Northstar

The truck standard is really ridiculous. Does any vehicle classified as a truck, aside from the HHR or similar, get 28MPG? Also, I'm too lazy to read... how are the standards calculated? Is it the average of the highway and city MPG for a vehicle to get its total MPG or is there a different method? The car standard can be met... even high powered cars can get 30MPG on the highway... so I don't see why new fuel-saving technologies can't get small cars to 40MPG, and diesels and hybrids like the Volt will help a lot. Trucks may be able to make it with more diesels and hybrids. I could see small hybrid crossovers achieving those numbers, but not the bigger ones. What happens to the automakers if no one wants to downsize and everyone keeps buying large vehicles? Pay the fines and move on?

The Alpha Cadillac will compete with the IS. Nothing that isn't Alpha-based would compete with it, so giving Buick an IS competitor simply doesn't work, IMO. I think the GS is much different than the LaCrosse. LaCrosse isn't supposed to be overly sporty, just a luxury sedan. GS and it's competitors (5er, A6, E-Class, eventually CTS) all focus on both sport and luxury (some moreso than others). The LaCrosse can compete for GS buyers who just want luxury and don't care about the sport part, but those buyers are probably looking at the ES, not GS anyways. A perfect competitor for a Buick sedan above the LaCrosse would be the 300C, for example. Perhaps the new Lincoln RWD car, as well (MKsomething or other).

Clearly the IS and LS are not what Buick is competing against. The ES is a direct competitor to the LaCrosse; I am not sure if Buick really should compete with the GS either; that seems more like Cadillac territory to me. I'd like to see a Buick on Zeta to go after the RL, but the GS, 5er, E-Class are too expensive for Buick to compete against (more than $60k). As for the features of the ES; the LaCrosse should have it covered with the 3.6 DI and A6.

The LaCrosse should offer one engine, and one engine only: DI 3.6L. Same one from the Lambdas with ~290HP is plenty. Should be good for near 30MPG highway, as well. The 2.8 turbo sucks gas in the 9-3 and I don't see the 2.0 turbo doing that well in a big car considering what it gets in the small vehicles it is currently in. No Lexus ES or Acura TL buyer wants to replace their car with a car with a 4cyl. If Buick wants to add a 4-cyl model, they should go after the TSX and A4 with a new model on Delta II.

From this article: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/cont...0418_087885.htm I assume the other Lambdas will get the same rating. Now I want to know why the CTS doesn't get better mileage? And give the Malibu DI and 270HP, that ought to get at least 30MPG highway with reduced weight and better aerodynamics vs. the Lambdas.

Anyone who likes basketball should watch this (if you haven't seen it already, it's from game 1 of the Cav vs Wizards):

Certainly it will offer NAV. I don't see why it would have that screen integrated into the design if it wasn't going to offer it.

Cool! The one you picked seems like the easy choice to me.

Buick should be FWD and RWD (and AWD)... Cadillac should be RWD/AWD only. The LaCrosse being FWD is fine, and it targets a market that Cadillac doesn't need to. Cadillac should pretty much be a direct competitor to BMW and Benz, and neither has a FWD model. Buick can have a bigger RWD model as well that's more of a value buy like the current Lucerne or like the DTS... a luxury car but not a sporty car like a Cadillac should be, IMO.

One of my roommates has a Vizio, and it's decent but seems very cheap in comparison to our 52" 1080p LCD Mitsubishi at home. When we were looking at TVs, the 3 best were Mitsubishi, Sony, and Samsung. Sharp was probably next along with LG. Best Buy only has projection Mistus, I believe, and the place we got ours from only carries Sony, Mitsu, and LG along with Pioneer plasmas. The salesman there said the Mistus were better than the Sonys in his opinion, and looking at them back-to-back convinced us of this, as well. A cool feature that Mitsu has that the others don't is the ability to change the colors individually. Most companies just give you some presets and you pick between them... the Mitsu you can adjust the red, blue, green, cyan, etc (I forget how many there are) each individually, and they each have like 50 degrees of variation (50 different settings for each). Mistu does not have 42" LCDs, they have 40" and 46". If there isn't a smaller specialty store and he's picking between what you listed, I'd say look at the LGs and Sharps (Samsung is more expensive than Sony).

The GTO has that... it beeps at you when you exceed a certain speed which you can set from I believe 30 to 135mph. Mine's set on 135

Yes, it's on Delta II. It'll be a Chevy.

Why was it so chopped after it got pulled over? So that in case something bad happened they wouldn't show it?

I felt it; it was shaking my bed and woke me up. I also felt the aftershock. I'm about 2 1/2 hours away in central IL.

I agree that it grows on you. At first I didn't like the headlights, but there kind of cool after you get used to them. The character line in the rear reminds me of the Altima somehwhat, though it is more aggressive than the Altima's. It definitely has a very European flair about it, and it looks more expensive than what it will likely cost. It wouldn't look out of place with a bunch of $45k cars sitting next to it; that doesn't mean it looks amazing, just looks expensive.

It looks significantly bigger than the Equinox to me, and not a whole lot smaller than the Lambdas, but it could just be because of the camo.

Looks pretty cool. Well, I would imagine it would have a turbo, being a Saab. Probably turbo 3.6; I don't know if they can get 350HP out of the 2.8 and make it suitable for a daily driver at the same time.

I don't like the C-pillar and its clearly just a chop of the CTS coupe, but it looks pretty good.

Agreed. While not as iconic as the 911's shape, the Corvette shape is instantly recognizable as a Corvette. Do you see anyone suggesting the 911's body style gets radically change? No.

Wow, about time! Now an Astra looks much more like an option for my brother when he gets his license.

What size wheels are on the burgundy one? They look like 16s? Dinky.

Makes perfect sense. 2010MY or CY? These changes go into the coupe as well, correct? (and wagon) I think the ES pricepoint -$2k is perfectly fine. That's where Buick should be.

Malibu only weighs 3400lbs though. The LaCrosse is likely to be in the 3800lb range if it's longer (we know it will be significantly wider). 26-28 highway is not very impressive when the 300HP 3.6 DI gets 26 in the CTS. If all someone wants is good fuel economy then they might as well offer the 2.4 DI and 6-speed. GM needs to move the car upmarket away from Malibu and Aura. Offering a 4cyl engine is not the right idea unless gas is so expensive that every car offers an engine that's both cheap (not a hybrid) and fuel efficient. The Aura can cover anything under $30k, judging from the pictures of the interior, so I see no reason why the LaCrosse needs to start below $29k, and certainly it shouldn't be offering a 4cyl above $30k.

I wouldn't loan anyone the GTO. I've only let my best of friends drive the GTO for about 3 minutes maximum. I wouldn't let anyone take it out for prom.

The people who can afford the LaCrosse will be able to pay $4/gallon for gas. In addition, the 2.8 turbo isn't that great on gas anyways. In the 9-3 (which weighs less than 3600lb) it only gets 16/26 with a 6-speed auto. The CTS, which weighs 300 lbs more, gets 17/26 with the 3.6DI, so the 2.8 turbo would likely get worse mileage. ES and TL, the main competitors to the new LaCrosse, IMO, only offer 1 engine, both V6s. Those that want better fuel mileage can look at 4cyl LTZ Malibus and 4cyl XR Auras. In addition, Buick should be offering the 3.6 paired to the two-mode while Malibu and Aura have the 2.4 with the two-mode. The Buick should start at $30k and be loaded at $40k, Malibu and Aura don't even reach $30k right now. The Aurabu should not be cross-shopped with the LaCrosse very often is what I'm getting at. I'm also not too confident the 2.0 turbo is going to get that great of mileage in such a big vehicle, nor do I think many people are going to pay upwards of $30k for a car with a 4cyl if it isn't a performance model (Solstice GXP, EVO, WRX, etc). The Solstice GXP only gets 19/26 with the auto and it weighs 1000lbs less than the CTS... I can't imagine the fuel economy staying above 17/26 after you add 800-1000lbs, which I assume will be close to the additional weight of the LaCrosse vs Solstice.