Someone really needs to do this generation of vans justice and write up a decent CC post about it all. And it ain’t gonna be me. Something in this Chevy Van just brought out the lazy in me, so I’ll spare myself the usual research and wordy write-up for the usual dozen kind CCommenters who still bother reacting. It’s just not worth the effort.
I don’t think GM put much effort in this G-Van design, either. I mean, they just kept making these for years with virtually no changes. I put 1985 as the model year, but that’s just a wild stab in the dark on my part – I’ve not been able to narrow it down beyond that decade, so I went for the middle.
I’m not saying that GM were necessarily wrong to keep yearly changes to a minimum. That’s how vehicles attain icon status, after all. Think Jeep Wagoneer, Chevy K5, Ford Crown Victoria… But I’m not sure the third generation (1971-96) G-Series Chevy Van is as iconic as all that – do they have fanatical following in their country of origin? I’m not getting that impression from the echoes of the worldwide web, or of the few CC posts featuring these.
Whoever bought this thing also did think it was worth much of anything. I mean, they put a few extras here and there. That side exhaust thing, horrid though it is, for instance. And new wheels, but somehow they cheaped out on the air for the tyres and left the whole thing gathering dust and rust under a house in Tokyo. Go figure.
Same deal inside: the OEM steering wheel, an aggressively ugly piece of black plastic, was replaced by something even worse. Why bother? Especially since we’re dealing with a completely base grade vehicle here, with window cranks and all.
So yeah, I’m not keen on the Chevy Van. It’s getting old, so it’s mildly interesting from a CC point of view. But it’s obviously not interesting enough for its owner to take care of it, nor to warrant a full history by folks who have first-hand knowledge and easy access to these, so I won’t bother too much about it myself. Besides, I caught a much more attractive American van the other day, so we can all look forward to reading about that sometime.
Related posts:
CC Capsule: Third-Generation Chevrolet G-Series – An Ode To The Chevy Van, by Joseph Dennis
Last Of Its Kind On The Street Outtake: 1980s Chevy Starcraft Conversion Van – GT Series, No Less, by PN
CC Outtake: Turn Lane Sighting – Yet Another Chevy Van Still Earning Its Keep, by Keith Thelen
COAL: 1985 Chevrolet G20 Sportvan – Go West Young Man, In A $1 Van, by Nelson James
Cars of a Lifetime: 1986 Chevrolet 4×4 Van – Once We Were Lovers, by JunkHarvester
COAL: 1978 Chevrolet Van – The Iron Maiden, by Jim Grey
I learned to drive in one of the two of these my parents had (292 straight six, three on the tree, and no power steering) then drove several in various jobs over the years. Nothing about any of these experiences would inspire a fanatical following.
It’s very hard to tell in the picture, but is that huge lever to the right of the steering wheel a combination brake/throttle hand control? There would also have to be a gearshift in there too, of course. This could have been adapted for someone without the full use of their legs. Left hand drive would have made it easier to enter the drivers side from the curb, maybe?
The GM G van is the best example of the saying “nothing runs bad better than an American body-on-frame, low tech vehicle” be it a GM B-body, this van, or similar examples from Ford and MoPar. When I see a 40+-year-old car on the streets today it is most likely a GM or Ford pickup truck, van, or full-size rear wheel drive sedan.
You can disparage this vehicle for its shortcomings but don’t discount it completely. It did what it was intended to do for 25 years.
It was evidently very capable, which is why they made it for so long. But like I said in the post, long production life doesn’t have to equate with “iconic vehicle.” It’s a workhorse, but not one that inspires much of anything. I’m not getting sympathy, nor admiration — nor derision or hate, either — from the folks who experienced these first-hand.
So I’m not disparaging it, I’m just wondering why it is so widely seen as plain.
Of course that’s what you see when you look for 40+ year old cars. Back in 1980 the big 3 had 74% of the US market, in 1979 it was 77%, in ’78 it was 82% or 4 out of 5. And nobody besides VW sold vans before then and nobody sold large pickups either.
The vehicles you see are RWD due to Detroit not building FWD cars (except for a few very limited exceptions such as the Toronado and ElDorado) prior to around 1980. Most of the Japanese didn’t start until after that time as well. Only the Europeans used FWD in any scale prior to 1980.
The G-van (and Econoline and Ram Van) served their purpose for a long time but also didn’t progress in any way due to their not having any competition, each maker seems to have tacitly agreed to spend as little as possible and just hold on to their respective share. Notably those same manufacturers offered very different vans in other markets, which now finally have been coming to the US as well when MB finally showed Americans that no, you don’t have to crouch in the back of your van and can actually enter the rear door upright and that low floors, straight walls hold more cargo than a low roof and curves sides and some customers responded positively. I don’t think anyone misses the way the old vans drive or their abysmal seating positions, noise, heat, and general build quality, the one holdout (GM) was redesigned a couple of decades ago but now sells on familiarity and price and almost exclusively to commercial user fleets.
The “nothing runs bad longer” thing is endemic to every country’s home auto industry, mainly due to an abundance of cheap parts and labor familiarity with it due to volume sold. Golfs run forever in Germany, Nissans run forever in Japan, Fiats last decades in Italy, Peugeots run forever in France and Africa, and even Jaguars somehow seem to stay on the road for a long time in Britain.
Once the van craze had peaked vans fell back into low margin, low volume status. Even at the height of the van craze they were still relatively low margin items as they were sold in bulk to the conversion companies in very basic cargo van configurations. Those van conversion and commercial users also appreciated that they weren’t changing. That meant they could continue to use the same windows, tops and patterns for all of the interior stuff, if doing a conversion. If it was for commercial use then again they preferred the new one to be just like the old one so all of the equipment can be simply unbolted from the old and transferred into the new.
Pickups were in a similar situation in that era and we saw a number of trucks that were sold for very many years with only minor refreshes. The C/K stayed in production for 19 model years the F-series ran for 18 model years while the Dodge 23 years. Yes the Ford did get some new front end sheet metal that people will tell you make them different generations but they were just refreshes of the same basic truck.
My uncles 1985 Chevy van even tho he let it get rained on and roof leaked and the frame fell apart the damn thing ran for about 40 years! Of his abuse! Being a plumber loading tools doing 80 on the highway in that death machine don’t hate on the Chevy van for their time lack of creature comforts sure u don’t get carbon fiber shift knobs and good air conditioning but come on for what it is can’t beat it solid ass vehicle too can run right into a brick building in one of these and you’ll be fine!
I am very familiar with these as I had several as my service van when I was a technician at Indianapolis Cablevision in the 1980’s. Most had the 305 small block with a Turbo 350 tranny, although a few had the 250 inline 6 . This is at least an ’85 as it has the updated larger tail/brake/ turn signal light lenses and the more flush mounted side marker light lenses and a different grill from the ’84. I believe all ’85 to ’88’s looked identical as the ’89’s got a slightly different grill with 4 rectangular sealed beams.
What I remember most about them was how difficult it was to reinstall the engine cover after doing engine maintenance. Even with the driver and passenger seat all the way back there was barely room enough to put the engine cover back on without the foam rubber weather stripping becoming dislocated and letting in air from the engine bay.
I see this one has no back windows but at least has the large outside mirrors. Indianapolis Cablevision had 2 vans like this with no rear windows and passenger-car style outside mirrors which made backing up very difficult and risky.
Another thing I found odd was they didn’t get the locking steering column until the 1982 model year. Wonder why GM waited 11 years to add it.
Apparently some people liked them as Sammy Johns had a pop hit in 1975 with “Chevy Van”.
“Chevy Van” was about getting laid in a van during the van craze. There is no bad van to get laid in. I’ve driven several and was not impressed. Had I got laid in one I’d be much more impressed by them.
But still Sammy Johns used Chevy instead of Dodge or Ford for his song.
Btw, the guys of IMCDB spotted a later Chevy Van model from 1992 who was used in Wonder Woman 1984.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1328913-Chevrolet-Chevy-Van-1992.html
And Sammy Johns’ song was covered by other artists, here the cover made by Waylon Jennings.
I suppose that title is better than “Dodge Omni”.
🎵 “We made love in my Dodge Omni and that’s all right with me.”(but nobody else)
Or-
🎵”We made love in my Subaru ’cause I am four-foot-three.”🎵
Or “Ford Granada”,
but then there already was a song called
“Lido Shuffle”.
You beat me to it, Glenn… I was all ready to respond to…
“But I’m not sure the third generation (1971-96) G-Series Chevy Van is as iconic as all that – do they have fanatical following in their country of origin?”
…with: “I seem to remember some really lame song from the mid-seventies about a Chevy Van.”
Personally, I like the appearance of the Dodge vans better from this era.
And it would’ve been nice if the guy in that yellow bus parked next to it gave the owner of the van room to get in. This is why I HATE parking garages, and hate is a word I almost never use!
A friend and myself were commenting that if we had to get rid of every vehicle we owned except just one, we agreed we’d keep the full size van. The van is the most useful vehicle ever conceived.
I didn’t have much of anything to say either, until I curiously Googled and realized that GM produced this body from 1971 all the way to 1996 with only very minor updates along the way. That’s pretty crazy. I knew it felt like I’d been looking at these for about half of my lifetime. Turns out I was pretty damn near correct.
I kind of like this one…it looks fairly unmolested and not too beat up. We had an ‘88 C30 “Trans-Aire” conversion van with the 350 V-8 – the van itself was pretty bulletproof, but the conversion didn’t hold up too well – rusted under the “picture windows” within a couple of years, even with Ziebart rustproofing (I know…I know)!
There are plenty of these around the NL. Seems like every Dutch village has at least one.
Quite accurate.
Horrible to drive or ride in but surprisingly durable. I’ve driven a handful of these, all the extended wheelbase one-ton chassis models in passenger configuration and all powered by a 350.
Despite one needing to remove their left leg to have adequate room while driving, the conversion van versions of these are still a not uncommon site in the vast Midwest. These short wheelbase versions were an uncommon sighting in comparison to their siblings.
My folks had a conversion van. When I drove it, I got into the habit of resting my left leg under my right one so it wouldn’t get in the way if I had to brake suddenly.
I think the steering wheel is cool!
The rest, kind of just a beige van.
I appear to be the ‘lone dissenter’ and will add my 2 cents. I own a 1 ton long wheelbase version with quite low miles; bought from a person who was apparently tired of the 12-14 mpg. Venerable 350 with h.d. auto transmission. I got it on the cheap but the body is rustfree, interior all original, and drivetrain as solid as the proverbial ‘Like A Rock’ that Chevy used in their ads of the era.
Not many of the 100s of thousands of these were treated with care, nor were they used for much other than tradesman work vans. Thus most had 300 thousand or more miles put on before the body disintegrated from the rust worm. I just do not see any around in the heartland and the few that show up are over-priced ‘love-bins’ you don’t wish to use a blacklight on the interior, OR are $400 dollar trash bins with wrinkled floors and sidewalls if tin there still exists.
Mine doesn’t have any of those issues and I will proudly show it next to my ’73 Dodge B series with 360 -auto, the Ford Econoline with 300,000 highway miles (in DHL yellow which was a $900 option), and a smattering of other low mile trucks that somehow escaped the love of an uncaring owner. Someday the whole lot may be worth more than a buck seventy five in quarters; if not the world will surely look differently on them in the future. When 90% of the payload is battery tonnage
Someone really needs to do this generation of vans justice and write up a decent CC post about it all.
What’s there to say? It’s a box on wheels that came in several sizes with the typical GM drive train of its year of build and a GM pickup suspension. It’s just been done full justice!
I like to be at least a bit inspired when I do a CC.
Paul,
Just picture gold/subdued BBS gold rims on it! 😉
I like to be at least a bit inspired when I do a CC.
Touché, Paul.
But I was also trying to gauge how much apathy these G-series generate. And the answer seems to be: quite a lot.
These vans are the Toyota ProBox of America. Or maybe that’s the Econoline and this is the Nissan NV150 AD. Something like that. Exciting and interesting in a foreign land, even in white or silver, not so much on the home turf.
A Probox that was made for a quarter century without any significant changes.
I drove one of these, a G10 Chevy Van for a service truck for 3 years and have nothing but positive recollections. Mine was a 1979 model year with a tan Chevette instrument panel and stark white painted interior with black rubber mats and pressboard door and front roof panels. 350 4-bbl w/ 350 tranny and posi diff. It was a model produced for BC Tel, which was a shorty van with panel on the drivers side and full windows on right and rear. The drivetrain combo speaks for itself in terms of reliability and durability but this van also handled well on icy highways and poorly maintained backroads. The only real complaint was that you never wanted to be the passenger as the footwell was only wide enough for one foot. Despite the lack of creature comforts, it was one of those vehicles which fits like a glove and does all you ask of it and more.
In the U.S. Midwest, the only ones I see are/were conversion vans that didn’t rack up the miles. I never wanted to own one, but—like a pickup truck—always hoped to have a friend to borrow one from.
Here’s the whole Chevy line for 1985–I’d forgotten how much shorter the Astro Van was:
In an upcoming full feature Paul may nail down the evolutionary timeline exactly, but the long/short cargo doors may give another clue as to model year.
Somewhere along the way the steering gear was “rolled” to a vertical position. Maybe 1980? That made for a significant break in steering/suspension components.
It seems like at the assembly line the front fenders were probably first the parts out, and the van was completed around them. lol Very difficult to change fenders.
Of course they were of “frame-less” unit construction.
May not seem possible, but some years of G share the grill with C/K trucks.
Growing up my father had both early 1980’s Chevy and a Dodge vans, both 6-cylinder “strippers”, though with removable bench rear seats. They were used primarily for his work, but we kept the Dodge (which had a manual transmission) after the job needs ended. I don’t know exactly why, but he preferred the Dodge over the Chevy, it may have simply been that with the manual transmission the Dodge got better gas mileage, or it may have had to do with better reliability with the slant-6. We took the Dodge on a lot of long-distance camping trips and trips to move various siblings to and from college, and I always thought it was a fine long-distance vehicle, if gutless going up hills. Maybe that was just because the alternatives available (various econoboxes) were even worse.
Vans, we have quite a variety of them here US type vans like this Chev are about Aussie sedan based panelvans are here these two are favourites with hotrodders as were the UK Ford Transits and Bedfords that dominated in the 60s and 70s Lately in the 90s Japanese brands have dominated now the Chinese are getting into the box on wheels genere and of course the Europeans are here too its a cutthroat market where durability is king and spelled Toyota as the courier default brand.
The dog house was a pain to get out of these. One had to pay very close attention to the two clip nuts that secured the cover. These clip nuts were right under the radio and directly over the carb, a few of these ended up down the carb and into the engine. The last few years of the carb models had about a mile of vacuum hoses running around the engine compartment. The tighter confines baked the hoses causing lots of leaking hoses and poor running vehicles. Any serious engine work was a pain to do in-chassis and pulling an engine was even worse. I pulled a 6.2L diesel out of one G van, probably the worst I had to do. Another problem with the G van was the fuel filler. It was located high on the rear of the vehicle. The person that absolutely packed the tank full could flood the carbon canister with fuel and if conditions are perfect a hydro locked engine was possible.
The G van was not a robust fleet vehicle compared to the Ford vans. Front suspension fell apart, brakes didn’t last. 3/4 ton and even 1 ton vans used semi-floating axles where as the Fords had full floating axles on all 3/4 and 1 ton vans. The Ford van front end was nearly indestructible until they replaced the king pins with ball joints. The main problem with the Ford vans was the Twin I-Beam front end design. You needed to keep decent shocks on them, check alignment, use a quality highway tread tire, and rotate/balance tires religiously. If you didn’t do this the front tires developed chopped up tread wear.
I once drove a van near the end of this generation. It looked modern enough on the outside but when I got in I couldn’t believe how my feet were forced to the left side. No footroom at all! I couldn’t believe it was made that way.
Me and my 6’0/Jim-like 32″ inseam and size 13 work boots were not happy campers. The van I was used to was a ’94 Ford, new then, and what a difference. In the Ford I didnt have to remove my feet or any other body part to drive it.
Were all the “old” style vans (ones with short little hoods) all like this?
Is there a class-action lawsuit for all those forced to drive these when after awhile they were unable to walk in a straight line or sit properly on the toilet?
What I’m trying to say is, it was uncomfortable.
The two things that always stand out about the G vans is how short the standard model looks compared to an Econoline and how much a Bedford CF resembles a 3/4 scale G van
I predict that in the near future, these Chevy vans will become almost as sought-after and rare as VW Type 2’s are now. They are unique and will never be made again. So go buy up the remainders now and store them until 2040.
This van would be a novelty in Japan. Unlike anything else there.
“They are unique and will never be made again.”
Isn’t that true of every vehicle in history?
The value of old Chevy and Ford vans has already started increasing thanks to #vanlife and the pandemic only accelerated the appreciation.
I do wonder if three to five years from now there will once again be a glut of vans for sale including older ones that have had their mechanicals improved or at least maintained a bit more than usual if people decide that the #vanlife really wasn’t for them after taking a few vacations in them and regular life getting back in the way of things.
I don’t know how it is near you but I’m still (kind of surprisingly) seeing no real shortage of conversion vans in the junkyards from all the makers, most without obvious or career ending body damage. VW vans though are rare in the ‘yards these days with a few exceptions, mostly ones with extensive fire damage, and when they do show up they get picked over pretty quick.
I think you are right that there is a coming glut in #vanlife vans of varying conditions, ones that have been refreshed mechanically and are good to go, ones that lost an engine or transmission and those abandoned mid project.
People who did it because it was trendy will move on to #nextbigthing.
A good chunk who did it as a plane and hotel alternative will probably eventually go back to their old ways.
Then there are some that may have been forced into it due to their financial situation may give it up as their finances improve.
I can’t say I’ve been to a wrecking yard since last August. In the strangest version of the CC effect it was for a window for a 95 GMC G20 for a friend’s wheelchair van. There were 3 in that yard but 2 of them had the slider and I kept walking. The one I harvested the window from was at one time a very expensive conversion van as it had leather seats. The interior was trashed as it seemed to have lost the rear seat/bed long ago to be used as a work van. I didn’t pay attention to the mechanicals or much of anything at all in the yard as I was in a hurry.
I like the stacked quad headlights just as much here as everywhere else they appear. But of course I would.
I don’t usually go for stacked headlights on late 70s cars but I think they work really well here.
The A-Team’s van wouldn’t be as cool without them.
Unless I’m mistaken, this is the only time in the company’s history that “Chevy” was used in a vehicle’s name.
Chevy II
This ’78 Chevy Van was a regular fixture on the street where I grew up, and I remember being intrigued by it as a kid: mostly because it was old, probably, but also because it was faded green, a bit beat-up, and one of the only resident vehicles that was clearly being put to use in a working capacity, even at its advanced age. It’s been gone for a couple years now, but it lasted a good long while.
Box vans have been a tradesman vehicle since the 1960’s, Dodge even had the name “Tradesman” on theirs .
VW tried hard to crack this market in 1954 with their fist vans, they were all 3/4 ton rated and soon discovered they’d sell far more by adding rear seats and side windows .
The basic model of “KOMBI” was a bare bones van with no headliner / door cards after the front area but one ore two easily removable bench seats in the back .
Pops gray market one in ’54 or ’55 to beat the waiting list and $aved $eriou$ ca$h to boot .
I remember a FoMoCo dealers booklet all about how to u sell the new Falcon van over the VW’s cheaper offering…
I’m surprised by the disdain for this, it’s a tool plain and simple .
Yes, the front wheel wells were horrible and hated by any who drove long distances in them .
Dodge too only made minor changes over the decades, recently I was working on a 1979 D200 crew cab pickup and the left rear door handle gave up the ghost and the door latch froze up .
I recognized the bolt pattern from a 199? Dodge van at Pick-A-Part and Lo ! both parts were the same and dirt cheap to boot .
Sadly Chrysler eventually changed the same door handle to black plastic, I’d hoped to get a new one with better chrome .
The van craze was silly like all other American fads dreamed up to empty your wallet but so what ? .
-Nate
The author wrote like he’s sorta sad and doesn’t get out much. This van is worth more than any other car – when used for fun self expression and participation – basically it would be a best choice for artists (extra shout to drummers) thanks for the review. keep the price down – this is a vehicle for a super high end humans who play and work and play and work and work play and playwork and have a practice in which needs to tote good times, canvases and even plants. Oh and even provides in a pinch as comfy overnight tent.
I have a 94 G30, with a 2 foot hi top. It was a wheel chair van for some state agency in New Mexico, I believe. So, it has no rust. The undercarriage is clean, etc. It only has around 103,000 miles. It still has the wheel chair lift, which could handle lifting a motorcycle. The lift is in the rear doors…..I had a 95 G20, which was great mechanically, but had a bunch of auxiliary problems. It rusted badly in the rear, and the floor finally collapsed on the rear right tire. But, the junk yard will pay $800 for it due to so much metal. I have seats that are like new from this van, stored……The 94 is like a new vehicle for all intents and purposes. Not sure what I will do with it. I don’t really need it, but, maybe I will try to put it to work hauling expedited freight, cuz this van is like a sprinter van, only better. …..but, if I sell it, I’d be able to invest the proceeds in the best gold stock I know of, potential 10 bagger or more, and very safe..
I drive a 1990 G30 1 ton cargo van for work and camping. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I have no clue what all the haters are talking about…no room for left leg? Really?? Not my experience. I can put my left foot on the floor or hang it in the footwell. Having to sit on your left leg and drive?? Ridiculous statement. Some say the doghouse is hard to get off. Actually it’s a piece of cake. No fun to drive?? Drives like dream! I have a 350 crate motor in mine and a turbo 400 transmission. Bulletproof. Give the G van a little respect!