Americans have an obsession with vehicles that can tow and haul things. Large pickup trucks get all of the attention for their unfathomably good abilities to haul boats, campers, cars, and construction equipment through the harshest passes on public roads. Yet, one of the best tow vehicles for the average person might not be a pickup truck at all. For nearly three decades, General Motors has sold the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana, vans that are great for work, but also strong enough to haul up to 10,000 pounds with force thanks to GM’s legendary Duramax 6.6-liter diesel V8 engines. Even as these vans are finally dying off and being replaced, tens of thousands of working people are still buying them.
Back in October 2024, I wrote about why the Ford Econoline and E-Series remain great vans even though they have long been bested and replaced by the excellent Ford Transit. For many, the E-Series remains a great choice because of its simple, time-tested design, low cost, and the heavy-hauling capabilities of the E-350 Super Duty. It’s not hard to find a Ford E-350 converted into a camper, towing racecars, hauling dirt bikes, or sometimes all of the above. For some, the deal was sweetened even more because the E-Series was offered with Ford’s legendary 7.3-liter Power Stroke V8. A similar phenomenon can be witnessed with GM’s old Chevy Express and GMC Savana work vans, and in some ways, these vans are even better at the job.
GM’s work vans are seemingly eternal, like mosquitoes over still water in the heat of summer. They’re anywhere and everywhere at all times. At this very moment, I know of the location of at least five Chevy Express vans within 200 feet of the keyboard I am writing this. Two of them are very old, while the other three are newer. Yet, GM’s work van design has been so unchanging that they all look and likely drive similarly. All of these vans are driven by working men. They’re contractors, electricians, and mobile mechanics.
Another nearby Chevy Express is a luxury conversion van, and that van looks like it’s the closest an average kid might get to riding in a private jet. More of these conversion vans appeared at the 2025 Chicago Auto Show in February, most of them adorned with price tags in the ballpark of a used Audi R8 and some knocking on the door of the price of a new Lotus Emira.
The might of this aged platform shouldn’t be ignored. The 2025 Chevrolet Express sports a maximum payload of 4,280 pounds and a maximum towing capacity of 9,600 pounds (the 2024 model hauled up to 10,000 pounds). If you get a new Express, you can get it with a 6.6-liter L8T direct-injected V8 making a healthy 401 horsepower and 464 lb-ft of torque, too. If you aren’t married to buying new, the Express and Savana were even available with greats like the Vortec 8100 big block V8 and the Duramax LLY 6.6-liter diesel V8.
Sadly, Chevrolet hasn’t replaced its work vans with Euro-style vans like Ford and Ram, but just for comparison’s sake, look at the Ford Transit. That van now has an impressive max payload of 5,110 pounds, but, at best, the Transit tows 6,900 pounds
On the surface, it sounds wild that people are still spending lots of money on vans with platforms dating back to the Clinton Administration. These are vans that General Motors wanted to kill this year, but may now soldier on indefinitely. Yet, the Chevy Express and GMC Savana remain attractive for tens of thousands of buyers.
GM’s Van History Is Great
While the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana aren’t nameplates that have been around for as long as Ford’s Econoline, they do come from a lineage of innovative vans and trucks.
The American light delivery vehicle market exploded in the late 1950s. The Big Three were known for building their vans out of trucks, with good examples being the Chevrolet Apache panel, Ford F-100 panel, and Dodge Town Panel. However, a different kind of van began to challenge the status quo. Volkswagen’s Type 2 Transwas a radical departure in van design, while the Jeep Forward Control was something different in the truck world.
Volkswagen managed to capture a market with its Microbus. Families found them easy to pile into, and tradesmen found them great to maneuver and easy to load. Those wanting to seek adventure outfitted their VW vans with camping gear and hit the road. According to Corvanatics, which cites Alex Mair’s 1961 SAE paper “The Corvair 95 — Chevrolet’s Space Age Panel Truck,” General Motors believed it could make a forward control utility vehicle that was better than both the Jeep FC and the Volkswagen. That utility vehicle platform was based on the innovative Corvair and was a leap forward in American van and truck design.
It wasn’t long before the 1960s American van market was chock-full of forward control designs, including GM’s Corvair platform, Ford’s Econoline, the Volkswagen Transporter, and the Dodge A100. Over time, GM’s vans evolved into more conventional working tools. The G-series launched in 1964 with the G10, which was still a forward control design, but now with an engine up front. The 1967 redesign of the G-series saw updates in the form of new engines, a new look, and even a longer wheelbase model.
GM’s Van Gets Normal
GM’s vans didn’t take the shape that we know them for today until 1970 when the third-generation G-series launched. These vans featured the long bodies and stubby hoods that GM’s vans would continue to be known for today. What was interesting about the G-series was that despite using Chevy C/K running gear and despite its truck-like appearance, these vans still featured unitized bodies.
These vans did have frame rails, but they were integrated into the body. The suspension also saw upgrades as the front end ditched its leaf springs for coil springs and control arms. Meanwhile, the rear end stayed with a tried and true solid axle and leaf springs. Like the Ford Econoline, G-series was available as a cutaway, which meant that builders had an easier time building buses, ambulances, and motorhomes out of the platform.
Of course, this was the 1970s, so some of these were turned into groovy conversion vans.
Diesel Makes Its First Appearance
The third generation of the G-series lasted through an incredible 26 years with only minimal changes to the bodywork and interior. In 1982, GM introduced diesel power to the G-series lineup, lowering 6.2-liter GM Detroit Diesel V8s into the engine bays of three-quarter-ton and 1-ton vans. Keep in mind that in the early 1980s, the use of these diesel engines wasn’t to achieve ridiculous power numbers, but fuel economy that couldn’t have been achieved by gasoline V8s of the era.
More power came in 1994 when the 6.2-liter diesel V8 was replaced by the 6.5-liter diesel V8 version, but even then, these engines remained naturally aspirated and thus still slow.
While GM had engineered a great van, it wasn’t enough to topple mighty Ford. In 1980, Ford’s Econoline captured the work van market and kept it until 2015. Yep, the E-Series didn’t lose its crown until Ford finally stopped making it with a van body. During the peak of Econoline production, Ford had 80 percent of the work van market, leaving the likes of GM and Dodge to fight over the scraps.
The All-New Express And Savana
In January 1996, General Motors announced its first all-new full-size van design in 26 years. The Chevrolet Express and the GMC Savana were born and they almost completely flipped GM’s van script.
As MotorTrend writes, the Express and Savana were introduced during a time when automakers expected large families to sell their minivans to move into a full-size van. Because of this, analysts projected that the full-size market was set to grow by 30 percent by 2002. General Motors couldn’t win this battle with a van introduced in 1970, so it was time to build new from the ground up.
One of the van’s biggest changes happened under the skin, where unitized construction was retired for an all-new welded ladder frame. This gave the van more truck-like capability, but GM didn’t want to make the vans all about work. Extra focus was put into driving dynamics because it wanted the families who bought the passenger versions of these vans to get an experience that was more car-like than the van’s truck-based mechanicals would have suggested.
Additional work was put into making a body that benefited everyone, regardless if they were a plumber or a family of 15 people. The Express and Savana vans were given relatively aerodynamic bodies, the option for body color or chrome moldings, flush glass, recessed door handles, and smart touches such as rear doors with 180 degrees of swing.
MotorTrend‘s 1996 review suggests that the Express was a hit right out of the park:
From the first time you climb up behind the wheel of the Express (you don’t “slide-in” behind the wheel of a big van), the feeling is reassuringly solid. The dual-airbag dash and instrument panel are hung on a massive magnesium beam that spans the entire front width of the new G-van, and the 1996 Express also sports a molded headliner featuring optional overhead climate controls and vents.
The Express rates high marks for ride and handling. That long, wide stance establishes an exceptionally stable platform—a virtue you’ll appreciate next time you encounter a direct crosswind. However, as you might expect, tight-confines maneuverability isn’t a strong suit of the Express. The standard-wheelbase G1500 has a 45.2-foot turning circle. That number grows to 47.4 feet for the G2500 and a curb-hopping 53.4 feet for Extended models.
GM’s redesign of the Vortec engine line for 1996 makes the Express a responsive package on the road. The base engine is the Vortec 4300 (4.3-liter) V-6, which delivers 195 horsepower and 250 pound-feet of torque. The Vortec 5000 (5.0-liter) V-8 offers 220 hp and 285 lb-ft of torque, but our pick for general big-van usage is the Vortec 5700 (5.7-liter) V-8, which produces 250 hp and 335 lb-ft of torque. We also had the opportunity to drive a bare-bones model equipped with the Vortec 7400 V-8, which yields 290 hp and a tire-shredding 410 lb-ft of torque. When empty, this brute would light the tires for the length of a city block.
In brochures, General Motors talked up its van’s best-in-class features. Chevy said if you ordered your Express or Savana with a long wheelbase, you got 316.8 cu-ft of interior volume. The standard-length model still swallowed 267.3 cu-ft, and GM claimed that the Express and Savana had the most cargo volume in the full-size class.
Also claimed to be best-in-class was the 56.9 inches of opening when the rear doors were swung out as far as they could be.
GM also explained why Express and Savana vans have that weird plastic bit surrounding their taillights. GM called that the “halo” (above) and this was its function: A composite cap panel above the rear doors helps protect paint from damage when loading and unloading roof carrier equipment and tools. Neat!
Under the skin, GM said that the Express and Savana were in for the long haul. GM said its Vortec V8 engines didn’t need spark plug maintenance until 100,000 miles thanks to platinum-tip plugs. GM then said you’d be able to go five years or 150,000 miles between coolant changes.
The first facelift seen by the Express happened in 2003 and brought major revisions to the front end, including bodywork and crumple zone, as well as interior upgrades. Other improvements came in the form of upgraded three-piece box-section frames, four-wheel disc brakes, OnStar, and an option for all-wheel-drive. Perhaps the coolest option introduced in 2003 was the ability to spec your van with driver-side rear barn doors.
Since then, the Express and Savana have gotten updates, but they have been much milder.
These include stability control in 2005, side curtain airbags in 2008, a new dashboard in 2011, and even a neat parking assist system in 2013. Amusingly, the Express was able to be ordered with sealed beam headlights all of the way until 2018. Now, you can get your Express or Savana with a lane departure warning system, blind spot monitoring, and collision alerts. Yep, they may be nearing 30 years, but GM has managed to cram some modern technology into these rides.
Full-size competition was fierce in the 1990s, and that included towing capability. In 1992, a light-duty Ford Econoline 150 hauled 6,600 pounds at best. In 1996, the light-duty Chevy Express 1500 nearly matched that with 6,500 pounds of towing capacity. Both Ford and GM claimed that you could do this with the base model six-cylinder engines, too.
Like the Ford, upgrading to an Express or Savana 2500 upgraded your hauling capacity, but not by much. According to Cars.com, the pre-facelift 2500s towed up to 7,100 pounds. In contrast, an equivalent Econoline 250 of the day towed 7,500 pounds.
If you wanted the biggest, baddest, beefiest Express or Savana, the 3500 was the way to go. These vans featured more heavy duty chassis and suspension. Pair them up with a sizable engine and you were looking at a whopping 10,000 pounds of towing capacity right at launch in 1996. The Express and Savana 3500 vans have then retained 10,000-pound towing capacities right through 2024.
What’s fascinating is that these vans were also available with so many different engines. The MotorTrend report covers what the early gas engines looked like. If, for whatever reason, the Vortec 7400 noted above wasn’t big enough, the even bigger Vortec 8100 arrived in 2001, bringing a hilarious 340 HP and 455 lb-ft of torque along for the ride. Sadly, GM never got spicy like Ford and served up these vans with V10s.
At launch, GM also sold these vans with its 6.5-liter Detroit Diesel V8 turbodiesel, which was good for 190 HP and 385 lb-ft of torque in the vans. While the GM 6.5 diesel lagged behind the competition on power, to this day it remains one of the best-sounding truck engines money can buy. But this one is in a van!
As of right now, the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana get just two engines. The V8 is the 6.6-liter 401 HP L8T that I mentioned earlier and the base engine is the 4.3-liter Ecotec3 V6, good for a respectable 276 HP and 298 lb-ft of torque. So, if you want one of these vans and desire more exciting locomotion, you will have to go used.
Like A Diesel Truck, But Cooler
The great thing about these vans is that they have truck engines and truck transmissions. That means that, in many ways, these vans are more or less like pickup trucks with covered beds. Express and Savana owners got to enjoy the same legendary GM small block V8s and Duramax diesels, but in a form factor that’s great for hauling families or motorcycles.
The GM 6.5-liter diesel V8 was discontinued from GM’s full-size vans in 2002. Then, they were not replaced until 2006 and what they got was a Duramax, the engine family born out of a joint venture launched by GM and Isuzu in 1997. Sadly, the Chevy Express and the GMC Savana did not get GM’s legendary Duramax LBZ, but it did get the LBZ’s close sibling, the LLY. Here’s some history from MotorTrend:
The Duramax LB7 is a 6.6L V-8 with four valves per cylinder, a cast-iron engine block with aluminum heads, and high-pressure common-rail injection. It produced 300 hp at 3,100 rpm and 520 lb-ft at 1,800 rpm, which were segment-best numbers at the time. The unique injection system was a bit problematic early on, but with those issues resolved, the LB7 can be a very reliable engine.Â
Curing many of the problems of the first Duramax, the LLY received a redesigned valvetrain for improved maintenance access, a variable-geometry turbocharger for improved throttle response and low-end power, and an exhaust-gas recirculation system to help it meet stringent emissions regulations. Power and torque were up to 310 hp at 3,000 rpm and 605 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm. Of note, the LLY was also available in the 2006-2007 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana, though power was restricted slightly to preserve the vans’ four-speed automatic transmissions.
The LLY’s construction was similar to the LB7 that came before it. These engines sport forged-steel, fractured cap connecting rods, cast-aluminum pistons, cast-aluminum heads with six 14mm diameter head bolts per cylinder, and four-valves per cylinder. Fueling the LLY is a Bosch CP3 injection pump firing Bosch solenoid injectors.
Unfortunately, as I noted in one of my GM diesel truck history pieces, the LLY stops short of true greatness because of some known issues, including overheating, blown head gaskets, water pump failures, glow plug failures, and bent rods.
However, there is a twist here. The LLY Duramax housed in the Express and Savana vans was detuned to 250 HP and 460 lb-ft of torque. They also did not get Allison transmissions like the big trucks did. Instead, the Duramax vans got GM 4L80-E four-speed automatics. Now, this does not sound so fun, but there is a silver lining. I do not see a lot of complaints from Express Duramax or Savana Duramax owners, which can suggest that these detuned engines may better avoid the issues noted above.
The other good thing is that the Duramax vans were still ahead of the competition in specs. A 2006 Ford E-350 made 235 HP and 440 lb-ft of torque from its 6.0-liter Power Stroke V8. The Duramax LLY also has a better reputation than the infamous 6.0 Power Stroke, too.
In 2011, General Motors switched its full-size vans over to the Duramax LMM. Power bumped up to 260 HP and 525 lb-ft of torque, detuned from 365 HP and 660 lb-ft of torque as they were found in GM trucks. Some diesel resources describe the LMM as mechanically similar a the iconic LBZ, but loaded down with emissions equipment. Indeed, the LMM sports a diesel particulate filter, cooled exhaust gas recirculation, and closed crankcase ventilation. Here’s more information about the LBZ that came before, from my retrospective:
Mechanically, the LBZ is similar to the LLY, but with a thicker engine block casting, beefy forged-steel connecting rods, and the common-rail fuel system was turned up even higher with a Bosch CP3 fuel pump. That fuel pump is so powerful that it’s capable of moving 200 liters of fuel per hour. Other upgrades include more webbing in the main bearings, taller main bearing caps, and the bores for those cap bolts dig 4mm deeper before. In other words, GM went through the faults of its previous Duramax powerplants and hardened them.
One change from LBZ to LMM, aside from the additional emissions equipment, is a swap from a seven-hole injector to a six-hole injector. Otherwise, even the Bosch CP3 fuel pump made a return in the LMM. These engines are also considered to be reliable, but do have noted issues with clogged diesel particulate filters, EGR failures, and the occasional cracked piston. Those latter two issues did carry over from the LBZ.
Finally, from 2017 to 2022, the Express got its last diesel engine. This one was a weirdo. It wasn’t a 6.6-liter Duramax V8. No, this time, the Express got a 2.8-liter Duramax inline-four. This made the Express the first full-size American van to get a four-cylinder since the 1960s!
The 2.8-liter Duramax LWN four is a weird one. This engine uses a cast-iron block, a fully balanced forged steel crank, dual overhead cams, and 29,000 psi Denso injectors. The LWN was designed as part of a multinational effort involving Torino, Germany, and Michigan, with assembly in Thailand. That’s interesting enough, but the twist was that this engine wasn’t put into the Express for power, but for fuel economy. The Duramax LWN made just 181 HP and 369 lb-ft of torque. Some folks have claimed to hit 30 mpg with these engines! Sadly, equipping your van with this engine reduced towing capacity to 7,000 pounds.
Sadly, these engines have also earned a nasty reputation. How bad has it gotten? A Chevy Colorado forum has a thread counting the number of catastrophic engine failures experienced by LWM owners. This will be worth looking into at a later date, but unfortunately, there are dozens of reports of total LWM engine failures.
As with any vehicle, there are issues to watch out for. I’ve noticed that Express vans here in the Midwest will sometimes suffer from both catastrophic rust problems and severe paint failure. I’ve also seen some Duramax vans for sale with blown head gaskets or worn-out transmissions. But the great thing is that since these vans have been pretty much the same for over two decades, parts are still plentiful.
Vans Remain Great
Some people wonder why you would get a van for towing when a pickup truck is more capable. In my experience, vans are astoundingly versatile.
One of my former Gambler 500 rigs was a 2006 Ford E-350 Power Stroke. Sheryl and I drove to Gambler 500 events, off-road the van, and then sleep in the warm van at night. We didn’t have to fight a tent or put a cap on a pickup truck. All we had to do was simply move from the driving compartment to the spacious cargo area in the back.
Then, when I wasn’t using the van for Gambler shenanigans, I was able to carry loads of tools and tires with ease and some relative security. Many of the full-size van owners I know tow a racecar behind their van and then sleep inside the van. Or, they’ll tow a camper behind the van and have a pair of motorcycles inside. Some folks also just have huge families and actually use nearly all of the 15 seats in the passenger models.
So, the next time you’re thinking about buying a tow vehicle, maybe don’t get a pickup truck, but a diesel van. Then, let your imagination run wild on how to make it your own. I’ve lost count of how many “moto van” builds I’ve seen online. Honestly, the possibilities are nearly endless.
I used to live in one of these – it made for a nice apartment. Electric fridge between the front seats, actual couch as a second row, bed behind with room to park my bike beside
For anyone interested in automotive esoterica, (@Torchinsky) you may take note that the Express is the last new passenger vehicle available without a screen on the dash. Even the rear-view camera is integrated into the mirror.
People seem to think that there’s a stigma of becoming a creepy guy with a van
But they can also be creepy guys in trucks just as easily as they could be a cool guy with a van
We had one of these for our dogs to go to dog events and yes they are a bit harder to get around tight street and parking lots but WOW are they smooth on the highway. doing 5-10 hr days on the highway were no problem and they are big enough to feel better around the big trucks on the highway. Our friends still have a long wheel base one that is very long for parking lots.
This would be great for any amateur or casual racer.
I’m sorry, but up here in Canada, they want more for a stripped-out contractor van than a mid spec crew cab truck. There’s no way in hell I’m spending more for less.
You see, thats where you are wrong
the van is more, because it is better.
It’s great if you need a vehicle for trade work. Otherwise, it’s a compromise. Especially if you live where it gets cold. Enjoy your ice box.
every vehicle purchase is a compromise
In the context of the article, I argue that a truck is a better buy as a tow rig than an Express van. Especially when you compare purchase price.
For example: The cheapest one within 100km of me is a 2017 with 330k kilometers on it, and they want 22k. And it’s powered by a goddamn 4.8.
For that same price, I can get a half ton of any brand the same year, half the miles, and damn near fully loaded.
So no, they are not good buys unless you NEED a van.
you are the problem
The van would be better, you just don’t think they’re as cool so you’ve never seriously looked at the options out there.
Hmm, do I want to pay more for a hollow box with zero options beyond A/C and a shitty driving position?
Or do I want to pay less for something comfy that has the same hauling abilities, just with an open area I can put odd sized objects in?
What’s your problem, dude?
His user name checks out for the average Jalopnik comenter.
Current van pricing seems to be based on “how much can we increase the price of this every year before people stop buying them”.
The “new” promaster is a facelift that’s just carried over from the Euro versions and a transmission upgrade, otherwise the same van as it was launched in 2014. The Transit got an updated v6 5 years ago now. And the article above explains how little the Express has changed.
I think it’s basically “if this business needs a van they’ll pay whatever we tell them to pay” mentality. Not that prices to build these hasn’t gone up, but holy hell the sticker prices.
I also paid more for my wagon than the sedan alternative or a comparable crossover, but Im a lot happier paying a little more for something I enjoy much more.
Trucks suck, vans are cooler and more functional, get over it
Is the wagon completely stripped out of everything, including the rear seats and all interior trim aft of the driver compared to the sedan? Cause that’s the comparison we’re working with.
Bro, my man, my guy. I’m very pro-van. I love a van. I’d rather have a van than a truck any day, and I’m happy to pay more for it. I have paid more for it.
That doesn’t make the $45k starting price for a Promaster or $46k for Transit a reasonable price. New vehicles are too expensive, and on Vans that haven’t changed substantially in a decade that’s all the more apparent.
The reason these vans still exist is a result of either poor planning or dumb luck by GM. When the Euorvans started to cross the pond, GM still owned Vauxhall and Opel, but neither of them were building their own vans – they were just rebadged Fiats or Peugeots or something. So while Chrysler could import Sprinter vans (via Daimler-Chrysler), and later on Fiat vans (via FCA), and Ford could just bring the Transit to the US, GM was stuck with the old vans. They lucked out by being the only company with an old-school van, which lots of folks wanted.
Yeah, most people here seem to hate the Eurovans we’ve ended up with.
I had a Promaster for a while, and it drove surprisingly nice for it’s size. FWD had it’s issues, but the thing was great in the snow.
Had a Home Depot rental Transit a couple months ago, similarly pleasant.
Had a Uhaul rental Express a couple weeks ago (I used to work at uhaul, so i’ve driven these many many times but it had been a long time) and it constantly reminds you that you’re driving a heavy duty truck chassis with a box on it.
Now, I got rid of my Promaster because it was a maintenance nightmare, so I definately wouldn’t recommend buying one out of warranty.
That being said, most people driving those vans as part of a fleet aren’t paying for maintenance, so it seems like it’s mostly the “I want and American van not a silly European one” that’s hung around for over a decade now.
The G van’s styling even crossed the Atlantic, The Bedford CF is the 70s G van’s uncanny valley little brother, duking it out with the early Ford Transit. The CF did get various 4 cylinder diesels, supposedly had a V8 option in Australia
A nice thing about the Express is that it can fit in an extended length standard height garage, the Promaster can’t.
They didn’t start using the G-series moniker until the 1971 redesign. Before that they were simply Chevy Van 90 or Chevy Van 108 for the cargo versions and Sport Van 90 or 108 if equipped with windows and seating for more than 2 people.
I’m one that thinks that it is a good thing that GM decided to let these soldier on again and again. It is durable and proven in the applications it is commonly used for. The only thing they should have done is create a high roof version as that is a game changer for a lot of users.
Ford engineers had wanted to add a high roof version to the Econoline with the last all-new version but unfortunately they would have needed a new factory or at least significant changes to the current building for it to go down the line and the accountants nixed that investment.
As someone with fond memories of a 1992 Ford Econoline 350 Club Wagon XLT with a 460, can confirm the superiority of a beefy van as a tow vehicle. Not only do you get towing capacity to rival the heaviest pickups, you get tons of dry, lockable cargo space. And although I have not consulted a scientician to confirm, I would wager that the improved aerodynamics improve the driving dynamics while towing as well, without that gap over the bed between the cab and the front of the trailer. At least, it sure felt like it from behind the wheel – it pulled our 4700lb (dry) 23-foot camper with terrific highway manners.
My wife’s QX56 has that job these days, and it does great, but that van was just a beast. Published factory towing capacity: 10,000 pounds. If we didn’t already have her truck and I was looking for a tow rig, I’ll just bet I’d shop the Express/Savana.
My HVAC friend loved his LLY-equipped Express, but always caveated that he only loved it because he paid someone else to maintain it. Apparently, the limited access makes it a pain to work on.
I love my Transit (250 High roof). For work it is a superior mini supply house on wheels.
The only teeny tiny issue I have with Transit and “eurovans” in general is the driving position. I just can’t ever seem to get comfortable behind the wheel.
This is where the Express/Savanna excelled for me. Slipping behind the wheel felt a great deal like sliding behind the wheel of a Malaise era land yacht. It was just comfortable.
GM is going to GM, but I’ll never understand why they don’t update these at least a little bit. Instead, they find new and amazing ways to decontent them. For 2025, these lost the Bluetooth option in the radio as well as satellite radio and the USB port. So you get AM/FM and an aux port now.
Do they keep a line running of the old “black tie” radio, just for this vehicle?
I recently test-drove one of these with the L8T. The power feels surprisingly understated and controllable, compared to what those numbers had me expecting. But it was nice to be driving a van again. Good visibility (cargo panels not withstanding) and deceptively good handling.
I still hope to get another used conversion van someday and I’m a lot more ambivalent between the E-series and Express now.
On the other hand, the L8T is direct injection while the Tritons are port fuel injection…and that’d be a big maintenance item hanging over me like, I dunno, a timing belt replacement.
Wow, I must have read that review when it was new, because I recognized the line about the 7.4L spinning the rear tires for the length of a block!
I always thought these were more attractive pre-facelift.
I don’t know if I’d go with a diesel in one of these, unless you tow with it all the time.
Mine is a 3500 with an L96 6.0 and the 6L90. It can tow just as much as the diesels (10k lbs), MPG of course is worse, but the 6.0 is much cheaper and easier to maintain or repair.
Over a decade ago, when I bought my 1992 Econoline 350, I barely missed the boat on a listing for one with a 7.3 Powerstroke. I was bummed out. But I towed our camper many thousands of miles with the 460 in the one I bought, and I never missed the diesel one moment.
Yeah, diesel is overrated for recreational tow vehicles. I’m a big diesel fan, but, for a vehicle that’s going to have maybe 4,000 miles/year added, and will only be in service maybe 24 days out of the year, you’re saving yourself a lot of headache by just sticking with gasoline.
Modern diesels simply aren’t worth it unless you are towing max weight 24x7x365. Emissions requirements have killed everything that made them great back in the day, while modern gasoline fuel injection has closed much of the economy gap. As I have said on here before, my cousin the fleet manager of my hometown has stopped buying diesel school buses and 2-axle dump/plow trucks because the upfront and maintenance costs outweigh the fuel savings by a large margin.
The 6.0 is the way to go.
These vans have also been the source of wonderful 6.0/4l80 engine and trans donors. Perfect powertrain for many restomod projects resulting in big power & reliability
Full size vans are really the work horse’s especially as trucks have gotten out of hand. It’s fairly hard to find the diesels though. All those express vans have the same issue with paint. Pretty much any government auction now has a few express vans. It’s also funny the ford 6.8 V10 triton in the vans has a much better reputation then in trucks. Uhual also sells their much older then you think fleet off for ok prices sometimes. But those are van cut aways or might still have box. I wouldn’t try to tow much with the gas v6 vans but anything bigger people do it all the time. The Ford Ecoboost vans are probably ok for as long as their isn’t any real grade involved.
Don’t quote me on this–I don’t know if it’s the same as with the 5.4l V8 but I heard the vans never got the 3v or 4v versions that had the issue of sending the spark plugs to rendezvous with the manhole cover. Maybe there was something similar with the V10s?
I’d never get the V10 unless I really, really needed it though. MPG really understates the difference vs. a measure like gallons per hundred miles.
The difference between 40 and 45 mpg (aka two attainable efficiencies with my Prius v) is basically nothing compared to the difference between 12 and 17 mpg.
It was the 2v engines that spit out spark plugs and yeah I think the E-series didn’t get the PI heads until that issue was resolved. The 3v engines were the ones that on the ones with the original spark plug design left part of the spark plug in the head if the proper removal procedure was not followed.
Could be. Back of engine easier to get to in most van applications too. That always seems like an issue with v10s. I had one in a bus you could get it to 14 maybe 15 on the highway empty. But 8 with some weight and hills was not out of the question. I didn’t really care for it felt very industrial. Guys have told me their 5.4 vans will get close to 20 on the highway. I guess that’s not out of the question. I’ve seen 5.4 in expeditions get close to that.
Damn. After 7 years with mine, the most I ever got (with the 4.6l) was 17 and maybe one tank where I managed to hit 18.
I remember when we got it my dad asked the sales person about the 4.6l vs. the 5.4l in terms of fuel economy and the guy said something like “it’s a larger unstressed engine or a smaller, slightly more stressed engine. It’s a wash.”
Yeah the 4.6 in the crown vics do about 20 maybe a little better if your lucky. I think around 2300 rpm highway speeds. They 5.4s I’ve driven normally rev around 1700rpm on the highway. I have 04 expedition with the 5.4 and it will get 14 to 15 around town and 17 to 19 sometimes better on the highway. I had a 03 Tahoe with a 5.3 and it would only get 16 or 17 on the highway. And maybe 12 to 14 around town. The biggest issue the 5.4 if you don’t have the spark plug thread issues are the coils. They are really in there and it’s not uncommon for them to go bad.
Fleet mechanic here – yes, the 2V 5.4’s in E-series vans definitely like to eject their spark plugs, we saw it several times in our fleet of about 45 of them.
They’re actually easier to service than the same-year F-series pickups because you can pull the doghouse and get to the rear of the engine easily, while the F-series has a bunch of crap covering the back 2 cylinders on the passenger side.
Thanks for the info!
So this is an issue that stayed with the E-series til the end of production of that engine?
I firmly believe that the next big automotive category will be intermediate sized vans. Pickups are expensive and have a ton of compromises. CUVs have become a uniform blob available in three sizes and 5 price points.
But vans… oh vans. There is wide open space between the practical kid hauler and the giant van life build. My city is practically littered with 25 year+ Hiaces and Delicas, and it makes me believe there is a cool van fever ready to sweep the nation.
If GM has any sense, they should lead the charge with a new version of the Safari / Astro twins.
I’m totally here for this.
And if GM really wanted to impress the hell out of me, they would give such a vehicle analog gauges and mechanical controls and switches on the dashboard, and in place of literally any infotainment system, right in the center of the dash where the radio would be: a universal, wireless charging, Bluetooth smartphone mount. There is literally nothing that any car can do better than your phone can. Stop it. Just give me a factory place to put my phone instead, and switches and buttons for all the stuff that really damn well ought to be switches and buttons rather than options on a pull-down menu.
Just give me that, and the amplifier and speakers without the head unit, and no screens included because I already bring my own with me everywhere I go, and goddamn buttons and sliders and switches for everything else. I’ll buy five of them.
Mercedes tried the midsize van with the Metris and it failed miserably.
The Metris didn’t fail because it was a bad van. It failed because Mercedes has spent ages building a reputation as a luxury brand in the US and eschewed the work truck reputation that MB had developed in Europe. Americans thought the Metris would be over-complicated and expensive to service so they stayed away.
AND they were hard to find, I wanted to shop a metris but they were low volume and only at work truck dealerships. If they had a heated steering wheel we may have shopped harder for a metris.
I’ve seen more than a few being used as RHD USPS delivery vehicles. They look great. Maybe Mercedes could have sold them better here if they badged them as Dodges/Rams back during the DaimlerChrysler era like they did with the Sprinter.
Even now they could badge them as a Freightliner, which is something they already currently do with the Sprinter.
I’d love to know exactly how many went to USPS vs the total sales numbers. It wouldn’t surprise me if more than half of them were sold to the USPS.
I’d believe it. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a non-USPS version. Probably wouldn’t even know it existed if not for the USPS, but then again I don’t typically find myself in a Mercedes dealership.
I never said it was a bad van, don’t have anything to go on there, just that it failed miserably in the market place, especially when you consider the large USPS order.
The initial thought was the LWN failures were due to bad injectors, with the theory gaining traction when there was a new design put into the 2019+ engines. But a few folks who have had piston failures have sent their injectors out for testing, and they all came back fine. The current theory is that GM switched the alloy used in the piston, making it weaker. There’s no known way to tell if yours will grenade, but there’s also plenty of ones out there at 150k+ miles and no issues.
I’ve got a 2022 Colorado ZR2 w/ the LWN. Purchased new, currently at about 63k miles. Had to bring it to the dealer once for a failed NOx sensor, replaced under warranty. Other than that it’s been pretty solid, never left me stranded. Summertime I’ll average around 24mpg during daily driving. 27-28mpg on road trips if I keep it below 70. Best 50 mile average has been 33mpg, but that was with a nice tailwind. It has the aero of a brick, so a decent headwind or trying to push 80mph will easily drop that to the 20mpg range.
The non-ZR2 models with street tires and better aero can easily get 30+mpg when driven in a sane manner.
All hail the Forever Cateye!
hehehehe
Yeah! FYI your last article was AMAZING
“Sadly, Chevrolet hasn’t replaced its work vans with Euro-style vans like Ford and Ram” “SADLY”???? I hope I’m dead in the ground before Chevrolet replaces the express with one of them goof-ass lookin Yuropeein vans.
Considering they scrapped the GMT610 replacement electric van replacement program, I very well might be! More seriously though- I’m glad it has stayed the same. It works, why replace it? It’s an icon, and the last of its breed of a certain kind of traditional American automobiles.
Maybe the companies with fleets can stomach the maintenance costs of the Euro vans, but if I were an independent or small contractor, I’d much rather have the Express. Tried and true platform that most mechanics will already know where to start if any problems arise. Utilitarian with basic comforts. In a lot of ways, it’s the direction many wish that pickup development had gone as well.
Very true on your last point, and truer still considering that the Express is based on what many consider to be the best GM truck platform, the GMT800. I’m a GMT400 stan (mostly because I own one), but I do have tremendous appreciation for the 800s.
The euro-vans are better at being vans (payload and volume, packaging, driver comfort) and the legacy American-pattern vans are better at being trucks (towing, simplicity/durability, ease of adapting to cutaway/utility body uses)
That’s how I view it! The Euro vans are fantastic on packaging and beat these vans on payload, but these vans are basically just pickup trucks with covered beds. Personally, I prefer the latter, but depending on the comments section, I might be in the minority. 🙂
The one to get in my book is a 4×4 converted 2.8L babymax.