Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Just got the new issue of Car & Driver and I can see hints of how the Uplander, Terazza, Relay, and SV6 will get pummeled next year.
Dead last in the comparo, C&D had this to say about Ford's Freestar:
"Mushy brakes"
"Good off of the line, but soon runs out of breath"
"Interior shapes are simple and straightforward"
"Too expensive, rebate ready from the get go"
4th place's Dodge Caravan:
"Recycled, carry-over body"
"Superior stow & go system"
"Gutless engine, the 3.8L pushrod can't cut it in this crowd"
"Flaccid suspension - a floaty boat"
"Narrow inside, can't match the Japanese"
GM could have avoided one of the complaints by offering the 3.9L engine on up-trim models, and in my opinion it really should.
GM should not be offering a 200 horsepower engine in the "bigger and badder" CSVs unless it can be tuned to supply the grunt and sustained go that is required to place even mid pack. With bigger wheels, tires, a longer shnoz, and a beefed up structure with a long wheel base....sounds like the 3.5L will be dealing with a lot more than 20 hp and 20 torque can make up for...
Last of all, let's hope GM doesn't expect people to pay 35 thousand dollars for a rehash of a platform from 1996. Let's hope the pricing scheme is realistic and appealing, even without the rebates.
A dead last showing is not something GM should settle for...here's hoping GM takes the C&D comparo into consideration when designing the last minute details and the features of the 2006 CSVs...
Dead last in the comparo, C&D had this to say about Ford's Freestar:
"Mushy brakes"
"Good off of the line, but soon runs out of breath"
"Interior shapes are simple and straightforward"
"Too expensive, rebate ready from the get go"
4th place's Dodge Caravan:
"Recycled, carry-over body"
"Superior stow & go system"
"Gutless engine, the 3.8L pushrod can't cut it in this crowd"
"Flaccid suspension - a floaty boat"
"Narrow inside, can't match the Japanese"
GM could have avoided one of the complaints by offering the 3.9L engine on up-trim models, and in my opinion it really should.
GM should not be offering a 200 horsepower engine in the "bigger and badder" CSVs unless it can be tuned to supply the grunt and sustained go that is required to place even mid pack. With bigger wheels, tires, a longer shnoz, and a beefed up structure with a long wheel base....sounds like the 3.5L will be dealing with a lot more than 20 hp and 20 torque can make up for...
Last of all, let's hope GM doesn't expect people to pay 35 thousand dollars for a rehash of a platform from 1996. Let's hope the pricing scheme is realistic and appealing, even without the rebates.
A dead last showing is not something GM should settle for...here's hoping GM takes the C&D comparo into consideration when designing the last minute details and the features of the 2006 CSVs...
