For the first time since the early flat nosed Chevy and Gmc full size vans GM radically changed the style. What do you think? Positive, negative? I'm staying neutral to start...hehe.

they changed it again?

Donny neutral? That's a good one!<BR>as far as the new chevys go, if you took one and chopped it 6", sectioned 8" out of the middle, lowered it 4", put the taillights back where God intended, got rid of the stupid window cutout lines, molded in the useless louvers at the rear, flared the quarters a little,molded in the bumpers,put on smaller mirrors,put on some 17" wheels to fill out the wheelwells, gullwing the side doors, clamshell the rears, put dual exhaust on,............

Where's the new one?

....you would essentially have a really cool looking ASTRO VAN! <P>...to vanner 68!<P>

Sorry, I shoulda been more specific....I was referring to the 1996 body change, the euro lookin restyle.It was the most radical change since they gave the thing a nose.I'm not sure we've found a name for the new ones, my 79 and 93 are both concidered "late" models, so I figured "new" would be appropriate, I reserve my opinions for now.Lol<p>[This message has been edited by Donnydj (edited January 11, 2001).]

Well, the new one came with a new name - the "Express"... Before that, it was "van", plus the trim level...

Cybervanner, you are GOOD! caught that right away. Yep, a larger version of the astro would have been better, just like the dakota is the ram's little brother.

Ok...you're right,Gregg, I just can't stay neutral, I've owned and loved Chevy vans since I got my first one 28 years ago,an ugly, beat up,paint spattered 62 Corvair Greenbriar. I used to have to drive it with the engine cover off because when you goosed it it would shoot flames out of one of the two tiny carbs.(perfect for scarin the crap outta hitchhikers) It;s bad enough almost every car looks like a turd melted in the rain or a rectal suppository,they just had to do the same to my beloved Chevy.It looks like a tool box from the side and a horse trailer from the rear.It has the melted nose of the new Ford,the big cheesey lookin plastic grill from the older Dodges and for some godawful reason those stupid Pontiac transporter mini van taillights.The good old days of engines from 30 years of GM vehicles car or truck fitting in it are over. The old engines don't fit in the new generation spot.<BR>Sheet metal was interchangeable for almost 25 years on common items, forget that now.I worked as a body shop manager at a Chevy dealership in NY.The first time we got a crumbled 97 in the whole crew stood around in awe when one of the techs showed us the body inserts that are GLUED in. When you order a new one if it's a panel they glue in panels, when you want no windows in the back they glue in windows.I can't imagine the custom crowd liking them too much,how ya gonna do a mural with all the indented lines all over the thing.Feel free to like it, but I feel it's an ungainly, topheavy,tacked together dissapointment.Cohort, when I was wondering what to call the new van, I was referring to a vanners category for it,early, mid, late, etc. NOT what name GM gave it. K...I'm done...you can start flaming me now...hehe <P>[This message has been edited by Donnydj (edited January 12, 2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by Donnydj (edited January 12, 2001).]

I used to have a 67 GMC LWB window conversion. I loved that van, it was great, except for the manual steering (plus V-8, plus extended roof...)... First year of the curved windshield, if I remember correctly..

Actually, they will be changing it in 2002,which will be the 2003 model the 96+ model the government says it will not pass passenger safety test, the new van style will be even worse, it will have the motor pushed all the way out, no more engine cover, it will have the option of 8 doors, like the old 8 door(60's), these extra doors will be cargo not sliders, that's all I really know for now. I have a brother that's a engineer a GM, working on what they have choosen as the new style, that's how i know<BR>just thought you would like to know.<P>P.S. ford is changing their's two

And Dodge is dropping theirs entirely, of course, the way Daimler is ruining- er- running Chrysler they may not be in business in 2003.....

My biggest problem with the new design is the window cut out lines on the panel vans and the retarded tail lights. I currently own a Ford and a Dodge van and intend on owning a Chevy as well, however it will never be this body style. Geez, the way it's looking with the way Chevy and Dodge are doing running thing's it looks like I may have some new Ford brothers in the near future, hehe.<P>Greg-1999 Ford E-350 V10 custom panel<BR> 1989 Dodge 1 ton extended window

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanner68:<BR><B>And Dodge is dropping theirs entirely, of course, the way Daimler is ruining- er- running Chrysler they may not be in business in 2003.....</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Funny thing too Vanner68, Chrysler was very profitable before the takeover...er, merger with Daimler Benz,now the Germans are making up for losses by firing the very Mopar executives that made it profitable enough to merge with. But wait a second, This is a Chevy topic , NOT Mopar.lol....anyhow, the new Chevy is Ugly,I finally had the bucks in 1996 to buy my very first NEW virgin Chevy Cargo to play with and look what those idiots did to my Chevy...<p>[This message has been edited by Donnydj (edited January 16, 2001).]

Hey Dont call the 96 shape chevy EURO style, euro style to me means front wheel drive, 5 different manufacturers vans share 2 factories and about 6 different badges on the fender, and they are powered by a stupid 2 liter diesel engines, the only decent euro van is dare I say it on these pages the new "F**D TRANSIT" it looks good but needs a V8 to replace the diesel, and it comes with optional front wheel drive, boy just wait till you get the MB replacement for the DOG Ramvan, then you can call it euro.<BR>the latest style chevy is a bit thin on the ground over hear but I would sure like one with four wheel drive (hey i could remove the rear drive shaft and then it would be real euro style with front wheel drive)<P>An AMERICAN van Fanatic in england, SUNDANCE.

the new style chevy van huh well what numb brained engineer at GM liked its looks. Being an engineer myself I feel they really lost control of the concept they had.I have owned a chevy van since 76 and have modiately adapted to the new versions but this one is not one for me. The only thing I like on it is the placement of the tailights.<BR>the vertical look is one i like. It would be a nightmare to customize i think. Can't even imagine what I would take off first the back doors of the side ones. When I see a white one on the road and pass it I can't help get a picture of a loaf of bread I am passing...<P><BR>------------------<BR>Dale<BR>live thru vanning<BR>laugh thru its pursuit...<p>[This message has been edited by LUNARC (edited January 26, 2001).]

You could paint big red, yellow and blue dots on it and it would be a Wonder Bread Van...

you read my mind ....<P>------------------<BR>Dale<BR>live thru vanning<BR>laugh thru its pursuit...

to look at these vans there are just too many little things that are wrong(visually) side panels all marked out for windows, and the taillights gotto go! as far as the nose goes well i prefer a 69 chevy cargo van to newer chevy van any day (96-01)all the vans from 71- the mid 90's all look the same.just they may be a conversion van or a cargo van or even a custom van but the thing of it is that noone really pays attention to it because they look alike. if i drive my 69 van around people stop what they are doing and look. just because they don't see them all the time.(well i just wandered way off track lol)if someone likes the new chevy vans fine. they can keep it. but personally i would rather rebuild an older van then to buy a new van

I have to agree with the general concensus!<BR>I have for the last 29 years owned CHEVY vans!<BR>What in the world was this guy thinking of when he designed this new style!<BR>You can't place a sunvisor on it, as if that would help the looks! The only thing that would help it's looks, is a "Total" van bra!<BR>Style definately was not a priority in this developement! Too bad for Chevrolet <BR>B.W.,B.V.V.,LTD.

Looks like they ran over a Bedford with a UPS truck. The plastic, oh too much plastic. Boy do I pan for the good old days of Chevy.......Pupout

I always thought that they intended it to be a full size version of the Astro. They just got to get rid of the Spaceship look of the tail lights which they obviously copied off of the Pontiac spaceship-I mean transport. Ironicly, my 90 Astro has a lot more front seat leg room. Go figure...<BR>Bill

Oddly enough, the Astro was supposed to replace the full size Chevy in the 80's, it was on the drawing board before the Chrysler mini's were introduced. GM never referred to it as a "mini" during the concept stages, they called it a "mid-sized" van. The problem with the newer full size vans is that styling cues taken from a smaller van and "blown up" to full size often lose their proportion and look odd. And boy, do these new Chevys look odd!

The late model chevys are the most god-awful ugly vans on the road. I thought ford had won the prize for ruining a decent van design, but Chevy outdid them by miles. The side panels have almost no contours, the taillights look silly and the front end looks just like the astro. Actually, the whole thing looks like an Astro on steroids. Ugly ugly ugly. The dodge vans are the only halfway decent looking vans on the road becasue they still use the same basic 1970's body shell. I have heard that they don't sell well tho. I owned a 91 Dodge briefly and it just seemed to be lacking in quality throughout, so it doesn't surprise me that there are rumors of its demise. I don't think stylists are very in tune to the van owners desires.<BR>Andy.