The Reports of the Minivan's Death are Greatly Exaggerated

When I was a kid, most families had a station wagon. It was the symbol of family-mindedness. In the days before widespread use (and laws to enforce it) of child safety seats, having a station wagon told people that you had children.



Most wagons held four or five, but the real station wagons held eight or nine. One or two seats in the cargo area of bigger station wagons allowed two or three kids to sit in the “way back.” Some seats faced each other but the way to go was for those seats to face backwards allowing the kids to make faces and hand gestures (like the international symbol for truck drivers to blow their horn) at the rest of the traffic.



Chrysler’s last big wagon ended production in 1978 when their full-sized cars were downsized and offered only as sedans. GM and Ford kept the large wagon after their downsizing efforts in 1976 and 1978, respectively.



Both GM and Ford offered three sizes of wagons in those days. For young families just starting out, GM had the Chevrolet Vega and Pontiac Astre/Sunbird wagons while Ford had the infamous Pinto and Mercury Bobcat. Mid-sized wagons were large enough in those days to offer rear seats as options. But at the top of the heap were the Chevrolet Caprice, Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser, Pontiac Bonneville Safari, Buick LeSabre Estate, Ford LTD, and Mercury Marquis…the big nine-passenger people haulers.



And then the world changed in 1983.



The ailing Chrysler Corporation introduced the “maximum space passenger car.” Advertising called it the “Magic Wagon” and corporate engineering called it the T-115, but everyone knows it as the minivan.



Introduced as the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager, the minivan turned the marketplace on its ear. It was styled like the full-sized Dodge and Plymouth vans but on a 3/5 scale. Like its larger brethren, the minivans had removable seats in the second and third row for better cargo capacity and a sliding door on the passenger’s side for better access in tight quarters. Like the station wagons it would come to replace, it was based on a car powertrain for better gas mileage, it had relatively compact dimensions so it would fit in a garage, and a low center of gravity for better handling.



Chrysler had an immediate success. The four-cylinder minivans got better gas mileage than the full-sized wagons from GM and Ford while still carrying up to seven passengers. GM and Ford were behind the times.



GM introduced the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari while Ford brought out the Ford Aerostar. Instead of being “maximum space passenger cars,” the Big 2 came out with small vans. They were trucks, not cars.



Sales were good for GM and Ford, but not the overwhelming success that the minivans were for Chrysler. Traditionally an “also ran,” Chrysler held more than half of the marketplace for this new type of vehicle even after Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, and Mitsubishi joined the fray.



It took a few years before the other manufacturers actually understood what a minivan was. GM introduced the “dustbuster” minivans in 1989. Nissan and Mercury teamed up to sell the Quest and Villager starting in 1992. Ford followed with the Windstar in 1994. Chrysler had the corner on this market for over ten years before Toyota and Honda actually introduced similar minivans, and still Chrysler held the lead.



Aside from the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey, Chrysler has had no serious competition in this market for nearly a quarter century. This segment sells about a million vehicles a year in North America and three manufacturers make up nearly all of it. Sure GM still makes minivans and Hyundai and Kia have tossed their hats into the ring, but the Dodge Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country remain the best-selling and third best-selling nameplates in this field.



And everyone is proclaiming the death of the minivan.



Minivans have acquired a bad reputation. It’s not because of anything they do poorly, more to the point that they do something well…haul lots of kids. Everyone knows the “soccer mom” label that has been given to the drivers of minivans, and this has gained a negative connotation.



SUVs and, more so, “crossover utility vehicles” have been replacing minivans as the vehicle of choice for parents. These vehicles look more rugged (read: “outdoorsy”) and can have up to three rows of seats. They just fail to have the interior space or handling qualities of minivans. But the neighbors are typically more impressed by an SUV or CUV than a minivan, so utility loses out to prestige.



When people ask about vehicles to recommend, I refuse to name SUVs. Unless you’re going off-road or hauling something, these (typically) truck-based vehicles offer nothing to the average driver aside from bad gas mileage and a higher propensity for bad handling. CUVs only improve the gas mileage and handling slightly. But minivans usually top my list, especially if the person has multiple kids and/or large pets.



If someone takes my recommendation, I’ve done something to convince them of the utility benefits over the “soccer mom” branding. So far, everyone has been more than satisfied with their choices. And when the handymen of the group realize that a full sheet of plywood or drywall will fit inside of many minivans (something that most SUVs or CUVs cannot claim), they’re even happier with their choice.



Concepts by Ford (rejected) and Chrysler (delayed and then approved) became the 1984 Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager. Today, their descendants are still the primary vehicle choice for families.



You can keep your Ford Edge and Chevrolet Equinox and Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot. I’ll keep my Chrysler Town & Country. And whether I’m hauling kids or adults or plywood or a mattress, I’m sure I’ll be doing it easier and more comfortably than anyone in those newfangled CUVs.



The minivan is NOT dead yet.

Should They Stay or Should They Go?

On one automotive forum that I frequent, there is a discussion of which car brands should be the next to leave the US market. Poster after poster lists their choices and the reasons why they believe each should no longer sell their wares in the US. Most of the opinions are based on biases formed from personal experiences with these brands…some of which are quite out-dated. But it’s an interesting discussion.

My opinion, as a car fanatic, is that more is better than less. I’m an American and proud of it. I wish American manufacturers were not losing market share to the imports, but it’s not, in my opinion, completely undeserved. But I would not want any brands to go away to simply save a domestic brand name (domestic jobs, however, are another topic for another time).

With the Chinese brands knocking at the door, this discussion takes on added fervor. Many of the people involved in this discussion believe that the Chinese are the next wave of automotive competition to beat up the American companies, and I have to agree. Where the Japanese were laughed at just 40 years ago, today they’re among the most admired automotive manufacturers in the world. The Korean brands were in the same boat just 25 years ago and today Hyundai and Kia are respectable names in many parts of the world.

Along with a few Indian companies, Chinese companies are looking to the US for market expansion.

Many people have heard of Chery since they have been in the news for the past few years while they prepare to enter the US market. Today, Chrysler is working with Chery to produce an entry-level Dodge product for the US market. And Chery will take what they learn from Chrysler to become a global brand on their own.

There’s also Nanjing and Shanghai and Great Wall and Geely and a dozen others that are looking across the Pacific. Nanjing owns the MG brand and will, most likely, use that name in its global expansion. Shanghai has been working with Volkswagen and General Motors for a number of years to increase their hold on the Chinese market, but exports aren’t too far away especially since they bought out the Rover side of the former MG Rover company, but need to establish their own brand name (they’re currently using Roewe, almost pronounced “wrong way”) since the Rover name did not come with the package. Great Wall has light trucks and Geely has economy cars and both have eyes on the US market. Brilliance and Wuling and Landwind could be in the next wave as well.

But, from what I’ve seen, none of these companies are ready for the US market quite yet. The Japanese entered the US market with cars too small for American tastes but quickly tailored their products with US buyers in mind…and raised their quality to class-leading levels. The Koreans learned from the mistakes made by the Japanese and brought true entry-level product to the US. Although they made their own mistakes along the way, they were competitive players in just over 25 years from producing their first car (the Japanese took about 40 years. The Chinese seem like they’re on the 20 year plan, which would bring them to a competitive nature in just a few more years.

Once in a while, one of my cars impresses someone. It doesn’t happen very often, but it’s a nice feeling that someone likes your choice of car. The only person who really matters about my choice of car is me. And that’s how it should be with everyone’s choice. The fact that I don’t care for a single guy buying a Ford SuperDuty just to commute to his office doesn’t matter as long as the owner of that big pickup likes his choice. This laissez faire attitude should extend to brand names as well. If Isuzu finds enough buyers for their products, more power to them…it’s a capitalist marketplace. Not too many would be sad to see Isuzu (or Mitsubishi or Suzuki or Buick or Mercury or…) go, but the reduction in choice would be a sad thing.

So here’s hoping that we see a return of Alfa Romeo (discussed for a year or two from now), Citroen and Peugeot (oft-rumored), Fiat, and MG. Perhaps then the Americans can bring back Duesenberg and Packard and Stutz and AMC and Edsel and…

Okay, maybe I've gone a bit too far.