Like many of you, I just read about Toyota’s new hyperswank Century SUV on some weird car-fetish website, and like (I suspect) a lot of you, one particular detail of the car really grabbed my attention by its attention-privates: the optional sliding door. A sliding door makes a lot of sense for a car like this, something that’s built to keep excellency has been installed in that back seat as happy as possible. So, you want a nice, wide-opening door, and you want to be able to open that door nice and wide wherever you may be, even in a tight parking spot. A sliding door fits the bill incredibly well. It also introduces a fascinating taxonomical problem: Does that make this Toyota Century SUV a minivan? Let’s dig into this a bit.
First, it’s worth noting that this new Century is called an SUV and is built on the same basic platform as the Highlander and Camry. Well, it’s also the same platform (TNGA-K) as the Toyota Sienna minivan, so maybe that’s not really useful information for us. I think more interesting is the fact that the sliding door is optional, as there are versions with it:
…and without it:
Interestingly, it’s not the first car to offer both swing-out or sliding doors on the same model; VW did that back in 1966 and 1967 on the Type 2 Microbus. Microbuses normally came with a pair of conventionally-opening doors on the side, but for those two years you could specify one or two sliding doors, though they became standard on the 1968 Type 2 redesign. Here, look for yourself:
Now, here’s where things get weird: When the Century SUV is spec’d with the sliding door, which they call the GR version, does it become sort of a minivan? (Or simply a van, because it’s hardly mini).
It’s a more complex question than you’d think, at least in part because I don’t think sliding doors are necessary for van-hood. There are plenty of uncontested vans that never had sliding doors:
So it’s not just that. But sliding doors are a factor in vanhood. The problem is that determining what is and isn’t a van is wildly complex. Let all the mental lightweights wrestle with good and evil and free will like babies, we’re here to figure what are vans and what aren’t vans.
I’ve tackled this before at the old site, and I still stand by those rules, but I’ll be the first to admit they’re strangely blurry. There’s a fundamental concept that has to be understood for vanhood, I think, and that’s the concept that vans can be one of two basic categories: 1. van by design and 2. van by job.
A van by design is a van that is designated according to certain general proportions and parameters: 1. a one-box or 2. a one-big-one-small two-box design where the height of the body is taller, relative to length, than other vehicles — basically a big ol’ box that may or may not have a stubby hood. (this is the archetypal van).
A van by job is a van that started life as some other sort of vehicle but has been converted to van duties — something that is most commonly accomplished by removing all passenger comforts behind the front seats, including side windows, and the purpose of the car becomes a cargo-hauler instead of a people-hauler. Consider the Fiat Panda van or the VW Polo van:
Another example of this is how the Chevy HHR, a small crossover/station wagon, can become a van:
So, here, vanhood is granted because of some (sometimes significant) physical changes and, importantly, intent. They’re still vans, but they don’t necessarily have the physical characteristics of a van by design. But they’re vans, because that was always the job they were intended to fill.
So how does this relate to the Toyota Century SUV? Well, okay, hear me out. This is where the sliding door comes into play. Let’s look at a strange example of a van, the Nissan NV-series.
I’ve never really been a fan of the NV vans because I always thought they had too much hood for their own good. When it comes to delivery vans, a long hood is a liability, because it’s just length that you can’t use to haul stuff, yet you still have to park it in regular-sized parking places and so on.
The reason the hood is so stupidly long is because the NV is a sort of secret Van by Job, being adapted from the Nissan Titan pickup truck.
Now, you’ll note that there is an NV passenger version, and it has sliding doors for the passengers. There is also a Nissan Armada, which is the SUV based on the same Titan platform. So, really, we have two passenger-carrying versions of this same basic car, one classified as a van, one as an SUV.
So what’s the difference, really? There are clear design differences, sure: the NV has a more upright windshield and a boxier body, but it’s not like the difference is really that vast. Look at the difference in windshield rakes up there; it looks different, but it’s really pretty subtle.
What is a big difference is that the NV has a sliding door for the passengers, and the SUV Armada has conventional swing-out doors. And I think this may be a differentiating factor in this specific case.
Here’s what I think the rule is: for a given Van by Job-type of passenger van, the primary differentiating factor between being a van or just an SUV or crossover or station wagon is the presence or absence of sliding doors. Sliding doors are not a requirement for a Van by Design-type van, passenger or otherwise, or any cargo-focused van, but it is the key differentiator between a passenger vehicle like an SUV or station wagon and a passenger van. A Ford Flex, for example, is not a passenger van. But a Flex with a sliding door would be a van.
Does this make sense? This means, that, according to my criteria, the Toyota Century SUV GR is a van.
And what are those criteria? Let’s recap:
• 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
Deal with it, Toyota. You just made an amazing luxury van. Revel in it.
What do you think? Am I off base with this taxonomy? This is a tricky one, so I’m really curious to hear the input from the Universe’s Smartest Auto Site Commenters. I mean it!
Is the Kaiser Darrin a van as well? I think the crossover shape and separated cargo area take it just a little too far from vanhood, although it’s at least worthy of beloved van cousin status or something.
The only question that really matters is whether the front passenger seatback folds down so the big guy in back can stretch his legs out. I’ve had that experience in Tokyo and it’s sublime.
But also, what’s with that weird color. Why are we suddenly beset with these pearl or eggshell finishes that take a color – in this case some kind of green? – and run a bunch of grey through it? I blame the vanlifers.
Diogenes bursts in holding a Toyota Century: “Behold! A van!”
Son of a bitch. He stole my line.
What a cynical comment.
The saga continues.
Chapter 1 – what’s a coupe or not?
Chapter 2 – what’s a station wagon or not?
now, Chapter 3 – what’s a van or not?
next, Chapter 4 – Ceci n’est pas une pipe
As an aside, I have never seen one of those Panda vans, very cool. It actually looks like there is probably a panda locked up in there. I wonder what panda prison it’s being taken off to and for how long? I wonder what it did wrong to deserve it’s sentence.
It’s a luxury sport utility van. Although it is extremely difficult to call something that horrifically ugly “luxury” anything. Toyota designers are really terrible but they still know how to keep the koolaid drinking fanboy/girls coming back for more.
Let’s start with the definition of “van” from Merriam-Webster:
1
a: a usually enclosed wagon or motortruck used for transportation of goods or animals
also : CARAVAN sense 2a
b: a multipurpose enclosed motor vehicle having a boxlike shape, rear or side doors, and side panels often with windows
c: a detachable passenger cabin transportable by aircraft or truck
I don’t think the Century thingy meets any of these definitions. Not for transporting animals, definitely not box-like and not a detachable passenger cabin. It doesn’t resemble any of the vehicles that we would normally associate with being vans. So, to my way of thinking: not a van
Last week the Uber I took in Sao Paulo, Brazil was a BYD D1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_D1
The pictures in the Wikipedia article are misleading in that the vehicle is much smaller than it looks there. It has passenger seats with good legroom but almost no trunk and definitely no space for a third row.
Yet, van?
You say it’s smaller than it looks (which I rather liken to a Prius) and that it has hardly any storage. Given that, then I would say not a van.
More importantly, this is from BYD, so I’d be very interested in your experience with & impressions of the vehicle. How were the materials? The ride? Did it feel like it’ll still be around in a year? How about 5 years? Did you talk to the owner/driver about it?
It was a very short Uber ride (about 10 minutes), but my impressions were that it would be a very good city EV. Per the Wikipedia article linked in my first post, it was developed exclusively for Uber drivers and such – and for that it’s a great car.
Per the website https://www.byd.com.br/d1/ it starts at R$ 270k which is ton of money for the average Brazilian uber driver, so I wonder if this one was a rental or if there are other incentives or breaks to get them out there.
The quality seemed good – I did not have any negative impressions. The ride quality seemed no different than the myriad of small cars that serve as Ubers in Brazil. The interior was clean and minimalist in that modern EV way.
The rear seats were set back from the front seats a bit more than in a normal car so there was a ton of legroom, which contributed to what I felt was a very small trunk. So if the seats were forward in a “normal” position, you’d probably have the trunk size of normal small hatchback.
The floor was not carpet – it was a hard surface that seemed grippy but not sticky. I don’t know if that’s standard or added by the driver/owner.
I tried to engage the driver in conversation but he wasn’t very talkative. He just answered my broken Portuguese enough to confirm it was an EV.
I didn’t see anything that would convince me this car was any less durable than the thousands of ICE compact cars. Of course, riding in it for 10 minutes didn’t give me any indications of battery life or durability.
Overall my impression of this car was that it was a nice little EV, which would be perfect for the urban family of 3-4 in the US that would not catch on because it combines the small size of a compact with the doors (and thus image) of a minivan (which in my opinion was the best part).
Thanks: I appreciate the comprehensive reply especially given the short ride
I don’t think door hinge style has much, if anything, to do with whether something is a van, otherwise the Peugeot 1007 would be a van and the Mazda MPV would be something else besides a minivan.
+1, the original Honda Odyssey is my marker for “minivan without sliders.”
I was scanning the comments to see if anyone was going to mention the 1007. I was relishing another opportunity at being a smart-arse since no-one else seems to remember the absolute monstrosity. Oh well!
I think you’ve missed something in not examining proportions. I say this isn’t a real van at all; look at Toyota’s Alphard and how much more of the vehicle is dedicated to passenger volume and not hood length. Even in the case of a long hood, like the Aurus Arsenal, the rest of the cabin is so hilariously long and oversized that makes it a real van.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ob%C3%A8ques_Pr%C3%A9sident_Chirac_30_IX_2019_-_Paris_%2848820327793%29.jpg
The Century is a fancy CUV at best; adding sliding doors (edit: swinging, because there’s no rail) does not magically make a Lexus TX into a minivan.
There’s no denying the vanity of the Toyota Century.
COTD
I second this.
third
Have to say you made a losing case for an argument that doesn’t exist. Is it a Van or an SUV? No one cares. Is it a minivan or an SUV? The MINI and the marketing is what put it in soccer mom not a manly SUV category. And it was a tremendous success. But people say oh it is sexist to call it a mom or chick car so they are forcing a round peg in a square hole. Call it a sport van no problem. It is what happened to pickups. Canyonaro big beefy manly, no more small pickups. Frankly sliding doors are even better for side cargo loading than robust passengers. But this beast is not mini it will appeal to men so long as we don’t insist on pushing the petite dainty anti-male title. I wish Beau would hold a few business/marketing classes for the staff. As a successful business person he could really help the site get the psychological aspects of life.
For the record, I care, as I am a pedant.
I’m ignoring the rest of that whargarble.
Do the Venza next. Station wagon? SUV? Sports Utility Wagon™?
I’m leaning towards wagon with unusually large wheels.
This is a minivan. If the passenger version of a vehicle can be equipped with sliding doors, then even the hinged rear door version is a minivan. It’s just a poorly executed minivan because you’ve lost the sliding doors.
The intent is especially important here because the Century is a car to be driven in. Everything is geared towards the needs and comfort of the passengers, and the driver is more of an afterthought. You know what other vehicle has always been done in that passenger-centric style? Minivans. There are no driver’s minivans. They are built around carrying passengers and their shit above everything else. Sure you can have a comfy front seat and nice ergonomics, but that is always secondary to its practical applications. Parents want something that the older kids can get in and out of independently while having plenty of space for the absurd amount of shit that their babies need*. That’s what you buy the minivan for.
*There’s something to be said for not giving in to excessive consumerism and traveling lighter, but that’s another conversation.
Shouldn’t a van be design be, ya know, designed to do van things?
The design of a passenger van is to hold a bunch of people. This doesn’t do that, it holds less people than the highlander or whichever
On the contrary, the design of a passenger van is to have the maximum amount of space with which to carry people. The Century van, as with something like the Lexus LM, is designed for the maximum amount of space for its rear seat passengers. However, it’s designed for two of them to have maximum comfort, instead of five passengers to have reasonable comfort.
Noone heard of a work van? I’ve owned a few. I never heard of a work SUV. People VS cargo doesn’t matter. If it does vans started and are definitely far more cargo than SUV. AND IT AINT VAN ITS MINIVAN THAT CAUSED THE LOW SALES MAN DRIVER.
Yep, time to pick out the Prog Rock album cover you want to airbrush on the side!
☐ Awaken the Guardian
☐ Fly By Night
☐ Keeper of the Seven Keys, Part I
☑ Seventh Son of a Seventh Son
☐ Hall of the Mountain King
Fly by Night gets my vote. Love that owl.
I feel like if you’re going to paint a prog album on the side of a van Rush just makes the most sense
Epitaph or
Wizards and Demons (been on a big Uriah Heep kick for weeks now:killer driving music)
Your lack of any of Roger Dean’s Yes album covers disturbs me.
You’re right, that’s quite the omission
Would Supertramp be too on the nose?
Lateralus. Alex Grey, can paint my van any day.
Wikipedia: A sport utility vehicle (SUV) is a car classification that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles, such as raised ground clearance and four-wheel drive.
Considering its low ride height I don’t think it’s an SUV. This isn’t the Land Rover version of a luxury SUV with off-road intentions. It may kind of have 4WD but it’s not really intended to leave pavement. There is no Sport in this Utility Vehicle. It’s a van.
I mean, KIA, very intelligently, gave the Carnival a truck face, and nobody’s saying that’s an SUV. I think Toyota did the same. Also, if we’re being real, the Highlander and its brethren are minivans, just made worse for the sake of not looking van, so yes. it’s King Van.
I’m with Jason, doors don’t matter.
A modern passenger van (8 person or less) by design must have a floor as low as possible with easy ingress.
Body on frame, these days, sends it into the SUV camp.
And, Chevy should have only sold the HHR in cargo form. It was a great callback to the old small panel vans. It looked so much better than the 4 door passenger version.
You floated to the party like a corpulant land yacht
Sliding doors declare you are a van
But some said that you were not
Your big old nose says SUV but that is all you’ve got
Highlanders and Camrys all dream that they
Would be Centurys and
You’re so van
You probably think this song is about you
You’re so van
I bet you think this song is about you
Don’t you don’t you?
•golf clap•
Okay, this is beautiful. Thank you
Insert “Porque No los Dos?” animated gif here.
Also where does the VPG MV-1 stand on the Van scale?
How does it compare in van-ness to the Noah/Voxy?
My criteria for van-hood is pretty simple: Does the enclosed cargo area extend (or is easily convertible to extend) with an unbroken floor to the back of the front row of seats? If yes, then van.
Bonus if you can lay a pipe from the back doors to the engine cover!
Past the engine cover to the dash.
I’d have to pontificate longer before I could give this my full support, but at a glance, this sounds like a really useful, easy criteria
Thank you for not falling into the overly simplistic “sliding doors = van” trap. Any discussion of sliding doors in taxonomy has to take the Peugeot 1007 into account. If we state that sliding doors do a van make, then we have to consider this subcompact a van, a statement I cannot endorse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Peugeot_1007_%E2%80%93_Heckansicht%2C_31._M%C3%A4rz_2012%2C_Hilden.jpg
Well, maybe that’s not a full van, or even a minivan, but it’s at least a va.
Perhaps, but the Nova is still no van.
Geez! I don’t even know what you would classify that as. “Compact van” is a descriptor I’d use for a Transit Connect or other small cargo vehicle, but that is clearly not a cargo vehicle. But it’s very boxy. Does “MPV” apply? “Compact car”? Damn
Someone who is more informed on the minutiae can correct me here if needed, but after a quick Wiki reading, I believe the Chevy Express is about as closely related to the Silverado and Suburban as the NV is to the Titan/Armada. They both share heavily modified platforms and powertrains. And the passenger Express doesn’t have a sliding door, possibly because it’s been on sale since before the sliding door was invented.
So either the Express passenger isn’t a van, or the criteria for Van by Design vs Van by Job need revised.
The 80’s-90’s Dodge passenger and cargo “Ram Vans” also fit into this category. The Ford E-Series vans also came with either twin hinged doors or single slider, depending on spec. All of these vehicles should be considered vans, imo
Yes, but I think the argument would be that since there was no SUV built on those platforms they could be considered “Vans by Design” and be exempt. The Suburban existing on the same platform as the Express is IMO the example that breaks this definition.
The NV/Titan/Armada all share the same basic front end. The Express front end is completely different than the Silverado/Suburban. The stubby front end clearly makes the Express a Van By Design.
But it’s still a van-by-design because of how those platforms have been modified.
The Nissan NV has a big ol’ snout because the platform hasn’t been modified for maximum van. The passengers sit roughly where they would if it was just a truck.
The Express, meanwhile, changes the configuration in order to make it more of a van. The passenger compartment is much closer to the front than it is in a Silverado – you’re basically right beside the engine – and a bunch of hard points are moved around and so on. It shares bits and pieces, but it’s a fundamentally different type of vehicle by the way it’s put together. Van-by-design, the source of many components is irrelevant.