[valiant67]

If the 3.2 is cheaper (I doubt that) or offers better fuel economy I can see it being the standard engine in many vehicles (or at least trim levels of some vehicles) where the 3.6 is now included.
If Chrysler and Dodge both keep minivans (we've heard rumors that one then the other is changing) it would make sense for a Dodge version with the 3.2 as the base engine while Chrysler would keep the 3.6.

 

[A.j. Schreiber]

I dont think the DGC will go to the 3.2, they already have the bragging rights to best in class HP so why "down grade"? I Personally beleive the T&C will get the 3.2 since it's rumored to be a little smaller

 

[codypet]

I dont think the DGC will go to the 3.2, they already have the bragging rights to best in class HP so why "down grade"? I Personally beleive the T&C will get the 3.2 since it's rumored to be a little smaller

Or the T&C gets a 4 cyl (maybe even turbo) with the 3.2 being an option. A la Journey.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Note that Toyota recently dropped the 4-cylinder option from the Sienna.

If anything, offering a smaller Pentastar may make sense as far as an entry level/lower cost offering. For the longest time the Grand Caravan soldiered on with less than 200HP in ANY engine and that didn't seem to hurt sales all that much. In other words, I don't think it's a power issue - I think it's more a price/economy issue.

 

[A.j. Schreiber]

Just doesnt make much sense why they would suddenly down grade it, they've made HP and torque gains with each generation so why go backwards? I think we'll see the 3.2 in smaller vehicles, heck if anythings gonna get the 3.2 it'll probably be the Journey

 

[valiant67]

Why go "backwards"? Because a couple MPGs is a big deal in today's market. If the 3.2 beats the 3.6 in MPGs by a couple, I think the 3.2 will see use in many of the smaller vehicles (and the plainer vans can fit that category) where a 3.6 is standard now.

 

[Doug D]

Just doesnt make much sense why they would suddenly down grade it, they've made HP and torque gains with each generation so why go backwards? I think we'll see the 3.2 in smaller vehicles, heck if anythings gonna get the 3.2 it'll probably be the Journey

With the price of fuel averaging higher every year, the push will be for fuel mileage gains - not hp and torque (truck buyers are the exception here). Think of it as a small efficient package rather than a step "backwards".

 

[A.j. Schreiber]

It'll be interesting to see the next gen of minivans, but you guys do make a valid point, maybe 3.2 for the chrysler crossover and 3.6 for the dodge?

 

[valiant67]

I'd expect to see a lot of 3.2s. You have to remember there are coming regulations that mandate a better overall fuel economy average. I expect the 3.6 will no longer be the base V6 and be an "upsell" in many car lines.

 

[A.j. Schreiber]

gottcha, well lame! I was liking the 283HP in the Caravan!

 

[NYBo]

Rumor has it either the GC or the T&C name will be disappearing.

 

[Stratuscaster]

I wonder the reasoning behind throwing away names with 25 years of good history. You honestly can't do much better with a name for a minivan than "Caravan". With T&C morphing - allegedly - to a crossover, I could see a name change being in order. Shame they wasted Citadel on a Durango trim package.