Chevrolet Reveals MPG Ratings for 2015 City Express

2015-Chevrolet-City-Express-005 II

Chevrolet has announced that its newest commercial cargo van, the City Express, will offer a combined fuel economy rating of 25 mpg; that ties the City Express with category leaders the Ford Transit Connect and the Nissan NV200.

The City Express is Chevy's first venture into the small cargo van arena; it's made possible through a partnership with Nissan since the City Express is based off the same platform and uses the same mechanicals and powertrain as the 2-year old Nissan NV200.

The new 2015 City Express will offer an EPA rating of 24 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, identical to the 2015 ratings for the NV200. The City Express will have a starting price around $24,000 (including destination) and includes two years or 24,000 miles of free (regular) maintenance, allowing Chevy to compete in a growing segment that includes the Transit Connect, the NV200 and the upcoming Ram ProMaster City cargo van (EPA fuel economy numbers have yet to be released for the Ram but with a nine-speed transmission and MultiAir technology, ratings should be as good as or better than what the segment offers).

The 2015 Chevy Express will use a 2.0-liter 16-valve inline-four-cylinder engine in combination with Nissan's next-gen Xtronic continuously variable transmission. To read the full press release, click here.

Manufacturer image

City Express photo chart II

2015-Chevrolet-City-Express-006 II




This might be more interesting to the cars dot com audience. Why not stick with original pickup stories or change the site name to copy and paste vehicle stories dot com.

BAFO could fill in as the copy/paste editor.

Welp, it's going to be the mini-truck wars all over again with the US brands importing foreign models until they can design and build their own in the US. This time however, Chevy is the only one hung out to dry since Ford and RAM both only need to tool up a plant for an already Americanized model under their own corporate marques.

Yep, as we all know, Chevy is just re-badging the Nissan this time with a custom-molded fascia to replace the Nissan nose. Ford and Ram don't even need to do that much. However, this almost guarantees the death of the Chicken Tax in the long run.

And yet the new mid size truck twins still do not have EPA numbers released despite being poised to be on dealer lots within a month. Very sad.

Mileage Man, thats the norm, we did not get mpg numbers for the Ram ecodiesel until people ordered them and got the window sticker in an email.

just ignore him, that's the biggest insult you can give him!

Hank, that's not the norm at all. Its only "the norm" when a manufacturer is struggly badly to program a transmission to eek out some minor gains because the overall fuel economy performance is disappointing.

Also if you want to get technical ram ecodiesel production began January 21 of this year and fuel economy numbers were out by early feb. Colorado/Canyon first production models were manufactured by the middle of May (none passed initial inspection) and yet months later they still have nothing.

That's a really good move by GM to buy the van from Nissan and put their own trim (and body??) on it. They should be sure to advertise the Nissan connection so potential buyers understand there won't likely be many recalls of the vehicle.

Not GREAT but a step in the right direction.
I'm wondering why such a narrow spread between city and highway... 24/26??? I'm surprised they couldn't get it over 30.

And hey Ken, the reason they keep talking about vans on here is because a large segment of the pickup truck buyers have no reason to buy a pickup truck anymore. We were priced out of the pickup truck market and there's really no improvement over older trucks to justify the cost. Vans are now cheaper than pickups and the fuel economy is better too, which means more left over at the end of the day. These vans are a much better idea for most of us workin' guys than pickups. Those are more a luxury item for retirees and rich folks now.

It might be good city mileage, but it goes to show how much it will run out of power on the highway. Especially a hilly one! Start going up hills with this thing and with the AC on and with a load in it, it's going to be so gutless.

Just when i thought these Euro vans couldn't get any uglier, Chevy is right up their with the rest of them. :=(

I'm wondering why such a narrow spread between city and highway... 24/26??? I'm surprised they couldn't get it over 30.


Aerodynamically speaking these vans are as slick as a brick. The only other significant factor in highway fuel mileage is engine type (gas/electric/diesel) and in the case of IC engines the displacement.

The city mileage on these trucks is amazing, and they should be durable and long-lived. Definitely a value packed package.

Fuel economy figures for the 2015 Ram ProMaster City have not yet been announced, but Ram is promising “class-leading” economy, and with its nine-speed automatic transmission, it’s possible the ProMaster City may top the Transit Connect’s 30 mpg highway figure.


The Transit connect not only looks better but it will sell better too.

Most of these vans are based on a small car platform, so the engine size doesn't need to be large.

Even a Focus with a 2 litre engine does quite well on the highway with the aircon operating, I don't forsee any need for this to be any different.

During my last trip to the States (few weeks ago) I did notice a larger upswing in the numbers of these smaller vans.

Most American's live in an urban/suburban environment. These types of vehicles can replace much of what a pickup does in a business environment.

These could be considered the Euro pickup. If you go to Europe you'll find most small business people operate these style of vehicles.

What the US lacks are the diesel variants that will return 40mpg plus on the highway.

Many who comment on PUTC aren't small business owners and if a vehicle like this can save you money in day to day operational costs, then these do make a lot of sense.

With the added security it provides goods and tools these also make even more sense.

The comment regarding PUTC in relation to pickup trucks is quite weak. I do think PUTC should stick to it's current formula of reviewing light commercial vehicles, which includes vans.

Good article.

I'd rather spend five grand less and get a base model Tacoma that gets almost the same mileage. Or Frontier, same story but extended cab for a grand more. You're going to have to drop the price for what's basically a Corolla with fewer features (and more expensive) if you want to seriously compete with midsize trucks for commercial applications. Too bad consumer demands mean nothing when you combine the "you buy what we sell" mentality with the government forcing automakers to step in line with their agenda.

This is what gm has become, a rebadged nissan. And nissan wanted to become a rebadged ram.

Being a Nissan van is a plus. I do not see anything wrong with the looks of this van, it looks like a van and it has very generic looks. It should do well for what it is intended, commercial use. I do see vans being more for work use than most full size pickups which have become more of a muscle car and a luxury vehicle. Many of today's trucks would cater more toward the Off Roader, Road & Track, and Hot Rod magazines. The price ranges on many trucks are closer to the performance car and Cadillac range. Not exactly a vehicle of the common folk or average Joe.

Cut away the sheet metal out of the back and put in a bed and this may be look of the 2020 chevey pickup. Pretty dang sad!

@Jeff S,
I do think you are correct in your assumptions.

This style of van is eating away at light commercial vehicle sales.

If a business doesn't need to tow much and only carries a 1 000lbs this vehicle is ideal in most cases. I would like to see a small diesel version as well, like we have.

They offer the comfort of a car, are relatively economical to run and are cheap to buy.

I did provide data the other day showing the 'real' cost increases in full size trucks in just purchasing. Since 2004 the average transaction cost of a fullsize has increase 42% and the increase in a midsize was 28%.

Full size pickups have even risen against midsizers by over 50% in average transaction price since 2004.

Businesses a more cost sensitive than a private buyer of a vehicle.

The US light commercial market is transitioning and it will change completely within a decade.

I have yet to drive one of these small vans, but I do think they would be 'perky' enough for day to day driving and can handle a 1 000lb load with ease.

I had four adults in my mothers Focus and I expect the performance of one of these loaded to be similar. I sat on 75mph on the Garden State Parkway easily.

1. Businesses a more cost sensitive than a private buyer of a vehicle.

2. The US light commercial market is transitioning and it will change completely within a decade.

3. I have yet to drive one of these small vans, but I do think they would be 'perky' enough for day to day driving and can handle a 1 000lb load with ease.

@Big Al

Three totally gratuitous assertions from Big Al. He cites no facts or stats to support these comments. Typical BS from Oz.

@Big Al--Many have assumptions about weak performance of 4 cylinders from 30 to 40 years ago that are no longer valid. The 4 cylinders today are not the same as the 4 cylinders of the past. Our 2013 CRV can easily go 85 with 4 people and some cargo. True you are not going to haul heavy trailers or large loads but how many delivery or service trucks are going to do that. Does Orkin or Tru Green need a pickup for all applications. I have notice many of the Tru Green Trucks have switched to HD and Isuzu type trucks from the Rangers. I have also noticed more Transits being used in substitution of midsize and full size half ton pickups. Chevy is smart to use the Nissan van instead of waiting to develop their own. Ford got the jump on this market with the Transit and Ram is in as well. Not everyone needs a pickup and this is a cost effective alternative to expensive pickups which have become more of a luxury vehicle. The Transit has not hurt the sales of F-150's, if anything it has expanded Ford's market. This van is not a mini-van it is a midsize commercial van (soccer moms are not going to buy this van).

Except, papa jim, that I agree with him on all aspects of these statements. You only have to go out on the street to see how plumbers and electricians especially are using vans instead of pickups today and even other small businesses -- like a specialty coffee shop whose owner I'm especially acquainted with is using a Transit Connect as his work truck after having used a Chevy Suburban for years simply because it's got so much more room inside and gets better than double the fuel mileage.

In his case, not only does he save money with the vehicle itself's own economy, but now he's able to take deliveries at an easy-to-access location, load the van and deliver supplies to his other, less easily accessed (by 18-wheelers) locations. So he's saving money in multiple ways by owning one of these "Euro-vans".

In other words, each of these assertions by Big Al don't need documented stats--mostly because there hasn't been enough time to develop stats with the new-style vans. However, facts are already available by simply going out and looking at what small businesses are actually buying today--as compared to those still running 5-10 year old vehicles.

@RoadWhale--Fuel economy in the past has been less of a consideration for most than it is today. For businesses using their vehicles it is a make or break and containing costs is critical to the bottom line. I have notice many of the heating and cooling and plumbers switching to Transit Connects for most of the service jobs. Business use is much different than personal use especially an individual who is retired and doesn't drive as much is less concerned with mpgs. For me I would not buy a new vehicle just to get better fuel economy but when I need to replace a vehicle it is a major factor. I will not buy a new vehicle for my own use to save on gas. Regardless of the amount of oil produced in the long run energy prices will continue to go up.

And if you don't want to use any gas at all, the e-nv200 has already gone into production.

You have to ask yourself, how much money is it worth to me to have a macho pickup truck instead of one of these small vans? Because most of the macho pickup trucks I see are not doing anything these vans aren't capable of doing.

@Jeff S: I can agree with you as far as personal use is considered, but even I am concerned about fuel mileage with today's $3.50/gallon fuel range--especially since it's more likely to go up than down. However, where I live companies like Tru-Green aren't using pickups at all; they're using an HD-capacity FC van with side ramp for their self-powered spreader. I don't think it's an Isuzu, but it may be. It could be a Mitsubishi too, because I don't get close enough to see the badge on the grill and it's an unfamiliar grill to me.

And that really is the point. The Big 3 (before Fiat) all essentially sized and priced themselves right out of their primary market with pickup trucks--the people who really used such trucks for work simply cannot afford them any more--not when there are other vehicles more capable in simple ease-of-use and economy. It looks like FCA may be aiming to reverse this trend by introducing smaller and less expensive vehicles across all types while Ford and GM are more hesitant about taking risks. Chrysler--long before Fiat, Daimler and even Mitsubishi--made its reputation on taking risks. Some of those risks paid off big time; others were abject failures. Some weren't really given a chance considering how popular their limited production models became.

I don't get some of you people. It is the blame game over and over with the "big three priced themselves right out if the market". No, the EPA, safety regulations, what customers want (but don't want to pat for) is what "priced trucks out of the market". Although they are not out of everyone's market.

The EPA has emissions regulations and fuel economy regulations. It costs money for R&D along with materials for the new technology in order to comply with the regulations. The same is going on in the energy sector where it will be the consumers who will have to pay the higher prices of meeting EPA regulations.

There is also safety regulations. All those air bags and nannies like ESP that is required on new vehicles is not cheap. The use of higher strength material to meet rollover requirements is not cheap either.

Lastly is the consumers themselves. They want all this plush material and car like tech in their trucks. They want new and refreshed trucks every 4-6 years. They more power while getting better fuel mileage. They don't care it it makes a truck less of a truck with all this gadgetry or that is makes the cost sky rocket. The plain Jane models of today has most of the amenities of the higher end models of 10-15 years ago. You pick out a truck with the same kind of tech of the higher end models of 10-15 years ago and you will not see much of a price difference. Even with a more fuel efficient and more powerful base engine than what was in higher ends back then.

Another thing that effects it is the ever increasing demand of workers wanting a higher wage. As we all know (or should), companies do not pay for the higher wages of their employees, consumers do. That auto union demands higher wages for the workers? Well the price of your truck just went up to cover the added cost of higher build costs. This also applies with taxes too.

People tend to blame the big 2 for "pricing themselves out of the market" when it is the very people who say that who are to blame for the price increases. Who you vote for sets the policies in agencies like the EPA and DOT. Their regulations is what's causing price increases. All these bells and whistles along with the ever increasing for more or new costs money. The manufacturers are only supplying the people with what they demand. So next time point the finger the opposite way next time you blame the manufacturers for the ever increasing costs of trucks or vehicles.

Ford Transit

Ford Motor Co. is recalling 1,319 2015 Ford Transit vans in North America because of a potential brake fluid leak due to a rear brake hose problem. Read More

Ford Motor Co. is recalling 610 2015 Ford Transit vans with windowless sliding doors in North America because the doors may become unlatched during certain side-impact crashes. Read More

I'm amazed at the misconceptions, assumptions, stereotypes, and flat out lies in this discussion.

Go drive to any construction jobsite in America, tell me what you see. It sure as hell isn't Transits loaded with lumber, steel, pipe, rebar, etc. Also take a good look at all the fullsize trucks you see. Are they all the cheapest base model you can find, or do you also see a lot of $50,000+ lifted diesel 4x4's? Do you think we buy the cheapest tools too?

What really pisses me off is the continued lie that these vans are cheaper than trucks. You can get a full size half ton truck with a V8 for thousands less than these vans, you cannot change the facts, end of discussion.

You are also correct in what is the minimum requirement for a vehicle today. But this is also being driven by businesses, small and large.

BHP in Australia a few years ago stopped buying pickup trucks and SUVs that weren't 5 Star ANCAP rated. Toyota lost a lot of sales and now the Hilux is being challenged by Ford. With the Ranger's sibling the BT50, they now sell more than Ford.

Also, look at Smart phones, most only need an mobile (cell) phone of old, but everyone has a Smart phone.

Without these newer technologies, which could be considered bling is now no different than a radio in a car when I was a kid. I remember my old man in the 70s annoyed that I installed a cassette deck in my pickup. He thought it was a waste of money.

@papa jim,
You must realise I've been to a few countries. The US is slowly adopting what others are doing as well as others adopting some US ideas.

In 2007 I don't recall seeing one of these types of vans in the US. But now I see at least one every 5 or so minutes. In 2007 I saw a few Euro large vans and few cab over Izuzu trucks.

These vans will become popular, just like the Corolla's, Focus's, etc have. They make good business sense in most light transport applications.

Pickups are becoming the domain more and more of the SUV set whether we like it or not. This is even occurring here in Australia and Thailand.

Not every business is a construction company. I do believe retail is a larger segment of the US economy.

In the EU these vans are used by tradesman as well, just like in the US the larger vans are. My brother's neighbour uses a full size Chev van and a tandem wheel trailer and he's a carpenter. The tools are in the van and he moves construction material in his 10x6 trailer. He also owns a pickup and I've never seen it do an ounce of work.

@Jeff S and RoadWhale,
Even the County where my family is are using Transit Connects.

The Dog Pound uses them and so did some of their light service vehicles.

If you are basically carrying tools and smallish spares, a van makes perfect sense. It can drive around peoples yards closer to the job with everything you need.

They offer better access, especially nowadays with smaller and smaller properties, better access for deliveries and are nimble in traffic in comparison to a larger pickup or full size van.

@Big Al--I don't see the pickup disappearing, but there are a lot of applications as you have mentioned where a more efficient van such as the Transit is better suited. The trucks on construction sites for the most part are not the blinged out half tons but more HDs. You cannot buy an HD truck without a lot of equipment that use to be optional. Manual transmissions are for the most part not available except maybe the Heavy Duty Ram. Air conditioning comes standard but then most would probably get that anyway. Most trucks come with power windows, power locks, and many with satellite radio. Most HDs have to be ordered to get anything other than a completely optioned truck. Yes regulations have pushed the prices up but dealers for the most part want to sell the top trim trucks with the most options because there is more profit in them (the manufacturers don't mind that as well). If you are doing dirty work you would rather have vinyl than heated leather seats. Not too many using a truck for heavy dirty work want to spend 50k or more for a truck that will get ruined. I don't see the manufacturers or the dealers suffering too much from the government standards, they just push more options.

@Jeff S,
I don't see pickups disappearing as well.

But, I do see alternative vehicles offered for businesses.

I do envisage the larger Transits vans to also do quite well and replacing some of the HD work due to their payload.

Most on PUTC talk towing, which is true regarding some HDs, but many HDs don't tow and are used as a truck more so than a tow vehicle.

The Transit with the 3.2 will also return nearly what the Transit Connect is getting in FE.

I remember a year or so ago PUTC had an article on the Fiat/Ram Ducato and loaded with a 10 000lb GVM. Driving in the hills around LA it returned 26mpg.

An exciting time for the light commercials in the US and even Canada.

@ BD - construction sites are not all the same. Some jobs will use pickups and some don't.

I've seen multi-story buildings go up and the only pickups I saw were used by guys driving to the worksite. A Prius can be used to go to a job site.

Single family dwellings often have contractors using pickups but I've also see painters, drywallers, electricians, plumbers show up in vans.

These vans have their place just like pickups have their place. Anyone on either side of the debate making broad generalizations are more likely to be proven wrong.

Too small for me,,
Make it as BIG as SPRINTER van
with 4x4 option
and I'll be interested

@All1: "I don't get some of you people. It is the blame game over and over with the "big three priced themselves right out if the market". No, the EPA, safety regulations, what customers want (but don't want to pat for) is what "priced trucks out of the market". Although they are not out of everyone's market."

Your argument is almost logical--except for one little fact: Those three factors above affect every single vehicle made for use in the US. Yet ONLY the full-sized trucks have models ranging from a low of around $22K to highs ranging to $65K. So me any other single model of sedan or SUV/CUV where, like the F-150, you can get a base model at barely over $20K and off the same showroom floor get an another with the same model name have one priced at $65K. People who drive cars (as compared to pickup trucks) have more sense than to pay so much more just for a few gewgaws and bling. There is no reason why the Raptor should cost $20K more than a well-equipped King Ranch crew cab. It can't even carry as much!

For that matter, even the King Ranch, at $45K, is grossly overpriced as that is a good $20K higher than a base model F-150 and I don't know a SINGLE showroom floor sedan, coupe or CUV/SUV that has such a broad price difference between base and top trims until you get into the $100K luxo brands. Pickup trucks have effectively priced themselves right out of their original utility-based commercial-use market where their sole purpose was to replace the buckboard wagons of yore.

That's the point there is a limit to how much a consumer will pay for a product even with discounts. I guess if it is like the SUVs like Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Navigators, Escalades, Denalies, and etc. you don't need to sell as many if you can sell them at a higher price even with the discounts. If so then only those that want and can afford them will buy. In this case maybe a midsize truck priced significantly below the full size would sell. We will have to wait to see what GM does but if they price the Colorado/Canyon twins at enough of a price difference as indicated in the article posted earlier then they might be successful. I do think that the manufacturers could still raise the price of these trucks and still make money even at a lower volume. People can always find alternatives.

Do YOU work residential and commercial construction sites, doing service work as well as new construction, in both rural and dense urban areas? I do, so don't tell me what I see every day. Are you also going to tell me what types of tools we use?

I live in a newer residential area which is still actively being built and there are just as many vans and cars as there are pickups. The main contractor drives around in a 10 year old Silverado. There are at least 5 new homes at this time under construction at this time. I have lived in this subdivision for 13 years and it has not changed much except I see more older vans and more Mexicans. Several subdivisions around me which are different builders and it is about the same. Of the pickups the HDs outnumber the half tons, so those that use a truck use an HD for real work. If they haul a dozer in it is usually in on a big trailer and with an HD diesel towing the trailer.

[Big Al said] You must realise I've been to a few countries.

@Big Al

I did not doubt that. Keep trying out new ones; you are sure to eventually find a country that doesn't mind having you there.

Papa Jim would fit well into one of the Arab countries since he doesn't like change and lives in the past. He could also cover his wife up and she could walk 10 paces behind him.

@papa jim
Yep, probably the US in a couple of years.

I'm considering buying some real estate there so I can live the life of a perpetual summer.

Florida sounds great. I'll be there in the middle of next year.

See ya soon!

@Big Al


Whatever you do, avoid the Big 3!!! No, not automakers,

I'm talking about Florida's big 3. Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties. Half of the residents in the entire state live there. Very congested.

The other half of Florida's residents live in the OTHER 64 counties.

If working in IT is your thing, aim for the stretch of Interstate 4 that runs from Tampa to Daytona.

If you're looking for jobs in construction or engineering, they're everywhere. Jobs in public affairs are thick in Tallahassee.

Mining and timber are big industries here but you have to locate where the ore (or the trees) is.

If the outback is your thing, 20 or more counties in Florida are very remote and have very low populations.

@Big Al--You could visit Papa Jim. I might move to Florida as well, no income taxes and friendly to retirees.

Nice Nissan faux Chevrolet! GMC would never resort to this. GMC is Real GMCorp.

@BD - all depends on where you work. I'm willing to bet that what I consider rural is considerably different than what you do. I'm not telling you what you see every day but your statement assumes that what you see is what everyone else sees.

Most of the plumbing and electrical companies I see use vans. Building construction depends on what is being built. A high-rise complex is going to have a different mix of vehicles than a McMansion build.

In my part of the world heavy industry i.e. oil/gas, mining, forestry, road/bridge construction rely primarily on 4x4 HD pickups for all of the light duty work. Everything else does not have the capacity or durability. 4x2 vehicles are next to useless.
Even with that being said, 1 ton pickups often do not have the capacity to be much use when machinery needs servicing. Even tire changes are often beyond the capacity of a HD.

The comments to this entry are closed.