What happened to AWD?

I have recently decided to look around for a replacement for my 1999
Chrysler T&C Limited. With 140K it is becoming a money pit.

My first thoughts were for another T&C Limited. However, I was
surprised to find that AWD is no longer offered in the 2005 and 2006
models. Why has this option been dropped?

"Piperson" > wrote in message
news:8PcMe.19090$Ie.1663@lakeread03...
> I have recently decided to look around for a replacement for my 1999
> Chrysler T&C Limited. With 140K it is becoming a money pit.
>
> My first thoughts were for another T&C Limited. However, I was
> surprised to find that AWD is no longer offered in the 2005 and 2006
> models. Why has this option been dropped?

While you may have had a good experience with your AWD, there are
enough people out there who feel that AWD hasn't lived up to it's
expectations that the popular feeling is that it's not worth having it
on this kind of vehicle.

I happen to own a 1994 T&C with AWD and a 1995 T&C without. The
'94 has about 140K on it, same as yours. (I bought it cheap, as a project
vehicle) I can tell you from my experience so far working on the van, that
AWD just means more stuff to have to take apart to fix anything, I can
certainly
see why people claim they have higher repair costs.

Cars today have enough complexity already, you have to ask yourself, what
does AWD give me, and is it worth increasing the number of things in the
vehicle that can break down? Certainly, to me it isn't worth it, and if my
'94 wasn't as cheap as it was, I wouldn't have bought it.

Ted

"Piperson" > wrote in message
news:8PcMe.19090$Ie.1663@lakeread03...
> I have recently decided to look around for a replacement for my 1999
> Chrysler T&C Limited. With 140K it is becoming a money pit.
>
> My first thoughts were for another T&C Limited. However, I was
> surprised to find that AWD is no longer offered in the 2005 and 2006
> models. Why has this option been dropped?

I would speculate that along with the added complexity that AWD added, that
the stow and go seating (or however Chrysler refers to it) probably made it
more difficult to implement.

"Carl Keehn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Piperson" > wrote in message
> news:8PcMe.19090$Ie.1663@lakeread03...
>> I have recently decided to look around for a replacement for my 1999
>> Chrysler T&C Limited. With 140K it is becoming a money pit.
>>
>> My first thoughts were for another T&C Limited. However, I was
>> surprised to find that AWD is no longer offered in the 2005 and 2006
>> models. Why has this option been dropped?
>
> I would speculate that along with the added complexity that AWD added,
> that
> the stow and go seating (or however Chrysler refers to it) probably made
> it
> more difficult to implement.

Plus, the limited sales of the option of AWD.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Piperson" > wrote in message
> news:8PcMe.19090$Ie.1663@lakeread03...
> > I have recently decided to look around for a replacement for my 1999
> > Chrysler T&C Limited. With 140K it is becoming a money pit.
> >
> > My first thoughts were for another T&C Limited. However, I was
> > surprised to find that AWD is no longer offered in the 2005 and 2006
> > models. Why has this option been dropped?
>
> While you may have had a good experience with your AWD, there are
> enough people out there who feel that AWD hasn't lived up to it's
> expectations that the popular feeling is that it's not worth having it
> on this kind of vehicle.
>
> I happen to own a 1994 T&C with AWD and a 1995 T&C without. The
> '94 has about 140K on it, same as yours. (I bought it cheap, as a project
> vehicle) I can tell you from my experience so far working on the van, that
> AWD just means more stuff to have to take apart to fix anything, I can
> certainly
> see why people claim they have higher repair costs.
>
> Cars today have enough complexity already, you have to ask yourself, what
> does AWD give me, and is it worth increasing the number of things in the
> vehicle that can break down? Certainly, to me it isn't worth it, and if my
> '94 wasn't as cheap as it was, I wouldn't have bought it.
>
> Ted

How's that coming along? Have you gotten the transmission out yet? Or
are you still staring at it wondering why you decided to try to take the
transmission out?

"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > Cars today have enough complexity already, you have to ask yourself,
what
> > does AWD give me, and is it worth increasing the number of things in the
> > vehicle that can break down? Certainly, to me it isn't worth it, and if
my
> > '94 wasn't as cheap as it was, I wouldn't have bought it.
> >
> > Ted
>
> How's that coming along? Have you gotten the transmission out yet? Or
> are you still staring at it wondering why you decided to try to take the
> transmission out?

I was waiting until the title went through before spending any real money
on it. It would have been highly uncomfortable to have the transmission
out,
have a lot of money sunk into it, then have the State send me a letter
saying
the vehicle is listed as stolen, or some such. I have cleaned it, though.
(that was at least 8 hours, it's amazing how filthy some people make
their vehicles get)

Fortunately I got the title last week but we had kid's b-day party on the
weekend
and I had to put in a rebuilt half-shaft on my '84 GM on Sunday. This
coming
weekend will be when I attempt to take the transmission out.

Ted

In article >,
says...

>I would speculate that along with the added complexity that AWD added, that
>the stow and go seating (or however Chrysler refers to it) probably made it
>more difficult to implement.

Stow-n-go. A great idea.
-------------
Alex

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I have cleaned it, though.
> (that was at least 8 hours, it's amazing how filthy some people make
> their vehicles get)
>

We got a 94 voyager for my wife to drive, the entire inside of which was
soaked with cola. The upholstery was originally gray, but most of the
seat area was brown. We took the seats out and ran a hose on them, and
the water looked just like soda pop. Yech! Makes you wonder what these
people were thinking.

"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> I have cleaned it, though.
>> (that was at least 8 hours, it's amazing how filthy some people make
>> their vehicles get)
>>
>
> We got a 94 voyager for my wife to drive, the entire inside of which was
> soaked with cola. The upholstery was originally gray, but most of the
> seat area was brown. We took the seats out and ran a hose on them, and
> the water looked just like soda pop. Yech! Makes you wonder what these
> people were thinking.

3 year old people don't really think about all that much. Barney mostly.
Those are the people who ride in these nasty minivans.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robbie and Laura Reynolds" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> I have cleaned it, though.
> >> (that was at least 8 hours, it's amazing how filthy some people make
> >> their vehicles get)
> >>
> >
> > We got a 94 voyager for my wife to drive, the entire inside of which was
> > soaked with cola. The upholstery was originally gray, but most of the
> > seat area was brown. We took the seats out and ran a hose on them, and
> > the water looked just like soda pop. Yech! Makes you wonder what these
> > people were thinking.
>
> 3 year old people don't really think about all that much. Barney mostly.
> Those are the people who ride in these nasty minivans.
>
>

Any parent that gives a 3 year old soda pop to drink meets the definition
of white (or black) trash. Even fruit juice is better, and that's saying a
lot
considering that the American Academy of Pediatrics says giving fruit juice
to kids is basically giving them sugar. They recommend a maximum
of a martini glassful a day, if you give it at all.


Ted