(first posted 3/30/2016) Take a seventeen-foot, extended-length SUV, take out the actually usable third row, replace the entire trunk area with waterproof truck lining, separate it from the passenger compartment with a limousine-style glass divider, and oh, add a retractable roof and rear windshield – that pretty much sums up the concept behind the Envoy XUV.
This concept wasn’t all that new, as a similar idea had been implemented with the 1963-1966 Studebaker Wagonaire. However unlike the Wagonaire, the Envoy XUV was a truck-based SUV, came at the cost of its third row, and had a power retractable roof that wasn’t overly prone to leaking. The XUV’s cargo area also included a drainage system capable of draining 35 gallons of water per minute, making spraying down the cargo bed with a hose an easy task.
Similar to the Chevrolet Avalanche/Cadillac Escalade EXT, the XUV’s rear seats tumbled forward and the midgate divider could be folded down, increasing the cargo area to 95.2 cubic feet. Due to the XUV’s modifications, cargo capacity was actually less than that of the Envoy XL by some 12.4 cubic feet. Unfortunately, utilizing this 95.6 cubic feet of space behind the front seats was not well-suited for messy hauls, as folding down the midgate exposed areas of the interior not easily cleaned with a hose.
Much like the similar-era Lincoln Blackwood, the GMC Envoy XUV’s failure was in its attempt at offering the best of both worlds between a pickup truck and SUV. As it demonstrated in practice, the Envoy XUV wasn’t able to maximize the cargo carrying benefits of a pickup, nor the passenger carrying benefits of an SUV. At over 208 inches long, the XUV was longer than a standard cab Sierra pickup, yet offered less cargo space (with the seats/midgate upright) and even had a higher load floor height!
At the same time, the XUV only sat five passengers, or the same as the standard-length Envoy, which was 17 inches shorter in length and six inches lower in total height. As aforementioned, the Envoy XUV actually had a smaller cargo capacity than the seven-passenger Envoy XL, which had nearly identical exterior dimensions.
Despite its ability to transport items such as a bookcase or a tree upright, most consumers clearly didn’t see a need to spring for the Envoy XUV (which despite its added mechanics, was priced less than $1,000 higher than the XL), and GMC discontinued the XUV after less than two years of production. Regardless of the XUV’s very narrow appeal, credit must be given to GM for having the gall to go ahead with creativity and put such a unique vehicle into production, even if it did come at the expense of improving current and more practical SUV offerings. I mean, they could have just rebadged the regular Envoy and sold it under six different brands. Oh wait, GM did do that.
I always thought these were rather interesting. I never knew they had less carrying capacity compared to the their smaller siblings. Thanks for the write-up.
I really liked these things until I saw one open in person. The cargo space just wasn’t very practical because it was so narrow and the roof opening so small.
But hey, at least they tried. I’d still rather have that convertible back than the gigantic sunroofs they put in today’s CUVs.
Maybe it would have sold better if there had been a third row, rear facing seat option. At least the kids in the back would get the convertible effect.
Like the Wagonaire, this seems like a low buck, future collectible, an interesting counterpoint to the typical car show fare.
Better yet, put the third seat back there minus the slider but with the divider, keep the little b@$7@rds where they can’t get on your nerves 🙂
Well, there’s always one of those vehicle pet cages…
I’m not sure if rear facing third seats just faded out or if they were eventually banned by the Feds.
In the late 1990s, my wife and I were soon to be new parents and we attended some child safety classes. We were shown film of 1977+ GM B body wagons and what a rear impact looked like for kids in the rear facing seat. The outcome was pretty grim and their recommendation was to never put kids in such a seat.
I have to admit those rear facing wagon seats looked pretty cool when I was a kid, but forward facing third row seats with lap / shoulder belts are a huge improvement safety wise.
I tried to find that film on YouTube but came up empty handed.
The Tesla Model S offers a rear-facing 3rd-row seat so they must still be legal
You are correct. The last volume produced rear facing third seat that I could recall are the final Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable wagons.
It appears that Tesla offers them with a 5 point harness type seat belt, mitigating the crash test dummies I saw on film sailing up toward the rear window in the event of a rear ending. On the other hand, the rear glass is really close to a person’s face thanks to the rear hatch back.
Still, the Tesla is designed a lot like the old Volkswagen Bus was up front: the seat occupant’s knees are the bolster the bumper. Scary at best.
The optional Tesla rear facing seat……………..
Biggest issue I see with that Tesla is like you said no crush space for legs. But probably no worse than many 3-row CUVs that put heads within inches of the rear of the vehicle.
The rear-facing seats in the Tesla are also only large enough for two children. There’s just no leg or headroom for anyone taller than that.
Doesn’t the Mercedes E Class Wagon still offer a rear facing 3rd seat?
When these debuted, I thought it would have been cool if GMC had offered the Suburban (Yukon XL) with this roof. It would have amended the limited width issue and offered a forward facing 3rd row seat. The wagon-like roof with its chrome trim would have looked pretty cool, maybe even more proportional, on the bigger model.
I plan to facilitate this on a regular length yukon, reducing it to two doors or possibly extended cab suicide doors and vinyl on the b-pillars.
Like a gmt800 Yukon XUV-GT
Looking for luxury prerunner glass that facelifts everything below the beltline to 2019 sierra trophy truck stuff.
I’m not sure it was a bad idea as much as it was bad timing. The 2004 Envoy XUV came out at a time when body on frame SUVs were going out of style. Fuel prices were going up. In 2006 GM was already showing signs of being in financial trouble. They were cutting low production specialty models in an attempt to stop the bleeding. The Envoy would be replaced by the unibody Acadia which came out in 2007.
Well, I’d agree that it was bad timing, but less because of those factors and more because of the emergence of genuine four-door full-size pickups. Back when the best most pickup lines offered was an extended cab that still wasn’t big enough to offer than extra storage or occasional seating, this would have made some sense — sacrificing some cargo space for long-haul rear seating. As it was, it’s hard to see choosing this over something like a Ram Quad Cab, particularly given the assortment of bed caps available.
Typically the raw material for a bookcase is handled like this.
I like the idea behind the GMC Envoy. I believe they should have done more to improve on the vehicle. I would’ve offered a small turbo diesel engine for more low-end torque, I would’ve offered beefier rear-wheel suspension. I would’ve offered a better braking system.
Like the Avalanche and Subaru Baja, a good idea flawed by poor execution. Exacerbated in the case of the Envoy XUV by poor timing and a mediocre platform. I think the new Honda Ridgeline could be an awesome basis for a vehicle like this, which is in fact very useful for some of us.
Didn’t know these were so similar to an Avalanche with a “midgate” behind the second row and the special/hoseable interior panels in back….I just thought these were a “regular” Envoy and with 3 seats at that.
I’m also surprised that these were cheaper than a 3 row Envoy XL.
I have seen a few of these over the years, never open, though.
It was definitely GMC’s answer to the popular (for a time) Avalanche and Cadillac EXT ersatz pickup/SUV. A calculated risk that didn’t pan out, to be sure, but like others have said, it’s hard to disparage GM’s effort to try something different.
While the Envoy XUV is quite unlikely to make a return, I, for one, would sure like to see the Avalanche make a comeback, maybe in a smaller, more fuel-efficient version.
In fact, as someone else mentioned it, it’s a shame that Subaru didn’t see fit to go the expense of putting an Avalanche-style midgate on the Baja. It might have been enough to increase its practicality and sales to keep it in production.
I shopped Avalanches but when it came down to it a crew cab pickup made more sense. The box of the Avalanche was pretty cramped and they cost thousands more. And while I loved the idea of the midgate the reality is that I haven’t had much need for it.
They’d really have to come up with something special to do well in something smaller I think. Perhaps something FWD based like the Ridgeline, with a bed of similar length and width but several inches deeper while retaining the trunk. Full 5 passenger seating. And of course a midgate. Keep it priced like a midsize pickup and I’d be a buyer. But that last demand would be hard to achieve.
I agree that the Ridgeline (particularly in FWD guise) would be a perfect platform for an Avalanche-style midgate and would come close to being a perfect car/truck crossover, having the properties of both that the vast majority of the buying public would find useful.
It would have just enough of a pickup’s cargo carrying ability for most, but could revert back to a decent people mover, too. Driving characteristics and fuel mileage would be better than a pickup, as well.
This was something to “wow” the average lookie-loo’s at Auto Shows, and to make headlines in Media Business News stories.
“Look at this…”
But who would really wanted to buy it, just for the roof? Another “halo” vehicle that really wasted cash and time.
I remember being behind one in stop and go traffic back in the summer of 2004 and thinking to myself, “Damn that looks busted.”
This is the most detailed look I’ve had of these. It’s hard not to give GM credit for trying something unique. But, the design sounds so compromised, it seems like the engineering group should have said after their design study that a good product wasn’t feasible. It would be interesting to know if they said as much, and some marketing executive told them to do it anyway.
Makes you wonder if McNamara had stayed at Ford a little longer if he would have had doubts about Iacocca’s Mustang. Take the Falcon, make it more cramped inside with a claustrophobic back seat, and it should fail, right?
While I’d agree that the GMT platform was over marketed, I’d give GM more credit for their efforts to differentiate the second generation exterior sheet metal between most of them. It was about as diverse as the metal on the ’71-’76 GM B platform station wagons – all of which had unique side panels. The GMT did occupy roughly the same market space as the old GM big wagons, and the second gen GMT was probably their most ambitions effort to differentiate such a vehicle across several nameplates since the early 1970s.
This vehicle is what happens when corporate leadership does not set a definite goal before the work begins.
No one wanted a vehicle to be designed as a flexible truck – and have less room than a truck. No one wanted such a vehicle to have a higher lift than a truck. No one wanted a vehicle like that to cost more than a truck. No one wanted a truck that carried fewer passengers in less comfort than a truck.
The idea that a corporation could just blow millions building something like this, just to watch it flop in the market, is the kind of thinking that bankrupted GM. This vehicle did not meet any core requirements to justify its purchase. It was obvious right from the start that it was a bad idea.
For us, this vehicle is interesting. Sadly, it needed to have been interesting to customers so GM could pay back what it spent to design and build it – enough to have them drop hundreds of dollars a month in a vehicle payment plan. We can look back and admire what they tried to do. Yet, we didn’t lose millions on this thing.
This was a bad idea that was badly done and suffered from a lack of anyone stopping and yelling out the truth hard enough to avoid this disaster.
It was Studebaker’s idea
Studebaker managed a 3rd-row seat under the slide-open roof. Also some sort of run-flat tires to make room for the 3rd row. I thought run-flats were a more recent development so was surprised to learn that.
The Wagoniare’s run-flat tires are news to me, too. Was it the first vehicle so equipped (barring solid rubber tires on the Model T)? I wonder how well they worked in actual practice. With all the other detriments, seems like it would be yet another issue to keep buyers away.
There were puncture-resistant tires of sorts at least as early the ’50s, as I recall. I don’t know enough about how they worked to say how they compared with modern run-flats — I’d have to do more research on that.
The XUV existed because of one of GM’s many mandates from the dark period of the 1990s and early 2000s.
They had a mandate that ~15% of new designs coming out had to be “innovative” so this was one their ideas that got the green light.
It’s mentioned in Lutz’s Icons and Idiots. When he came to GM in 2001 he tried to put the kibosh to it but was told it was too far along in the development process to be stopped.
They actually mandated ~15% innovative vehicles? Innovation is by nature a product of creativity – how can you possibly mandate that? A monumental management attitudinal blunder; no wonder GM failed.
Interesting idea even second time around Ive never seen one, we dont have them but I managed to fit a 6ft bookcase in my Citroen hatchback recently so I dont actually need a Envoy.
Transporting trees standing up is the worst way to move them at speed. It exposes them to windburn at at time when they are venerable already. Better to lay them down and wrap them in a tarp.
The only advantage would be moving a refrigerator, keeping it upright means you don’t need to wait for the compressor lubricating oil to drain back down before turning it on again.
The first I know of run flat tires is 57 mopar 3 seat wagons these were Goodyear
tires Captive Air was the name later 3 Seat Ramblers picked up on this
until the late sixties
sorry to go against the flow but there have been a few times I have been trying to stuff something in the back of my grand Cherokee that I have thought the xuv made a heck of a lot of sense!
Like the Blackwood, another kinda-cool-ish idea that should have stayed on the car show floor.
The difference is that the Blackwood had no unique sheetmetal; it was an F150 crewcab with a trim package, Ford’s break-even point was probably so low they made money anyway.
The amount of engineering and tooling that went into the XUV meant that GM almost certainly lost money on the project.
You are thinking of the Mark LT. The Blackwood was much more than an F-150 trim package.
The entire cargo box of the Lincoln Blackweird was unique to it.
here is a real car
They offered a Studebaker-branded camper?
I remember my parents looking at one of these in the summer of ’04. My dad though that retractable roof was hokey.
His exact words, “That’ll be a bitch to replace once the warranty expires.”
They leased a Magnetic Red Envoy XL instead.
I think the mistake was that they went to all that elaborate compromise to make…. What you could as easily have by putting a cargo cap on one of those tiny-bedded four door trucks. (Whatever use a two or three foot bed is supposed to be anyway,) If the thing was going to have all that stuff to seal off the cabin, why not have it convert from a fully-enclosed vehicle to …an enclosed front seat like a pickup truck with a roof you could open more, say, by removing panels. 🙂
Then it would actually be more like owning two different vehicles. (that each do something pretty well. 🙂
I would almost agree however a key difference there is that toppers and covers are often not 100% watertight and they are not climate controlled. My biggest gripe with my pickup is that when traveling with luggage stuff will freeze or melt back there.
That’s a fair point, although if carrying passenger luggage was a buyer’s first priority, a regular Envoy XL would seem to make more sense. It speaks to how narrowly sliced the target market for these really was.
I’d rather have the Studebaker version, thank you very much 🙂 …
Having no taste for big Buicks, I never paid any attention to this odd duck. But now I can see the purpose– a perfect Camper Car, for the car camper! All it needs is an add-on mosquito net with screen door. I know that I’ve dropped the back seat and laid down for the night when bad weather or a late arrival made pitching a tent untenable. And my old Squareback or even my SAAB 900 wasn’t as roomy as this big baby. So I’d love to see a Westfalia conversion to turn this into a Class-C motorhome. The rear sunroof ought to open up new architectural possibilities… like a two-story loft bedroom, Clarkson-style?
I always thought these would sell like crazy. Good idea; limited execution. Awkward looking too, but as much as I admire the intent, the Ridgeline and Baja were as well.
This was one of those ideas that sounds really useful, until you stop and think about it. What kind of super-tall loads will one be carrying where this would be useful? Trees, ok. Or very tall bushes. But most other things (bookcases, armoires, tall furniture, grandfather clocks…) could be laid down with the second row folded in an Envoy XL. If you really need to carry four or five people *and* something really tall…
The market was too narrow to justify the investment.
The sliding, open roof idea was an answer to a question no one was asking, either in 1964 or 2004. Maybe in 2044, someone will give it another shot.
Nothing as the real thing. The ’64 Studebaker Wagonaire with retractable roof to hal bulky and tall things. Definitely, the envoy tried, but failed miserably.
As I recall from the book “Car Guys vs Bean Counters”, Lutz took responsibility for the XUV fiasco.
Always thought these things looked like a hearse or floor car for a funeral
And the CC effect was in full force yesterday afternoon, when I caught an XUV on the corner of 61st Avenue and 108th Street. Corregated tear gate?
And the CC effect was in full force yesterday afternoon, when I caught an XUV on the corner of 61st Avenue and 108th Street.