As someone who’s not a car enthusiast, it seems that US automakers in general have painted themselves into a corner by incorrectly responding to declining revenue. Instead of boosting sales with...
As someone who’s not a car enthusiast, it seems that US automakers in general have painted themselves into a corner by incorrectly responding to declining revenue. Instead of boosting sales with healthy spread of models to acommodate for a wide variety of different customers/needs, they’ve trimmed away everything but their most expensive, highest margin models in hopes of that making up the difference and let foreign companies fill the holes left behind. Chrysler just happens to be the most severe case.
I was recently in the market (and will be again in about a year when my lease has come to an end) and I can’t tell you how much I wish it looked the way it did back in the early-mid 2000s. The choices have been boiled down to basic sedan, SUV, or giant truck with each of those options not really being a perfect fit for anybody, and it gets dramatically worse if restricting myself to domestic makes.
No, they responded perfectly - until there's another shift in preferences away from CUVs that's just kinda how it goes. They're trying to make money off of $millions+ investments; they can't just...
No, they responded perfectly - until there's another shift in preferences away from CUVs that's just kinda how it goes. They're trying to make money off of $millions+ investments; they can't just sink it into a large sedan when no one buys them, a compact or a midsize sedan when Honda and Toyota already cornered the market, a cheap sports car that doesn't offer something the Miata, 86/BRZ, or GTI already offer for ~$35k... Platform sharing covers some options, but it only goes so far past all the overhead and the ability to put a better-selling car on the lot.
Ask Chrysler how they feel about a varied selection, they signposted the rise of CUVs and fall of the sedan with a big failure. If the bread and butter doesn't sell, it's time to find a new market or it's game over.
In my mind the appropriate response would have been to try to innovate to make existing models more competitive against foreign competitors and create new models to fit niches that haven’t yet...
In my mind the appropriate response would have been to try to innovate to make existing models more competitive against foreign competitors and create new models to fit niches that haven’t yet been filled.
For example there was that wave of cheap, high customizable boxes on wheels that spawned the various Scions, Honda Element, Nissan Cube, and the Kia Soul, the last of which is still very popular today. R&D on those things couldn’t have costed much and there’s no reason why an American automaker couldn’t have kicked off that wave, but they didn’t… it was the East Asian automakers instead.
American automakers seem to have lost their ability to create new categories (IIRC, the last time they did that was in the 80s with the minivan) or even put interesting twists on existing models. They just make the same thing they always have, but this time bigger, with more subscription nonsense, and a higher price tag and then wonder why they’re losing customers.
First off this all lead me down a lot of neat random rabbit holes of sales statistics and contemporary reviews of about the whole 00's box phenomenon ("It's funky. Not very good to drive, but fun...
First off this all lead me down a lot of neat random rabbit holes of sales statistics and contemporary reviews of about the whole 00's box phenomenon ("It's funky. Not very good to drive, but fun to be in."), so thank you for bringing those up...
an American automaker couldn’t have kicked off that wave, but they didn’t… it was the East Asian automakers instead
That's because Nissan and Toyota didn't need to invent it, they slapped the marquees on stuff they were already selling in Japan due to the regulations for smaller vehicle classifications like mini-MPV. The xB already existed for three years as the bB, and while it sold pretty well the updated model was a huge misfire that didn't make a dent in the sales drop. The Cube already existed for 11 years. Then it sold total booty when it popped up in the US.
There are a couple problems I can think of:
Both the Cube launch and the xB model update were during the recession. Weird shit isn't bubble-proof; see 80's-90's pre-crisis JDM cars for other examples.
Niche and funky appeal to younger buyers. Toyota learned with Scion that younger buyers don't actually have money to buy new cars. The xB is cool now, but at the time its lucky streak was with older buyers who appreciated the hip-level seating.
Niche competes weird. There's a Beetle review somewhere where a VW rep noted that the biggest cross-shop against the Beetle was a Jeep Wrangler, not another hatchback or compact. If you're banking on fashion then it better be fashionable enough to plunk down car money on it, or it had better be a good car anyway. The Cube was unappealingly weird, and the facelifted xB wasn't weird enough to appeal against a Corolla hatch or what have you.
Honda Element was a really unique car, and wasn't just an Asian effort - it was USDM, built in Ohio. But:
create new models to fit niches that haven’t yet been filled.
Why and for who, and who's paying? No matter what someone walking into a car dealer ultimately wants a car, and the dealers ultimately want to sell a car walking in the door. Make something that alienates everyone and you just wasted millions of dollars for no reason other than some curiosity. Akio Toyoda is thankfully the kinda guy with money to burn on throwing a checkbook at cool vanity projects but the vast majority of owners are not car guys to the extent he is. Nor are they thinking cars - they're thinking shareholders. Take the Element, it was a compact cargo van (?) and there was nothing like it. It topped out at 56k sales its opening year, never gained momentum, never got a facelift, petered out, and no one else cared to make anything like it. The Fit/Jazz then did the spacious compact thing with the magic seats - and it happened to be a better, more efficient car to drive.
The Soul, though - definitely! It sold well through the recession and it's still on the market, was ahead of the CUV game, and sold against the Spectra. Good example. But it wasn't that far off the contemporary small car standards, and I think that was an astounding hit on being a step ahead of the market in 2009. Against shitty economics and gas prices eating into wallets, you had a car that did car things fine but ALSO enough flair to draw attention. But today in the market it's another CUV that's only moving half of what the HR-V moves, and then Kia's also selling the Seltos in the same market segment and itself moving another 60k units. That's the variety you're looking for, but it's also a potentially weird spot where Kia might cannibalize their own sales and put too much into two completely different cars? Honda's able to do that with one car. Guess it's working fine for Kia right now since they're doing it, but I doubt having to test, market, maintain, etc two different models helps on a longer timeframe. Only Kia knows.
I guess my point is risk here - taking a market you already have and trying to make it a bit fresh, sure. Investing a ton into just trying to get some variety or novelty, it can't be worth it unless you can guarantee customers who already exist. IMO if Chrysler wanted to try funky then they should've been the Stellantis EV testing ground where they put out something that was functionally useful but wildly different, which they last struck with the PT Cruiser. I think the EV market is too open for that to look cool now; huge missed opportunity.
All fair, and agree that Chrysler could’ve made better use of the opportunities presented by the new market of EVs. Still though, it’s difficult for me to not feel dismayed by the market as it...
All fair, and agree that Chrysler could’ve made better use of the opportunities presented by the new market of EVs.
Still though, it’s difficult for me to not feel dismayed by the market as it currently stands. The cars I want, by and large, aren’t sold in the US any more and are only available on the used market either half-dead already or if they’re still in decent condition, priced exorbitantly. Options for smallish practical “do everything” town/suburb cars are extremely thin. The market segment I sit in might not be huge or massively lucrative, but it’s almost entirely unserved at the moment which would make it easy for a company to corner.
I wish I had seen this, especially the bolded slogan, 8 years ago when the internet had endless struggle sessions over people who voted Bernie in the primary and Libertarian in the real election....
Niche competes weird. There's a Beetle review somewhere where a VW rep noted that the biggest cross-shop against the Beetle was a Jeep Wrangler, not another hatchback or compact.
I wish I had seen this, especially the bolded slogan, 8 years ago when the internet had endless struggle sessions over people who voted Bernie in the primary and Libertarian in the real election.
There's a much deeper and more general statement here for someone with more time than me to explore.
tl;dr it just means crossover. (Crossover Utility Vehicle) Semantically though I think 'CUV' picked up steam because SUVs used to be based on body-on-frame truck platforms, and crossovers used to...
tl;dr it just means crossover. (Crossover Utility Vehicle)
Semantically though I think 'CUV' picked up steam because SUVs used to be based on body-on-frame truck platforms, and crossovers used to sometimes have unique platforms. Nowadays they share platforms with sedans to the point that they're geared to drive fairly homogenously from the ground up and replace the hatchback and wagon markets. So CUV encompasses subcompact, compact, midsize, etc models that make up most of the modern car market.
After going through not one but a string of three purchases by foreign-based automakers over the last 25 years, a bankruptcy and the second federal bailout in its history, the brand has only one car still rolling off an assembly line with the Chrysler badge on it. And it’s a minivan. Built in Canada.
...
That minivan, the Pacifica, is struggling, along with most of parent company Stellantis’ US models. Pacifica’s US sales are down 21% in the first nine months of the year, and down 44% in the third quarter. Meanwhile the overall pace of US car sales was up in the third quarter.
Stellantis’ problems just led to the sudden departure of CEO Carlos Travares this week and a search for both a new boss and answers to its problems. Dumping the iconic brand that used to be its flagship could end up being one of those answers, as some experts question whether there’s even a reason for the Chrysler brand to remain along with the company’s three other North American brands – Jeep, Dodge and Ram.
...
One of the problems for Stellantis is that it had become too expensive for many of its traditional buyers.
By the fourth quarter of 2023, the average Stellantis vehicle sold for $58,000 in the US, according to data from Edmunds, by far the highest in the industry. While Stellantis’ average price has declined since then, it was still the second-highest average price in the industry, at just under $55,000, in the third quarter. That was just behind Ford Motor, including its luxury brand Lincoln.
Stellantis CFO Doug Ostermann acknowledged Wednesday that the company took too long to cut prices, but cuts the last two months have started to fix the problem.
Anecdotal, but a former boss of mine really wanted a car like the Pacifica, but refused to buy a Chrysler. Sales of the car overall seem kinda bad per the article, so my takeaway is that...
Anecdotal, but a former boss of mine really wanted a car like the Pacifica, but refused to buy a Chrysler. Sales of the car overall seem kinda bad per the article, so my takeaway is that perception of the brand combined with high prices has made it unappealing to most buyers. Price is a somewhat fixable issue of course, but public perception is a hard thing to change. They need something that gets people’s attention, or at least can convince them to trust the brand.
The Pacifica is a really nice car; I had one as a rental awhile ago and was really impressed with it. But I would never buy one, especially for $55k. I just don't trust the long term reliability...
The Pacifica is a really nice car; I had one as a rental awhile ago and was really impressed with it.
But I would never buy one, especially for $55k. I just don't trust the long term reliability and that it won't have little issues with the electronics. That said, I would be willing to buy a used one maybe in the 20k range, as I would hope that by the time they get to that price, most of the lemons would be weeded out.
Good to hear. After I posted my comment, I did some googling just to see what issues people were having and they mostly seemed to be limited to the PHEV vehicles. I really liked the Pacifica and...
Good to hear. After I posted my comment, I did some googling just to see what issues people were having and they mostly seemed to be limited to the PHEV vehicles.
I really liked the Pacifica and would love to own one, as I've had a 2004 Grand Caravan for 4 years now and it's been a great car, one of my favorites.
Supply and demand mixed with what price the purchasers will bear. Clearly, they've backed themselves into a corner with pricing too high, along with not understanding that their supply is not what...
Supply and demand mixed with what price the purchasers will bear. Clearly, they've backed themselves into a corner with pricing too high, along with not understanding that their supply is not what the public wants.
Chrysler should definitely be taken down, or it should be revamped as the brand's less expensive model like scion for Toyota. Make the same models that you would have for dodge, but at very bare-bones and base prices. (but also slash prices entirely because 55K for a base model jeep is dumb)
Oh wow. It's been so long since I thought about that fact. I remember my family got a dodge minifan instead of the chrysler as a kid because it was cheaper.
Oh wow. It's been so long since I thought about that fact. I remember my family got a dodge minifan instead of the chrysler as a kid because it was cheaper.
The Chrysler seabring was the absolute worst car I have ever had the mispleasure of helping a friend work on. That's about the only "icon" they have left in my mind.
The Chrysler seabring was the absolute worst car I have ever had the mispleasure of helping a friend work on. That's about the only "icon" they have left in my mind.
I have never had a car with as many problems as either of the Chryslers I or the rest of my extended family has owned. My father used to be a salesman for them and by the end he was really...
I have never had a car with as many problems as either of the Chryslers I or the rest of my extended family has owned. My father used to be a salesman for them and by the end he was really disillusioned with the company.
Id have to agree that Chrysler has lost its way in regards to pricing everything including the 'cheap utilitarian minivan' market. Ive had an older Caravan and it was a good vehicle for the cost,...
Id have to agree that Chrysler has lost its way in regards to pricing everything including the 'cheap utilitarian minivan' market. Ive had an older Caravan and it was a good vehicle for the cost, very capable hauler for my family and relatively reliable (with the 3.3L engine). But that was when you could buy a used one for a few grand and still get ten years use out of it. Now where I live in Canada a new Pacifica is 59k and the hybrid is 74k which is insane pricing to me - that was luxury car pricing just a few years ago and we're still talking about a minivan here, not a new Lexus.
If we could go back to the era when a base minivan was 24,999 they might have a hope, but I really doubt Chrysler's going to be selling a lot of 60 to 75k minivans. The name doesn't haven't enough cache to justify that.
I see the biggest use case scenario of the minivan in the disability sector. Currently where I live, there is subsidized non-emergency medical transportation that takes the form of outsourcing to...
I see the biggest use case scenario of the minivan in the disability sector.
Currently where I live, there is subsidized non-emergency medical transportation that takes the form of outsourcing to rideshare services. More and more frequently I see most of these vehicles are minivans. I think this makes a lot of sense since they are some of the only consumer operated vehicles (perhaps only ?) that have power operated doors for the passengers. They are also spacious and seem to be able to accommodate mobility and assistive devices (though I do not use these, so I have no idea of the convenience factor).
A strange niche, for sure, but I suppose that’s the healthcare system we live in.
I have been curious if automated drivers could be a good use case here as well, but all of this is just a way to circumvent good urban planning and public transportation. I used to live in a city that had several methods to get to hospitals and doctors offices (shuttles, trains, busses, foot, etc.) and that is what everyone used, so it’s frustrating to now live in a city/state where we would rather individualize and privatize everything inefficiently and expensively.
For anyone with large, high support electric wheelchairs and limited to no ability to transfer, minivans are basically required. We tested out a smaller hatchback modified vehicle and there just...
For anyone with large, high support electric wheelchairs and limited to no ability to transfer, minivans are basically required. We tested out a smaller hatchback modified vehicle and there just wasn't enough room for my partner's wheels to turn. So while there are a few other options, the minivan is basically needed.
For other folks, sitting "down" into a car is harder than "over" into a minivan, or they can transfer into a seat but need the ability to fold and stow a scooter/walker/wheelchair.
Modifications are incredibly expensive and usually only subsidized as part of a "go back to work/school" program. Mobility transit varies widely in terms of speed/quality and what it can be used for.
That the doors on minivans are sliding instead of swing-open is also a boon, since it means they won’t be an obstacle that has to be navigated around and in some cases compete for space. Minivans...
That the doors on minivans are sliding instead of swing-open is also a boon, since it means they won’t be an obstacle that has to be navigated around and in some cases compete for space.
Minivans are all around wonderfully practical vehicles. If I were in the market for something larger a minivan would be at the top of my list, and I think smaller vehicles could pick up some tricks from them (sliding passenger doors would be great there too).
As someone who’s not a car enthusiast, it seems that US automakers in general have painted themselves into a corner by incorrectly responding to declining revenue. Instead of boosting sales with healthy spread of models to acommodate for a wide variety of different customers/needs, they’ve trimmed away everything but their most expensive, highest margin models in hopes of that making up the difference and let foreign companies fill the holes left behind. Chrysler just happens to be the most severe case.
I was recently in the market (and will be again in about a year when my lease has come to an end) and I can’t tell you how much I wish it looked the way it did back in the early-mid 2000s. The choices have been boiled down to basic sedan, SUV, or giant truck with each of those options not really being a perfect fit for anybody, and it gets dramatically worse if restricting myself to domestic makes.
No, they responded perfectly - until there's another shift in preferences away from CUVs that's just kinda how it goes. They're trying to make money off of $millions+ investments; they can't just sink it into a large sedan when no one buys them, a compact or a midsize sedan when Honda and Toyota already cornered the market, a cheap sports car that doesn't offer something the Miata, 86/BRZ, or GTI already offer for ~$35k... Platform sharing covers some options, but it only goes so far past all the overhead and the ability to put a better-selling car on the lot.
Ask Chrysler how they feel about a varied selection, they signposted the rise of CUVs and fall of the sedan with a big failure. If the bread and butter doesn't sell, it's time to find a new market or it's game over.
EDIT: Also I wouldn't spotlight the 00's there. Cool selection? Sure! Here's a great series of posts talking all about the wild and wacky cars that came about from just GM in that time period. Then, uh, let's not talk about the result of allat...
In my mind the appropriate response would have been to try to innovate to make existing models more competitive against foreign competitors and create new models to fit niches that haven’t yet been filled.
For example there was that wave of cheap, high customizable boxes on wheels that spawned the various Scions, Honda Element, Nissan Cube, and the Kia Soul, the last of which is still very popular today. R&D on those things couldn’t have costed much and there’s no reason why an American automaker couldn’t have kicked off that wave, but they didn’t… it was the East Asian automakers instead.
American automakers seem to have lost their ability to create new categories (IIRC, the last time they did that was in the 80s with the minivan) or even put interesting twists on existing models. They just make the same thing they always have, but this time bigger, with more subscription nonsense, and a higher price tag and then wonder why they’re losing customers.
First off this all lead me down a lot of neat random rabbit holes of sales statistics and contemporary reviews of about the whole 00's box phenomenon ("It's funky. Not very good to drive, but fun to be in."), so thank you for bringing those up...
That's because Nissan and Toyota didn't need to invent it, they slapped the marquees on stuff they were already selling in Japan due to the regulations for smaller vehicle classifications like mini-MPV. The xB already existed for three years as the bB, and while it sold pretty well the updated model was a huge misfire that didn't make a dent in the sales drop. The Cube already existed for 11 years. Then it sold total booty when it popped up in the US.
There are a couple problems I can think of:
Both the Cube launch and the xB model update were during the recession. Weird shit isn't bubble-proof; see 80's-90's pre-crisis JDM cars for other examples.
Niche and funky appeal to younger buyers. Toyota learned with Scion that younger buyers don't actually have money to buy new cars. The xB is cool now, but at the time its lucky streak was with older buyers who appreciated the hip-level seating.
Niche competes weird. There's a Beetle review somewhere where a VW rep noted that the biggest cross-shop against the Beetle was a Jeep Wrangler, not another hatchback or compact. If you're banking on fashion then it better be fashionable enough to plunk down car money on it, or it had better be a good car anyway. The Cube was unappealingly weird, and the facelifted xB wasn't weird enough to appeal against a Corolla hatch or what have you.
Honda Element was a really unique car, and wasn't just an Asian effort - it was USDM, built in Ohio. But:
Why and for who, and who's paying? No matter what someone walking into a car dealer ultimately wants a car, and the dealers ultimately want to sell a car walking in the door. Make something that alienates everyone and you just wasted millions of dollars for no reason other than some curiosity. Akio Toyoda is thankfully the kinda guy with money to burn on throwing a checkbook at cool vanity projects but the vast majority of owners are not car guys to the extent he is. Nor are they thinking cars - they're thinking shareholders. Take the Element, it was a compact cargo van (?) and there was nothing like it. It topped out at 56k sales its opening year, never gained momentum, never got a facelift, petered out, and no one else cared to make anything like it. The Fit/Jazz then did the spacious compact thing with the magic seats - and it happened to be a better, more efficient car to drive.
The Soul, though - definitely! It sold well through the recession and it's still on the market, was ahead of the CUV game, and sold against the Spectra. Good example. But it wasn't that far off the contemporary small car standards, and I think that was an astounding hit on being a step ahead of the market in 2009. Against shitty economics and gas prices eating into wallets, you had a car that did car things fine but ALSO enough flair to draw attention. But today in the market it's another CUV that's only moving half of what the HR-V moves, and then Kia's also selling the Seltos in the same market segment and itself moving another 60k units. That's the variety you're looking for, but it's also a potentially weird spot where Kia might cannibalize their own sales and put too much into two completely different cars? Honda's able to do that with one car. Guess it's working fine for Kia right now since they're doing it, but I doubt having to test, market, maintain, etc two different models helps on a longer timeframe. Only Kia knows.
I guess my point is risk here - taking a market you already have and trying to make it a bit fresh, sure. Investing a ton into just trying to get some variety or novelty, it can't be worth it unless you can guarantee customers who already exist. IMO if Chrysler wanted to try funky then they should've been the Stellantis EV testing ground where they put out something that was functionally useful but wildly different, which they last struck with the PT Cruiser. I think the EV market is too open for that to look cool now; huge missed opportunity.
All fair, and agree that Chrysler could’ve made better use of the opportunities presented by the new market of EVs.
Still though, it’s difficult for me to not feel dismayed by the market as it currently stands. The cars I want, by and large, aren’t sold in the US any more and are only available on the used market either half-dead already or if they’re still in decent condition, priced exorbitantly. Options for smallish practical “do everything” town/suburb cars are extremely thin. The market segment I sit in might not be huge or massively lucrative, but it’s almost entirely unserved at the moment which would make it easy for a company to corner.
I wish I had seen this, especially the bolded slogan, 8 years ago when the internet had endless struggle sessions over people who voted Bernie in the primary and Libertarian in the real election.
There's a much deeper and more general statement here for someone with more time than me to explore.
What's a CUV?
tl;dr it just means crossover. (Crossover Utility Vehicle)
Semantically though I think 'CUV' picked up steam because SUVs used to be based on body-on-frame truck platforms, and crossovers used to sometimes have unique platforms. Nowadays they share platforms with sedans to the point that they're geared to drive fairly homogenously from the ground up and replace the hatchback and wagon markets. So CUV encompasses subcompact, compact, midsize, etc models that make up most of the modern car market.
From the article:
...
...
Anecdotal, but a former boss of mine really wanted a car like the Pacifica, but refused to buy a Chrysler. Sales of the car overall seem kinda bad per the article, so my takeaway is that perception of the brand combined with high prices has made it unappealing to most buyers. Price is a somewhat fixable issue of course, but public perception is a hard thing to change. They need something that gets people’s attention, or at least can convince them to trust the brand.
The Pacifica is a really nice car; I had one as a rental awhile ago and was really impressed with it.
But I would never buy one, especially for $55k. I just don't trust the long term reliability and that it won't have little issues with the electronics. That said, I would be willing to buy a used one maybe in the 20k range, as I would hope that by the time they get to that price, most of the lemons would be weeded out.
I have a 2018, 100k miles. No major issues, just regular maintenance and normal things like brakes and tires.
Good to hear. After I posted my comment, I did some googling just to see what issues people were having and they mostly seemed to be limited to the PHEV vehicles.
I really liked the Pacifica and would love to own one, as I've had a 2004 Grand Caravan for 4 years now and it's been a great car, one of my favorites.
Supply and demand mixed with what price the purchasers will bear. Clearly, they've backed themselves into a corner with pricing too high, along with not understanding that their supply is not what the public wants.
Chrysler should definitely be taken down, or it should be revamped as the brand's less expensive model like scion for Toyota. Make the same models that you would have for dodge, but at very bare-bones and base prices. (but also slash prices entirely because 55K for a base model jeep is dumb)
Dodge used to be the budget brand to Chrysler.
And Plymouth was the budget Dodge.
...i always liked the plymouth grand voyager better than the chrysler town + country; i presume the pacifica replaced the latter?..
Oh wow. It's been so long since I thought about that fact. I remember my family got a dodge minifan instead of the chrysler as a kid because it was cheaper.
This video has a much more obvious political bias, but the summary by More Perfect Union of the situation with Stellantis was watchable, imo.
The Chrysler seabring was the absolute worst car I have ever had the mispleasure of helping a friend work on. That's about the only "icon" they have left in my mind.
I have never had a car with as many problems as either of the Chryslers I or the rest of my extended family has owned. My father used to be a salesman for them and by the end he was really disillusioned with the company.
Id have to agree that Chrysler has lost its way in regards to pricing everything including the 'cheap utilitarian minivan' market. Ive had an older Caravan and it was a good vehicle for the cost, very capable hauler for my family and relatively reliable (with the 3.3L engine). But that was when you could buy a used one for a few grand and still get ten years use out of it. Now where I live in Canada a new Pacifica is 59k and the hybrid is 74k which is insane pricing to me - that was luxury car pricing just a few years ago and we're still talking about a minivan here, not a new Lexus.
If we could go back to the era when a base minivan was 24,999 they might have a hope, but I really doubt Chrysler's going to be selling a lot of 60 to 75k minivans. The name doesn't haven't enough cache to justify that.
I see the biggest use case scenario of the minivan in the disability sector.
Currently where I live, there is subsidized non-emergency medical transportation that takes the form of outsourcing to rideshare services. More and more frequently I see most of these vehicles are minivans. I think this makes a lot of sense since they are some of the only consumer operated vehicles (perhaps only ?) that have power operated doors for the passengers. They are also spacious and seem to be able to accommodate mobility and assistive devices (though I do not use these, so I have no idea of the convenience factor).
A strange niche, for sure, but I suppose that’s the healthcare system we live in.
I have been curious if automated drivers could be a good use case here as well, but all of this is just a way to circumvent good urban planning and public transportation. I used to live in a city that had several methods to get to hospitals and doctors offices (shuttles, trains, busses, foot, etc.) and that is what everyone used, so it’s frustrating to now live in a city/state where we would rather individualize and privatize everything inefficiently and expensively.
For anyone with large, high support electric wheelchairs and limited to no ability to transfer, minivans are basically required. We tested out a smaller hatchback modified vehicle and there just wasn't enough room for my partner's wheels to turn. So while there are a few other options, the minivan is basically needed.
For other folks, sitting "down" into a car is harder than "over" into a minivan, or they can transfer into a seat but need the ability to fold and stow a scooter/walker/wheelchair.
Modifications are incredibly expensive and usually only subsidized as part of a "go back to work/school" program. Mobility transit varies widely in terms of speed/quality and what it can be used for.
That the doors on minivans are sliding instead of swing-open is also a boon, since it means they won’t be an obstacle that has to be navigated around and in some cases compete for space.
Minivans are all around wonderfully practical vehicles. If I were in the market for something larger a minivan would be at the top of my list, and I think smaller vehicles could pick up some tricks from them (sliding passenger doors would be great there too).