Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
People are fine with the 4 bangers in the Camry and Accord because they are producing higher fuel efficiency ratings than ever, more power than ever, accelerating as quicly as V6s of a decade ago, and are smoother and more refined than ever.
ex. in 1991, the Camry 2.0L 4 banger produced 115hp and EPA figures of 24/30. Today's Camry 2.4L produces 157 hp and 162 lb. ft (more than the 2.5L V6 available in 91) and EPA figures of 23/32.
Also, in the arena of $20,000 family sedans, about 160 hp has become the norm, and the Camry and Accord are generally regarded asbenchmarks. (And like others have said, those vehicles offer engine upgrades, the Camry now even offers two different ones. Also note that sales of V6 Accords and Camrys have increased with the newer generations...)
However, when you're cross shopping minivans in the $30K range, as the Terraza likely will be, and even in the $25K range like the Relay, 200 hp is considerably less than the standard powerplants in the class leading minis.
Personally, I think that its going to take more than the vans being "well put together" and "good utility/function" for these vans to sell. Namely, I think its going to take better crash scores, good utility/function, reliabliity and a competitive powertrain OR rebates. So, we'll be seeing the rebates.
~alpha
We all know what happened after that.
Honda Accord weighed about 26-2700 lbs in the 80's. Weighs 3500 lbs now.
Civic weighed about 2200. Weighs about 2900 lbs now.
Also manufacturers now have engine management systems that retarrd the timing at the top of each gear. Really saps power.
Also we used to drive cars that did 0-60 in 13-15 secs.
Nobody would accept that now.
My sister's '84 Honda Accord would get 40 mpg on the highway. Don't think the new Accord can come close to it.
Also, the spec curb weights on the Accord max at like 3350 and on the Civic (non Hybrid) around 2600-2700 TOPS, so you're off by quite a bit. But I digress.
I wouldnt call the GM minis losers just yet, as there are many measures that may be used to gauge success. They just arent class leading, and GM could have aimed higher. IMO, high regard will continue to follow the foreign makes, and pity, to GM and Ford's minis.
~alpha
No four cylinder would be adequate for a van, so you really shouldn't use that analogy.
So we must talk v6's. In a Malibu they can make do with the 3.5 but in these larger vehicles I think you do need the extra power.
Keep in mind that these vans are still way more efficient and lighter than the SUV's. So i think maybe as a base engine for a price leader the 3.5 may work. As the only engine, I wouldn't like it.
GM dinks around building 20 different v6 engines.
Pick one basic design and put it in all your models. Like Nissan and Toyota. Don't dink around with 10 different engine designs.
Reg : The 3.5L gives really good fuel economy and is very refined also. My analogy is dead on right.
Like I said before guys, the 3.9L (or similar) should be an option on at least the Buick for people who want more power. Almost all our neighbors have vans and I'll tell you, the power and 0-60 aspect is not what they talk about when we talk about the vans.
hardly a deal breaker
time for a prius or vw diesel then 4u
Didn't want you to think that that acceleration
hadn't increased.
I will take it 1 step further. Today's 4 cylinder's are producing the power that V8's were making 25 years ago.
Torque is king and we should probably be talking about that moe than hp.
How much and where it occurs in the rev ban.
And how broad it is.
GM needs a vehicle that provides excellent 0-20 or 0-30 mph performance.
Lastly, as good as Honda is they still have not figured out how to make their 4 cylinders not vibrate the car while in drive with your foot on the brake.
Chaser : Interior of the Quest is just weird. Exterior isn't bad but a little over styled.
1- Same old platform and rear sheet metal
2- Homely new front ends (Buick)
3- No fold into the floor seats
4- Less power than the competition
I don't know what other shortcuts GM took, but the new vans will at best be competitive only with the Freestar. Truly a sad effort. Again - why build products that can only be sold with huge rebates at a loss to the bottom line. Already the Freestar has a 120 supply on hand. Plans for a third shift have been abandoned and the factory has been temporarily shut down to control inventory. Anybody seriously think the GM vans are going to do better?
This HP thing of more has to be better is rediculious. How many people here have seven members in their family to haul each day? But, lets buy a mini van so we can if we want to.
The people who buy ODY, Quest and Sienna are not the people who would even think of buying GM even if it had 1000 hp. There is always something they can find to complain about.
I also think that they definitely need more powerful engines. The minivans have always had a step up over whatever the current small/mid-size sedan has had (Corsica, Malibu / Classic, and now Malibu), and this was for a good reason. These vans don't weigh a heckuva lot less than my Trailblazer does, so I'd expect that with numbers approximately 75 less for horsepower and 55 less for torque, the van will feel especially lacking, most likely at highway speeds (where the overhead cam inline 6 of my tb especially excels). As far as general stop and go traffic, the pushrod engine should be pretty good, but then again, minivans are often used for longer trips, moreso than other classes of vehicle. So owners may notice the difference. I'm sincerely hoping GM offers one of the more powerful engines in ALL of the vans in the next year or two.
As Ive stated before, another question mark with the new minis is crash performance. Hopefully GM paid attention this time around. (Will 3 row side curtains be available?). It would seem to me that safety be a very large concern for vehicles of this type, we all know that Ford and Kia beat their 5 star rating to death in years of advertisements...
~alpha
Their mileage was better than what they got with the four Accord and Camry.
Still, this would be a good base engine, for hauling weight they should still offer a step-up engine.
-juice
If you really want something that looks like an SUV on the outside but functions like a minivan on the inside, buy a Durango.
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0312/08/b01-343287.htm
just4fun2 : I agree. Van owners are not looking for wonderful 0-60 times. they are looking for utility, refinement, value and reliability. I think there should be an optional power plant for the few people who might want it but it's just not as big an issue as some here are leading us to believe.
spartanmann : Sales should rise initially as it looks to be an improvement on the old in every way. It will also partly depend on what the much higher volume Chevy and Pontiac versions look like. Hopefully GM will add an optional engine for 05.
With these "sport vans", the jury (customers) will decide what sells.
I grew up and live in one of the biggest GM towns around. Many of my friends still work in the various assembly and engine plants. I drive an Odyssey and would love to drive a GM van instead. To assume that Honda or Toyota owners won't buy American is plain wrong. What kind of minivan do you think they bought before the Odyssey and Sienna came out? Even the GM employees tell you that in many cases they only buy GM because of the discount and to avoid ostracism from the diehards.
Make a class leading product like their pick-ups and SUV's and people will line up to buy them.
As for the "SUV" look. I believe that has already been tried with the rugged body cladding on the Montana. There is no chance that the new look, even it wasn't so homely would boost sales.
How do you know these vans are as bad as you say they are? Have you driven or seen one in person yet??
Could also get another Ody. Love the van - hate the company. They definitely have the worst customer relations I've ever seen, and that includes rental cars companies and airlines!
Maybe not all rebates, but deep discounts and low finanace rates.
Perhaps the UAW was created for the right reasons, but its execution must have been flawed along the line somewhere, as it just may eventually be responsible for the demise of the American automotive industry.
~alpha
As an asides.. How does one get killed on resale if he gets huge rebates to begin with?
~alpha
make all the apologies you want, there just isn't enough improved about these products to create the buzz in the market new products need to be cash cows.
mpg.....woohoo, the Malibu makes 24 (c/d) mpg or 26 mpg (CR) which means in a fat vehicle like a van were talking 20 tops.
Malibu's fuel economy isn't such a big deal. My Diamante makes 25-27 routinely in heavy urban stop and go traffic and with my wife's lead foot.
We are really talking 18-20 real world in these vans if we're lucky.
http://www.dodge.com/2005_caravan/index.html?context=homepage&- ;amp- ;amp- ;type=promo2
just in time.....some info on the new DC vans folding seats....
http://www.dodge.com/gallery/img/2005_caravan/enlarge_8.jpg
that's why the 'new' GM vans are screwed from day one.
actually by now i bet there is a new topic up for these things......looks like the DCX vans have it ALL OVER the ford and GM entries........
Chrysler didn't spend much time on the exterior looks of their vans either though.
and the DCX vans look okay anyways.
alpha : Have not seen one bad review of the Malibu and that is very positive for a company that has had trouble with cars lately. Have not driven one yet but I suspect the car is better than CRs 5th place finish since CR writers hate domestics.
DCX did a far better job executing the 3rd row folding seats. It even looks like they split, so they one-upped the Odyssey, and matched the class-leading Sienna.
I don't think reviews for these vans will be nearly as generous as those for the Malibu.
-juice
Maybe the seats should've folded back between the second and third rows, since that area is used less often for passengers..
I want to know what happened at GM to compromise these vans. I remember reading an interview about 3-4 years ago with a GM engineer lamenting how, to paraphrase, "we had to make these vans way too narrow in order to satisfy the European market. We won't make the same mistake next time."
Well, guess what... Especially now that DCX introduces its van upgrade with ultra-folding seats and a billion airbags, GM is in trouble (although Chrysler not upgrading their styling appears to be a serious mistake to me).
Buyers read C&D, Consumer Reports, Cars.com, etc. before they buy vehicles, and do you think people will readily put down 20-30K for vans that every review they read says are these are just acceptable models that are no more than warmed over versions of previously unimpressive versions? People aren't stupid.
Bret
PS: Regarding the Malibu, while I would agree that reviews are generally favorable, even the most positive review I've read is slamming GM for quite obviously underachieving with these models with an "acceptable is good enough" attitude. I remember similar reviews for the previous version when it was introduced, and look at well it held up competitively over its model cycle... The Malibu, while feature rich and well screwed together, screams "rental care" to anyone who has sat in a '04 Accord, Camry, or Passat.
Oh, and did you notice Chrysler's overhead rails for storage/DVD etc....so much for a GM exclusive!
BTW, the middle seats on the Chrysler probably fold forward instead of back due to the location of the fuel tank.