MT COTY Watch #2.5: On CUVs and What the Hell, MT?

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
12/18/2013 at 12:02 • Filed to: MT COTY Watch, Motor Trend, Car of the Year, SUVs, CUVs, Toyota, Highlander, Sienna, Minivan

This is...a bit of a tangent. See Parts #1 and #2 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Thanks to MT for the headline pic!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Once upon a time people with more than 2.5 kids didn't care because they had sedans that could seat three across with two rows, baby! But they quickly learned that sucked so someone replaced the boot with a big glass area with a bench seat that faced rearward that also folded down if you wanted to use it as a boot again (with the bonus of being able to stack things so high you can't see anything when backing out). Then Chrysler gambled that if they made, say, a front wheel drive unibody station wagon adapted from the common-as-dirt (and cheap) K-body they could save themselves from bankruptcy because, eschewing the heavy frame and adding FWD, it would kick the crap out of everybody else's station wagons in actual, daily driving, non-hooning operation. And then someone (let's say Iacoca himself because I'm too lazy to find actual attributes and why not?) said "wait no that's not enough, we need to make it a tall wagon, like those thingies that ride on those truck frames and have that four-wheel-drive system, you know, we make some of those right? Called Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer (we'll pretend it's 1988)? What are those things called again? Sport Uwe-somethings?"

I grew up in a 1980s-vintage K-body Caravan (I always thought the short-body was actually the most practical option, from a daily driving perspective) just like literally millions of other kids and I'm guessing (pulling figures out of my ass now) 70% of the Jalops reading this now. I think I get the basic concept of a minivan: it's got lots of space, three rows (more or less) and it's really tall.

So for their !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , MotorTrend ponders why would anybody want to pass over such qualities in a minivan for something that has lots of space, three rows, and is really tall...hey, what?

I'm not sure the exact details or the how's and why's, but let's continue the evolution tree that started this article: somewhere along the way, someone figured out that they can make a minivan with AWD and styled like an SUV (or at least, styled more aggressively than the popular minivan offerings from Chrysler, Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Honda) and market it as an SUV. Then someone else figured out that they can market it as a "crossover" or "CUV" because creating new marketing segments gets treated like an arms race in the automotive industry !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . But just like how the 4- and 6-series "gran coupes" are just fancier 3s and 5s, the basic minivan DNA is still the same: lots of space, three rows, tall wagon. It just throws in the AWD option

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

You can argue the floor height angle, but I don't think it makes much of a difference. You can also throw in the actual distance the vehicle sits off the ground which does make a difference - and an appreciable one when snow starts to hit the ground (though you run into limits of diminishing returns real quick). Otherwise the differences from the inside start to disappear as well as the outside: two-box design? Check. Transverse engine sending power to the front wheels? Check. Drives like a boat? Check.

But what about the differences MT lists? Less interior space? More thirsty? Decreased driving dynamics? Let's check those stats straight from the manufacturer itself. Unfortunately Toyota's website doesn't have data for either the Sienna (for some reason) or the new Highlander, so I'll substitute in the Dodge Durango and Grand Caravan instead - and while I'm at it, see what Dodge's calculator has to say about the Highlander and Sienna. All trimlines are comparable - base trim (identical trims in the case of the Durango/Caravan and Highlander/Sienna pairings) and the SUVs have AWD while the minivans are stuck with their sole FWD option. You can view the results for yourself !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

The calculator lists cargo volume being down on the SUVs, typically just over half of what the minivans offer. No doubt the long rear overhangs of the minivans offer an advantage here. How much that actually matters is up to you, but technically it does mean the minivan is more efficient. The real, everyday metric for efficient is, of course, actual fuel use. The Durango and Caravan rate identically for city MPGs and lag just 1 MPG behind the Sienna (the Highlander's figures aren't out yet) despite the Durango's AWD option. Likewise, the Durango lags behind the Caravan by 1 MPG for both highway and combined ratings. With the best figures out of any of them being 18 city and 25 highway, you're probably going to be tempted into hypermiling in order to stretch the gas dollar regardless.

So, no, you're not going to be getting better gas mileage out of a minivan - or any large vehicle for that matter (duh).

Cargo room is one thing but most people buy SUVs (and minivans) not for what they can carry, but who they can carry. Front legroom is nearly identical across the board. Surprisingly (well, maybe to MT ) it's the SUV - the brand new Highlander, specifically - that wins the front legroom contest. When it comes to second row legroom, it's the minivans that actually lag (slightly) behind. The Sienna has a huge advantage over everything else when it comes to third row legroom, but the "apples to apples" Durango-vs-Grand(!) Caravan comparison show them to be practically identical. It's pretty much the same story everywhere except for second and third-row hiproom (where the minivans actually do have a huge advantage - must have to do with floor height and wheel placement) and, oddly enough, shoulder room for all three rows (once again the minivans have significant advantages, likely owing to styling concessions for the SUVs). So when it comes to passenger space, it's a little bit of an advantage for minivans and a little bit of them practically being the same. How important that is will, once again, likely be up to you.

As you'd imagine, the SUVs have a massive advantage on raw payload/towing capacity. The minivans regain an important advantage in MSRP, though when factoring the AWD systems it evens out.

As for "car-like driving dynamics?" I don't have a skidpad so I can't measure that. But, really, please . A 4,000 lb vehicle will drive (shockingly) like a 4,000 lb vehicle. Whether or not the manufacturer calls it an SUV doesn't change that. The increased CG of an SUV will have a noticeable effect - but it's not like the minivan is free to ignore the placement of its mass either.

There are, of course, different types of SUVs while the minivan tends to be universally conforming - and one can choose an SUV that is less or more efficient for smart or stupid reasons. The anecdote about the Forester in the article is, yeah, a pretty damn stupid reason (despite the new Highlander screaming mommy-mobile; I really can't fathom the lady's problem with the Forester). But if you really need a three-row car, well, you're kind of stuck. It pretty much boils down to whether or not you want AWD or an extra 15 cubic feet of storage space and hiproom in the back, but it's still the same basic DNA underneath.

DISCUSSION (5)

Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW. > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/18/2013 at 12:12

I never-ever consider myself to buy a minivan except it's a Japanese Luxury one, like Toyota Alphard or Nissan Elgrand or Honda Elsyon :D

SUV?
as long as they're nnever done any off-road thing i still consider them as a lifted wagon.

Coty > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/18/2013 at 12:15

Wait what?

COTY?

;)

HammerheadFistpunch > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/18/2013 at 12:26

Here is my perspective on the difference between Minivans and Crossovers and I will try to keep it brief.

I've driven both, lots and there are differences and what it boils down to is this:

Do you need a vehicle thats primary attributes are; cargo space, passenger comfort, a "normal" or carlike driving experience and aren't concerned with towing? Please look into a minivan. Whats that? you live where it snows? Buy winter tires.

Do you need a vehicle that's primary attributes are: cargo space, passenger comfort, a carlike driving experience and you will occasionally need to tow and are willing to make marginal trade offs in mileage and cargo space? whats that, it snows where you live? buy winter tires even if you have AWD.

gizmo-ms3 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/18/2013 at 13:35

My wife has a CX-9 AWD. A minivan is far more practical, but I couldn't talk her into getting one. With the third row in place the cargo area in the CX-9 is pathetic. With the third row folded there's about as much cargo space as behind a van's third row. Third row passenger space is lousy as well. Have 2 kids in carseats (which we don't) and want to use the third row? Those people are climbing in through the trunk. She drives 95% city and gets about 14mpg. Best I've managed with a light foot on a road trip was about 20mpg. It's a nice car, but a van is far more practical other than AWD and cool-factor.

Shawn > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/19/2013 at 00:42

My wife would not be caught dead in a minivan. So for our family outings we have an AWD three row SUV (2008 Durango). It was cheap and fit the needs that we had for it. We don't daily drive it so the mileage is not a big deal. It has several times the cargo room of our cars, so we make do with the smaller cargo area.

I really wanted a pickup, but my wife would not let me buy one. This was a compromise vehicle. It has a very generous towing capacity and rental uhaul trailers are cheap. I am happy.