(first posted 5/20/2016) GM struggled in many market sectors during its decades-long decline, but none more than the minivan segment. Given that this segment was expanding rapidly, had high transaction prices and healthy profit potential, GM’s utter failure to find any success in it is almost bizarre and inexplicable, but GM ended up walking away from the minivan market after consistently under-performing. Why?
There are two primary reasons GM vehicles have failed. They either arrived with deadly flaws in their quality/reliability, like the Vega, Citation and quite a few other models. Or they were conceived in GM’s notorious bubble of hubris, where its product planners and designers were seemingly perpetually stuck in a Jetsons-Futurama mind set, convinced that they could wow Americans with more advanced design and technology. What Americans really want is a minivan that looks like a space shuttle! Not.
It’s not like minivans or compact vans were an alien concept to GM. In fact GM pioneered the idea of the modern American FWD minivan, way back in 1955 with their GMC L’Universelle concept (DKW had been building their FWD Schnellaster minivan since 1949). It was shown in GM’s traveling three-ring circus, the 1955 Motorama. Like so many GM concepts, it had lots of wow factor, but was intrinsically and profoundly flawed. As in: it couldn’t even move under its own power.
The L’Universelle had a front-mid mounted Pontiac V8 engine, which in theory drove the front wheels through a transaxle. Said transaxle was actually non-functioning, so the L’Universelle was a “pusher”, meaning it had to be pushed from its transporter into the Motorama exhibit hall,
just like GM’s other FWD concept in 1955, the LaSalle II roadster. Look America; we already have two non-functioning FWD vehicles! Just wait until 1980 when we start building non-functional FWD cars by the millions!
The L’Universelle’s lack of a working transaxle was just as well. Its roof-mounted intakes for the inboard radiators was undoubtedly equally impractical. It’s not like it ever had a chance to be tested…
What shall we make of the 1961 Corvair Greenbrier? It too was a commercial dud, but it’s story is a bit more complicated. It had many redeeming qualities, and we sang its praise here. But it wasn’t what the van market was asking for, which was then focused on more utilitarian truck-like vans, rather than refined passenger-car like ones. The Ford Econoline had the right idea, if not the right dynamic qualities. But during the 60s and 70s, if Americans wanted a big, roomy family hauler, they turned to station wagons.
That all changed explosively, beginning in 1984, thanks to Chrysler’s new minivans. The combination of higher gas prices and a new generation of young baby boomer parents who didn’t want to drive the wagons they grew up in made these very compelling, and Chrysler struggled for years to keep up with demand.
Clearly the appeal of the Chrysler minivans was their unparalleled space utilization and flexibility combined with genuine passenger-car dynamics and economy. This was the recipe; and their styling was as utilitarian as their function.
And no major maker could afford to not compete in this explosive new segment; most of all, GM.
So what did they come up with? A classic GM Motorama solution, and about as practical as the glass-bubbled turbine-engined Firebird II. The 1986 Pontiac Trans Sport concept was a space cadet’s version of a minivan, with a giant glass bubble front end, and…
Fold-up gull wing doors! Ask Tesla how good of an idea those are. Ok, it was a classic GM show-circuit concept, but the direction it pointed to in terms of their eventual production minivan was highly questionable.
Needless to say, some of those features didn’t exactly make it into the production minivans, which arrived in the fall of 1989 for the 1990 model year. But some did, all too obviously. There were three versions: Chevy’s Lumina APV,
Pontiac’s Trans Sport,
and the Olds Silhouette.
They were clearly all the same except for slight changes to the front end styling and other details, like Pontiac’s trademark exaggerated side cladding of the times.
The most obvious feature of these vans are their extremely long noses, the huge low-slope windshield, and the set-back front seats. The combination of the three created a very distinctive visual effect from the outside that caused them almost instantly to be dubbed “Dustbusters”.
The effect from the front seats was also disconcerting, as there was a ledge in front of the dashboard that seemed to go on for eternity, creating the feeling of sitting in the second row of more typical minivan. It would have made a nice platform for a bed if these were autonomous.
OK; from the perspective of today, none of this seems quite so radical anymore, but the key thing is that most car buyers are actually rather conservative. They’ll get there eventually, but don’t rush them. Which is exactly what GM was doing. And buyers resisted it.
It was the 1934 Chrysler Airflow all over, a mistake all of Detroit vowed never to make again. But GM just couldn’t resist.
Fortunately, GM committed only one of its two typical deadly sins with these, as they are generally considered to be reasonably reliable, given their source. The plastic exterior body panels don’t rust, and the GM V6 engines and transaxles of this era are mostly free of serious issues. The first few years were only available with the 120 hp 3.1 L V6, making them none to exciting or sporty, despite their looks or names. The 3800 V6 came along a few years later, which made them about as well-powered as any of the minivans of the times.
The negative reaction to the exaggerated long nose was all-too obvious, and GM made a rather desperate attempt to make the front end look a bit more conventional with a 1994 restyle on the Lumina and Trans Sport, cutting their noses by three inches and grafting more upright Bonneville-type lights to them. But look how utterly disjointed that only slightly-changed front bumper looks. This came from the GM Design Center?
GM knew these were a (dust)bust, and made one of the most resolute 180 degree turns in design history. Don’t like adventuresome styling in a minivan? We’ll give you the most conservative, dull and boring minivan the world has ever seen! And so they did, with the new 1997 generation, which gave the Chevy version the new name of Venture. As if. These are the most forgettable, generic boxes on wheels ever made. When is the last time you noticed one?
These new U-platform minivans were designed in conjunction with Opel, as the Chrysler minivans were hot in Europe, along with the Renault Espace and even the Euro-version of the Trans Sport.
That was actually a Olds Silhouette with Pontiac badging, and with four cylinder gas and diesel engines. Of course the French loved it; GM was barking right up their tree.
Opel wanted in too, with the Sintra, so with their input, this new generation was narrower than would have been otherwise the case. That did not help in the US, as everything was inevitably getting bigger. But the poor passive safety ratings of these new GM vans in Europe and the US tanked the Sintra in safety-conscious Germany all-too quickly, and now GM was stuck with an overly-narrow van for the US.
With perfect GM timing, this all happened one year after Chrysler unleashed their new minivans for 1996, which went in exactly the opposite direction. They were much more dynamically styled, with a more aerodynamic sloped hood and windshield, and they were decidedly larger (and wider) too. But incrementally so, not radically. GM had totally screwed themselves by trying to imitate a more than ten-year old design. It’s comparable to GM benchmarking the gen1 Honda Accord for their new J-Car Cavalier, which then came out after the much improved gen2 Accord came out. Not they came close to matching the gen1, for that matter.
It was a death spiral that kept repeating at GM: failing to grasp the real reason why the market leaders were successful, desperately imitating certain aspects of them, falling well short, then making it even worse by retreating to a more defensive position.
The Venture eventually lost its Pep-Boys worthy cheap bright grille, but it was dead meat. It could be found on rental car lots, but who bought a Venture retail? Don’t answer…we don’t disparage owners of cars here.
In 2005, trying (vainly) to catch some of the hot new crossover fever sweeping the land, GM grafted huge new noses on the U-boats, and had the temerity to dub them “Crossover Sport Vans”. Nobody bought into that pathetic ruse. And no need to go into that here, as Brendan Saur has already covered that in GM’s Deadly Sin #24, the Buick Terraza.
The U-Platform also spawned the Buick Rendezvous and Pontiac Aztek; the less said about those two, the better, although the Aztek has become quite fashionable again in certain quarters, thanks to Breaking Bad and the perspective of time. Stephanie now wants one.
We may have seen the last of the U-Platform vans in the US, but they’re still going strong in China, as the Buick GL8. Isn’t it GR8? This is the first generation, built from 2000 to 2010, called the GL8 First Land.
It was restyled in 2010 as the GL8 Business Edition. Isn’t it even GR8er? No worries about it coming back here, though; the platform is too old to meet our safety regs; never mind the marketplace. But it’s nice to know that someone is still appreciating it, and GM must be happy to have gotten some more mileage out of this platform, which has to be one of their oldest still being built.
Well, GM has at least found a modicum of success in the minivan field, even if it is in China. Because it utterly struck out in the US, which has to have been one of their Deadliest Sins ever. No wonder the minivans—I mean Crossover Sport Vans—died in 2009 right along with the parent company. The New GM was thankfully spared that hot mess, and I rather suspect it will be a while before GM considers getting back in the game. If ever.
Related:
I love these first-generation U-Bodies. Are they less practical than the Mopar minivans? Yup. Are they perfect? Nope. But while I generally am indifferent to minivan designs, this one appeals to me. If I had to buy some winter beater minivan, I would get one of these.
Depending on seat position, the driver’s head in a Dustbuster van is at or close to the front-rear centerline of the wheelbase and the vehicle’s overall length. That’s just silly in a vehicle that is supposed to maximize passenger and cargo space.
I always thought the Dust Busters would look fine as a pick up. Remove everything aft of the b’ pillars, whack off the remainder of the roof, close up the space behind the two front seats,fill in the right rear door and, viola, there you have it..It would make a nice Silhouette, if that pun is allowed.
What you’d be left with is something resembling a Tesla Cybertruck. Not sure if you’d call that a styling success.
GM makes some astonishingly ugly cars out of good-looking concepts. When they start cost-cutting they drift so far from what made the concept appealing that they’d be better off starting with a clean sheet.
The Trans Sport concept was pretty slick. If they’d kept that in production, minus the glasshouse roof and gullwing doors, it really would have been something. Instead they ended up with an ungainly mess of weird shapes and impracticalities. It looks like the guy designing the front half wasn’t on speaking terms with the guy designing the back half.
Likewise the Aztek was developed from a concept, but when they cost-cut it onto an ill-suited existing platform it became an ugly freak.
I’ve seen some GM cars in the past 20 yrs. that I find hideous to look at. I’d be embarrassed to be seen in, much less around.
Except for the Chevy and GMC trucks, including the Colorado and Canyon, I find what’s being offered today to be hideous to look at.
Surely the Renault Espace got there first, with a design by Matra, and rejected by Chrysler.
My parents, loyal GM buyers long after they might have switched (a neighbor was a Pontiac salesman), bought a Dustbuster Pontiac with the 3800, and then a 1999 Trans Sport with the 3400. I drove both enough to have impressions.
Didn’t drive the Dustbuster much, but when I did, I had the impression that the thing was overly tippy in turns. I don’t know if it was an optical illusion due to all the flat dash in front of me, or if it really was a wallowing whale. That dash sure was odd.
Took a long trip in the Trans Sport with the family. Was something Dad wanted to do as a last thing we’d all do together (he’d been given a dire diagnosis). The back seats were horribly uncomfortable. The thing drove ok; I didn’t mind driving it. Learned to get the front end set in a corner, don’t know how to describe it; seemed to corner ok for a big vehicle. The engine and transmission were decent performers & gave good economy.
Its downfall was the perpetually leaking intake manifold gasket that had to be repaired more than once, and that it dripped oil on the garage floor from Day 1 & the dealer was no help. The oil turned out to be (as I’ve read here or somewhere) from a blanking disk where the distributor would’ve gone.
Mom went to a Honda CRV when the gov’t bought it for Cash for Clunkers.
Sometimes, the best part of these reposts is reading through 5-year-old comments with the benefit of hindsight.
In a 2016 comment, our esteemed editor wonders why GM is still building “archaic” cargo vans, and why weren’t they importing an Opel? I guess we now know the answer to that one – GM was thinking of selling the entire Opel brand. And they did, so 6 years later, GM is *still* building archaic vans!
On a minivan-adjacent note… I’m sad that the true minivans of the last 20 years, the NV200, Transit Connect, and Promaster City are all dead by 2024. Either they weren’t popular enough or they weren’t profitable enough. Used values are climbing already.
Looking back this article seems to have not aged well. No GM most definitely did not make a successful minivan, but then few outside of Chrysler did. I guess you could call Honda and to a lesser degree Toyota semi-successful, although Toyota would rather not talk about Previa sales numbers. and Honda would rather not talk about transmissions.
Now minivans have become almost irrelevant in today’s SUV and CUV dominated marketplace. Talking about who makes a sucessful minivan is like talking about who makes the best VHS player.
The Lumina APV typifies GM design philosophy-put the money where the customer can see it-namely styling and everything else gets pushed to the back burner. When that vehicle crashed and burned they made an about turn with the 1997 vehicle which looked like a mediocre copy of Chrysler’s original minivan. I have heard stories that the 2005 vans with the huge nose on them were Bob Lutz’s idea being that people were buying SUV’s like crazy and making the van look like one would guarantee success. If that story is true, then Bob Lutz’s career at GM needs a total reevaluation.
And oddly, Hyundai/Kia are trying the exact same gambit with the new Carnival, but no one seems keen to criticize them about it. Probably because the Kia offering is insignificant in this market.
There’s a very big difference: GM just slapped on a fake bulbous front end on their existing (and aged) minivan; the Carnival is a totally new and original design that incorporates some of the best of both minivans and SUVs.
Why should anyone criticize it? It looks good, and is cohesive. Very much unlike those 2005-up GM vans.
Wow I really like that L’Universalle concept van; I see hints of everything from a ’55 Nomad (in the greenhouse) to a ’63 Riviera (the grille – just change to quad headlamps) worked into its design. But then I look at the mechanicals… yeah, I’m pretty sure that design would have any cooling problems in real-life use, lol. It’s like those Jowett Jupiter sports cars that had chronic overheating problems, probably because the the radiator was *behind* the engine instead of in front of it. Apparently no one got a glimpse of these before production began to tell the engineers “hey, you’re doing it wrong!”. The steering column/linkage is as bonkers as the radiator placement. I remember riding in the 2nd row of a 1980s Toyota van and how isolated I felt from the front row occupants sitting behind the engine doghouse that separated us, compared to the open feeling in Chrysler’s minivans where you could easily walk between the two rows of seats. But the second and third rows of the L’Universalle are practically in a different room from the first row. Is there a wall there? I do like the rear cargo door setup though (pic below) which opens without making you take a step back so the hatch door has room to clear. Anyway, from what I’ve read while the show car was a non-running “pusher”, GM did build some running prototypes of these for testing. As with modern vans, it was intended to be buildable as a panel van, a family wagon, a camper, special-purpose vehicles like ambulances, and more, but it could only handle 1,000 lbs. of cargo, limiting its usefulness as a truck.
The Pontiac Trans Sport concept is one of the few show cars I’ve seen up close in real life. It was shown at the World of Motion attraction at Epcot Center the first time I was there. I didn’t expect even a watered-down version of this to reach production.
I drove a rental dustbuster van through a snowfall once and found the triangular windows between the windshield and door got covered with snow that the wipers of course couldn’t reach, resulting in huge blind spots requiring pulling over to clear them every twenty minutes. Not a good design.
I feel obliged to point out that avoiding the “acres of dash between you and the base of the windshield” issue was a big part of why the much-maligned 1999 Fiat Multipla looked like it did: The greenhouse had very tall windows and an ultra-low beltline to maximize visibility, without shoving the leading edge of the windscreen forward the way the U-body minivans did. The results are basically the opposite of the Trans Sport or Silhouette: It looks deeply odd, but it has fewer practical drawbacks, with expansive visibility and a windshield you can reach without being Stretch Armstrong or Reed Richards.
I had a couple of these, a 90 Lumina APV 3.1 and a 92 Trans Sport 3800. They were built on a slightly modified A body platform, most of the underpinnings including the entire front end and firewall was the same. Had many A bodies too. There was no wasted space, and no change in driving position (just higher) compared to the Celebrity wagon which the APV was intended to replace. The windshield and dash simply extended over the engine. That’s it. Which made it more difficult to work on. These were a more radically styled way of following Chrysler’s formula of building a van out of car parts, with carlike handling and would fit in a garage. Even like Chrysler used the Reliant instrument cluster, GM used the Corsica and Grand Prix clusters.
I was only 13 when these came out, but I loved the styling of these. Unlike other later vans that looked like a jellybean, these had a lean shape with clean lines. I ended up giving the 90 to someone in a breakup, and the 92 had over 300k on it and ran great, just the rust was getting the best of it. It still towed my camper and firewood trailer just fine too.
The 3.1 engine was certainly adequate even with a family of 5, and having a V6 as an initial engine was better than Chrysler did. GM’s existing 3800/4 speed would have bolted in, however I don’t think GM was comfortable with it holding up under the weight of the van. The 3.1 MPFI could have done it but with a lot of noise revving itself silly. So GM dumped the parts bin on the floor like a bucket of Legos, found the iron head 2.8 retired in 1986, put in a 3.1 stroker kit, put on a 1987 MPFI front cover and brackets, and a S10 TBI unit, to make a 3.1 with a lower peak torque. When the 4T60E was ready for 92, bigger brakes were added too, and the performance finally matched the appearance. I think that was the only sin, not living up to the appearance at first impression. It’s a fine line, because waiting could let other competitors get there first, but waiting would give you a better initial product.
GM confused the market with the presence of both these, and the Astro / Safari minivans at the same time. Customers couldn’t decide whether they wanted a grocery getting sporty looking van, or a sturdier van that was a smaller version of Uncle Joe’s G-series Vandura.
On the way home as the Not-Mopar family were debating the two choices, they passed a Chrysler dealer, and everyone said, “Let’s stop in there, those vans look nice, and Aunt Jo has a Plymouth Reliant she really likes!” Deals were struck by the thousands.
Not sure why all the hate for these minivans. I can only think these articles are written by people who never owned one. We had a ’93 Transport. If I could buy a brand new version of the same thing today, I would buy it. The only failure we had was the tierods would loosen up and clunk, but other than that, we never had any issues. It drove well, accelerated well, hauled a lot of people or junk. It was great to drive on long trips – the huge windshield kept you from feeling cooped up. Easy to get in and out of. Versatile seating. We often left the center seats out and the kids sat in the very back. We used it as a camper – took out the rear seats and put a piece of plywood down so it would be level with the mid-section seats. Mattress on top. Worked great.
Right? I’ve never understood it. I remember when they were first intro’d back in the early 90s. I thought they were GMs best vehicles offered. I would have bought an Olds Silhouette if I didn’t already have a car.