The O.C.

Okay....I tried to wave the white flag....but you've convinced me that you are as clueless as they come..... MOST people DON'T agree with you on the above Impala "attributes" such as overhangs and reliable FOUR speed automatics. And being "cheaper" than the Toyota and Honda competition really doesn't seem to matter either, eh...? Not when Camry and Accord are the two hottest-selling cars in the country.....and if you took out Impala's significant rental-car sales, (and Camry's less-significant, and Accords almost non-significant rental sales)......RETAIL demand for Camry and Accord would be even STRONGER compared to the Chevy. AND I frankly don't see how ANYONE that truly desires a BMW (but can't afford it) is going to settle for an Impala. That's ludicrous. They'll settle for an Accord EX or some other lesser-expensive import. OR, they will settle for a pre-owned BMW, Benz, Audi, or Lexus. You need to open your eyes and see the true reality of what is happening to GM in the marketplace.....but more importantly, WHY it's happening to GM in the marketplace. GM has too much of the mentality YOU share, CARBIZ.....and that is what will continue to drive them down into the ground. Why don't you take a look at the COVER STORY for this week's (8-21-06) Automotive News....... "Toast on the West Coast." "Detroit 3 are getting killed in California; Toyota keeps on rolling." "For those who want to know just how much the Detroit 3's U.S. market share might shrink someday, California may be the canary in the mine shaft." "But California is worth watching not only because it's a big market but also because it's a trendsetter. And California motorists continue to favor import brands." "Toyotas brands now generate more retail sales in California than the North American brands of GM and Ford combined." "Top ten best-sellers in CA: From top down......F-Series, Camry, Civic, Corolla, Accord, Tacoma, Tahoe, Silverado, Tundra, and Altima." Your thoughts, comments, and insights are welcome. And I'd think twice before you rant off on some sort of "California-doesn't-matter" type of comment.....ignore this market, like GM has, at your own risk.

While I can't argue with any supposed sales numbers, a Rendezvous rental was one of the most depressing recent drives in a GM product I can remember. When so many newer GM products (Rendezvous is based off a decade-or-more old minivan platform) seem to show such promise, Rendezvous reminded me of the "old" GM........ * Floaty, boaty, poorly-controlled suspension * Coarse and gritty pushrod V6 powertrain * Truly cheesy interior plastics and fit-and-finish (with actually classy-looking, if tough-to-read, gauges) * Styling that truly looked like someone tried to plunk an SUV body down on a minivan architecture (which is exactly what they did) I say Buick is better off abandoning such a poorly-competitive entry in one of the hottest segments. Let's go Enclave!!!!!!

Thanks Fly. Nice car. I like it much better than when I originally saw the GM press photos. I still think the interior leaves a lot to be desired....with the "ribbed" (for your pleaure) pattern inside the gauge cluster and the mis-aligned (or appearing to be so) center stack controls. The metallic trim, however, goes a long way to improving this aspect and is much more tasteful than the wood trim. One thing on the leather/sunroof thing......I think it makes absolutely PERFECT sense. You have to remember that auto manufacturers have a constant challenge to reduce build combinations....which reduces mfgr'g cost, complexity, and actually helps to improve build quality. Anywhere GM can reduce a build combination is big. In this case, the vast majority of the people would want a sunroof IF they had leather. While there may be people that want a sunroof with cloth, if you look at the competition, just about everyone hard-packages a sunroof if the car has leather in it....be it a model (Accord EX Leather) or an option package. In this case, I think GM made a smart product-planning decision.

GM continues to amaze me. They obviously engineered the 6-speed auto to fit within the chassis/powertrain structure of the new GMT-900s..... ....but GM decided NOT to engineer it right now to fit the lower level engines? Wouldn't it have made more sense and been more economical in the long-run to introduce the GMT-900s with the new 6-speed automatic mated to every available engine (as opposed to the Denali and Escalade 6.2L engines?) Wouldn't it probably of enhanced the already strong fuel economy numbers of the GMT-900s? GM KNEW that Ford would be installing their 6-speed automatic in the re-engineered Expedition.....wouldn't GM have wanted to be product-competitive in this arena?

First of all, my "nitpicks" as you call them are NOT that often duplicated or similar, if at all, in foreign vehicles. That's WHY I nitpick about it. Frankly, I don't let my GM enthusiasm cloud my criticism of their products. I'll say it again....if I was truly such a GM-hater and GM-basher and Import-lover, I wouldn't have bought a C6..... ....and then 9 months later, leased a CTS...... When I could have had a Porsche (versus the C6) or a BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz, Acura, Lexus, OR Infiniti (versus the CTS.)

No....not the arrangement.....the $h!ty and cheap feeling controls.....and the sheer tacky look/design of them. "Old School" as opposed to GM's new "black-tie" (i.e. Lucerne, SKY, Impala) corporate center-stack controls.

.....only in acceleration..... I'd say in just about every other area, (and probably in powertrain polish if not outright speed) this thing spanks the Malibu. I'd certainly consider one of these over the current Malibu.....

"Bahhhhbra Puleeeeeze..." :wink:

LMFAO.....!

If you wanna get technical, it's technology that's been in place since 1988 (original W-body coupes.)

Thanks! Can't wait to pick it up........

I know....but it's LOWER....when usually manuals are a bit HIGHER..... And I know you guys hate to hear this....but isn't the new V6 Camry rated at like 30 or 31mpg on the highway? The (255hp) 530i manual I was looking at was rated 20/30 (and that WAS an '07 model at that......).....ALOT better than the CTS 3.6L.... Like I said....maybe it's the new testing methods. In any event 17/27 for the automatic isn't anything to brag about either....

Okay.....yeah it LOOKS nice...other than the old-school center-stack controls. It's the execution that sucks.

I ACTUALLY understand your point in this and can respect that. I'm never saying you or someone else should buy a Camry over an Impala.....I'm just offering my critical points about the car.... NOW.....what IF.....what IF GM gave you that Impala that didn't have the negatives most commonly associated with the older W-body platform? What IF the back seat room was efficient enought that you don't snag your feet getting out? (I snag my 9 1/2 inch foot just as easily) What IF the Impala wasn't saddled by excessive front and rear overhangs and a front-weight bias that makes the car feel unresponsive in curves? You can still have your "slightly-floaty" Impala ride with a bit more precision in the steering and handling.... What IF the Impala had a modern, DOHC V6 powerplant that put out 260-270+ hp with decent low-end torque....and a reputation for reliability like the older pushrod V6s have? What IF the Impala had a modern 5- or 6-speed automatic that shifts as smoothly as the 5-speed in the CTS for example? And hence shifted as smooth as GM's old 4-speeds? Would THAT be an Impala that 1) YOU would buy......but ALSO 2) an import consumer looking at a Camry might actually buy AS WELL...? THAT, my friend.....IS the ticket.

I posted on my thread in The Lounge but didn't know if people would see it there. I checked out my new CTS at the dealership last night (haven't taken delivery quite yet) and noticed that my car ('07 3.6L Sport with 6-speed manual) is rated at only 17 city/26 highway. That seems pretty crappy for a V6.....especially one with a manual tranny that probably has a pretty tall geared sixth gear. I don't really care.....but it just seems way low. Hell, my C6 is rated at 18/28....but that's an '06. I'm really thinking this has more to do with the new testing methods that I think were instituted by the EPA for '07 testing....? (BTW....the car is HOT...!)

It's HERE! It's HERE! It's HERE! I don't have it yet because I'm waiting on the paperwork from the dealership in New York.....however, I did see it at the dealership. One thing I'm VERY surprised about is the $h!ty epa ratings...... Didn't someone say that they revised the testing for '07? The '07 CTS 3.6L with a 6-speed manual is rated at 17/26....(!)....on the window sticker. That's a really low highway figure for a V6 CTS....and I would have even thought with the 6-speed manual, the sixth gear would be taller than even the one in the 5-speed auto....perhaps even adding some mpg to the highway figure.... Hell.....my C6 is rated at 18/28 (for '06 that is.)

Seriously? Go sit inside one.....then check out: 1) Steering column shroud that is the flimsiest, cheapest, and most-loosely-attached piece of plastic I've seen in a long time. 2) Cheesy, old school center stack with tacky radio and hvac controls 3) lower portion of the center stack that acts as the shift console can be easily wobbled by your hand.....i.e. it's loosely attached as well. 4) That same silver trim looks as bad in the Torrent as it does a $62K Corvette Convertible. 5) Forward-console-mounted power window switches. 6) PRNDL on the lower dash/console

The "perception gap" article in "Friends of Buick" was interesting. I do agree that there IS a perception gap with most domestic automobiles.....but on the other hand, vehicles like the LaCrosse, when you really get down to it, are inferior to the competition in many ways. The article makes a good point comparing the W-body architecture to the Camry's comparatively-ancient platform. However, with the newest Camry, Toyota doesn't give us an exterior design with exaggerated front and rear overhangs. Also, Camry doesn't penalize rear seat riders with a cramped area the way the W-body does. In fact, what luggage space is lost as a result ends up providing a much more comfortable back seat for rear seat riders. Finally, Toyota gives us a Camry with two modern, DOHC powertrains with 5- and 6-speed automatics.....and a V6 with rip-snorting power. SO....yes there is a perception gap. But many times it can be well-deserved.

I'd take a Durango anyday over a TrailBlazer..... Yes I would.... I've spent plenty of time in both.....Dodge did a nice job with their latest generation SUV. TrailBlazer's interior is a joke compared to the Dodge's.....even with the Dodge's inferior hard plastics.

The Durango is inferior. And I'm sure your evaluation is based upon extensive test drives, right? I've found the Durango to be a pretty nice piece.....in ride, handling, and overall refinement. Even my friend's base, 2WD, 3.7L V6 is a competent piece. Build quality and fit-and-finish in any Durango I've been in seems quite nice.....even if materials are lacking a bit.... Additionally, the Aspens I was in at the auto show DID have soft-touch plastics on the dash in areas that the Durango doesn't..... Calling it "pretty lousy" doesn't lend you all that much credibility......if you don't like it....just SAY you don't like it.....

In The O.C., $500K buys you a two-bedroom condo. Where I live, a basic, cookie-cutter 3-bedroom, 1,900 sq. ft. single-family-home (relatively new however) is about $700-$800K. <gulp>

I remember the redesigned N-body cars being introduced with NO airbags and 3-speed automatic transmissions.....

Uh....I never blamed the dealer for not having the brochures...... GM hasn't shipped/produced any..... And, I've sold cars too.....and I've managed sales people as a sales manager. I understand ALL about "flats" and "minis." If you can present the customer options, and you happen to be in a position to direct them towards a left-over model with a huge flat, then that's great. BUT, when you have a customer that KNOWS what he/she is in the market for, you need to attend to the customer's needs. If you try to push them another direction, you'll just piss them off.....like that guy did to me. It's all about reading your customers.....listening to them.....understanding when they need firm consultation from you....and when they don't. That's all my point was.

Uh....I never blamed the dealer for not having the brochures...... GM hasn't shipped/produced any.....