( first posted 10/13/2011) The Caravan story is a mighty big one, even if it came in a fairly compact wrapper. I’ve taken a run at it before (CC here), so today we’ll just focus on one of its oddity versions: the turbo. As this picture makes pretty clear, the turbo-van was not some Shelby-esque man-van. No, like most of Chrysler’s minivans, it ended up in the hands of mommies shuttling their kids, and they were none too thrilled about it.
So how (or why) did Chrysler’s 150 hp 2.5 turbo four end up in such an unlikely home? For lack of anything better, pure and simple. The Caravan/Voyager minivans sold way beyond Lee Iaccoca’s famously wild imagination. For almost ten years, Chrysler struggled to keep up with demand. Stamping out the boxes fast enough was a challenge in its own right, necessitating a whole second dedicated plant in St. Louis, for the long wheelbase versions. But powering them all was the real problem.
The Caravan was engine-poor from the get-go. All Chrysler had then was their 96 hp 2.2 liter four. To placate the expectations of those trading down from V8 station wagons, the Mitsubishi 2.6 liter four was optional, with all of 104 hp. Its slightly better torque helped, barely. But the Chrysler twin’s lack of performance was an issue from day one, especially when loaded up in the seven-passenger version.
With the arrival of the lwb versions in 1987, Chrysler had to up the ante. Chrysler’s bigger 2.5 L four replaced the base 2.2, and now a V6 was optional, Mitsu’s SOHC 3.0 L, making 136 hp. I specced out and ordered one of the first V6 lwb Caravan CVs to use as a portable production van for the tv station in 1987, and with an empty body in back, it ran quite well indeed, for the times. The crew was annoyed at not getting a big Econoline, but they came to love it, and it was a trooper. Of course, this came with the old three-speed TorqueFlite transaxle.
By the latter eighties, gas was cheap and power was in, and folks were over the hairshirt days. The wanted V6s in their minivans! But Chrysler couldn’t get enough of thems from Mitsubiushi to meet the demand. What to do? Eureka! Install the turbo four, which was becoming very popular in the smaller K-car sedans. Why not?
With today’s technology, why not indeed? Sophisticated electronic boost control, variable vane turbos, and a host of other improvements can make a modern turbo four feel like a six, or even better. But back then, it was a complicated mish-mash of vacuum and electronic controls, and they just didn’t work very well, especially in a heavier vehicle. The turbo four had serious turbo lag from a stop, and unless one was flooring it, the reliable but dumb three-speed automatic tended to shift like it was behind a V8: way too early. The result was highly unpleasant, and the exact opposite of what the target demographic was looking for: smooth low-end power, not herky-jerky moaning and whining.
I wish I had found a lwb turbo Caravan, because in my Caravan CC, a commentator insisted that the turbo was only installed in the swb Caravan/Voyager. Tell that to my friends that had one (a lwb turbo). We had a ’92 3.3 L V6 Caravan, and had told them how much we liked it (except for the transmission blowing a few times). They couldn’t afford a new one, so they showed up proudly one day with a used lwb turbo. I didn’t have the heart to comment on their choice. They learned to hate it, but it hung in there. And here’s the perfect tow-mobile!
The turbo’s rep (in the vans) quickly spread, and by the end of 1990, it was quietly shown the door. Chrysler’s new 3.3 V6 was finally ready to take its place. It had exactly what the turbo didn’t; good torque from the bottom, and decent power all through the rev band. And the new Ultramatic transmission really was remarkable, until it started grenading. It was the first fully-electronically controlled tranny of its kind, with adaptive memory. I drove one of the early ones, that some other friends had (half the families at our school drove these), and it was a revelation. Smooth, almost imperceptible shifts, and that OD fourth was such a boon.
Some turbo-vans were built with five speed sticks, and a few enthusiasts have turned them into serious sleepers, including one that does twelve second quarter miles. It’s good to know that someone has finally found a proper use for them.
I had forgotten all about these. When these were new, they could not have been farther off my radar. I was into either sport performance or monstro luxo cruiser. When my family days started in the 90s, no wussy minivan for me, no sir. A Club Wagon with a proper V8 driving rear wheels, thank you. A much better value if you buy your cars by the pound.
I never had experience with these Gen1 T-115s. I think that the 2.2/Torqueflite units were the best of them. The 3.0 Mitsubishi V6 did not have a great longevity record, as I recall. All the ones I ever saw were oil burners as they started to age. And driving that Turbo must have been truly maddening over the long term.
It has been quite awhile since I saw one of these first generation units out on the road in my area. I recently read that one of the collector car insurers has put these on its “endangered species list” because it insures so few of them. Even the second gen is getting pretty rare.
They’re all in Eugene! Yes, the early ones are getting a bit scarce. There’s gobs of the 1992-up refresh models.
We needed something bigger than the Cherokee when our third came along in ’92. I wanted to get a Previa, but Stephanie insisted on the Caravan, as it was the only one big enough to fit this enormous European pram behind the third seat. A full-size van wasn’t even on the radar, for us. Just buying our second American car in a row was a bit of big deal for me; who would have thought? But both the Cherokee and the Caravan were very popular in CA, even with the import-loving crowd. Goes to show that the right product will sell.
I have one, an SE with a 5-speed, in near perfect condition. It drives pretty well. It sounds like the automatic didn’t drive so well, but I haven’t experienced it.
The 5-speed stick was the only reason I would have even considered the turbo four. The choices IIRC were the 2.5L four with either a 5-speed manual or 3-speed TorqueFlite, the 2.5L turbo with those same two transmissions, or the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 (later the homegrown 3.3L) with the 4-speed Ultradrive (or 3-speed auto before it became available). In any case, a V6 was never mated to a stick. Most (all?) LWB vans I saw had the V6 (called out on a front fender badge), and most SWB van buyers save for the most frugal ones wanted it too.
Besides the oddball turbo sticks, the first-gen Chrysler minvans that intrigue me are the ones with the unusual seating options – the three-passenger split bench up front, and two versions of a 2nd-row seat the folded rearward into a bed (I recall a third row wasn’t available with the bed option, at least in its first iteration).
Is it by any chance for sale?ive been looking for another 5speed for a long while and they are getting harder to find
I have one for sale
One of the secretaries in the college maintenance department (where I worked during my college years 1995-1999) had one of these, same color and interior as the subject of the CC. The thing that always amazed me was that her other daily driver was a 1985 Cadillac bustle back Seville. In a maroon color also. I wish I had asked her more questions about how she ended up with those vehicles. Her Caddy always stood out packed next to my white 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan with a blue interior.
I still adore the humpbacks, but only if the ass end sits a little lower than the front. They don’t look right level.
Which is more attractively designed? The bustleback Caddy or the Lincoln? My opinion varies, but I tend to favor the Lincoln’s proportions a bit more.
That is until an Aero Monte Carlo happens to pass by! I’d own one of those, fixed/opera windows be hanged!
Design is design and there’s no accounting for taste but… the tie breaker for me is that there’s only one year of bustleback Caddy I desire and that’s the 1980 model with the 6.0 big block (even if it’s V4-6-8) because of the superiority over the sad 4100. For the bustle Continental at least any year is an ok year to own one because of the durability of the 5.0 V8.
FYI a gentleman on eBay has a 1980 bustleback Seville for sale right now. If I win Saturday’s Powerball, that would be my first purchase. LOL
I like both the bustle Seville and Continental (for those who know my past posts, my grandfather had a Rose Quartz ’87 Continental), but I remember when they were new, some Sevilles had a fake spare integrated into the trunk lid, along with fake luggage straps. That was especially hideous.
Funny thing about the LWB Turbo vans is that according to Chrysler the “Hi Torque” 2.5 was never an official option. This one may bring the count up to 10. From what I remember the lwb turbos that have popped up were originally registered to rental fleets.
I can attest that the performance potential for the turbo 2.2/2.5 motors. Even on a junkyard budget it is staggering.
That might explain it; the lwb turbo one my friends bought was used, so it could well have been a rental. But there’s no doubt that’s what they had.
When I worked as a Chrysler service advisor, we had a mechanic who was the exceptionally proud owner of a Caravan Turbo. In the lunch room he often told a story, with great relish (no pun intended) of how on a twisty, high altitude mountain road, his Caravan had successfully blown off a Ferrari Testarosa. The reason for this, he pined, was the turbo compensated for the dearth of oxygen in the air.
The really amusing part was he actually believed it.
Did he usually smoke his lunch by chance?
Surprisingly, no. He was just a dimwit. The only reason he was kept on was he fixed the owner’s son’s race car for free. That is whole other story.
Maybe it was a Fierarri kit car.. 😀
He probably raced a Fiero with the Iron Duke….
We owned an 85 with the Mitsubishi 2.6 l. It died from being flogged down the W.Va. Turnpike (I-77) with a full load of kids and stuff. We replaced it with a 92 with a 3.3 V6. Same death. It was replaced with a 98 that had the 3.8 V6., still running with 180 Kmi. No tranny problems. 4 years ago we sold it to one of our employees, who still drives it every day, because our kids had grown up and moved away, and my wife wanted something smaller — she bought a RAV4.
Some family friends bought one of these new in the ubiquitous light blue and kept it 11-12 years. To my knowledge, it was reliable, which is to say I simply never heard any complaints about it. However, I can’t say the same for the used turbo LeBaron they briefly owned during the same period – I heard constant complaints about that car.
As always, with Chrysler, it’s all in the luck of the draw.
I used to borrow a turbo Caravan from the dealer I worked for in 1989. It was said to have been a ‘Chrysler executive fleet’ vehicle. I don’t remember if it was LWB or SWB any more, but we certainly had mostly Grand Caravans at the time. I don’t recall the drivetrain having any driveability issues. The turbo/torqueflite combo was great in my experience, except when the headgaskets failed or the accessory belt came loose, which happened more with low mileage Chrysler turbos than with any other engines I’ve had experiences with. The automatic masked any lag issues and the engines were a giant leap over emissions strangled carbureted cars that were still on the road in the late ’80s.
My best friend’s dad was (and still is) the used car manager at a Ford dealer in Florida. So they always had a different family car sitting in the driveway. In 1993 he brought home a 1989 Plymouth Voyager LE Turbo, white with the wood-grain on the side and burgundy interior. I thought it was pretty sharp. It was a trade-in from Illinois, and he got it pretty cheap. It was a bit snug for that family of six, but they made the most of it for a couple of years. The biggest surprise about that van was that the mileage was so lousy! As I seem to recall it never got above mid 20’s.
I drove a turbo swb Caravan with the 5-speed once, the same generation as the feature car. It was fun to drive, but too shrill and rough for me.
What would be a more natural progression, from a Pinto wagon, to the Magic Box?
I didn’t make the jump directly, but I did own a couple of these…the first, a 1989 industrial rental that was wholesaled from Gelco Leasing. It was the panel van – my plan, as a new enlistee in the Navy (quite a bit older than the typical Navy boot, I might add) was to convert it to a half-fast camper. It took the place of my 1971 Econoline panel van, which got me to California and promptly blew the manual three-speed. I shoulda hung onto that one, but the transmission, a cracked windshield that the base wouldn’t put a sticker on, and the fact that I had no money and no shop…and that credit in those days was easy-peasy.
I wasn’t pleased. It was a trouble-free vehicle that I put about 20,000 miles on…but it was dull as dirt to drive, zero road feel. Had the Ultramatic transmission…an inoffensive gearbox that led nothing to the Novocaine-numb, same-day handling. And I learned that the roof caps I’d seen on other Chrysler minivans, were out of production or couldn’t be located to order…
What I REALLY wanted was a Toyota flat-front minivan. But those had been phased out the year before; and there were no panel-vans or customs in the used-car pipeline. Now I had my bear-naked panel van…which I went about carpeting the inside in a desultory way…until I found a Westfalia and had the money for a down payment on.
NOT my wisest choice – although the VW was eons more fun to drive. But when it developed fuel-system problems, I couldn’t shake them, and the cost was adding up…
That was the first. The second…was, years later, I changed fields (a euphemism) and moved back East. My old man had landed in a nursing home; my mother was overwhelmed; and I was doubling my pay to come back. But by this time I had no car…so I appropriated my father’s 1988 Dodge…very low mileage, although he’d been an erratic driver in his last years.
It WOULD have been a good car…except that my job was as a railroad brakeman; I was required to use my own vehicle to traverse the yard I was assigned. All my colleagues used 4x4s; I would have been well to follow suit.
What I did, was knock/spring/bend the front end to where repairs were not worth the value of an old-if-low-mileage van. So, being a slow learner, I presented myself at the local Jeep-Eagle store, for one more fleecing.
These vehicles…were raw, naked value from a company which had little else and no options. The 1995 generation, one of which I later owned, were much better road cars, with little lost in utility.
” These vehicles…were raw, naked value from a company which had little else and no options.”
Man, you really nailed it.
People know value when they see it. If I was a van shopper in the ’80s, I would have chose a Caravan over an Astro or Aerostar, definately. I’ve been in and driven all of them, and the Caravan just reeks of honest value, somewhat in the same way Paul said the Fairmont did.
OTOH, I find most non-landau-topped K-based Mopar cars have this quality. People often say the FWH GM LeSabres and Cadillacs of the mid-late ’80s were masters of space utilization, but I’d put a K-based Caravan up against them any day in that metric, as well as cars like the Spirit/Acclaim and the 600/Caravelle.
Mom bought a Spirit brand new in ’89, and I still think of that car as being well thought out and especially handy to this day, far moreso than the ’91 Century I bought from them or even the ’95 Camry.
I felt this way about the ’91 Dynasty I had in the late ’90s. Thing was homely, but tough and comfortable, and pretty quick with the 3.3. Old lady in a Grand Medicare totaled it while parked in front of my house. If I find some pix maybe I can manage a writeup!
I’ve seen the videos of the guy with the turbo van, they’re hilarious. As a former Mopar turbo owner, the kitsch value of the racer van is immeasurable.
One thing that puzzles me on this van: the tow receiver (hitch). I don’t have access to it anymore, but IIRC, my Lancer Turbo owner’s manual advised against towing with the car, in the event that the turbo would overheat. A tow ball or hitch would (apparently) void your warranty…
I have to wonder if there was the same restriction on the Caravan turbo or not…
IIRC, the 2.2 TBI Lancer could tow a very light load, either 1,000 or 2,000 lbs. The turbo wasn’t rated for anyting, as towing would result in constant use of turbo boost and everything would be overtaxed but the trusty Torqueflite transmission. I thought the turbo in the Caravan was an odd choice for this reason, since carrying 7 people and pushing a shed through the wind is surely as demanding as towing a 1,000 lb trailer.
I really like to read the comments on the articles here, because people usually are pretty well informed on things. I would agree with you…….my initial instinct when reading about this turbo Caravan’s reliability problems was that there had to be a fairly extreme load on the van and engine, especially when there were multiple passengers in the van, on a camping trip or something like that, where the gear would add some weight, as well.
The mileage problems in these and other Caravans may be attributable to Chrysler’s choice of a very small engine that was expected to do a lot of work. If an engine isn’t properly sized for its duties, it will be overworked and mileage and engine reliability will be issues. I would think that a V6 that would be in the 200-250 CID range would be more suited for the blend of low end torque needed to pull the van and its occupants. I’d seen so many Caravans and Voyagers that all had the blue smoke problem with ring problems, and I wonder if it wasn’t partially due to the engine having so much more load on it than it was capable of.
On a side note, I thought it was cool that whoever has the Caravan in the picture, has a Stooges sticker on the back door (they were a great band from the late 60’s/ early 70’s–Iggy Pop’s first notable band). You don’t expect to see a sticker like that on a family van—most likely, the van was owned by a younger rocker type dude that had bought the van on the cheap for transportation purposes.
The blue smoke on the 3l wasn’t rings (usually). It’s bad valve seals.
Not! Many years of towing a boat with the van full of kids and stuff for three hour trips down the highway for weekends on the lake. Also disagree with the driveability comments as I picked the turbo four because the van felt lighter and quicker than the v-6 I drove.
My folks ordered a new ’92 Grand Caravan ES (like you Paul), and it came in in October 1991. It was a pretty rare variant, as it was an ES with AWD, leather and captains chairs. It was my mom’s first minivan, and since she was used to Volvo station wagons (traded a ’90 740GL wagon), it was loaded. It was the monochromatic white with white alloys, red striping and a gray interior. All the ES’s were supposed to have a flush body color pentastar on the hood, but ours came with the chrome stand-up hood ornament. I think the AWD was especially rare.
Some neighbors had a Grand Voyager, probably a ’93, COMPLETELY loaded up. Dark maroon of the same color leather, dope smoker black window tint, digital dash.
My sister and I would sometimes ride to school with them and as a kid I was impressed every time. The main impression I still remember from it besides being supremely comfortable in the 2nd row captain’s chairs was that it rode REALLY well over our badly-maintained Oklahoma tar & chipped county roads. And it seemed quiet. Not soft, exactly, but….measured? It seemed sure-footed. It didn’t float, but it kinda rocked a little, but in a comfortable manner.
It was a damn nice van.
The white ES vans were my favorites. They actually managed to look sporty.
Some of the loons in the Turbo Mopar world are working on adapting that AWD system to their Turbo Omnis. They may have succeded by now, last time I looked was around 2 years ago.
Note how big the rear window was compared to today’s Caravan. Today’s rear window may look big, but 40% of is painted black to cover up the hatch frame. The old van’s hatch frame wasn’t covered up by painted glass.
So, Paul, what’s the reason you pick a LWB Grand Caravan instead of the more common (for production van) Econoline? The ride? lower price? Better fuel economy? Personal “Cash back” from dealer? 😀
Just curious. I’m guessing that for production van the most important purchase consideration is roominess, and the Caravan, even in long wheelbase form, can’t hold a candle to an Econoline.
This was a new small little Spanish-language station, in San Jose. By “production”, I mean just enough equipment to shoot some video on locations to make cheap little commercials, like for car dealers, etc. All it needed to carry was a camera, tripod, VCR, a portable light kit, and? Some extension cords?
The lwb Caravan C/V was more than big enough; a station wagon or Nissan Sentra Wagon/Axxess would have done.It was also used as an errand -mobile.
The guys that drove it eventually came around and really liked it; it was a lot nimbler in traffic and such than a big van. And, no, for that van we paid cash, no trade deals or discounts. The station wasn’t even on the air yet when we bought it! Those came later…
You know, this must be the day for photos! I thought the double Vee-Dubs over on TTAC made my day, now I come here to check in and what do I see? A Chrysler minivan doing a burnout at the drag strip! That’s really cool and my Friday will have to be good.
The original Chrysler minivan was THE vehicle we really could’ve used back in the 80’s and early 90’s, but we could not afford one, and for some reason, I never considered a used one. We somehow managed to pay cash for all our cars and made it 17 years without a car payment – we didn’t consider a loan from my father-in-law a “real” loan, which, incidentally, we paid back every cent!
Looking back, we could have afforded one – a pretty SWB bright red one. Wishing we did own one. We made do with other assorted Chrysler vehicles and an AMC thrown in for good measure.
A buddy had a 1986? Dodge Lancer turbo which was a great little car until the turbo blew. He fixed it and it kept going for awhile longer. Ran like crazy!
My parents retired their ’77 LTD wagon and got an ’89 Turbo Voyager in the mid-90’s. I much preferred the wagon. It was getting on in years, though, and with three kids, they wanted a reliable family car.
It was a problematic machine, though. Loved to throw belts and hoses. Dad ended up buying Mom a cell phone just so she could call him to come fix it when it broke down.
I wouldn’t say desperate measures as the Chrysler made minivans were selling well! Out of the 30 I have owned, well own 2 currently, 3 of them were the turbos and I have my eye of a 89 Voyager with low miles, rust free.My fb group has several members from all over and the euro versions with the turbo diesel, well a couple of folks have love them, wish we had had some of them in the states. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Chryslerminivans/
Turbos are dangerous. Say turbo twice, and the magic watering-can catches fire.
Gnome Wesley thinks it’s funny though.
I remember when this generation Dodge Caravan debuted. As attractive as it may have been, I was never impressed with its drivetrain. IMHO, a van needs to be rear-wheel drive. Either front engine, rear-wheel drive, or rear-engine, rear-wheel drive. This was the exact opposite of what a van should be.
Be that as it may, a FWD config means you get a flat load floor.
Owned a 10 year old 89 SWB in Burgundy over Burgundy for a couple years. I loved that thing. Swapped in a new-used transmission when I got it after doing the spider retainer upgrade and with the exception of a CV joint basically had no problems for 50-60K. Empty without the seats they only weight 2300lbs or so and as long as your keep the turbo spooled up they had IMO more than adequate go.
Must have made a dozen trips over the mountains from BC to Alberta with it fully loaded plus pulling a trailer and didn’t have any complaints. Kept up with traffic, merged adequately, got decent gas mileage especially compared to any late 80s van with a V8. Low over all height made loading stuff on the roof rack easy. And the front seats anyways were really comfy with good seating position.
The LWB turbos were only available to rental fleets. I’ve seen pictures of a LWB C/V 5spd Turbo which is pretty much the holy grail of what I’d like.
All in all I wish someone made an equivalent today with maybe 250hp. Everything has got so bloated huge or can’t fit a sheet of plywood.
I still believe there is a market for a properly executed “man van”, for the car guy with a family who doesn’t want to give up driving fun.
Perhaps a Turbo Mazda 5 might make a good man van? It already hides its vanness and looks like a tall wagon but perhaps a turbo set up from the “Zoom- Zoom” folks?
Sounds like you’d like a Vauxhall Zafira VXR
My Brother-in-law had one of the turbos as the family truckster but my wife and I bought an Astro as our truckster-turned out to be a good choice with the 4.3, if you didnt mind replacing electric window motors every year or so.
The swb cargo version with the turbo and 5 speed was a very cool work truck.
I built a second gen cargo van with a Shelby T2 drivetrain and it was lots of fun. Adapting the SMEC/SBEC was a pain tho.
I’ve been interested in these mini vans since the time I rented one for the Christmas holidays in 1989(?). I had no clue what was under the hood until the second day. I had gone to the supermarket to get something and on departing the parking lot I stepped on it to merge with traffic and all of a sudden I was doing a burnout in a minivan. I was totally surprised to say the least. When I got home I jumped out of the van ready to open the hood and see what was in there when I noticed the “turbo” sticker on the front fender.
In the last few years I check the ads for one and didn’t see one until a few months ago. It was a Voyager (SWB) turbo with a 5 speed. And in very nice condition. What a rarity! Unfortunately the asking price was a little high for a cheapskate like me.
Browsing the Mopar forums I have seen some very interesting turbo vans. Some using the Neon SRT 4 engine others with AWD drivetrain and turbo engines. Fun stuff.
BTW, I didn’t know you could get the turbo in LWB version.
Thanks Paul
The Smithsonian American History Museum has one on display. It’s an ’86 but the collections information doesn’t list the engine or other details. Judging by the roof rack, “wood” and “wires” I’m guessing this one had everything. But pre-turbo. Probably the Mitsu 2.6 4.
I dig the license tag!
Does anyone know who is selling an 89 Caravan? I want to buy one ASAP
I bought a blue over blue ’89 SE turbo with automatic from my next door neighbor in Sept. 1994 and kept it until 2003 when I sold it to a buddy who paid me about double its value and then destroyed it within a year through hard driving/abuse. I have always regretted selling it as it is the best vehicle I’ve ever had. Personally I thought the engine and trans were great, peppy around town and very reliable.
OK, found this in my hometown. Michigan zero rust, 81K. Drove it to Wisconsin 6 days later, put >1000 miles. 89 SE 3L. Purchased from a 95 year old WWII vet.
I have a 1990 SWB turbo Plymouth minvan with an auto. I bought it in Vegas years back. I have had it stored for a later project. I was wondering if anyone knows how many 89/90 vans were produced? I also Have a 1989 GTC lebaron convertible, 1 of 903. Who would know production runs? Thanks!
My friend had a turbo Caravan…bought because he was sick of wrestling his drum kit in and out of his Volvo 740 wagon. Bought with ~110K miles…it was hit with 280K. Original turbo, I think original transaxle.
The turbo had very little lag. Part of this was probably the small turbo on the 2.5 engine…it was a light-pressure design (I think Mitsubishi), designed less for horsepower (that was the peakier 2.2) and more for midrange torque. I thought it hauled around his Caravan quite nicely…and it seemed quite happy at 75MPH.
When I bought my 87 Voyager, the sales guy tried to push a turbo unit on me. I took about two seconds to think about it, and said, no, I want the 3.0 litre I read about. The van was going to be a daily driver for my wife, and she didn’t have any need or use for a turbo to get to and from the grocery store and picking up the kids from school.
When my eldest son turned about six or seven, he disclosed his hopes that that van would still be around when he turned 16 so he could drive it. It almost made it until the transmission had other ideas. The engine was still in fine shape at eleven years old.
My sister/brother in law had that “90” Burgundy Caravan, that is pictured at the start of the article. They did not have the lower body stripes though.
A blue 1984 “Voyager” van was the trade in on the Dodge.