2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums banner
41 - 60 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
The XT5 is an old and pretty unimpressive product, also considerably smaller than a Pacifica and not 3 rows. The better vehicle to look at in the Cadillac line is the XT6, which is much newer and larger, 3 rows, etc. I'm not a GM guy, but its a pretty impressive vehicle.

For instance, the Pacifica drives WAY better than that Explorer. The Pacifica is a really nice driving vehicle actually, my issue is I just dont like the driving position of a van or the exterior look of a van.

If I were to buy a crossover to replace the Pacifica right now, and I couldnt spend more than the Pacifica cost I would probably get a Hyundai Palisade. The new Acura MDX is also very impressive and the new Infiniti QX60 looks great, although those optioned up will be more like $61-62k.

But overall the Pacifica is a much nicer vehicle than that Explorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Maybe the old Odysseys were true pigs and I just didn't realize it, but even on the factory Nexen tires the PacHy can do some stuff the old Odysseys could only dream of. I'd take it on twisties any day, especially once the Nexens wear out and I put good, new shoes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
The XT5 is an old and pretty unimpressive product, also considerably smaller than a Pacifica and not 3 rows. The better vehicle to look at in the Cadillac line is the XT6, which is much newer and larger, 3 rows, etc. I'm not a GM guy, but its a pretty impressive vehicle.

For instance, the Pacifica drives WAY better than that Explorer. The Pacifica is a really nice driving vehicle actually, my issue is I just dont like the driving position of a van or the exterior look of a van.

If I were to buy a crossover to replace the Pacifica right now, and I couldnt spend more than the Pacifica cost I would probably get a Hyundai Palisade. The new Acura MDX is also very impressive and the new Infiniti QX60 looks great, although those optioned up will be more like $61-62k.

But overall the Pacifica is a much nicer vehicle than that Explorer.
Looks like after driving the Explorer, Steve got a new appreciation (rare) for the Pacifica. LOL.
BTW since you mentioned, I had to look up the new XT6 and it does look very nice. For comparable feature set, you’d have to get the premium luxury package which is about $60k. I’m guessing the interior materials and general ambience must be the real differentiator.
I’m still trying to figure out how the seats could be that different to make such a difference for you. So if you put that Cadillac seats in the Pacifica that would be nearly an even deal, right? Except for the exterior looks…?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
I’m still trying to figure out how the seats could be that different to make such a difference for you.
well, he did say "driving position," but still, I agree with you on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
Looks like after driving the Explorer, Steve got a new appreciation (rare) for the Pacifica. LOL.
BTW since you mentioned, I had to look up the new XT6 and it does look very nice. For comparable feature set, you’d have to get the premium luxury package which is about $60k. I’m guessing the interior materials and general ambience must be the real differentiator.
I’m still trying to figure out how the seats could be that different to make such a difference for you. So if you put that Cadillac seats in the Pacifica that would be nearly an even deal, right? Except for the exterior looks…?
I appreciate the Pacifica a lot for what it is (I bought two, despite the terrible experience I had with the first one), it just isnt the sort of vehicle I prefer.

Its not the seats, its the driving position. Vans have a chair that sits on a flat floor, you sit more upright vs a crossover, SUV or a car the floorpan is molded around the seats and you sit closer to the floor. You sit on the seat and floor vs in the vehicle in a van. I also like being able to see down the hood when I drive and I don't like vehicles where the hood drops off past the base of the windshield.

For the XT6, its interior materials and general ambiance and its a luxury branded vehicle, you have a more stylish vehicle that has more cache, you have a better dealership experience, better warranty, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
For the XT6, its interior materials and general ambiance and its a luxury branded vehicle, you have a more stylish vehicle that has more cache, you have a better dealership experience, better warranty, etc.
But you still have a GM vehicle engineered and built by GM, which negates all of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VelvetRedAWD

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
But you still have a GM vehicle engineered and built by GM, which negates all of that.
Well, we have Chrysler vehicles engineered and built by Chrysler, so I'm not sure we can throw stones lol

I don't disagree, I'm not a GM guy, but the point was the XT5 is not a good example of what a modern Cadillac is, the XT6 is a much better example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #49 ·
Well, we have Chrysler vehicles engineered and built by Chrysler, so I'm not sure we can throw stones lol
I did have to laugh at that.

But Chrysler never actively killed people like GM has. Just for one example, the ignition switch fiasco. People should have gone to prison for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VelvetRedAWD

·
Registered
2018 Chrysler Pacifica Touring L
Joined
·
439 Posts
I did have to laugh at that.

But Chrysler never actively killed people like GM has. Just for one example, the ignition switch fiasco. People should have gone to prison for that.
Or GM trucks Side Saddle tanks that had a tendency to explode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
Oops, don’t make it a GM vs Chrysler thread. Supposed to be Minivan vs others thread. LOL.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
The XT5 is an old and pretty unimpressive product, also considerably smaller than a Pacifica and not 3 rows. The better vehicle to look at in the Cadillac line is the XT6, which is much newer and larger, 3 rows, etc. I'm not a GM guy, but its a pretty impressive vehicle.

For instance, the Pacifica drives WAY better than that Explorer. The Pacifica is a really nice driving vehicle actually, my issue is I just dont like the driving position of a van or the exterior look of a van.

If I were to buy a crossover to replace the Pacifica right now, and I couldnt spend more than the Pacifica cost I would probably get a Hyundai Palisade. The new Acura MDX is also very impressive and the new Infiniti QX60 looks great, although those optioned up will be more like $61-62k.

But overall the Pacifica is a much nicer vehicle than that Explorer.
The seating position can be hit or miss and a personal preference, we can't discuss it objectively. I would prefer a lower car-like seating position, although I don't find Pacifica uncomfortable. My right leg could become numb on long drives if not for the ACC. Regardless, I don't think that minivans hold a particular advantage in the first row. The second and third row are more comfortable, easier to get in and out, and can convert to a flat floor. Shorter hoods save space and the trunk space can be challenged only by land yachts like Suburban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
The seating position can be hit or miss and a personal preference, we can't discuss it objectively. I would prefer a lower car-like seating position, although I don't find Pacifica uncomfortable. My right leg could become numb on long drives if not for the ACC. Regardless, I don't think that minivans hold a particular advantage in the first row. The second and third row are more comfortable, easier to get in and out, and can convert to a flat floor. Shorter hoods save space and the trunk space can be challenged only by land yachts like Suburban.
Sure, totally personal preference. I have the same issue, my legs go numb.

No doubt the van has way more space, but if you don't need that space really...my issue is not people preferring minivans, its when people say those who chose crossovers and SUVs do it because they're "vain" or they're "sheep" etc. Not everybody needs or wants a vehicle with maximum utility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
The Pacifica seating position is better (for me) than my old Sienna. That van was clearly designed for women, who typically have shorter arms and are smaller overall.
The question of vanity comes up because almost every minivan press article starts with phrases that minivans aren't cool and project image of a mundane family life filled with a boring routine. That puts the minivan owners (myself including) on the defensive. SUVs literally have "utility" in their name, but they lose to minivans in this regard. Kia Telluride is 7" longer than Pacifica (may not fit in some garages), but its trunk space is 2/3 of Pacifica's. And the "Sport" part... Kia has a silver part under the front bumper that looks like a bash plate. Needless to say, it is a plastic ornament, and that Kia is not designed for offroading or any other kind of sporting activity. I can understand that some people would go the SUV route simply because they don't like the look of minivans. This is a matter of taste. I can't understand buying SUVs for vanity reasons- no one ever will associate Honda CRV with a life of adventure. And buying a 7 seater "for more room" makes little practical sense.
Sorry for the rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
The question of vanity comes up because almost every minivan press article starts with phrases that minivans aren't cool and project image of a mundane family life filled with a boring routine. That puts the minivan owners (myself including) on the defensive.
To be fair though, its true. Minivans aren't "cool" and they don't project any sort of status the way certain SUVs or much less so today sedans do. Thats just a fact. Doesn't mean you have to care about that, but its true.

SUVs literally have "utility" in their name, but they lose to minivans in this regard. Kia Telluride is 7" longer than Pacifica (may not fit in some garages), but its trunk space is 2/3 of Pacifica's. And the "Sport" part... Kia has a silver part under the front bumper that looks like a bash plate. Needless to say, it is a plastic ornament, and that Kia is not designed for offroading or any other kind of sporting activity.
There are different types of "utility". One type of utility is hauling people and stuff, a minivan excels at that. Another type of utility is being able to carry people and stuff over a variety of terrain and weather conditions to be able to get you and your family or group to remote places without paved roads comfortably. Minivans do not excel at that, and even though it too is mainly an onroad vehicle a Telluride will do that much better than a Pacifica. Another type of utility is payload and towing capacity, and SUVs are much better than Minivans in those regards too. There are a wide variety of "SUVs" when it comes to capability.

For instance, if I was taking my family skiing in Deep Creek Lake would I want a Telluride or a Pacifica? Telluride is an easy choice.

With a large 3 row crossover SUV like the Telluride you have much of the cargo and people capacity of the minivan (not all for sure) but you also have a lot more capability for dealing with weather and terrain. When you move up from a Telluride to say, a Grand Cherokee L, that capability is expanded exponentially.

I can understand that some people would go the SUV route simply because they don't like the look of minivans. This is a matter of taste. I can't understand buying SUVs for vanity reasons- no one ever will associate Honda CRV with a life of adventure. And buying a 7 seater "for more room" makes little practical sense.
You'd be surprised where a CRV will take you that a comparable Civic won't. Many many places. The CRV doesnt compare to any minivan price wise. Little SUVs like CRVs and Rav4s and CX-5s are surprisingly capable, they are short which makes them easy to maneuver offroad, they have good ground clearance, they have good approach, departure and breakover angles. My brother in law has had a few Rav4s and now has a Subaru Forester and we have been pretty off the beaten trail with all of them, and no sedan or minivan would have gotten us there.

For me, the reason I prefer crossovers are capability, I do travel to where roads aren't good and we do get out and hike and explore and the Pacifica isn't up to much of that, I know that because I've done it and tried and had to abandon the Pacifica to go forward. Winter weather, AWD in the Pacifica helps but the ground clearance is still very low, and anything over 5-6 inches of snow is outside of an AWD Pacifica's capability. I prefer the looks of them and I prefer how they drive and feel to a van.

Note "what other people think of me" isn't one of those reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
An AWD Pacifica with 5 inches of ground clearance and no low range locking transfer case or LSD is not going to drive through a foot of untouched snow, sorry. Physics are physics, when the vehicle has 5 inches of ground clearance and there is 12 inches of snow, then the vehicle is a snowplow, every foot you drive more snow is tamped down underneath the vehicle and before long you're going to be high sided on the snow and your wheels are going to be off the ground, not going to happen. Basically an AWD Pacifica is about like what my AWD sedans were/are. Not going to drive through 12 inches of snow. Great for anything up to 5-6 inches sure. Gravel roads that are in good condition that aren't rutted, sure it'll do great, but its not going to get me where I want to go at times with any measure of security.

More likely it was like 6 inches of snow and you're exaggerating, or it was overall 12 inches and the driveway was already tamped down and driven on or something like that.

Now, a Grand Cherokee L with 11 inches of ground clearance, sure it will drive up and down a driveway with 12 inches of snow on it. The reason why AWD crossovers and SUVs are better than an AWD sedan or minivan in the snow is mostly ground clearance. The lowest ones have ~3 inches more ground clearance than the Pacifica or a sedan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
This summer if my first without a van in a decade or more. Using my Grand Cherokee in its place has made me yearn for my Pacifica again. While I can travel with my bike to races and do so comfortably, it is not the same as having all the space to put all the other gear in. We took a small road trip in the Grand Cherokee and while it worked, the genius of the folding seats and larger interior space in the Pacifica, exacerbated the smaller size in the Jeep. Again, no other vehicle has the interior space of a van, it is just superior in that regard, especially with the Stow N Go.
My self imposed Pacifica purgatory will hopefully end once the '22 inventory picks up and I can get the one I want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
No doubt there is a huge cargo difference. I had two Grand Cherokees before I started buying vans when my kids were born. There was just no way to take all the stuff with us we needed with two kids in rear facing car seats in the Grand Cherokee. The new LWB 3 row Grand Cherokee has a lot more room though, and we no longer need all of that capacity.

Different vehicles for different needs/wants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bond007
41 - 60 of 78 Posts
Top