Your opinion about the Chevrolet Uplander

[01Malibu]

Do you find the GM minivans to be a disappointment? How much longer until GM tries the minivan thing again? I wonder how sales of Uplander, Montana SV6, Terraza and Relay compare to Chrysler or Toyota. Or even Nissan or Hyundai? GM could do better. The 90 Lumina/Transport/Silhouette was a flop. Then the 1997 Venture was an improvement. Seems like the Uplander isn't selling as well as the Venture. Some say minivans are a thing of the past and GM should focus on SUVs and family sedans. Maybe so. The Astro sold as well as the Uplander when it was 10 or 15 years old! GM needs to try a new front end on the Uplander soon as see if that can improve sales.

[01Malibu]

I am going to answer my own question. I just checked for May. 17,000 Town and Country minivans. 22,000 Caravans. Less than 5,000 Uplanders. Mr. Lutz, something needs to be done about the minivan problem.

[CARBIZ]

In Canada, the minivan market is more important than in the U.S. For years, the Caravan/Voyager combo were the #1 selling vehicles in Canada - way ahead of the F-150.

The Venture in '97 was a vast improvement over the dust buster; however, the Caravan still was the market leader. After improvements in 2000/2001 (moving the cupholders, getting rid of the cheaper cloth seats, etc.), it could be argued that the Venture was the clear winner in terms of features, ride, size, etc. ABS was standard. Side air bags were standard. The third brake light being LEDs was a clear advantage. Having both sliding doors the same size was beneficial. Ride and gas mileage were exemplary.

However, as usual, GM fell asleep at the switch and both Honda and Toyota surpassed what the Venture had to offer. Then they began decontenting in 2003.

But in this market where the Sienna and Odyssey are $31,000 plus, and we are selling the base (with OnStar, ABS, 17" wheels, power everything!) Uplander for $19,999 - well, for the average family there is no contest. Undoubtedly, the Sienna is a better van, but for $10,000.........?

When gasoline hits $5 and higher south of the border the SUV craze will die a violent death and minivans or "cross overs" will become increasingly important.

I can only hope that Lutz & Co. have something up their sleeves.

[01Malibu]

775 Terazzas in May! 1796 Pontiac Montanas in May! 460 Saturn Relays! Did you know that the Solstice outsold any one GM minivan! 4881 Uplanders!! This is absurd!

[01Malibu]

775 Terazzas in May! 1796 Pontiac Montanas in May! 460 Saturn Relays! Did you know that the Solstice outsold any one GM minivan! 4881 Uplanders!! This is absurd!

Correction: The Uplander is the only minivan that sold more in May than the Solstice.

[Newbiewar]

the uplander is a flop... here on the west coast, the astro van used to be soo popular... even though it need a refresh after 20 years it still did its job...

the uplander doesnt look as good as the astro, it doesnt tow as much, and people think the uplander is lame... if gm really wants to sell the vehicle they should advertise it... i've seen no advertising for it...

[CARBIZ]

How do the Caravans do in Southern California? Here in the Hinterland, GM advertises the hell out of the Uplander at $19,999 and so does Chrysler.

[turbo200]

Uplander is a complete flop and as big of a disaster in market positioning as GM could make. Sienna and Odyssey far outsell the GM minivans, in retail numbers they obliterate the GM vans. A harsh reality, but GM is far far from competitive with the real market for minivans. The real minivans feel like they are decades more advanced than the GM vans, and I'm not talking about the interior quality. GM needs to come back with something once they've done the proper homework...they never do it anyway.

[Imaj]

Your opinion about the Chevrolet Uplander

POS

[PurdueGuy]

I was under the impression that the upcoming Saturn/GMC/Buick vehicles were a partial answer to this. Aren't they based on a minivan-esque chassis? They certainly have simmilar seating capacity (7-8 people). Still, GM will need a new minivan design that is simply a minivan - they don't all need to be disguised as SUV's.

[Cadillacfan]

How do the Caravans do in Southern California?  Here in the Hinterland, GM advertises the hell out of the Uplander at $19,999 and so does Chrysler.

Funny you should say that. Most of the CSVs (especially the Montana SV6) I see driving on the road here have Ontario plates. The Uplander is doing pretty poorly here and Chevy is #1 in this region. I guess people know crap when they see it.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[DetroitNut90]

Think that the interior is an improvement (stylewise) over the Venture, and it's nice to see the van getting a competitive engine, but I'd still chose a Grand Caravan over one. Stow-n-Go is amazing. The 3.8L isn't bad either-very responsive.

[CARBIZ]

No, gasoline is $4.50 a gallon here and we can't give away Tahoes or Trailblazers on this side of the border. Probably because of this, GM is just being more aggressive with pricing/marketing in this region.

The vans clearly have their shortcomings, and undoubtedly money was being spent on the full sized SUVs and pickups (again) at the expense of the minivans.

I am glad Saturn is going to start getting Opel product, because in Canada we need more fuel efficient vehicles like Opel and fewer Tahoes.

[NeonLX]

I don't mind the GM minivans but they have two strikes against them:

1. That long schnozz sticking way out front serves no useful purpose and makes the vehicle that much harder to park. The big appeal of the minivan concept for me is maximum interior room for the smallest possible exterior footprint. The extended front on the current gen minivans works against that concept.

2. Pricing. You can trash Caravans & T&Cs all you want, but they are really aggressively priced and offer a lot of bang for the buck. You can get a well equipped SWB model w/ V6 for $17.5K, and the longer stow & go models for $19K. Unfortunately, we couldn't get a Chevy or Pontiac minivan anywhere close to that price when we were looking at new vehicles earlier this year.

[Drew Dowdell]

ugly but competent

[CARBIZ]

Ah, Neon, two fallacies:

1) the longer nose serves two purposes. The first being to give an extra star on the crash rating. The Venture only had a 4-star crash rating; the extra length gave the extra star - more metal between you and them. Secondly, and this is far more subjective, it gets away from the "minivan" look and more toward the SUV. It is very subject, I will admit, but for most people it works.

2) The Uplander is market priced. In the greater Toronto area, the Uplander is $18,999 and the Caravan is $17,999 BUT for the thousand bucks you get:

Onstar

power windows and door locks and mirrors

ABS

17" wheels and 4 wheel discs

the Oil Life Monitor....and a lot more.

The Caravan gives you a/c, Cd, a smaller engine and dubious automatic. That's it. Oh, and 16" wheels. Rear drums. No ABS. No power nothing (I know that is a double negative.)

Maybe you should've come to Canada.

[sciguy_0504]

I like the interior of the Uplander. The exterior is kind of weird but it helps the van stick out in a parking lot. Overall, not bad and much better than any previous GM minivan, IMO.

[pow]

Ah, Neon, two fallacies:

  1) the longer nose serves two purposes.  The first being to give an extra star on the crash rating.  The Venture only had a 4-star crash rating; the extra length gave the extra star - more metal between you and them.  Secondly, and this is far more subjective, it gets away from the "minivan" look and more toward the SUV.  It is very subject, I will admit, but for most people it works.

AKA, they couldn't engineer it properly in the first place, so they had to graft extra metal onto the front. Shame they couldn't do the same to the side; the CSVs are the poorest performing vans in the IIHS side crash, even with extra-cost airbags.

[daves87rs]

I don't care what the crash test ratings are...

The Uppie is pure POS.

I see very few GM vans in an area where they used to sell alot..

There have been 2 accidents involving these vans, and they didn't fare well- at

all.

I'm just glad that they plan to end production early....

And the jist of those vans are going to Canada....

The only person I know who has one (SV6) does like his, but he has been driving these minivans for years...

[NeonLX]

FWIW, I like the interior of the GM minis, especially the Buick & the upper crust Saturn model. Very classy. But that long schnozz is a big turn off for me.

The current gen GM minis are also a lot heavier than the previous models, which means that they don't feel as zippy and they don't achieve the fuel economy of the old ones (EPA for the 3.5L engines is 18/25, compared to the 19/26 MPG of the previous gen with the 3.4L engine).

One other word before I duck: Chrysler has drastically improved their 4-speed ATX over the years. I've had six different Mopar minivans, five of which had the 4-speed ATX. The first two ('89 & '94) were real POSs, though they never failed on me (Just rough shifting). Our '02 and our current '06 are complete different animals--smooth, responsive and apparently reliable. It's a rotten shame that they rushed this tranny to market back in late '88; their reputation was severely tarnished and it haunts them to this day.

Edited June 16, 2006 by NeonLX

[daves87rs]

FWIW, I like the interior of the GM minis, especially the Buick & the upper crust Saturn model.  Very classy.  But that long schnozz is a big turn off for me.

The current gen GM minis are also a lot heavier than the previous models, which means that they don't feel as zippy and they don't  achieve the fuel economy of the old ones (EPA for the 3.5L engines is 18/25, compared to the 19/26 MPG of the previous gen with the 3.4L engine).

One other word before I duck:  Chrysler has drastically improved their 4-speed ATX over the years.  I've had six different Mopar minivans, five of which had the 4-speed ATX.  The first two ('89 & '94) were real POSs, though they never failed on me (Just rough shifting). Our '02 and our current '06 are complete different animals--smooth, responsive and apparently reliable.  It's a rotten shame that they rushed this tranny to market back in late '88; their reputation was severely tarnished and it haunts them to this day.

I have to agree with you on the tranny....A co-worker has an 04...and she can't drive to save her life, and both tranny and engine are holding on pretty well...

[Intrepidation]

The interior of the Uplander looks nice, but it's not pretty on the outside, and remembering back to the side impact photos of it and a new Sedona...and how bad the Uplander looked....I wouldn't buy it. Plus it's underpowered. It'd take a caravan...Stow `n go, decent interior, good looks for a minivan, good power.

[roopull]

On a recent vacation, the wife & I ended up with a Caravan & her mother was in an Uplander... not sure who she rents from, but she's always got a GM product.

The trip was 5 days long & after only a couple of days, the various passengers perferred the Caravan. I was driving & never got in the Uplander, so I can't attest to why they preferred the Dodge...

From a styling standpoint, the Uplander just looks stupid with that big ugly nose on it. Although the Caravan is as exciting as an afternoon nap, I'd rather have that than ugly...

On a previous trip, they'd ended up with a Montana or SV6 or whatever the heck they call it. It too was ugly & I did get to spend some time as a passenger. Granted, it was the basest of base models, but the seats were horrible & the thing squeaked & rattled like a 15 year old Kia.

[RJB]

I just came back from a trip over the weekend, and we drove in a borrowed Chevy Venture. The seats were not the most comfortable, but it got great gas mileage. We had 6 people in it with luggage and were doing 75-80+ with the air on and it got over 400miles to a tank. Not bad I would say. You can also get the 3.9L in the Uplander now which is 240hp and 240lb.-ft of torque, a nice improvement over the base engine.

[roopull]

You can also get the 3.9L in the Uplander now which is 240hp and 240lb.-ft of torque, a nice improvement over the base engine.

...not sure what was in the rented one my MIL had, but I must say the exhaust note sounded awesome. It would have been fitting on a Camaro! The Caravan just quietly hummed.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

The only three good things I can think about any of the GM minivans are the aluminum wheels on Uplander and Relay; the Grand Prix steering wheel, the color selection (but no black? WHY? How could you not offer BLACK on a vehicle?), and the Uplander grille. Otherwise, they're the worst or 2nd worst (behind or just above Ford, depends) minivan around. At least the 3900 V-6 engine is standard across the board for 2007, but those are the only positive things I can think of. And why would you put fake cloth AND VINYL on a 2005-07 vehicle that isn't a cargo van or base pickup truck?

[rkmdogs]

You guys are all digging at nits, when you should be looking for the main vein!

GM has lost out in the minivan market because they lost their practicality!

That was what the Astro had, but the top brass chose to milk it, until it could

no longer compete in a more sophisticated market!

The models that you are discussing are not minivans! They are wanna-be SUVs.

A true mini to be current, must offer seating for 7-8 people, without having to

become a contorsionist to get into the back seats, seats that fold and disappear in the blink of an eye, without having to remove anything, low side entry doors on both sides, a handy rear hatch, like the old Dutch doors, or the old station wagon door-gate, electronics for the kiddies entertainment(optional so that not everyone has topay for the gimmics), full power for everything, doors, windows(which all should open) steering & mirrors. Remote controls for doors, security. The ability to tow 5000 lbs.

A torque-monster engine, that sips fuel like it would run on an all-day sucker.

A diesel would be nice. So would AWD for the Yankee trade. The quality and durability to last over 200.000 miles with only routine maintainence, and a start price in the middle 20's.

Is this a wet dream ----- it better not be, look over your shoulder, China is

breathing down your backs, fellas!

BTW: I owned 3 Astros before they went kaput! I LOVED the looks of the last generation. Just wished that it had a left-side door.

Edited June 28, 2006 by rkmdogs

[pow]

How do the Caravans do in Southern California?  Here in the Hinterland, GM advertises the hell out of the Uplander at $19,999 and so does Chrysler.

The Uplander is a "bottom feeder" van. People only buy them if they can't afford an Odyssey, Sienna, or even Town & Country.

[pow]

You guys are all digging at nits, when you should be looking for the main vein!

GM has lost out in the minivan market because they lost their practicality!

That was what the Astro had, but the top brass chose to milk it, until it could

no longer compete in a more sophisticated market!

The models that you are discussing are not minivans! They are wanna-be SUVs.

A true mini to be current, must offer seating for 7-8 people, without having to

become a contorsionist to get into the back seats, seats that fold and disappear in the blink of an eye, without having to remove anything, low side entry doors on both sides, a handy rear hatch, like the old Dutch doors, or the old station wagon door-gate, electronics for the kiddies entertainment(optional so that not everyone has topay for the gimmics), full power for everything, doors, windows(which all should open) steering & mirrors. Remote controls for doors, security. The ability to tow 5000 lbs.

A torque-monster engine, that sips fuel like it would run on an all-day sucker.

A diesel would be nice. So would AWD for the Yankee trade. The quality and durability to last over 200.000 miles with only routine maintainence, and a start price in the middle 20's.

Is this a wet dream ----- it better not be, look over your shoulder, China is

breathing down your backs, fellas!

BTW: I owned 3 Astros before they went kaput! I LOVED the looks of the last generation. Just wished that it had a left-side door.

I agree... a modern Astro would be great. Minivans are uncool and full-size vans are too bulky; the Astro/Safari would be just right.

[CARBIZ]

Boy, some people on this board have a real elitist view of what people should buy and not buy.

"BOTTOM FEEDER?" I'll let the 3 families of the Uplanders I sold this month know that they are "bottom feeders."

Tell me, why would you deliberately throw away $5,000 on a van? If you HAVE $5,000 and WANT to throw it away, that is one thing, but if you are working 2 jobs to keep a roof over your head, have 4 kids and your '93 Caravan just crapped out - what are your choices?

A lot of you guys down south are going to get a rude awakening when one more banana boat country goes nuts (Venezuela? Sudan? How about Isreal invading the Gaza again?) and oil hits $100 a barrel.

Try living with $4.50 a gallon gas, like we are now. How about $10 a gallon like they are in Brazil?

A Tahoe is NOT daily transportation. END OF STORY.

NOBODY ON THE PLANET NEEDS 240 HP IN A MINIVAN.

Believe me, I am not a huge fan of the Uplander. We should have had an all new minivan in 2003 and it SHOULD have been better than the Sienna, but we don't. Lutz and Wagoner have a lot of fires to put out just now.

Sure, I wish the Uplander was so much more, but in the meantime, for $18,999 BRAND NEW, with OnSTar, ABS, 17" wheels, 4 wheel discs, power everything, keyless remote, oil life monitor, etc. - it is a far better value than a $32,000 Sienna.

Is the Sienna better? Yes. Can I sell a lot of Uplanders? Damned right.

[pow]

Boy, some people on this board have a real elitist view of what people should buy and not buy.

  "BOTTOM FEEDER?" I'll let the 3 families of the Uplanders I sold this month know that they are "bottom feeders."

Exactly. You explained it yourself below... it's not a class-leading product; it feeds on the bottom of the minivan market. When people have the money for something, they go for the best. GM appeals to those who don't. This is fine if the company is profitable, but face it, it's not an image anybody wants.

Tell me, why would you deliberately throw away $5,000 on a van?  If you HAVE $5,000 and WANT to throw it away, that is one thing, but if you are working 2 jobs to keep a roof over your head, have 4 kids and your '93 Caravan just crapped out - what are your choices?

  A lot of you guys down south are going to get a rude awakening when one more banana boat country goes nuts (Venezuela?  Sudan?  How about Isreal invading the Gaza again?) and oil hits $100 a barrel.

  Try living with $4.50 a gallon gas, like we are now.  How about $10 a gallon like they are in Brazil?

  A Tahoe is NOT daily transportation.  END OF STORY.

  NOBODY ON THE PLANET NEEDS 240 HP IN A MINIVAN.

  Believe me, I am not a huge fan of the Uplander.  We should have had an all new minivan in 2003 and it SHOULD have been better than the Sienna, but we don't.  Lutz and Wagoner have a lot of fires to put out just now.

  Sure, I wish the Uplander was so much more, but in the meantime, for $18,999 BRAND NEW, with OnSTar, ABS, 17" wheels, 4 wheel discs, power everything, keyless remote, oil life monitor, etc. - it is a far better value than a $32,000 Sienna.

  Is the Sienna better?  Yes.  Can I sell a lot of Uplanders?  Damned right.

[rkmdogs]

While the General mulls over what he may do........ 5 years down the road,

other people are MOVING!

Check this one out!

Family van busts out of the mold

One of the first vehicles under new development process offers a bold minivan alternative.

Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

Flat roof:

This vehicle won't have a minivan's gentle sloping silhouette.

Menacing face:

This family hauler will growl through trips around the neighborhood with its aggressive styling.

Rear-passenger doors:

Gone are the sliders, replaced with hinged doors.

Rear door:

Groceries will be easier to load with a rear door that opens to the left or the right, as well as a separate opening top half.

Note: All details are based upon the concept version of the Ford Fairlane, not a production version.

Fairlane concept car photo gallery

Browse more concept car photo galleries

Related Articles

FORD RETOOLS AUTO DESIGN

Ford Motor Co. has given the green light to the Fairlane, a new "people mover" designed to replace the company's poorly performing minivans, according to sources familiar with the project.

The vehicle will be one of the first created with Ford's new Global Product Development System, and a production model is expected to be unveiled at an auto show next year, though likely not in Detroit, sources said. It is also expected to herald Ford's departure from the minivan segment.

And not a moment too soon.

Ford's minivan sales have been sinking fast in the face of stiff competition from rivals like DaimlerChrysler AG, whose Chrysler Group has long been regarded as the segment's leader, as well as Japanese manufacturers Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.

Ford's minivan sales have dropped from more than 250,000 units in 2000 to fewer than 85,000 units last year. Its Mercury Monterey and Ford Freestar account for just 7.5 percent of the segment.

That segment is full of solid competitors and is unlikely to grow, according to analyst Jim Hall of AutoPacific, who praised Ford's decision to pull out.

"Why do you want to be in a collapsing segment?" Hall asked. "GM should be doing it, too."

The minivan market is becoming a victim of the same demographics that created it.

Minivans were the baby boomer generation's answer to station wagons, offering more convenience and snazzier styling than the wood-paneled behemoths they had grown up with and were anxious to avoid. But the boomers' children have grown up. Some have even left home. And today's families are looking for something different.

"It puts a lot of pressure on Chrysler," said Jim Sanfilippo, who follows the industry for AMCI Inc. "GM has to think about its next minivan, too."

GM controlled 11.4 percent of the segment in 2005 with vehicles like the Chevrolet Uplander and Pontiac Montana.

The company has already tried to distance itself from the minivan segment, choosing to refer to recent crops as "crossover sport vans." But outside its own marketing organization, few have noticed.

DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler Group dominated the minivan market last year with 27.8 percent of the segment choosing the Dodge Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country.

Ford would not officially confirm plans to produce the new vehicle, which is expected to be built on the same platform as its Five Hundred sedan and Freestyle crossover utility vehicle. And Ford sources say there is still an internal debate over whether to keep the Fairlane name, which was long associated with sedans.

It is not known how close the new design will hew to the original concept, which debuted at the 2005 Detroit auto show to broad acclaim.

Some analysts expect it to reflect the same tall, slab-sided aesthetic. Others see it as a larger, taller version of the Ford Edge, the company's newest crossover utility vehicle. Either way, it will likely incorporate key elements of Ford's new design language like the three-bar chrome grille.

Company sources describe the Fairlane as a "people mover," and refer to it as a white-space vehicle that will carve out a new segment of the market. But analysts regard the Fairlane more as a blurring of the boundaries between sport utility vehicles and crossovers, minivans and wagons.

"It's the postmodern Explorer," Hall said. "That's functionally what it is in their lineup."

Sanfilippo sees the Fairlane as a direct competitor for the likes of General Motor Corp.'s Buick Enclave and its siblings in the emerging full-size crossover category. He expects Ford to aim the Fairlane at younger middle-class families, with pricing starting somewhere in the mid-$20,000 range.

"Ford's got a pretty interesting idea in the Fairlane," Sanfilippo said. "I don't see anything out there that's really similar."

[pow]

I'd buy a Fairlane, but there'll be some redundancy in the line-up... Edge, Freestyle, Explorer, and now this. I wouldn't mind a Freestyle dressed up to look like a Fairlane.

[WCCPSGM]

First off, minivan buyers will not buy anything with swing out doors. Honda proved that. Options, doors you have to swing out and an interior you crawl into, or... push a button on the remote and a door automatically slides open to allow your rugrats to jump in.

The venture is a bottom feeder. It simply does not compete with the vans from Chrysler. And before anybody gives may any of that "No big sales numbers" garbage, good mini's out sale all but best selling SUV's, and the minivan market is not shrinking, lik the mid-size SUV market. Business week said last month that Jeep, Chevy, Ford, and Toyota all suffer 25% or more declines in sales on the truck based mid-sized SUV models they offer.

Chevy and Ford abandoned this market. They chose not to spend money on vans in favor of SUV's, nobody made them do it. The result, Chrysler is stil the minivan king, Toyota and Honda have swept in and gobbled up most of the remaining market, and now the Koreans threaten to eat the rest up. All while GM continues to put all its faith in SUV's. Ask Toyota and Honda if minivans are worth investing money in.

Chevy lucked up with Colbalt. Ford skipped a refresh on the Focus because Explorer demanded more money, now, with the small car market heating up, Chevy, Dodge, and the Japanese all have new cars out and the Focus is old by comparison.

The facts are simple. The days of hiding in a market niche with no Japanese and Korean players and reaping big profits are over. GM is going to have to get competitive in all areas or cease to exist. And that includes a competitive minivan.

The first step is actually limiting who sells minivans. Its easier to compete when you have less seperate products to advertise and equip. Chevy should sell minivans. I'm not sure if Saturn even needs them, but if so, that should be it. The market is too small to support 4 vans from one company which are essentially the same. Nobody does that. If you look, the Chrysler vans, despite being "dodge" and "Chrysler" align up perfectly pricewise, other than Dodge offering the pannel vans and short models. Mercury may command a small premium over Ford. But really, the Japanese have the best approach. Vans belong in the basic lineup, not the luxury. You can offer a Chevy with all the options like leather, climate contrl, etc. Van buyers are not typically looking prestege names, they want function.

Fnally, I have four families of freinds who have moved to vans, one from a car, the others from SUV's, and none of them, nor anyone else I've met who owns a van and kids, would have another vehicle for hauling children. Chrysler commands loyalty despite having bad trannies from 88-98 in their vans. All Chevy needs is to offer a great package, and they could command such loyalty as well.

[CARBIZ]

I think GM is being market-selective with respect to their trucks. In the land of $2.50 a gallon gas, Tahoes and Trailblazers reign. Up here, where we hit $1.10 a litre again (damned near $5 a gallon), Uplanders and Equinoxes are the big sellers. I think GM is shrewdly pushing what they can sell where they can sell it.

I have no problems selling the Uplander against the Chrysler. None. For those who need the fold flat seat, 19 litre smaller tank (4.5 gallons, guys!) smaller standard engine, then the Chrysler is fine. In the Toronto area, we do very well with the Uplander. It has a host of standard features that the Chryslers don't have.

Against the Sienna and Odyssey, it is more challenging, but at the end of the day $10,000 is a lot of dough. A base Odyssey is $32,000 in this area; the Uplander is $18,999. Not necessarily a fair comparison in terms of features, but for many families who are paying $4.50 a gallon AND $2,000 a year insurance they don't have a choice.

A lot of the weight falls upon the sales people to prove why the Uplander holds its own, but it is a lot tougher now than it was 6 years ago when we had the Venture versus the old Sienna or Odyssey.

[WCCPSGM]

I've heard on camping sites that GM vans wre popular in Canada. BTW, Trailblazer sales are off by almost 25% this year, hardly "ruling" The big utes continue to do okay, but I think non-trailering sales are off. There's a reason Chevy is suddenly getting a rebadged Saturn crossover!

[rkmdogs]

First off, minivan buyers will not buy anything with swing out doors.

Chevy and Ford abandoned this market.  They chose not to spend money on vans in favor of SUV's, nobody made them do it.  The result, Chrysler is stil the minivan king, Toyota and Honda have swept in and gobbled up most of the remaining market, and now the Koreans threaten to eat the rest up.  All while GM continues to put all its faith in SUV's.  Ask Toyota and Honda if minivans are worth investing money in. 

The facts are simple.  The days of hiding in a market niche with no Japanese and Korean players and reaping big profits are over.  GM is going to have to get competitive in all areas or cease to exist.  And that includes a competitive minivan.

The first step is actually limiting who sells minivans.  Its easier to compete when you have less seperate products to advertise and equip.  Chevy should sell minivans.  .  The market is too small to support 4 vans from one company which are essentially the same.  Nobody does that.  But really, the Japanese have the best approach.  Vans belong in the basic lineup, not the luxury.  You can offer a Chevy with all the options like leather, climate contrl, etc.  Van buyers are not typically looking prestege names, they want function.

Fnally, I have four families of freinds who have moved to vans, one from a car, the others from SUV's, and none of them, nor anyone else I've met who owns a van and kids, would have another vehicle for hauling children.  Chevy needs is to offer a great package, and they could command such loyalty as well.

162354[/snapback]

I totally agree with all the comments that you made which I extracted from above,

EXCEPT.........

Who InThe H--L says that minivans are just used to haul KIDS? Leave off the kids thing! Minivans are great for hauling.... period!

I don't know if any of you are into any form of animal showing, such as dogs or

cats. American households are full of pets, and a lot of their owners show dogs and cats! Go to any dog or cat show and look in the parking lot. 90% of what you will see are minivans! They haul stuff covered and secured in a controlled climate

area, not like a pick-up truck........ and yes SUV's do that too, but most of them do not offer a true, flat floor with either the seats removed or folded.

In my search for a replacement for my Astro, only two acceptable replacements were found that had FLAT floors to carry stuff that was not tipped. They were the

Chrysler/Dodge minivans and the Chevy HHR.

Duh! not much comparison there, is there? Guess who now owns a Chrysler T&C

minivan?

Hello, Chevy are you listening???????

[HarleyEarl]

I mentioned this subject in another thread. The Saturn in particular is very disappointing in it's quality. I helped someone take a look at these and while checking it out...pulled on the back seat release, it just busted off. Premature rust on brandnew Relays on the lot. Strange dents occuring top of sliding door. This does not look good for GM. Saturn Relays are not selling well and these kind of quality issues seals their fate.

[Moto_08]

The Venture was a nice van during its time in the market nothing about it was offensive, well maybe the rebadge lol. What GM can do is go back to mainstream styling you know typical minivan shape on wheels.

The dash looks nice although materials could be better. The thing that really irks me is A LOT of parts were taken off the previous van like the exterior doorhandles, seats, interior sliding doorhandles, etc. Another irk would be ugly seat design like latches showing and weird headliner shape, tall third row seats for no view out the window, no stow away fold flat seat, crappy safety features, and of course the name should have just kept Venture renaming a vehicle won't sell a vehicle just LISTEN GM!!!

[american_driver]

They are the lowest vehicle GM sell in the intial quality survey.

Why no 8 passenger versions?

I'll keep our venture till the next version comes out or the Chevy Lamda truck arrives...........

[Dsuupr]

GM needs to dump them asap. Better to not have that vehicle on the road for their name sake. I do like the interior, but that's all it has going for it.