
Driving Down Memory Lane in the Original Minivan - tintinnabula
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/driving-down-memory-lane-in-the-original-minivan.html
======
kbenson
> 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.

~~~
BuffaloBagel
> 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.

------
mywittyname
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
I wonder if nostalgia articles get as many clickthroughs from GenXers as they
do from older generations?

------
coredog64
> 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
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.

------
js2
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.)

------
pwinnski
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
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
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.

~~~
cc439
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
> 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
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
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
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation_.282011_.E2.80.93_present.29)

~~~
kbenson
Ah, that's a shame. That said, I have been noting how good the new Explorers
look. To my eyes they look somewhat comparable to the Range Rover Sport. I
imagine the new form has quite a bit to do with the sales.

From your link:

> The development of the fifth generation Explorer was led by chief engineer
> Jim Holland, who was also a chief engineer for Land Rover; heading
> development of the Land Rover Range Rover (L322) 2005 face-lift.

Ah. That explains it.

From the "capability" section under the link you provided, it looks like the
AWD system has some interesting 4WD simulation modes, so it's not a complete
departure, but I have no idea how well those perform in practice.

~~~
cc439
>(T)he AWD system has some interesting 4WD simulation modes, so it's not a
complete departure, but I have no idea how well those perform in practice.

The Explorer is still solid enough to get you through most winter conditions
but it's no longer an offroader if that's what you're looking for. Just look
at the approach/breakover/departure angles and you'll see that the most off-
roading it's designed for is parking on the grass next to the lacrosse field.
I'm not saying that to disparage the concept of crossovers and soft-roaders, I
think they're brilliantly designed to match the way they'll actually be used
which makes them far more efficient. However, it you're looking for an actual
truck, they are no longer for you.

~~~
kbenson
Ah, well since the only thing I ever used the 4WD for was snow/ice on the way
to Tahoe and to pull a boat up a slippery launch, it's probably totally
sufficient for what I was using the 4WD in my Explorer for. I agree it's
probably a better match for the actual expected use for most other people as
well. I'm not sure the explorer was ever the platform of choice for people
looking to make a rock crawler...

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

~~~
takk309
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
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
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
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
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
I've got the 52hp diesel Vanagon camper weighing over 4,500 in my garage.
Freeway performance is..... underwhelming.

~~~
mikestew
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. :-)

