Chevrolet Uplander Review

William C Montgomery
by William C Montgomery

An airport car rental attendant recently handed me the keys to my temporary chariot and declared “Your car is down the row to your right. It’s an ‘06 Uplander.” A what? “It’s kind of an SUV,” she kind of explained. The butt-end of a something large and ugly poked out of stall 97. The bow tie on the trim above the license plate revealed the vehicle’s manufacturer: Chevrolet. Apprehensively, I slid behind the wheel of the awkward-looking beast. I looked around. I turned to my colleague. “No wonder GM is in such bad shape.”

The Uplander’s exterior could have been penned twenty-five years ago. The awkward yet infinitely bland exterior displays all the styling finesse and surface excitement of a 1981 Chevy Malibu– with none of the stalwart sedan’s balanced proportions. You can see how GM’s designers tried to transform their plane Jane minivan into a “Crossover Sport Van”: a longer than needed snout, big-ass B-pillars, slightly larger wheels and faux skid plates. It’s an entirely unconvincing effort that somehow manages to capture the worst of both the SUV and minivan genres.

Once inside, a flip-down DVD screen attached to ceiling rails provides the only indication that “Bette Davis Eyes” isn’t about to debut on the radio. Again, it’s an interior from another era– before Chrysler, Honda and Toyota showed American soccer Moms that you could schlep the team in something very much approaching style. Hell, you can’t even get comfortable in the thing. The Uplander’s driver’s seat wouldn’t retreat far enough to accommodate my frame, and my preferred steering wheel position fell somewhere between two notches. Hello? I’m 5’11”.

Otherwise, the comfort sucks. The Uplander’s architecture, inherited from the 1997 Chevrolet Venture (whose running gear lives in perpetuity) is still too narrow to accommodate its [theoretical] complement of seven adults. And the Uplander’s plastics seem designed by rental car companies for rental car companies; their ability to withstand endless applications of industrial strength ammonia being their only saving grace.

Needless to say, the Uplander is as dreadful to drive as it is to inhabit. The loose steering requires constant tending at anything other than a dead stop. The suspension crashes more often than a demolition derby driver. The long wheelbase and epic turning circle make parking lot maneuvering a seemingly endless chore. It leans excessively in corners. But wait! There’s less!

The CSV’s 3.9-liter V6 pushrod powerplant boasts (in the ironic sense of the word) a cast iron block with cast aluminum heads, hooked-up to Ye Olde Four Speed. With constant aural reminders that it would much rather be switched off, the ancient, rough-revving mill delivers a class-leading 240hp @ 6000rpm. But it's not enough to motivate the ponderous beast into a jog. In short, the Uplander’s performance doesn’t even deserve the noun.

To GM’s credit, the Uplander completed its assigned task: transporting my colleague and me safely from airport to office, office to hotel and back. The vehicle’s lights, windshield wipers and turn signals worked. There was plenty of cargo room. The engine made the thing move forward and the brakes brought it to a stop. I observed no sharp objects that might threaten to cut or maim passengers. But all of this was done with Soviet-repressed bureaucratic adequacy.

If you doubt that the Uplander is a half-assed has-been that never was and never shoulda been, click on this link from the Uplander’s menu and select Braking, Engine and Transmission. Three years after the model’s debut and the information is still “Not yet published.” In terms of design, refinement and packaging, competitive minivans (yes, minivans) from Honda, Toyota and Chrysler are literally decades ahead of the Uplander. And proud of it.

How could a thing such as an Uplander come to be? Hundreds of GM employees spent years on its development and implementation: designers, engineers, marketers and senior management. Ultimately, all of them stamped their approval on the Uplander and proclaimed to the world THIS IS OUR BEST IDEA. If fact, the company as a whole considered the concept so inspired they felt compelled to badge engineer this execrable automotive aardvark as the Saturn Relay, Buick Terraza and Pontiac Montana.

The General has hit some home runs with a couple of products lately (e.g. the Corvette and the Pontiac Solstice / Saturn Sky). Cadillac is heading in the right direction. But these are niche vehicles, not machines for the masses. To recover from its well-documented woes, GM needs volume sales of mainstream products. Otherwise, they’re heading straight for bankruptcy. But if bankruptcy is the only way to stop GM from inflicting crap vehicles like the Uplander on unsuspecting rental car drivers and (God forbid) buyers, then I can’t help but wish the world’s largest automaker a speedy Chapter 11.

William C Montgomery
William C Montgomery

More by William C Montgomery

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 112 comments
  • Crofoot Crofoot on Aug 21, 2009

    Here, here, Sassy. I just bought a 2007 for a couple bucks and am thrilled to get a reliable workhorse like the uplander. These effete car snobs and their "OMG! It's so ugly! Outre! How could anyone possibly buy one?" Basically it gets you where you wanna go, hauls your peeps and stuff, and doesn't cost much.

  • Whynotaztec Like any other lease offer it makes sense to compare it to a purchase and see where you end up. The math isn’t all that hard and sometimes a lease can make sense, sometimes it can’t. the tough part with EVs now is where is the residual or trade in value going to be in 3 years?
  • Rick T. "If your driving conditions include near-freezing temps for a few months of the year, seek out a set of all-seasons. But if sunshine is frequent and the spectre of 60F weather strikes fear into the hearts of your neighbourhood, all-seasons could be a great choice." So all-seasons it is, apparently!
  • 1995 SC Should anyone here get a wild hair and buy this I have the 500 dollar tool you need to bleed the rear brakes if you have to crack open the ABS. Given the state you will. I love these cars (obviously) but trust me, as an owner you will be miles ahead to shell out for one that was maintained. But properly sorted these things will devour highway miles and that 4.6 will run forever and should be way less of a diva than my blown 3.8 equipped one. (and forget the NA 3.8...140HP was no match for this car).As an aside, if you drive this you will instantly realize how ergonomically bad modern cars are.These wheels look like the 17's you could get on a Fox Body Cobra R. I've always had it in the back of my mind to get a set in the right bolt pattern so I could upgrade the brakes but I just don't want to mess up the ride. If that was too much to read, from someone intamately familiar with MN-12's, skip this one. The ground effects alone make it worth a pass. They are not esecially easy to work on either.
  • Macca This one definitely brings back memories - my dad was a Ford-guy through the '80s and into the '90s, and my family had two MN12 vehicles, a '93 Thunderbird LX (maroon over gray) purchased for my mom around 1995 and an '89 Cougar LS (white over red velour, digital dash) for my brother's second car acquired a year or so later. The Essex V6's 140 hp was wholly inadequate for the ~3,600 lb car, but the look of the T-Bird seemed fairly exotic at the time in a small Midwest town. This was of course pre-modern internet days and we had no idea of the Essex head gasket woes held in store for both cars.The first to grenade was my bro's Cougar, circa 1997. My dad found a crate 3.8L and a local mechanic replaced it - though the new engine never felt quite right (rough idle). I remember expecting something miraculous from the new engine and then realizing that it was substandard even when new. Shortly thereafter my dad replaced the Thunderbird for my mom and took the Cougar for a new highway commute, giving my brother the Thunderbird. Not long after, the T-Bird's 3.8L V6 also suffered from head gasket failure which spelled its demise again under my brother's ownership. The stately Cougar was sold to a family member and it suffered the same head gasket fate with about 60,000 miles on the new engine.Combine this with multiple first-gen Taurus transmission issues and a lemon '86 Aerostar and my dad's brand loyalty came to an end in the late '90s with his purchase of a fourth-gen Maxima. I saw a mid-90s Thunderbird the other day for the first time in ages and it's still a fairly handsome design. Shame the mechanicals were such a letdown.
  • FreedMike It's a little rough...😄
Next