Buick Regal interior impression

[Croc]

well, sometimes if you want the revenue and jobs, a little pollution is the price. If you didn't jam your state full of residents, you'd have more open space to spread that pollution out.

Reg, I'm disappointed in you. This is one of the most uninformed goddamn things I've ever read. Go get a book, and read it. You might learn something about why Los Angeles has really bad pollution, even now that cars are as clean as they are and most of our factories have packed up and moved to Mexico.

We also don't jam ourselves full of residents; what do you want, city-wide naturalization like the country has? This is market demand, dude. You put one of the best (if not THE best) US climates together with breathtaking scenery, the ability to surf in the morning and snowboard in the afternoon, cultural amenities, etc. and guess what? People for some reason want to live here! Land is finite. Therefore real estate prices are incredibly high. Go on Zillow and check out what homes sell for in LA County. Not as expensive as Manhattan, but it's still pretty expensive. Yet people keep coming. Oh, and a quick Google search will reveal that we have a chronic housing shortage. We aren't encouraging people to move here.

you can shun those jobs if you want, but at some point all the high roller jobs go offshore too.....or to other, cheaper states, with less regs and cheaper labor....and then those housing values go even lower......and so do wages and tax collections.......

Home values are really high. Orange County may have been hit hard, but look at what those homes are going for, even in foreclosure.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Croc

[Justin Bimmer]

Reg,

I'm so flabbergasted by your statements. I really am at a loss for words about the let the pollution spread around bit.

But, one thing, fields are brown in CA because there is a dispute between the Federal Legislature and the Federal Judiciary on what is required to prevent the death of certain types of fish. The pumps that pump water into the San Luis Reservoir (Which is mostly Federally owned) are not pumping nearly as much water as they could to supply farmers and people with the water they need.

Even still, it didn't stop Fresno County from being the #1 agricultural region in the WORLD.

Where do you live again? Minnesota? If that is where you live, I have been doing some reading and it appears they may be adopting the CARB clean air rules up there soon.

[regfootball]

both in denial.....the bubble has to burst.......you can continue to cling to the brass ladder.....but its not all peaches and cream.

if California did secede, you might find applause from the other 90%....and you probably would have to hire a military for yourself, considering how many anti military types from Berkeley and such want to steer your public policy.

All I am saying is get off your high horse. Your own inflated economy was self created, and it too can be subject to a bubble. If all you have to hang your hat on is inflated values of everything, since its all relative, it doesn't make it exactly prosperous. If in order to sustain you have to import all your water, power, and depend on illegals for the cheap jobs, that is a microeconomy in imbalance.

Last I checked, its the United States of America, not United States of California. It is true what hyper suggested, there could be a more tactful and balanced approach to your legislative ways and how you approach the interaction with the rest of your country. Sure your interests need to be protected. But when your problems are self created to a large extent, sometimes it makes more sense to find inward solutions first and take care of the family that way.

Trust me, I know plenty of people who are friends or I have worked with that moved out to CA for the weather and such or for work and lots of them come back. Not worth the expense, or they simply do not like it. Other warm states have plenty of population as well. I actually know more folks who are in Arizona instead of CA. Maybe AZ is a better place to live politically.

It really doesn't matter if your home WAS worth a million and now is worth 650,000. It was all funny money at some point. Does that still make it a nice place?

Again, this is not a rip California piece, its a 'check your ego at the door there are fifty states. it might behoove you to remember that from time to time'. If CA did secede, the other 49 states would get along just nicely. It's like when someone quits a job who thinks they are irreplaceable. And yet the company goes on nicely no matter what.

If you did secede and had to pay for more Army and government and all of that, imagine how much more you'd have to hike up taxes.

At some point you'd be wishing you'd have some cars to build. When so many folks want electric cars it seems ripe to me that CA should and could step up to the plate with huge incentives to fund research and development and manufacturing of electric cars....for the mass population. Not 100k fiskers and teslas. Much of the green agenda was CA driven but no backing up the talk with 'can't pass it up' incentives for the big dogs to set up plants and engineering here to make it a reality.

Edited July 14, 2010 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Reg,

I'm so flabbergasted by your statements. I really am at a loss for words about the let the pollution spread around bit.

But, one thing, fields are brown in CA because there is a dispute between the Federal Legislature and the Federal Judiciary on what is required to prevent the death of certain types of fish. The pumps that pump water into the San Luis Reservoir (Which is mostly Federally owned) are not pumping nearly as much water as they could to supply farmers and people with the water they need.

Even still, it didn't stop Fresno County from being the #1 agricultural region in the WORLD.

Where do you live again? Minnesota? If that is where you live, I have been doing some reading and it appears they may be adopting the CARB clean air rules up there soon.

Businesses do need to be held accountable for illegal polution and the laws regarding that do need to be mediated over time. States need to protect their interests from companies that are not good players. But there is a middle ground where you can get companies to continuously improve themselves with regard to the environment, but not so restrictive that its a huge drain on their bottom line. That is why my 'spread the pollution around' was taken out of context and misunderstood. What I am saying is, if a company can move a manufacturing facility or something of that ilk to a more remote area where the pollution is less harmful and affects far less people, while still providing jobs and at a cheaper cost to the company, then maybe its appropriate for that company to do that. So if your region has high cost of employment, and cannot tolerate the pollution, then perhaps its best for all involved if that company takes its economic engine elsewhere, where they can attempt to meet the environmental standards and do it at a cost that still allows them to make profit. You can't expect a company to have limitless funds to address only the environment. Especially when health care and energy costs and taxes are going through the roof. But understand then you lose all the economic benefits of that company leaving and not contributing to YOUR economy.

Edited July 14, 2010 by regfootball

[Croc]

if California did secede, you might find applause from the other 90%....and you probably would have to hire a military for yourself, considering how many anti military types from Berkeley and such want to steer your public policy.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. As "liberal" as California has the reputation of being, it's a pretty "law and order" state. Look up the mandatory minimum sentences, the penalties and fines that multiply the cost of a minor traffic violation, the anti-drug enforcement policies, etc.

All I am saying is get off your high horse. Your own inflated economy was self created, and it too can be subject to a bubble. If all you have to hang your hat on is inflated values of everything, since its all relative, it doesn't make it exactly prosperous. If in order to sustain you have to import all your water, power, and depend on illegals for the cheap jobs, that is a microeconomy in imbalance.

1) I'm not on a high horse. You accused my state of being a busybody that tries to dictate national policy, and I'm just refuting that, which is pretty easy to do. When the US doesn't handle the job the way we want things done, we do it ourselves. All you "states rights" people should be overjoyed at California's self-sufficiency, instead of bemoaning the consequences of a state with a huge population and large economy effectively dictating national policy because businesses recognize the market incentives of providing products and services that can be sold in this state.

Where's the inflated values? The cost of living is NOT artificially inflated. This is very basic market economics at work--namely supply and demand, with demand seemingly neverending and supply obviously having finite limitations, especially with regards to land use. Also, we do not import all of our water, we do not import all our power, and we most certainly do not depend on illegals for cheap labor. Illegal immigration is drastically down from what it used to be, and quite frankly the NATIONAL trade policies are responsible for the outsourcing of what used to be a wide range of well-paying manufacturing jobs to places like Mexico and Asia. California cannot enact import tariffs and California cannot really do much statewide OTHER than eliminate environmental protections, which are non-negotiable. California smog is the reason the Clean Air Act exists, and played a huge part in the formation of the EPA.

Last I checked, its the United States of America, not United States of California. It is true what hyper suggested, there could be a more tactful and balanced approach to your legislative ways and how you approach the interaction with the rest of your country. Sure your interests need to be protected. But when your problems are self created to a large extent, sometimes it makes more sense to find inward solutions first and take care of the family that way.

The problems are NOT largely self-created. The end of the Cold War ended the middle class defense contract industry's dominance, and NAFTA and other international free trade policies outsourced OUR jobs.

Where is California overstepping its bounds? Last time I checked it was Arizona that was being sued for violating the US Constitution by attempting to usurp power from the national government in the areas of immigration and naturalization.

Trust me, I know plenty of people who are friends or I have worked with that moved out to CA for the weather and such or for work and lots of them come back. Not worth the expense, or they simply do not like it. Other warm states have plenty of population as well.

They sure do, and we are very grateful that some people choose to move away, thereby reducing our infrastructure demands and housing shortage from what they would otherwise be.

It really doesn't matter if your home WAS worth a million and now is worth 650,000. Does that still make it a nice place?

Hell yea.

Again, this is not a rip California piece, its a 'check your ego at the door there are fifty states. it might behoove you to remember that from time to time'. If CA did secede, the other 49 states would get along just nicely. It's like when someone quits a job who thinks they are irreplaceable. And yet the company goes on nicely no matter what.

Again, you miss the point completely. There is no ego, other than in the minds of outsiders. Californians do not think about much else beyond the borders. We mind our own business and try to solve our OWN problems. States' rights, and all that.

The other 49 states would still exist, but federal infrastructure funding would be a lot tighter. Look at the cash flows; California in effect subsidizes the other 49 because we get back far less in Federal funding than we contribute.

If you did secede and had to pay for more Army and government and all of that, imagine how much more you'd have to hike up taxes.

We already have a state government, so I'm not sure what extra expenses would be incurred there. We also spend a $h! ton of money on police. Roles would be transitioned, but we already have plenty of army bases and many people who enlist, so I don't see how that would be a problem at all.

At some point you'd be wishing you'd have some cars to build. When so many folks want electric cars it seems ripe to me that CA should and could step up to the plate with huge incentives to fund research and development and manufacturing of electric cars....for the mass population. Not 100k fiskers and teslas. Much of the green agenda was CA driven but no backing up the talk with 'can't pass it up' incentives for the big dogs to set up plants and engineering here to make it a reality.

Can't give away the farm. Fact is, it's a lot cheaper to do business elsewhere. I'm sure we'd love to reopen those shuttered auto plants in Van Nuys, Fremont and Huntington Park.

Businesses do need to be held accountable for illegal polution and the laws regarding that do need to be mediated over time. States need to protect their interests from companies that are not good players. But there is a middle ground where you can get companies to continuously improve themselves with regard to the environment, but not so restrictive that its a huge drain on their bottom line. That is why my 'spread the pollution around' was taken out of context and misunderstood. What I am saying is, if a company can move a manufacturing facility or something of that ilk to a more remote area where the pollution is less harmful and affects far less people, while still providing jobs and at a cheaper cost to the company, then maybe its appropriate for that company to do that. So if your region has high cost of employment, and cannot tolerate the pollution, then perhaps its best for all involved if that company takes its economic engine elsewhere, where they can attempt to meet the environmental standards and do it at a cost that still allows them to make profit. You can't expect a company to have limitless funds to address only the environment. Especially when health care and energy costs and taxes are going through the roof. But understand then you lose all the economic benefits of that company leaving and not contributing to YOUR economy.

So it's moved somewhere more remote--that's just fouling up more land and air, with less oversight because it's all "out-of-sight, out-of-mind"...at least until the employees decide to move around the factory because commuting 3 hours into the hinterlands just isn't appealing to most working families.

[hyperv6]

Businesses do need to be held accountable for illegal polution and the laws regarding that do need to be mediated over time. States need to protect their interests from companies that are not good players. But there is a middle ground where you can get companies to continuously improve themselves with regard to the environment, but not so restrictive that its a huge drain on their bottom line. That is why my 'spread the pollution around' was taken out of context and misunderstood. What I am saying is, if a company can move a manufacturing facility or something of that ilk to a more remote area where the pollution is less harmful and affects far less people, while still providing jobs and at a cheaper cost to the company, then maybe its appropriate for that company to do that. So if your region has high cost of employment, and cannot tolerate the pollution, then perhaps its best for all involved if that company takes its economic engine elsewhere, where they can attempt to meet the environmental standards and do it at a cost that still allows them to make profit. You can't expect a company to have limitless funds to address only the environment. Especially when health care and energy costs and taxes are going through the roof. But understand then you lose all the economic benefits of that company leaving and not contributing to YOUR economy.

You need to remember those who do not understand you have to drink Kool Aid as they have laws that prevent Pepsi and Coke in the goverment buildings in SF now.

I have to agree it is pretty much law and order there, have you seen some of the laws they have? I hope you like gold fish in Frisco and don't want a cat or dog since they want to prevent anyone from buying them in the city limits.

On look at the SEMA site and the California and CARB regs are crazy. These same laws are adopted by other states by elected officals that can't even check their own oil. They have no clue what they are voting on often and just do as they are told.

I agree there is room and needed room for both sides on this. No one wants to kill the air but we also have to live and keep our jobs. We all are not going to be supported by the Green Job myth.

What is going on in Cali is what is going to happen everywhere if no one checks the spending.

The sad part is they CA files Bankruptcy they will come to the rest of the country to bail them out.

I am done as the facts speak for themselves and this has nothing to do with the Regal.

Edited July 14, 2010 by hyperv6

[FAPTurbo]

You need to remember that they have to drink Kool Aid as they have laws that prevent Pepsi and Coke in the goverment buildings in SF now. I think answers a lot.

Ending a school district's reliance on corporate profits that are generated by selling children disgustingly unhealthy food and drink is a bad idea?

[frogger]

I just saw Edmunds first drive of the Sonata turbo. I sure hope only having 220hp on the spec sheet isn't the Regal's achilles heel......

The lousy fuel economy (on a new for 2011 relatively small interior four cylinder car) compared to the Sonata is more glaring than the HP difference IMO. Despite that lack of achievement I do prefer the Regal.

Edited July 15, 2010 by frogger

[regfootball]

you know I gotta give ya credit for being loyal to your place of residence and trying to address this stuff in a systematic way with counterpoints.

So I do respect some of the points you're making. I think you address these points better a lot better than the folks on GMI.

Regarding the environment though, i am not talking 3 hour commutes. That sort of phenomenon is insane and is more common in CA. I am referring to the 'let's pack up the shop and move it to another state, with more economical labor and less restrictive env laws, so we can at least make money'.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. As "liberal" as California has the reputation of being, it's a pretty "law and order" state. Look up the mandatory minimum sentences, the penalties and fines that multiply the cost of a minor traffic violation, the anti-drug enforcement policies, etc.

1) I'm not on a high horse. You accused my state of being a busybody that tries to dictate national policy, and I'm just refuting that, which is pretty easy to do. When the US doesn't handle the job the way we want things done, we do it ourselves. All you "states rights" people should be overjoyed at California's self-sufficiency, instead of bemoaning the consequences of a state with a huge population and large economy effectively dictating national policy because businesses recognize the market incentives of providing products and services that can be sold in this state.

Where's the inflated values? The cost of living is NOT artificially inflated. This is very basic market economics at work--namely supply and demand, with demand seemingly neverending and supply obviously having finite limitations, especially with regards to land use. Also, we do not import all of our water, we do not import all our power, and we most certainly do not depend on illegals for cheap labor. Illegal immigration is drastically down from what it used to be, and quite frankly the NATIONAL trade policies are responsible for the outsourcing of what used to be a wide range of well-paying manufacturing jobs to places like Mexico and Asia. California cannot enact import tariffs and California cannot really do much statewide OTHER than eliminate environmental protections, which are non-negotiable. California smog is the reason the Clean Air Act exists, and played a huge part in the formation of the EPA.

The problems are NOT largely self-created. The end of the Cold War ended the middle class defense contract industry's dominance, and NAFTA and other international free trade policies outsourced OUR jobs.

Where is California overstepping its bounds? Last time I checked it was Arizona that was being sued for violating the US Constitution by attempting to usurp power from the national government in the areas of immigration and naturalization.

They sure do, and we are very grateful that some people choose to move away, thereby reducing our infrastructure demands and housing shortage from what they would otherwise be.

Hell yea.

Again, you miss the point completely. There is no ego, other than in the minds of outsiders. Californians do not think about much else beyond the borders. We mind our own business and try to solve our OWN problems. States' rights, and all that.

The other 49 states would still exist, but federal infrastructure funding would be a lot tighter. Look at the cash flows; California in effect subsidizes the other 49 because we get back far less in Federal funding than we contribute.

We already have a state government, so I'm not sure what extra expenses would be incurred there. We also spend a $h! ton of money on police. Roles would be transitioned, but we already have plenty of army bases and many people who enlist, so I don't see how that would be a problem at all.

Can't give away the farm. Fact is, it's a lot cheaper to do business elsewhere. I'm sure we'd love to reopen those shuttered auto plants in Van Nuys, Fremont and Huntington Park.

So it's moved somewhere more remote--that's just fouling up more land and air, with less oversight because it's all "out-of-sight, out-of-mind"...at least until the employees decide to move around the factory because commuting 3 hours into the hinterlands just isn't appealing to most working families.

Edited July 15, 2010 by regfootball

[regfootball]

The lousy fuel economy (on a new for 2011 relatively small interior four cylinder car) compared to the Sonata is more glaring than the HP difference IMO. Despite that lack of achievement I do prefer the Regal.

how the Regal escapes the scrutiny here......

it's not marketed as a family sedan, it's marketed as a personal car and a 'German' sports sedan. So people are supposed to forgive the lack of space because of this.

Some will, some won't. It sort of gets back to what i said, if size is an issue, the LaCrosse will be there for you. I still think the LaCrosse then needs to upgrade its interior to match the Regal. More mpg would be nice. Remember that the Regal has a fairly large weight penalty vs. the Sonata. Weight is still the largest factor in mpg from what i have observed over time.

But often too I do wait to see what real world owners report once they get their cars. Sometimes the mpg is better and sometimes not.

Two cars which are reporting good mpg are the new Legacy and the Sonata. The Kia Optima will end up getting the same mpg as the sonata. It really is a question if the Regal's perceived value is good enough to advance it to that next class of scrutiny where mpg is not that big of deal.

The Regal still has better mpg than the LaCrosse. On the heavier cars and crossovers, GM's DOHC v6's get really bad mpg from all the research I have done.

[pow]

Regal definitely isn't a "numbers" car. When you compare spec-by-spec with Sonata, it's screwed in every way. And it's not particularly exciting or distinctive. Instead it's a solidly engineered German car that does the "intangibles" well, which can be a difficult trait to relay to consumers.

As for California, ironically it's environmental policies exist in part to address and correct years of laissez faire and unplanned development. If Los Angeles weren't completely manipulatable by industry interests in its earlier years, we'd still have our rail car system, far less sprawl, fewer health hazards, and so on. Our regulations are a direct response to real problems within our state, grounded in reality, and we have a right to address them. Any spillover effects to other states are simple economics, the consequence of being a large consumer market.

One thing though... no need for this polarization between California and the rest of the US. The fact we take steps to fix problems in our own backyard shouldn't be misconstrued as arrogance. The characterization of an entire state as far left and wacko is laughable and ignorant. And it's amazing how this discussion began on the mere libelous SPECULATION of CA banning remote start. You know, we have snow, too...

[Croc]

far less sprawl

I hate to nitpick because I agree with everything else you posted, but LA doesn't have sprawl. LA is an extremely polycentric city with a lot of density, and the centers just grew together. Sprawl is used to describe low-density, underutilized land that just keeps going away from the center. Even "low-density" residential neighborhoods in LA are pretty damn dense.

Now you wanna talk Inland Empire? That has some sprawl characteristics. Atlanta is a good example of urban sprawl. Los Angeles isn't though.

[ocnblu]

Question for the roundtable: does the Buick Regal interior have sprawl?

[pow]

I hate to nitpick because I agree with everything else you posted, but LA doesn't have sprawl. LA is an extremely polycentric city with a lot of density, and the centers just grew together. Sprawl is used to describe low-density, underutilized land that just keeps going away from the center. Even "low-density" residential neighborhoods in LA are pretty damn dense.

Now you wanna talk Inland Empire? That has some sprawl characteristics. Atlanta is a good example of urban sprawl. Los Angeles isn't though.

Sorry, greater Los Angeles area then.

[Croc]

Question for the roundtable: does the Buick Regal interior have sprawl?

We went on a tangent. If you'd like, we can try to bring it back now, but reg's gotta be on board, too.

[regfootball]

Question for the roundtable: does the Buick Regal interior have sprawl?

lol. i was at the buick lot today. safe to say the lacrosse has more sprawl than the regal.

i can't pick between the two. DAMMIT

[hyperv6]

lol. i was at the buick lot today. safe to say the lacrosse has more sprawl than the regal.

i can't pick between the two. DAMMIT

When was the last time anyone under 60 said that about a Buick?

[regfootball]

When was the last time anyone under 60 said that about a Buick?

the lacrosse is a great blend of size and space. I've driven the Taurus and the LaCrosse, both are commodious, but the LaCrosse does feel more nimble and lighter.

today, if you held a gun to my head, i might pick the lacrosse. tomorrow i would pick the regal.

Just like, should i choose between my 77 century coupe and 77 buick electra.

[hyperv6]

the lacrosse is a great blend of size and space. I've driven the Taurus and the LaCrosse, both are commodious, but the LaCrosse does feel more nimble and lighter.

today, if you held a gun to my head, i might pick the lacrosse. tomorrow i would pick the regal.

Just like, should i choose between my 77 century coupe and 77 buick electra.

My point is that it has been a long time there has been two Buick one could like to have a hard time to choose. Or of late we have really not had many Buick cars to choose from anyway.

[regfootball]

had the pleasure of sitting in a connected 2011 in the showroom today.

black interior. played with the radio a lot. overall admired all the surfaces and details and textures and such.

the decision is made, definitely based on interior, the regal takes the crown.

the regal only lacks like 2 inches of rear legroom. that would be nice. but the seats are sculpted to be cozy and coddling. That helps.

the front seats are fantastic. and the smell of the leather and leather itself is wonderful. Actually the lacrosse has great seats too, the Regal's seats are the bomb. I'd put them up against just about any seats on the market.

All my previous comments it was amazing how in a controlled environment (nice cool dealer showroom with excellent lighting) how the interior presented itself vs. outside and non cleaned and prepped and on a hot day.

The price on the one in the showroom was a little 27. I'm sorry, but at that price I do not think there is another interior that can compare for a sedan.

All of the less expensive plastic that was so visible when inspecting the car out in the sun and not always in the drivers seat, yeah it's hidden below your view inside the car when you are driving. Everything you touch and see when in the driver's seat is the real deal. This is a fantastic interior.

I was close to getting off on how nicely the radio buttons felt. Near tops by any standard. Absolutely this is perhaps GM's best execution job on the interior of any of their cars and the LaCrosse needs an immediate update of its interior to bring to standard the areas which it is inferior to the Regal.

THis also makes you ask whether Cadillac is even relevant. The CTS has a pretty nice interior, The SRX's new interior is bangup, but I fail to see how they are substantively better than this Opel....er....Buick.

I spent a lot of time playing with the radio and its menu setup is similar at least for tone controls to the menus on the advanced audio on the saturn astra which i alomst bought once. This car had standard sound and my God it was really good, I can't imagine how much better the H/K system is.

This is almost reason enough for me to hang on to all my DVD-Audio discs, I might be able to play them in this car if I get one someday.

The display screen (non nav) is nice and legible and where you can see it. Searching for tunes takes a few extra button pushes but the controls are so nice to the touch its ok.

To me, the only visible interior flaw was the glare off the shiny parts of the steering wheel.

I couldn't initially get my flash drive into the USB port but you have to flip the port back a bit to clear the front console storage bin trim and then you can close the armrest cover over it and its fine. A bit complex, but its not an issue.

All the trim in this car was perfectly aligned. Gaps are tiny. Top of dash texture is luscious like chocolate to the eye and is soft and gooey to the finger.

Buick NA should be ashamed of the detail on the LaCrosse where the soft dash plastic just dies when it hits the glove box door. The change in materials is nasty. And there is no detailing to help it to not stand out as cheap. There is none of that half assing it here on the Regal at least the parts you see.

I was able to get comfy in the backseat behind where i set the front seat for myself. Cabin width is perfect, front leg room is perfect. Like i Said a couple more inches in the rear would have been nice.

The cabin is intimate and spacious at the same time. The roof is lower than what you get in most of the midsize family type sedans.

At first when i was in the Regal I said it was on par with the VW CC interior. I now believe it to be better than the CC interior.

The one i was in today was black. I love that Opel smell. Out on the lot they had a Regal with tan interior. It looked nice too but very different with all the contrast then the black. I wish the faux wood would just be the black trim. At least you have 2 nice options. Buicks have traditionally of late had lots of tan interiors so i think it will be popular.

THis has to be GM's best interior. Its embarrassing to say that, but this interior is cooler than possibly even an A4's if you ask me. A4 is excellent, but is stark in some regard. The Regal's interior is warmer and has more detail.

GM would have never become the suck ass company it was if they had built interiors like this in nearly every car they made.

LaCrosse is bang up, and still ranks as one of my favorite test drives in recent memory. I love the LaCRosse, but sorry, the interior on the Regal seals the deal.

[regfootball]

just as a item to note, before i was at the buick dealer i was shuffling through cars at a local lux car broker. Looked and sat inside lots of Volvo, Saab, Merc, BMW.......this Regal IMO has an interior that can compare with many of those cars. The regal's interior is more stylish than that of the outgoing 5 series interior and better finish too. S80 has a lackluster interior in comparison.

Edited July 25, 2010 by regfootball

[frogger]

I drove one today and spent some time playing with interior bits, but it was a "pre-production" model according to the marketing company putting on the event. Hopefully some of the cheap bits I felt in the interior are much improved on the production version (every storage big in the interior opened and closed cheaply and was full plastic with no rubber on the bottoms). Styling wise the interior is a winner for sure.

The list price of the model I drove was 40K Canadian.. too much for a car with the NA motor.

[daves87rs]

I have a few pictures of it on my computer... it looks so rich and classy. I know it's plood, but it's good plood. And there are so many textures and colors going on--cashmere, cocoa, a satin-nickel finish for the door handles, the wood trim, etc. It's very warm and inviting to me. I actually care more about the interior of a car than I do the exterior. It's why until recently I couldn't entertain ever owning a Ford/Mercury. Lincoln barely made it on the list. Right now my biggest beef with Ford/Mercury/Lincoln is the startup chime. I guess it's cool to have a retro-sounding Gameboy Advance dinging when you start your $50,000 Lincoln or your $16,000 Focus.

Now you have me wanting to check that out...

[Paolino]

Now you have me wanting to check that out...

You can barely hear it for the Lincoln video, but at 1:17, he starts the car:

And now for a clearer version, the Ford...

[regfootball]

Buick dealer in my dads town had 2 regals on the showfloor. One black one tan interior. It's a toss up. The tan is nice like the black. The black means business. The tan has lots of contrast.

Both are nice. I would prob lean to tan. Only because I don't always like dark.

[Croc]

You can barely hear it for the Lincoln video, but at 1:17, he starts the car:

And now for a clearer version, the Ford...

Wow, that is REALLY annoying.

I'm glad GM has kept the same startup chime for decades--it doesn't need any improvement.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Croc

[FAPTurbo]

You can barely hear it for the Lincoln video, but at 1:17, he starts the car:

And now for a clearer version, the Ford...

Oh wow, that's terrible. If they wanted to do an 16-bit Nintendo jingle, at least do it in style:

[Intrepidation]

That is pretty annoying, I like the way my car's chime sounds.

[Cory Wolfe]

Oh....

. You won't regret it.

[ocnblu]

HA, haven't heard that one in a while. Brings back mammaries of my '92.

[regfootball]

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2010/08/17/day-by-day-review-2011-buick-regal-cxl.htm?page=all

he is SMOKING CRACK it IS an upgrade. and the seats are not FLAT.