Hi,
I'm planning on buying a used ('96 or newer) Caravan in the near future,
and I was wondering what people here thought about the available engines and which they thought was the best one.

I am talking primarily about reliability and durability/longevity.

I will probably get a Grand Caravan, because I need the room, and as far as I know the 2.4L has not been offered with the Grand?
though I would like to hear what people think about the 4 cylinder as well.

So basically looking for feedback on the 3.3L and 3.8L 6 cylinders; I put a high priority on good gas mileage, but if the 3.8 is a much better engine I would rather have it.

Also, if there are more than one transmissions available for these years (~1996-2004) any experience with different trannys would be appreciated,
thanks

 

3.3 is best to me. 3.8 2nd 3.0 3rd and a 4 banger last 4s are under powerd and relly dont get much beter mpgs. and 4cyl vans dont have all the goodies

 

I've had both the 3.0 and 3.3. From what I've been able to see both on the forum and speaking with others, the 3.3. is the way to go. The 3.8 is a good engine but I've heard it can be murder on the tranny's which tend to be the weakest link in the whole powertrain. The 3.0, which I'm not even sure is available in the '96 and newer models, did, overtime have problems with the valve seats which caused some higher fuel consumption. I've got 160K miles on the 3.3 and so far, no problems.

 

Funny, the 3.0 and 3.3 use the same trans when OD version the only difference is the bellhousing thats it!. the 3 speed trans is internally exactly the same as the 'troublesome' neon trans. The 3.3 in a gen1,2 or 3 it a lot easier to do repairs over the 3.0. Specifically the waterpump.

 

here is the wiki info on the engines' power:

• 1996-2000 2.4 L EDZ I4, 150 hp (110 kW) and 167 lb·ft (226 N·m) (Canadian vans beginning in 1999 included a 3.0 V6 as standard equipment)
• 1996-2000 3.0 L Mitsubishi 6G72 V6 142 hp (106 kW) (not available in certain states)
• 1996-2000 3.3 L EGA V6, 158 hp (118 kW) and 203 lb·ft (275 N·m)
• 1996-1998 3.8 L EGH V6, 166 hp (124 kW)
• 1999-2000 3.8 L EGH V6, 180 hp (130 kW)

so the 3.3 is about 40% larger displacement than the 2.4, but it only has about 6% more horsepower, and 24% more torque. The 2.4 actually seem like it puts out pretty good power to me; I think it would be fine unless you were doing a lot of serious towing or hauling.

And this site is great for getting actual mpg figures (as opposed to EPA estimates which don't seem very useful usually):
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.d...0Caravan%202WD

It looks like the 3.3 gets typical mileage for a V6 this size, about 17-18 if you are doing mainly city driving, and maxes out at about 24 on the freeway; the 2.4 seems to average a couple more in the city, and between 26 and 30 mpg if you're driving mostly freeway.

I think I would still lean towards the 4 cylinder because I think you would get noticably better gas mileage, and the power increase of the 3.3 is not that great. Unless the 3.3 had a much better reputation for reliability; which it does seem to have a good reputation, although I have not really heard anything bad about the 2.4 either.

It has always been my experience the 4 cylinders are easier to work on, and maintenance is cheaper, vs. a V6. So many Americans though seem to just have an aversion to 4 cylinders and a love for V6's, even when the V6 is just not that great, like look at the 3.0, it actually has less horsepower than the 2.4.

 

Every 3.3 I've had regularly pulls 22-27mpg. The only time I was less than 20 is when I was towing. All the 2.4's never got better than 30 and then you only get a plain jane short van. The 2.4 SUCKS to do a water pump. a 3.3/3.8 pre-Gen4 is less than a 30min job. the 3.0 v-6 runs 2-3 hrs to do. The only maintenance that is cheaper on a 2.4 is 2 less spark plugs and 2 less plug wires BFD. It put a 3.0 up against any 2.4 in a drag race... the 3.0 will out run the 2.4 all day. The BEST fuel mileage van I ever had was a 1990 2.5/ 5speed. I milled the head .040 for more compression ran base timing @ 15°, free'd up the exhaust (no -cat). I was averaging 32mpg running 60mph tops

 

My first 3.3L went 220K until I donated it to a non-profit organization, I now have 120K on my current 3.3L. No complaints regarding this engine.

 

My 2008 3.3 only gets 19mpg in town. Highway trip averaged about 27mpg though.
Wish it had a little more power, but hey....its a van.

 

I think the 3.3L is noisy and harsh and I can't believe they are still installing these prehistoric engines in their latest models. People want refinement and smoothness. Chrysler are a sinking ship. I like the Dodge vans but would never by another not with that 36k warranty. This time of year it is just above 0F out there and I am lucky to get 15 to the gallon in town.

 

Lot of informative replies here.
Personally I would not care if an engine is a little more noisy or harsh if it is reliable and durable, but that's me.
I'm also not interested in "drag racing" other minivans so I don't care if a 3.0 ultimately has enough torque to make up for it's low horsepower to be slightly faster than a 2.4.

And just because a 2.4 has an unusually difficult water pump replacement (a repair that you might do once or twice if you own the van for ten years or more?), I would still tend to believe that most repairs and maintenance and parts would be cheaper and easier on the 2.4.
I confess pretty much no experience with Chrysler minivans, but in the past I worked for 3 years in light vehicle maintenance and repair; my experience comes largely from GM sedans with transverse V6's, many of which were a huge pain in the *** just to do a tune-up on the rear three cylinders, much less dealing with components, wiring, and vacuum lines that were back there where you could barely get your hands, much less actually see anything. And then the front, was usually pretty accessible, but you had to deal with the piping hot exhaust manifold.

But 92dak apparently indicates that the 2.4 has never been available in 96' or newer long vans?
And I am pretty much set on getting the longer chassis van at this point.

And I am not necessarily hearing anything bad about the 2.4, but I am hearing consistently positive remarks about the 3.3, so I wouldn't be hesitant about getting one.