Comments on Profile Post by on3cherryshake

90s GM anything - especially the van - had serious issues with driver survival space collapse, floor pan goes down, roof line goes up, steering column impacts driver. DEATH - AVOID - see youtube.
Toyota Previa - AVOID - most unsafe van ever
Honda 99~2004 or so Odyssey transaxle catastrophic failure prone.

Toyota Sienna - it's like a big Camry, reliable
Dodge Grand Caravan - cheap to fix (usually, if it's not buried parts) somewhat reliable, they made enough of them.
Having Dodge or Chrysler with leather seats is like a couch on wheels.

Ford Windstar/Freestar - avoid 3.8L Essex engine like plague - head gasket warp/leak can take out bottom end too, 4.0 is OK other engines OK, pretty safe though for it's time, super comfy & drives like Lincoln. See Taurus/Sable wagon if you like this + has easier servicing + even cheaper parts/better availability/insurance.

U-body vans were very reliable for the most part but they were death traps, so pick something else please, or don't ever hit anything with the front over 35mph. Don't have any data on 2005 or newer (when Uplander came out, still same chassis, maybe they fixed it?).

Ahh, okay! I do like the Chrysler vans, a lot. Lots of personal expirience. I don't like the way early Siennas looked, later ones are too much $$. I doubt I'll buy a Ford, but maybe a U-Body Uplander. We had a 2006 Uplander LS, was really a truck with slidey doors :D

Uplander is the same van platform as before, with the Venture/Trans Sport/Silhouette, but with some revisions. It's purportedly safer - best to look that up though - but it's also shared with the Aztek/Rondezvous too (avoid those they're junk, wiring nightmares). Uplander had decent reliability from what I gathered.

Yes! Ours, while incredibly slow, had the 3.5L High Value V6, an OHV V6 that would later come with VVT. The trans started doing a weird slip-into-1st ka-thunk, but only rarely. Engine ran like a clock. Totaled at 154k miles because of some stupid woman in a brand new Equinox. She didn't look before backing out, just relied on her backup alarm.

A shift solenoid. A common thing on those vans. Either change trans fluid every 40,000 or don't touch it period. I got 180,000k (miles) out of my 98 trans sport, drove it years even after someone rammed me on purpose (they were doing 90+mph, I was doing 57, in a 55-zone single-lane almost up to a double-lane spot).

A shift solenoid works with 1st and 4th gear.
B shift solenoid works with 2nd and 3rd gear.
Without either working you end up in 2nd or 3rd, I believe 3rd, in a 'limp in mode' but trans will still go fine without a-shift solenoid. Pain to replace, it's at the 11-o-clock position, have to lower back of trans to get in.

DO NOT EVER USE LUCAS TRANNY STUFF ON YOUR GM TRANS UNLESS ITS MAJORLY SLIPPING/TOAST. Only to drive it to the junkyard if anything. Just thought I'd mention that, too. From experience.

Ah, I've heard solenoids go bad. Isn't that one of the multiple common flaws of the 5R55 from Ford? xD Those GM vans are built cheaply but they're pretty solid mechanically. If I'm extra lucky though, my first car will be my families 2010 Town and Country Touring - with the exquisite 4.0L V6.

Don't know about the Ford trans-axles that much, I've not had too many go bad. Actually, the only Ford Transmission that went bad in my family was the foreign-source 92 f250 trans. Last 260~280k miles though of hard concrete construction use hauling 1000~2000+ lbs. Torque Converter went out.

GM - yes, cheap but solid enough - interior will fall apart before engine will go out, trans should go 150~240k miles though, solenoids maybe not that long... 150~165k miles mixed driving. 2010 T&C has so-so reliability, super-comfy couch on wheels though. More options always = more stuff to go wrong @ high miles though!

So if you're interested in cars with 150~180k + miles on them, get cheaper ones like Corolla (what I got), Taurus/Sable/Fusion, maybe Uplander/Montana, Civic (manual trans), etc. Cheap with few features + manual tranny (avoid CVTs!), should be reliable!
If getting a VAN, get the dodge/chrysler, it's cheap + plenty of parts in junk yards.

Our T&C has been very reliable! We actually have that and a 2008 Pacifica - same engine, same trans. Very solid, really smooth apart from when you get on it and it goes from second to third. It's just the way the trans was designed, and I don't mind it. I can PM you a detailed explanation if you want, it's actually really cool!

Reliability mechanically is what matters to me though, I can do small things myself. And even then, my friend's mom is a mechanic and will give me free labor charges! I'm really, REALLY leaning towards 2008-10 Chrysler 300s, the 3.5L Limited and Touring models. Preferably the Mercedes 5-Speed auto, but the Chrysler 4-Speed was really good too.

I'm HEAVILY biased towards Chrysler. I'm most likely going to buy myself one. I'm the strangest car enthusiast ever. I like automatics and minivans. And Chryslers LOL!

So either Chrysler minivans (3.8 or 4.0L), a 300, or I'll take a 2008-09 Taurus, not the garbage midsize one. The Taurus that replaced the Ford 500, with the 3.5L Cyclone V6 and the (apparently great) 6F55.

I would also love a 2008-9 Ford Taurus, not the garbage midsize. The one that replaced the Ford 500. It used Volvo tech to build it. Great quality cars. It has an AUX jack too!! It's right up my alley and l love the way it looks. It has an Audi A6 window line! A big, cushy full size car with plenty of power and a smooth quick trans. The Cyclone 3.5L and 6F55 are great I guess! I sat in one and loved it.

Hey I had those garbage mid-size cars, they're good, just was basically unchanged for years. 30$ a month for modest insurance coverage and very little needed for parts, was a great car. Non-volatile clearance engine internals meant if you lost the timing, you didn't lose your engine too.

Chryslers were good into the 80s but after that by the 2000's it was cheap trash. Avoid most newer models like the Chrysler 200 etc, they're rubbish. Like all car makes, there's good and bad, the minivan they didn't screw up too bad, the newest 05~newer isn't most reliable, but it's far from worst. Comfy though!

Just do your research and buy something reliable so by the time you part with your vehicle, it's because you're bored of it, not because it's an immobile pile of parts and junk :) That's all. It's your car - so get what you WANT (that makes sense to buy etc).
Just don't get a Dodge with a 4.7 engine...

Ah, we're bashing eachothers cars now are we? Lol! The 4.7 is a fantastic motor, and I've had nothing but good experiences and read nothing but how solid they are :P The HEMI is great too, my grandparents had a WK Jeep since brand new when I was three and sold it this year with 150k miles, it never skipped a beat. It needed routine maintinence, a starter and that's it! :D

Nah I won't bash. Life's too short. Just be aware and speak with mechanics about the 4.7 before you buy a vehicle with one. There are good ones and bad ones - just like the OHC 4.0 = bad Ford engine & earlier 4.0 = good. It's about cost-reduction essentially.
In the end you must buy what you desire to be truly happy, everything else must sit in the back seat.

That’s exactly why I’m going to buy a Chrysler 300 Touring! (3.5L SOHC V6 and 4 or 5 speed)