Long-Term Test: 2004 Chrysler Pacifica

[BMWDave]

Link

[TBR]

"Worst Fuel Economy: 9.9 mpg"

That is horrible, this car would really do so much better with a V8, not only would it be faster but it would probably also get better gas mileage. I think Chrysler made a mistake by not basing the Pacifica on the LX platform, if they had done that it would be RWD and they could have put in the 4.7l or 5.7l without modification.  

[BMWDave]

"Worst Fuel Economy: 9.9 mpg"

That is horrible, this car would really do so much better with a V8, not only would it be faster but it would probably also get better gas mileage. I think Chrysler made a mistake by not basing the Pacifica on the LX platform, if they had done that it would be RWD and they could have put in the 4.7l or 5.7l without modification.

I dont think I've ever gotten that bad in my Disco...that is absolutely horrendous for a car based crossover.

[ifcar]

"Worst Fuel Economy: 9.9 mpg"

That is horrible, this car would really do so much better with a V8, not only would it be faster but it would probably also get better gas mileage. I think Chrysler made a mistake by not basing the Pacifica on the LX platform, if they had done that it would be RWD and they could have put in the 4.7l or 5.7l without modification.

I dont think I've ever gotten that bad in my Disco...that is absolutely horrendous for a car based crossover.

Maybe that was the day that they were doing track testing, at which point that wouldn't be so poor.  

[crv16]

Our Sienna gets 20-23mpg, and that's with mostly around town driving.

I just don't see the point of the Pacifica.  It's way more expensive than a minivan, has less room and is slower.  Not to mention the pitiful fuel economy.

True Market Value at service end: $21,610
Depreciation: $18,627 or 46% of original paid price
Final Odometer Reading: 33,965
Best Fuel Economy: 20.7 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 9.9 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 15.8 mpg
Total Body Repair Costs: None
Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over 24 months): $759.93
Additional Maintenance Costs: None
Warranty Repairs: 8
Non-Warranty Repairs: 1
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 2
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 3
Days Out of Service: 5
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: None

[ifcar]

Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity.

[TBR]

Just like to point out that compared to the Town and Country anyway the Pacifica isn't much, if any, more expensive.  

[ifcar]

Just like to point out that compared to the Town and Country anyway the Pacifica isn't much, if any, more expensive.

Not true at all, unless you're comparing the base 5-passenger version to the base LWB Town and Country with seven seats.

[TBR]

Just like to point out that compared to the Town and Country anyway the Pacifica isn't much, if any, more expensive.

Not true at all, unless you're comparing the base 5-passenger version to the base LWB Town and Country with seven seats.

Actually, it is true:

Pacifica 3.5l FWD Touring:
T package
Chrome Wheels
Stereo Upgrade
Rear Seat Video System
Sirius Satellite Radio
Side Curtain Airbags
Cargo Convenience Group
Heated Seat Group
Rear Back-up Sensors
Power Moonroof
Smoker's Group
Tire Pressure Sensor
Traction Control
HID headlights
Navigation System
MSRP- $38715


Chrysler Town and Country Limited:
Sirius Satellite Radio
Rear Seat Video System
Power Moonroof
MSRP- $37795

And, just for reference, Toyota Sienna XLE Limited FWD:
Limited Package #2
MSRP- $39670

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.    

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.  

[crv16]

IFCAR - in your opinion, how does the ride and handling of the Pacifica/Freestyle compare to the Ody/Sienna/T&C?

[ifcar]

IFCAR - in your opinion, how does the ride and handling of the Pacifica/Freestyle compare to the Ody/Sienna/T&C?

Case-by-case basis is necessary. I'd put the Odyssey and Freestyle at the top in that way, then the Sienna, then the Chryslers.

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

[crv16]

IFCAR - in your opinion, how does the ride and handling of the Pacifica/Freestyle compare to the Ody/Sienna/T&C?

Case-by-case basis is necessary. I'd put the Odyssey and Freestyle at the top in that way, then the Sienna, then the Chryslers.

Aside from subjective reasons, like styling, what advantage, if any, do the Freestyle and Pacifica have over a (top rated) minivan?

[ifcar]

IFCAR - in your opinion, how does the ride and handling of the Pacifica/Freestyle compare to the Ody/Sienna/T&C?

Case-by-case basis is necessary. I'd put the Odyssey and Freestyle at the top in that way, then the Sienna, then the Chryslers.

Aside from subjective reasons, like styling, what advantage, if any, do the Freestyle and Pacifica have over a (top rated) minivan?

The Pacifica? Lower real-world price than either the Odyssey or the Sienna. The Freestyle? Better fuel economy than all but the high-end Odyssey models, better handling than the Sienna, lower price than either the Odyssey or the Sienna.

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

It certainly beats the Sienna in the value area, if not the Town and Country.  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

It certainly beats the Sienna in the value area, if not the Town and Country.

It doesn't have a combination of those factors though. A Sienna positively crushes it in terms of interior space; it has almost TWICE the maximum cargo volume (150 vs. 80 cubic feet).

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

It certainly beats the Sienna in the value area, if not the Town and Country.

It doesn't have a combination of those factors though. A Sienna positively crushes it in terms of interior space; it has almost TWICE the maximum cargo volume (150 vs. 80 cubic feet).

I was never arguing about space, I was arguing about price.  

[ifcar]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

It certainly beats the Sienna in the value area, if not the Town and Country.

It doesn't have a combination of those factors though. A Sienna positively crushes it in terms of interior space; it has almost TWICE the maximum cargo volume (150 vs. 80 cubic feet).

I was never arguing about space, I was arguing about price.

You weren't still referring to "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value"? I'm having trouble following your argument.

[TBR]

MSRPs are useless in price comparisons. And the mainstream T&C is less expensive than the Pacifica anyway.

You just said that it wasn't earlier. And, Chrysler isn't the one that sets TMV, it is the buyer.

Comparably-equipped, the Pacifica is more because you can't get a third row without upgrading to the Touring model.

As to your pricing comment, what a load of crap. Why use an inaccurate figure just because it's coming from the manufacturer? By your logic, we should only quote manufacturer-released 0-60 times as well, and we know how accurate they are in the real world.  

A load of crap? Hardly, it isn't Chrysler's fault people are willing to pay a premium for the Pacifica since they are priced surpisingly equally.

Pay a premium? This is the difference (literally) between going $3K and $4K under sticker.

Yes, but they are still willing to pay extra for the Pacifica.

Then would the dealer not charge more? Thus, the Pacifica is more expensive.

Yes, but it is because people want it more. And, it still isn't nearly as expensive as the Sienna.

Irrelevent. I said that it was less expensive, and it is.

And then the Sienna is suddenly brought into the mix?

This is your original comment, "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value. The only thing to come close has been the Freestyle, which has succeeded in every way but maximum cargo capacity." I was simply continuing my original argument that compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't a bad value.

Also, fullsize fans arguably have a better combination of those three traits (they are cheaper and have more space, though they do lose out in fuel economy but probably not by as much as you might think).

But the Pacifica didn't beat it, it just came close.

And a full-size van would fit in there as well, even with fuel economy as a criterion. So I'll amend that statement to include refinement and handling.

It certainly beats the Sienna in the value area, if not the Town and Country.

It doesn't have a combination of those factors though. A Sienna positively crushes it in terms of interior space; it has almost TWICE the maximum cargo volume (150 vs. 80 cubic feet).

I was never arguing about space, I was arguing about price.

You weren't still referring to "Nothing beats a good minivan for a combination of space, fuel-efficiency, and value"? I'm having trouble following your argument.

I never mentioned space, simply because there is no room for argument. I merely said that when compared to minivans the Pacifica isn't that bad of a value.  

[ifcar]

If you're going only by features for the money, and comparing it primarily to the more-expensive minivans, it would be.