Current state of Previa modification?

In reply to Osterkraut:

Which reinforces my theory you drive safer when you know what you're doing is dangerous.

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which is known for its testing of vehicles and results that are often shown on NBC's Dateline television news program, gave the Astro a "Poor" rating in 1996 because of what by all appearances was a horrifying display of structural failure in the Institute's 40 mph (64 km/h) crash test into a fixed, offset barrier. The underbody of the test van buckled, pitching both front seats forward and shoving the crash dummy into the dashboard and steering wheel, and resulting in a broken left leg, leading the Institute to comment that "[t]he collapse of the occupant compartment left little survival space for the driver."[4]"

Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: Which reinforces my theory you drive safer when you know what you're doing is dangerous. "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which is known for its testing of vehicles and results that are often shown on NBC's Dateline television news program, gave the Astro a "Poor" rating in 1996 because of what by all appearances was a horrifying display of structural failure in the Institute's 40 mph (64 km/h) crash test into a fixed, offset barrier. The underbody of the test van buckled, pitching both front seats forward and shoving the crash dummy into the dashboard and steering wheel, and resulting in a broken left leg, leading the Institute to comment that "[t]he collapse of the occupant compartment left little survival space for the driver."[4]"

From the same wikipedia page: "In testing performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, the Astro and Safari fared better, improving from a single-star rating in 1991 to a three-star (driver) and four-star (passenger) rating by 2000. In side impacts, the Astro and Safari both received the highest, five-star rating in every year that the test was administered."

Be it a mechanical or psychological reason; you're safer in the Astro.

NHTSA tests head on, not offset, that's why. I don't doubt the side rating, you're effectively above the bumpers of most cars in an Astro van. Most minivans pre 5-10 years ago or so don't crash(frontal anyways) for E36 M3. Its a byproduct of shoving the driver forward to make more room.

Chrysler built a flat version of their slant six for clearance on marine applications. Main modifications were the intake / exhaust manifolds and oiling system. Although swapping that into a Previa only makes sense if you're after the LeMons Index of Effluence, I wonder if you could use similar tricks to get a 2JZ or BMW S52 in there.

But I'd probably throw a standalone and a better blower at the stock motor.

Seems to me that if you warmed over the supercharger a bit, you'd have an excellent start to a twin-charged, remote-turbo setup.

That's exactly what i'm thinking. You do the typical stuff.. better intercooler, spin the SC a little faster, maybe replace it with a slightly larger one if it's available and easy. After you get serious, do a remote mount turbo that blows into the SC. People like to talk crap about remote mount but in this case, it REALLY DOESNT MATTER if it doesnt spool that great because you're already getting instant boost up to the ~200hp level from a supercharger, so the thing will never be totally flat-footed.

Any reason the Subaru flat 6 couldn't be used?

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Might be too tall with the stock intake.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Not much of an upgrade over a boosted four either.

Yeah, to be honest most of the things you COULD swap in, would still need a turbo to be any better than adding a turbo to what's there, which is easier than a motor swap..

Vigo wrote: I would think the simplest way to massively increase the power potential on a supercharged previa would be to add a turbo and create a compound-charger setup

HKS had a twincharge kit like this for the 1st gen MR2. Might be worth looking at how theirs was done.

Shawn

MrJoshua wrote: and don't look up crash testing videos on Previas.

You mean like this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnt5DHnp31I

Not as bad as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A

Against its contemporaries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaeloWsRe_s

Cliff notes: One more reason that Id rather have a Previa than a GM van like an Astro/Safari or Venture/Trans sport.

Several things about this thread.

1. That Video says the Previa was than the Astro, but people are still arguing the Previa is safer.
2. People are forever complaining About government mandated safety features being a waste of money and intrusion on people’s rights, yet are now arguing about which vehicle has the best of those features.
3. The fact we are even arguing over safety on 15-25 year old designs is stupid, safety has come on so far in the last 15 years it’s amazing.
4. If you want an old minivan that’s safe and fun, buy a Ford! And build this, the ShoStar That was a Widstar concept vehicle with Tarus SHO running gear if people remember it.
5. Back to the OP. This seems like a really cool idea, I’m not a Toyota fan, but I always though the Previa was a cool vehicle. I say go for it. I like the suggestion of more boost on the stock set up and see what happens. Can you find a complete stock droivetrain to rebuild and upgrade? Can you get or have made a smaller supercharger pully?

That Video says the Previa was than the Astro, but people are still arguing the Previa is safer.

Making exception for the missing word there and applying some guesswork, my response would be that the video made it seem that the astro did worse, and i only claimed that was one MORE (out of a list) reason i'd prefer a previa to an astro.

As for safety on old cars, i obviously dont care that much because most of what i own is old cars now. I had a new, very safe car. My wife wrecked it twice (successfully, i might add: she was not injured), we got rid of it, and now she drives a ~4400 lb 90s SUV because i had it and its the safest thing i already own that she can drive. Not a permanent solution. I own mostly 80s cars with the exception of my 01 Honda which has airbags and abs but also only weighs 1800 lbs. I doubt it is much safer than my 80s crapcans.

I think an SHO motor in a windstar is a decent idea, making the best of a bad situation as it were, but unless you ALSO do a 5spd swap i'd still rank it as a POS in the drivetrain department despite the fancy motor. Those 90s ford automatic transaxles are junky.

Hey guys, I forgot to check this thread for a while. I was somewhat unsuccessful for a while in convincing the future wifey to let me get a Previa over a station wagon, til I got lucky and accidentally parked in front of one on a dark street (I was only concerned with "hey! A spot!"). She likes it more than my idea for an Astro van because it's not as "van-y" or "minivan-y", which she hates. So I just have to decide whether to pull the trigger on a wagon or Previa in a coupla months. And decide whether I want AWD or not (I think I do, but drift...). I don't know a thing abou Toyota AWD systems, did they ever get a selectable/variable system similar to Subaru or Nissan AWD? Because that would be amazing, but I'm only going by memory and am unsure if that was an aftermarket thing or not. I kind of recall the ATTESA system able to shift power mostly to the rear (up to 98% on the new GT-R), with an aftermarket solution able to lock it to full rear if necessary. Other than that, regardless of which Previa I pick I'm twin charging as a long term plan along with all the other suggestions, much thanks for all that! I'm still curious about the changes they did to mount that motor almost sideways though, hoping someone can chime in on the specifics

Again, thanks for all the advice!