There are at least three different lengths of Dodge Maxivan/Maxiwagon: Long, longer, and longest. The two bookends are conveniently parked together here. But fear not; I do have a picture of the longer one too. And there’s probably even a somewhat longer one.
The Maxivan/Maxiwagon was of course an extended body version of the new Dodge van that arrived in 1971. It also came in short (109″ wb) and medium (127″ wb) lengths. The Maxivan shared that 127″ wb, but also got an 18″ extension behind the rear axle. That’s the long version (212″ overall length), on the left up there, and here. It’s easy to spot in the passenger van version as it has no glass in that extension.
Here’s the longer version: for 1978, Dodge came up with a new rear end cap, eight inches longer than the old one, resulting in a total stretch of 26″, and a total length of 224.7″. The side windows also changed, the new rear extension got a wrap-around window, and the side door was now right behind the front door, but some of those changes actually happened over two years. And the front end got a bit a bit blockier. But let’s not get too picky on those details here.
Things get even more complicated starting in 1994, as the front end was restyled in the aero fashion of the times. But it was strictly an external face lift, as things inside were still mostly stuck in the 70s. I suspect that new front end might have added an inch or two in length, but I can’t find the stats readily right now. Somewhat longer?
But in 1998, there was another face lift, and although the basic styling was similar, this one involved much more under the skin. The front end is longer, and that allowed the engine to be moved forward, which finally reduced that huge “dog house” engine cover in the front compartment. And the whole front compartment was completely re-done, with all-new dashboard and other elements. The front passenger’s seat was moved forward because there was finally room for it, as the engine was offset to the right and used to eat massively into the legroom area (as Stephanie knows all too well from our Chinook). The driver’s seat might have been moved up a bit too. The outside rear view mirrors were also now the modern style mounted near the front of the window, which had lost its vent pane.
The result is that the longest Maxivan was now 231.2″ long overall, or some 20″ longer than the…long version.
Still confused? Here’s my CC on the Maxivan/Maxiwagon, but I don’t guarantee results.
I like that pre-78 version best of all. You lost a little in rear visibility, but the passenger doors being set back behind that small window made entry so much easier (there was no seat-back intrusion into the door opening.) I also found it the most balanced looking.
I was amazed that after putting all that money into the 1998(?) restyle/reconfiguration that Chrysler did *zero* in the way of offering a decent family travel version. No rear captains chairs, not even shoulder belts for any rear passenger who did not get driver’s side window seat.
If you were a plumber or a university that needed a 15 passenger version, Dodge was your van. I guess they didn’t want to give their hugely successful minivan any competition. Or didn’t think the size of the market was worth it (and on this they may have been right.)
There was a rash of severe rollover accidents involving 9- and 15-passenger vans in the 1990s, especially the ones owned by churches. Consequently, the states enacted the sales bans or placed the severe restrictions on operating of those multiple-passenger vans.
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2000/05/01/state-laws-concerning-the-use-of-12-and-15-passenger-vans/
Those long passenger vans are required to have the duallies for improved stability. Chrysler wasn’t going to spend more money, reengineering the floorplan and body to include the duallies.
Those Dodge 15 passenger versions were rolling around here up until fairly recently – mostly in university and church fleets. Yes, I am well familiar with the handling problems due to the extra high center of gravity when these have a full passenger load.
I rented/drove a Ford 15-passenger exactly once (family reunion), and even though very new it gave me the willies out on the interstate. It was with considerable relief that I turned it back in to the rental agency!
I see NHTSA has some sober advice about piloting these, including the importance of tire pressure: https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/15-passenger-vans
I recall hearing of some of those rollover incidents as well. These did seem like the stereotypical church van, in real life and as portrayed in film and TV.
My only experience riding in these was in the post-1994 versions a few times riding to and from Logan Airport on family vacations to Disney World, the several times there were 10 of us and our luggage.
There are no restrictions of private use in most if not all states, and that was what JPC was talking about. Ford had passenger side shoulder belts for many years whether it was a 5, 9, 12 or 15 passenger version. In the higher trim Club Wagons they also offered the 2nd row captains chairs instead of a 3 row bench.
I’ve never driven a post ’97 Dodge van, but have read that this ultimate facelift was a safety update done on the cheap. One of the changes supposedly involved relocating the driver’s seat a few inches aft, but the seat belt was not redesigned or relocated to match (neither was the door). The result was said to be a bit uncomfortable for taller drivers.
Agreed. Allpar said that the dash got deeper front to back thus the seat had to move back. Taller drivers would have a hard time looking out the window and to the rear to merge. Also the gas tank moved forward at some point and the spare tire moved into its former rearward location.
Got a 94 with 428,000 miles 318 runs for ever
I was a senior in high school when the 98 refresh came out and I remember thinking that something was different, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I remember I thought the van had become a bit ugly, and that something was off from the previous ones. Now I know! I’m sure it made for a much more comfortable driving position.
Love these. If you think about it, American full-size vans are really the perfect cars. If the US were to suddenly turn communist and we’d all have to agree on a single model of car for the masses, I’d vote Ford Econoline.
Everything you want in a car or truck (large, fuel-injected, low-output engine, A/C, lots of room, aux jack), with none of the superfluous gadgetry companies have convinced people they need (lots of shiny fake metal inside,touch screens, IRS, race car brakes).
You don’t have to convince me. This was my front line family driver up through the end of 2006.
Jason might require a bit move convincing!
I actually responded earlier but was told I was responding too quickly…
The Leaf is onto something and my coldness to vans has warmed a bit over the last 18 months. Owning my van for 8+ years now, they are good for a lot of things. And being a conversion van, it has the traditional sense of luxury, in a Packard sort of way, not all the superfluous electronic bullshit that currently passes for luxury.
That said, I absolutely detest vans for hauling. Yes mine has carried a full length couch without trouble. Yes they are good for keeping things dry. However, if you haul the only thing between your load and your head is air. Sure one can create dedicated hauling capacity that’ll keep stuff from moving but that is quite often at the expense of passenger carrying ability.
For hauling give me a pickup. Two steel walls between my load and my head. If I want it dry I can buy a topper. That’s why you’ll never see me getting too excited about vans. I have decided to keep mine but it’ll be for travel. If I have to haul I ‘m using my pickup.
Rant over. 🙂
I agree on the lack of separation between the driver and cargo is a minus on a van when hauling certain cargo. For that reason yes I frequently choose my pickup over my van when hauling things. But the fact is with the high top van you can keep a lot more stuff dry and are able to get it packed in there. To limit the likelihood of items bonking me on the back of the head I have installed a lot of E-track and have lots of E track straps, rings, straps with hooks, and bungie cords that always stay in the van. I have thought about a bulkhead, at least the portion that goes behind the driver. Not sure with where mine is cut if there would be major work needed to mount the top of it.
…”lack of separation between the driver and cargo is a minus on a van”…
Disagreed. You can have a full divider, with or without a window, between the driver’s- and the cargo compartment. Standard here, regardless the segment. Dividers come in all possible types. Example below, a reefer van.
Johannes, you prove my point! 🙂 The ability to haul cargo in a van distracts heavily (or eliminates) passenger carrying capacity, such as what you have shown. With a van it’s often (but not always) one or the other.
A nice crew cab pickup will do both. I’ve also driven a few vans with dividers; I hope they have improved over the years as the ones I experienced long ago rattled terribly.
Jason, with a double cab (crew cab) panel van, the divider just moves further to the back. In other words, it’s not placed inbetween the front- and rear seat passengers 😉
Dividers come in all kinds of materials and don’t rattle.
Another point in favor of pickups for cargo hauling is that, because of the separation, it’s a whole lot easier to carry stuff that’s grimy or dirty. Carry that in a van, and the filth and debris will eventually make its way up to the cockpit. No such worries with a pickup.
With that said, in the great van versus pickup debate, they both have their benefits and detriments. I tend to think that pickups are a bit more utilitarian and rural, whereas vans work better for toting human beings and the urban scenario.
How about taller as well?
http://www.dodge50.co.uk/van-brochure.htm
I worked for an accountant in the eighties and a lot of my time was spent running his wife and kids around as she didn’t like to drive.
They had an 85 maxiwagon and an 88 aerostar.
This was my first introduction to minivans and at the time I was much happier taking the big Dodge as I felt it was much more stable at highway speeds than the Ford.
Lots of rear overhang! Let’s put a pallet of sandbags just inside the rear doors and see if the front wheels still touch the ground!
They would. There is a lot more weight (engine, transmission, seats, etc.) and a lot further forward of the rear axle than you are proposing placing behind it. So….physics!
Whether the rear would support the weight without snapping off is another issue.
Back in the 1980s, when the provincial government operated the land ambulance services in Ontario, they almost exclusively used Dodge Maxivans. They were a very familiar sight at the time, before the cube van style ambulance took over.
Tilt test…
Whoa!
Whoops wrong photo!
Reminds me of the external roll cage our ambulances had for a time. I am assuming this pic is from testing!
Does anyone here know if the revamped nose on the 1979 vans added any length or allowed the engine to be moved forward? I can’t tell by looking at it (and can’t find dimensions online), but I recall the inside doghouse getting smaller around this time. I rode quite a bit in the transitional ’78 van which got the new dash and updated interior, larger windows, and repositioned side doors, but retained the ’77 front cap for one last year before receiving the new squared-off look in ’79. Weird thing is the ’78 I was in seemed to have a smaller doghouse than the ’77 and earlier too, which doesn’t make sense since the front end definitely wasn’t any longer.
I have looked at pictures and cannot tell. The top of the engine cover is definitely a little smaller, but I can’t tell if that is because the engine moved forward or if the newer dash stuck out farther towards the passengers at the bottom.
If I had to guess I would say that the engine did not move but that they may have re-shaped the engine cover just a bit. But I could be wrong.
I’m quite certain the engine was not moved forward. The big block (400 and 440) were dropped at this time (IIRC) from the vans, and that may have allowed them to make the doghouse a bit smaller.
I think they eliminated the slant in line six and replaced it with the v6 in In the last update
The v6 is half the length of an inline 6
The slant six would’ve ended about ’86.
My first “car” was a Dodge Maxivan of the longer variety. Before that it was the family hauler so I have spent a lot of time in them.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/cars-of-a-lifetime-an-unexpected-first-car/
My company started out with Dodge vans. We found them to be by far the most reliable of the American brands. Things that broke on GM and Ford vans, like seats and door hardware didn’t break on the Dodges. The LA engines were unkillable, and the Torqueflite never failed.
The problem was twofold for us: one, there was no new van after 2002 (I think) so the supply of used units dried up. Secondly, as our operation grew, the domestic vans were too small to justify the cost of the driver. The payload has to be twice the weight of the vehicle to make money in our market.
These Dodges drove like sports cars in comparison to the pre-1996 GM rigs of the same weight ratings. While I never drove a pre-92 Ford van, I’ll hazard a guess their drivetrains were robust but weak. Dodge all day.
I had an ’84 LWB Econoline conversion van with a 302/AT with overdrive. 5,300 lbs was a lot for a 302. 13 MPG, city and highway, but gas was $1 a gallon in the 90’s, so $20 a week was no big deal. The trans had a clunky shift into OD but it was still going at 170,000. Engine and suspension had no issues.
That is indeed quite a bit of van.
Thinking about it, I did own a ’89 to ’91 Econoline 350 – extended length, of course. Bought it from the NE Missouri Animal Shelter for $300. It ran and drove just fine. It was powered by the 300 straight six – and I sold it to my brother-in-law the next day. It is now in the possession of my other brother-in-law.
One of the most frightening moments I’ve had as a passenger was near the back of one of these on I-70 in a crosswind. The back end of that thing had a mind of its own. The fellow driving really struggled to keep that van in its lane. The back end kept yawing out into the next lane when the front end stayed in. Just awful.
You didn’t see people towing with a Maxivan very often, that’s for sure.
In 1979, someone I knew in my apartment complex bought a brand new Dodge cargo van in red. He was quite upset to find sunshine coming through parts of the weld bead that connected the roof to the body sides. I don’t know how the story played out because I moved away shortly afterwards. 1979 was actually the first year for the squared-off grille 1978 vans had the enlarged side windows but the old grille.
“He was quite upset to find sunshine coming through parts of the weld bead that connected the roof to the body sides.”
Sorry, you are not a winner. Thank you for playing the Chrysler Lottery. Please play again.
The 73 Dodge Royal Sportsman Maxiwagon (a mouthful) bought by my best friend’s dad had the absolute worst paint job I have ever seen on a new car. There were panels (such as between the hood and windshield and again on the inside front doors) where the Top Banana yellow paint had absolutely no gloss to it at all, and actually felt rough to the touch. Chrysler in the 70s was capable of screwing up in the most amazing ways.
I bought a three-year-old, low-mileage Duster 360 in late 1978. The exterior was presentable (it actually was rather fetching in baby blue with white vinyl half-roof and “feather” side stripes) but the dressy white interior was downright shoddy. The cheesy-looking console wiggled side-to-side, the dash look like it had been thrown together, and the fake “woodgrain” was uniformly colored and slightly textured brown plastic. The car was fast (for the period) in a straight line but the handling was frightening above 80. There wad plenty of engine, wind, and road noise. I could never get the engine to stop pinging on acceleration even with premium gas.The A/C never worked well. And to top if all off, after a few years, the car began to rust everywhere fiercely. Though mechanically fairly reliable, the car was really crude. I was quite happy to see the car go in early 1984 and the experience got Chrysler quite out of my system. I replaced it with a new Honda CRX 1.5 5-speed and the difference was night and day.
Did not know the end cap on Dodge vans were lengthened in ‘78. I had noticed the wraparound glass, but not the added length. I had easily noticed the different window configuration, particularly the loss of little pane behind the B-pillar on the long wheelbase version. I’m not sure when Ford and Chevy stopped producing the shorty vans, but it seemed Dodge continued to produce them for a longer time. I had always grouped vans into three cargo lengths: 8 foot (shorty), standard (10 foot), and extended (12 foot). The van conversion craze of the seventies for some reason seemed to prefer shorty vans. I recall Ford was the the first manufacturer to offer an extended body as far back as the 60s, and it was offered on the lighter suspension as well, at that time. I recall a “party” neighbor had an extended ‘67 Econoline somewhat customized, with aluminum slot wheels. If I remember correctly, Ford did not offer an extended body on the following generation from ‘68-‘74. It was during that time, I assume, that Dodge introduced their extended version on their new generation B-series van, and on the lighter suspension, as well, but not for dedicated people haulers(?). Some time after Ford’s redesign of ‘75, they again re-offered the extended body. It should be noted that Ford’s ‘75 redesign was a big deal at the time due to the forward placement of the engine, and the resultant longer hood and smaller doghouse. I’m sure there has to be a CC article on this somewhere?
On a final note about these extended body vans from Dodge and Ford, Chevy stands it as having never offered an extended length version until 1990. And then, the General had to be different in that they didn’t just graft on som extra sheetmetal, they engineered an extended length chassis, with the accompanying extended driveshaft, brake lines, and whatever else went along. Obviously it is a safer and more stable design as compared to the ridiculous rear overhang of the competition. It should be noted also that the extended bodies on Dodge and Chevy can produce a “tailswing” issue when turning in tight quarters. To be fair, the Chevy’s extended wheelbase also requires a little extra care during right turns as not to clip the right rear quarter on “.things” in tight quarters The only thing that approaches that long wheelbase in length would be a crew cab-long bed pickup.
When speaking of “tail swing” issues, I meant Ford and Dodge, not Chevy.. Didn’t notice my typo until now, hours later.
Thank you for the write up and I like the aftermarket wheels on the Red one in the lead photo.
I have ridden in a circa 2000 version of these a few times as well as a circa 1991 version though maybe one of those was a 1995. I am still a bit surprised that the company that pioneered the modern Minivan would have continued to sell such an antiquated vehicle (interior mostly) as late as 2002. The rear overhang on these and the Econolines looks unsafe, I am surprised Ford as well as Dodge made them for so long, and glad to see the Transit has a longer wheelbase.
Nothing says summer camp quite like a Dodge van and a Grumman canoe.
The rear overhang can present problems, as I just discovered. How this popped up on youtube I have no clue…
That was fun to watch, perhaps I will check out the Clark County Fair next year.
Nice video, but it seems its long wheelbase is what finally hung it up, not the rear overhang.
I’ve taken our Dodge Chinook on some Jeep roads that weren’t much better than that. But it has dual rear tires, and I went a bit slower. 🙂
Even MORE ironic is that the company who invented the 15-passenger van no longer makes ANY passenger vans in the full-size category. You can’t get a RAM ProMaster as a passenger van straight from the factory. Instead, Chrysler (really Fiat) sends a “window” van to an aftermarket upfitter & THEY add the extra seats for a passenger conversion (go to Allpar.com for more info). My reasoning behind this is that they don’t wan’t to cannibalize sales of the Grand Caravan or Pacifica minivans. Interestingly, the smaller RAM ProMaster City DOES have a passenger version of its own, but only with 5-passenger seating. And yes the Transit’s longest wheelbase IS longer than the Econoline’s by nearly 10 inches (the Express’s is even LONGER), but the biggest Transit appears to have an even LONGER rear overhang than even the “longest” Maxivan/wagon. It’s fortunate that dual rear wheels come standard on the passenger version.
Pity about the low roof, with a high top and a diesel I’d take one to convert into a camper.
Back in the 80’s the local Canteen Vending franchise had a ton of Maxivans. Loaded to the roof with cases of soda and such, rear suspension on the bump stops and going hell bent for leather.
They were also popular with carpet installers. I had one tell me that the usable length was just a little longer than the others and that you could shut the doors with a full length (12 ft?) roll of carpet inside. After he told me that, darned if every carpet installer I saw after that was driving one.
Yup that is what the carpet installers mostly drove around here because they could close the doors, important in our rainy climate.
My carpet guy told me the same thing when he did work for us the second time and showed up in a new “longest” version (that was in ’98 …. not sure if it was 2nd or 3rd generation). The first time he worked for us in the early ’90’s he definitely had a 1st gen. But unlike you, instead of seeing all the carpet guys driving Dodges, I started noticing all the carpet guys driving Fords and Chevies with a few feet of carpet hanging out the open rear doors.
Talk about a blast from the past! There was a time when these vans, especially the “aero” 1990s ones and the quad headlamp facelift that immediately preceded it, were all over the place, but I haven’t seen one in years. I feel like the last windowless versions used by utility companies were phased out by the late ’00s.
The history of these is rather incredible, as they are one of the only American cars I can think of that soldiered on for over three decades with little in the way of chassis or body updates, only mild facelifts and mechanical updates.
The current Econoline is on its way to doing that too if Ford continues selling it as a cutaway chassis (the cab goes back to 1992). If you include commercial trucks, the Ford C-Series & Mack R-Series also qualify for staying in one basic design throughout their entire production run for at least 30 years with minimal overall changes.
A decade ago I worked for a company that had big vans from all of the big 3.
My recollection is that the Dodge interiors were crude, but the most durable. The Chevy interiors were very nice, but didn’t hold up well at all. The Fords were probably the nicest all around, but used a lot more gas. The big issue with the Dodge was the heavy duty brake and suspension parts needed for a 3500 were more expensive, but didn’t seem to last.
The Dodges we had were the longest version (12 passengers plus a cargo space) and I don’t recall any handling issues, but you didn’t want to try any kind of hill in the snow or ice if the van wasn’t loaded.
I delivered customised vans from Indiana factories for a while. The longer they were. the better the fuel mileage. Like them all, thought the Ford interiors were the least appealing, the thin steering wheel and gauges mostly.
You got the details on the LENGTHS. Did you forget you wrote about different WIDTHS?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake-dodge-wide-body-van/