GM Minivan Plans Panned

[prototype66]

There is absolutely NO WAY they will abandon this segment!

However thats not to say that we wont rename the segment to fit a more broad spectrum of customers. just a thought.

Edited November 24, 2006 by prototype66

[BuddyP]

The Outlook, Acadia, and Enclave are minivans in disguise.

218671[/snapback]

My same thoughts exactly... expensive minivan replacement, but are minivans in disquise for the most part.

[turbo200]

Here's an interesting take on the Lambda decision...

With the timeline we're quasi familiar with stating a Chevy Lambda is coming, but not until 2009/10, could it be possible that Chevrolet will get an exclusively-tailored CUV with sliding doors? This would be a good solution, I think. Limit the exposure to loss by making one world-class minivan for the large volume division.

219124[/snapback]

I still don't get why everyone wants so many different versions of the same car. Let's limit one minivan to one brand, no more is really necessary, especially since the SUVs are really just minivans in drag.

[GMman]

I still don't get why everyone wants so many different versions of the same car.

219291[/snapback]

Same thing I'm thinking.

[Croc]

Honestly if GM wanted to, they could make the sliding door an option, couldn't they? Like the old T800s had the liftgate/double doors option.

[Regalguy01]

GM should not give up the market, but build just one version, a Chevrolet. The current ones are just awful.

218708[/snapback]

I agree.

GM needs to stick with one, maybe two iterations of a minivan. My thought would be to give Chevy the most basic and a mid-level version(Uplander and Uplander LS?). And give say Saturn a mid-range and up-scale one(Relay LS and Relay LT, maybe?). Make some features/options/colors exclusive to each brand as well. This would appear to give people a choice within GM, without creating overlap and product redundancy.

Getting out is not the answer though. Just as the Japanese keep trying and trying to chip away at the domestic stronghold on pickups, Gm needs to keep trying to figure out how to successfully build and sell minivans.

[Cadillacfan]

Read the last paragraph of the article. I read this earlier today.

Dow Jones newswires courtesy of The Buffalo News

Could be interesting if true but would they use Nissan's current minivan platform or the Lambda? Probably Nissan's if I would guess.

[prototype66]

Read the last paragraph of the article.  I read this earlier today.

Dow Jones newswires courtesy of The Buffalo News

Could be interesting if true but would they use Nissan's current minivan platform or the Lambda?  Probably Nissan's if I would guess.

219536[/snapback]

So if true all of the things Wagner said about "Not following the path to a joint venture or merger with nissan"was just blowing smoke up our a#@$%.

niiiiiiice!

[Cadillacfan]

Well, the article doesn't say that GM has or is actively pursuing a joint-venture with Nissan or with any other company for that matter. It's just speculation on behalf of the Dow Jones reporter.

Also, Ghosn only stated that he would be open to talks if GM were looking for a joint-venture.

So until we here anything from GM on this, we'll just have to take Wagoner's word as the truth.

[drew770]

There is too much gyrating going on at the top.  First, they abandoned the car market altogether while focusing on trucks, then they realized the car market was crashing for them and they revamped their car lines while ignoring trucks again.

  The Venture was a strong seller.  It is a shame that GM never updated it with an all new vehicle a couple years ago.  Instead, we got the Uplander.  The Tracker was another vehicle that started off strong (although Chevrolet got screwed by not having a 6 cylinder available until the year they canned it!) but was allowed to rot.

  Chevrolet needs a 5 cylinder CUV, a minivan, a mid-sized SUV and a decent cross-over.  THAT is where the market is going.  Somebody in Detroit is asleep at the switch again (or they just aren't telling us what is REALLY going on) if they think they can axe the Uplander and not replace it - especially with the Enclave, Acadia, etc. going to everybody else BUT Chevrolet!

  I wouldn't say that a 24% drop in 5 years was a sinking ship!  The entire truck market has dropped since Katrina.  There are still over a million minivans being sold - they are everywhere up here!

 

  CLEARLY, THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY TO GO AROUND.  THERE ARE TOO MANY LEAKS IN THE DYKE, AND NOT LUTZ, NOT ANYBODY CAN KEEP UP WITH THE RAPIDLY CHANGING MARKET.  SOME BRANDS WILL HAVE TO GO IF GM IS TO KEEP AHEAD OF THE MARKET.

  We are having our lunch eaten by Mazda and others who are quickly filling niches as they see them. 

  HAS ANYONE SEEN THE MAZDA CX-7?????  That is what we need.

  I just hope all these rumours flying around are just designed to keep the media (and us) off the scent of what they are really up to.

218798[/snapback]

I couldn't agree more!!

Why would GM abandon a whole segment of vehicles because sales are falling currently?

This just shows a pattern of GM's lack of long term planning!

Who is running the show over there? Do you think Toyota or Honda will dump the minivan because sales are slowing for the segment? It's amazing but with a slumping segment, their sales are up!!

This decision just reinforces that there are too many brands and not enough vision to go around.

If the Lambda platform was so good as GM seems to be shoving down our throats then they could have made a minivan from it very simply. But, obviously they are to concerned with Crossovers and not about minivans.

Seems to me this is the same thing they did with focusing on SUVs and not passenger cars!!

And we want to know why GM is losing market share and losing buckets of money!!

[ehaase]

GM obviously cancelled the Lambda minivans because the program wouldn't make any money. GM couldn't charge the prices for its minivans that Toyota and Honda can, it wouldn't generate the sales volume that Chrysler does, and it couldn't build them as cheaply as Hyundai/Kia can. It all comes down to money, not just sales volume.

[rkmdogs]

GM obviously cancelled the Lambda minivans because the program wouldn't make any money.  GM couldn't charge the prices for its minivans that Toyota and Honda can, it wouldn't generate the sales volume that Chrysler does, and it couldn't build them as cheaply as Hyundai/Kia can.  It all comes down to money, not just sales volume.

219880[/snapback]

You folks all remind me of the old cliche', opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one!

I have only read comments from one minivan owner in four pages of this thread,

but I have read more knocks and derogotory comments from people who don't know the product from their assholes!

If you don't own or haven't owned a minivan, you have no perspective of their

versatility, and that does not mean just for soccer moms as you negatives will

try to imply.

Minivans came about as a replacement when station wagons became a bad thing!

There is too much stigma and labeling being attached to a type or style of a vehicle, without any knowledge of a person's lifestyle or transportation needs.

That is all media crap!!

GM had a good minivan, when it came out----- called the ASTRO.

But they chose to milk it, rather than keeping it up-to-date.

Its replacement, the Venture was a compromise gesture to try and match

the Japanese, and by compromising they degraded the product.

Its successor, the Uplander is so far off target from contemporary minivan

identifiers traits, that it is a shame to call it anything!!

Nobody has even mentioned in this thread the previous hat-in-the-ring idea of

a shorty Explorer----- which in my opinion is not a good one either, but I have

been seeing quite a few of them on dealer lots.

With all the tongue-wagging going around here, instead of postulating about

converting cross-overs, why not identify the positive features that would be

necessary for a successful new minivan?

I'll start by saying that it must have fold-in-the floor second and 3rd row seats.

------ NEXT!

[HarleyEarl]

I hate what the minivan has become....a big walrus looking, bloated, peice of design failure. There was never anything wrong with the practical nature of them. They need to get back to being a van. Not trying so hard to look like a lovechild of a car and a van. Reduce the massive greenhouse a bit and stop looking like some fat space pod.

[capriceman]

bring back the dustbusters!!!

but I think there is a van in the works just that i wont be ready in time. so there could be a couple of years with out a van.

The montan SV6 was actuaclly a nice van. dead relieable the one at the shop doesnt give us problems

[4gm]

Weren't the minivans GM planned supposed to look fantastic? If so, I think it'd be a shame for them to be shelved. With a great looking minivan GM would pick up sales in the segment.

[Polish_Kris]

What is Lutz thinking? He spends so much money and time and efforts concentrating on low volume products like the Solstice, and Sky. Meanwhile when it comes to products like these, that are obvioulsly in demand up here in Canada, he does this. Thinking that people will run after crossovers. No, theyre going to be running to the makers that produce minivans (hence, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler). Despite the fact that these vans are ugly, there are many selling, be it for family or business use. If he decides to pull the plug on minivans, then it would be a huge drop for GM. Message to Lutz, retire, the good old 90's at Chrysler are over. Concentrate on what people really want. Hence, fix the Cobalt, instead of giving us a half-decent compact product. Plus, fix these vans to be just as good as the competition's, and sales will pick up.

[Polish_Kris]

You folks all remind me of the old cliche', opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one!

I have only read comments from one minivan owner in four pages of this thread,

but I have read more knocks and derogotory comments from people who don't know the product from their assholes!

If you don't own or haven't owned a minivan, you have no perspective of their

versatility, and that does not mean just for soccer moms as you negatives will

try to imply.

Minivans came about as a replacement when station wagons became a bad thing!

There is too much stigma and labeling being attached to a type or style of a vehicle, without any knowledge of a person's lifestyle or transportation needs.

That is all media crap!!

GM had a good minivan, when it came out----- called the ASTRO.

But they chose to milk it, rather than keeping it up-to-date.

Its replacement, the Venture was a compromise gesture to try and match

the Japanese, and by compromising they degraded the product.

Its successor, the Uplander is so far off target from contemporary minivan

identifiers traits, that it is a shame to call it anything!!

Nobody has even mentioned in this thread the previous hat-in-the-ring idea of

a shorty Explorer----- which in my opinion is not a good one either, but I have

been seeing quite a few of them on dealer lots.

With all the tongue-wagging going around here, instead of postulating about

converting cross-overs, why not identify the positive features that would be

necessary for a successful new minivan?

I'll start by saying that it must have fold-in-the floor second and 3rd row seats.

------ NEXT!

219922[/snapback]

Well said man, our family have owned minivans for about ten years now. When my dad was switiching vans two years ago, I was trying to get him into a couple seven seater SUV's. He didn't wants anything else, but a minivan with sliding doors, and removable seats. The versatility is unbelievable in these things. They are also easy to drive, and they are quick. Getting rid of the Astro/Safari vans was another dumb move. There were plenty of customers out there who wanted the strength of a truck, however the versatility of a minivan. Something noone else offered, therefore GM had the advantage. So now, what is GM thinking, that they're going to shove it down minivan buyer's throats that cross-overs are the vehicle to have? No, those minivan buyers who want a cars with the sliding doors and removable seats, will buy from the makers who are still in the minivan market, the Japanese and the Koreans. Now, who's fault is it why people are running to the Japanese? The media's? The buyers? No GM's own fault for being so mis-managed and ignorant. I'm not bashing GM, I'm just bashing their management, and the way they think. They all need to be replaced by a new generation of people.

[ehaase]

You folks all remind me of the old cliche', opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one!

I have only read comments from one minivan owner in four pages of this thread,

but I have read more knocks and derogotory comments from people who don't know the product from their assholes!

219922[/snapback]

Since you quoted my post, I never criticized minivans. I like them myself and would prefer one to an SUV.

However, GM no longer has the resources to compete in every market segment. GM needs to put its limited resources to the segments where it can make the most profit, which is not minivans at this time.

[gmbuoy]

Damned if you Do Damned if you Don't

Isn't this the same place everybody screams about bastardizing platforms over too many brands.

As someone who has actually driven an Acadia, over two hundred miles (eat your hearts out) I can tell you that it is 1) Not too big, but just right 2) Is a wonderful vehicle in fact the best vehicle GM has ever brought out into a new segment (C5 included) 3) The sliding 2nd row bench seats are amazing and will end the fold into the floor hand wringing 4) Kick Sienna and Odyssey right in the proverbial crown jewels. 5) The 3.6 with six speed auto gets the same fuel efficiency as the Sienna and the Odyssey.

Why cancel the vans, cause we don't need em with the Acadia and Enclave. Good Luck to Pontiac, Buick GMC Sales Team and the Saturn Sales Team. Show everyone at GM that they don't need to spread a platform thinnly over five brands when it can be done with two.

For the knuckleheads, the platform was engineered for sliding doors, if they are required how long could it possibly take to put then on, 5 or 6 months tops. The space for the third row standard bench is cavernous. Stop crying/look up the specs and you will find that the Acadia and the Outlook are going to sell so strongly the doors will not be an issue for at least two years.

Edited November 26, 2006 by gmbuoy

[haypops]

You folks all remind me of the old cliche', opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one!

Oh you sweet talker, you!

With all the tongue-wagging going around here, instead of postulating about

converting cross-overs, why not identify the positive features that would be

necessary for a successful new minivan?

I always enjoyed a horozontialy orientated steering wheel so as to have a place to rest my forearms and pretend that I was driving a real bus.

[regfootball]

some folks want true minivans, not compromised designs based off SUV's...so first off, minivans ARE needed. two-an SUV with slding doors is not a minivan.

the acadia is a wonderful package.....I picked up a brochure for one this weekend. At the same time, the acadia has 30 less cubic feet of cargo space than a minivan, and lacks sliding doors. Chevy could move 100k true minivans on this platform, but are throwing in the towel on that. In the meantime, sienna and odyssey keep selling more and more. Chrysler is vulnerable because the new DCX vans coming soon already look suspect.

Damned if you Do Damned if you Don't

Isn't this the same place everybody screams about bastardizing platforms over too many brands.

As someone who has actually driven an Acadia, over two hundred miles (eat your hearts out) I can tell you that it is 1) Not too big, but just right 2) Is a wonderful vehicle in fact the best vehicle GM has ever brought out into a new segment (C5 included)  3)  The sliding 2nd row bench seats are amazing and will end the fold into the floor hand wringing 4) Kick Sienna and Odyssey right in the proverbial crown jewels.  5) The 3.6 with six speed auto gets the same fuel efficiency as the Sienna and the Odyssey. 

Why cancel the vans, cause we don't need em with the Acadia and Enclave.  Good Luck to Pontiac, Buick GMC Sales Team and the Saturn Sales Team.  Show everyone at GM that they don't need to spread a platform thinnly over five brands when it can be done with two. 

For the knuckleheads, the platform was engineered for sliding doors, if they are required how long could it possibly take to put then on, 5 or 6 months tops.  The space for the third row standard bench is cavernous.  Stop crying/look up the specs and you will find that the Acadia and the Outlook are going to sell so strongly the doors will not be an issue for at least two years.

220156[/snapback]

[evok]

Since you quoted my post, I never criticized minivans.  I like them myself and would prefer one to an SUV. 

However, GM no longer has the resources to compete in every market segment.  GM needs to put its limited resources to the segments where it can make the most profit, which is not minivans at this time.

220150[/snapback]

Oh ehaase, the old coot is probably just constipated and needed to vent. He is probably out of Wild Turkey and has the shakes.

[Flybrian]

Well, how about this simple question -

Is it that far outside the realm of possibility for Chevrolet's possible forthcoming Lambda to sport dual sliding doors? Is this a financially-viable alternative to dedicated minivans?

[ocnblu]

The Astro and Safari were excellent vans in their day, before they got too far outdated. Perhaps the NG compact pickup will spawn a van derivative, RWD/AWD, that will be suitable for personal and commercial use.

[regfootball]

gm ought to be in this segment for no other reason than to steal chrysler sales. minivans are one segment where some folks still buy domestic only and since dcx is vulnerable, a true decent effort could easily sell 100k a year.

and make money.

ON TOP OF all the lambda suv sales.

Edited November 26, 2006 by regfootball

[PurdueGuy]

two-an SUV with slding doors is not a minivan.

220218[/snapback]

You do realize that the Lamba trio are on what is essentially a minivan, not an SUV, platform, right? They're not truck-based (SUV)...

Edited November 26, 2006 by PurdueGuy

[regfootball]

You do realize that the Lamba trio are on what is essentially a minivan, not an SUV, platform, right?  They're not truck-based (SUV)...

220274[/snapback]

UM

DUH

YES

but they still are not minivans. and that's the part YOU DON'T GET.

so the 350z is a sports car right? its got two seats and a rwd chassis so it should be equal to the corvette, right?

Edited November 26, 2006 by regfootball

[pow]

UM

DUH

YES

but they still are not minivans.  and that's the part YOU DON'T GET.

so the 350z is a sports car right?  its got two seats and a rwd chassis so it should be equal to the corvette, right?

220275[/snapback]

I get it. We have an Odyssey and I can think up several instances where a Lambda SUV wouldn't have cut it.

On our trip to Mammoth, we carried seven people and still had room for skis and snowboards. An Outlook, with its high floor, bulky seats, large wheelwells, and long hood, couldn't have done that. The Ody has nearly twice the cargo area (behind 3rd row) of an Outlook.

With the Ody, we could slide long objects underneath the seats. Its low, flat floor meant there was footroom for small coolers and large kleenex boxes. There's room on the floor for shopping bags, purses, and other crap. I kept my snowboots in the second row doorsill area -- the space between the sliding door and the bucket seat. You can't do that in an Outlook.

And then there are the day-to-day advantages of a minivan. There's a nice walkway between the first and second row. Instead of a useless center console/armrest, there's a handy foldable tray to rest burgers and milkshakes on. There are tons of cupholders and storage bins to thow junk into.

A low step-in height and butt-level seats help old people get in, as do large sliding doors. A huge windshield and large side windows make for excellent visibility. Even the third row doesn't seem claustrophobic.

But more important, the whole point of a minivan is to offer as much interior room possible in a reasonable body. Every extra cubic feet makes a huge difference; tiilt the C-pillar of the Ody a few inches, and that's one fewer snowboard that can fit.

A pragmatic van for a pragmatic brand like Chevy would be great.

Edited November 27, 2006 by empowah

[pow]

gm ought to be in this segment for no other reason than to steal chrysler sales.  minivans are one segment where some folks still buy domestic only and since dcx is vulnerable, a true decent effort could easily sell 100k a year.

and make money.

ON TOP OF all the lambda suv sales.

220273[/snapback]

The market for minivans is still huge. Around here, Odysseys are household tools for families with children. It's something people just buy and park alongside their Bimmers or Benzes. It's the unassuming, unquestioned, obedient family pet...

Edit: What you can do with a minivan...

Edited November 27, 2006 by empowah

[wjfox]

Since you quoted my post, I never criticized minivans.  I like them myself and would prefer one to an SUV. 

However, GM no longer has the resources to compete in every market segment.  GM needs to put its limited resources to the segments where it can make the most profit, which is not minivans at this time.

220150[/snapback]

Hmmm. Last I heard GM was the worlds largest maker of automotive products and while they might not make a product to compete in every single category such as the Ultra Premium coupe (Bently) and Hyper Super Sports car, Ferarri Lamborghini, it seems that mini-vans are too big of a category to walk away from. Honda aced out Chrysler with the Odesey. GM can do better, they just have to want to do better and not cheaper. If cheaper alone sold cars BMW and Mercedes would sell nothing.

[regfootball]

I get it. We have an Odyssey and I can think up several instances where a Lambda SUV wouldn't have cut it.

On our trip to Mammoth, we carried seven people and still had room for skis and snowboards. An Outlook, with its high floor, bulky seats, large wheelwells, and long hood, couldn't have done that. The Ody has nearly twice the cargo area (behind 3rd row) of an Outlook.

With the Ody, we could slide long objects underneath the seats. Its low, flat floor meant there was footroom for small coolers and large kleenex boxes. There's room on the floor for shopping bags, purses, and other crap. I kept my snowboots in the second row doorsill area -- the space between the sliding door and the bucket seat. You can't do that in an Outlook.

And then there are the day-to-day advantages of a minivan. There's a nice walkway between the first and second row. Instead of a useless center console/armrest, there's a handy foldable tray to rest burgers and milkshakes on. There are tons of cupholders and storage bins to thow junk into.

A low step-in height and butt-level seats help old people get in, as do large sliding doors. A huge windshield and large side windows make for excellent visibility. Even the third row doesn't seem claustrophobic.

But more important, the whole point of a minivan is to offer as much interior room possible in a reasonable body. Every extra cubic feet makes a huge difference; tiilt the C-pillar of the Ody a few inches, and that's one fewer snowboard that can fit.

A pragmatic van for a pragmatic brand like Chevy would be great.

220322[/snapback]

thank you. someone gets it. and real sliding doors operated via keyfob are the one thing to keep a woman happy for a lifetime.

[DetroitNut90]

A Lambda SUV with sliding doors does not make a minivan, IMO. I don't want to see GM to leave this market, if nothing else because I don't like thinking that the Venture was their best effort. Sure, it's not completely terrible, but there are many areas that could use improvements. I'd rather see GM make a killer minivan and sell very few than just see them give up completely.

[rkmdogs]

Since you quoted my post, I never criticized minivans.  I like them myself and would prefer one to an SUV. 

However, GM no longer has the resources to compete in every market segment.  GM needs to put its limited resources to the segments where it can make the most profit, which is not minivans at this time.

220150[/snapback]

I presume that this is from a bean-counters point of view, not an owner-operator

of said type of vehicle.

Be my guest---- kiss off a percentage of one million sales a year. Money doesn't mean anything to GM, unless it is coming from the Chinese I guess.

And all those disappointed AMERICAN buyers who have to go elsewhere for a

vehicle that meets their needs ---- who needs em', right?

[rkmdogs]

Oh ehaase, the old coot is probably just constipated and needed to vent.  He is probably out of Wild Turkey and has the shakes.

220220[/snapback]

Evok, when I want something intelligent out of you, I'll ask you to fart!

I have owned full-size and mini vans since 1963 out of choice, because they

suited my needs and transportation requirements.

I was not some vain hippy looking to impress people that I don't even know,

with a vehicle that couldn't do the job it was supposed to, properly----

and the color was not some popular shade of puke!

Grow up!!!!!........Twerp!

[Flybrian]

Allright, guys. Tit for tat and all that. Let's dial it back.

[PurdueGuy]

There might be some characteristics of the Lambdas that don't work well for the Minivan buyer - let's turn this positive and list them out...

So far, I've picked up from empowah:

wants:

lower floor/low step-in level

less bulky seats

smaller wheel wells

more cargo space behind 3rd row

flat floor

seats that can have stuff slid under them

sliding door

doorsill area by sliding door

replace center console with foldable tray - ensure access between front & back

butt-level seats

good view out front & sides

maximize space at expense of style

removable or fold-flat seats (which one = preference issue)

engine access in-cab or not in-cab, long hood vs short hood (preference issue)

flat load floor at the rear hatch opening (no step-down design.)

A split rear hatch, either like station wagons of old with a 1/2 glass opening window and a drop-down tail gate, or the Dutch-door concept of the Astros.

if featuring rear doors they should open 180 degrees, like an Express van.

Trailer towing capacity up to 5000 lbs.

AWD available

diesel engine option

Adequate lights, both inside and out, Xenon preferable.

Full instrumentation

Other than a basic AM/FM radio, other entertainment or electronics should be optional.

4-wheel disc brakes with 4-wheel ABS.

dual sliding doors

competitive price

Any additions from others? Let's turn this constructive, whether it be where the Lambdas fall short, or where a GM minivan could excel... heck, if you disagree with anything listed above, say so nicely, and we'll note it...

*edit* - added removable or fold-flat seats, hood stuff, buncha other stuff...

Edited November 27, 2006 by PurdueGuy

[rkmdogs]

Well said man, our family have owned minivans for about ten years now.  When my dad was switiching vans two years ago, I was trying to get him into a couple seven seater SUV's.  He didn't wants anything else, but a minivan with sliding doors, and removable seats.  The versatility is unbelievable in these things.  They are also easy to drive, and they are quick.  Getting rid of the Astro/Safari vans was another dumb move.  There were plenty of customers out there who wanted the strength of a truck, however the versatility of a minivan.  Something noone else offered, therefore GM had the advantage.  So now, what is GM thinking, that they're going to shove it down minivan buyer's throats that cross-overs are the vehicle to have?  No, those minivan buyers who want a cars with the sliding doors and removable seats, will buy from the makers who are still in the minivan market, the Japanese and the Koreans.  Now, who's fault is it why people are running to the Japanese? The media's? The buyers? No GM's own fault for being so mis-managed and ignorant.  I'm not bashing GM, I'm just bashing their management, and the way they think.  They all need to be replaced by a new generation of people.

220132[/snapback]

Kris, just take the keys away from the bean-counters, and let people who know

cars and trucks run the show!

I go along with just about everything you said except........

screw the removable seats business!

That was not a problem until a year ago when my back gave out and my wife had to have surgery. We physically could no longer lift the seats to put them in and out

of our Astro.

And, that concept also begs the issue, that you have to pre-plan when you are going to haul something that may take up more room!

With stowable seats, an unplanned transport of that antique heirloom find at the

local flea market is no longer a problem.

But...... there are two other issues you touched at. One, you absolutely must be able to access a truly flat floor. And, if that is done by folding up seats, they must

still allow a single plane of flatness to accept the cargo.

Before I purchased my current van, I researched all the prospective vehicles.

The only two who had a flat floor, level with the rear cargo opening was

The D-C twins, with stow-n'-go seats and the HHR, whose seats did not disappear,

but did not impede having a flat floor except for the length of it.

Guess which one I chose? Not even close!

[rkmdogs]

There might be some characteristics of the Lambdas that don't work well for the Minivan buyer - let's turn this positive and list them out...

So far, I've picked up from empowah:

wants:

lower floor/low step-in level

less bulky seats

smaller wheel wells

more cargo space behind 3rd row

flat floor

seats that can have stuff slid under them

sliding door

doorsill area by sliding door

replace center console with foldable tray - ensure access between front & back

butt-level seats

good view out front & sides

maximize space at expense of style

objections:

long hood

Any additions from others?  Let's turn this constructive, whether it be where the Lambdas fall short, or where a GM minivan could excel...  heck, if you disagree with anything listed above, say so nicely, and we'll note it...

220436[/snapback]

PurdueGuy,

This is a great starting list!

The one thing I might question tho, is the perception of a "long" hood.

In my many years with vans the one thing that I dreaded, was dealing with

a huge inside engine cover when something needed to be done to service the engine.

If the engine can be totally serviced from under the hood, for routine maintainence, that would be great. IMO, the Venture hood was not too long.

The Astros were better for visability, but service was a nightmare!

A few additions I would like to add to the list;

A truly flat load floor at the rear hatch opening, no step-down design.

A split rear hatch, either like station wagons of old with a 1/2 glass opening window and a drop-down tail gate, or...... still the best idea of all for versitility,

the Dutch-door concept of the Astros.

One last feature while at the rear, if it is doors they should open 180 degrees, like

an Express van.

Trailer towing capacity up to 5000 lbs.

AWD available.

A small, but suitable diesel engine.

Adequate lights, both inside and out, Xenon preferable.

Full instrumentation,

Other than a basic AM/FM radio, other entertainment or electronics should be

optional.

4-wheel disc brakes with 4-wheel ABS.

Sliding doors on both sides, standard(behind the drivers and front passenger).

and lastly, a competitive price, not some pie-in-the-sky niche vehicle tag!

[rkmdogs]

Have you ever owned a Confederate Flag.

As one of them - that  - there - YANKEES - I want to know!

See one of your previous posts - you ignorant HICK.

220444[/snapback]

Evok,

I am a transplant Yankee from Illinois!(gasp)

and........... regarding ignorance,

I have 8 patents. What have you got besides a big mouth?

[Flybrian]

Guys, seriously. Let's - yankees and rebs both - take a cue from PurdueGuy and turn this back into a constructive discussion.

[Mr.Krinkle]

How about separate soundproof bubble-dome for the kids with optional restraints and muzzles?

And of course, 3 horns--because you can never find a horn when youre angry.

Seriously, how long did it take them to come up with fold flat seats. A triumph of technology like that is once in a blue moon.

I have 8 patents. What have you got besides a big mouth?

ahh a regular Ben Franklin, I also dabble in the field of invention. Patents pending for a digital computer and a silent alarm clock. Also on the to do list is an a.c. adapter for a solar powered calculator and ejection seats for helicopter pilot safety. I also considered protective headgear for livestock. Lets just say the testing went awry and it had to be scrapped. Much like these minivans.

God bless America.

Its not the end of the world folks. What about the Korean branch? Weve already got the aveo--cant they ship something over here?

[Flybrian]

Well, it would seem since Saturn is meshing with the Opel lineup that we're bound to get a Euro-style MPV stateside.

[frogger]

Its not the end of the world folks.  What about the Korean branch?  Weve already got the aveo--cant they ship something over here?

220461[/snapback]

The Aveo is awful, with very little attention to details you see in cars like the Honda Fit. In a way it suffers from the same lack of details execution that the current GM Minivans do.

[prototype66]

there is still non lambda hope lest we forget>(if properly equipped that is.)

[Mr.Krinkle]

The Aveo is awful, with very little attention to details you see in cars like the Honda Fit.  In a way it suffers from the same lack of details execution that the current GM Minivans do.

220532[/snapback]

Just as a matter of logistics. Perhaps as Fly suggested, as well. Dont take it so literal

Im not a statistician or an accountant and couldnt tell you the first thing about cost benefit analysis but there are some very bright and talented people out there that can and obviously they can not justify the expenses at this time.

Im sure this matter is far from over. Besides maybe for once in a long while GM sill come out of this one step ahead of the market because of this...hey. ya never know. With all of GM's unresolved financial matters and razor thin profit margins in NA, they cant afford to dump another loser into an already crowded market segment with established players.

If its going to be done it has to be done right. Otherwise whatever little resources that are available should be spent elsewhere, for now.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[ponchoman49]

Are they selling that bad? I see hordes of CSV's on the road everyday. The Buick version with the now std 3900 is not too bad looking.

[Robert Hall]

so the 350z is a sports car right?  its got two seats and a rwd chassis so it should be equal to the corvette, right?

220275[/snapback]

The 350Z is definitely a sports car..the Z's have always been sports cars....different market and price point than the Vette..

[regfootball]

lots of emotion here discussing vans of all things....LOL............

goes to show you that people do care and there is a sizable market out there....

which GM is choosing to ignore. foolish. GM has no clue still.

Edited November 27, 2006 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

First, off topic: the Fit is an ugly car, but since it is a Honda, it is great, right? I was in one last week. Yech, is all I can say. The 2007 Aveo looks, rides and handles very well, but it could use a better transmission. It is selling very well here, until Saturn gets the better Opel product.

Secondly, what I am hearing is that GM has great plans for Saturn (the entire Opel line-up), GMC (Acadia) and even Buick (Enclave), but Chevrolet, which last time I looked still accounts for half the company, has nothing slated beyond the (maybe) cancelled Uplander.

No matter how you cut it, it looks like a recipe for disaster.

[Robert Hall]

Are they selling that bad? I see hordes of CSV's on the road everyday. The Buick version with the now std 3900 is not too bad looking.

220554[/snapback]

Maybe they have some strong sales in some regions..I rarely ever see them..I see Caravans, Oddeseys, and Siennas daily...