(first posted 5/31/2013) I come here neither to praise nor to bury the Pontiac Trans Sport. The market did the latter quite some time ago, not only with this model, but with Pontiac as a whole; no, all I have in mind today is to drink deeply of its, er, singularity for a little while.
The story of the GM U-body ‘Dustbuster’ minivans is comprehensively dealt with here. Launched as 1990 models intended to outdo the highly successful Chrysler minivans in both styling and innovation, GM went all in, offering Chevrolet (Lumina APV), Oldsmobile (Silhouette) and Pontiac (Trans Sport) versions with mild–and in retrospect, probably insufficient–differences in styling and equipment.
All three shared the same front-wheel-drive architecture, galvanized space-frame chassis with composite body panels, ‘modular’ seating, initially rather anemic power from a 3.1-liter V6 and, most notably, futuristic and angular styling based on a well-received 1986 show car.
For mid-90s Pontiacs, “sporty” seemed to consist of two main elements: acres of ribbed plastic cladding, and integral driving lights (gratuitous rant: that clueless owners seemingly would leave on all the freakin’ time whether or not they were actually needed). The example shown here, which I spotted at a small airfield near San Antonio, certainly fits that description. It can be identified as a ’94 by a face-lifted (and slightly shortened) front end, reshaped front wheel wells, toned-down cladding (compared with the ’90-‘93s) and black roof panels, which were body-colored for the ‘95 model year. Although it’s a little hard to see in the photos, “3800” emblems just ahead of the front wheels indicate that this one is powered by the optional 3.8-liter V6, first offered in ’92 and rated at 170 hp in the featured car. I couldn’t tell whether this one has the power-operated sliding door that debuted on the ‘94 models.
Gazing down its well, lengthy, length, reveals numerous interesting and amusing (to me at least) details. There’s the whole grille arrangement: apparently, all that intake area could not satisfy the still-perceived need for a few mail-slot inlets above the bumper. Just that last bit of insurance against overheating, I guess. Headlights: clearly swapped in from the contemporary Bonneville. Saved a few bucks in development costs there, presumably. Wheel wells that were rounded up front and squared-off (as in the original version) at the rear: they ran out of budget at the B-pillar? Lastly, my personal favorite–a large ridge molded into the dash (at the upper right in the interior photo), apparently because looking down that looonnng nose from inside tended to unnerve some drivers.
As is well known, the Trans Sport, while not a total flop, didn’t exactly fly off the lots. I couldn’t find solid sales figures, but a good bet would be 30,000 units (or less) per year until 1997 brought a much more conventional-looking redesign. Seems that not enough folk were sufficiently devoted Star Trek fans wanting a vehicle that looked like one of the Enterprise’s shuttles.
www.startrek.com
Then there’s the whole issue of just what ‘sporty’ actually means in the context of a 3,800-pound front-wheel drive kiddie hauler. Lastly, as with many GM products of the era, cheapening out on the fittings might also have played a negative role. That said, the perusal of various Pontiac forums indicates that these were relatively reliable and long-lasting vehicles, although electrical, starting and drive train faults are mentioned here and there.
For whatever reasons, there don’t seem to be many of these things left on the road. When I do see one, it is most often the Olds version, so I feel oddly privileged to have caught a TS in decent shape. Although I’m not exactly a minivan man, I’m down with off-the-beaten-path vehicles in general, and more so when they represent dead branches of extinct car lines. I’ve lived with Pontiac so long that it’s hard to imagine that in another few years, they’ll likely be as forgotten as DeSotos.
So, in this case, did “Pontiac Build Excitement”? I leave that up to you.
Always thought they were inferior to the Chrysler minivans.
Still do.
Out of necessity, Chrysler accidentally hit upon what a minivan is supposed to be.
1.) Functional
2.) Front-wheel drive
3.) Functional
4.) Family tough
5.) Functional
GM saw an opportunity to create a futuristic people mover like the kind they had been predicting for our roads since the 1939 World’s Fair. They saw what Chrysler had and laughed – “who wants a box?” – and were completely convinced their people mover would be an incredible success.
GM spent a billion dollars putting a plastic fiberglass Jetsons-ish body on an old powerplant coupled with a three speed transmission circa Jetsons-TV era. Where did that billion dollars go considering that GM recycled so much of the underneath of these vans? It went to DREAMING about the future!
I bet they spent hours sitting in meetings with dozens of futuristic stylists comparing notes and sharing artist’s rendering of the future. Space frame body? Check! Plastic panels? Check! Acres of glass? Check! Aerodynamic body design? Check!
I bet GM spent a fortune creating a futuristic interior as well! Modular seating? Check! Plastic molded interior? Check! Mouse fur carpeting? Check! Nintendo dashboard? Check!
What GM forgot is that their people mover needed to be driven. By a driver behind a wheel in a driver’s seat, not powered by a nuclear powered turbine engine by Rosie the Jetson’s robot. You see, they forgot that folks don’t want to drive a vehicle seated ten feet from the front bumper from a rumble seat like a tugboat. Did anyone test drive the future people mover? Anyone find a few bucks out of the billion spent for a few gallons of gas to get this creation around a track? The moment you sat behind the driver’s wheel of this vehicle is the moment you internally asked yourself – “WTF?” It seemed that no one at GM had a problem with this?
The modular seating created seats too heavy to lift out of the vehicle by a lady without Russian Olympic genes. The modular seating tracks were wide enough to lose toys, food, car keys and drum sticks in them. The carpeting seemed to have been magnetically enhanced to attract dog fur, sippy cup spills and fecal matter. Someone at GM forgot to spend a couple of bucks and instead of getting a committee of single Manhattanites to design the right shade of beige, should have gotten a few Mormon families from Ogden Utah to try driving this van to Safeway. Honestly, a day with an Osmond family would have pin-pointed out to GM how craptastic the interior design of these vans were. I’m certain an Osmond cousin with quintuplets would have done this for GM without cost, and could have just used it for a ride to the stake church.
The problems with these GM vans were so obvious it didn’t have a chance on the market. Once the Futuristic People Mover left the Seattle Space Needle parking lot and hit the 1990 curb, the wheels came off of the sales expectations originally set at lunar orbit levels. Not only did GM spend a billion dollars creating a vehicle that couldn’t pass a simple walk around and tire kick at a dealer in Peoria, it convinced itself that hundreds of thousands of Americans would actually pony up real money to drive it.
After spending that kind of loot, GM didn’t have anything left to fix the obvious problems in time to save it. After three years, GM finally tried to fix the obvious design flaws, wasting precious time for it’s competitors to fills American roads with other brands of minivans. Minivans sold by the millions for a good decade, but GM spent that time trying to figure out how to fix their billion dollar mistake on wheels.
By the time GM brought their Space Age People Mover down to Earth with a usable 21st Century design, it still rode upon an obsolete engine and transmission and the market had moved on.
It didn’t matter what it was named and what brand sold it. Chevrolet Lumina, Pontiac Tran Sport, Pontiac Montana, Buick Terraza, Saturn Relay, Oldsmobile Silhouette – or whether it had the dustbuster snout, the nose-jobbed snout, or the SUV-ish redesign, GM spent a fortune to sell an obsolete vehicle with a stupid design incompatible to it’s target market and missing the target market by a mile.
Chrysler sold boxes and laughed all the way to the bank.
Brilliantly funny! More! More!
Ditto.
Yet people think the equally egg shaped huge windshield mid engined oddball Toyota Previa is fine.
+1
But it sold only a little better than the GM vans. Toyota’s van started selling after they adopted Chrysler’s shape. Chrysler also put a lot of money into research and surveys to figure out what people really wanted in a minivan. GM just put one out there and assumed people would buy it since it was, of course, from GM.
Well… there’s a pretty big difference in space utilisation between the Previa and the Dustbusters. Here’s the U-body…
… and here’s the Previa. Nowhere near as much front overhang, and the driver isn’t nearly as far from the windshield. The underseat-mounted engine was pretty sensible for a people-mover(for cabin space if not for maintenance), most utility vans in the Australasian region have the engine there for similar reasons.
The Previa tanked for other reasons: it was priced too high, it only had a four-cylinder, and the underseat engine compartment left no room for expansion, so they couldn’t develop the V6 option American buyers expected at the price.
Comparing the Previa to the TransPort like splitting hairs. Still looked like a turd. I second what chas08 said below. No one needed all that unusualness in a minivan. The evolution of the Toyota van is like evolution of man. First the hunched over bus van, then this hybrid Previa then a more normal Sienna. Suddenly three tries later now the Sienna and things begin to pick up. Given the wide variety of minivans going on in the 80s and 90s seems like everyone was trying every
which way to crack the Chrysler nut.
I am 31 with two older siblings. We had a Plymouth Voyager back in the day and we all cycled through it for about 10 years.
At the time, Toyota probably thought they were out-Chryslering Chrysler because of how much success the Previa formula (light, 4-cyl, mid-engined) had in local markets. They learned their lesson with its flop in the US market.
I’ve had a Previa for 7 years. If you think Previas are ugly compared to other minivans, you haven’t looked at one up close. It’s easily the most beautiful minivan ever, especially in a light color with the tinted windows of the LE. Ours is silver with a hint of light blue. Admittedly there are angles from the rear where it looks a bit awkward.
It’s also the only true mid-engine minivan ever. Compared to other minivans, it’s a lot of fun to toss around town. The mid-engine placement gives it a very low “moment of inertia” compared to other minivans, which makes it much more responsive to steering input. Also, the very low engine placement gives it a lower center of gravity than other minivans, which allows it to take corners much better. Only at highway speeds with strong cross winds does it start to feel like a minivan. When we first got ours, I stopped driving my CRX for a while because I was having so much fun with the Previa.
Owners love their Previas. Try to find someone who has ever owned a Previa who dislikes it. Good luck with that.
So why the relatively low sales? When it was first released in ’91, power was low. I think it has enough power, but I don’t tow with it or try to accelerate it like a Corvette.
In ’94 they added the optional supercharger (standard starting in ’95), which resolved the power problem (more torque too, for better towing), but by then the exchange rates were making it a very expensive minivan for North Americans. People loved it but not the price. So first it was the low power, then it was the high price.
One thing people loved about it was the split fold-up third-row seats. They’re primitive by today’s standards, but no one else did anything like it until the 1999 Honda’s fold-down rear seat — two years AFTER the Previa was DISCONTINUED. When the Previa was current, the others only offered the ability to completely remove the rear seat (and eject it automatically when rear-ended, in the case of the Chryslers), or in the case of the Mazda, to just fold the seatback down, leaving the whole seat in place. We use that feature all the time in our Previa . Most of the time we have one of the third-row seats folded up against the wall, freeing up gobs of cargo space, while the kids use the other seats. When we need to seat 7, we just fold it down – it takes about 15 seconds. I believe it was 2001, 10 years after the Previa was introduced, before you could finally do that with a Chrysler.
Another thing people liked was being able to haul 4 x 8 sheets completely flat on the floor. That may be commonplace for minivans today, but it wasn’t then.
Sherlock Homey seems to think the Sienna was an improvement, but in fact that little first generation Sienna (1998 – 2003) is the one Toyota minivan that owners hate. Unless they have no cargo that they might want to put in the absurdly narrow space behind the third row seat. It was the much bigger second-generation Sienna, starting in 2004, that did really well.
Of course there have been a lot of improvements in minivans since the Previa. They’re a lot roomier now, and the dual sliding doors are very nice for parents of children too young to work their own seatbelts. But none of them drive like a mid-engine car. And none are as pretty.
Except Toyota did and still does build a V6 version, hybrid, diesel take your pick
Dude, you nailed it…”Chrysler sold boxes and laughed all the way to the bank”.
Holy smokes buddy! Great writeup. Entertaining, insightful, threatening outshine the article itself. Nicely done.
GM has a habit of taking cool-looking concept cars and turning them into craptastic production vehicles. The Aztek, believe it or not, was developed from an attractive-looking multipurpose show car.
If they’d actually built something like the red minivan above and equipped it with class-leading engineering and reliability, they’d have owned the market.
Instead, because they are GM, with an army of ambitious shark MBAs who hate cars eager to boost their careers by ostentatiously saving 2c a unit on a part, they took a good concept and drove it straight into Penny-Pinching Mediocrity where most of their vehicles fester.
It looks as if it were designed by several blind people who refused to talk to one another. The curve at the bottom of the B-pillar makes it look as if the front of the vehicle is desperately trying to detach from the back. While blowing scads of money on one feature (the composite body panels), they suddenly experience a bout of cost-shame and resort to the usual GM mouse-fur-and-cynical-cheapness interior, underpinned by the tired old corporate parts bin grab-bag of mediocre engines and transmissions.
It’s the classic GM story. They start with a good idea, then compromise it away in the name of cheapness to a hideous committee clusterf%ck that looks like it escaped from Trabant’s design studios.
I’ve always liked these, because they were quirky and different (like me).
I can just see you in one…
Speaking of the Dustbusters, do you know if the Transvertible still exists and better yet, if it is still for sale?
It exists, but long gone from my neighborhood. The owner just recently left me a very scathing comment on that post.
Heh heh heh!
Almost makes me want to start a blog to comment on people’s CL posts (“What crackhead thinks a non-working 10-year-old lawn mower with a rusted-through deck is worth $150???”), but those people almost universally don’t have a sense of humor about such things . . .
Likewise, another fan, especially of the Pontiac version. Yeah, it must have had something to do with my being in the middle of a 25+ year involvement with science fiction fandom and conventions. I’d have loved to do one up as a Star Trek vehicle, although I’d have probably given it one of the NCC-numbers of a Federation starship that got blown up in one of the ST:TOS episodes, rather than just another damned Enterprise.
“Likewise, another fan, especially of the Pontiac version. Yeah, it must have had something to do with my being in the middle of a 25+ year involvement with science fiction fandom and conventions. I’d have loved to do one up as a Star Trek vehicle, although I’d have probably given it one of the NCC-numbers of a Federation starship that got blown up in one of the ST:TOS episodes, rather than just another damned Enterprise.”
I’ve often wondered what goes through a designers head when they do a design like the U-Van. As far as the U-Vans go, I’m thinking some whiz kid in the design studio was trying to justify his job. While looking at some past designs he might have stumbled apon Bill Mitchells original 73-78 GMC Motorhome designs, which was inspired by the “space race” of the 60’s and thought that a smaller scale version would appeal to the people who grew up watching the original StarTrek and StarWars. Just a thought.
GM has always been known for styling and pushing the envelope. This is no more outrageous of a modern space age theme than a 1959 Cadillac with extreme jet fins. Granted, such a utilitarian vehicle like a minivan ought to be styled more conservatively, like the Chryslers did which always sold well, but the concept vehicle was well received. The later Venture type vans were far more conservative and did sell better.
Minivans seem to cause people to suffer a complex so they feel the need to trash them to satisfy their egos. Same with a lot of wagons. That’s why we have CUVs. ISVs, “Image Safety Vehicles” …
‘ISVs, “Image Safety Vehicles” …’
Bahaha, excellent.
When these came out, I thought, “What the ???”
I was amused that the Chevy version, at least, shared some dashboard switchgear with the ’89 Beretta I owned at the time.
I thought the front-end restyle suited these vans.
I have become something of a mini-van fan over the past few years and I have to say that I think the Transport shown here is a pretty good looking van. I understand, too, that these vans all had very poor crash test ratings.
From a style standpoint it looks dated today, but when it was new it looked better than just about any other minvan on the road. If they had made it lighter and given it double sliding doors it would have been head and shoulders above the competition.
>>From a style standpoint it looks dated today,<<
Yeah, I was thinking that this was a perfect example of how attempts to have something look 'futuristic' always seem to end up firmly pigeonholing it into the period when was made.
Also, why is the color of the future always white?
Personally I blame “2001: A Space Odessey”
As a sci-fi fan, I still think it is amazing that the one real innovative thing that George Lucas brought to the genre with Star Wars was the idea that the future would be dirty and lived in. Look at the Millenium Falcon, it is thrashed, beat up and constantly needs repair but it is still awesome.
Two credits to George Lucas: What you just mentioned, and Jar-Jar Binks just for pissing people off.
I think it was the 2nd gen 1997 and up that had the lower crash rating.
Carmine Tell me about It. I sit in the shotgun seat of our 99 Silhouette. That leather I slide around on . The seat Is not big enough . The loose belts won’t do anything in a crash., I’ve told my partner I’m Riding in the second row. I feel like Im in the ejector seat with in town traffic,his quick stops and jackrabbit starts.
What else specifically do I need To be aware of? Should I SERIOUSLY sit In 2nd Row?
Back in 1995 I had a 71 Duster. I was going through an intersection going 45 miles an hour when one of these (APV Lumina) pulled out in front of me instead of yielding and I hit them head on. Luckily we were wearing our lap belts, but not the seperate shoulder belts, so we weren’t completely okay. Either way, the lady’s van held up pretty well and I have hated these things ever since. That Duster was cherry with a slant six and 77,000 miles on the clock. Bought it from the original owner. Damn it!
Duster vs. Dustbuster, in other words. Hmmm…
DANG, what a combination!
I briefly owned a first generation Trans Sport in 2005. Worst vehicle purchase out of many bad ones made by me. It was white with the white wheels. Most of them seemed to be white. It was an odd feeling driving from the middle of the vehicle lengthwise. I had forgotten about it until this reminder, My wife called it the “snoutmobile”.
Aww, I actually always liked these. The ’94 refresh made them look a lot less Dustbuster-ish, and quite attractive as minivans go. And look, it’s got ‘analog gauges!’
That ad, though, is what’s really catching my eye. ‘For more information, call toll-free 1-800-….’? Yeesh, I remember when these ads were new, and listing a web address wasn’t a ‘thing’. You’re making a Gen-Yer feel old! 🙂
The biggest problem with these was that for all of its length, much of that room was wasted under the sloping front. The part of the van where driver and passengers and cargo went was about the same as in the short wheelbase Chryslers. All of the exterior size of a Grand Caravan, but none of the interior room.
That said, I could possibly see myself buying one if the right one were to plop into my path. There is a lady at church who has a beautiful blue Olds Silhouette. One of these times, I may have to ask her if she will let me know if she thinks about replacing it. I would never hear the end of it from Carmine 🙁
Naaaaaah
I rented one of these for a summer vacation trip from Minnesota to Florida (all the way into Key West!) and back, and the van did it without a single hitch, despite the zero attention we give it (hey, it was a rental!) We basically just gas it and go. But the handling was nervous on the freeway, passengers on the third row suffocated in heat while the front passengers nearly froze as the a/c and fan was on full speed. I guess this must’ve what they meant by ‘dual zone climate control’. Alaska up front, Sahara at the back! I thought all minivans had some kind of rear vent? I know the Grand Caravan did. Maybe because it’s Minnesota spec? I doubt they’ll sell any in the Southern part of the country without those. I also remember that the inside of the A pillar was curved like a shallow S.
All minivans except the Chryslers seemed to be weirdo looking in the early 1990s.
That’s because Chrysler sewed up the “practical” and “rational” market from day one. If you wanted to compete, you had to try something different.
I never really liked the design of these vans, nor their successors. Always been a Chrysler minivan fan. However last summer I did find this red Trans Sport on ebay that caught my eye enough to save some pictures of it. Something about the flame red actually made it look okay. I also had to laugh at the tape graphics along with white walls on those tiny rims.
The production version must have frustrated whoever came up with the concept car. The rounded sides and sporty stance (you could call it “Wide-Track” or something) make it pretty attractive, in an EPCOT sort of way. The production van looks like the box the concept came in…on casters.
Same problem the Aztec had. Ironically it too based on the U platform.
GMs concept to reality ratio was dreadful in this time period. Good stylists but no way to properly apply it to the real platforms available.
I gather the initial sketches that resulted in the concept car were drawn up by my maternal uncle, Terry Henline, then chief of one of Pontiac’s two external design studios at the time. He called his proposal the Grand Van, in keeping with Pontiac’s Grand Am/Prix/Ville nomenclature tradition.
I’ve read some conjecture elsewhere that the concept car may have come after the production version was more-or-less finalized, as a way to prepare the public for the radical new design and evaluate response — which does happen in the industry from time to time — but IMO that argument doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.
Why juice up enthusiasm with such a knockout sensational concept when the production reality will fall so, sooo far short of it? To my eye, the production version really does look more like an incredibly compromised attempt to translate the concept’s styling, rather than the concept being a goosed-up riff on the production model’s styling.
I don’t understand all the negative press. Compared with Chrysler, you got very easily arranged, light weight chairs; a reliable 4-speed automatic transmission; GM’s better V6 engines. The U bodies which succeeded these were trash, of course, but a dustbuster with the 3800 makes for an excellent minivan.
By the mid ’90s, the Chrysler vans were beginning to seem rather church-y, especially in long wheelbase form. Like the Chrysler vans, part of the fun of the dustbusters was choosing from the huge list of options. Loaded up with every conceivable option, and combined with those individual chairs behind tinted glass, sitting in the back of the GM vans was actually very fun for kids. As for adults, the GM vans didn’t feel quite so upright and tippy and also had a nice, soggy ride. Imagine a Buick Regal minivan; that’s pretty much what these were.
If you want a U-body horror story, I can give you a very lengthy one (best served as GM Deadly Sin #18, for that matter).
The subject car was a strippo 2009 Chevrolet Uplander with a beige exterior and interior. It’s only option was 19 in alloy rims. I christened it the “Chevrolet F***ed-Up-Lander LS (Load of $#!£)”. It was atrocious in every way imaginable.
three speed transmission
Nothing remarkable in 1991.
Interesting article gg06. I think I have hit the point where a minivan or SUV might be a lot more useful than my pickup. Just got back from a long trip and during the TSA portion of the airline leg of the trip I decided that there probably won’t be another flight in my future.
Problem is that I’m abysmally uninformed on the minivans. The successor to this one seemed to have real problems with the head gaskets on the 3.4. Others seem to consume transmissions like they are a wear item. Actually, I suppose they are but it seems to depend on what year and what drivetrain you select. Crapshoot.
I don’t think any site looks at durability of 10 year old stuff and does comparos other than some of the comments.. I guess Toyota is always the default in cases like that.
I have some experience here. Avoid Windstars like the plague. Head gaskets AND transmissions. No firsthand experience with the GM stuff. The old Astro is pretty durable if you are looking for a cheap old beater van, just don’t get in a collision in one. 1999-04 Hondas eat transmissions as badly (or worse than) the Chryslers, but they cost like $4k to replace instead of $2500 (and don’t stay fixed as well). I have even heard that 05-06 Hondas still have problems. Too much risk for what they charge for them used. The Chryslers are really pretty decent vans, particularly if you can find a nice low-mile one with AARP stickers on the back. Quality was kind of variable, but if you find one owned by one guy for a long time, it is probably one of the good ones. They don’t cost that much, either. Either the 3.3 or 3.8 engines are among the best of any minivan for durability. For my money, the best minivan was the 1st generation Honda Odyssey (1995-98). They are a little small, and fairly slow, but will go forever. They are hard to find, and even harder to find a really nice one, but if you do, snatch it up. I cannot give you anything on Toyota. I have not heard that many raves on the Nissan. Sedonas are quite inexpensive, but I am told the biggest problem with them is that people keep them through the 100K warranty and ignore a lot of maintenance and then dump it at 100K miles, and there is a lot of catch-up on maintenance for the new owner.
Ed Stembridge has way more Chrysler minivan experience than I do.
I’ll vouch for this, it cost somewhere north of $4000 to put a new transmission in my 120K mile Ford Freestar a few months ago. That said, it now drives like a dream and I am really impressed by how solidly it handles out there on the road. I find it to be an undramatic ride which means it is good in my book.
It just needs to make it another year or two before I transfer overseas and I will be fine. Even with the $4K repair I practically stole it when I bought it so I could not have rplaced it for that amount. Now that it is fixed I think it will make the next owner a nice ride for at least a few more years to come.
Deathstars: Three other families from CA also moved here to Eugene about the same time we did, and they all proceeded to buy identical Windstars. Everyone of them suffered the dual “deaths”; 3.8 L head gaskets and AND transmissions. In every case, it was their last American car. Fords (due to the Taurus) were still held in reasonably good esteem by Californians, but the Deathstar put an end to that.
The early ones are hard to find anymore, for a CC.
And the third plague in the midwest was body rust. There was even a recall due to rusting rear suspension points. A friend inherited one from his father. From Wisconsin. An early 2000s model – after the Nasser cost cuts. He sees a minivan, I see a ticking time bomb.
Same story with my neighbor’s ’98 Windstar – head gaskets, engine, transmission, exhaust, intake manifold gaskets again, and then a third time when they hydrolocked the engine, that was it!!!!
I got him into a nice low-mileage GMC Safari (he paints out of it). It’s actually harder to work on than the Windstar, but the 4.3l 2WD drivetrain is pretty bulletproof, albeit with a few typical GM issues (intake gaskets, perrenial alternators, etc).
Though these did look very similar, they tried to make them different via trim and option choices, the Chevrolet was the bread and butter basic family van, there even was a cargo version of the Chevy APV, good luck finding one of those.
The Pontiac tried to be sporty with Pontiacs 80’s monochrome color schemes, and the Oldsmobile was the luxury van, it was the only one with an available leather interior when these first came out.
The 3800 did cure many of the ills, but when these first came out, they only had the MFI 3.1 V6 from a W-body, which was taxed by the weight of these things, These, as far as I can recall, were the last vehicles made at GM’s Tarrytown plant in NY before they shut it down.
Largest Windshield Wipers EVER….I sold these when they were new, thats the only time I have ever driven any of these, by that vintage it was the tail end of these about a year and a half before the new minivans came out in 1997, I recall driving these seemed so odd, like driving a car from the back seat, there was just so much dash and windshield and pillars, the A-pillar is way out there and the B-pillar is where the A-pillar is on a normal car, I drove one in a heavy rainstorm once and I was impressed at the amount of water the wipers would displace, it would throw the water off like buckets, and it would land on the cars to the right and left of you in traffic, and it would really piss off toll workers in the rain too.
In my opinion, the better van choice was across the lot, the GMC Safari, I liked those much more than the Trans Sport, though we never sold as many Safaris as we did Trans Sports, the Safari buyer usually knew more about what he was buying that just a standard “minivan”, the Safari had available AWD, a 4.3 V6, more rugged construction and it was bigger.
“like driving a car from the back seat” describes it perfectly
Yes, the “U” was the last car built at the North Tarrytown assembly plant. I am told it was GM’s largest assembly plant for many years. GM didn’t use the place to make parts. Actually started as a Stanley Steamer factory switching over to building Maxwell cars early in the 20th century. Folks around here were sad to see the operation cease. All torn down now. Would have cost a fortune to modernize and GM didn’t want to sell the land to a competitor. They undertook development of a riverfront community – quite an attractive place to live really.
At least the early ones used the TBI 3100 V6.
Always liked the name. It had a dual identity marketing-wise. Transport as in cargo mover, and sport as in … oh well, you know.
As for the fog lights I believe that those doubled as DRLs so that’s why they were on all the time. I think actually most clueless owners don’t even know how to turn ON fog lights!
THere was, in fact, a “Shuttlecraft Pontiac” listed on the background graphics of Star Trek: The Next Generation in honor of Patrick Stewart’s then role as Pontiac spokesman.
Never really a fan of the mini-van but the wife and I did buy an Astro conversion van back around 1990 or so. It was her vehicle and I didn’t drive it very often but it did come in handy when I used it on National Guard weekends. It was pretty easy to take out the seats and then you had a comfortable place to sleep out of the weather, if that became necessary. Plus the dog liked it because he had plenty of room to walk around. We only kept it a couple of years before she got tired of driving it and it was traded in for a new Camry. The only reason I mention this here is that when we were at the dealer, waiting for them to finish up the paperwork, we walked over looked at one of the “Snootsters”. A saleman came up and told us that all cars would look like this in 5 years.
My favorite version is the Transvertible: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-pontiac-transvertible-gms-long-lost-prototype-rediscovered/
Paul, I almost misread ‘Transvertible’ (think Rocky Horror) thinking it might have been intended as a competitor to the Isuzu VehiCross-dresser.
It would be easy to slip a Bruce…….errr Caitlin Jenner joke in here, but I won`t.
“The Pontiac Of Minivans”! Wasn’t the Bravada the Cadillac of minivans?
Bravada was the SUV, you are likely thinking of the Silhouette and yes it was pretty well optioned on the top models like the premiere. GM brands trim level differentiation largely became a styling difference rather than any meaningful differences in quality and features which has led to the demise of several divisions.
It’s interesting that they went from the minivan with the pointiest front end to the one with the blockiest. I remember Bob Lutz talking about how the new design married the front of an SUV with the rear of a minivan for the best of both worlds. Clearly one of the times he was wrong.
Neighbors had a 94 model Transport but they are the kind of people who had every vehicle they ever owned rust out from under them. As far as I could tell the only reason they bought it was needing a big people hauler and one that wouldn’t rust.
They loved the rust resistant nature so much they kept it through a replacement transmission and replacement engine.
I remember some of these being sold here in italy back in the early-mid ’90’s, a guy running a furniture shop near my house actually had one…it was just another yankee novelty anyway, engines were too big and thirsty for here, the styling was pretty odd, space utilization was worse than virtually every other minivan and, while it was an expensive car, its interior was a plastic nightmare…Chrysler on the other hand scored HUGE with the Voyager: it had the right choice of engines, right size for europe and a positively classy image to it, it ultimately become one of the biggest automotive status symbols of the ’90s
My family had a dustbuster when I was growing up. It was the 1990 Lumina MPV edition. My father had a habit of buying gently used Chevys from our neighbor. Two Caprice Wagons came before this and it was definitely an upgrade in comparison and lasted much longer.
It was the car I learned to drive with and it was like being behind the wheel of a space ship. We always made fun of the looks, even when we first got it…but the van was more reliable than anything our family owned (which also included a handful of Chrysler K-Cars). It survived four doses of high school driving. Me, my younger sister, and one cousin. It never needed maintenance. We changed the oil every 5,000 miles give or take about 10,000 miles. Last I saw it was with 200k on the ticker and I don’t recall any major maintenance.
The seats were light but annoying to move around. The one closest to the door was supposed to fold forward to allow access to the back row but it usually got stuck and/or required the front passenger to move the seat. As a result, we would just leave that seat in the garage. Hatch storage was non existent if you wanted leg room for the rear passengers so we were constantly moving and flipping forward those back seats or just taking them out entirely. It took a man of the house to remove them (either me or my father). My sisters would always beg or offer favors for one of us to reconfigure the seats.
The sliding door would lock into the open most position and occasionally get stuck that way. Anyone that drove it regularly had at least one experience driving home with it open because they couldn’t get it to close.
It took forever to cool the entire cabin on a hot day. Chrysler introduced automatic rear windows and I always wished I had that feature just so I could flush the hot air out of the back. Rear vents would have been nice too…all these features that are considered standard today just didn’t exist in 1990.
The plastic body paneling was indestructible. 15 years of rarely getting washed and it had no dents, scratches, or missing paint. Ok, not true, the hood had a bad case of orange peal by then but the rest of it looked fine. Ok, that’s not true either. My sister must have knocked 3 rear view mirrors off it and the last time it was just duct taped back on…but the gray duct tape matched the gray paint job 🙂
The handling and highway mannerisms were great. It was a great vehicle for long rides except one issue…the gas pedal was light to the touch and my leg would cramp after a while. I used the cruise control extensively and it has become a habit to this day. We had a 1990 so I guess that means it had the smaller V6. I never noticed. We hauled tons of stuff back and forth to college in it and never felt like the motor was being strained.
So was this van a failure? Not to our family. It served us well. Other families in the neighborhood went through more than one Chrysler in the time we had our ugly MPV dustbuster. These cars may not have sold well on the showroom floor but I bet plenty of families that came upon them second hand found them worthy people movers with futuristic (coming from the 80’s) reliability to go with their futuristic looks.
it is interesting that most of the comments are from folks who never owned one. Well, we owned a 1995 Oldsmobile Silhouette . This was a top of the line- Series two with an air suspension and front & rear AC . This car served us for well over 250,000 miles and finally the frame rusted (after 23 years) . The 3800 performed flawless – with some maintenance ( the transmission was repaired at 75K) but for all of the time the car was reliable and economical to drive . The seats were easy to remove, the 3800 was still running perfectly when we finally had to let the van go because of the rust . On the road it was a pleasure to drive and it had a very smooth ride . It is too bad that GM didn’t improve on this design instead of going its bland replacement
In my long-ago career as a taxi driver, a late-model 3800 Trans Sport was my ride for about two months. Sitting in it for sixty hours a week allows me to say that from the (very comfortable) driver’s seat it was a pretty good cab with one exception: about once every two weeks we would have to re-hang the sliding door. The top track was a little weak, and closing it in just the wrong way would cause the rollers to pop out of the track. I had never experienced this with any of the Chrysler or Ford minivans I ever drove: just the U-body.
It was hit in a parking lot by a drunk driver, and replaced by a late Mazda MPV. That last was by far the best cab I ever had.
My first new vehicle a base 96 Trans sport SE with just an AM/FM cassette and 8 pass seating as options.Canada after comparing the minivans. Although styling was odd, it had several advantages over the others. Price was good as dealers were negotiable, it was larger than the Honda and Toyota and seated 8. It had more horsepower and could tow more with same or better fuel economy, it was quieter, no body rust, no dents, and was reliable, maybe due to the fact it really did not have any electrical options. Even the windows were manual but since only the fronts went up and down it was ok. The main complaint I had was the rubbery ride, hit a bump and the thing would bounce enough to require steering correction. After the original general tires wore out I put on a firmer set of Dunlop D60 A2 which helped but did not cure the issue. I drove it on several multi-thousand mile trips in the US while we scouted a place to move to putting 60K miles on in 3 yrs. My wife learned to drive and wanted something a bit easier to handle with a better stereo so we traded it in on a new loaded 99 Caravan Sport. I tried to get her to get the new Honda Odyssey which I believe was the best 99 Minivan but you know how that goes.
That’s my Star Trek shuttle!! That photo was taken in 2009 in Vulcan Alberta. Best $300 I ever spent!
Very Cooool Ride…. I just picked up a Silouette, looking forward to Tricking it Out..!!!
Twenty years old this year and just under 315K miles. Prepping to drive across the galaxy (United States) once again this summer.
Oh yeah… The old thing is fitted with dual exhaust.
how can i get to buy this car? is it foe sale?
Anybody who can talk bad about these vans never owned one. We had a bright red 92 Trans Sport with the 3800 from 1995 til 2006. When we got rid of it there was just shy of 380,000 miles on it. It regularly made family trips to Canada while towing our 18′ fiberglass fish and ski with 5 people and all our fishing gear without problem or feeling underpowered. Both of my kids learned to drive in it. We took it from California to New York several times. It was a comfortable, efficient, and reliable van that did everything it was asked. It hauled loads of boulders when my son decided to build a pond in our backyard and pulled out bushes when my wife decided they needed to go. My friends enjoyed it so much several of them purchased Dustbusters. My parents still have a 95 Silhouette to this day. I still miss that van to this day and while I love my Yukon I still think about that wacky van and all the good times it brought my family.
Never was a minivan fan, but if I had to get one for some reason, it would be a GM “dustbuster”. The only minivans with a modicum of style.
My art teacher had one of these. It was a 96, originally white, but it had been painted red and yellow.
LOL. CC Has clearly taught me that I like crappy cars. I have collected all the GM E body 89-90 (Trofeo, Reatta, STS, ETC, Riviera) and even the dust buster. And oddly get compliments all the time on them. Personally I think Olds did it best. Clean design and with the 3800 fun to drive.
And with the 3800, not a ticking time bomb.
That’s probably the nicest U-body van I’ve ever seen. The later Olds emblem is a nice touch.
And the others dust buster of the Era. The Vixen.
The original Trans Sport with the pointy nose looked far better than its pug-nosed facelifted 1994 successor.
We spent a week in a Florida beach town a few years ago and it seemed like every other car was a Pontiac minivan with Quebec plates. I remember thinking I’d never in my life seen so many of ’em in one place.
As a GM service guy, one of the most difficult thing I ever had to do was clean the inside of the windshield of a Dustbuster.
I still scratch my head when GM did this. What were they thinking? It’s a freaking minivan, to haul kiddies and their stuff. Didn’t GM ever ask Dodge Caravan customers what they liked about their vans? By the time the U vans came out, Mopar was churning out their excellent 3.3 and 3.8 V-6’s, and the transaxle issue was relegated to AWD Caravans only. Dodge customers loved the versatility, the low running costs and great visibility, too.
But nooooooo, GM had to crap their van out. Whereas the Caravan gave the impression that Chrysler was doing its best, the Dustbusters game the impression that GM was doing its worst. Instead of designing a modern, OHC V-6, we got the 3.4 V-6 and all its intake issues. Heck, they could have update the 3.4 to have a roller camshaft, like the last iterations had.
Pizzazz. Moxie. That the Dustbusters were all about. Sure, it’s got a leaky pushrod wonder, but look at that nose, it’s like a space ship!
Four words: Not Invented Here Syndrome.
Imagine having a Chevy franchise with Lumina APV’s, while your Chrysler/Plymouth franchise across the street was selling T&C’s and Grand Caravans like heck wouldn’t have it. These minivans highlight one major question I have about GM. Not why did they go BK, but how did they manage to hang on for so long before they did?
To be honest, I am not really sure most Chevy dealers cared that much about not selling many minivans nor cared too much about Ma Mopar selling a bunch of them at the time that the featured van was being sold.
By 1994, the SUV craze that was ignited when Jeep came out with the Cherokee in the 1980’s was now at full blaze thanks to the Ford Explorer. GM and Ford could not keep SUV’s on the lot.
A typical Chevy dealer would have seen loads of Blazers, Suburbans and Tahoes rolling out the door, while Dodge had nothing but that dated Ram Charger which left the lineup in 1993 and then had a almost 5 year wait for the Darango.
It is true that Chrysler had Jeep, but those had their own dealer network.
Uh, no thanks. You’all can have ‘them’ whatever they are!
I believe the Trans Sport offered an electric air pump in the rear compartment, but the other Dustbusters didn’t.
I don’t think I ever sat in a minivan whose driver’s seat would go back far enough for my legs.
We had the uh unique opportunity to own a 2005 SV6!
I must say that for all the bad publicity, we only ever had one issue: the gauge cluster!! It would warn me of impending doom due to low oil pressure ( really? No gauge?) and it happened while we were coming back from a vacation one time. So I called Pontiac… they told me to continue my trip!! They said that “it was a matter of record!”
Anyway, turned out that they found the cluster to be defective. However, they had already de contended the new unit by removing the “miles per gallon average!”
After that, we ran it to 60,000 miles and traded it fearing that it begin to give us more issues.
They were certainly unique.
This vehicle perfectly personified the GM design philosophy: Put the money where the customer can see it-namely styling with everything else pushed to the background. Several years ago I read “The End of Detroit” by Michline Maynard; in the book she detailed the development of the 2nd generation Odyssey. After the first version crashed in the United States a team of Honda engineers and executives drove 25,000 miles across the United States to see first hand how minivans were being used. They visited shopping centers, schools, home improvement stores( to name a few) and then armed with this knowledge went back to Japan to design the 2d generation Odyssey a vastly superior vehicle.
How much research did GM do on the dustbusters? I imagine very little, I would argue most of the emphasis was on styling, and the vehicle crashed.
I never considered owning a van. I do consider this old style Transport much better looking then current vans and most all generic current SUV’s.
These variants of the dustbuster vans are so typical of the vehicles coming out of General Motors factories during the ’70s, 80’s and ’90s. The dustbusters were GM vehicles designed by people whose heads were up their posteriors.
Last weeks article CC on the ’91 Cadillac Seville “Touring Sedan” triggered a flood of bad memories of GM products that were designed and built when the corporation was being led by people who were utterly clueless as to what the car-buying public really wanted. When the manure started hitting the fan, who was GM’s chairman, the captain of the proverbial ship? None other than the inimitable Roger Bonham Smith.
From its zenith in the ’60s, GM’s cars had seemingly reached a nadir with the introduction of the FWD 1985 C-bodies. The dustbusters were yet another example of the chutzpah GM’s executives; thinking that the car buying public would fall for it. This archaic thinking led to GM’s precipitous fall, yet they apparently learned little to nothing.
Did they (the designers and the GM brass) take us to be such utter fools? Apparently.
Was there ever anyone as destructive to General Motors as Roger B. Smith? Was there ever anyone ever so divorced from the vision that it took to build GM into a worldwide manufacturing colossus as Roger B. Smith? Roger Bonham Smith was the antithesis of Alfred Pritchard Sloan. Smith and his minions destroyed that which Sloan and his minions built decades earlier.
Bean counters had to be the only ones who thought the downsized ’85 cars were beautiful and would sell. I remember renting an ’85 Olds Calais and the car that had its ash tray right in the air stream from the center-dash A/C outlet; a telling example of what ailed GM. The Eldorado/Seville redesign for 1986 was awful. The people who designed the beautiful 1979 Eldorado knew how to design a beautiful car. The ’85 and ’86 cars were ill-proportioned and ugly. The dustbusters were ugly. Who wants to drive an ugly car? Maybe Peter Falk as “Columbo”, but count me out. The person under whose auspices these ugly vehicles were designed should have been canned within 6 months of their introduction. Call me unfair for laying the bad decisions of a myriad of people on Smith, but he was the captain of the ship. Their design and/or introduction came on his watch.
Arguable Smith was the single most destructive person to work at or lead GM. Once in a while there were glimmers that GM might get its mojo back. The Cadillac Northstar V8 laid waste to that. At one time Cadillac tested engines for hundreds of thousands of miles prior to its being introduced into a production vehicle. Those safeguards went by the wayside. I hope someday they might lead again but it seems doubtful.
Smith’s wholesale demolition of the Sloan hierarchy and its manufacturing divisions didn’t help. His acquisition of EDS and Hughes Electronics took their corporation’s collective eye off the goal of making quality autos that the buying public wanted. Automating factories with robots that painted themselves is just classic!
Roger Smith epitomizes all that went wrong at GM. While at GM it went from an industrial colossus to a has been. Was it all Smith’s fault that GM took such a huge hit? Of course not, but Smith and the ugly vehicles are emblematic of the bad decisions made by GM’s bean counters trying to please Wall Street stock analysts’ short-term expectations. Smith’s thinking is what drove GM to what it is today, best exemplified by a weak-looking “gm” logo.