Question:
> I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive > minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are > produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be > an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling > small trailers under 2,000 #.
Frank, I can’t comment on the reliability of the system (though I hear its no less reliable than the same van with FWD only). HOWEVER, I can say that it is NOT what I would pick for towing. For one thing, the rear differential is coupled to the tranny by an overrunning clutch, not by a center differential. In other words, the rear wheels are just along for the ride UNTIL the front wheels lose traction, so you gain nothing when towing. Also, just looking at diagrams of the system, it doesn’t look like the rear portion is ever meant to carry much power (consistent with the type of AWD it is- only engaging when the fronts slip). In short, it shouln’t be any better ( or worse, really) at towing than a normal FWD minivan. But I wouldn’t EVER tow regularly with a front-drive of any sort. Hauling a lightweight boat out to the lake occasionally is one thing and probably (just barely) ok, but trailering a camper all around the country is another thing entirely. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
: Frank… : : The AWD vehicles come with a super rear independent suspension, although : I wonder about overloading the rear and how the camber is effected. Then : you also get disc brakes on the rear axle with the AWD. No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a beam axle ?!! BTW Is engine transverse ?
No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
The AWD rear suspension consists of a tubular axle that attaches to a stamped steel housing that houses the wheel bearing and connects to the leaf springs. The mounting point is offset so that the driveshafts from the rear differential can pass over or through the housing and to the wheels. The differential is unsprung, it is firmly mounted to the chassis. The design is such that I believe that the movement of one wheel may twist the axle slightly. It might be a slight exaggeration, but I could see how someone might characterize the design as almost semi-independent. I had a 78 rabbit that had a slightly more refined (and FWD) design with semi trailing arm housings that clearly imparted torque to a beam axle. In any event, the axle has an effect. If I jack the rear of the car up by the middle of the rear axle, the camber of the rear wheels changes. The car also has load leveling shocks and rear disc brakes. I think it handles quite well.
Response:
Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a beam axle ?!! Whether the rear axle is solid or independent at each wheel has nothing to do with power going to it.
BTW Is engine transverse ?
Yes, as it is in awd Golfs, awd Eclipses and other Mitsu cars of the recent past, awd Volvo S70/V70s, the old Mazda 323 GTX, Ford Tempo, Pontiac 6000, etc. I suggest you read up a little more.
I have read up and thats why my sarcastic comment on the way U.S. auto makers botch up a job . That method is the worst way to make traction ! Have you ever seen the better auto makers do this ?! A solid "beam" axle is the worst way to do this. If you are going to pay the price of having one wheel interfere with the other , why not just put an old fashioned pumpkin in ! Honda 6 speed Civic AWD did it this way . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> : > : > : > : > : No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the > : fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
: Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the : rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a : beam axle ?!! Whether the rear axle is solid or independent at each wheel has nothing to do with power going to it. : : BTW Is engine transverse ? Yes, as it is in awd Golfs, awd Eclipses and other Mitsu cars of the recent past, awd Volvo S70/V70s, the old Mazda 323 GTX, Ford Tempo, Pontiac 6000, etc. I suggest you read up a little more. : : : : : No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the : fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
Lloyd is correct, the rear axel has the same tube between the sides as the non rear wheel drive. The rear axels are small shaftes connected to a center differential that is mounted solid on the body. Eugene – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the > rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a > beam axle ?!! > BTW Is engine transverse ? > No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the > fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
Frank… The AWD vehicles come with a super rear independent suspension, although I wonder about overloading the rear and how the camber is effected. Then you also get disc brakes on the rear axle with the AWD. You should definitely find an owner who has been towing with a 3.8/AWD. I don’t think the 3.8 engine is the problem, it’s the rest of the drive train. I tow with a Durango 5.9 V8. I get 15-18 on the highway under normal driving, and 10-12 towing. I am sure the 3.8/AWD will also suffer a fuel economy hit, but an owner who tows could help you with this info as well. IMHO, even a 2000lb trailer is a serious towing challenge. The 3.8/AWD is rated to 3500lb or 8500lb vehicle/trailer total, but you should really think through the issue of fuel savings -vs- getting a vehicle that will hold up. I bought a minivan for the wife, but I drive the heavy duty Durango with a happy balance of brawn and room for the family. The minivan has more flexibility on the inside, but the Durango with the third seat also offers plenty of seating and cargo options. I take a hit at the pump, but I have no worries about towing with the Durango. Plus the Durango will take you pretty far off-road if you are so inclined. If you towing needs will stay on the low end of the range, you could get by with the 4.7 V8 which get slightly better fuel economy over the 5.9. Happy shopping and feel free to hit me with any question on the Durango. I love that truck! RJ … – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive > minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are > produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be > an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling > small trailers under 2,000 #. Are the rear drive and brakes dependable? From > looking at the published numbers it seems that the 3.8L engine would have > adequate power for this application. THANKS in advance for your comments. > — > Frank Bock
Response:
Wonderful traction and stability under all conditions. I can also compare it to the FWD model. When the van was two days old the main engine computer failed. I was given a Voyager by the dealer with the 3.3 engine, it was a FWD model. There is really a difference. For example, making a spirited turn from a stop sign (spirited, not reckless) could generate some wheel slippage and the "awareness" feeling that you are pulling this large rear end in back of you. With the FWD you are much more aware of the bulk of the van during lane changes and in cross winds. I’m not saying it handles poorly or it is unstable. Just that you know that you are driving a large long front wheel drive car. It has limitations. The other competing minivans don’t offer AWD as far I know. But even comparing the FWD, I would go with the Chrysler product. I find the AWD superior in every way. There is a mileage cost of about 2 mph. A small price to pay. The AWD package includes load leveling shocks at the rear and rear discs.The AWD is a pleasure in severe conditions, white knuckles on snow covered roads are a thing of the past. I can drive with confidence. I watch my speed because the wonderful handling can cause you to go too fast. The laws of physics still hold. On a ski trip to Vermont I had to stop an a narrow two lane road on a hill while a plow turned around. I needed to start up on a steep unplowed hill with almost a foot of snow and proceed up an unplowed driveway. I did. This was a real test of the AWD. I was shocked to find it wasn’t a problem. I find this to be a superlative vehicle. I really enjoy driving it. I would order any DC van with the towing package so that it comes equipped with the heavy duty radiator and extra transmission cooling capacity. I would also change the transmission fluid every 30,000 miles. . As far as the thee transmission is concerned, I know there aren’t many who have nice things to say about these. It’s the four speed plus overdrive that is computer controlled. I have never owned a car with an automatic before and I didn’t want to. But you can’t get manuals on these vans. I must say that I have found that this transmission works really well. It shifts smoothly, and down shifts when it should. Very smooth. On the highway on cruise it will seem like almost magic. Up and down the hills with the computer selecting just the right combinations. Real nice. And if you step on it, the transmission will unlock andor kick down, depending on how hard you hit the pedal. Reliability is still an issue, in my opinion. I changed the tranny fluid every 30,000 miles and I didn’t tow, and I treated the tranny gently. The torque converter lock-up clutch failed suddenly leaving my wife and family stranded this past Easter weekend. The van had 75,000 miles on it. The tranny was replaced with a rebuild under the extended warranty. I have found that the brakes work quite well and the antilock seems very effective. There is a difference on snow. On snow, when I’m focused (as I try to be) I find that at moderate speeds the stopping distance seems quite long. This isn’t scientific because I have never driven without the antilock. It could be the tires, but I expect it is not. (The big 16 inch Michelin touring tires that were original equipment seem to work well in most conditions. Consumers’ Reports just rated them number 1. I got 50,000 thousand miles out of them and they were still legal, but I wouldn’t use them in the winter.). It seems that if I brake until the car is on the verge of antilock, it is stopping faster than it is when antilock is invoked. From what I have read about antilock brakes in this newsgroup and elsewhere my experience seems to fit. I find the antilock is very helpful in the rain and on bumpy surfaces. Also in snow type conditions at higher speeds where control can be more important than traction. The antilock seems less effective at speeds of 30 mph or so in a line of traffic. This year I purchased the new Michelin Alpin snow tires. These work real well and I would strongly urge anyone to get such snow tires if snow is a problem where you live. All season tires are a compromise and snow tires help you stop better. While my ‘97 isn’t underpowered, it could use a little more juice. They changed the intake manifold on the ‘98 and ‘99 (and perhaps tweaked a few mechanicals, I’m not sure), so the 3.8 engine now gets 180 horses (mine is 166). I guess they wanted to compete with the GM minis. It has an old fashioned overhead valve engine. Up till now all my cars have been overhead cams, but this engine works well and has a good reputation. The 2001 van will eventually be available with an even bigger motor. I haven’t mentioned interior accommodations and comfort. It’s all there I find that long trips go quickly. The ride is quiet and comfortable. Watch your speed because you will find that cruising in the high 80’s is no effort and very smooth. Setting the speed control helps. It works nicely to slow you on the downhill too. My passengers appreciate the walk through space so folks can switch seats or search for snacks or odds and ends in the back. Children and adults love the midcabin buckets and the view outside the big plate glass windows. The rear heat and air are powerful. With a little tweaking, you can make everyone comfortable, and I heard this was improved for 98 with a rear thermostat. The Mid cabin seats are almost as comfortable as the front seats and are more comfortable than the front seats of most cars. The arm rests are real nice. The rear seats are much better than the rear seats of most cars in terms of the space that they provide. And there won’t be anyone who will want for a cupholder or a place to put their stuff. Seven on a ski trip is no problem. I have the rear hitch and with it I can carry 4 bikes on a rear hitch carrier and three on the roof (not with the factory roof rack, but with a Yakima attachment called the double cross). I went for the LXI with the leather. You will need to clean it and protect it with conditioners. I have found it makes a difference. It can be scratched (like all leather) but it cleans up nicely. If you opt for the super high end Limited, you even get a center armrest in the rear seats and some other nice stuff like steering wheel radio controls. I found it is nice for the front seat passenger to have a power seat, (LXI) that seems to be the only thing of significance in terms of items to explain the LXI. I think the 2001 model will have some real nice improvements. I hope I didn’t run on too much about this car and my experience. But I really like it and sometimes it more pleasant to read about someone who has had a positive experience, if it is real. My first car was a 1971 Datsun 510 standard with radial tires (the poor man’s BMW), my second a 1978 Rabbit. My other cars have been Hondas.
Response:
I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling small trailers under 2,000 #. Are the rear drive and brakes dependable? From looking at the published numbers it seems that the 3.8L engine would have adequate power for this application. THANKS in advance for your comments. — Frank Bock
Response:
I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling small trailers under 2,000 #. Are the rear drive and brakes dependable? From looking at the published numbers it seems that the 3.8L engine would have adequate power for this application. THANKS in advance for your comments. — Frank Bock
Response:
Wonderful traction and stability under all conditions. I can also compare it to the FWD model. When the van was two days old the main engine computer failed. I was given a Voyager by the dealer with the 3.3 engine, it was a FWD model. There is really a difference. For example, making a spirited turn from a stop sign (spirited, not reckless) could generate some wheel slippage and the "awareness" feeling that you are pulling this large rear end in back of you. With the FWD you are much more aware of the bulk of the van during lane changes and in cross winds. I’m not saying it handles poorly or it is unstable. Just that you know that you are driving a large long front wheel drive car. It has limitations. The other competing minivans don’t offer AWD as far I know. But even comparing the FWD, I would go with the Chrysler product. I find the AWD superior in every way. There is a mileage cost of about 2 mph. A small price to pay. The AWD package includes load leveling shocks at the rear and rear discs.The AWD is a pleasure in severe conditions, white knuckles on snow covered roads are a thing of the past. I can drive with confidence. I watch my speed because the wonderful handling can cause you to go too fast. The laws of physics still hold. On a ski trip to Vermont I had to stop an a narrow two lane road on a hill while a plow turned around. I needed to start up on a steep unplowed hill with almost a foot of snow and proceed up an unplowed driveway. I did. This was a real test of the AWD. I was shocked to find it wasn’t a problem. I find this to be a superlative vehicle. I really enjoy driving it. I would order any DC van with the towing package so that it comes equipped with the heavy duty radiator and extra transmission cooling capacity. I would also change the transmission fluid every 30,000 miles. . As far as the thee transmission is concerned, I know there aren’t many who have nice things to say about these. It’s the four speed plus overdrive that is computer controlled. I have never owned a car with an automatic before and I didn’t want to. But you can’t get manuals on these vans. I must say that I have found that this transmission works really well. It shifts smoothly, and down shifts when it should. Very smooth. On the highway on cruise it will seem like almost magic. Up and down the hills with the computer selecting just the right combinations. Real nice. And if you step on it, the transmission will unlock andor kick down, depending on how hard you hit the pedal. Reliability is still an issue, in my opinion. I changed the tranny fluid every 30,000 miles and I didn’t tow, and I treated the tranny gently. The torque converter lock-up clutch failed suddenly leaving my wife and family stranded this past Easter weekend. The van had 75,000 miles on it. The tranny was replaced with a rebuild under the extended warranty. I have found that the brakes work quite well and the antilock seems very effective. There is a difference on snow. On snow, when I’m focused (as I try to be) I find that at moderate speeds the stopping distance seems quite long. This isn’t scientific because I have never driven without the antilock. It could be the tires, but I expect it is not. (The big 16 inch Michelin touring tires that were original equipment seem to work well in most conditions. Consumers’ Reports just rated them number 1. I got 50,000 thousand miles out of them and they were still legal, but I wouldn’t use them in the winter.). It seems that if I brake until the car is on the verge of antilock, it is stopping faster than it is when antilock is invoked. From what I have read about antilock brakes in this newsgroup and elsewhere my experience seems to fit. I find the antilock is very helpful in the rain and on bumpy surfaces. Also in snow type conditions at higher speeds where control can be more important than traction. The antilock seems less effective at speeds of 30 mph or so in a line of traffic. This year I purchased the new Michelin Alpin snow tires. These work real well and I would strongly urge anyone to get such snow tires if snow is a problem where you live. All season tires are a compromise and snow tires help you stop better. While my ‘97 isn’t underpowered, it could use a little more juice. They changed the intake manifold on the ‘98 and ‘99 (and perhaps tweaked a few mechanicals, I’m not sure), so the 3.8 engine now gets 180 horses (mine is 166). I guess they wanted to compete with the GM minis. It has an old fashioned overhead valve engine. Up till now all my cars have been overhead cams, but this engine works well and has a good reputation. The 2001 van will eventually be available with an even bigger motor. I haven’t mentioned interior accommodations and comfort. It’s all there I find that long trips go quickly. The ride is quiet and comfortable. Watch your speed because you will find that cruising in the high 80’s is no effort and very smooth. Setting the speed control helps. It works nicely to slow you on the downhill too. My passengers appreciate the walk through space so folks can switch seats or search for snacks or odds and ends in the back. Children and adults love the midcabin buckets and the view outside the big plate glass windows. The rear heat and air are powerful. With a little tweaking, you can make everyone comfortable, and I heard this was improved for 98 with a rear thermostat. The Mid cabin seats are almost as comfortable as the front seats and are more comfortable than the front seats of most cars. The arm rests are real nice. The rear seats are much better than the rear seats of most cars in terms of the space that they provide. And there won’t be anyone who will want for a cupholder or a place to put their stuff. Seven on a ski trip is no problem. I have the rear hitch and with it I can carry 4 bikes on a rear hitch carrier and three on the roof (not with the factory roof rack, but with a Yakima attachment called the double cross). I went for the LXI with the leather. You will need to clean it and protect it with conditioners. I have found it makes a difference. It can be scratched (like all leather) but it cleans up nicely. If you opt for the super high end Limited, you even get a center armrest in the rear seats and some other nice stuff like steering wheel radio controls. I found it is nice for the front seat passenger to have a power seat, (LXI) that seems to be the only thing of significance in terms of items to explain the LXI. I think the 2001 model will have some real nice improvements. I hope I didn’t run on too much about this car and my experience. But I really like it and sometimes it more pleasant to read about someone who has had a positive experience, if it is real. My first car was a 1971 Datsun 510 standard with radial tires (the poor man’s BMW), my second a 1978 Rabbit. My other cars have been Hondas.
Response:
Frank… The AWD vehicles come with a super rear independent suspension, although I wonder about overloading the rear and how the camber is effected. Then you also get disc brakes on the rear axle with the AWD. You should definitely find an owner who has been towing with a 3.8/AWD. I don’t think the 3.8 engine is the problem, it’s the rest of the drive train. I tow with a Durango 5.9 V8. I get 15-18 on the highway under normal driving, and 10-12 towing. I am sure the 3.8/AWD will also suffer a fuel economy hit, but an owner who tows could help you with this info as well. IMHO, even a 2000lb trailer is a serious towing challenge. The 3.8/AWD is rated to 3500lb or 8500lb vehicle/trailer total, but you should really think through the issue of fuel savings -vs- getting a vehicle that will hold up. I bought a minivan for the wife, but I drive the heavy duty Durango with a happy balance of brawn and room for the family. The minivan has more flexibility on the inside, but the Durango with the third seat also offers plenty of seating and cargo options. I take a hit at the pump, but I have no worries about towing with the Durango. Plus the Durango will take you pretty far off-road if you are so inclined. If you towing needs will stay on the low end of the range, you could get by with the 4.7 V8 which get slightly better fuel economy over the 5.9. Happy shopping and feel free to hit me with any question on the Durango. I love that truck! RJ … – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive > minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are > produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be > an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling > small trailers under 2,000 #. Are the rear drive and brakes dependable? From > looking at the published numbers it seems that the 3.8L engine would have > adequate power for this application. THANKS in advance for your comments. > — > Frank Bock
Response:
> I am looking for comments ( good or bad ) on the Chrysler all wheel drive > minivans with the 3.8 L engine. It doesn’t seem that very many of these are > produced. In light of the high fuel prices; would one of these minivans be > an acceptable alternative to a full sized vehicle to be used for pulling > small trailers under 2,000 #.
Frank, I can’t comment on the reliability of the system (though I hear its no less reliable than the same van with FWD only). HOWEVER, I can say that it is NOT what I would pick for towing. For one thing, the rear differential is coupled to the tranny by an overrunning clutch, not by a center differential. In other words, the rear wheels are just along for the ride UNTIL the front wheels lose traction, so you gain nothing when towing. Also, just looking at diagrams of the system, it doesn’t look like the rear portion is ever meant to carry much power (consistent with the type of AWD it is- only engaging when the fronts slip). In short, it shouln’t be any better ( or worse, really) at towing than a normal FWD minivan. But I wouldn’t EVER tow regularly with a front-drive of any sort. Hauling a lightweight boat out to the lake occasionally is one thing and probably (just barely) ok, but trailering a camper all around the country is another thing entirely. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
: Frank… : : The AWD vehicles come with a super rear independent suspension, although : I wonder about overloading the rear and how the camber is effected. Then : you also get disc brakes on the rear axle with the AWD. No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a beam axle ?!! BTW Is engine transverse ?
No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
The AWD rear suspension consists of a tubular axle that attaches to a stamped steel housing that houses the wheel bearing and connects to the leaf springs. The mounting point is offset so that the driveshafts from the rear differential can pass over or through the housing and to the wheels. The differential is unsprung, it is firmly mounted to the chassis. The design is such that I believe that the movement of one wheel may twist the axle slightly. It might be a slight exaggeration, but I could see how someone might characterize the design as almost semi-independent. I had a 78 rabbit that had a slightly more refined (and FWD) design with semi trailing arm housings that clearly imparted torque to a beam axle. In any event, the axle has an effect. If I jack the rear of the car up by the middle of the rear axle, the camber of the rear wheels changes. The car also has load leveling shocks and rear disc brakes. I think it handles quite well.
Response:
Lloyd is correct, the rear axel has the same tube between the sides as the non rear wheel drive. The rear axels are small shaftes connected to a center differential that is mounted solid on the body. Eugene – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the > rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a > beam axle ?!! > BTW Is engine transverse ? > No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the > fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
: Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the : rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a : beam axle ?!! Whether the rear axle is solid or independent at each wheel has nothing to do with power going to it. : : BTW Is engine transverse ? Yes, as it is in awd Golfs, awd Eclipses and other Mitsu cars of the recent past, awd Volvo S70/V70s, the old Mazda 323 GTX, Ford Tempo, Pontiac 6000, etc. I suggest you read up a little more. : : : : : No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the : fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
Wanna tell us how the power is transmitted to the rear wheels on the AllWheelDrive ( AWD) van using a beam axle ?!! Whether the rear axle is solid or independent at each wheel has nothing to do with power going to it.
BTW Is engine transverse ?
Yes, as it is in awd Golfs, awd Eclipses and other Mitsu cars of the recent past, awd Volvo S70/V70s, the old Mazda 323 GTX, Ford Tempo, Pontiac 6000, etc. I suggest you read up a little more.
I have read up and thats why my sarcastic comment on the way U.S. auto makers botch up a job . That method is the worst way to make traction ! Have you ever seen the better auto makers do this ?! A solid "beam" axle is the worst way to do this. If you are going to pay the price of having one wheel interfere with the other , why not just put an old fashioned pumpkin in ! Honda 6 speed Civic AWD did it this way . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> : > : > : > : > : No they don’t. The awd minivans have the same beam rear axle as the > : fwd ones, just with multi-leaf springs instead of single leaf.
Response:
–perhaps the revenue >collectors aren’t bothering to pick up speeders on the major highways, >or perhaps they aren’t trolling at a fast enought speed to catch up to >me. The nice thing about liabiliy-only insurance is that you can easily >price-compare diferent policies–you’re never going to have to deal with >your company anway, so you might as well get the crappiest company with >the worst agents and worst customer support. >Anyway, I pay $400 per year for AIG $100k / $250k liability only. AIG >has a website and has been just fine customer-support wise. >Hope this helps, >Peter