Chevrolet City Express Van Discontinued After 2018
19
Sponsored Links
The Chevrolet City Express has been discontinued, GM Authority has confirmed with Chevrolet officials.
Dealers can no longer place orders for the compact commercial van, and 2018 was the last model year of the vehicle – putting an end to the only product in the Bowtie Brand’s lineup that – Chevy badges notwithstanding – carried zero Chevy/GM parts content or DNA.
Notably, the news comes just as we learned that the 2018 Chevy Bolt EV is getting a new Rear Seat Delete package that removes the vehicle’s rear seats and classifies it as an incomplete vehicle. The development could be a coincidence. Alternatively, Chevy could also be looking at the Bolt EV with the K1T Rear Seat Delete Package as a replacement for the City Express.
About Chevrolet City Express
The Chevrolet City Express is a compact commercial van that was introduced for the 2015 model year. The vehicle was sourced from Nissan, reminding us that badge engineering in the “New GM” is alive and well, since the City Express is a Nissan NV200 panel van with Chevrolet logos and zero GM/Chevy parts content or development input.
The model never sold as well as its primary competitors – the Ford Transit Connect (see Ford Transit Connect sales) and Ram ProMaster City (see Ram ProMaster City sales).
More Resources & Info
- GM newsChevrolet newsChevrolet City Express news
- GM sales numbersChevrolet sales numbersChevrolet City Express sales numbers
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
If the plan is to use the Bolt as a replacement for the city express what are they going to do to match the load carrying capacity. I think a better idea is to develope a van to match the load carrying capacity with other small Vans based on the Bolt. Who knows perhaps they already have one in development.
Could be on the other side as well. Maybe Nissan has enough demand to need the plant’s supply now and don’t need the incremental sales to GM, a competitor.
I hope that means new van lineup is coming soon. From small to large.
It is sorely needed! Better interiors that hold up and more stylish! If they did this, people would buy these vehicles. Durability with value and Chevrolet PERFORMNCE and POWER.
There’s probably one part, the Chevy badge, that probably has some GM development, but as for the rest the parts, it must be a real pain for the service/parts departments at Chevy dealers to deal with all these unique parts for owners who still need to do repairs and warranty service (as well as the entire GM parts distribution system). Woulda been a lot easier and more efficient to just forward these owners to Nissan dealers, but by discontinuing this model, that’s kinda what they’re doing to future customers anyway, skip the middleman. I doubt GM made much money on these vans anyway.
Yeah, this entire program is a real head scratcher. Not only are the margins slim and the product sub-par, but the headaches you describe associated with service and parts just makes the entire ordeal not worth-while.
Good.
We have one all lettered up at work. I hate it. With a passion.
I’d much prefer a 2.8 Duramax Express Van, as it would get similar MPG to the City Express we have now, and be a WAY better van.
I think if you go back to the original stories announcing this van it was only to cover a gap in the line up till GM had their own vehicle ready.
At the time this was introduced GM had many more bigger projects going. They also had nothing to counter the Ford in the market. This was just a temporary patch.
Unless something changed I would be looking for some kind of GM replacement.
Such an embarrassing chapter in Chevrolet history… What on earth were they thinking? Good riddance.
We have had many more embarrassing history examples than this.
The Chevy sedan built by Toyota as Chevy could not do it. The Aztec, the Cimarron, the Vega, the Catera, the 8_6_4 Cadillac, Olds Diesel. I could go on.
The Chevy Prizm? Toyota Corolla.
The ‘chevy’ built by Toyota I agree on. The rest were at least their own companies products. Failure or not, it was theirs.
As someone who owned a couple of mid 70’s G Body vans and who’s father a late 80’s Safari I say that either of those FAR better for the intended use of these vehicles without the baggage of being basically a Japanese van. GM has a wealth of talent and capability more than able to produce their own vans without such dubious joint ventures.
Yes they have the talent and capability but they also have many other programs going on.
It takes many people just to do a couple programs at one time. It also take tens of billions of dollars to do more than one program.
The truth is Gzm was working in the trucks and suv and CUV models that are making the money. Now that the trucks are finishing up these resources will be diverted to other programs.
This is why the 1/2 ton truck are out and the 3/4 and 1 ton are a year or two behind.
They space programs out for cost reasons as they need cash flow to pay for all the work. Also they move staff around to retain cost. All MFGs work ‘this way.
The small van may be important but the half ton was more important as it can fund more than one program.
You’re right in a 1/2 ton is more important. So why risk damage to Chevrolet’s image like they did? A small van Today was not do or die for the company… There was zero excuse for sticking a Bowtie on another companies van and calling it their own. Using the logic of “importance”, they could have just as easily tried to justify sicking a Bowtie on the Nissan Titan. Better yet, let’s go for first place and stick a Bowtie on the F-150 and call it a Chevy.
Bottom line is they thought they’d get away with it and nobody would notice. That’s pretty sad. I’m just glad it’s over.
EXACTLY! More women are needed in the designing of these vehicles. After all most of us are driving them more. Use more women!
Hey GM ! How about you bring back a proven winner, the Chevy Astro / GMC Safari. Those vans are everything we need, an want. I had the pleasure to own both the cargo an wagon models. Please … bring’em back.
Here is why they did what the did. Some unknown web site called GM Authority posted this. I assume they would be ok if I post this here.
Why Nissan? Why not just go in-house? Or import an Opel for that matter? In short, it came down to overhead, and timeliness.
Some of you may already understand why GM didn’t simply import an Opel Combo van from Europe and went with Nissan, which sells the equivalent e-NV200 panel van here in the ‘States. For those that don’t understand, GM’s planning and program manager for light commercial vehicles Kevin Jones, tells us that it’s because the Opel Combo isn’t federalized. Therefore, preparing one for the U.S. market would take a lot longer than if they simply partnered up with a company that already has a van program fully running and builds them in North America, which is exactly what is happening. This also avoids the infamous Chicken Tax, which tariffs trucks and panel vans that are imported into the United States that aren’t built in either Canada or Mexico. Being that Nissan assembles and imports the e-NV200 from south of the border, it avoids that tax. The Chevrolet City Express will enjoy the same.
Assembling the Chevrolet City Express alongside the Nissan e-NV200 also means that fleet orders can be completed at a faster rate than, say, Ford, which assembles and imports the Transit Connect vans all the way from Turkey. Couple that with the carrying a better warranty than what Nissan is offering, and eventually selling it out of every Chevrolet dealership in the United States and Canada means that it could very well be the most convenient compact van on the market for vehicle fleet owners in need of such a vehicle. And that’s a very beneficial thing for trying to get a new product off the ground.
Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/02/why-general-motors-partnered-with-nissan-for-the-chevrolet-city-express/#ixzz5ALO4KDAk
Now GM can build it’s own