Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





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

1568101192

Comments

  • kklotzkklotz Posts: 19
    From the virtual pages:

    •17” chrome wheels
    •Chrome finished roof rack
    •Chrome-trimmed and wood tone instrument panel
    •Blacked-out grill
    •Wood tone and chrome trimmed three-spoke steering wheel with audio controls
    •Interior seating for seven with dual-zone climate control
    •Leather seating in first and second rows with available heated seats for driver and passenger
    •Available Navigation radio system with integral DVD for map data, CD/MP3 player, and LCD touch controls. Available XM Satellite radio with rear-seat audio controls.
    •Available all-wheel drive
    •Available dual power sliding doors
    •Overhead Rail System (overhead, interior) allows you to reconfigure storage accessories, PDA, and DVD player.
    •On-Star
    •Rear Cargo Management System
  • GM produced 90,000 of the FWD minivans in 1996. In 1997 it went up to 222,000 and 250,000 in 1998. Everytime a car is redesigned, its seams to get a bump in sales the first few years. Add in another channel, Saturn, and a big jump is possible.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    I think a jump in sales is possible. Our neighbor traded in a Venture for a Quest not because they were unhappy with the Venture but because GMs vans weren't available with upscale interiors and other features (power tailgate) that the Quest did. People like that could easily won back as I know the guy prefers to buy GM.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    Well, I guess the pix were accurate after all. I don't have sound on my work pc, so wasn't able to hear any audio....it would've been interesting to hear the "spin" these guys are putting on these vans to get us to think they are some sort of radical departure from a minivan and "all new". I'd be willing to bet they are virtually indistinguishable from the rear (I notice they didn't offer many rear shots)....indistinguishable from each other and from the current Venture/Montana. It kinda reminds me of the "nose"job they had to do on their original "dustbuster" vans....same old van with a new nose. I guess the only good thing I can say is that they may get some poseurs out of an SUV they don't really need and into a more practical, fuel-efficient minivan. That can only be a good thing.
    p.s. You'd think they could've found a way to hide the sliding door tracks (a dead-minivan-giveaway) in their effort to disguise these vans as SUV's.
    Oh....and that "fold-on-top-of-the-rear-floor" rear seat just doesn't cut it either.
  • Well, you can call Saturn Oldsmobile now. What a poor excuse for a car line to start sharing with the rest of GM. I laughed when they kept saying how the sliding door was carrying the lineage of the minivan into this "new" crossover. Lutz said they'd price the Terrazo more then the RV! It's bland styling kinda fits in with Buick, but Saturn needs something with styling like a Honda Element. I hope Saturn/Pontiac/Chevy get a bench for the second row cause without it, I wouldn't call it a people hauler.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    "Saturn needs something with styling like a Honda Element"

    Ya.. that's what GM needs, another Aztek. Element is just about as ugly.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Wow! How innovative! What will they think of next? Ok I defended GM minis a few days ago... but none of this official information points to any kind of uniqueness, advancement, or enhancement in the minivan segment.

    ~alpha
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    and a chrome roof rack, and chrome doodads inside etc.etc. (oh, an a "steering wheel"....nice of Buick to include one!)
    BTW....the Saturn woodgrain dash is ugly...unfortunately, it seems to be standard even in the base model (and that's what import intenders want?)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Don't laugh, Element is the #1 selling new import nameplate. It's a smashing success, and most importantly it has *not* cannibalized sales from the CR-V, those are near record levels too.

    By any measure, Element is a huge success. It cost Honda next to nothing, brought in a young demographic, and attracted attention for Honda.

    These vans just look like face-lifts of the old ones, with a bunch of features added on. Well, that formula failed for Chrysler. All the added content in their vans was not what people were looking for.

    Also, it looks like they aimed for a target that has since moved. Sorry but IMO these vans seem 5 years old already.

    -juice
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    that's because they ARE 5 years old!
    I know we've been poking fun @ GM but I really expected something new and exciting with these vans, not the same-old, same-old.
    I was looking for an SUV-type vehicle with the flat floor and flexible interior of a minivan...
    maybe somewhat like an Element but with a bit more style, space and seating.
    Instead, we get GM's old vans (which weren't really competitive in the first place) with a nose job.
  • Nice to see someone take a non biased view when you look at the facts. The largest car maker in the world can do better then this! It's a shame when you see some of the GM divisions in Europe which have great cars and we get handed this. I'm only looking at getting an Equinox next year because I'm sitting on $3,500 dollars of GM card points. At least there's an example of a good Saturn platform being turned into a hot looking mini-SUV that I think will outsell the new/old vans (as long as we don't count fleet sales).
    Of course Chevy always gets the crappy version of an engine compared to other models.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tell you what, I attended a Malibu intro event and a few things about that car impressed me, but even that car (from a profile) looks far too much like its predecessor. Which is silly, because it's based on a completely different platform, shared with the Saab 9-3.

    Why keep old styling cues? They don't look new, the vans or the 'bu. Except the nose jobs.

    I did like the 'bu's V6 engine. Pushrod or no, it's torquey and fuel efficiency beats Honda's and Toyota's V6s.

    GM should have built on that. Use a similarly torquey/efficient powertrain, but go with a clean sheet design for the vans.

    -juice
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Posts: 569
    Here's a bit more info....some of it pertains to Canadian versions but there are a few interior shots.
    http://canadianautopress.auto123.com/en/info/autonews/index,view.- spy?cmd=view&artid=19199&pg=1
    Apparently we WILL be getting 2 regular wheelbase versions (Pontiac & Chevy) which may look a little more SUV like (however the C pillar will be hidden, just like on the current Montana/Venture)
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    joey : No doubt the Equinox is clearly done by the A designers and the vans are done by the C designers. The only hope here is that the interiors are good and the Chevy and Pontiac versions are a bit different. I was definitely expecting something more like the Rendezvous for at least one of these vehicles.

    ateixeira : If that's so, sales of the Element are obviously in California or something as I rarely ever see one on the road and it's been on the market for many months now. Source of your info?
  • Only GM could introduce "new' minivans without fold flat rear seats. Surprisingly this regurgitated Venture/Montana will have a sales increase. However the vast majority will be from GM employees and family members who have hung on to their old vans and now will reluctantly use their discount to buy a new one. This will provide a bump in sales but only for a year or so. If you were to remove the GM discount purchases and fleet sales, you would find the current and future sales to discerning customers would be a pathetically low number. Saturn will also help, as Saturn geeks now only have the equally pathetic Ion, soon to be discontinued L-300 and the VUE to choose from. Given that choice, the Relay might actually seem like a relief.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Front looks like the Volvo XC90 and Honda Pilot. Side looks like my friend's '98 Venture, exactly.

    dindak: several sources, mainly Automotive News. I shared the info about the best selling new import nameplate in the Element threads about a month ago, and referred to the article. Another source said its demographics were among the youngest in the entire industry (I don't recall exactly the rank - 14th?). Sales are easy to look up, it's better than 50k per year, above Honda's original forecasts.

    -juice
  • "Well, you can call Saturn Oldsmobile now. What a poor excuse for a car line to start sharing with the rest of GM."

    Satunr has lost money since 1991, how the heck can they justify the old way of doing business? They simply cannot afford to be a totally unique car company.

    Besides, the old SL looked like Olds's since day one, so what's the beef?
  • the engineers worked on making these mini's more quiet inside, that would be a selling point. Honda Ody is so loud on the highways you have to turn up the radio or yell to the back seat passengers.

    Could be interesting!
  • There all over NY now, I didn't see any for most of the model year. Calif. probably got all the first ones. Don't like it, fine, but Honda found plenty to make it a hit. I would have been happier if GM just brought the van out without all the fan fair. I'd then say that at least they tried to dress up a car line that has little future growth. Buick probably needed a lux mini-van, but do we need 4 versions of the same car? I thought GM killed that thinking off in the 90's. I hope the Sabb 9-7 won't be another Envoy with a Saab grill slapped on the front. The GTO, Vue/Equinox, Saab 9-3/Ion are better approaches to reuse of a platform.
  • wsag26wsag26 Posts: 124
    I will quit being a GM fan. The vehicle is ugly. It looks like an idiot. I don't know how to explain the vehicle, but it sure isn't nice and cute... Obviously, the 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6/Chevrolet Uplander will not look similar or they would've revealed them same place same time.... Of course, the interior looks pretty nice and some of the features compare to competitors very nicely, but the outside has got me fooled. This car won't sell if it looks like an idiot. Maybe it is just me, because some of the reviews I've read about it say that it looks good... Well I've got something to say to GM... You've got me out of your company if you continue to do this.. If the 2005 Rendevous/Azteck look like this, I'll dish GM.. and yep, I mean it...
  • I was flipping back and forth between interior shots of the Terraza and the Mercury Monterey. I'm not sure there is a significant difference between the interior appointments of these two. This leads me to believe, with the limited information I have, that the Mercury, overall, is a better, more versitile and attractive vehicle.

    Come on GM, you can do much better than this.
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    The interior looks nicer than the old models.. Other than that, ZZZZZZZzzzz.

    Yeah I'd mistake one of these for anything other than a minivan! LOL. I'd hate to pay $30K usd for a Buick van that can hardly get out of its own way.

    I suppose people who will take GM over other makes just because they want to support GM or cannot afford better vans will buy these.
  • tsxtsx Posts: 32
    I think engineers teamed between the two companies to create new interiors for the vans. I mean they combine everything from the Freestar to the F-150 and there you have it a Buick Minivan.

    GM really needs Flat Floor Seat with 60/40 split and 50/50 cuz that doesn't make any sense. (how many ppl can sit on half a seat?) Plus biggest concern was more POWER. atleast Ford is ahead of the competition with Torque. What do we get: A Brand New Redesigned, Enhanced, Quality Rich underpowered vans.?!
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    is ahead of the competition in torque, but that doesnt translate into anything, because the Monterey/Freestar are behind the class leaders in most, if not all, accelerative measures. Maybe they are better in towing, but certainly not MPG.
    Maybe GM is hoping these new quadruplets are the MPG kings of the minivan world, given how frugal the 3500 is in the Malibu?

    ~alpha
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Took a second look at the pictures and finally saw the videos. The vans look a bit better to me now but I think GM could have done better. Wait and see what the Chev and Pontiac versions look like I guess.

    Interior of the Buick looks great though, very upscale for the van segment. Some people seem to have been expecting an SUV crossover miracle and that didn't materialize. For what they are (VANS), they aren't bad and no worse than anything else. 3.5L should provide good mileage and better pep. New interiors are much better.

    SUV owners won't likely be converted.. but who knows.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Well the Element must sell well somewhere thought it ain't around here. If I see one in a week, that's a lot. When I do see one, it's usually an older person driving. Kids aren't biting into the Honda hype.
  • oh dear! it looks like the new GM minivans will have NOTHING to distinguish themselves from the new minivans. no nice V6, just chrome everywhere! lol...not that great
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I just watched the interior video- the Terrazas interior, at least... looks MUCH better than the two-tier look and blatantly fake wood trim in the upper Freestar trim lines.

    ~alpha
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
1568101192
Sign In or Register to comment.