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.


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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
Whatever you call it … bring it back!
I’d suggest a sliding scale:
Wagon
Wagon with Minivan traits
MPV
Minivan with Wagon traits
Minivan.
The first gen odyssey is definitely a minivan, it just has normal car doors. The Civic Wagovan is a wagon, it just has some minivan traits, like profile and height to length ratio.
The Suzuki at the bottom is a hatchback (no d-pillar) with sliding doors.
This “Minivan has sliding doors” thing is a North America only thing. The 1984 Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager had sliding doors, and the rest of the industry eventually followed.
Here in the UK, a Mini van is the cargo van version of the BMC Mini. The Voyager isn’t a Minivan here, because it is three times the size of a Mini van. It is an MPV, and the first MPV in Europe was the Renault Espace (also 1984), and that didn’t have sliding doors. Some of its competitors over the years have had sliding doors (Voyager, Peugeot 806/807, second-gen Volkswagen Sharan), and others have had hinged doors (Ford Galaxy, first-gen Sharan). The classification is not defined by its doors.
The Fiat Multipla, Honda Civic Shuttle, Nissan Prairie and Citroën Xsara Picasso are all Mini-MPVs in Europe, along with the Renault Scénic, Volkswagen Touran, Kia Carens (Rondo), BMW 2-Series Active Tourer/Grand Tourer, Mercedes B-Class and others.
So all of these “wagovans” are either MPVs or Mini-MPVs, depending on size.
The MPV / Wagovan is much more well defined than it’s two door version, the MPC (Multi Purpose Coupe) / Shootingbreakvan / Coupéspace. So rare that I think it is a category of one, the Renault Avantime. Only one more year until I can import it.
As a former 1989 Honda Civic wagon owner and current Mazda5 owner, this is right in my wheelhouse. And… I have nothing of value to add to the discussion. 🙂
Always considered the Civic to be a wagon and the Mazda5 a minivan, both on the small side of things. Also have a Vanagon but that’s definitely a bus!
I ran into something similar when we bought the first year Kia Soul. I’ve always thought of it as a hatchback, but the registration calls it a wagon.
Gen 1 Scion xB owners in some states were pissed they were registered in the higher tax bracket of SUVs.
If there’s one thing I know about how states classify vehicles, it’s that they have no idea what they are doing.
Both answers are wrong. These are all just proto CUV/ compact crossovers.
They look the way they do, because the segment hadn’t grown enough to justify fully-differentiated body styles.
Tercel Wagon -> Corolla Cross
Honda Civic Wagon -> HRV
Mitsubishi Colt Vista -> RVR
The first gen Honda Odyssey feels like a bit of an outlier here, it was very obviously a minivan with hinged doors.
Or the Odyssey was actually an Accord wagon (even though there was a 3-year overlap with Accord wagon).
Nah, that’s mental gymnastics.
The Odyssey was specifically developed by Honda as a minivan, following a review of the American minivan market. Other than the doors, it’s always been the same concept- a flat floor, removable seats, aisle and captain’s chairs.
I guess my non-seriousness was too subtle.
You nailed it! I was thinking the whole read, “aren’t these just like, early crossovers??”
Where does the Element fit in? I think that Honda called it an SUV but I never thought of it as such.
Definitely an SUV.
The Element was based on the CR-V platform. Do you consider the CR-V to be an SUV rather than a crossover?
I like to refer to my Kia Rondo as a Wagonoid.
Also, someone who still owns a 3 row Kia Rondo (it’s just our spare car now, thank god) I resent not being included in the above graphic… kind of, a little… ok not really too much. If you drive a Rondo you get used to being ignored a lot. It’s kind of the automotive equivalent of being the awkward guy at the party that pretends to take an interest in the house plants because he’s boring and, well, awkward.
Mercedes R class also resents being excluded.
Just not that well/defined.
https://youtu.be/71UBQ_sLG58?si=nofA-ZHqD5jxVnYW
Académie Française, not wishing to accept the English loanword, coined the term for minivan: le monospace. Yet, the French speakers aren’t morally required to use this term if they incline not to do so. The alternative French words are minibus, monovolume, fourgonnette, and camionnette (the latter two are usually for describing the cargo vans).
Germans used to call the minivans with windows and passenger seats Kleinbus (small bus) but had used Minivan and Van nowadays since then.
In Hungarian, these would be called “egyterű” which means quite literally “monospace”. Thanks for reminding me of this, I almost forgot!
French also has the ludospace (called leisure activity vehicle in english), which was fist used for the civilised versions of the 1st gen Citroën Berlingo/Peugeot Partner and Renault Kangoo. The makers wanted to differentiate them from the passenger variants of their previous generations of fourgonnettes which were much closer to their utilitarian roots. The Matra-Simca Rancho can be thought as a precursor of that category. After all it derived from the Simca 1100 VF2 panel van/3-door wagon.
I would add the Renault Espace to the mix, which was pretty much the origin of the MPV concept, at least in Europe.
And the Mégane Scénic.
I’m 100% fine with “MPV” for passenger vehicles with side windows and seats, removable or not. Replace the glass with steel and leave out the seats and it’s a “van”, no “mini” necessary. When Chrysler sold minivans with steel sides and no seats, they were badged as “C/V” (for “cargo van”) or “Ram Van”, no “mini” was involved.
Yeah, MPV suffices for most cases.
Though Dodge did market the commercial Caravans with “Mini” in the name for a time early on. (though TIL digging out that brochure that Mini Ram first went on the shorter wheelbase, passenger-oriented full-size Rams then moved over to the Caravan.)
It’s all about dat ass…pect ratio. Squash a van down in length and width, but leave the vertical unaltered and presto, wagovan.. if it looks like a normal 3 of 5 door hatch top down, and oddly tall in profile you’re probably looking at a wagovan.
Nissan Axxess has entered the chat…
Kia Rondo is hosting.
Chevrolet Orlando has signed out.
Mitsubishi Expo is trying to find its AOL CD.
That Mazda MPV reminded me of an old friend, he didn’t own a car so he used his famliy car which was the MPV, he was so apologetic and ashamed that they have this car instead of something more expansive, i tried to tell him nothing wrong with the car but he will not hear it!
It’s kind like a hummingbird hawk-moth. In flight, it looks like a little hummingbird, acts like one, flying from flower to flower on the hover. But whatever its function, it’s still very much an insect.
Taxonomies help, but with all respect to the rich people in Zug, a définition should involve the “what it was to be” (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) the thing, along with a healthy understanding of the legal, social, and artistic constellation that birthed it. Manwich Sandwich and Argentine UTOP both point at what’s going on. In the US, station wagons counted as cars for safety regulations. Making a station-wagon-like thing that counted as a truck initially brought huge advantages, hence the minivan. You can see where SUVs become the next evolutionary step, basically truckifying a sedan. CUVs are sedans and hatchbacks that mimic the SUV without becoming trucks. Something analogous to the CUV, the Wagovan is a wagon that has been pulled towards Minivan, but retains its legal definition as a car.
Next time you’re at the summer meeting in Zug, and the debate gets heated, step out on the terrace before the rösti takes flight. Maybe you’ll find a moth and with it, the wisdom to solve the problem.
Upvote for the Greek reference… something that I could read and understand as it was my first language at home in the States.
For me, a Minivan is a narrower term than what Torch suggests. Even when they came in long- and short-wheelbase varieties, they were all Big vehicles, and they continue to be. You can walk around the cabin with only a moderate scrunch if you’re an adult, and freely if you’re a child. It is wide enough that if your two currently-fighting kids are both in captain’s chairs in the same row, they still have to reach a bit to hit each other. If you fold, drop or remove the third row, it is huuuge back there.
There’s a Mazda MPV that parks a block down from me, along with a couple of new and old minivans. The difference is obvious. Like the difference between a frunk full of 16-20 per pound Jumbo Shrimp and 20-26 per pound Large Shrimp. Just estimating, the MPV is a few inches shorter, several inches narrower, probably a foot shorter or more. (Than the minivan, not the shrimp.) Maybe eighteen inches. It has only two seating rows.
It is also is damn near perfect for so many things. My big dog would be super comfortable in back. The loading floor is low. You could find a parking space for it easily. It has great visibility. It’s not as roomy as a minivan, but far roomier than any sedan. If it were updated to have a modern drivetrain, reliability and safety, it is the form factor I would buy.
“Wagovan” always amuses me as one end of the “wagon-van” naming spectrum. The other end is “Vanagon,” which is neither van or wagon, but bus; yet named after both.
I remember the evolution of the Colt Vista: the Mitsubishi/Colt Expo. I thought they were good looking and for a brief time I wanted one, the short wheelbase version.
There was also one branded the Eagle…something. Summit?! A friend’s mom had one.
Much like the Honda Ruckus, quark-gluon plasma and Björk, you can’t just put cars like this into one category. It does them a disservice. Up yours marketing department!
Late to the show. My $0.02:
Wagons are eminently based on sedans or hatchbacks, and share all body panels until pillar C (or B in some cases) sans the roof.
Vans can (and do) share sedan platforms and alter the proportions of the body to optimize inner space, mostly by sitting people a bit higher and perhaps closer to the engine (to be discussed).
The real grey zone lies in the cases when a sedan platform is used, the seating position remains similar to a sedan, but with a taller body. Thus, whether the rear doors slide or swing open is entirely inimical, because the pivotal point is the distance between engine and front seats. It is written.
Much later to the show, I wrote something similar. If we ignore size and look at form, I think we can understand what a “van” is and determine if some of these things are just small vans.
My argument added that some of them (again based on form) were clearly enlarged hatchbacks (maybe pushing wagon status) and not vans. As you said, taking a civic and making it bigger doesn’t make a CRV a van, just like taking a Suburban and making it smaller doesn’t make it a van. Van is a different thing, fundamentally, even if putting sliding doors on a CRV or Suburban would make them functionally much like a van.
Though they don’t have the charming vehicle names of the cars listed, i believe the Ford C-max and Prius 5 fit into this category as more contemporary examples
C-Max is a good cite. From a distance, they look almost like a Focus, but up close, the more awkward elongatedness of the genre becomes apparent.
+1 yeah the C-Max is a good fit!
The Mercedes R-Class is in this category too. Three rows of seats, but conventional opening doors and more wagon-esque styling. Plus the fact that you could get an R63 with a 6.2L V8 is bonkers in the best way possible.
Whenever we saw a Ford flex or Honda Element my kids used to call them weirdo mobiles.
Weirdo mobile is the correct name.
The world needs more weirdos!