Dodge Caravan to be discontinued
- Thread starter Papa Bear
- Start date
- Status
My qualm against minivans is 3 kids with only 1 in a car seat. The minivans typically have cruddy seating patterns and require the use of backrow. Using the back row in turn ruins the cargo capability of the vehicle. While quite deep its narrow.
A mid - full size SUV offers comfortable seating for 3 across if 1-2 in child seat and massive cargo space.
This is my experience doing weekend trips with Pilot/MDX vs Ody/Caravan. Lastly even with winter tires FWD minivans maybe due to weight balance are not the best in difficult winter conditions. At least Sienna offers a choice but the AWD in that is cruddy 90/10 torque split which is at best FWD+.
Minivans for kids in car seats who cannot buckle themselves wins hands down by a long shot.
A mid - full size SUV offers comfortable seating for 3 across if 1-2 in child seat and massive cargo space.
This is my experience doing weekend trips with Pilot/MDX vs Ody/Caravan. Lastly even with winter tires FWD minivans maybe due to weight balance are not the best in difficult winter conditions. At least Sienna offers a choice but the AWD in that is cruddy 90/10 torque split which is at best FWD+.
Minivans for kids in car seats who cannot buckle themselves wins hands down by a long shot.
You must have good kids to sit them in a row of 3 for any amount of time!
Some of the vans have decent cargo space with 2 rows in the back, but getting an SUV/minivan with 3rd row seating and taking it out is my plan for good cargo space for trips with our 2 kids.
I believe our 89 grand caravan could have the 3 person rear bench put into the middle to get seating for 5 with huge cargo space, but it was a job to wrestle that seat in and out of place. The fixed patterns of the stow and go systems now, are probably are better for most people most of the time.
Some of the vans have decent cargo space with 2 rows in the back, but getting an SUV/minivan with 3rd row seating and taking it out is my plan for good cargo space for trips with our 2 kids.
I believe our 89 grand caravan could have the 3 person rear bench put into the middle to get seating for 5 with huge cargo space, but it was a job to wrestle that seat in and out of place. The fixed patterns of the stow and go systems now, are probably are better for most people most of the time.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's pure fashion plain and simple.
So there's no other reason for someone to buy an SUV? None at all. The ONLY possible reason is vanity? Wow.
If you don't like SUVs, that's fine. But please don't pretend to know why someone else might choose one. We've owned both minivans and SUVs. Both have certain pros and cons. Your generalization that SUVs are about only vanity and fashion are simply not accurate.
It's pure fashion plain and simple.
So there's no other reason for someone to buy an SUV? None at all. The ONLY possible reason is vanity? Wow.
If you don't like SUVs, that's fine. But please don't pretend to know why someone else might choose one. We've owned both minivans and SUVs. Both have certain pros and cons. Your generalization that SUVs are about only vanity and fashion are simply not accurate.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
...their [SUVs] only advantage seems to be larger ground clearance.
You are missing a key advantage that takes most low-slung cars (and their wagon variants) out off the table for some people, and that is driving position. I'm not talking about how high off the ground you sit; I'm talking about how high off the floor you sit. Most cars/wagons have low-to-the-floor seats that aren't comfortable to everybody. When I ride in or drive a car, I feel like I'm "laid out" and my legs extend straight out in front of me. That's not comfortable. I don't want a vehicle like that.
In most SUVs (and minivans), the seats are real "chairs", and you sit up off the floor. Your legs are at a more natural sitting angle, and I find them far more comfortable on longer drives than cars, especially small cars. There is also much more to cargo capacity than "cubic feet", when comparing wagons to SUVs, just as there is much more to vehicle performance than horsepower. The configuration of that cargo area can make or break a trip. We commonly carry taller and more upright things in the back of ours that won't fit in a wagon...even a larger Outback wagon. Their roofs are too low...wagons just aren't tall vehicles. A wagon might have more cubic feet than an SUV, but all the cubic feet in the world doesn't matter if you can't carry what you need to carry because the configuration is wrong.
Personal buying decisions aren't always so black-and-white. Even if the reason isn't immediately apparent, there often times IS a reason for something other than what might seem obvious to a casual observer.
...their [SUVs] only advantage seems to be larger ground clearance.
You are missing a key advantage that takes most low-slung cars (and their wagon variants) out off the table for some people, and that is driving position. I'm not talking about how high off the ground you sit; I'm talking about how high off the floor you sit. Most cars/wagons have low-to-the-floor seats that aren't comfortable to everybody. When I ride in or drive a car, I feel like I'm "laid out" and my legs extend straight out in front of me. That's not comfortable. I don't want a vehicle like that.
In most SUVs (and minivans), the seats are real "chairs", and you sit up off the floor. Your legs are at a more natural sitting angle, and I find them far more comfortable on longer drives than cars, especially small cars. There is also much more to cargo capacity than "cubic feet", when comparing wagons to SUVs, just as there is much more to vehicle performance than horsepower. The configuration of that cargo area can make or break a trip. We commonly carry taller and more upright things in the back of ours that won't fit in a wagon...even a larger Outback wagon. Their roofs are too low...wagons just aren't tall vehicles. A wagon might have more cubic feet than an SUV, but all the cubic feet in the world doesn't matter if you can't carry what you need to carry because the configuration is wrong.
Personal buying decisions aren't always so black-and-white. Even if the reason isn't immediately apparent, there often times IS a reason for something other than what might seem obvious to a casual observer.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's pure fashion plain and simple.
So there's no other reason for someone to buy an SUV? None at all. The ONLY possible reason is vanity?
Wow.
I guess in all practical sense, an awd V70 wagon, is more capable than almost any of the midsize fwd based SUV's... More cargo, more or equal towing, lower CG, probably near equal ground clearance. On paper, this type of vehicle makes more sense IMO for most people. But for many reasons wagons don't sell here, and SUV's do. Slightly more up right seating and 6-8" higher visibilty is the practical difference, but the auto industry in NA tries hard to sell image and emotion instead of practicality and many people lap it up, so here we are.
No one cares what you drive as an individual, but it is frustrating our car buying public doesn't demand a wider range of vehicles... The UK, even with right hand drive, still has a huge range of vehicle types, manufacturers, drivetrains, that we don't get because they demand and buy them...
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's pure fashion plain and simple.
So there's no other reason for someone to buy an SUV? None at all. The ONLY possible reason is vanity?
Wow.
I guess in all practical sense, an awd V70 wagon, is more capable than almost any of the midsize fwd based SUV's... More cargo, more or equal towing, lower CG, probably near equal ground clearance. On paper, this type of vehicle makes more sense IMO for most people. But for many reasons wagons don't sell here, and SUV's do. Slightly more up right seating and 6-8" higher visibilty is the practical difference, but the auto industry in NA tries hard to sell image and emotion instead of practicality and many people lap it up, so here we are.
No one cares what you drive as an individual, but it is frustrating our car buying public doesn't demand a wider range of vehicles... The UK, even with right hand drive, still has a huge range of vehicle types, manufacturers, drivetrains, that we don't get because they demand and buy them...
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: rjundi
My qualm against minivans is 3 kids with only 1 in a car seat. The minivans typically have cruddy seating patterns and require the use of backrow. Using the back row in turn ruins the cargo capability of the vehicle. While quite deep its narrow.
A mid - full size SUV offers comfortable seating for 3 across if 1-2 in child seat and massive cargo space.
This is my experience doing weekend trips with Pilot/MDX vs Ody/Caravan. Lastly even with winter tires FWD minivans maybe due to weight balance are not the best in difficult winter conditions. At least Sienna offers a choice but the AWD in that is cruddy 90/10 torque split which is at best FWD+.
Minivans for kids in car seats who cannot buckle themselves wins hands down by a long shot.
Having done this multiple times, I can say that I disagree.
Perhaps if you have some dinky, hard plastic seat, fit may be OK. But if you have any of the better seats (evenflo E3 symphony, the various Britax seats, etc) its incredibly tough. Ditto if there is a need to have an infant bucket.
Weve done this a number of times. Examples include three kids and four adults in a large SUV (current infiniti variant of the Nissan Pathfinder) as well as the same combination in a toyota sienna.
No way is the mid-bench comfortable for three in the SUV. Even a small kid on a booster, not a car seat, is cramped if there are two in the middle row. Plus, with car seats in the middle, access to the third row is worse than it was before... And access to the third row in the SUV was already poor.
Then, if you have the third row up in the SUV, there is no practical cargo space. The minivan has far more behind the third row because it is designed as a three-row vehicle as opposed to two and a pinch. If you have kids in car seats, youll likely want a stroller, and if you want anything besides a lousy umbrella stroller, it wont fit. Dont even think about a double and dont think about any real amount of cargo. Minivan isnt a big deal.
Even for just us, when we took the infant bucket and a rear-facing seat into a Honda Pilot vs an odyssey, in the pilot, my knees were in the dash, while the odyssey was comfortable. I may be taller than most (around 6ft 4-5), but certainly not an abnormal height.
The SUVs just dont have the fit for seven true people or car seats, nor does it have the cargo space when in that configuration. It would be OK if you could easily get three kids in the middle row, but given the size and age requirements for various kids' car seats, that isnt going to happen practically speaking, and when kids are too big for car seats, that middle seat is virtually worthless too...
So they just arent as space efficient. That may be OK or not OK with a buyer. Its NOT OK with me, if Im buying a van or suv for the purpose of space and volume and utility...
My qualm against minivans is 3 kids with only 1 in a car seat. The minivans typically have cruddy seating patterns and require the use of backrow. Using the back row in turn ruins the cargo capability of the vehicle. While quite deep its narrow.
A mid - full size SUV offers comfortable seating for 3 across if 1-2 in child seat and massive cargo space.
This is my experience doing weekend trips with Pilot/MDX vs Ody/Caravan. Lastly even with winter tires FWD minivans maybe due to weight balance are not the best in difficult winter conditions. At least Sienna offers a choice but the AWD in that is cruddy 90/10 torque split which is at best FWD+.
Minivans for kids in car seats who cannot buckle themselves wins hands down by a long shot.
Having done this multiple times, I can say that I disagree.
Perhaps if you have some dinky, hard plastic seat, fit may be OK. But if you have any of the better seats (evenflo E3 symphony, the various Britax seats, etc) its incredibly tough. Ditto if there is a need to have an infant bucket.
Weve done this a number of times. Examples include three kids and four adults in a large SUV (current infiniti variant of the Nissan Pathfinder) as well as the same combination in a toyota sienna.
No way is the mid-bench comfortable for three in the SUV. Even a small kid on a booster, not a car seat, is cramped if there are two in the middle row. Plus, with car seats in the middle, access to the third row is worse than it was before... And access to the third row in the SUV was already poor.
Then, if you have the third row up in the SUV, there is no practical cargo space. The minivan has far more behind the third row because it is designed as a three-row vehicle as opposed to two and a pinch. If you have kids in car seats, youll likely want a stroller, and if you want anything besides a lousy umbrella stroller, it wont fit. Dont even think about a double and dont think about any real amount of cargo. Minivan isnt a big deal.
Even for just us, when we took the infant bucket and a rear-facing seat into a Honda Pilot vs an odyssey, in the pilot, my knees were in the dash, while the odyssey was comfortable. I may be taller than most (around 6ft 4-5), but certainly not an abnormal height.
The SUVs just dont have the fit for seven true people or car seats, nor does it have the cargo space when in that configuration. It would be OK if you could easily get three kids in the middle row, but given the size and age requirements for various kids' car seats, that isnt going to happen practically speaking, and when kids are too big for car seats, that middle seat is virtually worthless too...
So they just arent as space efficient. That may be OK or not OK with a buyer. Its NOT OK with me, if Im buying a van or suv for the purpose of space and volume and utility...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
On paper, this type of vehicle makes more sense IMO for most people.
Totally agree. 110%. On paper, a wagon usually "makes more sense" than an SUV.
I'll re-state something from the end of my previous post: personal buying decisions aren't always so black-and-white. Shoes don't fit the same size feet the same way. Some people like blue instead of red. That doesn't make them vain. It simply means that they like blue instead of red. To me, deciding why someone bought an SUV instead of a minivan or a wagon will be as accurate as guessing how much money someone has based on the age of their vehicles. We all drive what we drive for many reasons.
Back to the original topic, it will be sad to see a long-running name plate go away. We've owned both before, a Grand Caravan and a Town & Country. I do hope they continue with a "value package" T&C, for those buyers looking for a ~$20k minivan.
On paper, this type of vehicle makes more sense IMO for most people.
Totally agree. 110%. On paper, a wagon usually "makes more sense" than an SUV.
I'll re-state something from the end of my previous post: personal buying decisions aren't always so black-and-white. Shoes don't fit the same size feet the same way. Some people like blue instead of red. That doesn't make them vain. It simply means that they like blue instead of red. To me, deciding why someone bought an SUV instead of a minivan or a wagon will be as accurate as guessing how much money someone has based on the age of their vehicles. We all drive what we drive for many reasons.
Back to the original topic, it will be sad to see a long-running name plate go away. We've owned both before, a Grand Caravan and a Town & Country. I do hope they continue with a "value package" T&C, for those buyers looking for a ~$20k minivan.
Have you noticed how the American car companies just seem to love to kill off model names, even if it's a long-running model that saved or defined the company? Can you picture Nissan killing off the Maxima or Honda axing the Civic?
I was referencing two adults and 3 kids of SUV vs minivan in terms of cargo. SUV has more practical cargo space with backrow folded. Minivans typically are biased towards 7 passenger which requires you to use that pesky minivan back row killing cargo.
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
If they only offered something akin to an Astrovan, I'd have that instead of my truck. Well, I'd rather have the truck, but I know a RWD Astro would do 99% of what I want. I have nothing against FWD but so far their transmissions seem weak, and I could use more ground clearance.
I'm still waiting to see how the Pentastar/6spd FWD auto holds up, it's still pretty new. If I were to shell out $20k for one I'd expect 200kmiles/10yrs w/o repairs.
I'm still waiting to see how the Pentastar/6spd FWD auto holds up, it's still pretty new. If I were to shell out $20k for one I'd expect 200kmiles/10yrs w/o repairs.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I was referencing two adults and 3 kids of SUV vs minivan in terms of cargo. SUV has more practical cargo space with backrow folded. Minivans typically are biased towards 7 passenger which requires you to use that pesky minivan back row killing cargo.
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
Then apples to apples is minivan with center or third row folded. Many minivans havs an 8-passenger configuration, meaning three in the center, and they are likely wider there. Plus access with sliding door makes it better.
Fold that third row in the van and there's how much volume back there? More than the SUV Ill bet.
I was referencing two adults and 3 kids of SUV vs minivan in terms of cargo. SUV has more practical cargo space with backrow folded. Minivans typically are biased towards 7 passenger which requires you to use that pesky minivan back row killing cargo.
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
Then apples to apples is minivan with center or third row folded. Many minivans havs an 8-passenger configuration, meaning three in the center, and they are likely wider there. Plus access with sliding door makes it better.
Fold that third row in the van and there's how much volume back there? More than the SUV Ill bet.
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
Dodge Caravan to cease in 2016
Remember how cool the "garageable van" was in 1984? It was cool enough that Ferris Bueller's mom drove one in the movie.
Fast forward to last week: My wife thanked me for opposing her desire to purchase a minivan after our daughter was born in 1997. Between 1984 and 1997, the whole minivan concept went from ooh to ugh. And it has gotten ugh-er since.
Gotta disagree on this one. We own a 6 year old Honda Odyssey "mini-van"... there is not a more practical car on the planet for a family. Seating for 6 + , carries a ton of sfuff in a pinch, ok mileage, power side doors are fantastic...
And anyone who thinks an SUV is somehow different from every van / station wagon etc is simply in denial. SUVs are tall station wagons, nothing more...just like our minivan is!
I think in his own round-a-bout way, and without actually saying it, he was saying that minivans are uncool, and SUVs are cool, which I completely disagree with BTW...minivans have more interior space than SUVs and they get better fuel economy....seems to me it's SUVS that aren't cool...unless you're actually going for impractical...
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
Dodge Caravan to cease in 2016
Remember how cool the "garageable van" was in 1984? It was cool enough that Ferris Bueller's mom drove one in the movie.
Fast forward to last week: My wife thanked me for opposing her desire to purchase a minivan after our daughter was born in 1997. Between 1984 and 1997, the whole minivan concept went from ooh to ugh. And it has gotten ugh-er since.
Gotta disagree on this one. We own a 6 year old Honda Odyssey "mini-van"... there is not a more practical car on the planet for a family. Seating for 6 + , carries a ton of sfuff in a pinch, ok mileage, power side doors are fantastic...
And anyone who thinks an SUV is somehow different from every van / station wagon etc is simply in denial. SUVs are tall station wagons, nothing more...just like our minivan is!
I think in his own round-a-bout way, and without actually saying it, he was saying that minivans are uncool, and SUVs are cool, which I completely disagree with BTW...minivans have more interior space than SUVs and they get better fuel economy....seems to me it's SUVS that aren't cool...unless you're actually going for impractical...
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Third seat is usually wider on a minivan. Also, iirc, I recall the last one I was in (2013 T&c) had a second seat that only held two.
But the odyssey and the sienna at least both have "seats 8" setups they advertise...
Third seat is usually wider on a minivan. Also, iirc, I recall the last one I was in (2013 T&c) had a second seat that only held two.
But the odyssey and the sienna at least both have "seats 8" setups they advertise...
Originally Posted By: brages
Have you noticed how the American car companies just seem to love to kill off model names, even if it's a long-running model that saved or defined the company? Can you picture Nissan killing off the Maxima or Honda axing the Civic?
Sometimes a name will be attached to a car that was a disappointment. That ruins the name. At one time, the Pontiac Grand Prix widetrack was a well loved car, but during the 80s and afterwards, it became an ordinary family car.
People were excited to see the Pontiac GTO name revived, until they saw that it looks like another generic Pontiac. Most people wanted something that looked like The Judge edition.
Japanese car companies do kill off names for cars sold in the USA.
Back in the early 1980s, the Nissan Stanza was a great value, but as time went on, it became bloated and the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord became better choices.
The smallest Toyota models in the USA were often killed off. There was the Starlet, then the Tercel, after that was the Echo, and finally when they called it a Yaris, it became popular.
VW also made some name changes. The smallest hatchback would be called a Rabbit and then Golf, then they would switch names again.
Have you noticed how the American car companies just seem to love to kill off model names, even if it's a long-running model that saved or defined the company? Can you picture Nissan killing off the Maxima or Honda axing the Civic?
Sometimes a name will be attached to a car that was a disappointment. That ruins the name. At one time, the Pontiac Grand Prix widetrack was a well loved car, but during the 80s and afterwards, it became an ordinary family car.
People were excited to see the Pontiac GTO name revived, until they saw that it looks like another generic Pontiac. Most people wanted something that looked like The Judge edition.
Japanese car companies do kill off names for cars sold in the USA.
Back in the early 1980s, the Nissan Stanza was a great value, but as time went on, it became bloated and the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord became better choices.
The smallest Toyota models in the USA were often killed off. There was the Starlet, then the Tercel, after that was the Echo, and finally when they called it a Yaris, it became popular.
VW also made some name changes. The smallest hatchback would be called a Rabbit and then Golf, then they would switch names again.
I'm sad that the Grand Caravan is going away, it's a pretty incredible value if you need a flexible people hauler.
But I also understand why so many choose the gigantic crossovers, even if they don't have the same interior volume numbers. Aesthetics count for more than some here seem to think they should. Even if the Grand Caravan can ultimately move more stuff, when you park it next to a Ford Explorer or a GMC Acadia (or whatever), it's not a very attractive vehicle.
A minivan of some type is still likely in my future, but I understand why some would choose the big crossovers.
But I also understand why so many choose the gigantic crossovers, even if they don't have the same interior volume numbers. Aesthetics count for more than some here seem to think they should. Even if the Grand Caravan can ultimately move more stuff, when you park it next to a Ford Explorer or a GMC Acadia (or whatever), it's not a very attractive vehicle.
A minivan of some type is still likely in my future, but I understand why some would choose the big crossovers.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I was referencing two adults and 3 kids of SUV vs minivan in terms of cargo. SUV has more practical cargo space with backrow folded. Minivans typically are biased towards 7 passenger which requires you to use that pesky minivan back row killing cargo.
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
Then apples to apples is minivan with center or third row folded. Many minivans havs an 8-passenger configuration, meaning three in the center, and they are likely wider there. Plus access with sliding door makes it better.
Fold that third row in the van and there's how much volume back there? More than the SUV Ill bet.
My interest was a base model minivan with no frills like Ody LX or Sienna lowly one. Both 7 passenger you have to spent over $32k and get stuff like power sunroof(hate them) and power doors to get 8 passenger. No thanks.
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I was referencing two adults and 3 kids of SUV vs minivan in terms of cargo. SUV has more practical cargo space with backrow folded. Minivans typically are biased towards 7 passenger which requires you to use that pesky minivan back row killing cargo.
7 passengers minivan or Suburban(common choice here).
Then apples to apples is minivan with center or third row folded. Many minivans havs an 8-passenger configuration, meaning three in the center, and they are likely wider there. Plus access with sliding door makes it better.
Fold that third row in the van and there's how much volume back there? More than the SUV Ill bet.
My interest was a base model minivan with no frills like Ody LX or Sienna lowly one. Both 7 passenger you have to spent over $32k and get stuff like power sunroof(hate them) and power doors to get 8 passenger. No thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
