I thought it was a good number too, then I realized that 9 seconds doesn’t include the added weight of an entire family, which these vans often were carrying.
What I meant was that, as a people hauler/family vehicle, most were purchased for such purpose, and likely saw the majority of their miles accumulate with multiple passengers at once. Fewer single people bought these just to drive around in alone all the time.
An 89 Crown Vic with the 5.0 V8 ran a 0-60 time of between 11 and 12 seconds. I think my 85 VW GTI ran it at about 10. 9 seconds was pretty respectable back then.
They sold a zillion of this generation minivan, but the turbos were very scarce. I sold Mopars during the summer of ’89, and we only had one turbo Caravan during that time. It shared the lot with about a dozen Mitsubishi V6 powered minivans and numerous 2.5 liter naturally aspirated ones. It was actually a ‘program vehicle,’ alleged to have seen previous duty in the Chrysler corporate fleet. I drove the turbo Caravan to lunch or for errands numerous times. It was quick enough to beat the malaise pony car junk that aspiring lowlifes drove.
Pops bought his in Hawaii , the fully equipped one Hertz Rentals used , the local Dealer refused to order him one so equipped (he _really_ needed the roof rack) so Hertz added one to their annual fleet order and sold it to him at their cost , *much* cheaper than the Dealer wanted for the cheaper stripper they had on the floor . (typical greedy idiots) .
He loved that thing *so* much he shipped it to Short Hills , New jersey when he moved back to the main land then ran the crap out of it with kids , camping etc. for a decade , drove it fully loaded across America to BellingHam , Washington where it soldiered on several more years , no rust , no break downs , comfy and reliable plus good fuel economy if fairly slow .
Older folks will remember Chrysler Products handily out sold GM & Ford in the 1950’s in the Mid West because they were solid and reliable , not good selling points these days .
What was the name of the 1950’s Desoto Limo / Taxi ? it usually had a sun roof when ordered for Taxi duty .
I used to know where a clean one was just sitting in the Desert , prolly all full of mice & hanta virus now .
Try as I might, I’ve never been a fan of Chrysler minivans. I’ve ridden in one as a passenger, and found it comfortable, and it felt solid. But that was about it. I found it woefully underpowered for anything other than carrying two passengers: the driver and one passenger. And it had the 3.0 litre V6 engine. To be fair, it was the 80s, and anything built during that time wasn’t expected to be built like tanks. The V6 engine felt like it was made out of aluminum, the kind used to make soda pop cans.
Having driven a Plymouth Voyager 3 Speed 3 Liter V6 that was in the family from 1995-2013 I agree the engine is underpowered, but feels nice when only I am in the vehicle. Turning off the AC when it worked was standard practice when going up inclines.
From 1936 to 1954 Chrysler cornered the market for affordable limousines. Big families liked them and taxi companies loved them.
The minivan brought back the concept. Affordable limousines, big families and taxis. Those customers don’t want sports-car performance, they want room and comfort. You’d think Chrysler marketers would understand that point, but obviously they didn’t.
Déjà vu? Here’s the current Grand Caravan RT. Not even power upgrades this time around. Just an appearance package and slightly more aggressive suspension tuning.
There’s also the Town and Country S or Sienna SE. Of course, today’s vans don’t really need much help under the hood.
I have to admit though, poser-mobile or not, I kinda like it…
Beat me to it 🙂 While I agree that they were not “sports cars”, the Turbo 2.2 always seemed to respond well to mods, and could be made to embarass much more sporting cars, at least on the dragstrip.
Actually there’s no evidence Barnum said that. Also, the ‘C’ in CUV is a hint that space utilization is what one gives up against minivans. I have yet to see any SUV competitive in this respect with a van of similar length.
At least by this time, Chrysler was advertising “0-60” times instead of “0-50” times like they were in the early 80’s. I remember seeing one print ad that showed a Horizon TC3 being faster (to 50 mph) than a Camaro or Firebird.
If I recall correctly, Chrysler achieved those ‘impressive’ 0-50 times through overly short gearing in First and Second (leading to a big gap between Second and Third).
My grandfather is a retired Volvo master mechanic.
He had a turbo 7something and I remember the first time he let me drive it I was sitting there at the stop sign and he tells me something like “give it a go” or whatever… So I floor it and I look over at him and right as I am about to tell him “whats the big deal?” the tach hits around 3k and the turbo spools up and I’m pushed back in the seat with a ferocity I had never felt in a car before HO LEE BALLS!
Countless tales of 850 wagons being raced against Camaros Mustangs and 3 series BMW’s in some racing series somewhere lol
If you vacation in the Western mountain states, any reserve power is nice to have with a loaded family vehicle, so I don’t blame Chrysler for trying.
BTW, do automotive turbocharger regulators account for pressure altitude? Might be nice while climbing the Continental Divide, for example.
It dawned on me that if you live in Flagstaff or Denver, for example, an electric vehicle would have a clear advantage over internal-combustion. Maybe even hybrids would do better.
If you’ve ever watched The Fast Lane on Youtube, they’re based in Colorado and do towing tests up to the Eisenhower Tunnel; they’ve noted repeatedly that turbos do better at high altitudes than naturally-aspirated engines.
When I worked for Chrysler, one of our techs, the laziest, stupidest one of the lot, had a Turbo Caravan. In the lunch room he often told us the story of how he raced a Ferrari Testarossa in his minivan and beat it. He claimed it was because the turbo allowed for altitude compensation, and the thin air at 1000 m had drastically cut the Ferrari’s performance.
What is even more odd is that he really believed it, too.
Reminds me of Nissan’s 4DSC. Four Door Sports Car
I dunno. 9 sec. to 60 in those days wasn’t bad.
I thought it was a good number too, then I realized that 9 seconds doesn’t include the added weight of an entire family, which these vans often were carrying.
When you take your Ferrari to the track, do take your kids along for the ride? Same difference.
🙂
What I meant was that, as a people hauler/family vehicle, most were purchased for such purpose, and likely saw the majority of their miles accumulate with multiple passengers at once. Fewer single people bought these just to drive around in alone all the time.
And in a Ferrari, there’s no room for the kids 🙂
An 89 Crown Vic with the 5.0 V8 ran a 0-60 time of between 11 and 12 seconds. I think my 85 VW GTI ran it at about 10. 9 seconds was pretty respectable back then.
Yes .
And didn’t they sell a zillion of these things ? .
Pops bought an 1984 new , non turbo but a great little trucklet indeed .
-Nate
They sold a zillion of this generation minivan, but the turbos were very scarce. I sold Mopars during the summer of ’89, and we only had one turbo Caravan during that time. It shared the lot with about a dozen Mitsubishi V6 powered minivans and numerous 2.5 liter naturally aspirated ones. It was actually a ‘program vehicle,’ alleged to have seen previous duty in the Chrysler corporate fleet. I drove the turbo Caravan to lunch or for errands numerous times. It was quick enough to beat the malaise pony car junk that aspiring lowlifes drove.
Thanx CJ ~
Pops bought his in Hawaii , the fully equipped one Hertz Rentals used , the local Dealer refused to order him one so equipped (he _really_ needed the roof rack) so Hertz added one to their annual fleet order and sold it to him at their cost , *much* cheaper than the Dealer wanted for the cheaper stripper they had on the floor . (typical greedy idiots) .
He loved that thing *so* much he shipped it to Short Hills , New jersey when he moved back to the main land then ran the crap out of it with kids , camping etc. for a decade , drove it fully loaded across America to BellingHam , Washington where it soldiered on several more years , no rust , no break downs , comfy and reliable plus good fuel economy if fairly slow .
Older folks will remember Chrysler Products handily out sold GM & Ford in the 1950’s in the Mid West because they were solid and reliable , not good selling points these days .
What was the name of the 1950’s Desoto Limo / Taxi ? it usually had a sun roof when ordered for Taxi duty .
I used to know where a clean one was just sitting in the Desert , prolly all full of mice & hanta virus now .
-Nate
Sounds like you’re thinking of the DeSoto Suburban Sky-View by Waters Manufacturing.
http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/w/waters/waters.htm
That’s it ~ The Suburban DeSoto Taxi .
Terrific link , THANK YOU .
-Nate
You’d think a roof rack would be crucial to the resale value of something like that in Hawaii – sooner or later it WOULD be a surf wagon.
Depends on the crime level. Some places, things like pickups without caps and roof-racks make no sense at all.
I don’t know which one was the worst.. the 80s cars or the 80s advertisement guys…
Try ’80s car salesmen…..
Try as I might, I’ve never been a fan of Chrysler minivans. I’ve ridden in one as a passenger, and found it comfortable, and it felt solid. But that was about it. I found it woefully underpowered for anything other than carrying two passengers: the driver and one passenger. And it had the 3.0 litre V6 engine. To be fair, it was the 80s, and anything built during that time wasn’t expected to be built like tanks. The V6 engine felt like it was made out of aluminum, the kind used to make soda pop cans.
Having driven a Plymouth Voyager 3 Speed 3 Liter V6 that was in the family from 1995-2013 I agree the engine is underpowered, but feels nice when only I am in the vehicle. Turning off the AC when it worked was standard practice when going up inclines.
Just the thing to park next to your Yugo Luxury Performance Brougham LS.
I’m not sure if the 3.8 was available in the 80s but I had one in the 90s with the gold package on it & its was sweet, loads of low end torque.
The turbo four was a stopgap before the FWD V6 was available.
From 1936 to 1954 Chrysler cornered the market for affordable limousines. Big families liked them and taxi companies loved them.
The minivan brought back the concept. Affordable limousines, big families and taxis. Those customers don’t want sports-car performance, they want room and comfort. You’d think Chrysler marketers would understand that point, but obviously they didn’t.
Déjà vu? Here’s the current Grand Caravan RT. Not even power upgrades this time around. Just an appearance package and slightly more aggressive suspension tuning.
There’s also the Town and Country S or Sienna SE. Of course, today’s vans don’t really need much help under the hood.
I have to admit though, poser-mobile or not, I kinda like it…
Heard the 3 Litre V6 could be modified to produce more power than this 2.5 Litre Turbo. I am partial to 1994-1995 Plymouth Voyagers anyway.
They just need a little tweaking……
Beat me to it 🙂 While I agree that they were not “sports cars”, the Turbo 2.2 always seemed to respond well to mods, and could be made to embarass much more sporting cars, at least on the dragstrip.
Awesome! I’d love to see it with the wife and kids all strapped in with 5 point harnesses. Would make losing to minivan even more depressing.
Faster than a LP400 Countach, a new V6 Camry and a fuelly Vette!
Like the late great PT Barnum once said “theres a sucker born every minute”.
Absolutely, which is why minivans are declining in popularity as they lose sales to CUVs.
You guys named Phil always stick together…
Actually there’s no evidence Barnum said that. Also, the ‘C’ in CUV is a hint that space utilization is what one gives up against minivans. I have yet to see any SUV competitive in this respect with a van of similar length.
At least by this time, Chrysler was advertising “0-60” times instead of “0-50” times like they were in the early 80’s. I remember seeing one print ad that showed a Horizon TC3 being faster (to 50 mph) than a Camaro or Firebird.
If I recall correctly, Chrysler achieved those ‘impressive’ 0-50 times through overly short gearing in First and Second (leading to a big gap between Second and Third).
If there ever was a Seven Passenger Sports Car, the Toyota Previa with the Supercharged I4 and 5 Speed Manual would be it.
Maybe even an AllTrac!
I always thought Toyota should have made a Westfalia-style camper out of those.
Probably just me, I always like the 1st Gen Minivans easy on eyes, perfect proportion etc., Than Previa, which has good details.
Is this really any sillier than the Volvo magazine ad comparing their turbo wagon to a Countach towing a trailer?
When I saw this again I got a bit excited that we could have another “vs Countach” discussion, but a quick search reveals that the Volvo was no match.
It probably would be a match if the Lambo is towing a U-Haul.
My grandfather is a retired Volvo master mechanic.
He had a turbo 7something and I remember the first time he let me drive it I was sitting there at the stop sign and he tells me something like “give it a go” or whatever… So I floor it and I look over at him and right as I am about to tell him “whats the big deal?” the tach hits around 3k and the turbo spools up and I’m pushed back in the seat with a ferocity I had never felt in a car before HO LEE BALLS!
Countless tales of 850 wagons being raced against Camaros Mustangs and 3 series BMW’s in some racing series somewhere lol
If you vacation in the Western mountain states, any reserve power is nice to have with a loaded family vehicle, so I don’t blame Chrysler for trying.
BTW, do automotive turbocharger regulators account for pressure altitude? Might be nice while climbing the Continental Divide, for example.
It dawned on me that if you live in Flagstaff or Denver, for example, an electric vehicle would have a clear advantage over internal-combustion. Maybe even hybrids would do better.
If you’ve ever watched The Fast Lane on Youtube, they’re based in Colorado and do towing tests up to the Eisenhower Tunnel; they’ve noted repeatedly that turbos do better at high altitudes than naturally-aspirated engines.
When I worked for Chrysler, one of our techs, the laziest, stupidest one of the lot, had a Turbo Caravan. In the lunch room he often told us the story of how he raced a Ferrari Testarossa in his minivan and beat it. He claimed it was because the turbo allowed for altitude compensation, and the thin air at 1000 m had drastically cut the Ferrari’s performance.
What is even more odd is that he really believed it, too.
Turbo Mopars are really fun waiting to happen.
I don’t quite agree with the ad copy though.
At least they didn’t call it a Road Runner.