Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
Well then don't make that H-O-N-D-A purchase an Accord because some 98 Accord's are being recalled for the same exact problem, "vehicle could roll away even when shifter is in park."
A Trans Sport would be a good choice! Also
the new 99' Montanas offer a 2nd Generation
power sliding door that is much more sensitive
than last years model.
I am very happy with my Montana (Trans Sport).
We eleminated Chrysler because we wanted leather and other goodies, and the Chrysler stuff is very expensive in that configuration. If you don't want leather you might look at the "Sport" package.
The Windstar was attractive in the Limited package, which we found to be heavily discountable, but in '98 had that weird oversized driver's door instead of a sliding side door; Windstar is probably very attractive now, if they still have similar prices on the 99s as the 98s.
We did not seriously consider the Toyota because it's slightly undersized and missing "van" stuff such as load leveling suspension; It gave me the impression that the designers don't understand the mini van market.
In the GM mini vans you have Chevrolet Venture, Pontiac Montana, and Oldsmobile Silhoutte. The Chevy is a great value unless you want leather, which is why we didn't buy it. The Olds Silhoutte is real plush too.
www.Pontiac.com
For 1999, the GM trio now has the next-generation (reduced deployment speed) air bags.
GM also has a safety item that no other minivan has, let alone have as standard equipment: namely, side impact air bags. So other minivans might fair better than the GM trio when crashing into a solid fixed barrier at 40 MPH (equal to a 78 MPH crash into a parked car), but will fair worse in a side collision.
Safty IS important. But lets keep it in
perspective. The chances of a minivan driver getting into a real bad accident is next to zero. See href="http://www.carsafety.org/ictl7.htm" for
injury rates,
and...
href="http://www.carsafety.org/ddr7.htm" for death
rates.
There are so many features and considerations that
each of us must consider before making a
significant purchase ( close to $30k after taxes).
To eliminate a choice simply on the basis of one
crash test --that is least likely to happen to a
minivan driver-- is paranoid. And the injuries
from a frontal crash will only pertain to adults (children should not ride in the front seat).
All Volvo owners I have met are safety paranoid.
They are willing to settle for a smaller and more
expensive (and in my opinion, ugly) vehicle with great safety engineered into them. But death rates for Volvos are not any better the the GM minivans
href="http://www.carsafety.org/ddr2.htm".
So Volvo is one of the most safe cars on the road and yet its injury and deaths are no better than
minivans.
Buy a minvan because it meets your needs and likes, and not because of false hysteria.
Best of luck,
VentureMan
It's also true that the IIHS crash test is the same as hitting an oncoming car that has wandered over the center line, with both cars going 40mph! That doesn't sound quite as unlikely an occurrence, does it? And it doesn't matter how safe or careful a driver you are, because you're dependent on the actions of other driver every time you hit the road.
An anecdote: This is a true story, and no, I don't think you can extrapolate from one event to an entire population. This is just an example.
A few years ago, a coworker of mine was driving home from church on a two lane country road. Another driver, who coincidentally was a coworker of my wife's, was driving the other way. She dropped off onto the right shoulder, and in trying to get back on the road she overcompensated, crossed the center line, and collided with my friends car. Closing speed was about 75 to 80 mph (35 to 40 mph each), and almost exact duplicate of the IIHS speed, and the offset amount was very close to what IIHS uses.
Neither driver had any history of accidents, speeding tickets, or anything of that sort, so statistically, at least, were "safe" drivers.
All passengers in both vehicles were belted, no one had air bags. My friend was in an older model Nissan Maxima. He had a broken elbow, which he had been resting on the door, hanging outside the drivers side window. There was no significant intrusion of the engine or wheel assembly into the passenger cell.
The other driver was in a similar sized car, but I don't remember what. There was major intrusion of structural elements into the passenger cell. The rescue squad had to cut the car apart to remove her. She had multiple fractures of both legs, and had multiple surgeries and therapies lasting a couple of years.
The odds of this happening to me, or you, are admittedly small. But given that they DO happen, and could happen to me, the video of the front wheel crashing into the passenger compartment chills me.
As I was saying before I was interrupted by whatever that was, I think that if everything else was equal, I would buy the vehicle with the 5* rating over the vehicle with the 4* rating. But everything else is not equal, even the OTHER safety items such as side airbags, 2nd generation front airbags, traction control and load leveling suspension.
For me, the GM minivan's are great. There's a 1* difference between these vans and and the best tested in crash ratings, which is not worth considering; It's the difference between 24MPG and 27MPG, it has no practical difference.
But some people here make a big deal about a 1* difference. Some of the people in these conferences who post 'crash test data' aren't even looking for a van, they just come here and post 'data'. I don't know why?
Enjoy!
After all, you couldn't pay a high enough premium to get an insurance company to cover you. NOT!
Insurance companies do not charge a higher premium due to the results of this crash. For those Consumer Report spouters, CR states the injury claim rate compared with:
All cars : a full red circle
Minivans : a full red circle
The GM minivans may have faired bad in the offset crash, but they would be the safest car I ever drove. I've never owned a car with an airbag.
Now, I could go a step further and spend $25k-$30k on car that I don't want that is safer in one specific crash. But as DPS1 pointed out, how would the GM vans perform in an offset crash where only 35%, OR 45% of the vehicle crashed at an offset into a fixed barrier (the offset was 40% in the test)? And I don't expect an answer unless someone can prove they have a graduate degree or better in Physics with years of real life work studying crash impacts behind that degree (ie., no guessing or surmising).
The fact is, GM gives you the most in a minivan for your money! And a good deal of the equipment is standard. And GM will give you two remote key fobs, leather, auto loadleveling with an aux hose to add air to your tires (no more searching or begging for an air hose at a gas station) or balls or air matrisses camping, side airbags, both a CD and cassette player... and get this, passengers can control from the rear seat the remaining two components; if I am listening to the radio up front, the kids can control either the CD or cassette from the rear and listen via headphones (two jacks). And for those with (extra) money, a fold down video display, VCR, and controls that can be used for video games and the VCR, with headphone jacks.
And I'm sure I didn't mention all the extra equipment that is not even offered on other minivans.
Best of luck,
VentureMan
It sounds like a great deal, why don't you get one?
Here are my observations - I test drove the Montana last week, and it exhibits the typical "American car" ride - its hard to describe but a good description would be "soft and comfortable". I've owned three Japanese sedans and a truck since, and a Volvo, and have been pleased with each. All have lasted (I still drive the Accord, the truck, and Volvo) far greater than 100,000. The last GM product I owned was a 1985 Buick Skyhawk, which I was lucky to get 100,000 miles out of before I sold it. My observation, for what its worth, is that the GM products have greatly improved, but this is based on what I have read, and not my personal experience. I'm hesitant to purchase another GM product without a thorough review of the alternatives. I suppose the big reason I'm considering a Montana is because of the $3000 from my GM credit card redemption.
FYI, I'm currently getting prices on the Montana and Silhouette. The price quoted to me by a local buying service in the Atlanta area for the Silhouette GLS (the loaded one, with leather) was about $250 more than the Edmunds invoice, which is about 1% over invoice. I know that other more highly touted minis (e.g., Odyssey) are and will be getting close to MSRP for the next year. I will get the Montana quote this coming week and will post if anyone is interested.
Venture vs. Montana vs. Silhouette:
So why the Venture? Well... If someone wanted to spend less on the options to save money, the Venture is the "Value Leader" (sounds like a ad, doesn't it?). But I plan on getting a fully loaded GM minivan.
Fully loaded, you actually get more for your money to purchase a Silhoutte; about $25 less and you get passenger elec seat, rocker moldings with front/rear mud guards, fog lamps, and tachometer.
So... why not the Montana? The main reason is that the nearest Pontiac dealer is 45 minutes away. Also, I want the load leveling suspension and the Montana has has the stiffest of the three. I want a softer ride. I already have a 4X4 SUV, and don't need two cars that will bounce me around.
I also don't like Montana's radio and the light gray interior toggle panel buttons on the dark grey background (pretty superficial, I know). On the flip side, you can get radio controls on the steering wheel with the Montana.
At this point, I am mainly considering the Venture because I live in Calif and have different incentives than the rest of the country to consider. Chevy is giving 0.9% financing vs. 3.9% for the Silhouette. The savings is about $1200 over the 36 month loan period. There is no CASH currently being offered.
Also, of 193,500 GM minivans built last year, over half (99,500) were Ventures, 58,300 were Montanas, and 35,700 were Silhouettes. Looking into my crystal ball I am thinking it will be easier to resale a Chevy Venture as there is a larger pool of potential buyers for these minivans. And I hate to admit it publicly, but I like the big toothy grill of the Chevy. It's the only feature that distinguishes it from all the other minivans on the road; all other minivan hoods look very simular.
I hope my views help you dcide which GM minivan is right for you.
Best of luck,
VentureMan
If you look at NHTSA's explanations, a 5 star rating means 10% or less chance of serious injury, and 4 star 10% to 20% chance of serious injury. So the difference between the Sienna and the GM trio could be as much as 20 times (or as little as 1% point). NHTSA doesn't provide finer gradation, but looking at the IIHS videos, my bet would be on a larger rather than smaller difference.
Best to you and yours,
VentureMan
href="http://www.auto.com/98autoshow/photos/concept/pont_montana_thunder/1.shtml"
VentureMan
Check it out here.
KarenS/Edmund's host
Sounds about right. Most of the GM vans are offering 0.0 for 36 mo, 2.9 for 48 mo, and 3.9 for
60 mo. I have not heard of any dealer incentives.
$200 over invoice is a good price. That is what I will be paying for my Venture,
Best of luck,
VentureMan
Handling Package", along with just about every other option (except leather seats and power passenger seat). This minivan handles better (on cornering) than any other minivan I tested. It is also extremely quiet, and has a great turning radius. My wife loves the "SUV look" of the Montana, and quite honestly, I probably wouldn't have even looked at this minivan had it not been for that. I am hoping for the best on reliability, since my last GM car (like others on this list)was a 1984 Buick Skyhawk (the ill-fated J-Car). It literally fell apart at 60,000 miles.
Since the Montana is so well designed, I'm willing to put up with a few minor problems, should they arise. Just my .02 cents.
I'm trading in a 91 Grand Caravan. I will never own another. If it wasn't for the 7/70 my wallet would be far lighter today! All said and done, We're buying a van between today and New Year's. Please, I need to overload my mine just a little more.... are you satisfied with your Montana's?
Because of the place I work I can get a GM product for 4% over dealer cost, no haggle. Plus, here in Canada, until Jan. 10 GMAC is offering 1..9% financing. Both of those combined are prompting me to look at the Pontiac and the Olds rather than the Honda.
cylinder and the rear cylinders because they had leaks. I like the van but the brakes are a
problem.
I looks to me as if there is not an area where a child could sever fingers. But I would think they could get smashed real bad where the slider door meets the passenger door.
Best of luck,
VentureMan
I haven't got the Venture as my salesman couldn't figure out how to concentrate on finging me one.
Told him what I wanted on Dec 28th and the nut instead spent time on customers who did not yet know what they wanted. This would be a no-brainer to me: Work on the sale at hand.
If he would have sold me a van by Dec 31, he would have made another $500 on incentives. January 04 came and went, along with the 0.9% financing. The same financing is now at 2.9%. So... he lost his extra $500 and I lost $750 in lower financing because he couldn't focus for 4 or 5 hours on finding me a van. He said he lost two other sales because of the financing going up.
Well, the playing field is now level for all three GM minivans.
I went and gave another look at the Silhouette. I like everything except the material the seats are made of. I've seen this material before and it doesn't hold up too well to kids.
I went to the GM dealer page, and behold, a new Pontiac dealership is starting about 5 miles away.
I never considered the Montana because I would have to travel 45 minutes for servicing. They are suppose to be ready to sell vehicles Jan 15th. I think I will give them a good consideration and will probably purchase one if all checks out okay. I do like the looks of the Montana better than the Venture.
I can't believe this guy is in fleet sales! The last two fleet salesmen I dealt with took my order on the phone and got me the car in a day or two. I just had to come in, look over and test drive the vehicle, sign the papers, and leave. What a Ding-dong! He couldn't even complete a sure deal.
VentureMan
I said, I'll have cash here before you can top off the fluids and fill it with gas. He pulled a bogus invoice out of his a** and I walked that very instant. The sales manager running after me yelling 'why are you leaving?' still makes me laugh!
Leather is not an option as it isn't available with 8 passenger seating (on any of the GM minivans). It is available with all other seating arrangements.
VentureMan
I noticed the Montana has an equalizer in place of treble and base controls. Does this take away from the tone quality?
Also, does it have the speed compensated volume control?
VentureMan
By bogus invoice, I ment one he basically made up.
The specifics on the invoice can vary slightly depending on exactly when the car was made, but when he pulls an invoice $1500 above what I expect, well, he made it into my dishonest business person bucket and lost an 'in the bag' sale.
My 99 Montana has the equalizer in the stereo system and I think the sound quality is very good. The only problem with the equalizer is the KIDS resetting it all the time. Also be aware that if you get the rear seat stereo plug ins for the rear passengers the back speakers will not work when someone has a headset plugged into the rear seat jacks. This of course will put all the sound through the front speakers and thus effect your listening pleasure somewhat. As an update I have had the Montana since Thanksgiving and to date have had no problems with it. The van sat outside yesterday in 35 degree below weather and the only thing I noticed was the power sliding door was a little slower than normal, but then if I sat out all day in those temps I would be a bit slow myself. I am more satisfied now than when I originally got the van as I do haved a tendency toward buyers remorse after a major purchase. The thrill of the Hunt is over and now you have to live with your decision. For me the decision I made was the correct one. I highly recommend the Montana to anyone looking to get a new minivan. Good luck on your hunt!!!!
What options did you get? I am looking to get every option except the tighter suspension. I want that softer feel. I already have a SUV with a firm ride.
I'm getting pretty excited. Glad a Pontiac dealership is opening up locally. They already said they would match my Venture deal of $200 over invoice. Incidentally, the Olds dealer said they would match the $200 over as well.
Best of luck,
VentureMan
My van is green with taupe (tan) bottom and the interior is also taupe. My wife and I decided from the beginning not to get red as for the past 8 years we have had 2 red vehicles. I did like the looks of the red Montana with the grey bottom tho.
The color choice was mostly be default as we were buying from dealer inventory. In fact we made the deal on our van before we had seen it or the colors. We test drove a completely green Montana with a grey interior which was very nice BUT it did not have rear air/heating and here in Alaska the rear heat was a must have item so that van was out of the running. The dealer had a very nice white/grey exterior color with grey interior that I liked very much but again no rear heater. After going through the vans on the lot we looked at what was on order and due to arrive in the near future. In the paperwork we found the van with all the options we wanted however, we were not sure how the colors of green and taupe would look having no van of that color on the lot. We took the chance and bought it sight unseen and I am happy to report that I really like the colors. At first I didn't know if I would like the taupe interior (I am partial to the grey interior too) but I truly like it now. I was afraid it would show dirt to easily, and it does a little more than the grey interior our other vehicles have, but not bad enough to worry about. My wife (bless her heart) is good about cleaning the interiors on a regular bases. On the plus side the hair from our golden retriever dog does not show near as much on the taupe color. As far as options the van is decked out pretty good. We have 7 pax seating with capt. chairs in the second row, rear pax air/heat, power everything (windows, locks, driver seat, rear view mirrors, sliding pax door), sport performance package ( primarily because I wanted traction control), towing package (because I like the additional cooling for engine/transmission tho I don't normally pull anything), and engine block heater with additional dealer installed winterization. If interested the following codes are the option packages, 1SD, ABD, AUO, B4U, C34, D84, K05, UK3 UM3. At this point I cannot say enough good things about the van, the whole family really enjoys it, even the dog (the seats are higher than our old car so she can see out better). I hope you can find that van with your name on it too!!!
DPS1
I called Warranty Gold this week, for the fun of it. Of course, their class one vans were Nissan, Honda, Toyota. Class two were Oldsmobile, and Pontiac. Class three was Ford, Chrysler and Chevy. When I asked why chevy, essentially a twin, was rated in a different class, her response was that a lot of their classification does depend on brand name. Go figure. I also made sure to ask why a brand new van, such as Odyssey, would rate in the same category as a more established one, such as quest. Again, brand name and reputation ruled. FYI.
- JF
There are no leaks or anything, but the noise is very annoying. Has anyone else noticed this?
JD Power Rated the '93 GM Van as one of the top 3 in reliability. Who do you believe?