What an accomplishment. A 2009 mini-van with 21 mpg instead of 19.5 mpg. At that rate we may have mini-vans doing 25 to 26 mpg within 25 + years.

Let's hope that other manufacturers will come to our rescue with light weight HEV and PHEV mini-vans that can do much better.

HarveyD:

I share your impatience, but improvements on the gas guzzlers are most important.

At 19.5 mpg, 15,000 miles per year: 769 gallons gas
At 21.0 mpg, 15,000 miles per year: 714 gallons gas

55 gallons savings per year per vehicle is a nice gain, and at $4/gallon you're looking at a savings of $220 per year. Now that might not be enough to persuade customers for this van instead of another, but if they can get another gain next year you might be looking at a $400 per year differential, and that starts helping people to choose this van over the less efficient one, and saving a "barrel" of oil with every customer who switches.

It's not a big number, but at those low mpg vehicles every increase of a mpg or two has a tremendous impact on total gallons used per year.

Now implement idle stop function and displacement on demand over the next model update and it might be a decent vehicle considering the size.

Sasparilla,

The previous large engine was the 3.8L V6, it's still available on the lower priced models of the Caravan and T&C. The mpg ratings are from the EPA and they significantly changed the ratings for 2008 so all vehicles get a lower rating. You will do better on the highway unless you really drive aggressive. I could get 26 - 27 out of the 3.8 in my 2003 Grand Caravan at 65 mph even though it is only rated at 23mpg in the 08s (it was rated at 25mpg in the 03s). I bet the current 4.0 could do that already since it is rated at 23mpg for the 08s also. Anyhow the 3.8 was fine for flat terrain but really struggled on hills/mountains, the 4.0 (w/ 6 speed auto) is supposed to be significantly more powerful and I would choose it for that reason. For the 2010 model year the new Phoenix family of V6 engines should start to filter into the product line up and include features such as cylinder cutoff and direct injection. Displacements are supposed to be in the 3.3 to 3.6 range for the current minivan. A dual-clutch automatic is also a possiblity. Look here for some speculation:

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/auto-manual-transmission.html

...except your 93 caravan was around 1000lbs lighter...

"Best in class aerodynamic exterior (Cd) of 0.33?"

I beg to differ- our '05 Toyota Sienna Minivan (powered by a 3.3 liter V6 + 5spd auto) has a claimed Cd of 0.30.

Its 3.3 liter V6 is plenty powerful (Toyota now offers a 3.5 liter V6). Our '05 was rated 19/26mpg at purchase (newer models are rated at 16/23mpg). Yet over the life of our vehicle we have averaged better than 21.6mpg -not great, but probably among the highest for any 8-passenger vehicle currently on the market.

Perhaps if Toyota installed the Highlander Hybrid's Synergy Drive powertrain in the Sienna minivan body they would have a home-run on their hands. Anyone (besides me) interested in an 8-passenger +28mpg minivan?

I have a 7 seat Renault Espace 2.2 dCi diesel engine.
( A largish 2wd minivan of about 1800 Kg).
It is 4 years old, and we get about 36 mpg (UK) out of it (in mixed driving) which is about 28.5 mpg US.
The newer models are about 10% better for similar performance.
It could be even better with some hybridization, which would be suitable for quite a large, heavy vehicle.
Diesel is very suitable for vehicles like this (and would also suit SUVs if people would allow it in the US).
Diesel hybrids would be very suitable for city use as you would reduce local pollution as well as increasing mileage.
As some people have mentioned, you would almost want to mandate stop/start for all cars after say 2011.

An 8% increase in MPG is good news.

It is not the best possible news. But we make have to wait a while for the perfect world.

Chrysler's problem today is their management over the last decade. That management dug the hole and today's management hopes to get out. I doubt they will.

With limited resources climbing out is tough. But one thing is certain, you have to sell something or you are doomed. So, dare I say it, you put lipstick on your pigs. And you offer what is ready, not what you would prefer to have ready.**

** More or less what Rumsfeld said about armies and war. The old guy admittedly was terse, but he was being pestered by idiots, aka, our media.

I have the 2003 caravan. The thing has tons of power
and is safe and great in the NH winter (seems like the
way the engine is aligned in the front is really good
w/ FWD).

I remove the seats all the time and carry things like
full sheets of plywood (also 2x4's, 2x6's). I also hav
carried my snowblower and a woodstove in it.

Now, I don't know if the average caravan user is using it like this, but I'm not sure you would get that level of interior volume and payload capacity in a typical
Euro-7 passenger. Granted I like the looks of the
Renault, but I just don't think you can compare the
average lifestyle of the U.S. to Europe. Here in NH
(and VT as well) we tend to drive a lot (not for fun)
and winters are quite demanding on vehicles.

I truly think of this vehicle as a "mini - van" emphasis
on the van. Also in this vehicle all passenger seats
can be loaded and you can still get luggage behind the
rear seats I this not to be the case in other vehicles
such as the pilot and some of the Toyota offerings.

Some of the comparisons I am hearing are not apples/apples.

The 1985 Caravan with a 2.2L engine and 5 speed manual transmission was rated at 18/25 using the revised (2008) EPA method.

If you had the optional 3 speed automatic, the revised EPA ratings are 17/20.

ToppaTom: Chrysler management.

My remark wasn't intended as criticism of any Chrysler manager current or past. I don't know a single one.

The meaning was more along this line. Their management today must work with what they have. And what they have is ultimately the fruit of past management decisions going back about a decade.

A major car company simply can't be repaired quickly. The product cycle is too long and operations are too integrated.

I doubt Chrysler can now survive as a major manufacturer no matter what team runs it. Even the best managers are not magicians. The US economy is weak - and I believe Chrysler has no significant overseas presence, their product is not popular, their competitors are many and more able to fund innovation.

That is all just my guess. I hope they make it.

So, assuming the big 3 make more money on trucks/SUVs (and don’t forget Japan is also making more and more trucks/SUVs) and since the market is still more or less equal – Where are the management mistakes? Truck/SUV sales are about the same as small car and BIG CAR sales together. Where’s the mistake?
The “management mistake” is (the geeks think) that people are allowed to make or buy trucks/SUVs because they (the geeks) don’t like them (well, I don’t like them either). As K does, I hope the big 3 make it. And I wish people bought smaller cars (and engines). I wish people drove less and more slowly.
I hope the Volt sells like hot cakes. Unfortunately “hot cakes” in this case means maybe twice as many sales as ALL the hybrids on the market – which is only 5% - ulp, that's no help, no hope.
The big three are in trouble because they have severely higher labor costs. If we could suddenly convert domestic factories to make small cars and convert Japanese factories to make trucks/SUVs, and gas stayed at about $4, the big 3 would still be in trouble, the quantities PROVE the vehicle type is not the problem. Oh, wait the problem is inefficient factories (old machines and processes). Right, I can just see the QM bashers on this site knowing more than GM about how to cut costs. Why must there be other causes than the labor cost. Others might contribute, sure but so what?
I just wish past mistakes were the cause; the cure would be easier. The cause is years and years of labor costs consuming the money that should go to new model development and R & D and sure for factories and machinery. Those labor costs continue as a burden and will accelerate the decline.