Mule Bakersdozen LS

Ditto-GMC doesn't need its image further diluted as a truck company than the Acadia Lambda will already do. Give Chevy a compact car-based crossover SUV below the Equinox, move the VUE premium for now, add a Buick Rapid version to compete with Mercury Mariner and BMW X3 and call it a day.

I've seen a fair number of DTS', new Jetta's, Explorer's, Impala's, and HHR's. My votes for 'fiascos of the year (not in order)' are: Buick Lucerne Chevrolet Monte Carlo Mitsubishi Eclipse Mitsubishi Raider (I like the styling, but how many Mighty Max's did you see on the road?) Isuzu i-280/350 (you know, the Canyon clone).

Really? Sebring and Stratus have always sold okay, not great, but that's also because of their lack of advertising since their 2001 redesign. And their sales surge I guess is because the Neon's dead, and these mid-sizers are the smallest of a 2-3-passenger car lineup. Probably a good short-term move.

Its a nice new front-end, but its still a 1999 design.

I'll admit they've done at least an okay job of it too, Evok. The G6, even though its inferior (IMO) to what it could and should've been and is lacking in many areas, has done a pretty decent job of replacing the former Grand Am and Alero. However, I think LaCrosse should've been more effective in replacing not just Century and Regal, but the Olds Intrigue as well.

I saw one and a Crimson tintcoat (I think) CXL V-6 with a front bench seat-pretty nice looking, but it looks short on rear seat room and narrow. This was a Sunday, parked out on front and the dealer was closed, so I didn't yet get to sit in one. The Sharkskin is nice, but its really just a Mauve color (a la Crayola colored pencil). It does look nicer in person, even if un-Buick like.

Just curious what you guys think (2006 all-new/redesigned for model year cars/trucks) might not do well in sales this year....

The HHR is relatively popular around here-haven't seen many around lately, but I think that and Ford Fusion will probably be the biggest 2006 Success Stories.

Whoever is doing interior designs at Mopar should be pink-slipped-this and Dakota anyway are especially terrible and dated looking.

True (except for the GM product being the best in the world-very few can accomplish that feat right now), but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that maybe the reason the Camry and other Toyota's are supposed to lok like Lexus' is because they are the less upscale division, so in a similar 1950's-80's relationship in which many Chevrolet's were made to resemble Cadillac's. I don't know why, but in the 2006 Accord sedan rear end, I see a bit of the Pontiac Grand Prix, blander and less stylish of course.

Well in the Toyota-Lexus styling connection, think Chevy and Cadillac, particularly the 1955-57/58 generations. I think I like the current model better styling-wise.

The interior isn't horrible looking (it is cramped though-not much more cargo space than Grand Cherokee and the third row is a pointless proposition, with little second-row room either), and while the exterior does look better in person than in pictures, it is only slightly so. A waste of time, effort, and money-when you could get a roomier and far superior GMC Envoy XL for similar money.

I always liked the 1977-85 versions, mostly because my Grandma owned a 1978 brown wagon, with a tan or so vinyl interior. And my friend's Mom at one time had a 1982 sedan, saddled with the V-6 engine and 3-speed automatic transmission. For some reason, I used to want a light blue 1983 sedan-I always liked the front grille on those. The 1969-70 had nice styling too.

That's very nice-I got the 2006 brochure (as well as Malibu and Uplander, plus a small-sheet 2007 Tahoe teaser) yesterday. It'll do well just like all other Aveo's, and I wish they didn't discontinue the Aqua color that was available (after September 2005, apparently)-it was very unique. And this Maui blue sounds nice too-I wonder what else they'll come up with. Now how about a Z13 Sport package for LS/LT, extended SVM options, and a Z02 Turbo model to start with?

I'd love to see Saab's wild stylingh potential as seen in computer drawings shown last or earlier this year of what's supposed to be the next (Epsilon II) 9-5, if that program is still on. And they've had nice concepts like the 2002 (?) 9-X and 2003 9-3 SportWagon (and its 2006 production model), yet its going to waste with a low-rider Bravada/Rainier clone and some cramped, dated-looking, overpriced Subaru Impreza clone. If Saab doesn't pull up anything innovative looking, dump it. I'd hate to see it go to waste, and I hate seeing Pontiac and Buick going to waste as well. I and many others have visions for them that could be workable if GM bothered to look and try. However, it doesn't look like that's happening (for Buick anyway, and GMC's truck credibility looks like it might be going down the drain like Jeep), and I worry about Pontiac's future too. They've not only lost product, but all there is in the lineup is a vastly-underdone G6, the useless rebadge Torrent, and the unnecessary-unless-its-made-sporty Montana SV6. Grand Prix is stylish and performance-oriented (despite front-wheel-drive) though is pricey and cramped and not better than a Dodge Charger, and Solstice from pictures and buzz looks like a real winner. That's a total of two bright spots, and that's not enough.

Im-pal-uh. Or Im-pale-uh. Either way, one of the best American cars and values now, with pretty decent inoffensive looks and needing only a few adjustments to make it perfect as-is.

I've been a born-again Christian for a little over a year and been to a great church full of them. We are different from the world as we're called to be. But as far as I can tell, I have not and do not see any "psychos" around me as some believe. I'm sure there are some looking out for their own interests, but they and I are just doing what we are called to do-Go out and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark).

These cars will kill GMC-or at least ruin their credibility as a TRUCK maker-I'd rather see them go to Buick for more appropriate placing. I still haven't seen a Lucerne on the road and since I don't much go that way, I haven't seen one last I checked at the dealer either. This Enclave better be good or Buick's as screwed as Lincoln. I'd love to see Buick take on Chrysler and Volkswagen, but it looks like GM doesn't want that to happen.

I still don't get what the deal is with the VUE-it has a new front end! What's the difference otherwise? I saw a 4-cylinder model in the mall a month or so ago, and the interior looked like the same subpar material upon quick glance, like the 2002-05 models.

My favorite Escalade picture would be of one that actually looked distinguished and was larger-not some Tahoe with a side air vent, different wheels and engine and a Sixteen-style grille tacked on. And why didn't they change those dopey Tahoe mirrors? I think Infiniti's QX56 is still the large luxury truck-based SUV benchmark, and this Escalade I'm seeing so far (I've seen the unveiled picture) doesn't remotely come close.

Well considering the sunroof and the 17-inch wheels on LS alone, I can see why/how its worth that much. Any special badging? I'd like to see GM come out with more special editions, a la Chrysler-makes for more buzz. There's no TrailBlazer LTZ, and there hasn't been since 2003-that got folded into an LT model-option, and the main feature it added was just two-tone paint. I know LT and LT-based SS (if not also the LS-based SS-there should be just one, IMO) have the new front-end, and the LS continued as is, and I think the 5300 V-8 is optional on all LS/LT regulars this year.

I guess I said only in the sense that for that price, front-drive or not, this car WILL be compared to the Chrysler 300C. And once again, Buick loses out. But I imagine it will be fine anyway, and I mimagine it wins on fuel economy.

Yeah I agree in the fact that Ron Zarrella overall had vastly superior concept vehicles compared to the ones we've seen recently. I was absolutely blown away by the 1998-2001 range of concept cars (and a couple 2002's, plus the 2003 Chevy SS and Journey concept cars), but otherwise I haven't been too impressed. I hate to doubt the insiders, and I should reserve final judgment, but just what I've seen in some cases lately worries me, stopgap or not. GM has so much potential and I see it go to waste.

I agree with your list of what Lucerne needs-it needs some exterior freshening too-it looks too much like a de-styled Chevy, nothing like a Buick at all. It needs more trunk space too-LeSabre had 18, Park Avenue had 19, the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego have 21, why does Lucerne only have 17? It is better than Chrysler 300's paltry 15.6 and even worse Toyota Avalon 14.9 (?) cubic feet, but still, there shouldn't be any glory parades for it. And after looking at vintage ads (which I think are vastly superior to those today, IMO), Buick needs to find key points to advertise Lucerne on. Even though its well known I'm not a fan at all of Lucerne, it does have 41" of rear legroom and even though its only 275hp, it does have an optional V-8 engine, and it has a wide variety of colors. I agree with regfootball's list of equipment/running changes it needs. And I'd make a front split bench seat standard (since that's how nearly all LeSabre's/Park Avenue's were sold-I know Buick's trying to change, etc.) but keep the buckets as no-cost options, and standard on CXS-best of both worlds-I mean why should they have to pay? And cut the price by at least $1,000 on all models. I don't see Lucerne as Ford Fusion-blockbuster hit, but I see it succeeding in its own right hopefully.

WHY? Why are they still using a V-6 engine as standard? First of all, they just seem weak and powerless to me. Second, the fuel economy ratings are hardly better than say, the 4800 V-8 most likely. And third, what's the point?