Word on the street is that General Motors will be discontinuing its existing full-size vans to make way for electrified alternatives. While the gut reaction may be to recoil in disgust at the very premise that Euro vans would dare usurp the rightful place of one of the most venerable working vehicles in North America, it might be worth remembering that the Ford Transit has managed to supplant the Econoline/E-Series rather effectively.
Newer vans have been optimized to maximize volume and come with engines prioritizing greater efficiency without feeling like they’re a huge step down from the hungry V8s that populated older models. A decade ago, driving a full-sized van likely meant you’d be struggling to average miles per gallon in the double digits operating under even the most modest of loads. But today you can find something boasting far more cargo space and superior fuel economy without a lot of trouble. With this in mind, it’s not difficult to see why GM might want to make some major changes to its lineup.
However, according to AutoWeek, those changes won’t include General Motors developing products that will rival the gasoline-powered Ford Transit. Instead, the automaker is rumored to be leveraging its proprietary skateboard platform and Ultium modular battery pack to deliver something akin to the BrightDrop Zevo 600 it’s already building for commercial clients (e.g. FedEx). The model is presumed to replace the GMC Savana and Chevy Express after they’ve been discontinued in 2025.
GM never really had a European-style utility van to send over to the states and hadn’t bothered developing one because it was far cheaper to run with older vans that didn’t require any factory retooling. Besides, Chevy and GMC could field vans that were absolutely still fit for service at a price point lower than what Blue Oval could offer — making them appetizing alternatives for price-conscious fleet managers. But with Ford having delivered the Transit-E and GM vowing to swap to all-electric propulsion, the latter brand cannot just sit on its hands.
BrightDrop delivered its first 150 Zevo delivery vans to Federal Express last week. Un-sexy as this part of the EV business is, it’s huge, with perhaps the best potential to quickly get the automotive business out of carbon-spewing internal-combustion engines. FedEx plans to eventually have 2500 BrightDrop vans in its fleet, on the way to an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2040.
The lame-duck GM van twins — their tooling long ago paid off — fall short of Ford and Ram competitors based on much fresher European styling — though the strategy to go directly from 35-year-old designs to EVs might prove smartest. The Chevy/GMC’s basic designs can be traced back to the 1971 model year, with an all-new model for 1997 and its last major update for 2003.
By comparison, the Ford Transit, with three roof height options, has cargo capacity of 246.7-542.2 cubic feet (excluding bare-chassis vans from any of these brands available with larger “cube” cargo boxes that cannot be accessed from the driver’s seat).
The BrightDrop Zevo 600’s range of 250 miles practically doubles the Ford E-Transit’s top-range of 126 miles on low-roof versions. The Zevo 600 can be recharged at the rate of 170 miles an hour using a 120-kilowatt fast charger.
Every company under the sun is actively working on improving range and building a better EV, so any advantage this gives GM may be short-lived. Meanwhile, one wonders if totally replacing Savana and Express is a good idea considering just how many end up becoming moving vans for companies like Penske or U-Haul. The Zevo 600 may be idyllic for shifting goods in an urban environment, but that 250-mile range won’t hack it for someone who is relocating their life several states away. I’m not sure why the industry and the media always seem to be forgetting about long-range deliveries when championing electrification.
AutoWeek’s insistence that “European styling” was superior also felt kind of half-baked. I’d argue that blander is better in terms of legitimate working vehicles. How many people are seriously making their final purchasing decision based on how handsome each van is? Is there even any model that could be considered truly beautiful? As a lifelong van lover and former urbanite sporadically needing the ability to haul around a lot of equipment, the Transit has become my default choice whenever there’s hauling to be done. I would even go so far as to suggest it’s Ford’s best product by a mile. However, it’s not an attractive vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.
Vans (mini or full-sized) lack the sex appeal of pickup trucks — so much so that it’s now common to see the latter option being used as pampered luxury vehicles. Chalk that up to trucks having been marketed as macho and rugged, while vans have been associated with soccer moms and roving criminals. Though that association does offer an unbridled level of menace, as there’s nothing scarier than seeing a nondescript utility van suddenly parked on your street. And that’s something that remains true whether it’s a gruff and battered Chevrolet Express from 1999 or a sparkling new Ford Transit hot off the assembly line. No other vehicle type has become more synonymous with crime — despite of the vast majority being owned by law-abiding citizens who do real work for a living.
That’s a bit of a tangent. But the point is that the success of a van hinges almost entirely on how capable they happen to be. If GM manages to field the best all-electric van, it’s likely to get the lion’s share of fleet orders in the coming years. But I’m worried it’s leaving a massive hole by not trying to retain the gas-powered Savana/Express. People still want to rent something smaller than a Peterbilt that’ll get their goods more than 250 miles. Is the company just going to cede that ground to its rivals in 2026?
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news , features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter .
“ it might be worth remembering that the Ford Transit has managed to supplant the Econoline/E-Series rather effectively.”
Not only has it not done that, Ford can’t figure out how to make the Transit a full E-Series replacement.
The Transit is much lighter duty and can’t handle the same GVWRs that the E-Series can. As a result, Ford just recently gave the E-Series the most substantial update it’s seen in years. Not just a new powertrain with the ending of the 6.8 V10 but also a new interior.
Perhaps. But they no longer fill the same roles. Transit is always there when volume trumps weight and the E-Series comes into play when it’s the other way round. I can’t even remember the last time I saw an E that didn’t have a big box attached to the back.
“ I can’t even remember the last time I saw an E that didn’t have a big box attached to the back.”
Correct all they make is the E-450 chassis. But it’s telling when it’s more fiscally responsible to run a complete vehicle line with thousands of unique parts vs just adapting the Transit to work for the GVWRs that the E-450 is capable of. But the transit was designed in Europe which explains everything. It’s not meant for real, American work.
The Transit (and its competitors) do just fine with any GVW that you need in a factory-bodied van. The only place where the full-frame product still makes any sense is chassis-cab and cutaway markets. Even there the COE products are better for cargo. Really, all the E-series has left is the cutaway bus market.
The only place where Transit vans have not replaced the Econoline is in EMS services. That’s more because “upfitters” have their conversions designed to fit BOF vehicles. In BC our ambulances were mostly Ford and now they are primarily GM. @Matt’s reply to the troll sums it up rather well. Transit for bulky light cargo and the remaining E-series of F – Series for heavy hauling. Ford does have a Transit chassis cab unit available.
The T-350 offers payloads up to 4500 lbs. That is way more than any E-350 van ever offered.
Ford basically cedes the upper end end of the payload market to the MS Sprinter, which has a payload as high as 6300 lbs. This is more than an F-350 dually. The Sprinter also has a much higher GCVWR.
Where the old BOF vehicles trump the unibody vans is GCVWR, which is top out at 15,000 lbs for the Sprinter, and 13,00 lbs for the Transit. The loast of the E-350s used to be rated at 20,000 lbs combined.
“a payload as high as 6300 lbs. This is more than an F-350 dually.”
That is not accurate. 9:18 of this video shows an F-350 DRW with 6925lbs payload and regular cab versions can go over 7000lbs.
youtube.com/watch?v=kU-hNU6yDhM
“The only place where Transit vans have not replaced the Econoline is in EMS services.”
Ford would not have an entire line in a factory and fund a very in depth redesign strictly for the ambulance market that has other players in it.
Your position is amazingly short sighted and off base.
E-450 GVWR – 14,500 pounds E-350 DRW GVWR – 12,500 E-350 SRW GVWR – 10,050
Transit Cutaway/chassis cab – 11,000 pounds.
Some of that comes down to duty cycles as well. There is a reason the E-Series has a proper engine while the Transit has Egobust. Egobust isn’t up to handling larger loads for long periods. It’s why the 500+ foot pound of torque Egobust 3.5L is not in the Ford Super Duty lineup.
Ford E-Series vans peaked in 2005 at 148,738 units. In 2021 they sold 37,122. 2022 YTD 9,006. In comparison the Transit sold YTD 25,778. The Transit Connect also outsold the E-Series YTD with 9,566 units. The Transit in 2019 sold 153,867.2020 sold 131,557 and in 2021 sold 99,745.
“The only place where Transit vans have not replaced the Econoline is in EMS services.”
In BC I have not seen any ambulance other than a BOF van like the E-series or Express van. In Alberta I have seen Transit EMS conversions. The numbers I’ve posted speak for themselves.
Now run along and polish your collection of Putin on horse dolls.
“ The numbers I’ve posted speak for themselves.”
The numbers posted have no bearing on what’s being discussed. Completely irrelevant. The transit outsells the E-Series? No way! Who would have guessed? Imagine a whole handful of vans outselling exactly one specialized model. Never would have guessed that. Another Mensa member here!
This is as smart as when FreedMike said if they sold the fake mustang at a lower price, they would lose even more money.
“Now run along and polish your collection of Putin on horse dolls.”
Can’t argue the point, has to go to right to personal attacks. Classic. Now quick call me comrade!
You are arguing for the continued use of vehicles that for the most part are decades old in design. Ford has successfully phased out most of their E-series vans. Chassis units and chassis cab units remain for upfitter bolt-on applications. Bulky intercity freight doesn’t typically need huge GVW’s. Large vehicles are limited in functionality in congested cities. Chevy wants to go to EV’s. Makes sense since distances are short and recharge delays aren’t typically an issue.
On a side note, it looks like you’d prefer to polish your January 6 Rump, and Q-Anon action dolls.
The GVWR numbers quoted above are not quite as different as they look because there is something like a 500 lb. difference in empty weight between the vans. The E-Series is still the thing you need if you need a 40-passenger cutaway bus, but that’s… not a huge market.
The “E” cutaways are 100 inch wide box’s, cumbersome in traffic, tough to put in parking spots, etc. Forget about rear windows, but do they still offer an 80 inch, single rear wheel box? It doesn’t matter since straight-van competition can do about the same without the 3rd party conversion, roll-up door, etc. never mind aerodynamics.
“People still want to rent something smaller than a Peterbilt that’ll get their goods more than 250 miles. Is the company just going to cede that ground to its rivals in 2026?”
I strongly suspect the medium duty cutaways (4500+) will remain gas or diesel powered, and various sizes of box trucks will continue to be made from them to meet this need.
GM would be crazy to just axe the entire line so I’m thinking you’ll end up being right. But that would still leave a pretty big gap in terms of something that would rival the Transit. Maybe the company just feels the juice isn’t worth the squeeze to try and compete with anything that isn’t going to be and electric at this point. Hopefully we’ll know more after some additional digging.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Transit itself is all electric around the same time, at least in the light duty models. I don’t find EVs compelling for myself, but a fleet of vans is close to the ideal situation for them.
I just don’t know how big the “long distance, van shape, smaller than a box truck” use case is. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be the first short-sighted decision out of GM either.
After driving 250 miles, it’s time to stop to use the restroom, stretch your legs and have something to eat. Meanwhile, the van gets recharged. Does anyone really drive for more than 4 hours without stopping? It is likely that battery technology will improve substantially between now and when these finally make it down the assembly line. Batteries will charge quicker, last longer, weigh less and take up less space. The flip side of the coin is that GM is probably rating its range on an unloaded van, and one packed to the gills with a mattress strapped to the roof will likely have to stop for a refill more often.
These vans are primarily used in cities as opposed to between cities.
God forbid I ever have to take a road trip with you. You only stop for gas. You pee while the pump is running. Anything under 12 hours I drive straight through.
You must eat a ton of potato chips to aid in water retention.
Hum A 500 mile drive. 5 hours to recharge before you get there.
“I strongly suspect the medium duty cutaways (4500+) will remain gas or diesel powered”
Depends what the end game is, if the goal is to totally jack up society -as it seems to be- then all medium trucking will be forced to be powered by unicorn farts.
Speaking of a societal denouement, do you know what the Sword of Damocles is hanging over our heads right now? DEF. Once a genuine or artificial “shortage” is put into effect, hang onto your butts.
“No other vehicle type has become more synonymous with crime”
I can think of a few. However, this sort of tangent – and the relative beauty of Euro vans – meets a word-count quota but is totally irrelevant to the story.
Electric short-haul vans make a lot of sense.
As for long-distance electric hauling, I hope the Tesla Semi proves out this possibility. Its endless delays are a concern. But so are tow tests on the newest electric pickups that – predictably – show efficiencies as low as 1 mile/kWh while towing 5000 lbs.
Early on, the Tesla Semi was claimed to have an efficiency of 0.5 mile/kWh. This figure seems suspect now, and perhaps it is one reason for the delay.
GM doesn’t seem to have an issue with ceding markets so why wouldn’t they cede this market as well.
Pretty stupid move, imho. I’m picturing fleets of EV moving vans at Uhaul and the consistent problem they will have with their vans sitting on the side of the highway because they’ve run out of electricity.
Until EV’s provide the range of ICE powered vehicles, have a easily accessible and reliable charging infrastructure AND that infrastructure provides full charges in a minimum of 15 minutes EV’s will be a niche business at best with limited adoption.
For the forseeable future if I have two options in front of me, EV and ICE, I will pick ICE every single time – without hesitation.
Their product isn’t even close to competitive. They either cede the market by default or have to develop an all-new replacement, and it looks like they’ve decided the replacement will target a different set of applications.
Dear Endless. You stole my thunder. GM cedes markets / products on a yearly basis. One recent example, GM of Europe. Sold for pennies on the dollar. PSA turned it around in 2 yrs. For GM, it was a Gordian knot that was unsolvable for 30+years. It is a garbage company. The way they treat suppliers- the way they treat 6-7 level salaried plant floor people is criminal.
Sub-class 4 ICE cutaways are still clearly a significant market, and I haven’t seen the Transit or Promaster (almost none of the latter) make much inroads, so there’s definitely going to be a hole in the marketplace here.
The E-series is more than capable of handling what’s left of that market, and the Express would need a substantial refresh to compete with it.
The Penske and U-Haul small and medium-size box trucks I see are mostly GMC-Chevy cutaways.
Do they make Transit cutaways? I swear I’ve seen pictures of something like that as minibuses/airport shuttles/limos. (Although the largest passenger versions of the Transit could probably serve in the airport shuttle roles without modifications, though wheelchair accessibility might be a bit awkward!)
The U-Haul cutaways are GM because GM sells them unbelievably dirt cheap and U-Haul doesn’t need much capability.
There are Transit cutaways. You can see them on Ford’s commercial site. I’ve seen a few in commercial bus service but the E-Series still seems to get more of that market, probably because it’s cheaper to buy and can carry a bit more payload. It looks to me like most of the Transit cutaways end up turned into RVs.
I’m seeing more Transit camper conversions on the road. They look more sleek and aerodynamic than a “cutaway” Chevy or Ford.
U-Haul and others purchase the cheapest product. They don’t worry about fuel consumption or comfort. That’s the renter’s problem not theirs.
E-series would be cheaper due to its old platform. Upfitter’s have multiple “modules” for them that just bolt on. That drives down price due to amortization.
Some companies will recycle a “module” if it’s still in decent shape. A local reforestation company in town just leases Ford F350’s for that reason. They remove the box and bumpers and add their recycled gear and add “ricochet” wrap to the rest. The truck gets returned with a mint box and bumpers.
>>It is likely that battery technology will improve substantially between now and when these finally make it down the assembly line. Batteries will charge quicker, last longer, weigh less and take up less space. <<
Why All Those EV-Battery ‘Breakthroughs’ You Hear About Aren’t Breaking Through In the superheated market for batteries, promising lab developments often get overhyped by startups. ‘Liar, liar, battery supplier.’ Electric vehicles are the biggest drives of demand for batteries, making auto makers’ requirements the de facto standards battery makers must meet.
By Christopher Mims Wall St Journal
Type the words “battery” and “breakthrough” into your search engine of choice, and you’ll encounter page after page of links. They include breathless news articles and lofty pronouncements from battery startups. And yet, according to scientists, engineers, startup founders and analysts, the use of the word “breakthrough” in the context of battery technology is misleading at best. Claims that the latest research finding or startup launch will bear fruit in the near future are almost always nonsense, they say. “You don’t have to be in the field long to hear the phrase ‘Liar, liar, battery supplier,’ ” says Charlotte Hamilton, chief executive and co-founder of battery startup Conamix. The company was founded in 2014 and is pursuing technology that is being funded by venture capitalists and IARPA, a research arm of the U.S. intelligence community. Batteries are becoming ever more critical to daily life. Their performance dictates how often people have to recharge their smartwatch or phone and are central to overcoming range-anxiety felt by drivers embracing electric cars. Power storage also is critical to the growing demand for renewable energy. All that has supercharged demand for batteries, turning the industry into one of the hottest areas for investors.
Venture capitalists last year poured almost $18 billion globally into startups that support the transition to electric vehicles, including batteries and lithium mining, according to PitchBook. In August, for example, China-based EV battery maker Svolt netted $1.6 billion in a single funding round. Given what’s at sake, it’s easy to chalk up exaggerated claims about new battery breakthroughs to the tech industry’s propensity for hyperbole and grandstanding. A typical example: Researchers invent a tweak to a type of battery that has long shown promise but has never come close to commercialization. That gets spun into claims that an electric car with a 2,000-mile range is within reach. “People like a breakthrough, but when we write papers we try to avoid using these kinds of words,” says Xin Li, a researcher at Harvard University whose team recently published a paper on a new kind of higher-capacity solid-state battery in the scientific journal Nature. “There are too many battery ‘breakthroughs’ in my opinion in the past 5 years, and not many can be implemented in a commercial product.”. There are tangible costs to the hype. Investors can struggle to cut through the thicket of claims, and startups that are forthright about their results may lose out…..
Pickup-based box’s will fill any voids, even based on a Lightning.
The old E-series vans, Savanas, etc, straight vans lose to the Euro vans by every metric except reliability.
I have nothing but hate for GM vans. My dad owned a couple of GMC Vanduras (why he bought the second after his experience with the first baffles me to this day). First one developed holes in the floorpan large enough to stick my foot through it. It’s an education being able to see the road under you. It was useful as added ventilation since he never did pop for A/C. Second one turned into rust masquerading as white steel (the body panels turned “crispy”). You could tell GM didn’t give a sh*t as the source of the rust –the rain gutter above the windshield– was never fixed for the entire lifespan of the POS generation. 20 years later, you could see even new GM vans starting to rust in the same places.
James2 – Your comment made me think of a question that I have for any new GM van. Will early corrosion be an extra-cost option or standard as with the current Express/Savana vans?
The Express has already been decimated by the Transit and a lesser extent the Promaster. The Euro-style vans are just better products: more cargo volume, better gas mileage, better ergonomics. GM discontinued the half-ton Express variant several years ago because it couldn’t compete. Now as the market has gotten more comfortable with the heavier-duty Transit and Promaster the heavier Express can’t compete anymore either. The only niche where a US-style van platform makes any sense is for a cutaway bus, and that’s just not that big a market.
Since the skateboard platform is flexible bring back a new version of the Safari/Astro just with better crash protection. Small vans like the Transit Connect and Promaster City as well as the assorted European branded ones like the Renault Kangoo Peugeot Partner are still quite popular in many areas particularly with tradesmen and business owners.
Fight me but the Promaster is so trash I’d rather drive an Express.
Another thing that definitely only matters to me and some other weirdos is that these vans are the last applications of the (revised) 4.3L V6. The end of these will likely end GM pushrod V6 production and I think they’ve had that configuration since 1960.
TIL, because of your comment.
I don’t think I’ve seen an Express without a 6.0L or 6.6L V8 for close to a decade. I had no idea any other engine options were still offered. especially since the half-ton vans were discontinued. But if Chevy’s site is to be believed you can get not only the 4.3, but also a diesel four-banger??
Another interesting power train offering is that circa 2010-2017 the 2500 and 3500 vans came standard with the 4.8L V8 but offered the 6L90 transmission. That was the only application of the 4.8L/6A (the trucks and SUVs with the 4.8L used the 4 speed).
Then the 5.3L was also available for the vans in those years (and the only way to get AWD) but was only on the 1500 and it only used the 4A despite the 5.3L trucks/SUVs having moved to the 6A.
And as a further aside, I’ve wondered why GM didn’t use the relatively more oversquare 4.8L design for the LS4. Probably could have ended up with something around 320hp/300lb-ft with better revs and less torque steer.
The powertrain listings on the Wikipedia page for the Express is really an amazing snapshot of GM engine development the last 30 years. The idea that you could get a 1st and 5th generation small block in the same vehicle, or both a Detroit 6.5 diesel and a 2.8L mini-Duramax just amuses me.
Wow. So many options, and I wonder how many vans they actually ended up in.
I’ve driven more than my share of Expresses in various rental and fleet situations over the past decade, and I believe every single one had a 6.0 except for the most recent one, which had a 6.6 (and was all too easy to put into an unintentional burnout).
My parents had two conversion vans, a 1998 with the Vortec 350 and a 2004 with the 5.3 and AWD. Those I believe were the “common” options, at least in the 1500s at the time. Awesome family road trip vehicles.
I do think an 8.1L van would be fun to drive and a weird piece of history, I can’t imagine a lot of those left the factory.
Actual Transit owner checking in. We use ours almost exclusively for long road trips. An e-version would be a hard no for obvious reasons. Good luck GM!
I wonder if they’ll prevent the white paint on the hood from flaking off. Haven’t seen a Chevy or GMC van to date without that characteristic.
This has been endemic on a number of GM vehicles. Back in 1990 my father purchased a new 91 S-10 Blazer in white. Within a couple of years the paint became flaky and was peeling on the hood and roof. After writing the dealer and regional service managers they hooked him up with a new paint job. He also bought at the tune a 91 Saturn in dark red and the paint is stellar to this day.
I rented an Express from uhaul last weekend. As a large box it did its job well as it held a lot. It must have had the 6.6 because it really hauled. Now I know why the plumbers and electricians in these things are always going 90. Plenty of axle hop as I expected. What I did not expect was that objects in the mirror really do look much much closer.
I was reading today that GM makes 14 Hummers a day at their over 1 billion $ new plant. 14 * 365 days of year = ~ 5000 units a year.
GM CEO likes to say they have 70,000 orders for Hummer. At this rate they fulfill those orders in 14 years.
What is wrong with that picture????
You must be logged in to post a comment.