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

irg · February 2005

I am not sure I understand you. I guess I cannot read minds either. Originally I said something that the Sienna - which I knew had the highest IIHS safety record, would be safer than the GM model. Since the Sienna scored as high as possible, the best GM could do would be to tie it.

Maybe over the years the GM had a better track record, although I think the methodology for testing vans has also changed. The old Toyota vans may not have done well, but that has certainly changed. What is odd, is that if the GM vans did do well, either when they last redesigned them, they were poorly redesigned, or the crash testing results got tougher. Either way, what is important as a new van buyer, is how does the new models fair?

And with that, the Sienna fairs well, and the GM doesn't. Hopefully this new Uplander/SV6 will address these safety concerns, and I would wager that they will score better than they had in the past. Whether they score as good as the Sierra remains to be seen.

I guess I do care about the safety record, but the single crash test is indicative to me of how safe the vehicle is. In the testing done by IIHS, the Sienna scored well in their testing. That to me, makes it seem safer, than a vehicle which scored poorly in all categories. In other words, I do equate safety record (of the current model year, not 10 years ago) with how it does in a crash testing. Hence my original feeling that the Sienna is safer then the GM van. Sorry if this sounds confusing and misguided.

montanafan · February 2005

Do you watch any of the baseball season after openning day? (And if you are not a baseball fan work with me here, ok ;-)) A crash test is a single event, that can be hard to duplicate. The National Trafic Highway Safety Administration site has reports of identical vehicles being crashed for dummy tests, that show dramitic differences in body deformation ,as an example. That is why the baseball season is 162 games long. That is why the IIHS report that looks at real world data (personal injury protection claims in 17 states +DC)over a three year period can so helpful.

In their September 2004 (most recent report)covering model years 2001-2003 (before the most recent Sienna redesign), the IIHS rates the Montana as "substantially better then average" and the Sienna (with a 37% higher rating) as "better then average". This continues a "record" of GM's vans scoring better then Toyota.

As far as the current versions of each car. In NHTSA frontal crash testing, the 05 SV6 and 05 Sienna scores are simular. And while they haven't done the side crash test on the SV6 yet, the new 05 Sienna is a close match for the old generation Montana.

The new GM vans are designed to be an improvement on the previous generation's excellent "record", (as opposed to a single crash test "rating"). And with standard DVD and OnStar, GM has designed them to have the most rounded safety package available.

tamu2002 · February 2005

I never thought of it and wasn't aware of such injury records. I'm glad to see GM has done well in this category. Incidentally, you brought up the question of how predictive lab crash tests are of real world performance.

montanafan · February 2005

As seen at the GM Media announcement site, http://www.buick.com/dream/ for those who are looking at the Terraza (or even those who aren't). Buick will give you a Marriott certificate this weekend. Follow link for info.

irg · February 2005

I guess I don't understand what the "record" you are referring to is, with respect to the GM vans. Maybe it is government and not the IIHS crash testing record, but the I thought the GM vans (not the brand new Uplander, but the Venture, et al) did not have a good record. In some crash testing scenarios it may have done well, but in some scores not so good - the ones they mentioned in my original link. When I went to the IIHS site, as many new car buyers might, I wanted to know, according to this site, what vans scored well, and what ones didn't if any. After reading their findings, whether or not it is a single crash test, or 20, the fact remains to me, that the Sienna scored the highest possible score, and the Montana scored poorly.

I understand your point, in that you are looking at the overal track record, hence time. I am simply looking at what scores are available for the current model being sold. Even if it is just ONE test, the one test tells me that a) the Sienna aced it. Not statistically accurate, but doubtful that they are going to test 50 vans, and most likely with the same exact test they will score similarly, and b) the Montana didn't do well on this one test. Same "logic" as applied above, if it scored poorly here, most likely the same test 49 more times it won't have scored much better. Not scientifically accurate I know.

You keep mentioning the older Sienna (which still scored better than average)but I am not concerned with this model, as I am not buying it, or the older Montana.

The report I read, did not say good things about the Montana, but your reference says it scored substantially better than average. Seems like the IIHS is contradicting itself somewhat.

My (overall) point is that as a consumer, I am looking at all sorts of data, included the brochures, Edmunds, opinions from owners, as well as CR, and data from IIHS. I can't and won't spend all day looking at this data, I simply want to know how they view the current model offerings, and the Sienna scored the highest, while GM did not. That's my story and I am sticking to it!

dirkwork · February 2005

Short and sweet, what the difference is if I understand correctly, is that "IRG" is refering to test results, which are done with dummies and instruments. The historical safety of the vans that "MontanaFan" brings up are REAL LIFE statistics of injuries based on whatever accidents actual van users get. You're comparing apples and oranges.

True, the older style vans did not do well on "offset" head-on "test" crashes because of the foot area. The newer vans that are the subject of this discussion area have significantly extended noses and likely other changes that should provide excellent crash results with offset head-on crashes.

For me, the excellent antilock, front and side airbags and traction control on my older van make it the safest vehicle I've owned. The new GM vans should be even better for crashing, if that's your thing.

D

irg · February 2005

I think you nailed it. We were looking at two different scenarios - tests vs. real life statistics. I think the new GM vans will do better on the test scores. I will be curious to see how they do on the side impact crash test for the rear passengers since they don't have side air bags. But since vans sit up higher, it may not make much difference. Is the new recent side crash though, done with a weight that is supposed to resemble a SUV though? Either van though, is probably going to be safer than the Saturn L300 I have now.

jnt · February 2005

It is not fair to compare the current Sienna data with old Venture van 's and categorily says GM new vans are inferior due to their past preformance.

The old Venture/Montana/Olds Sil were odd ball in the way GM designed their vehicles in recent history: Low weight at any cost! They made a dumb mistake by making these vans "global vehicles" so that GM Europe and GM US can sell variations of the design. It sounded good on paper, but in practice, there were too many compromises made. One of the worst ones was "shaky" body integrity. They skimmed on body re-enforcement in order to lower vehicle weight. As a result, these vehicles shaked and rattled even when they were new. I am the proud owner of 97 Olds van when it first came out. Over the years (97-2003), I noticed GM has made some improvements in this area. But they were minor only. BTW, bad body structure is always proportional to bad crash test results

Now on 05 Uplander, I believe GM actually has beefed up the vehicle structure substantially. They add 200-300 lbs to the vehile. So, I suspect the new vans should be a different animals.

JT

2005 sv6 · February 2005

I own a 2005 Montana SV6, and at 500 miles I noticed with the transmission in drive, brake applied, vehicle stopped, that when I release the brake and slowly move forward without pressing the accelerator, there is a vibration in the vehicle. It feels like the engine is missing out. When I press the accelerator the vibration goes away and does not return at any other driving condition. No idiot lights are activated. I also here a whistling noise upon acceleration.

I took it to the dealer and they couldn't find anything with their diagnostics. I told them that the problem did not start until we filled up van with gas from Sam's. The dealer put a gas additive in the fuel which helped. I have since done some research on the web about gas, and all the major gas companies, shell, phillips 66, mobil, chevron, amoco/bp, marathon, sunoco, put performance and cleaner additives in their fuels, but the off brand companies, speedway, citgo, sams, walmart, etc. do not. We will see if this is true as we are now ready for another tank of gas and will probably go with shell.

After running a couple tanks of shell through the engine, the problem still persisted, so I took it back to the dealer. They did every diagnostic that they could do and couldn't find anything wrong. They then worked with the GM engineers, sending them data and pictures of the inside of the cylinders, and still no solution. Finally GM sent a field engineer to the dealer with his equipment, spent a half day on it, and gave up.

The dealer then told me that the vibration was just inherent to the Uplander, Terazza, Relay, and SV6 control systems, as all the vehicles on the lot exhibited the same problem to some degree. They then told me to look for a service engine light or bring it back if the problem gets worse. Apparantly I was the first to complain about it, and the problem in my vehicle was more noticeable than the others on the lot. In fact in some vehicles, it would probably go unnoticed, unless you were looking for it.

The night after picking up my vehicle, I noticed that the vibration also occurred at higher RPM's right when the vehicle starts rolling from a stop, and then goes away. I produced that incident by driving up my inclined driveway very slowly. The engine speed was about 1200 RPM when the vehicle started to roll and then vibrate. I tried to reproduce the vibration with the transmission in reverse, but could not.

If you own any of the 2005 GM minivans, please look for this problem and then complain about it, so GM will address the issue.

Also, a common complaint with these minivans is that the interior and head lights flicker, and there is a whining noise upon engine acceleration that might be a problem with the alternator. This problem might also be tied in with the vibration. Unofficially I have heard that GM is coming out with a fix for the alternator, but my dealer knew nothing about it.

tjhsmith · February 2005

Here's a link to a document produced by Saturn for training its sales personnel about the Relay. It shows the sales reps how to talk about all the vehicle's features and makes comparisons with competing minivans. Thought it was interesting.

http://www.relaytraining.com/PDFs/RELAY Product Guide.pdf

vanman1 · February 2005

I can't imagine that everyone who had that issue would not complain. Clearly something is wrong and I can't see how the dealer would say it "was just inherent" to these vans.

stever · February 2005

"Rich wood and gleaming chrome give the Terraza's cabin an upscale look. Most of our editors agreed that the van's interior is more luxurious than the Odyssey's, and breathes the same rarified air as the Sienna's class-leading, Lexus-like accommodations."

Full Test: 2005 Buick Terraza CXL (Inside Line)

Steve, Host

vanman1 · February 2005

These vans would be a real contenders with even just the addition of the 240hp 3.9L as and option and the air curtains. I hope someone at GM is working on this for 2006 as the interior of these vans is excellent.

wheelz4 · February 2005

In addition, they should've included a 5-speed automatic. The GM vans used to lead in terms of fuel economy but now are barely mid-pack. A 5 speed auto may have helped offset the losses due to the extra weight, poorer aerodynamics and larger engine.

cla1 · February 2005

Having lived witht the Terraza CXL for about a month, I thought the test was pretty accurate. But what is the thing about the doors? Anyone who has this van or any of the GM's I would think, uses the remote and the very handy switches inside to operate the doors. Even our young grandkids use them. Interesting that Car and Drive said the same vehicle had the best brakes of any mini they had tested. Overall we like it well, my wife is the main driver and she loves it. It's very nice on trips, comfortable and quiet.

stever · February 2005

If I had power doors, I'd always use the fob to open them, but it seems sort of natural to shove them closed (or at least shove them to get them started). Maybe it's just an old habit that's hard to break?

Steve, Host

kmk · February 2005

I just saw that the uplander has 4wd?? Does anyone own one and how do you like it.

dan165 · February 2005

I tested a loaded Uplander yesterday with my wife and we were very impressed. Ride quality was excellent as was the interior. We never thought we would buy a mini van (2 of 3 kids have left home) but we may buy one as we like the SUV look and the minivan ride/mileage.

kmk · February 2005

I actually went and did more research after I posted this message and alot of the chevy's got bad crash reviews. www.hwysafety.org

dan165 · February 2005

There is no Uplander results there. Perhaps you saw the old Venture results??

vanman1 · February 2005

I don't think the Uplander has been tested yet.

They should be decent though.

montanafan · February 2005

The IIHS has never tested a Venture, just a Pontiac TransSport in the fall of 1996.

jchan2 · February 2005

But the TranSport is basically a rebadged Venture.

wheelz4 · February 2005

Did you test a regular or long wheelbase Uplander?
What sort of $$$ we're they looking for at this point?

tjhsmith · February 2005

Here's a link to the NHTSA crash result on the Uplander:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/3062.html

2005 sv6 · February 2005

I thought the same thing, but as I said before, the vibration in my van was much more noticeable than the other vans on the lot, so if you're not looking for it, it may go unnoticed. I would caution anyone from buying these vans for about a year until they get the bugs worked out. My brother is an engineer for Delphi Delco Electronics who make the engine computers for GM vehicles, and he says that GM's new model reliability is not very good.

vanman1 · February 2005

2005sv6 : ANY new model carries a risk of bug and GM is really no worse than anyone else. Even Honda and Toyota have had many 1st year bugs as of late. I have never bought a first year car mainly because the deals on 2-3+ year old models is always better. That said, it's less of a problem than it used to be.

tjhsmith : Crash tests look pretty good so far. looks like only some have been done so far.

wasdiesel · February 2005

Took the Terraza CXL in for 1st service after 1 month with the following complaints and got virtually the same response from the service department for each of these issues.
1. Headlights / dash lights flicker - Response -IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY.
2. Voltage varies between 12.1 & 15.2v while driving at highway speed - Response - IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY
3. Instrument dial pointers do not light when manually turning on the lights - Response - IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY.
When I asked if the power issues were the same as previously resolved on the Montana - Response - COMPLETELY NEW TECHNOLOGY.
So, I guess if you design it that way you will never have to repair it, because it already does that

vanman1 · February 2005

Flicker sounds like a alternator issue. We had it on our Intrigue (mainly in real cold weather). When it was replaced the flicker was gone. I suspect it is the cause of your voltage issue also. I would go to another dealership if that's what they are telling you or call GM.

Our 2004 Montana has no such issues after 10 months of service.

montanafan · February 2005

They can take them to as many dealers as time allows, they will still get the same answer. It is operating as designed and GM is working on a fix for the issue.

And the 2004 Montanas (whole previous generation for that matter) does not have the same charging system design as the new 2005 generation. The 2005s use a regulated voltage control system that will vary alternator output based on operating conditions and battery conditions.

dan165 · February 2005

Tested an Uplander LT extended.

Only incentives were 1.4% for 60 months or 0.5% lease rate for 36/48 months. No cash at all, but the dealer was willing to take off about $2500 with out me asking. List price was in the low $30K (Canadian) range I believe. It had remote start, On Star and big alloy wheels. Looked great.

Still considering it though we are not 100% a van is for us right now.

vanman1 · February 2005

Prices are more reasonable so the discounts may be also. I remember our 2004 Montana RWB listed for around $33K and we got about $4800 cash plus 0.5% lease. It was crazy.

montanafan · March 2005

I know there have been several posts about how hard it has been to find the vans in the equipment levels wanted. Our daughter's former school teacher is replacing her 1997 TransSport. She ordered a new SV6 on Wednesday February 23rd and it was built Monday February 28th and is expected at the dealer March 15th. Don't know what planets aligned to allow this, and I know most people looking are looking for the Terraza, but if you can't find the van today, check out ordering.

danno · March 2005

Just to post a note on what percent is showing on my oil life minder - Uplander LT

4,654 kms (2,909 miles) - 53% remaining.

I operate in what I would call severe duty climate - frequent remote starts, sub-zero temps most of the winter, 50/50 highway city driving

What are other owners seeing?

wheelz4 · March 2005

We're struggling with that "do we really need/want a van" thing too. Thought the new Mazda5 might work for us but it's a little too "tunerish" (is that a word?!) if you know what I mean. Those 17" wheels/50 series tires wouldn't have fared too well on the washboard logging road we drove last summer. If we do go the van route, it'll be the short wheelbase version...probably the SV6, though we'll check out the MPV again as well. Might even consider the short wheelbase version of the new Kia Sedona, though it probably won't arrive here until 2006. Really need a 4+2 or 5+2 seater but don't want to break the bank.

dan165 · March 2005

It's not that we don't want a van, it's more that we have always had SUVs. The look of the Uplander appeals to me but my wife is not sold.

I'm working on her though. I like the standrd MP3 player, I can burn all those songs I have on my computer and listen to them!

wasdiesel · March 2005

My Terraza shows 40% Oil Life @ 5,600 kms (3,416 miles).
Mostly highway. 40% towing a trailer

danno · March 2005

Thanks wasdiesel.

Looks like this reinforces my thoughts that these vans will go about 9,000 kms or 5,600 miles between oil changes. GM has warrantied these to 100,000 kms at that oil change interval. Kind of blows the theory of 5,000 km oil changes out of the water. (assumes most modern engines have similar oil specs)

This huge oil conservation news.

The advertising has us changing oil twice as much as required.

heath2 · March 2005

I just purchased the new uplander and noticed a few days later that the instrument lights flicker in unison with the headlights.The dealership stated that they have never heard of this before.I wonder, is the 120v a/c receptacle standard on these vehicles and could that be causing some kind of floating ground? My sister in-law owns the Saturn Relay and has the same problem.

wasdiesel · March 2005

My Terraza does not have the 100volt A/C outlet and was credited on the factory invoice.
However, the flickering issue is there, but appears to be lessened after a recent service visit for that complaint amongst other minor points.

vanman1 · March 2005

We resisted getting a van for a long time but with 2 kids and gas prices where they were, the only alternative was a gas guzzling SUV. We could not be happier with our 04 Montana, mini vans are just so handy and I am only sorry we didn't get one earlier.

heath2 · March 2005

Thanks for replying.I did hear about a chevrolet uplander going back to the dealership because the radio periodically would shut off on its own.I have electric doors on each side and I hope they will not fail.The electric rollouts for the rear windows is a nice feature.I have owned a '02 Tahoe,traded it on an '04 Avalanch(no plastic siding) and traded that for the Uplander.Out of the three the Uplander takes the gold due to the gas mileage and how easy it is to load and unload.

kermode · March 2005

Having an extremely frustrating time ordering assessories for the new vans. Even though they are in the brochures finding information on availability is about impossible. Can't blame the dealers. GM should be ahead of the game and have them on offer when new models appear. Anybody else having similar problems? We ordered a new sv6. From initial order it took about 9 weeks to arrive at the dealership.

dtownfb · March 2005

How does the Oil Life monitor work in the Uplander? I have an Intrigue and it works on the number of revs of the engine and really isn't a good tester of the oil quality. I imagine the Uplander works the same way.

Personally, if this is your first oil change, I would change it at 3000 miles, then rely on the oil life indicator afterwards especially if you are driving under severe duty climate.

Just a thought.

brood1213 · March 2005

The monitor works with various sensors that check your altitude, oil temp, and etc. GM is going to be pushing this in the future.

goodeguy · March 2005

Speaking of freaky electronic problems I have had my SV6 all of 10 days,....the 2nd day we noticed a buzzing in the speakers from the engine when we played the DVD player through the speakers....GM said they would not fix it and the dealer said he has had the problem in the other SV6 on his lot ( there was only 2)...so looks like a recall waiting to happen ( hopefully in my lifetime) in the meantime the cust svc rep told me " we will close your case and call you an unsatisifed customer" DUH!!! they don't seem to care too much...ANYONE ELSE WITH THIS PROBLEM????

stever · March 2005

A GM customer service rep told you that? For a GM installed DVD?

I think I'd escalate it up the chain; maybe a letter to the CEO is in order (or maybe you have one of those "on your side" TV shows in your area?).

Steve, Host

vanman1 · March 2005

The dealer will fix it I'm sure. If they acknowledged the problem and they are a good dealer, I'm sure they will let GM know. Strength in numbers.

Why would you call GM direct on a problem like that though? The dealer would fix that.

2005 sv6 · March 2005

I own an SV6 and have the same problem. Might be related to alternator. Supposedly GM is coming out with an alternator fix within the next month or so. All the new GM minivans have these kinds of electronic issues, which also may reak havoc on the engine/transmission control system. All the sensors and computers don't like electronic noise or volatge fluctuations, so you may also pay attention to engine idle, transmission shifting, and so forth. There are numerous complaints with those as well.

dirkwork · March 2005

Funny how GM is so poor on alternators. My family owns 3 3.8l Pontiac Bonnevilles and each has had about 4 or more alternators, you almost need to keep a spare in the trunk. The regulator part seems to give out. Back in 2000 I was looking for new cars and noticed the Old Intrigue I was test driving had the flickering headlights right off the lot and posters on this site alerted me to the fact that it was a problem with nearly all of them. It seems that GM still isn't out of the woods yet on Alternator design. My 98 Olds van looked to have had the Alternator replaced before I bought it. I don't get the flickering, so not sure what the difference is on ones that do and those that don't.

In contrast, my '88 Dodge Shadow had a 125 amp alternator that I drove for 13 years and I never touched the alternator, same for my Dad's 1970 Toyota, etc. Large diesel tractor trucks have alternators that last about over 500k or aboutu forever, just need brushes, so clearly this is an issue of trying to save $1.50 on parts and it causing problems.

As a GM fan, its disheartening to see problems that could be easily fixed persist.

DD

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles