Topic: Is the Mercedes R-class a minivan?

[dorin]

Pretty self-explanatory and it seems to deserve a separate thread from the discussion about the R-class' rear doors.

[jcon]

According to most in the know (Edmunds, Motortrend, etc.) it's a cross between a minivan, a wagon and a suv.

Maybe we should come to a clear definition of a minivan. That seems to be a sticking point.

[dorin]

A minivan is a unibody two-box vehicle that's taller than a sedan/saloon and generally has three rows of seating.

[B2]

A minivan is a unibody two-box vehicle that's taller than a sedan/saloon and generally has three rows of seating.

By that definition, every CUV that has 3rd row seat is a minivan.  See my explanation here why the R-class is NOT a minivan: http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,56249.60.html

[Mitlov]

I say it's a minivan.  And I'm not alone:

Here is a handful of Mercedes-Benz dealerships which refer to the R-Class as a minivan:
*  http://www.newcountrymotorcarsofpalmbeach.com/new_inventory.htm?start=210&bhcp=1
*  http://www.mbcharlotte.com/new-inventory/index.htm?invtype=new&SByear=2008&SBmake=Mercedes-Benz&SBmodel=R-Class#invHistory:reset=InventoryListing&inventoryView=fullview&SByear=2008&SBmake=Mercedes-Benz&SBmodel=R-Class&SBbodystyle=clear&start=0
*  http://www.mbzla.com/new_vehicle_details.htm?vehicleId=5242c0324046381e01980613165c5cae&bhcp=1

And as Jill McIntosh said, and I agree:

The company prefers to call it a "Grand Sports Tourer", and the rear side doors open clamshell-style instead of sliding, but let's be frank: this is Mercedes' minivan.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jm/06r350.htm

Washington Post's automotive columnist also calls it a minivan:

The Mazda5 also fits into tight pocketbooks, starting below $20,000. But for families with small children, it offers as much utility as the Mercedes-Benz R350, a minivan that has a base price of $48,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201412.html

Same with Mark Savage, columnist for "Savage on Wheels":

Consider the new Mercedes-Benz R-Class minivan.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=381683

Yahoo Autos classifies it as a minivan:
http://autos.yahoo.com/mercedes_benz_r_class_r350-slideshow/?tab=gen&i=inrrseats

Admittedly, Edmunds doesn't call it a minivan, but instead a "Part minivan, part station wagon, part "what were they thinking?"
http://www.edmunds.com/mercedesbenz/rclass/review.html

Car and Driver calls it "a blend of SUV, van, and wagon that we classify as a ute."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/5best_trucks_5_best_trucks

[dorin]

A minivan is a unibody two-box vehicle that's taller than a sedan/saloon and generally has three rows of seating.

By that definition, every CUV that has 3rd row seat is a minivan.  See my explanation here why the R-class is NOT a minivan: http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,56249.60.html

Yes, CUVs with 3 rows of seats are essentially minivans.

[Mitlov]

A minivan is a unibody two-box vehicle that's taller than a sedan/saloon and generally has three rows of seating.

By that definition, every CUV that has 3rd row seat is a minivan.  See my explanation here why the R-class is NOT a minivan: http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,56249.60.html

Optical illusion.  An E-Class sedan is 58.4 inches tall.  An R-Class is 65.2 inches tall--much taller.  The R-Class is seven inches taller than an E-Class and only 3.7 inches shorter than a Sienna.

[B2]

Optical illusion.  An E-Class sedan is 58.4 inches tall.  An R-Class is 65.2 inches tall--much taller.  The R-Class is seven inches taller than an E-Class and only 3.7 inches shorter than a Sienna.

The C-class photo is just provided to remind viewers of the overall MB sedan shape.  Of course the overall dimensions are different.  As I stated, the R-class is a big, very big car.  Perhaps I should have posted pics of an S-class instead.

Think about it this way: A traditional mini-van is most likely based off an existing sedan platform.  Many modifications are made to the structure to enable a larger and taller vehicle (van) to be built on that platform.  Window lines are raised, floor is flattened, larger rear door openings are cut.

The R-class is also based on a car platform, however, the extensive modification that usually make up a mini-van are non-existent.  Generally, aside from restyling they have only removed the trunk and built a hatch area.

I really think the styling is throwing people off here.  Would you still be saying the R-class is a mini-van if it had the exact same front end as an S-class?  Would an S-class wagon be a mini-van?

[dr_spock]

It's a minivan wannabe. 

[Mitlov]

The C-class photo is just provided to remind viewers of the overall MB sedan shape.  Of course the overall dimensions are different.  As I stated, the R-class is a big, very big car.  Perhaps I should have posted pics of an S-class instead.

The R-Class is 7.2 inches taller than the S-Class, even though it's two inches shorter length-wise.  The R-Class does not have the same relative dimensions as a Mercedes sedan (either E-Class, S-Class, or CLS-Class) or E-Class wagon.

Generally, aside from restyling they have only removed the trunk and built a hatch area.

And raised the roof seven inches without raising the floor...that makes it a van (or "crossover," if you prefer) and not a wagon in my eyes.  My Legacy wagon wasn't any taller than a Legacy sedan.

[Wolfe]

Think about it this way: A traditional mini-van is most likely based off an existing sedan platform.  Many modifications are made to the structure to enable a larger and taller vehicle (van) to be built on that platform.  Window lines are raised, floor is flattened, larger rear door openings are cut.

The R-class is also based on a car platform, however, the extensive modification that usually make up a mini-van are non-existent.  Generally, aside from restyling they have only removed the trunk and built a hatch area.

That's a perfect automotive cognitive dissonance.

[mmret]

Think about it this way: A traditional mini-van is most likely based off an existing sedan platform.  Many modifications are made to the structure to enable a larger and taller vehicle (van) to be built on that platform.  Window lines are raised, floor is flattened, larger rear door openings are cut.

The R-class is also based on a car platform, however, the extensive modification that usually make up a mini-van are non-existent.  Generally, aside from restyling they have only removed the trunk and built a hatch area.

That's a perfect automotive cognitive dissonance.

So that car that the R Class is based off of (E Class?) has minivan DNA yes?


Minivan! R63 AMG must be a reasonable drive.

[Wolfe]

Minivan! R63 AMG must be a reasonable drive.

Yeah, I bet it is but this is so much cooler.



http://www.turbominivan.com/

[Mitlov]

I gave some more thought to this, and I'd like to toss out some possible definitions.

Wagon: a sedan except for the cargo area.

Raised wagon: the suspension is raised, but the floor-to-roof measurement is the same as a sedan.  Outback, Cross-Country.

Crossover: car-based, but with the roof raised relative to the floor.  The floor may be higher off the ground than a sedan (i.e., Tribeca), or it may not (i.e., Ford Flex), but there's a definite addition of height from the vehicle's floor to its roof.

Van: a subset of crossovers that have sliding doors.  Note that this would NOT include either the first-generation Odyssey or the R-Class.

[tenpenny]

No, it's a station wagon. 

[sailor723]

No,it's a bulky,overpriced station wagon with questionable reliability

Seriously though,here's a thought....Is the second row a bench (SW) or captain's chairs (van)?

[Serniter]

I thought it was Mercedes attempt to tap into rich minivan customers. However, Edmunds.com classifies it as a crossover under 'wagons' rather than 'minivans'. So its not a minivan then.

[The Mighty Duck]

Van: a subset of crossovers that have sliding doors.  Note that this would NOT include either the first-generation Odyssey or the R-Class.

Poor logic.  Minivans largely predate cross-overs, so calling them a subset of a newer vehicle is just silly.

The R-class is a van.  If it had sliding rear doors, we would all agree it was a van.  As we've discussed, the R-class should have sliding doors, because its huge doors are terribly impractical...  Mercedes didn't put sliding doors on it because they don't want people calling it a van.

They want people calling it a "wagon", or a "cross over".  It's not.  Looks like a van, sounds like a van, drives like a van...  it's a van.

[terry0703]

Interesting..I always thought it was a luxury "minivan" from Mercedes Benz, and so did my friends.
I still think it is a minivan. "Minivan" might not sound cool to R-Class buyers, but it is definitely a minivan without read sliding doors.
But, I guess I'm one of the few guys who actually quite like the style.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Of course not, it's a 'Grand Sport Tourer'  
(as Mitlov quoted Benz earlier)

It's Benz's car-oriented people mover.