[Max86]

I'm considering getting a Caravan R/T, 2011+, mainly in the hopes of better handling, but am afraid that what seems to be a custom tuned suspension will make it hard to find parts for later on.

I've driven cars all my life, am surprisingly excited to get a minivan, but would like some responsiveness and handling as well.

That being said, is it worth getting the R/T for better handling or is the improvement negligible and i should just get a T&C limited (which is my second choice)?

 

[ImperialCrown]

Welcome to Allpar. I'd drive a couple of different ones first. They all actually handle and ride very well and it all depends on what 'package' you are looking for.
I wouldn't be too concerned with future parts availability as the wearing parts like bushings, shocks, struts and springs will always have 'sport/performance-tuned' level parts available. Tire quality often plays a big part on how a vehicle rides and corners as well.

 

[Max86]

I was thinking of test driving, thing is the R/T is hard to find locally, even used! Same goes for the T&C limited.

My point of concern with regards to parts is I'm the type to keep a car for 10+ years, so I like to buy cars with common components, one reason I'm attracted to the caravan's as well as the new pentastars.

I agree with tires, no doubt there! Just having a hard time finding a decent unbiased review, or comparison of R/T vs standard suspension.
Oh and thanks for the welcome. I knew the day of owning a Chrysler minivan would eventually happen, my dad had an 89 turbo caravan
when I was a kid, that thing was a blast and ill never forget it!

 

[Stratuscaster]

I'd actually tweet that question to Ralph Gilles himself and ask.

 

[Max86]

Excellent idea. Now all I need to do is learn how to tweet lol

Interesting side note, Ralph Gilles is a fellow Montrealer, I wonder if he still speaks French...

 

[Stratuscaster]

Excellent idea. Now all I need to do is learn how to tweet lol

Took care of it for you...let's see if we get a response.

 

[Max86]

Oh, thnx, I did it too tho lol

 

[Stratuscaster]

Then I shall remove mine. Glad you figured out how to tweet.

 

[dfarc]

I own a 2011 R/T and first of all its still a van! Handling wise the real only difference I feel is that it actually has some "stick" when driving, unlike typical minivans which sort of "float". Still gives a nice ride but a lot firmer and more sporty feel, if your going to drive in the snow you should get rid of the Kumhos that come on it as they are sh*t after the first winter. Interior is real nice with all black, feels more like a sports sedan than a van. The Eco buttons helps with fuel economy but does make it lazy, turn it off and that's when it has some genuine power though. This is my 3rd van and by far the best, I previously had a Grand and a T/C. Recently had gremlins in my electronics, see minivan forums, but hopefully that's done and over with.
P.S. you can check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StIJv4dJ0A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StIJv4dJ0A4

 

[Max86]

Dfarc, Exactly what I was hoping to hear, thanks a lot! Ya just a van, no doubt! Winters around here require winter tires, no choice, ill look into some god summers too.

Got a reply from Gilles too, said I should get black on black and put 20s on it lol

 

[gusc]

My '03 handles surprisingly well, way better than the '88. I was amazed and I own a couple of sporty cars even though they are antiques.

 

[Max86]

I was trying to find this online but came up short. What really is the difference between, say, the AVP/CVP and the R/T?

I read that the brakes are a bit bigger and ride height a bit lower, but the real details on the suspension seem to be only what's told to the media. Like "beefier" or "performance", are there any real details? Without going into the engineering of it of course.
ie
-Better springs?
-Better tires?
-Better struts?
-Larger sway bars?


Reason I ask is because the RT is substantially more, but if it's only for a few bolt on parts, I can do that myself for only a few grand. The aesthetic cues don't really interest me so much.

 

[dfarc]

I know my R/T has "bigger brakes" because when I looked into winter tires I couldn't go down to 16s from my factory 17s.

 

[ka9yhd]

I had a 1986 Dodge Caravan that handled like it was on rails. Very tightly sprung suspension as compared to the 92 Grand Voyager LE I have now.

The first time I put the 92 Grand Voyager into a turn at speed it scared the heck out of me.............. I thought it was going to tip over the way it leaned over in the turn.

 

[300MPerformance]

The 4.0 liter GC in 2008, which predates the R/T, has a performance suspension, which tightens up the suspension. That's another alternative if you are shopping.

 

[link3721]

I was trying to find this online but came up short. What really is the difference between, say, the AVP/CVP and the R/T?

I read that the brakes are a bit bigger and ride height a bit lower, but the real details on the suspension seem to be only what's told to the media. Like "beefier" or "performance", are there any real details? Without going into the engineering of it of course.
ie
-Better springs?
-Better tires?
-Better struts?
-Larger sway bars?


Reason I ask is because the RT is substantially more, but if it's only for a few bolt on parts, I can do that myself for only a few grand. The aesthetic cues don't really interest me so much.

I wouldn't say "better", just tuned differently. My wife says the R/T handles more like the Journey than the regular minivans. I like how it handles, always feels planted and there isn't a lot of body roll.