New More Powerful Buick Coming?

[Croc]

Our automobile emissions are no longer that big of a deal, though it would be nice to eliminate idling while sitting in traffic. Just as you say, emissions are not local, so something needs to be done about the other 90-odd 3rd world countries... not the US.

We have to lead by example. We also have an addiction to fossil fuels and we need alternatives. Fossil fuels are polluting not just when they are burned in our cars, but their refinement is also abysmally toxic and polluting.

Of course, the US needs to stop allowing companies to buy pollution credits to offset smokestack emissions. Sure, some smokestacks have gotten cleaner... but not enough. We want clean air... fix the 3rd world countries and smoke stacks.

Agreed, 100%

You know, we could have cleaned up a lot of air by trading the C4C cars for the wrecks bumping around polluting the 3rd world.

Maybe so, but international jurisdictions being what they are it would be tough to implement.

[Croc]

Gee I heard they gave free luncheds at the Castro's communes and jail cells.

The reality is both sides need to work together as solutions are there. MFG can improve things but techinology still needs to be developed. Instead of the goverment thowing money away as they have on short term work projects and wasted it could have been put to better use.

The fact is if they wanted to make progress in energy and batteriess the could have used NASA and American idustry working in a Apollo like project to develop and improve these technologies. The space program was not just about going to the moon it was about technology development. Much of what we have today was spured on by what was learned and expaned upon by private industry. Many jobs were created and many lives have been saved. More new technologies were developed with NASA than any other time in history.

You want cleaner and better cars for the future get the goverment to spend less time forcing the issue on emission and CAFE to 65 MPG and spend some money on technology development to attain these thing.

Not only will we improve cars but better batteries will improve Cell phones, pace makers, toys, surgical equipment and just about ever part of your life.

The fact is we have a very strong free enterprise system here and it has the ability to make things happen if it is not burdened buy goverment regulation to the point it is stiffled. We here in the Stated can accomplish anything we want to if we are not stopped by the lack of support. Nancy Pelosi pushing unobtainable regulations do little to help the cause for anyone.

Driving a car is like many other freedoms. If you do not fight for it you will lose it. What if the goverment tells you some day your freedom of speach is a privilege, not a right? There are some in office today that would support your speach being capped.

I have no issue with small engines I do not define my manhood by cylinder counts. I do not have a issue with improving the emissions either. I do have issues with people in govemrent setting standard that don't drive and fly howe to California and back to Washington on a private goverment 767. These same people do not drive in many cases and could not even check their own oil.

The solution is to work together now apart. Many want to point to greed in industry but there are many who are pushing the Green adgendas that stand to make and are making great profits with the laws they are lobbying. Mr Gore is only one of many to see great profits. They all are not just doing it for a merit badge.

The fact is there is a strong green agenda out there. If you do not accept that there is you have no credibility.

Also there are those who are pushing the green effort as they are using it to control economies. Some of the issues they have wanted the United States to sign would have hindered us greatly in the world market while countries like India and China would not have been addressed.

There are some good green people and they have pure intentions but there are just as many that use the issues to shift power and money in the world.

From the sound of the socialist like views you either live in Cali or be from there. Bay Area?

I'm going to respond to this succinctly: arguing your point by insisting it is true and anyone who disagrees is stupid/wrong/completely uninformed/out-of-touch without actually backing your argument up with factual information is super worthless. Put up or shut up.

Namecalling also doesn't fly. Last time I checked, socialism involved government subsidies and strict control, not creating new legislation that forces people to directly pay the costs of their choices to supplant old legislation that subsidized individual choices on a public level. My viewpoint is that we need to end a public subsidy, and yet you're calling me a socialist? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or is that just something that only applies to everyone else now?

I loathe the Bay Area.

[Croc]

not sure how i ended up on it the other night, but really, spend some time reading up on Chicago Climate Exchange, Maurice Strong and UN Agenda 21, generally the green agenda is more about one world order and destroying your middle class way of life in the US. It's a mechanism disguised as concern for the environment which essentially is a back door sort of way to infiltrate public policy with a socialist and freedom stripping agenda.

Yeah, one of the primary tenants of sustainability and environmentalism is to produce locally, consume locally. That really must kill the middle class, huh?

The rest of your post?

[Drew Dowdell]

There is a forum for this. Take it there.

[hyperv6]

I'm going to respond to this succinctly: arguing your point by insisting it is true and anyone who disagrees is stupid/wrong/completely uninformed/out-of-touch without actually backing your argument up with factual information is super worthless. Put up or shut up.

Namecalling also doesn't fly. Last time I checked, socialism involved government subsidies and strict control, not creating new legislation that forces people to directly pay the costs of their choices to supplant old legislation that subsidized individual choices on a public level. My viewpoint is that we need to end a public subsidy, and yet you're calling me a socialist? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or is that just something that only applies to everyone else now?

I loathe the Bay Area.

Todays world has the Socialist on the far left the Progressives left center and Fasicist on the far right all fighting for control. None are good for our country.

This leave the most of the country in a center to center right. Most of these people are independents that are becoming a gowing force in our country every election. This Nov they will determine the out come. Many will not be re elected.

Sorry but I just don't buy into you kind of tactics you are with us or you are against us outlook. Often the progressives will respond with a anyone who disagrees with us is stupid/wrong/completely uninformed/out-of-touch. Often they will not work with others and really try to solve the real problems. Then those leading many of their causes profit from their blind support.

What does it feel like to be a Pawn?

See the differance with you and me is this. With you if I do not take everything word by word you buy into I am wrong and uniformed. We me I agree with you that we do need clean air and improve things. But I also think it is something that we all need to work on from what ever position. There is room to respect others. My friend I can see from you comments you have no respect for anything but your narrow view. I may not agree with your view but I respect it and would be willing to work with it.

Just think not a single one of us has the full answer. We both have good people on each side but we also both have power hungery people on each side too. You seem to not under stand there are people making a big buck on the Green projects. They could care a rats ass about the real air. The fact is the money it is costing everyone is making a lot of people rich. The Green movment has turned into a industry of it's own.

Read up on Patrick Moore. He was a founder of Green Peace. He is still for saving the eviorment but he left the group as it has turned into a corrupt Politcal tool. This is only one of many who are seeing what is really going on. The people you think that are supporting you often are just using you.

[hyperv6]

There is a forum for this. Take it there.

Sorry you post was not up when I posted this AM.

I am done. I don't want to kill the thread.

[Lamar]

So about the new, more powerful Buick... :backtotopic:

They're not revisiting the idea of putting it on Zeta, are they?

[NOS2006]

Guys who are saying that the green/MPG thing isn't really a case for these higher end automobiles, take this into consideration: Bentley is using a 4.0L V8 in its base 2011 Continental GT to reduce CO2 emissions by about 40% from the the normal (pre-2010) W12 and its TT W12 in the high-performance model has dropped some weight too by using lighter materials (yes, for the performance aspect I'm sure, but I would bet that it also stems from trying to get better fuel economy figures).

[regfootball]

sure, but some still would suggest that they should take that down to a 1.4l turbo with 138hp, that's all the choice u should have!

[Drew Dowdell]

Mercedes makes 2 FWD cars, the A-class and B-class both off the same platform, and the B-class is just an enlarged, slightly nicer A-class. These are the only front drivers they have made, unless you count the Smart cars. And the B-class has things like rainsense wipers, headlights that turn when the car turns, parking sensors, and multicontour seats with air pockets like the STS used to have. That stuff isn't found on a Cruze or Civic, so for it's segment, the B-class is still about innovation and engineering.

So wait.... Mercedes is innovating because they're using technology available in my mother's 2001 Aurora (rainsense wipers), 2002 STS (multi contour seats), 2003 Town Car (reverse parking sensors), Headlights that turn (1948 Tucker Torpedo, 2006 Buick Enclave)..... next you'll sell me that highbeams that automatically dim (1952 Cadillac) are also Mercedes innovation....

sure, but some still would suggest that they should take that down to a 1.4l turbo with 138hp, that's all the choice u should have!

Why in the world do you think that is going to be the last engine offered in the Cruze? The Cobalt SS (turbo) didn't come out till it the base Cobalt was on the market for a year or two.

[Camino LS6]

To respond to the original post:

1) Remember that sexy coupe concept rendering posted a while back?

2) The TT V6 is coming and will need more than one home

3) Alpha is coming and will need to spawn a number of models to maximize ROI.

Add 1,2, and 3 together and you have a Buick even I would be interested in.

Buick needs a halo - this should be it.

...and it should be called Riviera GS.

[Camino LS6]

This is the one I'm talking about:

[hyperv6]

This is the one I'm talking about:

I love this car and hoped Alpha would bring it to us.

The more I think bout this could we be looking at a Zeta Coupe Buick that could be built on the Camaro line with a TT 3.6 Turbo? Kind of a BMW/Audi RWD coupe? Just a wild guess but the parts are there to do one very easy.

[smk4565]

So wait.... Mercedes is innovating because they're using technology available in my mother's 2001 Aurora (rainsense wipers), 2002 STS (multi contour seats), 2003 Town Car (reverse parking sensors), Headlights that turn (1948 Tucker Torpedo, 2006 Buick Enclave)..... next you'll sell me that highbeams that automatically dim (1952 Cadillac) are also Mercedes innovation....

Mercedes had all that stuff in the 90s, I am just saying that the B-class isn't like a Golf or Honda Fit, it is equipped more like a loaded Regal or Accord, perhaps even more so. Mercedes is #1 about engineering and being meticulous when building a car. If/when the B-class gets here, it would be somewhat innovative to see that sort of features list on a car sized against the Aveo and Fit.

Since car companies are all about averages, Mercedes obviously wants to keep making big power V8s and V12s, so they need some 4-cylinder diesel small cars to compensate. I'd rather see a car company do that than to just kill off their V8s. That is why to me, it makes no sense to waste CAFE points if you will, on a high powered Buick. Put the high power stuff at Cadillac and Corvette where it matters.

[GMTruckGuy74]

This is the one I'm talking about:

Wow, that's gorgeous! I haven't seen that one yet... when was it first shown?

[Camino LS6]

It wasn't.

It was part of a premium small Buick project on a GM blog. They did six different exteriors and a bunch of interiors for the project. It was called Buick Avant.

This rendering is easily the best of the batch, and if they build it, I would gain a great deal of respect for Buick.

[Camino LS6]

I love this car and hoped Alpha would bring it to us.

The more I think bout this could we be looking at a Zeta Coupe Buick that could be built on the Camaro line with a TT 3.6 Turbo? Kind of a BMW/Audi RWD coupe? Just a wild guess but the parts are there to do one very easy.

Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Buick will ever see a Zeta product in North America.

I'd bet on Alpha.

[balthazar]

I didn't care for the Avant, nor the Riviera concepts. Right diretion, but not there yet.

[Drew Dowdell]

Mercedes had all that stuff in the 90s, I am just saying that the B-class isn't like a Golf or Honda Fit, it is equipped more like a loaded Regal or Accord, perhaps even more so. Mercedes is #1 about engineering and being meticulous when building a car. If/when the B-class gets here, it would be somewhat innovative to see that sort of features list on a car sized against the Aveo and Fit.

uh, the b-class is 168" long... roughly 14 inches longer than the Aveo (154") and 8 inches longer than the Fit (160")... the B-class is about Honda Fit size (169") or Audi A3 size...

This may blow your mind, but... the A3 comes with:

• automatic self leveling integrated LED daytime running lights.
• Rain Sensing Windshield Wipers
• automatic light switch and coming home and leaving home functionalities

but I'm sure Mercedes will find some Cadillac technology to rip off.... who knows... maybe they can make that multi-contour seat swivel out for the driver like Oldsmobile did back in the 70s.

[Croc]

Buick definitely needs a Riviera again, but I'm conflicted as to your proposed drivetrain layout because I think it would be difficult to differentiate from Cadillac. The brands need very clear, zero blurring of the lines distinctions between them, here on out.

[Camino LS6]

Buick definitely needs a Riviera again, but I'm conflicted as to your proposed drivetrain layout because I think it would be difficult to differentiate from Cadillac. The brands need very clear, zero blurring of the lines distinctions between them, here on out.

Not if it looked like that rendering.

I seriously doubt that you will see much in the way of exclusive drivetrains (short of variants) going forward.

If the dirty bits are essentially the same as an ATS, I doubt anyone would complain since the sheetmetal would be so different (as well as the interior).

In all of Buick's history there have been so few designs that really wowed me that you can count them on one hand.

If they built this car as I laid out at the top of this page, I'd have to start using two hands.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Camino LS6

[Camino LS6]

I didn't care for the Avant, nor the Riviera concepts. Right diretion, but not there yet.

The other Avant renderings were just so-so, but the one I posted stunned me.

The Riviera concept not so much.

[hyperv6]

The other Avant renderings were just so-so, but the one I posted stunned me.

The Riviera concept not so much.

The Riv concept was ehh! I have seen it in person and it really did little for me in a concept and would do less for me in person.

The 2+2 Coupe would give Buick a real image car. I would love to see a family design language show up in other Buicks as well. The Curves and styling cues would even make a nice larger sedan.

I have been a supporter of the 2+2 since I first saw it. Now with the Alpha they have the right bits to make it real if they choose.

Price it under the Lexus coupe and under the Audi TT and GM may have a real winner. This is also a car that would appeal world wide. It could be also used as a replacemtn for the Opel GT. A sporty coupe that is still usable.

[Camino LS6]

The Riv concept was ehh! I have seen it in person and it really did little for me in a concept and would do less for me in person.

The 2+2 Coupe would give Buick a real image car. I would love to see a family design language show up in other Buicks as well. The Curves and styling cues would even make a nice larger sedan.

I have been a supporter of the 2+2 since I first saw it. Now with the Alpha they have the right bits to make it real if they choose.

Price it under the Lexus coupe and under the Audi TT and GM may have a real winner. This is also a car that would appeal world wide. It could be also used as a replacemtn for the Opel GT. A sporty coupe that is still usable.

Agreed.

Interesting that you mention the Opel GT, as I see Kappa proportions in the rendering.

No matter what they do, this design stands as the best example of the sort of beauty I would expect from a worthy Buick brand.

[hyperv6]

Agreed.

Interesting that you mention the Opel GT, as I see Kappa proportions in the rendering.

No matter what they do, this design stands as the best example of the sort of beauty I would expect from a worthy Buick brand.

I really think this was rendered with Kappa in mind. But with the Alpha it could be moved to it and in reality be a much better car. No budget short cuts this time.

Edited September 8, 2010 by hyperv6

[Croc]

If the dirty bits are essentially the same as an ATS, I doubt anyone would complain since the sheetmetal would be so different (as well as the interior).

Please explain how this isn't "brand management"? GM needs to move on from selling the same vehicle with only subtle differences in styling as the only differentiators.

How would your Riviera actually differ from an equivalent Cadillac in any meaningful way?

[Camino LS6]

Umm, have you looked at the design of the render?

I see no A&S there at all.

Only people like us would even know that the underpinnings were related.

Then there is transmission choice, suspension set-up, perhaps even wheelbase, not to mention interior.

So, the two cars might share nothing more than drivetrain and a basic architecture.

[Camino LS6]

I really think this was rendered with Kappa in mind. But with the Alpha it could be moved to it and in reality be a much better car. No budget short cuts this time.

Yes, but Kappa gave it a vintage sports car look I would hate to see lost.

[balthazar]

Umm, have you looked at the design of the render?

I see no A&S there at all.

Only people like us would even know that the underpinnings were related.

Then there is transmission choice, suspension set-up, perhaps even wheelbase, not to mention interior.

So, the two cars might share nothing more than drivetrain and a basic architecture.

Right: those are hardly mere "subtle differences in styling"...

[hyperv6]

Yes, but Kappa gave it a vintage sports car look I would hate to see lost.

That could still be captured just with a trunk that someone can use.

There would be no reason you can't change the wheel base, roof hight and ground clearance. This car has a higher cowl already s that would not much of an issue

[regfootball]

So wait.... Mercedes is innovating because they're using technology available in my mother's 2001 Aurora (rainsense wipers), 2002 STS (multi contour seats), 2003 Town Car (reverse parking sensors), Headlights that turn (1948 Tucker Torpedo, 2006 Buick Enclave)..... next you'll sell me that highbeams that automatically dim (1952 Cadillac) are also Mercedes innovation....

Why in the world do you think that is going to be the last engine offered in the Cruze? The Cobalt SS (turbo) didn't come out till it the base Cobalt was on the market for a year or two.

because the market stays still for 2 years while gm pulls their head out of their arse.....right. It's 2011 almost. You have to bring all your guns to the start of a gunfight.

Apologies, apologies....

Edited September 9, 2010 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

because the market stays still for 2 years while gm pulls their head out of their arse.....right. It's 2011 almost. You have to bring all your guns to the start of a gunfight.

Apologies, apologies....

In truth most companies market their vehicles with improved drivelines in the second or third year.

Most cars sell with no issue at intro and then you have to keep upping the options to bring in more.

GM also is not going to bring all version of one model out in the first year. We will see added bodies and engines each year to keep things fresh.You always have to keep the carrot out infront of the mule.

They all do it not just GM.

Edited September 9, 2010 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

because the market stays still for 2 years while gm pulls their head out of their arse.....right. It's 2011 almost. You have to bring all your guns to the start of a gunfight.

Apologies, apologies....

2002 Camry - New body style, 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 4-speed auto

2003 Camry - 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 210hp V6, 4-speed auto standard, 5-speed auto introduced on upper trim - this is the first year Toyota beats GM's 1995 3800 V6 in horsepower.

2004 Camry - same as above with 3.3l 225hp V6 introduced on SE model - first year Toyota beats GM's 1992 3.4DOHC in horsepower

2005 Camry - Drops the 4-speed auto, engines remain the same

2006 Camry - Last year of body style, 3.3l SE drops to 210hp 3.0 V6 drops from 210hp to 190hp - Camry "Sport" now has less horsepower than a base 1999 Intrique.

2007 Camry - New Body Style, 155hp I4, 158hp I4, 268hp V6 offered, 5-speed auto on most models, 6-speed auto on upper trim V6 models, hybrid introduced late in model year - this is the first year Toyota beat's GM's 1996 3800 S/C in horsepower, never beats it in torque.

2008 Camry - 155hp I4 dropped, everything else remains the same

2009 Camry - Toyota is a bit distracted with cars running off the road, no changes made.

Or, the best selling Corolla:

2003 Corolla - New body style, 130hp I4, 4-speed auto

2004 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto

2005 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto, XRS 170hp model introduced with 6-speed manual

2006 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS drops to 164hp

2007 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS dropped completely

2008 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto

2009 Corolla - light body refresh, 132hp, 4-speed auto, XRS returns with 158hp and 5-speed auto or manual

[Robert Hall]

Camry facts:

<snip>

Or, the best selling Corolla:

<snip>

Toyota. Moving forward. (?)

[Drew Dowdell]

Or the CTS:

2003 CTS - New model intro, 220hp 3.2l V6 5-speed manual or automatic

2004 CTS - 220hp 3.2l V6 only available in manual, 255hp 3.6l V6 introduced with 5-speed auto, 400hp 5.7 liter V-series introduced with 6-speed manual

2005 CTS - 210hp 2.8l V6 replaces 3.2l, 5-speed manual replaced with 6-speed manual across the board, 3.6l V6 now available with manual

2006 CTS - V-series displacement increases to 6.0 liters, horsepower and torque remain the same but at different RPM

2007 CTS - last year for the body style - no powertrain changes

2008 CTS - New body, 3.6l V6 available with or without direct injection, 263hp base, 304hp DI, No v-series this year, 6-speed manual or auto either engine

2009 CTS - V6es remain the same, V-series introduced with 556hp

2010 CTS - Non-DI 3.6 dropped, replaced with DI 3.0l producing 270hp, other engines remain the same

[regfootball]

2002 Camry - New body style, 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 4-speed auto

2003 Camry - 157hp I4, 190hp V6, 210hp V6, 4-speed auto standard, 5-speed auto introduced on upper trim - this is the first year Toyota beats GM's 1995 3800 V6 in horsepower.

2004 Camry - same as above with 3.3l 225hp V6 introduced on SE model - first year Toyota beats GM's 1992 3.4DOHC in horsepower

2005 Camry - Drops the 4-speed auto, engines remain the same

2006 Camry - Last year of body style, 3.3l SE drops to 210hp 3.0 V6 drops from 210hp to 190hp - Camry "Sport" now has less horsepower than a base 1999 Intrique.

2007 Camry - New Body Style, 155hp I4, 158hp I4, 268hp V6 offered, 5-speed auto on most models, 6-speed auto on upper trim V6 models, hybrid introduced late in model year - this is the first year Toyota beat's GM's 1996 3800 S/C in horsepower, never beats it in torque.

2008 Camry - 155hp I4 dropped, everything else remains the same

2009 Camry - Toyota is a bit distracted with cars running off the road, no changes made.

Or, the best selling Corolla:

2003 Corolla - New body style, 130hp I4, 4-speed auto

2004 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto

2005 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto, XRS 170hp model introduced with 6-speed manual

2006 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS drops to 164hp

2007 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS dropped completely

2008 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto

2009 Corolla - light body refresh, 132hp, 4-speed auto, XRS returns with 158hp and 5-speed auto or manual

i'm glad you set the bar so low (toyota).

and ignore cars like the mazda 3 etc. upcoming focus, etc.

Or the CTS:

2003 CTS - New model intro, 220hp 3.2l V6 5-speed manual or automatic

2004 CTS - 220hp 3.2l V6 only available in manual, 255hp 3.6l V6 introduced with 5-speed auto, 400hp 5.7 liter V-series introduced with 6-speed manual

2005 CTS - 210hp 2.8l V6 replaces 3.2l, 5-speed manual replaced with 6-speed manual across the board, 3.6l V6 now available with manual

2006 CTS - V-series displacement increases to 6.0 liters, horsepower and torque remain the same but at different RPM

2007 CTS - last year for the body style - no powertrain changes

2008 CTS - New body, 3.6l V6 available with or without direct injection, 263hp base, 304hp DI, No v-series this year, 6-speed manual or auto either engine

2009 CTS - V6es remain the same, V-series introduced with 556hp

2010 CTS - Non-DI 3.6 dropped, replaced with DI 3.0l producing 270hp, other engines remain the same

in a critical volume segment. right.

yet cadillac ignored all wheel drive the whole time.........

[Drew Dowdell]

My fault for not including AWD on the CTS, it was introduced for 2008.

But my point was that ALL manufacturers make powertrain changes even after just 1 year into a body style.

You wanna look at the Mazda 3? Here's the powertrain changes over time:

2004 Mazda 3: Intro year - 144hp, 148hp, 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional

2005 Mazda 3: 144hp, 148hp, 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional

2006 Mazda 3: 145hp, 150hp, 153hp, and 160hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter

2007 Mazda 3: 145hp, 148hp, 151hp, and 156hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter

2007 Mazda 3: 145hp, 148hp, 151hp, and 156hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD, 4-speed auto optional on 2.0 liter, 5-speed auto optional on 2.3 liter

2008 Mazda 3: no power train changes

2009 Mazda 3: last year of body style, no power train changes

2010 Mazda 3: New body - 144hp, 148hp, 165hp, and 167hp I4s, 5-speed manual STD on lower models 6-speed manual on upper models, 5-speed automatic available across the board

[regfootball]

Considering that the cruze has already been on sale globally for 2-3 years I think it makes the cruzes incomplete powertrain and body style offerings even more inexcusable.

[Robert Hall]

Considering that the cruze has already been on sale globally for 2-3 years I think it makes the cruzes incomplete powertrain and body style offerings even more inexcusable.

Reality: bankruptcy. recession. Those events have slowed product development cycles.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[FAPTurbo]

Considering that the cruze has already been on sale globally for 2-3 years I think it makes the cruzes incomplete powertrain and body style offerings even more inexcusable.

What the hell logic is this? Incomplete powertrain offerings my ass. According to you, the G5 and Cobalt have terribly limited powertrain options. In 2009, you could only get a 2.2L with the G5, and the Cobalt had that engine and the Turbo 2.0L. That's it. Actually, that means pretty much every car in this category is 'limited.'

Mazda3:        Two Engines, Two Body styles.

Ford Focus:    One Engine,  ONE body style (Coupe's gone for 2011)

Honda Civic:   Two Engines, Two Body Styles

The Cruze's powertrain is NOT incomplete. The vehicle offers the correct amount of options for whatever market it's in, including diesels. Obviously, Ford realized the Focus Coupe was a waste of time, and GM probably knows this too, which is why there's no Cruze Coupe.

[Lamar]

Ford's paring down the Focus trims/bodystyles for 2011 in anticipation for the new 2012 model. Most automakers do something like that.

[Robert Hall]

Ford's paring down the Focus trims/bodystyles for 2011 in anticipation for the new 2012 model. Most automakers do something like that.

2012 Focus is supposed to have at least 2 bodystyles in NA--4 dr sedan and 5dr hatch.

[Lamar]

2012 Focus is supposed to have at least 2 bodystyles in NA--4 dr sedan and 5dr hatch.

Well, yeah, that too.

My point was basically that the '11 is a lame-duck model, and as such, there wouldn't be as much variety.

[Paolino]

Or, the best selling Corolla:

2003 Corolla - New body style, 130hp I4, 4-speed auto

2004 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto

2005 Corolla - 130hp, 4-speed auto, XRS 170hp model introduced with 6-speed manual

2006 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS drops to 164hp

2007 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto, XRS dropped completely

2008 Corolla - 126hp, 4-speed auto

2009 Corolla - after being delayed a year to spice up the Corolla to compete with the new edgy Civic, light body refresh, 132hp, 4-speed auto, XRS returns with 158hp and 5-speed auto or manual

Corrected.

[regfootball]

Reality: bankruptcy. recession. Those events have slowed product development cycles.

ah,but the competition moves on. they (GM) have to eat the lunch they pack.

just sayin, the cruze is not a 'new' car. its been out over two years, but people want to sugar coat that. for some to suggest it should get the 'its a new product, it gets the exemption' on having a more developed product line is a sorta hogwash. especially with all that cheap korean engineering and manufacturing labor at their disposal.

all the same folks who lambasted ford for not having the euro focus here and yet 2 years late the cruze gets a pass.

Edited September 11, 2010 by regfootball

[regfootball]

What the hell logic is this? Incomplete powertrain offerings my ass. According to you, the G5 and Cobalt have terribly limited powertrain options. In 2009, you could only get a 2.2L with the G5, and the Cobalt had that engine and the Turbo 2.0L. That's it. Actually, that means pretty much every car in this category is 'limited.'

Mazda3:        Two Engines, Two Body styles.

Ford Focus:    One Engine,  ONE body style (Coupe's gone for 2011)

Honda Civic:   Two Engines, Two Body Styles

The Cruze's powertrain is NOT incomplete. The vehicle offers the correct amount of options for whatever market it's in, including diesels. Obviously, Ford realized the Focus Coupe was a waste of time, and GM probably knows this too, which is why there's no Cruze Coupe.

mazda3 has three engines. the 2.0, 2.5 and turbo.

[Croc]

Umm, have you looked at the design of the render?

I see no A&S there at all.

Only people like us would even know that the underpinnings were related.

Then there is transmission choice, suspension set-up, perhaps even wheelbase, not to mention interior.

So, the two cars might share nothing more than drivetrain and a basic architecture.

Let me put it to you this way: people aren't going to spend an extra $20k on essentially the same car just because it has a Cadillac badge on it. Styling differences aside, the Cadillac would flop.

Now, my real question here you alluded to...WHAT suspension choices, interior choices, etc. would distinguish this theoretical Buick from its Cadillac platform-mate? Buick isn't such a soft floaty car brand anymore. Buick interiors need to be top notch as well if they are to be taken seriously as a luxury brand.

THIS is what makes it tough for me, and is why I think FWD v. RWD is a great differentiator between Cadillac and Buick, if only for the fact that it lets Buick shine and be top-notch luxury while giving Cadillac the inherent performance edge.

See what I mean?

[Camino LS6]

Now that you've clarified your position a bit better, I get what you are saying, Croc. In fact, I largely agree with you that Buick should primarily remain FWD in counterpoint to Cadillac's primarily RWD lineup.

However, There is ample room for differentiation between this Alpha Buick halo car and the ATS. In fact, I see it fitting perfectly into the GM portfolio while providing much-needed brand identity for Buick.

You ask what I would do with suspension bits and interiors between the two. Well, the problem here is that what the ATS should be is a bit beyond the scope of the discussion of a new Riviera.

I don't want to get too deeply into what the ATS will be, but I think that we all know that the interior and exterior design will be all A&S as we see it in the CTS. Keeping this hypothetical Buick different on those fronts is simple if the design is based on the render I posted - all of the shapes inside and out would be very different.

As for suspension, think of the difference between Benz and BMW. Those two feel worlds apart in driving dynamics yet the structures are just variations on a theme. So the Buick would be tuned for a Benz-like ride, and the Caddy like the BMW.

Even the drivetrain choices could be different in that Alpha is likely to be package protected for a V8 (for Camaro), so a V8 ATS-V might even be possible.

So, if GM builds the ATS,this Riviera,and the F-6 Camaro on Alpha - I think it could be the best example of platform-sharing with differentiation in GM's history.

With those three cars, they could really show how it is supposed to be done.

[Camino LS6]

Anything new on this, Hyper?

[Croc]

Now that you've clarified your position a bit better, I get what you are saying, Croc. In fact, I largely agree with you that Buick should primarily remain FWD in counterpoint to Cadillac's primarily RWD lineup.

However, There is ample room for differentiation between this Alpha Buick halo car and the ATS. In fact, I see it fitting perfectly into the GM portfolio while providing much-needed brand identity for Buick.

You ask what I would do with suspension bits and interiors between the two. Well, the problem here is that what the ATS should be is a bit beyond the scope of the discussion of a new Riviera.

I don't want to get too deeply into what the ATS will be, but I think that we all know that the interior and exterior design will be all A&S as we see it in the CTS. Keeping this hypothetical Buick different on those fronts is simple if the design is based on the render I posted - all of the shapes inside and out would be very different.

As for suspension, think of the difference between Benz and BMW. Those two feel worlds apart in driving dynamics yet the structures are just variations on a theme. So the Buick would be tuned for a Benz-like ride, and the Caddy like the BMW.

Even the drivetrain choices could be different in that Alpha is likely to be package protected for a V8 (for Camaro), so a V8 ATS-V might even be possible.

So, if GM builds the ATS,this Riviera,and the F-6 Camaro on Alpha - I think it could be the best example of platform-sharing with differentiation in GM's history.

With those three cars, they could really show how it is supposed to be done.

OK, so you're not opposed to a much more softly-sprung Buick. I think for me the biggest mental hurdle is how a Buick HALO car will sell vs. an entry-level Cadillac on the same platform without either brand being diluted. Because I think Buick needs a halo car above the 30k price point.