Good morning! We’re exploring connections between cars this week, and today I’ve got an interesting one for you. We’re going to look at two family cars, thirty years apart, that were built in the same factory – probably.
The connection yesterday was number of valves in the engine, and we looked at a Jaguar convertible and a Chrysler sedan. I expected the Jag’s reputation to scare more of you off, especially for five grand more, but it put up a good fight. Still, the Chrysler took the prize, by about a 60:40 margin.
Me, I’m taking the Chrysler. It’s going to be a long time before I have any interest in another British car, even one in such apparently nice condition. But that big front-wheel-drive New Yorker would make a great winter beater, to keep snow and salt off my big rear-wheel-drive Chrysler sedan.

Before I show you today’s cars, I need to make a confession: I don’t know for sure that these two cars came out of the same factory. Automakers often build the same model at more than one facility, and both of these models were built at both the Saint Louis plant, and the Windsor, Ontario plant. So there’s a good chance they came from the same place, but I can’t guarantee it. But it’s the best idea I’ve got for today, so I’m going with it. Let’s check them out.
1963 Plymouth Valiant V200 Wagon – $3,850

Engine/drivetrain: 225 cubic inch OHV inline 6, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Aromas, CA
Odometer reading: 21,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but needs some work
We’ve looked at Plymouth Valiants plenty of times before, but I don’t remember ever showing you a wagon before. Before the Rise of the Minivan, and the later Crossover Apocalypse, you could get just about every car in wagon form. But for some reason, fewer wagons have survived the years than two- or four-doors with a trunk. Station wagons from the 1950s and ’60s are rarities these days, and even wagons from the ’70s and ’80s are less common than thier sedan counterparts. Were fewer wagons sold than sedans? Probably, but I think wagons probably led harder lives, too. This Valiant V200 wagon slipped through the cracks, though, and has reached the ripe old age of sixty-two years with only 21,000 miles to its name.

Under the hood, of course, is the mighty Leaning Tower of Power, a 225 cubic inch Slant Six. It’s backed by a push-button-operated Torqueflite automatic. This car sat around for decades, which is bad for any car, but I don’t think it’s actually possible to kill a Slant Six entirely. The seller has rebuilt the carb, replaced the battery and fuel pump, and installed new tires. They say you can drive it home, but obviously there is more to be done once you get it there.

This is the only interior photo we get, and it looks like the seller took it through the driver’s window. Most of it looks pretty good, but I assume the vinyl under that blanket is toast; the seller says it needs reupholstery. But compared to most classic cars this age for this price, it looks good inside.

It has a little bit of rust outside, and of course the paint is fried. It looks like it actually used to be two-tone light blue and white, but the blue is sun-bleached away. But it doesn’t look bad at all the way it is, and I think you’d be the star of any Cars & Coffee gathering. The odds of another Valiant wagon showing up are pretty slim.
1994 Dodge Caravan SE – $1,395

Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter OHC V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 192,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The station wagon’s reign as the family vehicle of choice ended in November of 1983, when Chrysler introduced the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager minivans. These boxes-on-wheels made so much sense that they soon filled suburban parking lots, and before the decade was out, nearly other manufacturer had gotten in on the act. The second-generation Caravan and Voyager, introduced in 1991, were more evolutionary than all-new, but it still sold like hotcakes. Short- and long-wheelbase versions were available; this one is an uncommon combination of the short wheelbase and the fancy SE trim.

Long-wheelbase Caravans were powered by Chrysler’s own 3.3 liter pushrod V6, but the short-wheelbase vans stuck with the Mitsubishi 6G72 3.0 liter V6. This is a good thing, because it also means it uses the tried-and-true 3-speed Torqueflite transmission, and not the 4-speed Ultradrive, which was still suffering from teething problems. It’s not as refined on the highway, without an overdrive gear, but it’s bulletproof. This one is closing in on 200,000 miles, but the seller says it runs and drives great.

One of the hallmarks of most minivans is seating capacity, but this one bucks that convention. It has four captain’s chairs, and nothing else. It’s an idea setup if you have two kids who fight a lot on road trips, though, like my brother and I did. Seriously; we’d build a wall of suitcases and stuff between us in the back seat, because it’s the only way we could ride in the same car for hours on end. These aren’t Stow & Go seats; they’re Unlatch & Wrestle seats, but once you get them out, you’ve got enough room to lay down full 4×8 sheets of building material.

It looks good outside, and it’s a nice shade of dark green. These vans were available in a wide range of trims, but I always liked this sporty look best. “Sporty” is a bit of a stretch for a minivan, but the two-tone paint makes it look lower than it is, and the five-spoke alloy wheels are a nice touch. Too bad one of them is missing a hubcap, but if that’s the worst fault you can find, that’s pretty good for this price range.
If you ever get a chance to tour an auto assembly plant, do it. It’s fascinating to see, and it’s fun to think about all the different eras of cars that have rolled down that assembly line over the years. Times change, styles change, but that line just keeps rolling along. Here we’ve got two cars that very well could have come from the same factory, three decades apart, built to serve the same purpose. Which era do you prefer?






I don’t think there are many cars on the road that are more homely than that Valiant.
Don’t want your kids EVER reproducing? Get them this as a first car.
it was hard to get worse than an Edsel, but Chrysler figured it out for a bit there.
Just wait till you see a 1960 Valiant…
OMG, the rear looks like Roz from Monsters, Inc.
That’s cute –
Because back in the day, people referred to it as a toilet seat.
Both? I’m thinking both.
Is that blood or Kool-Aid on the middle seat in the Caravan? Either way, sold!
I’m going with happy meal nugget sauce or ketchup.
I hope ketchup.
Tough choice today. A clean turnkey van for under $1500 is definitely a nice price, and I’d rather have the 6G72 than the Chrysler 3.3. I quite like the “just 4 seats” approach. Makes for a ton of space and practicality if you don’t need the extra 2 rows. Now it seems every SUV is clamoring for 9 seats and 3 rows, pretty unnecessary for most buyers.
The Valiant is just so much more interesting though. I’d be pretty nervous redoing the window seals around that 60 year old complex curved back glass. I was never a big fan of early 60s Plymouths (only behind Mercury for the ugly factor) but in this case, I think just being old and uncommon gets my vote.
First of all, 21,000 miles on the Valiant is total bullshit. How many times has the odometer rolled over anyway? Second, it’s ridiculously overpriced.
Caravan for me. It’s not the most exciting vehicle out there, but at least you know what you’re getting.
PS, there’s a Valiant wagon in my neighborhood. Believe me, they ain’t that great.
I was gonna say, the Caravan definitely has FEWER miles here…
Do you want a lame station wagon, that someone might use as a winter beater in suburban Detroit? Or do want a race-van that shares a motor with Maserati and the GTO? Bout to get 2 Fast 2 Furious with the whole family!
Have never liked the Valiant’s styling, and it’s even worse in wagon form. A minivan fan I am and a 4-place short wheelbase one is awfully interesting (not being sarcastic).
My BIL let the family 1963 Dodge 330 with the pushbutton automatic sit for years in a barn. It was so bad off after sitting he got rid of it. This was about 10 years ago and it was in my wife’s family since new.
The wagon is just too cool to pass up.
I voted for the Caravan, but on 2nd thought, I wish I could change it to the Valiant. The latter would make a sick EV conversion.
When I finished college with an electrical engineering degree, I even applied for a job at Chrysler in this city, and heard nothing back.
The Chrysler plants in St. Louis stopped producing minivans in 2007. They stopped making vehicles altogether in 2009. This city has seen its job opportunities decline precipitously over the decades, and downtown is now nearly dead. This city looks absolutely post-apocalyptic in many places, and I also think the Valiant serves as more reliable wasteland transportation.
Looking at both condition and price, I chose the safe minivan. (Today is the day I chose a minivan to drive?)
A swb minivan with a V6 sounds like a fun time, so that is what I choose.
I voted for the Valiant wagon. Red interiors are awesome 😀
The only way I’d pick the van is if it was a 4-cylinder. Import a diesel from Europe 😛
I drove Caravans and Voyagers of that generation as a teen, and I think they turned me off them for life. On the other hand, that’s a long roof Valiant that’s the same year as Tom Magliozzi’s Dart, and I’m on a Car Talk binge at the moment. Nevermind wagons are cool. And straight sixes. Easy Dar-Valiant! I mean Valiant.
If the car smells like poutine, it’s from Canada. If there are petrified toasted raviolis wedged in the car seat gaps, it was manufactured in St. Louis.
Don’t forget pizza with gross processed cheese.
Provel . . . it exists only within about 25 square miles of St. Louis.
my family being from STL, I actually kind of like Provel lol but only when I visit, but I do love the toasted ravs!
It’s really shocking toasted ravs haven’t gone national.
yeah agree, you can find toasted cheese ravs in NJ but not meat!
The Caravan is objectively better and significantly cheaper… but the heart wants what it wants.
The Valiant is a great survivor. Even if the odo is 121,000 instead of 21,000, that car will live until the tinworn gets it or the cockroaches take over the world.
This was actually a tough choice for me. I could se both of these as being highly useful vehicles, but I just had to take the wagon over the minivan. Valiant for me.
That Valiant will still be here in another 60 years. The Caravan will not make it another 30.
Do the ads show the VIN? VIN starts with a 1 were built in the US and VIN starts with a 2 built in Canada. Apparently not standardized until the 80s, so may not work for the Valiant.
I love a Caravan, but that Valiant… I’ve genuinely never seen one for sale before.
Valiant all the way. Not even close. The Valiant isn’t exciting in any way but it’s an interesting classic and would be a fun and reasonbly easy car to restore. Plus, it’s a wagon, gotta go with the wagon every time.
I have absolutly no interest in a $1400, 30 year old minivan with a 3 speed auto and almost two centurys on the clock.
I had a 89 Grand Caravan with a Mitsubishi motor that burned so much oil (valve guides?? it was 30 years ago) that it had a constant blue cloud behind it. I would still pick this nice green van over an early 60s anything that has been sitting for an unknown time.
We grew up with a ’93 Voyager, same motor. It was up to a quart of oil every 500 miles when it went away. It was probably at about 150k miles.
Those wrap around rear windows sealed the deal for me. The overall look is freaky, but I love it!
Onward, Prince Valiant!!!
agreed, they are so cool!
Agree pretty neat! I bet the seals are long gone though, and I wouldn’t want to be the one on the hook to swap them out without shattering 60 year old complex-shaped glass.
The Valiant would be more fun and interesting the fool around with. The van is just a (very) used car.
I had a Co-worker that had 2 Valiants, one a rough daily drive and the other a nice red Lancer with a 273 V8