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

1679111256

Comments

  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Member Posts: 1,031
    wow! A lot of Freestars huh? Probably since it doesn't offer AWD, Canadians aren't buying it. I know that here in Texas, many Freestars have been popping out. It seems to do well in the warm-weather areas..
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Most vans here do not have AWD, it has nothing to do with it. Sales are just slow. Plant here exports 90% to the U.S. anyway.

    I have seen many Freestars but this is a Ford town so it's not a good indicator.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    seems to be doing fine in my area. I saw 2 Freestars a month ago and they're gone from my local dealer. The parking spaces where the Freestars used to park are filled with one more Freestar and one F150.
  • a_l_hubcapsa_l_hubcaps Member Posts: 518
    alpha01-

    Yes the Sienna offers AWD and fold-flat seats, but there's a catch: you don't get a spare tire. Run-flats or not, offering a family vehicle with no spare is just stupid, IMHO.

    -Andrew L
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Freestar plant here in Oakville is shutting down for 4 weeks over Christmas so they either over built or sales are flat. My guess is the latter. They likely expected an increase in sales and instead got sales about the same as the Windstar.
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Member Posts: 1,031
    At http://www.toyota.com/sienna/ , there is a message on the bottom left hand side saying "CURRENTLY, DEALERS ARE EXPERIENCING A TEMPORARY SHORTAGE OF SIENNAS..." Does this mean that the Sienna is this quarters best-selling minivan right now?
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    the Sienna suffered a fuel tank recall and Toyota is still trying to produce the new gas tanks as fast as the they did earlier. They built the Siennas without the gas tank, so there's about maybe a few hundred Siennas at the plant waiting for gas tanks because production slowed there. Plus, demand skyrocketed, and add a smaller supply, you get a temporary shortage of Sienna minivans.
  • just4fun2just4fun2 Member Posts: 461
    That must have been a nightmare for Toyota to have to tow each van off the assembly line and into the parking lot. Wonder if they are just jacking them up in the parking lot and installing the new tanks or towing them into an enclosed building and using a lift?
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    The fuel tank issue has been resolved, and days sales in inventory is a result of demand, not the residual effects of fuel tank mods. The Prius and Sienna were in last months WSJ as the top 2 hottest models off the lot. (As were the RX 330 and SC 430, and several Hondas). Certainly, not all of these models were affected by recalls; sometimes, demand just outstrips supply. Personally, I think its shrewd of Toyota to put that message on their website, as it prepares buyers to pay MSRP.

    ~alpha
  • just4fun2just4fun2 Member Posts: 461
    Makes it so much more pleasant to buy from a dealer that have buyers waiting in line. I remember Honda Ody buyers glowing reports as to how they were treated when Ody's were in short supply.

    MSRP or over brings out the best in dealers!
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    from a business standpoint...

    I'd rather buy an outstanding product and deal with a day's worth of dealer arrogance than buy a mediocre product and benefit from a days worth of coffee, krumpets, and coddling.

    Apparently, I'm not alone, or else we'd all be buying Saturns. No doubt, the best of both worlds is ideal, but since many among us do not have 40K to spend on cars, the Lexus experience isnt likely anytime soon.

    ~alpha
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Saturn doesn't have a van (yet) though.

    ;-)
  • olrdvolrdv Member Posts: 53
    well, we always can buy a RendezVous CXL with AWD and a 3.6L DOHC V6 !!! It comes with a third row seat!!
    ...anything else is uncivilized!! :-)
  • jerrywimerjerrywimer Member Posts: 588
    Demand for the new Sienna was exceeding supply as far back as late June / early July. I bought my new Trailblazer at the Kenosha Wisconsin Carmax (in my knowledge, one of the only, if not THE only one selling new cars as well as used), which besides new Chevies, also sells new Fords and Toyotas. The only reason I recalled this was that as I was discussing the vehicle I wanted with the salesman (and looking it over on the lot), we saw another gentleman being driven around in a golf cart. They stopped at my salesman and asked about a Sienna, but were told there was only one left, and it was sold. The other salesman (in the cart), mentioned that his buyer wanted a test drive. :p
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,140
    Ahem... let's stick to the GM vans, folks.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • lennxlennx Member Posts: 73
    I think all the discussion of other vans indicates how short these new GM vans are coming up when compared to the competition.

    One example
    The new Chrysler fold away rear and middle seats look really slick.

    The new GM fold away rear seat looks like the add-on arrangment in the current Venture. Functional but not slick.

    Second example
    Nissan made a new van that looks distinctive.

    GM - "We redesigned every piece of sheet metal so that the side and back end are just as ugly as the previous model."
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Dunno, styling is OK, not ugly. Not distinctive, maybe a but dull, but not ugly.

    The Nissan is pure form over function, the gauges in the center being its worst offense.

    The GM vans are too narrow and failed to innovate in a segment where innovation has skyrocketed lately, that's the problem.

    -juice
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    The center IP is not the worst part of the Quest, the tube in the center with all the controls is brutal. Just ugly and awkward. Our neighbor bought one "because the wife liked it", but the husband told me he hated it.

    The new GM vans look to have nice dash's which is more important as vans all suck in the look dept anyway.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The design limits front leg room. I could not get comfortable. I liked the rest of that van.

    GM is going to have to play the value card, I bet rebates will come at launch.

    -juice
  • samnoesamnoe Member Posts: 731
    I just LOVE minivan looks more than any other vehicle on thr road! And no, I don't like the Odyssey, and not the new Quest, and the new Sienna a little... I love Chryslers the best, and then Ford & GM. Please do not argue about styling. If you hate the styling of minivans, go elsewhere.
  • lennxlennx Member Posts: 73
    Styling is as valid an issue as any other. Yes we all have differnt views on it but it is no different than engine power. Some feel it is extremely important. Others don't care as long as as the van goes.

    GM should have taken the opportunity to do something with the styling of the back but chose to do nothing. Couldn't they atleast have hidden the track for slider?

    The Nissan dash is funky and I would not want it.

    I have never felt the old GM Van was too narrow.

    And I too smell rebates when the new GM van comes out.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    ....because you can say GM's 3.5L V6 produces 200hp and 220 lb. ft while Toyotas 3.3L V6 produces 230hp and 242 lb. ft. Power and torque ratings are measured figures that really arent subject to argument.

    On the other hand, what may look amazing to some, may look hideous to others, and there are few..heck.. no standardized measurements for aesthetic appeal.

    I'd imagine styling isnt that big of a priority for minivan buyers.

    ~alpha
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    In general I agree, but keep in mind those are peak figures and don't tell the overall story. For instance, I believe the GM V6 peaks at lower rpm, for perhaps more accessible power in every day driving.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate.

    -juice
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    lennx : I prefer a little narrow, fits better in my silly garage.

    alpha : Sienna sells well and it's pretty ugly. The old one was nice, don't like the new one. It's a good van though.

    ateixeira : 3.5L is a surprisingly peppy. Perhaps GM will squeeze out another 10 hp out of it before the van hits the mkt.
  • theo2709theo2709 Member Posts: 476
    According to Lutz, the vans have "good launch feel". I wouldn't expect much in the way of passing power, though.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    rebates of up to $3000 just months after launch.
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Member Posts: 1,031
    The only reason GM gives humongous rebates on all new car is because without them, GM knows that their cars won't sell better than Toyota or the others. It's also because of the horrible resale and long-term quality of their vehicles. Hopefully, the new GM vans will have better long-term quality!
  • wsag26wsag26 Member Posts: 124
    A lot of people are complaining that minivans need a lot of horsepower. If you want, customize your minivan and put a Viper or Corvette engine into the car. All minivans need is a descent V-6,
    not too overpowered, neiter underpowered. Personally, 200 hp is enough to me, unlike Ford's 196-197 hp V-6.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    The GM 3.5L produces a peak of 220 foot pounds at 3200 RPM.

    The Toyota 3.3L produces a peak of 242 foot pounds at 3600 RPM, and is already making 220 foot pounds at 3200 RPM.

    IMO, the "more accessible power in every day driving" doesnt really hold in this case.

    You can play Devil's advocate, its fun, I dont mind.

    :)

    ~alpha

    PS- For the record, I'm not saying that minivans need a lot of horsepower- I agree, they need enough to safely get the job done, and offer an extra kick in the event of an emergency passing situation, or for fully loaded driving. The acceleration bar has been raised by Honda, Toyota, Nissan... and the domestics should be expected to play in the same ballpark, that is all.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    shouldn't the minivan makers hold off on the minivan horsepower race and improve fuel economy to levels approaching 35 MPG?
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    People make a big deal about folding seats, forgetting that station wagons had them for decades.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Mileage would be more important to me in a van than a second shaved off 0-60 times. I'll bet it is to 90% of van owners also.

    Rebates are likely but almost everyone has them so that's EZ to say. How much is the only question.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I drove a Malibu and a Camry back-to-back, though the Camry still had the 3.0l engine. Compared to that engine, the Malibu felt more torquey, while the Camry revved high more smoothly.

    Maybe the 3.3l evens things out on the low end, with perhaps better high rpm characteristics.

    Vans need torque, not power, to carry a full payload.

    -juice
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Can GM come up with a worse name than "Uplander"? That must've been some product meeting!

      Has anyone ever seeked the "UpLand" before?

      I guess the extended version will be called the "UpperLander", yes?

      DrFill
  • bretaabretaa Member Posts: 130
    It's hard to *not* discuss the state of GM's other products and "GM-Think" when discussing these new vans since those two things are part of the problem with these new haulers. How could GM just rewarm a model that has been uncompetitive for the last 4-5 years and think it'll stand up in the marketplace?

    I have seen that in reports of these new vans now, the media has moved from calling them crossovers without quotes before launch, to "sportvans" with quotes after launch, obviously subtly implying they don't buy the hype either... I predict some brutal reviews will be coming GM's way...

    -Bret
  • lennxlennx Member Posts: 73
    I don't see anything that justifies calling them either crossover or sport. They look like old minivans with a minor face lift.

    And I agree the Uplander name is odd.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Crossovers, no. Minivans yes.

    I agree guys but don't underestimate the update. It could be better than you think and we still have not seen the much higher volume Chev and Pontiac versions. Maybe I'm wrong but I am hoping for something a little better with those models in terms of looks.
  • jerrywimerjerrywimer Member Posts: 588
    I don't really think that either term, crossover, or sports van, fits these new restyled vehicles. SUV wannabees, yes. But that's part of the target audience. Still, like I said earlier, if they'd done something to the vans from about the sliding doors back to make them more "SUV-ish" looking, they'd be more convincing (ie. shorten the door windows while lengthening the rear quarter-windows a bit, hide the sliding track. Stuff that fits the normal image people get when imagining an SUV).

    Horsepower sounds adequate, but the torque itself is a bit low. For a large vehicle likely loaded with people and / or cargo (okay, midsize vehicle), more torque is important. Most of the torque should be available over a fairly broad rpm range too, so that good acceleration is available not only during takeoff, but also at highway speeds, which is where these vans will live a lot of their lives (face it, they're people movers, the types of vehicles people use when going on family vacations and stuff).
  • spartanmannspartanmann Member Posts: 197
    I'd like to see improved fuel economy instead of more power as well. Unfortunately it is very expensive to improve fuel economy as it means drastically cutting weight which is both expensive and compromises, safety, ride, and quietness. It's much easier to just stuff in the newest latest high performing engine. Enough people buy on that basis as gas is still ridculously cheap here. You see this approach across all model lines. 15,000 miles a year at 20 mpg requires 750 gallons for a total cost of maybe $1200 bucks a year. Even a 10 percent increase in fuel economy doesn't save that much. If gas cost $3+ a gallon then the approach might be different. So sad that the GM vans will provide neither improved performance or MPG, the worst of both worlds.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    The new Toyota Sienna uses a more powerful, torquier engine than the previous version, weighs about 200lbs more than that van... and according to Consumer Reports, averages about 2-3 MPG better than the previous version in mixed driving.

    The trend isnt always in increasing power at the cost of economy.

    I certainly agree with your comments on the very cheap cost of gas in the states.

    ~alpha
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    I think GM is giving up the true minivan market and just offering something different. They are more commited to new SUV's, trucks, and sedans.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    Some vans out there are getting quite good MPG right now in real life. I pull off 26-27 MPG in my Odyssey.
  • regfootballregfootball Member Posts: 2,166
    your van is OHC! how can you have good mpg and more superior power!? how is this possible!?!?!?

    :) admit it you want the Grandis here too.......

    let me first say I have never minded the shape of the Venture (in short wheelbase form). The interior is nice and simple although materials and assembly are embarrassing as are the seats soft and wallowy. The powertrains not there.

    maybe in the 90's it would have been ok for chevy to just update these vans but its 2003/4 and new product arrives weekly in the auto market. and each successive product put out by most mfr's seems to have most items covered that folks want these days.

    the hot button in the van segment these days is the folding / disappearing seats. Also, DVD and other conveniences, and power doors. Lots of cubbies. And a renewed emphasis on engine and power.

    I don't think it even matters now that the new Venture is underpowered. The 3rd seat setup and front end styling will cause this van to get absolutely butchered in the press. Some folks will be more forgiving, but ultimately I think the fact that the seat when folded sits up above the floor will cause this vehicle to be ridiculed tremendously. It won't even matter if the new dash turns out to be nice.
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    I'll still take it, but albiet it better get at least 31 MPG with the type of driving I do before it replaces the Honda Civic in my garage.
  • bretaabretaa Member Posts: 130
    I too hope the Chevy and Pontiac versions are more modified, but highly doubt this will be the case. I mean, they just warmed over the old vans for two brands to whom minivans are *brand new* additions to their lineups. I doubt, beyond different grilles, wheels, and interior trims, that the two higher volume versions will be much different. It's amazing that a small, previously ill company like Nissan puts so much thought and originality into their vans that represent just a sliver of the market while GM seems to have just given up...

    Bret
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Member Posts: 1,031
    who woulnt want it here!?!
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Lots of French money and design at Nissan these days. Your point is well taken but in the grand scheme of things I think I can see why GM is not putting a lot of effort in. SUVs are in much higher demand and are more profitable.

    I hope the improvements made to these vans are substantial and not just cosmetic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, Nissan also made a huge investment in the Titan and Armada, surely far more than they spent on the Quest.

    It took a leap of faith from parent company Renault after Ghosn got Nissan back to profitability, but still, they invested in all three.

    -juice
  • spartanmannspartanmann Member Posts: 197
    Good Point about Nissan

    You may or may not like their new products, but they certainly didn't take an existing vehicle, scrounge the available parts bin, slap on new grilles and interiors and call them new models. These products may or may not be a major success, but at least the effort and $$ were put into them so they have a chance.
  • lennxlennx Member Posts: 73
    Our 2002 Venture get 22 mpg around town, 25 to 27 on long highway trips. GM should be able to impove on that if they could keep the new vans weight down.

    But as I recall the weight is expected to go up. So worse MPG is probably in store.
Sign In or Register to comment.