The Death of the Minivan
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Our family was shopping last year for a new minivan to replace our aging Odyssey--our kids are bigger now, but we still go on trips together. We looked for Siennas and Odysseys, but nobody had a good selection in stock, and the newer models felt more cramped with worse visibility than the old ones. I felt that we were not being given the choices we wanted and were being herded toward SUVs.
Fuel economy standards should be fixed so that vehicles with truck chassis are treated the same as cars, tax loopholes advantaging truck chassis should be closed, there should be much stricter legal requirements for driver view of nearby low objects, possibly urban areas should have special 10 mph lower speed limits for SUV-sized vehicles, and there should be much higher financial liability for pedestrian/cyclist injuries, possibly piercing through directly to manufacturers.
Otherwise, car design has been a race to the bottom.
Peak wagon was the P3 Volvo V70/XC70, built on the Ford EUCD platform [1], which had amazing utility via tie-down rails, 40/20/40 fold-flat middle seats, and a front passenger seat that folded flat to create a uniform load floor for carrying 10 foot long boards. They were better at being useful than the Subaru Outback and yet had higher quality leather and carpets. And don't forget the vertical rear hatch, giving more interior space with a larger window (and larger rear wiper!) that gave them excellent rearward visibility.
Subjecting big trucks to the same standards as small cars either makes the fuel standards pointless (as they cater to trucks), or outlaws trucks entirely, which is political suicide. People already pay extra for big trucks, which suggests it's something they intrinsically like, and will oppose efforts to ban them.
I'm not really sure what you can do to fix it, and anything you could do would be political suicide. I'd like to think if i were in charge, I'd have them banned for urban use by the end of the week, but I'd also be out of office by next Monday.
Because I would rather die than kill. I honestly can't understand how anybody would prefer the opposite. How do you live with yourself knowing that you have killed somebody?
Secondly, this mindset is also considering at in a collision with a larger vehicle, like a truck, the SUV means possible survival, small car means certain death, and the trucker walks away anyway (no, that's not a guarantee but it's heavily implied by the "big is safe" message). The fate of a hypothetical small car is only a subset of possibilities, and also can be mostly discounted because:
Thirdly, if you are driving an urban tank in order to defend against the bad drivers (you being, naturally, a very good driver), anyone who dies in a crash with you killed themselves. It's your job to defend you and yours (going by SUV adverts, they're very photogenic and adoring) from that brutal recklessness.
I don't think it's complicated psychology, even if I think it's extremely misguided.
Not least, the tank is disproportionately a danger to your own kids, has shit visibility and is probably not as safe in a collision as it might feel, leading to a false sense of invulnerability and confidence to push into dangerous situations.
However terrible single party dictatorships like China is, at least they can build high-speed rail (right over your property they've forced you to relinquish) or force cities to electrify without needing to consider the moaning voters who are resistant to change.
The reality is that manufacturers have captured the EPA regulations and are using them to steer the market in the direction they want, and in doing so actually making the environment (to say nothing of road safety) worse.
Manufacturers want more profit per-car. They also want to push the market into categories that have higher tariffs on imports. They don't want to be in the market of compact cars or sedans or even, increasingly, large but lightweight vehicles like minivans so they steer the market and regulations away from these vehicle classes.
Honestly this just indicates that you haven't seriously driven a modern CUV. What you describe sounds like a 1990 suburban.
CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive.
Sure, I'm opposed to daily driving trucks and truck frame SUVs. But thats an important distinction. The popular cars in the US today are CUVs which are built on a car chassis and generally speaking have good visibility and safety features. They are essentially scaled up wagons with awd.
So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.
For the vast majority of people who own trucks, they're not using the cargo hauling or off road capabilities at all. That's an easy one, we shouldn't all be paying the cost of that.
At the other end, there are definitely situations where the job the vehicle is fulfilling is not "people transport" but "heavy thing transport". I don't think anyone's suggesting we start outfitting construction crews with Priuses (Priora? Prii?).
There's a whole spectrum in between that you likely fall on, and I can't really say much more than that without knowing what "routinely" or "full use" means there.
What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars. I can't see any justification for those at all besides "because I want to" which really doesn't seem like a good enough justification for putting people in danger.
As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions. From the data I can find[0], that's a similar increase in risk of fatality as someone doing something like 30mph in a 15mph school zone and hitting a kid. If I started driving 30mph through school zones "because I want to" or "because sometimes I'm in a hurry" they would put me in jail. Frankly, I don't think there's _any_ reason society would accept for me doing that. Certainly not after I hit and killed a kid. So why should we all accept it here?
[0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...
Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge, and even it readily handles towing loads (like the large trailer full of furniture that I hauled from Sacramento to Reno last weekend) that I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.
In any case, there's more to the equation than weight. Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification" - without needing a trailer, mind you.
> As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions.
"Full size" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
In any case, I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck. More like +45% at most: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
What I said was that I cannot see justification for trucks that are less, not, or barely more capable than smaller vehicles with fewer negative externalities. You're choosing to put yourself in that category it seems.
> Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge,
The Tacoma comes in "34 flavours" apparently, so... there's a few but looks like the SR with I4 is rated for 3,500lbs. That's 1,000lbs unbraked TWR and 3,500lbs braked TWR.
> and even it readily handles towing loads
Yes? I'm not trying to suggest trucks aren't capable of towing... I'm trying to suggest that other vehicles are a lot more capable than people seem to think and some of these trucks are unnecessary.
The manual for the Tacoma says towing above 2,000lbs requires an anti-sway bar and never to exceed 65mph. Under the same conditions, a Subaru Crosstrek has the same 3,500lb tow rating.
So if you can get by with the 3,500lb towing capacity, you don't need a truck for towing. You've proved the exact point I was trying to make. We are dealing with the negative aspects of truck ownership and there's basically no reason for it. In a society where people were more considerate, that vehicle would not exist. Why are we in this situation then?
> I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.
Right, that's why. Over in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere with all the extra safety regulations and everything else they're towing around giant campers with little 0.8L econoboxes without turning the highways into mad max, but somehow that just never made it over here.
In the past while I've hauled loads consisting of:
- Concrete patio blocks
- A hardwood king sized bed + headboard; kid's play structure; swingset; and a pile of flatpak Ikea stuff
- A heavy hardwood hutch, buffet, large kitchen table, and four dining chairs
- A kitchen's worth of new cabinets, a dishwasher, and related fixtures
- A kitchen's worth of old cabinets, fixtures, and related construction debris
- A bunch of yard debris from neighbours' yards after some storms
- A bunch of lumber from the lumberyard
- Probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting.
> Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification"
Again, I'm not saying trucks can't haul things. I'm saying they're not needed to haul things in many situations. Saying that you can do things with your truck is not justifying its existence unless they're things you _can't_ do otherwise. Right off the bat, the existence of trailers, cargo carriers, hatchbacks, etc basically addresses this. But sure, I'll play along.
No, I wouldn't fill my back seat up with gravel. That would be stupid and also horribly inefficient. Gravel's heavy. I pay the guy $50 to use his dump truck to dump 10 or 15 yards on my property instead of making 15 trips with a trailer or 30+ with a truck bed. Thankfully I've yet to run into a situation in my life where I suddenly and unexpectedly need to transport a half a yard (max for the top trim Tacoma's bed capacity) of gravel with no time to just go get my trailer. Is this a thing that happens to a lot of people?
I do haul bags of trash with my car. Every week when I take the trash. Sometimes in the trunk, but sometimes in a small hitch mount cargo carrier.
Yeah, I've moved furniture with my car. Sometimes I need to take a couple pieces off to get it in there. There's a lot of space but the trunk opening's just not that tall. Can get a lot of Ikea boxes in there! At one point I went down to Home Depot for a 4x8 sheet of plywood and I had to pay them $2 to cut it in half lengthwise so I could get it in there. Generally though if I were trying to move furniture I'd either use my wife's hatchback (larger trunk opening's kinda helpful, managed to shove a fridge in there the other day) or, y'know, just use the trailer. Again I find in my life it's pretty rare that I suddenly and unexpectedly need to haul large pieces of furniture.
> without needing a trailer, mind you.
I'm really not sure why this is a benefit. Even though I'm probably moving around more stuff that many people, the vast majority of my driving is still not hauling furniture around. I don't need to pay the costs in space, weight, or fuel economy for the capability to haul stuff when I'm not actively hauling stuff--I just take the trailer off. Much like I don't drive around day-to-day in a 27ft box truck because I occasionally move between houses... I go borrow one from U-Haul. (Which also has trailers and trucks.)
> I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck.
Here's a meta-study saying +50%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/
This was the newer study that was sourced from, though I mixed some numbers up: https://www.justintyndall.com/tyndall_pedestrian.pdf
+68% for "trucks" and +99% (where I got twice as likely) for "full-size SUVs". Given most SUVs are built on truck frames with similar bodywork and styling, I'm not sure what the distinction would be.
But sure, instead of 2.0x or 1.7x or 1.5x we can call it 1.45x. A 45% increase in risk of death as a pedestrian, an increased likelihood of being hit in the first place due to worse visibility, an increased risk of death in a collision while driving because physics, increased pollution in the air I breathe... totally worth it.
While not being all that much smaller than a Tacoma, aside from length. And the tradeoff for that shorter length is that you lose out on a bed.
> I pay the guy $50 to use his dump truck to dump 10 or 15 yards on my property
And if you don't need 10 or 15 yards of gravel?
> Sometimes in the trunk, but sometimes in a small hitch mount cargo carrier.
So in other words: either stinking up your interior or reliant on an extra piece of equipment. If only your vehicle had a built-in exterior storage compartment.
> There's a lot of space but the trunk opening's just not that tall.
One of the perks of a pickup is that the "trunk" is infinitely tall. I don't have to cut boards or disassemble furniture or what have you. I don't need a trailer, either. I just need ratchet straps.
> I'm really not sure why this is a benefit
A trailer is an extra burden that's best avoided if possible. It complicates maneuvering, it's an extra set of lights and (possibly) brakes to maintain, it imposes different chain control requirements when driving in ice/snow (very relevant where I live), some places impose different speed limits when towing, etc. You also need someplace to park it when you're not using it, which ain't always possible - that, or you need to rent one, which means extra costs, and extra time/fuel to go to U-Haul or whatever to pick it up and drop it off.
Meanwhile, I just put stuff in the bed and call it a day.
> Again I find in my life it's pretty rare that I suddenly and unexpectedly need to haul large pieces of furniture.
Cool. Meanwhile, for me it's a monthly occurrence at minimum. If it ain't for me, it's for a friend or family member.
> This was the newer study that was sourced from, though I mixed some numbers up: https://www.justintyndall.com/tyndall_pedestrian.pdf
An interesting conclusion of that study, to your point, is its claim that replacing all "light trucks" (pickups, SUVs, minivans) with "cars" would reduce yearly pedestrian fatalities by almost 500. And yet, that'd be less than 7% of the approx. 7,500 yearly pedestrian deaths - which suggests to me that blaming big(ger) vehicles for any significant uptick in pedestrian fatalities is a red herring.
> an increased likelihood of being hit in the first place due to worse visibility
My Tacoma has significantly better visibility than any comparably-new sedan I've driven.
> an increased risk of death in a collision while driving because physics
That's the opposite of correct: https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight
If the concern is fuel usage then let's raise the fuel tax. Moralizing and telling other people that they like the wrong things isn't going to accomplish anything.
And then you can get into in the US high cost of medical when one of these ego chasers mow down an otherwise productive member of society.
Most people don’t need this beyond what most modern vehicles can already do.
I’ve got what is termed a “compact sport sedan”.
I live in rural Canada. I can guarantee that car has seen more gravel, mud and barely roads that most cars will see in their lifetime, trucks included. Never mind the snow and ice. The experience is in no way challenging or compromised.
I regularly use it to tow a 5’x10’ trailer. Most I’ve pulled is just shy of 3,000lbs. Only compromise there I’ve found is pulling it up the 8% grade headed toward my house I had to take it down from 6th to 5th gear to maintain 70mph.
This is _way_ more than most people demand of their vehicles.
A truck is practical for the average person in much the same way that using a kinetic orbital strike to drive a nail is a practical as a replacement for a hammer.
They wouldn't be so popular if every other car on the road didn't tower over conventional sedans. Why would you want a car that rides worse, is heavier, and costs more to buy and live with? People don't want vehicles that feel sunken into the ground and increasingly that's how sedans are perceived. It's a runaway effect.
A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain.
The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.
The "CUV", compact SUV, is popular because it's higher off the ground. Because as other cars have gotten larger, people feel less safe with traditional sedans. Sedans, which worked well before because really people don't carry a lot with their cars most of the time. They've taken the hatchback design, since with rollover it's difficult to make those high in cargo capacity, and blown it up and thrown AWD on it. Take makes the car more expensive, it's more metal and plastic.
Doing that spoils the handling because now you've taken a chassis where the wheels would be parallel and lifted it. Making it so the body rolls more, providing a stiffer chassis feel, compounded by the additional weight for now larger components like the rear hatch. And you get a worse riding vehicle. I mean if the scope of the vehicles you've driven is just SUVs, then yeah, they might seem very sporty. But most of that is just marketing. That's why manufacturers don't really make sports cars into SUVs, because there's a lot of compromises in doing that.
On the contrary, having driven plenty of cars with and without AWD, adding AWD is a massive boon to handling for me, even outside of "rough" conditions like mud/ice/snow/gravel.
Especially since most vehicles’ AWD systems (especially if you’re talking crossovers) are really just “2WD but we can briefly engage the other two wheels if you’re trying to get moving on a patch of ice”. (One axle is not being driven except when the other is slipping, and in many cases there are speed limits above which this won’t engage. Many of these systems rely on clutch packs that, if they were engaged continuously, would overheat.)
CUV is far lighter duty, and far better in handling, driving dynamics and efficiency. Especially in models tuned for enthusiast drivers.
As for the efficiency of a sedan, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that putting non-cabin over the majority of the frame is an efficient design. Heck even a prius is a hatchback, not a sedan.
I've driven these a few times as rentals; I don't know if that counts as "serious". They are more expensive, they handle worse, they are heavier, they are less stable because they are significantly higher off the ground, they have poorer visibility as a driver especially of nearby low objects, all else equal they get worse gas mileage, and are basically the same size inside so that the seating and cargo is not appreciably different compared to a wagon.
In my opinion and for my use cases they are worse in every way except for profit for the manufacturer.
This is such a good idea that I've never heard before. Are there any good blog posts ot whatever that explore it?
We were in the market and ended up getting a 24 Ody exl. There are some discounted models here and there because of the 25 (very mild) refresh.
How heavy is a sheet of unspecified plywood?
If it's 50 sheets of 1.25" lignum vitae, it's about 13,100 lbs.
3000 lbs seems like a reasonable estimate.
I do not miss the 3.6L Pentastar. I thought the rocker arm ticking would eventually kill the engine but the electrical system took care of that way ahead of time. (Buy a refurbished TIPM while they're still available). I see people around me proudly driving their tricked out Grand Cherokees and all I can think is "you got screwed".
Having low inventory of minivans is consistent with people not wanting them, right?
The simple fact is that they just aren't very popular, and consumers (at least the ones who buy brand-new) really want SUVs and pretty much nothing else. Stop whining about the manufacturers, and look at your idiot neighbors who are all choosing these monstrosities. (Also look at your crappy government, that your neighbors elected, that gives highly preferential treatment to SUVs with their "regulation".) The manufacturers are just giving people what they want; anything else would be leaving money on the table and losing to their competition.
I’m not an expert on this but minivans as passenger vehicles could be less desirable for the automaker as they have more stringent safety and emission regulations that cut into their margins in those vehicles
Are we talking actual SUVs only (eg. Cadillac Escalades), or also the far more popular crossovers?
As a van person (grew up with an 1987 Aerostar, ordered a 2017 Pacifica in 2016 (sold to Carvana this year when I got engine trouble), bought an 1981 Vanagon recently that might move on its own power soon), the problem is Stow and Go is clearly awesome, but owning a Chrysler isn't. Having a hybrid would be nice for fuel efficiency, but Chrysler removes features in their hybrid (no power rear seats, no Stow and Go), Toyota doesn't even let you take the middle seats out in the Hybrid Sienna. Minivans that aren't flexible aren't really worth it IMHO. If Honda figured out how to fold the middle seats into the floor, I'd buy an Odyssey in minutes.
All the commercial small vans pulled out of the market too; I wanted to get a Ford Transit Connect, but they left, and the used market for them is weird: mostly 100k+ miles. Nissan NV left, Ram Promaster City; neither offered a passenger model. I think I left something out. Mercedes Metris is still in, I think, but it's very basic. I'd like something more on the basic end, but still with fold into the floor rear seats at least.
It’s out as of last year. What’s on the lot is all there is.
That said, if you are ok with basic it’s a really hard vehicle to beat. It’ll tow 5000, has a legitimately flat load floor, and can carry 2,200lbs if you take out the seats (without hitting GVWR). Fuel mileage is pretty good (20ish in town, 28ish on the highway).
We're renting a car in France soon for 4 adults and luggage - I assumed the venerable Espace would be the move, but the hire websites didn't offer them
Looking at the wiki page, it now seems to have turned into an SUV...
"This is the biggest one we have" was the only answer we got, so we made it work.
[edit: corrected a typo]
I think your issue comes from fuel consumption standards (smaller greenhouse takes less AC) and the unstoppable proliferation of curtain airbags, which won't stop until A, B and C pillars of all vehicles are supplanted by The Pillar, with no windows or ability to see beside one's vehicle, save by cameras.
They seem to be making a small comeback in the UK recently though, with the Lexus LM (which is basically the same as my Vellfire) and Maxus Mifa 9, a Chinese EV, both being released here.
We all voted for the people who voted for... <repeat for several dozen layers> ...wrote the rules that incentivized the current dumb status quo into existence.
The US auto industry is basically a case study in layers of unintended consequences.
Modern SUVs and Minivans are converging on something that's not really as good as either. A minivan was a box on four wheels maximizing internal space. An SUV sacrificed that for better towing, maybe offroading. Nowadays they're making minivans with no internal space and SUVs that can't tow or offroad.
I actually think it really is because it is uncool. A whole generation of kids growing up spent too much time in the back of a minivan and now refuse to ever subject someone else to that. Minivans of the 90s were pretty bad (most vehicles in the 90s were). Your mom drove a minivan. Your mom's minivan smelled bad, the air didn't work well, it rode poorly making you sick. The minivans of the 90s were incredibly practical and incredibly bad at the same time.
for Cars and SUVs:
- A Chevy Equinox starts at $28k MSRP.
- A Toyota RAV4 starts at $29k MSRP.
- A Toyota Prius (PHEV) starts at $33k MSRP.
but for minivans:
- A Honda Odyssey (gas only) starts at $42k MSRP.
- A Chrysler Pacifica (PHEV) starts at $51k MSRP.
Minivans are actually really popular for families in the midwest, for folks who can afford it. If you can't, the option becomes "Get a Minivan, or get an SUV and save $15,000 USD", which obviously skews a lot of families towards the SUV.
So shoving two or three kids in the back of a cheap SUV is pretty normal, event though it's less convenient in a lot of other ways.
The same sort of thing happened to trucks which turned into giant impractical luxury vehicles. I think with trucks it is worse though because minivans are actually sleeper cargo haulers where as a lot of trucks its pretend or for show.
Try that in some bubble shaped car-based SUV or a short-bed pickup.
Person 2 says "ha that reminds me of a character in a story".
It's two people joking in a subthread.
Why do people constantly equate what car someone drives with the size of their reproductive organs? I usually only see this from people who reflexively look down on people who own more expensive vehicles than them.
It's weird.
Live your life. Who cares what you or anyone else chooses to drive. I promise you, whatever vehicle you drive, nobody sane actually cares.
If you drive an oversized SUV which you have further lifted off the ground, removed the muffler from, and make exhaust that gives everyone a headache, people are going to assume you are a creepy asshole with no self respect or respect for your neighbors. The vehicle becomes a kind of enraged roar of emotional insecurity, from the "everyone else needs to always be thinking and talking about me, and it doesn't matter why" school of human interaction.
Or maybe it's just you being weird with your city-dweller assumptions?
(Though they should also be paying their fair share for the environmental costs of the CO2 emissions they pump out which are putting us on a path toward literal un-livability of the Earth, to which end gasoline should probably cost like $15/gallon.)
Using outrageous hyperbole in this manner might be even more weird than your original baseless assumptions.
> fair share... of the CO2 emissions they pump out which are putting us on a path toward literal un-livability of the Earth
Your hyperbole is putting on a path toward literal un-livability of the Earth. It's making me nauseous because of how weird it is.
[1]
> compact SUVs, full-size SUVs, and pickup trucks all result in a significantly higher probability of pedestrian death when compared to a similar collision involving a car. Compact SUVs increase the probability of death by 63%, pickups increase the probability by 68%, and full-size SUVs increase the probability by 99%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221201222...
I assume those children grew up to become maladapted adults with Cluster B traits. This manifests as antisocial nuisance behaviours such as rolling coal.
I see people in Cybertrucks and some other electric trucks--they don't have local pollution, but between the weight and the height, I'm living pretty dangerously. You always notice the big cars in the miata, but the big, heavy electrics is when I started feeling about as protected as a cyclist in it.
Still, I don't think they're creepy assholes who want to murder me or have emotional issues or whatever. I think they just like their big dumb truck, just like I like my ridiculous small car. I don't have to drive this car, it's impractical, it's dangerous, if someone kills me that'll probably ruin their day, but I do it because I like it. I'm not psychologically deranged with a death wish. Sometimes people just like different things.
I can infer that you do not ride a bicycle very frequently. Once you do, you quickly learn which kind of vehicles act most aggressively around you.
More than drivers being aggressive towards me (helps I wasn't slowing them down, which I know can make some people aggro), I noticed that I was invisible to many drivers and had to be very cognizant of that in turning lanes and when needing to be out of the bike lean due to construction, etc.
Minivan --> probably has a lot of kids. Seems like a fair connection!
/s
You load big furniture on the roof of or haul building materials in or tow something with a car and the same demographics that said you didn't need a truck to do those things gawk at you with judgement like they're watching a homeless man prepare to cook a pigeon he just nabbed.
It hauls whatever needs hauling, and it's quite pleasant to drive in all weather.
(And I dare say that it has competently done a lot more off-road duty than the majority of SUVs and pickup trucks ever will.)
It's full of gems, like this:
Eventually, though, the minivan became so indelibly associated with suburbia that even soccer moms shunned it. Soon image-conscious parents were going to soccer games in vehicles designed to ford Yukon streams and invade Middle Eastern countries.
That could be a verse from the Canyonero ad jingle
I wanted to save money and buy a used minivan. However, in my area, used minivans (in decent condition) cost nearly the same as brand-new ones, so I got a new one.
Nearly every house in my neighborhood has a minivan parked out front.
They are such useful vehicles.
I can't throw my kids in the back of a truck. And if I'm hauling non-human objects, I usually want to cover and protect it from weather and theft, a minivan does that! A truck... not so much.
Car people live for the arbitrage between market sentiment and reality when it comes to older (but not classic) cars. Minivans fall right into that category; insanely useful with powerful engines and good suspension, yet had for cheap with low miles/single owner because "no one wants to drive a minivan anymore".
Yeah these are not the people we want/need, either.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240927122501/https://www.theat...
Got hooked on them when I bought one to transport my aging parents.
They're fantastic for road trips thanks to the huge field of view and extra storage, and they can double as a camper van for two people if you remove the back seats.
Most guys my age here own oversized trucks but real men drive minivans.
And to make matters worse, it is built in the same factory that makes the Highlander, Grand Highlander, and Lexus TX. They adjust the output mix to ensure that dealers will never have a large inventory - so you are guaranteed to be forced to pay full price and will never get a good deal on it. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, except that the sticker price is expensive.
My folks didn't do the Minivan, either, but it was just the 4 of us. Growing up, everyone I knew spoke about minivans like the Station Wagon. Ironically, all buying up things that are generally classified as Station Wagons, look exactly like station wagons but are now marketed as "crossovers." I doubt that would have worked in 1989, but style is fickle.
All of my data is anecdotal, but everyone I know that "chose to get a car that a Minivan would have served better" did so because "they hated minivans." Sure, they'd usually come up with a reason or two beyond "they're uncool" but the reasons were superficial and usually came with more sacrifices on the crossover/SUV side (not the least of which was fuel economy).
But one of the better driving experiences I had was in a fully loaded Chrysler Town and Country Anniversary Edition (the last year they made them) which I owned for a few years. It had a lot of power, reasonable fuel economy, was incredibly comfortable and had every convenience gadget you'd expect to find in a solid luxury car and then some. Plus, the kids can't slam a sliding door into a car or pole in the parking lot.
I skipped minivans because they're actually quite expensive.
In the UK, the small SUV body style is associated with nothing more than the suburban family. MPVs (minivans) are disappearing, driven mainly now only by older people who appreciate the easier access and have zero interest in cool.
The French have always been the masters of the MPV. Renault arguably invented it with its first Espace. Manufacturers such as Peugeot and Renault have successfully transformed their MPV offerings, keeping them almost as practical as the MPV form that preceded them, while reshaping the body to look more shoe-like.
My own take is that certain forms are just more appealing. Large wheels, high waistline, jutting bonnet (hood). Why this should be I have to admit I cannot work out. But do aesthetics have a "why"?
I drive an MPV, an Opel Meriva, and I love its practicality while hating its aesthetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA2t06RAGTk
A great feature of sliding doors, which minivans have, is your kids can never nail a car parked next to you with the door. I think we don't really do pragmatic vehicles in USA.
Bias: I am a mini cooper owner who has transported a dishwasher inside. My car is the apex predator of parking in the city! One negative is that all truck/SUV headlights are at eye level.
Yours truly, former owner of a ridiculously lifted jeep that's been all over the western half of the US and regularly went up & down dry creek beds with 1+ foot vertical drops/climbs that needed the clearance. That thing never saw a clean day. Hose it until there's no longer mud on the door handles.
VW Caravelle is pretty cool. Unlike SUVs.
In review compared vw caddy, and same niche machines from Fiat and Peugeot, and also they added Kia H1.
There was many interest, but one thing - when H1 was totally other niche machine (light truck), it was nearly two times more expensive to buy than others in comparison, but in long run, if you you have constant feed of loads, light truck is cheaper and more convenient to use than minivan.
For example, few weeks ago I hear on one new EV tires not last usual 1000s miles, because they use tires for typical machine, but this one weight much more and run much faster.
No. Never. Not even close. My wife knows better than to start this conversation.
We always went with wagons instead and they've been cheaper, actually fun to drive and don't look like you gave up on your life and dreams.
The other two are less desirable: Kia's had terrible crash ratings and Pacificas come with Chrysler's poor reliability stigma (somewhat justifiably).
The minivan and the hatchback are the 2 most popular styles of automobile in the USA right now, but people call them "crossovers."
Look at crossovers. They are all minivans or hatchbacks.
This is an interesting line of thought I had not considered- as a van owner. I would appreciate some more details on how you consider an SUV is more survivable. Totally not scientific, but comparing the safety results of the 2024 Toyota Sienna with 2024 Toyota Highlander and they have very similar scores (I think it’s important to compare within the same manufacturer). Close enough for me to think there is not a big inherent difference in the two models at least. What are your thoughts?
That’s not a realistic real world scenario. My family has been in two minor low speed crashes in a compact SUV against a truck.
Both times our car was obliterated the passengers concussed and the other car was perfectly fine.
I said enough is enough. The only thing that matter is mass.
It's true that full size SUVs and trucks weigh even more though.
What is the physical mechanism that would cause a vehicle hitting a more massive vehicle to be worse than the same vehicle hitting a wall at the same speed? My understanding is the impulse is greater in the wall collision. It feels like a wall is the ideal test. I know there has been talk of getting the NHTSA to test offset frontal collisions, but it would still be stationary.
Regardless, I'm sorry that happened to your family. I would fear for mine if a similar thing happened. The arms race of ever more massive vehicles is an unfortunate social dilemma problem.
That’s not the comparison to draw. It should be why is hitting a more massive car worse than hitting a smaller car? The answer is in the physics of the collision and momentum.
Against a solid wall the advantage belongs to neither big nor small. The collision physics is identical, bar crumple zones and vehicle deformation.
That gets into my second quip about minivans. The rear row is unsafe since there is hardly any trunk.
suv == truck chassis
They're probably dying for the same reason cars are.
It's all the exact same chassis, drive, suspension, pretty much you name it except the doors and body style. So that's not quite true...
Sedans died years ago - pretty impractical body type. The only advantage over SW is a perceived "prestige".
What does that even mean? If you meant built on a frame, then sorry, but that's not in the SUVs DNA.
> They're probably dying for the same reason cars are.
Not sure where are you located - cars are doing great.
It depends on the SUV. Part of the problem with online conversations about SUVs is that SUVs are a broad category and everyone fixates on whichever extreme of that broad category supports one's point the best. Hence: SUVs allegedly being big and bulky (i.e. describing the full-size SUV end of the spectrum) while simultaneously having small interiors and only two rows of seating (i.e. describing the CUV end of the spectrum).
Same deal here. It doesn't take an expert in automotive design to recognize that (using Toyota as an example) the 4-Runner, Highlander, and RAV-4 all fall in very different spots on the "Tacoma v. Camry" structural design spectrum.
I eventually moved to an Electric Vehicle (Kia EV9) that is quite roomy, but still smaller than the minivan inside.
At $80k to start, it's definitely not in the minivan price range.
Manufacturers went bananas with the body style naming and it's a shame that car journalist are not correcting them. I keep reading that Tesla Model 3 is a sedan and Model Y is a SUV...
In that world, sure, we won't have anything called a minivan.
Start calling things by what they are and it's solved: - Toyota Sienna - minvivan - Tesla Model X - minivan - Kia EV9 - minivan - Tesla Model Y - hatchback
And suddenly we're exactly where we were 20 years ago.