By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.