Perhaps one of the most recognizable bits of 1980s automotive history are the Chrysler minivans, the Dodge Caravan, the Chrysler Town and Country, and the Plymouth Voyager. Along with the best-selling but still kinda crappy K-Cars, these vehicles saved Chrysler’s Sizzlean in the 1980s. Chrysler often gets credit for “inventing the minivan” which is richly and comprehensively not true, but Chrysler certainly made a very important minivan. What’s even less generally known is that not only did Chrysler not invent the minivan, but much of the research and development and initial design work was actually done by Ford, not Chrysler, though Chrysler did manage to do one crucial thing that Ford did not: actually build the damn thing. I recently learned some new details of this story, so let’s dig in.
I’d heard about this before, usually in the context of a 1972 project at Ford known as the Carousel. This was a “garagable van” that was built on a chassis derived from Ford’s full-size Econoline vans, and used the Econoline’s V8/rear-wheel drive setup.
As I’ve usually heard this story told, the Carousel project was led by Lee Iacocca, and was shut down by Ford executives in 1974, partially out of fears that it would cannibalize sales of Ford’s popular Country Squire and other station wagons. When Iacocca was fired from Ford in 1978, he took the general concept with him to Chrysler, where it was developed into the front wheel-drive Chrysler minivans.
So, that’s what I always heard: it started as a RWD smaller van, and it wasn’t until the idea made it to Chrysler that the leap to FWD (and all of its related packaging advantages for a van) came about. But what I’ve now learned is that there was another minivan project at Ford, and this one was far closer to what the Chrysler minivans would be, because this was a smaller, FWD van. It was called the Mini-Max.
View this post on Instagram
I learned about this remarkable missing link from the excellent Car Design Archives group, as well as from Dean’s Garage. The Mini-Max project seems to have been in operation roughly in parallel with the Carousel, differentiated because the Mini-Max was a much more compact design, and it originated at Ghia studios in Italy, which Ford had bought in 1970.
The designer in charge of the Mini-Max project, Don DeLaRossa, who was also instrumental in the design of the Falcon years before, really believed in the idea of a compact minivan, and pushed the project at Ford enough that four working prototypes were built.
Three of the prototypes were based on Ford of Germany’s FWD Fiesta platform: the 1973, Mini-Max I, the 1975 Bobcat Cheetah Fox Van, and then the 1974 Mini-Max II. A 1976 Mini-Max III was built on a Pinto platform, perhaps re-worked to be FWD? It’s not exactly clear.
The body design was a bit divergent from what we understand minivans in terms of doors, as these were essentially two-door wagons, with no sliding rear doors. Let’s take a look at these four Mini-Max vehicles, because they’re fascinating:
Here’s the first, the 1973 one, and you can see lots of 1970s Ford styling cues in there, especially the front end, which has a lot of Mustang II in it, especially with those body-colored plastic bumpers with the silvery trim strips inset into them. More importantly, though, is that eagle graphic along the side! Holy crap, that’s cool. Why didn’t that trend catch on for minivans? Nobody would be calling them soccer mom cars if they had huge birds of prey screaming down their sides!
This 1975 version was seen as being part of the Bobcat program, and in case one wild cat name isn’t enough, this one was called the Bobcat Cheetah for double the cat-ness, and then just for good measure, Ford tacked another animal on there, a Fox, so this thing was called the Bobcat Cheetah Fox Van 2-door. That’s a whole zoo.
The styling is clearly pushing into Ford’s 1980s design language, with the rectangular headlamps and the overall more crisp, rectilinear style. It’s very tidy and clean, with a lot of window area.
Another Fiesta-based Mini-Max II was built in 1976, with essentially the same basic styling as the 1975 Bobcat Cheetah Fox one, but with some tweaks, like a simplified front bumper.
This third version, also from 1976, is the Pinto-associated one, though looking at it, I can’t help but think the Pinto designation was for branding purposes only, as that short hood really suggests a transverse engine layout like on the Fiesta. The overall styling here is very much predicting 1980s auto design: rectangular headlamps, full-width grille, minimal chrome trim, crisp character lines, sharp corners, and bumpers with black rubber end caps.
The benefits of the FWD layout can be appreciated really well here, as there’s pictures of the cargo area of the Mini-Max III:
Look at all that space, and that gloriously flat floor! Plus, we have an interesting hatch-and-tailgate layout, and that tailgate even seems to have an extendible ramp! This is a very practical design.
You can get a sense of the scale of it here, with ’70s Abraham Lincoln and his friends there standing behind the car. It was quite tall, definitely not a small wagon, but still much more compact than vans of the era. A genuine minivan, even if it only had two doors.
I think the white 1976 Mini-Max II had wood paneling on one side, and it does look pretty good on there. Also notable is that the MiniMax II seemed to have a third row, rear-facing jump seat, and the taillights were visible through the tailgate via holes! It’s sort of like how the early Mini Clubman wagons had their taillights visible via holes in the door hinge areas.
The Mini-Max met the same fate as the Carousel project, in this case killed by none other than Henry Ford II, who liked neither compact cars or FWD.
When Iacocca went to Chrysler in 1978, he took designer DeLaRossa with him, and DeLaRossa in turn took with him the ideas and it seems drawings of the Mini-Max, which he regarded as a huge missed opportunity for Ford. In fact, according to Car Design Archives, at least one of the prototypes made it to Chrysler, as DeLaRossa made a point “to avoid their destruction, he discreetly has all these concepts transferred to a Detroit drug warehouse.” A drug warehouse? This could be a translation issue, but it’s certainly a hell of a story.
The result of all of this is that when Iacocca and his team ended up at Chrysler, they came armed with about a decade’s worth of research and development about minivans, and not just the bigger, RWD-style vans like the Carousel, as I had always thought, but FWD minivans from the Mini-Max project, which very directly were applicable to the sort of K-Car FWD-based van Chrysler would start selling in 1983.
I don’t think I’ve ever quite realized just what an amazing deal Chrysler got with Iacocca and his team. No wonder the Chrysler Minivans were such a success; they were standing on the shoulders of mini-giants.
As others have pointed out, the Mini-Maxes were rather precursors of the small crossover than of the minivan. The Ford Fiesta (which, it must also be said, was more than a little “inspired” by Fiat’s 127) was quite a small hatchback, one or two sizes smaller than your usual minivan.
Interestingly, though, Chrysler had both an actual early crossover and a fledgling minivan project in the 1970s, before selling them off with Chrysler Europe just prior to Iaccoca’s arrival. Even more curiously, the minivan project ended up in…Renault, forming the seed for its own Espace minivan in the next decade.
1970s Chrysler Europe was a convoluted hodge-podge of national subsidiaries. Essentially, all during the 1960s Chrysler had been buying up all sorts of Western European car industry oddballs and cast-offs, with little effort to build them into a cohesive group. There was the infamous Rootes Group in England, with its alphabet soup of brands (Hillman, Sunbeam, Humber, and so on). Then there was France’s Simca, initially Fiat’s French subsidiary, before buying up Ford France in the 1950s and going its own flamboyant way. Also in France, Chrysler had taken a stake in Matra Automobiles, a car-making subsidiary of aerospace and weapons group Matra that had specialised in making small plastic-bodied, mid-engined sportscars. Finally, in Spain, it had taken a stake in Barreiros, the creation of a Diesel-obsessed self-made man that had become a major truck maker before building Dodge Darts under license.
In the early-to-mid 1970s, the minivan idea seems to have brewed in the creative minds of Chrysler-Rootes in England, finally leading to a series of mockups under the “Supervan” concept. At the same time, Simca and Matra had started selling the Matra-Simca Rancho, a pseudo-offroader based on the Simca 1100 subcompact which can genuinely be considered the first crossover. In a rare case of cross-pollination between Chrysler’s European subsidiaries, Matra appears to have heard of Rootes “Supervan” ideas, and developed its own P16 concept, as a bigger successor to the Rancho. Unfortunately for Matra and Chrysler, two things then happened. First of all, in 1978, ailing Chrysler sells off its European subsidiaries to Peugeot. Then, in 1979, the oil crisis strikes, dealing an almost-deadly blow to Peugeot, which was having trouble digesting Chrysler Europe on top of its previous acquisition of Citroën. So, when the Matra people call Peugeot to propose their minivan idea, successively reworked to fit Peugeot and Citroën bases, Peugeot rebuffs them, and lets them free to discuss it with other carmakers, including arch-rival Renault. In 1982, Matra presents them their P23 prototype, now based on a Renault 18 chassis. The Renault honchos are enthused by the idea, and two years later, in the heels of the Chrysler minivans in the US, Renault introduces its own Renault Espace, produced by Matra, in the European market. There was even the idea to sell it in the US through its then-subsidiary AMC, but that sank together with Renaults whole American venture by the end of the decade…
Yip, I was about to jump in about the Espace. It was miles ahead of Chrysler’s in having about an acre less hard plastic, and much smoother to drive and be driven in — mind you I only rode a couple of km in a Chrysler of the time.
Styling clues from the TGV trains also meant the Chrysler did not have a chance in Europe — except it appears in some strange corners of Germany…
A while back on another site (and possibly the jello picnic as well but its’ comment archive is too broken to search) I proposed that the Rules of Minivandom be;
1. A one- or “one-and-a-half”-box vehicle, with
2. Tall height, plus low floor enabled by;
3. Unit construction and the powertrain concentrated at the front.
4. A large cargo-loading door on the back.
5. At least one extralarge (preferably but not necessarily sliding) door for cargo and passengers on the curb side (modern ones have them on both but that was a later innovation)
6. Designed *primarily* as a family passenger vehicle, not a cargo van with a “minibus” line extension or a purpose-built taxi.
That would put these in a huge category of models that hit 4 or 5 of these points, and make them the first since the Fiat Multipla (and its’ rear-engine/no rear cargo door predecessors going back to the Stout Scarab) to hit #6, with only the what-were-they-thinking blind spot towards #5 (yeah, this was a time when the Pinto wagon was the bestselling wagon in the country, but that’s literally the only time 2-door wagons weren’t a poor-selling niche product) keeping them from getting to all 6 at least with the Fiesta-based models.
The Mulitpla’s main innovation was fitting six seats in two rows of three abreast, which kept the length short for only a marginal increase in width.
1000 INNANET POINTS to the FIRST person who can tell me what LAW would be VIOLATED if that was DONE today?
HINT:
It was done involving Apple / Tesla / Samsung
It was done involving Audi / Caddy
It was done involving Ford / GM and or Chrysler…
Is it really “Ford did all the work” if the exact same people were involved in both projects? I think the best you can say is that Ford signed some paychecks on a project they didn’t care about.
The graphic on the first one is straight from an XA Falcon Superbird! https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/xa-falcon-superbird–387309636673665907/
“Lee, I just don’t like you. You’re fired.” Dumbest words ever uttered by a kar kompany king.
AMC/Renault and the Japanese did more tho
The Espace, of course, plus the Nissan and Mitsubishi things of the 80s
“with ’70s Abraham Lincoln and his friends there standing behind the car”
-brilliant and accurate description
Reminds me of the scene in Ford vs Ferrari were they’re waiting to see the president of Ford and they need a third person to walk a memo from one side of the room to the other. The wheels ground exceedingly slow back then.
The ‘73 one’s front end is a bit of a mess. The dark gaping grill flanked by stacked lights and underlined by a fussy bumper is starkly ugly imo. It does have wing vents, tho, so that’s something—and the angry bird almost redeems it.
The 75…well, the front end is very K-carlike. Like someone wanted to upsize a Reliant. And, for some odd reason, the back half suggests a Pacer to me. Which makes NO sense as they were famously bulbous. I guess it’s the B-pillar combined with the striped rear wheel arch. I dunno: hardwired pattern-recognition can cause weird mash-ups sometimes.
The Chrysler Town & Country (minivan) started out as a 1990 model of which was the only MY on the 1st Gen platform before being updated to the 2nd Gen for MY91. So…the T&C isn’t really a 1980s vehicle even if it’s similar to the Voyager and Caravan except…the 3.0 Mitsu engine initially used was federalized as an ’89 before switching to the 3.3l part way through the MY. So it’s a bit of an oddity in what makes a car fit one year or decade vs another.
I say this as my parents purchased one of these 1st Gen T&Cs as a leftover in ’91 (white with the faux wood siding natch) with many of my childhood memories wrapped up including the first car I drove solo in.
Wait, how come jumping ship to a competitor, with not only your team but also a complete prototype (built on company’s dime) isn’t industrial espionage?
Where the 70’s that much of a wild west, or is this the reason why we are finding all this only now?
Likely didn’t infringe on any Ford patents – “small unibody FWD garageable van” was likely too vague. The Chrysler minivans were based on the K-platform, which was already developed and production ready when Iacocca got there, so no Ford IP involved in the final design.
The Mini-Max and Thundercougarfalconbird remind me a lot of the eventual C-Max.
FORD C-Max never came to the U.S.
Honda had the French door design in the Element. GM had the french door design in their pickups. But FORD did better because they built a stronger frame out of BORON rather than the Honda design. — A reason why people never bought the Element.. was cause of the weird door design = “safety”
The C-Max was sold in the United States as a plug-in hybrid.
And as a standard Hybrid, we’ve got both versions in the family fleet.
OH.. shit, thats right. Thats the one that looks like the front suspension collasped.
“Nothing makes you feel more like a MAN than a Thundercougarfalconbird!”
I really enjoyed this article. Regarding the “drug warehouse” Ford’s concepts were stashed at, it appears it was of the legal variety. I found an interview with DeLaRossa referencing the warehouse owned by a pharmaceutical firm: http://www.lincolnmarkv.com/LincolnMarkV/The_Stylists/Pages/Don_De_La_Rossa_Interview.html#8
Seeing these concepts gave me an uncanny feeling, like looking into a parallel universe that’s almost but not quite identical to ours. They’re fascinating—they seem so fully realized.
Some of these have almost an AMC Amvan feel to them, seems like a lot of automakers were trying to figure out ways to capitalize on the 1970s custom van trend in a smaller package, or, at least, their designers were fascinated by the idea
Is that the Eddie Bauer version of the Mini-Max II?
Seriously, no one is going to mention the 1970’s Abraham Lincoln looks like David Tracy? Are we sure DT didn’t time travel to or from the 1970s. Given his love of rust and cars from the 60s.
What are you not telling us Autopian?
“It’s sort of like how the early Mini Clubman wagons had their taillights visible via holes in the door hinge areas.”
I thought I was going to learn something entirely unexpected about the 1969 Mini Clubman Estate, but no, it’s the early later one.
The Bobcat, Cheetah, Fox, Man, Woman, Camera, TV and the MiniMax II just look like precursors to modern crossovers. The MiniMax I and III actually look a little more minivanish. Although the MiniMax I kind of looks like a pug-nosed Bronco.
Sure, they’re tall and boxy, but the absence of rear passenger ingress/egress takes them out of the “minivan” category for me. It looks to me like the later AMC Spirit/Eagle Kammback with the z-axis stretched 20%.
I’ve been re-watching Miami Vice recently. Lee Iacocca shows up in an episode. I did a triple take and was like WTF am I seeing? Al Bundy is also in the episode before he was married with children…
I didn’t see the Eagle on the side until you called it out. I thought it was just light reflections. Take that Screaming Chicken! Even the Jeep Golden Eagle didn’t get such fine artistry.
Then-Vice President George HW Bush has a cameo in it too, and there’s that episode with Bruce Willis.
But my complete favorite has to be when out-of-prison Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy pops up, in a couple of them I think.
And his character is such a dick Liddy just had to play himself. There’s a really nasty torture scene he seems to take great delight in.
G. Gordon Liddy was making the rounds in the late-80s playing Liddy-esque character roles. Fun fact: A relative of mine was working on an independent movie at the time, and got to audition Liddy.
He showed up with a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. At one point Liddy asked about the time commitment, and [my relative] replied, “It’s a fairly small role, but you might be required for a lot of coverage, because when [the director] shoots a scene, he likes to shoot the shit out of it.”
To which Liddy replied, “That’s OK, when I shoot a guy for real, I like to shoot the shit out of him.”
My ICON thanks you.
The doors are interesting just because they remind me of the long driver’s door in the 1998 Windstar, when Ford was caught with their pants down without a driver’s side sliding door and did a really weird half measure.
Also the Mini-Max III looks like a really tall Yugo.
Everything about the Windstar was horrible, starting with the 3 foot long (deep?) dashboard.
I think you’re thinking of something else. The dashboard of the Windstar was reasonable in depth – no different from a typical sedan of the era.
My parents had one, it wasn’t going to set the world on fire but it was comfortable and the driving position and interior design were normal enough that it sold my mom on the concept of minivans.
I BEG to differ. The dash of my 00 Accord, and my 92 were very slim. Compared to a Wndstar… night and day.
Again, not sure you’re thinking of a Windstar. Because while it’s certainly thicker than an Accord – the nature of the beast, being a larger vehicle and closer to a one-box shape – it’s hardly night and day.
Drove one frequently for a decade, the dash was entirely reasonable and I’m utterly baffled by the people declaring it to be huge. Are people genuinely confusing it for a Pontiac Trans Sport maybe?
You are thinking the Pontiac Trans port and the Olds/Chevy derivatives they had really long dashboards!
Chrysler took FORDs lunch with the 4 doors, 1 driver + 1 pass + 2 sliding doors. They never recovered from that.
I was thinking it looked like a cross between a Yugo and an early ’80s Bronco.
Go stand next to an 8-door Corvair Greenbrier and tell me that Chrysler or Ford invented the mini-van. https://chapters.corvair.org/corvanatics/files/greenbrier/SRS8door1.jpg
Or a VW Type 2. Or a Fiat Multipla.
IIRC, Europe had several vehicles that could be called “minivans.” But the credit should probably go to Ben Pon, the Dutch VW distributor, who was said to have come up with the idea in the late 1940s. which resulted in the VW Bus/Microbus/Transporter.
It’s obviously irrelevant now, but I wonder how much of the decision to kill off the Mini-Max came not from HFII’s dislike of FWD cars or the idea of the minivan itself, but stemmed from his deep-seated loathing of Ol’ Lido?
Dictatorships are known for fast decision making, but less so for sound reasoning.
I’d like to see them open the front doors in a tight parking lot. Like, seriously, whoever thought that double sliding doors wasn’t the way to go? Nissan got it right with the Prarie/Stanza Wagon in 1982 (well, maybe having a B-pillar is a bit necessary) and then it took a whole 15 years for everyone to get around to making it possible to enter a minivan’s rear seats from both sides.
Ford actually did the B-pillar-free sliders on the B-Max in 2012. Everyone assumes that the wide-open door wouldn’t work with modern safety regulations but that exists so I’m always curious how true that is.
I meant that the Prairie specifically was noted for feeling a bit floppy, but yeah, with modern methods and stiffness I don’t see why not. Toyota’s done a few for JDM like the final generation Raum, but I guess there’s just not much of an incentive when adding a B-pillar is easier and cheaper.