Soccer-Mom Showdown: Crowning the Queen of the Mini-Van/MPV Hill

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 144 comments
  • 8,370 views
Youre talking about a van that for the most part is still incredibly popular, as the Stow and Go bolstered that fact even more. Quite frankly, you couldn't pay me to buy one, even with the special features these days. The build quality sucks, the engines and transmissions are almost worse than anything out there on the road these days, and as far as looks are concerned, it still lags far behind it's Asian competition.

As noted, my vote still sits with the candidate from Korea, Mr. Hyundai Entourage...

BTW: Do you think if someone told you ten years ago that a Hyundai or Kia would be comparable to a Honda, would you have taken them seriously?

...But it will be interesting to see what happens with the upcomming VW/DCX mini-van that is supposedly in the works at the moment. With VW power and design, the refinement levels should go through the roof by comparison to the current Chrysler line, but I'm wondering how much the pricing of the vehicles will be effected.

The best part of the whole deal? Diesel power, man. How many soccer moms are going to take to that idea? Not many I assume, but you never know...
 
YSSMAN
BTW: Do you think if someone told you ten years ago that a Hyundai or Kia would be comparable to a Honda, would you have taken them seriously?
Click to expand...

Actually yes. I offer you this quote from Canada's 1996 New Car Report, which was the concluding sentence to a piece on the 1996 Hyundai Sonata:

"Hyundai still has to do a lot of work and invest a lot of money to consolidate current attributes and to bring them little by little to the same level as those found on current leaders. And the manufacturer has the ambition, the will, and the means it takes. Only a fool would bet against its future or refuse to consider at least look at its current models."

And trust me - the New Car Report was not, by any means, ahead of its time here. I'm not sure how old you are, but even I remember a time when everyone would say, every time Hyundai would release a product, "someday, that brand will be hugely successful." Back in the '60s and '70s, the domestic manufactuers made a huge mistake underestimating Japanese cars, and it nearly bankrupted them all. No one would make that mistake with Korea. We all knew that one day they'd be competitive - and that day came along with the new Sonata.

By the way, you're selling the Grand Caravan short if you're saying you'd never get one. The engine isn't up to par, but features-per-dollar is, and my favorite part is the innovation - sto 'n' go really is a good feature. The vans need a redesign, though, with at least 250hp.
 
...I'm 19 going on 20 (November) so I can recall the days when Japanese cars still weren't considered the best things in the market yet. It always seemed to me growing up that what I remember reading of Hyundai, it was usually a joke. Some of my "vintage" Car and Driver and Motor Trend Magazines that have Hyundais in them are quite funny, but even then, they weren't completely horrible cars... Just not something that most "sane" people would buy.

On the Caravan: I may be selling the van a bit short, but I've spent a good part of my life in and out of the past three generations of Caravans, and they aren't all peaches and cream. Granted, the biggest problem with the vans is that they have not had a major re-design in quite some time, and thus they have fallen behind the compeition.

...I would agree with you that they are a great deal, and for the most part, I probably would have a prospective mini-van buyer look at both the Dodge/Chrysler versions and the other options from Toyota and Honda to see what the segments are like. But, I myself would be hard to convince that the vans are the way to go. Granted, dual sliding doors, Stow and Go, and attractive exterior styling is quite nice in a mini-van... But pricing doesn't make up for the lesser build quality, sub-par engine, and questionable resale values in comparison to the Toyota and Honda options.

But I can't be completely certain of anything, given of course that I'm not in the market for a mini-van...
 
M5Power
And for that I'm sorry.

No just kidding - the third gen was actually the best gen. Didn't go over so well in Europe, but it was a big hit stateside.
Click to expand...

It was the first car ever to score 0% in EuroNCAP's front impact test.
 
Famine
It was the first car ever to score 0% in EuroNCAP's front impact test.
Click to expand...

And they were selling quite well up to that point, the EuroNCAP test results did dent sales for a while.

Still its always managed to maintain a resonably steady level of sales in Europe.

Regards

Scaff
 
I hate it when my net goes out... I miss all the fun! :lol:

RE: Gil on Chevy Venture and Chrysler vans... it's kind of funny, because a bud of mine swears his 1998 Chevy Venture is made of tofu and vermicelli noodles... but that was a year ago... now, what he calls it won't pass the swear filter. I think he's had more overhauls than a Top Fuel Dragster. :lol: Other owners have complained about dead gauges and various electrical glitches... I'm pretty sure things will start getting much worse in the future, when all our Chevy cars come from China (we currently get units from the US and Korea).

I've found Chrysler's T&C to be a very comfortable if kind of old fashioned van... haven't heard any local horror stories, except for the batteries conking out every few months because people can't stop playing with the electric doors. :ouch:

About the Avantime... that was real? And here I thought it was a hallucination induced by too much Gran Turismo... :lol:

RE: Mazda5 with a Mazdaspeed 6 underneath... that thought is worth repeating! :D :D :D
 
Figured I wasn't the only one who would get a kick out of that.

For the wife...ya know...except on weekends.
 
I'm curious as to how well the Kia Sedona/Hyundai Entourage scored in the EuroNCAP's test scores. I belive it is the only mini-van here in the US to get a 5-star rating in the NHSTA crash testing in all circumstances, along with a "Top-Pick" placement from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
 
Famine
It was the first car ever to score 0% in EuroNCAP's front impact test.
Click to expand...

What I find really comical about that is that in the US, it received the highest marks for both front and side impact for both front and rear passengers. That's what I really hate about these tests - manufacturers engineer their cars to beat them, even though they're completely useless in the real world, as this demonstrates.
YSSMAN
I'm curious as to how well the Kia Sedona/Hyundai Entourage scored in the EuroNCAP's test scores. I belive it is the only mini-van here in the US to get a 5-star rating in the NHSTA crash testing in all circumstances, along with a "Top-Pick" placement from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Click to expand...

Again, that van is not on sale in Europe. I made a post about this earlier in this thread.
 
M5Power
Again, that van is not on sale in Europe. I made a post about this earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

The same Sedona we have here is available in the UK, according to Kia Motors UK. However, under the Carnival name in France, it is the same thing as the American/British Sedona as well. The old Sedona is available in Germany as the Carnival, and I presume that it too will be recieving the update that the American,British and French versions have.

...Sadly however, the better Hyundai version is unavailable in Europe...
 
I'm assuming Europe doesn't get the hot 3.8-liter V6...
 
According to the UK website, only 2.9L diesel power is available on the Kia.
 
I'd say so. I haven't had any close expiriences with the 3.8L V6 in either the Sonatta or the Entourage, but from what I understand it is pretty smooth and offers plenty of low-end grunt in comparison to the Japanese and American rivals.

...But I can't say a diesel version isn't appealing...
 
Missing out on a van? Heaven forfend!

Interesting point about crash test scores. Some manufacturers get five on one and three on the other, and with others, it's vice versa.

It seems like needless expense to reengineer a car to meet two seemingly contradictory standards. The standards, I should say, ought to be standardized. :lol:
 
I agree. If we had a worldwide standard for safety it would make cars easier to import/export to various locations, and theoretically would lower production costs should a model have to be redesigned for separate markets.

...But I don't think we want our American cars uglier because of the European pedestrian crash standards, as, well... Wait, what’s a pedestrian? (lol)
 
It'd be good for everyone, as American companies would have to work on the problem, too. That would bring down the cost of pedestrian saving tech... maybe make hood-poppers (or whatever the heck they call those things that raise the hood upon impact) standard items on even cheap cars.

That'd be great, as it would allow us to keep low, sloping hoods, gently caressing the curves of the engine bay, which are still pedestrian safe.

Heck, I'm happy about the pedestrian safety thing... it's the only thing that's keeping Honda's engine bays from receding completely into the cabin. The updated Fit sedan had its nose remodelled, and it achieved a number of things.

1. Pedestrian safety increased. That's the primary reason.
2. The engine actually runs better, because there's more air circulation, less heat soak, and they were even able to bring intake temps down because of looser packaging... duh... could've told them it was too cramped as it was. They gained a whole 5-10 hp in the midrange from this.
3. The car doesn't look like a cockroach anymore (it's notoriously ugly compared to the hatch)... in fact, it's got as much snout as the new Civic.

The way Honda tells it, number two was their primary goal... pfffttt... yeah, right. :lol:
Now if they only did that for the Civic...
 
renault-espacef101.jpg


Find me another minivan/mpv that will get you to 60 in 2.8 seconds :lol:
 
ultrabeat
renault-espacef101.jpg


Find me another minivan/mpv that will get you to 60 in 2.8 seconds :lol:
Click to expand...

The Renault Espace F1... such a legendary project.👍
 
YSSMAN
I'd say so. I haven't had any close expiriences with the 3.8L V6 in either the Sonatta or the Entourage, but from what I understand it is pretty smooth and offers plenty of low-end grunt in comparison to the Japanese and American rivals.
Click to expand...

The Sonata actually uses a 3.3-liter V6, not the 3.8, though I wish the 3.8 was available - in the Azera, it pumps out 263 horses (versus 242 in the vans and 235 with the Sonata's 3.3) and propels that car to 60 in 6.2 seconds. The Sonata is marginally lighter (150lbs) and might be able to knock that down to 6.1 or so - imagine THAT in a Sonata!!

...But I can't say a diesel version isn't appealing...
Click to expand...

Probably slower than crap though.

niky
Heck, I'm happy about the pedestrian safety thing... it's the only thing that's keeping Honda's engine bays from receding completely into the cabin.
Click to expand...

:lol:

My problem though is it creates massive overhangs, in order to keep the engines further back and deaden the blow to pedestrians. And we Americans, who haven't got these pedestrian safety tests, have to deal with massively overhung cars. For example:

3971189443365288.JPG


I personally am a huge proponent of the "wheels at the corners" philosophy - not only stylistically, but because it improves handling. This both hurts handling and hurts styling - and all for those pedestrian tests, which are barely real-world applicable. Ugh!
 
also dont forget, most vehicles in the US are large, heavy light trucks. with a higher bumper and frame than a passenger car.
most vehicles in europe are passenger cars, which are lighter and lower.

how would one standard reconcile that? im all for uniform safety standards, but im more for common sense.
 
Uniform safety and emissions standards would be great, as it would literally open up the world markets to cars that weren't available before. America wouldn't sign on, and that totally sucks...
 
it wouldnt just be that

japanese and european fuels are generally a higher octane rating than ours. we use a combination measure (RON+ MON/2) and thiers is one or the other.
hell, we are only just about to get low sulfur diesel fuel which theyve had for ages. of course, i think ours will now be lower in sulfur content than thiers is, but point is theyve had it all this time, we havent.

but then again, they dont have an oil man in thier pocket in the various states' residence. i know the fella at 10 downing st might be g shrubs parrot, but hes not an oil industry puppet. neither is chirac (is he still the french premier?) no the german councillor, nor the rest of them.
and those countries arent as addicted to cheap fuel as we are. and they are far more progressive on emissions than we are, though californias emissions are the toughest.

and remember the narrow roads in ronin? we dont really have those here.

its two different worlds almost.

its really complicated.
 
neanderthal
japanese and european fuels are generally a higher octane rating than ours. we use a combination measure (RON+ MON/2) and thiers is one or the other.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm, not necessarily true.

RON represents laboratory driving.
MON represents real world driving.
RON is generally 5-8 points higher than MON.

Your "Octane" (PON) is ineed a mix of RON and MON in, as you say, (RON+MON)/2. But our petrol rating is RON only. The number is artificially higher by 3-4 points simply because we don't take account of the MON rating at all and in fact our petrol could well have a MON rating of 1 - yours is more transparent, as an Octane of 91 means that MON can be no lower than about 87/88, and MON is what you really want to be high.
 
neanderthal
and they are far more progressive on emissions than we are, though californias emissions are the toughest.
Click to expand...

First off, it's not just California - it's New York and Massachusetts too. (and Maine and Vermont, but who gives a **** about them) "Why is that important, you nitpicking asshole?" you might ask. Well because I think the exclusion of the gigantic auto markets of New York City, southern California, the Bay Area, and Boston makes it so that many manufacturers choose not to sell high-polluting cars here. So while the US as a whole might not be as tough as Europe, those three states, which are even tougher than Europe, exclude automakers from sales to the point that they don't come to the entire country.

Here's the interesting tidbit of the week: the 2006 Audi TT (which is the old style still) has been banned in California, Massachusetts, and New York (and Vermont and Maine) due to its not meeting emissions requirements there. This is the first non-diesel vehicle to have this problem. Good going, Audi. Good going. I guess that 1.8-liter turbo really is that ****ty of an engine.

New TT is imminent though, but they do lose a year of sales in four huge markets.
 
That's the reason Audi's TFSi engines aren't quite the same as they are in Europe either.

By the way, pedestrian safety standards don't hurt the wheels at the corner design as much as you may think. It mostly affects hood and bumper clearance from the meaty bits in the engine bay. Of course, that has some effect on FWD cars, but they already have that much space... in older models with long and low noses.

That's why it would be great if the US applied the pedestrian rules, so we could put explosive bolts to raise the hood during impact, so we could keep the darn hoods low. And the other part of the requirements will keep it long. :lol:
 
BTW: You read the story about Audi building a TT TDI, right?

Leftlanenews.com
The next-generation Audi TT — which was unveiled earlier this year and will come to the United States in 2007 as a 2008 model — will be offered with an optional diesel engine, according to Automotive News. An Audi spokesperson made the announcement at a press event in Austria. Two years ago, Audi prepared a diesel version of the first-generation TT, but decided not to produce it because the "remaining life cycle was too short to recuperate the investment," the spokesman said. Audi has not specified which engine it will use for the diesel TT. The car is expected to be unveiled around the same time as the 2007 Audi TT roadster — either late this year or early next.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that will be banned from California and Mass as well.
 
M5Power
First off, it's not just California - it's New York and Massachusetts too. (and Maine and Vermont, but who gives a **** about them)
Click to expand...

i know about the emissions standard, and how the other states basically follow whatever california implements. i just called it california emissions because you never hear it described as new york emissions, or mass, or vt etc.
 
Isn't it refered to as CARB (California Air Resources Board) standars? That would be acceptable to categorize it all under California, IMO.
 
Back