Last post on Jan 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Uplander
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana, Saturn Relay, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6, Van
Jul 11, 2004 (1:29 pm)
I'm leasing a Pontiac Montana 2002, my lease ends in july 2005. At first, it was a realy nice ride, but since then, i'm starting to ear lots of rattle noise in the cabin. It seems like everything is getting loose somehow. I did not do anything special with it, did not carry heavy things and never got more than 4 or 5 passenger in it. I have 48,500KM on it.
I've talked with other owners of Montana/Venture and they all say the same thing, good for the first year and then it slowly start to break apart.
#1304 of 2925 Re: [vanman1]
Jul 11, 2004 (1:35 pm)
The GM minivans indeed do well in the NHTSA side impact test. But that test is terribly antiquated, and ALL minivans and SUVs (with their higher seating positions) get at least 4 stars in that test, so its usefulness is extremely limited. Since the striking barrier is lower than the body of the occupants, this test basically shows that where people sit higher, a regular passenger (well, actually one with a flat nose design from the 1980s) will inflict little injury. STOP THE PRESSES! Or not. This is something we all could have figured out by ourselves. But- there are a lot of SUVs on the road. There are lot of minivan. And pickups. What happens when you're struck by one them? Well, even if you're a couple of inches more away from the door in a minivan than in the passenger car, which Juice contends, thats still precious little crush space.
I agree with you that a strong frame, ABS, and traction control are very valuable. But the fact remains that inflatable side head protection increases your chances of surviving a side impact by a WHOPPING 45%. With other manufacturers at least offering all of your above requirements, why should GM be pardoned for not?
"A stronger frame to protect from side impact is FAR more useful than an airbag at providing protection."
The Mitsu Galant achieved the highest rating for Structure in the IIHS test, a "Good". Still, the SUV designed barrier inflicted "fatal" injuries to the head, neck, and torso.
The Toyota Camry, whose structure also held up well, but not quite as well as the Galant (it got an "Acceptable" mark for that measure) inflicted similar injuries when not tested with the side curtain airbag.
But when tested with curtains, still with the same "Acceptable" structure, injuries went from fatal to easily survivable: http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/side/s0315.htm
My point is only that in terms of side impacts, structure alone is not going to get the job done. For that matter, neither will side head protection (reference the Hyundai Sonata, whose poor structure couldnt be compensated by the side airbag). Both structure and restraint systems are vital in this type of crash, and GM, with this next gen minivan, is failing to provide part of the equation.
Jul 11, 2004 (9:38 pm)
"Give me a strong frame, ABS and traction control any time over air curtains."
The argument is not whether these active safety features are important. The argument is why GM does not offer the customers even the choice of having an ADDED important protection. Plus even if the frame holds up perfectly in a side impact, the passenger's head and torso could still slam into the side of the vehicle causing injuries.
It's really beyond me why GM decided to forgo such an important saftety option. And I have been a happy customer always rooting for them.
Please GM, do something. Now I don't even know if we'll seriously consider their new vans.
Jul 12, 2004 (6:29 am)
Yes, the curtains do help side crash injury in some cars BUT, would we get the same results in van? I doubt it. Like vanman says, vans sit up higher and I don't think the same improvement would be seen.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of buyers who get vans that have air curtains available, actually buy the option. I'll bet it's very low given the number of base models I see with plastic wheel covers, but that's not to say it's not a usefull option.
Jul 12, 2004 (7:56 am)
Those of you with your heads in thde sand, look around. Minivans marketing stresses safety first because most vans have mommies and little kids in them. It really doesn't matter how effective side curtain air bags are. The fact is that the competition has them and GM doesn't. The average minivan buyer isn't going to review crash statistics and studies. They just will look at who made the effort to incorporate available safety features and who didn't. GM will have enough problems trying to sell these things anyway, but leaving side curtains out was just plain stupid. Of course leaving out the rear hide as seat that everyone else has, was also stupid. Kind of gives you the idea that GM isn't particularly interested in competing in this segment.
Jul 12, 2004 (10:55 am)
Not at the *top* of the segment, any way. I think that decision was deliberate.
Jul 12, 2004 (12:15 pm)
I suppose I have my head in the sand then.
Why would it be deliberate?
Jul 12, 2004 (1:32 pm)
They chose to compete on price and on the lower end of the segment.
Not everyone aims to be the best car in the segment. Koreans have competed on price for decades.
Jul 12, 2004 (3:20 pm)
GM did not intend to compete with the top dogs, judged by the vans' new great looking classy interior. Their vision was blurred somewhere along the development line. Too bad really.
#1312 of 2925 Re: [ateixeira #1310]
Jul 12, 2004 (3:24 pm)
The Koreans have competed on price for the last two decades primarily because that was the only competitive advantage that could be offered with their products. That is changing, though, as more often, vehicles like the still value-rich Elantra are doing quite well in evaluations by the likes of high readership publications such as Consumer Reports and Car and Driver.
GM should not be competing solely on price with these minivans, but it is going to (same as currently for Ford). GM has been around long enough that it should understand the pitfalls of offering a poor product just to be in that market segment, IMO. Really, it all goes back to the antiquated structure unions play- GM is crippled by the fact that it simply cant afford to close plants (as well as by its astronomical pension costs).
This post was a bit wide-ranging, but I hope you follow my though process.