Drew Dowdell

Oh... I forgot it's all about you... :AH-HA_wink: an alpha G6 coupe with the HF3.6 and 6-speed manual wouldn't appeal to you?

Well, it's a plan that would make decent business sense for GM, but also keep the brands unique and not stepping on each other's toes. Gets a few more years out of the really good G-body platform, keeps the volume up that would be lost by the death of the Lucerne and DTS. Spreads Alpha around fairly Keeps the RWD fans happy Makes Buick viable again Makes Pontiac relevant again.

Lucerne dropped from Buick Updated, restyled, DTS sized, Lucerne takes place at the top of the Chevy lineup as a Caprice; has HF3.6 and Vortec 5.3 as engines Buick gets EPII LaCrosse, bases around 29k Buick get Zeta Park Ave, bases around 38k Chevy gets Alpha based Impala sedan and coupe with Ecotec4 and HF2.8 Buick gets Alpha based Riviera coupe and Riviera convertible with HF3.6 and HF3.6DI Pontiac gets Alpha based G6 coupe, sedan and convertible with Ecotec Turbo and HF3.6DI for GXP version + 6-speed manuals

except as much as I would prefer a 2009 B-body like Impala, it most likely makes more business sense for it to be a decontented Lucerne.

The rental sales themselves may not make a profit, but they keep the lights on in Oshawa for the retail sales. Plus retail sales for the Impala have been up recently. There is also the police market... not something to walk away from.

O.C. it would be really interesting to drive our cars back to back and compare the differences.

There is a 3100 in a regal? 3800 > 3100 in just about every way.

all it would do is increase drag to the point of negating any improvements in performance they might provide.

Only thing that comes to mind is the G-bodies tend to warp the hell out of front rotors. Seems to be a problem with every G-body I've encountered.

OMG, I was sooo totally gonna buy a Malibu, but the optional NAV in the Sebring was the cincher for me. Totally going for the Sebring now.

I think the issue is that we as a society are so used to not having to pay for what we use in terms of the environment. Our use of gasoline has been artificially cheap at the pump for years. I hear so much against ethanol as a fuel but none of it makes sense when you look at the big picture. Sure corn based ethanol is one of the worst in terms of production efficiency but it's still cheap compared to gasoline. Don't believe me? Consider these points: 1. The most common argument against ethanol is that it takes government subsidies to make it affordable. How much did Iraq war v. 1.0 and v. 2.0 cost us? What if we had used all of that money to develop a pure ethanol infrastructure not based on corn? Why is it wrong to subsidize our farmers yet perfectly fine to send money to Shieks in Saudi Arabia or dictators in Venezuela? How much did the wars cost us in lives? How much did the wars cost us in global esteem? Osama Bin Laden's original motivating factor for attacking the US was his observations of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia during the original Gulf War; Would 9-11 even have happened? These are all costs that don't get factored into the $3.05 per gallon that people are complaining about today. 2. The second most common argument against ethanol is that it is less efficient per gallon than gasoline. This is true when you're running ethanol through an engine originally designed for gasoline. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to consider that when you run the engine with a fuel that it was not originally designed for, you're not going to get optimum performance? If you were complaining because your turbo charged Saab wasn't getting great mileage and you were filling up with 87 instead of the manufacturer specified 91, people would call you an idiot. The compression ratio of the Impala Flex Fuel is a relatively lazy 9.8:1. Ethanol is over 100 octane. Brazillian Chevies run at a compression ratio of 12:1 on pure alcohol. The Impala Flex Fuel is literally wasting energy in order to maintain compatibility with the gasoline infrastructure. Dial up the compression on the 3.5 V6 and you'd likely not only get more power out of the engine but would probably also return mileage similar to a gas only version. Worked for the Saab BioPower. 3. The third argument against ethanol is that it stresses the food supply. This is true if you base your ethanol infrastructure on corn. The beauty of ethanol is that it can be made from a wide variety of sources. Brazil based their alcohol infrastructure on sugar. There is no global shortage of sugar. In fact sugar producers in the U.S. are doing everything in their power to keep cheaper Brazilian sugar out of our market. Among many other sources, Ethanol can be made from alge and kelp. We have a LOT of coastline in the US and kelp grows along all of it. That is all fuel out there waiting to go into your V8. 4. The fourth argument against ethanol is that it takes oil to produce ethanol. I'm not quite sure what kind of logical defect is at work with this one but it's a duesy. Sure it might take oil to get the ethanol infrastructure in place, but once up and operating, the infrastructure is self sustaining. Why can't the farm tractors, tanker trucks, in fact the entire network be powered by some sort of bio-fuel? Some might argue that it would take more energy input than you'd get with output. While this might be true with corn <the worst source>, it is not true with other ethanol sources, especially those derived from waste products. In short, if you want to keep your V8 and not drive an Aveo, support ethanol and don't by into the hype against it.... because all it is, is hype. Raise your hand if you don't want a big American car with a big American V8 with a 13:1 compression ratio that burns 100 octane fuel grown by Americans that costs around $2.35 a gallon and at the same time not have the U.S. participate in more mid-east wars? *crickets chirping*

I'm the same as Carbiz. After about 1/2 a day, I was finding my way around Köln with ease...... my excuse for the first 1/2 a day is jetlag.

I agree with Carbiz. + More Turbo diesels.

Sorry to hear that. I'm interested to hear their reaction.

uh, look into that a bit more. It may be more complicated than just a head unit swap.

Why? Do you think the Accord is suddenly going to become an Avis special just because it has crossed over into full size status?

it's the same thing!!

Consider this; The V6 G8 is going to base at 27k. There is not a lot of room between the 19k Malibu and G6 and a 27k G8. Cheapest Malibu V6 is 24.6k. Where would that leave the base Impala? 25.5k? I can already hear the gnashing of teeth when it comes with a HV3.5 standard.

I get exactly what my car was rated for....... under the old ratings.

VenSeattle FTW

It won't. However, a 3800lb. FWD car can be larger than a RWD version because less weight is devoted to the powertrain. Case in point. Lucerne V6 is 4 lbs lighter than the base CTS. V8 Lucerne is 100lbs heavier. Best example I can find of RWD being less efficient than FWD. Chrysler 300 2.7 litre - 190hp SOHC - 4 speed auto - 3712 - 18/26 Buick Lucerne 3.8 Litre - 197hp OHV - 4speed auto - 3869 - 19/28 maybe it's that extra camshaft slowin the 300 down :AH-HA_wink:

Microcars may become a necessity A Lucurne sized Impala, with proper packaging/styling/interior would probably sell reasonably well even as a FWDer The hybrid system was developed to go into the 6-speed front drivers also and wouldn't a Zeta impala be a "rebadge" of the G8 anyway?

I'm kinda ok with this....though I think they need to hurry up and make a decision so the W-body can finally be put out to pasture. Let Pontiac have the more performance oriented product and develop a FWD/AWD G-body replacement for Chevy, Saturn, and Buick.

Regardless of the way you use cruise, as YJ has already pointed out, there is in fact a cancel button on the corp. 3 spoke. The new 4-spoke on the G-bodies, GMT-900s, and W-bodies appear to have a cancel button as well.

I'm not arguing against the use of a NAV. I'm arguing that the lack of NAV as an option will not harm Malibu sales in any significant way.