(first posted 6/2/2016) Conceived under a rather unusual joint-venture between Ford and Nissan, the 1993 Mercury Villager and Nissan Quest were each automaker’s first minivans that were both front-wheel drive and sized to compete with the industry dominating Chrysler minivans. Although arguably the most chic and stylish minivans on the market at the time of their introduction, the first generation Villager and Quest lacked the space and versatility of other minivans, chiefly, the Chryslers.
Riding on a 112.2 inch wheelbase, nearly identical to the SWB Chrysler minivans, at 189.9 inches, the first generation Villager was almost a foot longer in overall length, placing it slightly closer to the LWB “Grand” Chryslers. Despite having a closer exterior size to the LWB Chryslers, cargo capacity was closer to that of the SWB Chryslers, and rear legroom was even less than the SWB Mopars.
Adding to the somewhat less practical nature of the Quest/Villager, only the second row seats, in either bench or bucket form, were removable. The third row bench did fold and slide forward, but could not be removed for maximum cargo space as in most competitors. Dual-rear sliding doors, pioneered by Chrysler in 1996, and soon appearing on other competitors, were never an available feature on first generation Villagers.
The Villager also initially lacked a driver’s side air bag, a standard feature on the Chryslers, opting for the cumbersome motorized shoulder belts instead. A driver’s side airbag was added for the car’s second model year, though a passenger’s was not until 1996, two years later than the benchmark Chryslers. Mercury did have leg up when it came to anti-lock brakes, which were standard from the start of production. Regardless, aside from a 1996 cosmetic exterior facelift, changes to the first generation Villager were fairly limited over its six-year tenure.
Nissan went ahead with redesigning the minivan, with the second generation Quest and Villager officially debuting for the 1999 model year. As before, Nissan was largely responsible for the design and engineering of the vehicle, while Ford’s contribution was primarily the physical production of the minivans, at its Ohio Assembly plant in Avon Lake, Ohio.
Size-wise, the second generation Villager grew roughly five inches in length (on an unchanged 112.2 inch wheelbase) and one inch in width, once again placing it in between yet slightly closer to the long-wheelbase redesigned Chryslers.
Style-wise, the second generation Villager was visually similar to its predecessor, with the glaring difference being the addition of a standard driver’s side sliding door à la Chrysler. Clearly evolutionary in is appearance progression, at least in your author’s opinion, the second generation Villager/Quest didn’t exude the same degree of dapperness as the original, looking somewhat like a melted ice sculpture of said first generation in comparison.
Versus is predecessor, power was up to 170 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque, courtesy of Nissan’s newer 3.3L VG33E V6. In spite of this, output was still less than rivals such as the Oldsmobile Silhouette, Honda Odyssey, and Toyota Sienna, making for less hauling power. More unfortunate, was that this engine’s cam sensors were overly prone to failure, making for some major headaches to owners.
Although its brakes, steering, and suspension systems were nothing noteworthy for a minivan — front disc/rear drum, power-assisted rack-and-pinion, and front MacPherson struts/rear solid beam axle — the Villager generally received strong marks for its handling and maneuverability, helped by a firm steering feel and available 16-inch wheels on higher trims. Ride quality, however, was hindered by the Villager’s short wheelbase.
As aforementioned, the Villager now included a driver’s side sliding door as standard equipment on all models, though power operation was not available as on some competitors. Ergonomics were improved over the previous generation, with the radio placed higher in the center stack and redundant controls added to the steering wheel. That being said, some controls, particularly for HVAC, were still located quite low and the numerous buttons for the available automatic climate control were small, requiring a lengthy look while driving. Fit-and-finish was nothing too praiseworthy either.
New features included a parcel shelf in the cargo area, map pockets in the front doors, and a storage drawer under the front passenger seat similar to what was found in Chrysler minivans. Another notable feature was Travel Note, a voice memo recording system tied in with the available Homelink universal garage door opener. New seat tracks also allowed the third row bench to be moved up to five inches forward while still upright, for increased cargo room without totally losing seating capacity.
Niceties including automatic climate control, rear HVAC, driver’s memory seat, power moonroof, digital gauge cluster display, CD player, and even a rear seat entertainment system were all available, albeit extra cost.
As with before, the Villager’s two greatest crutches were its lack of versatility and hefty price tag when compared to most other minivans on the market. The somewhat cumbersome second row bench or buckets (depending on trim level) were removable, but once again, the third row bench could only be folded and slid forward. It could not be removed or stowed flat into the floor as with most competitors.
Available in base, Sport, and Estate trims, the Villager did offer a few features competitors charged extra for, such as power windows, air conditioning, and later, remote keyless entry. However, minivans in comparable trim levels from competitors including the Chryslers, Ford’s own Windstar, and even the Honda Odyssey all cost less money and offered significantly more interior room.
The other potential turn-off to family buyers was the Villager’s lack of standard and available safety features. Anti-lock brakes were no longer standard, costing buyers nearly $600 extra. Other features offered on competitors, including traction control, side-impact airbags, and an occupant-sensing front airbag were not even available on the Villager.
In the end, the Mercury Villager failed at ever gaining widespread success in the minivan segment. While its interior space was comparable to Chrysler’s short-wheelbase minivans, its prices were higher than most extended-wheelbase minivans, and the Villager fell short when it came to making this price premium worth while for most buyers. Not even the Rugrats’ stamp of approval could save it.
Whereas the first generation at least carved out a small niche as the fashionable minivan for those willing to sacrifice practicality in the name of style, the second generation Villager offered little in the way of noteworthiness, cementing its also-ran status. Although the first generation Villager managed to sell a reasonable 55,000+ units annually in most years, second generation Villager sales topped out at 45,315 units in 1999, and steadily declined to 16,442 by 2002.
Meanwhile, in 1999 alone, the Dodge Caravan sold 293,100 units, the Ford Windstar sold 213,884 units, the Plymouth Voyager sold 138,644 examples, the Toyota Sienna sold 98,809, the Honda Odyssey sold 78,802, and the Chrysler Town & Country even sold 71,957 units, its lowest sales year over the 1999-2002 period. With the nearly identical Quest selling equally poorly and Nissan pulling out of the joint-venture in favor of producing a new, larger Quest on its own, the Villager quietly ended production in 2002, with little marking the occasion.
By this point, it would seem the plausible thing for Ford to do was just give Mercury a rebadged version of the Windstar to sell. Surely it would have fared better? The answer to that question soon arrived in the form of the badge-engineered Freestar twin, the Mercury Monterey, which ultimately was an astounding “no”.
Related Reading:
1993-2002 Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager (Automotive History)
1996-2000 Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager (Automotive History)
I always had some reservations about these for not quite having enough power or quite the reliability to make up for their lack of size — which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I had a weird fondness for the Nautica trim package, although it didn’t strike me as especially practical for a family car.
I feel like smaller vans are like compact pickups so far as the American market is concerned: They make a lot of practical sense and a lot of people seem to like the idea of them, but when it comes to buy (at least, when it comes to buy new), people talk themselves into something bigger. The quite-appealing Mazda5 has suffered the same problem.
There does seem to be a natural inclination, in trucks and vans at least, to buy the biggest vehicle you can afford “just in case” it’s needed. Hence, as you mentioned, the decline of compact pickups and the lack of success of the Mazda 5, which is a fantastic vehicle–if you don’t *need* all that space. A taxation system that penalizes larger vehicles would put that idea to rest and probably explains why they work better in other countries, but I’m not eager to see that implemented here for a variety of reasons.
When the smaller vehicle offers little to no gains in performance, economy, or value, it simply doesn’t make a lot of sense. Unlike the van above, the Mazda 5 you mention does offer some of that but it is very cramped for any family of more than 2 kids. Most families with just 2 kids don’t need a van at all, so it’s targeting a pretty small market.
True, I suppose, though I would imagine it to be “just right” for a 2 child family. Most of those probably do have SUVs instead, but the 5 might be a better choice for efficiency and driving enjoyment. A co-worker had one with the Skyactiv engine and had nothing but praise for the way it drove and its economy. He had 3 kids, and the 5 could carry them all for around town use, but they did have a larger vehicle (Grand Caravan) as their ride for long trips or any time they needed to carry the kids *and* a lot of stuff.
I once suggested the Mazda5 to some friends who needed a new family vehicle. It was perfectly suitable to 98% of their needs, but the idea that (by their own description) maybe once or twice a year there was some special situation that might call for more space made them unwilling to even drive one, even though it was usefully roomier than what they were replacing.
God forbid anyone make the logical choice, Aaron. I regularly have similar issues when friends ask what I think they should buy because they know my investment in being an auto enthusiast. It seems that what they really want is for me to tell them that their own misguided choice can be validated by my knowledge.
Come to think of it, I have the same issue related to my knowledge as a nurse.
My sister in law had one and put well over 200k mi. on it until It lost reverse. I cut the top off, drove it around a bit, then parted it out on Ebay.
Ours just ended up looking like that naturally
Call me an easily-pleased simpleton if you will, but the headline put a big smile on my face. Good article too!
Me too!
With the onslaught of the now domestic Odyssey and Sienna to the declining minivan market, the second generation Villager was doomed to failure. All that volume had to come from somewhere and a compromised vehicle like the Villager would naturally bear the brunt of the new competition.
It is interesting to imagine if the Villager/Quest had debuted with the new fwd Maximas of 1985. The Chryslers were limited to fours still, the Japanese were converted delivery vans, and Ford and GM were truck based. The space inside the van would still have been bad, never a strength of the boxy Maxima, but baby boomer families might have really taken to it with the great Nissan V6. It is very lucky for Chrysler that this did not happen.
Thanks Brendan for this interesting writeup.
To a very small extent, Nissan DID do what you supposed they “could” have done…the introduced the Stanza “wagon” in late 85/early 86. Unfortunately, that vehicle, while vaguely competitive with the new Chrysler vans, wasn’t marketed that way. The 1st Caravans had 2.2 liter engines as standard good for 95 horsepower while the Stanza wagon had a 2 liter engine good for 97 horsepower. The wheelbase of the Dodge was 112 inches, the Nissan was 99, overall length was 176 for the Dodge, 171 for the Nissan. So while the Nissan was sized smaller, it wasn’t too bad in base trim….it even had 4 doors to the Caravan’s 3.
The huge advantage would have been the Nissan V6 and using the Chrysler layout with Japanese bones. The Stanza/ Prairie/ Axcess were and are highly prized by fans but I don’t think they were ever in danger of becoming mainstream family movers
I think the king of minivans are the u body minivans. Chevrolet Oldsmobile Pontiac. Back in the day they had the most power. A 3.4 V 6 185 hp. Good on fuel just great vans.
I never realized the 2nd gen was anything more than a facelift.
The ’96 blue over white Villager Nautica we had was a really nice little van, but it was pretty tight inside. Around 75xxx miles it started having electrical gremlins and we dumped it.
I’m told these are prone to underbody rust, but never lived that myself so I can’t really comment on that.
The son of the man I crewed a sailboat for in the mid ’90s gave up his Lexus SC400 for one of these after having it as a rental. He was so impressed that he bought the very van he rented from the rental company. I wound up with the two-year-old Lexus as my car to drive whenever the boat was in Palm Beach. Previously, I’d had Lincoln Town Cars for the purpose, which were actually better for provisioning the boat, moving equipment, and not getting harassed by West Palm Beach night crawlers. The kid really liked that van though.
We had one of these, a ’96 Villager. Things started going wrong at 100,000 miles and we traded on a (shudder) ’00 Taurus Wagon. Wish I had fixed the problems with the Villager. Did Ford make their automatic transmissions out of paper????
It’s interesting to see the Rugrats movie tie-in since the Pickles family seemed to prefer Toyota Previas in the series.
The Mopar mini-van triplets (Caravan, Voyager, T&C) were thoroughly dominating the marketplace at this point and were the true benchmarks for minivans. When the Villager / Quest minivans first came out, there was still a lot of confusion in the marketplace with regards to styling with the GM dustbuster vans, the oddball mid-engine/egg styling of the Toyota Previa, the truck like Ford Aerostars and GM Astro/Safaris, plus the others. Not to mention that this era the Honda Odyssey was having tremendous problems with its transmission. I suppose the combination of Nissan and Mercury labels the target audience was slightly upscale than the baseline minivan buyer, probably a bet that the reduced versatility would not be noticed as much in day to day life. The third seat arrangement was not as bad as was written about in this article, it could slide all the way forward to the front seat for additional room in the back, however, yes it was not removable so for those occasions (usually not often) when all the seats had to come out that seat did not.
Really though, in the end, minivans were first and foremost utility vehicles, mostly for families. While minivans have crept up in amenities as have most cars in the marketplace, the basic bones are still there. That is why after all the various incarnations tried by different automakers, everyone eventually fell in line behind Chrysler and all came out with conventional designs and to no surprise, sold better.
Honda was marketing a small, 4 cylinder Accord-based minivan at the time you’re describing. Transmissions were the least of their worries.
My family had both a first gen Villager and a second gen Nissan Quest, the first gen was far better. The drivetrain was robust enough, as was it in the first gen, but ooh, poor fit and finish is an understatement. Ours saw the dealer every week for 4 weeks upon purchase, because one by one the pop out side window latches decided to stop latching if you use them more than once(such abuse!). Other quibbles was the dash loaded with acres of fake buttons if you didn’t have the disco dashboard display or auto climate control or fog lights or whatever, basically a constant reminder of how cheap you are, which eventually everyone else will notice when they’re able to peer in when both front door window regulators fail(just out of warranty!), leaving the glass in the door until your teenage son(me) pulls the door card off and pushes the window up from inside, never to be used again. Oh and that “parcel shelf”? Yeah I don’t know how tall grocery bags are in Japan but they were taller than that stupid piece of plastic round here, that cumbersome thing resided in the corner of my parents garage from roughly week after purchase to about a week after selling the POS, where it was quickly thrown in the dumpster.
The dangling side mirror on this example certainly brings back memories – Dear Nissan, if you’re going to design folding mirrors how about making sure they don’t break when you FOLD THEM. Clearly engineered by the same team who did the pop out window latches…
Oh and styling wise, while I’m not a fan of minivans in general, the first gen was fairly attractive and purposeful, the second gen looked like the bloated fat and ugly brother of it.
Having owned a ’97 Quest, bought off-lease in ’00, I can attest to the pros and cons of the first generation. I cannot say that it was underpowered, by any stretch. The 3.0 from the Maxima of that generation wwas a very good motor, and the drivetrain of that van was smooth, nicely balanced and really a pleasure to drive, as long as you weren’t expecting NASCAR 0-60 times from a minivan. As has been stated above though, there were issues with the body integrity and general fit and finish. I experienced the same side window latch issues that XR7Matt refers to. After replacing the parts twice I ultimately used some combination of twist ties and paper clips to replace the pivot pins in the window latches, effectively solving the problem, albeit by losing the ability to open all of the windows. The interior was plasticky to say the least, and the seats were clearly fashioned for smaller folks. At 6’3″ I found the driver’s seat to be supportive, but not exactly generously sized enough to prevent fatigue after a long drive. To the van’s credit, it served us well for 170k miles, but at 8 years old it was looking and feeling well worn. My (by then) ex traded it in for a Honda Pilot and was not sad to see it go, but despite its shortcomings I can’t say that it ever failed to do its job. In hindsight I bought it to begin with because I was nervous about drivetrain (especially transmission) issues with the Chrysler vans I’d been familiar with. Even though we traded some comfort and convenience for having done so, I never experienced the dreaded no-go problems I was trying to avoid, so from that perspective it was a winning decision.
Like the hood with BPP.
‘Butt-Print Patina’.
While new, 1993-2002 Quest/Villagers didn’t sell well, they are still chugging along in blue collar towns/areas. See more of them than same year Windstars. The Nissan V6 motors last well over 200K miles and small enough to drive in city.
It is strange to see Villager Nautica/Estate vans hauling ladders and paint buckets. Far from its original ‘luxury people mover’ niche. But durability matters most for some. I don’t think contractors care about “quality of interior materials” at this point.
They can also be found in upper Manhattan, Washington Heights, where they’re popular with the local Dominicans there. I think there was an old CC post about that…
This – the Villager, among other Ford efforts at stocking showrooms with minivans – is why I can’t give Deadly Sin status to GM’s efforts. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1992-chevrolet-lumina-apv-gm-deadly-sin-25-we-just-cant-make-a-successful-minivan/ All of the manufacturers struggled to find a formula that wasn’t a copy of the Mopars. Toyota finally did copy it correctly, and has a nameplate that is the best selling mini – but the current FCA twins still outsell it about 1.6 to 1.0.
FCA desperately needs something beyond Jeep to carry it into the future. I hope the Pacifica single model strategy works out for them. Minivans have been on a 200,000 units / year pace for FCA in 2016. Only time will tell if Marchionne has killed the segment for FCA.
Interestingly, I was spending a little time in my local CJDR store last night. Even with a separate Fiat store up the street, they had a 500 L in the showroom. Also, an Alfa Romeo convertible for 60K plus. Six brands in the showroom made it feel like a used car lot.
Guess what was nowhere to be found? The Pacifica. FCA has been botching product launches…………..grit teeth here.
I knew someone who had one of these and liked it a lot. When the middle seats came out, it was a hugely roomy car for a family of four. In hindsight, I would take one of these all day every day over the Windstar/Freestar version that came later.
The niche they seemed to be mining was the smaller-but-premium segment, and they did it fairly well. It was different from everything else, and gave L-M dealers something to sell in the way of a minivan. A few years, I was talking to my mechanic about these and he said that in his experience the Mercury version had fewer electrical issues than the Nissan version. Made me wonder if they were built in separate assembly plants.
My brother and wife almost got a Villager, [which I thought was best one] but he was dead set against a minivan at the time, 2000. Got a Taurus wagon, but then got an Escape in 2005.
Brendan – Nice write up.
I was enamored with the Nissan Quest SE and it was the other finalist for my “family car” when my kid was born back in 2001. I was familiar with the 3.0 engine, having gotten 200k+ miles out of my Nissan truck; the Quest drove “smaller” than anything else on the market except the Mazda MPV. Ultimately, based on rumors of the cam issues and my slightly less-than-impressed lengthy test drive in regards to build integrity, I opted for my other semi-finalist (Isuzu Trooper), which felt like it was carved out of a single piece of granite. A slow, lumbering piece of granite with a glass transmission, but granite none-the-less.
I still believe there is a decent market for a mini-mini-van this size. I’d love to see Subaru nail it with AWD and the 3.6 or even 2.5. Minivans are a jack-of-all-trades, but they don’t all need to be Odyssey sized.
I don’t have great hopes for the Pacifica – since GC/TC’s last refurbishment the market has advanced tremendously, and unless you’re selling on price/value (GC) the Odyssey and Sienna are very hard to beat despite being long-in-the-tooth. The Pacifica hasn’t added anything to the game except newer style, and frankly the minivan crowd doesn’t care that much.
The Pacifica has been getting great reviews. All indications are Chrysler knocked it out of the park and is back to best in class. They are easily the most versatile and family-friendly interiors of any van with virtually everything well thought out. A hybrid is on the way. And although they have not committed to AWD, they have stated the platform was designed for it.
Considering they never lost their sales lead, I’d say the minivan crowd still cares very much.
The big question mark, of course, is Fiat reliability.
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not that worried about about Fiat-related quality – the Pentastar is quickly becoming a Mopar legend in a positive sense, and all indications are the transmission is well-matched and thus-wise reliable.
But the GC/T&C sold on price point because of huge discounts; with the T&C gone, it’s up to the GC to carry that burden (with a life now extended through 2018). Huge amounts of GC/T&Cs were sold to fleets – that will be necessary to maintain a sales lead.
Lord knows Fiat/Chrysler can use the jolt – I’m not sure Jeep can carry the load forever…
Yeah, the reason we bought our T&C was mainly due to the value. It was clearly not as refined as the Odyssey or Sienna. But it also had the most useful and thoughtfully designed interior and sportier handling dynamics so it wasn’t like I felt we were slumming. My wife flat-out liked it the best out of any of the vans, and we looked at them all.
Chrysler still has a better dealer network reaching more people than Honda or Toyota. I think it was a move they had to make. They are still good values relative to CUVs and what I really like is that you can pick and choose your options fairly well. But Kia made the same move upmarket with the Sedona and while it helped the perception of their brand, the sales don’t seem to be doing very well. It’s important to note though that the Sedona, while a good vehicle overall, doesn’t have a very competitive interior or good fuel economy.
Good article and I assume these are all over South Central Los Angeles even though I have not visited in nearly 4 years. Not terribly common in Portland, OR though. A co-worker of mama’s had one of these (I think) and she disliked the second row radio controls since kids would turn off the classic rock. I think the styling is alright enough and I have seen a Nautical Edition once or twice.
Good article Brendan.
You always hit that happy balance between giving us the technical details we can learn from but still remembering we are enthusiasts who understand a car is more than the sum of its parts.
I actually was kind of taken aback though. I remembered the first generation as being more of a smaller van like a mpv, rather than being in between the caravans.
A relative still has a 1996 Nissan Quest as a spare vehicle. Bought new, it spent ten years in central San Francisco before moving to the garage in a country home. For those who don’t know, for a car that gets run and parked daily, San Francisco is as bad as New York or Philadelphia but without the rust. This one has its left headlight tied on with baling wire (it jiggles on bumps), and the interior is looking pretty tattered. Both sunvisors collapsed p…two from EBay fixed that, but in a nonmatching color. The second seat was removed early in its life because of the skimpy legroom, and the third seat slid forward which provided a lot of legroom. But that was the problem when I wanted to get some redwood 2×6 and 6×6 lumber to fix my deck, and my wife had our Ford Taurus wagon. The oddball seating in the Quest meant that it couldn’t even handle as long a load as the Taurus.
The Nissan 3L V6 is strong. Not up to the Duratec in the Taurus, and less torquey than the Chrysler 3.3L, but pretty close, and definitely stronger than the 3.8L In the Ford Windstar that my neighbor then had.
I still see a few of these chugging around every so often here in R.I. They are always very loud and just look so used up, rightfully so because they are! I always thought they were durable seeing that they had Nissan bones, and IIRC they were prone to rotting out prematurely.
As always, great write-up Brendan!
In hindsight it is rather amazing how difficult it seemed to be to convince many vehicle designers to create a thoroughly practical minivan. Right off the bat – this van is too small. It didn’t have two sliding rear doors. It didn’t have removable third row seats, it lacked a passenger air bag. These are minimums. A decade after the success of the Chrysler products, these guys still couldn’t figure out how to meet the minimum here?
I can understand the Japanese way of efficient design in that we don’t see anything oversized coming out of their manufacturers. These brands are engineered to an nth degree. Flexibility needs to be engineered into these designs at the beginning. This vehicle needed more flexibility, but it was locked in.
Nissan quality is a misnomer. We rented thousands of Nissan products, Mitsubishi products, Mazda products, as well as Ford/Lincoln products during this era, and the Nissan and Mitsubishi was often falling short. I always found their designs to be as sharp as the competition, yet the execution didn’t produce the expected results.
So I wasn’t convinced that the Nissan/Mercury minivan was going to be a winner. It may have been as appealing as the competition, but there were those missing minimums that a higher price makes even harder to accept.
Finally this – telling a family what their ride ought to be by someone who doesn’t have the same size family, or no family, is like getting advice on neck ties from a visually challenged slob. You try to put three kids in this vehicle – all three in car seats. You do that everyday. You then try to put all their gear into the remaining places. You do that everyday. What looks good on paper to a guy without little kids is truly useless. With my size family, it is tiresome to be second guessed by the ignorant. We need big rides and we need no comments. We aren’t wasteful, we aren’t cheap, we aren’t stupid, we are exhausted. Until you find yourself with more than a couple of kids, stay humble.
The opposite side of the argument as someone without a family and all their gear but thinking about a “bigger than average” box for needed projects (try loading a 2 x 12 combo amp in a Prelude), at the time I found the Villager to be just the right size. Even for a while I seriously kicked around picking up a used Mazda 5 if I could find a good deal.
Now, as Mercury or Nissan’s ~only~ minivan offering, the strategy was flawed. Chrysler got it right in a number of ways, and having both a Voyager/Caravan, plus a Grand Voyager/Caravan, seemed ideal. Particularly because there’s so much that can be carried over if the only difference is the length.
We had a ’93 Villager, our first minivan. It didn’t have the space of the LWB Chryslers, as noted in the article, but it was a better product in pretty much every other way. With four young children, a single door on the curbside still served us well. We had no problems at all with it, unlike nearly all our friends with Chrysler products. By 1996, however, our kids had gotten bigger and a bit more space was provided by a Windstar, itself later succeeded by a string of three Odysseys… the best of all, by far.