bumpy, I new it was a Rendezvous pal. I was saying the Rainier was a nice enough midsize SUV that I almost baught one about 2-3 years ago when I was car shopping.
One thing I do think is that if SAAB were to get a lamda it should be AWD and maybe it could be a Cayanne competitor and take major styling cues from that new AeroX concept to put SAAB into a segment in which GM doesn't really compete. Instead of looking like an Enclave/Outlook/Acadia it would be less boulbous.
I was thinking the same thing pal. Put a Twin-Turbo 3.6 engine in the Saab and drop the ride height and give it sport-tuned Magneride suspension w/ AWD.
The GMC Acadia, needs to offer a Z-71 off-road suspension along with standard 4WD and skid plates on the SLE. The Denali, becomes AWD with a powerful V8 and skid-plates.
LOL.....Well that was when the fire sales were going on and I couldn't justify not getting much more off than other people during the employee pricing.
Latest (May) issue of CU rates "upscale sedans"., including the V8 powered Lucerne. Although I know many GM fans think CU is close to the devil, they give the Lucerne a pretty good rating. Out of 13 large sedans listed in their chart, the Lucerne V8 is #4 (the V6 is #11). Ahead of the Lucerne is the Avalon XLS, the Maxima 3.5SL, and the Azera Limited. Below the Lucerne V8 includes the Ford Five Hundred, the Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, Kia Amanti, and Mercury Grand Marquis.
Highs cited for Lucerne V8: - ride - engine - quietness - interior room - controls (this is new for GM) - regular fuel
They also rate the reliability as better than average.
Lows cited are - Turning circle (47ft - WOW! One of the worst they've ever seen in this class) - Fuel economy
A couple of quotes: "...ride is very comfortable...interior is quiet, with muffled wind noise and a pleasant V8 sound...handling didn't shine but was stable, secure...V8 delivers strong acceleration and is noticably smoother than the coarse V6...four-speed automatic transimission is smooth and responsive... interior is roomy and pleasant with nice wood and chrome details"
They liked it. I didn't see any blatant bias in the writeup, although I've not looked at or driven this car.
What I need to see is the reliability rankings. I find it amazing how many times iv'e seen their breakdown of component reliability, and see nothing but half and full red circles for both Toyota and GM products, yet it seems the best the GM manages at the bottom is average, yet Toyota is above. I think that is where many of us believe the bias comes from.
I think, IMO, that where a great many American automobliles fail in expert test drives is in the fact that, historically, I believe, that testers seem to be looking for a great driving experience. I believe that there are 2 different philosophies for autos: European, and American. When I think of great European cars, I think of the great road cars that offered a PERSONAL DRIVING EXPERIENCE: MG's Sunbeams, XK120's the sl Merc's, etc. Cars that were meant to thrill while driving on open, winding roads.
When I think of great American cars, i think of cars that offered an EXPERIENCE in PERSONAL STYLE and SUBSTANCE: tail finned Caddie's Riviera's, Eldorado's, Imperials, and straight line muscle cars fron the late 50's to early 70's. These cars were meant for Boulevard crusing, drag racing, and enjoying the American Experience. They thrilled by taking families places, enjoying the sights of the coasts, bright lights of the cities, and the open plains and farmlands.
There you have it: 2 different cars, 2 different personalities, one not neccesarily better than the other.
Taken in this CONTEXT, Is the V8 Lucerne really any better, or worse for that matter then a BMW 5 series? (ok STOP LAUGHING- IT'S NOT FUNNY!!! STOP LAUGHING) :mad: :mad: :mad:
My point is, 2 DIFFERENT cars, 2 DIFFERENT personalities.
You have a good point. The way I described this phenomenon used to be that European cars were great to drive while American cars excelled in being a passenger.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well the Lucerne, is often compared to the driving experience one would get from the early-late 90's "Big Body" Mercedes S-420 which was and still is a beautiful mixture of ride and handling. Perhaps the Lucerne SUPER tightening it all up a bit will give one a closer experience of the S-500 and of course you get buick reliability and pricing.
I buy that - it expresses well the way I have felt about American cars I have driven. The thing is, how many enthusiast passengers are there? Aren't most enthusiasts drivers?
In fact, therein lies the reason the Maybach was such a sales failure, perhaps.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And it's also why Buick is doing so well. There is a decent segment of the population, myself included, who loved the old S420 and the older big Lexus models. Good handling compared to a typical commuter-box, all the goodies, built like a tank, and a very serene ride.
But those both went the way of plastic and high-rpm horsepower("peaky" engines). Reliability also took a sharp dive as well for Mercedes. Lexus isn't the bargain it once was. BMW - their quality hit the dumpster and ran right through it. :sick: Infinity still makes a few nice cars, though, and their prices and reliability are okay as well - I see them as Cadillac/Buick's closest competition.
The Lucere CXS - yes, it feels exactly the same as the S420 did when it was new(though 500 lbs+ lighter! - so it needs a LOT less HP). Considering that the Lucerne sells very few to rental fleets, it's doing very well. The Super should make some people take notice, though.
True, very true. I myself find my driving personality to be multi faceted. When I'm on my way to work, hey, I'm just going to work, and coming home. (I'll bet many Europeans get to take mass transit, and don't get to experience this.). When I'm driving my truck, especially when I pull the camper, I get a feeling like I'm on top of the world, and love to make that diesel engine growl. When I take the convertible out ( a'65 Buick) and hear that low rumble from the dual exahaust, almost like a lion purring, I feel arrogant, invincible, the best.
Aren't most enthusiasts drivers?
I guess, however,when I get the family in the car, no matter which one, it can be a totally different experience, even as the driver, because you're not able to be as daring as you might when they're not in the car, because you have THEIR life in your hands. Not to mention, you want to soak in (especially when it's vacation or a Sunday drive) just what they are. I think it can be a totally different experience with the family.
I was running through some forums on V8Buick.com last nite, and one of the threads was about whether or not GM would revive the GNX. Some of the comments were a couple years old, yet I couldn't help but feel these people had a disconnect between "Their GM" and "Today's GM", even though I view them as pretty much the same company. For the most part, right through the '70's, you bought a Buick, Buick engine. Chevy, Chevy engine, and so on. Not really the same could be said for Ford and Chrysler corp., and THAT'S what really made GM purr. Many of these people want nothing to do with Buick, because they come with a "SHIVVY" engine. And if they wanted a Shivvy they'd buy a Shivvy, but they don't, they want a Buick, and they wouldn't buy the GNX because it would end up with the LS2 eng. and not a Buick eng., and they don't buy this "corporate engine stuff". I think it's sad to feel this way, although there is one thing GM doesn't do that I think they should: Instead of designing a car and slapping different logos on it like they did with the Lambda CUV's, they should probably say "OK guys, here's the zeta platform. Each car group, put a car on it. Here's a list of engines you can use, do what you can with them" Let each company compete against one another. Give them all a shot at it, and pick the best ones, and sell them. Who cares if all the companies under the GM logo get a Lambda CUV, if they're all great, yet all different, they'll ALL SELL.
Cooterbfd raises the point in my mind why GM needs so many brands these days. The case in point for me is a Buick LaCross that was rented for me when my car was being repaired after getting rear-ended.
This was a plain-jane, no options, CX version. If you want a Buick, why even have this as an option? The (obviously) fake wood? Looks nice, though.
I'm just saying this car seemed like it should've been a base Impala, not a Buick. Too me, a Buick should be more upscale than a Chevy. The ride isn't luxurious, the interior isn't plush, it's just... plain.
The only gripe I have about the car itself is that the tranny refused to downshift up hills & whatnot unless you just about floor it.
If you are going to have a Buick, why sell a vehicle that feels and looks like a Chevy? (interior, I mean)
I have no hate for GM, Buick or Chevy, but this configuration belonged on a more inexpensive brand, not Buick. Am I wrong? Why have a stripper version of an "upscale" brand offering, especially when the same basic car is available from the same manufacturer?
When you go to a classic car show, you'd swear that there was only one engine ever made - the GM 350V8 .
Seems to me that todays' GM could improve its image by just using its best engines, and cut the rest out over time. Reduce weight where it can, and size when it can, and use some of the new engines like the 3.6V6 to replace the olde engines and in some cases the V8. A 3.6V6 getting 260HP to 300HP while achieving 30 MPG plus, would be cool indeed for mid-size car, and the Camaro, which I wish was mid-sized to smaller and not super sized. Would a 2008-10 model year car meet smog requirements with the 350 5.7 liter engine they use to use? Now there is one olde which has a great history, can be bought for a song and a dance, and the consumer really would relate to. A Camaro Z28 with a 350? And yea, I know the 3.8 had a great run. Actually, against the Mustang 3.8 it had more HP and gas mileage was better. But it is near retirement. Wonder if the OHV 3.5 was meant for years to come, or as a way to save a buck in production time to assemble - only a short term run for the engine line? Will it be the base engine in the Camaro? Is that a good thing, or should the New Camaro have the newest engines? Loren
>have about the car itself is that the tranny refused to downshift up hills & whatnot unless you just about floor it.
I love it. In another discussion they're saying the 3800 downshifts too easily on hills. Of course definitions of "hills" varies around the country because of the differences in terrain.
In reality I'd rather have a car stay locked in TCC lockup until last minute. But I can always tap the brake pedal to release the TCC and increase the engine rpms about 1000 under typical hill-climbing load. That's what you needed to know to do to let the motor pick up speed and power. The other is leave it in 3 if you're not planning really fast highway speeds. Depends on the terrain how I'd do it.
I would move the Lucerne "Lucy" into the Cadillac line as the base, older -bigger-FWD-luxo, when the DTS moves to RWD, as the base model FWD. And yes, keep the CTS as the base RWD. The rest of the Buick line may as well fade away, as it could sell as any other GM product line.
The Buick dealers would be Pontiac dealers of Holden Imports, or they all could roll into Saturn domestic and imported GM cars. Cars for economy and sport.
As for Buick being near luxury, the image seems to have slipped over a half a decade or so, and I would say the base Caddy is more near luxury, and some (not i) may say the Cadillac is near luxury to mid-luxury, while the import luxury cars are true luxury. Well they cost a lot, you must admit. Won't begin to argue for either side on that issue, but it appears this has happened. Buick is has slipped, and Cadillac, while rising recently, is still not seen in the same light as the top brands of Europe and in some cases Asia.
I wonder how Ford Volvo is doing these days. For right or more likely wrong, the image IMHO, appears to have slipped. Perhaps that is just no more than opinion of a small circle or friends, or the area I live in, but it seems like the word Ford pops up in conversations about a Volvo, and the conversation soon heads south. Guess there is a lot of bias against poor ol' Ford these days. Talk about Mazda and Ford name pops up, as in it ain't the same car now that Ford owns it, kinda talk. Kinda sad in a way, as Volvo, Mazda, and some of the Fords seem like good to very good autos. But if you think people like to pick on GM, just start talking about Fords, some love'em but my o' my some really don't have a good thing to say about them at all. Looks like Ford has as much, if not much more work to do to convince people that quality is job one, and all is well. Loren
When you go to a classic car show, you'd swear that there was only one engine ever made - the GM 350V8
Loren, I hope you realize that Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, and Olds all had their OWN engines, and they happened to all be 350cid. They weren't the same block. Buick 350's had the distributor in the front, while the other 3 were at the back, and the Chevy was the only one whose dist. went through the intake. Not even sure if the bore and stroke were the same.
My point about the engines was to harken back to that-in a way. If Lutz told the engineers at the different divisions for example to take the 3.6 and stick it in this platform and do it up any way you want, the best ideas get to build. They would benefit.
I guess my point is this: 40 yrs ago GM had 3 luxury coupes: Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado. All the same platform, yet the Riv was rwd, the Toro and Eldo fwd. Riv had a 430 ci eng, Toro, a 254, Eldo, a 429. Mindset seemed to be 1 frame*3 cars= 3x's the sales.
Today, we have the Lambda CUV's: same body, same engine, similar equiptment. Mindset seems to be X no. of sales/3 divisons. That scares me.
What ??? Back in the day they made cars that were FWD and RWD on the same platform ????? Wow, if that's true that was in a way cool. That would really help the Lambada platform CUV's as they could leave the Saturn FWD and make the GMC 4x4 with off-road backage and Denali option and make the Buick RWD with lots of luxury. If Chevy needed one bad enough they could make a base model with FWD. Saab, I'd make it a AWD model that focused on performance and advanced safety features and gadgets with a sporty luxury twist.
Yep, and the Toro and Eldo"s engines weren't transverse mount, either. They had what was called the 425 turbo hydramatic. Basically the eng. was connected to some HEAVY duty roller chains that spun the tranny, and the driveshafts came out like a transaxle.
My point on the mindset is that back then, it seemed as though they tried to squeeze as many sales out of a platform by giving it to different divisons. Today, it seems they have a sales goal in mind and try to squeeze as many divisons into that sales figure. What a shame.
Well, I came from a compact with a 5-speed stick, and I didn't have the LaCross long enough to get to know it.
Learning it's quirks aside, I was quite satisfied with the car as a whole. The car definitely looks Buick, just thought it should be a tad more upscale inside. If I ever drive another car with that power train, I'll try your trick. Thanks.
as it turns out, the Buick website for the Enclave says that there are two 18 inch wheels for the CX trim, and two 19 inch wheels for the CXL trim, so yes all four wheels could be different :P Only one is available with chrome, a 19 inch.
Was of time and resources to have so many engines which are basically the same. Same goes for the cars. GM should throw everything into making only a few good cars. Do they need a G6 sedan, Aura, and Malibu? If the Malibu or the Aura becomes the popular one, just keep that one and improve on it. The new V6 engines in a couple of versions, as one producing 260HP and another with 300HP for larger cars, or for performance models. Then make a couple of V8s and be done with it. If money is not already tight, it certainly will get tighter soon, so why spread it out so thin with all these like models and all too many engines?
Interesting how the Toronado started out as the beauty and sporty of the bunch only to become rather boxy and frumpy looking later on. The last models did get the Toro back to something good. But oh the between years, not as good. The Rivieras, I always liked style wise. The Eldorado went through a lot of changes, as did the others. If I had to pick one, I would say the last years are very well done design wise. I hope they name the CTS coupe as an Eldorado..... OK, they won't, maybe add an E after the CTS :shades: Loren
Loren, I hope you realize that Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, and Olds all had their OWN engines, and they happened to all be 350cid. They weren't the same block. Buick 350's had the distributor in the front, while the other 3 were at the back, and the Chevy was the only one whose dist. went through the intake. Not even sure if the bore and stroke were the same.
Loren might've meant that comment about the 350 to be more of a commentary on how these days, whenever people rebuild/restore a classic GM car, regardless of whatever engine was originally in there, during the restoration a Chevy 350 usually ends up in there!
You're right, though. All of those 350 blocks had different bores and strokes. They were basically completely different engines. The Olds 350 dated back to the 1949 "Rocket" V-8, and over the decades served displacements from 260 CID on up to 403. The Chevy 350 dated back to the 265 smallblock from 1955, while the Pontiac 350 dated back to the 287.2, also from 1955. The Pontiac was more of a "medium block". It was physically larger than the Chevy smallblock, but not much heavier. Chevy originally made their smallblock too light and flimsy, and when the engineers realized that it wouldn't last 10 minutes in the real world, they added on a lot of bracing such after the fact, which made it heavier than it would have been if they had just redesigned it in the first place.
Pontiac used the same block all the way up to their largest engine, the 455, so they never had two different engines in the "bigblock"/"smallblock" sense like Chevy, Buick, Olds, Mopar, or Ford.
As for Buick, their 350 dated back to the 1964 300 V-8, which was an iron-block version of the 225 aluminum V-8 that had debuted in the 1961 Special.
Of the 4 engines, I've heard that the Olds version was the best. It was engineered well enough to be sturdy without being overly heavy, and was a pretty good revver. It also adapted very well to the emissions controls of the 70's, which required hotter operating temperatures. Olds used a lot of nickle in their block, which helped to strengthen it without adding too much weight. This did add cost, though. And if you ran straight water in it, or went too long without changing out the coolant, it would cause a reaction with the nickle and cause the passages to clog up more quickly, eat out the freeze plugs, etc.
The Pontiac block was also pretty sturdy, but tended to run cooler. It didn't adapt too well to emissions controls, and in the later 70s, Pontiacs in California and some high-altitude areas substituted Olds 350's for Pontiac 350's, and Olds 403's for Pontiac 400's.
I'm not sure what the advantages/disadvantages were of the Buick 350. The Pontiac engines were discontinued mainly because they got cranky with the emissions controls. I'm not sure why the Buick V-8's got dropped, but the main reason the Chevy V-8 became the engine of choice was that it was the cheapest to build.
Loren, the G6 will either be gone or will be RWD from what I understand. If the GTO, comes back their is no need for a G6, but maybe a G5 size RWD would make sense ?
GM, is coming out with a new line of V8's so that is pretty darn cool. OW, and I think just made a little wager over a six-pack on the Denali, debuting. He doesn't think we will see one. I told him by MY 2009 a V8 Denali will see the light of day. The Enclave will more than likely get a V8 as well either as a CXS or "SUPER" :shades: The Saab version god only knows what that model will get if they make one for it. I think they need to make it sporty and drop a Twin-Turbo engine in it and add a sports suspension and lottsa gadgets.
It does cost money to replace current production engines with some other production engine. To drop the pushrod V6's and replace with the DOHC V6 would require more tooling and assembly lines to build the other engine.
The basic problem is that Pontiac, Chevy and Saturn (also Buick) need some of the various cars/trucks that are in production. The G6, Aura and Malibu are the same platform, and the LaCrosse will probably move to the next generation of this platform too.
Looking back in time, what GM could have done as the 1950's were coming to an end, was to make Chevrolet the small car division. Pontiac could have been a midsize car. This would have left Oldsmobile to be the low priced full size car that the Impala was in the sixties. Then Buick would have been a mid-priced full size, with Cadillac the top of the line (as it was). At the beginning of the sixties the future was not that clear, except that small cars were clearly a thing of the future. I think all of the dealers wanted a small car too, so GM would have needed to merge dealerships together or make all of them multi-line dealers.
What GM did in the sixties probably was the easy way out. The competition (Ford and Chrysler) did the same thing.
well, at least about 100,000 of them have spoken, anyway.
We’ve received word — and it’s not quite public knowledge yet — that General Motors did very well in the soon-to-be-announced Edmunds.com Consumers Most Wanted Awards.
GM cars and trucks took first place in 13 out of 32 vehicle categories. Among others, vehicles that won their segments include the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra, GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook, Saturn Aura, Chevrolet Cobalt, and the Cadillac Escalade, CTS and STS.
People are obviously using web sites like Edmunds.com more and more in the vehicle shopping process there are lots of places to kick virtual tires online. And from the results of this voting, I deduce that more of these people are considering GM. I’m told we swept these awards in a broad range of categories, from full-size trucks to small cars — no other manufacturer can stake that claim.
These honors are important to us at GM. Just as when the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the Year back in January, we get a reminder that we’re on the right path. I’m not saying that winning awards makes these or any other vehicles great but I am saying that winning the awards is a whole lot better than not winning them. It provides us a sense that our progress is duly noted by those who monitor such things.
It also provides us a measure of gratification and, in all candor, vindication, to have our cars and trucks recognized this way because we’ve put a tremendous amount of effort into developing them with the firm target of being the best.
And these particular awards are special because they are selected by you — the car- and truck-buying public.
The real test, of course, is success in the marketplace, and we’re making strides. Retail sales are up year-over-year, and our newest launch products — like the GMC Acadia —are selling briskly.
So to those who are considering our cars and trucks, I thank you, and to those who aren’t, I encourage you to give them a look and a test-drive. Tens of thousands of Edmunds voters can’t be wrong.
What this means to you: Edmunds.com has a lot of clout with GM, which should mean Edmunds.com's finacial security is secure since GM, is the biggest advertiser on edmunds.com I don't know how we did it boys imidazol97, lemko, 1487, 62vetteefp, and any other GM fans/owners I failed to mention. I guess that their is more GM fans than we thought or we have a lot of closet GM fans.-grin As Kirstie, said she hasn't got that beach house yet so it can't be rigged.
We'll have to see if CR recognizes the improvements that have been made and the regression to mean for some of the other brands that have had greased slides for their evaluations the last few years while their overall quality dropped from its earlier solid value.
> Kirstie, said she hasn't got that beach house
Are there beaches around St. Louis besides St. Charles beach where the Fifth Street area and original capital of Missouri are located for Kirstie's beachhouse? What's the story on the beachhouse.
Well how about putting it this way, when the old boy's get replaced, only make a couple of the best V6 and V8s and keep it simple. Place all the engineering knowhow into making a few good engines work rather than countless hours developing many engines, or redoing dated engines. I realize that making the modern day engine may cost a bit more, and retiring the old ones will have an initial cost, but the reward is in GM being seen as more premium brand going forward. An American Evolution. Loren
Oh another member accused the edmunds staff of getting beach houses from GM, (rigging the ballot box) because GM took 13 top spots followed by many 2nd place finishes in Consumer Most Wanted and way ahead of their beloved imports. I guess if the data doesn't match what Consumer Reports says it has to be rigged. The funny thing is many of these folks are the ones that point the finger at me as being the conspiracy theory member of edmunds.com I must admit pal, I've had a couple of great days laughing at all the excuses. I'm glad Uncle Bob, wrote a article on his blog about it. I think GM, should come up with a commercial boasting about it. Man, you'd really see them ticked off then, eh ?-grin
In a way I agree with you. However with GM, having a large number of brands I think each customer like a little uniqueness between the individual brands. I however will not dispute your position. I guess they could keep the best engines and add superchargers, turbo chargers, etc, to keep em' unique enough, eh ?
Unique you say? How about a Corvette with a 3.6V6 300HP. A lighter weight Vette, and let's face it, we are still talking serious speed - maybe even better handling. Heck, even the 255 HP version of any V6 would be cool. I suppose there is some unwritten law about Corvettes only having the most HP. Yea, I know you can never have too much HP. I suppose for drag racing, that is true. Not sure about any other purpose - braggin' rights? I see the car got shorter with the C6. Looks like they are thinking more tossable car these days. And I do like all those which came before the current. Who knows, may get a C5 or even a C4 some day, but the back says look-out for C4 era entry/exit woes. So I will just look funny, as an older guy with a bad back squirming out of the car. :shades:
I suppose the production is too limited to have two engine choices. Just a wild idea which came to mind, and probably one which is not bad performance (overall) as a sports car. And gas is now $3.50, as I predicted, in California. Loren
Loren, a 3.6 V6 in a Corvette isn't really all that bad of an idea. Maybe a smaller version of the Vette, would work. I wonder what happened to the Sting ray we were suppose to maybe get ? I was thinking that was suppose to be a little bigger than the Sky/Solstice and have Corvette design cues. My favorite C4 Corvette was the 1994 ZR-1 in Admiral Blue. It's just beautiful. I often wonder when GM, is going to get away from all these V8's and bring out more V6's. I think GM, should buy a Acura 3.2 V6 and reverse engineer it and make it better. I know the one in my TL, was silky smooth. Throw on some cylinder de activation and nearly 40 mpg is a realistic figure. I think I said this awhile back that my TL in 6th gear could on a flat road which it mostly is in this part of the country would pull 36 mpg. With the wind against my back it could eek out 37 mpg.
I like you Loren, am going to be very concerned about gas mileage if prices keep rising. The Impala, does a damn fine job. I'm not sure what the new 08' CTS with the new version of 3.6 "High Feature" V6 with Direct Fuel Injection will get as I'm sure it will push the 30 mpg envelope.
I will also be very interested to see what others call "my pet" the Acura TL, in Model Year 2009' will get for fuel economy especially with SH-AWD. If it out power's the competition like the CTS and 335i and still maintains that "Acura Value" equation then it could sell very well. I think GM, is making a critical mistake by not offering a manual transmission in the AWD version of the CTS, something I might of chosen over a CTS-V because it would be a four-season automobile which could out weigh my hunger for power. It's a real dissapointment for me. The BMW 335xi AWD has a manual transmission option I believe on the AWD. I know Audi, sure does. I assume Acura, will also offer this combination as well.
Time will tell what I finally end up with..........
Looking back in time, what GM could have done as the 1950's were coming to an end, was to make Chevrolet the small car division. Pontiac could have been a midsize car. This would have left Oldsmobile to be the low priced full size car that the Impala was in the sixties. Then Buick would have been a mid-priced full size, with Cadillac the top of the line (as it was). At the beginning of the sixties the future was not that clear, except that small cars were clearly a thing of the future. I think all of the dealers wanted a small car too, so GM would have needed to merge dealerships together or make all of them multi-line dealers.
Something like that may work better today, but that formula wouldn't have made it back in the 60's. GM was actually very savvy back in the 60's, building just the right products for just the right markets. It got out of hand in the 70's, though. Olds and Buick never should have put their name on any derivative of the Monza. And Pontiac went too far out of its reach with the Grand Ville. But then, at the same time, the market helped sort things out. The Grand Ville never was very popular, and neither were the Monza-based Starfire and Skyhawk.
Back in the 60's though, if you tried making all the small cars Chevies, midsizers Pontiacs, et al, then you would've had people screaming out for larger, more luxurious Chevies, like the Impala and Caprice, as well as cheaper big Buicks, like the LeSabre or smaller Buicks and Oldsmobiles, like the Cutlass and Special/Skylark, etc.
To a degree, Chrysler tried that formula in the 60's, and failed pretty miserably. I'm sure that if GM had tried pushing smaller Chevies and not offering a true "standard" sized car, they would've met the same fate as the shrunken '62 standard-sized Dodges and Plymouths. And Ford would have walked all over them.
Chances are, if GM tried a formula like that, it would have been very short-lived. They would have started up-sizing their Chevies and Pontiacs, adding smaller cars to the Buick and Olds lineups, building cheaper big Buicks and more expensive big Oldsmobiles, in very short order, as the market dictated.
Basically, timing is everything, and GM timed it perfectly in the 60's.
I just did a quick check on Edmunds, and they only list the SS w/ the V8, and the MSRP w/ sunroof 6disc cd and bose is $31,700 That's strange. I just did the same thing for the 2008 model with the same options and it shows an MSRP of $30,610 with a TMV (what others are paying) of $29,564.
Not bad pricing for this car, and quite a bit lower than the $34,000 that's 2x the $17,000 number from earleir in the discussion.
Aren't Consumers' Union and Consumers' Reports two different entities entirely? CR is the one most of us love to hate, whether you agree with that stance or not.
You may be thinking of Consumers Digest, which accepts ads and is often accused of selling awards. Sort of like some of the car mags anoint car of the year awards to their big advertisers.
>have about the car itself is that the tranny refused to downshift up hills & whatnot unless you just about floor it.
I love it. In another discussion they're saying the 3800 downshifts too easily on hills. Of course definitions of "hills" varies around the country because of the differences in terrain.
In reality I'd rather have a car stay locked in TCC lockup until last minute. But I can always tap the brake pedal to release the TCC and increase the engine rpms about 1000 under typical hill-climbing load. That's what you needed to know to do to let the motor pick up speed and power. The other is leave it in 3 if you're not planning really fast highway speeds. Depends on the terrain how I'd do it.
That's a good tip that I didn't know. But something seemingly overlooked in most reviews is that most of these electronically-controlled transmissions are "adaptive" or "learning" transmissions. The way the driver operates the vehicle is monitored over time, and the transmission responds based on the historical data obtained.
For example- we have a Terraza (knock of the booing, it's just for an example, and the wife would like a Lambda to replace it sometime in the future anyway). My wife is the usual driver. She drives with a heavier foot, faster acceleration / more frequent braking, higher speeds etc. I tend to be extremely conservative, with very light accerlation / braking, anticipate traffic speed changes to avoid changing my own, etc. Pretty much the opposite of her (and gain 2 to 3 mpg on an average tank as a consequence, but that's an aside). What I've found is that when I first get in the Terraza after she's been operating it for a week or more is that the transmission downshifts at the first hint of increased throttle, and holds gears much longer before upshifting, allowing the engine to wind up more. During the summer when the kids are home and she doesn't need it I use it for work, I sometimes take the van as my daily driver (better mileage than the Av). After a week or so of my being the only driver, I find that the transmission doesn't downshift as easily- it takes "putting your foot into it", nor does it wait as long to upshift from lower gears. It is adapting to our different driving styles.
I guess the problem is that during "test" drives, the transmissions don't have time to "learn" the driving style of the reviewer in question. So unless whoever drove the vehicle previously drives in a similar manner, it's likely that the transmission "feel" will be "off" to the reviewer in question. If each reviewer spent more than a single full tank of gas worth of time with the vehicle, they might find a more favorable impression of the transmission shift charateristics.
You may be thinking of Consumers Digest, which accepts ads and is often accused of selling awards. Sort of like some of the car mags anoint car of the year awards to their big advertisers. Thanks for the clarification. You're absolutely correct. I haven't had much to do with CD, but despite not being accused of selling any of their loyalty, still dislike CU/CR. :P
Comments
-Rocky
I was thinking the same thing pal. Put a Twin-Turbo 3.6 engine in the Saab and drop the ride height and give it sport-tuned Magneride suspension w/ AWD.
The GMC Acadia, needs to offer a Z-71 off-road suspension along with standard 4WD and skid plates on the SLE. The Denali, becomes AWD with a powerful V8 and skid-plates.
-Rocky
-Rocky
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Highs cited for Lucerne V8:
- ride
- engine
- quietness
- interior room
- controls (this is new for GM)
- regular fuel
They also rate the reliability as better than average.
Lows cited are
- Turning circle (47ft - WOW! One of the worst they've ever seen in this class)
- Fuel economy
A couple of quotes:
"...ride is very comfortable...interior is quiet, with muffled wind noise and a pleasant V8 sound...handling didn't shine but was stable, secure...V8 delivers strong acceleration and is noticably smoother than the coarse V6...four-speed automatic transimission is smooth and responsive... interior is roomy and pleasant with nice wood and chrome details"
They liked it. I didn't see any blatant bias in the writeup, although I've not looked at or driven this car.
Unfortunately they are al on one vehicle. I don't know what they did for the fourth wheel.....
When I think of great American cars, i think of cars that offered an EXPERIENCE in PERSONAL STYLE and SUBSTANCE: tail finned Caddie's Riviera's, Eldorado's, Imperials, and straight line muscle cars fron the late 50's to early 70's. These cars were meant for Boulevard crusing, drag racing, and enjoying the American Experience. They thrilled by taking families places, enjoying the sights of the coasts, bright lights of the cities, and the open plains and farmlands.
There you have it: 2 different cars, 2 different personalities, one not neccesarily better than the other.
Taken in this CONTEXT, Is the V8 Lucerne really any better, or worse for that matter then a BMW 5 series? (ok STOP LAUGHING- IT'S NOT FUNNY!!! STOP LAUGHING) :mad: :mad: :mad:
My point is, 2 DIFFERENT cars, 2 DIFFERENT personalities.
-Rocky
In fact, therein lies the reason the Maybach was such a sales failure, perhaps.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But those both went the way of plastic and high-rpm horsepower("peaky" engines). Reliability also took a sharp dive as well for Mercedes. Lexus isn't the bargain it once was. BMW - their quality hit the dumpster and ran right through it. :sick: Infinity still makes a few nice cars, though, and their prices and reliability are okay as well - I see them as Cadillac/Buick's closest competition.
The Lucere CXS - yes, it feels exactly the same as the S420 did when it was new(though 500 lbs+ lighter! - so it needs a LOT less HP). Considering that the Lucerne sells very few to rental fleets, it's doing very well. The Super should make some people take notice, though.
Aren't most enthusiasts drivers?
I guess, however,when I get the family in the car, no matter which one, it can be a totally different experience, even as the driver, because you're not able to be as daring as you might when they're not in the car, because you have THEIR life in your hands. Not to mention, you want to soak in (especially when it's vacation or a Sunday drive) just what they are. I think it can be a totally different experience with the family.
Instead of designing a car and slapping different logos on it like they did with the Lambda CUV's, they should probably say "OK guys, here's the zeta platform. Each car group, put a car on it. Here's a list of engines you can use, do what you can with them" Let each company compete against one another. Give them all a shot at it, and pick the best ones, and sell them. Who cares if all the companies under the GM logo get a Lambda CUV, if they're all great, yet all different, they'll ALL SELL.
This was a plain-jane, no options, CX version. If you want a Buick, why even have this as an option? The (obviously) fake wood? Looks nice, though.
I'm just saying this car seemed like it should've been a base Impala, not a Buick. Too me, a Buick should be more upscale than a Chevy. The ride isn't luxurious, the interior isn't plush, it's just... plain.
The only gripe I have about the car itself is that the tranny refused to downshift up hills & whatnot unless you just about floor it.
If you are going to have a Buick, why sell a vehicle that feels and looks like a Chevy? (interior, I mean)
I have no hate for GM, Buick or Chevy, but this configuration belonged on a more inexpensive brand, not Buick. Am I wrong? Why have a stripper version of an "upscale" brand offering, especially when the same basic car is available from the same manufacturer?
Seems to me that todays' GM could improve its image by just using its best engines, and cut the rest out over time. Reduce weight where it can, and size when it can, and use some of the new engines like the 3.6V6 to replace the olde engines and in some cases the V8. A 3.6V6 getting 260HP to 300HP while achieving 30 MPG plus, would be cool indeed for mid-size car, and the Camaro, which I wish was mid-sized to smaller and not super sized. Would a 2008-10 model year car meet smog requirements with the 350 5.7 liter engine they use to use? Now there is one olde which has a great history, can be bought for a song and a dance, and the consumer really would relate to. A Camaro Z28 with a 350? And yea, I know the 3.8 had a great run. Actually, against the Mustang 3.8 it had more HP and gas mileage was better. But it is near retirement. Wonder if the OHV 3.5 was meant for years to come, or as a way to save a buck in production time to assemble - only a short term run for the engine line? Will it be the base engine in the Camaro? Is that a good thing, or should the New Camaro have the newest engines?
Loren
I love it. In another discussion they're saying the 3800 downshifts too easily on hills. Of course definitions of "hills" varies around the country because of the differences in terrain.
In reality I'd rather have a car stay locked in TCC lockup until last minute. But I can always tap the brake pedal to release the TCC and increase the engine rpms about 1000 under typical hill-climbing load. That's what you needed to know to do to let the motor pick up speed and power. The other is leave it in 3 if you're not planning really fast highway speeds. Depends on the terrain how I'd do it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Buick dealers would be Pontiac dealers of Holden Imports, or they all could roll into Saturn domestic and imported GM cars. Cars for economy and sport.
As for Buick being near luxury, the image seems to have slipped over a half a decade or so, and I would say the base Caddy is more near luxury, and some (not i) may say the Cadillac is near luxury to mid-luxury, while the import luxury cars are true luxury. Well they cost a lot, you must admit. Won't begin to argue for either side on that issue, but it appears this has happened. Buick is has slipped, and Cadillac, while rising recently, is still not seen in the same light as the top brands of Europe and in some cases Asia.
I wonder how Ford Volvo is doing these days. For right or more likely wrong, the image IMHO, appears to have slipped. Perhaps that is just no more than opinion of a small circle or friends, or the area I live in, but it seems like the word Ford pops up in conversations about a Volvo, and the conversation soon heads south. Guess there is a lot of bias against poor ol' Ford these days. Talk about Mazda and Ford name pops up, as in it ain't the same car now that Ford owns it, kinda talk. Kinda sad in a way, as Volvo, Mazda, and some of the Fords seem like good to very good autos. But if you think people like to pick on GM, just start talking about Fords, some love'em but my o' my some really don't have a good thing to say about them at all. Looks like Ford has as much, if not much more work to do to convince people that quality is job one, and all is well.
Loren
Loren, I hope you realize that Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, and Olds all had their OWN engines, and they happened to all be 350cid. They weren't the same block. Buick 350's had the distributor in the front, while the other 3 were at the back, and the Chevy was the only one whose dist. went through the intake. Not even sure if the bore and stroke were the same.
My point about the engines was to harken back to that-in a way. If Lutz told the engineers at the different divisions for example to take the 3.6 and stick it in this platform and do it up any way you want, the best ideas get to build. They would benefit.
I guess my point is this:
40 yrs ago GM had 3 luxury coupes: Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado. All the same platform, yet the Riv was rwd, the Toro and Eldo fwd. Riv had a 430 ci eng, Toro, a 254, Eldo, a 429. Mindset seemed to be 1 frame*3 cars= 3x's the sales.
Today, we have the Lambda CUV's: same body, same engine, similar equiptment. Mindset seems to be X no. of sales/3 divisons. That scares me.
Rocky
My point on the mindset is that back then, it seemed as though they tried to squeeze as many sales out of a platform by giving it to different divisons. Today, it seems they have a sales goal in mind and try to squeeze as many divisons into that sales figure. What a shame.
Learning it's quirks aside, I was quite satisfied with the car as a whole. The car definitely looks Buick, just thought it should be a tad more upscale inside. If I ever drive another car with that power train, I'll try your trick.
Thanks.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/AUTO01/705050342/1148-
-Rocky
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/AUTO01/705030371/1148- /AUTO01
-Rocky
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/AUTO01/705030373/1148- /AUTO01
Rocky to Uncle Bob. Add Hybrid motors to the cars and they will easily make your fuel economy standards.
-Rocky
Interesting how the Toronado started out as the beauty and sporty of the bunch only to become rather boxy and frumpy looking later on. The last models did get the Toro back to something good. But oh the between years, not as good. The Rivieras, I always liked style wise. The Eldorado went through a lot of changes, as did the others. If I had to pick one, I would say the last years are very well done design wise. I hope they name the CTS coupe as an Eldorado..... OK, they won't, maybe add an E after the CTS :shades:
Loren
Loren might've meant that comment about the 350 to be more of a commentary on how these days, whenever people rebuild/restore a classic GM car, regardless of whatever engine was originally in there, during the restoration a Chevy 350 usually ends up in there!
You're right, though. All of those 350 blocks had different bores and strokes. They were basically completely different engines. The Olds 350 dated back to the 1949 "Rocket" V-8, and over the decades served displacements from 260 CID on up to 403. The Chevy 350 dated back to the 265 smallblock from 1955, while the Pontiac 350 dated back to the 287.2, also from 1955. The Pontiac was more of a "medium block". It was physically larger than the Chevy smallblock, but not much heavier. Chevy originally made their smallblock too light and flimsy, and when the engineers realized that it wouldn't last 10 minutes in the real world, they added on a lot of bracing such after the fact, which made it heavier than it would have been if they had just redesigned it in the first place.
Pontiac used the same block all the way up to their largest engine, the 455, so they never had two different engines in the "bigblock"/"smallblock" sense like Chevy, Buick, Olds, Mopar, or Ford.
As for Buick, their 350 dated back to the 1964 300 V-8, which was an iron-block version of the 225 aluminum V-8 that had debuted in the 1961 Special.
Of the 4 engines, I've heard that the Olds version was the best. It was engineered well enough to be sturdy without being overly heavy, and was a pretty good revver. It also adapted very well to the emissions controls of the 70's, which required hotter operating temperatures. Olds used a lot of nickle in their block, which helped to strengthen it without adding too much weight. This did add cost, though. And if you ran straight water in it, or went too long without changing out the coolant, it would cause a reaction with the nickle and cause the passages to clog up more quickly, eat out the freeze plugs, etc.
The Pontiac block was also pretty sturdy, but tended to run cooler. It didn't adapt too well to emissions controls, and in the later 70s, Pontiacs in California and some high-altitude areas substituted Olds 350's for Pontiac 350's, and Olds 403's for Pontiac 400's.
I'm not sure what the advantages/disadvantages were of the Buick 350. The Pontiac engines were discontinued mainly because they got cranky with the emissions controls. I'm not sure why the Buick V-8's got dropped, but the main reason the Chevy V-8 became the engine of choice was that it was the cheapest to build.
GM, is coming out with a new line of V8's so that is pretty darn cool. OW, and I think just made a little wager over a six-pack on the Denali, debuting. He doesn't think we will see one. I told him by MY 2009 a V8 Denali will see the light of day. The Enclave will more than likely get a V8 as well either as a CXS or "SUPER" :shades: The Saab version god only knows what that model will get if they make one for it. I think they need to make it sporty and drop a Twin-Turbo engine in it and add a sports suspension and lottsa gadgets.
-Rocky
The basic problem is that Pontiac, Chevy and Saturn (also Buick) need some of the various cars/trucks that are in production. The G6, Aura and Malibu are the same platform, and the LaCrosse will probably move to the next generation of this platform too.
Looking back in time, what GM could have done as the 1950's were coming to an end, was to make Chevrolet the small car division. Pontiac could have been a midsize car. This would have left Oldsmobile to be the low priced full size car that the Impala was in the sixties. Then Buick would have been a mid-priced full size, with Cadillac the top of the line (as it was). At the beginning of the sixties the future was not that clear, except that small cars were clearly a thing of the future. I think all of the dealers wanted a small car too, so GM would have needed to merge dealerships together or make all of them multi-line dealers.
What GM did in the sixties probably was the easy way out. The competition (Ford and Chrysler) did the same thing.
The People Have Spoken
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
well, at least about 100,000 of them have spoken, anyway.
We’ve received word — and it’s not quite public knowledge yet — that General Motors did very well in the soon-to-be-announced Edmunds.com Consumers Most Wanted Awards.
GM cars and trucks took first place in 13 out of 32 vehicle categories. Among others, vehicles that won their segments include the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra, GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook, Saturn Aura, Chevrolet Cobalt, and the Cadillac Escalade, CTS and STS.
People are obviously using web sites like Edmunds.com more and more in the vehicle shopping process there are lots of places to kick virtual tires online. And from the results of this voting, I deduce that more of these people are considering GM. I’m told we swept these awards in a broad range of categories, from full-size trucks to small cars — no other manufacturer can stake that claim.
These honors are important to us at GM. Just as when the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the Year back in January, we get a reminder that we’re on the right path. I’m not saying that winning awards makes these or any other vehicles great but I am saying that winning the awards is a whole lot better than not winning them. It provides us a sense that our progress is duly noted by those who monitor such things.
It also provides us a measure of gratification and, in all candor, vindication, to have our cars and trucks recognized this way because we’ve put a tremendous amount of effort into developing them with the firm target of being the best.
And these particular awards are special because they are selected by you — the car- and truck-buying public.
The real test, of course, is success in the marketplace, and we’re making strides. Retail sales are up year-over-year, and our newest launch products — like the GMC Acadia —are selling briskly.
So to those who are considering our cars and trucks, I thank you, and to those who aren’t, I encourage you to give them a look and a test-drive. Tens of thousands of Edmunds voters can’t be wrong.
Posted by Lutz on May 3, 2007 10:39 AM
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2007/05/the_people_have_1.html
What this means to you: Edmunds.com has a lot of clout with GM, which should mean Edmunds.com's finacial security is secure since GM, is the biggest advertiser on edmunds.com
As Kirstie, said she hasn't got that beach house yet so it can't be rigged.
-Rocky
> Kirstie, said she hasn't got that beach house
Are there beaches around St. Louis besides St. Charles beach where the Fifth Street area and original capital of Missouri are located for Kirstie's beachhouse? What's the story on the beachhouse.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Loren
(rigging the ballot box) because GM took 13 top spots followed by many 2nd place finishes in Consumer Most Wanted and way ahead of their beloved imports. I guess if the data doesn't match what Consumer Reports says it has to be rigged. The funny thing is many of these folks are the ones that point the finger at me as being the conspiracy theory member of edmunds.com
-Rocky
In a way I agree with you. However with GM, having a large number of brands I think each customer like a little uniqueness between the individual brands. I however will not dispute your position. I guess they could keep the best engines and add superchargers, turbo chargers, etc, to keep em' unique enough, eh ?
-Rocky
I suppose the production is too limited to have two engine choices. Just a wild idea which came to mind, and probably one which is not bad performance (overall) as a sports car. And gas is now $3.50, as I predicted, in California.
Loren
My favorite C4 Corvette was the 1994 ZR-1 in Admiral Blue. It's just beautiful. I often wonder when GM, is going to get away from all these V8's and bring out more V6's. I think GM, should buy a Acura 3.2 V6 and reverse engineer it and make it better. I know the one in my TL, was silky smooth. Throw on some cylinder de activation and nearly 40 mpg is a realistic figure. I think I said this awhile back that my TL in 6th gear could on a flat road which it mostly is in this part of the country would pull 36 mpg. With the wind against my back it could eek out 37 mpg.
I like you Loren, am going to be very concerned about gas mileage if prices keep rising. The Impala, does a damn fine job. I'm not sure what the new 08' CTS with the new version of 3.6 "High Feature" V6 with Direct Fuel Injection will get as I'm sure it will push the 30 mpg envelope.
I will also be very interested to see what others call "my pet" the Acura TL, in Model Year 2009' will get for fuel economy especially with SH-AWD. If it out power's the competition like the CTS and 335i and still maintains that "Acura Value" equation then it could sell very well. I think GM, is making a critical mistake by not offering a manual transmission in the AWD version of the CTS, something I might of chosen over a CTS-V because it would be a four-season automobile which could out weigh my hunger for power. It's a real dissapointment for me. The BMW 335xi AWD has a manual transmission option I believe on the AWD. I know Audi, sure does. I assume Acura, will also offer this combination as well.
Time will tell what I finally end up with..........
-Rocky
P.S. $3.50 for gas ????....OUCH !!!
do you believe me now?
Something like that may work better today, but that formula wouldn't have made it back in the 60's. GM was actually very savvy back in the 60's, building just the right products for just the right markets. It got out of hand in the 70's, though. Olds and Buick never should have put their name on any derivative of the Monza. And Pontiac went too far out of its reach with the Grand Ville. But then, at the same time, the market helped sort things out. The Grand Ville never was very popular, and neither were the Monza-based Starfire and Skyhawk.
Back in the 60's though, if you tried making all the small cars Chevies, midsizers Pontiacs, et al, then you would've had people screaming out for larger, more luxurious Chevies, like the Impala and Caprice, as well as cheaper big Buicks, like the LeSabre or smaller Buicks and Oldsmobiles, like the Cutlass and Special/Skylark, etc.
To a degree, Chrysler tried that formula in the 60's, and failed pretty miserably. I'm sure that if GM had tried pushing smaller Chevies and not offering a true "standard" sized car, they would've met the same fate as the shrunken '62 standard-sized Dodges and Plymouths. And Ford would have walked all over them.
Chances are, if GM tried a formula like that, it would have been very short-lived. They would have started up-sizing their Chevies and Pontiacs, adding smaller cars to the Buick and Olds lineups, building cheaper big Buicks and more expensive big Oldsmobiles, in very short order, as the market dictated.
Basically, timing is everything, and GM timed it perfectly in the 60's.
That's strange. I just did the same thing for the 2008 model with the same options and it shows an MSRP of $30,610 with a TMV (what others are paying) of $29,564.
Not bad pricing for this car, and quite a bit lower than the $34,000 that's 2x the $17,000 number from earleir in the discussion.
Check this out mate, The Monaro is coming.
http://www1.autotrader.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/E0986C40ABDB6D14CA2571AE0- - 00F79BC
Scroll down this link page for a look at what it may look like.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/category/holden-ve-commodore/
The Edmunds test of an SS Commodore.
You may be thinking of Consumers Digest, which accepts ads and is often accused of selling awards. Sort of like some of the car mags anoint car of the year awards to their big advertisers.
I love it. In another discussion they're saying the 3800 downshifts too easily on hills. Of course definitions of "hills" varies around the country because of the differences in terrain.
In reality I'd rather have a car stay locked in TCC lockup until last minute. But I can always tap the brake pedal to release the TCC and increase the engine rpms about 1000 under typical hill-climbing load. That's what you needed to know to do to let the motor pick up speed and power. The other is leave it in 3 if you're not planning really fast highway speeds. Depends on the terrain how I'd do it.
That's a good tip that I didn't know. But something seemingly overlooked in most reviews is that most of these electronically-controlled transmissions are "adaptive" or "learning" transmissions. The way the driver operates the vehicle is monitored over time, and the transmission responds based on the historical data obtained.
For example- we have a Terraza (knock of the booing, it's just for an example, and the wife would like a Lambda to replace it sometime in the future anyway). My wife is the usual driver. She drives with a heavier foot, faster acceleration / more frequent braking, higher speeds etc. I tend to be extremely conservative, with very light accerlation / braking, anticipate traffic speed changes to avoid changing my own, etc. Pretty much the opposite of her (and gain 2 to 3 mpg on an average tank as a consequence, but that's an aside). What I've found is that when I first get in the Terraza after she's been operating it for a week or more is that the transmission downshifts at the first hint of increased throttle, and holds gears much longer before upshifting, allowing the engine to wind up more. During the summer when the kids are home and she doesn't need it I use it for work, I sometimes take the van as my daily driver (better mileage than the Av). After a week or so of my being the only driver, I find that the transmission doesn't downshift as easily- it takes "putting your foot into it", nor does it wait as long to upshift from lower gears. It is adapting to our different driving styles.
I guess the problem is that during "test" drives, the transmissions don't have time to "learn" the driving style of the reviewer in question. So unless whoever drove the vehicle previously drives in a similar manner, it's likely that the transmission "feel" will be "off" to the reviewer in question. If each reviewer spent more than a single full tank of gas worth of time with the vehicle, they might find a more favorable impression of the transmission shift charateristics.
You may be thinking of Consumers Digest, which accepts ads and is often accused of selling awards. Sort of like some of the car mags anoint car of the year awards to their big advertisers.
Thanks for the clarification. You're absolutely correct. I haven't had much to do with CD, but despite not being accused of selling any of their loyalty, still dislike CU/CR. :P