turbo200

it isn't so much that Buick didn't design a good looking, refined, classical looking beast. it's all of these. it is that Buick is redefining itself and in need of a star to rebuild the brand and differentiate themselves with a cause from other good looking luxury cars. it is that Buick is looking at a segment now, that it previously had no chance of competing with, the same entry level luxury category the CTS competes and dominates in. This truly is the Lexus ES counterpart to the CTS' more sport focused theme all from GM. I love that they went this far, and I do think they'll be able to easily command the $35k+ bracket. this really is all that much car. [now i haven't seen the base interior yet to be disappointed with it so....]. so my point is, they have succeeded in making a compelling luxury vehicle, and there is no disappointment in that, but the exterior could stand to be a bit less generic.

I'm going to deduce from what we have heard of how these upcoming cars portend to be on the road in driveability, that one main reason for the weight increases is structural improvements/stiffness. While I am disappointed with how heavy these vehicles are, I am going to take the good with the bad, so long as the suspension and road handling are vast improvements then the heavy weight isn't so big an issue. GM seems to be doing really well as of late with this issue. I'm more disappointed in the estimated fuel economy someone above is quoting than the weight issues, though obviously these are interrelated. heavy weight plus structural improvements plus low cash funds for plus outstanding improvements = GM made all the right compromises in designing these vehicles. yeah they're obese, but average joe luxury sixpack won't know that. Now on to the rest. More of the same? I won't go as far as saying it's dumpy, ill-proportioned, or plain though.....not that I'm criticizing anyone for doing that....

one thing I didn't highlight was te impressive presentation of this new Buick [whether or not I like the design choices]. I do think this will be a redefinition of Buick, and along with the new REgal, buyers will see that. I do hope the Delta Buick builds on the design themes started here....but that one is a big quesiton mark right now. back to this car, it is seriously a better presentation than the ES and equal to the TL. this is a solid homerun and will be a hit. i'm glad they did AWD, glad for the engine choices, impressed by the feeature content and the attention to detail within the interior, quality could suprass the CTS, with ideas and creativity this defintely went one step above CTS.

it's calling something ugly when it's a toyota and something beautiful when it's a GM model that gets you no credibility. don't explain yourself and back up your opinion? no one will listen. the RX has great surface details, the sheetmetal is bent the same as the LS, and it works phenomonally on that car. the only thing that's different from that car to the RX is that with RX Lexus decided to incorporate facias that'll remind us all that this is from the family of best selling luxury SUVs that has been dominant for a decade. and then there's the rake of the windshield and the C-pillar kick forward and the sloped rear window. the RX continues to balance a good sporty look with plenty of elegance, since the first gen it has been a style that endures. from pictures, SRX does not look as upscale as the RX, but that's not that bad a thing; BMW X3 doesn't look upscale in the same way the RX does, it derives its upscale aura from a sophisticated look.

hey, if you like the interior then you like it. there's pictures on autoblog that show the surfacing a little better than some other shots, I don't like the surfacing, that's all. then the rear could stand to be more cohesive with Buick and original is all. the interior still looks a little unfinsihed, a big stick protruding from a flat pillow, but everything else about the interior screams luxury. it comes down to a design preference, and most people won't care to notice. it'll look shiny and high quality.

I'm trying to put this car in the context of Buick and get my feelings on the design from there. It's beefy, brawny unlike Buicks of recent past, which is a good thing. It's imposing and menacing, the trend of late for facial expressions, another good thing. the attention to detail is there, obviously in that department we're talking a whole other Buick. still i get the feeling that this is unfinished, like there was more work that could have been done to smooth out the paneling, and of course give the rear end a less copycat feel. the interior is also a dramatic leap forward, and still I feel like a little more work could have been done refining the details of the design. it's a little funky and just some of the detailing is slightly on the garish side [even though I'm very much in favor of the materials mix they've used, alluminum wood leather]. the design could stand to be less, weird, and more conventional. but major kudos for trying to make something different, it just needed a little more time in the oven. the materials look like a miraculous leap forward and enough to convince buyers that GM and Buick are a changed entity. Does this have the power to change minds like a Jaguar XF, that is a resounding no. but it's certainly along the level of the MKS, with a greatly refined and classically elegant feel. more work could have been done to make this an appealing design, instead they left it at universally generica. that's okay, obviously a very good effort from a company known for poor work. this will change minds and attract Lexus buyers, the problem I see is aside from stellar powertrain options and perhaps good tech and maybe a solid driving feel, it looks too much like a Lexus to change hardcore buyers' minds.

they should be readying an MCE after next year to include the new 2.4 and 3.0 DI so long as they get increased mileage. also they should look into introing the new radio/hvac units and perhaps updating interior colors and maybe changing the rear taillights to something slightly more dramatic and upscale. what we saw in the drawing not too long ago might work well if they were to use good looking lenses and tech like LEDs...I'm thinking Corvair, that is one sweet looking rear end.

GXT makes a good point. though malibu's sales increase is a good one and apparently would show that GM is increasing market share in the midsize market, in order for thier to be proof the malibu is eating share from the others we'd have to have a multi-year trend. this year the only thing those decreased sales for the other three seem to prove is that there were less people buying cars. malibu's increased numbers do however show that more people were willing to look at the car. hopefully more will buy it next year.

with all that i've said, I still think a $40k plus price tag sounds reasonable, so long as it's as technologically packed as the opening lines of that press release want to lead me to believe. i hate that this is taking a complete dive into a different market and going after a completely different demographic, i hate how blatant it's being about it, and how much it's trying so hard to appease that crowd [women] in terms of design. but, cadillac figured it could not compete in the sport segment of the SUV after one failed try. kudos GM marketers, you try once and don't try again! on the bright side, it does have a better interior look than the RX, and should have an easy time selling just on the idea that its a crossover with a cute Cadillac look. so disgusting that last line is it makes me wanna puke. on a side note, after all the comments about the video, I checked that out, it does look good in motion. BUT, I submit caution to onlookers, the video seems edited to focus on good attributes of the design, whereas straight on side profile and direct front view is one we get sitting in traffic a lot of the time. I'm not crazy about this car, but it will bring in some bacon.

aesthetically, the new interior uses a more pleasing mix of materials and has more design flair, yes it is better looking. it should be. i think the first gen interior pictured above looks richer because of more abundant wood and the screen's presence, which is there on the newer one but it's a pop up so there appears to be a pretty vast expanse of plastic there. the outgoing SRX has great materials quality, but I don't think this one will have a problem at least equaling it there as well. discerning the quality of the plastics is plausible because the center stack, steering wheel, and controls surround gearshift are all CTS parts bins. the center stack that has a brittle plasticy feel inside the current CTS' center stack is present here minus the painted-alluminum color in that car. the design of the interior is not lackluster at all, but it's not certifiably top-tier luxury either....Subaru has a flashier and more dynamic interior design in the tribeca.

I think because of the overall size and height of crossovers, mfgs believe they get away with pricing markups since the impression is of a very large, hefty vehicle.

great. while infiniti brings us the manly FX45, Porsche has the broad shouldered Cayenne, BMW's X5 kept its muscularity and traded nothing for extra refinement to its look, Mercedes dropped the minivan sctick and got new religion with a superb ML, Acura's motherly MDX converted into a techy bold brute..........while all this was happening, CADILLAC, of the brute sophisticate Escalade fame, brought us a flinty SRX to do battle with seemingly no one going after a cute ute in terms of size and proportions, and a soft flower in terms of looks. oh so sweet it is. It seems the first gen SRX was hindered by Cadillac's strict adherence to the science design theme 1.0 and the structure's hard points. in this iteration the proportions of theta have gotten in the way, along with wanting to translate all of the themes going in the CTS sedan. pity the interior also looks kinda cheap from photos, but there it reallly is hard to tell the final outcome. as i've been saying all along those controls, which are grafted straight from CTS minus the faux alluminum finish on the center stack, those controls look cheap, and the looks don't lie in this case. the interior still looks like in person it could be a winner, but it's hard to say the interior on looks alone tops anything in its class. this will appeal to suburaban moms, but urban trendsetters will stay away and opt for more fashionable choices.

you're right. lacrosse was a bad name from the start, tarnishing it with bad stodgy product only made the situation worse. I think I would make the decision depend on the final impact of the design of the car itself. if the design is bold enough to stand on its own two feet, then change the name. if it's good looking people will buy regardless of what it's called, but calling it lacrosse might actually hurt the car's chances.

this post will certainly make heads spin. technically a small car-- go outside the headlights and grille and look to the form of the sheetmetal and you will see where I'm coming from. the astra is probably the best looking non-premium compact sold in the US, but that doesn't mean that it can't also be dated. in fact much of the styling tricks, surfacing primarily are old old. now a direct comparison to it's prime competitor, it's easy to see which one is more up to date. as i said, the new astra will soon be out and fix the modern feel of the sheetmetal. in anticipation of a barage of complaints I'm about to field about how i can't compare luxury to the astra, yes I can because it's all design language, first, and second civic, new Mazda3, Corolla along with whatever Subaru has and some Nissan product all illustrate my point convincingly, but these do so much more loudly. understanding the importance of the form of the sheetmetal is something that has escaped the grips of American automakers for some time. Euro Ford and Saab seem to get it right [along with Opel of course].......it's the most important thing towards crafting a sexy and serious looking automobile, grown up and real contender. americans seem content to play second fiddle when it comes to this important aspect of car design.

the only way for Astra to succeed in its current form would be for GM to care about it. Ironically it's probably the most important car for Saturn since it cracks at thier traditional base. If GM cared enough to save it, they would change the engine to the 2.4 or a 1.8 turbo currently in production, keep the price levels, and start advertising with real cool remarkable ads that are different and show the car's sporting nature and lines. only, they really don't care to make it a winner because it's a money loser.

yes, definitely. i mentioned that before. the greenhouse is exactly the same as the cobalt sedan, so the slope of the roofline is exactly the same, doors look to be shaped exactly the same, profile is very similar to cobalt. overall, it's a dated looking car in shape and surfacing. it's hard to believe these are not merely rebadges, but we know they're not. GM probably just used the same design genes, and modified for chevy. none of this means astra is a failure or is bad looking, it's actually quite good looking, but uses a lot of styling trends that are way out of date now. the new global astra will of course come soon and look up to date.

" no one will mourn the loss of that car" really a great way to express the fanfare/adoration of a certain model.....how much it was able to enchant consumer mindspace. agreed totally with enzl on the idea that ss will be the only cobalt to do so, other than that it's a perfectly average car. so my question is, without having driven it and without knowing how much of a factor that will be in adding desirability quotient, basing it on what we've seen of the design, can we say the Cruze will change the answer to that question? If not, then GM better get to developing a new small car. My answer, is based on the design, no.

And I commented that your vision of how Nissan did was funded in your understanding that Nissan almost failed in the '90's, lost all thier money. Most people don't know about that, most people outside car enthusiasts, who actually care about how the businesses run, a very small portion of the public, knew about this situation. With the crap issue you're yet again proving me right. exaggerating and generalizing left and right, as if your singular opinion that everything is 'crap' will just be met with complete acceptance. we can get into semantics about which car does this better and what issues plague them, but the bottom line is Nissan gets that cars can't be bland-arific concepts. they get that the ideas behind the car design is what motivates car buyers and buyers either flock to those ideas or don't. they get that they need to make cars desirable inside and out, a complete experience. more than i can say for most of GM cars. what are we talking about here, the media you've created in your mind? from what I recall, Astra, the least advertised of the new lineup, kicked some ass in comparison tests, especially one in C&D, that never would have happend for Cobalt. Aura won North American Car of the year. Outlook was highly rated. Vue has been called heavy, but on the other hand Edmunds remarked it was great to drive and desirable to own. Your first question is how is Nissan a different situation from Saturn? it's so different I don't know where to begin. Nissan was already accepted for being a full scale maker of cars, Saturn had a reputation for making plastic small cars that were weird looking and cheap. This had nothing to do with media and everything to do with word of mouth, yes that wonderful image, and it's always 100% backed up by the product. the product speaks for itself. HINT: [as you so loveingly do when you want to show an idea that escapes everyone else but you]: there have been plenty of diatribes written about Nissan's lack of materials quality, but when it comes to performance and hardware, there's been nothing to complain about beause they do thier homework. and design is subjective, but Nissan is trying to make something that looks attractive and is worth its price. ]besides the Titan what are you referring to? bad plastics quality? that's not the same as overall quality. that's quality in presentation, quality in durability and reliability is what I was referring to, Nissan has not had a negative perception in those fields from what I've read. Again, Nissan "recovered from being unprofitable, not from making poor quality cars. that the cars were generally unappealing to own is another issue, and one that was turned around in order to make them profitable I never said marketing and image count for nothing. I said that product affects this in the first place. I said that GM needs to make their lineup desirable. the marketing, whether it follows later or not, will not make as huge of a dent when all the cars are executed to the level of Camaro. HINT: don't call people names it just cheapens your point.

we talk about cars like the malibu and CTS as heralding new visions for car design at GM. but mass market cars are more than that. you've got the compact segment, literally an empty house for the buying public at large when it comes to GM. you've got the midsize segment, oh wow looky here, GM's been producing a floundering ugly duckling [or massively conservative ten years ago] version of some badge they used to sell in the glory days, called Malibu. Well, that'll teach 'em, let's buy a dang ol Malibu that used to permeate the rental fleets en masse, but now it's better, that'll show the neighbors---fictional American male. CTS is great, it's wonderful, but it's not a mass market car, it's not a car for everyone. if you want to change perception, you have to wait for GM to come up with an up to date and completelineup of mass market CARS--not trucks--with killer style and quality that resounds with the American public. the equinox and camaro is a good starting point. mass market is not one car [malibu], and we certainly won't change perceptions with a model name that used to be considered junk. we'll have to wait and endure.....but GM must come up with ever better product

this is the kind of exaggeration that I'm referring to that clouds the judgement of people who are reading this. Is it common knowledge that Nissan made 'horrible' cars in the '90's, and how definable is 'horrible'? People here have certainly implied that GM models have been 'terrible', and loosely left the word and implication without definition understanding that people knew what it meant. But the explanation for why GM has been a failure time and time again in the design of cars has been literally soaked dry from the wet towel of C&G discourse. in short, we've gone over all the reasons why GM has been bad at designing good upto date and modern cars so much that we've beaten the dead horse to a pulp. it's only a few people here who still stick by this line of always giving GM the upper hand. My God, I think GMI was less progressive than us when 'the awakening' began years ago, and now it seems like every member there has gotten the wisdom even as I don't frequent there very much. How horrible were Nissan cars if they were still living up to the perception that Japanese cars had huge longevity advantages over American cars. That was something accepted as common wisdom, something I heard from multiple encounters with normal people, something written over the pages of editorial items in papers and magazines..........The idea that Nissan made horrible cars comes from a few lines you've read throughout the years written in editorial pieces about Nissan's lackluster exterior design, but it in no way was referring to components, powertrains, or durability of Nissan. This idea that Nissan was horrible was not generally a concept that had become accepted by the American public. they were just an also-ran, running to derivative, and not offering the right sized model or right quality model in the two most important market segments, compact and midsize, Sentra and Altima, relative to the competition, H and T. The perception you have that Nissan was horrible, also is fed by your reviewing the status of the company, the fact that many articles were written about Nissan's almost-demise in the 90's, again due to lackluster designs, not cars that suffered in quality relative to the competition. so this is over your head, because you and some others have a propensity for twisting facts and dis-acknowledging history in order to better serve your points.

you guys all sound just a bit exaggerative. both your bias and inaccurate stats/facts are showing up in your analysis of hwo the companies are perceived. stop trying to figure out something that's a bit over your heads and when we can only defer to anecdotal evidence. thier negative perception is an issue, but if they were building cars with desirable design adn quality like the malibu or astra in each of thier models it wouldn't be as big of a problem.

with regards to cleaning up a reputation.....GM must learn that thier culture seeped into thier cars and thier lackadaisical attitude- towards consumers and quality achievements and advanced design- all caught the attention of drivers. it won't be after renewing one good product in one sector that GM will suddenly see a turnaround with half the buying public [those that buy cars]. GM's marketing team for many years viewed consumers as unsophisticated dolts--dolts clueless as to thier needs and wants, unwavering in thier 'don't fix something that ain't broke' buying habits, and unnoticing of huge strides being made in vehicle design around the corner. much of the credit for GM's renewed understanding and focus on product design, I beleive, can be given to blogs like this. people who've come on and proven to GM they are capable of independent thought, that they aren't just going to fall into line with the old GM distribution system. that just because GM are huge and and have a huge legacy does not mean they are infallible. what a long and winding road it's been for the talking heads within GM to let this sink through. they are not too big, and most of the country does not care anymore. we've [i've] been pointing out to them for soooo long what thier problems were, and now they have the gall to come to us when the root of thier problem exposes itself. quick question, had GM managed a product turnaround fifteen years ago, with cars consistently placing on the 10 best list, winning critical acclaim, like the malibu of today, cars that ranked near the highest in comparison tests, and design that was being heralded and in demand, do you think we'd be sitting where we are today with GM using the government's help to get by? in urban centers, due to mass penetration and population, imports have had a stand up chance. word of mouth. it's as simple as that. the rolling advertisement. but most importantly, word of mouth, legacy spreading. 'this is a great car, great handling, great steering, gas efficient engine, and it's roomy on the inside and nice looking.' 'plus on top of all this it's given me not half of the problems the last [insert American car] did.' imports released cars that consistently and thoroughly topped themselves. GM re-released versions of the same platform with less advanced tech [intrigue to Impala/Gran Prix/Lacrosse anyone????? aurora to Lucerne 3800 still in production!!!!]. GM focused on internal competition and renewing cars with what it viewed was enough improvement, then spent billions on advertising, where it felt it would always win. 'distribution and the company line, those zombies will pick up on it.' they spend billions on advertising. literally, how much capital are they still burning through trying to convince us the Cobalt XFE is truly as desirable or moreso to own than the competition [no offense to any cobalt owners as i still think they are decent little cars]. i'm sorry that this is coming across all a bit negative.....but the sad part is this is nothing but the truth. like much of corporate America, in thier quest for domination, they dumb everything down for the dumb consumer. they underestimated us. and now that's come to bite them in the butt. we've grown too sophisticated for thier common design.

indeed. and since buyers snap up over 140k G6s a year, almost as many as the newly redesigned Malibu, I'd venture to say there is a market for good mainstream Pontiac cars. here are more interesting stats jetta - ~90k units/annual altima - ~260k units mazda6 - ~60k units mazda3 - ~110k units fusion - ~150k units sonata - ~118k units these are all second tier brands, like a Pontiac would be, except for Nissan. i do believe the viability of none of these brands is being called into question. and yet they're volume is either equal or less [except for the more mainstream fusion]. these models are also all newer [only the mazda6 has been around longer] and in some cases critically considered to be near the head of thier class or in much better shape overall than the Pontiac model..... you get my point, give Pontiac a better product to sell, and the story would be different. as for bringing fleet sales into this equation, the other models here are also fleeted, retail buyer ratio will actually favor Pontiac G6 against most or all of these

you guys are absolutely right with this idea. it is one that is clearly evident within GM's thinking and another point of the strong reasoning that says GM is completely mismanaged. this is one that just gets me angry because GM is giving even more reason, perhaps the biggest reason of all, to shoppers to look elsewhere. if you can't buy the car in the size you want, then you just have to look elsewhere. this is even bigger than quality materials in my opinion at chasing away buyers. this is my own personal primary problem with GM, being that I like small cars that are smaller and nimble on the outside yet reasonably space efficient and premium on the inside. as you said they need to quit building the cars they want to build and instead build the cars the market wants.

there is validity to a brand that is more in line with VW in pricing, offering much improved, even RWD, performance and aggressive design. it makes a lot of sense, there is a captive audience out there looking for this kind of car. BMW enthusiasts became enthusiasts/loyalists after time. A vocal segment of Honda buyers, and many not so vocal most probably, shop at Honda stay with Honda love Honda for precise steering, flexible engines, stable suspensions. breeding a fan base takes time and good product. combining this formula with an already hugely recognized brand that has huge brand recognition, regardless of how badly perceived it may be, only is common sense. a product can go from bad to good with the simple engagement of ideas people want and want to buy into. pontiac and GM still can have a life after death, they need to keep thier act together and build the best they can, along with very acute understanding of the market and who they're trying to attract.