(first posted 3/15/2014) I wanted to put Classic in quotes in the title, because really, it’s just a dustbuster minivan. But it’s a clean example in that classic late-80s/early-90s Chevrolet maroon, and it survives. And it is the poster child for the question: Why was it so hard for every other automaker to figure out the Chrysler minivan’s charm?
Families nationwide understood the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager immediately: it carried more people and stuff than a wagon with the ease of a traditional van – yet it drove like a compact car. As importantly, even though this was a brand-new genre, its functional design just seemed obvious and right. Of course this is what a minivan should look like. The minivan itself seemed so obvious upon its debut that you wondered why it took until 1983 for somebody to build one.
Yet skulls at Ford and GM remained thick. Their first offerings, the Aerostar and the Astro/Safari, were shrunken rear-wheel-drive vans that drove like trucks. They missed the mark by a mile and didn’t even dent Chrysler minivan sales. GM retrenched first, issuing its Motorama-riffic U-platform vans, of which the Chevrolet Lumina APV led the way. (The pictured Olds Silhouette was the upscale version.)
The Lumina APV was part of the Lumina family of cars. Chevrolet advertising even called it “the family Lumina,” slyly identifying the target market while also linking two unrelated platforms, bodies, and styling. Wildly unrelated styling.
America didn’t buy it. We didn’t buy it last decade either when Ford tried it with the Taurus sedan and Taurus X crossover, even though those vehicles shared a platform. We can accept a two-door, a four-door, and a wagon as being in the same family, but we feel it in our bones: minivans and crossovers are just different vehicles.
Wikipedia photo
GM might have been better off making its first car-based minivan on the Lumina’s new W platform with a look that bore a family resemblance to the sedan. They might have needed to lengthen that platform a bit, as its 109.8-inch wheelbase was no match for Chrysler’s 112-inch wheelbase. That was the short Chrysler wheelbase version, by the way; seven inches were added for the long-wheelbase version introduced in 1987. But maybe this whole line of reasoning is moot, as the Lumina wasn’t properly suited up to fight the class-leading Ford Taurus anyway and ended up being mostly a fleet queen. We covered that here.
GM did try to get one thing right by making only six-cylinder engines available. Chrysler’s first minivans were saddled with available fours that were probably adequate in the Aries/Reliant but weren’t entirely up to the task of lugging the much heavier Voyager/Caravan around. Even then, the 120-hp 3.1L 60-degree V6 GM chose was considered not to be enough engine for the even heavier Lumina APV.
GM eventually solved that by adding the venerable 3800 to the engine lineup in 1991. If you’ve just got to have a dustbuster minivan, by all means hold out for the 3800. The 3.1 is said to suffer from chronic leaky intake manifold gaskets. The 1996-only 3.4L V6 may offer 10 more horsepower than the 3800, but it does so with less torque and so is said not to perform as well. This 1991 model could have either the 3.1 or the 3800. You know it’s a 1991 because that was the last year for Lumina APV badges on the doors, and the first year for a radio antenna sandwiched between the roof and the headliner rather than attached to the cowl.
Inside, the Lumina APV seems roomy and airy, though that enormous, deep dashboard is disorienting until you get used to it. Amusingly, the headlight and wiper-washer switchgear that flanks the gauge pod were lifted directly from the Beretta. I owned a Beretta for eight years and thought these switches worked surprisingly well. A light and easy finger flick activated the lights or the wipers, and my hands stayed at the wheel. But I’ll bet these switches are a lot farther away from the Lumina APV driver and therefore are less handy.
The seating arrangements were flexible and competitive for the day, especially in higher-trim models where you could get seven separate seats. You still had to remove them to haul cargo; fold-flat seats were yet to come.
But those looks. Da-humn. There was no getting over them. Ford figured it out first with its Windstar in 1994: copy Chrysler as much as you can. GM finally came around in 1997 with its second-generation U-platform minivans, which looked as conventional as could be. But the next year, Toyota would introduce its Sienna and Honda its second-generation Odyssey, both of which would finally challenge Chrysler’s minivan supremacy. Ford and GM never caught up. Ford threw in the towel on minivans in 2007, and GM in 2009. But by then the minivan’s golden age had ended, as crossovers had eaten into their market share. And that’s a market where Ford and GM know how to play.
For more on how automakers struggled to figure out the minivan formula, check out JP Cavanaugh’s excellent four-part series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.
The original Chrysler design is still the one to beat. Today’s minivans are too big and too heavy.
Agree that the 4 banger Chrysler vans were anemic, the joke used to be that they put the rear window defroster on these vans to warm the hands of the passengers who got out to help push the van up the hill.
Everything new is too big and heavy these days. Exception, Fiat 500s, Mini Coopers and the like, but they still have a few hundred pounds of bulk compared to an equivalent vehicle from the ’80s.
The Ford Transit Connect is roughly the size of the original Chrysler minivan. (The new generation finally has a third row.)
And in the Caravan fashion it’s rather anemic. I drive one for work and despise the drivetrain, notably the automatic gearbox. Ugh.
And I’m used to driving slow Volkswagens but at least the gearing lets them get into what limited torque they have.
I’m looking to change jobs and it will be a happy day when I turn in those keys for the last time.
Interesting that Ford doesn’t promote the transit for family use. At least here in Canada.
I’ve only seen one decked out with seats and features suitable to haul a family of five. The owner told me he went out of his way to buy one as he preferred to Transit to any other minivan in its class.
IIRC my moms 91 transport se had the mod seating and each seat folded flat. It made for a very comfy, if a little low seating position. Moms had the 3.1 and while it was weazy it lasted through her ownership and my uncles and finally had to be retired with a little more than 400k km on it. It still ran and drove fine but the windshield was crushed into the dash and at 1500ish dollars it just wasnt worth the cost.
Nice article Jim. I never really became fully used to the Cessna-like experience of looking out over the expanse of the extended space forward of the dash. It was a unique driving experience, until you became used to it. It must have chased some people away in the showroom.
A family friend owned a ’92 with the 3.8 L V-6 that went 450,000 km (279,000 miles) before it was replaced. When I drove it, it seemed sluggish, and felt heavy. But heavy in a good, robust way. They seemed reasonably durable, and the plastic body looked good until the end.
Didn’t strike me at the time, as a high volume minivan. Seemed more a niche vehicle.
A friend bought a loaded Astro in the late 80’s. I’ve never seen a vehicle before or since with such poor build quality. A true POS.
I went to college in Baltimore. In 2001, for a class we were taking, my roommate and I got to tour the GM Broening Highway assembly plant, where they made the Astro/Safari. Our reaction when we found out was “they still make the Astro?”
(The plant has since closed and been torn down and is rumored to be the future site of an Amazon.com distribution center)
In 2004, my seventh grade class had a trip to Washington D.C. We flew into BWI, as we were flying Southwest. On the trip home, just before going through security, we walked by an Astro in the terminal. My first thought was, “Why is there a random old car on a platform?” I then noticed a small sign stating that the Astro was built here! Only then did I realize they were still making the Astro into the 21st century (to 2005, that is).
I’ve always liked the Astro van. Its styling is contemporary, while its drivetrain is old school. I like that. 🙂
I had three different Astros as company cars. The interior gray plastics started out as four or five different shades of gray when new and then faded and diverged into distinct gray ish colors.
Nice treatment on this. It is funny that there are still some really nice ones of these still out and about. This will surprise everyone but there is a part of me that really wants one of these. I have no idea why, but they are odd enough that they appeal to my appreciation of unloveable cars. I believe that I would prefer the Olds or Pontiac version, though, for the orphan factor.
Also funny that even though I was in the middle of the demographic these were aimed at, I don’t believe that I ever actually knew anyone who bought one of these. Not sure if I can say that about any other minivan.
Most Lumina APVs, Trans Sports, and Silhouettes looked good for their lifespans, as their bodies were polymer plastic, with a galvanized roof. So, they’d never show their rust or age, like other cars/vans. Plus, I think they developed a legion of devoted owners who were willing to accept, and embrace, their quirks. The 3.8 version was also quite long lasting, if maintained properly.
Wouldn’t the space frame still rust, though?
Absolutely. But the exterior wouldn’t show it’s age, with rust. Perhaps the fact the exterior still looked good, was added incentive to keep one on the road. Getting the underside rust repaired, if needed.
My ex drives a post-facelift Trans Sport in dark green. Would like to write that one up too but the awkward factor holds me back.
If you do get one, go for it. Never pay more than 3000, even for a good one, because you *will* have to spend $2-300 every 4 months in repairs. Also, make sure you keep the underbody rust free. If you see rust around the two bolts that hold the front subframe to the rest of the body, AVOID. I’ve heard multiple stories of people who were absolutely shocked when their pristine-looking vans suddenly speared out of control because the subframe fell from the body, taking the steering linkage with it. No steering = no control.
I had a 1992 Lumina APV that had 232,000 miles on it when we parted ways and it still ran perfectly (didn’t stay running perfectly, would drop a cylinder on hot days, but always started on 6).
I wonder what the lumina family is driving today?
I loved the styling of the “Dustbuster” vans General Motors offered. My favourite was the Oldsmobile Silhouette and the Pontiac Tran Sport. The only things I didn’t like were that they were front-wheel drive, and the lack of a diesel engine. I’ve always preferred rear-wheel drive, particularly for vans and larger people movers, the same thing for diesel engine over gas. Diesel offers better fuel economy, and more low end torque than that of a similar gas engine.
Jason, you may be the smallest target market ever: the rear wheel drive, manual transmission, diesel powered dustbuster minivan customer. I think all potential buyers could probably fit in a phone booth 🙂
You may be right. I like something that’s old school and new. I like rear-wheel drive and diesel engine, but I also like automatic transmission. 🙂
You must be the guy Toyota made the diesel Previa for that they sold in the UK market.
I wish I was. I’ve ridden in a Toyota Previa, and I loved it. I loved its unusual styling. I like its rear-wheel drive. I’ve never heard of a Previa with diesel engine, though. I’m not even from the UK. I’ve visited there, but I’ve never lived there.
I recall at a motor show how the new “Dustbusters” drew a lot of attention and at the time some positive comments about styling. And then when they went on sale….(crickets chirping)
…maybe because guys go to Motor Shows and their wives pick out the family truckster that they are going to drive every day? I have to think shorter women were put off by that long hood to look over
When our second boy was due to arrive my wife was seriously in my ears about getting a minivan. I disliked minivans of any kind. I asked why not getting a full size conversion van? We have a garage big enough for one. Well, it had to be minivan because that is what families drive today and the word ‘family’ is like the Ace of Spades in any argument we might have.
I tested lots of available minivans in 1995.
The Villager was an open and shut case: open the door, see the retractable seat belt and shut the door.
The Windstar was brand new, no used ones available, and had lousy fuel economy.
The Astro put me off with the cheapest plastic in the industry.
The Aerostar had a nice interior and a 4L engine that squealed the tires.
The APV was the narrowest inside, had a ho hum monochromatic interior but a very nice car like ride. I knew about the intake manifold gaskets. I did not care for the the pre-A pillars in the windshield either.
I checked out 2 Chrysler minivans and both made the same knocking noise in the back. Maybe it was the hatch. There were rumors of failing transmissions.
In the end I decided on an extended Aerostar because it was almost as large as a full size van, had the 4L engine and this nice looking interior.
But: over time I noticed that the extended version will not squeal the tires. The cabin was a perfect resonance chamber. The rear HVAC air duct was perfectly routed 3 ” from my left ear. But it was capable of melting crayons and freezing the kids solid. The seat was too high for me (6’8″).
With the rear bench out the van could swallow 5 bikes without removing any parts of them.
Changing the spark plugs required orthopedic surgery adding additional joints to the thoracic extremities, or $180.00, $160 of them labor. I drove it from 23000 miles to 165000 miles.
No doubt, the Chrysler would have been the better choice.
I bought a van the same year. We looked at a Grand Caravan and a Windstar. Fortunately for me, Mrs. JPC also likes to buy cars by the pound, and we got a 1 year old Club Wagon Chateau with a 351 V8. I wrote about it here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1995-ford-club-wagon-chateau-welcome-to-the-club/
A shame you couldn’t get the Mrs. into something a little bigger. I remain convinced that if you could hack the size, there was no better family hauler made at the time.
Thanks for the link, JPC!
The Econoline vans were the best looking vans. It would have been my choice. A neighbor family, whose kids were school and soccer mates with ours, had a red one all along. They still drive it today.
Oh, what could have been….
Plastic fantastic. One family in the neighborhood had a 2nd generation (slightly blunted nose) Pontiac Transport. He had much rusting with his previous vehicles and the plastic paneled Transport was his answer.
I haven’t seen one that looks this nice in years…..I kinda like these, I sold the Pontiac versions when new, close to the end of the 1st generation of these vans, when they were nicer and they had added the electric door, I think these were some of the first power door minivans ever. The wipers on these things were amazing, they were huge.
I bought a 1990 Dodge Caravan new. It was the worst vehicle I have ever owned. The 3.0 Mitsubishi V6 used prodigious amounts of oil from day one, the electric windows broke as if on schedule, and the other components failed with the expiration of the warranty. By the time I was on my third transmission at 50 k miles, I had had it. A friend bought a dustbuster. The fit and finish was outstanding. The individual seats were comfortable and light so it was easy to reconfigure the interior, something the Dodge resisted. Too bad the dustbusters looked so strange as they were the better product. The Dodge was my last Chrysler vehicle.
Personally, I’ve always suspected that the dustbuster styling of the Lumina / TransSport / Silhouette was an exaggeration of the shape of the original Renault Espace. There are some definite similarities there, particularly in profile – looking at the way that the nose and windscreen are raked at the same continuous angle on both vehicles makes it clear that even though the GM minivans weren’t necessarily a direct crib of the Renault, someone in the styling department was certainly paying attention to it. Ford sort-of did the same thing with the Aerostar, but not to anywhere near the same extent as GM.
And in a way it’s a shame that the original Espace never made it to the US – it may have been down on power compared to its equivalent American counterparts, but drove well and was incredibly versatile inside.
While in France on a business trip in 1990, I met the Espace, as they say here on CC, “in metal” or something like that. I was quite smitten. I don’t think that minivans need prodigious power to serve their purpose. I rode with a friend in her 4 cyl Caravan from DC to a soccer tournament in Virginia Beach and I don’t recall any of our teammates getting there any faster than we. My 1990 Caravan, as I recall, weighed 3300 lbs (1500 kg) and was a good long distance tourer, as well as my wife’s daily assault vehicle in Washington, DC traffic. She loved it. My 2004 Odyssey weighed 4350 lbs (1975 kg) but could still catch the unaware flatfooted in the occasional stop light grand prix. The new Odysseys weigh 4650 lbs (2110 kg). No longer a soccer mom van, just an overweight porker having lost sight of its original mission.
Not only does this van look nice, the owner has managed to keep the windshield wipers working. I have lost count of the number of GM minivans, and Cavaliers I have seen with the wipers standing upright on the windshield, instead of parked at the bottom of the windshield.
America didn’t buy it. We didn’t buy it last decade either when Ford tried it with the Taurus sedan and Taurus X crossover, even though those vehicles shared a platform. We can accept a two-door, a four-door, and a wagon as being in the same family, but we feel it in our bones: minivans and crossovers are just different vehicles.
I think the T-Rex’s problem was that it looked like a conventional station wagon. SUV drivers want bulk, and the T-Rex was so well proportioned that, from a distance, it looked like a station wagon, not an SUV. The Edge came out in 07, and looked bulkier, the Flex came out in 09, and looked longer. With three models in the same segment, the best proportioned one, neither too long nor too high, was forgotten, joining conventional station wagon variants of sedans in extinction. The current generation Edge and Explorer look even bulkier than the models of a few years ago.
Even though the Edge is still using the old body, they made it look bigger by giving it a bigger, more agressive, grill. The Explorer stands higher and, with it’s raised beltline, looks much bulkier than the previous generation. The Edge and Explorer each sell in five times the numbers of the less bulky appearing Flex.
You hit the nail on the head, Steve, about the T-Rex. I’m still amazed whenever I see one because they look so huge next to other cars, and yet they are so well-proportioned you don’t notice their size when they are on their lonesome.
I personally think the DustBuster minivans are super cool-looking, but I want to sit in one to see what they’d feel like to live with.
I’m still amazed whenever I see one because they look so huge next to other cars,…you don’t notice their size when they are on their lonesome.
Even standing right in front of a T-Rex, it doesn’t seem that imposing, hood height really seems pretty normal. Sitting in it at a traffic light, my hood was about at the same height as the trunk lid of a Fusion or Taurus sedan sitting in front of me. It’s when you walk around back and the roof line is nearly as high as my 6′ self that you notice the size.
I also noticed the size when I tried to get it into my condo garage, or get myself in or out of it, in that garage. I loved it once I was on the road, with lots of room, but as a daily driver it was a pain.
I also noticed the size when I waxed it, like I did when I took this pic last summer.
I found while driving a Lumina APV, your attention isn’t 100% focused on what is beyond the windshield and the road in front of you. As there is this large, carpeted bunk-sized expanse in front of your dashboard. With large triangular vent window-like glass to either side of you. It gave the sensation of driving with the front seat moved as far back as it will go towards the rear seat. There’s enough room in front of the dash where a child (or dog) could have slept there, while you drove. It’s a bit of a reach to vacuum up there.
This driving experience alone made the Dustbusters unique. Let alone the exterior styling.
Although I have heard of complaints about the dash disappearing behind the instrument panel, I wouldn’t know, since I’ve never driven one. But I’ve always liked how they looked.
You don’t even notice there’s 5 feet of dashboard ahead of you because a normal windshield/hood arrangement places you just as far from the edge of the vehicle. You DO notice in snow storms that you’re driving while looking out of the front picture window from the dining room. No wipers on the corner windows.
Rented the Pontiac version in 1996 for a trip from Rhode Island to Albany, New York for a bowling tournament carrying 5 guys and their bowling equipment. That electric blue van was a police magnet for some unknown reason. First, I was stopped on the way there for doing 78 in a 65 zone. Then I got pulled over for supposedly going through a red light which all my passengers confirmed was clearly yellow at the time. Then on the last day there I got a ticket for not having a seat belt on (which I didn’t know was a law in NY at the time). Needless to say the van was roomy and comfortable and made the trip easy. But my bowling buddies to this day still laugh about that trip in the weird looking van!
Seems like my post didn’t show up the first time so here we go again.
I gotta say GM’s “dustbuster” vans are my favorite people carriers of them all to be honest. Maybe the fact that I don’t always have the image of a vacuum cleaner in front of me when seeing one helps, but I think they look very sleek and distinctive for their time, even today. Unfortunately the facelift using the headlights of a Pontiac Bonneville completely ruined the look and the second generation is as bland as minivan can be (Chrysler’s third gen Caravan of the same year looked miles more attractive). I guess that’s what you get when following the public’s opinion too closely, and doing it half-assed in the progress. But yeah, I think the Lumina APV and its siblings are definitely worthy curbside classics and deserve the recognition. I shall go now and search for a nice clean and loaded Olds Silhouette…
Anyone not heed the warning on the front doors? I have.
Ouch!
The woman would forget constantly. She is convinced it hated her! When I let her drive it, she ran the battery out twice and it always threw the right side wiper blade off the car, and ALWAYS during a snow storm. It never did any of that with me lol
That’s crazy! She either forgets to turn everything off when she leaves the van, or there was something wrong with the battery, because most times the battery shouldn’t go dead.
The horror, … the horror !
Daughter had the olds silhouette and SIL had an astro. Hers was pretty dependable but his showed the effect of being ridden hard and put away wet (like all his stuff). Still preferred the chev to the olds because of the truck based thing. Hers was a 3800 and worked well. They are both long gone and I don’t think they are lamented.
In less than a year, Chrysler may have their next generation minivan on the market, and the version for Dodge is a sort of minivan ‘crossover’. If the renderings are correct, it looks enough like GM’s old dustbusters to wonder if they were ahead of their time.
Of course, the new Chrysler versions may have features that that the old GM’s could only dream about, like trick sliding doors, easier fold into the floor seats, AWD, and even a long-awaited hybrid version.
Hmm…….Ford C-max.
Then again, all vans (mini and others) have these sloping front ends now. The only question is how gaping the mouth of the beast is.
The problem with first-gen minivans except Chrysler is that they said “hey, our big vans are made by the truck division. Make them do a minivan”. So the Aerostar got based off the Ranger chassis and the Astro got the S-10 chassis to start from. That’s why they drove like a truck. They were BASED on them.
The Lumina APV was just way too futuristic space-alien then as much as now. They designed them from the outside in. Take a Lumina front subframe, give it the biggest box it will hold, style the exterior, then worry about the inside using parts bin pieces. That’s how we got the mondo huge dashboard. The engine is ahead of the axle on the Lumina transaxle, giving it a long snout and practically forcing them to put the base of the windshield so far forward. Anything else and the front tire would intrude on the door’s legspace making it hard to get in and out of. They didn’t think about what it would be like to drive that odd thing. The windshield couldn’t be wrapped so aggressively around that corner to meet the door so we got those strange a-pillars instead.
Indeed the Beretta-based controls didn’t work well when the steering column is longer. No-longer-fingertip controls become annoying. The doors that swoop back at the top to look good when closed become hazardous flying corners at eye-level when opening. Even my mother’s Lumina sedan had problems knocking you in the jaw if you weren’t watching. Having the door handle so far forward from the rear edge of the door only encouraged you to get closer to that face-smacking zone.
These vans were not based on the Lumina platform. The front 3/4s of the platform were the A/X body . Just think of them as what they were. A Citation Van.
Sorry the Aerostar was not based off of the Ranger, though they did share a couple of engines and transmissions. The Ranger of the era had the classic twin I beam front suspension, leafs out back and a full frame while the Aerostar had unequal length A arms up front and a 3 link coil spring rear suspension and is a unibody.
Two of my most reliable vehicles are/were a 1998 Safari and a 1994 Ford Ranger. They are not just reliable but rugged. Last year I had an accident in the 1994 Ranger, I skidded into a new Toyota Tundra. Damage to the Tundra were $3700. Damage the the Ranger $300.
Christmas of 1989 or 1990 (can’t remember which) I rented a Dodge Caravan because our car, 1979 Toyota Corona wagon wasn’t big enough to hold my family plus my parents. On one of those days I took the Caravan to run an errand and as I leaving the parking lot onto the street I stepped on the gas and got a little surprise, the tires squealed as the van picked up speed. I thought that was a little suspicious coming from a 4 banger. When I got home I started looking around the van and a found a small badge “Turbo”.
Some say that the astro/safari twins are based off the s10 trucks, but to me I think the stuff that makes them tough is the parts from 1/2 trucks & heavy duty B bodies. The front suspension & brakes are more stout then the s10 parts.
Those turbo Caravans are some of the most coveted and hard to find creatures around. There are videos on youtube of a guy drag racing his bone-stock apart from a slight increase in boost and slicks on the front wheels. He wins with it, too.
You neglected Toyota’s misfire, the Previa. It was a mid-engine mistake – so much so that Toyota changed the name here.
Ooh, how could I forget the Previa?
Our neighbor had one. This is one of the hardest engines to work on ever.
The Aerostar and Astro didn’t make a dent in Caravan/Voyager sales? For a number of years the Aerostar was the the best selling single name plate minivan. Yes Caravan/Voyager sales combined were larger than the Aerostar, so Chrysler sold more minivans total, at least for awhile. Once the Villager and Windstar joined the line up FoMoCo was the reigning minivan sales king for a number of years.
I’d take the Aerostar and the Astro any day over the Caravan, the Windstar, or even today’s front-wheel drive vans. Maybe it is old school, but that’s how I’ve always felt about cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs.
Mentioned this article to a friend of mine who unbenounced to me owned a Dustbuster (Pontiac Transport) back in the 90s. When it blew its head gasket he got a used Pontiac Montana and when that dropped its tranny he traded it in for an even worse used Ford Windstar. Talk about a death spiral. His local mechanic was a Phillpino guy who finally said “You have a good job, why you drive such crappy cars?”
And, yes he said he did hit himself in the head with the door once with the Transport.
Sounds like your friend needs to do his homework and stop listening to salesmen.
I remember when the GM vans, the Chevy Lumina APV, the Pontiac Trans Sport, and the Oldsmobile Silhouette first hit the market. They were the most modern looking vehicles GM had produced. My favourite of the three was the Olds Silhouette. I liked the “Dust Buster” front end styling. The only thing I didn’t care for was the front-wheel drive. I’ve never been a fan of front-wheel drive. Don’t ask me why, I couldn’t tell you. I just do.
I buy used. Vans, mini or otherwise, aren’t an option. The engines are all buried in a hole. Who’s going to work on them? Or pay a shop? Not me!
Now the first generation Chrysler minivans didn’t have this problem. I could probably live with one if their automatics weren’t a ticking time-bomb! In 1998, my brother bought a low miles ’84 Voyager. In two months, the tranny died, and his van became a storage-shed for the next twelve years!
A friend and diehard GM lover has a loaded 2003 Astro with the worst front passenger accommodation and legroom. He’s always fixing or ‘improving’ something on it.
Happy Motoring, Mark
The Astro outlasted many newer designs, both in production and on the street, because it found an unintended niche as a small delivery or tradesman’s vehicle. It had the ruggedness of a truck but the maneuverability of a minivan… A winning combination for a lot of commercial applications. While the early Astros may have suffered quality problems, later ones were bulletproof.
I see way more Astro survivors than any 1985-2010 minivan…the majority still used as work vehicles long after their more modern brethren have done family duty and gone to the junkyard.
I agree with this. The Astro was not a direct competitor to the fwd vans. It was far more capable for serious loads, work and towing, and was more durable accordingly.
I have an ’05 Astro that has gone 266,000 miles but still runs like a champ on the original engine & transmission. I saw another one on I-20 pulling a travel trailer this past weekend. Can your Grand Caravan–SAFELY–do that? There are still potential buyers for this vehicle and over 1600 people (me included) have signed a petition on change.org for GM to bring it back. The only vehicle now that’s even REMOTELY close to it in size & capability (in the US anyway) is the Mercedes-Benz Metris, but those aren’t near as common & they’ll be much more expensive to work on.
Every other minivan nowadays will work well enough for most people (unless they’ve caught SUV fever) but there are certain people who still appreciate the older designs for their natural inherent strengths–hence the reason for existing in the first place. The time of the minivan was very much like the time of the earliest automobiles or even the first steam locomotives (Stephenson’s Rocket being the most notable example)–many people had their own ideas of how the vehicle should be made–and some designs just happened to prevail over all the others.
I’m also part of a company which has many vehicles. We have never bought a truck new and we intentionally look for pre-2008 without the regen which is a freaking nightmare.
The main feature is after a dozen years, what is the more reliable is easy to figure out. All the bad stuff has already been junked. Who remembers who awful the GM 6.2 diesels were? They are all gone.
Need a good, high quality truck that is reliable as a stump? Well, a decade of service and you’ll know.
nice write up Jim, just one thing…………..the Astro van is still seen almost daily(here in NYC)the only other mini van that is seen as regularly(maybe a bit more)is the 1996 to 2000 Chrysler mini vans. Most owners swear by their Astro vans. so i would say GM got it right with that van…………..the Lumina apv………..or any other GM mini van……..not so much.
Another very old minivan defying its age and still frequently seen in the wild is the 1993-2002 Nissan Quest. Despite those vans being 20 years old, a lot of businesses still use them, especially in theLatino and Asian immigrant communities.
That same van was also sold by Ford as the Mercury Villager, & I still see those occasionally also.
So, the dustbuster vans didn’t exactly hoover up the competition…
I rented a Pontiac dustbuster with which I drove myself and three others through a snowstorm, and those triangular windows in front of the A pillar were constantly getting covered with snow creating a huge blind spot that the wipers couldn’t reach. Those wipers by the way were of the clapping style that moved like those in a 1950s car, toward and away from each other rather than in parallel, though with more overlap. They left a significant unwiped area below where the wipers rested when not in use. Even when driving in dry weather, the sensation of having the windshield so far away was offputing, feeling like you were driving from the back seat. Later models had a reshaped dash top designed to lessen that effect.
I saw the early concept version of the Trans Sport at Epcot Center’s World of Motion attraction which was truly futuristic looking; some of which was lost in the translation to a production vehicle though they came much closer here than with the later Aztek.
You mentioned the clapping style wipers like those in the 50’s. There must have been significant issues with these because I recall seeing many dustbusters with the wipers in the off position where the arms were not parked in the off position. Usually they were stopped right in the driver’s line of vision.
These were still around when I was working for a GM dealer. The first time I was in one it kind of shocked me as it was much like looking down the nose of the Concorde. The real problem we had with them was cleaning the inside of that huge windshield. A Swiffer worked better than anything. As an advisor, I’d personally clean and glass or chrome the lot boys had missed.
Loaded up to the hilt, my 1987 Voyager 3.0 litre could pull through most situations. I said most. Except that one time when she was loaded with seven adults, and the light turned green and I stepped on it, and the tranny said, “Oh no you don’t, pal, not this time.” About the loudest bang as ever has been heard in one singular stroke told me immediately that she was done for.
Upon reflection, I had to think back to the sales guy when I was buying the van, trying to sell me the four banger with the turbocharger. I already had a K car with the four banger, I knew it would not be enough to motivate the minivan.
I have no complaints about the Voyager, eleven years of service. I got another to replace it.
A neighbour had the Pontiac version of the Lumina. He loved it, and he kept it a good long time, so it must have been reliable for him. I found it telling though, somehow, that he replaced it with a Honda van, after offering to buy my Caravan.
Poor 1991 GM. If the ’80’s were bad for GM, they were not quite as bad as the early ’90’s turned out to be. GM had quite a few sales successes in the ’80s, but nothing panned out well in the ’90’s. I’m sure in 1991 they thought they were finally shed of Roger Smith’s quirky leadership, but then ran slap out of inspiration and good ideas.
The W bodies, GM’s Bread and butter, were by this time an unqualified failure. Saturns were selling, but were showing that they would never be profitable. The Corsica and Beretta had quickly become fleet specials. The revised N cars were uglier, vastly more expensive, and technological throwbacks compared to the cars they replaced. The C/H replacements did ok but were not leaps forward and didn’t bring in new customers. Geo flopped. The new Caprice flopped due to Shamu looks and cost. The Reatta flopped. Chrysler and Ford were readying segment conquering Explorers and Grand Cherokees and GM’s elderly Blazer was left to face much more advanced competition. A long and fascinating debate can be had as to when, exactly, GM reached the point of no return, but 1991-1992 would definitely loom large as a marker on GM’s path to death.
As for the Astro/Safari, those were vehicles GM should have definitely developed and refined. Last made in 2005, I still see a LOT of these in daily corporate service. Apparently they hit a very useful niche as a reasonably sized tradesman/work vehicle with durability, cost of use, and driveability compared with either a full sized van or a FWD minivan. I’m sure they drive much better than a full sized van and get into tighter spaces, while offering comparable interior room.
I inherited a ‘91 Silhouette with 65,000 mile on it, exactly like the silver one in the story photo. While I never would have purchased one, it turned out to be a long-lived, reliable vehicle which served us well for nearly 14 years. I comfortably towed a light trailer loaded with my gyrocopter all over Florida, Idaho and Washington. It did cook alternators at 40,000 mile intervals, but they gave plenty of warning and were an easy 15 minute swap out. The daughter took it to college where, as it turned out, it was so dorky it was cool for shuttling around sorority girls to various events. We all have fond memories of it.
hey holden – you could have a coupe instead of a family car …. – still waiting for a kit to upgrade a Holden Commodore (VP) to a lumina
“But those looks. Da-humn.” I don’t understand why people hate these vans so much. I love them. I still think they are stylish and were ahead of their time. I admit the interiors could have been better, they didn’t age well. But overall, I would love to own one. My family had three Pontiac versions, all purchased band new. Our second, a top level model in maroon with matching interior, was a beauty. Had the 3800 V6. I loved that van. So tired of these things being based. I think it’s because it’s trendy now to hate them. So sick of the “dustbuster” moniker.