The Toyota Century SUV Is Definitely Probably A Van: COTD

It’s exciting to see how automakers play around with car classes. It could be argued that crossovers are just tall wagons and hatchbacks. Meanwhile, you can buy trucks on car platforms and cars that call themselves trucks. Oh, and don’t forget commercial trucks that call themselves pickups.

Toyota has been getting pretty funky with its cars lately. The new Toyota Crown debuted as a “lifted sedan” but Toyota now calls it a crossover. Today, we have the new Toyota Century SUV. Only, Jason thinks it’s a van. Look, I won’t go through Jason’s logic, so I’ll just paste it:

• There’s two categories of van: Van by Design and Van by Job. Van by Design has specific proportions (one box or one and a stubby box, large height to length ratio) and Van by Job vans can start life as cars that are not vans.

• A hatchback, station wagon, crossover, SUV or pickup truck can become a cargo Van by Job if the interior is converted to cargo use, side windows removed, or other body modifications made.

• A passenger Van by Design (i.e. upright, one-box, etc.) does not need sliding doors.

• A passenger Van by Job (one that doesn’t look upright, one-box, etc.) must have sliding doors as part of its conversion process to be a van.

So is the Century SUV a van? After reading Canopysaurus’ comment, I am convinced:

There’s no denying the vanity of the Toyota Century.

Just to throw a wrench into this madness, here are two tiny cars with sliding doors:

For a second nomination, V10omous has been laying down some great comments lately. Today’s comment in today’s British Shitbox Showdown got me:

*puts flame suit on*

*puts another one on over the first*

*goes to a deserted island in the middle of the ocean*

*whispers*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I don’t hate the wheels on the MG.

The replies really delivered, too:

StillNotATony

You.

Out.

Sensual Bugling Elk

It’s a frosty morning in my neck of the woods, so thanks for being considerate and dropping a take hot enough to keep me warm out there.

Between the wheels and the lounge-looking seats, I think the seller was going for a 60s Cadillac, But Shrunk in the Wash look. Which…isn’t the worst thing you can do to a relatively common old car?

And to be fair, I’d way rather buy from a seller who has clearly spent a lot of money on both upkeep and executing a strange aesthetic, rather than from a seller who has spent time and money on neither.

To be clear, you’re still not right. But you’re not that wrong.

V10omous

To be clear, you’re still not right. But you’re not that wrong.

This is really what I shoot for with most of my comments.

Have a great evening everyone!