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.
110 Comments on “Chevrolet Uplander Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
this was funny. I enjoyed it. My father in law was a GM guy. Never bought anything other than GM since early 70 something. He just ended up with a dodge grand caravan, and loves it. He isn’t a dodge guy, but the chevy was too messed up even for him.
I would get on your case for beating this dead horse, but then again, why is Chevy selling this carcass?
Bury this thing!
Why no cool picture popping for this article? Amen to the dead horse beating .
Sorted.
When I first saw pictures of the Uplander (and its many clones) I thought that it was something new and exciting – maybe even a return to one of my favorite now-extinct forms of transportation, the panel truck. Much to my dismay, it was just a slightly warmed over version of GMs previous minivan, itself just an also-ran.
With gas prices shooting up, it’s surprising (and disappointing) to me that someone has caught on to the fact that there might be a market out there for a vehicle that has economy, utility, and larger-than-a-compact-car hauling capacity, but not as big (nor as thirsty) as a truck. I’ve been looking for a replacement for my too-small Outback wagon for a while. In theory, my requirements (AWD, decent MPG, and big enough that I can sleep in it in a pinch) could be fulfilled by a minivan, but every one I look up the stats on is either (a) too expensive ($30k for a minivan?), (b) too thirsty (many minivans get near-SUV MPG ratings) or (c) ugly enough to make you go blind from looking at it. The Uplander seems to hit 2 out of 3, being reasonably inexpensive, at least in stripped down versions, though AWD doesn’t seem to be available.
So far the vehicle that comes closest is the Honda Element. When my SO looked at it, she thought it was hideous (I love the rugged styling) and then she thought it looked like a minivan (I think it was the flat load deck and wide-opening doors that did it.) But a vehicle with all that cargo room that can offer AWD and still give up 21/24 mpg for right around $20k is just about right. And there’s no reason other manufacturers can’t do the same thing. Why they won’t do it is a mystery I may never know the answer to.
“less horsepower (240hp @ 6000rpm) and twist than anything in its class.”
I do not believe that is accurate. It is ahead of Chrysler, Ford and Toyota in this respect.
Doraville is closing in 2008 and these 4 vans will probably die with it.
By George you’re right!
Chrysler T& C V6: 180hp @ 5000 rpm, 210 ft. lbs. @ 4000 rpm
Ford Windstar V6: 194hp @4500 rpm, 243 ft. lbs. @3,750 rpm
Toyota Sienna V6: 215 hp @ 5600 rpm, 222 ft. lbs. @ 3600 rpm
Fact checker fired, text amended.
Gotta luv those plastic skid plates!
So is this a Tahoe with downs syndrome? The only use I could see for such a vehicle is to be lined up, in two rows, under monster truck tires.
Seems like nothing can go right for GM. They redesign their vans to look like SUVs right when the SUV crase is starting to wane. What next?
It really bothered me when I first saw it: looks embryonic and unformed. Ew.
The Uplander is the perfect example of Why GM Is Toast.
Hideous design, ancient architecture, poor build quality, bad ergonomics, resale value that rivals a Kia.
Kill it NOW.
I think that if this particular CSV had the 3.5L engine, the horsepower assertion would have almost been correct at 201bhp.
There’s a tale behind the R&D of the CSV’s predecessor – it was designed as a compromise between the EU and US markets, and satisfied neither. As a result, it’s still 72″ wide, 6″-7″ narrower than its US chief competitors. The EU version, the Sintra, lasted only a couple of years due to poor sales. Offset crash testing by both EURONCAP and IIHS was pathetic, which was fixed by the long snout in 2005.
In a 2006 IIHS side impact test, the 2nd row captain’s chair broke loose. It did not affect the crash test score, but not specifically addressed by GM (fix/recall/TSB). IMHO, this really doesn’t inspire confidence in the General’s quality/safety. Other manufacturers (Subaru, Toyota) have recalled vehicles when something bad comes up in IIHS testing.
My family hired one of these monstrosities during a recent holiday to Hilton Head Island. It was immediately apparent to me that it was a “butched-up” re-hash of the old Chevy Venture and while I prefer to hire an American car while in America (it’s just boring to use something that I can access in the UK), I have to say I was sorely disappointed. The exterior looks like what it is – a Venture with a big snout and a few styling mods. The interior seemed an improvement on first glance, until it became apparent that the dashboard was a hard as a washboard.
Nevertheless, the Uplander proved commodious and comfortable for a family of five to scoot about South Carolina for a fortnight. The DVD player was a great novelty (though it refused to play about half of our British discs) and meant that for the first time in history nobody wanted the front passenger seat!
But that’s not nearly good enough. It works and has a telly. Big deal. Though a bit smaller than US offerings, full size minivans from Ford Europe (the new Galaxy and S-Max), Renault (its stunning Espace) and the co-effort shared by Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, are vastly superior. It’s a shame that GM’s European minivan (the Vauxhall/Opel Zafira) is too small to be considered in the US, because it’s streets ahead of what the parent company can manage.
Odyssey has more Go Juice, but not by much:
244hp @ 5750 rpm
240ft-lbs @ 5000 rpm (or 4500 rpm for the variable cylander engine)
Its a 3.5L engine instead of 3.9L, however, and gets 19/25 or 20/28 depending.
Zarba: at least the Kia has the IIHS gold pick in minivans.
I don’t understand why GM is trying to kill Chevy, but it looks like the good products are going to Saturn lately. I caught a base model (XE) Aura at the local dealer this weekend just before it was sold, and even in base trim it was an attractive car with a modern-looking interior. It still needs more than a 4 speed automatic in the base model, but at least a 6 speed slushbox is available in the XR.
Deja vu all over again – It’s the Impala, only (incredibly) actually WORSE!
Do not insult the 1981 Chevy Malibu… Thanx ;-)
The vehicle’s lights, windshield wipers and turn signals worked.
Enough with the puff piece. Tell us what you really think.
I just can’t believe that something that looks like that is for sale, and that people are buying it.
It is just – appalling! I mean with the Pontiac Aztek they were at least going for something, okay, it’s ugly, but they were trying something new.
But this? How?
It’s just – I can’t imagine it. Everytime I see an Uplander on the roads I say to myself – why?
I know this is a redundant comment but I had to get it out.
There’s horsepower ratings and then there’s what the car will do. Autos.com says the 3.5L Odyssey will 0-60 in 7.3, the 3.3L Sienna in 7.8 and the 3.9L Uplander in 8.1. Considering that the Honda and Toyota motors are new DOHC/VVT designs, this isn’t surprising. We bought a minivan in ‘01. I tried all (except the Ford – too many painful experiences – and the Honda – too much money and a waitlist) and it was the Sienna I tested last and bought immediately. It had far and away the best acceleration and the torque was available at low RPMs. The Dodge and Chevy, while larger displacement engines, couldn’t do what the Toyota was doing.
GM needed to put a more contemporary, sophisticated and capable engine into the Uplander and didn’t. Possibly they figure that displacement claims are what sell the cars to their base and at a .6L advantage over Toyota and a .4L advantage over Odyssey, that they had the marketing mix they needed.
I was at the Toronto auto show’s press-day unveiling of this vehicle a few years ago. Our jaws dropped in shocked disbelief when they rolled the turd out and talked about its sporty new look.
Relay, Uplander, Montana, Terraza, Silhouette — when’s the SAAB version coming out?
Phattie, next I expect GM to put their 10 mpg 454 V8 in the Aveo just as fuel economy is back in style. Probably take out the back seat to make it look more like a sports car, too.
Hmm. The interior doesn’t look too awful in the photograph. Which only proves that you don’t buy a vehicle without seat time.
That is one hideous, malformed, stillborn vehicle. When you compare it to the newer model Sienna and Odyssey it is just horrifyingly ugly. The fact that someone at Chevy liked it enough to green light it is a damning indictment of their collective taste. Actually, it tells me that there are far too many yes-men working at GM. God knows enough people knew that was a steaming pile of dog-doo, and either were afraid to speak up or, worse, the higher-ups refused to listen.
BTW this vehicle was totally designed in Mexico. That will learn ya!
I think this article provides an example of something that needs to be bashed into the head of every GM executive.
Your brand is only as strong as it’s weakest vehicle. Toyota and Honda have learned to live by this mantra. Every single one of us will probably have experience with dozens of vehicles before we purchase one, and those experiences will shape our perception of the brand. Even if I was purchasing a pure sports car, my decision would be influenced by the rental SUVan I drove last year, and that might be enough to push me away from the Corvette. Look at Honda’s lineup. Even where the vehicles might not be right for you, you have to admit that they are generally at least competent, if not pretty good.
GM’s strategy of attempting to gain sales by simply having a *$%#&load of different models may have worked when there were less vehicles on the road, and people would only sit in 5 or 6 different models between purchases, but today vehicles are everywhere, new and used, and while a middle-class family with two teenagers might have had 1 vehicle 40 years ago, today they might have 3 or 4, and they will probably end up renting one or two every year when they travel.
Nissan is a good example of this. By and large, the products in the Ghosn era have been terrific, especially considering where they were before. However, any serious discussion of Nissan will always end up talking about the Quest, and the initial quality problems experienced on the large truck models. These issues are more or less solved now (though the Quest’s styling is still divisive, but I would say less so), but they were enough to generate a steady stream of “Nissan is in trouble” articles, and slow down Ghosn’s rebuilding of their reputation (as an aside, I can’t wait for the new Sentra and Altima, they are looking sweet).
So in short, GM, unless it’s very good, don’t release it. You’ve already got an image problem, and vehicles that disappoint the occupants, even if they aren’t the target market, aren’t going to help you one bit.
Another GM vehicle adored by tens of thousands of people. The problem is that the people who think this vehicle is so wonderful, are all employees and stockholders of Toyota and Honda!
Having spent a long weekend (and 1400 miles) in the sister Pontiac Montana, I can tell you that it does have 2 redeeming factors. By sticking the nose out, it added space for the driver’s feet, even if it looks a little like a Frankenvan.
The interior isn’t quite 25 years out of date…more like 10 :-)
Mediocre ergonomics..check.
Mediocre performance…check.
Inprecise handling…check.
Add to that only 20 highway MPG.
BTW: The other redeeming factor is after our road trip, my wife has no interest in ever buying a minivan!
james2550? I’m surprised ANY of your British DVDs worked in the US, since they are not “Region 1″ DVDs. Kind of like “back in the day” when the VCRs were popular, the US tapes were locked in to the analog signals of NTSC for 525 lines and 30 frames per second, while the British and most Euro tapes were locked into the analog signals of PAL (incompatible with NTSC) and 625 lines and 25 frames per second.
But I have to say that when we went on holiday in Scotland last year, I did rent a Vauxhall Zafira “mpv” (minivan in US parlance) and while the handling and room were very good, I was apalled by the diesel engine being so noisy, and my seating position (I felt as if I was driving an old VW microbus).
It was, in its defence, the prior generation Zafira.
In short, hopefully the new Zafira is streets ahead of the old, and if so, GM could do a lot worse than to actually yank the production of these US monstrosities and replace the cars with the Zafira.
Just call it the Chevrolet Zafira and offer it with the most powerful 2.4 litre fours and hybrid assist, instead of trying to re-engineer the thing for a V6.
But of course, GM won’t do any such thing. Because I just used common sense in describing a viable option, and GM cannot use same.
The whole thing is just so cynical and gets to the heart of how stupid our SUV craze has been. Mass, psychotic penis envy on a national scale.
I remember they had this ugly duck parked next to the gorgeous, drool-inducing SS Concept at the LA Autoshow a few years back… and we know which they built.
Most anyone who is looking for this kind of vehicle is going to pick an Oddysey, Sienna or if they can’t afford or don’t want to spend the money on those then a grand caravan. A few will go for a Quest or maybe a Pacifica. I can’t say I have ever seen an Uplander on the road before, perhaps I did but it was so bland it just didn’t register. Chevy doesn’t really seem to produce anything worth having except the Corvette. Everything else is merely adequate or subpar.
A Pacifia would only get worse gas mileage.
Here again is the gm rub. They aren’t competitive in the minivan segement(never have been), so they need a totally new product, engine, tranny, frame, interior, etc. this costs real money. So what are the the designers told ,to freshen the thing. This is akin to the old annual model change. You make the grille and tail look different enough that some people will want to trade last years modelin. It worked for 40 years, but not now. You see, gm is not competing with just two other lesser domestics. The world class vans are here and even the nissan quest just came in for an overhaul. Chrysler get’s an all new minivan this year and this is off a far more sucessful model than gm has. So yes the gm formula continues,you compete in every segement with mediocrity, then you spread the wealth by giving all your division similar junk, what a formula.
Ugly doesn’t do justice. I drive an Outback, so looks are obviously not a big concern to me. I hate the B9 Tribeca, and thought it to be the ugliest vehicle on the road. I’d drive the Tribeca over the Uplander every time.
GM, you should be ashamed.
i know i shouldn’t, but i do. that front end is so wrong it’s right. it’s the back 3/4 that’s all wrong/20 years old.
“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.”
For 2007 the Uplander’s only engine is the 3.9-liter V6. This engine is far from “ancient”; it is actually a clean sheet design that is less than 2 years old. The rest of your pejorative rant is purely subjective, but since you called a brand new engine “ancient”, I have to wonder about your subjective judgments as well.
Just think, in 2 years,(maybe not even that long) we will be seeing tons of Uplanders with rust, broken body panels, and burnt out taillights. This can only be good news to Venture drivers, whose minivan is no doubt on it’s last leg now. Who knows, maybe even one of the rare Lumina MPV drivers will have something to look forward too.
Can’t wait.
Ugly isn’t strong enough a word. It looks vaguely HHRish with the tapering lines on the hood. Then the blocky SUV-like parts, and then the mismatched window shapes that remind one of the Windstar, but weirder.
No, ugly, isn’t it. Deformed is more like it.
Someone should test the automotive IQ of the people who buy this mediocrity. Suspect that they come from 3 categories:
A) Do their research by watching car commercials
B) Have been driving a beater so these seem good in comparison
C) Had the Japanese shooting at them in WW2
This article is PERFECT. It’s dead on. And it’s right. I just spent the longest 2 weeks of my life driving a rented Ford Windstar SEL (aka the Ford Deathstar) and Pontiac Grand Prix GT (the GT should be in quotes) on my vacation in Maui (just got back yesterday). Each of these cars exemplifies the reason Ford and GM will die slow painful deaths at the hands of leaders who are so drunk on their own poisonous corporate Kool-Aid they can’t see how pitifully poor their products are. If I had half the talent of Mr. Montgomery I’d take a stab at writing all about it. Until then, suffice it to say they both sucked. A lot.
Chanman’s comment about tapering hood lines made me take a second look.
Now I get it — they weren’t trying to make it look like an SUV at all! They were going for the school-bus aesthetic. Paint it yellow, add a few black accent lines, and there you go.
The only thing I do like is the front end on that thing.
FWIW: the 4.2L Ford Freestar has 201hp and a best in class 263lb-ft torque. Then again, torque is probably the only thing the ’star has going for it.
Better watch it… this is the kind of review that gets the “Amurrican cars are best no matter what” troglodytes to come crawling out of their caves looking for “GM bashers” to feed on!
Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
Where do I send my RSVP for the GM funeral party?
I wonder if a big part of the explanation for these crappy bland cars is that so many of them are sold to rental fleets which only care that a vehicle fits a specific number of people and is cheap.
I don’t have any data, but it does seem like the more boring, bland, and crummy a GM/Ford/Chrysler car is, the more you see it as a rental, which makes sense if it was mainly designed to BE a rental.
Could it be that this car and others like it was actually designed mainly to be a rental? It would explain a lot!
Van’s going bye-bye in a year or two, so even GM knows it is behind the competition.
My brother just got a Honda Odyssey Touring – nice van, but I’m old school – no car is worth $38,000 even if it tickles your butt while you drive.
I’d spend $20,000 on an Uplander before I’d spend $38k on an Odyssey. It’s just something to schlep the kids around in.
Yes well, buy an Uplander and you'll lose almost all your money in instant depreciation, whereas a well-cared for Odyssey will fetch excellent money at trade-in time.
Remember: depreciation is car ownership's single largest expense.
Wait a minute, I’ve seen that front end before:
http://www.taxifix.com/communities/004/005/328/680/images/4509179800.jpg
It grew up, moved to America, and put on 2000 pounds.
I guess there is no middle ground for this crowd.
Thanks to Starlightmica for at least providing some context to the current vehicle design history. I dont think it is fair to state that the GM folks would say this is their “BEST IDEA” so much as it is their best compromise taking in all the budget, production and engineering restrictions. Sure, the result is not as compelling as the competition, but it allows GM to limp along without abandoning the segment entirely.
I believe if the engine was a 3.5 than it was derived from the 3.4, derived from the 3.1, derived from the 2.8. Otherwise, if it is the new 3.9, you should consider correcting the engine review.
taxman100: the reason your brother spent 38K on an odyssey is that he xmas treed every option in the book. Many more go out under 30K, and as stated above these will hold their value and are pretty peppy to boot.