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

jchan2 · February 2004

I might want to add that CR found the second and third row seats pretty unsupportive and too low. Throw in the high sticker price (Hey, a SES model with cloth costs $29K when you build it on Ford's website) plus an unrefined engine, and you get the worst minivan of the bunch, excluding the lame duck Sedona.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Freestar/Monterey. It's just that the sticker price is too high, when I know I can get a feature packed Odyssey EX-L for less. The incentives help level the field price wise with Honda. And when I'm paying more for a Freestar, I don't get anything more than what I might get from an Odyssey, minus the reverse sensing system.

samnoe · February 2004

First of all, you DO get a lot more on a Freestar than Odyssey. What's about heated mirrors? 3-zone temp. control? power passenger seat and memory seats on the Limited? overhead console with conversation mirror with a compass and outside temperature? just to name a few...

When the Freestar came out, Ford announced that it will be priced about the same, or lower than the outgoing Windstar. Is it true? well, if you take the base model without any options, it would be true, but once you start adding options, the prices are flying very high. For example, The 2003 Limited Windstar was about $34,000 with everything included (except for the rear entertainment system), and now the limited has about the same price, or even lower ($33,775), but adding all options will bring the price to $38,540! (options includes: safety canopy system with side air bags; self sealing tires; power passenger seat and drivers seat memory & heated seats; roof rack crossbars; first row floor console; advanceTrac & traction control with brake assist; reverse sensing system; and rear DVD player, etc.)

The same thing is with the new Sienna. Toyota announced that the new 2004 Sienna will be priced by almost $1000 lower than the old Sienna. Now, this is true; but once you add options or go with higher models, you can top over 40 grand!

And then, Ford gives already about $3,000 in rebates for the Freestar, while Sienna not.

I hope the new GM sport vans will be better priced, because if not, they will have about the same results as the Freestar's slow going sales, although the Freestar has a 3rd row seats which folds into the floor.

And CR rated the GM minivans only slightly above the Windstar a few years ago, and the Freestar is already a bit improved over the Windstar.

alpha01 · February 2004

Kudos, folks.

samnoe-"But to compare the new Sienna (which you say, is 11 months old) to a Freestar (6 months) while you know that Freestar is just an updated Windstar, is just not fair."

Of course its fair! Just because a car is on an older platform means one cannot compare? I disagree. The Freestar and the Sienna have the same target audience, and very similar MSRP price ranges. They are direct competitors regardless of platform age.

For what its worth, you are correct, I do like Toyota products (though myself I own a Nissan). But I would never say "Its just not fair to compare a Lexus GS300 to a Mercedes E320, the Lexus has been around for 6 model years now, while the MB was brand new for 2003!".

Also, "The same thing is with the new Sienna. Toyota announced that the new 2004 Sienna will be priced by almost $1000 lower than the old Sienna. Now, this is true; but once you add options or go with higher models, you can top over 40 grand!"

I'm not too sure where youre going with this. A comparably equipped Sienna is about $1000 cheaper than an outgoing similarly equipped model, without even adjusting for inflation. Yes, the price can top 40 grand, but only does so with the addition of an added trim line over the previous generation, AWD (not offered on the previous generation), and literally dozens of options unavailable on the previous generation (major ones including side curtains, power liftgate, moonroof, rear DVD, navagation, back-up camera).

According to the WSJ, the average retail MSRP for new Sienna sales is about $29,500. Putting this in terms of an acutal vehicle, this would equate to the LE 8 passenger model with the most expensive option package, very similar to the one that Car and Driver tested in the April 03 issue.

~alpha

dan165 · February 2004

I took a peek at the Freestar at the auto show and have to say it's not as bad as some people here seem to think it is. The whole van is a pretty nice package and the stow away seat and flip up second row are all good features. I think the main reason for a drop in sales was the lack of incentives vs. the Windstar clear out prices before.

As for the GM vans, you could not sit in them so we will all have to wait and see how good the seats and dash are. From the outside though, the Buick seems to be the nicest.

Alpha, the Sienna is a pretty nice van though I don't like the nose. it's not very high priced either, around $30000 CDN for a base model. No incentives in Canada at all from what I see though.

cptplt · February 2004

so is it definite that has disappeared from the new GMs minivans???
If true it seems rather dumb to me, nearly everyone I know who has an 8 seat GM minivan only got it because of the 8 seats and would hardly have looked at GM otherwise!

jchan2 · February 2004

To pay $5,000 extra for the features mentioned on a Freestar Limited over an Odyssey EX-L w/DVD is crazy. I personally have no problem with a Freestar, just that the competiton is better. The only thing I have against it is the poor fuel economy and high sticker price when optioned.

jchan2 · February 2004

rated 16/23 EPA (SEL)
Odyssey EX: 18/25
Sienna XLE: 19/26
Venture LT: 19/26
Sedona EX: 15/20 (not sure)
Quest 3.5 SE: 18/25
Grand Caravan SXT FWD: 17/24

jchan2 · February 2004

When I built a Freestar SES on Ford's website, I found out how overpriced the Freestar is:
Base MSRP: $28,210
Exterior: Matador Red
Interior: Pebble CLOTH.
Options:
$395 Active Safety Pkg I: Panic Brake Assist, Traction Control, AdvanceTrac
$290 Electronics Group: Electrochromic Rearview Mirror, Auto Headlamps, Overhead Console with exterior temperature and compass
$245 Value Group I: Perimeter Anti Theft, Adjustable Pedals
$795 Second Row Low Back Dual Captain's Chairs
$695 Safety Canopy, including side airbags
$685 Destination & Delivery
MSRP: $31,315
Discount: $3,000 Cash Back
GRAND MSRP: $28,315
Without the cashback, waaay overpriced. With the cashback, more in the Odyssey's ball park, but still lacks the Power Sliding Doors. And what were they thinking when they made a bench seat standard on a $28,000 minivan? Shouldn't bucket seats come standard and not an $800 option?
In regards to the GM group, I hope GM does not overprice the mainstream versions (Relay, Uplander) like Ford overpriced the Freestar to make room for the Incentives. I hope the pricing is low straight from the start.

bigdaddycoats · February 2004

Are you dindak?

just4fun2 · February 2004

The $3000 rebate off the MSRP isn't the way it works. It comes off of the price that you and the dealer have agreed upon. That price is not the MSRP, unless your stupid.

Unless of course it is a Sienna, then you have to add on to the MSRP sometimes.

alpha01 · February 2004

"unless your stupid"

"Y-O-U-R-E means you are, Y-O-U-R means your!"
-Ross, Friends.

irony?

~alpha

jchan2 · February 2004

that's true.. But the sticker price is high to begin with, and that's where the $3,000 cash comes into play. I'm sure nobody out there has bought a Freestar or Monterey at or over sticker.

just4fun2 · February 2004

Y-O-U-R-E? Do you mean YOU'RE? which is a contraction of "you are".

Sometime people do make mistakes while typing, we are human. I am not above the occasional mistake.

dpd2 · February 2004

your both stupid I say. Go over their and sit in the corner. By the weigh, Edmunds should add grammar check to the board.

alpha01 · February 2004

Of course I know everyone is human! I just thought it was ironic that in a sentence declaring people "stupid", you made one of the most blatant grammatical mistakes possible. I was quoting from the TV show 'Friends', and hence my reason for trying to emphasize the spelling of the word, using dashes.

Anyway...
~alpha

badgerfan · February 2004

Eye agree, Edmunds should add grandma check to the bored.

jchan2 · February 2004

let's get back to minivans please! This isn't a board to discuss grammar!

samnoe · February 2004

No way... minivan??

"Sports crossover van"!

Do not make this mistake again :-)

We are busy with the Freestar, while this is actually the GM new vans board

badgerfan · February 2004

Sorry I offended you with a little grammar humor, but sometimes I think we take ourselves much too seriously in these discussions.

Back to vans. Seems the first 05 DC minivans have hit the dealers floors, and the initial impressions are that the DC stow and go seats are really winners, along with overall interior design.

It would seem this puts even more probability that this GM freshening will not result in increased sales. I would predict GM and Ford will likely both lose market share in this segment.

It seems both of these manufacturers have decided not to fully support their minivan product lines, concentrating more on SUV's and crossover vehicles, while DC, Toyota, Honda and to a lesser degree Nissan will be fighting it out with the most up to date designs.

Not that that is all bad. I doubt if the US minivan market is big enough to support all of the players to the volume they would like.

hansienna · February 2004

2005 GC SXT has EPA rating of 18/25 with 3.8L V6 that has MORE torque than either the Sienna or Odyssey. The 2005 GC SE has EPA rating of 19/26 with 3.3L V6. Just go look at the window stickers on any new Grand Caravan.
     BTW, why doesn't Toyota offer separate temperature control for driver and front passenger on the Sienna CE and LE? Why doesn't Honda offer the feature on ANY Odyssey?
     Toyota vehicles have been the most reliable brand for me but "real" Chevy vehicles (1980 Chevy Van and 2001 Blazer LT) and my Ford F-150 have also been very reliable.
     GM is unwise to rebadge junk from Daewoo with a GM name. Same with Suzuki and Isuzu junk. Toyota does not cheapen the Toyota name by placing it on inferior vehicles made by other companies. Hopefully, Honda learned a lesson with the unreliable Honda Passport that was just a re-badged piece of Isuzu junk.
     Is the gas guzzling Kia Sedona with EPA ratings of 15/20 the "OPEC Van of the Year".

ateixeira · February 2004

Honda doesn't offer a moonroof, I thought that was a strange omission.

-juice

alpha01 · February 2004

Id like to point out that even though jchan may have been wrong about the EPA figures for the 2005 GC, that doesnt change the fact that they arent class leading. Additionally, the fact that the 3.8L in the GC produces slightly more torque than the Sienna/Ody does NOT mean that it will necessarily accelerate, either from a stop or in passing manuvers, more quickly than either.

"BTW, why doesn't Toyota offer separate temperature control for driver and front passenger on the Sienna CE and LE?" Because they want you to spend 30K + on an XLE, because they are leading this segement right now, and none of the domestic vans, save perhaps possibly the new DCX twins, are anything NEAR threatening to Toyota's current PPSS (Profit Per Sienna Sold).

~alpha

hansienna · February 2004

Toyota does make the most profit per minivan sold. Toyota also has the most different, expensive option packages than any other brand.
     However, the facts are that DC has developed more of the nice features of a minivan than any other maker. Honda was the first to offer the modern, convenient "fold-into-the-floor" 3rd row seating. Mazda was first with roll down windows in the sliding doors. Toyota was first with the split fold into the floor 3rd row seating.
     Chrysler has developed too many nice features to be able to list here.
     Nippon Advertising Monthly will never forget the poor reliability of the Chrysler 4 speed automatic altho they rarely mention the Toyota engine sludge problem that happened far more recently.
     However, this forum is about GM products. GM Astro and Safari have been very successful, reliable vans with almost no changes since introduction almost 20 years ago. The original GM FWD minivans had styling that was too futuristic for most of us. GM has made many mistakes but even CR admits that the new GM 3.5L V6 delivers alot of power and excellent fuel economy in the new Malibu.

ateixeira · February 2004

Sienna has a couple of other unique features, like seating for 8 and AWD. Oddly competitors are dropping these.

-juice

hansienna · February 2004

How do people forget about the 8 passenger GM Astro AWD and Safari AWD? The Chevy Venture also had seating for 8 as an option for many years.

ateixeira · February 2004

They're actually dropping the 8 seat Venture, by that I mean the Chevy Uplander will only seat 7.

The Astro/Safari are on truck platforms and hardly leading edge designs.

-juice

badgerfan · February 2004

The original 1984 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager also had optional seating for 8. Few people bought it as it eliminated the pass through from the front seat to the back. The seating for eight was 3 front , 2 middle, 3 rear.

The truth is very few people really need seating for 8 and the seating for 8 is pretty marginal anyway in vehicles this size.

hansienna · February 2004

because they have changed very little in almost 20 years.
When you have a very successful design, why change it?

jchan2 · February 2004

I wonder if Honda will add the moonroof back to the Odyssey for 2005.

rctennis3811 · February 2004

One thing is that when the Pilot came out people got mad that there was no sunroof option. Interestingly enough, they're adding it for the 05 model year. I'm betting that Honda will put a sunroof in the upcoming Odyssey.

alpha01 · February 2004

The only thing that the Safastros have done "successfully" since their inception is out-tow the competitors, due to the body on frame construction. Since introduction, the twins have had horrid repair records, inefficient use of space, poor ergonmics, crash scores, fuel consumption, the list goes on and on. These vehicles were rated FAR below the Chrysler minis and Ford Aerostar even in the mid-late 80s when they were new.

I am guessing that by "successful" you mean that GM has been "successfully" duping people into these crude machines for about 20 years now. That doesnt make the vehicles themselves successful, or good for that matter.

And not for anything, they Chrysler Ultradrive issue was widespread. The sludge issue has affected this percentage of Toyotas: .001% (Thats one thousandth of one percentage point)

~alpha

hansienna · February 2004

The regular length Astro had more interior space than the Caravan, Aerostar or any Japanese minivan.
    The Astro engines will last forever. Some have reported 700,000 miles on the vortec 4.3L V6 in an Astro.
    Many Astro owners loved the 27 gallon fuel tank and the 23 to 24 MPG highway mileage.
    Concerning sludge in Toyota engines, your quoted percentage is as far off the truth as to say 50% of Toyota 3.0L V6 had sludge problems.
    I have had excellent experience with Toyota so don't think I am trashing Toyota. Just want to keep people honest when discussing GM.

alpha01 · February 2004

youd know that Im NOTHING if not honest. Prove my number wrong. At the time of the "Special Policy Adjustment" announcement, Toyota had 3000 documented cases of engine failure due to sludge. The SPA covers greater than 3.3million vehicles.

Theres a lot more to a vehicles reliability than an engine, in the case of the antiquated Safastros, and they didnt always offer the Vortec 4.3L. Im not making this up, check CR.

Youre right about the space- I should have looked the numbers up first, my apologies.

~alpha

hansienna · February 2004

Long time subscriber but take auto reliability data and CR recommendations with a grain of salt.
    I read CR to look for ideas on features that are available on vehicles, refrigerators, washing machines, camcorders, DVD players, etc. (Never did pay attention to their ratings of condoms).
    CR is as biased and opinionated as any owner of any vehicle.
    I am also biased: I think Toyota vehicles are the most reliable across the entire line. GM reliability can be spotty and more questionable with the linkup with Daewoo, Isuzu, Suzuki, etc.

sirland · February 2004

What is CR?

montanafan · February 2004

3,000/3,300,000=.001 or .1% Complaints to vehicles covered.
3,300,000/7,200,000=.458 or 45.8% covered to vehicles sold 96-02 (Approx 1.2m per year)

GM's last big recall: 80/1,800,000=0.00004 or .004% complaints to vehicles covered.

Also the IIHS/HLDI rate the AWD Safari as "substaintialy better then average" and the lowest injury rate for minivans in their latest rankings. Even scored better then the Montana, pushing it to third, its worse ranking ever.

badgerfan · February 2004

CR short for Consumers Reports, whose product rating magazine I subscribe to and read closely, and take with a grain of salt as I notice that they tend to many times have a subtle bias in their auto reviews. I am also skeptical of their reliability ratings due to the inherent bias that exists in their subscriber base as opposed to the general population, but this is another subject that has been hashed out in many other Edmunds discussions.

wheelz4 · February 2004

If GM can't get these right after 20 yrs of cranking out the same old tired design, then they've REALLY got a problem.

ateixeira · February 2004

Any how, my point was the Sienna will be unique in offering seating for 8, since Chevy is dropping it on the Uplander, and the Astro doesn't really compete directly with the modern car-based minivans.

-juice

rctennis3811 · February 2004

Astro is probably one of the worst "minivans" you can buy for your money. Outdated, ugly inside with cheap materials, and a VERY VERY VERY POOR crash test record. I'd honestly rather buy a newer van for the money.

alpha01 · February 2004

Thank you for correcting my decimal error!
My apologies!

That said, it wasnt a recall, did not involve NHTSA.

"Also the IIHS/HLDI rate the AWD Safari as "substaintialy better then average" and the lowest injury rate for minivans in their latest rankings"

Injury claim rates lay heavily in the hands of the behaviors of drivers, as compared to the crashworthiness/safety of vehicles. Crash tests on all GMs current minivans show that they are among the least crashworthy of vehicles today. Ditto most of GMs older designs- think Cavalier, Blazer, Grand Am/Alero...

~alpha

montanafan · February 2004

"Injury claim rates lay heavily in the hands of the behaviors of drivers, as compared to the crashworthiness/safety of vehicles."

So, if I understand, then the other vans are driven by easy to injure, quick to complain drivers, and GM's vans are driven by a heartier stock? I always thought that you could only get injured if the vehicle crashed. So injury has to be releated to crashworthiness. ;-)

jchan2 · February 2004

I have to agree that it IS outdated, but I think it serves a niche no car based Japanese minivan can do. The person that wants to tow something yet does not want a brand new SUV.

hansienna · February 2004

Consumer Reports stated Caravan was very car like, Astro truck like, and Aerostar was in between.
     Since he had owned a couple of trucks, that comment by CR was the highest praise they could give to him.
     Additionally, in 1991 the Astro had MUCH more power, larger fuel tank, and in real world driving the mileage was as good as the anemic engines in the Caravan and Aerostar.
     I, too like trucks and own the Ford F-150 4WD and my Chevy Blazer LT. My wife also prefers either truck over the Toyota Corolla wagon for trips over 10 miles long.

rctennis3811 · February 2004

Actually, the Toyota Alphard and Nissan Elgrand are almost exactly like the Astro, except updated and car based. Interestingly, they can tow a lot, have no true fold-in seats, and (like the Astro) have available 4WD..not AWD. Sadly, they're not sold here.

spartanmann · February 2004

The Astro?Safari was never a critical or sales success. It also had horrible repair/reliability issues, even by GM standards. It came out right after the Caravan and was dusted in sales from day 1 despite having many more dealers. It was outdated when introduced and continues to be sold in very low volumes primarily for people with towing needs. "Successes" like the Astro/Safari are why GM's market share is now down to 28%. Sadly it appears GM is making the same mistake again with the new vans. Although improved, they will take major incentives to sell, the same lesson Ford is learning with the Freestar.

homerkc · February 2004

My wife insists on child booster seats in the next van - does anyone know if they will be offered on the Uplander, etc?? I'm guessing they will be gone in the Chryslers, due to the fold away middle seats.

hansienna · February 2004

Would be interesting to find the total number of Astro/Safari sold since introduction. Same with the 2 completely different versions of the Odyssey, Sienna, and Quest.
     GM has been laughing all the way to the bank with the profits from the Astro/Safari that have had NO significant changes in almost 20 years.
     GM found a niche market that no other company has ever challenged.
     Do I think Astro/Safari are superior? NO.

dan165 · February 2004

Jchan, I know people who swear by the Astro vans for towing and utility. They still sell so someone must want em. If there wasn't a business case for them GM would have ceased production ages ago. Like "hansienna" says, GM has no competition here and the plant equipment has all been paid for 5 years ago. They cost nothing to make.

jchan2 · February 2004

and every Astro/Safari they sell, they make cash, even with incentives. The plant is paid off, the design costs were paid off, and there's no competition.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles