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

regfootball

I'll bet they are waiting for the 05 stow and go DCX vans.

dindak

It's too bad the Sienna is so ugly in the front cause it's a good van. The old Sienna was one of the better looking vans on the road.

dan165

Looking at these vans, I think I like the idea of just folding seats. Seems to me it's easy and provides pretty much the same room as the "hiding" seats. Maybe these vans are nothing special but I'm sure each will appeal to a segment of the population and together should sell decent numbers. The powertrain looks solid and the dash looks as good if not better than anything out there and there seem to be lots of options to keep people interested like remote starting, "phat noise" and adjustable roof rails ect..

montanafan

Thought I would throw this out here in this currently more active board.

Todays Detroit News ( www.detnews.com ) has an article about Chryslers's aggressive pricing on the new 2005s. It included a table of 4th Quarter 2003 average transaction prices for 6 cylinder vans compiled by the Power Infomation Network. Some highlights:
Sienna $29,704
Quest $29,182
Odyssey $27,351
Montana $24,365
Venture $22,503

ccgegg

You're right... the rear 2/3 of these vehicles are the same. I guess the Montana's lower body panels drew my eye away from noticing that.

Tips to the designers: If you want these to look like SUVs...
1) Lose the huge uniwindow that covers the back 2/3 of the vehicle
2) Hide the sliding door track as best you can-- it's not attractive
3) Ditch the rounded back hatch-- make it boxier.
4) Add some tough-looking bumpers-- not these pretty ones that flow into the vehicle.

dindak

Vans account for a huge % of DC's revenue. They aren't going sit down and let rivals take away market share with out a fight.

rctennis3811

Yea those roof rails are kinda "odd". I would've liked to to be a little bit lower towards the roof.

bigdaddycoats

"A new, high-value 3500 V-6 powers the SV6. Rated at 200 horsepower and 220 lb.-ft. of torque, the engine delivers the enthusiastic performance expected of a Pontiac. Excellent launch feel and highway-speed acceleration were parameters during the engine's development, as were reduced noise and vibration, class-leading fuel economy and reliability, and low emissions."

ateixeira

Even though the Venture costs $5-7 grand less on average, you lose that at resale time.

So just buy the van you like.

-juice

regfootball

hehe.......not gonna get into it.

bigdaddycoats

I was just kidding around. Thought you would like the "excellent launch feel."

dindak

Take a 3.5L Malibu for a spin. The launch power is great. Not only that but the passing power is good also. GM has done a great job with the motor in spite of what you mite think.

I know Reg has his doubts, but he has not driven one.

alpha01

Yes, the engine itself is worthy. But do you think the launch feel of the Malibu, weighing, at minimum, 400lbs less than the minis, will be the same? I dont think so.

~alpha

bigdaddycoats

I have driven a new Malibu and I really liked it. We had a 2000 Malibu and the new one is vastly improved. I do think the 3.5 is fine for the Bu but may leave these vans feeling a little lethargic. The new 3.5 was way better than the 3.1 we had in ours. Like it has been said for most of the consumers this engine will be fine. I was just having a laugh with reg.

regfootball

as in the feel of my lunch launching out of my esophagus and out my mouth.

LOL!

yeah, its a beaten topic. Some day i WILL get around to driving the Malibu, just to see what the fuss is about. But I won't be buying one regardless, as I don't like the interior or the level of fit. Don't care much for the exterior either.

And if someone gave me a Malibu I would trade it for a Focus SVT or something.

rctennis3811

Remember, these vans are appx. 1000lbs. more than a Malibu LT...or so I've read. That means this engine will struggle in a 4000+ lb van and that class-leading fuel economy probably won't happen because it will have to struggle more, especially with people and cargo.

jchan2

will struggle because the engine was designed for a more aerodynamic less heavy Malibu, but when placed into a boxier and heavier minivan, it'll struggle.

dindak

I'd buy the struggle thing if I had not driven one of the current vans with the old 3.4L. To me they seem just fine (10 seconds for 0-60). Many people here are obsessed with 0-60 and frankly that is not what van owners look for, believe me I know LOTS of them. Further, most vans have around 200hp (Caravan, MPV, Freestar ect.) and I don't see owners complaining about getting up to speed. I do agree a 3.9L should be optional though. There are always some who need HP that didn't even exist a few years ago.

rctennis3811

Caravan has 215HP, right? I don't really remember so correct me if I'm wrong.

200HP for MPV is fine because it is small and lightweight.

FYI: The Freestar struggles and gets bad fuel economy.

dindak

Caravan base 185, upgrade 215

"Freestar struggles" Have you driven one? Have not read that anywere?

Mazda weighs 3772, Caravan 3862.. big deal.

rctennis3811

Ok, maybe that torque curve helps. But you can't hide from the fact it gets bad fuel economy!

Caravan SE - 3872...Caravan SXT - 4025
don't know if it's just the Caravan or the Grand Caravan . Dodge site is confusing

MPV - 3772

GM vans - 4100+

I think they WILL struggle and NOT get the best EPA gas because they have less power than a Caravan which weighs less.

dindak

Well that's scientific!

People doubted GM would get best mileage with the Malibu also. Whose laughing now?

BTW.. Where are you getting 4100+ ?

rctennis3811

information: GMinsidenews.com

People doubted the Malibu but were wrong. People doubt the new midvans of getting the highest MPG and that's probably right. Think about it...why would it get the highest MPG when it has less HP, less, torque, and weighs about as much as the rest of the competition?? The Malibu gets the best MPG because it's one of the lightest so it works there.

dindak

We shall see. There is more to mileage than weight.

rctennis3811

Yea we'll have to wait for the EPA figures. I'm just calculating all I have said based on torque/weight ratios.

regfootball

and the van has new barn dooor aerodynamics....

wheelz4

Not only will the GM vans weigh more than the Malibu, they also have the potential to carry more people/cargo & therefore, weight. Let's see how adequate the launch feel of the 'Bu engine is with 7 passengers + cargo on board...Houston, we may have a problem!
BTW, DC has just released CDN pricing of their "refreshed" vans. The cheapest van with the vaunted Sto 'n Go seating is $35,000, or you can spend a little over 30 grand but then must add Sto 'n Go as an option.(With the Sienna, Odyssey,Quest,MPV,Freestar, you get the fold-flat seating no matter which version you buy, with base prices from about 26 grand to 32 grand). As the floorpans must be entirely different, I guess if you don't go for the Sto 'n Go, you end up with an old chassis on a barely-restyled body. With the Sto 'n Go, you get the new chassis with the barely-restyled body. How efficient can that be to have to make 2 completely different floorplans for these vans?
(Unless they're going to just weld the cavities in the floor shut and stick the seat rails (for the non-Sto 'n Go versions) on top.)

dan165

Stow and go don't come cheap it would seem.

I would not be surprised to see the gas mileage go up on these vans either. The current vans are the best, the new ones are no heavier and the 3.5L is more efficient than the 3.4L. Simple as that!

sirland

Man! I just saw the new pictures of the SV6 and I am sad at how it came out. It looks ok and the interior is an improvement from the last model but the design and layout is way to much like the other GM Minivans. We have see GM improve many of it models, so you think the 1# company in the world could have gone the extra mile to put far more different in it's line up. I mean, if you look at all of GM's So-call sport vans (Whatever!) they really didn't do a good job. GM by all means should make one for each of it's companies, it help to give the customer more options, and customers like that. By better defining you models, it help to bring in the customer. If I were GM, I would take each van and put it against other minivans and take the strong points of the other minivans and take those points to new heights. For an explame, The Pontiac Montana SV6 reflect the sportingness that Pontiac is going for. Another minivan that show off some sportingness would be the Nissan Quest. Take some of the strong points of that minivan, put it into the SV6 and add other things that the Quest does not have. You got your self a minivan that better define the sportingness in the minivan segment, plus sport like style helps to make a dull looking van look like you what to show off you minivan.

badgerfan

MSRP in US including shipping for cheapest Grand Caravan with stow and go seats will be called "SE Plus" and will be $24990. I don't imagine they will discount much until the supply builds up, however. Doesn't sound too out of line, however.

jchan2

is close to the Sienna CE and the Odyssey LX.

ateixeira

It'll be interesting to see where real-world prices fall and how long it takes for them to start discounting. It is a *heck* of a feature. Even the seat is decently comfortable (I got to sit in one at NAIAS).

-juice

jchan2

you sat in a Relay?

bretaa

Sirland: I agree with you 100%. You, and all consumers, deserve better, unique product from the planet's #1 automaker. GM has been improving by leaps and bounds, and we all want to see them win and producing rocking product, and that's why it's so hard and painful to see them repeat the same old GM mistakes with these vans when there's great new-think product like the entire Cadillac lineup, the G6, the Corvette, and the Equinox.

But be prepared to hear volumes from apologists, however, about how these are really just stopgap vans, and how the minivan market really doesn't matter and is declining so it's good that GM is investing resources elsewhere. You'll hear about how different the dashboard trims are or how lack of fold away rows isn't really a big deal since the space difference is minimal anyway, or about how reliable its engine is and how the lack of horsepower really doesn't matter. Or how good it is these vans are narrow since some people like it that way despite a market that says otherwise. Or how the new models in 2009 will blow these away, so it doesn't matter...

Just to warn you...

- Bret

alpha01

Sienna CE starts under 24K and several of them at our local dealership, I've seen with a basic option package, at about 24,500.

~alpha

rctennis3811

Wait, what??

jchan2

it said in the previous post that you sat in one at NAIAS. I don't know if you mean the DGC or the Relay. (If they let you in the Relay, you must be special)

spartanmann

Dindak - If GM is going to match the handling, performance and sound levels of the competition, it means their van will need to be stiffer and heavier - like the competition. There's no way MPG will increase over the current van. Ford cheaped out with underpowered engines in the Freestar. I have driven both versions. The 3.9L is anemic. The 4.2L is OK but very noisy when pushed hard. They also have the worst fuel economy except for Kia. How is a smaller, less powerful engine than the Freestar's going to perform better and provide 15% better mileage in a two ton vehicle?

dindak

Where are you getting that number. Who ever said the GM vans would be 15% better?

I guess my question to you is (following dan's lead), how does the current van that also weighs in around the same as the Freestar, with a smaller 185hp 3.4L engine, top or nearly top the mileage numbers in the van world? Why would a better and more efficient version not do as well if not likely better?

alpha01

"grasping at straws", if I am correct, comes to mind. Even if the new GM "crossovers" lead the MPG race (and its a big IF), that will be one small victory. There are a lot of hits on the debit side to this vehicle.

Thats said (and I certainly understand styling is subjective), both the Terazza and the Saturn Rebate are far more attrative than their SV6 and Uplander cousins. Yuck.

~alpha

samnoe

Freestar have the most pound-feet of torque in class, though, resulting in... excellent launch feel?

BTW, Why should the new GM sport vans weight more than 600 lbs. over the current versions? I understand that a stiffer frame, thicker glass in the windows, and some sound-deading material adds up, but 600 lbs.?

Don't forget that the Freestars power will still be better than GM sport vans, giving that it have 201 hp (1 more!) and 265 Lb.-ft (45 more!). But it have very bad mileage, though.

Basically, both GM & Ford did the same thing with their vans. Change the front nose a little bit; thicker glass and added some sound-deading material; engine a little more powerful; added some 400-500 lbs.; improved the interior with higher quality materials; change the name; and you have a "all new" minivan, or a revolutionary "Sports Crossover Van" :-)

dindak

I'll reserve final judgment on looks for when I see them in person. I'm not crazy about the looks thus far (Terazza is best) but no new van is very good looking these days aside from maybe DC and Mazda vans.

Why am I grasping at straws by the way? The logic that these vans will have good mileage numbers is solid. Could be wrong, but mileage in an age of high and higher gas prices is a big asset.

alpha01

"Don't forget that the Freestars power will still be better than GM sport vans, giving that it have 201 hp (1 more!) and 265 Lb.-ft (45 more!)."|

Does not mean the Freestar will necessarily be any quicker than the GM 'crossovers'.

~alpha

regfootball

Ford blew chunks on the freestar. Already I am seeing Montereys advertised for 7k or more off sticker.

They can't give em away!

Well to do US suburbanites are particular, fickle, and demanding and have shown they will ante up 7 grand more for a Sienna, in large part becuase of stuff that 'isn't supposed to matter' like flip fold flat seats.

They could care less about mpg.

sirland

Yes, you make a good point that putting a whole lot of money or change into a product say like the minivans could be a bad thing if the minivan market is going to slow down or just stop all together. But it is funning how the customer can change the way a product can turn out down the road. The best way to look at it would be the station wagon. In the 50's & 60's, the station wagon was a more common type of car on the road, it's strong points are very similar to today minivans, but they started to become less and less, because they lack some other points like style that made people say, "On my, I don't want a station wagon because it look ugly," not that the station wagon went away, it just was not a, I gotten have it thing. But now the station wagon is making a big come back because the companys have been able to change the station wagon proflie. Many crossover vehicles take on the station wagon profile, but have that SUV-ness that customers like and the station wagons like the Subreau WRX and Dodge Mageanm have the style and power that earlyer station wagons had a hard time trying to do. Who know? down the road, minivans may change to be consider cool, like a sport van.

- sirland

dindak

Actually I'm sure they DO care about MPG since the Sienna is one of the best vans for that. YOU mite not car about MPG but I know a lot of people who consider it on their purchases. Many people buy vans because SUVs are so much worse in MPG and insurance cost. As for the Freestar, you are right.. it's not selling well. Ford shut down the plant here in town for 3 weeks and it's due for 2 week down in March also. Not good for Ford. That said, sales are down all around and van sales in particular.

Kirstie_H

Not all around. All around Detroit, pretty much.
But here's an interesting article indicating that luxury vehicle sales are up at the end of 2003, and another article about January '04 sales. Should GM have aimed higher with this van?

bretaa

To Sirland: I agree with you 100%. In my previous post, I was being somewhat sarcastic. Those were arguments others had made to defend the weak effort these vans represent. I agree that if and when the minivan becomes "in" again, GM won't be ready with these models.

Bret

wheelz4

Don't have the #'s in front of me but sales of the Sienna (and just about all Toyotas) are doing just fine. Here's a company that realized the shortcomings in their previous van, did extensive research (including a 80,000 km cross-North America road trip), targeted the best features of their competition, and matched or out-did all of them. The results speak for themselves.
Freestar? It may be better under the surface, but looks (first impressions) count, and a new van that looks pretty much like the old one (which wasn't exactly a styling knockout in the first place) will get that same-old, same-old reaction.
The GM identical-quadruplets? That new, extended SUV schnoz is bound to add a few pounds. Other than an improved interior (like the Freestar), not much else to get excited about. In other words, another yawner.
And although DC's pricey Stow'n Go seats are neat, another same-old, same-old exterior will also produce more yawns.

dindak

Toyota has the newest van on the market and it's a good one so of course sales are good. I suspect most of the sales are coming from Honda and DC. Honda was locally still advertising leftover 03's a couple of weeks ago.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of these vans so far but looks sometimes grow on people and no one has driven one of these GM triplets so who knows. The Sienna is pretty ugly but it's good and priced well so it still sells.