As long as the seat is comfortable, why not take it? I can imagine loading a sheet of plywood once in a blue moon. Or even just using the extra cargo space.
Plus, even if you don't fold them, you have a storage compartment for kids' toys or whatever.
with the GM fold flat system, you lose about 6 inches of height for your cargo floor leveler. (that thing that's behind the third row that makes the flat floor taller)
picture logic at best buy loading the big screen tv into his van, check that....TRYING to...the lost 6" in height meant he had to have it delivered instead!
yes I realize plasma and LCD are different. Got here to late to edit but did not want to delete.
Sears charges for delivery but will take your old television away for 10 bucks. I have a 36" Panasonic cathode ray tube hdtv that weighs a ton! When I get my new tv, I plan on taking outrageous advantage of Sears' offer.
Last time I checked, I thought car companies were supposed to build in features people want. If people want fold flat seats then you need to offer them. If others don't, the fact they are in there is still not a problem. The reverse doesn't work. The same goes for features that are now standard that use to be options such as air conditioning etc... If you insist on buying one of these things, wait 18 months afer introduction. Don't miss out on the big rebates.
Don't buy one at launch, when the rebate will be a measly $500 or $1000. Wait a few months, when rebates hit $4500 to $6000. Then, buy one. And I meant Uplander, not Outlander. I can really get confused with all these landers. Highlander, Outlander, Uplander....... The Mitsubishi Outlander is a very nice car- though looks more of a tall wagon than small SUV to me.
The "All New" Ford Freestar which is also a less than stellar effort just had its rebate increased to $2500 (3 months after launch). This is good through March 31. After that, expect them to go higher yet. GM will need to match those rebates to sell these things.
Dindak - The coming huge big rebates are good news for loyal GM customers who would get one anyway. They just need to wait a bit so they don't overpay. The bad news is for those equally loyal GM stockholders as this vehicle will continue to lose money on every sale.
will make a profit on the van sales, rebates notwithstanding.
With GM pulling more and more of its other vehicles out of the rental markets, even if the vans become fleet material, it could help the GM bottom line.
Over the next few years, I expect the mini-vans to be at least a small part in a larger dividend for me than the dividend I got this year.
Dindak - You are correct. The stock price is now back to where it was in 1993 and 30 points lower than its record high a few years back. An 11 year net price appreciation of 0. Assuming their dividend is roughly equivalent to the inflation rate, an investment in GM stock has been dead money over the past decade. That would explain the ridiculously low market P/E of 8. The company continues to have inherent profitability problems stemming from huge incentives to move uncompetitive products. New and competitive products such as the new Caddys and SUVs help to correct the problem. Products like the Aztec, Grand Prix, and this regrilled rehash, continue to excaberate the problem.
Thanks for confirming my numbers. The GM stock price in late 1993 is virtually the same as now. If you want to go further back, the performance even gets worse. From 1970 to early 1993, the price appreciation was 0 as well.
The problems over the last ten years had much more to do with pension and health care costs and older, more expensive manufacturing facilities.
GM has done and excellent job reducing payroll, it has largely funded pension and health care liabilities, and it is near the end of a project to update its facilities. With these cost savings, GM will be more profitable than it has been for many years.
Logic is right. Pension and union issues are much larger drag than anything else. 0% financing costs very little in a very low interest rate environment.
So if GM stock was $26 10 years ago and is $53 today, how is that virtually the same? Stock also pays a very generous dividend. One of our clients (who works for Ford actually) bought 1000 @ 35 and is sitting pretty now.
Really, you can look at any stock, time frame it and say it's dead money. Look at all these tech stocks.
GM has made great progress in updating its manufacturing facilities, but if it uses them to produce uninspiring vehicles, it won't move that far ahead.
GM needs some barnburners in the mass market segments that compete with the same level of competence as the C6 Corvette and CTS-V do in their respective classes.
Unfortunately, GM's lineup still features too many warmed-over updates of vehicles that weren't that competitive in the first place. These "new" minivans are a prime example.
Unfortunately, GM is making due with what they have, financially they are ties by pensions, unions and other legacy costs. They can not afford to revamp everything and they desperately need to. These warmed over vans aren't that bad and might surprise us.
GM is demonstrating how fast it can adapt to the changing marketplace with its C-Max robots. That is how they are going to be able to change the ION so quickly, and hopefully it will signal a more Japanese approach to vehicle updates.
Based on what I've seen, the new GM minivans will hold the same ranking against the competition that their predecessors did - a good deal behind the Mopar, Honda and Toyota entries, and slightly behind the Ford entries.
First: Toyota Sienna XLE Second: 2004 Honda Odyssey EX-L/ Nissan Quest 3.5 SE (tie) Third: Chrysler Town & Country Limited Fourth: Mazda MPV ES Fifth: Ford Freestar SEL/ Mercury Monterey Premier Sixth: Kia Sedona EX Seventh: Buick Terraza CXL/Saturn Relay/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6 Eighth: Chevrolet Astro LT/ GMC Safari SLE (unless you're towing, then the Astro goes to the top) Did I miss a van? Agreed?
The Freestar's interior and dashboard are nice...a major improvement over the Windstar.
The GM minivans are too narrow, a result of sharing a platform with Opel/Vauxhall models. The updated models are still at a disadvantage against competitors in this regard.
grbeck : Actually the slight more narrow GM vans are a huge advantage in that they will fit in my garage. Big wide vans are actually a disadvantage to me and many others.
Dindak: I don't doubt that the GM vans meet your needs better than the competition, but looking at the overall market, it seems as though most buyers prefer a wider van.
What has saved the GM minivans is that they offer more reliable drivetrains than their domestic competitors.
rctennis3811 : Hey.. if tailgating is your thing then ya, grab a freestar. Like I said before, everyone looks for different things. To assume everyone puts a tailgating seat / fold flat seat as their #1 priority is just not reality.
grbeck : Most people I know in newer houses face the same issue. Our neighbor just bought a Quest and now realizes she can't fit it into the garage and has to park it in the cold and snow. Maybe most people do like wider but their is a niche of people who prefer a bit less width. Selling point for a segment, no doubt!
I did not make any analysis of GM. I simply stated the correct facts as to their stock performance. It trades today at virtually the identical price as it did in late 1993. The facts for the 1970-1993 period are also correct. Compare the stock performance of many big industrial companies with the same pension and competitive issues as GM over the same period. Companies such as GM, MMM, Proctor and Gamble etc... You will find they were hardly dead money. To say they are in the same boat as GM is completely wrong. Your excuses and explanations as to why GM has performed so poorly may in fact be correct, although I feel that product deficiencies are still the number one problem. However, whatever excuse you pick, long term investors in GM have not fared well at all. That is just a fact. Again, the P/E is not 8 by accident.
Some of my tech stock bought at the same period accelerated very quickly. Then it reversed, to put it mildly. The stock I sold before the losses were too bad did me fine. The other stock is worthless.
None of the tech shares paid a dividend.
But there is a huge difference between cost of manufacturing and incentives. GM shareholders at least for the time I have held the stock have encouraged GM to cut operating costs. The reason I continue to hold GM stock is that GM has in fact cut operating costs deeper and quicker than many thought possible. Now that GM is moving away from incentives on its new product, it is reasonable to expect greater profitability, higher dividends (which are now taxed less) and higher gains in stock price.
I dunno, the fold flat seats seem to be the feature driving the minvan market these days. Its really what distinguished the Odyssey when it was introduced. Its really a 'gotta have' for most folks now.
'Cept no one told GM that it meant fold flat flush into the floor, not fold flat 6 inches above the load floor.
Imagine the cussing and swearing with folks trying to lift heavy items up over the 'hump' in the load floor. First heavy item with momentum to snag that bump will see many annoynaces from many buyers saying, 'never again will I buy such an afterthought design'.
reg : Do you honestly think that most people will care about the 6 inches that much if the rest of the van is nice? Maybe you are right, time will tell.
spartanmann : "That is just a fact". If you say so. I still don't see how $28 in 93 is the same as $53 today though.
I think I asked this before, but what exactly are the innovative features in the new vans that will allow GM to sell them at a higher profit with less incentives? Remember the Freestar has a $2500 rebate 3 months after launch and they actually bothered to put in a fold flat rear seat.
Comments
I guess some only look for that.
you only buy a minivan for its utility. who WOULDN'T want fold flat seats?
Plus, even if you don't fold them, you have a storage compartment for kids' toys or whatever.
-juice
I do not really have any idea about this. I have no kids, so mini-vans are pretty low on my list of vehicles.
-juice
picture logic at best buy loading the big screen tv into his van, check that....TRYING to...the lost 6" in height meant he had to have it delivered instead!
Sears charges for delivery but will take your old television away for 10 bucks. I have a 36" Panasonic cathode ray tube hdtv that weighs a ton! When I get my new tv, I plan on taking outrageous advantage of Sears' offer.
oh, you mean UPLANDER, a GM product
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p79cc97dc317248d514af- 4e8cb42c9620/f9f611c4.jpg
3rd row actually looks livable, and it's packed into a reasonably small wrapper.
-juice
to the general public these vehicles are unchanged, when compared to the press assault of the other real new vans.
of course its gonna need at least 4 or 5 grand to move em.
spartanmann : GM stock has doubled in the last 6 months.
With GM pulling more and more of its other vehicles out of the rental markets, even if the vans become fleet material, it could help the GM bottom line.
Over the next few years, I expect the mini-vans to be at least a small part in a larger dividend for me than the dividend I got this year.
Jan 10, 2003 stock price $39.11
Jan 10, 2004 stock price $53.81
Based on the info available at GM's web site
The problems over the last ten years had much more to do with pension and health care costs and older, more expensive manufacturing facilities.
GM has done and excellent job reducing payroll, it has largely funded pension and health care liabilities, and it is near the end of a project to update its facilities. With these cost savings, GM will be more profitable than it has been for many years.
So if GM stock was $26 10 years ago and is $53 today, how is that virtually the same? Stock also pays a very generous dividend. One of our clients (who works for Ford actually) bought 1000 @ 35 and is sitting pretty now.
Really, you can look at any stock, time frame it and say it's dead money. Look at all these tech stocks.
GM needs some barnburners in the mass market segments that compete with the same level of competence as the C6 Corvette and CTS-V do in their respective classes.
Unfortunately, GM's lineup still features too many warmed-over updates of vehicles that weren't that competitive in the first place. These "new" minivans are a prime example.
Second: 2004 Honda Odyssey EX-L/ Nissan Quest 3.5 SE (tie)
Third: Chrysler Town & Country Limited
Fourth: Mazda MPV ES
Fifth: Ford Freestar SEL/ Mercury Monterey Premier
Sixth: Kia Sedona EX
Seventh: Buick Terraza CXL/Saturn Relay/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6
Eighth: Chevrolet Astro LT/ GMC Safari SLE (unless you're towing, then the Astro goes to the top)
Did I miss a van? Agreed?
According to you.
Kia vans are crap, you must be joking! Freestar (Windstar) although new has lousy mileage / powertrain also and a 80's dash.
GM vans will easily be better than either. DC vans are tied for top spot IMO with Toyota and Honda.
The GM minivans are too narrow, a result of sharing a platform with Opel/Vauxhall models. The updated models are still at a disadvantage against competitors in this regard.
rctennis3811 : Ya, a fold flat seat.. wow.
What has saved the GM minivans is that they offer more reliable drivetrains than their domestic competitors.
grbeck : Most people I know in newer houses face the same issue. Our neighbor just bought a Quest and now realizes she can't fit it into the garage and has to park it in the cold and snow. Maybe most people do like wider but their is a niche of people who prefer a bit less width. Selling point for a segment, no doubt!
Some of my tech stock bought at the same period accelerated very quickly. Then it reversed, to put it mildly. The stock I sold before the losses were too bad did me fine. The other stock is worthless.
None of the tech shares paid a dividend.
But there is a huge difference between cost of manufacturing and incentives. GM shareholders at least for the time I have held the stock have encouraged GM to cut operating costs. The reason I continue to hold GM stock is that GM has in fact cut operating costs deeper and quicker than many thought possible. Now that GM is moving away from incentives on its new product, it is reasonable to expect greater profitability, higher dividends (which are now taxed less) and higher gains in stock price.
'Cept no one told GM that it meant fold flat flush into the floor, not fold flat 6 inches above the load floor.
Imagine the cussing and swearing with folks trying to lift heavy items up over the 'hump' in the load floor. First heavy item with momentum to snag that bump will see many annoynaces from many buyers saying, 'never again will I buy such an afterthought design'.
reg : Do you honestly think that most people will care about the 6 inches that much if the rest of the van is nice? Maybe you are right, time will tell.
spartanmann : "That is just a fact". If you say so. I still don't see how $28 in 93 is the same as $53 today though.