SW17LS

This is just not the case at all. The driving position and the driving experience in a crossover and a minivan is very different. Having that flat load floor and sitting in chairs on that floor vs sitting in seats that are in a vehicle with a molded floorpan is a huge difference.

As for ride, the only minivan that I feel rides as nicely as an RX350 or a QX60/Pathfinder is the new Chrysler Pacifica. Even the Sienna which is the best riding of the older vans doesn't soak up bumps as well, and its nowhere near as quiet and refined which makes a big difference. Our Jeep for instance was significantly better riding and quieter than our Sedona, much more enjoyable to take on a trip and drive around town. But, I can take 3 times as much stuff and people with me in the van...

And, you discount looks but like I said, how a vehicle looks is a big part of a vehicle purchase for the vast majority of buyers.

If all we wanted out of a vehicle was versatility we would all drive Ford Transit Connect work vans. I have one for my company, its incredibly versatile, way moreso than a minivan. But, versatility is not the ONLY consideration when purchasing a vehicle.

Also, this is a big assumption. In mixed driving the way my wife drives we get average 15-16 MPG out of the Sedona...which is about the same as she got in the Jeep Grand Cherokee. So, thats pretty terrible, especially when you consider the Jeep was way heavier, a 4x4, less aerodynamic...

On a highway trip I get about 21 MPG out of the Sedona. Again...about the same as the Jeep. The Jeep held more fuel and thus had a much better range, 500 miles on the highway, Kia is about 400.

As a minivan owner myself, the only plus to the minivan is space, ease of loading, and the convenience of adaptable seating and sliding doors. Once I don't have to have those things, no more minivan. Like I said, I used to enjoy driving the Jeep, I would choose to drive it on the weekends or on trips by myself, we chose to take it out to dinner over the Lexus. Definitely not so the van.

mmarshall

Unibody, car-based CUV's, of course (the way the vast majority of SUVs are designed nowadays), are not intended for hard-core off-road stuff. That's what the Jeep Wrangler and Toyota 4Runner are for (and, if you really want to off-road in comfort, the Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus LX/GX or Range Rover).


The stigma about driving minivans may actually exist, but, IMO, the reasons for that stigma are pure bunk, which make about as much sense as the tooth fairy. Much of this stigma-nonsense comes from auto enthusiasts and the auto press. There is nothing wrong with driving a minivan if your family or hauling needs dictate it......minivans, in fact, are the ideal vehicle for millions of families. In fact, never mind families......I knew a single fellow (a tall, lanky guy) who a number of years ago drove a Dodge Caravan because he said that, at the time, it was just about the only thing on the market that gave him the stretch-out legroom and headroom inside that he wanted. (today, he drives a RAV-4). Another single guy I know drives a Sienna because, as a photographer, it easily holds all of the equipment and stands he needs to carry around.

SW17LS

I don't care about a "stigma" or what other people think of me. I just don't like anything about the vehicle other than its ability to swallow a lot of stuff, and the sliding doors make loading my kids easier. Right now I need that, so I will put up with a vehicle that does nothing for me in any other way.

People buy crossovers because that's what they prefer. What I object to is this idea that people who buy 3 row crossovers are doing so simply out of vanity, that's just not the case. There are a lot of tangible differences and reasons people prefer crossovers. Styling is one of those reasons, but not the only reason.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

Do you really get 15mpg in a Sedona? How is that even remotely possible? I get that if I drive my LX pedal to the metal. Something does not sound right.

SW17LS

Yes indeed:



Now thats lots of short trips, idling to cool down before the kids are loaded. The point is though, thats just about the same economy the Jeep got under the same usage scenarios.

chromedome

A Pacifica plugin hybrid could get much better fuel economy because it would run on battery when stopped. You wouldn't need to run the engine to cool down the interior, as long as there was enough battery charge.

AFAIK Toyota and Nissan have hybrid vans for the Japanese market like the Alphard and Serena hybrids, but I haven't seen them exported elsewhere.

SW17LS

Yeah I would definitely consider the hybrid Pacifica next time.

The Pacifica is really nice. I probably would have gotten that had it been around when we got the Sedona.

mmarshall

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned, the whole idea of minivan-stigma was just a bunch of nonsense cooked up mostly by the auto press and some sport-oriented auto enthusiasts.


Obviously, the biggest difference is the much greater availability of AWD with the crossovers (and somewhat higher ground clearance). Among U.S.-market minivans, only the Toyota Sienna offers AWD......Chrysler/Dodge vans dropped the AWD option when the Stow-N-Go folding-seats took too much room under the floors for AWD.

I guess opinions will differ, but I did full-reviews on both the Pacifica and Kia Sedona, and thought that the Sedona (at least in the top-line SXL version) was not only built more solidly in material quality but also more refined on road-manners. And the Sedona didn't have that silly rotary-**** shifter in the Pacifica.

tex2670

I'm more than willing to bet that, after 2 weeks with the rotary ****, it would become second nature.

SW17LS

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I've had cars with other strange type controls and shifters and they never really became second nature.

As for mmarshalls post about the Sedona having better road manners, totally disagree. The Pacifica to me clearly rode better and was quieter. Significantly. Interior on the Sedona is nicer.

mmarshall

Which version of the Pacifica did you sample? The full-review I did was on the Touring version.....admittedly one of the lower-priced versions. Conversely, the review I did on the Sedona was the version (I think) that you own....the top-line SXL.

mmarshall

Possibly. But it does make it more difficult to downshift if more power is needed, or say, if you want to hold speed on an upgrade or downgrade. That's because, if my memory is right, it doesn't have separate positions on the **** for the lower gears....or shift-paddles for manual downshifts. Sometimes the automatic throttle kick down shift in the transmission itself is either lazy or simply delayed for fuel economy, and the driver may need (or want) to override it.

tex2670

Well--that's a fallacy of the transmission, not the fact that it's a ****. FCA could easily have put a manual notch, and added paddle shifters....on a minivan....

Actually, on many cars now, you don't even need an "M" position on the tranny--tapping one of the paddles automatically puts the tranny in manual mode. Again--a choice FCA made, and a standard style transmission could have the same issue.

Sulu

If a modern automatic transmission cannot automatically downshift at the will of the driver, it should not be in a modern automobile. No steering column paddle shifters are necessary -- and soccer moms and hockey dads probably would not know how to use them anyways, especially in a minivan.

You want to accelerate quickly? Just stomp on the accelerator pedal and if the engine cannot provide the necessary power, the automatic transmission will automagically downshift. The modern dumb driver will not think to (manually) downshift. You want to slow down while going downhill? Just move your right foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal. To save the brakes, the car will probably automagically downshift to use engine braking.

mmarshall

That's all fine and dandy on paper, but in the real world of transmissions, it doesn't always work that way.....even with the so-called "grade-logic" programming. Being an engineer, you must surely know that. Most stepped-gear, planetary-gearset, torque-converter automatics (as opposed to CVTs and SMG/DSG transmissions) are supposed to drop a gear under moderate or strong throttle pressure, but sometimes, and for various reasons, that either doesn't happen (and the engine just lugs along at slow speeds in a higher gear). Or, if it does kick down, it is lazy and takes its sweet time about it. Sometimes this is done for fuel-economy reasons, as the automakers want to keep engine RPM down as much as possible for CAFE ratings. More gears in the transmission should, theoretically, narrow the ratio between the gears, and make it easier for the kick-down to work, but, again, it doesn't always work that way.