Chevrolet Uplander Review

William C Montgomery
by William C Montgomery

An airport car rental attendant recently handed me the keys to my temporary chariot and declared “Your car is down the row to your right. It’s an ‘06 Uplander.” A what? “It’s kind of an SUV,” she kind of explained. The butt-end of a something large and ugly poked out of stall 97. The bow tie on the trim above the license plate revealed the vehicle’s manufacturer: Chevrolet. Apprehensively, I slid behind the wheel of the awkward-looking beast. I looked around. I turned to my colleague. “No wonder GM is in such bad shape.”

The Uplander’s exterior could have been penned twenty-five years ago. The awkward yet infinitely bland exterior displays all the styling finesse and surface excitement of a 1981 Chevy Malibu– with none of the stalwart sedan’s balanced proportions. You can see how GM’s designers tried to transform their plane Jane minivan into a “Crossover Sport Van”: a longer than needed snout, big-ass B-pillars, slightly larger wheels and faux skid plates. It’s an entirely unconvincing effort that somehow manages to capture the worst of both the SUV and minivan genres.

Once inside, a flip-down DVD screen attached to ceiling rails provides the only indication that “Bette Davis Eyes” isn’t about to debut on the radio. Again, it’s an interior from another era– before Chrysler, Honda and Toyota showed American soccer Moms that you could schlep the team in something very much approaching style. Hell, you can’t even get comfortable in the thing. The Uplander’s driver’s seat wouldn’t retreat far enough to accommodate my frame, and my preferred steering wheel position fell somewhere between two notches. Hello? I’m 5’11”.

Otherwise, the comfort sucks. The Uplander’s architecture, inherited from the 1997 Chevrolet Venture (whose running gear lives in perpetuity) is still too narrow to accommodate its [theoretical] complement of seven adults. And the Uplander’s plastics seem designed by rental car companies for rental car companies; their ability to withstand endless applications of industrial strength ammonia being their only saving grace.

Needless to say, the Uplander is as dreadful to drive as it is to inhabit. The loose steering requires constant tending at anything other than a dead stop. The suspension crashes more often than a demolition derby driver. The long wheelbase and epic turning circle make parking lot maneuvering a seemingly endless chore. It leans excessively in corners. But wait! There’s less!

The CSV’s 3.9-liter V6 pushrod powerplant boasts (in the ironic sense of the word) a cast iron block with cast aluminum heads, hooked-up to Ye Olde Four Speed. With constant aural reminders that it would much rather be switched off, the ancient, rough-revving mill delivers a class-leading 240hp @ 6000rpm. But it's not enough to motivate the ponderous beast into a jog. In short, the Uplander’s performance doesn’t even deserve the noun.

To GM’s credit, the Uplander completed its assigned task: transporting my colleague and me safely from airport to office, office to hotel and back. The vehicle’s lights, windshield wipers and turn signals worked. There was plenty of cargo room. The engine made the thing move forward and the brakes brought it to a stop. I observed no sharp objects that might threaten to cut or maim passengers. But all of this was done with Soviet-repressed bureaucratic adequacy.

If you doubt that the Uplander is a half-assed has-been that never was and never shoulda been, click on this link from the Uplander’s menu and select Braking, Engine and Transmission. Three years after the model’s debut and the information is still “Not yet published.” In terms of design, refinement and packaging, competitive minivans (yes, minivans) from Honda, Toyota and Chrysler are literally decades ahead of the Uplander. And proud of it.

How could a thing such as an Uplander come to be? Hundreds of GM employees spent years on its development and implementation: designers, engineers, marketers and senior management. Ultimately, all of them stamped their approval on the Uplander and proclaimed to the world THIS IS OUR BEST IDEA. If fact, the company as a whole considered the concept so inspired they felt compelled to badge engineer this execrable automotive aardvark as the Saturn Relay, Buick Terraza and Pontiac Montana.

The General has hit some home runs with a couple of products lately (e.g. the Corvette and the Pontiac Solstice / Saturn Sky). Cadillac is heading in the right direction. But these are niche vehicles, not machines for the masses. To recover from its well-documented woes, GM needs volume sales of mainstream products. Otherwise, they’re heading straight for bankruptcy. But if bankruptcy is the only way to stop GM from inflicting crap vehicles like the Uplander on unsuspecting rental car drivers and (God forbid) buyers, then I can’t help but wish the world’s largest automaker a speedy Chapter 11.

William C Montgomery
William C Montgomery

More by William C Montgomery

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 112 comments
  • Crofoot Crofoot on Aug 21, 2009

    Here, here, Sassy. I just bought a 2007 for a couple bucks and am thrilled to get a reliable workhorse like the uplander. These effete car snobs and their "OMG! It's so ugly! Outre! How could anyone possibly buy one?" Basically it gets you where you wanna go, hauls your peeps and stuff, and doesn't cost much.

  • Bd2 Lexus is just a higher trim package Toyota. ^^
  • Tassos ONLY consider CIvics or Corollas, in their segment. NO DAMNED Hyundais, Kias, Nissans or esp Mitsus. Not even a Pretend-BMW Mazda. They may look cute but they SUCK.I always recommend Corollas to friends of mine who are not auto enthusiasts, even tho I never owed one, and owned a Civic Hatch 5 speed 1992 for 25 years. MANY follow my advice and are VERY happy. ALmost all are women.friends who believe they are auto enthusiasts would not listen to me anyway, and would never buy a Toyota. They are damned fools, on both counts.
  • Tassos since Oct 2016 I drive a 2007 E320 Bluetec and since April 2017 also a 2008 E320 Bluetec.Now I am in my summer palace deep in the Eurozone until end October and drive the 2008.Changing the considerable oils (10 quarts synthetic) twice cost me 80 and 70 euros. Same changes in the US on the 2007 cost me $219 at the dealers and $120 at Firestone.Changing the air filter cost 30 Euros, with labor, and there are two such filters (engine and cabin), and changing the fuel filter only 50 euros, while in the US they asked for... $400. You can safely bet I declined and told them what to do with their gold-plated filter. And when I changed it in Europe, I looked at the old one and it was clean as a whistle.A set of Continentals tires, installed etc, 300 EurosI can't remember anything else for the 2008. For the 2007, a brand new set of manual rec'd tires at Discount Tire with free rotations for life used up the $500 allowance the dealer gave me when I bought it (tires only had 5000 miles left on them then)So, as you can see, I spent less than even if I owned a Lexus instead, and probably less than all these poor devils here that brag about their alleged low cost Datsun-Mitsus and Hyundai-Kias.And that's THETRUTHABOUTCARS. My Cars,
  • NJRide These are the Q1 Luxury division salesAudi 44,226Acura 30,373BMW 84,475Genesis 14,777Mercedes 66,000Lexus 78,471Infiniti 13,904Volvo 30,000*Tesla (maybe not luxury but relevant): 125,000?Lincoln 24,894Cadillac 35,451So Cadillac is now stuck as a second-tier player with names like Volvo. Even German 3rd wheel Audi is outselling them. Where to gain sales?Surprisingly a decline of Tesla could boost Cadillac EVs. Tesla sort of is now in the old Buick-Mercury upper middle of the market. If lets say the market stays the same, but another 15-20% leave Tesla I could see some going for a Caddy EV or hybrid, but is the division ready to meet them?In terms of the mainstream luxury brands, Lexus is probably a better benchmark than BMW. Lexus is basically doing a modern interpretation of what Cadillac/upscale Olds/Buick used to completely dominate. But Lexus' only downfall is the lack of emotion, something Cadillac at least used to be good at. The Escalade still has far more styling and brand ID than most of Lexus. So match Lexus' quality but out-do them on comfort and styling. Yes a lot of Lexus buyers may be Toyota or import loyal but there are a lot who are former GM buyers who would "come home" for a better product.In fact, that by and large is the Big 3's problem. In the 80s and 90s they would try to win back "import intenders" and this at least slowed the market share erosion. I feel like around 2000 they gave this up and resorted to a ton of gimmicks before the bankruptcies. So they have dropped from 66% to 37% of the market in a quarter century. Sure they have scaled down their presence and for the last 14 years preserved profit. But in the largest, most prosperous market in the world they are not leading. I mean who would think the Koreans could take almost 10% of the market? But they did because they built and structured products people wanted. (I also think the excess reliance on overseas assembly by the Big 3 hurts them vs more import brands building in US). But the domestics should really be at 60% of their home market and the fact that they are not speaks volumes. Cadillac should not be losing 2-1 to Lexus and BMW.
  • Tassos Not my favorite Eldorados. Too much cowbell (fins), the gauges look poor for such an expensive car, the interior has too many shiny bits but does not scream "flagship luxury", and the white on red leather or whatever is rather loud for this car, while it might work in a Corvette. But do not despair, a couple more years and the exterior designs (at least) will sober up, the cowbells will be more discreet and the long, low and wide 60s designs are not far away. If only the interiors would be fit for the price point, and especially a few acres of real wood that also looked real.
Next