The American work van establishment hasn’t changed a whole lot in the past several years. Sure, Ford sells the Transit in America, but it, just like General Motors, is also more than happy to sell you a van or chassis cab that last saw a major facelift more than a decade ago. Back in 2010, Nissan wanted to challenge the work van segment with a fresh face full of bold ideas. The Nissan NV was supposed to beat America at its own game, and in many ways it did. But Nissan would never gain enough of a foothold in the market, and the establishment gobbled up the rookie. Here’s what happened to a line of vans that could have been a hit.
The American work van market is a weird one. European-style vans like the Ford Transit, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, and Ram ProMaster have become the choice of so many tradespeople and RVers. Yet, tens of thousands of others continue to buy Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana vans, both of which ride on a platform that dates back to 1996. GM’s vans had only recently ditched sealed beam headlights, which is amazing.
Meanwhile, Ford also still sells the E-Series. That one has been around even longer than GM’s vans, with its platform dating back to when George H. W. Bush was President.
The van situation here in America becomes even wilder when you realize what other vans have come and gone over the years. Ford sold the Transit Connect in America for a time beginning in 2010. This was a newer, more compact van, yet most buyers kept buying the big vans. Other smaller vans in America met a similar fate, including the Mercedes-Benz Metris and Ram ProMaster City.
Yet, all of the manufacturers I’ve mentioned still sell work vans in America. Their smaller efforts may have failed, but their big vans still sell. The same couldn’t be said for the efforts of Nissan. Not only did Nissan’s small work vans fail, but Nissan’s entire challenge to the American commercial van market failed so badly that Nissan killed the entire operation.
Building A Better Van
According to Truck Trend, Nissan began developing the full-size NV (Nissan Van) series in the mid-2000s. Back then, the full-size van market was good for over 300,000 units a year. Of those sales, Ford had a firm grasp at around 50 percent of those sales while General Motors held a close second place with about 45 percent market share. That remaining sliver of five percent was held by the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, which at the time was sold as a Dodge and a Freightliner.
Nissan, which was honest in saying that it had never sold a true commercial vehicle in America before, thought that Ford and General Motors had some big issues with their vans. By that time, the E-Series was over a decade old without many updates, and the Express was close behind. Nissan’s thoughts were confirmed through its research, from Nissan:
The NV planning team employed a wide range of innovative customer research methodologies, including focus groups, on-site visits and concept reviews. The quantitative and qualitative research took place all across America – Los Angeles, Chicago, New Jersey, Dallas, Detroit, New York, Minnesota, Arizona and other markets. The team met with large fleet owners and managers, small business owners, aftermarket suppliers and converters and rode along with owners of competitive vehicles.
[…]
Research showed that commercial van owners are the least satisfied of any vehicle segment, with many van owners disposing of their vehicles in favor of light duty trucks despite the compromise of convenience and utility. In developing the new Nissan NV, one of the overarching goals was to combine pickup truck-like comfort, interior amenities and drivability with a cargo van’s capacity and security.
Nissan’s research had revealed that American commercial van buyers hated how uncomfortable their vehicles were. If you’ve driven a work-spec Chevy Express before then you know just how little support the seats offer and just how bad the ergonomics are. Personally, the E-Series cab fits me better, but even then, “comfortable” wouldn’t be the first word that I would use to describe one of those vans.
But you just deal with it because that’s just how these vans are. Back then, your only other choices were the more complicated Dodge Sprinter, a minivan, or a pickup truck.
Nissan also found that the owners of commercial vans hated working on them. Sure, the stubby hoods of the American vans were great for visibility and maneuverability, but not everyone enjoyed working through a “doghouse” in their van’s interior to do maintenance.
Nissan saw this as its way into the market. What if Nissan built a van that was better to drive, easier to work on, and easier to customize? According to Automobile Magazine, Nissan decided to target small businesses, independent contractors, and anyone who might be interested in using their van for more than just work. This was reflected in Nissan’s press statements:
“Looking at the CV market in recent years, there’s been a migration of van users to light-duty pickups due to the lack of comfort, image and dependability of the current outdated van platforms,” explained [Joe Castelli, vice president, Commercial Vehicles and Fleet, Nissan North America, Inc. (NNA).] “Yet many of these truck owners admit they need a van for weather protection, security and the convenience of a tall roof van to carry large items or equipment. With the Nissan NV, we’re giving them the best of both worlds.”
Nissan’s solution for all of these complaints? Build a work van that felt and worked like a nice pickup truck. In theory, it would be the best of both worlds.
The Full-Size Truck Of Vans
The easiest way to build a van that’s like a truck would be to start with a pickup truck platform. That’s exactly what Nissan did, sort of.
Car and Driver notes that Nissan went through the work and investment to give the NV a dedicated fully boxed ladder frame. Technically, the NV shares parts of its platform with the Titan, but few parts actually translate between the two. Car and Driver reported that the NV’s chassis shares a single crossmember with the truck, but that’s it.
The reason why this was worth pointing out was that Nissan put in a ton of effort to go after what was almost certainly going to be only a sliver of the market. Car and Driver figured that Nissan was probably going to reuse the NV frame in a future version of the Titan.
The body of the NV was supposed to have a ton of little tricks. For one, Nissan pointed out, the van was designed to have a cockpit that felt like that of a pickup truck. Likewise, Nissan intentionally gave the van goofy proportions so that the NV could have a long hood. In Nissan’s eyes, owners would love working under the full-size hood of this van more than the old vans from GM or Ford.
[Editor’s Note: This was the key part of the NV’s design that I never liked; in the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal I once wrote a whole screed about this very thing, in a fit of, as they say, pique. – JT]
Then, there were the little improvements here and there. The NV shipped from the factory pre-drilled for shelving units and in January 2012, Nissan sweetened the deal by offering select contractor upfits and graphics packages free of charge. Nissan also said that the NVs had nearly vertical walls to support aftermarket shelving units and built-in brackets for roof racks so that you didn’t have to do any drilling. In other words, Nissan wanted to sell the NV as a sort of turn-key work van.
Nissan’s work didn’t end there, either, as the NV had rear wheel wells that were slim enough for owners to haul drywall, plywood, or pallets flat on the floor. Nissan also wanted the van to be a bit of a mobile office, so it placed cubbies all over the place, including an underseat drawer and a removable center console, which Nissan wanted buyers to use to store small tools, paperwork, a laptop, or workwear. The press release seemingly takes a swipe at other vans by saying that its storage solutions were integral, rather than “tacked on.”
The body was also sold in two heights, with Nissan saying the standard height model was designed to fit in most garages, fit in most car washes, and be able to roll through fast-food drive-throughs with ease. But Nissan figured that most work-oriented buyers would go for the goofy-looking High Roof NV and enjoy standing room.
All of this was tied together with familiar power. The base engine was a 4.0-liter V6 with 261 HP and 281 lb-ft of torque from the Frontier. The optional powerplant was the 5.6-liter V8 from the Titan, which punched out 317 HP and 385 lb-ft of torque. The heavy-duty NV3500 cargo got this engine by default. Though, I will note that, bizarrely, the passenger version of the NV3500 still shipped with the V6 was the standard engine. Shifting was handled with a five-speed automatic.
There was also a wide breadth of features. If you got the base NV1500 S, your van had crank windows, manual locks, steel wheels, and manual mirrors. Stepping up to the SV or SL model unlocked nicer features like chrome, 120-volt power outlets, power everything, a front and rear parking sonar system, dual-zone climate control, navigation, satellite radio, and more. The highest trim, the SL, even offered leather heated seats. The rest of the models got spill-resistant cloth seats.
The Nissan NV went on sale in early 2011 for the 2012 model year, and at first, things looked promising.
The NV Finds Fans
The NV series was a breath of fresh air. It had a design that looked two decades newer than what Ford and GM had, and true to Nissan’s word, the NV had the appearance and configuration of a full-size pickup truck. Keep in mind that the full-size Ford Transit was not on sale in America yet, so the NV seemed like a pretty novel idea.
The specs seemed pretty great, too. The NV1500 had a maximum payload of 2,730 pounds, which wasn’t far off from what a Ford E-150 or a Chevy Express 1500 could handle. Weirdly, Nissan’s website shows a maximum towing capacity of 2,000 pounds with a bumper-mounted ball, but doesn’t show capacity with a hitch receiver. It looks like installing a hitch receiver gets you up to 6,900 pounds of towing, which was right on the money with the competition.
Of course, opting for the big dog NV3500 HD shot these numbers to the sky, including up to 3,710 pounds of payload and up to 9,400 pounds of towing. That latter one is neat to see because it’s more weight than a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter can tow and also more weight than what a newer Ford Transit can tow. The Ford and GM vans at the time maxed out at 10,000 pounds, so this was competitive as well.
One thing the NV series did miss out on was passenger capacity, which maxed out at 12 people. The domestic vans carried 15 people in their biggest configurations. But this seemed like an okay trade-off, because the NV wasn’t supposed to be the biggest van on the block, but perhaps the best one to actually live with.
Reviews of the early NV also brought more good news. Here’s Car and Driver:
At the test track, this powertrain plus a 6220-pound curb weight added up to a 0-to-60-mph time of 8.4 seconds—not exactly thrilling, but much quicker than the 11.6 seconds recorded by the last Sprinter we tested. The NV also trumped the Sprinter’s passing times: 4.2 and 5.9 seconds to accelerate from 30 mph to 50 and 50 to 70, respectively, compared with 5.7 and 9.0 seconds. There didn’t seem to be much degradation when we hooked up some 4500 pounds of trailer and race car and loaded a few hundred pounds of spares inside, either.
Engine performance, then, is pretty good for a vehicle in this size and weight class, and fuel economy is about what you’d expect. The EPA doesn’t require mpg ratings for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 8500 pounds, and the NV tested here carries a 9100-pound GVWR. We logged 11 mpg during the van’s two-week stay—not impressive, but that did include almost 400 miles of towing to and from GingerMan Raceway in western Michigan.
HIGHS: Comfy cabin, stout chassis, smooth ride, lots of tie-down points, competitive pricing.
Automobile Magazine was also nice to the NV:
Cargo may seem to be king, but Nissan hasn’t forgotten about the driver’s needs. By eliminating the typical engine doghouse cover, the NV provides expansive legroom to both driver and passenger. A number of storage cubbies scattered throughout the interior (including pull-out underseat bins on 2500 and 3500 models) offer plenty of room for clipboards, notebooks, and other personal items. Bucket seats, trimmed in a waterproof, stain-resistant fabric, are nicely bolstered and quite comfortable — perfect for spending long hours behind the wheel.
SV-trim models offer even more amenities, including power windows and locks, an eight-way power driver’s seat, a rear parking sensor, a security system, chrome exterior trim, remote keyless entry, and cruise control. If that isn’t enough, SV models are also available with a technology package, which adds navigation, a rear-view camera, XM Satellite Radio, a USB audio input, and Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity.
Perhaps most impressive, however, is the NV’s demeanor over the road. Lest you gaze rearwards into the expansive cargo hold, it’s easy to mistake the NV as just another full-size SUV. Unladen, the NV drives much like the Titan, albeit with slightly stiffer springs. Despite its upright stature, the van feels surefooted in crosswinds — even in high-roof form. Both V-6 and V-8 models are peppy off the line, but we’d opt for the V-8 if you plan on regularly hauling hefty loads or ordering the high-roof model. Not only does this engine have plenty of power to spare, but it’s also able to tow nearly 9500 pounds, provided it’s paired with an available class IV hitch receiver.
The cherry on top of all of this was the price. At launch, the Nissan NV1500 V6 was just $25,570 with destination charge included, which tallied up to being $300 cheaper than a Chevy Express 1500 with a V6 and $600 cheaper than the last Ford E-150 vans to roll off the line. Of course, as I said earlier, Nissan also sweetened the deal with free upfits, something that the Express and E-Series buyer would have had to pay for.
Pricing remained aggressive across the line, too, with the base standard roof NV3500 cargo clocking in at $30,770. Even high-roof models were affordable, with the NV2500 HD High Roof coming in at a reasonable $31,470. Nissan never released any expected sales numbers, but it was expected that Nissan would carve itself a little slice of the big van market.
The NV Got Backup
The big NV vans were then joined by a little sibling in the NV200 in 2013. This van wasn’t designed specifically for America, and unlike the big van, it also wasn’t a body-on-frame design. Instead, the NV200 shared its base unibody platform with cars like the Nissan Cube.
Here in America, the big deal with the NV200 was its future as New York’s “Taxi of Tomorrow.” Here’s Nissan’s press release about that:
The multiple award-winning Nissan NV200, a compact commercial vehicle aimed at members of the new generation, can be used in a wide range of situations including business, daily use, and leisure activities. After undergoing a stringent two-year selection process in New York City, the vehicle emerged victorious as the next-generation New York City taxi in May 2011, despite strong competition. The taxi concept model was subsequently unveiled to the public at international motor shows, including the New York International Auto Show, and at Nissan’s global headquarters in Yokohama. At the same time, discussions between New York City authorities, taxi companies, drivers, and passengers continued in the United States with the aim of launching the vehicle this fall. Work was carried out to further improve the taxi based on these discussions. As a result of these efforts, the vehicle will be launched for commercial sale in the United States at the end of October 2013. Production of the NV200 “Taxi of Tomorrow” commenced in August at Nissan’s Cuernavaca Plant in Mexico.
Of course, most of our readers are familiar with the NV200 because we bought a really beat-up example with over 375,000 miles for $800 on Copart. Amazingly, the darn thing actually drove across the country in one piece, too.
These two vans weren’t Nissan’s only van strategy for America. Chevrolet also took the NV200 and slapped its own badges on it, creating the City Express. The NV200 had a lot going for it. These vans were compact, slick, and relatively thrifty. Nissan said that an NV200 featuring a 2.0-liter four and a CVT got as high as 26 mpg on the highway, which isn’t bad for a work vehicle.
Sure, the 131 HP and 139 lb-ft of torque output isn’t going to light the world on fire, but it didn’t need to, either. The whole point was that van buyers had a cheap way to get around. America was still going through a little bit of a small car phase in the aftermath of the Great Recession, too, so the NV200 had some great timing.
Nissan’s Vans Fall
Sadly, Nissan’s first foray into commercial vans flopped, and it wasn’t an easy fall, either.
The first domino to fall was the Chevrolet City Express. Chevy had marketed the van beginning in 2014 and sales ceased in 2017. As Autoweek notes, selling rebadged Nissan NV200s allowed GM quick access to the small commercial van market without having to develop its own vehicle.
However, the buying public just didn’t warm up to the concept. In 2015, the full year of City Express sales, Chevy moved just 10,283 units, a far cry from the 52,200 Ford Transit Connects sold that same year. Even the regular Nissan NV200 beat the City Express that year, moving 17,300 units. Ram even managed to sell 11,000 Ram ProMasters that year, and that was the first year for that van’s sales!
You might even be able to argue that the City Express probably cannibalized the NV200’s sales because it was the same vehicle, but with a different badge. Though, in fairness, the small commercial van market has dried up entirely in America. Eventually, even Ford wasn’t selling enough small vans to make them worth it.
The NV and the NV200 managed to march on to 2021 before Nissan finally punched the clock. In 2020, it was reported by Bloomberg that Nissan needed to shed $2.8 billion in cost cuts to stay alive. Nissan’s plan for that was to slice a fifth of the 69 models it had in production. Among those models was Nissan’s entire commercial van program in America.
As Automotive News reported in 2020, much of the problem was just the fact that Nissan went up against a practical duopoly. From Automotive News:
When Nissan launched the NV van in the U.S. nearly a decade ago, the segment was an unchallenged Detroit fortress.
Ford and GM alone controlled about 97 percent of the large van segment, and small commercial vans were an uncertain new concept in an era of rising fuel prices.
Nissan hoped to stir things up. Its van offered a fresh alternative to Detroit’s boxy and aged offerings. The NV was billed as a more comfortable option, with no-brainer design enhancements such as adjustable seats; a taller ceiling for easier access to cargo; and pre-drilled holes in the vehicle body so painters, carpenters and electricians could add interior racks and shelving without causing unsightly rust. The NV’s beefy chassis initially proved popular with plumbers and carpet cleaners, for whom hauling power was paramount.
That’s the sad part. If you search the web, you’ll actually find lots of happy NV owners who enjoy the fresher design and more pickup truck-like feel. There are some complaints out there about transmissions that shift too late and some other complaints about oil burning, but there’s nothing out there that seems like an “Achilles Heel” to me. Again, there are lots of happy buyers out there, so it doesn’t seem like the NV failed on its own accord. Granted, reports of abysmal 11 mpg fuel economy like Car and Driver experienced certainly didn’t help.
The sales data was depressing. In 2019, Nissan sold 38,790 NV and NV200 vans in America. In that same period of time, Ford sold 240,529 E-Series and Transit vans. Ford controlled 50 percent of the van market, with GM scooping up 22 percent for second place. Nissan held just 8 percent of the market. It wasn’t a fluke, either, as in the period between 2019 and 2020, Nissan van sales never exceeded 36,460 units.
Why The NV Didn’t Click
Tyler Slade, operator of a Nissan dealer, thought the problem was that the domestic brands were just better at serving commercial customers, from Automotive News:
Nissan struggles to win over fleet customers because it lacks the breadth of light-truck variants and configurations that the Detroit 3 offer, Slade conceded of the competition. “Chevrolet and Ford can be everything to everybody,” he said. His point: Vans and pickups work together to attract sales in the commercial fleet market. Nissan’s Titan full-size pickup is a meager competitor to the immensely popular Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado. “When we went to some of these fleet companies, it didn’t make sense for them to have trucks from Ford and vans from Nissan,” Slade said. “We really only had success with small companies, like caterers and florists.”
Nissan’s decision to build the large NV vans on a modified Titan pickup platform also compromised the vehicle in two areas key for urban cargo-haulers. The big van’s extended pickup-style nose made the NV less flexible in parking and on deliveries in congested city settings than the cab-forward designs of competitors, said Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions. That design also compromised cargo capacity, he said. “A third of the vehicle is dedicated to the engine and passenger compartment instead of cargo,” Fiorani said. “The van takes up more real estate for the same amount of cargo space.”
It seemed like Nissan believed that compromising on cargo volume to maximize on repairability and comfort would be a winner. While it’s hard to know for sure, sales would suggest that most buyers just didn’t care.
So, the Nissan commercial van plan is dead, and if that wasn’t sad enough, the Nissan Titan wasn’t far behind it. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t buy one if you’re interested. High-mileage full-size NV3500s can be had for under $20,000, and high-mileage NV1500s could be yours for under $10,000. A nice NV3500 might cost you a bit into the $30,000 range, which isn’t too bad for a modern van that can tow nearly 10,000 pounds.
On one hand, I like what Nissan was trying to do here. It looked into what some people didn’t like about their vans and then tried to make a better van. It’s a story as old as time. Sadly, for whatever reason, Americans just weren’t having it, and continued buying the vans they said they disliked, anyway. Now, the NV vans live in automotive history as a good idea that didn’t quite work out.
There should have been a section on how the passenger version is serving a high percentage of our country’s pronatalists—the guardians of tomorrow’s dependency ratio.
Regarding the City Express canabilizing NV200 sales I’d say it is a safe bet the Nissan sold more units doing that than they would have if they were the only one selling them. I bet a good chunk of those purchasers would have went to Ford over Nissan.
Their “market research” shows how they didn’t really understand the van market. Fleets are the market and the person making the purchase decision on the majority of sales is not the one that will be driving it, nor will they be servicing it themselves. Yes the 1 or 2 truck businesses the buyer will also be the driver, but they are a small part of the market.
The large fleet buyer cares about TCO and uptime, so easier serviceability sounds appealing but in the real world there is no advantage in the common frequent services.
In fact I’d say in many ways it is easier in my E-series than in my F-series. Checking fluids or changing the oil for example much less reaching on the E-series with everything concentrated in the small hood.
Yes when it comes time to do something like change the spark plugs you do have to pull the doghouse but then access to the back part of the engine is far easier than in any pickup, so probably a wash time wise compared to the engine being fully under hood, and cowl.
Because those fleet buyers are also afraid of unknowns. They know the average TCO and uptime of their existing vans while the Nissan’s were an unknown. Those fleet managers also know their existing GM or Ford dealers and likely buy a full range of vehicles from them. So yeah a very tough market to break into.
Now of course the real reason it existed was that the Titan was a flop. So this was dreamed up to try and try and maybe approach a profitable volume level for the plant.
It would be interesting to know the final numbers on the Titan and NV, ie if they actually recovered the development and tooling costs and eeked out some profit.
Nissan was really in pursuit of dominating every segment they thought they had a shot at back then. This is one I figure that if there had been room for another full-size van, Toyota would have considered entering the segment already.
There’s also dealer availability. There are more GMC dealers than there are Nissan, to say nothing of the number of Chevy or Ford dealers. Any of the Big 3 brands were just more accessible to find a dealer and/or have them compete for the sale or contract. A business likely already has a longstanding business relationship with a dealer’s fleet manager, and that dealer is used to having commercial units sitting on the ground waiting for buyers. That’s more unusual for an import brand, so I don’t think Nissan dealers were that keen on it.
Hyundai was talking about entering the commercial van market and there were talks of a GM partnership from the start, which is the only way it can really work. Most global vans are shared and rebadged even.
The smaller vans were in a way a placeholder for small pickups, putting something in the lineup to slide in at a lower cost below a larger pickup or van. For businesses that puts a cap on the pickup beds anyway, that worked fine so long as it’s cheap to buy and run.
Can I live in one down by the river?
Damn, it’s too bad the comment functionality wasn’t preserved in the archive. I almost got choked up with nostalgia seeing the old Kinja header.
God, I wish these had succeeded to expand this narrow market, never mind help to pull Nissan out of the dire straits they’re in now.
Personally, I loved the look, and I’m surprised greater theoretical repairability didn’t factor into fleet sales, a la lower TCO due to quicker repair jobs.
I do find it weird they didn’t sell the passenger configuration in high-roof form, though. That’s exactly what I’d have wanted the extra height for! But that’s a minor criticism, all things considered.
These things were plug ugly from the start. I don’t think there was one line or shape on them that I liked; the front grille treatment was way over the top and they always appeared to be deflating in the rear. And the tall roof versions just look ridiculous.
Americans bouncing back and forth between the same two things they hate, without ever considering the third, better option? Absurd.
Well, if you want to just throw your money away, sure, but we live in a two van-maker system
(Carlos Ghosn punches hole through hat)
https://frinkiac.com/img/S08E01/1283998.jpg
Had no idea the little Chevy van was a thing – Was it even advertised?
Its a shame you didn’t reach out to our friend Brian Thompson – the designer of the NV – to get his take.
That would’ve been cool. Follow up article?
It felt like everybody had a small van during that period. And they all used a stupid, similar “[the name of our big van] + [another word]” format to name them (with one or two exceptions). Yes, I know it’s just to keep the model name cache. I still hate it.
Transit Connect. City Express. NV200. Promaster City. The only odd one out is Mercedes’ Metris, but even then, it’s a Mercedes, and if half the horrors of the Sprinter are true, I wouldn’t touch a Metris just by association.
And yeah, the Transit Connect sold best out of all of them, but the government got up its own ass when Ford followed the letter of the law instead of the spirit.
(Do you know how mad you have to get me to side with a corporation??)
Yeah Ford got hosed on that with some claims about how that didn’t make sense, but somehow Mercedes building a van in Europe, removing the power train, sticking it in the back, then reassembling them in the US was OK.
I think if instead of having the seats, belts and rear glass removed at the port then shipped them to the dealers as imported. Then Ford accessories could sell the steel side panels as a “kit” that the dealers installed would have given them a better shot at avoiding the eventual tax hit which killed them.
It was probably advertised the same way other fleet vehicles are, which means you aren’t going to see a Superbowl commercial.
I think Brian mentioned once that the rear plate holder on the NV 200 was designed as a homage to his beloved Tercel 4wd wagon
I still see at least two NV200s around here daily, one is the Nissan dealership’s parts chaser and the other is used by the local food shelf to pick up day-old from supermarkets – and has signage indicating it was donated by the same dealer.
Around here there’s two or three City Express vans and about double that in NV200s.
I’ve never seen a single City Express but the NV200 seems like it took over what the Honda Element used to be.
I see a fair amount of the big Nissan van but it’s still dwarfed by ancient Sprinters for work. I do know a family with 6 kids who have a personal NV.
I remember when the NVs debuted. The styling was weirdly fugly. Kinda like an overgrown SUV with bad proportions. The hood always looked like a duck bill to me. Daffy Duck is not the image you want your big van to evoke.
Ford did a much nicer job with the refresh of their full-sized van, which now looks like it’s at least of this millennium.
I’ve spent many many miles in an Chevy Express 1500 followed up with a Ford E-150. Both of the vans are absolute dinosaurs. Driver comfort is non-existent. Its unfortunate that the NV didn’t work out. It seems like a good mix of comfort/capability.
Too bad the NV wasn’t more successful. Yeah, they actually understand that the engine belongs under the hood, not under the windshield 😀
They also should’ve sold an NV1500 passenger van. Unfortunately, the passenger vans were NV3500-only, a big mistake.
We never got the NV200 passenger van with windows, either. Only in taxi form was a passenger NV200 sold here.
They should just sell the Urvan here. I’d love to see the Urvan and Hiace sold here.
The E-series has been around since 1975! it got new body panels in 1992, but it’s still the same shit from ’75 underneath LOL
I wish they’d sold a non taxi passenger NV200 here as well. Oddly I’ve seen a non taxi City Express being used as medical transport, never saw inside so I’m unsure how it’s upfitted but considering how passenger versions of that weren’t sold either it was surprising.
“The E-series has been around since 1975! it got new body panels in 1992, but it’s still the same shit from ’75 underneath LOL” While Ford had originally intended to just drop a new body on the old chassis, project creep won out and the next thing you know there are just a couple of pieces left that are interchangeable between the VN and the old Nantucket chassis.
Oh Nissan, the experts at trying, failing and abandoning ship.
Besides reliability, Toyota does one thing massively better: consistency. Even if a model is not selling well, they try really hard to keep it alive at least for a few generations.
Just look at what Nissan has done with the Pathfinder: 1st gen: Serious BoF off-roader, 2nd gen: More luxury and comfort, now unibody, 3rd gen: Unibody didn’t work, let’s do BoF again, but now a 7 seater. 4th gen: BoF didn’t work, let’s do unibody again but it’s now a mallfinder with a CVT for soccer moms. Current gen: Mallfinder but let’s target though bros now.
Meanwhile Toyota and its 4Runner: 1st gen: Serious BoF off-roader. Current gen: Serious BoF off-roader. Same goes for the Camry, the Corolla, the Rav4…
Consistency brings customers. If the restaurant I like starts changing opening hours every day, I’m not going to bother.
There was a time in the 90’s where Nissan was putting out banger after banger. Remember the B13 SE-R Sentra? The D21 pick-up and Pathfinder, the 240SX, the quirky NX, the 300ZX… Where are all of them today? Oh, but there’s a new Leaf? No wonder why you’re broke.
We had a ’92 Sentra in the family, and almost had two (the second car ended up being a Mazda Protege). Great car, and don’t forget the even quirkier Axxess. There’s a vehicle that is needed today…Nissan could have had that with AWD and maybe a 5 or 6-speed auto through the 2000s…and I’d bet they’d still be selling them now.
I had a Mallfinder, and I liked it for it’s comfort and utility, but I HATED that CVT. I think with the prices of used cars today, you see the overpricing of Toyota and Honda vehicles, and to a lesser extent, Mazda, and wonder if those prices would be lower if Nissan could just have had evened the playing field by using a regular automatic transmission.
(Waiting for Mr. Jatco….)
IMHO the next best van company will be the ones who continue the cutaways or get a system for longer drives and heavier weight.the Fords were the best but apparently decided to abandon a great market.
Ford still sells the E350 and E450 cutaway in addition to the Transit chassis cab and cutaway.
GM sells the Express 3500 and 4500 cutaway.
RAM sells the Promaster3500 as a cutaway