Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

pluto5 · December 2002

I agree with your conclusion but remember that none of the aforementioned tests specifially rate vehicles involved in rear end collisions for passenger injury/death.

caviller · December 2002

"*While the number of stars has remained constant, the actual force mesurments have changed over the years for the GM triplets at the NHTSA site. So even though there have been no design changes, it seams the NHTSA has continued to test and get slightly different results, which I think questions the actual duplicatability of the results."

This is one reason the "Star" system exists. Small variations in the raw data should not affect the overall rating; certianly by no more than one category for a vehicle at the upper or lower end of the range. I wouldn't expect any test on this scale to produce the exact same results with two identical vehicles tested one after another. I would, on the other hand, be very skeptical if the two tests resulted in significantly different star ratings.

"*While it is unclear if "deaths" are in the "injury" ratings for the HLDI lists, they do say that "Collisions that result in serious and fatal occupant injuries are relatively rare, so they have only a small influence on the insurance injury results reported in this publication."

The IIHS/HLDI also produces a separate set of statistics for driver death rates. It can be found on the same site.

"*Another good example of the paradox between the IIHS and HLDI is the Toyota Tundra. Toyota ads claim it to be the best scorer from the IIHS, but the HLDI (which is funded by the IIHS) has it near the bottom for injury."

This is no paradox, and is exactly what I explained above. The HLDI statistics have a large component of driver profile in them which cannot be separated from any component of crashworthiness. The IIHS offset crash test has no component of driver profile. In many classes of vehicles, it is possible for a safety conscious consumer to find one or more models that received top or above average ratings in all the NHTSA/IIHS/HLDI results.

The Tundra IS a rarity in another regard. It is one of the few vehicles that did well in the IIHS Offset crash test, but had mediocre NHTSA frontal crash test results.

It is a real challenge for automakers to optimize a design to do well in a full width frontal crash test and an offset frontal crash. Fortunately, in the last few years many more vehicles have accomplished this. Consumer Reports had a very good article on crash testing in their April, 2002 issue.

"*One thing that always comes to my mind when I see the tests (IIHS), is that should I ever be in that situation, I would think I would..."

The problem is that you often have no time to react, and you may react differently than you expected. No one thinks they will ever be in a serious crash. Many people think they can avoid one altogether with driving skill. The IIHS test reflects the end result a relatively common type of crash, and one they believe is among the most severe. More background can be found at the IIHS site and in the CR article I mentioned.

"*And keep in mind all these tests concern mostly the driver. At 6'4" and 310 lbs, I believe the current crash dummies do not reflect what might happen to me."

True. Heavier occupants may do worse that what the crash test dummies indicate. This is perhaps even more reason to find a vehicle where an average dummy did above average in crash testing.

"*So my feelings have been, choose the vehicle that best meets your needs and has features you desire, if if two are close then think about reputation and safety."

We all select the vehicles that meet our own criteria the best. For me, safety was at the top of the list. We bought a minivan to transport our entire family, and so I tried to find one that did well in all available safety data and had a wide array of advanced safety features. Convenience and budget were secondary factors. Reliability, reputation and luxury features were essentially non-factors for us.

Even in regard to safety, the choices aren't constant. For someone who only uses a car to commute and never has passengers, the passenger crash test results are meaningless. A family of 4 who bought a minivan to haul supplies and cargo, and rarely has 3rd row passengers is not going to be concerned with the lack of a headrest or shoulder belt in the rear-center seat, or the small risk from a rear impact to adults in the 3rd row. Someone who has to do serious towing or offroading is probably going to have to buy a truck-based vehicle, despite rollover and other safety liabilities.

Even in these scenarios, the crash tests are important if only indirectly. Hopefully, 10 years from now almost all vehicles would get top ratings in current crash tests. This has already happened for many vehicles in the NHTSA frontal tests, and most vehicles are doing much better in the IIHS tests, too. Safety marketing is getting more powerful, and people are voting with their pocketbooks, especially on family haulers. This is good news for future products, and good news for those who do look at all the comparative safety data before they purchase a vehicle. Fortunately, car-based minivans are among the safest classes of vehicles on the road. And while there are differences among them, they are almost all pretty reasonable choices in regard to overall safety.

Have a safe new year, all!

bluedevils · December 2002

excellent safety-related posts!

caviller, can you remind us which minivan you bought? I can't recall.

caviller · December 2002

We bought it in late 2000. We were about to get a Windstar, but no one stocked LX/SE models with the Family Security Group and Side Airbags. We could have special ordered one but that meant losing the rebates and waiting 6-10 weeks. At that point, the Windstar was no less expensive or quicker to get than an Odyssey. We also looked at Sienna, but the rear seat was just too small and too hard to access for elderly relatives who ride with us now and then...

dad2bx3 · December 2002

I've been thinking about pluto5's comments about having 3 car seats across in a Impala (#99). Besides being able to have someone else in the car, what are the relative merits of a minivan vs a large station wagon?

Width requirement is being able to have two rear-facing car seats for newborns and one forward facing car seat (soon to be a booster seat). Obviously safety is a big concern, both in terms of LATCH availability and side impact.

From a convenience standpoint, in a station wagon you have all three kids within reach of the front passenger (and realistically, driver) seat. And much greater trunkspace for hauling gear.

I guess there is the question of growing into the car. How long will a station wagon accommodate the passengers as they have books and toys and things....?

A question for those minivan-owning parents of kids 3 and under: where do you put the kids? In the third or second row? Is it a hassle getting them in and out of the third row? Is it a problem not being able to reach them from the front seats?

I apologize if this is more of a parenting than a car question, but it's all part of my decision making process for selecting our next vehicle.

pluto5 · December 2002

You might get some further insight on 3rd row seats by looking at the thread on that subject on the SUV board. Apparently there is a lot of concern about 3rd row seat safety among owners of the mid-size SUVs.

cmkm · December 2002

I've been searching around without much success - does anyone know when GM will be coming out with a new generation of mini-vans? I'd love to see a new version which also resolves the crash testing issues.

taste · December 2002

I am the current owner of a 9-5 Saab and can add some comments. BTW my lease comes due in June and I will probably buy a Pilot, G35, or Allroad Audi.

PROs:
*car drive (mini's are clumsy in comparison)
*good gas mileage
*very nice power
*no cornering roll (compared to SUV or Mini)
*Convenient space (indv seat fold down)

CONs
*Less space in general than Mini
*More difficult to maneuver (nothing beats a Mini to move kids around)
*Storage space for family travels is far superior
*More kid features (DVD, cup holders, etc...) this is a BIG plus
*Getting in and out is SO MUCH EASIER when picking up kids and retrieving kids from their seats. At 6'2" this is a BIG back saver and my preggers wife likes it too.

stever · December 2002

Here's the 3rd row seat link:

Popular Third-row Car Seats May Kill Your Kids?

I haven't heard anything about upcoming changes for the GM Triplets. Anyone?

Steve, Host

pluto5 · December 2002

No offense but the Saab is a mid-size car and is pricey.

Another question to ponder is whether you will be hauling other people's kids around. If it's just your 2-3 you may not need a minivan.

taste · December 2002

read my earlier post which states it is a mid-size WAGON... I do however agree that it is pricey (though less than an Audi, Bimmer & Mercedes equivalent)

I may purchase another wagon but there is no comparison between a wagon and a Mini for convenience as a people mover. It probably is more of a question of are you comfortable driving a mini (my sister in-law will NEVER own a Mini because of its rep so they drive a Sport Brute). If you are wavering a Wagon might be a nice transition vehicle for you; which is what our Wagon was for us for our first born. With the second one due in March it was time for a Mini.

caviller · January 2003

When driving both kids, the minivan is almost always the easy choice. There is no question when we have a grandparent along, too. Loading and unloading is so much easier with the wide doors and the step-through to the second row. With the third row folded flat, there is a huge space remaining for cargo. Even with the third row in use, it isn't too much less space than our Outback. Taking an extended weekend trip with all our typical stuff would be almost impossible in the Outback, and that's just with two kids.

While you can fit 3 carseats across in some wagons and sedans, you may not always be able to do this, or want to do this. Fitting 3 across often requires careful selection of carseats to actually fit in the given space, especially in a mid-size vehicle. If LATCH is important to you, most vehicles do no have 3 sets of LATCH in one bench (The Impala is one exception to this). Plus, at least with our two kids, I wouldn't want them within reach of each other; too much of a distraction....

Safety is another consideration. The additional mass of a minivan is a significant advantage in a frontal crash. While minivans don't handle quite as well as most family sedans or wagons, they are significantly better than many large SUVs and still retain the crushable unibody frame of a car.

As for seating positions, the center of the third row seat is probably safer overall for a child in a harnessed carseat than is an outboard spot in the second row of a sedan, minivan or wagon. The safest spot to put each specific child depends on their age, weight and type of carseat. The general rule-of-thumb is to put the most protected child in the least protected seating position. Rear-facing harnessed carseats provide the most protection, followed by front-facing harnessed models, followed by boosters. So, we would opt to keep older kids in the center positions when possible. If you have specific carseat questions off-topic to this forum, also feel free to visit http://www.car-seat.org .

In a minivan, it is going to be harder to hand something to a kid in the third row. On the other hand, if you are at a safe place to do so, it is *much* easier in many minivans to simply walk to the back rows without getting out of the vehicle. This of course does depend on the seating configuration and on whether or not the manufacturer put anything immovable between the front buckets...

bluedevils · January 2003

We have one toddler and occasionally transport our 2 1/2 year old niece too. We put them in the 2 2nd row captain's chairs in our Kia Sedona. Our little girl rides on the passenger side (easier to keep an eye on her) and our niece rides on the driver's side.

Seems to me that putting car seats in the 3rd row would be much less convenient than in the 2nd row. In 2nd row, you just slide the side door open, reach in, and grab the kid out of the seat. In the 3rd row, you need to climb back there, remove the kid, then carry the kid out of the vehicle or coax the kid to come out on his/her own.

dad2bx3 · January 2003

Still thinking about the 3 kid car seat configurations, I was at the Washington DC car show this week and got to crawl around a bunch of minivans, SUVs, wagons, sedans, (and the occasional Roadster... a guy can dream).

For a three across in a second row, I agree that a lot of rulers will be involved. But on first investigation, it looks like there are three possibilities:
1) Large car, like the Chrysler 300 or Impala.
2) Wide station wagon. Looks like European are the wide ones: Saab, Volvo.
3) Mini SUV.

The MiniSUV was my surprise. My wife and I have been morally opposed to SUV's for years (mainly on environmental grounds) and there may be a lot of crow to eat if this is what we wind up with, but my logic went something like this: width requirement is met with station wagon but getting the center kid in and out will be hard. Increased ceiling height could help. SUV's are too big. Then I saw the Mitsubishi Outlander and the Saturn VUE. Both seem to be genuine possibilities. I hear that Acura has an ultralow emissions mini SUV, so I'll look into that too.

The minivans are still a strong contender given the above "people moving" capabilities and the "Dad-he's-touching-me" space issues of three kids in a back seat for an extended period of time. I need to think about how long we'll hold the car for.

dad2bx3 · January 2003

Caviller: How is it that in your minivan "even with the third row in use, it isn't too much less space than our Outback" (#124)? The minivan's I've seen have about a foot of trunk space behind the third row seats and the Outback's trunk is more than three times the length. Can you make up for it in stacking your gear?

stever · January 2003

I've always leaned a bit more to minivans too, but some of the mini-suvs get as good or better gas mileage as the MV's and many even have lower emissions. Guess that's one of the dangers of going to car shows eh?

Steve, Host

pluto5 · January 2003

I did not have high regard for any of these as family haulers cause second seat is too close to rear hatch--these vehicles are shorter than large sedan overall--and back seats are a joke IMO: backseat of Vue is about as comfortable as a lawn chair--so thinly padded your butt can feel the metal underneath!

caviller · January 2003

The cargo space in the Odyssey with the 3rd row in use is bigger than most other minivans. It's less than the Outback, but enough for a run of groceries and many other duties. I suppose it comes down to the semantics of how you define, "Too much less."

The Acura MDX and Honda Pilot are very nice SUVs. Both are based on a car chassis, and have the same extra-wide track of the Odyssey for better rollover stability. You're still not going to get the people carrying convenience of a minivan, of course. Also, I doubt any mid-size or small SUV has the seating width of a full size sedan like a Pontiac Bonneville, Ford Crown Vic, Chrysler 300, or Dodge Intrepid, though some of the midsize SUVs do have a small third row of seating. Finally, I suspect the Taurus wagon is at least as wide as Saab, Volvo or VW, if not wider... Taurus may be the roomiest of all the wagons.

I've had to try to squeeze 3 across in a number of midsize vehicles, and it is rarely fun. If you know the need for 3 across carseats before buying a 2-row vehicle, don't make compromises on seating width. Even an extra inch in width can make a huge difference:-)

Good luck!

johnny2003 · January 2003

Does anyone have any information on the 2004 Oddyssey? We are trying to decide whether to buy a 03 Pilot or wait for the 04 Oddy. We have a 00 Oddy that we just love, but are considering a change. I assume there will be some significant changes since the current body style is now five years old and Honda usually makes changes at this interval.

Thanks!

fdrek · January 2003

2000, i am buying one of the 2, both with 30,000 miles. Ventura is loaded, grand voyager is not. Both original owner. Venutra is $13,000, Voy is $12,000 any suggestions, help from a confused buyer

fdrek · January 2003

rumour has it that Gm's are of better quality and last longer is that true

stever · January 2003

Johnny2003, redesign rumors get floated in the 2003 Odyssey Redesign discussion. But nothing seems to be hovering on the horizon.

Fdrek, I don't know about quality, but you may want to run the True Market Value numbers on them for one more point of reference.

Steve, Host

bluedevils · January 2003

What are you looking for - room, quality, safety, reliability, price, etc.?

fdrek · January 2003

not to much info on voyager for comps
Ventura has lots

thanks
i would still love to get feedback from someone whos beenthrough this one already.

fdrek · January 2003

1. reliability
2. is the 8th seat in the venture a pain or a help

fdrek · January 2003

Steve is this village done for the night

bluedevils · January 2003

In my opinion, you could do better in terms of reliability than both of your choices by going with something else.

kkollwitz · January 2003

I got a Venture with 7 seats, since my family needs 'only' 6. About 6 times a year I wish I had 8 seats. If you can get 8 and stay within your other parameters ($, option packages, etc.) do so.

xaf · January 2003

Here's a review from the UK. where the Sedona has been available for a few more years,

www.tiscali.co.uk/motoring/roadtests/roadtest_462_1.html

chrisvolz · January 2003

Like one of the posters above, I'm trying to decide between a minivan and a mini-SUV. Does anyone have similar experience and related advice?This is a second car for the family (wife is quitting work to stay home with 1yr old twins) so we're on a budget and looking at the base models only. The Rondy and Montana are very comparable in most categories with Montana having a slight edge in capacity and flexibility (removable 3rd row seat), but we like the ext. look and front seat interior of the Rendezvous better.
Can anyone offer some insight about things I may not have considered? Thanks..

stever · January 2003

You're welcome to continue this thread in here, but there's also a Minivans vs SUVs discussion you may want to look at.

Steve, Host

montanafan · January 2003

I have always been a fan of additional space. I drove station wagons even when I was in college. So I would lean to the Van over the SUV. Since they are sisters built in different plants (even use the same type of AWD), you can judge on any feature or appearance you like.

My one point would the the sliding doors of a van make it much easier to load/unload kids, etc.

chrisvolz · January 2003

Thanks for the tip Steve. I did read through that MB, but not much action recently - seems some tempers got out of control back in Nov. I'm going to stick to this board since there are some people here.
MontanaFan - no bias there, right? Just kidding. The practical side of me thinks the same way. That on long trips, the movement to the second row is eased by no center compartment. And day-to-day, the sliding doors would be more convenient (though only marginally w/o power doors, and we can't afford those). The storage capacity looks like a push (unless configuration is dramatically different). We like the interior front row seating of the Rendezvous better (I'll probably drive this car 50% of the time) and the overall styling better mainly because it "isn't a MV" quite. Oddly, my wife doesn't seem to care about sliding doors - I do, but that is offset by the Montana's 2nd row seating which is two seats together (center and behind driver). If these are not movable, then we'd prefer the full bench which allows us to keep the twins separated. This could become the primary factor in the case of long trips

. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

kkollwitz · January 2003

has your wife driven both cars?

dad2bx3 · January 2003

The Rendezvous was one of the (mini?) SUVs that got me questioning whether a minivan was the right choice for our three car seat config. I think with two car seats the SUV makes even more sense from a configuration perspective (you'll have to be the judge on the aesthetics, handling, ride, etc.). Some thoughts:

Is 3rd row seating important? You're going to have the kids in the 2nd row in either vehicle. Need for 3rd row seating will probably be occasional rather than constantly in use.

Where did station wagon fit into your calculations?

Entry/Exit for the kids: You will almost always go to both sides of the vehicle to put the kids in and take them out individually (as opposed to reaching across). The added height of both vehicles is helpful, but I'm not convinced that the sliding doors are all that valuable unless you need to get to that third row.

I had a comment about cargo space, but I just checked the pictures of the Montana and it looks like the 3rd row folds flat just like in the Rondy, so it's a push there.

From my perspective, the Rondy, kids on either side, with the 3rd row flat is the most utilitarian choice between the two. Maybe it's just my affinity for the SUV styling. But then, I haven't driven either yet, so these two cents may not be worth much more than that.

bluedevils · January 2003

I thought Montana had a fold-flat 3rd row seat? Seems I've seen that in a friend's 2002 Olds Silhouette, although the seat doesn't fold perfectly flat and the floor seems higher than it would be if the seat were removable.

pluto5 · January 2003

With current GM discounts and rebates you should be able to get into a brand new Suburban for under $30K which would seat nine full size people or a whole gaggle of kids. For about $30K you would get a 2WD LS but with the locking diff you are not likely to get stranded, and you can look down your nose at all the mini-SUVs and minivans and be in style for the next ten years or more since this vehicle has looked about the same since 1936. Happy New Year.

dtownfb · January 2003

chrisvolz: The real question is what do you and your wife have planned for the future. Do you plan on having another kid or is this it? If you plan on another kid then the answer is simple, get the minivan. If you decide to have a kid even 3 years down the road, you will still have 3 kids in car seats. Not many SUVs can handle that with comfort. Plus the Montana is about a foot longer then the Rondy and has more space, which you will need. Take one trip where you have to bring along a Pack & Play, high chair, and walker, you'll be begging for something with more room in it.

If ou plan to stop at these two kids, then get which one drives the best. At this poitn, you may have to put your wants aside and settle for what you need.

caviller · January 2003

It lacks shoulder belts and head rests in some center positions, unless they added these recently. Even with the longer distance to the rear from the third row, an adult or tall child in a booster is at much higher risk without these features.

The Ford Expedition is not quite as big, but it does have headrests and shoulder belts in all seating positions. Plus, for 2003 it also has a new independent rear suspension, wider track, rollover sensing and canopy side impact airbags, tire inflation monitors and Advancetrac stability control. If you get all these options, it's a nice step up from most large SUVs in terms of safety... The Suburban also still lacks LATCH from what I understand...

I'd still rather have my family in a minivan, personally, but SUVs are finally catching up with advanced safety features.

bluedevils · January 2003

I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which a family with at least 1-2 kids would be better served by an SUV than a minivan. The extra room in the minivan will come in handy, most likely pretty often.

We're fortunate in that 99% of our weekend trips terminate at my parents' house. They have a high chair, crib, and stroller there, so we don't need to pack any of those items. And we STILL bought a minivan, because of extra room, greater comfort, and greater fuel economy.

pluto5 · January 2003

I understand that Burb has Latch for all positions in second and third row seats. Would feel safer in Burb than any minivan. Just my opinion.

caviller · January 2003

All 2003 models were supposed to have LATCH with few exceptions. Large SUVs are sometimes exempt from passenger car safety standards, however.

The 2003 Suburban literature does show it. On the other hand, I have had 2 parents asking me why their 2003 does not have lower anchors. Perhaps they are difficult to locate. I will find out for myself in a few weeks at the auto show...

I personally would not want to be in a Suburban in a crash with another large truck, or a fixed object. Not to mention being in a position without a shoulder belt or headrest, especially in a rollover or rear end collision. Too few crash results and various exemptions from pasenger car safety standards. Just my opinion. To each their own, of course. If you need to carry 7+, and do heavy duty towing/off-roading, then there are few other options.

uga91 · January 2003

I only read the first and last 20 posts, so sorry if this idea has been made and rejected. With the all new larger 2004 Sienna just a couple of months away, the 2003 Sienna should be a real good buy. Dealers here in the Atlanta area are marking them down about 5 grand now (including the rebate). I'm sure in another month or so, they will get a little cheaper.

bluedevils · January 2003

No, I don't think anybody has pointed that out. $5k off MSRP on a Sienna would make it much more competitive vs. other minivans from a price standpoint.

clay, any idea when the '04 Sienna will be on dealers' lots?

deepan · January 2003

will be available early march according to posts in the sienna forum

http://www.toyota.com/sienna/minisite/popup_html/sienna_04_specs.html

artgpo · January 2003

My son recently purchased a 2003 AWD Rendezvous CXL. In October, I purchased a 2003 Silhouette GLS. If I had paid attention at the time I probably would have bought the Rendezvous. It is a smaller vehicle but can carry seven passengers. The major differences are styling, the RDV looks like an SUV; doors, the RDV has conventional ones VS. the power sliders on my Silhouette; cargo room behind the third row - almost none in the RDV and lots in my van. I have ridden in all seating positions in both vehicles and find them to be comfortable. The second row seats in the RDV need to be moved forward a small amount to give me sufficient leg room but it is comfortable. I think I have to give the ride quality edge to the RDV because of its independent rear suspension.

bluedevils · January 2003

I haven't read anything about the upcoming new Quest - does anybody know if Mercury will have a Villager version of it?

Did see the exterior of a production Quest at the Detroit auto show yesterday (supplier preview night). Looked pretty unique - I didn't look long enough to decide whether I liked it. I know it will have a version of Nissan's potent 3.5L 6, which is a very good thing. My wife and I were given a guided tour by the Detroit editor of Motor Trend. I was very encouraged about this van when the editor said the best thing about the van is the interior - he said it's a quality interior. That was surprising for 2 reasons: the interior must be very good to overshadow the 3.5L 6, and the new Altima's interior was the biggest letdown in an otherwise pretty good car. Sounds like this new Quest might be a pretty big improvement over the current one, and a very good van period.

stever · January 2003

I'm anxious to see it. The front end pics and that dash haven't grabbed me, but I like the glass in the roof.

No more Villager/Quest twins; Mercury is coming out with the new Monterey in the fall.

Steve, Host

artgpo · January 2003

As Steve said, it is a Nissan only van. It is much larger than the previous models. It also has a first: both the third AND second rows of seats fold flat into the floor. It also has a new sunroof in two long, narrow strips. I am certain there are lots of pictures available from the current Detroit auto show.

nebrackman · January 2003

Hi all,
New to the boards and trying to do some basic research. We currently have a 2001 Honda CRV with about 15,000 miles on it. We have one two year old child. Just found out we're expecting twins, so it's minivan shopping we go. I figure to get rid of the CRV soon as it's worth more with fewer miles.

I've narrowed down to Dodge Grand Caravan/CT&C, maybe Toyota Sienna. Honda Ody is out of our price range, even used I think. The Kia and Mazda seem small to me, and the Ford and GM don't have the reliability I'm looking for (also I don't really love the way my friend's Windstar drives).

Like to have power doors, seating for 8 if possible, tinted windows, etc. Not looking necessarily for loaded options, though some would be nice. But I don't know if it's better to go used for the DGC/CT&C, if so which model years (going back to 2001), which model type (these are the most confusing).
Does someone have some suggestions for me? Thanks!

Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles