Welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! Today we’re going to be looking at a couple of those ubiquitous boxes-on-wheels: minivans. (Don’t make that face). First, however, we need to see the results of yesterday’s massacre–I mean, vote.
Jeez, you guys. I get it; you didn’t like the Eagle. But man, some of the comments were brutal. For the record, I always liked the Premier and Monaco, and as several commenters pointed out, it was historically important for Chrysler. Its arrival led their engineering teams in entirely new directions they hadn’t thought of before, kinda like that leftover arm and brain chip in Terminator 2.
Oh, and for those requesting a “neither” vote choice: No. Play the game like the other kids. If nothing else, choose which color you like better. (Granted, that strategy won’t work today.)
There is perhaps no vehicle that carries quite as much of a stigma as the minivan. It’s what you drive when you have “grown up” or “settled down.” It’s the mommy-mobile, the kid-taxi, the Family Truckster. But there are a lot of use cases for a big enclosed box on wheels that have nothing to do with one’s progeny. Maybe you’re in a band, and your drummer thinks he’s the second coming of John Bonham, and you need a van to haul his overly-large drum kit. Maybe you own a rare and used book shop, and need a van to drive around to estate sales and buy up personal libraries (I actually knew someone who used a minivan for this). Or maybe you just want to sit up high in traffic without having to deal with a cumbersome SUV.
Old minivans can be especially good deals as cheap used cars. After a couple hundred thousand miles, after a thousand Fruit Roll-Ups have been cleaned out of the carpet, after the DVD player is as sick to death of Shrek and Frozen as the front-seat passengers are, what’s left is a tough, mechanically-simple vehicle whose whole designed purpose is comfort and convenience. What’s not to like?
I’ve found two examples for us to compare and contrast. One is the granddaddy of all minivans, and the other is a couple generations newer. Let’s see what you make of them.
1988 Dodge Grand Caravan – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 liter V6, 3 speed automatic, FWD
Location: Federal Way, WA
Odometer reading: 40,000 miles (might be 140,000, but might not, from the condition)
Runs/drives? Just fine, according to the seller
This is it: the one that started it all. The first-generation Dodge Caravan, introduced in 1984. Back then the advertisements didn’t even use the term “minivan;” it was “garageable van” or “wagon.” Unlike other things with the prefix “mini” – skirts, say, or muffins, which have remained more or less consistent in size over the years – minivans have grown, and that embiggening started here, with the stretched-wheelbase “Grand” Caravan and Plymouth Voyager. The Grands added seven inches to the wheelbase, fifteen inches to the overall length, and a whole lot of room inside.
As a 1988 model, this particular Caravan precedes the troublesome four-speed “Ultradrive” transmission by a year, instead backing its Mitsubishi-built V6 with a good ol’ Torqueflite three-speed. It’s not as cool as the turbocharged stickshift variants were, but it gets the job done. It’s also pleasantly devoid of fake woodgrain, which never looked right on these, at least to my eye. [Editor’s note: I realize aesthetics are subjective, but Mark is wrong, here. -DT]
What does look right – and refreshingly simple, compared to modern designs – is the interior, which is swathed in yards and yards of maroon velour slowly fading to pink. There are no overhead screens. No audio jacks. No separate climate controls. Just seats. What did we do back then, on long trips? Read, or play the license plate game, or play Slug Bug (until Mom and Dad told us to knock it off), or actually look at the scenery. Wild, huh?
Actually, this van looks really good for its age. It’s not rusty, it’s only missing one hubcap, and the interior isn’t trashed. If that is only 40,000 miles on the odometer, somebody could flip this on Bring A Trailer and probably make some money after they found a replacement hubcap. Or they could just drive it and enjoy it, as a reminder of where we were, and how far we’ve come.
2003 Chevrolet Venture – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.4 liter V6, 4 speed automatic, FWD
Location: Vancouver, WA
Odometer reading: 219,000 miles
Runs/drives: “Great!”
Fast-forward a decade and a half, and you arrive here, at the Chevy Venture. It’s only a little bit bigger than the old Grand Caravan – ten inches longer, three inches wider, and three inches taller – but the march towards bigger and heavier vehicles was only just getting into full-swing at this point. A new Toyota Sienna, for comparison, adds four inches in length and six inches in width to the Venture’s dimensions. Hardly “mini” any more. But with the added girth came added stuff, like a sliding door on both sides (sometimes power-operated), more easily configurable seats, vastly improved cupholders, and rear-seat entertainment options (more on that in a minute).
This Chevy has seen some use, but high miles aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Lots of miles means lots of service, or it wouldn’t have made it this far. The Venture uses GM’s ubiquitous 60-degree V6, 3.4 liters in displacement at this point, and it’s known to be durable and reliable, give or take an intake manifold gasket or two. The overdrive automatic has been known to develop an occasional slipping problem, but again, with 219,000 miles under its belt, someone was caring for it right.
This van’s interior looks freshly scrubbed clean, which is nice, and the leather and suede upholstery is in good shape. Hell, the back seats don’t even look like anyone has ever sat in them. You can, of course, remove the seats or fold them flat to add cargo space.
The Venture was available in a “Warner Brothers Edition,” which included a DVD player for the back seat, a bunch of Looney Tunes swag, and a special badge with Bugs Bunny on it. The original purchaser of this burgundy Venture does not appear to have sprung for that option, however, or if they did, they removed the badge. What a maroon.
You can go on hating minivans if you want, but I’m telling you: there’s a lot to like here. And these are just the cheap ones; spend a grand or two more and you can get a really nice, comfy, well-equipped minivan with all the toys. You just have to get over the stigma, and stop caring what people think. You know… settle down and grow up.
So what’ll it be, mac? Old Dodge, or not-quite-as-old Chevy?
[Editors note: Anyone who chooses the soulless Venture over that beautiful Chrysler box, please explain yourself in the comments. -DT]
My heart says GC, but my brain is trying to convince me that the Venture’s driver side sliding door and extra gear in the transmission are enough to overlook the mileage.
The Venture is boring, and was a mediocre car when it was new. But as a car built in this century (with 90s technology and design), this car still has more practical life as a car. The Caravan should get a wash and wax and get parked as a static display at Cafe ’80s.
Agree that the Caravan is the OG, and that’s an absolute beauty.
But I drove a red Venture through high school and it never let me down.
Everyone hassled me for the soccer mom-mobile, but it fit six or eight or ten friends.
You could even spin the wheels if you turned off traction control and stomped on it.
If I’m going with a dangerously out-of-date minivan, I’m going back to the model I started with. The original K-Car Caravan, preferably the Grand version.
The Caravan I owned had this engine and transmission combo. I’ve heard that engine had a reputation for bad oil leaks, but mine didn’t. I towed a boat with it while loaded full up with gear several times. It was loaded to capacity and pulling over 500 lbs beyond what it was rated for, and it didn’t feel nearly as burdened as I expected it to.
The rear seats in the Caravan make a comfy garage couch, too, for when you’re done wrenching and want to sit in front of the drum fan with a couple of beers on a hot summer night. And when the van is gone, you might still have the seats, many years later.
Oddly specific, anything you’d like to share? 😉
Mine was a passenger van leased for me by my employer, to haul products and tools, so the middle and rear seats were removed and stored in my garage. I don’t think the vans had any residual value at the end in the terms of the lease. I think the company kept them as spare service vehicles, because they didn’t want the seats back in. The bench seats were still in the garage when I moved out of that house. They might even still be there.
Awesome, thanks
The previous school district I worked for had a fleet of those Chevy Ventures for taking small groups of kids to field trips and competitions. The utter misery of shuffling teenagers back and forth from Chicago to Kansas City in the summer, with my knee wedged against the hard plastic center stack and trying not to die of heat stroke thanks to the broken AC … that shit still haunts my dreams 15 years later.
Gimme the OG.
Having driven and considered both back in the day, venture is the better option. It may be soulless but way better to drive and ride in. The bugs bunny edition with DVD was awesome. Same color too.
I chose the Caravan because whom amongst us here cannot resist the allure of that Bordello inspired interior! 😉
Not that “4 speed automatic” is much better, but still, “3 speed automatic”. That’s why.
Neither choice is a bad one for a basic people mover. I went with the Chevy just based on the subjective looks, I like it a bit better.
All that maroon and not one cigarette burn, I’ll take it
The Warner Bros edition instantly came to mind when I saw this. I’d get the badge and slap it on there if I bought the Chevy even though its not a “numbers-matching” WB. Kinda like an “SS” clone people make out of pedestrian Chevelles/Malibus.
Managing to logically fit in “What a maroon” should get this article a Pulitzer.
In my opinion, the only thing worse than an Ultradrive is the 4T65-E. Easy win for the K series van.
Correction: I think this pup had the TorqueFlite.
I voted Chevy based on the safety improvements alone. As Mark said in the article, these things had one job, move people from A to B safely. No minivan will ever be stylish (despite what Travolta said in Get Shorty), or cool, or desirable. They are tools, and need to do their one job well.
I wouldn’t buy the Venture for the safety… The U-platform vans were notoriously weak in front impacts. Seriously, the crash testing videos are terrifying. The driver’s area of the cabin basically folds up in a moderate speed collision. This is part of the reason they added an elongated front end when they face lifted the Venture into the Uplander.
That said, I drove a hand me down Venture all last year as a beater work vehicle, and I honestly loved it. Great fuel economy, decent power, and it was surprisingly surefooted and stable on the highway. Just really nice to drive for a vehicle with 350xxx KM succumbing to rust. I would say for anyone looking for a reliable and dirt cheap spare vehicle to use for chores, hauling junk etc, you can’t go wrong. Just keep that safety video in your mind, and don’t use it daily or to ferry your kids.
Venture. It’ll get 30 mpg highway, the V6 can keep up with traffic, and the 4T65 can be rebuilt by a relative amateur. NVH is definitely a step above the Caravan.
I was carted around in both of these growing up. And teenage me passed my driving test in a LWB Venture. Having experienced both of them the Venture is by far the better van.
Caravan to preserve for posterity, Venture to use for its’ intended purpose on a tight budget. The Dodge is old enough not to have rear shoulder seat belts. That’s a dealbreaker.
Chrysler all day. And not just because I’ve got a built 2.5L turbo engine with 5-speed manual already mated to it in my garage.
My grandma had that EXACT Caravan. Same color, same weird maroon velour interior, everything. I went on a lot of my first fishing trips in that van. Thanks for bringing back those memories! Obviously, that’s my vote.
The Venture could file a complaint that you tipped the vote against it by calling it soulless while calling the Caravan O.G. Do you want January 6th? Because this is how you get January 6th.
Regardless, I think the Caravan is the winner. It’s so delightfully 80s with the maroon on maroon color scheme, and it should be easy to keep running what with its lack of features and technology. I have less confidence in the Venture going the distance without a repair bill that makes you walk away from it.
Caravan all the way. As old and as outdated as it is, it’s probably more reliable than the disastrous U body pile of fuck. I’m amazed it’s still on the road, the shitty 3400 or the multiple electrical problems should’ve sent it to pullapart 10 years ago.
I went with the Chevy. While I’m not really tied to a Chevy vs Dodge fight, the chevy is newer in every way. Engine tech, audio, interior…. all newer. I like the wedge look of the chevy over the dodge too. If the dodge had the woodgrain, it would be an easy chevy win since woodgrain on any car look bad. Never liked it since my dad owned his Grand Wagoneer, it just looks bad. Sorry David.
Photos of that maroon velour interior are pushing up all of the childhood vacation memories.
The chevy is the better deal and it’s not even close. But I was brought home from the Hospital in 1988 in almost the exact same Grand Caravan, and my entire childhood was supported by that, and each successive generation of a Dodge minivan. I saw my first drive in movie in one, learned to drive in one, got my first speeding ticket in one, went on my first date in one, got my first kiss in one, drank my first beer sitting on the back bumper of one, the list goes on. So many milestones in my life were anchored by my dad’s undying loyalty to mediocrity and my mom’s addiction to having a sliding door for us kids.
Give me that shitty old dodge.
Not by a mile. I get David’s point (and that velour is amazing), but my money’s going to the 15 year newer vehicle if I give even a single shit about my kids’ safety.
That’s a great point, but my kids can brew their own nostalgia in my wife’s vehicle (unashamedly, a 2022 Chrysler Minivan)
This thing would be all for Daddy and his buddies lol
It may have more safety features, but the U body did extremely poor in crash tests. I’m not sure if it was as bad as the Astro, but it did receive a Poor rating.
I was thinking the same thing, but didn’t want to open that can of worms, because as bas as 90’s Gm’s were, 1980’s chrysler products were a half-step up from a covered wagon. Full of dynamite. And also on fire.
Just for the record, the 2003 Venture received 4/5 stars across the board from NHTSA. It was only tested for moderate front overlap by IIHS and scored “Poor”, but so did lots of other cars from that year (https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Venture/2003/safety/). Meanwhile, I couldn’t find any crash test ratings for the 1988 Dodge, but considering even as late as 2014 Chrysler minivan crash tests were called “among the worst we’ve ever seen” by IIHS (https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/minivan-crash-test-among-the-worst-weve-ever-seen.html), I’d definitely give the Chevy the thumbs up for safety between the two of them.
That being said, I voted for the Dodge because damn that thing looks good for its age, and it’s got character. I have no intention of buying either one, but if I wanted a crappy old minivan for some reason, I’d go with the Dodge in this case.
Yes, the Caravan and the Venture both offer 1988 levels of crash protection. The U bodies were appallingly weak compared to other vans of their day. The airbag can’t save you if the steering column shoots over your head because the seat tipped forward when the floor buckled.
If you care about your kids’ safety, the Venture might not be the van for you either. It isn’t just terrible by today’s standards. It performed the worst of any minivan tested at the time.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/chevrolet/venture-minivan/2005#moderate-overlap-front
https://youtu.be/Z7gSxmk1kp0
If you gave even a single shit about your kids’ safety you probably wouldn’t go with a Venture either. They had fairly abysmal crash safety when new, but they’re also prone to severe rust – and I see some on this one – so it’s going to crumple like a potato chip bag held by a drunk man preparing to throw it at Steve so he gets his attention.
Honestly, I wouldn’t use either of these as family haulers, it’s kind of like comparing a bomb to a different bomb.
I grew up with these, too. Our first was a ’94 Voyager in a similar maroon color, then a 99 Grand Caravan in green that I learned to drive in. Good times! And Goddamn, do I love velour!
I just now noticed there’s actually an ashtray in the back seat area of that Caravan. It was a different time indeed…
My first car, an ’89 Oldsmobile Toronado Trofeo, had only two doors … but it had three cigarette lighters and no less than FIVE ash trays!
Not usually a Mopar guy, but man, that luxurious velour has won me over!
Me too. Plus the wonderful New Yorker style hubcaps b/c they similarly up the classy quotient of the whole damn package.
I almost went with the Venture entirely to annoy David.
But that red velour, I can’t turn that down.
I adore that red velour, but I’m more than happy to annoy David on this point. In what hellish existence can a 1980s minivan be said to contain “soul”? I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. He finds soul in Jeep Cherokees too, which… Jesus, I just don’t get it. And if I had all day I’d go back and count just how many mentions of “nostalgia” there are on this page, just because so many of you millennial goobers had the wretched luck to be hauled around in Caravans and Voyagers and for some reason want to relive that, except in a front seat this time. See your therapists, please. Your “nostalgia” is awfully heavy on the “algia” part. (Greek, from algos “pain”)