Cory Wolfe

Other than the grill, I think it actually looks pretty good. Completely unoriginal, but good.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the only reason you buy a vehicle is because of where it's made from... Guess what, you're no better than the dumbasses you despise.

Perhaps people would just rather not have a tacky advertisement on their car? Those people who don't care, probably don't care about their car in the first place. I think if someone has a good dealership experience, word of mouth is more useful than a tacky decal or badge stuck to trunk. I don't see many people who, after seeing that on a car, goes "OMG!!!! THAT DECAL HAS CHANGED MY LIFE!!!! I'M SOOOO GOING TO BUY A CAR AT THAT DEALER JUST BECAUSE I SAW THIS DECAL!!!! OMG!!!!!". You know?

...Or just get a better car.

4 5 1

I actually have always had a fascination with this class of cars, especially Japan's Kei cars. As far as this Trax goes... It's interesting. Not really attractive looking, but not ugly either.

Yes, those are hot. Get them.

No idea what you took pics of... All I know is that it's been 10 minutes and your huge pics still show nothing. They also put my 1440x900 screen to shame. (hint: resize them, please! Pics that big are ridiculous... )

The dealer plate frame was removed within days of when I bought my Milly.

One of mine is still coming in... It's quite annoying.

I like it... So shoot me.

Fun. Looks good. Just remember, though. If you get a carbon fiber hood and wing insert... There is no more debating. I would officially have better taste than you.

Heh... um... No comment.

What Hyper said.

Happy birthday, biatch!

And if you still can't fathom the idea of there being differences, I searched for some articles to prove my point (which really shouldn't need to be proved to anyone who's not blind). Isn't that what I've been saying? Odd.

Hah... I'm only stating the obvious. Yes, Nascar is about the drivers. It's been that way since the 70's. With each new generation of car they get more and more alike. However, this isn't to say they're identical... yet. I think with the next generation of cars they are going to be 100% identical and cars will only be sponsored by manufacturers. Currently, though, there are differences. Just because you don't want to see them, doesn't mean they're not there. I'm not looking at stickers, obviously, since even the old picture you posted with the stickerless prototypes have differences. My business? Haha... I'm sorry, but I'm not the one ignoring the obvious. Say what you will, but saying any more on this subject is worthless.

Hell, my Millenia has real wood. Hah... Well, I can't just disregard 3/4 of the dash being hard plastic. Hard plastic is hard plastic and the Lucerne has alot more of it than the LaCrosse. Which, was sort of my point. Soft > Hard unless we're talking about sex. A duh.

That photo is old. Represented for Chevy is the MC and for Dodge is the Charger. Obviously they changed to the Impala and Avenger. Either way, there are more changes than what you mentioned... the hoods are different, albeit its sort of washed out by the lighting... and the greenhouses are different. But I do agree that they are quite ugly. The "blobs" looked better.

The interior looks good. Leaps and bounds better than the current one.

It's not just the lower dash. The only soft touch plastics on the Lucerne's dash are above the plood, above the gauges; the very top of the dash. That's only a quarter of the dashboard. The other three quarters are hard, cheap plastic. That, itself, is enough, as all of the LaCrosse's dash plastics are soft touch (other than the plood and controlls, which aren't soft touch in any car). Otherwise, the leather is of the same quality as the Lucerne, the plastics surrounding controls (radio, climate, etc) are of the same quality as the Lucerne, the door panels are of the same quality as the Lucerne, the headliner is of the same quality as the Lucerne, etc. Material wise, there is nothing in the Lucerne to say it's interiors has better interior plastics considering a huge amount of its dash is hard plastic. The design? It's a hundred times better than the LaCrosse's. The feel of the controls? Again, much better than the LaCrosse's. Those are not interior materials, however, so for me to say the LaCrosse has better interior plastics is completely justified.

Obviously. I think that's been pretty clear since the late '80s. However, I'm simply stating facts. People like to assume they're all identical. I'm pointing out that they're assumptions are wrong. Whether you hate Nascar or love Nascar, you can't deny that each manufacturer's COT is different. Again, I'm not saying the differences are major. They're completely minor and are only cosmetic, hence why, aerodynamically, they are very similar. The overall shape of each car is nearly identical. The only differences are ones that are to mimic the car that they are supposed to be (or like some of you guys would say; the car that they are sponsored by).

The plastics look to be nice, but the colors and design look cheap.

Tell that to the CXS LaCrosse's and CXS Lucerne's I've sat in over the last few years.

I'm someone who never liked the STS's interior. Or the exterior, really. It's dull. The exterior definitely improved. The new grill really sets off the front fascia unlike before. The rest of the car is just... forgettable. Especially along side a car, that even after it was toned down, is still a thousand times more interesting and exciting. Inside, it's the same. The interior isn't interesting in the least. It doesn't even look like it belongs. It looks like a $30k interior, not a $50k interior. With the CTS being a much more desirable car... These improvements aren't good enough. The CTS is the car you think would cost more and slot above the STS.