Flybrian

I dunno. I thought it was neat at least.

Too much money, too few brains...

They've done worse. Like that ugly Daihatsu whatever.

This is handy if you're frequently constipated.

This is very true. And its not the base engine that bothers me, its the lack of a nice midrange engine in the form of the 3.6l that its stablemate LaCrosse has in CXS guise. CX - 3.8l-std/3.6l-opt CXL - 3.6l-std/4.6l-opt CXS - 4.6l This give it a nice lineup of 197hp/245hp/275hp and literally something for everyone.

I don't see the Yaris making any increase over the Echo. Like the Echo, its ugly - uglier even - and the market for mainstream subcompacts has always been fickle in this country. Scions and MINIs are the exception because they stand out in some way with unique styling or premium performance driven by heritage, respectively. Yaris is simply there and when put up against far more normal-looking cars in its segment like Aveo, Fit, and Nissan's whatever as well as 'small' category cars that offer alot more comfort for little economical sacrifice, its hard to justify a prediction of the Yaris being a success.

My favorite will always be the Automotive Future. I like how you put that, by the way, because it doesn't specify a certain year (2010) or even a certain time from which to look into the future (ex: "today's" view of the future), rather simply a coalescence of the hopes, the aspirations, the wonderment of what the 'future' held for all generations of automobile dreamers. For me, I'll always want a future automobile, perhaps the Moller Skycar... the Cadillac Voyage... an intertial balancing car like the Ford Gyron... maybe the ahead-of-its-time Dymaxion... or my favorite future car of all time, the 1956 Buick Centurion...

Nice overhang.

I realize it is, but now much of a stretch in terms of that location alone? The dashboard and center stack used to be the hallmarks of high-end European makes, something that set them apart from all others. Sure, the Mercedes is better, but how much better? $30,000 better? I expect that to be the price differential at least between it and something like the Grand Cherokee. You're right, though, in that the Escalade has this beat. The GL's main advantages seem to be in the offroading areas and an extra gear in the transmission case. But again...worth the price differential?

Yes. Dare I say the JGC's interior looks just as well if the wheel were wood-trimmed with chrome appliques?

Apparently, all but BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, and Suzuki.

I totally see this thing fording through a two-foot creek. Good God, Mercedes! How many car lines do you need? Seriously. You're going through the alphabet quicker than the hurricanes. Quantity-over-Quality. Like None Other.

You know, I'll give the interior of the current Escalade a fair pass because it was designed and debuted in a time when a truck was still a truck. Even in 2000, a 'luxury' SUV was defined more by its exterior looks than what was on the inside. Compare the Pathfinder/QX4, Land Cruiser/LX470, even the old Navigator. Crossovers like the RX300 and MDX changed the game, making carlike interiors a price of entry for a large truck-based SUV. So yeah...I wouldn't bag on the Escalade too much given what it competed with in the day.

As I've said before, the biggest flaw with the old 9-5 was the price. $45-50k for a loaded trim of this car was nucking futs no matter how you slice it.

The NSX looks very odd as-is right now because of the exposed headlamps. It has too much of a 'face,' at least more than an exotic should have. Compare to... The older ones are a favorite of mine and one of the few Japanese cars I really do like. Granted, I wouldn't buy one because if I could afford $90,000 for a car, I'd get a Corvette and save the change. But I wouldn't kick an NSX out of the garage, that's for sure. It doesn't have the outright muscle of every other car in its range, but its unique, a step apart, and can - as stated - hold its own against many others. And saying fools buy this car is simply wrong. Fools spend $300-500k on a Ferrari they can't fix and can't use.

You know, Josh, you can't really enjoy a convertible in winter. You should know that. Well, except in certain parts of the country. Florida is one of them. It was cloudy but about 70 degress today. This weekend will be sunnier. You know, that kind stuff. Plus, we have an extra room. And an extra space in the driveway. I can put my Olds on the grass for a few nights, its no biggie. A nice long distance roadtrip to break her in, right? And to let me take it for a spin? Please? :P Congratulations again, Josh! Its been awhile, but worth it wait and you deserve it!

Nothing will unseat the 3. Its the Camry of the entry-lux world and so commonplace it lacks any novelty anymore. That's certainly accounts for some level of IS, CTS, and G35 sales.

You haven't seen late 90s Nissans then. And as CSpec said, Escalade and Lucerne have real wood. So yeah.

As far as the general accuracy of PopMech drawings, I have two words: Yellow Buick.

I have to seriously ask: what kind of real-world advantage would I as a driver see to a brake-by-wire system in an otherwise conventional automobile? Enough to outweigh the additional cost and apparent risk of failure? Also, if you have radar braking on your Mercedes, its not as if that would've helped much either. Overcomplicated. Like None Other.

Thank you, Mustang, for posting a real percentage breakdown. I've been waiting ages for such a thing. Seriously! Amanti doesn't surprise me at all. The thing is a pathetic mishmash of cars built for Enterprise anyway. Look Luxury at a Fullsize price. The Jag, Volvo, and especially Q45 are very surprising. 14% of the Camry is still a rather sizable number.

You forgot the picture of the 2006 Taurus all dejected in tears knocking back cases of Johnnie Walker Red into its fuel tank.

See, this 'old platform' criticism again I see as unfounded. The Lucerne is six inches larger overall (203 vs 197), but its not all fairings. The wheelbase is longer as well (115.6 vs. 111) and a wider track as well, which I would attribute the better ride to. As far as the interior roominess goes, this is something I've always found to be subjective and for a journalist to write off a car for being 'cramped' to him is unfair and inaccurate. So, going by the numbers, Lucerne compares very favorably to Avalon offering a bit more overall interior volume and seemingly more where it would count to many (an inch more head and legroom up front, for example). Cargo capacity is no questions with the Lucerne offering 17 cu.ft. vs 14.4 for Avalon, which should be all resonable judgement be embarassing for a car its size. I do agree the stack could've been dressed up more, but the bland steering wheel and shifter are easily remedied by readily-available options like a wood wheel and shifter as shown in the Lucerne brochure I have. Granted, these should be standard on the CXS and optional on the CXL and CX. As far as 'going the extra mile,' I would have reservations about that. Overall, the car is still very lacking key equipment that Buick and GM have had for years now, most notably a load-leveling air suspension that allows the car to travel with five or six occupants and cargo and not suffer from major Ass Saggage. I would say while Toyota put a little more effort into the interior, Buick put a little more effort into content and its at this point where preference comes into play. If I had no pedigree to favor the Buick (which I admittedly do), my decision would lean towards Lucerne because of its looks, the V8 engine, and its content while someone similar to me would choose the Avalon because they like the interior more.

Unfortunately, the image 'Datsun' has (if any) is of the B210. So, yeah, that would be a singular reason for never going back.

Judge Dredd declares, "I AM DA LAW!" This is, regardless, better-looking than half of those flimsy-bodied pile of crap RVs on the roads today. And is it just me, or does the rear of this thing in the first pic have an amazingly turret-like protrusion on the roof? I want that.