(first posted 9/1/2015) Before I dive into the cavern of describing this van, one fundamental tidbit needs to be established: I have no fondness for vans. They inhabit a much needed place in automotive society, but they are not for me. Most of us have an arena within autodom in which we possess little affinity; with their often compromised foot room and blind spots the size of some continents, vans fall into that category for me.
So naturally I was rooked into driving one of these on a recent outing where I work.
Despite my aversion to vans, I am quite aware vans aren’t what they used to be. This Express is now the lone holdout from the light truck based days of yore although it is leagues better in every conceivable way than the generation preceding it. These pictures are all of a new 2015 model liberated from Chevrolet’s website and it is nearly identical to the 2004 to 2006 model I’m telling you about. It is likely Volkswagen had more frequent styling updates with the original Beetle than what GM has bestowed upon their full-sized vans, but don’t interpret the lack of obvious physical updates as being a negative.
Thinking about this van, I’ve made a realization of sorts. The Chevrolet Express 3500 has a charisma similar to John Wayne – it’s tough, it lacks elegance, and it doesn’t give a damn about sophistication. Given the van landscape in the United States, this Express very much incorporates the bold, brash, and brutally honest traits that were found in the many characters played by John Wayne.
How so? Well, 6,087 pounds of curb weight could be considered brash by some readers. It’s weight surprised me as the 6.0 liter V8 – rated at 342 horsepower and 373 ft-lbs of torque for the 3500 series as shown – does a terrific job of hustling this rig down the road. I’ve driven this van with two to twelve adults aboard and there isn’t a tremendous amount of difference in acceleration and handling between these two scenarios. Merging onto I-70 multiple times was nearly painless, even with a shortened merge ramp due to road work. While it isn’t in the Mustang GT range of painless acceleration, the surprisingly rev-happy 6.0 in the Express simply makes more than enough power at any speed.
This assessment might be different had I driven a shorter wheelbase version equipped with the 4.8 liter gasoline engine.
Another area of unabashed distinction exhibited by the Express is the wheelbase. Stretching nearly 13′, the 155″ (393.7 cm) wheelbase of the Express surpasses that of the longest new Ford Transit by eight inches. The long wheelbase does contribute to a generally smooth ride in the Express, but one needs to remain cognizant of this length when driving in urban areas. Take for instance when turning right at an intersection; prudence dictates swinging out further than would be customary in other vehicles. Failure to do so will result in the right rear wheel hopping onto the curb and then harshly dropping off the curb after you complete your turn. One just needs to wait for a larger than normally acceptable opening in traffic to successfully proceed.
Looking up towing ratings for the Express versus the Transit indicates something interesting about vehicle capacity. Chevrolet, without the availability of a raised roof like Ford, keeps determination of weight ratings pretty darn simple. Ford, Chevrolet’s prime competitor with the Transit, not so much. While Ford ultimately has a Gross Combined Weight Rating of 500 pounds more than the 6.0 powered Chevrolet at 13,500 pounds (although the diesel powered Chevrolet has a GCWR of 17,000 pounds), determining the configuration to do so in the Ford is a convoluted combination of engine, roof, wheelbase, and axle ratio. The Express, in keeping with its John Wayne persona, has a GCWR that is as hard to determine as the need to empty your bladder.
This vast difference raises a question in my mind….Is it better to have a tool that is specific to a job or a tool that is fairly adaptable? One could argue either way on whether the Chevrolet and its straightforward weight ratings are better for tackling myriad number of unknown sized jobs or if the lack of flexibility results in overkill in some instances. Ultimately that is the buyers decision, but it also leads me to think these Express vans may be more attractive in the used market than the Transit as the amount of variability in the Ford might result in frustration in finding a correctly sized tool.
Remember my crack about exterior changes being more prevalent on a VW Beetle? The same thing applies to the interior. Ever since GM last updated these in 2003 or so, the interior has pretty much been the same. Sure, the font on the speedometer, radio, and ventilation controls may be different, but the dash panel has been the same throughout. With the bulk of these undoubtedly going into various fleet uses, this consistency is a very good thing. From a former fleet manager’s perspective, this provides a lot of flexibility in exchanging seats, door panels, instrument clusters, and all body parts to help keep everything running as this lack of change creates a high degree of parts interchangeability, allowing easy cannibalization of a wrecked or soon-to-be sold unit.
Looking further at the interior, putting a seat in a box doesn’t require a lot of creativity to accomplish. The one I drove had a fourth bench seat in the vacant area in the back. There is a penalty for riding in the last two rows as any pavement imperfections grow exponentially when sitting over or behind the rear axle. Driving over some settled, yet still smooth, concrete pavement yielded a few butts to rise off the seat and pointed admonishments about my speed.
The admonishments from jostled passengers got tiring, just like it is to drive this van. Between me and a co-worker, we drove this van 982 miles in just over two working days with my having two-thirds of the seat time. I was happy to turn it back into the pool. While the drivers seat is comfortable and this van is nearly immune to crosswinds, there is something about driving it that is highly fatiguing. For its size, it handles like a somewhat smaller vehicle but there is simply no joy in driving one of these. The Express 3500 is as an appliance to its core.
Built about two hours away from me in Wentzville, Missouri, the Chevrolet Express, and the identical GMC Savanna, are throwbacks to another time in the van market when hitting the starter motor provided the reassuring rumble of a V8 engine throbbing mere inches from your right foot. While for some these vans are as archaic as a two-speed automatic transmission, for others there is a comforting reassurance.
Would I buy one of these? I have no need. However, were I in the market, its base price of $37,350 would require comparison of its various attributes to the Ford Transit. Given the vast difference between these two primary manufacturers in the United States van market, anyone needing a full-sized van needs to determine their needs and purchase accordingly.
These vans which were introduced back in 1996 were almost very similar in design with its smaller sibling the Astro. After 2015 the Chevrolet Express Van will finally be replaced by a Nissan NV200 based Van which is still larger than the Astro though.
Unless I’m mistaken, the NV200 derivative is the “City Express” which is supposed to compete with the Transit Connect and ProMaster City.
Is the Express going to an NV300-based replacement? Odd choice if so, as that one is basically an “old school” American-style van with pickup underpinnings. I’d be surprised if GM doesn’t field a Euro-style entry to compete on a level field with the ProMaster and Transit, since that seems to be the way the market is headed.
Nissan NV 200 based Chevrolet City Express Van will be the replacement NOT the NV 300 even though its closer in size with the outgoing Chevrolet Express Van.
So they’re abandoning the full-size/cargo van market? GM? I find that difficult to believe…if so, wow.
It appears that they are abandoning the full-size van market at least on Chevrolet’s part. I am not quite sure if GMC will continue on to carry on the older body Savana Van though the indefinite future through? If so, that would be interesting in the branching out between Chevrolet and GMC Van made because all the other light and medium sized trucks and SUVs would continued to be duplication between Chevrolet Trucks and GMC. Perhaps Chevrolet might just MIGHT continue to carry the older Express Van Body but perhaps only in smaller numbers plus for fleet, commuter and rental agencies/companies since these industries were heavily profitable to Chevrolet’s bottom line.
I doubt that GMC would go it alone. You could only buy vans at a Buick or Cad dealer?
A lot has changed in six years.
GM has returned to the medium commercial truck business, so GMC definitely has both feet in.
Who knows, they may again cross the 25,999.9# GVW threshold. lol
It would be extremely odd if the intended replacement for the full-size Chevrolet Express van is the smaller, Euro/city-size Chevrolet City Express/Nissan NV200. The City Express/NV200 competes with the Ford Transit Connect and Ram Promaster City (aka Fiat Doblo).
The closest competitors to the full-size Express van are the Ford Transit, Nissan NV300, and Ram Promaster/Sprinter. The cancellation of the Express without a replacement in the same size class would effectively mean GM is surrendering that larger commercial van category to Nissan, Ford, and Chrysler.
IIRC the City Express already replaced the 1500 series big Express vans, with the 2500-3500 continuing for…who knows? As stated, they have a niche to themselves.
In the US, there is no Nissan NV300. That vehicle is available in other markets, and it’s derived from a Renault/Vauxhall van. In the US we get (for a limited time, as it’s allegedly being cancelled), the Nissan NV2500, in low and high roof. I own an NV2500 Highroof V8 and of all my 25+ vehicles, it’s amongst my favorite. Excellently engineered, tough, fun to drive, reliable. A true gem.
I believe this is not correct.
How so? Here is that link to that Van: http://www.chevrolet.com/city-express-small-van.html?&seo=goo_|_GM+Chevy+Retention_|_GMNA|US|CHV|GOOG|S|BP|A|BMM|RTN|EXP|LVN|0|0|City-Express-BP-SN-BMM|NA|NA|NA_|_City+Express+HV_|_%2Bchevrolet%20%2Bcity%20%2Bexpress
The City Express is not a replacement for the Express is is a supplement intended to compete with the Transit Connect. The 1500 vans went away due to CAFE standards. The 2500 and 3500 as well as the cutaways will continue with a few new touches for 2016 http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/06/2016-chevy-express-vans-get-onstar-4g-lte-with-wi-fi-beefier-alternator-second-battery-and-more/. Don’t expect them to go away any time soon. They are pure cash cows with everything fully amortized.
I remember back in ’97 I had to drive a group of 10 about 300 miles. I went tot he van rental place and was issued a brand new Ford van. What got me excited was the Triton V10 badge on the fender. I’d never driven anything with more then 8 cylinders so I was excited to give it a try.
Like Jason’s experience, it did become tiring to drive it. Unlike the featured vehicle, it was not immune to crosswinds. Furthermore, it rained hard for part of that trip and even fully loaded, it constantly reminded me that it was rear wheel drive. It was quite a large vehicle and felt like it. The V10 provided enough power to move it even when fully loaded but it felt top heavy and did not handle well…so we kept the speed down.
What I remembered the most about the V10-equipped Econoline was the fuel gauge needle moving a tad bit faster when I hauled my stuff from one house to other. I swore I actually saw the needle moving noticeably when cruising down the highway. Or maybe it’s the summer heat doing funny thing to my mind…
I rented a full-size Chevy 2500 from U-Haul with a big cargo box affixed to the rear. I had to return it with a full tank, and even though I barely drove 65 miles, that was the longest damn fuel stop I can recall in my life. Thing had a bottomless tank. I later calculated about 11 mpg for the trip. Glad I don’t drive one of these everyday.
I don’t Like vans mini or full sized at all but if I had to have one I would take this over the transit any day. I bet this ones way cheaper to maintain. Isn’t a transit made in France or spain?
No, the smaller Transit Connect is made in Turkey. The Transit sold in the US is built in the US.
The first generation Transit Connect was built in Turkey.
The current version is built in Valencia Spain.
No you wouldn’t, or at least you SHOULD drive them both to really be sure. The Transit (VAN as opposed to the smaller Transit Connect) drives much more like a car than the Chevy Express.
I can see a fleet manager buying the Chevy IF perhaps he needed to save a few bucks on purchase. However I can see a fleet manager’s boss who is or should be concerned about worker fatigue, productivity and long term overall business profitability hopefully stepping in and making a better long term decision.
These are the last of the old style vans, and I am glad for this. As someone who is a commercial operator of vehicles like this, the time has come for their replacement. They simply lack the payload and versatility of modern vans like the Transit and the Ducato, as well as being much more expensive to run. The return on a high roof Transit is going to be a lot more than any old E350 ever could produce.
Ford Transit is built in Turkey, Spain and Kansas City (Claycomo), Missouri, USA…which is how they are able to qualify as American-made for government contract purposes, since mid-2014.
The smaller Ford Transit CONNECT, on the Ford Focus platform, is built in Turkey and in Romania.
Transit/Tourneo Connect is made in Spain (Valencia), Transit/Tourneo Courrier is made in Roumania.
The liberated photo from the Chevy’s website appears to make this particular Express look like a hotel shuttle. And for the purpose of moving people and nominal luggage, these old style vans may still have something on new vans like the Transit.
Okay hear me out.
Last summer my family spent a week touring Washington D.C. We avoided a rental car, so we had many trips to dinner and the train in the hotel’s extended Econoline. Zero glamour, but quiet enough, decent ride and powerful air conditioning in the D.C. July weather. The Econoline seems much smaller than the Transit, likely making it a lot easier to handle in the crowded lots and drop off points where we took the shuttle.
Our local Best Buy store has several Econlines and Transits parked side by side. The Transit is positively huge, and Best Buy likely loves the added space along with improved gas mileage. But, those big Transits appear to take a lot of space and likely take some attention when navigating in tight spaces.
Those are all 3D renderings, BTW… not photos. Well, except the one of The Duke.
Actually, my friend has a Sprinter 3500 170″ wheelbase extended length with the high roof. I’ve driven it. I didn’t have any real trouble with maneuvering it. He doesn’t have trouble blasting his way through Philly-area traffic like a Porsche 911 (or at least I’d be slower with a 911 I paid the nearly $50k for that he paid for his van!), actually- although I’d be squeamish.
But then again, the Sprinter is not the largest vehicle I’ve driven, the largest being an GMC T6500 (Isuzu FRR) with a 22′ box on it (about 30 feet long in all compared to the Sprinter’s 23′), which I had no trouble placing where I wanted at sane speed. My point being that once you get used to a vehicle’s size, you don’t really have trouble with that size. Assuming you are a competent driver, anyway.
And the difference between the Econoline and Transit in size is almost negligible. If you can drive one, you should have no trouble driving the other.
I’m not talking about the van rental crowd. But frankly, I have never understood why people who are used to driving a Toyota Camry can just walk into any rental place and rent a near 40′ long International 4500 26′ box truck.
I’ve driven a Cat D11T before. You can place it *any* where you want! (badum!). It’s like driving an apartment building.
But yes, agree on “getting used” to a vehicle’s size. My wife’s VW Routan feels like a barge after being in my Honda Fit, but is positively nimble compared to my F-250 4wd.
I drove a 268 Hino 26 foot box truck for work. They are not for everybody. Most do have trouble simply driving their Camry’s, and their stupid bicycles here in the Portland Oregon area.
The transit I rented from UHaul and wrote up didn’t feel huge when driving it. However the walls are very upright so the top edges seem larger than that of the Econoline if that makes sense. Transit comes in various lengths and roof heights, U-haul has the smallest version, not sure what Best Buy uses.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/future-classic/future-classic-2015-ford-transit-250-a-new-dawn-for-u-haul/
Look at the fourth picture from the top for the side view, it does not appear that big.
I’ve never had any extended seat time in one of these, but I did rent one from U-haul for some furniture moving earlier this year. Not sure if it was a 1500 or 2500, but I’m pretty sure it had the 4.8 V8 and not the bigger 6.0. And, all things considered, I preferred the Econolines that I’ve driven examples of here and there over the years. The Express wasn’t unpleasant, but I seem to remember the Econolines feeling like they had more vigor, and I much preferred the dash layout.
I’ve not had the chance to drive a Transit or a ProMaster. Perhaps that experience would be a revelation…
The best thing about a $40K van is it will be a $4K van in just a few years. Why would anybody other than a corporate customer buy one new?
The SWB vans with the 4.8 have decent get and go too. I had one loaded down with my Plumbing gear for a while and even fully stocked it accelerated nicely.
I had a loaner van for a while with the 4300 and that was a true slug. Add in equipment and inventory and you’re permanently in slow lane purgatory.
I’ll bet it’s a dog in a snowstorm on factory tires.
Why would a corporate customer buy one new? The Mercedes-Benz Sprinter depreciates much slower.
I’m intrigued that you mentioned the Ford Transit as its primary competitor. For the Chevy Express, the main competitor is, unquestionably, the Nissan NV. The Transit, ProMaster, and Sprinter are Eurovans, a different market segment. I don’t know why Chevy sells this thing.
Its a throwback. It is less capable and much more expensive to run than its competitors from Ford, Ram/Fiat and Mercedes-Benz. It doesn’t have the high-roof either. Once you have experienced the high roof, assuming you don’t frequently work in areas with particularly low clearance (and don’t kid yourself, these don’t fit in garages, either!) you will NEVER crouch around in an antique like this again.
I’m personally partial to the Sprinter, which is the Transit’s closest competitor. It is, oddly, cheaper than a comparable Transit (although the Transit comes standard with a gas engine for those users who drive them extremely short distances at a lower price)
The high roof is certainly an advantage, but I have had very favorable experiences with the old GM full size vans, and see a relatively low overall cost-of-ownership. Those I know with Sprinter experience, not so much. The Sprinter appears to be expensive to repair and maintain, offsetting that fuel economy advantage. Sprinters also seem to be quite rust-prone. The GM vans are also available in CNG powered versions, an attractive alternative to some fleets.
The Sprinter is a dog, and I wouldn’t touch one for a fleet operation.
The real benefit of the new vans is their payloads. My company recently bought three new Transits in long wheelbase/high roof to replace our ancient Dodge vans. They have the capability of picking up a lot more payload than the old vans could, and they use about half the fuel. All the vans have the standard 3.7 engine, which is more than adequate. The city stuff will soon be Ducato.
Gee, twice the load, half the fuel. Definitely not much cheaper to operate!
The Sprinter is not cheaper than the Transit when comparably equipped.
The Express is much much cheaper to operate than a Sprinter. The brakes last 3-4 times longer, tires 2-3 times longer, cheaper to purchase, more reliable, durable and have much more up time.
The high roof is a benefit in some cases but it is a big handicap or just makes it unusable in others. If you are in a trade where you need to carry ladders, more than a homeowner grade step ladder a high roof is absolutely worthless. The low roof will fit into some parking garages which is needed if you do commercial work in city.
The tires last 2-3 times longer? Really? Why am I having trouble believing that?
Back when I was in fleet maintenance the Sprinters ate through tires in 12-20,000 miles for tires that were supposedly good for 40-60,000 mi.
Econolines were notorious for eating front tires as well.
I drove an apparently overloaded Econoline box truck 800 miles once. When I got to my destination the inside edges of the front tires were shot, I was damn lucky to make it.
It very much is. The Sprinter 2500 144″ with with V6 diesel is roughly $38,500 including destination and a few line item options that are standard on the Ford. The Ford Transit 250 short low cargo with I5 diesel (roughly comparable in power and torque) and a few line item options that are standard on the Sprinter is $39,000. The price difference increases substantially as you go up in size.
A 177″ ext Sprinter 3500 with the high roof is $45,170, a Ford Transit longest available highest roof, which gives up about 100 cubic feet of space to the Sprinter, is $46,900. Which by the way, is a 2016 Sprinter to a 2015 Ford, so I’d assume the Ford will actually go up a bit in price too.
So yes, the Ford is more expensive. FWIW.
Well I was going on US prices. In the US a Sprinter starts at $40K while a Transit starts at $34K and an Express starts at $30K.
When they first came to the US the official line at Dodge was that yeah they cost $10K more to buy but if you keep it 5 years you’ll save $10K in fuel. Never mind they used the same price for diesel as gas in the sales pitch. Of course they failed to mention that the Sprinter would cost $2000 more per year to actually keep on the road.
We will have to wait and see how the US spec Transit does on cost of operation, but it will be hard to be as bad as the Sprinter.
I’m perhaps one of the few who like the old-school full-size rear-wheel drive vans. I realise they’re not for everyone, and they should have that option of the smaller front-wheel drive van if they so choose. But there’s something utilitarian about these vans I’ve always liked. You can choose a people carrier, or a cargo van if you need. I also appreciate the infinite low end torque rating of the Duramax diesel one could opt for with the Chevy/GMC van. I’d hate to see these old vans be discontinued altogether.
The Ford Transit, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, and Mercedes-Benz Metris are all rear-wheel drive (actually, the Sprinter also offers AWD). Just the Ram and the mini-vans are FWD. And all of those are pretty utilitarian.
I know that the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter is rear-wheel drive, but is the Ford Transit?
All versions of the Transit we get in the US are RWD. In Europe there are FWD and AWD versions too. The Ram is the only FWD van in the traditional full size class.
I knew that the new Ram is Front-wheel drive. I don’t know why they’d use front-wheel drive on a full-sized van. Front-wheel drive is fine for a small car, like Fiat cars currently on the market, or the Mini Cooper. But a van? You kidding me?
I was dubious about FWD in a full-size van too Jason, but I’ve driven both FWD and RWD Transits, and the FWD was actually far nicer to drive! I know, I couldn’t believe it either!
In New Zealand I between 2008 and 2013 I often drove the RWD Transit belonging to my late Grandad’s retirement home. It was a 2005 model, LWB high-roof 2.4 turbo-diesel, 5-speed manual, with loads of seats in the back.
In Europe in 2013 I spent two and a half weeks driving the FWD Transit motorhome pictured below. It was a 2013 model, 2.2 litre turbo-diesel, 6-speed manual.
I thought the FWD one would be hideous to drive, but it felt significantly nicer than the RWD one. It was a lot smoother and vastly more relaxed. I know some of that would be the engine, but overall the RWD one felt quite agricultural, whereas the FWD one felt carlike. Only 103kW, but seriously quick for a large heavy object. And of course the huge advantage of FWD is the lower floor in the rear, perfect for motor-homes.
I think the Ford Transit is more attractive but that and a dollar won’t get a cup of coffee anymore. Picked up bell ringers for the salvation army for a number of years. Always was in one of these but don’t remember if 2500 or 3500. Lean towards thinking it was a 2500 as it had a 4.3. It was mostly city traffic and it kept up. I did find some right curbs so a shorter van would have been ok by me.
I think I would prefer the Chevy. I have sworn off GM because I got real tired of unrequited love but they make great trucks. I once owned a 78 one ton high cube with a 350/350 power train. The big engine was as responsible for the 8mpg as the weight.
Good story Jason
I am a grizzled veteran of American vans up into the 90s, but have no experience with the recent stuff. And, I must admit, I have no seat time in this generation of Express, as old as it is.
I really liked my 94 Club Wagon, and found it comfortable and pleasant to drive. However, I am at a stage in life where that kind of acreage is no longer required. I will admit that while the new generation of vans is intriguing, I just cannot get used to the aesthetics of those practical european designs. But since most buyers care about payload and not about how they look, the manufacturers don’t care about looks either.
6,087 pounds of curb weight could be considered brash by some readers. It’s weight surprised me as the 6.0 liter V8 – rated at 342 horsepower and 373 ft-lbs of torque for the 3500 series as shown – does a terrific job of hustling this rig down the road.
The one thing people who haven’t spent much time in old-school vans can’t appreciate is how handy they can be to wheel around quickly. They usually have HO V8s and low gearing so they can get up and move and, as far as the handling goes, what they lack in finesse they make up for in ruggedness.
Over time I have driven a sizable number of E-350 (351 and 5.4 liter), Dodge 3500 vans, and a lesser number of these. Of them all, this old girl definitely had the most pop with acceleration that was the least van-like.
I agree Jason. One of these was another rig we had at work, and I got to use it on occasion. They are as ugly as that red headed stepchild, but they do run and drive very killer. 🙂
In high school I had a friend whose family had an Econoline with a 460 (probably some low gear as well since they got it to tow their boat and it had the trailer pack). Up to about 70 or 80 it could take about anything, including 5.0 Mustangs.
Here’s GM’s big and modern Euro-van, the Opel Movano. Also known as Renault Master and Nissan NV400.
I could easily see this coming over (with a more “Americanized” schnoz, of course) to replace the Express/Savana in the coming years.
There’s also this midsize Opel Vivaro. Also known as Renault Trafic.
GM’s smallest Euro-van is the Opel Combo. But you already know that one, it’s the same as a Ram ProMaster City / Fiat Doblo.
I haven’t driven a full size van since the 1-ton Dodge window van on bias ply heavy duty tires I drove for a latchkey program for the Southside YMCA in St Louis in the late 80s…that thing would beat you to bits on bumpy roads, even with a van-load of kids. The whole experience makes me shudder, even now.
I used to live within sight of the Wentzville plant…provides lots of jobs in St Charles, Lincoln and Warren Counties, I hope it stays open for many years. I think they built FWD Buick LeSabres and Olds 88s before they converted over to vans.
They are also building the Colorado there. In fact, they are contemplating a juggle of lunch and break times to build an extra 100 Colorados per day (or week) to help meet demand.
My wife lived just north of Wentzville for a while; her family is still just north of there in Lincoln County.
And that’s after adding a third shift and hiring additional workers for the other two. Van production resumed a couple of months ago following an order freeze that had been in effect since last fall.
Wow – 6 litres and 342bhp. I’ll think the Transit’s max engine size in the UK is currently 2.2 litres and the highest power output is 140bhp. I can’t really think of a time when a van would need anywhere near 300 horses. Mind you, our journeys are probably much shorter and more congested than in the U.S.
That’s correct, a 2.2 liter TDCi diesel engine, the most powerful is 155 hp.
Horsepower is meaningless torque is what moves the freight.
Horsepower is not meaningless. Ultimately, it’s the most important number of all. With the right gearing, torque becomes largely irrelevant. With enough gears, or a CVT, a 2.0 L Honda S2000 gas four making 240 hp @9000 rpm will accelerate and move a big truck just as fast as a giant old Cummins NV-240 diesel from the 1950s making 240 hp @1600 rpm.
Of course the Cummins will last longer and burn less fuel, but that’s not the point in this discussion.
HP is the definition of how much work can be done. Torque helps define how the engine goes about doing it. Torque is very useful in the absence of infinite gearing, as it allows an engine to accelerate briskly from lower rpm.
Torque is a force. Power is how quickly you can apply that force. Torque can be multiplied with gearing power can not. Double the gear reduction and you can double the load you can move but it will take twice as long to move that bigger load.
Really?
Horsepower is a function of torque (and rpm). They’re not independent variables.
Agreed, but all the same, to my European eyes, it’s a surprisingly and excessively large number.
I’ve been waiting to see if GM will adopt the strategy Ford has. If you look at the Ford website the Transit and Transit Connect wagons with 8 (or more) and 7 passenger seating are looking like pretty decent people movers for those who don’t really feel like they need an SUV or want a mini van that is truly mini.
I looked at a Transit Connect Wagon. Underpowered with a chintzy interior and build quality. I didn’t think it was at all competitive with mainstream minivans. Not a bad idea, but I think it’s pretty clear that turning it into a family vehicle was an afterthought.
If Ford was to put the C-Max hybrid drivetrain into the Transit Connect, they’d have a pretty compelling vehicle on their hands in terms of MPG v. Capacity.
We recently rented a nice equiped 12 or so pass Ford Transit for a 16 hour church trip. Night and day compared with the late model Ford 350 we had before, especially for the driver. American vans have no ergonomics at all, foot well impacted by the engine cover, lousy dash setup. The transit drove like a modern ford SUV. Smooth, quiet, better on gas and plenty of power. There is no downside to progress in this case, except for nostalgia.
What always puzzled me as an Aussie moving to the U.S. wasn’t so much the love of full-sized Pickups and SUVs – hey, gas prices are cheap enough for them to make sense – but the continued use of inefficient V8 vehicles for service roles: the Panthers, the Express. Frankly, I’ll be glad to see these finally get the axe. The new Euro vans are miles ahead in practicality and packaging and are more efficient, too. GM better think fast though because the segment is changing and they’re in danger of being left behind
It goes hand in hand, the vehicles were still around because the engineering and tooling had long since been paid off and there was no real modern competition. Same goes for the engines. With cheap gas the inefficiency is irrelevant and they are very cheap to produce at this point in the game. Once gas prices went way up, efficiency started to seriously matter and once one of the dominoes fell, the rest started slowly following suit. I’m oversimplifying a bit as there are also crash regulation updates etc that some of the old timers weren’t able to inexpensively overcome but still.
They are also cheap and easy to fix.
These are vans of the past as most countries OUTLAWED them as people transporters. Ever see/hear of a collision with one full of kids….not a pretty sight, as there is no occupant protection in a serious collision. Try getting insurance for it!
As for hauling gear, yes it’s a powerhouse with the big v8, as it will move most contractor stuff with ease,…problem is the depreciation after purchase. Not many buyers for a used beat up contractor van. Then there’s the cost of fuel for this hauling/towing ability…it’s an issue when it’s being run all over town every day. One more thing is the crouching down getting in and out….it becomes a pain for most senior employees. Sorry, but this van is a dinosaur.
While the title is a John Wayne quote, it does pretty well sum up my thoughts about this rig.
They really make no sense moving people and average service van use anymore. But These could tow and haul with little effort that part will be missed everything else not much. Also note the express has noticeably better ergonomics and foot well room the the e-series and it still get complaints.
We love to obsess about dash-to-axle ratios here, so let me just point out that this thing has a negative dimension in that critical department. At least that’s how it looks from the outside.
John Wayne sure said “pilgrim” frequently.
He sure did. I’ve never understood why. Perhaps he preferred “pilgrim” over “mister”?
An interesting write-up on this class of van Jason. We don’t and didn’t get anything like these new here in NZ – the closest thing on our market has been the Transit which has been sold here since the 1960s (aside from an absence in the late 80s/early 90s). The sheer variety of Transit body-styles here is quite bewildering – almost overwhelming! – and I agree this may be more of a hindrance than a help to some folks.
Some where I have a Ford advertisement for their UK commercials that claimed they could build over 200 vehicles before they built the same one twice and thats in the early 60s its got worse since then.
Didn’t the EPA formally admonish GM for still building these rather than a more fuel-efficient European-style van like those fielded by Ford, Ram, and Mercedes-Benz? It does seem like an antiquity.
We can’t Forget the Nissan NV2500/3500. Much more in line with this sort of vans, with toughness and ease of maintenance in mind. For one the engine isn’t under the dashboard on them.
I agree. Although I’ve never owned or driven a Nissan NV van, I’ve always preferred those vans over the smaller NV200, probably because I like its old-school drivetrain, front-engine, rear-wheel drive, over the NV200’s front-engine, front-wheel drive.
I’ve always had a van / wagon or two in my stash of vehicles. They are just too darn versatile to be without. I currently still own a 1987 Chevy Astro I bought new, and I recently purchased a 2015 Toyota Sienna. My daughter is from the “anti mini-van” generation, but does like and own a SUV. When she recently rode in the Sienna her comment was, “Wow I see why Soccer Moms like these things!”
Six years after the original post and these vans are still on the market in the US, and doing OK at least judging by what I see locally. And the RWD Nissan NV is gone; as are the Transit and Promaster (Ducato) diesels. We bought a Transit last year, and one of the Ford incentives was a competitive conquest deal, of around $500-600 dollars. All we had to do was show the title and current registration for another brand of vehicle we owned; I used the paperwork from our VW Golf. But there was an exception; if we owned a Chevy Express or GMC Savanna, the rebate was 2 or 3x that for any other vehicle. And we didn’t even need to trade it in. By the way, we didn’t even consider one of these as we wanted a high roof for an RV conversion. So far very happy with the Ford after 13000 miles. Zero issues.
This van has the most unreliable tail-lights of any truck I have ever known.
Yes. It’s because GM vehicles’ voltage regulator setpoints (therefore, line voltages) are unusually high, and have been creeping steadily upward for years—well into the 15s, now. Incandescent bulb lifespan change is exponential to the power -13 (negative 13) with voltage change. So take a standard 3157 bulb with its major/bright filament rated 600 hours at 13.5 volts, operate it at 15.3 volts, and you can expect 118 hours out of it. That’s lab hours, on a stable rack without road vibrations and voltage variations and spikes on the line caused by starting and stopping the engine with the lamp lit.
Okeh, so how about a long-life 4157 instead? Rated 2,000 hours at 13.5v. Run it at 15.3v and that rating drops to 393 hours—again, in a nice, comfy lab. That’s less than the rated life of the best bulbs we had in the 1950s and ’60s.
Brake lights and other exterior lights were failing so often that NHTSA started a safety defect investigation. GM’s fix was not to bring their voltage regulators back down closer to the stratosphere. Instead they commissioned two new bulbs: 4114K (clear, with 4,000 hours’ rated lifespan for the major filament) and 5702KA (amber; 5,000 hours). The difference is that these ratings are at 14.0v instead of 12.8v. So the 4114K at 15.3v rates at 1,261 hours, and the 5702KA at 15.3v rates at 1,576 hours. Okeh, that puts us squarely back where we’d be if we were running a 4157 at 14.0v.
(Why not make clear and amber versions of the 5,000-hour 5702 bulb? Because GM.)
Wow. I hoped for a worn wire, I got an engineer. And I’m so old I think 1157. What is the advantage of a higher setpoint? And why was this model so bad, GMs don’t seem to be that bad across the board? Can I tell my neighbor to use different bulbs? A running change? It can’t be that easy. I feel sorry for him. And you have to take the whole lens plus a cover off to change it? That’s probably why they don’t get fixed.
Thank you.
I don’t know why these vans (and the minivans, too, both generations) seem to suffer more from popcorn bulb syndrome than other GM vehicles do. It’s probably down to the model-specific particulars of the wiring.
The problem is aggravated by aftermarket bulb cattledogs that list the wrong bulb number. For many years (and possibly still) all the bulb application guides were based on one individual’s research, which he did in a seriously low-tech, shoestring manner: whenever a new model came out, he’d go to the dealer and peer at the lights, sometimes asking at the parts counter to see the front turn signal (or whatever) bulb, jot down what he saw, and enter that in his database. Sometimes he misidentified bulbs because a lot of them look alike. Sometimes, faced with a bulb he hadn’t seen before, he copied down whatever markings he saw—date code, lot code, whatever—and summarily decided that was the bulb type. This is why the errors in the Sylvania cattledog are the same as the errors in the Philips, Wagner, Tungsram-GE, Eiko, and all the other cattledogs.
Moreover, 4114K and 5702KA aren’t stocked in most parts stores. Cattledog says 3157 or 4157, or owner drops a bulb on the counter and the clerk says “That’s a 3157”, and the owner gets a bulb of much shorter lifespan than they need for that vehicle (or they outsmart themselves at the urging of the parts clerk and buy “LED bulbs”, which mostly aren’t safe or effective).
I don’t think it’s all that difficult to change bulbs on those vans. The instructional videos on YouTube run 2 to 2-1/2 minutes, and that’s with all the extraneous babble and cutesy screen effects.
So it IS possible that he’s (also) using the wrong bulb… Sigh. How do I tell him politely? Would he even believe me?
How do you tell him politely? Give a chuckle and say “GM actually had so many problems with rapid burnouts that they devised a new ultralong-life bulb to solve the problem. It’s not generally available in parts stores, so you wind up buying a short-life bulb and having to replace it again and again and again. The GM part number is 15199562 for the 4114K bulb used behind red tail/brake light lenses or amber park/turn light lenses. There’s also a 5702KA amber bulb for use behind clear park/turn lenses, GM part number 13502321.” If GM part numbers and direct buy links don’t convince him, then I guess he gets to keep on replacing short-lived bulbs on a regular basis…!
There is a culture and language difference, I don’t want to be the crazy old white guy talking down to him about plastic lightbulbs. 1157s are cheap and he’s got plenty of experience, maybe he’ll get the right one by accident some day. At least he fixes them. Have a nice day/night.
Oh! Well, if you wanted to be super extra neighbourly, you could buy a couple 4114Ks and hand ’em to him with a smile, no words required.
(metal-base bulbs like 1157s don’t fit those vans)
Yes, I will.
This is sounding a bit like a scheme to save a few cents by reducing wire gauge, then using higher voltage to cram enough power through the capellini to power the accessory in question. Apparently, the lamps needed moar voltage drop.
That would be my guess, too.
I kind of assumed that was the reason My Volvo burned thru lamps like crazy. A pretty common complaint on Volvo’s form the mid 90’s until at least 2010.
In the mid ’90s Volvo seemed to suddenly forget important stuff about how to make electrical systems that work (and keep working). Really basic stuff, like bulb sockets need to be able to withstand the bulb’s heat. I don’t recall whether it was the 850s or S/V70s that had a recall to replace the front turn signal sockets and bulbs, going from 3157 plastic wedge-base bulbs to 1157 metal bayonet-base bulbs. And yet somehow, American automakers have almost zero trouble with the plastic wedge bulbs.
My #1 YouTube hero, Foresty Forest (🎵he lives in a van🎵), sold his Chevy Uplander last December and acquired a 2016 Chevy Express 2500. He converted it to living space through January, and got back to his regular job of summiting mountain peaks in BC and Alberta. The van hasn’t been trouble free, but then he takes it up marginally drivable forest service roads in all seasons, and seems to be able to at least diagnose if not fix most problems himself.
For anyone interested in minimalist van life, stunning mountain summit photography, and Ninja Foodi cooking recipes, his channel is addictive.
His most recent video is here.
Since these are still made I took a look at the online configurator. The good news is that a 2.8 diesel with an 8 speed automatic is available so some things are getting update. The bad news is that the innovative lift up side panels like a Gem Top are no longer available, probably de to infinitesimal sales. It was a unique idea since it allowed exterior access to the storage shelves in a work truck, or Wotthehellizat style protected windows in a camper conversion.
The Ford Transit is a nice platform for fleets. I had 70+ vans used in a variety of jobs. We were using mostly E-Series vans. Dodges were less reliable, not a lot of the same failures and then Dodge dropped the product. Chevy/GMC vans had poor brake life and the front suspension falls apart. The E-Series ball joints were it’s main issue. My fleet does abuse the vehicle as we deal with road construction and maintenance.
The Transit platform with its various sizes is a real bonus for a fleet. All the basic maintenance parts are the same regardless of length and height.
We have some vans that are unloading and loading equipment constantly thru out the day. It was a pain crawling in and out of the back of a van. Using a box truck was better in some ways but getting in and out of the back of box truck was a pain. A tall boy Transit was the best of both worlds, walk standing up inside the van and the low floor makes entering and exiting easy.
One odd thing with all vans, our risk management team would not allow any passenger van with more than a twelve person capacity.
We did look at a Ram ProMaster when they first arrived. The thought was in certain applications the FWD would be nice. Then I read a review on it, I think it was Car & Driver. After reading the review I told the group that wanted to purchase the ProMaster to go find one and test drive it. They came back with a thumb’s down. Gutless, couldn’t get out of its own way empty. Chrysler did add better engine options but the damage was already done.
“While it isn’t in the Mustang GT range of painless acceleration, the surprisingly rev-happy 6.0 in the Express simply makes more than enough power at any speed.”
Feel free to disagree, but while the 4.3 may be a slug in the Express it’s perfectly sufficient in the smaller, lighter Astro. My ’05 can keep up with most Interstate traffic & has no trouble towing small utility trailers (and it’s got 276k miles on it now!), something most sports cars or sedans aren’t designed for; the power is there all right but the weak link is in the suspension. This may explain why the tow rating for the Crown Victoria went from 5000 lbs. to barely 2000 at the end of the ’90s–the rear suspension was softened up for a more refined ride at the expense of robustness.
But back to my main point: the 4.3 in the Astro is likely comparable to the 4.8 or 5.3 in the short-body Express and the 5.7 (the old 350 small block) or 6.0 in the longer one; each engine is sized appropriately with the size of the vehicle for the best overall performance. And people have done this before, but a V8-swapped Astro would be an absolute threat to even modern sports cars in straight-line racing!