Home » This Is One Of The Most Poorly-Defined Categories Of Cars: The Wagovan

This Is One Of The Most Poorly-Defined Categories Of Cars: The Wagovan

Wagovan Top
ADVERTISEMENT

As you may have already surmised, I enjoy taxonomies. And, sure, I only read the actual definition of “taxonomy” a few days ago and wasn’t really aware of the strong biological associations, but that won’t stop me from continuing to use the word to describe automotive categorizations. Today I want to tackle one of modern automobilia’s most blurry and contentious taxonomic problems: what is the difference between a minivan and vehicles that aren’t quite minivans, but also aren’t quite wagons? See, we don’t even really have a good name for this category! Something has to be done about this, and done now. So stop whatever you’re doing, parachute out of the plane, fling those dental tools to the ground, let that belt sander just launch itself into the shop wall, leave those customers hanging, let that baby cry, whatever it takes. Because we’re doing this now.

Fundamentally, here’s the problem, the problem that has caused long, drawn-out fistfights (and at least one mop-fight) at the last three Global Automotive Classification Summits, held every year in Zug, Switzerland: what do we call the strange and ill-defined space between station wagons/estates and minivans? Station wagons and minivans share a great many qualities: both are primarily passenger vehicles, designed to seat anywhere from four to eight or so passengers. Both can have two or three rows of seating, both are designed to hold considerable amounts of cargo, both have long been intended and used as family cars, both tend to have a generally two-box layout – they’re really doing essentially the same sort of jobs.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

And yet, they’re quite different. A wagon is lower and has “longer” proportions, even if the actual overall length isn’t longer. Minivans tend to be taller, higher, but not necessarily any different in ride height or anything like that. A wagon tends to have a longer hood; a minivan’s hood is stubby. In character, even if they tend to be used in the same sort of roles, there are differences, and it’s possible these differences change over time and with changes in the overall culture. A minivan feels a bit more domestic and targeted at family use, where a wagon sort of retains a certain enthusiasts’ cachet.

Crownwagon1

This wasn’t always the case; wagons were firmly in the family-use category until the re-emergence of minivans in the 1980s freed them from guaranteed domesticity, and a new breed of 4×4 rugged wagons pushed the wagon into more sporting/adventurer territories.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wagon Ad 2 7 19

That’s not to say minivans couldn’t be used for many of these same sorts of activities; many could, and 4×4 minivans do exist. But conceptually, there was something of a split, where minivans took up a bit more of the practical, smart choice for a family mantle, and wagons became at least a bit more iconoclastic, if only because of the rising popularity of minivans for people who ironically sought to escape the domestic stigma of the wagons they grew up with.

Dodgecaravanhatch

Of course, the story ended up getting flipped a bit as a result. Regardless, there exists a space between the wagon and the minivan, and that’s what we’re here to talk about. Sometimes this category is called the MPV category, for “Multi-Purpose Vehicle.” Mazda even just named their almost-minivan the MPV, and it was a good example of this blurry category:

ADVERTISEMENT

Proportionally, it feels very minivan-like. But it has conventional doors and the scale is a bit closer to a wagon. Is it a minivan? If intent matters, then Mazda must have felt not, because why else would they go out of their way to call it an “MPV,” when “minivan” was right there? There was clearly a decision made.

Personally, I think this strange, transitional category may be best represented by the Honda Civic Wagon, also known, in some markets, as the Wagovan. In fact, I’d like to steal that name for this whole general category, as it explains everything right there in that portmanteau.

The little Civic Wagovan had minvan proportions, normal hinged doors, a focus on interior space, a smaller-than-a-minivan exterior, and plenty of domestic practicality but also a certain amount of defiant charm. It was the ultimate melangé of wagon and minivan, not at home in either category, exactly, but I think better at being an example of this new in-between state.

There’s many more, of course; I made a chart of some of the better-known ones to get us started thinking:

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Wagovan Chart

The Wagovans deserve their own classification, I think. I don’t feel like I’m at a point where I can make some hard-and-fast rules defining entry to this category, so I think for the moment we’re just going to have to do what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart did with obscenity: know it when we see it. In our pants.

I’m open to some brainstorming to help define things here; remember, everyone is counting on us to get this right, so let’s do the best we can. These odd little half-van/half-wagons deserve nothing less.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
17 hours ago

No, it’s either a minivan or a wagon. Don’t blur the lines. Pick a side. It’s like truck or car. A crossover SUV is a car because a truck it’s not.

N541x
N541x
12 hours ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

How do you feel about Venn diagrams?

Bags
Bags
3 hours ago
Reply to  N541x

Well there’s a clear distaste for Van diagrams

I don't hate manual transmissions
I don't hate manual transmissions
17 hours ago

I propose Twagon.

I had a FWD Tercel Wagon for a while, a first gen Honda Oddessy (that was before it got sliders), and a Mazda MPV at one point, so plenty of experience in this realm.

Also, obviously, I’m totally unqualified for this taxonomy stuff.

StillNotATony
StillNotATony
17 hours ago

I don’t know where the Mazda5 fits in this naming convention, but I DO know that my wife, who rarely has an opinion on anything automotive, still waxes nostalgic for the one we had.

When we had 3 little kids, it was perfection!

Danny Zabolotny
Danny Zabolotny
16 hours ago
Reply to  StillNotATony

I was just about to mention the Mazda 5! It really does feel like something between a van and a wagon, being built on a small car chassis and having a manual transmission as an option. It’s sleeker and nimbler than most minivans but it still has sliding doors and 3 rows of seats. It’s kinda the perfect enthusiast wagovan for somebody that needs the extra seats.

N541x
N541x
12 hours ago
Reply to  StillNotATony

Mazda5 with a manual was always interesting to me even when single… also it had a 2+2+2 layout, how often do you see that on a compact car?!

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
5 hours ago
Reply to  StillNotATony

Microvan.

Taco Shackleford
Taco Shackleford
17 hours ago

The Colt Vista also went by name Space Wagon, which just reinforces your argument. This class definitely seems to be a I’ll know it when I see it situation.

Spikedlemon
Spikedlemon
17 hours ago

These are all in the same bucket as a Subaru Forester. Tall hatchback/wagons.

I wouldn’t van these any more than I would a Gen1 Toyota Venza.

Ignatius J. Reilly
Ignatius J. Reilly
18 hours ago

The term “van” is used in other parts of the world for wagons with solid panels rather than glass in the back side windows, so I think there is a lot of fuzzy going on. This is similar to how a liftback is best defined as a subset of hatchback, where the angle of the back hatch is flatter than 45º or so. But a wagon, van or SUV/CUV can also technically have a hatch if their rear opening includes the rear glass and hinges only at the top. Both the Range Rover and 5th 5th-gen Civic had split tailgates, while one was an SUV and the other a compact shooting brake.

Vans can have sliding or hinged doors, as evidenced by both options being available on every traditional van. So it isn’t the types of doors, either on the sides or back, that are defining characteristics. I suggest the below as a starting point to define a van.

Rear opening must average no more than a 30º angle off vertical.The height should be at least 30% of the vehicle’s length.The distance between the front of the vehicle and the start of the windshield must be no more than 30% of the vehicle’s length.The lowest edge of the windshield should be above the back of the front wheel arch opening or further forward.There must be at least two rows of seats for models configured for passengers.Primarily, vans have two doors on each side (or more). If there is only one door on each side it must be configured for commercial purposes with no rear seats and solid rear side panels rather than glass windows.
If it is longer/lower and/or has a longer hood, it is a wagon. If the rear glass is too horizontal, it is a hatchback or liftback. That would include the Xara Picasso. The Nissan and Honda are likely vans, but the Toyota might be a wagon.

Last edited 18 hours ago by Ignatius J. Reilly
LTDScott
LTDScott
19 hours ago

Wagovan was not just the name for the Civic Wagon (or Civic Shuttle) in some markets, it was a specific trim trim level for base model Civic wagons intended for commercial use – they had a one piece rear seat that slid forward to haul cargo and bars across the rear windows to prevent damage.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
19 hours ago

I thought minivan was the term created for something between van and wagon? If not panel van fits the bill. If not maybe hearses?

Last edited 19 hours ago by 1978fiatspyderfan
Jatkat
Jatkat
19 hours ago

I got my fingers shut in the door of a Mazda MPV when I was a kid. So, probably a good thing that they weren’t sliders…

Mechjaz
Mechjaz
19 hours ago

Vangons.
Wagans.

Ford_Timelord
Ford_Timelord
14 hours ago
Reply to  Mechjaz

VW had the Vanagon and was not very Wagon

Huja Shaw
Huja Shaw
19 hours ago

Square-back porn.

VanGuy
VanGuy
19 hours ago

This falls into the category of cars for cowards that can’t commit to the sheer practicality of a minivan (or, heaven forbid, a full-size van).

They don’t need a separate name. They only need shame.

Jatkat
Jatkat
19 hours ago
Reply to  VanGuy

Get out of here with your bodystyleshaming. All vehicles are beautiful. Even the incredibly awkward and hideous ones. wait.

Starhawk
Starhawk
19 hours ago

Oh, right. Why not have three categories, when two will do…? The Odyssey is a van. So is the Multipla — just designed by an artist (I’m an artist myself, so I suppose I’d know). The rest are wagons, except the Suzuki at the bottom, which is basically just a hatchback. If you want to get fancy, the Suzuki and arguably the Citroen are also city cars, but that’s about it.

You really should go back to musing about taillights, Jason… although, actually, you know what, you and David had a REALLY cool article back at Jalopnik about Chinese tiller trucks. I’d love to see an updated take on that. IIRC you’d said at the time you wanted one? I do too!

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
20 hours ago

Where does that leave the Vanagon? I realize that’s a model name and not intended as a taxanomic designation, but it’s right there.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
20 hours ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

Where does that leave the Vanagon? “

Gone.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
19 hours ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

Maybe like Jello or Kleenex it is both?

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
20 hours ago

“Personally, I think this strange, transitional category may be best represented by the Honda Civic Wagon, also known, in some markets, as the Wagovan”

Not exactly. The Civic Wagon was classified as a passenger vehicle. The Civic Wagovan was classified as a “truck”. And in other markets it was called the Honda Civic Shuttle.

I used to own a 1987 Civic Wagovan that I bought off of the person who bought it new. .During that time in Canada and the USA, you could buy a Civic Wagovan OR a Civic Wagon.

The key difference in practice?

Instead of a regular split/folding rear seat the wagon had, the Wagovan was a solid bench seat where the seat bottom flipped up and then when you put the seat back down, you got the flat floor. Also, there was a bar that went across the rear cargo area windows.

Also the Wagovan was the most basic version.

https://civicwagon.com/discussion/2164/differences-between-88-89-and-90-91-wagovans

https://civicwagon.com/discussion/9856/its-not-a-wagovan

Last edited 20 hours ago by Manwich Sandwich
LTDScott
LTDScott
18 hours ago

Beat me to the punch!

Dogisbadob
Dogisbadob
14 hours ago

that sounds like the magic seat on the modern day Fit and HR-V, right?

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
13 hours ago
Reply to  Dogisbadob

Not exactly the same.

Andrea Petersen
Andrea Petersen
20 hours ago

Speaking of pants-adjacent clothing, I pick wagon vs. van based on the skirt test. With a van, you typically step into it and lean over when you enter through the more rearward passenger doors. This means you have to smooth your skirt down behind you and try to be as modest as possible with a generally immodest entry. In a wagon, you can enter butt-first, sitting on the seat and then turning forward to pull your legs in without flashing anyone. Entry for pretty much all the wagovans above (possibly minus the Odyssey) would be done butt-first, making them wagons.

AssMatt
AssMatt
19 hours ago

Brilliant. How do you fold yourself into a BB? Nevermind, that’s probably none of our business.

Andrea Petersen
Andrea Petersen
14 hours ago
Reply to  AssMatt

I haven’t had the opportunity to find out, but I certainly wouldn’t say no! So far, the butt-first ladylike entry has only failed me on getting into the driver seat of a Pantera; the wide door sills make it challenging. The seating vs. pedal positions also make a Pantera impossible to drive with your legs together when you’re short. It’s tricky but doable in a Testarossa as well. Otherwise, the technique has worked in my Lancia, a 360 Modena, a Mondial, a Gallardo, and probably around 100 assorted Porsches.

AssMatt
AssMatt
2 hours ago

I thought I’d identified your “avacar” pic, but that’s an impressive and inspirational roster!

Andrea Petersen
Andrea Petersen
1 hour ago
Reply to  AssMatt

The Porsches are all just work cars…

Hoonicus
Hoonicus
20 hours ago

“Scrutable” Now we can all understand. Just don’t get IN it!

Dogisbadob
Dogisbadob
20 hours ago

Suzuki Aerio SX and the later SX4

The Civic Wagovan is basically a zeroth gen CR-V

Who Knows
Who Knows
20 hours ago

After seeing the Slate truck/SUV conversion ability, I’ve been wondering if it would be possible to have a similar 2 in 1 vehicle of a wagon that can convert into a van sort of thing. Probably wouldn’t be reasonable, but just making a wagovan would split the difference.

The wagovan name would probably be the most sensible name for the category, but I vote for calling them crossovers just for the fun of added confusion. Not CUV crossovers, but Crossover Wagon Vans, CWVs.

M SV
M SV
20 hours ago

The eagle summit wagon is what I think of for this category. They were strange looking and couldn’t quite figure out what was going on. Then I knew a very eccentric engineer 25 years ago that had one he bought new when his kid was born. He was upset when it dying and ended up buying more of them and various other cheap Mitsubishi and Chrysler stuff to keep a small fleet of them together and running.

Andy Individual
Andy Individual
20 hours ago

Ah, the good ol’ days when we kids would go outside and play cowboys and Indians while our parents were in the bedroom playing master and slave.

Argentine Utop
Argentine Utop
15 hours ago

Ehhhh…

SarlaccRoadster
SarlaccRoadster
20 hours ago

To me it seems the Tercel Wagon is just a regular station wagon without any van attributes, but if you include it in here, then you definitely have to also add the Citroen BX Estate, with its massive interior space that dwarfs some minivans, and its “unlimited” weight carrying capacity due to the self-levelling hydropneumatic suspension.

Nlpnt
Nlpnt
14 hours ago

Indeed, the Tercel wagon shares too much sheetmetal – the entire front clip, all four doors, dashboard, the whole seating package and (on Deluxe models) the seats themselves with the Tercel 5-door hatchback – to define it as anything but a wagon, tall roof and AWD option notwithstanding.

Last edited 14 hours ago by Nlpnt
Ford_Timelord
Ford_Timelord
14 hours ago
Reply to  Nlpnt

Close but the rear seats are different between the 2wd and 4wd on the Tercel Wagon as the 4wd has quite a different floor to hold the prop shaft.

I think having the high roof and the almost vertical rear makes it count as a wagovan.

Clupea Hangoverus
Clupea Hangoverus
1 hour ago

I think Tercel Wagon was sold as a Corolla wagon in Yurp. At least the 4wd one. So, a wagon.

Last edited 1 hour ago by Clupea Hangoverus
4jim
4jim
20 hours ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Prairie. Do not forget the weird Nissan Stanza Wagon with the sliding doors and rear removable jump seats.

Taargus Taargus
Taargus Taargus
20 hours ago

I love this category. And I love that Tercel, especially.

For more modern examples, I think of the Kia Rondo and the Prius V.

4jim
4jim
20 hours ago

Don’t forget the Nissan Stanza Wagon with the sliding doors and rear removable jump seats.

Last edited 20 hours ago by 4jim
1 2 3
107
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x