Mercedes Metris Baby.
Mercedes Metris Baby.
Vigo wrote: Sad thing is, they sold the Prius V with a 3rd row in other places.
Merely having a 3rd row physically inside the car doesn't necessarily include comfort or even feasible access to said 3rd row.
Duke wrote:Vigo wrote: Sad thing is, they sold the Prius V with a 3rd row in other places.Merely having a 3rd row physically inside the car doesn't necessarily include comfort or even feasible access to said 3rd row.
I have a mazda5, what he says is true. While we can fit six it's not a great fit. We have that and a T&C.
I own a Mazda5.
I shopped the Prius V extensively just recently. I can not see how you would fit in a 3rd row to the Prius V. The high cargo area floor caused from the battery pack would seem to really hamper "usability"
Recommending a Prius V as a replacement for a full Minivan is a akin to recommending a Rav4 as a replacement for a full Minivan. Yeah, they offered a 3rd row, briefly, in the previous Gen of Rav4. It was completely unusable.
Duke wrote:Vigo wrote: Sad thing is, they sold the Prius V with a 3rd row in other places.Merely having a 3rd row physically inside the car doesn't necessarily include comfort or even feasible access to said 3rd row.
Agree! I went and looked at the new Transit Connect when the first came out as I was thinking about trading my 2010 in. There was a decent amount of space behind the third row for luggage. Second row seat space was better than my 2010. Access to third row was decent, but the seats were made for people under 4' tall.
pinchvalve wrote: Mercedes Metris Baby.
I'm more familiar with these than I want to be thanks to work- they're German and rear wheel drive with a trailing arm rear suspension so you should feel right at home in one 
They also have the distinction of being the only vehicle ever built with ergonomics that encourage you slam the door on your own foot.
In reply to ¯_(ツ)_/¯:
Other than fantastic ergonomics, what do you think of them? They interest me?
In reply to mazdeuce:
Obviously your van is better in every possible way, I'd probably cross shop it with something like a Transit. They haven't been around long enough to determine reliability, but they seem to have good fit and finish for a cargo van (I haven't been in a passenger model) and function well enough as an appliance- the driving experience is almost completely unremarkable. The shifter is an automated thing with a stalk on the column and is the worst, feels like using a 2000s BMW turn signal stalk to select your gear.
Chrysler invented the Minivan.
Pacifica will work for what I understand you need. Drives very nice.
The last Chrysler model survived through several corporate owners and funding support. The last batch, for sale now, of Grand Caravans aren't terrible. Sometimes you can get the VW Routan cheaper but it doesn't get stow and go.
Kia Sedona is very good but you can tell they still need some experience with some of the vehicle dynamics and simple things like cruise control that just seem to have some off things. Very small negatives. All the rest of it is great van.
For some reason the latest Sienna seems to be a step lower quality of product from the previous model.
If pure hauling of people is all you need the extra large transit can do well.
In reply to Advan046:
Chrysler refined the minivan and made it attractive to the masses.
VW and Chevy would argue the "invent" bit, since both had car-based vans decades prior.
How a minivan drives is of secondary importance to me. I have other cars to drive if I want that. To me a minivan is a tool and functionality is paramount. That said, it can still be fun in a "driving a slow car fast" kind of way. Driving it closer to its limits forces one to pay attention to doing things correctly since there is less margin for error.
Advan046 wrote: Chrysler invented the Minivan. Pacifica will work for what I understand you need. Drives very nice. The last Chrysler model survived through several corporate owners and funding support. The last batch, for sale now, of Grand Caravans aren't terrible. Sometimes you can get the VW Routan cheaper but it doesn't get stow and go. Kia Sedona is very good but you can tell they still need some experience with some of the vehicle dynamics and simple things like cruise control that just seem to have some off things. Very small negatives. All the rest of it is great van. For some reason the latest Sienna seems to be a step lower quality of product from the previous model. If pure hauling of people is all you need the extra large transit can do well.
Chrysler didn't invent the minivan, far from it. They just hit the market at the right time with the right product and turned the segment into a monster.
What dynamics does Kia need? What's off about the cruise control? In all my years of Sedona ownership, never noticed any of these issues. It doesn't handle like a sports car, but it's not supposed to.
The last Caravan survived through several corporate owners because it was essentially the same van for many, many years with just refreshes.
Odyssey or Sienna are the easy buttons. The guy I work for just turned over 320k miles on his Odyssey and it still runs fine.
As an escapee from the minivan years, the van I liked the best was the Nissan (Mercury) Quest (Villager). We had two of them, a 2000 and a 2002, and they were great. Big enough, but not too big, great Nisan V6, decent mileage, reliable as rocks, and - almost - fun to drive. Modern minivans are approaching the size of their non-mini ancestors. I liked the compact nature of the Quest/Villager and never needed anything larger. Closest more current thing is the Mazda 5, which is a great option if you don't need tons of cargo space.
mazdeuce wrote: In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯: Other than fantastic ergonomics, what do you think of them? They interest me?
I bought an uber expensive Mercedes van and it blew up spectacularly. I want to spend uber dollars on another one to do the same thing.
I get that you enjoy this stuff, I just want to make sure the OP and future readers understand where you're coming from a bit here. It may not be the best consumer grade advice.
My '08 has the 3.3L/4spd combo. I wouldn't recommend it. It's a rather crude engine. Not very smooth. Rather marginal gas mileage -average in the low 20's. Best was 25. Other than maybe the potential for less maintenance (OHV = no timing belt), I'm not sure that benefit makes up for the low power, higher noise and overall "archaic" driving experience for such a fairly new car. Had I known then what I know now, I would have looked for a model with a better engine.
I agree it's underpowered, but if you think THAT's archaic, try not to drive a 2.4L Taxi-spec version of the previous generation. Good lord.
erely having a 3rd row physically inside the car doesn't necessarily include comfort or even feasible access to said 3rd row.
And yet we have a forum full of Mazda5 lovers, so i bring it up anyway.
tuna55 wrote:mazdeuce wrote: In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯: Other than fantastic ergonomics, what do you think of them? They interest me?I bought an uber expensive Mercedes van and it blew up spectacularly. I want to spend uber dollars on another one to do the same thing. I get that you enjoy this stuff, I just want to make sure the OP and future readers understand where you're coming from a bit here. It may not be the best consumer grade advice.
If they introduced an AMG version of the Metris you know I'd be salivating.
In all seriousness, the Metris starts at $32k. This is within range of the Sienna and Odyssey. However the Metris is rated to tow 5k lbs which no regular minivans are. You can argue that I'm just trying to justify it, but that's what drew me in. I'm also watching the passenger versions of the other small work vans, but those are more car like in their cargo/towing abilities.
Having said all that, I talked to the Toyota engjneers and PR people on One Lap about producing a consumer version of the One Lap Sienna. Intake and exhaust for a minor power but mostly noise bump. Big brakes and additional cooling. Lowering an inch and put big sways on it and give it a warranty that lets you drive it on track. How many would they sell doing that? Not enough to make it worth it, which is why they all told me no, but I'd buy one just because I love it when manufacturers go a little bit bonkers and they draw me in emotionally.
Bought a 2016 Grand Caravan, the Canada Value Package for around $22,000 Cdn. That's less than $17000 US brand new and free money for as many years at $300 a month to pay for it. Went to my local LKQ and bought the fancy center console and the middle row stow and go seats for less then a $1000 and I'm as happy as I could be with an appliance vehicle.
Re the ford transits;
These and the Mercedes/dodge sprinter vans are used by film/tv Transpo departments to schlep people around and every driver I've talked to hates the transits.
They are continually falling apart, especially interior. They all miss using the full size ford vans (e-series).
Joe Gearin wrote: I've been extremely pleased with my 14 Grand Caravan. I actually have a 4x8 sheet of plywood sitting flat in it right now. The Stow&Go is remarkable--- I wouldn't consider a mini-van without it. I've put about 25K miles in two years on mine without ANY problems....none. No trim breaking, no mechanical issues, no electrical malfunctions....no flaws whatsoever. The build quality is on par with the Japanese and Korean offerings, but the price was way below the Honda or Toyota. (mine was $23K brand new out the door--- with upgraded interior, sat radio, rear AC and Heat, and sliding-door windows that retract) I didn't get the power doors--- as I hate them. I haven't checked out the new Pacifica yet, but if it's price / value is anywhere near the GC--- that would be my choice. Again--- you don't know what your missing with the Stow&Go feature----it's so easy to go from 7 passengers to a cargo van--- I use this feature all the time. It also drives pretty nicely, and gives 25mpg at 80mph.
there are plenty of pickup "trucks" out there that can't lay the plywood flat. You're right about the Stow&Go. Excellent design
Other vans might have better qualities, but there is some merit in staying with one brand. The control layout should be basically the same between your Sequioa and a Sienna. Makes it a little easier to deal with switching back and forth between different cars.
pinchvalve wrote:
gotta say we really like our Metris. if you want more utility out of a minivan and don't mind removing the seats vs folding them into the floor it's great. expect low 20's around town and high 20's on the highway. All 7 (or 8) seats are adult sized with room in the back for luggage.
I think the thing that will make the Metris struggle to sell passenger versions in this country is that it's a very European van, by which i mean a VERY strong utilitarian bent that makes it super obvious its a cargo van adapted to be a passenger van and it's not trying very hard to convince you to spend time in it. It assumes you need it for pragmatism reasons.
I like them for the reasons Mazdeuce mentioned. It's more like a tiny Sprinter than a big 'mini'-van, and if you value the attributes that come from being born as a utility vehicle first, then it is practically in a league of its own.
I'm just going to add this gem from captdownshift in regards to the Caravan 
.
Vigo wrote: I think the thing that will make the Metris struggle to sell passenger versions in this country is that it's a very European van, by which i mean a VERY strong utilitarian bent that makes it super obvious its a cargo van adapted to be a passenger van and it's not trying very hard to convince you to spend time in it. It assumes you need it for pragmatism reasons.
And they're RWD, so with a magic dance of buttons and pedals, you can make to do a pretty decent brakestand.
In reply to Klayfish:
OK guys they didn't invent the minivan. They just did a good job.
Kia's issues are that sometimes the cruise control will try to be too aggressive to resume. For instance speed limit is 70 and sometimes if I hit resume at 62 it will drop a gear overshoot 70 then go into hill descent mode of using the trans to slow back down to 70. Other times I have had it hesitate a long amount of time before engaging.
Dynamically it is usually great. I am not autox it. Just with four people in the van in a steady state freeway turn it will require more correction to the steering sometimes, not sure why other corners are not a problem. My Dad's Grand Caravan doesn't have that issue.
Dynamics does not just mean carving through the turns on a race track. For instance one year of the Dodge Durango had a odd dynamic of requiring you to start a turn with let's say 90deg of steering wheel input, as the vehicle started to turn you had to reduce the steering wheel angle a lot as in 15-20deg to maintain the arc you started with. The vehicle dynamics guys knew about it but it was the price to pay for the towing and other functions. It is something an owner gets used to but the dealerships reported higher wheel warranty as folk hit curbs with the rear and tried to claim warranty.
Yes I think it is important to have a minivan with good dynamics for taking a turn into the Dunkin donuts parking lot like a normal person. I like having confidence in what my steering input will yield. Or if I have to avoid a chunk of truck tire carcass I won't be deep into stability control. But instead, able to get around it without any funny handling or computer intervention.
You'll need to log in to post.
