Intrepidation

2009 Chevrolet Traverse Preview

259 posts in this topic

:lol:

But seriously, is there an answer or a possible theory?

they didn't try or care to. i.e. the first gen and second Venture and subsequent Uplander were all built on updated but never redone versions of the same platform, the original W-body, and maybe that wasn't a safe structure for minivans to occupy?

Edited by turbo200
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, it's pretty hard to sell a vehicle to parents with kids when there's a good chance mommy
AND CHILDREN
will die.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they didn't try or care to. i.e. the first gen and second Venture and subsequent Uplander were all built on updated but never redone versions of the same platform, the original W-body, and maybe that wasn't a safe structure for minivans to occupy?

The late-90s were on the U-body...was that based on the W?

I looked back online and found that the original dustbuster design received between 3 and 5 stars for its front and side crash tests (both varied within a star depending on the year). I wouldn't say the originals were THAT unsafe, but the U-bodies definitely were structurally-deficient.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Toronto Star online Wheels section, the Chevrolet Traverse will make an apprearance at the Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto! :pbjtime:

The show opens to the public this Friday. (cant wait)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article I found on SaturnFans.com...

Analysis Shows Saturn Stores are Better at Selling Crossovers than GMC

Posted by Charlie on February 11th, 2008

Tags:

* Outlook,

* Cars,

* 2007 Models,

* Sales

Retail sales at Saturn were up a solid 12% in 2007, thanks to new models like the full-size Outlook. But critics have charged that its sales should have been even higher. The Outlook's sales results for last year are often referenced to make their point.

You'll hear them say that Saturn only sold 34,768 Outlooks during the 2007 calendar year, a far cry from GMC which sold 72,765 Acadias during the same time period. The Outlook, Acadia, and Buick Enclave are built in the same Michigan plant and share the same GM Lambda architecture.

But there's more to the story. Saturn has a fraction of the retail stores that GMC has around the country. According to the most recent Automotive News Dealership Census data from May of 2007, there are more than five times as many GMC dealerships (2225) as Saturn stores (428). Using these figures, on a store-by-store basis, SaturnFans.com calculates that Saturn sold on average more than 6.7 Outlooks per facility per month in 2007, compared to about 2.7 Acadias per month at each GMC dealership.

Even more amazing is that Saturn accomplished this feat with an Outlook ad budget that was less half of the Acadia in 2007. In 2007, Advertising Age says that GM spent $56 million to promote the GMC Acadia compared to $25 million for the Saturn Outlook. A similar argument could be made for the often touted "hot selling" Buick Enclave whose 2751 dealerships sold 29,286 models in the seven months that it was on sale in 2007. Following the same methodology, when adjusted to a seven month scale that equates to roughly 1.5 Enclaves per dealership per month. Its advertising spend was more than $20 million more than the Outlook's at $45 million.

So is the Outlook really selling that bad? Not given the circumstances.

But despite Saturn's "per store" successes when compared to other GM makes, the brand still has some catching up to do when it comes to its primary competition. While Ford only sold 2.9 Edge crossovers per store per month, Saturn's Japanese rivals did better. Honda and Toyota each sold more than 9.5 Pilots and 7.2 Highlanders per store per month last year, respectively.

Advertising figures for the Pilot or Highlander weren't available at the time this article was posted, but based on the GMC and Buick ad comparison above, boosting Saturn's ad spend on the Outlook certainly would be a quick way to give the Outlook more exposure and add some pizazz to its sales. General Motors has given Saturn some great product to sell, but it should give the brand the extra budget it needs to get the word out. Challenge the growing brand to show what its capable of doing. Will GM do it?

Source: Automotive News, Advertising Age

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story that empowah posted is somewhat misleading, though. I can tell you for a fact that the GMC dealers around here sold far more Acadias than the Saturn dealer's sold Outlooks.

How many GMC dealer's are located in the middle of nowhere? What if you compared sales-per-dealership only in Chicago, LA, and NY? Of course Saturn's per-dealership totals are going to be higher when you consider they only sell in highly-populated areas and GMC has dealers in towns of 10000 people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the Toronto Star online Wheels section, the Chevrolet Traverse will make an apprearance at the Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto! :pbjtime:

The show opens to the public this Friday. (cant wait)

Did you see the bit in the Star where the salesperson is still the #1 source of information for the buyer? Look at the www.Torontostar.ca and go over to the business section. Intersting survey results. Even the authors admit they are surprised that since the last survey (40k people were surveyed - that's statistically significant) the percentage of people relying on the salesperson went up 3 points. So much for the internet taking over the buying decision. 'Family/Friend actually dropped 3 points.

It's a good read.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad, but it reinforces my belief that GM should've killed the Outlook, put Traverse production over at Delta Township and used Spring Hill for something entirely different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not bad, but it reinforces my belief that GM should've killed the Outlook, put Traverse production over at Delta Township and used Spring Hill for something entirely different.

+1

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the U-Body was an A-Body Derivative.

Huh? By 1997 when the U-body came out the A-body was already 15 years old and out of production..that makes no sense...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Of the GM crossovers, I still like the Saturn Outlook best, but I was hoping the Traverse would be a smaller vehicle, not larger. What I need is a five passenger vehicle, not a seven-passenger behemoth. The Edge looks like the best fit, although a Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD might fit the bill. The interior of the Traverse looks fine, though, and it should hit its target market quite well. GM is offering the market I represent the Saturn Vue, and it's okay, but that Edge is a best seller for a reason. It's simply an inspired looker, and the new Sport version will be very, very tempting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, I think the dustbuster vans were competitive enough design-wise, but the reliability is what failed them.

....and introducing them withOUT airbags, and with a 3.1L, 120-hp, throttle-body-injected V6 (when other GM products were using the updated multi-port injected 3.1L with more power,etc.) and a 3-speed automatic transmission.

:wacko:

Edited by The O.C.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....and introducing them withOUT airbags, and with a 3.1L, 120-hp, throttle-body-injected V6 and a 3-speed automatic transmission.

:wacko:

Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them). Ford also had the stupid automatic seatbelts...meanwhile, Chrysler went to airbags in all their models around '88 or so..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? By 1997 when the U-body came out the A-body was already 15 years old and out of production..that makes no sense...

Later GM FWD platforms shared many components and systems with the A-Body, in particular the W-body midsize cars and U-body minivans.

The U-Body Van was essentially a stretched A-Body... The First U-Body Vans came, in fact, in 1989 with the Dustbuster vans (although they were often incorrectly cited as A-Bodies themselves), they were heavily overhauled for 1997, but still shared their A-Body Lineage. This included suspension and other components.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them).

Nope, Dustbusters had the B-Pillar mounted Seatbelts, like our old 1994 Trans Sport 3.8L. Our 1989 Grand Am did have the door mounted belts however...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The U-Body Van was essentially a stretched A-Body... The First U-Body Vans came, in fact, in 1989 with the Dustbuster vans (although they were often incorrectly cited as A-Bodies themselves), they were heavily overhauled for 1997, but still shared their A-Body Lineage. This included suspension and other components.

Wow...amazing. I always assumed the vans (dustbuster and later) were related to the GM-10/W bodies since the Lumina name was used on the car and the van.. GM definitely made a lot of use of their parts box of '80s FWD crapola..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interior looks good. I like the fact that the Malibu design was used as an inspiration. The front looks good, too, almost looks Pontiac-ish. However, the rear is horrible, a bastardization of the Enclave. Overall, it's too much of a mish-mash of different Lambdas.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, one thing GM did in the late '80s that was so stupid were the idiotic door mounted seat belts (I don't know if the dustbusters had them). Ford also had the stupid automatic seatbelts...meanwhile, Chrysler went to airbags in all their models around '88 or so..

Not quite all of them, I think it was 1991 that the entire lineup had airbags.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe my eyes!

13 pages of crapola about everything under the sun, instead of an intelligent commentary about the

Traverse!

Why don't you marketing wanna-bes go play on another thread. This was supposed to be commentary on

Chevy's new product, good, bad or indifferent----- it is like the sunrise. It's coming tomorrow, and you are not

going to stop it.

To digress and go into all this otherB/S, is a waste of time and space!

But I have become guilty of my own lament-------

Everyone is ignoring the 500lb Gorilla in the living room, or the elephant in the refrigerator(choose your own

metaphor).

The Traverse is intended primarily as a family vehicle with lots of versatility. It appears to be the Generals

mini-van replacement for an Astro-sized vehicle.(Which is sorely missed)

BUT IT IGNORES CURRENT REALITY in the economy and fuel market issues!

This is a vehicle that should be on the short list to receive the new VM Motori V6 diesel!

Volkswagen is gonna have one. Subaru is gonna have one. Mercedes is gonna have one. Even BMW is gonna have one.

Are the GM planners so afraid of the political pundits out there on the West coast that they ignore reality ----

or maybe they have their own political agenda. 2nd generation, or Bluetooth Diesels are the practical way to improve on our fuel situation in the shortest period of time.

If they come out with a diesel option ----- I'll consider buying one and give up my Chrysler Town&Country! ---

even tho I'd lose my stow n' go seats!--- The greatest thing since sliced bread and motherhood for us old

farts who need multi-purpose vehicles! :pbjtime:

Edited by rkmdogs
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room