turbo200

I'm with you there. it's gm that seems to be in favor of killing an already completed investment because of CAFE rules, which they explain as a defficiency in possible fuel economy, not me. the only valid evidence they have going for that line of reasoning is zeta is heavier than a mid size epsilon platform. I love light, tossable cars, so I'm always in favor of losing weight, if there's always something that can be done, it's to lose weight. mark my words, there are things that can be done to lose weight. you mentioned one already by smaller engines, fit those with turbos and you have a strong powertrain that's also significantly lighter. lighter seats that are more expensive, less, more effective sound deadening materials [perhaps more expensive], crossmembers in the doorframes made of alluminum, and probably the most expensive investment, higher strength steel that's lighter. if mazda can use this in a freakin mazda6, that means GM should also be able to invest in this. the bottom line is i want to see zeta continue to exist, because as a full-size mainstream car platform its unbeatable, and as a luxury car platform it's a legitamite contender, so Buick, cadillac, pontiac, chevy could all benefit from aspirational cars off this platform. would large car fans pay the extra ~$1000 to see zeta come to light and have GM incorporate weight-savings measures like i discussed. bet your dollar they would! camaro v6 and impala v6 are price point sensitive, but the rest of the line gets free reign in my book. if gm weren't so afraid of its own potential and just designed the heck out of whatever potential "aspirational RWD" cars I am talking about, used the best quality designs and materials on the inside to show these cars off, and they could incorporate existing hybrid and diesel technologies to help CAFE, all the while hold the line on volumes, they could still achieve this and legitimately move thier brands into the positioning they need to be moved into to strike relevance.

I don't think he's just referring to those, I believe he's also talking about those buyers switching over to large cars and large wagons, etc. and he is right in a general sense and when applied to zeta. many buyers switch to SUVs and pickups when they find they don't comfortably fit in cars....zeta definitely offers a fix, in the form of SWB zeta G8 and in a more grand style probably in the LWB version. certainly what camino says about larger cars being morphed to alpha makes sense. aplha cannot be a right-size compromised platform, and it should be made to support slightly smaller cars than the current g6, and at the largest a wheelbase length of the current G6. the current epsilon cars are not space efficient, so hopefully alpha would improve on this measurably. where the market is going in terms of large cars and crossovers is what matters. zeta can produce incredibly competent large cars. zeta could theoretically support crossovers, and a great handling large one is a necessity at Cadillac. Saab and Chevy could also benefit from this type of vehicle [though more mid-sized]. the zeta supported Denali XT gives another good reason for zeta to continue. the focus going forth should be to quick fix zeta and try and remove some weight, whatever is possible in a quick manner, and continue to use it as a large car for Pontiac, buick, and cadillac. i still believe we may see the zeta chevy, though when and as what is more questionable to me.

sorry you took it that way. you challenged and i guess i just got a little annoyed because i thought i had made my point already. i really think thier is substance to what i'm saying, otherwise i wouldn't be saying it. remember with the CTS it is the newest car in its class and it should leapfrog the competition, but even acura has better consistency in a lower level RDX, probably the upcoming TSX as well. I think the crux to my argument is that i don't find the CTS interior overall to be offensive, but the interior materials i do find offensive but only in light of where the competition is. i think if you read closer and not just the opinions of people on this site, you will find criticism for cadillac's interior, for example some of the major magazines did, all the while praising the rest of the car. my point is not that it isn't a great car, but that there is still some room for improvement, and as a Cadillac it really should to put it bluntly shock and awe in every detail. I was wrong on the cupholders, but I know for a fact thier design and integration and size is poor, i remember there was a huge flaw with that.

if you don't care about design or newness, the comp g GTP or whatever is sold that is currently like it would probably be a screaming bargain and a great car to drive. when those first came out i always liked them, and they're a much more conscious choice in light of gas prices. they still have the supercharged 3800, which was known for great mileage and punch.

okay. i'm not engaging in a pissing contest with you. when i'm reporting on things of this nature i am trying to be as objective and thorough as can be, i want to see these themes succeed at gm, i want to see them utilize thier brands the best way i can see them being used. i believe in brand management, and the way forward is through basic tenats and principles. i want to see what other buyers see when they look at a car and i want to understand how ideas cement in buyers' minds, and what ultimately motivates them to make the decision. the first thing people will notice is the design. far above quality issues this is the most important thing. however, what i am trying to say is a general lackadaisical approach to quality will lead to a poorer experience all around. one piece alone is enough to give the impression the quality may not be all there yet. and once you move successively through the different areas of a car's interior you learn more about the manufacturer's processes as well as thier priorities. in an audi, it's damn clear a complete obsession with solidarity, tight tight fits, super substantial pieces, and the right meticulous design touches all lead to an impression of 'you got a high end car'. in the infiniti i mentioned the impression was only slightly less so, everything still felt new age, new tech. you get into the CTS adn the first thing i went for was the beautiful looking center stack, i wanted to see if looks measured up with substance, what's behind the veneer. it didn't measure up. the painted plastic you noted is so commonly used is even more plasticy feeling and with a glossier finish that overall lead to a cheaper impression than what you get in either of the other two cars i've mentioned. move on to the controls and they are disappointing compared to what older cars like the IS and 3-series use. move on to the rear center armrest and there's no integrated cupholders, it's short on length and width, has all the moving sophistication of an out of date lazy boy mechanism, and the leather quality is atrocious. then you have the rear controls pulled straight from the GM parts bin, as bland and design-less as ever, sticking out like a sore point in an otherwise nicely designed interior. then the most important test, how does my intimate area, as a driver feel. the steering wheel had some jarringly designed pieces that have breaks where other companies are smoothly covered over. the leather on the steering wheel didn't feel all that high quality. the biggest disappointment, the hollow feeling of the door panels that move around in their place. cheap cheap. not needed. before i go further, i have to say with all my complaints, look GM has obviously moved the ball forward. but if this were my $50k I was spending on GM's newest design wonder, and the top of the line CTS with the sport package wheels is a wonder to behold, it is very cool, dull sides aside, if this were my $50k, i'd be poring over all these details and it would aid me in my final consideration. not everyone is going to be as thorough as me, but if even one of those pieces i mentioned above are truly inspected and compared they will have a lesser image overall of the CTS, and it will all contribute to the notion that Cadillac isn't worth the money. with the CTS, gm proves cost cutting still rules the roast. mind you, the quality is good, very good, but not acceptable considering where others are. i'm using benchmarks that are in the same price category, cheaper actually, and are at the top of thier game. there is no reason, no excuse for GM not offering the best in materials this generation has to offer. EDIT: sterile, busy, cold, austere, are all design impressions. you didn't like the deisign of MB and BMW. that's cool. i happen to love thier philosophy. i find it stately, clean, luxurious, classic, classy, with all the right details in all the right places. i find the 3-series coupe with the orange leather seats and a cashmere and black interior to be one of the most phenomonal design cases in all the industry. but i like uninterrupted flow. i love that characteristic. when everything is natural and just works beautifully, like this car beneath me. all the right details in all the right places, no fuss, minimalist touches, don't mess with success....

I'm wondering what this successful launch really is doing within GM and what team is winning the argument on where to go with the next generation of thier car strategy, namely impala, which now is going to look more and more like a fleet queen. malibu will likely end up with fleet sales in the 15-20% range, which will in turn heighten resale and hopefully GM gets the point on how to protect thier models' value and their consumers' best interests, rather than whoring them out for the sake of volume and screwing the consumers over. when i see this report the first thing that comes to mind is how those percentage increases reflect on the last model's sales. 1000 percent increase at one dealership could and most likely means the current one is selling like 30 units, maybe, per month and the last one was selling only 3 this doesn't reflect poorly on the current model's sales, it's obviously doing well, but with these kinds of press releases, meant to built up hype, there's always more than thier telling us. the retail sales increases as well in the three states they outlined are fantastic, this is what chevy's bread and butter car should be doing in these states. even more. the new malibu, i'm starting to see it a lot, and that is definitely representative of those percentage increases seen in this report. i see it mostly with dealer plates, though there's maybe like a 30% mix of fleets, from my observations, and this is good since Cali is tourist driven and there's lots of rental impalas everywhere.

design-wise i think it's pretty good. but the quality just isn't there, i mean the center stack is painted plastic, and feels it. the controls on the center stack are all pretty flimsy and unsubstantial feeling, it's nothing like the good feelings I got when I sat in my darling, the Audi A3. As I said, even an Infiniti G35 had appreciably better materials and more artful trim selections, like a real wood that was tasteful and nicely toned. the whole quality thing is just another part of the luxury car that has to add to the feeling you're really getting what you paid for. combined with a 3.6 DI that may not be up to par with the levels of smoothness of other similarly expensive cars, along with steering that may not offer the right amount of feedback or transiate conditions in a genuine fashion as opposed to artificially, combined with handling prowess that may not match the standards set by similar sized car albeit more expensive, like the 5-series, and you get an expensive luxury car that doesn't seem to offer the same level of experience the others set. mostly though if the quality were improved, still a bunch of work needs to be done, that rear center armrest is garbage and belongs in a Chevrolet not a Cadillac, the front cupholder design lacks any sophistication and good taste, again belongs in a Cobalt not a cadillac.......if all of these things were perfect, you'd hear me crowing more about the CTS and my argument above wouldn't stand.

that's all well and good. BUT you have a case of design not being inherently desirable enough to and quality not being substantially different that is really the inherent problem. CTS is good, but the interior quality isn't totally up to the par of even Infiniti, compare it to Audi and you have a knockout in favor of Germans. exterior design is another place that historically would favor the caddy, I don't know what this wagon will end up looking like, but it's GM's own fault for dumbing down thier cadiilac design philosophy. caddy should always be rich and distinctive; while overall I want to like the CTS, and i do, there are some points of it I find hard to digest. such as the big level of empty space on the sides that are flat and boring for the most part, as well as an overall geriatric look when viewed from side angles where the wheels are conspiring with the dull flat sides to make it seem too demure. with audi, you have lower level vw passat and jetta wagons, conveniently being offered with diesels soon that could be called competitors to audi, well only the A4 if we're talking exclusively features like engine size. so the A4 is bought, and in droves here in los angeles, i mean literally, and that's because it is a super classy classic wagon that has so much style going for it. everytime i see one i convince myself more and more that i want it. it's a great design. and gm's own ladder should reflect this. pontiac is offering a real conservative elegant approach, and well what do you know so does Cadillac. the Cadillac wagon may be more stand out thanks to more adventurous and liberal design cues than the sedan, but cadillacs should offer an incredible style that is unparalleled within GM, and every division should benefit as a result, since they can reach higher as Cadillac gets better and better.

right, and it even isn't that. check torrent for example, what kind of money has GM spent on rebates, advertising, market direction, hiring people to package the damn thing, when all this is is a dressier interior and some slight exterior differences to make it a 'Pontiac'. it's an awful excuse for a good plan for Pontiac. the best way to utilize Pontiac would be to utilize past performance credentials along with a rebellious attitude that has characterized their cars. this is not hard to figure out, and it's easy to see a market for it. make the right quality, engineer the heck out of the platforms, and sell them for affordable prices, market them against mainstream cars with a slight premium, like a sub-Acura, like a VW, and boom you have an instant import fighter, and something that actually appeals to folks, rather than a rebate and Avis special. the converse is to have three good-to-great looking sedans all marketed at the same price range, with minimal spec differences to pretend to capture different audiences, because we all know that's exactly what gm will do, no effort. so if you're for overlap and nonsensical market sharing within a company, then raise your hand and follow that group. I'm with the innovators...

'tourag' that's dirty for pontiac to get serious credibility in the performance/luxury car world they will need to have chassis' that perform well when measured up against the performance cars of our generation, BMW. I don't see any other position in the world of GM available to Pontiac except for being the red headed step child that's always burning rubber. in order to reach this image they must have RWD. you sacrifice practicality, you sacrifice conservatism....to go to Pontiac and be rebellious and experience screaming performance and sex appeal. you've either got it or you don't, and epsilon don't, neither does any car from GM with FWD proportions. we can live through one more generation of epsilon, but if Pontiac is ever to have a reason for existing and not just be a copy of saturn with swoopier sheetmetal, which in turn is a copy of Chevy with more euro sheetmetal, then they must differentiate themselves. if that means sacrificing customer like gm4life who only buy Pontiacs like a $24k Torrent when it's priced at $17k, then that's what is going to happen

wow...good commercial, nicely styled small car [for its time], apparent performance, RWD, and efficient! all of this from GM, impossible! the GM of today is too lazy, incompetent, or stupid to recognize how to serve its potential consumers by making the most of the brands and realizing a midlevel priced fun to drive RWD sedan. take your pick from one of the above.

yes, XFE sounds lame, nonetheless, this is a two-pronged attack. the thing GM needs to go is make an affordable "looks" package for this cobalt, offer it as an appearance package on XFE, then include it in commercials with malibu and market them as the alternative fuel efficient class of cars from chevy. or they could just use a modded cobalt in commercials and get around mentioning you can't buy that particular appearance package as factory equipment. either way, this is good news that could use some attention, and marketing a good looking attention getting cobalt next to a nice malibu, would be the way to do it.

I agree, GM has been stringing Saab along for far too long. in saab they have a valuable entity with a recognizable face and really good mystique. the only way they are going to be able to remake saab is if the core engineering is there. again, i always have to say you must look at the competition and where they're going. right now, at bmw we have a very good and standard-bearer entry level solution, the 3-series, 1-series, and the X3. to try and compare the execution in those [mostly aging] products to any Saab is misguided, at best. look at the 1-series launch for example, it's another example of how good product sells itself. there's a good amount of advertising, not a bombardment mind you, but the real advertising has been all the magazine covers and great reviews this product has recieved. i mean, just go and pick up automobile, read the review, and if you don't find yourself wanting to own one then you don't know exciting and you don't know exciting driving. as for epsilon, anything is possible. if gm can really engineer the hell out of this chassis, it could happen, they could find the right ride/handling equation for even a luxury intender, luxury priced unit like Saab. the problem is it doesn't really make sense to have a $40-50k product [top end for 9-3 and mid for 9-5] share a basic architecture with a $20k. that's a bit too wide of a spectrum, and just sounds like it won't work. it's different from say a $29k G8 sharing a platform with a $50k Cadillac because the extra 9k goes a long way from 20k, which is basically a bare bones basic car, then again companies like honda have shown a real sophisticated chassis and car can be produced for 20k. let's pay tribute to GM and GME because Delta really is a great architecture that has produced very solid chassis to receive much praise in form of astra, and to a lesser extent cobalt [expecially SS]. with epsilon they've never been able to top ford's own mondeo, a midpack car intended to compete with 3-series on the low end, i mean it undercuts that car. they're gonna have to seriously improve on that work. i don't blame enzl for his mistrust, after all we're putting a lot of faith to believe GM is going to competently handle an architecture that will cover at least 5-6 cars in NA market and cover a spread from 20k to over 40k, and hopefully [fingers crossed] offer some appreciable chassis tuning differences, while still offering better ride/handling solutions than what is currently out there from GM in thier respective classes, including malibu. it's a tall order for any manufacturer, but then there's GM that has fumbled at every attempt at doing this. you really can't blame enzl for making this argument or casting doubt on GM. i don't beleieve they've done anything but earn it.

the last gen malibu was always in incredibly limited supplies around here, save for a year or so when GM pumped them into retails. now, the last gen is non-existant again. i have seen a steady flow of retail malibus and rental malibus, overall more of the former than the latter, but just barely. however, that is a hugely refreshing change, as it is a rare thing to have a GM car presence in any form in this area. another sign of change is the dealer inventory of course. mine has always had a massive sea of trucks and barely any cobalts or impalas, in fact they've sometimes had as many corvettes as impalas. well the malibu is being well stocked, at around 15 units, more than 5 or so impalas and 10 balts and 6 hhrs. heck i never ever saw a monte carlo there even when they were in production. contrast this with literally hundreds of GMT 900 truck and SUVs, as well as on the GMC side, and you can see where the profit lies in SoCal

this is really good looking with some real great proportions. it's interesting that the side sweep along the door, greenhouse, and general shape of the car really follow the Riviera concept from Shanghai, and I don't think that's coincidence. that being said, i really agree with bimmer this would make a cool buick top end coupe, the wildcat on zeta. a CL imposing coupe for the masses, as long as the masses can afford a $40k asking price. striking though how much this looks like a riviera...

dude, chill out. i mean really just reread the statement and try to be open to this idea that not everyone in these 50 states, with the huge populations and distinct cities and states we live in, we don't all see the country through your eyes and your experience. with this message, the people were saying they don't think of main street for saturn, they want something more forward-thinking, more worldly and up to date. i mean their are great cities and places outside of the US that are represented in some ways in our larger cities where many different people from different walks of life exist. many people associate america with vibrant communities, great nationalistic pride in our national tenets of freedom and ethics, ethical society, great vast metropolitan cities where you can connect with the world, an advanced form of thinking that has affected and permeated other parts of the world. i mean for a long time we weren't the leaders, it's only been through the time of our generation, but by the results of a previous generation's work, that we have really cemented that leadership role [and now a second generation after that has given it all away]. second, customer service isn't associative with something cool, that's all. you want a brand that sucks up to you but doesn't make a big deal about how they suck up to you. thier brand should mean much more than that, and it should be associable with technology with coolness, with idealism. your views never fail to be out there, but they are entertaining, in a good way....

absolutely, the point is to move all the brands forward using exciting design and truly quality finished automobiles, like what europeans have been doing for years. with buick, each new move they make after this is pivotal in reshaping the brand. we've already seen what the chinese can achieve with ep II, now they will flesh the lineup with a premium compact car and a flagship for the over $40k price point. it remains to be seen what exciting possibilities lie ahead, suffice to say GM product planners are finally restoring some value to thier brands.

there were drawings previous to these renderings that looked even better but followed the same theme. i think the concept is the best part of the rendering, but the results in the renderings are ghastly.

hmm, yes those proportions are troubling, most alarming would be your description of the wheels. if they get any smaller for production we may have a problem on our hands. what cspec is referring to for those that don't see it, is this: short hood, extra long midsection, short deck. reminds me of the G6, a car that also has trouble with this look. obviously the lines are more attractive here, surfacing better than the g6, so that will immediately cause a different impression. but the wheels i'm afraid will have a tremendous effect on how well received this car is in production. back before the g6 was publicly realized, a lot of the gm press surrounded greater design emphasis, blah blah blah, one of thier design tenets which they took every opportunity to mention was this whole "wheels pushed out to the corners" mantra. it was gm's attempt at becoming hip, they felt if they'd addressed one or two of the trends, they'd become more accepted by the buying public at large. anyways, i don't feel this is a survivor of that effect, or that gm is still acting in this way, mostly, but this car definitely has that as a design feature, and the effect will have to be seen in person, in production form, to truly gauge it's success or lack of

two tone is a luxurious effect imo. done right, with the right gloss paint, premium colors, mocca, cocoa, cream....mmmmmm....sweet classy caramel luxury

I consider this a waste of whatever money they spent on it. they'd be better served to make the 443 hp standard on the lower model, and put in a big honkin vette engine in the V. this would help sales more than this minimally invasive cosmetic surgery that stripped one of the theme's that was likeable, the stealth uninterrupted flash forward style of the XLR.

ha ha i like the 'inflicta' comment. i agree with the comments, this is a wholly convincing and wonderfully executed luxury Buick sedan, exactly what we've been asking for for years. on one sense it's not unexpected, they've gone exactly where the luxury market is hitting and has been hitting for a few years, on the other sense it's shockingly good and different compared to other Buick attempts, and that makes it newsworthy as well as something that'll be getting attention. just to clarify, this has been designed by china and american design teams, though the platform engineering itself appears to have been worked on in Europe. I just hope they keep suspension settings more European instead of dramatically dumbing down our drives. i'd gather most of the design is china's influence [do you really think America's first option for the rear would be a Lexus/BMW-like design].

the open mouth of the malibu is a prominent design feature, one of the first things you notice on that face is a good looking grin, so no I don't think they'll be confused, but there are similarities just like you could say of quite a few other newer cars; if anything the insignia cues are more like camry's, though these end up looking different too.

i think it's a good thing this also connects the aura design traits. from the plumped hood to the side shoulder line running from the back of the front fender to the taillamp. you can see in the shot of this car in motion in griffon's post, when viewed from all perspectives this shoulder line really mimics aura, and connects the two cars. this is good cause it helps build a history. with malibu, GM is like a media darling, they're on a roll, and by the time the aura comes out, aura already has somewhat of a legacy, and you have a brand new introduction with an exciting and fully competent newly refined aura, former car of the year. By the way, when is this coming to US exactly? And is ours based on this or actually going on LWB EP II? I think to have an intermediate sedan at Saturn for mid pricing[22k for light 4 model] is a good way to differentiate from a 'value' Malibu.

as it goes with PR and 'buzz'-generating, this could very well be an official preview cloaked under disguise as a skewed 'magazine-preview'. it's a little disappointing. I was hoping for the coupe-profile hatch that was being speculated. I think that would serve a much better distinguisher for Saab's core values. safety, functionality, distinctive designs/profiles just taking it for what it is, there's some saab-ness that is hard not to love, the blacked-out A-pillar with that wonderful old-time slope, the upright roofline, traditional hockey stick c-pillar, and the pushed-in edges at the bottom. so i mean, it's good looking and all, but I think they would have made a wiser investment in making something more distinctive in shape.