mkaresh's Full Review: 2005 Chrysler Town & Country
Chrysler invented the front-wheel-drive minivan as we know it and for years held more than 50 percent of the market. In recent years, however, there have been many new entrants into this category, many of them with innovative features. As a result, DaimlerChrysler's share of this important market continued to decline even after redesigned vans were introduced three years ago. The new vans had a number of new features, including a trick console and three power doors, but lacked a third row that stowed beneath the floor. This last feature has contributed heavily to popularity of Honda’s Odyssey, which continues to gain sales, and it is now also available from Toyota, Nissan, and Ford.
Figuring that it had to respond as soon as possible, Chrysler introduced its 2005 minivans in early March. The long wheelbase 2005s do the competition one better: not only does their third row stow beneath the floor, but their second row does as well.
A 2005 prototype I examined at the Detroit auto show suggested that the new standard seating system was very innovative, but that their might be seat comfort and build quality issues. Were this issues fixed for the regular production vans? Does the 2005 have what it takes to make Chrysler once again the segment’s top innovative and reverse its loss of share? To find out I examined a regular production 2005 at the dealer.
Chrysler Town & Country Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Town & Country rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
To my eye the Chrysler remains the most attractively styled minivan. Its lines are conventional, but clean and elegant, especially in the available black metallic paint. In comparison, the Honda’s styling is plain and boxy and the Toyota’s styling is awkward. The Nissan offers refreshingly unconventional, sportier styling.
For 2005 the Chrysler receives a restyled front end, but the change is minimal. I cannot decide if I like the 2004 or 2005 front end better. Either is a bit too round and formless.
Inside the Chrysler’s styling is at least adequate, with sophisticated instrument graphics adding a touch of class. In the upper trim lines the seats continue to be upholstered in either a heavy grained leather (Touring) or a combination of this leather and suede (Limited). Both are attractive. I especially like the leather in the Touring. In either trim the Chrysler’s interior is the most upscale of any minivan. For 2005 the trim on the dash and doors has been revised for a higher-quality, even more upscale look and feel. Fashionable faux metal bits further improve the interior’s ambiance. I personally prefer the Touring, which does without the Limited’s fairly convincing faux wood.
Some of the minor controls on the instrument panel continue to look and feel a bit below par, but these somehow troubled me less than in earlier years. On the 2001 through 2004 vans the lids for the storage bins in the third row (not exactly the most visible spot in the van) felt especially cheap. For 2005 the rear sidewall panels have been redesigned, and these lids are gone. In their place are deep open wells. These are probably more functional, and likely allowed Chrysler to spend a few pennies elsewhere.
Only the new Toyota offers an arguably nicer interior (though GM claims it has vastly upgraded the interiors of its revamped 2005 minvans, due this fall). The Honda’s interior is high in quality, but plain in appearance. The same can be said of the new Ford Freestar, but to a lesser extent on both counts. The Nissan Quest features far greater lapses in material quality than the Chrysler.
Accommodations
The front seats in the Chrysler are very comfortable. Oddly, they offer a generous amount of lateral support, something I have often wished for in the brand’s cars (the upcoming Hemi-powered 300 included). The driving position is excellent. An extraordinarily low cowl and beltline (base on the windows) make for extremely good visibility all-around, and especially forward. Minivans tend to do well in this area, but the Chrysler is the best by a significant margin. You hardly see the hood.
I once wondered if the Town & Country and Pacifica would feel the same given their similar dimensions. Not at all. The Pacifica interior feels much tighter and much less airy. So if an airy cabin ambiance is your thing, the Town & Country requires consideration.
Given the low instrument panel, it helps that Chrysler has angled the controls up towards the driver. Very thoughtful. They are easy to reach and operate, a refreshing contrast to the odd, difficult to reach and operate controls in the Nissan Quest.
Accommodations are not so good in back. Although the much sturdier feeling seats in the production van largely allay my concerns based on those in the prototype, some issues remain. The Chrysler’s second row seats have always been a bit undersized and too low to the floor—both common issues with minivans. The 2005’s are even smaller to enable them to fold into underfloor storage compartments.
When the headrests are in their lowest position they jab an adult in the shoulder blades. For decent comfort and safety they must be raised substantially. The same goes for the Chrysler’s third row headrests—and the third row headrests in the Ford and Toyota as well. All three avoided the need to remove the headrests before folding the seat—a requirement with the Honda and Nissan—through an unusually low seatback. The difference with the Chrysler is this was done in the second row as well. At least the headrests are very easy to adjust. To lower them, just press a button and gravity does the rest.
To Chrysler’s credit, once the headrests are raised the second-row buckets feel very good considering their size (Chrysler credits high-tech foam), but a full-size seat would be better still. A continuing issue with the Chrysler’s second row: there is little space for feet under the driver’s seat, compromising legroom. The second row seats can be slid backward to increase legroom, but this robs legroom from the third row.
Aesthetically, when upholstered in leather the seats at least look nicer and more inviting than the unattractively thin and flat units in most minivans.
The third-row seat is nice and wide, unlike that in the Ford. However, as in past years it is not especially comfortable, and if the second row is not all the way forward (or even better, folded beneath the floor) legroom is limited for adults. The seat remains too low to the floor, but a sharp upward rake to the cushion marginally improves thigh support over the 2004.
As it stands, the Honda van is the champ for room and comfort in all three rows, with the Nissan second and the Toyota third. (Though there are similar legroom issues in the Sienna). The Chrysler is in the ballpark, but clearly not the leader in this area. The Ford has a third row that is marginal for adults, putting it in last among those mentioned here.
For 2005 both a navigation system and a rear seat video system are available.
The 2004 Chrysler offered a class-leading amount of cargo room if you’re willing to remove and store the heavy, bulky seats. But of course you’re not, right? The 2005 offers nearly as much cargo volume—at 165 cubic feet just a couple fewer than the 2004 and nearly 20 more than the three imports—and adds to this class-leading versatility.
Each second-row seat folds into an under-floor bin. Nissan offers a fold-flat second row, but the Chrysler solution is superior in at least two ways. First, it results in a totally flat floor with no open nooks and crannies for small items to fall into. Second, when the bins are not in use they can each hold a good amount of stuff (they are 33 inches long, 25 inches wide, and nearly ten inches deep).
The third row also leads the segment in versatility. First, like the Toyota but none of the others it is split 60/40. Second, in addition to being stowable beneath the floor these sections can be flipped 90 degrees for tailgating (like the one-piece seats in the Ford and Mazda). Unlike in the Nissan the tether strap is designed so there’s no danger of damaging your hand. Especially compared to the Nissan folding the Chrysler’s seat beneath the floor is much easier, both due to a more intelligent mechanism and the lower weight of the separate sections compared to a one-piece bench.
The third row seat’s compartment can also be used for storage when the seat is upright. Together, the three compartments offer 12 cubic feet of hidden storage capacity, nearly as much as the average sedan.
The nifty removable console can no longer be placed in the second row, as it is not compatible with the new seat system. A modular overhead storage system is a new option. Power sliding doors and power tailgate continue to be available. There are also at least six power points scattered about the interior.
An odd omission: unlike in the Sienna and a growing number of other vehicles, the front passenger seat does not fold forward to enable extra-long objects to be carried. I suspect this feature will be added within a year or two. If your mission is to create the most versatile interior, why do the hard part, getting the second row into the floor, and not this?
Overall, the 2005 Chrysler is by a substantial margin the segment leader in cargo volume and versatility. While others were looking for incremental improvements, Chrysler has successfully reinvented the minivan interior. Unless Honda has done the same for its own 2005, due this fall, it should be in a good position for the next few years.
On the Road
Performance changes little if any for 2005, as there were no major powertrain or chassis changes (with one exception). The revised van is about 150 pounds heavier, but this is not a substantial percentage change.
The Japanese power their large minivans with nifty four-valve-per-cylinder engines of between 3.3 and 3.5 liters. The Chrysler overhead-valve 3.8-liter V6 is antiquated in comparison, and on paper appears down on power. Its power peaks at 215 horsepower, while the import engines produce between 225 and 240. Well, peak power is not everything. Up to 4000 RPM—as high as most minivan engines venture much of the time—the Chrysler engine produces at least as much power as the Japanese engines. As a result, it feels plenty powerful in normal driving. In full throttle acceleration, especially at highway speeds, the Honda and Toyota have an advantage.
More of an issue than the engine is the transmission. The Chrysler four-speed unit is down a ratio compared to those in the Honda, Toyota, and top-line Nissan. A fifth ratio would aid performance and fuel economy. Hopefully one is on the way.
The one major change for 2005 is that all-wheel-drive will no longer be an option. Creating the storage wells for the seats eliminated space for a driveshaft. If you want a stowable seat and all-wheel-drive, head to your Toyota dealer. Toyota found space for the driveshaft by eliminating the spare tire on its all-wheel-drive vans. Chrysler was apparently unwilling to take this step. If a third row that folds flat on top of the floor is acceptable, GM also offers vans with this combination of features. (The GM vans are also being revamped for 2005. The most significant changes are uglier exteriors and higher quality interiors.)
I suppose Chrysler dealers will recommend that people who want all-wheel-drive buy the Pacifica. The Pacifica is more stylish and seats six, but like a midsize SUV offers only about half as much cargo volume. As I’ve already mentioned, it feels much different than the Town & Country, which will be good or bad depending on your personal preferences.
The Chrysler handles well for a minivan, even if it lacks the independent rear suspension of some competitors. The steering wheel has a natural feel to it, with a progressive gain in effort as it is turned. Feedback is decent, especially for this class. Best of all, the Chrysler has an agile feel to it lacking in most minivans. Together with the excellent forward visibility, I found it the easiest to drive coming out of a compact car. The Honda is next best in this area, the Ford the worst.
The Chrysler rides smoothly and quietly, even more so for 2005 than last year (Chrysler claims a 16 percent reduction in noise). The Toyota is probably the best in this area, and the Ford also does well until it hits seriously bad pavement, where the overly loose suspension tuning takes its toll. Others complain about road noise in the Honda, but I also find it more than acceptable. The Nissan, in contrast, felt and sounded less solid and smooth than the others.
Safety
To match the competition in safety (Chrysler expects five stars all around) the 2005 features a strengthened front structure and available three-row curtain airbags. (The latter eliminate the ceiling-mounted assist handles and are not available with the sunroof, though.) Stability control, available on the Toyota and Nissan, is still not an option. If you regularly drive on slick, curvy roads, one of these vans is probably better.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
For example, using TrueDelta to compare the T&C and Odyssey with leather, curtain airbags, and CD changer yields a $500 advantage for the Chrysler, but only after a $1,500 rebate. So they're close.
My original price analysis concluded: Overall, the Chrysler is very competitively priced. It and the Honda are both much better values than the others. The Honda is quicker, has more comfortable rear seats, and (like the Toyota) will lose value more slowly, while the Chrysler is more stylish and has a more versatile interior. One or the other is the best choice, depending on your priorities. Especially considering its lower price after adjusting for equipment, I’d probably go with the Chrysler. I believe Honda has a revised van coming this fall, though, and that could shake things up all over again.
Final Words
With the 2005 Chrysler has leapfrogged the competition for the third time. In 1984 they were first, period. No one else had a comparable vehicle for at least six years. In 1996 they revolutionized the segment with a larger van that had a second sliding door. This time around they’ve revolutionized minivan seating and cargo versatility. Nothing else comes close. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more thoroughly thought-out interior in a vehicle. Little else was changed, but the Chrysler already performed and handled better than the average minivan. Its not the performance champ, but that’s not what this segment’s about.
Add in surprisingly competitive pricing, and the Chrysler is my top pick among minivans, with the Honda a close second. Unless you'll rarely stow the second row; then the Honda gets my nod. The Toyota, though hot right now, only makes sense to me for those who place a high value on the Toyota brand, need all-wheel-drive, or want the most features possible. Everyone else is an also-ran.
Update: I've now driven the 2005 Odyssey. It makes up for the 2004's main deficiences, but is not groundbreaking in any way. The second row does not stow flat, and I found the driver's seat uncomfortable, but otherwise it's superior to the Chrysler. If you don't have an issue with the driver's seat and don't expect to stow the second row often, it's the smartest choice.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.