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.
My neighbor, a charming independent HVAC guy has an NV200 that he can park in our tight condo garages beside his vintage Vespa.
I’m sad they’re no longer available, along with the Ford Transit Connect. I always thought they looked pretty cool.
I did some work for a tv station that used a couple of the early Connects before bonded-cellular backpacks became a way to do live shots. The Connect was significantly smaller than the Econoline vans that were the dominant platform for microwave vans back then.
Years before, while still working as a new photographer, from time to time I’d bring one of those Econoline vans home and the neighborhood kids got a kick out of seeing the 40+ foot telescoping pneumatic mast go up. I’d set the camera up on a tripod and they’d take turns looking at their friends standing in front of the camera on the monitors inside the van.
In wet freezing weather, the mast sometimes got stuck on the way down. Usually, jumping up and down, side to side, on the rear bumper would help. Once in a while we had to resort to using a small butane torch to heat up a section of the mast. Good times.
I’ve driven all the big vans, included and NV3500 with 4wd parts from a a Titan XD (a local Nissan dealer does the upgrade). Without question the NV is the best driving large van out there. I’ve only driven the V8 version, which is one the smoothest and fastest revving truck V8’s out there.
I’d take the NV, especially if it had lived long enough to get the newer 9-speed to go with that V8, and they could offer the new turbo 6 if they wanted to compete with Ford. Alas it wasn’t meant to be.
I’ve seen a couple of the 4wd versions around and I always thought that was a missed opportunity to build something with factory overlanding capability. They actually look pretty good with a slight lift, upsized AT tires, winch bumper, and lights. The first one I saw, I followed it around the block like a stalker until I figured out what it was.
In my opinion the NVP (as the local dealer calls the 4wd converted NVs) is the best looking 4wd van. They are also way more stable than the Sprinter when off-road. To add 4wd to the Sprinter, Mercedes lifted the van like 6 inches or something ridiculous for an already top heavy vehicle. When I tested one off-road for my YouTube channel I was very nervous it was going to roll. It feels unstable with the slightest side slope. I haven’t tested the AWD transit in the dirt, so maybe it’s better than the NV, but I really doubt it.
It’s also the ugliest van by a wide margin, that front end just doesn’t work at all.
You’re not wrong on that aspect. They are fugly.
The Sprinter is, imho, the best looking of the bunch. Good enough to be party buses/limos in NYC. The three-pointed star may have something to do with that.
I don’t understand why small vans were so unpopular with the masses. They’re incredibly handy. We have a ProMaster City as a second car and it’s fantastic. It’s great for taking the dog places, my partner drove it cross-country and camped in it. It’s hauled everything from trees to a whole car’s worth of parts. And it gets good mileage and is easy to use. And people are always asking us if we want to sell it since they don’t sell them here anymore.
My dad works for a Ford dealer and a lot of customers were upset when Ford got rid of it. It worked so much better in the tight cities here in the SF Bay Area, especially San Francisco.
They never sold them to the masses. They were only sold as commercial vans, never as consumer family vans.
Having sold Nissan durning the early introduction of these, Tyler, as quoted in the article was spot on.
I’ve never seen a fleet manager/business owner with a different brand P/U than what at least half the fleet was. The Titan was already uncompetitive and didn’t fit the image of a “Boss Truck” in 2012. I think the statistics of how many “non-fleet” pickups are purchased at the same time if not within 6mos by the same person who bought a substantial number of fleet vehicles would be suuuper telling.
They really lost the thing in the design department. It was just plain butt ugly. I can understand the team thinking about the whole “owners prefer working under the hood of a pickup vs. a van” thing, but let’s think about that for a minute – in the 21st century, how many work truck guys actually work on their own trucks?
As far as the NV200 goes, it always looked like the side profile of Snoopy to me (usually sent home by the fact that most work vans are white).
Brian from family guy, imo
At least that 2008 NV Concept got to live on as the Armada.
Nissan should have just sold the passenger version as an SUV to get more buyers.
I took so many companies out of NVs and into Transits when Ford first brought it to the US. I don’t judge the styling of commercial vehicles since they are purpose-built to do a job, not look fancy. Most of my customers told me they went with the NV since it was a less expensive vehicle, but they soon became unhappy with them. However, if we were still selling Econoline vans, Nissan probably would’ve succeeded.
Nissan trying to break into a very American segment is like Ford trying to sell the Super Duty in Japan.
I think contractors were just too loyal and consumers were not willing to try something new. combined with the new transit vans becoming the new hotness( rightfully so!) it was a double blow to nissan. Ram later came out with the Promaster, and promaster city and they undercut everybody being the cheapest work vans on the market. work vans are already very niche in the USA so with ford taking up an even more dominating market share and ram entering the market there just was not enough sales left over for nissan. The NV is a good van but sometimes even amazing products fail (see: Microsoft ZUNE as an example)
I knew a few guys that bought them for their businesses they had customization direct for Nissan for shelving they wanted. They all said they got a deal. But all only kept a fraction of the time they normally did because they ended up at the dealer with a litney of issues. I never saw too big of fleet of them it seems like Nissian was able to get fleet sales some from the frontier when the ranger stopped then also sold a good amount of leafs to some smaller fleets. But never really got fleet sales down. Their dealer network is just not set up for it and is probably a bit too slimey to handle it. Seems like the people with huge amounts of kids like them but even that I’ve seen more back in Ford’s lately.
Those full-size Nissan vans are so terrible to work on. I service fleet vehicles for a few businesses, and two of them have those damned vans. They’re always in for problems.
Fail Dramatically?!! That’s pretty harsh.. 10 model years selling 10-20k units per year…not exactly dramatic- harsh! Im sure they very well knew that they weren’t going to “beat“ the domestic competition, they were probably shooting for a 10% chunk or so.
I’m in NYC. These are vehicles I’ve seen on the streets more often than these Nissan vans (yellow cabs excepted.)
–Veyron
–Chiron
–Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet
–that Range Rover mini SUV without the roof
–Vinfast (saw this near Toronto, but who’s counting)
–various JDM vans
–JDM Skylines
–Renault Avantime (unplated, in a parking lot)
–Peugeot 306 (mfr. plate)
–Reliant Robin
You’ve seen more Reliant Robins on the street in NYC than the NV vans? Maybe Nissan was not allowed to sell them in NYC or something.
I don’t think there’s any restriction on NV vans here. They just aren’t around.
For most of the cars in the list, I’ve seen them once.
I suspect the NV200 never really caught on because any small business that needs a van that size doesn’t have the cash flow to buy a new vehicle and instead will spring for a used minivan, too old to haul kids but just the right age to slap a ladder rack on top and a vinyl on the side.
As for the big van, I’m usually a huge fan of design choices in the name of repairability but as a city dweller I can’t imagine living with that gigantic hood. If your service area is exclusively rural/suburban it’s probably fine and the tradeoff is maybe worth it but the second you have to parallel park that sucker you’ll be googling sprinter dealerships
the transit connect was just more practical. more capacity, more power, less issues, no CVT. The ram promaster city also came in late to the party but undercut the nv200 on price it also had more power and capacity. instead of adapting nissan chose to bow out. Ford no longer sells the transit connect due to low sales and i guess the new maverick is supposed to be the replacement for economical work vehicle.
To be fair to Nissan, though, if your choice is between a CVT and the horrible transmission in the transit connect, it’s kind of a tossup.
The Transit Connect transmission is pretty standard. It doesn’t have the Focus dual-clutch trans, but a standard auto. But it doesn’t have a way to check the fluid level, and Ford should have specified a fluid change interval shorter than ‘never’. Dumb and dumber.
It didn’t help that the new model in 2014 was built with a defective shaft/seal on one side, causing leaks.
Change the fluid every 30,000 miles, replace the axle shaft and it’s a solid unit.
Fair enough… just knew lots of folks who had them fail… and when I was looking for one to use for a project, about half had bad transmissions. So I don’t think most people got the memo about how to keep it from failing. (Much like the CVT.)
The CVT in the NV200 was reliable.
Many issues with CVTs are from people not changing the fluid.
To me, the only way to break in to a market that is already so owned by two players like Ford and GM, would be to have come in to the market well under the price of the existing players. They came in so close in price that the risk offered no value to many companies. If you tell them each van will be 7000 in savings, now thats more quantifiable from a risk perspective. Than you might win over some larger fleet contracts.
Did they even try putting a CVT in the big van? That might have helped with the fuel economy and transmission shifting problems. Don’t even get me started on shifting.
My van needs are fairly simple. I need a bunch of seats (foster kids), and I need farm truck capability, especially towing.
The towing requirement eliminates the Transit and Sprinter. The passenger versions of those have pathetic towing capacity, similar to my parents’ Toyota Highlander: about 5,000 lb. That leaves the NV and the Chevy/GMC, with similar capacities. The Nissan is a much better passenger vehicle.
I’m not a fleet buyer; I’m both the buyer and the user. I do care about ergonomics. It’s night and day between the two. The Chevy has the short nose and half the engine in the cabin, in the doghouse. To fit that, the front seats are pushed way out against the side walls. Those walls curve in at the same time as the seats are pushed out. I’m tall, and my head is nearly against the top corner between the wall and roof. The NV seats are more comfortable and better positioned in the space. NV has heated seats, leather, adjustable lumbar, adjustable headrests.
Since I’m using the rear seats regularly, those matter. The Chevrolet doesn’t even have headreasts.
That long nose? It only matters when you park. The other 95% of the time you’re using the van, it doesn’t matter at all. I don’t mind the looks. I don’t love it, but I appreciate it. It’s a square box which is the most efficient use of space.
All of the money Nissan squandered on this boondoggle van they could have built a proper compact truck.
Anecdotal, but I have some experience with folks who bought these.
-I have a friend who runs an HVAC company, and he looked at these but ran into one major issue and one minor issue. The major one was that the dealerships were awful to work with, and didn’t want to treat his order of three new vans as a commercial/fleet purchase. The minor was lack of 4wd, which his existing fleet of E-series and Expresses didn’t have either, but in snowy places like here in Colorado would have been a game changer. Instead, he bought one FWD Promaster, which turned out to be a huge lemon, and then switched his whole fleet to Silverados with bed caps (which his employees all hate except for when it snows). I asked why he didn’t buy AWD Ford Transits and he just said it was for the same reason he doesn’t still have his Ecoboost F150 and then scowled. I left that topic alone.
-I worked for two companies that gave the NV a shot and both companies sold them off before the warranty expired because they spent an unacceptable amount of time at the dealer for warranty repairs. Transmission issues were the biggest culprits, but there were also electrical bugs and one had to have an engine replacement because it was guzzling oil faster than it could burn gasoline. Both bought Sprinters after that, even though they were far more expensive.
-The office building my company leases has a big atrium in the middle with fountains, a bridge, and flowers everywhere, so it has a dedicated florist that comes by three times a week in her NV200. She loves her van, though admits all the graphics for her floral company helps mask how awkward and ugly the van’s design is.
-Back in 2016/2017, one of my electrical suppliers bought a fleet of NV3500s. They loved them, but ended up switching over to diesel Sprinters for better fuel economy and residual value (apparently the NVs depreciated hard and fast).
It’s a shame the NVs didn’t do better, as I rather liked the big vans despite their awkward appearance. I think offering factory 4wd would have made them instant darlings of the overland community, but also a compelling case in areas where AWD/4WD are more necessity than luxury (and yes, I know snow tires exist, but I’ve yet to meet a fleet manager willing to buy two sets of wheels and tires when AWD/4WD is a one-time buy that also adds to the resale value).
The warranty anecdotes reminded me of another thing – you had to get certified to be a Nissan commercial dealer, and part of that involved the shop. Obviously you’d need lifts and space equipped to handle all the way up to a high roof 3500 van and certfied techs. That no doubt reduced the dealer pool to buy and service from from the customer side, and probably contributed to some dealer disillusionment in the long run after spending the coin.
I remember when they pulled the plug they offered the dealers who made the commercial investment a ridiculously low buyout payment as well.
Also anecdotal: Mine has been nearly flawless. I’ve replaced the rear shocks, and had a cracked windshield.
100% on the 4wd option. A van this size struggles for traction on unpaved surfaces.
The Chevy Express/GMC Savana were offered with AWD for several years but it was only available in a half-ton.
When the NV launched Ford was hobbled by Ohio body and assembly plants and the truck shuttle between them that couldn’t handle a high roff Econoline, giving the NV an advantage in that market. Once ford brought the Transit with factory high roof option to Kansas City Assembly, it was all over for the NV…
Does seem like the NV is the best ban to own by far, but not the best for fleet operations.
I always liked the idea of these. The side profile reminds me of a giant, body-on-frame Volvo 245 wagon.
I’ve got a friend who has one of these for his e-waste recycling business. He loves it! He has shelves in it, and loves that he can tow a trailer full of lead-acid rackmount UPS batteries or MFPs and still have the cargo space in the van to load full of phones, monitors, and whatever other peripherals need recycling. Plus, he was able to get it in red, while all other local work vans defaulted to white.
So many dumb decisions. No extended length van killed half its market. Only putting the 11mpg V8 in the work van. And introducing a BOF van when it was clear that the market was heading in the Sprinter/Transit/Promaster direction. The giant hood that kills cargo capacity. This is for repairability? My own experience is that I’d rather work on my E-350 than my 3500HD. For all the hood that pickup trucks come with, a good part of the engine is crammed under the firewall requiring cab removal or a lot of cursing. The crazy cargo capacity-to-outside cargo capacity is literally one of the biggest draws of a van, and Nissan never got the memo.
My company has a few vans for hauling our test equipment around the country. They used to be extended E-350s, but once they racked up about 400,000 miles, they got put out to pasture and they were replaced by high-roof Transits. We literally would not be able to fit all of our gear into an NV3500.
Yes, the lack of cargo room was an issue – for delivery, trades, and van life.
Yes, vans can be hard to work on but so is pretty much every modern car. Between the hood, fender wells, and doghouse you can get to everything.
My wife’s uncle has a passenger NV with the Quigley 4×4 conversion (https://www.quigley4x4.com/products/nissan/). It’s actually awesome and was great for hauling around his 5 kids and all their stuff. Does a great job on his expansive rural property too I’m told.
An NV owner so not impartial but …
Look. If we’re going to judge a vehicle as a failure because it has low sales numbers or a slightly odd front end – this whole website falls apart.
Vehicle manufacturers who make cars like this give YOU the opportunity to re-design, and make some really excellent content.
As with others I suspect this van was meant to have 4WD and a diesel from the factory EVENTUALLY before they killed it.
My wife had a specific list of requirements for our purchase:
-Not a minivan
-V6 minimum
-5 car seat capable
-Leather (only because many cloth options are not great)
-Heated seats
-Driver Lumbar
Reasons I bought this passenger van (which does come with the V8 by the way):
-V8 RWD
-Cheaper than a Honda Odyssey that met her non-minivan requirements
-Easier to buckle children than any SUV that met above requirements & cheaper
-More space for the associated nonsense that comes with 5+ kids in car seats
-Excellent driving position
-Fit 35″ tires without a lift (not really a REASON but it happened)
-Decently reliable engine/transmission with 7yr/100k mile warranty.
-Doesn’t look like the average commercial van
-Can call it Bahamut without being ironic
-She took the test drive and told me it was the one
Our out the door was $39.3k (just before COVID) for a V8 RWD plushiest seats I’ve ever sat in and I owned a Fleetwood Van. The math made sense.
Nothing has appreciably filled this space from a large family vehicle standpoint so I will continue to defend it until something useful shows up.
If you read through the whole thing you’ll note that I said that the NV has lots of happy owners and that its failure wasn’t because of its design, but because Nissan couldn’t beat America’s van duopoly.
Jason might not like the NV, but I do! I also liked the Jeep Commander from the last entry. To be clear, the “Unholy Fails” series is not me hating on a vehicle, but explaining why a vehicle that should have been a home run failed in some way or another. Some “Unholy Fails” are great vehicles, like the NV, that failed for reasons that weren’t of their own doing.
Admittedly, the graphics guy might have been a bit too harsh in the topshot image, as it might imply that the van itself was the problem.
This makes sense. I did read through the whole thing, but I did not read some of the initial unholy fail articles so maybe missed some of the purpose of the series.
That’s on me.
Nissan dealerships (and by association the corporate mothership) failed the product. Vans were good enough to capture enough market share to establish a foothold in the fleet market. 90% of dealerships made zero effort to support the program.
Also to be clear – some true fails:
-The shifter is shaped poorly and makes getting any drink out of the cup holder impossible
-I don’t believe the cargo versions got an appropriately flat floor, and on the passenger version they didn’t add padding to cover some of the ruts, which makes some moves awkward
-The worst offense – the 4th row passenger side seat does not fit in the third or second row. So there is no situation where you can have 4 across in the third or second row. This defeats some really ideal setups where you can have huge cargo capacity with say 9 passenger capacity. Have to stick with 8 passengers like the chumps in Suburbans.
One last pro… has a factory double DIN radio.