I’ll admit I feel a little bad ragging upon Chrysler, which barely seems to be hanging on. The once-iconic marque is now reduced to selling two cars, the absolute minimum possible number that allows the use of the plural form of the word “car.” One of those cars is the Chrysler 300, which is being discontinued next year, and last had a significant update a dozen years ago, and even then it wasn’t really that much of a change, with the LD platform it’s based on being pretty damn close to the old LX platform from 2005. The 300 is a handsome old grandpa. But I want to talk about the Pacifica, their minivan, which I like, but which seems to have gotten a really unfortunate facelift. Is this punching down? I’m not even sure anymore.
I feel like even the text that comes up when you Google Chrysler is sad, because it’s overly generous with the plurals. It’s not Cars and Minivans, it’s a car and a minivan, singular, though there is a hybrid version of that minivan. Chrysler is really the Chryslerian Remnant at this point.
Here’s the thing about the Pacifica: I like the Pacifica! I think it’s a pretty fantastic minivan. I drove one back when it came out in 2017, and found it to be absolutely practical and appealing. And one of the things I liked best about it was the elegant front-end treatment.
I mean, look at it: it doesn’t feel like everything else out there. It emphasizes the width of the vehicle and it combines the lights and grille into a coherent whole with those swooping chrome strips that figure-8 around the grille and lights, and that same motif is repeated in the lower air intake and foglamp area.
I think the hybrid version worked the best because the grille mesh itself consisted of horizontal slats that echoed the shapes of the surrounding loops, and the whole thing feels elegant and flowing and cohesive. There’s even a touch of Art Nouveau in there, which is very uncommon to see even hinted at in a modern car. It’s a great look, and I’m sorry I haven’t noted my admiration for it more emphatically before.
The look seems to have grown from the ill-fated second-generation Chrysler 200’s front-end treatment:
Say what you will about the 200, if you can even be bothered to come up with any words to say about it, but it had a handsome face! This was a good look!
Unfortunately, around 2021 Chrysler decided that the Pacifica needed an update. As you can see, I haven’t exactly had my finger on the pulse of Chrysler goings-on. Instead of doing anything, you know, good, they changed the front end to look like this:
Way, to go, Chrysler. You just made 50% of the vehicles you have for sale worse looking, and, even worse, more boring. This front end gives the whole van a sour, displeased look, like it just smelled something foul or watched you walk out in jorts and Crocs and is not having it. It looks like a jerk now. Gone is the elegance and unusual grace of the previous front end, and in its place is this sourpuss punim.
In fact, it feels like a step backwards for Chrysler design; if the earlier, pre-facelift Pacifica borrowed from the second-generation Chrysler 200, this update seems to look like the first-gen one from 2011, with the separate, oblong-ish grille and wide lamps:
It’s just worse. Chrysler took the best part of their Pacifca and flushed it down the crapper. Chrysler may be a shell of what it once was, but they still need to hear this. Consider it tough love, or whatever. I think the brand has a chance for re-birth and renewed relevance, possibly with a new electric Airflow that’s a re-bodied version of the Citroën Ë-C4, but they’re not going to make it unless honest people like us sit them down and tell them the hard truths like this: they fucked up the Pacifica’s face.
So there.
[Ed note: While I see Jason’s point, and agree that the Pacifica is a great vehicle, the redesign doesn’t bother me. It looks a little more upscale and less early 2010s to me. – MH]
Neither the original nor the facelifted Pacifica styling does much for me. I much prefer the squarer look and the interior of the Grand Caravan R/T that’s sitting in the garage.
To me, the Pacifica’s styling was too much of a return to the egg-shaped Chrysler minivans that replaced the originals.
The grille reminds me of the opening of a toilet now. So, yeah, that checks out.
I bought our first-gen Pacifica explicitly for the front end. I think it’s the best-looking minivan to be produced in, well, ever. (I also liked the 200 it stole its face from). And I also agree that they ruined it with the second gen.
But… didn’t DT write the inverse of this article at the old german lighting site? I think you two are going to have to come to fistifuffs over this one. And record it for us to enjoy.
You’re correct! I remember this article!
https://jalopnik.com/the-awd-2021-chrysler-pacifica-looks-great-and-solves-a-1841492542
Your choice to actually click on it. First time I’ve been on there in ages and only to find an old DT article about a van refresh. That site has becoming increasingly difficult to navigate.
Also, I too would enjoy a fight over a van refresh.
Jason is wrong.
How about we settle this the old fashioned way.
We’ll lock the two of you inside a Pacífica for 24hrs, the first one to beg for release is wrong.
The whole event can be live-streamed (for Autopian members only if you really want to break the 900 mark).
Hahaha
Agree on the design, the older one looks better but because it’s so heavily influenced by the 200 I don’t think they could still sell it with that face. It’s just dated looking now. Then again it’s a minivan – it’s very rarely bought for the looks.
A better question might be why they hell are these still so unreliable? They’ve been building the same thing for 8 years and they’re still the bottom of every reliability ranking. And not just little stuff either – major issues like transmission failures seem rampant.
To me, the face-lift has always seemed more outdated looking than the original, and not in a good way
Kinda disagree. I like cars that look “happier”, and the redesign is sort of frowning – however, the previous face had a smirk, not a smile, so… improvement? Anyway, the car still looks good and, more importantly, still exists, so it is a win!
Warm take: I wish the 300 got more love. It’s an honest to god RWD, V8, luxobarge sedan you can still buy new in 2023. But unfortunately it’s the butt of many jokes and 90% of the V8 ones I can find have lived terrible existences as rental cars and received 0% of their maintenance while people beat the piss out of them….and almost all of them are white or black on black.
A couple little tweaks could have kept it relevant but Stellantis just couldn’t be bothered, and that’s a shame. The current 300C was too little too late and it’s both overpriced AND getting the bullshit scalper/dealership treatment which is driving prices up even further. Tis a shame, quite frankly.
I’m not going to sit here and claim to be a Chrysler FAN or anything but it’s a bit sad to see a name with so much history going out with a wet fart. I hope the Pacifica sticks around forever and I’m going to do everything in my power to convince my wife that a hybrid minivan is our ideal family car solution down the road…but vanpilling her is going to be hard work, so wish me luck comrades.
I had a 300S as a rental paid for by Mazda during the front subframe recall, and actually liked it quite a bit. Big enough (w/out the sunroof, anyway), comfy, enough power for driving around…it was nice.
Now for my warm take: I always thought the last 200, especially in higher trims, was a great looking car.
As for the Pacifica…they cost too much new for the hunk of crap it will inevitably end up as. People act as if no one wants safe, practical family transportation with plenty of space and enough power to pull a hair out of your leg. Instead, they want to sell you a $50k minivan that will always be a Chrysler.
300’s do look awesome. Where I am in Pennsylvania I feel like I see them more often than I would expect otherwise.
I’m lucky to have come from a very vanpilled family. Be sure to note the lower floor in minivans means they’re easier for less-mobile people to enter, in addition to their myriad other virtues
Oh yeah in my section of PA I see quite a few. Hell I saw a Chrysler 300M last week
I agree, the 300 should have gotten more love over the years. I’ve had a Magnum SRT8 for 10+ years and I love the car, and wanted to get something newer. While I wanted a wagon, just not available. I love the Hemi engine, and wanted the 6.4L. Just as i was thinking of getting something new, the 300C dropped. I’m glad that I ordered mine, took delivery about a month ago at MSRP. At sticker price, I think it is one of the better deals of this year. It ends up coming in about $8K less than an Charger Scat Pack that is equipped as close as you can to the 300C.
Pachy as they seem to be called on message boards and reddit (::shudder::) is great. Good luck
It looks S550 after 32 years of soulless office work. Its a passive aggressive negative Yelp review of a front fascia. It wants to be confrontational, but not face to face, that might risk the possibility of getting into a scrape.
This article was clearly written for me, and probably only for me, considering the bizarre amount of passion I have for my Voyager.
Yes, Voyager. Chrysler, so desperate to pretend that they had more to offer than just A van, and A sedan, made the Pacifica lower trims a whole different model by bringing back the Voyager name. Most Voyagers are of the LX trim variety and the LXi rental trim variety. The rental trim is actually the better equipped of the two. Originally, I assumed the Voyager never comes with Stow n’ Go, but much to my pleasure, it does on the rental trim LXi. The more you know.
When Chrysler like nearly everyone else decided to basically stop producing anything close to a real base trim, they axed the model name with it. I will say, I prefer the Voyager name regardless of it’s thrifty implications. VOYAGER. Just makes sense for a van name. Pacifica? Meh.
Uhhhhhh, what was the article about again? Oh yeah, the face. I wholeheartedly agree. I was happy to get a used one, mostly because the front end looks better. Say what you will about the 200, that car looked pretty darn nice! I personally find the pre-chinjob Voyager/Pacifica to be one of the better looking minivans ever, even if that’s not exactly the highest honor out there. The new grille is generic, and could be slapped on to just about anything.
I like it, doesn’t remind me of the Chrysler 200 and the hell that car had on my life in dealership service.
Gonna agree here.
This is like when AMC made the grill bigger on the Pacer, but without the bigger engine.
This is like they’re trying to go “Hey! Remember the Caravan? You liked that, right?”
This is like that episode of Star Trek TNG where those aliens had a degenerative disease and kept stealing body parts from other people, including faces.
This is like the last guy who takes a look at the document you’ve been working on for four months, which has gone through 20 iterations by nine picky editors, who comes up with something to change just because he wants people to think he actually read the thing.
This is like a before/after photo of one of those old school 1970’s face lifts where the poor subject ends up with a gigantic mouth.
This is like that rogue geneticist who keeps trying to figure out how to engineer a human who can win hot dog eating contests.
This is the third Ripley we saw when Ripley entered that room with all the Ripleys in it in Alien: Resurrection.
The old Pacifica was a kidney stone that you could pass easily. This one needs lithotripsy.
I think that TNG episode is actually a Voyager episode (Phage). It could also sort of apply to the TNG motion picture Insurrection, which was widely regarded as an extended TV episode at best.
I stand corrected. It was a Voyager episode. Live long and prosper.
Not a fan, it looks like the designers face after being told to “add 30% more grill so it looks modern”
The “sour” look is exactly the look of the drivers when they have unruly kids in the back, a nagging spouse, a barking dog, and Ed Sheeran playing his shitty music through the cheap speakers. Welcome to adulthood motherfuckers.
It would be nice if they offered a 4-cylinder engine and swing out doors in the back
We had a 3rd gen (’99) Caravan SE with the 2.4L I4 and 3AT. It was not quick but it was fun in a slow car fast way. It also got us up, down and around the Rockies, Sierras and Cascades packed to the brim with camping gear and dog even running the A/C full blast. I never felt a dire need for more power nor more gears even in the mountains loaded with stuff. Gas mileage was quite good too.
That said the modern Pacifica with its 268 HP V6 and 9AT gives an official 10% better MPG than our old Caravan. The 3.8L V6 4AT version of our van got about 10% worse MPG so I’d expect moving to a 4cyl will give about the same 10% fuel economy improvement in the Pacifica.
As big of a piece of crap the 200 was it was a great looking car. I still find myself admiring them on the increasingly rare occasion I see one in the wild.
Agreed. The 200 and Dart could have been great, and instead they went out with a whimper as two of the last big attempts attempts at a new sedan.
The 200 with the Pentastar *was* great, for at least as long as it ran well.
Saw a Dart the other day, and I still think the overall proportions are spot on. I remain meh about Chrysler insisting that it have mini-Charger taillights but to me, it’s what the Neon would have turned into if not for the Caliber.
I liked the 200, and the pentastar option was nice. Unfortunately my understanding (and the twice I rode in one) is that it was sort of a fat pig on a compact car platform. Uncompetitive gas mileage, and poor handling/steering for the time. Also, your typical Chrysler maladies have been mentioned to me more than once by owners (yes, I actually know a couple of people who owned these somehow).
I need an article on them. Nothing’s coming up searching the site except for the “pick which junker you prefer”
But of all the aughts cars with bad reputations I’ve heard of–I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever seen a 200 in person.
What made them bad? Cheaply made? Particularly crippling mechanical issues?
It’s okay if you want the original front end and live in Canada you can buy the Grand Caravan, which is effectively the base model of the Pacifica but still has the original front end.
I don’t get it either.
Same reason we got the Canada Value Package – we’re pretty minivan positive, but a bit cheap, and I’m guessing Chrysler wants to see how many people they can shame into buying the newer looking van (although, looking at Auto Trader to realize you’re looking at $50k to start is hard to swallow, when you could easily find a sub-$30k van 10 years ago, even close to $20k if you could wade through enough dealer shenanigans).
Also, it looks like you can get the same van as the Voyager in the US, albeit as fleet only, so as much as they’re singular car, they technically offer two vans there still.
It’s just really weird that they don’t just offer a cheap Pacifica instead of an ostensibly different product line.
What’s weirder is that they used to; the lower trim Pacificas were spun off to create the Voyager, then restricted to fleet only.
As I said, SHAME! You were too cheap to buy your family the new, wonderful van, you went straight to our discount rack leftovers! Why didn’t you just spend $50 per month more (for the next decade) to get the newer looking van, rather than one that looks like the ones on the used car line?
I mean, I don’t know how well this works on people self-assured enough to already consider minivans, but I’m guessing it’s something to that effect.
“I mean, I don’t know how well this works on people self-assured enough to already consider minivans, but I’m guessing it’s something to that effect.”
Depends how long they’ve had kids. Firstborn expecting parents? Yes, at least the ones who are buying a new van “for the baby”. They will fall for “YOUR child DESERVES the BEST!!!” every goddamn time. New parent hormones can be a powerful thing. When I worked with a cat rescue there were people who dumped their cats because a cat *might* scratch the baby. I heard similar stories about dogs being dumped. Those people are the most vulnerable to sales bull and IMO they deserve every shred of it.
(Sorry for the rant. It still pisses me off.)
Anyway, moving on.
Anyone whose hauled around for any length of time a couple of Cheerios and milk spilling, juice box tossing, puke hurling, diaper exploding, upholstery ripping rug rats?
Not a chance!
Hey now, I’m stuck in the van with the rug rats that whole time too. The least I can do is spend those hours in a comfy heated leather seat with a good stereo.
I remain confused why vans aren’t sold with nice stuff in the front and hose-it-out vinyl in the back though. That’s what I really want.
A ‘sour, displeased look’? I think the word you’re looking for may be ‘dour’—though that might be excessively negative
Sure it’s not the world’s best looking minivan grille but at least it’s still a minivan and not a crossover.
We own a 2020 and it is a great minivan. Are car designers like web designers they need to change stuff just to keep employed?
Thank you! The restyle is awful compared to the original. One of the biggest downgrades in recent memory.
IMO, the “honor” of the biggest downgrade in recent history was that Camaro SS refresh.
it went from more of the same but still handsome to downright atrocious.
The Camaro restyle is one of the all-time worst.
I’ve never been a big fan of chrome trim on post-’80s vehicles, as to me, it appears out of place on the more or less aero shapes that we started getting in the ’90s. A new type of vehicle with an old type of adornment, I guess. It’s incongruous.
And perhaps it’s that it’s usually the only retro touch (b/c relatively easy to do without big body changes) is what makes it discordant.
As in, I’ve seen the controversial new Wagoneer with the chrome framed windows, and immediately thought: this would work so much better if the SUV also had the fake wood paneling.
Our 2020 Pacifica was some special launch edition with all black trim and it is SO much better than chrome trim.
I just saw one of these today, and wow they look good! The blackout look is hackneyed on sedans, but on a minivan, it gives it some unexpected gravitas that mitigates any alleged minivan stigma. The whole package looked very futuristic.
It’s the “s appearance package” which is very silly – why the hell is there an “s” embroidered in my seats? But blacked out it looks much better than the chrome standard trim. We had a hard time deciding between cloth/chrome and leather/black as leather in a family car is stupid, but the chrome was ultimately too ugly
I agree with Jason re: the superiority of the prior nose. When it appeared, I assumed it was due to some sort of unavoidable regulatory change (like mitigating harm to pedestrians in collisions or some such) since it was so much uglier.
Redesign is both bad looking and much less interesting
Okay Torchy, I own one in white and it looks great. I do agree the old design was good, but I do not agree the the new design is bad.
Is the current “All about the snout” design trend a good thing? Probably not, but I’m guessing it was a force behind the change.
I definitely disagree with you on the first part, but the second is somewhat fair. This absolutely follows the more current design trend of emphasizing/enlarging the grill on pretty much everything. At least they didn’t lift the nose to do it, which I appreciate.
They would have made it more agro and less pedestrian friendly if it hadn’t cost money.
That is sadly true.