>Vans & Minivans have remained the same length without reducing any interior space?
proof?

Because absolutely nobody is producing truly new design full size vans or minivans for the US market. Maybe you have that new Mercedes electric van but that's constrained by being battery powered, and then you have newer designs like Lexus and Kia's vans but those are Japan-sized so never gonna get bigger. The Chevy Express is 20 years old, the Sprinter is maybe 10 years old, I thought they were gonna make a new one but I dunno and VW just stopped making new things and is just on a death-loop-spiral of rehashed 2020 designs till they collapse.

>>29111939

Even Ford lets Ford Europe design the Transit.

>>29112056
I guess that's why it's so much less reliable than the outgoing ecoline.

Vans don't get features unless they are practical, and the styling never changes. The people that buy vans are still buying them for the same reason they were generations ago. You get more interior space when it's just a box with a semi-aerodynamic frontend.

>>29111932
Transit Connects are not exactly small on the outside and they have fuck all for cargo or passenger room inside.

>>29111937
Go stand in one you fucking Redditor. That's the proof, I swear millennials are all hopeless morons

>>29112137
I don't get to make shit up and tell someone to go outside and prove it for me when I make threads. why do you?

File: oardefault.jpg (92 KB, 542x720)

92 KB JPG

>>29111932
Because nucars are goyim transportation devices and they have tint door openings with fuckhuge door cards, center consoles and other interior padding to keep your corn syrup body in place omce shoved inside so you survive long enough to withoit seeing outside to reproduce below the replacement rate, vote for jews and don't notice patterns before ultimately succumbing to diabetus.

>>29112141
It's not a leap to expect people on a car forum to know about cars

>>29112164
If you know anything about cars, why is it hard to back up your claim with evidence?

>>29112141
NTA, but no he's right and, so far, you are wrong.

Since you're used to Wikipedia parlance, we'll put it in Wikipedia parlance: human beings are allowed to cite firsthand experience as a source.

>>29112169
This is wrong. You are the only one not providing a source in the argument so far. Yes this is how reality outside Wikipedia works, people are allowed to say things they know and if you want to disprove them, you're the one that bothers to do that. He already proved his point by being in a van.

>>29112180
>NTA, but no he's right and, so far, you are wrong
No it isn't. Whenever I say shit on this board, I get asked to prove it with evidence. I don't get to make threads based on "experience pulled from my man pussy" or whatever. You agreeing with the premise without evidence doesn't make it free of scrutiny.
>You are the only one not providing a source in the argument so far.
Brainlet doesn't know how burden of proof works. no wonder you're gullible enough to believe anything you see on the internet.

If I claimed rode in a car, and it felt better than another car, do I get to make this claim without evidence?

>>29112191
>No it isn't. Whenever I say shit on this board, I get asked to prove it with evidence
Don't worry, there's a counterpoint to that:
>Since you're used to Wikipedia parlance, we'll put it in Wikipedia parlance: human beings are allowed to cite firsthand experience as a source.

Nobody thinks that guy is lying or making stuff up. It's on you.

>>29112191
>If I claimed rode in a car, and it felt better than another car, do I get to make this claim without evidence?
Duh?

>>29112193
>Nobody thinks that guy is lying or making stuff up
Not how evidence works, brainlet. what you do or don't think is irrelevant. What can be claimed without evidence, can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.

>>29112194
Not according to /o/.

>>29112197
>Not how evidence works, brainlet.
He doesn't need evidence, dumbass. Again,
>Since you're used to Wikipedia parlance, we'll put it in Wikipedia parlance: human beings are allowed to cite firsthand experience as a source.

No, really, this is how the world works. Nobody is required to cite a third party source when talking about their experiences. He actually has met burden of proof for his claim. It doesn't mean he's right, it just means so far the only person who has claimed objectivity (in a vehicle he clearly doesn't own or drive, btw) and not met that standard is YOU.

Wikipedia is NOT how argumentation works.

>>29112200
>He doesn't need evidence
Yea, he does, brainlet. or it's just an easily dismissed claim. I could not give less of a shit about your retarded wikipedia quote.
>No, really, this is how the world works.
for gullible retards like you, sure.
>Nobody is required to cite a third party source when talking about their experiences.
If they want their personal experiences to be believed, they will. I own a Ferrari, I race at the nurburgring. no, I will not post evidence that I do either. just trust me, bro.

>>29112202
>Yea, he does, brainlet.
No he doesn't. Personal experiences, in fact, come first. And you don't need evidence past that point personally. And that's all he's doing.
>I own a Ferrari, I race at the nurburgring. no, I will not post evidence that I do either. just trust me, bro.
But anon, you just want to lie here and we can all see that.

It's amazing that you're so stupid you can't see the forest for the trees. If you want proof, go find some. There actually IS a point in a conversation where nobody needs any proof until the jackass who demands shows up. And which point it's actually on HIM to show some proof of anything to start with.

>>29112144
ok schizo

>>29112203
>Personal experiences, in fact, come first.
Clearly it doesn't. it's why the entire bread on hood request exist.
>And you don't need evidence past that point personally
Not for gullible retards like you.
>you just want to lie
What is your evidence that i'm lying? you don't know me or my life. So why can't your gullible retard instincts allow my claim to exist in the pool of claims?
>If you want proof, go find some.
If you want me to believe your claim, attach your own evidence, nigger-wad. nobody's experience is trustworthy on the internet.

>>29112209
>Not for gullible retards like you.
This might surprise you to learn, but literally everyone here can tell that it doesn't matter if some guy claims that vans are large inside. It isn't gullible to just let it be.

It's really fucking stupid to claim someone can't just say that. And then demand stats and specs. Without doing that themselves.

>What is your evidence that i'm lying?
lol

>>29112212
>Sedans, Station Wagons & SUVs keep getting longer & longer without increasing interior space while Vans & Minivans have remained the same length without reducing any interior space?
This is a pretty big fucking claim, more so than just merely claiming "van large on inside". you'd think someone would've done research before making a claim like this, and have it at the ready. instead, the most likely outcome, is that he pulled it out of his ass.
>It's really fucking stupid to claim someone can't just say that.
You can say it, just like I can say I own a Ferrari and lap the nurburgring. I don't have to believe you. and i'm not wasting my time doing the research for a broad claim I know was pulled out of someone's ass. In this case, my own personal experience with threads exactly like this leads to to believe that is exactly the case. guy just pulled it out of his ass. He didn't do any research into this, and i'm not doing it for him.

>>29112214
>This is a pretty big fucking claim
Yeah, too bad that's OP and not the guy you replied to, or me.
>more so than just merely claiming "van large on inside"
NOPE
>You can say it, just like I can say I own a Ferrari and lap the nurburgring.
lol, no you can't

>>29112216
>too bad that's OP and not the guy you replied to, or me.
You and him are defending the claim, so what difference does it make? the claim isn't "vans are da big on inside" it's a very broad stroke of the brush that is unlikely to be true.
>NOPE
YUP
>lol, no you can't
I can. what are you going to do, say i'm making shit up like your butt buddy OP? whoops.

>>29112218
>You and him are defending the claim
I have not once defended the claim, just his right to say things. Actually not even that, I've just repeatedly pointed out that you have no business saying he's wrong "cuz, but objectively".
>YUP
LMAO, no, dumbass, actually:
>more so than just merely claiming "van large on inside"
NOPE
>I can. what are you going to do
I'll point out that, no, you can't. Again.

This is all so funny. You're so autistic you can't read meaning in anything.

>>29112221
>I have not once defended the claim,
you did, when you claimed he didn't need proof and his personal experience (whatever the fuck that is) is all that matters.
>I've just repeatedly pointed out that you have no business saying he's wrong "cuz, but objectively".
I asked him for proof. and it triggered the gullible retards like you.
>LMAO, no, dumbass, actually:
Yes, dipshit. it is a bigger claim than what you're initially making it out to be.
>I'll point out that, no, you can't. Again.
Yes, I can. again. what are you going to do? say i'm making shit up? (just like the OP!)

>This is all so funny
Yea, it is. watching a gullible retard derive "meaning" in some shit somebody pulled out of their ass, and me wanting any sort of evidence is not allowed because the council of gullible retards said so.

>>29111932
Not anymore bub...
Have you ever been inside a modern "minivan" they're basically crossovers with different doors.

wow

>>29112081
>outgoing ecoline.
The last econoline rolled off the production line in 2014 my friend.

>>29112144
Calm down, pablo gonzalez
You'll save the white race from da joos if you just relax

>>29114311
how?

>>29112144
You people are insufferable.

>>29111939

>but those are Japan-sized so never gonna get bigger.

Oh they sure do. New Hiaces have front ends now and they are as wide as a ram

wow

yes

>>29112144
Based and checked