bowtie_dude

Oh a new car is still 6-8 months out for me, which is why I said Cobalt in current form. There should be a new Mazda 3 next year, too.

Put a manual in it and I'd drive it.

I'm always nice regardless of vehicle.

I will because its a better car than the Cobalt.

And a Mitsubishi Lancer...AND a Honda Civic...

The two systems aren't mutually exclusive. Its not as if you can't have OnStar AND GPS navigation. reg had the best idea, yet.

You know with the new Navs you don't have to have DVDs, right? They all have hard drives. The one in the Lancer has a hard drive, so does the one in the G37, the new CTS, etc. So, uh, yeah...just thought you should know.

The 360 is fun for everyone. Not only does it have a current selection of fantastic games, but its outlook is a lot brighter. Not to mention there are Xbox Live Arcade games that are better than most of the games for the Wii. The Wii is capable of slightly better graphics than the Nintendo Gamecube, its predecessor. In automotive terms, you could kind of look at the Wii as a major MCE for the Gamecube rather than a full redesign. By the way, when I'm not here, I'm posting at a video game forum.

I have a 360. And just to let you know how significant that is, this is the first generation I have not purchased a Nintendo system at launch. Get a Godbox 3-Manly (as I like to call it). You'll be a better man because of it.

Its completely uninspired and seems like they spent absolutely ZERO effort designing them. Someone had a sketch of the new Malibu (before it debuted) that had the PERFECT taillights.

OK. Just making sure I wasn't mistaking irony for a serious opinion.

I do not. Had I not seen them on the old Mitsu Diamante, though, I might feel different about them.

Did a Honda fanboy just accuse another car of looking awkward?

Well, that is also a matter of preference. I'm 24 and I like the interactivity of a navigation system. While I see the benefit of OnStar's Connections and Directions w/ Turn-by-Turn, I'd rather have the touch-screen nav screen. *shrug* But hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm just trying to say that offering a navigation/technology package would boost public and journalist perception of the Malibu, not to mention hit a very lucrative car market (loaded models make lots of money, if I'm not mistaken).

"Dude party of 4" Apparently I'm eating with the Big Lebowski, now!

And I think it will affect sales. If not directly, then indirectly as it will affect perception.

Regardless of what a person refers, offering nav doesn't affect the people who don't want it. I don't see why GM just can't OFFER a navigation and technology package in the top-o-the-line mid-size cars. Whats the problem? Its completely mind-boggling that you two are arguing that because OnStar may be superior in some ways, that GM shouldn't even bother with OFFERING navigation. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I haven't used the OnStar stuff, but I have used a Milo GPS navigation on several occasions. Borrowed a friends when we went to Clearwater Beach, FL for vacation back in August. I gotta tell ya, made getting around the area a breeze. We drove to St. Petersburg and back, to Tampa and back, all up and down the coast, found all of our restaurants in a snap, and even used the points of interest feature to look up and locate a fantastic mexican place on our way back from Tampa one day. And THEN used it to get around a nasty traffic jam. Sorry, but I can't see turn-by-turn doing all that for me. And that was with a $200 aftermarket navigation. With the Lancer's $2000 navigation and technology package, I get all that PLUS a music server w/ 30GB of music storage for MP3s and remote keyless entry and start. Sounds like a helluva deal to me. And I can get that, a sunroof, 6CD-changer, 8-speakers w/ a 10" sub AND bluetooth for $22k.

Hell, I flog my 5-spd Cavalier and get like 25mpg in city driving.

Absolutely it should. The Lucerne should do the same for the LS. And then there needs to be a GS-type sedan in between. But I also think the Malibu should match and exceed the Camry and Accord in how it looks, performs, its reliability, fit-n-finish, interior quality AND by what it offers the customer. Is standard OnStar with emergency response nice? Yes. Is turn-by-turn a decent, cheap alternative to navigation? Yes. Is it a equal or superior product? Nope. Which is why GM should offer it with the 4-cyl AND 6-cyl LTZ-trim and up Malibu. It should also be offered on the Aura XR. Making nav an option doesn't drive up costs across the board, and the potential profit (it can't cost GM more than $750 to put in a nav) greatly outweighs any attached costs. PLUS the perception value in comparisons to its competition.

Ah, I thought you meant optioned properly, which didn't make sense because then it wouldn't be a base Buick anymore. Though, as I said, moot point.

A base ES is nicer than a base Lacrosse. WAY nicer. Better engine and a better interior are the major differences. Buick isn't quite up to par with Lexus in the design and fit-n-finish area. But its a moot point anyway, because I wouldn't own a Buick OR a Lexus like...ever.

Good grief, what a terrible interior! Looks like the last-gen CR-V.

Why would I want a base model Buick when I can own a loaded Chevrolet?

But it doesn't affect cost of the entire lineup. Its an option. An option that gives a certain perception that GM can compete on the same level of Honda and Toyota. As has been said in this thread several times, Chevrolet is more and more associated with Hyundai than it is Toyota. As a "bargain" and "value" brand. I don't much care for that, even if its what GM wants. Toyota isn't top in sales in cars because it has value. Its top because its perceived as being reliable, high quality, and desirable. Same for Honda. When C&D or Edmunds does their comparo of top-of-the-line models, the Malibu will be hurt by not offering a navigation system.