9 ms·

Driving Down Memory Lane in the Original Minivan

20 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

pwinnski 10y ago
It's so weird that the Dodge Caravan is considered the first minivan. I remember the Dodge Colt Vista pre-dating it by a year. I guess the Vista wasn't called a minivan, though.
- akgerber 10y ago
  That was called a 'Tall Wagon' in its day: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/tall-wagons-ranked-1690577814 http://oppositelock.kinja.com/tall-wagons-ranked-1690577814 Convergent evolution has replaced many SUVs with 'crossovers', which are basically the same thing, without the word cursed word 'wagon', tainted in many Baby Boomers' minds as a symbol of stodgy parenthood.
  - takk309 10y ago
    SUVs and crossovers differ in the platform they are based on. SUVs are built on a truck platform using "body of frame" construction. Crossovers are built on car platforms and are typically unibody in construction. SUVs tend to have better ground clearance and are more commonly rear wheel drive.
    - linksnapzz 10y ago
      A minor nitpick- While not the dominant form of construction, it is possible to have a capable SUV on a monocoque chassis. Many Jeep models, for instance.
    - cc439 10y ago
      The "body on frame" requirement isn't exactly definitive in my opinion. I consider the Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder (latest gen) to be SUVs, at least as far as their intended market is concerned. They're as capable as a non-Z71 Tahoe is offroad (enormous and fragile airdams) and they are all within the same ballpark when it comes to towing capacity (5,000lbs for the Pilot/Pathfinder, 6,400lbs for the Tahoe) as there's nothing I'd tow with one that I wouldn't feel safe towing with the other (hardly anyone will put a Class IV hitch on a Tahoe). The difference between the hottest selling crossovers like the CX-5/Forester/Escape/CR-V/Rav4 and the "soft-road" SUVs like the Pilot/Pathfinder/Traverse/Explorer is that they have redefined crossover to mean a vehicle based off a compact sized platform, with compact sized engines (all 4 cylinders), delivering compact-sized fuel economy (30mpg+), with absolutely 0 consideration given to off-roading (all FWD with AWD being a complete afterthought). The "soft-road" SUV is based off a mid-size platform, if not it's own and still gives credence to things like towing, real AWD, and imposing size without significantly larger interior room (the CX-5 in particular feels as roomy as most full-size SUVs) The modern crossover is in every way a "tall wagon", just with a better name.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        > real AWD You mean 4WD, right? They aren't really the same thing, or at least, a decade ago they were still considered separate, if often confused by the public. Are the current SUVs offering AWD or 4WD (or do they offer both on select variations/models)?
        cc439 10y ago
        No, I mean real AWD. The systems used in smaller crossovers are such afterthoughts that they are only able to handle a tiny fraction of the drivetrain's torque continuously. They may be able to handle up to 50% for a period of time but the tiny little clutches would fry themselves if they weren't protected, thus neutered, by software. They exist to fill out the highly marketable checkbox of "AWD" and to provide some assistance once the vehicle is in motion but they cannot be depended on to deliver the performance of a more traditional AWD system. See the Honda CR-V for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo The same "trick" has been applied to the Focus RS. It's "AWD" but the system is so weak that it can never live up to the expectations of those who think the AWD system will perform like that of a Subaru WRX or a Mitsubishi Evo. Source: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372 http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372
        kbenson 10y ago
        I was referring more to the "soft-road" segment, as you termed it. Ford Explorer, etc. I had a 2004 Explorer Sportrac (which is actually on the ranger chassis instead of the F150 chassis like regular Explorers IIRC), and it definitely had real, wheel locking 4WD in low and high gear, and as such it was dangerous (illegal?) to drive on pavement with it.
        cc439 10y ago
        Your generation of Explorer was from the era where it was still a true SUV. Ford introduced the Freestyle in 2005 which was among the first attempts to reach the modern "crossover" market. It was based off a modified Volvo sedan platform with unibody construction and a FWD focused layout. Unfortunately, it was a product ahead of its time as consumers had yet to warm up to the "tall wagon" approach to crossovers. My point in mentioning the Freestyle is that when it came time to release the 2nd generation, Ford elected to merge the fundamentally sound "crossover/soft-road" concept with the power of the Explorer name. The 5th generation Explorer is a 2nd generation Freestyle/Taurus X in all but the name. The auto industry press was extremely skeptical of such an extreme change in the design philosophy of a truly iconic vehicle. However, despite concerns over the large reduction in "truck" capabilities (massive reduction in approach, departure, and breakover angles as well as towing capacity), the market had stopped caring about such features. Sales are roughly double or even triple those of the 4th gen Explorer in its last years and are an order of magnitude greater than the worst years of the Freestyle/Taurus X. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation_.282011_.E2.80.93_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation...
- protomyth 10y ago
  They didn't use the terminology back then but the Volkswagen Type 2 would probably count as a minivan today. VW has said it cannot build a modern version with the flat front given the required safety equipment and design requirements. The new Microbus has a much different front to make its safety rating.
- arprocter 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Espace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Espace
mywittyname 10y ago
This article ends so abruptly. It could be summed up as, Chrysler invented the minivan in the 80s, some family kept on in mint condition, I drove it while Twisted Sister played on the radio.
- _rpd 10y ago
  I wonder if nostalgia articles get as many clickthroughs from GenXers as they do from older generations?
Neliquat 10y ago
So the vw bus? The 60's cabover vans? Those don't count?
- takk309 10y ago
  The drive train has a lot to do with the classification. VWs were rear wheel drive, same as many of the cab over vans. Most minivans are front wheel or all wheel drive.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    My old ford areostar, very much the accepted minivan, was rwd, as are many safari, etc. That argument doesn't stand up to data. The fwd swich came primarily to reuse drivetrains cheaply from fwd sedans as they became popular and efficient.
    - linksnapzz 10y ago
      I'd say that the "minivan == unit-body/transverse engine/FWD" taxonomy is the correct one. I mean, what are the counterexamples? -the body-on-frame/rwd/solid axle Aerostar/Safari/Expo were...slightly smaller than the domestic quarter ton vans. not really mini, plus all the drawbacks of high floor height, bad fuel economy, truck handling etc. of the full size vans. ...which is why they aren't sold anymore. -the VW Type 2/Vanagon: Customers didn't like rear-engine handling. Or two-digit hp in a 5000lb gvw vehicle. Plus it's hard to make forward control layouts pass front-impact tests. So, a design dead-end. -Mid-engined Japan-vans High floor height, weird service position, once again, crash safety became an issue. Of course, I'm happy that all these vehicles existed, and surely many customers felt their advantages outweighed their deficiencies...but on the whole, the Chrysler model ended up defining the market as it exists today, in the same way the Mercedes W124 defined "luxury car".
      - geoelectric 10y ago
        Not that you're generally wrong otherwise, but the Vanagon was around 3000 lbs curb weight (and a bit more for campers). 5k was the GVWR, i.e. max safe loaded weight. (Edit: missed gvw when I wrote this, but it's unusual to typify a vehicles P/W ratio by GVWR. That's more a comment on its structure and suspension.)
coredog64 10y ago
> even their upscale descendant, the sport utility vehicle. The Chevrolet Suburban has been in continuous production (excluding WW2 when nothing civilian was in production) since 1935. It's a stretch to call your great-great-great grandfather your descendant.
- cc439 10y ago
  They were referring to the lineage of the prototypical "family" car of its generation. The station wagon once ruled the driveways of families but as the next generation grew up viewing wagons as "something my boring/lame/uncool parents drove" they were primed to buy whatever alternative arose. The minivan was that alternative an inherited the throne, ruling over the family market for another generation. Then the SUV, a slightly more refined take on the traditional body-on-frame 4x4 burst onto the scene in the form of the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. It's plainly obvious that the SUV was handed the "family" crown somewhere around 2000-2003 by comparing the sales charts of minivans and SUVs. The dowager queen called the station wagon was effectively dead by that time. Now we're reaching the point in time when the children of the 90's, those raised in the backseat of a Ford Explorer or Honda Pilot. SUVs have softened over time as they've gone unibody and ditched any pretense of off-roading prowess but they are still a distinct category, one that is about to be ousted by the rise of the "crossover". While it's easy to argue that crossovers are still SUVs, especially when companies like Ford have relabeled SUV stalwarts as "crossovers", there are distinct differences between the SUV and the modern crossover. The crossover takes the best qualities of the SUV, the high seating position and the 5 door hatchback bodystyle and merges it with the best traits of the compact sedan. The prototypical crossovers, the Mazda CX-5, Honda CR-V, and Ford Escape are about the same size as the Ford Explorer of the 90's and early 00's. However, they share more in common with the Mazda 3, Honda Civic, and Ford Focus than they do with any larger SUV. THey bring the wise use of interior space (a CX-5 feels roomier in the backseat than a damn Tahoe), 30mpg+ efficiency, and pure FWD layout (with hacked on AWD systems hardly do anything at all, see: CR-V) which represents a sea change from the SUV in terms of design and marketing intentions. The minivan was the first "new" form factor to overthrow a design that traces its way back to vehicles like your 1935 Chevrolet Suburban. While the Suburban may have held the same market niche for 64 years, even it changed significantly in the face of the growing demand for "family" focused SUVs with the release of the GMT800 generation.
kbenson 10y ago
> But the upright shape and boxy proportions of minivans make it easy to transport plenty of people and lots of luggage. In fact, they tend to perform the job better than most other types of passenger cars — even their upscale descendant, the sport utility vehicle. I'm convinced that most people that gets small trucks would do better with minivans. The number of things we hauled in the back of our 1987 Ford Aerostar after pulling out the second and third row seats was staggering (and unsafe). It was a better solution for just about everything except for loose earth. My own Honda Odyssey is a dream to drive, and having taken many 7+ hour road trips over the years in multiple types of vehicles, it's by bar the most comfortable. The only downside is how you are sometimes perceived, and thus treated, when on the highway. People seem to not like to be behind a minivan, whether because of some preconceived idea that it's slow, or because they don't like the view obstruction, or some other reason. It's annoying to be passed just so the person that passed you can decide to go slower than you were in the first place, and it seems to happen more frequently when driving the minivan.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  It's because they block the view ahead (for me). Same with trucks and SUVs, but minivans are typically pretty boxy and thus block the view quite efficiently. In the Bay Area at least, I typically see more Prius drivers staying in the left lane (working that HOV lane pass?) going the speed limit or otherwise slower than drivers in lanes to the right of them. In the Midwest, it would tend to be more minivan and truck drivers doing this. Midwesterns also seem to prefer larger vehicles. I'm personally sick of driving vans but admit that they can be practical. However, for hauling 1-2 people >99% of the time, a small sedan makes much more sense to me. I've fit a queen bed frame + a passenger, and camping + living supplies for 10 days of burning man for 2 people in an 8th gen Civic, so I don't generally buy the "I really need a large vehicle" arguments. I also much prefer something like a BMW 5 series or a Volvo for road trips. Vans are not the worst for them, but the unsupportive seats, dead steering feel, poor performance, and otherwise joyless driving dynamics suck a lot of the life from a trip for me.
- BuffaloBagel 10y ago
  > I'm convinced that most people that gets small trucks would do better with minivans. Agree. I would add that most in an SUV would be better off in a minivan. The minivan is the perfect way to quickly cover long distances in comfort for 3+ people. Speaking of cargo space, the latest Chrysler minivan products have lie-flat rear seating that disappears into the floor and provides a huge flat area for sleeping/transport. My family fleet consists of a Chrysler minivan, two Honda Accords, Toyota Tacoma 4x4, diesel VW beetle and diesel VW Westfalia Camper Van. The minivan is by far the most practical car and the easiest and most comfortable to travel in. > downside is how you are sometimes perceived, and thus treated, when on the highway.. Also my experience. No one wants to be behind a mom van and no one wants to be passed by a mom van. Often get passed while going 10+ over the speed limit only to have the person pull in front and slow back down the the posted speed. Ironically, the 3.6 Pentastar engine in the Chrysler minivan is the most powerful engine by far in my fleet at almost 300HP. Fuel mileage is close to 25mpg when cruise is set at 70mph. Minivan is rational purchase but we are not rational beings, especially when it comes to car purchases. Choice of vehicle represents our aspirations, self-image, etc.
js2 10y ago
I recently saw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stout_Scarab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stout_Scarab on display at the NC Museum of Art. Way ahead of its time. If you have a couple minutes, watch "The Stout Scarab: The World's First Minivan?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvy-n2TM9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvy-n2TM9U (Apparently the Scarab on display at the museum is the one in the video.)

20 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

It's so weird that the Dodge Caravan is considered the first minivan. I remember the Dodge Colt Vista pre-dating it by a year. I guess the Vista wasn't called a minivan, though.

akgerber 10y ago
That was called a 'Tall Wagon' in its day: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/tall-wagons-ranked-1690577814 http://oppositelock.kinja.com/tall-wagons-ranked-1690577814 Convergent evolution has replaced many SUVs with 'crossovers', which are basically the same thing, without the word cursed word 'wagon', tainted in many Baby Boomers' minds as a symbol of stodgy parenthood.
- takk309 10y ago
  SUVs and crossovers differ in the platform they are based on. SUVs are built on a truck platform using "body of frame" construction. Crossovers are built on car platforms and are typically unibody in construction. SUVs tend to have better ground clearance and are more commonly rear wheel drive.
  - linksnapzz 10y ago
    A minor nitpick- While not the dominant form of construction, it is possible to have a capable SUV on a monocoque chassis. Many Jeep models, for instance.
  - cc439 10y ago
    The "body on frame" requirement isn't exactly definitive in my opinion. I consider the Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder (latest gen) to be SUVs, at least as far as their intended market is concerned. They're as capable as a non-Z71 Tahoe is offroad (enormous and fragile airdams) and they are all within the same ballpark when it comes to towing capacity (5,000lbs for the Pilot/Pathfinder, 6,400lbs for the Tahoe) as there's nothing I'd tow with one that I wouldn't feel safe towing with the other (hardly anyone will put a Class IV hitch on a Tahoe). The difference between the hottest selling crossovers like the CX-5/Forester/Escape/CR-V/Rav4 and the "soft-road" SUVs like the Pilot/Pathfinder/Traverse/Explorer is that they have redefined crossover to mean a vehicle based off a compact sized platform, with compact sized engines (all 4 cylinders), delivering compact-sized fuel economy (30mpg+), with absolutely 0 consideration given to off-roading (all FWD with AWD being a complete afterthought). The "soft-road" SUV is based off a mid-size platform, if not it's own and still gives credence to things like towing, real AWD, and imposing size without significantly larger interior room (the CX-5 in particular feels as roomy as most full-size SUVs) The modern crossover is in every way a "tall wagon", just with a better name.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > real AWD You mean 4WD, right? They aren't really the same thing, or at least, a decade ago they were still considered separate, if often confused by the public. Are the current SUVs offering AWD or 4WD (or do they offer both on select variations/models)?
      - cc439 10y ago
        No, I mean real AWD. The systems used in smaller crossovers are such afterthoughts that they are only able to handle a tiny fraction of the drivetrain's torque continuously. They may be able to handle up to 50% for a period of time but the tiny little clutches would fry themselves if they weren't protected, thus neutered, by software. They exist to fill out the highly marketable checkbox of "AWD" and to provide some assistance once the vehicle is in motion but they cannot be depended on to deliver the performance of a more traditional AWD system. See the Honda CR-V for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo The same "trick" has been applied to the Focus RS. It's "AWD" but the system is so weak that it can never live up to the expectations of those who think the AWD system will perform like that of a Subaru WRX or a Mitsubishi Evo. Source: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372 http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372
        kbenson 10y ago
        I was referring more to the "soft-road" segment, as you termed it. Ford Explorer, etc. I had a 2004 Explorer Sportrac (which is actually on the ranger chassis instead of the F150 chassis like regular Explorers IIRC), and it definitely had real, wheel locking 4WD in low and high gear, and as such it was dangerous (illegal?) to drive on pavement with it.
        cc439 10y ago
        Your generation of Explorer was from the era where it was still a true SUV. Ford introduced the Freestyle in 2005 which was among the first attempts to reach the modern "crossover" market. It was based off a modified Volvo sedan platform with unibody construction and a FWD focused layout. Unfortunately, it was a product ahead of its time as consumers had yet to warm up to the "tall wagon" approach to crossovers. My point in mentioning the Freestyle is that when it came time to release the 2nd generation, Ford elected to merge the fundamentally sound "crossover/soft-road" concept with the power of the Explorer name. The 5th generation Explorer is a 2nd generation Freestyle/Taurus X in all but the name. The auto industry press was extremely skeptical of such an extreme change in the design philosophy of a truly iconic vehicle. However, despite concerns over the large reduction in "truck" capabilities (massive reduction in approach, departure, and breakover angles as well as towing capacity), the market had stopped caring about such features. Sales are roughly double or even triple those of the 4th gen Explorer in its last years and are an order of magnitude greater than the worst years of the Freestyle/Taurus X. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation_.282011_.E2.80.93_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation...
protomyth 10y ago
They didn't use the terminology back then but the Volkswagen Type 2 would probably count as a minivan today. VW has said it cannot build a modern version with the flat front given the required safety equipment and design requirements. The new Microbus has a much different front to make its safety rating.
arprocter 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Espace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Espace

mywittyname 10y ago

This article ends so abruptly. It could be summed up as, Chrysler invented the minivan in the 80s, some family kept on in mint condition, I drove it while Twisted Sister played on the radio.

_rpd 10y ago
I wonder if nostalgia articles get as many clickthroughs from GenXers as they do from older generations?

Neliquat 10y ago

So the vw bus? The 60's cabover vans? Those don't count?

takk309 10y ago
The drive train has a lot to do with the classification. VWs were rear wheel drive, same as many of the cab over vans. Most minivans are front wheel or all wheel drive.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  My old ford areostar, very much the accepted minivan, was rwd, as are many safari, etc. That argument doesn't stand up to data. The fwd swich came primarily to reuse drivetrains cheaply from fwd sedans as they became popular and efficient.
  - linksnapzz 10y ago
    I'd say that the "minivan == unit-body/transverse engine/FWD" taxonomy is the correct one. I mean, what are the counterexamples? -the body-on-frame/rwd/solid axle Aerostar/Safari/Expo were...slightly smaller than the domestic quarter ton vans. not really mini, plus all the drawbacks of high floor height, bad fuel economy, truck handling etc. of the full size vans. ...which is why they aren't sold anymore. -the VW Type 2/Vanagon: Customers didn't like rear-engine handling. Or two-digit hp in a 5000lb gvw vehicle. Plus it's hard to make forward control layouts pass front-impact tests. So, a design dead-end. -Mid-engined Japan-vans High floor height, weird service position, once again, crash safety became an issue. Of course, I'm happy that all these vehicles existed, and surely many customers felt their advantages outweighed their deficiencies...but on the whole, the Chrysler model ended up defining the market as it exists today, in the same way the Mercedes W124 defined "luxury car".
    - geoelectric 10y ago
      Not that you're generally wrong otherwise, but the Vanagon was around 3000 lbs curb weight (and a bit more for campers). 5k was the GVWR, i.e. max safe loaded weight. (Edit: missed gvw when I wrote this, but it's unusual to typify a vehicles P/W ratio by GVWR. That's more a comment on its structure and suspension.)

coredog64 10y ago

> even their upscale descendant, the sport utility vehicle. The Chevrolet Suburban has been in continuous production (excluding WW2 when nothing civilian was in production) since 1935. It's a stretch to call your great-great-great grandfather your descendant.

cc439 10y ago
They were referring to the lineage of the prototypical "family" car of its generation. The station wagon once ruled the driveways of families but as the next generation grew up viewing wagons as "something my boring/lame/uncool parents drove" they were primed to buy whatever alternative arose. The minivan was that alternative an inherited the throne, ruling over the family market for another generation. Then the SUV, a slightly more refined take on the traditional body-on-frame 4x4 burst onto the scene in the form of the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. It's plainly obvious that the SUV was handed the "family" crown somewhere around 2000-2003 by comparing the sales charts of minivans and SUVs. The dowager queen called the station wagon was effectively dead by that time. Now we're reaching the point in time when the children of the 90's, those raised in the backseat of a Ford Explorer or Honda Pilot. SUVs have softened over time as they've gone unibody and ditched any pretense of off-roading prowess but they are still a distinct category, one that is about to be ousted by the rise of the "crossover". While it's easy to argue that crossovers are still SUVs, especially when companies like Ford have relabeled SUV stalwarts as "crossovers", there are distinct differences between the SUV and the modern crossover. The crossover takes the best qualities of the SUV, the high seating position and the 5 door hatchback bodystyle and merges it with the best traits of the compact sedan. The prototypical crossovers, the Mazda CX-5, Honda CR-V, and Ford Escape are about the same size as the Ford Explorer of the 90's and early 00's. However, they share more in common with the Mazda 3, Honda Civic, and Ford Focus than they do with any larger SUV. THey bring the wise use of interior space (a CX-5 feels roomier in the backseat than a damn Tahoe), 30mpg+ efficiency, and pure FWD layout (with hacked on AWD systems hardly do anything at all, see: CR-V) which represents a sea change from the SUV in terms of design and marketing intentions. The minivan was the first "new" form factor to overthrow a design that traces its way back to vehicles like your 1935 Chevrolet Suburban. While the Suburban may have held the same market niche for 64 years, even it changed significantly in the face of the growing demand for "family" focused SUVs with the release of the GMT800 generation.

kbenson 10y ago

> But the upright shape and boxy proportions of minivans make it easy to transport plenty of people and lots of luggage. In fact, they tend to perform the job better than most other types of passenger cars — even their upscale descendant, the sport utility vehicle. I'm convinced that most people that gets small trucks would do better with minivans. The number of things we hauled in the back of our 1987 Ford Aerostar after pulling out the second and third row seats was staggering (and unsafe). It was a better solution for just about everything except for loose earth. My own Honda Odyssey is a dream to drive, and having taken many 7+ hour road trips over the years in multiple types of vehicles, it's by bar the most comfortable. The only downside is how you are sometimes perceived, and thus treated, when on the highway. People seem to not like to be behind a minivan, whether because of some preconceived idea that it's slow, or because they don't like the view obstruction, or some other reason. It's annoying to be passed just so the person that passed you can decide to go slower than you were in the first place, and it seems to happen more frequently when driving the minivan.

seanp2k2 10y ago
It's because they block the view ahead (for me). Same with trucks and SUVs, but minivans are typically pretty boxy and thus block the view quite efficiently. In the Bay Area at least, I typically see more Prius drivers staying in the left lane (working that HOV lane pass?) going the speed limit or otherwise slower than drivers in lanes to the right of them. In the Midwest, it would tend to be more minivan and truck drivers doing this. Midwesterns also seem to prefer larger vehicles. I'm personally sick of driving vans but admit that they can be practical. However, for hauling 1-2 people >99% of the time, a small sedan makes much more sense to me. I've fit a queen bed frame + a passenger, and camping + living supplies for 10 days of burning man for 2 people in an 8th gen Civic, so I don't generally buy the "I really need a large vehicle" arguments. I also much prefer something like a BMW 5 series or a Volvo for road trips. Vans are not the worst for them, but the unsupportive seats, dead steering feel, poor performance, and otherwise joyless driving dynamics suck a lot of the life from a trip for me.
BuffaloBagel 10y ago
> I'm convinced that most people that gets small trucks would do better with minivans. Agree. I would add that most in an SUV would be better off in a minivan. The minivan is the perfect way to quickly cover long distances in comfort for 3+ people. Speaking of cargo space, the latest Chrysler minivan products have lie-flat rear seating that disappears into the floor and provides a huge flat area for sleeping/transport. My family fleet consists of a Chrysler minivan, two Honda Accords, Toyota Tacoma 4x4, diesel VW beetle and diesel VW Westfalia Camper Van. The minivan is by far the most practical car and the easiest and most comfortable to travel in. > downside is how you are sometimes perceived, and thus treated, when on the highway.. Also my experience. No one wants to be behind a mom van and no one wants to be passed by a mom van. Often get passed while going 10+ over the speed limit only to have the person pull in front and slow back down the the posted speed. Ironically, the 3.6 Pentastar engine in the Chrysler minivan is the most powerful engine by far in my fleet at almost 300HP. Fuel mileage is close to 25mpg when cruise is set at 70mph. Minivan is rational purchase but we are not rational beings, especially when it comes to car purchases. Choice of vehicle represents our aspirations, self-image, etc.

js2 10y ago

I recently saw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stout_Scarab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stout_Scarab on display at the NC Museum of Art. Way ahead of its time. If you have a couple minutes, watch "The Stout Scarab: The World's First Minivan?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvy-n2TM9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvy-n2TM9U (Apparently the Scarab on display at the museum is the one in the video.)