Production might begin in October, but I would imagine the inventory wouldn't be sufficiently built up until January. Chevy dealers I've seen have some Camrys and Accords on the used-car lot already. GM had better hope the new Malibu really is that good, othwerwise people might buy the comparison cars instead.
Don't forget, CAFE measures on actual vehicles sold. So, if they sell mostly V6 highlanders thats what is weighted for CAFE. BTW, I hear that 80% of the Tundras being sold are with the 5.7, while Toyota was planning on 45-50%. THAT will have a major effect on their CAFE ratings, esp. if they sell any where near the 200K they want.
I will have to admit that the 2007 SRX interior is much better than I originally thought. Almost anything would have been an improvment over the CTS's style interior though.
Yes we did discuss this. I have to say that so far I find it as roomy as the old Seville. I think it really is a bit smaller (not as wide), but I find that I am sitting up straighter, and the rear seat passengers can sit up straighter too (not the third seat though), so it is a very comfortable car/suv/whatever... I like the six speed automatic.
The thing about GM and many others lately is that while the thing CAN hold a large item, the opening in the rear is all rounded and funky. Take the Fit. Huge cargo area for its size. Miserable opening size that makes fitting an item the size OF that cargo area impossible.
GM is no better, nor is Ford. The designers need to get back to basics and design truck or station-wagon like square openings.
"I guess that lambdas will be fine for those folks that are "afraid" to be seen driving a minivan. "
Its not GM's fault that minivans have a stigma attached. They merely tried to give people a more stylish way to haul lots of people and cargo The Lambdas have 119 cu ft of cargo room with both rows folded down. I dont know how that compares to a minivan but its got to be close. It's far closer than the Highlander or Pilot are.
Most of these vehicles do have more than enough hp to get from a to b, but my point is the GM SUVS have more hp than the their competitors, weigh more and yet get qual mileage. I think the Odyssey gets better mileage than any comparable minivan or crossover because of VCM, but that's not available in all models.
Was curios, as I am old enough to recall the days of 8-6-4. In reality, if driven without an egg under foot, what will be the gas mileage on a DoD engine? Loren
PBS's Motorweek had two different drivers run 300Cs through the same route. The driver who took it easy (and maxxed the DoD use) got about 24 MPG, while the driver who used the hemi's power got about 17 MPG.
OK, I will let ya make up every story as you please. I see now that facts are not important, and awards for cars, like the Aura being North American Car of the Year, are meaningless. See, it works both ways.
And yes, I know the Aura engine line. I was talking about the Impala SS. Loren
Its not GM's fault that minivans have a stigma attached.
One could argue that it is partially their fault. They and Ford and Dodge have had no trouble over last decade+ in running pickup commercials on how macho they are by showing them at construction sites and with guys that look like laborers.
In same time frame, notice that guys who work in offices and live in suburban houses started driving pickups. Then, high school guys wanted pickups. Somehow it was/is cool to drive pickups even though one is not in construction or similar type business as an occupation. GM, Ford and Dodge did some pretty good marketing on this to convince people that it was cool or "in" to drive a pickup. And, they were smart because these are high margin with typical options.
Back in days when pony cars and sports cars were the "in" thing, you could not get a guy to drive, much less buy a pickup. You only drove a pickup if your job "really" required its functionality.
I know some guys that work in offices and neighbors that drive pickup trucks to work and don't appear to have a "functional" need for these. GM could have made the minivan, if they had an Ody top rated type, a very desirable thing to drive if they so chose through marketing.
If GM had a class leading minivan, don't think they would be getting out of that business. They are getting out of it because they never were able to lead that class. Read a recent CR review of the Chevy minivan. Hard to find much good that was said about it.
Getting an award is not a bad thing. However, in the big picture of things, how many people will rush out to the nearest dealer to look at a car because it won some award? At one time Motor Trend's car of the year was awarded on the basis of being the best car (in their opinion) in production. As the number of cars increased, MT stopped doing a full comparision, and now only consider all new cars. Not quite the same thing.
The point I am getting at is this: an award can be advertised and may result in some sales. Not getting an award, but having a production vehicle that people actually want, will not hurt sales.
Wonder if it is worth the effort for DoD compared to having a tall gear, or other methods of reducing gas consumption. If it takes a lighter foot, as not to dig into all cylinders running, you could as well take it a bit easier on your regular V8 or larger 6 to increase gas mileage. From what Cadillac and Corvette owners say, with a light foot, you can really up your mileage with the modern day V8. Of course the mileage champ is the 6 sp. on the floor, with Corvettes going over 28 MPG with 350HP and 400 HP engines, but how many cars, other than the Vette, will come with sticks.
I guess, if a driver baby's the car, the DoD would do its thing. But why buy a performance engine, and drive slow? People do it though. I jump off the line quickly, passing all those V8 cars on the highway, only to have them eventually pass me as I hold off going pass the limits of getting a ticket. They could as well have gotten a 4 banger. When the DoD are proven reliable, after years of service, and they get significantly more power than a V6 getting the same gas mileage, they may be worth considering. I say maybe, as there are so many variables to getting gas mileage as billed, and reward for performance since the V6 is now closing in on HP, and torque. The 3.6 V6 seems to have both. And the V8 seems to do pretty good in the way of gas mileage, as is, in the GM top line cars. Perhaps to make the government fuel numbers, it is very well worth it! Loren
Motor Trend, I do believe had Citation and Vega, as Car of the Year! Should have stopped there
In its day, the style was pretty cool for the Vega. Guess that is where the goodness ended. Would be interesting to see all those car perfected, the Vega, Fiero, and Corvairs. Never owned a rear or mid-engined car. Would be kinda cool to see those two back on the lots. Always seemed like the first couple of years killed the car, which eventually became a more livable car to deal with in the final year or two. Oh well.
What ever happened to the Solstice Coupe? Seems like the release of this model is in reverse, as in convertible first. Guess they wanted to dethrone the Miata and go for that drop down top image first. Seems like there would be interest in a hardtop coupe. These are often for the young, young at heart and second or third car owners anyway. Who needs another row of seating on a sports car? Loren
I think that a smaller engine will give better overall fuel economy than the bigger engine with DoD. I have found that my old Seville would get about 29 MPG if I cruised at 70 MPH (about 2000 RPMs for the 4.6 V8. My new SRX will cruise 70 MPH at about 1800 RPMs with the six speed automatic. The V6 in the SRX only comes with the 5 speed automatic and a higher performance axle ratio, so at 70 it will run at nearly 2500 RPMs.
I would have liked the Dodge Magnum wagon, except that the V6 seemed a bit too small to have good performance, while the hemi seemed too big for good fuel economy. Probably, the Magnum hemi would do better than my SRX, but I do have AWD and a more useable cargo space I think.
I think DoD is a good idea with a V12, which could run as an inline six for better fuel economy when the power is not needed. DoD can provide power when needed, and fair fuel economy otherwise.
The Vega had a problem with the engine. Combining aluminum and cast iron did not work. The Corvair was done in by Nader. The Fiero was put into production as a flashy looking econo car, and GM management was told that it wasn't a sports car. People buying it found out that while it looked like a sports car, it really was a flashy looking econo car, without a decent suspension.
The Solstice was supposed to be a roadster, so I think a coupe is questionable. A good RWD coupe like the old GTO, but perhaps with a smaller standard engine makes a lot more sense.
One could argue that it is partially their fault. They and Ford and Dodge have had no trouble over last decade+ in running pickup commercials on how macho they are by showing them at construction sites and with guys that look like laborers.
In same time frame, notice that guys who work in offices and live in suburban houses started driving pickups. Then, high school guys wanted pickups. Somehow it was/is cool to drive pickups even though one is not in construction or similar type business as an occupation. GM, Ford and Dodge did some pretty good marketing on this to convince people that it was cool or "in" to drive a pickup. And, they were smart because these are high margin with typical options.
Please reread your comments. Gm advertised work trucks in a work truck environment with work truck drivers. Somehow GM was able to convince the other people watching that they should take off their nice office clothes and put on dirty, sweaty clothes and buy a work truck.
What really happened is that the government brought in CAFE rules that did not allow the public to buy the larger cars they wanted. The OEM's had to stop building large RWD cars and built smaller FWD cars that many did not really want. they started buying "Work/offroad" vehicles that were available and met their needs/wants. The OEM's then made them prettier and nicer and the public bought more of them.
Motor Trend, I do believe had Citation and Vega, as Car of the Year! Should have stopped there
And they were great cars for their time. MT's award was/is also for major changes in the car world and both were huge changes from what was out there. Vega was a great looking car with a new fangled aluminum engine that got great gas mileage. MT did not do a long term test on it to decide on whether it should get car of the year.
citation was also a huge game changer. It could even take a 4x8 sheet in the hatchback. Had a few problems but I loved mine as a 2nd vehicle to my new vette at the time.
you commentary is getting more confusing as time goes on. I never said awards dont count for anything, I said that you keep talking about ONE comparison over and over and over again. I stated that the Accord hasn't beat the Camry SE or Aura XR in ANY tests that I have seen. IN fact it hasnt even been compared to those cars. C&D has indeed said the four cylinder accord is better than the four cylinder camry, Altima and Aura XE. No one else has done a similar test and thus we dont know if other publications agree that the Accord is the benchmark. We do know the Camry SE beat the Accord EX here at Edmunds.
why were you bringing up DOD in the middle of a discussion about the Aura?
Somehow GM was able to convince the other people watching that they should take off their nice office clothes and put on dirty, sweaty clothes and buy a work truck.
"Nice"? In last 15 years, so-called nice office clothes went from shirt/tie to office-casual to jeans. Probably makes sense if office workers are more comfortable and thus more effective. Who wears a tie of own volition. At beginning of work day, when clothes are clean, perhaps a laborer/trades guy driving his pickup looks no different than an office worker in his pickup.
So, credit should be given to GM (and Ford/Dodge) in advertising/marketing high margin/profit pickups that make them desirable to office workers that want a macho/in image while driving.
Recall when original small Blazers and Jimmys came out that GM was smart in advertising them on tv with young women driving them. There was a perception, and maybe stigma, that suvs were only for men. GM had a big part in changing that perception. Lots of commercials on this in early years and GM was "telling" women that it was smart and OK for them to drive small suvs.
Will be interesting to see upcoming GM tv commercials for Acadia and Enclave to see how they are pitched.
Have you seen the show car Solstice Coupe ? Shake the bugs out of the current one, and go for the hardtop for say $20K. As long as it is not like the Crossfire's confined feel and lack of rear vision areas, it should fly. And it would be safe. They seem to have left out the roll bar on the drop top. That drop top is not all that easy to use, from what I hear. And the trunk space goes way down. They need to work on that some more. Once in the car, I noticed the arm rest was not extended back far enough to be useful and the angle was backwards. Lower the window sills a bit would help. Nice looks, pretty good handling and the dollar value, if had in lower $20's is fair. Most of those I have run across on lots are overpriced. The car, overall has some potential. Loren
I guess, if a driver baby's the car, the DoD would do its thing. But why buy a performance engine, and drive slow?
Well, I suppose we could ask the same thing about buying a pickup, in the sense that how often is the bed full of cargo? Usually, there is none, yet it's there when you WANT it. I find it a game to try and get the MPG meter to show the best I can get it, yet when some little twit in a rice rocket tries to challenge me, I still have the nuts to hold them off (usually).
...has given minivans a bad rep. I remember seeing a show starring Sinbad where his wife was considering trading their car for a minivan. In a dream sequence Sinbad sees himself behind the wheel of a minvan dressed like Pee Wee Herman, wearing thick glasses with heavy black frames held together in the center with white tape, and talking in an exaggerated Jerry Lewis voice.
And women in ads were now free to smoke. You've come a long way baby! I guess people would still walk a mile for a Camel, or any other cigarette, just to get another hit -- if they can walk that far. Guess doing what they tell people to do in ads, is not always the best for the client.
Is that Dodge Nitro really all that tough? Funny ad where the car is jump started. The truck robot ads in the ring, are plain stupid and annoying.
Since this is a board for predictions and speculations, track records of previous predictions do matter. BTW, 63vette, you have quite a good track record on making predictions . . . not surprising because you have a good knowledge base of the auto industry.
Chrysler's 3.5 V6 has not impressed me. While it is rated at 250 hp, the 225 hp LaCrosse with a 4 speed auto had better performance. I could have bought the SRX with the 3.6 V6 too, but I think the V8, with the six speed automatic, may do as well as the V6 if not pushed too hard.
Test drove the Charger. Overall not bad. Yea, I agree, with the 3.5 it is no rocket ship. Steering wasn't bad, but a little on the light side. Cars interior looked a bit on the cheap side. I would rate it average to above average as sedan go. LaCrosse, IMHO, is a good looking car, but alas due to base drive train, interior, and softness of ride, it never took off for sales. I am approaching mid-fifty years of age, and I never hear of anyone my age, or older talking about getting a Buick. Let's put aside the merits of a soft and comfortable ride for a moment, and think of the era which we went through for cars which seemed most desirable in our youth. The trend became smaller, lighter, sleeker, latest engine and suspensions, new looks to interiors, quicker handling and better cornering, as well as reputations for reliability, and/or gas mileage. At least here on the Left Coast, I do believe the Buick just got lost along the road of change. LaCrosse has a sporty edition, but it is the third level up. The other two sort of cancel out any hope for the car, I do believe.
There may be a smaller market for old softy, but is it still worth pursing for sales? I see plenty of people, older than I, buying cars like the Prius for gas mileage, the CTS for looks and driving pleasure, and so many other cars not in the older fashion class of cars. Buick should be but one level under Cadillac and thus as modern as can be, and with a stylish interior and a powerful - smooth engine, IMHO. One giant problem though is the same as the mini-van has, the stigma attached to the product. In this case, it is one of driving an old man or women's car. Another problem is instant massive depreciation, be it real or an imagined occurrence due to Buicks recent past. A New Buick needs a radical change. The Enclave (weird name), is a good looking vehicle. The Lucy is pretty good, in some ways. LaCrosse shaky start and not so great of press, or real sales has left it sort of damaged goods, IMHO. Make over the styling, and make the top line the only model, less a few items, here and there to lower the price, and make it the New LaCrosse. or call it a Special, or whatever. :shades: Loren
I must honestly say that I really was impressed by the cobalt. My friend has a black SS, whilst my other friend has a Civic Si coupe, and I honestly liked the cobalt more...
That said, most of my friends and I rated them pretty evenly. They were both super fast and handled beautifully. I actually preferred the cobalts' interior.
Does that give you a clue as to why someone would like it?
It IS something else. The Camry competes with Chevy models such as the Malibu and Impala. Buicks should be premium cars; thus as m1 states, the LaCrosse shouldn't be offered in the base CX form.
It really gets back to the issue of GM having too many brands considering its reduced market share. Eight brands are too many. Most automakers make do with two or three (like Toyota-Lexus-Scion or Honda-Acura).
I haven't driven a Mopar 3.5 with the newer 5-speed automatic, but have driven a couple with the older 4-speed automatic. I drove a 2002 Intrepid R/T and a 2005 Magnum SXT (I think that was its trim level). Now I dunno how the 5-speed unit is, but the older 4-speed, which dates back to the troublesome "Ultradrive" from the Dynasty and such, was designed to "dump" a lot of that horsepower along the way, to basically protect itself from shredding. So on paper, some of these engines might look powerful, like the 200 hp 2.7 (190 hp in the LH cars, as it was re-cammed to give it better torque, which hurt peak hp) or the 250 hp 3.5, just don't put out the performance that their hp numbers might suggest.
In contrast, GM's 4-speed automatic is actually a pretty good unit these days. Just in need of an extra gear or two to "keep up with the Joneses", I guess.
Let's me know you and your friends like'em. Not much more info. You like the interior better on the Cobalt more - interesting. Anyone in your circle of friends have a super charged Civic Si to compare to the Cobalt? Off the line, the torque of the Cobalt is going to give it an edge. Once under way, Si has good HP without being blowen. I assume you like the looks of the Cobalt.
Both already have more than enough power for the zero to a speeding ticket. And I suppose both could be fun. If I am thinking SS or sports car, it is gonna be a RWD car though. But it is all fun. The downside to the fun will come trade-in time on that CobaltSS. For handling, try out someone's Celica some time, if want some great handling FWD car. The great hope there is that it returns as a RWD car some day.
The Toyota Celica is something you and I can agree on; That was an amazing car... The TC was definitely not a worthy replacement, though it did do the job for the scion brand.
Now, to get back to our petty argument ( ), what I am saying is that people in the TARGET AGE BRACKET for 4 cylinder sport coupes (i.e. College students A.K.A. Myself and my Friends A.K.A. The people I referred to in my last point A.K.A. the argument that makes my statement valid) thought that both were comparable. We all agreed that both showed decent performance, both had excellent interior quality (the cobalt was a 2006 I believe, after GM got through all of the quality bugs), and both had great exterior styling. Now, take the last generation civic vs. the Cavalier, and you have a solid winner with the civic. I did like the Z24, but image wise the civic fared much better (especially after the refresh in 2003(Year?)).
I'm interested to see what the redesign of the cobalt be in the next 2 years or so. I think that if Chevy steps up their game like they did from the cavalier to the 1st gen cobalt, then GM will have no problem maintaining or increasing the already strong cobalt sales.
One final comment: The styling of the Cobalt sedan sucks, I will give you that. I'm not sure why, but the rear of the vehicle just creams 2nd Gen Neon. The civic sedan is styled like a sport coupe, so I must agree that civic clearly takes the cake there .
What do you guys think? It's pretty much what we have already, but there are some good design cues and the engine outputs and prices(yikes!) are a new perspective...
They apparently changed the gearing and such inside the engine and remapped the computers with the goal of providing as much torque as possible.
So while the 3.6 in the LaCrosse isn't much more powerful that the 3800 in terms of HP, it without a doubt is 30-40% faster off the line and in any maneuver you chose to try short of a 0-60 launch.(better there, too).
I like to think of it as GM's smallest V8. My main gripe though is that they don't do this to the CTS. Honestly, the LaCrosse CXS drives better than the CTS 3.6. Only the option of a manual transmission saves the CTS in my book.
Ie - this worship of ever-increasing HP numbers just results in a generation of peaky and laggy engines due to mile high gearing and high horsepower numbers as opposed to decent torque. It's kind of like the CPU wars of a decade ago. Had to be faster... Had to have a bigger number...
Thankfully that went away.(it's not how many cores you have/all about the cache) One can only hope that GM sees the light on this one and offers us the option of the 3.6 in the CTS with the LaCrosse's setup.
Now, if it's all computers, then we need a dual-mode button or something on the CTS - 1 for sport, one for torque.
Q: Is anyone here more knownledgeable and would know if this is all software and could be fixed in a CTS with a new chip?
EDIT: Better yet would be to offer the LaCrosse with an optional manual transmission. I'd buy one instead of a CTS in a second. Charge me $1000 more - I wouldn't care.
Now that I have a six speed automatic I can say that I think the transmission is better. My 4 speed in the Seville on a steep grade would usually stay in 4th (overdrive) and use the torque converter to get approximately the same gearing as 3rd would provide. I usually shifted in 3rd. By the time the six speed gets to 4th or higher, I am not real sure what gear it's in. On down hill grades, the transmission is smart enough to down shift to 5th to prevent the SRX from speeding up too much. When I shift into manual mode, it usually drops into 4th.
I think the six speed transmission is a whole lot more transmission than GM's 4 speed units.
I think that the 2008 CTS's 3.6 will have different tuning for the base engine. Probably similar to the Aura's setup.
One other difference in the LaCrosse vs the CTS is gearing. The LaCrosse, with a 4 speed automatic with a 0.7 overdrive, has a 3.70:1 axle ratio, while the CTS has a 3.42:1 axle ratio. The low gears are nearly the same overall, with the CTS somewhat lower. Once you get into the passing gears (2nd on the LaCrosse, 3rd on the CTS) the LaCrosse has an advantage.
Comments
We get around 18 average on our SRX.
I already told you it is that good. :P Don't you believe me?? Have I ever lead you wrong???
If the Malibu is everything Chevy thinks it is this is a great move. If not, well, it's been nice knowing you....
GM is no better, nor is Ford. The designers need to get back to basics and design truck or station-wagon like square openings.
Its not GM's fault that minivans have a stigma attached. They merely tried to give people a more stylish way to haul lots of people and cargo The Lambdas have 119 cu ft of cargo room with both rows folded down. I dont know how that compares to a minivan but its got to be close. It's far closer than the Highlander or Pilot are.
Most of these vehicles do have more than enough hp to get from a to b, but my point is the GM SUVS have more hp than the their competitors, weigh more and yet get qual mileage. I think the Odyssey gets better mileage than any comparable minivan or crossover because of VCM, but that's not available in all models.
In reality, if driven without an egg under foot, what will be the gas mileage on a DoD engine?
Loren
And yes, I know the Aura engine line. I was talking about the Impala SS.
Loren
One could argue that it is partially their fault. They and Ford and Dodge have had no trouble over last decade+ in running pickup commercials on how macho they are by showing them at construction sites and with guys that look like laborers.
In same time frame, notice that guys who work in offices and live in suburban houses started driving pickups. Then, high school guys wanted pickups. Somehow it was/is cool to drive pickups even though one is not in construction or similar type business as an occupation. GM, Ford and Dodge did some pretty good marketing on this to convince people that it was cool or "in" to drive a pickup. And, they were smart because these are high margin with typical options.
Back in days when pony cars and sports cars were the "in" thing, you could not get a guy to drive, much less buy a pickup. You only drove a pickup if your job "really" required its functionality.
I know some guys that work in offices and neighbors that drive pickup trucks to work and don't appear to have a "functional" need for these. GM could have made the minivan, if they had an Ody top rated type, a very desirable thing to drive if they so chose through marketing.
If GM had a class leading minivan, don't think they would be getting out of that business. They are getting out of it because they never were able to lead that class. Read a recent CR review of the Chevy minivan. Hard to find much good that was said about it.
The point I am getting at is this: an award can be advertised and may result in some sales. Not getting an award, but having a production vehicle that people actually want, will not hurt sales.
I guess, if a driver baby's the car, the DoD would do its thing. But why buy a performance engine, and drive slow? People do it though. I jump off the line quickly, passing all those V8 cars on the highway, only to have them eventually pass me as I hold off going pass the limits of getting a ticket. They could as well have gotten a 4 banger. When the DoD are proven reliable, after years of service, and they get significantly more power than a V6 getting the same gas mileage, they may be worth considering. I say maybe, as there are so many variables to getting gas mileage as billed, and reward for performance since the V6 is now closing in on HP, and torque. The 3.6 V6 seems to have both. And the V8 seems to do pretty good in the way of gas mileage, as is, in the GM top line cars. Perhaps to make the government fuel numbers, it is very well worth it!
Loren
In its day, the style was pretty cool for the Vega. Guess that is where the goodness ended. Would be interesting to see all those car perfected, the Vega, Fiero, and Corvairs. Never owned a rear or mid-engined car. Would be kinda cool to see those two back on the lots. Always seemed like the first couple of years killed the car, which eventually became a more livable car to deal with in the final year or two. Oh well.
What ever happened to the Solstice Coupe? Seems like the release of this model is in reverse, as in convertible first. Guess they wanted to dethrone the Miata and go for that drop down top image first. Seems like there would be interest in a hardtop coupe. These are often for the young, young at heart and second or third car owners anyway. Who needs another row of seating on a sports car?
Loren
I would have liked the Dodge Magnum wagon, except that the V6 seemed a bit too small to have good performance, while the hemi seemed too big for good fuel economy. Probably, the Magnum hemi would do better than my SRX, but I do have AWD and a more useable cargo space I think.
I think DoD is a good idea with a V12, which could run as an inline six for better fuel economy when the power is not needed. DoD can provide power when needed, and fair fuel economy otherwise.
The Solstice was supposed to be a roadster, so I think a coupe is questionable. A good RWD coupe like the old GTO, but perhaps with a smaller standard engine makes a lot more sense.
In same time frame, notice that guys who work in offices and live in suburban houses started driving pickups. Then, high school guys wanted pickups. Somehow it was/is cool to drive pickups even though one is not in construction or similar type business as an occupation. GM, Ford and Dodge did some pretty good marketing on this to convince people that it was cool or "in" to drive a pickup. And, they were smart because these are high margin with typical options.
Please reread your comments. Gm advertised work trucks in a work truck environment with work truck drivers. Somehow GM was able to convince the other people watching that they should take off their nice office clothes and put on dirty, sweaty clothes and buy a work truck.
What really happened is that the government brought in CAFE rules that did not allow the public to buy the larger cars they wanted. The OEM's had to stop building large RWD cars and built smaller FWD cars that many did not really want. they started buying "Work/offroad" vehicles that were available and met their needs/wants. The OEM's then made them prettier and nicer and the public bought more of them.
And they were great cars for their time. MT's award was/is also for major changes in the car world and both were huge changes from what was out there. Vega was a great looking car with a new fangled aluminum engine that got great gas mileage. MT did not do a long term test on it to decide on whether it should get car of the year.
citation was also a huge game changer. It could even take a 4x8 sheet in the hatchback. Had a few problems but I loved mine as a 2nd vehicle to my new vette at the time.
No I would not do that.
It is a wonderful car.
OEM'sdomestics had to stop building large RWD cars and built smaller FWD cars that many did not really want.So did the Titanic. :sick:
why were you bringing up DOD in the middle of a discussion about the Aura?
"Nice"? In last 15 years, so-called nice office clothes went from shirt/tie to office-casual to jeans. Probably makes sense if office workers are more comfortable and thus more effective. Who wears a tie of own volition. At beginning of work day, when clothes are clean, perhaps a laborer/trades guy driving his pickup looks no different than an office worker in his pickup.
So, credit should be given to GM (and Ford/Dodge) in advertising/marketing high margin/profit pickups that make them desirable to office workers that want a macho/in image while driving.
Recall when original small Blazers and Jimmys came out that GM was smart in advertising them on tv with young women driving them. There was a perception, and maybe stigma, that suvs were only for men. GM had a big part in changing that perception. Lots of commercials on this in early years and GM was "telling" women that it was smart and OK for them to drive small suvs.
Will be interesting to see upcoming GM tv commercials for Acadia and Enclave to see how they are pitched.
Loren
Well, I suppose we could ask the same thing about buying a pickup, in the sense that how often is the bed full of cargo? Usually, there is none, yet it's there when you WANT it.
I find it a game to try and get the MPG meter to show the best I can get it, yet when some little twit in a rice rocket tries to challenge me, I still have the nuts to hold them off (usually).
Is that Dodge Nitro really all that tough?
Loren
Oh, so it's your fault. :P
There may be a smaller market for old softy, but is it still worth pursing for sales? I see plenty of people, older than I, buying cars like the Prius for gas mileage, the CTS for looks and driving pleasure, and so many other cars not in the older fashion class of cars. Buick should be but one level under Cadillac and thus as modern as can be, and with a stylish interior and a powerful - smooth engine, IMHO. One giant problem though is the same as the mini-van has, the stigma attached to the product. In this case, it is one of driving an old man or women's car. Another problem is instant massive depreciation, be it real or an imagined occurrence due to Buicks recent past. A New Buick needs a radical change. The Enclave (weird name), is a good looking vehicle. The Lucy is pretty good, in some ways. LaCrosse shaky start and not so great of press, or real sales has left it sort of damaged goods, IMHO. Make over the styling, and make the top line the only model, less a few items, here and there to lower the price, and make it the New LaCrosse. or call it a Special, or whatever. :shades:
Loren
240 hp
Softness of ride.--No softer than a Camry and they do not seem to have a problem selling them. Must be something else.
That said, most of my friends and I rated them pretty evenly. They were both super fast and handled beautifully. I actually preferred the cobalts' interior.
Does that give you a clue as to why someone would like it?
It really gets back to the issue of GM having too many brands considering its reduced market share. Eight brands are too many. Most automakers make do with two or three (like Toyota-Lexus-Scion or Honda-Acura).
In contrast, GM's 4-speed automatic is actually a pretty good unit these days. Just in need of an extra gear or two to "keep up with the Joneses", I guess.
Both already have more than enough power for the zero to a speeding ticket. And I suppose both could be fun. If I am thinking SS or sports car, it is gonna be a RWD car though.
But it is all fun. The downside to the fun will come trade-in time on that CobaltSS. For handling, try out someone's Celica some time, if want some great handling FWD car. The great hope there is that it returns as a RWD car some day.
Loren
Now, to get back to our petty argument (
I'm interested to see what the redesign of the cobalt be in the next 2 years or so. I think that if Chevy steps up their game like they did from the cavalier to the 1st gen cobalt, then GM will have no problem maintaining or increasing the already strong cobalt sales.
One final comment: The styling of the Cobalt sedan sucks, I will give you that. I'm not sure why, but the rear of the vehicle just creams 2nd Gen Neon. The civic sedan is styled like a sport coupe, so I must agree that civic clearly takes the cake there
-J
Saturn RIA
What do you guys think?
It's pretty much what we have already, but there are some good design cues and the engine outputs and prices(yikes!) are a new perspective...
ps--I'm interested in opinions of the switch.
So while the 3.6 in the LaCrosse isn't much more powerful that the 3800 in terms of HP, it without a doubt is 30-40% faster off the line and in any maneuver you chose to try short of a 0-60 launch.(better there, too).
I like to think of it as GM's smallest V8. My main gripe though is that they don't do this to the CTS. Honestly, the LaCrosse CXS drives better than the CTS 3.6. Only the option of a manual transmission saves the CTS in my book.
Ie - this worship of ever-increasing HP numbers just results in a generation of peaky and laggy engines due to mile high gearing and high horsepower numbers as opposed to decent torque. It's kind of like the CPU wars of a decade ago. Had to be faster... Had to have a bigger number...
Thankfully that went away.(it's not how many cores you have/all about the cache) One can only hope that GM sees the light on this one and offers us the option of the 3.6 in the CTS with the LaCrosse's setup.
Now, if it's all computers, then we need a dual-mode button or something on the CTS - 1 for sport, one for torque.
Q: Is anyone here more knownledgeable and would know if this is all software and could be fixed in a CTS with a new chip?
EDIT:
Better yet would be to offer the LaCrosse with an optional manual transmission. I'd buy one instead of a CTS in a second. Charge me $1000 more - I wouldn't care.
I think the six speed transmission is a whole lot more transmission than GM's 4 speed units.
LaCrosse
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - - - 07_36L_LY7_LaCrosse.pdf
CTS
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/HFV6/20- - - - 07_36L_LY7_CTS.pdf
I think that the 2008 CTS's 3.6 will have different tuning for the base engine. Probably similar to the Aura's setup.
One other difference in the LaCrosse vs the CTS is gearing. The LaCrosse, with a 4 speed automatic with a 0.7 overdrive, has a 3.70:1 axle ratio, while the CTS has a 3.42:1 axle ratio. The low gears are nearly the same overall, with the CTS somewhat lower. Once you get into the passing gears (2nd on the LaCrosse, 3rd on the CTS) the LaCrosse has an advantage.