a great mpg and power set up, longevity, looks to be a good one. I started a fb page that kinda grew around the world and they love the gen 3 as well…. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Chryslerminivans/
The 3.0 can be reasonable in some cases. We owned a 1989 New Yorker that made 268k miles on the original Mitsubishi 3.0L V6. The transmissions remembered it was an Ultradrive, though.
I can’t think that the transmission would fare well in a vehicle this large.