Our '12 with the same mileage has had zero problems other than the stiff tranny issue. Our 2006 300 with 80K and 2010 Challenger with 50K haven't had any problems either.

 

I have a 2005 GC SXT with about 150k miles that I bought new. It had faulty body electronic firmware from the factory that required a couple trips to the dealer the first month. The AC lines suffered the corrosion problem covered by a TSB within the first six months. After that it has been largely problem free. Alternator went out at about 125k.

IIRC I replaced the front struts a bit over 100k. I think one of the front brake calipers is a bit sticky. I have fixed the power sliding passenger door twice. I don't think it's had a new water pump yet. The steering rack whined for a little while until I topped off the reservoir - don't know how it got low since it doesn't leak.

We had a 2000 lbs pop-up camper we pulled 10k miles over the Rockies with no transmission issues although I did have the fluid flushed at about 120k. It has a rust spot through the paint on the front drivers side fender and the passenger side rear quarter panel as a result of all the salt used on the roads here in Minnesota.

I can't complain about my 2005 GC or my 97 GC. Both have been good, reliable vehicles and have been everywhere west of the Mississippi in the hottest of summers and spent the coldest of winters here in Minnesota.

I'm out of the minivan stage of life. They were great when the kids were young. We use them now for our kids (16, 18) to get their driving experience since they are safe vehicles.

I'm not enamored with the boxy looks of the most recent designs. I don't know what Chrysler had done to cut costs since they went through bankruptcy.

 

Personally, I love the looks of the new one, and can't stand the looks of the old one, but that's just me.

Thanks for all the reply's.

 

Design goes through phases. What you refer to as "today's boxy look" is really just the decade old 300C rwd body design adapted to their van. The theme is Jeep-esque, anti-curve...flat, tall fender panels, high decks with chopped top and short windows. Not my cup of tea. The rounded, aerodynamic looks of the revolutionary 1986 Taurus were adopted by the whole market and popular thru the 2001 GC design. I also preferred the 2001 design. The boxy 2008 Grand Caravan design was a response to new Asian mini suv's and Ford retiring their van in favor of the Flex. That look is hardly "recent" and indeed getting old. It's just an oversize copy of countless boxy asian imports modeled by gerbils and such. Ay some point, the Jeep-like USPS boxy designs will vanish to be replaced by more edgy, but aerodynamically responsible looks found on the new Ford and Kia product lines. The edge design found on today's cars were popularized by Bangle of BMW who stole it from Pontiac and Cadillac. The Seville and Grand Am had much of today's looks well back in the mid 90's.

 

I don't like the old style at all, I think it looks like an egg going down the street. Also, I think it looks to much like a stereotypical mini-van.

As far as the new ones go, I love the GC, can't stand the Honda (the "lightning bolt" design I find incredibly ugly), and the Toyota is pretty decent, maybe because it's slightly more boxy.

One of my favorite car's is a Fox-body mustang, maybe that's why I like boxy looks.

 

A flat panel is pedestrian and bland, not stylish.

So an egg is ugly and a box is beautiful lol? Hate that Viper, classic Ferrari GTO and Ford Cobra....love grandmas 1980 K-Car and Delta 88 lol.

When it comes to performance, I'll take a true sports car with wide, lower profile design (like a Corvette) over a reskinned 1978 Fairmont. The boxy shape of the '79-'93 Mustang would be it's worst attribute in my book. A performance car is supposed to be steam-lined, not a K-car ish box. Boxes are best for US postal service duty. Same goes for today's silly Dodge retro muscle cars that sit high like a 4x4 SUV. Their hood height is close to the roof height of the original Charger. The fox body hatchback was a good bang for buck "compromise vehicle". It's cheap, accepts go fast v8 parts and capable of hauling 5 adults or a half dozen sheets of plywood. However the primitive sedan underpinnings, chassis flex and high center of gravity severely limit track handling capability. Been there, done that...way too many times. I love the sporty Honda. It is stylish, not pedestrian or bland.

 

I don't know how the current generations are going to hold up for the long run, but I know that the 01-07s were very reliable. My parents bought a 02 back in 01, and the only thing in the 208K miles that they have really had problems with were the brakes around 120K (and it was only a noteworthy problem because it took their mechanic over 6-8 times before he finally fixed the problem). The engine has only needed one water pump, the transmission is original (though it is starting to leak).

In comparison to people I knew whom had the GM vans and the Wind/Freestar, the Caravans were more reliable by a long shot. The 3.4L V6 used in the 2nd gen GM vans had both intake gasket and head gasket problems, they were not immune from transmission problems either, and one friend retired their Pontiac Montana with only 130K because the interior was falling apart. The Ford Essex 3.8Ls were really bad about head gasket problems in the early years and they ate transmissions for lunch plus had a ton of electrical problems and the interior falling apart. I don't know about the latest Toyotas other than I have heard of transmission problems with their 6-speed, but I know that the ones with the 3.0L V6 had oil sludge problems. The Honda Odyssey are well known for transmission problems concerning the 5-speed and it seems like the VCM version of the V6 tends to be more prone to oil sludge problems. Long story short, they all have problems.

My parents just got a 2013 GC for their vacation vehicle to which only has 4K miles. Time will tell on how it will hold up. I have my concerns being that the engine has only been out for a couple years and I don't know many people whom have had Chrysler vehicles with this transmission.

I like the 01-07 styling better than the current styling. In my view, the boxy styling is a return to the 80s and resembles GM's & Ford's first attempt at the minivan (Astro & Aerostar) which were very ugly in my view and no where near pleasant as the Chrysler models or the models that would replace them.

 

Four and a half years and 74K on my 2009 Grand Caravan and the only work I needed done so far were new front pads and rotors at 64K.I like the van a lot and its good on gas as well with the 3.3L for a minivan.

The other vans have had problems as well over the years with trannys(Honda Odessy) engine sludge(Toyota) for instance and you can find many complaints for them also like the above poster noted.

 

Amen. I curently own two GC's, a 4th Gen and a 5th Gen. I drive both weekly. The boxy 5th Gen looks like a Kenmore laundry or kitchen appliance laying on it's side. The more vertical fromt window, prominent nose and boxy styling is a primitive throwback to the '91-'95 2nd Generation Caravan design. The days of boxy highway vehicles that can't efficiently slice thru the air should be OVER. Flat panels are not attractive. The Caravan is not an off road vehicle, so it should not be shaped like Hummer or Wrangler or 20yo CJ series Jeep.

The 4th Gen '01-'07 design is far more aerodynamic, more stylish and it has more room inside. The bigger nose on the 5th Gen van was created by pushing the dashboard into the passenger compartment. How stupid. The van is smaller inside in every dimension. I run the front seat all the way back in the 5th Gen to drive, but I have two extra unused inches of rear adjustment on the 4th gen. I have to disassemble my bicycle or lay it on the floor to put it in the 5th gen. The same bike in my 4th Gen van will push in thruu the sliding door upright between the first and second row of seats or in the hatch behind the 2nd row. the seat does not need lowered and the handlebar bar ends don't touch the roof. I can put 4 full size adult bikes in my 4th gen with luggage and the 2nd row seats in use. The 5th Gen can't even swallow 1 bike without pulling the front wheel off. There is no excuse for significantly reducing the usable interior space or increasing the coefficient of drag.

 

I used to drive a 1990 Pontiac Transport, it was a beauty, never did anything but change oil, brakes and tires. Finally, 2006 we bought a 3.3 L Dodge Caravan stow n go, my wife and I likes it because of its feature, (seats folds under with out removing it.) our old transport have to take it out). The handling was very impressive, cross wind and wet hway dont have any effect on it. Cuts into the wind and steer like an arrow, at 180 km. it feels so smooth and steering was fantastic. I ve driven my friends 2006 Oddysess and I felt the effect of big trucks passing , and high wind. I think it also had something to do with the aerodynamic designed.
At 65,000 Km, my brakes starts to squeal, so I decided to change the front pad, then at 78,000 km my rear brakes starts to make some noise, this time I change the rear ones, its has -1/16" left at the rear pads.
Now, this is when it gets interesting, after 800 km I'd smell burning brake pads, I stop and check it out and it was coming from the rear driver wheel. The was so hot that i can touch it for more than a second... the smell was terrible, outside and even inside the vehicle.
I check out the internet for this brake issue, and what I found out scared the **** out of me, horror stories of people changing brake system every 3, 6, 8, months, and costing $$$ thousand everytime, and the freakin dealers, dont do anything to find out what cause of the problem, all they do was change the brake parts and soon the problem is back again, the cycle begins, again and again.
I took out rear wheel and found out that the inside brake pads was dragging and not releasing completely. The hand brake system was OK and was a separate unit from the hydraulic system. I took out the caliper, clean piston, make sure its not binding and moving freely in and out. I make sure too that the master cylinder cap was venting properly to allow the fluid in the caliper to go back up and release the pressure at the brakes.
So far Im going to close to 80,000 km and seems to be working fine. This is what was done since I got the van

*Oil change every 6,000 (add 300cc of miracle oil from Walmart)
*Oil filter every 12,000
*Clean Air filter every oil change
*Replace interior vent filter once
*Add 200 cc of miracle oil every full tank of gas (3,000 km intervals)
*Change wiper blades 3X
*Still have the original tires
*Original battery
*Original transmission fluid
*Original Antifreeze (Probably will change)

What more can I say, I love this van, Im probably one of the lucky ones. My friend had a 2005 caravan and same thing, no problem, with it. Maybe One thing that may account for this, Im a hypermile driver, no sudden accel, no sudden braking, I antisipate what Im driving into, the road condition, look way ahead of whats coming.
I dont push the motor going uphill and stay on the right lane, nice and easy. I allow my self enough time when going from point a to point b, this way I dont have to jack rabbit and drive like crazy to get there. I tried my best to drive as smooth as possible with no jerking from start to stop, not easy but can be learned.
Thanks you for your time reading my experience with my Dodge Caravan, it serves me well.