W-Body to live into 2012?

[enzl]

:AH-HA_wink: Now that is another issue entirely. I tend to agree with your there, sir: far too often Big Business is more responsive to impressive resumes than actual knowledge. Most of corporate America could use a kick in the pants. Unfortunately, the argument would be for preventing corporations for going public at all! Once a company's ownership is diluted in stock offerings, the Henry Ford's of the world can distance themselves through layers of bureaucracy. Since you and I both know that is never going to happen in this world, we have to make do with a flawed business model.

However, my point is, that with the divergent talent on GM's board, even though only one comes close to being auto related, they are bringing to the table, so to speak, the 'outside' knowledge that life-timer's like Wagoner need. I don't know any of these people. They could all be toothless hacks, for all I know. But at least one or two of them must know something about business and I am damned sure there have been many interesting meetings or phone calls that we are nevery privy to. Even though, as you rightly point out, any of these people can jetison themselves from the Board any time they want, eventually their resume would become pretty poisonous if they kept destroying the companies they worked for. Most of these A-types are egomaniacial and would not want to partake in the collapse of such an American icon like GM, so the fact that a few of them have stuck around for a while means there must be a game plan that they are pretty confident will work.

It is safe to say that we would have replaced the Captain of the Titanic with what we know now, but throwing him overboard as the ship neared ice berg alley would not have been prudent, to say the least!

I can't disagree. That's what makes their logic so difficult to follow in this particular case...I think if you honestly could strip away the fact that this is GM we're talking about, then simply recite the devastating information released by GM themselves in the past few years, you'd find it difficult to defend either current management or the board.

I won't bore you with my own experiences, since it'll be interpreted as 'bragging' about myself, but suffice it to say that Boards can run the gamut from 'rubber stamp' to highly activist. This one may simply err on the side of current management too often.

[regfootball]

Most of my posts have been replies to SMK <who pulls made up numbers out of his ass>, or The O.C. <with a decidedly So. Cal. view on things, though that seems to have changed lately>, or Enzl <who never has anything nice to say about GM... period>

There is this prevailing opinion around here that if GM just came out with a 3-series sized RWD BMW fighter for under $24,999, the Impala were RWD, and the Malibu had SatNav, suddenly GM would be back at 50% market share and Toyota would go slinking back off to Japan. GM still needs the Lucerne. Could it be better? Yes, in many ways, but it's nothing to apologize for because it outsells everything in it's class except the 300 and every owner I've talked to is exceedingly happy with it. Saying "If it only had a 6-speed auto it would outsell the competition!" is dumb because it already does outsell it. GM could have put SatNav in the Malibu. Was it a mistake? Absolutely, but I'm not going to trash a very good car just because it doesn't have NAV and NAV wouldn't make it outsell the CamCord anyway. There are still people who won't touch a Chevy with a 10 foot pole. CR has made sure of that. NAV isn't going to change it. The CTS is a bit of a porker and it is slightly slower than it's rivals, but that does not make it a terrible car. It turns heads faster than a new 3-series or C-class does.

I defend GM from unfair &#036;h&#33; like above. I acknowledge GM's mistakes, but some of you blow them up to be much larger than they really are or even create new ones out of thin air.

I will say this. The Lucerne is a nice car, but it needs to ditch the 3.8 or 3.9 and a 3.6 should be standard with 6 speed by now. Many competitors have AWD. The Lucerne's cloth is atrocious, the bench seats look hick, and the interior dash and doors look cheap and underwhelming.

It's just another poster child for what GM does do, it skimps on some key things that really would help sell the car a whole lot better. Had the Lucerne hit with a 3.6 / 6 and Lexus level or better interior, i think it would have avoided the stigma it has now.

[pow]

Guys... did you know... in light of raising gas prices and all... the W-body Impala is actually... wait for it... the most fuel-efficient (hwy) six-passenger vehicle in the US!

Who knew Chevy already beat Toyota to the crossover sedan segment....

[CARBIZ]

There are two things to like about the column shift option:

1) Great for making out at Lover's Lane (do people even do that anymore?)

2) For older people, it is a safety feature. I actually had a customer have a heart attack and die at the wheel of his LeSabre. Had his wife not been able to reach her foot across the

small hump on the floor and get her foot on the brake, she would not have survived either.

On narrower vehicles, have the 3rd person in the middle option makes no sense, but in cars as big as the Impala, for some people (like my sister with 4 boys), it is nice to have the CHOICE of six passengers. If we really think about it, the console in the middle is just another styling fad. I wonder if cars in 20 years will still have them.

[turbo200]

Most of my posts have been replies to SMK <who pulls made up numbers out of his ass>, or The O.C. <with a decidedly So. Cal. view on things, though that seems to have changed lately>, or Enzl <who never has anything nice to say about GM... period>

There is this prevailing opinion around here that if GM just came out with a 3-series sized RWD BMW fighter for under $24,999, the Impala were RWD, and the Malibu had SatNav, suddenly GM would be back at 50% market share and Toyota would go slinking back off to Japan. GM still needs the Lucerne. Could it be better? Yes, in many ways, but it's nothing to apologize for because it outsells everything in it's class except the 300 and every owner I've talked to is exceedingly happy with it. Saying "If it only had a 6-speed auto it would outsell the competition!" is dumb because it already does outsell it. GM could have put SatNav in the Malibu. Was it a mistake? Absolutely, but I'm not going to trash a very good car just because it doesn't have NAV and NAV wouldn't make it outsell the CamCord anyway. There are still people who won't touch a Chevy with a 10 foot pole. CR has made sure of that. NAV isn't going to change it. The CTS is a bit of a porker and it is slightly slower than it's rivals, but that does not make it a terrible car. It turns heads faster than a new 3-series or C-class does.

I defend GM from unfair &#036;h&#33; like above. I acknowledge GM's mistakes, but some of you blow them up to be much larger than they really are or even create new ones out of thin air.

when observing people's points I look at the underlying argument, the big picture. never have I head anyone say, for example, the Malibu is not a great car because it is missing Navi, but I have heard people say they wish it offered NAvi. I've heard others say they wished it were slightly larger on the inside to better match the interior space and comfort offered in both Camry and Accord. I've heard some minimal complaints about materials quality not being completely up to the standards of the best in class. When these points are offered as evidence, the following statement has never been, "but the Malibu is just like every other piece of GM garbage car before it." [okay I've read it once on autoblog from a completely obscene and quickly dismissed poster]. so the point I'm trying to make is there are points of improvement people feel GM needs to make and there is the larger picture.

you're not looking at the big picture here, and it's something that upsets me dearly because it throws the course of the conversation off completely. now some speak up for your views and we have to go back and look at something we'd already reached a consensus on/

Look the consensus, can we all agree on, which GM has conceded itself, is that vehicles in its recent past have been steeped in mediocrity. Some are more blatant examples than others, some have less evidence of this at work [corvette or the GMT 900 line come to mind], some have stronger attributes where others falter on the same points, and still others have winning charm beause of something they are able to do exceedingly well [which many here feel those of us 'complainers' fail to objectively mention all the time, as though everyone of our posts should resolve to the pee wee baseball team attitude of encouragement], like for example the Impala and the whole W-body's line exceedingly good reliability stats, or the Silverado's wonderful ride/handling compliance and balance, or the corvette's sheer incredible value.

The point is the true defition of patriotism is standing up for something you beleive in through wrong and right. I have beleived in GM and have professed it, otherwise I wouldn't have been here for some time [aside from also just enjoying sharing views on car design]. All of us feel the same way, and yhet there are still points we can agree or disagree on with regards to GM's overall job: improving vehicle quality, regaining some lost market share, recapturing customer mindshare with attractive vehicles.

With regards to your points you have taken a small view of things, and you are trying to direct this at me clearly. There's barely any effect this site has on the general population at large. everyone is free to form thier own opinions and of the few that read this, they're generally going to side with my viewpoint unless like you and others around the country, rightfully or not, they are deeply rooted in GM and are hardcore loyalists and don't want to recognize the need for change.

[turbo200]

There are two things to like about the column shift option:

1) Great for making out at Lover's Lane (do people even do that anymore?)

2) For older people, it is a safety feature. I actually had a customer have a heart attack and die at the wheel of his LeSabre. Had his wife not been able to reach her foot across the

small hump on the floor and get her foot on the brake, she would not have survived either.

On narrower vehicles, have the 3rd person in the middle option makes no sense, but in cars as big as the Impala, for some people (like my sister with 4 boys), it is nice to have the CHOICE of six passengers. If we really think about it, the console in the middle is just another styling fad. I wonder if cars in 20 years will still have them.

the thing is, the prevailing wisdom, and this is based on actual market conditions and research, people overwhelmingly do not need or care for this option because many feel it is both uncomfortable and safe. others probably see it as counterproductive with the advent of three row crossovers with more flexibility, comfort, and making that a practical option. others wouldn't consider it based on a notion of impression, what kind of impression they feel they would give off in a cramped sedan versus a large comfy SUV.

though, clearly, market conditions today are changing thanks to drastically increasing gas prices, and empowah may very well be on to something with this 6 seater crossover sedan....I'm thinking of the notchback large Chevrolet coming in 2010, the one I've been saying could make a versatile and unique Impala replacement...

[Drew Dowdell]

I can't disagree. That's what makes their logic so difficult to follow in this particular case...I think if you honestly could strip away the fact that this is GM we're talking about, then simply recite the devastating information released by GM themselves in the past few years, you'd find it difficult to defend either current management or the board.

I won't bore you with my own experiences, since it'll be interpreted as 'bragging' about myself, but suffice it to say that Boards can run the gamut from 'rubber stamp' to highly activist. This one may simply err on the side of current management too often.

I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the board. My comments are car specific. I'm surprised any of them still has a job, but that's corporate exec level job security for you. I'd be canned if I lost a laptop much less however many billions of dollars they've lost.

[Drew Dowdell]

With regards to your points you have taken a small view of things, and you are trying to direct this at me clearly. There's barely any effect this site has on the general population at large. everyone is free to form thier own opinions and of the few that read this, they're generally going to side with my viewpoint unless like you and others around the country, rightfully or not, they are deeply rooted in GM and are hardcore loyalists and don't want to recognize the need for change.

Perhaps I need to run a "Best of Oldsmoboi's suggestions" thread or something. Calling me a hardcore loyalist and not recognizing the need for change is to ignore the other half of my posts.

I've advocated dropping all the pushrod V6es and standardizing across the HF line. I've since updated my position and now hold that the 4-Cylinder turbo BAS-II should replace the 3.6 on everything that has it sub-Cadillac. I've wished for the Atlas I6 replace the 4.3 V6 in the trucks.

I've said that the Lucerne should be taken from Buick, restyled, and replace the w-body Impala over at Chevy. And the Chinese Park Ave restyled more to Buick's current look and brought over here.

I've called for a pull ahead of Delta II

I said that the latest Lacrosse looks like it was beaten with an ugly stick.

I've asked for the 2.9 litre diesel and a mid-level V8 be made available for the CTS. I emailed Lutz directly about the diesel and got an answer which I posted here.

I long for the Chinese SLS, an Alpha based Cadillac sedan, and some large Eldoradoish like coupe.

I'm ok with the death of Hummer

I think Saab is salvageable if done right, but otherwise kill it.

I don't quite know what to do with Pontiac, but whatever it is, they're doing it wrong.

I mean really.... to say that I'm a hardcore, oldschool, appologist, fanboy, unwilling to accept change is just silly. It's not like I'm out there harping for the return of b-pillarless, BOF, RWD, V8, manual transmission cars or anything.....

...and I wasn't actually targeting you.

[Blake Noble]

Perhaps I need to run a "Best of Oldsmoboi's suggestions" thread or something. Calling me a hardcore loyalist and not recognizing the need for change is to ignore the other half of my posts.

I've advocated dropping all the pushrod V6es and standardizing across the HF line. I've since updated my position and now hold that the 4-Cylinder turbo BAS-II should replace the 3.6 on everything that has it sub-Cadillac. I've wished for the Atlas I6 replace the 4.3 V6 in the trucks.

I've said that the Lucerne should be taken from Buick, restyled, and replace the w-body Impala over at Chevy. And the Chinese Park Ave restyled more to Buick's current look and brought over here.

I've called for a pull ahead of Delta II

I said that the latest Lacrosse looks like it was beaten with an ugly stick.

I've asked for the 2.9 litre diesel and a mid-level V8 be made available for the CTS. I emailed Lutz directly about the diesel and got an answer which I posted here.

I long for the Chinese SLS, an Alpha based Cadillac sedan, and some large Eldoradoish like coupe.

I'm ok with the death of Hummer

I think Saab is salvageable if done right, but otherwise kill it.

I don't quite know what to do with Pontiac, but whatever it is, they're doing it wrong.

I mean really.... to say that I'm a hardcore, oldschool, appologist, fanboy, unwilling to accept change is just silly. It's not like I'm out there harping for the return of b-pillarless, BOF, RWD, V8, manual transmission cars or anything.....

...and I wasn't actually targeting you.

What? Are you trying to run for president or something here? j/k

Edited May 24, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[The O.C.]

uh... TL, Avalon, RL........ Ridgeline ;-) ?

Okay....but with the GM products, we are talking about five different cars that are very similarly priced and hold a similar position in the marketplace. (Even a LaCrosse CX or CXL is priced pretty closely to some of the other models.)

I don't think anyone would compare a TL or RL to an Accord.....and even Avalon has a bit more distance from Camry comparatively equipped than what the GM units have....and of course Ridgeline is a totally different market segment than Accord.

[CARBIZ]

the thing is, the prevailing wisdom, and this is based on actual market conditions and research, people overwhelmingly do not need or care for this option because many feel it is both uncomfortable and safe. others probably see it as counterproductive with the advent of three row crossovers with more flexibility, comfort, and making that a practical option. others wouldn't consider it based on a notion of impression, what kind of impression they feel they would give off in a cramped sedan versus a large comfy SUV.

though, clearly, market conditions today are changing thanks to drastically increasing gas prices, and empowah may very well be on to something with this 6 seater crossover sedan....I'm thinking of the notchback large Chevrolet coming in 2010, the one I've been saying could make a versatile and unique Impala replacement...

Good, then. We are agreed: you won't buy a column shift Impala. Funny, though - I survived 6 years owning my column shift '91 Caprice and I still have my sanity.

Edited May 24, 2008 by CARBIZ

[The O.C.]

In case you didn't notice, it's a pro-GM site, man.

Yeah but see the way I look at it is......being "pro-GM" doesn't mean you have to blindly, or somewhat blindly, accept an unrealistic view of today's market, and GM's place in it.

Many of us (severe) critics on here are just that.....severe critics.....BECAUSE we want the company to succeed and we tend to have strong opinions about what hasn't been done properly, and what's not being done properly....

But the "pro-GM" in us WILL allow us to have pride for GM's accomplishments.....CTSs, Corvettes, Lambdas, Malibus.....

[The O.C.]

Good, then. We are agreed: you won't buy a column shift Impala. Funny, though - I survived 6 years owning my column shift '91 Caprice and I still have my sanity.

But see this is where "looking at the big picture" comes into play here.

Take a look at the market as a whole. BTW....what's the actual penetration on the Impala (and Lucerne) column shifts? I hardly EVER see one, unless it's a base, base car.....all the others HAVE the floor console.

The market has CLEARLY moved away from it.....even Toyota decided against engineering a column shift for it's current generation Avalon (they offered one on the last one.)

So...if the market is so clearly moving away from something like this, why did GM commit engineering and development money (not to mention the increased build combos that also come as a result) to something that clearly people in the vast majority aren't clammoring for anymore?

You'll say that it's "not a big deal" to do it, so why not?

Well, these are one of these "little" decisions that GM keeps making that makes those severe critics like me out here wonder "why" when the answer is so obvious as to why it shouldn't be done.

Edited May 24, 2008 by The O.C.

[haypops]

I don't think anyone would compare a TL or RL to an Accord.....and even Avalon has a bit more distance from Camry comparatively equipped than what the GM units have....and of course Ridgeline is a totally different market segment than Accord.

You'd be surprised!

Q: What's a better move in your opinion, an '09 Pilot or an '05-'07 MDX? A: Pilot's roomier, simpler and, despite the ugly grille, better-looking to my eye than the MDX. The Acura's sportier, has a more sophisticated awd system and, of course, has the luxury-brand cachet. But if I were writing the check, there'd be no choice at all: Pilot.

link

It's not exactly the same, but people do some wilder cross shoping than many assume.

[CARBIZ]

But see this is where "looking at the big picture" comes into play here.

Take a look at the market as a whole. BTW....what's the actual penetration on the Impala (and Lucerne) column shifts? I hardly EVER see one, unless it's a base, base car.....all the others HAVE the floor console.

The market has CLEARLY moved away from it.....even Toyota decided against engineering a column shift for it's current generation Avalon (they offered one on the last one.)

So...if the market is so clearly moving away from something like this, why did GM commit engineering and development money (not to mention the increased build combos that also come as a result) to something that clearly people in the vast majority aren't clammoring for anymore?

You'll say that it's "not a big deal" to do it, so why not?

Well, these are one of these "little" decisions that GM keeps making that makes those severe critics like me out here wonder "why" when the answer is so obvious as to why it shouldn't be done.

Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't out there. GM pretty much killed the column shift this year by charging more for it. Before '08, the car could be ordered either way.

Development money? What development money? The Lumina had it. The last generation Impala had it. You do realize they are all essentially the same vehicle, don't you? Maybe they had a few thousand left in a box somewhere.

My point is, just because some old fogie out there likes them (I happen to be old enough to remember when ALL cars were column shift), doesn't mean it offends your personal sense of space by having them available. Probably in the next, new from the ground up Impala they will be dropped. But for now, they do serve a purpose. Don't forget to harp on the spring loaded 'ratchet' style tilt wheel. You don't want to know how many people I have to explain how the new ones work (Malibu, Aveo, etc.) and many, many people ask aloud why the hell GM would switch... I, for one, hate the 'new' style adjustable (read: non-adjustable because they are to f'ing hard to adjust) steering columns.

Remember, just because you like or dislike something doesn't mean they should be banned off the face of the Earth. Now, adding a manual shift to the Malibu, or a DVD Nav system to the Malibu - THAT DOES COST DEVELOPMENT MONEY. Why would GM offer that in a budget-priced vehicle when they have the perfectly workable OnStar turn-by-turn available. And before you go ballistic on that, zip it: Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler and Honda are all frantically working on their own versions that will be out in the next year or so. Somebody out there has finally waken up to the fact that GM got something right for a change.

[enzl]

Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they aren't out there. GM pretty much killed the column shift this year by charging more for it. Before '08, the car could be ordered either way.

Development money? What development money? The Lumina had it. The last generation Impala had it. You do realize they are all essentially the same vehicle, don't you? Maybe they had a few thousand left in a box somewhere.

My point is, just because some old fogie out there likes them (I happen to be old enough to remember when ALL cars were column shift), doesn't mean it offends your personal sense of space by having them available. Probably in the next, new from the ground up Impala they will be dropped. But for now, they do serve a purpose. Don't forget to harp on the spring loaded 'ratchet' style tilt wheel. You don't want to know how many people I have to explain how the new ones work (Malibu, Aveo, etc.) and many, many people ask aloud why the hell GM would switch... I, for one, hate the 'new' style adjustable (read: non-adjustable because they are to f'ing hard to adjust) steering columns.

Remember, just because you like or dislike something doesn't mean they should be banned off the face of the Earth. Now, adding a manual shift to the Malibu, or a DVD Nav system to the Malibu - THAT DOES COST DEVELOPMENT MONEY. Why would GM offer that in a budget-priced vehicle when they have the perfectly workable OnStar turn-by-turn available. And before you go ballistic on that, zip it: Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler and Honda are all frantically working on their own versions that will be out in the next year or so. Somebody out there has finally waken up to the fact that GM got something right for a change.

While I think there's real merit to both sides of the argument, I have to quibble with a few points...

1. Tilt & Telescope isn't too hard to master if designed correctly. I suspect most like the good systems---and GM's ratchet tilt was/is awful.

2. If On-Star was sooo good, wouldn't it have become the standard by now? Why would co.'s build their own? There's nothing OnStar does that internet connectivity won't provide.

Other than that, GM is doing many good things product-wise, but they still tend to half-ass just enough to drive me crazy. Luckily, it has been occurring with less frequency.

[The O.C.]

Remember, just because you like or dislike something doesn't mean they should be banned off the face of the Earth.

Lord you seem to CONVENIENTLY forget that I'm taking a look at these things from a MARKET standpoint. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. (Even if I don't.)

I'd love to have a 6-speed manual combined with the Malibu 3.6L engine.....but as much as I might like that, I realize that it makes little sense for the overall market.

If it happens to be that GM makes decisions contrary to what the market is dictating......and I don't like anyways......well that doesn't mean they don't still run contrary to what the market is dictating.

It's been WAY too long that GM did something that dictated to the market. Wouldn't that be nice instead of going "against the flow?"

Edited May 24, 2008 by The O.C.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

While I think there's real merit to both sides of the argument, I have to quibble with a few points...

1. Tilt & Telescope isn't too hard to master if designed correctly. I suspect most like the good systems---and GM's ratchet tilt was/is awful.

2. If On-Star was sooo good, wouldn't it have become the standard by now? Why would co.'s build their own? There's nothing OnStar does that internet connectivity won't provide.

Other than that, GM is doing many good things product-wise, but they still tend to half-ass just enough to drive me crazy. Luckily, it has been occurring with less frequency.

I heard Honda was using OnStar a couple years ago. Why would GM give over proprietary information that they have worked on for 10+ years and more (via Hughes when they bought it)?

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Lord you seem to CONVENIENTLY forget that I'm taking a look at these things from a MARKET standpoint. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. (Even if I don't.)

I'd love to have a 6-speed manual combined with the Malibu 3.6L engine.....but as much as I might like that, I realize that it makes little sense for the overall market.

If it happens to be that GM makes decisions contrary to what the market is dictating......and I don't like anyways......well that doesn't mean they don't still run contrary to what the market is dictating.

It's been WAY too long that GM did something that dictated to the market. Wouldn't that be nice instead of going "against the flow?"

1/4 million people disagreed with you last year. Yes, even the fleet people. Not bad for a 15+ year old platform. I wonder how many consumers give a rat's ass about 'overhangs' and pushrods, except when so-called enthusiasts point it out.

[The O.C.]

I wonder how many consumers give a rat's ass about 'overhangs' and pushrods, except when so-called enthusiasts point it out.

Well, for starters.....the 1 million people last year that bought either a Camry, Accord, or Altima......???

[daves87rs]

Yeah but see the way I look at it is......being "pro-GM" doesn't mean you have to blindly, or somewhat blindly, accept an unrealistic view of today's market, and GM's place in it.

Many of us (severe) critics on here are just that.....severe critics.....BECAUSE we want the company to succeed and we tend to have strong opinions about what hasn't been done properly, and what's not being done properly....

But the "pro-GM" in us WILL allow us to have pride for GM's accomplishments.....CTSs, Corvettes, Lambdas, Malibus.....

*elbows O.C.*

You know what I mean! :AH-HA_wink:

I was refering more to the negative broken record issues, not the following GM off a cliff issues....

Heck, even I find myself being much more of a critic than I used to...

The more you learn the more you know...

Whether it be good or bad.

[The O.C.]

*elbows O.C.*

You know what I mean! :AH-HA_wink:

I was refering more to the negative broken record issues, not the following GM off a cliff issues....

Heck, even I find myself being much more of a critic than I used to...

The more you learn the more you know...

Whether it be good or bad.

*kicks daves87rs in the nuts*

(lol....j/k)

I see times a-changin' fast.......had an 87-year-old man hanging out in the Caddy showroom this morning. His DTS was in for service. So I stopped him and said "hi" just to chat up some conversation.

He was a super nice guy....and very sprightly for 87. I asked him how he liked his '07 DTS. What he told me shocked me........

He said he liked it, but traded in an '05 STS on the DTS because the DTS had just a bit more room and a bit bigger trunk....which is what he and his wife needed. I asked him which car he liked better.....

And he said.....the DTS was nice, but he really missed driving the STS. He said he liked the firmer ride on the STS because it really helped the car handle much nicer.....even around town. He doesn't like how the DTS sometimes floats over the road. The STS gave him the Caddy luxury he always enjoyed, but was way more responsive and fun to drive....and made him feel younger whenever he was in it.

Then he laughed and said....."now I'm just driving an old person's car...."

(Man even the OLD people are getting tired of the geriatric stuff....!)

[CARBIZ]

Well, for starters.....the 1 million people last year that bought either a Camry, Accord, or Altima......???

........and you know for a fact that these people would NOT have bought those vehicles if the front overhang was 3" longer or any of them had a pushrod engine?

Question: ask 10 people on the street what the f$%K a pushrod engine is, and I GUARANTEE you that maybe ONE would have a clue - and even that person would explain it wrong. I asked 4 salespeople today (the 'newest' person has been in the business 25 years) and not only did none of them know the difference between a pushrod engine and DOHC, all 4 basically laughed at me for asking.

The sheeple above buy the Camry, Accord, etc. because CR tells them to. Don't believe me? My mother has owned nothing but Grand Caravans for the past 15 years - loved them all, but is now suddenly hell bent on buying a CR-V because - you guessed it, she read it was a good vehicle.

Twenty five years ago, the Camry and Accord were tiny tin cans, so it is no wonder nobody bought them. However, now they are actually decent, well designed vehicles, so I can't fault people for buying them, even though (IMO) they are foolish for sending their $30k to Japan, but the cars themselves are decent enough.

The goalposts keep moving. I sat in the LTZ in our show room today and took another long, hard look at it, and I seriously don't know what you guys are harping about. The Cobalt, yes. The Colorado, yes. But I see nothing embarassing or shameful about the current Impala.

This is just . GM is going to replace the Impala. Maybe not fast enough for some of you, but with a quarter million sales on a platform that is paid for, while they have a 'world class' car sitting right beside it - well, if I was on the Board I wouldn't be in a rush to spend $300 million replacing it. Not when there are weaker links in the chain (DTS, Cobalt, Colorado, to name 3).

[The O.C.]

........and you know for a fact that these people would NOT have bought those vehicles if the front overhang was 3" longer or any of them had a pushrod engine?

No....but I bet they might not have bought a car with ugly proportions or a thrashy low-rev engine.....

(Don't you know not to egg me on 'Biz? )

[CARBIZ]

Oops, the computer just gave me &#036;h&#33; and said I was using too many emoticons.

Not enough, my friend.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, for starters.....the 1 million people last year that bought either a Camry, Accord, or Altima......???

X

90% of those people couldn't tell you what a cam was much less why their car has two or more.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Then he laughed and said....."now I'm just driving an old person's car...."

(Man even the OLD people are getting tired of the geriatric stuff....!)

You should put this guy in touch with me, if he doesn't want that beautiful Caddy. You're right though; the Lucerne shouldn't handle that badly, it should be more crisp etc...

But I tend to accept and even like the DTS the way it is simply because it is the last Cadillac that will have a floaty ride, the last Cadillac that handles like a boat, the last Cadillac with a column shift and a bench seat, I'd actually LOVE to own one... Not that the old guy isn't right on all points though, because he is.

[The O.C.]

You should put this guy in touch with me, if he doesn't want that beautiful Caddy. You're right though; the Lucerne shouldn't handle that badly, it should be more crisp etc...

But I tend to accept and even like the DTS the way it is simply because it is the last Cadillac that will have a floaty ride, the last Cadillac that handles like a boat, the last Cadillac with a column shift and a bench seat, I'd actually LOVE to own one... Not that the old guy isn't right on all points though, because he is.

You know.....I believe there has got to be a way to engineer a "floaty" ride without giving up control.....

Look at the Lexus LS460......or a M-Benz S-Class......both of those have soft, creamy rides.....but not at the expense of control. I'd love to see GM offer something comparable.....

[The O.C.]

X

90% of those people couldn't tell you what a cam was much less why their car has two or more.

No....but they know their Camry or Accord V6 purrs, hums, and has great NVH.......

Durable it might be, but an Impala with the 3.5L or 3.9L simply doesn't match up to the Toyota and Honda V6s......these kind of differences definitely show up in a test-drive.

[vonVeezelsnider]

You know.....I believe there has got to be a way to engineer a "floaty" ride without giving up control.....

Look at the Lexus LS460......or a M-Benz S-Class......both of those have soft, creamy rides.....but not at the expense of control. I'd love to see GM offer something comparable.....

It's like you're reading my mind...

[Drew Dowdell]

No....but they know their Camry or Accord V6 purrs, hums, and has great NVH.......

Durable it might be, but an Impala with the 3.5L or 3.9L simply doesn't match up to the Toyota and Honda V6s......these kind of differences definitely show up in a test-drive.

buzz is more like it....

but it's not a function of the valvetrain layout. If GM threw the development money at pushrod V6es as it has at the LS engine I'm sure they'd be more competitive. Now, I'm not saying that GM should keep the pushrod engines and develop them more. They should use the HF v6 across the line. It's simply Accord matching. Since the automotive rags have declared that everything must act, sound, and look the same as the Accord, GM must throw out everything and duplicate the Accord Chinese style if they ever hope to compete.

Those of us that actually like the grunt of a pushrod be damned.

[Lamar]

You know.....I believe there has got to be a way to engineer a "floaty" ride without giving up control.....

Look at the Lexus LS460......or a M-Benz S-Class......both of those have soft, creamy rides.....but not at the expense of control. I'd love to see GM offer something comparable.....

I remember that the last Lincoln Continental had driver-adjustable suspension. Though I haven't seen it in any American cars since (then again, I haven't looked ), it's an idea that I'm sure GM could work in there.

[VenSeattle]

You know.....I believe there has got to be a way to engineer a "floaty" ride without giving up control.....

Wow... you described my Park Avenue Ultra

Although it really doesn't float either... it absorbs road imperfections and stays smooth for the most part. I'm looking forward to test driving the Lucerne Super to compare the two. I'm sure it'll drive almost identical to the last gen G-body/NS powered/MRC graced Cadillac Seville-STS.

It's pretty sad that my 2003 Park Avenue Ultra's resale value is almost identical to the 2003 Cadillac Seville STS. There was almost a $10,000 difference between their original MSRPs.

[daves87rs]

*kicks daves87rs in the nuts*

(lol....j/k)

I see times a-changin' fast.......had an 87-year-old man hanging out in the Caddy showroom this morning. His DTS was in for service. So I stopped him and said "hi" just to chat up some conversation.

He was a super nice guy....and very sprightly for 87. I asked him how he liked his '07 DTS. What he told me shocked me........

He said he liked it, but traded in an '05 STS on the DTS because the DTS had just a bit more room and a bit bigger trunk....which is what he and his wife needed. I asked him which car he liked better.....

And he said.....the DTS was nice, but he really missed driving the STS. He said he liked the firmer ride on the STS because it really helped the car handle much nicer.....even around town. He doesn't like how the DTS sometimes floats over the road. The STS gave him the Caddy luxury he always enjoyed, but was way more responsive and fun to drive....and made him feel younger whenever he was in it.

Then he laughed and said....."now I'm just driving an old person's car...."

(Man even the OLD people are getting tired of the geriatric stuff....!)

So true....

[The O.C.]

buzz is more like it....

but it's not a function of the valvetrain layout. If GM threw the development money at pushrod V6es as it has at the LS engine I'm sure they'd be more competitive. Now, I'm not saying that GM should keep the pushrod engines and develop them more. They should use the HF v6 across the line. It's simply Accord matching. Since the automotive rags have declared that everything must act, sound, and look the same as the Accord, GM must throw out everything and duplicate the Accord Chinese style if they ever hope to compete.

Those of us that actually like the grunt of a pushrod be damned.

Well, not to get into another pushrod/OHC debate.....but in most ways, it IS a function of valvetrain layout.

A DOHC engine with multi-valves are inherently smoother and faster revving throughout the entire rev range than a pushrod....especially at higher engine speeds. They are also quieter and tend to offer greater refinement (although GM has shown that sound-deadening techniques can quell a pushrod engine's roar at idle or low engine speeds....but can't do much about the roar as you get into the power.)

Even the vaunted LS V8 engines, as good as they are, don't have the ultimate refinement of a DOHC V8 engine.

JMHO.....based upon countless test drives and ownership experience with many different configuration of engines....V6s and V8s.

The "low-end-grunt advantage" of a pushrod is really nearing the end of it's time with the advent of variable-valve timing, 5- and 6-speed autos (better gearing) and other technologies being applied to DOHC engines....for example, compare the performance of the AURA with the 3.5L pushrod engine (C&D, 2-07), and the Malibu (C&D, 1-08) with it's similar-sized 3.6L DOHC engine.

The AURA offers 224hp, and more importantly, 220lb/ft at 4,000rpm. The Malibu, with it's supposedly "torque-deficient" multi-valve, DOHC engine, produces greater torque, 251lb/ft at an even lower 3,200rpms. Just looking at the numbers, the pushrod V6 doesn't have any advantage in low-end torque.

What about the actual numbers? The AURA goes 0-60 in 7.7secs.....Malibu in 6.5secs. Again, more importantly....what about right off the line? AURA gets from 0-30 in 2.9secs....Malibu cuts 1/2 a second off that at 2.4secs.

The DOHC engine in the Malibu scored 21mpg in the test compared to C&D's mileage of 20mpg in the comparison AURA was in. Even factoring in the fact that the driving conditions more assuredly differed between the AURA comparison and the Malibu stand-alone road test, it seems real-world mileage is even comparable for the more-powerful Malibu....even considering it's worse EPA ratings.

Pushrod V8s may be great for full-size trucks.....and the LS seems to still be a fine fit for the Corvette, but I really see no other application that can even be close to being justified. It's clearly not just a factor of GM doing what the sheeple demand.......

[The O.C.]

I remember that the last Lincoln Continental had driver-adjustable suspension. Though I haven't seen it in any American cars since (then again, I haven't looked ), it's an idea that I'm sure GM could work in there.

The adjustable suspension just masks the flaws of a poorly-designed and engineered suspension. Put it in "comfort" and you get the soft ride that's still too floppy and floaty. Put it in "sport" to firm it up, and the car crashes and bangs over potholes and bumps.

I say just properly engineer the chassis from day one (which GM is getting MUCH better at doing.)

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

No....but they know their Camry or Accord V6 purrs, hums, and has great NVH.......

Durable it might be, but an Impala with the 3.5L or 3.9L simply doesn't match up to the Toyota and Honda V6s......these kind of differences definitely show up in a test-drive.

And don't forget the $800 timing belt change on your super quiet Honda V-6!!!

[The O.C.]

Well, not to get into another pushrod/OHC debate.....but in most ways, it IS a function of valvetrain layout.

A DOHC engine with multi-valves are inherently smoother and faster revving throughout the entire rev range than a pushrod....especially at higher engine speeds. They are also quieter and tend to offer greater refinement (although GM has shown that sound-deadening techniques can quell a pushrod engine's roar at idle or low engine speeds....but can't do much about the roar as you get into the power.)

Even the vaunted LS V8 engines, as good as they are, don't have the ultimate refinement of a DOHC V8 engine.

JMHO.....based upon countless test drives and ownership experience with many different configuration of engines....V6s and V8s.

The "low-end-grunt advantage" of a pushrod is really nearing the end of it's time with the advent of variable-valve timing, 5- and 6-speed autos (better gearing) and other technologies being applied to DOHC engines....for example, compare the performance of the AURA with the 3.5L pushrod engine (C&D, 2-07), and the Malibu (C&D, 1-08) with it's similar-sized 3.6L DOHC engine.

The AURA offers 224hp, and more importantly, 220lb/ft at 4,000rpm. The Malibu, with it's supposedly "torque-deficient" multi-valve, DOHC engine, produces greater torque, 251lb/ft at an even lower 3,200rpms. Just looking at the numbers, the pushrod V6 doesn't have any advantage in low-end torque.

What about the actual numbers? The AURA goes 0-60 in 7.7secs.....Malibu in 6.5secs. Again, more importantly....what about right off the line? AURA gets from 0-30 in 2.9secs....Malibu cuts 1/2 a second off that at 2.4secs.

The DOHC engine in the Malibu scored 21mpg in the test compared to C&D's mileage of 20mpg in the comparison AURA was in. Even factoring in the fact that the driving conditions more assuredly differed between the AURA comparison and the Malibu stand-alone road test, it seems real-world mileage is even comparable for the more-powerful Malibu....even considering it's worse EPA ratings.

Pushrod V8s may be great for full-size trucks.....and the LS seems to still be a fine fit for the Corvette, but I really see no other application that can even be close to being justified. It's clearly not just a factor of GM doing what the sheeple demand.......

On the LS and the Corvette.......a V8 point-of-view if you will.......

I don't think ANYONE would complain about any sort of lack of low-end torque if you magically replaced the Vette's 6.2L LS V8 with, say, the Mercedes-Benz 6.2L naturally-aspirated AMG motor....!

Out of the same displacement, AMG gets 518hp (to the Vette's 436hp) and 465lb/ft at 5,200rpms versus the Vette's 428lb/ft at 4,600rpms......the AMG torque peaks a bit higher, but with more lb/ft....so I bet they would be pretty comparable both at around the Vette's 4,600rpm torque peak......with much greater horsepower at that.

[The O.C.]

And don't forget the $800 timing belt change on your super quiet Honda V-6!!!

First of all, I don't know that they still require that. Do you?

Second of all, if true, that's a Honda "thing." I don't hear about the 3.6L HF V6 needing that sort of maintenance.....

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

First of all, I don't know that they still require that. Do you?

Second of all, if true, that's a Honda "thing." I don't hear about the 3.6L HF V6 needing that sort of maintenance.....

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.hondawest.ca/en/service/mainten...7CCoupe+EX-L+V6

Of course, I had to dig for this. Honda certainly doesn't advertise this on their website!

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, not to get into another pushrod/OHC debate.....but in most ways, it IS a function of valvetrain layout.

A DOHC engine with multi-valves are inherently smoother and faster revving throughout the entire rev range than a pushrod....especially at higher engine speeds. They are also quieter and tend to offer greater refinement (although GM has shown that sound-deadening techniques can quell a pushrod engine's roar at idle or low engine speeds....but can't do much about the roar as you get into the power.)

Even the vaunted LS V8 engines, as good as they are, don't have the ultimate refinement of a DOHC V8 engine.

JMHO.....based upon countless test drives and ownership experience with many different configuration of engines....V6s and V8s.

The "low-end-grunt advantage" of a pushrod is really nearing the end of it's time with the advent of variable-valve timing, 5- and 6-speed autos (better gearing) and other technologies being applied to DOHC engines....for example, compare the performance of the AURA with the 3.5L pushrod engine (C&D, 2-07), and the Malibu (C&D, 1-08) with it's similar-sized 3.6L DOHC engine.

The AURA offers 224hp, and more importantly, 220lb/ft at 4,000rpm. The Malibu, with it's supposedly "torque-deficient" multi-valve, DOHC engine, produces greater torque, 251lb/ft at an even lower 3,200rpms. Just looking at the numbers, the pushrod V6 doesn't have any advantage in low-end torque.

What about the actual numbers? The AURA goes 0-60 in 7.7secs.....Malibu in 6.5secs. Again, more importantly....what about right off the line? AURA gets from 0-30 in 2.9secs....Malibu cuts 1/2 a second off that at 2.4secs.

The DOHC engine in the Malibu scored 21mpg in the test compared to C&D's mileage of 20mpg in the comparison AURA was in. Even factoring in the fact that the driving conditions more assuredly differed between the AURA comparison and the Malibu stand-alone road test, it seems real-world mileage is even comparable for the more-powerful Malibu....even considering it's worse EPA ratings.

Pushrod V8s may be great for full-size trucks.....and the LS seems to still be a fine fit for the Corvette, but I really see no other application that can even be close to being justified. It's clearly not just a factor of GM doing what the sheeple demand.......

Shame on you. You know better than to compare similar displacement engines of two different valvetrain configuration. The question you fail to ask is, "How much more displacement would be required for the pushrod to out perform the DOHC?". The 3.5 is a tiny engine in terms of packaging. In place of the 3.6, GM has already shown they can go up to at least 5.3 litres of pushrod and in some cases up to 6.0 litres. The 3.6 litre tops out around 300hp without the help of forced induction. At 300hp, the 5.3 litre is just getting started. The 3.6 doesn't stand a chance against the 6.0.

Of course, there's always the 3.9 that you could have compared with which is only marginally larger than the 3.5 yet smaller than the 3.6, but that wouldn't have served your purpose.....

[Drew Dowdell]

On the LS and the Corvette.......a V8 point-of-view if you will.......

I don't think ANYONE would complain about any sort of lack of low-end torque if you magically replaced the Vette's 6.2L LS V8 with, say, the Mercedes-Benz 6.2L naturally-aspirated AMG motor....!

I'm sure they'd complain at the pricetag however.

[Drew Dowdell]

First of all, I don't know that they still require that. Do you?

Second of all, if true, that's a Honda "thing." I don't hear about the 3.6L HF V6 needing that sort of maintenance.....

3.6 uses chains and is frequently described as louder than it's DOHC counterparts from honda.

[Intrepidation]

chains > belts

[Satty]

chains > belts

For maintenance, yes, for noise, no.

[CARBIZ]

For maintenance, yes, for noise, no.

Really? At a recent GM test we went to, 40 of us stood beside a brand new Malibu 2LT with the 2.4 (chains and all) while a 4 cylinder Accord sat about 20 feet away, also with its hood open. We could clearly hear the Accord enginer OVER the noise coming from the 2.4. Frankly, this stunned all of us. Honda has been cutting corners (of course, they know that none of their owners would even know how to open the hood!) and the lack of sound deadening on the Accord is, well, deafening. An engine's noise, or lack of, is more than just the engine itself. There is a lot more engineering that goes into making a vehicle quiet these days.

I think perhaps people need to be blindfolded and sit in the back of these cars while under power. Too many assumptions and too many preconceptions are showing.

[The O.C.]

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.hondawest.ca/en/service/mainten...7CCoupe+EX-L+V6

Of course, I had to dig for this. Honda certainly doesn't advertise this on their website!

......"if vehicle is driven regularly in very low temperature, -20F, V6 only"

Doesn't seem like a normal maintenance requirement to me.....at least not to the vast, vast majority of owners......

[The O.C.]

Shame on you. You know better than to compare similar displacement engines of two different valvetrain configuration. The question you fail to ask is, "How much more displacement would be required for the pushrod to out perform the DOHC?". The 3.5 is a tiny engine in terms of packaging. In place of the 3.6, GM has already shown they can go up to at least 5.3 litres of pushrod and in some cases up to 6.0 litres. The 3.6 litre tops out around 300hp without the help of forced induction. At 300hp, the 5.3 litre is just getting started. The 3.6 doesn't stand a chance against the 6.0.

Of course, there's always the 3.9 that you could have compared with which is only marginally larger than the 3.5 yet smaller than the 3.6, but that wouldn't have served your purpose.....

You are crack smoking again.

EXACTLY my point was to compare like-sized displacements. 3.5 is only 0.1L away from 3.6L. 3.9L is 0.3L bigger....but you want to compare 3.9 to 3.6? 3.6L STILL comes out ahead in power and torque.

Anyways....the WHOLE POINT was to compare a pushrod V6 to a DOHC V6 available in the same car (AURA/Malibu.)

Secondly, WHY are you trying to compare a 3.6L V6 with a 6.0L V8.....? What's the point you are trying to make there?

I think you are just flustered again trying to figure out how you can "spin" your way around my (very well made) argument.

[The O.C.]

3.6 uses chains and is frequently described as louder than it's DOHC counterparts from honda.

Who has "frequently described" the 3.6L as "louder" than it's Honda counterpart?

[haypops]

EXACTLY my point was to compare like-sized displacements.

Although that is commonly done, why do it. The customer doesn't care about the size of the wholes (borexstroke) that are manufactured into his engine. Comparison of external dimensions and weight of the power module would seem more appropriate.

By the way, do you have intententions of changing your screename to "the L.V."

Edited May 26, 2008 by haypops