Chrysler flackmeister Stuart Schorr didn't take kindly to Ford analyst George Pipa's comments about the decline and fall of the U.S. minivan market. On Chrysler's Firehouse.biz media blog, Schorr took on "the myth that shoppers are moving away from minivans." The numbers show last year's overall minivan sales (800k units industry-wide) were 18 percent lower than the previous year's. Yet Schorr still boasts that Chrysler's "retail [emphasis added] minivan sales are flat through the first quarter this year." Wait a minute. Isn't the goal supposed to be increased retail sales? Anyway, Schorr explains that the flatlined sales are part of "the overall 9 percent drop in industry sales" and "the reduction of our lineup to two models." Besides, "we cut our minivan fleet sales by 46 percent" (which has nothing to do with retail sales). The fact remains: minivan sales are down. Way down. And, if current trends continue, staying down. In fact, they're falling, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of vehicles sold. In case you were wondering.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Or was it that minivans simply grew so much, that only the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo are about the size and efficiency of the “originals”? Someone at Chrysler must have figured this out, because the new Dodge Journey is on the market, of course it is being touted as a “whatizzat?” aka “crossover” (shhhhhh, it’s really a “station wagon”).
Unfortunately for Chrysler, I sat in their Dodge Journey at the Detroit Auto Show. I was NOT impressed with the interior. My wife, who is usually mute about cars, made unsolicited desparaging comments about the lack of quality, especially of the interior.
I always figured minivans were dying because the automakers figured out they could slap a body kit on them, call them SUVs or CUVs or crossovers or whatever, charge ten grand more apiece, and still sell them. So why bother with minivans if the profit is less? So, Ford canceled theirs, GM only offers the horrible Chevy Uplander, etc.
So I thought cheerful VW invented the first minivan… back in the 1950s or does minivan refer only to FWD people haulers? No, it can’t because the Astro and the Aerostar were RWD… Hmmm… Didn’t VW invent the first sliding door too?
What differentiates mini- from a normal van? Diminutive size? The current minivans are alot larger than the 1980s varieties but they are still called minis???
Just having fun folks…
Bring back the wagon versions of popular sedans!
P.S. Wasn’t the VW Bus the first minivan?
As Al Gore inveted the internet, Chrysler invented the mini-van. Of course VW had the Transporter/Microbus from around 1950. However, Chrysler had the first Soccer Mom Approved minivan with essentials like automatic transmission, lighted make up mirrors, cup holders…
Absolutely, the VW Bus. Schorr is a new Al Gore?
And yes, here is another vote for wagons (although the original “station wagons” were much more like SUVs than what we now know as wagons).
OK, the VW bus may have been the first mini van.
Chrysler invented the first Mini Van that people actually BOUGHT!! I’ve had two they are great. With manufacturers dropping out the ones left can split a smaller pie, but with enough volume to make money. I’ve also had wagons and wish I could get another now that I need something smaller.
I had a Chrysler minivan for a while. ’92 Plymouth with an I-4 and a 5-speed STICK SHIFT trans. That 100hp 2.5 wasn’t so anemic paired with a manual trans. Got around 25mpg in town and 30+ on the highway.
Modern minivans get about half that mpg. No wonder nobody buys ’em.
It’s fun to pile on, but Schorr’s point is valid: Chrysler eliminated its short wheelbase minivans without losing retail sales in a falling market. Since retail’s where money is made, that’s not bad. And I’ll speculate that the long wheelbase mv’s are generally better equipped and more profitable than the shorties whose retail sales they displaced. So minivan profits presumably are up. Again,not bad.
At least as to Chrysler’s retail shoppers, minivan sales aren’t “down, way down.” They’re not down at all.
Sorry folks. But I’m going to disagree with the choir.
Chrysler’s decision not to build a short wheelbase version effectively cost them at least 50,000 annual units. There is an enormous demand in the market at the moment for a well-packaged (a.k.a. compact) minivan that can get solid fuel economy. The prior gen four cylinder could get around 25 to 26 mpg on the highway, which was not great given that the Sienna and Odyssey V6’s could outperform it with plenty of power to spare. As for fuel economy, the Mazda (similar to Toyonda) and Kia (lower than Toyonda) offer far fewer frills and options than the more advanced leaders of the minivan market.
Perhaps if the merger had been a happier one between Chrysler and Daimler, we may have seen the diesel engine that’s in the Sprinter go into the Chrysler minivans. It would have been an excellent combination… but those who had the controls did not want to besmirch the precious MB DNA with Chrysler products.
It’s a shame. Chrysler could’ve been a dominator in this market instead of just another face in the crowd.
In my experience from owning a 97 GMC Yukon and a 99 Ford Windstar, unless you can run most minivans on the highway at constant speed for a significant amount of time your savings with a minivan over an SUV are not that great, if any.
The EPA clocks the combined mileage of most V6 minivans at around 18 MPG. The compare they clock the combined for a Chevy Tahoe 4WD with a 5.3L V8 at 16 MPG. Not surprising given that the curb weights of most minivans are not much less than something like a Tahoe. While you save 2 MPG you quickly find that the savings vanishes when you start factoring in the extra maintenance and repair costs. For example, in the schedule for most minivans there is an item stating to have the transmission flushed every 30k miles. In the normal duty schedule for my 97 Yukon it says to just make sure the fluids are at level every so often and then do a drain and fill at 100k. Additionally, because the minivans are FWD and their engine bays tend to be rather cramped repair costs can be higher.
Anyway, aside from that the only real benefits to the minivan are better driving dynamics, increased safety due to a lower center of gravity and modern unibdy crash cages, and a little more cargo room.
I very much doubt that the equation will be much different with the big CUV’s that people seem to be buying over the minivans. After checking the EPA numbers on the GMC Acadia, the FWD version isn’t any better than the minivans and if you decide on the AWD version you may be better off to pony up a new grand more for the Yukon. The mileage isn’t much different and you get a lot more capacity and utility.
Aren’t the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna still selling well? I don’t think the problem is the minivan market, I think the problem is with Chrysler’s redesign. It has some nice features but the level of quality, along with a stodgy appearance, is really what’s doing it in.
Not to mention, as previously stated, that Chrysler made another mistake by abandoning the true “mini” part of the minivan by eliminating the SWB version, presumably in favor of the crossover Journey.
Chrysler’s not alone. Mazda (Ford) committed virtually the same error when they discontinued the ‘just right’ sized small MPV minivan in favor of the even smaller Mazda5 and larger crossover CX-7. Of course, the MPV never really sold all that well, but that was due primarily to the underpowered engine Ford forced on Mazda in the first couple of years of its life.
It’s just too bad that the market for the original SWB minivan switched over to the far less practical (but much more stylish) ‘crossover’.
I think the Mazda5 is the last “real” minivan….and it certainly can be too small inside if you have 3 kids.
If there was a step between a Mazda5 and a Sienna/Odyssey sized van, I feel it would sell well. It would be large enough to swallow a family of 4 or 5’s stuff, but also give a meaningful mpg benefit over SUVs and CUVs.
If toyota brought over a new Estima/Previa/Townace/Vanwagon from the 80s and sold it as a scion, I believe it would sell well. Just make sure to offer the stick shift!
My 1984 Toyota Van with a tiny 4 cylinder engine and a 5 speed would do well in today’s market (with some updated materials and front-crash protection, of course)!
Save the minivans!
I think the car companies need to start right-sizing these vehicles, and do it quickly. Once people start paying $6.50 a gallon in the USA for gasoline (and probably $7.50 a gallon for diesel), a 6 or 7 passenger family friendly 30 mpg MINIvan weighing in at 3000 pounds or so, not forgetting adequate performance, will sell well.
Because, just exactly what is “mini” about a 4000 pound vehicle with a 3.5 litre or larger V6?!
Of course, Toyota and Honda each are hybrid experts and so – Toyota? Honda? Just where are the hybrid minivans? Hmmmm?
eggsalad :
I had a Chrysler minivan for a while. ‘92 Plymouth with an I-4 and a 5-speed STICK SHIFT trans. That 100hp 2.5 wasn’t so anemic paired with a manual trans. Got around 25mpg in town and 30+ on the highway.
Modern minivans get about half that mpg. No wonder nobody buys ‘em.
If my experience is at all representative, your mileage estimate is way low. My wife drives our ’03 Dodge Caravan (SWB), which has the 3.3-liter V6 and an automatic trans. She gets about 18 mpg around town and 25 on the highway despite driving with a heavy foot. The Mazda MPV we leased in 2006 got roughly the same mileage.
menno :
Or was it that minivans simply grew so much, that only the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo are about the size and efficiency of the “originals”? …
The Mazda5 is *much* smaller inside than the original Chrysler minivan, even though its exterior dimensions are fairly close to the first-generation Caravan and Voyager. I remember test-driving a Plymouth Voyager in 1986 and being impressed at how roomy the thing was, even in the third row. The baby Mazda feels very cramped by comparison and has no cargo space to speak of when the third row is up.
@radimus: don’t forget minivans’ power sliding doors, invaluable for quick pickups and dropoffs without having to leave the driver’s seat. Minivans have improved and maintenance intervals are longer than on your ’99 Windstar. Don’t forget cost – a loaded minivan is thousands less than a 3 row CUV i.e. Lambda.
@rudiger: Sienna sales have been slipping despite cash back on the hood for some time as it’s getting near EOL.
@Sammy B: The JDM Estima Hybrid (2.4L HSD like the Camry Hybrid) brought over as a Prius Hybrid minivan just might work if Toyota could keep the cost down.
@starlightmica: From your lips to God’s ears my friend.
As far as costs, if they could do it for $27-35K, I think it would draw some people in. I wonder what this thing costs elsewhere. Time to fire up the interweb when the boss isn’t looking
Is the current Mazda minivan the same as the S-Max?
I know alot of folks complain about the little minivans but done right it is a very useful vehicle. Sort of like my CR-V with a 3rd bench. In other words, just right for my family.
@Busbodger: the Ford S-Max is bigger than the Mazda5. The 3rd generation Mazda MPV sold in Japan and HK is about the size of an S-Max.
Ford sells the the Mazda5 badged the i-Max in Taiwan.
Karesh didn’t chime in yet to shill for True Delta, but let me state what I saw there regarding the new T&C: The launch/repair rates seem to me pretty unimpressive as well. People who want minivans are going for the Toyota Sienna.