Good morning, and welcome back! After looking at two low-mileage cars with lots of life left in them yesterday, today we’re checking out a pair of Dodges with nearly 800,000 combined miles. What could possibly go wrong? Everything. And I say that as a Mopar guy.
But first, about those low-milers: the Mitsubishi Galant won by a country mile, and it should have. Honestly, the only reason to choose that little Nissan over it would be trying to eke out every last possible mile from each gallon of fuel. Or, I suppose, if you really dislike Mitsubishi, or four doors. But that Galant is an awfully nice car for the price.
Galants of that era always make me think of an old boss I had who owned one. He lent it to his son for a month, while his son’s car was being repaired after an accident, and the kid brought it back with completely bald front tires. I told my boss to go have the transmission checked out, too, after that. But if it can survive that kind of torture, that speaks highly of its durability.
Sadly, not many people speak highly of the durability of Chrysler vehicles, no matter which parent company was holding the reins when a particular car was built. And that’s a shame. The quality has ebbed and flowed over the years, no one is denying that, and there have been some regrettable design mis-steps (the Neon head-bolt fiasco, Aspen/Volaré front fender rust), but I’ve generally had good luck with them, and I’ve racked up plenty of miles in various Chryslers, Dodges, and Plymouths over the years.
But my odometer readings pale in comparison to today’s competitors. Two hundred thousand is still a lot of miles, even these days. Three hundred thousand is impressive, on any car. But one of these two is closing in on four hundred thousand, and the other left that number in its rearview mirror a while back. Let’s check them out.
2010 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT – $2,999
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3 or 3.8 liter overhead valve V6, four- or six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Plano, TX
Odometer reading: 375,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
Being the first is never easy. You get to be the best – but only until everyone else catches up. You can’t rest on your laurels, or you’ll quickly find yourself following rather than leading. The Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager started a revolution when they appeared in 1984, but the rest of the market wasted no time developing their own minivans. Chrysler engineers didn’t snooze, adding amenities such as a second sliding door on the driver’s side and the clever-as-hell Stow N’ Go seats that disappear into the floor.
By the time this fifth-generation Caravan hit the market, it wasn’t so “mini” anymore; the standard-wheelbase variant was gone, leaving only the extended-wheelbase “Grand” version. The slow-selling (and slow-accelerating) four cylinder was also gone, leaving Chrysler’s 3.3 and 3.8 liter pushrod V6s to fill in until the arrival of the “Pentastar” V6 in 2011. The seller doesn’t state (or possibly doesn’t know) which engine this van has in it. Whichever it is, it has been rebuilt, and runs well.
For having as many miles as it does, this thing looks pretty good. We don’t get many interior photos, which is where it will show wear the most, but outside, it looks practically like new. Of course, it’s the wear you don’t see that can cause you trouble – but then again, you don’t put nearly 400,000 miles on a vehicle without plenty of care and feeding.
One slight cause for concern is the apparent “Blue Screen of Death” on the infotainment system. I don’t know if any of it still works, or if it can be rebooted, or if it’s just dead, but it’s a question worth asking. It does make me wonder how many of these infernal things are still going to work in beaters ten or twenty years from now.
2013 Dodge Charger – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.6 liter dual overhead cam V6, eight-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Odometer reading: 416,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
The Daimler-Chrysler merger in 1998 was supposed to be a “merger of equals,” but it more closely resembled an ill-advised Vegas quickie wedding performed by an Elvis impersonator. The best thing to come out of it by far, however, was the LX/LD/LA rear-wheel-drive platform. Combining Mercedes-Benz suspension designs with Chrysler V6 and V8 engines made for a winning formula, which Chrysler has refined over the past eighteen years into something truly remarkable. The platform may be playing its final encore number now, about to go out of production, but these cars will be on the road for many years to come.
This LD-platform Dodge Charger is powered by the base 3.6 liter Pentastar six-cylinder engine. It isn’t the firecracker that the Hemi V8-powered versions are, but it’s no slouch. It’s backed by an eight-speed automatic transmission made by ZF. I’ve heard good things about this engine/transmission combination, and the 400,000 miles on this one’s odometer speak highly of it, but of course we don’t know how many times either one has been rebuilt or replaced.
The high mileage, the red stripes, and the presence of a nearly-identical Charger in the parking spot next to it make me think that this car spent its life as a taxi, which in Las Vegas is a hard life: crawling along in stop-and-go traffic, blasting along freeways at absurd speeds, and careening around corners. (One Vegas cabbie once uttered a sentence that is still an inside joke between my wife and me: “Hang on, we gotta make this light.”) The white paint and red stripes are kind of giving me Speed Racer vibes – which isn’t a bad thing, but I doubt it was the intent.
Again, we don’t get many interior photos. This shot of the center stack shows plenty of wear, but no real damage; the interiors of these cars were never all that high-quality, but I guess if they can stand up to 416,000 miles of taxi use, they can’t be all bad.
I like the idea of keeping cars in service for as long as possible. Waste not, want not and all that. Too many cars end up in junkyards too soon because they “aren’t worth fixing,” so it’s nice to see these two still on the road, and I hope they have quite a few miles yet to give. Which one will you take?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Give me the Charger. I’ll buy a Smyth ute kit and slap a supercharger onto the engine.
Van for sure. More useful and likely less beat-to-crap.
I voted for the minivan, but we needed the option for neither. Both of them are way too expensive for vehicles that are going to suffer some kind of catastrophic breakdown soon. Though I suppose you could make an argument for the Charger since the seller is willing to accept funny money as payment. I’ll gladly pay 5 million Spoogecoins for it.
I don’t know much about Chargers, but a 14 year old minivan with 375K miles is only worth as much as the gas in the tank.
I’m not saying it’s a bad van, just that nobody wants an old minivan so they sell for scrap value + the gas in the tank.
If you could get that charger for under $2k, it’d be a different conversation.
Two things:
1) look closely on the head unit in the van. That doesn’t look like a stock unit to me. Easy fix.
2) these gen vans could also have the 4.0 V6. Pretty solid motor. My cousin had an 2008 GC with the 4.0 for a number of years. Served him well.
The van all day long for me.
It’s VanLife for me. That is if I have to chose one. Those are some HIGH mileage vehicles LOL
If thar Charger was a Vegas taxi, you will never – NEVER – get it clean enough to keep a K9 from getting a hit on it.
Gimme the minivan.
Taking the Charger for a Smyth ute conversion.
This is an option I hadn’t considered, but I like it!
An ex-taxi is about the worst car you could get. Taxi companies pick these up when they are darn-near worn out already, give them a rattle-can paint job, do the bare minimum maintenance, and run the piss out of them. You know it’s used up when a cab co doesn’t want it anymore. This Charger is a zombie, begging for the crusher.
I am not a fan of Chargers (I think they are hideous and I associate them with aggressive drivers), but I acknowledge they are a solid choice if you are intent on driving a V8 sedan. This one unfortunately is a V6, so I struggle to see its appeal. The stripes also aren’t doing it any favors. Also, if this really was a Las Vegas taxi, that makes this vehicle even less appealing. I can’t even imagine what the rear seat upholstery of a former Vegas taxi looks like. There may be a reason the seller did not include more interior photographs.
I would vote for almost anything over a nice, well kept, V8 Charger. It is hard to imagine how terrible a vehicle would have to be for me vote for a janky V6 Charger. In this case, it doesn’t hurt that the van seems like a solid deal at $2999.
Even if it was with low mileage examples, I’d chose the minivan. Why? The 3.6 is phenomenal, but the 3.3/3.8’s are by far better engines. Sure, some of them go, but so don’t 3.6’s if the lifters don’t eat through the cams first, and they go much more often. Plus, the VLP 4 speed the 3.3 would have isn’t THAT bad. The 62TE the 3.8 would have is the worst of the three possible transmissions, and even then…. I mean, I’ll talk bad about it but it’s no 9 speed.
Seeing those pictures of a white minivan in a parking garage, I am reflexively begging the representative at the rental car desk that don’t they have anything else available?
100% the van. The blue screen is an easy aftermarket swap. Put in a Kenwood aftermarket replacement with an Idatalink and call it a day. I will say for a brand with a reputation for being unreliable, both cars have a ton of mileage on them.
Normally, you’d pick from these two based on their guts:
In the Charger, the Pentastar and ZF-licensed 8 speed transmission is a combination among the best available base engine combos in the mid and large size sedan market if you’re looking for adequate power, relatively good efficiency and service life.
In the Grand Caravan, the Chrysler 3.3l or 3.8l combined with a six speed Ultradrive transmission is a competent package, but not nearly as good.
But that Charger is just way too sketchy. I’d take the van, no question about it.
The blue screen in the van is no big deal because the stereo doesn’t control the car like more recent models.
Aftermarket stereo systems start at only a couple hundred dollars, slide right in where the blue screen is, and are a major upgrade to provide Bluetooth, Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. I’ve already installed one in my 2016. It was simple. I needed my Waze! And Amazon Music, Spotify and Pandora are sooo much better than Sirius/XM.
While I’m one of the people who doesn’t think all muscle/pony cars need a V8 to be valid, the Charger/Challenger are truly lackluster without a Hemi. I personally have no interest in a V6 version of either. The Ecoboost Mustang is plenty enjoyable, the V6 Camaro is slept on, the HiPo Ecoboost with the Focus RS engine is cool as hell, obviously the Mustang SVO is considered classic pretty much across the board, etc.
But the Charger/Challenger are absolute boats and the NA V6 just isn’t enough power. At that point they’re rental cars…and if that’s what you want that’s all well and good, but I personally don’t want something with that much presence that can’t back it up. I see drivers of V6 Challengers and Chargers acting like fools all the time in the DC area and it’s just embarrassing. It’s screams poser to me in the worst kind of way.
They’re all show and no go…and if you’re in a Charger/Challenger you’re going to bring a lot of attention to yourself too. Folks are going to want to race you. If you live in a densely populated area they’re on thieves’ radars as much as Hyundais/Kias. It’s a long list of grievances at this point, happy festivus!
Suffice to say, gimme the van. It’s no show all go. Just a simple, unassuming tool for a job. I have no grievances to air about it…and if it’s already covered this many miles it’ll probably cover a lot more. Anything that could’ve gone wrong probably already has. Drive it into the ground baby, it’s BEATER SZN!
I raced a V6 Charger at a stoplight with my electric “bicycle”/microcar that has all of 13 horsepower peak, and it wasn’t able to overtake me until about 30-35 mph. Were the low voltage battery pack I was using not limiting the max rpm that I can make decent power at, he might not have overtaken me at all.
V6 Chargers are pretty damned slow!
The thing about people driving slow cars maniacally (see also: Nissan drivers) that always cracks me up is that if they’re moving that quickly you know their foot is glued to the floor. In order to get a damn V6 Challenger or Talltima up to 90 in a 55 zone with a lot of traffic you legitimately have to work for it. It’s not like you’re in a peppy turbocharged car or EV with lots of low end torque that can have you going that fast by accident.
No sir, they are driving those things with malicious intent and blatant disregard for safety. You don’t “accidentally” do 100 in an Altima….
A VQ Altima will smoke about 95 cars out of 100. Even more if it’s a stick.
Nothing is faster than an Altima brother
Well no, but with the v6 it’s damn fast.
Apart from the Altima, around here the slowest car driven fast seems to be the Mitsubishi Mirage. And you know they’re working hard, with all of 78 horsepower on tap. And I’m talking 90+ mph on the highway, overtaking everything and cutting in and out of traffic. You have to be committed to accomplish that in a Mirage.
Missed opportunity for “no show, all go, plus Stow-n-Go” on the van.
That Charger would be great for racing Altimas at traffic lights. I’d much rather have the van but that blue screen scares me. Screw it, van it is.
As much as I don’t want a Mopar minivan with 375k miles on it, an ex-Vegas taxicab Charger with even more miles and for more money is a VERY hard pass.
Since the van seems decently well optioned, it likely has the 4.0L, which wasn’t a horrible turd of an engine.
That Charger looks rough. Those weren’t terrible cars, but if I had to choose one of them, which I pray I never do, I’d take the van.
I thought I remember a 4.0L badge on the back coming with that engine, but I think I’m thinking of when they added the same engine in the Pacifica. But – I think the 4.0L on the GC did bring bigger wheels that this one doesn’t have, so it may be the 3.8.
You may be right. A family member has a nearly identical 2010 GC in dark blue that has the same wheels as this but also has the 4.0L. I vaguely remember a “4.0L” badge on the tailgate somewhere.
It’s also possible it fell off the back like the Dodge badge did on the steering wheel, lol.
I think its the 3.8 too. The 3.8l was the only engine option that didn’t have a specific badge on the back for it. The 3.3s have flexfuel capable badges and the 4.0l has the 4.0l badge.
That’s a good point too, I forgot about the flex fuel badge.
If I could get 2 year out of the van, then it’s a win in my books, the charger looks like its got about a week left of life.
Van for me.
I can do more with the van, it has fewer miles, and it’s probably a lot more comfortable. And it’s not something cops use.
The minivan is a far more useful as a home depot run vehicle. I don’t know if that particular one has the 2nd row folding, but toss them out and now you have a covered enclosed cargo van.
Minivan begrudgingly. I’d prefer neither, but I do not like Chargers at all and the extra 100K miles definitely isn’t going to help.
I don’t see a single panel that’s aligned properly on that Charger. I guess I’d go with the minivan here, it’s more practical, cheaper, and has fewer miles. Never really been a fan of either car though, to be honest.
This is exactly my reasoning for picking the van.
Don’t really have a preference either way, but I think the minivan could make a very interesting Lemons race car