Orlando is the unpopular car capital of the world. You name the dying models and brands. The City the Mouse Built has them in abundance. As I was counting the Mitsubishis and Chryslers on my way to a Disney Cruise, my mind began to wander and wonder. What if we avoided all these wasted resources? Surely there must be a few kindly politicians out there who can appreciate the more fiscally conservative amongst us. Somebody? Anybody? Bueller?
Fat chance. When I was through with my fifteen second daydream, the reality of my drive took over. Cheap plastic everywhere. The 2004 Grand Caravan seemed like a collection of plastic molds that had haphazardly fell into place with the stingiest numbers of screws. I literally measured the depth of my seat fabric with my fingernail and the car literally rattled and jingled with every bump on the road. Sure it was cheap; Kia-cheap in fact. But the cost of living with that cheapness was starting to wear on my soul that day.
So that’s one model in the “waste” category. How about the brand? Maybe. Dodge is synonymous with “affordable” or “cheap” in most of the automotive world. It may be the perfect platform for the Chinese . . . at the right price of course.
But how about companies like Mitsubishi, Suzuki, and Volvo? Other than a few interesting specialty models there really isn’t much there there. Every GM brand, with the possible exceptions of Chevrolet and Cadillac, is convoluted and cannibalistic. So is Mercury, flirtatious middle-aged woman be damned. Lincoln’s core strengths and brand image are from a bygone era. They need to go, too. Who else?
Does this have anything to do with the fact there are probably a sh*t ton of rental agencies in the Orlando area?
You can knock the Chrysler minivans – and they do have their problems – but that brand has outlasted Ford, GM, and other pretenders (VW) over the last 25 years.
The Chrysler product, though “cheap” in some respects, is affordable and offers great utility, and is therefore exceptionally appealing to the market it was designed for. Their terrible depreciation also makes for great used car value (I’ve owned two of them). My only Honda minivan was a costly lemon, so I’d take the “cheap” Dodge any day.
If Lexus had invented the minivan, there would have been no minivan market.
My wife and I just came back from an Orlando vacation, and for the last couple of days on the road I played ‘count the Mitsubishis’. It seemed like every 5th car I saw was an Eclipse. Are these fleet cars? Here at home, I just replace the word ‘Eclipse’ with ‘Impala’ to get the same effect.
Isn’t that the van you bought for about $2K a couple of weeks ago? 100K+ on the odometer if I recall correctly.
In the real world such bargains exist for a reason. If the workmanship and materials that you fault were better, do you suppose that the “deal” on the van would have been the same. I think not.
Unfortunately, quality comes at a price. And the old adage that you get what you pay still holds.
I still think you got a bargain. Not everyone is so picky. Someone will buy your van and be very pleased with it. There is a market for everything at a price.
The last gen minivan, the one you’re referring to, is a qualitative nightmare. The previous gen (the one that started in the 96MY) is, I feel, better in every aspect besides the lack of Stow ‘n Go.
The new ones (starting in the 08MY) are also much better. The crap that is the minivans you’re referring to is a Daimler cost-cutting mistake.
I think the new Lincoln can work, they just need some mastered yet.
The 2004 Caravan is smack in the middle of the Dumbler era. ‘Nuff said. The previous generation was Motor Trends’ Car of the Year recipient, beating out the completely redesigned Ford Taurus (to the shock and dismay of Ford). That’s how good it was. Caravan and the T&C were the standard of minivans until Dumbler ordered them built to a price point turning off who knows how many buyers.
I tried so very hard to like the Chrysler vans, especially since they can be had nearly-new for what a Sienna or Odyssey would cost with four years and a hundred-thousand kilometers on them. They have a good feature set, some real thinking, decent enough performance and huge aftermarket support
But I still bought a Sienna. With four years and a hundred thousand kilometers on it. Because I could get the following phrase out of my head: “If Chrysler can sell this car for under twenty grand new**, but Kia—let alone Honda or Toyota—can’t sell it for anything near that, what’s the catch?”. The gutless 3.3L and big, crude feel were the only obvious issues, but, again, it’s so cheap it sets off alarm bells.
Cheap only works so far. I bought the Sienna, extended the Toyota CPO warranty by two years and generally have really liked the car. Every minute I’d have driven the Chrysler would be filled with nagging doubts.
** GM still sells the Uplander in Canada for even less, new. About the only good thing I could say about the Caravan is that it’s much, much better than the Uplander, which is like saying crabs is better than syphilis.
14 years of production of this generation Chrysler minivan! Why make new suspension and replace OHV if it is underneath and people wouldn`t see itanyways. Makes sense. We will save money on it. ! So how much have you saved so far Chrysler on `sense making`? And are you sure Steven Lang that chinese will need this leaf springed platform? Even korean minivans don`t have leaf springs anymore.
jurisb :
… [A]re you sure Steven Lang that chinese will need this leaf springed platform? Even korean minivans don`t have leaf springs anymore.
Neither do the Chrysler minivans. They went to rear coil springs for the 2008 model year.
Having lived in Florida for years and Orlando for awhile, I can tell you that Chryslers et al are very popular because of the fleet/rental markets. The cars are sold once they reach nine to twelve months and they are cheap to buy. Central Florida has a lot of poor paying jobs so the Chryco “budget busters” are very popular with residents; older Ford Taures are too.
Also, central Florida has a lot of drop outs from up north that just show up in ratty old Detroit Iron and they (the cars anyway) become entombed into the landscape. Car shredding operations have become very popular in Orlando and Ocala because of all of the deceased tin on wheels that can be found abandoned on streets up and down U.S. 441.
Jurisb,
I heard that the 96 Mercedes E-class and the 2009 are the same car too, even though they look different. Who knew?
The Dodge vans are such a penalty box. The front seats aren’t horrible, but the middle and rear have less padding than a park bench. My father had a 2006 model. After 6500 miles it needed a power steering rack. At about 8k, it had to have both locking mechanisms on the sliding doors replaced. At 12K the motor for the right sliding door failed. At 13,500 miles the left went. At about 18K the rack went again. I’m sure now whoever is stuck with the thing has had to replace the rack again, and it probably needs transmission work.
Now, back to the brands question: Mitsu yes, Suzuki in the US, yes, Mercury – maybe, Pontiac and Buick and Saturn yes. Dodge no. It’s one of the top ten selling brands in the US and all N.A. It would make more sense getting rid of Scion. Acura – I like their cars but what is their reason for being? Yes, they are entry level luxury but other than fwd Honda’s with leather and a few other features what’s the point? I can option out a Civic or Accord with pretty much the same stuff for probably less money.
It’s also time to quote from Consumer Reports! Of course, quoting from Consumer Reports could also kill in this case, I suppose.
Here are some of my favorite obituaries
Dodge Grand Caravan?
“Overall the Grand Caravan is a disappointment.”
“… not very fuel efficient”
“Reliability of the redesign has been well below average.”
How about a Chrysler Town & Country then?
“Overall the Town & Country is a disappointment.”
“… not very fuel efficient”
“Reliability of the redesign has been well below average.”
Hmmm…
Then there’s this little gem about the Sebring
“The Sebring isn’t very competitive.”
Well, how about that strong (supposedly) scary Dodge Charger?
“… scored too low in testing to be recommended.”
“… results were poor”
The one positive thing I’ll say about this generation of Chrysler minivan is that it’s got more style than the new “boxy” model. Who knew that the shoebox on wheels Scion made would influence so much auto design?
That said, the van is fantastically good at being a pile of crap. My brother drives one as a company car. It was a replacement for his older company Ford Freestar, which he vastly preferred. Most notably the Ford had some power under the hood.
The Caravan is flimsy to the point where after a week of driving my brother said, and I quote, “After driving this I would never ever spend my money on a vehicle made my Chrysler.” And he said that before it had even broke down.
Honda and Toyota are so so so much better they shouldn’t even be considered in the same class as the Chrysler minivan. And the people voted with their wallets when the Odyssey outsold the Caravan…until the economy coughed and Chrysler started giving away their metal, uhh, plastic.
psarhjinian; i saw an ad yesterday for a brand new uplander 2009 here in Québec…you could get it for 13900$ canadian if you pay cash…imagine with 20% exchange rate for US dollars…
Mopars have ALWAYS been cheap crap. Anything from Chrysler in the 50s, 60s and 70s – heck even into the 80s and 90s – started to rust into oblivion almost the day they drove off the dealer lot. Even the vaunted B and E body Mopar muscle machines were at the time considered cheap crap, albeit very fast cheap crap. There’s a reason Hemi Challengers, Cudas, Super Bees and Road Runners are so frickin’ rare: Nobody wanted the damn things when they were new.
FF to 2009, and it’s the same cheap crap spewing forth from Mother Mopar, just as it has always been. The more things change the more they stay the same, and for Chrysler, the gig is up on their cheap crap.
In Emergency Strike Panel to Release Hammer
If this thing is such a piece of crap how did its classier Town & Country version win awards? I love the center table design a’la old-school Full-Sized van era, but the ride quality of this thing makes it kinda useless…
Suzuki and Mitsubishi should just merge, take the best of what they produce, bring in the best of what they produce for the rest of the world, merge their dealer organizations (worldwide) and try to improve their product to be competitive with Honda, Toyota and (gasp!) Hyundai.
I honestly think they’d have a better chance of success than GM or Chrysler, if they do this.
Besides; the US auto market is “big and important” but it is not the only market on planet earth, and Suzuki is #1 in Kei car sales in Japan (i.e. top selling vehicles), #1 in car sales in India (with partner Maruti; this is no small market which is set to continue growing), both Mitsubishi and Suzuki are reasonably successful in other worldwide markets including China (in various guises/with various partners) and both were recently planning to build new plants in Russia (before the Russian economy imploded with the drop in oil prices; for all I know, these plans may still be on).
Suzuki-Mitsubishi (selling cars as Suzuki brand) could include:
Swift (sub-compact) (already on the way to the US)
SX4
Lancer
Evo
Grand Vitara
Outlander (yeah, these two overlap for now)
Kizashi (new mid-sized Suzuki sedan; this would replace the Galant; soon to be on the market)
MiEV electric car (initially for California, then Florida, Arizona, Texas cities, and New York City, then the rest of the US)
Equator (Nissan built pickups)
XL7 (for those few folks who want a mid-sized SUV; built in Canada)
10 vehicle lines. Pretty much a full-line up.
BlueBrat,
The Van being talked about here (even though it is not the subject of this article) is the previous generation. The one you refer to (with the table) is a complete redesign.
h82w8,
I have owned new ’86, ’94, and ’97 Mopars, as well as ’85 and ’90 used ones. Not one of them ever had any rust issues, and they spent all their time in the northeastern US (near the Atlantic Ocean), which is plenty cold and has plenty of road salt. Oh, and no failed transmissions except for the ’90 after it reached 135,000 miles. Since it was used I don’t know what the original owner may have done (or not done) to it.
h82w8–
The current quality of Chryslers is much lower than the 90s cars.
Steven Lang: So is Mercury, flirtatious middle-aged woman be damned.
Jill Wagner is middle-aged? Cripes, now I feel really old.
i saw an ad yesterday for a brand new uplander 2009 here in Québec…you could get it for 13900$ canadian if you pay cash…imagine with 20% exchange rate for US dollars…
Good lord, the best I’ve seen is $15,500 for a Montana. $13,900 is Aveo money (if you’re a patsy). Is GM actually making any money on these things?
Not that it’s not a bad deal, but it would also mean that any used Uplander/Montana would automatically be worth less. Much less. Like “You could probably offer someone less than ten grand for a 2009” less.
Jill Wagner is middle-aged? Cripes, now I feel really old.
She’s 30. Now, I know more than a few people who consider that old, but they’re also the kind of people who’d say “She’s ugly” and can be safely ignored. Or sterilized before they can breed, hopefully.
ConejoZing
Yeah, quoting from CR isn’t a good idea, especially when they’re wrong.
(taking the most fuel efficient powertrains of the vehicles)
Town and County (4.0L) 17/25
Odyssey (3.5L w/VCM) 17/25
Sienna (3.5L 2WD) 17/23
And base powertrains…
Caravan (3.3L) 17/24
Odyssey (3.5L) 16/23
So tell me, the Chrysler minivans are inefficient compared to what, a Prius? Obviously not to their competitors.
Now I don’t have said issue of CR in front of me, but I’d be willing to bet my life savings on the fact there was no mention of bad fuel efficiency in the Odyssey and Sienna overviews, because they’re from Hondyota, and that means they’re automatically superior, right?
Consumer Reports, unbiased? Yeah, right, and pigs can fly.
Does this have anything to do with the fact there are probably a sh*t ton of rental agencies in the Orlando area?
Exactly! Chrysler and Mitsubishi have stuffed the rental fleets with product, and you see lots of rentals in the Orland area.
Windswords-what is your point?
y2kdcar-and I know that the current generation has coil springs, still the question is who engineered them. Chrysler or VW? And when chinese buy Chrysler who keeps the patents?
THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
The Odyssey has a firm ride and yet is very good at absorbing road imperfections. Body motions are well-controlled, and the highway ride is steady and composed. Road noise is evident on coarse pavement. In corners the Odyssey displays impressive agility, with restrained body roll. The steering is quick and well-weighted. On our handling course the Odyssey was stable and predictable. It was among the faster models through our avoidance maneuver. The 244-hp, 3.5-liter V6 is smooth and strong, helping the Odyssey be a tad quicker in passing than some other minivans, such as the Toyota Sienna, while returning a fuel economy of 19 mpg overall. The responsive five-speed automatic transmission shifts very smoothly. Overall braking performance was very good, but the pedal felt soft. Low- and high-beam headlight performance was good.
THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
The Town & Country absorbs small bumps well, with only muted kicks felt in the cabin. Some bigger bumps come through sharply. On the highway, some bobbing from the rear can be disturbing. The van is relatively quiet under way as wind and road noise are suppressed. The top-level and newer 251-horsepower, 4.0-liter V6 is quieter than the 197-hp, 3.8-liter V6, but both whine noisily under acceleration. We were disappointed with handling. The van’s vague and imprecise steering requires the driver to make constant, small corrections while cornering. Body lean is pronounced even when taking a corner moderately fast, and the tires squeal even in normal driving. In our emergency maneuver, the Town & Country felt clumsy and began to lose grip early. Stability control kept it on course, but the maximum speeds through the course was lower than that of the previous model. Stopping distances were long, especially on wet pavement. The 4.0-liter V6 delivers better acceleration and fuel economy than the 3.8-liter engine (which we also tested). Expect 17 mpg overall with the 4.0-liter and 16 mpg overall with the 3.8-liter. Both engines are matched with a smooth six-speed automatic transmission. Base versions get a 3.3-liter V6 that comes only with a four-speed automatic. The brakes produced long stopping distances, especially on wet pavement. The Town & Country’s HID headlights are very good but had a sharp cutoff.
THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE
The Sienna has the best ride of any minivan, with supple and controlled motions. The cabin ambience rivals that of some luxury sedans. Handling is sound and secure but not very agile. Stability control is standard for 2008. The 3.5-liter V6 engine delivers more power and the same 19-mpg overall fuel economy as the old 3.3-liter. The AWD model gets 18 mpg. Matched with a five-speed automatic transmission, the powertrain provides smooth and lively performance. Brakes performed well on both front- and AWD models. Halogen headlights had very good illumination and intensity.
Now I don’t have said issue of CR in front of me, but I’d be willing to bet my life savings on the fact there was no mention of bad fuel efficiency in the Odyssey and Sienna overviews, because they’re from Hondyota, and that means they’re automatically superior, right?
No, it’s because the real-world performance of the Caravan/T&C (and, to be fair, the Odyssey) is pretty far off EPA. Per CR’s testing:
* T&C: 11/27
* Oddy: 12/28
* Sienna: 13/28 (that two mpg in the city is worth a few hundred a year, and suprising given the Caravan’s extra gear)
Oh, and EPA for the Sienna is 19/26; I don’t know where you’re getting 16/23 from, because even the loaded-to-the-gills XLE AWD is 18/23. For the Oddy, it’s 20/28. And yes, the Oddy gets a little half-black circle for fuel economy.
And yes, you could get the 3.3L and save a little gas money. You’d also be opting for an utterly wretched powertrain pulling a four-thousand-pound car that still gets worse mileage than the Sienna
jurisb :
… I know that the current generation [of Chrysler minivans] has coil springs, still the question is who engineered them. Chrysler or VW? …
If you’re as much of a gearhead as you’d like the B&B to believe you are, I’m surprised you even asked that question. VW didn’t engineer the Routan; they tweaked the fascia, grilles, lighting and trim and hung a VW badge on the front. The rear suspension, like the rest of the 2008-up minivan, was engineered by Chrysler, though VW did specify the spring rate and shock valving settings from the Dodge “Sport” package to get tighter handling than the base settings provided.
@psarhjinian: Sienna 3.5 FWD was EPA rated 19/26 prior to the 2008 adjustment, 17/23 afterwards.
I have the 3.3 FWD and get 19mpg overall. Funny, so did Consumer Reports…
psarhjinian
I’m pulling all of those numbers from fueleconomy.gov from the 2009MY. Unfortunately, you can’t link to the site so you’ll just have to go look it up yourself. Where are you getting yours? (not the CR numbers, the EPA numbers)
y2kdcar-I am just trying to use my common sense. Chrysler hasn`t created a single of their own platforms in last 15 years. And ,woola, a company that builds phaeton supersedans and has their own van, plus the small one Touran, suddenly decides to rebadge a minivan from a company,that usually reworks either mitsus os mercs.Something smells fishy here. What does actually VW need from Chrysler? Is it some way of access to Mitsubishi? I don`t get it? So I also doubt that Chrysler independently engineered the new minivan itself. It should have cost about 1.3billion dollars to build it alone.
CommanderFish:
“So tell me, the Chrysler minivans are inefficient compared to what, a Prius? Obviously not to their competitors.”
This reminds me of a review they did about a Buick (can’t remember which). The backseat had more room (head, hip, and leg) than the equivalent cars from Toyondassan and whatever Euro car they threw in for good measure and they described it as “cramped”. lol.
“Chrysler hasn`t created a single of their own platforms in last 15 years.”
So I guess Chrylser got the new Ram from Ford? They did come out at the same time after all.
Am I allowed to comment in this topic if I’m not arguing with the other posters?
Answering the question of “who else needs to go,” let me say as a die-hard Gen-1 xB fan that Scion’s entire current inventory could be absorbed into Toyota without any ill effects.
The whole “distinctive youth brand” thing kind of fizzled when the supersized xB2 turned out to be the perfect BoomerMobile. The tC has been valuable in swiping prospective riced-out Honda “tuners,” but I’m fairly certain you could switch the badging from Scion to Toyota without the target market even noticing.
I’m giving them one more model revision to become cool again (or at least pleasantly weird, which you may recall worked out rather well for them) before I write them off as a doomed brand.
We bought an off-lease 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan middle trim model with 48,000 miles on the odo at the end of January. Seventeen months remains on the power train warranty. The cost was about 25-percent of new value. A equivalent Sienna or a Odyssey would have cost considerably more than double.
Having heard myriad Chrysler quality horror stories my expectations were not high, but I was looking for an inexpensive, large people hauler to drive about 6,000 miles a year.
So far we are pleased. The body seems to be screwed together OK. It is tight with no squeaks and rattles. The seats are comfortable. Hard plastic interior panels abound. What they lack in style and pretentiousness, they make up in durability and serviceability. It’s no sports car, but it drives well and is more than suitable for its intended purpose.
If it lasts 5-years with minor repairs and perhaps one major expense, we will have had damn cheap, reliable transportation.
OK, I’ll go through the list.
Brands to Kill: Buick, Hummer Saturn Pontiac, GMC, Saab, Volvo, Lincoln, Mercury, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Scion, Jaguar and… VW Routan
Expand or Maintain: Chevy, Cadillac, Toyota, Ford, Dodge (future Chinese subsidiary), and Hyundai (maybe they should market the SX4 and EVO).
Finally, it should be against the law to define cars with numbers or acronyms. Either name it or kill it.
I rented a minivan with the Stow and Go seating. Had it for a week. Dynamically it was nothing special, but considering what it was, it was ok. Thoughtful touches inside were really nice. It really was a good all purpose vehicle. The biggest letdown? The agricultural powerplant was really crude. A 3.1 litre GM V6 would kick its ass in terms of relative smoothness. And the interior plastics were really bad. It seemed that every penny was squeaked out of every part, and then some. Daimler ruined the product.
I had a Plymouth Voyager for a while. It had a 4-cylinder engine (the tried-and-true 2.5 liter), a 5-speed stickshift transmission (with an honest-to-God CLUTCH) and not much else. It got 25mpg around town and close to 30 on the highway. It also weighed around 3000 lb. Great car – last I checked it was still going, with over 200k on the clock.
Minivans now weigh north of TWO TONS. No more 4-cylinders or clutches. No more 30mpg, either.
I’m that grumpy old guy, “Things were better BEFORE!”
Finally, it should be against the law to define cars with numbers or acronyms. Either name it or kill it.
The Merkur XR4Ti does not approve…
Consumer Reports, unbiased? Yeah, right, and pigs can fly.
Sorry, but they are considered the Bible of consumer testing, like it or not.
I thought the old Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager and Mazda MPV were great ideas – smaller vans with some handling.
eggsalad, one of the reasons the 1st generation Scion XB did so well was because it filled a niche that the Chrysler minivans had abdicated.
I’m a BIG fan of square boxes that are easy to keep up and get over 30 mpg. Truth be told, that design is the most intelligent one for most family’s and folks who want to actually haul a little something. I think they’re far better for the real world.
As always, i’m a little confused about the point or conclusion of this writer’s post.
But one of the best things about posting on a website or internet page, is that those musings remain almost in perpetuity.
For an eyeopener, try Googling any of the blogs, testimonies, or opinions related to the housing meltdown we are now experiencing. These chagrined former geniuses are mostly all on record as saying “no problem..no problem..please move along now”
What’s that got to do with anything?
Here are some quotes that are memorialized in a “well known” auto enthusiat blog:
Want to guess who made them?
OK, I’ll go through the list.
Brands to Kill: Buick, Hummer Saturn Pontiac, GMC, Saab, Volvo, Lincoln, Mercury, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Scion, Jaguar and… VW Routan
“The best deals in this business usually come when competition is constrained on several fronts. For example, I bought a mid-level 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SE this past Thursday for $2200. The 101,000 miles on it kept the vehicle out of reach for all those dealers who depend on finance companies that have cutoff’s at the 80k or 100k mark. It was also bought at a public auction where dealers are fewer, and the opportunity to collude is greater.”
“Also, I cater to the non-enthusiast buyer and have cars that reflect it. I buy a LOT of minivans. They are the anti-image cars, and along with Buicks, Volvos and other “older person” cars, they attract the type of folks I like”
“In fact, if I ever were able to focus on purchasing specific cars, both of these Volvos would be on my short list. The bulletproof red brick B234 engine, classic rear wheel-drive architecture and simplicity of service make these Swedish vehicles a virtual W123 equivalent– without the weight and price penalty. If I ever move to Maine, I might even start a rental car business using old Volvos like these.”
“I also got a 1996 Mitsubishi Mirage with 46k miles for $900”
“Minivans are usually even cheaper than most midsized cars these days at the auctions. Most folks in suburbia who ‘haul stuff and people’ are better served buying one over a pickup or SUV. But again, un-hipness keeps some away while others, mostly older folks, couldn’t care less.”
Talk about schizophrenic double talk.
We’re advocating killing of private businesses or car families because we see too may of them in a city in Florida? Because they don’t sell enough units per year? Because they use too much plastic?
And what materials would be accepatble? Brushed aluminum panels, since diamond plate chromed steel might be a little weight prohibitive. Burled walnut panels for a family hauler?
IMHO, the xB is not, nor was intended to be in the same genre as a Chryco type minivan. It’s a total apples and oranges comparison if you consider the simple fact of 2-rows of buckets vs. 3 row seating. Not to mention “potential” light 3500 lb. trailering capabilty. That’s a huge diference. Simply because it’s “squarish” looking, has a tailgate, and a cargo area does NOT make it a one-on-one competitor. If that would be the case, we could add a whole bunch of Souls, Cubes, Venzas, Matrixes, xD’s, Versa S’s; PT Cruisers, HHR’s, AVEO 5’s; Focus ZX5s; Rio Cinco’s; Suzuki SX4’s, Freestyles, etc and debate all day.
They all have their differences, in many cases significant.
No the Chryco is designed to compete in the MINIVAN segment which includes the Sienna, Odyssey, Sedona, Nissan Quest, former Mazda MPV, and possibly and only possibly, the Kia Rondo and/or Mazda5. These vehicles still provide the most bang for the buck. But it’s clear that it’s not hip to be in a minivan, hence the newest charade perpetrated on the idiotic car buying public – THE super-zized, fuel guzzling, but high profit generating CUV. I think I saw the prequel to this movie..wasn’t it called “THE SUV”?
This lends itself quite nicely to people who feel they have to be ensconced in burled walnut, heated leather seats, talking computers, DVD for everyone, and obscenely priced 19″ rolling rubber, but just couldn’t bear the thought of their 5 year old coloring on the cheap plactic interior of a minivan.