CC reader Gene Herman ran into this rather convincing conversion of a Dodge Caravan into a mini-pickup. I’ve seen crude hack jobs of this sort of thing, but this one is very professional. If someone didn’t know better, they’d undoubtedly be convinced it came from the factory like this, as a follow-up to the Dodge Rampage.
And its maker has dubbed it ‘Fargo’, the name used for so many years by Chrysler for its trucks sold in Canada and some other countries. Given how popular and well-loved the Caravan is in Canada, I might have tried to pull the wool over some eyes and claim it’s a factory truck. I can see some Canucks going for this; they’re so much more practical and thrifty than their profligate south of the border neighbors.
Here it is with its tailgate down. Very nice work.
Quite the contrast to this “woodie’ Caravan pickup I shot in Eugene a while back. The back of the cab is wide open, and the rear “tailgate” is held up by two bungee cords.
My only criticism is that its a short wheelbase Caravan; if it had been the long one, it would have been able to swallow 4×8 sheets just as well as a full-size pickup. Now that’s something to contemplate.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
That is one good looking pickup!
I bet if Chrysler actually made those, they would have sold a ton of them. Thats some nice work there.
Superb concept, excellent workmanship!! I’m particularly impressed with the tailgate: OEM style hardware, fully functional, and especially clever the “wrap-around” above the tail light (perhaps not 100 percent practical in every situation, but a good solution to what posed a challenging problem.) I agree that this would nearly pass for a factory job. With the location of the rear axle as far back as it is, this would have been a good riding truck when loaded, unlike some of the new trucks that have a short bed, a long cab, and a more forward mounted rear axle. Assuming a load of uniform weight for the full length of the bed, many new factory trucks would actually unload the front axle, whereas this conversion would allow the front axle to carry a fairly substantial part of the load, which is a much better-driving, more stable condition. Chrysler should have marketed something close to identical to this; it strikes me as nearly perfect for a small truck (unlike the Rampage and its brethren.) Kudos to the builder! And near me in New England of all places — Brattleboro, Vermont by my reckoning.
I want one – with AWD please!
Yes!! Me, too! Even better! Combine a 5 speed with the AWD system they used in these, and you’d have the dream truck many of us have wished for. Even without AWD, this would have been able to run circles around a comparable little Toyota on Nissan 2WD truck of the same era. I had a Toyota 2WD long bed for a short while back then, and unloaded it could get stuck on a patch of wet grass! One of these would have done everything I ordinarily did with my truck routinely, and mercifully I always had a 4WD American gas-hog in reserve for really heavy loads or plowing snow (New England, remember.) Nevertheless, hooray for Front Wheel Drive!
All wheel drive Caravans eat transmissions. They are best avoided.
Honda built it – it’s called the Ridgeline.
Not exactly, the Ridgeline is the same 4dr sedan with no trunk lid that everybody makes.
Ridgeline, Passport and Pilot were all a share from B- pillar forward back in 2017. Not sure they still are now, haven’t studied them.
And they were all based on the Odyssey platform, making the Ridgeline essentially a minivan based pickup, like this.
Looks like a REALLY GOOD body man had a rolled Caravan and had been watching too many reruns of Red/Green
Not quite. Honda’s backseat adds length while shrinking the box. I want shorter length, a larger box and don’t need a back seat. This Fargo’s proportions are just perfect for me. Maybe for a hand full of others as well . . .which is probably why Chrysler never built it.
Wish you had a pic of the curbside, I’d like to see what they did with the sliding door.
Was curious about this myself. Based on the inside of the bed, it’s obviously “solid” or closed off. I wonder if he made new panels or just welded in the door skin. (probably easiest way).
With all the work, I’m not sure why he(they) bothered to make the gate go “out above” the taillights. Yes the section opened with the factory hatch, seems More work to attach the sections to the tailgate, than just to attach above taillights. Maybe.
Either way, fantastic job, and practical as heck. Did NOBODY at Chrysler suggest this at the time (after/During/Before rampage)? Would have cost them next to nothing at the factory alongside the Minivans.
I’d reckon it was easier to just slice off the factory tailgate at the beltline and do some finishing work on that straight cut, no need to cut off the vestigial “ears” above the taillights and splice them into the body sides, do more finishing between those and the tailgate where the ears came off, etc. Sure, it looks a bit goofy when the gate is dropped, but how often is that the case anyway?
Wow that is well done, I like it, I really like it. I wonder how cramped and upright the cab is? Still, excellent execution.
It would never sell in today’s world, at least in the US as it in no way resembles a semi.
The problem with the minivan-pickup is simple: for decades, Chrysler was selling every minivan they could build, so it wasn’t necessary. The R&D for such a vehicle wouldn’t have been worth the effort or expense.
Not to mention there was the C/V (Cargo Van) version of the T-115. So, if you wanted a working minivan, it was the choice and you could haul your grubby stuff out of the weather. And that’s exactly what a lot of small businesses did.
To this day, I’m still a little miffed that Marchionne brought over the Fiat Doblo urban commercial small van and renamed it the Promaster City. That effectively ended the C/V in 2015. Even worse was when the Pacifica Hybrid PHEV arrived for 2017, there was no commercial version of it, either.
Good point on that Fiat van gobbling up any market a cargo panel Caravan had.
Dodge/Plymouth did make the “plumber spec” minivan but I think they were selling all the passenger versions they could possibly make in the 80’s/90’s/00’s. Those had much higher margins so they were prioritized for production. By the 2010’s Chrysler was facing INTENSE competition from Toyota, Honda and the Koreans and were not moving as many units. Would have made more financial sense to push cargo versions of the Caravan than import and federalize a new design.
It seemed odd to me, too. Besides all that was entailed to domesticate a Fiat Doblo into a Ram Promaster City there was also the whole ‘chicken tax’ thing. IIRC, the Promaster City was imported with rear seats so it could be classified as a passenger vehicle and exempt from the higher import tax. But, then, Marchionne had to do something with those seats. I guess they could have been shipped back, but I have no idea.
As to C/V’s equipment level, it’s fascinating that it was actually possible to get virtually the same equipment as the civilian Grand Caravan as optional extras, including full windows. Ironically, the only thing that couldn’t be had was any of the second and third row passenger seating and most of the rear interior trim.
Another facet was that some (many?) small businesses liked the larger, more powerful V6, mid-size of the Caravan versus the Promaster City, and would buy used Caravans and strip out the interior for commercial use. In effect, they were creating a C/V that FCA had cancelled.
We have a Pacifica at work that spends most of it’s time with the seats down hauling stuff. It does occasionally get pressed into passenger service for site visits etc. Back years ago we did more contracts offsite and we had two vans that did hauling and passengers,, always thought it might have made more sense to have one cargo and one passenger version but they always just bought the passenger versions.
Even with the regular version, they make a heck of a work vehicle, I have loaded down 500-800 or more pounds of equipment and tools in them many times.
I don’t think there’s much question that the Stow ‘n Go, fold-into-the-floor seating system would make the latest Chrysler minivan iterations viable commercial work vehicles. The only catch is that the system isn’t standard in the most basic, lowest-priced ‘Voyager’ versions; those still use a removable second row bench.
Which, I suppose, still isn’t all that bad. The assumption would be that if the extra cargo room was needed, a business would have help to remove and store the separate, heavy bench seat at the facility’s commercial location.
That could be a lot tougher for a civilian, home application where there might be more of an off-site, spur-of-the-moment need for the space.
Kind of a handyman’s spec Ridgeline, yes.
With all the talk about Promasters, this rolled into my field of view as I’ve been reading the comments. Not sure if those heavy duty shorties get shipped overseas
From the motto on the license plate I take it this is from New Hampshire.
Nice, although it does remind me of an old style great lakes freighter with the wheelhouse at the front.
I’d guess a tree fell on it at some point? Looks like a lot of good quality work there.
I also had a 2WD pickup truck like GOM, a Dodge Dakota, 5 speed manual. That also would spin its tires on level grass. But I do wonder how traction would be in this Fargo with a lot of weight in the back, especially if going uphill on a slick road. FWD usually is an advantage of course, but maybe not necessarily with a lot of weight in back? A 5 speed manual was mentioned – what I had on an ’85 Dodge Caravan.
Had an ’89 Grand Voyager, I liked that these had 48″ between the wheel wells. Had to take the seats out back then, but with that done could haul a 4 x 8 sheet with the hatch closed. Don’t know if this Fargo would have an 8′ length with the gate down.
They should have made a factory one!
+1
I think it looks great!
We had a similar (albeit intact) Dodge Caravan and I miss it.
Whoever did this certainly had some fabrication skills! The Caravan pickup looks great in this case.
That is one beautiful conversion! I would have looked and looked to see if it is legitimate or a conversion – and ERRED. Kudos to this gent.
That is one beautiful conversion! I would have looked and looked to see if it is legitimate or a conversion – and ERRED. Kudos to this gent. The original Ridgeline is impractical for work because of its sloped bed sides.
I think they may have taken that whole rear cab panel of a 80-90s compact pickup. The rear of the cab and the tailgate are incredibly well done.