After too long of a respite, let us resume our examination of the curious development of the American minivan. Yes, I know it has been a long time. Perhaps I was ground down by one failed attempt after another in tries to duplicate Chrysler’s success. Or perhaps it was an (extended) attention span problem. In any case, we are back with one of the most splendid failures in minivan-dom.
Did I just use the words “failure” and “Toyota” in the same paragraph? Yes I did. But let us make this one thing clear: This Previa was not a failure in and of itself. It was actually pretty fabulous in many ways. But when the yardstick is the iconic Chrysler minivan of the 1990’s (and the kinds of sales numbers they racked up year after year) the Previa was certainly not a success, in the way success would have been measured by American Toyota dealers back in the day.
When we left off, Chrysler was The Minivan King. All comers, large and small had tried to wrestle the crown from the company. But none of them got even close to Chrysler’s kind of success. Ford and GM tried smaller versions of big vans. Honda tried a bigger version of its popular Accord. GM tried a second track with the spacetastic dustbusters. Then Ford and Nissan tried to combine the best America and Japan had to offer. Each found its niche, but those manufacturers were not aiming to build niche vehicles. They wanted the multi-hundred-thousand-annual-unit kind of acceptance that Chrysler had lucked into. Bzzzzt – Sorry, thanks for playing.
Toyota had actually been one of the very first to join Volkswagen in offering a small van in 1980’s America. Its cleverly named “Toyota Van” was a variant on the Japanese TownAce and came to market at roughly the same time as Lee Iacocca’s Magic Wagon. It did not take long for all to see that Chrysler had found the secret sauce while Toyota had not.
In coming up with the Previa, Toyota had the luxury of hindsight to understand the way Chrysler’s concept of the minivan had been like a gold strike in the U.S. This was undoubtedly why Toyota’s Calty Design Research facility in Newport Beach, California was tapped in the project to come up with a successful minivan. After much work with trucks and sporty cars, this appears to have been Calty’s first effort at a serious, mainstream vehicle.
Calty began with a clean sheet – something that Chrysler had never had the luxury of doing in the early 1980’s. It is not unreasonable to assume that Toyota had the same idea that GM had grasped: Chrysler designed its minivan as a compromise, born of available platforms and unavailability of funds. How much more successful could a minivan be if it began with a fresh concept that went to the next level (as everyone is so fond of saying).
And the Previa was nothing if not “next level.” Using a layout shared with nothing else the company built, the Previa would be a rear drive setup with its 2.4 liter four mounted amidships below the van’s floor. Certain service items would be under the tiny hood up front but most of the van’s space would be devoted to the family in a dimension package that compared closely to that of the Chrysler triplets.
The vehicle would be built in Japan beginning in 1990. In addition to a U.S. version (first sold here as a 1991 model) the van would be offered in multiple markets around the world.
Design-wise, the van was an unmitigated success. It was as durable and trouble-free as anything the company made, and possessed a balance from the mid-engine design that made it a highly engaging drive. It was comfortably fitted out, and even luxurious in its higher trim levels.
The van was available in an all-wheel-drive version as well, and for those who sought more power there was a supercharged version of the basic four that bumped power from 138 bhp to 161.
Beyond the car’s winning chassis was its groundbreaking looks. Remember that the Previa was in showrooms five years before the third generation Chrysler minivans , so this highly aerodynamic ovoid was like nothing else on the market. And unlike the GM dustbusters, the Previa did not waste a lot of space under an oddly exaggerated hood and windshield. So Toyota had assembled the total package – A thoughtful and solid chassis, a practical and useful interior that was comfortable and attractive, all rolled into a daringly styled van. But.
| 1991 | 52,099 |
| 1992 | 39,047 |
| 1993 | 31,245 |
| 1994 | 18,005 |
| 1995 | 18,234 |
| 1996 | 8,520 |
| 1997 | 3,780 |
| 1998 | 96 |
U.S. sales figures tell the sad tale. The long 1991 model year would be the best-ever for the Previa, with a significant drop every year thereafter. Until the third generation Chrysler effort came along for 1996. That was when U.S. Previa sales went into a free fall, generating numbers that would have embarrassed AMC or Studebaker in their final years. For comparison, the three flavors of minivans from Chrysler managed sales of around 395,000 in the recession year of 1991 (all numbers coming from carsalesbase.com).
So what happened? How did one of the biggest and most successful companies, at the top of its game and with all the resources it could want manage such a poor showing?
Was it the lack of V6 power? To the American consumer of the 1990s the V6 engine had become the equivilent to the V8 engine of the 1950s. Never mind that Toyota’s supercharged four was more powerful than Chrysler’s 144 bhp V6. Though in fairness, the heaviest versions of the Previa outweighed the portliest Chryslers by six or seven hundred pounds. In the popular view, “everybody knew” that six cylinders was better than four, especially for the prices Toyota was charging. This was an un-solvable problem in that there was simply no room to accommodate a V6 in the engine bay. At least not without turning the interior into something that resembled an inboard-powered ski boat with its large engine housing in the middle of the seating area.
And about those prices. The Previa was a really, really expensive proposition. In 1995 (to pick an example) the basic DX model started at $23,338. A high end model with AWD and the supercharged engine carried a base sticker of $31,568 – with plenty of opportunity for added options. In contrast, a really loaded AWD Grand Caravan could be had for about $5k less, certainly enough to pay for the eventual transmission rebuild and any other post-warranty repairs the Dodge buyer might experience. Even my 1994 Ford Club Wagon Chateau, built with virtually every option Ford would hang onto it, could not get the sticker price up to $30,000.
It is arguable that in the Previa Toyota built one of the best minivans ever. They were comfortable, well-built vehicles that have often racked up insanely high miles for their owners. But the typical American minivan buyer was not interested in a high-priced van that would run for 500,000 miles. That buyer was interested in a reasonably priced van that would ferry the kids to ball practice and dance lessons and the rest of the family on cross-country vacations until it started to get a little old and grungy, when it would be traded on a new one.
Toyota would, of course, eventually discover this formula for the Camry and Corolla – cars that have been perennials on the best-seller lists. And it would put the lessons learned from the Previa to work on the Previa’s successor, a van that would finally join the VIP circle of minivan makers.
However, for most of the 1990’s Toyota would find that the answer to the question asked in this series was “Harder than it looks.”
Further Reading:
1995 Toyota Previa DX – How Do You Take Your Eggs (Brendan Saur)
1991-97 Toyota Previa/Tarago – First And Final Frontier For The Space Pod (William Stopford)
Previous Installments of the How Hard Can It Be series
Still plenty of these and their narrower Estima sibling in use over here they are a backpackers favourite perfect for touring the country in either bought or rental condition cooling system maintenance is important as lack of it will cook the engine eventually making the car dead and worthless, turbo diesels seemed to be popular in the steamer versions I’m not sure they bothered to offer an oil burner in the wide body Previa/Tarago model, I would have called them a success for Toyota they carried the idea on to another generation using a Camry powertrain that is also popular and still seen in reasonable numbers.
As their great empire peaked, the British built palaces for post-offices and monuments for railways stations and castles for courts no matter how far-flung from King they were. For all the many and contradictory things these buildings now represent, they remain wonderful structures, the best available of their time.
Toyota’s empire has turned out to be far from its peak, but they they did have this period of investing as if they would reign forever, the one that often precedes the fall. In this country, the Previa (Tarago) was rightly chosen by some judges as the Car of The Year from the Toyota Lexus Ls 400 that won it. Both were astonishing in their own ways. Both exemplifed enduring quality, the ebse of their time, and both are innovators. Arguably no people mover built since the Previa has handled as safely as it, and certainly none have been as original.
It wasn’t The Answer, ofcourse. My take is the lack of perceived power and the price were the hurdles: it was very exxy here too, though in a very different market, it still vastly outsold the utterly inferior quality Chryco vans. Folks who need lots of seats for lots of bums to put upon them are inevitably lesser in the wallet than the heart, and must make choices driven by that.
No, duller things made a better answer, but it is a pity. It would be nice if truly good design like this was the thing that met the actual market the best.
It a soulful delight to enter the still-existing neo-classical public places all over my State that the 1850’s gold rush funded just as the Empire peaked – but they are unsellable except to the very rich and require impossibly deep pockets to maintain.
I’ll be “that guy”…
I was selling these things back in the early 90’s; they were a hard sell. Some of the higher optioned cars listed at nearly $30K in 1991 US Dollars. That’s about $55K today. As outdated as the outgoing Grand Caravan and Town and Country may seem, they have more standard features than the Previas and are @ $20-25k in 2019 dollars… We used to get an extra “spiff” if we sold a Cressida, Supra, Land Cruiser or Previa, because of the lofty list price. I sold two Supras, but none of the others…
This is a very nice truck, disguised as a family hauler. I can remember showing people the layout of this vehicle, so many folks were somewhat puzzled by the layout of the drivetrain. The FWD propaganda had worked well and some of my prospects insisted on it once they’d been told the Previa was RWD as standard. The additional seats in the back did not fold into the floor, but they could be stowed by attaching them to the sides of the interior. Which was only slightly better than taking them completely out of the van, but only slightly. Early GM U-vans earn a lot of criticism for having a huge dashboard, these things weren’t too far behind (or ahead, actually).
As mentioned in the post, these things were rather sturdily built, but in many regards were going against the established template of the FWD minis. The greatest evidence that the FWD formula was correct is the Sierra. Not just the Sierra, but largely every other minivan-type vehicle that has been built in the last 30 years.
I thought I remembered you saying what a struggle it was to move these off the lot back then. As I recall it was the 1995 Odyssey that was the first with the rear seat to fold into the floor. The rear bench in my 99 T&C had quick-release clamps and would roll out on wheels for storage, as I recall – a way easier job than in my Ford Club Wagon.
I love your term FWD Propaganda – people today don’t understand how strong of a wave that was. It was huge in the 80s-90s.
Oh I remember. RWD equaled DEATH in any weather other than sunny-and-hadn’t-rained-in-a-week. You were a bloody fool to risk your family’s necks in the rain without the wheels pulling you up front. I remember Consumer Reports being especially vocal in this regard, but that could be a false memory.
This would have been part of the impetus to transition the Foxstang to the Probestang I’m sure. I don’t think Chevrolet ever considered making the Camaro a FWD vehicle in the late 80s, but if they had, I betcha the Lumina would have been the basic structure of it, with some cheap suspension goodies tacked on and a bodged 305 shoved under the hood. FWD V-8 anyone?
Was it cheaper to manufacture? Does anyone have a cost comparison example of a rwd car that went fwd while still retaining the basic size and structure and name? The early 80s Toyota Starlet comes to mind for me. Others?
There was speculation (or perhaps internal documents/memos/design studies) that the 4th gen Camaro’s basic styling was intended for a FWD car.
“I don’t think Chevrolet ever considered making the Camaro a FWD vehicle in the late 80s”
They didn’t call it a Camaro, but the Beretta certainly fit into that segment.
I thought about the Beretta, especially the Z26 version with the same 160hp 3.1L V-6 that was in the Ciera and Century
The Beretta was indeed intended to replace the Camaro and GM wisely saw that would have been a wrong move.
I remember Car and Driver had a spy shot of factory mule Beretta with “Camaro” badges
We’ve covered the aborted FWD F-Body replacement here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-histories-the-gm-80-camarofirebird-f-body-almost-becomes-fwd-body/
WRT to FWD propaganda: I think we’re currently seeing a wave of AWD propaganda. While there really were certain advantages for average drivers to be obtained by a FWD car, I’m not seeing a strong argument for AWD, all of the time. It seems like a bit of overkill for your mall-crawler to have AWD when (even in my neck of the woods) it snows 4-5 months out of the year. If you can’t maintain and equip your car and drive for the conditions properly, AWD really isn’t going to save your butt.
Yes, the FWD F bodies were a thing. IIRC, they were going to have their own chassis, not piggyback off of any of the other cars.
Might the Previa be an example of being too ambitious combined with having too many resources?
This is not to denigrate the Previa or its designers by any means; I’ve always been rather fascinated with them for some odd reason and one cannot argue their longevity. My contention is for its intent of being a basic, people moving box, its foundation is relatively exotic for that class of vehicle.
Might it be safe to say, given their initial cost, these made better used vehicles than they did new ones?
I briefly entertained the idea of one of these, one that had quite a few years and miles on it. I called my mechanic and he said “selfishly speaking, I hope you don’t.” Apparently they don’t need fixed frequently, but when something breaks it can be hard to access.
Really, I would still like one of these. And I agree, these were much more attractive as old used vehicles. I would stick to the normally aspirated RWD for simplicity, though it would be fun to be able to say “I drive a supercharged minivan.” Maybe I would stick some Studebaker R2 badges on it somewhere. 🙂
The Previa is popular with some DIY owners because you can work on the engine when it’s raining and still stay dry.
I think the highest endorsement of the Previa’s design was that Giorgetto Giugiario approved of it when his so bought one.
Excellent article and analysis JP. The reviews were generally excellent for these, but upon launch even the too favourable towards car makers car magazines, hinted these were too expensive to be competitive with the Chrysler vans. Realistically, Toyota must not have been aiming directly at Chrysler’s offerings. But for the luxury/higher quality expecting buyers in the market.
The curvy lines on these were refreshing compared to the competition. I found the Aerostar (not really aero) and Astro bland upon launch. While the Dustbusters screamed gimmick.
Too often the car magazines and reviews at the time, worked just as hard trying to rationalize to the public Ford, GM and Toyota’s direction with their minivans meant to compete with Chrysler (too big/heavy, RWD, too expensive), than calling them out for completely missing the mark for a high volume, space and fuel efficient people mover. That came later, as successive van introductions still missed the mark.
Have owned four of these; three Gen 1s like this and a current Gen 3. The three Gen 1s all had over 100K miles and as mentioned, felt like they could go another 400K.
While not a sales success in North America, they were, and still are, very popular here in Japan.
I looked at buying a new one in the early 90s in the US but they were just too pricey – bought a used one instead which was probably a better financial decision.
If you need a van to schlep you, the wife and kids to where ever, without a worry in the world of a breakdown, this one’s for you…Jim.
These were good vans. A close friend’s mother bought one new right around the time I was in 6th grade. The van hauled us around for our preteen years, eventually becoming the daily driver of my buddy when he reached his late teens/early 20s. In his 30s, he was going to pass it on to his step-daughter, but his mother had sold it to someone else. It had served the family well and is probably serving another family well today.
It was a bit underpowered, and the mid engine design was weird and made it difficult to work on, but it was extremely reliable and spacious.
Today, the odd duck original Toyota Vans have become collectable. Some people are playing big bucks to deck them out like Westfalias. The days of the Previa as a mommymobile might be gone, but the Previa is making a comeback among enthusiasts, adventurers, and surfers. A guy up the street has a nice sleeper supercharged version. I occasionally see surfers who are treating the van like the old Toyota trucks of yore. The van serves as a changing room and safari-mobile for them.
It’s interesting that two of Toyota’s significant North American marketplace failures (the T100 pickup and the Previa) occurred at about the same time, and had some similarities in their reason for failing to sell well.
Both were well-built, durable and comfortable, and both did their assigned jobs very well. However, both lacked the popular engine of their respective classes (V-6 for minivans and V-8s for pickups), and both missed the boat on the vehicle’s overall configuration (mid-engine minivans were never popular here, and the T100 lacked an extended cab when introduced, just when that was becoming the norm). Also, both were significantly more expensive than the competition.
Regarding the Previa, I like them, but had I been in the minivan market at the time, I doubt I would have chosen one. Just too far out of the mainstream, and minivan buyers aren’t much into straying too far off course.
Maybe they might have done better being marketed as a Lexus?
Well, with its rounded shape, it would look like it belongs next to an SC400…
Overpriced, strange mechanicals, egg shaped design, all led to the demise of these minivans. The overpriced part is what gets me. Isn’t that the phenomenon we are seeing today with the Odyssey versus the Grand Caravan? I’m told the Honda brings lots of value to the table, but who wants to shell out big bucks to schlep kids to soccer and do Costco runs? Ergo Chrysler undoubtedly still is the sales king.
To work on the engine of these Toyotas, apart from what was accessible under the hood, was there access from inside the passenger compartment? Or did it have to be done underneath?
Great writeup and great series JP.
There is a hatch that is accessed by lifting the driver’s seat (which lifts easily with a mechanism).
Mr. Lee, I believe you are the first to touch on the styling, which I think many found off putting. Egg shape is spot on, I always regarded these as the epitome of the minivan as eggmobile. Not a complimentary look at all. The 1996 Chrysler minis came perilously close to be being an eggmobile but managed to pull off the look with considerably more elegance, and Americans began to seriously regard the Town and Country version as worthy of some of the best neighborhoods.
The long running and popular comic strip Baby Blues, which I found very relatable while raising my kids, depicted the minivan in ways that seemed inspired by the Previa.
That is a funny comic strip.
Wife: “We’ve gotta learn to travel lighter.”
Husband: “That, or just put some wheels on the house.”
Me: “Get an RV!” 🙂
Jim Klein offered me a picture of the interior engine hatch on a Previa. “No thanks” I said, arguing that it wasn’t really relevant to the discussion about market acceptance. Oops.
The Previa took an almost central role in the 2007 film Juno. Pretty funny stuff.
There is an AWD Previa in my neighborhood that looks perfect and sees daily use. Long after all the Chrysler vans have been scrapped, I see Previas occasionally around town but couldn’t tell you the last 2nd gen Caravan or T and C witnessed.
The poor IIHS crash test results that came out in 1996 or 1997 and prominently featured on Dateline probably contributed to the decline as well. Or not, since GM’s U-Bodies and Astro/Safari arguably scored even worse and remained in production until 2005.
High prices, four cylinder power, and too advanced styling for the time is why they didn’t sell well. But the high prices and low volumes were by design, although clearly the volumes were lower than expected in later years.
Keep in mind that the Previa arrived during the VER (Voluntary Export Restraint), which drastically limited the volumes that Toyota could import to the US (it ended in 1994). The solution was to sell fewer cars at much higher prices. A Camry back then cost much more (50+%) than one did in more recent years, inflation adjusted. The ran about $30+k in adjusted dollars.
That all explains why Toyotas had such high quality interiors back then, and were built to Lexus standards. They were essentially moving Toyota upmarket to justify the prices, and knew that vehicles like the Previa were never going to sell in really high volumes. It would have been impossible to really make a dent against the Chrysler minivans in volume given the VER. So they went for high margins instead.
Needless to say, these are gold here in Oregon. The last Previa taxi just went out out of service here recently. It must have been some 25 years old. Most of the Previa taxis here ran 500-600k miles before being sold off.
The VER is a good point, though it looks like the vehicle’s best years came when the volume restrictions were in place.
We will be left to wonder forever how these might have done had Toyota put a six in from the start. An inline six might have had a chance at fitting under there if it had been considered from the start of the design. A V6, not a chance.
One of these with six cylinder power might have become the real Cadillac of minivans (or Lexus of minivans, more appropriately). A more conservative shape may have helped too, but Toyota came within two cylinders of being able to claim sales leadership in high-end minivans.
Those voluntary import restrictions may be more responsible than anything of turning Toyota into a legitimate threat to GM (and the other US companies) in upper priced vehicles.
There’s no question that the Previa’s sales were below projections after the first two years. I would guess Toyota planned on selling some 40k per year. My point is that it woiuld have been impossible for Toyota to attempt to threaten the Chrysler minivans in volume, as they had neither the production capacity or ability under the VER. The Previa was designed to be a high margin, low volume vehicle, and realistically, it was targeted to the Toyota faithful, many of whom started out with sedans and now had kids. It was not intended to win over large numbers of domestic buyers, who couldn’t see the value. Existing Toyota owners, who already tended to be better educated and higher income, saw the Previa for what it was: the Toyota of minivans.
Obviously Toyota changed its strategy completely with its gen1 Sienna, which was Camry-based, and built in the US and only for the US and Canada.
If I had had my way in 1992 and bought a Previa instead of a GC, I would likely still be driving it. For better or for worse. 🙂
Are there still a bunch of Previas in Eugene Paul? Up in the Tualatin area they are becoming more and more rare which is a bit sad since when I moved to Oregon in 2013 there were still a number of these on the road.
Paul,
Nice to hear your comments from time to time, as I miss your articles.
But the site is still excellent and my favorite car-info source.
I think you said it perfectly, the Previa is the “Toyota of minivans”. They were always rare by me in the land of Voygessys and Astrerostars, and kind of a curiosity.
To me, the first gen Sienna was a sharply-styled van, but it really was just a tall Camry, and quite dull to drive. Toyota really went the safe route with those. But they needed a generic volume-seller like everyone else.
Now that Toyota is committed to “No more boring cars” (which I think will prove to be a mistake in the long run), do you think we could see another mid-engined (or other exotic) design from them? Mid-engined with everything under the floor seems a natural for an all-electric drivetrain, which they kind of need to catch up with.
All modern EVs have their battery packs underfloor, and many have RWD. So if Toyota ever gets serious about EVs, then yes. But otherwise, no.
That view arising from the VER effect might be a bit parochial. Japan Auto Inc desperately wanted to stave off actual tariffs, and needed time for US plants, so agreed to restrictions. But by 1988, two years before this vehicle, Toyota was making cars in the US itself, with the famous high quality interiors etc. Eventually, the later “cheapening” occurred through the realization that profitability was not sustainable (or at least, attractive) at this level, esp in context of the ’90’s japan recession. The Previa was sold all over the world, and did well at home in Japan, so it’s surely a bit unlikely the bulk, low-ish margin US minivan market was even much of a factor in the unique design. The high US price was just as likely a product of that expensive design, which itself was a product of Toyota pride – or perhaps, hubris – at that time, as it was a carefully-thought marketing idea. Remember, there are many markets other than the (obviously important) US one, and in all of these, this was quite high-priced.
It sure was the case that the styling – I really like it – put folks off, though. A classic polarizer, not a great idea if you want to sell in good numbers.
Theres a smaller model popular in Japan the Estima visually the same as the Previa but narrower lots of them have emigrated to NZ, but are now too old to make the voyage under our new rules.
I always thought the engine location may have been psychologically off putting. I can imagine a family checking one out at a dealership and discovering the dirty, running engine was under the driver’s seat and INSIDE the passenger compartment (with kids!).
(“I’m sorry dear, that looks dangerous.”)
It was not inside the passenger compartment, but under the floor, just like the transmission, driveshaft, etc, on any other RWD vehicle. Now go back to my (and Paul’s) Dodge A-100, early Econoline or GMC HandiVan for the engine inside, right between the front seats.
The Toyota Van (TownAce) had the engine under and behind the driver and front passenger. As someone else noted, the engine for the Previa was under the floor and turned on it’s side.
I became a father fifteen years ago and discovered minivans as a parent. Consequently, I better understand why parents choose minivans that are disposable. The Previa was not a family van – it was a senior citizen home’s van. It wasn’t for Pampers, it was for Depends. Even today I tell new parents to get disposable vans, not Honda or Toyota.
Family minivans are pooped and peed in. Barfed in. Goldfish crackered and sippy cupped daily. You don’t want to spend ten grand more because you have been told you have to buy Japanese.I cringe when I see a young family suckered into an Odyssey.
The Previa was a very good van. It just wasn’t a disposable van. It was an over-engineered and overbuilt Solo cup that cost too much to throw away. Toyota missed the purpose of the minivan.
When the minivan market started going soft in light of the SUV craze, we see differing takes on the family vehicle. Ford gave us a Flex, Chrysler gave us a Pacifica, and we see GM try to reskin their disastrous Dustbusters into an Aztek, a Rendezvous, and their second generation minivans with “sporty SUV-like” styling. It would be interesting to do a story about those family wagons sometime in the future, wouldn’t it?
Actually, most of those vehicles you mention were different takes on the CUV. And there’s a lot of similarity between the early minivan market and the early crossover market. Much like how the minivan market was created and defined by the Dodge Caravan, the CUV market was basically created and defined by the 1998 Lexus RX.
Sure, there were a lot of different takes on the CUV like the Flex, Pacifica, Aztek, Rendezvous and others, much like we got a bunch of different proto-minivans. Some of those found a niche, and others floundered. But the popular CUVs have all been more or less clones of the RX, and the basic formula hasn’t really changed much either in 20 years. Much like how the most successful minivans all ended up following the formula established by the original Caravan.
Amen. Kids & pets turn a minivan interior into a biohazard in 3-5 years. The fancier the interior, the faster the process. Who wants to pay extra for a van that will last as long as Chernobyl? Despite what our teenagers might tell us, parents aren’t completely clueless.
In August 1995 my parents bought a Plymouth Voyager for $18,000. True, it had been sitting on the lot about a year which I suspect was due to its bright red paint and lack of options inside such as power windows so the price was lower.
Consumer Reports recommended those Chryslers, the crash test was good, and the price was reasonable. My parents could not afford to and did not want to buy a more expensive vehicle that did not do so well in a crash test since this vehicle had to be an upgrade from Mama’s 1970 Dodge Dart. A few people in the Ithaca area had these Previas however, they all rusted to death about 10 years ago.
I do wish Toyota had offered a selection of interesting rims on the original Previa. It didn’t help justify their pricing, as most appeared to wear bland corporate wheel covers. Stylish wheels would have better complimented its advanced design as well. A more sophisticated exterior colour palette could have done wonders. Including metallics. So many appeared in bright yellow or white. Generally not flattering to its shape.
A nice detail I liked, that improved their looks, was the roof mounted rear window air deflector.
Oh, I dunno, horses and courses. These things looked bang-on trend when new, colours and the admittedly pudgy wheels likewise. These wheels here look utterly at odds with the design (to me). Remember too that big rims and thin wrappings were the province of something racy and exotic then.
I agree Justy about these specific wheels. So few Previas on the web have decently attractive wheels I find.
More attractive alloy wheel choices that didn’t look like cheap, generic plastic wheels covers would have improved the looks of these immensely when introduced.
Good article. I agree with them not selling well due to the price and lack of v6. I have had one for the last 8 years. Picked up for $800 with just over 300k kms. It has had some minor repairs and I just did the master cylinder the other day for $30 CDN. It has never left me stranded and drives better than my dads Astro van with 1/2 the kms. It recently passed 400k and I am loathed to spend money on it but it just keeps going. Coming from a long line of vw vans the engine which has the supercharger has more than enough power for me.
It’s interesting to see this perspective on the Previa, as something of a failure. From my perspective here in NZ, they’ve been massively successful, and are everywhere still. Don’t forget they continued making them for other markets long after they left the US, and are still available new in Japan.
Some friends of mine have a third generation one, ex-JDM, and it’s a very nice place to spend time. Handsome too.
One does have to wonder about that when people say the Previa wasn’t successful for Toyota. One could argue that the van wasn’t designed or intended for the North American market. That would explain a lot why they didn’t bother with a 6 cylinder engine. Sure, they imported a few vans anyway, knowing they could get a decent margin on them, and those extra sales were basically just a bonus for Toyota.
The van that was designed and intended for the North American market would be the later Sienna.
A big hit in Australia too, if always pricey. And yes, still sold here till right now, albeit in the far less interesting FWD formula since about 2000. Plenty of the narrower grey-market Japanese Lucidas here also (these being in the mid-engine and FWD versions also).
I suspect the old Previa has in fact made Toyota a great deal of money over time. Might even be possible the original was so over-engineered to establish the brand as unique and high-quality, which it sure did. This IS from the company prepared to lose money on the entire first-gen Prius, after all!
I just realized how totally weird this engine layout is. It has a shaft coming out of the front of the block up to where the radiator is. Are the fan belt, water pump, alternator, power steering pump and AC compressor all bunched together up there?? All bolted onto some sort of frame instead of the block?
How does the AWD Previa get power from the transmission to the front wheels? Another shaft to the front going alongside? Weird!
Since 2010 in Toyota’s Prius, all those accessories are driven by electric motors. No need for an accessory shaft in a hypothetical mid-engine hybrid minivan. No need for a driveshaft to the front in an AWD hybrid Previa either, just use an electric motor. This mid-engine layout makes some sense for a modern hybrid minivan.
Yes there is an accessory drive shaft off of the front of the engine and then a big clunky bracket that holds those belt driven accessories.
The Previa’s layout makes even more sense in a fully electric application, as there is no longer an engine or driveshafts to make room for. VW has discovered this concept with the I.D. Buzz.
Had it been possible to fit an inline-6 into the 1991-1997 Previa would Toyota have been better off using the existing JZ inline-6 or developing an inline-6 version of the Previa’s TZ inline-4 (assuming the latter is not already related to the JZ)?
I had a friend, who is gone now, who loved loved loved Toyota vehicles. First one he had was a ’77? pickup that began to rust away to dust almost as soon as the salt went down during the first snowstorm. Next came a Corolla for his new wife, a car that died solely du e to rusting away. This was a recurring theme, but he still loved them. He had several more, loving them all, including his ’85 4Runner which as the others, rusted badly and quickly. Then the Previa came along. He had 2 kids and two big Lab mixes and he thought that the Toyota van would be better than his brother’s Caravan. He was wrong. The closest rival it had for problems that I had myself experienced was my just a POS ’77 Power Wagon, which should have been lemoned. Unlike the Previa though, the big yellow PW was rarely undrivable, the Previa spent a lot of time behind a tow truck and by the time the warranty was about to expire, it’s time at my friend’s house was about to expire, too. Off it went, replaced by a Grand Caravan, which was rock solid and trouble free. He still continued the Toyota love, but it had taken a hit. It would last almost as long as my friend lived, but was snuffed out by the truly horrible last 4Runner he had. About 3 months before he died of a sudden heart attack at 49, he admitted, the 4 Runner had broken his Toyota lovin’ heart. The dealer angered him to the point he wasn’t considering another Toyota. After he died, the 4Runner went away, and his widow went to Honda for a while, but that soon soured after a bad Accord. Subaru was next for her to love, and so far, she’s still gaga for them, like my cousin and his wife are. His kids have FCA cars, a Charger GT for the daughter, and the son has a Challenger R/T,. The son had a Charger before it.
Someone brought up an interesting point – could it be that these vans, the Previa and their narrow-bodied siblings, were not developed as North American competitors to the Chrysler twins?
Paul mentioned the VER which also is more food for thought – if they had intended to sell them in anything resembling Camry volume they would have been building them in a US factory, not importing limited amounts in high-spec trim. I also think that if a V6 had been offered it would have been problematic and prone to blowing head gaskets especially given the tight quarters. Toyota’s early V6s (the 2VZ-FE, 3VZ-FE and 3VZ-E) were rather troublesome motors in that regard and didn’t gain the bulletproof reputation until the 1MZ-FE in 1994.
Taken in that context and given their popularity elsewhere around the world I would call these a relative success, and possibly more of a spiritual successor to the prior Toyota Van (on steroids, granted.)
I like these vans but finding a nice color combo seems hard – most seem to be white with the gray bumpers which screams base model.
They weren’t developed with North America as the primary target; it was Japan. Sold as the Estima Emina and Estima Lucida, they were developed within Japan’s strict dimention guidelines to fit within a very specific tax bracket. The home market model is something like 5 inches narrower and 3 inches shorter. This also explains why the unique and newly developed 2TZ-FE wasn’t a powerhouse, as Japan did not require nearly as much power, and the supercharged version was an afterthought. CALTY was involved to lightly restyle the exterior to American tastes and come up with a different interior; dare I say the JDM dash is even more bizzare? The control placement is wildly different… This shot gives an idea of the width difference and different styling:
I have always loved the Internet’s determination to pronounce the Previa a success. Sorry folks, it was a flop. Flop, flop, flop. Right up there with the Dustbusters.
This was another one of those wonderful moments when Toyota was determined to show the Americans “how it should be done”. Just like the Japanese motorcycle industry was going to teach Harley-Davidson how to make bikes. With advanced technology, supposedly better quality, etc. And how did that work out?
I’m sitting in Daytona Beach at Biketoberfest as I write this. And how many ‘superior’ Japanese cruisers am I seeing? About half as many as Harley Street Glides alone.
And yet, if you sailed west from the beach, you’d eventually come to a place called The Rest Of The World, a place where American vehicles sell to no-one. Can only attribute a small proportion of that to the drinking of the Japanese Kool Aid, surely, with the rest being because the Japanese long ago did indeed show how it should be done?
Sure, there’s no doubt that the Previa proved to be a dead-end, and for all its brilliance as a piece of tech, quite possibly a product of late ’80’s Japanese hubris, but being made in large numbers for a decade and sold at high prices throughout, helping cement the Toyota name further into the legend of unbreakability makes it anything but a flop.
You cant drive around in NZ without seeing these vans in all their different models, Previa Lucida Estima petrol Diesel 2wd 4wd I’d call them a success, there are dead ones everywhere too often just kept as a parts supply for the replacement rather than sent for scrap, they’ll be around a long time yet.
A coworker had all three types of Toyota vans. Original, Previa and Sienna.
They’re the top choice vehicle for relocating fugitives and delivering vacuum cleaner parts, though.
I have never ‘loved’ one of my cars, until this one came along… The body style, size, shape, colors, roomy ergonomics, ground clearance, turning radius and handling… We’ve been through everything together… AND I have heard so many love-affair stories from other people, past owners reminiscing, old Japanese guys who say, “It’s part of me.”… , mechanics and tow truck drivers warning me not to sell it, ever…. The mid-engine handling probably saved my life a number of times.
I long ago threw away the middle seats. I camped with ease. I cargoed with ease.
My passenger friends ride way back. I can’t hear them. Their luggage comes in front of them so easy. The airport is easy.
The steep rake of the front windshield prevents little rocks from pitting the glass.
I even sent photo tweets to Elon Musk telling him that THIS (profile view of Previa) is what an electric vehicle should look like… an Egg ! (But it reeeally needs alot of modern updating for sure).
Cons: It was hard to access the engine… that aggravated me to no end. I hated the auxiliary axle because of the stupid, routine grommet repair job, and noise. The power window motors were weeeak. The wipers were not robust enough. The sound system was crap. The front lights were like little candles in the dark. The front struts were lame.
But, someday i hope an electric Previa will come to life ! Weight in the middle, no engine, no tranny, no axles, no catalytic, no middle seats, bigger wheels, better front and rear body styling, tons of room, fully modern, 4wd standard, killer stereo, lights, cameras… yay!!
i see a Previa nearly every day and i havent seen a ’90s chrysler mini van in decades.