Lutz Responds to GM Minivan Debacle

[ehaase]

GM should develop a new minivan only if it comes up with unique features that no other minivan has. That way GM could charge a premium price for a superior product. Otherwise, I think it would just be a waste of the $750 million to $1 billion of development costs (I read that was the potential cost of the Lambda minivan program), especially if the vehicles have to be sold at discounts.

[ZL-1]

That thing is too good looking for GMNA.  We want ugly minivans that don't sell so we can justify bailing out of the minivan segment altogether.

225631[/snapback]

LOL

Well, the Zafira doesn't have rear slidindg doors. But I have a hunch it might do well in America as a Saturn.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

I completely agree the Zafira should be sold here as a Saturn-Transponder, perhaps? Send Meriva over too, as the Saturn MON, and an S-MAX rival (Signum II at Opel/Vauxhall/Holden) and a Galazy rival, with the Relay badge in North America; Sintra elsewhere. I can see where GM has more important things to do, but if they do come back with monivans, heavily differentiate the Chevy and Buick versions, and leave it at those two divisions-they should be different in the same way Malibu/G6/Aura are, but not of course, as lousy as Malibu or G6.

[regfootball]

That thing is too good looking for GMNA.  We want ugly minivans that don't sell so we can justify bailing out of the minivan segment altogether.

225631[/snapback]

this would only sell in a saturn dealership. and event then, our folks in michigan would order up a bunch of the ugly corporate radios to put in the center stack.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Better to get out of the market now, than linger in it with a so/so product.

[thegriffon]

I always liked sliding doors.  I try to park next to minivans for that reason because I know that giant door isnt going to swing open... One less door to worry about.

225501[/snapback]

The Zafira didn't invent the 3-row C-MPV—the Japanese did that more than 20 years ago—but it revived the segment and set the standard everyone else tries to match, with vehicles such as the Grande Scenic, C4 Picasso, VW Touran, Mazda5, Corolla Verso and Kia Rondo. The current version shares most engines with the Astra, including the 238 hp OPC version, which debuted first in the Zafira. There is also a CNG version with an underfloor tank.

[thegriffon]

Here's a question for you, if the Lambda vans have been canned, what was photographed running around the proving grounds :AH-HA_wink:

[JBsZ06]

GM should market an inexpensive minivan based off the platform of the Acadia.

Simply put a 3.9 liter ohv six and front wheel drive. Add a solid axle out back and run...

Worst case scenerio make the dam thing in china and ship it over....

Pricing will slaughter the Koreans.

Just sell it through GMC.

JMO

[wjfox]

So some of you are saying GM should build minivan just so they compete. Are you going to miss having GM minivan that much? How many of you actully own or dive minivans?

225319[/snapback]

I've owned one of each generation of GM's minivans; a 92 "dustbuster" Transport a '01 Montanta. The 92 was a more satisfying vehicle overall. When it was time to replace it I drove other minivans, but the GMs had the best mileage of the V6s on the market and it has given up truly outstanding gas mileage. All though we've had to replace head gaskets and the transmission.

Still, I don't think GM should exit this market. Just like the Venture platform gave rise to the not-all-that-great crossovers of Rendezvous and Aztek, the Lambda platform should be able to evolve into a capable minivan.

When you have kids, and your kids have friends they are great machines. Our Montana has been the vehicle of choice for boy scout camping trips because of the surround sound and TV/game system we rigged up in it. They may not be glamorous but there are a ton of them around. It seems like to big of a market to walk away from. Now the full size coupe market, like the Eldo and Monte, those they can walk away form - unless they decide to build something someone would actually want to buy, like a Velite / Riviera.

[ZL-1]

Here's a question for you, if the Lambda vans have been canned, what was photographed running around the proving grounds :AH-HA_wink:

225786[/snapback]

(i) Refresh of current platform

or

(ii) The Lambda van, ie, Lutz's BS-ing us

or

(iii) Prototype based on another platform

Edited December 10, 2006 by ZL-1

[cavalier36]

would it be more cost efficient to build a minivan from the Epsilion platform? or possibly a long wheelbase Theta? if there was a new minivan built there wouldnt need to be 4 versions of it. I would think about only offering it as a Chevrolet. if you still are against making a new minivan then you need to consider making a Chevrolet lambda crossover that would be cheaper than the other versions. or you could make a "value leader" version of the GMC Acadia or Saturn Outlook.. even if you had to power the "value leader" with the 3.5L high value V6.

[thegriffon]

would it be more cost efficient to build a minivan from the Epsilion platform? or possibly a long wheelbase Theta? …

225918[/snapback]

GM may do just that. There is already such a program for a smaller European MPV, just not for anything fullsize.

[regfootball]

the epsilon is too small for a true minivan. Epsilon 2, who knows.

[ehaase]

I may be wrong, but I thought that the Odyssey was loosely based on the Accord and that the Sienna is based on the Camry, which are roughtly the same size as Epsilon.

[regfootball]

the reason the venture etc. was not successful was they wetre not as big as the windstar and DCX vans.

the epsilon is narrow. the W body chassis is a bit wider. the lambdas would have been perfect.

Edited December 10, 2006 by regfootball

[haypops]

Here's a question for you, if the Lambda vans have been canned, what was photographed running around the proving grounds :AH-HA_wink:

225786[/snapback]

[DetroitNut90]

the reason the venture etc. was not successful was they wetre not as big as the windstar and DCX vans.

226057[/snapback]

I don't think that the U-bodies never caught up to Chrysler's vans because of dimensions (they're really not that far apart). I think it was because they weren't the best product out there, and also because they didn't offer anything different than what the competition already had.

That said, purpose-wise, they are great. They live up to what's expected in a minivan (flexibility and good fuel economy).

Edit: and the Windstar never sold that great because Ford only started to offer dual sliding doors in 1999. The '99 Windstar was probably the best-looking minivan available at the time, but they let it wither away in typical Ford fashion (Lincoln LS, or just Lincoln in general).

Edited December 10, 2006 by DetroitNut90

[daves87rs]

clueless.

ever try to shop for a used minivan?  you can't find them.....its because they sell like a day after they are listed on line or in the paper.

used vans in good shape command premium bucks.  any van that has lost its value is because it been rode hard and put away wet.

GM could sell 30,000 vans a year for handicap conversion alone, if they try.  Even more to school districts, churches, and mentally handicapped places.

If GM is just laying in the woods to do it later, fine.  But to dismiss the segment is just cheesy BS.  If the product is good you can increase the segment.  GM is just being lazy here.......that's fine if the other products they put out in lieu of it don't turn out to be cheesy crap.

225455[/snapback]

Clueless, Huh?

Maybe you should go through my local autotrader...minivans a' plently...

It isn't even hard to find a newer van in decent shape for under 10 grand...

Now with the handicap vans, that is a good point.

But the current minvans in their current form (all makes) are going to be a dying

breed. For two good reasons:

1. Gas milage. Families on a budget cannot afford high gas prices again. I don't see any minivan with decent gas mpgs...they are still very truck like.....and boring..

2. Choice-there is so much more out there now....trucks with four doors, hatches,

Suvs of all shapes and sizes....even five years ago, I could agree with you.

But not now.

You might be able to make a point with the Madza 5...mirco vans are where things

are headed....or mini-minivans...

Though they are more like a large wagon...

Clueless, Reg?

That hurts my feelings...

[daves87rs]

It also isn't smart to reveal your battle plans to the enemy. I doubt we have seen the last of GM minivans. Even so, I doubt that minivans in general will do anything but decline in popularity.

225509[/snapback]

Agreed.

[pow]

Maybe you should go through my local autotrader...minivans a' plently...

It isn't even hard to find a newer van in decent shape for under 10 grand...

226095[/snapback]

I bet none of them are Hondas or Toyotas. There's not a single current-gen Odyssey on eBay for under $20K buy-it-now.

First-tier minivans are still highly sought after.

Edited December 11, 2006 by empowah

[regfootball]

Clueless, Huh? 

Maybe you should go through my local autotrader...minivans a' plently...

It isn't even hard to find a newer van in decent shape for under 10 grand...

Now with the handicap vans, that is a good point.

But the current minvans in their current form (all makes) are going to be a dying

breed. For two good reasons:

1. Gas milage. Families on a budget cannot afford high gas prices again. I don't see any minivan with decent gas mpgs...they are still very truck like.....and boring..

2. Choice-there is so much more out there now....trucks with four doors, hatches,

Suvs of all shapes and sizes....even five years ago, I could agree with you.

But not now.

You might be able to make a point with the Madza 5...mirco vans are where things

are headed....or mini-minivans...

Though they are more like a large wagon...

Clueless, Reg?

That hurts my feelings...

226095[/snapback]

just poking fun on the clueless thing...but on the gas mileage thing.....one reason people buy minivans for is max cargo with great mpg. minivans can do 20 regualrly and 25 highway and they have more room than suburbans. minivans are high mpg vehicles.

[daves87rs]

just poking fun on the clueless thing...but on the gas mileage thing.....one reason people buy minivans for is max cargo with great mpg.  minivans can do 20 regualrly and 25 highway and they have more room than suburbans.  minivans are high mpg vehicles.

226168[/snapback]

Very true. And for trucks, that is quite good. My dad gets pretty good mileage

with his Venture (it can close in on 30 pretty quick).

But people are starting to look more toward "compact" Mpgs on their suvs/Minivans

They simply want better.

For those whose budget isn't quite as tight, then I would agree with you.

Oh-ok, I understand. As long as you're just making fun of me...

It's cool.

[enzl]

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/breaking...adia-220814.php

Just when the momentumn was starting to build, you get a 'stop sell' for the Lambdas....

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

Here's a question for you, if the Lambda vans have been canned, what was photographed running around the proving grounds :AH-HA_wink:

225786[/snapback]

I think its an O/V/H S-MAX and/or Galaxy rival based on Epsilon II, am I right?

[Carguy]

GM should market an inexpensive minivan based off the platform of the Acadia.

Simply put a 3.9 liter ohv six and front wheel drive. Add a solid axle out back and run...

Worst case scenerio make the dam thing in china and ship it over....

Pricing will slaughter the Koreans.

Just sell it through GMC.

JMO

225789[/snapback]

I agree with that in part. But it should be sold as a Chevy with the 3.9L and a more luxury version for Saturn with the 3.6L V6. I dont see a Minivan for GMC really let the Acadia have that market for them.

[JWilly48519]

I'm a guy that drives a so-called minivan as my winter car and stuff-mover. It's optimum for my guy-needs. I like the way the AWD versions drive, and I have fairly high expectations...my summer car is a Boxster.

I like buying GM. I need to buy a 2007. I hate GM's abandonment of the minivan segment.

The Lambda CUVs are too short behind the second row. I'm not interested in moving stacks of drywall or circus animals, but occasionally I do need to move long equipment, or go shopping, or take a prototype and a couple of associates to a customer site. I want the convenience of cubage and length.

Pickups drive badly, and don't offer me either a shared-interior cargo space or a good on-road AWD package. They're too high, and waste length...I don't communicate my masculinity by the length of my hood. Suburbans are ponderous and clumsy. CUVs are OK, I guess, for general mobility, but they don't excite me. I'm happy that they exist for their buyers. I need another minivan.

Who decided that the minivan concept would be solely identified with soccer moms, anyway? The minivan form factor, functionalized up and re-concepted, should co-exist as a guy vehicle. Minus the irrelevant attempts at making it look like a car, a minivan offers a perfect canvas for designing an anti-design, i.e. high function and rejection of the car look, i.e. the Scion xB but with more functionality and features, for guys with bigger stuff, families, more safety concerns, snow to drive through. In the life of the concept, why didn't anyone pick up on that?

It's tough being part of a segment that is considered negligible.

Edited December 12, 2006 by JWilly48519

[The O.C.]

The I5 is every bit as good as a V6.... it is the rest of the truck that lost the sale.

225366[/snapback]

Totally disagree......the I-5 is a piece of crap (IMHO.) I've driven quite a few of the trucks.....but you don't even need to drive the truck to experience the rattly and unrefined sound and feel of this motor. It's more rough and tumble than many I-4s around....and has nowhere near the NVH refinement that you find in the VW 2.5L I-5 or the Volvo (Ford) I-5.

Those trucks also don't feel 200+ hp strong to me, either......

To a V6, it doesn't compare in performance.....it doesn't compare in NVH......and it (seemingly...based upon buff mag tests, etc.) doesn't compare in fuel economy.

It's too bad....don't know where GM went wrong.....because the I-6 is a wonderful motor....

[haypops]

Any opinions/experience on the Atlas 4? On paper it seems terrific. It must be GM's least utilized engine.

Edited December 12, 2006 by haypops

[Chicagoland]

There is still a market for small vans. GM & Ford think of them as 'not invented here', so they poo-poo them.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, and Mopar offer competitive vans, with no excuses.

[carman21]

I still think that Chevy & GMC should have Lambda minivans. This is just dumb.

[aaaantoine]

I still think GM should use sliding doors on more vehicles, minivan or not.

[regfootball]

I'm a guy that drives a so-called minivan as my winter car and stuff-mover. It's optimum for my guy-needs. I like the way the AWD versions drive, and I have fairly high expectations...my summer car is a Boxster.

I like buying GM. I need to buy a 2007. I hate GM's abandonment of the minivan segment.

The Lambda CUVs are too short behind the second row. I'm not interested in moving stacks of drywall or circus animals, but occasionally I do need to move long equipment, or go shopping, or take a prototype and a couple of associates to a customer site. I want the convenience of cubage and length.

Pickups drive badly, and don't offer me either a shared-interior cargo space or a good on-road AWD package. They're too high, and waste length...I don't communicate my masculinity by the length of my hood. Suburbans are ponderous and clumsy. CUVs are OK, I guess, for general mobility, but they don't excite me. I'm happy that they exist for their buyers. I need another minivan.

Who decided that the minivan concept would be solely identified with soccer moms, anyway? The minivan form factor, functionalized up and re-concepted, should co-exist as a guy vehicle. Minus the irrelevant attempts at making it look like a car, a minivan offers a perfect canvas for designing an anti-design, i.e. high function and rejection of the car look, i.e. the Scion xB but with more functionality and features, for guys with bigger stuff, families, more safety concerns, snow to drive through. In the life of the concept, why didn't anyone pick up on that?

It's tough being part of a segment that is considered negligible.

226713[/snapback]

I FEEL FOR YA. truth.

[aaaantoine]

I'm a guy that drives a so-called minivan as my winter car and stuff-mover. It's optimum for my guy-needs. I like the way the AWD versions drive, and I have fairly high expectations...my summer car is a Boxster.

I like buying GM. I need to buy a 2007. I hate GM's abandonment of the minivan segment.

The Lambda CUVs are too short behind the second row. I'm not interested in moving stacks of drywall or circus animals, but occasionally I do need to move long equipment, or go shopping, or take a prototype and a couple of associates to a customer site. I want the convenience of cubage and length.

Pickups drive badly, and don't offer me either a shared-interior cargo space or a good on-road AWD package. They're too high, and waste length...I don't communicate my masculinity by the length of my hood. Suburbans are ponderous and clumsy. CUVs are OK, I guess, for general mobility, but they don't excite me. I'm happy that they exist for their buyers. I need another minivan.

226713[/snapback]

Have you considered a short-wheelbase Chevy Express?

Yes, I know, dumb question.

[JWilly48519]

Have you considered a short-wheelbase Chevy Express?

227315[/snapback]

Ummm, no. I think that would fall into both the "drives badly" and "ponderous and clumsy" categories.

Plus, I'm sure it'd be fun feeding that big V8.

I want to buy GM, but I do have limits.

Edited December 14, 2006 by JWilly48519

[prototype66]

I always liked sliding doors.  I try to park next to minivans for that reason because I know that giant door isnt going to swing open... One less door to worry about.

225501[/snapback]

I called it a couple of weeks ago! world platform for quick enterance!

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=222632

Edited December 15, 2006 by prototype66

[Angry Dad]

Lutz's words have been distorted.

He does not say that GM will never build a minivan, it is clear that it will not be Lambda based.

But holy schmoly, the people responding (especially some of the bozos on the Fastlane blog) have run off in all sorts of directions. The one guy that raves about the Tundra being so classy at the LA show, what a loser.

IMO, minivans especially the current crop have gotten way out of control. They are ungodly expensive. The Lambdas are better in all respects as driving vehicles. There seems to be an opportunity to return minvans back to where they came from. None of theme are "mini" anymore. And dare any male to go up to any middle aged woman that is looking at any min van from any manufacturer and tell her that "she would look good in one of them". It's an insult, you may as well use the "c" word on them. And while Lutz can't say that, it's what he is saying.

And yes sliding doors suck, there is a better way. Nobody has done the better way yet.

[haypops]

And yes sliding doors suck, there is a better way. Nobody has done the better way yet.

228567[/snapback]

[DetroitNut90]

And yes sliding doors suck, there is a better way. Nobody has done the better way yet.

228567[/snapback]

And how is that? Wider openings, power-assist, not worrying about dinging the car next to you's doors, what's sucky about that?

[JWilly48519]

The early reviews are pretty negative for the Ford Edge...even though everyone loves the big skylight.

One of the most telling negatives, I think, is a growing recognition that the CUV body concept is really just Hatchback Redux, i.e. enough stuff-volume for trips to the grocery store, but not for anything more significant. CUVs are just cars with big trunks. However good a fit that concept may be for many customers, CUVs don't deliver a merger of the cube and length of a light truck with the daily driveability and all-weather road performance of an advanced car. That vehicle needs the minivan form factor.

I hope that the next so-called minivan from GM is intentionally developed with a dual personality, marketing-wise. That's a great reason for having multiple divisions.

Mommy-mobiles/family vans/people movers are essential, and IMO a strategically crucial market whatever the trends. You shouldn't be able to go wrong selling them. Fifty years ago, motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolets were all essential elements of Americana. You can't go wrong in middle America being in favor of motherhood and family values. You just have to have marketers that understand and identify with the customers.

The same platform implementation, though, should be offered as a personal stuff-hauler with a form-follows-function, all-weather marketing message. De-emphasize the third row, the backseat DVD player and the bland colors. Masculinize the detailing. Functionalize the interior. Add options for a big-sky roof, more prominent rubber, and some identity/excitement colors inside and out. Sell it young and tough, with a focus on real world stuff-hauling, and having a vehicle that's ready for whatever you need to do.

Edited December 17, 2006 by JWilly48519

[regfootball]

Lutz's words have been distorted.

He does not say that GM will never build a minivan, it is clear that it will not be Lambda based.

But holy schmoly, the people responding (especially some of the bozos on the Fastlane blog) have run off in all sorts of directions. The one guy that raves about the Tundra being so classy at the LA show, what a loser.

IMO, minivans especially the current crop have gotten way out of control. They are ungodly expensive. The Lambdas are better in all respects as driving vehicles. There seems to be an opportunity to return minvans back to where they came from. None of theme are "mini" anymore. And dare any male to go up to any middle aged woman that is looking at any min van from any manufacturer and tell her that "she would look good in one of them". It's an insult, you may as well use the "c" word on them. And while Lutz can't say that, it's what he is saying.

And yes sliding doors suck, there is a better way. Nobody has done the better way yet.

228567[/snapback]

if smaller vans were the way, the caravan would outsell the grand caravan, not vice versa....and the mazda mpv would have been a raging sales success.

why do sliding doors suck? because you can operate them remotely with a key fob or because you don't have to worry about your kid swinging open a hinged door and leaving a huge gash in the car next to you in the parking lot?

the decline in sales in the van segment has more to do with having pathetic segment entries (freestar, uplander, aging caravan) than it does with other factors. If GM and Ford had new minivans equal to the Siennadyssey and if DCX had their new van out now, they segment would be bursting with sales. It would probably set records. In spite of / in addition to any Lambda sales.

Edited December 17, 2006 by regfootball

[JWilly48519]

IMO, minivans especially the current crop have gotten way out of control. They are ungodly expensive.

You think it's bad that the segment has evolved demand and supply at the high end? Or are you proposing that segment players need either two entries or a greater price spread between low and high end?

The Lambdas are better in all respects as driving vehicles.

Compared to existing 2WD GM minivans, yes. The recent GM minivan AWD package, OTOH, has had excellent road dynamics. The AWD versions were totally different and better driving experiences.

There seems to be an opportunity to return minvans back to where they came from. None of theme are "mini" anymore.

Yeah, those damned customers, wanting more capacity. Screw 'em, let's just offer small ones.

And dare any male to go up to any middle aged woman that is looking at any min van from any manufacturer and tell her that "she would look good in one of them". It's an insult, you may as well use the "c" word on them.

A woman buying a present GM minivan is buying what she needs, not what she wants...because of stupid gender-biased marketing that either assumes women won't spend beyond function and safety to get identity/excitement features, or can't think of any such features, and has assigned the minivan as the inferior identity/excitement-free "woman's product". When you're offering an identity/excitement-free product and thereby passively encouraging perception-drift of your product image toward comparative undesirability, of course a potential buyer with anything less than a bulletproof ego is going to be insulted when you tell them that their apparent identity and your identity-free product are a good match. But that idiotic situation is not inherently a characteristic of the minivan form factor.

And yes sliding doors suck, there is a better way. Nobody has done the better way yet.

The objections to sliding doors are technical...not customer perceptions. A "better" way has to be "better" as perceived by customers. But hey, if testing proves that, fine, bring it on.

Edited December 17, 2006 by JWilly48519

[rkmdogs]

You folks are all still looking at the big picture with horse blinders on!

All the pitches that I have read so far are based on style, not functionality. That may be great if you are in the demographic

majority, but you are not!

Look at the actual statistics. Our population is getting older! What appeals to a 20-30year old, may not meet the needs of

a 40-50 year old. And which age bracket is growing faster? Read the reports.

As product diversity has expanded, more and more of the vehicles have become "niche" cars, to meet certain specific needs of

certain groups of people. Now you can write off some of these groups if you are arrogant enough, or have enough money to do so,

but I don't think that GM in its current status can do either!

I am a mini-van owner, 5 times over, because station wagons were not available. I have even been in the full-sized van camp,

when the needs were there. You people who have never had one or a use for one, talk like you are the only ones that

the manufacturers should cater to. Wrong!!

As an advocation, we show dogs...... and so do a lot of other people! Our vehicles of choice demand large bulk volume capability.

Full-size and minivans are currently our main vehicles of choice. Just go to any show site for verification! Pick-ups don't hack it

because of lack of weather cover, security and other-duty uses. Horse showing is an exception, cause the horses don't ride in the tow

vehicle!!

To presume that SUV's or CUVs will replace the van-needs of these folks is wishful thinking.

Then there are the trades-people, who use these vehicles for their livelihood. They are certainly not going to buy SUV's or CUV's.

Write them off too!

People cry when they see a major US industry going off-shore, or to companies controlled off-shore. That's because the US-run

companies have abandoned the people who put them up there!;

either by ignoring their customer-base product needs, or by sacrificing quality to the bean-counters!

Wake up Lutz! You have disappointed many of us, and been fooled bymany many more! Go back to your basic premise--- that GM

is supposed to be a transportation vehicle company, not an art object!

[CARBIZ]

.....but you are assuming that car companies work in a perfect world. The media, particularly self-appointed "enthusiasts" are exerting undue influence on car companies, GM in particular. Toyota has enjoyed a long honeymoon with the enthusiasts because (except for rare exceptions like the Supra) Toyota has never done anything to interest the enthusiasts. GM, on the other hand, has made fantastic aspirational vehicles in the past (some, I dare say, even now) so has drawn an unreasonable amount of ire from these so-called experts who know more about the industry than those who actually design and build the vehicles in the first place.

Hence, the lowly minivan, which managed to fill a much-needed market niche in the '80s when fuel costs were a concern, suddenly fell out of favor with the "experts;" who, of late, are badgering and cajoling the auto industry into ever sillier heights with horse power and size demands. Like, get real - who needs 240+ hp minivans? Who needs a 240" SUV to get groceries?

Whether "enthusiasts" like it or not, the minivan is an important "niche" and I agree that if it returned to its roots - that of providing 6 or more passenger comfort in affordable transportation, probably on a car-based platform, FWD and decent fuel economy, the customers will return in droves.

In the pre-air bag and pre-seatbelt days of the '60s, there is a very good reason Chevrolet, Plymouth and others sold over a million station wagons every year: people needed them.

[RangerVT]

Who are we all kidding? GM got out of the minivan business a long time ago. They fell behind horribly when the new Caravan's came out with the Stow 'n Go flexibility, Power Doors/Hatches and (the import-favorite) Odyssey Power Sliding Rear window. GM's answer to such advances..... the Up-Blander SUV-like styling!!! No real technological advances, no new engines or transmissions, no additional conveniences or competitive advantages. The only "Advantage" became a standard DVD player for Rear Passengers. This is no shock.... let the minivan die in peace, next topic.

[PsychoBueller]

I've said it before: there is no substitute for a minivan's flexibility. They offer good passenger room, good cargo room, good fuel economy, and a nice smooth ride. No, driving one won't get your blood pumping, and your neighbors won't become jealous of you when you buy one. There are reasons why people buy minivans over SUVs. They're just something that you come to appreciate once you've owned one for a while.

Oh well...if GM's not going to build one, I guess we can always go to Chrysler when the Venture needs replacing, assuming they didn't screw the RT vans up too bad (a la Sebring).

Amen Brother. We're on our second Dodge Grand Caravan. Anyone who has kids can appreciate the absolute convenience of the true minivan. Power sliders/hatch are a joy to behold. I wouldn't want a vehicle without them. I see the trouble my SUV-driving friends have with getting their kids strapped in in a parking lot with no room. My sliders make it all easy and stress-free. Not to mention I have plenty of storage space. Their SUVs get filled with a stroller.

I will continue to drive minivans as long as I have small kids to cart around. There is no substitute.

[ellives]

Who are we all kidding? GM got out of the minivan business a long time ago. They fell behind horribly when the new Caravan's came out with the Stow 'n Go flexibility, Power Doors/Hatches and (the import-favorite) Odyssey Power Sliding Rear window. GM's answer to such advances..... the Up-Blander SUV-like styling!!! No real technological advances, no new engines or transmissions, no additional conveniences or competitive advantages. The only "Advantage" became a standard DVD player for Rear Passengers. This is no shock.... let the minivan die in peace, next topic.

Actually I have no problem with GM abandoning a segment they're not competitive in. Even for a short time. It wastes resources they could be expending in other areas. If you're not competitive in a segment, you're not making money at it and GM needs to figure out how to make money - a LOT of it.

[RangerVT]

Actually I have no problem with GM abandoning a segment they're not competitive in. Even for a short time. It wastes resources they could be expending in other areas. If you're not competitive in a segment, you're not making money at it and GM needs to figure out how to make money - a LOT of it.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at with all my rambling. Glad you could summarize for me! haha. :AH-HA_wink:

[prototype66]

Who are we all kidding? GM got out of the minivan business a long time ago. They fell behind horribly when the new Caravan's came out with the Stow 'n Go flexibility, Power Doors/Hatches and (the import-favorite) Odyssey Power Sliding Rear window. GM's answer to such advances..... the Up-Blander SUV-like styling!!! No real technological advances, no new engines or transmissions, no additional conveniences or competitive advantages. The only "Advantage" became a standard DVD player for Rear Passengers. This is no shock.... let the minivan die in peace, next topic.

My take on it is perhaps GM didn't invest too much of there available resources into the 10+ year old/ current minivan platform to free up funding on the Lambda and Zeta projects (which are ready now) and planned to use a european platform to convert to NA specification . It seems that it would take less funding to modify an exsisting sucsessful vehicle and add emenities offered by the others rather then developing an all new platform for 1 vehicle in this spacific place in the market. They are still widely used in the market but I wouldn't think the percentage of sales would justify an entirely new platform costing billions. Just a thought.

Edited December 27, 2006 by prototype66