The O.C.

Croc, I'm NOT raising my hand......because I think the Equinox and Torrent are incredibly tacky and non-too-competitive to drive. The styling and packaging aren't bad at all, plus it's got an up-to-date 5-speed auto....it's just the nasty overall execution. The interior quality is horrific....even with the slightly updated interior. You can "jiggle" the center stack/console part where the shifter is.....too loosely attached....and the trim around the column is flimsy, loose, and what's worse, DESIGNED to be that way. Also, the feel when moving the shifter is like what C&D said recently about the Lucerne's (same problem).........it feels and sounds like you are dragging the shift lever back through a box of rocks. Should I even mention the (electric) power steering feel? Or the oudated, underpowered pushrod V6? Especially when GM has two nice, HF V6 engines in it's pantry....(GM even has newer pushrod V6s w/VVT available too) The SUVs just feel cheap.....overall....that's my summary.

....AND it looks good....really handsome. Doesn't look like a mommy-mobile like the Equinox/Torrent.

......that interior is a PRIME example of why so many consumers have such a negative perception of GM..... It's cartoonish......

I totally understand where you are coming from as there is a large majority of consumers out there that have the same perception you do. In regards to reliability and durability, however, I must stress that GM for the most part makes cars that stand the test of time just as well as any other. Things really are different now than they were 10-20 years ago. I DO, however, also agree that a good portion of the GM dealerships DO lack the kind of customer service that people expect....even when purchasing an inexpensive car (like a Cobalt.) My local Chevy dealer is a turd....unfortunately....as I found out when I had to take my '93 Blazer there for service. Also, trying to work a deal with them on getting a C6 was an absolute joke. Now that I HAVE a C6, I am NOT looking forward to going there for service. I will probably try another Chevy dealer (driving a much further distance) to see if I get any better treatment.

The fact of the matter is.....as many on C&G know, Turbo and I want nothing better than to see a GM car (especially a Buick) like Lucerne achieve spectacular success in the marketplace. In fact, there's many things I DO like about the car (its Phaeton-esque exterior styling, its overall suspension tuning (CXS) and 18-inch wheels, its NorthStar V8, its comfortable and roomy interior, and its overall value for the money.) But there are many of us on here, like Turbo and I, that have VERY formed opinions (based upon our individual experience inside and outside the industry) on things that WE feel are keeping GM from conquering that DAMNED perception gap they are fighting. Because let's all face it.....THAT is what they have to conquer....if they are to be successful again. If they don't overcome the perception, then all their quality, reliability, engineering, styling, performance, and fuel economy gains won't mean one DIDDLY-SQUAT. We (Turbo and I and others) LIVE through this damn battle every day....yes, partly because of where we live and the incredible and sometimes hard-to-rationalize bias towards imports here. We have close friends that we have battles with over GM versus imports....and I, for one, still work in an automotive industry where I am confronted with it every day on many fronts. So.....in summary....it's been a good debate. I just hope that somewhere, deep within the halls of "The Tubes"....someone is watching over all of us.....and taking into account the many differing opinions in threads like this......and hopefully taking note of the real experiences and views that are being PASSIONATELY offered on here.

I don't know if you've compared both IN PERSON.....but the packaging on both the 3-series AND 5-series is superior to the Cadillacs.....hence my previous post about the 3-series actually offering a more comfortable back seat than the (larger) CTS. Look at things like ingress/egress.....footwell room....underseat room for your feet....headroom....stuff like that. You'll see that BMW has somehow been very effective at maximising the interior space in those two cars. CTS and STS both seem cramped for their size. Case in point....my other half is 6ft....with long legs. He can sit in a 3-series driver's seat comfortably, with legs stretched out, and STILL have room to move the seat back further. In the CTS that we test drove, with the seat ALL the way back, his legs still had to be bent at the knees with his knees up almost to the underside of the dash. He was not comfortable in the car. Not saying CTS won't fit MOST people, but I'm just trying to make a point that it's really not the size of the car that matters...it's the overall packaging. (edit......that last sentance sounded sexual......LOL.....no pun intended.)

Cadillac and Infiniti pitch the CTS and G35 against the 3-series in a price-comparison match-up. Cadillac and Infiniti hope that they can score points with consumers by offering a vehicle in the overall 3-series price range but offer larger interior dimensions. I don't know that a 3-series priced AND sized Cadillac would be too successful in this country....right now.... HOWEVER, that being the case.....go sit in the backseat of a (new) 3-series compared to a CTS....you will be shocked at which one is actually more comfortable (3-series.)

Whatever it produces......in whatever state of tune it is (325i 3.0L versus 330i 3.0L) that inline-6 is a magnificant engine. I was even impressed by my friend's new 325i with an automatic! Not a rocketship but FAR beyond what you would think given the hp and torque numbers.

My opinion is that in terms of component quality and vehicle reliability.......pretty much no one makes a bad car anymore. GM is, IMHO, just as reliable as any of the imports, if not more so in some areas. And the imports are still a quality force to be reckoned with. AND the Koreans have made large enough strides that reliability and durability are really no longer a concern. I think the defining difference in the marketplace now is styling, engineering, and material quality.

You guys are........ TOTALLY...... MISSING...... THE...... POINT...... ....as GM's product-planners and decision-makers have for WAY too long......

I believe if you look at the industry "description" of the full-size sedan segment, you won't find Avalon. You will find the (old) LeSabre, Park Avenue, Deville/DTS, Crown Victoria, Town Car, Grand Marquis. Being the "best-selling full-size sedan" as LeSabre was, is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. It's a nice advertising theme for Buick...but that's about all. The point that Turbo and I have been trying to make in this thread about Lucerne, is that Buick cannot afford to just appeal to traditional LeSabre and Park Avenue (and Crown Vic, et all) owners. The MUST begin to broaden their horizons and start pulling in consumers that would not, in other cases, consider a Buick (or a GM product for that matter.) Lucerne is a great start....but we are disenchanted by the lack (in certain areas) of Buick truly "sweating the details." To think that the average (import) consumer doesn't care about the things we keep harping on is just plain self-absorbed arrogance on GM's part. Maybe typical "full-size sedan buyers" don't care about (exacting) quality of materials or the lack of certain features such as T&T, xenon lights, "advanced" V6 powertrains and transmissions but THEY are NOT the ones that GM desparately needs in their showrooms....with checks in hand.....

No offense Northstar....but didn't you see Evok's posts? BELIEVE ME.....he knows what he's talking about. He has an inside track that not even many actual EMPLOYEES of the Big3 have.... If he feels it will be 2010, then I'm putting my betting money on Evok.

If done RIGHT, small cars can be HUGE successes here. As I've said before, my other half works at a large BMW/MINI store in Irvine and to this DAY, they are STILL getting at least window sticker for MINIs and in many cases, still getting $1-$2 grand OVER sticker for certain models. (MINIs aren't inexpensive cars either.) This is a great barometer of the success of a car....when it can sell without incentives, at/close-to/or over window sticker, and the dealer makes a nice profit on each one they sell. Remember that MINI N.A. is contrained on how many they can sell by how many they get allocated from the parent company. Our dealership gets a set allocation every year and the only way they can get additional inventory is to buy it from other dealers around the country (such as convertibles from the midwest and east coast during winter) and having them shipped here. I don't expect the Fit, Versa, Aveo, and others to necessarily duplicate MINI's success, but if marketed right they can be GREAT products.

The RL (SH-AWD or not) is FWD-based. No matter how you tinker with power/torque distribution in an AWD platform, you can't make it feel like a RWD car.

EXACTLY...... And Honda is STILL too arrogant about it to SUCK IT UP and design a real premium sedan with RWD and a V8 engine. I would SO pick a loaded TL 10-times over an RL. I even like the TL's styling much better.

Couple of things.....Croc, I think the VW interiors are still as close to class-leading as you can get with great materials, nice graining (soft parts and hard parts) good fit-and-finish, solid switchgear, and supportive and firm seats. On the 2.5L powertrain, Ocnblu, don't expect it to stand up to the 1.8T. I drove a 2.5L Jetta 5-speed and it's a complete DOG. Not that the engine was nasty or anything.....it had a throaty sound when you gunned it, and the shifter and clutch are extremely smooth.....but you have to drive it foot-to-the-floor to get any kind of "normal" acceleration away from stoplights, etc. A nice compromise would be a mid-level Golf or Jetta (non-GTI or GLI) equipped with the optional 2.0T. A buddy of mine was driving one when I was driving a MazdaSpeed6 and he had NO problems staying up with me in that car (Jetta 2.0T model with auto.)

Yeah.....those sound like V6 SUV numbers to me......and pretty good also for the power you are getting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think an Equinox can match those numbers....I think they are a bit lower (23mpg highway??) If you look at V8 Explorer, Grand Cherokee, or TrailBlazer numbers you'll see them quite a bit lower than this.

I'm with you that I hate the clumsiness of the action....but I love the infinite adjustability.

Please, please don't put words in my mouth. You say I "ignored" those things about Lucerne. I didn't ignore ANYTHING. The topic in this thread I was responding to was interior quality. No where did I ever say Lucerne wasn't a "good car" or that I didn't think it was "attractive" or "bad quality." I happen to like the Lucerne and would even consider purchasing one if in the market for that type of car. However, that doesn't change the fact that my opinion is that Buick/GM dropped the ball in interior style and quality. AND, constructive comments from MANY members on C&G SHOW that I am not in the "overwhelming minority." Oh....and by the way....that Avalon V6 is every bit as refined, if not more, than the NorthStar....(and YES, I've been in both.)

Let's compare C&D test results for Lucerne and Avalon since that will be WAY more consistent....eh? 0-60.....Lucerne, 6.9secs. Avalon, 6.0secs. In fact, LaCrosse CXS, 7.0secs (close to V8 Lucerne.) 1/4mile.....Lucerne, 15.3@94. Avalon, 14.6@99. LaCrosse, 15.4@92. HERE's the argument about Lucerne's relative lack-of-torque....... Street smart 5-60mph.......Lucerne, 7.4secs. Avalon, 6.2secs. LaCrosse, 7.6secs. SO....performance is not a "wash." A V8 Lucerne needs much more grunt than this.

Empowah IS objective.....very true. And you know, DTS is ALOT better. They carry the nicely-grained soft touch stuff from the top all the way down the dash in the DTS and JUST doing that makes a HUGE impression. Plus, you don't have that hard stuff all over the console like you do in Lucerne (where your hands/arms tend the lean and touch when you are driving.) To me, GM's decision in what materials to use in these two cars just SMACKS of "....we have to put lesser materials in the "Buick" in order to protect the heirarchy of the "Cadillac"...." That kind of old-school GM-thinking is complete GARBAGE.

You are a Buick man so I figured you'd know..... Lucerne has TONS of hard, tacky plastic all over the dash......it's all the part below the woodgrain......it isn't shiny, and looks good IF you don't ever touch it. BUT it's hollow and brittle when you do. Fusion has very LITTLE hard plastic anywhere I've looked.... People's claims on here aren't "unfounded." Hard plastic is a FACT. NOW, there can be differing opinions on the success of the quality of the interior, but hard plastic is hard plastic. And the fact is, Lucerne doesn't match up to just about any $20K-$25K sedan....much less sedans costing upwards of $40K. BTW....I LIKE the look of the Lucerne interior....the gauges....the fake woodgrain.....and I LOVE the new center stack controls that are MUCH superior for GM (compared to the stuff in Malibu, G6, Cobalt...and the controls in LaCrosse.) I just think the finish and plastics suck royally.

Not even close......and not even the best you can get at $25K. Hell, LaCrosse has overall nicer materials....and soft-touch.

Newer tilt systems have infinite adjustment.....not 5 separate settings...... That's one of the reasons many of us on here would like to see power tilt-and-telescope.....and even the clumsy manual versions (where you "unlatch" the wheel then move it and then "relatch" it) offer infinite adjustments.... Personally, for a manual system, I don't mind GM's tilt mechanisms.....but they are not as convenient as a power t&t.

Hmmmm......just read a recent post on here that Ridgeline is outselling Avalanche? Is that true? INTERESTING....