Croc

Sweet. I <3 SAAB

He sells Suzukis. His primary currency is clearly bull&#036;h&#33;

Really creepy. The martini glass hot tub gave me dry heaves.

And content. That's the big thing for me--size, performance, content, European athleticism...this car fills the spot vacated by the Aurora. I haven't looked at the interior dimensions (no way the trunk matches up to mine), but the performance matches up. The V8 Aurora did 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, with the V-6 clocking in at around 8.5. Now, what are the engines and 0-60 times in the Regal? Seems like an efficiency upgrade to me. Fuel economy numbers? Aurora was rated 19/28 (V6) and 17/25 (V8). Those are the original ratings, NOT the revised ones because at least for the 3.5 they are more accurate by my experience. For comparison, the Regal and turbo (T) fuel economies are: 19/30 and 18/28 (T). EDIT: I hope you mean trim exterior dimensions, because the interior is quite spacious. The Regal would be more of an Aurora successor if it had an optional 3.6 instead of those turbo fours. Just as the Verano (which I am seriously considering for my next car) has the bigger 2.4 instead of the Cruze's little engines, I just think that Buick should give the Regal bigger engines than the Malibu. If 0-60 times are comparable, I don't care how many cylinders are banging under-hood.

Oh please. That 1957 Cadillac cost $105,000 in today's dollars, but let's also remember that my $2000 laptop from 2010 would have cost $10,000 in 2004...if it had even been possible to build (nope, would've been much bigger and heavier). As far as I'm concerned, $105,000 isn't really ultra-luxury anyway...That's what an S-Class or a 7er can cost. Those aren't "ultra-luxury" at all.

Why?

What counted as "ultra-luxury" in 1957 is hardly comparable to what that term connotes today.

Who cares? That was 60 years ago. Relevancy?

When Cadillac tried with the STS-V, XLR and XLR-V to go into the $77-100k price range, they fell flat on their face. This is why the DTS and STS both cost $46k, Cadillac fears that high price class. The Alante tried to go up there years ago, and failed also. The other problem, is GM wants to parts bin everything, and their parts bin doesn't have what a Range Rover (or S-class) type of buyer wants. Cadillac doesn't have the platforms, engines, transmissions, technology or brand cache to attack the ultra luxury classes. GMC also does not have what is needed to go after a Range Rover type vehicle. That's what I said--GM doesn't MAKE anything of that class. They can price whatever they want, but if what they manufacture doesn't actually belong in that class, it doesn't matter.

Tuna, Salmon, Catfish, Sand Dab, Red Snapper, Halibut, Cod...I love all fish. Throw in crustaceans and mollusks and I'm really all over it...

Well, for one it allows breathing room for each brand so the bloodshed can hopefully cease.

Oh wait, yes, yes I do.

That's a cute little thing...it'll make a fantastic Buick, too!!

Oh yea they do. I know several family friends who live a more rural lifestyle but also really, really like nice things. They have a Range Rover, and they definitely take it off-road.

Cadillac can't even play there, GMC sure won't be able to. The average income for a Range Rover buyer is around $300,000. Far more than the $129kk income seen for Cadillac buyers, and even significantly more than the Mercedes average income of $174,000. Range Rover is way up there. Cadillac could if they made anything to sell in that class. GM seems reluctant for some reason of taking any of their brands to the moon in terms of over-the-top luxury. They aren't? What is better off road than a Range Rover? Agreed. Not sure what balthazar is trying to get at there...

ARGH! They are all New Yorkers! No native Jersey Shore people sound like that! Actually, Sammi Sweetheart and Deena Nicole are Jersey natives.

FTFY

Good call, though that actually was a pretty nice Xover!! I easily could have been happy with one...

I don't want to belabor the point, but in certain markets they sell reasonably well. Certain markets being those with high fuel prices and limited parking. I'm guessing they do OK in NYC as well, yea?

Smart flopped in your local market. Yet again you can't imagine that things aren't uniformly the same across the nation as compared to your little burg. You also can't imagine a world that isn't 100% dependent on driving somewhere every day.

I wouldn't consider Smart a flop considering how many I see occasionally. FAR outnumbers the Aztek, Envoy XUV, SSR, XLR and TrailBlazer EXT/Envoy XL combined!! Now Maybach? That's flop territory. I have seen maybe one in LA. In 7 years. I see more Crossfires in a month. Serious nomination: Chrysler Sebring (last gen) ...in fact just nominate pretty much the entire Mopar lineup of the past 6 years or so, excepting of course the 300.

I'm with you there. Of course, Palmdale and Moreno Valley are now "Gated Ghettos" as those people certainly aren't "living" now after the market tanked and their real estate became virtually worthless...for the very reasons it's inherently worthless to the two of us.

Except they didn't, really. Ford uses the thinnest "leather" I've ever seen!

It's a chicken and egg problem. If the cities weren't so wretched to live in, people wouldn't be trying to sprawl out to live with the Amish..... which gets back to my point - that dense urban living need not be awful. With a little bit of urban planning, urban living can not only be nice, but actually be desirable. However, one of the things it requires is a very strong public transit system. Wrong on both counts. People live in the suburbs because it's cheap. You get more house, more space, more "shiny things" for your money. Why? Because cities are expensive. Why? Because the market dictates it so via supply and demand. There's a reason it's called "suburban wasteland." There's no culture, limited shopping, little social interaction. Also, strong public transit is NOT a prerequisite to desirable urban living. If it were, Los Angeles would not exist. That's getting fixed--slowly but surely--but it still isn't a reality. To be fair, LA was built with the best public transit network in the world...but it grew and prospered after it was all ripped up. I would posit that LA is desirable in spite of it's infrastructure, not because of it. Climate, culture, and location location location. It's cheap to live in suburbs because fuel costs are low. Of course, but clearly a thriving urban metropolis is not dependent on a strong public transit system. Though that really is the one thing LA doesn't have. As for the suburbs, well, commuting 30-60 minutes during rush from the suburbs to the city job certainly costs a lot more in fuel than a closer, more expensive location...and time away from family...stress of commuting...drive, drive, drive from the heart of a non-connected cul-de-sac neighborhood to piano lessons (careful, don't go more than 20 or the busybody on the corner will report you to the neighborhood association), soccer practice, and the Rotary club. But you get a bigger house (made cheaply and just a slightly different shade of beige than your neighbor's), more land (but no storm sewers and often septic system), and more shiny things (for when you're not stuck in traffic). No it really comes down to wanting what you can't afford. In the LA region, people wanted the house with the pool and all the nice suburban things, but they weren't willing to pay for them. So they built all these places out in Palmdale and Moreno Valley and commuted for 1.5+ hours each way. All in the name of square footage...you know, for the 3 hours a day they weren't working, commuting or sleeping.