Both of those are SUV-class vehicles and a minivan is pretty much the quintessential SUV. Other than styling there really isn’t a difference between a traverse and a windstar or whatever.
(Sorry they don't seem to have the Windstar on carsized, but the honda odyssey is a pretty close match).
Station wagons and SUVs are different vehicles. SUVs are basically extended-cab sedans, whereas SUVs are built with higher ground clearance and a higher-center of gravity, many on a truck frame.
no need to apologize, I was just using a windstar as an example of a generic 90s minivan, not as some super specific example. :)
that's an interesting comparison tool!
but yeah my point is more related to size and capacity than things like chassis. the fact that the windstar is comparably sized is the point I was trying to make.
it's a fair point that the hood is significantly different though, and I think that seems to be one of the biggest takeaways from the discussion here, that's specifically problematic and dangerous as a design element.
and if your point is that a truck chassis overall increases the weight and so on, and just makes it a heavier, more dangerous vehicle... that's probably true to some extent too, although a van chassis was never exactly "light". I still don’t fully agree with the implication that there’s a meaningful difference between a windstar or Astro van and a traverse as far as vehicle classification. They’re all utes really.
Weight matters for a vehicle -vehicle collision, but for a vehicle-pedestrian collision, it's nearly irrelevant. (This is because the physics goes like M/(M+m); there's an asymptote, and once M>5m it's practically the same as infinity).
But height (especially of the front hood) is very dangerous, both for collision interactions and visibility. That's more or less why the chassis matters from a pedestrian safety perspective. Vehicles getting taller makes streets more dangerous, even if they weren't getting heavier at the same time.
