this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
401 points (98.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7321 readers
513 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a minivan currently and they're so practical for the average American. Hauling stuff? Put the seats down, and your "bed" is longer than almost any pickup's, plus it's protected from the elements. Hauling people? Seats go up, and it will fit seven people. Even though you sit high up the grill is angled downward, meaning better visibility AND in a crash will throw the victim over the car rather than under (way better likelihood for survival). They also tend to get decent mileage compared to trucks. Hell they even make for a great camping vehicle: no tent needed, just throw a sleeping pad in the back with the seats down and call it a night. It's such a shame that they were branded as soccer mom vehicles, because a lot of folks buying trucks for their "practicality" would be better served with a minivan.
However! They are not good for: carrying loose gravel/soil/mulch/manure, transporting livestock, traveling on 4WD roads and other rough terrain, hauling a trailer, or moving stuff that's tall but cannot be tipped on its side. The carrying/hauling capacity is really low, the ground clearance minimal, and the carpet-like interior gets dirty really easily. These are not tasks that the average customer is going to undertake often, and I've creatively worked around many of these limitations in the past for one-off instances, but it's definitely not an everyday-use farm vehicle.
I don't think that the branding is the problem with minivans. IMO they really do look pathetic (sorry!) and that's not something an ad campaign could have overcome. This is the same problem station wagons and modern day don't-call-it-a-station-wagons have: they're very practical but that can't make up for the way they look.
That's the entire problem: people treating vehicles like fashion accessories instead of as tools. I really don't understand the sentiment as I think all motor vehicles are eyesores. Sure some are better looking than others, but at the end of the day they're something to be hidden away in a garage or tucked behind a building; they don't enhance their surroundings like a decorative statue or ornamental shrubbery. I know car enthusiasts are going to disagree, but most car owners are not enthusiasts, they just need decent transportation. So why are we all forced to treat motor vehicles like designer purses?
I wouldn't call myself an enthusiast, but I still like the way my car looks and I usually enjoy driving it. To me, it's like a house - the primary purpose of a house is to provide shelter from the elements and even a very basic house can do that, but going beyond that and having a good-looking, cozy house is very important.
I wonder if minivans have a reputation as women's cars not because women particularly like minivans but because on average women are less interested in cars than men are and therefore tend to buy the most practical ones, which often happen to be minivans. It seems sad to me, a little like being unable to taste food and therefore deciding what to eat based solely on nutritional value.
A work van is not a minivan.
Refer to the video I posted above. The first comment mentioning those things seemed a bit confusing at first, but I'm starting to think maybe Americans don't have a notion of what a work van looks like? That's... a thing I learned today.
I know what a work van is, but I only have minimal experience with them so instead I critiqued my extensive experience with minivans vs pickups. A work van could address some, but not all, of the issues I outlined. The bigger issue is that it's still a MUCH larger vehicle than I want or need. I'd rather a small pickup and a detachable trailer for when I've especially large jobs to handle. I'd even consider importing a kei truck if they were A) road legal and B) available in automatic.
Ah, gotcha. I was confused because whenever the point of pickups comes up people keep bringing up having to use them for work, and in my mind that's what vans are for. I've been taken to school in a van before, but that's not the point of them.
I think over here people would instead get a hatchback and a van if they had to do both things. That'd probably cost the same amount of money and be more practical. And you'd have two cars by the end of it.
Oh, and there definitely are work vans sized like minivans. That's the entire point of the Kangoo, as far as I can tell. It's basically a minivan you can choose to get with or without seats.
EDIT: Oh, hey, apparently you CAN buy a Kangoo with a closed cabin, too. I said earlier that you couldn't.
Aren't work vans built on the same frames as pickups? Only a minivan is going to be significantly smaller than a truck.
Maybe in the US? The Trafic gets rebadged a lot, but I don't know if it matches up with any current pickups. It's certainly not small, but it's not a gas guzzler, it's low slung and it uses sensible tyres. It certainly doesn't look like you're overcompensating for something, even if its road footprint is large.
And that's not even the smallest one they make (but it is the smallest with a separate cabin, I think).
I think that's more true as time goes on, though. That's what my comment about the concerning front of modern vans was about earlier. Still, if you compare the Ford Transit to the F150 you clearly don't see a pickup with a roof.