Dodge Caravan 2.4L

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
1,050
Location
Calif.
My parents are looking to buying a used Dodge Caravan (not grand version). I see a majority of them on Craigslist are V6 and few 4 cylinder ones.

We used to have a 1988 Dodge Caravan with the 2.5L which we got rid of after the head gasket blew. Other than that the van was very reliable and nothing really went wrong with it. Of course that was the base model which had no power locks or windows.

Looking into the 2001-2007 generation models with the 2.4L. Any input, thanks.
 
I have seen those vans go for sale on wholesale auction block with over 200,000 miles...used as flower delivery vans, taxis then back to delivery vans before going for sale. The problem with buying a base model is you dont know if the owners treated like a base model with contempt or treated it as their bread and butter sole source of income money maker. Typically the higher end vehicles are taken care of but we've all seen some pg-13 rated sludged luxury cars on here too...The 2.4's i see with head gasket issues are guys turbocharging them and using the factory n/a higher compression assembly, as the 2.4 engine does come as a factory turbo in srt-4 and pt cruiser for a handful of years. All up to individual vehicles you come across. Good luck.
 
I have seen 2.4s with extreme crankshaft end play.Dont know why,but that means new main bearings.Also,with a fully loaded (cargo,passengers) van the 2.4 isnt going to have the torque to operate AC and climb hills too.Keep that in mind.The 3.3 will get 20-22 mpg all the time,the stressed 2.4 will probably get less under high load situations.
 
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
I have seen 2.4s with extreme crankshaft end play.Dont know why,but that means new main bearings.Also,with a fully loaded (cargo,passengers) van the 2.4 isnt going to have the torque to operate AC and climb hills too.Keep that in mind.The 3.3 will get 20-22 mpg all the time,the stressed 2.4 will probably get less under high load situations.


The 3.3 is also a very rock solid engine. Not overly powerful but super reliable. The 2.4 is too.
 
I have a 2005 with the 3.3. Mine is also not a Grand. Had good luck with it so far. That engine has a long history. So does the 2.4. In a vehicle that heavy I think that the 2.4 would probably not provide any significant fuel economy gain. I'd stick with a v6. I know Consumer Reports doesn't speak highly of the Caravans but I think they are a little biased against American cars.
 
After driving my folks' 2007 Town and Country with the 3.8.... I can't imagine what it would be like with a 4 cylinder.

Now, granted, theirs is the LWB version that is fully loaded... leather, dual power seats, and even with the factory running boards... but with 6 people in it, the air on, and pulling a long hill... it gets ugly.

They've had their 2007 for a year now, bought it with 33,000 miles. It was a one-owner unit that was bought, serviced, and traded-in at the same dealer, and the original owner replaced it with a 2011 T&C.

They've already put 12,000 miles on it. I've changed the oil 3 times, and replaced the OE Bridgestone tires at the 43,000 mile mark. The tires still had plenty of tread, but the tires were 6 years old, and my folks are in their 70's. There was no reason to risk problems by running them any longer.

I've put an EGR valve on it. Only "surprise" so far.

The dealer gave us records on it. They performed the TSB on the rear A/C lines. They also put a water pump on it, and also changed the plugs and wires for some reason under warranty. The battery was replaced 1/2012.
 
I have a fleet of caravans for our business and I stay away from the 2.4L. While I don't have much to say negative about that particular engine, it does use a timing belt instead of a chain. I do realize a timing chain isn't necessarily free of mechanical issues, but spending the time and money on a belt replacement every 60K or so miles is an unnecessary cost, IMHO. As mentioned, the 3.3 liter is the better option. Of course owning a business, I look at everything on a cost/benefit basis.
 
Timing belt gets done at 100k. Overheat it and the head gasket will pop. Other than that...its no rocket, but fine. A bit underpoweref, but not bad.
 
I will consider the 3.3L engine just to have more choices so not to limit the choice to the 2.4L. I do like that the V6 has a timing chain and one less thing to think about the belt replacement.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
After driving my folks' 2007 Town and Country with the 3.8.... I can't imagine what it would be like with a 4 cylinder.


If you want a real treat, drive a 1991-95 with a 2.5L. I would think the 2.4L would be a power-house in comparison.

The old 2.5L was farm tractor simple though. You could just about do a T-belt change blind-folded and room under the hood was plentiful for a tear-down/re-ring/HG replacement. My brother bought a 1993 new. You'd just about have to hop out and walk along side it to help it up a hill with the a/c on and a cpl of passengers.

IIRC, he tore his down twice in his garage. Once for a HG, once for stuck rings.

Joel
 
Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
After driving my folks' 2007 Town and Country with the 3.8.... I can't imagine what it would be like with a 4 cylinder.


If you want a real treat, drive a 1991-95 with a 2.5L. I would think the 2.4L would be a power-house in comparison.



thumbsup2.gif
I have driven one. With a 5-speed manual it was........still slower than Christmas.
crackmeup2.gif
But when you compare it to the Volkswagen Vanagon waterboxer or Toyota Van powered by the 3Y engine, it's not that far out of place. They are all terribly slow. The Vanagon at least has a modicum of cool (esp if it's a Westfalia) and the Toyota has the implied Toyota reliability.
21.gif
But neither of those is easier to do cap, rotor, plugs, and wires on than the Chrysler 2.5.

The 2.4 feels underpowered in a PT Cruiser unless it's turbocharged. (or maybe owning the turbocharged model has me believing that the N/A 2.4 is underpowered) If a PT Cruiser feels slow, a Caravan is going to feel real slow
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
....But neither of those is easier to do cap, rotor, plugs, and wires on than the Chrysler 2.5.


Oh I forgot about the cap/rotor/wires on them. Talk about a snap!

How great would that be to have such a simple powertrain in a new vehicle today. Yeah, it's doggie, but simple and good MPGs.

Joel
 
I have a 1997 Voyager base model with the 16v 2.4 and 3sp transmission. It is slow, but in the short wheelbase low option model its not that bad. It actually has decent top gear acceleration on the highway due to the 3spd. I drive pretty slow but the thing always gets better than 20mpg around town, and around 26mpg on the highway.

You will feel the a/c compressor kicking on and off with such a small engine struggling to cool down such a large interior.

My engine has a remotely located oil filter so oil changes are a snap.

If I was driving around 4 or 5 people regularly I might look for a bigger engine but for 2 or 3 its a very handy vehicle. It can haul a couch in the rain, or take 6 people and their DD to the bar.
 
Originally Posted By: lpcmidst128
I will consider the 3.3L engine just to have more choices so not to limit the choice to the 2.4L. I do like that the V6 has a timing chain and one less thing to think about the belt replacement.

I'd say this is a good idea. We just traded our 2000 3.3 with 167,000 miles. The only situation where this engine was seriously lacking was fully loaded in the mountains. I'd have a really hard time going with any less power. Our engine was relaible except that we had constant minor leaks. I spent a $1000 replacing the relatively easy engine gaskets but could never get it drip-free. And while the engine was fine, we did replace just about everything else under the hood. But with regular attention to tires, alignment, brakes etc, the thing still drove very nicely when we traded it. One more thing: We had the Nivomat self-leveling rear shocks and they were the best feature on the van. I would not buy a Mopar van without them. Instead of porposing down the highway with the nose in the air and the rear dragginass, it rode nice and flat when fully loaded.
 
Last edited:
Nivomat!

Few people know about these. One of the nice features on many Mopars.

Self leveling without any hoses or pumps. Last forever.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Nivomat!

Few people know about these. One of the nice features on many Mopars.

Self leveling without any hoses or pumps. Last forever.

Actually I did find a Chrysler T&C van with Nivomat shocks that needed them replaced.

I think it was like $800 for both of them!
 
Replying to an old post here, but I have a Chrysler mini-van with the 2.4. It has 316,000 miles on it, and recently the timing belt tensioner failed so I am working on the engine. This thing is like a Rubic's cube and nothing is easy to get at. Changing the PCV valve requires removing the upper intake plenum. Replacing noisy lifters requires that the cam shafts come out, which means the timing belt and rear timing cover (i.e. sprockets come off) must be removed. In my case, the spark plug tubes were full of oil. Try changing the oil pressure sensor (normally an easy job on most cars). It sits right behind the passenger axle inner CV joint and is surounded by a tin shield that is dificult to get off.

I'd say these 2.4 vans are great until you get to the 2nd timing belt replacement (I'm on #3) or you start getting bad oil leakage. At that point they should probably just be junked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top