new Chrysler van interiors

[regfootball]

HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA

I cannot believe you post such silly mindless propaganda about Chryslers and you own an AZTEC!!!!!!!!!!!

Describe your interior...

:wink:

"Rich opulent plastic, with generous air passages located between panel seams. Styling done by a team of custodial engineers to exacting standards!"

LOL

You are TOOOOOOOOOO fuunnnyyyy!!!!!

http://www.autoblog.com/2004/11/05/farewel...barely-knew-ye/

Most Versatile Vehicle on the Planet

Pontiac?s ad campaign touted the Aztek as the ?most versatile vehicle on the planet? and to speak to those that own an Aztek, the slogan fits perfectly. Did you know that the Aztek took home the JD Power and Associates ?APEAL? award in 2001? The APEAL study rates how happy the owners are with their purchase and how thoughtful an automotive design is. The Aztek rated high for powertrain, sound system and interior comfort features. This truck rewarded those that were taken in by its quirky, non-conformist look.

Media killed the Pontiac truck

Automotive style is subjective, we all know that, but the foaming hate that shot out from all directions at the Aztek equaled commercial failure. Many members blame the media for the mediocre sales. AFC member Ande2004 it summed up with this:

My personal take on the demise of the Aztek wasn?t its outward appearance as much as it was the bad press it received when it was launched. The Aztek was born to be different, that was its sole purpose.

To those that responded, style was one of the reasons an Aztek was purchased. ?Yeah I?m different, so what?s it to you??

When you really take a look at the auto landscape post-Aztek, the Elements and xBs littering the landscape, was the Aztek that off the mark? Did the plastic pieces and strange styling of the Element cause it to get its ass handed to it by the media? No, of course not? I guess it has the H of invulnerability brazened on its hood.

Functionality versus price

Above all, most Aztek owners have fallen in love with the truck?s versatility. It has the capability of a larger SUV, but the ride and feel of a car. The interior was very well thought out, including a removable center console that is actually a cooler. Cup holders, cargo trays, power outlets, rear mounted stereo controls ? everything to make and owner happy and at a discount. Aztek owners say that the price was on par if not lower than other SUVs that gave them only a portion of what the Pontiac offers, and none of the personality.

When asked if any Aztek owners would bite for the 2006 Pontiac Torrent, the unofficial Aztek replacement, some said because of the great experience they had with their current Pontiac, they would, but concede that they would lose the uniqueness of the Aztek.

thing is, owners heap high praise on their interiors. There are 3 other coworkers I work with who also have one and they all love the interior, its quietness, space, features, versatility and level of finish.

so, you can be one of the bandwagoners that can't think above groupthink but truth is aztek owners have the last laugh because they are happy with their purchase.

previous gen caravan owners may have been happy with their interiors. I don't see how that will be the case this time around, considering the competition.

[regfootball]

chrysler has NO LEG TO STAND ON in any attempt to trumpet trustworthiness and quality of their vehicles. GM and Ford are legimately up there among the best these days. Where's Chrylser? NOT IN THE SAME GROUP.

[CARBIZ]

Yeah, my "buddy" bought an Aztec, it wouldn't start brand new at the dealership, he opened the asbestos lined hood to expose the abysmal powerplant. We tried to jump it 3,407,946 times but it wouldn't start. He put the jumpers back into the interior, and when he closed the door the door fell off onto the ground. It scratched the lead based paint.

The Aztec had 12 miles on it, so it was expected. We pushed it back on the lot and got a $12.99 trade in value, which we accepted because it was the going trade in amount.

We took the money and got on the bus, after sitting in the Aztec we could net BELIEVE the opulence of the bus interior. It was gorgeous..........

I think we all know your propaganda crap by now.

Entertaining to those who have only read it a few times I guess....

:wink:

The Aztec may have had looks that only a mother could love, but at least it was original. The Element is a copy of the Aztec, yet because of the 'H' on the hood, idiots buy it in droves.

As to the remarks about your 'buddy:' there are a dozen reasons why the vehicle may not have started at the dealership. I sold two 2006 brand new Impala LTZs in April of this year and BOTH had total battery failures at almost exactly 3 weeks after delivery: the vehicles had been on our lot for nearly a year and the batteries had gone flat a few times. In retrospect, we should have replaced the batteries, but GM won't pay for warranty replacement on a battery that MIGHT fail.

I am not going to defend the Aztec, but will say that we can't keep used ones on our lot. They are great bargains and, surpisingly, they ride nicely, too. We all know that GM and Ford have had their fair share of ups and downs, but Chrysler is NOT in the same league - not by a long shot. We can debate the whys and wherefores as to Chrysler's dominance in the minivan market, but it certainly has not been because of their legendary quality. I hate it when people deride Detroit, based on cars they (or their parents) owned in the '80s, but I had 2 total $h!boxes that were Dodges and that swayed me to GM in '91. I know Chrysler has improved a lot, but as customers I've had from Magna have told me (who sell to the huge plant in Bramalea), Chrysler always goes for the cheapest 'doorhandle.'

I mean, really - why the hell do you think Daimler is so glad to be rid of Chrysler? I would venture to say (no pun intended ) that it has been minivan sales that have kept Chrysler from being a total flop this past many years.

The auctions tell it all: Windstars rot on the lot, Dodge minivans are a dime a dozen, the U-vans (Venture/Montana/Silhouette) were better equipped so they command higher prices, and the Siennas & Odysseys are at the top of the pack. Before the usual suspects read too much into this, a lot of it has to do with the fact that the Chrysler and GM minivans sold in much higher volumes than the OTHER GUYS. In 2000, for example, the U-vans sold (new) a lot more than either the Odyssey or Sienna, so it would be safe to say there will be a lot fewer of latter two vehicles available used.

Chrysler has maintained their dominance by a) clever marketing, b) re-inventing itself with each new generation (the first with dual doors, the King of Cupholders, lots of other clever innovations), c) volume and incentives. Keep in mind that the 'Stow 'n Go seats are not theirs: the rights are owned by another company and very soon other manufacturers will have the same innovation.

I don't know why this 'debate' has gotten so personal and nasty. I will give Chrysler credit where credit is due: they have done a bang up job of marketing their vans and asking their customers the rights questions. If GM had used the same people in their marketing department, then perhaps we would still be crowing about GM having 40% market share across the board!

[regfootball]

I mean, really - why the hell do you think Daimler is so glad to be rid of Chrysler? I would venture to say (no pun intended ) that it has been minivan sales that have kept Chrysler from being a total flop this past many years.

subtract jeep and minivans and you are left without much.

cerebus has a big task at hand.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I too happen to know people who have LX cars and not only love them, but have had trouble free miles with them. It's easy to knock Chrysler's quality, and sure it deserves it's share, but many of you fail to remember that GM and Ford have not exactly been quality leaders for some time. GM has been making vast improvements, and Ford, when it's cars aren't catching fire has been too, but So has Chrysler, and I suspect that Chrysler will make big gains in quality now that Cerberus is at the helm...

Oh, and for the record, I not only know people who have taken their Mopars close to or past 200k I own 2 of them

My family has owned no less than 10 GM cars in the past 10 years, and they have all been mostly trouble free. We even owned a Ford and that had almost 140k miles on it when my parents traded it in. I don't really trust Fords cars, but I trust their trucks and Suvs completely.

I wouldn't put up with a GM car having engine problems within its first 30k miles. That's unacceptable, and if you think it is acceptable, then you must have really low standards. I really hope Chrysler fixes it's issues, which it looks like with their current management, they are off to a good start.

[CMG]

You can make fun all you want, but personally, I don't trust Chrysler products. My brothers Charger even made him consider buying Japanese.

I think their styling is getting worse too. I liked a few of their older stuff, like the previous Durango, and their previous Dakota. But now I just look at their new cars, and think, What were they thinking? But I'll do the same with GM too. And before you get mad and come back with 100 reasons why Chrysler is better than GM, you can relax, because GM topped Chrysler in ugliness with the G6 GXP.

If your brother truly DOES own a Charger, like I said before- send him over to lxforums.com. Lots of Chrysler dealership guys on board there, I bet one works in his area, if not his dealership. If he HAS had "his car back to the dealership twice for lifter issues" as you said, I bet someone there can help him ASAP. Great guys there.

If your brother has bought a new car under warranty and has had it to the dealership twice as you say for annoying lifter tick and now he is considering buying JAPANESE I would suggest more is wrong with YOUR BROTHER than is wrong with his car.

I don't think Chrysler is "better than GM". It's what the ads say. Decidedly Different. LOL

I don't like alot of GMS, but I don't like alot of Chryslers either. I like some of both company's products.

[CMG]

chrysler has NO LEG TO STAND ON in any attempt to trumpet trustworthiness and quality of their vehicles. GM and Ford are legimately up there among the best these days. Where's Chrylser? NOT IN THE SAME GROUP.

My personal experiences say OTHERWISE.

Chryslers have been great. I've had a few troubles but they have been GREAT.

GMs have had a few troubles, my new Express being one. Do I care it needs a few things here and there, a tranny after 30,000K? Nope. I will NOY be running out buying a Japanese vehicle next because my Chevy needs a tranny, I can assure you.

I have owned very few Fords although my company has owned quite a few, and they have been DISMAL at best. The Ford diesel trucks we have at work are some of the worst out there I have ever seen.

Bought brand new too.

There are many objective unbiased opinions in this thread, and your opinions are NOT IN THE SAME GROUP.

:wink:

[CMG]

As to the remarks about your 'buddy:'

*whispers*

It was a joke....

I mean, really - why the hell do you think Daimler is so glad to be rid of Chrysler? I would venture to say (no pun intended ) that it has been minivan sales that have kept Chrysler from being a total flop this past many years.

Glad enough to be rid of Chrysler that Daimler insisted on keeping roughly 20%. They never sold 100% of Chrysler.

I don't know why this 'debate' has gotten so personal and nasty.

Could it be reg loves posting exaggerated and imaginary stuff just to try to get a reaction?

:wink:

LOL

[CaddyXLR-V]

If your brother truly DOES own a Charger, like I said before- send him over to lxforums.com. Lots of Chrysler dealership guys on board there, I bet one works in his area, if not his dealership. If he HAS had "his car back to the dealership twice for lifter issues" as you said, I bet someone there can help him ASAP. Great guys there.

If your brother has bought a new car under warranty and has had it to the dealership twice as you say for annoying lifter tick and now he is considering buying JAPANESE I would suggest more is wrong with YOUR BROTHER than is wrong with his car.

I don't think Chrysler is "better than GM". It's what the ads say. Decidedly Different. LOL

I don't like alot of GMS, but I don't like alot of Chryslers either. I like some of both company's products.

I will take a picture of it sitting near my GTO in my driveway for you tomorrow. And I don't have to worry about sending him to lxforums.com, he is selling it ASAP. Would you also like me to send you a picture of both of his service invoices too?

[CMG]

I will take a picture of it sitting near my GTO in my driveway for you tomorrow. And I don't have to worry about sending him to lxforums.com, he is selling it ASAP. Would you also like me to send you a picture of both of his service invoices too?

Sure. PM me.

[regfootball]

the chryco dealer by my house finally got a couple.

it was between light and dark out so you couldn't really get the best read on it, but at least these T&C seemed to come off better than the cheap ass caravans the other day.

where the caravan had the dungeon interior, this T/C had a lighter gray I think and nicer fabric. it had the plood and stuff. the presentation was a little improved.

I'll have to check it out again in the light tomorrow morning.

the thing still looks like jabba the hut. it has girth. it has length. and its bloated and taut at the same time.

funny thing is the second row seats do not look comfy and have a very short backrest. the rear seat was at a real odd angle and did not look to have all that much room. the van is fricking huge and yet it looks cramped in the third row.

-edit-

looking at in light. still looks cheap on the inside, but not as dismally cheap as say, the charger or magnum or caliber.

very upright and conservative interior, pleasant but not aspirational.

The two rear orws of seats still like really funny.

For what it's worth, looking at odysseys this morning also, a base odyssey in dark/cloth interior is kind of deadly as well.

Edited September 16, 2007 by regfootball

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

I don't know if I'd be able to live with myself if I ever recommended a GM minivan to anyone, even the people I virtually hate from one of my ex-jobs. We had to borrow a 1998 Ford Windstar Northwoods Edition last month when taking my sister to SUNY Cobleskill, and I've heard nightmares about transmission failures or something with those. Opulent exterior, cloth and vinyl interior-someone tell me what's wrong with that picture? Anyway....

I was in a Modern Blue 2008 Chrysler Town and Country LX last week, and a young, but good (only got the Touring's 3.8-liter V-6 wrong, quoting it as a 3.7, but they're all so easy to get confused) salesman showed me the way. The exterior, plain and simple, no effort whatsoever was put into the design (the salesman told me the boxier design was becoming a trend). There is no style to it, it is dull and boring, and goes beyond conservative. Conservative is fine at times, but we need some styling breakthroughs here, or styling period, neither of which is to be found here.

Interior comments: Good view, seats better than in some other recent efforts or non-efforts, namely the Sebring. The headrests still suck and protrude to your head (and are not adjustable, but if they are, I saw nothing), but its a bit more of a comfortable or at least even tolerable than, again, Sebring. I had to adjust the seat forward to get a better view-chair like, but I remember you could see the edge of the hood in many vehicles-not so here, but it could've been worse, and the tilt steering wheel adjustment is now under the steering column, up/down only.

Now, why am I manually adjusting the seats and not moving the steering wheel closer to me in 2008? And why are there Chryslers below the Touring trim level? The 1980's LeBaron K-Cars were more luxurious than the current crop-crap of Chryslers, and I don't think anyone wants to remember any K-Car-based product. I know for the most part, I don't.

The interior was decently done, if not a bit too Plymouth-like (or what they should have been). Again, it has no style whatsoever, and the stereo (in this case a Navigation stereo with the MyGig thing, which the dealer explained to me) and air conditioning controls were, but they were flat on the dashboard, not at all angled toward the driver, maybe making it a tiny stretch. Four cup holders up front; 4-speed OD automatic transmission control next to the steering wheel on the dashboard.

The rear seats were a vast improvement as well-decent amount of room in second and third rows, adjustable and reclinable, with a deep rear cargo well. I think this had Stow N' Go, but I don't remember. The third row also can fold to create a "tailgate style bench".

So, if you can live with mostly K-Car-era engines, 4-speed automatic transmissions, and no style whatsoever (but with seating flexibility and room galore), this is the van for you! If you want a daring minivan, see your Nissan dealer! Or if you hate minivans because all you've ever seen is crap for the most part, then go to the GMC Acadia, and so forth.

[BrewSwillis]

Why is everyone on here humping the Quest?? Is that the new cool thing to do?.....like the ugliest minivan the best??

How can anyone think the Quest's "sea of plastic" dash is nicer than the T&C? The Quest's center stack looks like a joke compared to the Chrysler minivans. Where is the utility?

Quest

T&C

[regfootball]

i can draw that chrysler dashboard in Autocad. I can even use the wood hatch.

PURTY...yep, that was what i saw...ARGH

Edited September 17, 2007 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

The Quest is the best looking van from the OUTSIDE, IMO. I never said I liked the interior. Chrysler knows how to build a decent interior: the T&C is a very nice interior to live in. However, 80% of their sales will NOT be the T&C with the Nav system, but will be the much crappier base unit. How many people's impressions of the Dodge minivans will be made when they rent the el-cheapo one at the airport? This is where Chrysler is making a mistake: by offering such a base unit that many bad impressions will be based on.

For better or worse, the Uplander only offers one interior, with only the cloth/leather or leather upgrades available on the seats. Mercifully, GM dropped the gawdawful "valu van' vinyls seats that were available in the Venture. The look and ride of the current Uplander is actually quite nice; however, the seating arrangement in the back is a joke - even a step back from the Venture. I've had many Venture customers balk at the new seats. GM sacrificed leg room and utility for extra padding and feel. However, having said that, I have also had a lot of customers comment that the interior of the (2007) base Caravan is uglier than sin and bought the Uplander as a result.

I'll have to trundle next door and look at the '08 Caravan and see what I think in real life.

[Sixty8panther]

BrewS:

Sorry dude, I like the Quest, the curvy beltline, interesting but elegant interior and out of the box

details appeal to me a lot more than these pseudo-1997 "new" vans from Chrysler. There's not

ONE line of styling feature on this wan that strays from the 1st and 2nd generation. This is more

boring than vanilla, it's like "stale sugar cookie" boring! Chrysler should be ashamed.

When you really take a look at the auto landscape post-Aztek, the Elements and xBs littering the landscape, was the Aztek that off the mark? Did the plastic pieces and strange styling of the Element cause it to get its ass handed to it by the media?No, of course not? I guess it has the H of invulnerability brazened on its hood.

Very true. Is the Aztek ugly? YES. but once it was stripped of th gray platic it was not all that bad

looking. As a matter of fact it looks less hideous than the Dodge Nitro, Scion lineup, (esp. xA) and

it certainly looks better than so many of those Korean cute-utes like the Santa Fe. How about the

Mitsubishi Endevour? That "suv" could give lessons on UGLY.

And last but not least, the Element. How does that piece of crap not get crucified by the media?

The quote above summarises it nicely.

[Polish_Kris]

I've driven many Chrysler minivans over the years, and the 1996 and up are actually very nice to drive, much better than the other domestics, which is why GM and Ford probably got out of the market. They truly did NOT compete IMO, those who have driven both know what I mean....

As far as materials go, I haven't seen the new interiors- the 2008 minivans, but I'm not really sure what you are looking for..? Connelly leather and burled walnut? It's a MINIVAN! Kids, pets, cargo, you name it.

I think they are pretty nice for the application.

Sure are alot of "wow terrible" threads in here that could be used in ANY new car scenario. Lots of plastic inside and out on all sorts of vehicles nowadays.

I'll have to look at a new minivan to see if I think this thread is ANOTHER sour grapes thread, or if it has any merit....

*shrugs*

What's so cheap looking?

Is this the interior you were looking at?

looks fine to me....

The main problem with Chrysler, and Ford for that matter... GM is getting there but not with all it's models is that their interiors always look good on pictures, until you sit inside and feel the plastics. I don't understand why they always cheapen out on interiors, somebody explain to me, besides the obvious bean counter excuse!

[Polish_Kris]

How can anyone think the Quest's "sea of plastic" dash is nicer than the T&C?

I'm sorry and the Chrysler isnt a sea of plastic?

[Intrepidation]

i can draw that chrysler dashboard in Autocad. I can even use the wood hatch.

PURTY...yep, that was what i saw...ARGH

It's plain, unimaginative and the plastics may not be suitable for gliding my butt across them, but it's clean and restrained and if nothing else doesn't look cluttered. T&C looks far nicer inside, and I agree Dodge shouldn't cheap out on the trim and such you get on the upper models...

BrewS:

Sorry dude, I like the Quest, the curvy beltline, interesting but elegant interior and out of the box

details appeal to me a lot more than these pseudo-1997 "new" vans from Chrysler. There's not

ONE line of styling feature on this wan that strays from the 1st and 2nd generation. This is more

boring than vanilla, it's like "stale sugar cookie" boring! Chrysler should be ashamed.

Very true. Is the Aztek ugly? YES. but once it was stripped of th gray platic it was not all that bad

looking. As a matter of fact it looks less hideous than the Dodge Nitro, Scion lineup, (esp. xA) and

it certainly looks better than so many of those Korean cute-utes like the Santa Fe. How about the

Mitsubishi Endevour? That "suv" could give lessons on UGLY.

And last but not least, the Element. How does that piece of crap not get crucified by the media?

The quote above summarises it nicely.

LOL you think the Asstek looks better than the Nitro or even the Endeavor...sorry dude but that's just too funny

Edited September 17, 2007 by Dodgefan

[regfootball]

However, 80% of their sales will NOT be the T&C with the Nav system, but will be the much crappier base unit.

LIKE THIS!!!!

WOW, THAT LOOKS EXPENSIVE

those armrests DO NOT look comfortable.

in the defense of the endeavor, for a crossover, its nimble and has good seats and lots of trunk. looks be damned.

Edited September 17, 2007 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

Why is everyone on here humping the Quest?? Is that the new cool thing to do?.....like the ugliest minivan the best??

How can anyone think the Quest's "sea of plastic" dash is nicer than the T&C? The Quest's center stack looks like a joke compared to the Chrysler minivans. Where is the utility?

Quest

T&C

The Quest kills the Chrysler vans in looks. They're downright frumpy in comparison. Don't be such a Chrysler humper. Edited September 17, 2007 by blackviper8891

[Intrepidation]

Why is everyone on here humping the Quest?? Is that the new cool thing to do?.....like the ugliest minivan the best??

How can anyone think the Quest's "sea of plastic" dash is nicer than the T&C? The Quest's center stack looks like a joke compared to the Chrysler minivans. Where is the utility?

Quest

T&C

While the Quest deserves credit for thinking outside the box, I find the exterior to be discusting...the concept looked better.

That being said, the MCEed interior, basing on the photographs, looks richer and more inviting than the T&C. I haven't sat in either, so it could be the materials, color choices and/or camera quality...but it looks more inviting.

[Northstar]

The Quest's interior is much better after they refreshed it, the old one was quite bizzare. The new one is much more stylish than the "look, I'm made up of squares!" Chrysler interiors, though it's nothing too exciting either. At least they used something other than a ruler to design it, however. As for utility, the Quest has two cubbies and the T&C only has one

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

BTW, that's not leather in the cloth/mystery fabric on Uplander and other GM minivans-that's vinyl.

[Intrepidation]

BTW, that's not leather in the cloth/mystery fabric on Uplander and other GM minivans-that's vinyl.

Sounds classy.

[regfootball]

i spent some time inside a Chrysler van over lunch.....will post impression later.

I will say this, the chryslers are improved over the dodge's, by design I suppose....the 40k T&C's interiors were on the verge of acceptable, although still subpar compared to what they should be.

the dodge interior in dark/light gray with monotone cloth is absolutely miserable. Just complete yuck.

I'm not sure why or how, but the loaded Chrylsers are a big improvement over the base dodge vans.

[Robert Hall]

i spent some time inside a Chrysler van over lunch.....will post impression later.

I'm not sure why or how, but the loaded Chrylsers are a big improvement over the base dodge vans.

Well, there is at least a 10-15k price difference between a loaded T&C and a base Caravan, so I would expect a nicer interior in the T&C.

[CMG]

The Quest kills the Chrysler vans in looks. They're downright frumpy in comparison. Don't be such a Chrysler humper.

The Quest is ugly. If you were a Quest humper you *might* like it, but it's ugly "Japanese type" styling. It's NOT a good looking van.

The interior styling isn't very short of pathetic.

*shrugs*

SOMEBODY has to tell you about a Quest like it is....?

LOL

[CMG]

Finally got to see a Chrysler AND a Dodge today for a few moments, but both were pre-PDI.

The vans seem to have been made to resemble Japanese vans on the interior IMO. Quirky, weird styling on the dash. The T&C is better than the Caravan, but both aren't my cup of tea.

"Worst" interiors? Not by a long shot. They have lots of plastic in the dash, as do most new cars, the worst thing is the "imitation Asian" styling IMO. It almost seems like the stylists thought they could try to steal away a few Honda/Toyota etc buyers by copying their strange sense of interior style.

The outside is "safe" styling, not my cup of tea either, but better than an Ody for sure. (OK- I think *almost* ANYTHING is better... :wink: )

I'll go back when the wrappers are off, but I think they are much like what they look like in the pictures, and if the Hondas and Toyotas are selling like crazy (Look at the TUNDRA!) then don't be surprised if these sell like crazy.....

Much to some of your chagrin....

LOL

[CARBIZ]

I cannot believe 130 postings over a minivan interior! You guys HATE minivans anyway, so all of your opinions are suspect.

[Cory Wolfe]

The Quest is ugly. If you were a Quest humper you *might* like it, but it's ugly "Japanese type" styling. It's NOT a good looking van.

The interior styling isn't very short of pathetic.

*shrugs*

SOMEBODY has to tell you about a Quest like it is....?

LOL

Maybe my lack of interest in minivans is why I like it. It's the least "typical minivan styled" one there is. For what it is, I like it. It's an artsy design, and I appreciate that. The rest, including these Chrysler vans, are just forgettably bland and in most cases, quite frumpy. There's no attempt to actually style them. Update them with modern features and typical styling cues of the time for each generation. Coming up with a new and interesting design? Blasphemy!

[pow]

I cannot believe 130 postings over a minivan interior! You guys HATE minivans anyway, so all of your opinions are suspect.

My mode of transport half the time is a minivan. They rock when done well (not the GC). They can be less expensive, lighter, more comfortable, roomier, easier to get into, more economical than a crossover SUV....

[regfootball]

i am waiting for someone to design a minivan that has a real true driver's space, floor shifter, a real car cockpit. basically if i could have a minivan with a stylish acadia dashboard (that still preserves a walkthrough), then that is where we should be.

too many minivans suffer from a bus like drivers environment. a tall upright seat with the crappy armrests on the seat and a really upright trucky dashboard.