First launching for the 1996 model year, the Chevy Express and GMC Savana have been stalwart fixtures in GM’s lineup for nearly three decades. Although these two workhorses received a facelift and chassis upgrade in 2003, they have remained largely unchanged throughout their production life, all despite dramatic shifts in the broader automatic market. The question is – why?
The answer lies in their affordability, broader market dynamics, and the unique demands of fleet buyers.
Let’s start with affordability. Although pricing for the Chevy Express and GMC Savana has increased by more than 20 percent over the past three years, these vans remain relatively affordable compared to rivals – a critical component to their success among fleet operators and small businesses. Indeed, the landscape of affordable commercial vans has changed drastically in recent years, with small, cost-effective options like the Chevy City Express, Nissan NV200, Ram ProMaster City, and Ford Transit Connect all discontinued in North America. As a result, the Ford Transit, Ram ProMaster, and Mercedes-Benz Sprinter remains as the primary alternatives to GM’s vans – none of which match the Express and Savana in affordability.
Another factor is the surge in e-commerce and drop delivery seen during the pandemic, which made delivery vans invaluable for a variety of businesses. Although Chevy Express and GMC Savana sales dipped post-pandemic, GM is still on track to sell approximately 40,000 units in 2024. This figure is also notable given the dearth of incentives, underscoring the vans’ ability to generate significant profit for GM without additional investment.
Of course, one of the most compelling reasons the Chevy Express and GMC Savana persist unchanged is their simplicity. Given the vans share the same basic design and components year after year, spare parts are readily available and relatively inexpensive, making ease of maintenance a significant draw for fleet operators.
While GM is now offering the all-electric Chevy BrightDrop van, the Express and Savana are likely to soldier on as is for the foreseeable future. And though their dated designs may not fit in with GM’s modern lineup, their utility, reliability, and profitability continue to make them indispensable for businesses across North America – including GM.
Comments
RWD and ICE. Doesn’t get any better than that.
Most all vans have gone to I4 and 60° V6 engines, whether fwd, rwd, awd, or 4wd. I wonder if we could see the 2.7 eventually replace the 4.3 and 6.6 together. All three of them use the 8 speed now, and the 2.7 is only 34 lb-ft of torque less than the 6.6. The 2.7 should have been replaced the 4.3 by now anyway at least.
I don’t see as to why GM, wouldn’t offer this van with a higher roofline as a base option, instead of an aftermarket availability. it would convince prospective buyers to order it straight thru dealerships as to ordering it and having a third party supplier outfitting the vehicle, resulting in delivery delays, it would still be cheaper than the other vans in the market.
It mite be the price but I will tell you Ford and Ram is the way to go when you can walk into back vs getting on your knees. On the Regular roof Promaster you can almost stand up in it and I would take it before the GM model. GM is getting left behind and all the services guys who get them hate them but that’s what the company got them. The Benz is a good unit but maintenance cost will break the bank. Come on GM get in the game and listen you your customers. In the ambulance building business the Ford mid roof and high top and the Ram Promaster is the way to go. Why you don’t have to build a box which keeps cost down and you can walk into them vs the GM models which you have to cut the top off and put a fiberglass top which adds cost and you still have to neal over to get in.
Your suggestions are valid, but would require completely new tooling to do so. Clearly GM is not interested in making ANY improvements, and just cashing the checks. Development and tooling costs were amortized 25 years ago.
Workplace has a service fleet of low-roof GMs.
Techs already have these maxed-out weight wise, plus they need to get into parking ramps. So pick the battles: high roof means more room but overloaded, can walk inside but get to carry your tools and where to park.
If you’re i.e. FedEx hauling boxes and weight/clearance aren’t issues, you need high roof. But where these are factors, the Express has a great formula that works without being any bigger.
The truck based GM vans have a place. Ground clearance is much more than a Promaster or Transit. I cant see using one of those as a crew carrying vehicle for forestry or oil companies who need to travel rough roads.
Why isn’t the 2.7 l Turbo 4, an option. As for ice and rear wheel drive, that’s what winter tires are for. They usually cost less and save tread wear on your “three season” tires. Get an extra set of wheels and mount them. Makes it easier to have a couple studded ones for bad weather.
I’ve driven two wheel drives where they made a huge difference.
The option of a 4wd van could be as simple as electric front drive and ICE rear drive….just like an E-Ray.
Leave them just the way they are.
Just let us order the damn vans!
6.6L RWD is the way to go.
Being vans, are these exempt from the mandatory rear-view camera requirement?
Looking at the photo of the rear doors, it looks like there might be a camera installed, but looking at the interior, I do not see a display on the dashboard or in the rear-view mirror. I also read somewhere that these were one of the last new vehicles available without a touch-screen.
The rear camera is displayed in the rear view mirror.
In business textbooks, pictures and descriptions of the Express and Savanna are perfect examples for the chapter about “What is a Cash Cow.”
You have that one completely correct.
The reason they are cheap is because they got rid of almost all the options. They got rid of the passenger doors on both sides, all wheel drive, onstar/ radio and lots of other litte stuff. I can get along without most of that stuff but no AWD was the deal breaker for me.
I have owned and driven the current model since its introduction in 1996. I was the one that discovers that the Side doors would extend too far and dent the body so I made the shims you see on the hinges to this day. My dealer stole the idea and told GM so I never got credit.. People have asked me why I have continued to to drive Chevy vans all these years and my answer is always the same… I have to make a living with that vehicle. It has to start and run everyday. If it doesn’t, my family doesn’t eat. You can’t say that about the others. It is reliability that makes me loyal. Why would anybody at GM want to change. It
Exactly, reliability. no i cant stand up in my van, but i can go through drive throughs, car washes, etc. My 2017 ext chevy 3500, with 113k is still on original brakes and rotors, and im hauling tools and tile everyday. and those are not highway miles. ive replaced a rear seal in the rear end, thats it! Plus im in a snow belt which is never easy on vehicles, and not one bit of rust.
I have a 2019 I4 Duramax for my hvac business and the range I get is incredible. This Van doesn’t need to change but something that would guarantee my next express purchase would be a 3.0L Duramax and a new radio unit with carplay.
6.6 gas engine, send it to Advanced 4X4 in Utah for a real GM 4×4 factory approved conversion and you have the best all around vehicle ever. Nothing else comes close.
A refresh with some updated Head and Taillights wouldn’t hurt if gm doesn’t plan on doing any major changes to the entire body of the vehicle itself, showing appreciation for the vehicles long term sales success is one thing, showing that level of appreciation somewhere on the vehicles exterior of the vans 20+ year design would be welcoming also. (At least somewhere at a minimum). As far as the retail models go, the top trim models could use a first time ever; LED signature.
The epitome of GM being uncompetitive.
Give us a reskin with the current Chevy truck lineup look, return AWD and probably a 1500/2.7 version. I guess I’m “woke” for suggesting that……
Bring back the 6.6 duramax, give it a 4×4 system and a high roof option that should do the job.
Anything can be improved but nearly 30 years and they haven’t found anything to improve? You can find something. Maybe a diesel version but not the putt-putt 4 cylinders. How to make it BETTER and cheaper? If they can’t find anything then this is the perfect van? Glad you are not falling for the we got to do something for the sake of doing something then you’ll end up with an ughlee Ford Transit and comical looking RAM Pro, both of which I would be caught DEAD in them.
The biggest problem in the salt belt, is rusting rocker panels. Something needs to be done to stop the driver and passenger door sill area from massive rusting due to boots dragging in that spot. Surely a GM engineer has seen this wear and rusting.
There was chatter before that the 2027 model would gain the 2.7L and the 3.0L.
I don’t believe the 3.0L option, but could see the 2.7L for emissions/cafe/whatever requirements.
Once you weight the 6.6 and 2.7 and realize that difference can be more payload. It’s a no brainer. Peak torque at lower rpm’s.
Eliminate cylinder deactivation and let all 4 cylinders run. I doubt anyone currently using the van would feel like it’s underpowered. More work using less fuel, sounds like a business plan.
Maybe put that in a Silverado with a max towing package, great for small landscape companies. Double cab standard bed and regular cab long bed. Easily outwork Ford and Ram!!
There’s a lot GM could do, but they pretend it’s 1996.
Just turned 413,678. Miles on a 2010 6.0 3500 express. Never touched the engine but 2 transmissions..
The only thing that CAN and MUST be improved is the rear passengers seats. They are a torture element rather than a seat.