Mule Bakersdozen LS

Checked one model out last week (base model equivalent to Grand Cherokee's Laredo level), and while it looks much better in person and it has one of few new Jeep truck dashboards that don't look like boxy, dated junk (i.e. Dakota), it was still disappointing. The cloth felt fake, and the second and third rows were pretty cramped, and third-row access wasn't that great, and third-row headroom for a 5.4.5' person like me wasn't great, though its not a dare like the Suzuki XL-7's. I also read that the seats-down cargo volume is only 1 cubic foot more than the otherwise-nice Grand Cherokee's volume, which in Commander is a still-pitiful 68 cubic feet, especially for a truck with a taller height and boxier profile than its donor vehicle. And I'm not getting the trend that when a vehicle is redesigned, yet is even taller, cargo space drops. There's no excuse at all. Overall, from what I have seen so far, the Commander seems to be little more than a wasted effort (that had so much potential-it really would have helped if Jeep STRETCHED THE WHEELBASE!), and despite the nice and differentiated steering wheel, I can't rate this boxy rig any higher than a C.

Oh that's not at all what I'm saying-the Malibu desperately needs to become a good and stylish and spacious car-three things it isn't now, and it needs to be, and the 2009 model better be that. I would re-shift the trim level structure, and limit SS to rear-drive, V-8 models only. In other words, I'd make "Monte Carlo" (a sad joke these days unfortunately) Z53, Impala and Malibu LTZ, and for Cobalt, SS to Z-24. And I'd give Pontiac a version and fork the SS Supercharged to become Piranha Formula, and pump up the power to 230hp or something. And I'd incorporate the GMC Denali trim to the existing SLT trim (i.e. the mesh grille among other things), but otherwise get rid of it and give Cadillac Escalade the luxury and breathing room and distinction it needs. And I'd by far and large have the G6 become a much hotter vehicle than it is now-give it some wild style, make the 2.8 V-6 standard, put the 3.2 and 3.6-liter High Feature engines, give it a turbocharged, supercharged, and/or RAM AIR 3.6 for the top GTP trim. And of course, more passenger and cargo room than it has now. Ideally, I don't want any GM division stepping on anyone's toes. And I'd give Malibu and the next LaCrosse bench or bucket front seats, but Aura and G6 would be bucket-only, with G6 GT/GTP also offering rear buckets as optional. Everyone would be set apart, with Chevy defining American value cars and trucks, with FWD cars also emphasizing fuel economy; Pontiac sporty performance, yet affordable, semi-fastback, and also with more passenger/cargo room than now (along with the others). Saturn would be Euro-techie touched, a little experimental (i.e. fastback style in some cases, hybrids, style), and Buick, near-luxury cars and car-based crossovers/minivan/SUV. GMC would be Professional Grade with near-luxury, and would be set apart stylistically and equipment/price-wise from Chevy. Cadillac, full-out luxury.

Oh thanks for clarification-I've been busy and haven't looked at most of my books lately in the little bit I've been home-yeah Toronado had similarly low numbers too I believe, it all was from that 1986 downsizing-even with the likable lengthening and facelift for 1990, it couldn't save the once-classic Toro. I wasn't sure what exactly the Custom Cruiser's numbers were, but I know they were definitely sub-10,000 units as we see here.

Sadly no-and the Custom Cruiser only lasted 1991-92, therefore making it rare-only 3,000 or so per year-I'll have to dig up exact production/sales figures (which is why the Toronado was also dropped after 1992).

I picked Uplander, but I'd think rather Torrent or Terraza as well. All dumb names, all lousy vehicles (okay, Torrent is not lousy, just absolutely unnecessary in its form).

Yeah, and then Impala took over that spot. Although actually, the Eighty-Eight (and Bonneville) had been losing sales in that 1992-99 generation. I don't like the Lucerne because it looks like a Chevy (and not a great one either), it has nothing on the 1998-2001 string of stylish, true Buick concepts (Signia, Cielo, LaCrosse, and Bengal respectively, or even the 2004 Velite save for "portholes"), its pricing should be at least $1,000 less still, and even though evok said there were production/finance problems, there is no valid excuse for the 3800 V-6 to be in that car, nor was there a reason for it to be detuned. I like the 3800 V-6 too, but people need to understand that GM needs to change things in order to move forward. And also the Lucerne and DTS dashboards look almost identical to the Impala's, a $22,000 starting car as opposed to a DTS Performance that can push into the $55,000 range. And all have 4-speed automatic transmissions in a world where the all-new and disappointingly average mid-size Ford Fusion has a 6-speed automatic. See the picture? This seems like a change for the worse, not the better in this case.

Looking sharp! Just as long as they don't cut corners, and put some REAL CLOTH UPHOLSTERY IN THIS TIME!!!! NO MORE SYNTHETIC FAKE JUNK!!!! (Are you listening Chevrolet Cobalt, Malibu, Malibu Maxx, and Pontiac G6?)

Buick, you just signed away your life. $27,000 for an aging full-size car with a weak V-6 engine and a 4-speed automatic transmission in 2006 against Avalon, 300, and Montego. Buh-bye Buick, hate to see you go like this... BTW, how is Lucerne not a replacement for LeSabre/Park Avenue? Must've been stupid PR-speak for "I have nothing good to say about this car."

Yes the pictures do speak for themselves-as far as dashboards go, Armada wins! That sea of gray in Durango needs to go now.

I didn't realized it was already posted-I wasn't sure whether or not to put it in and existing thread-why did it get shut down and locked?

I can't see the pic-what's it look like? I think I've seen the front grille, and it doesn't Uplander-like at all (one of few good features on that car), it looked to me more like the just-released overseas Aveo grille we'll be getting around 2008.

Well, I'm not surprised-I've been seeing that myself (I'm not an inside, just what you describe is more or less my take on it-GM is stuck in an idle position in some cases).

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103218 That bugs me that GM didn't bother increasing the wheelbases from where they are now. Why? What were they thinking? Manueverability, Schmaneuverability, every other large SUV has a longer wheelbase-and wouldn't it make sense to base Tahoe/Yukon on the same wheelbase as the regular-cab standard (6.5-foot) box like the 1995-99 originals?

I think the new trucks will help revive GM. If Chevy is smart, they will price the Tahoe where or less than where a Durango is, which would mean they'd have to be a little lower than the prices you gave Caddycruiser-but only by like $1,500 or something. Personally, I don't think the LTZ trim as it is should exist-that should be left solely to GMC and Cadillac-let Chevy take on the average American truck buyer (i.e. kill the 3LT trim while you're at it too possibly, and/or make LTZ simply a sporty LT extension, adding little extra comfort features, etc.). Chevrolet really needs to learn to not spread itself out so much to the point of overlapping Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, and Buick.

Ah..but there were no early 70's Silverado's-along with lower-mid-level Scottsdale, the Silverado arrived for 1975 as the top-grade level, above Cheyenne (back then it was a high trim that lasted through 1981, then of course replaced Custom Deluxe in the 1988 redesign/other old carryover trucks as base level). So, as it was, Custom Deluxe, Scottsdale, Cheyenne, and Silverado, plus later Custom Deluxe-exempt Sport packages. I'd like to see more colors from Silverado, and sharp-looking base models we saw until 2005. And if you're going to have a W/T trim-make it V-8, few-option regular cab only! And black those bumpers and that grille!

I'm more impressed than I thought I would be! Dashboard looks pretty nice, nice trim level array (except the confusing 1LT/2LT/3LT claptrap Chevy's gotten themselves into for 2006, as long as the LS isn't degraded), and inoffensive, if not uninnovative styling and enhancements. Hopefully this will have comparably more passenger and cargo room than rival Dodge Durango, and hopefully it still seats up to 9, or at least 8 passengers via an available (standard preferably) at least on LS/1LT. Thanks for the pictures and info! I bet Tahoe will do alright, though even in these fuel-conscious times, I still wonder why the 4800 V-8 will be standard later on.

It IS in the full-size category. But growing in size, I agree totally. Same goes for the Malibu and Cobalt.

I haven't yet gotten my 2006 G6 brochure (or any other Pontiac, Buick or GMC), but I got a good number of 2006 Chevy brochures (all cars except Aveo, HHR, Uplander, and Malibu and some trucks), and I didn't notice that mistake in my Cobalt brochure. Thanks!

I agree with you 100%. It has to be done right-both actually-a front and a rear-drive car, which I would respectively name Skyhawk and Skylark. And LaCrosse hardly excites me in any way shape or form (the only things about the car that excite me are that it has real cloth upholstery and a front split bench seat on some models-though I can get it standard-and for much less and slightly larger on the similar Chevy Impala). I just want the Century name to be revived on a truly styled LaCrosse replacement that still starts with real cloth or velour upholstery front split bench seats, with, of course, leather and/or bucket seats options (standard on CXS-type levels) on the way up.

Yeah but they never had a quality rating in the first place so it doesn't really matter. The Aerio's a nice car though-as roomy as my Olds Cutlass Supreme AND Cutlass Ciera.

Because G6 is supposed to be mid-size-it failed because as (seemingly, unfortunately) always, Pontiac screwed up by not offering enough passenger (and cargo) room, and of course, understyled it. Pontiac and GM as a whole needs to learn fast how to efficiently size and space their cars, or else they'll be in big trouble-in another way-again. My ideal lineup would have G6 as a Mazda 6-style sport-performance FWD/AWD mid-size car, while the Skyhawk Delta would be a Jetta/TSX/S40/V50 rival; the Skylark a more stylish, roomier, less-expensive 3-Series/C-Class rear-drive compact rival. The Skylark and G6 would have at least the 2.8-liter DOHC High Feature 210hp V-6 engine as standard; the Skyhawk would have the 2.4-liter DOHC ECOTEC 175hp I-4 engine; the 2.8 V-6 if Delta could be fitted (I disagree with short Epsilon as in its current form-I think it should just be left to mid-size cars only). I've always appreciated carman21's enthusiasm-even if unfeasible, he's always had great ideas. I'd want the Skylark shortened from Zeta VE architecture, given Kappa's woes and for V-6/V-8 (I wouldn't put the latter in Skylark-maybe a top GS but that's it.

Well, do you want Buick to be cross-shopped with Volkswagen, Acura, and Volvo or do you want it to wither away like it is now?

I thought that image looked familiar-I like the current Epica-the new one's spy shots on AutoScoops ( www.autoscoops.tk ) looks okay, if not unnecessary redesign. That V250 image is what I was referring to (didn't see the image here-it wasd on AS)-could anyone shrink it so its printable? If so thank you. any possibility of the generation after next to be based on Epsilon? Station wagon body style? ECOTEC I-4 and High Feature V-6 engines?

That still looks too similar to the current model, which looks somewhat similar to the old 1997-2003 (04-05 Classic) models. I was hoping for something styled after the 2003 SS concept slightly shrunken with better space efficiency and still front-drive in this case.

Its Parisienne-the guy spelled it wrong. Sharp car though.