E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rebecca Cook / Reuters
The Chrysler 700 C concept van is displayed at the 2012 Detroit auto show.
By Paul A. Eisenstein, msnbc.com contributor
Can the Chrysler 700 rekindle America’s love affair with the minivan?
The swoopy concept vehicle now on display at the 2012 Detroit Auto Show is a visually striking contrast to the staidly functional “one-box” people-movers that most Americans are familiar with.
Generally given credit with inventing the modern minivan, Chrysler is hoping that the auto show car will give it a new direction that could revive the once vital market segment.
At their peak, models like the Chrysler Town & Country, Honda Odyssey and Ford Windstar accounted for about 8 percent of the U.S. new vehicle market. Without some breakthrough, that could soon slip to as little as 3 percent, according to a forecast by IHS Automotive.
“I don’t like the smell of the minivan market today,” said Chrysler’s CEO Sergio Marchionne, noting that he may kill off one of the carmaker’s remaining two models if a viable alternative, perhaps something like the 700, can’t be found to generate some enthusiasm in research clinics later this year.
At its peak, Chrysler had three different minivan models offered under its various brand names. General Motors and Ford also had an assortment of minivans, all now abandoned. And the market wasn’t any kinder to offerings from foreign marques like Hyundai, Kia and Volkswagen.
Only Toyota, with the Sienna, and Honda, with the Odyssey, are viable competitors to Chrysler today. But the minivan segment has shrunk so badly that none of the major automakers can really be described as seeing successful sales.
At the segment’s peak, in 2000, the car industry sold 1.37 million minivans, according to IHS Research Director Rebecca Lindland. That amount plunged to 415,000 in 2009, the industry’s overall worst year in decades. Minivan sales rebounded last year to 472,000, but demand is growing slower than for the industry as whole, which is why Lindland doesn’t expect the segment to capture more than 3 percent of the overall U.S. market going forward.
“It’s not a decline to nowhere, because as long as there are families there will be minivans,” Lindland said. But, she added, many families are looking for alternatives to minivans, trading functionality for style.
Stan Honda / AFP - Getty Images
Upscale sedans, electric vehicles and old-school muscle cars make their debuts at the 2012 North American International Auto show.
Some former minivan buyers have migrated to big SUVs, like Chevrolet’s Suburban and Tahoe models, but the big shift has been to crossover/utility vehicles, such as the Honda Pilot, which the automaker admits it specifically designed to attract traditional minivan customers.
How will automakers win back the lost customers?
“We need to redesign the van,” notes Chrysler’s CEO Marchionne, “and peel away the skin of the onion” to find what still works for the minivan customer and what is sending buyers scurrying to other product segments.
That’s not as easy as it seems because while conventional wisdom suggests the vehicles are primarily sold to families with young children, minivans have also had a strong appeal, over the years, to empty-nesters who want more space and flexibility than they could get in a sedan.
Ironically, some of the features that attract one minivan buyer -- kid-friendly sliding doors, for example -- could turn off other customers.
Ford discovered this issue when it abandoned its most recent minivan offering, the Freestar, and switched to an alternative concept it dubbed the “people-mover.” To make sure the wagon-like Ford Flex wasn’t confused with a minivan, the carmaker switched to using conventional rear doors, notes marketing chief Jim Farley. But that has actually limited the vehicle’s appeal to some buyers, especially those with young children.
Ford isn’t giving up. It has an updated version of the Flex coming to market and it is launching a downsized people-mover called the C-Max later this year, and it will be using sliding rear doors again. Ford hopes to enhance the appeal of the new model by offering it with a choice of either a conventional gas-electric drivetrain or the company’s first plug-in hybrid.
“When you talk to moms and dads they don’t necessarily want something sexy. They just want something practical,” Lindland said, noting that empty-nesters want something a little more stylish. The challenge, she concluded, “will be finding a way to market to both of them.”
Can the 700 bridge the age gap? Chrysler certainly hopes so. And it will be watching closely to see what the public’s reaction to the prototype is during the Detroit auto show and automotive events to follow.
Meanwhile, Chrysler’s designers are tinkering with other designs at the carmaker’s engineering center in the Detroit suburb of Auburn Hills. Marchionne wants several possible designs that the automaker can “take to [consumer] clinics by the end of this year,” he said.
There was a time when Chrysler controlled about two-thirds of the once-huge minivan market. Today it holds barely half of a much-humbled segment. Unless it’s confident it has a winner in hand it may stage an orderly retreat and settle for being a small participant in a shrinking niche.
Related stories:
Automakers driven by good design
Americans holding on to their cars for longer
Leave a Comment:
If Chrysler is truly concerned with building the minivan market back up, it need to produce a van the averages way better than 18 mpg. This is what every minivan until last year's Honda Odyssey has averaged since their inception. The minivan buyers want practicality, and nothing is more practical than a big increase in fuel economy.
We have a Chrysler minivan and it gets much more than 18 mpg. Closer to 23 mpg.
And I would never trade a minivan for a hulking SUV.
Our minivan is stylish, comfortable and yet can transform itself into a real workhorse when you need to do things like home improvements.
We tow with it and it handles our double axle trailer very well.
I don't know of any other vehicle that is as versatile as the minivan. It is one of the best concepts to ever come out of Detroit.
.
I have to agree about the practicality of minivans. I owned a Dodge Grand Caravan for several years and was amazed by its versatility. It towed our boat, moved my daughter to college and chauffered my younger children around for the better part of a decade. However, the last time I rode in a Chrysler minivan was a rental, and I was really dismayed by the way the interior had been cheapened down. The seats were thin and uncomfortable, the dash and door panels were covered with cheap hard plastic, and it felt like riding in a tin can. It was clear that Chrysler had cut many corners to reach a certain price point -- and this was not a stripped-down model. Very disappointing. I would consider a minivan again, but I would never buy one that seemed so insubstantial.
We have had Chrysler brand minivans for over 14 years, with a Dodge, a Plymouth, and a Chrysler among them. I will continue to buy minivans as long as they are available! I hate SUVs, and dislike the current offerings of station wagons - too cramped, too low, too cheaply made. The US auto makers are too caught up in the numbers game - if they don't sell more than last year, the there is a problem with the product! In actuality, it may just be that demand is off due to oversaturation of the market.
Ours gets 12mpg
Auto 101, then there is something seriously wrong with yours. You need to take it in to the dealer and find out what is wrong.
It is in the variable of city driving. You see Chrysler engines run lean. and they also enter Wide open throttle earlier then other cars. This causes the car to go very rich. I can get the 17 for town driving however I drive slower than grandma.
Auto 101, your mechanic will give you a referral to a doctor for a "leadectomy" on your right foot.
.
I don't actually have a lead foot I get passed all the time. I just drive normal. My coworkers actually call me grandpa driver because I only drive fast in customers cars to duplicate concerns.
I love minivans. You can travel and sleep in them in comfort when needed.
Way to go auto designers, want to get rid of that stodgy image give it a big butt like the folks who drive those things.
I beg to differ with you on that. all my family has minivans (parents, brother, ourselves) and none of us has "big butts!" All of us are under 190 lbs, most of us are under 150 lbs, and none of us are obese. So stop this overgeneralizing, and get with reality!
I've had bad luck with my Toyota minivan which I bought new. But, it is the only minivan out there with AWD, which for where I live, I have to have. A minivan gives me sliding doors, perfect for 3 children, 2 who are young and don't get the concept of carefully opening your door to get out. Not to mention, most parking places are packed so tightly, it's sometimes nearly impossible to get out of a vehicle without your door tapping the car next to you. Imagine the damage a young child can do trying to push open a heavy (to them) door to get out.
Since nothing else is available that meets my specks (sliding doors, AWD, room for 7-8, few electronics to go haywire & cost big bucks to fix, decent gas mileage, didn't take bail-out money), I'm kind of stuck with what I have.
Chrysler will offer AWD again in MY2012 or 2013. Cant remember which :-(
It's possible that minivan sales have dropped precisely because minivan options have dropped. When Ford dropped a minivan, they took away the ONE vehicle we would be most interested in. The Flex is fine, but doesn't replace the minivan for families. (Personally, I find the Flex ugly, but I know it was a purposely polarizing vehicle.) Ford was supposed to bring the Grand C-Max to market last fall. We were interested in it. Then they dropped it.
The new 700C concept is a great forward-thinking vehicle in terms of style. (Or backwards thinking, since it looks an awful lot like the Nissan Murano.) But give me a minivan that seats 8, and I'll be there to buy it regardless of how it is styled!
Underlying issue is the minivan image. That's why most folks nowadays choose an CUV/SUV.
Everyone knows CUV/SUV has a more "I'm energetic, I'm tough, I'm useful" image. Minivans just have that "I'm a family guy, I'm no fun" image.
No argument the utility capabilities of a minivan is a better fit than a CUV/SUV but people are willing to compromise utility for the sake of overall image.
Automakers need to put more stlye in MV even at the expense of some utility. Minivans should/needs to have a "I'm cool, I'm sleek & elegant, I'm luxurious" kinda image.
Only people that think in stereotypes make those kind of generalizations (like HR resume reviewers and marketing people). I have a minivan simply because it's practical and useful. I have enough self confidence that I am never ashamed to drive it. I'm also fun, energetic, cool, and even luxurious.
I don't think minivan owners "aspire" to be something they aren't, but if I had to define the minivan as a character trait in single words: Practical, Rugged, Useful, Friendly, Spacious, Reliable, Familiar, Uncomplicated, Frugal, Nurturing, and Freedom.
I wish Chrysler would build its Citadel concept from years back. It had sliding rear doors like a minivan but had a much lower ride height. Kind of a minivan/station wagon combination. It looked great. It offered the usability of sliding doors with a lower center of gravity and probably better mpg since it wasn't as tall as a minivan.
http://www.netcarshow.com/chrysler/1999-citadel_concept/
We bought a new Chysler Town and Country Van in 2006. Has a V-6 engine, some bells and whistles but not that many, I can get 26MPG on the Interstate and 21MPG in town. I have never had it back for anything other than oil changes and tire rotation. I have 48,000 miles on it. It may be that sales are down because people are not trading them in? I believe I can get another 100,000 miles out of my Van! It has been one of the best vehicles I have ever owned.
WRONG
"want" something practical isn't the issue. It's that practicality has become a necessity that had to rip the desire to drive something cool out of the buyer's heart...and it hurt bad when that happenned.
..so we bought an Enclave. Yeah, it cost more. yeah, it isn't strictly as practical as a minivan..but it's close enough.
Drivers now don't have to sacrifice much practicality in order to get something cool...or at least respectable. Something that doesn't signal to the world that one has succumbed. Something about which there's a plausible narrative that one would have chosen this vehicle whether he had five kids or no kids at all. Tap into that, and you win the minivan future.
I drove large Ford E 150 vans for years, then switched to Ford Aerostar for twenty more years. Got around
200,000 miles on both and they were in great shape when I sold them. Just got a 2009 Honda Odyssey and
absolutely love it. More bells and whisles than I know what to do with. Never want a little car. Please don't
stop making a decent size, versatile vehicle. There will always be a market for these long lasting vehicles.
Smart people keep their vehicles 10 years and save up for the next one, drive safely and don't have to replace
their little toys very often.
I've had a series minivans since the early 1990s and love them--like light trucks with the comfort of passenger cars. Don't care that SUV owners may sneer at me because I laugh at them when they try in vain to load plywood or bulky objects into their undersized rear ends. But I swore off anything that Chrysler makes years ago when a one of the problems they could never solve (this one with the engine mysteriously dying) almost got me killed on an interstate one day.