It has happened to most of us. A car catches our eye and we are reminded that we forgot that it had ever existed. Here is the one that most recently flipped that memory switch in my brain – the short wheelbase Kia Sedona. Now be honest – how many of you even knew this existed?
Do you find that you notice cars like yours? I think we all do that, and whenever I see that familiar-to-me shape of a Kia Sedona I take a closer look. Is it an early one with the ugly grille? Is it the short-lived Hyundai Entourage twin? Is it the rare luxo EX model with the alloy wheels and the chrome trim on the tailgate?
I saw this particular one on a Costco run a few days ago. But something was off – the shape was wrong. Was this some kind of crossover I had forgotten about? Nope it was a . . . Sedona shortie?
The short wheelbase minivan was actually the original minivan, from a time when the long wheelbase versions were the oddities. Once Chrysler brought out the “Grand” versions of its Caravan and Voyager everyone discovered that this was where the fat part of the market lay. Almost overnight the “original” size minivan went extinct while the extended version became the norm.
I had remembered the short Aerostar and even the short Chevy Venture. Chrysler dropped its shortie at the end of the 4th gen van’s life in 2007. But Kia? I cannot decide whether I had known about these and forgotten about them, or if I had never noticed to begin with.
Kia was certainly not on my radar when the Gen2 Sedona made its debut for the 2006 model year. It took a trip to Wiki for me to note that the 114 inch wheelbase shorty Sedona (which was neither an LX nor an EX) did not show up until the van’s second year, making the “normal” 119 inch wheelbase version the sole initial offering. I have been unable to find a breakdown of sales or production between the two flavors, but sales must have been dismal as the shortie disappeared with the vehicle’s mild refresh for 2011, and the entire lineup was good for fewer than 22,000 units in the bad U.S. economy of 2010.
So, we have established that nobody cared about this vanlet in 2007-10. Does anyone care now? Except for the five or six minivan geeks who hang out hereabouts, that is. I do, if only because it is the kind of obscure oddity that makes me realize that my own low-end stripper version is actually not the least popular minivan of its era. Because this one surely takes that title.
I had no idea, and can’t imagine why they would bother.
The shortiness of my 2007 shortie Caravan was the feature I miss the least, although the 200lb non stow and go rear bench is a close 2nd.
Ouch, that third seat in my wife’s old 1997 Dodge Caravan brings back painful memories. as I recall it spent most of it’s life in the basement, unused.
Those rear benches made great dorm room couches for us kids going to college in the 1990s.
The rear bench in my Club Wagon Chateau was even worse, as the seat back was a doubled over panel that folded out as a full-length bed. When it was disconnected from the floor it was so back-heavy that it would fall over unless you put something heavy on the seat. It was a 2 man job to get in or out and had no wheels like the Chrysler version had.
Funny example of the CC Effect; just today I was doing volunteer work with someone I’ve known casually for a while, moving heavy rocks to repair hiking/biking trails. Lots of time to talk, and I learned that he was (we’re both retired) also a mechanical engineer, and worked for Ford in the seventies. One of his projects was designing the first tool-less removable seats for the E series vans. He told me that one design requirement was that no modification to the floor pan was allowed. However there was no requirement that the seat actually be removable by a single person. He told me that he recently rented a Chrysler minivan with Stow’n’Go seats and was impressed with the progress in 35 years.
“Club Wagon Chateau” There’s a name you have to, shall we say, admire?
That’s the only version I seem to see for sale over here (Denmark) as a Carnival. I’m not sure I’ve seen a LWB.
Here in Europe, this would still be considered big.
A mini minivan is something like a Renault Modus, Opel Meriva or Nissan Note.
You didn’t mention it, but the first gen Sedona (2002-2005 in the US) was only built on the 114″ swb. Not exactly a common sight anymore.
I’ve seen a few of the gen2 swb versions, but had rather put them out of my mind. Thanks for refreshing that rather low-priority memory bank.
Indeed, the original was a shortie, both in wheelbase and lifespan, as on every single one, the engine popped its clogs at low mileage. Kia were pretty generous with warranty claims, but by the second or third popped clog, they clammed up some. The damn engine was just unfixably flawed.
How Kia ever sold another vehicle here after this smoky debacle is miracle of marketing. But they did, and how.
I think I saw more Naza Rias like this one in 7 days in Malaysia than I have first-gen Sedonas ever in the US.
I had totally forgotten that Hyundai once sold minivans in the US under their own brand. I can’t remember what they were called.
Probably a big reason for the short wheelbase’s unpopularity is because the LWB version has the front seat rear supports notched so a 4×8 sheet of OSB fits perfectly into the rear and allows the tailgate to shut completely. For the first three (or four, can’t remember which) sheets anyway. Pile higher, and you start blocking the tailgate and have to listen to the damn “ding, ding, ding” on the drive home.
Fortunately, I only live two miles from my local Home Depot.
I likewise didn’t know about these, and it’s hard to fathom why Kia thought they might sell. Makes about as much sense as coming out with a personal luxury coupe in 2007… the grave for these class of vehicle was still fresh.
This is neat find — now I’ll have to keep an eye out for the these shorties as well (I already take a second-look at older Sedonas to see if one is really an Entourage). Oddly, the stubby look probably appears less awkward now then when it was made, since the proliferation of short SUVs/CUVs have made this a somewhat common silhouette (OK, maybe “silhouette” isn’t the best term to use when referring to unusual minivans…).
And as far as I can tell, these were offered with three rows, too, but had different seats than the long-wheelbase model.
For 2007, the price gap from SWB to LWB was $3100 (MSRP). That’s a 15% difference. For someone shopping at the KIA store in 2007, a lot of money.
(source reference: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Combined_Car_-_2007_186420_7.pdf )
For that much money, I would think these would be a lot more common. Or perhaps the actual difference out on the dealer’s lot wasn’t quite so much. Assuming the dealer had any shorties in stock, which could have been the other reason they are rare.
You can also count me in a someone who didn’t realize these existed. Or perhaps I’ve never taken that close of a look and assumed it was a Rondo.
I’m surprised Kia bothered to sell that in the US. I find the full sized Chevy Van shorty equally jarring after decades of 15 passenger sized vans.
I recall well the 1st Gen Venture in short wheelbase form. To my eye it was actually the best proportioned version. Could you get Versatrak AWD on the short wheelbase version?
We only got the SWB 2nd generation Sedona in the UK. funnily enough I saw a 1st generation one about a week ago. Seems they stopped importing Sedonas in 2012, so no 3rd gen. here. I’m guessing the Sportage and Sorento killed it.
I actually didn’t know these existed.
I had the same exact ‘discovery’ with one of these a year or two ago. Came across one and went to myself, “How did I miss this?” And NOW, I’m seeing them quite often, relatively.
My wife and I are big bicyclers, and that’s how I discovered the Shorty’s: Kia and Chrysler.
Chrysler marketed theirs under the Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler brands, the latter marketed both as Voyagers and Town & Country’s. Only in one version were these well-outfitted, leather etc: the SX Town & Country. Chrysler quickly discovered the market for the shorty’s was for less expensive variants — the four cylinder low end models lasted til the end, around 2007.
After 1995, they all offered the “Easy Out Roller Seats.” The most flexible of these was the Quad configuration, where each seat could be removed — and per the marketing name, fairly easily. Without Stow n Go on the horizon, this offered a flat floor in numerous seating configurations.
Not scintillating choices, for sure, but ruthlessly practical — and flexible.
The SWB minivan was one of the main casualties of the SUV boom, particularly when manufacturers wedged a 3rd row seat in there. In fact, when Daimler eliminated the SWB minivan with the brand new 2008 Grand Caravan, the new Journey was supposed to be the SWB minivan alternative. Whether that actually worked, I don’t know.
“The SWB minivan was one of the main casualties of the SUV boom”
I always figured that the bigger factor was that head-smacking moment when someone figured out “hey, we can get 7 passengers in the car *and* have room for some cargo too!”
Yeah, the added cargo room of the ‘midi’ van was like the second coming. Unfortunately, it also took away the easier maneuverability of the SWB version. Personally, I still think the original T-115 Chrysler is pretty good.
I knew these existed, but I just didn’t know how uncommon they were and I never pay much attention to them. Wonder how cramped the third row on these are? I’ll have to keep an eye out for a Hyundai Entourage.
“Now be honest – how many of you even knew this existed?”
Ok, I’ll be honest…I did know they existed.
When these Kias vanished, they were soon forgotten. Those short wheel base Plymouths and Dodges will be remembered for years to come. I was more than pleased when my 87 Voyager joined my fleet in my driveway. The rear most seat got lots of use on family trips etc.
KIa Carnival not unusual.
Well, it looks all funny compared to the LWB now you’ve pointed it out, like it’s puckering its bum in anticipation of a kicking.
I too never quite realized there were two versions, here differentiated by the nomenclature: Carnival and Grand Carnival. Presumably they assumed those who could afford to go grand also owned luggage, and travelled faster (2.7 and 3.8 V6’s respectively).
That said, the LWB, which also got standardized here after the grille-lift, is a thumping big bastard of a thing. Having driven the Grand a fair bit, I would’ve liked a little less of it. You could easily end up taking home a kid from school who wasn’t yours in some forgotten corner, though you would be told at the petrol station which each journey required you to visit.
These Sedona/Carnivals were a long-time best seller here, so I presume there are a bunch of the shorties still out on duty. I’ll remember to look next time. They’ll be the ones with just the owner’s family on board.
I knew that Kia minivans were currently sold as “Grand Carnival” or “Grand Sedona” in some markets, but prior to reading your comment, I hadn’t put 2+2 together and realized the nomenclature stretches back to when different wheelbases were offered. Hmm… I should have made the connection earlier!
The dual-wheelbase minivan thing long predates the 1980s Chryslers; when Detroit jumped into the van game in the early 1960s, they all wound up making two lengths of the Ford Econoline, Chevy Sportvan, and Dodge A100 (the Ford didn’t actually have a long wheelbase; rather the rear overhang was crudely extended). The early Corvair Greenbriar was only offered in a single length, something I had to check because the thick D pillar looks like the sort of thing extended-wheelbase vans often wound up with, as if the rear side window from the short versions were used on the long ones to save money. But nope, the Corvair vans were only made in one length and that’s how they all looked. In all of the above cases, the elongated versions appeared to be afterthoughts, appearing years after the short versions became available. This pattern continued as the early Detroit vans grew into larger full-size vans – Ford and Chevrolet didn’t add extended-length big vans until years after the shorter ones were introduced, with Ford again opting to simply elongate the rear overhang rather than extend the wheelbase. It seems the 1971 Dodge B vans were the only American vans where an XL version was available from the start.
The pioneering Volkswagen vans didn’t get a long-wheelbase variant until the fourth-generation models in 1990.
Ford actually had 2 wheelbase choices for both the 2nd (105.5 & 123.5″) AND 3rd-generation (124 & 138″) Econoline vans; the shortest 3rd-gen model was longer than the longest 2nd-gen model. The extended-overhang model made its return in 1978. The short-wheelbase model hung around a few more years before being retired when the Aerostar came out in 1986.
Chevrolet (and GMC) also had 2 wheelbases–90 & 108″ for 2nd-gen and 110 & 125″ for 3rd-gen–and then added a THIRD in 1990 (146″) to create their first 15-passenger van, rather than just extending the body like what Ford & Dodge did with theirs. The shortest van did the same as Ford’s when the Astro was launched.
Dodge had 2 as well (109.6 & 127.6″) for the B-van but had the extended-overhang model from the beginning, and the shortest lasted through the entire production run.
Also worth noting: the 6-lug wheels. What kind of loads are you hauling or towing with a minivan that necessitate 6-lug wheels?
Quite a few vehicles have used 6-lug wheels for quite awhile now, the Chevy Silverado (and related SUVs) since 1999 & the Ford F-150 since 2004 being among the most notable examples. Many imported pickups & SUVs have used 6-lug from the very beginning. Late-model GM U-Body minivans also have them, as do the Lambda crossovers (Outlook, Traverse, Acadia, Enclave). And let’s not forget the Astro had them from ’03 to ’05. As for a specific reason for this trend, I can only guess that it was to either improve parts commonality between different vehicle models or improve the handling & loading capacity of the factory suspension, maybe both.
GM didn’t sell a short version of the third-generation U-body front wheel drive van in the USA (Chevrolet Uplander etc.) but did make a shortie version in Mexico and sold it both there and in Canada. They don’t have the exposed painted C-pillar of the long version, instead glassing over the pillar like the second generation vans – I expect they used the same glazing. From what I’ve seen on the roads in Canada the shorties rust more readily than the long ones for some reason.
I like my Grand Caravan but would be content with something a bit smaller, like the second generation Mazda MPV or the current Mitsubishi Delica. A roof box or bag, a good set of ratchet straps, and a roof rack would let a smaller van do all the things I’ve occasionally needed my Grand Caravan to do, while leaving me with a more maneuverable and efficient daily driver.
For anything still in production, your best bet would be the short-wheelbase version of the Ford Transit Connect. But you better act fast since you can now only get THAT model as a cargo van as of the 2019 model year.
I had no clue these ever existed and have never seen one in person (though TBF, the longer Sedona was never that popular here either). It’s not a bad looking van and, for someone who doesn’t need the third row, this seems like it’d be a viable option. That said, how about the weird area in-between that was held by the Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager which sat somewhere in between the short and long wheelbase minivans?