By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It is tiresome that often in some of the other discussions, when the general subject of minivans comes up the gm's are usually dismissed as having "abysmal crash test results and they all have intake gasket problems"
oh, well....mine is proving to be a great car so far...fits our vehicle needs perfectly, and fit our budget, too
I don't want to argue about the ratings but have found no proof to substantiate what Montanafan is saying. All of the data points in the other direction. The facts are that the GM Trio are not as safe nor as reliable as the Ody, Sienna and MPV. Even the Kia Sedona is rated higher. They also cost just as much if not more as in the Silhouette. I drive cars forever and just didn't feel that the GM vans would be in for the long run. According to the stats. I think I'm correct.
Good Luck!
If one considers sales numbers as the criteria for best minivan, the undisputed best minivan would be the Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan. I happen to think the Sienna is a better van while the Venture would be far higher on my list than a Mazda MPV.
The MPV, small it is, but with a large attitude. Have you driven one? Have you loaded one up with kids (5 to be exact) and taken a trip. I have, and guess what? It's awesome! It drives like a car rather than a boat caught in a current and it has alot of power. As a matter of fact, mine actually is in my garage and getting driven every day instead of being stuck in the service department of the dealership having warranty issues dealt with. Did you know it has a 3.0, 200 HP engine? The '02 and '03 MPV's are rated as highly as the Ody and Sienna. Show me an american made van that has an "Excellent" rating. Sales in New England are up to the point of many folks having to order them. Now for a family of 4, 2 kids, 2 adults, the MPV is great. I don't need a boat on wheels and it's even sporty looking. With the GFX package, we turn heads.
Now, Chryslers may be big sellers, of course I see one every two feet, but that doesn't mean their any good. Unfortunately not many people go for reliability these days. It's price. Yet I don't understand why anyone would spend that kind of money on a piece of junk. Oh and just to clear the record, I have been up close and personal with the Chryslers and the GM's. Owned a few and have to say they are better off parked in someone elses driveway then mine.
I've done my research, months to be exact, have you?
As with you I do not, can not, and will not argue reliability. What I do find funny is comparing the price quotes for extended warranties between vehcile having good/bad reliability reputations. From the Edmunds front page, I clicked to Warrantybynet.com and got quotes on a 2003 Montana and a 2003 MPV. Their best warranty the premier advantage series 7 year/100,000 $0 deductible is $1,426 Mazda and $1,509 Pontiac. A company that will pay the bills, thinks they only need to charge $83 more for the GM car. Makes you go hummmmmm.
Plus if we never get any good weather here in Mass, who needs a family car to go anywhere.
That is interesting about the extended warranty. I don't bother with it only because I hate paying out the extra money. The last time I did buy one, it was a total rip off. My MPV is under warranty for 4/50k which ever comes first. The best warranty I came across was for the Kia Sedona which is 10/100k and that's their base warranty. It made me wonder though why they needed to place that kind of warranty on it.
Maybe I think too much? I also love a good debate! Can you tell?
Steve, Host
The engine in the MPV is a refined, by Mazda, 3.0, 200 hp Duratec engine. It's a great engine and been in production for years. Now the drivetrain is made by a Japanese company called JATCO (Japanese Automatic Transmission Company). The MPV is actually manufactured in Japan. Ford has approximately a 34% interest in Mazda but only on certain models. They also have an interest in Jaguar and a few others. You can go to the Mazdausa.com site or go into the Ford motor company site and see for yourself. I also don't have anything against GM or Chrysler engines per-say. It's the other components that they are put together with. While the engine of any car is one of the major parts of the vehicle (no engine, no run) it takes many components to make the vehicle i.e. the transmission. If you told me that the MPV had a Ford engine, not refined by Mazda with a Ford tranny, I would run the other way. Like I said, I did my homework.
Anything else you want to point out?
With the Chevy Venture, a person buys a vehicle with a GM engine and a GM transmission. And, yes the Venture 3.4 L V6 has much better fuel economy than the lesser Ford 3.0 L V6 in a vehicle with more interior space than the Mazda mini-MPV.
I think obviously you don't like the MPV and will find anything to diss it. That's fine. You like Toyota's and they are also reliable vehicles and their is no denying that. I just didn't want the price tag or the size of the '04 Sienna. I also didn't want to pay the price for a vehicle with the "Subpar" rating the GM's are getting. I also have 2 children and didn't need the "boat" minivan. I also get the impression that it's the MPV's compact size that you don't like. Great, don't buy it. But on the same token, don't try to make it out to be something bad. It has great ratings and it works for many families in the size department. It's also fun to drive and very comfortable.
I think if we would like to continue this debate, which I don't really care to as we are not going to agree and I'm frankly getting sick of it, that we should move it out of the Venture site and into the MPV site. I'm sure the GM folks don't really want to read all of this. You like what you like, and I like what I like.
Lsinc
Yes, this is a Venture forum. I did NOT start using data about the MPV until after a false statement was made about it being superior to the Venture.
Many people prefer the larger cargo volume of the Venture (19.9 cu ft vs 17.2 of MPV)with a larger engine that gets better fuel economy (19/26 vs 18/25)than the MPV. Do not forget the Venture has 210 lb-ft torque while MPV has only 200. (HP is only half the power output data of an engine). The regular Venture weighs 3699 lbs vs 3794 lbs of MPV). People also like the 8 passenger seating capability.
Most intelligent people read CR to get ideas and know that CR credibility on many issues is non-existent.
The statement that the GM trio are not as safe nor as reliable as the Japanese trio is simply not true.
Enjoy your Mazda MPV while owners of the GM trio enjoy a better van with a larger engine that delivers better fuel economy.
Oh, yes and do not forget that GM offers 2 sizes in the Venture: The regular Venture of 186.9 inches length that has more luggage space than an MPV of 187.8 inches length and the extended Venture that has MUCH more luggage and interior space.
I am intelligent, so please don't insult me. Also, I am a mother and who best knows what type of vehicle fits the family needs. I also have a mechanical background. I am after safety and reliability. The MPV fit that description FOR MY FAMILY.
I'm sorry to hear that you would risk your family by placing them in an unsafe vehicle with subpar reliability only because it's bigger and get's slighly better gas mileage. The Venture is not a power house by any means and that is information I obtained as fact from credible resources. CR is not the only resource available nor the only one that I used. Again, months of research, asking questions, test driving short term and long term and contact with my insurance company USAA. I don't state this information without backup. How about you? How much research have you put into all of the vans on the market.
Oh and I'm not sure what your problem is since your after an '04 Sienna or at least that's what your profile states. I have not downed the Sienna other than to say it's too big FOR MY FAMILY and too expensive FOR MY FAMILY. I don't like the GM trio. for many reasons but please, don't you make false statements claiming them to be fact when they aren't.
I also came onto this board because of false data presented about the GM trio. They fold like accordians in the IIHS test. The Venture received a poor rating. Is this true? The MPV received an acceptable rating. Is this true? Does CR, Edmunds, Car and Driver, Popular Mechanics state these facts? YES! Is the Venture rated "Fair" in reliability? Is the MPV rated "Excellent" in the reliability rating? Again, YES. Again, show me where it is stated differently.
I HAVE NOT POSTED FALSE INFORMATION REGARDING THE MPV. READ THE FACTS. My discussion with you is over. I can't stand debating with uninformed people who can't admit to being wrong.
Enjoy your death trap if you in fact even own one.
Lsinc
I will no longer post in this site.
Again I apologize.
Lsinc
I bought my 00 Windstar (ok, so Ford bribed me with 4 grand and 0.9%) to replace a junk 95 Windstar as the Windstars always had great crash tests results. 2 years later I find the IIHS stats shows it has a higher death rate than the 00 Venture I also have which had lousy crash results. I seriously doubt the drivers of Windstars are more aggressive than Venture drivers.It may well be that in a crash you may be better off in the Ford all else being equal but maybe you are more likely to get into the crash due to visibility/braking or cornering ability or something in the Ford! Its like SUVs till recently, in a crash test you may be great but real road stats show you are something like several times more likely to roll it and kill yourself.
BMW changed its 3 series in the mid/ late 90s to comply better with Euro crash tests (offset) and they ended up failing US Federal frontal crash tests. I doubt any of the drivers in real life noted any difference in their fatality statistics but it sure made a difference in the govt tests!
When the IIHS wants to conduct real world testing with different size vehicles crashing into each other, then it might be worth a look at the results.
I have a confession, I am not intelligent or good looking, but, my does love me!
Based on the crash test ratings, reliability ratings, consumer opinions, insurance information, test driving, talking to credable people, personal needs and finances, is how I made my decision. Not just the crash tests or how much actual input they have in the real world. Again, it's a data point placed into the whole picture. Based on all of that information, the MPV is a safer and more reliable vehicle then the Venture. If I had needed the larger van I would have purchased the Sienna. Again, it's safer and has excellent reliability. It's size, gas mileage and gadgets had nothing to do with my decision. Which vehicle has the most torque had nothing to do with it.
I hope now I can honestly lay this to rest. I don't want to argue or insult anyone. I just wanted to make a point on some information I felt was inaccurate. Opinions are not facts. I am not always right and will admit when I am wrong.
The problem with the IIHS system is that it gives a false sense of security to people who buy smaller vehicles with high ratings. That rating will only hold up if you hit the identical vehicle of the same weight and if not you might be in for a big surprise about your choice.
Horsepower isn't everything, torque is what get your vehicle moving. The 3.4 has 90 % of its torque available from about 1800 rpms, which is where you need it to get going.
If you check out www.lemonlaw.com/lemonlist.html you will see what vehicle had the highest complaint index ratio. (It's the MPV).
You talked about reliability! Consumers Reports is not something that is that reliable. They need only 100 people to respond to their survey and they can tell you how a vehicle is. Who are these people and where do they live? CR won't tell you and it sure makes a difference if you live in the "Rust Belt" as I do or in sunny Califoria.
Try to rent a foreign minivan from a major rental car company, I can't, only American minivans. If a van has been a rental (we all drive rentals like our own vehicles!) I would expect those vehicle to have more problems do to abuse of renting. So if American minivans are the ones that get rented not the foreign minivans I would believe thats why they score so low on the reliability survey and would expect CR to find out which vans are rentals and not count them. And one more thing, J.D. Powers will send out a survey to the people that actually bought a new vehicle, with the CR survey ( you just need to subscribe and they will send you a survey) you don't even know if the people own the vehicles that they trash or praise! Great information in my book.
I am not here trash anybodys vehicle choice, but, the todays "informed consumer" might not be as informed as they think.
The crash test pics don't look too great, but the real world stats look pretty darn good for the triplets. I don't put much faith in the lawyers' page either - it's been a while since I looked through the list of complaints at the NHTSA, but lots of stuff in their database was duplicated, and lots of stuff concerned niggling little problems that really didn't affect safety.
(I dare you to try to stay away, troublemaker <g>)
Steve, Host
But alas, now I'm gonna have to go trade in my brand new MPV for a much bigger, much better, safer, faster and more reliable Venture. My husband isn't going to be happy with me! I mean, how could I be so stupid? 6 months of research down the drain! I purchased a Mazda MPV!!! It's not reliable, not safe and to top it all off, IT's A FORD! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I'm also going to go outside and burn every single piece of research information I obtained. I'm handing in my mechanics license and hanging up my research hat and going into the sheep pen! Baaaaaaaa!
Ya know, I'm getting a little tired of the implications that I'm less then intelligent because I dare to use certain criteria in making informed decisions. Frankly, I think that anybody that doesn't consider this information as viable data points are the ones that are stupid.
Crank on the MPV all you want. I know what I bought, I know why I bought it and I'll still be driving it long after all of you throw in the towel because your sick of the constant visits to the service department. I also will try to be compassionate to those who try to recoup money on a resale. Sorry folks, the sheep pen is pretty full!!
I certainly won't be drag racing with my MPV even though the thought of torquing up the engine sounds like fun. But the "Mother" in me doesn't want to set a bad example for my children.
I mean a whole 10 lb-ft of torque more on the Venture, with it's traditional push rod engine, has me all hot and bothered!! Oh and what about the size? How could I forget, I really want to drive an "under-breaked" large van that I don't need! Believe me, I'm familiar with GM's breaks. I have had many nightmares about not being able to stop in time! I will also miss having to have my rotors turned every 10k.
Well, I must go! I have to go eat crow! It tastes awful too!
Lsinc (AKA: Stupid Trouble Maker)
Just don't call the Venture a "minivan". (San Antonio Express-News)
Steve, Host
I have noticed a trend on this site: those unhappy with their cars write much more than those happy. I see no end to the Windstar complainers, but know three people who own late model Winstars and LOVE them. I read a number of complaints here, but know four friends who own the GM triplets, and have heard not one word of problems (and one has well over 100K miles.) Could I hear from those happy with their vans? What is your experience in durability? What is the fuel mileage? Why do you like it?
Now's a good time for you lurkers to rave....
Steve, Host
Overall, this van has been excellent. Some minor problems, like a rear hatch actuator, the power door recalls, and a service engine light (needed recalibration).
No intake manifold problem (knock on plastic).
Averaging 23 mpg overall, it's a base GL model.
Now have 35k miles on Michelin Symmetry tires, and they still look great. Treadwear very even across all tires. (Never been aligned!)
Van should hit 100k miles around mid-August.
Repairs under warranty: right rear shock absorber (leaked, replaced twice), alternator replace at 20K (?) miles due to being noisy/whiny. That's all.
My wife drives the van and she loves it. She refuses to drive my 2001 Mazda Millenia S.
We have the 8 seater, and it really comes in handy - especially given the fact that we have 2 boys and live-in nanny and visiting grandmother. Even with all the seats up there is still plenty of room for luggage.
I hope it will hold up well, it'll be 4 years in November. At 37.5K miles I want to do coolant flush, just in case ...
Gas mileage: 19 in winter/city (lots of idling waiting for the school bus and such), 22 in mixed traffic, 25 mpg on the highway going 70-75mph with 4-5 people and some light luggage. Drops to 21-22 at 80-85mph. Not bad!
Tomek
anybody with any expertise on this out there with any input would be appreciated by at least three people! thanks
I would also highly recommend the 8 pass seating if you have more than 2 kids. I have the fold flat rear seat, and can load the van with tons of cargo from Lowe's, and still have room for my family of 5. I honestly can't think of anything I don't like about the van. More power would be nice, but I certainly wouldn't sacrifice my gas mileage for it, the 3.4L does a great job.
We love it.
We now have 3 small children (4 yrs, 2 yrs and 3 months); and thus, we need 3 child seats!
We would like to put both older children in the 3rd row;
BUT,
there only seems to be 1 attachment for a child seat in the 3rd row!
ALSO,
although the captain's seat do have the LATCH system (i.e. hooks such that you dont have to screw up your seat belt!), the 3rd row doesn't have this at all!?
QUESTION:
a) does anyone know if the 3 LACTH hooks (1 in the back and 2 on the sides) can be installed on the 3rd row;
b) has anyone done this?
c) where? how much? e.g. dealer only?
COMMENTS:
Hey! this is a mini-van! i.e. meant for children. Why oh why did GM only put LATCH system hooks on some of the seats!?
--> design people: the hooks probably cost like $1 each; put them everywhere!!!!
Thank you,
Nicolas
Steve, Host
Dealer is going to look at it this week. Said there is a "bulletin" on a solenoid causing harsh up shift. One other rare symptom that occurred after a 300 mile trip that I can't duplicate now is very harsh upshift in all gear ranges and a constant worn gear noise. Couldn't make happen after testing for 40 miles of all kinds and speeds of driving. That trouble disappeared.
Anyone else have similar problems? A friend who has GM mechanic friends sez a transaxle replacement will probably be needed. Yikes if so..3 months and 1,300 miles out of warrenty!
What great design engineering! Just past warrenty! I have loyally owned Chevy's for 40 years...never had a really bad one...and all have been used ones except this is our first new one.
Look to the Federal Government as far as the number of each. While most comments they received suggested LATCH/Teather in all rear seating locations, the found the numbers of families with three or more children in car seats to be not of significant number. So to minimize costs, the law only requires 3 Top Teathers and 2 LATCH tie downs. I imagine when cars are completely redesignned, they will go to LATCH in all spots if they fit.