It’s not the flashiest or most handsome vehicle out there. In fact, it’s probably the only car on the market that makes the old Honda Element look good. But for the disabled, the VPG MV-1 is very attractive indeed, because it, alone in the industry, allows a wheelchair user to ride in the “front seat” next to the driver.
The MV-1’s designer and, Vehicle Production Group (VPG), ceased production a year ago and transferred the rights to AM General, which was building the vans for them under contract in Mishiwaka, IN. AM General has now officially restarted production and plans to make as many as 5,600 MV-1s this year.
As more municipalities consider following New York’s lead and mandating handicap accessibility in a certain percentage of taxi fleets, AM General is poised to take pretty much all of that market. And at between fifty and sixty thousand dollars for a vehicle with relatively prosaic specifications, it should be profitable; it just hasn’t been so far.
The MV-1 has been a dream come true for some buyers. One buyer, a man who has had cerebral palsy since birth, was a guest at the official restart of production. He talked about how the MV-1 has changed his life by letting him sit next to his wife for the first time. No, it’s not a Aventador, but the MV-1 is clearly a dream car.
Suppose it’s not as bad looking with higher trim packages other than the value NYC cabbie edition.
Does it come with leather? Nav? AWD?
Setting aside the fact that this vehicle is giving the disabled their much needed shot at independence, this is still one ugly turd.
Never seen one, and damned glad that my eyes have been spared of the visual assault.
Is that a very stubby Ridgeline snout up front? ??
RS – I don’t know the full plans for AM General, but having been on the ‘inside’ at VPG, I can tell you that we had a luxury model which was aimed at the black car market. It was available with diamond-tufted leather and all the ‘trimmings’. A very impressive-looking car in all black.
Good luck trying to find a Panther with a power ramp that would have “served the under-served”. I’m glad that the car is making it back into production.
Ya, it’s ugly, and looks like a production version of something out of the animated ‘CARS” film. but if it gives the wheelchair-bound populace of New York more convenience and independence, they’ll look upon it as an S Class MB. Like the Presidents’ Beast, it wasn’t built to win concours, it was built to do a specific job.
Form over function definitely. Sadly, they couldn’t accomplish both. This makes my old Econoline look well-sculpted.
There’s one of these that shows up at our local farmer’s market — a “civilian” model, I’m pretty sure. It’s dark blue, and looks a *lot* better in that than in yellow.
This is a much-needed product and I wish them lots of success.
As the former owner of an xB1, everybody derides the box shape until they get inside.
Best wishes to AM General with this vehicle.
I used to drive a PT Cruiser. It was slow and had a turning radius the size of the queen mary, but it could haul a ton of stuff.
Change the name to Marathon. What are the specs?
Makes the Checker look like an Aventador. But the form follows function.
I’ve seen one on the road, they’re not as bad-looking as the photos suggest.
Looks are the least important thing about this thing, but they could slim the profile down a bit by blacking out the pillars and the sheetmetal below the DLO, Chevy Volt-style. Yes, it’s technically DLO FAIL, but in this case it would be an aesthetic improvement.
They make so much more sense than heavily-modified Pentastar vans.
And significantly SAFER than any modified van, where either strucutral integrity is severely compromised (either side or rear-entry vehicles) or capacity is severely restricted (rear entry requiring the bench seat to ‘fold up’ against the front seats, eliminating any ability to carry more than a wheelchair and it’s occupant).
Mayor Gloomberg made a BAAAAAD choice for the Nissan ‘taxi of tomorrow’. Tomorrow is only one day and the MV-1 serves the needs of today.
It is great to hear that they have resumed production. Since Ford has stopped making the Panther what are they going to do for a engine and trans long term? Do they have enough stocked up to keep production going until they figure out the replacement? The 5.0 would come the closest to being a drop in solution but do they really want that much HP?
While the MV-1 was designed initially for a GM V8 until Ford had a ‘better idea’ with its 4.6 and a 4speed AT, AM General is reworking the VPG option of a V6 with a more modern transmission for better milage and (hopefully) the same bullet-proof durability.
Well the reality is that the 4.6/4r75 has proven itself to the taxi operators that it could go and go and go with lots of abuse, little maintenance and few repairs so it made much more sense to choose it when it was still in production.
There are many of them used as taxis here in Chicago, they seem up to the abuse they receive.
I wish them well.
These things are so hilariously oversized, kind of like a Rolls next to a Grand Cherokee.
Ive seen a few of these around; they don’t look all that bad on the road. The average minivan that it takes the place of, is no stylistic revolution either.
That they chose the Ford V8 powertrain boggles my mind, though.
Given that the Ford “mod motor” tied to 4-speed automatic was available in the Ford trucks not too long ago, and the successor powertrains with 3.7 V6 or Ecoboost tied to 6-speed automatic are also available in the Ford trucks, hopefully they can make a more updated powertrain selection without having to change too much. The good thing about front engine rear drive is that engine/trans swaps are pretty easy as long as there is enough room.
A 3.7 V6 with 6-speed automatic ought to do fine in these; they need not be hot-rods.
The choice of the engine was done long ago when the 4.6/4R75 combo dominated the taxi market and the V6 was relatively new and unproven in fleet use. Note the version used in the MV1 is a Panther spec engine but maybe the engine mount brackets are something they designed themselves. Since the 5.0 was designed to fit nicely in the place where the 4.6 had been sharing the engine mount bracket bolt pattern and location relative to the bell housing face it is the closest to a drop in replacement. However the 3.7 V6 option does make more sense.
Even if the 3.7 V6 / 6 speed auto has different mountings than the “mod motor” / 4 speed auto, re-working the front subframe and trans crossmember to suit is not hard.
Subframe? Isn’t one.
This is a good old Body On Frame car.
Need new motor mounts? Just dial in the fab shop. No need to rework too many pieces here.
Width is a concern with the coyote. IIRC the 2 and 3v MODs are 26 inches wide and the coyote is 28 inches wide and the 5.4 DOHC is a full 30 inches wide. The MODs and its derivative coyote motor shine in the longitudal dimension though as they tend to be shorter than their GM and Chrysler competitor V8’s due to the narrow bore centers and correspondingly small bores.
If the engine bay has the ability to comfortably fit the coyote I think that would be a good choice as well as the 3.7 in port injected form. Its my observation that the industry still hasn’t solved the coking problems inherent with a pure DI engine ( I’m surprised at the number of hybrid fuel delivery systems in use ) so I’d shy away from those despite their claimed superiority in emissions and mileage as I don’t think it would offset the costs of having to refurbish or replace a set of coked heads over the life of the vehicle.
Speaking of DI engines, I know GM put serious effort into scrubbing the PCV discharge on the new LT motors which led to the odd towers cast into the valve covers. Hopefully they have solved the issue but it will be some time before we see the results obviously.
I’ve worked with two engineers in wheelchairs, and both drove modified passenger vans that cost far less than $60,000. The fact that AM General is going to make only 5,400 copies should tell you taxi companies won’t be buying any more than the bare minimum needed to satisfy regulations.
The disabled are likely going to need to reserve these vehicles in advance, there won’t be many on the street to hail, and just calling when they need one will probably involve a delay to get one to them.
I’m a bit puzzled about the need for someone in a wheelchair to sit in front with the driver. Some taxis have the driver separated by a safety barrier from the passengers. An extended passenger van would make more sense, since it could be used by groups of 4-6 people as well as the disabled.
What IS it with the edit function? I get tired of being told I don’t have permission to edit a comment I just submitted.
Lorenzo – I hope I can address some of your comments.
* AM General would love to build far more than 5,400 units. ‘Oldco’ had plans for far more, and perhaps that over-enthusiasm aided in its downfall. 5,400 is conservative and can be exceeded if demand is that strong.
* All the safety regulations have been long addressed by Oldco. It’s part of the IP that came with the business.
* You are correct – anyone could theoretically hail an MV-1 in NYC. I’d rather take a ride in one than in a green Camry. The car works best in a ‘dial a ride’ system, until such time as enough fleets get them.
* The reference to ‘riding shotgun’ isn’t intended for commercial application; rather it’s connected to private ownership, where a wounded veteran could sit with his wife, instead of being hauled around in the back with the sacks of groceries. Dignity in Design.
* With its ramp and a flat floor, an MV-1 can fit two wheelchairs PLUS three across the bench. Or, up to four ambulatory passengers with the optional jump seat. Or, three bicycles and their riders. Or, two strollers and a bunch of moms. Or, three large color copiers and two technicians. Or, a dog breeder and her ENTIRE kennel of Rhodesian Ridgebacks. The list of potential applications is endless. This is a flexible design and doesn’t require being built for one spec at a time.
@ Fahrvegnugen. I work for a transit agency that evaluated these thoroughly for our door to door services. Most of your comments are valid, but claiming 2 wheelchair capacity is a stretch. We had difficulty even loading some single large devices. I communicated these concerns to Senior management at MV and VPG. I was told a stretched version was in the works. Until then, I would have to say that an ADA van that had these capacity constraints is a fail.
jspin – sorry your agency found the car to be just a tad short. For ‘most’ cases the vehicle does fit two mobility chairs or ‘standard’ wheelchairs, powered or manual. I had seen them pressed into such action, and there was still room for ambulatory passengers with one chair where the passenger seat would normally have been.
Certainly I heard that some consideration was being given to lenghtening the car. I also knew there were discussions about panel vans for service trades, with shelving replacing the rear seat. I suppose that with enough demand, VPG would have made such dedicated products, and would hope that AM General maximizes the potential opportunities.
Certainly we were looking forward to adding these to the mix vs the modified Chryslers. All the stops and starts, delays in starting production due to powertrain changes (GM to Ford) , changes in distribution networks etc. did not help the cause of the MV 1 IMHO. The vehicle has its strongpoints, but at this point we (and many of our peers) are in “wait and see” mode before committing to this product.
I keep thinking this is the updated Dogmobile from Dumb & Dumber.
Lol!
Ear flaps are needed here.
Or Johnnycab from Total Recall?
Or AeroCab from The Fifth Element.
“Corbin Dallas Mul-TEE-Pass!!!”
Johnnycab: I’m not familiar with that address. Would you please repeat the destination?
Douglas Quaid: Sh1t! sh1t!
Johnnycab: Would you please repeat the destination?
“… the only car on the market that makes the old Honda Element look good.”
Hey now! Jeez, isn’t it enough that Honda killed it off, you gotta take a few kicks at the corpse? Actually, it looks like this vehicle is borrowing quite a few styling cues from the Element. That’s a sentence I never thought I would type.
Looks like the editor is borked, so I’ll add:
If you ever feel the need to punish Sajeev, you could have him do a Vellum Venom comparing the two.
I first saw one of these at the TRC in Marysville before it was introduced… I thought it was some kind of super-Element. When I saw it, there was nothing near it for scale.
The basic shape is needed for the function of the vehicle, but couldn’t the maker have designed in some details that don’t look totally cheap? Body color trim and mirrors, lights (all around) that don’t look like Pep Boys parts, a nicer grille, and decent wheels and tires would all help.
Exactly. Just getting rid of those ancient, sixties’ era, round, sealed-beam headlights, alone, would have improved the appearance exponentially.
I mean, c’mon, how much more expensive and/or difficult would it have been to use modern composite headlights (particularly since that front end looks like it came from the Element parts bin)? Geez, it’s as if they went out of their way to make it look as goofy as possible.
OTOH, maybe those round headlights have something to do with it being the cheapest way to make them auto-leveling, which is probably a concern with having a heavy, powered wheelchair in the front passenger area.
Why bother? It would just add to the cost and complexity for a vehicle that’s going to be purchased almost entirely by fleets, or by individuals who don’t have an alternative. Besides, they probably used as many existing off-the-shelf parts as they could.
…and off-the-shelf means “easy to find” and “cheap to replace”.
Almost all low-production-volume vehicles re-use many mass-production parts from other high-production vehicles. It`s too expensive to design all-new parts plus design all the tooling for it, compared to designing in existing production parts and just buying them.
I`ll just about guarantee that most, if not all, of the following are re-used mass-production parts from some other vehicle: Taillamps, instruments, HVAC (both the controls and the hidden bits that make it work), radio, switchgear, steering wheel, airbags, pedals, brake master cylinder and calipers and disks and the suspension and steering parts, door locks and latches, windscreen wipers and motor and linkage (perhaps even the windscreen itself), window winders, front seats, wheels, rear axle, and we know already about the engine and transmission.
I see a ton of these in Baltimore – the Maryland MVA has a bunch for their “Mobility” program, and some taxi drivers and private handicapped transport places have them.
The first time I saw one, I had no idea what it was – it looked like the offspring of a Scion xB and a london cab.
Jack, are you running surveillance on me?
Not having ever heard of or seen one of these before, literally yesterday I saw one on the far side of a divided road and wondered “wtf is THAT” out loud. And I log in today and lo, here is my answer…
I’m all for the MV-1 and was kind of sad when production stopped last year. I actually saw one near my parent’s house in rural Alabama. These were actually made available to handicapped people to drive as well and have performance that doesn’t completely suck as their previous options had…that being Toyota Siennas and Dodge Caravans which both have chassis-compromising cuts in order to fit the ramp.