Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Perception lags behing reality, usually by several years. A good example is Hyundai, they beat Toyota in JDP IQ study overall, but they're still joked about. Maybe that'll change in 3 years.
So yeah, even if the new vans are great, they'll have to sustain that greatness for a few years to appear on enough radar screens to gain market share.
Also - resale value will be based on the outgoing model. So they'll have to sell based on value and rebates until they can boost resale values as well.
-juice
Your assessment is right on. Bottom line is Detroit needs a RADICAL and drastic strategy. Hyundai did exactly that and they're winning over hearts everyday.
~alpha
But you bring up a good point - there is a further lag that occurs to measure the improvement, assuming there is one.
So if it takes them another 3 years to improve on the durability stufy, public perception might take, well, forever basically, to catch up! LOL
-juice
Your assessment is right on. Bottom line is Detroit needs a RADICAL and drastic strategy. Hyundai did exactly that and they're winning over hearts everyday.
I think the new vans may surprise some doubters as I still think the current offering has one of the best ride qualities in the van biz. We shall see in a few months I guess.
In terms of looks, Chrysler still wins with me. Very attractive and modern. The Quest looks like a frog, way over the top and the Honda is too conservative. Toyota could be good if they fixed the nose.
-juice
New vans will be good I think. Maybe not tops in class but whatever. My big issue is the looks which is why we bought an 04. Maybe it will look better in person but I didn't care for the picture of the 05 Montana. Interior looks real nice though.
-Andrew L
That all said, a government report recently showed that in many cases for cars, they did not improve safety.
~alpha
No small, lighter weight vehicle will be as safe as the large, heavy SUV's.
Safe driving habits CAN prevent most accidents. A safe driver is alert at all times with eyes scanning the front and all 3 rear view mirrors....mentally preparing the evasive action necessary to avoid an accident.
So better get all the air bags you can get...
But these are minivans, and the window lines are much higher, I believe. So you have far more natural protection already.
The seats are also probably farther away from the sides of the car, so you have a bigger crumple zone.
I'm not sure that side curtain air bags would help a child strapped to a child seat at all. I doubt he'd reach it.
Bigger kids, maybe, if they're really tall.
-juice
Don't get me wrong, the more protection the better. I just think some people are over emphisising the need for curtains. Give me a strong frame, ABS and traction control any time over air curtains.
I've talked with other owners of Montana/Venture and they all say the same thing, good for the first year and then it slowly start to break apart.
I agree with you that a strong frame, ABS, and traction control are very valuable. But the fact remains that inflatable side head protection increases your chances of surviving a side impact by a WHOPPING 45%. With other manufacturers at least offering all of your above requirements, why should GM be pardoned for not?
"A stronger frame to protect from side impact is FAR more useful than an airbag at providing protection."
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0402.htm
The Mitsu Galant achieved the highest rating for Structure in the IIHS test, a "Good". Still, the SUV designed barrier inflicted "fatal" injuries to the head, neck, and torso.
The Toyota Camry, whose structure also held up well, but not quite as well as the Galant (it got an "Acceptable" mark for that measure) inflicted similar injuries when not tested with the side curtain airbag.
But when tested with curtains, still with the same "Acceptable" structure, injuries went from fatal to easily survivable: http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0315.htm
My point is only that in terms of side impacts, structure alone is not going to get the job done. For that matter, neither will side head protection (reference the Hyundai Sonata, whose poor structure couldnt be compensated by the side airbag). Both structure and restraint systems are vital in this type of crash, and GM, with this next gen minivan, is failing to provide part of the equation.
~alpha
The argument is not whether these active safety features are important. The argument is why GM does not offer the customers even the choice of having an ADDED important protection. Plus even if the frame holds up perfectly in a side impact, the passenger's head and torso could still slam into the side of the vehicle causing injuries.
It's really beyond me why GM decided to forgo such an important saftety option. And I have been a happy customer always rooting for them.
Please GM, do something. Now I don't even know if we'll seriously consider their new vans.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of buyers who get vans that have air curtains available, actually buy the option. I'll bet it's very low given the number of base models I see with plastic wheel covers, but that's not to say it's not a usefull option.
-juice
Why would it be deliberate?
Not everyone aims to be the best car in the segment. Koreans have competed on price for decades.
-juice
The Koreans have competed on price for the last two decades primarily because that was the only competitive advantage that could be offered with their products. That is changing, though, as more often, vehicles like the still value-rich Elantra are doing quite well in evaluations by the likes of high readership publications such as Consumer Reports and Car and Driver.
GM should not be competing solely on price with these minivans, but it is going to (same as currently for Ford). GM has been around long enough that it should understand the pitfalls of offering a poor product just to be in that market segment, IMO. Really, it all goes back to the antiquated structure unions play- GM is crippled by the fact that it simply cant afford to close plants (as well as by its astronomical pension costs).
This post was a bit wide-ranging, but I hope you follow my though process.
~alpha
That's impressive, some of the giants don't do that yet. Certain vans don't even offer either of those...
<ducks for cover>
-juice
-juice
And as far as the Aztek brand manager, I wouldn't call it a "promotion" to be moved up to a non visable position in the OnStar group. Bing change from being on 60 minutes or Dateline or whatever he was featured on.
Maybe I'm thinking of that person's boss.
-juice
DON BUTLER - VICE PRESIDENT, ONSTAR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Don Butler, vice president of OnStar Commercial Development, is responsible for the development of key business relationships critical to sustaining the OnStar business. He assumed this position on Jan. 1, 2002. Butler joined OnStar in spring 2001 as vice president for OnStar Virtual Advisor.
Butler began his General Motors career as a college coop student in 1981 at Pontiac Engineering. In 1986, he became a design engineer for the Corvette Electrical Systems Group at the former Chevrolet-Pontiac-GM of Canada in Warren, Mich. Four years later he became a systems engineer for Advanced Vehicle Engineering in Pontiac, Mich. In 1990 he was named market analyst for GM Marketing and Product Planning.
He returned to Pontiac in 1992 when he was appointed zone marketing manager for the Detroit Zone. The following year he moved to Pontiac Central Office as market planner of the Grand Am. In 1994 Butler was named brand-planning manager of the Grand Am. In 1995, he became a manufacturing systems manager at Lansing Auto Division (LAD), before being named assistant brand manager-product for the Grand Am in 1996, the position he held prior to being promoted to Aztek Brand Manager on July 1, 1997.
A native of Columbia, Miss., Butler was born on Dec. 4, 1963. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from GMI in 1986 and his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1990.
It's easy to say GM does dumb things but it's a 100% better company than it was 10-15 years ago when I abandoned it due to unreliable cars. Yup, they still do dumb things but so do most other car makers. Hopefully an all new van will come soon and hopefully in the mean time they make some more improvements to these coming vans over the next year. Apparently head curtains would make a few of you happy and wouldn't break the bank.
-juice
It's too bad GM is so far in the whole. It's nice they take care of their retirees but it's killing the company.
Scion xB is boxy but a very clean design, with none of the goofy "accessories" on the Pontiac. It's selling well, well beyond demand, they actually had to adjust production to make more xB models and fewer xAs.
Element is also selling way beyond expectations.
Price may have something to do with it - both are well below market prices for competitors. Aztek gave people sticker shock.
-juice
The Aztec on the other hand was priced only slightly less than the GM minivans. GM somehow expected older and more mature types to go for that styling and spend 25K or more on it - totally unrealistic. That explains why the more normal looking Rendevous sold much better despite costing more.
Element costs less than the similar CR-V it's based on, even though it has 16" rims.
Scion xB carries a dirt cheap MSRP, it's reverse-sticker-shock.
-juice
I don't even notice Azteks when I see them anymore. Nothing very shocking.
Aztek type vehicle based on a cheaper platform would sell better. I actually do know a few younger folk that would have bought had the price been less.
What's impressive is that Element is selling at twice the projected rate, yet it has not cannibalized CR-V sales, which are also strong. From a marketing stand point, it's a smashing success. So is the xB.
Aztek was a dud from the beginning.
It's not alone, the Baja was a dud as well. Again, higher than expected prices.
Avalanche was successful, though.
I guess if you're going to build an out-there styled vehicle, it had better be priced right. It seems the same people that are willing to go out on a limb in terms of styling are NOT willing to bet the bank on it.
Just an observation.
-juice
IMO, the Lexus RX-330 looks similar to the Aztek. Many people out there just hate the looks of the RX-330, while the looks of the older RX-300 was very nice. And look how good it sells! And for what price! That's Lexus quality people go for, and of course excellent driving dynamics with so many features adds to the excitement. In such case, who cares about looks?