LaCrosse CXL review

[Sajeev Mehta]

Step into a base model Camry and honestly tell me that it makes you feel 'pampered' by the plastics parade on display in there.

I can't, but the Camry's starting price is about $18,000, so its expected. I slammed it for other quality problems inside, however.

But here's the thing: I expected the LaX to feel more decadent. To feel like a Buick. The interior trimmings on our old 1980 Century were far better, and I expected the LaX to be a modern day interpretation of my Century. Both are small Buicks, but one was more of a Buick than the other.

Or to put it another way: its too close to a Chevy inside for my tastes.

I don't mean to paint LAX out to be a design home-run, but just again to show it is definetly competitive within the segment.

I think it is a design home run. The car looks beautiful and rich in pictures, but some of the trimmings seem Chevrolet to the touch. Someone cut corners after the designers finished the masterpiece.

The LAX'S standard V6 with its 230lb feet of torque is MUCH more powerful than 06' Camry's inline 4 which makes a paltry 160lb feet of torque. Step up to Camry's highest output 3.3 V6 and torque is measured at 220lb ft with its peak coming at 3600 rpm vs the LAX 3.6's 225lb ft @ 2000 rpm. Can't really put a spin on raw numbers now can we?

Again the four banger Camry is a bit cheaper than the LaX. Its got torque, but the 3.8L is almost as crude and vibration prone as a modern day four-pot. Even worse, the Camry's four cylinder with vario-cams and 5-speed automatic give decent power for most people's needs.

The four banger Camry's powerband isn't as flat as a 3.8L Buick, but its not very far off. That extra gear in the tranny helps out like you would not believe.

When you pony up to the V6 Toyotas, you get a lot of peak hp. (265hp?) With the 6-speed auto, low end grunt isn't missed...by the vast majority of people. Sure it won't grunt like a 3.8L (which I praised for its torque) but the end result is that the multi-speed Toyotas will out muscle the Buick. And that ain't cool.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Sajeev Mehta

[Sajeev Mehta]

Of course, I will say that the platform isn't the worst thing since castration or Chinese water torture -- the handling of the first W-Body Impala is pretty great and the (sadly now defunct) Olds Intrigue is a winner when it comes to fit and finish and design. (Combine the Impala's handling with everything else from the Intrigue and you'd have one nice car. Just a thought.)

I thought the LaCrosse review you did, by the way, was 78 per cent fair. The LaCrosse isn't a bad car, by no means. I think it's pretty competent as a whole. But it has a lot of niggling shortcomings which warrant notice.

169928[/snapback]

Thanks. Can a get an even 80%?

Since you mentioned it, the Intrigue is my favorite W-body. It was a nice car, maybe not class leading, but it did a lot of things right. If they put the blown 3800 in it, or if it lived long enough to see these new 5.3L V8s...oh well, what's done is done.

[Regalguy01]

When you pony up to the V6 Toyotas, you get a lot of peak hp. (265hp?) With the 6-speed auto, low end grunt isn't missed...by the vast majority of people. Sure it won't grunt like a 3.8L (which I praised for its torque) but the end result is that the multi-speed Toyotas will out muscle the Buick.  And that ain't cool.

I was quoting the 06' Camry vs 06 LAX. We can wait till BUICK comes out with it's LAX super to compare against the all new 07' camry. As for that low-end grunt in the 3.8, call me biased, but it never sounds coarse/harsh to me. In my Regal, with a Series II that has roughly 91k miles on it, I still get a buttery smooth throttle note that seems warranted depending on how far down my foot is pressed.

I will conceed this though, while the tranny is UNMATCHED in its smoothness by aisian or domestic competitors, it is not in keeping with the segment by having only 4 forward gears. I do enjoy the extra gear in the wife's es330 when I am piloting it......

[Cananopie]

1. What percent of sales goes to fleet customers?  (I spotted at least 10 of them at my last trip to a Hertz counter, I rented one too, it had the nicer 3.6L V6)

Buick sure looks like its dumping cars to fleet sales.

2. Why is its interior quality (hard door panels, loose console) sub-par to a $20,000 Camry, much less an Avalon? I'm not talking about style, this is quality of interior materials.

3. Why does it still have a coarse 3.8L standard when its competition has smoother V6s for around the same price? 

4. Why does its arthritic W-body chassis feel older than its 1989 blueprint?

Driving the LaCrosse, these questions came to mind.  I had no answers for them, and the road test reflected it.

I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. Thank you.

169919[/snapback]

1. It has been known for a while that the Fleet Sales from GM and Buick have been significantly dropped and many of the sales are actually that- sales- to real customers that are people. You said you didn't know who this car would appeal to outside of rental companies, business cars, and ... bargain hunters... which you're basically admitting that the LaCrosse is a bargain for what it's being sold at- so I don't know exactly what your issue is with the vehicle if it's being sold at its appropriate price for what it is. Whether or not you "see" rental LaCrosses on the road doesn't mean that they are sold massively and mostly all across the country to Fleet sales.

The fact that Lutz said once a long long time ago (roughly around the debut of the LaCrosse) that Buick was going to be the next "American Lexus" doesn't mean anything this many years later. The only reason that quote stuck around is because this is exactly what foreign-lovers were wanting to hear... they wanted to have a quote so they could directly compare Buick to something like Lexus and say how much Buick isn't like Lexus. Which is fine by me. I don't want my Buicks to be Lexuses, I want them to be Buicks.

2. The quality of the materials inside the LaCrosse are good. At least to me. The hard-plastic discussion has been made on this forum many times over and it is hotly debated each way. I just know that after a while you can't clean the soft plastics nearly as well as the hard plastics because soft plastics start to absorb the dirt from over the years while the hard plastics stay nice. It's not like the hard plastics in the LaCrosse are uncomfortable, I've driven in one many times and have been very comfortable inside of it. You hardly touch any of the hard plastics inside the LaCrosse and they are fit together really well and to me- and obviously many people who chose the car to buy for their own- look very elegant and sophisticated. It's just the style they chose- the plastic isn't movable or tinny or any of those other things that make plastic feel cheap, it is durable, hard, and solid. When you get the price per pound of the plastics to prove its cheapness and how much they would've saved choosing one plastic over the other then your argument might have a base, otherwise you can't really prove quality because I definitely see it there.

3. The 3.8 argument is also hotly debated and not a hands down matter as you wish it to be. Though the limelight for the engine is waining it is still a very modern engine and the very low and quiet rumble it produces when you floor it (which is really the only time you hear the 'coarse' engine) is only exhilerating for me. The fact that I have had twice on two seperate occasions my mothers LaCrosse and two seperate people were surprised to realize the engine was on (one inside the car and the other was outside of it) makes it perhaps not as coarse as you wish it would be for your condemnation. It is an incredibly smooth engine, especially the series III, absolutely a major step up from the series II in my Regal. Unless you can scientifically test this 'smoothness' you're talking about I can just imagine that it's comparable to its competitors and that there is nothing really poor about what you're talking about here.

4. The W body needs to be updated, but that doesn't break the car... most people don't take their Buicks to the slalom course so it should be okay. Like I said- it's not a sports car so the W body is okay for the vehicle to be on.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Cananopie

[VenSeattle]

2. Why is its interior quality (hard door panels, loose console) sub-par to a $20,000 Camry, much less an Avalon? I'm not talking about style, this is quality of interior materials.

169919[/snapback]

Sorry, but I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The interior materials for the dash (upper and lower) are soft-touch plastics and the door panels are made of the same soft-touch padding as the dash. The interior materials in the LaCrosse are superior to the last gen Camry and can honestly be considered superior to the current since the Camry uses hard plastics for the lower dash (remember, we're not talking about style, but materials). The Avalon has mouse fur for the headliner while the LaCrosse's headliner is woven fabric. It sounds like you didn't touch anything in the car.

[enzl]

1. It has been known for a while that the Fleet Sales from GM and Buick have been significantly dropped and many of the sales are actually that- sales- to real customers that are people. You said you didn't know who this car would appeal to outside of rental companies, business cars, and ... bargain hunters... which you're basically admitting that the LaCrosse is a bargain for what it's being sold at- so I don't know exactly what your issue is with the vehicle if it's being sold at its appropriate price for what it is. Whether or not you "see" rental LaCrosses on the road doesn't mean that they are sold massively and mostly all across the country to Fleet sales.

The fact that Lutz said once a long long time ago (roughly around the debut of the LaCrosse) that Buick was going to be the next "American Lexus" doesn't mean anything this many years later. The only reason that quote stuck around is because this is exactly what foreign-lovers were wanting to hear... they wanted to have a quote so they could directly compare Buick to something like Lexus and say how much Buick isn't like Lexus. Which is fine by me. I don't want my Buicks to be Lexuses, I want them to be Buicks.

2. The quality of the materials inside the LaCrosse are good. At least to me. The hard-plastic discussion has been made on this forum many times over and it is hotly debated each way. I just know that after a while you can't clean the soft plastics nearly as well as the hard plastics because soft plastics start to absorb the dirt from over the years while the hard plastics stay nice. It's not like the hard plastics in the LaCrosse are uncomfortable, I've driven in one many times and have been very comfortable inside of it. You hardly touch any of the hard plastics inside the LaCrosse and they are fit together really well and to me- and obviously many people who chose the car to buy for their own- look very elegant and sophisticated. It's just the style they chose- the plastic isn't movable or tinny or any of those other things that make plastic feel cheap, it is durable, hard, and solid. When you get the price per pound of the plastics to prove its cheapness and how much they would've saved choosing one plastic over the other then your argument might have a base, otherwise you can't really prove quality because I definitely see it there.

3. The 3.8 argument is also hotly debated and not a hands down matter as you wish it to be. Though the limelight for the engine is waining it is still a very modern engine and the very low and quiet rumble it produces when you floor it (which is really the only time you hear the 'coarse' engine) is only exhilerating for me. The fact that I have had twice on two seperate occasions my mothers LaCrosse and two seperate people were surprised to realize the engine was on (one inside the car and the other was outside of it) makes it perhaps not as coarse as you wish it would be for your condemnation. It is an incredibly smooth engine, especially the series III, absolutely a major step up from the series II in my Regal. Unless you can scientifically test this 'smoothness' you're talking about I can just imagine that it's comparable to its competitors and that there is nothing really poor about what you're talking about here.

4. The W body needs to be updated, but that doesn't break the car... most people don't take their Buicks to the slalom course so it should be okay. Like I said- it's not a sports car so the W body is okay for the vehicle to be on.

169980[/snapback]

1. Lutz said what he said. He more than implied that Lexus was the target. Failing that level of sophistication & precision isn't the sin. The issue is the abject marketplace failure of an also-ran product, partially because the target was not placed high enough (or misaimed...not sure which is worse.)

Also, Fleet sales as a gross number are down across GM this year...but proportionately, GM is selling more of its product to fleet buyers. (I can't speak to Buicks' specific numbers, but the article appeared in last week's AutoNews)

2. No arguing quality...(I'm an overall effort guy)

3. 3800 is past its freshhness date...semi-premium should get a semi-premium motor. The sin here is that GM has much better engines sitting in its own development pipeline. (Suggestion: Use N/A version of the 2.8 HF V6 in the CX/CXL if you feel the need to differentiate.)

4. The W could easily have been replaced by the LWB Epsilon....think MAXX as a well proportioned 4 dr....in fact, if you've ever sat in the back of a nicely kitted Maxx, think of how great that would have played as a really competitive, more formal mid-size Buick sedan...

Also, you've ignored the largest issue:

Opportunity squandered exactly because the Accord is now 4 model years old (& ugly) and the new Camry has again had its quality moderately downgraded (again). The DCX LX's sell at a premium, at a rate of 250K/year...a midsize Buick should be able to hit 150k by itself--if done correctly!

Buick should be welcoming defectors back instead of struggling...the quality success alone should be more effective. That tells me their either they're not making it to the door or not getting the message effectively or, simply, aren't overwhelmed with what they find...Buick is in trouble in the states because all 3 may be conspiring against them.

[toyoguy]

CASE IN POINT: My Camry review was the most critical write-up you'll ever see of that car. Nothing is sacred.

169922[/snapback]

I doubt you're capable of liking any vehicle under $40k.

Edited July 23, 2006 by toyoguy

[Cananopie]

1. Lutz said what he said. He more than implied that Lexus was the target. Failing that level of sophistication & precision isn't the sin. The issue is the abject marketplace failure of an also-ran product, partially because the target was not placed high enough (or misaimed...not sure which is worse.)

Also, Fleet sales as a gross number are down across GM this year...but proportionately, GM is selling more of its product to fleet buyers. (I can't speak to Buicks' specific numbers, but the article appeared in last week's AutoNews)

2. No arguing quality...(I'm an overall effort guy)

3. 3800 is past its freshhness date...semi-premium should get a semi-premium motor. The sin here is that GM has much better engines sitting in its own development pipeline. (Suggestion: Use N/A version of the 2.8 HF V6 in the CX/CXL if you feel the need to differentiate.)

4. The W could easily have been replaced by the LWB Epsilon....think MAXX as a well proportioned 4 dr....in fact, if you've ever sat in the back of a nicely kitted Maxx, think of how great that would have played as a really competitive, more formal mid-size Buick sedan...

Also, you've ignored the largest issue:

Opportunity squandered exactly because the Accord is now 4 model years old (& ugly) and the new Camry has again had its quality moderately downgraded (again). The DCX LX's sell at a premium, at a rate of 250K/year...a midsize Buick should be able to hit 150k by itself--if done correctly!

Buick should be welcoming defectors back instead of struggling...the quality success alone should be more effective. That tells me their either they're not making it to the door or not getting the message effectively or, simply, aren't overwhelmed with what they find...Buick is in trouble in the states because all 3 may be conspiring against them.

170048[/snapback]

1.) When Lutz said what he said I'm fairly certain what he had in mind in particular was sound deadening, which Lexus was notorious for and also which Buick has competed properly with that feature alone. The reason why I think the whole brand falls 'short' of Lexus is because Buick is still supposed to be a mid-lux vehicle, a Lexus typically falls closer to Cadillac prices than Buick prices. Buick nips at the heals of Lexus, and I think they do that with success, and Cadillac competes in the upper end. Buick's becoming more unaffordable isn't what Buick needs.

3.) The 3800 is still a fine engine and it is an engine many loyalists (the ones who are definitely going to buy the car) associate with Buick, losing that engine may have more implications than you think. It was a proper bridge marketing move for Buick. If it was any other GM subsidary the implications would be less for losing the 3800 but whether Buick likes it or not many people associate Buick with the 3800 and many people are happy with that. The 3.6 is the semi-premium motor and when you have the 3.6 you've officially entered in to Lexus territory. The choice for using both engines is a very intelligent marketing move to keep the old and to bring in the new.

4.) That's not a bad point- I'm concerned the epsilon might be too small to make a midsize sedan for Buick- but I can't verify that and it might fit well. Whatever the reason they used the W I still don't think it makes it a poor vehicle. A lot of people find many things wrong with it but I feel the LaCrosse never met its full potential ever since Lutz delayed it a year for refinement, at least the Lucerne had a whole extra year and that seems to generally please everybody.

As for opportunity squandered- I'm not sure- you're asking for the LaCrosse to have blown Century+Regal sales combined out of the water and a perception image doesn't happen overnight. Even though you mention things like downgraded quality in the Camry the overwhelming stigma behind Toyota is still 'better' for most of the nation. There will be many more people who won't consider a Buick and buy a Camry that may not be as high of quality for the price its at and still be happy because they know it's a Toyota. And the problem with the LaCrosse is it still doesn't scream anything special (which is why Buick needs a halo car, but I digress) , Buick still kept in mind the conservative styling to please definite buyers, I think many people forget how close Buick was (at the debut of the LaCrosse) and still is very close to following Olds to its grave... a complete image change- as Olds did- can be deadly.

[Sajeev Mehta]

I doubt you're capable of liking any vehicle under $40k.

170172[/snapback]

Wrong. Read my review of the Mercury Grand Marquis.

Sorry, if I had $22k or so, I'd be in one of those well before any Buick. The W-body is out of its league these days, but the Panther chassis Fords still have some magic about them.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Sajeev Mehta

[Sajeev Mehta]

Sorry, but I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The interior materials for the dash (upper and lower) are soft-touch plastics and the door panels are made of the same soft-touch padding as the dash.

The door panels of the LaX are the same soft material as the dash? Really?

I guess we don't understand each other, and I must have girly soft hands.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Sajeev Mehta

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Thanks. Can a get an even 80%?

Ah...what the hell? Sure.

Since you mentioned it, the Intrigue is my favorite W-body.  It was a nice car, maybe not class leading, but it did a lot of things right. If they put the blown 3800 in it, or if it lived long enough to see these new 5.3L V8s...oh well, what's done is done.  

169970[/snapback]

No argument here. The Intrigue was GM at its best in the late Nineties.

Wrong. Read my review of the Mercury Grand Marquis.

Sorry, if I had $22k or so, I'd be in one of those well before any Buick. The W-body is out of its league these days, but the Panther chassis Fords still have some magic about them.

The Panther is just as antiquated as the W-Body...but a P71 Crown Vic Interceptor is just flat out bad assed and makes most W-Bodies look flaccid.

Edited July 23, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[Flybrian]

Wrong. Read my review of the Mercury Grand Marquis.

Sorry, if I had $22k or so, I'd be in one of those well before any Buick. The W-body is out of its league these days, but the Panther chassis Fords still have some magic about them.

170272[/snapback]

My problem with the Grand Marquis is the total lack of feature content and its awkward trunk along with the inability to find one in inventory in Florida without some dumb aftermarketeer laying his tasteless hands on it. I would have a lot more fun with a low-mileage traffic control or administrative P71 Crown Vic because I'd have the cop parts, blacked-out trim, better engine, and I wouldn't feel as bad about beating it up.

With a Grand Marquis, you have to drive 10mph under the speed limit. With a Crown Vic, you can make people drive 10mph under the speed limit.

All-in-all for the money, I'd go for low-mileage Regal GS. While I love the Intrigue's style, the GS gives me more bang for the buck as well as being quiter and better-handling (oddly) than either the Olds or GP.

[regfootball]

in my opinion GM's cars fail consistently on many aspects, but one that never gets mentioned enough (but was inferred a few posts above) is inefficient packaging.

part of that is inheriting the W chassis. Long useless hood/overhang. Cramped passenger quarters. low firewall that's too far into the cabin.

i believe that poorly packaged inefficient space allocation in a car tends to affect ones judgment of the ergonomics of the car. I think then that opinion tends to carry out for the entire car.

thorw in cheap plastic, dated mechanicals, dated proportions and you've got a car that's ripe for ripping.

Even if its a decent car.

People subliminally judge a car's fit around their body. If things seem wierd or out of place, or not proportionate or accessible to their seating position, the car is perceived as off.

Just think of how much better the car would be if it got all those other things right.

Edited July 24, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

My problem with the Grand Marquis is the total lack of feature content and its awkward trunk along with the inability to find one in inventory in Florida without some dumb aftermarketeer laying his tasteless hands on it. I would have a lot more fun with a low-mileage traffic control or administrative P71 Crown Vic because I'd have the cop parts, blacked-out trim, better engine, and I wouldn't feel as bad about beating it up.

With a Grand Marquis, you have to drive 10mph under the speed limit. With a Crown Vic, you can make people drive 10mph under the speed limit.

All-in-all for the money, I'd go for low-mileage Regal GS. While I love the Intrigue's style, the GS gives me more bang for the buck as well as being quiter and better-handling (oddly) than either the Olds or GP.

170320[/snapback]

plenty of Grand Marquis are available for 16 grand in snow country here in MN.......during the winter months. brand new. 17 grand if you can't bring your uncle's AARP card.

[GMman]

Speaking of dated....the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis platform goes all the way back to '78 or '79......I drive a crown vic everyday at work.....I will say they hold up well.

My brother drives a '99 Intrigue. 153k and no problemo. Still drives smoothly, straight as an arrow, is still quite, everything holding up very well. Olds didn't deserve to die....

I know everyone associates rental cars with ones nobody wants to own personally, but I for one have found out about how great many cars were by renting them. Buick Lesabre for example. Drove the first one from Baltimore to Manhattan. It's the quitest car I've ever driven. Excellent ride and power. Styling was the only thing holding that great car back. By contrast, discovered the latest Chrysler 300 catches a lot of looks, but I didn't like the cheap-o interior and road noise. Idiot journalists are gonna write smack based on their opinion....it's okay.....

Edited July 25, 2006 by GMman

[toyoguy]

Wrong. Read my review of the Mercury Grand Marquis.

170272[/snapback]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1413

I could write an identical review w/o even driving the car, thanks for pointing out nothing.

As usual automotive reviews are essentially worthless.

[Sajeev Mehta]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1413

I could write an identical review w/o even driving the car, thanks for pointing out nothing.

As usual automotive reviews are essentially worthless.

170907[/snapback]

Show us all how to do it. TTAC's editor welcomes new faces, so the floor is all yours.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Sajeev Mehta

[toyoguy]

Show us all how to do it.  TTAC's editor welcomes new faces, so the floor is all yours.

171014[/snapback]

There is zero objective data in your reviews.

The majority of them comprise of your disapproval for styling and materials.

And I have no reason to write a review, if I was looking to buy a car I'd do it based on test drives not on whether an auto journalist likes how a car looks. I'd hope most people do the same, hence why there really little need for an auto journalist.

i have no qualms w/you sharing opinions, but it is another thing to simply annoy people simply for greater views

Edited July 26, 2006 by toyoguy

[Flybrian]

There is zero objective data in your reviews.

171460[/snapback]

A 100% objective car review would comprise of a window sticker, a press release, and the owner's manual. Even Consumer Reports isn't 100% objective any longer.

[Sajeev Mehta]

There is zero objective data in your reviews.

The majority of them comprise of your disapproval for styling and materials.

171460[/snapback]

There are plenty of places for objective data, thanks to the internet. You don't need me for that. Of course, nobody needs me to review a car, but people gotta do something during the workday that involves their passion: cars.

We also reviewed the car in your signature, but you probably shouldn't read it, we were rather opinionated about it.

i have no qualms w/you sharing opinions, but it is another thing to simply annoy people simply for greater views

171460[/snapback]

I'd like to think its much more than annoying, but hey, I never forced anyone to read it. After it was suggested that I should be drowned in curry on this forum (I'm sure that was a joke, funny at that) I decided to speak up.

And its been a pleasure chatting with everyone, I might add.

[enzl]

There are plenty of places for objective data, thanks to the internet. You don't need me for that.  Of course, nobody needs me to review a car, but people gotta do something during the workday that involves their passion: cars.

We also reviewed the car in your signature, but you probably shouldn't read it, we were rather opinionated about it.

I'd like to think its much more than annoying, but hey, I never forced anyone to read it.  After it was suggested that I should be drowned in curry on this forum (I'm sure that was a joke, funny at that) I decided to speak up. 

And its been a pleasure chatting with everyone, I might add.

172584[/snapback]

Sajeev-

Please don't take their barbs too seriously...TTAC is a good source of fuel for the collective fire here. It's hard to be a GM fan nowadays...and its a little too easy to be a critic

Farago is a decent writer, but incessantly beating the same drum with the 'Death Watch' articles is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, from an intellectual perspective. For instance, any thoughts on where he goes if GM pulls out of its nosedive??

Doesn't change the LaCrosse's plight, but I thought it might be interesting to see if there's a plan B over there...

[Sajeev Mehta]

Sajeev-

Please don't take their barbs too seriously...TTAC is a good source of fuel for the collective fire here. It's hard to be a GM fan nowadays...and its a little too easy to be a critic

Farago is a decent writer, but incessantly beating the same drum with the 'Death Watch' articles is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, from an intellectual perspective. For instance, any thoughts on where he goes if GM pulls out of its nosedive??

Doesn't change the LaCrosse's plight, but I thought it might be interesting to see if there's a plan B over there...

172618[/snapback]

Thank you. Not being a journalist, I soon realized that I better not take comments too seriously. Its become funny: people saying I hate Detroit with one review, and I'm a "Jap-basher" (or something like that) with another. Last time I checked I'm an equal opportunity trash-talker.

The Death Watch thing has some merit, the name just polarizes people. Its nice to see the chronicle of missteps (managerially speaking) and that I appreciate. If and when GM pulls out of this, I guess Farago's gonna eat crow. Not that I'd know, or do I think its gonna happen anytime soon. No matter what happens with the UAW, Delphi, Kirk or Rick, we need to see better product before awarding any long-term success. That's probably the new focus of the Death Watch.

That's the problem these days: people look at the short term profits, quarterly this-and-that, and refuse to see that long term success is King. And that duty lies squarely on class-leading products.

In my opinion, of course.