The O.C.

These two pics show EXACTLY what I complain about in many GM products compared to the competition. Look at how in the current Malibu interior, it doesn't even look like the same interior team designed the dash/center stack versus the console. They don't match up, and in fact, they don't even LOOK like they were designed to match up. The "new Malibu" interior below shows how it can be done with WAY more class....

Okay....now SOMEONE ask me why we didn't have this symmetrical and attractive of an interior in the Malibu in 2003???????????????????????????? This looks nice....and much better than the AURA interior.......or the G6 interior....and most CERTAINLY the current Malibu interior....

In fact, that seems to be GM's "modus-operandi" when it comes to suspension/chassis tuning on its vehicles......even TODAY....! GM's top "sport" packages, a la Chevy SS models, Pontiac GXP models, Buick CXS models, only really come close to giving the feedback, response, and body control that mostly "base" imports have..... In other words, tire choices aside, a BASE Accord or Mazda6 has a comparable level of body and roll control and suspension firmness that a Malibu SS model or Pontiac G6 GTP has. It takes a CXS LaCrosse to match the overall refinement of, say, a base Lexus ES....or an automatic Acura TL (which has slighter softer settings than the manual)....or even a Ford 500 and Chrysler 300. Base GM packages always seem to be sloppier, looser, floatier, and less controlled. I don't understand why they do that. I don't believe there are enough consumers that like those sloppy ride motions enough to counteract the fact that most all OTHER consumers in the marketplace are gravitating to car companies that put alot more effort into fine-tuning the handling and ride quality of ALL their models (not just their sport models.)

Interior AND exterior. Even with the recent refresh, the car is still incredibly dumpy and not something that looks like it should compete with Camry/Accord/Altima/Mazda6/Fusion, etc.... The basic Epsilon chassis is solid but I think GM needs to take a closer look at suspension tuning in the '08 MCE as all the Malibus I've ever driven have been quite unimpressive from a driving standpoint compared to most of its competitiors......even though the basic architecture is very solid. It speaks of GM "dumbing down" the chassis tuning on the Malibus to make it appeal to "traditional" domestic consumers....? Then again, I've heard good things on the SS package setup....so whatever they did there, maybe they ought to make those suspension changes (and the hydraulic steering rack) standard on all Malibus.....

LaCrosse, GP, and Impala are ALL on the same basic architecture that arrived in 1988 (18 years ago) on the new GM-10/W-Body coupes. The 1997 W-bodies were a refresh of the '88 generation....and the current cars are a refresh of the '97's. It was stretched a bit for the arrival of the Lumina coupe, but other than that, they have the same architecture. That's a LONG run..... Sure exteriors and interiors have been changed, but the basic structure/chassis/architecture IS 18 years old. Just look at the long front-and-rear overhangs.......

Ahhhh....but Dodgefan, we MUST spin the article any way we can to make it look like "The Media's Fault."

Better looks? Okay that's subjective I'll give you that. As far as a softtop bulging, you don't see that unless #1 it's a way old car, or #2 it's seriously not been designed very well. Modern-day softtops don't have to worry about this due to the improvements in top frame designs..... Safety? I guess if you live in a dicey area maybe.....but I've never been worried about vandalism in my softtops and (knock on wood) have never had a problem. Longevity? Wrangler's didn't exactly have the highest-quality softtops in the marketplace.....I think modern top-material-technology has overcome any of those concerns.... Different strokes for different folks. IMHO, the few perceived advantages of a hardtop don't outweight the disadvantages in my mind......

Well, I haven't compared the curb weights.....but the base G6 is very overweight compared to its competition (150-300lbs) so I can't imagine the convertible being LESS...??? And even if it is, a softtop G6 would be lighter than a hardtop G6 anyways.....

Samuel can certainly like the SS better than the Passat. Like you said, everyone has an opinion and they are not all the same. My whole rant was that his posts were structured to give the impression of "GM Kool Aid Drinking" and that he really hasn't driven the Passat....or given it a fair chance. Maybe he really HAS driven both extensively.....and maybe he DOES really prefer the SS....if that truly is his opinion, then fine.... ....but I just don't see it....having been in an SS...and TWO Passats (2.0T...my cousin's....and 3.6 V6 that I got to have for four days.) I don't HATE the Impala....I kinda like the car....but it's just simply not in the same class as the Passat...

The V8 Lucerne tested by MT for COTY was 7.5secs........ Actually I'm surprised the 195hp 3800 did it in "only" 8.8secs.....I was guessing it was going to be a 9.5sec car.

Thanks, Reg.....I agree with you completely. You know.....something as simple as GXP suspension-tuning and tire-technology would go a LONG way to improving the SS.....AND let's give the SS some decent seats, shall we? (....think DCX SRT-8 seats, or even GTO seats....) BUT in the end, there's only SO much you can do with such an ancient architecture....

I'll laugh again..... And in an instance of being a bit bold, you don't know anything about me....OR my experience in the car industry....OR the number of cars I get to get into and drive all the time..... It seems that it's not ME that needs to leave the "bias" at home...... When GM actually DESERVES credit, I am one of the first ones to give them that credit....

To everyone's argument.... No one on here YET has convinced me just WHY a folding hardtop (on ANY car) is superior to a softtop....when you consider the massive reduction in convenience/trunk space....? WHY is it "good" for a G6 to offer a "hard" top? Why is it unique? Is it just "wow" factor? Looks? I haven't seen ONE folding hardtop design that looks good to me.....they never look like a true "coupe" because of cutlines, etc....and in my opinion, a nicely-designed softtop actually has eye appeal. Quietness? Maybe that's your one advantage.....but in all the modern softop cars I've been in recently...they are amazingly quiet with their 3, 4, even 5-layer tops. Keeping out the elements? Modern softtops are as water-tight as any other car......unless they are just badly designed.....my C6 doesn't even leak in a high-pressure car wash.....neither did the Bimmer..... SO.....if a little extra quietness on the freeway is your only REAL advantage, I don't think it makes up for the severe lack of top-down trunk space (in G6 or ANY of the others coming out) and the added cost, weight, and complexity over a softtop derivative.

You're right it does....to allow you to access a whopping 1.8cu ft (with the top down.)

......THAT'S MY FRIGGIN POINT that EVERYONE IS MISSING DAMMIT SORRY but I'm so frustrated! I'll give you another example.....the BMW 330Ci (SOFT-top) convertible that I had could seat 4 people as long as the two in front weren't total leg-room-hogs....AND had a decent amount of trunk space...WITH the top down. It was a VERY practical four-seater convertible all around......and it was DAMN quiet with the 3-layer top up... <sigh>.....my point is that GM made a big consolation in designing the G6 with a hardtop....and that could ultimately seal the deal on whether this car is successful or not.... .....a nicely-designed G6 softop (a la my previously-mentioned Mustang, Sebring, and Solara) would have been more cost-effective, more convenient with trunk space, lighter in curb weight, and more compact in design.

.....EXACTLY my point....... It's bad enough that two-seaters like Solstice and SKY have no trunk space.....but now we've got a FOUR seat convertible with no trunk space with the top down....which is even DUMBER....

Obviously you haven't even been IN a new Passat much less driven one..... It's a far superior car to ANY GM W-body/GM-10 sedan. I've driven a Passat 2.0T and spent about 4 days in a Passat 3.6L. Interior quality is far superior, as is roominess in the back seat....and the 3.6L stays right with a V8 SS Impala (C&D 0-60 in 5.9secs for Passat.) I have YET to drive an Impala setup (rental-car-grade or SS) that has as nice of a handling feel AND good ride quality as even a base Passat.....

Reg knocks another one into the "you've GOTTA be fooling yourself" ballpark..... Sure....Lexus did it all with marketing.....never mind the quality control, fit-and-finish, german-like styling (original LS, etc...) for $35K, sumptuous interiors, super-refined engines and trannys, yadda, yadda...... AND you think the GS interior looks cheap compared to an STS? MAN you really are out on left field, Reg..... EVERY single thing you touch inside the new GS is of top-notch quality.....every knob, every button, every piece of wood, every piece of plastic...even the plastic that's tucked way underneath the dash or on the lower part of the console. I'm no big fan of the GS, but the interior IS fashioned to a top level of quality and fit....

You quoted first-qtr '05......what are the fleet averages NOW? Wasn't 300 still in a launch mode then when they were putting a significant number of them in fleet for exposure? (I forget when the LXs were all introduced...) Plus it's still alot less than most of GM's sedans. I believe the old Impala peaked around 62-64% and the new one is running around 50%....if I remember the stats that Turbo200 posted on here one time.... I think Camry is running around 25%....?

The A4 2.0T is an awesome package. The 2.0L engine is a huge improvement over the 1.8L T.

B.S.... Oh great...! I'm going to buy a convertible that I can't even drive with the top down IF I want to put anything in the trunk...... It's absurd and other manufacturers don't make you compromise as much.....(Ford Mustang, Chrysler Sebring, Toyota Solara convertibles for three examples....) The G6 hardtop is bull&#036;h&#33;.....a properly-engineered G6 SOFT top would have taken up far less space and been far more practical. To spend the money on engineering this type of 4-seat convertible that gives you 1.8 cu. ft. of trunk space with the top down is a prime example of GM's ineptitude.....

Well.....whether you like the styling or not, they are ALL over the place here in southern California. My friend and I were at the Crystal Cove car show this morning in Newport Beach and in the parking lot of the car show, there were two......medium red and blue. Then, we probably saw three others throughout the morning out on the freeways.

Aztek was horrendously ugly......but even worse than the admittedly-subjective styling, the execution was atrocious. THAT'S why people ripped the Aztek. It was an SUV wannabe built off a minivan architecture.....but even if you call it ugly OR attractive, it STILL didn't look like it was designed to be the way it was....everything about the Aztek design is disjointed. Plus, there were the powertrain issues....the fact that the VersaTrak system is not really that good of an AWD system (something I've verified in test drives myself) and the crappy interior quality as well...... (Sorry you got me started....)

Enzl.....WRONGO....! It is a bit quicker than "on par" with the H3 and it's 5-cylinder engine. Let's compare C&D acceleration numbers again, shall we? Hummer H3 w/manual tranny......0-60 in 10.3secs. 1/4mile 17.6@79mph. Element FWD w/auto.....0-60 in 9.5secs. 1/4mile 17.3@81mph. I predict an Element manual, with heavier AWD, will mimic the auto/fwd's performance.....still leaving it well ahead of the Hummer.

Give me a friggin' break.... Element and HHR are not even remotely comparable.....sorry.....