This brand new Chevy or Buick minivan came in to my work today. I looked inside, expecting to see circa 1998 chevy Venture; cheap door handles, dash poking out in 6 directions, etc.
Instead, it was gorgeous. Chrome around the instrument gauges, the dash was smooth like a Honda, door cars and seats stiched beautifully, etc.
Wow! GM means business! Props to whoever cracked the whip and fired the old dyslexic designers!

 

I don't think it's as much firing designers as allowing them to do their job and exersizing correct management control. Bob Lutz said something similar in an interview with Autoweek...

 

Nope, not the designers or engineers.

It's farther down the line with the people who decide how much to actually spend and what level of quality to accept.

You leave the designers & engineers alone without budget considerations and you can easily have Mercedes level quality. It's reigning in the cost cutters that improves interior quality.

 

I had the same reaction when I saw the inside of one of them. Now if the exterior wasn't so horrendous...

 

I presume your all talking about the new uplander, I drive a Venture (Company Vehicle)... I think the Uplander looks better then the Venture exterior wise... - but maybe it's just me. ?

 

but the buick looks even better.

 

its too bad that those vans look like PIGS. The front end says oink oink. My girlfriends parents have a 98 transport and it looks okay, the cladding needs to go. I think they did dump the cladding in the Lutzifacation. All they had to do was update that front end, give it some clear headlight lenses. The designers said that they were going for more of a SUV look, pukes. BTW the parents live in detriot in that van rattles like a sob.

All they need now is some power. They have had the same 3800 200hp for 10 years. Toyota, honda, nissan have 240+ hp and five speed autos. Its time for the HF V-6 to take over.

 

I guess you didn't notice the cramped interior? Or the small, uncomfortable and cheaply constructed bucket seats? You also much have overlooked and unsightly and huge front overhang?

Despite the shoddy and half-hearted facelift, GM's Uplander/Montana/Relay Terraza vans are about the nastiest minivans on the market - now that the truly horrible Astro/Safari is gone.

 

Now that you mentioned that, I remember that car and driver or motor trend got one and SLAMMED it. They basically said that it was one of the worse minivans they ever tested. I thinked they also mentioned something about lining up the rebates.

 

You wouldn't rank the Nissan Quest ahead of the GM's in "nastiness"? Come on Nissan Fan, the Quest is one of the most bizzare interior and exterior combinations in automotive history....yes...close to Aztek.

 

I like nissan and I agree with you, its only the back half of the quest that looks like garbage. Lets not for get the dash either, whoever thought of that center guage layout is an idiot. I think it was some saturn ***. Arent ions like that? Anyways the last thing I would want is for the inlaws to be in the back seat and be able to see how fast I am going.

 

Have I ever defended the wacky Quest? Nope. Do I own one? Nope. Would I ever, ever, ever buy one? No way!

That said, Quest have a respectable amount of power - depite a very hefty curbweight. You can say that about GM's sluggish vans.

I should also pointed out that Nissan premiered "fold in the floor 2nd row seating" before Chrysler's "Stow n' Go."

Of course, the best thing that can be said about the Quest is that Nissan actually tried with its minivan. They put invested some real money, and took a chance. Nissan gambled. Most of the time Nissan wins. Most of the time.

It's pretty obvious that GM didn't try at all with it's 1997 vintage "all-new 2005" minivans. GM did invest very much money in the 2005 minivans - and it shows.

 

[QUOTE=redzed]I guess you didn't notice the cramped interior? Or the small, uncomfortable and cheaply constructed bucket seats? You also much have overlooked and unsightly and huge front overhang?

QUOTE]


Second time i quote you today, but again, i have to agree entirely. We rented one about a month ago, and the same things bothered me as well. Dash was nice and all, but really, i dont care THAT much about nice dashes, so...

 

GM's vans haven't used the 3800 since 1996. The 90º configuration didn't fit in the 1997 redesign.


I'm no fan of the new GM quadruplets, but you have to admit the Ford Freestar is even worse.

BTW, Astro and Safari are going to be missed by tradesfolks. They weren't much of a people hauler but they were great plumber's vans.

 

The minivans show everything that is wrong with GM. Just think of how much of a better product we would have if GM spent the same amount of money designing one Chevy van, instead of designing the Buick, Pontiac, and Saturn. Not to mention the fact that Pontiac is the sport division, they don't need a minivan. Saturn is the European Opel brand. An big minivan is American. If Saturn wanted a mini van, they should have brough over one of those micro vans from Europe(although I don't know if it would sell). Mazda is testing the water with the their new "5". As usual GM doesn't take the risk. There could be justification for the Buick van, just as Chrysler justifies the Town and Country.