The Future Of General Motors

[griff7774]

http://jalopnik.com/398599/rick-wagoner-le...ze-cadillac-srx

Link Fixed

Edited July 16, 2008 by Northstar

[Robert Hall]

http://jalopnik.com/398599/rick-wagoner-leaks-the-entire-future-of-general-motors-first-shots-of-chevy-cruze-cadillac-srx

Bad link. Got a 'required files are missing' error

[BigPontiac]

Correct Link below:

http://jalopnik.com/398599/rick-wagoner-le...ze-cadillac-srx

[Northstar]

This is stupid to release all of these pictures early. I guess not that many people will see them perhaps, but it's going to do nothing to increase sales right now. If anything, it may hurt sales if people wait to buy these rather than current models.

As for the vehicles themselves, I'd say they look pretty nice. Hard to tell for sure because of the grainy photos, though. The LaCrosse looks rather big, but I'm guessing it's no bigger and probably smaller than the current model. It just has a much loner wheelbase. I think the Cruze, Equinox, and SRX/BRX/whatever look the best (and are probably the 3 most important).

Now it's time to get these products out. I don't understand why the Cruze isn't coming sooner if it's being produced elsewhere sooner. That's retarded.

[mustang84]

All of them look pretty good except for the Buick. The roofline is too tall and the deck is too short, giving it an awkward stance like the Taurus/Five Hundred.

[Paolino]

This is stupid to release all of these pictures early. I guess not that many people will see them perhaps, but it's going to do nothing to increase sales right now. If anything, it may hurt sales if people wait to buy these rather than current models.

As for the vehicles themselves, I'd say they look pretty nice. Hard to tell for sure because of the grainy photos, though. The LaCrosse looks rather big, but I'm guessing it's no bigger and probably smaller than the current model. It just has a much loner wheelbase. I think the Cruze, Equinox, and SRX/BRX/whatever look the best (and are probably the 3 most important).

Now it's time to get these products out. I don't understand why the Cruze isn't coming sooner if it's being produced elsewhere sooner. That's retarded.

+1 with the Cruze.

I'm not digging the Chrysler headlights on the Equinox, but love the rest of it. Like the SRX a lot. Waiting patiently for the Buick sedan to have its press release and production specs/pictures, being that they can show us this now.

[loki]

the Nox looks much more Acadia, i think it's a good move,...2.3L DI... hopefully a 5 or 6 speed comes with. maybe the BAS

the Cruze... for being crappy pics, looks good. will it stick with the planned 1.4L T and the now 2.2L VVT?

[Micah Pie]

I am completely loving the Cruze... awesome design. The headlights are a little akward, but at least it's not "clean cut". I can only imagine an SS coupe! Very nice stance for a small FWD car!

Speaking of which, that's probably the worst thing about the Buick. I can't believe they made it look like an "old person" car after all! Maybe it's the POV of the picture thought. The bumper is pretty bland though. How hard can it be to mold an Invicta-type bumper?

Also digging the caddy and the rest is OK.

[smk4565]

The Buick looks boring, kind of tall like a Sable/Taurus but with that sloped rear back of the Jag XF or Mercedes, but the Buick doesn't look as good as them. The Saab and Cadillac look horrible. Equinox is ok, but looks kind of big an Saturn-like. Cruze looks good except I don't like the Camry/Accord style headlights that wrap back toward the front wheels, although that might not be a bad thing since people like Camrys and Accords.

I read today that the average sale price of a Cobalt is $12,000, while it is $19,000 for a Civic. The Cruze better be good (Malibu level interior at minimum and 40 mpg highway), because they the strategy of cost cutting and making a cheap car just leads to selling it for $7000 less than the competition.

[Drew Dowdell]

Or... to phrase it another way... Cobalt proves there is a market for a cheap basic car at $12,000. Which is why it'll hang around for a few years after the Cruze is introed.

[David]

Exciting times ahead for GM, I love all the auto's they all have potential.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I'm disappointed that they didn't show the Pontiac Torrent-turned-GMC Terrain too... I'm hoping that the GMC Terrain hasn't been cancelled

[haypops]

Or... to phrase it another way... Cobalt proves there is a market for a cheap basic car at $12,000. Which is why it'll hang around for a few years after the Cruze is introed.

Amen to that.

I read that Saturn dealers are really missing the ION. Similar idea.

[Drew Dowdell]

I bet there is a whole host of buyers that don't care about Onstar, XM, or 6-Speed automatics as long as it starts every day and gets them down the highway at better than 30mpg.

[loki]

I bet there is a whole host of buyers that don't care about Onstar, XM, or 6-Speed automatics as long as it starts every day and gets them down the highway at better than 30mpg.

30 is turning into 31+.... but yes, totally.

[ocnblu]

The Cruze looks very good in the pictures. Dag, are those 20" rims?

[buyacargetacheck]

In a world of $4 gas and climbing I doubt any of these sleds will do well. The Cadillacs won't because the economy will continue to suck, and all the good stuff over the last few years hasn't moved Cadillac's sales needle much. Equinox: the market doesn't need another 4000 pound Vue. Buick is screwed because of the channeling thing. The Cruze will not be hot if the only engine is turbocharged -- even if it does get 40mpg. Turbos are maintenance headaches (more frequent oil changes, cool downs if you don't want coked turbines, etc). Plus it looks to be expensive.

BTW, all these things look good in pics because they're cartoons with huge wheels. Wait til they show up at dealers with more practical wheel sizes and wheelwell gaps.

Edited July 18, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[Croc]

All of them look pretty good except for the Buick. The roofline is too tall and the deck is too short, giving it an awkward stance like the Taurus/Five Hundred.

Disagree. It seems to have a very sleek look to it...almost Aurora-like.

[hyperv6]

In a world of $4 gas and climbing I doubt any of these sleds will do well. The Cadillacs won't because the economy will continue to suck, and all the good stuff over the last few years hasn't moved Cadillac's sales needle much. Equinox: the market doesn't need another 4000 pound Vue. Buick is screwed because of the channeling thing. The Cruze will not be hot if the only engine is turbocharged -- even if it does get 40mpg. Turbos are maintenance headaches (more frequent oil changes, cool downs if you don't want coked turbines, etc). Plus it looks to be expensive.

BTW, all these things look good in pics because they're cartoons with huge wheels. Wait til they show up at dealers with more practical wheel sizes and wheelwell gaps.

Things are not that bad!

Cadillac will do ok on the cars but I just don't see many people want to move up to a Cadillac Vibe. It may be a very good vehicle but if I want a Cadillac it is not going to be a people mover. If I had a CTS my wife would have a Enclave to do the hauling.

Equinox will do fine as it is not a bad vehicle and it is priced well. Besides a Cruze will not hall the things a Nox will. You have to have a affordable hauler to replace the many Tahoe's no one wants to drive.

The Buick you will find will look much better than the photo's. You have to see it in person before you condem it. What will hurt the Buick is ...well it is a Buick. They may be great cars today and I like them but they are not on the top ten list of got to have cars with most people under 60.

The Cruze will do well and you had better get used to the turbos as they will become part of life for most vehicles. Mercedes just anounced turbos will be available on all models in the future.

Please understand todays turbos are not the turbo's of GM's past like the T types or Grand Am Turbo. Todays Turbos are well built and desigened with proper water cooled housings and engines built with sodium filled valves and forged pistons that will stand up to the heat and pressure. They also will have intercoolers and other supporting componets using synthtic oils.

Today the Eco turbo is also has the ability to use High test or Regular gas . You will lose a little power with the regular but you will not burn a piston but it is your choice to use what you want with no damage.

On the other hand we stiull have a CTS coupe to come and a few other fun cars like the GXP G8, G8 Truck and Camaro. GM is only talking econ cars to help with Wall Street. We also should hear something on the Alpha soon as to what they will or won't do with it.

What GM is going through is a case of what does not kill you only makes you stronger. They are forced to make the changes they have been putting off. They will make it and they may have some less than fun cars added but they will still serve the rest of us. In time we will see a Cruze SS Coupe that will be as good or better than the present Cobalt SS. Performance will be about the same but the interior and styling will improve.

[buyacargetacheck]

I'd be more impressed with a naturally-aspirated Cruze wagon or the promised Hamtramck-built Zafira than the Equinox. Mark my words buyers will and are running away from "crossovers" that don't get combined mileage in the 20s. The bar will just continue to go higher too. "Crossover" is not a pass for good sales.

I owned a 1987 Supra Turbo that lasted close to 200,000 mi without any turbo problems so I have experience with "well-built and designed" turbos. I also know they're expensive, require that the owner "wind" them down (which most buyers will forget to do), and do more frequent oil and coolant changes. More expensive platinum spark plugs will also likely be a requirement. Buyers just aren't going to have much patience with a family car that requires so much costly maintenance. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Equinox will do fine as it is not a bad vehicle and it is priced well. Besides a Cruze will not hall the things a Nox will. You have to have a affordable hauler to replace the many Tahoe's no one wants to drive.

The Cruze will do well and you had better get used to the turbos as they will become part of life for most vehicles. Mercedes just anounced turbos will be available on all models in the future.

Please understand todays turbos are not the turbo's of GM's past like the T types or Grand Am Turbo. Todays Turbos are well built and desigened with proper water cooled housings and engines built with sodium filled valves and forged pistons that will stand up to the heat and pressure. They also will have intercoolers and other supporting componets using synthtic oils.

Today the Eco turbo is also has the ability to use High test or Regular gas . You will lose a little power with the regular but you will not burn a piston but it is your choice to use what you want with no damage.

[smk4565]

Or... to phrase it another way... Cobalt proves there is a market for a cheap basic car at $12,000. Which is why it'll hang around for a few years after the Cruze is introed.

What is the Aveo then? (besides a poorly made South Korean car) The Aveo is supposed to be the $12,000 car, Cobalt is supposed to compete with the Civic. The Fit sells for over $12,000, this is how Honda makes profit on small cars, they build them good and people pay a premium for them. GM nickel and dimes cars, cuts corners, and lets cars hang on the market for 10 years like the Cavalier. Then they have to price the car low, plus put a $2500 rebate on it. If they invested money into the car in the first place, it would sell at a higher price and not need a rebate.

My hope is the Cruze interior is Malibu LTZ level, they really need to match the Japanese in fit and finish. It is easy to beat the Japanese in styling.

[smk4565]

Disagree. It seems to have a very sleek look to it...almost Aurora-like.

It in no way shape or form looks like an Aurora. The Aurora is superior to any Buick ever made, and will probably be superior to anything they come up with in the future.

[smk4565]

I would guess that the Cruze has a naturally aspirated engine also. My mom has had 3 turbo cars in a row (Volvo, Saab, Audi) and all required premium and had a bit of extra maintenance. So the turbo could be a turn off for some buyers. Maybe the 2.2 ecotec gets DI and hangs around and the turbo is optional. The Jetta has the 5-cylinder standard, and the turbo 4 is optional, and gets better gas mileage plus 30 more hp, so chevy could do that, with the smaller displacement, higher gas mileage engine being the option.

Cadillac won't fall apart because of high gas. They need a 3-series sized car, diesels, hybrids, etc. Front drive people haulers is not the way to go though. Cadillac needs to get people that used to spend $40k on SUVs into driving cars. GM has lots of people haulers, what about people that don't need a people hauler, but still want a nice car? They need a small premium like the Jetta or Mini Cooper, and a 3-series sized Cadillac, (coupe, sedan, convertible) and push the CTS to $50,000 base.

If the Equinox is 4300 pounds like the Vue they are in trouble. They should start an initiative to cut the weight of every car by 5% or more, like Mercedes is doing.

[vonVeezelsnider]

The Turbo 2.0L ECOTEC doesn't need premium... Why should the new 1.6?

[cire]

I really do like the Cruze. The overall design is a fresh new direction for a Chevrolet compact sedan and it looks to be a well executed design (the only exception being that cheap black plastic piece on the C-pillar). I still wish they would change the name to "Monza" for the U.S. market, though.

I think the Buick sedan might look quite a bit better once clearer pictures are available and some of the fine details can be seen and appreciated. I want to see better pictures (and from more angles) before I make any final judgements on this car. Although it may be toned down somewhat from the Invicta concept (which should be the name for this car), I think it will still be a winning product for the Buick division.

The Equinox looks more upscale than the current model (which seems to be a trend with Chevrolet; the current Malibu and the upcoming Cruze look more upscale than the preceding models). It still looks to be more of a midsize crossover, which makes me believe that Chevrolet could still use the compact Captiva in its U.S. crossover lineup. From what I can see in the photo, it is an improvement over the current model.

The Cadillac looks nice, but I still think Cadillac should not be in the FWD/AWD luxury crossover segment. That segment should belong to Buick (which I would still love to see combined with Cadillac in the luxury dealer network). FWD/AWD luxury crossovers just seem to fit in better with Buick's image than Cadillac's image. Cadillac should solely focus on providing well executed RWD luxury cars (sedans, coupes, wagons, retractable hardtop roadsters/coupes).

I'm not a big Saab fan, so I really don't appreciate the 9-4X like I would if I were a fan of the division. I still think Saab should be sold. It needs a lot of attention and GM doesn't really need the distraction. GM could really use the revenue that would be generated by selling the division.

I really hope these products can rescue the corporation from their slump and help GM with their turnaround efforts.

[Croc]

It in no way shape or form looks like an Aurora.

I was referring to the sleekness as being almost Aurora-like.

The Aurora is superior to any Buick ever made, and will probably be superior to anything they come up with in the future.

Hmmm...considering the first-gen was a 4-door Riviera and would have been a Buick had Olds been shut down in the mid-90s, I'm gonna have to call on that. But nice try.

[thegriffon]

The Turbo 2.0L ECOTEC doesn't need premium... Why should the new 1.6?

1.4

[hyperv6]

I'd be more impressed with a naturally-aspirated Cruze wagon or the promised Hamtramck-built Zafira than the Equinox. Mark my words buyers will and are running away from "crossovers" that don't get combined mileage in the 20s. The bar will just continue to go higher too. "Crossover" is not a pass for good sales.

I owned a 1987 Supra Turbo that lasted close to 200,000 mi without any turbo problems so I have experience with "well-built and designed" turbos. I also know they're expensive, require that the owner "wind" them down (which most buyers will forget to do), and do more frequent oil and coolant changes. More expensive platinum spark plugs will also likely be a requirement. Buyers just aren't going to have much patience with a family car that requires so much costly maintenance. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.

1987 is not exactly state of the art. You do undertstand technology has advanced 21 years?

[Drew Dowdell]

I was referring to the sleekness as being almost Aurora-like.

Hmmm...considering the first-gen was a 4-door Riviera and would have been a Buick had Olds been shut down in the mid-90s, I'm gonna have to call on that. But nice try.

The Aurora was originally slated to be a Cadillac. But his argument will somehow involve DOHC.

[buyacargetacheck]

The Supra's 7M-GTE engine was ahead of its time and would probably stand up well in comparison to just about anything on the market today.

Nevertheless, the benefits of turbos, even today, aren't free. If GM somehow reduces the cost and frequency of maintenance on the 1.4T to match a similar normally aspirated engine the question becomes: will durability and reliability suffer as a consequence? Remember, there is no such thing as "free."

1987 is not exactly state of the art. You do undertstand technology has advanced 21 years?

Edited July 18, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[daves87rs]

I bet there is a whole host of buyers that don't care about Onstar, XM, or 6-Speed automatics as long as it starts every day and gets them down the highway at better than 30mpg.

Yep-or they will give that market to Kia...

[hyperv6]

The Supra's 7M-GTE engine was ahead of its time and would probably stand up well in comparison to just about anything on the market today.

Nevertheless, the benefits of turbos, even today, aren't free. If GM somehow reduces the cost and frequency of maintenance on the 1.4T to match a similar normally aspirated engine the question becomes: will durability and reliability suffer as a consequence? Remember, there is no such thing as "free."

Ok your Supra was advance in 1987 so your only 19 years behind now. There are some giant leaps since your car was built in many areas.

Heck the HHR SS and Cobalt SS offers some of the basic improvments already Check what the 2.0 Turbo Eco offers in these cars vs the standard 2.4 Eco engine. They are not the same engine and were built to last. The 1.4 will only be better.

Subaru has proven time and time again that turbos can ans are cheap and reliable. Ford Mercedes and other will prove this too. THis is why GM is moving this way.

The only thing is Tubos today add to the cost of the engines but with fuel milage requirements it is th price we all will have to pay.

Fuel injection was too much at one time too but with emissions they has to meet it was the price that had to be paid.

As for long term the emission rules will make sure these engines will last and be reliable long term. Most cars today already have platinum plugs and thing we only saw on high end vehicles.

[daves87rs]

What is the Aveo then? (besides a poorly made South Korean car) The Aveo is supposed to be the $12,000 car, Cobalt is supposed to compete with the Civic. The Fit sells for over $12,000, this is how Honda makes profit on small cars, they build them good and people pay a premium for them. GM nickel and dimes cars, cuts corners, and lets cars hang on the market for 10 years like the Cavalier. Then they have to price the car low, plus put a $2500 rebate on it. If they invested money into the car in the first place, it would sell at a higher price and not need a rebate.

My hope is the Cruze interior is Malibu LTZ level, they really need to match the Japanese in fit and finish. It is easy to beat the Japanese in styling.

Not everyone wants a tiny Aveo or fit....

It's a good idea to keep the Balt around for two reasons-

1. Choice= more sales.....The Balt should be closer to being able to pay for itself...A few minor updates should be fine..GM really needs all the small cars it can-regarless whether it is cutting edge or not.

2. The Cruze is going to be priced higher...about 2 grand more (remember the Bu'?) Those who are looking for a basic , no frills car will be able to get the Balt..

Granted, I would take a base Cruze over a Cobalt....

[haypops]

IIRC the article says the Equinox will get a fuel efficient 2.3 L. engine. Any ne have any details. Is it realted to 2.2 and 2.4 Ecotecs, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Supra's 7M-GTE engine was ahead of its time and would probably stand up well in comparison to just about anything on the market today.

Nevertheless, the benefits of turbos, even today, aren't free. If GM somehow reduces the cost and frequency of maintenance on the 1.4T to match a similar normally aspirated engine the question becomes: will durability and reliability suffer as a consequence? Remember, there is no such thing as "free."

Man... I wish all those Subaru, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Saab owners would finally clear their broken down cars off the side of the highways......

These are cars that run with turbos every single day. They individually may have issues, but has anyone heard of even anecdotal evidence of wide spread turbo issues on these cars?

We're not talking '83 Lebaron or Mustang SVOs here.

[turbo200]

damn, i keep trying to write up some design commentary and deleting it. well, here goes again, this will be shorter than all I wanted to say. cruze is a star, and the star of these. increasingly this segment and car is becoming vital to everyone's survival. both interior and the production shots we're looking at suggest GM is gunning for a more upscale segment. the interior in preproduction guise is already more beautiful than anything in the intermediate compact and midsize segment [not better than Passat and I can't remember Mazda6 right now]. the exterior is sophisticated and strong. me likes. equinox, another winner. clearly moving into the family category to supplant Trailblazer. I like the concept, moving more conservative and yet strong bold front end. a perfect family vehicle for Chevy, and no wonder they didn't follow our advice and make Lambda a TB replacement. the 2.3 turbo should be able to go above 30 mpg, we may be looking at one of the few seriously relevant crossovers going down the line, unless gas prices stabilize at $4 going into the future [because of a move to alternative fuels?].

saab is my next favorite. what a looker! potentially, already the best looking in its class. because it's a saab, and I expect the same from Cadillac, there are very high expectations for road handling and drive feel. this better deliver, no questions asked. this is yet again one of those make or break situations I'm going to be looking at for GM, and if I was a paid analyst at a Merill Lynch type investment bank, these are the indications of whether GM can manage multiple brands or not. get your act together, you lazy people. get to work and engineer the crap out of the suspensions, it's what we're expecting, and consumers are more prepared, more informed than ever. build buzz through the genuine execution of these models.

on the cadillac's design, what a yawn-fest, and honestly barf-inducing as a Cadillac. no other words to say, the surfacing, profile, even traditionally strong Cadillac graphics are all lame and just wrong, considering what sexy work like the Tiguan, FX and EX, and even 9-4x is coming out in this category. this is not to say this won't appeal to some, but it's not the vehicle GM needs in this segment, yet again. they need to go back to a multi-pronged strategy with the SUV category, if market conditions allow. but if we were back a year ago, and I knew then what I know now about the designs out now, I would say this a weak entry. because we are in a different time, I will say I can't yet judge the concept, the conservative upright SUV thing mixed with Cadillac DNA, because of the times we're in. because of economic situation, this may be the upper limit for SUVs, going down the line, so this may end up just being good timing, having the unviersal, more family-oriented shape around. but as it is, this is nothign but weak weak weak and a big disappointment.

with the invicta, i felt one of its strongest features was the surfacing, which was very Lexus-like, but more advanced yet. it's hard to judge that here. i'm concerned with the derivative nature of some of its design. if there's nothing new here, it may be a waste of an excercise, but i believe we may end up with something fresh when all is said and done.

Edited July 18, 2008 by turbo200

[The O.C.]

The Cruze will not be hot if the only engine is turbocharged -- even if it does get 40mpg. Turbos are maintenance headaches (more frequent oil changes, cool downs if you don't want coked turbines, etc).

Nope. Today's turbo engines don't require any more maintenance than normally-aspirated engines.......cool-downs are a thing of the past......and oil change intervals run hand-in-hand with today's newer cars....(10K-15K miles depending on driving conditions.)

(Just my own observations over 25K miles in an Audi 2.0T........)

[ZL-1]

saab is my next favorite.

I loved the 9-4X concept and the one next to the 9-3X (on the spy shots) seems nice, but the one on that slide looks weird. Besides the image resolution issue, maybe the image was resized with a hammer... I wanna see the real thing in properly sized photos...

Edited July 18, 2008 by ZL-1

[The O.C.]

Well, in showing the pic of the SRX to the other guys here at the Caddy dealership, they are all mostly enthusiastic about having this as a replacement to the current (sale-proof) SRX. Mostly favorable comments.

The Invicta? I said quite awhile ago (when the concept came out) that we should hold off our accolades until we see the production car.....and I was right.....GM totally dumbed-down the design. What a wasted exercise this car is. Not an ugly car, but bland....bland....bland.....and that roofline makes it look like a hatchback.....not at ALL what I was hoping to see.

Saab looks pretty cool......but certainly not the home-run Saab needs to re-invent the brand.

Equinox looks good to me too.....but there's something funny about how the glass on both sides of the C-pillar is shaped......

Cruze seems to be right on the money......but I HATE those fake, blacked-out side-window "extensions" that go back further than the rear door cutout line. Ugh.

[turbo200]

Well, in showing the pic of the SRX to the other guys here at the Caddy dealership, they are all mostly enthusiastic about having this as a replacement to the current (sale-proof) SRX. Mostly favorable comments.

The Invicta? I said quite awhile ago (when the concept came out) that we should hold off our accolades until we see the production car.....and I was right.....GM totally dumbed-down the design. What a wasted exercise this car is. Not an ugly car, but bland....bland....bland.....and that roofline makes it look like a hatchback.....not at ALL what I was hoping to see.

Saab looks pretty cool......but certainly not the home-run Saab needs to re-invent the brand.

what do dealer guys know? :AH-HA_wink: [not you, but your co-workers]

haha, in all seriousness, my exact point is the conservative nature is going to have appeal to those outside of the luxury field, well the design-centric luxury area in which I am. this may have no problem selling to some families outside of the coasts, but those looking at the latest trends in design will see this as yesterday's news. the broader luxury category is ever more so daily looking for statements, and this makes none. it's safe, conservative, and will sell to some females and families, but it will not create a buzz on its design statement alone. [edit: after switching computer screens, I'm starting to like the surfacing elements more at the front end. more pictures in the end may make me lke it a bit more and think it's a big more unique, the bulk of my criticism now is being directed at the derivative profile and shape, as well as the marginally stale front end.]

the saab is an innovator purely on its shape. but the wrap around windshield, the sculpted mirror, the hockey stick shape. all speak of luxury, all intimately Saab. very very handsome, very innovative. conservative, but in a Saab manner that is refined and exactly the kind of luxury design some people want.

ZL-1: it's weird cause I'm not getting what you see. it looks perfectly fine to me.

invicta, well we may be pre-judging a lot based on a shot from an awkward angle. that's all I'll say on that one. [generally i'm close to ready to drop the hammer as a few others here have already done on that one.]

Edited July 18, 2008 by turbo200

[sandwich]

Nope. Today's turbo engines don't require any more maintenance than normally-aspirated engines.......cool-downs are a thing of the past......and oil change intervals run hand-in-hand with today's newer cars....(10K-15K miles depending on driving conditions.)

(Just my own observations over 25K miles in an Audi 2.0T........)

I own a GTI with a 2.0T. If you run these cars hard, or any turbo car, it is a good idea to let them cool down. In normal everyday driving, you don't have to. They are cooled after you shut the engine off and modern turbos run cooler to begin with. Turbo cars can burn oil, the 2.0T does.

[The O.C.]

I own a GTI with a 2.0T. If you run these cars hard, or any turbo car, it is a good idea to let them cool down. In normal everyday driving, you don't have to. They are cooled after you shut the engine off and modern turbos run cooler to begin with. Turbo cars can burn oil, the 2.0T does.

I've never needed a drop of oil in my 2.0T in 26K miles.....(outside of normal oil changes as dictated by the oil life monitor.)

And, you are right.....it does cool down the engine automatically after shut-off.

[buyacargetacheck]

Does your $30,000 Audi require synthetic oil? Does GM recommend Cobalt turbo drivers not to "cool down" if they've been driving "normally" but "cool down" for a few minutes if they've been driving hard or carrying a load like the SRT-4 Neons? What about VW/Audi?

I can see all these regular folks who previously were driving Ecotecs having problems because Jiffy Lube wasn't putting in the right oil (remember wrong fluid = bad Chrysler transmissions a few years ago?).

Nothing is free. Just on a points of failure basis, turbos will not be as reliable over the long haul and across full production. How much for a new one? $700 plus labor? A very expensive repair for an economy car.

Nope. Today's turbo engines don't require any more maintenance than normally-aspirated engines.......cool-downs are a thing of the past......and oil change intervals run hand-in-hand with today's newer cars....(10K-15K miles depending on driving conditions.)

(Just my own observations over 25K miles in an Audi 2.0T........)

[Drew Dowdell]

The Invicta? I said quite awhile ago (when the concept came out) that we should hold off our accolades until we see the production car.....and I was right.....GM totally dumbed-down the design. What a wasted exercise this car is. Not an ugly car, but bland....bland....bland.....and that roofline makes it look like a hatchback.....not at ALL what I was hoping to see.

Perfect! If you hate it, then it will likely do well against the ES350... which is it's target market.

[turbo200]

Does your $30,000 Audi require synthetic oil? Does GM recommend Cobalt turbo drivers not to "cool down" if they've been driving "normally" but "cool down" for a few minutes if they've been driving hard or carrying a load like the SRT-4 Neons? What about VW/Audi?

I can see all these regular folks who previously were driving Ecotecs having problems because Jiffy Lube wasn't putting in the right oil (remember wrong fluid = bad Chrysler transmissions a few years ago?).

Nothing is free. Just on a points of failure basis, turbos will not be as reliable over the long haul and across full production. How much for a new one? $700 plus labor? A very expensive repair for an economy car.

relax. let the relability stats play out before you attack. the car will get 45 mpg, that's one huge and great accomplishment. let's hope it delivers on that claim [they're quoted 9 more than current cobalt, xfe gets 36], and gets here fast. this is better than current prius and civic hybrid if true [maybe not on paper, but in overall performance and design].

[buyacargetacheck]

Not attacking anyone or anything. Simply skeptical. I'm hoping for all positives, but expecting to be let down. I've been following GM long enough to know how this pre-announcement thing usually works out. I have to wonder if the turbo is necessary because the car itself is overweight like so many other GM products out right now? I also wonder if the 45 mpg figure is for manual transmission (5% of sales?) only?

relax. let the relability stats play out before you attack. the car will get 45 mpg, that's one huge and great accomplishment. let's hope it delivers on that claim [they're quoted 9 more than current cobalt, xfe gets 36], and gets here fast. this is better than current prius and civic hybrid if true [maybe not on paper, but in overall performance and design].

[AAS]

I've never needed a drop of oil in my 2.0T in 26K miles.....(outside of normal oil changes as dictated by the oil life monitor.)

And, you are right.....it does cool down the engine automatically after shut-off.

Don't know about the 2.0T in my brother's GTI, but the 1.8T in our Bug and Jetta would go low on oil during the 5k service interval (they would also go low on coolant).

[hyperv6]

Not attacking anyone or anything. Simply skeptical. I'm hoping for all positives, but expecting to be let down. I've been following GM long enough to know how this pre-announcement thing usually works out. I have to wonder if the turbo is necessary because the car itself is overweight like so many other GM products out right now? I also wonder if the 45 mpg figure is for manual transmission (5% of sales?) only?

I understand what your saying and don't feel any attrack here.

I just expect GM to improve as they have and you expect them to continue to reapeat their errored ways.

Kind of the glass half full or half empty thing.

My out look is they can not longer repeat the same errors any longer as the pockets are getting empty. It is either do it right or not pay the light bill in 5 years.

Edited July 19, 2008 by hyperv6

[daves87rs]

damn, i keep trying to write up some design commentary and deleting it. well, here goes again, this will be shorter than all I wanted to say. cruze is a star, and the star of these. increasingly this segment and car is becoming vital to everyone's survival. both interior and the production shots we're looking at suggest GM is gunning for a more upscale segment. the interior in preproduction guise is already more beautiful than anything in the intermediate compact and midsize segment [not better than Passat and I can't remember Mazda6 right now]. the exterior is sophisticated and strong. me likes. equinox, another winner. clearly moving into the family category to supplant Trailblazer. I like the concept, moving more conservative and yet strong bold front end. a perfect family vehicle for Chevy, and no wonder they didn't follow our advice and make Lambda a TB replacement. the 2.3 turbo should be able to go above 30 mpg, we may be looking at one of the few seriously relevant crossovers going down the line, unless gas prices stabilize at $4 going into the future [because of a move to alternative fuels?].

saab is my next favorite. what a looker! potentially, already the best looking in its class. because it's a saab, and I expect the same from Cadillac, there are very high expectations for road handling and drive feel. this better deliver, no questions asked. this is yet again one of those make or break situations I'm going to be looking at for GM, and if I was a paid analyst at a Merill Lynch type investment bank, these are the indications of whether GM can manage multiple brands or not. get your act together, you lazy people. get to work and engineer the crap out of the suspensions, it's what we're expecting, and consumers are more prepared, more informed than ever. build buzz through the genuine execution of these models.

on the cadillac's design, what a yawn-fest, and honestly barf-inducing as a Cadillac. no other words to say, the surfacing, profile, even traditionally strong Cadillac graphics are all lame and just wrong, considering what sexy work like the Tiguan, FX and EX, and even 9-4x is coming out in this category. this is not to say this won't appeal to some, but it's not the vehicle GM needs in this segment, yet again. they need to go back to a multi-pronged strategy with the SUV category, if market conditions allow. but if we were back a year ago, and I knew then what I know now about the designs out now, I would say this a weak entry. because we are in a different time, I will say I can't yet judge the concept, the conservative upright SUV thing mixed with Cadillac DNA, because of the times we're in. because of economic situation, this may be the upper limit for SUVs, going down the line, so this may end up just being good timing, having the unviersal, more family-oriented shape around. but as it is, this is nothign but weak weak weak and a big disappointment.

with the invicta, i felt one of its strongest features was the surfacing, which was very Lexus-like, but more advanced yet. it's hard to judge that here. i'm concerned with the derivative nature of some of its design. if there's nothing new here, it may be a waste of an excercise, but i believe we may end up with something fresh when all is said and done.

Hopefully the Cruze's powertrain is as good as the interior....

[daves87rs]

Does your $30,000 Audi require synthetic oil? Does GM recommend Cobalt turbo drivers not to "cool down" if they've been driving "normally" but "cool down" for a few minutes if they've been driving hard or carrying a load like the SRT-4 Neons? What about VW/Audi?

I can see all these regular folks who previously were driving Ecotecs having problems because Jiffy Lube wasn't putting in the right oil (remember wrong fluid = bad Chrysler transmissions a few years ago?).

Nothing is free. Just on a points of failure basis, turbos will not be as reliable over the long haul and across full production. How much for a new one? $700 plus labor? A very expensive repair for an economy car.

Good points.

Though I have a feeling GM might have thought this one out...I don't think they want another Quad 4 on its hands...