 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / September 2005What's a worthy replacement for my old Safari van?
The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? We're making the same decision with the same reasoning. Our conclusion also looks like Durango. My impression is it's more reliable than a Trailblazer, which might be comparable. Where did you get your information about reliability? If you're considering the Trailblazer (and I've not been impressed with what I've seen), take a look at the Isuzu Ascender. Same thing with a better warranty and (I think) slightly better price. Wesley > > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which might be comparable. Where did you get your information about > reliability? My opinion is probably outdated. It's based on testing we did several years ago where I work. The Durango suffered many incidents in durability testing and Chrysler tiptoed away with it under a tarp. :-) It was redesigned in '04 and hopefully is a much better made vehicle today. It is definitely heavier than it used to be...but bigger, too. The Safari was a tough hauler and not bad for comfort (except foot room for the front occupants!) but GM never updated it with a newer trans or all the nice features that everyone else takes for granted in vans & suv's (especially folding seats). If it got better mileage I'd buy a low-miles used one but frankly even a 'gas hog' like the Hemi gets the same (poor) mileage. 18mpg highway. Wish America could do better. The Durango still the front runner. Little cheaper than Explorer and Yukon. About the same interior space. More personality. >> The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as >> well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >which might be comparable. Where did you get your information about >reliability? > We're making the same decision with the same reasoning. Our conclusion also > looks like Durango. My impression is it's more reliable than a Trailblazer, > which might be comparable. Where did you get your information about > reliability? I have to believe he's referring to the older Durangos that had brake and ball joint issues. The new Durango is a far better towing vehicle than the Trailblazer. First off is the Durangos use of a live rear axle. > > We're making the same decision with the same reasoning. Our conclusion also > > looks like Durango. My impression is it's more reliable than a Trailblazer, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and ball joint issues. The new Durango is a far better towing vehicle > than the Trailblazer. First off is the Durangos use of a live rear axle. Dad was talking about a review he read somewhere about the Isuzu Ascender (Chevy Trailblazer) and they said towing was not good at all with it. The reviewer thought Isuzu was crazy to get rid of the Trooper and replace it with the Ascender... Haven't seen many of them towing stuff...though I don't see many SUV's towing period. We're heading down the road with our Trooper and 18' Prowler this weekend...hope to have some available credit left on our credit card when we get back... ;-) I did manage to squeeze a hair over 13mpg out of it the last long trip out, so I'll definitely be taking it easy this time...! Wesley Our Durango has been nothing if not reliable, and has been a good tow beast. The only warranty item I recall was the CD player, which they replaced. Down side to the Durango (other than MPG)? The ride is a little stiff, and the window posts are a little larger than I think they should be (they block a large area that you need to look at while turning especially). Actually, the Durango gets better mileage while towing than did our Nissan Hard body PU with a 4 popper! > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? Karl & Angela `02 Durango `96 Taos > Down side to the Durango (other than MPG)? The ride is a little stiff... It's gotta beat my Astro in driveability. I really dislike it for that reason, but drive it because it tows well and I don't want a rail car with a steering wheel. It's just time to change vehicles, and we'll probably have a larger trailer in a year or two. >It's gotta beat my Astro in driveability. I really dislike it for that >reason, but drive it because it tows well and I don't want a rail car with a >steering wheel. It's just time to change vehicles, and we'll probably have a >larger trailer in a year or two. I've driven my friend's Durango several times and towed a 16' Malibu Skier with it. I thought that it was a nice vehicle. Although with all 3 rows of seats there isn't a lot of rear storage space. I would consider one for myself, but I'm a pickup kind of guy... Mark Filice 2004 Homestead Settler 255RS 1999 Chevrolet Suburban 2500 2000 Dodge Ram 1500 > It's gotta beat my Astro in driveability. I really dislike it for that > reason, but drive it because it tows well and I don't want a rail car with a > steering wheel. It's just time to change vehicles, and we'll probably have a > larger trailer in a year or two. I went from a popup trailer to a 22' Hybrid that weighs about 5,000lbs fully loaded. My 2004 Hemi Durango pulls it with ease. > > It's gotta beat my Astro in driveability. I really dislike it for that > > reason, but drive it because it tows well and I don't want a rail car [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I went from a popup trailer to a 22' Hybrid that weighs about 5,000lbs > fully loaded. My 2004 Hemi Durango pulls it with ease. That's our expected transition but we may get a slightly heavier trailer. I don't want to be hamstrung by the tow vehicle, but I'm not going to buy an F350, either. >> > It's gotta beat my Astro in driveability. I really dislike it for that >> > reason, but drive it because it tows well and I don't want a rail car [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >don't want to be hamstrung by the tow vehicle, but I'm not going to buy an >F350, either. Would you buy a F250? Used, 99-2004 can be had pretty reasonably. Oh yeah, a single rear wheel F350 is only $1000 more than a 250, new. Used there is even less difference. And a 350 can handle about 1500 lbs more weight in the bed than a 250.  SignatureFrank Tabor No pickup at all, in our family. It's just not what we'd like to drive around town in all the time, and doesn't provide the interior space we need. What I really meant to say is that I'd have a smaller vehicle if I had my 'druthers, but also see a travel trailer in our future. > Would you buy a F250? Used, 99-2004 can be had pretty reasonably. > > Oh yeah, a single rear wheel F350 is only $1000 more than a 250, new. > Used there is even less difference. And a 350 can handle about 1500 > lbs more weight in the bed than a 250. >> Would you buy a F250? Used, 99-2004 can be had pretty reasonably. >> >> Oh yeah, a single rear wheel F350 is only $1000 more than a 250, new. >> Used there is even less difference. And a 350 can handle about 1500 >> lbs more weight in the bed than a 250. >No pickup at all, in our family. It's just not what we'd like to drive >around town in all the time, and doesn't provide the interior space we need. >What I really meant to say is that I'd have a smaller vehicle if I had my >'druthers, but also see a travel trailer in our future. Top posting fixed. You are going to find that just about any of the TT will require at least a half ton p/u. F150, Chevy 1500 or Dodge 1500. You are going to be restricted to about a 6000 lb trailer. Not many of them are that light with out being way too small for comfort. You might get away with a 3/4 ton suburban. You have to face it, the way cars and vans are headed, you will have to have a pickup to tow with. SignatureFrank Tabor > You have to face it, the way cars and vans are headed, you will have > to have a pickup to tow with. Agreed. For those of us that remember watching Howdy Doody, today's "half-ton" pickups are virtually no more capable for towing than the cars we used when we were growing up. Fortunately, the half-ton pickups of today provide a ride that is, in most cases, unsurpassed as "car-like". My pickup, with the extended cab and cab-high "topper" covering the box is BETTER than a Suburban for my needs: It provides car-like accomodations and smooth ride up front while allowing the transport of the messiest stuff out back in the box. The cover makes an excellent place to store stuff while camping. :) JR Signature2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 > That's our expected transition but we may get a slightly heavier trailer. I > don't want to be hamstrung by the tow vehicle, but I'm not going to buy an > F350, either. The new Hemi Durango is well suited for up to 6,000lbs and 24'. That's my opinion from towing with it. It's an awesome SUV. For heavier or longer trailers I would opt for a 3/4 ton truck. > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? The newly designed 2004+ Durango has been very reliable and customer satisfaction is high. This is a new vehicle and not just the old one freshened up. The older Durangos did have some brake issues and ball joint problems that were finally fixed under recall. The new Durangos are a world of difference. My 2004 Hemi 4x4 Durango is awesome. I have 22,000 on it with zero problems. > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? Looking at the Dodge web site, the 'build your Durango' part refers to a choice of a 'Corporate 8.25' vs a 'Corporate 9.25 LD' rear axle. Can someone explain? I know about gear ratios, but this is a separate item. Is it the size of the axle, and therefore the weight-bearing capacity? I know I'm chiming in a little late but if you don't want the expense of a new vehicle and you are thinking Durango get a 01'-04' with the 4.7l V8. More power then the 360 and better mpg. My wife drives a '99 Durango with the 360 - she lovesd the truck but hates the mandatory gas stops. I believe she is only averaging around 15mpg. If I was driving it would be more like 10 - 12mpg. Anyway - I haven't really heard anything bad about the 4.7 motor. Jim > > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > explain? I know about gear ratios, but this is a separate item. Is it the > size of the axle, and therefore the weight-bearing capacity? I'm driving an Astro now, so the decrease in MPG won't be like going from a passenger car to a Hemi. I'll watch the instantaneous MPG gauge and try to moderate my driving to minimize the consumption. > I know I'm chiming in a little late but if you don't want the expense of a > new vehicle and you are thinking Durango get a 01'-04' with the 4.7l V8. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 10 - 12mpg. Anyway - I haven't really heard anything bad about the 4.7 > motor. After comparing the mpg, towing and cargo capacities of Durango, Astro, Explorer, Expedition, and Yukon I found they were all within 1 mpg of each other. In a Durango the 4.7 and the hemi have the same hiway mpg: 18. New or old, the Astro/Safari is 19 for the 4.3 V6. I bought the hemi. Next time I pull the PU thru the hills in Pennsylvania I won't be losing speed on the grades :-) >I'm driving an Astro now, so the decrease in MPG won't be like going from a >passenger car to a Hemi. I'll watch the instantaneous MPG gauge and try to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> 10 - 12mpg. Anyway - I haven't really heard anything bad about the 4.7 >> motor. >I bought the hemi. Next time I pull the PU thru the hills in >Pennsylvania I won't be losing speed on the grades :-) You might loose some speed after you hook up that semi-trailer required to carry your wallet after the latest gas price increase. :) Gerry 99 Mesa 01 Sporttrac I think you have that backwards. MY wallet is lighter than ever--it's the oil companies (and the states, which get nearly 1/2 the price of a gallon of gas in taxes) that need the semi to haul their profits from this latest excuse to gouge us all. >>I bought the hemi. Next time I pull the PU thru the hills in >>Pennsylvania I won't be losing speed on the grades :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >99 Mesa >01 Sporttrac > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? Just picked up my new 2005 Durango Limited. It has a Hemi and factory tow package. Good deal available at CarMax in Orlando. Their price is $750 below Chrysler EP, less $3500 rebate, less another $1000 for financing with Chrysler at 6.5%. 60 month loan was same rate as 48 month, so took longer loan term. Will probably pay it back faster than 60 months but have option not to. Interest simple with no prepayment penalty so, if I find another loan at a better rate, I can pay it off and keep the $1000 rebate. This thing will haul my pop-up without blinking. As my brother told me, the Hemi will HAUL the pop-up without blinking. We expect to buy a hybrid or light travel trailer in the future, which was why we went for the Hemi. I'm sure someone here will flame me for my plans, but I won't buy something I don't feel totally comfortable pulling, and I'm not stupid about GCWR and the effects of wind resistance. Of course, I just went from an Astro to a bigger engine when gas is zooming past $3/gallon. Someone I met locally made the transition from a Chrysler Town and Country to the Durango Hemi, and said her actual in-town mileage didn't change radically. I hope the same can be said for me, since 90% of my driving will be in-town. SignatureChris Cowles Gainesville, FL '00 Coleman Mesa/'05 Durango Hemi > Just picked up my new 2005 Durango Limited. Congratulations! When towing, you may have to check the rearview mirrors regularly to ensure that the camper is still back there! > Of course, I just went from an Astro to a bigger engine when gas is zooming > past $3/gallon. Someone I met locally made the transition from a Chrysler > Town and Country to the Durango Hemi, and said her actual in-town mileage > didn't change radically. I hope the same can be said for me, since 90% of my > driving will be in-town. Of course, you'll want to wait until the new engine is fully broken in but... You may find an in-town difference of only 2-3 MPG. That shouldn't make a HUGE difference, even considering the rising prices for gas. Have fun! :) JR > Of course, you'll want to wait until the new engine is fully broken in > but... > > You may find an in-town difference of only 2-3 MPG. That shouldn't make a > HUGE difference, even considering the rising prices for gas. The dealer wasn't real helpful on break-in information, nor is the manual very clear. It refers to driving at "moderate" speeds for the first 300 miles. It also states that "After the initial 60 miles ... speeds up to 50 or 55 mph ... are desirable." From that I inferred that speeds of 50 to 55 are NOT desirable during the first 60 miles. That may be incorrect, but the instructions are vague. It had only 37 miles on it when purchased. Since I bought it in Orlando and live in Gainesville, I figured I shouldn't barrel up the interstate at 75 mph. Instead, I drove up US-441 which, in that area, is basically a business road. It wasn't until around the 75 mile mark that I could exceed 45 mph, anyway. Does anyone know if the target break-in speed is actually measured in RPM, rather than MPH? Any suggestions on oil changes during break-in? Just follow standard schedule? Or maybe change after 1000? > Does anyone know if the target break-in speed is actually measured in RPM, > rather than MPH? The last couple new cars I've had recommended that you VARY your speed rather than keep a constant RPM. Break-in procedures are not nearly the big deal they once were. After a few, hundred miles, I'd just drive it normally, including towing. > Any suggestions on oil changes during break-in? Just follow standard > schedule? Or maybe change after 1000? Here again is where there are many opinions. A first change at 1,000 miles would be fine, IMHO. :) JR > The last couple new cars I've had recommended that you VARY your speed > rather > than keep a constant RPM. I haven't tried to remain at constant speed. I was only trying to limit it in the early miles. I was reading a website recently that recommended driving hard (but varied,,,and no extreme RPM's) for the 1st 300 miles. The reasoning seems to be that cylinder walls are smoother than ever from the factory and wall roughness is needed to properly seat the rings. SO--you must seat them quickly these days, and it's best to do that under power so the cylinder pressures will help expand the rings into what little wall roughness there is. It all actually made sense. Food for thought: http://mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm My Durango had 45 miles on it when I picked it up. The trip computer showed an average mpg of 8.4! I think most of my break-in was done by others on the test-drives! "let's see what she'll do!" I know I did. LOL >> Of course, you'll want to wait until the new engine is fully broken in >> but... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Any suggestions on oil changes during break-in? Just follow standard >schedule? Or maybe change after 1000? Hi: Sounds a bit odd to me. First, I would think that rough cylinder walls would deteriorate the rings quicker - hence the use of oil. If the walls were rough the rings would end up with micro gaps allowing the oil to seep through and burn. Plus, micro gaps would reduce cylinder pressure. Second, that seems quite contrary to the high performance engines such as Porsche engines which require smooth easing driving for the first 500-600 miles. Not all, but some use a special oil and after 600 miles you change to a normal grade oil plus new filter. Brand spanking new engines may have small particles floating around that will be filtered out plus micro particles still attached to the walls. I disagree. Bob L. > I was reading a website recently that recommended driving hard (but > varied,,,and no extreme RPM's) for the 1st 300 miles. The reasoning [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Any suggestions on oil changes during break-in? Just follow standard > >schedule? Or maybe change after 1000? -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 7365 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! An interesting article on breaking-in a new engine is at: http://www.synthetic-oil-tech.com/d.cgi/1300544/articles/converting_to_amsoil.htm (ignore the ads for the synthetic oil). And here is from a message group, about the Ford Focus: "I read the Focus manual cover-to-cover. I read the supplemental SVT manual too. I searched here in great detail. I couldn't find the definitive factory answer to how I should break in the new engine. (I found some, "here's what I did" stuff, but nothing "official".) So I called SVT directly. Here's what I was told: Keep the RPMs relatively low, say under 3000 rpm, and vary them (i.e., don't drive at a constant RPM) for the first 1000 miles. Then change the oil (use regular oil, not synthetic)." I went from a Safari to an Envoy XL (Trailblazer Ext) - Stayed with my dealer (16+ years) What I liked about the Envoy XL: Very long wheelbase 129" vs Safari's 111" Leg room for our long x-country trips 4x4 for tough/tight/elevated campsites (not an offroader) One more door What I miss about the Safari Room, room, room (sung to the Mazda theme) Space for the porti-potty in the back (kids are old enough now I suppose) Extra 500lbs towing capacity (rated @ 5000lbs) Middle captain seats - walk from front to back Great low-end torque Better fuel economy with the Safari's 4.3L vs the 4.2L on the Envoy (must be weight because the Safari is no aerodynamic bullet) Dan Ottawa, Ontario 04 Envoy XL 99 Coleman Westlake Pros Longer > The 97 Safari has been a good choice for me as a family vehicle as > well as tow vehicle for pulling my Cheyenne pop-up. It's getting to > be time to replace it. I don't want a big SUV and I don't want > something wimpy. The Astro/Safari filled a niche in size & power > that's going to be missed. My first thought was the Durango but talk > of poor reliability has me rethinking. Opinions?? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.