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.
Agreed. Let it henceforth be named.
Where does the Honda Element fall on this? It is more van-like than crossover-like in its shape and proportions. I feel like it should be an honorary wagovan.
It’s a crossover. One of the most charming and unique, mind you! But a crossover.
Sorry, I got interrupted and this site has a pretty short timer on being able to make edits/corrections to the original post.
So, what I meant to fully say:
I never saw examples of the Mitsu or the Suzuki. I have seen examples of all the other MPVs. I owned an ’84 Tercel SR5 4×4 and while a bit underpowered, it was a blast to drive, especially on snow. The lever you could pull to engage the rear axle and then the “granny gear” that was then available in what was an otherwise 5-speed gearbox were so endearing. I haven’t really researched it, but I’m sure that many people managed to get one of those in far more treacherous situations than I did and then lived to tell about it.
A 2003 CR-V that replaced a Jeep GC was also very adept.
The first Gen Honda Odyssey, to me, is the ultimate illustration for the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on the subject.
ohh yes. The Tercel 4wds got around some great videos on youtube. other reports of people driving them to the top of Alaska and they even competed in the 1983 and 1984 Paris – Dakar in stock condition!
Yes. It was one of my favorites. I didn’t know about them doing the Paris to Dakar, but it is really fun to learn that. It was a really fun car to stumble into on during my time on Earth. To get enough money to put the initial down payment on a house in a more expensive market than I had moved from, I had to sell a Toyota pickup truck, that hadn’t depreciated as much as it perhaps should have. But I still needed to get to work and back. And that’s what I found. I sold the truck for $11,000 and bought the Tercel for $1,800. And then sold it for $1,200 a couple of years later.
It was a commuter car, and I don’t remember the odometer readings at purchase and sale. I didn’t put a LOT of miles on it, but it was a reliable (and unstoppable in the snow) conveyance. And really a lot of fun to drive.
It ranks right up there with a ’71 Peugeot 504 I bought used with 60K on the clock for $1500 and got $900 back when an idiot in a Plymouth Fury wagon plowed into it at a stoplight at 35 mph, eight years and 90K miles later.
Now I’ve got to find those YouTube videos and then weep that I don’t still have it. Thanks for the heads up on those!
(Guy with Toyota Matrix raises hand…)
Um, “mini-wagon,” akin to “minivan,” is right there.
And the Pontiac Vibe clone may have been the best thing GM ever manufactured.
I never saw examples of the Mitsu or the Suzuki. I have seen examples of all the other MPVs. I owned an ’84 Tercel and while a bit underpowered, it was a blast to drive, especially on snow. The lever you could pull to engage the rear axle and then the “granny gear” you could engage in what was an otherwise 5-speed gearbox was so endearing. A 2002 CR-V that replaced a Jeep GC was also very adept.
The first Gen Honda Odyssey, to me, is the ultimate illustration for the Encyclopædia Britannica on the subject.
Yup.
The thing about taxonomy (of living things, that is) is that it began as simple categorizing of visible features, then got much more granular and ever-changing as science advanced. Kind of the same thing here- not that the “science” of categorizing cars changes, but, as they “evolve” much more quickly than living things, the target moves.
I’m gonna say that a lot of these are proto-crossovers. Think about it- tallish wagons with optional 4/AWD. Hell, you can make a crossover out of a minivan (Aztec/Rendezvous). Not convinced? Ask yourself this: what’s more of a crossover – a 4WD Civic Wagovan or a 2WD only Chevy Trax?
I’m not saying that Wagovan don’t deserve their own little category- just that it seems obvious where they lie on the family tree.
In Japan, they simply call them tall boy wagons.
I daily drive a 91 Civic wagon (brown) so I’ll chime in. I consider it in the same category as any other wagon. The roof line really isn’t all that high, at least compared to some of the other cars listed. Wagovan was a trim level, the lowest trim with vinyl seats and not much else. The rules for the wagon category are already confusing enough, I don’t think we need another category.
Odyssey: minivan
Multipla: hatchback
Colt: wagon
Stanza wagon: wagon
Tercel wagon: wagon
Xara picasso: hatchback
Alto sideslim: hatchback
edit: Mazda 5: wagon
sliding doors do not make the minivan, to me.
Oooh, I like Mazda 5, but just the shape of it would keep me from thinking of it as a wagon. It’s more like a scaled down van IMO.
I would also like to draw Jason’s attention to the Daihatsu Pyzar (sold as the Daihatsu Grand Move in export markets). A modern version of the Colt Vista; just marginally too tall to comfortably be called a station wagon. All the car 95% of users actually need.
I feel that the biggest differentiator between a Wagon and a Wagovan is simply the proportions. The Wagovans have way more headroom than you’d get in a wagon. It comes out in the glass-to-door ratio, etc.
Hmmm… makes sense. 🙂
The MPV segment is pretty well defined in Europe – take a normal family hatchback, upsize it slightly, and give it a high roof. Some good examples are the Ford Galaxy and Toyota Picnic.
Big NO on the WagoVan designation. But nice to see a Volvo 245 Turbo ‘Flying Brick’ used as the wagon archetype.
A friend of mine came up with these distinctions 20+ years ago. Minivans are not mini, but the name continues. Anything smaller than that (like my old Colt Vista-except mine was an Eagle branded version WITH a sliding door) is a “Micro-minivan”. Smaller than that but still van-shaped becomes a “Nano-van”
Friends in Austin, same Era 2003ish called their Tercel a nano-van, they replaced it with a Protege 5, so definitely pre 2004
My guy had friends who called their car that, so I don’t know who it was exactly. I thought he’d said it was a Geo Metro or something, but I’m happy to believe it was the same people with the Tercel, just for the sake of kismet.
PEUGEOT 307 SW, to my knowledge, is the only mid-size 7-seater estate car with five separate MPV-style rear seats (derived from the Citroën Xsara Picasso).
https://www.autonews.fr/photo/a,111,peugeot-307-sw,3.html
Sliding door feels crucial to me, otherwise we’re just talking about wagon variants.
Nah, there must be room for the original Mitsubishi Chariot/Space Wagon/Plymouth Colt Vista.
There’s no limit to the number of wagons, there is plenty of room for the Colt Vista amongst its wagon peers. That’s why it was called the “Colt Vista Wagon 3D.”
We also need to address the issue of fake wood on the flanks. Does this exclude a vehicle from the wagovan category?
Why should it? Woodie vans and woodie wagons both exist already.
I would say a PT cruiser (with or without woodgrain) qualifies as one.
My mom bought a new Colt Vista Wagon (’84? 86?) back in my high school days. “Odd” is a good description, including such weirdness as a “five-speed” manual transmission that was actually a four-gear transmission with an electrically-operated overdrive. Not big enough, underpowered for CO passes, and just a little off-kilter compared to other DSM efforts. Somebody oughta get DeMuro to review one — the quirks were everywhere.
I have to point out that the Cost Vista was not actually a DSM effort. Diamond-Star Motors was the joint venture between Chrysler and Mitsubishi that got started building the Eclipse, Laser & Talon in Normal, Illinois. This initiative is often conflated with cars like the Colts (including the Vista), Conquest and Ram 50 which were simply rebadged Mitsubishis, build in Japan in Mitsubishi factories. The term “DSM” really only refers to the Illinois-built joint venture cars.
Ok, so not DSM. I stand corrected, on the internet.
It was still a weird car, though.
Sadly, I have nothing to contribute to this vital work, but that’s likely due to the fact that I haven’t had my usual amount of coffee this morning.
But I did want to post simply to say that that silver Volvo 240 wagon pictured above (aka “Volvo 245” until later in the model’s impressive 19-year-long run) is simply lovely. The wagon shape of it is just so right, and beholding it actually provides a perceptible little jolt of joy. 🙂
Most sources say the Volvo 200 series was made from 1974 to 1993, and (I think) both the sedan and wagon were available for that full duration. The coupe version had a slightly shorter run. Even though the more modern and rectilinear 700 series was intended to replace the 200 series, Volvo just kept making the 200 series (just called 240s in the later years) even past the end of the 700’s run, since they were still popular and selling. I think they made about 2.8 million of them worldwide, which is a fair bit.
I’ve overdosed on Volvo 200 series videos on Youtube, of which there are a lot. I’ve contentedly sat through half-hour-long reviews presented without a word of English, and never been bored. Though I like and see the appeal of all versions: sedan, coupe, and wagon, were I to buy one for myself, it’d probably wind up being the wagon since I like to drag stuff home even though my back is beyond shot now.
My current daily is an ’04 Volvo XC90 which I bought on a whim one morning while perusing the local Craigslist ads over coffee. I’d never had a SUV before, let alone a 3-row one, and only one Volvo (a 700 series sedan, maybe it was a 760 Turbo, but oddly I can’t recall clearly) which I liked but didn’t have strong feelings about. But the advertised XC90 was nearby, and single-owner, so I went to go see it in Silver Lake (kind of next to Hollywood almost). I looked in and under the car (which had about 130Kmiles on it) and test drove it, and bought it on the spot. It’s been pretty great in the 5 years since, with the exception of mediocre MPG (common to plenty of older Volvos) and so-so seat leather/headliner glue (but to be fair, few 20+ year old cars excel in those areas, plus 90% of my driving is around town). Also, I’ve had a CEL related to a evap system leak, which is probably (hopefully) just a hose, but of course, rubber hoses get brittle after a couple decades of heat cycles, so I can’t really fault it for that.
I’ve been contemplating either getting a newer XC90 (it was Volvo’s first-ever SUV, and also had a pretty long run) with one more cylinder and all wheel drive this time (and in a nicer color too) OR trying to find a nice, clean 240 wagon (aka called 245 some years) with a manual and maybe air conditioning too. But nice manual ones with less than a half-million miles on them aren’t super-common, and tend to be closer to $10K (or more) than to $5K these days (post pandemic). I’ve ridden in but never driven a 240 myself, so that’s on my list too.
Sorry for the tangent, but even that simple profile image of a silver wagon, which is barely an inch long on my screen, just reminded me of how much I like them. 🙂
MPV is what they call minivans in the rest of the world.
I do like Wagovan though.
Don’t forget the 2007-2010 Kia Rondo. Like the 1st generation Honda Odyssey it had conventional doors and minivan proportions.
I knew someone who owned one. Ugly but versatile.
And then there’s this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_D1
The photos don’t really convey how small it is. Normally, it wouldn’t enter the van discussion…but SLIDING DOORS!
You mean … sliding door? Looks like one rear door slides, the other hinges? Anyhow, sliding doors are the way … why WHY aren’t all back doors sliding??
I’m going to wade into the argument with a simple axiom: no sliding doors = wagon (and conversely, sliding doors = minivan). What it’s based on is irrelevant.
Mazda Protege5: based on Protege, hinged doors => wagon
Mazda Mazda5: based on Mazda3, sliding doors => minivan.
With the advent of the minivan, I think we need to further classify by size. Therefore, a Mazda5 would be a microvan.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Protege5 is a hatchback.
See, now, I think what we really need to be discussing is the difference between a hatchback and a small wagon. Kia, for instance, is calling their new small wagon a “hatch” even though it is clearly, like the Protege5, a small wagon.
The Protege5 is sort of in between, like “when you can only make one extra body.” It’s a little shorter than the sedan, it’s not quite as boxy or upright as a traditional wagon would be, but not as raked as a fast/liftback either.
The K4 is thoroughly a hatch though, in the vein of a Focus sedan vs. hatch. It’s nearly a foot shorter than the K4 sedan, a wagon is typically similar in length to its sedan counterpart.
So by that measure, is the Lexus IS300 Sportcross a wagon or a hatchback?
How about the Cadillac CTS Wagon?
Or the Malibu MAXX?
Because they’re the same idea.
To me the first two are wagons – the last is a hatchback.
They aren’t the same idea unless you’re focusing on just the rake part. Traditional wagon isn’t an absolute for every wagon. I’d put the length as an indicator first, which I mentioned first. And the IS and CTS are both the same length as their sedan counterparts. An inch or two shorter may not mean much but once you get into several inches (5 in the Mazda’s case) that changes things.
I say hatch for the Mazda, but think it fits in the wagon category about as well too (roof racks were standard in our market for example). But starting from the 3 it moved more firmly into the hatch category.
The D-pillar clearly indicates it is a wagon, sir.
Protege5 is a wagon.
Astina is a hatchback.
(With pop-up headlights)
I think what makes a Wagon a Wagon is that it’s 85% sedan – but instead of a trunk and backlight, it has a longer roof and some arrangement of tailgate.
The WagoVan is interesting – So the Ford Flex, Lincoln MKT (I think?) and Hyundai Palisade (Which they call an SUV) are a WagoVans, but the Kia Carnival is a Minivan, even tho they call it an MPV. And the Lucid Gravity, even tho it’s billed as an SUV – is a WagoVan – whereas the Hyundai Ioniq 5, which is billed as an SUV is really just a Hatchback, because it’s not even tall!
!This. How about “in order for it to be a wagon, there must be a sedan (or coupe) with the same front (clip)”. Also, name a “true” wagon with sliding doors.
I think the note on the “stubby hood” of a minivan adds up with the thought I had on the rear overhang of the volvo wagon being much longer than the caravan-
I think if we classified what makes a van, we’d say stubby hood (often with engines very tight to the firewall or partially inside the cabin) is a key feature that shouts “van” (there are exceptions to the form, of course).
Likewise, vans (and in particular minivans) tend to have fairly short rear overhangs – more like a hatchback than a wagon.
So I would make the argument that many of these are more mini-minivan than wagon. And the gray area is that some are more like embiggened hatchbacks.
Mazda was still heavy into the 3 character alphanumeric names when the MPV came out, so I bet it felt like a clever way to use the official USA classification and separate it from other unimaginatively named vans here like Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. But then that’s exactly how the name MPV sounded in global markets where that was the common term.