rkmdogs

Good question FlyBrian. I can only answer from prior experience and outside reports. First, the Express weighs a lot more, and has different wheelbase to tread width ratios than the Astro. Historically, short wheelbase vans have had a very choppy ride, and expansion joint interval placement on some roads make it totally unbearable. I have owned several full size vans in the past, my last being a 2001 Express 3500 long-wheelbase. This was a very nice van for over the road, but around town driving was a chore due to the length. I have owned several Dodge full-size vans, both long & short wheelbase, in both 3/4T and 1T versions. Fully loaded, nice rides, but empty or with just passengers, a real dreaded experience. AND, the new Express, with the last redesign is a fully framed vehicle. This was done to compete with Ford and their offerings for class C motorhome cutaways, and other commercial use applications. This is a very desirable feature for this size and type of van, but in the minivan designs, this construction adds cost & weight, which then means bigger engine, bigger brakes, etc. That's why, in my opinion a "shorty" Express would not be a feasible solution. A better solution would have been to offer the Astro features on the Uplander, specifically the rear Dutch door design, a split, folding 2nd seat(like the old Suburbans), instead of folding buckets just to accommodate a second row table! What happened to fold-down center armrest tables--- like the Astro LT? Maybe nobody at GM design knows how to do a seat with a fold-down table and with fold-down seat backs? Or maybe the bean-counters won't allow it in this market level vehicle? In the design feature selection on the Uplander, the LS series does not come with a roof rack, but misses some of the other amenities. On an LT Uplander, the roof rack is included in the package with no choice to delete it! In todays gas crunch situation, a roof rack increases the already poor air drag of the vehicle, reducing gas mileage by up to 10%! Why can't you buy the upscale Uplander WITHOUT the roof rack? You don't get one on the Tahoe SS! The design team for the Uplander was fixated with making it a rolling juke box, not a versatile, useful vehicle. Now, on the rear drive business. It is a known fact that if you tow with a FWD vehicle, you lose traction to your driving wheels. With a RWD vehicle in a tow situation you increase traction, but loose some steering control unless you use a load-equalizing hitch. Anyone towing a boat or a rigid travel trailer of any size, who does not use an equalizing hitch is an accident waiting to happen! That is why RWD is preferable. The compromise that the General chose was to offer the Uplander in AWD, (no quarrel with that) but only on an LT series model! And then the drive split is in favor of the front axle, until the torque shift is required. The only answer as to why the rear axle isn't the primary drive is because the rear axle driveshaft is offset due to the transfer case displacing the output. But two of my Astros (the '95 & the '00) were AWD, and they had RWD as the primary! I am reminded of an old tale, about a company firing its' older, more expensive engineers and replacing them with younger ones, at a much less salary figure. But once they had a design problem that the new, young boys couldn't solve. So in desparation, to keep from shutting down a high-costing plant, they called back one of the old-timers as a "consultant". He came in, and looked at the problem, and said,"I can fix that quickly foryou." They agreed, and he proceeded to add one bolt to the troubled assembly, and all the problems were cured. He then sent the company a bill for $100,000.00. The new, young manager hit the ceiling. How can you charge so much for one bolt," he asked? The old-timer answered," oh the bolt is only 10 cents. Knowing where to put it costs $99,999.90! Nuff said!

Another point to ponder.......... GM ran this vehicle for over 20 years, without any significant updates! That's a lot of return on your initial investment. If they had upgraded minimally, along the way, they could have been current with the competitors in the state-of-the-art minivans. The closest they came to a minivan replacement with an SUV was with the Envoy XUV, whose execution was dismal with the deference to style over function on the rear gate functioning features!....... and it still couldn't seat 8 people! I wonder how many of the people who are writing off this type of vehicle have ever owned one, or used one? We ain't just talkin' soccer moms here!

READ MY LIPS! An SUV is not a Minivan. Now repeat 100 times 'til it sinks in! The current SUV offerings do not replicate the features offered by a minivan! AND.... as far as market share being too small, that is a cop-out answer! Let's look at D-C's Caravan, Toyota's Sienna, the Honda job, and Kia's Sedona. A shortie Express is NOT the answer. The General, for whatever reason has chosen to vacate this market ... just like he did with the full-size Caprice! The bean-counters, not the car-people are winning.

Why rear wheel drive cars? Well, if you are an old poop, like I am, and a retired engineer at that, you may recall a technical paper done many years ago by Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, you know the original Dr. Porsche, not the son, in which he divulged some engineering study conclusions. In this paper, he stated that, vehicles that had over 200hp available at the drive wheels should be rear wheel drive due to the phyics reactions called "torque steer" He also stated that as driving horsepower increased, all-wheel drive should be utilized, for the same reasons. FWD was created to maximize passenger space in small vehicles, such as the Mini Cooper. It was not done as a performance enhancement. This concept had the side benefit that, for incompetent drivers, who did not wish to understand the proper techniques needed under less than optimum driving conditions, i.e., snow, rain, ice, these vehicles seemed to be more forgiving of sloppy driving and handling errors. This bonus was exploited out of proportion to vehicles that should never have been built! And the average American driver, who never saw a road course or a driving school needed all the help they could get! When driving became a necessity in life, due to the failure of other means of transportation, people began driving who should never have been allowed to operate any machinery, due to a lack of knowledge & respect for the machines they were using. Mediocre was the catchword --- for driving skills in America! You will note that most of the respected and long-established performance car manufacturers stayed with RWD, and did not play the game of FWD uber alles! Ask somebody who owned an Omni GLH what happened when you planted your right foot to the floor? Yes, tire-smokin' acceleration, but total loss of control! The Buick Skylark with the Brazilian OHC engine was the same way! Those of you that may not have been around when the question originated about the pros and cons of FWD vs. RWD need to go back and read about the results. Yeah, IMO GM needs to re-offer RWD models in other than high-priced luxury lines! I pass on the soapbox................

I started this inquiry in the old format, found my own answer in the 2006 GM press releases, that the General is pitching the Uplander as the replacement for the Astro. Somebody needs to clean their glasses! First off, the Uplander is at most a 7 passenger vehicle, not 8, as the Astro was! Second, it does not have a 5000 lb tow capacity. I'm not sure of performance comparisons between the old 4.3L and the new 3.9L variable timing V-6, whenever it becomes available. The 3,4L sure doesn't have it! And that cargo box deal, !!!!! who is smokin' them funny cigarettes at design? If you have cargo ON THE FLOOR in the back, how can you get to the cargo box, which is UNDER the floor? Take everything out? AND that me too, one-piece, head skonkin' rear hatch --- bring back the dutch doors, please! Somebody at Corporate has been reading the wrong tea leaves if they think that the Uplander comes anywhere close to matching the versatility of the Astro! Who could we contact at Corporate to let them know that if the Uplander is the new "minivan", offer it in RWD. They already say you can get it in AWD! So the chassis has to have a rear driveshaft provision. Wake Up, General!!!!!