Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
mfarmer - Congratulations on your RDV and welcome to the family. I can't wait to hear of your delivery and real world experiences.
90merc - Thanks for the link. I wanted to read it and like you, found the review very favorable...except for the ubiquitous power issue.
And now, on with my show...I'm about to spill some brain (brian?) matter.
It's great to get so many viewpoints and opinions. Even though we may not all agree, we are able to listen to RDV criticism and discuss the pros and cons like adults...unlike some other areas in Town Hall.
Of all the comments I've read about the RDV, it seems there are only two criticisms. POWER and LOOKS.
Well, we owners know that POWER isn't lacking, and many people (including us owners) like the LOOKS.
Power. For recent forum participants, here is a list of vehicles and their 0-60 acceleration times, as tested by Car and Driver magazine:
Acura MDX 8.4
BMW X5 3.0 8.7
Lexus RX300 9.0
Subaru Forester 9.7
Mercedes ML320 9.7
BUICK RENDEZVOUS 9.9
Ford Expedition 9.9
Mitsubishi Montero 10.5
Ford Explorer 10.7
Land Rover Discovery 11.4
To me, the RDV appears to be mid-pack. Next complaint?
Looks. It looks like a minivan. So do the Mercedes ML320 and Acura MDX. Next complaint?
Demographics. Buick is definitely attracting a younger customer. The Regal GS and the RDV both appeal to 30, 40, and 50 somethings because of their intended missions. The Regal, with 240 hp, is a real wolf in sheeps clothing, while being roomy and comfortable. The RDV is a versatile and luxurious SUV alternative to a minivan.
Imports. Most people in the know about vehicles argue that the Japanese (Honda and Toyota) and the Europeans (Mercedes) build the best, most reliable, and most technically advanced cars in the world. Likewise, GM has a reputation for building cars of lower quality...and it is somewhat deserved. However, according to JD Power, Buick consistently rates among the very best manufacturers in initial quality and customer satisfaction. Also, if you read the Town Hall forums, you quickly learn that Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes cars are not immune to quality problems, defects, and mechanical breakdowns. Although hardly a fair sampling, if you read the ML320, MDX, RX300, and RDV forums, you'll soon realize that the RDV compares VERY favorably to those vehicles on all fronts (quality, performance, comfort, features, joy of ownership).
This thread is a pleasure to participate in because, unlike some others, we are not about bashing others. We all put a lot of thought and research into our decisions, based on our needs and budget, and we all came to the same conclusion...we all purchased the Buick RDV.
For those folks that take issue with 185 hp (despite the numbers), or think GM sucks, or think the RDV looks ugly, I say "don't buy one, it's not for you."
Our RDV is running great! Almost 2,000 miles since the beginning of June. Our mileage is still around 18 mpg average... city and highway. My friend will put in the new rear radio controls this week (recall our half-pint was testing his pitching arm inside the car).
Go Raiders!
R5
When I do get a chance to drive a Rendezvous, I'll let you all know of my driving impressions.
I can tell you this though...even Buick realises that the Rendezvous needs more power ;-) ;-), even if it's just for more comparable horsepower numbers (to its competitors) for marketing reasons. 0-60 mph figures are quite useless in advertising and the real world since track conditions, temperature, humidity, wind can make huge difference. That is why those Car & Driver numbers are difficult to compare, even if it's the same magazine. More useful is usable real world torque and horsepower. For example, the Honda S2000 roadster may have 200+ hp, but you need to rev it to a sky high 8000 rpms to wring that kind of horsepower out of the engine. Not very useful in real world, but great on the track.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Drew: I wouldn't care if the Rendezvous lost 1 whole second because of track conditions, wind, temperature, humidity, etc... who cares. I'd rather get 30-50% better fuel economy than to be able to race down city streets & freeways. Although I do realize it's a "perception thing", kind of like those who think they need 4 wheel drives when in fact 95% of them don't use it. Just my opinion, of course...
pacinpelo: here's a link to the site rem933 provided re: the Rendezvous replicas. However, as stated earlier, they only have them in black. Fedlawman's tip that the service depts. have them is good news; hopefully they have them in different colors. Does anyone know?
Rendezvous Replicas
r5: Greetings. I knew I'd get you out of lurk mode... Glad to hear the radio control knob(s) is close to getting fixed. Only 2K on your RDV, that's great. I'm glad to hear it's doing great & that your wife, in fact, loves it! [Inside line for old timers here.] - I hope I can say the Raiders will be doing as well after this week's game.
Go 9ers,
John B.
Ask any pilot if he/she would do performance planning and not use an E-6B to correct for temp, pressure, altitude, wind, etc.
0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration figures actually tell a lot about the real world performance of a car...but they don't tell the whole story. Just take your example of the S2000.
Of course, your statement about horsepower and torque cannot be ignored. The Honda S2000 and Pontiac Trans Am may take the same amount of time to reach 60 MPH, but which one is "more powerful"? which one would be better at towing a 3000 lb trailer?
Your argument, however, also happens to be THE reason why the RDV is getting a bad rap in the power department. For example, take the RX300 (puh-leese, ha ha).
Horsepower - Although the RDV has "only" 185 hp, it gets it at 5200 RPM. The RX300 has 222 hp, but it doesn't get there until 5800 RPM. The hp curve of these two cars UP TO 5200 RPM is probably very close.
Torque - The RDV has 210 ft. lbs. at 5200 RPM. This is much more on an even keel with the RX300's 222 ft. lbs. at 5800 RPM. In fact, down low, the RDV might even have a slight advantage.
The above examples illustrate why the RX300 gets to 60 MPH a little bit ahead of the RDV. It's because the RDV runs out of breath 600 revs sooner. Otherwise, up to 5200 RPM, the difference between the RDV and the RX300 is probably slight. Of course there are other factors such as final gear ratios, transmission programming, engine redline, etc. but my logic is sound...power is power, and test numbers do tell a story.
The point I am making here is that the differences in "power" between all of the members of this class (RX, Explorer, RDV, etc.) is not nearly as noticeable or significant as the press and naysayers would have us believe.
Here is my prediction. Buick will up the horsepower to 200 for the next model year, just to get the press off it's back, and the press will sing the praises of it's new-found power...but do you know how they'll do it? Not with a different engine. They'll take the same 3.4L and modify the cam lobe profile, adjust the ignition timing, and tweak the exhaust system. They'll easily get 200 hp out of it, but watch the torque...it'll be down to 195 ft. lbs.
I for one, hope Buick does not make any sacrifices in the RDV's great epa ratings, for the sake of a few extra ponies in the engine... and the will of a few thoughtless auto critics. :-)
Mary
Who needs more power? Well, people who tow for example. Or people who have to drive uphill a lot + 6 adults on board. More power may not be needed, but wanted.
I don't think the auto critics are necessarily thoughtless. They have the chance to drive a lot more vehicles on a regular basis than we would, and make more up-to-date comparisons. Constructive criticism is also what sparks improvements, and I personally would be all for that.
Good luck...
Great debate...
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Mary
And to some of our new RDV owners, welcome and congrats on your upcoming or recent purchases! Hopefully you'll enjoy your new vehicles as much as we are enjoying ours!
BY
I think it's more the latter. No it won't give you that "off the seat of your pants" feeling that most auto critics crave, but the RDV power is more than adequate. To quote Anita Lenert/Detroit News: "I had no problems merging onto the freeway or changing lanes." Other critics bring up the fact that RDV buyers will have many other reasons to buy this vehicle. That's a big part of the reason I, and others, come to Town Hall: to see what actual owners have to say.
To Spiritman- "Perhaps we could start a new discussion board for people who tow or drive uphill a lot..."
Ha ha, I was just thinking the same exact thing. Now onto another issue. A question to RDV owners: Are the owner manual instructions fairly easy to follow, or do my husband and I need to plan on spending some time at the dealership this evening (after delivery) to have the sales/service set up some of the features for us? Thanks for any advice.
Mary
The unique programing options for each driver are programmed via the DIC and not the door swithches, if you have DIC. You will probably have to set those personal preferences for you and your husband at home. And you will need to allow time for the dealer to set up your "on-star" system, which is actually a pretty cool feature. Just lock your keys in your car & you'll find out how cool it is. - My 7 year old son did so when we only owned the car 2 weeks.
You may want to allow a couple of hours to go over the car in great detail and to wallow in your elation of being a new RDV owner. Heck, I think I recall r5 spending half the nite at the dealership when he picked up his; and my wife, kids and I spent at least 2 hours at the dealer, in not more.
I've enjoyed your comments; you're a great adddition to the forum. You'll know what Islandpete1 was experiencing in Atlantic City - heads will be turning as you make the drive home. Enjoy!
You make dumb assertions, although I must remember, not everyone's has the same power under the dood & everyone's entitled to their own opinions.
Just my .02. I do not own an RDV, but looking at several of the previous postings, I think some of the owners are blatantly denying the fact that it is underpowered for a car that's supposed to compete in the luxury end of SUVs. Don't think that I'm bashing the RDV- it's an agreeably nice looking car, and its power is probably well suited for day to day driving despite its low hp rating.
It seems to me that what owners are saying is they, in fact, don't find the RDV to be underpowered. Period.
Have you driven one yet?
ejp
I'll repeat my earlier question. What problem are we trying to solve where more power in the Rendezvous is the answer? Again, Drew is correct by focusing on the use of or need for power (e.g.: mountains and towing) rather than power for nothing more than bragging rights sake. But here in the midwest, mountains are a non-issue and despite many upscale lakes in the area, I've yet to see a trailer hitch on an ML, MDX, or RX.
If you have a need for more power than the Rendesvous delivers then its not for you. If you don't, then great. Just like if you have the need for more cargo capacity then the ML, MDX, or RX delivers then they're not for you, but the Rendezvous may be just the thing. But to debate power in the abstract is just sterile. Like I said hundreds of posts ago, as long as any manufacturer has a more powerfull engine in their lineup, there will always be someone, somewhere who will insist that that was the engine they should have used.
However, I'm closer to Mary than to Drew in my opinion of the automotive press. While they get to drive and compare far more vehicles than any of us, I think its possible to get so close to the subject that you get so caught up in the details comparing stats and 0-60 times that you may fail to relate these back to each vehicle's mission so that something like HP becomes an end in itself compared in the abstract rather than in how it relates to real life needs. So you run the risk of getting less than usefull blanket comments like this vehicle's "underpowered" rather than purpose directed comments such as "this is not the vehicle for towing heavy loads." Interestingly, I believe Jamie Kitman of Automobile Magazine recently chided his bretheren for falling for the cult of the BMW standard where vehicle designers design vehicles to try to please the press and win comparision tests rather than design vehicles with characteristics that real world people like and need.
Just my 0.02 cents of course,
CWJ
If I were to include figures for minivans and the rest of the full-size crowd (The Montero is about the same size as the RDV), the RDV would still be mid-pack. Also, even the vehicles above the RDV on the list are within a few tenths of a second of the RDV.
My point with all this is, "why is the RDV constantly described as underpowered when Expeditions, Odyssey's, Grand Caravans, RX300's, etc. are just fine?"
CWJ- you snuck in ahead of me. Very well spoken, as usual. It's the purpose for which the vehicle was designed that dictates how much power it needs.
But from the arguments that some of the owners are posting, it's clearly obvious, when looking at the RDV and its *intended* competitors (MDX, X5, RX300) and not cars that it's actually cross shopped against, that the RDV is underpowered. Any car's engine is like its brain. The less power it has, the weaker it is when compared to other 'brains' with higher capacities. Does that make the car any 'dumber' than the other cars? No.
Your sarcastic statement "Have you driven one yet" implies that you think that I'm bashing the car, when all I'm saying is that, looking at the factual data, the car is simply underpowered. Period.
fedlaw- all the other cars are adaquate because they're not Buicks. When a car wears a luxury badge, people expect more from it, especially in terms of power. It doesn't matter, to a certain degree, if the given power rating is all the car needs. If it wants to be competitive, it has to offer the same or a better package than its competitors. And that is what the review of the RDV, the major complaint that it was underpowered, was trying to point out.
I think that CWJ hit the issue on the head with "if you have a need for more power than the Rendesvous delivers then its not for you. If you don't, then great". This can apply to any vehicle on the market. Since we all have different criteria and different environments, some may find it underpowered, others may find it adequte, and another group will find it good. Everyone's opinion is equally valid afterall, and one shouldn't make blanket statements pro or con in either way.
With the Rendezvous competiting with upscale European and Japanese SUVs though, they do need to update the engine, if nothing else then for NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) improvements as far as refinement goes. I wonder if the Olds Intrigue's 3.5L V6 will fit under the hood? While that engine is still not a match to the ultra smooth Toyota V6, it's a lot closer than the pushrod engines. Those of you who have driven a Camry V6, RX300, or Highlander V6 will know how silky smooth the engine is.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Mfarmer2 (Mary), like you I am from Central Florida and have yet to see another RDV on the road. We do get compliments on our pewter CX. About the only accessory/option we don't have that a CXL has is the HUD (and of course the AWD, which is not as necessary in Florida). Are you picking up your RDV from Orange Buick? I think you will enjoy your new vehicle.
We have had one minor problem so far - the left rear tail light lens has a crack starting at a dimple on the lens. We'll see what the dealer can do about it.
bb1129, yeah, so I heard, Too bad.
I wonder how the RX300 and MDX do for this job?
Comments?
Ken
"Pros: ..., spunky V6, ..."
"Around town, Montana feels downright spunky, with good throttle response and car-like handling. Its four-speed automatic shifts seamlessly..."
This is all for a vehicle upon who's platform the RDV is based and uses an identical engine. The only difference is curb weight; Montana 3,942 lbs, RDV 4,250 lbs. I don't think 300 lbs makes worlds of difference, it's only a 1.7 lbs per horse difference.
Like I said, basically, it comes down to perceptions; since the Montana is a Minivan, it's considered "spunky", but since the RDV is considered a luxury SUV, it's underpowered. In my mind, both vehicles will end up performing the same day-to-day duties, so it's a non-issue except to the status-conscious who want to brag about horsepower numbers with their RX300 driving neighbors.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Thanks for asking. No, we're going to Coggin-Starling Buick in Kissimmee. We've been working with a really nice sales person over there. Also, they were the only dealer in this area that did not try to stick a dealer, or advertising fee, onto their price. We're heading over there in a couple of hours to pick up our RDV. Needless to say, we're pretty excited!
To Drew- "as a matter of fact, I do drive uphill a lot since my area is quite hilly. I also live on a mountain, so climbing up and down the hill is a daily matter. You can see why power is an issue for me."
Yes, for YOU and a number of other non-owners, it's a big issue. Thank goodness we have more than one suv choice, and perhaps all the more reason I think spiritman's suggestion of starting up a new discussion on this power "issue" is a excellent idea. By the same token, if owners of other makes/models really think we RDV owners are such an interesting and intelligent crowd, that they need to spend so much time in this discussion, we certainly don't mind their company. :-) Enjoy your suv's everyone!
Mary
crank, as we were discussing yesterday, it's not a good idea to simply look at horsepower to weight ratio (using the Honda S2000 example) because what really matters is at what rpms the power and torque is available at. If we are comparing the ML320 and the Rendezvous, I'm afraid the ML320 easily wins for more usable power as 90% of its horsepower and torque is available at only 2000 rpms, and peak torque of 233 ft-lbs is available from 3000-4500 rpms. It's also clean enough to qualify for ULEV ratings. Even though the ML320's engine is smaller, and the vehicle weighs more, it's still quicker ;-). Additionally, those who are interested in the M-class can satisfy their want for more power by moving up to the ML430 (or the ML500 for '02), or the ML55 AMG. Frankly though, I don't think many potential Rendezous owners will be cross shopping with the Lexus RX300, the MB M-class, or the Acura MDX, despite what Buick wants us to think. It is more likely that they were looking at domestic SUVs, such as the '02 Explorer, the GM triplets (Envoy, Trailblazer, Bravada), or the Jeep Liberty/Grand Cherokee.
An optional larger engine for the Rendezvous is actually a pretty good idea, IMHO. However, given the current sales, it's probably not enough to justify the costs just yet. This could change in the near future.
'nuff said
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
As I previously stated, I hope the RDV and The General are very successful.
And, dear Host, with all drew respect, given the price difference, you can't consider the RDV to be going head-to-head ("potential customers") with the more expensive models (MDX, RX300, X5). Definitely Buick is looking to siphon off some sales, but the RDV will be considered by those who couldn't or wouldn't fit the other makes into their budgets.
Second, it is a noisy, old push rod design. It's so obvious everytime I push the gas pedal. When compared to a silky-smooth Toyota/Lexus 3.0L V6 the differences are obvious. The NVH factor from the engine just detracts from the perceived "luxury" of any given vehicle.
Third, my GA weighs over 1000 pounds less than the RDV. With the 3.4L the car is enjoyable and has adequate passing power. It can lag a little on parkway hills if the AC is on. And this is a 3000LB car. I'm sorry, but I've driven the Aztek, which has the same engine and weighs less than the RDV, and it's lethargic.
I guess it really comes down to whether you like to drive (I'm not talking about racing) or you just view the vehicle as a box to get you from point A to point B. If having a nice headroom on power is not important to you, than the RDV is fine.
Even GM is running a commercial on the radio now that says the Envoy is more luxurious than the RX300 because it has more HP than it. (Which is a crock because it's the overall "package", which Lexus does better than anyone). So in fact GM is unintentionally admitting that the RDV is underpowered. But then again, the traditional Buick buyer doesn't really enjoy to "drive".
Enjoy the miles.
I am a car enthusiast and a Buick owner.
I have the 3.8 in my '99 Bonneville and it can really get up and go on the times I need/want it. The car we got rid of (thankfully) was a 92 Dodge Caravan ES with a 3.3 - 6 cyl. My wife drove it up a couple of steep hills for years with never a power problem. Now I'm not a tech guy, but I would assume the RDV w/ a 3.4 engine & 185 horses has more power than the Caravan. Am I wrong??? A coulpe of weeks ago, we drove the RDV up the hills around Yosemitee w/ my wife, 2 kids (10 & 7), a full load, and 4 bikes on the RDV trailer hitch/bike rack. Never once did I feel like the car didn't have enough power. Now maybe if I was pulling a huge boat or mobile home and trying to pass some cars up in the hills, then perhaps I'd really want a bigger engine; perhaps the 3.8.
When we bought the RDV, we checked out the smooth driving Highlander (cousin of RX300 - 6c yl.) but realized there is no cargo space at all for family/friends, etc...; also test drove the MDX. An adult cannot very easily get in the 3rd row. For us, 3rd row access & convenience was important. Believe me, if the MDX seemed to be a better overall package for the money, we would have bought it.
The end of your post said something about headroom. I'm assuming you were saying it doesn't have any??? Well there are many cars that I can barely sit in, because I'm 6'1" & sit tall. But I have more than enough headroom in the RDV. Maybe if I was 6'6", perhaps it'd be different.
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Enjoying the Nice Ride,
John B.
As for my vehicle, after 3 days with the dealer, the part they ordered didn't take care of my problem (Service Traction Control system light keeps coming on when I start the car, then stays lit for about a minute). Buick has told them to try a different avenue and order a different part for the vehicle but it won't be in for another two weeks and there is no guarantee that it will solve the problem.
I must say that I was happy to get back into my RDV after driving the Dodge Intrepid. It was nice to get back into a vehicle which has a little bit more pick-up :-) as the Intrepid (and I don't know HP or torque of anything) was draggy at lower speeds.
I would have figured it to have more pep.
First, I wish folks (not you John) in all the forums here would read the entire message before they respond. Try to digest what is being said. And remember, everybody has a different POV.
Also, the only thing I'm addressing with the RDV is the engine. Anything I say can not be extrapolated out to "I think the RDV stinks." That's not the point of the discussion.
John, what I mean by headroom power is having that extra engine punch without resorting to a downshift first. The GM 3.4L V6 is usually mated to a pretty cool electronic 4-speed transmission (at least on the GA it is). It's semi-intelligent, and does two things: if you press the gas pedal half-way, it'll open the gas throttle all the way but hold it in the present gear until the upshift is ready. If you stomp the gas pedal to the floor, it'll immediately do a downshift (which will create all kinds of torque at the wheels) in order to do it's best to give you the extra oomph you're asking of it. Try this experiment when you get a chance and let me know if it works. It should if the tranny is the one I'm talking about here.
I don't know about the '92 Caravan, never saw the specs or drove one. Engine sizes are deceiving, the RDV and RX300 are great examples. Because of the ancient (yet reliable) design of the push-rod engine, GM has to use size (3.4L) just to generate 185HP (which is the very top this engine can do). Toyota/Lexus can get 220HP out of a smaller engine (3.0L) and actually meet ULEV standards. This done through advanced engineering like variable valve timing (yes Drew, which I believe Mercedes innovated ) and other intelligent controls.
Remember my point about POV (point of view)? For me this engine/technology (GM 3.4L) in this weight class is anemic. Doesn't mean it's bad. We lived with a '97 Pathfinder for 4 years, which was another example of an undersized engine for it's weight class. Once you start to compare and drive other newly designed vehicles in this weight class you'll be shocked on how responsive they feel. Heck, look at what GM did with the new 270HP V6 for the Envoy. I'm suprised and very happy they did it.
Once again, we're only talking about engine size. If you need three row seating in a "non-minvan look", then there aren't many choices at this price range and RDV deserves serious consideration if you are shopping. I'm just dissapointed in GM because they let the bean-counters ruin a good concept once again, they should have spent the bucks to "adapt" a better engine to this vehicle rather than continue along with the Montana/Azzztek guts.
If you'd like to learn more about the RDV's engine click here.
#788 of 1347 "My Experiences" by islandpete1 Jun 12, 2001 (09:01 am)
Picked up my RDV three weeks ago. Dealer had just received two the day before. Saw a CXL Pewter/Graymist that had the SD package(Versatility)and fell in love with it. Have put on 500 Mi so far and it runs great. To answer the question of power. Hey, if you are use to high performance and jack rabbit starts, this is not the vehicle for you. It is a smooth runner and the power is there. I noticed the gas pedal has to be pushed a little further to get the downshift working. In passing if you remember to do this, the engine power will surprise you. Passing presents no problem. My RDV came with the Firestone tires and they are a very smooth quiet tire. Do not believe for one moment GM would put them on their Buicks on the heels of the "Explorer" mess with the "Wilderness" tire.
As I also mentioned, I'm not a techy, & therefore thought perhaps you had made some kind of a typo when you said a "nice headroom on power"... Thanks for the clarification. Scratch my headroom explanation.
And your point, "If you need three row seating in a "non-minvan look", then there aren't many choices at this price range and RDV deserves serious consideration if you are shopping" is right on. That's exactly what we did. And the RDV, all things considered, proved to be the best for my family. Is it perfect? Of course not. I don't believe there are any that are, except for perhaps the Aztec...at least that's what Ekzur keeps telling us. Obviously, really kidding.
Islandpete1: well said. I remember that post of yours from long ago. And bottom line, while it's not a car for street racing it's great for families. Enjoy!
mfarmer2: You're probably due back any time now. Let us know how great it went for you & your husband.
Regarding the above, it's what is called a kickdown switch. All automatic transmissions (excluding the ones from 15 or 20 years ago perhaps) have kickdown switches. In addition to this, if your A/C is on, there is also a cut-off switch that will automatically turn off the compressor so as to provide the engine will less of a load. Remember how in the old cars with smaller engines, you had to turn off the A/C manually?
Happy driving,
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
I have always loved cars and my friends and I love to talk about them. Also, I am hearing many opinions about power that I never considered before.
For instance, the concept of the RDV being considered underpowered because it is supposed to be a luxury car and is expected to be powerful never occurred to me. Also, the superior ability of the ML320 to tow despite having a power-to-weight ratio similar to the RDV is enlightening.
All I can say is, despite the fact that we all seem to be hearing one another, we aren't really listening to each other, are we?
I can conclude that "power" is a complex, abstract term that means something different to everyone here...and it is probably based on what they need "power" for.
I can understand if someone argues that the RDV is underpowered because it's intended to compete with cars costing upwards of $40K...it needs to have "200" in the horsepower column, or say "24V" and "VVTi" if it wants to attract buyers in this segment. OK, I'll buy that.
What doesn't stand the test of logic is using meaningless terms such as "lethargic", "anemic", "out of it's element on the interstate", etc. Where is the context? Is it anemic because the ML320 has 20 ft. lbs. more torque and a flatter curve? Maybe it's lethargic because it takes a second longer to travel 1/4 mile than an RX300? This type of context would be more meaningful, and worthy of debate.
I have already proven to myself that the RDV can hustle down the interstate at 90+ MPH loaded with six adults and luggage. The suspension is well tuned, and the RDV climbs grades and passes adequately. With my background of driving, riding, and flying all manner of vessels, take my word for it, in this segment, the power of the RDV is completely, utterly, average. A few are better, and a few aren't.
Tonychris - Very good! Your point about headroom is right on. Flexibility is the key ingredient where the imports have the advantage. The multi-valve, variable-timed units are more efficient and have more "power" over a broader range. That's why they can do more with less displacement. Yes, they are superior to the pushrod 3.4L.
I will say that, given all the virtues that the RDV possesses, for us, the engine is just fine. While admittedly a little below the bar, it remains a smooth, powerful, efficient, and competent motor, perfectly adequate at motivating the RDV in a manner similar to the competition. It's no standout, but it attains the benchmark. I too would have loved to see GM hit a home run with multi-valve RDV. I think it was a calculated decision to cut costs that doesn't really hurt the RDV's performance so much as it's market appeal.
No one ever said that it was a bad car, or that it wasn't competent. It was the RDV owners who automatically assumed that.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
The whole process went very smoothly. After arriving at the dealership around 6 pm, we test drove the vehicle for the first time. Ride and build quality met, or exceeded, all our expectations. We'd also had a chance to test drive another RDV at another dealership, but that vehicle had been sold by the very next morning.
Back to the purchase: while waiting to sign papers, we went ahead and set up our OnStar, Universal Translink, Seat Memory, DIC fuel settings. This was followed by the signing of papers, which took all of 5 minutes! I guess with a 36/36 lease, they figured no point in trying to sell us on an Ext. Warranty.
I should mention this is also our very first GM product. Previously, we've owned Nissan, Toyota, and Honda vehicles and never considered a Buick till now. Actually my husband's parents have owned a number of Buicks, with very few problems, so we felt quite comfortable going this direction.
Other vehicle considerations were all over the map: Villager, Odyssey, Mazda Tribute/MPV, Lexus RX300, Volvo V70, and others. Don't ask, it just depended on the given day of the month. Ideas were also inspired by manufacturer incentives and weekend vehicle ads. :-) Value for dollar, third row seat, and epa ratings were weighed in heavily on our final decision.
One question about OnStar: what are your experiences with using the Onstar? Also, does anyone think it's worth upgrading to the premium package for $199? How's their route support and concierge services? Opinions would be very much appreciated. Thanks, ahead of time. :-)
Mary
indylowflyer : Rendezvous is not under powered. It is adequately powered. Most SUV-type crossovers are over powered and burn more gas. I like Rendezvous because it's a fuel miser. Yes I think there should be an larger engine offered for some, but the 3.4L does a fine job. My test took me through all driving conditions with 2 others in the car. No problems anywhere for power.