Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Vans & Minivans Pontiac Montana Pontiac Montana New Owner Reports
21 messages, Last post on Jul 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM
You are in the Pontiac Montana Forum. Your Host is Karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: ballfire8888 (Nov 02, 2006 8:32 am) Vehicle performed perfectly for the first week, then stalled on me, luckily I was alone. Spent a month in the shop for the mechanics to trace the problem to a bent wire on the coil pack module. Now she runs like a champ! Kids love the rear seat entertainment DVD! No more fighting on long trips and that's why we bought it. Oil filter is common, can be bought at local auto parts stores, FRAM PH9837, Delco PF61, Purolator PL25288, Mobil One M1206. I don't know about you guys but I only run synthetic oil in my vehicles. This one being no exception. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: genmtrfan (Nov 02, 2006 5:55 pm) I'd like to change oil myself if it's not too time consuming ... do you know if the oil filter is exposed or is there a cover to unscrew? I traded in an SUV and jacking was not required so it was a walk in the park to drain! Whereabouts in the Americas are you ... I'm Toronto, Canada... |
|
|
Replying to: genmtrfan (Nov 02, 2006 10:01 am) 1. Buzzing that seems to align with the engine speed (RPM's). 2. Radio channel reset issues (channel is left at a specific frequency and resets to an unknown frequency at restart). 3. Premature brake wear. 4. Uneven tire wear. 5. Vibration issues (primarily at the steering wheel). Have you or do you know of other owners with similar issues? My warranty is soon to expire and I'm wondering if I should renew.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stashman (Nov 26, 2006 5:52 am) I have had this problems a couple of times dealer has corrected it seems ok now (thats respoonse to your #5 problem |
|
|
Anyone purchase a new 2006 SV6 lately? I've found one at a dealer that I like, but unsure how low the price should be for a '06 that isn't produced anymore. They gave me a price of $24,800 after incentives and claim they are taking a loss. This van is loaded (dual power doors, dvd, partial leather, garage opener, 6 disc changer, chrome wheel, steering wheel controls,) Is $24,800 a good deal???
|
|
|
Replying to: colklink (Jun 26, 2007 5:32 am) By the way, 3 weeks into the new 07 and so far it's been amazing. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: colklink (Jun 26, 2007 5:32 am) |
|
|
The pre-2005 GM family of minivans (Venture, Montana, Silhouette) has gotten such a bad reputation now that depreciation has become exaggerated. The question is whether it has reached the point where they are a bargain? In my view, that point has been crossed. And so, that is part of the reason I bought a 2003 Montana. In fact, I also considered the Ford Windstar and Dodge Caravan. In the end, it came down to the Caravan and the Montana (or a Venture at the same price and equipment level). Is There A "Trick?" Is there something that is not obvious to the general public that might get me the best vehicle for the money? I think so. Actually, there were a few things I was looking for. But the simplest tip-off was the wheelbase. In simple terms, if you buy a used one, then you should prefer a short wheelbase version. Here's why: According to Phil Edmonston's "Lemon-Aid" car guides, the most significant problems for these minivans is transmission and engine failures. And one of the reasons is because they are over-stressed. He says that the load limits are "optimistic". I expect that this is true. However, it does not really matter because I believe that most people ignore the load limits anyway. They just stuff as much into their vehicles as they can. So if you could research it (and I do not expect that you can really) you would probably find that these failures occur mostly for people who overload their vehicles. How does the short wheelbase help? Well, first, if you check, you will find that the short wheelbase versions start off lighter than the longer versions. If you check the 2007 Uplander sales brochure, the estimated curb weight of the short version was 4043 lbs. and the long wheelbase version was 4470 lbs. The difference is 427 lbs., and if you check back in previous years, the numbers were similar. Yet the motors and transmissions were the same. So even empty of cargo or people, the short versions were easier on the drive train. I am not sure if curb weight includes fuel, but the fuel tank sizes are 75.7 litres for the short version and 94.7 litres for the long version. If curb weight does not include fuel, then a full tank will add to the weight difference. Now remember what I said above that people probably ignore the load limits and stuff the vans. With 2nd and 3rd row seats removed, the cargo capacity of the 2007 Uplander short version is 120.1 cu. ft. and the long version is 136.5 cu. ft. Again, previous years had similar stats. The difference of 16 cu. ft. Does not sound like much, but then how many cu. ft. does a 150 lb. person really take up? 5? 6? I do not really know for sure, but it probably around these numbers. What is the limit of my short wheelbase minivan? Well, according to the door sticker, my GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) is 5202 lbs. According to "Car & Driver" the curb weight of my 2003 short Montana was about 3,700 lbs. That leaves about 1,500 lbs. I weigh under 160 lbs., so that leaves about 1,340 lbs. You can play with these numbers if you want, but consider this: Leave me out of the car and try to stuff it with 7 * 220 lb. football players and you would have an overloaded vehicle, without any "cargo" at all -- not even a bottle of Gatorade. And that is the same drivetrain as the long version minivan? So that is the first, and maybe the biggest "trick" to buying a used minivan. The second is, I think obvious even to the average man on the street: Do NOT get a "fully loaded" used vehicle. The more stuff you add to a vehicle, the more there is to go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: writer (Aug 29, 2007 8:07 pm) GMs biggest mistake when they redesigned the van in 1997 was to use the Chevy 60 degree V6 though while more compact was less efficient, durable, powerful then the Buick 3800 V6. Until 2005 the 60 degree V6 family of engines had a poor intake to cylinder head gasket design and it didn't help that the intake bolts were loose from the factory! By 2005 this was corrected but the damage to their reputation was done. My SV6 has the 3900 motor and produces 240hp, it's a night and day difference compared to my old '99. As to the short wheelbase preference. Too small for us. I considered it, we went and looked at some but decided on the longer one, not enough room to travel or even do a big grocery with all the kids in the car. The key to motor longevity besides synthetic oil and regular maintenace is to keep the rpms down, no need to spin up 5000+ rpms when taking off or even passing.
|
|
|
Replying to: swathdiver (Aug 30, 2007 5:24 am) The point of the engine choice was probably size. I think if they executed properly (debugged the design before starting to put them in vehicles, and debugging the manufacturing as soon as possible) then the motor might at least have gotten a good reputation in the small vans. I am curious what the load limit is for the SV6. Could you check that someday and post it here? I expect it should be higher with the new motor and transmission. I think it is ironic that GM finally seems to have addressed all the shortcomings of these minivans, just in time to discontinue them. RPMs below 5000+ is a good thought. Also, regarding my earlier post, and my planned use: I am single with no kids. After 25 odd years of driving 4 seating cars, I do not think I have ever filled 4 seats. The most I have ever carried was 3 people (with varying amounts of luggage). As such, I almost immediately removed the 3rd seat row. I am considering removing 1 more 2nd row seat ("captain's chair"). I expect that will save me at least 150 lbs. total. But then again, the point of my buying a minivan was to cart around boxes of my home and office stuff to and from storage (all because I recently moved my home and office to a high-rise condo), so that savings will not often be a factor -- though it will result in many fewer trips to get things done, which also saves the vehicle (and my pocket book).
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Vans & Minivans Pontiac Montana Pontiac Montana New Owner Reports
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2005 Pontiac Montana
2006 Pontiac Montana SV6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
