If GM could redo its history, here’s one of very many decisions they’d undoubtedly do differently: to not put this FWD X Car-based minivan concept into production in 1980, a full four years ahead of the pioneering Chrysler minivans (and the Renault Espace).
It was such an obvious and natural move too, given the new X Body platform, which had a V6 from the get-go too. I can’t find any info on it except this succinct comment at the GM Photo Store:
Chevrolet brought back the Nomad name in 1979 on this X-Car based, mini-van concept. The Nomad II received very strong ratings in customer clinics, but was not approved for production. Another company introduced a successful mini-van a few years later.
What else can I add to that? It says it all. Except that GM never did make a truly successful minivan. But this looks like it could have nailed the segment.
Hat tip to Oliver Twist!
The T-115 was an act of desperation on Lido Chrysler’s part.
GM was still too smug, fat and happy at this point to try it.
Same with Ford, where Hal Sperlich’s original concept was laughed
out of the office by the Deuce.
Frankly, that RWD van was a fair bit larger and would likely have impacted the sales of full-sized wagons more. It was a cut-down Econoline.
Hi Paul. The GM mini van was cancelled as the market research said that it would cannibalize GM’s lucrative station wagon business. Ford was also working on a mini van although they were about a year behind GM. Once they learned that GM had cancelled their minivan, Ford cancelled theirs too ( Ford had a lucrative station wagon business too – remember the Country Squire!). Of course it never occurred to the bosses at GM that if someone else did a minivan, that it would destroy GM’s wagon business. I was at the meeting when the powers that were cancelled the GM minivan so I know the story. Of course Iacocca and Sperlich were at Ford during all of this, so they knew the potential. When Iacocca got fired and ended up at the nearly bankrupt Chrysler, he needed a ‘big win’ product, the minivan was perfect as Chrysler didn’t have a very big station wagon so had nothing to lose + he knew Ford and GM had cancelled their minivans, leaving that space completely open to Chrysler. Sperlich had moved to Chrysler too so he was in the mix as well. Of course GM and Ford’s station wagon business evaporated and as they were Johnnie come lately to the minivan market, they lost it all
Hi David. Thanks for your comment. It confirms what seemed apparent.
The Ford wasn’t a “mini-van” as Paul stated it was a cut down Econoline, garage-able version of the Nantucket van and the 460 was the proposed power plant.
I’d say Chrysler was being reactive with their van as GM had “leaked” that they were going to introduce an X van, the fact that they didn’t does make Chrysler look brilliant.
GM wasn’t the only one tossing the idea of a minivan around. IH had proposed a minivan line extension of the Scout as one of their dying breaths. Management decided to try and sell the Scout Business unit as an ongoing concern. Their target suitor was Chrysler since they had been working with them to provide the slant 6 to meet the increasing emissions standards.
So Chrysler got a chance to lift the skirt and look around and actually hired a number of former IH employees as things were wound down in early 1980.
In the article on the SUV prototype Paul provided a link to the Scout III proposal that would have been the base for their mini-van, that was part of their pitch to save their Division https://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/have-a-look-at-the-1980s-international-scout-that-never-1758491270 Does that grille remind you of anything?
I know I’ve posted a picture of the sketch here in the past but I can’t find it on this hard drive. It actually had the sliding doors on both sides.
Granted, i only had the 4cylinder scouts; however I thought IH was using AMC motors? The one I had did have a Chrysler transmission…
IH did use the AMC 6s on the early Scouts and the first couple of years of the Scout II but it was dropped from the line up when they stopped buying the 401 for the full size half tons.
So with the 81 emissions standards looming IH went looking to outsource. One scenario had them going all diesel possibly adding the 4 cyl version of the Nissan diesel or a Perkins diesel, however the preferred option was to outsource an emissions compliant gas 6 and small v8 to replace the IH power plants. There was at least one slant 6 test mule built. The history was also there because they were buying those 727s for many years, the diesel was originally called the CN 33 for Chrysler Nissan as Chrysler held the distribution rights in North America. IH also supplied their MV series of engines for Dodge MD trucks.
So to do a prototype they just had to build a 727 in a Chrysler case and put the Scout output shaft in it. That had already been done by that point by Monteverdi. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-scout-gets-seriously-tarted-up-by-the-swiss-monteverdi-sahara-safari-and-felber-oasis/ Then a new set of mounts for the engine.
If they had introduced it, hamstrung by the disastrous X-Car underpinnings, it would have been interesting to see how that would have effected the trajectory of the minivan as a market segment.
If the Nomad II received all the improvements that the X-body got while morphing into the A-body it would have been pretty good.
The X body itself got many of the A body improvements in 1982 (like the new steering rack and fuel injection for the Iron Duke) and 1983 (bucket seats from the A and J cars), but few noticed or cared by then.
I always thought that the GM Dustbuster minivans (Lumina APV, Trans Sport and Silhouette) were based on the A-body.
+1, Principaldan!
They would have come out with an improved version after a couple of years, the Nomad II. 🙂
+1
I always wondered why they didn’t do this. They could have owned the segment because the X-based minivan could have been bigger than the Chrysler vans and it would have had a V6 *years* before Chrysler’s vans got one.
Hopefully nothing like what GM did for the US public’s perception of diesels.
“Don’t buy one ‘o them minivans, they ain’t no good!”
Never heard of this vehicle before and I actually am a fan of the FWD X-cars. I did read somewhere there was a El Camino type vehicle based on the X-Car and also a wagon.
It’s actually a shame GM didn’t build this. It looks good for the era and would have probably changed a bit of their fortunes in the 80s had they approved it.
I had read back in the day that there was supposed to be a minivan based on the X but have never seen a picture.
I’d say it looks pretty good for the times.
Just saw this on autosofintrest
This really looks remarkably like a Chevy Cavalier station wagon with a fore-shortened front end.
Yeah, this seems a bit closer to a Colt Vista wagon with a sliding door than a ‘true’ minivan.
While the Chrysler T-115 was no paragon of mechanical reliability, I rather shudder to think how an X-car based minivan would have panned out. Of course, the X-car eventually morphed into the successful (for GM) A-body. That’s probably what would have happened with an X-based minivan.
I wonder if the X-based minivan was not pursued due to product planners not wanting to repeat the Corvair Greenbrier van experiment.
It’s proportions are actually quite similar to the Caravan, except that the nose is a bit longer. The caravan does not look taller to me.
That was my immediate impression: alternate-universe Cadavalier wagon.
I love the concepts wheels and tires but I’m sure if it had seen production it would have been on dinky steelies with cheap factory wire covers.
GM vehicles of this era often looked like they were on stilts because of the management diktat that it be easy to put chains on the tires.
As soon as I saw this, my eyes went right to those deep chunky wheels/tires. They totally make a mundane grocery getter look more aggressive and eye catching. Of course the production version would have something with a high offset and a bland style, immediately making the whole thing look pretty wimpy overall.
“GM vehicles of this era often looked like they were on stilts because of the management diktat that it be easy to put chains on the tires…”
I believe that was a Federal law that there needed to be x amount of room around tires in order to fit chains. It was only recently rescinded. Well, maybe 15-20 years ago.
That and our Federal bumper laws explains why so many cars from Europe (in particular) were raised up so much higher than their native cousins. I can remember seeing any number of 70’s & 80’s Fiats, Renaults, even VWs and BMWs looking like they were on stilts with itty bitty tires.
The diktat was governmental.
X-cars were a solid concept too. I highly doubt GM could have executed the details on this well enough to make it successful. Perhaps the styling is deceptive, but it appears considerably smaller with lower slung seats compared to the Chrysler vans.
It’s hard to tell from the picture. The front end is larger than the Chrysler vans. Chrysler really maximized their space efficiency.
Many at GM and Ford back then were still station wagon fans, like some on car message boards. They had the “buy a proper wagon” mind set.
Henry Ford II said of Lido’s minivan proposals, before Lee got canned, “It’ll steal sales from Country Squire”.
Also, some had the “they are ugly”, thinking families only wanted good looks, and not interior space and functionality. This was the case in 50s and 60s, but maxi vans were selling well in the 70s, but there was a need for more efficient ones.
That sounds probable in Henry Ford II thinking that a minivan would steal sales from the Country Squire. The other interesting thing to wonder in hindsight, is whether the market would have been ready for a minivan in the late 70’s. Station wagons were likely still viewed as far more than adequate for a reasonably comfortable vehicle that could haul around a family.
Iacocca was a genius in his timing and marketing, because the Mustang and the minivan were both as successful as they were, because women were major buyers.
One factor that I wonder about in the minivan’s popularity is the rising number of women in the workplace in the early 80’s, and needing something that facilitated not only that, but something that was more flexible and durable for a variety of uses. The term “soccer mom” seems to have sprung up in and for that particular generation……someone on the go in a variety of ways, and multitasking. Station wagons were too cramped for this sort of thing. The fast pace and the “on the fly” nature of the 80’s seemed to be the perfect timing for the minivan.
It wasn’t probable that the Carousel was going to cut into Country Squire sales, they did consumer clinics with current Country Squire owners and many indicated they liked it a lot and would buy one. So the fear is that far too many of the sales would have been at the expense of the Country Squire. It hit its target too well.
The minivan’s good timing was also due to the spiking of fuel costs and the fear that “real family cars” were soon to be extinct. The T-115 was a great compromise for seating capacity, cargo capacity and fuel economy in a package that Moms found attractive.
This was just like the Mustang’s good fortune (or Iacocca’s good eye) to hit the market as the first baby boomers were coming to car buying age.
All great points. Iacocca’s best asset was the ability to anticipate shifting demographics and predict upcoming changes, based on what the buyers would be in a given time. Or in real estate terms, “buy where people are going to buy tomorrow, not where they’re buying today”. He aimed his products at the younger demographic, rather than the older ones and even if he only had the Mustang on his resume, he’d be a legend, but the whole K car platform and the minivan inclusion makes him beyond that level.
Also, what made Iacocca so effective, was that he surrounded himself with great minds and *listened* to their ideas. Imagine how many people in the industry (especially GM) didn’t trust the people that worked for them. The only thing worse than not coming up with prescient ideas, is the failure to listen to them.
Iacocca’s best asset was the ability to anticipate shifting demographics and predict upcoming changes, based on what the buyers would be in a given time.
His batting average was pretty iffy in that department. The Mustang was a me-too response to the success of the Monza.
He did real well with broughams, until he almost killed Ford by hanging on to them way too long. Which is why HFII gave him the boot.
And he did the same thing at Chrysler, making K-Car mini broughams for way too long too, until they had to overrule him. He was dead set against the whole aero-look, convinced that the Taurus was going to be a flop.
Yes, he greenlighted the minivans, but then Chrysler was pretty desperate and it seemed like a relatively low risk shot. He had no idea the Mustang and the minivans were going to be so huge of hits.
Good points, Paul. Iacocca did make some questionable decisions, but then again, most of the brilliant minds in the vehicle industry have something that is initially great, but eventually fails (Exner, Shinoda, DeLorean–both at GM and with his own company. Heck, even Caroll Shelby failed with his own company away from Ford).
The end result with the minivan is that the other manufacturers didn’t have a competitive product for a very long time, and there’s always some inter-company red tape/ can’t-won’t-don’t-shouldn’t attitudes. GM clearly had some intelligent engineers and minds working on minivans and these sorts of ideas that weren’t given the go-ahead. We can debate the semantics, but the results speak for themselves. History doesn’t remember those that were second in line to a great idea. A guy on the Kodak payroll came up with the first working version of a digital camera in the 70’s; they thought it would put their film industry out of business.
I believe that the Deadly Sin series extends to the great ideas that GM had that they did not pursue.
Imagine an X11 variant. Imagine an AWD version…
…or a Buick GNX variant!
Considering Chevy never made a 4-door X-11 even though it would’ve been plug and play, yeah, it wouldn’t have happened.
Plug and play? Four door? The X-11 was initially just a handling/graphics package and later used the HO version of the V6. Wouldn’t exactly have been rocket science to do the same on a minivan.
Looks like it would have translated to a 4-door fairly well too.
GM styling really had a theme going in the late 70s/early 80s. Without any badging at all it’s extremely obvious this concept is related to the Cavalier and, later, the Astro.
If they had released this, no matter how well it did, would Chrysler have been able to get out of its mess back then?
Chrysler was on the up in 1983, esp because there was pent up demand for new cars after a couple of down years. But Chrysler would have needed another hit product going forward. If Chrysler hadn’t had the minivans, their truck/Jeep expansion would have paid dividends sooner. Chrysler actually delayed the Grand Cherokee for the 1990 minivan refresh. All of the new products after the K car era were popular, so it’s likely that Chrysler would have made many good product decisions, even without minivans.
I agree, GM could have owned the minivan segment, had they made the move.
There were plenty of hints, even within GM itself of the market potential, back in the late ’70’s. GM sold the shortbox version of the G-van, including a passenger variant.
I’ve owned two of them, and their ease of handling and improved maneuverability over the standard G-van are remarkable. But this model languished on obscurity because its virtues were never promoted.
It would,’t have been such a big step to move from a truck – based minivan (that they sort-of already had) to a car – based one. But I’m sure the traditionally – minded product planners pointed to their existing line of wagons as meeting the needs of this market.
I also found it Google-image-searching this week’s mystery concept car. I wondered if this Nomad had been covered on CC and I had missed, how could it not?
GM was the worst. How didn’t they at least build this prototype after the success of Chrysler?
Never heard of the Nomad II.
I like what I see and this could have been an ideal vehicle for our young family back then.
Do we know this had a sliding door on the other side?
A valid question. While I’m guessing a production Nomad II would have almost certainly had a sliding door on the passenger side, I’m rather doubtful this concept had much of ‘anything’ on the passenger side. It’s not unusual for these conceptual mock-ups to be only partially completed, simply to see how much interest management had in them. If it was there, then they progress to more complete vehicle stages. It doesn’t look like the Nomad II made it any further than this simple design proposal.
Of course it had a sliding door. This is not a clay; but a real prototype, It was shown to the public at clinics; did you miss that in the very short text? GM was quite capable of building prototypes that looked and felt essentially like production vehicles.
The front end looked more Buick Skylark than Chevy Citation. The Citation had a forward leaning grille with wrap-around integrated side marker lights.
I was thinking the grille was from the ’79 Chevette at first, but a close look shows it’s slightly different
I’m getting echoes of the ’73-78 truck “face” from it too.
I think it would have bombed in 1979-1980. In 1980 FWD cars only had a small footprint in the US market.
FWD was not wide spread and thus not really popular. Due to the X cars handling issues which were starting to sour folks on them (I still think that 90% of all the X cars issues can be blamed on user error as FWD cars handle differently then RWD one and folks were not used to this)
However by the 1984 model year when the Chrysler minivans arrived, the concept of FWD was more accepted by American consumers due to the fact that there were a lot more FWD cars on the market. GM had the X, A and J body cars. Ford had the Escort and was due to release the Tempo/Topaz and Chrysler had the K cars.
I think out of all of them it was the K Cars that caused mass acceptance of FWD. With an Aries, you got a compact car with good gas mileage that could seat 5 comfortably. The floor was flat due to it being FWD.
Until the quality and performance problems became known, the X bodies were smash hits in 1979. The public liked FWD and compact cars.
This styling concept is from 1979, which have made it ready for production around 1983 or 1984, depending on how glacially GM was moving. The concept looks to me like it is A-Body based, not X-Body. The more flush windshield, for example, would appear on the A-body for ’82, as would the integrated door mirrors and smooth door skins. The bumpers are also faired-in as would appear for the early ’80s, and the tail lights look to be from a J-Body wagon. In general, other than the stubby, vaguely Olds Omega-like front, this thing looks like generic Irv Rybicki for the ’80s. So I don’t think this vehicle would have made it to market much earlier than the Chrysler.
No it was planned for 1979 with the rest of the X cars (which were late and thus became 1980’s) or shortly there after. See below where I liked to the Pop Sci article noting the cancellation of the X-Van in Apr 1978 which would have meant a Jan 78 or so cancellation date. So that would have been the styling proposal from earlier for a planned 79 intro.
It’s not exactly an Espace though, is it? It looks more Mitsubishi Spacewagon / Nissan Prairie, which weren’t quite the real deal.
+1
Matra took the concept to its logical conclusion. This is a wagon with a high roof on a GM X-car platform. Disaster avoided.
A wagon with a high roof: You’ve described the Chrysler minivans, which had almost the exact same proportions as this Nomad II. But you forgot the sliding door and the forward-facing third seat. And the greater interior height. And flexibility. And most importantly, a different look. The fact that the Chrysler minivans weren’t station wagons was one of their key reasons for their success. Its young boomer buyers didn’t want to buy the wagons their parents drove. That was the real genius of the minivan, and what this one could have captured.
All depends on the actual measurements–it could be about the same length as a Chrysler minivan, in which case it’s rather lower slung, or it could be a longer vehicle of about the same height. Totally looks like an Omega nose married to an Astro rear section, but somehow it works (I think it’s the flared fenders and dished wheels, which probably wouldn’t have made production.)
Someone beat GM to the idea in 1977.
The minivan concept clearly needed hurricane wheels and candy apple paint!
Wow, I really love that. I know I shouldn’t, but I do.
That’s hardly a minivan. Micro van, perhaps, but only two rows of seats and no back door at all. Never mind an actual drive train.
And (if it catches your fancy)…actually offered currently on Ebay Motors:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1977-AMC-Other-One-off-concept-/152728648942?hash=item238f563cee:g:nLkAAOSwWbJZ0—&vxp=mtr
I’ve always thought that the AM van would have been a cool vehicle, if put into actual production. Two things would have likely made it difficult for big sales, though: the engine would have been *crammed* in there, making it difficult to work on, and there just wouldn’t have been enough room in it to cater to the multitasking and space needs that a family would need in the 80’s.
It’s not bad looking. Since the “A” body wagons (Celebrity etc.) weren’t out until the 1984 model year. Maybe they thought a FWD midsize wagon, was enough.
One of the curious things about the Nomad II is how well it illustrates where the 14th floor’s thought process was on product planning. Someone else pointed out that there was surely an ingrained station wagon mentality even though GM had a virtually identical version of Chrysler’s successful minivan waiting in the wings. Yet, rather than resurrect the Nomad II, GM went the much more traditional (and cheaper) route with the RWD Astro and kept spitting out station wagons.
Plus, like I mentioned earlier, I’d be willing to bet that the memory of the Corvair Greenbrier failure played into the equation, as well. I can easily see anyone who championed the Nomad II route to compete with the T-115 being quickly shot down. Just the mention of “Greenbrier” would likely be enough to quash the idea of a ‘wrong wheel drive’ GM minivan, despite Chrysler’s FWD success.
I don’t think the memory of the Greenbrier was as much of a factor as the fact that if they put the Nomad II into production looking like that with that front end, folks would be reminded of the X-body cars(which were toxic by 1981) and stay away. Most of the public probably had forgotten that the “brier” had even existed by the 1980’s
However I am sure more then a few folks ether witnessed a x-body car go around in a circle when the brakes were hit during a rain storm or experienced themselves driving one.
As for the Astro/Safari, despite not selling a crap ton of them like the Chrysler minivans, GM did sell loads of them. I grew up in the 1980’s and 1990’s and they were everywhere.
Plus they did offer a couple of things that Ma Mopar’s vans could not. They were great for towing and also made excellent commercial/tradesmen vehicles.
Because the Astro was a RWD truck, it had a high tow capacity to allow you to tow that camper on vacation. The caravan’s weak transaxle would burn up to easy.
The Astro was beloved by the tradesman and the commercial truck crowd. It could be well loaded up. The Dodge offered a commercial caravan called Ram C/V but they were not so popular.
The public might have forgotten about the Greenbrier, but I’m sure there were more than a few old-school GM execs who hadn’t. Still, it’s true that GM followed the Greenbrier with a (then) more conventional FMR-layout SportVan to compete with the Ford Falcon/Econoline and Dodge A100.
But even if the Greenbrier didn’t have an impact on denying Nomad II production, when GM did finally come out with a FWD minivan, it was the bizarre U-body ‘dustbuster’ Lumina APV, TransSport, and Silhoutte trio, all of which tended to look like Batman on vacation.
I can only guess that GM (and Ford) were gambling that by going with a traditional RWD layout, they’d be able to ride out Chrysler’s minivan as a fad, whereas the Astro and Aerostar would have much more staying power due primarily to commercial sales (which, in fact, did actually happen – the Astro stayed in production virtually unchanged for a long time). But when it became apparent that Chrysler’s FWD minivan sales continued to stay strong, GM had no choice but to jump into the fray. Unfortunately, by then (1990, a full seven years later), I guess it was a little late to dredge up the old Nomad II.
It’s just shocking to know that GM had a concept so similar to the Chrysler T-115 ready to go in 1979, yet didn’t use it. Imagine how differently things might have been if the Nomad II had been greenlit for production and beaten Chrysler to market by at least a full year.
The Nomad II would have fit very nicely in the product line as a Celebrity Maxx. It looks to me like the original four headlight Celebrity grille would fit exactly.
Gee, what a surprise. GM Screw up in the early ’80? Really? Soooooooooo pathetic.
So this Detroit Report tells of the postponement of the GM minivan slated to be based on the new for 79 fwd compacts. https://books.google.com/books?id=tQAAAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&rview=1&lr=#v=onepage&q&f=false
And here is the issue where they report spotting what was most certainly an early prototype of the Aerostar. https://books.google.com/books?id=jAAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=gm+van&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsui0hO_WAhUhzoMKHVuPCS0Q6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=gm%20van&f=false
I can’t help but think of an early 80’s Chevy Cavalier (with the single headlights) or an early 80’s Oldsmobile Omega when I see the front end of this car.
First time comment. Been lurking for a while… but… look at this:
GM’s curse: It was so dominant in the traditional markets but missed so many new ones as they developed from the mid 1950s on. In the 60s they caught up quickly with decently competitive products (Chevy II, Riviera, Caprice, Camaro) but by the 80s seem to have lost even that ability. As PN notes above, they never ever fielded a really competitive minivan. And this shows that they might have been able to do so.
Trying to find more about this van, I came across this; another “small van” concept GM did, this one in 1973. Certainly not FWD, but interesting anyway:
“Another company introduced a successful mini-van a few years later.”
Bit of an understatement there.
Just imagine if it was Roger Smith who squelched the Nomad II. The mind boggles.
Interesting… I definitely see shades of the Astrofari vans in the rear and that dipping beltline at the front reminds me of the mid-90’s Regal.
This is an excellent find. It’s disappointing GM didn’t put this into production.
It’s worth noting that when the U-Body minivans finally came along, six years after the Mopar minivans, they used a lot of A-Body components, and the A-Body was scarcely different from the X-Body.
I wonder if GM would’ve given all of their brands (excluding GMC and Cadillac) a version of the van, like Buick/Olds/Pontiac/Chevy all received the X and A-Body. And I wonder, too, what names they would have given them…
This is a fascinating what-if. If it had been launched and taken off, it could’ve taken the wind out of Chrysler’s sails some.
Also, talk about freaking hubris. GM had this sitting on the shelf and they could’ve launched it years before they finally got around to the U-Body. What, did they think the Astro was going to be a bigger hit than the Mopar minivans? Typical 1980s GM thinking at play. How frustrating.
GM had tons of new products in the early 80s.
And? That doesn’t dispute my argument that they were too late producing a proper, FWD, car-based minivan.
It would have been nice to have a direct FWD competitor at the same time as Chrysler, but I don’t think GM really lost a lot by having the Astro for 1985, then the Dustbuster for 1990. The minivans were the only fresh, desirable vehicles in Chrysler stores. GM had lots of fresh products in the 80s; “desirable” was a problem, tho.
By 1984, people were ready to buy new cars. If GM had introduced the X based tall wagon for 80 or 81, it probably wouldn’t have sold much better than any other up-priced car in that period–especially if it had X Stink on it.
Ford got competitive and did fine until Chrysler nuked them with the 1996 minivans, then Ford’s own transmissions strafed the survivors.
What hurt GM was that they never, ever got competitive for the whole 20 years that minivans were hot. They finally gave up.
Also, history shows that the market for minivans was *extremely* specific about what it wanted. Unless you built an exact copy of the Chryslers, you weren’t competitive with them. Stuff like the Previa, the original Odyssey, the original Quest, the Dustbuster, and the forward control Japanese delivery vans wasn’t any more popular than the Astro or Aerostar.
The Dustbuster was GM’s shot, and it probably wouldn’t have been more popular in 1985 than 1990.
The seating in this Nomad does look a lot like the U-Body, with a somewhat more rear-set front seat than the Chrysler minivans. I suspect they resurrected significant aspects of this when they did the U-Body.
I have no measurements to base this on, but I wonder whether the dash to axle measurement for the Chrysler K is less than the GM X platform, so a GM vehicle will always have a longer , more glamorous nose.
Here’s an GM earlier minivan proposal from 1973.
Had the 1979 Chevrolet Nomad II been produced, how would it have worked if the X-Body platform only had a 6 year production life?
Could it have later utilized the L-Body platform or lasted another 5 years prior to being replaced by the U-Body based Chevrolet Lumina APV?
And lastly were the X-Body and U-Body capable of being converted to 4WD, seem to recall the L-Body was explored with 4WD via one of the Chevrolet Beretta test cars.
The X platform was carried on many derivative models after the four original X models were discontinued. A successful X based minivan wouldn’t have been discontinued at the same time as the original Citation.
Understood. From a wider GM perspective, one could argue a J-Body “World Car” version of the X-Body 1979 Chevrolet Nomad II would have had an even greater impact as opposed to the Chevrolet Venture / Opel Sintra that appeared in markets outside of North America.