Test Drive: GM hopes new vans seem more "sporty"

[Ming]

GM hopes new vans seem more sporty than mini
USA Today
James R. Healy

BAY HARBOR, Mich. — Sure that old dogs can, indeed, be taught new tricks, General Motors has refreshed, refurbished and restyled its minivans, adding versions for van-less brands Saturn and Buick, and will sell the new critters as "crossover sport vans."

What imparts the "crossover sport" — GM hopes you subconsciously add "utility vehicle" — are: a long, truckish snout; an inch higher stance; painted roof pillars instead of the blacked-out treatment typical of vans. "Crossover" is the industry term for an SUV built on a car chassis instead of a truck frame. Minivans routinely use car chassis. Front-wheel drive is standard. All-wheel drive is optional, a light-duty system for snow or a little mud. Terraza has an independent rear suspension for a smoother ride and more precise steering. The others have solid rear axles.

Despite clever costuming, the shift in marketing emphasis and useful upgrades, the vans can't escape their heritage as carry-overs of the previous generation GM minivans. GM saw no reason to invest in start-from-scratch designs for a minivan market roughly stable at 1 million sales a year, 60% of which are split among Honda, Toyota and Chrysler Group's Dodge and Chrysler vans.

As carry-overs, the GM vans don't have the latest seating and cargo-configurations, nor the most-appealing powertrains. And cost-cutting eliminated any chance of hiding the side-door track along the bottom edge of the window, as rivals do. Leaving the door track in plain sight undercuts the attempt to make the vehicles look more like SUVs. Only vans, after all, have sliding doors. Does it matter that GM's design is dated? Maybe not. If your chief use is hauling people and modest-size stuff, and if it's important that your van look somewhat unlike a van, the GM models could suit.

• Nice interiors. Trim and upholstery have a premium look and feel, especially in the Buick. Its fake wood even is sufficiently dark and muted to look agreeable, possibly a first.

• Satisfying, if not really sporty, driving behavior. Steering is reasonably precise, brakes nicely firm, ride tush-friendly on broken and pot-holed asphalt. Firm brakes on a GM truck count as a pleasant surprise.

Buick's pledge to have the quietest vehicles in every class means Terraza gets unique padding, foam insulation, dense carpet and other tweaks. It was quieter than the Relay. The Buick's independent rear suspension means that each back wheel can step over a bump without disturbing the other back wheel, which isn't the case with the solid axle the other vans use. As a result, the Terraza has a plusher, not to say floaty, ride. It also feels better when cornering.

GM's Versatrak AWD, though not the best, should at least help in really bad weather. It's front-wheel drive that shifts to all-wheel drive when the fronts begin to slip. It worked fine on gravel and dirt, keeping a test van from sluing under full-blast acceleration from a dead stop, and it all but eliminated wheelspin. There was no challenging terrain or truly slick surface to give it a better test. A Buick Rendezvous SUV with a similar AWD system, tested several months ago, let the vehicle slide backward quite a bit on a steep, sandy hill, but ultimately it made it over the top.

Good stuff, all. But if you need every bit of the utility of a van, and you care about being technically modern, Honda and Toyota vans would be your first choices; Chrysler Group's models, your next picks. You can't ignore the fact that the seating and cargo configurations aren't as accommodating as in newer designs, and the GM models are narrower, resulting in 8% to 18% less maximum cargo space than in major rivals. Nor can you quite overlook the fact that the GM vans have 15 to 55 less horsepower and 22 to 30 fewer pounds-feet of torque than main rivals. Lightly loaded, no sweat. Pack in folks or baggage, and you're likely to want more beans under the GM hoods.

Seating-cargo configuration problems: The seatbacks fold flat, but neither row disappears into the floor. The third row stows under the floor in most vans, allowing taller or bulkier cargo. Chrysler and Dodge also stow the second row underneath. The GM vans have a built-in cargo bin behind the third row. It's handy for its intended use, and its height matches that of the folded third row, giving the illusion that the seat has folded down level with the floor. Clever. The second and third rows don't fold on the same plane. The folded third row is lower than the folded second row, so the cargo floor's not flat. Folded seats do line up in base-model vans with so-called bucket seats instead of captains' chairs in the second row. Erecting a folded third row is a challenge. You either have to crawl into the rear cargo area to reach the latches, or you have to lean into the van from the side, stretching past the second row, to snag the third-row handle. No strap or other help is provided, as on rivals. Using underfloor space for seat stowage would have blocked AWD, says Robert Lutz, GM vice chairman. "We knew we wouldn't have any credibility as a sport utility if we didn't offer all-wheel drive."

Driver comfort can be iffy. The driver's seat doesn't go back very far; the steering column doesn't telescope; and the pedals don't adjust. The lumbar bulge can't be moved, either, leaving it an intrusion for some physiques.

Call 'em crossover sport vans if you wish, but minivans with snouts is what they are, lacking the powerful engines and nimble suspensions that they need for sportiness, and falling short of the convenience and versatility of today's best minivans.

How thirsty? FWD is rated 18 miles per gallon in town, 24 on the highway, 21 in mixed city-highway driving. AWD is 17/23/20. Regular fuel is specified.

Trip computer on FWD test van showed 19.6 mpg in rural, two-lane driving.

Overall: Pleasant enough to drive — the Buick is especially refined — but lacking power and interior versatility.

Full Uncut Article Here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-gm-vans_x.htm

[GM_Guy81]

yeah, definitly not GM's best effort. That said, i would rather see the money that a whole new mini van platform would cost go to something else. Like lamda, which has more than just a minivan use.

[diablo4]

Why didn't GM just make the seats fold up on to the wall like the element does.Even though the element is one of the ugliest suvs that was a good idea having the seats fold up against the walls.

[mjd1001]

First of all, I am not in the market for a minivan. However, I don't think these are as bad as everyone else seems to think. The styling is odd at first, but the Buick and the Chevy actually are different enough in styling from everyone else's minivan....so much so that if I was buying a minivan I'd consider them.

As for the engines and lack of power...I can't complain too much. After all, this is not a total redesign, just a refreshing.

[GM-10]

yep, that was a charitable review. Especially, given the source.

What an embarrasing set of vehicles.

[Hey Now]

Originally Posted by GM_Guy81

yeah, definitly not GM's best effort. That said, i would rather see the money that a whole new mini van platform would cost go to something else. Like lamda, which has more than just a minivan use.

Who says that money isn't already allocated and spent? Would you let the minivans continue until then or spend a little to freshen up a current program to try and control the bleeding? As opposed to letting it hemmorage for another couple of years until that something that hasn't been talked about much on this website comes along?

[Ming]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

As for the engines and lack of power...I can't complain too much. After all, this is not a total redesign, just a refreshing.

That's what all the soccer moms in the USA say when they consider buying a new Minivan.



"I can't complain too much. After all, this is not a total redesign, just a refreshing"

It's not about buying the best minivan for your money. It's about not complaining about your choice of minivan, because "it's just a refresh."

I gotta get me one of those refreshes!

[usa1]

Just as I predicted the moment I saw the details on these vans many months ago - these things suck. The best these things can hope to do is beat the Ford van in a comparo. Is that saying much? Honda, Toyota, DC, and even the odd Nissan have little to worry about. They are pathetic. They tarnish the GM brand. If GM cannot put competitive vehicles into a market segment, it should pull out of it. You can try to justify GM not investing on a market segment with "only" 1 million units, but Toyota and Honda are making lots of money off their product. If these vehicles were even JUST good, it's easy to see GM getting 100K more sales out of the hide of Ford or DC. Instead, these things suck and GM will see stable or lower sales as a result of doing a half-ass job.

How anyone can phathom the idea of buying one of these things based upon any logical analysis is beyond me. Only a mindless GM diehard could consider these things worth their money.

Mark

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by usa1

How anyone can phathom the idea of buying one of these things based upon any logical analysis is beyond me. Only a mindless GM diehard could consider these things worth their money.

Before we assess whether they're worth the money, let's wait and see what size incentives will be offered on these things

[surferdude00711]

NO way. 200 hp? BTW, how is SV6 sportier than the Uplander or Relay? It has kidney grills? Gimme a break and a new GTO.

[AMcA]

Maybe not GM's best effort.

But fiendishly clever all the same. The new Odessy, the new Chryslers, the new Sienna, the new Freestar, not one of those vehicles expanded the minivan market by one single vehicle. But these new GMs have the potential to do that. Even if they only marginally expand the market by a couple points, that's 20K units. Assuming they hold their previous market share, GM's way ahead of the game.

And what's really great about it, was they did the whole job for minimal money, and they'll have ZERO competition in the new niche they've made for themselves. And if this new niche takes off, they've got the 4 first-mover positions in the market.

Smart, and thrifty. My hat's off to 'em, even if the machines themselves aren't the least bit compelling.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by AMcA

...The new Odessy, the new Chryslers, the new Sienna, the new Freestar, not one of those vehicles expanded the minivan market by one single vehicle. But these new GMs have the potential to do that. Even if they only marginally expand the market by a couple points, that's 20K units. Assuming they hold their previous market share, GM's way ahead of the game.

And what's really great about it, was they did the whole job for minimal money, and they'll have ZERO competition in the new niche they've made for themselves. And if this new niche takes off, they've got the 4 first-mover positions in the market.

Smart, and thrifty. My hat's off to 'em, even if the machines themselves aren't the least bit compelling.

So, I'm not sure I follow these points.

I think it's a dubious argument that GM has created a new niche, but if they did, it will be awfully hard to convince droves of customers to abandon an SUV, a crossover, or a minivan and instead flock to these vehicles. Even you admit that these aren't the least bit compelling.

These vans are the product of a 250,000 unit/year plant. And with minivans - and these vehicles, pseudonyms notwithstanding, are just that: minivans - selling at about 1 to 1.1 million units per year, GM has to capture 22-25% of the market. That's a lofty share for even a quadruplet of these vehicles to capture.

These CSV's are minivans, and they have boatloads of competent competitors. I believe consumers will clearly appreciate both of those points.

I do agree that with a minimal investment and the right balance between MSRP and incentives, GM faces an easier task of turning a profit, though that certainly isn't assured.

I happen to favor a more proactive tact to new product development: GM endeavored to create superlative advancements in the C6, and they assuredly will be rewarded with strong sales and fat margins. The same is true for the STS. And the same has been true for the CTS already. And the Escalade series, as well as GM's full-sized pickups and SUV's, and even the dominant mid-sized utilities have proven that with some effort, you can experience good business.

The CSV's are hopefully the exception and not the rule to new product development at the General.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

The CSV's are hopefully the exception and not the rule to new product development at the General.

I suspect that GM is simply understaffed in terms of new product development engineers and other staff. They're basically overhauling their entry in every product category between 2003-2007:
- CTS in 2003
- Malibu, Grand Prix, SRX, CTS-V, XLR in 2004 (and Bonneville GXP if you want to stretch this argument farther than I'm comfortable stretching...)
- G6, C6 Corvette, G6, LaCrosse/Allure, CSVs, STS, Equinox in 2005
- LeSabre replacement (which they probably WILL be dumb enough to call Lucerne), rest of G6 lineup, Solstice, DTS, GMT-900 SUVs in 2006
- GMT 900 pickups, Zeta in 2007
(and those are the products I can think of...)

I don't think they have the staff to make all new everythings, so, what do they do? Make all new things where they can (the Sigma Cadillacs, Epsilon vehicles, etc), and update the old things where they can't. Then, well, in the second round of new product deploment, make all new things in the categories that lost out in the first round.

To get back to the CSVs, I think the CSVs have a few main purposes:
a) Not sell worse than the old minivans,
b) Accomplish a) with a bit less incentives
c) Sell minivans to loyal female Saturn customers,
d) Possibly sell a few extra minivans to random people attracted by the somewhat original exterior styling

I see no reason why they can't succeed at those goals. The goal isn't to beat the Honda Odyssey (which probably is as overrated as every other Honda product) or the Toyota Sienna (which, having vaguely looked at it, I admit is a nice minivan) and take all their sales; the goal is to prevent existing GM customers from taking one look at the interior of a Venture or taking a look at the non-existent Saturn minivan and going elsewhere.

[gmwsag]

Yeah, and I wish that I would win $5 million

The CSVs aren't the best because they don't have a few things. VivenM, in some way, I agree with you but otherwise, I don't. Here's why.

The main reasons that the CSVs won't sell properly.....
1) They don't have up-to-date features as the new Odyssey, and Caravan/T&C
2) They aren't appealing. They don't have the style of the Caravan, and uniqueness of the Quest
3) Badge-Engineering works only when each car has unique features. It doesn't work, when one car is over-priced and has the same features as the cheapest one. GM has done exactly this

Sell better than the old minivans? I think GM was seriously aiming higher. Personally, I thought GM should quick spending money in the minivan market, especially since its been down this year, but no one has listened. 'Loyal Female Saturn customers'? That sounds like some stale-stereotype. Sorry, but I disagree with you terribly. SUVs have become extremely popular as people-movers. Actually most people just buy SUVs. Therefore, most loyal-Saturn female customers as you call them would have the option to buy the VUE. I don't like when I'm crowded with all these options, and hopefully you agree with me here.

Most people don't really care about the interiors, I guess. Because, even after the Venture's interior was slammed as looking like a late-80s interior, soccer-moms fled to the van and basically drove it more often.

A few main purposes is not enough. You're in the game to be the best. And if you want to be the best, you've got to have the best, and GM has proven they don't have the best. sorry.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by VivienM

...The goal isn't to beat the Honda Odyssey (which probably is as overrated as every other Honda product) or the Toyota Sienna (which, having vaguely looked at it, I admit is a nice minivan) and take all their sales; the goal is to prevent existing GM customers from taking one look at the interior of a Venture or taking a look at the non-existent Saturn minivan and going elsewhere.

I can appreciate GM's new product development schedule as well as anyone on this site. Your review provides a good perspective: the LaCrosse/Allure, Grand Prix, and CSVs are not GM's best efforts. And it's grossly premature to determine the quality of vehicles we've heard/seen minimally about: DTS, GMT-900 SUVs, GMT 900 pickups, and particularly zeta-based automobiles.

The above is not a winning strategy at all; companies that operate from a point of strength do not as their purpose endeavor to simply maintain their core customer base, especially if they control less than 30% of their home market. Perhaps you work for GM and are more enlightened than I about corporate strategy. But I doubt this is GM's raison d'etre and certainly pray that they have something else in mind.