[TripleT]

For a lot of people it is a economic decision , while I like the GMC Acadia as much as the next guy I can buy a minivan for $22000 while you cant touch an acadia for less than $34000 .

Well I understand the sentiment as a consumer, didn't you just make the case why the Caravan is being dumped? Why use capacity on something with such low margins. Add swing doors and a snout and your suddenly your not sell to Dollar and Thrifty, your actually returning on investment

 

[UN4GTBL]

I disagree, your comparing the DART to the Minivan.... it does fit Youthful, fun, good driving dynamic.... but that said the 100 may eventually kill the Dart base.... The Journey I agree as it is today but not the next generation.... Durango are you kidding... what a great looking vehicle can be had with a Hemi.... fantastic driving dynamics... Aggressive.. if the next Avenger is on D-rwd platform whatever the name... I will actually do a dance and send you the video. The Grand Caravan.... fleet queen, stripper T&C, Grandma vehicle, Soccer Mom on a budget..... The Caravan has no place in the new Youth oriented Performance Oriented Dodge.... it doesn't fit even if it every did.... A couple years they did make the Short Wheel base Sports .... that was probably the only one that was close to fitting in as a Dodge the rest of the time just badge engineering from a past era.

The Dart, despite it's marketing flounders, does fit, but I would prefer to see a Chrysler 100 as well, and then leave the Dart with just the Rallye and R/T (and SRT) trim levels.

The Avenger kind of fit. Again, I think just the Blacktop and R/T trims fit though. A RWD Avenger would definitely fit.

The Journey, is getting closer to fitting with the 2011+ changes. The current Blacktop and R/T models help for sure, but I think a Chrysler version to take the base models would help as well. But apparently that doesn't matter because it "fits" already.

You say that the Journey in it's current state doesn't fit, but yet the next generation will. What do you know about the next generation that makes it fit? And yet, saying the Grand Caravan will never fit just because doesn't make sense. The Grand Caravan doesn't fit because they have chosen to not make it fit, and thus abandon it, not because it's impossible to make a sporty minivan. Maybe a minivan doesn't fit the traditional "sporty/performance" brand image. But a 707hp version of a family sedan doesn't fit the typical family sedan image either. IMO, there should be a next generation Caravan just to keep the name equity, but keep it as a mid-high end sporty vehicle (Blacktop and R/T trims only). This would still allow for current Caravan customers to return to dealers to look at a Caravan, however there could be a Town & Country LX that might better compare to their current Grand Caravan SXT. The AVP and CVP are great for marketing and getting people into dealerships, but I don't know how much a new one would be worth it. I think it would be much easier to transition customers if it was the customer's who chose to replace their Caravan with a T&C, rather than Chrysler trying to force the issue. The fleet T&Cs are base model T&Cs, they aren't "stripper" models because the T&C has a lot of equipment standard that the Grand Caravan has as optional.

The Durango is an awesome SUV, and I totally agree that it fits, but again, that's because they've made it fit.

The Charger fits because they made it fit. It could very well be a large FWD sedan with a generic name on it and it wouldn't work, or a carbon copy of the 300 with a Dodge badge, which is basically what they did to make the Caravan. In fact I'd argue now that the SE and SXT trims could go away and make way for a lower priced 300 LX again.

The Challenger fits, well, because it's a Challenger. The same with Viper.

 

[UN4GTBL]

random thought: the turbo SRT cuv, coming out a month after the Dart redux.. what if that's your new Caravan (sans the Grand, obviously)? lol

I hope they don't put the "Caravan" or "Grand Caravan" name on anything but a minivan.

 

[o_swas]

Can somebody clarify the release date? The article says this:

"August 2015: Launch of the 2016 Chrysler Town & Country"

and then says this:

"December 2015 or January 201[6]: First RU production"

So which is it: August 2015 or December 2015/January 2016? I see that those dates came from different sources, so is the actual production launch still relatively unknown?

 

[Dave Z]

I believe production launch is late 2015, while unveiling is August.

 

[MickM]

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

 

[bumonbox]

My apologies that you were talking only specifically 3-row CUVs.

I guess I still don't totally see your point. Take a Chevy Traverse. Same gas mileage as a minivan. Offers AWD option. Tows more (by quite a bit). Obviously a minivan provides more cargo volume. What else does a minivan provide besides the cargo space? What if that cargo space is overkill? What if someone values a little more style and AWD over cargo space? You make it sound like a minivan is a superior choice to a 3-row CUV. In reality, I bet that most people would rather be occasionally inconvenienced with a smaller cargo volume yet ride in more style, rather than spend most of their time riding in no style, only to have a little bit of extra cargo capability a few times, especially when they aren't having to sacrifice mpg and are likely getting the option of AWD, extra towing, etc.

Of course, some will value the cargo space over everything, and for those, they will opt to buy a minivan. But most people don't seem to be making that choice. Especially with many having smaller families and living in urban environments. Case in point, I don't think I know a single person in my peer group with more than 2 kids.

I am not sure in what world 1600 lbs more is "quite a bit". But it isn't mine. The tow rating of the Acadia is still pretty modest, and still yet misses the point. It's also about the highest tow rating in the market. Most of the competition has less, and it must be equipped properly. (Like anything else) And because of the design, will be no more pleasant to tow than with a van. There is a reason you almost never see the CUVs towing anything. I've already ceded to the argument of AWD, (although it can still be had on the Sienna, not that I'd bite). I've already accounted for the reasonable counterpoints you've made, and they aren't substantial. If you MUST have AWD and you don't want a Sienna, you are right, the Chrysler minis ain't gonna cut it. But the take rate of AWD is still quite low.

I think you aren't getting the entire premise of the invention of the CUV market. As SUVs became evil, people who didn't need what SUVs had to offer, needed a new option for something spacious - that wasn't evil. People didn't go after CUVs for their practicality. CUVs primarily supplanted the SUV. Not the minivan. The most notable decline in minivan sales began really when SUVs became so popular. It has tapered off, and been relatively stable for some time now. Since CUVs offer ride and fuel economy comparable to a Minivan, it may have drawn out some final minivan buyers, but you could easily trace most of these buyers back to SUVs. These people weren't towing, they weren't going off road. They didn't need anything an SUV had to offer.

You keep referencing "Style" Riding in "style". Define style to me? Are we talking aesthetics? Ignore the Durango for the sake of the argument, as it sufficiently justifies it's own existence. You are really grasping at straws.. "Because what if you don't want the interior space". Well, sorry, but unless you are going to be giving me a more maneuverable vehicle (which you aren't), I don't think I can envision hearing anyone saying. YES, PLEASE, I WANT LESS SPACE, I'd like to be more cramped!!! But, you ultimately aren't even countering my point. You want to ride in "style", or the perception of "Style". If that is the only justification, then you are definitely playing to vanity. You are definitely playing to image. Minivans are easier, and more comfortable (Getting in the middle row seats with complete ease and automatic sliding doors - that is comfort and luxury my friend, that can't be found on a CUV). If you don't need AWD - or a *slightly* higher tow rating. A CUV is the equivalent of high heals. It's fashion statement. For those that want to make them. Fine.
For others that don't find high heals comfortable, we'll stick to the minivan thank you. Over 20k of Chrysler minivan buyers a month agree.

 

[valiant67]

The CUV is just the latest evolution in popularity before it runs its course.
1) Station wagons are boring. We need something better.
2) Minivans make us seem like a dull family. We need something better.
3) SUVs are overkill for us plus they use too much gas. We need something better.
4) CUVs will do for now, until they are no longer the "something better".

 

[bumonbox]

The CUV is just the latest evolution in popularity before it runs its course.
1) Station wagons are boring. We need something better.
2) Minivans make us seem like a dull family. We need something better.
3) SUVs are overkill for us plus they use too much gas. We need something better.
4) CUVs will do for now, until they are no longer the "something better".

Spot on!
Amusingly enough, CUVs are more like an evolution of the station wagon than anything else. While it has taken from SUVs, I'd consider the CUV a combination between a station wagon and a Minivan when you get down to it. So much so that "station wagons" are all but dead - they basically all got taller roofs and people started calling them Cross overs. Meanwhile, the Minivans are holding on. And probably will. They already survived the SUVs, the CUVs didn't really really eat away at it anymore. Whether Chrysler chooses to stay the leader in this game thought, remains to be seen.

 

[dmcdonald]

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

Except, of course, that even the T&C will be an all new vehicle so any reference to the current van and its placement is nonsensical. Maybe after the new van is seen and driven opinions can be made but until then such comments are purely emotional.

 

[AHHA]

You guys have some bad info. There will be an abbreviated 2016MY RT beginning next summer before switching to RU in early 2016.

 

[Dave Z]

I kinda figured that when the revised dates came out. Means we have to change either the page name or something else...

 

[DAGAR]

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

So you've seen the new T&C and know that your wife isn't going to like it at all? What difference does it make that she preferred the current GC to the T&C. Maybe she'll like the new one. Saying you now have to buy Toyota or Honda is just hyperbole.

 

[bumonbox]

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

Kia would make more sense - lol.
If cost is a consideration, Honda and Toyota aren't good fits. Currently Chrysler is the cost leader. If they give it up, it won't be Honda and Toyota who fill the spot, but someone probably will. One thing I won't deny is Honda and Toyota, have priced themselves at a specific point that excludes them from the full range of competing. If Chrysler tries to follow in their foot steps, it will likely begin experiencing much of the same.

Chrysler kicks minivan [I should have my mouth washed out with soap for using such terms]. There should 0 aspirations to be more like the competition.

As one last addendum to the CUV vs Minivan comparison - I thought it was worth including this:
Chrysler T&C Cargo space w seats: 33.0 cu.ft. overall: 143.8 cu.ft.
Chevy Traverse Cargo space w seats: 24.4 cu.ft. overall: 116.3 cu.ft.
That 33 cubic ft number doesn't include storage space offered by the middle row storage bins.
Now I don't have stow n go, but I will say, when I go on 2 week vacations up to Maine, I pack that thing to the GILLS. I have yet to throw a luggage carrier on the roof rack, but I pack up 4 adults and 2 kids on most vacations, I squeeze all the suitcases, in the back and everything, plus I make sure there is space in the car for laptops and entertainment. For me, A CUV would equate to luggage carrier on the roof and / or more cramped space inside. Talk about riding in STYLE!!!!

 

[saltydog]

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

How can that be? I liked the Crew as well, but no leather option and getting the safety Tech cost about $1500(the only way to get Auto Headlights on the Dodge & must for the wife) so the price was closer to the 36k T&C. Also not Third Row DVD option or Keyless Go in the Dodge.

Our 12' T&C Touring-L was stickered at 36k, with the Rebate and dealer discount, I was at 32k. I have almost all the options, except for the Sunroof and power third row seat. Yes a Crew would have been cheaper, but can not be equipped like the T&C.

 

[JKU12]

I am not sure in what world 1600 lbs more is "quite a bit". But it isn't mine. The tow rating of the Acadia is still pretty modest, and still yet misses the point. It's also about the highest tow rating in the market. Most of the competition has less, and it must be equipped properly. (Like anything else) And because of the design, will be no more pleasant to tow than with a van. There is a reason you almost never see the CUVs towing anything. I've already ceded to the argument of AWD, (although it can still be had on the Sienna, not that I'd bite). I've already accounted for the reasonable counterpoints you've made, and they aren't substantial. If you MUST have AWD and you don't want a Sienna, you are right, the Chrysler minis ain't gonna cut it. But the take rate of AWD is still quite low.

I think you aren't getting the entire premise of the invention of the CUV market. As SUVs became evil, people who didn't need what SUVs had to offer, needed a new option for something spacious - that wasn't evil. People didn't go after CUVs for their practicality. CUVs primarily supplanted the SUV. Not the minivan. The most notable decline in minivan sales began really when SUVs became so popular. It has tapered off, and been relatively stable for some time now. Since CUVs offer ride and fuel economy comparable to a Minivan, it may have drawn out some final minivan buyers, but you could easily trace most of these buyers back to SUVs. These people weren't towing, they weren't going off road. They didn't need anything an SUV had to offer.

You keep referencing "Style" Riding in "style". Define style to me? Are we talking aesthetics? Ignore the Durango for the sake of the argument, as it sufficiently justifies it's own existence. You are really grasping at straws.. "Because what if you don't want the interior space". Well, sorry, but unless you are going to be giving me a more maneuverable vehicle (which you aren't), I don't think I can envision hearing anyone saying. YES, PLEASE, I WANT LESS SPACE, I'd like to be more cramped!!! But, you ultimately aren't even countering my point. You want to ride in "style", or the perception of "Style". If that is the only justification, then you are definitely playing to vanity. You are definitely playing to image. Minivans are easier, and more comfortable (Getting in the middle row seats with complete ease and automatic sliding doors - that is comfort and luxury my friend, that can't be found on a CUV). If you don't need AWD - or a *slightly* higher tow rating. A CUV is the equivalent of high heals. It's fashion statement. For those that want to make them. Fine.
For others that don't find high heals comfortable, we'll stick to the minivan thank you. Over 20k of Chrysler minivan buyers a month agree.

I was not attacking you, there is no reason to attack me. Did I ever say a minivan is less practical? Of course not, it is very practical. But the consumer doesn't always buy on pure practicality reasons, now, do they? If so, we'd all be buying Toyotas and Hondas, right? I think the majority of people will agree that CUVs have better looks to them (or the stigma is that they do) than minivans. Don't you think a lot of people buy on looks? I do. That's all I was saying. I was simply offering up some possible reasons why people would prefer a CUV over a minivan. If you as a buyer values the space and practicality of a minivan as the most important things in buying a vehicle, then that is the route one will choose. The size and space of a minivan though is overkill for many on a regular basis.

 

[JKU12]

Spot on!
Amusingly enough, CUVs are more like an evolution of the station wagon than anything else. While it has taken from SUVs, I'd consider the CUV a combination between a station wagon and a Minivan when you get down to it. So much so that "station wagons" are all but dead - they basically all got taller roofs and people started calling them Cross overs. Meanwhile, the Minivans are holding on. And probably will. They already survived the SUVs, the CUVs didn't really really eat away at it anymore. Whether Chrysler chooses to stay the leader in this game thought, remains to be seen.

Minivans peaked in market share around the mid 90's or so. Traditional SUVs took a chunk out of that, but minivans still were holding their own into the early 2000s. CUVs the past 10 years have taken another large chunk. I believe minivans were still 1 million + in sales as late as 2004, 2005? Then they started another large drop. CUVs really came to prominence in the early 2000s. I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say traditional SUVs took almost all the minivan buyers and they've been relatively stable since.

 

[UN4GTBL]

How can that be? I liked the Crew as well, but no leather option and getting the safety Tech cost about $1500(the only way to get Auto Headlights on the Dodge & must for the wife) so the price was closer to the 36k T&C. Also not Third Row DVD option or Keyless Go in the Dodge.

Our 12' T&C Touring-L was stickered at 36k, with the Rebate and dealer discount, I was at 32k. I have almost all the options, except for the Sunroof and power third row seat. Yes a Crew would have been cheaper, but can not be equipped like the T&C.

I haven't kept up with how they've messed around with the American packages, but in Canada, the Crew Plus has leather, and optional rear dual dvd and safetytec.

The lack of a Crew model in the USA pushes you to the $30k R/T model with leather seats, and you can option it with the dual dvd and safetytec packages for about $33k

 

[MickM]

How can that be? I liked the Crew as well, but no leather option and getting the safety Tech cost about $1500(the only way to get Auto Headlights on the Dodge & must for the wife) so the price was closer to the 36k T&C. Also not Third Row DVD option or Keyless Go in the Dodge.

Our 12' T&C Touring-L was stickered at 36k, with the Rebate and dealer discount, I was at 32k. I have almost all the options, except for the Sunroof and power third row seat. Yes a Crew would have been cheaper, but can not be equipped like the T&C.

Leather and auto headlights were the only things the T&C had that the crew didn't. Her van has sub woofer, auto level, duel screescreen DVD, and adjustable peddles. None of which were on the T&C. Not sure why the price difference, but it was over a year ago. My wife likes the Dodge better. She said the Chrysler is to ostentatious for her. I don't get her logic but she is the one buying the vans. I still hope they figure our how to keep both vans.
Mick

 

[vipergg]

Of course. But you're also cherry picking a lower end Grand Caravan with a highly priced GMC Acadia for your comparison.[/QUOTE

Yeah and thats all a lot of people can afford ...