Talk:Dodge Caravan/Archives/2012

Previously unsectioned comments

 * The Chrysler Caravan or Dodge Caravan is a minivan marketed by the Chrysler Corporation.

I have question on the first sentence. The car is always called Dodge Caravan. I have never heard of Chrysler Caravan. The Chrysler minivan is called Town and Country. Is the name Chrysler Caravan used outside of the US?

I did a google search on "Chrysler Caravan" and it returned about 3 thousand entries. A random sampling shows that the majority are used in the context of "Chrysler Caravan, Voyager, Town and Country". I.e. the Chrysler part of the phrase is used to identify the car maker, not the brand. There are some foreign webpages that uses the term Chrysler Caravan. I did a google search on "Dodge Caravan", it returned over 196 thousand entries. It is not right to use the uncommon name as the article title while the common name is used for redirect. 196:3 is way too lopsided.

The article needs to be moved. - Kowloonese 22:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree but there are about 196 thousand pages that link here. Looks like a project. Rsduhamel 07:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Chrysler Caravan may very well be a Canada only product, along the lines of the Canadian only Chrysler Dynasty, which is of course, the US Dodge Dynasty. Something to think about.


 * As everyone in the software industry says, it is less expensive to catch a problem early on, it is very expensive to fix it after the fact. It would cost nothing if it were done right in the beginning. The person who put in the wrong title is now assigned this probject.  :-)  Kowloonese 22:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. I've fixed all the redirects so they don't double. --Milkmandan 22:03, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

FWD vs 4WD vs AWD
The information in the box at right lists the drivetrains as being FF? and 4WD. The Voyager (I always call this car Voyager because both of mine were Plymouths) was All-Wheel Drive, not 4WD, which is technically different. Also, with the advent of stow-n-go, the AWD was eliminated and the platform lowered.--Mm35173 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Explaination of Edit
I removed the line about it inspiring the Pacifica because it doesnt seem to be trueor sourced. Bok269 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First-gen photo
Does anyone know of a better picture that could be used for the first-gen Caravan? The wrecked one in the picture now doesn't seem very appropriate. 131.230.53.188 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Caravan
...I know it was mentioned on this talk page ages ago, but I just wanted to confirm that in Canada it is still known as a Dodge Caravan, not a Chrysler. The only Chrysler Corp. vehicles to have a name change within the last 15+ years in Canada were the Dynasty, Daytona, Intrepid, Neon (all know as Chrysler) and Jeep Wrangler (known as YJ, and later TJ). Jon the dodgeboy 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The negatives
Isn't there supposed to be a section about the negative aspects of this vehicle? What are its safety ratings and what significant recalls have there been? There is no such thing as a perfect car and inadequacies should be pointed out. --ScreaminEagle 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling this page is being heavily influenced by Dodge itself since the entire thing reads like an advertisement and clearly fails to mention any of the recalls, safety ratings, or anything negative in the least about this vehicle. It is heavily pro-Dodge and is thus not Neutral Point of View.--ScreaminEagle 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the article doesn't say the minivans were sold as family vehicles, but were classed as a truck. No headrest in front seats until 1987, No rear seat shoulder belts until 1989-90,no side impact beams until the 96 model came out. Mechanically unreliable, no versions are collectable including the turbo versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.149.111 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Move portions to Dodge Grand Caravan
This page should be divided, with some information moved to Dodge Grand Caravan. Since the Dodge Caravan has officially been discontinued for 2008 since Chrysler will only produce the Dodge Grand Caravan, it would be more appropriate to separate the pages into two, since keeping Dodge Grand Caravan information with the Dodge Caravan page could create confusion, since the shorter wheelbase Caravan will no longer be produced. Therefore, I propose a move of some information to the Dodge Grand Caravan page. However, unlike the split template states, I do not propose a disambiguation page; rather, a disambig link at the top of the pages would do. KansasCity 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would lead to redundancy for most generations. The differences between the long and short-wheelbase models currently need to take up no more than a sentence per generation, and some need no explanation. I just don't think the name is that significant, and "Caravan" is still part of it. IFCAR 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Under this logic, why not merge the Volkswagen Beetle and Volkswagen New Beetle articles? After all, the 'New Beetle' still has Beetle in its title and is just about the same size, and is one of a kind. Also, just so you know, the Grand Caravan has not been around since 1984. KansasCity 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely not my logic, because the Beetle and New Beetle share nothing but the name and a few styling cues. This is not about the name, it's about the basic fact that the current lone-article format already conveys every information, and that spreading out the information for the first through fourth generations of Caravan into two different articles would add absolutely nothing but confusion.
 * Yes, there were four (I think?) years where there was a Caravan but no Grand Caravan in the Dodge lineup, and now it will begin to be the other way around, but so what? What improvement results from splitting the pages? IFCAR 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The improvement being that there is a page that would be devoted to a vehicle still in production, and one devoted to a vehicle that is not. It wouldn't make sense to keep Caravan the title of a page when it won't be in production. However, the Grand Caravan will be in production. If you don't want to split the pages, at least move the current Dodge Caravan article to Dodge Grand Caravan. The only reason that I would like to see the Dodge Caravan stay intact as a history page is because of the fact it is one of the original Chrysler minivans, whereas the Grand Caravan was not. KansasCity 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fine the way it is. Anything else is needless confusion and/or redundancy. I haven't seen anyone weigh in to agree with you yet. IFCAR 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Likewise. KansasCity 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that the article has never been changed, or even considered being changed, is my unspoken consensus. IFCAR 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no point adding a Dodge Grand Caravan page. All a Grand Caravan is, is an extended Caravan with more legroom and cargo space. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the Dodge Caravan has been discontinued though? Only the Grand Caravan survives. KansasCity 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP AS-IS. The Caravan and Grand Caravan are just variations of the same model, no need for separate articles. Just mention that the Caravan has been discontinued. The vehicle model "Caravan" is still in production. Would we create a new article for red Dodge Caravans if they stopped making them in red? Of course not. BTW, both "Dodge Caravan" and "Dodge Grand Caravan" get you to the same (this) article in the Wiki search box. Truthanado 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as-is. Firstly, Grand Caravan isn't really a different vehicle entirely, just a different version, like Ford Taurus wagon, Ford Focus wagon, etc.  Secondly, Grand Caravan wouldn't have enough seperate notable information to include in a seperate article. Ejfetters 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep --&mdash; Typ932T 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page should be split. I know the cars aren't different, but they were when they first came out.  Split, please. 68.37.41.158 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Engine upgrades
Wasnt there a recent news of certain caravans with simple engine upgrades that made it really powerful?

I also think the negative should be brought up. Ive had plenty of issues with my caravan, transmission, engine, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.48.146 (talk) 16:56, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion page. If there are referenced global issues that have been covered in the media, then they should be included. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Chrysler Voyager and Plymouth Voyager
I think the cars are identical. MyWiki54 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Be Divided!
I feel that the Dodge Caravan and the Dodge Grand Caravan should be divided into 2 articles. Chrysler has officially discontinued the Dodge Caravan and is only making the Dodge Grand Caravan. If anyone divides this article in 2, the Dodge Grand Caravan Cargo Van should be included as part of the Dodge Grand Caravan. In addition, the first generation photo of the Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan is not suitable to be in an article. It makes it look like a Dodge car is a sloppy mess!68DANNY2 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. 68.37.41.158 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Minivan production
The first line of this section is misleading, as the long-wheelbase Dodge Grand Caravan with Stow 'n Go is now also built in Fenton, Missouri. RL (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there should be more sources for this section. Also, all the talk about the unions involved in the manufacture is of very little interest or relevence to anyone but the members of those unions themselves. --→ $JJOlsen$  22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dodge Caravan → Dodge Grand Caravan — The vehicle has been sold exclusively under the "Grand Caravan" nameplate since 2008. It appears that in early 2008 an attempt was made to split a new article on the Grand Caravan out of the Caravan article, but consensus opposed a separate article. So why not move the article to Grand Caravan in light of how the product is identified today, and have the article cover both nameplates? I should note that the name "Grand Caravan" isn't just a marketing thing, it does appear in parts catalogs (at least the ones I've seen) as "Grand Caravan". &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Grand Caravan" is only the LWB version, and the SWB version is more notable. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per 76.66.192.73. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I wouldn't say that either version is more notable than the other, I think the name "Caravan" can better apply to both than "Grand Caravan." (Chrysler still uses "Caravan" in some press releases.) IFCAR (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Dodge Caravan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dodge Caravan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2009specs": From Chrysler Town and Country:  From Dodge Journey:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2011 model???
Someone needs to create a section about the new 2011 model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikidockd (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)