Are Mini-Vans really mini anymore?

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Minivans are still more like overgrown front wheel drive cars, such as the original Chryslers-I always considered the RWD Astro/Safari & Aerostars little brothers of the fullsize vans-and also could handle larger payloads & tow A LOT more than a FWD minivan.


Yeah, Astros/Safaris and Aerostars were built like the big vans, just with smaller dimensions. I still see lots of Aerostars and Astros daily and they have been out of production for years. The Aerostar hasn't been made since 1997.

Vans originally started out as enclosed trucks, but Chrysler was the first to catch on that a lot of people were just looking for a car with a lot of seats. That's what most of them are now.

 

[chiks]

when kids weigh in at 150lbs, of course mini-vans are no longer min-vans

 

[Stanley Rockafeller]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The only REAL mini vans were the Ford Aerostar and Chevy Astro. I say they were real mini vans because they were not built on front drive automobile platforms. There also was a forign one that was rear wheel, Toyota maybe. To me, what is typically called a mini van is really more or less the station wagon of the front drive era.

On size, it seems many vehicles are ballooning to bigger and bigger these days.


Nope, wrong. The original Minivan was based on the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan. These were FWD people carriers that revolutionized family-hauling.

And I agree with the post above, the reason why they've increased in size is b/c people (as well as kids) have all increased in size. We see this trend with all cars these days actually.

 

[supton]

I dunno if it's just because people have grown in size. What we haul around for our kids has grown in size. And we expect more space too. And usually there isn't anything to limit how big we go, other than our pocketbooks or our willingness to pay at the pump--remove those two, and OEM's make 'em as large as we'll buy 'em.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Stanley Rockafeller
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The only REAL mini vans were the Ford Aerostar and Chevy Astro. I say they were real mini vans because they were not built on front drive automobile platforms. There also was a forign one that was rear wheel, Toyota maybe. To me, what is typically called a mini van is really more or less the station wagon of the front drive era.

On size, it seems many vehicles are ballooning to bigger and bigger these days.


Nope, wrong. The original Minivan was based on the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan. These were FWD people carriers that revolutionized family-hauling.

And I agree with the post above, the reason why they've increased in size is b/c people (as well as kids) have all increased in size. We see this trend with all cars these days actually.


Also the safety freaks have really gone overboard. Kids need to be in boosters until they're 4'9" or 80 lbs. This means you can't just set toddlers loose to scramble back there on their own and buckle a lap belt; the adult has to be able to slither between captain's chairs to get it done. An aisle and extra headroom takes a large amount of space.

This is also why 2-door coupes don't sell very well anymore. Then they make them on the same wheelbase as sedans, freakishly ugly, and sell even fewer.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

I respectfully disagree completely. Go drive a Chevy Express or a Ford E-series and then go drive a minivan right after. They're not remotely close in size or driving dynamic.


Agreed.

Yeah I know there were VW's and others that preceded the Dodge Caravan, but Dodge is what really put the FWD Minivan on the map.

The only difference today is they no longer offer short and long wheel-base versions of the same minivan.

I've owned two. A 2001 Windstar and Currently a 2008 Odyssey. They were both big vehicles. Other riders is our Odyssey always comment "this thing is HUGE". I don't have too many other options with 1, 6, 8 and 10yr/old children.

Joel

 

[BrianWC]

It'll be a sad day when my wife decides she no longer wants her Odyssey, unless she gets a new one. They drive well, have good acceleration, and are pretty luxurious on the inside. They have made all our cross-country family trips non-eventful...

 

[oilmaven]

I LOVE minivans...ever since my first one, a 1988 Dodge Caravan with a 4 cylinder. I've owned a total of 6 (4 Chryslers and 2 Villagers) and recently acquired my seventh, a 1999 Mercury Villager with 63,000 miles (it's in great condition and will get 28+ highway mpg with the air on at reasonable speeds). Nothing beats their combination of comfort, room,fuel economy (for their size) and cargo capacity. They're not babe magnets but they get the job done like no other vehicle I've ever owned.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The only REAL mini vans were the Ford Aerostar and Chevy Astro. I say they were real mini vans because they were not built on front drive automobile platforms. There also was a forign one that was rear wheel, Toyota maybe. To me, what is typically called a mini van is really more or less the station wagon of the front drive era.

On size, it seems many vehicles are ballooning to bigger and bigger these days.


The Toyota Van preceeded the Astro by a year in the US, but it was the MasterAce elsewhere before that. Mitsubishi had one too but I think it came to North America about the same time as the Aerostar.

Nissan had one too, but to work in North America, they had to put the 720 pickup's 8 plug Z24 engine in it. If it hadn't been a fire hazard (and it was... many caught on fire), it would have been difficult to service.

The Toyota van might have had a longer service life if you didn't have to lift the seats to access the engine. Nothing beats the old '60s American "crackerbox" vans. Need a tune-up but it's raining? No problem. Just sit right down in the seat and do it there in the van. Have a passenger and need to add coolant but don't want to stop driving? Hand him the water jug and pop open the doghouse. Of course the downside is that your legs are the vehicle's crumplezone.

 

[OVERKILL]

 

[Klutch9]

I saw the original Chrysler minivan at the Henry Ford museum a few weekends back. IIRC it only weighed ~2,900 lbs, only 150 lbs more than my Focus! This thing was truly 'small' in comparison to the minivans of today, and only had around 100 hp.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Klutch9
I saw the original Chrysler minivan at the Henry Ford museum a few weekends back. IIRC it only weighed ~2,900 lbs, only 150 lbs more than my Focus! This thing was truly 'small' in comparison to the minivans of today, and only had around 100 hp.


Yeah, but the water-boxer Vanagon and Toyota Y-engine weren't any better.

And the 100hp was probably the Mitsubishi 4G54. I don't think the carb'd 2.2 would make 100 hp

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
I saw the original Chrysler minivan at the Henry Ford museum a few weekends back. IIRC it only weighed ~2,900 lbs, only 150 lbs more than my Focus! This thing was truly 'small' in comparison to the minivans of today, and only had around 100 hp.


Yeah, but the water-boxer Vanagon and Toyota Y-engine weren't any better.

And the 100hp was probably the Mitsubishi 4G54. I don't think the carb'd 2.2 would make 100 hp

Yeah! My carb'd '84 Turismo 2.2 made 101 hp/124 lb/ft(2300 lbs of roughness):LOL

 

[Klutch9]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
I saw the original Chrysler minivan at the Henry Ford museum a few weekends back. IIRC it only weighed ~2,900 lbs, only 150 lbs more than my Focus! This thing was truly 'small' in comparison to the minivans of today, and only had around 100 hp.


Yeah, but the water-boxer Vanagon and Toyota Y-engine weren't any better.

And the 100hp was probably the Mitsubishi 4G54. I don't think the carb'd 2.2 would make 100 hp

IIRC, the van I saw did have the 2.2L

 

[eljefino]

Maybe the "truck" 2.2 had some smog cheats.

They put those in the original dakotas too. The 2.5 (kissing cousin) took over in the very late 1980s. It didn't make much more HP but at least had more torques.

The mitsu 2.6 was at one time marketed on its "Hemi" attributes.

 

[Klutch9]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
The mitsu 2.6 was at one time marketed on its "Hemi" attributes.

Is that the motor that made it's way into the Chryslerbishi Starquest? Or a version of it?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Originally Posted By: eljefino
The mitsu 2.6 was at one time marketed on its "Hemi" attributes.

Is that the motor that made it's way into the Chryslerbishi Starquest? Or a version of it?


Yep...The MCA Jet valves were less problematic in the non-turbo "Hemi" version. Not saying that the 4G54 was reliable, just more reliable than the "go fast, go boom, replace head, and repeat" turbo models

I looked it up: Carbureted Caravans
1984–1987 2.2 L K I4, 96 hp (72 kW), 119 lb·ft (161 N·m)
1984–1987 2.6 L Mitsubishi 4G54B I4, 104 hp (78 kW), 142 lb·ft (193 N·m)

Actually, the Mitsubishi numbers aren't that bad for the time frame. The 8-spark plug Nissan NAPS-Z made about the same numbers.

Both Caravan engines from that period perform better than the 2.3 Aerostar. The Astro allegedly came with the 2.5 151 cu in "Iron Duke" but I've never seen one.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Originally Posted By: eljefino
The mitsu 2.6 was at one time marketed on its "Hemi" attributes.

Is that the motor that made it's way into the Chryslerbishi Starquest? Or a version of it?


Yes. I even had one in a pickup. Can't even remember its name anymore, but in its day it was a great running engine.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That would likely be a Dodge D-50 or a Mitsubishi Mighty Max.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Twas a D50! Thanks for that. I remember it was a balance shaft motor and was very smooth for a big 4 banger. Decent power in its day.