2009 Chevrolet Traverse Preview

[regfootball]

The Freestar was not "dramatically worse" as you put it. It was just due for replacement. The low transaction prices compared to a CUV is what convinced Ford to make the Flex a "crossover" instead of a "minivan", and why GM decided to kill the minivans based on the Lambda architecture. Most people don't need the extra cargo capacity or the low loading height.

As for the tracker, sure there's a market, but the Vue and Captiva would sell 8-12K+ a month in the US (even the HHR without awd sells 8K+ in a good month), and a smaller truck like the Tracker would sell half that, or less. Not even Toyota could sell 8K a month of the old small RAV4. Canada is just not that big a market to make a smaller truck a priority (the Gamma trucklets will probably not be that small, but more HHR-sized).

suzuki would be more than happy to sell those folks a grand vitara.

Edited February 10, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Agreed on the Freestar remark: it was an okay van plagued by the legacy of the Windstar, but not a horrible van over all. the Uplander/SV6 twins are doing okay up here, but it is getting harder and harder to justify them.

Your remarks on the HHR and Tracker are myopic, at best. Detroit needs to start paying attention to Canada because it is HERE that the trends start. Being as we pay $1 a gallon more than you guys, what sells here today will be selling down there next year. Just wait and see. Besides, GM needs to be thinking globally, and a competitive CUV would sell extremely well in Canada, as well as in Europe and South America. Once America joins the Rest of the World, it will do well there, too.

freestar had an uncompetitive v6, a 4 speed tranny, cheap plastic, bad interior design, noisy interior, poor third row seat, lacked AWD option, no second row stow. it was an upgrade over the windstar, but fell short of the curve the others had set.

Minivans would be competitive again if they simply got racier with styling, made the interiors a little more driver oriented, and offered AWD. People in charge at places like Ford though are very short sighted business types. They have no ability to see design possibilities and they never want to develop designs or products, the beancounters kill it the first chance they can. That is what overpaid business leaders do, at least in the US. They like to stifle anything that isn't a get rich quick slam dunk.

i doubt the Flex will sell huge, even if i think its interesting and may end up with one. it is a niche vehicle. it may sell more retail units than the freestar. the thing that the flex has the freestar didn't was an up to date powertrain and AWD. I still think Ford should make a new minivan, with sliding doors. It has the platform and the parts. a 'kinetic design' minivan with an engaging interior for the driver and superior 2nd and 3rd row function would be a no brainer. it makes me beyond upset we see once popular huge sellers like the windstar and ranger get their business stolen by the rice groups because the vehicles were not kept fresh.

Edited February 10, 2008 by regfootball

[thegriffon]

suzuki would be more than happy to sell those folks a grand vitara.

The Grand Vitara is now bigger than the HHR, The Vitara is gone, there is only the Jimny Sierra, and that is deemed too small for the US (even smaller than the Rush).

[regfootball]

The Grand Vitara is now bigger than the HHR, The Vitara is gone, there is only the Jimny Sierra, and that is deemed too small for the US (even smaller than the Rush).

sx4

[ZL-1]

sx4

Sedici!

Errrr........ I forgot this isn't word association

[thegriffon]

sx4

Yeah, more VW CrossFox than a real SUV. You can even get one without the crossover pretensions, and even as a sedan.

[CARBIZ]

Smart sold 2,433 units last year, about 60% of what Mini sold, and Smart's sales were down almost 20% from 2006. Their appeal would be to the same silly people who would rush out and pay $34,000 for a Prius: a triumph of neither form or function.

I have to take exception to SMK's pious declarations: the Venture and Windstar were more than competitive in their day, but as is often the case, GM and Ford got distracted counting their cash in the SUV market and dropped the ball. Or are we conveniently forgetting the silly first generation Odyssey and the original Sienna - which both were competition to the Venture and Winstar, circa '98 when the Windstar and Venture were in their prime?

As is always the case, Japan Inc. sat back and anaylzed Detroit's hits and misses, then aimed further. CAFE and $5 a gallon will sober everyone up. All I am saying is GM needs to get competitive (again) in the small truck market (like they were in '99 when the last generation Tracker arrived) before the market for V8 dinosaurs crashes.

[The O.C.]

I have to take exception to SMK's pious declarations: the Venture and Windstar were more than competitive in their day, but as is often the case, GM and Ford got distracted counting their cash in the SUV market and dropped the ball. Or are we conveniently forgetting the silly first generation Odyssey and the original Sienna - which both were competition to the Venture and Winstar, circa '98 when the Windstar and Venture were in their prime?

As far as I'm concerned, neither GM nor Ford has offered a minivan (of any generation) that was class-competitive.....and Venture and Windstar are no exception.

One of the cheapest, nastiest, rattly, and most poorly put together vehicles I've EVER driven was a Venture rental with about 15K miles on it. I also had some friends that went from a Chrysler minivan to a Pontiac TransPort/Montana....and the Pontiac was such a nightmare quality-wise and build-wise, they promptly went back to a Chrysler.

But alas....my comments prolly aren't fair because I HATE MINIVANS of any sort......<ugh>

[BigPontiac]

Smart sold 2,433 units last year, about 60% of what Mini sold, and Smart's sales were down almost 20% from 2006. Their appeal would be to the same silly people who would rush out and pay $34,000 for a Prius: a triumph of neither form or function.

I have to take exception to SMK's pious declarations: the Venture and Windstar were more than competitive in their day, but as is often the case, GM and Ford got distracted counting their cash in the SUV market and dropped the ball. Or are we conveniently forgetting the silly first generation Odyssey and the original Sienna - which both were competition to the Venture and Winstar, circa '98 when the Windstar and Venture were in their prime?

As is always the case, Japan Inc. sat back and anaylzed Detroit's hits and misses, then aimed further. CAFE and $5 a gallon will sober everyone up. All I am saying is GM needs to get competitive (again) in the small truck market (like they were in '99 when the last generation Tracker arrived) before the market for V8 dinosaurs crashes.

The Prius starts at $21,000 according to Toyota.com. If you are quoting prices in Canadian Dollars, please say so. As C&G is registered and hosted in the United States, use of the sign $ implies US Dollars as the default currency. If you are posting from another country, please have the courtesy to be specific when making comparisons in your local currency so that everyone can fully understand the point you are making.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[vonVeezelsnider]

How is the SMART predicted to do up in Canada? Or do you sell it up there already?

I think they came in summer 2003, but in a city of a million people there really aren't many at all on the road- in the last two months, I can count on one hand how many I've seen... Problem is their price point. 15 Large for a car like that... Screw the 88MPG, most people in Calgary would rather drive 88MPH! In all seriousness, domestics still rule the roost where I live and most people who don't want a car that small, and those who didn't get caught up in the Fad just drive Focii, Aveos, Cobalts, Yarises etc... because you get much more car for the money.

[Croc]

Frankly, I think the dustbuster vans were competitive enough design-wise, but the reliability is what failed them.

[pow]

The '99 Odyssey, and the subsequent '02 Odyssey refresh, really turned the minivan game around, and heavily influenced later vans - '03+ Sienna, '04+ Quest, '06+ Sedona/Entourage, etc.

While competitors were having 150, 180, and 185 horsepower standard engines (Windstar, Grand Caravan, Venture), the Odyssey had a 240-hp 3.5L and a five-speed automatic. It also helped that Odyssey had by far the most commodious and flexible interior for passengers and cargo, a passenger cell that didn't disintegrate in crash tests, and lots of clever features that were soon copied.

Edited February 11, 2008 by empowah

[vonVeezelsnider]

Frankly, I think the dustbuster vans were competitive enough design-wise, but the reliability is what failed them.

We had some odd problems

*Quoting the service records*

Water Pump, Rad Cap, Fanbelt, Cooling Hose @ 132021km

EGR, Valve Gasket @ 112717km

Power Steering Pump Shaft @ 109724km

TCC Solenoid @ 120515km

Lower Control Arm, Ball Joints, Inner Tie Rods @ 127113km

Transmission Rebuilds at 8900kms and 121000kms

Everything else was covered under warranty.

... It was the Two Transmission Failures within a Year of Each other that led us to sell ours, but overall, it served us extremely well, and still remains our favourite van for its power and fuel economy, not to mention good looks.

[NOS2006]

Honestly, I think this thing looks foreign on the outside. I have a huge Acura vibe coming off of it. However, the interior is amazing. I say remove the Outlook (which looks like a Honda to me) and replace it with this.. but that's just me.

[Northstar]

The Traverse looks quite good in person. You can tell that it is a bit longer than its siblings. The taillights are not attractive, but the rest is a nice package. Price it at $25-35k (with fully loaded ones at $39k) and they'll sell 200k a year, easy.

[CARBIZ]

As far as I'm concerned, neither GM nor Ford has offered a minivan (of any generation) that was class-competitive.....and Venture and Windstar are no exception.

One of the cheapest, nastiest, rattly, and most poorly put together vehicles I've EVER driven was a Venture rental with about 15K miles on it. I also had some friends that went from a Chrysler minivan to a Pontiac TransPort/Montana....and the Pontiac was such a nightmare quality-wise and build-wise, they promptly went back to a Chrysler.

But alas....my comments prolly aren't fair because I HATE MINIVANS of any sort......<ugh>

Sorry, but one rental does not an expert make. We spent a lot of time pouring over the 2000 re-do of the Venture and comparing it to the Chrysler and Windstar of the time. From the LED trilight, to the higher step in angle of the windshield to the (then) convenient as hell flip and fold seats, the Venture was leagues ahead of the competition. BACK THEN. I am in now way, shape or form implying that the current Uplander is class-leading, but then it is about $10k cheaper than the Sienna, so it does have its merits for a family on a budget.

[CARBIZ]

The Prius starts at $21,000 according to Toyota.com. If you are quoting prices in Canadian Dollars, please say so. As C&G is registered and hosted in the United States, use of the sign $ implies US Dollars as the default currency. If you are posting from another country, please have the courtesy to be specific when making comparisons in your local currency so that everyone can fully understand the point you are making.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sorry, I am new around here and nobody knows that I am Canadian.

[smk4565]

The GM and Ford minivans were average at best around 1998, but around 1999 and ever since the Honda Odyssey has been known as the best minivan, and Chryslers vans ere better than GM's back then. I was originally referring to the 2006 GM and Ford vans that were garbage compared to the new Odyssey and the other Japanese vans and the 07 Chrysler vans. GM and Ford knew their van couldn't compete with that crowd so they dropped out. If they didn't need them for CAFE, they both would have given up on the Focus, Cobalt and Aveo by now.

[Intrepidation]

At its introduction, the Chevrolet Venture and its corporate siblings were top-notch examples of the hot minivan class. We went so far as to describe it as "outstanding," impressed with its communicative chassis, sharp steering and nimble handling. Well, in a "the 320-pound left tackle was surprisingly nimble" sort of way.

At the time, the Venture matched Chrysler's innovative new minivans by offering a driver-side sliding door and two wheelbases, then added a few tricks of its own to entice families. We weren't so impressed with its toothy chrome grille and uncomfortable modular seating, but in general, we considered the Chevrolet Venture a good buy.

Time and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) was not kind, however, as newer minivans and a poor offset crash rating conspired to sink the Venture's favorable opinion marks. The downturn of all minivan sales also torpedoed Chevy's entry, forcing General Motors to throw together a replacement van using the Venture's body, a long aardvark-inspired nose and raised ride height to create the supposed SUV-like Uplander. Nobody bought the idea of a crossover minivan and for that matter, nobody bought the vehicle either, signaling the eventual end of Chevy's participation in this mom-mobile segment.

VS

I think that's the main reason why they never made much headway in the segment.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Croc]

VS

I think that's the main reason why they never made much headway in the segment.

Yea, it's pretty hard to sell a vehicle to parents with kids when there's a good chance mommy will die.

[pow]

VS

I think that's the main reason why they never made much headway in the segment.

FF to 2007, and the Uplander still has the same problem, albeit with the Institute's side crash.

The Lambdas should be much better.

Edited February 11, 2008 by empowah

[Z-06]

Why could not GM build a van which was safer when other manufacturers could and GM could build other type of safe vehicles?

[Drew Dowdell]

Why could not GM build a van which was safer when other manufacturers could and GM could build other type of safe vehicles?

that sentence makes baby jesus cry...

[Z-06]

that sentence makes baby jesus cry...

But seriously, is there an answer or a possible theory?

[Robert Hall]

Why could not GM build a van which was safer when other manufacturers could and GM could build other type of safe vehicles?

Because the bean counters didn't give a d*mn about safety...they just wanted to get the cheapest junk on the market and maximize profit...look at the 'unsafe at any speed' Astro/Safari--they built that crap for 20+ years.

[turbo200]

But seriously, is there an answer or a possible theory?

they didn't try or care to. i.e. the first gen and second Venture and subsequent Uplander were all built on updated but never redone versions of the same platform, the original W-body, and maybe that wasn't a safe structure for minivans to occupy?

Edited February 11, 2008 by turbo200

[titan]

I like the Traverse alot. It looks great, but more importantly doesn't look like a rebadged clone.

[regfootball]

Yea, it's pretty hard to sell a vehicle to parents with kids when there's a good chance mommy

AND CHILDREN

will die.

[Drew Dowdell]

but think of the children!

[Croc]

they didn't try or care to. i.e. the first gen and second Venture and subsequent Uplander were all built on updated but never redone versions of the same platform, the original W-body, and maybe that wasn't a safe structure for minivans to occupy?

The late-90s were on the U-body...was that based on the W?

I looked back online and found that the original dustbuster design received between 3 and 5 stars for its front and side crash tests (both varied within a star depending on the year). I wouldn't say the originals were THAT unsafe, but the U-bodies definitely were structurally-deficient.

[vonVeezelsnider]

No, the U-Body was an A-Body Derivative.

[Croc]

No, the U-Body was an A-Body Derivative.

Thanks. I didn't think they were based on the W.

[!!!TED!!!]

According to the Toronto Star online Wheels section, the Chevrolet Traverse will make an apprearance at the Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto!

The show opens to the public this Friday. (cant wait)

[pow]

Interesting article I found on SaturnFans.com...

Analysis Shows Saturn Stores are Better at Selling Crossovers than GMC

Posted by Charlie on February 11th, 2008

Tags:

* Outlook,

* Cars,

* 2007 Models,

* Sales

Retail sales at Saturn were up a solid 12% in 2007, thanks to new models like the full-size Outlook. But critics have charged that its sales should have been even higher. The Outlook's sales results for last year are often referenced to make their point.

You'll hear them say that Saturn only sold 34,768 Outlooks during the 2007 calendar year, a far cry from GMC which sold 72,765 Acadias during the same time period. The Outlook, Acadia, and Buick Enclave are built in the same Michigan plant and share the same GM Lambda architecture.

But there's more to the story. Saturn has a fraction of the retail stores that GMC has around the country. According to the most recent Automotive News Dealership Census data from May of 2007, there are more than five times as many GMC dealerships (2225) as Saturn stores (428). Using these figures, on a store-by-store basis, SaturnFans.com calculates that Saturn sold on average more than 6.7 Outlooks per facility per month in 2007, compared to about 2.7 Acadias per month at each GMC dealership.

Even more amazing is that Saturn accomplished this feat with an Outlook ad budget that was less half of the Acadia in 2007. In 2007, Advertising Age says that GM spent $56 million to promote the GMC Acadia compared to $25 million for the Saturn Outlook. A similar argument could be made for the often touted "hot selling" Buick Enclave whose 2751 dealerships sold 29,286 models in the seven months that it was on sale in 2007. Following the same methodology, when adjusted to a seven month scale that equates to roughly 1.5 Enclaves per dealership per month. Its advertising spend was more than $20 million more than the Outlook's at $45 million.

So is the Outlook really selling that bad? Not given the circumstances.

But despite Saturn's "per store" successes when compared to other GM makes, the brand still has some catching up to do when it comes to its primary competition. While Ford only sold 2.9 Edge crossovers per store per month, Saturn's Japanese rivals did better. Honda and Toyota each sold more than 9.5 Pilots and 7.2 Highlanders per store per month last year, respectively.

Advertising figures for the Pilot or Highlander weren't available at the time this article was posted, but based on the GMC and Buick ad comparison above, boosting Saturn's ad spend on the Outlook certainly would be a quick way to give the Outlook more exposure and add some pizazz to its sales. General Motors has given Saturn some great product to sell, but it should give the brand the extra budget it needs to get the word out. Challenge the growing brand to show what its capable of doing. Will GM do it?

Source: Automotive News, Advertising Age

[ZL-1]

Interesting read, empowah!

[Northstar]

The story that empowah posted is somewhat misleading, though. I can tell you for a fact that the GMC dealers around here sold far more Acadias than the Saturn dealer's sold Outlooks.

How many GMC dealer's are located in the middle of nowhere? What if you compared sales-per-dealership only in Chicago, LA, and NY? Of course Saturn's per-dealership totals are going to be higher when you consider they only sell in highly-populated areas and GMC has dealers in towns of 10000 people.

[CARBIZ]

According to the Toronto Star online Wheels section, the Chevrolet Traverse will make an apprearance at the Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto!

The show opens to the public this Friday. (cant wait)

Did you see the bit in the Star where the salesperson is still the #1 source of information for the buyer? Look at the www.Torontostar.ca and go over to the business section. Intersting survey results. Even the authors admit they are surprised that since the last survey (40k people were surveyed - that's statistically significant) the percentage of people relying on the salesperson went up 3 points. So much for the internet taking over the buying decision. 'Family/Friend actually dropped 3 points.

It's a good read.

[AxelTheRed]

Not bad, but it reinforces my belief that GM should've killed the Outlook, put Traverse production over at Delta Township and used Spring Hill for something entirely different.

[Croc]

Not bad, but it reinforces my belief that GM should've killed the Outlook, put Traverse production over at Delta Township and used Spring Hill for something entirely different.

+1

[Robert Hall]

No, the U-Body was an A-Body Derivative.

Huh? By 1997 when the U-body came out the A-body was already 15 years old and out of production..that makes no sense...

[Jazzhead]

I dunno. Of the GM crossovers, I still like the Saturn Outlook best, but I was hoping the Traverse would be a smaller vehicle, not larger. What I need is a five passenger vehicle, not a seven-passenger behemoth. The Edge looks like the best fit, although a Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD might fit the bill. The interior of the Traverse looks fine, though, and it should hit its target market quite well. GM is offering the market I represent the Saturn Vue, and it's okay, but that Edge is a best seller for a reason. It's simply an inspired looker, and the new Sport version will be very, very tempting.

[The O.C.]

Frankly, I think the dustbuster vans were competitive enough design-wise, but the reliability is what failed them.

....and introducing them withOUT airbags, and with a 3.1L, 120-hp, throttle-body-injected V6 (when other GM products were using the updated multi-port injected 3.1L with more power,etc.) and a 3-speed automatic transmission.

Edited February 14, 2008 by The O.C.

[Robert Hall]

....and introducing them withOUT airbags, and with a 3.1L, 120-hp, throttle-body-injected V6 and a 3-speed automatic transmission.

Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them). Ford also had the stupid automatic seatbelts...meanwhile, Chrysler went to airbags in all their models around '88 or so..

[vonVeezelsnider]

Huh? By 1997 when the U-body came out the A-body was already 15 years old and out of production..that makes no sense...

Later GM FWD platforms shared many components and systems with the A-Body, in particular the W-body midsize cars and U-body minivans.

The U-Body Van was essentially a stretched A-Body... The First U-Body Vans came, in fact, in 1989 with the Dustbuster vans (although they were often incorrectly cited as A-Bodies themselves), they were heavily overhauled for 1997, but still shared their A-Body Lineage. This included suspension and other components.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them).

Nope, Dustbusters had the B-Pillar mounted Seatbelts, like our old 1994 Trans Sport 3.8L. Our 1989 Grand Am did have the door mounted belts however...

[Robert Hall]

The U-Body Van was essentially a stretched A-Body... The First U-Body Vans came, in fact, in 1989 with the Dustbuster vans (although they were often incorrectly cited as A-Bodies themselves), they were heavily overhauled for 1997, but still shared their A-Body Lineage. This included suspension and other components.

Wow...amazing. I always assumed the vans (dustbuster and later) were related to the GM-10/W bodies since the Lumina name was used on the car and the van.. GM definitely made a lot of use of their parts box of '80s FWD crapola..

[regfootball]

Interesting article I found on SaturnFans.com...

read that too. makes a great case for the outlook.

[sciguy_0504]

The interior looks good. I like the fact that the Malibu design was used as an inspiration. The front looks good, too, almost looks Pontiac-ish. However, the rear is horrible, a bastardization of the Enclave. Overall, it's too much of a mish-mash of different Lambdas.

[Intrepidation]

Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them). Ford also had the stupid automatic seatbelts...meanwhile, Chrysler went to airbags in all their models around '88 or so..

Not quite all of them, I think it was 1991 that the entire lineup had airbags.

[rkmdogs]

I can't believe my eyes!

13 pages of crapola about everything under the sun, instead of an intelligent commentary about the

Traverse!

Why don't you marketing wanna-bes go play on another thread. This was supposed to be commentary on

Chevy's new product, good, bad or indifferent----- it is like the sunrise. It's coming tomorrow, and you are not

going to stop it.

To digress and go into all this otherB/S, is a waste of time and space!

But I have become guilty of my own lament-------

Everyone is ignoring the 500lb Gorilla in the living room, or the elephant in the refrigerator(choose your own

metaphor).

The Traverse is intended primarily as a family vehicle with lots of versatility. It appears to be the Generals

mini-van replacement for an Astro-sized vehicle.(Which is sorely missed)

BUT IT IGNORES CURRENT REALITY in the economy and fuel market issues!

This is a vehicle that should be on the short list to receive the new VM Motori V6 diesel!

Volkswagen is gonna have one. Subaru is gonna have one. Mercedes is gonna have one. Even BMW is gonna have one.

Are the GM planners so afraid of the political pundits out there on the West coast that they ignore reality ----

or maybe they have their own political agenda. 2nd generation, or Bluetooth Diesels are the practical way to improve on our fuel situation in the shortest period of time.

If they come out with a diesel option ----- I'll consider buying one and give up my Chrysler Town&Country! ---

even tho I'd lose my stow n' go seats!--- The greatest thing since sliced bread and motherhood for us old

farts who need multi-purpose vehicles!

Edited February 19, 2008 by rkmdogs