The O.C.

Small 2-seater? Miata. (has to be "practical" and I simply cannot do without some sort of decent trunk with the top down.) Coupe? BMW 650i 6-speed Sedan? Cadillac CTS-V Wagon/Hatchback? M-B E55 AMG Wagon SUV? BMW X5 4.4i Sport Van? Dodge Sprinter (with a customized interior) Truck? Chevy Silverado Crew Cab 2500 Duramax 4X4 Used? 1985 Buick Riviera T-Type (with blackwalls and NO landau top)

Going back to the topic of Toronto and Detroit......sprawl versus built-up city centers......here's some interesting stats from skyscraper.com...... I forget what they define as a "skyscraper" but it was something with a specific height and/or number of floors to be considered a "highrise." Here are some of the more skyscraper-intensive cities in the USA with Toronto thrown in as a comparison. You'll see that Toronto is only 2nd to New York in total number of highrises.....BUT of skysrapers OVER 150meters tall, Toronto has only 13.....so relative to the total number, it has a more low-rise (relatively-speaking) skyline...... You'll note Detroit has only 8 skysrapers over 150meters...... City - Number of Highrises - Number over 150meters tall New York - 5,930 - 50+ Toronto - 2,056 - 13 Chicago - 1,519 - 50+ Los Angeles - 524 - 24 Honolulu - 460 - 0 San Francisco - 437 - 19 Philadelphia - 437 - 12 Miami - 402 - 7 Houston - 384 - 29 Dallas - 323 - 19 Boston - 304 - 18 Atlanta - 265 - 12 Minneapolis - 260 - 10 Seattle - 250 - 14 Detroit - 240 - 8 Denver - 223 - 7 Phoenix - 91 - 0 (because someone mentioned Phoenix.) Another example....L.A. is known for not having a large skyline like New York and Chicago....but it's still got a significant number.....524. But out of 524, 24 of them are over 150meters tall....second only to Houston (if you take NY and Chicago out of it.) Interesting.......

Talk about urban sprawl.....the greater Los Angeles, 5-county area (L.A., Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties) runs for well MORE than 100 miles from north-to-south and east-to-west. I've hit the trip odometer in my car when first coming into the city of Ventura, north up the 101 and by the time I hit my town in south Orange County, I've driven 110 miles in solid, built-up areas along the 101 and 405. AND, I'm still a good 15 miles from the San Diego county line (where built-up areas abruptly end due to Camp Pendleton MCAS.) That's 125 miles of uninterrupted L.A. city and suburbs. These all are not separate metro areas either.....L.A. media (TV, radio, etc.) covers this entire area. Once you get north to Santa Barbara....that's separate....and east to Palm Springs, that's separate as well....not to mention San Diego being separate down south.

I agree totally. As much of a GM fan as I truly am, I feel that GM dug the grave.....and actually handed the shovel to the media. 95% of the time, when GM has been bashed in the car rags....they've totally deserved it. They are much better now even than they were 20 and 10 years ago....but they still lag the imports in way too many areas. Plus, remember that GM vehicles HAVE gotten GREAT press.....when they deserved it. C&D ranked a new C6 first over a 911....and a C6 convertible came in second just behind a new Boxster. R&T once ranked the CTS 6-speed 3.6L first in a comparo.....and the STS-V just beat out a CLS55 in C&D. Of course the media is ALL over GM's current woes like white-on-rice. Their market share is dropping, costs are out of control, and they are still producing....for the most part....new cars and trucks that are simply not competitive with the imports in enough areas.

You know what......I know how hard and time-consuming engineering new platforms and new cars is........but in MY mind, there is NO excuse for Buick not already offering THIS car for sale RIGHT now...... The reason GM is sucking SO much wind in the marketplace now is because invariably it's a competitor that ends up bringing something like this to marketplace. Obviously the car exists in concept form....so you KNOW GM has the talent to design something like this....but somewhere, somehow, the ability to execute gets all muddled up in the masses. This car could make a whole BUNCH of import-drivers wake up and take notice of Buick....

Oh lord.....no worries..... In a strange, demented, and totally effed-up way....I really like you..... B) (and I don't mean like you in THAT way......heheeheheheh)

Then that HAS changed. Because SE was ONLY fleet....in fact, I looked at one at the dealership when I picked up my Jeep, and it was an SE and very clearly had the 2.7L V6 on the window sticker....and had the obligatory fleet "discounts" on the monroney. Looks like now they offer an SE to retail....hmm....

Oh wait.....did you say Charger "SE?" The SE is fleet-only, and has the 2.7L V6. The base "retail" Charger is teh SXT with the 3.5L V6. Unless Dodge has recently changed this, SE is only available for fleet buyers.

So what ELSE is new....? :lol:

Given more thought....I'd probably choose the cheaper LS Impala over the CX LaCrosse. Newer V6 engine, a bit more power, much more attractive interior, etc.

Why would you buy a LaCrosse CX over an Impala LS? I understand what you are trying to say.....but I think Charger and 300 are styled so differently, that they will appeal to different people. That's all.

Now c'mon.....if you read my posts, you KNOW when I've given GM props for when they HAVE done good interiors... (C6, G6 with exception of center stack, LaCrosse with exception of woodgrain, etc.) And I don't condemn the ENTIRE interior....only when I think they've done some part crappy and so forth...

I think a 2.8 and 3.6 HF combo would be GREAT for LaCrosse.....but 2.8 would be too weak for a base Lucerne. Of course....like Paolino said....a 4-speed would just ruin it. They really need to get those new 5-6 speed autos out fast.

The '06 Passat moved to a floor-mounted pedal!!!!!!! :) Edit....DAMN...I already responded to that..... My BAD...

I bought my Corvette because of fuel economy....! :P No.....really..... How many other cars with anywhere near this performance can I average 20mpg driving in and around L.A.? (by the way....I'm NOT rich....and my member? Well, I certainly don't need the 'Vette to compensate for THAT.....) :lol:

Why compromise? Even at this price range? It's especially nice to buy an inexpensive car that seems well put-together, with great fit-and-finish, and that has a nice feel to the materials. It's one thing that VW was known for not too long ago....providing a much more upscale interior ambiance relative to its price range..... When the last generation Golf came out, it was a $17-19K car that had an interior more befitting a $30K car.

I saw it on the turntable....but could get up and look at the interior. You could see the shiny plastic inside of it...it was quite obvious. There is a chance it was prototype plastics....but I figure on a concept car like that where you are showing the interior....wouldn't they try to get production stuff inside so it will look better?

I would agree with you......for the $26K CX model, even I can put up with the hard plastics inside Lucerne....because the rest of the interior is SO well put together. BUT when you are now considering a $39K CXS, the interior plastics really let it down. Now you are getting close to Lexus territory. I was in a ubiquitous Camry rental just last week....and even the LE Camry has hard plastic only on the underside of the dash where you can't really see it...much less feel it, unless you reach down and look for it. Lucerne (and Impala for that matter) really shouldn't have so much hard stuff up higher on the dash where it's in such plain sight and touch. GM should think about doing what Renault has done with the new Clio (just introduced.) On the lower level trims, there's hard plastic all over the dash. It's decent, yet hard. On the higher level trims, they put softer-touch plastics all over the dash.

GM HAS done decent plastics before....but I think in this case, with the Aveo, they are locked in by what Daewoo can offer from their suppliers.... In any case, the exterior of the new Aveo is a VERY mature design. It looks like a more substantial car than the old Aveo. I like it. Yaris will be strong competition though.....

We'll just have to wait and see what the materials will be like. DCX interiors differ widely in quality.....the pickups, Durango, Grand Cherokee, Commander have that really bad shiny, hard, brittle plastic. The LX cars, the PT, the Jeep Liberty are MUCH better. Liberty and PT have hard plastic, but it's nicely grained, matte finish, and not at all the same stuff as in Grand Cherokee and the pickups.

Yeah....I like the 3.7L......with the manual, it's even better.....more gear ratios (6 versus 4) and it pulls really well in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Believe it or not, this one (with the manual) is quieter than my '04 (with an automatic.) I don't know why this would be the case, but for some reason when hitched to the 6-speed, the engine is more mannerly.....and REALLY quiet if you never rev it over 3,000. Even my other half noticed that it was quieter and peppier. Maybe it was something to do with not having to route power through a torque converter....who knows... I'm averaging 17mph in this one compared to 11-13mpg with the auto. I've put three tanks in it and got 17.5, 17.1, and 17.0 driving in mixed L.A. traffic. Considering it doesn't have quite 1,000 miles on it yet, I'm hoping it will loosen up even more. Who knows, maybe a straight freeway cruise would net close to 20mpg or even a bit better when it's broken in. I hear the next move with this engine is an increase in displacement to 4.0L. (Maybe invoking a little heritage from the 4.0L L6...?) That should net a bit more power and torque. My only real complaint with this engine is that even though it's an OHC design, it really doesn't like to be pushed close to redline. It's not a revver...it's a torquer....almost more like a pushrod motor. Up to about 4,000rpms, it revs pretty cleanly....but it's pretty tapped out by then.... The flip side, is you can take corners at walking speed in 3rd gear and it still pulls cleanly. If I had my way, I'd trade a bit of low-end flexibility for the ability to pull a little harder up higher in the rev range....making the 6-speed even more fun.

Yeah....if Buick is supposed to be GM's version of Lexus, then there is absolutely no place for a minivan in its lineup..... And Velite better get here sooner instead of later....

That's a REALLY good point..... If GM's strategy is to merge all Buick, Pontiac, AND GMC dealers together....it makes NO sense to have both an Acadia AND an Enclave in the same showroom.

You guys ALL have to remember that in England, they drive cars SO much different than what we are used to. They are accustomed to smaller and more nimble cars. We are used to bigger, more comfortable cars. Of course, even a car like the CTS is going to not neccessarily their cup of tea. The CTS is a HUGE car over there....to them.... If you buy and read the British rags such as CAR, TopGear, and EVO, you'll get a much better understanding of where they are coming from.

I sat in numerous Yaris' in Franfurt this year.....and I really like the car and think it will do EXTREMELY well for Toyota. I do NOT like the centrally-mounted gauges....but aside from that, fit-and-finish and the quality of the materials (hard...but high-quality hard plastics) and quality of the major and minor controls was all first-class.......very unlike the Echo. The new Aveo looks good on the outside.....but the interior is SHAMED by the Yaris. (I also saw the Aveo in Frankfurt.) The new interior looks much better than the current Aveo's......but the quality is just as cheap as the current car.