Review: Brave New Faces for G.M.'s Also-Ran Vans

[Ming]

Brave New Faces for G.M.'s Also-Ran Vans
By DAN CARNEY
www.nytimes.com
Published: July 17, 2005

UNDERACHIEVEMENT is frustrating to everyone concerned, or so I was told during my college career. The underachiever cannot understand why others are dissatisfied with his performance, while authority figures puzzle over the slacker's failure to fulfill his potential.

While General Motors has produced all manner of underachieving cars and trucks over the years, its lackluster minivans have stood out - or perhaps it is more accurate to say these efforts have not stood out. From the slant-nose "Dustbusters" of the early 1990's to the conventional boxes that made their debut as 1997 models, G.M.'s vans barely made a ripple or raised an eyebrow in the soccer field parking lots of suburbia.

While Chrysler continues to dominate the minivan segment that it essentially invented two decades ago, Honda and Toyota have mounted strong challenges - and have scored highest in most recent tests. Ford, like G.M., remains a junior varsity player.

For 2005, G.M. tried a different tack. Rather than invest huge sums to remake its vans into truly competitive vehicles, it gave them a cosmetic makeover and a new label. These aren't minivans anymore, but "crossover sport vans" with styling touches intended to appeal to a public that is (or, perhaps, was) infatuated with S.U.V.'s. For instance, designers gave the vehicles extended trucklike hoods and blunt noses instead of the sloping front ends of most minivans.

G.M. also handed out versions to Buick and Saturn, divisions that were previously van-free. This move is already being undone, since in May G.M. announced a new product-development and sales strategy in which only Chevrolet and Cadillac will remain full-line brands. The Terraza seems destined to be not only Buick's first minivan, but its last one, too.

I tested the Terraza and the Saturn Relay, which are fundamentally similar to the Chevrolet Uplander (previously known as the Venture) and to the Pontiac Montana SV6 (which used to be the plain old Montana). All offer optional all-wheel drive, and the Buick has a carlike independent rear suspension in place of the cheaper solid rear axles on front-drive versions of the others.

The Buick also features noise-suppression features like extra insulation and sound-deadening steel. But no amount of sound dampening can disguise the fact that when leaned on, the Terraza's pushrod V-6 groans like Miss Wormword's third-grade class when she announces a pop quiz on fractions.

Nor does quieter steel keep wind from whistling around the windows as if the Terraza were a Florida bungalow in hurricane season. A Toyota Sienna would make such a racket only if the driver's tie had jammed in the window at the last toll plaza.

All the G.M. vans use the same underlying architecture. Such platform sharing, while much discussed, is a fact of life in the modern auto industry and is not really an issue here. No, the problem is that these vans share much of their hardware with models introduced in 1996.

Worse yet, the 3.5-liter engine, while ostensibly new, derives from one that arrived during the Carter administration, in the 1980 Chevrolet Citation. Some relief is on the way, as the company plans to expand the range of engine options for 2006 models, said Lynda Messina, a G.M. spokeswoman.

The company tries to mask the power deficiency (200 horsepower, compared with 255 in the Honda Odyssey) by snapping the throttle wide open with just a slight nudge of the gas pedal. But in stop-and-go traffic the touchy accelerator combines with jerky transmission action to make the powertrain as subtle as a Farrelly brothers film.

The class-leading minivans have five-speed transmissions. G.M.'s four-speed unit does the wheezing engine no favors, so climbing hills and passing at highway speeds elicit a roar from under the hood.

So despite the new label, the new model names and the new styling, what we have here is a clear case of underachievement.

G.M. is making some pretty good products nowadays, a fact often overlooked in the doomsday reports of the company's financial woes. Take the Corvette, for instance, or most Cadillacs. Its popular trucks and big S.U.V.'s are among the industry's best, and some of its newest cars, like the Chevrolet Cobalt and Buick LaCrosse, are markedly better than their predecessors.

But old habits die hard, and the company still talks a better game than it often plays. G.M.'s inability to build the best vans - or simply vans that are competitive - demonstrates why the company's stature and market share have fallen so far.

Yet there are good things to say about these vans. The doors close with a solid thunk, thanks to significant reinforcement to the chassis. The same upgrades improved crash safety, lifting the vans to good, from poor, in the front-offset crash test ratings of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The controls operate smoothly, imparting a much-improved tactile sensation of quality. All the visible parts fit properly.

Article Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/au...es/17AUTO.html

[griswold44]

I bet the whole site is going to call it biased.

[PeterPuck]

Is it too much to ask for a smooth, compliant ride over bumps and controlled handling at speed, instead of reminders, with every bounce and wallow, of the parental sacrifice you have made by driving a van?

When I see a GM, I'm often reminded of the parental sacrifices GM made by spoiling it's child, the UAW.

GM should and could have the best vehicles in the world, not these design-by-cost-cutting-committee embarrassments. But they simply can't afford to.

Personally, I'd rather put my money into a Toyota or Honda, where I know my hard-earned money isn't being used to line the pockets of overpaid, often bitter union workers who are slowly killing GM by forcing them to create vehicles like this. And why should I, earning less than 40 grand a year, support that? Why should I pay a retired guy's medical costs when I buy a car? Why would I want a car that was drastically cheapened in order to pay retirees and $90,000 per year labourers? No thanks. Instead, I could buy a foreign car where I know my money will go to people who are happy to have a job and a wage - just like me.

Having said that, I still can't get over how many CSVs I'm seeing on the road every day in Canada. I saw three yesterday all within a minute of driving.

[Arizona Slim]

I would have expected worse from the NY Times. He didn't really say anything I wouldn't agree with from my limited experience in a Pontiac SV6. At least he gave GM some props towards the end of the review.

[ScottS]

Originally Posted by griswold44

I bet the whole site is going to call it biased.

It wouldn't surprise me. However, I think it was a well written article, even if it did come out of the NY Times.

[Mikkoo]

GM obviously doesn't want to be a major player in this
segment, as witnessed by thier poor execution. Old
powertrains, and lack of innovative features, don't
cut it in this super competitive market.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by griswold44

I bet the whole site is going to call it biased.

This guy's review of the CSVs was more positive than most posts about them around here, so I doubt it.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by PeterPuck

Personally, I'd rather put my money into a Toyota or Honda, where I know my hard-earned money isn't being used to line the pockets of overpaid, often bitter union workers who are slowly killing GM by forcing them to create vehicles like this. And why should I, earning less than 40 grand a year, support that? Why should I pay a retired guy's medical costs when I buy a car? Why would I want a car that was drastically cheapened in order to pay retirees and $90,000 per year labourers? No thanks. Instead, I could buy a foreign car where I know my money will go to people who are happy to have a job and a wage - just like me.

You're in Canada, it seems, since you claim to see CSVs around in Canada.

Why should you, earning less than 40 grand a year and being presumably healthy, pay taxes to pay for other people's health care? Why should you pay payroll taxes to fund the public pension system? Etc.

You, sir, exemplify selfishness.

If YOU had spent a 35 year career working for some company who (credibly, at the time...) promised you retirement benefits, and some random person on a web site said "I'm not going to buy that company's product because I don't want my money to pay PeterPuck's pension because that guy got paid 40 grand to do a 15 grand/year job", how would you feel?

The UAW benefits are GM management's problem, not yours. If you like the GM product at the price they're willing to sell it to you for, buy it. If you don't, then vote with your money. That's how a market economy works. But saying "I won't buy your products because you don't screw your workers over" is immoral. Why not say "I'm not going to buy brand X shoes because brand X shoes aren't made in African sweat shops", while we're at it? No doubt those Africans are "happy to have a job and a wage", too, just like you...

[[Corporal Dan]]

There is nothing wrong with the 3500.

It is a friendly, torqey, and above all pleasant engine.

Oh and last time I checked sequentially fired injectors didn't appear until 1997.

[[Corporal Dan]]

So except for wind noise, 4spd (which he didn't mention if it shifted well or not) , and 'coarse and unredined putcheroades!!111', he had no actual, honest to god complaints.

Anyone could write this 'review' simply by reading a spec-sheet.

This is the most pathetic kind of journalistic trash.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by [Corporal Dan]

So except for wind noise, 4spd (which he didn't mention if it shifted well or not) , and 'coarse and unredined putcheroades!!111', he had no actual, honest to god complaints.

He complained about the lack of fold flat seats, too... and the excessive pricing. Oh, and the gas pedal...

That said, he liked a lot of things... including the interior, instrument cluster, etc...

[jwrebholz]

I thought the 3500 had enough power to get the van motivated. It's no hot-rod but it moved OK. I didn't notice any jerkiness or an oversensitive throttle, either. (I suspect the author MAY have had a problem with his test car--is the Buick drive-by-wire?) The transmission is a good match for the engine and shifts smoothly most of the time. Wind noise wasn't a noticeable problem for me, but then again with the car I normally drive I've kinda learned to tune out wind and road noise to a degree. The interior though is a nice place to be, much better than it was in the past (I'm actually rather proud of GM for making such great progress in interior design. They've come a long way and it shows in every new model)

Other than that, I have to say I basically agree with the article. The CSVs are adequate for most people's needs, but they're certainly nothing special. There is one other issue the author failed to mention--that despite those mediocre designs, the GM minivans have still managed to sell rather briskly. I saw the Dustbusters all over the place when they were recent, I saw Ventures/Montanas all over when they were new (and still see plenty), and I'm sure in time I'll see plenty of Uplanders/etc. around.

(Note: I drove an Uplander, not a Buick)

[stevews602]

It has always amazed me that GM and Ford never made a serious attempt to create a viable van for this segment.
They both make such feable efforts,the team making them must be filled with the dumping grounds of failed designers from other departments.
GM and Ford need to abandon this segment and admit defeat. Putting out vehicles like these just hurts the brand.

[Havasavana]

Originally Posted by PeterPuck

When I see a GM, I'm often reminded of the parental sacrifices GM made by spoiling it's child, the UAW.

GM should and could have the best vehicles in the world, not these design-by-cost-cutting-committee embarrassments. But they simply can't afford to.

Personally, I'd rather put my money into a Toyota or Honda, where I know my hard-earned money isn't being used to line the pockets of overpaid, often bitter union workers who are slowly killing GM by forcing them to create vehicles like this. And why should I, earning less than 40 grand a year, support that? Why should I pay a retired guy's medical costs when I buy a car? Why would I want a car that was drastically cheapened in order to pay retirees and $90,000 per year labourers? No thanks. Instead, I could buy a foreign car where I know my money will go to people who are happy to have a job and a wage - just like me.

Having said that, I still can't get over how many CSVs I'm seeing on the road every day in Canada. I saw three yesterday all within a minute of driving.

You should be absolutely ecstatic when/if the Chinese cars show up here. Maybe Wal-Mart will be an outlet. Boy that would teach 'em.

If you are in Canada, I assume you have health care provided for a small fee. Do you understand that there is NO WAY a person with an ordinary income in the US can pay the medical bills that they will likely encounter during their lives? Do you have $15k set aside just in case you break an ankle for example? Or about the same if you need an appendectomy? And these are short-duration situations.

[[Corporal Dan]]

Originally Posted by VivienM

He complained about the lack of fold flat seats, too... and the excessive pricing. Oh, and the gas pedal...

That said, he liked a lot of things... including the interior, instrument cluster, etc...

The thing is, stow & go, while ingenious, are not comfortable.

Having had a bit of experience with em, i can tell you no adult would want to sit in em.

Gas pedal is not a valid complaint. It's something you get used to. It's thes ame for every car you drive, pedal modulation isn'e exactly what youre used to.

that said, the 05 caravan i drove had the exact same pedal issue. I started to drive like i drove my old 4banger protege and i would squeal the tires at every stop sign.....

God i hate vans