ponchoman49

The massive center console would be a deal killer for me with this car. That and the overly tall belt line and small trunk opening relative to interior size. I just don't understand why they can't make a car's interior space efficient relative to exterior size like the Koreans are doing with the new Azera/Sonata/Optima/Elantra etc. The rest of the Taurus is really nice IMO, especially the revised 3.5, the 6 speed transmission, interior materials, features, ride/handling etc.

The plain jelly bean bland look was always a let down with the Edge. Worse the Lincoln version uses the same body and side look but with Lincoln specific front and rear treatment or not nearly enough to distinguish it from the less expensive Ford. Then there is the price made worse by charging extra for the less powerful Ecoboost which really could use a displacement boost it'self up to 2.3 liters or so to make this heavy rig move more capably. My favorite in this category is the 2013 Equinox with the 3.6 and trick rear seat.

The same reason the Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and VW Passat do in there upper trim level models. It gives the interior some contrast to the plain boring gray/silver of the base cars and looks more upscale. You have to go to a luxury division for real wood.

Sorry but at only 15.4 cu. ft. the trunk is no where near Town Car big and there is an additional power train choice in the 270 HP 3.5 V6 which achieves 22/31 MPG for this car which a 4 MPG improvement on the highway figure.

Would be nice to see a 2.5 liter 197 HP engine option for the top trim Cruze 2LT and LTZ models for a much needed power boost. The 1.4T is a bit lacking in the heavier larger tired trim levels.

2.0 liter T should be offered in everything save the basic LS model as an option and I agree a Sport package should be available on the 1 and 2LT trims with manual trans with dual exhaust, larger wheels and more aggressive rims plus a sport themed interior and firmer suspension.

Quote: In a mighty effort to shed itself of the current model’s dowdy image as a car that you wouldn't want to drive even if you rented it. As a current 2008 Impala owner I think this statement is a bit much. Not everyone wants a technology riddled, over sized tired, 4 cylinder powered butten crazed sedan these days that is hard to see out of and costs a fortune. The current Impala is getting long in the tooth but it still does many things well at a reasonable price, especially now that the 3.6 DI/6 speed drivetrain is being used. My 2008 2LT 3900 is one of the best cars I have owned to date, has been very reliable, rides well, is quiet, obtains 30 MPG on the open road pretty easily, has a nice large trunk and cruises down the road in a very agreeable fashion. The 3900 has also exceeded most of my expectations so far and with 93k miles has been totally bullet proof. I briefly drove a 2012 with the new engine/trans and was impressed at how it transformed the feel of this car. It will for sure be the engine of choice in the new upcoming 2014 model which will weight several hundred pounds more than the current car.

There were plenty of good cars in the 70's and GM made many of them. The intermediate A body and full size B/C body cars come to mind. F-bodies were still quite good performers with the 350/400 size engines. Most divisions still used there own unique engines and power upgrades were so easy to realize that even the most novice backyard mechanic could hop up his small block Chevy, Ford, Pontiac etc. Heck I got more power out of many of my later 70's Olds 260 and Pontiac 301 V8's just by removing the silly spark timing delay, removing the ultra restrictive bead cat converters, advancing the timing and waking up the Quadrajet carbs on some. The 80's IMO were much worse, especially for GM. Gone were big inch V8 engines. In were diesels in 85 HP and 105 HP V6 and V8 guise. 301 turbos replaced cubic inch 400's and 4 speed sticks. Cadillac began experimenting on there smaller 368 V8 and produced the turd 8-6-4 and then when that failed the powerhouse 125 HP HT 4100 power system which they never actually published any power or torque figures in there 1982 brochure because they were embarrassed to tears that there new wonder V8 made the same HP and 20 LESS LB. FT. of torque than Buicks simpler and far more reliable 4.1 liter 4 BBL carbed V6. The new downsized Camaros and Firebirds made due with 145 and 165 HP Chevy gutless 305 V8's and had 92 Hp tech 4 as base fare. Buicks Regal made due with only gas fired 110/125 HP 3.8 and 4.1 V6's up to 1984 and then only had the 110 HP engine for 1985 unless you sprung for the much pricier turbo versions which by 1986 became one of GM few bright star examples of real performance. Worse things were yet to come. GM in there infinite wisdom decided to turn literally 90% of there car line into generic FWD appliances with smaller V6's and tech 4's. By 1986 all but the Caprice B-body and the wagons from Olds, Poncho and Buick were left as everything else went into much smaller FWD form including the Deville and Fleetwood. Thankfully Caddy kept the RWD version around until well into the 90's. Too bad they saddled it with first the HT 4100 and then the weak 140 HP Olds 307. The G-bodies went next and were replaced by the W-bodies which didn't sell nearly as well until GM made them into sedans by 1990. A few interesting pieces made it out of the General in the 80's. The 86-87 GN was one. The newer port injected 350 Vettes and F-bodies were noteworthy even if there build quality and interiors weren't. The Fiero was a good idea that didn't get executed properly until it's last couple of years. The A-body Cieras/Centurys etc got much better later into the 80's with the improved second gen engines and made good bread and butter sedans for everyday folk but not nearly as advanced as the 1986 Taurus/Sables twins. More downers were the 1986 downsized Eldorado/Toronado and Riviera which were so small and similar to the N-body Grand Am/ Calais and Skylark that GM sent them back to the oven for some last minute late 80's tweaks that make them longer, better looking and more powerful engines. Pontiac made due without a full size car for model years 82 and 83 when there largest car was the G-body Bonneville and for 1982 only V6 gas engines were offered. Thankfully they came to there senses in 1984 and re-instated a B-body in the form of the Parisienne. Buick of course dropped there one and only remaining V8, the 350 4 BBL X motor in 1980 and Pontiac followed suite in 1981 which left so called Corporate V8's of smaller displacement after that. Another somewhat bright spot was the 180 HP Monte SS and Olds Hurst/442 coupes which gave the G-bodies a bit of dash. The Star Trek electronic dashes and talking voices were also silly.

My favorite of the B-bods would be the 77-81 Delta Holiday coupes with rally wheels, bucket seats and sport exteriro mirrors. You could get any engine on the roster and even upgrade the suspension and steering wheel to the sport leather wrapped type as used in the Cutlass Calais. The other is the Bonneville coupe with bucket seat option, 350 V8, rally wheels and suspension upgrade. These were simply the best full sized cars of there era and I still lust after a mint example today.

Now that is a classy looking car! Those days are fondly remembered by me as that was my childhood growing up. Cars were so cool back then even though they really didn't have much in the way of performance at the time. Still for what these cars lacked in outright acceleration they more than made up in style, interior comfort, color and ambiance and the sheer interesting factor of not knowing which engine or options a car had until one closely inspected it. These cars could be ordered most any way one wanted with most options free standing unlike today.

While looking at some newly delivered 2012's I noticed a few things. The middle rear head restraint is gone- 110% lame and a stupid safety thing to cheapen. The good- the shift knob is leather with stitching. You can have any exterior color you want as long as it's white, black, tan, silver or that horrid Victory red. Where in the world did all the exterior colors go? Blue, slate, green and crystal red aren't even being offered! I noticed this on the 12 Malibu also, a total lack of available colors. I thought the Japan crisis was over for the pigments supply issue.

The E-assist LaCrosse also loses trunk space from it's 13.3 cu. ft. to only 10.9 and the final drive ratio drops to a 2.64:1 to help achieve the highway figure of 37 MPG. On the good news side of the equation alloy wheels are finally std and both V6 and 4 cylinder e-assist will have the same base price.

2012 Impalas are rated for 18/30 mileage with the new 3.6. Not bad for a 302 HP sedan.

Better but it's still a 4 cylinder which means turbo lag, noise, greater complexity and more frequent oil changes.I still can't help think this car would be better served by the 323 HP variant of the new LFX 3.6 If your competitors NA V6's can achieve better mileage, quieter and more linear running behavior and better acceleration times then whats the point I have to ask? The 2.0 liter turbo in this car is still an answer to a question that no one has asked up to this point.

Considering that the Lucerne is heavier than the Impala and that this engine no longer uses AFM cylinder shutoff that is admirable for the Lucerne. The 2.93:1 final drive helps on the Buick compared to the Imps 3.29 gear also.

I can tell you that the 3500/3900 are literally bulletproof from what I have seen. My 2008 3900 has close to 80K miles and has never seen a wrench. My buddies 2006 Impala 3900 with 82K is the same. His 2005 Buick Terrazza 3500 now has 140K and runs like new and has never had an issue. Numerous law enforcement Impalas with 3900's have well over 100K and run as new in my town and there are often high mileage examples on Ebay that run as new. All in all a great engine IMO.

Impressive. I do wonder why in the Impala that this engine is rated at only 252 torque. Perhaps it's downrated to try and keep so much power going to the front wheels. I'm curious if this will be the same HP and torque specs used in the Lax. Wish GM would use a detuned variant of the 3.6 LFX in the Nox/Terrain instead of the useless 22 MPG highway MPG 3.0 liter.

With the Lucerne full size gone there is yet another void in GM's lineup. Why they can't get a nice RWD Buick styled Zeta in the lineup baffles me to this day. The Lacrosse is not worthy to be Buick's flagship entry. If Pontiac could have it in the G8 why not Buick?

Sad. One of the last traditional impressive looking Cadillacs. I'm sure if GM spent a few bucks on a 6 speed automatic, next gen Northstar V8 and suspension/interior upgrades this car could easily have lived many more years. Expect it's replacement to have V6 only power, greater curbweight, less interior width and room and a smaller trunk.

They should have deleted the terrible base 1.8 while they were at it or at the very least improved it. Adding cruise control as an option on the base should have been a mandatory 2012 change!

A real luxury car indeed. I would prefer the alloy wheels in place of the gaudy wire covers and the HT 4100 was garbage with 125 HP in 1982 and 135 from 1983-1985. If only Cadillac put a better motor in these.

Several concerns with this new Malibu starting with weight, mileage, lack of V6 and will it have all the features that most of it's competitors have such as LED taillights, optional NAV, rear seat center armrest, keyless start, enough power to at least keep up with a V6 Camry and Accord, a larger trunk than the current car and more back seat legroom than the current Regal. The Regal falters in many of these areas with rather meager back seat leg/knee room with the seat more than part way back, a smallish trunk, 4 cylinder power and noise with V6 gas mileage, 3700 LBS of weight and not even a place to store your sun glasses overhead. I sure hope most of these issues can be resolved before this car debuts.

Less than 30 MPG and tepid power. Color me unimpressed with GM latest 4 cylinder engineering efforts or rather lack of efforts. I can pull down 30 MPG on the open road easily with my 2008 Impala 3900 AFM and I know my dad has surpassed that figure with his 3500 2008 LS say around 31-32 and that was going more than 70 MPH. Sounds like the same old problem that seems to face many new GM entries, too small of an engine with too little power to carry around too much weight!

I agree about the Impala needing updating and improvement. Notice my wrap up of the Impala vs Malibu post. Also note that your Malibu 2LT uses the far superior suede/vinyl seats which should be just as easy to care for as my Impala seats. It's the base cloth of most of todays cars that is hard to clean and keep clean and it feels rough like sand paper. I never cared for the 2008 Bu we had because of it's basic gray cloth seated interior that always looked dingy and the tighter space issues mentioned in my writeup. The 2.4 L-4 that got near V6 mileage but gave 4 cylinder performance was also a turn off. When you have the power of a liquid smooth V6 that effortlessly pulls out on the highway, climbs hills like they don't exist and carries around 4-5 passengers without strain going to a lesser 4 banger is a let down somewhat. I'm sure the upcoming 2013 Malibu with the 2.4 DI will improve power/mileage to much higher levels but the current Bu base power-train is merely adequate and never fun!

123 lBS FT of torque is inadequate for a porky 3200 LB sedan any way you slice it. Just look back into the past at what was used on similar weight Chevy mid size sedans. A 1997 Malibu for example weighted around 3000-3200 LBS depending on engine and had 150-185 torque on hand with the 2.4 and 3100 V6. Going back further a 3200 LB 1990 Lumina had 185 torque at a low RPM available with the 3.1 V6. Back further a 1983 RWD Malibu had 190 torque with it's old carbed 3.8 liter V6 to push around 3200 LBS of sedan. See a trend here folks? This major downsizing of engines and up-sizing of curbweight is not quite producing the magical harmony of power and mileage like the car makers would like us to believe. The heavy Cruze needs the turbo 1.4 for even adequate power and the 2.4 should be available on the upper trim levels as an option as it will be in the upcoming Verano which is based on the Cruze.