I live in SE Michigan and have seen the Terazzo and the Uplander up close. Although they are an improvement, and have very nice interiors, I think the minivan's will be a big flop. They have decided not to offer a product which is competitive with the competition:
1. No true fold flat seat, or rear stow well like the Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Ford products. 2. Underpowered and old tech (but newly re-designed) OHV V-6. The competition's best has DOHC V-6's with at least 230 HP. GM thinks people don't pay attention to what's under the hood. 3. Undersize minivan's like the Mazda MPV and now GM's offerings aren't what people want. People want room and big cabins. 4. Nobody will be fooled by the enlarged snout that this isn't anything but a "refreshed" Chevy Venture. These came out in 1996. It isn't state of the art in any respect. And trying to differentiate this model over four brands? Please. Bob Lutz probably came on too late to kill it, or delay it. Look for lots of incentives as they try move these. Sounds like some ghosts remain at GM from the brand management and dark years of the early 1990's.
One has to wonder why GM didn't develop a minivan with all of the right attributes on it's fine global platform underpinning the Saab, G6 and Malibu. Probably don't have the cash right now. I understand this may bridge the gap until 2008-2009 MY when an all-new van comes.
We have two little ones and are looking at a minivan. I've always bought GM and will give it at least a look but I can't help feeling that GM dropped the ball on this one.
Sure, I can't think of a competitive advantage, but if you have GM Card points, and there's a massive cash back, and you plan to drive it into the ground, the GM vans could be a bargain.
It is true that the new minivans are just a refreshed model, but it is still an improvement. I sat in a terraza this weekend and the build quality is improved in the model I sat in. All gaps equal, I was unable to remove any plastic pieces by hand. The door closed with a very reassuring thud. In regards to the hp rating I know that Fords and DCX minivans have more hp, but they felt slower. I did notice that they were geared to more towing than the GM. I know several people that own the current GM minivans and have had very little trouble with them...all are high mile vehicles. My grandpa has a 1999 chrysler town and country...takes excellent care of it...and he has had numerous and expenisve problems. (AC compressor, entire instrument panel had to be replaced, a transmission and all new cv joints at 45,000 miles) No, he is not a bad driver, just a crappy vehicle. The pushrod v6 has been a good enigne for GM and until they build a new one from the ground up they should continue to use this one.
The Cashback could be like $5,000 at model year end, and combine that with GM card points, anybody could drive off the dealer lot with a new Chevrolet, Pontiac or Saturn minivan loaded for a lot less than a midlevel Sienna or Odyssey! (The Terrazza would cost more, but still be a great bargain)
I agree that GM should up the ante on HP. But in reality one probably can't feel much difference among all these vans. I drove the Quest, didn't feel that strong pull I expected from its 240 hp engine. The old Venture has a very good acceleration number. Coupled to its good fuel economy, I don't see a reason to abandon it for a "high tech" and "new" OHC engine, other than to shut you guys up
I'm extremely disappointed however, to see the comments on the new vans' small size. Heck, why does GM think people want mini vans? I already have a sedan that I can't fit all our junk in!
While I agree these vans are not going to be the best, no one here (or anywhere out side GM) has even driven one so I'd like to know how some people are so sure these vans are so terrible?
I think the Terazza and Saturn versions are a waste of time, but over all these vans offer things not found elsewhere and not everyone wants a monster van.
The me too styled Freestar has been a flop but at least these vans have distinctive style and should get good mileage. Who knows..
I don't have a clue if the vans are smaller than the previous ones.
I do know the previous ones were narrower than competitors, because, for some bizarre reason, GM turned engineering of the vans over to Opel, and they needed them to be narrower to fit European streets. Of course, the vans were a huge flop over there and didn't last more than a couple of model years. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
has got to stand out in one way or another to be successful. The Caravan twins are versitle; the Quest is a rule breaking pineer with standard side airbags and killer looks (maybe not for some folks); the Freestar has side curtain; the Odyssey is...well the Odyssey; and the Sienna is a conservative Quest. What do the new GM vans have that truly stands out and sticks to the shopper's mind?
Standard DVD Standard MP3 player Available Phat noise sound system Standard On Star Over head rail system Available remote start Available AWD Fuel economy and SUV "look"
Nope, like someone said these aren't the best vans on the planet, but they should drive very well, have nice interiors and appeal to a segment looking for good value. The look is not main stream which will help it stick out in the market.
Lots of different things appeal to lots of people for different reasons. The vans should sell about the same, there isn't going to be any big jump up here. GM needs an all new van but given their limited resources these days, this is likely their best option for now. That said, they could have got the same result and saved some money by just updating the old vans rather than re-name them and spawn a Saturn.
GM Card points, year end bonus cash, GMAC financing bonus cash, plus cashback, for a possible drive out the door price of around maybe seven grand off, before negotiating?
Let's just say "acquisition cost" and leave it at that.
All those things lower the price but they'll also lower residuals. In 2 years an Odyssey will be worth $8000 more in resale, so your TCO may actually be similar.
Exactly my point, so you should buy the one you like better, because the actual depreciation will be about the same.
What I mean by that is the Odyssey won't really cost you any more, despite the higher up-front cost.
If you are really bargain shopping, go get an outgoing 2004 Odyssey, I've seen LXs for $22k and EXs with DVD for $25k. That's no more than a GM van will cost you right now, maybe even less.
In 5 years I bet the Ody holds its value better by far. Look at 2000 models:
Even 5 years down the road the difference is substantial. For an outgoing 2004 Venture to be a better deal, it would have to cost less than $16 grand new. No amount of rebates will get it that cheap!
Conclusion: buy it if you like it better, not for the low up front price, because that'll cost you down the road.
Why would you want to give someone $8000.00 now and in five years get the same $8000.00 back without any interest on your money? In five years that $8000.00 will be eaten away by inflation. Invest that money for five years and subtract that from the cost of the lower cost van.
If you like having dead money just hanging around doing nothing, the Ody is the one to buy!
Well, first off it's not $8000. That was just a number thrown out as an example.
A 2004 Ody LX costs about $22k right now. My guess is a GM van is about the same. Even with a GM card credit you would come out way behind, even when you factor in interest.
If you get a 2005 Ody and compare to a 2005 GM van, well, rebates aren't really high yet to I bet the savings will amount to very little.
Sorry, I thought that you knew that $8k figure for a fact. I know that in 2002, Honda Ody was 32k full msrp compared to my 2002 Silhouette GLS which msrp for 33k and I got it for 25k. Of course GM rebates/card points do help.
So that 7-8k price difference did exist when I bought my van. Buick dealer by me has started to take names so they can call people when the Buick Tarazza starts to come in.
Me, I'd rather pay less to begin with. You can get a loaded up Venture for C$28K cash. Same Oddy will cost anywhere from C$37-40K. While I do think the Oddy is a better van over all, I know which one I would likely buy.
GMs lower prices are and will attract families who look for van value.
I got to see a SV6 up close today. Someone on my sons soccer team is driving one. I have to admit it looks pretty good. The front end definatley makes it look more like a SUV. It was a gold colored model (sedona beige) with the chrome wheels. The interior looks very nice. Executed much better than the current vans. Fit and finish seem very good and the materials used are much improved. Not as good as the Honda or Toyota but better than the Ford rehash. I think they will do ok - especially when the massive incentives kick in. I am going to try and drive it this week - will let everyone know my impressions.
Saw a Terraza at the post office this morning. Looked pretty good, except it had wheel covers (looked just like the ones from the Rendezvous). What the heck are they thinking?? Any vehicle that starts in the high 20's needs real wheels, not plastic covers. Especially if Buick is trying to be an american Lexus.
I saw a base BMW 3-series with plastic wheel covers the other day so I guess it's not unheard of in the "luxury brand" arena. That said, Buick should not go there. I think the LaCrosse with have covers on the base model also.
Lutz warned us he'd do that. Basically he wanted to cut some costs for things that he thought customers would not notice, like seldom-used gadgets and thicker carpets.
That flies in the face of Buick's strategy, though. You can't cut costs and compete with Lexus, you have to add content.
Toyota could cut costs, because that only made room for Lexus to come in and basically offer those things Toyota was cutting.
I don't think Bimmers have come with wheel covers for a while. You probably saw a decade old 318i, something like that.
I don't think any vehicle over $20k should have wheel covers. My $15k Focus didn't have them. As far as the covers the Terraza had, they did look ok (better than the wheel covers on my brothers Camry)but I could still tell they were cheap plastic.
I read somewhere that the Buick version (if not all 4 of the vans) will have the DVD player as STANDARD (that means to me, paying standard another $1500).
Yikes! When will the manufacturers start realizing not to do this? Don't they know that many people do NOT want their kids watching DVD all day long? or that so many people don't want to pay for it? Or that many others want to buy their own aftermarket system??
I wrote it once in the Sienna board, and I will repeat it here once again: In my opinion, the following should always be stand-alone options in ANY minivan, regardless of trim model: 1) Navigation system; 2) DVD player; 3) leather seating; and 4) power sliding doors and power rear hatch (on minivans).
All of the 4 features above you can find thousands of people do NOT want them in their vehicle. So don't force it on them.
Hey guys, you can order alloys on the Terraza if you want them. They're only around $325 extra. I wish people would stop demanding trivial standard features on cars that jack up the price, particularly for those of us who would never buy a car with alloy wheels (maybe not too many of those here, but trust me, we're out there). Having basic safety equipment, A/C, etc. standard is OK, but there's no reason why everything in the world should be standard, provided the deletions are reflected in a lower MSRP.
I'm not just a steel wheels troll. I agree with the post above regarding DVD systems and power sliding doors. The power doors sound like a feature that is just waiting to break as soon as the vehicle comes off warranty, and I don't even want to know what the replacement cost on the electrical components is.
Last time my mom shopped for a car, she looked at a Windstar, and the salesperson first showed her one and made a big deal out of how it came with a DVD system at no extra cost. Her response? "I won't buy a car with a television in it. Show me the next model down."
Certain brands should not have wheel covers. That was my point. A luxury brand should not have them. If that is truly where Buick is trying to position themselves, then all of their products need to reflect that image.
Makes sense for the Chevy version to have steelies, but I agree a Buick should have alloys standard, just as a Lexus would.
Marketing cars is a funny thing. If they figure 80% of the customers want something, it's probably more cost effective to just make it standard. Economies of scale and simplicity on the assembly line make it cheaper to do it that way.
BMW offered factory wheel covers on the 3-series in the US through the 2000 model year. They may have continued to do so later in Canada. Many BMWs in Germany still have wheel covers -- they have cheaper models there. Also, BMW dealers in wintry areas offer factory snow tire packages that include OEM BMW wheel covers.
Regarding Buick stuff: I guess what this comes down to is, I don't really believe that Buick is going to compete with Lexus. The Terraza starts below $29K -- after the inevitable rebates, you will be able to get one for around $25K. What Lexus family wagon is even in that ballpark? Most RXs sell in the $40K range. If Buick comes out with a full-on luxury crossover that costs that much, then I guess it's fair to say that steel wheels would be uncompetetive in the segment. But that's not what the Terraza is. It's a Chevy with extra chrome and leather seats. These four vans are not going to sell on the basis of true product differentiation, the way the Malibu and G6 do. Unlike the Epsilon cars, which really do have distinct personalities, it's obvious to anyone that this is basically one van with a choice of grilles. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think they make 316i models for some countries, at least they used to.
I asked the Saturn dealer about the DVD and they insisted it would be an option on all models. Other sources say it'll be standard even on base models. Which is it?
Buick will try to eventually compete with Lexus. I don't think this face-lifted van counts. Though they are quiet-tuning all the cars and trucks with extra insulation. Still, it takes more than that.
The LaCrosse is a decent start for an entry level car but Buick needs a better van, an updated Rendezvous with a better base engine, a halo car and a premium sedan or two with northstars standard.
I hope it happens but as I see it, Oldsmobile was closer to Lexus than Buick is.
The new GM vans cost too much! And currently they're going for full MSRPs. Although we haven't checked them out yet, can't see how we can justify paying $25 for an Uplander.
How can you say they are selling for full MSRP - they are not even on sale yet. Production just began this week (or last). There are sure to be rebates as well.
Comments
1. No true fold flat seat, or rear stow well like the Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Ford products.
2. Underpowered and old tech (but newly re-designed) OHV V-6. The competition's best has DOHC V-6's with at least 230 HP. GM thinks people don't pay attention to what's under the hood.
3. Undersize minivan's like the Mazda MPV and now GM's offerings aren't what people want. People want room and big cabins.
4. Nobody will be fooled by the enlarged snout that this isn't anything but a "refreshed" Chevy Venture. These came out in 1996. It isn't state of the art in any respect. And trying to differentiate this model over four brands? Please. Bob Lutz probably came on too late to kill it, or delay it. Look for lots of incentives as they try move these. Sounds like some ghosts remain at GM from the brand management and dark years of the early 1990's.
One has to wonder why GM didn't develop a minivan with all of the right attributes on it's fine global platform underpinning the Saab, G6 and Malibu. Probably don't have the cash right now. I understand this may bridge the gap until 2008-2009 MY when an all-new van comes.
We have two little ones and are looking at a minivan. I've always bought GM and will give it at least a look but I can't help feeling that GM dropped the ball on this one.
~alpha
I'm extremely disappointed however, to see the comments on the new vans' small size. Heck, why does GM think people want mini vans? I already have a sedan that I can't fit all our junk in!
I think the Terazza and Saturn versions are a waste of time, but over all these vans offer things not found elsewhere and not everyone wants a monster van.
The me too styled Freestar has been a flop but at least these vans have distinctive style and should get good mileage. Who knows..
I do know the previous ones were narrower than competitors, because, for some bizarre reason, GM turned engineering of the vans over to Opel, and they needed them to be narrower to fit European streets. Of course, the vans were a huge flop over there and didn't last more than a couple of model years. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
--Robert
Standard DVD
Standard MP3 player
Available Phat noise sound system
Standard On Star
Over head rail system
Available remote start
Available AWD
Fuel economy
and
SUV "look"
Nope, like someone said these aren't the best vans on the planet, but they should drive very well, have nice interiors and appeal to a segment looking for good value. The look is not main stream which will help it stick out in the market.
The list above seems pretty complete.
Add to that "Huge Rebates coming soon".
-juice
All those things lower the price but they'll also lower residuals. In 2 years an Odyssey will be worth $8000 more in resale, so your TCO may actually be similar.
-juice
Since it costs about that much more new I would certainly hope so.
What I mean by that is the Odyssey won't really cost you any more, despite the higher up-front cost.
If you are really bargain shopping, go get an outgoing 2004 Odyssey, I've seen LXs for $22k and EXs with DVD for $25k. That's no more than a GM van will cost you right now, maybe even less.
In 5 years I bet the Ody holds its value better by far. Look at 2000 models:
2000 Ody LX Private Party: $13,700
2000 Venture LS Ext: $7,347
Even 5 years down the road the difference is substantial. For an outgoing 2004 Venture to be a better deal, it would have to cost less than $16 grand new. No amount of rebates will get it that cheap!
Conclusion: buy it if you like it better, not for the low up front price, because that'll cost you down the road.
-juice
If you like having dead money just hanging around doing nothing, the Ody is the one to buy!
A 2004 Ody LX costs about $22k right now. My guess is a GM van is about the same. Even with a GM card credit you would come out way behind, even when you factor in interest.
If you get a 2005 Ody and compare to a 2005 GM van, well, rebates aren't really high yet to I bet the savings will amount to very little.
-juice
So that 7-8k price difference did exist when I bought my van. Buick dealer by me has started to take names so they can call people when the Buick Tarazza starts to come in.
Only time will tell.
GMs lower prices are and will attract families who look for van value.
That's just more than I'm willing to spend, even if I can afford it.
Also, I guess a lot of folks drive theirs into the ground, and in that case residuals hardly even matter.
-juice
The interior looks very nice. Executed much better than the current vans. Fit and finish seem very good and the materials used are much improved.
Not as good as the Honda or Toyota but better than the Ford rehash. I think they will do ok - especially when the massive incentives kick in. I am going to try and drive it this week - will let everyone know my impressions.
I find many new vehicles look better in person than on a computer screen.
I really need to get a digital camera.
:-(
That flies in the face of Buick's strategy, though. You can't cut costs and compete with Lexus, you have to add content.
Toyota could cut costs, because that only made room for Lexus to come in and basically offer those things Toyota was cutting.
I don't think Bimmers have come with wheel covers for a while. You probably saw a decade old 318i, something like that.
-juice
As far as the covers the Terraza had, they did look ok (better than the wheel covers on my brothers Camry)but I could still tell they were cheap plastic.
Some are bolted on and I bet a lot of people don't care much as long as they get those.
I'd just shop for a set of alloys anyway.
-juice
Yikes! When will the manufacturers start realizing not to do this? Don't they know that many people do NOT want their kids watching DVD all day long? or that so many people don't want to pay for it? Or that many others want to buy their own aftermarket system??
I wrote it once in the Sienna board, and I will repeat it here once again: In my opinion, the following should always be stand-alone options in ANY minivan, regardless of trim model: 1) Navigation system; 2) DVD player; 3) leather seating; and 4) power sliding doors and power rear hatch (on minivans).
All of the 4 features above you can find thousands of people do NOT want them in their vehicle. So don't force it on them.
-Andrew L
Last time my mom shopped for a car, she looked at a Windstar, and the salesperson first showed her one and made a big deal out of how it came with a DVD system at no extra cost. Her response? "I won't buy a car with a television in it. Show me the next model down."
-Andrew L
Marketing cars is a funny thing. If they figure 80% of the customers want something, it's probably more cost effective to just make it standard. Economies of scale and simplicity on the assembly line make it cheaper to do it that way.
-juice
Alloys should be standard on all Buicks. Covers are ok for Chev/Pontiac and Saturn.
DVD is standard on all U.S. models from what I have read here. Apparently not so here.
BMW offered factory wheel covers on the 3-series in the US through the 2000 model year. They may have continued to do so later in Canada. Many BMWs in Germany still have wheel covers -- they have cheaper models there. Also, BMW dealers in wintry areas offer factory snow tire packages that include OEM BMW wheel covers.
Regarding Buick stuff: I guess what this comes down to is, I don't really believe that Buick is going to compete with Lexus. The Terraza starts below $29K -- after the inevitable rebates, you will be able to get one for around $25K. What Lexus family wagon is even in that ballpark? Most RXs sell in the $40K range. If Buick comes out with a full-on luxury crossover that costs that much, then I guess it's fair to say that steel wheels would be uncompetetive in the segment. But that's not what the Terraza is. It's a Chevy with extra chrome and leather seats. These four vans are not going to sell on the basis of true product differentiation, the way the Malibu and G6 do. Unlike the Epsilon cars, which really do have distinct personalities, it's obvious to anyone that this is basically one van with a choice of grilles. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-Andrew L
I think they make 316i models for some countries, at least they used to.
I asked the Saturn dealer about the DVD and they insisted it would be an option on all models. Other sources say it'll be standard even on base models. Which is it?
Buick will try to eventually compete with Lexus. I don't think this face-lifted van counts. Though they are quiet-tuning all the cars and trucks with extra insulation. Still, it takes more than that.
-juice
I hope it happens but as I see it, Oldsmobile was closer to Lexus than Buick is.