???? WHICH MINIVAN TO BUY ????
Mithkal Smadi
I am thinking of buying my first new car ever. In the
past, I purchased used cars and spent lots of money and time fixing
them. Some of them I spent more time under the hood than driving it.
I would appreciate any suggestions and the WHYs and WHY NOTs of buying
a certain minivan. I am sure other listeners would like to hear
this too.
Thank you,
Mithkal
p.s. If this is the wrong group for this topic, please show me the way.
Keywords: minivan
Edward Overly
what it's worth. I haven't read it yet (just glanced at it) but
they seem to give the nod to the new Ford Windstar. I don't think
there are any reliability considerations taken into account.
---
Ed Overly
gau...@fnma.com
Michael Johnson
need to move cargo, buy a truck and use it for that purpose.
There are too damned many of the things on the road already. On my commute,
I spend far more time than I should have to just trying to see around these
monsters (usually being occupied only by the driver).
Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
mic...@maine.maine.edu, mich...@relay.relay.com
"I will choose the path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
>In the July Motor Trend there is an article comparing minivans for
>what it's worth. I haven't read it yet (just glanced at it) but
>they seem to give the nod to the new Ford Windstar. I don't think
>there are any reliability considerations taken into account.
Strangest thing. I saw a white color Windstar yesterday. Nice interior,
exterior looks like a PENGUIN. I wish I could buy a white one, paint the
nose black, paint a beak...
Nice design though.
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
Software Development Tools, AD/SI c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Lloyd R. Parker
: Don't buy any of them. If you need to move people, get a station wagon. If you
I disagree. The minivan provides the ideal combination and
flexibility of a car, a wagon, and a truck. I like the higher
seating position and the better visibility of the road, plus the
ability to walk through to the rear seats and the sliding side
door. The minivan is the vehicle of the 90s like the pony car was
for the 60s.
Michael Johnson
(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>Michael Johnson (MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
>: There are too damned many of the things on the road already. On my commute,
>: I spend far more time than I should have to just trying to see around these
>: monsters (usually being occupied only by the driver).
>
>flexibility of a car, a wagon, and a truck. I like the higher
>seating position and the better visibility of the road, plus the
>ability to walk through to the rear seats and the sliding side
>door. The minivan is the vehicle of the 90s like the pony car was
>for the 60s.
You managed to completely miss, or ignore, my point. You sound just like my
sister, the consummate suburbanite, who doesn't give a damn whether other
people on the road can see around her vehicle, so long as SHE has a nice,
high seating position.
·ne does not need to walk through to the rear seats of a four-door station
wagon. UNLESS Y·U NEED T· M·VE L·TS ·F PE·PLE ALL THE TIME then don't drive
a fucking minivan. People complain about trucks because trucks block
visibility and are not very manueverable (compared to cars) and thus present
a hazard (usually mitigated by the skill of truck drivers, and aggravated
by the ignorant behavior of people who tailgate them and cut them off).
Minivans present the same problem, except that they are smaller and therefore
are individually less of a hazard. However, multiply that hazard by the
growing number of minivans on the road, and you start to have a problem.
If you think your minivan handles like a car, try driving a good car through
a road course, then try it with your minivan.
Dan Epstein
seems safer (passenger air bag) and has a more comfortable seat-belt
(adjustable shoulder height) and passenger compartment. However, it is
very pricey, and has the 2.5 MPH bumpers. The Previa also meets the roof
support standards, which the Nissan does not. Both are highly rated by
consumer reports.
I need to purchase a mini-van in the next week, so help!
Dan Epstein
d...@hpbbn.bbn.hp.com
P.S. Michael Johnson,
Why are you so upset about "visibility" and mini-vans? Is it safety,
or the uncontrollable urge to see ahead? If it is the first, I advise you
to not tail-gate. If it is the latter, well, relax.
Michael Johnson (MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
: In article <2tssdl$i...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
Michael Johnson
>Why are you so upset about "visibility" and mini-vans? Is it safety,
>or the uncontrollable urge to see ahead? If it is the first, I advise you
>to not tail-gate. If it is the latter, well, relax.
I'm upset because I want to see what is ahead of me for general safety and
so that I can see when it is safe to pass.
I don't tailgate any more than most people, and less than many. Don't tell me
to calm down about some "uncontrollable urge to see ahead". My urge to see
ahead is motivated by a desire to not hit things in my path.
If all minivans were used to transport lots of people or stuff, then they
would not be nearly so objectionable. Instead, people buy minivans to
occasionally transport 3-4 people, and usually end up using them as daily
drivers with 1-2 people in them. Each minivan individually may not be that
much of a problem, but when 50% of the vehicles on the road are minivans, they
begin to present a real hazard, because the other 50% of vehicles suddenly
have greatly reduced visibility, AND minivans, propaganda aside, are not as
stable or maneuverable as a car.
If you just want to be able to transport a few people and their stuff in
comfort, buy a nice 4-door sedan with a capacious trunk, such as a VW
Passat or Jetta, or a Saab 9000, or what have you. If you will occasionally
need to haul some stuff, get a station wagon variant. These vehicles do a
fine job. Examine your motives for wanting a minivan. If it's just to keep
up with the rest of suburbia or because you believed the car company ads about
how their wonderful minivan is really just like a car, except better, then
maybe you should rethink your purchase.
John Fox - SunExpress IR
>In article <2tssdl$i...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
>(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>>Michael Johnson (MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
>>: There are too damned many of the things on the road already. On my commute,
>>: I spend far more time than I should have to just trying to see around these
>>: monsters (usually being occupied only by the driver).
>>
>>I disagree. The minivan provides the ideal combination and
>>flexibility of a car, a wagon, and a truck. I like the higher
>>seating position and the better visibility of the road, plus the
>>ability to walk through to the rear seats and the sliding side
>>door. The minivan is the vehicle of the 90s like the pony car was
>>for the 60s.
>
>You managed to completely miss, or ignore, my point. You sound just like my
>sister, the consummate suburbanite, who doesn't give a damn whether other
>people on the road can see around her vehicle, so long as SHE has a nice,
>high seating position.
So what? Why the hell should she or anyone else compromise what car
they buy just because some tailgater can see around them?
That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.
> People complain about trucks because trucks block
>visibility and are not very manueverable (compared to cars) and thus present
>a hazard (usually mitigated by the skill of truck drivers, and aggravated
>by the ignorant behavior of people who tailgate them and cut them off).
Oh, so it's ok to complain about minivans doing what trucks do?
You don't seem to speak kindly of those who complain about trucks - who are
you to complain about minivans?
>Minivans present the same problem, except that they are smaller and therefore
>are individually less of a hazard. However, multiply that hazard by the
>growing number of minivans on the road, and you start to have a problem.
>If you think your minivan handles like a car, try driving a good car through
>a road course, then try it with your minivan.
>
The capability of the car, imo, is hardly what causes most accidents.
If it was the case, why aren't the cars with the best handling and manueverability
in the fewest accidents? The Z-28's, the Mustangs, etc?
It's the driver, that's why.
I see few suburanites in minivans taking exit ramps at a buck-10.
I see many more hot rods doing that - and not always getting away with it.
if you want to complain, direct your expletives where they'll get the
biggest bang for the buck - and that ain't minivans!
John
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <2tssdl$i...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
If you're sitting too low in your car to see around traffic, that's
your problem, not mine. I like the higher seating and higher
entry/exit of my minivan; it's much easier getting in and out of
for someone like me with a back problem than any car. I also like
the higher driving position giving you better visibility. You've
obviously accepted the trade off of a car, so don't complain when
others go with the minivan.
(You might complain just as well about people who buy pickups and
never haul any cargo in them. Why haven't you?)
Michael Johnson
(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>
>If you're sitting too low in your car to see around traffic, that's
>your problem, not mine. I like the higher seating and higher
Thanks for your consideration.
>entry/exit of my minivan; it's much easier getting in and out of
>for someone like me with a back problem than any car. I also like
>the higher driving position giving you better visibility. You've
>obviously accepted the trade off of a car, so don't complain when
>others go with the minivan.
I can and will complain. Driving around in a behemoth when you've no reason
to is just plain rude. If everyone drives minivans, your vaunted high seating
position isn't going to gain you anything. Then what are you going to do,
drive a Kenworth?
>(You might complain just as well about people who buy pickups and
>never haul any cargo in them. Why haven't you?)
Because the original poster didn't ask about pickup trucks, and they are less
of a problem than minivans, numerically.
Colin McFadyen
>I can and will complain. Driving around in a behemoth when you've no reason
>to is just plain rude. If everyone drives minivans, your vaunted high seating
>position isn't going to gain you anything. Then what are you going to do,
>drive a Kenworth?
A minivan...a behemoth?? Just what do you drive anyway Michael? An MGB? ;-)
I have a minivan for the sheer convenience of loading the kids in and out.
My wife loves it for the reason that you hate it, the view. Myself, I would
rather drive a Mustang or a Camaro (okay, really a Ferrari ;-) but they
are not practical at this time (or so my wife tells me).
Before I bought the minivan, I never had a problem being behind one.
Just pull out and pass. It's really much easier than passing a truck
or bus.
>>(You might complain just as well about people who buy pickups and
>>never haul any cargo in them. Why haven't you?)
>Because the original poster didn't ask about pickup trucks, and they are less
>of a problem than minivans, numerically.
Care to back that up with some numbers?? Isn't the Ford F150 one of the
most popular sellers each year?
--
Colin McFadyen - Systems Support - col...@ccs.carleton.ca
Carleton University Computing and Communications Services
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1S 5B6
Bob Gilbert
->
->Because the original poster didn't ask about pickup trucks, and they are less
->of a problem than minivans, numerically.
->
Don't think so. There are more pickups on the road than anything else. They have
been around a lot longer than mini-vans and have the highest sales figures of
all.
-Bob
o10...@a81.corp.mot.com
> In article <2tssdl$i...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>,
lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
> (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
> >Michael Johnson (MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
> >: There are too damned many of the things on the road already. On
my commute,
> >: I spend far more time than I should have to just trying to see
around these
> >: monsters (usually being occupied only by the driver).
> >
> >I disagree. The minivan provides the ideal combination and
> >flexibility of a car, a wagon, and a truck. I like the higher
> >seating position and the better visibility of the road, plus the
> >ability to walk through to the rear seats and the sliding side
> >door. The minivan is the vehicle of the 90s like the pony car was
> >for the 60s.
>
> You managed to completely miss, or ignore, my point. You sound just
like my
> sister, the consummate suburbanite, who doesn't give a damn whether
other
> people on the road can see around her vehicle, so long as SHE has a
nice,
> high seating position.
>
Gee, get a grip!
The advantages others cited for a minivan are real, it seems to me.
And I don't find them notably more difficult to "see around" than
many other vehicles. I'm sure the sister (pejoratively described as
"the consummate suburbanite") finds more advantages to her minivan
than a comfortable seating position.
So, do I drive a minivan? Nope, I drive a 4wd pickup. But my wife
has her second Dodge Caravan and it's the best possible compromise
vehicle for her varied transportation needs. She likes it. So do I.
However, had Michael condemned all VW "vans" (and maybe the almost
equally snail-slow Toyota equivalent), urging speedy departure to
their justified ultimate destination ... the junk yards of Hell ...
I'd have agreed. I too can have a bizarre dislike of some vehicles.
Tony
K. M. Finnegan
wrote:
> I have a minivan for the sheer convenience of loading the kids in and out.
This has always puzzled me. I mean, it's only got a door on one
side...how can this possibly make it easier? I have an answer...It
doesn't! I know, because every time we travel with our friends who
have a Ford Aerostar we're all clamoring over the seats trying to
get the kids out...
Minivans are marketing miracles. They are useful for carrying more
than 5 people at a time. They can potentially haul a lot of stuff.
But they should not be viewed as being the ultimate in egress
convenience.
BTW, I think VW and Renault now offer vans with sliding doors on
either side as an option. Any others?
--
get in / sit down / shut up / hold on
Robert Neff
Michael Johnson <MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>Don't buy any of them. If you need to move people, get a station wagon. If you
>need to move cargo, buy a truck and use it for that purpose.
If you want to carry 7 people with some comfort, but don't want a
land yacht, get a minivan, not a station wagon.
If you want to move cargo, and don't want to worry about things
blowing away, or needing to be tied down, get a minivan, not a small
truck. (On a recent move I helped with, a Dodge Caravan was more
useful than a toyota 4x4 pickup.)
Even with only one passenger, they get 20-25 mpg on the highway.
And finally (Bill Tuthill, this is for you) If you want to haul 6
people, 3 canoes, and their gear, don't get an SUV, get a minivan.
On the other hand, if you want to haul 5 canoes, and 10 people, you
will need a full size van, and nobody will be able to see over you!
-- Robert
Michael Johnson
>
>A minivan...a behemoth?? Just what do you drive anyway Michael? An MGB? ;-)
My current ride is an RX-7. Our other car is a VW Fox and we have also owned
a VW Jetta. In all cases, I've found minivans impede visibility.
>Before I bought the minivan, I never had a problem being behind one.
>Just pull out and pass. It's really much easier than passing a truck
>or bus.
"Just pull out and pass" doesn't necessarily work, especially when you
are not on a divided highway. The way traffic runs around here (Virginia, not
Maine) you can easily screw yourself by changing lanes without knowing
what is coming up in that lane. You can end up getting trapped behind
even slower traffic than before, if you're not willing to cut people off
to get back into the other lane (and I'm not). Another problem is that
there are frequent traffic jams which, when overtaken, result in traffic in
all lanes hitting the brakes hard. I dislike not being able to see something
like that coming because I'm stuck in a herd of minivans.
>>Because the original poster didn't ask about pickup trucks, and they are less
>>of a problem than minivans, numerically.
>
>Care to back that up with some numbers?? Isn't the Ford F150 one of the
>most popular sellers each year?
It might be, but I've not noticed nearly as many of them being used as daily
drivers. By numerically, I meant their contribution to traffic density. And
no, I have no numbers, I'm simply expressing a subjective impression gained
from driving on the roads around here. In other places, I'm sure trucks may
very well dominate.
Pickup trucks without a cap on are noticeably easier to see through/around
than a minivan, especially when the minivan has tinted windows (and many of
them do).
Colin McFadyen
>In article <colinm.772221875@max>, col...@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen)
>wrote:
>> I have a minivan for the sheer convenience of loading the kids in and out.
>This has always puzzled me. I mean, it's only got a door on one
>side...how can this possibly make it easier? I have an answer...It
>doesn't! I know, because every time we travel with our friends who
>have a Ford Aerostar we're all clamoring over the seats trying to
>get the kids out...
I can't speak for the Aerostar, I own a Caravan and as I said, it
is quite easy to get in and out of.
>Minivans are marketing miracles. They are useful for carrying more
>than 5 people at a time. They can potentially haul a lot of stuff.
>But they should not be viewed as being the ultimate in egress
>convenience.
Depends on your needs Kenneth. With the Caravan, my needs are
being met easily so I view it as very convenient.
Colin McFadyen
>In article <colinm.772221875@max>, col...@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen) says:
>>
>>A minivan...a behemoth?? Just what do you drive anyway Michael? An MGB? ;-)
>My current ride is an RX-7. Our other car is a VW Fox and we have also owned
>a VW Jetta. In all cases, I've found minivans impede visibility.
>>Before I bought the minivan, I never had a problem being behind one.
>>Just pull out and pass. It's really much easier than passing a truck
>>or bus.
>"Just pull out and pass" doesn't necessarily work, especially when you
>are not on a divided highway. The way traffic runs around here (Virginia, not
>Maine) you can easily screw yourself by changing lanes without knowing
>what is coming up in that lane. You can end up getting trapped behind
>even slower traffic than before, if you're not willing to cut people off
>to get back into the other lane (and I'm not). Another problem is that
>there are frequent traffic jams which, when overtaken, result in traffic in
>all lanes hitting the brakes hard. I dislike not being able to see something
>like that coming because I'm stuck in a herd of minivans.
If you have such a hard time passing a minivan Michael, I suggest a driver's
education course. If passing a minivan is so difficult for you, how do you
cope with capped pickups, buses and semis?? Oh, I forgot, the roads are
filled with minivans and they crowd around you.
>Pickup trucks without a cap on are noticeably easier to see through/around
>than a minivan, especially when the minivan has tinted windows (and many of
>them do).
Bullshit. Are you really trying to tell me that you can see through a Ford
F150 while sitting in an RX7?? Under maybe, but definitely not over.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <2u6sqk$q...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
: Thanks for your consideration.
I don't know about where you live, but down here, every other
vehicle is a pickup -- people playing cowboy. Most of them never
carry anything in the bed either.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <colinm.772221875@max>, col...@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen)
: wrote:
: --
The 96 Chrysler minivans are supposed to be the first ones offered
in this country with sliding doors on both sides.
John Fox - SunExpress IR
>In article <colinm.772221875@max>, col...@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen)
>wrote:
>
>> I have a minivan for the sheer convenience of loading the kids in and out.
>
>This has always puzzled me. I mean, it's only got a door on one
>side...how can this possibly make it easier? I have an answer...It
>doesn't! I know, because every time we travel with our friends who
>have a Ford Aerostar we're all clamoring over the seats trying to
>get the kids out...
>
>Minivans are marketing miracles. They are useful for carrying more
>than 5 people at a time. They can potentially haul a lot of stuff.
>But they should not be viewed as being the ultimate in egress
>convenience.
>
I disagree.
With small children, the parents generally get them in and out.
Being able to go from row to row, unbuckle the kids, and dump them
out one door is far more convenient than running around the outside
of a station wagon.
Next time the 3 month old is screaming, trying climbing back in a station
wagon to attend to him/her. In a minivan, it's a piece of cake.
>BTW, I think VW and Renault now offer vans with sliding doors on
>either side as an option. Any others?
Renault doesn't sell in the states, correct?
Anyway, I prefer one sliding door, on the passenger side, for
safety reasons. I know the little ones can't bolt from an
unattended door into the street (assuming one parks on the proper
side of the road).
John
o10...@a81.corp.mot.com
<MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>
.. deletions
>
> I can and will complain. Driving around in a behemoth when you've
no reason
> to is just plain rude.
"Behemoth"? The minivans I see are not noticeably taller or wider or
longer than standard full-size pickups, a class of outstandingly
popular and common vehicles.
As for "rudeness", I don't see how that word applies. And if it
did, I think it would be way down on the list of transportation
"rudenesses".
>If everyone drives minivans, your vaunted high seating
> position isn't going to gain you anything. Then what are you going
to do,
> drive a Kenworth?
.. deletions
>
The principal advantage of high seating, for some (most?) of us is
not being able to see more, though that's helpful ... it's a matter
of comfort. Sitting higher above the vehicle floor, allows the legs
to rest/fold/move in a much more comfortable way, just as sitting in
a normal chair is better than sitting a few inches above the floor.
Previously I drove a very low sports car, in which the seat bottom
was 5 or 6 inches above the floor, and the seat to pedals distance
required the knees to remain bent at about 25 degrees. That was ok
when driving short distances, but on longer trips it (in my case)
irritated the knees, sometimes to the point of being distinctly
painful. (Otherwise, it was a wonderfully nice "driver's" car)
In addition, seats higher above the ground (not just the floor) are
said by older people to provide much easier entry and exit, in
addition to more riding comfort.
I drive a pickup, not a minivan, but I sure like the latter. If I
had only one vehicle, it would be a minivan or a pickup, in each case
seats high above the floor would be one of the more important
reasons.
Tony
Robert Neff
minivans, comparing the latest version of the Plymouth Voyager
and the Pontaic Transport (as well as rating the Honda Passport and
the Toyota Landcruiser). By the way, they compare cargo space, and
there is more in a Caravan than any of the SUVs (They left out
the Chevy Suburban, though).
In a nutshell, a lot of small improvements to the Voyager resulted
in them giving it their highest rating for a minivan. This was
followed by the Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest, and the Toyota
Previa. They noted that the Voyager has had average reliability,
while the Grand Voyager's reliability has been somewhat worse.
They could not get a Windstar in time for comparison.
They did not like the Transport. In my opinion, the Caravan is an
example where the overall function and utility of the vehicle
determined the form of it, while with the Transport, GM wanted
a certain look, and sacrificed a lot of function to get that
nifty wedge shaped front end.
Perhaps the first minivan. The mid 80s Nissan Stanza wagon had
two sliding doors, but they were not designed for mid 90s side
impact requirements.
-- Robert
This
Michael Johnson
>
>If you have such a hard time passing a minivan Michael, I suggest a driver's
>education course. If passing a minivan is so difficult for you, how do you
>cope with capped pickups, buses and semis?? Oh, I forgot, the roads are
>filled with minivans and they crowd around you.
Ah, here we go, the ad hominim attack.
It's not that I cannot pass a minivan. I can. However, I dislike passing
another vehicle when I have limited visibility. It's a matter of safety. When
one is driving behind something large and opaque, one's visibility is limited.
Even moreso when one is driving a small car.
Believe me, I don't like being behind buses, etc. any better than being behind
a minivan. But this discussion is not about those other vehicles.
>>Pickup trucks without a cap on are noticeably easier to see through/around
>>than a minivan, especially when the minivan has tinted windows (and many of
>>them do).
>
>Bullshit. Are you really trying to tell me that you can see through a Ford
>F150 while sitting in an RX7?? Under maybe, but definitely not over.
I didn't say visibility was perfect, just better than trying to see past a
minivan. The cab is usually mostly windows and the top of the bed does not go
up as high as a minivan's roof. That makes it easier to see past the truck.
Of course, if you're a foot off its bumper, you're not going to see anything
anyway.
Rick Bogren
>From: ne...@diva.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Neff)
>Subject: Re: ???? WHICH MINIVAN TO BUY ????
>Date: 22 Jun 1994 18:08:07 GMT
>Summary: Consumers Reports rates...
[stuff deleted]
>Perhaps the first minivan. The mid 80s Nissan Stanza wagon had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>two sliding doors, but they were not designed for mid 90s side
>impact requirements.
>-- Robert
You're about 25 years late. Remember the VW Microbus??
Rick
****************************************************************************
Rick Bogren e-mail: r-bo...@uiuc.edu
Media/Communications Specialist voice: (217)333-9439
College of Agriculture
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*****************************************************************************
Bill Norcott
|> The latest Consumers Reports has a couple of this year's crop of
|> minivans, comparing the latest version of the Plymouth Voyager
|> and the Pontaic Transport (as well as rating the Honda Passport and
|> the Toyota Landcruiser). By the way, they compare cargo space, and
|> there is more in a Caravan than any of the SUVs (They left out
|> the Chevy Suburban, though).
|>
|> In a nutshell, a lot of small improvements to the Voyager resulted
|> in them giving it their highest rating for a minivan. This was
|> followed by the Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest, and the Toyota
|> Previa. They noted that the Voyager has had average reliability,
|> while the Grand Voyager's reliability has been somewhat worse.
|> They could not get a Windstar in time for comparison.
This would appear to be one of Consumer Reports' more bone-headed
comparisons. Not a lot in common there. Not waiting a month to
include the Windstar was another big mistake.
By the way, both Car & Driver and Motor Trend magazines tested
minivans in the last couple months. Windstar came out on top in both
comparisons.
Dick Parshall
#
# [... rantings about why others should not drive minivans deleted...]
#
#Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
#mic...@maine.maine.edu, mich...@relay.relay.com
#"I will choose the path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The spirit of your comments seems to fly in the face of those of your sig.,
Michael.
Far be it from me to demand that you change one or the other, however. Just
making the observation.
--
===============================================================================
Dick Parshall UUCP: uunet!comshare!dickp
Comshare Incorporated Internet: di...@comshare.com
Austin Development Center
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments are garbage. Pay no attention.
===============================================================================
K. M. Finnegan
(John Fox - SunExpress IR) wrote:
> In article 210694...@invader.nrlssc.navy.mil, Kenneth....@nrlssc.navy.mil (K. M. Finnegan) writes:
> >Minivans are marketing miracles. They are useful for carrying more
> >than 5 people at a time. They can potentially haul a lot of stuff.
> >But they should not be viewed as being the ultimate in egress
> >convenience.
> I disagree.
> With small children, the parents generally get them in and out.
> Being able to go from row to row, unbuckle the kids, and dump them
> out one door is far more convenient than running around the outside
> of a station wagon.
I guess I'm missing the point. You always have the option of
letting the kids out of one door in a station wagon, too. Just
don't open the other door. ;-)
> Next time the 3 month old is screaming, trying climbing back in a station
> wagon to attend to him/her. In a minivan, it's a piece of cake.
I have, and both 3 month-old that I had are now 3 & 5 years. ;-) We
had a station wagon when they were young, and it worked out just fine.
It's just as easy to reach over the seat (whilst remaining belted,
I might add).
> Renault doesn't sell in the states, correct?
Right.
> Anyway, I prefer one sliding door, on the passenger side, for
> safety reasons. I know the little ones can't bolt from an
> unattended door into the street (assuming one parks on the proper
> side of the road).
Well, every car I own has child-proof locks, anyway, so that's really
not an issue. I'm not arguing with the premise of minivans, I think
they have their place and are useful. I'm just questioning the
reason that they don't have doors on both sides. I know what the
answer is, though. It has to do with $$$.
Robert Neff
Bill Norcott <bi...@bimby.posix.tandem.com> wrote:
>In article <2u9um7$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>, ne...@diva.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Neff) writes:
>|> They (Consumers Reports) could not get a Windstar in time for comparison.
>
>This would appear to be one of Consumer Reports more bone-headed
>comparisons. Not a lot in common there. Not waiting a month to
>include the Windstar was another big mistake.
>
They did not rank the minivans vs the SUVs, except for a chart which
allowed comparison of inside space for the two classes, but even that
was divided into minivan and SUV sections.
I don't doubt that the Windstar is a great vehicle, but if Windstars
aren't out ON DEALERS LOTS in time for Consumers' Reports, I don't
blame CR. Typically the issue which compares minivans is out earlier
in the year than July. Given the readership of CU, you can
expect to see a review of the Windstar in the next 6 months anyway.
The fact that CR gets test vehicles by buying anonymously from
dealers, rather than specially prep'ed vehicles from manufacturers
a bit earlier, is another good reason to trust CU.
>By the way, both Car & Driver and Motor Trend magazines tested
>minivans in the last couple months. Windstar came out on top in both
>comparisons.
--> Trendy Motorists Driving Cars choose Windstar !! (where is that smiley)
-- Robert
Kershner Wyatt
>Any comments on the Toyota Previa vs. the Nissan Quest? The Previa
>seems safer (passenger air bag) and has a more comfortable seat-belt
>(adjustable shoulder height) and passenger compartment. However, it is
>very pricey, and has the 2.5 MPH bumpers. The Previa also meets the roof
>support standards, which the Nissan does not. Both are highly rated by
>consumer reports.
I don't have a clue where you live, but in my only experience riding in
the Egg on wheels (Previa), it is extremely twitchy in snow. I almost got
out and walked. My Mercedes (not a terrific snow car) didn't twitch a bit
2 hours later and 2 inches more snow.
>
>P.S. Michael Johnson,
>
>Why are you so upset about "visibility" and mini-vans? Is it safety,
>or the uncontrollable urge to see ahead? If it is the first, I advise you
>to not tail-gate. If it is the latter, well, relax.
He's not the only one. I despise the things. People talk about how wonderful
the visibility is from one. Yeah, because no one else can see through them.
It ought to be mandatory that all vehicles excluding Semis, buses, and medium
duty trucks, have windows placed at the normal window height of all cars.
BTW, typical response of a minivan driver. Don't tailgate. Our response -
don't block visibility to the rest of us - it's your body damage.
K.
--
Kershner Wyatt (803) 939-7787, VP 633-7787
AT&T Global Information Solutions Fax: (803) 939-7745
oissvr.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com!wyattk Kershne...@ColumbiaSC.ncr.com
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of AT&T.
Kershner Wyatt
>In article <colinm.772221875@max>, col...@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen)
>wrote:
>
I remember a quote in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics regarding
the Chrysler minivan's propensity to sag in the rear when hauling stuff.
The fellow said: "We don't sell the minivan as a cargo hauler but a people
hauler." Huh? You can potentially fit, what, 7 people in a minivan. Now
if it is 7 of me, that makes it 1,470 lbs of people cargo, not including
bags. So 3/4 ton of human cargo. Guess the suspension cares about what
type of cargo it is....
Kershner
Bob Gilbert
->In article <CrtF1...@tandem.com>,
->Bill Norcott <bi...@bimby.posix.tandem.com> wrote:
->>In article <2u9um7$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>, ne...@diva.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Neff) writes:
->
->>|> They (Consumers Reports) could not get a Windstar in time for comparison.
->>
->>This would appear to be one of Consumer Reports more bone-headed
->>comparisons. Not a lot in common there. Not waiting a month to
->>include the Windstar was another big mistake.
->>
->They did not rank the minivans vs the SUVs, except for a chart which
->allowed comparison of inside space for the two classes, but even that
->was divided into minivan and SUV sections.
->
->I don't doubt that the Windstar is a great vehicle, but if Windstars
->aren't out ON DEALERS LOTS in time for Consumers' Reports, I don't
->blame CR. Typically the issue which compares minivans is out earlier
->in the year than July. Given the readership of CU, you can
->expect to see a review of the Windstar in the next 6 months anyway.
->The fact that CR gets test vehicles by buying anonymously from
->dealers, rather than specially prep'ed vehicles from manufacturers
->a bit earlier, is another good reason to trust CU.
->
->>By the way, both Car & Driver and Motor Trend magazines tested
->>minivans in the last couple months. Windstar came out on top in both
->>comparisons.
->
->--> Trendy Motorists Driving Cars choose Windstar !! (where is that smiley)
->
->-- Robert
If CU wants to go and buy their vehicles to test anonymously from dealers that's
fine. But the comment about "specially prep'ed" vehicles from manufacturers
is a little misleading. True, when a manufacture comes out with a new model they
take one and release it to the press to test. All the magazines (C&D, MT, R&T,
etc.) will end up testing the very same vehicle. The main problem is that the
vehicle ends up receiving substantial abuse and may test worse than a more
pampered car only tested by a single magazine. As far as I know, no manufacter
has ever released a "specially prep'ed" car for the press and passed it off
as a valid sample.
R&T also compared the Chrysler mini-van with the Windstar and it was pretty
much a toss-up.
-Bob
Lloyd R. Parker
Yes, but by 1 points (about 1%) in the C&D test. The MoPar was
faster though. MT doesn't give any objective criteria before
picking a winner like C&D does -- a lot of people suggest it's
based on advertising dollars!
Robert King
>(Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>
>>entry/exit of my minivan; it's much easier getting in and out of
>>for someone like me with a back problem than any car. I also like
>>the higher driving position giving you better visibility. You've
>>obviously accepted the trade off of a car, so don't complain when
>>others go with the minivan.
>
>I can and will complain. Driving around in a behemoth when you've no reason
>to is just plain rude. If everyone drives minivans, your vaunted high seating
>position isn't going to gain you anything. Then what are you going to do,
>drive a Kenworth?
Lloyd makes a valid point. Visibility *is* better in a mini-van.
Your counter argument is taylor-made to refute that point and is
un-realistic.
>
>>(You might complain just as well about people who buy pickups and
>>never haul any cargo in them. Why haven't you?)
>
>Because the original poster didn't ask about pickup trucks, and they are less
>of a problem than minivans, numerically.
You haven't driven anywhere in the South, have you?
Actually, you should add to your list:
Panel-vans
Full-sized vans
Suburbans
Broncos
Explorers
Cherokees
One-ton trucks
Rental delivery trucks,
Tractor-trailer rigs
Busses
Get the idea? There are a *lot* of large vehicles out there. You
need to learn to deal with them and drive safely around them. They
have the same responsibility to drive safely around you. Driving a
large vehicle isn`t rude. Cutting someone off because they didn't
check their blind spot is.
>
>Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
>mic...@maine.maine.edu, mich...@relay.relay.com
>"I will choose the path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart
And it seems you want to impose your free will on everyone else (or is
that Neil's free will?)
---
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | "I drank WHAT?!?" -- Socrates |
| | |
| ki...@khan.khis.com | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here arn't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
joseph oberlander
> In article <2u6sqk$q...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
> (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
> >
> >If you're sitting too low in your car to see around traffic, that's
> >your problem, not mine. I like the higher seating and higher
> Thanks for your consideration.
> >entry/exit of my minivan; it's much easier getting in and out of
> >for someone like me with a back problem than any car. I also like
> >the higher driving position giving you better visibility. You've
> >obviously accepted the trade off of a car, so don't complain when
> >others go with the minivan.
I forget which model it is right now,(think it was a Mazda) but one of the
nicest little MV's had a sliding door.
MY vote, though, goes for the Explorer, which while not a mini-van,
will do almost the same cargo hauling and people-hauling but with better
handling and visibility(and has 4*4 that is actually meant to be used as such)
Kershner Wyatt
>In article <2u9um7$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> ne...@diva.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Neff) writes:
>>From: ne...@diva.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Neff)
>>Subject: Re: ???? WHICH MINIVAN TO BUY ????
>>Date: 22 Jun 1994 18:08:07 GMT
>>Summary: Consumers Reports rates...
>
>
Rick,
Since when did the Type II have two sliding doors? I remember the 2 doors
which opened on the rear on the right. I remember the sliding door on the
right.
I even remember the Type II truck.
I remember backing up hills that you couldn't go up in 1st gear. I remember
"Reducer" gears and no gas gauge.
But I don't recall a two sliding door Type II.
Michael Johnson
>
>Lloyd makes a valid point. Visibility *is* better in a mini-van.
>Your counter argument is taylor-made to refute that point and is
>un-realistic.
That's "tailor-made" and OK, maybe I stretched the point a little, but it's
still valid. Minivans are getting to be a high percentage of the vehicles on
the road, which cuts down on his visual advantage, and (as I originally said)
severely impedes visibility for drivers of cars.
>Actually, you should add to your list:
>
[list of large vehicles omitted]
>
>Get the idea? There are a *lot* of large vehicles out there. You
>need to learn to deal with them and drive safely around them. They
>have the same responsibility to drive safely around you. Driving a
>large vehicle isn`t rude. Cutting someone off because they didn't
>check their blind spot is.
No shit. My point is that driving around in a large vehicle UNNECESSARILY is
rude. If you have lots of people or stuff to carry, then a large vehicle is
appropriate. Otherwise, it *is* rude.
>
[quote of my sig omitted]
>
>And it seems you want to impose your free will on everyone else (or is
>that Neil's free will?)
No, I merely want to persuade people to my point of view. I have no wish to
force anyone not to drive a minivan. If that were the case, I'd be arguing for
laws prohibiting minivan use except in certain circumstances.
I've never once said anything about "people should have to" or "there ought to
be a law" or what have you. To persuade is not to impose.
The flip side of allowing people to exercise free will (and our society does
not) is that people must accept responsibility for their own actions and
consider the effect of those actions on others. Such as driving around in a
large vehicle when you don't have to and impeding visibility for others. Such
as hogging the left lane and not allowing faster vehicles to pass. You get the
idea.
Michael Johnson, Relay Technology, Inc.
mic...@maine.maine.edu, mich...@relay.relay.com
"I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose Free Will." -- Neil Peart
Lloyd R. Parker
: > Thanks for your consideration.
Too bad the Explorer's 4wd can't be used on dry pavement and can't
be shifted out of without stopping and backing up to unlock the
front hubs. Also too bad it has little ground clearance.
joseph oberlander
> : > Thanks for your consideration.
Remember that we ARE comparing it to minivavs. Better clearance in most
cases. I would rather HAVE 4*4(especially if it snows) of any type than
being stuck with a *NO 4*4* minivan. If you wanted off-road performance,
get a full-sized Bronco.(But this was not what the poster was asking for -
rather, they were asking what compares favorably to minivans)
(It is a hard argument to support about the 4*4 not being used on pavement
when the minivans *Don't do anything but 2WD* on pavement anyway.)
The Explorer is a much better compromise for city driving and such than a
Bronco, and can actually double for most of the uses that minivans are put
to use for.
If the vehicles weren't such crap, I would also look into some of the
simmilar GM products - maybe they will finally get it right someday...
K. M. Finnegan
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
> Too bad the Explorer's 4wd can't be used on dry pavement and can't
> be shifted out of without stopping and backing up to unlock the
> front hubs. Also too bad it has little ground clearance.
Very true, the Explorer is not an ideal off-road vehicle. Is does
make a decent substitute for the traditional family station wagon,
except for the fact that it only seats 5 (no rear facing third seat).
Ford markets this vehicle to the suburbanites who have no interest
in off-roading, and they've done a good job, apparently, judging by
the number of Explorers I see on (not off) the road.
John Fox - SunExpress IR
>In article <1994Jun22.2...@khis.com>, ki...@khis.com (Robert King) says:
>>
>>Lloyd makes a valid point. Visibility *is* better in a mini-van.
>>Your counter argument is taylor-made to refute that point and is
>>un-realistic.
>
>That's "tailor-made" and OK, maybe I stretched the point a little, but it's
>still valid. Minivans are getting to be a high percentage of the vehicles on
>the road, which cuts down on his visual advantage, and (as I originally said)
>severely impedes visibility for drivers of cars.
>
>>Actually, you should add to your list:
>>
>[list of large vehicles omitted]
>>
>>Get the idea? There are a *lot* of large vehicles out there. You
>>need to learn to deal with them and drive safely around them. They
>>have the same responsibility to drive safely around you. Driving a
>>large vehicle isn`t rude. Cutting someone off because they didn't
>>check their blind spot is.
>
>No shit. My point is that driving around in a large vehicle UNNECESSARILY is
>rude. If you have lots of people or stuff to carry, then a large vehicle is
>appropriate. Otherwise, it *is* rude.
>
What are you suggesting then? Buy a half-dozen vehicles, and drive the
one that best suits your needs for the given trip?
Or are you suggesting, if only one vehicle can be purchased, to buy the
one that meets your *minimum* needs? So on those days when you have to
haul 4 kids, well, you can't do it comfortably. You see, you would be
rude to drive around with only two kids in a van on those other days...
Your entire argument is based on the fact that everyone can afford more
than one car. That is a very poor assumption. Some/many people must buy
one, and if they have the need to haul more that a couple occupants at any
point, you have no right to tell them that one vehicle can't be a minivan.
>The flip side of allowing people to exercise free will (and our society does
>not) is that people must accept responsibility for their own actions and
>consider the effect of those actions on others. Such as driving around in a
>large vehicle when you don't have to and impeding visibility for others.
Their only responsibility is driving in a safe manner, obeying all traffic
laws, etc. No where is it written or assumed that one has the responsibility
to drive is the smallest vehicle one needs to at given moment. As long as
that driver of an empty minivan is not breaking the law, he/she is doing
nothing wrong, and you have no right to say otherwise.
Besides, how do you know the person didn't just drop off 5 kids, or is
on the way to pick up the same?
Tell me, how do you feel about people just going out for a enjoyable
drive, when there really isn't a need to? You certainly would be inconsistant
if you say you didn't mind that. Your underlying theory is "one should
only drive the vehicle that fits your *needs*". So therefore is one
is driving without a actual *need*, that is wrong, and they are being
irresponsible. They are impeding the drivers who actually *need* to
go somewhere. Is that not how you feel? After all, you said, and I quote
"...driving around in a large vehicle UNNECESSARILY is rude." Well it
certainly would follow that driving around in *any* vehicle UNNECESSARILY is
rude. Right?
Afterwards, we'll get into why you, allegedly, *need* to drive an RX-7. :-)
John
Lloyd R. Parker
: > : > Thanks for your consideration.
Well, you can get AWD on the Toyota Previa, Mazda MPV, Ford
Aerostar, Chevrolet Astro, GMC Safari, Dodge Grand Caravan,
Plymouth Grand Voyager, and Chrysler Town & Country -- so there are
minivans that do 4WD on pavement; and I know the GM, Toyota, and
Chrysler ones are meant to be full-time 4wd, including dry pavement
(don't know about Mazda and Ford -- may be part-time).
Nancy A. Kroes
Yup, and I have my Windstar on order, scheduled to be built on 7/18.
My parents have had a Grand Voyager for years and last fall traded
to a newer Grand Caravan. So, I've put a lot of miles on those
vans. The Windstar is a much better driving/riding machine IMO.
Very smooth. I tested it on a washboard dirt road and couldn't
feel the bumps at all. Those same bumps would throw my Explorer
sideways.
To the other argument going on, I can agree with Michael. I don't
like to follow minivans either, even though I'm in an Explorer now.
About a year and a half ago though, someone on here posted how they
drove their minivan and it made a lot of sense and I keep it in
mind every time I get behind the wheel. I realize people behind
me may not be able to see around me (if they're in a car) so I
drive courteously. Meaning if traffic is bogged down ahead of
me, I move to the side of my lane which will allow those behind
me to see that fact. If a car ahead of me is signaling a turn
and I'm hitting my brakes, I move to the side of my lane which
allows those behind me to see this. I think any driver of a
large vehicle has an obligation to other drivers to do the same.
Unfortunately around here, I'm the only person I've noted doing
this.
Counting the days until delivery.....
Andrew Rogers
>Well, every car I own has child-proof locks, anyway, so that's really
>not an issue. I'm not arguing with the premise of minivans, I think
>they have their place and are useful. I'm just questioning the
>reason that they don't have doors on both sides. I know what the
>answer is, though. It has to do with $$$.
Production cost is certainly a factor, but there's also the matter of
maintaining structural integrity. But I suspect that one key reason is
simply that full-size vans rarely have a rear door on the drivers's
side - I haven't seen one there in years.
That said, the ill-fated Nissan Axxess mini-van did have rear doors on
both sides.
Andrew
Dave Duff
>>>has ever released a "specially prep'ed" car for the press and passed it off
>>>as a valid sample.
The naivete is getting a little thick in here.
Scott Philip Oetjen
>: > : Michael Johnson (MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
>: > : > In article <2u6sqk$q...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
>: > : > (Lloyd R. Parker) says:
>: > : MY vote, though, goes for the Explorer, which while not a mini-van,
>: > : will do almost the same cargo hauling and people-hauling but with better
>: > : handling and visibility(and has 4*4 that is actually meant to be used as such)
>: > Too bad the Explorer's 4wd can't be used on dry pavement and can't
>: > be shifted out of without stopping and backing up to unlock the
>: > front hubs. Also too bad it has little ground clearance.
>: Remember that we ARE comparing it to minivavs. Better clearance in most
>: cases. I would rather HAVE 4*4(especially if it snows) of any type than
>: being stuck with a *NO 4*4* minivan. If you wanted off-road performance,
>: get a full-sized Bronco.(But this was not what the poster was asking for -
>: rather, they were asking what compares favorably to minivans)
>: (It is a hard argument to support about the 4*4 not being used on pavement
>: when the minivans *Don't do anything but 2WD* on pavement anyway.)
>: The Explorer is a much better compromise for city driving and such than a
>: Bronco, and can actually double for most of the uses that minivans are put
>: to use for.
Is this a joke? Almost the same cargo and people hauling? 5 vs. 7 or 8
sorry that's not even close to me. For 5 passengers I'll for for the
infinitely superior handling and mileage of a car. And better handling?
Give me a break! The Explorer is one of the worst handling vehicles
on the market! So, let's compare the explorer to the typical Minivan.
Less room for people, more cargo space (unless the minivan is only
carrying 5 people like the Explorer, then the Minivan has more), worse
handling, more towing capacity, more power, worse mileage, worse
visibility (longer nose). Hmmm...sounds to me like for a family vehicle
the minivan wins hands down, but then again maybe your family needs are
making 2 people ride in the cargo area towing another Explorer up a
steep hill, but if that's your needs....:)
Scott Oetjen
woo...@knuth.mtsu.edu
'83 Mazda 626 Touring Sedan
Jeff Goss
J> In article 081238...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, Michael Johnson <MIC...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
>> In article <1994Jun22.2...@khis.com>, ki...@khis.com (Robert King) says:
>>>
>>> Lloyd makes a valid point. Visibility *is* better in a mini-van.
>>> Your counter argument is taylor-made to refute that point and is
>>> un-realistic.
>>
>> That's "tailor-made" and OK, maybe I stretched the point a little, but it's
>> still valid. Minivans are getting to be a high percentage of the vehicles on
>> the road, which cuts down on his visual advantage, and (as I originally said)
>> severely impedes visibility for drivers of cars.
>>
>>> Actually, you should add to your list:
>>>
>> [list of large vehicles omitted]
>>>
>>> Get the idea? There are a *lot* of large vehicles out there. You
>>> need to learn to deal with them and drive safely around them. They
>>> have the same responsibility to drive safely around you. Driving a
>>> large vehicle isn`t rude. Cutting someone off because they didn't
>>> check their blind spot is.
>>
>> No shit. My point is that driving around in a large vehicle UNNECESSARILY is
>> rude. If you have lots of people or stuff to carry, then a large vehicle is
>> appropriate. Otherwise, it *is* rude.
>>
J> What are you suggesting then? Buy a half-dozen vehicles, and drive the
J> one that best suits your needs for the given trip?
J> Or are you suggesting, if only one vehicle can be purchased, to buy the
J> one that meets your *minimum* needs? So on those days when you have to
J> haul 4 kids, well, you can't do it comfortably. You see, you would be
J> rude to drive around with only two kids in a van on those other days...
J> Your entire argument is based on the fact that everyone can afford more
J> than one car. That is a very poor assumption. Some/many people must buy
J> one, and if they have the need to haul more that a couple occupants at any
J> point, you have no right to tell them that one vehicle can't be a minivan.
Your entire argument is based around families with 4 kids. Most people
with minivans I know have 2 at most. The other class of people are
retirees - minivans are replacing big American sedans as the car an
older person feels (rightly or wrongly) safe in.
I think the point we're trying to make here is that buying a minivan
for most people is just because they've become 'in' for a certain age
of people. I strongly believe we're all going to look back at the
minivan boom and shudder the way we do when we see bell bottom pants
or hear the BeeGees. Don't buy a minivan because it's 'trendy'. Buy
one if you need one. They make us all a lot less safe on the highways
due to reduced visibility, and due to teh fact that people think
they're driving a car - and most people can't manage that safely.
Of course, they are just so handy. Friends of mine (with two young
kids) have finally agreed that it was easier to get the kids in the
back seat of their Taurus than to swing cargo doors, get themselves
and the kids into the van to buckle them in, get back out and make
their way to the front seats. And without a trunk, groceries are more
of a hassle. Of course, they are butt ugly, which gives them an all
round bad grade for anyone who doesn't need that many seats. As for
the cost of more than one vehicle, have you priced these babies
lately? You could afford two cars instead.
I won't address the 'rudeness' issue, or why you 'need' one thing over
another.
Jeff Goss
John Fox - SunExpress IR
>>>>>> "J" == John Fox <jf...@hooksett.East.Sun.COM> writes:
>
>J> What are you suggesting then? Buy a half-dozen vehicles, and drive the
>J> one that best suits your needs for the given trip?
>J> Or are you suggesting, if only one vehicle can be purchased, to buy the
>J> one that meets your *minimum* needs? So on those days when you have to
>J> haul 4 kids, well, you can't do it comfortably. You see, you would be
>J> rude to drive around with only two kids in a van on those other days...
>
>J> Your entire argument is based on the fact that everyone can afford more
>J> than one car. That is a very poor assumption. Some/many people must buy
>J> one, and if they have the need to haul more that a couple occupants at any
>J> point, you have no right to tell them that one vehicle can't be a minivan.
>
>Your entire argument is based around families with 4 kids.
Your making a bad assumption. It doesn't matter how many kids you have,
it's how many you find yourself hauling around. We tend to take our
kids and their friends places fairly often, and that certainly doesn't
work well with a sedan or even a wagon. Even with two, it's nice two
keep them apart every now and then.
We have three kids anyway, if it's matters...
> Most people
>with minivans I know have 2 at most. The other class of people are
>retirees - minivans are replacing big American sedans as the car an
>older person feels (rightly or wrongly) safe in.
>
I know of no retiree that owns a minivan, but it's pointless anyway.
If that person enjoys loading up the shuffleboard team to away games,
well more power to them.
I do know of a few old folks who drive Explorers - and they never
engage 4WD....
>Not
>I think the point we're trying to make here is that buying a minivan
>for most people is just because they've become 'in' for a certain age
>of people. I strongly believe we're all going to look back at the
>minivan boom and shudder the way we do when we see bell bottom pants
>or hear the BeeGees. Don't buy a minivan because it's 'trendy'.
Now if you were talking about SUV's, then we'd agree. It's a common
*fact* that most SUV's never, EVER, go off road. Why they are so
popular and trendy is a mystery light-years beyond the popularity
of the minivan.
>Buy
>one if you need one. They make us all a lot less safe on the highways
>due to reduced visibility, and due to teh fact that people think
>they're driving a car - and most people can't manage that safely.
>
Again, a great argument against SUV's.
Anyway, show me some stats on minivans and accidents. Until then, you're
speculating. Insurance-wise, ours is very reasonable. That leads me to
believe they are not the death-trap you imply.
>Of course, they are just so handy. Friends of mine (with two young
>kids) have finally agreed that it was easier to get the kids in the
>back seat of their Taurus than to swing cargo doors, get themselves
>and the kids into the van to buckle them in, get back out and make
>their way to the front seats.
Cargo doors? Aren't they on _cargo_ vans?
Tell them to use the _passenger_ doors. It's much easier! :-)
> And without a trunk, groceries are more
>of a hassle.
We have an extended van. It's fits more groceries than the sedan it replaced.
>Of course, they are butt ugly, which gives them an all
>round bad grade for anyone who doesn't need that many seats.
Huh? What do looks have to do with this?
> As for
>the cost of more than one vehicle, have you priced these babies
>lately? You could afford two cars instead.
>
Hardly. Your basic family sedan (Taurus, LH, Lumina) is almost
the same price as your basic minivan. You can get expensive minivans,
and you can get expensive sedans.
>I won't address the 'rudeness' issue, or why you 'need' one thing over
>another.
>
Oh? I thought I saw something about *needing* that many seats...
John
Jeff Goss
J> In article 94Jun2...@flanker.torolab.vnet.ibm.com, jg...@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss) writes:
>>>>>>> "J" == John Fox <jf...@hooksett.East.Sun.COM> writes:
>>
J> What are you suggesting then? Buy a half-dozen vehicles, and drive the
J> one that best suits your needs for the given trip?
J> Or are you suggesting, if only one vehicle can be purchased, to buy the
J> one that meets your *minimum* needs? So on those days when you have to
J> haul 4 kids, well, you can't do it comfortably. You see, you would be
J> rude to drive around with only two kids in a van on those other days...
>>
J> Your entire argument is based on the fact that everyone can afford more
J> than one car. That is a very poor assumption. Some/many people must buy
J> one, and if they have the need to haul more that a couple occupants at any
J> point, you have no right to tell them that one vehicle can't be a minivan.
>>
>> Your entire argument is based around families with 4 kids.
J> Your making a bad assumption. It doesn't matter how many kids you have,
J> it's how many you find yourself hauling around. We tend to take our
J> kids and their friends places fairly often, and that certainly doesn't
J> work well with a sedan or even a wagon. Even with two, it's nice two
J> keep them apart every now and then.
J> We have three kids anyway, if it's matters...
>> Most people
>> with minivans I know have 2 at most. The other class of people are
>> retirees - minivans are replacing big American sedans as the car an
>> older person feels (rightly or wrongly) safe in.
>>
J> I know of no retiree that owns a minivan, but it's pointless anyway.
J> If that person enjoys loading up the shuffleboard team to away games,
J> well more power to them.
J> I do know of a few old folks who drive Explorers - and they never
J> engage 4WD....
>> Not
>> I think the point we're trying to make here is that buying a minivan
>> for most people is just because they've become 'in' for a certain age
>> of people. I strongly believe we're all going to look back at the
>> minivan boom and shudder the way we do when we see bell bottom pants
>> or hear the BeeGees. Don't buy a minivan because it's 'trendy'.
J> Now if you were talking about SUV's, then we'd agree. It's a common
J> *fact* that most SUV's never, EVER, go off road. Why they are so
J> popular and trendy is a mystery light-years beyond the popularity
J> of the minivan.
I don't really see why whether people go off-road or not says SUVs are
bought for only trendy reasons. They probably buy them to see arounnd
the damn minivans! Seriously though, people do buy them because
they're following the crowd. I think SUVs are in the same boat, but
you can't dissuade me by misdirection. Why don't you tell me that
Nikes are bought because it's trendy, not minivans? Neither has
anything to do with the matter at hand.
>> Buy
>> one if you need one. They make us all a lot less safe on the highways
>> due to reduced visibility, and due to teh fact that people think
>> they're driving a car - and most people can't manage that safely.
>>
J> Again, a great argument against SUV's.
J> Anyway, show me some stats on minivans and accidents. Until then, you're
J> speculating. Insurance-wise, ours is very reasonable. That leads me to
J> believe they are not the death-trap you imply.
Well, after a tailgating ass in an overweight, poor braking minivan
plows into me, I probably won't be able to fill in the police report
saying that my cause of death was the minivan! Of course, minivans
don't kill people (although they annoy them to no end), people who
don't know how to drive kill people. I've driven almost everything in
the north american line ups - small pickups, F150s, F350, three on the
tree's, Chrysler minivans, Dodge Rams, Jeeps, assorted GM, Ford, and
Chrysler offerings of the last 15 -20 years from compact to full size
(and I mean 4500 lb 1975 full-size), and a good variety of Japanese
cars from each of the major manufacturers including the Accord, Civic,
and Prelude (my current car), and they all have different capabilities
and limits. I'm reminded of the limits of other cars everytime I drive
them - most of the 4 door haulers don't compare in handling and
braking to the Prelude. I have had a bad moment or two getting in over
my head when driving one of these for an extended period of time when
I forget that.
My main problem with minivans is that people don't realize that this
isn't the car they used to drive - it's more like a truck. High center
of gravity, longer braking distances, light rear end, etc. One poster
on this thread said that he does make allowances for this, and also
factors in the fact that most people can't see around him, moving over
slightly to allow the driver behind a line of sight when there's a
problem ahead. If people were more like this, I wouldn't have a
problem with them, just as I don't have a problem with responsibly
driven tractor trailers. Just the fact that people can't see around
you, coupled with the fact that people almost always travel too close,
causes a great deal of stress and accidents (I've seen them, day in
day out on my commute - minvans & cars in fender benders) when the
minivan suddenly brakes, or better yet, dives out of the lane at the
last second with vehicles stopped directly ahead. So take care around
your fellow motorists. Even though I drive a very low car, I still let
minivans into my lane if they've signalled - simple courtesy even
though it makes me less safe. Show me the same - flash four ways when
approaching a traffic jam, don't sit in the left lane with no one
ahead of you, etc.
So I guess I'm saying there are two problems, both of which rest
mostly on the shoulders of the minivan drivers 1) awareness of the
limits of your vehicle 2) awareness of the impact of your large
vehicle on the sightlines and visibility of people in cars. Since this
is out of the control of other motorists, it does frustrate us when
they are not kept in mind.
>> Of course, they are just so handy. Friends of mine (with two young
>> kids) have finally agreed that it was easier to get the kids in the
>> back seat of their Taurus than to swing cargo doors, get themselves
>> and the kids into the van to buckle them in, get back out and make
>> their way to the front seats.
J> Cargo doors? Aren't they on _cargo_ vans?
I can't tell the difference, can you tell the difference? Box on
wheels, box on wheels with more seats.
J> Tell them to use the _passenger_ doors. It's much easier! :-)
>> And without a trunk, groceries are more
>> of a hassle.
J> We have an extended van. It's fits more groceries than the sedan it replaced.
What holds the groceries in place? If you hit the brakes, don't you
get oranges around your ankles?
>> Of course, they are butt ugly, which gives them an all
>> round bad grade for anyone who doesn't need that many seats.
J> Huh? What do looks have to do with this?
Strange as it may seem, some people actually like the look of these
babies. No accounting for taste.
>> As for
>> the cost of more than one vehicle, have you priced these babies
>> lately? You could afford two cars instead.
>>
J> Hardly. Your basic family sedan (Taurus, LH, Lumina) is almost
J> the same price as your basic minivan. You can get expensive minivans,
J> and you can get expensive sedans.
>> I won't address the 'rudeness' issue, or why you 'need' one thing over
>> another.
>>
J> Oh? I thought I saw something about *needing* that many seats...
That was only referring to their butt ugliness for someone who
*doesn't need* that many seats.
Jeff
Rakesh Patel
>In article <1994Jun16.1...@almserv.uucp> gau...@fnma.COM writes:
>>In the July Motor Trend there is an article comparing minivans for
>>what it's worth. I haven't read it yet (just glanced at it) but
>>they seem to give the nod to the new Ford Windstar. I don't think
>>there are any reliability considerations taken into account.
>Strangest thing. I saw a white color Windstar yesterday. Nice interior,
>exterior looks like a PENGUIN. I wish I could buy a white one, paint the
>nose black, paint a beak...
>Nice design though.
>Spiros
I saw a Windstar parked head-to-head with a Villager (both green). The Villager was a bit older (i.e. used quite a bit from the looks). I found the Windstar looked much nicer in all sorts of details. I might look at it seriuosly for
our next car. Gotta pay off my SHO first, and want to add a minivan for my
wife. I wouldn't be surprised if the Windstar looks like a penguin in white.
:-)
Rakesh Patel.
>--
>Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
>Software Development Tools, AD/SI c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
>Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
--
Rakesh Patel (rap...@noc.rutgers.edu),
Network Services, Telecom. Division,
Rutgers University Computing Services (RUCS)