Model Year | 2013 | 2016 | |
Model | Dodge Grand Caravan | Ford Mustang | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | 4dr Minivan, ext. | 2dr Coupe | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 121.2 in | 107.1 in | 14.1 in |
Length | 202.5 in | 188.3 in | 14.2 in |
Width | 78.7 in | 75.4 in | 3.3 in |
Height | 67.9 in | 54.4 in | 13.5 in |
Curb Weight | 4510 lb. | 3526 lb. | 984 lb. |
Fuel Capacity | 20.0 gal. | 16.0 gal. | 4 gal. |
Headroom, Row 1 | 39.8 in | 37.6 in | 2.2 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 63.7 in | 56.3 in | 7.4 in |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 58.4 in | 54.9 in | 3.5 in |
Legroom, Row 1 | 40.7 in | 42.0 in | -1.3 in |
Headroom, Row 2 | 39.3 in | 34.8 in | 4.5 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 64.1 in | 52.2 in | 11.9 in |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 65.0 in | 47.4 in | 17.6 in |
Legroom, Row 2 | 36.5 in | 30.6 in | 5.9 in |
Headroom, Row 3 | 37.9 in | 0.0 in | 37.9 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 62.0 in | 0.0 in | 62 in |
Hip Room, Row 3 | 48.7 in | 0.0 in | 48.7 in |
Legroom, Row 3 | 32.7 in | 0.0 in | 32.7 in |
Total Legroom | 109.9 in (over 3 rows) | 72.6 in (over 2 rows) | 37.3 in |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 33.0 ft3 | 13.5 ft3 | 19.5 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 83.3 ft3 | 13.5 | 69.8 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 143.8 ft3 | 13.5 ft3 | 130.3 ft3 |
2013 Dodge Grand Caravan Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Minivan, ext. 283-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
I dislike the current emphasis on hard seats (and this applies to most other brands as well- Toyotas and Hondas are the worst). Enthusiast magazines can rave all they want about great support, etc, but the softer seats in friend's '92 Caravan are more comfortable than these in my 2013. I have an SXT model, which is sort of mid level in Grand Caravans, and it does have a power seat. However, that is an OPTION, and it should be standard above the SE model. see full Dodge Grand Caravan review |
2012 | 4dr Minivan, ext. 283-horsepower 3.6L V6 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Nice car, but front seats could be better. Close to a deal breaker. see full Dodge Grand Caravan review |
2016 Ford Mustang Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
This "why not" should not come as a surprise. Neither the Mustang nor the Audi has much rear legroom. Plus in the Mustang my head was pressed against the rear window, and I'm only 5-9. The Mustang coupe's rear seat is viable only for people up to 5-6 or so in height. The Audi has a little more rear headroom. As does the Mustang convertible. If you will be putting people into the rear seat of the Mustang, you should turn off the "easy entry" feature. When it's activated, this feature automatically motors the seat backward when the engine is shut off, reducing rear legroom to near zero. I was nearly trapped when I turned the engine off while sitting in the back seat to take photos. If you want a V8-powered coupe with a roomy rear seat, get a Dodge Challenger. Both the Mustang and the RS 5 do a better job of transporting luggage than rear seat passengers. Both trunks have about as much capacity as that of the average compact sedan. see full Ford Mustang review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Ford Mustang.