Topic: We Need a Minivan Revolution!

[Ice]

I've read a few rumors about the Honda Stream being an up and coming product for the US market.  You can bet that if Honda does it ...Toyota will probably be there to counter it somewhere along the line at some point.  Not sure what they have in their vehicle inventory worldwide that matches the Honda Stream but surely they have something.

I've seen a ton of Mazda5s around and quite a few Rondos...they seem to be gaining popularity.

[vdk]

I think the 5 is a great car if you need a lot of space but don't want/like a minivan....

  Mazda!

?
Why would you say that?  The 5 is a minivan.  Smaller than most, yes, but it's a minivan.

I personally think of the 5 as a wagon, a car, not a minivan. And plus it drives like a car not like a minivan.

[Thinking Out Loud]

I agree that the 5 and the Rondo only seem like microvans because today's minivans have become maxi.

I saw a first-gen Mazda MPV shortly after we bought the Rondo, and wondered Hey, why didn't we see something like that on the Mazda lot?  I like it better than the 5.  We couldn't sit in the 5 either - head brushed ceiling, knees hit steering column. 

We grabbed one of the last 2006 MPV GT's off the lot just because of that thinking - one of the last garagable minivans with an appearance and handling  that we REALLY found sporty - plus with the side door windows that went down and a 'SkyDome/Rogers Centre' sunroof. 

I love my 5 - the sliding side doors on an M3 size vehicle are the vestage benefit the minivans of today.  If it had doors like the Rondo, the 5 likely would just be considered a 'tall wagon' I'd guess.

A turbodiesel 5 would make me a return buyer on the 5 when the lease comes up! 

[Rupert]

Putting a smaller engine in the same size van will not help fuel consumption on the highway. In the same vehicle the fuel consumption is merely a factor of weight here. So that unless the four cyl engine is considerably lighter the highway fuel usage will not change much. However, around town the difference will be more noticeable because of the idling in stop/go driving. For those who need a van for their lifestyle, why not have a small vehicle Yaris/Smart et.al. for the times when these are all that is needed.
Vans are very versatile vehicles, particularly with the stowing seats. I wonder if they could be offered in a package with a small runabout to be used when only one or two seats are required. Could insurance policies be tuned to give favourable rates for this combination.

[sixer]

Enough with the Mazda 5 already!

It's a joke! No room, no cargo space, and same on gas as a minivan and more money! Can you say stupid gullible public!!!

2004 Caravan - 23/34 mpg city/hwy
2004 Rav4 - 26/35
Mazda 5 - 25/34

The Mazda 5 is even worse on gas then the Rav4. Geez, for a small 4cyl, it's gas mileage is horrible.

Not to mention the Rav4 and Mazda 5 are much smaller then the Caravan and can't carry or tow as much as it. Furthermore, the Rav4 is way more expensive. Bottom line, forget these stupid little suvs.

I agree that we need more fuel efficient minivans, with 4cyl fuel efficient engines, unlike Mazda 5 and Rav4, but the government needs to force higher standards for fuel efficieny on auto manufacturers.

Until that happens, we're not going anywhere.  When Nixon forced the manufacturers during the last oil crisis to improve fuel efficiency they did so drastically.  But, no government has told manufacturers anything since.  When they tried to impose that all electric cars be 5% of those sold in California (some % like that) the oil companies bought the technology to Nimh rechargeable batteries and didn't allow the legislation to proceed.   

Hence, why should they invest more money to make these cars available to us, especially when oil company execs are their best friends.  Only Honda/Toyota have seeked to become leaders and that's why they're leading the way today.  But, same position for them.  Keep churning what makes the most profit, make small changes to their classics and keep making money.

I love the latest Corolla commercial, first thing they tell us about the 09 Corolla, 'Standard keyless entry'   haha!   Seriously, my friends 99 Sunfire had that.

Auto companies will continue to do what makes them the most money.  Until the government forces them to drastically improve or Oil hits $200+ a barrel, their going to do as little as possible to be bring us revolutionary fuel efficient minivans.

[tenpenny]

Interesting comparison, between a Rav 4, a Mazda 5, and a Dodge Caravan.  Why didn't you compare them to the F150, and the Toyota Solara?

[tpl]

I would ask if those fuel economy figures  for the 2004 vehicles are being compared to a 2008 Mazda 5.   The 2008 Mazda 5 is quoted in the Canadian guide as 29 40 mpg   M5  or 29 39 auto. I doubt those figures are obtainable tho'

The EPA numbers which are probably more accuratebecause of the new testing methods are

Caravan  17-24 and 16-23
Mazda 5   22-28 and 21-27      miles per us gallon

a 5 mpg difference in the city is a lot.

[Rupert]

Caravan Wt. = 4500 LB.   Highway 23 mpg US. (weight x distance for 1 gallon = 103,500 mile lb.)

Mazda 5 Wt. = 3758 LB.   Highway 27 mpg US. (weight x distance for 1 gallon = 101,466 mile lb.)

It seems to me that in spite of it's 6 cyl engine v 4 cyl. the Caravan is a more efficient weight mover on the highway than the Mazda.

If you divide the Mazda's 27 mpg by the ratio of the weights the resutant figure is 22.5 mpg. which is marginally less than the Caravan. So that the smaller 4 cyl does not do anything except when idling it consumes less gas. Weight is King; the efficiency of all engines being pretty much on a par at this point although the " i " in Toyota's seems to do something.

[sixer]

My Source is http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-search.cfm?attr=8

As of 2007 the Mazda 5 still gets 25/34 for city/hwy, pretty much the same as Caravan at 23/34.

Tenpenny, my comparison between Mazda 5 to Caravan is one families are considering as we speak so they can save on fuel economy, when in reality they're being fooled.  Alot of people don't want a minivan, hence they buy something like a rav4 or mazda 5.  Not everyone can afford a $40,000+ SUV. 

As for the 08 Mazda 5 getting better fuel mileage numbers, I'm glad to hear that, but that's still far off what I'd expect from such a small vehicle compared to a Caravan.

[safristi]

... Minivans & REVOLUTION in the same headline  now that IS REVOLTING......maybe a nice Che Equinox...or a Castro FREE!Lander..... ...hey I'm Up fer a CHAV -eh Z CROSS OV'R..........

[tpl]

Caravan Wt. = 4500 LB.   Highway 23 mpg US. Work done by 1 gallon = 103,500 Lb miles of work done.

Mazda 5 Wt. = 3758 LB.   Highway 27 mpg US. Work done by 1 gallon = 101,466 Lb miles of work done.

It seems to me that in spite of it's 6 cyl engine v 4 cyl. the Caravan is a more efficient weight mover on the highway than the Mazda.

If you divide the Mazda's 27 mpg by the ratio of the weights the resutant figure is 22.5 mpg. which is marginally less than the Caravan. So that the smaller 4 cyl does not do anything except when idling it consumes less gas. Weight is King; the efficiency of all engines being pretty much on a par at this point although the " i " in Toyota's seems to do something.

I suggest that the mass of the vehicle matters less for the highway figures than the aero number.  Certainly the mass affects the energy used in flexing the tires but at constant velocity should not affect the economy much on the flat anyway.

Now the Mazda's smaller engine would be revving higher at speed and that would use more fuel of course.

[Arctic_White]

My Source is http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-search.cfm?attr=8

As of 2007 the Mazda 5 still gets 25/34 for city/hwy, pretty much the same as Caravan at 23/34.

Tenpenny, my comparison between Mazda 5 to Caravan is one families are considering as we speak so they can save on fuel economy, when in reality they're being fooled.  Alot of people don't want a minivan, hence they buy something like a rav4 or mazda 5.  Not everyone can afford a $40,000+ SUV. 

As for the 08 Mazda 5 getting better fuel mileage numbers, I'm glad to hear that, but that's still far off what I'd expect from such a small vehicle compared to a Caravan.

Mazda5's mileage improved for 2008 MY, though.  And that's exactly what tpl said earlier. 

[Arctic_White]

MAZDA MAZDA 5 V 2.3 / 4 M5+ X $1512 1680 9.6  7.1  1 141

TOYOTA RAV4 4WD SP 2.4 / 4 E4E X $1620 1800 10.1  7.7  28 205

DODGE GRAND CARAVAN FFV C/V V 3.3 / 6 E4+ X $1854 2060 12.0  8.2  4 450 


All 2008 MY.

[Rupert]

Work done = weight x distance travelled.

This is neglecting wind resistance and assuming rolling resistance to be equivalent for given vehicle types. The efficiency of engines small or large in converting the energy in the fuel into work is pretty much the same. Obviously at speed air resistance makes a difference but is possibly very similar, or should be, for vehicles of the same type with similar frontal areas.
Reducing weight will help because it is accompanied at this point by reduced size, including frontal area but it hits a brick wall, in my opinion beyond, a certain point because there is no scaling down of people and stuff that is carried. Smaller interior space is impractical for many taller people.

[safristi]

..Honey I SHRUNK tha BUDGET,and tha gas  allowance and the 2 kids CAN "FIT" inna back of a wee Honda...................

[johngenx]

2008 Mazda 5 AT fuel economy, in Canada, the country in which WE live: 9.9L/100km city and 7.2L/100km highway

2008 Dodge Caravan fuel economy: (Evidently Dodge no longer makes as short version) the best driveline gets 12.0 and 8.2.  About 20% more fuel consumption in the city.

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumption-guide/fuel-consumption-guide-results.cfm?year=2008&type=TVN&Mfg=DODG&attr=8

Yes, the Mazda is lighter (fuel used per pound moved?  Who cares?  Of course there is the law of diminishing returns with weight reduction, but my bank account couldn't give a rat's ass.  I'm not looking for the most weight/liter of fuel, I want to move my family and some stuff and pay the least) and smaller inside, but it uses less fuel, period.

And ignoring aerodynamic drag is foolish.  It is the number one consumer of fuel/power as speed rises.  HP required rises by the square of speed thanks to aero drag.  The top speed of a heavy car can be identical to a light car with the same power thank to that relationship.  The lighter car gets to that top speed quicker.

Think about an analogy.  I'm 155lbs.  Pehaps some guy is 300lbs.  We both run a mile.  Yup, he burned more calories (did more work) than I did, but not twice as much.  So, he's more efficient?  In terms of weight:mile:calorie, perhaps, but who cares?

[erich]

From an engineer's point of view the formula
work = weight x distance
is wrong. It could apply to an elevator, moving vertcally. In case of a vehicle it would be
work = resistance x distance
with the resistance including rolling resistance of the tires and aerodinamic drag (wind resistance).
Rolling resistance is quite low - I can push a 1000 kg car on a horizontal road.
Wind resistance is speed dependent and is most significant at highway speeds.
For fuel consumption it also matters how fast the vehicle accelerates (inertia).
And finally, what matters for practical purposes, if we want to calculate fuel used per pound moved, is the size and weight of passengers and load, not the vehicle's own weight. If I drive to work alone in the car, why carry a big empty box with me?

[tpl]

I agree with Erich.

Rupert; its total drag that matters     D_tot=Cd * frontal area plus some fudge factors.

Cd can and does vary a lot between vehicles.   It may be that a Caravan has a lower Cd than a Mazda 5 which would might make up for the Mazda's smaller frontal area

[safristi]

.... ...argueing smaller frontal areas....ain't gonna attract THA BABES.........

[DockMan]

but my bank account couldn't give a rat's ass. 

  That was good.