First Drive: 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT

click above image to view high-res gallery of the 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan
The minivan is dead, so says GM and Ford. They've all but given up on the sliding-door people movers. But where two-thirds of the Big Three see a dead end, Dodge sees an opportunity. And so do Toyota, Honda, Kia and Hyundai, which means it takes more than a smooth ride and a full set of cup holders to compete in this tricky segment. Chrysler has therefore packed its latest Grand Caravan with a family-sized list of innovations.
Relying on a laundry list of features is a good thing, because if the Grand Caravan depended only on its looks for sales, then the minivan might be dead meat. The last time we saw sheet metal this flat and unadorned was on a UPS truck. Surely it wouldn't have cost that much more to put in a curve or character line here and there. And is that the same grille as on last year's Dakota? But as my wife points out, "It's a van. You don't buy a van for the aesthetics." True. It's what is inside that counts, and the Caravan has interior goodies galore.
Continue reading about the 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT after the jump.
Gallery: 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
Gallery: 2008 Dodge Caravan
Live Photos Copyright ©2007 Chris Tutor / Weblogs, Inc.
At the top of the Caravan's options list for 2008 is, of course, the Swivel 'N Go seating seen first at the Detroit Auto Show in January. The van's second row captain's chairs can turn 180 degrees to face both the third row bench and a small table on which passengers can play games or eat or do homework. The table and swiveling seats are certainly attractive features that will probably get quite a few families looking at minivans again. The second row seats can also be stopped halfway in their turn to face either of the two sliding rear doors, making rear-seat entry much easier for elderly passengers. Grandmother opens the door, swivels the seat to face her, sits down and swivels it to the front of the car. We see it as a bonus feature for parents of infants and toddlers, too. Swivel the seat halfway for super-easy child-seat access.

The center table, however, has its drawbacks. When removed, it and its pedestal conveniently stow beneath the center row seats. Removing the table ain't all fun and games, though. Dodge's people even had a little trouble getting the table top off of the metal pole. Maybe with practice it gets easier, but try it out yourself before taking one home. One other drawback to the Swivel 'N Go system is leg room. With the second-row seats turned backwards and the table installed, there's not really any good place to put your feet. Put four twitchy kids back there and a calm game of Go Fish can soon turn into a familiar match of "He Kicked Me!" But with only two rear passengers, those swiveled seats make great ottomans. Daddy could learn to like this.

The third row has a double personality, too. Open the rear hatch and use a series of numbered pulls on the seatbacks to fold the split bench into the floor. Pull them in another order, and the bench flips backwards for tailgate seating that's more comfortable than any bare-metal pickup truck bed.
All seats can be ordered covered in leather and, even with standard cloth, can be heated. The unheated cloth surfaces in our van looked like they'd be easy to keep clean and Dodge says they're stain and odor resistant, which all parents know is always good with kids. Rear passengers can also get optional rear climate controls and vents for each row.
But enough about tables and spinning seats – let's talk electronics. The Caravan's got that covered, too. There's an LCD screen for both sets of rear seats, and each can display different entertainment. The teenagers can sit in the way back and watch "High School Musical" while the toddlers can enjoy "Dora" on the other LCD thanks to dual DVD players in the dash, each with their own remote control. Through the magic of wireless headphones, Mom and Dad don't have to listen to any of it.
If the trip lasts longer than it takes for Dora to find whatever the heck she's looking for, two sets of A/V plugs let the little ones bring along their favorite video games. There's even an AC plug right there, so no transformer is needed. Mobile satellite television is also an option that our van didn't have.Up front, parents have their own entertainment options. Our tester was equipped with a touchscreen satellite radio interface that also had the currently-fashionable in-dash digital storage. Put in a CD or plug in a USB device and the system rips the songs to build your personal in-car 20 gigabyte jukebox. The touch screen is one of the easiest we've seen, allowing listeners to not only tune the satellite stations by genre or by number, but also by seeking within genres or even groups of genres. Another cool feature sure to appeal to families is the ability to transfer photos into the system from USB devices like digital cameras or hard drives and then display them as either screen-saver-type slideshows or as the dash-screen's wallpaper.
Our van was equipped with the backup camera that engaged anytime reverse was chosen, but using it was worse than trying to watch football on one of those 6-inch TVs sold at drug stores. We could vaguely distinguish the outline of objects, but weren't sure if we were about to hit the curb or make a touchdown. Maybe the camera lens was dirty, or maybe it was aimed badly, but it wasn't all that much help in guiding our back-up operations. It would have helped us avoid toys, animals or kids in the way, but didn't do much for navigation. Oddly enough, our van's enjoyable touch-screen interface did not come with navigation, an option that costs an additional $1,500.Other gadgets include a removable, cordless, rechargeable flashlight in the cargo area, power sliding doors and rear hatch, adjustable pedals and overhead LED reading lights for all three rows of seating. Multitudes of cup holders have rubber, dishwasher-safe liners and it seems no interior surface goes without some sort of storage bin – a huge bonus for our toy-loving family.
Caravan buyers can choose an optional 4.0L V6 combined witt the first ever 6-speed transmission in a minivan or the standard engine with which our tester was equipped, a 3.8L engine mated to a 6-speed auto. While it drove alright for a vehicle that weighs around 4,300 pounds, it's no tire-smoker, that's for sure. But if you're shopping minivans, you better come to terms with that already. It's a smooth rider, and will accelerate well enough to merge with highway traffic, but don't try to take on the Volvo V70 in the next lane.
The Inferno Red Grand Caravan SXT we drove through the hills of southern Georgia had a total sticker price of almost $33,000. Considering it can carry seven passengers comfortably and keep them all entertained for miles before the first squabble breaks out, that seems like a pretty good deal. But we need to spend more time with it to see exactly how well that engine does carrying more than a couple of adults and what kind of real-world fuel economy numbers it achieves. We're holding a place in the Autoblog Garage for one and will have a full review as soon as possible.
Chrysler provided the vehicle and SEAMO the location for testing. Autoblog does not accept travel or lodging from automakers when attending media events.
Photos Copyright ©2007 Chris Tutor / Weblogs, Inc.


![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)





Get a WordPress.com Blog




Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Wes 10:54PM (7/17/2008)
We recently rented one of these and the wind noise was terrible, I thought the doors or the back hatch was going to open on the freeway. The second row was meant for kids not adults. The third row folded down and made it easier for us to store our luggage. I think I know what the wind noise was coming from though. When we opened the back hatch, the weather stripping was was loose, really loose. Besides the wind noise, it was a pretty nice van as vans go. It had a AUX jack which would have been great if I brought my ZUNE along.
Reply
94 taurus owner 12:08PM (10/12/2007)
I like it, but the Town and country looks better.
Reply
johnny 11:50AM (10/14/2007)
This car is like a Japanese car that was melted in the sun, put in a butter wrapper, and reshaped through sloppy plastic surgery.
Its design is featureless and bland.
Repulsive enough to make me throw up.
Devin 12:35AM (10/17/2007)
Sorry, are you talking about the Camry?
Xcountryflyer 12:34PM (10/12/2007)
Pedestrian and uninspired interior, mediocre interior materials and styling--I see nothing that will challenge Honda or Toyota for the minivan crown. Thank God for fleet sales.
Reply
epilonious 1:01PM (10/12/2007)
Why on earth would you spend that much more for an interior you think is nicer in the toyota/honda when your darling little toddler thru teen is going to shred the bejeezus out of it?
It's about safety and wash-ability... not eagle beak. I rode in a5 month old sienna that had already been wrecked by a not-hastily-wiped baby emission of some sort.
Jared 4:29PM (10/12/2007)
You should see the interior for yourself. Being in the business not of the Chrysler Line, I had the oportunity to see the van from one of my buddies. It's truly world class. It's too bad you are predisposed to shooting something down before touching and seeing something in the first person.
phez 12:37PM (10/12/2007)
I saw one of these on the road a while ago, and it truly is the ugliest caravan ever; even moreso than the original.
Reply
epilonious 1:02PM (10/12/2007)
How dare the utilitarian box on wheels look like a utilitarian box on wheels!?
PatPurr 10:54AM (10/15/2007)
I love the new minivan styling. What Chris calls flat I say is creased with an edge.
FThorn 12:39PM (10/12/2007)
I agree. The swivel seats in my 442 made it a lot easier to enter the rear seats than a seat back that just leans forward. Plus, it's the BEST for swapping golf/regular shoes.
Reply
Hank 12:49PM (10/12/2007)
The Swivel-n-Go system is the biggest selling point to me compared to other minivans, can you say party van!!
and good looks is secondary in the minivan segment imo, you want good looking car? get a sports car.
Reply
paul34 12:53PM (10/12/2007)
Cool! A Dodge Caliber!
oh wait...
Reply
Vivek 12:56PM (10/12/2007)
The features are excellent. But that styling is so uninspired that you have to wonder if they did over a couple of beers.
Reply
Greek Boy 1:28PM (10/12/2007)
Horrible styling yet nice feautres.
Ford has had flip seats in the 3rd row for like 6 years. What took them so long?
The Ford Flex will eat it's lunch.
Reply
psarhjinian 4:19PM (10/12/2007)
The flip-and-fold is not the new feature and, no, the Freestar didn't have opposing seating. The Freestar didn't even have fold-down second-row seating. I think only Chrysler and (sort of) Nissan have that.
I doubt the Flex will have much of an impact on this segment. The average CUV holds less, weighs more, sits higher, handles the same (or worse) and gets similar (or worse) mileage. The Flex will get people defecting from the likes of the Expedition (who were already lost to the minivan market) but it won't sway a minivan buyers.
Yes, its boring. Its a minivan. If you need a cheap, effective way to haul a medium-sized family's worth of people and stuff, you cannot beat them. About the only thing you can fault Chrysler on is interior trim, but if that's important to you, the Sienna and Oddyssey are easily the equal of their Lexus/Acura siblings.
Or you could buy an R-Class, which isn't selling well because once you can afford one, you're out of the "Needs" vehicle buying group and into the "Playtoy" niche.
psarhjinian 1:02PM (10/12/2007)
The minivan is an example of just how badly the domestics don't get the importance of the mainstream market. Minivan buyers don't buy minivans because they want to, but because they have to. They also take it very personally when the product isn't up to snuff; it's not a discretionary toy that you can forgive becuase it has other appeal. It's an appliance and it needs to work and work well--if it doesn't, you can pretty much assure you will not get that buyer back.
The minivan and the economy car are gateway vehicles that allow a manufacturer to grab a buyer when they don't have discretionary income. You've earned thier trust and you'll reap the benefits when the kids are off to college and the buyer is ready to buy a high-margin product (or heck, when the kids are buying their first car after college).
They should be well designed, well-engineered, reliable and, most of all, they will have low margins. This is where the domestics generally have trouble: they'll build a good high-margin vehicle, but haven't either the stomach or the vision to lose money on one product. This is why the B and C-segment cars, as well as the minivans, produced by the domestics haven't been remotely competitive for a long time.
Ford tried to break the mould with the Focus in 2000, but couldn't stand the heat and has been pulling dollars out of the Focus since it's inception. Chrysler, to it's credit, does a pretty good job with its minivans but fails utterly with it's compact and midsize cars, perhaps because they know they lost that battle a long time ago. GM is terminally incapable of making a decent cheap car, preferring flashy concepts, high-margin trucks and halo cars like the Corvette and, well, any Cadillac.
By comparison, have a look at the Honda Fit. This is Honda's cheapest car and, granted, it has some hard plastic, but there's enough good stuff (the driveline, the safety features, the packaging) to hook buyers young and get them back when they have the money to look at an Accord, Pilot or TL. The Cobalt or Caliber, by comparison, are able to put a buyer off GM or Chrysler for life. Why give them your money now when they couldn't be bothered to make a good car for you when you needed one?
And no, crossovers aren't going to save the domestics. Saying people buy crossovers instead of minivans may be true, but the reason people didn't buy Uplander and Freestar weren't because of CUVs, it's because they were awful compared to CUVs. They were terrible products and people only bought them because they couldn't afford something better. Would you have bought a Montana over a Sienna or Oddyssey if money was no object?
Good for Chrysler for doing such a good job by the entry-level buyer. I don't think I've seen a domestic fight this hard in an low-margin segment since the aforementioned Focus.
Reply
Justin 1:15PM (10/12/2007)
"And no, crossovers aren't going to save the domestics. Saying people buy crossovers instead of minivans may be true, but the reason people didn't buy Uplander and Freestar weren't because of CUVs, it's because they were awful compared to CUVs. They were terrible products and people only bought them because they couldn't afford something better. Would you have bought a Montana over a Sienna or Oddyssey if money was no object?"
I don't know about you, but in reality, money IS an object. It's not about making the best product at all costs, its about making the best product for the money. So why are you bashing the fact that people can afford an uplander and freestar compared to a more expensive car? Saying people only buy a certain car because it cheap is a valid point, so how is that an insult against the maker of the "cheap" alternative?
Price is a consideration, not an excuse to insult GM or whoever makes the best bang for the buck product.
psarhjinian 4:05PM (10/12/2007)
The problem with the GM vans wasn't that they were cheap to buy, it's that they were cheap to experience, and thusly got discounted really quickly. It's not "bang for the buck" when you're piling on incentives towards the end of the year, it's financial suicide. As a manufacturer, if you're going to do that, you'd be better off to "value price" it at the start of the sales year and sell the product as-is, or sell a better product and don't drop the price.
With the likes of Uplander or Freestar, they had the gaul to set MSRP within striking distance (or, in the case of the Terrazza, above) the Oddyssey and Sienna. Then, somewhere below that, would be the market price that people actually bought it at--and Ford and GM would lose money. What they could have done would be to improve the product, keep the MSRP as-is and lose money anyways, but lose it on a respectable product and not take a hammering in reputation or retail. Yes, it hurts to lose money, but at least it's controlled bleeding.
What they did do, though, was produce a poor van, and try to price is with the market leaders. That invited the discounting, which is what made the Freestar and Uplander/Montana the bargain choice. This is the opposite of what the Koreans do, which is value-price a good product--hence why Hyundai and Kia are on a far more dramatic upswing, both in terms of dollars and perception, then Ford or GM.
It's also why the Sedona and Entourage are absolutely cleaning house.
Jared 4:37PM (10/12/2007)
No offense sir, but maybe shorten your posts. They are horrible to read and take forever.