Chrysler Pacifica?

[VinylxScratches]

What are your guys' opinion of this vehicle? I'm not really into SUVs but the Pacifica strikes my chord the right way.

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/ctd/1300508536.html

 

[zerocool84]

Here's a quick little review from Edmunds:

The Chrysler Pacifica was one of the original large crossover wagons. In order to combine the driving attributes of a car with the utility offered by minivans and sport-utility vehicles, the Pacifica crossover had four front-hinged doors, an elevated seating position, five- or six-passenger seating and a choice of front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive.

Compared to other crossover wagons, the Chrysler Pacifica was relatively upscale and offered a wide array of creature comforts wrapped in elegantly chiseled sheet metal. Unfortunately, the Pacifica didn't possess particularly great interior packaging. While the first two rows were spacious for occupants, the third row was acceptable only for children and left very little space for cargo behind it when deployed. The rearmost seat does, however, fold flat into the floor in convenient 50/50 sections.

The Pacifica's Mercedes Benz-derived suspension garnered wide praise for its carlike ride and handling. But early Pacificas suffered from reliability woes and mediocre engines in a price bracket where potent and refined powertrains were the norm. Not helping matters were the large wagon's hefty weight and relatively unsophisticated four-speed automatic transmission, both of which took their toll on fuel economy. A significant update for 2007, however, brought about a new V6 engine, a new six-speed automatic for most models and updated styling.

Most Recent Chrysler Pacifica

The Chrysler Pacifica debuted for the 2004 model year, at which point it was offered only in base and Limited trim levels. The original base model was relatively well-equipped, but it was offered with fewer features and a lower price when the Touring trim level slotted in above it in 2005. At first, Pacificas were powered by a 3.8-liter V6 with 210 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque. Reviewers faulted the gruff engine, which was barely up to the task of battling the Pacifica's formidable mass, especially on fully loaded all-wheel-drive models. Given that early 2004 Pacificas also had some well-known repair issues, we'd play it safe and restrict our search to 2005 and newer models.

A 3.5-liter V6 with 250 hp and 250 lb-ft became standard on all but the base front-wheel-drive model in 2005, and the 3.8-liter V6 was eliminated for 2006, leaving the 3.5-liter unit as the sole available engine. For 2007, the 3.8-liter mill returned in the base front-wheel-drive model, this time rated at 200 hp, and a 4.0-liter V6 replaced the 3.5-liter V6 in all other models. The 4.0-liter engine cranked out a respectable 255 hp and 265 lb-ft, and it was teamed with a new six-speed automatic transmission (the base engine continued with the old four-speed unit). All Pacificas were rated to tow up to 3,500 pounds.

Base 2004 Pacificas featured two-row, five-passenger seating and were fairly comfortable, thanks to niceties such as dual-zone climate control, a power driver seat and a load-leveling suspension. Starting in 2005, Touring models received additional standard features, a much longer options list and six-passenger seating via the addition of a two-passenger third-row seat and the replacement of the regular second-row bench with two bucket seats and a center console. The 2005 base model, meanwhile, lost some standard accoutrements and was priced lower going forward. The best-dressed and most luxurious Chrysler Pacifica was the Limited, which featured cleaner styling, bigger wheels and a long list of luxury features, including an upmarket audio system and a power liftgate.

In Chrysler Pacifica reviews, our editors found the crossover wagon's strengths to be its exceptional comfort for four, sedanlike driving characteristics, top-notch safety scores and upscale interior. The 3.8-liter engine is to be avoided, but the 3.5-liter and 4.0-liter V6s are decent performers. Downsides include a lack of legroom in the third row and a lack of overall utility when compared to the top available minivans.

http://www.edmunds.com/chrysler/pacifica/review.html


They seemed to like it sand said they recommend 05+ as the 04 had problems and bad engine and you're looking at an 05 which should be good. They said it has an upscale interior and drives well. Get it if it's priced right but everyone here will tell you not to as it's Chrysler but I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[BATCH71]

Wife has one. She LOVES it.

I find it to small for our family of 5 and the SOB eats tie rods like pretzel sticks.

I have had to replace them 3 times. Last time was last month. 2 outers, 1 inner.

Beware the tie rods and enjoy. Other than that its quite a nice car

Dave

 

[SparkyJJO]

My parents have an 06. It has nearly 50k miles on it already :Q My mom drives a lot. No issues at all with it yet.

 

[iamwiz82]

My Dad had one for a short while as a company car. Excellent vehicle, IMHO. They are dirt cheap, too. I was in it for a 1,300 mile drive and it was extremely comfortable.

 

[SAWYER]

We bought an 07 a few months ago. No issues here besides the gas mileage

 

[zoiks]

I rented the Pacifica a few times and I always liked em. Really nice inside and out.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Had one as a rental!

Comfy, good power, plenty of cargo space, looks nice.

Get one with the new 4.0L V6 & 6spd auto over the old 3.5l 4spd auto configuration.

 

[EvilYoda]

My family rented two on two separate vacations and ended up leasing one (2006 MY?). I've always thought it was a good car, but you definitely have to get the 4.0L. Great for families, tons of space, and newer ones have a backup camera to take care of the fact that you can't see anything backing up (like small children, bikes in the driveway, etc.), which was one of the main complaints.

 

[FDF12389]

Used to drive my bosses as a company car, I liked it alot, pretty poor gas mileage though.

 

[StageLeft]

That is quite cheap for only 37k.

 

[iamwiz82]

Just checked your link. That one is absolutely stripped. It's the 5 passenger version, as well.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Fmr12B
Had one as a rental!

Comfy, good power, plenty of cargo space, looks nice.

Get one with the new 4.0L V6 & 6spd auto over the old 3.5l 4spd auto configuration.

Yes, this. Parents' only is the 3.5L 4spd auto and it does feel a little lacking in power (of course I'm used to driving my Camaro). The 4.0L 6spd auto has more get up and go and also gets better gas mileage too.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
What are your guys' opinion of this vehicle? I'm not really into SUVs but the Pacifica strikes my chord the right way.

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/ctd/1300508536.html

If you're a chick, that should be perfect.

 

[NoCreativity]

A couple guys at work bought them and love them. Neither has had any issues.

 

[VinylxScratches]

Is the 3.8 that much slower compared to the 4.0? Do you guys really count this as a girly car?

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
Is the 3.8 that much slower compared to the 4.0? Do you guys really count this as a girly car?

Read the review I posted from Edmunds.

 

[VinylxScratches]

Woah, I missed that part. THanks.

 

[daw123]

May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

Nope, we know nothing about power and torque:
http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk...ance/specification.htm

btw it took me a while to come up with a UK manufactured and designed car which was a V6 (I was originally thinking TVR, but they are mostly V8s+). That just shows how sad the UK-based car industry is.

ah heck it used a Corvette transmission. And it was based on a GM body and engine... oh I give up

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

Nope, we know nothing about power and torque:
http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk...ance/specification.htm

btw it took me a while to come up with a UK manufactured and designed car which was a V6 (I was originally thinking TVR, but they are mostly V8s+). That just shows how sad the UK-based car industry is.

ah heck it used a Corvette transmission. And it was based on a GM body and engine... oh I give up

You are comparing these cars to a minivan. Just went on Ford UK's site, the only car I could find with more torque was the Focus RS. There are a few commercial vehicles though

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

Nope, we know nothing about power and torque:
http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk...ance/specification.htm

btw it took me a while to come up with a UK manufactured and designed car which was a V6 (I was originally thinking TVR, but they are mostly V8s+). That just shows how sad the UK-based car industry is.

ah heck it used a Corvette transmission. And it was based on a GM body and engine... oh I give up

You're comparing performance engines to an engine in a regular "family" car??? That makes no sense. People don't put performance engines in a regular family car. It's more about reliability and producing more low end grunt which a larger engine would provide.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

Nope, we know nothing about power and torque:
http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk...ance/specification.htm

btw it took me a while to come up with a UK manufactured and designed car which was a V6 (I was originally thinking TVR, but they are mostly V8s+). That just shows how sad the UK-based car industry is.

ah heck it used a Corvette transmission. And it was based on a GM body and engine... oh I give up

You're comparing performance engines to an engine in a regular "family" car??? That makes no sense. People don't put performance engines in a regular family car. It's more about reliability and producing more low end grunt which a larger engine would provide.

I was joking along with a little bit of shock in my previous post at how crap the UK car industry is, or was or will ever be since it is now pretty much none existent.

Unless you want an in-depth comparision between the Pacifica and a Carlton Lotus?

And in my my google seraches, I've found that 255BHP is not bad for 4.0l V6 engine.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: daw123
May be I'm wrong but isn't 255BHP from a 4.0l V6 pretty shit on a power / capacity view point. Is that classed as 'respectable' for a US car?

I'm looking at this from a UK car viewpoint, though.

Torque, look it up, you don't get much of that over in the UK .

Nope, we know nothing about power and torque:
http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk...ance/specification.htm

btw it took me a while to come up with a UK manufactured and designed car which was a V6 (I was originally thinking TVR, but they are mostly V8s+). That just shows how sad the UK-based car industry is.

ah heck it used a Corvette transmission. And it was based on a GM body and engine... oh I give up

You're comparing performance engines to an engine in a regular "family" car??? That makes no sense. People don't put performance engines in a regular family car. It's more about reliability and producing more low end grunt which a larger engine would provide.

I was joking along with a little bit of shock in my previous post at how crap the UK car industry is, or was or will ever be since it is now pretty much none existent.

Unless you want an in-depth comparision between the Pacifica and a Carlton Lotus?

And in my my google seraches, I've found that 255BHP is not bad for 4.0l V6 engine.

My comment was not a dig on British cars, I was digging on cars sold in the UK. I like British cars, in fact.