GM Minivan Plans Panned

[haypops]

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]

The Chrysler group led the segment last year with 36.7 percent of the market, followed by Honda at 15.7 percent and GM at 14.9 percent. Last year GM sold 166,016 minivans.

I think that it is fair to assume that GM would recieve a disproportionate amount of Ford's lost van sales volume.

Edited November 27, 2006 by haypops

[Polish_Kris]

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. 

220587[/snapback]

No the Fit is not good cause it's a Honda, it is good because it is what people want and need. The Aveo/Wave/Swift+ triplettes are selling just as well. People want fuel efficiency, cheap insurance, and of course, since the Fit is an ULEV vehicle, the Federal Government gives buyers tax rebates.

[regfootball]

No the Fit is not good cause it's a Honda, it is good because it is what people want and need.  The Aveo/Wave/Swift+ triplettes are selling just as well.  People want fuel efficiency, cheap insurance, and of course, since the Fit is an ULEV vehicle, the Federal Government gives buyers tax rebates.

220822[/snapback]

too bad the fit's interior is so downmarket. I sat in one at the autoshow....no idea how anyone would find a car with 100 hp and a crappy interior be so desirable.

The Versa and SX4 are so much more interesting. The Fit is dung.

Edited November 28, 2006 by regfootball

[HarleyEarl]

And the Fit is just plain dorky looking. I'd be embarassed to be seen in it.

[Cory Wolfe]

I'd be embarrassed (and scared... ) to ride in an Aveo.

There are simply better vehicles out there and that includes the Fit. For one, it's interesting unlike the boring Aveo. It also rides and handles better than the Aveo. As far looking dorky... Any car this size looks dorky, the Aveo included. And horsepower? 109hp in the Fit compared to 103 in the Aveo. The Versa has 120hp, but its 300 lbs heavier. The Fit is a good half second faster to 60 than the Versa, while the Aveo is slower than both of them. Yeeeah...

[prototype66]

Ive heard the new chevy lambda is a TB replacement with a beefed up tranny/ drivetrain and suspension package. Perhaps the PM rendering IS fairly accurate.(just not a minivan) Maybe the chevy version will fit nicely between TB and Uplander as a replacement. I still think the opel van will enter the segment.

[Polish_Kris]

too bad the fit's interior is so downmarket.  I sat in one at the autoshow....no idea how anyone would find a car with 100 hp and a crappy interior be so desirable.

The Versa and SX4 are so much more interesting.  The Fit is dung.

221033[/snapback]

Not everyone looks at style when they buy cars in this class either

[Flybrian]

Exactly. Which explains why anyone bought even one of these...

[Drew Dowdell]

No the Fit is not good cause it's a Honda, it is good because it is what people want and need.  The Aveo/Wave/Swift+ triplettes are selling just as well.  People want fuel efficiency, cheap insurance, and of course, since the Fit is an ULEV vehicle, the Federal Government gives buyers tax rebates.

220822[/snapback]

Say what? ULEV tax breaks? link please....

[regfootball]

Exactly. Which explains why anyone bought even one of these...

221301[/snapback]

LMAO..........

"I always loved that one"

15 grand for a 100hp go kart. Hell, i can go to Fleet Farm and pick up a go kart with a TECUMSEH engine for about 700 bucks. It probably rides just as hard, is just as quick to 60 and the gas tank is likely in the same deathtrap location.

The Fit's interior is straight out of a late 80's early 90's import design manual. and its hp level is too. I would be on board with the Fit if it were inexpensive (and had at least 130hp), but anyone buying a small car isn't going to want to spend 15k when there are other more substantial offings. Unless of course all you really want is to desperately buy any NEW Honda and you don't have a motorcycle endorsement. In that case the Fit exists because Civics are 20 grand now.

closed circuit to small car lovers.....your smart will be here soon. why obsess over pointless rides like the fit if all you want is a small scootabout that can fit in what is left of your miserable parking space in your miserable uptown apartment (that also costs too much).

move to the suburbs and get a larger car..........you'll be happier.........

and you don't need to pay to park, and get your car broken into all the time.....

and show me any small car that gets cheaper insurance (especially an import brand) than any domestic sedan like an Impala, or Taurus.

Edited November 29, 2006 by regfootball

[rkmdogs]

Fit,schmidt, pit...... who cares?

This thread was about GM's plans for a future minivan.

Can we get back to that subject, or has everybody with an honest

opinion voiced it?

[97regalGS]

Fit,schmidt, pit...... who cares?

This thread was about GM's plans for a future minivan.

Can we get back to that subject, or has everybody with an honest

opinion voiced it?

221508[/snapback]

GM needs a minivan.

[Hudson]

GM needs a minivan.

No, they don't.

I'm all for compeition, the more the merrier. But if you can't play with the big boys, find another game. Ford and GM have shown over and and over that they either don't understand this market or are unwilling (or unable) to build a competitive product. They should definitely get out of the minivan market and find areas where they can actually compete. Spend their limited resources on a product that people might actually buy.

The minivan market is slipping a bit. Why does GM need to be in a market that is becoming MORE competitive when they couldn't build a competitive product back when minivans were a simple concept (no power doors, no hide-away seats, no AWD, no choice in wheelbases, etc)?

[97regalGS]

No, they don't.

I'm all for compeition, the more the merrier. But if you can't play with the big boys, find another game. Ford and GM have shown over and and over that they either don't understand this market or are unwilling (or unable) to build a competitive product. They should definitely get out of the minivan market and find areas where they can actually compete. Spend their limited resources on a product that people might actually buy.

The minivan market is slipping a bit. Why does GM need to be in a market that is becoming MORE competitive when they couldn't build a competitive product back when minivans were a simple concept (no power doors, no hide-away seats, no AWD, no choice in wheelbases, etc)?

222218[/snapback]

because with minimal changes and nominal cost to lambda they can probably build a minivan

because it is still a big market

because without one, what are all those Uplander/Montana owners gonna buy when their lease ends

because with the right product people will buy a GM minivan over a Honda. (in the same way they will by a Malibu over an Accord or a CTS over a G35/325) it's all about product.

because Chevy, the volume leader, doesn't have a lamba product

[Croc]

I see no reason why sliding rear doors cannot be engineered into the Lambdas as an option. Most of the platform engineering has already been done, so wouldn't it be reasonable for the Lambdas (yes, including a Chevrolet variant) to allow either swinging or sliding rear doors?

GM needs a minivan...and as for their not understanding the segment, well Lutz sure does since he was at Chrysler. That's ONE person who gets it.

[evok]

No, they don't.

I'm all for compeition, the more the merrier. But if you can't play with the big boys, find another game. Ford and GM have shown over and and over that they either don't understand this market or are unwilling (or unable) to build a competitive product. They should definitely get out of the minivan market and find areas where they can actually compete. Spend their limited resources on a product that people might actually buy.

The minivan market is slipping a bit. Why does GM need to be in a market that is becoming MORE competitive when they couldn't build a competitive product back when minivans were a simple concept (no power doors, no hide-away seats, no AWD, no choice in wheelbases, etc)?

222218[/snapback]

Yes and what GM needs really needs is more niche Kappa derivatives...

By your logic GM should have folded and put out the lights years ago.

And who is to say that the lambda vans were not competitive?

Have you seen them?

Did you know the product and content specs?

Do you honestly know the reason why they were cancelled?

I will risk and say NO to all.

[CARBIZ]

I am somewhat surprised to hear this type of argument coming from Hudson. Clearly, many of the people on this board HATE minivans. Be that as it may, they are a vital market - even more so to your cousins to the north.

We all understand there is not limitless buckets of cash here, but it makes no sense to have 3 variations of the same vehicle (Acadia), yet skip the 1.1 million minivan market completely.

Do you guys know that the Caravan has been the #1 selling vehicle up here in the tundra for YEARS?

Stating the GM should get out of the market because it is too competitive, is the same kind of logic that allowed the Civic and Mazda to overtake the Cavalier in sales. At some point, GM will be outgunned by everyone on all flanks.

GM has been betting on full-sized trucks for too long while Japan Inc. has encroached on all the other markets. GM needs to pick its fights, for sure, but at $5 a gallon, a 30 mpg van will be far more attractrive for a family of 5 then a 20 mpg Tahoe.

GM needs to be prepared and NOW.

[prototype66]

  GM has been betting on full-sized trucks for too long while Japan Inc. has encroached on all the other markets.  GM needs to pick its fights, for sure, but at  $5 a gallon, a 30 mpg van will be far more attractrive for a family of 5 then a 20 mpg Tahoe.

  GM needs to be prepared and NOW.

222293[/snapback]

agreed!!! Opel mini on an extended platform.

[Sixty8panther]

GM Minivan Plans Panned

Cool, more money for the ZETA spinoff projects.

[ehaase]

Did you know the product and content specs?

Do you honestly know the reason why they were cancelled?

I will risk and say NO to all.

222292[/snapback]

I hope that you will soon be able to share the specifications on the proposed minivans and the reasons why they were cancelled.

[regfootball]

Jesus Christ, its not THAT HARD TO BUILD A DECENT MINIVAN.

you just can't cost cut, or give it wierd styling. You have to make it extremely functional and comfortable and with solid features and performance.

IT'S NOT THAT F ING TOUGH

[Hogans_Heroes]

I was going to post here a while back and thought I'd missed the boat. However, interest in this topic seems to have kept strong. I guess it should be no surprise.

In my opinion, GM is making (has made?) a terrible mistake in abandoning their LAMBDA van plans. As I saw it (and as Wagoner/Henderson/Others have repeatedly reinforced), the aim of the restructuring plan was to aggressively hack away at material costs, structural costs (esp. pension, OPEB), capacity, and employees, while SIMULTANEOUSLY expanding the top line as well - or at least trying to, to the greatest extent possible.

This playbook has proven itself very successful over a short period of time. On the strength of the GMT920s, then 930s, automotive revenue (particularly GMNA) surged in the first nine months of this year. The stats, I think, were something like up 12.5% in the 2nd quarter, 9% ytd or something like that. The 2nd quarter numbers were laudable. Although the stock had already rallied, it wasn't until they were released that the most serious of the doom and gloom surrounding GM was dispelled. Increasing revenue 12.5% YoY and acheiving over $50 billion in revenue in three months for the first time in your history are not the signs of a dying company.

So it is troubling to me that GM is again focusing on shrinking the company. I like their professed strategy so much more than Ford's - which is why I'm so troubled and perplexed by this decision. Ford has no idea what they are doing. It seems their only strategy is to shrink their costs faster than what they see as an inevitably sharply contracting sales & revenue stream. You've actually got Mark Fields out there conceding they're planning for 14% market share (was almost twice that 10 years ago!).

GM, on the other hand, was to cut their costs while maintaining an aggressive stance in the market. I saw this as a hybrid of the strategy GM tried and failed at from September 2001 through November 2005 (to grow their way out of their problems via massive incentives and "moving the metal" while taking measured and inadequate steps to rein in incentives) and that called for by analysts all along to "shink the company." GM, it was constantly said, must "consciously choose to become a smaller company." How many times were we reminded GM must "shrink to survive"?

Things like abandoning the GMT361s and the LAMBDA vans are not a step in the right direction. Here's what GM could do instead. They could jointly develop a mid-size SUV with Isuzu off of the GMT355 redesign and build it in Shreveport. The point is to lay off everyone in Moraine, eliminate thousands of IUE-CWA workers, cut structural costs, plant sites, etc. but STILL compete in the shrinking mid-size BOF SUV market. Costs are still cut. Capacity is still shuttered. Revenue and sales are not conceded. GM should not give one inch to the enemy! Why exit an important segment that could still be very profitable and would guarantee higher utilization at a remaining plant? The GMT355 could then have the Colorado/Canyon, a TrailBlazer replacement (could still cancel the Envoy to satiate the lynch mob), an H3, H3 SUT and an H4. With so many products in one plant that could be relatively inexpensively differentiated, profitability would improve. This is because even if the number-crunchers didn't see an initial return-on-investment in a BOF TrailBlazer replacement on GMT355, the 100,000 units it should be able to deliver would ease pressure to incentivize the others (like Colorado/Canyon). You could target much lower volume than the mid 100,000s the TrailBlazer is likely to trend towards over the near to mid-term. And you could focus on 100,000 high quality (low incentive, high retail rate) sales. 100,000 times, say, an average transaction price of $30,000 is $3 billion/yr.

Then there are the LAMBDA vans. The LAMBDA platform is just amazing in its versatility. The existing LAMBDA CUVs are nothing short of spectacular. The Enclave is amazing. I can't help but envision what good, competent minivans could be built off of the architecture. I wasn't shown the vans but have friends who have seen official drawings (at GM design dome, etc.) and were very impressed. I'm not sure as to the official reason GM has seemingly pulled the plug on the vans for good, but it could go something like this. I've heard from numerous sources (have a friend who worked in Delta Twp.) that the LAMBDA program grew to be way over-budget. The cheapest CUV will sell for like $25,990. And almost none will sell for that price. A Chevrolet minivan would probably have to start at $19,990 at the very maximum (though rise quickly), the GMC "tall wagon" above that.

Maybe GM could not make a marginal profit on the anticipated transaction price. A lot probably had to do with Spring Hill too. Even moving just one line to LAMBDA would translate to 150,000+ units of capacity. Given the supposedly already pressured profitability at Delta Twp., perhaps GM reasoned if they didn't add this additional capacity they could concentrate on higher quality sales out of DTP alone. With the Chevrolet CUV thrown into the mix, maybe then they would create a capacity shortage, and supply "one less than demand." I don't know. Perhaps Spring Hill would have proven too tempting as a LAMBDA overflow facility. But I think, in addition to a Saab 9-6X, you could build an Opel/Vauxhall and a Holden ("Frontera"?) and get another 25,000 units there. By now you probably think I'm a brand rebadge whore. I've railed against this kind of stuff in the past, but remember the geographical overlap would be minimized.

Even if GM sold the same amount of NG "Uplanders" as they are selling of the current one (and this, I think, is very conservative), it would constitute a huge victory. Transaction prices would be way up, fleet sales way down, less reliance on GM Friends & Family.

So you remain in the mid-size BOF and minivan segments and generate an additional $8.25 billion+/yr in GMNA with only maintaining 1/2 the employees Spring Hill has now. Probably GM will have to keep paying a goodly amount of them anyhow.

So, basically, I'm very negative on this move by GM and hope they will not continue with this wasting strategy. Maybe it's naive, but I'll still hope they reverse course in both these areas. How many times did GM reverse course on "ZETA"?

Finally, if GM IS going to abandon all GM van plans, then I can only come to the conclusion it should permanently close Spring Hill. No sense in "exploring the feasability of producing other products there." Any product they could put in there that I can think of would be existing product or future product already slated to go somewhere else. Maybe you could close the older and more labor problematic Lordstown and concentrate Delta assembly in Spring Hill, but recent investments in Lordstown seem to make this unlikely.

So, GM, by all means cut costs. But cost cutting is not an end in and of itself. The end goal is making money. And sometimes you have to spend money to make money. The direction GM has taken over the past several years had me convinced they'd learned this lesson. Now I'm less sure.

[AM6_Cutlass]

That's too bad. I actually like minivans ...a heck of a lot better than SUVs. GM never really had a decent entry in the segment. The current platform always too narrow (as it was a compromise for European models) and styling obviously shot for the 91-95 Chrysler vans. I was looking forward to having a competent minivan from GM as the Lambda seemed to be shaping up to be.

[regfootball]

why is GM being a bunch of idiots regarding this?

Minivans are one of the best ways to achieve brand ENTRY and BRAND LOYALTY.

new mom, all messed up from female hormones after being pregnant and having a kid. Female wants safe large functional transport vehicle for new child. This prompts mommy to van shop. Mommy will spend gobs of cash to satisfy her need for baby transport vessel. Mommy has never had a Chevy before because someone told her she needed a cute VW.

so, mom sees an excellent van. Mom likes, mom buys. That van could be a Chevy. If mom likes the Chevy van, mommy will become fiercely loyal to the brand.

Then. mommy buys many more Chevys.

God, GM is so fricking clueless.

Would Chrysler even be in business anymore if not for their vans?

Ford used to sell like 200k+ windstars. Then, they 1/2 assed the freestar and look what happened. All they had to do was try but the cost accountants got in the way.

The dodge vans are by no means luxurious but yet they are good enough to have loyal fans and sell zillions of them. Hell, CARBIZ is right....if Gm could even sell x amount of vans in Canada alone, its worth it.

Bottom feeder Kia just simply pieces together a cheesy but functional piece and look.....instant success.

The formula is known. the platform is there. GM just has their collective head in their great big ass on this one. For a domestic maker to abandon this family segment, bread and butter, fleet, repeat buyers, brand entry segment...is foolish beyond compare.

Can you imagine how kickass a hybrid minivan would be? We get a full hybrid vue in 2008-9 but no van to make a full 2 mode hybrid for.

And nobody give me this list price bull$h!. Most vans sticker now at 25k north and that is in line with what the Lamba SUV's are going for. So if the Lambda van would sticker near that, they would be fine. All they would have to make sure to do is make it as overall appealing or better than the odyssey, caravan, sienna, sorento.

and that would not be that tough but apparently Gm does not know what it is doing.

Hell, they could move 50k vans per year on fleet sales if they wanted. taxis, couriers, handicap vans, commerical delivery vans.

THE MINIVAN SEGMENT IS MIDDLE AMERICA VALUES to the CORE.

Imagine a small block v8 in a lambda van?

You should see what folks pay for a toyo or honda van loaded......35k and more. THAT cash is out there.

Maybe the vans will become reality when Chevy's lamba SUV arrives and Lambda production explodes to the point they absolutely need another plant. I dunno.

All I know is the Uplander sucks and everyone sees that and it makes GM look useless.

Jeeses, did Harley Davidson cost cut and cheapen their product to flourish so much? NO. Detroit sure loves to, and it obviously does not work.

Edited December 1, 2006 by regfootball

[prototype66]

why is GM being a bunch of idiots regarding this?

Minivans are one of the best ways to achieve brand ENTRY and BRAND LOYALTY.

new mom, all messed up from female hormones after being pregnant and having a kid.  Female wants safe large functional transport vehicle for new child.  This prompts mommy to van shop.  Mommy will spend gobs of cash to satisfy her need for baby transport vessel.  Mommy has never had a Chevy before because someone told her she needed a cute VW.

so, mom sees an excellent van.  Mom likes, mom buys.  That van could be a Chevy.  If mom likes the Chevy van, mommy will become fiercely loyal to the brand.

Then. mommy buys many more Chevys.

God, GM is so fricking clueless.

Would Chrysler even be in business anymore if not for their vans?

Ford used to sell like 200k+ windstars.  Then, they 1/2 assed the freestar and look what happened.  All they had to do was try but the cost accountants got in the way.

The dodge vans are by no means luxurious but yet they are good enough to have loyal fans and sell zillions of them.  Hell, CARBIZ is right....if Gm could even sell x amount of vans in Canada alone, its worth it.

Bottom feeder Kia just simply pieces together a cheesy but functional piece and look.....instant success. 

The formula is known.  the platform is there.  GM just has their collective head in their great big ass on this one.  For a domestic maker to abandon this family segment, bread and butter, fleet, repeat buyers, brand entry segment...is foolish beyond compare.

Can you imagine how kickass a hybrid minivan would be?  We get a full hybrid vue in 2008-9 but no van to make a full 2 mode hybrid for.

And nobody give me this list price bull$h!.  Most vans sticker now at 25k north and that is in line with what the Lamba SUV's are going for.  So if the Lambda van would sticker near that, they would be fine.  All they would have to make sure to do is make it as overall appealing or better than the odyssey, caravan, sienna, sorento.

and that would not be that tough but apparently Gm does not know what it is doing.

Hell, they could move 50k vans per year on fleet sales if they wanted.  taxis, couriers, handicap vans, commerical delivery vans.

THE MINIVAN SEGMENT IS MIDDLE AMERICA VALUES to the CORE.

Imagine a small block v8 in a lambda van?

You should see what folks pay for a toyo or honda van loaded......35k and more.  THAT cash is out there.

Maybe the vans will become reality when Chevy's lamba SUV arrives and Lambda production explodes to the point they absolutely need another plant.  I dunno.

All I know is the Uplander sucks and everyone sees that and it makes GM look useless.

Jeeses, did Harley Davidson cost cut and cheapen their product to flourish so much?  NO.  Detroit sure loves to, and it obviously does not work.

222537[/snapback]

Word is Chevy gets a v8 suv tb replacement along with the v6 version! I think a v8 minivan would be MAJOR overkill in that segment. There is another plant in delta planned down the road but not for awhile. I agree totally with both of you(regfootball and hogansheros) We are going to loose a ton of possible market share without atleased a stopgap product to replace the Upblander!. They would have been better off keeping the Venture and running with it and not wasting capitol on a badly revised product.My venture is 10 fold nicer than the Uplander imo. They could have invested the money into a all new minivan (or flexuv) and been ahead of the game. Just my thoughts. A slightly wider and extended version of the Opel would be an excellent option. (and yes my chop of a chop is less than quality, Speed over quality this time)

Edited December 1, 2006 by prototype66

[Robert Hall]

Yes, it does seem a bit short-sighted to leave the market completely... Chrysler, Toyota and Honda still build competitive models in this market, why can't GM??

[91z4me]

Therefore it is better to cancel the program today than heavily incentivise and fleet the program to keep Spring Hill running when other products that could meet their requirements are tooled up.

222661[/snapback]

Does that mean that the Lambda vans were headed to Spring Hill?

[ehaase]

Considering how heavy the Lambda SUV's are, in my simple headed mind, I have felt that the Lambda minivans would be quite heavy too and possibly help drag down GM's truck CAFE. I wonder if a lighter, but still roomy, minivan could be spun off Epsilon II?

[regfootball]

all this postualting of reasons says to me still is that they are beyond incompetent, because they still cannot figure how to and build a competitive van and have it in showrooms, like yesterday.

its not that hard, people. its not rocket science.

Edited December 1, 2006 by regfootball

[Hudson]

Yes and what GM needs really needs is more niche Kappa derivatives...

By your logic GM should have folded and put out the lights years ago.

And who is to say that the lambda vans were not competitive?

Have you seen them?

Did you know the product and content specs?

Do you honestly know the reason why they were cancelled?

I will risk and say NO to all.

You're saying that GM has never had a competitve vehicle and that's why they should have "folded up and put ou tthe lights years ago?" I'm saying that their minivans weren't competitive and they should have spent the money on something they can do better.

I'm also saying that the first generations of minivans weren't compeititve. I'm saying that they shouldn't spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to make a minivan that they'll have to spend tens or hundreds of millions MORE to coerce new buyers into the fold...in a field that is ultra-competitive and shrinking. Why not spend the same money making, for example, better mid-sized sedan (where they have some market share and improvements could take a bigger bite).

It takes much more than merely being competitive in the minivan market. Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler are "competitive" and they sell 800,000 minivans over four brands. Where has GM's track record proven that they can blow a market wide open (like Nissan with the Altima or Honda with the second-generation Odyssey or Toyota with the Sienna or Dodge with the 1994 Ram)? GM's track record shows fewer than 200,000 minivans sold each year for the past decade(?) utilizing up to four brands (and how many thousands MORE dealers than the competition?) at a time where the top four brands do that INDIVIDUALLY! Even Ford's best year in this market was a about decade ago.

I wasn't bashing any potential minivan as much as I was making a statement on GM's past attempts and the market conditions going forward. The Lambda "crossovers" are a better idea than their previous minivan attempts.

[The O.C.]

The simple fact is, some people are buying these CSVs we all make fun of and a lot more people would purchase GM vans if they were good. Abandoning this market completely just isn't smart.

218737[/snapback]

I agree......

It's like GM is trying to justify their exit from this segment as a result of "declining sales" in the segment......when in reality, if they had produced a competitive minivan from day one, I'm sure their outlook on the whole segment would be alot different.

Honda and Toyota don't seem to be having many problems with their minivans...

[The O.C.]

This tells me GM is being sensible and not wasting time and money on unprofitable segments.

218860[/snapback]

.....and of course you have profit and revenue data from Chrsyler, Toyota, and Honda on their minivan programs to back up your claim of "unprofitability".....correct??

[Flybrian]

Another little thing I'd like to mention are the accessibility vans. Many of you probably don't see them with the frequency I do, but many older and otherwise handicapped folks have CSVs (and older U-vans) with the Sit-N-Lift seats. The hospital where my girlfriend works has a fleet of ten Montanas and quite a few retirement communites have Uplanders with the seat assist add-on. You never see a Ford or Toyota/Honda van so equipped and not often a new DCX van.

[thegriffon]

http://www.honda.co.jp/welfare/lineup/welfare-car/index.html

http://toyota.jp/welcab/main/lineup.html

http://lv.nissan.co.jp/LINEUP/index.html

http://www.welfare.mazda.co.jp/

[Intrepidation]

Another little thing I'd like to mention are the accessibility vans. Many of you probably don't see them with the frequency I do, but many older and otherwise handicapped folks have CSVs (and older U-vans) with the Sit-N-Lift seats. The hospital where my girlfriend works has a fleet of ten Montanas and quite a few retirement communites have Uplanders with the seat assist add-on. You never see a Ford or Toyota/Honda van so equipped and not often a new DCX van.

222805[/snapback]

I saw an Uplander equiped with one of those at the New England International Auto SHow (which I still need to post pics of). It was pretty cool...not the van, but the seat.

[regfootball]

Another little thing I'd like to mention are the accessibility vans. Many of you probably don't see them with the frequency I do, but many older and otherwise handicapped folks have CSVs (and older U-vans) with the Sit-N-Lift seats. The hospital where my girlfriend works has a fleet of ten Montanas and quite a few retirement communites have Uplanders with the seat assist add-on. You never see a Ford or Toyota/Honda van so equipped and not often a new DCX van.

222805[/snapback]

thank YOU! it is a HUGE market!

Hey, Nissan entered the van fray hoping for like 60,000 units. Now they are on pace for 35,000 or so but that is because they did not stick to the formula. Still, its worth it to them. And GM can't choke out a minivan?

When the windstar was competitive it was a top 10 seller. Then Ford blew chunks half assing the Freestar and that's why sales nosedived. Cost cutting and half assing and well paid management and engineers and the like just flat out not doing their job, union issues or not.

The econoline van is one of the biggest sellers in the market. If toyota came in and did a better full size van, should Ford just throw in the towel? Well, according to our excellent automotive decision makers, that's what they would probably do. And give away all that business. Ford ranger anyone?

GM is more than happy to justify production of several niche vehicles that sell 30,000 units a year and probably show no profit. But they can't justify potential of 100,000 to 200,000 units in a bread and butter segment with high brand loyalty and brand entry characteristics on platform that is tailor made for minivans?

If someone could prove that minivans were a DYING segment, I would say fine. But the Lambda SUV's are not going to signal the demise of the van market. It may shave a few points off of it, but its never never never never going to go away! And if you can actually increase a segment if you put out good product. Look at how Broncos were niche products and then one day explorers and blazers were what everyone needed because the products were so good.

And DCX is ripe for the plucking. GM has the capability to make better products than DCX and steal some of their market share.

Argh, this is too frustrating. Its a symptom of American business, the control lies too much in the hands of people who only approach it from 'how cheap can we build it mentality'. our houses, cars, everything. And it all ends up being compromised.

[97regalGS]

Did I say that it was unprofitable for Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda?  Your post to me was very rude, considering how complimentary and respectful I have been to you in the past.

222837[/snapback]

yes you did, kinda sorta. you said the 'segment' was not profitable. perhaps you meant that it was not profitable for GM.

[Croc]

Honestly the lambdas right now are all excellent and I cannot imagine a reason a family would pass them up for a true minivan...except for the sliding door thing.

C'mon GM...make a sliding door an option in them and you've got yourself all you need.

[regfootball]

Honestly the lambdas right now are all excellent and I cannot imagine a reason a family would pass them up for a true minivan...except for the sliding door thing.

C'mon GM...make a sliding door an option in them and you've got yourself all you need.

222952[/snapback]

its not that easy. its still not a true minivan. a true minivan has lots more cargo room, pass thru first row with flip up console and the shifter is closer to the dash. the hood is shorter and the roof is taller. the seating is more upright. the third row has to fold flat into the floor and the second row ought to as well. a minivan needs to swallow a couch whole, and i don't think the acadia/outlook will be able to. the cargo area does not look tall enough.

the sliding doors need to be big and large and there needs to be a track on the side and floor for the door to slide into. so, its not that easy. the acadia's rear door is pretty short and would not be big enough for a competitive sliding door.

the acadia likely is missing the ultimate number of storage compartments and cupholders as well.

you have kids or a wife, you'll know.

[rkmdogs]

It takes much more than merely being competitive in the minivan market. Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler are "competitive" and they sell 800,000 minivans over four brands. Where has GM's track record proven that they can blow a market wide open (like Nissan with the Altima or Honda with the second-generation Odyssey or Toyota with the Sienna or Dodge with the 1994 Ram)? GM's track record shows fewer than 200,000 minivans sold each year for the past decade(?)

222780[/snapback]

WHAT!

Did I hear you right?

A vehicle manufacturer who deliberately blows off sales of 200,000 vehicles,

with the potential to sell more, if they "improve" the product to meet competitive,

state-of-the-art features?

How many niche vehicles has GM made and sold and been happy about it? ---

Like the SSR?

You guys are into that funny stuff, or the wrong business if you don't think that

ANY manufacturer would rejoice at sales of 200,000 units of only one line of his

product selection.

There are specialty companies, like ASC who would die to make that quantity

of a "special" vehicle!

You guys are counting too many beans again, and forgetting that the mission

statement of GM is to be in the transportation vehicle market, not an ego

toy manufacturer!

[Croc]

its not that easy.  its still not a true minivan.  a true minivan has lots more cargo room, pass thru first row with flip up console and the shifter is closer to the dash.  the hood is shorter and the roof is taller.  the seating is more upright.  the third row has to fold flat into the floor and the second row ought to as well.  a minivan needs to swallow a couch whole, and i don't think the acadia/outlook will be able to.  the cargo area does not look tall enough.

the sliding doors need to be big and large and there needs to be a track on the side and floor for the door to slide into.  so, its not that easy.  the acadia's rear door is pretty short and would not be big enough for a competitive sliding door.

the acadia likely is missing the ultimate number of storage compartments and cupholders as well.

you have kids or a wife, you'll know.

222981[/snapback]

Have you seen these in person? They're pretty impressive. The 2nd and 3rd rows fold flat, and there's plenty of cargo space.

As far as the pass-through first row...says who? That isn't a requirement at all for the segment. I don't remember if they included a place for a purse or not, but the console storage is HUGE.

I think a couch could fit. Not 100% but pretty sure.

Seeting is as upright as any other minivan/SUV I've been in.

As far as storage compartments/cupholders galore...you're right on that, but that could be easily designed into the new sliding doors No biggie.

Honestly look at these in person...they are excellent.

[regfootball]

Have you seen these in person?  They're pretty impressive.  The 2nd and 3rd rows fold flat, and there's plenty of cargo space.

As far as the pass-through first row...says who?  That isn't a requirement at all for the segment.  I don't remember if they included a place for a purse or not, but the console storage is HUGE.

I think a couch could fit.  Not 100% but pretty sure.

Seeting is as upright as any other minivan/SUV I've been in.

As far as storage compartments/cupholders galore...you're right on that, but that could be easily designed into the new sliding doors  No biggie.

Honestly look at these in person...they are excellent.

222990[/snapback]

pass thru first row is huge so you can get up out of the passenger seat in front and have direct access to the second row to take care of kids while you are in motion. You don't want to have to climb over and around a fixed console and floor shifter that is too far back.

most competitive vans will have about 145 cf cargo space. i believe the lambdas and current CUV's are under 120 cf. sizable difference.

i don't dispute the lambdas are great, but still lack the finer detailing folks expect in the minivan segment.

Edited December 2, 2006 by regfootball

[Croc]

pass thru first row is huge so you can get up out of the passenger seat in front and have direct access to the second row to take care of kids while you are in motion.  You don't want to have to climb over and around a fixed console and floor shifter that is too far back.

most competitive vans will have about 145 cf cargo space.  i believe the lambdas and current CUV's are under 120 cf.  sizable difference.

i don't dispute the lambdas are great, but still lack the finer detailing folks expect in the minivan segment.

222997[/snapback]

Uhhh...getting out of the seat while the thing is in motion? Dude, that's stupid. If you need to be actively taking care of the kids while driving, then you should be in one of the back seats too WITH them.

Seriously...before you write them off, experience them in person. And given the number of families who have gone from minivans to midsized SUVs and now to crossovers (it's enough to say the minivan market is shrinking) all due to the soccer-mom stigma...I doubt the veracity of a console-less front row being "huge."

EDIT: Both the Odyssey and Sienna have consoles between the two front seats.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Croc

[Mr.Krinkle]

The minivan is going to go the way of the El Camino or the woody or the whatever. They wont be minivans much longer. ..They will be something else that more people want. ITs not all BOF and RWD or blah blah blah.....

Get a minivan. dont get a minivan. Were talking 3 years from now anyway. f@#k that. Im sure youll find something else to tide you over while you wait that long anyway. I know what im willing to spend and what i want.

Ill take my chances and wait it out anyway. Im not that thick headed or stubborn to see it otherwise....

Some people need a bus to get around.

[regfootball]

Uhhh...getting out of the seat while the thing is in motion?  Dude, that's stupid.  If you need to be actively taking care of the kids while driving, then you should be in one of the back seats too WITH them.

Seriously...before you write them off, experience them in person.  And given the number of families who have gone from minivans to midsized SUVs and now to crossovers (it's enough to say the minivan market is shrinking) all due to the soccer-mom stigma...I doubt the veracity of a console-less front row being "huge."

EDIT:  Both the Odyssey and Sienna have consoles between the two front seats.

223011[/snapback]

dude, the consoles fold and the shifter is up towards the dash. why else would you build it that way.

answer, to get to the rear seat while from the front seat without going outside or climbing over the front seat. its typical. especially if you have 2 kids in the second row.

people do it all the time. especially hormone enraged moms who need to clean up baby's drool while 3 hours into a 4 hour ride to grammas house. you don't stop for stuff like that. and you'd rather fold down the console, fold up the armrests, if its up and walk inbetween two seats, than climbing over a big fixed center console and big ass gear shift. its part of what makes a minivan function specific.

and you're not hearing me. i like the lambdas, i wish i had one in my garage. i am just saying outlooks are not minivans and simply just changing out the rear door to a slider does not make it either a good minivan or SUV. As much as redoing the front end on the chevy venture and renaming it uplander fools anyone into thinking its an SUV.

Edited December 2, 2006 by regfootball

[turbo200]

Uhhh...getting out of the seat while the thing is in motion?  Dude, that's stupid.  If you need to be actively taking care of the kids while driving, then you should be in one of the back seats too WITH them.

Seriously...before you write them off, experience them in person.  And given the number of families who have gone from minivans to midsized SUVs and now to crossovers (it's enough to say the minivan market is shrinking) all due to the soccer-mom stigma...I doubt the veracity of a console-less front row being "huge."

EDIT:  Both the Odyssey and Sienna have consoles between the two front seats.

223011[/snapback]

Odyssey is a removable tray table, not sure about the Sienna. But....I was pretty sure that this issue is a big issue for minivan buyers, as much as being able to move the second row forward to bring them closer to the mommy up front. I see you went to the show today and saw them, as did I. The Lambdas are a lot of car, and style, for your money......but there are a lot of things that would need to be looked at to convert to a minivan. Not to mention....this is an extremely tough and competitive market, and the Odyssey is an excellent product, the bogey no doubt. GM would have to do serious homework to begin to hope to steal some people from that product, where people are ferociously loyal to the imports for thier combination of safety and durability. I don't think it would be wise to give up entirely, but the other question that has been brought up here by more knowledgeable folks is, with the market getting smaller, how much does it matter.

[Mr.Krinkle]

dude, the consoles fold and the shifter is up towards the dash.  why else would you build it that way.

answer, to get to the rear seat while from the front seat without going outside or climbing over the front seat.  its typical.  especially if you have 2 kids in the second row.

people do it all the time.  especially hormone enrgaed moms who need to clean up baby's drool while 3 hours into a 4 hour ride to grammas house.  you don't stop for stuff like that.

223016[/snapback]

You gotta tell those hormone enraged moms t.s. Then tell the kids to pipe down moms drivin'.

[Mr.Krinkle]

Odyssey is a removable tray table, not sure about the Sienna. But....I was pretty sure that this issue is a big issue for minivan buyers, as much as being able to move the second row forward to bring them closer to the mommy up front. I see you went to the show today and saw them, as did I. The Lambdas are a lot of car, and style, for your money......but there are a lot of things that would need to be looked at to convert to a minivan. Not to mention....this is an extremely tough and competitive market, and the Odyssey is an excellent product, the bogey no doubt. GM would have to do serious homework to begin to hope to steal some people from that product, where people are ferociously loyal to the imports for thier combination of safety and durability. I don't think it would be wise to give up entirely, but the other question that has been brought up here by more knowledgeable folks is, with the market getting smaller, how much does it matter.

223018[/snapback]

\\blah blah blah, man....that he hell are you trying to say?

[pow]

its not that easy.  its still not a true minivan.  a true minivan has lots more cargo room, pass thru first row with flip up console and the shifter is closer to the dash.  the hood is shorter and the roof is taller.  the seating is more upright.  the third row has to fold flat into the floor and the second row ought to as well.  a minivan needs to swallow a couch whole, and i don't think the acadia/outlook will be able to.  the cargo area does not look tall enough.

the sliding doors need to be big and large and there needs to be a track on the side and floor for the door to slide into.  so, its not that easy.  the acadia's rear door is pretty short and would not be big enough for a competitive sliding door.

the acadia likely is missing the ultimate number of storage compartments and cupholders as well.

you have kids or a wife, you'll know.

222981[/snapback]

I checked out the Acadia and Outlook today. For utility, it fails desperately in comparison to, say, an Odyssey or Sienna.

Second row has much less room than the two vans. The seats are smaller and mounted far too low. I could sit in the Ody's 2nd row buckets all day, but I couldn't in the Lambda's. With the driver seat adjusted for my 5'11" height, I only had about 3" of free knee room in the back two rows.

Getting in is more of a hassle than with our Ody. The cargo opening height is too high. And there isn't enough storage space to stash bags and purses.

The Lambdas have tons of room for an SUV, but it's no minivan. They compromised maximum utility for style... they compromised interior height for ground clearance.

Edited December 2, 2006 by empowah

[Croc]

empowah...then you didn't have the middle row adjusted properly. It slides back and forth for increased/decreased leg room.

Look I'll be perfectly upfront here: I don't really care for minivans and do not follow the latest developments in the segment. My experiences with minivans have been growing up, friends had Dustbusters, Aerostars, and of course every gen of the Chryslers. I've been in Windstars a couple times, the occasional rental Silhouette, and I was carpooled in the last-gen Odyssey (first competitive Odyssey...circa 2000). Compared to every minivan I've been in, I see no shortcomings with the Lambdas. If GM wants to build an additional set of "true" minivans, then fine, good for them. But I really don't think GM would be at a competitive disadvantage if they just made a sliding door an option with what they currently have.