Ongoing General Automotive Thread 2.0

[Table 5]

They probably wouldn’t sell great, but definitely think it would be better than now.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I still don't think a luxury van would sell. Everyone was convinced they wanted to "sit up. high" and now everyone wants to sit up high so they can see around all the other things that are high.

You could be right, but at least it would be better at one thing over its rivals instead of nothing.

At the end of the day, though, what car enthusiasts think will sell versus what actually sells are at opposite ends of the spectrum, unless there are manual wagons everywhere and I'm just not seeing them.

[TorqueDog]

Yeah, luxury vans routinely don't sell as well because people aren't going to buy nice expensive things that are going to lug around kids wiping their sticky hands all over everything and all their toys, strollers, and junk.

I used to work for Chrysler back in the day, I know the sort of condition most Caravans / Grand Caravans came back in when a family with young kids owned them. It was a petri dish of chaos and they got used. Grand Caravans loaded to their highest were about $45k CAD before you got into the Town & Country (which really didn't sell well but was a 'luxury' version of the Grand Caravan). Do people really want to spend Land Rover money on something that's going to end up with fruit juice and bits of Froot Loops mashed and absorbed into every intricate stitch on your fine leather hides?

There's an argument to be made for making minivans nice (ie: not a Metris), but taking it to the extent of 'luxury' is probably missing why people buy them. If you're inclined to buy a minivan with a Mercedes logo then yeah, make it luxurious because that's what you're selling but it's going to be a low-volume mover.

[timun]

Passenger vans are a dying segment anyway, it's a waste of design resources to put any time toward them. It doesn't matter what Mercedes-Benz does with the Metris, it'll never sell well.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You could be right, but at least it would be better at one thing over its rivals instead of nothing.

At the end of the day, though, what car enthusiasts think will sell versus what actually sells are at opposite ends of the spectrum, unless there are manual wagons everywhere and I'm just not seeing them.

Minivans and wagons are perfect.

People are flawed.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, luxury vans routinely don't sell as well because people aren't going to buy nice expensive things that are going to lug around kids wiping their sticky hands all over everything and all their toys, strollers, and junk.

I used to work for Chrysler back in the day, I know the sort of condition most Caravans / Grand Caravans came back in when a family with young kids owned them. It was a petri dish of chaos and they got used. Grand Caravans loaded to their highest were about $45k CAD before you got into the Town & Country (which really didn't sell well but was a 'luxury' version of the Grand Caravan). Do people really want to spend Land Rover money on something that's going to end up with fruit juice and bits of Froot Loops mashed and absorbed into every intricate stitch on your fine leather hides?

There's an argument to be made for making minivans nice (ie: not a Metris), but taking it to the extent of 'luxury' is probably missing why people buy them. If you're inclined to buy a minivan with a Mercedes logo then yeah, make it luxurious because that's what you're selling but it's going to be a low-volume mover.

Those same juice boxes and fruit loops get smushed into Range Rovers and Cayennes...

It's shallow and potentially (likely?) against the best interests of many buyers, but I still think a big reason minivans don't sell is is the image and associated lack of prestige from the brands that are building them. Chrysler, Honda and Toyota are fine brands (well, not Chrysler ), but there is a definite cap on their appeal (or willingness to consider) for shoppers after a certain level.

It's all branding (brand engineering) and the same reason someone would buy an Escalade without even looking at a Yukon (Denali or not), or to take it further, why the Bentley Bentayga exists and is basically a tarted-up Touareg.

We have lots of kids and a big SUV because our family (people+gear) is literally too big for a minivan - trust me, we tried (honest ), but this also means we get to see a lot of families doing family things... At the school drop off, I can honestly say I see two minivans on a regular basis... vastly outnumbered by the SUVs with roof boxes and bike racks. Same at soccer, gymnastics, dance, etc... Maybe I'm cynical, but I think at least some of these families would trade in their GLE for a Metris if the Metris had the aforementioned leather and AMG badge... Even better if it cost $95k

That said, there's a good chance that the damage has been irreparably done to the image of minivans, so maybe the ship has sailed... All I know for sure is there is a segment of the population that would never drive a Toyota or Honda, but they definitely drive Lexuses and Acuras...

[timun]

I guess we're just going to pretend Mercedes-Benz didn't already try that and built the slow-selling, mostly forgettable R-class...?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think the size of the box being too small is way overblown on CalgaryPuck compared to the real world. I use a truck daily for work in the Foothills Industrial Park and so do a bazillion guys I work with. Not everyone is carrying 4x8 sheets of plywood around. So many trucks are used for throwing dirty/heavy/weird/smelly/greasy/whatever items in that aren't long. I have a hitch-mounted bed extender that was $150 from Princess Auto I use on my F-150 (5'6" bed) that allows me to carry poles and stuff like 10' long. I would not want a 10' bed; the 5'6" bed is way better 99.99999% of the time. The bed on the Maverick is totally fine and if you need a longer bed there are already cheap gizmos on the market that will accommodate you.

This truck is going to become ubiquitous for small businesses and large companies for deliveries, etc. The fuel economy is unbelievable for a truck and the box is all the space you need. Its usefulness goes way beyond trips to the garden centre.

I really like these, probably around 25k in Canada. Maybe in 3 years can snag one for a good price. Seems like the perfect utility vehicle that covers most of non-work truck/SUV needs. Unless you need to tow more than 4000lbs it probably covers everything.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by timun

I guess we're just going to pretend Mercedes-Benz didn't already try that and built the slow-selling, mostly forgettable R-class...?

Wasn't a van. The R-Class was more of a crossover / high roof station wagon like a original Pacifica.

Need the attributes of a van - sliding doors, gobs of 3rd row room, lots of room behind the 3rd row, and 2nd row captains chairs to count.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by timun

I guess we're just going to pretend Mercedes-Benz didn't already try that and built the slow-selling, mostly forgettable R-class...?

I was going to bring up the R class too. Basically tried to be a minivan without sliding doors to hide the fact it was a minivan. A luxury Dodge Journey. People are allergic to this stuff. The closer it gets to a totally awesome, practical minivan, the more people are repelled.

Throw leather, a panoramic roof and a twin turbo V8 at it all you want, and it still isn't happening.

We had V8 S4 wagons here for sale and they were crushed in sales by the same sedan. Same with the V70R vs. the V60R. People just don't appreciate objectively better cars.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I was going to bring up the R class too. Basically tried to be a minivan without sliding doors to hide the fact it was a minivan. A luxury Dodge Journey. People are allergic to this stuff. The closer it gets to a totally awesome, practical minivan, the more people are repelled.

Throw leather, a panoramic roof and a twin turbo V8 at it all you want, and it still isn't happening.

We had V8 S4 wagons here for sale and they were crushed in sales by the same sedan. Same with the V70R vs. the V60R. People just don't appreciate objectively better cars.

hooo boy, that's insulting to the Benz.

[timun]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Wasn't a van. The R-Class was more of a crossover / high roof station wagon like a original Pacifica.

Need the attributes of a van - sliding doors, gobs of 3rd row room, lots of room behind the 3rd row, and 2nd row captains chairs to count.

So by your specious reasoning this...



... is not a van.

Okay bud, sure.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

LOL - sure. Let's frame this with the topic at hand. Do tell us what the R-Class had in common with your full size E-350.

[bossy22]

I love my v90 cc wagon. Drives awesome. Super comfortable. The Bowers and Wilkins sound system is amazing. It hauls the family and the dog without issue. Fits all of the golf clubs. We put on a ski box for the winter, and because it's low enough, it fits in the garage with the ski box on. My son is in ski racing. We pack all of his ski race gear, our ski gear, plus our biking gear because we go fat biking sometimes as well as ski. It just works for us.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by timun

So by your specious reasoning this...



... is not a van.

Okay bud, sure.

Come on now, ‘minivan’ has a very specific meaning relative to just ‘van’, even if they’re using van as short-hand for it. R-Class was absolutely a Pacifica-type crossover.

[timun]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

LOL - sure. Let's frame this with the topic at hand. Do tell us what the R-Class had in common with your full size E-350.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you characterize a Mercedes-Benz R-class as "a crossover / high roof station wagon" rather than a "van", as though those are different things. A van is a "high roof station wagon".

By your definition this isn't a van:



Simply because it has swing doors rather than sliding. And this isn't a van:



Because it has bench seats. It's absurd.

What do an R-class and an Econoline have in common? "High roof station wagon" bodies, with multiple rows of passenger seats and space at the back for cargo. What is a van, if not that?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The R class was deliberately made to not be a minivan. That's precisely why it has the body it does.

[timun]

Oh I agree with that. The R-class very deliberately did not have sliding doors so that people wouldn't call it a van, because van = sales poison. Instead they called it a large crossover SUV that "defied convention". In form and function it was a big, tall family truckster anyway, no matter what they called it, and sales were poor anyway.

The idea that if Mercedes-Benz made something that more readily embraced a "minivan" identity or conventionality it would sell better is... reaching. Vans are a dying segment. The R-class was not marketed as a van precisely so that it wouldn't be perceived as part of that dying segment, even though frankly it was. People saw through the marketing and forgot all about the R-class while they happily bought Ms and GLs instead. It was a waste of time and money, and trying to make a Viano/V-class a "thing" in North America is a foolish waste of time.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Minivans and wagons are perfect.

People are flawed.

And when you’re done schlepping kids around you do this...

[GGG]

Won’t once the next gen of kids start buying vehicles they will start buying vans and wagons instead of SUVs. No one wants their parents car