(first posted 9/19/2013) I think by now it is well known that I am both a minivan lover and an Oldsmobile lover. So naturally, one would think that the Oldsmobile Silhouette is my favorite vehicle of all time. In reality…not so much. For some reason, the Olds Silhouette never did it for me. I spotted this 1999 Silhouette back in July, and it only reinforced my feelings.
GM couldn’t seem to find a happy medium when it came to styling an attractive minivan. The original 1990-1996 “Dustbuster” Silhouettes were far too out-of-this-world, to say the least.
GM took a complete U-turn for its second-generation 1997-2004 Silhouettes, making them the blandest vehicles in the segment. For me, these second-generation Silhouettes leave a lot to desire.
Maybe it’s because of how similar these were to their rebadged siblings, the Chevrolet Venture and Pontiac Montana (née Trans Sport), although Chrysler’s minivans also didn’t look all that different from each other.
More likely, it’s because I can’t help but compare the Olds on every level with its prime competitor, the Chrysler Town & Country. The 1996-2000 Chrysler minivans are my favorite minivans of all time and to my mind, nothing else can stand up to them.
Especially when you compare the interiors of these “luxury minivans”, the Town & Country can’t help but look and feel a notch above the Silhouette in terms of design and material quality.
The 2001 model did bring a few upscale touches, including available two-tone perforated leather and a dose of faux woodgrain accents. However, the dash still carried the same unappealing square shapes and hard plastics of its less expensive siblings.
One unique feature about this van that I can compliment is the availability of a teal-color leather interior. Also available on the first-generation Olds Aurora, I haven’t seen this color in any other contemporary car.
Like Chrysler, Oldsmobile did make cloth seats standard on its lower trim models, including the one I photographed here. It’s hard to tell from the picture, but Olds did use different (and higher-quality) cloth than Chevy and Pontiac. 
The exterior styling of the Oldsmobile also looks far duller than the more sculpted lines of the Chrysler. Now, I fully understand that styling is not high on the wish list of most minivan buyers; regardless, to me this is as bland as a small vanilla ice cream cone.
The two-piece headlights always looked behind the times, especially combined with GM’s horrible orange running lights that never seemed to burn at the same intensity on both sides.
While not awful vehicles, overall these GM minivans were uninspired, and they fit all the minivan stereotypes that turned the majority of the car-buying population away from this style of people hauler. For me, what’s even sadder is that they slapped an Oldsmobile badge on this vehicle. I want to like this one, but I just can’t.
The Silhouette may have been famously dubbed “The Cadillac of Minivans”, but when it comes to minivans (well, at least those of the late 1990s), the Cadillac name simply doesn’t command the same level of esteem as”Chrysler”.
I have no firsthand experience with these. It seems that this is a really polarizing van, as the opinions I hear range from “fabulous, very under-rated vehicle” to “worst POS minivan ever made”, and not a lot between.
There was an Opel version called Sintra. The EuroNCAP crash test was pretty bad (2,5 stars) and it managed to score last place in a UK JD Power satisfaction survey. The Chrysler was all over the place, the Opel was practically nowhere to be found. They only sold them for three/four years. POS.
The Trans Sport also scored bad when tested by the IIHS. It was so bad that put it on display.
Wasn’t that one of the first to highlight the frontal offset test? I seem to remember the Trans Sport results being trumped up by “Dateline” or some other “news” program.
RE: the Opel Sintra. These vans were designed from the start to sell in Europe, and as a result they were quite a bit narrower than the Chrysler competition. Sales reps were told to point out how much thinner the sidewall paneling was in the cargo area – it was literally draped over the mechanical bits, making for an odd series of lumps in the plastic versus the wide, smooth sidewalls in the Chryslers.
“See? GM has optimized every available inch of carrying capacity. Look at all of that wasted space in the Caravan!”
You can see it on YouTube – look up “Dateline 1995, 1996, 1997 Minivan IIHS Crash Test.flv”. The GM vans are around the 10:00 mark.
Wow, some seriously scary results in there (and not just for the Trans Sport).
China also got a U-body badged as the Buick (go figure) GL8.
The American U Body also had a Buick version called the Terraza. What a waste of a good name on a bad vehicle.
My friend’s dad had a particularly derelict Silhouette. The power doors didn’t work so he’d have to slam in the brakes at the start of every trip to get them to close. It also sounded like a hurricane driving down the road from all the rattling and squeaking bits clomping around inside and out of the car.
Wow, never seen such a comprehensive review on a 10+ year old mini vans. Love it! My mom and dad bought a used Silo and it serviced them well for about 7 years. Pops passed away and mom had her own car so she sold it for what they paid for it. Amazing. Nothing spectacular just a good driver and people hauler without being too fugly.
I’m sure that for those who didn’t get one with issues, this was a serviceable people hauler. But you’re right, it comes from the worst of GM badge engineering and has no real Oldsmobility to it.
This isn’t even the Oldsmobile of minivans. Pathetic badge engineering and an utter low-point for GM. I’m with you on the Chrysler minivans of that era, they were simply miles ahead of everything else in the segment at the time. Even though Chrysler also deployed minimal badge engineering to differentiate between their minivan brands/models, at least they succeeded in genuinely making the Town & Country feel more upscale as befitting a Chrysler. Olds should have done the same thing here, as they did back in the 1970s and 1980s with the Custom Cruiser, which still carried an “Oldsmobile feel” even though it was just another variant of the GM B Wagon.
Here’s something that would have been an Oldsmobile: the Profile (concept car). It was on the Auto Show circuit in 2000, and was really sharp. I know it’s more of a cross-over than minivan (thought that would have fit Oldsmobile’s more upscale aspirations, what little they had left, anyway), but it does have a sliding rear door and looks very functional.
Profile concept inside. Very roomy, huge passenger opening with no B-pillar (like the old Stanza wagon), nicely finished. Looks like it could be in the Lexus class.
Dang, that is a handsome vehicle. It furthers my disappointment that Oldsmobile is no more. However, I’m not impressed by the interior space… the windshield slope looks like it would scrape the driver’s forehead, and the rear headroom is so low that the roof almost touches the headrests. But I’d drive it for the looks alone–something I couldn’t say about any other minivan-type vehicle.
Profile concept from the rear. Reminds me of the back of the Audi A7, which came many years later. Greenhouse looks like the Infiniti FX. Pretty innovative design overall, and shades of the old Olds “GM’s innovator” positioning.
Good-looking concept, but the ultra-slim lamps never would have made production before the advent of LEDs. All in all it reminds me of an Olds version of the Chrysler Pacifica. Which came much later, so maybe a photo of this Profile was on the studio wall when the Pacifica was being designed?
Counterpoint: the 1997-2005 U-body minivans were surprisingly good drivers, with handling characteristics far beyond what Chrysler managed at the time. I had great fun tossing Ventures around during demos in the late 90s.
Everything else, though – EVERYTHING – was subpar compared to the Chryslers.
Ah, the bad memories! My ex and i had a couple of these crappy vans, a loaded 97 Venture and a 2003 Silhouette. Bad intake gaskets, spark plugs that require undoing an engine mount to replace, terrible quality leather, blower switches melting, un reliable power sliding doors, undersized brakes, crazy loud air compressor for the load levelling rear end, creaks and rattles galore, bad leaky headlights always yellowing and filled with water, i could probably bitch the day away about these vehicles lol. On the plus side, the fuel economy wasn’t to bad. I definitely would not touch another U-body vehicle, or their cousins the aztek and rendezvous.
Interesting. I still enjoy mine. I wrote about it here two years ago and it’s still giving me great service. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-curbside-classic-2002-olsmobile-silhouette-gls-this-is-your-mothers-olds/
Naturally everybody’s results vary, did you do your own maintenance/repairs on yours Richard? I’ve heard a few people say theirs have been fine, i just wasn’t one of them. I got into a first generation astro and an 80’s B Body and never looked back.
I have a shop here in Southern Utah that does all the maintenance for me. And the van now has 57,000 miles on it. Just barely broken in. 😀
Having owned a ’99 Town and County LX, I agree it was much snazzier than this Olds. And I grew up an Olds fan. GM lost me with it’s Wave II downsizing.
When you think about it, you can sort of summarize GM’s styling as follows:
Wave I downsizing, conventional but fresh and first to market. Mostly a major success, slant back Oldsmobiles and Buicks the exception. When Wave I started to age, GM started to get flack about brougham styling, chrome and fake wood were supposed to be out, and very monotone interiors and exteriors were in.
Wave II downsizing produced a lot of look alike cars, with a weird mix of brougham and modern touches. There was a lot of confusion in parking lots filled with Somerset N bodies, Rivieras and LeSabres, and they were not all that great looking.
The Unique era came in. Everything was between weird and crazy. W platform Regals in ’88 were among the starters. Dustbuster minivans. The Aztec. Unique, check. Unsalable, check.
The Conformist era like this minivan. Zero controversy, check. Monotone, check. Zero trim, check. Boring, ZZZZZZZZ.
I give GM credit, while they lost me after 1985, they’ve finally come around a bit. The Cadillacs generally look good. The Enclave, while old, is decent looking. The Impala is worth checking out if I get back into a sedan. The big trucks and SUV’s work for me.
FYI: The 2001 Aztec was about 12 years later than the 1988 W bodies and the Dustbusters. So not in same “era”
Agreed, the 1999 version was completely forgettable, but I think you underrate the dustbuster versions.
The guise of nostalgia makes us look back fondly at the Chryco minivans of that era, but back then those vans were utterly BORING. They hadn’t really changed since they were introduced, and it certainly wasn’t “cool” to own one, they were appliances through and through. When GM introduced the dustbuster trio they made a real statement. Sure the out of this world styling was a little too out of this world, and they didn’t catch on with the mainstream. And in 1991 no one predicted that Dodge would eventually redesign their vans to be so much more stylish. But compare a 1991 Silhouette to a 1991 T&C… the Chrysler was frumpy with fake wood paneling and the K-car chassis, the Olds was definitely not your fathers Oldsmobile.
Last year I saw a MINT condition early 90s Silhouette at some dealer lot locally, picked up off a little old lady that lost her license and couldn’t drive it anymore. IIRC it had about 50k miles on it, it was 90s teal green and essentially perfect condition. He wanted about $5k for it I think and I wanted to buy it but my wife said no way she was riding in it instead of our CRV. I still like it better than it’s comparable Dodge vans.
“the Olds was definitely not your fathers Oldsmobile.” – Which proved to be Oldsmobile’s demise.
I could not see the Gen I and II Silhouette as “the Cadillac of minivans,” or even as worthy successors to the Eighty-Eights, Ninety-Eights and Custom and Vista Cruisers that came before it. Too odd or too boring / downmarket.
GM tried hard to make up for the Wave II look alike cars, but producing an oddball to compete with the long-in-the-tooth ’91 Chrysler minis was GM’s second miss at the mini market after the Astro. They moved on to the Conformist era, which proved to be a 3rd strike.
Officially GM didnt sell us these in any flavour but Ive seen an Opel somebody brought one in. Plenty Chrysler minivans about and of course the Japanese makers are prolific with these be thankful you cant obtain some of those, We have all sorts a diesel Vauxhall van passed me in traffic yesterday not an old bomb a newish one I”ll see it again camera is on the centre console.
I worked summers as a lot porter and transporter at a Cadillac/Olds dealership back in college in the early 2000’s, and I drove one of these. I believe mine was a 2002. It drove nice enough (though it felt too heavy), was comfortable, and had a nice stereo, but I remember that they had A LOT of problems. Most it seems had issues with the automatic sliding doors early in life, and usually developed plenty of electrical gremlins right around the time warrantees would expire. To make matters worse, they are apparently death traps in frontal crashes. I agree that, even with all their faults, the Chrysler is a far superior minivan.
My sister-in-law had a ’97 Venture that I once drove to Alabama and back (from Wisconsin). I was pretty impressed with the way it drove and the fuel economy; not so much with the cheesy materials and trim. About four years out it began to self-destruct.
By the way, I will go on record as saying that I think a DustBuster Silhouette would make a rockin’ van-up.
The 1990 Dustbuster is just an extreme “one-box design”. The 1986 Ford Transit already had that, so we were used to it, more or less….
I remember the original Dustbusters very well, in the early nineties it was certainly not a real exotic.
Pontiac Trans Sport was their name here.
Despite looking like a dustbuster I found the styling on the earlier ones far more refined and contemporary than these. I thought these were far uglier with the bulbous styling all around and that hideous front end treatment. As ugly as the 97+ Malibu and 95+ Lumina. I don’t know what happened with GM but the styling language changed completely from what they were making prior to these. I’d take the earlier one in a heartbeat and if I wanted to upgrade, as you said, check out Chrysler’s offerings or even Honda. Frumpy, frumpy, frumpy!
These are way smoother and refined than anything Chrysler produced. They were classy when new. Sure they might not look so pretty now that they’re 16 years old. Today they suffer from head gasket and transmission failures (Chrysler much?), but the first several years were trouble-free miles. We bought one of the last ($35k, 10 years later, extremely low maintenance to this day [1 new battery, 1 new set of tires, 1 set of new brake pads]):
These Silhouettes were nice. Yours almost looks like a Final 500 Silhouette, but the black cherry paint on those was a bit darker and the chrome wheels were a different style. Back in December 2003 on one of our last family vacations, my folks rented a brand-new Trans Sport for us to use. It had only a couple of hundred miles on it, and it was a smooth way to check out all the historic missions and other points of interest. It was a medium sand color with metallic beige cladding and a tan interior–like this one (image: rodandtara.com).
I love our dark red/maroon and glad to not have the near-purple Final 500 (I can’t say I’ve ever seen one, although knew they existed–Olds fan here!). The paint still shines like new with a near-mirror finish 😀 with MINIMAL cleaning (hard-water washes and never once waxed). These higher-dollar GM products are a testament to their capabilities. For all the haters!
The 3100/3400 V6 engines mostly suffered from failed intake manifold gaskets that would let coolant into the engine and slowly destroy the cam, cam bearings or worse the bottom end. We have done oodles if intake gaskets on these motors and never once saw a head gasket fail after doing the intake. We did see cracked heads on overheated examples however but for the most part replacing the failed factory gasket with a new one kept these engines alive for many more years.
Brendan, that color interior was also briefly offered on first generation Dodge Intrepids (and I think Chrysler Concordes). They were rare though. I also saw it on second generation Ford Tauruses and Mercury Sables.
The willow green interior on my ’97 Crown Vic isn’t too far away from that color, though it’s cloth and I don’t think that color was available in the leather. Ford in particular kept unusual interior colors as options well into the late 90’s, though perhaps not as late as this Silhouette. In fact the interior color is, to me, about the only redeeming thing about the van.
I have a fair amount of experience with the cars in the article, when these were popular all of us (friends, neighbors and siblings) were raising our kids. I think I was in every permutation of a popular minvan back then. I have to add to the chorus praising the Chrysler minivans, they did it best, even with the mechanical problems that would occur.
My own history with the U-vans is my three Pontiac Azteks, but I had a friend of mine who recently lost his long lived Astro van in a traffic accident. He replaced it with a LWB Montana van. I initially advised against it as I didn’t think it had much trailering capability, but my friend who runs a small-scale landscaping business looked into the matter and found that his towing needs would not exceed the capabilities.
I had a co-worker from a previous job who had a Chevy Venture van for 12 years and some 250K miles; all on the original tranny. The engine suffered from the whole head/intake gasket/antifreeze problem, but aftermarket parts and a good mechanic took care it. By the time she was done with the car (three kids and two dogs!) it was a biohazardous mess, but she sold it to some business that wanted to use it for deliveries…
As with my Azteks, I liked the way the U-vans drive and ride. The steering and brakes seem good, but the 3.4 seems to run out of breath about halfway through the rev range. You can get it up to 80 MPH, but much more than that and it seems like it’s working hard. I know they had a bad reputation and the crash ratings didn’t help, but I still like the short wheelbase versions the best.
By the time we got to the mid-2000’s refresh of these vans, GM had addressed the engine, trans and crash safety issues, but no one cared. We were all crazy about SUV’s by then and even the restyling to make the U-vans seem like SUV’s fell flat on it’s face. A few years ago, during the height of the Global Financial Crisis, there was a car dealer near me that was selling off-lease Montanas and Chevy Uplanders for less than $10K. If I would have had some brains about me, I should have picked one up. You can’t beat the utility of a minivan.
It’s always fun to come back and see what I wrote on some of the subject cars when they come up in rotation again. Amusingly, the Aztek I owned in 2013 was totaled in a car/deer accident in late 2015. I replaced the Aztek with… A 2004 Olds Silhouette.
It was someone’s Grandmother’s car; you could see it had been taken care of pretty well over the years. Almost 18 months in and outside of the normal stuff, brakes, tires, etc., that you end up replacing on a used car, the only oddball thing was the self leveling shocks quit working. My mechanic buddy replaced it for me inexpensively as I was his guinea pig. He had a 2007 Pontiac Montana minivan with a similar issue and he needed a car to practice on.
I’ll drive it anywhere; we’ve loaded it up with adults and gone out to social events. I call it the Party Wagon. Or the Average White Van. Now that we’re putting our house up on the market, it’s been the best pickup truck I’ve ever owned.
I like the fact that it’s easy to get in and out of, I can remember folks telling me that as I aged it would be more difficult to do. It drives like a W-body station wagon and I like the fact that it’s slightly narrower than other vans, as it helps to avoid potholes. Sadly, some of the interior bits are junk; the power window switches are crunchy and finicky and sometimes they work right and sometimes they don’t. I mostly do city driving with the van, but I can’t complain about 19 MPG average. I have to admit, though, as I age, I’m driving slower and far more cautious about things than I used to be. If I drove it like I did 20 years ago, I think the mileage would be worse.
Yup, I’m loving the minivan lifestyle.
The Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna are much much better minivans than any GM, Ford or Chrysler.
No, they’re not. So there! I have a 2010 T&C with not quite 200K on it, the only repairs I’ve done on it were tires, fluid changes, and brake rotors/pads. NOTHING on it has broken, other than when I hit a deer with it. A good friend bought a Sienna at the same time as mine, she paid many thousands more for a 4-cylinder van and so far both sliding doors, the AC and the transmission have broken (all out of warranty). Oh, and I can tow a trailer with mine, and it gets better MPG, too. Oh yeah, and there is a Chrysler dealer in our town, but my friend has had to have her van towed to the nearest big(ish) city to get worked on more than once. Chrysler vans are at least as good, if not better than any others. Which is why I bought a 2016 T&C van last year, so now I have two.
Maybe the Sienna but the Odyssey. Not buying that. We used to see the Honda’s all the time going through the auction lines with bad transmissions, bad engines from people that never knew there were those things called timing belts that needed replacement, inop sliding power doors, non functioning A/C and many other issues. And boy did they rust!
I can also tell many stories on various folks that owned the Honda’s over the years. Yes there were some that were pretty good but more often than not they were troublesome especially those dreadful 5 speed automatics.
I drove an upscale model one of these as a work van and occasional people hauler. Picked it up for a grand back in 2011. It was really spacious and even comfortable on road trips. It was the dedicated vacation vehicle due to the balance of mileage and interior space. From Chicago it served it’s purpose on trips to both Carolinas, Alabama and Washington State. It even had heated seats. However, in early 2015, with about a dozen rolls of carpet padding in the back, the 3.1 motor gave up at around 170,000mi while merging onto 290 into chicago. I liked it but the story is bittersweet. The electrical gremlins were ridiculous and I suspected it didn’t have long anyway. From the wipers getting stuck in the up position when turned off, to power switches working intermittently, to the power sliding door failing and being extremely difficult to open manually.
I had a rental DustBuster Silhouette once and quite enjoyed it. But honestly, all this compare-and-contrast between various minivans goes over my head. In fact, if Brendan had swapped the dashboard shots of the Olds and Chrysler I wouldn’t have been any wiser regarding which was good and which was bad. Disclaimer: we did own a Vanagon for a while.
Not the type of vehicle I would normally leave a comment on, but I like the way Chrysler disguised the door slider track at the base of the side window rather than exposed in the sheetmetal like the subject minivan.
My uncle who used to work for gm, and only bought gms had a 2nd gen transport or Montana after his 1st gen. Compared to that one it was quite plain.
I think minivans are one of the best automobile inventions out there. Too bad they fell from grace and have been pigeonholed as undesirable “soccer mom”-mobiles. God I hate that term…
I know this post is old, but I’ll comment anyway. This version of the Silhouette to me has a rather attractive (albeit conservative) outward appearance with a lower grade interior not befitting of an upper-middle end GM vehicle. I still see these 2nd gen. vans running around the city. Not so much the Olds versions, but mostly Chev models. Plain but reliable powertrains I suspect. More than I can say about late 90s Ford Aerostar models which really are a rare sight these days when they used to be absolutely everywhere.
Soccer mom’s are way cooler if they drive jacked up trucks that they can’t even get into. They do have the right to drive what ever they wish. I have the right to acknowledge how dumb they look doing it.
I agree completely. Setting aside the regressive and sexist connotations of the term “soccer mom”, why should anyone feel ashamed for having children? Why should anyone feel ashamed for purchasing a vehicle specifically designed to best meet their needs?
I suppose the minivan doesn’t lend itself to inspiring escapist fantasies, unlike the SUV that never gets dirty, or the sports car locked in traffic. If only the vans had a standard bumper sticker reading “This vehicle is not the totality of my life”, it might make a few people re-examine their judgements.
Or a sticker saying “I don’t care what you think of my van”.
On second thought, maybe a bumper sticker addressing the the issue protests too much?
To me, being hard to service and unreliable, trumps any complaints about styling on these GM vans.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Look up some reviews on Saturn Fans on the Relay, GM’s last attempt to palm off a corporate minivan as a brand’s people mover offering. Even the hard core say stay away.
I’ve never seen so many of one particular car stranded on the side of the road in LA. And within a year or two of release.
And the irony was, this was right after GM claimed their brands weren’t going to offer any more cars [re-badges] to just have “something to sell in the segment”. Like they said before the Malibu clone Cutlass. And the Pontiac G3.
Happy to hear people have had good service out of these. The final ones were no prizes.
That’s certainly an interesting and unusual perspective. My own automotive tastes are far enough outside the mainstream that I’d be standing on very thin and crackling ice to throw any stones about it, but.
One point on which the ’96-’00 Chrysler minivans and the ’97-’04 GM excrescences are solidly comparable: they both have grossly lousy headlamps.
It’s not a van, or even a car, but 1997-98 Ford F-150/250LDs and Expeditions had a “Willow Green” interior color option, and some of the darker plastic bits were kinda teal. The seats and upholstery were just a green-tinted gray, though. 1999 models dropped this and the “Cordovan” (bordello red) option, leaving only gray, tan, and new black.
That’s a very light example of Willow green. Wonder if the seats were actually lighter in the trucks, or if that photo is just overexposed? Compare to my Crown Vic, which is also allegedly Willow Green. Also a ’97.
My friend had two Silhouette vans before his Buick Terazza’s. One was a green 1998 and the second was a very clean white 2001 with the 16″ chrome wheels and two tone tan leather interior. Both were quite reliable and didn’t suffer any mechanical issues save the usual intake replacement on the 1998. The 2001 had in excess of 150K before he sold it. Both vans did ride and handle well and had the FE3 upgraded suspension and towing package. The Chrysler vans looked a tad sharper but we always thought both these and the Chrysler twins looked better than any of the stuff coming from Japan. There family liked the Olds well enough to buy two more Buick’s and he still has the 2007 currently with well over 100K miles that still runs and drives as new.
It’s funny how the seller uses quote to highlight the model year.
Using quotes means it’s an opinion or ‘allegedly’ a 1999, 😉
I was literally just thinking that. Long-distance telepathy?
My HOA routinely uses quotes to highlight rules on flyers. I want to say “so this rule is an opinion? ” 😉
The 1990-96 Lumina APV, Pontiac Transport and Old’s Sillouette were actually very safe vehicles with their rigid space frames. Nonetheless they were typical GM ware of the day: crap. A very dark period for GM.
I’m utterly amazed at what incredible death traps the 1997-04 GM vans are!!! These things were “designed” with young families with children in mind?!?!?!?!?! A lot of good seatbelts and airbags will do you when the entire cabin is obliterated in a minimal crash. What junk!
As for the Chrysler minivans they’ve got a pretty ragged reputation, not so much for safety, but for the fact that Chrysler builds some of the most unreliable transmissions on the planet.
I had a brand new 1996 Dodge Caravan that was a comfy, roomy, cruiser until the transmission went dead while I was backing up my driveway. A failed transmission at 8,500 miles!
Replaced the tranny under warranty and that one failed at around 40,000 miles when the reverse gear failed– again! This time while I was backing out of a parking lot. Nice, eh?
In and between I had numerous electrical glitches, warping rear brake drums (this was a frequent problem), gear shift indicator fell behind instrument cluster, parking brake lever snapped off twice, alignment problems, rear hatch leaked, AC system full of black mold, and hands down the worst headlights of any car I ever owned. How could the DOT pass such an inferior headlamp design?!
I traded my very untrustworthy Caravan in on a new Honda Odyssey which was night and day compared to my Caravan. Not one single problem arose with my Odyssey; in fact, it’s still my daily driver clocking in at 198,000 miles. And it runs and looks like new.
One shouldn’t wonder why Honda’s Odyssey and Toyota’s Sienna are the best selling and most sought after minivans.?
My Mother owned a Chrysler Minivan from the 1996-2000 model timeframe and it was the most troublesome vehicle she ever owned….constantly needed repairs…..the air conditioning broke down twice in her ownership, necessitating costly repairs each time…..She got tired of it and traded it in on a 2008 Toyota Corolla…and has not regretted getting rid of the van….I drove that van a few times….It had the 3.3 6 cylinder and the van could have used more power…..It felt like driving a school bus….The engine would wind up and roar in first gear, and was left behind in traffic unless you flogged it to keep up.
My biggest issue with the GM U platform vans (besides the horrific crash test results) was the lame setup for folding down the rear seats. By this time, other minivans had a big well behind the third row, deep enough to store luggage sideways on end. When the 3rd row seat wasn’t needed, it folded back into that well creating a flat, low floor. Some vans (including Chryslers) had fold-into-the-floor 2nd row seats as well. But not the GM vans, which later would try to disguise the absence of fold-into-the-floor 3rd row seating by raising the floor inside the tailgate so the 3rd row could fold *forward* and create a flat floor. But this flat floor would be over half a foot above the real floor.
> One unique feature about this van that I can compliment is the availability of a teal-color leather interior. Also available on the first-generation Olds Aurora, I haven’t seen this color in any other contemporary car.
Ford briefly offered a teal interior in Fords and Lincolns around this time; it looked quite striking in a Mark VIII.
On the windshield, says “1999”. As if the van is allegedly a 1999 model, or that it’s someone’s opinion that it’s a ’99.
😉
My HOA uses quotation marks to highlight things in memos, but not meant for highlighting, but quoting someone.
Am I the only person who actually loves the look of the original Olds Silhouette vans? They look like a star trek shuttle and personally i am here for that. on the other hand, i don’t care at all about the 2nd gens.
The U minivans are still on sale GM China, newer versions as the Buick GL8.
Not sure how much of the earlier U body is used in new models, though, but still called the “U Platform”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_GL8#Second_generation_(2010-present)
Fun fact, the second generation Aurora had a VERY rarely ordered “mint parfait” interior color option (code 432) which was a light teal. I have seen exactly one picture of an aged example. Each and every interior material had faded to a slightly different shade of greenish tan that just looked like a tan interior had not only aged poorly, but a bit radioactively. It was hideous, available with very few exterior colors, quickly killed due to GM’s inability to match the colors of the different materials, and was probably not a good idea from the beginning. Very odd for 2000-ish GM to offer such an odd and obviously unwanted interior color from the start.
Can we finally put to rest the term “Dustbuster” when referring to the early 90s GM vans. I am so sick of that description. I also don’t understand why those vans still receive so much derision. We want automakers to take risks and when they do we mock and hate the results as to “out of this world”. I loved the radical early 90s GM vans. I commend them for taking a bold risk. My family had 3 Tran Sports and we love them. I just don’t understand the constant mockery.