Buick Rainier, Chevy TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy

You have saved this page | See all saved pages

18329 messages, Last post on Apr 30, 2012 at 8:10 PM

You are in the Buick Rainier Forum.

Your Hosts are steve_ & kyfdx

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, GMC Envoy XL, Isuzu Ascender, Oldsmobile Bravada, SUV

#6736 of 18329 GM link by beach15

Jul 04, 2002 (6:48 am)

Okay then, here's the links to 2003 & 2004 GM info:

2003 Chevrolet Trailblazer- New Northface Edition option package for EXT. V8 available in EXT.
http://media.gm.com/moframes/division/2003_prodinfo/03_chevrolet/03_trailblazer/index.html

2003 GMC Envoy- Slight pricing change with more "individual" options rather than packages. V8 available in XL. New 4-way headlight switch. Bigger, 22-gallon fuel tank for Envoy.
http://media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/03_gmc/03_envoy_envoyxl/index.html

2003 Oldsmobile Bravada- New color, Light Silver Green. Coil spring rear suspension available on AWD models.
http://media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/03_oldsmobile/03_bravada/index.html

2004 Buick Rainier- New model.
http://media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/images/files/04/index.htm

Hopefully, too, GM will have straightened out a lot of the endless 2002's bugs. Well, new buyers can only hope!

#6737 of 18329 RE 6473 wish list, 6474 momentary dimming, by sicksofar by tblazed

Jul 04, 2002 (8:32 am)

Intresting about your OD shifting and gas mileage. I have the 3.42:1 gears in my TB-LS 2WD with the standard 16" wheels. I think if you look at both wheel sizes the overall diameter of the tires will be about the same. If you figure it out the diameter of the 16" vs the 17" wheel-tire combination is within a mm or two of each other. The 17" tires are lower profile-shorter sidewall. 245-65-17" vs 245-70-16". (65% of tire width=sidewall vs 70% tire width=sidewall)

I got 20.9 MPG on a short trip I took. 65-80 mph speed range. (Just goin' with the flow!) I filled up before leaving, and filled up when I got back at the same pump. No DIC here so I figured it the old way dividing the gallons into total miles. City MPG definitely leaves something to be desired though. About 13 to 13.5. Had I known this I would not have driven 210 miles (one-way!) to an out-of-state dealer to find a TB-LS with the 3.42 gears/locking dif combo. There were plenty of TBs locally with the 3.73 gears. I really thought the lower ratio would help MPG but the opposite seems true from all the posts I have read. However, I do not have any problem with the trans shifting in and out of OD maintaining highway speed. Stays in OD unless I give it gas to accelerate.

Also you said " like others here, I have experienced momentary dimming." I have never experienced this momentary dimming with my TB.

And as a comment on the automatic headlights, mine DO come on as soon as I turn the key from off to acc-on before I start the engine when the TB is in the garage or the ambient light level is low enough unless I pull the parking brake handle up one notch which I do not need to do on a level garage floor. However, when out in brighter light, the DRLs stay "off" until I put the trans in gear after starting. GM could have programmed the CPU to keep the headlights off until it sees a start-run condition.

#6738 of 18329 Kenitzer by mfullmer

Jul 04, 2002 (8:49 am)

The build date is on a sticker on the drivers door edge. I believe it is in the upper right hand corner of the sticker. (Ok, no one blast me if I'm wrong, I don't feel like going down to the garage to check as it's 80+ degrees and 90+% humidity!) In any case it is the form " MO/YR "

#6739 of 18329 To Envoy 2002... by mfullmer

Jul 04, 2002 (8:54 am)

Sorry to hear you owned a Chrysler product. I don't understand you statement that your other vehicles "ran the fan speeds and recirculate". The conversation wasn't about whether or not it ran the fan speeds of course it does, it was about running it at high. Sure Chrysler and Toyota may run theirs at full blast but thats because most of those owners haven't had ACC before and don't care about the loud fan noise. As far as the recirculate feature. How did you know that it was automatically recirculating? I agree with the previous post that if it does, it would be without the light so people don't look down and say "why is that light on, I didn't push it!"

#6740 of 18329 To AADLAND - GET OVER IT!!! by mfullmer

Jul 04, 2002 (8:56 am)

The majority of drivers spend most of the time (as I'm sure you do) on undivided roads and manufacturers think about safety before they worry about pleasing everyone. That would be like them aiming the headlights of trucks super low so that when someone has a large load in the back they would be aimed "perfect".

#6741 of 18329 275 HP I-6 for 2003 by tblazed

Jul 04, 2002 (10:26 am)

Interesting bit of info from the media.gm.com link in 6485 above. They have managed another claimed 5 HP from the I-6! I wonder if that is SAE net HP, Brake HP or GM HP.

#6742 of 18329 Crossbars... (again) by ajmrn30

Jul 04, 2002 (11:31 am)

I realize that we have discussed what we feel to be the correct way the crossbars are supposed to be mounted on the top luggage rack and have even seen photos with the word "front" printed on them. However, in the photos with "front" printed on them, the loop or eyelet is facing the front of the vechicle.

However, when I look at the photos of the new 2004 Buick Rainier, the crossbars are installed with the loop facing the back of the vehicle, which is how they were on my Envoy when I purchased it last month.

http://media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/images/files/04/pages/X04BU_RN004.htm

Anyone have any additional insight to offer? Why would GM consistently install these crossbars the wrong way, if this is indeed the wrong way?

Anthony

#6743 of 18329 Crossbars... (again) by tblazed

Jul 04, 2002 (12:22 pm)

My conclusion is that they ARE being installed correctly (they look more aerodynamically "correct" to me anyway) , and since the consensus is that they all come that way, the arrows were molded into the plastic backwards from the vendor, more recent ones I have looked at do not have arrows at all, the space is blank. I just took the darn things off so I wouldn't have to wonder.

#6744 of 18329 To Mfullmer & Any Other Pre-Historic Creatures Out There... by iexplore2000

Jul 04, 2002 (4:11 pm)

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD GUYS.. Gees.. this is the dawn of a NEW DAY. Technology is an ESSENTIAL part to everyone's lives in the world today (including yours)! Just as envoy2002 mentioned in his post, you do have a TV remote control YES? Does it function as it is intended (or according to the owners manual)? YES? Well then why in the H$ll should we have to deal with a HVAC system that does not operate as intended according to the manual?

YES, you are right.. I am quite sure that your 67 probably had a couple of milk crates for you to sit in and probably no seatbelts either BUT GET OVER IT. Unfortunately you have to learn to advance with the times or just break out your plaid/polyester suit and get laughed at my friend.

These new vehicles have a multitude of electronic gizmos in them that should operate according to how the manual specifies. Also, putting someone down for owning non-GM vehicles lets us all get a better understanding of just "who you are?" This is a free country.. people can say/think/act how they feel and this is a forum that helps people to collaborate on various ideas! IF you can live with your HVAC system trying to sautee your face when initially turning on the ignition then HAPPY MOTORING, but there are plenty of individuals on this board that feel there is a genuine concern here and want to utilize this tool as a means for getting this issue resolve. Please don't hamper them in doing this!

Additionally, I have had several GM vehicles within the past two years (all 2001's and 2002's) and those with the automatic climate controls DID function as mentioned in the manual. For example, my 2001 Buick Regal GSE would immediately switch the light to recirculate and blast the fan at full speed WHENEVER i would lower the temp to 60 degrees (in AUTO MODE). My 2000 Ford Explorer Limited was the exact same way. My 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited was the exact same way. My mom's older Pontiac Bonneville SSE was the same way. You see.. I say all of this to prove a point my friend. Our system does not operate as specified in the manual. I find it quite interesting that my Regal would illuminate the recirculation light whenever it was engaged and my Envoy does not? Does that make any sense to you my friend?

Secondly, I don't think that we need to have a "HVAC 101" lesson from you stating "In most cases your inside temp is hotter than the outside," DUH.. If you carefully read through these posting, plenty of people (myself included) have stated the OBVIOUS.. We are aware of how the recirculate option may NOT be as beneficial if the air inside your vehicle is hotter than the outside. I think that for most of us that can AFFORD to own a triplet may have some idea as to how the laws of PHYSICS should work my friend.

Thanks for listing.. END OF MESSAGE <SMILE>

IExplore2000

aol.com

#6745 of 18329 2003's Re: beach15's Post # 6485 by iexplore2000

Jul 04, 2002 (4:21 pm)

Okay.. I am just a tad bit jealous! Ha, ha.. Just kidding.. well maybe a little bit. It's nice to see that GM is listening and decided to place a bigger fuel tank in the triplets for 2003! Although, I wasn't quite too sure why GM decided to go with the smaller tank on the 2002's! Anyone have any ideas? As a side note, I laughed today because I recently traded my 2002 Pontiac Grand Am GT in for a 2002 Chevrolet Impala LS and I noticed today that with all highway driving, I was able to conquer a smooth 410 miles off of one full-tank of gas! This is very good considering the fact that the Impala on has a little over 1K on the odometer!

Do you think that we can retrofit the new tank to work on the 2002's? If so, I will be at the GMC dealership as soon as the 2003's arrive because not being able to achieve 300 miles off of a full tank annoys me a little. Also, I wonder why GM did not debut the HID lights for 2003 like the ones used on the late model version of the Envoy. Any ideas??

So what does everyone think of the new Buick? Do you all think that it's going to be a BIG hit or a BIG flop? Personally, I though that Cadillac should have received the Bravada. They could have spruced up the leather seating with the nuance (sp?) leather that they use in their other models, added the night-vision module, fluorescent-type lexus gauges (used in the STS), V-8 powered, HID lights, rear fog lamps, in-dash navigational system setup, Stabili-Trak system, etc! I swear.. I should have been a design engineer!

What are everyone's thoughts?

Thanks!

IExplore2000

aol.com

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Forum Tools

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s):

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic

View All Topics

Learn More, Do More

Edmunds Community

Explore Edmunds