8 ms·

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.)
      - linksnapzz 10y ago
        Yeah, I couldn't remember the curb weight off the top of my head, but I did remember the 5k gross. It still describes a very sturdy, solid one and a half ton truck with a one ton capacity frame and suspension...powered by a 80-90 hp gas (or 52 hp!!) diesel motor. :-) Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different....
        BuffaloBagel 10y ago
        I've got the 52hp diesel Vanagon camper weighing over 4,500 in my garage. Freeway performance is..... underwhelming.
        mikestew 10y ago
        67bhp in our '81 Westy. I view keeping the speed limit on any incline to be a victory. You diesel owners I view as masochists. :-)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        mikestew 10y ago
        Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different.... Wanna know why inline fours bolt up so nicely in Vanagons? Because VW originally intended to put an inline in them. I mean, do you really think VW wanted a an air-cooled engine with friggin' ignition points in a 1980 model? And an anemic, decades-old engine design in a 4000lb. (in the case of our Westfalia) vehicle? Had VW not done their usual (IMO) half-assed planning and design, it might have been different. But then they wouldn't be VW, would they? :-)
      - BuffaloBagel 10y ago
        My Westy Vanagon is around 4,500 lb.
cc439 10y ago
Passenger vans have been a thing since the dawn of the automobile. What separates vehicles like the VW Type 2, the Chevy Astro, and the Ford Econoline from the minivan is the minivan's complete disregard for use as a van. It was based on the platform of a sedan so it drove like a (fat) sedan rather than like a work truck. It also had actual attention paid toward things like NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) and passenger ergonomics. It's easy to look at the form factor and say "that's been done before" but that ignores hundreds of differing design principles that make for something entirely different on the whole.

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.)
    - linksnapzz 10y ago
      Yeah, I couldn't remember the curb weight off the top of my head, but I did remember the 5k gross. It still describes a very sturdy, solid one and a half ton truck with a one ton capacity frame and suspension...powered by a 80-90 hp gas (or 52 hp!!) diesel motor. :-) Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different....
      - BuffaloBagel 10y ago
        I've got the 52hp diesel Vanagon camper weighing over 4,500 in my garage. Freeway performance is..... underwhelming.
        mikestew 10y ago
        67bhp in our '81 Westy. I view keeping the speed limit on any incline to be a victory. You diesel owners I view as masochists. :-)
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikestew 10y ago
        Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different.... Wanna know why inline fours bolt up so nicely in Vanagons? Because VW originally intended to put an inline in them. I mean, do you really think VW wanted a an air-cooled engine with friggin' ignition points in a 1980 model? And an anemic, decades-old engine design in a 4000lb. (in the case of our Westfalia) vehicle? Had VW not done their usual (IMO) half-assed planning and design, it might have been different. But then they wouldn't be VW, would they? :-)
    - BuffaloBagel 10y ago
      My Westy Vanagon is around 4,500 lb.

cc439 10y ago

Passenger vans have been a thing since the dawn of the automobile. What separates vehicles like the VW Type 2, the Chevy Astro, and the Ford Econoline from the minivan is the minivan's complete disregard for use as a van. It was based on the platform of a sedan so it drove like a (fat) sedan rather than like a work truck. It also had actual attention paid toward things like NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) and passenger ergonomics. It's easy to look at the form factor and say "that's been done before" but that ignores hundreds of differing design principles that make for something entirely different on the whole.