2002 Grand Caravan - Any Issues???

Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners"
permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled".


Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
"book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
pi$$off.

We had a rental late model Caravan for a while, and I must say I liked
the older body style much better. The newer style has some NASTY blind
spots! And I liked being up higher - better visiblility. And I also
see that by turning the thing into a "bubble van" they have also (by
eye-ball) apparently cut the cargo space capacity when comparing Grand
Caravan (94) to Grand Caravan (late model).

Be that as it may, I am now looking for a replacement vehicle. Since
we still have kids, and love camping, looks like a mini-van is still
the order of the day!

I would have loved to get a 94/95 and fix it up, but since I could do
that and wind up screwed again through no fault of my own, it just
makes no financial sense. Looks like I will have to go newer to
protect my financial investment.

I am going to look at a 2002 Grand Caravan. It only has 92000 km on
it. If I like it, then I am going to have a body shop look at it, and
then a full mechanical inspection.

But I wanted to check in hear before that and see if there are any
known issues that are associated with this model year.

The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
the 2000 model year, and that the newer ones are good - but it is
still a little early to tell. No problem, I have a good shop on-tap
that can rebuild these in their sleep for only $1495 + tax. Although
at 92000 km, I expect to get at least another 50000 km out of it
before having to do so!

So if anyone knows of problems, let's hear it!

Thanks

NewMan wrote:
> Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners"
> permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled".
>
>
> Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
> the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
> "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
> pi$$off.
>
> We had a rental late model Caravan for a while, and I must say I liked
> the older body style much better. The newer style has some NASTY blind
> spots! And I liked being up higher - better visiblility. And I also
> see that by turning the thing into a "bubble van" they have also (by
> eye-ball) apparently cut the cargo space capacity when comparing Grand
> Caravan (94) to Grand Caravan (late model).
>
> Be that as it may, I am now looking for a replacement vehicle. Since
> we still have kids, and love camping, looks like a mini-van is still
> the order of the day!
>
> I would have loved to get a 94/95 and fix it up, but since I could do
> that and wind up screwed again through no fault of my own, it just
> makes no financial sense. Looks like I will have to go newer to
> protect my financial investment.
>
> I am going to look at a 2002 Grand Caravan. It only has 92000 km on
> it. If I like it, then I am going to have a body shop look at it, and
> then a full mechanical inspection.
>
> But I wanted to check in hear before that and see if there are any
> known issues that are associated with this model year.
>
> The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
> the 2000 model year, and that the newer ones are good - but it is
> still a little early to tell. No problem, I have a good shop on-tap
> that can rebuild these in their sleep for only $1495 + tax. Although
> at 92000 km, I expect to get at least another 50000 km out of it
> before having to do so!
>
> So if anyone knows of problems, let's hear it!
>
> Thanks

Hi Newman...

I have nothing at all worthwhile to contribute, but given that
I am now the proud grandfather of a youngster with a learners
permit I can't help asking, if I may?

How in the world can it be both a "16 year old idiot", AND
"we are ZERO percent at fault" ?

Take care, and good lucking finding another van.

Ken

With respect Ken,

Insurance rates for single males under the age of 21 are about as high
as it gets. The reason for this is that they tend to have the highest
rate of accidents. Raging hormones, no fear, and no concept of how
their actions could affect others are some of the reasons.

In an attempt to address this in our locality, we now have a
"graduated" licensing system. At the age of 16, you can write a test,
and get your "L" learners permit. You must have this for a minimum of
1 year. After one year, there is both a written and a road test. If
you pass these, then you get a restricted license - the "N". You must
keep the "N" designation for a minimum of 2 years. At the end of the 2
years, there is another wirten test and another driving test. If you
pass all these tests over time, then you get an unrestricted "Class 5"
license.

Until you have your unrestricted license, there is ZERO TOLLERANCE for
alcohol. And while you have your "L" there is zero tolerance for
moving violations. Any violation will result in your license being
revoked. There is an associated driving ban after which you can
re-apply at the "L" level and start all over again.

Any driver with an "L" designation MUST be accompanied by a fully
licensed driver who is a minimum of 25 years old. This is by statute
and is NOT a guideline.

With that background in mind...

This 16 year old had only had his "L" for 2 weeks. He went out for a
drive with his girlfriend who is not only under the age of 25, but her
license is an "N". SO he had already broken 2 of the stautory
requirements of operating the vehicle. He then was so busy chatting up
his girlfriend and looking at her that he not only failed to stop at a
stop sign, he also made an illegal left hand turn in the process and
hit my vehicle when it was clearly 1/2 way through the intersection.
Because of his irresponsible acitons, there was no possible way to
avoid the accident. And to top it off, he tried to move the vehcile
after the accident to conceal the fact that he was at fault. A move
that was noticed by the police - and he has been so charged as it is
an offense to do so. HIS parents insurance company has declared him
100% at fault. The poilce have laid at least 3 charges against him.
And he is likely facing a 5 year driving ban. He is, IMHO, completely
irresponsible. His lack of care and concern, and his deference to the
hardship that he has caused - to me at least - make him an idiot.

So I will be out of pocket the $10,000 I put into my van, plus the
fact that I will now have to have a car loan - likely for the next 5
years or so. I have had to cancel our vacation, and my wife will
likely be off work for MONTHS and is in pain while we are trying to
move into our new appartment.

And to add insult to injury, his mothers car was new enough that it is
being fixed! So the little puke did not get injured, has suffered no
loss, and has no bloody clue of the pain and suffering he has caused -
and likely would not care even if he DID know. Mommy will get her car
back, and mommy will likely drive him everywhere - so not having a
license will not even be an inconveinience to him.

All of this, in my view, makes him a "16 year old idiot". The accident
was completely avoidable - presuming he had not been driving with his
prick. And, as you can see, we had absolutely no fault in this
particular situation. It is VERY RARE that an insurance company will
rule fault at "100% - 0%" because it is not in their best interests to
do so - and even THEY have made this assesment.

Around these parts, you can't drink until you are 19, you cannot vote
until you are 18, and (IIRC) you cannot own a gun until you are 21. So
the question is, why the hell do we allow anyone as young as 16 to get
behind the wheel of a potentially leathal machine???? If I had my way,
you would not even be able to get your learners until the age of 19,
maybe even 21. And, just so you know, even though these restrictions
did not exist when I was a teen, I did not get my learners permit
until I was 19, and I did not get my full license until I was almost
21. This was NEVER an inconveinience to me at all. I am sick of these
cocky kids that feel entitled to things. Driving is a priviledge, not
a right. His violation of that priviledge has turned the life of my
family upside down.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:21:13 GMT, Ken Weitzel >
wrote:

>
>
>NewMan wrote:
>> Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners"
>> permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled".
>>
>>
>> Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
>> the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
>> "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
>> pi$$off.
>>
>> We had a rental late model Caravan for a while, and I must say I liked
>> the older body style much better. The newer style has some NASTY blind
>> spots! And I liked being up higher - better visiblility. And I also
>> see that by turning the thing into a "bubble van" they have also (by
>> eye-ball) apparently cut the cargo space capacity when comparing Grand
>> Caravan (94) to Grand Caravan (late model).
>>
>> Be that as it may, I am now looking for a replacement vehicle. Since
>> we still have kids, and love camping, looks like a mini-van is still
>> the order of the day!
>>
>> I would have loved to get a 94/95 and fix it up, but since I could do
>> that and wind up screwed again through no fault of my own, it just
>> makes no financial sense. Looks like I will have to go newer to
>> protect my financial investment.
>>
>> I am going to look at a 2002 Grand Caravan. It only has 92000 km on
>> it. If I like it, then I am going to have a body shop look at it, and
>> then a full mechanical inspection.
>>
>> But I wanted to check in hear before that and see if there are any
>> known issues that are associated with this model year.
>>
>> The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
>> the 2000 model year, and that the newer ones are good - but it is
>> still a little early to tell. No problem, I have a good shop on-tap
>> that can rebuild these in their sleep for only $1495 + tax. Although
>> at 92000 km, I expect to get at least another 50000 km out of it
>> before having to do so!
>>
>> So if anyone knows of problems, let's hear it!
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Hi Newman...
>
>I have nothing at all worthwhile to contribute, but given that
>I am now the proud grandfather of a youngster with a learners
>permit I can't help asking, if I may?
>
>How in the world can it be both a "16 year old idiot", AND
>"we are ZERO percent at fault" ?
>
>Take care, and good lucking finding another van.
>
>Ken

In article >,
NewMan > wrote:
> Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
> the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
> "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
> pi$$off.
The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but
you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them
with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.

> The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
> the 2000 model year,
Much sooner than that, by the mid 90s.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:29:58 GMT, Some O > wrote:

>In article >,
> NewMan > wrote:
>> Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
>> the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
>> "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
>> pi$$off.
>The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but
>you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them
>with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.
>

That is the problem. The maintenance over time is more than the
existing retail market. And the problem is if you go and look at one
of the 94/95 vans that is currently for sale, most are in need of
extensive repairs - unlike my van where everything was in PERFECT
working order. To the insurance company, the van is worth no more than
what the market will bear in resale, period. My $10,000 in maintneance
translated into about $300 extra value in the car. Hell, I just spent
$250 having the entire van "detailed" including total engine shampoo,
interior clean, A/C duct cleaning, Scothguard, vinyl preservative, and
a HAD wax.

The whole thing is a heartbreaker. I just cannot believe that keeping
your car in good working order does not add value to it. Heck the
tires on it are worth $700! <sigh>

I do understand that writting it off is the correct thing to do. The
entire front end has been bent to the drivers side by about 2 inches.
The initial repair estimate was $5100, and was projected to reach
$6500 on a "book value" of about $3300. Even if you did spring for the
cash, then there still could be other issues, so it is gone for sure.

>> The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
>> the 2000 model year,
>Much sooner than that, by the mid 90s.

Excellent!

NewMan wrote:
> Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners"
> permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled".
>

Reminds me of something that happened to me over 30 years ago with a new
driver. We were newlyweds, and our only car was a Mercury Capri that we
had bouight brand new ($2700). Had to get a hood and front bumper
repaired (another car had pulled out in front of me and stopped dead in
the road when I blew the horn).

Anyway - the body shop did not do a good job of blending the hood to the
driver's side fender, so I had them re-do it. When they finally got it
finished the second time. there was one trim piece that was late coming
into the dealer about 30 miles away - everything else on the repair was
finished, and the dealer called the body shop and said the part had just
come in. So I talked the body shop into letting me drive it to the
dealer to pick up the part. Well - on the way to the dealer to pick up
the part, a girl who had just gotten her license changed lanes right
into me, damaging the same fender that the body shop had just had to
paint twice. I didn't go to the dealer. I turned around and went back
to the body shop. As I pulled into their parking lot, the owner comes
out of his office with his hands up in the air and a genuine look of
anguish on his red face and yelled "YOU DIDN'T!!!!".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

NewMan wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:29:58 GMT, Some O > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>NewMan > wrote:
>>
>>>Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
>>>the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
>>>"book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
>>>pi$$off.
>>
>>The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but
>>you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them
>>with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.
>>
>
>
> That is the problem. The maintenance over time is more than the
> existing retail market. And the problem is if you go and look at one
> of the 94/95 vans that is currently for sale, most are in need of
> extensive repairs - unlike my van where everything was in PERFECT
> working order. To the insurance company, the van is worth no more than
> what the market will bear in resale, period. My $10,000 in maintneance
> translated into about $300 extra value in the car. Hell, I just spent
> $250 having the entire van "detailed" including total engine shampoo,
> interior clean, A/C duct cleaning, Scothguard, vinyl preservative, and
> a HAD wax.
>
> The whole thing is a heartbreaker. I just cannot believe that keeping
> your car in good working order does not add value to it. Heck the
> tires on it are worth $700! <sigh>

Yep. I was in the middle of fixing up a Mazda one time when someone
rear-ended it at a stop light, knocking it into the car in front. I had
gotten perfect chrome trim strips out of a junk yard to replace the
original black painted ones that were peeling, and had taken the
original strips off - had both old and "new" strips sitting in my garage
waiting for the next weekend to put them on when the accident happened,
totalling the car.

The insurance company's appraiser deducted the value of all the chrome
strips from the value of the car for valuation purposes - deducted the
full brand new cost of the strips from the Mazda dealer (which if you've
ever owned a Mazda you know their parts prices are beyond ridiculous).
This took place in our driveway - 20 feet from my garage where both sets
of trim stips were laying. I protested and said I could show him the
strips. He said he didn't need to see them - he was only allowed to
include in the value of the vehicle what was on it at the time of the
accident. I persisted but he absolutely refused to add the deductions
back into the value of the car.

I called the insurance co. and told them that I would not work with that
appraiser - that unless they wanted to go to small claims court, they'd
better send another appraiser. They did.

Also, as Some O said, you need to assert yourself and insist on them
giving you fair market *retail* value of the car. What I found works is
using Kelly Blue Book value (don't let them use fraudulent NADA
wholesale value), several comps out of Auto Trader deducting resonable
amounts for typical difference between asking and actual, and got three
dealers to write their appraisal of the retail value of the car. Though
it took a lot of time to pull all that info. together (and they know
that it takes tiome and that most people eventually give up) with that
ammunition they paid me full retial value (this was a different car -
not the Mazda).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Wow, 10 grand "YOU" put in the minivan. What did you do dip it in 24 karat
gold?

I had a similar incident where I considered my exceptional care and
maintenance to a vehicle worth more than the insurance company offer. I
insisted they find me the same car in the same condition...... well they
found two and they turned out to be in even better condition than mine and
where on dealer lots for less money. So I shut up and took the amount they
offered.


Kevin


"NewMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:29:58 GMT, Some O > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> NewMan > wrote:
>>> Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
>>> the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
>>> "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
>>> pi$$off.
>>The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but
>>you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them
>>with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.
>>
>
> That is the problem. The maintenance over time is more than the
> existing retail market. And the problem is if you go and look at one
> of the 94/95 vans that is currently for sale, most are in need of
> extensive repairs - unlike my van where everything was in PERFECT
> working order. To the insurance company, the van is worth no more than
> what the market will bear in resale, period. My $10,000 in maintneance
> translated into about $300 extra value in the car. Hell, I just spent
> $250 having the entire van "detailed" including total engine shampoo,
> interior clean, A/C duct cleaning, Scothguard, vinyl preservative, and
> a HAD wax.
>
> The whole thing is a heartbreaker. I just cannot believe that keeping
> your car in good working order does not add value to it. Heck the
> tires on it are worth $700! <sigh>
>
> I do understand that writting it off is the correct thing to do. The
> entire front end has been bent to the drivers side by about 2 inches.
> The initial repair estimate was $5100, and was projected to reach
> $6500 on a "book value" of about $3300. Even if you did spring for the
> cash, then there still could be other issues, so it is gone for sure.
>
>>> The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
>>> the 2000 model year,
>>Much sooner than that, by the mid 90s.
>
> Excellent!

NewMan wrote:
> With respect Ken,
>
> Insurance rates for single males under the age of 21 are about as high
> as it gets. The reason for this is that they tend to have the highest
> rate of accidents. Raging hormones, no fear, and no concept of how
> their actions could affect others are some of the reasons.
>
> In an attempt to address this in our locality, we now have a
> "graduated" licensing system. At the age of 16, you can write a test,
> and get your "L" learners permit. You must have this for a minimum of
> 1 year. After one year, there is both a written and a road test. If
> you pass these, then you get a restricted license - the "N". You must
> keep the "N" designation for a minimum of 2 years. At the end of the 2
> years, there is another wirten test and another driving test. If you
> pass all these tests over time, then you get an unrestricted "Class 5"
> license.
>
> Until you have your unrestricted license, there is ZERO TOLLERANCE for
> alcohol. And while you have your "L" there is zero tolerance for
> moving violations. Any violation will result in your license being
> revoked. There is an associated driving ban after which you can
> re-apply at the "L" level and start all over again.
>
> Any driver with an "L" designation MUST be accompanied by a fully
> licensed driver who is a minimum of 25 years old. This is by statute
> and is NOT a guideline.
>
> With that background in mind...
>
> This 16 year old had only had his "L" for 2 weeks. He went out for a
> drive with his girlfriend who is not only under the age of 25, but her
> license is an "N". SO he had already broken 2 of the stautory
> requirements of operating the vehicle. He then was so busy chatting up
> his girlfriend and looking at her that he not only failed to stop at a
> stop sign, he also made an illegal left hand turn in the process and
> hit my vehicle when it was clearly 1/2 way through the intersection.
> Because of his irresponsible acitons, there was no possible way to
> avoid the accident. And to top it off, he tried to move the vehcile
> after the accident to conceal the fact that he was at fault. A move
> that was noticed by the police - and he has been so charged as it is
> an offense to do so. HIS parents insurance company has declared him
> 100% at fault. The poilce have laid at least 3 charges against him.
> And he is likely facing a 5 year driving ban. He is, IMHO, completely
> irresponsible. His lack of care and concern, and his deference to the
> hardship that he has caused - to me at least - make him an idiot.
>
> So I will be out of pocket the $10,000 I put into my van, plus the
> fact that I will now have to have a car loan - likely for the next 5
> years or so. I have had to cancel our vacation, and my wife will
> likely be off work for MONTHS and is in pain while we are trying to
> move into our new appartment.
>
> And to add insult to injury, his mothers car was new enough that it is
> being fixed! So the little puke did not get injured, has suffered no
> loss, and has no bloody clue of the pain and suffering he has caused -
> and likely would not care even if he DID know. Mommy will get her car
> back, and mommy will likely drive him everywhere - so not having a
> license will not even be an inconveinience to him.
>
> All of this, in my view, makes him a "16 year old idiot". The accident
> was completely avoidable - presuming he had not been driving with his
> prick. And, as you can see, we had absolutely no fault in this
> particular situation. It is VERY RARE that an insurance company will
> rule fault at "100% - 0%" because it is not in their best interests to
> do so - and even THEY have made this assesment.
>
> Around these parts, you can't drink until you are 19, you cannot vote
> until you are 18, and (IIRC) you cannot own a gun until you are 21. So
> the question is, why the hell do we allow anyone as young as 16 to get
> behind the wheel of a potentially leathal machine???? If I had my way,
> you would not even be able to get your learners until the age of 19,
> maybe even 21. And, just so you know, even though these restrictions
> did not exist when I was a teen, I did not get my learners permit
> until I was 19, and I did not get my full license until I was almost
> 21. This was NEVER an inconveinience to me at all. I am sick of these
> cocky kids that feel entitled to things. Driving is a priviledge, not
> a right. His violation of that priviledge has turned the life of my
> family upside down.

Hi Newman...

I owe you an apology, and hope that you will accept it.

Somehow in my getting on in years and a stroke damaged mind
I had you in the position of car owner, as well as the "owner/teacher"
of the 16 year old. Sorry.

I suspect that you're right - today's young people are a little
irresponsible. But I suspect that my generation was too, we just
couldn't see it any more clearly than today's youngster do

I'm in Manitoba, Canada, fwiw, and I suspect that our graduated
licenses are much like yours. Get a learner's at 16 (15.5, but ONLY
to drive with a professional instructor or a parent). One year
of driving with anyone who has held a full license for (not sure)
2 or 3 years. No passengers (other than the teacher) other than
immediate family. During this time strict zero tolerance for any
infractions (even so far as to the "teacher" not wearing a seat belt

Interesting side thought. The government says they can go with
anyone who's held a license, etc., but one of my grandkids is
only a couple of doors from me. Her Mother has a list of who she
may go with, too, and her list is very very very short!

Great for me, I get taken out for hot chocolate and donuts
often

Another insteresting thought, and perhaps worth taking note of
for others who may be in my position. Amazes me how easily
she can be distracted. If I so much as speak to her, she
happily looks at me, and keeps looking until I stop speaking!
Maybe we taught her that, pay attention when you're being spoken
to? Yikes, we have to work on that

And if you're interested, our youngsters can drink at 18; vote
at 18; and you're never old enough to own a gun

We have government insurance, and it's no-fault (civilly).

Now the perhaps helpful part. Here, at least, we can
buy back written off cars. (if it's written off, it's just
going to a junk yard anyway, right?) So you might consider
asking your insurance company if you can buy back your old one,
reclaiming your well maintained engine, transmission, interior,
etc., and put them into a less desirable one that you might
find for the dollars they allow you. Just a thought.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, and take care.

Ken