Comments on: Chevrolet Uplander Review

By: crofoot

crofoot — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:49:18 +0000

Here, here, Sassy. I just bought a 2007 for a couple bucks and am thrilled to get a reliable workhorse like the uplander. These effete car snobs and their “OMG! It’s so ugly! Outre! How could anyone possibly buy one?” Basically it gets you where you wanna go, hauls your peeps and stuff, and doesn’t cost much.

By: sassy

sassy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:54:45 +0000

I like my uplander.

By: worldtraveller

worldtraveller — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:26:07 +0000

At least GM has not been fiddling with the odometers like all Hondas manufactured since 2000.It is ridulous that a so called high end manufacturer has to tamper with odo’s out of the factory just to reduce warranty claims. I truly hope the class action suit announced last week teaches Honda a lesson not soon forgot. BTW, my 2005 Venture has 93000km and is performing like new. Even the tires seem good for another 50000 km! So what if it has the snout of a dog. Is it reliable and does it offer good gas mileage. I can say yes to both counts. My friend has a 2006 Sienna and I looked up reliability and I was surprised to see so many problems including ac problems, rear door piston problems. When we go in his van, the radio turns on by itself even after it was replaced. I would never pay 35 grand for any mini van. His is now worth about 24 grand. A depreciation of 11 grand. So much for holding its value.

By: confused1096

confused1096 — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:48:05 +0000

Yes, I just discovered this site so I am about a month too late on this review. We recently bought a new minivan, after test-driving and looking at pretty much everything. GM may have had a good (but poorly executed) idea here. The Uplander does not LOOK like a minivan…a fact that my wife loved. The big shoot down was how cheap the interior was. It was actually WORSE than the Kia Sedona. Handling wise I didn’t think it competed the Town and Country, Quest, etc… But it is appealing for minivan moms who don’t want to proclaim this. It was disturbing how high up on the “may buy” list this POS got for that fact alone.

By: Tanvan

Tanvan — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:09:06 +0000

My uplander came from a rental fleet and mpg is 20-23 with 3.5 engine. Handling was spookey until I put 37psi instead of 35 suggested. Love the way the computer handles lights on/off. Getting the horn to honk is not easy even after I found out just where to hit it. I use cruise control all the time and it does make the hills at a constant speed. The trans could use an update and engine has torque that always cause wheel spin on wet pavement so I wonder what the winter driving will be like ??? Needed to replace a steel 17″ rim but nobody had one because the thing is new and not enough of them are one the road yet so suppliers aren’t interested.
Is it ugly? I don’t know, I’m always inside all the time.
15,000 and things work well so far. Still don’t like the sliding side doors because they take so much effort to close.

By: massamike

massamike — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:44:00 +0000

We use these for our field service department. Iâ€™ve been driving this vehicle for six months and I donâ€™t like the style, but the van performs fine. Sure, itâ€™s not the best minivan and its ugly, but I havenâ€™t had any problems with performance. Since, gas prices are higher we have downsized our vehicles. I drive the commercial version with a 3.5L and loaded with everything for work I still get almost 20mpg. Thatâ€™s verses 14mpg in the Astro Van. I have no problem with acceleration, braking, steering, or anything else William Montgomery mentions. I already have two speeding tickets at over 90mph, so believe me this van has no issue with power. Iâ€™ve never had a problem with acceleration and didnâ€™t have trouble getting to 100mph. Mine has the smallest engine available so, when this guy says, â€œthe Uplanderâ€™s performance doesnâ€™t even deserve the nounâ€ heâ€™s basically full of crap.

My only complaints are, the long nose makes it harder to park and itâ€™s ugly.

By: Scottie

Scottie — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:37:45 +0000

GM should have ditched these minivans and started marketing the Astros/safaris as Retro. Maybe do something with the powertrain so it would have gotten more reasonable economy. But i’d much rather be seen in an AWD 2-tone Astro with Leather Captains chair, than any of the ugly beasts they try and fork off onto people now.

By: GMrefugee

GMrefugee — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:15:33 +0000

Wow, from all the comments, looks like I am the idiot you have all been mocking. I leased a 2004 Trailblazer EXT for 2 years, loved it and never had a problem. Sure, the dash was a poor/ugly design but I liked everything else. Ran and rode great. Now I own a Saturn Relay AND a Pontiac SV6. Again, both have their lumps but I actually like the styling and they drive nice. I do wish they were wider and had fold flat rear seats but those items werenâ€™t enough to drive me to pay more for the competition. Not sure how folks say the 3.5 needs more power. I am sure it is a dawg at the drag strip but I tow a popup of 2500 lbs and still feel there is ample power. True, I am not driving 80 but I set the cruise at 74 and all is well. Biggest problem GM and Ford face now is the well earned, negative perception of folks from the last 20 years overshadowing anything newer and competent coming into the market.

By: butzip

butzip — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:58:57 +0000

This from the same company that ‘rubber stamped’ the Pontiac Aztec…………… enough said.

By: tyoung9

tyoung9 — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:18:47 +0000

Just out of interest I looked at owner opinions on CR for the Uplander.
It appears that most drivers actually like this vehicle. A couple really hated it. But most reviews were very positive.
I would tend to agreed with a lot of TTAC commentators, but are we being too critical?
Does the average buyer see what we see or care as much as we care?

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:12:39 +0000

If you want to know who agrees with all of this negative blog on the uplander, it is surprise gm. The uplander name will go into the trash bin with countless other gm monikers, and a new minivan will come forth. After admitting they lost 20 years in the van game, gm now says they will be fully competitive with a completly new van. Some people it takes a little longer.

By: NamDuong

NamDuong — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:13:21 +0000

Oh my LORD!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHA!!! THE UGLANDER!!!!!

You are seriously hilarious! I’m searching all articles written by you and reading them over again! HAHAHAH!!!

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:40:21 +0000

Just to see: I was surfing around msnbc business web site where they have comments on ford and gm in relation to fords newly announced down sizing. Most of us are gentle compared to that gang. There are bloggers over there who want ford and gm to burn in hell for their past transgressions. I have no idea who they all are there were 26 pages I think of these comments. So, with this bad attitude from non gear heads, can ford and gm survive? p.s. a few want gm and ford to survive especially after what happened in WWll, like the battan death march by Japan.

By: xantia10000

xantia10000 — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:12:34 +0000

I’m not referring to any conspiracy theory – I’m simply quoting the post from August 17th, 2006 at 11:14 pm and responding to it.

As far as “being on the next level” regarding GM and Ford, I respect your opinion about not caring if these companies recover or not. However, I disagree that GM and Ford cannot recover because historically we’ve seen upturns and downturns in many large auto companies.

For example, VW of America was popular in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but by the 90s, sales were so low that they considered retreating from the North American market. But by the end of the 90s and through the earlier part of this decade, however, VW bounced back once again with desirable products (though VWâ€™s current condition is another story…) Like VW, Nissan also went through a slump but revived itself under Ghosnâ€™s leadership. Hyundai likewise greatly improved their cars and their image since the mid-80s.

Will GM and Ford bounce back? It’s been done before, and I’m hoping that they can do so within the near-to-mid-term. I know that GM and Ford may have different problems that require different solutions compared with VW Nissan, and Hyundai, but I still have faithâ€¦

Why do I want these guys to make good cars? Well, for lots of reasons:

First, as a consumer, I want as much choice as possible. Currently for me, absolutely none of GM and Ford products are worthy of consideration. That’s too bad, cuz that means I must buy a car from a foreign company, such as VW, DCX, Honda, BMW, etc.

This leads to the second reason I want GM to do well: I would like to support North American car companies. I’m not a diehard ‘buy American or die’ kinda guy, but it would be nice to see GM and Ford restore some element of respect to the domestic auto industry.

Finally, I want GM and Ford to do well cuz I know they can! They make excellent cars right now in the form of Corsa, Astra, Zafira, Commodore, Ka, Focus Mk2, C-Max, and S-Max. All these cars are great products that I predict Americans might consider owning. Frankly, I find it a slap in the face that GM and Ford offer Europeans and Australians way better products than the misshapen, old-tech, ill-handling, and deeply discounted pieces of garbage they attempt to sell in their home market.

Iâ€™d agree with you that Iâ€™d just write GM and Ford off if I didnâ€™t see any promise, but I do. I am just frustrated that they can’t get their acts together!

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:29:22 +0000

xantia you start out with a conspiracy view of history against Detroit, and end up where everyone does, the stuff just doesn’t measure up. I am at the next level and don’t care whether GM and Ford recover or not. In most business ventures when you squander a lead like the two above did, you don’t ususally recover. Why would you really want these guys to make good cars in the futurewhen their competitors make excellent cars right now?

By: xantia10000

xantia10000 — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:15:42 +0000

“The anti-Detroit sentiment on these boards is astounding. It seems like any vehicle with a Detroit nameplate equals crap.”

I know it’s a crazy theory, but maybe this sentiment exists because… these cars actually _are_ crap!

More specifically, I think one of the areas that most hurts GM, Ford, and DCX is perceived quality â€“ the stuff a customer might initially notice at the dealership (or the rental car agency).

For example, in most of GM/Ford/DCX cars (even in Cadi. and Corvette), the plastics are hard to the touch, and moveable parts (e.g. console box lid) feel too brittle to withstand years of use. Plastic trim pieces show visible parting lines from the molding tool. Sheet metal shut lines are not even. Doors do not close with a muted thud. A-pillars are not lined with fabric. Switches are clicky rather than smooth-feeling. Etc… Sounds like nit-picking details, but some of this stuff can influence someone’s perspective.

Add staid, disproportioned exterior and interior styling to the mix, and many don’t need further evidence that these cars suck (at least I don’t). At this point who cares about fuel economy figures, reliability ratings, or the ‘buy-one-get-one-free’ deal or the week if the car feels fragile, looks horrific, and can’t even hide its value engineering? And I haven’t even mentioned the driving part yet!

Maybe GM, Ford and DCX products _are_ improving in terms of reliability, but their bad first impression may be a good indicator of why they are often derided.

I really really really want these companies to start making some good cars, so we can stop bitching about them and enjoy owning them. Until then, if it looks like crap and feels like crapâ€¦

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:36:39 +0000

Bubba as I said in another blog, it is not that these gm iterations of vans are bad, they are obsolete. In the 80’s and early 90’s, not being able to move seats in the van and to only have the option of taking them out was the norm. Nobody had anything better, so gm skated by with a reasonable faximile of a modern van. By the mid 2000’s everything has chaged: six speed autos, better engines, moveable seats (chrysler’s completely fold into the floor, nicer interiors, quieter ride. etc. All of these things came about thru the magic of redesign and incremental improvement. GM used to be the company that did that40-50 yrs ago. Now they put out a just average design and expect it to hang on for 10 years. Even the Koreans van is getting credible reviews as being refreshed and modern. How the golf pro’s at the tubes of GM thought they could make all of these different models, put them out and walk away except for paint and upolstery changes is a mystery. You would think these guys were running a classical sculpture studio where copies of the old stay in demand forever. For this the stockholders pay good money for administration at places like GM.

By: BubbaFett

BubbaFett — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:33:45 +0000

This is funny. I just spent a long weekend with a rented Pontiac variant of the Uplander, and within a couple hours of the road trip, the whole extended family was taking shots at how poorly executed this vehicle is (and the in-laws have never even owned a foreign made vehicle!).

It started right off the bat–just try and get into the back row of seats (middle row doesn’t move out of the way)–and it continued with the 200HP 3.5L “engine” that didn’t even provide enough power to maintain highway speeds up hills on the Alberta prairies! (read: flat country).

Long story short, I wholeheartedly agree with Montgomery’s “THIS IS OUR BEST IDEA” comment. I cannot imagine that anyone who works at GM feels good about their company when they see or drive these “vans” on local highways and biways.

This vehicle is so “in your face” bad, it calls into question GM’s competence at every level–from the fellow on the assemply line to the Executive in the corner office.

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:29:56 +0000

espo you bring up a good point. All cars are increasingly complex pieces of machinery. Toyota took some hits this year on quality. How they handle this and how they tighten up their production will tell us if they are to remain the preeminent producer in the World. I would never disagree that there are all sorts of agressive competitors in the World who would glady replace toyota at the top of the heap. This is a fluid game and that’s what keeps it interesting. In the 50’s and 60’s it was Gm and fords to lose and they did. Now it’s toyota’s to lose, I don’t know if they are as atrophied yet as Gm was 30 years ago. Just look how in about 10 short years the Koreans have taken their “junk” image and turned it around into solid products. Can they go further? Will the lower priced Europeans ie. volkswagen make a resurgence? Will another Japanese nameplate push out toyota? We will just have to watch and wait.

By: Stan Esposito

Stan Esposito — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:30:15 +0000

Toyota has seen its quality reputation tarnished by a series of recalls and defects investigations involving its vehicles. Earlier this week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. upgraded its investigation concerning suspension failures in older-model Tundras.
Replace Toyota with GM and you guys would bring out the stories of how your uncle had one and it was a POS…

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:14:22 +0000

The anti-Detroit sentiment on these boards is astounding. It seems like any vehicle with a Detroit nameplate equals crap. If they rebadged an Accord and put bowtie logos on it, I’d bet people will find anything to bitch about – I hate the rear-end styling, gas mileage not good enough, the leather seats stick to your butt, etc. The editors on this website has not one positive article about American cars. Even Car and Driver has 4 of their top 10 cars being domestic. I’d like to know if there are more objective web-sites when it comes to discussing cars. The best one I found so far is carreview.com.

I own both a Ford and Honda. All I can say is that they both have good and bad points.

By: jerry weber

jerry weber — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:47:45 +0000

dhathewa thank you for pulling out the production numbers. I am too lazy to look them up, but I know who is winning and it ain’t the big two. You would find similar results if you took honda, huyndai, etc. None of these asian products are Johnny come lately to the economy game. They have been honed and fine tuned over many years to perform as good as a light weight small displacement car can. They are relatively large inside and with their hatches carry cargo enough for most. The nice thing about the asians if fuel goes higher they have the best cars. If fuel stays the same or goes lower they have the best larger cars. I said this before as did others, the asians make money on everything they build. If the mix goes against trucks and suv’s they can get buy with their unter 2 liter engine products. GM and Ford can’t.

By: carm

carm — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:22:04 +0000

Based on my recent rental experience, please substitute the word Chevy with Buick and the word Uplander with Rainer.

By: dhathewa

dhathewa — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:58:17 +0000

“You are talking GM so add the HHR and the MALIBU aND G6 into the mix.”

Let’s look at small cars vs small cars, Toyota vs GM. The Malibu options a six, so I’m leaving that out.

Corolla + Scion + Prius + Yaris = 81,459
Aveo + Cobalt + G5 + ION + HHR = 55,895

In fact, this comparison puts a GM problem front-and-center. The Corolla, Prius and Yaris will turn 40mpg on the highway. GM doesn’t have anything that manages 40mpg on the highway. If I want good fuel economy, and at $3/gallon for gas who doesn’t, would I even walk into a GM dealership?

By: Stan Esposito

Stan Esposito — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:22:38 +0000

Ok
You are talking GM so add the HHR and the MALIBU aND G6 into the mix.
Just buy your imports and leave GM to sell to everyone else. Their is enough to go around.