The phrase “Concorde Moment” is reserved for the handful of times one of humankind’s creations is discontinued and entire industries take a leap of regression as a result. It’s been nearly 22 years since the supersonic airliner took to the skies for the last time, and the world of aviation has never been the same since. Less than two years after that final flight, another Concorde Moment happened: The last Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari rolled off the production line in Baltimore.
Flash back to 1985, and the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari offered glimpses of the future. Flush glass made an appearance on the Astro before making its way to the GMT400 pickup trucks, as did an aero-look front end with an air dam, and hidden drip rails. It all added up to a van that looked more futuristic than a Plymouth Voyager, even if underneath, it wasn’t exactly revolutionary.
Contrary to popular myth, the Astro is not body-on-frame. Like an old Camaro, it uses a massive K-member to mount the engine and transmission in the vehicle. The front suspension used upper control arms straight out of the B-body full-size sedans and wagons, but the powertrain selection and live rear axle with leaf springs was very S-10-ish, even if the leaf springs here were composite. The result was a rather literal interpretation of shrinking a full-size van down a bit, and like many GM products of the Smith era, there were some stumbling blocks.
For one, the Astro and Safari debuted as standard with a 92-horsepower 2.5-liter Iron Duke four-cylinder engine. Fine in a Fiero, but not enough grunt to pull the skin off a rice pudding in something like this, even when paired with a four- or five-speed manual transmission. Mercifully, the other available engine was Chevrolet’s 4.3-liter pushrod V6 from the full-size sedans, and with 145 horsepower and 225 lb.-ft. of torque, this was a far better match for the application.
When it came to use as a passenger van, the Astro and Safari were originally outclassed by the Chrysler minivan. Sure, the GM van had amazing space, but its traditional cab-forward packaging with an engine doghouse meant that the footwells were incredibly cramped compared to the Chrysler’s, and a height some 9.3 inches taller than the Chrysler hindered garage clearance. Still, thanks in part to the powerful available V6 and options like a comprehensive overhead console, swing-out rear door glass, and dual air conditioning, the Astro and Safari sold well enough to families. However, it sold even better to companies.
The same sort of traits that made the Astro and Safari suboptimal for family transport made it brilliant for commercial use. Its truckish nature meant it was often durable, its maximum rated towing capacity of 6,000 pounds when properly equipped blew the Chrysler minivans out of the water, its upright design and 1,700-pound payload capacity was great for hauling boxes and being a service vehicle, and seating for two, four, seven, or eight added huge flexibility depending on what you wanted to do with it. Plus, being much smaller than a big van, it was more economical to run than a G-series full-sizer.
As a result, the Astro and Safari started appearing everywhere, in all sorts of roles. You were just as likely to see one in the school pick-up line as you would if you called a plumber to your house, and it became a defining commercial vehicle for America. Smaller and more refined than a full-size van, but still capable.
Over the years, updates rolled in. The four-cylinder engine was eventually discontinued, full-time all-wheel-drive, upper control arms from the half-ton trucks, and an available extended body style joined the party for 1990, and 1992 saw the greatest rear door arrangement of any minivan, Dutch doors. In this configuration, the rear window flipped up and two half-doors swung out to the sides, reducing swing space over a liftgate and improving rearward visibility over two traditional hinged rear doors. Perfect for the conversion van rush of the ’90s, which saw Astro and Safari vans gain sleeping quarters, high roofs, televisions, and all manner of road trip creature comforts.
By 1995, these unusual mid-size vans were a decade old, but rather than admitting that the transverse front-wheel-drive layout that just about every other manufacturer adopted was superior, GM kept the Astro and Safari going alongside its front-wheel-drive minivans, doubling down on the inbetweeners. Not only were the vans restyled to mimic the Express full-size van, but the short-length bodystyle was dropped, equipment levels were beefed up, noise levels were tamped down, and the 4.3-liter V6 gained sequential fuel injection. While 190 horsepower was nothing to sneeze at, 250 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,800 RPM made for serious pulling power, and even though revised tow ratings had dropped to 5,500 pounds, that’s still plenty.
However, the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari had another problem by the mid-’90s, and that was a matter of safety. While it did okay in NHTSA frontal crash testing, the structural age of a mid-’80s vehicle really reared its head by the end of the grunge era. When the IIHS sent one of these vans into a deformable offset barrier at 40 MPH, the results weren’t pretty. Not great for families looking for a safe way to transport their children, but it didn’t do much to hamper the commercial appeal of these vans.
By 2002, the Astro and Safari were both ancient and some of the least crashworthy new vehicles on American roads. Production was initially slated to wind down in 2003, but incredibly, the midsize vans were still making GM money and selling tens of thousands of units, mostly to contractors and other fleet customers who wanted a little bit more than a minivan, so the General re-charted its course, this time to the end of the 2005 model year. As Automotive News reported:
GM has told workers of the decision. It had said earlier that there were no plans for the plant after the 2003 model year, spokesman Pat Morrissey said.
In part because of strong fleet sales, the rear-wheel-drive minivans remain profitable, Morrissey said.
When the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari finally left the new vehicle market, something interesting happened to these 20-year-old, ancient, unrefined vans. People who used them for work held onto them forever. It’s been two decades and yet you still occasionally see these vans were last made, but because they’re simple, tough, and relatively spacious yet relatively compact, nothing launched since has been able to touch it. The closest modern equivalent is the Mercedes-Benz Metris, and you can’t truly beat the brakes off of one of those without expecting at least some sort of repair bill.
Plus, the all-wheel-drive Astros and Safaris have found a huge following among Van Lifers, because where else are you getting an all-wheel-drive van with a live rear axle and a 111-inch wheelbase that can help get you to the trailhead? It’s basically this or importing a Mitsubishi Delica, and good luck getting every part you need for a Delica from Autozone.
The Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari failed at beating the Chrysler minivans, but they absolutely succeeded at giving hard-workers and adventurers a cheap, tough, Goldilocks-sized van that got the job done. Keep the transmission fluid cool, keep up on regular maintenance, and the later ones should last essentially forever. If GM made a modern equivalent, would it sell? Maybe. There really hasn’t been a true modern equivalent, and with regular consumers having surfed the SUV wave of the ’90s into the crossover-mania of today, the heart of the original Astro market is exactly where a new one could work. However, the age of automotive simplicity is over, and simplicity is what helped the Astro and Safari become enduring machines. Either way, GM ended up creating just about the perfect van for America here, which explains why people still keep them around today.
Top graphic image: Chevrolet
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
I had a panel van version of one of these as a work truck for 2 years while doing construction back in college. It was the most miserable experience in one of the most reliable, capable, crude cars available at that time. 25 years later I still haven’t made up my mind on if I utterly hate them, admire and respect them, or something in between.
I always thought the way the front door leading cutline crosses to the a-pillar looked hilarious. It’s just such a ‘that’ll do” touch. Kind of like they built the van and then cut the door openings with a sawzall.
As a teenager drawing real and imaginary cars in the late-’70s downsizing era, I turned my speculation to a downsized van, and I drew something remarkably similar to the Astro that later appeared. I felt like a boy genius.
The local ice cream man uses a Chevy Astro, funny thing is he even drives it about 300 mile round trip to the ice cream warehouse, I used to see him once in awhile on the free way heading down there.
There has to be way to bring these back somehow. This shape with better crash structure and engine would be a great way for GM to make another one of these to last another 20 years.
It’s crazy to think how many GM workhorse type vehicles they run for decades and never think to come out with another version even though they sell really well
The Astro may very well be Detroit’s biggest success in Japan, due to the boxy shape.
Also, there is the MB Metris, which is also a RWD midsize van, bigger than minivans but smaller than full-size vans.
I can’t think of this van without thinking of framers.
About 25 years ago, I bought a new home in an area under construction. All around the house were empty plots with concrete slabs on them. One day, a large flatbed truck pulled up to the slab next door and dropped off a stupid amount of lumber. Next day, at dawn a Safari van pulled into the driveway. Bright sliver flake orange with a giant painting of the Virgin Mary on the back.
It was like a clown car. Seemed like about 30 people got out of the car and then got a ladder off the top, pulled out a generator, and enough air powered nail guns for everyone.
It was amazing. As the sun went up, the giant pile of wood would disappear and a house would appear. All to a constant noise of nail guns and mariachi music. It never took them more than 2 days to frame a house and most went up in a day.
In addition to being so stereotyped that if I saw that on TV, I would change the channel on general principles, that little van was amazing. GMC should have called it the Tardis instead of the Safari.
The most shocking thing to me was the bottles. There was always someone going to the back of the van, grabbing a bottle of soda and some other supplies and going back to work. The crew was very professional and cleaned up the site when they were done. Before they started loading, the pile of empty bottles looked to be about the same size as the van. I figured the first time they finished loading, they would fill the van with bottles and pieces of wood that they didn’t need and have a couple people drive it to a dump somewhere while everyone else spooled up hose and cords. But no. they loaded the bottles and the drops and the hoses, air compressors, generator, boom box, group of multiple brooms AND the entire crew and drove off. What I think would have taken about 20 trips with a full sized 4 crew cab pick up was a single trip with that Safari.
I saw that van around the area for yeas, because the area was growing and new houses were always going up. It never smoked, and the van never sagged or showed signs of abuse now matter how much crap they put in it. As a work vehicle, I don’t think there was anything close to it.
Back when minivans first came out, my parents needed one because my mom had opened a florist and needed a delivery vehicle. We ended up with a Caravan. The problem with the Astro/Safari was that with the 4.3L torque, RWD and a shorter wheelbase, the van was a bear in the rain without some weight back there.
Now as a work van where the back is loaded down with 100s of lbs of equipment, the Astro/Safari outclassed the Caravan since it could haul a lot more weight easily. But for my parent’s florist, it was horrible, with the tendency to fishtail when only carrying a few pounds of flowers in the back.
I owned one for 3 years. It was an ’04 I bought in ’07 with 19K miles. We put 50K miles on it with band touring. It was good for a 3 piece rock band. With the 3rd row removed, it had enough space to fit all the gear, and someone could nap on the second row bench.
That said, there was a place in the rear trim you could put stuff, and that’s where the collection of interior trim bits that broke off would go. Did you know the second row bench had a plastic cover on the edge of the backrest by the door that was held on by ONE little plastic clip? I don’t know how many square inches of space that thing was covering, but I slid the 8×10 into it once and boom, broken. I have since forgotten how many GM plastic bits ended up in that compartment. It was designed by bean counters, not engineers.
Also, the A/C went out twice. If I accelerated too quickly with the A/C on (essential in Arizona), the compressor under the hood would make a ratcheting sound. Eventually metal shards got into the cooling system and the whole thing had to be redone. The second time it happened I traded it in. At that point I had a kid and my touring days were over. I would’ve gotten more for it if I sold it outright, but it was a heap (more broken stuff I won’t mention), and there was no way I could look someone in the eye and tell them that yes, they should buy this from me.
These were a staple of my time in Boy Scouts- seemed like half the families in the troop had one because you could do more in the great outdoors with one than a FWD minivan.
I also remember one of my best friends in high school driving his mom’s Astro on occasion- we won a lot of stoplight drag races with it.
A Vortec 4.8 or 5.3 would have made these even better. Heck, even a SBC 350 is a common enough swap. V8 Astros rock.
Sy/Ty turbo 4.3 swap
I grew up in a lake town north of Toronto, and Astro/Safaris were everywhere, on account of being able to haul boats and snowmobiles better than the FWD competition. Today, the Astro’s mostly been swapped for abundant DS Ram 1500’s. Something tells me you aren’t getting those buyers back into vans even if it’s the better option.
Was it, though?
But yeah, Safari vans ruled. Solid workup here, thanks.
The folks had a mid 90’s model when I was growing up and as a passenger it was a comfy van. The rear a/c was a game changer too; it wasn’t a common feature at the time.
They had the top spec model with the digital dashboard that was pretty nifty. I learned to drive with the van and came to enjoy the Vortech V6 pretty quickly, despite being saddled with such a heavy vehicle.
The Popster bought one new in ’85, cargo van with the 4.3, air, and one removable bench in the middle. One of his businesses was a wood shop, so we delivered numerous cabinets, armoires and such all over creation.
The transmission immediately went, and the dealer rebuilt it with a fairly firm shift kit much to my brother and I’s amusement. She’d lay down a little 6 inch patch on the 1-2 shift every time. On the way back from deliveries my brother and I would enrich our science education with aerodynamic experiments. The top speed was 85 indicated with the windows open, 88 with the windows closed.
The van survived the teenage abuse along with light commercial delivery, daddo’s daily commute and frequent van-camping by random family members. No rust or oil issues, and it was well into the 100’s when he sold it on. A GM hit for my family.
These vans were nice, but again they DID have their issues. One was the cheap QC, so they can have quality problems. Rattling and creaking was not uncommon, and existed in GMT400s, S10s, Blazers, 2 door Tahoes, 4 door Tahoes, you name it.
Also, early models I think had issues with the 4.3L V6? Oil consumption?
The biggest issue of all IS RUST. Don’t undercoat it? The van will be GONE before you blink, especially if it is exposed to road salt. That is an issue with most 90s/00s/10s (even today sadly) GMC/Chevrolet products, and also Toyota products too (look at rusted out LC70s from Canada, they look terrible).
With all that said, generally they were very sturdy and reliable (minus lemons). I happen to still see some for sale in Qatar.
The Express seems to be the oldest one, now approaching 30 years. The closest van to it in terms of reliability (the Toyota Hiace) is only 20 years old, and already there is also another new generation too. But the Hiace (and Transit) are unibody- this beast is body on frame.
Also, why is the Autopian so much focused on GMC/Chevrolet products for few days straight? I don’t understand this now.
My favorite was when the shift lever broke off on my folks’ van lol.
But overall it held up decently with all the abuse my brothers and me put it through as teenage drivers.
Yes, I seem to remember that the 4WD versions of these won the most unreliable honors in their time.
Meanwhile the Express still soldiers on as the most Van this side of Halen
My workplace bought a new one in 2000 and added it to the fleet. For whatever reason, the seating position in these was _awful_. I am an average sized male but the top of the windshield was at my eye level. My best guess is they adjusted the seats so that airbags would be moderately effective in this ancient design? No idea. It was awful. We gave it to another department in order to keep our ’95 Aerostar instead which was much more comfortable to drive and use every day. Joke was on us though, that bastard outlived the Aerostar by a decade.
Where much of the world has a vast array of vans and towing with small vehicles, America is far more obsessed with having an open box in a large pickup.
We had an ’86 Astro used to tow a pop-up tent trailer all around the U.S.
Back home, it served our family of five well. A few drawbacks:
The Astro had better powertain options than the competing Aerostar with the 4.3. Most are gone now up here in PA.
Are you referring to both?
I think rust kills both of them sadly.
Both – actually the Fords may have rusted worse overall.
I believe that these were the rebirth of the original compact vans of the early 1960s – the Falcon/Econoline, the GM G-vans, and the Dodge A-vans.
Here in The Land That Rust Forgot™ I still see plenty of them. My neighbor across the street has one, complete in Dark Sand Metallic over Dark Teal two-tone, with 1980s Solo cup graphics down the side.
I wish they were still around. Hell, if they didn’t crumple up like a bag of potato chips they probably would be! I mean the Express is getting close to hitting it’s 30th birthday.
PS- I am absolutely LOVING these GM articles. I’m a huge GM stan, but I readily admit some of the faults and flaws the company has built into their vehicles over the years. It’s lovely to see these articles taking a look at both the bad and good that the General has produced over the years.
I’ll add, that we have a 30ish year old Astro in our fleet at work. It’s an AWD model, and has held up exceptionally well over it’s very hard life. 200,000 miles, runs perfect. I will say, the AWD Astros have absolutely SHIT ground clearance, it’ll bounce the oil pan off even the most minor of obstacles
I saw one for sale in Qatar. I think it was a 90s model, but cannot recall how much they were asking for it.
I did see some G series vans too as well on the roads here.
I still see G-series bopping around, they were absolutely everywhere when I was a kid. Most have finally been replaced with the Express now, which considering that even the Express is 30 years old, is fair!