By on March 14, 2011

If you want to become a leading player in a segment (say, minivans), you have a choice: Either do what everyone else is doing, only better, or do something entirely different, and hope that car buyers see the result as better. With the Mississippi-made 2004 Quest, Nissan attacked America’s minivan market using the latter strategy. The styling was bizarre, the suspension tuning was sporty, the seats were French-inspired, and the gauges were centrally located. And even after revisions relocated the gauges and improved the initially abysmal reliability, the gambit failed. That particular Quest came to a slightly premature end with the 2009 model year. Now, following a one-year hiatus, Nissan has launched another Quest. This iteration is very different from the 2004, but still manages to be very different from the competition. Prognosis?

The 2004 Nissan Quest was designed with the American market in mind. The 2011 is a rebadged JDM Nissan Elgrand. Either the Japanese domestic market likes big butts, or someone in Nissan’s design staff does, because the new minivan’s styling accentuates el grande backside. There’s a reason the D-pillars aren’t usually blacked out on minivans. Ditto the rarity of high beltlines in the segment. They don’t get much higher than the new Quest’s, and the minivan’s sides appear unusually tall as a result.

Those attracted by the exterior styling (or at least not repulsed by it) will find the segment’s most luxurious cabin inside the new Quest. The instrument panel is conservatively styled in the luxury car idiom, with a wide swath of faux timber beneath a soft-touch upper. The door panels are thickly padded and include freakishly wide armrests that should serve well on long stretches of Interstate.

Sadly, the ergonomics are awful. Thanks to the small windows, the view forward is far less expansive than in the typical minivan. Or even the typical bunker. I raised the soft driver’s seat to partially compensate. Visibility in other directions is similarly restricted by the high beltline. The infotainment system’s touchscreen is a couple inches out of reach and the IP-mounted shifter partially obstructs the HVAC controls. The switch for the driver seat’s power lumbar adjustment avoids discovery by hiding on the seat’s inside rear pedestal, but this isn’t an issue once you know where to find it.

Functional compromise continues in the rear quarters. As is often (but not always) the case with minivans, the second- and third-row seats are low to the floor. Move the second row all the way back and there’s a minimal amount of legroom for adults in the third—even if the official specs suggest otherwise. There’s considerably more passenger room inside a Toyota Sienna and especially inside a Honda Odyssey, both of which also offer an eight-passenger option that the captains-only Nissan does not.

Though it’s been 16 years since Honda introduced the first stowable seat with the Odyssey, the industry continues to struggle with how to handle the seats in a minivan. Nissan’s solution with the new Quest: fold them flat atop the floor, SUV style. This has the advantage of providing a flat floor without removing any seats. But, since the seats do not stow beneath the floorpan as in the Chryslers, the resulting floor is high. This shows up in the cargo volume specs: only 108.4 cubic feet for the Quest vs. 148.5 for the Odyssey. In all fairness, the former figure excludes a large, 11-cube storage compartment beneath the Quest’s rear floor. If you’ve been wanting a trunk inside your minivan, it’s here, and possibly worth the sacrifice in total volume.

This being a large, front-wheel-drive Nissan, the engine is a 3.5-liter V6 (in this application good for 260 horsepower and 240 foot-pounds of torque) and the transmission is a CVT. The V6 is silent at idle but a little gruff when revved. Acceleration, abetted by a CVT with no qualms about taking the engine to the high side of the tach and then holding it there, is well beyond the needs of most minivan drivers. Precise manual control over the CVT, present in some Nissans, is absent here. But hints about your desires can be passed to the CVT via an OD lockout button and an L shifter position.

The revised Dodge Grand Caravan stakes out the firm, tight extreme of the minivan handling spectrum. The new Quest, in sharp contrast to its predecessor, stakes out the other. The Nissan’s steering is unusually light and numb, even by minivan standards, and the pillow-soft suspension tuning permits copious lean in even moderate corners. Heavy understeer as well. There’s not much mechanical control inherent in the chassis, so it should come as no surprise that the electronic stability control intervenes very early and very aggressively. The ride is smooth in the traditional American luxury sedan way, so uneven roads effect some float and bounce. Even a Toyota Sienna is a driving machine in comparison.

The price for all of this JDM goodness? In the cheapest-dealers-will-stock “SV” trim, with floormats: $31,890. This is $150 above the similarly equipped Honda Odyssey EX, and so about $2,500 more than a comparable Dodge Grand Caravan or Toyota Sienna (based on comparisons using TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool). Honda has worked hard to justify the high price of its minivan. Nissan…I’m not sure what they’re thinking.

We’ve been known to bemoan the “domestic market” cars that foreign auto makers don’t deign to offer in the US. “JDM” has a certain cult following here. But the track record with such products, when they are finally imported, is clear. Just consider the Nissans. Second-generation Infiniti Q45? DOA-it never had a chance. First-generation Infiniti M sedan? After some initial enthusiasm—the price was low for an imported luxury sedan with a strong DOHC V8—sales were similarly miniscule. Fourth-generation Nissan Quest? Between the odd styling, poor visibility, tight interior, squishy handling, and high price there’s no reason to expect the outcome to be different this time around.

Brian Evans of Suburban Nissan helpfully provided the vehicle for this review. Brian can be reached at 248-715-2062.

Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive reliability and pricing data

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “Review: 2011 Nissan Quest...”

  • avatar

    Actually it is not a straight implant – JDM Elgrand is smaller and looks rather different.
    So your poke at JDM cars is somewhat misplaced. And to any failed translant attempt there is a successful one. 
    BTW, Nissan did it right more often than not – most of the original Infinity model line is a direct – and sucessful transplant.

    • 0 avatar

      Comment completely invalidated by not knowing how to spell Infiniti.

    • 0 avatar

      The wheelbase and bodysides are the same, and from the side the two appear almost identical. The US van is a few inches wider, which explains the freakishly wide rockers and armrests. They widened the van without widening the IP or the front seat attachment points, and filled the space with armrest. This is the cheap way to do it. GM did the same when creating the first SRX off the CTS platform.

      As far as I can tell the additional length compared to the Elgrand is entirely in the bumpers.

      My key point, which isn’t affected, is that the new Quest was not designed and engineered with the US minivan market in mind. Instead, it’s a lightly modified variant of a vehicle engineered for the JDM, and this shows in its styling, roominess, and handling.

      The original Infiniti model line was a failure. The Q45 was designed as an Infiniti, not JDM, but didn’t sell well anyway. And the original M, a coupe and convertible, wasn’t remotely competitive. It both looked and felt dated. My grandmother owned one of the convertibles, and I was surprised by the general lack of refinement even by mid-90s standards.

      The first and still only Infinity to sell well was the G35, which was designed with the American market in mind.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s Infiniti…

      When Infiniti was first introduced, the TV ads were vague new-age-ish affairs that didn’t even show the cars. Big mistake, and Infiniti suffered for the first crucial years. The Q45 was gorgeous in its original grille-less form but poor sales prompted Nissan to progressively water it down. The original M coupes were simply Nissan Leopards from the mid-’80s. The first Infiniti that could be called a success was the 1993 J30. The G20s weren’t great sellers new but now try to find one cheap – they’ve become quite desirable, especially in manual form.

    • 0 avatar

      You can’t even spell Infiniti, and you expect to be taken seriously?
      The first “successful” Infiniti was not the G35. It was a car known as the I30, which was, indeed, designed for the American market.

      But the G35 designed for the American market? Hardly. It’s known in Japan as the Nissan Skyline. Perhaps you’ve heard of this line of famous Nissan JDM vehicles? Or perhaps not given how you apparently lack even the most basic knowledge of vehicles. The G35 was not designed for the U.S. market whatsoever – it was Nissan’s attempt at bringing a very successful JDM line to the U.S., and it worked. And so have the most two recent Inifiniti M (Nissan Fuga) generations.

      Check your facts, then you might be taken seriously.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, I spelled it correctly in the review! Sometimes I type these comments a bit too quickly…
      I loved the J30, but wouldn’t call it a sales success. A very tight rear seat and trunk blunted its potential in the US.
      I also loved the original Q45, which was a much more interesting car than the Lexus. But I wouldn’t blame the ads for its low sales, though this has often been done. The real problem with the Q: Lexus provided a car that was much more in tune with what American luxury sedan buyers wanted.

    • 0 avatar


      If you’re looking to insult people. I seriously suggest you post elsewhere. There are plenty of other sites where your tone will fit right in. But I don’t want to see it here.

      One might argue that if a brand doesn’t want its name to be misspelled, then that name shouldn’t be a misspelling of a real word. When my brain is asked to spell “infinity,” that’s how it spells it because that’s how the word is spelled.

      The I30 was a mildly upgraded Maxima, and not a car on which to base a premium brand.

      The G35 might be a Skyline in Japan, and there were previous Skylines in Japan. But it doesn’t logically follow that because the previous Skylines were designed for the JDM that this was also the case with the 2003+.

      The 2003 car was most definitely designed with the American market in mind. It was the first Infiniti not based on a US-market Nissan that sold well here.

    • 0 avatar

      Or perhaps not given how you apparently lack even the most basic knowledge of vehicles.
      I don’t know if you’ve been posting here for a while or not, but that kind of personal attack is out of bounds, not to mention factually wrong.
      Spend two minutes talking to Michael and you’ll come away realizing that he’s has far more than the most basic knowledge of cars. Nobody is perfect, though. We all make mistakes. In my piece on the Porsche 928, I said that while it wasn’t the first car to use a front engine rear transmission layout, it was the first performance car to do so.  Readers pointed out a bunch of earlier Ferraris and Alfas with that layout. They weren’t, however, insulting in their corrections.
      Tell you what. How about writing a 1,000-2,000 word article? Spend whatever time you think is appropriate for a piece that will earn you $100 (the going rate for freelance online articles). I’m quite sure that while you’ll research some things, due to time constraints you’ll also write some things off the top of your head and not bother to fact check. Then publish and be willing to take the slings and arrows as people pick over your writing looking for errors.
      Frankly, you’re lucky that Farago’s not in charge anymore. He’d have sh*tcanned your comment in a New York second.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree that the guy’s comments seem rude especially as they revolve around trivialities.

        You’re also right about Farago – the guy had a paranoid streak and if he was called on his knee jerk denunciations of anything not corporate – he’d get mighty pissy.

  • avatar

    Needs increased head room to maximize livingwithinability before the critical Coot recommendation can be bestowed upon this conveyance.
    Start over Nissan and resubmit the unit for Coot ascertainment.

  • avatar

    I like Nissan’s in general.  I want to like the minivan.  I like the styling inside and out.  However form over function has taken over. Did they sacrifice overall cargo capacity due to budget restraints?  Over 30 cubic feet is a lot to give up.  I could get used to the high belt line but to take it from one of the sportiest driving to nausea inducing is something different.  yes I like a little sport in my wagons (vans).  I just don’t understand it.  Is this even in the US anymore?  I haven’t got into one yet but sometimes ergonomics unless gross can be subjective. Lack of space is not.  You either got it or you dont. I actually like the last gen Quest. Now I guess I will have to wait until Ford Turns the Flex int o a real minivan. That last line was a joke.

    • 0 avatar

      As noted in the review, opting to have the seats fold on top of the floor is the key reason for the relatively low cargo volume. To get the full volume in an Ody or Sienna you must remove the second row. Otherwise there’s no more than in the Quest and the floor isn’t flat.
      But there’s also less space because this vehicle wasn’t engineered from the ground up to compete in the US minivan market. It probably serves a much different function in Japan, where people also tend to be more compact.
      I’m still trying to figure out how Honda carved out so much passenger room inside the Odyssey. Its exterior is no larger than the others.

    • 0 avatar

      Anyone notice those (third row) seats? How thin the seat backs are? Are they designed for hobbits?

  • avatar

    The only way to make a minivan review more electric, is to take pictures in front of a Cracker Barrel!

  • avatar

    I have to say, not that I’m in the minivan market to any extent, but the look of this thing is leaps and bounds above the last!  It really looks clean and smooth compared to the angular, bulging, awkward body of the old one.  Hopefully those vomit-oriented interior color schemes are a thing of yesteryear as well.  It looks kind of like a grown-up Toyota Matrix.  I hope it faires better in the shop at least.  I worked for Nissan during the release of the last gen and my lord was that thing a recall magnet! 

  • avatar

    I am surprised, I thought it’d be better. Boo Nissan.

  • avatar

    You know, even as a firm believer in the station wagon, I kind of like the styling… even with the big square butt and the undersized wheels. I wonder if Nissan will have any luck with the poverty edition “S” version that starts at $28k-ish.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    @diseasel Yup looks like a station wagon to me, I was going to comment that it looks like the Japanese interpetation of a Ford Flex. 

    • 0 avatar

      Ford Flex came to my mind too actually.  Kinda ironic seeing as the Gen 1 Quest was a Mercury Villager.

    • 0 avatar

      It looks like a Ssangyong Rodius had a lovechild with a Mercedes Sprinter to me. Ugly, but cool in a sort of goofy foreign way. It certainly doesn’t look like something you’d generally see in the US, and therein lies the charm– it’s more or less a total JDM people mover, and looks it.

    • 0 avatar

      Dan, you beat me to that comment. Exactly! Of course, without the art-deco door grooves (which I love). What if Ford added a sliding door option? Or, just maybe this IS the Nissan version? Hmmm…

    • 0 avatar

      I wonder if Nissan will sell it with a white roof.

  • avatar

    “…odd styling, poor visibility, tight interior, squishy handling, and high price…”
    Sounds like most crossovers.

  • avatar

    This has the advantage of providing a flat floor without removing any seats. But, since the seats do not stow beneath the floorpan as in the Chryslers, the resulting floor is high

    More than the looks, more than the sightlines, more than the ergonomics, this particular failure of design is going to sideline the new Quest unless Nissan has plans to sell it for GM U-Body toe-tag prices.

    One of the really nice things you can do with a modern minivan is stuff a travel-system stroller/three hockey bags/everything for family Christmas/a cooler, tents and sleeping bags in the trunk without folding the rear seats.  You can do this in the Sienna, the Oddy, the Caravan/T&C and the Sedona.  You can’t do it in any crossover or SUV, even though they usually weigh more and get worse mileage.  And you can’t do it in the Quest.

    Anyone whose already decided on minivanism will pass the Quest right on by as soon as they crack the rear hatch.  Anyone who cannot see themselves in a minivan is going to get a crossover or SUV anyway, and Nissan’s offerings in the three-row arena amount to the Armada and QX, both of which are, well, not that good either.

    Again, unless they fire-sale it, it’s not going to sell.

    • 0 avatar

      What kind of hockey bags are you talking about if you’re not taking/putting down the 3rd row of seats?  Mini-mite or roller hockey?  Just wondering … where are you going tenting AND playing hockey at Xmas?  Have you seen the size of the new QX? And what a ride too. Even the former model had ample room …. it just wasn’t as close to the ground as a minivan.

  • avatar

    Nissan has a V6 that’s gruff when revved? #ubiquityescapesme

  • avatar

    Nissan can’t stand success. Almost a decade ago the current generation Altima hit the market. A clean, elegant no-gimmicks profile with a big greenhouse. It sold well then and still does for an old design. So what do they do with minivans? Gimmicks, weird lines, high beltlines and skimpy windows. Marketplace flops. Someone at HQ should get fired.

    • 0 avatar

      The decade-old Altima design was a Japanese-reliable Bauhaus Passat. What’s not to like? According to Mrs. Strippo, the Altima’s ubiquity (like the Infiniti G, it’s never really changed over the years) is what’s not to like. At least there are distinctly different versions of the Camry and Accord on the road.

    • 0 avatar

      The Altima was redone for the 2007 model year. Compared to the 2002-2006 sedan the 2007+ isn’t nearly as roomy inside but feels more solid.

  • avatar

    I got the impression that the 2004 Quest, like the Maxima of the same vintage, were homages to the Renault-Nissan partnership. That original Quest always seemed a bit French to me.

  • avatar

    My daughter and her SO bought one of these for their family.  Interior looks like the spaceship enterprise and it looks like the ultimate kids hauler.  Power sliding doors – both sides and the rear floor trunk is cool. same color as the test van. Looks very cool in person. Very luxurious interior.  I liked hers.

  • avatar

    My eyes, my eyes!

  • avatar

    Having just read your Dodge Grand Caravan review, I’d say that Chrysler has a winner — better handling, more powerful V6, stow ‘n’ go seats, lower price… and if you’re going to have a goofy dash shifter, the position of the one in the Dodge is just right. The GC is cheaper, too.

    • 0 avatar

      That dash shifter goes all the way back to the original Dodge A-series van of the 1960’s.

    • 0 avatar

      DeSoto had a dash shifter in the mid-1950’s and I’m sure there were others before that.

      Unless I’m mistaken, it was the 2004 Nissan Quest that started the current trend for minivans to have their shifters on the dash.

  • avatar

    Gangsta windows- check
    Plain de-contented slab sides- check
    Flying coffin look- check
    Mushy handling- check
    Poor exterior visibility- check
    Poor interior ergonomics- check
    Fat ass ugly exterior styling- check
    Expensive- check

    Yup sounds like another new Nissan release!

  • avatar

    Thanks for the review Michael.  I do have a question though, you mention the handling is pretty bad but is this because you just reviewed a Caravan with un-minivan like handling or is it really that bad in comparison to all the other people haulers out there including CUVs and SUvs?
    Reason I am asking, is I for one can’t stand the looks of the new Odyssey and everyone else has the Sienna.  The Nissan was my only hope in terms of getting something that not everyone else has.  Not to mention, I think the interior is the best of all the minivans currently available.
    Personally, I can do with the decreased cargo room as my usual problem is not height of cargo room but width.  I like the idea of a permanent trunk of sorts to be honest.

  • avatar

    As a parts monkey at a Nissan stealership for 7 years, I would usually give you the down-low on these hip, new vans.

    Unfortunately, the first Quest we received was manufacturered as a California-only vehicle. We’re located in Northeast Pennsylvania. No go.

    The second, a fully loaded model, was crushed by our classy, knowledgable car-carrier driver. It’s now sitting in the back of our lot with half the roof torn off.

    One thing I can say confidently, the New for 2011 Nissan Quest will survive a Tyrannosaurus Rex attack from pretty much any angle.

  • avatar

    Who is the customer for this van? 

    I think Nissan screwed the pooch here.  Many Americans want Asian looking minivans, but they have Honda and Toyota to choose from.  If they want American looking vans, they have Chrysler/VW.  With Nissan having access to some serious Euro cred, why not style it in Euro fashion and siphon some sales from the Euro wagons/CUVs?  As it is now, no one will buy this thing – it offers nothing new or interesting to anyone.  Who exactly is the customer? 

  • avatar

    I’m in the market for a minivan or 7 seat crossover this year, and after reading this review I’m sure it’s going to be on the top of my list. I find this minivan gorgeous. The M45(Gloria) and Q45 were some of my favorite cars of the last decade, so the JDM-influenced design appeals to me.
    My concern was that they would make the ride too firm, and I didn’t find the 2009 Caravan to be soft enough for my tastes. This ride combination sounds perfect. I’m looking forward to trying all the minivans out.

  • avatar

    Missed this review the other day but had to add a quick comment…
    Along with the Juke, this is the second Nissan that “repulsed” my wife so badly she did a double take. During a recent TV ad, she paused the DVR and rewinding it while screaming “look at how UGLY that thing is”. I only looked quickly saw the Nissan logo and then muttered something about the Juke, however the wife caught my mistake, she said “no, its the new Quest”. Maybe ugly is in, Honda and Acura were all over it, but now Nissan is taking the lead. I even like the old 350Z versus the new 370Z.

  • avatar

    Your wife must have really bad taste to consider this minivan “ugly” and clearly obsessed with it, if she took the time to rewind it over and over
    She should actually take the time to look into the interior and then speak again.
    Although it might be boxy in shape, the front end is beautiful in comparsion to Sienna, Odyssey and GC/TC

    • 0 avatar

      Uh no, in fact it’s one of the ugliest products on the market (and actually manages to edge out the Juke for the title of “Nissan’s ugliest car”.

    • 0 avatar

      Just by reading how you started off that comment shows me how ignorant you must be.
      Sure everyone will have their opinions but to call this minivan ugly makes no sense to me. Unlike other auto makers, Nissan actually tries some thing new and fresh. I guess you like to see cars styled inside the box, but Nissan always thinks outside the box, and literally used one this time that turned out great!

  • avatar

    While this product might be a miss, I, for one, am glad that some (Nissan and Subaru) still have the balls to try something different.
    They’ve both taken big chugs of the kool-aid lately, but they should be commended for at least trying to resist the blandification tide with their quirky, very Japanese cars.

  • avatar

    I’m actually a fan of what Nissan is trying with the styling here. It kind of favors the Cube, with the wraparound rear glass. Given that both were heavily derived from their JDM cousins, that’s understandable. And if this is the case across the board in JDM Nissans, it would appear their home-market lineup is much more cohesive in styling than our current hodgepodge of quirky Japanese, French, and North, Central, and South American styles.
    Too bad about the visibility being compromised by the styling, and the storage in all likelihood being compromised (slightly) by the interior styling. This is where the Cube parts with the Quest. The Cube is substance-over-style all day long, with excellent visibility and relatively few compromises– though Nissan chose to trade fuel tank capacity for all-out cargo space by having a traditional folding seat rather than a “disappearing” seat a’la Honda Fit.
    I prefer the look of the Quest over the Toyota and Honda offerings. The Dodge/Chrysler leaves me cold altogether. Bummer about the handling, but that’s pretty subjective stuff. I like the way our Cube handles. It’s very comfort-oriented, but not a whip most performance enthusiasts would find themselves dying to get some wheel-time in. Different strokes, different folks.

  • avatar

    Just back from an auto show, and I’ve got to say that on materials quality and interior styling alone I’d rank this above both the Chrysler (much improved over itself, but still behind…nobs and buttons felt Harbor Freightish) and the Sienna (Toyota’s interiors with the exception of the Highlander and Venza all seemed subpar and very non-Toyota-of-the-past).  I like the styling of the Sienna’s interior, though.  I didn’t think the load height of the rear was bad, and appreciated the covering of the well (trunk).  My wife is on the short side, and reaching down into the well of our Odyssey is not as easy as reaching into level rear of the Quest.
    The Quest’s dash seemed on par with an Infiniti (I like that), save the plastiwood.  I’d still go Honda first, but I think the Quest just became the Odyssey’s wingman in my book.

  • avatar

    Hideous. Lumina APV anyone?

  • avatar
    Busam Nissan

    Michael, thanks for writing a review that we really enjoyed reading!
    Busam Nissan
    1501 E. Kemper Road, Cincinnati, OH 45246

  • avatar

    Typically, I don’t comment when I disagree with a review – but I have to make an exception with the new Quest. I just don’t think most of the automotive press agree with your sentiments here. While I’ve read some reviews suggesting the styling is unconventional and possibly off-putting, the vast majority of reviewers consider it to be outstanding in the looks department.

    Proportionally, the Quest wins. The high belt-line that you point out, makes for very elegant lines along those doors and windows. That sweeping (and yes, large) rear end, is totally Japanese in the way the Cube and the Scion models are. For a Minivan styling aspect, I and most reviewers find the look appealing.

    I do agree the vehicle gives a good amount of body lean, but it’s a minivan. Anyone remotely suggesting that they’re looking for no body lean in a minivan is being unrealistic and wouldn’t possibly be a potential customer for this kind of vehicle. Who wants a minivan that has front strut tower braces, and leans into turns? Who wants tight steering in something that big? I like the soft, easy riding, suspension and forgiving steering radius. It keeps kids from spilling their drinks, and long trips are comfy.

    Also, who expects lots of leg room in the back seat of a minivan? These seats are for kids. If, as an adult, you got stuck in the back of a minivan, it would be an uncommon occurrence at best. That rare inconvenience would be far out-shadowed by the long-term benefits of a smaller “mini” van on your gas budget.

    To your credit, you did point out that amazing interior trunk. When I test drove the Quest, we stuck a 6 foot man inside the thing, comfortably. I agree with your statement that it’s so useful, it more than makes up for the smaller interior cargo space with the seats folded down.

    With that being said however, the Quest’s layout makes more sense to me than most of its competitors. While I feel that removable seats are always the most efficient arrangement, this system is the most flexible. Customers who need a van, need to move people and stuff. How often do you need to just move stuff, and how often would it be more than 108 cubic feet could handle? If you did need to move more than that, why wouldn’t you also have people going along?

    In the end, you have to think like a minivan owner. They aren’t going to use the thing like a pickup truck, so their cargo room shouldn’t ever be reviewed like it would be. The Quest gives you the ability to keep all your seats in your vehicle, easily folded, while you move equipment along with them. You can shift things around and have the use of the people-moving vehicle it was designed to be.

    I think when you combine that with the looks, the Quest wins the segment hands down.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @redapple – interesting. “An acre of mature trees can capture 2.6 tonnes of CO2 per year.”...
  • dal20402: OK, that’s a new one, but taking it at face value… (1) If it is actually possible to engineer a major...
  • dal20402: My state imposes a registration surcharge for EVs that is quite a bit more than the gas tax savings I...
  • j lu: “Though your author would argue that there’s nothing luxurious about nixing built-to-order...
  • RHD: When you have solar panels, charging is basically free.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber