Do you think if the dustbusters or something really close looking to them) had been introduced now in the middle of the crossover craze and with wilder designed being more accepted, that they would have done a lot better?

especially if they had a current interior.

Edited June 19, 200619 yr by regfootball

No.

No, it was more of the crazy early 90's style.

So sue me, but they were the best-looking vans of the era.

We had one when I was younger. We had a 95 lumina. By then they had fixed the front a little. But by the time we got rid of it in 98 it looked pretty dumb compaired to the caravans that were out and the ventures. My dad couldn't figure out why he had ever bought it in the first place.

I'm with Fly.

I'll agree with Fly and Sly, but still, all that means is that they were the best of a bad bunch.

They'd do well in France.

No.

Im going to disagree with everyone and say YES!

Toyota just introduced their newest Previa. It basically looks like what a modern day U-van would. Look....

I give GM credit for trying with those vans. Chrysler got lucky and hit a bulls eye with their first minivans. Other than originally only being available with an anemic 4 cylinder, the Chrysler vans were the right size and the right packaging.

Ford and GM both went the wrong way with the RWD Astro/Safari and Aerostars.

The dustbusters were smaller inside than the 2nd generation Chrysler van, which came out about the same time. The seats were better in the dustbusters. The ride was better. Some people complained about the huge dash and windshield. They were wierd to drive at first, but you got used to that.

If you look at the market in '91, they were pretty good for their time. I recall test driving the all-new Previa at the time, which was also pretty wierd looking. The dustbusters were at least as good as the Previa, although the Toyota had more room inside.

GM finally got smart and just blatantly copied Chrysler in '97 with the Venture. Unfortunatley, as is too often the case, GM only designed for where Chrysler had been in '95/'96, not where Chrysler was going.

But then, Honda, Ford and Toyota all made the same mistake, too.

I think they look cool, actually. The Lambda vans will look cool too, very different.

So sue me, but they were the best-looking vans of the era.

that's not saying much....

I do like their "shuttlecraft" look though.

You know... I, too, will say yes. I think they'd do better... but... not that much better.

Chili Palmer: What is that?

Driver: It's an Oldsmobile Silhouette.

Chili: I ordered a Cadillac

Driver: Oh..... well, yeah, it's the Cadillac of minivans.

Chili: Are you kidding me?

Driver: Hey, if you want, the other car rental is right over there, but I think all they got is Rabbit convertibles.

Chili: Guess I'll take the "Cadillac of minivans."

I think the question that really needs to be asked here is if the movie "Get Shorty" would still be considered an effective marketing tool if the "dustbusters" were rereleased, because I love that effing movie. Sequel was retarded, though.

Im going to disagree with everyone and say YES!

Toyota just introduced their newest Previa. It basically looks like what a modern day U-van would. Look....

(Second image removed to protect eyes of readers.)

Gah!! A Civic minivan!!

Sure, the Lumina looks better than that. Maybe if the features were modernized. I've always tried to find a way to make a minivan look cool, and many of my early drawings struck similar to the dustbusters in profile.

Edited June 20, 200619 yr by aaaantoine

I don't know. I thought they were pretty cool vans, though, when I was much younger. The overall look and concept actually is a little ahead of their time...and it's probably somewhat ahead of this year, too. However, if the (more modern) car was introduced in 2010 instead of 1990, I don't think it would help sales on the design.

Probably the worst detail of the design are the wheel openings. They're too large for the wheels that are supposed to go in there.

Edited June 19, 200619 yr by YellowJacket894

I know where I was when I saw my first dustbuster, I was working at a Chevy dealer the summer of 89 and remember pulling into the parking lot one morning and seeing that thing. It was a base model that had those awful wheel covers that also came on the Lumina. I don't think many people could get used to the view from the inside. Was a bit too goofy just like the Previa. The Polymer panels were a great idea though. I knew I guy who had a 91 up until 2 yrs ago. It had 180K on it, had motor work done on it but it had original tranny and not a spot of rust obvioulsy.

This was my first car. Not this particular one but one exactly like it.

I always thought the matching rims were kind of cool. Until I cracked one and found out a new one would cost me an arm and a leg. Then, I had 3 white rims and one black one.

This was my first car. Not this particular one but one exactly like it.

I always thought the matching rims were kind of cool. Until I cracked one and found out a new one would cost me an arm and a leg. Then, I had 3 white rims and one black one. 

I had a red Pontiac just like it ...I loved it!

True story: I was driving it New Years eve, and I stomped on it in a hurry,

somehow, my snow scraper was in between the firewall and I/P....

the snowbrush fell into the throttle linkage and held the thing wide open!

I spazzed out and hit neutral instead of the key,redlined it, slammed it in gear

again, and putted home in limp mode. Sometimes I don't always do

the right thing......

No. Dustbusters were icky.