Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are you under 40 and think that you might not be able to afford a brand new vehicle when you purchase your next car? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/16 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

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



  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    "We'll probably end up spending more than we have planned"

    I would never do this for a van. On a car, maybe.

  • tamu2002tamu2002 Posts: 758
    To my wife, a van is what a BMW roaster is to you--the ultimate driving machine :)
  • kcoreykcorey Posts: 130
    WOW!! It's hard to believe! Someone else tried out a Terraza...and bought it; and just when I was giving up on the rest of the human race. Mine was $26,000 (in New York City). I sold my 2002 Olds Intrigue privately (it was worth more that way). You're right; it's a great buy. I tried out almost 30 different makes. It has more room, especially in the back seats, is more comfortable and quiet than any thing else up to $35,000. I have 5 grandchildren and needed room for them all. I would never have bought a DVD on my own, but this is included...and they love it! The only option I got was heated seats (they were in my Olds and my wife loved them). The Buick is lower in cost than the Pontiac, Saturn and Chev...why, I don't's much more car. :blush:
  • cla1cla1 Posts: 27
    I'm a happy Terraza owner, my son is a happy Oddessy owner. In most respects they are the same. His has a very cool nav system and a back up camera that is just very very nice. But the Buick has a very nice audio system, the ride is as good, as is the quiet. We did not drive an uplander, but I know from other discussions the Terraza is quiter. The Ody has a little more grunt, I would say the engine sounds more sophisticated, and it does have a 5 speed trany and seats that go in the floor. But it was 7-8k more and we just didn't think it was worth it. I can't remember if the Ody has stabilitrak, and On-star which we liked. Yes it has side curtain airbags and Buick doesn't, but I don't think they are a critical feature. Anyway, it's cost. I have no idea how some of you are coming up with the Terraza being more expensive. We thought it was a good deal. Yes, I was surprised that the chevy was just as much and didn't have some nice features, like IRS, etc. JMHO
  • jerrywimerjerrywimer Posts: 588
    According to one of the posts I saw reporting those test results GM was already at work on a fix, but I haven't seen or rear anything about it since then. It's one of the things that would have swayed my (er, my wife's) decision when we were shopping for the van in the first place had this issue been known. In nearly every other way these vans are improvements over their predecessors so we didn't expect such issues. :(
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I have seen on a few GM sites that the new 3.9L 240 hp (245 ft. lbs. torque) will be available or standard on all these CSVs (vans) for MY2006.

    Great news for people who like the vans but want more power. A 3.9L Uplander could be the fastest van on the market next year. Imagine that!!

  • maddmadd Posts: 10
    After only 6,500 miles all highway miles (no city driving) the brakes were grabbing. so I took it to the dealer to have them checked out and the dealer TURNED DOWN ALL 4 disks. I was madd and the service writer had the nerve to tell me that the reason the disks were warped was "While you were on the highway your brakes got so hot that when you pulled off on a ramp you hit the brakes and that's what warped your disks" I called GM an registered my complaint.
  • dannodanno Posts: 114
    They told me the same line with my 1997 Venture. Told the service manager I never hit the brakes hard enough to use anti-lock.
    Talk about deer in the headlights look from the service manager.

    They ended up replacing the front rotors under warranty. Again, with mostly highway driving. Funny thing is, the rotors were good for 50 - 60,00 miles after that. The rear brake shoes were never replaced and I sold it with 190,000 miles on the odometer.

    Let's see what happens with the Uplander.
  • maddmadd Posts: 10
    The Uplander was NOT my choice, it’s my wife's car and I tried to talk her into the Chrysler Town and Country with stow-and-go seating.
    The seat's in the Uplander sux.
    I had to remove one of the rear seats to accommodate her 4 wheel handy cap scooter, well the darn thing almost killed me. The 50/50 rear seats weight 75 pounds a piece and once their out NO WHEELS to pull them around.
    The leg room in the front and rear are VERY tight and for my 6'2" frame I find it very uncomfortable.
    Every time I see the Chrysler commercial for stow-and-go I grit my teeth.
    . :sick:
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Further study seems to indicate the 3.9L will be the only engine for 2006.

    Makes sense I guess.
  • dirkworkdirkwork Posts: 210
    I think the big 3 lag imports on total quality as they have very high labor costs with the UAW and push the suppliers to make parts for very cheap. When these cheaply made parts fail, they figure statistically that you are likely to not own the car anymore, or you will accept it and buy another domestic product. Without a UAW alternative, I see no real changes coming down except to get things componentized by outside contractor shops and only have UAW folks attach the packages such as the powertrain, seats, doors, glass, etc.

    If you take apart enough cars as I have you can see the difference in the parts used in domestic and imports. Its not that we can't make a quality car, but the deck is stacked against us, in addition to bad management decisions on design and engines, etc.

    I have had to replace a few things on my '98 that normally would not break on a import, such as the gear selector cable.

    All my opinion.

  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    My buddy would disagree on your parts theory. He leased a 2003 Acura TL and has had to have the brakes changed or repaired 3 times because of warping. The
    Acura dealer even admits the brakes Acura used are sub par and should not have been put on the car. In spite of it, he is likely leasing another Acura.

    I agree with you though, the deck is stacked against domestic companies with crazy legacy burdens.
  • tjhsmithtjhsmith Posts: 25
    vanman -- where did you find the info about vans getting the 3.9L engine? Can you provide a link?
  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    Here you go, straight from the GM ordering guide for 2006:

    (63U) Sport Red Metallic exterior color
    (76U) Bronzemist Metallic exterior color

    New Features
    (49U) Bordeaux Red Metallic exterior color
    (53U) Amber Bronze Metallic exterior color
    (LZ9) 3.9L 3900 V6 SFI engine - 235 hp and 239 lb-ft of torque (not available until July 2005)

    (FE3) Sport Suspension Package changed names to (FE3) Safe and Secure Package

    Exterior color (63U) Sport Red Metallic
    Exterior color (76U) Dark Bronzemist Metallic
    (U56) Entertainment Package

    New Features
    Exterior color (49U) Cranberry Red Metallic
    Exterior color (53U) Bronzestone Metallic
    (PDF) Security Package, includes (AP3) Remote vehicle starter system, (AJ7) Air bags, dual-stage, frontal, driver and right front passenger and side-impact and (UA6) Theft-deterrent alarm system
    (PDX) Sport Package, includes (LZ9) Engine, 3.9L 3900 V6 SFI, (KC4) Engine oil cooler, (P23) Wheels, 17" (43.2 cm) aluminum, Chrome Tech and Sport badging
    (LZ9) Engine, 3.9L 3900 V6 SFI
    (AW9) Air bags, dual stage, frontal, driver and right-front passenger and side impact, 1st and 2nd row outboard

    (PCR) Convenience Package replaces (PCM) Climate Package and (PDY) Premium Convenience Package. (PCR) Convenience Package includes (AJ1) Glass, Solar-Ray deep tinted, (C25) Wiper, intermittent, rear, (C49) Defogger, rear-window, electric, (C69) Air conditioning, auxiliary rear, (DR5) Mirrors, outside rearview, power, heated, black, folding, (AG1) Seat adjuster, power, driver 6-way, (V64) Luggage rails, uplevel, rooftop, brushed silver, (UH9) Driver Information Center Cluster, (FE3) Suspension, Performance, rear twist axle, (NW9) Traction control, All-speed, (KC7) Power outlet, auxiliary, rear, 115-volt and (UG1) Universal Transmitter, HomeLink
    (PCM) Preferred Package replaces (PDD) Storage and Convenience Package. (PCM) Preferred Package includes (E58) Door, power sliding, passenger-side, (DH6) Visors, illuminated vanity mirrors, (VVM) Overhead storage console, front, removable, (APY) Cargo partition, rear, mesh, (D7E) Convenience center, rear, removable, (D55) Console, center with door and CD storage, (UK3) Steering wheel, leather-wrapped with mounted radio controls, (N85) Wheels, 17" (43.2 cm) aluminum, painted and (UD7) Rear Parking Assist, Ultrasonic
    (PCQ) Premium Package replaces (PCV) Premium Seating Package. (PCQ) Premium Package includes (IP2) Seat trim, leather seating surfaces, (AG2) Seat adjuster, power, front passenger 6-way and (KA1) Seats, heated, driver and front passenger

    (U56) Entertainment system, DVD video, overhead, integrated, remote, includes rear audio and headphone jacks is replaced by (U42) Entertainment system, DVD video, overhead, integrated, remote, includes rear audio and headphone jacks (includes two infrared, dual-channel headphones)
    Exterior Color (63U) Cardinal Red Metallic
    Exterior Color (76U) Dark Bronzemist Metallic
    Gray interior no longer available with (38U) Emerald Green Metallic exterior
    (AU0) Keyless entry, remote

    New Features
    (U42) Entertainment system, DVD video, overhead, integrated, remote, includes rear audio and headphone jacks (includes two infrared, dual-channel headphones), is now Standard Equipment on all models.
    (AW9) Air bags, dual stage, frontal, driver and right front passenger and side impact, 1st and 2nd row outboard.Available on CX and Standard on CXL.
    (PDD) Comfort and Convenience Package includes (C69) Air conditioning, auxiliary rear, (UG1) Universal Home Remote, (E58) Door, power sliding, passenger-side, (A20) Windows, power, rear quarter vent, (D7E) Cargo convenience center and (APY) Cargo partition, rear. All items are included and only available with (PDD) on CX and Standard on CXL.
    (PCI) Driver Confidence Package, includes, (UA6) Theft-deterrent alarm system, (UD7) Rear Parking Assist, Ultrasonic and (E59) Door, power sliding, driver-side. All items are included and only available with (PCI) on CX and CXL
    (UMS) Entertainment system, Mobile Digital Media Player by PhatNoise
    (AP8) Keyless entry, remote extended range
    (T8S) Utility tray, 2nd row folding
    (LZ9) Engine, 3.9L 3900 V6 SFI, Available on FWD CX and CXL
    Exterior Color (49U) Dark Garnet Metallic
    Exterior Color (53U) Sandstone Metallic
    (WU2) Ship-thru upfitter Masterack

    (UG1) Universal Home Remote is removed as Standard Equipment in the CX Package, but remains Standard in the CXL Package. (UG1) is now included and only available with (PDD) Comfort and Convenience Package on CX models.
    (A20) Windows, power, rear quarter vent is removed as Standard Equipment in the CX Package, but remains Standard on the CXL Package. (A20) is now included and only available with (PDD) Comfort and Convenience Package on CX models
    (E58) Door, power sliding, passenger-side is removed as Standard Equipment in the CX Package, but remains Standard in the CXL Package. (E58) is now included and only available with (PDD) Comfort and Convenience Package on CX
    (UA6) Theft-deterrent alarm system is no longer Standard on CX and CXL, it is now included and only available with (PCI) Driver Confidence Package on CX and CXL
    (UD7) Rear Parking Assist, Ultrasonic, includes rearview LED light bar is no longer Standard on CXL. It is now included and only available with (PCI) Driver Confidence Package on CX and CXL
    (E59) Door, power sliding, driver-side is no longer Standard on CXL. It is now included and only available with (PCI) Driver Confidence Package on CX and CXL
    (KC4) Engine oil cooler is now included with (LX9) and (LZ9) engines

    Exterior color (63U) Berry Red
    Exterior color (76U) Bronze Mist

    New Features
    Exterior color (49U) Black Cherry
    Exterior color (53U) Bronzed Pewter
    (AW9) Air bags, side impact, 2nd row outboard optional on RELAY 3
    (PDG) Captain's Chair Seating, includes (ABD) Seats, 7-passenger, 2nd row captain's chairs and (AW9) Air bags, side impact, 2nd row outboard optional on RELAY 2
    (U3U) Sound system, multimedia, with navigation, ETR AM/FM stereo with CD player, 6" touch screen, seek-and-scan, digital clock, auto-tone control, speed-compensated volume, TheftLock and Radio Data System (RDS) (Interim availability)
    (LZ9) Engine, 3.9L V6 SFI (240 HP @ 5800 rpm, 245 lb.-ft @ 3200 rpm) available on RELAY 3 FWD
    (UE1) OnStar 6.1 provides voice recognition for Spanish and French
    (AP8) Keyless Entry, remote, extended range replaces (AU0) Keyless Entry, remote

    (PCY) Trailering Package is now (V92) Trailering provisions, and includes (KG7) Alternator, 125 amps, (KC4) Engine oil cooler and (V08) Engine cooling system, heavy-duty, and wiring harness.
    (PDD) Enhanced Convenience Package, includes (E59) Door, power sliding, driver-side and (UD7) Rear Parking Assist, Ultrasonic replaces (HAA) Power Package on RELAY 3
  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    The 3.9L will be an option on the FWD Uplander LT, FWD Terrazza CX and CXL, FWD SV6, and FWD Relay 3. No idea why not on the AWD models, which one would think would be the most needy as far as power.

    Oh, and here's where this all came from:
    link title
  • dirkworkdirkwork Posts: 210
    You hit a button with me on this one. I see countless folks complaining about their brake rotors warping in "only 30,000 miles" and stuff like that. There are reasons -

    1. high performance metalic brake pad compounds that are now hard and wear the heck out of the rotor, instead of vice versa

    2. designers realize that big heavy rotors are peformance penalty - on both acceleration and unsprung weight, so they make a trade-off. Even Nascar realizes this and on a superspeedway car the brakes are very small although they going near 200mph.

    3. cars today outperform cars from 70's, 80's, so people in general drive faster and routinely brake later and harder. Visit any major city and you see people driving like they are on a race track.

    So, today - expect to replace rotors nearly as often as you do pads. My '98 Olds van (to bring this back on topic) used up a set of pads and new rotors in 1.5 years. Part of the problem I think was the cheap import rotors, I replaced them with USA made ones guaranteed for life from the parts store. Think I'll come out ahead on that one.

    Surprised your friend's fairly lightweight Acura is using brakes like that though, light cars usually go quite a while, like 65k or more on sets.

  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Apparently brake issues with Acuras (and Hondas) are not at all uncommon at all.

    My Intrigue's 4 wheel discs went 78K kms. Just changed the pads after that.

    Not sure what causes all the warping. Some people claim it because the car has sat in a lot too long before being sold. Others claim it's from heavy use. Still others say it's cheap hardware. Not sure what to believe, but I have been lucky with my cars I guess.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Maybe the 3.9L is not made for AWD. Some engines can't run AWD systems from what I understand.

    I'd love to see DOD with those 3.9L's but I think that feature will not be added for another year or two.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    If they upgrade already the engine, why not add the 5-speed used in so many other GM cars? Why not be competitive all the way? And why is it only optional, not standard as all competitors?

    And a question to Buick: Do you really going to delete standard power windows on the CX model? Do somebody still consider Buick as an upscale brand?

    I would like to know which other GM vehicle uses the 3.9L engine (I'm not familiar with GM engines that much), can you guys point me on one? And does it have a good reliability record? Thanx for your replies!
  • dan165dan165 Posts: 653
    Samnoe, the 3.9L is an all new engine but based on either the 3.5 or the 3.8. It will have no record but it's going into the G6 GTP and a couple of other cars I think.

    5 speed transmission would have been nice but in all honesty, the 4 is really smooth and I'm still not sure what the fuss is about 5-speeds other than maybe for 1 extra mpg or bragging rights.

    Still no issues with our Uplander so far. It's had a couple of long weekends away and has been a nice ride all around. I am loving the remote start and the MP3 player especially. All vehicles should have these 2 things I think, wonderful!!!

  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    ...well, if you look around, that's because GM DOESN't have any other one to use. Every single one of their cars still uses a 4-spd automatic, the only exception being the 3 newest Caddy's which actually do have 5-spd's. Either way, there's no way these vans would get one, because there's no 5-spd auto in the parts bin that will work with the FWD layout.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    GM does have at least one 5-spd auto that they use in FWD applications.

    Saab 9-3 and 9-5 both have 5-spd autos and are FWD.

    I do not know who makes this trans, but have wondered why it is not used on other GM vehicles. The 9-5 Aero has 250hp and 258lb-ft, so I would think it could handle the 3.5 V6.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Actually, the Equinox and ucomming Torrent both have 5 speeds.
  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    I'm sorry, that's very true--I had forgotten about the Equinox.

    Either way, they still don't exactly have one that's a "perfect match" for either the 3.5L or 3.9L and most likely figure (however incorrect it may be...) that, "it's a minivan--who cares?". Plus, they use a 4-spd in virtually EVERYTHING else, so why would these vans be any different?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I think there is a joint venture of some kind that GM and Ford have that will be making 5 and 6 speed auto transmissions in the near future.

    They will come. I personally really don't care though, GM 4 speeds are about the best in biz.
  • carguy1234carguy1234 Posts: 233
    Thanks for the info.

    When will the 2006's be available? Early September?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Should see them late July or early August.

    RWB model coming to the US for the Uplander also. Good news, should have been there for 2005 since they were making it for us up here anyway.
  • strstr Posts: 64
    I have been struggling with the choice of the 2005 Montana SV6 or the Toyota Sienna. The Pontiac is winning so far. I have test driven the Montana and love it! I am especially impressed with the remote engine start. We have a 12 month old and a three year old (four in September) and this would be a huge asset to us because we live in a climate where the summers get +100 and the winters get -30. I actually like the look of both vans I think the Montana looks like you could take it off road and the Sienna has the look of a Lexus. I am wondering if the remote engine start is available on one of the Sienna packages or if it could be installed later. If anyone who has owned either van has comments about them that would help in the decision process please let me know! Interested in quality of vehicle, ease of repair (if needed) and overall handling mpg etc...
    Thank you!
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    There is no doubt that if money is not the problem here, Sienna is the way to go, for many reasons. You can install an aftermarket remote starter on any vehicle (not integrated with the security system as the GM vans, though). The Montana SV6 may be "looking" good for off-road, but in real world there shouldn't be any difference (they're both NOT good for heavy off-road). With the Sienna, You get a more powerful & refined engine with better (or equal) mileage, 5-Speed transmission, more room because the van is wider, and you have the rear fold-away seat which is very convenient and more flexible than the SV6. Also it's available in 8-passenger seating, it have better driving dynamics, better turning radius, and, if you believe the hype, better quality and reliability. And it's a better value in the long run.
  • carguy1234carguy1234 Posts: 233
    My advice: don't listen to anybody else and buy whichever you like the best.

    The only piece on advice I'd offer is that if you are planning on getting the AWD version of either van I'd go with the GM vans then (I like the Terraza the best myself). The Sienna AWD does not have a spare, and uses run flat tires (two different ones are available) that have the worst overall ratings I've ever seen (look them up at They are poor performers (noisy, poor traction, harsh ride), and have poor tread life. A lot of people are having to replace them in ~15,000 miles or so, to the tune of >$1000. That's a lot of dough per year on tires! Don't take my word for it, go look then up and see for yourself.
  • strstr Posts: 64
    Has anyone read about the changes for 2006 SV6 and Sienna? I read that the Sienna is getting a front end change and tail light change as well as inside gauge changes. The SV6 is getting a rear wiper and more safety for back seat riders as well as color changes and lots of other stuff.
    This Toyota tire thing is something I'm not sure that I want to deal with. Are they taking care of it?
    Thanks for all the advise, I am making this decision on my own since my husband says I will be the one driving it so I should choose. He has his own car so this is ultimately my choice and a hard one to make since this will be my first van purchase. I have only driven cars or SUV's. This is a major change for me!
  • carguy1234carguy1234 Posts: 233
    The biggest changes I'm aware of for 2006 on these vans in that the GM vans get air bags for the second row (I think thats up several posts back here).

    The Sienna gets several nice upgrades, including memory seats and mirrors, improved instrumentation, and a power folding third row (probably only on the high end ones though).

    Note that the tires are only an issue on the AWD Sienna. FWD's have a wide selection of tires available.
  • samnoesamnoe Posts: 731
    All the above changes are for high-end Siennas only (memory seats and mirrors, instrumentation, power folding seat).

    SV6 will get a new optional 3.9L engine (for FWD only, not AWD) with approx. 235 hp, which will beat Sienna's (if they don't upgrade to compete with Honda's Odyssey).
  • strstr Posts: 64
    I was hoping for the second row air bags on the SV6 and I love the changes you include in the Sienna. Our Envoy has memory seats and mirrors along with radio/cd memory and a/c or heat memory that you set depending on your personal taste. When I use my remote to unlock the Envoy my memory settings are set so that when I start the engine radio tunes to my setting along with volume, air comes on to a certain temperature as well as level and the seat and mirrors move to my setting. It is great especially if my husband drove last and it is set for him. I have not been looking forward to giving these features up.

    I am now wondering if I should wait for the 2006. When you say high end does that include the XLE or just the limited. I was looking into the XLE FWD we don't really need the limited and certainly do not need the AWD.
  • strstr Posts: 64
    I was really concerned about the hp of the SV6. I have only driven SUV's and cars and that would take some getting used to (I think.) I don't really know how much of a difference it makes but I know my Envoy has 250 hp. Is a change like that really very noticeable? I have driven the SV6 and loved it, it was very smooth and quiet and took the big bumps like a pro, but I have nothing to compare it to because I have never before driven a minivan (besides test driving the Buick Terraza.) I can tell you though since 1998 the cars we have bought for me to drive were a Chrysler Sebring (before kids), Lincoln Navigator, Dodge Durango and the Envoy and after test driving the SV6 I am pumped about owning a van. They are just too handy. I swore I would never own a van or at least not until I was much older (29 now) but they are looking better all the time!
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    Hey str,
    I just bought a Sienna XLE, and have spent a LOT of time researching vans (too much time really!). I began with the idea of replacing my Saturn L300 lease with a GM lease, since the "new" GM vans were coming out about the time I began looking. I drove the Buick Terraza and the Uplander AWD vans. All pretty similar to each other really. The Buick is supposed to be quieter, but the Chevy seemed about the same. The interior of these vans looked better than their previous vans for sure. I was initially skeptical of the safety records of these vans - the old models faired poorley from IIHS, but these new vans have made improvements which is welcome news. They still don't have side air bags which at first was a deal breaker, but it wouldn't be now. In fact I bought my XLE without side air bags, and one thing I read in my manual, and was concerned about, is when people (in my case 2 small kids) sit or fall asleep by the side of the vans, the air bags if deployed could be deadly. And since vans sit up higher, there is less need. Onstar on GM is also a nice feature if you ever need it.

    But GM, and I have been a fan or supporter, maybe that's the word, missed it on this redesign, as many other magazines have mentioned. It is underpowered somewhat. Around town, flat areas, it is ok. Going up hills (and there are a lot where I live) it seemed a bit anemic. This is the same engine that is in a significantly smaller Malibu. The 3.9 that is coming out this fall will be better - about where the Sienna and Odyssey have been for a couple of years. Maybe if they used a 5 speed transmission that would have helped too. Anyway, my Sienna feels powerful, quick, precise, and overall much more solid than the GM.

    Features missing. While GM has Onstar as I mentioned, the reality is that people buy minivans for convenience. The stow n go seats that almost every other van has now (Kia will soon) is missing on GM. Compare the 2 vans. There is so much more room for stowing things in the Sienna or Odyssey than the GM. And with 2 simple straps, I can fold the rear seats into the floor in seconds. Piece of cake. And I love it that they are of a 60/40 design. Why? Because 2 people can still sit on one side, while the other side is folded into the floor if you are carrying something big and bulky. At least GM did a split design, but they made it 50/50 which was dumb. Ford and Nissan don't have that option at all, which for me, made me cross them off my list.

    And while the GM comes standard with a dvd player (don't think you can delete that), it doesn't even offer a power rear door hatch. I wanted that for my wife who will be driving this most of the time. And we got dual power doors on each side. The Uplander LT has this feature too (Ls and LE Sienna make due with one) although I don't think by looking at their design whether they will withstand abuse, but that is speculation on my part. GM has had problems there before. I also like that my power doors sliding doors have power windows in them. GM doesn't. And these features can be turned off in case the kids misbehave!

    Both vans have clever features, but by and large the Sienna trumps them with more and better features. A moveable console in the front that can go in the middle, cup holders everywhere, 2 front glove compartments, and 2 other storage bins. I could go on. A JBL 10 speaker surround system (on XLE).

    The ride, handling and comfort of the Sienna was also superior. The Consumer Reports issue also agreed, giving their #1 ranking to the Odyssey, with a very close second to the Sienna, a #3 ranking but recommended for the Dodge, and the GM (Saturn in this case) was last and not recommended. This alone made me at least test drive the Sienna and Odyssey (at the time I hadn't) and after driving both, it was pretty clear to me, I wasn't going to be buying a GM product again.

    The final factor was also money. Oddly to me at least, is that the GM van is inferior to most of the others, but clearly it is outmatched to Toyota, Honda and Dodge. Yet they aren't cheap. And they aren't discounted much either. I had a hard time finding a midlevel van I could afford from GM, and believe me I ran the numbers in all directions. I also wanted to lease, and GM only does the Smartbuy in NY state. Even so, it was not going to be cheaper than the Toyota. In the end, I ended up going to Maryland and leased from for a terrific price. No one locally could touch it.

    All in all, I think the Sienna is a terrific van. Toyota's are well known for the terrific reliability and resale. GM is improving on these fronts, but not enough. I am not a GM hater, I wish they would do better, and feel that they can be competitive. But they make a lot of foolish business decisions, and this van makeover is one of them. I have seen very few of these GM vans on the roads around here, but tons of Siennas and Grand Caravans. I have been reading the owners complaints of the ones that have arrived (alternator) and hope that has been remedied. No car/van or manufacturer is perfect, they all have some defects, but GM has had far too many recently and historically. That's why they have been downgraded to junk status along with Ford.

    Before you decide on the SV6 van, do a real comparison, and drive the Odyssey and the Sienna. Drive the Dodge too. If you still want the GM, wait until the new 3.9 engine is in it. But doesn't it seem weird that in only 1 year, they are already going to be replacing/adding a new engine to this new van? Because they didn't get it right in the first place. This van is more about marketing it as a SUV hybrid which it isn't, than it is about trying to make the best van in the business. Honda and Toyota on the other hand want to be the best, and it shows. Even Hyundai and Kia with their new redesign coming out soon will show what they can do. And GM should be scared.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Sienna is a nice van but you will get more for your money with a Montana SV6 in the end. If power is a concern, the 3.9L 240 hp is coming for 2006 and will easily out haul the Sienna. Unlike what the above post is inferring, they are not replacing anything, the 3.9L is an option for people who want more power.

    Buy what you like. I researched the thing to death and in the end, the Sienna was less value to me. Everyone looks for different things, buy what suits you.
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    I did buy what suits me. I disagree strongly with your statement that the SV6 will get you more for your money in the end. It will not. It will depreciate faster because it is simply not able to compete with the quality of the Toyota. And as far as power, you are comparing what is being planned in the future, to what is current. Right now, the Toyota 3.3 is a superior engine to the 3.5 from GM. I've heard different horsepower claims of the 3.9 that is being planned for the GM. But basically it will be close to what the Toyota has now, but it will not "easily out haul the Sienna." Haha, good one. Funny thing, it still won't be as much as the Odyssey either. Does GM plan to keep using a 4 speed in their vans?

    The reliability still isn't there for GM. My new '02 3.0 Saturn powerplant had to have both the oil cooler and water pump replaced at 15k miles. My transmission on my Buick Regal failed at 50k miles (water pump also went bad). My new '99 Blazer was OK - it left me stranded 3 times, turns out just a bad battery. But considering it was less the 2 years old - oh well, I guess that can happen to any car though. But I can only speak from my actual experiences, but these did not want me to buy GM again. At least for a while.

    How was the Sienna less value to you? Not resale if that matters. Are we talking sticker price, or actual sale of van? My XLE was $26,614 to buy. The Uplander LT I looked at was more than that, with less features. Heck you can buy a Sienna LE with a basic #1 package for about $22k. Seen any SV6's for that price? I didn't, but there aren't many for sale around here still. No one seems to be buying them anyway.
  • carguy1234carguy1234 Posts: 233
    I used to think like irg (I mean thinking that I was a genius for buying a Sienna). But then as time goes buy you see that they still have issues too, just like any other make (the Sienna problems board has over 1500 posts on the 2004 redesigned model alone). While Toyota may have a slight statistical advantage over, say, a GM van in terms of overall reliability, in actuality it boils down to be a few problems per hundred units difference between them.

    I wonder how many others there are like me who bought a Toyota or Honda, and found out they have problems too (and aren't perfect), that they went back to buying something different next time around.

    So like vanman1 said: buy whatever you like the best.
  • holzwarthpholzwarthp Posts: 3
    Today I came out of the Dentist office and switched on my radio and for the 6th time the radio showed it was working but I had no sound. I was in town so I drove to the Saturn dealer and after 45 minutes they said that they were ordering me a new radio. It should be in next week. Now I have to go back to the dealer again. I hate going back to the dealer because of something that is wrong with the new car. This is the 5th time because of something wrong with the new car. Its a good thing that I am retired. Paul in Sutton, MA
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Value does not equal resale. We keep our vehicles for 8-9 years. After that amount of time, it really is a negligible amount of difference. Value to me and most people is what you get for what you pay. I got things like power sliding door, alloy wheels, full function traction control, quad captains chairs, full roof rack/crossbars and a few other options for less than a stripped Sienna with plastic wheel covers.

    The 3.9L will be available in late July, it's not that far off. The 3.9L produces 240hp vs 230hp for Sienna.

    Maybe you have had some bad experiences but sorry, a battery is not a reliability issue? Fact is GM is not very far behind Toyota and the gap close smaller every year.

    People should buy what they like and want. The GM vans offer things like OnStar security, standard MP3 and DVD systems, 17" wheels, remote start that Toyota doesn't. GM vans are also less expensive, especially so if you add in incentives. Yes the Toyota is a very good van, it's well known. That doesn't mean everyone thinks it's the best choice for them. I know it wasn't for us.
  • polo6sppolo6sp Posts: 2
    We have owned this minivan for 4 months and are very happy we chose this over the Toyota Sienna that we also considered. Based on invoice pricing, rebate, GM points, interest on financed amount we saved $7000 over a Toyota Sienna LE with package with DVD and VSC, but that Sienna doesn't come with leather, heated memory seats, ONSTAR(an important safety feature), park assist, or (dual) power sliders. There are definite advantages to having factory installed DVD and remote start due to aftermarket wiring and installation being questionable.

    Our trade-in was a 98 Montana and is not comparable to the new GM vans. The new vans are quiet, safer, more refined, more powerful, and look much more upscale, but not completely femine, like some of the other manufacturer's vans.

    As for engine power, these are minivans not Corvettes(which is my summer car) If you look at the published 0 to 60 times for the GM, Toyota and Honda minivans,they are all comparable within 1/2 second(hardly noticeable to most). Ask my wife how often she is revving her Buick Terraza to redline to get the hole shot. Minivan passengers demand smooth acceleration which makes torque more important than horsepower. My 1990 Corvette has 245 hp and 345 torque which has a comparable horsepower number to a Honda minivan. The horsepower number doesn't mean squat.

    There is something to be said for buying American too. Foreign competition benefits the US consumer in many ways but Toyota is becoming the largest manufacturer worldwide and taking more and more market share away from the big three US. I understand that all these minivans are built in the US but buying a US brand promotes patriotism(leading to other US made purchases) and keeps the profits in the US which can put into our economy.
  • strstr Posts: 64
    I love these debates! This gives me a chance to view everyone's personal experiences and opinions. You are a great source of information and are very knowledgeable about the minivan market. I do not trust the car dealers (who does) because they all are out to make the sale so their word is zero to me but your testimonies are priceless. I never imagined I would be sitting here for weeks researching and obsessing over a van. I did not even look twice at my other cars just test drove it and if I liked it drove it home. This is crazy, but I now have two other lives at stake in the car with me so your information is valuable. Thank you!

    Now, this hp thing is a little weird. I own my own business approximately 20 miles away and must drive it everyday. Part of this drive (about half) from our acreage is a little bumpy, paved back roads and all basically flat (small hills) and the other half is highway and city roads. I really won't be racing anyone, I hope, or trying to out run the red light (very often) so I'm not to concerned with having the fastest minivan possible (crazy sounding) however, I also don't want to be the one that can't get around the semi on the highway and has the line of cars behind me.

    The back seat side air bag thing sounds very scary and I have never thought of it, thank you for that insight. If I wait for the 2006 for more hp I will also be getting the side airbags (back) because they will be standard on the 2006's and my children's safety is more important than driving with more power so perhaps the 05 is a better choice for me? I'm just a little ticked that they (GM) left off the rear window wiper, very out of date, who does that anymore!

    The Toyota is no doubt a classy top of the line van but I am a little nervous about buying a foreign car. As you can see I have never owned one, yet. We did look into a Lexus SUV after the Navigator but declined due to fear that our 11 month old child would shred that $50,000 investment and that was the same reason we were trading in the Navigator (not to mention gas mileage.) I am impressed with the Sienna and the SV6, this is terrible!

    I am also concerned with gas mileage because I travel Monday - Friday to my business. I would love to hear about how the two do on gas.

    Thank you.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    Have you considered a Rendezvous? They are built on basically the same platform as the GM minivans.

    I would guess the SV6 will be cheaper than the Sienna to buy. In some cases insurance is more expensive on foreign vehicles, even when they are produced in the United States. For me, I know it would cost me more to insure a Civic than it would a Focus.

    The side air bags are a definite added safety feature. If I liked a vehicle enough I would get it regardless. Our RDV has them, but my GTO does not.

    Many decisions for you to make. Good luck.

    What kind of business do you have?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    "I'm just a little ticked that they (GM) left off the rear window wiper, very out of date, who does that anymore!"

    All the GM vans I have seen have rear wipers?
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    I agree that everyone should buy what is best for them. Obviously we both did! I know I spent months researching vans, and what I came up with this time, (Toyota) was different than what I thought I was going to choose (GM). I based this on a number of different factors, some rational, some more emotional - don't we all. First I looked at my past purchases. The new Blazer I bought in '99 was an OK SUV, but really, both the Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee, let alone the Pathfinder and 4Runner were superior vehicles. I bought it because it seemed cheaper at the time to lease, probably because GM was trying hard to unload these models. Same with my Saturn L300. Not a bad car at all, but an Accord or Camry are definitely better vehicles in every sense.

    This time I looked seriously at the new GM vans. The incentives at the time were not great. I don't work for GM, and my "loyalty" rebate was for $750 - but it expired before the vans even rolled out (end of December). I even called GM and told them I would buy another product from them if I could apply this incentive to a vehicle that was due out any day. Of course that never materialized. The rebate now is $1000. Sienna has a $750 rebate, so not much difference here. I know some people get added incentives and so on, but for me, I wasn't getting anything more. If you can pile on the incentives, credit purchases, whatever, then it might make sense to go for these vans. But most people will only get what is nationally advertised, which at the moment is $1,000.

    Right now, if I compare an Uplander LT, and add the convenience package only (similar to my XLE) the price of this van msrp is $29,930, invoice is $27,146, and the TMV is $26,789 after the $1,000 incentive. Even if you get this van at invoice, minus the rebate - $26,146 that is still very close to what I paid for my XLE - $26,614. Both vans have a few things the other doesn't, but in the end, what the Sienna has that the Uplander doesn't easily tipped the scales in its favor for me.

    For example, the Uplander has a MP3 player, but the Sienna's 10 speaker JBL system with subwoofer, is a better sounding system. I don't use MP3's anyway as the sound is too compressed for me. The Sienna has a power liftgate that GM doesn't offer - a feature my shorter wife really appreciates. The seats in the Sienna are much better for stowing, ease of use, and comfort. Even my 5 year old has mastered how to fold and stow these seats. The Uplander doesn't offer the third row stowing of seats - a big mistake in my book. For me, this was a feature that was much more important than whether I have nice 16" alloys vs the 17" in the GM. (both look nice IMO). They are 17" on the AWD Sienna by the way.

    I am not sure where the facts are in terms of GM closing the quality with their Japanese rivals. I sincerely hope they are by the way. But if this is accurate, why does Toyota keep moving further ahead in sales, while GM, Ford continue to lose market share? Maybe it's perception. People like me (for now), believe that Toyota is a better made vehicle maybe because sources like Consumer Reports says so, or JD Power, or whatever other survey is out there. Or because their residuals are better (by the way, the residual on the Toyota Tundra is 71%) or resale is better. I have a used Explorer I have been trying to sell (Eddie Bauer) which is in pretty good shape, 4wd, etc, and I can't even get $4k for it. A friend of mine sells his piece of crap looking Honda Accord older than mine with over 200k miles on it for $3500 (guess which cost more new).

    Look - it took a long time for Toyota and Honda to get to the reputaiton they have now. Their vehices weren't always good, but they continually strived to make them better, and now with the Hybrid technology they have, they are so far ahead of the others, that Toyota is in talks with GM to allow them to use this technology too, just so GM won't get left so far behind. In fact Toyota sales are so good that they are worried about a backlash, and feel that they now need to help their competition in some areas. And it has taken GM and Ford an equally long time to get the reputation they deserve, and that is of a company that is not as good as it's rivals. Getting better finally, yes, but again, its rivals are also improving.

    We could go on about the mistakes GM/Ford have made over the last 2 decades but I won't for the moment. The new GM vans are surely better than they have been. They simply weren't very good before, and sales reflected that. The hardest thing for Honda when they came out with the Odyssey was producing enough. If only GM had that problem! But the bottom line is that these new vans aren't new, they are redesigned. A slightly better engine (although I read somewhere that they are actually slower because of the additional weight for saftey measures) and a bigger snout on the front. A much improved dashboard, but the same size inside, no new features when it comes to seat arrangements, and while they through in a dvd player as a bonus, they are missing the more important features for me (and many others that buy these vans.)

    But for those that see the extra value in the MP3 player and 17" wheels etc., and like the looks of these new vans, and can get a really good deal with whatever incentives are out there, then they should buy this van over its rivals.
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    Also I forgot to ask you vanman1, is your van one of the new GM models, or a previous generaiton? It is pretty hard to find a GM van like you describe "I got things like power sliding door, alloy wheels, full function traction control, quad captains chairs, full roof rack/crossbars and a few other options" which sounds like a Uplander LT or it equivalent for the same price as a stripped Sienna CE (around $21k or so). The previous generation GM vans were selling at an unbelieveable price with the incentives and all. But why would Honda or Sienna offer much incentives and discounts when people are buying them up left and right?
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    First power. I agree, these are minivans, so 0-60 times aren't as important as they might be for your vette (speaking of, I would love to get my hands on a new Z06 - one can dream...) but they can still be important. The GM 3.5 has 200 hp, and 220 lb/ft of torque at 4400 rpm. Nothing special really for a midsize car, but underpowered for a 4470 lb van. The Sienna has 230 hp, 242 lb/ft of torque at a slighty more useable 3600 rpm. And it has a sweet engine noise when you want it to rip. As all of the magazines have said - the Lexus of minivans. I will say though that I liked the interior looks of the GM vans, especially the Buick. But I still like the Sienna better, but definitely GM put a little more thought into the insides this time. As for outside styling, Honda and Toyota for me are better styled, but this of course subjective.

    One of the most important things for minivans, IMO, is utility/convenience - this is less subjective. The GM vans have 137 cu ft of cargo room compared to Sienna's 149 cu ft, and 26.9 cu ft of luggage space compared to 43.6 cu ft in the Sienna. If you have a larger family you will definitely appreciate this. If there's just two of you, maybe not a big deal.

    If you got a Terraza for $7k less than a Sienna LE, you did very well. I will bet though, that most people won't be able to capitalize on these same savings. Financing with Toyota is 3.9% which is pretty competitive. Not as good as Dodge's 0%, but then you take away the cash incentive.

    I could not make the numbers work out for me this time with GM. I tried. But these are not inexpensive vans anymore. And the rebates for most people are not that substantial. When I compared apples to apples, my XLE to a LT (Uplander) they are right about the same price. I got a smoking deal on mine, but I credit where I got it more than anything. If I had had to pay $7k more for my Sienna, I probably would have chosen the Terraza too. What I find curious is that the price between the Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and Chevy are all very similar. Seems the best value of those 4 is the Buick. What happened to Chevy being the budget model? Talk about confusing your audience.

    For your last paragraph about buying American, I have done that for the last 6+ years with 4 American cars. I've had 2 German cars, and one other Japanese car (Nissan Altima, which to this day is the only vehicle I've owned that never had any mechanical problems of any sort). If GM or Ford want me to buy American, then they need to be building the best product, period. Not almost as good, or pretty good, but the best. The Japanese have copied our products, made them better, and continue to strive to be the best. I want to see GM do the same now. When they remade the Malibu, they should have made it better than the Accord or Camry. Instead, they made it almost as good (and that's being nice here). Not one single magazine I subscribe to could ever say that this was a better car than the competition. Cheaper, maybe. Thank God for fleet sales, or GM and Ford would be in real trouble.

    GM is saddled with many problems that they can't yet figure out out to deal with - unions, exploding pensions, etc. They've relied far too long on trucks and suvs (both which lag behind everyone else now) as their bread and butter. But that chapter is closing, fast. They finally update their small car (Cobalt) which is leaps and bounds better than the Cavalier, yet it looks an awful lot like it. They built the Aztec, the most God awful styling disaster in the last 25+ years. That nearly killed them in every magazine publication out there. They have recently lost ground in pickups too. Car & Driver placed both their Canyon and Sierra in last place in the most recent comparisons. The list goes on. There are bright spots too - Cadillac finally looks like they want to play with the big boys. The Vette is probably the best value in sports cars today. But these are niche market vehicles. I've been hearing some rumors that they might kill off Buick and Pontiac too. Hard to believe that, but maybe it would help their bottom line.

    As you said, Americans are buidling the Sienna, the Odyssey, just as they are the Terraza. With globalization the way it is, sales from a Toyota or Honda will benefit our economy in much the same way. Toyota just announced it is spending $10 million more on its plant in Kentucky to make Hybrid Camry's. That will benefit Americans, and the local economies too. When GM makes a product that is the better or at least just as good as Toyota, then I will buy it. Right now, that product doesn't exist. I hope it will, and soon.
  • irgirg Posts: 197
    All I really want to convey, is that if you like the SV6, before you buy, drive the Sienna or Odyssey or the Grand Caravan, and compare the ride, quality, features that are most useful for you, and then factor in the price. If you compare apples to apples (hard sometimes) an Uplander LS to a Sienna LE or an LT to an XLE, you may find that there isn't much difference in price - at least on paper. If you can get a great deal on one versus another, than that should play a role in your purchase. For me, I got a much better deal on a Sienna than I could on a GM van, icing on the cake because I feel strongly (could you tell) that the Sienna is a better van overall than the GM products. And I have been a loyal GM owner for a while now.

    Fuel economy - it takes some of these vans a while to break in, and none of them have really great fuel economy. I got 23.5 mpg on my first drive home going about 80 mph, with a lot of hills. I expect it to improve somewhat. The Sienna is rated at 19/26, the GM is rated at 18/24 so not much difference. The GM vans weigh more (about 300 lbs more) and have less power, so that is probably why their economy is not quite as good. The new 3.9 engine might actually help economy. The Odyssey has on their upper line models a feature that uses half of their cylinders while at highway speeds. Won't make any difference around town, but probably a good feature to have if it proves to be reliable. GM does something like this on their pickups or it use to.

    Why are you nervous about buying a foreign car? They are only foreign in terms of where someone like Toyota is headquartered. Most (maybe all?) of these vans are made in the USA by Americans, sold by Americans. Pick up a copy a few months ago of Consumer Reports and read the reviews of the Odyssey, Sienna, Grand Caravan and the Saturn Relay. I thought the review was overly harsh of the GM van, but it did make me reconsider where I was going with my search, and made me look at Toyota and Honda. I never considered the Ford Freestar or the Nissan Quest. Ford seems to be giving up on the minivan, and they can't sell them very well at all. No split folding rear seat which was a must for me, same with Nissan, and their quality issues for the Quest have been very well documented. Plus I didn't like the funky interior. Ford seems to have a winner with the Freestyle and the Ford 500, but I don't know if anyone has noticed them...

    The GM vans do I believe have a rear windshield wiper. Maybe a base model doesn't, but I think the base models will be mostly for commercial sales, although I could be wrong. If you drive 20 miles a day and don't need a lot of power, the GM 3.5 should be adequate for your needs. Whene the 3.9 option comes out, it will make the GM vans competitve with the Odyssey, Sienna and Quest in terms of power. But as we have all mentioned, there is more to a van than HP (or torque). Just try the Sienna or Odyseey for comparison sakes first - you might prefer them. If not, at least you can feel you've done your due diligence here.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    GM has always taken care of me and my cars in a professional and fair way. I hear horror stories about Toyota service and customer care. There is a reason why they finish well below GM in customer service surveys. I'd be a bit worried of buying a Toyota also. Our office administrator is a good example, has a Corolla with a stinky A/C system that Toyota won't even acknowledge has a problem.

    We have a 2004 Montana Sport. The list price of the new vans is less than the old but the deals are not as good. That said, they are likely better then when you looked and having priced out a Montana SV6 I came up with a price that was still less than the Sienna though not as much less as mine was.

    You bring up your Saturn L series a lot and although I sympathize, it was well known to be a poor effort from the get go. No big surprise it had issues, they all did. Part of the reason Saturn sales have slid that last 5 years.

    While I do agree the Sienna is likely a better over all choice, the GM vans offer features not available from Toyota. Further the GM vans offer lower prices, entry level models and short wheel base models (new for 06 in the US, available here now) that Sienna can't match. I also prefer the simpler look of the GM dashes.
Sign In or Register to comment.