The death of the minivan (and Chrysler?)

[gopedxr7]

i dont understand you mini van haters. we re did our whole house with our minivan. we can take family trips and all be comfortable even in the third row. our 1996 Plymouth Voyager is a workhorse. i can put more 4x8 sheets of plywood than in a 8foot bed of a Silverado. I can put anything within the limit of the roof that you can put in the bed of a pickup. i can put in more stuff than my trailblazer or any suburban or cross over.

i think every family that doesnt have something to tow should consider a minivan over a SUV or a crossover.

if the image is what people hate, then they should have a regular car at the same time to drive them selves in and have the van for the family.

Alan

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by kodos78

I beg to differ -- the Odyssey is not superior to the Chrysler vans in "every way". Where's your six speed transmission? Where's your Stow and Go seating? Where's your Swivel and Go seating?

Why do I need a six speed transmission when I already have better 0-60 AND better mileage? Stow and Go seats are thin and uncomfortable. Perhaps swivel is an improvement

Originally Posted by kodos78

You have your glass jaw transmission (I've read the horror stories about towing with it). Where's your manumatic?

I tow and launch an 19 foot sailboat - 3000 lbs with trailor, no prblems in five years. A manumatic...on a mini-van!?! Come on...

Originally Posted by kodos78

Three row entertainment?

I have the DVD set-up, never a problem. Perhaps one more screen is an improvement.

Originally Posted by kodos78

Lifetime powertrain warranty?

No warranty other than the Honda reputation. You would have to pay me to take the Chrysler "warranty". I much prefer the lifetime of defect free operation to the promise to fix the defects

And don't forget the engine. That Honda 3.5 is simply awesome.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Why do I need a six speed transmission when I already have better 0-60 AND better mileage? Stow and Go seats are thin and uncomfortable. Perhaps swivel is an improvement

I tow and launch an 19 foot sailboat - 3000 lbs with trailor, no prblems in five years. A manumatic...on a mini-van!?! Come on...

I have the DVD set-up, never a problem. Perhaps one more screen is an improvement.

No warranty other than the Honda reputation. You would have to pay me to take the Chrysler "warranty". I much prefer the lifetime of defect free operation to the promise to fix the defects

And don't forget the engine. That Honda 3.5 is simply awesome.

But in the end, its still a minivan. Its really like you guys are debating which tract house in a sleepy suburb of Nebraska is better.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

This thread is hysterical. For the past two years, everyone at GMi has been screaming that GM was dumb to get out of the minivan market, and how GM NEEDED to make a Lambda minimvan, and how GM was just giving business to Honda and Toyota, blah, blah, blah.

Now, gas hits $4, sales tank, and everyone here is saying "goodbye minivan", "good riddance" and the death of the minivan is "common knowledge".

How many here in 2006 predicted four dollar gas in 2008?

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

How many here in 2006 predicted four dollar gas in 2008?

We already have seen the threads that insightfully explain that Toyota was brilliant for having invented the Pruis because they saw it coming (never mind the Texas Tundra plant running at 50% capacity). And Honda has been investing in the Civic and Fit (instead of the Ridgeline and Pilot) because they knew it was coming. As it turns out, there were only two people on the planet who did not KNOW it was coming: Lutz and Wagoner.

Or so the GMi critics will say.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by GM-Joe

Correct. How stupid they are to let the Neon and PT Cruiser die and replace them with a cheap looking hatchback and a couple of mid-sized sedans from the same stretched platform that look like they were from a third-world country.

Stupid is as stupid does. And they does.

Originally Posted by BigThreeForever

Back in 2000 or 2001, I read a (good) book - whose name and author escape me - which described how Daimler-Benz managed to take over Chrysler in the so-called "merger of equals".

I am still massively puzzled as to how the dynamic, feisty Chrysler that emerged in the early 1990s could meekly accept such a thing.

This was the Chrysler which could suddenly do no wrong, which pumped out one brilliantly styled smash hit after another, which made plenty of money, and which was so full of inventiveness, originality and vigor. If any company represented the famed American "can-do" spirit between 1992 and 1998, it was the Chrysler Corporation. These were the Chryslers of Robert Lutz, Francis Castaing and Thomas Gale - a winning team if ever there was.

Yet, in 1998, it sold itself to Daimler-Benz. I can vividly recall my disbelief when the news broke, seeing the Pentastar and the Three-Pointed Star together on the news. My immediate feeling was this "ain't gonna work . . . . two more different corporate cultures it would be difficult to imagine!"

And so it was. After that, all was downhill, with Chrysler's spirit simply flickering out like a guttering candle. Mediocrity replaced innovation. Ugliness replaced style. The Chrysler of the early and mid 1990s was dead.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and despite all the anti-Daimler sentiment here, I hereby contend that the two persons persons responsible for the imminent collapse of Chrysler are former chairmen Lee Iacocca and Robert Eaton.

Robert Eaton, the last chairman of the publicly quoted Chrysler Corporation, is accused for not having the cojones to say no when the men from Stuttgart came knocking. Words fail me as to this man's spinelessness and lack of leadership.

Outgoing chairman Lee Iacocca instigated the infamous "ABL" (Anybody But Lutz) programme when searching for his own successor. Having denied Lutz the top job, Iacocca brought in GM's Robert Eaton.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, was the moment that Chrysler was doomed, though we could not possibly have known it then.

Lutz would never have capitulated in 1998 like Eaton did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Lutz part of the Chrysler management claque that collected a golden parachute in return for selling ChryCo down the River Rhine?

Kinda reminds me of the 43rd and 44th prezdets, and how they seem/ed to have the interests of China and Mexico, respectively, more at heart than the interests of the USA.

The lesson is that it's cheaper to offer certain opponent chieftans a certain sum of money (relatively cheap) than to try to defeat them in the conventional manner (can be very costly, not guaranteed to work).

Oh wait, I found it: "To be fair, there were some clear benefits to the 1998 merger. For instance, Chrysler chairman Bob Eaton was persuaded to step away from the boardroom table with a sum not unadjacent to $61 million, his trusted deputy, Robert Lutz, today the understandably spry 75-year-old major domo of General Motors product development, availed himself of a $25 million golden parachute, while 30 other top Chrysler executives split another $300 million, making for some very soft landings indeed. Perhaps their haste to scamper indicated they knew something the market and Daimler didn't, like the fact that a company whose profitability was solely dependent on sales of retrograde SUVs and pickups was worrisomely vulnerable to upturns in gasoline prices, a widely anticipated wave of new Asian competition, and the inevitably shifting pendulum of automotive fashion."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A96F958260

http://www.coastalpost.com/99/8/9.htm

[kyvrwc]

My '06 Honda Odyssey got 26 mpg on a trip to Disney World in January. I kept the cruise control set at 80 mph, the weather was cool so we weren't having to run the A/C, and the terrain was fairly flat for most of the trip.

We had to go to a funeral in Alabama in late May. The temperature hit 90 degrees, so the A/C ran constantly. I drove faster (85 mph) and more of our route was through the hills. We got 23 mpg. A slower driver would probably be able to wring out closer to 30 mpg on a highway trip.

I don't understand the idea that minivans are only slightly less evil than SUVs when it comes to fuel economy.

[triadecho]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

How many here in 2006 predicted four dollar gas in 2008?

I did. My prediction was right on for $5 gas.

The response I got from one site member was to tell me I was "crazy".
30 years in the oil business didn't go to waste. When I saw big oil companies investing huge sums in unprofitable projects, i realized they see the big picture for world oil prices down the line and would be ready to take advantage of it.

[BORG]

I don't know how Chrysler is going to survive the recession, it will quickly hit bankruptcy. They have suspended all future product development until the company can be dismantled and sold.

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by BigThreeForever

Back in 2000 or 2001, I read a (good) book - whose name and author escape me - which described how Daimler-Benz managed to take over Chrysler in the so-called "merger of equals".

I am still massively puzzled as to how the dynamic, feisty Chrysler that emerged in the early 1990s could meekly accept such a thing.

This was the Chrysler which could suddenly do no wrong, which pumped out one brilliantly styled smash hit after another, which made plenty of money, and which was so full of inventiveness, originality and vigor. If any company represented the famed American "can-do" spirit between 1992 and 1998, it was the Chrysler Corporation. These were the Chryslers of Robert Lutz, Francis Castaing and Thomas Gale - a winning team if ever there was.

Yet, in 1998, it sold itself to Daimler-Benz. I can vividly recall my disbelief when the news broke, seeing the Pentastar and the Three-Pointed Star together on the news. My immediate feeling was this "ain't gonna work . . . . two more different corporate cultures it would be difficult to imagine!"

And so it was. After that, all was downhill, with Chrysler's spirit simply flickering out like a guttering candle. Mediocrity replaced innovation. Ugliness replaced style. The Chrysler of the early and mid 1990s was dead.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and despite all the anti-Daimler sentiment here, I hereby contend that the two persons persons responsible for the imminent collapse of Chrysler are former chairmen Lee Iacocca and Robert Eaton.

Robert Eaton, the last chairman of the publicly quoted Chrysler Corporation, is accused for not having the cojones to say no when the men from Stuttgart came knocking. Words fail me as to this man's spinelessness and lack of leadership.

Outgoing chairman Lee Iacocca instigated the infamous "ABL" (Anybody But Lutz) programme when searching for his own successor. Having denied Lutz the top job, Iacocca brought in GM's Robert Eaton.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, was the moment that Chrysler was doomed, though we could not possibly have known it then.

Lutz would never have capitulated in 1998 like Eaton did.

Here, here!

I too was heartbroken on hearing the news. Chrysler was a monster in the 1990's... cab-forward design, the 1995 minivans, the Dodge Ram, the do-no-wrong Jeep brand... and then Daimler took over for 36 billion.

Corporate cultures were like oil and water... stodgy old Mercedes, and hip edgy Chrysler.

The TRUE thing that killed Chrysler were the MASSIVE losses Mercedes incurred in the early part of the new millenium. Chrysler profits went towards fixing the German mess, instead of funding NEW Chrysler vehicles. And now, in 2007-2008, we see the result of NO MONEY going towards Chrysler vehicle development back in 2002-2005.

Simply disgusting, and I couldn't have been happier to see Daimler take the bath they did when selling Chrysler to Cerberus. This topic angers me to no end.

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by triadecho

I did. My prediction was right on for $5 gas.
The response I got from one site member was to tell me I was "crazy".
30 years in the oil business didn't go to waste. When I saw big oil companies investing huge sums in unprofitable projects, i realized they see the big picture for world oil prices down the line and would be ready to take advantage of it.

Good. I guess predicting the future makes you crazy in some eyes.

Investing huge sums in unprofitable projects, what does that mean?

[Bigbee60]

The minivan has caused its own demise in a way. Most can't fit the 4x8 sheet of plywood inside anymore as they have too many gimmicks reducing interior width or length.

GM and Ford have some pretty nice mini-minivans in other markets in the Zafira, S-Max, and C-Max models. Even Mazda admits the zooming sales of the 5 caught them off guard as they don't nationally advertise the 5, just do some targeted ads in certain magazines. I think the tall wagon mini-minvan has a place for people who want some utility and can give up a V-6 and uber acceleration to get better economy.

And the minivan sales slowdown isn't just a Chrysler curse - Toyota will sell over 80K of the 140K or so 2008 Model year Siennas they build to fleets. Look at the minivan lane at Alamo/National in any Florida airport and you'll see 80% Siennas and not just the cheap CE trim anymore.

Honda has it pretty good with the Odyssey. I've never seen one in a rental fleet - even in CA where you will get a few retail only cars in fleets due to the demand for top line vehicles in those markets. Friends that have Odysseys are always happy with the vehicle as a vehicle, but most admit they will get an Accord or Acura TL the minute the rugrats are of an age that a van isn't needed for transport duties.

[ponchoman49]

It's just as I predicted. The oil crisis is slowly eroding/destroying everything around us. It will take the big three down. It will close many many more businesses. It will cause riots and destruction. What sad times!

[72lemanscvbl]

Originally Posted by dindak

I would not be surprised to see some movement back to vans from SUVs as they are better on gas, have substantially lower insurance and are much cheaper to buy.

The death of the van declaration may be premature.

Our Montana SV6 with a 3.9 gets about 26mpg on the highway, a lot better than almost any SUV and more room than a Tahoe.

I agree. People say SUV's are more popular because of style, but no one is buying a corrola because of style. More small car purchases right now are made for more economical reasons. A minivan right now is so much more practical than any SUV, and with gas prices like they are, the versatility compared to an SUV is amazing. I have a Dodge Grand Caravan that replaced my Equinox 2 1/2 months ago (company provided) and the utility of the van blows me away. Granted its not as sporty, but its so much more practical for getting the family around. My parents visited this week, and I reconfigured the seats to get all of us to dinner in a minute.

[blank disk]

Wow, I did not realize that Chrysler was in such trouble. This paints a serious picture. I was wondering how well their new minivan was selling, and I had no idea it was so bad. I should have realized it as I rarely see them on the road. Bad news about minivans too.
So Ford was late to the table with the minivan, but in the end it wins because it is first to exit the minivan scene. I am very curious to see how well the Flex sells. Having seen a bunch up close recently at a Ford dealship, I have to say they look very ineteresting. I just don't have a large enough family to justify, otherwise I would. I love how it is low to the ground, but not too low. It is a lot lower than a typical GM SUV, which I prefer for many reasons. I believe it has more room as well, or certainly very similar.