Chevy Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza

spartanmann

In early 1993 GM stock plunged for a short time to 26. It was in the low fifties by the end of 1993. Historically it has generally traded between 40-60 for the past 40 years. The only real exception was a spike up to 80 around 2000. Investors who bought at that time may never recoup their losses. Long term investors have collected a consistent dividend probably averaging close to the total rate of inflation. Again, this makes the investment dead money although as with any stock, astute traders could certainly profit on short term price shifts.

As a comparision, look at another big industrial company GE. Adjusting for splits, it traded at 1 in 1970, 8 in 1993 and today it trades at 33. They have the same pension, union, health care issues as does GM. The difference is their products dominate in almost every market they compete in. If you were retiring today, which stock would you have wanted in your 401k over the last 10 years?

dindak

You are assuming everyone owns the stock in the $50 or $80 range which is simply not true. The 3-4% dividend the stock pays is almost bond like, more than the inflation rate. I'm not telling you that GM has been the best stock but it's certainly not much different than many big US industrials over the same period.

Even people who bought GM at the $80 (2000) peek are better off than any one who bought "growth stocks" like Nortel or Sun Micro in 2000.

regfootball

will include

"REAR HUMP RAMPS for the (insert GM brand here) vans.......these ramps will actually allow you to load items into the back of your van by letting you get a headstart and incline! Dont push with all your might on those sheets of drywall only to break your neck when the edge hits the HUMP in the floor! What a sticky situation! Just don't use too much force when pushing, those sheets of drywall may just take flight and lauch themselves over the front two (non folding) rows, and through the windshield!"

oh wait, I don't think the GM vans are wide enough for 4' sheet goods are they?

Can you imagine if you opened your dishwasher and found out the bottom tray was 6 inches above the bottom of the door?

Or if you opened the fridge and the bottom one foot high was blocked off and unusable.

dindak

Whatever. I'll bet the GM seats will be more comfortable than those thin things that fold flat though!

vanman1

The van market has been shrinking for years. That said it MAY turn around now but certainly not in a huge way and even the Japanese companies know that SUVs are still way more profitable.

Redesigns have been slow with GM (because of lack of resources) and a lot of that has to do with the union wages and benefits they pay and their pension and health care costs which are way higher than the foreign companies. Combine that with people who have abandoned GM for Hondas and Toyotas and it makes it even worse.

GM came in with solid quality numbers yesterday with Oshawa 1/2 coming in 1st and 2nd in quality in this hemisphere. People don't seem to pay attention as the Japanese have done a great job of instilling the believe that their cars have the best quality and people follow that perception more and more.

I don't know what the answer is for GM, it's problems have been well publicized. That said, I think the GM vans offer enough features and value to make them a viable choice. I don't think anyone is wrong to buy one, but they should also buy what they like regardless.

logic1

bottom rack. I do not use the vegetable crispers because I tend to forget it is there and have a real nice produce store between my house and the transit station (read: I do not need to refrigerate produce) so there is about 8" of space not used in the fridge at my house.

I would really be curious to see a survey of how many people regularly load their minivans from floor to ceiling.

Seems to me if hauling large loads is the need, one would buy a heavy duty, truck based RWD van, or just go ahead and get a pick up truck.

spartanmann

When the best thing you can say about a stock's performance is that it is like a bond (although with higher risk) that proves my point. You said you were some type of financial advisor. Your statement that GM is like many other big industrials is just not supported by the facts. Consider the value of $1000 invested in GM in 1990 with $1000 invested in MMM, GE, DuPont, United Technologies etc... Those stocks are anywhere from 2 to 5 times greater in value while GM is the same. They also paid dividends over that time as well. I'm in no way comparing GM to tech stocks. Just to other big industrial companies with the same competitive issues. Would you recommend GM as an investment to your clients over the many many industrial companies with vastly superior performance records? Just curious.

dindak

spartanmann : We trade stocks, we don't hold them endlessly through time. GM was a great investment if you bought 6-8 months ago and that's what we did for a few clients. As I said, over the long term GM has NOT been the best, but it's certainly far from the worst and better than F and DC. As for GE, it only recently pulled up from the low $20 range as well.

logic : I see people loading their vans all the time to the ceiling. Very common! ;-)

jchan2

load her Previa from bottom to ceiling with furniture, and I've done that before too. It's quite common.

regfootball

EXACTLY. kitchen tables, loveseats, other misc furniture.

this is America and people love to haul their crap. Its our national pasttime.

dindak

Not sure where you live where people are hauling their furniture all over the place all the time but in these parts people don't do that much. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have the precious 6 inches you speak of but like all the other arguments you tend to dwell on, it's really not as big a deal as you make it out to be.

logic1

To a picnic?

If you are moving, you really need to know that movers are cheap. My niece just moved to the city. For a present, I got her top of the line movers - fully insured. They moved three rooms (and about three closets full of clothes : )) for only $600.00.

You would hope people who can afford to pay 30k for a mini-van can afford $600.00 every ten or so years when they move.

Any how, mini-vans are really out of my area. I have no kids and no plans for kids. If I ever wanted to haul things on a regular basis, I would get something like the Colorado.

So I think I will leave this topic to the family people. I really don't have much to contribute.

regfootball

that's pretty safe to say.

the weekly trek to room and board outlet is clogged with minivans and SUV's, folks buying the weekly finds, and loading them into their vehicles to take home. A minivan or large enough can save you the 55 dollar delivery fee. When people buy something, they want it NOW. They don't want to take a morning off work to go meet some delivery guy during the week.

Check out the vans and SUV's in the mall parking lot sometime. Packed with crap.

dindak

Packed with "crap" and packed with right to the ceiling are 2 very different things Reg. I don't buy your argument and I'd personally rather have more comfortable back seats than thin flimsy ones that fold under.

spartanmann

OK - I guess the best I can get out of you is GM has not been the best. It's actually been a horrible performer for many years. However your are right - it has not been the worst as they are still in business unlike some other one major industrial companies. Again your facts are wrong however. Ford stock has also been a lousy performer, very similar to GM over the past 10-15 years. However Ford vastly outperformed GM over the previous several decades. I'm not a Ford fan either, but those are just the facts.

rctennis3811

"I'd personally rather have more comfortable back seats than thin flimsy ones that fold under."

Actually, automotive magazines have rated the new Relay's third-row bench to be subpar. Lack of hip room, shoulder room, and supposedly a thin seat. I wouldn't say that a third-row that folds under is flimsy...have you ever been in a new Sienna? That's one of the best third-row seats of a minivan I have ever sat in!

regfootball

the flip folds in the odyssey are quite comfy. same with the mpv. and they fold flat into the floor.

jchan2

isn't very flat, but downright comfy, actually.

alpha01

You dont like "filmsy" but you seem to be a die-hard GM fan. Paradoxical, at the very least, in my opinion given some of the interiors. Was at a Chevy dealer recently for GM Hot Button (very fun- didnt win- but ALL should try). An Impala SS stickered at $32,8xx.... Are you kidding me? With that interior!!!! And no side curtains. Heck, the passenger didnt even get a side chest bag... only the driver!!! (Of course, no NAV either, but did have OnStar, which is a great option, IMO)

~alpha

dindak

alpha : I'm no GM die hard, but if you think I am then you must be a die hard Toyota fan. I've said many times on these boards the Impala interior sucks. Car is well prices in base forms up here though.

rctennis3811 : Do you have a link to these all these reviews you speak of??

spartanmann : What facts do I have wrong?

dindak

Have u got a link where they say the 3rd seat is bad? I have not seen this in any story I have read.

theo2709

If anything I think the lack of the tumble action in the third row allows for more padding and more comfort.

alpha01

Die-hard Toyota fan, and yet I own a Nissan, and can't stand my dads horrid THREE SPEED AUTO Corolla?

~alpha

dindak

3 speed autos are fine so long as you have some power under the hood.

Kirstie_H

OK, I think we've sufficiently covered allegations of unwavering loyalty. Let's move forward and talk about the vehicles in the discussion title.

This is one of the vehicles I hope to see at the auto show this weekend - the photos aren't very flattering, but I'm willing to keep an open mind til I see it in person.

spartanmann

Compare total return on investment in Ford and GM from 1965 to present day. The difference will amaze you (and Ford's performance is nothing to write home about.)

ateixeira

They were roped off in Detroit. We couldn't get in any of them.

Dodge, meanwhile, was demonstrating their vans during the industry preview days.

I went early on, not sure if they opened them up later, but I doubt it.

-juice

bigdaddycoats

So, the biggest problems with these vans seem to be -

1-no fold flat seats
2-weak engines
3-not as many air bags as competition

1-fold flat seats are probably not as important as everyone thinks. How many times do you really need this feature??? We have had a RDV for two years and in that time we have only removed the second row seats twice - and yes they are kind of a pain to remove, I doubt my wife could do it be herself. I would not exclude looking at one of these just because the seats do not fold flat. If I remember correctly Chrysler spent $440 million to develop their stow away system. That is a heck of a lot of coin.

2-The engine is another story. They should have at least offered upgrades. It is no mystery that the competition has larger engines so what in the heck is GM thinking??? I do believe that weak engines will hurt sales. The 3.5 should be standard in the Uplander and Relay with the 3.9 being an option. The SV6 should get the 3.9 and the Terraza should get the 3.6. Buick is supposed to be the premium CSV and should get the premium 3.6. If it fits in the RDV it will fit in the Terraza. I wonder why GM is giving all of them the same 3.5??? Is it purely a cost issue or is it some kind of capacity constraint?? Who knows but they are making a mistake.

3-The lack of side air protection for second and third row passengers is a huge mistake! Safety I would think is a VERY important factor for this market. I would hope they will add these in coming years.

Of course these vans will have rebates, thats what Big 3 customers have come to expect. But, GM knows this and they allow for incentives when the pricing structures are created. While they are not perfect and do not meet every ones expectations they will most likely meet their targets of 240k combined. This means the plant will be operating at capacity - don't have to pay employees 90% of their pay during down time. Just some of my thoughts.

rctennis3811

Safety is a very big factor in this segment. I think every family wants as much safety they can get for their loved ones, especially the little tykes. Lack of side-curtains is going to hurt sales, but not by much because people will think of the HUGE rebates slapped right on. And for thsoe who do research before buying a car, I think it will be very hard for GM to convince the public that their new vans are safer than the vans that they replace because they don't have side-curtains.

regfootball

"If I remember correctly Chrysler spent $440 million to develop their stow away system. That is a heck of a lot of coin."

And watch em KILL the GM vans either in sales or profits or both. Simple truth is that slick system will be the deciding factor for many in the purchase of their next van.

The airbags can be rectified next model year perhaps. That would be an easier fix than just about anything.

In evaluating how the GM SUVANS will do compared to the competition lets list the criteria and see which categories GM is at the top.

styling - is it a car or an SUV? We don't know! Sorry GM, strike one. THe Toyota, Honda, and Chrylsers will win this segment (and Nissans if you like the bloated space vessel look).

interior - the GM vans are upgraded, and appear promising in the dash, but for now we must concede this area to toyota and Honda and again Nissan if are into funky

features - basically Toyota and Nissan rule, and once Chrylser gets the stow seats going it will be right up there too. The stowing seats are quite possibly the biggest thing folks are looking at in vans right now.

safety - no side bags! darn GM!

engines - The Nissan rules the roost and the Freestar was upgraded. The Honda has always been strong. The toyota is a smooth performer. GM can't claim this one

reliability - since folks buy on reputation, its fair to say GM is blackballed from the start. They may have fixed the gaskets FINALLY (or maybe not), and hate to be the messenger, but other makes have better reliability report cards. The odyssey has improved.

interior comfort - The Asian makes will likely take this one.

handling - all minivans are fat slugs. I don't know which one is the most comfortable or nimble. GM traditionally hasn't shone is this dept. MPV maybe

price- it will be interesting to see how Chrylsetr prices the new vans but NO ONE is cheaper than the Chrylsers usually.

REBATES - perhaps this will be the one category GM will win.

dindak

spartanmann "Compare total return on investment in Ford and GM from 1965 to present day" Ya, like I have time to do that calculation. Only an employee would hold the stock that long.

bigdaddy : People are criticizing the engines but really, aside from Honda/Toyota and Nissan, GM is right in the thick of the vans. They are all right around 200hp give or take and the mileage from the 3.5L will likely better the 3.4L like it did in the Malibu. In fact, the GM vans will likely be tops (they are right there with Toyota now). Hopefully once GM has full production of the 3.9L going it will be added as an option. It's one I would skip for mileage but the power hungry here would be happy.

rctennis3811

But Toyota plans to add hybrid Synergy technology for the Sienna around 2006. Makes me wonder how high the gas mileage will be for that!

spartanmann

It takes only a few seconds with basic finance programs available for free on the net. If you don't have time to research the facts, that's fine, but it's not an excuse for making incorrect statements regarding relative stock performance.

bigdaddycoats

are you talking about financing one of these new vans?????? Cause talking about stocks does NOT belong here.

dindak

Your parameters of performance tracking keep changing to suit your story so of course you will say I'm wrong. First you speak of 10 year performance of GM and then you turn around and start talking about Ford vs GM since 1965. If you would be consistent in your time frame then maybe we could could all follow your story. Like I said, anyone can change around time periods to suit their arguments.

ANYWAY.. lets get back to the vans. Way off topic.

spartanmann

If you read my posts carefully you'll see I am very consistent. You have changed the paramters many times when responding with incorrect statements in your automatic defenses of GM. We got off track here because of my comment about the long suffering GM stockholders. By any measure, GM has been a very poor investment for many years. You and other apologists have lots of excuses, while I feel the problems have always been product related. Over the years GM has produced some great vehicles, but sadly they have produced and continue to produce very average run of the mill products. The "new vans" are another example of something that will require big incentives to move and hurt the bottom line yet again. If Lutz means what he says and within 5 years GM is producing class leading vehicles in every segment they compete in, then GM stock may be a good investment and might actually have a P/E closer to the overall market. These vans won't help them achieve that goal.

dindak

Say what you like but you did change the time frame you were speaking about two or three times. I have already agreed that GM has not been a great investment over the years vs other industrial so why you are re-hashing that I don't know.

It's really not relevant to this discussion anyway. The vans you may not think of as a break through or even very profitable, but in the grand scheme of GM they make up way less than 1% of revenues so it's not likely going to make a big difference to the bottom line.

spartanmann

Glad we finally agree on GM's lousy performance. I still think you're missing the big picture. I agree these vans won't make or break GM. But the fact is that most minivan buyers are going to still buy a competitor's minivan as GM will continue to be about 5th best. After the kids grow up and Mommy and Daddy are ready to step up to an SUV, luxury sedan, the sports car they always wanted etc...they will look first to stay with their minivan's company if they have been satisfied with its performance and reliability. That makes it even more difficult for GM to grab these customers back. The Japanese learned long ago to make their entry level vehicles better than the Big 3. Something that sadly wasn't hard to do. All those Civic and Corolla owners moved up to Accords, and Camrys, and next to Acura and Lexus, each a higher profit vehicle than the next. The new vans will not increase market share, profitability, or help to bring back customers to GM. It's a lot bigger failure than you think. GM's market share is down to 28%. GM has the toughest competition it has ever faced and all of its products need to be top notch to reverse this trend. Otherwise in 10 years you'll still be able to by GM at 50.

Remember, I'm not a GM basher and someday would like to by a GM vehicle again. That's why I'm so disappointed with this regrilled attempt at a new van.

rctennis3811

Great post! I totally agree with you.

dindak

Mediocre performance is a better word. Lousy would infer that you lost money over one of your time frames and that is not true.

As for the vans, they seem to be a bit of a disappointment however, the current vans actually do drive very well given their age and fixing the crash tests, adding a new engine, improving crash tests and freshening up the look actually will likely yield a decent van. I think you and I were both looking for something all new but until we actually sit in and drive one, not one (not even you) can say for sure that it's not competitive.

rctennis3811

But don't most people buying a minivan look for features and value for their money? Not much value here...

jchan2

that's what closed the deal on my 02 Odyssey. The Sienna at the time was too much $$$ for what the Odyssey gave me, and the Grand Caravan eX, despite the small rebates then, wasn't as inexpensive as a base model Odyssey EX. (I think the Caravan eX stickered at $27,500, the Odyssey EX was just a little less, at $27,190.)

dindak

How do you know they aren't a good value? Do you have pricing info no one else has? I still have not seen a source for your supposed back seat critiques of these vans either.

rctennis3811

To me means having what the competition has for a lower price. As I recall, there is no side-curtain airbags, an engine with less horsepower, and a forward folding third row seat that is inches above the bumber. Value? No. Cheap? Probably.

dindak

HP - A little less than average, comparable with Caravan, Windstar and MPV to name a few. Still plenty of power and gas mileage likely to be tops!

Side airbags - if not available I will give you that one. That said, people have lived with out them for 100 years.

Seats - Still no answer to my query about suposid uncomfortable rear seat reviews you claim exist, but 6 inches isn't going to make or break a van.

alpha01

An invalid argument: "That said, people have lived with out them for 100 years."

Yea, and the first "cars", 100 years ago, had no windshields. Not a very good reason to exclude them from production today, though. (An extreme analogy, but you get my point).

~alpha

jchan2

cars of just 20 years ago didn't have VSC. That's not a good excuse not to have VSC on cars nowadays.

dindak

Yes, but I also said "I'll give that one if they aren't available". I admitted it isn't good not to offer them.

I personally would not pay for them but it's persoanl choice. A car should and can be built well enough to protect from side impact. Even the current GM vans get a top score there.

alpha01

To the casual observer, yes the current GM triplets do well in the NHTSA side impact. But, pretty much anything with a higher center of gravity than a car gets at least 4 stars in the side impact. The collision barrier used is antiquated in design, AND the NHTSA doesnt include Head Injury Criterion measurements in their side impact star rating, even though that measurement is taken during the test. A major oversight, IMO, and very misleading to consumers. (For example, the Honda Accord 4 door scores 4 stars for the driver, but the HIC recorded on the dummy is in the high 800s - perilously close to the 1000 HIC threshold that indicates severe, possibly fatal head injury in the frontal impact.) Basically, the star rating accounts only for thoracic trauma, not that inflicted on the head.

~alpha

rctennis3811

Plus side-curtains help prevent the occupant's head from hitting the shattered glass. Even a good side-impact score is no excuse.